This is how you no-supremacy:

“Welcome to the best place on Earth. Earth itself.”

Given that the United Nations is supposed to be a peace building organization, I am simply astounded that they are still supporting and not excommunicating themselves from the World Happiness Report, which competitizes happiness between nations and is pretty much the most horrible misuse of Science that I have ever come across in my lifetime. It is literally the most disgusting thing. It is like a Parent pitting their Children against each other: “You’re not doing so well, Johnny! Sally is so much happier – what’s the matter with you?”

It literally makes me want to puke. The United Nations should not want to make a Citizen of the Planet wish to puke. Thankfully I can find solace in knowing that I am not alone in my sentiments on this matter here in Finland, the “land of the happiest People”. I sincerely hope that the proverbial heads will roll at the UN as the Report is decommissioned and I will do my part in providing feedback as a Citizen so as to have that end met. In the name of global sanity, the World Happiness Report must not be. The United Nations is staring at the lowest point in its history with it, in particular because of the worst fact that the level of spineless culminates in the fact that United Nations releases the report with their brand on it, whilst also adding this:

“The World Happiness Report was written by a group of independent experts acting in their personal capacities. Any views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization, agency or program of the United Nations.”

Does anyone wish to join me in the continued puking? Because to me this looks like the highest organization in the world not taking responsibility for their own actions and, even though I am not a Parent yet, that just seems like an absolutely horrible example to set. Literally Jesus f’in Christ.

I believe the architecture of the mind is the perfect mirror image of Science: it is Science put into practice, for that is how we perceive it. Its best representation is the Internet: into it what we have essentially done as Humankind is capture light. Does that mean that, when we are online, we are inside of a black hole? Is thus removing oneself from Internet usage the same thing as escaping from a black hole? That’s pretty intense!

Love is a game, but not a race. Those are two different things. After the game is over, love is: and that is how it should be.

I’ll be very honest: notwithstanding any considerations on on-going political matters (which I label as the problems of the passing Generations: not mine, of the rising ones), I am impressed by Russian President Vladimir Putin as a Leader and consider him the most on-point Global Head at the current moment in time (Xi Jinping gets close: imagining the challenge of the size and development state of China, combined with the force of the Internet.. holy hell what a challenge that is to even think of!).

I am holding on to one of his quotes very strongly, since I find it extremely practical in building a better world and I feel it resonates with the way I have acted throughout my working life:

“It is not important to project power. It is important to manifest power.”

From the perspective of a Leader, this is a beautiful thought, as it condenses the reality of the fact that the most important role of a Leader is to motivate the Team: to manifest power into them, instead of projecting it at them. That is how you scale the potential of an organization to a higher level, instead of pushing it into submission.

I wish to repeat that this is a comment made completely separate from any considerations of on-going political matters. My opinion on Russia is that they have societal problems and that, since Finland has them as well, there is a lot of potential to create value by solving them together as neighbours (you know, which we irrevocably are): primarily by deconstructing historical military tensions that made sense then (but simply do not do so anymore: I know all about these feelings changing through time as I have grown up through a deeply-entrenched Air Force-based Family) and then by going all-in on using IT to raise the productivity of the public system so that we can construct both climate and fiscal sustainability, which are fundamentally interlinked.

My opinion on the problems of history is that no one is to be blamed for their being: they are, and the best way to approach problems is not denial, but acceptance. That is the way forward, not backward. As a relatively traditional, conservative but allowingly-liberal Person (to have a right to my privacy, I give it to others: because logic, it just makes sense), I’d like forward-motion because to be honest my ultimate dream is pretty basic for a Man: Wife, Family, Home, Work, Hobbies, Nature.. Peace. So, you know, I’m being open about all this because I think that openness can really help build a better operative environment for my life, instead of staying quiet and hoping someone else might come and do it.

“I am coming to be of the opinion that money is a bona fide human sense. Otherwise, it simply makes no sense: and I am not of the opinion as a living being that the securing of my livelihood should function under circumstances of pure coincidence. Humans can acquaint themselves with and learn from their senses: money fits right in to that picture. Thus it must naturally follow that time is, as well, a sense: the logical functionality of money requires that it be so, since money cannot function without time. The combined sensing of both – a true quantum act – is what builds the potential that leads (potentially) to the creation of value.”

“I am a Man of the Market. This means that I look at the news media in a very different way than most People. When I see People with problems that I have an inkling of an idea on how to solve, I work on it and reach out. It is called marketing and, if a message catches on, then begins the sales push. Put directly: the media is my source of demand. There is nothing special about that. That is how it is for everyone: the problems for solving and subsequent creation of value have to come from somewhere, whatever the media is: a newspaper or the local pub.”

