Connecting People

Always rely on the fact that the markets love you for trying, and even just for your very being.
Market motivation.
Be a leader, not a whiney-weener. Or is there too much wimp in you to try?

“Getting feedback is the best experience beside the process of creating the incentives for others to give the feedback to you. Whether or not the feedback is good, bad, somewhere in between – or all three at the same time – then you’re getting the most valuable data of all time: the data on yourself, which is what you need to serve all the others.”

“Never denigrate the nature of stupidity for, if you do, it must mean that you hold yourself in a higher regard in the consideration of your own intelligence. If you do that then you must ask yourself is the other worth lambasting or was it indeed yourself – along with the other so-called intelligent – that simply didn’t do good enough of a job in education? Just a thought.”

“I have a dream of a world where socially responsible isn’t a competitive marketing advantage. Rather, it just is. All we need is a science that isn’t built on the infinite reductivity cost-cutting – causing resultant behaviour as taught – and we should be fine. I mean – yes – it’s cost-cutting to a certain extent but when quality starts to suffer, then that’s when we need to understand the other direction of economic thought, the one where emotions matter: the cost-growing, and all the life-motivational aspects it brings along with it.”

“Beauty: it isn’t just in the eye of the beholder. It can also be in the ear, the mouth, the stomach, the muscles.. so many places for beauty to be felt through. So many.”

“The best thing you can always fall back on is physical activity. It will enable you to draw upon the energy required to provide yourself and others around you with much more wholesome life experiences. Healthy: it’s better for you.”

“A salesperson is like a farmer. Just as a farmer connects a seed with the Earth to grow food, a salesperson connects an idea with a human to grow value. Perhaps we can define the primary sales idea as eat something so you don’t die.”

(Suomessa lienemme siis voivan kaikella niin sanotulla terveellä järjellämme käyttää maanviljelijän ohella sanaa mielenviljelijä, joka 
käyskentelee ympäriinsä istuttamassa arvoa kasvattavia ideoita)

“My warmest regards to my Finnish Air Force-based upbringing and the entire worlds of Formula 1 and skydiving for leading the way in teaching me all about epicness and how to secure it.”

For all our friends

When I hear people in Finland speak of alustatalous (literal translation: platform economy) then I proceed to raise my thumb in approval and think to myself: “Good job – you have understood the basic nature of business. I am very proud of you.”

For the economy is the platform, the social network with a purpose.

If there is one thing I have learned from my career through the past dozen-plus years – whilst realising the significant gaps in the prevalent business and economics education that I myself went through in getting my Master’s degree (not blaming anybody, just saying there’s a lot of work to do in reorganising the schools of organisation) – then it is this: every business is a platform business, and this should be taught on the first day of business school, because it describes the core – the seed – of where the formation of the markets begins and thus is one of the most basic knowledge components of the entire science. A common teaching of the unquestionable basics creates a shared logic – just as is everyday with physicists and chemists and biologists and whatnot – and thus a shared manner of operation-in-thought, which increases the potential for successful outcomes in co-operation amongst practitioners, out in reality.

You know – just like medical doctors can gather around a human body and work together, because they jointly know what they are gathering around – a human body, just like the one they themselves inhabit. Similarly – practitioners emergent out of the schools of organisation should know what it is that they are gathering around, starting with the basics: of organisations, for example – organisations of people.

The Organisation’s Core

Every business is a platform business since every business is connecting people from two sides. It makes no difference as to how the connection of the people is achieved. That is what the attempt of making money is all about: trying to see what human connection works in creating value. What do people want to make and consume to create value for each other?

Who knows? You can’t really know. Not until you try, that is. That is why in Finland we say Yrittäjä for Entrepreneur, which literally means Trier or Attempter.

There is a potentially infinite set of connective permutations possible – as in ways to connect people – always reducing down to one person connecting with another to create value, intermediated by a business operating the exchange of money and the contracts enabling the exchange of it in trust (indeed, it is a bunch of contracts that create the very existence of money in and of itself – setting the core definition of money as a system of quantitatively objectified trust: as opposed to trust being retained solely inside humans in a qualitative form).

I’ll say it again in different words. Whatever value is being created (whatever a transaction makes real and worthy), the connection creating the value is the platform that is always being spoken of: the business itself, through the products & services that it offers. It is of no matter who makes the products & services, whether it is the business itself or an outside source of content they draw upon: it is the business that brings the pieces together. That is why, objectively, it is called an organisation.

The organisation – the business – is a container built by the documentation of history (proving that history has a lot of practical value, as it practically operates the foundations of today). The container contains all the parts it requires to bring people together in whatever manner, like a function f(?) that contains the potential to contain all the variables within itself, with the variables defining whatever it is that is being traded. The variables are the pieces of the puzzle being put together in the process of value creation: the organised parts, forming the organisation.

I’m going to keep repeating these basics in different permutations of words so that the message really sinks in with my intended audience, the message about the presentation of the fundamental core of the Market Sciencesthe sciences studying the components of the organisations and the organisations themselves that create the markets, the interaction between the organisations that grow the markets, and the sum whole of the economy that they end up resulting in by way of accumulative logic.

Businesses – all businesses, and all organisations for that matter – exist to connect people, allowing for the creation of value, whatever value that might be. By definition, organisations are platforms, connecting people within them and between them. When business people such as Bankers speak of the markets, they speak of the people coming together through organisations in the act of valuation, capitalisation, and realisation had when potential demands meet potential supplies (valuation) and form a contract enabling an exchange (capitalisation), leading to the operation of the exchange (realisation).

This is a completely industry-agnostic definition of what money does as it runs through organisations of whatever kind – wherever they might lie in society. Money flows through the organisations in society as guided by the prevalent sets of factual and moral knowings held by people (which also explains the motivations for the initial creation of organisations), creating potential supplies and demands that lead said people into situations in life in which they then operate a series of decisions that either end up forming capitalised contracts of exchange or not. After which life goes on, once more*.

