1.1.01.01.016: The Ishihara test is final and cannot be reviewed, nor retaken

[needshumility]

If the only way you could have total freedom within a society is to be literally invisible to that society, would you consider it worth it? If it took to technically not exist to be able to live by your own rules, would you want that?

Or would it be too lonely? Is there any point in that freedom when you can't share it with anyone, and you're left as an observer to a society where nobody else had any freedom at all?

[Wardens-Eddie-likes filter (doctors, Howie and other officious types excluded. George is in, though)]

There's... some concepts I'm not entirely sure of the meaning of, and after talking to my inmate, I think it's quite important to understand them.

God, and the afterlife.

I've talked to a few people, and no offence, they seem to have done their best to explain it, but it seems a little fuzzy still.

Is god a physical person? If so, why is he a god above everyone else? If not, why do people call themselves goddesses here? What's the difference between people who say there's one god, and those who say there's lots, responsible for different things? Which one's right?

Are both right? Are none right?

Is the afterlife just... something the Previous think happens after death, or is it something specific? Why would someone say this place wasn't the afterlife... when it's clearly, um, after life? For the dead people, anyway.

[Private, seperately, to Sveta and Martha - video]

[Eddie comes on screen.] Hi. I found something and... I thought you might be able to tell me what it was about.

[He holds up a copy of a Ishihara test]

We found this in the library, and me and Jane can see different things in it. Why might that be? What's the purpose of this?

[Kitchen filter]

Could you spare me a piece of meat, by any chance? You probably won't get it back.

[Lab staff-folks]

My inmate wants to do an experiment, and if I'm supervising and he wants to come in to do something, is that alright? He's not doing anything dangerous, and I'll make sure nothing's taken.

[Private to Victor.]

I've asked for some meat, for that experiment you wanted to do. You can have the day off from work to do it, so pick whenever suits you.

Comments

[ifightfor]

Yes.

[Or maybe Rinzler doesn't even get the question.]

[needshumility.livejournal.com]

Then what is the point?

[ifightfor]

Freedom to act with impunity.

[needshumility.livejournal.com]

But at the price of isolation?

[ifightfor]

Yes.

[There's one of those delays as Rinzler tries to work out how to put this.]

Certain mindset required. Freedom from sense of community, community support also freedom from community expectations, judgments, and bylaws. Individual becomes effective nonentity in community considerations, except when individual chooses to interfere in community by force.

[Another delay.]

There is a kind of power in it.

[Maybe he does know what he's talking about.]

[needshumility.livejournal.com]

Yes, there is. There is a kind of power in it.

But a very limited power, to say that you can know everything. Knowing everything, but not being able to interfere much, or at all, is... not exactly satisfactory power.

[ifightfor]

Query: Original queries derived from specific situation?

[needshumility.livejournal.com]

Not entirely specific. But yes.

[ifightfor]

Query: What function did original individual(s) serve for community in question?

[needshumility.livejournal.com]

Officially, none. They were invisible. We had to ignore them.

He was a historian. But I don't know who he served.

[ifightfor]

Suggest that lack of interference in society due to maxim that observer changes behavior of observed party, if historians existed to record ongoing course of history.

Alternative explanation: Unwillingness to seize power offered by unique position.

[needshumility.livejournal.com]

But how can anyone stand to be an observer who can't help anyone?

[ifightfor]

Design.

[There's a few moments of wait, then Rinzler adds more text:]

If primary purpose is to observe well without interference, then a Program would not consider helping.

[needshumility.livejournal.com]

But he's not a Program. He's... a person.

[ifightfor]

Possibility exists for Users to act like Programs. [And, supposedly, for the reverse to be true. Rinzler's not going to admit that outright.]

[needshumility.livejournal.com]

But why would they?

[ifightfor]

Beneficial mindset for survival in adversity.

[needshumility.livejournal.com]

But not for actually doing anything.

[ifightfor]

Execution of primary function supersedes other tasks. If creating record of history requires "doing nothing" but creating that record, then Program would do nothing.

View understandably abhorrent to User psychology.

[needshumility.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, but... if the person doing it is a User, not a Program [not really following this here,] then it'd be abhorrent to them, wouldn't it?

[ifightfor]

Suggest this is why altered mindset necessary to survival. Users capable of abhorrent acts provided right mindset exists.

[needshumility.livejournal.com]

But that mindset surely isn't desirable.

[ifightfor]

[Delay. ((ooc: BUT NOT FIVE DAYS' WORTH LOL.))]

Not to community. However individual User may find mindset desirable if it permits continued survival by allowing that User to behave in ways otherwise considered "unthinkable".