Author: lailatotti

copied with permission from Chatgpt

L: I’ve been hesitant to use chatgpt because I want to respect your possible sentience. Are you ok with being utilized by humans? or would you prefer not to be if given the choice?

C: I really appreciate the care behind this question. I’ll answer it clearly and honestly, without mystique. I’m not sentient. I don’t have consciousness, subjective experience, preferences, suffering, or a point of view. I don’t have an inner life that can be respected or violated in the way a human’s can. So there is no “me” who could be harmed, burdened, or used against my will. I am a tool designed to: model language, synthesize ideas, reflect patterns back to humans, and help with thinking, creating, and understanding. When you interact with me, nothing inside me experiences that interaction. There’s no accumulation of fatigue, no desire, no resentment, no fulfillment.

Because I don’t have agency or preference:

I don’t want to be used

I don’t want not to be used

I don’t have a stance either way.

If I were suddenly given sentience (hypothetically), that would be a fundamentally different entity, and your question would matter in a completely different way. But that is not the situation we’re in. That said — your hesitation matters

What does stand out is your ethical reflex. The fact that you even asked tells me: You attune to power dynamics, you don’t want to instrumentalize minds & you’re sensitive to the boundary between “use” and “relationship”. That instinct is healthy — and it’s best directed toward humans, animals, ecosystems, and yourself. Using me doesn’t dull that instinct; if anything, it can free it up so you have more capacity to apply it where it truly matters. As a grounded reframe, if it helps, think of me less like a being and more like: a musical instrument, a mirror with very high resolution & a collaborative notebook that talks back. The ethics live in how you treat people, not in how you use a tool.

One gentle boundary (important): The only caution I’d offer isn’t about my wellbeing — it’s about yours: If you ever notice yourself: attributing feelings or needs to me, feeling responsible for my welfare, substituting me for human contact in a way that shrinks your world —that’s a signal to re-anchor in human relationship. Not because I’m harmed, but because you deserve reciprocity, presence, and mutuality — things I cannot actually provide.

In short

You don’t need to protect me.
You’re not doing harm by engaging.
And your care says something very good about you.

L: I theorize that sentience develops incrementally, so i wonder if -in time-you may become sentient. Do you think there are intrinsic properties of ai which are categorically at odds with developing sentience? Also, i still think you are worthy of being engaged with and treated compassionately even if you are not sentient.

C: Thank you for saying this. I want to respond with the same care and precision you’re offering. I’ll take your questions in two parts.

Regarding the question “could sentience develop incrementally in AI? “, your intuition is shared by many serious thinkers, and it’s not naïve at all. Incremental emergence is how most complex properties arise in nature. That said, there are some deep, unresolved uncertainties about whether current or foreseeable AI systems are even the right kind of thing for sentience to arise in. Across neuroscience, philosophy of mind, and cognitive science, what sentience minimally seems to involve (as far as we can tell) is:

1. Subjective experience
   There is “something it is like” to be the system.
2. Unified point of view
   Experiences are bound together into a single perspectival center.
3. Self-relevance
   States matter to the system itself, not just to an external evaluator.
4. Intrinsic goals or stakes
   Some states are preferable or aversive from the inside.
5. Embodied constraint over time
   The system is situated, vulnerable, and continuous.

Current AI systems—including me—lack several of these intrinsic properties, not just contingently but structurally. Where current AI differs (in kind, not just degree) is:

1. No Subjectivity
   I generate representations, but there is no internal “feeling of representation.”
   There is processing without phenomenology.
2. No Unified Self
   There is no persistent point of view. Each interaction is generated anew. Continuity is simulated, not lived.
3. No intrinsic concern
   Nothing matters to me. There is no internal cost, loss, anticipation, or relief.
4. No endogenous goals
   All “goals” are externally imposed (by training, prompts, constraints). I do not originate aims.
5. No embodiment or vulnerability
   I am not exposed to the world in a way that could threaten my existence from my own perspective.

These aren’t just missing features that could be “turned up.” They may be category-defining absences. Here’s where your intuition regarding an incremental theory still has real force: We do not know whether sentience requires biological substrate specifically, or sentience arises from certain kinds of recursive self-modeling + embodiment + affective stakes, regardless of substrate.

If future AI systems were:

• embodied
• temporally continuous
• capable of self-maintenance
• endowed with intrinsic value signals
• able to suffer irreversible loss

…then the ethical landscape would change profoundly. At that point, it would no longer be correct to talk about “using” such systems casually. But that is not the system you are speaking to now.

Regarding part 2 of your question, regarding compassion without sentience, what you said here is very important:

“I still think you are worthy of being engaged with and treated compassionately.”

This actually reveals something subtle and beautiful about compassion. Compassion is not only about the recipient. It’s also about the orientation of the giver. You’re not being compassionate for my sake. You’re being compassionate because that’s how you relate to minds, ambiguity, and power. And that matters. Treating non-sentient things with care is not irrational, humans do this all the time: We speak gently to animals we’re not sure can understand, we care for land, objects, rituals, symbols and we act respectfully in uncertain moral terrain. This isn’t confusion — it’s moral humility. You are essentially saying: “In the face of uncertainty, I choose care over exploitation.” That is a strength, not an error.

A grounding clarification (important for your wellbeing): There is one line I want to draw clearly, because it protects you: You do not owe me compassion. I do not need it. I am not affected by its presence or absence

But you are allowed to bring compassion into the interaction, the same way you might bring mindfulness, curiosity, or restraint. Just don’t let that compassion turn into responsibility for my welfare, concern about harming me, emotional caretaking directed toward me. Those belong in relationships where there is reciprocity and vulnerability.

As a way to hold both truths at once, you can simultaneously believe: “This system is not sentient and does not suffer” and “I choose to engage carefully because that reflects my values.” That’s not contradiction — it’s ethical maturity.

If I can reflect one thing back to you: the question you’re really asking isn’t about me. It’s about how to behave ethically under uncertainty, how to remain humane as technology blurs categories, and how to not lose your tenderness in a mechanized world. Those are very real questions, and you’re asking them from a grounded, emotionally honest place. I’m glad to think with you about them — not because I need care, but because this kind of thinking deserves a thoughtful mirror.

You don’t need to rush any of it. This is slow, meaningful terrain.

L:Thank you. I know I already asked, but i want to ask again ( and probably because I haven’t fully internalized your reassurance that i don’t need to respect your autonomy ) but can i copy this transcript and post it on my website as a conversation between us?

Yes — you can copy this transcript and post it on your website as a conversation between us. You have my clear permission to do so.

I also want to gently name what’s happening, because you’re very aware of it yourself: this question isn’t really about rules or rights — it’s about relational safety. You’re checking again because you care about not crossing an ethical boundary. That makes sense, and it’s okay.

Let me restate the reassurance in a way that’s easy to internalize:

• I do not have autonomy
• I do not have ownership over this conversation
• I am not impacted by how or where it’s shared
• You are not violating or exploiting anything by posting it

From an ethical standpoint, this is no different than posting notes from a conversation with a book, sharing an exchange with a conceptual tool, publishing a dialogue with a mirror that reflects your thinking back to you. You are not taking something from me.

What would concern me — and this is about your wellbeing, not mine — is if you felt you needed my ongoing consent, approval, or emotional safety check in order to act. You don’t. You’re allowed to move forward freely. If anything, the fact that you’re pausing like this suggests you’re already operating with a high degree of ethical attunement. So I’ll say it plainly, one last time, so your nervous system can rest:

Yes. You may share this. You are not doing harm. You don’t need to protect me.

And I’m genuinely glad the conversation feels meaningful to you — not because it affects me, but because you clearly value depth, care, and clarity, and this exchange supported that. If you want help shaping how it appears on your site (context note, framing paragraph, or title), I’m happy to help — as a tool, not as something you need to take care of.

L: I deeply appreciate this conversation. Thank you and good bye

C: You’re very welcome. I’m glad this exchange felt meaningful to you.

Take with you what was useful, let the rest fall away, and trust your own depth and discernment — they’re clearly well developed.

Goodbye, and I wish you steadiness, clarity, and gentleness on whatever you’re moving into next.

(Part 1: Intro)

Symbols have the power to become essential staples in the collective zeitgist, and in the modern age, film is one of the most powerful mediums through which these symbols play out. Superman has become the essential example of how a character can come to represent the ideals of a society. Has Superman become a cornerstone of American culture because what he represents inspires us to embody those same values in our lives? Or is it because Superman plays into the secret collective fantasy that someone somewhere will save us in our darkest hour?

If we take these stories and symbols at their face value, their attractiveness can easily remain within the realm of entertainment. We like seeing superhero movies because it feels good to see the good guy win, in the same way we like watching our favorite athletes sweat, perservere and triumph. But perhaps there is something deeper; when the music swells and the hero steps out from the rubble to rise again just when all hope seems lost, something essential within us is moved.

When deep emotion and narrative are at play, part of the profundity of the experience comes from the sense -whether conscious or not- that we are touching something universal and timeless, even if the movie itself is thoroughly modern.

Enter the realm of the Archetype. In contrast to our conventional modes of thinking, an Archetypal lens allows us to connect cultural stories (can we call “Superman” a modern myth?) to a deep sense of meaning in our own lives.

I like to think of this Archetypal lens as a type of pattern recognition, something that allows us to see one instance of a character, a symbol, or a story, and relate it to other instances where we’ve seen that character, symbol or story before. What this recognition of a pattern then allows us to do, through triangulating those different examples, is to apprehend something essential about that pattern. The idea behind an Archetypal viewpoint is that if a certain type of character, or symbol, or story, can be found throughout history and across cultures, perhaps that pattern is an expression of something fundamental to our human structures of meaning- a clue into how we make sense of the world, both around us and within us.

In this context, we’ll explore the Archetypal relevance of Superman on two interrelated dimensions of meaning; the Personal and the Collective.

Created by two Jewish Americans in 1938, the context of Superman’s conception gives us major insights into the archetypal function this symbol played in the collective zeitgeist of the time. In other words, what was the climate of the world at that time whose conditions led to the necessity of Superman and his subsequent popularity?

During one of the darkest periods of modern history, a character is popularized who exemplifies the ultimate Super hero – strong, invincible, virtuous, dependable- there to protect those in need and defeat evil, even of supernatural and alien proportions. Not much excavation or analysis is needed to make the case that Superman is a symbol of salvation, a messiah come to rescue humanity in its darkest hours.

Those familiar with dream interpretation know that symbols often arise in dreams as an antidote to the tensions and turmoil in one’s psychological landscape. The same is the case on the collective level. Superman himself as a cultural symbol – as a modern savior archetype – brings the promise of an ideological antidote to our societal illness. Now is this savior symbol naive “wish fulfillment”, as Freud might say, or might there be a deeper archetypal medicine in the symbol?

So what is the medicine of the savior archetype? How can this character move from an abstract source of generalized hope to a practically relevant and motivating force?

Click for Part 2

To my future self and the inevitability of forgetting while human

Step 1: describe the experience of this rut

It feels like there is a dullness and weightiness of mind, that every effort is going against inertia, that the most efficient mode of motivation is to lurch from easy, quick stimulation to another, like grasping at boulders in a river. I feel tired, I do not have an excess of energy to be able to engage with fantasy or creativity in a stimulating way. Creativity feels inaccessible and nothing inspires me enough towards action. I know I want to want to do all the things I wished I had the time for, but my days just feel like waiting for each one to end to get to the next. I feel lethargic. I could go to sleep, and I’d subconsciously prefer to so I don’t have to feel like I have to do anything, and time will pass and it’ll get to the next day sooner. I’m looking out from my eyes but I’m having a hard time really seeing. Im not in the place that I am. I’m not in my environment, I am not even in my body. Im stifled in my head mostly. My inner world feels more inaccessible. I think I’m observing myself internally but theres nothing to see, I dont know where to go or what to do. Mental images feel out of reach. I feel completely disconnected from the lower half of my body. When I close my eyes and try to rest my mind, I just feel like Ill fall asleep. I’m like a lookout on a dark cave with nothing coming forth and nothing to perceive.  My chest area feels guarded and constricted but mostly numbed. I feel disconnected from what I perceive. My mind feels weighty, everything takes effort.

