Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jochen Weber's avatar

It feels good to see many spirits (minds and hearts) working out this at times devilishly complex seeming puzzle. One piece (or maybe the connection spot of two pieces?) that keeps swirling up in front of my inner eye is the difficulty of calibrating my cross-cultural interpretation of "subliminal cues."

As I (feel that I have) learned from Watzlawick (specifically the bit from his 5 axioms -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watzlawick#Five_basic_axioms -- where he says "one cannot not communicate"): everything a person does, including a "rejection" is a behavior I need to interpret. And how difficult it is to interpret the behaviors of people who come from different cultures.

The "master-protocol built on love" then must accomplish this paradoxical feat: if I imagine becoming proficient in that protocol, I ought to be able to send messages to someone from a different culture (entirely non-proficient in it), and the protocol itself needs to (self-) contain the instructions for how to deduce its structure (and benefit, i.e., value over the existing non-proficiency in the protocol). That seems like a tall order, and indeed maybe that is why it must be built on love, on something *SO UNIVERSAL* that no matter which culture a person comes from, they at the very least recognize that, at its most foundational layer, the protocol speaks to the longing for belonging and love, and not about control or dominance.

Which, as a final point, brings me to "HTTP over TCP" (the transport *CONTROL* protocol)... How much control am I willing to give up and allow the other communication participant to, potentially, upend the apple cart, and waltz unceremoniously (and without apparent protocol) across the room...? Or am I still interested in control (the part of reality that seems somewhat distant from if not orthogonally unintegratible with love...)?

Expand full comment
PunkYogaStar's avatar

🩵 “Love is not just a feeling. It is the underlying design of reality itself: the Logos through which all things hold together.”

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts