Net Freedom or Netted Control?

Commented into
YouTube Stockholm Syndrome – While the UN Takes Over Internet


My full comment: (insert for the page was to the *** 9 para down)


Who owns or has effective control over those who own the infrastructure and software interface gateways of the Net?
If acts of terror assert power to control - along with assertion of official narrative - will netizens behave any differently to any other population?
Are the means to control or deny already in place? Technology has ways of dishing out personalized 'results' - of presenting filtered distortions to block and undermine communication deemed threat, and translate or redefine it as support for its narrative control.

Virtual reality can be micro-managed with AI. All seeming to 'share' a world and yet actually all being fragmented from the intimacy of sharing so as to operate the illusion of sharing within which a private agenda runs un-challenged because the desire is for the narrative to be 'real' - and the apparent conflicts about it run as the device for hiding the inner denial or blocking of Intimacy or honesty - that must be substituted for and diverted away from for the game of power within limitation to play.

As I see it - the 'wild frontier' of potential for expansion and exploration of possibility is imprinted with or conformed to the same fences and defences that characterize the dominant consciousness model; possession and control, reinforcement and defence - around a sense of separate self, mind or power that acts upon and seeks to unify a sense of conflicting self under a narrative of control.

Our technology extends and externalizes aspects of our mind - our consciousness - and in the illusion of power we identify it as power, while we are effectively sacrificing the true power of Life that is a truly aligned recognition and extension of wholeness - and not an exclusive identification in a sense of the coercive, manipulative, defensive and combative.

But technology or indeed any ability, talent or system, is not fixed in a built in purpose, but is serving the purpose you use it for. Using everything for the purpose of restoring and appreciating communication in the most expansive sense of the term, is a reversal of the purpose of blocking or denying and controlling the Communication of Life so as to have the experience of 'MY will be done" in the sense of a segregative and private or secret 'mind' (split into levels of conscious mask or narrative presentation, unconscious or hidden and denied thought and feeling etc).

The experience of dissonance and disconnect is in itself a symptom by which to recognize an out of alignment with true - and correct it. But the desire to persist makes a narrative of opposition and justified reaction by which to seem a victim of the Other upon which identity-assertion a self is raised against them - as a struggle with Otherness upon which you secretly depend for a sense of separate-self-power.

Where two or more are gathered in mutually reinforcing shadow play - there is the shadow 'made real' for them.

In computing software code runs instructions upon and through a hardware matrix that can itself operate as a virtual hardware interface that software coded for a different hardware matrix can run within. IE: An old PPC chip Mac could run as an Intel PC via software emulation. But a significant amount of 'tax' is inherent to run the hardware emulation - limiting the power to operate the non-native software or being unable to function effectively.

Interface through which to communicate and experience through bodies is already an externalisation of an inner movement of desire - a Movement of Life - and exclusive identification with body operates a possessive, segregative, private, defensive, controlling mind that becomes conditioned by and adapted to, its (focus in its) environment.

***

The fragmentation in dissociation of consciousness sees itself as becoming 'free of' or from a sense of limitation that it hates and fears and automatically evades - while hiding such reaction under the sense of discovery and becoming. But the core nature of the dissonance that 'drives' the sense of gaining power over Life or one's experience of life is its interpretation as an opposing, rejecting, denying, betraying or abandoning will - that properly or honestly speaking - never left the mind that saw it, believed it and wanted it true - for its own reasons.

This 'machine' of action and reaction, characterizes our current perspective of the Universal. It could be also seen in fight and flight, or assert and hide the assertion in the narrative of 'see what you made me do!" Narrative justifications operate concealment devices where open honesty is believed to be unacceptable and will meet with an opposing, rejecting, denying, betraying or abandoning reaction.

There is a program I seek to point to - without blame - that cannot be seen within the emulated mind OF blame. Not via the 'front end persona' but as a noticing within the upstream consciousness in which the 'narrative reality' runs.

There is  that which we do unto ourselves unknowing - by which we don't know our self truly - and seek to GET or assert or become a self from externalized versions of Other - in which there is no real recognition OF Self - which is of a different order to the virtual persona that we have in a sense become fixated or focused within as a result of a conditioned reactive identity - that seems to be either controlling and 'free' or being controlled and manipulated.

Identifying the 'control mentality' as indeed 'out of control' is a necessary step - but reacting to it from the same premise is not. By not casting the first stone, a space in consciousness opens in which a desire for true perspective can find a willingness to receive and embody it - despite the urge or temptation to an opposing, rejecting, denying, betraying or abandoning assertion of will.

Waking from a false framed problem is a burden lifted or and a joyous release into the capacity to truly feel and know  - from which one does not have to revert or imprint the same pattern of possession, and loss of the feeling of living to a mechanism of control.

While I have a sense of movement for communication - I open to and embody it as feels resonant and relevant to who I feel and know myself to be. Which is without coercion upon my self, But to keep the 'channel' open I use control to limit action and reaction - so as not to come from and re-inforce or strengthen, choice-habit that I recognize is not true of me - even though I may have to relax or release the 'mind of reaction' to fully recognize that.

