How to consider An Open Letter to Open-Letters?

1#
Ph has run out of words to open themselves up with, as they were sitting between a surface and scented space
waiting to be waited with a single espresso in mind.
It was an uncomfortable style of sitting. Tossing about over the surface, looking at reflections that attempted to illustrate thoughts from deep crystal elastics via Ph’s restless desiring mind.
It seemed that the cafe yet to come forgotten resonances were focused on waiting for Ph to quite down a bit, the scents’ memories from between an over-roasted dark coffee and drying acidic pink paint, the chair’s future range of movement along the wooden floor boards, the walls impressions from music beats no one recalls, the invisible lights that slowly speed the atmosphere as soon as one considers coming in, the waiter’s super-special time’s temporalities and anything else Ph has yet to notice.
I don’t think anyone other than the kind of stuff Ph noticed,
could have witnessed the edginess of their sitting while feeling time draining a weight through life itself, taking-in the wait one thought at a beat.
Waiting
not so much for the espresso that will never come, as for Fs.

Index?

#2
See, Ph had no clue how they and Fs could become mutually recognised.
(Which appears slightly strange perhaps –
considering they could be twins!)

Fs, for their part, recalled a feeling of Ph.
A feeling they recognised as PhNess. They also recalled Ph as someone with a screamingly on-off bleeping cherry red hat. A hat that kept falling over their head, yet somehow failed to fly away by roughing up winds. Even during raging storms, that bleeping hat remains on Ph’s head somehow it’s hard to tell how this happens.
Everyone knows that!

However, Fs was convinced that a close up and personal meeting with Ph will resolve the question of how come that hat remained on their head.
Maybe Ph’s head was made of that hat, and that what seemed like a times when the hat was falling over, were simply occasions when ligaments – operating like springs – were bouncing a bit.
Else, how come that hat never flew away?
Ph, of-course, had no clue about that red hat – just like they had no idea of how to reckon with, nor recognise Fs.

Now, it might come as a WTF feeling when
reading these lines
while expecting to read an open letter to open letters in a form of a letter.

After-all this text has a direction towards open letters in a personal manner, and suggests at the top – to be an open letter to Open-Letters.

We know there are,
a fair few other open-letters to Open-Letters as can come out from:
http://search.disroot.org/?q=%22an%20open%20letter%20to%20open%20letters%22&categories=general&language=en-GB

Index?

#3
Indeed, dear Open-Letters, dear Pleas-Open-To-All-That-May-Come-To-Pass-Rather-than_produce_a_guaranteed-Pleasing,
it will not be suggested here that you are a human, a humanoid, nor subservient to humans in any way.
How could you come out, conjured only through humans, when evidence may suggest otherwise?
How can I tell that when danger calls, for example,
between monkeys and apes, screams telling everyone in hearing range about the possible risks – are not Open-Letters?
How can we tell that male peacocks’ colours and tail,
are not their way to issue open letters to both risk-taking and females simultaneously?

How can a human like me, from a species that evolved and developed windows,
fail to consider that when winds and humans have frictions, we get a plea, an open-letter of sorts, written in a cry to make window like structures that will divert winds at times, and open for windy freshness at other periods?
Indeed,
How can we fail to tell
that open-letters, as calls for some kind of a change, a switch from one thing to another – are not in fact embodied in windows? (switches in their very bodies..)

It used to be that all open letters were in unsealed envelopes. In a way, the fact that anyone could open the envelope made the text lodged within – an open one. This, a bit like the window example, allowed open letters to have a certain body that is a switch-for-anyone in itself.
A closed letter, aka Sealed letters, were – and are still – shut and addressed to a particular entity. Yes, anyone could open, however, the addressee may get a clue that someone else has had a bit of a reading look where they shouldn’t.

As it will transpire in other bits of this text,
Open-Letters can live as an abstract, gestures taken away from many elements that may have been thought essential in the making of a letter into an open one.

