The human cognitive mechanism has gradually been superceded by the haphazard architecture of manufactured information. Hypothetical and obscenely generalised situations have come to be regarded as more genuine (and thus are elevated above) real "ordinary" experience. The condition of an excess of manufactured information – "excess" being understood here in its unique application to the domain of intangibles such as also belongs "information" (however inextricably caught in the subjective light of considerations of content and quality this understanding might seem to be) – is one that propagates itself quickly and easily in the current stifled cognitive atmosphere, much the same as bacteria will rapidly propagate themselves upon a sweaty backside.
           This condition serves as a sorry testimonial to a widespread inability to move beyond the compulsive categorical division and sub-division of the manifestations of our vulgar tangibility, and thereby to grasp a more expansive – while greatly simplified – approach to observing (and, against hope, understanding) the tireless, constantly evolving interactions of minutiae that constitute our lives, within what is no more than an agitated system of near non-existence. In the place of such simplification, we are instead subjected to an avalanche of ever-growing, increasingly abstracted concepts, formulated in a desperate attempt to describe and organise the avalanche of ever-growing and increasingly abstracted concepts beneath which untainted cognition has been buried – deeper now than our soundings can reach. It is of little surprise that the swollen, helpless carcass that the body of our communications has become provides such a tempting target for predators and parasites both (these in fact being the predatory and parasitical aspects of ourselves). A difficult choice is presented here: to work against the tide of inclination, without approval or reward; or to succumb and gorge upon this bloated mass, thereby condemning ourselves to an existence of perpetually having to disguise disappointment beneath a pretense of being satisfied by what amounts to little more than a mouthful of dust.
           Such reductions (and that which follows) of solid material – not into its actual, empty state, but rather into delusional abstractions further reduced into what inevitably become arbitrary signifiers – are carefully being kept to the forefront of priority; while those elements that prove insoluble are destroyed (as far as such a thing is possible) or, at the very least, pointedly avoided. However, given the essentially unavoidable nature of this insoluble material, perpetual (and perpetually changing) distractions become necessary. As any lapse will allow unwanted awareness to reassert itself, these distractions must convincingly be reinforced by a perception of being relevant and worthwhile pursuits. A culturally encouraged impatience to feel a sense of achievement thus replaces any desire for genuine, qualitative experience, and long-term consequence is disregarded in favour of immediate result; inevitably, the most virulent contagion available is embraced. Blissfully transported, we arrive at the remains of our predecessors, mistaking as evidence of our insight their brittle and decaying bones, horribly distended and knotted together with long braids of over-stimulated nerves and atrophied brain tissue. Yet, far from being a legacy of worthwhile human accomplishment, these relics are in fact the tangible detritus of a history of consistent failure – failures that reach back far beyond preserved or living memory (the shriveling span of the latter which is now of frighteningly negligible proportions), yet are nowhere to be found in the at-best-biased-and-not-uncommonly-utterly-falsified annals of "official" recorded history.

           Despite the difficulty involved in such an effort, it would be of great value to make the focus of qualitative scrutiny the entire sum of generated information, beyond just the mere consideration of context and meaning of its numerous component sources. We do not absorb information in isolated little packages, nor does it require our conscious attention; and so limiting the examination of affective material to only compartmentalised areas without taking into account how they modify/influence other areas is insufficient, if not entirely useless.
           In the present information epidemic, amidst the babble of countless self-aggrandising voices, what is the resultant message that is being conveyed to us? As conflicting forces cancel out and deflect each other, what ultimately is the direction in which we are being propelled? And within what time frame? A day? A month? A lifetime? Is anything worthwhile being accomplished here at all? Of course, all these questions would need to be considered on an individual basis, as each individual exists at a unique point in the exchange, and is each possessed of unique properties of it own.
           The imperatives conveyed to us through the channels of manufactured information are becoming implicit beyond our ability to perceive them; and, perhaps of greater concern, carry influence beyond that of any deliberate or pre-determined intent (as insidious as these deliberate attempts certainly can be). The toxic mire resulting from this overlap of ill-conceived material forces us to now move beyond (yet not exclude) the all-too-convenient safety net of language in order to regain a clear perspective.
           That there exists some single, overarching plot (or even several) with an aim to control or inflict harm is not what is being suggested here. The architects of our demise do not necessarily harbour any ill will towards us. They are only sleeping passengers, awakened within our malleable, unprotected flesh; resurrected from out of a non-living state to thrive within our dark interiors. They cannot perceive the boundary that is ourselves, fixated as they are upon their own self-importance; and we cannot perceive them for identical reasons. While we search for convenience, they work tirelessly, mechanistically; utilising our existence in ways we never considered; exploiting our raw material to expand their own possibilities while ours are steadily, reciprocally, narrowed.
           In what might superficially appear to be in contradiction to this fact, new permutations continue to arise within our range of diminishing possibility. This provision of an endless source of choices – the most ingenious distraction of all – blinds us to the real effect. Yet an excess of choices leads inevitably to mutual-cancellation. And neglect towards any consideration of consequence leads, ultimately, to what could arguably be described as well-deserved ruin.

           Perhaps an attempt could have been made to present these ideas in a more objective manner. Yet, given the unstable character of even rudimentary forms of cognition – its very nature being one inherently contrary to objectivity of any sort – the attempt ultimately would have been a meaningless one. Language, even in its firmest and most agreeable state, is at best an easy alternative to other, more obvious forms of cowardice; providing a simple and widely accepted method to divert accountability to (or find concealment behind) an intangible.
           If language is regarded in this unforgiving light, written language becomes little more than a series of careless stains made upon reason, similar in effect to the blackish smudges left behind by hard rubber soles on a floor of freshly waxed linoleum. A "historical" view, however, would seem to provide ample evidence to the contrary of such an ineffectual characterisation of the written word. Language put to this use has repeatedly proven to be an unreservedly virulent (and voracious) agent, against which only infrequently adequate inoculation has been possible. In the aftermath of the onslaught of the printed word (this most exquisitely refined of corruptions), even what might in most circumstances be regarded as durable logic is quickly reduced to waste: its procedures left a pile a wretched bones in the figurative cellar; its substance stripped away by ambiguity, self-validating arguments, acidic qualifications…
           To press this further than would perhaps be considered prudent (and yet what worthwhile results could possibly be generated by the application of prudence in the face of such overwhelming uncertainty? As if such concepts remained as only idle spectators in this disaster-in-the-making), this idea could be considered in the manner of a relationship between objects in an active (or, more to the point, inter-active) environment. In such an environment, all materials, as well as the component parts of these materials, are free to affect each other to the extent that their nature empowers them to do so. There are no controls, no clearly defined categories: every aspect is entangled in a web of endlessly reciprocating influences, resulting in a situation of staggering complexity. Despite the superficial correspondences between various formulae – extrapolated from apparently "consistent" observed tendencies – and the actual, living functions of this environment, ultimately the countless forms of interaction and interference, all taking place in a countless number of ways, render these attempts at easy generalisation completely useless.
           So how do we examine this relationship from a potentially enlightening point of view? Perhaps the tools that should be brought to bear are not those of an external, intrusive origin, but rather ones that are wholly appropriate to the situation by being formed out of the very materials that comprise it. In such a way must we situate ourselves: not as distant observers, but as fully integrated into the environment itself that we wish to observe; and from the same perspective as that which is acting and being acted upon.