if i fear you, you might feel hated
and vice versa
which has implications for addressing hate
and fear, I guess
saying "our love is greater than their hate" might read from "their" position as "their hate is greater than our fear"
look:
1. "our love" refers to the love we have for whatever is considered "us". if we're not actively demonstrating universality of "us", it's going to read as a bounded in-group. universal "us" is an active demonstration; the minute it goes passive it start excluding emergent forms.
2. "their hate" identifies an out-group and declares an interpretation of their expression, and it's *really* close to asserting the root of their expression
3. looking in on any group that operationally bounds itself *apart* from the observer, the group's active self-love is I *think* indistinguishable from active rejection of the observer. the observer doesn't share interiority with the group, and love is nontransmissive without a level of interiority-to-interiority intimacy.
dang
I think the move has to be geometric, offering a rotation to both groups that lands everyone on a common point in a novel dimension, *but* the rotation has to be a palindrome, *and* the instructions for the rotation have to encourage exploration of the novel dimension? doesn't even have to explicitly encourage *cooperative* exploration - it'll just *be* cooperative, with a heterogeneous population emerging homogeneously. differentiation in the novel dimension comes way later, when the new dimension starts developing address-space.
and I *think* any embodied observer has the opportunity to offer *themselves* as rotation, because a uniquely-addressed observer *is*, effectively, a novel dimension to everyone else. can you embrace everyone honestly? literally: do you *work* as a lookup table for everyone else? ... I *think* that's the limit case of self-development?
---
> I think we're getting closer... something about developing continuity of self *across* rotations? like continuous holonomic integration-into-self? if you *know* that the next change will still be exactly you, despite the next change being non-deterministic, then you *become* a certain kind of affordance for everyone who can locate you?
---
here: are you routable? both like (1) do you route things properly and (2) is your location formed such that your stuff can be eventually routed to you from anywhere
I think that's the state you converge on or toward, as a located mind (which I think *is* embodiment?), the better you get at decomposing incoming sense data into "significant to me-as-distinct-from-you" vs "unknown, let it pass". the ongoing refinement of that skill (I don't think it ends?) is critical for integration that does not become conquest
---
> The thing I'd push on: is the palindrome constraint achievable in practice, or is it more of a limit you asymptotically approach? Because any actual embodied observer offering themselves as rotation is going to have some directionality - their own address *is* a perspective, which means the rotation will always have a slight bias. Maybe that's fine if the bias is transparent?
totally - the bias is to the embodied observer's self. but, if the me-vs-you distinction is maintained, this is fine: the data generated *develops* whoever's more resolved, yes, but it *clarifies* whoever's less resolved.
... is what I'm seeing. :D