Notes for Grub Street, ObjectiveKhunts. #Web3 #OIP #Flo #Alexandria #GrubStreet

Shia_LaBeouf_Not_Famous_2014 (1)

Notes for Grub Street, ObjectiveKhunts
Notes for Contextual Search engine offering Integral Framework perspectives.

This is a mixture of Links, Bench notes and theoretical Semantics, hermeneutics and Context theory for The New Publishing Platform I am working on in web 3. Flo allows Meta Data to be stored in a searchable Blockchain, referencing IPFS Hashed Data, marshalled through the OIP protocol.

download (2)





Guide for the Perplexed, Contradiction.

 A sort of guide for the perplexed.
Newsfeeds in the corporate media have become esoteric these days and consulting Maimonides is not such a bad idea.
Introductory Remarks. [ON METHOD] THERE are seven causes of inconsistencies and contradictions to be met within a literary work.
The first cause arises from the fact that the author collects the opinions of various men, each differing from the other, but neglects to mention the name of the author of any particular opinion. In such a work contradictions or inconsistencies must occur, since any two statements may belong to two different authors.
Second cause: The author holds at first one opinion which he subsequently rejects: in his work., however, both his original and altered views are retained.
Third cause: The passages in question are not all to be taken literally: some only are to be understood in their literal sense, while in others figurative language is employed, which includes another meaning besides the literal one: or, in the apparently inconsistent passages, figurative language is employed which, if taken literally, would seem to be contradictories or contraries.
Fourth cause: The premises are not identical in both statements, but for certain reasons they are not fully stated in these passages: or two propositions with different subjects which are expressed by the same term without having the difference in meaning pointed out, occur in two passages. The contradiction is therefore only apparent, but there is no contradiction in reality.
The fifth cause is traceable to the use of a certain method adopted in teaching and expounding profound problems. Namely, a difficult and obscure theorem must sometimes be mentioned and assumed as known, for the illustration of some elementary and intelligible subject which must be taught beforehand the commencement being always made with the easier thing. The teacher must, therefore, facilitate, in any manner which he can devise, the explanation of those theorems, which have to be assumed as known, and he must content himself with giving a general though somewhat inaccurate notion on the subject. It is, for the present, explained according to the capacity of the students, that they may comprehend it as far as they are required to understand the subject. Later on, the same subject is thoroughly treated and fully developed in its right place.
Sixth cause: The contradiction is not apparent, and only becomes evident through a series of premises. The larger the number of premises necessary to prove the contradiction between the two conclusions, the greater is the chance that it will escape detection, and that the author will not perceive his own inconsistency. Only when from each conclusion, by means of suitable premises, an inference is made, and from the enunciation thus inferred, by means of proper arguments, other conclusions are formed, and after that process has been repeated many times, then it becomes clear that the original conclusions are contradictories or contraries. Even able writers are liable to overlook such inconsistencies. If, however, the contradiction between the original statements can at once be discovered, and the author, while writing the second, does not think of the first, he evinces a greater deficiency, and his words deserve no notice whatever.
Seventh cause: It is sometimes necessary to introduce such metaphysical matter as may partly be disclosed, but must partly be concealed: while, therefore, on one occasion the object which the author has in view may demand that the metaphysical problem be treated as solved in one way, it may be convenient on another occasion to treat it as solved in the opposite way. The author must endeavour, by concealing the fact as much as possible, to prevent the uneducated reader from perceiving the contradiction.

Jain Many SidedNess

Anekāntavāda (Sanskrit: अनेकान्तवाद, “many-sidedness”) refers to the Jain doctrine about metaphysical truths that emerged in ancient India.[1] It states that the ultimate truth and reality is complex and has multiple aspects.[2] Anekantavada has also been interpreted to mean non-absolutism, “intellectual Ahimsa”,[3] religious pluralism,[4] as well as a rejection of fanaticism that leads to terror attacks and mass violence.[5] Some scholars state that modern revisionism has attempted to reinterpret anekantavada with religious tolerance, openmindedness and pluralism.[6][7]
1. Affirmation: syād-asti—in some ways, it is,
2. Denial: syān-nāsti—in some ways, it is not,
3. Joint but successive affirmation and denial: syād-asti-nāsti—in some ways, it is, and it is not,
4. Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable,
5. Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syān-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable,
6. Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable,
7. Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is indescribable.


