Here is my hard opinion on homosexuality, which I’ve really worked with to understand what’s up with it all: it has to exist. Without Nature providing even the slightest little capacity for physical affection towards the same sex, how could a human being be turned on by themselves? I find that is really important, to be able to love oneself even in that way, because – you know – you are you and you are great. So I think I’ll declare openly that I am the tiniest teaspoon of queer: just enough space to focus all my Man-love towards towards myself, so that I can utilise the energy that that creates towards the Ladies.
And once again for the sake of the obvious: I believe in People’s freedom to be who they are, as long as privacy is respected. The above is my way to make sense of the being of my opposite: with the sense I can accept and let go, and not have to think about matters beyond my concern. I’d like to close by saying that, even though I simply cannot imagine it in any way whatsoever, there is something beautiful about the love that People of the same sex share for each other, since it exists completely irrespective of Nature’s requirement for reproduction and, therefore, depicts a different realm of the purity of connection. I trust that there exists a mutual respect amongst and between the different forces and forms of love that be.
Some People might wonder about my creative process. There are several ways, the primary one being that I have transferred my social media -oriented thumbspeed potential to Notes (meaning: since I do not use social media anymore, I have redirected the physical strength of my typing, so as to not waste equitable resources, towards jotting down my ideas for myself). Based on a note I have saved (like a tweet for myself) I might expand it into a full text: the main point with Notes is that into it I create my own supply of potential to draw upon. If I don’t expand a thought, I might just post the random strings of strings of ideas like on some of my messier posts (like a tweet-flow).
I also tend to work directly online – like being a Painter working out in a public area, it allows me to view the reality in real-time – because it increases my focus on finding the balance of pushing the limit of the thought and securing the integrity of my brand (so saying what I want to say and getting just the right amount of emotion in, but cutting the fine edge so that I don’t feel I am creating any fiscal risk for myself due to any negative impacts on brand of my writing publicly about how I see the world). This is actually like my virtual driving style, where I max-in on braking zones and slow down corner by corner as I find the correct spot (so: there is a spot where you are supposed to brake, when learning it you either brake earlier because you’re going past the spot or you brake later because you’re slowing down before reaching it – the point is that you’re always working towards the correct spot): like posting a text and then starting the race against time to edit it so that it can actually keep standing on my website – working towards the spot.
I’d just like to say up front that I am a huge Barack Obama fan: I just really disagree with him on this one dumb point he keeps making:
Barack Obama keeps speaking about the Planet being so small for our Generation, because he is comparing the increasing pace of information- and mass-transfer from the perspective of having been born in the 1960s. So it makes sense that he sees the world as having shrunk (because of constantly increasing ability-to-travel culminating in White House -service level = at-top of market peak), but what doesn’t make sense is the direct projection on to a younger Generation that he simply can’t have any full knowledge of the understood state of, even if he has got a pretty good ear. Barack Obama saying “the world has gotten smaller for you” is his view on how we perceive it: but we are a broad group.
So I am here to help Barack have more of it (sense), by adding my own bit of it into the Internet Porridge for him: I was born in 1987 and grew up mostly internationally through to my late 20s (Finland, UK, Silicon Valley, Beverly Hills, Denmark, NYC, San Francisco). Then I worked in business and started to see the Planet as an object from which you extract money: I had a saying “same ass, different seat” that kept my head set on fast-going journey paces. But I made good money, which I’ve mostly lived on since then, so the pace was worth it. But so, more towards the point: one side effect of having grown up world-in (international-to-settled Human-state change) is that I actually grew up into seeing the exact opposite as you, Barack (if I may go direct-to-First). I grew up seeing more and more of how different we are from a close range-in, having been dipped into a wild variety of different sources of thought and ways of being and working.
Even though your record-of-diversity from Youth is good, it is different than mine – which is also good (Golf whisperer: a demonstration of finesse in diplomatic capability, maintained equality in valuation, so subtle, the finest tinge of “look: Bro” hidden in the manners…).
Mine is looked at from a Far North -perspective: born in Finland, raised half-Danish: practically full-International, early-dipped into Adulthood and resultantly fluent in moneyspeak.
