Application One: Old Woman Robbed: Processes of Thought
In SCA CVIARP represents the full sequence of a consciously created result, Circumstances, Value, Intents, Action, Result, and Purposes. It used to be called CDIARP, where I called Value Desire, where the object(or word) desire represented the most efficient achievable object of value in the environment. It is correct either way, but I changed it to CVIARP for consistency of base terminology. In this application I observe the SCA processes retrospectively that occurred while I was in the moment. Secondly, SCA was formerly called Sequencing and Comparison where I took for granted that the purpose of SeqComp was to create assignments for objects. The addition of Assignment to the title and inclusion in the article represents what is implied by SeqComp, and also helps to illustrate the concepts and organization of objects by the mind.
The following is a CDIARP organization of an event inclusive of processing, meaning the organization and processing was taking place without the individual’s awareness of the organization or processors, which would not be identified until months later. Which isn’t relevant because CDIARP and the identified components of thought provide the points of action for human thought, decision making, and ultimately perceived reality.
Even now, having identified sequencing and comparison, unless it is related to explaining SeqComp or purposes related to it, I don’t think about SeqComp, although I think from SeqComp. Everyone thinks from SeqComp, but the difference is the extent to which sequencing is considered and the contamination of the processors.
I was at a friends’ apartment with other people I know waiting for the 2nd round of the NBA Western Conference Playoffs to begin, I believe game 4 between the Blazers and the Nuggets. (2019) While waiting we watched the local news. A local news broadcast was reporting men who dragged an elderly woman and stole her purse. My first thought was the action and result are a product of circumstances, which are a product of systems, and I assigned partial responsibility for the event to the consenting collective who produced the circumstances. There is no purse snatching unless circumstances exist where there is desperation for money, and there is no more efficient way to get money to satisfy the need or desire for it. It isn’t that drawn out of a process. It is near instantaneous with the most conscious feature of it being initiating responsibility resting with the general public.
The details are a woman was dragged and robbed. What comes back is the responsibility for the act rests with the public. This thought is built on laws that systems produce circumstances that produce the desire to rob.
Shawn’s baby mama Missy commented “it’s fucked up they dragged an old woman”, which implies her thoughts began at a result and action. It is implied and not known because although my first thoughts were of the circumstances producing motivation, my first comment was “I want to see the video”. Meaning she may have already considered that circumstances produced the result but her point of emphasis on individual responsibility was the woman’s age and that she was dragged. Or as mentioned she saw the action and the result and didn’t consider what produced the action, and her entire impression of the event is based on the action and the result. The headline aired multiple times before the story itself aired.
Second, my attention turned to the detail that the woman was dragged. It implied malice in the crime that was not required to fulfill the purpose of getting her money. I surmised the woman probably didn’t relinquish her purse and was dragged as she held onto it. The only other explanation was the woman was fighting back and then it’s possible she was dragged in retribution for injuries she inflicted. The local news channel in the full broadcast report confirmed the most probable explanation: the woman held onto her purse.
My mind moved to truth and efficiency. I considered the lens through which the event was being reported. The news media was intentionally and unintentionally misleading the public. The headline and report emphasized the woman was dragged which as I stated, implied unprovoked or unnecessary malice on the part of the assailants. Sensationalizing the event is intent on ratings but also serves the unintended purpose of demonizing the suspects. The omission of the circumstances that cause people to rob reinforces the myth that people are defective without acknowledging the environment as a contributing cause. It implies responsibility rests with the people involved in the act, and not the general public who is responsible for the systems and environment producing the circumstances that cause people to rob.
People who saw the story with me had an issue with it being an old lady. I commented that if you are going to randomly rob a person, it makes more sense to rob an elderly person than it does to rob someone who is better equipped to defend themselves. In retrospect I add the act will become less efficient due to the increased level of resistance without the presumption of a greater reward in trying to rob a younger victim.
I carried cause and effect forward in my mind. I thought about the social consequences of had they not dragged the woman and obtained the purse, how this could impact their self-esteem and social standing. I made the comment as a joke along the lines of how it would look or how it would feel if you can’t even rob an old woman.
Why did I joke about it? This is a retrospective analysis not thoughts taking place at the time of the event. Considering the purposes of alternate details within the event (all cause and effect) I came across additional motivation for why it was necessary to drag the woman. The consideration of those purposes was funny to me and hilarity has inherent value. There is innate satisfaction derived from bringing the reward of laughter to others and it enriches the experience itself if they understand it. Socially it has the potential to increase the value of the person who causes other people to laugh, and when it doesn’t your own laughter has inherent value.
I probably seemed like I was advocating robbing and dragging old ladies, but I acknowledge that the act itself is wrong. At the same time, people consent to and even enthusiastically support systems that produce circumstances that cause some people the desire to rob old ladies, so it will happen. There is a general indifference I have for these kinds of events because I understand it as an effect of the organization of modern civilization. It is no more notable to me than stepping on an accelerator pedal and a car accelerating.
Upon seeing the result, I thought through cause and effect to build the sequence, and began moral processing based on the known details, recognizing the initiating responsibility resting with the general public. I carried cause and effect forward to account for an action that seemed not essential to creating the intended result. I did this twice based on the most likely causes of the dragging action. I discovered the act of dragging was necessary because the woman refused to let go of her purse. Her age did not influence the moral perception of the act. Her age did prompt value processing in efficiency as I considered the act with a younger victim more capable of defending his or herself. I reached the conclusion that the act was possessed of efficient intent, since presumably the act should require less effort for the same uncertain reward of robbing a younger male. In establishing the cause of the woman being dragged I carried cause and effect forward based on an unsuccessful result. The sequence produced hilarity, which was much more richly imagined than I generalized, which is why I cannot tell you why it was funny because it included scenes and dialogue related to the general ideas of reducing their self-esteem and social judgement. The social value of the concepts caused me to express them.
None of the processes are considered at the time of the event and the details of the news story were only casually considered. By this I mean, what I described in the previous paragraph are the laws and processes that built the thoughts I had at the time. The thoughts themselves were assigning responsibility to the general public for the act, a theory of why she was dragged, the efficiency of an elderly target, and then I imagined scenarios of two failed robbers interacting with people in their neighborhood if they failed. I did not know I was going to write about the event as the event was taking place. Months later, after identifying the processors, the details were considered and an explanation for the thoughts was understood through the processors, as explained in the previous paragraph.
I wrote about that night the next day. I hadn’t seen these people in a longtime and we hung out, went to the bar, and stayed up until about 8am. I wrote about the night the next day and posted it on my website primarily to reflect on a debate I had concerning activism with one of the people present. I didn’t include this event in the article because there was another news story that had more entertainment value, and the article already included subjects related to about 16 hours’ worth of experience.
Some may question if I would feel the same way about robbery if I was a victim and I thought about a time when people tried to rob me. The affirmation felt good in recollection. The short version of the story is three people entered my home and one was armed. I was outside having just returned from driving my dad in my vehicle to help me diagnose a problem I was having. We lived in a house on 21st and Lincoln nearer to Grant, brown house in the back, at a T intersection of an alley.
My daughter escaped from the back door and I saw her running towards 21st street down the alley as I walked up the walkway. She told me people are trying to rob mommy. I entered the house, pulled the first assailant outside and threw him off of the porch. I fought with them briefly, and at one point they may have tried to shoot me. When they were trying to flee I tackled one of them and was hitting him. The other two were in the alley and the one told the other to shoot me. Then he passed the gun to the one who said it who began examining the weapon as if he were trying to diagnose an issue with the gun. The assailant I had on the ground I allowed to squirm away and then I chased them down the alley towards 20st street where they cut through a yard and jumped in their car and drove off.
I’d provide the details but I have written about it elsewhere and I don’t want to appear to be leaning too heavy on this story as a source of pride, which it is, to fight off armed robbers in front of your family to maintain your livelihood should be a proud moment, especially since I had a wad of cash you could see bulging through my jeans and a bottle of pills that could be heard shaking in my pocket. The point of me sharing the story here isn’t about what happened, but what I told my dad as the police were trying to take a statement from Holly. We were silent on the porch, and I said it’s unfortunate that people are in positions where they must do things like this. This happened in 2011 or 2012. A period in my life when I was just beginning to have an intellectual awakening which was both prompted and constrained by understanding that most of what people are is the sum of impressions left upon them during their life in response to their immediate circumstances, which they are not solely responsible for.
Even back then, immediately after the event transpired, my thoughts went to the circumstances that produced the act, and the immediate circumstances confronting the individuals. Why it happened. The immediate sequence consisted of serving someone who knew someone who knew Holly. Typically, I had a very tight distribution network, usually people who sold to other people, and a few consumers who were trustworthy. This is why I didn’t serve people who I didn’t know.