Personalism: The Politics of the Internet

An open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States.

You came into power by having a platform the public could relate to.

You can win by having a new platform the public can relate to.

Forget about attacking the opposition directly. It is a waste of time and resources.

It was Eisenhower who said, “The plan is useless, the planning essential.”

Planning is about knowing yourself and your competitor. The actual battle is about adaptation and destruction of the competitor’s tools. WE MUST DOCUMENT THE COMPETITION TO GUIDE OUR ATTACK STRATEGY.

Napoleon’s first strike was at night and in the rain.

Martin Luther’s attack was with German and Satirical Cartoons instead of Latin and Religious Debate.

Canada conquered Vimy Ridge, by knowing how to hunt game in Canadian forests.

Germany invaded France by taking a country road around the Maginot Line.

D-Day was preceded by a massive night attack on front line communication, infrastructure and airborne troop drops behind enemy lines.

The Iraq invasion was founded on destroying the enemies’ will to fight.

We have no intent of ever executing a frontal assault against the enemy.  It is romantic incompetence.

Our competitive strategey: “Don’t fight like a Gentleman, fight like a Noble Savage.”

We are not seeking the approval of the professionals.

We are developing a language and tools to make the ordinary person extraordinary.

It is called the RECOVERY PLATFORM.

Create a phenomena called the “Personal Corporation.”

Make every Canadian capable of governing every aspect of their own life via the internet.

Abandon Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Racism, Fascism, Nazism.

Create the Manifesto of “PERSONALISM” the politics of the internet.

Sincerely,

Grant Czerepak

Advertisements

Web 3.0: Debunking the Open Source Myth

capitalism

We have all been had.  There are thousands of companies out there  telling us our content has no monetary value and then using our sweat to make billions on advertising and claiming they are benevolently providing us a service.  THERE IS NO BENEVOLENCE ONLY BUSINESS.

Every post you put on the web has value.  Every keystroke, every mouse click has value.  Corporations are using it to advertise, analyze markets, sell to you.  YOU SHOULD HAVE A PIECE OF THE MONETARY PIE.

The problem is not technology.  Sending payment to everyone is damned easy.  The problem is middle men.  MIDDLE MEN MAKE THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING ARTIFICIALLY HIGH.

We can all profit.  Everything we do has worth.  We can charge for everything.  Everytime someone looks at our content we can profit.  DEAL DIRECT TO LOWER THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING, DON’T GIVE YOUR WORK AND CONTENT AWAY FOR FREE.  THE WEBSITES DON’T.  THE CARRIERS DON’T.

You have worth.  You have value.  YOU MUST BE PAID WHEN YOUR CONTENT IS DISPLAYED.

Stop being a Tube.  Stop being a Twit.  Stop being a Face.  Stop being a Space.  Stop Digging.  Stop Gurgling.  You are not children any more.  YOU ARE THE KEY.  ENJOY CAPITALISM.  DEMAND PAYMENT.

There is a Fair Global Price for everything and it is not Open Source.  THE COMMONS WILL ALWAYS BE A TRAGEDY.

ONE WORLD, FIRST WORLD.

Links:

Netular Technology versus Psuedo-Netular Technology

fishingnet

I have been having a very interesting discussion on Linkedin.com having expressed my opinion about current information technology and the netular  information technology I would like to see.

The people who have been exchanging their views with me cannot see the forest for the trees.  One is offended that I do not rave about all the social transitions the technologies are offering.  Another spews buzzwords like a chainsaw.  Another assumes my opinion is a product of my impatience for the convergence of the existing technologies.

Einstein once said he would spend a majority of his time defining a problem and a fraction of his time solving it.  A majority of the time on information technology is spent solving and a fraction actually taken to understand.  The consequence is most of the solutions out there are not designed, they are hastily assembled patchworks that because of the inertia of being first on the field are only replaced by further patches.

Our entire system of networks is built upon a foundation of linear and tabular architecture that is present in our CPUs, memory, storage, data structures, programming languages, organization, locations, events and goals.  In reality we are only dabbling in networks and doing an abysmal job of using them to their full effect.  We don’t understand them.

Marshall McLuhan said that when a new media is created the first thing we do is pump old media through it.  That is what we are doing now.  We are taking every form of old media we have and pushing it through the internet.  There is not a single case where we have successfully departed from linear and tabular old media.  I have looked at all the current technology, I have used it, I understand its internals and I stand by what I say.

We need a fundamental change in the way information technology works otherwise we are going to continue with an undesigned brute force attempt to solve our problems without ever understanding them.  The outcome will not be progress, but the perpetuation of flat earth thinking.

Linear and tabular thought are responsible for many of the problems we have in the world.  The biggest is the inability to fully appreciate the uniqueness of everything and everyone in this world.  The supreme example of this has been the long history of Religion, Genocide, Slavery, Nationalism, Imperialism, Racism, Eugenics, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Marxism, Capitalism and Socialism.  All of them fail us because they depended on linear and tabular models of thought that denied the respect of the individuality of all experience.  True netular thought has the potential to challenge all of these misconceptions.  I think it is appropriate that this transition is on the horizon with the rise of globalism.  I doubt it will be a peaceful transition.

Actually, the insights into the underlying order in networks has made quite a bit of progress. One of the leaders in this area is Albert-Beszlos Barabasi who authored the book “Linked” http://www.nd.edu/~networks/Linked/index.html . Another researcher Kwabena Boahen made a fascinating presentation at TED http://tinyurl.com/6nnkb7 . There is also the work of Simon Williams that has come up with a new associative database architecture http://www.lazysoft.com as well as a commercial product, Sentences.

It is time for everyone to fundamentally change the way they think.

Linear, Tabular and Netular Thought

ltn

Gutenberg’s creation of the western version of the printing press is regarded as a revolution and in a sense it was.  Printing led to the transition of western thought from a theocratic 1300 year deductive flat world dark age to a 500 year inductive round world renaissance.  However, printing only lead to the presentation of greater amounts of information.  The real revolutions were the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein culminating in the General Theory of Relativity.  With the advent of Marxism the world slipped into the polarization of the Communist/Capitalist blocks and threw the world into another deductive flat world dark age that lasted into the 1990s.  The advent of the Internet and Tim Berner Lee’s World Wide Web has led to another renaissance back into inductive thought.  Worldviews are collapsing, however we are still to see a new worldview created by the new presentation of increasing amounts of information.  In fact, the Internet age is still trapped in the models of the age of the printing press, the most prevalent being linear (scribal literacy) data and tabular (press literacy) data.  Tabulation dominates information technology architecture and until it is abandoned we are still slaves to print.  The Turing Machine was a migration of existing printing press information technology architecture not an innovation in information technology architecture.  We have yet to implement fundamental change at the foundation of our technologies.  Until we are able to rethink, reengineer, mechanize, represent, store, process and present information as netular (internet literacy) data successfully, which has yet to happen, there will be no revolutions in human thought.

Environment: Please, Give Me Better Evidence

I have been following the Global Warming/Climate Change debate for some time and I am frustrated. I am frustrated with the beating that science and free speech are taking.

I watched a TED.com presentation by Al Gore last night and I was deeply disappointed. I saw little science and reason, and a great deal of anecdotal evidence and emotional appeal. Sometimes I wondered what the examples even had to do with global warming.

I regard science as the best philosophy we have. Give me atheism, reason and logic over anything. However, like all philosophies, its adherents are human and subject to all of humanity’s frailties. We have humans who are trying to meet their physiological needs, their safety needs, their belonging needs, their esteem needs, their self-actualization needs and their transcendence needs as scientists. They have to pay their mortgage and 80% will surrender their ideals and objectivity to make that payment. The consequent cost in principle, human life, best practices, material, land and time are enormous.

Because of this human frailty, I am skeptical about every scientific claim. The latest “discovery” that makes the one minute daily news bite does not influence me, because I know there has most likely been an error in the hypothesis, observation, method, data, apparatus or events. I also know that a vested interest was paying for that research.

Another thing I am aware of is naturalist philosophy is as flawed as capitalist philosophy. Naturalists tend to spend their time promoting pastoral myth. Capitalists tend to spend their time promoting progress myth. Both have time and again proven themselves out to lunch. And scientists are in both camps.

In saying all of these things I have been accused of “slander” by both sides. And it has led me to the conclusion that I am attacking the correct problem. The problem isn’t Global Warming or Climate Change, the problem is bad science. Climatology is as complex as artificial intelligence and genetics, and the evidence that the climatologists on both sides provide is far from convincing. The samples are not global and the margin for error is too great.

So as a skeptic I say. “Please, give me better evidence” and less myth.