“This Is Not What I Want”: Weaponized Receptivity and the Diffusion of Responsibility

 Medium link: https://weresolvingsociety.medium.com/this-is-not-what-i-want-weaponized-receptivity-and-the-diffusion-of-responsibility-8b7c894957b7

Take away: When someone has no true conversion intent or means to convert their interest to funds, the exercise of catering is misused. We can apply that to social justice situations as well. You may have heard this before as "Don't explain yourself to those intent on misunderstanding you." 

“This is not what I want.”

There are two scenarios where this can occur.

• Someone identifying, currently, with the customer position.
• Someone identifying, currently, with a position of subordination to someone who is doing the thing that they want, which is not what this person wants.

And when, do you think, do these things come together?

First, let’s take a look at what it means to be a customer. When someone is in the position of a customer, they possess a few separate things. They are

• An interest in buying, and the potential means to buy.
• Because of these means, they take the position of the catered-to, meaning they are now in the receptive position; they are receiving products via their search for items that match their supposed desires.
• The process of matching can go one of three ways; insufficient (the desire is not suitably matched, no exchange occurs) sufficient (the desire is suitably matched, exchange occurs, but not optimal exchange) and satisfaction (the desire is suitably matched, exchange occurs, and further interaction with the product continues to bring more pleasure than it does pain).
• There are two ways that desires can be matched — incidentally (one happens to see something and it either rings a bell or it does not) or intentionally (one describes what they want, looks for it, checks matches or mismatches, and then receives the best match.)
• The process of satisfaction and sufficiency can occur in two ways.
• Short term satisfaction; because of the desert of possible satisfactions, a comparatively sufficient form can result in a short-term sense of true satisfaction, but later loses energy and becomes simply sufficiency.
• Long term sufficiency; because of the inherent properties within an object as matched to ultimate structures about their design they are sufficient in the long-term, and do not devolve into mere sufficiency because all possible comparisons have been accounted for in a long-term designated way. This is usually the sign of good engineering, as opposed to good momentary market competitiveness (being a knock off).

So when a person says, “This is not what I want” as a customer, we check for three things

• Means to pay
• The active-receptive (intentional) or passive-receptive (incidental) position
• Their forms and thresholds of insufficiency, sufficiency, and satisfaction.

Should they not have any of the following, we do not do business as a caterer and cease to validate their position as a customer. Inherent in the energies of catering, is after all, the idea that they can come up with what they need to pay (debit) or at least possess some of the principles required for payment in the future (credit).

Now, though we have yet to build the connection, let’s jump to the “this is not what I want” of the resentful subordinator.

The resentful subordinator

• Believes they cannot answer to their own agency and must answer to a superior,
• Supposedly does not identify with the action at hand, but does identify as inherently subordinated to the person with whom they disagree
• Intends to go against their professed desires for those desires that are enforced on them
• In this way, they diffuse responsibility under the guise of powerlessness which is in its own right a form of covert power.

Some examples of the resentful subordinator;

“I have to give you this ticket. That’s what I was told at the office. If it were up to me, I’d let you walk away. But I have to do this.” The individual therefore retains social credit while deducting capital.

“I have to kill this guy. I’m under orders. I hate every second of it, but I must do it as a duty to my country.” The individual retains some semblance of community safety credit while, in act, completely brutalizing it to accrete hierarchical credit with the boss in question.

Of course, the resentful subordinator becomes a problem when they know for a fact, to themselves, that they could easily answer to their own agency. However, they refuse to as a way to diffuse blame and promote plausible deniability for their point along the networks and infrastructure of blame, collateral, and “justice”. Proving, however, that someone knew they had the ability for autonomy but purposefully chose to diffuse it becomes a difficult task — many people, for instance, are genuinely disabled by severely codependent mechanisms. Others, however, make the deliberate choice to scapegoat and diffuse responsibility by design.

The key shared factor here is a certain receptivity toward power.

In the case of the consumer the power resides with

• The institution able to fulfill, present, and propose possible insufficient, sufficient, and satisfactory forms.

In the case of the self-identified subordinator the power resides with

• The person who has the supposed means to provide toward the ultimate good of the individual, which, if they are honest, they do not believe to be themselves.

Both individuals in a way are identifying with a certain inability. They are unable to

• Self-describe the possible forms that would fulfill them
• Analyze, balance and distribute their ultimate good with effectiveness

So, inherent in receptiveness is a certain inability if one actually capitalizes on the potential to receive. One may put themselves in the position to receive, but if one believes that they possess the ability to fulfill themselves more or analyze their own ultimate good in a superior fashion they will not actually capitalize on the potential to receive by receiving and will simply have wielded the position of receptivity.

Examples of someone wielding the potential to receive in these ways without actually receiving

• Going into a store to look but not purchasing
• Going to a church but sitting in the back scoffing, never to return
• Joining the army or police force on temp but quitting due to inability to respect the design at hand
• Having a consultation with a contractor only to ghost
• Amping up a hiring process to the final tier only to go with someone else they had decided on previous to meeting this person

The common factor in these insufficient desires is that they are informants that fulfill the creative process of one who supposedly has the ability to self-describe their fulfillment forms. But when we look at it this way, that’s not exactly what we have going on, is it? By weaponizing their receptivity in such a way, they have no intention of buying and therefore no means to buy. They simply have an intention to inform that may go to their intention to appropriate. When these appropriations are capitalizable, we can see false receptivity can be a weapon of appropriation.

We will push the issue forward on creative ordinations, intellectual property, supremacy in the feminine form, exploitation, and intellectual property at a future date.

Following, we will speak on shaping the forms of receptivity; identifying the customer with implanted desires as a political weapon.

We hold, most importantly, that this position is one of narcissism (win-lose) as is any based in exploitative supremacy.

We hold that it is the duty of all distributors to not give the powerful receptive position to those without means and intention, and we hold that it is the duty of all agents to preserve their right to agency by understanding their position as location, not assignment, on a network.

If you found this piece helpful or it woke you up a little, donate now to We’re Solving Society. gf.me/u/y47m8d