self-talk as data

self talk as data graphic

– –

image from output deck/ebook – linked to graphic.

and now in self-talk deck:


essence of ni ness.. ie: a world where 7 billion people are doing the thing they can’t not do. everyday.

ginormously small.






listen & clap

talk to self daily.. (hlb trail ie’s)


like this: a nother way


same deck as issuu ebook:


from James Baldwin (via Maria):

Perhaps the primary distinction of the artist is that he must actively cultivate that state which most men, necessarily, must avoid; the state of being alone.

pascal quiet in room

self-talk as data [document everything ness].. as we are set free to be us/artists.. all of us..

Most of us are not compelled to linger with the knowledge of our aloneness, for it is a knowledge that can paralyze all action in this world. There are, forever, swamps to be drained, cities to be created, mines to be exploited, children to be fed. None of these things can be done alone. But the conquest of the physical world is not man’s only duty. He is also enjoined to conquer the great wilderness of himself. The precise role of the artist, then, is to illuminate that darkness, blaze roads through that vast forest, so that we will not, in all our doing, lose sight of its purpose, which is, after all, to make the world a more human dwelling place.

2 needs – toward us.. toward eudaimoniative surplus


It is for this reason that all societies have battled with the incorrigible disturber of the peace — the artist. …And it is absolutely inevitable that when a tradition has been evolved, whatever the tradition is, the people, in general, will suppose it to have existed from before the beginning of time and will be most unwilling and indeed unable to conceive of any changes in it. They do not know how they will live without those traditions that have given them their identity. Their reaction, when it is suggested that they can or that they must, is panic… And a higher level of consciousness among the people is the only hope we have, now or in the future, of minimizing human damage.

In a sentiment that Jeanette Winterson would come to echo decades later — Art … says, don’t accept things for their face value; you don’t have to go along with any of this; you can think for yourself.”


The artist is distinguished from all other responsible actors in society — the politicians, legislators, educators, and scientists — by the fact that he is his own test tube, his own laboratory, working according to very rigorous rules, however unstated these may be, and cannot allow any consideration to supersede his responsibility to reveal all that he can possibly discover concerning the mystery of the human being. 

echo chamber ness… as lab.. with zoom dance capabilities, ie: ni


Societies never know it, but the war of an artist with his society is a lover’s war, and he does, at his best, what lovers do, which is to reveal the beloved to himself and, with that revelation, to make freedom real.


deleuze on silence


Esko Kilpi (@EskoKilpi) tweeted at 6:10 AM – 21 May 2018 :

2/ This new understanding of competence suggests that the capability to act is a social process. People are simultaneously forming and being formed by each other at the same time — all the time (

Esko Kilpi (@EskoKilpi) tweeted at 6:13 AM – 21 May 2018 :

4/ New information is the organizing input. (

Information is the energy of organizing.

imagine self talk as the organizing input.. curiosity as the energy of organizing

info as secondary

gil quote tweets about w this:

“Everything has been said, yet few have taken notice of it.

Since all our knowledge is essentially banal, it can only be of value to minds that are not”.

Raoul Vaneigem.

Cultivation of a less banal mind is the task of beings with a reflexive consciousness but no culture OF same.

Original Tweet:


Thomas Bernhard on Walking, Thinking, and the Paradox of Self-Reflection

Thus we can never talk about self-observation, or when we talk about the fact that we observe ourselves we are talking as someone we never are when we are not observing ourselves, and thus when we observe ourselves we are never observing the person we intended to observe but someone else. The concept of self-observation and so, also, of self-description is thus false.


And so, in our quest to fathom the human condition, the only direction to look is inward. That is the noble direction to look. It is a direction that forgoes ready-made answers and turns to the highly personal journey of constructing our own meaning. It is a direction that leads to the very heart of creative expression and the source of our most resonant narratives. Science is a powerful, exquisite tool for grasping an external reality. But within that rubric, within that understanding, everything else is the human species contemplating itself, grasping what it needs to carry on, and telling a story that reverberates into the darkness, a story carved of sound and etched into silence, a story that, at its best, stirs the soul.. t

on each heart et al.. let’s try self-talk as data


listen to your hear\t



beyond the monastic self



7 pg pdf – by david graeber (and relateds.. ha)

adding/reading because of this (via museum of care fb share):

On 15 July, the MOC Reading Group will be discussing David Graeber’s unpublished manuscript entitled ‘Beyond the Monastic Self: Joint Mind and the Partial Illusion of Individuation.’

Link to text:…/1_scvjb79MfCyDv98U3F…/view…

Please join us at 8 pm (London time, GMT +1) at the usual link:

Join Zoom Meeting

In the text, the author grapples with questions that strike at the core of human existence: What is the mind? What is consciousness? What is the self? How is human existence made possible by the endless variety of mystical experiences that occur between and among “embodied personalities”?

What might politics, ethics, and science look like if we start with, instead of run away from, the idea of an underlying unity of all physical processes?

i’m never just me ness

reading for july 15 museum of care meeting




One of our peculiar  fetishistic habits, as intellectuals, is to efface the histories of most of these conversations  after they’ve happened, or at best carve up the results, so as to make it seem like ideas  emerge from isolated Great Thinkers. But in practice we’re all aware, on some level, this  is never really true: I have no idea, for instance, the degree to which many of the ideas attributed to me are the product of me, or some of my graduate student friends with whom I spent long hours hashing out the meaning of the universe twenty years ago, and ultimately I think it’s a meaningless question: the ideas emerged from our relation.. t

i’m never just me.. and the whole ownership – intellectual property ness

Maurice himself made in an essay calling “Going in and Out of Each Other’s Bodies,” on the ambiguities of “the distinctness of the units of life,” including human beings, and which draws on the findings of neuroscience to observe the fact that this includes “the interpenetration of minds” which, during acts of communication, involves a kind of mind-reading in which identical neuronal configurations are occurring in the brains of both parties, so that, in a certain—however limited—sense, they can be seen as part of a single configuration, t mediated by some kind of physical bridge (of sound waves, bodily movements, images, whatever.)


It strikes me almost no one has really considered the full  implications of this. t


thurman interconnectedness lawwhen you understand interconnectedness it makes you more afraid of hating than of dying – Robert Thurman 

Bloch makes some excellent points about the sense of human  solidarity (what I’ve myself referred to as “baseline communism”) emerging in part from cumulative awareness of this sort of practical mutual interpenetration, and the fact that the very possibility of human life is built on it, but for the moment I want to take it  another way.

david on communism

I want to suggest that almost all existing social theory is based on a  *misapprehension.. t

*mistaken belief or interpretation

whalespeak ness perpetuating tragedy of the non common

we have no idea what legit free/interconnected people are like

We tend to veer between looking at individuals and societies, transcendental subjects and meaningful universes, where in fact, particularly when it comes to questions of conscious thought, we are really speaking of something that occurs not in one person’s head but within just these dyadic or if you like “intersubjective” relations.

embodiment (process of) ness.. and our interconnectedness..

imagine if we focused our energies on getting us back to us.. back to that dance.. via ie: augmenting interconnectedness

To put it more starkly: thinking—or, anyway, conscious, self-reflective thought—does not mainly happen in the head. Neither does it mainly happen in our  relations with our material environments, as some have recently proposed, or in some great abstract collective consciousness. Consciousness exists mainly in concrete junctures between what have sometimes been called “embodied personalities.” In other words it’s not just our folk theories of how the mind works that are wrong. It’s our folk theory about what the mind is that’s wrong. This means

ends there mid sentence..?

The usual response to such a statement is either to say “that’s insane” or “but of course we already know that”—which as we know are both equally modes of dismissal, since in fact the people saying this don’t know this, they just think they know it, since this “knowledge” has no effect on anything else they say or do.

Let me start with the subject of consciousness. There has been a burst of publications in the last decade by social theorists trying to come to terms with the  findings of cognitive science, which might be summed up as, “consciousness isn’t all its cracked up to be”—that in much of our daily existence and activities, in fact, we might as well be sleep. In what follows I’ll take just one—but I should emphasize this is for ease of exposition only; I could just as easily have chosen at least a dozen others to make the  same point.  

In a recent essay, geographer Nigel Thrift (2006:285) argues of intellect itself that “research over many years has shown that it is at best a fragile and temporary coalition, a tunnel which is always close to collapse.” He continues by quoting Mervin Donald, one  of the many contemporary philosophers to engage with the findings of cognitive  psychology on the nature of that classic philosophical object, consciousness:  

someone on twitter was asking about his ref.. another said.. it’s merlin donald

@avi_khalil @nikadubrovsky @davidgraeber I am currently on the same quest. I have trouble finding the “Mervin Donald” that David mentions in the Monastic Self-essay (
The person referenced is Merlin Donald, not “Mervin” and his 2001 book discussing the topic is “A Mind so Rare”

Original Tweet:

found this on temp consciousness: and this on donald: and

and then found this:

back to donald’s quote:


During the past forty years, in countless laboratories around the world, human consciousness has been put under the microscope, and exposed mercilessly for the poor thing it is: a transitory and fleeting phenomenon. The ephemeral nature of consciousness is especially obvious in experiments on the temporal minima of  memory- that is the length of time we can hold on to a clear sensory image of something. Even under the best circumstances, we cannot keep more than a few seconds of perceptual experience in short-term memory. The window of consciousness, defined in this way, is barely ten or fifteen seconds wide. Under some conditions, the width of our conscious window on the world may be no more than two seconds wide’

The question, then, becomes: how is it that we come to the representation of the subject typical of Western philosophy, and which forms the basis of all social science, as a fundamentally conscious, rational, intentional, self-aware—one which appears to bear almost no resemblance to any actual living human being?.. t

whales ness and the red flags of intellect ness et al

The answer I think goes back to the origins of philosophy itself. One of the remarkable things about the evolution of philosophy is that just about everywhere we first encounter it, it is characterized by two features which are gradually lost. One is that its intellectual arguments are typically couched in the form of dialogues and conversations.  The second is that it is not considered a mere matter of reflection, but a form of practice:.. as Pierre Hadot (1995, 2002) has long since pointed out, not only Buddhism,  Confucianism, or Taoism, but even Greco-Roman schools like the Stoics and Epicureans  promulgated forms of meditation, diet, exercise, sexual practice or continence, essentially ways of training the mind and body so as to create a form of fully self-conscious subject.  In other words, isolated, self-sufficient, rational, self-reflective intellect was not assumed  as the starting-point; it was, rather, a telos; the ideal end point of a long and painful process which no ordinary mortal, really, could ever be expected to fully achieve..t 

What happened? Perhaps it is best considered as an example of what I’ve elsewhere called “liberation in the imaginary.” It is not uncommon to observe such patterns in intellectual life. In its early days, for instance, cultural studies was seen as a theoretical tool for revolutionaries, a way of facilitating working class resistance against dominant values. Gradually it became a purely academic pursuit that started from the assumption that all working class people were already engaged in one or another form of semiotic resistance to dominant values. It would seem something very similar happened to our philosophical tradition, when it moved from the monastery to the university, and therefore ceased to conceive itself as a form of practice—except on a much grander scale.  As a result, even after they abandoned the monastery, scholars maintained what was essentially a monastic self.. t


What I’d really like to emphasize here is a remark that appears really as an aside in Thrift’s argument: he notes, true, “This description [of consciousness] is something of an exaggeration – it derives from laboratory experiments and glosses over the richness of joint action in which subjects do much better” (ib:285). In other words, even if the window of consciousness is typically a few seconds long when one is by oneself, with others, it’s much broader.  

research ness.. hari rat park law et al

When I first read this passage I thought he was referring to primarily to conversation. After all, while mindless conversations certainly exist, we are all also aware that we’ve had conversations (with loved ones, or, on exciting topics) where we were quite vividly conscious for hours at a time. During one such vivid phone conversation with my girlfriend a few weeks ago, she suggested, “yes—that’s why they say that when you’re driving and afraid you’re going to fall asleep, the best thing to do is to talk to someone else. Just listening to talk radio won’t do it”—making her incidentally one of the effective co-authors of this piece. If we are really talking about differences on the magnitude of seconds versus hours, it’s clear that the vast majority of our fully conscious life is spent discussing things with others.  

rumi words law.. rogers understand law

On some level this too should be self-evident. One need only consider the etymology, which is conscience, which literally means, “knowing things together.” But nonetheless, when I then went to consult the vast literature on consciousness, starting  with grand compendia like The Oxford Companion to Consciousness, for example, I  discovered that there was almost nothing there on conversation at all. In most works on the subjects, words like “dialogue” and “conversation” barely appear. For the most part, the discussion is limited to “internal speech,” imaginary conversations one has in one’s  head—the existence of this could be taken of course as dramatic affirmation of the degree to which conscious thought requires interlocutors, but rarely is. The great exception here of course is that—in psychology, very much subordinate—strain of theory that hearkens  back to the Soviet Union in the 1920s: Vygotsky’s work on egocentric speech in children, whereby he showed that abstract thinking is made possible by internalizing verbal interaction with the outside world, and of course the work of the Bakhtin circle.

but/yet.. need self-talk as data.. to get us back/to the dance

Bakhtin’s  argument that consciousness is the voices of others speaking in your heads is perhaps the most radical statement in this respect—but it’s now considered distinctly marginal, relegated to a small school of Bakhtin-studies; partly because of its now-outmoded premise that the only possible medium for thought is *language, but largely, I suspect, because of the larger political content of the argument, with the clash between voices of authority and their carnivalesque subversion.

language as control/enclosure et al

maté trump law et al

What’s more, for all the importance they attach to dialogue as the essence of human thought, neither the Vygotsky or Bakhtin schools spend much time at all discussing actual conversations, that is, dialogues between  two or more mature individuals, as opposed to virtual dialogue in the mind or works of literature.  

My suspicion is no one really wants to address the matter because the consequences threaten to unsettle everything—including, as I say, our very presumptions about the objects of our study. ..t

ie: whales

Let me give an example. Work on “distributed cognition,”  the idea that in many circumstances, thinking takes place outside the individual head, going back to Edwin Hutchins’ analysis of how each member of a ship’s crew “offloads”  different aspects of navigation to each other, and how they, together with the ship’s machinery, themselves form of a kind of larger cognitive machine. Yet with only a few  exceptions (mainly by those extending Vygotsky’s insights in the field of education), the field has tended to concentrate increasingly on the technological aspect: in our reliance (and therefore trust) in machines as extensions of ourselves rather than our reliance on each other..t  

what computers can’t do et al.. ai humanity needs: augmenting interconnectedness


This becomes strikingly true when these ideas are taken up by philosophers.

Andy Clark for instance has become famous for developing what’s often known as the “extended mind hypothesis”—asking, why is it we assume that our minds are coincident with the physical material of our brains. If minds are dynamic processes of thinking, this is obviously not the case. If one person can do long division in their heads, and another must make recourse to paper and pencil, the brain cells, and the paper and pencil, are playing exactly the same role—it’s simply incoherent and arbitrary to insist that there is a fundamental distinction between them.


Or to take a more ethnographic example:  traditional Malagasy houses are all organized on the same pattern, with 12 astrological positions mapped out from the northeast corner clockwise, so that if one is sitting in the main room it’s possible to make astrological calculations just by glancing from hearth to water-pot to back door, etc. Clearly on such an occasion, the house is part of one’s extended mind.

oikos (the economy our souls crave).. ‘i should say: the house shelters day-dreaming, the house protects the dreamer, the house allows one to dream in peace.’ – gaston bachelard, the poetics of space

This position seems largely accepted now within the philosophical community, but the logic is applied, almost exclusively, to technologies—especially computers, as in Clark’s own most famous book, “Natural Born Cyborgs.” There’s  something obviously missing here. If thought, including conscious thought, is really a the interaction of brain, body, and one’s environmental (and of course, culturally constituted)  “cognitive scaffolding”—well, what about other brains?

In his original essay on the extended mind, Clark and fellow philosopher David Chalmers are willing to entertain the possibility, though as always he frames it in a way that seems calculated to sidestep the most serious implications: he notes, some people memorize names and phone numbers, some people put them in little books, but there’s one basketball coach notorious for always relying on his wife. Surely, her memory is part of his cognitive scaffolding, just like a waiter who might remember what sort of sauce I like. True, but in a purely passive way—much as Roman senators notoriously tended to keep a favorite slave constantly at their side, whose job was to remember the names, faces, office, and personal or political significance of all their friends and colleagues.  

interpretive labor et al

david chalmers

If we apply the same insight to more active forms of engagement between what we call “minds”, we can see why the philosophical implications might be unsettling. When we speak of the coordination of neuronal processes between brains, are we just speaking of a kind of “mind-reading,” as Bloch puts it, or the creation—at least at the  point of understanding—of a single mind?

If minds are processes of interaction not limited to the brain, then this pretty much has to be the case. Yet the only philosopher I know who has fully embraced this point is the philosopher of science, Roy Bhaskar, and  it would seem he has only been able to do so by abandoning the strictures of academic philosophy entirely and returning to the older idea of philosophy as inseparable for techniques for achieving freedom and self-consciousness rather than *describing it, .. t.. a project which has meant active engagement with Buddhist and Taoist and similar traditions that still operate in such terms, and, being written off as a New Age flake or raving lunatic even by many of his formerly most ardent disciples.

*naming the colour ness of intellect ness


The argument though is fascinating.

You will recall here that historically, that creature we now think of as the self-conscious individual was largely created through *disciplinary techniques of isolation and reflection. . t

need: non hierarchical listening.. sans reflection/analysis.. et al.. that naming the colour ness.. blinds us.. keeps us from the dance

Such techniques also, in a sense, created a certain notion of the cosmos, of totality, against which the individual was posed; and having created the difference, the final step was often exploding it again by some mystical experience of cosmic unity, often framed as unity with God. This entailed the recognition of what in the Sanskrit  tradition came to be known as “non-dualism”, that atman and brahman, self and cosmos, however it was framed in that particular tradition, were the same.

All Bhaskar does is argue that you don’t actually need to sit on a mountain and beat yourself with thorns for twenty years in order to have a mystical experience. In a certain sense, *any time you understand what someone else is trying to communicate to you, you are having a direct experience of non-dualism, of a unity between minds .. t.. which is a direct result of the underlying unity of all physical processes, which make it possible for the mirror neurons in our brains to fire in the same way, for more or less the same reasons outlined above.  Our very existence as intelligent beings is made possibly by an endless variety of minor, everyday mystical experiences, that occur between “embodied personalities” (his phrase  originally) rather than between some abstract, artificially created “self” and cosmos.

*rogers understand law – hallowed ground

If anyone should doubt the devastating implications if we apply the extended mind hypothesis to dialogic consciousness, consider the following four points, which, alas, can only be sketched out very briefly:

1) one of the classic problems in Western philosophy is the so-called “other minds problem.” Starting from the Cartesian cogito, how can we be certain other minds exist? Actually, we can’t start from the Cartesian cogito, because the fact that we think does not prove we exist as autonomous minds already separate from other ones; the real problem is the joint relational work we do constructing situations in which we can think of ourselves as autonomous selves—a work of which the monastic disciplines of the ancient philosophers (which did require the help of other people: especially, again, slaves) are simply particularly extreme examples.  

interpretive labor

2) Or consider hermeneutics. We are used to assuming that interpretation is the work required on the part of an audience, the recipient of an intentional act communication, to imaginatively identify with its author, thus, effectively, creating the author as the imaginatively recreated intentional agent whose will is assumed to bind all the different elements in the message together. But if at the moment of communication speaker and listener, author and reader, are actually the same mind, then what we are really witnessing is the act of creating a separation. 

thurman interconnectedness law


3) Similarly, while we are willing to accept that individuation in childhood involves a shared conceptual labor of teaching children to distinguish themselves from others and the surrounding world, we assume that this is simply the recognition of a truth and that the process ends when this truth is realized, it would appear this is not really the case.

maté not yet scrambled law et al.. separated us.. teaching how to distinguish us.. is whalespeak..

perpetuated by ie: maté parenting law.. graeber parent/care law.. et al

It is at best a half-truth, and for this reason the process of individuation never really ends, the illusion, one might say, must be endlessly maintained. What’s more, there is generally a decidedly political aspect to this, since, the very most basic form of exploitation would seem to be the process whereby one end of such nexi individuates itself at the expense of another, rendering the other in a strange state somewhere between individuation, empathy, and nonexistence.  

brown belonging lawthe opposite of belonging.. is fitting in.. true belonging doesn’t require you to change who you are.. it requires you to be who you are.. and that’s vulnerable.. –Brené Brown

4) Finally, there is the voluminous literature on the Other—you know, the one with the capital O—that runs from Hegel’s master slave dialectic through Kojeve, Sartre, Fanon and De Beauvoir, on through its endless refractions in the present day. On the one hand, the dialectical tradition from which this derives might seem to be one that actually is aware of the ultimate identity of subject and object, and provide tools for understanding this constant process of (often exploitative) individuation; but here again, there is again the difference between knowing something, and just thinking you know it—since as the dialectical tradition itself is famous for emphasizing, knowledge is not knowledge unless it’s put to work. A century ago now, Lukacs was already pointing out the philosophers have to continually rediscover the fact that *persons are really relations, just as things are really processes, because in a system where the commodity form dominates, the simple realization is meaningless, it has no effect..t

need to get back/to an undisturbed ecosystem.. where the dance can dance

‘in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows

What I will leave then with is only this. The very notion of dialectics originally derives from the Socratic method, and that, from the peculiar form of so much ancient philosophy: to use the dialogic form to create the ideal of a self reflexive consciousness that might transcend dialogue. (The result, as we all know from Plato, is a peculiar one-sided form of dialogue, one which Hegel, drawing, interestingly, on the non-dualistic assumption that the structure of argument and that of even natural phenomenon are ultimately one, subsumed into the mind of a cosmic Reason attempting, again like an ancient philosophy student, to carry out a series of exercises designed to ultimately achieve a fully self-reflexive state.) In other words, in its classical form at least, it ultimately aims to liberate us from the very situation I’ve been describing into a totality whose political implications have tended to be perilous at best. ‘

But what would a politics, an ethics, a science, look like that did not run away from this situation, but simply embraced it: that turned our received understandings inside out, and then, proceeded from there? We have hardly really begun to ask..t

one based on the idea of idiosyncratic jargon and non hierarchical listening.. et al

imagine if we just focused on listening to the itch-in-8b-souls.. first thing.. everyday.. and used that data to augment our interconnectedness.. we might just get to a more antifragile, healthy, thriving world.. the ecosystem we keep longing for.. what the world needs most is the energy of 8b alive people

ie: 2 convers as infra

ie: a nother way


unmonastery‘s code uncode

collegial intellectualism



sand talk

sand talk

(2020) by Tyson Yunkaporta via jordan fb share:

Highest recommendation. More fundamental than Tainter or Baudrillard.

Tyson Yunkaporta is an academic, an arts critic, and a researcher who is a member of the Apalech Clan in far north Queensland. He carves traditional tools and weapons and also works as a senior lecturer in Indigenous Knowledges at Deakin University in Melbourne. He lives in Melbourne.

1 min video on book: []

we are all refugees severed from the land.. disconnected from genius that comes from being in symbiotic relationship w it.. not a report on indigenous knowledge.. but an examination of global systems from an indigenous perspective..  sand talk is my contribution to a discussion we desperately need to have



sand talk – stories written in the sand


australian porcupines are smart enough for complex reasoning and decision making.. 50% of brain used for hardest kinds of thinking.. in humans.. not eve 30%..

i don’t know why stephen hawking and others have worried about super intelligent beings form other planets coming there and using their advance knowledge to do to the world what industrial civilization has already done.. beings of higher intelligence are already here, always have been.. they just haven’t used their intelligence to destroy anything yet.. maybe they will, if they tire of the incompetence of domesticated humans


most of us have been displaced form those cultures of origin, a global diaspora of refugees severed not only form land but from the sheer genius that comes from belonging in symbiotic relation t  it..

whales in sea world.. et al


if you don’t move w the land, the land will movie you.. there is nothing permanent about settlements and the civilization that spawn them..

the stories that define our thinking today describe an eternal battle between good and evil springing form an originating act of sin

that was trying to gain knowledge of good and evil..

perhaps.. says something about letting go of judge\ment (other-ing).. and realize our interconnectedness.. i know you ness


recent traditions have emerged that break down creation systems like a virus.. infecting complex patterns w artificial simplicity, exercising a civilizing control over what some see as chaos.. the sumeriansn started it.. romans perfected it.. anglosphere inherited it.. the world is now mired in it

carhart harris entropy law.. et al

the war between good and evil is in reality an imposition of stupidity and simplicity over wisdom and complexity

original sin..

we need to create conditions to get back to enough ness

a collection of pages filled w marks representing speech sounds is a complicated way of communicating, particularly when you want to convey a practical sense of the pattern of creation that might shed light on current crises the world is facing.. complicated, not complex.. two very diff things.. viewing world thru lens of simplicity always seems to make things more complicated but simultaneously less complex..

writing speech sound symbols for stranger to read makes things even more complicated.. that is exacerbated when the audience is preoccupied w notions of authenticity and the writer’s standing as a member of a cultural minority that has lost the right to define itself.. the ability to write fluently in the language of the occupying power seems to contradict an indigenous authors’ membership in a community that is not supposed to be able to write about itself at all.. so at this point i will need to explain who i am and how i came to e writing this

literacy and numeracy both elements of colonialism/control/enclosure.. we need to calculate differently and stop measuring things

we need a means to undo our hierarchical listening ie: 2 convers as infra


in my travels i saw that it was our ways, not our things, that grounded/sustained us


i know who i am, where i belong, and what i call myself., and it is enough.. when i’m away rom my community, though, there are people who want to sort me into unfamiliar categories, and i often don’t get to decide what to call myself..

marsh label law et al


the indigenous ‘self’ that has been designed by outsiders to render programs of self determination safe does not reflect our reality..  we all once had multiple languages and affiliations ..

idio-jargon ness.. and only label.. daily curiosity


our knowledge is only valued if it is fossilized..

