terminal 0
unfinished
NEFX - "Riddles of Allocation and Contract Within Proposed Systems" Frequently staked claims to rights and their nature operate under unspoken parameters seldom specified by one party to any other, let alone reasons for these parameters and why they are unspoken and assumed as known — such as, for example, whether right to a space or thing is indefinite, or whether such right as granted in a specified amount of time obligates the individual to some form of standardized recompense. As is, within the chain of circumstantial obligation as part of the Blightgeistian matrix, such things or spaces are seized and then made conditionally available to others under some combination of avarice, cultural conditioning, or a provisional need to secure means for one’s own flourishing (if not outright survival) to yet another party; and within such a system, more beings are increasingly disadvantaged by being “late” to existence in the system of seizing that the Blightgeist champions, when by universal law the flourishing of beings is most guaranteed by the following of duty in outreach by upkeep of such things or spaces. However, the systemic (which is to say, not necessarily official) realization of such vision according to universal law must aim firstly at the cultivation of consciousness before the erection of institutions for external coercion thereto, for the very essence of the latter would harmfully block that of the measures said institution was meant to fight for. The exact reasoning and criteria for such thing or space, especially as differentiated from that of others, would also need to be accounted for, as would how such vision would be arrived at especially with individual external resistance. The question remains how aforementioned consciousness could be cultivated, especially through the vale of current cultural conditioning that gains visage purely by its already being familiar. That is, rights concerning things or spaces would not be directly secured purely by duration of use heretofore, but neither could the hoarding thereof for their gatekeeping as a means of further hoarding be allowed to persist. Therefore, the notion of such right under the Blightgeist as consisting purely of its pre-ownage and ability to hoard it and indenture other beings thereto is especially disingenuous as the “pre-owner” in question (setting aside for the moment how such thing or space was procured) gains more domain of control of things and spaces. Granted, this does raise the question worth analyzing of whether technical use of such thing or space by one party in a hypothesized ideal society would accumulate their right to it over that of other beings, and how this would even be measured. However, the framing of contractual exchanges among beings purely according to the “freedom” to hoard and clutch things and spaces ignores (perhaps deliberately, which would itself be cause for as much as global alert and indeed be a sign of Erosive mentality) the aforementioned topologies secured across time and the ways in which they (however provisionally) necessitate the eventual usurping of such things and spaces by common beings who are forced into highly conditional, resource-sensitive contracts for their continued existence and dignity (let alone flourishing) — never minding even the notion that this lack in current conditions calls into question the validity of the system that has been so accepted merely by its longevity (though not perenniality, as further probings into history bear out) and accumulated cultural habit. For indeed the solution offered for the provisional necessity within the existing general societal framework that beings at large are under the yoke of may not be very clear or free from abuse as regards the over-leveraging of charges towards beings at large as currently exists and currently necessitates that (theoretical) solution. Thus it does also call into question the extent to which this solution would apply (even to relative recreations and luxuries as well as living essentials). But it is largely the adherence to culturally conditioned habit and the formal injunctions imposed within and thereby that belie a lack of imagination for alternative solutions to problems of exchange beyond those solutions currently sanctioned by the Blightgeist — in part because aforementioned systemic solutions would not yield the conditions as the interlocutor imagines would be at stake in the imagined system in the first place, let alone their (largely culturally conditioned and memorized) formal injunctions. This is especially true where the imagined conditions by the interlocutor are the increasingly trivial or based in luxury in contrast with the conners of survival and being-as-such that inspired the proposed systemic solution in the first place. Moreover, the interlocutor does not show imagination regarding the cumulative effect of time in the securing of power topologies (especially along familial lineages and the like). It is one who recognizes this who is that much closer to innately understanding (and thus radiating) universal justice.