I think opposite to you because even my well-cultured and -travelled personal feeling is that I have been subjected to too much Human on some level: therefore my main, clarifying outcome of this is that I do not agree with you: simply by way of a difference in perception. There are many things that go into it, but I simply can’t accept the premise on any front that the world is small.
The Sea, the Land, the Air, the Planet (and especially the Everythingness of the Cosmos beyond it): it is all very huge!
There is a very important reason as to why I am making this openly-stated projection of the energy of thought towards you: it can prove to Academia and Everyone else, as an important top-level conversation-shifting turning point, that differing perception-in-thought exists regarding how big the world is or is not seen as. I think this difference in perception (ours) is important because it awakens a lot of questions regarding the present and future state of society.
For example: how do the Older generations understand the current state of technology and its societal impacts? How do the Younger generations understand the current state of technology and the direction it is driving us in? Our relationship across time with technology plays a significant factor in causing our directional separation in understanding regarding how big or small the world is, because it is what guides our ability to perceive it.
If I look at the world as big, does that mean that I can’t compress my thinking into not seeing the fundamental differences that exist across human societies because of their significant cultural histories, all of which form the emotional mass of their ever-continuing societal movements? History is very much not dead: it is completely alive. It guides our decisions every day and in the everyday. Looked at another way: because this is how I think of the world (realising the living emotions in the histories), then I think of the world as very big. I know what I am saying flows a bit funny but it makes sense: trust me. I promise you that you can, on the weight of some very familial things that I know you also respect very much.
And that is why I think that many things, that People and Leaders should now be wanting to accelerate, might actually be wanted to be decelerated: because that would allow for the time to think about not just how big the Cosmos is (setting the big picture), but how huge the Planet and the Humankind upon it are (zooming into the hugeness of the reality), as considered from the beauty of our differences (that naturally separates us into Communities and Niches, the “quantum particles” of Civilizations).
Might I just say: one other reason I understand the breadth of Humanity is Tinder. You can just really find some different places in society from there.
A further reason why I think this projection of energy is important: because the difference in perception between us leads to differences in opinion regarding operational matters and the words used to convey them. I’d start talking about natural separation as well, alongside the natural coming together. It’s like a breath going back-and-forth and when the winds of change arrive, their words need to be spoken. The People who live closer to home and see the world as bigger than those who constantly travel it: they need to be remembered in the rhetoric. Now the jetsetting suits are guiding the action overbearingly: too much.
If you ever want to talk, here’s my preplanned and posted opener (pretty much all I have to say after the above, but I guess we can talk about birdwatching afterwards or whatever: if it is that we were to someday co-exist in a co-located slice of space-time with enough slack in its calendaric construction that we should have exchange-potential to spare for the birds):
“Barack. Look: the world as a whole is an interconnected system of many networks of decision-makers controlling and deploying the capital they have stored in their equity-well. You speak into these networks, and I feel you might be on the wrong communications strategy towards them in helping them shape their thought.
I think you should speak about how BIG the world is, making it more wondrous. This includes discussing the relationship between our natural separations, as well as our natural connectedness. The Planet is shared, the Cultures are owned: we all carry them. I think getting the Youth to understand these things at scale – having been brought up in the smallness of the digital world, instead of the breadth of Nature’s reality: it might be just the correct balance for them. I think it is important to know that travel time does not equate to bigness or smallness. It equates to how fast you can arrive at the different: it will still be different, no matter what speed you get there with.
Another reason why I think this is a better communications strategy is that it will get leaders to think about respecting their counterparts more and on a deeper level: not just focus on how similar they are on the surface because they’re all there wherever they are to make money. There’s nothing wrong with that: what’s important is that there is also cultural interchange. That makes things healthier: full stop.”
John Nash created a great game with the Prisoners’ Dilemma. But we should not refer to his numbers and logic stuff as “Game Theory“*. There is not simply The Game Theory. There are many games that can be imagined/ideated, designed, built, played, enjoyed, despised, analysed, mused upon, strategized around, dreamed towards..
Nash brought us A Game Theory. Let us call it Game Theory Origin, in my opinion, at least. I’m calling dibs on holding the definition (since I’m about to do it) of Game Theory Continuation, which is that there are an infinite amount of games: as many as there can be situations in which they are played by however many People or Beings or whatever.