our knowledge endures because everybody carries a part of it.. no matter how fragmentary

yeah.. let’s go that deep.. what’s already on each heart..? let’s org around that

if you want to see the pattern of creation, you talk to everybody and listen carefully

listen & connect to undo our hierarchical listening ie: 2 convers as infra


my table of contents is visual and it looks like this

resonating with a be you book and a story about people grokking what matters


we rarely see global sustainability issues addressed using indigenous perspective and thought processes. we don’t see econometrics models being designed using indigenous pattern thinking..  always about the what never about the how..

i want to reverse that phenom.. i want to use indigenous patterning thinking process to critique contemp systems

the real knowledge will keep moving in lands/peoples ..and i’ll move on with.. you’ll move on too..

this book is just a translation of a fragment of a shadow, frozen in time.. i make no claims to absolute truth or authority..  things may seem unstructured.. i allow the logic to follow the complex patterns i’m trying to describe, which don’t reflect the usual cause and effect relations of print based thought..

this will be a challenge because english inevitably places settler worldviews at the center of every concept, obscuring true understanding..


ie: explaining aboriginal notions of time is an exercise in futility as you can only describe it as ‘nonlinear’ in english, which immediately slams a big line right across your synapses.. you don’t register the ‘non’ only the ‘linear’: that is the way you process that word, the shape it takes in our mind. worst of all it’s only describing the concept by saying what it is not, rather than what it is..

we don’t have a word for nonlinear in our languages because nobody would consider traveling, thinking, or talking in a straight line in the first place.. the winding path is just how a path is, and therefore it needs no name.. 


i write to provoke thought rather than rep fact, in a kind of dialogical and reflective process w the reader.. for this i often use the dual first person.. it is a common pronoun in indigenous languages but not present in english; that’s why i translate it as ‘us-two’.. 

solutions to complex problems take many dissimilar minds and points of view to design, so we have to do that together, linking up w as many other us-twos as we can to form networks of dynamic interactions

augmenting interconnectedness via  convers as infra

the hop is this: that from this liminal pov us-two might be able to see some things that have been missed.. it worked for einstein.. who seldom set foot in a lab but simply said, ‘if this, then this, then this’.. creating simulations in a dreaming space to produce proofs and solutions of startling complexity and accuracy.. in this space, even what he thought of as his greatest mistake later turned out to be his greatest discovery..

bachelard oikos law – econ as space to dream

ie: cure ios city

so question is.. who are indigenous (that can shed light)

has to be all of us.. or it won’t work

holmgren indigenous law et al


some people are just idiots.. everybody.. from time to time.. some deep place inside that whispers ‘you are special.. you are greater than other people/things..’ this behavior needs massive checks and balances to contain the damage it can do

i’m thinking the behavior comes from all the checks and balances..

we need to let go of any form of measuring/accounting


in our traditional systems of law.. punishment is harsh/swift, but afterward there is no criminal record.. no grudge

yeah.. i don’t think punishment helps.. imagining something more like your own song ness

in this way.. people won’t.. avoid punishment.. can look forward to clean slate..

yeah.. i don’t think so


keepers of knowledge see him behaving in his way and know he is ready to be responsible for additional knowledge.. so they pass on story to him.. this is how indigenous knowledge works


either this guy is off.. or indigenous knowledge is off..

how is that any diff from this whole section on people thinking they’re better than others.. ie: who are the knowledge keepers.. ? what knowledge..? not to mention.. the knowledge moment ie was of the guy reciting 100 digits of pi


these are global stories and systems of knowledge that must have once been common to all people

yeah.. i think there is something in common.. already (and still) in each heart.. we just need to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature.. so we can hear/see it..

ie: 2 convers as infra


hopefully i have no given you some ideas on what indigenous knowledge is , which indigenous people have it, and what it might be used for.. in case you missed them, the answers are everything, all of us, and anything..

yeah.. i missed (mis heard?) that


an indigenous person is a member of a community retaining memories of life lived sustainably on a land base as part of that land base..

member ness is unsettling..

makes me think we aren’t going deep enough.. community needs to be all of us.. et al

indigenous knowledge is any application of those memories as living knowledge to improve present/future circumstance

again.. not sure that’s deep enough.. going of circumstantial memories..? rather than something already on each heart?


first law: nothing is created or destroyed; it just moves and changes..  nothing can be held, accumulated, stored..


perhaps australia and other countries could begin depression proofing its econ by introducing extended family property ownership laws and incentives..  this might also ease the welfare burden and decrease unemployment


listen deeper.. let go of money/property/et-al


civilizations are cultures that creates cities, communities that consume everything around them and then themselves..

any form of measuring/accounting does that too


the most remarkable thing about western civ is its ability to absorb and object/idea, alter it, sanitize it, rebrand it, and market it..

the people may rise up against tyrants in the name of liberty, shattering the halls/towers of the powerful, but then the ruling systems will simply embrace the idea of freedom, tweak it a little and continue w business as usual..

everywhere you go there will be the same institutions, anthems and flags..  recognizable schools, banks, hospitals, govt bodies, and courts.. in aboriginal australia.. we are terrifyingly close to joining this recent madness.. we have hospital like and school like community led institutions.. and we have a flag.. in our defense, we need to comply w these things to ensure our right to exist..

yeah.. we need to quit opting in

humanity needs a leap.. to get back/to simultaneous spontaneity ..  simultaneous fittingness.. everyone in sync.. no more ‘we need to comply’ ness..


this intensely interrelated process w/in a totemic group o f3 entities – bush, ant, and butterfly – would be impossible for a single human mind to design.. how do these symbiotic dances develop, when the cause and effect relations are so interdependent and complex that there is no way to reverse engineer the process by which the system came to be? this is precisely the kind of process we need to understand and engage w to create sustainable responses to the catastrophes we are facing

ie: 2 convers as infra

but rather than responses.. listening deeper


as i always say, if you want to find the next gen of great thinkers, look in the detention room of any public school

crazywise et al


contemp science is beginning to understand this way of knowing thru chaos theory, complexity theory, network theory, and fractal geometry.. it is becoming clear that complex systems are adaptive, self organizing and patterned w a logic that can be discerned and used for trend analysis and predictive techs..

? not predictive

second wave automation, ai, and blockchain techs seek to harness this complexity.. but it is a complexity that cannot function thru external design and control

like people.. like anything alive.. organism as fractal et al

these patterns cannot be programmed but must emerge w/in the system organically – a process that is called ‘random’ in western worldviews but is in fact following the patters of creation

carhart harris entropy law et al.. let go of order.. prediction.. pattern..


blockchain cannot be designed externally as a closed system, or it will stagnate.. it must comprise individual nodes that remain autonomous, operating freely in a self organizing system of users.. the internet also developed in this way..  the kinds of digital innovation that are currently disrupting top down global econ and social structure are built on the reality of complex, self organizing systems rather than the illusion of centralized control

yeah.. but they are still machines.. ie: need input.. they will never operate as freely as self organizing humans.. perhaps closest we can get is to use tech for what it can do diff than us.. ie: no judgment.. perhaps we can have tech w/o judgment ie: tech as it could be

this has implications for the management of all systems.. particularly social control systems

yeah.. if you’re thinking you’re managing.. won’t be anything new/diff.. won’t be implications.. just replications of the ongoing colonialism/control/enclosure.. we have been at for years.. we need to calculate differently and stop measuring things


this is the perspective you need to be a custodian rather than an owner of lands/communities/knowledge.. it demands the relinquishing of artificial power and control.. immersion in the astounding patterns of creation that only emerge thru the free movement of all agents and elements w/in a system.. this impacts the way we are managed and governed

rather.. it means we aren’t governed/managed

‘in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows

healthy interventions can only be made by free agents w/in a complex system.. referred to in chaos theory as ‘strange attractors’.. could you be a strange attractor w/in your institution

thinking no.. because unless we get out of the institution..we’re not legit free.. we’re just like whales in sea world

it is a risky endeavor in a culture that attaches negative meanings to words like ‘chaos’ and ‘anarchy’ equating them w disorder and ruin..

we need more disorder (ch harris entropy law)

but chaos in reality has a structure that produces innovation and ‘anarchy’ simply means ‘no boss’.. could it be possible to have structure w/o bosses?

2 convers as infra

in my community there is a phrase: ‘nobody boss for me’.. yet at same time, each person is bound w/in complex patterns of relatedness and communal obligation

so .. obligation as boss.. huge red flag man

not legit free.. so.. the dance won’t dance


most academic tell me that they are unable to incorporate indigenous knowledge into the academy because their students are not smart enough to understand it

if thinking in terms of ie: students, academy, points of entry.. i don’t think that’s indigenous


if the world ever experiments w an actual free market rather than an oligopoly, this would be the perfect system to facil sustainable interactions..

yeah.. i don’t think so.. just some of the same cancer we’re living with now

let go..

let’s just facil daily curiosity  ie: cure ios city


narcissism ins’t incurable though.. survivors of this plague emerge without any memory of who they really are, needing support to begin again and relearn the nature of their existence, their purpose for being here.. they are like children, and leaving them to their own devices at this stage is not advisable..

wow.. dang.. thinking we need to training people (rather than set them free to listen to their own heart) is a

huge red flag.. we’re doing it wrong

entire cultures/populations recovering from this plague have been left like orphan children w no memories of who they are, longing for a pattern they know is there but can’t see

there’s no pattern.. thinking there’s a pattern is a result/cancer of supposed to’s.. of school/work.. patterns are for whales in sea world..

all people need are the conditions to allow them to listen deeper.. to know what enough is.. and to know that they are enough

they grow up eventually, but it takes a long time if they have no assistance

it’s fake if they have assistance..

notion of ‘growing up’ is poisonous

let go

adolescent cultures always ask same 3 questions: why are we here (custodians).. how should we live (4 protocols).. what will happen when we die (up next)



talking about math classes while talking about spirits – turning dances into equations and equations into dances

why math class.. if indigenous..? – too much focus on knowledge/intellect ness..

let go


the most intelligent part of your body is actually separate form your central nervous system.. your guy has its own independent nervous system that is still a mystery to modern science..  this is the seat of your big spirit.. your higher intelligence

if we were truly listening to our guys.. it would be asking .. why were you in a math class.. and why all the fuss about intellect ness et al

in aboriginal world.. the energy of the gut must be kept clear and constantly moving thru mental, spiritual and physical cultural activity, or it will become stagnant and make a person sick


although gut not directly connected to brain.. there must be interaction between these two systems in same way there must be interaction between the physical and spiritual worlds.. in order to maintain the whole system in a healthy balance.. interaction can’t happen mechanically thru purely bio function.. so must be done thru cultural practice.. done by constantly making meaning the world around us and within.. transferring knowledge form one domain to another.. making connections between things that would otherwise remain unconnected.. using metaphors that are nonliteral and often seemingly irrational.. this gives rise to both complexity and clarity..

embodiment et al

paradoxically, the more complex the meaning making is the clearer your thinking will be and the more likely you will be to remember the knowledge..  (then went into ie of two test groups on memorization)

oi oi oi

more ie’s from visiting schools

whales in sea world

whales in sea world

whales in sea world


on yarning (communicating) .. sitting in circle .. sans talking stick.. active listening..  the importance of narrative to memory

like too much intellect ness.. also.. too much memory ness


on prussians.. spending 1000s of years trying to replicate control they were under w romans.. by 18th prussia one of greatest powers in europe.. due to fact had larger military force than anyone else.. the prussian system was one of total control.. which successfully managed to coerce the population in to complete submission to the will of the govt..


the govt decided that if it could force people to remain children for  few extra years, it could retard social, emotional and intellectual development and control them more easily.. this was the point in history when ‘adolescence’ was invented.. a method of slowing the transition from childhood to adulthood.. so that it would take years rather than ..for ie.. the months it takes in indigenous rites of passaged..

this delayed transition, intended to create a permanent state of childlike compliance in adults, was developed from farming techniques used to break horses and to domesticate animals..  domesticating – as mutations of wild species into an infantilized form w a smaller brain and inability to adapt or solve problems..

to domesticate an animal in the say you must: 1\ separate young from parents in daylight hours  2\ confine them in an enclosed space w limited stimulation or access to natural habitat  3\ use rewards and punishment to force them to comply w purposeless tasks..

prussians created a system using same techniques to manufacture adolescence and thus domesticate their people..


the system they invented in the early 19th cent to administer this change was public ed:the radical innovation of universal primary schooling, followed by streaming into trade, professional and leadership ed.. arbitrated by a rigorous examination system.. (on top of the usual considerations of money and class).. 90% of prussian students attended the volkschule, where they learned a simple versions of history, religion, manners and obedience and were drilled endlessly in basic lit and numeracy.. discipline was paramount; boredom was weaponized and deployed to lobotomize the population

wow.. worth the book there – i knew about prussian ed ness.. but not that deep.. although not fitting with book subtitle.. ie: this is just a look back.. not an alt way to live.. (costello screen service law et al).. and the ways he’s describing to live.. don’t seem like an alt.. seems even his voice/head is too embedded/intoxicated in where we’re at.. to get to the root of the problem

literacy and numeracy both elements of colonialism/control/enclosure.. we need to calculate differently and stop measuring things et al


prussians began to make plans to spread the institution of schooling as a tool for social control thru out the world.. as it facilitated the kind of uniformity and compliance that was needed to make the model of nationhood world.. the us could testify to the effectiveness of prussian ed as a tool for domination and powers, as american educators had been making pilgrimages to germany for more than half a century..  excitingly, test schools across america proved that the artificially induced phenom of adolescences was achievable outside of prussia..

