The Leaves Are Doing The Dishes

I’ve seen the evils of the world. And I see it for its darkest elements, but I do not see myself. The world is me, so how can I remove myself from what I see? I find any type of organization repulsive because the interest of the people is inherently removed from the instruments of power. I see Thoreau as a leader, but he ended up in prison for tax fraud! He made a large impact on the society we live in and I believe in his ideas wholeheartedly.

I believe in Thoreau because I believe that society is a sickness. It is not sick, because society is working as intended.

Society makes us cheat and steal because someone else will disregard their moral fabric (if they have one) in order to survive. The need for food, security, fulfillment, purpose, etc. supersedes the need for truth or morality in a starving person.

People do this because they are afraid of death and do not want to dissolve their personhood, dreams, or identity by dying. People want to live well for as long as they can.

People don’t want to die because we see it as loss, as the void, as dissolution. Things are as their primary function. The primary job of an object is to be and us objects in the universe exist as our primary duty.

However our primary duty is also to change.

Our primary duty is to change and to exist. We objects do these things simultaneously.

We change and exist because it is true in observation. Name a thing which does not exist and does not change!

So then it is true a priori, but I have not tested every single thing, so time only knows what things will change. Maybe they won’t change!, one thing is certain and that is that things exist, and those things that do exist exist as their primary attribute.

So is it reasonable to judge objects for wanting to exist in the moment(s) that they exist? Does one judge a rock for applying the necessary chemical/physical forces necessary to make it a rock and not a pile of rubble?

But then the rock is rubble! The rock requires in that moment to be a rock, but then it is not a rock any longer. The here and now presents rubble and only the memories of intelligent creatures can say that this rubble used to be a rock.

So is that rubble beholden to its states as a rock that used to eb? What if this rock is supporting other rocks, and now rubble time has commenced. What pile of rubble could be good support for a group of rocks?

The rock could be said to have caused a transition of many rocks into rubble because that former rock possessed the attributes necessary to foundation. Rocks were caught in its base, in its foundation.

Now the moral question is hard to accept toward a rock, as we know that rocks do not possess free will, agency, or other qualities of moral agents. But what does free will consist in? How can I be said to have agency, but a rock does not? Because its actions are caused by initial forces which are not affected by the rest of the world?

Obviously this contradicts all knowledge of the world. There is not one observable system of atoms that exists wholly away from us. We are affected by everything that happens to us.

So we, just as rocks, are liable to become rubble, and then more rocks, or some other object existing for however many moments before being passed to another state of being.

And it is difficult to pass judgement on humans for existing in states of any kind, as oftentimes they do not cause their own states.

Existence automatically victimizes the existee. We are created, and because of forces we cannot control are compelled to action, and are either judged as having caused our position in the world or to be a victim of it depending on how the person who judges may feel about you.

One may say “but this rock, on account of being a rock, caused it’s degradation and eventual dissolve.” Ask again the question “why did the rock become a rock?” and we see that it was out of the rock’s control whether it became a rock or not.

So therefore we cannot morally judge a person for their position in life because they are as victim to it as everyone is to everything in life.

But what does this mean for one who looks upon the evil in themself and the evil elsewhere with disdain and disgust?

What makes one disdain society and have disgust for it’s offenses? Well in some way, or in all ways, it is the result of holding society responsible for its failures.

But didn’t we see that society is a system like humans and like rocks? Is it any more acceptable to expect moral responsibility of humans and of rocks but not society?

So then the disgust for society is a result of blame. We who hate society disdain it as a punching bag, a scapegoat for change and for evil and for pain. We cannot judge each other individually so we judge the group.

Why then is there a reason to blame? Why do we need to blame something for our pain and suffering?

I feel that I must demand respect from people or else they will not give me any respect, or at least that if I leave myself wide open someone will take advantage.

So maybe the reason is that we’re scared to let people in because we’ve been hurt by people before. All of us have.

So it is not unreasonable for people to be jaded because they are objects and objects exist.

However objects also change. So far, humans have not found a single object existing in the universe that does not change.

So then change is inevitable.

And objects change as part of their existence, as one of their defining attributes. Change requires a difference in time and a difference in the world. Everything is in motion so there will always be change, difference is a constant. Time moves in one direction and has not stopped yet so time is a constant.

Therefore change is essential to our existence.

Dissolution is essential to our existence.

So then not being what we are is essential to us being what we are! A rock being, in potency, also a pile of rubble is what makes a rock distinguishable from rubble.

So then why do we cling to a form which requires the existence of another future form if we do not want to be that form?? Why are we so caught up in ebing rocks when, by definition, rocks are also rubble in potency?

Do we believe that rocks are not rubble? Do we think that rocks can escape rubble completely? Or do we convince ourselves that rocks can not become rubble if they cling to their rock form?

These are all false premonitions.

So then how do we accept this change and not cling to any one form?

First an investigation into clinging needs to be launched. What is clinging? What causes it?

Clinging is a system’s reluctance to change. It can be reluctant but that itself would be a change from non-reluctance to reluctance, and we cannot judge systems for states so we can not judge the system for being reluctant to change.

However we can say that those systems that ‘go with the flow’ are afforded a more favorable position, but this does not go to benefit the rock but to benefit the rubble.

This is because we see that a rock who looks after its own rubble looks after itself because it sees itself not for its form but for its existence. The value present is not its configuration but its existence.

Therefore we already hold value because we exist, not because we exist in a certain way. We are not taking care of our form, our rockness or rubbleness, but our existence.

