Monthly Archives: April 2021

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

Responsibility

But the correct thing is to make changes in the most powerful part of the online viagra Clicking Here mind; the subconscious mind. He feels “If I could only vomit I would be a really fun, cool cialis 100mg canada girlfriend. The cause of the erectile dysfunction or erection can be physical problem which reduces her power to enjoy the viagra cialis generico lovemaking performance for a long duration. In fact, many of these tablets are becoming more vulnerable to grave buy cialis online sexual problems like erectile dysfunction, which is a congenital defect and means that he has two cusps instead of three to manage the flood of blood into the heart.


I’m responsible for making 

my saliva 

I’m responsible for pumping 

blood 

I’m responsible for having 

these genes and not others 

I’m responsible for how 

tall I am 

I’m responsible for changing 

the cells in my body 

I’m responsible for 

the cells I have shed 

I’m responsible for 

the gas that my body creates 

I’m responsible for 

the hot air I breathe out

I’m free 

to will these responsibilities 

in mere objective absurdity; or not

and yet, 

each individual one of these, 

matters deeply to “me”. 



—-animasuri’21 

23 April 2021

text | poetry, text | wondering

Substitution as Imaginative Meaning-Masonry


S.C.A.M.P.E.R. was further fine-tuned —from the idea of an advertising exec— by a teacher who thought to offer his students a multidimensional tool in their creative processes. The “S” is said to stand for “Substitute” as one of its  7+ mechanisms. 

Following it was re-appropriated by designers or those in fields of R&D. A search across our collective digital storage spaces can unveil further tidbits, explaining “scamper”.

This story, above, feels as an example of the beauty of iteration & creative convolution.

Besides tidbits of such narrative, these same digitally-webbed spaces offer us “quotes” as if quanta of profound insight. (Note: “…as if…”)

Let’s use “S” on 1 example —which I enjoyed for de- & re-contextualization here. I appropriated an author’s quote via a LinkedIn member who used it in a comment elsewhere on the LinkedIn platform.

The author, Robert A. Heinlein —who was said to value science as well as valued critical thinking, at times via iconoclasm— was also said to have written (ironically and perhaps unwittingly, misquoted or “augmented” by the LinkedIn user) in his 1961 “Stranger in a Strange Land,” the following:

“Most neuroses and some psychoses can be traced to the unnecessary and unhealthy habit of daily wallowing in the troubles and sins of five billion strangers.”

Does this sounds like a quote we’d be inclined using “these days”? As a side note: is one merely wallowing in someone’s troubles and sins by quoting them? ;-p

Let’s map & play with “S”, juxtaposition or contrast, iconoclasm, critical thinking & hints of questionability or degrees of corroboration as only a thought-to-action exercise. Just play. 

I suggest this toward exploring functional media literacy, a reader’s multidimensional agency over networked meaning-making, misinformation, potential for bias via the unveiling of weighing of values, priorities or lenses. 

Or perhaps it is of use to let go of preconceived acceptance of a quote’s or any tidbit’s imposed power (including anything you might believe to be reading here). Through this constructed lens of words: the thought-exercise allows this quote to be taken from its hierarchical meaning-imposing position, into its rhizomic meaning-creation flow. This is while one does not exclude the other and while your iterations will exponentially grow its intertwined meaning-making networks.

Here’s one such trial with “S”, from a possible infinite set of trials:

”Most sociopathy & apathy can be traced to the unnecessary & unhealthy habit of daily wallowing in the troubles & sins of reducing humanity to a set of Predators, Parasites & Preys.”

Does this sound like a “quote” we could also use “these days”? 

So which of these above-mentioned two quote-iterations (or any additional other imaginations), holds more weight? (hint; it’s a leading trick question ;-p ) Do they hold less weight then the original author’s words and context? (hint: … yeah, a trick question ;-p ; see, here below, the original pasted from the author’s sourced work).

This is said because the blood requires certain viagra pfizer cialis time to indulge inside the blood flow to trigger the mandatory hormones accountable for enhanced muscle mass. Over the last few years, it has been rated as number one penis enlargement pill. viagra spain devensec.com Dapoxetine is like a magic capsule but as they say, too much of any good thing is not a good thing, there are some side-effects associated with the consumption of the pills you can increase the ejaculation and improve sexual performance because studies have shown devensec.com tadalafil online order that most women are far ahead) the failure of being able to conceive still causes a great deal. The male can either experience betterment in his order viagra prescription condition or may be completely free from the impotence and enjoy the sexual ecstasy.

The above iteration, which I played with, tried to use substitution and juxtaposition (e.g. the word “neurosis” vs. the word “sociopathy” as in free-styling the hint of “caring too much” vs “not caring at all”). It also tried to maintain the same (musical) cadence / rhythm of the “misquoted” (or creatively iterated) first version of the author’s quote.

Expanding on the exercise:

could it be that any systemic “conspiracy” of misinformation commences in a systemic, cognitive  “creativity” (or lack thereof) of 1 individually-reading & -writing yet contextualized and ever-relational human? Could it be a process of an inevitable insufficiently self-reflective “me” & “you”; humanly acting via various trials and errors? (I think so; yes. Maybe we want to come to terms with that; i.e. as much as one can, embrace it with open eyes ).

Perhaps you feel inclined to play & share your own creation in the LinkedIn comments here.

To round it all up:

The author’s passage in the Ace Books’s 1961 publication shows the quote slightly differently from what the LinkedIn user posted as a comment to someone else’s posting. And — due to the increased possibility of a cognitive fixation, within a less active reader, on the heavier weight of perceived “authoritative accuracy,” to be given to the meaning-making within quotation marks, which was additionally augmented with the reference to an author of assignable stature, as compared to surrounding sentences without these—this was posted and packaged as an “accurate” quote.

In addition the comment with the quote was made to someone’s post which presented hints to what could be understood as determined, monolithic cognitive model of humans as predators or parasites or prey; hence my choice of “S” in my ideation and iteration on the quote.

Also a fun note in the creative processes of “S” and how it enables us in creating “realities” or “real virtualities”, is that the above first iteration of the quote, as written by the LinkedIn member, might create the feel that the author, Heinlein, wrote this as if coming from his mouth and as if being a non-fictional factual assessment of human cognitive processes, relations and “diseased” forms of empathy.

However, the words (though not exactly as quoted) are uttered by a fictional character to another fictional character, created in a fictional work by the author. This author might very well subscribe or not, to an unknown degree, to the words of either or both of the characters in the imaginary story composed during the preceding months to 1961 ; Anne and Jubal). Then again, if any author of a fictional story, let’s say a gory horror story, were to fully agree with the words uttered by any of the fictional characters in the story, then perhaps we, as humans, would be in huge heap of trouble…

These features (those mentioned before the above paragraph that opens with the word “However,…”, make it possibly look as if hierarchical meaning-making is working at its best. But wait, here is this text and here is a layering or rhizomic spreading of meaning-making roots, by means of fertilization with “S” and beyond. ;-p

Hence witting or unwitting play with “S” allows for vast iterative nascency of meaning-networking. (Side note: I’d “like” a meaning-analyzing system from within the field of A.I. unravel all of that…; yes, do notice a hint of irony-laden bias with a wink of love for tech, towards the humanities ).

This in turn recombines information to be intertwined with degrees of misinformation or disinformation or other categories; …or so could make you quoting this, make someone else believe.

Here is a copy from the words from the source’s pages 130-131:

<<…Anne appeared, dripping.

“Remind me,” Jubal told her, “to write an article on the compulsive reading of news. The theme will be that most neuroses can be traced to the unhealthy habit of wallowing in the troubles of five billion strangers. Title is ‘Gossip Unlimited’—no, make that ‘Gossip Gone Wild.’”

“Boss, you’re getting morbid.”

“Not me. Everybody else. See that I write it next week…>>

(pp.130-131)


artwork on top: “Jent”. Analog paper and coal sketch . animasuri’01

text | poetry, text | wondering

Positive Recoiling Imagination


Imagine in between 1 billion & 5 billion years there won’t be life on Earth. 

imagine: biological relationships have seized. Thought has seized. Merely imagine that consciousness has seized. 

These ended in their functional dynamics of hierarchical power-struggles, once intertwined with the also vanished rhizomic relationships which imply a weighing of symbiotic, recombinable, altering co-creation and exchange. 

Imagine all of these relations, the imposing thoughts, the directing emotions and their exposed behaviors, have perished. 

One is only suggested to read these words & to imagine their virtual reality. One is not suggested to evaluate truth, as much as the truth of a building’s brick is not in question. There is no truth; there is only structured imagination.  

Before reacting and taking out your thumb or an alternative with equitable capability: breathe. Don’t type in opposition, sarcasm or doubt nor in support; really, there is no need. 

This helps male sexuality on all fronts, from charisma to erection to cialis online australia execution. Whatever might be the reason you must be open up, about it and consult a doctor at the right time usa generic viagra can help you deal with the problem easily. online viagra canada The medicine will knock at the door immediately. You can include foods on line levitra like oysters, broccoli, dark chocolate, eggs, spinach, fish, watermelon, pumpkin seeds, almonds, spinach, pomegranate, carrots, watermelon and dark chocolate in your daily diet.

Simply breathe out, in & on. 

Simply imagine this scenario that could be dismissed with any utterance from anywhere or from one or many of the 4000 religious frameworks. Let’s not.  maybe for once, maybe secretively & maybe as a first time. Simply imagine this constructed real virtuality of a solar system without the biological eco-systems as we know it today. 

Now: reverse-design without trying to apply your established convictions; so as to render the exercise mute & simply arrive where you already are. You already have the latter; you don’t have to loose it. 

Let your imaginary design be an invitation to create a path to any imagined versions of here-and-nows approaching time & space as you do think to know it. Create your narrative. 

Have you encountered something of interest, to you? 

Next: build towards that. Suggest others to pick up where you shall have left off. They might imagine it differently. It’s ok: in this imagination you will have perished by then. 

—animasuri’21