indy on writing ness
indy johar on writing ness (aka: the idiosyncratic jargon of self-talk as data et al)
via michel bauwens tweet [https://x.com/mbauwens/status/2030936664672276772?s=20]:
* The writing ethics of my friend, @indy_johar:
* On authorship and assumptions
https://indyjohar.substack.com/p/on-writing?
“Some people have asked whether there’s a whole uncredited team writing these pieces.
The reality is much simpler — and much warmer. It’s mostly me, usually writing early in the mornings, late in the evenings, or on Sundays.
These pieces emerge through the process I’ve described previously: a rhythm of writing, thinking, and iterating with ChatGPT as part of my reflective practice & piece i published recently. When there is co-writing or co-editing with someone at DM or elsewhere, I reference that at the bottom.
What appears publicly is simply one part of a larger personal and collaborative inquiry — not the output of a hidden team.
6. On referencing (or not referencing) DM and others
I’ve been cautious about referencing DM or naming specific people, not out of disregard, but to avoid creating the politics of who is mentioned, who isn’t, and how credit is interpreted in a very entangled and collaborative field. My intention was to focus on the ideas rather than affiliations.
But I also understand that absence can be misread, and that recognition matters in its own right. “
notes/quotes from indy’s substack (linked above):
I’m wanted to write this because I’ve been receiving quite a bit of feedback about my writing recently, and I thought it might be useful to gather some reflections in one place. What follows is simply an attempt to respond with openness and curiosity.
1. A genuine thank you
The first and most important thing I want to say is thank you. Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to read, question, critique, reach out, or build adjacent or divergent positions.
I read everything — even when I can’t always respond — and I really value the collective intelligence and care behind the feedback. My hope is that different people can find different kinds of use in the writing, even when it isn’t always straightforward or complete.
2. Why I write (and why I share it)
I’m not primarily writing to communicate clearly or teach. I write as a way to think — to surface discontinuities, explore questions, or trace the edges of ideas I don’t yet fully understand.
self-talk as data ness
Most pieces begin in the middle of something: a conversation, a tension, a moment of dissonance. Writing is how I metabolise that. Instead of keeping it all private, I’ve been experimenting with sharing some of it openly — a kind of public, living notebook.
this site as prototype to app ness.. hosting life bits ness.. et al
There are many things I never publish, but some pieces feel worth making visible in case they offer a prompt, a provocation, or a companion to others working in adjacent spaces.
3. The volume of writing
A recurring piece of feedback is that there’s simply a lot of it. That makes sense. Because I use writing as a live thinking tool rather than a communication channel, the rhythm can be fast. It isn’t a planned content strategy — it’s just the tempo of how I process ideas alongside the daily work.
I’m treating this as an open experiment:
How do we think in public at the pace the work demands, rather than at the pace a feed might prefer?
need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature as global detox/re\set.. so we can org around legit needs
imagine if we listened to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & used that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness as nonjudgmental expo labeling)
4. The complexity of the writing
Another theme has been that the writing can be difficult to follow. I recognise that, and I think there are a few reasons:
idiosyncratic jargon ness et al
- The work spans multiple domains, so the language moves across different conceptual terrains.
- I’m writing to think, not to translate, so I don’t always do the interpretive work that a communicative piece would require.
- Many pieces emerge from very specific situational contexts that I can’t fully describe, which can make the writing feel abstract or untethered.
I hold this not as a flaw or a virtue but as an inquiry: How do we share thinking that is complex, situated, and unfinished without flattening it — and without making it inaccessible?
batra hide in public law et al
how we gather in a space (virtual/local/spiritual..) is huge.. need to try spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove to facil curiosity over decision making.. because the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us..
5. On authorship and assumptions
Some people have asked whether there’s a whole uncredited team writing these pieces.
how many ness.. beyond the monastic self ness et al
The reality is much simpler — and much warmer. It’s mostly me, usually writing early in the mornings, late in the evenings, or on Sundays.
i have on site:
[note: this site is part of an ongoing experiment, ie: modeling hosting-life-bits ness (output ness) using my (never just me) brain/idio-jargon/self-talk as data]
These pieces emerge through the process I’ve described previously: a rhythm of writing, thinking, and iterating with ChatGPT as part of my reflective practice & piece i published recently. When there is co-writing or co-editing with someone at DM or elsewhere, I reference that at the bottom.
What appears publicly is simply one part of a larger personal and collaborative inquiry — not the output of a hidden team.
6. On referencing (or not referencing) DM and others
I’ve been cautious about referencing DM or naming specific people, not out of disregard, but to avoid creating the politics of who is mentioned, who isn’t, and how credit is interpreted in a very entangled and collaborative field. My intention was to focus on the ideas rather than affiliations.
But I also understand that absence can be misread, and that recognition matters in its own right. I’m sitting with that and exploring how to honour the relational nature of the work more carefully going forward.
using my (never just me) .. beyond the monastic self ness
I welcome further reflections, questions, and provocations.
I’m learning how to write in public while thinking in motion — and your feedback is part of what I hope that collective learning.
pretty resonating.. thanks indy.. thanks michel for the heads up
_______
______
_____
_____________
_____
_____
_____
______
be you. 