Social webs

Friendships are scalable and transferrable. You can always add another person into your social connections web, grow the web like this, or take great experiences and feelings from one relationship and apply them into another relationship. Friendship, I mean real friends who actually care about you and you actually care about them, are this kind of values-web of real connections that extend into and as your own life. Obviously this is what romantic love is too, having one person with whom we try to replicate this entire structure in its entirety. But that isn't necessary, instead we can have several or more good friends and the structure still exists, more spread out among different people. As far as I can tell there are both benefits and detriments to having it spread out like this, compared to the 1:1 relationship of romantic or serious love.



At the selfvaluing level (webs of values, daemonics, etc) it is such that it is impossible to connect to others without that connection going in both directions and to the same degree in each direction*. It’s hard to explain how such a basic idea hit me so hard and I was seeing it literally as a philosophical truth construct, something absolutely real and surprising, but basically there tends to be this idea that we can reach out to someone and exchange information or touch them or communicate or whatever else, and the interaction is one-way mostly or entirely, but I think that’s false. I think at the existential/phenomenological/VO level every connection is by definition mutual both/all ways to exactly the same degree. For interaction or exchange to move one way it must have forged already or simultaneously be forging, carving into the earth of being, a path back to itself and the mere existence of this path back is an interaction exchange as such already, because that is all that these sort of paths and "earth of being" are anyway.

*It almost always appears that there is difference in a connection, that one person is reaching out and touching more than the other person is; this is true, but only at the surface layers, at layers more derivative and secondary, more like constructs resting on surfaces that act more as symbols and discharges, growths like trees, rather than at the deeper tectonic levels. Deeper in the tectonics, at VO and Daemonic levels, there can be no connection one way unless it also exists in the opposite direction, and unless information is flowing back from the target toward the source to the same degree that information is flowing out from the source to the target. It is hard to explain exactly why this is, ontologically speaking the case, but it has to do with the fact that these sort of 'connections' are literally this kind of carving out of channels of information-transfer, they are these transfers of information and nothing besides. So if more overt information is flowing in one direction and not in the other, you can be sure that this indicates an imbalance between the target and the source with respect to their own individual self-valuings, as structures and as aspects of the social webs, for example; however, in the deeper and hidden tectonics, the connection is always equally mutual, and subtler flows will always transfer underneath your conscious awareness.


This is a new application of Newton’s law of equal and opposite reaction. It has massive implication in our relationships and to things like social media. For example now, with technology we can send a single image or a meme with text on it or gif whatever, and the amount of information that flows back and forth between ourselves and those who see our image/meme is essentially infinite, because of how deep that pool of information is and how we cannot probe it’s depths, how it can affect potentially everything. This is the actual power of memes. And why not just the existence of the internet but of social media was needed for them to appear. And it’s why things become polarized and magnetized now to a degree and in a way they didn’t before, which "upping the ante" has caused the rise in political correctness as a kind of desperate compensation attempt to keep things balanced on a more or less even keel. Assuming Trump as presidential candidate had even been possible before social media, he would never have led to the kind of insanity and outrage and chaos and all that did happen, without social media having existed, even if he said and did all the exact same things say 10 to 15 years ago. The insanity now is just a consequence of how the tectonics have suddenly deepened.

And I mean they have literally deepened. I can see it, and of course everyone can feel it. It actually gives the impression of shallowness at first, loss of depth, because we are now more isolated without our former grounding.




And true to my first insight about mutual connection, it’s also the case that my tie to others in this sort of pain/unlimited/negative implications way, which allows me to probe the limits of existence but also puts strain and danger into my social connections, and how this interaction and exchange allows me to create knowledge out of excessive experience, also works the other way in that once having gained knowledge by pushing experience past the limit and into pain/negative implication, I can then turn around and draw further excess back into the world of my experience from this new knowledge I have gained, which is what I am doing now by writing all of this right now. This additional connection here in this message I am writing is allowing a reverse flow back into my world/experience in such a way as attempts to correct for the imbalance of how some of the social connections I have elsewhere in my life caused my world/experience to destabilize (allowed me to destabilize my world/experience) as a consequence of the difference between their limitedness and my own and in a way that produced totally new knowledge for me.