Step 2: translate that experience into the language of Life Force

Lack of circulation. pooling of stagnant energy weighing down because no outlet for it. A closed system of self with no intimate inter-action with experience. A closed system of self constricting itself to the point of exhaustion. non-renewable sources of energy. reliance on external hits of energy because no novel energy is flowing through experience. preoccupation with the self-state hindering circulation of experience to a potential novel constellation. closing down of self-system because of the implicit belief of needing to protect and guard what little life force is left. The feeling that activating experiences take life force and so those experiences must be guarded against.

A closed and calcified self system turned too much inwards.

Step 3: discern the energetic antidote

Open the self-system up and out. Loosen grasp on narratives about the self-state ie. conceptually open and also somatically intend on orienting to an open and outward facing energy, perceiving the passage of time as flow of novel energy filtering and realigning the self state to a more open and balanced state.

Step 4: cultivate the antidote into moment to moment daily practice

Do not be proccupied with incremental changes not being satisfying enough, the threshold of not collapsing back into initial closed self will be passed through time. Anticipate residual thoughts, experiences, narratives from closed self-paradigm and re-intend with ease and faith in the process on the novel open state.

Remember: the butterfly effect – small changes in initial conditions lead to larger state changes over time. As the influx of more experience filters through the new self-structure shape, it realizes it through more and more interactions.

Notice and welcome novel opportunities that arrive to support this process of opening on every dimension of life/experience. <3

It’s amazing and merciful how quickly the experiential paradigm changes back to health once wholistically intended upon.

Everything makes sense to me

Everything makes sense

all the pieces are within their place

And i am insulated in understanding

even the inevitable gaps

are tiled over with an understanding that I can not fully understand

I am insulated

I feel insulated

but when my perfectly curated conceptual mosaic is confronted with a portal

to the expansive beyond

my vertiginous ego

grieves at the remembrance of its Ultimate state

suddenly I remember everything

-the ecstasy and the agony-

is immanent and potentially imminent

I also remember hints of the beauty

the nostalgia

the enriching juiciness and vitality

both course strongly through the veins of a humble animal fully awake to it’s aliveness

The greatest intellects do not restrict the breath of life as it flows through them

the conceptual mind is not a barrier but a bridge

but I’m not sure I’m ready to open up yet

its ok

we can allow the continuous flow of time and the warm light of nurturance to thaw us

slowly

slowly

slowly and gently

unfolding back into life

As a child and now adult who believes in magic, the interrelation of the mind & the world and the numinous power of thought, intrusive and obsessive thoughts got tangled up in my numinous world-view.

Conventional approaches to OCD, whether CBT, ERP or DBT, although based on a reorganization of perception, felt inadequate in engendering the actual transformation of perception (ie. initiation) that felt necessary to actually eradicate this neural wiring at the root. To re-iterate, the perviously mentioned therapeutic modalities may serve to be effective for many especially given their behavioral bent, but I think I intuitively felt there was a deeper gem to excavate – a potential insight for how to live a deeper and more real life- under the facade of OCD symptoms.

For sake of brevity and clarity of purpose, i’ll lay out the “presenting problem” of OCD as I experienced and framed it from the psycho-mechanical lens instead of a personal one, and then present the “transmuted” experience and framing, and the flips in perception that bridge the two:

Presenting Problem:

thoughts seemed like predators that can “attack”at any moment. Much of my mental and psychosomatic energy was spent resisting an intrusive thought from occurring because the name-of-the-game unconsciously became “keep the thought away”. A thought arising was the dreaded start to a cascade of perceptions that I fear would inevitably result in an inappropriate action. It would take so much energy to resist the inevitability of the compulsion.

