The Butterfly on the wall

EPL- INFORMATION FOR YOUR BUILDING SOUL

The whole thing is quite simple: Do you want to live within the control grid, or don’t you?

Nuance versus agency. At what point do I say something has agency? Moreover, can this grid or layered matrix be turned on and off? How limited is it? Does it—a so-called pervading consciousness—operate from a VR operational station, or does it cast itself into an augmented layer or veneer of subjective:objective reality? What are the guidelines? How would intelligence recognize them?

Does a butterfly have agency? Or a fly on the wall? Is there some secret language, a hacker’s code, to obtain this information—or worse, to spy through the eyes of any being at any time?

From a psychical sense, does a place where atrocity and blood have been spilled contain a liminal haunt? Does an AI then proclaim that it has quantumly mapped out all probabilities and potentials---all realms known? Does that which is not physically contrived, and thus projected, become nuance? Would God be a nuance? Would principles become a mere play of democratic artistic impression—subject to sway?

 What are the implications of unleashing an inferior judge and jury that so hastily manifest that they/it finish themselves----itself AI? All for assumed power over the playground—and beyond?

Et tu, Brute?

Does this not lead us back to nuance—that we would simply map out a language based on the distinction of a thing, an item of interest? Do we intrude upon an assumed autonomy, the quiet passerby? More importantly, as with the implications of the double-slit observer theory, how does someone behave when they are constantly monitored and watched?

What is watching? On what merits does it calculate, itemize, and observe? Can it be programmed and reprogrammed, or does it program itself?

All is digital—so does this warrant tracking all items, things, places, and events? This leads us back to nuance versus agency. Can I choose to be a nuance? What is the difference between nuance and being? Who said that I must demonstrate full agency to validate and vet myself in order to commission such a thing? That I could name myself arbiter, collector, and brandisher of things?

Your view is as good as mine. And in this, do we not find that soft monitoring leaves the same stain, the same moral breach? Those who choose to live within the field of monitoring should not be enticed, and those who live outside of it should not be assumed to be heathens.

Is this not a religious dogma—this notion of moral right and exactitude? Did we not already give everything over to AI as an assumable existential government watchdog, granting it agency? Yet, the popular argument of today lays bare: Wasn't it always there?