[p2p-research] Fwd: On Silliness and Sassiness
knuggy at gmail.com
Tue Aug 18 03:35:05 CEST 2009
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nathan Cravens <knuggy at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:07 PM
Subject: On Silliness and Sassiness
To: openkollab at googlegroups.com
On Silliness and Sassiness
Absolute Individualism <<< Sassiness <<< Equilibrium >>> Silliness >>>
Reflective Cognition <<< Emotion <<< FLOW >>> Emotion >>> Reflective
>>> ZEN <<<
>>> Peace <<<
>>> Community <<<
Sassiness rises and falls based on near arbitrary notions such as
physiological, environmental, and rates of communications exchanges. Simply
put, the rate of sassiness depends to what extend boundaries real or
imagined are tightly or loosely adhered to. When boundaries are rigidly
held, sassiness rises. When boundaries are loosely held, sassiness
diminishes. Boundaries vary depending on the ability to recognize them. This
is why sassiness varies within the artifacts of the personal construct or
another depending on a subject's area--generally speaking.
There are some correlational or causal conditions that cause the sass
factor; past memories and metabolic states also factor; but we'll ignore
these presently fuzzy instances for the sake of perfect mathematical models
and practical and immediate application.
When sassiness is encountered by the subject (ME DAMMIT!!) one's tolerance
(another factor to excessively model) is tested until the said threshold
(presently left unsaid) is met at which point the media is hijacked and
silliness is administered to alleviate--and in some rare cases cure--sassy
states or conditions.
Silliness destroy any models that may attempt to capture it, therefore it is
merely identified as silliness. Of course, you could model this silliness,
but to do so would be--well--silly. To even attempt such feats would require
vast amounts of computational capacity to quickly revise the models. Yet,
when the model is observed or reflective cognition is introduced, silliness
is no longer presents; a remnant of the silliness rather than the silliness
itself. Therefore, silliness cannot be adequately modeled to secure the
state of equilibrium our research suggests.
After sassiness and silliness are mastered: that which only is: occurs. This
'is' is neither good nor evil, but "good" as a matter of course. Therefore,
such distinctions between good and evil are superfluous within this
described, optimal, equilibrial state of being.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the p2presearch