‘truth is, if i accepted a label different from 2003, offered in good faith and so forth, then when i found something disturbing me in a public space, people would say, “hey we understand … you have a right to be disturbed …”
but since i think i’m just one more person with a right to have a zone of comfort within which i can feel consistently safe, i am accused of all manner of intolerances.
solo ojos: all we need, really
it’s not fair that society demands we have a label in order that we might be treated with equanimity. we should treat everyone with kindness, compassion and the awareness a wisely considered humanity offers our souls — whether we judge that person to be in particular need of support or not.
not only, that is, because they have an official neon sign that indicates they are human beings of the best (which they are, by the by: yes they are).
i really am not arguing against the concept of #neurodiversity. rather, i’m arguing against the fact it must exist in a corner in opposition to that which is frankly not human.
no one is #neurotypical. as laing & esterson said, when they pronounced in “sanity, madness and the family” that they didn’t even recognise the right of schizophrenia to be present in human thought as a concept never mind a reality, so i refuse to accept that #neurotypical can possibly be a cogently functioning reality of the #humancondition.
we are all #neurodiverse or none of us are. ergo, if some of us clearly are, all of us obviously must be.
why is this important? like a #mentalillness located primarily in the individual as opposed to a #mentaldistress emerging from a toxic environment, the solutions needed are different. with the former we focus on the person as cause of the dysfunction and the solutions are pharmaceutical. effectively, we blame the victim.
for me, you see, it’s the latter which is the principle cause of most #mentalillhealth these days. it’s not the individual we must fix: it’s the places and spaces, both physical and socioeconomic, both sociopolitical and criminological, both cultural and business-related, whose own profound dysfunctions have to be addressed.
an example: #rape is properly prevented by ensuring it’s the culpable men and other actors in truly bad faith we direct our attention robustly and unswervingly at, never the victim we inhibit through disbelief and victim-shaming.
equally, then, we don’t efficiently address #neurodiversity in the long-term by saying it is the challenge.
because #neurodiversity doesn’t need its space. it’s unthinking, unhelpful, dogmatic belief systems such as the idea of being #neurotypical — and that any human of minimal compassion can ever consider it proper and accurate to use the term “normal” about anyone — which need removing.
why? the dogma of normal, as sketched out briefly today, invokes its counterpoint: the process of abusive #othering that is being called “abnormal”.
and this is the high ground none of us humans must cede ever again.
I’ve been thinking a lot about loyalty. When your homeland is corrupt and has been for decades longer than anyone really realised, how can you be loyal to it?
And when you have experienced not only the rank corruption of your homeland but of the two other countries you best know, then how on earth can someone oblige you to profess loyalty to such a mess as all that lived experience leaves behind?
What right does someone have to demand of you that you stop seeing things in black & white? Like if the person who raped me back in 2004 I should see as the victim of the event? Like not see things in this kind of black & white but in pleasing shades of grey instead? “Oh, it’s ok love: it was just a thing of greys … that thing you made me do.”
Because some things are black & white: that’s why the couplet exists and has arisen in the first place as a figure of speech. And tbh, as a writer I should advocate a right for anyone to say at the very least they have every obligation to write in black & white. The colour of words on paper or a screen, if nothing else.
Love is love. Yes. But sacrificial love of corrupt people and places is not love. It’s not. And the relativism that says that sacrifice as a discourse of choice of this same idea of love rather than a tragic outcome of the circumstances surrounding the same is just not on: no, sir.
Sir, lady, any-gender, all-genders … it makes no difference. It’s not what love is about.
Certain forces in our societies across the globe have poisoned our capacity to trust not each other but the fact of life’s final ability to bless us daily. It’s true. I once wrote about it: a blogpost on what I called the Petri-dish theory of creating better society. Not particularly original, granted; but penicillin representing the good people most of us are versus the bacterial cultures that are practically all powerful persons and organisations. The idea being to create our own Petri dishes out of which parallel worlds so overwhelmingly attractive would emerge and serve to quench the fire of the powerful with the water of the rest of us.
Not fire with fire any more: fire with water. Intelligent and quite stealthy victory. Without breast-beating in the least. Just achieving, covertly behind the scenes … and the bad guys realising nothing in time.
But even as I write these words and sustain their value, I’m also firm about what I call macro- & micro-strategising. The former, the big picture. The latter, the journey and its sometimes hugely unpredictable details, which unavoidably will cumulatively impact, surprisingly always, on the original projections.
