TRON: strategic nexus

I shall use this post and one in the play fortress blog to outline the strategic importance of TRON.

deepening on twitter

Twitter is mostly for shallow engagement. The 140 character limit enforces a conciseness which I welcome, and it happens to align to the minimalism we find in buddhism. We have a tendency to multiply out of all proportion the simple lessons that wise bods have come up with over 2000 years of exploration and experience. I'd like to use this post to expand on the first little experiment we've had on twitter with @JimWray @HaumanaDao @eve11@zhibDe and others with the tag #budsci for buddhist science.

So with this in mind, can we use the letterbox protocol (defined in the previous post below) and apply it to twitter in order to deeper our engagement meaningfully?

rule #1: tweet with the invitation for another to follow

This principle is simple. You are not allowed to write more than one tweet at a time.

rule #2: respond with the tag #budsci

We can use various filter or search facilities of nambu, tweetdeck or seesmic, or use tweetag. This enables new people to join in.

rule #3: refer to this post for new posters

It may also be useful to have a link to this post every so often just to explain the format, where we can continue discussion in the comments if necessary. Also, if a new tweeter just starts blethering, or one of us breaks a rule, or we think it is veering off, one of us can post a link to this blog to clarify the rules and to emphasise the ideals we are attempting to realise.

option #1: bid for several tweets

We can break with the single-post limit by requesting two or three or even more in order to convey a system of thoughts. Simply state a number, and it must be followed by an agreement by the number of people equal to the request less one's self. Eg, if I ask for 2 tweets, then all I need is one OK for me to go ahead and produce two sequential tweets. If I ask for 3 tweets, two other people must say ok in sequence, because in effect we are asking for their 'tweet-time'.

option #2: number statements

In order to keep track of them, and perhaps to refer to them. Perhaps all of them, perhaps just specific ones we wish to mark. If we feel there is a continuity; an amazing achievement may be that three statements follow one after another even though they come from different people.

option #3: colour threads

Using colours to indicate different threads. This is of course a category system and prone to all the problems thereof. Red (physical), orange (emotional), yellow (knowledge), green (will), blue (communication), indigo (insight), violet (god). Could allow individuals to create a specific colour, eg aquamarine, to pursue a particular line of thinking.

In this way, we avoid the pitfalls of standard communication, which I believe prohibit us from sharing our insights meaningfully. We are not thinking oppositionally, we are not presenting an argument leading to a conclusion, nor are we persuading. We are merely remarking, observing. We also shy away from making beautiful or poetic statements because it is not the word combination that interests us, but what how it helps us reflect upon our own experiences and insights. Also, there is no need to agree to disagree. Be very careful with questions, since they tend to shift focus to a past statement or to lead the reader to something the writer wants to continue with; consider using option #1 for a question-answer pairing.

Ideally, statements are reflective: it is not what is written that matters, rather what is read. Ideally, statements follow one another: it does not matter from which person they come, because accurate reflections of our conditional existence are true. Ideally, we go with the flow of the statements: always mindful that there are more people listening than there are 'talking', and that by making a statement we are directing everyone's attention. Ideally, we enable a deepening by remaining on a point/concept/topic; instead of flitting from one to another, with whatever our mind comes up with that is not the statement. Ideally, we are patient: whatever we have in our minds, what we know to be true, will come up at some point. Ideally, we are not pressing on, but drawing attention to: there is nothing being transacted, only resonate. Ideally, each statement has an ending to it; we should tend away from using words in such a way that they invite necessary specific explication.

Are we capable of this? I am sure to fail, but... I like the idea of trying. Imagine we are sitting together deep in meditation. Be mindful of the effect of words. Give plenty of space. And if we are lucky, over a few weeks, with perhaps only a dozen statements, we will be satisfied with our statements or at the least we will have learned lessons about our conduct.

Be well!

the letterbox protocol

Just spoke to Sofia regarding Chris. Chris is the guy who funded me to live in london in summer 2007. He's a genius, however his social interaction with people is so bad it's scary. Which means, his genius is not being correctly and usefully influencing the current world flows as much as it should. Sofia was burned by him, and she's super patient and tried for years. My solution has been heard but has not been acted on. It's a sore point, because there is danger that she will enter into engagement with him, and this will lead to the same dynamics as before.

With this in mind, Sofia suggested we talk about the problem using the Letterbox Protocol. From Confluence Consultancy:

"Having done this with my brother and with Sofia to my benefit and theirs, it is something I would like to encourage especially with people who are ahead of themselves. The protocol consists of changing how we speak in a simple way, specifically, each person says one sentence only.

"The intention at the end of the sentence is to invite the other to continue. This is the default state. A person is not allowed to continue unless the other comprehends, is following, is ready, and enables one to say the next sentence.

"The practice of this means that speaking is divorced from the speaker. Because we are sophisticated and we know about multiple perspectives, we tend to fall into the trap of our real-time truth that we have different perspectives. The objective is to acknowledge and practice the truth that we are talking at a deeper level than perspective. Hence, it does not matter who actually is talking. The emphasis is not on will, on grabbing attention, on being entertaining, nor sparkling with some wit, or bringing to bear some fact, etc. It is based on simple sharing. Also, little feedback loops like, dis/agreement, are jettisoned in the same way individually they are jettisoned for the sake of individual personal fluency. Also consider bids to say more than one statement which requires consensus again.

"This is relatively easy with two people, and requires greater practice with more than two. If people become practiced at this, then there is a chance that the speed might increase, where a collective of ten speak as if they are one."

It worked! We also included a time limit of 20 mins. Good engagement. Although a tricky subject, the protocol prevents a collapse into standard behaviours and social dynamics. Sofia and I talked about this tricky subject well, and we both felt good at the end of it, even though there is a confrontation right at the heart of it. Tav automated the process for Twitter, but his server is not up and running at the mo. However, even when it does, what people need is the real-world experience of it before it is transposed into the virtual world.

A similar dynamic happened when Dougald located various disorders of communication in me, and when I asked for engagement in a polite way, we effected something like the Letterbox Protocol. He is very eloquent, and produced some excellent and accurate descriptions as well as demonstrating lightness of attention. This has a tendency to run on, which makes listening and addressing specific points tricky. I believe by introducing the invitational ethic after every sentence, I do believe he will absolutely shine.

This is a protocol to improve listening, and thereby following, and thereby the emergence of appropriate leadership, that is, to truth. It helps us confront what needs to be confronted, well. It's a buddhist protocol, I think.

dangerous insights

So, having got the usual feedback from people, who are informed by their local level success, empowered enough to feel they can give advice, the voice that I represent is not heard. I am certain that my experience with kids is real. They are the lesson, and I am happy to relate this back to the current, misguided adults in the complex world we have made for ourselves, and the total confusion of information, values, groups, politics, economics, and such silliness.

The chances are, you as a reader, are an adult, and so there is going to be ego stuff going on, with lots of complex inter-reflections of what you think about the world, people, me, etc. So, let's try to cut through that with a simple thought... experiment. I saw this picture in a book I am reading called Philosophy of Mathematics, given to me by the genius Luke. (For the attentive, the subtitle is, A contemporary introduction to the world of proofs and pictures.) Give yourself a moment to see if you can relate it to Pythagoras Theory. It's surprisingly simple. The consequence of this insight, or realisation, is quite significant. At least, it was for me :)

This is actually the special case which leads to the general case which leads to the pythagoras theorem. It is based on a simple observation. The sum of the two smaller triangles add up to the area of the large triangle. That is, the areas of the two smaller areas equal the area of the large area. c^2 = a^2 + b^2. Why have I never spotted this observation before? Take your time with it.

This simple observation startled me when I came across it. And it floated around my head this morning. I then let myself think of the process iterative within the smaller triangles, and this leads to a fractal representation of the areas. Interestingly, this only happened when the usual pythagoras theorem demonstration, with squares on the outside edges of the large triangle, was internalised or folded on the inside edges of the largest triangle. It's something about infinite and bounded at the same time.

This led me to thinking about a money system which is fractional. That is, when we transact money, or perhaps a pecu, it is a fractional amount of the whole. Imagine that! When you transact, you are playing with a tiny fraction of the whole. Being part of the whole. And this only makes sense, if the whole is stable. That is, it is not about making money, because it is a closed system. If money is continued to be made, that's like the squares on the triangles, it is growing. That's what's happening at the edges of our money system, since we have different denominations, and trading of currencies causes this... inflation, for lack of a better term or perhaps as insight...

Anyhow, this single thought also led to an insight into hierarchies and cutting out the middle man, which happens to be in 2020worldpeace. Most people have begun to understand how much middle management bung things up. Policy makers are trying to encourage bottom-up growth. I think I have a solution which I presented in an earlier post somewhere. And I suddenly realised that my experience with tav, sofia, mamading, and then with dougald,vinay and then with lloyd and gary, was that there was a similar bunging up at the horizontal level. That is, in the same way information and decisions and power and money are absorbed within the hierarchical alignment, so it is lost in distributed networks. I have been focussing on the formation of groups, those that are not permeable as it were, don't have a time-frame, are not open, don't have api's as it were, are too discrete, usually seeded around an ego. Lloyd's appears to be different. Which is why it was such a shock to have the low quality of engagement I had with him yesterday. Shocking. Luckily, it got better, but I had to work at it, which shouldn't have to happen. It should be effortless.

The Genius Card.

So, the insight is, just walk into eg Nesta and saying I am a genius, preferably with someone else. Just like with advertising, to go straight to the top, to speak to the decision maker, cut out the local noise and go straight to those who hold the money, writing the policy, the microphones, and challenge them. The main problem I have been facing is not that my insights and offerings have been challenges, they just have not been engaged. Why not? Because they are gordian knot solutions. They use elements which exist at levels most people aren't playing with. It's not the same level of thinking, and doing. Hence, it is below the radar, as it were. And there's a lot of confusion out there.

Eg, the connection between buddhism and maths is a good one, but only if people take a look. Most people I experience want to argue with it before looking. Its like those feeling experiments I did with kids... the one where you put objects in a closed box and they have to put their hands in and describe what they feel, the number of corners, edges, etc. Some kids are frightened at first by the mystery, but all kids overcome their fear once one or two actually are brave enough to try. Same with the quality of ideas I have. eg 2020worldpeace. Truly a fightening unknown which my friends and family were so scared by... poor them :D I didn't realise they were so threatened by it. Well, similarly with people wrt buddhism and maths. Or, with the ideas of non-groupness, and the whole notion of not knowing. Tango, tai chi. It's all the same. It's about exploring the unknown. And it is precisely this that needs to be done. Together.

Yesterday was like a double-grind. I went back into myself, got more out of the pythagoras kernal, and coming out with speed :)

So, what does this mean?

The danger of this insight is the danger that I see in Tav, Vinay, Gary, Nick, the ego-problem. Will, as a function of belief, and how it becomes a leadership quality. It is good at a certain level of scale, if they are working well together. They will, at some point, it is hoped, but they do not align easily together. Ego is a problem. I'd like to see Vinay and Gary engage and see how that actually happens in presence, which would confirm something about leading and following.

The danger, is the same danger people see in Truth By David, or I Am The Answer, a more recent thing which scares a few people. It could so easily be misunderstood as ego, as arrogance, an accusation leveled at me as a kid a lot. I have been trained, I can see that. So, to allay people's fears, I shall be stepping back from all this. That is, I give these things, these thoughts, and then I step away. That is, whatever happens over the next two months (maybe 2 years... not sure about this, depends on the level of success I guess), I am going to walk away. It means I am not competing with what people are doing, I am not threatening their jobs, I am not taking away any lime-light from them. It's like a social death. It's the equivalent of disappearing into a monastery. I shall not grow in ego because I am extracting myself from the social scene.

Means I can play the Genius Card, for a little while, with a use-by-date, as it were :)

networks and groupings

A little mindstream which flowed through me this morning, 20090402.

maths, set theory, based on property, relative to property eg even numbers divisible by 2, as opposed to a set/group defined and then used logically
make use of existant relationships, people still seeking power through "fake" relationships, eg twitter, one-to-many, sales
blood, relationship, random in a class, sorted by "ability", ie not self-selected, friendship, ability, optimal (self-similar, complimentary)

I recorded it audiowise too on youtube, before I forget. Verbalising it means I externalise it, and it is woven into my conscious thinking.

EDIT
The set of multiples of a number are kind of the same. Some are subsets of others, eg 4 times table is a subset of the 2 times table, and the 9 of the 3. What's interesting is that prime numbers are not on these full sets (eg 2, 3, not 4 and 9), apart from once and once only. What's the correlation wrt social grouping? Very interesting category of individuals. Prime Set of Extraordinary Individuals.

macropatronage_day_2

A rather uneventful day. Went into london town with the hope of checking out three different locations. The first was the french institute, suggested by sofia 10 mins before I hit the streets.

Got there, talked to a woman with a clipboard awaiting people for some film or other. Found out that she was an intern, and needed experience to become a film distributor. She recommended the same old, same old: fire off an email. It's funny. It's like people think this is news. This is the way it is, and there's nothing that can be done about it. I told her that part of the problem is that there is too much time and effort wasted with all this communication, instead of people stepping up to the plate and making a decision. I thought about it a bit, gave her time to think about it, and asked her if she had come up with something. She hadn't, but seems like a respectful thing to do.

She appreciated my position, that I am trying to alter the actual system in my manner of engagement, and that the potential for change is nearly zero. It very much depends on peeps becoming aware of the opportunity. The second place I visited was a marketing company, and all the peeps had just disappeared into a meeting. Bang goes opportunity for a genuine meeting. Because people are so numbed by their constant engagement, they forget how valuable it is.

Couldn't find the third place, chivas and sons, who might be related to absolut who michel bauwens has interest in. Popped into a building noticed nearby, Random House. The security guard explained that 12 years ago they had set up the electronic gates, the barbed wire fences to prevent engagement with the public. He apologised, but said I needed to make an appointment. Nice guy. Square. But it was so much like aristocracy behind castle walls, I was amazed. It's a publishing house, not a military factory.

I certainly wasn't disheartened. I was simply being told what I knew, what everyone knows. People are busy, put it in writing. And if I do, I am going nowhere. My words are not the accepted lingo, and the ideas don't conform either. In fact, most of my stuff means a restructuring of how people do work, think etc. Culture change is something which is the hardest thing to effect. It's fun trying. I hope to get better at playing with people.

Do I have an alternative? Actually, I do. Appeal to the person. Invite them to come up with the solution. I have already accepted failure. If anything does happen, they know it is their success. Powerful stuff, if you catch the vibe. The dispossessed and exploited in the world don't have access, and instead of :formal" assistance, we need to act with moral courage. My solutions are all deceptively simple. Play tron. Do experiential nights. Invest in people, eg actuators, eg social artists.

If we calculated all the time and the money used up preparing and evaluating ideas/actions before reaching decisions, how much would it amount to? I suspect, the bigger the company, the longer it takes. This also goes for funding bodies and recipients. We need to make this way more efficient, and that's by appealing directly to people, empowering them, and effecting trust relationships.

How do famous, powerful, or important peeps solve their problem of popularity? Eg someone with 100k tweet followers; there's no way they can follow them. How can they still be of use?

It's all about trust. I got bags of it. And I am old enough to do this without it worrying me. It's amusing, actually :)

notes on methodology

Spoke to Leo at the hive, who is an entrepreneur who has learned about the state of the business world through bitter experience. Seem to be a lot of people who have these kinds of stories. It's dirty. My guess is, my ideas will be ripped off. Quite frankly, I don't care, since all my ideas will improve the state of the world. Doesn't matter if I get recognition. Unless the small ideas are used without recognition, and the person/s ripping me off don't rip off the other ones too :)

So, how is the methodology shaping up? Came up with the idea of how to get into the MD's office. How about approaching people in the street, suits, and offer them an opportunity. We then walk into the offices. They lend me some respectability, and if we get into the offices for the pitch, they are third party, which is related to smart contracts, and also is proof so that the idea can't be ripped off easily.

Further, because it may be tricky for a suit to listen to me, I can approach anyone even in brixton, or at tango, and see if they are free. The qualities required are thus:

• open-minded
• can make some time
• aware of social media
• funky, interesting, beautiful is optional :)

If I can get a group together, and we get a suit or two, the meeting really is an opportunity since that group will disband. And the dialogue is no longer bi-polar, the power dynamics not so obvious, since the centre of gravity of power is lessened from MD in his office by the two, or potentially more people, in the office.

Would be amazing if this happened too, wouldn't it?

Earlier, found one school and of course didn't get into see the head... too busy :) Would be nnice if I had a device that allows me to see who is local so i can ngo into visit opportunistically: schools, businesses, creative hubs eg future institute. I cann then just wander about. Iphone and googlemaps is probably the best way to go. Hopefully, I will be set up next time I come to london.