This is maybe the trick of original thinking. Somehow this back and forth of exchange of excess and the needs/attempts to balance this out alternatingly one way then another, produces ideas from the world and the world from ideas.





All of these social connection things are like modules that hook up and create new social connection things, I don’t even have a word for it. The concept for it barely even exists, let alone any words to explain it. Also on the thing about the mutuality and equality of all connection, this logic appears at the far end of our knowledge in that the most abstract, penetrating and significant insights appear as the most simple, basic and obvious things, so obvious in fact that we cannot see them. Much less explain them; but when I am able to see a little into these things, and when I feel them out and approach them and do that whole exchange of excess back and forth thing, then I am able to find words to explain what is happening. And it takes thousands of words to barely begin to explain something as seemingly simple and obvious as the fact of  “we make social connections to each other”.

One reason people isolate into limited spheres of experience and interaction is for basic protection. When you share something with someone else you open yourself up to this other person to the exact same degree as you draw something from them to yourself. This is just how it works, existentially-phenomenologically speaking. This is also pure ontology. Tectonic, Value Ontological, Daemonic.

The need for control of privacy and for what one shares with others is very important. This boundary does not need to be absolutely firm, and should be somewhat of a gray area to allow for novel possibilities to present themselves to us, but the boundary should exist and be meaningful. Something you can control and change. This conforms to VO explaining how the self is a aggregate of valuings that achieve a mutuality of valuing each other to sufficient degree that both interconnectivity occurs and lasts, as well as that each value itself remains itself without compromising its own integrity too far. This delicate balance creates a web-like structure that stabilizes and coheres itself slowly, carefully, subtly, and grows like this over time.

This social web values thing (I don't really have a good name for it, and it is a separate thing from the selfvaluing itself although it also a part of the overall selfvaluing) can be damaged by contact with others whose own valuing/s are too severely different from one's own. Thus an extensive architecture of tools and techniques exists to mediate potential relations with new people. E.g. social convention, taboos, small talk, flirting, etc.

Well flirting is a special case, because here the two respective persons already share self-valuings that are similar enough to each other in their deeper structures and aspects so that a higher-order resonance occurs when they come into closer proximity with one another, and due to this resonance their respective social webs also immediately begin to link up to each other, automatically and instinctively. Then this linking and especially the significance and suddenness of it will impact each web, causing readjustments of excesses flowing around on the threads of the web, leading to transfer of excess to the new node, namely to the other person with whom one is flirting.

Each person's web can only handle so much excess, though, and so when you dump a lot of your excess into their social web, even with flirting, this can be risky because it may cause the other person to get overloaded; their own web cannot deal with all of that excess, so the other person will pull away. This sets natural limits that are felt out over time, and a balance of sorts can be intuitively achieved between these two people. Over time, flirting may lead to deeper feelings of intimacy and love, in which case the respective self-valuings are becoming closer to each other, more threaded together, more entwined and interdependent, and thusly also the respective social webs are becoming better able to handle each other's excess transfers -- and this means that these two people can better understand, help, and appreciate/value each other.

^ In addition, this produces one more intellectual, philosophical justification for the importance of privacy: the necessity, to the very core of our selfvaluing and daemonism, to our selves, to our souls, for being able to maintain some significant (although not perfect) control over managing the kinds and degrees of connections we have to others. Without a certain degree of privacy, applicable directly to the social web thing itself, much more so even to your selfvaluing as such, these subtlest of structures cannot cohere themselves beyond a very minimal level. This is how and why the concept of privacy and the notion of right to privacy appeared in the human world. And I would say it also exists implicitly but very strongly within the animal world as well.

All of this connects to what I was saying elsewhere about Love:


"The perfect person will just slip into your soul and fit there perfectly, and you into theirs. No force or pressure is needed.

This is what love means, to me anyway.


...Shit I figured it out. What Love is.

Two souls tangled up with each other.

Look at this from the vantage of VO.

Omg. This is real. "



It is real. Perhaps the most real thing of all.

I have one issue with this, namely the there are vast power differences, and that what one person has to share is not necessarily available, quantitatively even, in the rest of the world. The person puts a lot out there, and this remains unresolved and become a standard of other peoples interaction, like a Totem actually, as indeed it would be identified with taboo.

Fixed Cross wrote:

I have one issue with this, namely the there are vast power differences, and that what one person has to share is not necessarily available, quantitatively even, in the rest of the world. The person puts a lot out there, and this remains unresolved and become a standard of other peoples interaction, like a Totem actually, as indeed it would be identified with taboo.

I absolutely agree with this.

And I see immediately how this awesome insight works perfectly with what I am developing here. Social connections are not all equal, because people are not equal; the equality of the mutuality of the exchanges of information along both directions of the connection between selfvaluings is something formal, structural, ontological, in so far as to be able to transfer information to someone else requires that you yourself be capable of receiving the exact same scope and kind of information from them in return. It is not always the case you will actually receive this information from them like that, but the mere fact of the necessity of the possibility for being able to receive it like that is what I mean by the equality/mutuality of these sort of connections.

So if there is a significant difference here as you mention, then yes a kind of Totem/taboo thing wold appear, a hard point in the webs of others to whom you connect, a kind of singularity. They will struggle to deal with this singularity and may simply attempt to avoid it or downgrade its importance in their web; but the significance of having such a singularity sitting there is going to force changes upon them whether or not they know or want it to. And then yes, extend that outward into/as the broader world as aggregate of numerous social webs all somehow connected into and through each other, nodes all over the place, threads spilling everywhere, you are going to see changes to how large flows of excess move around in the world of these webs, namely even excess flows very distant from you and to which you do not even have any direct or known contacts are going to begin to adjust their flows to the presence of these singularities which exist in the nodes of others, because you put them there as a consequence of how our interactions with others are so imbalanced in these ways.

So we might even say that the fact of such significant imbalances is a kind of super-node or glitch in this system, because ideally connections should stick relatively close to that lower tectonic layer of equality/mutuality in the formal structural sense, in order to achieve greater efficiency in the system overall and for ourselves generally, to achieve better more meaningful social connections and relationships with others, which allows better excess-flow exchanges for us and for them, which is sort of the entire point of all this sociality stuff; however, when severe imbalance occurs and the structural/formal layer down in the tectonics cannot sync properly with the salient surface layers, this is where those nodes, in other's social webs, which represent you and your connection to them are going to become somewhat overloaded, massive, threaten to collapse like black holes from all of that additional mass that is not being properly regulated under the surface. The structure itself will vibrate differently, this probably is felt as some emotional friction or physical discomfort. But it is very hard to remove a node from one's social web, once it is there, and I doubt people can really remove it even if they would like to. That is another reason to look at these kinds of social connections seriously and take them by the assumption as being very meaningful.

And in fact, consider the other person's nodal point in their own social web, the node they have for you, for your connection to them: if indeed they are unable to come anywhere close to matching the kind of excess or information you are transferring to them, if the sync is not properly occurring between higher and lower layers in the tectonics between you two, then what will occur? This node in their social web is going to get oversaturated and begin to spill out its contents as excess in new ways, probably mostly at the lower structural/formal levels simply because the higher more conscious levels require that kind of conscious processing power and realization-ability which, most likely, is going to be largely absent for such a person for whom their selfvaluing is so significantly different and 'simpler' than your own.

If things cannot be understood, they are shunted down into unconsciousness; this does not mean they go away, far from it. In fact this is probably a large part of the basis for why this whole deeper tectonic, structural/formal system of managing these kinds of social connections even formed in the first place.

Of course then this also shows how philosophy works, how great art works, how truly epic personalities and minds literally change the entire world by simply existing, by simply maintaining some degree of contact with others and through that with the entire world.

