Spyglass Op. 1: Exploration of Hypothetical Thoth: Matters of Perspective
Basic Assumption: Not everything will make sense and not every opportunity will be taken to spell things out. It's only my journal for now. I will be glad to tax the reader with theoretical backgrounders and ideological underpinnings when it becomes formally necessary.
__
Prelude to Illumination of the Operational Environment: Perspective of Task: XtO
Humans exhibit diversity within the species. Diversity is more than simple differences, and it exists whether or not the sophistication in question is relevant to particular inquiry. My inquiry is only one in an ocean of infinite reality and perception. This does not negate its importance to collective understanding. Nor does it necessarily challenge the perceptions of others.
Thoth is a term I use in my work to represent a gestalt concept. It conveys a constructive depth of understanding about the way human beings think, communicate, learn, navigate and socialize as complex systems within a hyper complex universe. Gently, it may be read as "thought". If my work becomes important enough to defend my usage, I will.
People who operate thoth in terms of complex systems (XtO) are valuable to the species if they can be tapped for insight... and then only if this insight can be processed in a meaningful way. It is noteworthy that these kinds of people may be less likely to operate according to normative institutional standards in deeply hierarchically institutionalized (sub)environments. However, hierarchically institutionalized environments, such as universities and well-established political systems, tend to be the most effective nodes for information transfer in contemporary human experience. It should not be surprising that XtO will be challenged to deliver insight for species-wide processing, even though such insight is emergent existential desideratum.
Keeping in mind the code, style, or frequency of XtO: The operating codes which direct interaction of relevant units (Individuals, institutions, cultures, &c; in short: vast arrays of highly complex systems) are close enough to function within a multi-dimensional range of tolerances. These tolerances allow for a normative survival of functional social groups. However, in most cases these tolerances are not close enough to allow for the release of highly sophisticated information unless the individual person, and their environment, are damn lucky.
We might expect, in many cases, that when a person of any relatively less-normative (according to relevant environs) operational nature is subject to survival in an environment that is less tolerant, the individual will lose fidelity first. However, it must be understood that if there is enough friction over time from any driver, the environment will also change. In all cases, at all times, every environment attracts, interacts, and changes. Individuals are not the only drivers. Unless we take into account some concepts of extremely fine resolution, which is not necessarily relevant at this stage, we find in general that individual persons as units are the least capable of leveraging fidelity. This may have been compensated through formations of hierarchical governance as civilization evolved. At all times, some individuals will be more capable, due to variance in human form, of operating in some environments than others. At this time, due to rising species unification, the civil environment is shifting away from hierarchical nodes of leverage. Institutions, the various structures which govern existence, are increasingly unable to serve. It is natural then for institutions to seek individuals as tools. Whether these individuals can collectively imprint fidelity is perplexing. It is also perplexing to imagine the fidelity which will be engendered through such exquisite interaction.^1
Back to the problem of the individual XtO:
Diversity within the species is key. When an environment shifts, the species must flex to shift and survive. For now, we will accept that much of human experience is knee-deep in the trappings of mecha-revolutionary hierarchy. Artifacts are scattered everywhere, but especially prominent in facets of life where social power is leveraged. For the XtO en route to transmitting species-relevant information, this can be like running into error codes. For the hierarchical thinker, HtO, such artifacts are merely reinforcement of norms and tend to facilitate HtO's thriving. However, this is changing. While most norms are beneficial for the species, which is NOT limited to two descriptions of individual persons as sub units (XtO or HtO), it is death to the species if norms cannot adjust over time. The human species is capable of adjusting itself... but diversity is key to that success. While HtO is essentially hegemony, XtO perception is now prime due to the computational revolution.
Aside: Examples of artifacts: Standardized concepts in the field of "international relations", like "anarchy" and "sovereignty", appear ghastly and problematic to the survival-- and thriving-- of the human species. This is because such terms force hierarchical operations onto a system that appears, to the XtO, as functioning in a state far beyond the descriptive capacities of hierarchical organization. More on this, and the understandable normative specter of political genocide, later.
To circle back a bit, we recall the existence of tolerances of interaction between highly complex systems. And that while XtO contributions may be desideratum, reality dictates certain restraint on the sophistication of all data exchanges. This is nature. It is also natural that some types of individuals will exhibit greater capability for thriving, according to the environmental traits in question. We compared XtO with another hypothetical type of individual, the HtO. So in this post we began to explore the human thoughtscape according to functions of its reflectivity of sorts of species-wide organizational constructs. And to think about hurdles for XtO in hierarchically-inclined environs.
As for the XtO, and his mission to deliver data into functional species memory, he has some options:
1. To not deliver data.
2. To deliver self-sophisticated data.
3. To deliver environmentally-sophisticated data.
4. To deliver comprehensive data.
5. To deliver pizza.
We can imagine outcomes for all of these. I will not bore you with details. We are all facing the same trouble in different senses.
.C
^1 It is troubling to me personally that not all humans will benefit from this flavor of evolution^2 at the same time. For now, many of the brightest minds in helper societies are still struggling to engender essentially hierarchically-oriented institutions as a survival technology for extremely impoverished groups of people. I would love to imagine a leap-frog solution for these groups of people. I want very much for institutionalized genocide to end. It is bad for the species and hard on the collective psyche. These are my biases.
^2 I haven't given it a name yet. I am beginning to flesh it out.