AQUAL Integral Approach
Main article: Holon (philosophy)
Holons are the individual building blocks of Wilber’s model. Wilber borrowed the concept of holons from Arthur Koestler’s description of the great chain of being, a mediaeval description of levels of being. “Holon” means that every entity and concept is both an entity on its own, and a hierarchical part of a larger whole. For example, a cell in an organism is both a whole as a cell, and at the same time a part of another whole, the organism. Likewise a letter is a self-existing entity and simultaneously an integral part of a word, which then is part of a sentence, which is part of a paragraph, which is part of a page; and so on. Everything from quarks to matter to energy to ideas can be looked at in this way. The relation between individuals and society is not the same as between cells and organisms though, because individual holons can be members but not parts of social holons.[26]
In his book Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution, Wilber outlines twenty fundamental properties, called “tenets”, that characterize all holons.[27] For example, they must be able to maintain their “wholeness” and also their “part-ness;” a holon that cannot maintain its wholeness will cease to exist and will break up into its constituent parts.
Holons form natural “holarchies”, like Russian dolls, where a whole is a part of another whole, in turn part of another whole, and so on.
Each holon can be seen from within (subjective, interior perspective) and from the outside (objective, exterior perspective), and from an individual or a collective perspective.[28]
Each of the four approaches has a valid perspective to offer. The subjective emotional pain of a person who suffers a tragedy is one perspective; the social statistics about such tragedies are different perspectives on the same matter. According to Wilber all are needed for real appreciation of a matter.
Wilber uses this grid to categorize the perspectives of various theories and scholars, for example:
Interior individual perspective (upper-left quadrant) include Freudian psychoanalysis, which interprets people’s interior experiences and focuses on “I”
Interior plural perspective (lower-left) include Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics which seeks to interpret the collective consciousness of a society, or plurality of people and focuses on “We”
Exterior individual perspective (upper-right) include B. F. Skinner’s behaviorism, which limits itself to the observation of the behavior of organisms and treats the internal experience, decision making or volition of the subject as a black box, and which with the fourth perspective emphasizes the subject as a specimen to examine, or “It”.
Exterior plural perspective (lower-right) include Marxist economic theory which focuses upon the behavior of a society (i.e. a plurality of people) as functional entities seen from outside, e.g. “They”.
According to Wilber, all four perspectives offer complementary, rather than contradictory, perspectives. It is possible for all to be correct, and all are necessary for a complete account of human existence. According to Wilber, each by itself offers only a partial view of reality.
According to Wilber modern western society has a pathological focus on the exterior or objective perspective. Such perspectives value that which can be externally measured and tested in a laboratory, but tend to deny or marginalize the left sides (subjectivity, individual experience, feelings, values) as unproven or having no meaning. Wilber identifies this as a fundamental cause of society’s malaise, and names the situation resulting from such perspectives, “flatland”.

1. ^ Jump up to:a b Piaget’s theory of cognitive development,[29] Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development, and Jane Loevinger’s stages of ego development.
2. ^ This interpretation is at odds with structural stage theory, which posits an overall follow-up of stages, instead of variations over several domains.
3. ^ This too is wildly at odds with structural stage theory, but in line with Wilber’s philosophical idealism, which sees the phenomenal world as a concretisation, or immanation, of a “higher,” transcendental reality, which can be “realized” in “religious experience.”
4. ^ The Madhyamaka Two Truths Doctrine discerns two epistemological truths, namely conventional and ultimate. Conventional truth is the truth of phenomenal appearances and causal relations, our daily common-sense world. Ultimate truth is the recognition that no-“thing” exists inherently; every”thing” is empty, sunyata of an unchanging “essence.” It also means that there is no unchanging transcendental reality underlying phenomenal existence. “Formless awareness” belongs to another strand of Indian thinking, namely Advaita and Buddha-nature, which are ontological approaches, and do posit such a transcendental, unchanging reality, namely “awareness” or “consciousness.” Wilber seems to be mixing, or confusing, these two different approaches freely, in his attempt to integrate “everything” into one conceptual scheme.
5. ^ For example:
◦ Freudian drives, Jungian archetypes, and myth are pre-personal structures.
◦ Empirical and rational processes are at the personal level.
◦ Transpersonal entities include, for example, Aurobindo’s Overmind, Emerson’s Oversoul, Plato’s Forms, Plotinus’ nous, and the HinduAtman, or world-soul.
6. ^ Note that Wilber presents Aurobindo’s level of Being as developmental stages, whereas Aurobindo describes higher development as a Triple Transformation, which includes “psychicisation” (Wilber’s psychic stage), the turn inward and the discovery of the psychic being; spiritualisation, the transformation of the lower being through the realisation of the psychic being, and involves the Higher Mind; and “supramentalisation,” the realisation of Supermind, itself the intermediary between Spirit or Satcitananda and creation. A correct table would include Aurobindo’s Triple Transformation and the Three Beings:


Comparison of the models of Wilber and Aurobindo; differentiating between Aurobindo’s levels of being and Aurobindo’s developmental stages.
7. ^ In his book Integral Spirituality, Wilber identifies a few varieties of states:
◦ The three daily cycling natural states: waking, dreaming, and sleeping.
◦ Penomenal states such as bodily sensations, emotions, mental ideas, memories, or inspirations, or from exterior sources such as our sensorimotor inputs, seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting.
◦ Altered states, is divided into two groups:
◦ Exogenous or induced states: psychedelic and other drug-induced states; hypnosis and hypnotherapy; psycho-therapeutic techniques; gestalt therapy; psychodrama; voice dialoguetechniques; biofeedback states; forms of guided imagery;
◦ Endogenous or trained states: performance enhancement techniques in sports therapy; meditative training which work on calming, relaxation, equanimity states; and mental imaging and visualization such as tonglen meditation.
◦ Some techniques, such as Neuro-linguistic Programming, work with both endogenous and exogenous types.
◦ Spontaneous or peak states: unintentional or unexpected shifts of awareness from gross to subtle or causal states of consciousness.[36]


roger@roger-MacPro:~/oip-ddx-light$ yarn dev
yarn run v1.16.0
$ next
/bin/sh: 1: next: not found
error Command failed with exit code 127.
info Visit for documentation about this command.
Fast, reliable, and secure dependency management.
• Thanks Devon, I’ll go to beta testing and ping bitspill as suggested, I will get back to you when I’m up and running and have made some progress with my own use case queries.

roger@roger-MacPro:~$ yarn –version

Compiled with warnings.

Critical dependency: the request of a dependency is an expression this worked to update to 10.0.0 jsnode in ubuntu 18.04 lts
How To Install Node.js on Ubuntu 18.04 / 16.04 LTS – TecAdmin
• now stuck here yarn run v1.16.0
$ next

Compiled with warnings.

Critical dependency: the request of a dependency is an expression

roger.lewis – Thu Jul 04 2019 08:14:04 GMT+0200 (Central European Summer Time).txt
Install Terminal read out

Hi Devon it is building now bit returning above error will have to wait for bitspill to advise, I can try building it on a mac lap top or windows Laptop or WIndows PC , i do prefer Linux though and I guess getting it working on Linux is actually better from an open source perspective.

Workspace 1_910.jpg

Got it on local .3000 now devon, had a few beers this evening so will play with it tomorrow . Thanks for the fish etc., Compiled with warnings.

Critical dependency: the request of a dependency is an expression
DDX for Devs 1 – Background
DDX, or Distributed Database of X, is a piece of software built on Open Index Protocol. Before we dive into DDX itself, we start with some fundamentals about Open Index Protocol and some of the technologies it uses (IPFS. Flo, cryptocurrencies)
DDX for Devs 2: Using DDX
Ryan walks through DDX’s functions and how to use it to create new Record Templates and publish new Records
DDX for Devs 3 – Libraries
Some details about the JS libraries used in DDX
DDX for Devs 4 – React JSS and Protobuf
Ryan digs into how JSS is used to control styling from within a JS library, and explains how we serialize, encode and decode Protobuf data

DDX for Devs 5 – Review
Review how OIP and DDX work
Step 1 – Add Node.js PPA
Node.js package is available in LTS release and the current release. It’s your choice to select which version you want to install on the system as per your requirements. Let’s add the PPA to your system to install Nodejs on Ubuntu.
Use Current Release: At te last update of this tutorial, Node.js 12 is the current Node.js release available.

