The apparatus that defines me is typically not of my choosing; even when it is. I believe this to be true of each of us. Those who believe they have created or are creating, controlling, defining, or leading an apparatus are not choosing its ultimate incarnation because there is no ultimate incarnation; there are simply too many, never-ending variables.

I cannot conceive of a single, indivisible apparatus that is not impacted by and conjoined with an ever-changing multitude of other hierarchies, networks, systems, and miscellaneous mechanisms all filled with cogs, gears, pumps, wheels, clockworks, sprockets, fittings, trappings, and various instruments of entanglement. And it is these complexities that allow an apparatus to take on meaning, influence, qualities, and characteristics beyond those originally intended. Within any multi-faceted apparatus, individual control is an illusion. Welcome to contemporary quantum acculturation.

One may choose to see this social milieu in its empirical (particle) form, or in its transcendental (wave) form, or one may choose to utilize both perspectives, though one or the other will predominate in any given moment.

Given a circumstance, one may choose to tint their outlook with reflective aviator glasses (an esoteric spirituality), dark shades (an experiential reality), or rose-colored goggles (an exoteric stability). I typically have on my dark shades, though I understand how some may see me in (and perhaps through) rose-colored goggles. In moments of solitude, (and every chance I have), I reach for my reflective aviator glasses.

This concept of unavoidable interdependence may be most easily explained by applying it to an individual human being. We like to think of our self as an independent, autonomous, intrinsically absolute being, yet we also divide our self into a physical body and a thinking mind. We then go on to add an emotional and a spiritual component, and within each of these we can further divide into ever smaller components with each one having some impact. For example the body has a heart, lungs, a spine, nerves, bones, skin, blood, etc, etc, etc. If one has a heart attack, this faulty pump changes not only the physical component and outlook, but also impacts the mind, the emotions, and potentially one's spiritual outlook. If I were truly an independent, autonomous, intrinsically absolute being, my immutable nature would prohibit the pump failure, the resulting grinding and gnashing of gears, cogs, and wheels, and the ultimate wrenching, driving, clanging cacophony of repair work. I am not self-enclosed and unchanging. I am a multi-faceted apparatus, and as such, when I am joined with other multi-faceted individual beings into a larger conglomerate apparatus, individual control is an illusion.

In multiple posts I have advocated for free will, with my most recent concept or definition being "the conscious output of work / effort that can be quantified and has impact." Using this definition, the concept of free will appears to easily align with the concept of unavoidable interdependence, with the key commonality being 'impact' - (our choices have impact). But upon further consideration I now better understand opponents of free will. We have to ask - How can a conglomerate of ever-changing components (with each component made up of smaller, ever-changing components) possibly claim an absolute, unadulterated accord across the entirety of its constituency? Even with the narrow definition of 'conscious, quantifiable effort that impacts', free will has lost some teeth. This does not negate or even diminish the importance of choice and from an empirical (dark shades particle) perspective free will as conscious choice is still a valid consideration that stands up to scrutiny. But now that we have followed the flow from conscious output to impact, it appears that no matter the make-up of the apparatus (individual being, global quantum culture, or points between and beyond), from a transcendental (reflective wave) perspective there is no free will because there is no indivisible, intrinsically absolute apparatus. As an individual human being I am constantly driven forward by a combination of my choices, the choices of other individual human beings, and numerous other factors that 'in the moment' are beyond my control; and because I cannot change the past or predict/control the future, this is more consistent with the illusory nature of individual control as described in the concept of unavoidable interdependence.

But this is not what I want to focus on.

I want to look at the backflow or rebound once an apparatus has been impacted:

• When impacted, if an apparatus (individual being or otherwise) reacts as if it is an intrinsically absolute entity, Pride Rules! (See the June 7 post and then the June 14 post.)
• When impacted, if an apparatus (individual being or otherwise) responds as if it is an integral part of a greater (indefinite, perhaps infinite) whole, Compassion presides.

So this prompts me to ask how do I (or am I even able to) function within this framework of a greater whole that excludes a concept of 'me'? If we indeed only exist within the framework of an apparatus (individual being or otherwise), then in order to function I think I must give special consideration to the apparatus formerly known as 'Me'. But in so doing Pride has reared its ugly head because simply saying "formerly known as me" makes me feel like a Rock Star, and the 'special consideration' does not feel compassionate. But is it avoidable.

I need a day...

So if I pursue the goal of responding as if I am an integral part of a much greater whole, yet the nature of my humanity encourages me to react as an intrinsically absolute entity, Compassion and Pride will clash. I cannot lose my humanity. Pride will subsist; but I do believe that through Awareness and Practice I can reduce Pride's subsistence to poverty levels.

In the last two posts (June 7 and June 14) I have considered the kinship between Active Humility and Compassion. I also questioned how one can have Compassion for another whose Pride manifests in ways that negatively impact others. This week I realize I have no choice; (the real question is 'How can I not have Compassion'?). If I speak of 'one' and 'another' or 'me' and 'you' or 'us' and 'them' I am perpetuating belief in the existence of intrinsically absolute entities and furthering the tyranny of Pride. Since an intrinsically absolute entity is not possible, I have no choice but to perceive the Pride of another apparatus (individual being or otherwise) as belonging in part to (the apparatus formerly known as) me; just as I have no choice but to literally feel the pain of a loved one who is suffering. And if this apparatus formerly known as me actively accepts that responsibility, the result will be compassion.

My Humanity is rebelling. In fact it is screaming at the top of its lungs, and though I won't repeat much of what it is saying, the gist is that "Even if you are on the right track, you will remain a minority!" and "You must stand up for yourself!" And I know there will be moments and possibly even days when I agree; but with continued awareness and practice I believe I will more and more consistently respond as if this apparatus formerly known as me is an integral part of a much greater whole.