“Mitä tapahtuisi Suomen politiikalle mikäli vaaleissa tyhjän äänestäminen merkittäisiin virallisesti ääneksi virkahenkilöiden vallan lisääntymisen puolesta? Sillä sitähän se on, laskiessaan puolueiden johdollista mandaattia. Äänestämättömyys, joka on valinta itsessään, on taas käytännössä vallan siirto täysin pimeään. Minut on ympäripuhuttu äänestämättömyyden sijasta tyhjän äänestämiseen: haluan vähentää puolueiden valtaa ja antaa sitä virkahenkilöille. Mielestäni heidän ammattitaito ansaitsee lisää hengitystilaa suorituskyvyttömiltä puolueilta. Todettakoon itsestäänselvyyksien pyhyyden nimissä, että puolueiden suorituskyvyttömyyden ei ole tarpeellista olla luonnontieteellinen vakio: on kyse elämästä ja siitä, että joskus ratinkääntö on reilassa ja joskus ei.

Virallistamalla mahdollisuuden äänestää virkahenkilöiden vallan puolesta saa yhteiskuntajärjestelmä lisää hengitystilaa ja mahdollisuuden välittää Kansalaisten mielipiteitä todellisuuteen merkittävästi rehellisemmin. Onko sitten OK sanoa siten, että näen Suomen virkahenkilöt Jeesuksenani: jos sille olisi joskus täydellisen rahakadon myötä minulla tarve, kyllä minä uskon heidän tulevan pelastamaan. Onhan se nyt kuitenkin heidän sopimukseen sidottu työnsä*: Jeesustella päivästä toiseen. Suokoon heille siihen paremmat mahdollisuudet ja äänestetään tyhjää.”

*Suomen Holmström sai jopa Nobel-palkinnon todetessaan älykkäästi, että sopimukset ohjaavat Ihmisen toimintaa. Hitto soikoon millä itsestäänselvyyksillä niitä palkintoja tipahtelee! Kaikella kunnioituksella siis Benkulle tottakai: monella tapaa ajateltuna olen se Ihminen kuka tänä päivänä olen spesifisti ja suoraan hänen henkilökohtaisesta ansiostaan. On syytä muistaa, että koko Suomen startup scenen buumi sai alkunsa Bengt Holmströmin sanoista suomalaiselle Aalto-opiskelijaporukallemme syksyllä 2008, kun vierailimme hänen luonaan MIT:ssä. Jos joku ihmettelee, että mistä minä olen ponkaissut: sieltä, hänen luotaan.”

“Do you want to know what can make you think? It is always said that there is a certain population: 7.5 billion on the Planet. If you put that into motion and remember that that means 7.5 billion human lives are in the process of being lived – that many stories being told – then you can have a more sensitive touch on matters of quality of said lives. Then you can consider whether or not there would be more or less turmoil if the quality were higher, because opportunity costs: they exist. All of this can make you think.”

For me, pure love is the absence of projection: the tranquility of being. That is not to say that projection (work) is not fun and lovable! It’s just that the word pure is key to understand.

The Finnish word for violence is “väkivalta” which, literally translated, means mass/group- (väki) power (valta). Think about that.

Understanding the basic concepts of interpersonal power is not difficult when they are related back to Earth through the Wizarding World. The Imperius Force, which governs strongest over the realm of interpersonal power exchanges, breaks down into three palatable components:

1.) Imperius Spell: the voluntary subjugation of another Person into One’s control (Muggle-comparable: having superiors at work, control based upon (an) objective contract(s) of rights and incentives. The spell is not a weapon when used well.

2.) Imperius Curse: the involuntary subjugation of another Person into One’s control (Muggle-comparable: slavery, control based upon fear of violence and other disincentives). The curse is a weapon (often resultant from poor spell-usage), and there are obvious reasons it is unforgivable. Avoiding usage of the curse begins by understanding the meaning of the phrase: “When it is serious, always teach: don’t preach.”

3.) Imperius Field: One’s media-projection of information at the masses. Whilst the spell and the curse are directed at individuals one at a time (at faster and slower rates dependent on Wizarding proficiency), the field is directed at groups simultaneously (the size and strength of the field projected as also dependent on Wizarding proficiency). The field can be a weapon and not a weapon, depending on the individual reception of the People within the audience group. Usage and reception of the Imperius Field in public is actively monitored by the authorities.

The Imperius Barrier, the source of the Force, is constructed by oneself around oneself as life goes on. The construction of an Imperius Barrier (which Muggles call ”the ego”) is a function of the effort put into the finding of oneself’s strengths and weaknesses, thus increasing the capacity to know how oneself can best utilize and develop oneself’s reserves of the Imperius Force. The quality of the Imperius Barrier ends up correlating directly with the power of One’s capacity in utilizing the Imperius Force: indeed, the construction of the Barrier is what shows the beingness of the Force to be held. It is an absolute prerequisite.

Imperius’ growth and progress amongst Individuals naturally tends to result in the formation of a Multimperius Combinatorial: a Barrier of Barriers. The Multimperius Combinatorial is a result of the combination of several Imperius Barriers into one, through which the Multimperius Force is jointly used by the leadership of those residing within the Combinatorial. The birth of a Multimperius Combinatorial happens through a ”power storm” of individual Imperius components coming together from their carriers, and is always a sight to behold – especially from within.

As it is built, the Multimperius Combinatorial avails itself to the same three components as the Imperius Force, but on a higher dimension of human being. It creates a ”human of humans”: an organization, embodied into the Multimperius Combinatorial. Muggles refer to a Combinatorial, for example, through their discussion of corporate brands.

To close, let us remember that the relationship of Parents and Children, in the consideration of the Imperius Force (its strength and outcomes) is hotly debated and contested daily in many Family Homes around the Planet. This is a truth that will never be forgotten, because it is as real as it gets.

EDIT:// April 11th, 2019: I do not think Facebook is the primary online concern. Before we talk about Facebook, I think we really really really need to start talking en masse about Tinder and its comparables. There’s.. there is something I find really really really questionable about it, from a mental health perspective, given that it combines extreme mental speed (swipe speed) with the most infinite (and thus slow) mental mode of life: the seeking of love. Based on my own experiences in whittling myself down to the minimum (maximum 2-3 matches at a time, publicity turned off until a match drops. I call this Phoebe’s Law, based on the Friends episode where Phoebe has trouble dating two guys at once – I literally think breaking Phoebe’s Law is the fastest direct way towards insanity for the otherwise healthy) and removing the strength of the swipe-addiction, and watching the compulsive behaviour of People close to me, I’d say Tinder and its comparables are the most real mass-threat arising from the Internet right now. I think it is fucking People up big time and super fast, and the swipe-based love industry needs to be regulated ASAP. We must remember that even if on Facebook People are selling themselves against the revenue brought in by advertisers, then on Tinder et cetera People are literally selling themselves: they are the advertisement, on that very specific level.

Church has been the social media of the ages, all through ages past. I believe the central power enticing the gathering in God’s house is the presence of others, present there to form and continue to reaffirm a world view alongside the others: building trust that One is not alone in how the world is perceived. Much like going to the gym is like filling up the tank on physical energy, then going to Church is filling up the soul and spirit.

The mana, so to say.

Is the digital social mediasphere of the modern day a Church where People go to fill up and rejuvenate? I would say that it was to start with, but judging by the incessant increase in news against social media platforms, I fear it is becoming a dirty pool of social addiction that will be cumbersome to clean up once the bottom cracks and spills the People back to Earth.

The reason that the cracking open of social media addiction is something that I have a bona fide fear for is that it is such an intense group affair across the spectrum. The effects are Planet-wide. Even though addictions are always negatives, by their definition as a word (the opposing positive direction being additives), then social media gone bad is a group addiction that makes its bringing into control seem like an impossible feat due to its size. 

There have always been People who fear or otherwise cannot handle being alone: who naturally seek the company of others at a heightened rate and become dependent on them. It is natural. I am the exact opposite of this type of Person, having grown up through such a life path that my sense of individuality has always been strong and remains uncompromised. That being said, first resisting and then ultimately breaking free of the gravitational pull of the group pressures of social media has probably been the greatest challenge of my life.

I have only come to understand recently that the pull of a good Leader is to quite literally be the centerpoint of gravity within a group: like a human magnet. More specifically, I have come to notice that that means that the Leader is the definition of Individual for the group and, as such, I’ve come to notice how good Leaders are able to hold their own and not lose themselves in the pressures of the light of publicity, whereas failing Leaders cannot keep their head on straight and seek backwards into the dark. The strongest are the Ones who admit their incapacity and step aside.

This raises some very interesting viewpoints concerning social media and the groups structures inherent within. Who is actually following who? Who is leading? Or are the platforms effectively war rooms for self-advertisement: venues where Individuals go to measure their clout for whatever reasons? Or are they escape rooms from reality that People can’t escape from, because they’re lonely at home and even the cold digital haze of connection is better than spending time with One’s own thoughts?

