It seems like many or all organizations and individuals are either being used as transference mechanisms or are potential transference mechanisms. Are government and laws being used as a transference mechanism? If so, have we been hiring people in certain positions that may be something other than the best candidates for positions? Instead, are there some candidates themselves that have ulterior motives to weave themselves into the fabric of organizations for itinerant reasons?

Maybe what has happened is a roller coaster ride of political influence. Over time, the reason why politics has been the priority instead of problems is because of the need for the transference potential power players to be in a position to perform itinerant roles when needed to preserve the chances of keeping the big picture thing covered up, Maybe initially there were itinerant “plants” to perform roles to allow vice versa concepts to occur. Maybe it started as a way to keep resources in the hands of the elite. Perhaps it is to keep power in the hands of the people. It seems either way, those who have the most ability to solve problems and help in a genuinely holistic and sustainable striving way are not being included and prioritized as they should. Power to the people sounds good but does not make sense in an unplanned, irrational way. I fear that narrow perspectives will allocate resources to the people only, and all this will do is function to fund an out-of-control and unplanned, irrational, market-based, extreme ultra-capitalist system.

I am wondering if the hypothesis creation process has created a situation where they had to try and kill a scientist-type person to preserve politics or the way things are in a static type world. Maybe, initially, they were threatened by someone who could potentially get access to understanding something he should have understood the day he was born. Therefore, one of the greatest attributes and qualities of this person’s character and reputation were targeted. Have we gotten to the point where we try to attack a person’s abilities and strengths at any cost if they threaten your long-term manipulation, pollution, monkeywrenching, and itinerant judging behavior for itinerant reasons? Does secrecy and confidentiality have a dichotomous duality that serves the primary purpose of advancing the status quo and keeping the way things are churning at any cost? Are all jobs functioning as payola jobs to keep the “do your job” mentality serving so people can do their jobs and nothing else”? Is the law a concept that has been traditionally used as not only a justification to do something or not do something but is it a concept of or “does not have to do something” above all. In other words, if we all get up and start writing laws from the day we are born and stop the day we die, there will not be enough laws to capture everything in our anthropocentric and natural world. Maybe that is the most crucial point. The duty of love and care seems not to be written in the law. Therefore, so-called law-abiding people do not have to love and care or have compassion. They are not required to prioritize rationality because it is not the law. They are not required to take action to help someone because it is not the law. Are they not required to go beyond the law to solve problems? The law focuses on itinerant persecution, itinerant functioning, itinerant process, and itinerant procedure, which results in itinerant functioning out of context with the right thing to do in all situations. It is also a waste of time and inefficient. The law was mainly created out of the reactionary need to have specific functioning at the expense of problem-solving functioning. It is the itinerant placement of rocks in a stream so you do not have to get your feet wet solving real problems. Are jobs just jobs created by-laws to fill a niche of getting across to the other side of a problem without solving the problems? Have we decided it is better to fund law than education and learning? It seems weird and itinerant functioning to allocate resources towards reactionary functioning at any cost, while those more holistic and closer to rationally holistic preventative approaches get neglected. Is it really about preserving the way things are in the world and the preservation of each individual involved in the process? Do we hold these concepts in higher regard than the planning necessary to transform how things should be sustainable striving planet Earth? Do we put the law above humane functioning? Do we put the law above closer to rational natural functioning? Does law create unnecessary confusion, chaos, process, and control? Does it put perception above reality as all organizations and individuals try and function within the out-of-context anthropocentric “stones” to get across any stream? Does this perception operating increase the perception/reality index in all organizations?

Consequently, people function like their organizations in a highly perceived way to accomplish their objectives at any cost. It seems as if our natural functioning in learning and development of foundational fundamentals helps create a closer to harmonious natural functioning rather than out-of-context perceptions of people who are functioning “doing their job” out of context with everything else. Every rule, law process, and procedure created in an out-of-context way does not bring harmonious rational functioning, but a burden to prioritize means behavior at any cost. We are funding irrational anthropocentric idealism at the expense of the highest value-contributing functioning. As a consequence of law and derived complexity and process, we have prioritized the means instead of the ends. It seems that more law is a consequence of an irrational, extreme, anthropocentric society planned by law in the first place. Is it a feedback loop? The more laws we have, the more we will need laws in the future. The more laws, the more difficult it is to live, learn, and love more naturally. The less complex society, the more we can prioritize what should be prioritized instead of law and itinerant functioning. When I think of little kids, I think about their needs in terms of what they need to give them the best chance to follow their passions, dreams, and aspirations in context with what we need to accomplish in our world. I do not see a kid as transference potential.

We must move beyond the law as all the law does is give those who know more about the law tools to dominate over the best intentions of the most genuine, loving, and caring people on this planet who have more to offer than those who function in pollution, judging, itinerant controversy creation, and manipulative monkey wrenching way. Is it possible that those who know the most about law know the least about what needs to be done? I am hoping I am helping them understand the need to adapt.