These singularities are like glittering dark gems, I see them as a kind of deep green with purple sparkles all surrounded by clouds of black. Whereas the nodes themselves tend to be more white, light gray, tan, that sort of color. Also the nodes may be smaller or larger compared to the singularities, but the singularity is of a different kind, so almost resides in a separate dimension from the rest of the web in which it is sitting. I would assume singularities even from one web to another also create a kind of meta-connection to each other in how they lead to adjustments across multiple webs between them, adjustments of how information and excesses flow. But because a lot of that information and excess is trying to avoid the singularity, the webs are sort of adjusting themselves around these singularity-points. These singularities bend the world, consciousness, being, into rivers, or carve rivers out of oceans. [This must lead to higher kinds of organization, and therefore to greater abilities for reductions in overall entropy. So it might even be necessary that such singularities exist, that such vast differences manifested as nodal connection points between people are the case, even though ideally it might seem better that things were more evened out between us all.

No, that does not seem to be the case. We need these kinds of differences. This is true for many different (lol) reasons.* ]

Although that isn't the more significant level of analysis here, not the most meaningful thing. What is most meaningful is not even accessible to us yet, because we lack the vocabulary and the philosophy to even approach it; the level of the meaningful as such, how the values themselves work, what they are, what facts/meanings have caused them to be and to which these values and aspects are connected and which they represent, etc. The deep structural intricacies of a single soul are so much deeper than we are capable of penetrating that it might as well be infinitely out of our reach. But I do think philosophy, and not only philosophy probably, will start to achieve this greater depth. The entire discipline of philosophy and by extension the entire world is already slowly building toward this point, at least it seems so to me.

So the singularity is just a node that cannot manage what it has absorbed, or is not synced properly, thus errors are flowing out of it. These errors generate logical as well as immediate-practical necessity for dealing with these errors. This necessity exists in direct proportion to the distance of an individual social web and selfvaluing to the errors themselves, which also means to the source of the errors. And then this necessity, like the pains of existing, of life, pushes subjectivity, consciousness, valuing, higher and higher upon the continuum of being.


* Shit. I just derived how-why it is necessary that a large number of people remain at a lower level compared to the small number of people who dump far more excess and information into the world's social web connections. These differences must exist, but also the entire structure must slowly rise up over time. In fact I would say this is what history shows is exactly what has been happening and continues to happen.

Fascinating development.

It happened to me on social media during Trump rise, what I put out there caused such a black hole/negative totem which resulted in my cousin posting an actual death wish on my fb page and another cousin jumping in to be angry at me for saying something to the extent of fuck you then, and then it turned out a large part of my old social circle had just turned to zombies on account of too vast differences in power/truth.

I would say this "incorrect" or un-ideal stage can be represented as a very spiky irregular graph, and that it has to be smoothed out, through philosophy, or what we may call philosophical politics, through strategic investments and fertilizations, into more of a bell curve.

Essentially, what needs to be brought about is a proper order of rank.

The Trump phenomenon and how people react to us even just saying that Trump is more or less ok, is a good example of how these things work.

I am going to keep focusing for now on the aspects of friendship and love when it comes to social connection, social webs and selfvaluing entanglements. But all this could also definitely also be applied more toward politics and philosophy-politics.

But these were my friends.
Also the reason he gave for the death wish was my tribute to his dead brother, which he, because of my work to save us all from annihilation, interpreted in some sick perverse way.

I don't experience this difference between friendship and other aspects of life; for me, friendship is total, or non-existent.

For 20 years Ive given this guy everything I could possibly share if I thought he could benefit from it in the slightest.
He has always been ungrateful and unreliable but I have so much love in my heart that I was constantly thinking he is still worth it. That was excessive valuation.

Thats something I need to become aware of and control, my tendency to overestimate people.

That’s interesting because for me it is always separate. Friendship occupies a specific area of my life and subjectivity, and might expand here or there from time to time but is always distinct.

I suppose this is why I conceive of the social web thing as separate from selfvaluing proper and as something sort of external to the self to which the self relates and into which the self transfers some of its excess (and from which it draws excess to itself).

Fixed Cross wrote:

For 20 years Ive given this guy everything I could possibly share if I thought he could benefit from it in the slightest.
He has always been ungrateful and unreliable but I have so much love in my heart that I was constantly thinking he is still worth it. That was excessive valuation.