If you want the Net to play out and validate a personal sense of power - then the 'net' will lure, entangle and entrap you. But if you want to recognize yourself within a living network of communication - which is both within and without - and not an external mechanism to seek power over - then the Net expands or opens you to an 'upstream perspective that embraces who you thought you were as part of who you recognize yourself to be - which is not at all the same as asserted or imposed self concept - for life is fluid and expansive and alights where it will and the idea or attempt to pre-set that under 'control' is a loss of power, loss of love and loss of life.

"If it isn't under control anything can happen! I fear pain of loss, I don't trust, I need, I must,"
"I hate being denied and controlled - told what to do or distrusted to be told the truth - lied to!"

Are these not two sides of the same?

Mind is creative and fear is mis-creative. While we are inner conflicted we will not trust ourself and thus have no basis to extend that worth to others- as we are moved - and meet in it. Fear makes and sees and reinforces its own version of 'world' and no matter what the external conditions seem to be - we have a part in the way we are seeing anything - and that is the freedom to choose not to see as fear dictates but in a willingness of an inner honesty - an inner trust - of being straight with yourself as to what you truly want - and being only that. Any moment of such an alignment of self grows that perspective.

It's not about getting there - but of coming from a felt quality of being that is worth standing in - and sharing from - where there is willingness to share in. This may outrage the mind or insult it at times - but those are the opportunities to recognize I don't want what it offers because there's no life there. "Don't move until you feel the movement"- well there is an already movement that is truly alive - and there is the mimicry of the modelling of the movement that tries to do it manually - but it cant dance!

If a form of embodiment is not serving joy in life in a tangibly felt way - then what is it being used for? No blame - just inviting a willingness to notice.
If I did not blame others - how would I have to see them? Mistaken? Reflecting mistakes in my own mind I was not otherwise aware of? But who here is willing to stop setting out in search of guilt to feed your habit?

What if it is ONLY a mistake in programming by which the model can only result in the multiplication of the error? No need to fight or struggle with the model - correct the program by being a corrected alignment with a wholly desired result. Does whole mean sacrifice? That is what the mind that 'lives' upon sacrifice of wholeness believes. Division by which 'power' rules ...out wholeness.

"Use it or lose it" can serve to not use what you are wholly willing to lose. Is that not a true freedom - whatever transpires with the Internet or anything else?

I am not seeking to interfere with your choices in the world so much as illuminate the basis of such choices so that they can be more consciously aligned with you who you simply but truly prefer to be. Of course this is what I want for myself - and that is part of having it. I don't find freedom at another's expense - but ideas of true worth grow by sharing - not by marketing spin or weaponizing intent.

What does it profit to gain power over the world if a hollow dehumanized mechanism of hate is all that remains to 'rule over it'? Have we not killed the very thing we thought to have? In model - yes nearly - but in conscious willingness of acceptance? You are Life on Earth and within the embrace of such a life. But if you refuse to feel it then you want to be somewhere else, someone else - and so want everyone and everywhere to be different than they are and so cant actually receive or share in anything (that is). Life does not argue with your will - but where a conflicted will makes Life unwelcome it will seem absent - and no force or guile of conflicted will can bring it back or make a substitute of imagical association true.

Death before dis-honour? or is that simply a variation of so called 'honour killing' in which the self-image 'triumphs' over Life in death - which is all it ever was - brought to its logical conclusion. Is the 'honour coding' corrupted code, that honours an image and concept of self above and over the true relational reality of who and what you are?

- - -
Similarly on
Internet Reformation: Has It Progressed?
My Comment:

I wrote into (above) on the Net of freedom or of control:



In terms of sorting the true from the false - the harvest is of personal choice, with collective reflections.

A reversal in consciousness is reaching its zenith (or nadir if you look at it right ways up). This is a natural waking opportunity for those who are moved to accept or choose it, and is not framed in power struggle narrative - being a conscious integrative movement of embrace to the segregative movement of exclusive and rejecting self.

Not the carrot of a fantasy gratification, nor the stick of penalty and denial.

Using the 'world' to waken from a false framed narrative identity is seeing it from a different perspective. If we change our mind about our mind we can open to more inclusive and illuminating perspectives. The 'mind-set' of a false and self-defeating (and self-destructive) sense of 'control' is being shown in every more exposure - as is the reaction of seeking to deny and control it with the same mindset.

Narratives are like page turners - in that they are designed to engage or indeed capture your attention and pull you back if interrupted. "What happens next...?

Stepping out of a game that is not worth the candle is not trashing it or proving it is unworthy to anyone else - but a self-honesty of one's own timing and acceptance.

