autonomy (im)possible in the shadow of radical-openness?

A few months ago I applied to attend the radical-openess 2014 event.

The application was rejected and that gave rise to what seems like an interesting opportunity to Do the stuff suggested on the application in a different way – a manner which might be perceived as being in the shadow of the event taking place until 31/05/14..

A shorty of W+HTF?
The initial idea (see details far bellow) imagined doing a workshop-kind-of-thing where:
* people will spread/walk/etc around town.
* gather “shadow-spots”, ie some sort of data/recordings of stuff that is in shadows, un/less-seen/notice-able.
* upload & share the shadow-spots via the narcissus search engine. A search engine that is biased towards elements a community might place in its shadows..

Current idea:
Instead of having to Be in one single geo environment, perhaps people could do Shadow Spotting where they are at and when the inspiration comes?

Because I happened to fancy doing this activity + am heavily involved already with the Narcissus Search engine, am suggesting that if during the 30/31.05.14:
* people want to write, jot, draw, take pics, make code, record sounds, take times, links, plant, spit, yell, laugh, kiss, dress-up, de-code, spin-wheels, surf, etc. Etc. ETc ++ linking to shadow spots spotting. Elements you might notice that are in shadow of others, or that are just less notice-able, or perhaps just happened in the shadow of time, of movement, etc..
The “shadow” is a personal definition, and in itself, these definitions might become shadows of one another on the search engine..
(Shadow-Spotting can be done at any time of the day/night while going around doing whatever a person might do in town..)

* I’d be happy to chat about these activities via skype/phone/email and perhaps assist in uploading to the narcissus site, make your own narcissus search site, link-up stuff that searches from shadow spotting, etc..

Since am attempting to share rather than communicate – any clarification questions are Uber-Welcome..

Cheers and much pun-free fun!

btw: i asked if they are fine with me doing this in their shadow. was told its cool! 🙂

The idea as was shared with the radical-openness people:

description of your intention:
The 1st line of the 2014 call is, for me, very evocative:
“Uncovering new truths and making them public as a disruption and
criticism of the dominant system has consequences.”

Artistically, uncovering truths and new ways its possible to do
stuff, worked very well with the dominant artworld system. In a
sense, it can be argued that like urban gentrification, radical
art practices tend to offer new territories for the art market to
capitalise on.. To own.

Hence, the proposal is, in a sense, an attempt to question the
very process of Uncovering. How do we uncover hidden, less seen –
or un seen – missed and possibly unpopular stuff, yet retain the
radicality.. (or not selling out..)

Sometime ago, Phil Jones and I made a search engine that at its
core has an algorithm made specifically for uncovering
shadow/dark data. The algorithm goes
through a cycle of “popularity” or “being seen and used” for each
bit result, and hides popular result for increasingly longer
periods – hence bringing forward the data that Was in the shadow
of the more popular one.
However, and crucially, once the formerly shadow data becomes
used, seen, and by its nature gains some popularity, it too gets
hidden, and formerly popular stuff, and even less popular and
more shadowy information, gets the chance to be more visible..
Its an ongoing cycle.

For radical openness, I would like to present and make use of the
algorithm via a workshop process that explores the shadowy and
unseen in an urban environment. Therefore, workshop participants
will get involved in uncovering dark/unseen/shadowy urban
spots/places. Then sharing the uncovered places with workshop
participants, and via the narcissus algorithm, experience how the
dark urban places get to see various shades of
Hence exploring the process of uncovering as well as questioning
how its done and how it might operate.

To do the ideas above:
* I will introduce the narcissus algorithm, and the concept of
dark/shadowy/unseen elements/places/spots in urban environments.

(This will include examples as: homeless, bus stops, traffic
signs, spaces behind phone exchange boxes and walls, etc..)

* At the end of the introduction, we will all go out in search of
shadow spots.Each workshop member will find their own or, if they
fancied, people could also be grouped. These spots will be
recorded as participants might wish. (eg take a photo, write a
description, video clip, log the longitude/latitude location,
record sounds, etc.

* Following the gathering of data/information about shadowy dark
urban places, we will share the findings through feeding them to
the narcissus search engine. ie First we will put the data into
the narcissus database, and then people will present their
findings and talk about why the thought their findings were

* After the presentations, we will wrap things by looking at the
narcissus search results and how they affect visibility – or
otherwise – of the data people just put..

what participants should bring:
Participants will probably need some sort of data recording
tool.. This could be:
* a pen and paper. (which I will probably be able to provide..)
* a camera.
* a mobile device.
* a sound recorder.
* anything else that might be relevant..

An open mind and possibly an affinity or a desire to question the
subject of uncovering process..

