An integral perspective that is yet to recognize itself as a second tier perspective,

The statement is defined as: That which is preliminarily understood as integral; however irrelevant it may be, because no majority acknknowledges its perspective; thus the statement cannot be evaluated as independent.

What encourages beligerence?

How does it spiral out of control?

Where can energy like that come?

And why is madness exist at all???

My friends,

I have recently concluded that I need an Intervention.  Yes, I need a capital-I-Intervention.  And you'll are slackin'.  Do you know why?  I have a feeling most of you don't exactly know why you haven't banded together to sit me down and tell me that I am ruining my life.  That's because I am eclectic enough to move around from circle to circle, from site to site, and network to network...and as a result, I think, I am not giving any single one of you a chance to catch up with how I am hurting my life.  Only my boyfriend knows why I am writing this and he's not the one typing this message, I am.

We need to talk.  I must honor what is left of my friendship with you so that we realize why I know you.  If that means we have no friendship between us, then I am willing to deal with that--but honestly, I know all of you--and you will at least entertain the idea of intervening in my life to save what is left of its integrity.  Give me support, give me life, and please give me love.  I don't want your money.  I want you to help me--the me who you knew the best--I want you to speak to that person who you thought you knew.  Please remind me who I am.

There is a reason why I am ending each paragraph with "I am."  You know that reason as well as I do.  I am not crazy.  I am sane.  I just really want to hear from you.  But I need to hear from that voice which is loudest--your voice in person, your voice on the phone, your voice on text messages, your voice on email, your voice here, and now, and forever.

Your friend,
I hope,
Jay Michael

I had an interesting disagreement with a friend of mine recently.  He stated, “Men cannot be bisexual.”  I highly disagreed.  His girlfriend said, “You can’t win this argument, he [meaning me] IS bisexual.”  We went on to dive into the details of semantic argument after semantic argument (I hate repeating myself) but we arrived at no real conclusion.  A day later, he explains to me, “that man is bisexual.”  Referring to a famous singer, who will remain unnamed, he tells me that he is definitely bisexual but prefers men.  I stop him, saying, “You said you didn’t believe that men could be bisexual.”  He politely replies, “Yes, I said ‘Men cannot be bisexual.’ But this MAN can be.”

 

Shock and intense thought runs through me.  Can I be wrong?  No, actually, we are both right.  He said “Men” meaning ‘many male people.’  I thought he meant “All males,” meaning ‘every male person.’  A subtle differential separated us from understanding the real meaning of our statements.  I thought he meant the Male type.  He was thinking about the majority of the Male type.  This is a simple distinction between absolute and relative.  He was thinking that “Men” meant relatively ALL men, while I was thinking he was speaking about the absolute “Male” perspective.

 

Both of us were horrified.  We were thinking the same thing, we both realized at the same time, that MALES do not identify with a particular sexuality, but rather “Males,” who are the general populous of males, DO identify with a straight sexuality.  Of course they do, say I, who is surprised that he didn’t understand me in the first place.  I think the majority of males clearly identify themselves as “straight” at first.  Then a few males will identify themselves as either gay or straight.  BUT THEN, a few of those gay guys identify themselves as bisexual, which is what I have been saying all-along.

 

The problem was semantic.  I meant “men” as did my friend mean “men.”  But we meant different PERSPECTIVES of the objective term “men.”  I meant the general perspective of “all males” while he referred to the perspective of “most men.”  Both were right, but they were from different perspectives.  This is the core problem with humanity today (at least it is the core problem I am willing to blog about)….  Please, read on.  This will all make perfect sense in a moment.

We live in a semi-rational world that is bursting at the seams with non-rationality.  Furthermore, we live in a “Both/And” world of multiple perspectives that do not always see eye-to-eye.  Nevertheless, a majority of humanity believe in an eye-for-an-eye.  That is, one is sentenced to a punishment equal to one's crime.  However, those diverging perspectives can and will be integrated whereas those who rely on a simplistic binary method of decision making leave only an “either/or” distinction that polarizes their audiences, minds, and even their projections of the World.  If one is forced upon that typical (and I mean TYPE-ical) decision, one is forced toward a blind AND ignorant solution that does not integrate both AND the other.

What does this have to do with sexuality?  Everything AND nothing.  Don't you get it?  That was just an example.  But it is a fun one :-)

Integrate, please.  At least for the sake of everyone else.

