Levels of Agreement

I'm going to talk about levels, or, qualities, or types of agreements. 

In order to discuss agreements, i have to first explain integrity, which is the personal characteristic, that creates the content that each person can agree with others upon. 

Anti-virus protections, in the computer operating systems will be the analogy I use, to detail how human integrity works. 

So, in a computer operating system, penetration points are varied, however, once access is gained, the user is operating as System, and the 2nd stage, is what I call a "pivot." They interrupt self-monitoring, and integrity checks, and file system monitoring, in order to modify system files. A permanent hack, always involves modified system files.

However, if the user gains access as system, it is System that monitors the integrity of System files, System blocks changes to System files.

So, you can now understand the problem. Because, a truly effective anti-virus, would have to run a daemon(program) that constantly verifies all System files. 

And that is actually what android does. It keeps two copies of System. And, in every moment, both file systems are compared against each other, and so, this is why Android is pretty much proof against hackers. 

However, imagine doing this, yourself. What would your life look like, if you had to write down everything that you know is true, and, perhaps, 5 to 600 times per second, you also had to say everything you know is true, and also compare what you say, against the list, in order to be able to identify any changes to your mental programming. 

Imagine having to do that. A perfectly effective antivirus would have to do that, and, as computers get faster, the number of times it has to do that, per second, has to increase, because hackers can use the 601st cycle to change the data everywhere. 

So, they've created a shortcut.. and, it's actually perfectly modeled after the exact same shortcut in the human brain.

They've implemented something called a checksum. If you add up every single bit, in a file, you get a unique number. So, in every operating system, every file has a checksum number. And, instead of having a master file, and running a comparison between the master and the System file, System reads the size of the file, and the size is stated in the checksum, and if the size is not changed, the file is not changed, therefore, it passes integrity. 

Now, have you ever been sitting there, listening to someone talk, and you didn't *really** know what they're even talking about, but, all of a sudden, you realize, they're right. Right? They stopped talking, to pause, to wait for you, and now you're nodding. 

Mhmm. 

Mhm. 

Mhm. Yes. 

Absolutely. 

Those are your reactions. Point made, so they resume talking. 

Now, what was the agreement? It was not a detailed agreement. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything they said. Remember, you didn't understand a word they said. It was not about the topic. There is no mutual understanding. So, what did you agree ABOUT? what was the topic of agreement? 

"It checks out." You had been listening, for integrity.. you had been adding things up. You had been looking to see if how they act on what they said, was the same as what they said. 

So, when they conveniently paused, it was for you to finish your math, and realize, yes, this person has integrity. You performed a checksum. You did not inspect the content. You inspected the content to see if it was correct. And to do that, you don't need to know what the content is. You only need to have a sense of reality, and compare words to realities, and see if they are the same size. 

This is the first level of social agreements. This level of agreement is called an "attestation." Attestation, is another way of saying, "my feelings, that I know nothing about, about what is real, match whatever the heck it is you just said." 

An attestation, is when your deep sense of what is true, tells you, that someone just passed a check. An integrity test. They have integrity. We don't know about what. 

That's the next level of agreements. Validation. You have to get face to face with a person, and tell, or prove your beliefs, in all the every single detail. And if your sense of the truth of the detail matches theirs, then, you automatically VALIDATE them. But, even with all that proof and massive amounts of time, energy, and effort spent, you have not established a relationship, you have only established that each person has a relationship to a conclusion. Because you have not even established whether or not the conclusion you both feel is true, is actually true. 

Approval, is when both of your conclusions are true, and you both know that each other's conclusions are true. Approval, means, you know someone is right, and you know that, to the last detail, because you are also right, and you know THAT, to every last detail. 

After those laborious conversations have taken place, you can discuss permissions, as in. " If that is that way, what should one do about it?" And if you establish attestation, validation, and approval, for each other's strategies and tactics, then, you have prepared a foundation for discussing consent. Which is a discussion on what WE will do about it, and whether or not we will ALLOW or be able to allow our agreements to happen.

The problem of invalid(unreal,false,wrong) beliefs that block sensing what is real goes infinitely deep. Just as an operating system cannot maintain it's integrity by always keeping itself fully integrous, humans are not always integrous. 

What if someone consents to sex, but, they are wrong, about that, and they do not consent? What if that person starts making sex happen? What do you do? They are being raped, if you allow it, and you probably can't stop them. What do you do? You see? The issue of people being wrong, goes infinitely deep.

 This is why, me personally, I test the people I allow into my life constantly. I am always testing everyone. I do not allow people into my life, until I know they are always right about everything. Only if that much trust is justified, can I trust them in anything. That's one strategy of many that I use, to effectively control against betrayal. But even with that much of a burden of proof,  I am always aware of the limits of self-knowledge, and the possibility of being wrong, so, I do as the Bible commands me, anytime I exercise high power over everything, I do so, with an excess of noncommittal-ness.