This is why fighting fire with water — love — must be our big picture, whilst fire with fire is the journey, occasionally.
That is, sacrifice.
I now philosophise both into concepts I will never abandon. The first, my crime and loophole work. The second, happier cleverer societies.
And underpinning both, love on my part. For the humans we all can be.
My next-door neighbours Are Borgias don’t you know Not because of their provenance Or origins at all But simply because they are easy gals and guys Who make money out of beautiful purposes For reasons only they can fathom: With the sole objective and aim To maim humanity
And from very young I was taught What was good and should and ought And so a large part Of this thing I was told Was fine and bold to do In order to become the better you Which God always instructed us to strive for Was bearing witness proudly And shouting out
When the Borgias moved in next door And began to lay a trail of whores And drugs under the beauty Their wealth bestows On the historically hidden and covert Because what such next-door neighbours do When they show you that calling out is dumb … All those crimes which they pretend Are ways of doing of utter joy and compassion
When in fact really what it is Really what it becomes Really what the societal sum equals Is not the devil of my Catholic upbringing But the casual evil Displayed by the powerful Who without many exceptions Prefer to exhibit brazenly Their total absence of kindliness
And their complete manifestation And destruction to the max Of the taxing responsibilities I was brought up to shoulder: Be good when you must And change for the better what you can And where the Borgias next-door Have seeped over the years Stealthily and criminally
And ultimately Definitively into the fabric once treasurable And lined with threads of a good gold Of a society worth living But which now is lacking in conviction of any sorts Particularly the judicial ones … Because once the Borgias move in next-door You might as well accept You’ve also become their whore
I’ve been thinking a while. I don’t want to join sects: and modern business is one such thing. You’re either in or not, and if you’re in then the puticlubs and savage banter and casual bullying become part of the deal.
Since specifically 2016 I’ve attempted to change bad money (most money) from the inside with my carefully wrought arguments and posts, mainly on LinkedIn. It clearly hasn’t worked: the profiteers have made billions out of pandemic, Ukraine, and God knows what else. You can’t change the world using the world’s tools. You have to create a parallel universe so overwhelmingly beautiful, inclusive and — most significantly — EFFICIENT that like moths to a benevolent candle we will all be drawn, those of us who still know how to care, so that the faces of each of us will become known to the others and the good will vanquish what my logic has failed to conquer.
‘Just been thinking things like this. My next steps? Create a separate IT. This.
Example workstreams and projects which may begin to form part of any work we collectively deliver
The first step to working on the projects under discussion
There is one condition we must all fulfil in order to work on these projects and workstreams in the future:
be aware — and practise daily this awareness — of #neoterrorismontheindividual. This means we realise completely and unreservedly that all our past and current decision-making processes and outcomes may have been the result of an embedded criminality and related zemiology, designed strategically to undermine — profoundly and covertly — our true capacity to act independently
“Neo-Terrorism on the Individual” — an overview … but now as defence tool, no longer research proposal
The two linked-to documents in the section that follows below, which originally formed part of a #phd-level draft proposal of mine from a couple of years back, may now be more helpful as descriptors of what I, and maybe many other people, have been experiencing over these years.
It’s more popularly and more generally known as #gaslighting: but I think in certain societies we’ve been suffering from an immensely technified version of it.
This is why I have given it its own name: “Neo-Terrorism on the Individual”.
That is, a tech-driven longitudinal terrorism delivered efficiently on specific human and organisational targets and marks, in order to shape societies over the years in the direction of certain toxic sociopolitical and business interests.
In this sense then, the two documents mentioned should perhaps be seen more as forming a manual of instructions than a research idea any more, in order to begin to foment and ensure a growing awareness of the tech-driven tactics which certain criminal and zemiological actors may still be using — and broadly at that:
Noted: the above is as true of organisations and nation-states in terms of their collective natures and interests as it is in respect of individuals like you and me, being persons with allegedly direct responsibility for our behaviours and actions.
If we achieve this goal, what should we do next?
If we get sign-up and buy-in, to what effectively is a CULTURE of working re all the #privacysensitive, #privacypositive, #secrecysensitive and #secrecypositive projects and workstreams I am proposing, then the organisational and agency law- and regulation-making which has to exist specifically for such projects and our own personal behaviours will be much to administer, inspect, ensure, and deliver on.
