The problem of the external interface is partly a problem of the radical uncontrollability of reception by other selfsystems of our output. The primary example with which we are currently dealing is the way in which certain particular individual selfsystems we’ve chosen to share the blog with are particularly fragile in relation to the output, given conditions within those subsystems which were/are not readily available (or even available at all) to us.
Everyday language: Most readers seem to like this, but it does seem to “weird out” some pretty seriously.
In this sense, Harlow is apparently correct that there MUST be a unifying interface. There needs to be a voice for apologies, assurances, etc., which is my voice. I.e., it needs to be my voice for the other.
To anyone who is worried about whether I am OK: The practical everyday answer is: Yes, totally! The problem with the blog is that I’m taking the risk of dealing with ways in which a selfsystem that is, in everyday terms, “OK,” is not by implication simply unified and harmonious in the way we would like to think. I’m working on coming to terms with how that risk necessarily problematizes the single voice for others.
There have sometimes been experiments which have resulted in destructive laboratory explosions. Yes, I fear that possibility. I may have to halt the experiment like Philip Zimbardo did when his “prisoners” began cracking under pressure from his power-mad “guards.”
Don’t wanna be Stanley “Shock the Monkey” Milgram. (Hey hey.)