<html>
<body>
At 18:13 13/05/2014, Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:38
AM, Jefsey
<<a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com">jefsey@jefsey.com</a>> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>2. I discern an other achievement which is a clarifying failure. They
have not collectively understood yet that the internet is no more for
everyone (ISOC Vint Cerf's RFC 3271), but as Gene Gaines puts it: it IS
everyone.
</dl><br>
I am interested and thus curious. By this dimension you identify, what
would be your measure/criteria of success at NETmundial or in any future
Ig process?</blockquote><br><br>
Same as democracy but adapted to the double context of digitality and
resulting polycracy. I certinaly need to explain :-)<br><br>
As persons we now have an "extended" face of our personality
which is our "digitaly", i.e. the empowerment of our digital
interaction with the digital ecosystem. We have to build it as we do for
our personality, except that at the end of the day our personalty (soul?)
should remains the ultimate decision maker.<br><br>
"Technical singularity" mongers like Raymond Kurzwell think
otherwise: that our digitality will have to take the leadership, to fight
machines' supremacy - and possibly be defeated. I think that this
technical singularity does exist, is occurying and is the process we are
submitted to (e.g. the IG debate) after the digital renormalization of
our time (the practical experience of the ubiquity of quantum physic,
digital, etc. discontinuities where our brain faked a continuity which
called for an Euclidian nano-infinity). <br><br>
However this singularity does not mean we will be supersed by the
machine, but that we have succeded in creating the machines we absolutely
needed to survive and master the complexity this digital renormalization
has unveiled. I will add that this digital renormalization and the
resulting access to complexity was necessary for us to scale to the
increase of the size, density, resulting needs, and education of our
society. And probably to address the earth pollution, energy and water
issues, etc.<br><br>
This is what the WSIS expressed in saying that the Information Society is
to be "people centered", "à caractère humain" (and
not "informatisée") in French, and very acurately
"centrada en la persona" in Spanish. Personality is to control
digitality. Not the other way around. But we certainly have to make sure
this is true. <br><br>
<br>
This digitality is therefore in charge of the digital face of our human
relational space, I call our "Virtual Global Network". The way
we chose to get, organize, optimize, standardize and use our digital
energy. The same as our personality does for our mental energy and our
body for our physical energy. This is why, the same as we want to be
physically free in the four geographical dimensions (length, higth,
depth, time) we want to be free in the four digital dimensions (data,
metadata, syllodata, and the same shared time). Our intellect equally
wants to be free in these seven dimensions as well as in its own
conceptual dimensions. (NB, just in case: data are actualy data, capta
and tracta - this will be for another day; metadata are data on
data; syllodata are data between linked data).<br><br>
<br>
Now, we have (at least) two new big problems we are confronted to,
that Sao Paulo should have/has(?)clumsilly investigated:<br><br>
1. for millenaries we have been spiritually bound to a culture and
physically bound to a place. We have organized these bounds through our
social contract with sovereign entities. We call it Nation-State.
Mentally and physically we belong to a people, to a nation. We identified
it as a human right as well as to participate in their governement (what
they want to deprive us today through a multisatkeholderism that would
partly reject governments). The NTIA position is a position, not an
acceptable pre-requisite.<br><br>
Yet our digitality is not bound to anything: digitally we are a
multitude. Multitude is the technical term for boundless individuals.
Many want to attach our boundlessness to their so-called RFC 6852
"digital community" to get our share of the resulting so-called
RFC 6852 "huge bounty", in binding us to their business,
products, edge services, operating system, choices, coalitions. <br><br>
I am sorry, but I am and I want to stay digitally free. <br><br>
I perfectly know they do not want our VGNs to emerge as stakeholders.
This is too bad for them: they will have to because this is not only my
right; this is my technical survival necessity. This is why I bootstrap
the fsp4net coalition and suggest the VGNSO cooperation (Since you speak
French you may want to have a look at
<a href="http://sv2b.net/" eudora="autourl">http://sv2b.net</a>, my
gaullish e-village).<br><br>
<br><br>
2. our mental and physical (i.e. brainware and hardware faces) have until
been considered in order to identify and theorize information, and to
indentify but not yet theorize communication. With digitality we only
start discovering the third main (now computedly facilitated) component
of our seven dimension world: intellition. Intellition is what makes
sense. The semantic extension to mathematic processing based upon big
data. Most of what we know was never told (communication) nor taught
(information) to us: we infered it (intelligent inferenciation). The
issue is that there are two big scale intellition processes we know very
well: Press and PRISM. One is supposed to be protected and the other
opposed. This is the problem of the liberty of thinking (infering) +
liberty of speaking vs. the liberty of being. What Smith summarized in
explaining: if you don't want something to be known: don't do
it!<br><br>
This raises huge questions. If we do not want to be subverted by the
machine we have to educate the machine, and give it a human ethitechnic.
It has to respect human privacy and its communications stay neutral.
<br><br>
To do that we have to teach the human universe to the machine and give it
comportmental limits. This means to standardize a common architectony
(i.e. basic vision of the universe) that everyone, culture, thought, etc,
can freely parameter and be legally accounted responsible for. People
must go to jail if their digitality (i.e. the digital face and periphery
of their person or units of their VGN) has commited a crime they were
able to prevent. The same, as if your dog bites your neighbohrs, or a
tree in your garden falls on a car on the road. This is a totally new
world, that Google, etc. would like to control through the datamass.
Their non-regulated accumulation of data represents a bigger danger for
humanity than atomic bombs. Considers a world flooded by accurate
black-mailing spam. You do not think it possible? Please recall the AOL
example:
<a href="http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/08/7433/" eudora="autourl">
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/08/7433/</a><br><br>
These are "ulterior" areas, where I expect my governement to
protect me from wrong innovation. By the way, this is a constituational
obligation in France, both for the state and for informed citizens, under
the precautionary principle. Internet informed, independent, intelligent
IUsers.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
</body>
</html>