Why? Because CULTURE promotes the rule of laws which emerge from the same organically, and therefore make it much easier and possible for people to see them as their own: thus, compliance is achieved out of approval not fear.
Meantime, LAWS ONLY, created by ruling classes (whether elected or de facto) which attempt to IMPOSE what is surely only their culture, clearly outside the majority (the UK is an example ever since I was born; Ireland has become so over the years as a result of its incestuous financial dependence on global tech), only lead to the corruption and illegitimacy that facilitate authoritarianism behaviours and outcomes, where the same need for compliance — for society by definition needs its citizens to comply in some measure — here is achieved primarily, and sometimes exclusively, through tools and discourses of fear.
Just because you smile when you impose your authoritarianism doesn’t make you any less an authoritarian.
Now … does it?
To summarise …
“For anyone, including myself, to be enabled to work on any and/or all of these projects — which for the moment I shall globally describe as the #gutenbergofintuitivethinking, or the printing-press of intuition — we have to accept that our human agency during our personal present-past, in respect of the decisions we took both privately and work-related, may have been fatally compromised by forces truly outwith our ken.
Not mystical or mysterious forces. No. Not this. Just human beings and organisations acting deliberately to longitudinally benefit, in planned and roadmapped ways, their hyper-focussed and zemiological self-interests, prejudicing a much more shared and collective present-past which could have been. And in fact still could be: one, that is, which benefits every human being, and which will be firmly based on all individuals’ sovereignties.”
So … quite simple, really. Accept the thesis of #neoterrorismontheindividual as a potential reality we have suffered from without perhaps realising it in all aspects of our lives to date. Nothing we did, however apparently deeply thought, was of our own doing.
And so our human agency became anything but human.
Wouldn’t it be a quite remarkable achievement if we could, as a first step to remaking our civilisation in the image of the root word “to civilise”, eliminate compassionately not surgically all such #neoterrorismontheindividual in, say, seven years?
And parallel to all that, begin to deliver all this:
“the fallen warriors of ALL our souls” — a poem by mil williams
it's the apollo moonshot it's the manhattan project and we have to accept we might, yer know ... but we must try even so: we can be astronauts of the mind for this is where i want to go
this is about john forbes nash jr and what he could sense and why they put him away because he couldn't quite evidence his tense that day
and it's what i can sense too and it's what i sensed in 2002 onwards and it's why the british and others put me away but not because i couldn't evidence what i sensed then or did say no no no not at all rather, i mean, because they didn't want to let me try and evidence right and properly
would i be prepared now to die in the attempt? i'll try not to because i want to come back and evidence it full in order to bear witness to what john forbes nash jr saw in his time but couldn't prove dear people i say couldn't prove rightly at all them days
and what i saw from 2002 onwards and wasn't allowed by the british and others to share with anyone and anything and after means i know also what he couldn't share in his day with the rest of the people he met and did pray meaning i know too well how his best never did find a path where to shine fine was allowed its trace outside any kind of wrath
another dimension: one of the mind one some of us can access simply via our brains sometimes poorly so poorly that the authorities around us easily incarcerate us for what we say we see and what we claim to be and sometimes so well they may choose to dispose of us too as if a piece of scrap paper so scraggy, torn and weary and nothing more than tatty as hell and rattier than any role
well now it's going to be that apollo moonshot revisited and a new manhattan project too as we venture forth as astronauts of the mind for sure and we may die in the attempt it's true but by golly we'll surely try not to because this time we want to evidence it all for the memory of the fallen warriors of ALL our souls who died whilst being in the right and had their light extinguished by the most trite of all our hearts where everything was lost to costs with no value at all at all
and time it is as time it was to write the wrongs and read everyone's rights
for nothing is now to stay the same and whilst days of yore brought promises of outcome and even of judgments deeply felt the scores we scratch on sticks of loud hollow sound will only now keep metronomic time if we wish them to rhyme in this way because life is precious and starting again and time it was and time it's become
for the moonshot again and the project of stranger rains and sometimes it's going to hurt real bad and sometimes we'll cry as never before: for sure it will my dears be sad and maybe seem to be this bad but if we pursue with a goodwill of the best the rest will show us fine just one thing of grand and so what it is and what it will be is to stand and act out of true charity
now some reflections on the above …
what if all my projects and ideas for #secrecypositive and related … what if they have been attempts — maybe poor, but attempts all the same — to understand real experiences i’ve had and sensed before and since i was unduly incarcerated by the uk for having them and imperfectly expressing them in 2002 onwards?