The capacity of seeming to change while actually redistributing the same, is a way of justifying the unjustifiable - or maintaining a narrative by which to make some aspects of pain seem less painful and thus defined as pleasure or joy - not unlike Stockholm syndrome where not being hurt by power becomes interpreted as love - and allegiance. This is also the aligning under terror to appease and win favour from the gods (the sense of power over life). It is much deeper in our consciousness than we realize - and already active as the 'mind' as defined and divided in conflict or power-struggle. Not being exposed to raw negative outcomes is the inducement to fragment or dissociate and within which is everything framed to survive in the set terms, until and unless there is a willingness and acceptance for a change of what seems set, real and un-changeble - to the fearfully defined sense of self. The stirring or prompting is from within or beneath the level of perceived and believed reality.

Therefore the evaluation of the Internet in socio-poitical or cultural terms is itself within a narrative of persisting self-conflict or awakening self-responsibility. These are like channels one can tune to and the fruits are of different orders - and yet I don't assert any superiority in this - but simply that private reality and shared reality are of different orders and I use private here as secret agenda and hidden denials - not the gift of privacy extended in honour to what is none of my business to intrude upon.

- - -

In reply to:
georgesilver
http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/youtube-stockholm-syndrome-while-un-takes-over-internet/#comment-2880428218

It is easy to follow when others do your will for you and then hate it when they dont. The phrase 'people are being controlled' is a shortcut with emphasis on one side of an equation. For have we not a capacity for choice as to what we accept or believe true?

Are YOU being controlled? Can I accept what you say as 'true' - or is it operating a hidden agenda? Well I don't mean that as a challenge to you - but as an example. I can get a feel for where you are coming from without prejudging against you. But most communications have an alloy of signal and noise - and many prefer the noise in which a hidden sense of self can operate more comfortably.

I see willingness at work through a currency of hidden self-deceit. Why do we (generally) accept the devil we know? Is it not in contrast to a greater fear? Is that not where we need to be curious?

Orwell's book did not insist that people used it to feed their despair. But it did paint a picture of futility that was as open to serve a waking up as to submit to lies - and so enquire with a deeper honesty and persistence as to what is true. But who will seek truth while their illusions are comfortable for them - and who finds the willingness when their discomforts are upon them and triggering conditioned reaction - excepting just enough to get asap back out to play.

What we tend to DO with any information will be more of what we were already doing. That is if we are already cynical - we will fit it into a cynical or loveless self-justification. And if we are set in vendetta then it will be ammunition or armour for our cause and etc. That is how 'control' works, through an unwatched mind.

But if something disturbs or simply shifts us from the framework of our habitual mind - we have an opportunity to use that break in continuity to open and live out from a perspective of a more integrated sense of self and world. I say 'we' but it is an individual freedom that discovers itself in relationship.

The control that political discussion likes to assign to 'others' is not different in principle to what operates in place of our own mind - and that we do have direct responsibility for. For as we accept true - so will we perceive and therefore react - and the onus of that is that your freedom is in your conscious acceptance as to how you are using your mind - and indeed how you define yourself and your mind thereby.

Willingness will find a way where wilfulness meets opposition, entrapment in polarised conflict and identity in hate.

7 Billion wake up... to what? A sickening lie from which to seed a new era in blindly righteous hate? Is that waking up? Waking to a negative or sick state is only the first step. If we collectively open to being 'controlled' is it not from our fixation in the dynamic of conflict as if IT were the saviour or the means to deliver a true outcome, rather than the device to keep us in the dark. I am not saying that force is never appropriate to standing in defence of integrity. Saying no to dis-integrity in whatever way works. But why give hate the trigger if you know you have a choice.

I like your line that control - in its coercive sense - only works as an elitism - operating in the dark. But I feel the intra-personal is absolutely vital to recognize - for without recognizing our own - we merely hate our projected shadow - and DO we hate our denied self - just look see! But no one wants to look there - and our mind and world are made to work against looking there - but our mind and world are in any case no longer operating as a very reliable means to hide in. The breakdown of control is fearful because we mask to protect against hate, pain, loss, powerlessness, shame etc etc... as well as to manipulate others through. <>.

So I see the 'genie coming out of the bottle' - with little outward sign of grounded balanced consciousness with which to recognize and embrace the creative opportunity that it is. Who am I and what do I really want?

Perhaps because a world of 'private controllers' seeks to keep the Creative bottled up by warring itself to keep a mind of confusion in which to stay hidden from a 'game over' reset on the illusion of controlling Life?

The Creative may at first appear destructive to any unwillingness for change. How much of our perception is filtering through fearful and distorting interpretation? Is that a reliable source of true information?
Is our mind our friend? Who watches the mind and feels the truth of it?
You do - but then you are not your mind as your mind defines you.

If we do NOT create our self then our mis-perceptions will never be true and cannot ever become true and so the attempt to make them true will sooner or later give way to a willingness to heal or undo a futility. It seems that what works is left after everything that cannot work has been tried and failed. But the important thing is to focus in what works. I find that seeing life in terms of a loveless or evil controlling power denies the moment at hand - the Presence of Life as it is being now. The drama is narrative reality and not direct experience. Letting the story-mind disconnect you form your life is a choice.