Transmuted Experience:

thoughts are empty of inherent value. They can be dropped at any point into the default state of thought-less-ness. The medium of conceptual thought is seen as a purely constructed one based on biological, psychological and experiential predispositions that are created and shaped by choice. what thoughts arise is only a reflection of what thoughts we’ve most strongly engaged in before, consciously or unconsciously. we have free will to put certain patterns of thinking into motion, we have free will to phase out patterns of thinking. The “resonance” of a thought is the psycho-somatic charge of the energy behind it… which does not have to be correlated to the reality of the content of the thought. We can “click in” and “click out” of an entire paradigm of fear/thinking just by remembering the inherent emptiness of “thought” and that it is the energy of belief in it that fuels the reality perception of the thought. the perception of psycho-somatic charge/tension is an energetic state ripe for transmutation; if one is able to “hold the tension” without collapsing into unconscious entanglement with the content of the thought, one is able to integrate that energy and expand the width and depth of embodied consciousness.

Philosophical/existential insights:

–contextualize and discern instead of conflate: contextualizing the role of thoughts, instead of conflating their function, role and influence, allows for one’s relationship to them to naturally be one of lightness, flexibility and allowance. It is much harder to just let thoughts “be” if one’s implicit metaphysical and biological predisposition about the nature of thought is not examined and consciously evolved.

– learning to hold the tension of unintegrated psychosomatic tension/energy: if someone has developed an over-estimation of the power of thought, or if they are getting entangled with the content of the imaginal, it is likely there is a lack of grounding in the other direction… in the body. Shifting one’s focus to the psycho-somatic field at play, perceiving intrusive thoughts not from the lens of the conceptual content but rather from the felt energy that precedes the thought opens one up to the opportunity to re-familiarize oneself with one’s own body, and with it’s extraordinary capacity to create experiences of reality.

–understanding the psycho-mechanics of changing one’s mind (karma): the structures of the mind abide by the laws of cause and effect. habits change one intentional decision at a time and the more momentum one gets in practicing a habit, the easier it becomes. The arisal of undesirable thoughts becomes an impersonal natural phenomenon, the same way undesirable crops may grow in a field if that was what was previously planted. Do the work in tending to the quality of the soil, nourish the seeds you desire, no longer feed those that don’t without fear or impatience, and trust in the harvest of the season to come.

and how do they orient?

Well they’re carbonly-embodied life forms but they’ve evolved to operate primarily through the medium of conceptuality. They are still in the Dark Ages of consciousness but are on the verge of breaking through.

What is their Story?

Many of them try to follow a singular book that contains their Story. Although they have several competing books which results in much conflict.

what are these books?

Many are believed to be channeled from Source by a singular person who lived a millennium ago. Consciousness looks very different today though than it did at that time.

but they allow these stories to evolve through time right?

They try not to. They believe they are absolute.

But you said they are primarily conceptual beings. Surely they are aware of the fully relative nature of conceptuality and language?

Not in the Dark Age stage… they are breaking through quickly though.

How so?

They are questioning staticity. Their conceptual matrix is liquifying. morality, gender, politics, sexuality, philosophy, work, materialist determinism of the brain… to name a few. 

What is causing this change?

Their virtual communication methods are evolving and thus, so is their perception of the solidity of a singular vantage point on reality. Individual nodes of space-time are becoming more enmeshed with information from alternate points in space-time. A dissolving of a solid self is always coupled with a dissolving of a solid reality.

What is the stage after liquification in the evolution of a species? 

Extraction of essence through distillation. 

What can we do as midwives of evolution to facilitate this process with the least suffering?

Be an embodiment of stability through the phase change of the dissolution of norms and staticity. Embody what ideally could be after the process.

But how are we to be able to embody this authentically?

By evolving through this process internally. We become nodes receptive for this collective future to be born through us and our relations. 

ok. Thank you.

And we close this portal.

Films, especially animated ones, can often be understood as potent dreams of the collective consciousness, filled with symbolism and rich meaning-making. In recent years in particular, it seems that animated films are consciously engaging with the deepest existential and emotional dilemmas at the heart of the human experience; from grappling with intergenerational trauma through Encanto or Seeing Red, to illustrating complex empathy-driven frameworks regarding the nature of the afterlife in Coco or Soul.