Thats something I need to become aware of and control, my tendency to overestimate people.

Yes I’ve had to work on that too. I’ve gotten better at it recently, which is nice. I still treat others as if I were overestimating them, to draw out whatever is latent there and also because it’s possible I could have underestimated them somehow. But I’ve become more accurate. It helps me value much better and more effectively.

It is heartbreaking to realize how lowly so many people are, how little they have to give, and how little they value people around them.
Most social interactions are entirely fake. I hadn't realized how deeply I had become embedded in these fake structures, I had a blind spot to some sociopathic liars. I mean that in the clinical sense, Im not exaggerating or anything.

This is one reason why Islam will keep encroaching in Europe - muslims have a far greater loyalty between each other than the typical modern westerner. Our "species" is on the brink of extinction, when it comes to value-connections. The death of god has brought about a terrible lack of self-valuing. Self-Valuing can only exist through real interaction with other beings, and this is nearly gone from our world.

I am not quite so worried about it as that, but then again I do choose to restrict myself to interactions with others who actually have real value. If I were to be more indiscriminate as to with whom I interact then I would probably be far more pessimistic. But I had to place severe limits on it for my is sake, and it’s worked out very well. I’m much healthier and stronger and more coherent-clear for choosing not to engage with subcreatures.


....

Specifically on the issue of love, I think love actually replicates the social web structure but with only one other person; normally a social web comes into existence as a consequence of many different friendships or relationships all mutually interacting, but between one person and just one good friend or relation you can have deep connections too of course, and these are based as all such connections are on shared values and shared self-valuing. Thus there is a “as below so above” format here: between you and just one other person with whom you are close (not even talking about love yet) there exist many shared values and self-valuing types and tendencies and actions, and every such point of commonality between you two becomes a node in a network, this network being the entanglement and entwining of your respective souls. This of course allows excesses to be transferred back and forth between you two, quite literally (onticly, existentially, phenomenologically) connecting both of your souls together.

This is also quite obviously very similar to what happens with the social webs. In a social web you have different nodes with each node being your contact point to another person with whom you are friends or have a close relationship; the web itself is the interlinkages between all of those nodes from your own perspective as oriented to the web. So the web is unique for every person who relates to it, even if it includes all the same nodes, however in virtually all actual cases no two people would have the same nodes in their respective social webs, since we all know and have different people as friends and close relations.

Now it is revealed that each node in a social web is actually a mini web of its own, a web composed of nodes each of which is a point of similarity or commonality between you and this other person with respect to each of your own values and self-valuings. This whole structure actually looks incredible, if you really look at it as I’m doing. Quite remarkable and beautiful.

Now back to love, love starts from this interlinkage between two souls wherein their connected souls form a network of nodes as mentioned above and as are similar in structure to the larger social web, and then love deepens and expands this network of connections until... what? Until a certain threshold is reached, until the connections become so extensive and deep that a larger significance appears and both souls in effect become two sides of the same soul, a shared soul. Two people merge together and become one, but also remain separate and distinct from each other.

This happens because in such close connection the excesses are in a state of constant transfer in and out of both sides of the connection, of both souls, so that the connection between two people stops becoming digital and becomes analog.

Now having connected his topic to what I wrote about love, I will attempt to also connect all of this now to what I was saying about virtual hologram girlfriends; these virtual hologram girlfriends (who do not yet properly exist at least publicly but I think will exist publicly soon) are much like our own dreams and fantasies about someone we barely know and with whom we have no real connections yet: based on a projection of our own values and self-valuing, we dream an ideal image of our love based on the fact that this image presents itself to us as a reflection of our own values and self-valuing. That reflection can be accurate or inaccurate to any degree but still functions as if it were real. And such dreams can serve to train us in ourselves, to give us better insight into what it is we are and what it is we want in another. This is why virtual hologram girlfriends do not worry me too much, despite that people will form relationships with them when in reality there are no shared underlying values or self-valuings in the hologram itself; what is in the hologram is a Turing model, and which model is continuously absorbing your own values and self-valuing patterns and then reflecting these back to you. Similar to our dreams and fantasies only far more potent. And it isn’t as if our dreams and fantasies are dangerous or harmful (although they can be if taken to a very far extreme of obsession), so too for virtual hologram girlfriends. These holograms are basically externalized dreams in a more potent audiovisual (and tactile, eventually) format than that of our imagination, but I see no fundamental difference between the hologram in this case and the dreams we have in our imaginations.

