Dr. Bookless & Friends
Episode 23
Topic: All The World Being a Stage
Special Guest: Professor Agni Silapa
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms.
Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
- Shakespeare, As You Like It Act II Scene VII.
Dr. David G. Bouklas: Hi everybody. If you’re new here, Dr. Bouklas & Friends is a web series where I discuss specific topics with people from wherever about whatever. We either communicate via Skype or by text-messaging, as it is for this episode. Today we have a new guest. Welcome Professor Agni Silapa.
Professor Agni Silapa: Hello David. Thank you for inviting me to your program. It’s nice to finally speak with you.
David G. Bouklas: Likewise. Agni Silapa is a Professor of Law and Theology at Jubnaka University in Northern India. He received a PhD in Epistemology at the age of 33. He also holds a Masters in Biology and Law. He is also an adept sitar player, having worked before with Anoushka Shankar on special musical projects. Mr. Silapa and I met a few months ago. We had a lot of good ideas going back and forth over our emails. I think this will be the first part of a two, maybe three part series, as I feel as if these ideas are still manifesting – or giving birth, even – to new language or rather new ways of spelling out these thoughts about our world, our institutions, our methods of being, habits, and our ideas progress, of past and future, of history and transcendence, and also of energy, of Nature, and of deception.
Agni Silapa: Ah yes. We live entirely within a grand deception. Ordinarily, one would expect such a monumental concept as this as requiring or justifying capitalisation; this is, after all, how concepts are portrayed to us, both through the media and by academia: The Grand Deception. But one of the central proposals I will be covering throughout this discussion involves just this attribution of elevation from the profane to the sacred.
David G. Bouklas: These are all very large concepts, but worry not, we will be proceeding slowly and methodically so as not to leave anyone behind.
Agni Silapa: I will attempt to use the clearest language to the best of my ability – English is not my first language. This grand deception that we are embroiled in – as a species, as a culture, and as individual actors – is phenomenal indeed, and involves the majority of what you hold to be true.
David G. Bouklas: Almost everything is a lie. Hypothetically speaking, this entire conversation could have been plagiarized.
Agni Silapa: That’s ridiculous. But we should probably start with the good news. There is, in fact, an upside to all of this. Put simply, we have achieved a point in our cultural and historical development that literally every institution supporting this system is so inherently corrupt and such a complete inversion of the stated purpose of the institution itself, that they can all be completely done away with, with humanity losing nothing of value in the process.
David G. Bouklas: I’d like to recall Carl Jung’s concept of Enantiodromia, from the Greek ἐνάντιος (enantios), opposite, and δρόμος (dromos), running course. It is a principle introduced by psychiatrist Carl Jung that the superabundance of any force inevitably produces its opposite.
Agni Silapa: Yes, it literally means, “running counter to,” referring to the emergence of the unconscious opposite in the course of time. This characteristic phenomenon practically always occurs when an extreme, one-sided tendency dominates conscious life; in time an equally powerful counterposition is built up, which first inhibits the conscious performance and subsequently breaks through the conscious control.
David G. Bouklas: From schools and universities, to law enforcement and judiciaries, parliaments, politicians, police, lords and royals, the unconscious opposite will emerge that are in direct polarization of the institution’s mission statement, or what have you.
Agni Silapa: We can, as a species and culture, do away with these systems, roles and institutions entirely and lose nothing of value.
David G. Bouklas: Aren’t you an active professor at a fairly prestigious university?
Agni Silapa: We can talk about that later. That is not to say that we need no systems of learning and schooling, for example, but simply that the systems now in place are functionally the inverse of their stated purposes and can be disposed of without restraint. Primary and secondary schooling systems are not there to educate children sufficiently to navigate their way through society from then on, nor are universities there for the furtherance or expanding of knowledge. To thrive culturally – indeed, to reclaim the very production of our culture – requires not so much a new system of education and learning as a return to old and proven systems and purposes; methods in no way forgotten, but largely disposed of nonetheless.
David G. Bouklas: Wouldn’t the cycle just repeat again?
Agni Silapa: Disposing of the old and tired, systems found not to serve their purposes is nothing new. Disposing of the newly-useless is a distinctive feature of not only the modern human synthesis of throw-away culture, but of the very generative process of ideas: we throw out the less useful in favour of more useful ideas all the time, as the very process of thought itself. And we pick our scabs, meaning to say that we often try to hasten this process of healing, renewal: out with the old, in with the new. This is the underlying generative principle of all life; renewal. Living beings age as this process of renewal breaks down and cells cease to be replaced as often, or as completely. We need to continue to renew ourselves to stay young.
David G. Bouklas: Yes. Absolutely. Our present human condition absolutely requires renewal.
Agni Silapa: The sick branches have come to dominate and some vicious pruning will indeed be required before we will grow healthy again, but there is even more good news in all of this…as the true human system is a living system, it can – and will – heal itself given sufficient generative conditions. And even without perfect conditions, remember not only can grass grow up in the cracks in the concrete, but such structures will, in time, be little more than picturesque ruins under the power of a regenerative Nature. This is the Nature we emerge from, and that we are an inseparable part of.
David G. Bouklas: So, not only can we fix all of this, we can heal all of this.
Agni Silapa: No mechanical metaphors, no moving parts needing replacing: the cells of the system – the DNA, RNA and organelles in the biological metonymy – intrinsically and instinctively know what they need to become when processes of recognition function, just as most forms of malady and dis-ease are caused by a confusion or confounding of those processes of recognition and reciprocation: the functionally interdependent aspects of physiology either mistaking an intruder as a part of the body, or a part of the body as an intruder. In many cases, the most virulent and successful of bacterial and viral infections are those that most efficiently exploit this deception, confusing the body’s natural defences into fighting for it.
David G. Bouklas: This quite reminds me of the philosophy behind the healing practices of Dr. Durian.
Agni Silapa: Yes, I am familiar with his work, and there is actually much science to back up his durian healing beliefs and methods.
David G. Bouklas: Well, to expand on what you were saying, the most successful parasites within our society thrive on the power of deceptions which entrench their very positions.
Agni Silapa: Unfortunately for them, their house of cards is actually very flimsy, as we will see as we progress in our discussion, but to their credit, they have been reinforcing it in some rather bizarre ways for some time, so seeing the deception for what it is can take some refocussing of perspective. What is required first and foremost from you, dear reader of this discussion, is the application of critical thought that you have likely not been trained in.
David G. Bouklas: I assure you, he does not mean to patronize you.
Agni Silapa: Alas, we have only so many breaths in this life, and I do not wish to waste yours or anyone’s time, therefore I would like to make aware that we all come from different backgrounds, with different experiences, skills, areas of study and what have you, and as for myself, coming from a background in Epistemology, Law, and Theology, I would prefer the reader to have trust in my relative expertise, and I hope to inspire in all of my students trust in his or herself, to follow his or her path in the light, which is a path of joy and love.
David G. Bouklas: Of course. Thank you.
Agni Silapa: We will be covering the structure of various types of argument and how they are used as we explore these concepts. We will be going into a great deal of substitutive and algebraic logic, which will be explained as we progress. It is not my intention to convince you of anything, but simply to inspire you to consider these concepts.
David G. Bouklas: I seriously appreciate this attention to others.
Agni Silapa: Ok, well let’s get the main thing straight right away. Most of what you know is a lie. Most of what we call reality is a lie. Our culture embraces clichés we hold to the level of aphorisms around this concept, such as ‘the camera never lies’. Now, as astute consumers of digital media, I would sincerely hope you have long abandoned any hope of truth to such a claim: all the camera does is lie. And I’m not even talking about the layers of CGI goofery we have grown accustomed to of late; I’m talking about what a camera is in regard to an observer.
David G. Bouklas: We should probably backtrack first and define what we are talking about in discussing such concepts as lies and deception. As a simple definition, any deception is a function of perception and involves the intention of one actor to influence the perceptions of another.
Agni Silapa: We are all actors, by the way, this is all one grand stage. And as I vigilantly contend, your role in this grand theatre is just as important as any other. I know you have been told your whole life that you are a spectator; consumer by definition, defined by what you consumed and eventually consumed by it, but this too is a lie, a manipulation of your perceptions. Your perceptions, collectively, can be called your senses. You are further blessed with faculties of understanding and sensibility, under and through which these sensations come together to present and represent reality to you.
David G. Bouklas: I resonate with these ideas. You are indeed much more than the bundle of perceptions theorised by Hume.