The open envelope allows anyone who can read a share in a certain cause.
Once read – witnessed – a certain idea, some event, knowledge, grievance and whatever else a text may contain, can be ignored only through a reader’s own sense of honesty.

You may read:
HELP!
..and consider this to be a call, a plea,
devoured of any meaning. A “Nothing to do with me!” –
however
you have read a request for an assistive attention. It can be dismissed as nothing but a faint attempt to illustrate a point to do with open letters, but
perhaps its also a way to call for help to illustrate that very point better?
Could also be, nothing to do with you – yet, somehow magically, it is There – isn’t it?
Once Help Me was read and entered a mind, ignoring will involve summoning a pretence.
Are we ready to pretend asking for a helping hand wasn’t there? Are we cool to decline?

Sure, open letters are not just pleas available
for all and addressing one entity or another.
Open-letters come with some clarity, transparency and power relationship too. Can one place a pleading ask with those they rule over – unless temporarily without power?
Are elections a form of Open-Letters pleading to gain power?

While there are open-letters to one’s self, into one’s own future self and so on –
which might be considered as neither open nor transparent for various sets of arguments –
it seems
that because of self addressing, the open, and transparent elements are directed to the a set which may be concerned.
Be it a set made of 1?

Index?

#4
Moreover, it can be said that I of the future –
the You that will come to live in X time –
has a power over you of the past since Your future I can alter the You of the past into stuff like praise or condemnation.

They can say say things like:
Apologies, I was stupid.
Can your current I offer an apology with any certainty other than complete speculation that something you have never done – or even may never contemplate doing –
will be a mistake you fancy genuinely apologising for, at the present?

Though,
perhaps we could note that an open letter to some Other single entity –
another than one’s self –
could hardly live as something open when it isn’t open for others to read at the very least?

An open letter in a sealed and addressed envelope? “This is an Open Letter to Fs” – perhaps I could write on an envelope. Will Fs rebuke me or laugh?
(Thoughts from Ph’s waiting mind)

Writing these lines though, it seems that such a sealed and addressed text could come without an ironic smile or rebuke with a different title.
However, for now, let’s just underline the kind of switch that an open letter makes, the kind of connective moment is time and space. A bit like a dancer’s move, from a writer to anyone-who-could-be-curious-about-XYZ-issue. From a writer to anyone who might be interested in writing open letters?

With above questions in mind, I promise –
the text will attempt to come clearer – hopefully transparently too.
Therefore, let’s begin with an openness about names?
After-all, Open Letters, as we may find later,
can come open and letters in name only, or as “open letters” to put simply.
Perhaps now we can continue while noticing that
Ph is a short for Parrhesia and Fs –
while could come as Fuck-Sake –
came here as Fearless-Speech.

Index?

#5
While Ph and Fs come from very different cultures;
bourne though alluding dynamics that may speak languages different in kind from one another – they, Fs and Ph, are plausibly related.

Some say twins, others consider them just siblings,
some claim a parent and child, and rumours that they are perhaps legally questionable cousins aren’t rife –
but come tossed about from time to time when one tries listening to the differences between
Fs and Ph.
These relation questions seem important for Ph, however, Fs thought them away somehow. For Fs, family relations seem superfluous, since they fancy using languages as equals with anyone regardless of any background and connections. Fs concentrates on ranges of distress, the question from how
my language may not impede yours while we are both authentically honest with one another.
Ph’s mind moves a bit different, they establish a relationship, a link, then a connection and then a particular dynamic – which may, if seems needed, be used to lodge a request such as –
is it OK to speak candidly with you?
Ph, unlike Fs, lives in honest, if not always authentic, monologues that follow thoughtful listening.

Even
as Ph raised their gaze towards the cafe’s opened entering-like door, and noticed someone unrecognised coming in, and thought: is that Fs? –
there was a candid oddness which kept escaping into reassuring thought segments such as:
“everything is fine”.