Big Theory in practice

All businesses are platform businesses. All organisations serve to connect people. A grocery store connects eaters and farmers: people. A newspaper connects newsmakers to newsreaders: people. An AI connects its developers minds to those who need support in forming analyses, or whatever else the AI is designed to do: people. A trout company connects a fisherman and a trouteater: people.

People to people: One’s demand for supply is an Other’s supply of demand.

It is always a matter of people operating on platforms to come together, since even the algorithms trading the stocks were created by people. Always people in, people out – that is how the money works, flowing from the people into the system of organisations (the economy) and back out of it, into the hands of the people.

Even within the organisations – people.

All businesses operate in two-sided markets – not just digital media companies, where the term is most used. The business is a container – like a factory in paper form – where content goes in on one side and then someone takes it out on the other, creating value both ways. First on one side there must be a product (starting with an ad), then on the other side there can be customers, and there must always be a promise of a match between the sides, since otherwise there is no potential to invest into. When there are customers, then there can be more products.

The company is by definition a platform bringing people together to have their needs fulfilled: a utilisation of skills to be supplied, a set of demands to be fulfilled. Skills create supplies that fulfil demands, always held by people.

It does not matter what the product is, it does not matter who the customers are: all businesses operate a two-sided market where both demand- and supply-sides, by definition, need to be played by the One operating the business. Ultimately, the playing of the instrument of the markets reduces down to the Entrepreneur’s relationship with themselves, standing on the platform of life – their balancing of the three fundamental, objective forms of equity: the contracts, the money, and the time.

The Entrepreneur is the ultimate human platform, owning the paper that runs the organisational platform – the legally organised platform – the platform that is a business, through which the Entrepreneur connects with other humans.


This is the first lecture of all business schools in the future. I work every day towards making it so that the teaching of the basics is not forgotten, for it is the shared knowing of the basics that forms mutual understanding in the markets, increasing the potential for trust to form between market participants, increasing the likelihood of a healthy global market. The basics are the foundations of a common operating language – the obvious things that need to be taught, the Newtonian Laws of Physics of the economy – and the contents of this text, its links, and this website of mine are as basic as it gets when it comes to teaching about business. When you get more basic than the human – as in the ground we stand upon and the atmosphere within which we live – you’re in the product engineers’ world: a different, deeper realm of science.

As basic as it gets is what we must go for when we create real, actual science, for there comes a point where the arguing ends and the knowing begins: objective truth is the seed of knowledge and when we talk about people connecting with people to create value, you need but think of all the people involved in having delivered everything around you right now to you – including yourself, to yourself – to know that you are looking at objective truth, where even the philosophers of Theory of Knowledge** can’t deny that people connecting with people are what brought this moment and its surroundings to you, right now.

All students of business around the world need to begin their journey into Academia by learning about the basics of how business is all about connecting people: about the nature of contracts and money themselves and how they serve, through time, to bring people together through the organisations they inhabit and utilise: day-in, day-out.

The function of an organisation is to connect people. These must be commonly shared knowledge for global markets to function properly: for global money to be able to act better and operate a healthier market that builds the quality of the lives lived on this Planet, now and in the future. People operating the market must have a shared language that starts with the very basics, because though the basics may be basic, that does not mean the basics are simple and trivial to learn or teach (not to mention apply), for the basics – like seeds – are immense in size, once they start to grow. The global market consisting of the entire breadth of human cultures cannot function cohesively without shared knowledge of the absolute and objective basics, starting with all of the above.

Once more, I shall repeat the same message in different words, assisting in its understanding:

The Market Sciences cannot develop further without a shared base of absolutely common, unquestioned understanding. Without the Market Sciences – the sciences churning out market practitioners – functioning on a commonly shared logic, the health of the global markets mostly reduces down to chance (gambling on the hope of functioning human interactions), and we simply cannot live in a peaceful, modern, interconnected world – sharing the fruits of our knowings – if its operating system (the markets) relies on the mathematics and logics of chance.

I look forward to my academic career (with practice on the side, to check my own skills, as proven with revenue) and the infinite stream of first-years ready to face human reality at its hardest core: the contracts and the money, enabling the love had in time, by connecting the people.

“Organisaccio huset!”

Mandatory reading:

Quantum Economics: The New Science of Money by David Orrell

Social Physics by Alex Pentland

The MSC – filled with and surrounded by people, ultimately culminating into a salesperson carrying an ad: at your door, in your inbox.

*It is my personal belief that this description of the modus operandi of money in the markets is one and the same thing as quantum gravity, which I wrote about in an artistic fashion back in July (see link) when I felt I got it – the sense of a path of emotions leading towards a point: an event of culmination, such as the formation of a contract or a gathering of emotions with some other purpose. Let’s see what the physicists have to say about this power-grab of a term from their realm of science. But I do believe that the cleanliness of our homes proves the existence of quantum gravity: because at some point, it gets so messy, that you have to either buy cleaning services or become a student of Marie Kondo, and it is the seemingly random appearance of the decision, that does the proving, of the quantum gravity’s being (for it is what can pull you into the situations, that you’d rather have continued to deny their right to be, but since here they are, you must be able to at least somewhat see, how it is that you got sucked into it: and you should want to, for by facing your weaknesses, and by giving them value through the challenge that they by their nature provide for improvement, for it allows you to realise that using the muscle of the will makes you stronger. Quantum gravity: when it comes down to the basics of power, it’s what it’s all about).

ps. Physicists – have you ever considered remembering that we move around the sun at an insane speed of 30km a second? Are we thus, in real-time, integrating our path from A to B, over and over again at different wave-amplitudes and -frequencies (depending on the situation we’re in)? Just some thought.. for thought. Me to you – like a thought trade, entangled through (active transfer) space and time by the Internet, and in (passive storage) space and time by some hard drive within some server, somewhere!

“At times, when I’m really performing at my best, I feel I can integrate the information of being at a data transfer rate of infinite megabits per instant!”

**My Theory of Knowledge essay dated February 13th, 2006, from my completion of the International Baccalaureate diploma, can be found below (and to all other IB-Ohhhh graduates – yes, it was worth the extra point, bringing my total to 41/45):

Do questions like “Why should I be moral?” or “Why shouldn’t I be selfish?” have definitive answers as do some questions in other Areas of Knowledge? Does having a definitive answer make a question more or less important? 

People from different parts of the globe see the world in many different ways. For some, the eternal question in life might be “Where will I find my next meal?” whilst others might ponder the ultimate question over the meaning of life itself. Different areas of knowledge spur different methods of thinking and evaluation of knowledge, and many questions that arise might not have definitive answers. However, this lack or presence of a definitive answer does not define the importance of a question.

         Ethics as an area of knowledge results in questions such as “Why should I be moral?” or “Why shouldn’t I be selfish?” which, in practise, do not have definitive answers. Can such a question over morality or selfishness be labeled universally with a single answer? In my opinion, this is an impossibility since people around the world are in very different situations. When someone lives in the ongoing search for their next meal, is it right of them to be selfish and eat without sharing, even if others wil continue to starve? Some could say that they are perfectly justified in keeping themselves alive at the expense of others in such conditions, whilst others would most likely argue that it would be wrong to act to the detriment of another. Such situations would be unlikely in developed nations, where the viewpoint of such an act would be negative. 

         It is important to remember that, while a situation of justified selfishness may arise, overall an individual is very dependent on the collective decisions made around him. Political decisions over social welfare, for example, can be very serious issues for low-income members of society. Whereas a low-income family may depend on social welfare, a well-off politician might consider it more important to divert funding to something more pertinent to himself. Depending on the situation, selfishness can be objectively justified or unjustified. It is true that, most often in the actual world, it is more common to run into objective justification for being unselfishand moral.

         But how would a well-off citizen act if put into the situation where he has no food? The question over morality and selfishness cannot universally be given a definitive answer, as being moral could mean, for example, following one’s own or someone elses moral rules. Situations for differing individuals are remarkably varied around the world. If you had barely enough necessities (food, water, clothing, shelter) to live, would you mainly concern yourself with protecting your own family, or think about everyone else living around you before yourself? There exists such different peoples that thinking a single set of absolute moral rules exists everywhere is almost absurd, even if arguments for absolute morality exist. A definitive answer cannot be given.

         Does this lack of a definitive answer make questions, such as these over morality and selfishness, less important? I strongly believe that it does not. The examples of morality and selfishness are perfect in illustrating cases where definitive answers are not available universally, but questions about them are still important. This has been recognised by the United Nations in their Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed for the first time in December of 1948[1]. The declaration sets out, in thirty articles, the basic rights for every human benig, which reaches out into morality by preventing immoral and atrocious acts against a human’s rights. This is perhaps the closest that one can come to a universal set of rights and morals set out in writing, which the UN of course hopes every individual will adopt into their own system of moral beliefs. Nonetheless, people in India cannot be expected to hold the same set of moral rules as people in Finland, for example.

         This same view can be seen in other areas of knowledge as well. The Arts is an area of knowledge that gives birth to many questions and is a field where opinions and subjective thoughts play a major role. Judging a piece of music, for example, has a set of guidelines where it’s different attributes can be more objectively valued through evaluation of technical difficulty, musical flow, and other such measures. But can there be a definitive answer to the question: “Is this a good piece of music?” Through personal experience, I am strongly of the opinion that there can be no such definitive answer. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed music that was, in terms of musical theory, of the highest calibre, but still an ardent listener of rock music may consider Mozart as not worthy of his ears. The same logic applies to paintings and other branches of the Arts. Even so, the questions posed in the Arts are not any less important, since critique and questioning has moved artists forwards in search of new, previously unheard or unseen, forms of art.

         In history, many interpretations of past events would be unheard of were historians not willing to pose questions without definitive answers. Asking these questions is no less important, however, as historians might come up with several different possibilities that open up new ways of looking at some aspect of history. The question over the cause of the First World War does not have a single definitive answer, but is rather a collection of many different causes that historians have brought to light. Asking the question has been important, since all the different causes that historians have brought about have been written in today’s history books, which hopefuly the politicians of today and tomorrow are learning from.

         Opposing views can be considered as well, though. Arguments for the importance of a definitive answer are based on the search for knowledge. Knowledge is a “true and justified belief” which, according to this definition, has factual backing that makes it true. The natural sciences, as an area of knowledge, is more often based on the search for definitive answers that explain why and how things in the world are. A scientist might argue that asking questions with no definitive answers is pointless, since it does not provide any gains forward in terms of knowledge and understanding of the natural world. For example, the question lingering over homeopathy, an alternative form of medicine, has existed since the practise emerged in the late 1700s. Homeopathy is treatment with an “ultra-high dilution” that has perhaps less than one molecule of a substance, and there is significant controversy over whether or not it works and, more importantly, whyit works. Some have the opinion that if homeopathy is safe and determined to be helpful, then it is not important to ask why[2]. This view takes it that the question is not important, as it might not have a definitive answer.

         Doctors researching new medicines might consider the questions they are asking more important, since their results can provide new treatments and actual gains in medicinal knowledge that can help the sick. Finding a cure, or a “definitive answer” for cancer or AIDS, for example, would benefit the people of the world far more than searching for an answer to the meaning of life. There is definitely a logical and strong argument for the doctor’s case, and for him a definite answer is far more important than an ambiguous one. Does it make the other’s quest for an answer any less important? No. The doctor has an opinion, but it all boils down to everyone having their own priorities and thoughts of what is important and what isn’t. It is comparable to the situation encountered with morals, as they are not the same for everyone, either. In these matters, great personal emphasis must be taken on what one considers to be most important. I admit that in this case it is most likely that the majority would back researching a concrete cure for AIDS, rather than attempt to answer a philosophical question that, in reality, probably doesn’t have any universal answer. Most important, however, is in my opinion the acknowledgement that some individual’s may have different opinions.

