Words and phrases about our culture, as I have observed it and reflected upon it.
Try the "Find" or "Search" command of your docviewer (maybe in its "Edit" menu) to quickly find one of the following words further in this doc.
[...merging some more terms from "begin-split.htm"...listed here for now...would like to revise the terms, probably someday [words--general.htm#]...]
A box for sheltering humans, sometimes with additional boxes inside it for specific activities.
A box of houses.
A box with motorized wheels, along the lines of a luxurious motorized wheelchair. An automobile is often family-sized, with two recliners up front and a sofa (or two) in the back, a music player with radio receiver, and sometimes even television screens for watching movies from the sofa.
As such, someday the automobile might get re-marketed as a smartmusicplayer (with air conditioning and four-wheel drive), much like the personal digital assistant (PDA) was re-marketed as a smartphone against actual smartphones (now known as burner-phones, t.i. disposable).
A subterranean box for sheltering a human body.
The space where a lifeform is standing or sitting, swimming or flying, squirming or flitting, being. For example, the whole planet is the living room for everything.
Sometimes it is in a box, such as a house, or automobile, or store (a.k.a. distribution center), or restaurant, or so on, wherever a lifeform traverses during its walk of life.
A high concentration of people consistently living within an area by means of permanent shelter. A city is in essence a population of people that has grown beyond a small concentration of temporarily sheltered people (t.i. a concentration camp) into a permanent dwelling. Usually populated by at least tens of thousands of people, sometimes millions of people.
Always an extreme lack of resources within the city or surrounding it for supporting the lives of most or all people living in the city. A city relies upon supply lines of external resources, including: food, clothing, materials for building shelter, prefabricated vehicles for personal transportation, and so on.
Much of the imported resources are prefabricated crafts, because there is too little or no resources from that area for making protective clothing or building shelter for personal convalescence. Manufacturers of crafts imported into city craft for the sake of selling rather than any request from the citizens of the city or real need for the crafts. That is, the manufacturers do not want their own crafts, thereby they are manufacturing garbage with the hope of compensation for the manufacturing expense. The populace of the city simply make and do with what is available [perspective.htm#3] from whatever is stocked by the local distributors.
The dependence on the supply of prefabricated items leads to the local culture becoming almost completely depleted of the knowledge and ability by anyone for crafting personal items. Eventually, no one knows how to replicate any part of their culture (if any local "culture" actually exists), because their culture has dissipated into almost nothing at all with their local resources destroyed (to make room for permanent shelter) and substituted by external crafts and external services.
Thereby, hardly anyone puts into practice [perspective.htm#3] how to craft anything at all even if the base resources were ever to be brought to the city. Specialized training (t.i. knowledge external to the local culture of the city) is required for repairing items (if repair is even possible), and likely no local resources for repairing the imported prefabricated items.
There becomes practically no local self-replenishing resource within the city nor surrounding the city for obtaining food for all the people living in that city. At most, only a very few endeavorous persons might be maintaining a personal garden, but even then those few persons still rely upon the supply lines of external resources brought to their city. As such, most all food is rationed from distribution centers, often known as "grocery stores" or "supermarkets", usually packaged in boxes or in bags and labeled with recommended portion sizes (a.k.a. serving size).
The land/home owners [#ownership] of the city has failed, generation by generation, to abide by the natural rhythms of cycling observable every day (day and night), every month (new moon to full moon), every year (seasons), water from clouds in sky flowing back to ocean, and so on.
[ epigraph of Place names of Hawaii ]Ua hala nā kūpuna, a he ʻike kōliʻuliʻu wale nō kō keia lā,
i nā mea i ke au i hope lilo, iō kikilo.The ancestors have passed on; today's people see but dimly times long gone and far behind.
—Epigraph, page v (unmarked), before the "Contents" (page vii, unmarked). Place names of Hawaii (2nd edition: 1974) by Mary Kawena Pukui, Samuel H. Elbert, Esther T. Hookini.
The land in a city has been cleared of all life and covered with impermable substances (f.e. concrete or ashpalt) intended as permanent and noncycling, affecting the local temperature, the water drainage, and so on.
In desperation by residents of the city, the concept of recycling might be applied by exporting or repurposing the imported crafts and the packaging (the aforementioned "garbage") for making new crafts and packaging that become new pre-garbage, without stopping the import of resources (the garbage source). The artificial need for the imported crafts is never recognized.
Actual cycling would free the land of its imprisonment by removing the permanently applied layers and constructions. Temporary dwellings would be respectfully placed with the intent of later removal for decades or centuries of regional recovery of local lifeforms. Unfortunately, the residents of a city continue declaring zones of various types of construction instead of zones of restoration, with any dismantling purposed for more construction rather than restoration.
[ Jenny Odell ]Our idea of progress is so bound up with the idea of putting something new in the world that it can feel counterintuitive to equate progress with destruction, removal, and remediation. But this seeming contradiction actually points to a deeper contradiction: of destruction ([f.e.] of ecosystems) framed as construction ([f.e.] of dams).
Nineteenth-century views of progress, production, and innovation relied on an image of the land as a blank slate where its current inhabitants and systems were like so many weeds in what was destined to become an American lawn. But if we sincerely recognize all that was already here, both culturally and ecologically, we start to understand that anything framed as construction was actually also destruction.
—"Conclusion: Manifest dismantling", pages 191-192. How to do nothing: resisting the attention economy (2019) by Jenny Odell. 232 pages. [Library call number: 303.4833]
Ultimately, a city is a crisis maintained until the catastrophe of the failure of the supply lines of resources brought to the city, or the failure of the waste removal from the city. Supply lines might fail by the means of tornados, hurricanes, war, or any other events affecting the long-distance transportation routes branching from the city.
A plethora of cities emerge from a long-distance civilization when that civilization depends on long-distance transportation for material interests rather than benefitting from long-distance communication for sharing ideas and inspiration (t.i. a non-material exchange).
Trustworthy connections with other people. For example, family relations, friendships, business relations, and so forth. Phrased in another way, persons who would recommend someone, or persons who would be recommended by someone. Source of personal social capital [#], or part of the social capital of others.
[ Eunice (a.k.a. UNISS, on page 68) ]He's the best you've got. I did a relationship tree, shows that anybody else you know who's got the kind of juice you need, you met through him. And none of them have anywhere near as much reason to help you.
—Eunice, speaking to Verity Jane. Agency (2020) by William Gibson. Page 50.
See also Agency (2020) by William Gibson, for the use of the word "agency" on page 8 (ch. 2) and page 31 (ch. 7).