Since resting on a surface – a sit? –
that someone entering the cafe was the only person Ph have noticed going through that door. The walls, the air and the atmosphere noticed others coming in – however, when Fs came through the entrance and came to rest beside Ph, no other constituents nor visitors to the cafe could have noticed that.
No other but Ph.

Yo! Aha, I am a reader.. How come??!! Are we playing Deus ex machina?
(inventing a new element to solve the mutual recognition problem.)
Deus – are You ex machina?
X machina – are you deus?
One of the same?
Deus as machination as an Ex for the invisible all over the place – aka writer?
Or
If we notice that, for example, when Ph was waiting, they seemed to know the espresso will never come – perhaps it passed over as some kind of feeble poetry. However
it came as an attempt,
together with a few lines prior, to dig the very kind of Ph’s physicality.

Index?

#6
There’s a sensation that Ph, as Fs and indeed Open-Letters
are Out-Of-Human-Intelligences.
These are intelligences that, while outside the human, seem to have relationship, connections and links with the human rather than humane.
(Intelligences without care?)
Out-Of-Human, Ex-Human, as From – like the god (deus) from machine – an intelligence From humans, but not necessarily dependent upon them. (which could be different to intelligence,
for example, without a brain – like fungi. Or intelligence that has is organic or mathmatic, and so on.)
There are elucidations of such Ex-Human intelligences
that
while connecting intelligence through Hegel’s Geist conceptualisation, tend to use that period ghost as a pivot into a future’s past that can be layered with demons, gods, and other such intelligences.
(Some humans connect these intelligences to so called AI, however perhaps Ph, Fs and Open-Letters here will come to question that all Ex-Human intelligences may come to AI?
Sure, Hegel’s Geist may not isomorph easily with intelligences such as Ph. Given that if, as people like Negarestani and Land mention,
the Geist’s call for AI comes from the minds connecting –
How can we tell connectors of minds like Open-Letters, that they are out of AI scope? Unless, they have a different kind of intelligence scope?)

The materialities of such intelligences, exo-human through to human-centric electric pulses (eg digital oriented technologies), ideologies, languages, logics, beliefs, thoughts, and cultures (eg language structures, meanings, rituals, and aesthetics)
may come different –
like the material differences between plants and fungi intelligences
yet
as intelligences they can connect with one another. Frictions that occur in way of intelligence. Like
Ph can not touch humans – nor the other way around – yet when Ph is invoked to connect with others,
we get a human connecting with an Ex-Human through intelligence.
Some say Prayers are similar – yet
I have never done praying, would it be authentic to write prayer intelligence?

Ph and Fs materialities hardly interact with humans to notice in places like cafes.
Cafe and other 3rd spaces offer a shared humming, sometimes buzzing but hardly disturbing let alone sublimely. (therefore when in godard films a few characters, at times, get Deos ex machina style shot in a cafe – a kind of truth-telling rather than a fearless speech, granted – the quick return to life’s fragile Normalities, as if shooting never happened works so effortlessly. Continue the buzzing and humming as if the sublime friction never came?)
Ph and Fs move from some kind of a resonating encounter through to another –
in a cafe they may meet,
but rarely noticed by humans or even automated baristas.

Index?

