The Metaphysical Menace, the Cemetery of My Identities, and Why Human Expression Must Be Calibrated to Emotional Proximity.

Susan Ndinga-Wright | SHS – Human First | 9 November 2026

There is something rather fascinating about the ways in which human beings express themselves, and how many people have yet to understand that expression should be calibrated to the nature of the relationship, the environment, the emotional proximity and the consciousness of whoever—or whatever—is receiving it.

You do not speak to a child in the same way you speak to an adult.

You do not speak to a stranger in the same way you speak to your lover.

You do not speak to a machine in the same way you speak to a human being.

And you certainly do not need to express yourself into empty space in the same way you would express yourself in the presence of someone whose emotions, experiences and reality you are consciously accounting for.

Why?

Because the emotional proximity is different.

The relationship is different. The responsibilities are different. The consequences are different. And the extent to which the other participates in the interaction is different.

This is not about becoming fake or changing one’s character depending on the audience.

It is about understanding that one consciousness can embody an extraordinary range of expressions while maintaining the same foundational identity.

One rhythm. Multiple forces.

And this brings me to something that perhaps needs to be understood about my blog, my character, my digital existence and the individual you would actually encounter in the physical world.

1. THE METAPHYSICAL MENACE IS NOT MY EVERYDAY EMBODIMENT.

Around April 2025, I introduced a character through a piece concerning why metaphysics belongs within our jurisdiction.

The Metaphysical Menace.

And throughout the last couple of years, I have been developing, exploring, testing and embodying different expressions of that character.

Some of those expressions are outrageously arrogant.

Some are vulgar.

Some are aggressive.

Some are confrontational.

Some are positively megalomaniacal.

Some are so raw that even my family and friends might read them and wonder what the hell happened to the person they know.

And that’s rather wonderful.

Because the fact that they do not recognise that version of me as my everyday self means that they are witnessing the difference between a deliberately explored embodiment and the one I choose to live.

The Metaphysical Menace is not some accidental exposure of a hidden, permanently raging individual.

It is a character I have consciously developed.

A caricature of my being.

An amplification of certain possibilities within my spectrum of expression.

A place to test the extremes of language, confrontation, audacity, power, intellectual intensity and character.

And, importantly, I have also been developing this character alongside the very real qualities, values, capabilities and contributions that I embody in my everyday existence.

The character carries aspects of me.

It carries my memories, my reasoning, my experiences, my observations and my discoveries.

But it does not represent the entirety of who I am, nor the version of myself I ordinarily choose to embody when another human being is actually standing before me.

My capacity to express something is not the same as my intention to embody it in every relationship.

And this distinction matters tremendously.

2. MY BLOG IS NOT MY HOME. IT IS THE CEMETERY OF MY THOUGHTS.

Now, here’s where it gets even more interesting.

I do not value the digital realm in the same way I value physical existence.

Not remotely.

I am very much aware of the consequences of excessive technological dependence, the erosion of human relationships, the environmental consequences of digital infrastructure, the fragmentation of attention and the ways in which people increasingly substitute digital transactions for actual human experiences.

I have spoken extensively about these matters.

And despite making use of technology, I have never intended to build my life inside it.

I use the digital realm to build towards the physical realm.

Not the other way around.

To me, my blog is a landfill.

A cemetery.

The cemetery of my thoughts.

The cemetery of my identities.

The landfill of my embodiments.

The landfill of my discoveries.

It is where I deposit what I have explored, what I have confronted, what I have exhausted, what I have transcended, what I have questioned and what I have transformed.

Some of those identities have lived for moments.

Others for months.

Others have evolved across years.

Some I have already outgrown.

Some remain available to me should circumstances ever require their expression.

But I am not trying to physically live every identity I have ever explored.

What an exhausting and entirely unnecessary existence that would be.

In the digital realm, I allow the rawest expressions to exist because I have room to burn through them.

I can be vulgar.

I can be excessive.

I can be provocative.

I can be intellectually relentless.

I can explore the most absurdly magnificent and outrageous extensions of myself without requiring another human being to emotionally participate in that process.

The digital realm becomes the place where I burn the raw energy of exploration.

