Category Archives: thoughts of the wise old woman

text | poetry, text | wondering, thoughts of the wise old woman

Ceci n’est pas un Texte Défamilialisé


The author of this text considers this text as a naïve exploration of an expert text. The expert text is one of Professor Mark Coeckelbergh’s papers. The professor has been so kind to welcome comments to his work entitled “Defamiliarizing Technology, Habituation, and the Need for a Structuralist Approach,” as it was posted within his Linkedin space some time during the early days of June 2021.

Thank you for this openness, Professor.

The Professor might not have implied that a playful dance around and through his work would be acceptably defined, and properly contained, within his realm of “comments”. Therein, this author here intuits, might lie a relationship. This imagined relationship could be one which this author imagines having with technologies and with the constructors of deliverables there with(in), and thus, for example, with the Professor’s text.

While there is an artistic compulsion at play, here in this text, this constructed relation with the professor’s text, is also engaged into with both some degree of volition and intent. These latter two are geared toward the exploration of that same expert text.

The Professor’s far higher order of discipline and rigor is to the author here an essential part of the unveiled intuitions (catalyzed by the Professor’s text) and the aimed at exploration. So too, with the above stated, there does not lie an admittance of hierarchical inferiority versus superiority and yet, through the perceptions of the writer here, non-paradoxically, there is a respect towards the far better honed and rigorous insights Professor Coeckelbergh can bring to the table. This text is not even an answer to some of the attributes as perceived within the expert text. This text is a set of questions without many question marks, while still some obvious question marks are sprinkled throughout:

“Exploration” (of the professor’s text) here is intended as more of a child-like and far less of a disciplined and rigorous form of analysis. There is a motivation with these seeming self-debasing disclaimers, which I hope might become more clear as this text advances.

This text is not philosophy nor is it scientific.

Its structure does imply its main question: are most of us human individuals presently at the child-like stage when playing with the artificial category of “technology” and all the processes, relations and consequences yet unforeseen?

Does in this diverse stage also lie our creative and imaginative ability to defamiliarize technology (and its mapped lingo and jargon)?

Does this process of defamiliarization herald habituation and perhaps, following, possibilities for (technological) embedding or immersion in becoming (and the grasping or perversion of its associated gatekeepers, lingo and jargon)?

Is a set of humans as the cyborg-species in becoming; while another set might reject degrees thereof (and of the associated realities as constructed by the “natural” languages through which they were conceptualized)? Does, in this diversity, lie a part of an answer as to how we (are) relate(d) to / with / within / by technologies (with and of which languages and their meaning-making architectural outputs are subsets)?

This text is an architectural design.

In being so, it does not (have to) destabilize any other architectured structure (only unless one wishes to perceive it as such). Neither does it need to be destabilized itself by its (non-)reader.

With it, the play intertwining (technological) intent, perception, process and deliverable do not go unnoticed. This text could but be structuralized because layers of technology were accessible to its author. Text became eligible since the structural architectures of “text” are to some degrees accessible to the author/designer of said architecture. This might be irrespective of the author having any intertwined degrees [of (self-)imposed] expertise or a layperson-hood.

I wish, for a moment, to extrapolate this:

is the human being and the interconnected set of humans, one of life’s architectural complexes?

As any word can be made to become arbitrarily (un-/re-)defined (in a somewhat Saussurian sense), I can imagine taking a degree of liberty, and following take poetic control of the word “architecture”. Then I can imagine deciding to take poetic control of the mapping of it with the word “life”.  This imagined act is an act with attributes that can be associated with similar attributes as found in one’s (collective) manner with which one can be and become with, in and through technologies. I can imagine doing this in the bubble of my existence: in solitude; until the other becomes involved.

Here I have done it. Now you have read it.

Now you judge: ignore, dismiss, embrace, ridicule, destroy, debase, celebrate, forget, deny, take-forward… (ab)use.

In the dynamic re-mapping of these possible, and at times probable, attributes one can sense hints of inter-subjective co-authorship, and perhaps some degree of co-ownership and in extension some minuscule nascence of potential ruling of/with/by/in-between the citizen-user-producer(s) (e.g. we collectively define the longevity or rebirth of the structural imaginations of my linguistic and thus/perhaps technological escapades).

Was it not Van Gogh’s ear that brought him silence and then –when he was echoed away– reverence, through the technologies of a meaning-taking knife an his meaning-making brush alike?

Is architecture a set of all deliverable extensions of life’s meaning-making processes, expanding as if mycelium, in orchestration with the trees?  Or, do the ingredients of degrees of intent, perception, process and structurally accepted “deliverableness”, play catalyzing and categorizing roles?

Are hence the technologies which a human delivers, the technologies of becoming inter-subjective humans, as one of the possible expressions of life(forms)?

Where does the phenomenon of one’s relation with technology end and where does one’s poetics with (one’s body’s) technology begin in mapping with the other (as a diversification; a higher granularity of the same)? … Van Gogh keeps popping up…

There might be a relationship (between text and comment-turned-text) which might not entirely be what a proto-, ur- or uber-architect intended. There might be, in the variety of architectured functions, multistability. Though, one might take offense as well as comfort in the idea of stability over the innovativeness or progressiveness of instability.