         Not asking any questions on subjects with no definitive answers would mean no progress, however, and thus I would personally counter the statements claiming the unimportance of researching the causes of why homeopathy works. More important, to challenge the importance of knowledge, would be in my opinion to question the subjects that have definitive answers. As an example, the atom was thought to be the smallest thing in existence, until it was split open and sub-atomic particles were discovered. Who knows, perhaps sub-sub-atomic particles are a thing of the future, if a scienctist decides to challenge the current knowledge. The example of the earth being flat fits in perfectly here, as the belief could still be around had no questions been asked. Questioning existing knowledge is equally important as questioning things that don’t have answers.

         The importance is not on the answer, but the question itself. Asking whether or not a definitive answer makes an answer more or less important is, in my view, not as important as asking the question in the first place, no matter what type of an answer is achieved. Even in today’s world, where many things are accepted as knowledge, it is important to remember to question the answer, as only then can new realms be discovered.



Gaudeamus Igitur

Gaudeamus igitur
Iuvenes dum sumus.
Post iucundam iuventutem
Post molestam senectutem
Nos habebit humus.

Vivat academia!
Vivant professores!
Vivat membrum quodlibet
Vivant membra quaelibet
Semper sint in flore.
Semper sint in flore.

Ubi sunt qui ante nos
In mundo fuere?
Vadite ad superos
Transite in inferos
Hos si vis videre.

Vita nostra brevis est
Brevi finietur.
Venit mors velociter
Rapit nos atrociter
Nemini parcetur.

Vivant omnes virgines
Faciles, formosae.
Vivant et mulieres
Tenerae, amabiles,
Bonae, laboriosae.

Vivat et res publica
et qui illam regit.
Vivat nostra civitas,
Maecenatum caritas
Quae nos hic protegit.

Pereat tristitia,
Pereant osores.
Pereat diabolus,
Quivis antiburschius
Atque irrisores.


Kiteytys: tasa-arvo syntyy todellisesti vasta siinä vaiheessa kun ymmärretään ne rakennuspalikat, mistä tasa-arvo koostuu. Kun kansalainen oppii oikeuksiensa juuret, kykenee hän itsenäisesti puolustamaan niitä paremmin, sillä silloin hän omaa kyvyt nähdä kun hänen oikeuksiaan loukataan. Kun nähdään kansan suvereniteetin koostuvan yksilöiden suvereniteetin summasta (joka määrittyy oman suvereniteetin ymmärryksen tasosta ja halusta puolustaa näitä historian saavuttamia oikeuksia, josta oma suvereniteetti nykyhetkessä koostuu) voidaan todeta, että kansan suvereniteetti on juuriltaan riippuvainen opetuksen tasosta.

Voimme siis täten päätellä, että koulutukselliset investoinnit ovat maanpuolustuksellisia tekoja.

But remember to get up off the couch as well.

Ihminen yli protokollan

Millaista olisikaan suomalaisen Suomessa olla
Jos meitä palvelevat virkahenkilöt, työskentelykulttuurissaan
Eivät eläisi ainaisesti yllä leijuvan virkarikkeen uhan alaisina
Vaan lentäisivät myös viran ihmistä palvelevien mahdollisuuksien 
Motivaatioiden ylentäminä?

En ole piilotellut näkemyksiäni demokratiasta. Arvostan demokratiaamme äärettömästi, kuitenkin muistaen kyseessä olevan Suomen lipun alla elävän kansallisen hallintojärjestelmämme kansalaispalautejärjestelmä. 

Demokratiamme ei siis missään määrin ole järjestelmä itsessään vaan merkittävä osajärjestelmä kokonaisjärjestelmästä jonka tehtävä on tuottaa valtaistettua (pakottavasti navigoivaa) tietoa kansalaisten mielipiteistä koskien maassamme elettävän elämän tilaa ja sen koettua kehityssuuntaa, ja voimaannuttaa tuo tieto todelliseksi yhdistämällä se luonnollisiin henkilöihin kiteytyvään poliittiseen valtaan joka on luotu olevaksi osana kansallisen hallintojärjestelmämme lainsäädäntörakenteita.

Demokratiamme siis varmistaa, että kansallinen hallintojärjestelmämme on hallittaviensa henkilöiden tiedonohjauksellisessa hallussa: pelkät virastojen palvelupalautejärjestelmät eivät riitä luodakseen kansanvaltaa, sillä virkahenkilö olisi ilman demokratiaa silti palautteen yläpuolella vallallisesti, voidessaan kohauttaa olallaan sisääntulevan tiedon arvon ja jatkaa johtamistaan kuten on ennenkin tehnyt. Demokraattisesti valittu poliitikko nousee virkahenkilön yläpuolelle vallankäytössä ollessaan virkahenkilön ylin johtaja, ja täten kansanvalta on luotu.

Nämä itsestäänselvät asiat me tiesimme jo, mutta onhan itsestäänselvyyksiä hyvä kerrata, ettei niiden tuoma terve järki unohdu matkan varrelle.

Tiedämme kuitenkin myös nykyisten demokratioiden heikkoudet, etenkin liittyen sortaviin tilanteisiin jossa vähemmistö saa enemmistön kahleisiin tai toisin päin. Monesti – ellei peräti aina – tunteita herättävät sortovaltaiset tilanteet tulevat yllätyksinä, sillä vaali- ja hallintovaltamatematiikka on monelta kohtaa arvaamatonta sen myötä, että poliittiset luottamussuhteet poliitikkojen ja virkahenkilöiden kesken ja heidän välillä elävät ajassa, aivan kuten muutkin asiat ihmisluonnossa, jossa töitä tehdään. Milloin äärilaidalta tuleva pienpuolue saa juntattua hallitusneuvottelut, milloin asemaansa puolustava eliitti saa hiljennettyä orastavan muutoksen erinäisin valtaverkostoissa toteutetuin keinoin: ken tietää.

On siis nähtävä se kuinka jatkuva valtakamppailu voi myös olla haitallista sitä mukaa kun kamppailua tasaisin väliajoin tasapainottava yhteistyökyky katoaa poliittisten ja virkahenkilöllisten toimijoiden väliltä. Tämä on luonnollinen lopputulos esimerkiksi tässä historian hetkessä, jossa elämme: yhteiskunnallinen muutos viime vuosikymmenten seurauksena on ollut niin merkittävää, että ne näkemykset siitä kuinka elämää tulisi elää, ne näkemykset jotka ohjaavat poliittisten mielipiteiden muodostumista, ovat erkaantuneet hyvin kauas toisistaan. Tämä on mielestäni ollut suhteessa siihen kuinka paljon tietoa on ollut saatavilla muiden ihmisten elintavoista. Yhtäältä voi nähdä ihmisiä jotka ovat sitä mieltä, että elämää eletään edelleen sunnuntain kirkossakäynnin asettaman kellotustahdin mukaan kun taas toisaalta on kirkkaana esimerkkinä nykypäivässä heitä joiden arjen kello tikittää algoritmien ohjauksessa, älypuhelimeen saapuvien notifikaatioiden varassa.

En minä ota kantaa siihen, kuinka ihmisen tulisi elää ohitse sen, että elossa heidän tulisi kyetä valinnoillaan pysymään: aivo- ja sydäntoiminta, ajatuksella ja pulssilla todennettuina, ovat merkit siitä, että valitut elämäntavat kykenevät täyttämään elämän minimivaatimukset ja pitämään henkilön hengessään kiinni. Se on yhteiskunnallisen johtajan primäärinen tavoite: objektiivisin ote minkä voi ottaa.

Ongelma nykyisten demokraattisten toimijoiden keskuudessa on usein se, että siellä toimivat henkilöt pyrkivät todentamaan omia elämänvalintojaan oikeiksi saamalla muita muuttumaan heidän kaltaisekseen. Tämä on lähtökohtaisesti täysin hyväksyttävää ja ihmiselämän vaihtoehtoja lisätessään peräti kannustettavaa – elämäntapamainontaa ei saa koskaan kieltää, sillä jonkun demokraattisilla markkinoilla tarjoama maailmankuva saattaa olla toisen, kadoksissa olevan, pelastus. Ongelmalliseksi mainonta muuttuu siinä vaiheessa kun se yliprojisoi ja muuttuu aggressiiviseksi: kun omaa identiteettiä vahvistetaan lyttäämällä muiden valintoja.

Minä koen, että kansallisen hallintojärjestelmän ikuisesti primäärinen tehtävä on suojella yksilön vapautta olla itsensä, jotta hän voi arvottaa elämänarvon mahdollisimman korkealle, eläessään sitä kuten hän haluaa. Siinä määrin missä yksilön itsemuodostama identiteetti ei uhkaa muiden oikeutta muodostaa omaansa, niin minua kiinnostaa lähinnä se, että yksilö pysyy elossa riittävällä laatutasolla ettei minua iljetä hänen olemisensa osana omaksi kokemaani kansakuntaa. Jos minua iljettää jonkun olemisen laatutaso niin se on merkki siitä, että järjestelmä ei tuota riittävästi hyvinvointia. Ja haluan elää sellaisessa järjestelmässä, josta voin olla ylpeä, ylpeyden määritellen heikoimman aseman kautta.

Sen sijaan, että mollaisin omasta mielestäni iljettävissä olosuhteissa elävää henkilöä, mottaan yhteiskunnallisena johtajana itseäni siitä, ettei kansallinen hallintojärjestelmä vieläkään toimi riittävän hyvin. Ajatukseni kiteytyy englanninkieliseen mietteeseeni “disgusted, but respecting.” Olen kunnioittava iljetystäni kohtaan, sillä loppupeleissä iljetys on itseni määrittelemä ja se tarkoittaa sitä, että on enemmän töitä edessä. Otan iljettävät olosuhteet omaksi taakakseni. Onneksi tykkään työnteosta ja asioiden aikaansaannista.

Tiedostan, että ympäröivät olosuhteet ovat voimakkaampia elämän laatutason muokkauksessa kuin osaamme huomatakkaan. Tiedostan, että valtaosalla yksilöitä ei ole mahdollisuuksia itsekseen vaikuttaa niihin. Sen takia yhteiskunnallisia johtajia tarvitaan, loogisena osana luontoamme.


Tiedostan siis myös, että on monia yksilöitä joilla taas on valtaa vaikuttaa vallitseviin olosuhteisiin omien ajatustensa ja niiden projisointitaidon voimalla. Opin eräältä suuresti arvostamaltani naiskirjailijalta kerran, että sanat ovat loitsuja: jos osaa ajatella vallitsevaa ympäristöään fiksummin ja kykenee kehittämään esitystaitojaan siten, että saa sanoillaan muutkin ajattelemaan fiksummin, niin silloin loitsu toimii ja kaikki elävät paremmin. Myyjänä olen aina pitänyt asiakkaitani järkevämpinä ihmisinä sen jälkeen kun he ovat ostaneet tarjoamaani palvelua tai tuotetta, sillä olen aina halunnut uskoa tarjoamani palvelun tai tuotteen arvoon, löytääkseni motivaatiota myydä sitä.

On toki tärkeätä muistaa, että loitsut ovat aina jossain määrin subjektiivisia. Mielestäni kuitenkin subjektiivisuuden käsittely loppuu siinä pisteessä kun aletaan puhua väkivallan logiikasta: kaikkien kansalaisten pitäisi kyetä näkemään objektiivisella, kyseenalaistamattomalla tasolla, kuinka väkivalta ei koskaan todellisesti kannata.

Tämän ymmärtämisestä lähtee tasa-arvovallan rakentuminen. Väkivalta murtaa todellisuutemme kantimia, nakertaessaan rauhaa horjuttamalla yksilöiden mielenvakautta ja siten heikentäen ihmisen suorituskykyä elämän elämisessä, madaltaen elämän hetkessä koettua arvoa.

Väkivaltakin on logiikkaan pohjautuva kompleksi. Mikäli ymmärtää yleisen suhteellisuusteorian vaikutukset yhteiskunnallisessa luonnossa niin ei ylläty siitä, että Ranskassa mellakoidaan. Kun kansalainen katsoo omasta vähävaraisesta asemastaan vauraudessa eläviä johtajiaan ja kokee, etteivät johtajat suoriudu tehtävistään – tämän vähävaraisen kansalaisen oman hyvinvoinnin kautta mitattuna – niin hänelle muodostuu kannustin ilmaista mielipiteensä. Sitä mukaa kun johtajan ja kansalaisen välisen hyvinvoinnin suhteellisuudentajun hahmotuskyky repeää liitoksistaan, niin se repii aika-avaruuden tasapainon – mielessämme elävän todellisuuden kuvamme vakauden – rikki, ja sitten alkaa mellakat.

Mikäli johtajan ja kansalaisen välinen hyvinvointisuhteellisuus säilyy ymmärrettävänä, niin rauha elää. Ihmisen tulee vakautuakseen ymmärtää miksi hän elää kuten elää ja miksi toinen elää toisin. Ymmärrys luo luottamuksen ennaltaedellytykset.

Väkivaltaa ennaltaehkäistäkseen pitää siis nähdä, miten aika-avaruuden taipuminen yhteiskunnallisessa todellisuudessa tapahtuu. Tämä mitataan numeroiden ja sanojen – tiedon – kautta. Tiedon tila määrittelee ne historian ajat missä elämme, ja nykypäivänä kykenemme havaitsemaan enemmän tietoa itsestämme ja yhteiskunnastamme kuin koskaan ennen. 

Sanoja ja numeroita ei kuitenkaan noin vain muuteta muuttaakseen vallitsevaa tiedon ja sen muodostaman todellisuuden tilaa: jos numerot ja sanat yhtenä päivänä sanovat yhtä niin ei niitä väännetä pinnalta jotta seuraavana päivänä ne sanovat jotain toista – jotain miellyttävämpää – vaikka se kuinka helppoa nykypäivän digitaalisin tiedonjulkaisumenetelmin olisi. Aika-avaruuden taivuttaminen yhteiskunnallisessa todellisuudessa – todellisuuden tilan todellinen muokkaaminen – alkaa sanojen ja numeroiden – tiedon – lähteiden ymmärtämisestä ja ohjaamisesta. Ihmisten kohtaamisesta.

Arkisemmin sanottuna: ihmisiä pitää kuunnella, jotta heidän ongelmat voidaan ymmärtää, jotta heidän ongelmiin voidaan puuttua, jotta heidän tuottama tieto todellisuudesta voi työn kautta tapahtuvan puuttumisen myötä muuttua. Ilman ihmisestä lähtevää tiedonmuokkausprosessia – ilman ihmisen todellista palvelemista luonnossa – on mahdotonta muodostaa ymmärrystä siitä, miten tieto muuttui ja siten on mahdotonta muodostaa luottamusta tietoon, josta tiedon pohjalta hahmoteltu mielenrauha rakentuu. 

Ymmärrys luo luottamuksen ennakkoedellytykset.

Voidakseen siis rakentaa tasa-arvovaltaa ihmisten välillä tulee ihmisten keskenään ymmärtää miksi he voivat luottaa toisiinsa. Mielestäni on yksi polku ylitse muiden rakentaakseen tasa-arvovaltaa ihmisten välille ja se on suomalaisittain itsestäänselvä ratkaisu: koulutus.

Tasa-arvovallan rakennus

Ymmärtääkseen ja siten luottaakseen ihmisten välillä elävään tasa-arvoon pitää ihmisten itse ymmärtää, mistä rakennuspalikoista tasa-arvo koostuu – vain näin he voivat kokea sen todeksi. Vain näin sanat voivat olla todellisesti totta.

Lain edessä kaikki yksilöt ovat tasa-arvoisia mutta lainymmärryksessään eivät. Kaikki eivät välttämättä tiedä oikeuksistaan, sillä oikeudet kehittyvät koko ajan, valtaosiltaan nopeammin kuin niiden opetuksen tahti.

Lainymmärrystä yksinkertaisimmillaan ilmaistuna

On muutama oikeus jotka ovat olleet meille jo pitkään taattuja ja joita opettamalla voimme vahvistaa tasa-arvoa, sillä tasa-arvoisesti oikeuksiemme edessä seisomme ja ymmärtämällä ne samoin keinoin voimme kunnioittaa niiden olemista, ylipäänsä. Tasa-arvovalta kasvaa kun kansalaisten keskinäisymmärrys – eräänlainen yhteiskunnallinen painovoima – vahvistuu, tukien rauhan tilaa entisestään, luottamuksen lisääntyessä.

Ymmärrys luo luottamuksen ennakkoedellytykset. Tämä on niin tärkeä sanonta, että toistin sen.

Kiteytän tasa-arvovallan muodostavien oikeuksien tärkeimmän kolmikannan: meillä on kaikilla oikeus omaan kehoomme, meillä on kaikilla oikeus omaan mieleemme ja meillä on kaikilla oikeus omaan omaisuuteemme. Tämä lihaamme, sieluamme ja tavaroitamme suojeleva yksilöoikeuksien kolmikanta on jakamaton ja vahvistettu olevaksi YK:n ihmisoikeusjulistuksista lähtien, jotka toimivat periaatteen tasolla kaiken lainsäädäntömme pohjana ja pitäisi toimia myös käytännössä, lakeja soveltaessa.

Kun ihmiselle opetetaan, että he yksilöinä omistavat itsensä omana pääomanaan elämässä, niin voivat he myös itse oppia suojelemaan oikeuksiensa säilymistä sillä ovat paremmin varusteltuja huomaamaan, kun niitä ja siten heitä ihmisinä loukataan.

Mitä enemmän ihmiset oppivat oikeuksistaan, sitä paremmin he osaavat niitä siis suojella. Sitä parempaa kansalaispalautetta he osaavat demokraattisen järjestelmän kautta johtajilleen antaa. Jää johtajien vastuulle – josta heille historiankirjoihin jäävää kunniaa ja tilille ilmaantuvaa palkkaa maksetaan – vastata oikeuksien täyttymisen vaatimusten tuomaan kysyntään, kansallista hallintojärjestelmää ohjaavalla johtamistaitojen tarjonnallaan. Taas arkisemmin: johtajilla on vastuu kuunnella saamaansa palautetta, eikä pyrkiä estämään palautteen syntymistä ylipäänsä.

Kaikki lailliset palikat ovat koulutuksellisille toimenpiteille jo olemassa, sillä yksilöoikeuksiemme kolmikanta ei ole mitään uutta. Oikeudet ovat olleet meidän jo kauan aikaa, mutta niiden kouluttaminen ontuu. Täten tasa-arvovalta ei pääse kehittymään kunnolla.

Koulutuksen alkuun lienee mielestäni tärkeätä painottaa kuinka kauan muutoksissa voi kestää kun johdetaan maailman isoimpia organisaatioita: kansallisia hallintojärjestelmiä, kuten Suomea ja sen lippua. Demokraattisen kansalaispalautejärjestelmän käyttäjät ja sen kautta valtaan päätyvät henkilöt tekevät tällä ymmärryksellä ensimmäiset luottamusta muodostavat kauppansa, molemmat huomatessaan, ettei yhteiskuntatason todellisuus muutu samassa ajassa kun älypuhelintä pyörittävä algoritmi taikoo ruudulle notifikaatioita. Aidoista muutoksista ilmoittavat notifikaatiot – isot uutiset – vievät aikaa muodostuakseen totena, sillä ihmisten välille rakennetun luottamuksen kyhäämisessä menee aikaa, sillä joidenkin pitää ensiksi tehdä maan pinnalla töitä, ennen kuin työn tuloksista voidaan uutisoida taivaan pilvessä. 

Yhteiskunnallinen aika-avaruus ei taivu yön yli muokatessaan niitä sanoja ja numeroita, jotka todellisuuttamme kuvastavat. Kunnioitettakoot sitä, että luottamuksen arvo elää nimenomaan siinä, että sen pohjustavan ymmärryksen rakentamisessa menee aikaa, joskus paljonkin. Täten luottamus ei myös murene hirveän nopeasti, normaaleissa olosuhteissa (joita Internetin kumpuamisen aika ei ole edustanut). 

Arvostaessa yli kaiken sitä aikaa mitä meille on elettäväksi annettu niin lienemme kykeneväisiä malttamaan mielemme. Rauhoittamalla työntekoon, teemme työllämme rauhaa. Tasa-arvovallan aika alkakoon, ainakin minun puolestani: ei ole kuin kolme pointtia opetettavana. Jos Stubb pystyy heittämään three-pointtereita, niin emmeköhän me muutkin: ainakin perusoikeuksiemme tasolla. Kaikkien pitäisi osata ymmärtää oikeutensa jotta he kykenevät niitä puolustamaan itseohjautuvasti.

Hyvää Joulua kaikille teille – omien seurantatyökalujeni tuottamien sanojen ja numeroiden valossa määränne kasvaa kuukaudesta toiseen peräti yllättävääkin tahtia.

Olen kiitollinen palautteestanne, nyt ja jatkossa.

Gifts, Christmas Had Quietly

Selling Ourselves To Starelves: How Incredible!

Missä voi
Omistaa loma-asunnon
Jossa voi
Olla rannalla
Jossa voi
Olla vuorilla
Jossa voi
Ojentaa maljan
GP:n voittajalle?

For Flying Societies (Around the Sun)

Remember that history class
Pretty much
Means operating instructions

Balanced Petroleum

Work-life balance makes no sense
Firstly, life should always come first
Since life contains work
Just like the function
Contains its variable

Life-work balance, on the other hand
Just doesn’t ring, not at all

What does makes sense, and rings so well
On the third hand, the indivisibly invisible one
Connecting us all
Is home-work balance
Since life, at both its daily ends
Half-way into the day
And fully out of it
Contains a home
Which we must work
To maintain
In balance
For that is just how it is

So if we assume
As an axiom, of sorts
Life as a given(A functional container
For everything within itself – such as your soul
Including itself – such as your body)
Since here we are
Reading about it
Then in our words
And thus our minds, held within our souls
And the resultant ways
Of being created
We shouldn’t be setting it up
Against work
To keep creating a destructive function
That simply doesn’t need to exist
In everyday life, which the immensely vast majority of us live in

The one function of words in battle that
Put simply
Means slavery
To a hellish question
Because by matching
Life in one corner
Work in the other
What you’re essentially asking is
Do you want to work
Or do you want to live

Which is really silly
Because for home to exist
You must be doing both anyway
Being alive and working
That is

What I recommend is
Seeing life
As the ring
And running the balance
Between how much
Working in one corner
And how much
Homing in the other
There should be
To find the quality level (the level, also meaning the balance)
You wish to live in

Defining the ring
The Ring Of Life Lived
Finding “I” (You), Naturally Now
Which You yourself
Along with all the Others you’re influenced by
Are building
Because it is your relationship with “it”
That you’re working with
Just like everyone else, out there.

Now then
Which One of you, out there
(I see you in my tracking stats, and where you’re from)
Wants to pay me some money?
At this time, my running rate
(the rate at which I’m ready to run to You, for You, to create value – for US)
Is €25,000 per month, 3-month minimum*

*Not including VAT
(Paid in Finland,
for that is where I work best,
where my points made in power,
are clearest and thus most secure
for implementation in practice)

O, Hope

Potential Mother, of my (Our) Child
You are so big, so grand (particularly in carried expense)
But I guess it makes sense
Since if the sperm
Was bigger than the egg
It simply would not fit.

Supremacy Over the Tool

Spoken with the force of self-control, 

Felt with the conquering of addiction,

– parlay selfissimo:

“It’s not that we are computers. It’s that computers – and what we do with them – are us.

We – humans – made them and everything we’ve done with them, and it is my strong opinion that remembering this fundamental ordering principle is of the utmost importance so that we evolve to recognize our supremacy over the tools that we use to go about our lives, whatever those tools may be: from computers to champagne.

As I point my smartphone at a thing with a purpose – like a magic wand – it is me pointing at the thing with the smartphone, not the smartphone pointing at the thing with me. The magic wand isn’t using me as a tool to give itself purpose as it relates to the thing: I am using it to give purpose to the thing as the thing relates to me.

In the process I am giving purpose to the magic wand and its maker, as the smartphone is what allows me to point at the thing with a purpose, in the first place. So, whilst I give purpose to the thing by wanting to do something with it via the magic wand, then in any given situation, I will also be giving meta-purpose to the tool itself: the enabler of the pointing with a purpose, and its maker.

The importance of the meta-level – the enabling – can never be discounted. But in the practice of reality – in the priorisation of importance in the moment of action – the purpose of the meta-level comes in dead last: just as it is supposed to, for the enabling is an obvious given, as otherwise the moment would not be. 

The tool is the bridge over the crossing. I am the bridger of the crossing. I give purpose to the bridge by using it. I give purpose to the other side by seeking to go there. I create the market for the creation of the bridge, thus seeking its maker. The purpose of the maker and the tool is acknowledged in the transaction of the obtainment of the tool – when the aforementioned tool is the thing, being pointed at with another tool, such as a credit card – but after the transaction the purpose of the maker and the aforementioned tool is relegated into the past with the credit card it was obtained with: into the meta, bound to serve in the present moment, to be pointed at the newly present thing, whatever the aforementioned thing might – in the present – be.

Like a road to anywhere of any kind, the tool – whatever it may be, on whatever level of its functioning – does not drive me: I drive it.

So it is that I am: Master of the Tool, Crosser of the Bridge.”

Identiteettini: primäärisesti Ihminen, toisinaan Suomalainen ja Tanskalainen, arjessa Töölöläinen ja joka hetkessä ihan vaan oma Itseni.

Aika se on ennen, nyt ja jälkeen – aina mennen ja aina tullen, samalla ollen. 

The Solvation of Universal Basic Income

This one really isn’t hard. It just needs a complete reconstruction of the base of the financial system: of money. Instead of one-dimensional money, we need to make it two-dimensional: give birth to the other side of the coin.

One-dimensional money – as we have it now – is as it is. Equal on all fronts: a euro is a euro, a ruble is a ruble, a yuan is a yuan: earned by working for it.

Two-dimensional money maintains the equality of the number. A euro is still a euro in number. But two-dimensional money arrives into our use through two separate forms:

First, we have money as we know it now: that earned through work, useable and saveable in the marketplace.

Second, we have money as we will know it through universal basic income: that given as a natural right, enabling all lives to be lived with a basic sense of dignity. Natural Money differs from Worked Money in that it is born at the beginning and laid to rest at the end of each month. Natural Money can only be used – not saved – and thus it can be directed purely in the direction of covering life’s basic necessities so that everyone can live with dignity.

Now that we have the blockchain, we can build it. Two-dimensional money is within very easy reach, administratively & technologically. Just issue each Citizen a payment card, load it up with Natural Money every month, and send them out into the marketplace.

The purveyors allowed acceptance of Natural Money can be limited by a standard definition of basic needs (not too much science required here – and politics will maintain the definition process across time). In turn, purveyors accepting Natural Money will – of course – have it transferred into Worked Money that they can save up, since they have worked for it.

The importance in making Worked Money saveable is that that annotates the value of work as the path towards ownership and increased personal sovereignty, and we should wish to maintain the value of work, as work is what keeps us where we are, setting the preconditions required for us to be able to move forward. Without work, we inevitably slide backward as we forget how to operate the societal machine and all its parts – such is the process of natural decay, which work counters, and let us not forget that society is a part of Nature. By making Worked Money saveable and thus giving it additional value as compared to Natural Money, we maintain the sanctity of the value of work and preserve the value of equities already had.

This is not to say that a life lived mostly or perhaps someday even fully on Natural Money isn’t or won’t be a sovereign life in and of itself, as well. It is just that work should have the higher valuation when it comes to increasing One’s sovereign power through ownership, since ownership is a powerful world-defining force that shouldn’t come without prerequisites. Ownership sets the stage for our forward progress by having control over the equity that we live our lives upon, and it takes work to own something well. The value of work cannot be discounted.

This solvation of universal basic income is completely dependent on us living in the digital age, since otherwise the overhead costs of issuing and transforming the moneys every month would be irredeemably high. Let it be an example of why the digital platform we have built is worth preserving at all costs. It is what allows us to live in freedom – now and always to come.

A final note 

It is important to see how universal basic income allows for a more sustainable growth path for the economy over time, by being a natural stream of income not dependent on any other factor than the fact that people live. This fuels the economy without the need for work that might not otherwise need to be done, saving natural resources and allowing for people to live more freely.

Universal basic income removes the infinite growth pressure on the economy brought on by the design of our retirement systems, which are currently dependent on the infinite growth of equity values, which are in turn dependent on the infinite growth of productivity, which in turn means the constant further pressurisation of workers, leading to the inevitable string of social unrest seen across history, when pressures come to be too high to bear – just as is being seen in France right now, for example, and probably in many other places to come, as well. That is – unless changes are made in time to the economic balance of power.

All in all, the economic calculation of the past simply won’t work in the modern age. One-dimensional money – where there lies a dominant-submissive relationship between owners and operators – simply cannot deliver the solutions we need to fix all the problems we have, from climate change through to economic inequality and all the social problems that these bring.

The only way forward – the only way to depressurise the economy whilst maintaining systemic stability and a modern quality of life – is to introduce a universal basic income. The best way to do that is to give rise to two-dimensional money. There is no better way to give power to the people – the power that they need to live their lives in peace, free of everyday fear, like animals in the wild.

We are not animals. We are humans: destined to live in peace, in comfortable indoor spaces.