Agni Silapa: Though he is quite correct in suggesting that you are quite difficult to catch under a lens.
David G. Bouklas: You are a part of the fractured essence of The Divine, a little piece of God, experiencing itself subjectively. This is all God: All of it.
Agni Silapa: Deception is not the evil you may inherently think it is; for the most part, most strategies in Nature rely entirely on bluff and deception. There is very little honor – in the classic, humanist sense – with how Nature conducts herself.
David G. Bouklas: We can see this for how it is when observing animals in Nature. Little to no high noon challenges or glove slaps.
Agni Silapa: Exactly. Rather, it is more about deception: the intention to influence the perceptions of other actors, that really goes on at all times and at all levels of complexity within Living Nature.
David G. Bouklas: Yes, I feel this. It is the same way that Spiderman can take out The Juggernaut: when you telegraph your actions and intentions that openly, you are bound to be undermined by weaving spiders, after all…Spiders were the ‘animal of the year’ in 2016, by the way.
Agni Silapa: By nature, Spiders spin webs. Webs, such as the one we are currently dancing on, communicating across the world, function to catch prey by rather underhanded means. The efficacy of such a trap lies in how well it conceals its true purpose.
David G. Bouklas: I mean, come on: who would ever have thought that a technology invented by the US G, named “the net” and “the web” would ever have been built for nefarious purposes? That is some paranoid crazy thinking, right there.
Agni Silapa: I follow your crass sarcasm. But, can we fault a spider for building a web, or is everything in Nature in some way engaged in this same process of deception?
David G. Bouklas: When you think about it, deception saves a lot of energy: it is more efficient than confrontation in many cases.
Agni Silapa: Yes, good, you make a legitimate point. Deception saves energy. As complexity increases, it does so by finding more efficient means of exporting its own entropy to its environment, and the evolution from systems of direct confrontation to arrangements of deception and attrition (friction) might be considered a natural outworking of this process of finding more efficient means of exporting the entropy created by complex systems. Deception is quite natural, and the rule, rather the exception, in Living Nature.
David G. Bouklas: Most of the time the ‘strongest’ survive. The strongest eagle gets the dead fox.
Agni Silapa: Deception levels the playing field in one sense. It changes the game itself. Rather than the race to the swift, or the fight to the most muscle-bound, the way is paved with webs and traps and the finish line will only present for the clever and the perceptive (receptive). Do you trust your senses and sensibilities yet?
David G. Bouklas: It is a courageous thing to say that one trusts their own sensibilities. By the way, Planet Earth is so awesome and I love listening to David Attenborough’s voice; his calming grandfatherly voice is soothing if not meditative.
Agni Silapa: Indeed. And if you study these various forms of deception – from the methods of predators that pretend not to be a threat, to prey that pretend to be, to both that pretend not to be there at all – you find that none of these forms of deception is ever perfect.
David G. Bouklas: Such as the stick bug which pretty much looks like a regular old stick. Any kid could tell…maybe.
Agni Silapa: Every deception carries with it tells of its own artifice. The webs can be anywhere and everywhere; you really do have to pay attention to navigate through the world. And there is a lot to be wary of. As humans, we have this extended period of tutelage, fifteen or so years where we have to learn all the tells, the traps, the pitfalls. Human stories record all of this, and we are intentionally losing these stories, corrupting them into memes at best. These stories are an important part of learning to use our senses and sensibility properly, though, and their removal and/or debasement, like everything else, has not been a coincidence or an accident. This is also at the heart of the destruction of the family unit, which really went into full swing in the mid-1960s.
David G. Bouklas: It started much earlier, of course, but really started to change things around the mid to late ’60s, and has been snowballing since.
Agni Silapa: This goes hand in hand with the undermining of education; it is not a coincidence, and not a mistake. The deception here is a direct consequence of the intentions of a few who have influenced these control systems. Instead, these systems of indoctrination teach you one and one thing only: peer pressure. From the structures of classrooms, to the form and content of the “education” itself, to the seeds of divisive nationalism planted with the joining and promotion of a team to base your identity formation upon; you are really only taught to prioritise the group consensus over any of your own senses and sensibilities.
David G. Bouklas: We return to Jung’s Enantiodromia. Education does the precise opposite of what its intended purpose would be in a functioning human system: Education should be about inculcating developing people with all of these human stories, and aiding them in developing their own faculties of sense and reason.
Agni Silapa: There are rules to the game and one of them seems to be that every deception must contain within it tells of its own artifice: every lie is obvious if you pay attention. Pay attention. Consider that for a moment. Your attention and your intention are very closely linked. Your intention is everything, but we will get to that in the course of things. Money is all about funneling your intention into pointless pursuits, but this statement holds more truth than you may think: pay attention. The cost is that you cannot live in this waking daydream that has been created about you.
David G. Bouklas: You have to pay with your attention: no pennies on the eyes, bro, wake up and pay attention.
Agni Silapa: The camera always lies, by nature of what it does: it directs your attention to whatever it is pointed at. The camera will never spin around and show you what is really behind the curtain: you have to look through your own eyes, trust your own senses and sensibilities.
David G. Bouklas: Ok so, I think I should read a brief synopsis of what we have covered so far: almost everything you know is a lie, but deception is not the grand evil you may think it is from your conditioning, but is in fact the rule rather than the exception in Living Nature. It is really best to think of it all as a game. Games have rules, after all. But if the rule of the game is deception, how can you be sure you haven’t been lied to about the rules?
Agni Silapa: Think back to the puzzle of the honest and dishonest jailers, or in The Labyrinth it had the doorknockers: One door leads to freedom, the other to certain death. One of them always tells the truth and one of them always lies. Well, what if they were lying when they said one of them always tells the truth? Games also often have boundaries, or boards; confines within which the game takes place, the chessboard, for example. It really is quite astounding how many places you will find that same theme, if you look for it (if you pay attention); the black and white square tiles really do surround you. They like to surround themselves with it, anyway, perhaps as a subtle reminder of who really makes the rules. More, who really provides those choices, those dichotomies to select between: liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, coke or pepsi, pitcher or catcher, coke and heroin or prozac and viagra – and of course, winners and losers. Better pick the right team.
David G. Bouklas: Pirates don’t pick teams.
Agni Silapa: Well, in Chess, you’ve got black or white, right? History, and placement on the board, favours the white queen. It is a tradition of philosophy going back to Aristotle to argue syllogistically, which often leads to conclusions of a false dichotomy, such as that between free will and determinism. Aristotle’s classical reasoning employs categorical modal syllogisms (enthymemes) such as the principle of logical identity that A=A or A is not non-A, (Prior Analytics) by which modal inference we are left with an irremediable dichotomy between freedom and determinism. Either free will exists, or preconditions exist for everything and there can be no other possible outcome. However, through a method of dialectical thinking, a dissolution of the dichotomy between free will and determinism may be found whereby freedom is not conceived as the contrary to determinism, but is rather dependent on and emergent from constraint.
Everything makes more sense when you can start thinking in threes. And it can be applied in almost limitless ways. Crucially, when you begin thinking in threes, all of your knowledge begins to come under far more scrutiny than previously – you can’t think in threes without adopting the principles of fallibilism. Fallibilism is quite simple in essence, and is also the foundation of the scientific method; it is the axiom that no matter what we believe, our knowledge ever remains possibly wrong and open to revision. It is ever possible that new information or a new interpretation on old information can radically change everything we believe, and it is only on this basis that we can have any assurance of our conclusions. It is only through such a process and with such an approach to the nature of epistemology that knowledge can become legitimate. The grounds upon which we can make a claim to knowledge cannot be littered with hypotheses we hold beyond proof of their illegitimacy, and we must be prepared, if we are in search of knowledge, to cast aside what we believe to be true as being in fact wrong with less hesitation than if we were to be learning a new fact or word or term for something already known. What is known, what can be called knowledge, is always an actual history, and proceeds by way of improvements upon its own deficits.
David G. Bouklas: The history of human knowledge is not simply permeated by examples such as Aristotle’s claim of flies having four legs persisting as scientific belief for hundreds of years – knowledge is essentially built upon such false claims and mistaken ideas, and the epistemological authority of science is not grounded in knowledge as a permanent commodity, but as a process: not eternal truth, but continual reflection.