sudo apt-get install curl python-software-properties
curl -sL | sudo -E bash –

Use LTS Release : At the last update of this tutorial, Node.js 10.15.3 is the LTS release available.
sudo apt-get install curl python-software-properties
curl -sL | sudo -E bash –
For this tutorial, I am using the latest current release and added their PPA to my system.
Step 2 – Install Node.js on Ubuntu
You can successfully add Node.js PPA to Ubuntu system. Now execute the below command install Node on and Ubuntu using apt-get. This will also install NPM with node.js. This command also installs many other dependent packages on your system.
sudo apt-get install nodejs
Step 3 – Check Node.js and NPM Version
After installing node.js verify and check the installed version. You can find more details about current version on node.js official website.
node -v

Also, check the npm version
npm -v

Install instructions
If not done so already, install yarn here.
git clone
cd oip-ddx-light
yarn install
yarn dev


Basic OIP Install complete.

cd oip-ddx-light

yarn dev  to run after compiles.

Workspace 1_964.jpg

This part is about Meta Data search Indexing and Contexts for Content finding, harvesting and summaries, contexts and searchengine spoofing.
Tackling Tools of Malign Influence – Supporting 21st Century Journalism was a conference held from 1-2 November 2018 by the Integrity Initiative – possibly the last such conference before the group was exposed by ‘Anonymous’ on 5 November. The primary source for this page is a PDF of the draft agenda.[1]

The Cold War II (or Cold War 2.0) refers to a reprise of the Cold War which ended in the 1990s. The basic narrative, like the original cold war, is of a “West versus East” conflict, cited as increased reason to increase military spending.
The Integrity Initiative (II) is an organ of the UK Deep state controlled through the Institute for Statecraft. It was exposed by 7 sets of leaked documents, beginning on 5 November 2018 and continuing up to March 2019. Craig Murray blogged that “The Integrity Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media, it would be the biggest story of the day.” [1] Lucy Morgan Edwardssummarised it in January 2019 as “an extremely shady covert disinformation and anti-democratic deep state outfit”.[2]On 22 January 2019 it claimed that some of the data leaked had been falsified (but did not specify which), briefly locked its Twitter feed and deleted the entire content of its website.[3]

La Commune (Peter Watkins, 2000)


Since the time of the 1966 banning by the BBC of my film The War Game (which dealt with the consequences of using nuclear weapons) I have been concerned with the increasing ‘dumbing down’ of the MAVM (mass audiovisual media) and the development of what I now refer to as ‘the media crisis’. Key elements in this crisis include the heavily circumscribed agendas of the MAVM, the forced development of the media popular culture, the standardisation of the audiovisual form resulting in the creation of an increasingly hierarchical and manipulative relationship with the audience (the public), and education systems which are largely compliant with this system.

Medici Land Governance to be Showcased at The Land and Poverty Conference with The World Bank

View at

Tech Demo W Sound and Narration

Philosophical hermeneutics and Truth and Method[edit]
Gadamer’s philosophical project, as explained in Truth and Method, was to elaborate on the concept of “philosophical hermeneutics”, which Heidegger initiated but never dealt with at length. Gadamer’s goal was to uncover the nature of human understanding. In Truth and Method, Gadamer argued that “truth” and “method” were at odds with one another. For Gadamer, “the experience of art is exemplary in its provision of truths that are inaccessible by scientific methods, and this experience is projected to the whole domain of human sciences.”[32] He was critical of two approaches to the human sciences (Geisteswissenschaften). On the one hand, he was critical of modern approaches to humanities that modeled themselves on the natural sciences, which simply sought to “objectively” observe and analyze texts and art. On the other hand, he took issue with the traditional German approaches to the humanities, represented for instance by Friedrich Schleiermacher and Wilhelm Dilthey, who believed that meaning, as an object, could be found within a text through a particular process that allowed for a connection with the author’s thoughts that led to the creation of a text (Schleiermacher),[33] or the situation that led to an expression of human inner life (Dilthey).[34]
Hermeneutics (/ˌhɜːrməˈnjuːtɪks/)[1] is the theory and methodology of interpretation,[2][3] especially the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts.[4][5]
Modern hermeneutics includes both verbal and non-verbal communication[6][7] as well as semiotics, presuppositions, and pre-understandings. Hermeneutics has been broadly applied in the humanities, especially in law, history and theology.
Hermeneutics was initially applied to the interpretation, or exegesis, of scripture, and has been later broadened to questions of general interpretation.[8] The terms hermeneutics and exegesis are sometimes used interchangeably. Hermeneutics is a wider discipline which includes written, verbal, and non-verbal[6][7] communication. Exegesis focuses primarily upon the word and grammar of texts.
Hermeneutic, as a count noun in the singular, refers to some particular method of interpretation (see, in contrast, double hermeneutic).
Exegesis (/ˌɛksɪˈdʒiːsɪs/; from the Greek ἐξήγησις from ἐξηγεῖσθαι, “to lead out”) is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, particularly a religious text. Traditionally the term was used primarily for work with the Bible; however, in modern usage “biblical exegesis” is used for greater specificity to distinguish it from any other broader critical text explanation.
Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds of the author, text, and original audience. Other analyses include classification of the type of literary genres presented in the text and analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself.
The terms exegesis and hermeneutics have been used interchangeably.
The double hermeneutic is the theory, expounded by sociologist Anthony Giddens, that everyday “lay” concepts and those from the social sciences have a two-way relationship.[1] A common example is the idea of social class, a social-scientific category that has entered into wide use in society. The double hermeneutic is held to be a distinguishing feature of the social sciences.

Anthony Giddens (1982) argues that there is an important difference between the natural and social sciences.[2] In the natural sciences, scientists try to understand and theorise about the way the natural world is structured. The understanding is one-way; that is, while we need to understand the actions of minerals or chemicals, chemicals and minerals don’t seek to develop an understanding of us. He refers to this as the ‘single hermeneutic’. (Hermeneutic means interpretation or understanding.) In contrast, the social sciences are engaged in the ‘double hermeneutic’. The various social sciences study people and society, although the way they do so is different. Some social sciences such as sociology don’t just study what people do, they also study how people understand their world, and how that understanding shapes their practice. Because people can think, make choices, and use new information to revise their understandings (and hence their practice), they can use the knowledge and insights of social science to change their practice.
In outlining his notion of the ‘double hermeneutic’, Giddens (1984: 20) explains that while philosophers and social scientists have often considered the way “in which lay concepts obstinately intrude into the technical discourse of social science,” … “(f)ew have considered the matter the other way around.” He explains that “the concepts of the social sciences are not produced about an independently constituted subject-matter, which continues regardless of what these concepts are. The ‘findings’ of the social sciences very often enter constitutively into the world they describe.”[3]

While emancipatory politics is a politics of life chances, life politics is a politics of lifestyle. Life politics is the politics of a reflexively mobilised order — the system of late modernity — which, on an individual and collective level, has radically altered the existential parameters of social activity. It is a politics of self-actualisation in a reflexively ordered environment, where that reflexivity links self and body to systems of global scope. […] Life politics concerns political issues which flow from processes of self-actualisation in post-traditional contexts, where globalising influences intrude deeply into the reflexive project of the self, and conversely where processes of self-realisation influence global strategies.[28]
— Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, 1991
In A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism, Giddens concludes:[19]
1. There exists no necessary overall mechanism of social change, no universal motor of history such as class conflict.
2. There are no universal stages, or periodisation, of social development, these being ruled out by intersocietal systems and “time-space edges” (the ever-presence of exogenous variables) as well as by human agency and the inherent historicity of societies.
3. Societies do not have needs other than those of individuals, therefore notions such as adaptation cannot properly be applied to them.
4. Pre-capitalist societies are class-divided, but only with capitalism there are class societies in which there is endemic class conflict, the separation of the political and economic spheres, property freely alienable as capital and “free” labour and labour markets.
5. While class conflict is integral to capitalist society, there is no teleology that guarantees the emergence of the working class as the universal class and no ontology that justifies denial of the multiple bases of modern society represented by capitalism, industrialism, bureaucratisation, surveillance and industrialisation of warfare.
6. Sociology, as a subject pre-eminently with modernity, addresses a reflexive reality.
In epistemology, and more specifically, the sociology of knowledge, reflexivity refers to circular relationships between cause and effect, especially as embedded in human belief structures. A reflexive relationship is bidirectional with both the cause and the effect affecting one another in a relationship in which neither can be assigned as causes or effects.
Within sociology more broadly—the field of origin—reflexivity means an act of self-reference where examination or action “bends back on”, refers to, and affects the entity instigating the action or examination. It commonly refers to the capacity of an agent to recognize forces of socialization and alter their place in the social structure. A low level of reflexivity would result in an individual shaped largely by their environment (or “society”). A high level of social reflexivity would be defined by an individual shaping their own norms, tastes, politics, desires, and so on. This is similar to the notion of autonomy. (See also structure and agency and social mobility.)
Within economics, reflexivity refers to the self-reinforcing effect of market sentiment, whereby rising prices attract buyers whose actions drive prices higher still until the process becomes unsustainable. This is an instance of a positive feedbackloop. The same process can operate in reverse leading to a catastrophic collapse in prices.
Economics and finance[edit]
The stock market is an example of a system prone to oscillatory “hunting”, governed by positive and negative feedback resulting from cognitive and emotional factors among market participants. For example:
• When stocks are rising (a bull market), the belief that further rises are probable gives investors an incentive to buy (positive feedback—reinforcing the rise, see also stock market bubble and momentum investing); but the increased price of the shares, and the knowledge that there must be a peak after which the market falls, ends up deterring buyers (negative feedback—stabilizing the rise).
• Once the market begins to fall regularly (a bear market), some investors may expect further losing days and refrain from buying (positive feedback—reinforcing the fall), but others may buy because stocks become more and more of a bargain (negative feedback—stabilizing the fall, see also contrarian investing).
George Soros used the word reflexivity, to describe feedback in the financial markets and developed an investment theory based on this principle.
The conventional economic equilibrium model of supply and demand supports only ideal linear negative feedback and was heavily criticized by Paul Ormerod in his book The Death of Economics, which, in turn, was criticized by traditional economists. This book was part of a change of perspective as economists started to recognise that chaos theory applied to nonlinear feedback systems including financial markets.
In linguistics, a count noun (also countable noun) is a noun that can be modified by a numeral and that occurs in both singular and plural forms, and that co-occurs with quantificational determiners like every, each, several, etc. A mass noun has none of these properties, because it cannot be modified by a numeral, cannot occur in plural, and cannot co-occur with quantificational determiners.
Measure words denote a unit or measurement and are used with mass nouns (uncountable nouns), and in some cases also with count nouns. For instance, in English, mud is a mass noun and thus one cannot say “three muds”, but one can say “three drops of mud”, “three pails of mud”, etc. In these examples, drops and pails function as measure words. One can also say “three pails of shells”; in this case the measure word pails accompanies a count noun (shells).

Integral theory is Ken Wilber’s attempt to place a wide diversity of theories and thinkers into one single framework.[1] It is portrayed as a “theory of everything” (“the living Totality of matter, body, mind, soul, and spirit”),[2] trying “to draw together an already existing number of separate paradigms into an interrelated network of approaches that are mutually enriching.”[1]
Wilber’s integral theory has been applied by some in a limited range of domains. The Integral Institute publishes the Journal of Integral Theory and Practice,[3] and SUNY Press has published nine books in the “SUNY series in Integral Theory.”[4] Wilber’s ideas have mainly attracted attention in specific subcultures, and have been widely ignored in academia.[5][6]
Michael E. Zimmerman (born July 7, 1946) is an American integral theorist whose interests include Buddhism,[1] Martin Heidegger, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Ken Wilber. After a year as Assistant Professor at Denison University, he was Professor of Philosophy at Tulane University[2] from 1975 to 2005, and Director of the Institute for Humanities and the Arts at Tulane. He is also affiliated with the Integral Institute. Together with Sean Esbjörn-Hargens, he wrote a book on integral ecology, Integral Ecology: Uniting Multiple Perspectives on the Natural World. Since 2006, Zimmerman has been a faculty member at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Zimmerman is a specialist concerning 20th century German philosopher Martin Heidegger[3] and has published a number of books and peer-reviewed articles on Heidegger’s work, and on other conventional philosophical topics.
of the writings of Ken Wilber
he term metamodernist appeared as early as 1975, when Mas’ud Zavarzadeh isolatedly used it to describe a cluster of aesthetics or attitudes which had been emerging in American literary narratives since the mid-1950s.[1]
In 1995, Canadian literary theorist Linda Hutcheon stated that a new label for what was coming after postmodernism was necessary.[2]
In 1999, Moyo Okediji reused the term metamodern about contemporary African-American art, defining it as an “extension of and challenge to modernism and postmodernism.”[3]
In 2002, Andre Furlani, analyzing the literary works of Guy Davenport, defined metamodernism as an aesthetic that is “after yet by means of modernism…. a departure as well as a perpetuation.”[4][5] The relationship between metamodernism and modernism was seen as going “far beyond homage, toward a reengagement with modernist method in order to address subject matter well outside the range or interest of the modernists themselves.”[4]
In 2007, Alexandra Dumitrescu described metamodernism as partly a concurrence with, partly an emergence from, and partly a reaction to, postmodernism, “champion[ing] the idea that only in their interconnection and continuous revision lie the possibility of grasping the nature of contemporary cultural and literary phenomena.”[6],_R%C3%B6nkk%C3%B6_%26_Turner

