Most of us know the human media functions like a closed society that sets its own internal rules and gives us the external rules to follow in terms of thinking and behavior. The human media, like its numerous counterparts, functions as a self-policing group and self-protective group, akin to police and their internal affairs and any other group that is supposed to keep the police “in check.”
No only does the human media require our buy-in to allow them to be the sole determiner of context, definition and questions, we are expected to go along with the human media being participants, referees, arbitrators, analyzers, debaters, social norm establishers and official scorekeepers. Via all of these roles, we allow the human media to tell us what passes as useful information and what approach is best. Unfortunately, based on the plethora of current day sicknesses and infringements on the rights of creation, we should know we are in a worldview context where all major human institutions and any philosophy that governs the masses, is still suboptimized.
The human media, for the most part, is a suboptimal institution, just like most things in suboptimal societies. As a result, our understandings have become suboptimized. We learn a great deal from human media. That learning is not necessarily, and quite often not, the type of information that helps us be our optimal best.
What Is An Interview?
Briefly speaking, when we synthesize understandings, we come to understand an interview is a full circle view, a more complete understanding that encompasses both broad and narrow. An interview is based on TER, EN, ENT, ENTI, AN, UN, NU.An interview is not only a view between two things, but also a view around and back and forth and across various angles of light that helps us understand all sides of dualities.
An interview helps us understand space, time, cycles, processes, self, something else and all else. All of this via thinking that makes optimal logical use of metaphor. Of course, since there is an optimal approach to learning, understanding and interviewing, then there must also be a suboptimal approach. This suboptimal approach has been mistaken for the optimal approach since most of what we've been nurtured on is the suboptimal for thousands of years (since the Age of Aries 2160 BCE), and these thousands of years, to us, represent the enormous evidence of history based on the little we know about human existence, even the little we understand about the suboptimal during this suboptimal cycle, but then again, that is the nature and the purpose of suboptimal cycles. To suboptimize as much as possible in order to create the conditions necessary to fulfill the need incentive via the reestablishment of a much more optimal cycle even more optimal than the previous optimal cycle.
Simply put, greater Golden Ages, such as the one experienced prior to the most recent Age of Leo, must be followed and counterbalanced by greater Dark Ages, such as the one we've been experiencing for nearly 13,000 years.
Back To The Weakest Form Of Interview
We already know the interview approach associated with applying for a job, is a suboptimal process.We also know the interview approach associated with public people or famous people is also suboptimal. An interview is supposed to enhance understanding of something else or someone else, and do so via relating the information to self. (See the number one thing you and everyone else must learn). We mimic this behavior through life, for example, when two people are “trying to get to know each other,” the process is usually as painfully mind-numbing as interviews conducted by the experts and professionals of human media.
We carry this social behavior even further whenever we go somewhere to a gathering or get-together, with family or friends, and you're standing around, and pretty much everyone you meet, tries to take you through the basic question and answer process of what's your name, where are you from, what do you do, how do you know so-and-so, etc. Good grief. What are we learning using these types of approaches to achieving understanding? For the most part, interviews fall into one or more of the categories of interrogations, entertainment events, time-wasters and conversation replacers when the depth of any subject is to be avoided.
Amazingly, and somewhat sadly, some of the best conversations I've had, have been with people I met on an airplane flight, and we talked the entire time and never felt it necessary to ask each other's name or other questions unrelated to the interaction. Our differences enhanced the exchange while our sameness kept it cohesive. Interviewing (the process of understanding and learning) is supposed to be a multi-way street, I.e,, the art of conversation.
Interviewing is not supposed to be something designed to “trip you up, or be one-sided, as in “I ask the questions, you answer the questions. Who learns what through a one way one-sided approach?
As said in many places, the optimal way to achieve understandings is to enter into conversation with that which you seek to understand.And yes, that means each of us need to talk to our ourselves, more. Talk as in conversate.
This will help us as we regain awareness that most of what we think and what we think we know, comes to us, cold-filtered from the human media. This information programming is not only continuously reinforced by the human media we most often refer to as media, but also by multiple other forms of media. Clearly, it is simplistic, in a bad way, when interviewing takes the form of question and answer. This is so because the overall approach is not guided by what we understood before, what we need to know, the best way to achieve the goal and what we understood after. Not just what we understood about that which is being interviewed, but also what we understood about self, others and all else.
How does what we learn fit into the individual context and the collective context, such that both contexts function harmoniously as parts of a whole? As always, all things being spoken of as easily noticeable (revealed) to the masses, is only so at the Giri So level of awareness. This also means the opposite counterbalancing logic is in motion at the other three levels of awareness, but hidden in plain sight, hidden from plain sight and hidden by plain sight. This always means the last to know what's going on are the ones who know the least. This does not mean you have to know a lot, but it does mean you have be in tune with the basic workings of self in relation to the fundamentals of all else. In other words, being able to read the basic signs of yourself, human nature and superhuman nature. Being able to understand light and dark and seasons, and the basics of what it takes to be alive and to live. This understanding must be extended to and connected to other creations in order to fully understand how it applies to self. This basic understanding always holds true and is always revealed regardless of space and time (where we are or what time it is) and regardless of conditions and regardless of seasons and regardless of the forms things exist in. The ever-present nature of both sides of a duality is the common consistent thread of double-sided vibration around, upon and with which all things are connected. The transformation and the non-transformation of the vibration. Viewed in this manner, we can then understand what is at the core root of “the sense” and “the feeling” and “the vibe” we get that resonates clearly enough to tell us what is friend and what is foe., who is friend and who is foe, what logic is friend and what logic is foe, and so on for anything for which a decision can be made and must be made and has been already been made, but needs to be remade.
In civilizations, i.e., healthy societies, human know who they are in a optimal sense, where they came from in an optimal sense and why they are here in an optimal sense. Ultimately, this understanding informs the individual they are a reiteration of the Creator-Destroyer. As such, they and their extended self (the collective), both share the responsibility for learning and teaching and keeping the other “in-check,” in dynamic balance.