The solution to Nash’s Prison is realising that you can always get out of it by remembering the other solutions (to game design, that is). Nash’s solution in teaching us about the being of games was to create a situation where you have to choose between betrayal and loyalty (and assumptions of another’s thinking regarding them, as related back to you in the situation). It is a pretty ultimate situation and thus it calls for ultimate solutions, depicted as existent within the logic of his work: the characters built into it being faced with prison time. Prison time, the prospect of it, is a pretty intense factor in my action-pricing function: thus I work against it in the construction of my knowings about how to act. Therefore, I need other games than prison games, to build the knowings that go in the other directions: away from the prison games.
So there are many other situations that require less ultimate solutions: or are there? Or do all games always reduce to betrayal and loyalty? If so, what would be a method of avoiding the resulting state of continuous pressure? Not playing games all the time, to start with. Then not taking them too seriously.. realising solo situations without entanglements to others.. there are so many things showing how limited Nash’s perception was. With all due respect for him, he took one step into games.
If you really want to understand intergenerational diplomacy at the highest levels of sensitivity, imagine an older-than-average new Father of a young Girl that is also a high-ranking & well-accessed General who starts to answer questions about their job to their utterly-curious Daughter when the Girl turns around five or so. That’ll teach you a thing or two about the discussion of balance and its necessity for the holding: Kids talk to each other in daycare. General doesn’t want to be a leak – or too much of a pussy to have a song.
This is a Finnish example, for good objective measure, of A General’s Song: (it’s always good to have comparables, so I thought I’d provide):
No annapas minä Tyttöseni
Kerron sinulle homman
Kenraali kävelee toimistolla
Kunnon Kenraalilla ei ole Matoa otsas!
Kulkee hymyssä suin
Ja selkä suorana
Minä näytän esimerkkiä kulkiessani
Minä näytän esiesiesiesiesimerkkiä!
Minä näytän esimerkkiä kulkiessani
Generals: I mean to be multimedia-friendly 2019: you gotta have a song. Maybe you can upload one to TikTok haha this was just an idea I can’t force no one to do anything but wouldn’t it be so 80’s “we are teh world”? 😉 Hearing it from the Generals that work is being done to keep them safe might be a good communications strategy on a Child- and Teen-heavy platform: where it can potentially get depressive and let’s remember that there are Young People that think about big things early so you know: wherever you can spread the feeling of security with your presence, I guess it might have some value to someone out there somewhere – who knows I’m just speculating but you know given the size of the numbers of the masses there really is probably bound to be more than one Person that you’re speaking to out there (that first One being yourself).
ps. please see this as a work of practical art, because it really is that: getting good thoughts to be thunk by good People in creative ways that enhance mutually positive feelings 🙂
Korreloiko kielen sanavalikoiman laajuus ja kielen kotimaan talouden rakenne ja elinvoimaisuus mitenkään ja jos näin, niin miten? Kielitieteilijät, kysyntää Markkinatieteen puolelta jaettu. Mikä on kielten rakenteellisen laadun vaikutus yhteiskunnallisiin lopputuloksiin, maksimi-objektiivisesti taloudellisista tilastoista mitaten? Onko kielen vaikutus suurempi kuin geopolitiikan, vai ovatko ne ristiinkytköksissä? 😉
The automation of the Flag is that it will always clean itself, for changes in its state will always rest assumed as such that whilst one group sees dirt the other sees diamond-gold: there is no way to know but to perceive, for even the statistics are subjective to opinion on their interpretation. Politics will not end, for everyone has an affinity to their home and the differences inherent within the nature of everyone will ensure that clashes of opinion will continue to happen in the future, as well.
That being said: the carrying of an entire Flag should be perceived as coming with the very real and physically-felt gravitational weight of the emotional mass of an entire Nation. It is like a Soldier’s full-supply backpack, but imaginary and meant to heal, not hurt. Those who strive to rise to the challenges of the Flag will inevitably meet themselves at the most powerful mirror of Humankind: the carriage of the joint power of our eternally Flag-bound voices, whichever Flag that for whomever and wherever is.
If you want to take part in activating Humankind towards solutions that concern us all, but the thought of the emotional mass of an entire National Flag scares you (it should to some extent, but I mean too much meaning it becomes decapacitating – which is OK: remember what a minority societal leaders are), then might I suggest local politics or party activism? Mostly it is about pitching for money to make your local dream projects real with everyone’s (including yours) money. It is really fun and not scary: if I ever do politics again, I’ll make it local. Right now I’m private sector and voting for it by voting blank (not doing politics does not mean not thinking about it, which writing about it is. But doing it: that is a totally different thing – I muse in theory, and project my power of practice towards my work).
But hmmm if you’re a Global Person, is local actually National? Relativity of power: really depends on how you look at it haha but I am mostly an International Person by background and having lived in the skies of the Money am rather well-versed in the international scene, especially amongst my age group. That just bodes well for good long-term party-invite potential and deal-operational success. So I guess I’m more National-local than Ground-local.
I am of course saying all this because I think politics would improve if the People going into it were a bit more scared at the offset because that ounce of added fear increases their perceptional capacity (which is the function of fear in keeping you alive, honestly one of the best things I’ve learned from skydiving) and that is what they need at this time to understand the evolutionary changes going on with how society works and could work with modern technology (as compared to before it). Also the heightening of the skill-level demand for the Flag-bearing political job should make it more enticing for higher-level competitors stepping up to the plate to stand on behalf of the People. I’ll be the first to admit: top-level performers seek other top-level performers so that everyone’s forward-pushing drive motivates everyone else. Right now, political parties in Finland behave mostly (as I understand they operate mostly everywhere else, as well) with the manner of anything goes: there is a shortage of high-level candidates.
Based on what I have seen, it is purely because of a lack of skilled sales: my experience is that political parties are good at reciting historical rhetoric, but fundamentally bad at creating it anew. That is what is needed to make direct recruitments into politics, for example: high-level private sector leaders with significant large-organization experience have actually built the stories of the strategies that they have then made reality. They don’t want to come and recite an ever-continuing philosophical poem. They want to build a vision and execute and – yes – whilst that is based on philosophy then it honestly starts to turn into practicality very quickly as you begin to tie it into the ever-continuing reality happening in the news day-by-day: Defence, Healthcare, Infrastructure – boom boom boom informational projectiles coming in from all directions and all levels boom boom boom “what’s your opinion on this?” “what’s your opinion on that?” boom pow pow pow so I mean going into politics is pretty much a choiced-entrance into an “invisible war” going on everyday (understandable, because politics guides the big flows of the money thanks to taxes).
You don’t get experienced leaders to go into that with just any old ugly-ass PowerPoint pitch. Political parties: learn about well-crafted PowerPoint presentations. Ask the Bankers and Consultants to show you how they do it: request to be by their side for a few days (under NDA) to look at how they work. If you learn the skill of presenting as good as a Nordea investment banker or McKinsey consultant, you might learn the capacity to speak to a large-cap CEO, gaining their trust and enticing them into a Flag-bearing political career.
But if your PowerPoints are shit then that is like showing up to meet the Monarch in a smelly suit. Think about that. I am not surprised private sector leaders continue to push in the private lane of progress that we ride year-on-year around the Sun. I have seen such shit in political parties: not for a lack of effort, but just as compared to where the front of the line in the private sector is going in terms of operational finesse. All of this being said, I think there will be those who rise from the private sector into the public: it will probably be because of some good sales.
*Pointti on saada jengi tajuu, että mun mielestä, 4€ ei pitäisi Suomessa olla kenenkään silmissä enää kauaa iso raha (jolla mainittu 12€ voitettiin). Jos hyppää neljästä eurosta kahteentoista euroon, niin itse kannatan pakan avaamista ja koko potin uudelleen sijoitusta (ostaa kuus Massia lisää, 12€ vabank). Tämä opettaa ymmärtämään, että ei pitäisi pyrkiä ajattelemaan niin, että 4€ on iso raha eikä ole täysin poltettavan arvoista (jos pelaa kaiken ja häviää, niin se on täysin poltettu – kunnes vetäytyy pelistä niin pitää muistaa, että vaikka on 12€ tulovalmiudessa niin sijoitettu pääoma on edelleen 4€ – on kyse siitä mihin pisteeseen ajassa suhteuttaa päätöksentekonsa, siis kun puhutaan pelin hallinnasta). Pitäisi nähdä 4€ niin, että se on polttamisen arvoista suuremman kertavoiton mahdollisuuden edessä (20.000€ is big money), sillä neljä euroa tienaa töissä takaisin ihan pienessä hetkessä (ja yllätys parikybädonasen mielikuvittelu on varsin kivaa silloin tällöin, nykymaailman vaihtoehdot huomioiden varsinkin).