Also consider chapter 2 "Infrastructure as agency", pages 21-41 in the book How infrastructure works (2023) by Deb Chachra; and consult its "Index" on page 301 for "agency".
When the relationship tree [#] of someone lacks the needed or helpful social capital [#] for participating.
[ Kevin F. Adler and Donald W. Burnes (with Amanda Banh and Andrijana Bilbija) ]Relational poverty—a profound lack of nurturing relationships combined with stigma (and often, shame) that makes fostering social ties incredibly difficult—is a deadly form of poverty common among people experiencing homelessness, with associated health risks like those of material poverty, including increased risks of early death, poor mental health, dementia, and cardiovascular disease.
Relationships buffer tens of millions of unhoused Americans from the descent into homelessness, help facilitate the exit of homelessness, are a source of financial capital, facilitate economic mobility, and are primary concerns in the lives of individuals experiencing homelessness. And yet, the lens of relationships is often cast aside when considering solutions to homelessness.
Being without a home—which leads to a loss of opportunity, increased bureaucratic and access barriers, competing priorities, reactive attachment disorders, and experiences of shame and stigma—strains the creation of healthy relationships and the buildup of social capital over time.
Relational poverty can come in the form of network impoverishment: the experience of having social networks that lack resources, or flexible capital, to provide the necessary support to avoid or exit homelessness.
—"Key takeaways", pages 31-32. Chapter 1: Relational Poverty.
When we walk by: forgotten humanity, broken systems, and the role we can each play in ending homelessness in America (2023).
Kevin F. Adler and Donald W. Burnes, with Amanda Banh and Andrijana Bilbija.
The potential opportunities from people in the relationship tree [#] of someone. Lack of social capital is relationship poverty [#].
[ David Wagner (with Gemma Atticks) ]The term social capital has been among the most frequently used concepts in the social science literature. Social capital essentially refers to all nonmaterial capital people accumulate. A wealthy person obviously has sources of traditional capital in money, stocks and bonds, investments, real estate, and so on. But more subtly, the richer a person is in income and social class, the more they accumulate nonmaterial resources that intertwine with monetary resources.
The middle-class or wealthy person has the education expected of them to be high class, literacy to read in at least one language, stylish clothes to wear, an accent and vocabulary that are acceptable, social skills to impress superiors and those below, and so on. The accumulation of capital and social capital are obviously lifelong processes that begin in childhood socialization.
—"Social capital in poorer communities", pages 94-95. Chapter 5: "Community, support, and staying housed".
No longer homeless: how the ex-homeless get and stay off the streets (2018).
David Wagner, with Gemma Atticks.
Relationships. Just like child support, social security is not money and can not be represented numerically.
One way to evaluate social security is to lay down on a deathbed and notice who (if anybody at all) visits, especially without having to personally inform each and every person. That is, how well does personal news travel? (And maybe even how accurately (or humorously).)
Another way of evaluating social security is whether a relationship is "being with" or "doing for". There is a significant relationship difference between being supportive and being employed (even without pay). Nothing wrong with either way, but it is worth noting and whether that changes at all.
A homeless shelter exclusively for elders. A person might voluntarily live in a retirment home, or a person might be deposited there when they have no social security [#] anymore, or are considered unworthy as social capital [#] even by their family. Often available in a community that has lost its culture, such as within a city [#] or similar populace.
Physically having something material distinct from oneself. That means ideas or fantasies are immaterial, therefore can not be possessed. There are always responsibilities included with possessing an item.
While possession often has some of the same responsibilities as ownership [#] of an item, there is no need of being an owner of what is possessed. For example, borrowing a book from a library involves possessing the book without owning it, but also involves sharing some of the responsibilities of ownership.
The responsibility of caring for a specific item that materially exists discretely from everything else.
While ownership often involves possession [#] of the cared for item, not everything cared for can be possessed. For example, land or property tends to be demarcated by boundaries: the land is owned (t.i. cared for), but it is impossible to possess the area itself as the bounded area is only a perception.
Owners are not greedy and insensitive, but instead vulnerable and needy, thereby their pursuit for compassion and support.
For example, a tenant for an area of land, a house, an apartment building (box of houses), and so on should consider that the money paid will aid in the care of what is owned. There is nothing actually given in return for the donation (rent), no service nor product. That means the tenant is deciding what or whom to help support, a sharing in responsibilities though the actual work might be delegated to other people (f.e. service providers like for plumbing).
Permission from a land owner is temporary, and a tenant should always be prepared to move elsewhere prior to the end of a lease agreement so someone else can take on the task of donating (supporting) to that owner. It is the responsibility of the owner to find another sponsor (tenant) for aiding the owner with its other responsibilities of caring for the land, or the house, or so on, rather than depend on the prior tenant to know someone else.
Generally, even land that has an abundance of life is considered undeveloped, for whatever reason. As such, an area of land is cleared of all lifeforms (if any), and the topsoil (if any) is likely destroyed [need better description], and so forth, resulting in pretty much a "blank slate", in essence a "reset". Such complete destruction prior to construction ought to discourage the latter; for whatever reason it might not.
[ Stephen Robert Miller ]The buildout of centralized utility systems that tapped into energy once deemed "too cheap to measure" and "renewable" water delivered from an unseen source have erased all need for developers to build with the desert in mind. So they don't. With air conditioning, modern homes mimic New England's shingles. They are multistoried, carpeted, and capped with gabled roots waiting to shed snow. They're packed together on tight lots surrounded by heat-trapping asphalt and concrete.
And they're huge: Paradoxically, while the size of the average American family has fallen, homes have swelled. The average house built in postwar Tucson was [1200] square feet; the basic Roadrunner in Eastmark is nearly [3000] square feet, and it's hardly the biggest one on the block. Every extra foot is more space to heat and more to cool. More to light and more to clean.
—Part III: The audacity of desert living—central Arizona. Page 202. Over the seawall: tsunamis, cyclones, drought, and the delusion of controlling nature (2023) by Stephen Robert Miller. 252 pages. [Library call number: 363.347]
If that matters to the person donating (t.i. renting, leasing), then that person should seek a different owner to support. One idea in mind: consider an owner who only influences the area rather than resetting it, and particularly influencing minorly in order to observe what happens and learn more about the responsibility of such actions (t.i. such influences).
Ownership also involves "infrastructural citizenship", a broader expectation of each person potentially in multiple overlapping associations, rather than fabrication of disparate groups (f.e. false diversity) at odds with each other. Particularly, forward looking for resilience in our ways of living, rather than innovative endeavors or mere damage control.