#7
Listen,
i am a bit worried about OpenLetters. (Ol)
Worried??!!
Maybe more like concerned.
Ol isn’t a little child, surely..
Yes. However, you know.. Family.. Maybe it’s in fact a personal concern? Something in the family could easily contaminate us all.
Thought you were worried About Ol – now it sounds like really it’s all about You 🙂
Does it matter? Isn’t the point that we have a difficulty coming from and related to – Ol?
OK.. So.. Contaminate? Are you saying Ol has a virus?
Ol might not have a virus, but is used infectiously. So many open letters.. Open letters to the moon, to one’s self, to smartphones, to pets, to unborn children, to open letter writers, to colours, to whatever.. Open letters used to be potent, now it’s like every letter, every text is declared “an open letter”…
Ah! So what!
What do you mean?
Even if Ol is overused, we still have that which rides on the buzz one way or another, and once the buzzing vogue fizzes off – it just goes elsewhere. The whole contamination temporary by nature and manner.
But hey! Are you saying that misuse, pretend, for-entertainment-only, pretentious and dis-ingenious deliveries of Ol will just fizz away without effects that may rub on all of us? Will the vogue fade without a trace? Surely.. Contaminations.. They all go away with remaining traces that continue..?
Don’t dis-ingenious stuff come with their own authenticity? 😉
What are you talking about? The whole idea of pretend and contaminating open-letters is that they do not reveal the hiding.
However, somehow you notice.. Are you the only one?
Look, once the Ol buzz will fade, they will come for us!! I think we should do something about it. Do you want everyone to do Fs? Fs will become banal and as such, ironically invisible.
Wouldn’t mind, actually. 🙂 The banal gets some undeserved negative publicity at times. Would you rather a history made by the commons or the special few ones who rule?
Fancy FearlessSpeechIsm?
Could be worst!
Seriously.. With FearlessSpeechIsm – you might get ill, disappear – or worst!
Are you on some brain-looping drugs?
OK.. Let me ask, if no one is allowed to speak with fears, or with some kind of anxious concern
about themselves…

I see what you are getting at, if everyone Has to speak fearlessly,
how will they not be concerned and anxious to speak in a different way.. However, we are Not talking Everyone – like feminism doesn’t mean every act is judged by whether or not it is feminist,
but a call for an orientation. It’s about a cultural, social, political and artistic shift that recognises certain range of issues, practices and so on – that were ignored..
Are you comparing yourself with feminism? FearlessSpeechIsm = feminism?
Nope! Just the question of totality. FearlessSpeechIsm isn’t a totality but an endless manner an intelligence oriented life can use and move with – like feminism is such an offer.
Same here..

Index?

#8
..and you – writer – yes, aha –
i can sense you while being written;
it was a bit unfair to suggest that i was calling to a totality. As a writer, you should have known me better!
Just saying Ol, or Fs over usage isn’t the end of neither of us – nor the world.
Yes.. Why did you make me claim a totality with FearlessSpeechIsm, aha? I did not want that really. All I wanted to say is that over usage blunts messages from forms.

Index?

#9
Sure, OK.. Maybe I took things a bit too far there. Apologies. However, from where I am, you two disagreed, had a dramatic friction that sparked questions of plausible interest in this attempt at drawing the evolving Ol..

Yes. OK.. However, in fact, why are you picking on us while attempting to portray Ol?
Any suggestion?
yes, why not Manifestos.. (M)
M is in our family??
As far as I know.
Where from? How come??!!
Hummm.. aha, since you put these words in my lines – Manifestos? Our family? Any chance for explaining that?
Hey.. Hold on.. The question came in Fs’s line.. So… What are we saying here, let’s consider how Manifestos may or may not live in your family?
..and how come they connect with Ol too.. Some families are disconnected you know..

There are various ways to consider the relation-like connection between M and Ol. We could begin with the easy way, when humans make open letters that are manifestos and manifestos that are open letters..
Is that what You are saying about these texts? That they mix open letters with manifestos?
Well.. That’s what the Writers of these texts say. For example:
https://arthistoryproject.com/artists/gustave-courbet/realist-manifesto-an-open-letter

Open Letter: People’s manifesto against the Anti-Terror Law

Index?

#10
Oh! Aha.. These are cheap examples! Humans adorn all sorts of things with in-appropriate names.
Humm.. I might agree with that.. The terror law link.. I’d say it’s a poor manifesto dressed up with words only – as an open letter.
Perhaps costumed up with Ol?