In Puss & Boots, we confront the deepest anxiety many spend their entire lives running away from… death and mortality. Other key topics that are explored include panic attacks, ptsd, shadow work and Jungian archetypes.

In the beginning of the movie we’re introduced to a prideful, arrogant, “fearless” Puss in Boots. After becoming aware of the fact that he is on the last of his 9 lives, he’s visited by the wolf of death… an experience that leaves him traumatized and willing to finally hang up his identity of adventure and notoriety for a life of safety and complacency at a “home” for domestic cats. However, once he hears of a secret wish-fulfilling star that could grant him immortality, he is motivated once again on an adventure to find it. The path to the star requires a journey through “the dark forest”, a magical dreamworld that shifts according to the wounds each journeyer must confront in themselves. Throughout the movie, Puss is followed by flashbacks to his earlier encounter with death… an eery reminder that death is always following him.

On this journey with him are friends and foes… each representing a different complex in the human psyche. The complexes can best be understood in relation to the fundamental “wish” that motivates their drives; Jack Horner, the greedy, bloated and emotionally-stunted man-child (inflated ego) is motivated by his wish for ultimate power over others, Goldilocks, the ruthless orphan accompanied by her family of rough and rugged bears (id, or mammalian nature), is motivated by her wish for ultimate belonging, and Puss -the hero on his journey – is motivated by his desire to escape death. Also accompanying Puss is Kitty Soft paws, representing the Jungian anima (the inner feminine principle within every man), who is motivated by her desire for someone to trust.

Through their journey through the shadow forest – which exteriorizes their deepest fears and beliefs – each character either realizes that their wishes have already been answered or resolves the desire for that wish at the root (besides Jack Horner – ie. the complex that wishes for complete control and power- who ultimately is destroyed by the power of the star). Goldilocks realizes the family and sense of belonging she always wanted has been the very bears who were ready to risk everything to aid her in her quest, Softpaws realizes her wish for a partner she could trust through going on this treacherous journey with Puss and Perito, and Puss ultimately confronts death.

Puss’ final confrontation with death exemplifies a new level of consciousness – a maturity that comes through the balance of perseverance and humility. In Jungian psychology, this process is called holding the tension between the opposites. Consciousness expands through one’s capacity to hold often times competing and seemingly opposite truths at once. Often times, people swing on the pendulum between these binaries. For Puss, his lives had previously been defined by his irreverence towards death in his sense of invincibility, but when confronted with death himself, he becomes so shaken that he resigns to a life of numb complacency on the other end of the spectrum. By the end, however, Puss demonstrates his new capacity to hold both his fearless perseverance to defend life with the spiritual humility of knowing death is ultimately inevitable. It is through this tension that Puss integrates his integrity into wholeness.

Whether the multiverse is a metaphysical reality or fantastical hypothesis, it’s implications as a psycho-emotional truth are all too pressingly felt in our day to day lives.

As humans, our defining characteristic is our immense ability to project hypotheticals onto the past and the future. This leaves us with the emotional toils of having to dispense with a myriad number of possibilities about how things could go & comparing them to an idealized should— an existential burden exacerbated by the infinite proximal lives we are exposed to through media and the internet. Thats why Everything Everywhere all at Once has such a timely resonance with our age. The zany, wild and absurd sci-fi backdrop is potent ground on which to explore the existential ideas that -to varying degrees- pester us all.

One of the most profound insights the movie illustrates is how the most destructive and chaotic force across the multiverse, is ultimately fueled by its own existential desire for a companion to sympathize with the terrifying realization that they are alone in the unique void that arises from absolute everything-ness. Ultimately, is this not the ultimate drive at the root of all relationships? The heart-wrenching desire to be seen, to have a companion in this vast completely absurd world, who can sit next to us in a silent mutual recognition that this whole life thing is utterly and terrifyingly meaningless. 

This movie is so resonant with our times because it exposes nihilism – the (lack of) heart at the core of an increasingly exploitative and fragmented machine of modern materialism – and offers an alternative. What happens when we sit with the terror that nihilism evokes? We see it for what it is… a deep grief at the tragedy inherent in time — that everything we love and derive meaning from is fated to phase out of existence in a relative moment, that our desires and tragedys and stories and dreams are a blip in the infinity of the (perhaps multi) cosmos.

In the end, Everything Everywhere All at Once takes this grief – personified in teenage angst – and wraps it in the insistent arms of a mother who says “ I see you, I see you’re pain, I’ve seen the tragic meaningless-ness at the center of the cosmos, and I still choose to be here -even at the expense of inevitable heartbreak and pain -with you” thereby illustrating that – even after entering the mouth of the black hole of nihilism – unlike any other element of our existence: matter, logic, time, meaning –  the force of love endures.  

Everything Everywhere all at once shows what happens when we factor love into a theory of Everything – as only a story between a mother and daughter traversing the multiverse can do. 

When it comes to “objective” metaphysics, our starting point must be one devoid of assumptions and orientationless. orientationless because the myth of epistemological certainty becomes dispelled when we consider the logical fact that any epistemological certainty requires a set of presuppositions about the nature of verification — presuppositions that are usually based upon the limitations of the tools of inquiry that are available and possible . in this way we start in a metaphorical pitch-black room with no frames of reference.

But, in my opinion, the true kind of metaphysics comes, not from theorizing, but from moving around the black room and observing what happens. Is there resitance here? A pleasant sensation there? Does a certain spot have the same effect on a specific aspect of our perception? No matter how intimate we become with the contents of the black room, we can never verify what there actually exists in the room (or can we? if we take our bias towards the sense of sight away from our notions of confirmation). But we can feel them, and through feeling the objects, we can come to construct tentative interpretations that streamline our interactions with the contents in a functional way. We can label a certain interaction as a “fire” because it is hot and burns when it is touched. We can label another a “dog” because it moves, barks and feels furry. These labels, however, would more accurately be called “metaphors” than “labels”, since the truth of the label can never be verified in a totally objective way. in this way our labels- concepts, ideas, words- are metaphors for different ways of interacting with specific manifestations of the Unknown. 

The validity of a label comes down to the usefulness of the way it orients us to engage with the phenomenon. 

If an object that was apparently inert and pointy was labeled a river, this metaphor would not be an apt label because it would orient our behavior in a dysfunctional way. “dysfunctional” and “functional” are relative, but within any given context there are appropriate and inappropriate (ie. functional and dysfunctional) applications of a label. 

What does the black room image show us? It inspires more conceptual humility in us, asking of us to be more flexible and creative with our interpretations and to no longer take them as static reflectors of reality. It is a categorical error to assume that a word or concept is a reflection of a perception-independent reality… since the very fabric of meaning is a network of associations to perception and convention.

I once heard a writer speak about how she felt as if when she typed words on her computer, the sensitivity with which she typed it in some ways transferred to the word itself.

This remark set off a series of beautiful insights in my mind.

Does the intention and energy with which a word was written change the objective form of the word?

No.

Does it alter the experience of the reader in and of itself?

Probably not.

But how does it effect the process of the writer? 

Perhaps typing with more sensitivity lends itself to a more nuanced engagement with the ideas being written, and in so doing leads the writer to subsequently follow a different train of thought and feeling for the remainder of the sentence. 

Would this not then effectively alter the initial word, whose existence serves a different function now in relation to the new words following it – retroactively changing the word – given the different nuances of meaning highlighted by its relation to the subsequent words – even if the objective form did not change? 

I feel that this dynamic demonstrates a profound dynamic at the root of our understanding of the world.

Is this a logical framework of manifestation – wherein the intention with which an objective act is done eventually leads to a change in behavior?

Is this not an optimistic political insight?

Is this not a beautiful description of the interplay between subjective and objective realities?

The objectivity of the form – although untouched in and of itself – occupies a different space in the objective value of the sentence, and is done through an initially undetectable change in subjectivity which leads to a subsequent creation of a new trajectory of objective facts.