“Yes” and “No” most likely have stayed the same meaning from the time they originated, perhaps even before each of their record.
That is correct or will do. Yes. That is not correct or will not do. No. Whatever language spoken, I must suppose both exist to communicate their polar contraries.
However, the guarantee of what we are saying “yes” or “no” to- is there a universally contractual agreement, finitely granted, as to the constant and exact meaning of each?
What, thus, do we say “yes” to and what, thus, have we said “no” to has to suggest that of which is correct or we oblige to do versus that of which is incorrect or resistant or unable to do.
Are we not conditionally aimed to see presently before us, but with only time permitting do we actually then begin to see what we’ve answered to?
Has there been an instance where our yeses and nos were reversed in meaning based off our actions? At what point had we changed our mind to where what we then did was contrary to what we said we would?
Has there been times where regret followed after time was given to ponder or reflect upon our willingness or non-willingness? While we are grateful to have arrived at a worthy gamble of a decision several steps back, do we position ourselves to risk facing irreversible errors just for that chance to get something right?
No matter how we might think of us, we keep going and growing. We were meant to not just reproduce, but produce.
Before some of us could arrive to understand APP as applications yet alone what that all meant, we had to get in the program to professionally, if not, personally benefit or take advantage of its rapid development.
Since “Snake” got most of us going or checking it out, have applications stopped since?
It seems in terms of innovations, we give yeses to anything new or uniquely different. Our minds, desensitized by the ordinary which perhaps, ironically, may have all been at first seemingly extraordinary, hunger and thirst for the newer and better.
We create. We see what the other person is making and think to do better so we create some more. Here come the cereal aisle that has run out of room to display all options. Where may we find more of what we cannot seem to satisfactorily find? The www which interestingly was also created to provide an expansive room for communication. Surely we find the rest there amongst the growing choices of sites just waiting to be delivered from awaiting drop-shipping warehouses.
Are our desires, our dissatisfactions, commensurate to our needs?
Are we not satisfied with us, each other, and our doings? Are we simply just running a race to see who wins at the end?
What end?
Have we individually been driven to improve within a multifaceted spectrum by the very likings of our own desires and dissatisfactions?
To humor, are we cereal options? Yes. I meant cereal. There, right there, I have to silently laugh. Silly and perhaps absurd, but allow me to analogically address.
I think hard and I think deep. Whereas men courted women between a handful of men, today, both sides may find themselves being challenged by bots neither can tell are real. To be “catfished” can only be testified as real by those having experienced such entrapment.
At first there were two. Me. You. Now, we have become plenty. Known personally, locally, or worldwide, essentially the cover outside of each of us only tells of what may be fundamentally found individually inside.
While some of us have stayed and remained the original oatmeal or cream of wheat, the rest of us have gone for the growing list of cereal options. Some without sugar; some with. Some with a great consumption of sugar; some with artificial sweeteners or substitutes claiming to provide the same taste. Some nutty; some not at all. Some fruitful, some whole grain. Some where the cover is to entice; some where, while exteriorly simple, becomes actually quite the best to ever find of its kind.
Has the insatiable likeness grown within each of us? Are we temporarily saying yes to now while still searching, leaving us each dissatisfied with what the world has already arrived to?
We buy into something only to discover it’s not what we had hoped. Was that the case or did we just find ourselves all of a sudden wanting more than what we at first thought would be enough? If all things created were to look back at us just the same, in retrospect, who will have bought into us to think, “Yes. You are the one?”
For how long?
While searching, have we said yes only to what’s around us until a definite yes awaits for something better?
Is there such? A finite yes from one who searches and searches some more?
Could we arrive to create perfection to our liking to match our very own selections?
If we are not able, do we then create such “intelligence” to find such for us? Do we say “yes” to the thought or making? Have we already? Yes? No? Yes?
Let us entertain the very thought of such perfection to our desired input. If we were to create intellects perfected to our liking in every way, would that necessitate to include such intellects to see the same perfection in us, programmable to believe so?
When created into perfection, would that not be the all-knowing? Perfected, would not the all-knowing, thus, understand flaws, our flaws to include? And if programmed to like or accept our flaws, what would then be the essence of perfection? To accept us beyond our imperfections, forgive us for them, and even so, see us as perfect nonetheless? What clause or criteria would we need to assure is programmed within each motherboard to clarify this disclarity?
What is it would we then be asking?
We are at the open level of creating mechanisms to have functionalities that can conveniently serve us to our perfected desires. From what I enthrall myself to read about, we only keep going.
We seemingly want to make something like us, but to our seeming dissatisfaction of who or what we have become, we seek to make better of the very us we are. Yes?
If we are to arrive at driverless cars, when should we then anticipate the eventuality of pilotless planes?
You think not? Do we not already have trains with no conductors? Manless submarines? Do we not have drones at the size of our palms performing reconnaissance duties?
I have read that developments of tactical uniforms can determine, locate, and perform healing in bodily areas hit during conflict. If this has yet to be, is this not just for the moment until so?
I have read, and thus, always embrace, that we are being listened to simply from the “bouncing off” of our voices from even just a bag of chips on the table. Did we not quickly evolve into Bluetooth devices pushing beyond what may have provided best effectiveness yesterday?
I spoke of invisible cloaks which was drawn under the idea of chameleons reflecting its color from the sun like a mirror. I am supposing someone out there has thought to quantumly merge nano bots to infinitely reflect decillion or so colors automatically reflecting from light. I suppose colors, giving differing temperatures of heat, would come into play as messengers. Someone out there has time.
Let’s not forget the bugs and birds I have heard to mimic real ones out there, to your belief that they are just like any breathing ones known to us before. To decompose or not (fully) decompose, I talk to both either way. I suppose both kinds are observably listening nonetheless.
We are innovators greatly pushed by the human race worldwide. Race. That which is denoted as competition to see which is the fastest in covering a set course. Is this not the real race?
We are remarkable beyond our understanding and yet, we express dissatisfaction of our very being, wanting to not duplicate, but replicate us to something… better?
While virologists are trying to be ahead of finding the next virus like lightning chasers, there are those who think to create a propulsion that has the ability to push its way through a vacuum without the aid of gas fuel. Why? To eventually escape this place and be somewhere else… better?
How far will our yeses go before nos take over? To a point where our own creations will historically be seen as a mystery as to how they were ever made? And yet, somehow, we will be nowhere to exist to explain how?
When I see my children, when I look at my students, I see each one as the next big thing. I don’t know what each may be, but I see greatest potential in each of them.
Being a young mother at first, I see now I was afraid for each of my children to face disappointment only because I was experientially and consequently taught under such conditions.
I see now the mind is bigger than the environment and where there is resilience, determination, drive, and self-belief, there are great things to come about.
The conundrum? Does one know when to ever stop fighting their own resistance?
The solution? The conundrum.
Evolution. We evolve for solutions.
As I have tried to always calm the very nerves of the many who find math to be most complex, I own that with them. I also point out, however, there are no true master mathematicians to be found.
There are still math problems yet to be solved like its own disease. How can we suggest mastery if we have yet unsolved equations or unproven solutions? Truth. I teach mathematics. I’m no mathematician. Someone out there has time.
While our steps seemingly are small, think how quickly we have already evolved.
How is it that even creators of their own findings back away and suggest we have gone too far and they want nothing more to do with what has been created?
Even those who create grow in fear of what has been created.
There are those who create who rightfully should hold the intellectual properties. Then, there are those who have the means to exponentially fund potential creations and thus, have a say on how much creation they want to forego.
As many misinterpretations should be embraced to have occurred since the times of Babel, I differ in comprehending the becoming cliche, “money is the root of all evil”. Those who have money would, I would think, suggest money has many roots, that of one perhaps leading to evil. Yes? If money were just a root itself, would it not have been snipped off long ago? Anyone to make such suggestion anytime soon or ever?
Does not money provide many great roots to endless gateways of opportunities? One can only be creative until funded to make true to existence. Yes?
The problem with creativity is that it feels to implode if not shared. When the mind is passionate about something, the only next move is to “pass” “I” “on”. Passion is this euphonically heard, entertainingly seen, amorously smelled, voraciously tasted, and enamorously (adverb not yet added into the dictionary) felt.
There are the creators. Then, there are those who see bigger and want more out of what is being created.
Someone once told me there is a lot of money wagering in invisible cloaks. I smile to think perhaps it has already been created, but why tell? Do not the invisible want to remain so without anyone else knowing?
Interestingly, the unnamed, unheard of, unfounded creators of such create for those who seek to be, in its greatest irony, invisible.
We will alter until what we will arrive to as finally the priceless intellects will eventually be deemed hardly a worthy price. Supply and demand will take into play until the equilibrium price will hardly be a price to pay at all.
This is what we do. We say yes until we say no. We do this until even our own creations will learn to do the very same. When that should happen, for our insatiable minds lead to suggest only a matter of time, we will have taught our creations to be just like us- just better.
Our creations will thus look at us and think, “Improvements needed?” Well… yes. Who will be most insatiable then? The what was once known as the masterpiece or the… artificial masterpiece?
Who will be whom? Which would you want to be chosen?
AnneSalve4000. My cereal name and number.
Selah.