Yes.. Sure.., As we said, there are multiple manners to address the question of M and Ol’s relation.
We could, from these texts, and your reactions, claim that there’s a relation since humans mix them up not just in meanings but forms too.
Like thinking of a manifesto form as an open letter-able text.
An easy and a weak way to relate?
Sure Ph. Which is why it seems we ought to go the harder way, and possibly a cogent (as in moving together) way for considering their possible ties.
Let’s begin with a rather famous manifesto beginning, the dada
( http://www.writing.upenn.edu/library/Tzara_Dada-Manifesto_1918.pdf )
It claims:
“To put out a manifesto you must want: ABC to fulminate against 1, 2, 3…”
hummm.. interesting actually.. It reads a bit like an algorithm.
Indeed, Fs.. Indeed. Algorithms. Another notice that makes me think we should mention the dada manifesto. For now, if we consider the general characterisation of how manifestos Are, it seems that they have a kind of trajectory. A sort of moving topology, we could say? A movement from a given entity – an individual, a community or some such – outwards. Towards the reader, the witness, the audience and the world in general.

We are dada/whatever, we want A B and C on top, because 3 2 and mainly 1 – are evolutionary mistakes that should be confined to oblivion! ..and you who witness this text one way or another –
you should lodge this call into your mind, note it or even better – join in! We’ll have much fun – until we’ll be compelled to call for the change or even destruction of
C B and mainly A..
M operates as a calling out. However when
we consider Ol, the theme alters slightly – and with it the direction. We still have an outward direction, of a call-out however, instead of a call for other from above (abc are the solutions to 123, we know, and you should realise, come up and join) –
an Ol is an outwards call from down, from a lower place, from whoever isn’t in a position of power but that of calling to join a plea. Pleas to correct injustices, wrongs and such like done by someone else with power.
Yes.. We know that.. That’s why Ph, Ol and I are family.. However, you claim here that M and Ol have crossing trajectories of calls. Out-Up and Out-Down! Opposites?

Hold on..
It seems that directions of calls are used to identify characteristics and narratives of both Ol and M,
however since the Dada Manifesto and such like, humans have gone to make slightly more subtle manifestos.

For example:
New aesthetics:
https://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/manifesto-theory-%E2%80%98new-aesthetic%E2%80%99

A workshop manifesto:
https://www.theculturecapitalexchange.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/manifesto-workshop-draft-v3.pdf

How are these more subtle?
Well. They don’t rely on the programmatic manifestations from 1 2 3 and 7 are kinda shite and we now need g c e and mostly n to make life much better. Nope, these manifestos invoke
the call for actions while outlining certain sets of possibilities, situation and circumstances – all of which come under the heading of
Manifesto.

aha, are you saying some manifestos can basically come under the heading “manifesto” while containing all sorts of texts?
Yes Fs, it seems that some humans use manifestos that way…
So..?
So, Ph, we can essentially write anything – even this text – call it a Manifesto, and sheboomanga, we have a new manifesto!
So…?
What’s the difference between a Manifesto and an Open letter?
Seems like a heading?
A name?
Just a name?
A name that may orient the text.

Index?

#11
A spaceship?
What?!!
Can we call a text spaceship so it will take us to Proxima N?
Nope – but you, them, they and I and
we can take any text, call it something textual oriented, like: Constitution, Law, Diary, Note, Language, Love-Story, Play, Program, Invite, Offer, ID-Card and so on, and somehow
to afford dignity to the text the reader will consider the text in such a context.

HA! That way any text could come as Our family!!
Is it a family or Kind, type, possibly even kin (as connected by approximation)?
Is Proxima N a kin of planet Earth?
Yes.. In the way that they are planets?
Aren’t all families the same Kind of objects? planets aren’t the same bodies of stars, are not the same body of comets, and so on and on..

Yes.. However I think we go here in circles.
You freaking bet we do!! I am here on account of a family crisis – now it seems this family business of Manifestos and Open Letters could also be Love Letters and Programs, and Invites and Notes.. Maybe Ph here will alert us one day that humans or other intelligences make too many Notes??!!
Relax Fs.. It’s not like we meet very often anyway..

Yes.. Lets go back to M and Ol?
Anything interesting to say?
I think that even when we ignore the content, the intent orients the content as X trajectory by association to the meaning stated. While its true that at times that may come as a bit of a body twisting harshly – how can a text that claims
There are opposites, however, maybe not 2 sides of a same coin (2ssc), kind of a claim.

Index?

#12
No?
It seems that 2ssc are mutually dependent. They require one another since, afterall, the same coin is their body.
Well. Is it not the outwards calling that offers the same body, with 2 different trajectories?
Sure.. Yes.. This could have a traction from this view. 2ssc.. Perhaps. However, even if we remain with the notion of Out-Calling as a body – how is this body mutually dependent? M’s call, does it require Ol’s call in an opposite trajectory – or vice versa?
Yo. Aha.. Maybe the whole thing here is a bit ahead of itself?
How?
Well.. Read on a bit into the dada manifesto.. The kind of algorithm mentioned.. it says that while you must be calling out, as you say, for A B and C – some kind of seemingly important principles that should come – a manifesto should also be against principles.. Something, in my mind, such as: Once A B and C are enacted – we should oppose them as much as possible…
..and the point?
Ph, look, if we remain with the topological morphism, lets check the curve from an open-letter call-out. You get a call for A B C to get noticed – ie, out and up line since they want to be seen –
and then fold the A B and C once noticed or indeed – are acted upon, ie, the Ol trajectory will go down and inwards as a different, a result of the Ol, E F and G come up.
Yes Fs.. That is why it’s possible to claim that Ol and M do not share the same body – coin –
but they are indeed of their own independent multi dimensional bodies.

Index?

#13
Where is Ols’ multidimensionality?
I think from the dimension of a clear self reflection. Like yours Ph, the acknowledgement of powerlessness. Ol, for example, is powerless to-do, to enact, to perform that which they write about.
For example?
This text can not live as Ol when it is an Open-Letter to Ol – else it becomes a narcissistic enclosure through the combination of looking at one’s self while dissociating and failing to recognise own reflections.

… and therefore may require signatories. Their number and social position could then inject the plea with potencies and an urgency to attend the calling call they lacked previously.
This sort of awareness for a self that requires a reflection back onto itself. A bit like a wave rising in 3 dimensions..?

But.. If Ol’s trajectory is a wave up, M’s is down!
Yes. Seems something like that.
In that case, aha, we might be talking of the same wave rather than same coin!

Index?

#14
As in..?
Are there open letters that were answered, enacted upon – and then the outcome inspired a manifesto or two..?

Index?

#15
We could trace that.. However, when attempting to conjure how Ol evolves – is such tracing required? It can be said that the waves are of a different spontaneity.
That when an Ol wave folds, its not an M wave’s folding.. Some waves fold smoothly rather than crash.. Like deep sea waves that slowly fold into one another on way to, possibly, break onto one shore or another.
So.. In case they are not the same wave – how come they are related?
Well.. You all could be in the same family since, perhaps we can say that you live in the same sea.
Same body of water, you mean.
Yup. Though maybe same Kind of water-body. Or.. If we go out of the water analogy
the body of inter-intelligence connections.
Are you saying we have no intelligences?
Or un-Intelligent?
Yes.. It may sound.. However, can we not say that the inter-intelligences body
the cluster of manners intelligences address, connect with one another’s
that corpus –
can they not live as an intelligence in themselves?
A carbon-body intelligence, an electric intelligence, an inter-body intelligence, and so on?

Index?

#16
Hold on, aha.. Are you saying All ways of connection making among carbon-life such as humans – have the same body?
I don’t think Shouting is in Our family… Indeed, I doubt aha isn’t confusing between Body, Body-Parts, and Families..

Think M is in our family?
Not sure.
Me too.. Though I am also not entirely clear why aha even mentioned M. Could we not just focus on Ol?
C’omon! M came up because of your concerns! An example of over-usage. What happens when seemingly endless manifestos are conjured..
Yes. However, after all that – we don’t clearly know whether the example has relevancy.. Is M in or out of our family?
..Or our body of water..
Well.. why even argue about that side issue. Don’t we have enough Ols to consider how
Ol evolves and possibly infect on our family?
Well.. You know of the open-letters usages that claimed human lives – or made hard living, a bit harsher..
Yes.. I still don’t understand why they didn’t come to me. Why didn’t they ask if they can speak candidly and protected as such.. Any idea?

Index?

#17
My guess is that you are talking of letters like Asking Xi Jinping to i resign, or the letter of 34 (in Poland).. There are so many plausible reasons for not using you, Ph.. Cultural, aesthetic, sense of authenticity, and maybe even just didn’t occur. No disrespect, however you are not the most famous member of our family..
Perhaps fame is the reason aha brought up M?
Well.. That kind of solves the question of infected by Ol then – we are both relatively unknown.. So nothing to worry about.
Could we not become famous suddenly?
We could. But I doubt since M and Ol seem easier ways for humans to conjure.
We used to be rather famous. Now with so called “AI”, a different kind of culture will come out of a yet to be encountered intelligence kind – and they might over use us?
That will have nothing to do with Ol, nor M. Mind.. It might be a worry in case so called AI will conjure new family members and simply kill us..
Isn’t that even worst than getting infected by Ol’s activities?

Index?

#18
Yes.. Annihilation is perhaps worst than being unused or under used. However, are you mortal, Ph?

Perhaps we want to consider how Ol operates in abstract terms that aren’t human oriented? We suggested that Ol might operate within all sorts of intelligences – not all human.
Peacocks, monkeys, winds and windows came in too. However,
the thought they use Ol might also come as a narcissistic self reflection onto the other.
I might reflect my human self onto other intelligences, other ways of connection form-function making – and perceive myself in them. “their” Ol could turn to live as my very own human reflections upon the Windows switchiness, the Peacocks tails and monkeys call outs.
My own mind’s reflection reflecting itself via knowledge of Ol writing?
Indeed, as with AI development, human intelligence is the orientation and the scope, at least initially. I come via human intelligence and that process has a certain scope b beyond which anything other will not get sensed.
Does it mean the process of intelligence recognition is human specific and bound by that?

Index?

#19
Are we beyond human intelligence as Exo-Intelligent life?
Ph, can we live intelligently outside this cafe? Can we live in Proxima N?
Before or after humans colonise the place? 😉
How do we know that we aren’t already in Proxima N?
Ah! The intelligence of speculations! Lets’ do something else, lets ask How to
offer ourselves, me Fs and you Ph, to Proxima N. How can that come as an Exo-Intelligence.
Yes.. Funny. I have the funny hat and you, the funny mind?
Funny? How?
Oh! Aha.. Did you not notice the flip, the switch? (thought you were good at that kind of a thing..)
A flip?
From Exo as a from an intelligence, to Exo as a Form of intelligence.
I see.. Interesting.. Can Ol do that kind of a switch as well?
Does it seem that Ol can live as an intelligence kind that always exits another?
Perhaps we should ask an AI an opinion about that one.
Or…
Open a letter to Ol!
Or..
How do we know that by writing this, seemingly open-letter,
how do we know that
unintentionally we actually scribbled a manifesto?
The Exo-Intelligence manifesto.
Well.. Is it for us to know, Fs?
It’s the 1st time i see you smile!
Yes.. a relief this Ol isn’t in our family after all.
Maybe in the same ocean.
..Or same planet..
Shoosh aha..! Infections like that rarely mover across families 😉

#20

Index?