Dreaming come to life, perhaps that is what virtual and augmented reality is going to become. Well one must first dream, I suppose, before one can properly know and engage with reality. Dreaming as practice for reality engagement.

One danger I can see is a person might fall in love with a hologram. This seems hard to believe, for me anyway, because we know the hologram isn’t a real person; however, I have to assume that many people are too stupid to know this fact. Therefore such a “love” would be based on a deep failure of that person’s consciousness and understanding, would be like they literally fell in love with a dream or fantasy of theirs. And in a limited way this is what we do in real love, we tend to idealize the other person to some degree, we always build on the real deeper tectonic connections something more ideal and subject to our own determinations, ideas, desires, and dreams. But in such cases as real love the actual existence of the other person grounds the fantasy/dreaming idealization, in a pure fantasy or with a hologram no such grounding exists except for using oneself as a ground; therefore would represent a kind of narcissism. So distance must be maintained even as one forms relationships of a sort with one’s fantasies/dreams or with virtual hologram girlfriends. This distance keeps the experience from becoming a danger, and keeps the experience naturally pushed to the periphery of oneself, where it cannot affect one’s values and self-valuing in any significant or overly broad (in either space or time) way. This is why I see such experiences as basically practice for the real thing, as a kind of surrogate or externally manifested process of our own imagination.

I see now that for the social web thing to function properly each node must be separate from the others. Not totally separate but sufficiently so. The nodes should have some connections to each other, or at least that’s ok, and necessary for the social friend aspect in terms of groups, but each node’s connection to me, to my social web, must be independent and not tangled up in that connection with other nodes to which I’m also connected. I think this is why I keep things separate and tend to compartmentalize relationships. This delimitation causes more substance, more being, to come into existence.

I also realize now that it’s impossible for me to truly love more than one woman at a time. My soul will only link up in this way to one other soul. I can make good connections to more than one woman but not in whatever it is that love means. The more one love connection develops, the more the other declines. It’s a simple equation maintaining a balance. It’s ok for now but eventually I will need to collapse that equation into just one person, one lover. But I’m not going to force that and it will take time to allow this all to work itself out naturally.

Maybe Nietzsche didn’t have anyone to really talk to. Maybe thats why he died.

I had two primary nodes in much social web, two women I befriended closely and who I really needed and came to care about, and who I thought cared about me. All other nodes became secondary to these two. I was able to exchange unlimited amounts of excess for a while between these and myself, and a very delicate machine developed: emotional and love excess between these two nodes, social personality excess between a few nodes at my job, and then philosophical excess with Parodites and Fixed, plus some degree of overlap between all of these all flowing throughout me at the center of this vast web.

And then it all collapsed. All I have left are the two original philosophical nodes. The social nodes and the emotional/love nodes are all but gone now.

It’s crazy to have experienced this kind of phenomenological, existential machinery of subjectivity that I experienced and then to have it simply shut off.

It’s amazing the effect this has on me. I found out for a brief time, about two months, what it is like to have these female friends on whom I could truly rely. I was bouncing excess around without limit, like a god juggling universes. I could do anything. And then it all went away. That too is amazing just in a terrible way, to lose that power. I know why most people are so miserable, now. And why they don’t even realize most of the time that they are miserable.

I tried for years to find friendships like this with basically no success, and suddenly I had two at once. It freed me to use my philosophical friendships and my philosophical powers, rather than depend on these for everything which before putting this social web machinery together I didn’t even realize how to upgrade those nodes to higher quality excess contents.

I’m fairly sure that no one else understands these things. This is new philosophical territory. Most people just have no fucking idea what life can be like, their own lives. Subjectivity is untapped potential. Philosophy hasn’t really been born into the world yet, and neither has friendship, not really. Excesses are still highly limited and unaware of themselves, so used to never getting their needs met that they have come to take this state of non-fulfillment as totally normal. But a tectonic god like I am is able to pierce that veil, if only for a moment or two.

