During a recent strategic planning session, an all-too-important question was beamed to us telepathically by one of our non-local corporate magicians: “How can we have a Universal Free Realms if we don’t have Universal Free Entities?”
Our OpenQNL inquisitors asked for more information, but the connection was abruptly terminated by an outside-party… So we’d like to take a first stab at constructing a design-specification for a “Universal Free Entity,” draft one. We’d like to hear your comments and suggestions, and you can post your responses directly to Facebook’s “Site Governance” section for rapid response…
UNIVERSAL would mean something like, “part of the universe”… which I realize in a multi-dimensional setting might cause ontological breakdowns of certain reality-sets. But let’s say UNIVERSAL stands for something like, “The Totality of Existence(s)”, which I will hereafter abbreviate as TOE.
So, within the UNIVERSAL TOE, there appear to be certain recurring patterns which occur. Whether or not they are everywhere equally applicable, always have been or will continue to be immutable Laws is an undiscoverable question which our current interrogatory technology is ill-equipped to definitively answer.
But we know that a UNIVERSAL TOE exists, and that within that TOE, some PATTERNS appear.
FREE might mean in some settings, “at no cost”, while in others liberated or autonomous. Autonomous might indicate the following:
1800, from Greek autonomos “having one’s own laws,” of animals, “feeding or ranging at will,” from autos “self” (see auto-) + nomos “law”
“Having one’s own laws” could be conflated to something like, “Having one’s own patterns” or perhaps “habits” or “make-up” could even be stretched out of that definition.
Regardless of whether we call them “laws” or “patterns” or something else, to “have something as one’s own” requires that there be a “one”…
ENTITY might mean that “one” – the thing that has something, whether laws, properties, possessions, etc.
A FREE ENTITY then, would be what? One that first has itself. By having itself, it also has other discoverable attributes, which are essential to its own make-up. That is, it has its own laws under which it is able to exist and perpetuate (or terminate or modify) its existence. This makes it autonomous, but is said entity FREE?
Maybe a truly FREE ENTITY would be completely unencumbered even by its own laws or attributes? This is getting trippy…
What about a UNIVERSALLY FREE ENTITY? An entity, a unity, a self, a oneness, which is able to autonomously be itself (or not be itself, as the case may be…) within any given setting, provided that said setting also contains conditions favorable to the existence of said entity? That is, can a free entity made up of water as its essential nature exist within a “free realm” which is wholly fire? I’m gonna text Paracelsus (one of our staff magicians) and get back to you on that last question:
But what about this interpretation of a UNIVERSAL FREE ENTITY?
An autonomous entity which willingly abides in and contributes to the overall emergent patterns of any given branespace…
That is, said entity has an individual identity as well as expresses part of a larger pattern within its own timewave… So if this entity is “following the law of heaven” so to speak, by acting as part of an emergent pattern, how can it be free?
By taking decisive action perhaps? Perhaps this is the FREE part of it all, that while simultaneously having its own inward laws, and expressing the “laws of the universe”, said entity is actually liberated to express whatever emergent pattern of its choosing…