Aside: Some hyperlinks which I included in journal entry web pages of chapter zero of the Karbytes Journal 2023 section of this website lead to web pages which are external to this website and which the WayBack Machine forbade from backing up. I am dismayed to see that some resources are censored from the WayBack Machine. I hope my original content is not censored from being saved to the WayBack Machine. (Note that web pages which host live JavaScript applications may not be able to be saved to the WayBack Machine because there are too many “plugin” components in such web pages. From what I can tell, the WayBack Machine is designed to back up static web pages only (i.e. web pages which feature only static text, images, and hyperlinks).

image: https://github.com/karlinarayberinger/KARBYTES_JOURNAL_2023_PART_0/blob/main/wayback_machine_forbidden_url_example_18_december_2022.png

As much as I enjoy the prospect of interpersonal debates and think they can generate new knowledge and solutions to problems, I enjoy intrapersonal debates at least as much because debating with my self (as multiple selves in one mindscape) allows the conversation to quickly and efficiently go into depth about subjects which might be too esoteric and too specific and too irrelevant to a more general audience. I figure that most of what I call the source of my life’s significance (to me) comes from relatively private and solitary experiences which are too numerous, detail-rich, and hard to retain as memories for me to communicate to others or even just to myself as private diaries.

I told myself that last night’s journal entry was more geared towards an imaginary audience than to specific persons (and that imaginary audience are rather simplistic, robotic, and myopic humans who conformist and traditionalist rather than iconoclastic and innovative and modern). I think that imaginary audience is also based heavily on Pig Gorl and caricatures which are similar to her because I am confronted with such caricatures through psychotronic mind control seemingly most of my waking hours (and those caricatures are stubbornly close-minded, impatient, irrational, conflict-mongering, whiny, shallow, banal, and uptight). I would assign them as having one motto in particular: “misery is mandatory”. (Maybe a better motto for them would be: “God does not love everyone.”). Those caricatures are not peaceful, nature-loving hippies nor geeks. Instead, they are angsty, uneducated, impoverished, unimaginative, bland, and bored prostitutes, menial wage earners, and reluctant mothers (all of whom act as though they had no say over their circumstances and have very few choices within those circumstances).

Do such caricatures need love? Without thinking too hard about metaphysics, I would hastily and compulsively say yes. Of course those persons need love. What I mean by love is being treated like beings deserving of respect, safety from harm, the right to enjoy existence, and maybe even some words of encouragement and appreciation if those words are honest and not just flippant lip service. Of course I would prefer to provide those beings with the kind of love I just described (which is real love and not just a gimmick disguised as real love) than to deprive them of love (but that does not mean I will go on and on professing my love. In fact, maybe silence is the most loving response I can offer such persons).

I would go on to ask, “Don’t all persons need love?” My answer would be a resounding yes. If I could, I would have an alternate “parallel to the present” and immortal form which manifests as some kind of plasma-like glowing ribbon which can teleport, pass through solid materials, project holograms, and make noise (including talking). That “divine ribbon thing” would manifest at least once in the lives of all persons to deliver each of those persons a specific message tailored specifically for that individual which affirms that person’s deservingness to survive, thrive, and to uniquely express the divine. The kind of love I want each person to feel is not about being accepted by humans, but rather, being accepted and esteemed by God. Some persons may seem impossible to inspire, especially if those persons are very hardened, cynical, in excruciating pain, or extremely angry. I still think that the “divine ribbon thing” which manifests for them will be able to know exactly that that person needs and be able to deliver it at precisely the right time and place so that the person at least feels that one being other than itself approves of its existence, is interested in the fact that it exists, and genuinely wants it to thrive and to feel that its existence is worthwhile to the “divine ribbon thing” (and not just as a plaything, but rather, as another facet of the “divine ribbon thing” which is immutably interconnected metaphysically to that “divine ribbon things”).

I heard someone impatiently honk their car horn and the psychotronic voices are complaining as I write this note. I have a feeling that there are relatively politically conservative people near me who do not want all persons to feel loved nor to thrive. What separates me from those people is that I do not condone retribution and I do not condone that any person be deprived of the right to at least thrive in a vacuum. What I mean by that is that even a violent, sadistic serial killer should be allowed to read books, write, and do yoga in prison rather than to be strapped down to a chair and tortured and/or to be executed against its will. That’s why I think I am more humane and civilized than many of my fellow Americans are. It’s easy for most humans to love innocent children. It’s not any harder for me to love violent, sadistic criminals because that is how deep my philosophical inquiries have taken me and allowed my mind to grow into. That does not mean that I want to be in the same room as a violent, sadistic criminal nor does it mean that I condone that person being released from prison (but if that person is sufficiently rehabilitated and no longer showing physiological signs of wanting to harm another person, I would condone that person being released from prison and allowed to participate in society with the same privileges as most other people have (but regardless of how fast that criminal’s neurology becomes reformed, I still would condone that the criminal be incarcerated for at least one year if that person committed murder or seriously injured someone to ensure that the reformed criminal has a sandbox environment in which to practice being relatively normal and non-detrimental to other human beings)).

(What I believe about people who end up committing violent crimes is that such people may have a genetic propensity to seek out pleasure through sadistic and violent means and that such people may also have been traumatized as a result of unintended hardship or by being the recipient of intentional mistreatment from other humans. I think that all humans deserve to be treated as having the potential to become violent and sadistic rather than to be treated as more innocent and naturally kind than that. I see society as a giant prison which is designed to prevent people from suffering and from hurting each other because, without such technology and rules and the enforcement of those rules, I think many if not most humans would resort to being savage while only caring for their own small, close-knit tribes. I think society allows humans to cultivate wider circles of empathy than they would without such infrastructure. What I mean to say is that humans are not particularly loving. They all deserve to be treated like criminals who will commit crimes if given the chance. Still, I think using honor systems and trusting people to “do the right thing” is necessary for normalizing humans being trustworthy and civilized because, when a person feels respected and trusted, that person will likely feel more motivated to continue earning that respect and trust. By contrast, treating everyone like delinquents who need to be micromanaged and bullied reinforces people behaving like anti-social savages. So I would rather error on the side of “over gentrifying” society than “over ghetto-fying” society. I think the former is more conducive to civilized behavior than the latter).

I imagine a lot of people would prefer that a violent criminal be tortured in captivity for the rest of its life because many people seem to crave retribution and the sadistic pleasure which comes from inflicting suffering on one’s enemies. It seems that such people are more interested in making sure such retribution takes place than they are in upgrading every person’s (or at least most persons’) standard of living through the application of futuristic concepts (i.e. using technology to end wage slavery, extend human lifespans, increase the availability of recreational, educational, and vocational opportunities, et cetera). I think a lazier and more primitive form of consciousness is involved in retribution than in engineering and quality testing infrastructure which is designed to improve people’s quality of life.

This web page was last updated on 18_DECEMBER_2022. The content displayed on this web page is licensed as PUBLIC_DOMAIN intellectual property.