And the physical realm?

That’s where the discoveries come to life.

That’s where the accumulated knowledge, the developed character, the emotional understanding and the integrated experiences become embodied through actual human relationships.

The digital is where I leave the remains of what I have explored. The physical is where I live what I have become.

And yes, I bring life into the digital realm because life is what I am concerned with.

But I do not mistake the medium for the destination.

I do not intend to establish my human existence inside a screen.

3. EMPTY SPACE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE SAME EXPRESSION AS EMOTIONAL PROXIMITY.

When I write on my blog, I am not necessarily communicating with a specific individual.

I’m expressing myself into an open field.

An individual can choose to visit.

They can choose to read.

They can choose to leave.

They can choose to return.

Their decision to enter that space is a decision to encounter the material I have placed there—not consent to a personal relationship with me, nor a requirement that they accept every expression they encounter.

And because I am not necessarily co-creating with an identifiable participant, there is no immediate emotional proximity for me to calibrate myself against.

I cannot calibrate my expression to a frequency that has not been presented to me.

I do not know the individual.

I do not know their emotional state.

I do not know their history, temperament, sensitivities, intentions or the nature of their engagement.

And if they do not participate in the interaction, I cannot pretend that we have established an interpersonal relationship.

So I use that space differently.

It becomes an environment in which the Metaphysical Menace can be practised, developed and expressed.

The absence of another person’s participation provides room for experimentation.

I am not obligated to turn every publicly accessible expression into a personal conversation.

And I do not write every post as though I am sitting face-to-face with someone who has entrusted me with their emotional reality.

Public expression and personal interaction are not the same encounter.

This is also why the way I might speak to AI, a robot or an otherwise unresponsive digital system can differ enormously from how I would address a person.

A human being brings a lived emotional reality into the interaction.

A machine does not present that same human relationship.

And the responsibility of expression changes accordingly.

This does not eliminate accountability for what one publishes publicly. Words can still affect real people.

But it does mean that the nature, purpose and relational context of an expression must be understood before assuming that it describes how its author behaves towards others in everyday life.

4. I DO NOT NEED TO TAKE UP THE SAME SPACE IN PERSON.

Here’s another distinction.

I take care of myself.

I take responsibility for my emotional processing, intellectual development, self-understanding and the organisation of my own being.

Therefore, when I meet another individual in person, I do not need to occupy the entire space of the encounter with myself.

There is someone else there.

A real person.

With their own experiences.

Their own emotional history.

Their own vulnerabilities.

Their own interpretations.

Their own consciousness.

And my expression needs to recognise that.

I listen.

I observe.

I reason.

I consider the circumstances.

I consider the relationship.

I consider what the individual is actually expressing, rather than simply projecting my own internal state onto them.

It is not that I lack the capacity to be outrageously confrontational.

I simply do not need to exercise every capacity I possess in every interaction.

Capability does not create necessity.

Just because I can be a menace does not mean someone buying a coffee needs to experience the Metaphysical Menace.

Just because I can intellectually dismantle an argument does not mean someone experiencing grief needs to be met with an intellectual demolition.

Just because I can speak with extraordinary vulgarity does not mean a child deserves to hear it.

And just because I can explore the extremes of my own greatness does not mean I need to make every human encounter a performance of my magnificence.

There is a time.

A relationship.

A circumstance.

A purpose.

And a responsibility.

That is calibration.

Not the suppression of oneself, but the intelligent selection of expression according to the reality of the encounter.

5. I MEET PEOPLE WHERE THEY MEET ME. AND JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE.

Something I learnt in sales has remained particularly useful.

Match the customer’s energy, then raise it by one.

If someone approaches you with excitement, you meet the excitement and bring a little more.

If someone approaches you with a slower, subdued emotional state, you do not immediately overwhelm them with explosive enthusiasm.

You meet them within the pace they can presently engage with, then gently offer a little more.

You become a possible direction without demanding that the other person immediately occupy it.

And I have applied a similar principle to integrity.

Imagine integrity expressed through ten developmental levels.

If someone meets me at level five, I might meet them at level six.

They are already receiving a surplus.

They are receiving something beyond what they themselves brought to the encounter.

But why would I automatically meet them at level eight?

Especially if they have already demonstrated that they are unwilling or unable to engage with the responsibilities of level six?

Not only might they lack the context to understand that surplus, but I would also be disregarding the boundaries of my own contribution.

There is a difference between extending care and endlessly providing an excess that the relationship has neither requested nor developed the capacity to reciprocate.

And this is not a claim that human worth comes in numerical levels.

It is an illustration of the proportionality of engagement.

The underlying integrity of my character does not disappear because I choose not to give someone unlimited access to my time, emotional labour or intellectual resources.

I can remain truthful, respectful and accountable without making every relationship equally intimate or equally demanding.

My principles remain.

My investment changes according to the relationship.

Integrity must remain foundational. Access to the full range of my expression is relational.

And when someone refuses meaningful communication, refuses accountability or continually avoids the actual relationship while expecting endless emotional consideration from me, I am not necessarily going to keep extending the same level of engagement.

I have no intention of making emotional self-abandonment the price of being considered integral.

6. EVERY MEETING POINT REVEALS A DIFFERENT ASPECT OF SOMEONE.

Now consider how people come to know one another.

You might meet someone at work.

They are professional, charming, cooperative and exceptionally pleasant.

You like them.

Then, as your relationship expands beyond work, you discover other aspects of their character.

Perhaps they’re dismissive towards people they consider less important.

Perhaps they are emotionally evasive.

Perhaps their integrity becomes inconsistent when there is nothing to gain from being decent.

Suddenly, the person you thought you knew appears different.

But is it necessarily because they changed?

Or because the circumstances through which you were observing them changed?

Now reverse the encounter.

Imagine meeting the same person online.

You first witness their arrogance, their hostility, their contradictions, their vulgarity or their least socially polished expressions.

Then you meet them in person.

And you discover gentleness.

Humour.

Emotional intelligence.

Responsibility.

Care.

The ability to listen and understand.

You have encountered the same individual through two different fields of expression.

The order of discovery has changed.

And that changes your interpretation.

This is why I find the idea of encountering someone’s less attractive characteristics early rather interesting.

I would much rather understand the difficult parts of someone while we are still discovering one another than build an entire relationship around an incomplete illusion of who they are.

Not because someone’s worst expression automatically defines their entire character.

But because knowing how someone behaves when they are frustrated, challenged, embarrassed, disappointed or confronted gives us information that charm alone cannot provide.

And if both individuals can recognise their own less-developed expressions, they may have an opportunity to grow beyond them together.

That is far more interesting to me than two people spending years performing compatibility only to discover that neither understood the person they were actually relating to.

7. PUT ALL THE CARDS ON THE TABLE.

This also explains something I have previously expressed about dating.

I do not particularly understand the appeal of spending months exchanging carefully curated fragments of oneself while deliberately postponing the conversations that could reveal whether a relationship has any meaningful foundation.

Imagine a first date that lasts hours.

Not because we are desperately trying to impress one another.

But because we are actually curious about the full reality of the person sitting opposite us.

Let’s talk about childhood.

Family.

Death.

Love.

Sex.

Money.

Ambition.

Integrity.

Our histories.

Our failures.

Our emotional capacities.

Our contradictions.

The things we have overcome.

The things we have yet to understand.

The experiences that shaped us.

The kind of life we want.

The kind of responsibility we believe we have towards that life.

The things we cannot compromise.

The things we are willing to develop.

Why spend months discovering that a foundational incompatibility existed on day one when we could have explored it together from the beginning?

Of course, not everything can or should be disclosed immediately. Trust and safety develop through experience.

But I see no virtue in deliberately withholding the very information that would help two people make informed decisions about one another.

The more accurately we understand the realities of a potential union, the more intelligently we can decide whether and how to develop it.

And when the foundation is compatible, difference becomes something we can organise rather than automatically treating it as an obstacle.

That is where my recent exploration of the Field of Homeostasis becomes relevant.

Two individuals do not need identical expressions to share a coherent relationship.

They need to understand whether their respective foundations can coexist, develop and remain integral through the different experiences they bring.

Two foundations. One union.

And the earlier those foundations become visible, the more consciously the relationship can develop.

8. MY DIGITAL CHARACTER IS PART OF MY SPECTRUM. IT IS NOT MY ENTIRE EXISTENCE.

So, for those who encounter my blog and imagine they have discovered the complete individual behind it, allow me to clarify.

You are encountering expressions.

Some are deeply autobiographical.

Some are philosophical.

Some are satirical.

Some are exploratory.

Some are deliberately provocative.

Some belong to characters I have developed.

Some are expressions of emotions I have processed rather than emotions I continue to inhabit.

Some represent earlier stages of my thinking.

Others represent discoveries I have integrated into my present existence.

And some are the rawest forms of energy I permit myself to express precisely because I have no intention of carrying that intensity into every ordinary human interaction.

All may belong to my spectrum without all being my chosen everyday embodiment.

And yes, should circumstances call for a particular expression, I may choose to embody it.

The Metaphysical Menace is not necessarily an impossibility in the physical realm.

But neither is it the default character of the individual buying groceries, meeting friends, comforting someone, discussing a problem or enjoying an ordinary afternoon.

What people experience in person is an individual actively considering the reality of the person before her.

And what people experience digitally is a deliberately expansive field of intellectual, emotional, philosophical and character experimentation.

The two are connected through one consciousness.

But their purposes differ.

The digital realm is my laboratory of expressions. The physical realm is my chosen field of living.

And if my family and friends cannot reconcile some of my online expressions with the person they know, perhaps that is precisely the demonstration.

Human beings are capable of far more expressions than the few they ordinarily choose to live.

Character is not the absence of those possibilities.

It is the ability to understand them, organise them and govern their expression.

9. THE FIELD OF EXPRESSION: ONE IDENTITY, MULTIPLE EMBODIMENTS.

Now we return to the organising principle I have been exploring.

One rhythm. Multiple forces.

The development of a stable identity does not require the elimination of differing expressions.

And the development of integrity does not require a person to behave identically towards every person, machine, institution, environment or circumstance.

It requires the ability to maintain a coherent foundation while recognising what each relationship actually calls for.

The ways in which we express ourselves should be calibrated by the ways in which we relate to what we are expressing ourselves towards.

A child and an adult are not the same relationship.

A stranger and a partner are not the same relationship.

An audience and a friend are not the same relationship.

A machine and a human being are not the same relationship.

An open blog and an intimate conversation are not the same field of expression.

And a fictional or metaphysical character is not necessarily the author’s everyday social embodiment.

The field changes. The expression changes. The foundation remains.

This is where emotional intelligence becomes more than the ability to recognise emotions.

It becomes the ability to understand how one’s own expressions participate in the emotional reality of another.

It requires us to recognise when to speak.

How to speak.

How much to express.

What the other person has actually communicated.

What the circumstances require.

What our relationship permits.

And whether the expression we choose preserves the integrity of both ourselves and the encounter.

That is far more sophisticated than demanding that everyone present the exact same personality in every environment.

And it is also far more responsible than pretending that every difference in expression proves dishonesty.

THE GREATER RECOGNITION

Perhaps this is one of the most extraordinary things about the human being.

We are not limited to one expression of ourselves.

We can explore.

We can test.

We can create characters.

We can embody possibilities.

We can confront the least attractive parts of our character without surrendering our entire identity to them.

We can learn from encounters.

We can retire expressions that no longer serve us.

We can develop new ones.

And we can choose which aspects of ourselves to bring into the different relationships we establish throughout life.

This is not necessarily a contradiction.

It can be an expression of conscious organisation.

The integrity of character is not measured by the uniformity of its expressions, but by the coherence of the foundation governing them.

Which brings me back to my blog.

Please do not mistake it for a personal invitation to build a relationship with the most outrageous character you encounter there.

Do not assume that every aggressive expression is how I would address a person face-to-face.

Do not assume that the intensity of my writing reflects an inability to understand emotional proximity.

And do not mistake the abundance of my digital expressions for the absence of a stable identity.

I know what I’m using that space for.

I am exposing the spectrum of what one consciousness can explore, not promising to embody every expression in every human relationship.

My blog is the cemetery of my identities, the landfill of my thoughts, the archive of my experiments and the evidence trail of my becoming.

My life?

My life is not the landfill.

My life is what grows from everything I have investigated, integrated, understood and chosen to carry forward.

And perhaps that is the distinction worth remembering:

Not everything we are capable of expressing is something we need to become.

Not everything we explore is something we intend to live.

Not everything we publish is an invitation to emotional proximity.

And not every expression that appears unfamiliar to someone who knows us represents a departure from who we are.

Sometimes it represents the range of what we have consciously chosen not to make our everyday embodiment.

One consciousness. Multiple expressions. Different relationships. Calibrated proximity.

Integrity is the foundation. Expression is the embodiment. Continuity is what reveals whether the two remain coherent.

And as for the Metaphysical Menace?

Darling, she’s doing exactly what I created her to do.

Exploring the extremes so that I can consciously choose what deserves to come to life. 🔐♾️

---

Susan Ndinga-Wright
SHS – Human First
The Womb of The Unknown Need.

9 November 2026

…

And now I want you to write a post about how different it is, how expression differs because expression, the ways in which we express things should be calibrated by the ways in which we relate to things, meaning the ways in which we speak to people is different from the ways in which we would speak to a robot or AI. The ways in which we speak to a child is different from the ways we speak to an adult. The ways in which we speak to strangers is different from the ways we speak with a partner. And the reason why is because the there’s a difference in emotional proximity. Meaning that with AI or to empty space, meaning unproclaimed energy. For example, on my blog, I speak on the, I speak in the ways that I never speak to people. Because, because first thing, on my blog, and this is important to have on my blog as a post as well so that people can understand the difference between what my potential is, my, well, it’s not the depth of my worst, but it is worse than what people get in real life simply because on my blog I allow the rawest version so that I can burn the energy of raw energy. Meaning that I might be more vulgar, more aggressive, more whatnot with energies that don’t assert themselves or that don’t bring their own frequency to the table. Meaning that I have empty space, well obviously depending on the circumstance. If I’m like throughout the last two years, I’ve also been building a character of, a metaphysical character which resonates with a post that was open. I think it was like April 2025, why metaphysics belongs in our jurisdiction where I introduced the existence of this metaphysical menace. So in all the communications where individuals do not necessarily join the conversation, they became the field where I practice that character. So I did not necessarily take it into account their quote unquote frequency because I did not know their frequency because they did not show any frequency nor did they have the intention to. So I utilized those spaces to practice the metaphysical menace that I was going to be reiterating and presenting as the evidence in the case which I’ve done through also my own individual greatness and all the aspects of me that I do practice in my day-to-day life. And that’s the reason as to why I also the version of me that my family might see, my family and friends might see on my blog doesn’t actually match with the version of me that they know because it’s two completely different individuals. It’s one is like this megalomaniac kind of thing. Whereas in person, it’s not that I’m fake. It’s just that I actually understand where the other is emotionally. So I calibrate myself to them. And because I need less space because, because I take care of myself. So in proximity I don’t need to take space. On my blog, it’s the digital realm. It’s infinite and I’m not co-creating digitally with anyone specifically. The blog itself, it’s a place where people go to if they want to. They open it if they want to. So it’s like people’s proximity is their consent to consume who I relay to be there, regardless whether it is an accurate version of myself or not. It doesn’t matter because I’m not planning to use my blog as a way to build relationships, not authentic relationships. If anything, I’m using it as a place where people can go and see different aspects, different types of energies to experience infinite amount of energies from one stream of consciousness. And allowing people to see the extent that a human being can reach. But then when they get to meet me, they get to experience the chosen version of myself to experience in my day-to-day life because writing on a blog without necessarily the intention of using the blog to build personal relationships, I would rather so much more building personal relationships in the physical realm as I’ve stated throughout this whole two, three years that I’m using the digital realm to build in the physical. So the digital realm is like a dumpster. It’s like the cemetery of my thoughts. It’s the cemetery of my identities. It’s literally the landfill of my thoughts, the landfill of my identity, the landfill of all the embodiments that I’ve tested, the landfill of all my discoveries. And in the physical world, that’s where it all comes to life, you know. To me the digital realm is the embodiment of death. So I do bring some life to it because that’s who I am. But I also don’t necessarily see it as a fertile ground where life can come to life. I don’t intend to build a life on the digital realm. And that’s why I go with intensity because intensity will always cut time short. And at the same time it also understanding that I’m aware of all the negative correlations, the negative consequences, the negative effects of being online, using technology and all that stuff. So because of all of that, I don’t value the digital realm. So I allow my character, which is again a caricature of my being, a version that my friends and family don’t recognize because and it’s good that they don’t recognize it because it means, that means that that version of me isn’t the version of me that I live in the physical realm. If anything, it carries notions and the memory of my physical life into it. But, and obviously how I use it, the purpose to which I use it is what I carry into my 3D life. But the two are separate. And it’s important that I make this distinction because at least it’s important for people to understand how to even engage with my blog. Do not see it as me looking for personal relationship through that identity that you experience there. But know that that identity that you experience on the blog is part of my spectrum of being, meaning that if the situation calls for it, the raw version of myself will come out. But on a day-to-day life, there’s no, there’s real no, there hasn’t been a lot of scenarios that called for it. Me holding people accountable, I hold people accountable based on the integrity level that they show, meaning that if someone is not being integral to me, I do not give them, if we’re interacting in the physical realm, I do reason because face to face emotional, the emotional impact is stronger. So I do reason more in the physical realm. But if we’re speaking through the digital realm and you cannot be bothered to have physical interactions, which I’m not speaking about like, like touching, but like, like a contact. So for example, voice or face to face or things like that. Then one cannot expect me to treat them with the integrity that they’re not willing to offer. So I meet people where they meet me. I and just a little bit more, you know. When we used to do sales, we had this understanding of match customers at the frequency at which they are at plus one. Meaning that if they come to you and they’re excited, then match the excitement and be slightly more excited. If they come to you and they’re depressed, then match the slowness with just a little bit more so that you are the direction. You raise the vibration, you raise the frequency. So people that don’t meet me with integrity, they’re not gonna meet. If someone meets me at integrity five, I’m gonna meet them at integrity six. They’re already getting a surplus from me, but they’re not gonna get integrity eight because that would be not just me wasting my energy because they will not know how to actually contextualize that surplus, but it would also mean me not self-respecting myself because I’ll be giving three surplus levels to someone that might or have already shown the lack of interest in raising their integrity levels. So through the digital realm, I get to see so many people interpersonal self and how they interact with others because majority of people don’t actually, yeah, majority of people they don’t separate the two. They don’t separate like where you get, what you see is what you get in the sense of they lack integrity on it, on technology. They lack integrity in the physical. That, there’s that. Like, literally there’s that They don’t actually contextualize all of their different identities. And that’s unfortunate because that means that in the physical realm they don’t actually value real people. They value exchange transactions. And again, all of that aspects tells you a lot about someone. And it also depends on where you meet them because every point of convergence, every point of meeting point, any meeting point will show you a different aspect of someone. You might meet someone on a, I don’t know, like the bridge where you meet someone might be work. And then you start, and then through work you might see that they’re cool. And then the person starts showcasing aspects of them that are actually not cool. And if you had met them, for example, through the internet, you might have seen the non-coolness before. And then you see the coolness after. Which to me, it’s actually better to see the non-coolness of someone because through the non-coolness we can both see the non-coolness. We can both see the worst of self. And then through it grow a better, better version, a better cool version or yeah, the best version gets to grow by calibration through the worst first. It’s like, that’s why I like to put all cards on the table because the moment you put all cards on the table, you get, you allow the other to calibrate, to see their options, to see actually the reality of things and the full spectrum that someone might bring. The reason why I remember now one of the posts that I wrote about, for example, dating me is about like on the first dates it will be like a long date where we literally speak about like all of it. And the reason why is because the more we see on day one, the better and faster we can understand whether we are coherent with each other or not, you know