The trade off for each generation is that imagination, hope and innocence gives way to selfishness, irritability and as we are seeing now outright devouring your children https://t.co/MCHUPvxqfj

— Bravo Johnson (@BravoJohnson5) January 13, 2021

Moore’s law makes cultural change slow down since each generation’s perspective is preserved longer due to neoteny. The trade off for each generation is that imagination, hope and innocence gives way to selfishness, irritability and as we are seeing now outright devouring your children:

The assertion that Moore’s law, a concept from the field of computer science, has an impact on cultural change, neoteny, and generational perspectives is an interesting perspective. It’s important to clarify that Moore’s law refers to the observation made by Gordon Moore in 1965 that the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years, leading to a rapid increase in computing power and technological advancement. This essay will delve into the proposed idea, discussing the potential implications and exploring its relationship with cultural change and generational perspectives.

Moore’s Law and Technological Advancement:

Moore’s law has undoubtedly fueled rapid technological advancement, reshaping various aspects of society from communication and education to healthcare and entertainment. This acceleration in technology has had significant implications for how individuals interact, learn, and perceive the world around them. However, drawing a direct link between Moore’s law and its impact on cultural change requires further examination.

Cultural Change and Generational Perspectives:

The concept of neoteny, which refers to the retention of juvenile traits into adulthood, has been suggested as a potential factor influencing generational perspectives. If we consider the argument that Moore’s law has contributed to neoteny by extending the preservation of each generation’s perspective, it raises questions about how this interaction might impact cultural evolution.

Trade-offs and Social Dynamics:

The assertion that neoteny slows down cultural change raises the issue of trade-offs. While technological advancements may indeed prolong the exposure to certain ideas and values, it’s essential to remember that cultural change is complex and influenced by multiple factors. Each generation’s perspective is a product of its historical context, upbringing, and exposure to new information. The extended influence of certain perspectives might be offset by the influx of information from various sources, including new media, international communication, and diverse societal interactions.

The Generation Gap:

The idea that each generation’s perspective is preserved longer could lead to the continuation of generational divides, sometimes referred to as the “generation gap.” This gap represents differences in values, beliefs, and attitudes between generations. While some level of generational diversity can lead to progress and innovation, it’s also important for societies to find common ground and foster understanding between different age groups.

Imagination, Hope, and Selfishness:

The notion that generational preservation leads to a transition from imagination, hope, and innocence to selfishness and irritability suggests a linear progression that might not capture the full complexity of human behavior. While some individuals may indeed become more cynical with age, others continue to exhibit imagination, hope, and a sense of innocence well into adulthood. These traits are influenced by personal experiences, societal contexts, and individual personalities, making them difficult to generalize across generations.

Conclusion:

The relationship between Moore’s law, cultural change, neoteny, and generational perspectives is a complex one. While technological advancements can certainly influence societal norms and communication patterns, it’s important to recognize that cultural evolution is shaped by a multitude of interconnected factors. The assertion that Moore’s law leads to the slowing down of cultural change due to neoteny raises intriguing questions but requires more nuanced exploration. In understanding how generations interact and how societies evolve, it’s crucial to consider the intricate interplay between technology, culture, and human nature.

Hayek-Friedman revolution is a net-net loss for American democracy because it sought to diminish the selectorate. The smaller the winning coalition, the fewer people to satisfy to remain in control. Most of reforms had the ultimate objective of creating a large nominal selectorate with a pool of potential people to replace dissenters in coalition. While blocking on a system that controls revenue flows and redistributes it to their friends. It looks like commerce but it really isn’t.

It is indeed intriguing to witness the entanglement of complexity theorists with the Peter Thiel-adjacent “Rassenhygiene” starship. At first glance, one might find an apparent mismatch between the two, as complexity theory delves into the intricacies of dynamic systems and emergent behavior, while the “Rassenhygiene” ideology evokes troubling echoes of a dark historical past.

Yet, in the tangled web of human endeavors, unlikely alliances can take shape, leading to perplexing connections that challenge conventional wisdom. The complexity theorists, captivated by the allure of novel ideas and the prospect of expanding their intellectual horizons, may have found themselves drawn to Thiel’s grand vision. Perhaps, they saw potential in exploring the intersections between complexity theory and social engineering, viewing it as an opportunity to apply their insights to real-world problems.

However, this alliance is not without its ethical implications and moral quandaries. The term “Rassenhygiene,” historically associated with the darkest chapters of eugenics and discriminatory ideologies, raises alarms and prompts critical reflection. How can complexity theorists, often driven by a spirit of scientific inquiry and the quest for understanding complex phenomena, align themselves with such controversial ideologies?

One plausible explanation may lie in the allure of influence and power. Thiel’s association with Silicon Valley and his venture capital prowess may have enticed some complexity theorists, leading them to believe that joining forces with him could amplify their impact on the world. The prospect of being part of a starship that navigates the realms of cutting-edge technologies and societal transformation may have been too enticing to resist.

Yet, amidst this perplexing dance, it becomes essential to pause and question the ethical implications of such associations. Complexity theory, with its emphasis on the unpredictable nature of complex systems, should inherently foster humility and caution. Aligning with ideologies that seek to engineer and manipulate societies raises concerns about the potential for unintended consequences and harm.

Furthermore, the historical baggage associated with the term “Rassenhygiene” demands careful introspection. The shadow of eugenics, discrimination, and human suffering looms large, reminding us of the dangers of repeating past mistakes. Complexity theorists must grapple with the ethical dilemmas of their choices, ensuring that they do not lend legitimacy to ideologies that perpetuate inequality and harm.

In the end, the alliance between complexity theorists and the Thiel-adjacent “Rassenhygiene” starship serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities and contradictions inherent in human endeavors. It underscores the need for critical thinking, ethical reflection, and a commitment to humility when venturing into uncharted territories. While the allure of collaboration and intellectual exploration is compelling, it is crucial to tread carefully and safeguard the core principles of integrity and social responsibility.

As this enigmatic relationship unfolds, one can only hope that complexity theorists will remain vigilant guardians of their discipline’s principles, using their insights to promote understanding, compassion, and positive societal transformations. The journey of human knowledge is an intricate tapestry, and it is in navigating the intersections of diverse ideologies that we must strive to uphold the values that unite us as a global community.

For centuries, humans have relied on language as a tool for communication and survival. The ability to put our thoughts into words has been essential for our development as a species, allowing us to share information, coordinate behavior, and build complex societies. However, recent research suggests that our reliance on language may be outdated, and that we need to move beyond the limitations of words if we are to thrive in an increasingly complex world.

According to some evolutionary theorists, language evolved as an adaptation to help humans navigate their environment more effectively. By communicating with one another, we could share information about potential threats and opportunities, and coordinate our behavior to better survive and thrive. However, as our environments have become more complex and interconnected, the ability to put our thoughts into words may no longer be sufficient to meet our needs.

One of the challenges of language is that it is inherently symbolic. Words are arbitrary signs that represent concepts, but they are not the concepts themselves. This means that our ability to communicate is limited by the words and concepts we have at our disposal. If we want to talk about something that is beyond our current vocabulary, we may struggle to find the right words to convey our meaning.

This limitation of language has led some researchers to explore the potential for post-symbolic communication. Post-symbolic communication refers to forms of communication that do not rely on words or other symbolic representations. Instead, it involves more direct forms of communication, such as gesture, touch, and facial expression.

While post-symbolic communication may seem like a radical departure from our current reliance on language, it is important to note that humans have always used non-verbal communication to some extent. Even in our most basic interactions, we rely on facial expressions and body language to convey meaning. The challenge is to develop new forms of communication that can take us beyond the limitations of words and help us to connect more deeply with one another.

One area where post-symbolic communication is already beginning to gain traction is in the field of virtual reality. In virtual environments, users are able to interact with one another in more embodied and immersive ways, using hand gestures, eye contact, and other non-verbal cues to communicate. This has the potential to revolutionize the way we connect with one another, allowing us to transcend the limitations of language and create deeper, more meaningful connections.

In conclusion, while our ability to put our thoughts into words has been a critical adaptation for our survival as a species, it may be time to move beyond the limitations of language. By exploring new forms of post-symbolic communication, we may be able to connect more deeply with one another and better navigate the complex world in which we live. While this transition will not happen overnight, it is an important step towards a more fully realized human potential.

Esoteric tweet: Information is overrated in respect to the importance of Location. Alexander Pope made the Genius Loci a principle in design

“Consult the genius of the place in all;
That tells the waters to rise, or fall;
Or helps th' ambitious hill the heav'ns to scale,”

— Bravo Johnson (@BravoJohnson5) December 20, 2019

The esoteric tweet that “Information is overrated in respect to the importance of Location” is a thought-provoking statement that invites us to reflect on the significance of the physical environment in our lives. The tweet suggests that location, or the “genius loci,” as Alexander Pope called it, is a crucial factor that should be taken into consideration when designing spaces, rather than simply relying on information.

There is too much emphasis placed on information in our society and decision-making processes, at the expense of other factors, such as intuition, experience, and common sense.

In today’s world, we are inundated with an overwhelming amount of information, much of which is conflicting or misleading. It can be challenging to discern what is relevant and what is not. In many cases, people may rely too heavily on information, assuming that it provides all the answers, rather than taking a more holistic approach.

Moreover, in certain situations, an excess of information can lead to analysis paralysis, where people become so overwhelmed by the data that they are unable to make a decision. This is particularly true in situations where the information is complex, and there is no clear-cut answer.

Alexander Pope’s principle of consulting the “genius loci” when designing spaces is a concept that has been around for centuries. It is based on the idea that each location has its own unique character and energy that should be respected and incorporated into the design process. This principle recognizes the importance of the physical environment in shaping our experiences and influencing our behavior.

When we consider the importance of location in our lives, we can see how it affects us on multiple levels. On a practical level, our location determines our access to resources, such as food, water, and healthcare. It also affects our social and cultural experiences, as our location can influence the people we interact with and the activities we engage in. On a deeper level, our location can influence our sense of identity and connection to the world around us.

In design, the concept of the genius loci can be applied in various ways. For example, when designing a building, the architect may consider the orientation of the building in relation to the sun and wind, the topography of the site, and the natural features of the surrounding environment. By doing so, they can create a space that is in harmony with its surroundings and enhances the experience of those who occupy it.

The importance of location can also be seen in urban planning, where the layout and design of a city can influence its inhabitants’ behavior and well-being. By incorporating green spaces, public transportation, and walkable neighborhoods, cities can promote healthy living and reduce environmental impact. Additionally, by respecting the history and culture of a place, cities can create a sense of identity and pride among its residents.

In conclusion, the tweet “Information is overrated in respect to the importance of Location” highlights the significance of the physical environment in our lives. By consulting the genius loci, we can create spaces that are in harmony with their surroundings and enhance our experiences. This principle reminds us of the importance of respecting the character and energy of each location, and incorporating it into the design process. Ultimately, by recognizing the importance of location in our lives, we can create spaces that promote well-being, connection, and identity.

The power of the imagination is often overlooked in problem-solving. While logic and reason are essential tools, imagination allows us to think creatively, to see possibilities where others see roadblocks, and to find solutions that may not have been immediately apparent. However, it is not enough to simply trust the imagination to work; we must first recognize and feel the problem before we can begin to use our imaginations to solve it.

When faced with a problem, it is all too easy to jump straight into trying to solve it. We often rush to come up with solutions, thinking that the faster we can fix the problem, the better. However, in doing so, we risk oversimplifying the problem and the solution. We may apply ideological band-aids that address the symptoms but do not truly solve the underlying issues.

To avoid this, we must take the time to truly feel the problem. We must understand its complexity, its nuances, and its underlying causes. We must ask ourselves difficult questions, challenge our assumptions, and be open to new ideas and perspectives. Only then can we begin to tap into the power of the imagination to find real and lasting solutions.

For example, let us consider a social issue such as poverty. If we rush to solve the problem without truly feeling its impact, we may come up with solutions that are well-intentioned but ineffective. We may propose job-training programs, for example, without recognizing the systemic issues that contribute to poverty, such as income inequality and a lack of access to education and healthcare. By feeling the problem, we can begin to see it in all its complexity and work towards more comprehensive and effective solutions.

Once we have felt the problem, we can begin to engage our imaginations. We can start to think outside the box, to explore new possibilities and to consider innovative approaches to solving the problem. We can use our imaginations to envision a better future, one where the problem no longer exists, and work backwards to determine the steps we need to take to make that vision a reality.

In conclusion, the imagination is a powerful tool in problem-solving, but it is not enough to simply trust it to work. We must first feel the problem, understand its complexity, and recognize its underlying causes. Only then can we tap into the full potential of our imaginations and find real and lasting solutions to the problems we face. By taking the time to truly feel the problem, we can avoid the pitfalls of ideological band-aids and work towards a better future for ourselves and for others.

In the philosophical work of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, rhizomes refer to a way of thinking about networks, connections, and structures that is in contrast to the more traditional hierarchical models.

Rhizomes are root systems that spread horizontally and grow without a central point of control, unlike trees with their trunks and branches. In Deleuze’s view, rhizomatic structures represent a non-linear, decentralized, and multiplicitous way of understanding the world.

Deleuze and Guattari argue that rhizomatic structures can be found in a wide range of phenomena, from biological systems such as fungi and coral reefs, to social and cultural systems such as the internet or subcultures.

The rhizome model emphasizes the importance of connections, flows, and diversity over fixed hierarchies and centralized control. In this view, knowledge and ideas spread through a network of interconnected nodes, and there is no single “correct” way of understanding or organizing them.

Overall, the rhizome concept represents a different way of thinking about how things are connected and structured in the world, one that values diversity, flexibility, and interconnectedness.

Deleuze takes a closer look at history and examines how we thought about things in terms of what he sees as static, simplistic notions, and he tries to offer a different perspective from the traditional methods we think of ontology or politics. The definition of’ rhizome’ by Deleuze and Guattari stems from its etymological sense, where’ rhizo’ means “combination of shapes” and the biological word’ rhizome’ describes a plant type that can spread through its tuber-like root system and develop new plants.

Rhizomes have no hierarchical order in their networks as opposed to descending evolutionary classification models. Rather, Deleuzian rhizomatic thinking acts as an

open-ended efficient structure in which random associations and interactions drive, sidetrack, and abstract component relationships.

So, a rhizome is an extremely chaotic subterranean plant stem, not a root. It follows, of course, that roots system networks are formed … and then these random root offshoots can often connect one root network to another in bizarre ways at times.With what the mathematician calls ‘ n-1 dimensions, the rhizome contains horizontal and smooth representations of the natural world.

‘ It is always a multiplicity; it has no genealogy; it can be drawn from different contexts including Freudian psychoanalysis.

Deleuze and Guattari derive some of their ideas on rhizomes from Bateson’s Steps to an Ecology of Mind in which biology and information theory are conjoined. Bateson argues that a person is not limited to her or his visible body. The brain shoots electrons traveling through circuits. The person interacts and reconnects with other people, animals and the environment through the transmission of differences.

There is no form or core in a rhizome. Models are both in construction and collapse. In a rhizome, any point, connecting to any other point, may act as a beginning or end.

The verb “to be” is dictated by an arborescent thought process. Rhizomatic thinking works with the “and” conjunction:

‘ Rhizome ‘ explains the links that exist between distant things, places and people; the mysterious chains of events that link people together: the sensation of ‘ six degrees of separation, ‘ the sense of ‘ being here before ‘.

Every part of a rhizome can be linked to another component, providing an atmosphere with no distinctive end or entry point.

SYSTEMS OF KNOWLEDGE: THE TREE

As we formulate information structures, we always follow a pattern that has dominated much of history in Western thought: The Tree. The tree is a plant having a a single usually elongate main stem generally with few or no branches on its lower part, ordinarily growing to a considerable height, and usually developing branches at some distance from the ground.

Now, a tree it’s rooted in one place. It doesn’t move. There are clear demarcation lines between the different parts. The roots are giving way to the trunk, the trunk is giving way to the branches, the branches are giving way to the leaves. This type of awareness D & G call arborescent (or “tree-like”).

The problem with that is that, a deeply rooted structure is incapable of movement. So how do we account with well-defined parts that make up it and perform various roles, such as the person, the government, the economy, laws these things all work together and play their part within a framework?

Hierarchies are replaced by the rhizome which consists of one element’ and’ another by virtue of addition. The rhizome lives in an infinite space and defies binaries or points which would be used to assign locations in large space. In a world that builds finite games, Deleuze argues that such structures/finite games constrain creativity and position things and people into regulatory orders.

The rhizome is a much more accurate metaphor when it comes to the relation between thought, ideas and movements. Where is the center? There’s not one, to Deleuze, just as there’s no beginning, middle and end to a systems of ideas … just people get tunnel vision on a little section of the wall and then make a case why they’ve found out the whole wall. This is the mistake of the philosophers of the last two thousand years. When somebody creates a hierarchical system of ideas we just have a little section of the elephant masquerading as the whole elephant.

It is not a single growth line, but a lot of different stories at very different rates progressing and regressing. Deleuze’s view of the world can get us out of philosophy of this linear way of thinking. The aim is to create a pluralism of modes of thought, not a simplistic confrontation.

Rhizomatic formations can serve to overcome, overturn and transform structures of rigid, fixed or binary thought and judgement — the rhizome is ‘anti-genealogy’.

Rhizomes are everywhere, not just in human ideas. It is said that the nervous system is a rhizome, an internet or a network. Ant colonies, rat burrows, termite nests, vast habitats, human societies, nervous systems, city architecture, people’s actions within the city, books are rhizomes, connected to other books, videos. Deleuze and Guattari see the promise of rhizomatic thought in Bateson’s research.

But just to demonstrate how difficult it is to nail Deleuze down. In spite of all this rhizome talk, he still has no issue at all with the tree.

Deleuze and Guattari write about a’ becoming-radio’ or’ becoming-television’ that can give rise to good or bad connections; constructive or destructive. The way they are being captured by capitalism and its multifarious redundancies makes them too often become ends in and for themselves, in a sphere of what Deleuze calls a generalized ‘techno-narcissism’.

The distinction between reality and the real is an intriguing philosophical concept that has captivated the minds of many thinkers throughout history. Reality, as we know it, is a symbolic construct that we use to make sense of the world around us. It is composed of our perceptions, beliefs, and experiences, all of which are subject to interpretation and manipulation. However, the real, on the other hand, is something that cannot be fully grasped or comprehended. It is an index of the ineffable, something that is always beyond our reach.

The notion of reality has been a central theme in many philosophical and scientific disciplines. In philosophy, reality refers to the external world that we experience through our senses. It is the world that exists independently of our perceptions and interpretations. However, reality is also a construct of our minds, shaped by our cultural, social, and individual beliefs and biases. For instance, the reality of a person living in a war-torn country may be vastly different from that of someone living in a peaceful, affluent society.

The real, on the other hand, is a concept that has been explored by many philosophers, including Jean Baudrillard and Jacques Lacan. The real is something that cannot be reduced to a symbolic representation or language. It is beyond words and concepts, something that cannot be fully grasped or captured by our minds. It is the index of that which is elusive and enigmatic.

The breakdown of reality has become increasingly apparent in recent times. With the rise of technology and social media, we are bombarded with images and messages that challenge our understanding of what is real. In many ways, reality has become a commodity that can be manipulated and manufactured for various purposes. This has led to a sense of disorientation and confusion about what we can trust and believe in.

The real, on the other hand, is a more elusive and mysterious concept. The real is not simply a reflection of our perceptions or experiences, but rather a deeper truth that exists beyond these constructs. It is an index of the ineffable, something that we can sense but never fully grasp.

One way to think about the distinction between reality and the real is to consider the difference between a map and the territory it represents. A map is a symbolic representation of a particular place, but it can never fully capture the richness and complexity of that place. The real is like the territory itself – it is something that we can experience directly, but it cannot be fully captured by any map or representation.

Another way to understand the concept of the real is through the idea of the sublime. The sublime refers to something that is both awe-inspiring and terrifying, something that exceeds our ability to fully comprehend or control. The real is like the sublime in that it is something that we can experience but cannot fully grasp. It is something that challenges our understanding of the world and our place within it.

The breakdown of reality and the search for the real has been a recurring theme in art, literature, and philosophy throughout history. Many artists and thinkers have sought to push beyond the limitations of reality and explore the deeper truths that lie beneath the surface. This has led to a rich tradition of avant-garde art and experimental literature that seeks to challenge our assumptions about the world and our place within it.

In conclusion, the distinction between reality and the real is an important one that has become increasingly relevant in our rapidly changing world. While reality is a constructed and symbolic representation of the world that we live in, the real is an elusive and mysterious concept that defies easy definition. As we continue to grapple with the breakdown of reality and the search for the real, we must remain open to new experiences and perspectives that challenge our assumptions and expand our understanding of the world.

Repetition in music has a complex relationship with time, which influences how we understand rhythmic repetition. Deleuze’s theories on this were strongly influenced by Messiaen and Boulez, who made a distinction between Chronos and Aion. Chronos is the time of ordered and successive moments, as found in music with normal meters, while Aion is the time of the Universe that pre-exists our numerical clock-like order of time. Aion is the free-floating time beyond the amounts of metric division.

Deleuze and Messiaen both believed that rhythmic music rejects simple numerical repetition and instead puts rhythm in a constant state of variation, producing unequal length chains. Boulez distinguishes between “pulsed time” and “non-pulsed time” to emphasize this difference. The idea of opposition between Chronos and Aion has its origins in Classical Antiquity, where Greek philosophers talked about the period before there was time.

Deleuze’s concept of “variation” is fundamental to his philosophy, which emphasizes that life is constantly in motion and transition. Units and structures in life are the result of this fundamental movement being organized. Music is one of the examples Deleuze uses to illustrate the concept of variation. While traditional western music is based on fixed scales and octaves, Deleuze argues that we must consider these structures to be secondary in relation to the movement of sound itself. The essence of music is the continuous pitch variation, a simple, identity-free movement of difference.

Deleuze and Guattari also identify inherent language variation in A Thousand Plateaus. The fact that language use is not static but dynamic is the very essence of language itself, just like the use of words, which often changes depending on the context.

Climate change is not solvable through either politics or industry. We’re asking people to make changes that go beyond our current level of mental complexity while proposing technical solution to adaptive challenges which can only be met by a mindset shift. Point 2: Melville wrote something like that at some point in prehistory we looked up from the ground and saw what was really going on. The result was panic, terror but also the ecstasy of being an integral part of something that didn’t give a shit

Climate change is a pressing issue that affects the entire planet. It is a complex problem that requires us to rethink the way we live and the way we do business. Unfortunately, both politics and industry are ill-equipped to tackle this issue on their own. In this essay, I will explore the reasons why climate change is not solvable through politics or industry, and why a mindset shift is necessary to meet the adaptive challenges we face. Additionally, I will discuss how Melville’s quote about prehistory applies to our current situation and the implications it has for us.

Point 1: Climate change is not solvable through politics or industry

Climate change is a problem that is caused by human activities. To mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, we need to make significant changes in the way we live, work, and consume. However, these changes cannot be achieved through politics or industry alone. Politics is limited by the interests of different groups and parties, which can hinder the development of effective policies. Industry is driven by profit, and often resists changes that could hurt their bottom line. This makes it difficult for either politics or industry to make the necessary changes that would address climate change.

Moreover, the solutions to climate change are complex and require a level of mental complexity that is beyond our current capacity. We need to be able to think beyond our immediate needs and consider the long-term effects of our actions. This requires a level of mental flexibility and cognitive capacity that many people do not possess. It is not just a matter of passing laws or implementing regulations; we need to change the way we think about our place in the world and our relationship with nature.

Point 2: Melville’s quote and its relevance to climate change

Herman Melville wrote in his novel “Moby Dick” that at some point in prehistory, humans looked up from the ground and saw what was really going on. This realization caused panic and terror, but also the ecstasy of being an integral part of something that didn’t care about them. This quote is relevant to our current situation with climate change because we are also facing a similar realization. We are beginning to see the consequences of our actions on the environment, and it is causing fear and uncertainty. However, we are also realizing that we are part of a larger ecosystem that is indifferent to our needs and desires. This realization can be both terrifying and liberating, as it forces us to confront our own mortality and the fragility of our existence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, climate change is a complex problem that requires a fundamental shift in the way we think and act. Politics and industry are not equipped to handle this issue on their own, and we need to look beyond them for solutions. Melville’s quote about prehistory reminds us that we are part of a larger ecosystem that is indifferent to our needs and desires. It is up to us to adapt and change our ways to survive in this ecosystem. We need to develop a mindset that is flexible, open-minded, and capable of dealing with the adaptive challenges that we face. Only then can we hope to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.