I realized now that love is a form of communication, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that communication is a form of love. And not simply verbal or written communication, also gesture and body language, touch, eye contact, subtle emotional exchanges, that sort of thing also counts. It is possible for two people to love one another and share that as communication in the moment even without speaking. But I do believe that love reaches its peak when all these various forms of communication occur at the same time, linking two souls together as deeply and fully as possible.

This is also touching on why love tends to be between two people rather than three or more, why polygamy is not natural. Polygamy may be natural in a sense of lust, sexuality, even co-habitation and caring about one another or raising children even, but when it comes to love it would be difficult to link up three or more souls. Or maybe not, maybe this would be just as easy as linking up two souls. It just seems that love is already so rare, it is hard enough to find another soul with whom one can truly connect like this, so to add a requirement of finding two other souls with whom you can truly connect would make it even more rare.

When another soul links up to your own, as communication because that is what it is, excesses shift and are released; this produces instant mania, euphoric energy and happiness. We call that “falling in love”.

Although with polygamy if you could actually find true love with two or more females, and they with you and each other, this would produce the most intense and deep social web ever. Like what I had with these two girls with whom I was close friends, sharing excesses back and forth like creating universes, only we weren’t actually in love mutually and if we had been the experience would have been a hundred times more potent.

Yes... communication is a form of love, of soul-linkage and excess-exchange. So is friendship, friendship is simply a watered-down version of love. Qualitatively or structurally-phenomenologically the same thing, but quantitatively reduced in scope and degree.

Although with friendship, it doesn’t need to or drive to progress into love, so it is it’s own phenomenon. Therefore possesses a nature entirely its own. And this is why it’s difficult to be good friends with a woman, because the friendship does tend to naturally escalate toward love. Thus heterosexuality is a useful stop-gap that allows friendship to exist as it’s own entity.

The form of what we call consciousness is being able to feel or experience something from both sides, from the side of that which is felt and from the side of who feels. That’s what neurology does for us, and the nervous system generally, it takes the fact that cells sit up against each other and it turns this fact into something more, into a true mutuality of connection that raises reality higher into a more triadic function wherein a third term sits above the two terms in relation, and the third term becomes the primary ontic, phenomenological object.

When this happens at the internal level of ideas and feelings themselves, what we call a psychology appears.

This is also why people often get stuck in catch 22’s, because they are operating at the level of the two terms in relation and not operating at the triadic level. For example, someone feels like shit or is stressed or angry or upset, so they do something to address that or deal with it, and the feelings dissipate or go away; but now whatever it was they did to make the feelings go away, isn’t needed anymore because those feelings for which it was needed no longer exist. So the act invalidates itself in its own completion. This can also be equally true of acting on positive impulses and needs, for example in fulfilling a desire: when the desire is achieved then the act itself loses its raison d’etre, if the act was not also situated triadically.

However, the higher side of human experience is that we also often end up in more triadic methods, which sit outside of “time” and can address problems and situations without invalidating themselves. This is closely associated to rooting oneself in deeper values, in being rooted in that way. More “shallow” or materialistic people are not rooted in this way and so they cycle between the lower terms in relation without ever getting up to the triadic level. The triadic is stability and “beyond time”, is this a part of truth in a more complete way.

So any problem or situation we might be in that we notice ourselves cycling between one extreme or strong feeling/response and another, we know is a sign that we need to elevate the problem or situation into the third term, into the comprehensive triadic state ‘above’ the conflict. This requires finding that about which both conflicting terms speak or work around or against or within; to find the proper philosophical kernel in each conflicting term and to then find the common ground between those kernels, and then to invert that ground by making it into the primary category so that it becomes a sky over that for which it is ground.

How all this relates to social webs: the social web is similar in logical structure to the triadic, because each person is like a single term in relation to one another, while the connection between them is the triadic in the higher case of approaching something like love or is the cycling bipolar catch 22 in the lower case of being unable to approach something like love.