Level of Workshop:
project websites:
where you can get the information about the search engine and
links to show how it operates.
Also: is an explanation of
an earlier iteration, the workshop for radical openness is based
Image ( Snapshot of the work), Files :
Software &/or Hardware: I will probably need a projector and an
internet connection.. (I will bring some usb sticks and a sizable
external hard drive for people to put the data, and from which to
upload into the narcissus search website.. Also, I can provide a
camera for people who might have decided to jot or draw something
on paper..)

autonomy (im)possible in the shadow of radical-openness – emails

There was a bit of an email exchange sequence to do with the refusal by radical openness to support the shadow-spot idea.

Here’s the text: (minus some personal details..)

> Dear Aharon,

Dear Ushi,

Many thanks for your considered reply. Thoughtful and provoking! Cheers! 🙂

Apologies for late reply. Am currently in Palestine doing various
activities, some of which are documented in the links bellow.

Am a bit behind on the documentation uploads.. Skateboarding takes its own
time.. 😉

Hopefully I could clarify a few elements without shading others too much..

Did some elaboirate writing, however the just of it is in the
*** SUMMING UP *** section towards the end of this email..

> Thank you for your submission.
> We see your project as an interesting research into search algorithms.

Yes, there is a distinction here made between search and research that is
opening up.
(eg search tends to be from known to unknown, where as research seems to
be an activity of For, moving tpowards a predefined goal, for example.)

> Could we understand your project as well as a critic on existing search
engines where we believe in and trust those results?

Narcissus algorithm is taken by people in terms of contemporary context,
yes. And as such, some nick-name it “anti-google”.

However, the algorithm’s development context – ie shadow art search
competition – and the non-contextual way it operates, seems to make it a
contemporary critique, and an offer of a possible radical departure at the
same time.

The radical departure is in the sense that it imagines the function of
query in terms of searching rather than researching or indeed – finding.
Hence narcissus algorithm contemplates searching by providing results that
are both relevant and, at the same time, likely to be overlooked (ie dark
I think this element is part of what you pointed out – yes, people might
indeed question the process of searching while taking pictures, and
uploading to the server. eg – a person might ask whether or not a certain
spot Should be on the database – it is open to each participant’s

However, I think a crucial element, and a reason for using the narcissus
search algorithm in the context of questioning the possibility – or lack
of – autonomy, is that narcissus-algorithm keeps asking the question of
visibility and what happens with it. How by uncovering a truth, that very
act covers other truths… We get a truth that is the aesthetics of the
covering and uncovering, visible and invisible..

Therefore, if a certain Hidden urban spot becomes popular – ie
seen/visible – more than others, the algorithm will hide it from any
search results in ever increasing periods.

The more something has a history/past of visibility, the longer it will be

I hope the above is a slightly more communicative explanation of the
background and context for the workshop idea.

> If you would agree on this then it would be nice if you could
> mediate this a bit better?

The question seems to focus on the algorithm itself.. I thought it might
be fun and experiental for people to do the workshop. However, if you
rather a straight forward presentation of the narcissus search engine, and
contextualising it with the AMRO’S “Autonomy (im)possible?” event as the
question of how the (im)possibility of uncovering covers others when
becomes visible/uncovered – then will be very happy to demonstrate the
algorithm, and present it with the ideas around this….

> Or did we understand your project wrong?
> Workshop
> We are also not that convinced that feeding your search engine with
found information like hidden places in Linz makes sense.
> Because where else would this have an impact as on your own webside? And
why should we document hidden places in town which are maybe usefull as
unknown. Searching the Unkown/hidden ok but – who knows about your search
engine? Informations stays as hidden then fine… hm Of course you are
welcome @ AMRO but we are very limted with budget meanwhile.
> As you proposed to try to apply somewhere else this seems to be an other
open question to us.
> Do you have any 3rd party support meanwhile?

Interesting and thought provoking questions: (Cheers! 🙂 )

* Initially, the thinking that people/participants could take the data
with them as a micro site, and do with it as they please, because the
search engine is distributed..
However, if you are interested in terms of impact, perhaps this could open
an ongoing website, eg where people could upload such
images of hidden places continuously..

* As mentioned before, because the algorithm questions searching and how
visibility makes elements invisible by default – if there are any popular
images – they will be the least visible on the engine..

* The search algorithm, and the code are open.. We are slowly getting
others involved in the project. As the winner of the dark/hidden art
search algorithm, narcissus is known with people mainly involved with

*** SUMMING UP ***

* Am happy to present narcissus as a 40/45 mins presentation, if you guys
think its most appropriate. (ie, context of algorithm, the focus on
searching and dark information, and how it differs from search engines
like google that want to push popularity and entertainment. (ie pleasing
rather than questioning..) This

* Am also happy to do the workshop.. Hopefully the replies to the points
mentioned, provide a clearer idea..

(functional questions/notes)
* Will follow this email with a call/irc-ping.. Hope its OK..
(Since sometimes real time chat can help to make stuff clearer..)

* For travel funds/assistance, I will be asked for an official looking
invite letter from AMRO.

* Staying in Linz..
Would you happen to have some floorspace in the place?
Or perhaps links with local squat/s?

Cheers and all the very bests!


> Best Ushi

fallacies yet true digi-links?

questions that never answer but reply?

Sometimes it seems for me that people find it easy, or attractive, to seek and find answers.
Why X is Y? Because this and that answer – and the simplest, the better. Perhaps this in itself is an easy answer?

I wonder..

For example, bitcoin linked libertarians. They seem to be consumed by ideas that numerical exchanges Can be made “fair”, that “fairness” can be made simply by adhering to some “objective” algorithm’s rules. That somehow social democratic processes such as education, health, food and other care provisions that provide safety which allows less fearless discursive interactions, intervene in people’s “liberties” to be masters of their independent lives. That somehow companies, and market rules, despite its jungle-law, power-based interactive process, somehow will produce greater fairness. (Notice the emphasis on fair rather than equality..) And that these solutions, despite their obvious ideological trappings, are worth not just to discuss but pursue.

It seems like an interesting example of how solutions, when they are weak, require ideology, the if people were a little bit this and a little bit less of that. If people let “real” market forces to operate, and had less state or corporate controls – then life would deliver this fantastic ideology..
In my mind, there is no need here for then.. Just the if question may fold on itself – because the application of the ideas linked to individual liberty in a non-authoritarian environment, according to libertarianism, require an authoritarian sequence that could make people stop being obstructive to libertarian aims..

In other terms, and possibly less communicative yet more interesting ones. It seems that questions are the elements that spur, drive. However, this is not questionism.
Say we get an answer – 1 + 1? answer is 2. Yes?
How do I know 2 might be possibly a viable answer?
It seems that the viability, the ability to rely on the 2 is linked to being able to question it, to connect it (the 2) and to repeat the 1+1 question any time/place regardless and fearlessly.

If I said the 1 apple + another single apple gave 4.5 apples all together – without power and a LOT of effort that will have to be repeated over and over – it will be a hard conclusion to “sell”.
After selling the 1+1=4.5 I’d be very unhappy if people kept questioning..

Perhaps I should question that somehow..?

meaning-free discrimination?

I was checking stuff re frequencies. Meanings free frequencies. Stimuli sensed that is just, errr, sensed without any good/bad/right/wrong attached. X vibration and it matters not whether I like it or not..
THough It might be
That I do like the sensation of not having to place meanings, just sensing..?

It followed/linked with questioning discrimination that might be meanings free. Neither positive, nor negative, just the discrimination we do of frequencies per need, culture, physical state, etc. – and do not use for power.. ie, X culture might discriminate for money as a means of exchange value because it serves power. However, another culture might do the same while being clueless about the sequence of power. They might also have easier time to adjust away from money discrimination because it was done meaninglessly..

Hence the idea of discrimination for, against, and between. Where between is just a sort of categorisation that can easily be reconfigured. There are elements with colour and others with sound. Suddenly I meet into elements where their wetness is more pronounced – hence perhaps I’d want to change the earlier discrimination?

ban, boycotting and sport of power

I was reading a bit about ideas to ban Russia from olympics because of the state’s abuse of LGBT people. This reminded me the ban on South Africa.. And then I wondered why not bad Brazil’s football team in the world cup – per Brazil’s treatment of population.. However, it also occurred that perhaps USA should be banned because of their world-wide atrocities.. And the Turks never acknowledged the Armenian genocide.. And China is using slaves.. And Iran might as well be banned if Russia.. And the israeli state in Palestine might have a long list of bannable deeds too.. Morocco’s abuse of berbers and of Western Sahara should not be overlooked.. And there is more..

The thing is, that perhaps people might come and claim that sport is not politics – why involve political views in sporting events? The athletes are not to be punished, surely!
* Sport and sporting events are supported by power to legitimise it self. For example, by hosting the ’36 olympics, the Nazi regime could have claimed – and so it did – that its version of the german state is legit because all these people from all over the world came to enjoy what was in effect the regime’s hospitality. Indeed, the nazies fancied the games might prove their racial prejudices – it didn’t happen – but if it did, they would have used it for legitimising they racism too..
This is just one example.. However there are so many, a quick research might provide many others.. Hence am taking this link between sport and politics as a given.

However, am not saying that athletes should suffer.. Hence, please carry on.. 😉

* Assuming sports and politics are linked, perhaps the challenge might be to sort of un-link. Undo the legitimisation power that sports events and activities might offer to the elites for continuing their regimes. However, how this might be done? Is it fair to say that because I am living in a powerful state that could influence other states easily, banning another state because of activities un palatable in my society should prevail? Wouldn’t that in itself be abusive and aggressive?

* How about the athletes? Should they be banned just because they happened to be born in a certain place? I think they should not be made to suffer like that. If people come to celebrate a certain sport, anyone involved for the sports own sake should not, in my view, be boycotted. Though it might be an idea to check this with athletes’ own personal activities of financial exploitation via their sports.. eg Michael Jordan and his relationship to nike and its sweatshops..
Putting these links aside for a moment..

* How would it be if it was possible to have sporting events where some of the teams come from geographic locations rather than political entities? Team central West-Asia, or Team Ural-to-Pacific, etc..? Hence the ban/boycott could be of the state political entity rather than athletes?

* How would it be if such bans and diversions of athletes from state representatives to that of areas was done via voting by people outside the state in question? A bit like a eurovision? In that case, how ganging up on a certain state can be avoided?

* How it might be if sporting events did not adhere to political entities to begin with? Why not have olympics for athletes regardless of the states they might have happen to be born in?
Perhaps in such a case the questions will focus on who host such events and how they gain/
..and how these events are sponsored – hence might focus on nike’s slaves and anti human labour practices?

blasphemy of blasphemies i am blasphemous

Seems like Pakistan’s religious based operations, or operations of religious nature in Pakistan, can illustrate very well how religious laws are operating via power rather than democratic and civil discourse – hence have no place in public space.. Unless people fancy creating more troubles than there should..

Here we have an example of blasphemy laws in Pakistan where it seems like the crossing between the idea of individual belief, personal interpretations, social acceptance, universality – or the want of the personal to Be universal while it can not, else it would not be personal – come to mix into a soup of wooly laws that fosters pain and misery among people.
Shame, no?

This might sound like contradicting some earlier posts regarding legitimacy. It was argued that laws have to be somehow legit to be enacted. In a religious society, perhaps blasphemy and other foggy religious concepts might seem very apt for being legit laws for all.
Yes. I accept that.
However, the operation am referring to is that of evolutionary process.
For example, say in a religiously fanatic place like israel, or saudi-arabia, or pakistan, or iran, or some usa states – where people get laws that are based on beliefs rather than discursive possibilities – the legitimate nature of these could be questioned by minorities, no?
eg – sure, you are the majority, however you can not subject me to your personal beliefs as a social universal law – that is oppressive, no? (if a law can not be reasonably discussed, nor be applied to all, then it is legitimate questionable as not exactly using the rule of law to be enacted – but the rule of jungle power..)

Well.. That is how it seems to me at the moment..

A blasphemy?

legality of legitimacy?

Whistle blowers tend to claim that despite the fact that maybe their actions are legally uestionable – the had to do the act because it is legitimate. Its legit to inform people about clandestine activities done in their name and against them..

When a law is passed, there are certain Legal criteria it has to follow for being upheld “legal”. For example, a law has to follow a constitution – be it made of tradition and constitutional laws, or some document called constitution. If a person/entity fancies challenging a law, more often than not, they have to challenge the Legality – from a legal perspective – of a given legislation.
Even when we talk about human rights, challenges to anti-human-rights laws have to come from a legal perspective. ie – x law is illegal because it run contrary to a human rights document signed by the country..

The question of legitimacy is being linked to laws and legistlation via a process that goes:
If the entity that passed the law, and the process of passing it, was/is legit – then the law is cool, legitimacy speaking.
eg – a parliament was elected, the election was legit, theparliament is therefore legit. The new law went through the legal processes by the legitimate parliament to become a law – therefore it is legit.

Courts *might* consider the question of legitimacy, however these are always via a legal based process. For example, a person might have stolen some food, got caught and brought to court. If they showed that they had no other choice but to get that food illegally – else they could die – perhaps the court might say “well, it was naughty but legit act under circumstances – don’t do it again!!”
However, the process of getting such a ruling will be via criminal processes that are harsh and disreputable. Hence might in and of themselves act as a sort of deterrent from acting legitimately but illegally..

I wonder..
How might it would be like to have a legitimacy question law.. Say any law/legislation could be challenged/questioned as to its social, cultural, artistic, biological, etc. – legitimacy. In a sense, offering people the opportunity to critique laws without having to be bigs in power, no?
I guess this could contribute towards a sort of fogginess regarding whether X is a law or not.. However, it might not be the case.. Say there is a law that claims its illegal to kill. (am taking an obvious one to make the illustration probably clearer..) Now say a person didn’t go to the legit-questioning process, but got caught after murdering someone. Only then, they said that they murdered indeed – however the legislation is illegitimate! What I think might follow is a process of questioning the legitimacy. If through that process – which might be a good question to ask How it might operate – it came to Be that indeed for that particular society killing can not be illegal because it is legitimate – then the murderer might go free and the law could go back to the parliament with a note – make it legitimate.

Again.. It might be worth mentioning here that in some cases, killing another person, while being illegal, is at times seen as legit.. eg extreme provocation, etc.. However, the killer has to go through some very harsh times and treated like a criminal before he/she are cleared legally. More over, the actual legislation seldom reflects the question of its illegitimate elements.. Or illegitimate whole..

a legitimacy of play?

There is a fair bit data recently about stuff to do with a basket case basketball team by the name of LA Clippers, and the owners who seem to be fairly racist indeed. Not just that, he is Open about being racist..

As far as it seems, people linked to players, coaches and other LA Clippers stuff, suggested that maybe they should not be working for owners who have racist leanings. The rationale being that its not illegal to work for such people, but it isn’t very legitimate..

That very legitimacy question seems to have spurred the NBA over lords to seek sanctions against the Openly racist owners.

What I do not really understand is how come, while being utterly apt in my view and calling the work for racist owners as questionably legit, there are no such legitimatacy concerns regarding banks, macdonalds, supermarkets, etc..? Why and how come deadend jobs for people who destroy societies as well as physical environments, or jobs for organisations that actively seek to exploit any perceived weakness for their own gain, and operations which actively contribute for taking resources out of people by any means necessary – eg political lobbying, etc. – are legit to work for? While at the same time, a play, a game, a spectacle of the senses, by one group/team gets to be illegit?

One does not negate the other, however, surely, if people can contemplate legitimacy of work, which am happy to see people can, then there are more jobs out there to make illegitimate..?

the surfing wave particle life?

I am a particle now. An element like electron, or foton, alreadygoy an on.. Lets imagine I am particle ifabon – a sort of abstract archetypical element.

Now.. Surf is a movement From.. Like a wave, trajectory from stuff.. It relates to Particle, being a particle, because it seems like movements From, are how elements are in motion.. Like diffusion.. “…spread out, or move from areas where there are many molecules..”

Wave, like surf and diffusion, in terms of energy – is a movement from a given place to another,, Being an energy in a space-time movement, I think of a wave as a rhythmic element, a sequence strand in motion from into an unknown.
In being an energy, I think Wave might be very relevant to being a particle – specially if the movement is of a surfing kind – from. From a place to another, and from a time to another.

..and being a particle, moving From – like a search of searching – and knowing from while clueless as to for, or what/where for. I began this writing coming from a feeling of the particle ifabon as a character. However, perhaps as this moved from one trajectory to another, surfed in and on and in within, it seems like this arrives into another From. An if From – or perhaps it always was..? If I am ifabon? Here is How my If and the stuff it is made From?

the hands of authoritarian’s mouth

In Egypt there is an electoral sort of process going on. We are told its an election operation for the next president. The “leading” candidate, a guy that only a few months ago claimed that he has a special ear for the Egyptian population as he is not going to run unless he could hear them asking him to do so. Hence, I’d assume, that either they will vote for him, or he has a bad hearing.. Though perhaps its a vase of hearing the very few that tend to matter most in hierarchical societies?

One element that matter most is the USA. The Obama regime tells anyone who cares to listen that the heir aparent to the Egyptian presidential thrown will implement a democratic process that will benefit the country as a whole. However, I think they are misleading. I also think that the (ex)General is misleading when he says that ofcourse he is all democratic through and through..

It seems to me that often people who mislead about themselves do so mainly when asked directly. eg – will you do democratic elections? yes sure. ofcourse, etc..
However, to get how people really imagine the world to be, the aesthetics they’ll operate with will come up as they engage with all sorts of elements that do not directly seem to link with questions they know how they ought to reply to.

Here, for example, we have a guy that claims to favour democratic processes, yet has the ear of 10’s of millions of people – without elections required! That is a pretty amazing fit, no? Remember, he says that he is not authoritarian – ie that he is Not the expression/embodiment of the Egyptian population. Yet, somehow it seems he can hear them all without elections. Not just that but they somehow have a Single voice.. (Its not like some might question, some might critique, others might be against, etc..)

However, the above idea relies on one piece of evidence.

Maybe that needs to be crossed with another?


Here’s the same guy:
“…rehabilitate its relations with Egypt before it loses the affection of the Egyptian people once and for all.”
He know who the Egyptian people, as a sort of whole might fancy or not.. More than this, such fancies of the singular voice, single body called Egyptian people – that is made of millions that magically have one voice – once they make up their mind, IT NEVER evolves, it never changes..
With these sensations in mind, could this guy bare hearing multiple views and voices? Could this guy imagine living with, rather than presiding over, multiplicities and differences that evolve? Can this guy imagine a legitimacy for recognising democratic development and evolution? eg that people might choose him one day, and change minds the next..?
Or does this person sound like an authoritarian ruller in the making?

working for nothing – paying via love life?

Just noticed an info-graphic by a site called couple. Its a map, nice looking one, of connections between couples – ie sending messages using the app.
Looking at it, there was a sudden realisation – or a feeling of realising something. In a sense, here is an app that like many others on the web talks of itself as a service. A tool designed for couples to share data/messages. Like many other tools, it is “free” to join, and here I think it becomes more interesting.
It doesn’t tell you the price, nor what might be the price. Many times it is because the people that run such tools have no idea, and it seems innocent. However, these “free” tools are run by people who tend to seek profit, a profit from other people’s lives. In this case, its other people’s love life that are being manipulated into profit.
Would I want my love life to become an element in someone else’s info-graphic? even if it looks good?
However, the infographic is an element I doubt was consulted with people on the app. More over, if you are a couple using the tool already, migrating is not easy.. You might want your data, which is easy to get, however you can not get the habit of using the tool to another. That is precisely how people that run, they own these things – not users – hope to make the profit. They want to profit out of people’s knack of developing habits. ie exploiting a known human feature for making cash.
That is profiteering..
Hence, looking at infographic is in a sense, looking at an image that illustrates web based exploitation.
Well.. In my mind anyway..

open and shut false dichotomies by mep wonnabes

Last night I went to the brighton open rights group meetup with prospective meps. The parties that bothered to send mep wonnabes were greens, labour, libdems, ukip and tories.
A bit of a shame because I hoped to check some other parties like yourvoice and the socialists.. Anyhow..

The whole event seemed very formal, with a panel presentation by the candidates, and pre-prepared questions by ORG brighton, hence it felt like sort of disruptive just to raise an issue or put a question up.. Very uncomfortable.. I failed to get passed that, and kind of sounded a bit aggressive in my own subsequent interventions.. Perhaps such meetings are not yet for me.. I need to learn.. If anyone that was there is reading this – apologies for some abrupt remarks!

Regarding the content of the meeting..
The attitude of the candidates to subjects, people and themselves seemed very childish and vacuous at that. (rather than, for example, childish wonder and imagination..) For example:
The libdems rep omitted the greens as any viable political entity by Not acknowledging the green candidate sitting at the same table.
The UKIP rep was happily conflating between information – ie data – and knowledge – ie how informations is used. This is perhaps in line with UKIP’s own conflated premise that confuses between singularity (a singular entity not requiring exchanges with other elements to be) and independence.. (being in various links, connections, relations and other dynamic exchanges with entities while keeping one’s own evolving character.)
The Tories and Labour candidates were happily, in a sense, agreeing with one another about having to employ some sort of censorship to “protect” people.
At that though the Tory rep exhaled by boasting that when he heard of his daughter check porn, he drove so quickly to get her, that it didn’t matter how many traffic laws he broke on the way.. (makes me wonder how might that have played if he accidentally hit someone..) Indeed, I wondered whether this act was for him to feel good about himself, rather than provide any supporting parent for his daughter..
The Labour candidate showed ignorance by not signing the 10 point charter, on the bases that point 3 – unrestricted access – seemed like an opening for “harmful” porn.. An ignorance that wasn’t shared with the green and libdems people. Though the libdem candidate did underline the very general nature of the 10 points. So general, he said, that he could interpret it as he might need/like/require..
The Greens candidate seemed to ignore the whole idea of exchanging views as a process that *might* contribute to a person’s own perceptions. This was well demonstrated by the final statement that was read from a pre-written text..

In some ways the act by the green candidate was sort of symbolic to the meeting because despite each candidate’s initial statements that included a “thanks for coming” – the actual content that was talked, was neither elaborated nor discussed. ie we could have read it all online and save a few hours.. No interactive exchange..

Moreover, the candidates seemed to share an idea, perhaps an ideology, or a culture, that talks of democracy while contending that freedom and security are elements to be “balanced”.
This uniting element between the parties has a few sides.. One of which is the aggressive nature of proposed solutions. So aggressive that in my view its violent. Solutions are taken as done via legistlation rather than negotiative processes, education, legitimisation, and critical questioning. Again, using a sort of childish approach of good/bad, the discussion leans towards legistlating as power to control..

I think this brings up clearly the anti democratic nature made of false dichotomy between freedom and security. This was done in a historical ignorant manner – ie as if the link between security and freedom was not questioned before. As if its an unquestionable element that is then being played in child like good/bad scenarios. (eg we want technology to be used more for good than bad, etc.. )
I really don’t know. Even the film had an ugly.. However, in my mind, the very ability to good-bad arguments contributed to the feeling of raving infantilisation. Though I wouldn’t speak to kids like that as it degrades.

It is very hard for me to tell whether the candidates are really intellectually shallow that they think everything is reducible to good/bad, while keeping a substantial argument. or maybe they think the audience is that shallow? Perhaps if these kind of binaries are not challenged frequently it illustrates a rather intellectually barren socio-political sketch..?

Anti democratic because if democracy is about elements such as:
discussion, critique, education, evolving ideas together and as individuals, learning how to become a society and being able to take part in the process, and critiquing power fearlessly if power shows up –
then the culture of placing security as a sort of barrier/border for freedom seeking processes is operating to moderate the processes that suppose to make democracy deliver its premise of questioning powers, and delivering evolving emancipation and equality.

As to the dichotomy that seems so prevalent and used so often yet in my mind, like the emperor’s cloths, the more its being bigged up, the more empty and irrelevant it becomes – freedom and security.
The argument of its proponents goes along the lines of
Hey, you can not have freedom for people to do anything they like, we have to have some rules, no?
Now.. If the reply to this this is Well, some.. Probably.. Yes.. Then in my mind its a miss-perception of freedom.
Freedom is not an object, or objective – but a process. Hence the initial proposition of “if anyone can do as they please” is a false premise.
The process of freedom is very simple, its to maximise our operations as individuals, units, teams, societies, cultures and species. How do I know that I can NOT run 100m in 10secs? Is it because there was a law that said so? If there was a law, or a social convention, that posited that I can not run x distance in y speed, I might have not tried, and then would have lived in ignorance made of feeling that perhaps I could run that fast.
Now, sure, running does not seem relevant because it seems irrelevant for political and social engagements. However, if we lived is a society where, for example, the “founding parents”, used to run 100m in 9secs, and that was their way to claim legitimacy – then perhaps running quicker than that will seem challenging for power, right?

This, in my view is the issue of “security”, it masks itself as helping society to run smoothly, while in reality – its all about keeping power.
The processes of freedom, in and of themselves, by their own operations, require certain social inabilities. One of such freedom-inability is precisely one to do with security – that of fearlessness. If we are to be in a process of freedom, then just like I need to be able to operate fearlessly, so does the other. If I take away that right from the other, am removing my own ability to operate fearlessly – hence opt out of the freedom processes.
In other words, limits are all around us, they can be used to oppress, initiate fears, and legitimate power, or to be questioned, inspiring, educational and discovered. As free as the evolution of freedom might become, it will always contain its own limitations.
If we are not allowed to question these limitations fearlessly, then we are sure to bump into limitations that are there only to facilitate power – hence lead to social unrests, personal mishaps, and cultural & artistic time waste.

..or as the tory mep wonnabe said:
when i heard my daughter was watching porn, i broke every traffic rule on the way to get her.
..and did not object to the suggestion he did it all for himself to feel better – not his daughter’s best interests..
If I was his daughter, I’d probably have a mental injury for a while..

Freedom is a process that in and of itself contains security, it allows security to Be. For example, via fearless discussion about porn, a chat-mode I doubt could have happen if my father just broke every rule in the book to get to me.. I’d be both slightly embarrassed and afraid to upset him further..

Though perhaps am presupposing an ability to discuss stuff.. Clearly, people who seek power to lord over the rest of us, seem to consider it a waste of time..


Will I vote?
Who to?
Probably, begrudgingly, to the greens because:
* they are part of the least corporations friendly groups in the eu parliament.
* they are part of the most internet savvy groups in the eu parliament.
* the overall group the greens are part of rather than the greens’ own particular activities and behaviours.. (eg, my green mep is yet to reply for a question i put in 2012, yet happy to add me to his mailing list and spam with out any question or concern..)

All candidates + % projections:

South East European Candidates 2014

fascism is another term for business friendly

When Mousolini and his fascist ruled italy, the idea was to make the state friendly for business – as opposed to socialist and communist ideas.
Hence am kind of curious when the term Business Friendliness is used to describe a person – and a party – that has a history of violent authoritarianism that in the 1920’s was inspired by the very similar sounding fascist parties of Europe..

Though perhaps this is an indication that business, in capitalistic culture, is fascistic by nature..

arbitrary whims and capricious cab rides?

Thoughts of arbitrary operations were a fair bit on my mind recently.
It suddenly occurred to me that perhaps the interval between arbitrary as power’s whimsical operations, and arbitrary as done via a process that negotiates elements is not very time consuming..
The question seemed interesting because I think it is noticeable how power tends to place itself as a negotiator, a social mediator, an arbitrar for society. To operate as an arbitrar, power has to be seen as legitimate to mediate. To be in between and above social elements that might rival one another and require the arbitration for the greater social benefit. Since power can not do that, can not be other than part of social forces themselves, we tend to resort to other elements that can be presented as “fair” mediators. eg, god, laws, and more recently – algorithms.
For example, bitcoin communities have this thing referred to as “trustless”. You can not trust politicians and banks to run the monetary exchange – because their decisions are arbitrary in the whimsical power hungry sense, rather than the mediative fair one..
Nor can trust be placed on other people.. In bitcoin type networks, trustless is the placing of full trust in the algorithms. In that sense, the algorithm in digital trustless networks is the arbitrary arbitrar. The algorithms operate as fulfilling certain social function – eg encryption and maintenance of trustlessness among network nodes – which justifies/legitimises their power and arbitrary lives.
In that sense, perhaps it can be argued that algorithms’ arbitrary lives are like meridian lines, there had to be a central 0 line – might as well be one that goes via Greenwich. Or like the arbitrary year count that refers to some religious chronology that means nothing for most people. We had to have a certain time for year 0 – it might as well be 2014 years ago..

However, I think that on a close inspection, just like the meridian line and the christian leaning time count has cultural, social as well as power-political effects – so are algorithms that foster particular views, perceptions, operations and prejudices that are all from certain kind of imagination. For example, in bitcoin, the notion of exchanges having to be numerical..
More over, by being operated as trusted arbitrars, it seems to me that the various possibilities for Not trusting algorithms’ arbitration abilities and fairness, is being obscured if not hashed and hidden..
(this does not denote intent to hash, but simply pointing at a common perception that tends to accept the non human element of algorithms as automatic/instant qualification for arbitration..)

However, as elemnts that live, as operating sequences, as rhythms, as evolving strands that move in time-space as desire to search from as point of space-time we are at, there is a need for mediation.. At times personal, between and among few elements, and at times perhaps more global, among clusters and networks..
I don’t know if this arbitration process has to be another element introduced into the mix, a priest-like, a judge-like, that suppose to be above this all, or that can be made through the collision of the elements themselves.. A linking element that is intrinsic – rather than whimsical and capricious – in relation to the elements that require a mediative link among them?


Post post though perhaps relevant – not postistic – thought


Maybe this critical feeling about algorithms and such, actually refers to operations, movements of criticality, rather than a beleif in objects such as algorithms. True, algorithms operate as well, however their operations are mainly – or tend to be – generative, developmental, rather than evolutionary. It can also be argued that so called evolutionary alorithms are to mimic rather than Be evolutionary..
However, perhaps the above is a distraction, the idea that seems to come in mind is that in fact, critical anarchic processes/operations, might do for arbitration of the whimsical arbitrary. This on the level of exchange rather than activities.
Say I did something No-One whats to exchange with – this in itself critique my possibly arbitrary activities – but does Not put me in death danger.
In a sense this is the point, many people’s violently whimsical arbitrary activities are linked to the social and cultural whimsicality of survival. If no one gives a shit about my life, at some level, even the most peaceful person, has to consider their need for power to just survive. However, if I knew that society is not arbitrary and whimsical toward me – or others – I could afford being more mediative arbitrary with people around me.
No one wants the poison I have just made. Noone want to exchange, hence I might dig having less – but knowing no one will let me starve or die, nor for my kin – I might not feel the urge to press my poison upon them by any means necessary.. (eg poison gas, petrol engines, etc..)

Suppose there was an exchange for my poison. This could come as a critical operation that is negotiated among the people involved. This means there is no one system to trust but disstrust operations and disstrusting sequences that could evolve, mixed, combined and used as and when nodes desire. It can allow for algorithmic distrust to live with personal dynamic one, as well as political one. The political distrust might be when the algorithms, and other operators are distrusted and being put through equality questions, etc..

One rule – no rules..?

an if in immanence?

the sequence of if a – t – 1, from the 1 11 111 t + – a aa aaa materials/code
the IF, in my view is how from a mere code, it can ask whether or not its alive. If allows to link with other operations such as replication, death, elements, negotiation, consideration, etc..
This is done via the self reference question that is constant:
If am X sequence how it will be as If X Y sequence etc.

Now suppose I am an If X sequence that became X Y-
Say I replicated to another If X Y
because of the IF we have, the replication might fold back to
If X when the Y was perhaps added too arbitrarily, yes?

However, when the new IF X Y sequence becomes linkable/replicable Without the need to fold into
If X
ie the if X Y become a sequence that need not reffer to a former evolutionary/developmental self in order to Be – then we have a new sequence that is immanent rather than referential.