March 3, 2025

Today an opportunity has presented itself to turn to this space as a harbor for an integral thought. I shall attempt to disambiguate the thought presently. 

Why are the lights in the classrooms ungodly? Why is the paint chipped, the walls filled with distractions -- or, yet, products of distracted processes? Why are things lacking? Neglect is the answer which begs to be known. Neglect, not from people towards other people, for if a person recognizes another person, this is a positive phenomena, and if the person were not to know of the other, then there can be no neglect, since the person would be responding to phenomena completely separate from the other. It begins with internal denial of reason and the adherence of self to maladaptive practices. These often are related to power and sex, and it is because of man's prevalent tendency to deny reason, that some modern philosophers perceive these "everywhere." However, seeing these everywhere is also a form of denial of reason, for reason necessitates a positive sensation of God's presence, and thus an intuitive grasp of man's freedom and the inherit goodness in all positive things. 

However, I digress, and I fear the point which earlier burned at the forefront of my mind to be extinguishing. 

In a network of positive causes, it is simple to connect these phenomena to each other. However, when causes occur from entities which are lacking, i.e. from entities whose being is at odds with themselves, then the causal structure only exists on a level imperceivable by bad-faith actors. In short, bad faith fails to perceive the outcome of its own actions. An adolescent instinct is to fix the living imprints of negligence by directly affecting the source so as to change its understanding to an understanding which properly sees itself in relation to its world. However, this is a doomed expenditure of effort. For, if I, as a dependent being, am subject to and perceive, imprints of negligence, so I am, in so far as I am an actor in tandem, committed to the particular network of causes arising from a particular source. Thus, in that I am a participant, I take on the lackings which mark the source. I am marked with a lack, then. And, if I am to treat the imprints as positive phenomena which need to be addressed, then I approaching them with the spirit of that source which I judge to be negligent. In assuming an actor's negligence to be a cause, and in taking immediate action to correct said negligence, I partake in the assumptions which allowed such negligence to arise in the first place. From these considerations, it becomes apparent that leaders, teachers, directors, presidents, and more, fail to be "correced" by those under their care. The king being corrected by his stewards is a temporary idealization of revolutionaries, Disney fantasies and adolescent attention-seekers, usually conocted as an image to be subsequently used for the justification of romantic, sexual, or moral licentiousness. For, if the king is truly king, he leads. He serves his position as leader, providing trust, direction, and example. He learns from his people, properly, by observing them while internally in communication with a divine, moving spirit (the Logos). What the "correction" of the masses, or "correction" from those at odds with themselves in relation to their surroundigns, ultimately leads to is more than an overthrow of the king, it is an overthrow of any leading spirit, essentially rendering the ex-stewards as directionless wanderers through relative morality. 

If there is to be any "correction," this is beyond the will of an individual steward, and thus it is outside the will of any collective of stewards. In numbers, bad faith multiplies; although it is proposed to lessen by the populace. "Correction," a case of a particular imprint of neglect, in an objective, Divine sense, requires the opportunity for the leader to manifest newness through a new story, outside of the infested network of relations. For, what sense does it make for a network, if it is truly diseased, to turn to its own entities, touched by disease, for a cure? What sense does it make to turn to the mealybugs for a cure? If I am to look to the mealybugs and use my reason to reach a cure for the infested plant, then there is to be a subscription to an external form, some sort of logical principle, authoritative source, or comparative observation outside the scope of the immediate perception of the mealybug. This is to transcend Spinoza's first mode of understanding to his second and third. In the case of inoculation, the exposure to the disease does play a role in building immunization, but the exposure to the disease is guided by a source external to an actor within the disease-diseased conplex -- scientific direction from a doctor. 

It has been proposed that to set the people free, we must set the lowliest free. 

However, upon further consideraiton, it becomes apparent, to set a people free, we must set the particular leaders free (yet, when are such distinctions ever clear in the day-to-day eyes of man?). For, if they are truly wound up in circles of reasoning which are maladaptive, then it is in the pursual of newness and adventure that they will be reformed in the eyes of God, in this case acting as powers of observation and reason beyond the day-to-day existence. The exposition to their faults, or the subjection to the qualities which arise from their lacking state, only succeeds in diminishing their power of action and committing the source -- the one thing which had the power of creation enough to start anything at all -- the one thing which has the power to circumvent the spiraling of its own creation -- to depression of mind and inadequacy in action. What a solution to mealybugs it would be to snip off all the plants from their stems and begin "watering" the pots solely with the dry corpses of the mealybugs -- and yet, this is proposed out of pride and the desire for power within local spheres of influence (for, there is no such thing as human power over all men). 

To repeat, in order to restore holisticness to effects (i.e. the belonging-to of what makes itself apparent), it is necessary to liberate the causes (i.e. the wizards behind the curtains). This is a metaphysical process beyond any one human will or many human wills. it is a process which best belongs to Circumstance and randomness bestowed upon the sources. The best thing for humans to do in this case is allow, grant, and refrain, so as avoid congestion in the natural processes of regeneration and application of human reason that lead actors to perservere. 

For, he who subscribes to the imperfection arising from a source fails to institute perfection within that source itself. Solutions require creative thinking, trust through the allotment of resources from a specific other outside the realm of the issue at-hand, and application of will and reason -- all occuring in the level from which they were initiated.