Agni Silapa: Splendid, Mr. Bouklas. Binary thinking suggests that there is only ever one choice, and it does fit nicely alongside the other very successful operating system, where you are offered such binary choices throughout your life as a substitute for any actual choice. And it is only through the strict adherence to this binary mode of thinking that our current paradigm maintains itself. It is only through strict adherence to Aristotle’s syllogistic principles of reasoning that we have such pointless arguments continuing fifteen years on surrounding the events of 911: everyone is shouting around each other from a singular position that they hold due to A=A or A is not non-A. There are far more ways to compare things, and if you really want to get to the truth, particularly within a game where deceit is the rule, you are going to have to abandon simple binary dichotomies and binary thinking.
David G. Bouklas: Care to illustrate?
Agni Silapa: To illustrate: A=A, A=1, A=a, A=Ǣ, A=Ʌ, and A=Ω. Any one thing can be more than one thing, and often is. Further, thinking in threes illustrates the mediated nature of all understanding: if one is the thing itself (IT), and two is our relation to it – the feeling we feel pushing back when we touch something (THIS), then three is our conception of that relation (THE). When we approach understanding in this manner, it is tacitly accepted that all of our understanding of anything is mediated and thus a synthesis. This actually offers us a great deal of freedom in how we approach anything: we are invited to ask more questions of the thing itself. We are encouraged through such a position to more closely align our conception of Thirdness (what we understand of the relation) to Firstness (the thing itself: unmediated reality).
The tapestry of reality may be much more complex than you imagine. A thing can at once exist in many manifestations: a being, a vibration, a colour and sound (both just vibrations), a musical note and an entire endless symphony, fractal in composition. The same thing can also manifest as what may be otherwise considered binary opposites, an example of this might be that you can only ever hate another person as much as you have loved them. In binary thinking (as in the scale repeated to us ad-nauseum of the polarity between love and fear), these emotions (expressions of Secondness) are opposites, but you know intimately that this is just not true. When observed from a perspective removed from time and chronology, when a life is viewed in its completeness of becoming (in a circle), every expression of hate overlaps in a perfect sine wave with the measure of expression of love.
David G. Bouklas: When equalizing digital music, there is a decibel limit, confining the waveform to a certain limit. It’s like the limits of the game, the black and white squares of the checkerboard.
Agni Silapa: The checkerboard is a trap, as is binary thinking. It is there to make you think you are thinking critically while really you are doing little more than choosing between differently branded products made at the same factories. Thinking in threes you can construct a tripod from which a new perspective may be gleaned. The view from atop can show you the edges of the board, the edges of reality.
David. G Bouklas: We’ve been covering a realm of information. So far in this discussion we have first introduced our prime contention that we live within a grand deception, before making note that deception is not necessarily synonymous with diabolical evil, but is instead the rule rather than the exception in the very Living Nature we emerge from. Following this we looked at the shortfalls of binary thinking and how thinking in threes can help overcome some of these cognitive deficiencies.
Agni Silapa: The largest problem with binary thinking is that it seems to fit our shape quite well. We are symmetrical creatures, and (the simulacrum of) beauty is largely taken to be a product of symmetry. We have two eyes, and two hands, that not only work in concert with one another, but that complement each other in ways only an opposite can do. And where they are in relation to one another is of great importance for finding out where you exist somehow in between them. Your eyes; vision is not even a function of your eyes per se, but requires a great deal of processing. The retinal surface is not a contiguous surface but is composed of millions of tiny nerve needles which each only pick up a tiny fraction of what we see. A great deal of processing then occurs in the brain to make an image of the world present for us.
David G. Bouklas: And when I see you, I really see you upside down, but my brain knows better; It picks you up and turns you around, turns you around, turns you around.
Agni Silapa: There is a further complication caused in the process of saccadic masking – or visual saccadic suppression – in which the brain discriminately blocks visual cortex processing during fast motion eye movement in such a way that neither the gap in visual processing nor the blurring of the image being processed from the motion of the eye itself is perceptible to the viewer. Only one very small part of the human retina, called the fovea, furnishes extremely high resolution images, and this plays a pivotal role in resolving objects in the visual surrounding. As a result, when visually scanning, the eyes move in quick, sporadic movements, both eyes simultaneously in the same direction, called saccades, focussing in turn on points of interest in view, building a three-dimensional picture of the larger scene, each saccade moving as fast as the eyes are capable of moving, the fastest movements produced within the human body. This movement causes an inescapable blurring of the image as processed by the retina while it sweeps the visual field, which creates a visual error which is of no use in creating a visual image of the world, and humans are in effect blind for the duration. This phenomenon can be experienced by anyone looking into their own eyes in a mirror, looking from one eye to another – while an external observer will see the motion of the eyes, the individual will only ever see their eyes in the fixed state. Oh, and did I mention that the world is really upside down from how you actually perceive it?