adolescence et al

motto was work sets you free.. a slogan that the nazis adopted and later placed above the gates of concentration camps..

now as ever, the creation of a workforce to sere the  national econ is the openly stated main goal of public ed.. and , as ever, the inmates of this system are told that their enthusiastic compliance w forced labor will be in their best interests at some future point..

germany’s compulsory ed system express six outcomes in its original syllabus documents: 1\ obedient soldiers 2\ obedient workers 3\ well subordinated civil servants 4\ citizens who though alike  6\ national uniformity in though, word, ,and deed..


us involved much earlier.. benjamin franklin advocating the prussian system..

all around world.. new system of ed, nationalism, finance, corporatism and social control were informed by fascist ideas and theories from germany and the us.. encouraging the extermination of indigenous people and minorities..

when smoke cleared, lands and power and blame were redistributed unevenly among the survivors, and a new world emerged with new stories providing a sanitized history of good triumphing over evil..


the structural racism installed thru prussian style schooling and the eugenics movement would not be discarded, merely rebranded.. later, following long civil rights struggles and campaigns for social justice, racial inferiority renamed ‘cultural difference’.. racial integration renamed ‘reconciliation’ .. in the colonies assimilation was relaunched as ‘closing the gap’.. the language became more politically correct, but the globalizing goals of cultural uniformity, econ compliance and homogenized id’s remained the same..

in my crackpot version of this history, public schooling plays a principal role in the story of transition from one age to the next..  i hope this marginal perspective is far enough ‘out of the box’ to provoke some questions regarding the sustainability of the global systems that shape our minds and lives..

ie: cure ios city

what form of knowledge transmission (aka ed) need to take during this transition..  us-two may also tentatively wonder whether our minds are not to domesticated and shriveled even to contemplate these questions effectively

talking voice ness here.. and how we need to undo our hierarchical listening

a good way to begin might be to listen to as many divergent version of this history as possible.. form many points of view.. most important.. i have learned from children.. the inmates of the ed system

better yet.. let go of analyzing history.. (because most won’t get to their deeper/legit voice.. we need to get out of ea world/history for that) and ust focus on .. listen to.. 8b daily curiosities


small children and the qualities of an undomesticated mind.. wild and unschooled.. teeming w innate knowledge processes..  they play w absolute dedication and fierce concentration.. they learn languages perfectly.. (to limits of their role models) w/o explicit instruction and at a phenom rate..  this explosive period of learning ends, in industrialize communities, around age 8, when highly focused attention of play and learning is schooled out of the child and redirected into less stimulating ed activity

so .. let’s stop that.. let’s set up  a nother way to live (to spend our days) .. and let’s embed in that infra .. a detox.. for all who have been schooled/manufactured/conformed.. for all of us who are already like whales in sea world

perhaps, on some level, we suspect the source of a child’s genius lies not only in the mechanics and chemistry of the brain but in something far more powerful and difficult to explain.. perhaps these biological neural functions are not the source of mental activity, but a response to thoughts originating elsewhere..  could it be that we fear the true source and potential of our minds.. the raw power of our ancestors’ cognition that we see reflected in the eyes of our children

deeper than that (*cognition from ancestors).. far more powerful and difficult to explain than that.. esp if trying to explain it to whales in sea world.. which includes ancestors

*cognition: the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.. a result of this; a perception, sensation, notion, or intuition.

what we see.. if we look/listen deep enough.. in eyes of our children.. is the ‘cognition’ (if you like).. that is already in them.. that is not yet scrambled et al..


some aspects of consciousness, knowledge, and knowledge transmission have not been explained or proven scientifically and are therefore avoided in cognitive science. i’m calling these aspects ‘extra cognitive’ for what of a better word.. they include the messages that land and ancestors bring to us.. a bird or animal behaving strangely, a sudden wind gust, a coincidence that highlights a deep meaning or revelation, a burst of inspiration.. these are the things that make knowledge processes scared and magical

yeah.. i don’t know.. that’s sounds more like responses/interpretations – (with too much focus on knowledge).. rather than the person experiencing/being/seeing for themself.. which is what is greatly missing.. ie: the energy of 8b alive people

even people committed to rational/analytical ways of thinking and being will still refer to ‘gut instinct’ or will find that a complex problem is better understood if a person ‘sleeps on it’

what we need.. art (by day/light) and sleep (by night/dark) as re\set.. to fittingness/undisturbed ecosystem.. that will naturally having us dancing with others.. but if we focus on that first (ie: listen to ancestors et al) we’ll miss the messages (our entire ecosystem needs) that are only in us..


while it may be proven that internal motivation is more productive than external pressure, the uncertain and unsettling sources of this inner power are threatening to hierarchies, so intrinsic control methods of org are generally ignored in both ed and the work place

so many ideas/words.. spot on.. but embedded in ‘productive.. in ed and the work place’ et al..

productivity, ed, work, .. all red flags..

we are slaves to a work ethic that is unnatural and unnecessary

so.. let’s let go.. rather than tweaking (ie: ed, work, productivity)

us-two, we still endure longer work hours than our roles require today, for reasons of social control rather than productivity.. it’s difficult to find the mental space to question systems of power when we’re working 8 hrs.. et al.. somewhere in there we also need to find time to study and retrain..

it’s difficult to find the mental space when thinking about productivity/training.. and also.. if we keep spending time on questioning systems of power

what we need is a legit other way to live.. that isn’t based on response/defense.. but rather on cure ios city


the job is the unquestioned goal for all free citizens of the world  the ultimate public good. it is the clearly stated exist goal of all ed and the only sanctioned reason for acquiring knowledge.. but if we think about ti for a moment jobs are not what we want..

neither is knowledge

we want shelter, food strong relationships, a livable habitat, stimulating learning activity, and time to perform valued tasks in which we excel

yeah.. that’s not deep enough.. that’s not the deeper want.. which.. if we focus on.. would take care of all the rest..

ie: if we focus on (org around) maté basic needs.. we’d be creating the conditions for people to know what enough is.. to know what they really want/need


john zerzan argues that civilization oppress people thru scarcity paradigms while indigenous communities have free societies based on paradigms of abundance.. he says we need to reform civilization by drawing on the knowledge and values of indigenous societies

yeah.. again.. i think we all need the indigenous ness.. that is already inside each one of us.. or the dance won’t dance


we do’t lose memories.. just access to them.. you have to be connected daily to intuitive or extra cognitive ways of thinking and being if you want to utilize this knowledge..

imagine if we listened to 8b daily curiosities  ie: cure ios city

2 convers as infra


i have previously talked about cultures losing collective memory and having to struggle for 1000s of years to gain again.. unless they have assistance.. but that assistance does not take the form of somebody passing on cultural content and ecological wisdom.. the assistance i’m talking about comes form sharing patterns of knowledge and ways of thinking that will help trigger the ancestral knowledge hidden in side.. the assistance people need is not in learning about aboriginal knowledge but in remembering their own

yeah that.. but ‘sharing patterns of knowledge and ways of thinking’ is just like ‘somebody passing on cultural content and ecological wisdom’.. we have to let go of thinking we have to train people..

we just need to create the conditions.. where people have time/space to listen (deep enough) to what’s already inside them..


i’m a stickler for grammar and punctuation.. and misplaced apostrophes drive me nuts.. apostrophes are importan because in this language they tell us who thing sand people belong do you know who you belong to if you can’t get the language protocols for belonging right?


brown belonging lawthe opposite of belonging.. is fitting in.. true belonging doesn’t require you to change who you are.. it requires you to be who you are.. and that’s vulnerable.. –Brené Brown

if we have to train.. learn language protocols.. in order to belong..? really?

language as control/enclosure et al

let’s try idio-jargon


if the people responsible for that sign (strickly no running) are able to thrive enough in the marketplace to buy motels.. while having such shocking spelling skills, surely econ success must be dependent on factors other than reading and writing and counting.. whatever it is, that’s the secret we need to be teaching indigenous students if we really want to start closing the gap

wow.. sounds like your focus is success in marketplace.. and sounds like you think some people are deficient and need training.. ie: ‘students’ ‘gap’ ‘teaching’

literacy and numeracy both elements of colonialism/control/enclosure.. we need to calculate differently and stop measuring things.. stop training.. conforming.. et al


modern neural science has been able to map the way print literacy rewires the human brain.. it is a fairly catastrophic process.. rearranging neural networks and connections between diff area of brain in ways that are inefficient at best and highly abnormal at worst..

not yet scrambled ness

efficiency doesn’t sound like indigenous ness.. a by product perhaps.. but not a goal.. not even something you’d talk about

the only sustainable way to store data long term is w/in relationships – deep connections between generations .. when knowledge is patterned w/in these forces of connection .. it is sustainable over deep time

testart storage law et al

i think knowledge is the wrong focus.. and i think storing things is deadening

‘in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows


understanding biological networks appropriately means finding a way to belong personally to that system

yeah.. i don’t think it works that way.. we just belong.. and what the system needs most (to dance) is for us to be us

‘in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows

you’re throwing in more training here.. let go


kelly: ‘our domestic violence stats are higher no because we are inherently or culturally more violent. it is because we are forced to live w/i na system that perpetuates violence, creating a sense of intergenerational hopelessness’..

that’s all of us

we need a new os

ie: cure ios city – to undo our hierarchical listening


creation started with a big ban, not a big hug: violence is part of the pattern

oh my..

the damage of violence is minimized when it is distributed throughout a system rather than centralized into the hand so fa few powerful people and their minions.. most of southern hemisphere is receiving that outsource violence to supply what you need for .. poor zoned into the ghettos are taking those blows for you.. et al.. your notions of peaceful settlement and development are delusions peppered w bullet holes and spears

every organism in existence does violence and benefits from it in reciprocal relationships..

?.. recip relationships are violence..


violence exists and must be carefully structure w/in rituals

let’s try this: gershenfeld something else law

domesticated beings are stripped of this reality and become passive recipients of violence..  what would it mean to reverse this domesticated state? it would take centuries to transition form human domestication and recover our exceptional physical and mental powers as a custodial species..

yeah.. with the bandaids we keep using.. maybe not even in centuries.. but i don’t think that’s true.. if we first.. get to the roots of healing.. almaas holes law et al

i often wonder what men and women would transform into outside of captivity..t

yeah that.. let’s wonder (and experiment with) about that.. we have no idea about that.. because all our data/history/research is based on whales in sea world

captivity: any form of measuring/accounting


there is no such thing as safety in aboriginal views.. safety provided by an invisible hierarchy is complete anathema to our way of being.. there is not agency in safety.. which places a person in a passive role.. at the mercy of authorities who may or may not intervene when needed.. so we have no word for safety or risk.. however, we have plenty of words for protection.. look out for self.. look out for people around you..

safety addiction et al

let’s try this: gershenfeld something else law

this is such a wonder way to live.. knowing you have power to defend yourself and the ones you love, while also being intensely aware that at any give moment there are dozens of people watching your back.. it is a useful algo that could be applied to risk management in the financial system


so.. be free people.. but enslaved to money.. ??

wilson money law et al


we could apply the same technique to remembering some of the other key ideas we have been yarning about in this book.. the most important one is the set of protocols for agents in a sustainable complex system..

yeah.. i don’t think we need protocols.. (maybe an infrato detox us..  get us out of sea world).. but now you’re adding a technique and remembering the stuff in this book.. ?

we need to let go of the idea that we need to train people.. if we listen deeper.. if we focus on a deeper needs.. no training is necessary.. it’s already in us to do what we need to do..


respect (setting rules/boundaries), connect (relationships and routines of exchange that are equal), reflect (thinking as part of the group.. shared knowledge to inform what you will do), direct (acting on shared knowledge in ways that are negotiated by all)


red flags: boundaries/rules; equal exchange routines; shared knowledge to inform what you do.. (voluntary compliance) et al; negotiated ness (public consensus always oppresses someone(s))


my hope is that one day everybody can find a place under the law of the land where they live..

my hope is that everybody can find peace  – sans laws


so .. Tyson Yunkaporta.. sorry to say i feel like sand talk is among the most frustrating books.. was high recommend by ‘game b’ ers.. so was excited they were looking to indigenous ness.. but didn’t seem indigenous to me.. too much focus on knowledge and training (aka: people not being enough) ..

we won’t ‘save the world’ (subtitle) if we don’t org around the deeper needs/desires.. that 8b of us already have in us.. which ty even writes about.. the ‘already in us ness’.. but then had steps to getting to there.. ie: from ancestors.. learning techniques for remembering.. et al.. rather than creating conditions for us to see ‘what men and women would transform into outside of captivity’ (p 199) – we need to get us out of sea world first – otherwise.. we have no idea..


holmgren indigenous law


indigenous peoples




adding page this day: maria’s Kahlil Gibran on Silence, Solitude, and the Courage to Know Yourself

You talk when you cease to be at peace with your thoughts;
And when you can no longer dwell in the solitude of your heart you live in your lips, and sound is a diversion and a pastime.
And in much of your talking, thinking is half murdered.
For thought is a bird of space, that in a cage of words may indeed unfold its wings but cannot fly.