Mielipiteeni pelialaa kohtaan on se, että se ei ole vaarallinen additiivi elämään mikäli se on yhdistetty työssäkäyntiin (mielestäni Veikkauksen tuloja ei pitäisi tulla sosiaaliturvasta – kaikki julkisesta lähteesta saatu raha pitäisi mielestäni paketoida digitaalirahaksi ja rajata ostopaikkoja hyväksytyn sosiaaliturvan käyttökohteen mukaisesti (josta Poliitikot päättäisi, säilyttäen vallan vapauden Ihmisillä) – ja Veikkaus ei olisi yksi niistä. Jos sosiaaliturva valuu suoraan Veikkaukseen niin Suomi säkittää pahasti luonnollisten kuntoutusrahavirtojen toimintaa vaikeuttaen Ihmisten saamista takaisin johonkin työhön: pelaaminen ei ole työn vaihtoehto – vaan pikemminkin palkinto) ja järkevään numeropäähän riskienoton suhteen: minä itse tykkään metsästää isoja kertalippuja – kaverini ovat kertoneet sitä pitkään. Kuitenkin kasvatus läpi koko Ilmailun arvoketjun on opettanut riskienottokykyä ja tilanteiden ennakoimista, jota tarvitaan voidakseen esimerkiksi pysäyttää pelaaminen etukäteen ennenkuin addiktionomainen imu alkaa vetää peliin sisään.
Itse taistelin itseni ulos F1-simulaattoreista: nuorempana huomasin aidosti hinkkaavani jotain yhtä mutkayhdistelmää useamman tunnin yli sen vaihtoehdon, että olisin lopettanut aiemmin. Kirjaimellisesti katsoin kelloa sekä simulaattorissa että todellisuudessa arvioiden niiden vaihtoehtoiskustannuksia: nopeampi kuviteltu kierrosaika vai pelaamisen lopettaminen, todellisuuden ajan alkaessa kuolla pois nautinnon hiipumisen myötä. Sillä todella, joskus monen tunnin pelisessiossa nuorempana saattoi katsoa kelloa seitsemältä ja päättää lopettavansa kahdeksalta, löytäensä itsensä kuitenkin vielä yhdeltätoista ratin takaa vittuuntuneena ja pahoinvointisena (vaikka jos se kierrosaika sieltä tulikin, niin olihan se hienoa, mutta sen vaikutus lannistuu sen edessä, että vituttaa poltettu aika). Summa summarum: fiilikseni on se, että kun saa oman suhteellisuudentajunsa kasaan ja on hereillä hetkessä, tiedostaen rajansa (lopetan kello kahdeksalta pelaamisen, ja sitten aidosti lopetan ilman tekosyitä: Inttimielentilalla) niin pelaaminen muuttuu additiiviksi addiktion sijaan. Kun on jarrut, voi pitää hauskaa.
Paras jarru on aina ajan antaminen (kuvittele jonkun mustan kiven tiputtaminen valoaukon päälle joka läväyttää sut pois valon luota ja aloittaa hitaan palaamisen sitä kohti kunnes pitää taas antaa aikaa ja pudottaa se musta kivi sen imevän valon päälle.. tämä on eräänlaista aikalampaan uhrausstrategian käyttöönottoa omassa toiminnassaan).
Odotuksen aloittaminen seuraavaan kertaan: koska se on sama asia kuin sen tekeminen.
I really enjoy the comparison between information guidance systems: from one extreme of IT development to the other of societal development. An IT engineer builds code, a lawyer build law: both guide the flows of information. One steers an IT system, the other a legal system. It is good to note that whilst an IT engineer can commit code into the code base at the click of a button (and perhaps a few QA processes) then a lawyer simply does not have the capacity to do that. Same concept (information guidance): completely different realities.
© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen