On How to Scheme Anti-Socially

The universe can be described as functional with two presupposition:

• Naturally occurring reiteration
• From the reiteration, a scheme develops

For example, the meaning of words come from their scheme. We can assume from this that when language develop, there were first sounds. And then interpretation. The interpretation came from the iteration of the sounds.

Cat said in relation to cats made the word cat mean the relation cat had with the word cat.

Similarly, for flying, first there was something that could get airborne before there was something that could stay airborne. The scheme of staying airborne came from the iteration of something being airborne.

For cell division, there was something that could unite before there was something that could grow in cluster. The perpetuation of growth is the scheme based around the iteration.

Our thoughts our iterations but their schemes change.

For example, these symbols as letters have been given to us to scheme with from generations and iterations of people. Different kind of people that, at the beginning, wrote letters that looked very different than ours. Us, as descendants, carry these letters for the future generations to carry.

Similarly, our own individualism is iteration that changes based on schemes.

A note to ponder is whether we are all part of the same scheme? Are we all going towards the inevitable and is the inevitable all the same for everyone?

Am I writing this and are you reading this because of some pre-destiny? A scheme that we are not aware of but are a part of?

These questions arise because, through self-reflection (no pun intended, but welcomed), we see answers but we don’t see questions. Through self-reflection, we create questions. Creating question provides their answer. The iteration and scheme make up the self.

Are the questions we create as individuals based on this grand scheme that is inevitably drawing us closer towards its own iteration?

Or are we all within our own individual, indeterminate scheme that only exist in tangible relation to each other based on a continuum of relevancy within the scheme?

For example, a society is a continuum by which all citizens are measured. By continuum I mean metrics which are created based on the measurement being done. The metric may potentially be infinite (how good is the most good citizen within society?), but its relevancy is based on the measurement done. The measurement, to be on any value, must be definite.

The definition creates the iteration. The definition is like the answer that propels the next question.

In this instance, questions and answers can also refer to a person reading these words. Without any conscious questions, these words are being interpreted by the reader. Doubt can be introduced and re-interpretation (re-schemes) can be applied.

How do we know how to interpret? The answer is self-reflection. We trace the iteration to the scheme to unveil the scheme.

The process of math, for example. Of 2 + 2 = being a scheme that is iterated with the answer 4. Not only is 2 + 2 equal to four, but our interpretation requires that 2 + 2 equal four. This is subtle and controversial. People would say that 2 + 2 being equal to four is not dogma and that we’re not require to accept an answer.

Rather, the result of 2 + 2 being four is based on an interpretation that traces the iteration with a grandeur scheme. For example, 2 + 2 could equal five given certain changes in the scheme. But here the subtle dogma is exposed. We can change the scheme, but we want the scheme that says 2 + 2 equals four.

If, without notice, we introduced a scheme such that 2 + 2 equals five, the interpreter that was not in the know (did not recognize the scheme working properly, meeting their expectation) and did not know that prior to this we had change the rules so that in this case 2 + 2 was equal to five, would have doubts about the interpretation, would think something wrong.

Some interpreter might think

• the author of this is drunk, mistaken, miswrote
• I am reading this wrong or the printers got this wrong
• there is something I am missing

The possible interpretations exist in a continuum but they only exist relative to the definite interpretation that makes one realize that there is a continuum. To doubt the definite interpretation requires self-reflection of what other possible interpretations there are.

When it comes to applying this to our social world, we must have definite reactions to the people we see and the role they occupy in our interpretation of the iteration and the scheme. Our interpretation following the same principles as our actual interpretation: our want for our interpretation, and our expectation of our interpretation based on the dogmatic scheme we interpret as our definite selves.

To be antisocial in our interpretation means to create schemes that self-sustain in our absence while we are within the schemes themselves.

On William James’ Psychology

All of the sudden words become mirrors
You see yourself for the first time in the interpretation of a stranger
A stranger knows you better than yourself
A stranger knows your neighbors better than you do
And all of the sudden the stranger is you
You know yourself better than you did
You know your neighbors better than you did.
Behind you, as you look deep in this mirror
They, you were there all along. Just a little further back than before