systems and the fallacy of cause and effect

first there must be a structure of delineation between an inner and outer system. such as the skin of a human being is an outer system boundary.

but instead of having direct control of the inner system, the human being demonstrates cause and effect outwardly as well as inwardly. most organisms, including botanicals, have inward as well as outward effect.

unlike the russian nesting dolls, most systems within systems do not demonstrate repetitive environments. you crack open a nut, and observe the seed inside is not an identical nut shell. the parody of a similar box within a box, demonstrates a fascination for identical, nested systems, however the properties that determine space will inevitably cause a reduction of complexity for each inwardly identical system.

the hope for an equally complex inner system is demonstrated in such fiction as “horton hears a who.” the idea fascinates, and is even considered plausible. but reality always tells us that the probability does not exist. just as “honey i shrunk the kids,” does not exist. not because shrinking is impossible, but because the relative nature of perception would require a different function entirely at reduced gauges.

most cause and effect of the human inner system is regulated by both autonomic function and instinctive survival behaviors. the most fundamental activity being the eating and producing of waste. (human creations such as cars, that also eat and produce waste) the tablet i am using, functions through electricity and the waste is the light or wave photons. but that is generalized because there is also heat, and residual static.

point being, that inward cause and effect is finite, while outward cause and effect is infinite. or there remains a probability for infinite reaction. that probability is dependent upon the variables of the system in which the cause is initiated.

a dead system is one in which infinite reactive states are terminated. when you pick a flower, it will die. if place in water, the flower lives longer but also dies sooner than if left on the plant. but it also dies on the plant, when the variables of its inner cause and effect reach their point of permeance factored by degeneration. which degeneration is a vague term, but involves a degree of blend into the outer system.

the factors of cause and effect eventually reach fulfillment and the inner system breaks down and joins the outer system. according to popular understandings of cycles, all is interwoven to large degrees of unknown effect. but if you pick a flower, the world does not stop rotating. if you level a rainforest, then the scale does create effect in the outer system that may cause adjustments in function.

so there is scale, but no way of determining what is considered a large or small effect until that cause is initiated. the balance or stasis of any system is dependent upon its flexibility for adaptation. stasis is not a ceasing of cause and effect, but a point of systematically metered effect.

pattern. repetition. the fallacy occurs when taking a pattern of cause and effect conceived within a system, and applying it to imagined outward boundaries of that system. observational positioning. the process of existing within a system, but imagining or creating pattern (for determining function) while “believing” the self is divorced from that system–negating calibrations of “self.”

therefore it is just as likely that the human outer system, earth, is the concave within a ball, and only appears to be a ball in space due to an observational anomaly that is structured within the the observational process of the human itself.

we only pattern it as round and outside, due to the constructed patterns on earth of objects, shape, and positioning. the mind therefore patterns the outer system to be identical to functions of the inner system. when these models are only relevant, not absolute.

so therefore the limitations of knowledge are in the inability to let go of known pattern.

it is no coincidence that man patterns knowledge of inner space, the proton orbiting electrons, after outer space, the earth orbiting the sun. but if we are to take actual clues from nature, such as the nut within its shell, these are false patterns. structure is perceived only as far as the observer can match it and relate it to what is already known.

this is why the poetry of “third rock from the sun” is so humorous…. because a rock is the inner system relativity, while the outer must be different. not the same, as we envision. and gravity, or term for magnetically sticking to the outside of a rock, most likely does not function as the pattern or reactive state currently determined to be “the answer.”

problem being, that in conceiving pattern (and function), within perceived cause and effect, man does not factor in the inability to adequately observe system behavior when the observation is performed from within that system. you only think you are outside of it.

you are not.

therefore, cause and effect can only be successful tools of modification when applied to known systems that are parallel or within our own system. even then, we reach a limit of understanding, the impossible happens, and we call it “magic.” just because someone unfamiliar with a mechanism, calls it magic- that does not mean the one assured of its use knows its function any better than the one first perceiving it. many who know that a car works, do not have any understanding of why. many that turn on a tv, have no understanding of how it works or why. but they keep a superiority for knowing that it is known… by somebody. they don’t call the tv “magic” due to their own ignorance.

and this is the problem. this is why some minds are shutting down. this is why some periodically come across information that does not compute, and develop alternate explanations to maintain a sense of an ordered system.

but truth is, we are a part of the system we are trying to order. and while we believe in huge amounts of our own ability to generate cause into effect, the greater likelihood is that the system is effecting our cause MORE with its effect.

let go and let god.

therefore man struggles, within a hope for better circumstance. that struggle is what creates a difference for us. but for earth herself, maybe not so much.

the most frustrating thing in life, is to know that you can’t know. i can go to school, learn absolutely everything man has devised in pattern so far, concerning physics. but i know the odds, i can punch holes in the premise! so what i would be memorizing, is someone else’s dream that works out… so far. until it hits a bump, and becomes infinite.

i know the futility of generating “knowledge” this way. it can be useful if you are building products. to anticipate reactive states of matter. that’s about it.

therefore it is in the struggle itself, of man to determine his own cause and effect, that there is a greater unknown to be explored.

we can pretty much determine that current methods of structuring “understanding” are incorrect. but it’s the best we have. so far. onward and upward.

you have nothing without your health, right? but what is the pattern of function that we decide indicates health?

we differentiate through genetic markers. but there is much more to life than structure alone. and the only way to go beyond ideas of self-operation, is to abandon old patterns and create new ideas of function. otherwise all knowledge stagnates and goes inward, to create despondency.

a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but only if you start with the premise that knowledge is finite and correct. it is not.

i believe let go and let good is necessary at times in life. float like the leaf. autonomy a thing reserved if needed. but from my experience, there is only so much good that can happen if life is put into automatic mode. you run into the bad, too. take your lumps. and the other way of life, which i am recently only now observing, is the outward principle of determining how one is perceived to then match that to action.

which too many of our collective perceptions are incorrect. for instance, the single female is perceived as weepy and lonely and indulgent, living days waiting for better circumstance. the single male is perceived as industrious and exploring, as more functional. yet the reality, is that lone men are morose, continually looking for women online as if they need something from them. i’m not sure what. but single men do not generally keep up their living space, they have less industry in the home itself. and they are more prone to feeling “lonely” than most women. now these variables change with having pets, and they change according to substance use such as alcohol.

my point is, that the pattern or ideas of function we have differentiating between single women and single men, is almost completely reversed–it is skewed and incorrect to an almost complete degree.

the collective premise is very obviously incorrect. why? because power will create our collective perception.

i will leave it at that, today. have an awesome and blessed week. it’s only monday because yesterday was sunday. but yesterday was only one day.


Feedback always welcome

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s