There are those among you who seek the talkative through fear of being alone.
The silence of aloneness reveals to their eyes their naked selves and they would escape.
And there are those who talk, and without knowledge or forethought reveal a truth which they themselves do not understand.
And there are those who have the truth within them, but they tell it not in words.
In the bosom of such as these the spirit dwells in rhythmic silence.

rumi words law: there is a voice that doesn’t use words.. listen – Rumi


from nic askew newsletter – by chris mcleod []:

most meaningful experiences have something in common. words are not enough. something is always lost when we attempt to explain… the language we use somehow confines what we feel. i’m somehow aware that the language i am so sued to using always has an undercurrent of finality

language as control/enclosure.. shaw communication law.. et al

by being still. by allowing myself to be seen. by surprising myself about what i notice about others when i lose the stories that i’ve told myself.. by allowing myself to know that here in this moment i am enough.. i can be here.. i am here

still.. notice.. enough..

as simple as ‘being here’ sounds, it means that i am not thinking about ‘there’.. being here means .. this is enough.. ‘this is enough’ means i can trust the feeling that i can’t explain. trust it and not need to explain it.. 

mcleod explain law

and that is the most liberating feeling i may have ever experienced..


on convo and silence and love

my buddy by Patti Smith

We didn’t have to talk then, and that is real friendship. Never uncomfortable with silence, which, in its welcome form, is yet an extension of conversation.


from Dallas Willard:


silence goes beyond solitude, and w/o it solitude has little effect.. henri nouwen observes that ‘silence is the way to make solitude a reality’.. silence and solitude do go hand in hand.. usually..

silence.. be {alone}.. still


how rarely are we ever truly listened to and how deep is our need to be heard.. i wonder how much wrath in human life is a result of not being heard..

deep deep need.. but not so much to be heard.. rather.. to connect..

imagining tech as it could be.. listening to every voice .. every day.. augmenting/detoxing us in our silence/solitude..

in witnessing, the role of talking is frequently overemphasized… silence and esp true listening are often the strongest testimony of our faith..  a major problem for christian evangelism is not getting people to talk , but to silence those who thru their continuous chatter reveal a loveless heart devoid of confidence in god..  as miguel de unamuno says, ‘we need to pay less attention to what people are trying to tell us, and more to what they tell us w/o trying’

beyond words ness.. rumi words law.. et al

why do we insist on talking as much as we do? we run off at the mouth because we are inwardly uneasy about what others think of us..

maté trump law et al

eberhard arnold observes: ‘people who love one another can be silent together’ but when we’re w those we feel less than secure with, we use words to ‘adjust’ our appearance and elicit their approval..  otherwise, we fear our virtues might not receive adequate appreciation and our shortcomings might not be properly ‘understood’..

nothing to prove.. shaw communication law..  et al

in not speaking, we resign how we appear (dare we say how we are) to god. and that is hard.. why should we worry about others opinions of us when god is for us.. but we do..

esse quam videri ness

how few of us live w quiet, inner confidence, and yet how many of us desire it.. but such inward quiet is a great grace we can receive as we practice not talking.. and when we have it, we may be able to help others who need it..

quiet in a room et al


Pernille Ripp (@pernilleripp) tweeted at 5:18 AM – 4 Dec 2019 :
I need to stop working on the presentations I am giving in 40 minutes but there is so much left out…. (

yeah.. we all need to stop working on presentations

MindShift (@MindShiftKQED) tweeted at 4:05 AM – 4 Dec 2019 :
Allowing students to talk to each other about controversial topics has the potential to increase civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions that lead to adult civic engagement. But they need guidance of a well-prepared and knowledgeable teacher. @HKorbey (

we’re so crazy messed up


small talk


no words

beyond words ness

quiet enough to see

language as control\enclosure





adding page this day (via ultimape rt):

Steve Stewart-Williams (@SteveStuWill) tweeted at 5:24 PM – 17 Nov 2018 :
Selfish genetic elements – genes that get themselves selected without boosting the organism’s fitness, or even while harming it – provide some of the strongest support there is for the gene-centered view of evolution. See (

Selfish genetic elements (historically also referred to as selfish genes, ultra-selfish genes, selfish DNA, parasitic DNA, genomic outlaws) are genetic segments that can enhance their own transmission at the expense of other genes in the genome, even if this has no or a negative effect on organismal fitness. Genomes have traditionally been viewed as cohesive units, with genes acting together to improve the fitness of the organism. However, when genes have some control over their own transmission, the rules can change, and so just like all social groups, genomes are vulnerable to selfish behaviour by their parts.

UltimApe  (@ultimape) tweeted at 6:17 AM – 18 Nov 2018 :
From the gene’s point of view, we are the egregore trying to manipulate them to our will. (

Selfish genetic elements – genes that get themselves selected without boosting the organism’s fitness, or even while harming it – provide some of the strongest support there is for the gene-centered view of evolution.

“People confuse the fact that we can more easily study it with the idea that it’s more important”

It’s a gorgeous story. Along with its beauty and other advantageous traits, it is amenable to maths and, at its core, wonderfully simple. It has inspired countless biologists and geneticists to plumb the gene’s wonders and do brilliant work. Unfortunately, say Wray, West-Eberhard and many others, the selfish-gene story is so focused on the gene’s singular role in natural selection that in an age when it’s ever more clear that evolution works in ways far more clever and complex than we realise, the selfish-gene model increasingly impoverishes both scientific and popular views of genetics and evolution. As both conceptual framework and metaphor, the selfish-gene has helped us see the gene as it revealed itself over the 20th century. But as a new age and new tools reveal a more complicated genome, the selfish-gene is blinding us.

UltimApe  (@ultimape) tweeted at 10:32 PM – 22 Nov 2016 :
Consider that my IRL social network is maybe 4 to 20, and yet 4000+ people have seen this thread here on creativity: (

UltimApe  (@ultimape) tweeted at 10:24 PM – 22 Nov 2016 :
Could we be throwing out the balance of the very thing that empowers humanity’s collective intelligence & cohesion? (

UltimApe  (@ultimape) tweeted at 10:04 PM – 22 Nov 2016 :
A hidden regulating force that weakens those who are naturally averse to social situations. Populations regulated by the swarm? (

so many thoughts here.. ie: tragedy of commons; run amokwhales in sea world; wilde not us law; self/ness; self-talk as data; eudaimonia; self-organizinggenoptype/phenotype gapdna nessrna ness; undisturbed ecosystem; et al..

wondering how much this all (ie: seemingly selfish ness toward bad) depends on roots of healing more than finger pointing

also on (ultimape’s) autism bend – thinking about higashida autism law:

i think that people w autism are born outside the regime of civilization. i think that as a result of all the killings in the world and the selfish planet wrecking .. a deep sense of crisis exists.. autism has somehow arisen out of this..  we are like travelers from the distant past.. and if , by our being here, we could help the people of the world remember what truly matters for the earth that would give us a quiet pleasure..



self ness

stilly holding a & a

adding page while reading Maria‘s Against Self-Criticism (Adam Phillips –

We know virtually nothing about ourselves because we judge ourselves before we have a chance to see ourselves ..t.. (as though in panic). Or, to put it differently, we can judge only what we recognize ourselves as able to judge. What can’t be judged can’t be seen. What happens to everything that is not subject to approval or disapproval, to everything that we have not been taught how to judge? … The judged self can only be judged but not known. 


Self-criticism is nothing if it is not the defining, and usually the overdefining, of the limits of being. But, ironically, if that’s the right word, the limits of being are announced and enforced before so-called being has had much of a chance to speak for itself..t

the more persuasive, the more compelling, the more authoritative, the interpretation is, the less credible it is, or should be. The interpretation might be the violent attempt to presume to set a limit where no limit can be set..t


every day we will fail to be as good as we should be; but without our being given the resources, the language, to wonder who or what is setting the pace; or where these rather punishing standards come from..t

begs idio-jargon/self-talk as data

This doesn’t mean that no one is ever culpable; it means that culpability will always be more complicated than it looks; guilt is always underinterpreted… Self-criticism, when it isn’t useful in the way any self-correcting approach can be, is self-hypnosis. It is judgement as spell, or curse, not as conversation; it is an order, not a negotiation; it is dogma, not overinterpretation.




self-talk as data

everyone talks to self daily

missing pieces

missing piece #1: authenticity – eudaimonia

missing piece #2: attachment – eudaimoniative surplus

almaas holes law:  a hole is nothing but the absence of a certain part of our essence. .However to say we have lost parts of Essence does not mean they are gone forever; they are never gone forever. ..When you’re a baby, you have no holes; you are complete when you are born. ..

we are not being careful and we are missing it


mufleh humanity lawwe have seen advances in every aspect of our lives except our humanity – Luma Mufleh

tech as it could be.. ie: 2 conversations.. as infra

undisturbed ecosystem


the undiscovered self

undiscovered self.png

reading via Amy




1 – the plight of the individual in modern society


(on stat method showing fact in light of avg.. but not pic of empirical reality ie: mean may not even be one of data) ..not to put too fine a point on it, one could say that the real picture consists of nothing but exceptions to the rule, and that, in consequence, absolute reality has predominantly the character of irregularity..t


there is and can be no self knowledge based on theoretical assumptions, for the object of self knowledge is an individual – a relative exception and an irregular phenom..t

black science of people/whales ness

he is not to be understood as a recurrent unit but as something unique and singular which in the last analysis can neither be known nor compared with anything else..t

mona lisa compare law

at same time.. man.. as member of species.. can and must be described as a statistical unit; otherwise nothing general could be said about him.. for this purpose he has to be regarded as a comparative unit..

why does there have to be something in general..? other than maybe a and a..?


for this purpose he has to be regarded as a comparative unit. this results in a universally valid anthropology or psychology,.. w an abstract pic of man as an avg unit from which all individual features have been removed. but it is precisely these features which are of paramount importance for understanding man.. if i want to understand an individual human being, i must lay aside all sci knowledge of the avg man and discard all theories in order to adopt a completely new and unprejudiced attitude..t

understanding the individual obliges me to commit lese majeste, so to speak, to turn a blind eye to sci knowledge.. t..  this is a sacrifice not lightly made for the sci attitude cannot rid itself so easily of its sense of responsibility.


in principle.. the positive advantages of knowledge work specifically to the disadvantage of understanding.. t


under influence of sci assumptions, not only the psych but the individual man and, indeed, all individual events whatsoever suffer a leveling down and a process of blurring that distorts the pic of reality into a conceptual avg.. t.. we ought not to underestimate the psych effect of the stat world pic: it displaces the individual in favor of anonymous units that pile up into mass formations.. sci supplies us w, instead of he concrete individual, the names of orgs and, at the highest point, the abstract idea of the sate as the principle of political reality.. the moral responsibility of the individual is then inevitably replaced by the policy of the state.. instead of moral/mental differentiation of the individual, you have public welfare and the raising of the living standard,. the goal and meaning of individual life (which is the only real life) no longer lie in individual development but in the policy of the state, ..t.. which is thrust upon the individual from outside and consists in the execution of an abstract idea which ultimately tends to attract all life to itself..

stamped from beginning (in policy)

the individual is increasingly deprived of the moral decision as to how he should live his own life, and instead is ruled, fed, clothed and educated as a social unit,.. t..  accommodated in the appropriate housing unit,

krishnamurti how law

and amused in accordance w the standards that give pleasure and satisfactions to the masses..

supposed.. pleasures and satisfactions


the rulers, in their turn, are just as such social units as the ruled and are distinguished only by the fact that they are specialized mouthpieces of the state doctrine. they do not need to be personalities capable of judgment, but thoroughgoing specialists who are unusable outside their line of business.. state policy decides what shall be taught and studied..t

moten abolition law

wiley policy law

the seemingly omnipotent state doctrine is for its part manipulated in the name of state policy by those occupying the highest positions in the govt, where all the power is concentrated. whoever, by election or caprice, gets into one of these positions is no longer subservient to authority, for he is the state policy itself and w/in the limits of the situation can proceed at his own discretion.. he is thus the only individual or at any rate, one of the few individuals who could make use of their individuality if only they knew how to differentiate themselves from the state doctrine..t. they are more likely, however, to e the slaves of their own fictions. such one sidedness is always compensated psychologically by unconscious subversive tendencies..

voluntary compliance et al..

slavery and rebellion are inseparable correlates.

apart from agglomerations of huge masses of people, in which the individual disappears anyway, one of the chief factors responsible for psychological massmindedness is sci rationalism.. which robs the individual of his foundations and his dignity..  as a social unit he has lost his individuality and become a mere abstract number in the bureau of stats.. t

of math and men

looked at rationally and from outside, that is exactly what he is, and from this pov it seems positively absurd to go one talking about the value or meaning of the individual..

martin be bold law


if the individual, overwhelmed by the sense of his own puniness and impotence, should feel that his life has lost its meaning – which, after all, is not identical w public welfare and higher standards of living – then he is already on the road to state slavery and, w/o knowing or wanting it, has becomes its proselyte..t

pluralistic ignorance


that is what is happening today.. we are all fascinated and overawed by statistical truths and large numbers and are daily apprised of the nullity and futility of the individual personality.. since it is not rep’d and personified by any mass org.. t

begs self-talk as data

conversely, those personages who strut about on the world stage and whose voices are heard far and wide seem, to the uncritical public, to be borne along on some mass movement or on the tide of public opinion and for this reason are either applauded or execrated (loathed).. since mass suggestion plays the predominant role here, it remains a moot point whether their message is their own,..t..  for which they are personally responsible, or whether they merely function as a megaphone for the collective opinion..

under these circumstances it is small wonder that individual judgment grows increasingly uncertain of itself and that responsibility is collectivized as much as possible, ie, is shuffled off by the individual and delegated to a corp body.. in this way the individual becomes more and more a function of society, which in its turn usurps the function of the real life carrier, whereas, in actual fact, society is nothing more than an abstract idea like the state..t

both are hypostatized (treat or represent (something abstract) as a concrete reality.), that is, have become autonomous (acting independently or having the freedom to do so.. (in Kantian moral philosophy) acting in accordance with one’s moral duty rather than one’s desires… wonder which..? ).  the state in particular is turned into a quasi animate personality from whom everything is expected. in reality it is only a camouflage for those individuals who know how to manipulate it.. thus the constitutional state drifts into the situation of a primitive form of society, namely the communism of a primitive tribe where everybody is subject to the autocratic rule of a chief or an oligarchy..