what if some of us — those of us, for example, who have been, are and will continue to be accused NEVER diagnosed of mental ill-health at some point in our lives — are actually in some fumbling, stumbling way privileged persons able to access some other ways of being?
and what if when they medicate us, we’re having the shutters and drawbridges brought down almost violently on something which could otherwise have been utterly beautiful and radically life-regenerating?
as if we were talking, in fact, about creating software code in the shape of UN inalienable rights and charters, conventions and manifestos, and stuff with these kinds of discourses, as opposed to the more conventional laws and regulatory approaches parliaments and so forth generally prefer to come up with
from my iphone’s app this late morning / around midday:
introduction
yes
this is what we can embrace, if we choose to:
• one nation-state fully onboard
• one big tech partner, fully committed
• one local and regional web of finance, legislation, tax, accountability, delivery, and societal benefit: sweden
then once this is secured, we can discuss exporting
but not before
in respect of past deeds
not interested in the past in respect of those of us who deserve to be in CORE
am interested in collective future-present and deep partners who want a different future-present from the ones we’ve all been a part of in the past
this i repeat is also true for me, just as much as for anyone else or for any other org
good
on trust systems and their development
this means … we have to learn to trust each other, but always suspect everyone and everything
be childlike to the most if you like; but equally, not naive in the least
game-changing trust is built over time with tools no one has ever considered
this is why we need the brightest nonconformist brains committed to changing the world for the better: both gradually and overnight
that is, parallel processes
the value of cultural dissonance and internal respect amongst all parties
yes
true
everything is best when combined
not one or the other team
everything
cultural dissonance and cultural rub are the preconditions for both innovation and invention
but the condition being that different types of seeing and doing also learn to value the others interchangeably and equally
generously
truly generously
so as long as with this caveat upfront and conditioning everything we all do, we will also need conformists at the base of everything we do
my work / life expectations and aspirations
personally, i want to live modestly
i want to think untrammelled, obviously
so this is why i need the modest life to ensure the untrammelled doesn’t leak into my behaviours
a modest life, therefore
decent food
healthy exercise
and a dollop of joy every so often
the fields of action and play
the battlegrounds are various:
• resistance: putin’s russia and everyone who approves of its actions
• fightback: putin’s russia and everyone who approves of its actions
• long-term, however, the focus MUST be local and regional: embedded global criminals at local and regional levels who use symbolic communication as per mafias everywhere, to evade justice as it currently stands, need to be dealt with
why? these are the real funding streams that enable putin and his ilk everywhere to not only have the cruel ambitions they have but the capability, the financial muscle, to deliver on them: local crime turfs spread out across the continents and connected via 21st century digital means
implications
thus:
in my judgement, law enforcement and trusted private security need both to be involved at the start, at least with the 100-day rapid app development programmes that use existing architectures
but they have so much knowhow, the aforementioned security and citizen-safety orgs and their people i mean, that they deserve to be in deep, also from the beginning, re the scoping of new architectures and ways of structuring tech
but i am always open to other opinions and views
always will be, now
now we begin to propose having these foundations
my emotional life
i’d like an emotional life, yes
someone with a view of life i can engage with and which allows her to engage with my work and play, both
and me with hers in equal, and absolutely peer-to-peer, measure
and it’s obviously part of the whole, but firm foundations to the project as we are discussing today will help me be much much more patient and much much less needy now
so all good
it’s ok
with the two pillars we need to fight neo-terrorism on the individual (noi), trust will grow very quickly
spain sits curiously: i separate what i feel about the country easily from what i feel about the personal, which obviously has existed from the start
so it’s ok in this respect
i could travel to and from and work with people from there, despite the fact that i also had really dreadful experiences with businesspeople there once upon a time
and i don’t know why now ok. maybe there is a reason. maybe just time
maybe just the time that has elapsed
why sweden
for me, in my opinion, humbly expressed, sweden is objectively better as a collective built on individual rights than any other country i have ever known or lived in
whatever it is, the most important thing for me here in sweden is that i see people who strive to be good people every day. and even people with the power to effect change (eg in the uk there are also plenty of good people: none of them are powerful)
not all people here do this, of course. not all do good by any means, even in my limited personal experience
impossible that it should be so
