1892: "I contain multitudes" 2026: "I task artificial agents for engagement"

Many people that are concerned, intellectually curious, and have enough time to dig deep, come to the same general conclusions about our situation as humans-in-biosphere. Mostly, though, when they touch and understand the wisdom, it is like a fleeting thought while meditating. Their day-to-day life doesn't appear to match. They fall right back into old patterns. We often downplay culture, as though we are super-rational beings able to re-invent ourselves under will. It doesn't work that way for humans, though. It takes much training and discipline. I don't possess that discipline myself. I'm not that good at meditating, either. I can see the culture part. I understand the river that pushes me along. That's a start, I suppose. I have a single idea I cling to. My idea is that cognitive maps that are easy to create quickly and flexibly can help with understanding and counter culture. Perhaps it will help us in emergence during times of extreme change. So, I'm content rattling down the river like one of Richard Bach's limpets, clinging to my idea of heptads for emergent knowledge, four more than triples. It is a hack, right? I cling but still flow down the river? I certainly don't believe that the current knows where it is going.

Who here still validates their HTML manually?

Every. Single. Time. I attempt to make my ideas clear, I relate to Peirce and his article on same and the suspicion that what "I am now writing is for the compositor and proof-reader exclusively." #CharlesSandersPeirce #CharlesPeirce #ontology

How to Make Our Ideas Clear

What is your deepest desire?

The Academy for Systems Change

Envisioning a Sustainable World

Vision is the most vital step in the policy process. If we don’t know where we want to go, it makes little difference that we make great progress.

#DonellaMeadows #sustainability

#introduction I've figured out something very interesting about collaborative knowledge assertions. I hope to write the ideas down. It has taken many years to arrive at this distillate.

I figured out something about FIPS and Nostr and the WWW as TBL imagined. TBL had triples correct (S,P,O: word orange(S) has a hyperlink(P) to a wiki page(O)) . These work at a logical level. But, he mixed physical(ish) and logical perspectives for G, the graph/domain. If he had kept those separate and used something like RDF N-Quads, but layered it within HTML, we would have many options besides ICANN in an explicit way. Most of the WWW is based on knowledge woven with corporate/org control structures that only need to be there for a physical perspective. In other words, he could have gone full open-world assumption on all 4. FIPS and Nostr also add identity and endorsement (identity=npub and endorsement=signing with nsec). We also need time. So, we have G,S,P,O,I,E,T. You can collaborate on knowledge with 7. Tip-o-the-hat to you Nostr/FIPS freaks for getting me here. I've been wrangling with identity, signatures, and sequences for a long time, longer than Bitcoin, but I'm fairly certain you helped push me over the finish line. Remaining in my investigations is how an unlimited pool of node IDs affects link rot of knowledge. TBL was also concerned with that, but he assigned nodes (as does RDF/OWL) with paths, which also seems braindead on reflection... but I'm still working that out. My memory on surface FIPS reading is it is doing it with IPV6, but, frankly, that is yet another physicalish binding vs logical. Oh... and this also points out a good distinction between Nostr and WebID for distributed identity. ~Peg