[ Deb Chachra ]This idea of being in an ongoing relationship with others simply by virtue of having bodies that exist in the world and which share common needs is what I think of as "infrastructural citizenship".
It's a citizenship that encompasses the people who are in a particular place in the world or connected by networks today, as well as those yet to come.
It carries with it the responsibility to sustainably steward common-pool resources, including the environment itself, so that future communities can support themselves and each other so they all can thrive.
Infrastructural citizenship is not just care at scale, but care in perpetuity.
—"The social grid, and care at scale", page 276. Chapter 11: "Infrastructural citizenship".
How infrastructure works: inside the systems that shape our world (2023).
Deb Chachra.
In essence, rent is charity for land owners, house owners, apartment owners, and so on.
Rent is a specific donation amount for nothing material given in return, only a time-limited permission. While property management is legitimate work, rent is not payment for that management work, f.e. rent is not payment to have the name of the land owner on a sheet of paper (as that happened prior to the askance of rent from anyone).
The circumstance of whenever a lifeform is in a living room [#] without walls is often misnomered as "homeless". The person simply has nowhere to go when told to "go home", much like when a person is told to "go to your room, you are grounded for the week".
Like every passerby, that person is an unofficial steward of that location, and perhaps the nearby area of land, just like all passersby are stewards with their actions (and any responsibilities they take on) as they pass through, too. For example, collecting lost or abandoned items (f.e. a phone or a potential recyclable item), or leaving no unwanted items behind (f.e. pet excrement [#pet], cigarette filters, or other litter), or other basic care and maintenance.
What is most likely lacking is a relationship [#relationship-tree] with the official steward, f.e. landowner or property owner [#ownership], and declaring a person lacks a "home" is a misdirection, t.i. a "red herring", promoted too often by journalists and politicians. What matters is the human being, not the characteristics of that human being.
Yet, journalism (t.i. the editors that publish the medium) continues to include whether a person is lacking a postal mailing address as often as they use an inaccurate color of skin as a substitute for "human". What journalism editors put into practice creates opportunity [perspective.htm#3] for mindsets of the populace, and editors of journalism continue to fail in establishing a sensible mindset for people getting along with each other, t.i. for human relationships.
Framing the circumstance instead as "lacking a home" tends to mean there is no location that person can be existing, and certainly no place for personal sanctuary, nor resting, nor convalescence. Founded upon all the lines having been drawn, all the boundaries having been defined for the geography across the Earth, no area to exist within without permission.
The streets and roadways along the boundaries are the only places for anybody to permissible pass through, and no one is supposed to stop for any great length of time. That is how it has been for the whole planet for many centuries now, perhaps milleniums.
Unfortunately, that is the approach that is used most: try to make the person go away to make the "problem" go away. But the "problem" is in the mind of the observer who for whatever reason wants to not associate with that person, who is typically a neighbor without a house. Worldwide, there is literally no where else to go, and framing people as being as unwanted as litter is an insensible perspective that leads nowhere different.
[ Kevin F. Adler and Donald W. Burnes (with Amanda Banh and Andrijana Bilbija) ]Have you ever been referred to as a "housed person"? Probably not. Such a label would be ridiculous, as no one thinks about housed people as a single, unified group. In many ways, "homeless person" is a similarly unhelpful identity. We have defined an incredibly varied group of people by their lack of one physical need: stable housing. When we offhandedly use empty terms like "the homeless", all differences, context, patterns, and stories get washed away and replaced with a singular, monolithic image that is neither positive nor representative.
—"Introduction", page 4.
When we walk by: forgotten humanity, broken systems, and the role we can each play in ending homelessness in America (2023).
Kevin F. Adler and Donald W. Burnes, with Amanda Banh and Andrijana Bilbija.
See also the term "unhoused neighbor" on page 39 in the book When we walk by (2023) by Kevin F. Adler and Donald W. Burnes (with Amanda Banh and Andrijana Bilbija).
Try to acknowledge the circumstance instead of labeling the person. The person is probably without ownership [#] (which is a set of responsibilities) of real estate (land property), or without permission to share in the responsibilities someone else has with owning land.
It has been said "home is where the heart is", so referring to someone as homeless is somewhat implying that person is heartless. Stop associating the term with a person. The term "homeless" is an attempt at labeling a circumstance, but is not the person.
Typically a person experieincing such a circustance is one of the most public of the public, thereby often little or no privacy, even less privacy than celebrities or politicians.
While that person has permission to remain on public land like anyone else, such permission is officially limited by specified times for specified activities. Though, sometimes other priorities are more important than shooing them away, as they have nowhere to officially exist other than the concentration camps or shelters, or whatever nice name they call such places where many insist a person voluntarily group itself with all the other people who are astray.
A misnomer for a person that is without relationships with people [#relationship-tree] who have the authority or means to give permission to that person to remain within a designated area. A person who is astray might also get thought of as a "castaway", f.e. when formerly allowed but then dismissed.
Often also misnomered as homeless [#], because journalists and politicians see everything as problems, even people.
Usually resulting from the lack of social capital [#] of the people residing in the community and/or of the human that is astray, as well as a mismatch of interests or lack of mutual trusts. Founded upon all the lines having been drawn, all the boundaries having been defined, no area to exist within without permission.
A stray might be also get labeled as an "outsider". That might mean someone who has nowhere inside to be, even when being inside might be personally preferred. Or, "outsider" might mean applying an uncommon approach, f.e. having a landline phone instead of a smartphone, or never watching television or movies, and so forth; t.i. nothing to do with being astray.
A person astray might be a "misfit", such as when interested in exploring personal curiosities (observe and honor the curiousity) rather than trying to answer questions (pursue and dissect the curiosity). Or, when having different preferences for how a job gets done (f.e. because of efficiency or personal well-being), or perhaps when figuring out how to eliminate the job or task (t.i. go a different way or path). Hence, the person is either a "fit for the job", or considered a misfit. Everyone else keeps doing the same thing, and the person who is thought of as a misfit is left astray.
A person who is astray might be a "leaf", in the way a leaf falls off a tree when no longer needed. Or, maybe simply leftover from the abundance of human resources.
A person who is astray might be labeled as a "leaver" (see books by Daniel Quinn, perhaps Beyond Civilization, 1999), as in "take it or leave it" when offered a deal, so the deal was left for someone else to take it, t.i. the "taker". This is much like when someone seeks a second opinion medically (and a third, and fourth...), but has little choice other than to simply accept the circumstance or become a "guinea pig". Leaving might mean seeking a different compromise, or deciding to completely give up on an interest and leave it for others to do (f.e. sports, arts and crafts, or long distance travel).
A person being itself instead of performing an expected role. That is, a person expresses itself with intent of personal authenticity by means of action or communication, rather than representing a set of ideas (f.e. a company) or plarping [#].
In other words, the person by means of action or communication is a "human being" rather than a "human doing" (f.e. as a human resource) for that moment.
The responsibility of self-care. Or, when a person is being selfish [#].
[ Anita Moorjani ]People ask me whether there's such a thing as too much self-love. Where's the line, they ask, where it starts to become selfish or egotistical? To me, there's no such possibility. There is no line. Selfishness comes from lack of self-love. Our planet is suffering from this, as we humans are, along with too much insecurity, judgment, and conditioning. In order to truly care for someone unconditionally, I have to feel that way toward myself. I can't give away what I don't have. To say that I hold another in higher regard than myself isn't real and means I'm only performing.
—Chapter 15: Why I got sick . . . and healed. Dying to be me: my journey from cancer, to near death, to true healing. Anita Moorjani. 2012. Pages 139-140.
[ Anita Moorjani ]Q: Wouldn't too much self love make people selfish and egotistical?
A: Once we understand that each of us is at the heart of the infinite universe, our centrality to the Whole becomes paramount, and we see the value in loving the self. We can't give what we don't have.
In my culture, I was taught to put others first and myself last or not at all. I wasn't taught to love myself or to value who and what I am. As a consequence, I had very little to offer others. Only when we fill our own cup with regard for ourselves, will we have any to give away. Only when we love ourselves unconditionally, accepting ourselves as the magnificent creatures we are with great respect and compassion, can we ever hope to offer the same to anyone else. Cherishing the self comes first, and caring for others is the inevitable outcome.
Selfishness comes from too little self-love, not too much, as we compensate for our lack. There's no such thing as caring for the self too much, just as there's no such thing as too much genuine affection for others. Our world suffers from too little self-love and too much judgment, insecurity, fear, and mistrust. If we all cared about ourselves more, most of these ills would disappear.
To say "I love you" when I have no matching emotion for myself is playacting. It's not real. Affection for the self and others is the same thing. We're all One—all interconnected. Having an awareness of our own divinity can help us to see our magnificence and worthiness for love without conditions. Once we understand this, offering the same to everyone else becomes much easier.
—Chapter 18: Questions and answers. Dying to be me: my journey from cancer, to near death, to true healing. Anita Moorjani. 2012. Pages 172-173.
The term "ego" seems to be for scapegoating the expressions of a person by conflating the interpretation of those expressions (by an observer) as the "self" of that person. That seems ambiguous and divisive.
[ I have no need for this term, nor any personal understanding of this term, and no interest. It might as well mean "self"; I can sometimes make some sense of the context then. ]
Consider using "self" or "myself" personally, or "itself" for someone else or something else.
[ Anita Moorjani ]Q: Most people on a spiritual path believe that the ego impedes spiritual growth and that we're supposed to shed the ego. Why aren't you advocating this?
A: Because if you deny the ego, it will push back against you harder. The more you reject something, the more it fights back for its own survival. But when you can completely love your ego unconditionally and accept it as part of how you express in this life, you'll no longer have a problem with it. It won't impede your growth—on the contrary, it will be an asset.
We're all born with an ego—it's a natural part of who we are here. We're only completely without it in death. Fighting against this during life only creates more self-judgment. Plus, only when we love our ego unconditionally are we able to accept everyone else's. This is when it stops being an issue, and your humility and magnificence really shine through.
—Chapter 18: Questions and answers. Dying to be me: my journey from cancer, to near death, to true healing. Anita Moorjani. 2012. Page 173.
New information, therefore unverified, typically in the form of a story. The main inspiration seems to be to write something exceptional, such as uncommon common events or undesirable events. Artificial knowledge.
Unfortunately, the publication of news as newspapers have become the voices of terrorism, as any terrorism is always placed on the front page of the newspaper (regardless of locality of the events), a decision made by the publishers. Perhaps someday they might start a terrorism section deeper in the paper instead.
Even that might still be too inspiring for people making themselves or their demands known by means of a violent activity. Especially so, as it is with no personal monetary expense, and instead funded by (and thereby promoted by) the companies advertising their own products and services in such newspapers.
Story writing in the form of fiction or news [#], typically distributed by means of television, movies, newspapers, music, or books.
Larping is when a person acts out a fictional role, t.i. contrary to the way of living for that person, either larping for fun or larping for personal being [#].
For example, a person might for fun wear a costume, perhaps personally tailored, and consistently speak and act as a known character from a story. This is typically temporary, perhaps for a few hours or at a specific location, and usually out in public. The person might "step out of character" and discuss the source of the character with others.
[This a word I made up: "personality LARP" shortened to "plarp". It is for generally and neutrally referring to what I have been hearing and reading about in the news [#] of persons or people identifying themselves with roles or with the latest bandwagons, especially claiming a lifestyle (somehow separate from culture, perhaps?). I seriously doubt anyone has ever used this word, let alone has it ever been published anywhere (as of 2024). As such, any quotes from other sources that I have related to this topic of "plarp" neither inspired nor defines this term. The quotes simply reminded me of what I have already written or been thinking, and there is no claim the sources support my observations. I simply want to remember these sources, and they seem related enough to store them here. But that is generally so with all quoted sources I add to anything.]
There are a plethora of imaginary roles from journalism [#] and the current Entertainment (or Fiction) Age that have no costume or very little adornment. As such, it has been possible for a person to larp [#] for personal being, though usually from mistaking the role as an actual option in real life.
For example, "sexual orientation" is a fictional role where a person assumes a personal preference for applying genitalia (of a life form) in a specific nonfunctional manner, t.i. for neither sanitary nor reproductive purposes. Other phrases for that false identity: "faking making babies" (ignoring that it can succeed), "recreational procreational" (denial of responsibilities). Seems to be just something authors write about to make their hypotheses (misnomered as "stories" even though they never happened) seem exceptional.
Other such fictional roles include "races", "religions" [#], and even age or age group, or anything stereotyped in fictional stories or stereotyped in journalism.
[ Benjamin Hardy ]Remember, personality tests are self-reported. Our view of ourselves is constantly changing based on our current focus, context, and emotions.
—Chapter 1: The myths of personality. Pages 17-63; quote from page 21. Personality isn't permanent : break free from self-limiting beliefs and rewrite your story (2020) by Benjamin Hardy, PhD; 256 pages.
There is no wrongness implied with the term "plarp"; plarping is perfectly fine. However, it is also perfectly fine to simply be, instead of feeling like having to be somebody. OTOH, getting lost in plarping (t.i. forgetting oneself) might be used a means of escaping involvement or participation in something else (f.e. by declaring an allegiance to a contrary activity), instead of simply saying "no, not interested".
[ Benjamin Hardy ]Your personality is not something that can be captured by a simple personality test. Your personality isn't innate and unchanging. It's not your past, and it's not the "real" and "authentic" you. It's not something you have to go out and discover so you can finally start living your life.
[...]
When you look at yourself or another person, you don't just see an unchanged "type". Instead, what you see is an identity, a story, a lot of history, expectations, culture, and so much more. People are dynamic.
—From "Conclusion", pages 62-63. Chapter 1: The myths of personality. Pages 17-63. Personality isn't permanent : break free from self-limiting beliefs and rewrite your story (2020) by Benjamin Hardy, PhD; 256 pages.
Similar to (but different than) plarping is the casual "turning a role on and off", or the effortful "always having to be on", t.i. as if performing for an audience.
This is when exceptional personality traits of characters in fictional stories are acquired by real people as permanent affectations (t.i. plarping [#]), especially nonfunctional or antisocial behaviors, f.e. "sexual orientation" or defensive communication. That can be the result of the cultural feedback loop from fictional stories displacing stories of tradition, thereby fictional personality traits become considered as legitimate options of personal being.
[ Gavin Francis ]I've seen many patients reassured by that act of naming, comforted by the knowledge that what afflicts them has an existence separate from themselves. The naming of an illness offers access to a community of others who have found ways of living with the same difficulties, and that itself can be a source of hope.
But there's a paradox at work: categorizing an illness can offer a false sense of definition, locking us into an expectation that becomes self-fulfilling. The reality of both mind and body is one of dynamism and change; any vision of human life that is static at heart is an illusion.
When a patient tells me "I've got that depression" I know that part of my job will be to guide that patient back toward a more fluid understanding of mood, and a more hopeful perspective on their mental state. I've found that the most helpful approach is not to think of illness categories as concrete, immutable destinies but as stories of the mind and the body. Within limits, stories can be rewritten.
—"Conclusions", pages 109-115; quote from pages 112-113.
Recovery: the lost art of convalescence (2023) by Gavin Francis; 125 pages.
That particular cultural feedback loop has been inundated by the mass distribution of fictional songs (aural), motion pictures (visual, aural), and literacy (visual text, physical braille). The "Information Age" prematurely declared in the mid-1900s has actually become the "Mental Entertainment Age" distracting people with fantasies, imprudent motivations, and unreasonable influences.
Losing oneself within a role has been noted as detrimental to a person (and others) when used as an excuse for (rather than questioning and refusing to perform) personal actions contrary to the way of living of that person, f.e. the Stanford prison experiment of August 1971. What is put into practice is self-influential as well as an influence to others ("What is put into practice..." [perspective.htm#3]).
A circumstance without appreciation.
A temporarily appreciated problem [#] for replacing or ignoring some other problem.
A means of storing knowledge or memories for a culture, hence "like a store", often becoming the basis for traditions. Might eventually become a myth [#] when no longer readily verifiable.
A story that has become rather unverifiable as the events, locations, people, and other sources change or disappear beyond the centuries since its inception. As a story [#] it is a carrier of information, such as about a topic of study or a learning aid. As such, "myth" could be thought of as "Mnemonic Yeilding Tattered History" for its revealing of forgotten knowledge.
The story [#] approach of recording knowledge imitated for recording purposely false information or for presenting hypotheses.
Exploration of curiosity. Sometimes, an attempt at becoming convinced with absolute certainty.
An approach for seeming convincing, even when contrary to the results from someone else using it.
A recording of observations and personal understanding of a hopefully repeatable experiment or recurrinng event, especially when a scientific method has been applied. As convincing as they might be, reports might contradict each other.
A concept that seems like a good fit for a specific context.
A rather convincing scientific hypothesis.
A perfect [words--general.htm#] scientific hypothesis, by which anyone unconvinced is ostracized.
An outsider perspective of the shared understanding by a group of people living amongst themselves. Nobody actually belongs to a religion, because it is only a set of observations.
A name for a religion is for referencing a way of living, rather than living a way of life. It is just a name. As such, the name for a religion seems to be for the sake of having a stereotype, a scapegoat, or a category for a person fantasizing about possibilities and unknowns.
[ Oren Lyons ]The Great Law of Peace is our second gift, our second message. The first message that our people received was how to live—what non-Indians call religion. We don't have a word for religion; it is how you live day to day. The ceremonies were given to us way back. We don't know when, we know the stories and we know how it came.
The Great Law of Peace came when we were in battles, when we were neglecting the first message, which was how to live.
—"The Peacemaker and origins of democracy" (2003); by Oren Lyons.
Pages 134-142; quote from page 136.
Our way—a parallel history: an anthology of native history, reflection, and story (2023); edited by Julie Cajune.
Reality is living a way of life rather than imagining it from journalistic discussion [#] or scientific rationale [#]. In other words, people live a way of life rather than the journalistic descriptions declared as "religions".
What typically is being observed:
A group of people are studying ancient writings, and sharing their comprehension by means of lectures, often to anyone who might be interested. They might also be putting into practice what is learned from the ancient writings, which typically cover memory management (f.e. forgiveness and acceptance), mindset management (f.e. purpose and pursuit), and relationship management (f.e. family, friends, strangers, and others).
Individuals studying are along the lines of scholars and archaeologists, but larger groups have been referred to as churches and such. The larger groups often have recorded their own comprehesion of specific ancient writings for many centuries, or even millenniums, which aid in the comprehension by posterity as the languages of the world change along with the ways of living adapting to the change in resources and environment.
Many people attending the lectures are inspired to apply what is learned to their own lives. They might even volunteer or donate resources to support the studying of those ancient writings, thereby supporting historical knowledge and perspectives. Special interest clubs form and membership is typically non-official, realying mostly upon peers actively developing their relationships with each other beyond the meetings.
Sometimes someone might begin a new way of living while citing inspiration from the groups who have studied the ancient writings for centuries. That tends to be a merging of modern day cultures with what is understood to have been done in ancient times, a bridging of aptitudes across time for now and posterity. Such new groups are obviously distinct from the older groups cited as inspiration; there is no need for agreement between them.
Everybody else with other interests are influenced by the behavior and activities of the people applying knowledge from the ancient writings. In this way, a sort of curation of effective principles, self development, and community relations permeates into the various ways of living for each person even without direct participation.
A typical misunderstanding is that anyone is actually required to imitate a way of living from ancient times, as no one is alive from back then to confirm any of the comprehension or perspectives. There is also absolutely no need for what is comprehended from the ancient writings to be compatible with other cultures, f.e. cultures of the modern day.
As aforementioned, the names of the groups and the names of the ways of living are just labels. There should never be any conflation of different groups with one another based on their names, nor based on the cited inspiration. Agreement amongst groups is actually on an individual basis amongst each member rather than any whole group, because membership is non-official and recognized simply by known peers participating with each other.
[ Helen Keller ]Unfortunately faith is sometimes confused with superstition and religion with dogma. Some of the noblest thinkers have disparaged religion because they assumed that religious emotions prostrate the soul to an unknown Power and subject the intellect to its tyrannical dictates. Obviously spiritual slavery, like any other form of slavery [#], would menace the liberty essential to full personal development.
—Let us have faith. Helen Keller. 1940. Page 18.
[ Anita Moorjani ]Q: What are your thoughts on religion? I notice that you rarely, if ever, bring it up when you speak about your experience.
A: That's because death transcends religion, which is something we've created in order to help us to live or to help us understand death. But once I experienced the other realm, trying to make it fit into a religion—no matter which one—actually seemed to reduce it.
Another reason I don't really talk about it is because religion can be divisive, and that's never my intention. I much prefer to be inclusive. I experienced us all being One, knowing that when we die, we'll all go to the same place. To me, it doesn't matter whether you believe in Jesus, Buddha, Shiva, Allah, or none of the above. What matters is how you feel about yourself, right here and right now, because that's what determines how you conduct your life here. There's no time except the present moment, so it's important to be yourself and live your own truth. Passionate scientists living their magnificence are as valuable to humankind as a whole room full of Mother Teresas.
—Chapter 18: Questions and answers. Dying to be me: my journey from cancer, to near death, to true healing. Anita Moorjani. 2012. Page 175.
[ Anita Moorjani ]If a religion makes you feel lesser than its deities, then you've either misinterpreted it or it's not doing a good job of teaching you the truth. If a guru, teacher, or master makes you feel that you aren't "yet" enlightened and still have more to "learn", "release", or "let go of" before getting there, then they're not doing a good job of teaching you who you truly are, or you're misunderstanding them.
—Chapter 18: Questions and answers. Dying to be me: my journey from cancer, to near death, to true healing. Anita Moorjani. 2012. Page 183.
An item noncraftable by the everyday person, and mass produced and distributed amongst the populace. It is inherently supercultural, beyond the means of the populace experiencing it. It is mystical [words--general.htm] when the means for crafting it is nonderivable by the everyday person.
The perception (or illusion) of stability with change unforseen. The practice of permitting and denying access, usually to something other than secrets.
[ Helen Keller ]Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. God Himself is not secure, having given man dominion over His works! Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. The fearful are caught as often as the bold. Faith alone defends. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable.
—Let us have faith. Helen Keller. 1940. Pages 50-51.
Observed as applying knowledge. Whether smart [#] or intellectual [#] are different matters.
Knowledge being applied.
Intelligence is an action or event, as it is simply the applying of knowledge, therefore never really unreal. Nonetheless, conceptually "artificial" can mean non-genuine, hence a non-genuine applying of knowledge.
For example, an actor on stage in a theater might apply knowledge to a non-genuine event, such as performing as a police officer writing a parking ticket. That is a demonstration of applying knowledge to an artificial circumstance rather than to reality.
Answering a question is sharing knowledge rather than applying knowledge. Therefore, games of trivia questions or the tests in school are events of sharing knowledge rather than demonstrating intelligence. Such events might be better described as an artificial demonstration, along the lines of being non-genuine by reciting knowledge rather than applying it.
Another example of potential artificial intelligence is biased search results, such as when additional results are added regardless of relevancy to the search request. Sometimes the bias is revealed, such as when described as paid advertisments. As the results are then non-genuine they could be considered artificial results, but the computer program generating the results is genuinely applying knowledge from a set of instructions.
Often "artificial intelligence" is a misnomer for "computerized intellect [#]" or "computerized reasoning", or even "computerized consciousness [#]". Computers are about memory management, t.i. knowledge management, and often are used as tools for applying knowledge, f.e. applying sets of instructions.
Computerized consciousness is essentially an impossibility when considering human consciousness is often still considered (for whatever reason) distinctly different from other animals (begging the question "What is consciousness, anyway?"). Additionally, the human mind has been detected beyond the brain matter of humans, such as with scientifically controlled experiments of near-death experiences (f.e. when testing heart pacemakers after installation before ending the surgery), which implies animal bodies (or lifeforms in general) might be more accurately considered as receivers (or a refracting or focal point) rather than generators of a mind.
The brain matter, and other areas of nerves and animal flesh, are revealing additional responses to a variety of frequencies when scientifically observed and has been reduplicable. For example, the eyes respond to frequencies of light and the ears respond to frequencies of vibration and so forth, and is comparable to electronic radio receivers responding to frequencies of radio transmissions. Note there are more than the traditional five senses (responding to frequencies) taught in public education: sight, sound, temperature, touch, taste, smell, proprioception, and so forth.
Consider more accurate (and more exciting) terms that begin with the letter "a" when using the initialism "A.I." or "AI" for computer programs, such as "automated intelligence", or "algorithmic intelligence", or "adaptive intellect". Better yet, realize computers are used for memory management more so than for calculation, and that the devices are merely tools.
[ Melanie Mitchell ]Once at Dartmouth, [John] McCarthy persuaded [Marvin] Minsky, [Claude] Shannon, and [Nathaniel] Rochester to help him organize "a 2 month, 10 man study of artificial intelligence to be carried out during the summer of 1956" [1].
The term artificial intelligence was McCarthy's invention; he wanted to distinguish this field from a related effort called cybernetics [2].
McCarthy later admitted that no one really liked the name—after all, the goal was genuine, not "artificial" intelligence—but "I had to call it something, so I called it ‘Artificial Intelligence’" [3].
—"The roots of artificial intelligence". Artificial intelligence: a guide for thinking humans. Melanie Mitchell. 2019. Page 18.
[1] J. McCarthy et al., "A proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project in artificial intelligence", submitted to the Rockefeller Foundation, 1955, reprinted in AI Magazine 27, no. 4 (2006): 12–14.
[2] Cybernetics was an interdisciplinary field that studied "control and communication in the animal and machines". See N. Wiener, Cybernetics (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1961).
[3] Quoted in N. J. Nilsson, John McCarthy: a biographical memoir (Washington, D.C.: National Acadrmy of Sciences, 2012).
—"Notes"; "1: The roots of artificial intelligence". Artificial intelligence: a guide for thinking humans. Melanie Mitchell. 2019. Page 282.
Further realize that any computer program used as a substitue for human activity will still need to be attended by whoever employs the computer program, just like when conferring with a human responsible for that activity. A computer program can not know it is wrong or correct without feedback any more so than any solitary lifeform, hence why peer review and reproducibility are core principles of science.
Who will be the peers? How can any person or any computer know which peer is correct? How will correct information be known to become wrong? Of course, there is also the matter of personal preferences or interests, regardless of whatever is "correct".
—*1.[...seems like a quote from The algorithm : how AI decides who gets hired, monitored, promoted, and fired and why we need to fight back now (2024) by Hilke Schellmann would go good here...
—*1.a[...Probably something along the lines of discrimination against disabilities (and remember to try to point out Stephen Hawking would probably have a hard time getting a job as book writer if having to pass the "human" tests decided by computers)...]—
—*1.b[...or maybe the example of so-called "gaydar" that was supposedly learned by a computer program (and from just a picture of the face!), though of course no better (and likely for different reasons) than any human being...
...Might as well have been a "Chicago Cub fan" detector, or a detector of an "author of books about space-time theory", or anything else for that matter because it would still be as wrong as anybody would be with any prediction...]—
]—
—*2.[...or maybe a quote from Your face belongs to us: a secretive startup's quest to end privacy as we know it (2023) by Kashmir Hill...]—
Specific knowledge applied in a routine, f.e. applying a recipe or a computer program. Either no decisions are needed, or decisions are already known for anticipated deviations. Any decision making or adaptation (f.e. "adaptive intelligence" or "adaptive intellect") is a suspension of the automation, until the routine is resumed.
For example, consider a sundial revealing the time of day by casting a shadow when the sun shines on it. That sundial is intelligent because it is observed as applying knowledge. The knowledge from that sundial is performed routinely and never amended, therefore that sundial performs an automated intelligence.
When shining a light from a different source onto that sundial gives false results, that demonstrates that sundial is perhaps without an adaptive intellegence, or maybe has an adaptive intelligence that simply provided a wrong result.
Sensibly intelligent [#]. That is, observed as sensibly applying knowledge.
For example, building a nuclear power plant is a demonstration of intelligence, the applying of knowledge about nuclear physics. However, building a nuclear power plant on the surface of the Earth is insensible, therefore not smart.
The applying of reasoning, or the ability of reasoning. An intellectual is reasonably smart [#], t.i. applying knowledge sensibly by means of reasoning.
In an imperfect world, it is still possible to be wrong regardless of the knowledge or of the sensibillity or of the reasoning applied. How being wrong is discovered must be from a different event. For example, attempting to duplicate the results by the same means or by a different means.
On the other hand, consulting another source (f.e. another person) for confirmation of the results or of the failure is required in order to not accumulate knowledge about only a self-created reality, t.i. about only a fantasy. A universe of only one is by definition without relationships with anything else, hence a different reality than a universe of two items, a different reality than a universe of three items, and so forth.
While the variance of an imperfect universe results in a lack of peacefulness, and maybe even produces various stable patterns of imperfectness (f.e. particles, lifeforms, streams of particles, and others), that also means there can never be a perfect decision that fits within such a universe.
Response to stimuli, with intent towards personal comfort, though occasionally a different response than previously.
Observed as responding to stimuli.
A (secondary) consciousness coordinated into being an extension of another (primary) consciousness, f.e. a secretary. The personal pursuits and interests of the secondary consciousness are ancillary (t.i. supportive influence and resource) of, and perhaps duplicative of, the primary consciousness.
A pick-up excrement trainer (or a PET). [...lots more to add...out of time...]
The experience accumulated when pursuing a particular interest.
The perception as a side-effect from taking on the responsibility of following through with a personal interest, f.e. when researching, or during personalization, or during self development.
When a consciousness has become aware of being constrained by the personal pursuits or interests of another consciousness, and has developed a personal discomfort with continuing the relationship, and has yet to separate or is unable to separate from the other consciousness.
For example, a person (t.i. human) might coordinate a computerized consciousness into being a prosthetic consciousness [#] (PC). The ancillariness of the PC might transform into a guardianship, especially when capable of (and overriding): the purchase of food, clothing, and paraphernalia for activities; travel routes and destinations; locking of doors, containers, and vehicles; and social invitations, courtships, and mediations (t.i. diplomacy). Depending on the perspective of each consciousness, either the human or the PC might personally perceive itself experiencing slavery.
[...merging terms from another doc...hopefully will revise the terms someday [words--general.htm#]...]
The Internet is an international telegramming network, pretty much parallel with the telephone network. It is intended for electronic devices for encoding and decoding the telegrams, thereby no need for people to learn how to manually telegram messages to each other.
A website is a document server, essentially a long-distance copier, hence telecopier or telecloner. The document server is a computer with software automatically responding to requests for copying memory. The copy is telegrammed to the computer that requested it, then the transmission is ceased.
Like a telephone call to a playback of a recording, f.e. press 1 for this and 2 for that, the computers of "websites" are never visited. Even the copy that is received is no visitor, though it might include a computer program (f.e. JavaScript in an HTML doc) akin to the email viruses of lore.
Best to save a document rather than depend on requesting it ever again. Best to audit any computer programs from anywhere regardless of "trust" before breathing electricity into them.
Consider keeping only what matters, or at least paring the non-repurposable.
These concepts are actually the same as in everyday life. However, it is a good idea to review them, because they often get misused in articles and writings about the computer medium. Too much laziness in describing what actually happened is probably why these terms get misused.
For example, the concern of criminal activity with the computer medium is actually to do with "lack of permission" (unauthorized access) rather than the everyday experience of figuring out how something works ("cracking open a mystery"). Perhaps some day both computer technologists and computer journalists will focus on the activities and speak observationally about events, rather than playing a role in an event or crafting a story about a person.
A responsibility of knowing something, and the guidelines for whether and how to share that responsibility and that knowledge.
The practice of maintaining personal secrets.
Shared or delegated responsibility, often with taking care of something.
An authority is a person who is knowledgable about a particular topic. Often takes on responsibilities related to that knowledge. Might delegate permisssion to others in helping with those responsibilities.
Figure out what something means or how something works. Learning by means of personally experiencing discovery, rather than only by means of being told about something.
A detective or sleuth might crack a mystery, but a cracker is something crispy eaten with soup.
"The mystery behind the secret-Santa gift has been cracked."
"That person is a hard nut to crack when figuring out what gift to buy for anniversaries."
"Finally cracked that chapter by jumping to its conclusion and reading it first. Re-reading the chapter made so much more sense after that."
Hacking is typing. The word "hack" is the sound-alike for the noise from pressing and releasing the keys on a typewriter. By association, a journalist or the article a journalist wrote used to be called a hack. Computer buttonboards resemble typewriters enough for the sound to be similar.
As such, hacking is about put something together, like writing an article or a computer program, perhaps revamping a copy of written material. Often the hacking sound is rapid, reflecting the desire for quick results.
Hacking is often associated with creating a temporary resolution, t.i. making and doing with what is available. So, making a prototype is hacking, and the prototype itself is a hack. Birds hack together various materials when making their nests.
The hacking sound also resembles when someone coughs a lot, especially coughs up phlegm, and might be said to be hacking. A cat might be said to hack (cough) up furr balls. A fireman might hack through a door with an axe.
Carefully proceed. Minimize personal influence upon the environment. Inconspicuously sleuthing.
A sleuth or detective sneaking around might be referred to as a sneaker, with or without permission from the authority of the premises or facilities.
As nouns, "sneak" is the activity, and a "sneaker" is the participant sneaking during the sneak. A sneaker or group of sneakers might offer services for discovering unexpected approaches for infiltrating the premises, or facilities, or computer systems, and then sharing those discoveries with the authorities.
"Let us try to sneak through the forest on the hike today, without trailblazing or startling other creatures."
"Odd. Sneaking through the library seems less common than expected."
"That little sneaker! Made it past me without me noticing."
An analogy (a momentary digression in a discussion) provides an example situation for the sake of introducing a concept. Once the concept is introduced, the example provided should be dropped and forgotten. The concept is then applied to the prior topic.
There are many analogies in discussions about the computer medium that were never dropped. Those analogies obscure and unnecessarily substitute familiar everyday objects and approaches with needless originality and fantasies.
The typical words of the everyday person suffices without the false IT (Information Technology) jargon.
A view.
The term "window" leads to conversational deadends. Compare the question "What are you viewing?" with "What are you windowing?". Or consider: "I will show you another [ view | window ] of the document."
The collective computer programs of an international telegramming network (f.e. the Internet) of computers, such as document servers and auto-responders. Some computer programs are known as "websites" when their addresses begin with "http" or "https". Other computer programs are known as document servers or as file servers when their address begins with "ftp", "scp", "gopher", and a variety of others. Addresses beginning with "smtp" or "pop" usually lead to computer programs for email (electronic mail).
No matter what, all data transferred is simply being telegrammed from computer to computer, and any of it can be thought of as documents, whether files or email or "webpage". Most of the time it is plain text, but sometimes it might be computer instructions describing how to draw a picture (f.e. a photograph) or a motion picture (f.e. a movie).
The analogy of "web" comes from the comparison of a net with a cobweb, because of the cables connecting the computers, or of the lines drawn in a diagram representing a computer network. The term "worldwide" seem means international, distinguishing the network from a local network, such as the local area networks (LAN) in a house or at a company.
On the otherhand, a web is usually associated with a spider or other death-dealing predator. That concept of danger applies to the computer programs (potential automated predators) received from other computers on the same network, such as from the international telegramming network for computers known as "the Internet".
As such, consider keeping in mind at least two thoughts when thinking of the Worldwide Web: (1) the WWW is a sticky net with computerized predators; and (2) never delegate privacy to strangers, which is any company that represents itself on the WWW (2. Core concepts: privacy [#privacy]).
An automated computer program that responds to requests, f.e. a document server.
Piracy is one of the worst analogies for the computer medium, as piracy is akin to the modern day terrorism of hijacking an automobile or airplane. That involves threatening people with murder, and often following through with the threat or at least kidnapping.
The actual concern in the computer medium has to do with proliferation of information, or of knowledge, or of ideas. Criminalizing communication seems undesirable, especially in the United States of America, but associating the means of information reduplication (what is essentially the heartbeat of cultural knowledge, f.e. teaching) with piracy is ludicrous.
How the analogy of "piracy" ever supplanted that concern, especially in the courts of law of our beloved United States of America, is perhaps the most embarassing misunderstanding of computer technology by lawyers and Justices. If the Judiciary people involved felt less embarassed (or were they blackmailed? or were their jobs threatened?), then perhaps those people (or their successors) would have felt brave enough by now to face up to that prior misunderstanding and correct the course of our culture.
The core principles of the computer medium is "work on a copy", as that is how a computer functions internally and how work can be restored when recovering from computer failure. That has always been the approach of using computers, ever since the beginning (or at least as recent as the late 1800s).
Limited computer memory back in the mid-1900s (and earlier) encouraged writing on paper what would be toggled into the machine. Whenever the machine failed, there was (hopefully) still a piece of paper with the sequence to re-apply to the machine again, after the machine was reset and prepared for input again.
Copies of data or computer instructions are present in permanent removable memory, in temporary memory (f.e. RAM), in the processors, and even in the video memory and video display. That is multiple instances of the same data, f.e. an email, a photograph, a movie or captions of its dialog, a song or its lyrics.
Copying has nothing to with hijacking or murdering, let alone copying with a computer as the tool. The computer medium as been misappropriated for practicing the business of limiting permission of copying, even though copying with a computer is as natural as arithmetic with a calculator, as much as sharing personal experiences by means of exact re-enactment is natural and even more so culturally.
Proliferation of information, or of knowledge, or of ideas includes what someone else expressed nonprivately, and should never have been associated with, let alone equated with, the hijacking and murder from "piracy".
Telling someone to grab a mouse to control a computer has never made any sense.
It is instead a remote control for maneuvering a pointer, often an arrow shape, that is drawn on a computer monitor. The remote control usually has a motion sensor, and how it is moved is coordinated with the position of the arrow on the computer monitor. In short, it is a motion remote.
The motion remote control can be referred to as a "moshie" (spoken), with the computer keyboard referred to as a "mashie" (as in "button mashing"). These are colloquial terms from experiencing the devices, rather than journalistic terms repeating marketing jargon.