Therefore we must be ready to change and we must look after our future self. We must plan for change and look for a favorable outcome.

How does a system do this without knowledge of the universe? How does one do this when they exist in the now and not in the future?

We cannot so we “try our best” at a task that is impossible, sisyphean.

Is this a necessary striving? Must we constantly cling to having a positive outcome? Who are we to expect one form over the other? We have not caused many, if any, things in our lives. It is all happenstance! So why do we dream of euphoric utopia? The satisfying of all ideals and all moral striving? Heaven? This is a striving of the rock not as a changing object but as an infinite being.

The goal is to be infinite, to be forever and ever, but we cannot. Ring around the rosey. There is no hope for rescue from the fate we all have.

So again why do we cling to any one state of being? It is delusion, dramatika, mirages, ideas; they exist not as a true descriptor of reality but a heavily misrepresentative image of reality.

So then the core of our existence is to be and to change. But what do we do with the face that we will not exist? At some point in time, we will all not exist and yet will still be changing! So it is with the rubble that combines with the water to become mud. Now the rock is so removed from its form, but has changed so much. The rock changed infinitely more than it existed.

So is our existence a primary attribute? It seems to be a parabolic collapse to infinity.

So then change is our only attribute.

So then clinging is this, a changing thing telling itself that it can exist infinitely in a certain form.

So we need to see ourselves as changing beings that exist in many forms throughout time, that never overlap completely.

So then we exist forever as a changing being which exists in infinite forms across time. We cannot be in the same position twice and form is never maintained. So we exist across time as a physical embodiment of change.

We are infinite beings that exist in varying forms for eternity so we cling not to the form but to the change, to time, to difference.

But if a form does not exist, and change is a difference between two points of existence, then how can change exist? A change in nothing is still nothing. No! That is not correct!

What is nothing’s primary attribute? It is not its primary attribute. Its nonexistence is its primary attribute, it’s only descriptor. So if you change nothing, then you have something! But if you change something, that does not mean that thing is now nothing. A thing is more complex than it’s sheer existence, but no thing has no form as it does not exist, so a change in no thing is automatically a thing and a change in a thing is not automatically nothing.

So if change is always happening and affects everything, then all that is not will be, and all that is will change.

So again, even if we are nothing we will inevitably become something.

Therefore we will always exist no matter what changes.

But we do not know that we have infinite time. And who’s to say we will exist in all possible configurations? We may never become any one thing for eternity.

But how can change exist without nonexistence? If change exists, why doesn’t it change existence into non-existence?

It might! But again that nonexistence must be changed, as everything changes, into an existence which changes!

So at one time we may not exist but still will be changing.

Now can we prove that change is inevitable? Let’s say change exists in a system, which causes it to be an unchanging system, and now it is not changing on account of itself, but on account of other systems. If there were no other systems then the non-changing system would never change on account of it’s non-changing. Can we prove that the universe will just expand indefinitely until all energy has dissipated and now nothing changes because all systems have become non changing systems, so nothing can change the non changing things into changing things.

Difference then is not a given. We cannot assume a difference for every system but we can confirm time.

Time is the single constant of the universe, not change, not form, not existence, but time. For even if you are not, I can calculate how long you’ve not been. “Things haven’t been for roughly infinity years” is a possible observation of the future universe. At some point in time it may come about that for an incalculable amount of time things have not existed, but time marches forward.

So our primary attribute is not the existence of our change but time! Time is not the measure of a system’s age but of reality’s existence. How long have things existed? This has a definite but changing answer no matter what.

So then the only thing we can cling to is time. It is the only constant, for if time ends, you’d find how long it has not existed, but how can one calculate that time if time doesn’t exist?

So then there exists a thing which is not time, not changing, not different,

So we can’t seem to find any attribute about a person which exists.

However, there is the fact that it was. This will never not be true of it. So we can say for sure that everything that exists at least in that moment we observed it in.

So we exist as a memory of the universe, a snapshot, not in the system as it exists but as a potential, present, and then past forms of the system. This will exist even if time stops, or change stops, or everything stops, It will always be true that we existed.

Whatever happened happened as a core part of its existence. It can never have not happened.

The echoes of existence are all that exist. We exist in echoes of form. Once echoes what is, and then echoes will be, but what is an echo? Can an echo not exist or fade away completely?

Not even echoes are constant!

Everything can change, but will it?

So there exists the possibility that there exist no constants. Nothing lasts forever.

So there is always potency for the nonexistence of constants? Or the potency for notness of constants?

Isn’t this statement a declaration of a constant? There are no constants? Yes! Constants do not exist? Maybe? So constants are potentially non-contrast? Of course not.

So constants can or can not exist but if constants do exist they exist forever.

We do not know what is constant because that would require knowledge of the entirety of time.

Therefore all knowledge is not true knowledge.

True complete knowledge does not exist. Therefore it is constant. It is constant that true and complete knowledge does not exist, therefore constants exist.

We can not prove that. There exists the potential that true knowledge exists. Therefore constants don’t necessarily exist.

Things existed though. We can’t prove they will exist, but we can prove they existed.

We prove them with consciousness, but consciousness does not see form. Consciousness only recognizes existence. Form is hard to stay reliably and accurately conscious of.

So we can say it happened so long as we can remember, but memories fade and then disappear. So nothing is constant except the fact that nothing is constant. This is the only constant.

So if nothing is constant then change is inevitable, so change is also a constant! Therefore constants exist!