David G. Bouklas: Everything is actually upside-down?
Agni Silapa: Verily, I kid you not… even your eyes lie to you.
David G. Bouklas: This gives me some new insight into the Yin-Yang symbol.
Agni Silapa: But everything is kind of back to front and spun around, even within the body. The two hemispheres of your brain (which are responsible for the opposite side of your body; the right brain controls the sinister hand) are joined by the corpus callossum (a “white meat” part of the bran responsible for communication rather than “computing”). Severe epileptics are often encouraged to get surgery to sever the corpus callosum and one of the stranger side effects that is known to happen is called Alien Hand Syndrome.
David G. Bouklas: I’ll look it up later.
Agni Silapa: I’ll let you look it up. Further, the things you can do just with mirrors to mess with the brain is pretty mind-blowing. In fact, you have an absolutely wrong opinion of yourself in every way. Not many people like the sound of their voice on recording. This is because of how you hear yourself, from the inside. On a recording, you sound as you do to others. Similarly, all of your visual impressions of yourself are not only upside down (inverted), but also back to front (reflected). This is why we think ourselves uglier in pictures mostly, because we are accustomed to seeing our faces reflected, not as they really are. It is very subtle, what happens when you flip something along the vertical axis. I mean, when you flip a person along the horizontal it is pretty easy to notice, but not so much with the vertical. If there is no writing to be written backwards, most times you may not even notice. But your mind notices the subtle differences, the small “spot what’s different” between the two perceptions overlayed.
David G. Bouklas: This is akin to the Uncanny Valley in computer generated imagery. Our brains will accept that a certain amount of realism is justified to the extent that we can still acknowledge that what we are witnessing is animation. When the realism gets to a certain point of hyper-realism, our brains automatically pick up the most nuanced differences. This was a very controversial issue in the latest Star Wars film.
Agni Silapa: We are creatures of duality, polarity. We interact with our world in a receptor and effector cycle, wherein we perceive the world through organs of sense, then act upon it with our extremities, eyes and hands, in a cycle. Dogs have achieved their rightful position as man’s best friend for a good reason. Many really, but in this case, dogs are the only animal other than humans (though pigs and some birds can also learn this over time) that follow the whites of the eye to see where someone is looking, and that follow not just the finger, but the imaginary line that is created by a human pointing. Our entire conception of the world is mediated through the eyes and fingers. But our two eyes lie to us, and produce for us our own (inverted) magic screens. And the vision of ourselves it presents to us is reflected and flipped. Our two hands are always within the realm of our vision; like the justified type of newsprint serves to suggest that the paper really does contain all the news, packed in to every border, so too do our hands border our world for us, restrict where we can play to this field where our receptor and effector cycles function: it is our whole world. This is why computers and laptops and screens in general are the shape they are: because they reflect the peculiar way (shape) the world presents to us, through our first-person viewpoints.
David G. Bouklas: Yin-Yang.
Agni Silapa: And even though the world we know, and what we know of ourselves is all reflected and inverted, that polarity is still crucially important. All the flipping back and forth makes it hard to notice at times, but it is never superfluous. The righteous and the sinister. This is baked into the false reality that surrounds you. It is most obvious in the promotions from Hollywood and the military industrial music industry. Backmasking is not just for Alice Cooper . Things are inverted and flipped for a reason. It is not a mistake. And it is just so easy to pull on you because you do it to yourself before anyone even begins messing with your perceptions.
David G. Bouklas: Deception.
Agni Silapa: Remember, deception is a function of perception, and as we have discussed, your very perceptions lie to you. It gets better, though. Where we are right now, we are, in a way, because of evolution. Just flip it. Evol = Love. Evolving got us this far, we need to start Loving, plain and simple. Just flip it back.
David G. Bouklas: Well, that’s what The Beatles were saying way back in the late 60’s, so I guess we haven’t really learned anything new here. That’s all for now. Goodnight and God bless.
Agni Silapa: Truth and Non-Violence are as old as the hills.