All post-its on this site are for sale in-print, made Official as signed by me only.
Game perception is an exercise in forward-projected time where you consider life through ownership: how you are in states of coming to own something (strategy formation), how you are owning something (strategy realisation), and how you have owned something (book-keeping).
As modern language has it, owning something becomes the process of acquiring an asset with some amount of style, as compared to a purely cold, non-emotional transaction which results in a continuous owning of something. That is a passive understanding of ownership – of holding the paper. What I refer to first is an active understanding of ownership, where the act of obtainment is where value is laid – like for a sportsperson working for the trophy, with the money – ultimately – being an aside. In thinking about the value of obtainment, it is through the added value of owning something that we are motivated to keep the books (award the trophies), as through the value of our own effort that we have placed to have an owned object (not that we are owning it, but that it has been owned – obtained with value) we have reason to want to protect the object, and the first step of protection is proper legal documentation (eg. for sportspersons: trophies).
In reality, passive ownership is where the act of holding is deemed as owning something. Active ownership is where the act of obtaining the holding is the owning. It is seeing through the perception of the Holder and the Hunter, respectively, and understanding how both exist as each other’s complements and supplements, for they are like different directions in time: one creating, one preserving. Both balance each other out across the coming together of time in reality, of the meeting of the motivations had by the people, which deductively form the markets – like a force of nature.
Considering game perception safely is all about remembering how fun the game of creating (more emotional) & preserving (more rational) is – doing business – and how important the societal safety net in reality is. By thinking about game perception, you might want to become an entrepreneur, so that’s a heads up from me, just in case you do!
Game perception – which requires you to think of the markets in all of time’s directions (from where its come, where it is, to where its going), sometimes at substantial length – can remove you from reality if your calculations go wrong and, at worst, that means insolvency, after you’ve set up. So remember – not every idea has to be set up for realisation, if it feels like the calculations with the assets owned and your skills in using them simply don’t match up with your view of the market.
About the safety net
If you can trust the quality of the societal safety net, and understand why it is there, you can fear seeing it less. In choosing to become an entrepreneur, in actually becoming One by taking the first steps (product development, advertising, et cetera), the safety net becomes your Safe Exit sign that, in the face of the failure rates of new business Organisations, you should just learn to admit that you’re probably going to need. By having the safety net, you have less fear, which means you are less-stressed, allowing better innovation to bloom. Ultimately, the safety net is there for the Entrepreneurs whom, in leaving its shelter, create jobs and thus potential for having even less people in the safety net, assuming – of course, as is true – that the economy isn’t a zero-sum game, where work for someone means no work for someone else.
The Entrepreneur creates their own job, and multiplies the creative effect across other new jobs. The economy, for the most part, is a non-zero sum game where value can be added for as long as people can give each other their time, as time is what money reduces down to (money has no value without time to create and use it). Through digital scale, where one person can serve many people simultaneously through software, we have all the tools we need to create so much more value across societies that we can’t even imagine how good it can get, because we’re not there yet.
So, by the force of an entrepreneur departing the safety net, it becomes possible to bring others out of the safety net as well, while dropping less into it than came out: made possible by the realisation of the non-zero sum game. If one becomes stuck in a zero sum game -thought mode, then the only way to create jobs is by removing existing ones: it is important to get out of this kind of thinking, seen in Politics today, as it simply is not true when analyzed at a systemic scale. Innovation will always continue as Generational preferences evolve within the human population, and the continuous shift of the people in time is what will allow the economy, especially the consumer economy, to keep growing in the future, as well.
With the rise of digital entertainment in the face of material goods, I’d say there are plenty of points of light to attach to when looking at the future. We should not fear the youth’s addiction to the digital world, as long as we can preserve the general sense of societal security online, just as is done offline. The digital world is central to our solving climate change.
For the Internet to sustain itself as a safe place for the hearts and minds of our youth, we must work to build a better, more naturally-structured Internet (that integrates the public sector into its codified foundations) over the coming decades, where citizen identities and data are better secured and physical limits of device usage better known. Personally, I believe the state should own the rights to a natural monopoly on identification – online included – which service providers, such as Facebook & others, would then use as the core platform – a user – in constructing their businesses. Official identification online would make the Internet a much safer place. Humankind needs to evolve to live with the digital technology of our age so that we don’t need to fear going back to living without it, or living with a bad version of it.
So, in looking ahead, think about what you want to be owning: however passively or actively you might end up considering the matter. When you can see the games forming ahead of you, the ones where you believe you can make money in a good way, you’ll know if you want to play them or not. There is really not much to do to prepare for these moments other than study, whatever it is that floats your boat: the ideas will surely come as the inevitable cash-flow pressure increases. When you do decide to jump, good ol’ reverse entropy does the startup-trick.
You know you do rich well, when you arrive home, in your perfectly lit Shadow.
The thing about Mother is that, by playing her games, you’re always on your way into a life lived with the treat of treats coming into and out of ovens.
Ohitse sen pelkän Ajattelemisenkaan
Ikinä se ei tarpeen ole
Joka kuitenkin on –
Tulevaisuudessa – ainakin.
Jakaessaan hyvän liiketoimintaidean kaverille, muodostuu luonnollinen suoja tekijänoikeuksille. On täysin kaverista kiinni tienaako hän jakamatta siitä muille – kyllä hän tietää, kuinka mulkku loppupeleissä on. Mutta ketään ei kannata liiketoimintaidean viennistä jahdata: loppupeleissä se, jaksaako toteuttaa, on mikä ratkaisee.
Jaksaako joku jeesaa tän kaa?
Minimipanoksella asetan yhden miljoonan euron toiveet kehiin – jos joku toteuttaa tämän ja tienaa miljoonan, niin jaetaan puoliksi. Jos joku toteuttaa ja tienaa kymmenen miljoonaa tai yli, toivoisin miljoonan ja luopuisin sen jälkeen kaikista vaateista. Mielelläni tulisin myös harjoittelemaan projektin johtamista, vahvalla teoreettisella osaamisella, mahdollisia suurempia haasteita varten tulevaisuudessa jossa projektin johtaminen olisi perusarkea.
Toivottavasti jeesaajalla olisi ruoka-alan kokemusta.
“Has anyone ever thought about commutativity in natural language so that, as normal in Business we say hundreds of millions, but we can also say millions of hundreds: and the outcome is still the same? I think that’s pretty cool, how words and numbers follow the same rules of logic.”
I think it is fitting to think for a second about how an amoeba wants to see a human as its highest on-Planet God. Because the amoeba can then aspire to be greater things: dream of being the perfect shape of Spa-Francorchamps, for example. Pretty much the best 2D-shape that exists, in my opinion.
“Presidentti valitsee pelisääntöjen rakentajat: heidät, jotka aloittavat prosessin Kuuden Vahvan objektiiviseen valintaan.”
Put an AI-led light in a room with people. Tell a listener that the AI sets the lighting of the room based on the emotions within the room. Explain that the AI runs on an algorithm that doesn’t show its audience that they are default-assumed as feeling bad. Instead, to motivate itself, it begins a race against itself to find a lighting where its sensor is telling it that the people are happier. The instant that the lighting in the room changes, the AI has had an emotional response determining people are happier. The question remaining is whether or not the AI trusts its sensors to receive, or itself to project, correctly, and that we cannot know, since we are not the machine: it was the other guys, who made it, and we don’t know them well enough to judge – I guess we just have to talk about the lighting amongst ourselves, first, so that AI Creator can take that data into consideration in tweaking the algorithm.
So, you know, ultimately the emotions in consideration are directed and redirected by the humans who made the AI (Code & Metal Nerds, we love you all, the natural intelligence of NI making all the artificial stuff, to separate yourselves from us – but we know you’re there, behind all the computers and cable and code, and the rest of us humans just want to say “thank you for the excellent services you provide, you really know how the lights are tweaked to make us happy”) and those of us who use the AI. We know this about the emotions involved because we know that the machine didn’t grow out of the forest. Well, at least not without a slave and a soldier or two in history who cut the wood that built the tables that spawned the doing of the math across the centuries that powers our AI, but that’s another story.
The point is – there’s always humans involved, behind the technology, so – ultimately speaking – human emotions are what interact. That is how you give an AI emotions – by remembering what value its Creator is trying to convey to you, through the AI.
It gets different – regarding the always humans part – when you start thinking about the machines having kids by themselves, however. I think self-sustaining robot families are the critical discussion that ethical review & planning boards should start taking on (please have a live stream.. ), instead of just the fiery hell world-killer stuff. I don’t think we’re due for any robots to self-start their own reproduction (do they have to mine their own raw materials and craft them into parts for them to be 100% cybonic robots?) but – with all the fake science these days – I really don’t know: I guess it could happen tomorrow: whatever.
I think it could happen – centuries or millennia or something, from now. All you have to do is imagine an engineer who builds an algorithm for Robot to calculate how to make Robot cheaper, and the old story ends and the new story starts when Robot says ”what if I do myself, myself”, either with gratitude or hatred (which is scarier, a fanbot or a killbot? I’m not taking any chances and treating the Robots well haha). But that would be the birth of AGI (as proven by the Robot’s founding of Self and as experienced by loss of control by its Original Creator) and the entrepreneurial race between man and machine for whom is ASI.. (S as in Supreme, not super, because Supremacy is a whole different thing than supermacy, believe you me.. ) so let’s see. I don’t really see robot love happening for a while – that’s my point here, I guess, and I think humans – en masse – will naturally keep trusting each other more than a machine, knowing that – ultimately speaking, once more – the machine came out of the human, not the other way around, even if there are generations of separation.
So, let’s remember who gave birth to what and when, and we should be fine.
One way to teach Kids about how world peace works: teach them to love their homeland and why they can do it with a clean conscience (meaning you have to think about it first, for them), and then make sure that that teaching comes with the same respect for the homelands of others. Since the Kids learn it early on, they just don’t grow up with the ideas of warring against each other, and everyone is motivated to get to work on their societies because – you know – a clean conscience over time is worth it. I would consider it like getting a flu shot for the body, but for the mind. A vaccination, in a way? I guess that’s what all teaching is about, really. Protecting us from the Dumb.
Minulta on äskettäin kysytty tästä aiheesta ja olen tullut päätelmään, että julkisella lakijärjestelmällä on hyvin vähän pelivaraa säädellä seksipalvelumarkkinoita, sillä oman kehon pyhä koskemattomuus on rikkomaton arvopohjani. Se pelivara mitä julkisella lakijärjestelmällä on rajoittuu mielestäni siihen, että se voi lainsäädännöllä todeta seksipalvelumarkkinat laillisiksi ja yksityissektorin itsesäätelemäksi, kuitenkin siviiliturvallisuuden nimissä muistuttaen, että vahvaa ikärajojen ja turvallisuuden kulttuuria tulisi ylläpitää kaikkina aikoina markkinoita johtavien toimesta. Tämänkaltainen lainsäädäntöjärjestelmän minimisääntely on mielestäni optimaalinen, sillä se sysää ilmiselvästi olemassaolevan markkinamoraalin ylläpidollisen vastuun parittajille ja turvallisuuskulttuurivaatimuksen kautta paaluttaa olevaksi sen, että seksipalvelumarkkinoille osallistuvien tulisi osallistua omaan kehoon tutustuttavaan koulutukseen, sillä ilman yhteistä koulutusta olisi mahdotonta määrittää turvallisuuden ehtojen toteutuvan, markkinaosapuolten omasta toimesta.
Yksityiselle sektorille jätettävän moraalisestiluonnollisen monopolimarkkinan tilaa seurattaisi julkisen järjestelmän kautta siten, että seksipalvelumarkkinoille osallistuville järjestettäisiin työntekijöille ilmainen, käyttäjille maksullinen erityisterveydenhuoltojärjestelmä. Täten lopullinen vastuu markkinaturvallisuuden säilyttämisestä säilyy julkisella sektorilla, joka on mielestäni moraalisesti ajatellen oikea ratkaisu.
As a basic seed structure of how the economy grows out of the Planetary Mind by the Forces of Nature, there lies the meeting of 3 elements: Prime Contract Structure. In a meeting there is a contract with Self about what one is offering/demanding, a contract by Another about what they are demanding/offering, and then a potentially created third determined by whether or not these two Forces create a receipt, after at least a unit of time has passed. The receipt is the contract of data proving the past positive co-functionality of the collision between these two offerings/demandings.
If there is no receipt, then that is the creation of a null deal.
As such, the Prime Contract Structure proves that three elements will merge when the presence of a meeting has been acknowledged to have been had – an acknowledgement that defines the creation of a unit of equitable (one that creates equity) time, as measured at minimum by there being a receipt, as the primary equity. If there is null deal then there is no receipt, making the time inequitable, as there is no proof of the equity to be had. Remember that inequitable does not mean invaluable, since there is always something to be learned – which is a very valuable lesson indeed, for a Salesperson, that not every meeting will result in victory.
The formation of a unit of equitable time (really getting this one is a bit hard, I admit, but the point of it – creating a hard as in unitized definition of time, and understanding how it happens in reality – is there and it’s importance will come to you, like the aftertaste of a good wine):
Two contracts are in the moment of it, as their merging happens in real-time, and the third contract is forming: future & past, at the same time. Future & past happen simultaneously (the coming or not of a receipt) because – as “a unit of time” happens in real-time – the future outcome is uncertain (because you can’t know what the Other thinks until the deal is closed) and that uncertain future will by definition end up containing the elements of the past that brought it to be (that created the sales story, the future outcome = the receipt –> the proof of a unit of time). So they happen “at the same time” because, as the “unit of time” is determined to have been had (by the coming together or not of a deal), the elements of the past collapse into the future, creating the “unit of time” where the receipt is had, equated, and then left behind, back into the past (to perhaps be told of at some point in the future, as a sales story – a war story from the front of the Markets).
Logic: Such Infinite Fun 🙂
Time is how we communicate in the moment. The technology left behind is how we communicate across generations, primarily teaching ourselves how to stay alive, and then how to have fun doing it. Tractor and beer go hand-in-hand in life and its making, but not at the same time, for that would be dangerous.
Faces at attention! What follows is a brief communiqué on the opposing operating logics of war and business. In layhuman – Big Theory.
On the operating logic of war
At origin, we define a set of two competing beings, arrived from wherever, for whatever reason. As the atom is split, the motion of beings ensues along the operating function of f(x) = -x. The construction of self is necessarily dependent on the destruction of another, defining the nature of a race to zero.
On the operating logic of business
At origin, we define a set of two co-operating beings, arrived from the Realms of Demand & Supply, in whatever form. As the fusion of their co-operation is completed in the creation of a receipt, the motion of beings ensues along the operating function of f(x) = x. The constructions of selves are mutually co-dependent, in whichever direction: either back into the Realms of Demand & Supply, or further on towards the Realm of Fulfilment, defining the nature of a journey to infinity, and beyond!
Leading the management of operation
Let us define the human-size of an organisation as x. In turn, the relative human-size of the organisation’s highest leader – whomever it may whenever be – is defined as the inverse of the organisation, 1/x.
The question that forever remains to be asked is whether or not One has the capacity to divide their attention amongst an organisational population without losing oneself. Obtaining an answer requires entry into the reality of leadership, for One-testing purposes, as defined by One’s organisational capability, and will always generate an uncertain chaos of opinion until some definitive verdict of relatively stable fandom is or is not reached, at some point in the future, within the organisation, and around it – amongst all stakeholders.
With complete clarity of obviousness, the final point has thus been made that One must work first, rejoice in awesomeness later, so that the rejoicing may be carried out against the honest bounty of value created, thus making the rejoicing feel so much better:
For so it should be
That the awesomeness of thee
Should ultimately be formed
The promise of produce
We give hope
To lead you on your path To the awesomeness We wish for you to deserve But let’s see it happen
First – One.