2 – religion as the counterbalance to mass mindedness


in order to turn the individual into a function of the state, his dependence on anything beside the state must be taken from him..t


religion, as the careful observation and taking account of certain invisible and uncontrollable factors, is an instinctive attitude peculiar to man, and its manifestations can be followed all thru human history.. its evident purpose is to maintain the psychic balance, for the natural man has an equally natural ‘knowledge’ of the fact that his conscious functions may at any time be thwarted by uncontrollable happenings coming from inside as well as from outside..

already on each heart ness – but i wouldn’t call that religion.. i’d call it.. more.. relationship..or just .. heart makeup


*brass bands, flags, banners, parades and monster demos are not diff in principle from ecclesiastical procession, cannonades and fireworks to scare off demons.. only, the suggestive parade of state power engenders a collective feeling of security which, unlike religious demos, gives the individual no protection against his inner demonism.. hence he will **cling all the more to the power of the state, ie, ***to the mass, thus delivering himself up to it psychically as well as morally and putting the finishing touch to his social depotentiation..

whoa.. 1\ i see *both these ie’s as a disturbance to our ecosystem.. 2\ evidenced in the need to **cling to something.. 3\ sounds like ***maté trump law

the state, like the church, demands enthusiasm, self sacrifice and love, and if religion requires or presupposed the ‘fear f god’ then the dictator state takes good care to provide the necessary terror..


both the dictator state and denominational religion lay quite particular emphasis on the idea of community. this is the basic ideal of ‘communism’ and it is thrust down the throats of the people so much that it has the exact opposite of the desired effect: it inspires divisive mistrust..


the value of a community depends on the spiritual and moral stature of the individuals composing it.. such changes can come only from the personal encounter between man and man.. the inner man…

begs self-talk as data

3 – the position of the west on the question of religion


.. what can we do to counter this threat .. from the east.. we know that even the biggest guns and the heaviest industry w its relatively high living standard are not enough to check the psychic infection spread by religious fanaticism

gershenfeld sel


the churches.. are no longer based on their own inner experience but on unreflecting belief.. which is notoriously apt to disappear as soon as one begins thinking about it

the content of belief then comes into collision w knowledge, and it often turns out that the irrationality of the former is no match for the ratiocinations of the latter. belief is not adequate substitute for inner experience, and where this is absent even a strong faith which came miraculously as a gift of grace may depart equally miraculously, people call faith the true religious experience, but they do not stop to think that actually it is a secondary phenom arising from the fact that something happened to us in the first place which instilled πιστις (greek for faith) into us – that is trust and loyalty


anyone who has once learned to submit absolutely to a collective belief and to renounce his eternal *right to freedom and the equally eternal **duty of individual responsibility will persist in this attitude.. and will be able to set out w the same credulity and the same lack of criticism in the reverse direction if another and manifestly ‘better’ belief is foisted upon his alleged idealism..

*right and **duty.. ness.. as disturbance to our ecosystem

we accuse the germans of having forgotten it all again already.. but the truth is that we don’t know for certain whether something similar might not happen elsewhere..  it would not be surprising if it did and if another *civilized nation succumbed to the infection of a uniform and one sided idea.. america.. which forms the real political backbone of western europe, seems to be immune because of the outspoken counterposition she has adopted, but in point of fact she is perhaps even more vulnerable than europe, since her ed system is the most influenced by the sci weltanschauung.. with its **statistical truths, and her mixed population finds it difficult to strike roots in a soil that is practically w/o ***history.. the historical and humanistic type of ed so sorely needed.. leads.. on the contrary, a cinderalla existence. though europe possesses this later requirement, she uses it to her own undoing in form of nationalistic egoisms and paralysing skepticisms.. common to both is the materialistic and collectivist goal, and both lack the very thing that expresses and grips the whole man, namely and idea which puts the individual human being in the ****center as the measure of all things

*civilization ness as disturbance to our ecosystem

**of math and men

***stamped from beginning

****not in the center.. and not to measure.. rather.. to listen in love


in this reality man is the slave and victim of the machines that have conquered space and time for him..t

rowson mechanical law


all his achievements and possessions do not make him bigger; on the contrary, they diminish him, as the fate of the factory worker under the rule of a ‘just’ distribution of goods clearly demos..

achievements.. possessions..

4 – the individual’s understanding of himself


man is an enigma to himself..  this is understandable seeing he lacks the means of comparison necessary for self knowledge..

? if so.. then i’d bag knowledge.. either way.. comparison drives us away from self knowledge

he knows how to *distinguish himself from other animals in point of anatomy and physiology, but as a conscious, reflecting being, gifted w **speech, he lacks all criteria for self ***judgment..

*i don’t know about that..

perhaps ***judgment is disturbance.. and if not.. i wouldn’t imagine it would come from **speech/words.. et al

he is on this planet a unique phenom which he cannot compare w anything else..

compare as disturbance

mona lisa compare law


the possibility of comparison and hence of self knowledge would arise only if he could establish relations w quasi human mammals inhabiting other stars

so.. thinking we need judgment.. knowledge.. perhaps as disturbance .. comparison definitely is..

ie: what is the purpose of judgment..?

he cannot know himself and therefore remains a mystery to himself..

sounds to me like a distinction between having and being/grokking knowledge.. ie: if you have knowledge.. you’re/it’s dead.. you’ve killed it with the defn of it.. if you’re being/grokking.. it’s ongoingly spontaneously everychanging


consciousness is a preconidtion of being…

but not judgment.. or comparison.. or knowledge..


he (dr) knows very well that the preaching of even the worthiest precepts only provokes the patient into open hostility or a secret resistance and thus needlessly endanger the aim of the treatment

supposed to ness


unless he stands firmly on his own feet, the so called objective values profit him nothing.. since they then only serve as a substitute for character and so help to suppress his individuality…

insofar as society itself is composed of de individualized persons, it is completely at the mercy of ruthless individualists.. a million zeros joined together do not add up to one..t

one-ness/eudaimoniative-surplus ness..  via gershenfeld sel

zinn energy law

thurman alive law


our blindness in this respect is extremely dangerous..

if the individual is not truly regenerated in spirit, society cannot be either..t

thurman alive law

zinn energy law


it is time we asked ourselves exactly what we are lumping together in mass organizations and what constitutes the nature of the individual human being, ie, of the real man and not the statistical man.. this is hardly possible except thru a new process of self nourishment..t

self-talk as data


i am convinced that it is not christianity, but our conception and interpretation of it, that has become antiquated in the face of the present world situation.. this req’s a very diff attitude towards the individual.. from the one we have had hitherto.. that is why nobody knows what ways of approach are open to man..

black science law.. blocking us from us.. from a nother way


that his teachers have themselves gone seriously astray by making false comparisons between incommensurable factors never enters his head..t

or.. that comparing and measuring are not us.. rather.. disturbances


instinct is anything but a blind and indefinite impulse, since it proves to be attuned and adapted to a definite external situation.. this latter circumstance gives it its specific and irreducible form..

5 – the philosophical and the psychological approach to life


no one seems to notice that the veneration (reverence) of the word, which was necessary for a certain phase of historical development, has a perilous shadow side..  that is to say, the moment the word, as a result of centuries of ed .. attains universal validity, it severs its original link w the divine person..  there is a then a personified church, a personified stated; belief in the word becomes credulity, and the word itself an infernal slogan capable of any deception..  w credulity come propaganda and advertising to dupe the citizen w political jobbery and compromise, and the lie reaches proportions never known before in the history of the world..

beyond words ness


thus the word, originally announcing the unity of all men and their union in the figure of the one great man, has in our day become the source of suspicion and distrust of all against all.. credulity (a tendency to be too ready to believe that something is real or true) is one of our worst enemies..  people think you have only to ‘tell’ a person that he ‘ought’ to do something in order to put him on the right track..

supposed to’s


in the animals, as a result of their learning capacity, instinct undergoes numerous modifications and differentiations; in civilized man the instincts are so split up that only a few of the basic ones can be recognized w any certainty in their original form..

civilization ness.. not us .. holmgren indigenous law


the question of human instinct is a far from simple matter, we shall probably not be wrong in assuming that the learning capacity, a quality almost exclusive to man, is based on the instinct for imitation found in animals..

nothing estranges man more from the ground plan of his instincts than his learning capacity.. it more than anything else, is responsible for the altered conditions of our existence and the need for new adaptations which civilization brings.. it is also the source of numerous psychic disturbances and difficulties occasioned by man’s progressive alienation from his instinctual foundation .. ie.. by his uprootedness and identification w his conscious knowledge of himself..  by his concern w consciousness at the expense of the unconscious..

his consciousness therefore orients itself chiefly by observing and investigating the world around him, and it is to its peculiarities that he must adapt his psychic and technical resources.. this task is so exacting and its fulfillment so advantageous that he forgets himself in the process, losing sight of his instinctual nature.. and putting his own conception of himself in place of his real being..  in this way he slips imperceptibly into a purely conceptual world where the products of his conscious activity progressively replace reality..


western man is in danger of losing his shadow (person in us grounded in instinctual nature) altogether, of identifying himself w his fictive personality and of identifying the world w the abstract picture painted by sci rationalism..


violation or neglect of instinct has painful consequences of a physiological and psychological nature for whose removal medical help, above all, is required..

wilde not us law


we do not think of distrusting our motives or of asking ourselves how the inner man feels about the things we do in the outside world..  but actually it is frivolous, superficial and unreasonable of us, as well as psychically unhygienic, to overlook the  reaction and standpoint of the unconscious..

virtually everything depends on the human soul and its functions.. it should be worthy of all the attention we can give it.. esp today, when everyone admits that the weal /woe of the future will be decided neither by attacks of wild animals nor by natural catastrophes nor by danger of world wide epidemics but simply and solely by the psychic changes in man..t

self-talk as data

zinn energy law

it needs only an almost imperceptible disturbance of equilibrium in a few of our rulers’ heads to plunge the world into blood, fire and radioactivity..


the more power man had over nature, the more his knowledge and skill went to his head, the deeper became his contempt for the merely natural and accidental, for that which is irrationally given – including the objective psyche, which is all that consciousness is not..

in contrast to the subjectivism of the conscious mind the unconscious is objective,


the seat of faith however is not consciousness but spontaneous religious experience, which brings the individual’s faith into immediate relation w god

fromm spontaneous law

here we must ask: have i a religious experience and immediate relation to god, and hence that certainty which well keep me, as an individual, from dissolving in the crowd..

batra hide in public law

6 – self knowledge


the discrepancy between intellect and feeling, which get in each other’s way at the best of times, is a particularly painful chapter in the history of the human psyche..


as his consciousness has broadened and differentiated, so his moral nature has lagged behind. that is the great problem before us today. reason alone does not suffice..t

mufleh humanity law

chomsky serious things law


fear of the evil which one does not see in one’s own bosom but always in somebody else’s checks reason every time..

if a world wide consciousness could arise that all division and all antagonism are due to the splitting of opposites in the psyche, then one would really know where to attack..

if even the smallest and most personal stirrings of the individual soul – so insignificant tin themselves – remain as unconscious and unrecognized as they have hitherto, they will go on accumulating and produce mass groupings and mass movements which cannot be subjected to reasonable control or manipulated to a good end..


it is in the nature of the political bodies always to see the evil in the opposite group, just as the individual has an ineradicable tendency to get rid of everything he does not know and does not want to know about himself by foisting it off on somebody else..

the more unrelated individuals are, the more consolidated the state becomes, and vice versa..


a human relationship is not based on differentiation and perfection, for these only emphasize the differences or call forth the exact opposite; it is based rather, on imperfection, on what is weak, helpless and in need of support – the very ground and motive of dependence.. the perfect has no need of the other.. but weakness has, for it seeks support and does not confront its partner w anything that might force him into an inferior position and even humiliate him .. this humiliation might happen only too easily where idealism plays too prominent a role..



wherever justice is uncertain and police spying and terror are at work.. human beings fall into isolation, which, of course, is the aim and purpose of the dictator state, since it is based on the greatest possible accumulation of depotentiated social units.. t.. to counter this danger.. the free society needs a bond of an affective nature.. love your neighbor..  but it is just this love for one’s fellow man that suffers most of all from the lack of understanding wrought by projection..  it would therefore be very much in the interest of the free society to give some thought to he question of human relationship from the psychological pov, for in this resides its real cohesion and consequently its strength. were love stops, power begins, and violence and terror..t

love is the movement.. no fear in love..

i do not know which is weaker: idealism or the insight of the public..

public consensus always oppresses someone(s)

7 – the meaning of self knowledge


the very fact that thru self knowledge, ie, by exploring our own souls, we come upon the instincts and their world of imagery should throw some light on the powers slumbering in the psyche, of which we are seldom aware so long as all goes well.. they are potentialities of the greatest dynamism, and it depends entirely on the preparedness and attitude of the conscious mind whether the irruption of these forces and the images and ideas associate w them will tend towards construction or catastrophe..


for this exacting work the psychologist requires all his patience; he may not rely on any traditional ‘oughts’s’ and ‘musts’s’ leaving the other person to make all the effort and contenting himself w the easy role of adviser and admonisher..

nothing has happened at all unless the individual changes..

be you

the effect on all individuals, which one would like to see realized, may not set in for hundreds of years, for the spiritual transformation of mankind follows the slow treaty of the centuries and cannot be hurried or held up by an y rational process of reflection..let alone brought to fruition in one generation..

i don’t buy that.. back then.. yeah.. but now we have the means to ground the chaos of 7bn truly free people.. so now.. we could leap there..

as it could be..

ie: hlb via 2 convos that io dance.. as the day..[aka: not part\ial.. for (blank)’s sake…]..  a nother way


(@umairh) tweeted at 5:31 AM – 13 Jun 2018 :
Another giant leap in the construction of a genuinely fascist state, “denaturalization”, or the removal of personhood


small talk

adding page via Jason‘s fb share saying – small talk is oppressive:

Small talk prevails because of the need to find a socially acceptable topic. But when it’s removed, it changes the game


surface level small talk does not build relationships and it is not great for our happiness levels. The obvious question: if it’s not that good for us, why does it prevail?


The basic idea is that if every individual is free to act as they please, the combination of these individual behaviours might be sub-optimal for the group.

perhaps.. but assuming the world we live in now.. w/science of people  ness ie: stress form money as os et al.. but if we tried a nother way.. with a mech to facil two convos.. to facil our individual curiosities.. (which we can now do.. for 7 billion people – no having to open door for 25 people and send out rules of game prior to).. like article says.. people do crave deep convos..

them asked for and wanting more rules.. is like.. to me.. a kid in school excited about an hour to do whatever.. happy to abide by little rules.. just to get that.. but that’s not freedom.. that’s a breather..


So what should we do? We could add co-ordination and create a new set of social norms. What if companies told people that email will only be delivered during just three pre-specified times? This would set the expectations of the senders, and reduce the need of the recipient to continuously monitor their email.

so what should we do…? we could coord hosted life bits.. and truly create a set of new social idiosyncracies of 7 bill that io dance….  beyond how to do email.. right? we don’t really want to know how to do email better.. do we..? perhaps it feels like it.. for a breather.. but if we had no strings attached.. were free in the city.. as the day.. we wouldn’t need/want rules/expectations..  for how to do .. email..


In situations where individuals normally have freedom, social co-ordination in some areas is likely to have surprising benefits

again – true if not 7 billion people truly free.. true if we assume .. science of people  ness.. which Ariely seems to ..


The School of Life (@TheSchoolOfLife) tweeted at 5:30 AM – 24 Oct 2016 :

That there is simply no such thing as an inherently boring person or thing is one of the great lessons of art (

We babble inconsequentially to the world because we lack the nerve to look more closely and unflinchingly within.

The person we call interesting is in essence someone alive to what we all deeply want from social intercourse: which is an uncensored glimpseof what the brief waking dream called life looks like through the eyes of another person and reassurance that we are not entirely alone with all that feels most bewildering, peculiar and intense within us.


The School of Life (@TheSchoolOfLife) tweeted at 6:30 AM – 6 Oct 2018 :
What to Do at Parties If You Hate Small Talk: “The confident conversationalist knows that the small themes need only ever be the first, understandable and never insulting steps towards the sincerity and intimacy all of us crave at heart.”

we are perhaps misunderstanding what small talk is for and how we might gently find an exit from its more airless corners. Small talk exists for a noble reason: it is designed to prevent hurt. It provides us with a rich source of information so that we can safely ascertain the frame of mind of our interlocutor – and therefore gauge what more in-depth topics of conversation might safely be broached. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once darkly reminded us that we should always remember, when meeting new people, that they might be only be a few steps away from wanting to grab a weapon and end their own lives. A few moments of small talk give us the signals we need to find out who we have on our hands; it lends us time to circle intimacy from on high before determining where we might wish to land.

Furthermore, a rigid hatred of small talk overlooks that it isn’t ever the subject matter per se that determines the profundity of a conversation. There are ways of talking about death that are trivial and ways of addressing the weather that feel significant. A truly deep mind can exercise itself as much on the game of a child as on the puzzles of philosophy – and it is unfortunate snobbery (mistaking the outward label for the inner content) to discount a topic merely because it has never featured in erudite academic curricula.

The skilled conversationalist doesn’t insist that atmospheric or traffic conditions or where a person has been at the seaside are inherently unworthy of discussion. They know that what a person feels about a cloudy afternoon might be a highway to their soul or that their experiences around parking might provide clues as to their attitudes to authority or their relations with their parents. They are not put off by having to work with humble matter; they are deft enough to use whatever is to hand.

The fear of small talk reflects a worry, hugely understandable and with roots in childhood experience, that we will be unable to influence the flow of a conversation by ourselves, that we will be the victims of the obsession or pettiness of others – and that conversation is fundamentally a natural, organic occurrence which happens to us but cannot be created by us; it may at points be very engaging, at others hugely frustrating; but the outcome is not ours to determine. We can feel that when a person says something, we must invariably respond in a similar way: an anecdote about a golf tournament needs to be followed by another; if someone has a story about a booking confusion at a hotel, the other must chip in with a corollary.

We should perceive no insult in a call to glimpse the grandest themes through the lens of small talk.

An individual who is currently talking at puzzling length about an airline meal has also inevitably been disappointed in love, had bouts of despair, tried to make sense of a difficult parent, felt confused about their direction – and will be longing, at some level, therefore to stop talking about cheese crackers and share the contents of their heart.

The confident conversationalist does not take fright at small talk and others’ occasional apparently firm attachment to it. They know that the small themes need only ever be the first, understandable and never insulting steps, towards the sincerity and intimacy all of us crave at heart.


swartz small talk law

shaw communication law et al


words ness..

perhaps no words

beyond the bot ness of small talk and smiles


deep/simple/open enough – 2 convos..

mit talks


subset of directors fellows via Joi Ito


adding page with this talk:

Joining Media Lab director Joi Ito on stage are the following fellows:
Sultan Al Qassemi, a United Arab Emirates-based columnist
Maurice Ashley, an International Grandmaster of Chess
Marko Ahtisaari, a visionary technology entrepreneur and designer
Gabriella Gomez-Mont, a creative and cultural entrepreneur
Jeff Sturges, a maker movement pioneer

ai helps you focus on the other person more – Joi
always keep the bigger picture in mind – don’t let negatives distract you – Sultan
why don’t these things (mit lab) exist when you’re 4 – Jeff
a case for love (over/within all else)
more important than that (things we’re fighting over) -1st step is getting people to believe things are possible
the skill/mindset of repairing/rehabilitating – Jeff  – upcycle ness
Why is handwriting and hand drawing so disconnected from our digital experience? How can we reintegrate them? @moia
I think more and more we’ll be having conversations with things. Right now our conversations are siloed in all these systems. @moia
Do you think it’s ok for designers to deceive users, or is it important to be transparent? @Joi asks @moia
answer – there’s really no sustainable way to be deceptive.. moia
The @Labforthecity is poised in this space between government, civil space, and academia @gggbriella
prototyping the future
open govt – open city movement – dynamic laws instead of stable laws
opening up city data sets at city hackathons
playing w/new political forums & languages
not only surveys on the streets..but wierd things.. – @Labforthecity @gggbriella #MLTalks – sounds like @SteveLambert
reticulation of govt as aparatus – @gggbriella
.@Joi is bringing up Director’s Fellows @baratunde @ShakaSenghor @colleenmacklin and @schmidphi.
perhaps next course: how to make almost anything.. almost anywhere.. – @schmidphi @ #MLTalks – personal fabrication – @NeilGershenfeld
timing is perfect to change our incarceration rates – @ShakaSenghor
how to connect… – listen – @ShakaSenghor
on looking for the people who are: none of the above – Joi


will try to remember/include other talks i’ve taken in below:

Chris Eliasmith ?

Daniel Suarez


nov 2015

. interviews devs , Cory Fields, & Wladimir Wan der Laan Tue 11/17 at 2:30PM ET

3 layers bitcoin the 1\ currency 2\ the core – open source software 3\ the protocol – gavin

really not regulated.. don’t have to care what people think – joi

consensus in bitcoin.. generally accepted answer is the correct answer even if it’s wrong.. which is weird – cory

things happen on surface for most part.. bitcoiners don’t like underground stuff – cory

if it changes the ecosystem.. person bringing it forward has to argue more than just code – cory

bip – bitcoin improvement proposal – gavin

We have these BIPs, #bitcoin improvement proposals. That’s how changes develop, and where I see things going — @gavinandresen#MLTalks

on agreements in changes with both miners and merchants..  miners highly incentivized to produce bitcoin that will be used  ie: going with economic majority. miners usually don’t want to upgrade.. so has to be for some benefit.. ie: faster; attacks.. a little carrot that’s good for merchants.. but usually miners could care less – gavin

how do you let world know they should be upgrading – joi

mailing list announcements – wladimir

even though discussion before.. controversy doesn’t really happen until opened out.. wish there was a way around that (paraphrase) – gavin

it’s open source software.. so we have to care.. otherwise we’d be writing software for no one – wladimir

when i was on icann – who is privacy – u.s. expects transparency.. but in other countries.. i wouldn’t want that.. but problem for any global standard.. can’t apply haphazard – joi

make it so useful.. that when the debate starts.. doesn’t kill it – on making yourself essential- joi

“The internet became useful fast enough so that regulators couldn’t shut it down.” – @Joi#MLTalks

block size debate..?

i wish people would say what i say.. i don’t understand it.. (the issue of block size) – cory

The 1mb block size limit is a problem we’ve seen coming for years. There’s debate about raising the block size — @gavinandresen#MLTalks

it’s become a tensious issue.. because someway has to win – Cory

how do we make it less contentious when we have decisions like this in the future.. i know it will always be messy.. – gavin

joi – on the importance of f-to-f – ie: w/icann… also giving govt seat at table but not seat on board

icann is humungous b – but absorbs tremendous amounts of drama w/o dying – joi

people have online personas that crumble in person – cory

on devs.. who often have no one to talk to (locally) – Cory

have 900 mill worth of venture money … you’re not as organized as internet was by time it had 900 mill – joi

one way to screw it up is to not do anything .. always looking for ways to grow up fast – gavin

@gavinandresen acknowledges immense weight on the shoulders of dev community – btc is growing up much faster than the Internet did #mltalks

on the messiness causing people to need to know about the whole.. on wanting to funnel off to more managable chunks – cory

interesting role of academia.. is in research/testing and coming up with numbers…  gives us buy in.. it’s a neutral place for people to work on this.. w/no agenda.. work on what we think is worth working on  – cory

but then talking on how hard to convince others to accept your code.. gavin & cory

The bar to try to be a #Bitcoin developer is pretty low; anyone can submit a PULL request. The bar to be accepted is very high —

i’d like to see multiple implementations – gavin

w/bitcoin there’s only so much you can test.. for a proof. what would be useful for mit to do – joi

answer to joi – networking.. p2p protocol – numbers – cory

what i’ve been thinking about ..if we were to rewrite the p2p protocol.. what would it look like – gavin

working w/an academic research group could have great benefits – gavin

your job description has been – keep doing what you’re doing… but if you could advise students. .. that’d be great.. joi – we make the research be academic.. academically interesting but fundamentally useful


q: on ethereum.. and competition a: i don’t see competition.. whatever turns out to be most popular, most bootstrapped – which is bitcoin – is most interesting.. if another comes along.. should be part of bitcoin..

a: i think it’s good to explore diff ideas to explore bitcoin core – wladimir

a: i think diff ideas are great.. but a lot of them are the same idea/scams … if the idea is i want a digital currency.. i don’t think there’s a reason to (start again) – gavin

q: mining centralization a: big rush to get to latest chip tech.. will see commodification of mining – an then it will de centralized again. – none of the people who have control now really want that control. – gavin

it’s a challenge to make things more de centralized.. – wladimir

consensus challenges – challenge of writing good consensus code – violates all existing rule of computer science and writing code – copy paste is important – even though we think not – because less error in code – you have to write bugs on purpose to maintain consensus.. – cory

proof work – is p of w of bitcoin consensus or will something else come in to make it more secure.. i think p of w is not the be all. actually securing network.. could be from intro-ing something else.. maybe there is a way of augmenting the 51% attack – gavin

#MLTalks @gavinandresen says that proof of work might not be the consensus mechanism in the future

getting academics to contribute is hard.. because usually it’s writing enough code to get the paper out.. so short term..- gavin

on talking about changing proof of work – the fear of fiddling with the thing that everything is running on.. what will the sandbox look like for trying these things – joi

sandbox is hard.. because these are real world – cory

It really sounds like Bitcoin was developed by ignoring decades of devops learning, and things got real before it could get fixed #MLTalks

From @gavinandresen via #MLTalks – Testing of fundamental changes (PoW) limited by need to keep mainnet secure, small testing environment.