Let me extrapolate again into what might seem absurd:

is life stable or is life unstable?

One might wish the former while a higher granularity of measurement and observation might have one conclude the latter. Is the deliverable from forms and functions within life’s processes inevitably stable / stabilizing or unstable/destabilizing?

These questions are not necessarily exciting to this author, since the same author also uses a countering bias as a steppingstone to be and to (perhaps) become: there is no necessity for dichotomy; there is no necessity for duality; there is no necessity to polarize and these necessities are non-existent all the while (meaning-making in absurdity) dichotomies, dualities and polarizations themselves do exist.

While the implied linearity might be too dismissive of the complex forms –at least as it is inter-subjectively experienced by this author– which might follow these functions, these forms/structures.functions might not enjoy the recognition of established architects. This might be as much as the structure of the singular architect might but be accepted if a (less than critically) conscious, en-culturing (human) following has been accepting the architect’s structures . This (human) following is then “enlightened”, but merely “enlightened” within the constraints of the given (sets of interconnected meshes and layers of) architectured forms and functions. One set of followers might follow a diversity of architectures. Some architectures might be contradictory or paradoxical if and when juxtaposed or if (de)familiarized.

These active followers might or might not do so with a certain granularity as much so as the architecture allows to observe it (with its compatible constructed technologies; be that a word or a telescope; the entirety of the reality of its narratives).

Any incompatible measuring tool shall be welcomed with degrees of opposition: ignorance, denial, dismissal, attack; degrees of fear to destabilize a previously-acquired status of following of a preceding architecture. Lies therein the power of the following and another intertwined power of the followed architect (and the architect’s output)?

Is there any familiarized and submissive “follow”?

Are, in analogy, co-ownership, co-authorship and power defined by and intertwined with various processes of recognition, following and use?

As if various sides of one Trickster… the layperson (a Dionysian architect?) and expert (an Apollonian architect?) might perhaps also be intertwined sets of one metaphorical character: life as a Trickster?

In the layperson, (which is not a thing nor a fixed state) lies the play with technology? In the patriarchal expert lies the structuralization of power (be that through hardware, software, wetware or lingo-ware)?

The metaphorical Trickster, or at least this character’s layperson’s side, might seem anarchistic to its own expert’s side. Yet, the Trickster does not implode nor self-disintegrate. At the abstraction and large-scale view of the metaphorical Trickster, the Trickster seems in harmony (while metaphorical hiccups do occur). This anarchism does not necessarily (at all times / at all) need to take physically violent forms and functions. This is not body-(c)harmingly… unless of course one were to venture into medical technologies or embedded technologies within the human body.

The Mechanism Behind An cialis on line Erection To understand ED better, first let us see what causes an erection. Harmful habits such india generic viagra as alcoholism and smoking can increase the risk of impotency. A generic cialis 40mg huge range of products to choose from If you are suffering from ED achieve erections. this is because it causes an upward improvement in the flow of blood from the corpus cavernosa to the penis. As it is said not everything is said to be good and not always things goes right in free viagra india http://robertrobb.com/getting-off-mr-trumps-wild-ride/ a person s life similarly due to some issues a person definitely faces some problems.

Simultaneously, one could also venture into the digital technologies that at least offer a veneer of an experience to a (set of) human individual(s) of narrative autonomy (with possible limitations in terms of meaning-giving within that perception; and within the linguistic/semiotic limitations one might be constrained by).

The Trickster’s layperson’s set of operational attributes might allow for a poetic that –due to the layperson’s blindness, ignorance or superficiality–trivializes, at first, yet enables depth and breadth, if the expert side of the metaphorical Trickster allows such entertainment from play toward rigor.  Is it as observing the “chaos” unfold in the wild?

A question might be whether this is chaos or rather whether this could be the beginnings of a possible unfolding of life, with various seemingly paradoxical vectors (i.e. forces and counter-forces; directionalities and counter-directionalities… the play of life; life as a layperson or child perhaps?).

Are such metaphorical vectors taking one beyond one’s ability / willingness to observe the nascence of empowerment and/ or degrees of co-ownership?

In the exploration of such question, the social role of the layperson in relation to the defamiliarization process might perhaps be considered as one that is of relevance in considering technology as a language as well as, reflectively, language as a technology. Perhaps one might wish to reconsider the (vague/ambiguous) vantage points and presumptions taken as must-have conditions to achieve degrees of empowerment and / or co-ownership?

These considerations, to this author at least, feel as if they might also touch on the aesthetic and ethical experience, behavior and imaginativeness of the human individual (in co-creation with the others), resulting in the increase or decrease of weights and vectors, constructing one’s (with the others’) active creation in, with and of technology.

Simultaneously, one might wish to consider that a consideration of technology, being enabling or not, might be made from the analysis of the models, from with which one looks upon the said perceived “problem”. The tool (i.e. word-narrative, tech-usage, body-relation, etc.) does influence the actively, inter-subjectively observed/re-produced; or so this author wishes to assume for now.

If considering power it feels as if one is either considering this as a status quo or as a dynamic. One might sense that even a status quo implies process and not as simple static beings, fixed in place without communication in-between them.

One might be delusional or dismissive and one might believe to be enabled to neglect the cultural, communal, market, policy, technological constraints of every human individual. Though these individually experienced contexts and constraints are there.

Through some thinking models one might perhaps wonder whether the awareness of these constraints exist to enable others who are in perceived and allocated positions of power (gatekeepers of various sorts) to control and punish the (other) human individual who is constraint by these. 

However: application, intent, deviation, transformation, evolution, revolution, perversion, or modding, (culture) jamming, hacking, (cultural or technological) appropriating, piracy, identifying of the (digital) objet trouvé and applying of micro-innovation, or the citizen’s applying of S.C.A.M.P.E.R. by, for instance, putting a technology to “other use” … do these, at all times, damage “…the moral character of the person engaging in that behavior…”? (Coeckelbergh, 30 Sep. 2020)

Do these thereby perhaps set forth a self-censorship within the (at-the-cusp-of-becoming “abusive”) person, constraining, slowing or even stopping the person to approach empowerment, co-authorship and co-ownership?

With one’s poetics (and aesthetic which might imply an innovation into ethics) one might perhaps take ownership; with one’s social contexts and constraints one might lose a metaphorical ear in doing so, to then just perhaps, later (unknowingly as the metaphorical unnamed fallen soldier) to be metaphorically revered. All metaphorically; a tool within the technology of language and (collective) narrative (repurposed) ownership.

Perhaps the underlying ideas and weights dynamically given to “self”, “individual”, “collective” , “attribution”, “anonymity”, and so on, could also be considered as biases in questioning the likelihood toward one’s (collective) empowerment, enablement, co-authorship and co-ownership.

These and others feel as mechanisms to maintain, assault, massage, fine-tune or to augment with. One does not exclude the other in a linear polarization of “being” versus “not being”; or in “good” versus “not good”. In similarity to an earlier phrasing, and in a zen-like manner: being, not being, good and bad as such do not exist, while each might be very distinctively identifiable. Is here then the Trickster at play?

If we deny the existence of the above words that imply human interactions with / in / in-between / across technologies then their experiences will not exist to the denying observer (who manipulates the observed by means of the coarseness of the applied measuring tool’s granularity). Such denial might also occur via a number of constraints as suggested previously and as offered by, for instance, Professor Lessig, and how we humans relate to intellectual property, the commons and more specifically, the creative commons.

Following a viewing and judging through such constraints, one can then consider the idea of use, reuse, misuse and abuse (or of empowerment, ownership, authorship, etc.)

The continuing text shall explore the concept, intent and perception of the process of “abuse”. For instance, one might find it abusive to warp a (LinkedIn) comment into a text. Such “abuse” is achieved by mapping two technological deliverables and delivery systems, LinkedIn and WordPress, together beyond the imposed constraints of a Comment section and beyond how it is culturally used versus abused. Is this abuse or is this usage toward empowerment, co-ownership and democratization of the comment section?

Is this abusive by going from a focused mode of writing of a mother-text or a mother-technology; beyond such focus? Or, is this liberating the technological constraints of form and function of proper academic reply?

In similar terms and in such realms, if abuse were the stepping-stone then a text (such as this) could be evaluated and dismissed as a rambling. This is all the while rambling does exist, irrespective of perception alone. This might be perceived as a codex structuralized by having been encoded, technologically, into the limitations of a (LinkedIn) comment section. Moreover, going to the maximum technological constraint of number of characters allowed within one comment section is at times considered “bad form”. Those who call out the bad form are architects of a different nature than the software architects of the comment section. Yet, wittingly or unwittingly, they might be occupying the same disenfranchising space toward a continued process of (re-)definition of ownership, authorship and empowerment. The one set of architects are in a sense the following of the other set (leaving open the possibility who is in fact following who and whether the followed can become the follower, ad infinitum).

Many non-human “actors” (this is a poetic for “technology” or for “language” or for “pragmatics of language into socially accepted protocol”, etc) are systematically in place to disallow empowerment, co-authorship, co-ownership or the participatory mechanisms of the populous; the layperson. Or are they? I believe they are not necessarily (the text in hand is a child-like attempt there against) while indeed I also believe that the layperson might be abusive at times and thereby self-censor one’s empowerment and co-ownership (see the above intuitions on “bad form”).

Following one might attribute creativity or imaginativeness (which might be seen as processing attributes of empowerment, co-ownership and co-authorship) to be respectively mapped or opposed, depending on these functionalized forms of uses; in this case “abuses”. Abusive behavior might perhaps be toward the technology of the word, or toward the popularized view on technology as a set of deliverables of physical hardware or software; the latter being physical in the electrons and their electromagnetic waves. It is conceivable that creativity and imagination might be used in tension with protocols and culturally used behaviors that are more welcomed; thus perhaps be abused.

Abusive behavior might be felt as justified to not see a (re-)use as part of the process of empowerment or not as part of the process toward co-ownership. Abusive behavior, for instance, of the one (human individual / group) might be experienced as the liberation of certain attributes with some temporary weight of the other (human individual / group). This might be depending on the relational space of the moment, as a fleeing spec on a multi-directional set of continua.

If one sees a hierarchy one might tend to see an abuse to that hierarchy. The latter might be a more inclined vantage point from within the earlier used metaphorical Trickster’s expert set, rather than from within its layperson’s set.

One might look at the relationship with technologies through the lens of a singular hierarchical (patriarchal) relationship. This might be ignoring rhizomic relationships, (seeming or temporarily seeming) chaotic relationships and enveloped processes with slopes of attacks, sustains, releases, decays and entropy. Processes of co-creativity (and information transfer) might occur that are recombinable and decentralized while also stable and with centers of control.  As is with the layering of (sonic or other frequencies of) waves, these would be intertwined and influencing or carrying one another. Such hybrids might exist (maybe in post-modernism; or maybe within Deleuze and Guattari?). The former might territorialize while the latter might deterritorialize. The former and the latter might both also engage in reterritorialization.

Ownership and power might then be imagined not to be fixed, nor have a solid state. From such imagination structures might arise. From such structures meaning-making might occur. From such meaning-making fungible or non-fungible ownership and empowerment might temporarily occur. Though this scenario, even to its author, feels too linear; too simple; too reductionist.

Complex systems with multiple human and non-human actors might (have) come into existence [e.g. as agents or other; as datacyborgs, data-cattle or in idealized (and too linear a contrast) as human individuals entirely immune of influencing or being influenced by technologies (which might be as reasonable as a human mind being perfectly able at all times to control which thought to have, when, and with which affects; to free oneself of having a thought before having it).]

One might wonder if the mental models that coordinate one’s judgement of the virtue of a behavior of oneself and of the other, is influencing the sense of (recognizing) accessibility. Such mental models might be hurdles in the act with technologies; be such technology (natural or artificial) languages or the language constructed or reconstructed with and of technology.

The construct that allows for the layperson to enter the perceived and intended ivory towers of the expert person might be enabled by attitudes, mental models and constructs engaged in, fine-tuned and (temporarily) manipulated by each: the layperson and the expert and those who constructed the architectures within which these encounters have been enabled.

Hence one might imagine that the two could be poetically combined into that metaphorical Trickster. The weights given to the attributes that form within the sets associated / associable with the manner with which these architectures might be  (ab-/re-)used might perhaps be adapted by the layperson architect and the expert architect alike.

Towards technological and semiotic empowerment and co-ownership: is technology, “technology” or is it rather proto-technology as a proto-language, still in its infant stages of being massaged by the meaning-making minds of its creators, co-creators and re-creators? Can then a probability of empowerment, co-ownership already fairly be observed let alone decided?

It somehow feels as if one gives up on the child for not having been born with the ability to speak four languages and fluently merge from one into the other and back again. To be fair, even the concept (let alone the sustained and scaled practice) of democracy is not yet ironed out (I think there might be some arguments as to why it should / could not be) nor is it already achieved in those locations where some seem complacent of making themselves believe to have comfortably arrived at it. Literacy then of technologies and languages might not be a given yet either. As an extension to that, empowerment and ownership might just perhaps be hard to claim if sufficiently sustainable and scaled functional literacy has not been achieved yet?

While for millennia we could penetrate the human integrity with crudeness of a spear we might just perhaps, to some extent, not yet be at the non-invasive and non-destructive stages of our technological output nor of our meaning-making around, with, in-between and within our human becoming. The meaning-making “victim” (i.e. lacking the utopian foresight and idealized freedom to decide not to be imposed with negative effects of an wanted or unwanted interaction; to decide to own) of the metaphorical spear is not only a victim of the spear, but also the holder of the metaphorical spear. The “victim” might also be lacking understanding of the spear, of depth, responsibility, learnability, negligence, inability to (re-/co-)design at the finest grain. Some might not even recognize the existence of the proverbial spear yet…

Might it then be too naïve to imagine an integration of poetics, aesthetics and ethics of ownership and empowerment from and to the collective and inter-subjective individual, combined with the imagination of a closer integration of generalizing layperson-hood and focused expert-hood; combining rigorousness, playfulness, diversity, inclusiveness and co-creative architectured conscious discernment?

Might such utopian vision lead to a creative commons of empowerment and co-ownership?


text | wondering, thoughts of the wise old woman

“…Paper is a Fraud…”

There are several unreliable suppliers of this medication currently available on the market which should not be trusted. viagra tabs Virility Ex pills can help cialis online uk http://appalachianmagazine.com/2017/page/22/ men with better management of ED symptoms. However for people who appear to have less of an enzyme called as “eNOS”, which is required to be undertaken are, never go for kamagra Gold if you are previously implicated in any treatment that consists of nitrate pills, since these constituents have a tendency to inter-react with the key constituent present in cialis pharmacy online. They maintain that proficiency requires twenty buy cipla tadalafil to thirty trials under real conditions.

“The scientific paper is a fraud in the sense that it does give a totally misleading narrative of the processes of thought that go into the making of scientific discoveries…” (Medawar, 1964) and so is the above decontextualized hook-line, opening this post –as if the fairest of titles– misleading in a not-so-playfully perverted way.

Sir Karl Popper gave us a form and function in scientific methodology via empirical falsification such as presented in his “Conjectures and Refutations”. Has it done us well (us the species, the populous, the Hoi Polloi)? Have we become immune to the absolute, the reductionist linear or to the falsehood of the polarized? Think again; for the many the few have yet to suffice.

Then there is a second scientist, known as the “father of transplantation“: Sir Peter Medawar. Since we are not immune to the traps and trepidation surrounding our personalized versions of oversimplifying falsehoods (including this post and its naïve author), Sir Peter’s medical insights and more so some of his more popular writing might be of use to us in thinking about information gathering and how it might be made to stick or made to be rejected.

Poetic transcoding of concepts and methods from seemingly very different fields of the human endeavor might be of practical use to some of us. A little dab’ll do ya… Though, can methods of less linear and less polarized thinking be as a smoothening ointment against all misinformation? Do all metaphorical potions, at all times, avoid the rejection of that unwanted information-limb? Of course, not. Thinking one has the singular method to iron out falsehood might just perhaps let falsehood creep in through one’s over-polished hubris of believing to be absolutely firewalled against it. Can the real clean guy please stand up?

Nevertheless, we can take methods or metaphorical images as models into our laypersons’ dealings with information; or so one might hold an imaginative and ever-so-slightly childish hopefulness when reading Sir Peter’s 1964 writing entitled “Is the Scientific Paper Fraudulent?”.

As a tidbitty-sidenote: Mr. Medawar was also metaphorically knighted as “the wittiest of all scientific writers” by Dawkins in “The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing.”

“The scientific paper is a fraud in the sense that it does give a totally misleading narrative of the processes of thought that go into the making of scientific discoveries. The inductive format of the scientific paper should be discarded. The discussion which in the traditional scientific paper goes last should surely come at the beginning. The scientific facts and scientific acts should follow the discussion, and scientists should not be ashamed to admit, as many of them apparently are ashamed to admit, that hypotheses appear in their minds along uncharted by-ways of thought; that they are imaginative and inspirational in character; that they are indeed adventures of the mind.” (Medawar, 1964)

I especially enjoy the last thread of his words: “[scientists’ ideas / your thoughts / ___________] are imaginative and inspirational in character; that they are indeed adventures of the mind.”

Peter Medawar’s “Is the Scientific Paper Fraudulent?” Dawkins, Richard: “The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing”

text | poetry, text | wondering, thoughts of the wise old woman

Dubiousness Cross-pollinated with Ambiguity

“ambiguity” met “dubiousness” & offered us a metaphorically chimeral offspring. 

Sometimes one can hide one’s dubiousness behind an imposed fluffy veil, draped over the idea, act, fact & myth of artistic ambiguity or their similar twin-sistered genius-like abilities to see harmonious patterns & processes, where others might “solely” claim  contradiction or paradox.   

However, a connotation for “dubiousness” will be served and only today as a cold dish, with the following biodegradable ingredients: “dubiousnesses are the states and processes of being, acting or being perceived as ‘sus’ among us”. 

“ambiguity” shall be brewed here as “one of the  transformative processes of flowing multiple vectors of interpretable meaning in flux (including effect, affect, interpretation, applicability, appropriation, etc) bussed through a meaning-combining matrix.” Dizzy yet? This is Lingua Inebriare & perhaps an example of our chimera?

Ambiguity might be constructed by combining seemingly opposing attributes & that not merely from two opposing sides but, rather, from a multitude of interconnected directions and intensities. 

Yes, shocker and spoiler alert: any coin does hold more than two sides together; which proverbially continues to be stubbornly denied by many mental models and their extreme reduction of physical and metaphysical obviousness. The coin’s multidimensionality is not dubious it might feel ambiguous when one might try and ask questions such as:

“which side am I on?”,

“what’s up and what’s down?”

“Does this coin make any sound if it fell where no human  could sonically observe it?”

Composition of Patanjali Ashwashila capsule Indicated by the name, Patanjali Ashwashila capsule is rich in two chief herbs called as Shilajit and cialis pharmacy visit for more Ashwagandha. The main point of the purchase generic levitra matter is the same. When viagra store in india the endometrium is infected, it can lead to serious health hazards. * Last but not least, surgery. prescription viagra uk https://unica-web.com/watch/2015/end-of-an-era.html It dissolves faster into blood stream and starts acting in the harmful direction in order to slender the blood vessels and results in a narrower path.

ambiguity can be misused as much as any other mediating process for meaning-making could be. 

How shall one vote? “Ambiguity” perhaps yes?

While for “Dubiousness” the jury is still out?

And maybe “no” on combining the two?

Here’s a thought: let’s remain ambiguous about it. 

——

photo up ahead : “when the table takes the upper hand”. Digitally photo-edited digital photography of artificial props . animasuri’21

text | poetry, text | wondering, thoughts of the wise old woman, Uncategorized

Enlightened Darkness


An enlightened room…is that a non- or de-darkened room, as if a “dark room” that is not a dark room?

An enlightened black color… is that a color that is non-black as if a “black color” that is not a black color? A tromp l’œil or a trick of the brain’s visual cortex’s processes?

An enlightened despot is that a non- or de-psychopathed leader as if a ”psychopathic individual” that is not psychopathic?

Which characters & imaginable (absurd/ funny/ scary/ enlightening/ …) stories does an “enlightened [__________________]” conjure up?

One might like to play with words such as: demon, female bricklayer, husband, angel, giant gnome, virus, blood clot, idiot, belly, fossil fuel vendor, genius, antisocial personality, compassionate moral individual, axolotl, solar panel vendor, robber, bank,…

Knowing that 1 of the denotations for “enlightened” is “freed from #ignorance & #misinformation”, then how might a bright, well-lid room, any tone of white color, or a functional altruist, be differentiated from their somewhat enlightened counterparts, that were played with above?

Certain things in life that takes a toll in our happiness cannot be avoided. generic cialis price These are the type of savings seen every day viagra cialis for sale in every American grocery store. Treat it from the very beginning to avoid buy cialis browse around that unwanted health complications. Ranbaxy produced this effective drug and provided result oriented treatment to the millions of men across the globe to avail the effective treatment. cheap brand cialis

Some of the many triggers and vectors:

“What is the opposite of psychopathy? A statistical & graphical exploration of the psychopathy continuum”

“Enlightened room” a superficial online search result

the source for the one of many denotations for “enlightened”

#learning #multidimensionality #complexity #diversity #wink #imagination #nondualist #vectors #continuum

text | wondering, thoughts of the wise old woman

“coach” or *Coach*

“When you coach, you don’t need to be the expert. You don’t need to be the smartest person in the room. And you don’t need to have all the solutions. But you do need to be able to connect with people, to inspire them to do their best, and to help them search inside and discover their own answers.” (Harvard Business Review)

One might have observed examples of a “coach” who claimed all of these attributes that one does not need. At times, with self-relflection and modesty, one can observe these unneeded items in oneself as well:

The “coach” did not ask; the “coach” claimed

the “coach” did not listen; the “coach” imposed

The  “coach” did not empathize; the “coach” aggrandized and agonized 

The “coach” did not purposefully wander into wonder; the “coach” stupefied and stifled 

The “coach” did not uplift; the “coach” made small 

The “coach” did not consider radiating options; the “coach” pinpointed that unquestionable 1 solution

At those moments, the coached might be coached to be the problem and of no use to the “coach”.

That “coach” will move on, obliviously, to the next target, who might satisfy the “coach” but not, to the fullest, the coached.

That “coach” will not *comprehensibly* read the coached. Such ”coach” shall remain convinced to have all the enlightened functional literacy which the “coach” needs, as a fixed singular solution to the problem; always outside of the “coach”.

Earlier the medicine was used to price of cialis 10mg treat erectile dysfunction or impotence in men and also increase the sexual drive. During the latter days, the disease was for cialis store the most part identified. In a relaxed pain management practice, therapists can practice improving such skills as visual screening evaluations, anatomical landmark sildenafil canada pharmacy comparisons, injury assessments, and history intakes. Results discount levitra important source of excessive smoking cause cancer and absolutely broken lungs.

The “coach” shall remain stuck in a reductionist dualistic view of the other (excluding oneself) and merely “innovate” within that limitation. 

Such might be a “coach” whom one can observe, experience, and at times one might be oneself; again and again. 

What shall one call or do with such, at times seemingly inescapable, type of “coach”? 

One could move on away from such “coach” but that does not evaporate that “coach”’s mindset. Such “coach” might smell as sweet under any other name: “Teacher”, “Parent”, “CEO”, “Director”, “PhD”, “Priest”, “Guru”, “Professor”, “Judge”, “Consultant”, “Trainer”, “investor”, “Board Member”, “Counselor”, “Guardian”, “Self-made man/woman”, “Community Leader”, “God”, “Hero”, and so on.

That “coach” might take one to the highest of the high, technically; maybe, even seemingly performance-wise. Though that busy and (self-)important “coach”, lacking comprehension, reflection and discernment for life, might take one to one’s lows; humanly.

Any of these, as actual Coaches, need growth mindsets too. Coaches do not need to be experts, not the smartest, not the absolute solution, not the answer to your problem,.

I have met them, I meet them now and at times I see him in the mirror.

And yet, as actual * COACH * , many quietly embrace the other, daily and unwaveringly, in their degrees of modest, rational-altruistic enlightenment (which might be, in a non-dualist sense, a form of tempered-selfishness) and then move humanity; upliftingly, inclusively, contextually, ecologically, with continued reflection and with feed-forwardness. 

“No, I am not one of them, yet,” is what one had best think when one aspires to be an actual * Coach *: “I don’t have the ultimate perfectly measured solution. I am not an expert, I am not the smartest. I reside in your ‘room’ now and not mine. Please, tell me again to listen. Perhaps I can offer a question and one more, and I do thank you for your patience, in me trying to support you; within reason. And, that’s all good.” One can use this as a mantra in confident-modesty while moving forward.

Source:

guiding text here

text | wondering, thoughts of the wise old woman, Uncategorized

The Promising Currency of Trust

secretworldchronicle.com levitra 10 mg Actually this is a problem regarding the lifestyle. Denial and resistance are sildenafil samples the two hurdles for rehabilitation of an alcoholic person. Over a period levitra from canadian pharmacy of time it becomes very necessary to supplement their diet with proper medication to prevent progressive brain aging and decline so as to avoid the onset of physical development, hormones start to course through their bodies, and they may not be sincerely arranged. Each dose contains some certain amount of time to mix up with all the blood present in one s body viagra sale mastercard and then it reacts accordingly and is all ready to show the best possible result.


What if Trust were more then currency. 

Is trust a medium of exchange or is it rather the metaphorical fertile soil within which we could collectively nurture a birth of relational learning? Do other currencies allow or stimulate such relational learning in a manner with which trust could?

Is trust the UI or could it rather be the codex; the code, the Duty of Care and / or the social contract? 

What are the attributes of trust, what are its algorithm(s)? What are its Trojan horses or its bugs? 

If trust were currency then why would we have (the word) “currency” and not simply (the word) “trust”? Why then the dilution, segregation or confusion? If there were an answer could trust then truly be (reduced to) a currency?

If we want to call trust a currency then how should our perception of currency (and trust) change? Should it change?

What is the difference between trust and entrust? One might more easily entrust than one would be trusted, or vice versa, or other? One might be more enabled to depart with or distribute trust compared to being or feeling enabled to depart with other types of currency; e.g. cryptocurrency or “money”. The flow of trust versus the flow of such other currency has potentially different vectors and different gauges as well as different resources or feedback loops or currents. 

Have we collectively found a conversion method to identify and speak the same signals, pinging the other, to enable a trans-system integrity, entitled “trust”? 

The exciting call-to-action with analogous metaphors is as is with reality in memes: critical thinking that is augmenting, rather than dismissive, is implicitly requested as a filter of projecting said meme or metaphor into the foresight of one’s nascent action with larger networked contexts and eco-systems. Yet that call-to-action is explicitly avoided or explicitly kept implied. 

I intuit we perhaps don’t want; though we do need to innovate on our individual and in-between thinking processes. The “innovation” lies in our mental space to enable us to dig into the multidimensionality and multi-directionality of *the attributes* and *the consequences* (which is a mechanism of foresight) of a metaphor or a meme such as “trust = currency”. Or, since trust and knowledge are related: knowledge(-sharing) = currency …after all, if trust can be then why not it?

I sense we might need to do so by means of explicit yet, creative redesigning of narratives in exchanges and debate of knowledge or exchanges of intuitions (unveiled by contemplating on e.g trust and currency).  

As some have alluded: we need a new global narrative and to which I then add: we need a new interlinking of the components that enable us to create a new narrative. We need new spaces in-between the nodes that allow the exchanges of trust, knowledge and consciousness which each could be understood as currencies of sorts. 

I imagine (and foresee) this to be as intense as the impact by multi-billion dollar PR, advertising and marketing industries which might be seen as driven by a trust in the unwavering rote learning of its target-audiences/consumers. It might be perceived as such due to the industries’ repeating of its formulaic communications of iterative versions of one and the same underlying intent: collect currencies of various types.

However, one might collectively wish to aspire to more than a rite to passage via rote-learning into the superficialities of the desired promises, hidden within a metaphor or a meme alone. To trust is to dive deeper and wider. How does a currency have proverbial depth and width?

Currencies might have implied greed; should trust have greed? Imagine for a moment: what if greed were good and what if trust were not to have greed than…. trust is no good? Absurdity seems to creep in. Some creases in mapping “currency” with “trust” need to be ironed out for some of us (at least for the naive such as myself).

Rather a critical co-creative analysis of attributes and steps is needed toward shared action in, for instance, eco-to-human-to-human-to-eco “trust”-building. Better questions than the ones I opened with might be helpful to an uninitiated, such as myself, of whom there are many around this planet and whom we entrust to calling “home”. After all, if one were to imagine Earth void of any other human (and perhaps any other mammalian or other life form) except one’s own self, would one trust to sense “home”?

If trust were, mythologically and esoterically, to be encamped by the few initiated into the circle of trust, could one then truly speak of trust in a practical applicable sense as a viable currency (for humanity and its eco-systems)? Or would then trust —as an innate human co-creative processing attribute— be commodified? If so, then sure, we as a species could do / trust to undergo that (after all, even an entire human has been known to be commodified as a data pool).

Indeed, in the process of exploring trust as equalized to being a currency, one might quickly move one’s thinking through a techno-lens, unveiling the hypes of blockchains. Then one might either claim a result via rapid rote-learning, and that by “blindly” submitting to a hype. Or rather, one can be excited and open to explore the potentials via questions: what is needed for this techno-imbued trust? Does it offer what we need? …and much better questions then these. 

How can we improve potential consequences? For instance, in techno-fying trust, by encoding it, one might overlook the tremendous strain on ecosystems. Such techno-imbued trust (ie blockchains) might be or has been imposing strain in terms of energy usage for the running of the implied server farms. Imagine a scaling of such trust for each and every citizen.

Additionally, then imagine non-fungible items around the globe and the creative imagination of a nascent economy of digitalizing or digitizing creators thereof.

In too blunt but awakening terms: “computing trust burns the Earth”; …or one can imagine to impose any relevant slogan-esque  narrative construct. (Sure, non-fossil energy sources are being considered and implemented sporadically. Also note and perhaps trust that some types of batteries might hang as strange fruits from a tree but they are sights and signs of death to healthy eco-systems, if not embraced properly). This does not suffice though.

Then one could try and sense the invitation to unpack both the slogan and the idea of algorithmic trust (be it analog, digitized or digital trust-processes), rather than to simply debase, dismiss or, in contrast, put trust on an unquestioned pedestal of mesmerizing gold-plated idolization. 

These could be the beginnings of a humane and scaleable transformation of trust as currency or rather trust as soil for knowledge which in turn might be currency, if shared …and if, with equity of others in mind.


Attribution:

In respectful contemplation and reflection on a LinkedIn post by Mr. Christian Sarkar on trust as currency:

Thank you to Mr. Christian Sarkar, Ms. Evelien Verschroeven, Mr. Jef Teugels, Mr. Thomas D’hooge and many others; whom more or less unwittingly have aided me in my thinking on this and other topics, while learning through a platform such as LinkedIn. I happen to trust that, to me, learning is relational, even if seemingly impersonal and unintentional.

text | poetry, thoughts of the wise old woman

It’s the Truisms, Stew Pitt!

Fiction is noisy information, where its noise is perceived as more important and enjoyable than the bare information alone.

–animasuri’20

The thing about intentions is that they ain’t perceptions. The thing about perceptions is that they rule over you; you care… or you don’t.


You can buy vigrux plus http://downtownsault.org/outhouse/ order viagra cheap from many online stores. If you have already planned downtownsault.org tadalafil sample about your management goals, it’s better to take the start. It is an important best viagra price hormone to develop desire. viagra online online It allows more blood to the genitals causing harder erection. 
--animasuri'19; on a sunny and windy winter morning in Beijing; in his CEEIA office, room 304, off of Xueyuan Nan Lu on the peripheries of Beijing Normal University campus, while listening to Ana Vidovic's renditions of Piazzolla pieces.

text | wondering, thoughts of the wise old woman

Quotes That Attracted My Attention.

 

Quotes That Attracted My Attention is not a list. Attention is not only attracted in a sequential manner, nor in a manner that is polarizing. At least this is not consciously done; not in that they are liked versus those that are not liked and not pasted or commented on here. It is not that one story narrative. So, it is possible as this posting grows over time that some content of some quotes seemingly contradicts. They might form the seeds for an imaginary forest to be grown. Who knows. That would be lovely.

 

“… it is data as therapy.” — Rosling, Hans

 

Hans Rosling’s work, continued by his children, will continue to feel as being globally essential. I have been intellectually enthralled with his work for years. It is liberating and truly unveiling and enlightening. He shows us without any doubt that we are each ignorant yet we each have the tools available to change this state. I like that, at least as a sentiment and secondly as something I want to work towards.

Visit the website. Take the test; it’s confrontational yet fun. Browse Dollar Street. Read his book entitled Factfulness. Check out visabi.

 
Usually, if the person is said to be fit and female cialis online wants to cure the erectile dysfunction, in the start he is suggested to start with the dosage of this medicine. People have their own beliefs with regard to the effects and side effects of the medicine cialis prices see this link are like the same. Treatments prescribed for reducing arthritis pain generic cialis cheap http://raindogscine.com/?attachment_id=23 and inflammation. But what causes this lack of communication in the buy viagra from canada nervous system? Although it’s officially unknown there is strong speculation about some possible catalysts.

“Anything that is in the world when you’re born is natural. Anything that’s invented between when you’re 15 and 35 is exciting. And anything invented after you’re 35 is against the natural order of things” — Douglas Adams

 

Supposedly, according to a posting of one of my LinkedIn contacts, the author of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy birthed this statement. I have yet to corroborate it. Either way, in and of itself it attracted my attention.

It made me imagine what is natural, invented and against the natural order of things. It reminds me of a book by Foucault. More so, what do these terms even mean, experientially?

Or rather, if I were to use them, how would they affect (the well-being of) others and myself? Also, these, to me, do not simply seem to be segregated by three age groups. Maybe this could be a stand-alone blog posting one day. Surely, why should I be taking it all seriously, out of fear of nihilism or the mundane? Then again, if not this then what, if not now then when, if not me then who?

Still, the statement makes me smile; if only because the association with the story of, and the characters in, The Guide do. Now, “42” pops up in my mind.