maybe, even, not desirable: it wouldn’t be allowing for the human we sometimes imperfectly have to be
but enough do good to the best of their ability for the threshold to be far gooder than i have sensed intuitively at any other time in my life
anywhere else
and not just strive and then wave their hands foolishly when it doesn’t work:
• because you don’t fucking give up until it works here in sweden
• but you don’t get silly either. you wait until this moment arrives beautifully, and only then do you pounce supportively
it’s a series of behaviours i would love one day to emulate well myself
so again, here it’s true: people laugh a lot
and this is good
but sarcasm isn’t a national trait as far as i can see
inquisitiveness defo is
a thirst to uncover and discover
it’s refreshing
it suits my own deep ways of being and seeing
and maybe now much more possible, my ways of doing
a caveat or two re funding provenance
as long as we establish funding-stream provenance professionally and competently, i’m open to support from whom you judge trustworthy
even the countries i’ve mentioned in less glowing terms
yeah
and so i guess some covert part of the uk, which isn’t and never will be mi5 or have relationships with the unis that have bad-actor funding connections … even here we could propose some kind of engagement after the groundwork i’m sketching out today was firmly put in place
the evidence of good faith would have to be overpowering, tho’. absolutely incontrovertible and irreproachable … and right now, no one in the uk is in a position to offer anyone this evidence of their ability to distinguish between political right and geopolitical wrong
who may form part of CORE
none of them as CORE, for reasons that should be obvious (and if to you who are reading these words they’re not obvious, this pretty automagically precludes you from any participation at any level for a long time: certainly, until they do become obvious to you)
not that, then: not them inside CORE
this means, therefore, that none of the alluded to, i repeat, will have any CORE influence over how and what and when and stuff re product, service, platform architectures, and so on.
none will have the ability to impose their preferred approaches whereby innovation would become mere tweaking, and invention something we never even broach. ukraine can’t be won through a mentality of tweaks, after all (and if you believe it can, that’s why you’re automagically not going to be a part of CORE)
• such parties will only be enabled to participate — if we decide they deserve it — as right-at-the-end clients, in a covert marketplace if covert is needed
• and if not needed, a public marketplace of b2b and b2gov
• but no bespoke or consultative products, services or outcomes here
what CORE will consist of
this is my proposal, as it stands today:
• one committed nation-state: that is, yourselves
• your local and regional business, commercial, tax, legislative, delivery and sociocultural infrastructures as framework in perpetuity
• finally, where this is judged advisable and collaboratively intelligent, one big tech partner who wants to redo the world, including maybe what they did in other times which they’d now begin to question … (but then again, this will clearly be the same for most of the rest of us too, as already observed)
if it has to be eventually more oppenheimer than curie, that’s ok
i understand
but curie laid the foundations for oppenheimer, after all
and if it’s more global boiling than fighting directly the kind of criminality i’ve been discussing itself, i’d still say that to ensure our researchers feel brave enough and protected enough to deliver the killer blows to the climate denial we all want them to deliver, they need to know and feel they will be permanently and efficiently protected to the max from new kinds of crime and zemiology, potentially conducted on their persons day in, day out
so even if it’s now to become more a climate change / global boiling focus, it needs to remain a crime and zemiology one robustly in parallel as well
what CORE will consider and deliver
the CORE needs to strategise the castle & moat as well as the thinking-spaces and their architectures
our secrecy-positive spaces will be needed to protect our desired climate boiling people and outcomes
this is what i propose be our strategy from now on in:
• we should focus on creating an an impregnable theoretical, philosophical, practical and technological castle around the sweden-chosen big tech partner-local & regional partnership before moving out to other areas of endeavour and action — even at the risk of not doing as much for those in need as we might
• why? because you just HAVE to know you utterly CANNOT be undermined by anyone, before you reach out a hand to others however deserving
re precedents, we can follow the manhattan project, apollo moonshot, and darpa internet templates if we like
but i think we can learn from modern silicon valley strategy too:
• a flexible PLATFORM is the best research tool in the right hands
• out of which specific applications can be delivered, just as japanese car manufacturers first did with elements of a car
• example: separate workstreams for each element (eg dashboard design & functionality) identified as key, and then slotted whenever discretely ready in terms of their own timelines into what became new versions of the cars
• therefore, manufacturing a car isn’t a new car release every five years as in the olden days, but modulating and updating regularly
the intuition validation engine, then …?
do we go back to platform genesis and the raw READ.ME of the intuition validation engine? i think we do …
• a library of tools
• as already determined, a PLATFORM in order to enable ACCESS freely, not to tie in users to one software / hardware constitution or another
• equal sovereignty for all objects, whether people, code, or machines
as if we were talking, in fact, about creating software code in the shape of UN inalienable rights and charters, conventions and manifestos, and stuff with these kinds of discourses, as opposed to the more conventional laws and regulatory approaches parliaments and so forth generally prefer to come up with
and some would say this would lead to vague
i radically disagree
i would term it as being the “precisely ambiguous”:
• that is, an arts-based approach to real-world problem-solving
• a structure, but not one which deeply determines the kinds of outcomes
• something, instead, that will remain relevant and useful for as long as we do this: JUST like UN charters
in order for it to exist like this, it just needs to be considered for longer before — finally! — finalising its directives
🙂
but we will know when it is finalised
how? because it will be our eureka moment: it will just feel gobsmackingly RIGHT!
meantime, the geneva convention, in the real-life world, expressly prohibits the power-plays that involve an aggressor weaponising their bodies against the aggressed in this way. so whilst #tech reserves the right, in order to defend us all, to penetrate the enemy with the tools the enemy habitually uses to penetrate our #tech, the real world and its legal framework consents to no such thing between humans. not even in times of war.
yet #tech is a tool with which humans act on humans. so where the difference, pray?
mil williams, 4th august 2023, stockholm sweden
background
#generativeai is about penetrating knowledge and benefitting from such penetration.
right now, artists and creators — also more generally, those who equally are being penetrated thus — are attempting to fend off such acts of intimate intrusion into their life’s work by taking the owners and developers of such tools to court for #copyrightinfringement, #copyrighttheft, and much more: because if they’d listen to me, even #plagiarism. why not?
4th august 2023: monica sjöö, moderna museet, stockholm sweden
the thesis of this post
we’ve just established, then, that this kind of #ai is essentially analogous to the dynamics of rape: one that inserts itself into the very existence — the profoundest and sometimes most mysterious existence — of the inserted.
#tech even uses the term “penetration” and the verb “to penetrate” when it talks about bad actors — or good, as sometimes against a common enemy such penetrators are seen to be.
meantime, the geneva convention, in the real-life world, expressly prohibits the power-plays that involve an aggressor weaponising their bodies against the aggressed in this way. so whilst #tech reserves the right, in order to defend us all, to penetrate the enemy with the tools the enemy habitually uses to penetrate our #tech, the real world and its legal framework consents to no such thing between humans. not even in times of war.
yet #tech is a tool with which humans act on humans. so where the difference, pray?
really … where?
more historically speaking
more widely, and more historically, #it too has always employed such penetrative approaches.
an example: the software i am using to write this post says “insert”: why not, more gently, “add”? (it’s anecdotal, of course: but even if you’re now just beginning to “wonder whether” … in my mind it’s a kind of progress for us all.)
there has therefore existed, in such #it spaces, no instinctively familiar place for those more easily and more usually penetrated — often quite against their will (see the rates of abuse against particularly women and children in any culture, if you doubt my position on this) — to begin to develop a different kind of set of technologies: and then, perhaps, as a result, outcomes for us all as well.
how this makes me feel as a man and therefore potential aggressor
i think this is wrong. we need to defend ourselves, mainly against bad actors who mainly are men, with the same tools: that is true. just because we have the right gender policies doesn’t mean that putin’s awful awful version russia, stealthy china’s current approaches, and incomprehensible north korea’s dark hackers will — all of a sudden! — stop penetrating us.
but whilst the single, where not singular, focus of a set of tools to anticipate and prevent such intimate intrusion probably does need a mindset where intimate intrusion is second nature to be effective, the big problems — the #complexproblems i discuss in the slide-deck linked to below — will never be solved efficiently by mindsets which think firmly that intrusion and its prevention are all that, under it all, matter in the final analysis.
• example complexify.me roadmap | on using #neurodiverse #tech #architectures to solve #complexproblems beyond traditional #startup ecosystems’ capabilities to deliver
what i suggest we do next
to our quiver of tools against the bad actors who we know are out there and need to be deviously penetrated in return, we surely ought to add (NOT insert …):
1. new startup approaches which redirect us to contemplating that which needs resolving whilst being enabled to remain complex in all their fundaments:
2. new procurement and tendering processes which don’t lock out the innovations and inventions that those who run such processes are unaware of: something far more explorative therefore; much less prescriptive than we’ve had unchanged since the industrial revolution at least.
3. and finally:
a) an absolute embracing of #neurodivergent philosophies and thought-patterns as the rule, not the exception;
b) a move — also! — to assessing not diagnosing such skillsets (ie NOT seeing them as things to be considered responding well to being ever diagnosed as disorders — they simply aren’t!); and
c) firmly seeing anything that claims to be #neurotypical as simply one more kind of #neurodiverse state of mind. but not representative, either, of any other state of parallel #neurodiversity.
summary
this is my opinion: but it’s also a point of view. it’s my voice, above all: not aggressively expressed at all. i’ve experienced what it is to be diverse in a world which DEMANDS conformity — and what’s more, mainly controlled by the gender i am myself. and even so, it whitewashes its inability to truly embrace all humans as equally deserving of the powers some have to shape this world.
the three points expressed above are, therefore, my roadmap to enable us to escape this quagmire. because it’s led to global boiling; the throwaway economy; and the “cut-down virgin forests [sic]” policies with a pure brutality that delivers on consummate insanity.
my voice, then, is one forged out of auto-ethnography: that is, personal experience. so of course i would believe it would work, too.
why my assertions in this respect: if we become capable of returning our future-present civilisations to their twin building blocks, the sovereignty of the collective built firmly on the sovereignty of the individual, very slowly, but hopefully surely, we shall begin to move from what we could call a fundamentally and systemically, where not deliberatedly, #neurotypical #it and #generativeai towards a properly diverse and inclusive technology landscape, capable — maybe! — of even saving the species.
some years ago, not long ago, i showed my first #phd proposal — #neoterrorismontheindividual (NoI) — to a consultant who worked with the #europeanunion and/or the #europeancommission:
when i finished briefly explaining it to her, she flatly rejected the possibility that anyone anywhere would allow me to deliver on it.
probably because one of its main theses is that #darkfigure — what i now prefer to call #neocrime — is preserved by the good as well as the bad in society in order to allow them to commit crimes and engage in taking advantage of loopholes on both sides of the #law, without fear of being caught or exposed to the light of public disapproval:
i want to stop this. more so now than before. and now for a really practical reason: not touchy-feely, goody two-shoes any more (all of which it’s true does characterise me on occasions).
we now have #russia’s unpardonable invasion of #ukraine before us: anyone with two or three little grey cells, or more, can work out that it happened because criminality is embedded everywhere by the actions of the #zemiological: that is, what we all call loopholes and generally consider unstoppable.
only it isn’t. we simply never really tried on an equal killing-field:
and so this is where i begin to sense that my clear understanding of what’s right and permissible and what’s wrong and impermissible in life is so sharp and developed that i might have difficulties finding an institution prepared to support me — even in this second #phd proposal i am now starting to develop:
so you know what? i’m a trained editor and publisher: trained by one of the greatest spanish universities and publishing houses, both. that is, i have a university master in the subject.
it’s time, i think, i put such training to good use.
i’m going to self-scope, develop, write and publish my own #phd. it won’t exactly be one, of course: no vivas and stuff; no supervisors or anything. but the web world of accessible information in need of brutal sifting is now cheap. as are the rapid app development tools to make imagineering become tangible:
so my next step? i shall find the structures and lists of competencies and goals and marking processes from some august university or similar research organisation … and then, as i intended to all along, use the research that is delivered from day one in a #praxis-based arc, format and shape to begin to create the continuing defensible go-to-market positions my related company and commercialisation project will need, when it begins — i hope soon — to deliver on the wider #gutenbergofintuitivethinking “printing-press”.
yep. this is the brilliant idea!
and then the outcome of all that will be the global paradigm-shift i want: a second printing-press that changes the dynamics of society as profoundly as did the first, when the church finally was toppled from its overbearing control of all recorded content in the societies of the time.
cool, huh? #phd-level research goes self-publishing …
and so if you can’t join them, beat them!
🙂
i’m really happy today. because there’s always a way. always.
and so today, then, i unlocked the key. i found what i’d been looking for: the final piece.
when everyone around you denies you your rights, ensure you never forget you are.
and however hard it becomes, remember that you also are a sovereign individual. all of us were born this way. it’s only other humans that make it different from what it must be.
footnote to this post:
i’d really rather work with others, even now: but it must, now, be on my conditions. this doesn’t mean only my conditions. but it does mean i have conditions i will not give up on. and if you now say i shall deliver no #praxis-based #phd with commercialising mission anywhere in the world — because, basically, you will stop it from happening — i shall self-publish: i really shall.
A shortened version of a different but related matter from a few years ago — my first delivery of a #phd research-level roadmap — can be found in the form of a slide-deck here:
There’s plenty of other material on the historical, current and brand-new hub already. An initial objective-set dating a year or so ago now can be found in the gallery below:
“Building the FEARless CITIZEN” … to deliver #NoFutureUkraines
Meantime, here we have my most recent strategy to eliminate the scourge of legal societal harm (that is, loopholes or — more academically speaking — #zemiology): “Building the FEARless CITIZEN”, so that we ensure #NoFutureUkraines …
On a mental distress sourced in the environment
Keeping in mind that mental distress — ie a human dysfunctionality which has its roots in a sick environment, rather than a mental illness with its location inside the individual — is obviously on the rise, we need to operate on two fronts:
1. Change the environments.
2. Change ourselves.
And it’s clear, also, that both actions will serve each other: if we change the environment, our wellbeing will obviously improve. And if we change ourselves to be this FEARless I suggest, to be FEARless citizens in everything we do from now on in that is, the environment automagically changes, too.
someone once argued that it was better to be hated for what one is than loved for what one is not.
as with many of these nicely turned phrases, the premise is necessarily incomplete.
and, as with my projects on #intuitionvalidation, we face the same falsity of dichotomy, this time from the #it- and #ai-#tech industries.
they argue it’s either humans or machines. they argue there’s no alternative future to the one they argue we must be utterly horrified about. and they say, ultimately, human goalposts can never be moved:
yet let’s examine this premise more closely. the coaching industry makes today’s generations of humans measurably better than previous ones in all sorts of business and related fields. sports science gets the very same species to hit higher and higher physical and mental records every year, both on the track & pitch and off whilst training. artists paint with ever more astonishing technique: paints and brushstrokes and digital wisdoms history has truly never imagined before (when, that is, #ai isn’t stealing their #intellectualproperty). then, actors become figuratively, literally, and visually more adept at tugging our emotions and telling new truths. and finally, writers deliver stories we never thought at all possible, and sometimes in volumes with quality we never considered practical.
in all manner of technologies then — high and low both (a pencil of hyper-realist art, after all, can be considered a technology, too (and perhaps any of its uses should be considered thus)) — humans ARE having their goalposts moved amazingly. in all the sectors mentioned we are overcoming our previous selves: but not aggressively, not competitively. in grand solidarity, first and foremost; solidarity above all, even when competing against each other. solidarity where the professional and focussed amateur know the work that’s being put in re such outcomes.
examining the lies — there’s no other word, unfortunately — of the majority of #it and #ai promoters
now let us examine #it and #ai. in none of the above examples are humans made less relevant. in the vast majority of incidences of the industries of #ai and #it i now debate we humans are being purposefully and choicefully automated out of choice and purpose. they say change is inevitable. they don’t say its nature isn’t. but it isn’t. and that’s a real problem.
we need to be clear: it’s easy money that’s driving the desire of #ai and #it promotors to destroy so massively the human agency that makes life worth living.
because the power the owners of #it and #ai companies wield means that their choices become ours, even though in other sectors they still ain’t been our choices.
changing humanity for the better by using machines to augment humans not automate their owners’ wallets
in an earlier post today i discussed how we had progressed from world war to the european economic community to the european union: soldiers … traders … humans once more .. and perhaps humans in a way that increasingly never before.
it should be rebranded to the #ehu, you know: the “european HUMANISING union”. not just for standing firm against russia in ukraine; not just because war in the rest of europe is generally inconceivable; not only because #industry5 and the properly #circulareconomy are being delivered faster in #europe than anyone cares to elsewhere, and certainly in better faith than in other places; but also because the battlecry that now, clearly, was #gdpr during its first launching and moment of truth is moving us all to a generational shift in #it and related.
remember #search? it was the last time the big #techcorporations successfully ripped off copyright owners. generative #ai — at least in the european HUMANISING union i have just conceptualised, and in this post-#gdpr period — will not be getting such an easy ride.
mil's page 