@gavinandresen “a fiat-backed digital currency could really take off” #MLTalks @MIT

right now every country is coming up w/own interpretation of what it is.. – joi

q: – having hackathon here at mit .. what problems would you suggest we try to hack in re to bitcoin

i’m not crazy about hackathons for creating code.. gavin

i’m the opposite .. i love hackathons.. but bitcoin not suitable for a hackathan.. too short on time – cory

#Bitcoin is very poorly suited to hackathons because there’s not much you can hack out of it — Cory Fields #MLTalks

#Bitcoin‘s opportunity for #hackathons isn’t core code, but prototyping niche solutions.@MITBitcoinClub #IDHACK #MLTalks


Excellent @WIRED piece on the dismantling of Senior House at @MIT and what it means for colleges more broadly:…

“I can’t tell you how many times I heard that Senior House saved a student’s life,” Feldmeier says. He points out that despite MIT’s high suicide rates—12.6 per 100,000 students in the years between 2010 and 2015 (the national collegiate average is 7.5)—Senior House hasn’t had a suicide in more than 20 years.

This isn’t surprising. People from marginalized groups do better when they find each other, according to psychological research. “Belonging to groups has really positive consequences, especially for mental and physical health,” says Dominic Packer, associate professor of psychology at LeHigh University, who studies group dynamics and the effects of ostracism.

Over and over again people say Senior House was the first place they’d ever not felt judged. What they are describing is, in many ways, a safe place.


[lots inbetween i failed to add here]

Julia Angwin



self organizing


self organizing graphic

[when i think of self-organizing i can’t help but think of self-directing. and my mind often goes to the visuals/work/art that Iwaan Baan shares – like the ones above – and the ones on the self-directed page. both being/becoming/emerging the same dance/fractal. it’s like the element of unique (thumbprint) from self-directed ness keeps the self-organizing from slipping to the center of sameness/status-quo/invented vs invited. and the bumping up against, the rubbing shoulders with, the colliding, of the self-organizing, keeps the self-directed ness awake/alive to its authenticity/possibility/curiosity.]


plague of sameness

quote from Iwan‘s ted – high recommend..

other examples.. spaces/places like seen in Iwan’s talk: MadridCubaRojavaIkariarebel architectureoccupy sandy – via Adam; lagosoccupy movementTeddyhalf a house ness; and many others… some in here: living spaces; some here: city ness; our vision: city sketchup, ..  .. …


wikipedia small

Self-organization is a process where some form of global order or coordination arises out of the local interactions between the components of an initially disordered system. This process is spontaneous: it is not directed or controlled by any agent or subsystem inside or outside of the system; however, the laws followed by the process and its initial conditions may have been chosen or caused by an agent. It is often triggered by random fluctuations that are amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized or distributed over all the components of the system. As such it is typically very robust and able to survive and self-repair substantial damage or perturbations. In chaos theory it is discussed in terms of islands of predictability in a sea of chaotic unpredictability.

Self-organization occurs in a variety of physical, chemical, biological, social and cognitive systems. Common examples are crystallization, the emergence of convection patterns in a liquid heated from below, chemical oscillators, swarming in groups of animals, and the way neural networks learn to recognize complex patterns.

seen in Iwaan Baan‘s work/art ..

Only certain kinds of networks are self-organizing. These are known as small-world networks, or scale-free networks. These emerge from bottom-up interactions, and appear to be limitless in size.

it’s as if the .. self-directed individual/family gets its self-directedness ginormously small until it’s dancing fluently random, chaotic/chaordic, with the entire system..

[self-directed in the sense of each person/atom… is guided by their own curiosity rather than some extrinsic motivator.. at least if we’re seeking an ultimate.. ongoingly sustained system.. ecosystem. the direction being via whimsy rather than plan, a listening to your gut, self-reflection, mind wandering ness..]

bot ist art ist entire cleanerest

structure or whimsy

the emergence happens during this zoom dance. causing both – the individual self-directedness – and the self-organzing system (and which is which really?) to be ongoingly in perpetual beta..ness… embracing uncertainty.

perhaps.. in order to get back/to our natural self org tendencies (of an undisturbed ecosystem) we first (simultaneous) need to undo our hierarchical listening ie: 2 convers as infra


key components:

1. listening – quiet enough to hear yourself. quiet enough to hear those around you.

2. no agenda – emergence based listening/dancing in space of permission w/nothing to prove.. ie: free dom

3. dance – chaordic synchronicity from size of iterations getting every smaller and frequency of iterations getting every larger, all in both fast and slow motion..


talk at newcastle in 2010 (excellent overview of 12 years of Sugata‘s research):

sugata in 2010
31 min – the learners had invented their own pedagogy…
32 min – when learners have interest – education happens..

58 min –

curriculum:  1. reading comprehension 2. info/search analysis  3. rational belief

self-organising systems: where the system structure appears without explicit intervention from outside the system

everything is self-organizing system..

inside one – no need of outside intervention, w/o it , will produce emergence – the appearance of a property not previously observed as a functional characteristic of the function, it’s not supposed to happen, but it happens.

education is self-organizing system.. where learning is the emergence phenomenon


An additional, and major, problem is that convergence strategies aren’t effective at adapting to new situations that require unexpectedly different behaviours (that is to say, they’re not good at improvisation).

On the contrary, the brain lacks any sort of static, centralised structure. “Unity of mind” is constituted through instances of grand-scale synchronization, whereupon different neuronal areas act transiently in coordination. These instances of synchronization have a limited lifespan so the brain doesn’t get stuck in a specific sync-mode.


We believe it’s only a matter time until society organizes to dismantle the electoral space. There are, in fact, various initiatives underway with this purpose in mind.  We predict that only those who have understood the logic of distributed, networked processes of self-organisation and participation will succeed.


Francis Heylighen


swarm intelligence

99 and 1

listen & clap ness

small world network


i don’t believe in training people to do things. liberate them & they train themselves. help them analyze what’s already in them.  – Myles Horton (via Carol)

The formula for overturning the world, we didn’t seek it in books, but in wandering. – Guy Debord (via Mary Ann)


via Jordan share:




View at

This is just part of the process we call “self-organizing.”


It is a natural human process, a result of which, we fall into ourroles. In other words, roles are the individual identities we assume — the roles we will play — in the organized interactions that we enter into in order to distribute the energy load required to fulfill our individual values (needs). Roles in turn, define the set of objectives that the individual must perform in the action that has been organized to distribute the energy load. People organize themselves to take up a role as part of this performance-action; but their own reasons for doing so are driven by complex value-streams that are in the process of continuous negotiation. The success of the organized performance depends upon fulfilling individual roles, which in turn depend upon maintaining sufficient relational stability or sustaining a threshold degree of coherence in the complex responsive processes operating at the level of the value-streams.


The challenge in self-organizing processes, is that ..

we are not used to letting go ..

..of old identities and shape-shifting into new ones. We are uncomfortable in the phases of transition, where identities are not yet fixed, or fixed identities are being challenged in the process of negotiation. This is why..

we are so obsessed with fixed roles..

..which represent past conditions and contexts, while remaining unresponsive to present or future conditions and contexts that otherwise might creatively emerge from the many local interactions between people in organizations.

perpetual beta ness.. stuck to labels.. to the death of us.. perpetuate\ing not us ness via broken feedback loop

Some people believe this anxiety around identity and role-play is a permanent aspect of our human condition. ..I believe ..we have lived our entire lives inside institutions where role-identities represent authoritarian and disciplinary power over us. In other words, institutional roles represent the structural violence that operates within them. 


These structures would allow for the emergence, through self-organization, of the full spectrum of roles and identities that humans would want to perform while being together.


Trust is all about allowing what is most real, what is actually happening, what is actually the case, rather than what should be or is expected or demanded to be — 

trust is crucial to this… ni ness… but a trust most of aren’t contemplating.. 100% trust. otherwise.. it’s not trust.. just judgment. w/o 100%.. we don’t dance.



networked individuaism graphic


how to be us.. ?


self org in syria

Leila Al-Shami (@LeilaShami) tweeted at 9:08 PM – 10 Jan 2017 :

excellent article on people’s self-management of cultural heritage sites in liberated areas and implications (

Reclamation and autonomy in territories across Syria where revolutionary self-determination is still present, active and hopeful against all odds. These are the stories that the forces of the status quo are so terribly afraid of.


in our own self interest to echo and preserve such stories of social experimentation, liberation and self organization that are still taking place across Syria and many other awakened communities across the Middle East and the broader Global South.


organism as fractal


from  Dana Meadow’s thinking in systems:



self org

the most marvelous characteristic of some complex systems is their ability to learn, diversity, complexify, evolve..

these would be the complex systems deep enough.. ie: organism as fractal

this capacity of a system to make its own structure more complex is called self org..

self org is such a common property, particularly of living systems, that we take it for granted. if we didn’t, we would be dazzled by the unfolding systems of our world. and ..

if we weren’t nearly blind to the property of self org, we would do better at encouraging, rather than destroying, the self-organizing capacities of the systems of which we are a part..


like resilience, self org is often sacrificed for purposes of short term productivity and stability..  productivity and stability are the usual excuses for turning creative human beings into mechanical adjuncts to production processes. or for narrowing the genetic variability of crop plants.. or for establishing bureaucracies and theories of knowledge that treat people as if they were only numbers..

norton productivity law

self org produces heterogeneity and unpredictability. it is likely to come up w whole new structures, whole new ways of doing things.. it requires freedom and experimentation, and a certain amount of disorder..

whole new structure: a people experiment.. via 2 convos.. as infra


these conditions that encourage self org often can be scary for individual and threatening to power structures.. as a consequence ed systems may restrict he creative powers of children instead of stimulating those powers. economic policies may lean toward supporting established, powerful enterprise rather than upstart new ones.. and many govts prefer their people not to be too self organizing..

fortunately, self org is such a basic property of living systems that even the most overbearing power structure can never fully kill it, although in the name of law and order, self org can be suppressed for long, barren, cruel, boring periods..


science knows now that self organizing system can arise from simple rules.. science, itself a self organizing system, likes to think that all the complexity of the world must arise, ultimately , from simple rules.. whether that actually happen is something that science does not yet know..


in the process of creating new structure and increasing complexity, one thing that a self org ing system often generates is hierarchy..

subsystems.. a cell in your liver is a subsystem of an organ, which is a subsystem of you as an organism, and you are a subsystem of a family.. et al… this arrangement of systems and subsystems is called a hierarchy..

if subsystems can largely take care of themselves, regulate themselves, maintain themselves, and yet serve the needs of the larger system, while the larger system coordinates and enhances the functioning of the subsystems, a stable, resilient, and efficient structure results..


complex systems can evolve from simple systems only if there are stable intermediate forms. the resulting com;ex forms will naturally be hierarchic.. that my explain why hierarchies are so common in the systems nature presents to us..among all possible complex forms, hierarchies are the only ones that have had the time to evolve..

hierarchies are brilliant systems inventions, not only because they give a system stability and resilience, but also because they reduce the amount of info that any part of the system has to keep track of..

in hierarchical systems relationship w/in each subsystem are denser and stronger than relationships between subsystems..  everything is still connected to everything else, but not equally strongly..  no level is overwhelmed w info..


hierarchies evolve from the lowest level up.. from the pieces to the whole, from cell to organ to organism.. from individual to team.. the original purpose of a hierarchy is always to help its originating subsystem do their jobs better.. this is something unfortunately that both the higher and the lower levels of a greatly articulated hierarchy easily can forget.. therefore, many systems are not meeting our goals because of malfunctioning hierarchies..


when a subsystem’s goals dominate at the expense of the total system’s goals the resulting behavior is call suboptimization..

just as damaging as suboptimization, of course, is the problem of too much central control..  if the brain controlled each cell so tightly that the cell could not perform its self maintenance functions, the whole org could die..

to be a highly functional system, hierarchy must balance the welfare, freedoms, and responsibilities of the subsystems and total system.. there must be enough central control to achieve coordination toward the large system goal, and enough autonomy to keep all subsystems flourishing, functioning and self organising..

resilience, self org, and hierarchy are three of the reasons dynamic systems can work so well..

then this on undisturbed ecosystem:

in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows


schmachtenberger meta law

wengrow/graeber top down law: ‘There is no reason to believe that small-scale groups are especially likely to be egalitarian, or that large ones must necessarily have kings, presidents, or bureaucracies. These are just prejudices stated as facts.. there is absolutely no evidence that top-down structures of rule are the necessary consequence of large-scale organization.’