Social media seems to be distorting some natural behaviours through their amplification, making us socially ill when off of the platforms even if our projected perfection on them looks.. “perfect”. For example, People give other People likes because they fear that, if they don’t, no one else will. Caretakers of good will, a most natural part of groups, take it upon themselves to like through all of the posts in their network. Though well-intentioned, this accelerates into a loop of non-substantial air: there is no meaning behind the actions other than fulfilling a natural behaviour, the worth of which has become diluted through its inflation. Caretakers are angels, but can also turn quickly into overbearing fakes.

So, let’s go back to Church. If People used to play the mass social game at a weekly tic, then now that game is being played at the frequency rate of however often the smartphone is being picked up. If Church allowed for storylines in friendship that spanned years and decades, then social media’s constitution of friend or follower is the exact opposite: the insight of moments and seconds constitutes connection. The sharing of stories at a weekly frequency left room for connective depth, the perpetual ping rate of social media leaves connection in a purgatory of continuous non-alignment. The function of depth is to foster a sense of trust that naturally brings alignment to the emotions had and energies transmitted between People.

At its core, the matter is simple: social media is the biggest question mark of our time.

What makes the situation scary are the group effects I discuss above. Removing myself from what I deemed a harsh and unhealthy environment was literally like ripping my head off of a magnet to save myself from what I began to perceive quite directly as Smartphone Zombiedom (nightmares included): so strong is the force of social power, the acceptance through congruence.

If I am strong-willed (of which I have much proof) then how easy is it for those weaker than me to do the same? Playing forward on this string of thought, then how many Prisoners of life does social media carry: those who are there for the “group” that is but would not wish to be, nonetheless staying because the fear of the dark outside is stronger than the fear of the cold light inside of the digital social group?

I look at the situation from the outside already, from what I perceive as the warmth of the dark of Nature. From here, it is currently nearly impossible to see the future past the current position: does there begin an exodus of Individuals culminating into a 50/50 societal split that would be much like the Black Mirror -episode presenting a social media dystopia? Or does social media suddenly solve all of its problems and turn into digital happyland? Or will the regulatory system simply shut the whole thing down in the face of systemic health fears? I simply can’t discount that option from actualizing, given that academic research on social media-induced health problems are only beginning to gain traction. What happens following the unfurling of whatever outcome is so deep in the dark that it is impossible to say: whatever it is, then a ride back into Nature, it will be, for that is what it will become.

The latest Government-hatred of Facebook, for example, comes from New Zealand in the wake of the shootings in Christchurch. The UK has been leading the charge for a few years already. Germany pushes at the forward-front of privacy protection.

The question is: will it all lead us to a 2020s where we are picking up the pieces from total social media destruction after some catalytic event? Or will it lead us to a decade where we peacefully see that there are two forms of Human: digitally social (fast) and naturally social (slow)?

At this stage, it is impossible to know. The show is only just about to start. My hypothesis is that global players will disappear from the industry and that local ones will take their place. For example, a digital social media that is born out of a City, for a City, is likely to be infinitely more tied into cultural context, and therefore holds the prerequisites to be a much healthier organism that can sustain itself across time. It is hard to see this happening for Facebook or Instagram, for example, because they and their Leaders are so intensely far-removed from home. 

That matters. Even if the generic IT industry expert will continue to focus on the tool and that it can be scaled across the Planet at minimal cost, then the reality of the matter is that the human connection in business is always there. The ecosystem that is a social media dies if it is not led well: just as a Priest will lose the flock if the preaching becomes a leeching of the time.

The Dotcom bubble of two decades ago happened with the Internet browser as the media platform. The smartphone platform might be on the verge of leading us to something similar. It has grown so fast that it has centralized leadership into extremely condensed locations (naturally so, as the first winners of new ecosystems will always emerge, by definition).

My only hope is that the peace wrought from base levels of assumed privacy is returned to society: where a gathering of friends is no longer a product for the Chosen One of Social Media to share to others digitally, but actual life to be lived.

I have a hard rule under my roof: ”Take the pic, but share it later.” My home and my being are not to be whored out to your other friends. I don’t give a rat’s ass about the advertising money flowing through: I have become so desensitized to advertising across my life that I literally do not even notice that it exists. What I care about, and why I left social media, is the sanctity of being: the cozy comfort of privacy. The behaviour of others matters in its preservation, and forms my base of motivation in what I consider to be work in the very fundamental preservation of society.

This is by far the hardest subject area for thought present on our Planet at this time. Prior to the professionals doing the academic labelling, it is very hard to point at social media and say “disease” like the politicians in the UK. I do, however, understand their sentiment strongly. The reactions of those opposed to these politicians, in my view, is evidence on behalf of the politicians: this piece, for example, lights up my Insanitometer quite strongly.

I hope I have been able to communicate my points effectively and wish for the continuation of a civilized conversation.

My tips are the following: smartphones and the communication mediums that exist within them are tools used to navigate oneself into situations lived in reality. Being stuck inside the smartphone is like driving on an infinite highway. Finding the offramp takes time and begins with the adjustment of behaviour to make sure that more social interaction is being had offline than online. That is the definition of social health for me and it will be the most central function of the education that I give to my own Kids in the future, if social media is still around (which, I believe, it will be – as localised, not as global).

The truth is that, within a society, all the times are happening all the time. What is a time of joy for one will be a time of angst for another. That is why the best societal leadership strategy is logically not to try and foster too strong illusions of an effervescent unity of being: it is also to keep People structurally separate (by ensuring their Individual freedoms are not compromised, and that they’re not forced into undesired contact) and allow them to come together on their own through whatever forces of Nature guide the formation of social constructions. This allows for a society to remain objective and not infringe upon the sovereignty of the Individual: it is the avoidance of the Imperius Curse, so to say.

The correct path forward becomes maximal objectivity of the State, in my opinion. In practice, the definition of a State reduces down to the palette of services offered (products, even), the prerequisites for their acquiring (beginning with Citizenship or Residency or International Contract of Provision for Visitors), and the time within which a Citizen has the right to be fulfilled. There is nothing more objective on Earth as time: therefore, if time targets are not met, there are born the justifications for more authoritarian rule of civil bureaucracy to get things in order.

What ensures an objective outcome is so simple that it empties all doubt: measurements. What you measure is what you get. In Finland, for example, politics does not seem to understand this at all. That shouldn’t come as a surprise: even private sector leadership has started to focus on more refined operative measures only during the past decade or two. The emergence of IT has allowed for this: the access price to data has dropped so much that Leaders can now be much more knowledgeable than before.

It is like I have said: if a Government is viewed as flying a massive societal ship around the Sun, year after year, then IT makes it possible to have an updated instrument panel. Ask any pilot and you will find that that makes all the difference in safer, higher-quality flight: information in, measurements out, actions forward. That’s how a Captain flies.

Ray Kurzweil says: “Our intuition about the future is linear. But the reality of information technology is exponential, and that makes a profound difference.”

I think this type of statement concerning the nature of time needs to be made much more carefully, and without the use of the word but. There are two sides to it: our body moves linearly from year to year – the physical timeline circles us around the Sun. The other side, what I think Ray Kurzweil is referring to with the exponential reality of IT, is that as something new enters the frame, it will grow until it has completed the infinite acceleration and become a normal part of life. I think what Ray Kurzweil, and a lot of other IT industry Veterans (who should be treated as such), is suffering from is speed-blindness: there has been so much new stuff throughout their lifetime that they’ve gotten stuck in a precognitive state where the brain’s assumption is that this will just keep happening.

In turn, I think the reality is that there is only a certain speed at which a human being can digest information and move its body. So, even if computers might be however infinitely fast, the human being can still only digest a certain amount: definitely not a static figure, as all individuals are different, but that amount is definitely less than infinity.

ps. there was a slightly more aggressive note here previously, directed at Ray Kurzweil: I apologize if it was blunt. It’s been quite a stress on my brain to figure all of this IT/Earth relativity stuff out. I think we’re getting there: IT is the brain/mind, Planet is the body/soul, their interactions “breathes” in and out, fuelling the projection of our spirit into the future that guides us towards it. That’s how I think of it all, at least, and I think I am getting the handle on being a human being in the Digital Age. It all starts with a global perspective: otherwise it is impossible to live with the Internet – if you can’t accept that everyone isn’t like you, you can’t stand the information that proves it.

On mielestäni nähtävä asia niin, että valtaosa yhteiskunnan sisäisistä ongelmista kumpuaa niin sanotusta sosiaalisesta sodasta: heikon itsetunnon omaavien Johtajien jatkuvat pyrkimykset mitata itseään muita vastaan sen sijaan, että heitä autettaisiin kohtaamaan itsensä johtaa siihen, että vastakkainasettelut kasvavat sisältä ulospäin. Mielestäni nämä pimeyden soturit jotka eivät kykene huomaamaan kyvyttömyyttään hallita valtaa pitää pelastaa – itsemme vuoksi, mutta tottakai myös heidän. Ketään ei pidä ikinä koskaan syyttää siitä, että on uskaltanut nousta vastuuasemaan. Päinvastoin: yhteisön palvelemisesta pitää kiittää, samalla kun vetäisee heitä sieltä asemasta pois, satuttamasta itseään ja muita.

© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *