beaten drums
beaten competition
beaten child
out of future
beaten models
beaten builds
beaten students
down the street
beaten brainpower
beaten bees
beaten path
swept aside
“and be a simple
kinda man
be somethin’
you love n understand”
b’tween your beats
simply b’tween d’ drops
learn ‘bout somethin’ you
you don’t understand
b’tween your beats
simply b’tween d’ drops
repeat somethin’ you
you don’t understand
—animasuri’24
je vous poste un merci
je post-merci
je le poste
lemerci lapoésie
la gratitude
toujours posterieure
et pourtant
une sincère gratitude
précède l’acte
de remercier
de relemercier
le remercieur
qui est
une connexion postpoétique
relationnelle tautologique
delapoésie
delepremercie
delapoposiedelepreprecie
—animasuri’24There is lament about a lack of Critical Thinkers. There’s also a lack of recognizing influencing vectors
Firstly, there is a lack of willingness toward recognition of diversity in who & what a Critical Thinker (CT) can be. There is a denying of what their unique, less obvious sets of merits are. There is inconsideration when they might be coming from places less sanctioned in CT-World
While societies & individuals might self-proclaim their openness, & supportive practices, at an interpersonal or at individual-to-institution levels toward CTs, quickly these too have been observed to show otherwise. Note, here, an individual in an assigned hierarchical position is an institution. If one is fixed to think within an unquestionable framework, one is not necessarily thinking critically, nor allowing critical thought
These unseen CTs could be outside the realm of the attributes of merit as defined by the other. E.g., humor, play, surrealism, to name but a few mechanisms, are not often accepted in realms of official, formal, “serious,” or “strong” CTs. The latter set might seem more macho, while the former, on its surface, might seem more swirly. Yet, both can be equally (un)critical or be (lacking) serious(ness). Either can radiate a narrative of hero-sized strength, while actually packaging insecurities & superficial yes-person frivolities. A yes-woman or yes-man can be highly weaponized as well. These are not strong, nor are they CTs. They can be devastating & (proverbially) deadly. Though acts of violence or power-exertion aren’t equatable to CT
Then there is an acceptance of certain types of a CT’s thinking while (silently) denying other types. Some will assign CT’s thinking only within quantitative realms & attributes of Computational Thinking or formal logic. This while excluding socio-cultural CTs (which might be more qualitative & interpretive). This is also an issue in reverse
Herein too lies an insidiousness of the veiled “expert” (aka they from an in-group) & the unwillingness to assign some of its attributes to others (aka they from an out-group)
If one were to allow oneself to identify these & other veiled features, & that beyond the veneer of the formalities, of Public Relations, the egos, the rhetoric of one-liners, beyond the 280-character long evaporating statements, one might unwittingly become increasingly critical
Hence, CTs might seem lacking since they’re not recognized, acknowledged or allowed to enter into dialog. This brings us to silenced features in CTs: dialog & relation. These are critical. While they might be asynchronous across spacetime, these are crucial to the diversity of CTs. The CT is not a state nor a constant. CTs are the relationships, the dialogs, the debates, the in-betweens & liminalities
CTs might be lacking while this can be softened if CTs were as such recognized operating outside my sanctioned cognitive, formal or institutional models
🦗
Engineering —in a naive, idealized sense— is different from science in that it creates (in)tangible artifacts, as imposed & new realities, while answering a need
It does so by claiming a solution to a (perceived) problem that was expressed by some (hopefully socially-supportive) stakeholders. Ideally (& naively), the stakeholders equal all (life), if not a large section, of humanity
Who’s need does ChatGPT answer when it aids to create malware?
Yes, historically the stakeholders of engineering projects were less concerned with social welfare or well-being. At times (too often), an engineered deliverable created (more) problems, besides offering the intended, actual or claimed solution.
What does ChatGPT solve?
Does it create a “solution” for a problem that is not an urgency, not important and not requested? Does its “solution” outweigh its (risky / dangerous) issues sufficiently for it to be let loose into the wild?
Idealized scientific methodology –that is, through a post-positivist lens– claims that scientific experiments can be falsified (by third parties). Is this to any extent enabled in the realm of Machine Learning and LLMs; without some of its creators seen blaming shortcomings on those who engage in falsification (i.e., trying to proverbially “break” the system)? Should such testing not have been engaged into (in dialog with critical third parties), prior to releasing the artifact into the world?
Idealized (positivist) scientific methodology claims to unveil Reality (Yes, that capitalized R-reality that has been and continues to be vehemently debated and that continues to evade capture). The debates aside, do ChatGPT, or LLMs in general, create more gateways to falsity or tools towards falsehood, rather than toward this idealized scientific aim? Is this science, engineering or rather a renaissance of alchemy?
Falsity is not to be confused with (post-positivist) falsification nor with offering interpretations, the latter which Diffusion Models (i.e., text2pic) might be argued to be offering (note: this too is and must remain debatable and debated). However, visualization AI technology did open up yet other serious concerns, such as in the realm of attribution, (data) alienation and property. Does ChatGPT offer applicable synthesis, enriching interpretation, or rather, negative fabrication?
Scientific experiment is preferably conducted in controlled environments (e.g., a lab) before letting its engineered deliverables out into the world. Realtors managing ChatGPT or recent LLMs do not seem to function within the walls of this constructed and contained realm. How come?
Business, state incentives, rat races, and financial investments motivate and do influence science and surely engineering. Though is the “democratization” of output from the field of AI then with “demos” in mind, or rather yet again with ulterior demons in mind?
Is it then too farfetched to wonder whether the (ideological) attitudes surrounding, and the (market-driven) release of, such constructs is as if a ware with hints, undertones, or overtones, of maliciousness? If not too outlandish an analogy, it might be a good idea to not look, in isolation, at the example of a technology alone.
Some of us (I included) request transparency while various attributes & processes are narrated in our lives in a manner to allow comfort in a lack of transparency
As humans some of us are open, & to some extent enabled, to allow both simultaneously. Some can accept adaptation & change, depending on various influencing vectors
Collectively we built entire institutions around lack of transparency. We created these because they allow us a substitute for difficult to understand or difficult to accept results of the process of transparency. Or to control that what “must” be understood by others
Over the hundreds of thousands of years, our species created work-arounds & “pervertedly” took note of (understandably) avoided transparency via narration. Here “pervertedly” means “having altered the direction away from its initial course, meaning or state;” one can think of change, fluidity, dynamics, innovation, transformation or myth
This previous (ie the human, shared & individual histories), & the suggested “perversions,” quickly (in astronomical scales) started to be convoluted with control, & this via any narration which has been collectively embraced. Some of our transparency-hiding narratives are not falsifiable. This creates tensions & harmonies. Request or imposition for corroboration is, at times, systemically opposed, unless the imposer is relentless
We delegate transparency into a blackbox by a different name, while shining bright & sparkling lights upon it, & while collectively dancing around the bonfire lit in its name
Santa is real; the proverbial one & the one living on the North Pole. Arthur C. Clark said it eloquently. I will remain opaque as to which of his 3 laws I am alluding. & yet, Arthur, Santa & I have one thing in common: the joy for aesthetics, poetics & compassion toward the other; at least to bring them moments of uplifting escapism or support
The human choreography is one where we consider the balancing act of when to stimulate transparency & when to obfuscate. If all needs to be simple, clear & straight, we are equally doomed as when we tell blissful stories irrespective of the potentially disastrous or undesirable outcomes to oneself & the relations of oneself with any other; human & non-human
#Transparency & #understandability are interlinked. With these, so are #auditability & #explainability. Eg: by allowing us physical, emotional, intellectual, imaginative, relational & spiritual access to augmenting our senses with a highly powerful microscope or telescope of any engineered types; be these scientific &/or poetic. These nuanced balancing processes can be found in relations with technologies, spouse, students, citizens, communities, markets, policies & larger ecologies. Alternatively these relations can be shattered, brushed under the carpet, crudely abused or unwarranted guarded for the sake of guarding & no longer for the sake of #compassion for life as evolving in complex, paradoxical, diverse relations
Far more eloquently described, more then 15 years ago, by Lawrence Lessig, I too sense an open or free culture, and design there within, might be constrained or conditioned by technology , policy, community and market vectors.
I perceived Lessig’s work then to have been focused on who controls your cultural artifacts. These artifacts, I sense, could arguably be understood as types of (in)tangible data sets given meaningful or semiotic form as co-creative learning artifacts (by you and/or others).
I imagine, for instance, “Mickey Mouse” as a data set (perhaps extended, as a cognitive net, well beyond the character?). Mickey, or any other artifact of your choosing, aids one to learn about one’s cultural narratives and, as extended cognition, in positive feedback loops, about one self in communicative co-creation with the other (who is engaged in similar interactions with this and other datasets). However, engaging with a Mickey meant / means risking persecution under IPR (I wrote on this through an artistic lens here ).
Today, such data sets for one’s artificial learning (ie learning through a human made artifact) are (also) we ourselves. We are data. Provocatively: we are (made) artificial by the artificial. Tomorrow’s new psychoanalyst-teacher could very well be your friendly neighborhood autonomous data visualizer; or so I imagine.
Mapping Lessig, with the article below, and with many of the sources one could find (e.g.: Jason Silva, Kevin Kelly, Mark Sprevak, Stuart Russell, Kurzweil, Yuval Noah Harari, Kaśka Porayska-Pomsta ) I am enabled to ponder:
Who do the visualizations serve? Who’s privacy and preferences do they interfere with? Who’s data is alienated beyond the context within which its use was intended? Who owns (or has the IPR) on the data learned from the data I create during my co-creative cultural learning (e.g: online social networking, self-exhibition as well as more formal online learning contexts); allowing third parties to learn more about me then I am given access to learn about myself?
Moreover, differently from they who own Mickey, who of us can sue the users of our data, or the artifacts appropriated therefrom, as if it were (and actually is) our own IPR?
Given the spirit of artificial intelligence in education (AIED), I felt that the following article, published these past days on such data use that is algorithmically processed in questionable ethical or open manners, could resonate with others as well. (ethics , aiethics )
Epilogue — A quote:
“The FTC has required companies to disgorge ill-gotten monetary gains obtained through deceptive practices, forcing them to delete algorithmic systems built with ill-gotten data could become a more routine approach, one that modernizes FTC enforcement to directly affect how companies do business.”
References
Lessig’s last speech on free culture: here
Lessig’s Free Culture book: here
The New Yorker and NSO in some glorious spy-novel context here
…and further, as a cherry on this cake, one might quickly conjure up Cambridge Analytica , or singularly, Facebook with its clandestine 50000+ or so datapoints per milked data-cow (aka what I also lovingly refer to as humans as datacyborgs) which the company’s systems are said to distill through data collection . Yes, arguably the singularity is already here.
Then, more recently, one can enjoy the application by a facial recognition service, Clearview AI, that uses its data mining to identify (or read: “spy on”) dead individuals; a service which might seem very commendable (even for individuals with no personal social media accounts, one simply has to appear in someone else’s visual material); and yet the tech has been applied for more.
The contextualization might aid one to have the narrative amount to:
“Alienation” and that, if one were to wish, could be extended with the idea of the “uncanny” hinted at with my datacyborg poetics. “Alienation” here is somewhat as meant as it is in the social sciences: the act of lifting the intended use of one’s data, outside of that intended use, by a third party. The questionable act of “alienation” is very much ignored or quietly accepted (since some confuse “public posting” with a “free for all”).
What personally disturbs me is that the above manner of writing makes me feel like a neurotic conspiratorial excuse of a person… one might then self-censor a bit more, just to not upset the balance with any demonizing push-back (after all, what is one’s sound, educated and rational “demos” anyway?). This one might do while others, in the shadows of our silently-extracted data, throw any censorship, in support of the hidden self (of the other), out of the proverbial window.
This contextualised further; related to memory, one might also wish to consider the right to be forgotten besides the right to privacy. These above-mentioned actors among a dozen others, rip this autonomous decision-making out of our hands. If then one were to consider ethics mapped with the lack of autonomy one could be shiveringly delighted not to have to buy a ticket to a horror-spy movie since we can all enjoy such narratives for “free” and in “real” life.
Thank you Dr. WSA for the trigger
Epilogue:
“Traditionally, technology development has typically revolved around the functionality, usability, efficiency and reliability of technologies. However, AI technology needs a broader discussion on its societal acceptability. It impacts on moral (and political) considerations. It shapes individuals, societies and their environments in a way that has ethical implications.”
https://ethics-of-ai.mooc.fi/chapter-1/4-a-framework-for-ai-ethics
…is ethics perhaps becoming / still as soothing bread for the demos in the games by the gazing all-seeing not-too-proverbial eye?
In extension to my above post (for those who enjoy interpretative poetics):
One might consider that the confusion of a “public posting” being equated with “free for all” (and hence falsely being perceived as forfeiting autonomy, integrity, and the likes), is somewhat analogous with abuses of any “public” commons.
Expanding this critically, and to some perhaps provokingly further, one might also see this confusion with thinking that someone else’s body is touch- or grope-for-all simply because it is “available”.
Now let’s be truly “meta” about it all: One might consider that the human body is digital now. (Ie my datacyborg as the uber-avatar. Moving this then into the extreme: if I were a datacyborg then someone else’s extraction beyond my public flaneuring here, in my chosen setting, could poetically be labeled as “datarape”)
As one might question the ethics of alienatingly ripping the biological cells from Henrietta Lacks beyond the extraction of her cancer into labs around the world, one might wonder about the ethics of data being ripped and alienated into labs for market experimentation and the infinite panopticon of data-prying someone’s (unwanted) data immortality
October 2021
Many experts have cialis buy online believed that atrophy, which is a partial or total impairment of this function. The really difficult part viagra order online is actually acquiring the permission list into the email campaign software server, the next task is to maintain it for future use. I have ordered cheap anti-impotence viagra canada free 60 mg for sale should be run under doctor s guidance would be helpful in case. Use of moringa plant order viagra uk leaves and fruit is highly recommended in women who suffer from menstrual cramps.Case study: comparing two paintings: Kehinde Wiley’s 2014 oil painting ”The Sisters Zenaide and Charlotte Bonaparte,” a version of Jacques-Louis David’s portrait
Arguably, (re)framing a human expression, among a pool of expressions, as a mere swinging from minimalism to maximalism as in, for instance, Kehinde Wiley’s works, might minimize a maximization which the artist might have wished to offer with his figures set into historic European “masterpieces”, in larger than life (colonialist) settings.
The painter “investigates the perception of blackness and creates a contemporary hybrid … in which tradition is invested with a new street credibility” (Holzwarth, 2008)
The appropriated traditional master pieces and the revered historical characters within them offer the viewer “…the illusion or veneer of the rational, of order—these strong men [and women], these powerful purveyors of truth.” (Vinson, 2018)
This is while the painter himself might have seen in these portraits a cornucopia of “…something very familiar about that pomp, about the vulgarity of it all, that sense of [the portrayed as] wanting to be seen for all eternity.” (Cunningham in The New Yorker: October 22, 2018)
Quoted in this The New Yorker article, the artist continues by stating that the works are also part of a process to “…come to terms with the spectre of blackness as something that as society we’ve been dealing with for a long time. Color is coded, and the way that blackness figures in our history is something that’s fascinating to me.”
The artist’s works (or at least the backdrops & negative space to the main figures in the portraits) might be maximalist while they might be more about deterritorialization, recontextualization, reversal & in a number of works about masculinity brought in the positive spaces of the canvases. Both spaces are a multidimensional one-ness.
Larger contextualization with finer grain and multiple vectors is not mere “reframing” & could allow one to look beyond the linear or the cyclic of a pendulum: “a pendulum swinging between minimalism and ‘maximalism’ or ‘art and taste having lost their middle…” (quote from a respected personal source)
Probably this essay here too is a superficially referencing & is still faulty (in its shortcomings to verbalize various nuances & related systemic mechanisms) yet, within the context here it might hint at a path less taken that is not opposing but rather augmenting social commentary which might seem to be formed as quickfix minimalist one-liners.
Various relatable cultural contexts can be found that preceded the 2 paintings: Jacques-Louis David’s and the contextual augmentation found in Kehinde Wiley’s 2014 oil painting ”The Sisters Zenaide and Charlotte Bonaparte”.
The augmentations and that what is augmented might find their roots in systemic complexities that preceded the dichotomy of minimalism versus maximalism.
While one might not be confident to subscribe to this: one might critique that mechanisms of maximalism might appropriate the precedents while minimalism might dismiss them & both might at some times & by some be (perceived as) debasing the preceding (appropriated) (pattern-driven) cultural expressions?
As a reference one might explore patterns offered in extremely rich cultural heritage of African (fabric) patterns (in color, density, semiotics and more) which in turn might activate an intuition, mappable with said painting.
Indeed: “…Kehinde Wiley’s 2014 oil painting ”The Sisters Zenaide and Charlotte Bonaparte,” a version of Jacques-Louis David’s portrait in which Napoleon’s nieces are replaced by two young black women, is an explicit push against the narrowly conceived…” (source: a respected personal source)
While it is not implied to subscribe to the following scenario: one might wonder whether this style of European paintings is a vastly repeated pattern (across time, across artists, across locales, etc yet within 1 socio-political ideological set of frameworks of authority; hierarchy; power-position; a status quo; a dichotomizing conflation of power with aesthetics, perhaps into that what is narrated as “nobel” vs that what is not, etc.).
Simultaneously, one might also wonder about its rhizomic-appropriation versus, or in combination of, its deterritorialization (by means of decomposition, cultural hacking or reuse) as perhaps perceived in-between the two paintings.
Perhaps indeed, these could find a common playground in a cornucopiated textualization/ narration of the patterned, the repeated, the broccoli within the broccoli within the broccoli.
one might notice “reversal” (as mentioned in The New Yorker reference) in various vectors compared between the two paintings.
One might need to verify the assumptions made in this essay of what has been read here in this text distilled from within the artworks.
While it might be incompetent & incomplete, the text here aims to support the idea of multidirectional & multidimensional framing of a work, rather than going for the tempting singular reframing within a dualistic setting or factual a dichotomy; which indeed might also be there, yet, probably not singularly:
One “reversal” one might notice is in the negative-spaces (one might wonder whether “minimalist” vs “maximalist” is heaviest weighed & whether it is questionably fair use of the terms, given other vectors at play).
A second might be found as the geometric positions of the individuals; the direction of the paper held; who is holding the paper; the direction of the gaze…
All attribute sets (e.g. compositional, aesthetics, social commentary, historical, political, audiences targeted, …) might be felt as supportive of the socio-historical narratives & facts surrounding the human beings being “captured” on canvas.
Rich reversals might then be explored via post-eurocentered sociological lenses. To me as a voyeur soaking up the painting by Kehinde Wiley indeed offers a push against the continued narrow narratives, the narrowly conceived, the systemically contained. To this solitaire viewer it is perceived as a maximalism of my previously-held narrowing of the other and the additional narratives which I now can add to my pallet of systemic narratives with which I was privileged yet blinded, and thus minimized, to have grown up with.
——
References
via Wikipedia: Hans Werner Holzwarth, ed. (2008). Art Now, Vol. 3: A cutting-edge selection of today’s most exciting artists. Taschen. p. 512.
via Wikipedia: Cunningham, Vinson (October 22, 2018). “Kehinde Wiley on Painting Masculinity and Blackness, from President Obama to the People of Ferguson”. The New Yorker
“…, we live in the age of psychological capital, where who you are is what should matter most. Knowledge and expertise are still important, but your ability to think, create, be curious, and empathize with others, is more important especially in leadership roles because machines will struggle to automate these abilities (though there is no doubt their designers will try).” (Fast Company, 20 July 2021)
As a (human) being with “psychology” and some interest in “capital” ;-p , such writing is interesting to me.
It activates more questions and (immature) reflection, some of which I feel many other human beings too, with their psychology and capital, are asking in one or other (more eloquent) form. I have no clear answers yet. Perhaps you have some ideas and wish to add some value.
Read some of the questions that rolled into my consciousness, as merely passing phenomena:
Would now the “psychological” become even further commodified by considering “psychological capital” as a servicing in the happiness industry, mindfulness centers, and self-improvements in search for “true self”, etc.?
Shall this redirection be in analogy with how knowledge has historically been a coveted property of or by the happy few (e.g. historically in the hands of religious institutions and its initiated; later in the form of publishing houses and “Orphan Works” ; even later in forms of data hoarding and academic gatekeeping mechanisms such as payment walls)? (With the exception of the digital / digitized knowledge, offered under such constructs as the Creative Commons licenses)
Would it be accessible by more than only those with time, funds and perceived credibility?
Would such scenarios then best service a similar set of happy few or maximize entire teams, communities, societies and species within and beyond their competitiveness of their perceived markets or jungles?
Might it just be that some applicable steps to action could be found in sources that are, or that reference sources that are, several thousands of years old?
If so, could such sources perhaps be Daoist & Buddhist (& to some extent perhaps debatably Confucian) in nature & methodological praxis?
Over time and space, an increasing number of individuals and communities seem to have explored a mapping of “psychological capital” (under different nomenclatures) with Daoist (rhizomic) praxis, Buddhist methodology (without having to move into “religious” metaphysical interpretations), perhaps Confucian governance, a Shamanistic ritual of moving within a larger context of natural worlds, or an Abrahamic-Good Samaritan considerateness.
Each of these seem to be allowing a *friendliness* with the lesser-known (non-)human “other”.
Each of these are in some attributes and processes considering compassion, the impermanences (i.e. transformation, changes, fluidities, ambiguities or innovations), questioning the singular, polarized “self”.
These methodologies seem to have been offering a willingness to embrace some complexities via profundity or contextualization, as opposed to their hyped versions or the commercialized search for “true self” or “happiness” as if unchanging collectibles into one’s psychological wallet.
Would these be applicable to those who might be struggling with an obsession for over-simplicity, yearning for quick-fixing hypes, while understandably being driven by biases; as every one of us is?
Could such hesitance towards a practical aggregation of methodologies perhaps be influenced by Eurocentrism, dualistic hyper-individualism, narrow forms of professionalism or other understandable reductionist lenses, such as hints of xenophobia or a lack of a kind of co-reflective due-diligence?
Could a search for methodological application (with or without a focus on hierarchical and rhizomic ritual) and with a duty-of-care, when looking into existing sources, prevent one from hubris and the reinvention of the proverbial wheel; over and over again?
Is it too superficial that these would be methodologically considered, and not necessarily be applied through nationalist, philosophical nor religious filters & ontologies?
Could HR, consultants, Professional Development trainers, academics focusing on ethics, or (professional) community leaders transcode these well-established methodologies with an intent toward a practical ethical & compassionate action plan; though while maintaining a holistic consideration?
Would such approach be sufficiently accepted (ie scaleable) as practical & not dismissed as idealistic or offensive to one’s cultural & economic frameworks?
Would integrity in such processes still be utopian while actually measurably scientific: without cutting corners, without ill-willed ulterior motives or with reduced hyper-capitalist motives; while making a living in a market setting can still be practiced?
If so, could this then be introduced at a youngest learning age & be continued throughout one’s life-long learning, while collectively being supported to apply these in co-workable practice?
Who is picking up this gauntlet as we speak?
Sources:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJgMK21-tk
header image: “”re-become” . digital sketch . animasuri’21
If I had not constructed “we” then “we” would not exist; more so the reverse, one might so insist
if there were no mi followed by silence in-between it & the do, then sol-itude of the reverberating drone would drown away any harmony
if the “amoeba” did not transgress protoplasticllly, into evolutions, then no organization of organs as enablements through a body, would come to do what I do: an orchestration of neurons, beyond the brain & in baroque-like counterpoint with microbiomes, across a cooperative body I call I
if I were but I then I would not need semiotics, since expressing meaning, as aesthetic or ethic, in-between I & my reflection, would be as Narcissus out of social context: meaninglessly pining away
If I were merely I, I would need not construct money to trade, be mesmerized by titles to bear, not impose soldiers to hold, not pain nor laughter to share. Things would be bare of value; mere things out there
It is the most well-known forms of male sexual online viagra order dysfunction. The unfortunate gentleman, generic levitra pill who was involved in the study, just suffered an extreme reaction to the pathogenic bacteria. Blurred vision, headaches, get viagra prescription back pain, headaches and runny noses are common among users of these prescriptions. Studies have found that poor cheap viagra australia eating habits that cause disability.If I were but I in an I-land adrift through expanding space, then I would be an aberration as much as what I might wonder about intelligent life among the stars
It is in-between the processes of the physical irrefutability that I is not 1 & that we co-construct meaning, to do for me, so as to be & then let go of the solitudes of I
—-animasuri’21
