This is something I think about a lot.
and their ability to only function as well as the best and worst programmers in terms of ..
** * the level of human creativity involved.
** * **and in regards to or / on that subject of the team of that who/or which created the software.
Well.. it's a
bit dicey from here, let us carry on.
Okay let's get real. Really really gritty just for a moment. Here we go..
Most of the world has absolutely no idea what they authentically enjoy that was not already handed to them in some sort of pre-fashioned, pre-ordained, pre-*confabulated..!
Varietal product or lifestyle offering which has/or was carefully crafted by teams of people paid millions of dollars and designed under the guise and gussy of “product experience,” “consumer testing,” or “user experience” departments.
What they miss though is what individually some may be aware of- there is no consumer choice other than the inkling nudge to the famous Henry Ford quote-
“you can have it any way you like as long as it’s the color black.”
Which makes commerce work well in one sense. But makes for this in my opinion absolutely terrible amalgam we tend to call “Westernization, and others call “homogenization.”
You see, I have spent my entire life fashions myself as an individual.***
And while this is stark diametric contrast to what is generally presented or deemed “acceptable,” culturally, it works for me because the alternative sucks. (For me.)
I enjoy tremendously the agility and dexterity afforded by and to make up my own mind, and sometimes I like a product or sub-culture but mostly not.
I don’t fit in, and I’m more than okay with that. I don’t feel a need to fit in. I feel a need to live my life as it brings me the most joy.
Over the past twenty years or so, I see and find more and more people beginning to learn this is also a possibility for them, and in sharp contrast, we have more technology than ever which aims to re-cement this homogenized vantage of human perspective.￼
I am not here this morning to talk about me though, let’s go onward..
This is one dark facet of commercial enterprise, this homogenization thing.
It's extremely uni-polar by the virtue of its' very design because there are not a lot of ways to create a product that supports a company and “**bring it to scale.”
> To scale means “to be profitable and repeatable, in largess-“ Make it as many times as possible and unload as many of them as possible into the human population, in order to generate more of this thing called profit.
> It is a behavior rooted in what most worldly religions call one of the seven deadly sins- greed.
> But we aren’t going there just now, however linguistically and orthography wise it is fascinating to observe the concatenation of the word “profit” which to most means an incredible godlike mystical person who had all the answers and is at utter peace, samadi, satsang, or interpersonal nirvana.
> This is one of the ways the “profit motive” is sold subconsciously as a social concept and used for human organization, via Neuro Linguistic Programing.
> In **N.L.P, *we call it “__keystoning__.”
> It’s a way to assign or re-assign, or re-purpose in some cases, an operant variable condition to – discreet and entirely different outcome.
> A simple example of this is “treat” and “treaty.”
> A “treat”* is like a bowl of ice cream or a pleasurable experience. It affords fun neurochemistry temporarily, but a “treaty,” is generally a limiting legal agreement between large political bodies or groups which aims to limit in a sense and form human behavior and human organization in a particular way, based on the opinions of a few.
> You see how these connotations are entirely different, yet they utilize the same word, in part.
> In Latin, we have to go back to the 14th century in mideval English- right around the time the Jesuit Order and Rosicrucians were really getting at it/ secretly forming the way modern banking society would function, alongside the cooperation of the English and the under the auspice direction of the Vatican and many other leaders of the world at that time, mostly royals and monarchs.
> In the 15th century, you see- the english developed the modern banking system, therein about 78-86% of a peasant or serf’s income was literally re-adsorbed into the banking system, through various taxes and such.
> Let not get too distracted though, you need first to understand that “treatis” is the word we got from this time period which turned from an earlier word -“tractatus***” **which is mideval Latin, and came from an earlier word “__tractare”__ which meant to “treat or to handle.”
> We can jump back to Ancient Greece for a moment and say hello to our good friend Pythagoreas because it’s relevant here but only – momentarily for now
> Because there is a famous mathematical and geometric symbol called the “tetractys,*” which is an arrangement of ten dots, four at the bottom, three atop it interspersed in the negative space above the four, then two atop the tree in the same fashion, and then a single dot at the top/ forming an equilateral triangle.
> More on this symbol in a future soon article, but for now know it represents the “fourth” triangular number, and a series of geometric and mathematical progressions and regressive sequences used in a great many ways.
> More on that in a later article though.
> The main take away for you right now is this symbol enables ...
> a phase locked geometric* recombinatorial representative matrix of mathematics, space time, geometry and a deliberate fundus on / in and unto the formation of human consciousness, thought, and “perceived possibility.”*
> See also- the base ten number system, the Phoenicians, and the ancient Egyptians...But..for now,
> Let’s get back to commerce. ￼
Jump forward a few thousand years..—-￼
And here we are again.—-￼
*So *~ ....
A consumer product is designed, -
to create a uni-singlar form of expression, a product- to wildly appease the stock holders, the board, and make a lot of “money” or “profit.”
**Now just how in the hell does this relate to algorithms?
Humans are not given the mental space to create their own versions of reality, given that products and such have literally been thrust into their every day lives, and to the point where they become such a large part of the egoic identity for most people, there is almost zero sense of any opacity in regard to any other mode of life.
We are back to algorithms now full circle, as these same companies are creating the algorithm and softwares necessary to form **human opinion **back to this in a sense, __unicellular homogeny.
> Some call it the hive mind, some call it boring. I cannot help but notice we have from day one designed computing systems after nature’s own patterns. –! And those of our own cellular biology.
> Right down to the way nature grows things, and the way bits and bytes are arranged and interacted with on a computers hard drive or storage.
> The secret and hidden world of all this electronic bio-mimicry is yet another future article, but to stay relevantly into track right now, below is a quote from **Matt Baer- who wrote this earlier this morning, and created the internet (or web-site display software I am using to display and share this article with you. His software does not utilize algorithms, and is a tool called “write.as”
> Such that “you write as such and such or so and so- where such and such or so a d so is your user-name on the service. I go by “ions.” ( Really, I could not help it,) ~
> But let’s move in and on to Matt’s quote.. Or perhaps over and through and from all around..
> – “al re de dor” in Spanish .
> – **alrededor
> – (ahl-rreh-deh-dohr**)
> – *Whee *!!!
I'm sure this is what the people in charge of these products think the masses want: more of the same. How boring is that, though? Why not tune the algorithm toward inspiration instead of tedium? Why not use this powerful position as product designer to break filter bubbles, instead of building and reinforcing them?
**Which brings me to the impetus and drive for having even written anything of this topic this morning at all ~
*In 2008, I wrote a mini paper which I have and not handy, called “the neural extensis mechanism,” on data saturation in the future, and the personalization of computing based on the individual and their inherent and intrinsic needs.”
It was a paper basically describing how we are soon in the future (as written in 2008) to find search engines basically irrelevant, and how most people that use the World Wide Web will find they have come to a __*great narrowing*__ **of expressive utility -
In regards to their OWN formus..
The person they are- the ego, the self, the expression of self, the understanding of what may be, what isn’t, what is, and what ultimately- “formed” through human-perception. IS __OR....
__Isn’t * !
Possible, based on ones interaction* with the internet, and this homogenization described therein above during this article’s discourse.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, *we’re there dude. We are there RIGHT now, as a global society.
Fortunately, we’re aware of it. If you’d never considered any of this, I hope this was of some use to you.
With love, Omar / Ramo –( same guy.)...
share more with you later..!
~ Ramo / Omar / Doctor-Beans / citizen of earth