J.J. Smith's "Numbers"

Below is a five-part series of Numbers written in early 2012

——–

XCIII.

——–

all is relevant

(A.)

If I am to assert that I am real, I first must elaborate on how any assertion made of my own accord is vital to understanding any level of reality; indeed, the subject of any dimension cannot be launched without a weighty justification for me being such an individual that can make such assertions. For even now I doubt my place as such: who am I to transcribe my opinions by pen and copy them to key

to web

to all?

- -

My doubt is most troubling when I still have yet to set out on the task of discovering the keys of the emboldened statement:

all is relevant

for how is any of this relevant? What use is my own pondering and amateurish squabble to collect and contribute answers to an abstract which, arguably, will have no noticeable impact upon those who do not read it (and therein lies the dilemma)

if written words may only affect those who read them; how can I be certain what I write is ever necessary? or useful? when there are infinities I, myself, will never consume . . . there are enough classics to last me, enough new works to flood me;

is there any use in reading at all if All cannot be read? Indeed, am I not further from answering how All is relevant?

——–

XCIV.

——–

Taken from Grant Gross, IDG News:

“an estimated 13 million people [participated] in Wednesday’s online protest and an estimated 50,000 websites [went] dark during the day. Opponents [to SOPA & PIPA] sent an estimated 3 million email messages to Congress during the protest.”

- -

all is relevant

(B.)

In my previous venture to answering the emboldened statement above, I took not long in discouraging myself from ever achieving such a claim; my resolve was more a dissolve into defeat, saying, “I am not worthy of making any claims of the kind, nor are my words any more likely to be read than any others’ words.”

In fact, now I dismiss such negative thoughts. Such were unbearably pessimistic. I now acquit myself from any obligation which had previously constrained me; indeed, I felt it necessary to define my own relevance. However, if I am to try at it once more I should do so after the fact (that is, after arguing to strongly reach my claim that All is relevant; then, I may reason how I am in effect.) My original take to define my own self was my natural back-tracking to define the Whole by defining its parts. My mistake was in hastily supposing humans as the smallest of parts (therein lies my fault, as our actions are smaller parts; merely, the choice to get out of bed, or even to open our eyes each morning to face the day; indeed, how is such an act relevant to All?)

A faulty, yet common, argument (by Americans) against voting is “how little one’s vote counts.” Such absurdities as this one are quickly revealed with real evidence such as the news quote preceding this second venture.

- -

Merriam-Webster defines “relevance” as:

1. a : relation to the matter at hand

b : practical and especially social applicability : PERTINENCE

I am defining All as “all matters at all hands” as well as “total pertinence”; that is, All is applicable always.

Merriam-Webster defines “relevance” further:

2.   : the ability (as an information retrieval system) to retrieve material that satisfies the needs of the user

In my own case, the Internet is aiding my needs greatly. But if relevance is satisfactory then there is nothing relevant about Dictionary.com, as it provides a sample sentence of the word:

“Some traditional institutions of the media lack relevance in this digital age.”

This strikes me through with pity for the Libraries of which Mr. Benjamin Franklin was once so proud and optimistic. However, he was a man of function; the digital age, as he might have seen it, provides us with new, updated forms. Dictionary.com has it wrong to assert that any traditional institution lacks relevance within any age. For there is much to be learned from any institution; “out-dated” does not pertain to relevance, only to function.

To be relevant is not necessarily to function.

Any given thing that is not functional or, in some technologies’ cases, obsolete, is in a state of disuse, not irrelevance. Truly, the differentiation between the terms shows through their constant or inconstant states; here, I see I must prove that All is continually relevant in the way that All may be broken down into smaller parts to serve the greater Whole; from there, it would prove easy to assert that the Whole may be broken down infinitely.

Functionality is not vital to relevance

is a better wording. I may drink Coca Cola from a can entirely, and then I am left with an empty Coca Cola can. Is the can obsolete? Certainly, in the function of being opened and serving a cool, carbonated beverage. But the can is relevant to recycling, to becoming future cans. It is certainly relevant to being filled with water (if I would ever choose to do such a thing.) The can is relevant to other functions, always.

All is relevant; with relevance, comes infinite functionality.

But what of the many cans that are thrown, not recycled, into the Pacific to float among the many others of its kind? Still, what of myself and my function?

What of the outliers (the non-recycled cans, the homeless, the deathly-ill infants, or the non-biodegradable plastics?) I still have yet to prove their relevance, as their functions seem far from infinite.

——–

XCV.

——–

The NDAA does not give our government the right to detain and/or murder American citizens without a right to fair trial. Despite what many people believe, the NDAA is not the death of our Bill of Rights.

Credit to Jason Easley of Politicsusa.com:

“…Obama then strongly debunked once and for all the notion that the NDAA detention provisions apply to American citizens, [saying,] “Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”

How much clearer can it get?

- -

Unfortunately, any official news comes from newspapers and TV networks, mediums which lobbyists control in order to spin the facts. And any unofficial news comes from bloggers who aren’t necessarily being dishonest, but they aren’t checking the details before they post them either.

So it is the rush of things, the immediacy to be on-top of an issue, the want of readers and viewers and more “site hits” that cause misinformation to spread. And it spreads fast. Unbelievably fast. Many people are already convinced that Obama would willingly sacrifice our basic rights as American citizens. Many of these people received their news from facebook, from shared blog articles; it only took a matter of hours for these people to believe these falsities.

- -

all is relevant

(C.)

I met the end of Argument (B.) with a pondering of outliers (those items which fall outside the realm of functionality.) I came to this as a result of modifying the emboldened statement:

All is relevant; with relevance, comes infinite functionality.

Furthermore, I now modify it:

All is relevant and infinitely functional.

From there, it seems almost too easy to push ahead and rightly assert that

all is infinite

if All is never irrelevant in any form and if All never loses its function. No part of All (and I must phrase it this way, as “Nothing” is a specific item) is ever useless.

But the end of Argument (B.) introduced items lacking functionality. Of course, how does one determine functionality? I see functionality as pertaining to the usefulness of a thing to any other thing; more specifically, I see “functionality“ as the state of being useful to the Multiverse.

Still, though, I am backed into a corner. I was wishing to move ahead and tie this into the Internet Functionality Paradox, but I cannot move forward until I solve the dilemma of the outliers; that is, until I prove their usefulness or until I backtrack to reassert my Arguments.

- -

For future thought:

Oftentimes, a person may feel overwhelmed with the abundance of new music, new books, new films, new television programs; these are mediums through which a person may receive some version of solace. Such solace is needed as a result of feeling overwhelmed with the abundance of daily tasks, the utterly mundane of human routine. And the dilemma of the source for solace becoming overwhelming is a happenstance of the Internet. In fact, the Internet results in a functionality paradox.

——–

XCVI.

——–

The greatest measure man has realized is time. With it, man has forgotten pain, numbed to centuries of injustice; with time, man has empowered himself, expanded himself, re-sought himself and rediscovered himself. Man has become mankind and redefined such becoming as humankind; through time, we have become fairer and intelligent;

through time, we will be much more.

Time exceeds me and, as such, I am also much more Then than I will realize now.

I

us

more

eternal

- -

This weekend, my editor has tasked me to give Why We Fall another look-through. More than a year has passed since my eyes last scanned its lines. Now, I see what Was. Now, I see what Will.

- -

all is relevant

(D.)

Moving forward past the outliers is not an option. Before I move ahead, however, allow me to summarize what has already been covered:

all is relevant and infinitely functional; therein lies the assertion that all is infinite. Nothing is ever not useful. But the outliers (the objects seemingly lacking function to the Multiverse, much less to anything of smaller proportions) gave me pause:

the outliers affected me

that is, in their own very unaffecting state. And I then moved to realize how some of the greatest moments of human history have occurred within the human mind. Perhaps, I thought, I am thinking too corporeally. Really, an outlier’s simply “being” will influence others to act;

the outlier’s functionality is in its ability to influence

just as our functionality, as humans, is to reason and label (really, only for our own selves, to make sense of our surroundings; the tree is never a “tree”; that is only what we impose upon it) and spread influence and give function to the “non-functioning” (ironically, we have created many obsoletes while Nature does not; unless we are considered as manifestations of Nature, as parts of the Whole; indeed, this argument is now coming full-circle.) The outliers are not obstacles to this argument. They are parts in supporting it. But allow us to backtrack to

all is infinite

as this assertion is so frustratingly simplistic and consumptive. It seems that if we are to put two opposing objects side-by-side, say, the works of Shakespeare and the works of Lil Wayne, a debate might appear to differentiate their levels of relevance to the Multiverse, that is, how much All may benefit from their works (as I defined functionality…”pertaining to the usefulness of a thing to any other thing; more specifically, functionality is the state of being useful to the Multiverse”…relevance shares a likeness in this definition.)

In fact, as I began Argument (C.) with a news quote on the truth of the NDAA bill and Obama’s stance on American rights, its relevancy was most likely brought into question.

What I am building to is how the Internet is a fantastic example of infinites and relevance. As I write this, the Internet grows. As people read this, people grow. As they write their own pieces, the Internet grows. Then, people. Then, Internet.

Oftentimes, a person may feel overwhelmed with the abundance of new music, new books, new films, new television programs; these are mediums through which a person may receive some version of solace. Such solace is needed as a result of feeling overwhelmed with the abundance of daily tasks, the utterly mundane of human routine. And the dilemma of the source for solace becoming overwhelming is a happenstance of the Internet. In fact, the Internet results in a functionality paradox.

- “Future Thought” from Argument (C.)

The very function of the Internet (to “connect”) is really severing a deeper connection between humans. And, even further, its overwhelming infiniteness may incite feelings of uselessness, of lacking function, in its users. Its gift to us (to create and share) may squash the uniqueness of creating and sharing. It may even squash the necessity of truth; as such with facebook and the news.

Unfortunately, any official news comes from newspapers and TV networks, mediums which lobbyists control in order to spin the facts. And any unofficial news comes from bloggers who aren’t necessarily being dishonest, but they aren’t checking the details before they post them either.

- Prelude to Argument (C.)

The Internet shows how people create their own standards of relevance.

Indeed, here I am arguing to myself how

all is relevant

all is infinite

but how can an emboldened statement of some self-entitled twenty-two-year-old have any relevancy of its own if the majority will make their own assumptions

despite how much effort I put into this

despite how many others predating my own existence died after having put infinitely more effort into this

despite how many relevant remarks I can list here to further substantiate my claims, my assumptions, my arguments,

my anger;

how can anything be relevant to anything unless the utter irrelevancy of It and All amounts to some cancelling, some amount of Nothing becoming Something in its own way of being too much of Nothing;

how can I rely on hope to carry Me onto others’ minds?

Indeed, am I not further from answering how All is relevant?

- Final Thought on Argument (A.)

——–

XCVIII.

——–

all is relevant

(E.)

The above emboldened statement has taken up enough time of wasted thought and wasted reading. I now must assert that

all is irrelevant

and until I am grown more in mind I cannot set upon the task of proving otherwise or, much less, prove anything worth upsetting lives.

- -

we near the edge,

the impossible precipice of victory

The men are weary

the men are Me,

as the Mistake (of the poet) is often to speak for others, as if one may be a voice for many

I doubt such a voice is Me

I doubt such men (as those I wrote on) exist in any permutation