Given that you are reading this, I know you wanted informa.  Informa, for those of you who are not yet aware of its meaning, is knowledge that informs personal identity, and, in this case since the subject to be informed is indeed you, I can safely and accurately say that I am informing you but I cannot say that I am informacting for you nor can I say I am informactivating you.  That is because, as explained before, I am informing you, but I am not informing your personal identity...yet, at least, according to my intuition.   I know I am informactivating some of you because I know some of my friends are well acquainted with subtle transparencies of informactics.  For the rest of you, who are not yet educated, Transmitted, or otherwise informed of the gross, psychic, subtle, causal, and non-dual aspects of the One, the Each and the All according to Wilber, you'll get there...somehow...someway...hopefully through informa, informactics, and informactivation; and for those so utterly confused as I am sure you are...click here.

informactivate, verb.

1. To teach informaction to a sentient being; to program informaction.

2. To learn informactivation from an informactivator; to execute code.

 

informaction, noun, plural and singular.

1. "informa application in enactment action"  poses two nouns together as one. Theory and practice are inseperatable because their very articulation is dual whereas their active portrayal or manifestation is nondual (see informact).

2. A combination of knowledge and motivation; pursuit of active informa.

 

informactics, plural noun.  informactic, singular adjective.

1. Active momentum resting upon One, Each, and All rather than simply All, Each, or One.

2. A statement of being; determined by singularity and plurality as well as subject and object.

 

informact, verb.   Mediate a collection or single bits of informa; to meditate on being informactive.

As I was saying before, I love quarters.  Since I am still talking about how quarters can be used to abstract things, I would like to explain how I use quarters to do more than wash and dry my laundry.  In my writing, I use terms to indicate particular quarters as they relate to the whole of which the quarters are parts.  I may use quadrants to say who I am and call them quarters as well as use quadrivia to say what I am and call them quarters too.  I am a sentient being and an artifact.  I do not say money is sentient, so my quarter dollars are only artifacts that I own.  I also own quarters that are memories on computers.  Computer memory is certainly an artifact with respect to me.  So I am saying that computers are not yet sentient to any real extent and neither is their memory.  Although I could say electrons are fundamentally sentient, I won’t concern myself with them for very long because their sentience is dwarfed by my presence, if I do I say myself.

Anyway, now that I have mentioned that quarters could potentially refer to quadrant perspectives of sentience or they may be quadrivia aspects of artifacts, I will proceed with dividing each of these dichotomies once again.  I am myself and my identity is me.  That is because myself on the outside of my sentient body is not the same as myself in my sentient body.  So in that sense, I am myself on the inside and I am me on the outside.  Also, in addition to the complementary perspectives of myself and me, which are internal, I possess things which are external to my sentience.  Those perspectives that are internal to my sentience have been called quadrants, which were first written about by Ken Wilber, who also named the corresponding perspectives quadrivia, which are external artifacts.

So, taking a look at an artifact, I use quarters as the basic object to which I attribute a certain perspective.  Therefore, I can consider the double articulation of an artifact in an ever expanding and potentially infinite dimensionality.  But it must begin with four quarters to reference a whole artifact.  I can then double my quarters through further double articulations to distinguish referent from identity.  When artifacts take on identities as themselves, a whole artifact (something) has four quarters inside (reference) and four quarters outside (identities).  Although only artifacts made sentient by sentience may have eight quarters; an artifact that is made an artifact by another artifact cannot have an inside content simply because it does not have sentience from which it grew. 

I love quarters.  Quarters are cute and always useful.  They cannot be shredded and are terrifically difficult to fragment.  I tend to stack quarters one-on-top-of-the-other, but I know they're purpose is to be four together as one. 

What am I talking about?

I am referring to more than just currency for clean laundry.  I am talking about how quarters are used for abstracting things.  Things, being not subjects but rather objects, are residual artifacts from the formless.  Quarters have form and substance.  As such, they are formed matters, and I wouldn't have them any other way.

We each have quarters to ourselves.  Other than simple pocket change, I am a quarter; we are a quarter; it is a quarter; its perspective is not whole, it’s quartered.  Those are pronoun quarters whereas these metallic discs I feed the washing machine are quarter dollars.  The distinction I am making here is semantic.  Nevertheless, it is a very real distinction between content and expression.  The expression ‘I am a quarter’ indicates my contents.  However, without a correlating expression, it is meaningless.  For instance, if I say “I am a quarter.  Quarters are cute,” then I am saying I am cute.  That is meaningful because I am something and those things are something else.  It is the relative nature of the two statements which gives meaning to what I have to say.

Quarters are constituted by one with capital.  The type of quarter and its value are entangled in the distinction made by the one and then another.  This is not tangled laundry; this is what is called a double articulation.  First, content is formulated in a quarter and substantiated as a quarter, and secondly, this is balanced by corresponding quarters of expression—formulating and substantiating the other half to make a whole.