Interference is constructive and destructive anything. Constructive interference might be that by well informed lawful consent, and destructive against these pr

Interference is constructive and destructive anything. Constructive interference might be that by well informed lawful consent, and destructive against these principles. Funny you should say (regarding violation), I use the term “breach” in my derived works to isolate exactly that. Breach is destructive interference (by will or neglect, I.e. not by freak accident or forces beyond account) upon the “domain” of another. There is lesser breach, which could be harassment, through “egregious breach” which means to diminish the potential of existential being (murder, actual physical damage, rape, etc.) I have doodled around with some assertions I would love to discuss elsewhere if you are taking this seriously. For instance I define “law” as “the aspect of order, the interface of breach (violation), the ultimate resolve of domain.” Here we say when there is a “breach” (my technical term for “violation” for reasons you may intuit) among selves (embodiments or actors) “law” (itself defined as “aspects of order” [of domain]) is the “ultimate resolve of domain.” A violation (breach) is viewed as a debt to the domain (law, as proxy for the violated other.) Here resolve would be whatever lawful/moral response to the balance of the debt breach causes by the responsible party. Domain is any isolated scope, identified through relationships (vectors) and evaluates to the highest encapsulation of authority (which may be beyond one’s self.) You’re right, there is an art to saying simply and explaining such In complexity. I feel there are simple rules in there we must have the right language to describe.