Main article: LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner

Shia_LaBeouf_Not_Famous_2014 (1)

LaBeouf at the 2014 Berlin International Film Festival
In early 2014, LaBeouf began collaborating with British artist and author of The Metamodernist Manifesto, Luke Turner, and Finnish artist Nastja Säde Rönkkö,[79][80] embarking on a series of actions described by Dazed as “a multi-platform meditation on celebrity and vulnerability”.[81] Since then, LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner have engaged in numerous high-profile performance art projects, including #IAMSORRY (2014), #ALLMYMOVIES (2015), #TOUCHMYSOUL (2015), #TAKEMEANYWHERE(2016), and HEWILLNOTDIVIDE.US (2017–ongoing).

Systems science is an interdisciplinary field that studies the nature of systems—from simple to complex—in nature, society, cognition, engineering, technology and science itself. To systems scientists, the world can be understood as a system of systems.[1] The field aims to develop interdisciplinary foundations that are applicable in a variety of areas, such as psychology, biology, medicine, communication, business management, computer science, engineering, and social sciences.[2]
Systems science covers formal sciences such as complex systems, cybernetics, dynamical systems theory, information theory, linguistics or systems theory. It has applications in the field of the natural and social sciences and engineering, such as control theory, operations research, social systems theory, systems biology, system dynamics, human factors, systems ecology, systems engineering and systems psychology.[3] Themes commonly stressed in system science are

(a) holistic view,

(b) interaction between a system and its embedding environment, and

(c) complex (often subtle) trajectories of dynamic behavior that sometimes are stable (and thus reinforcing), while at various ‘boundary conditions‘ can become wildly unstable (and thus destructive). Concerns about Earth-scale biosphere/geosphere dynamics is an example of the nature of problems to which systems science seeks to contribute meaningful insights.
Vedanta (/vɪˈdɑːntə/; Sanskrit: वेदान्त, IAST: Vedānta) or Uttara Mīmāṃsā is one of the six (āstika) schools of Hindu philosophy. Vedanta literally means “end of the Vedas”, reflecting ideas that emerged from the speculations and philosophies contained in the Upanishads. It does not stand for one comprehensive or unifying doctrine. Rather it is an umbrella term for many sub-traditions, ranging from dualism to non-dualism, all of which developed on the basis of a common textual connection called the Prasthanatrayi. The Prasthanatrayi is a collective term for the Principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita.
Madhyamaka (“Middle way” or “Centrism”; Sanskrit: Madhyamaka, Chinese: 中觀見; pinyin: Zhōngguān Jìan, Tibetan: dbu ma pa) also known as Śūnyavāda (the emptiness doctrine) and Niḥsvabhāvavāda (the no svabhāva doctrine) refers to a tradition of Buddhist philosophy and practice founded by the Indian philosopher Nāgārjuna (c. 150-250 CE).[1][2] The foundational text of the Mādhyamaka tradition is Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Root Verses on the Middle Way). More broadly, Madhyamaka also refers to the ultimate nature of phenomena and the realization of this in meditative equipoise.[3]
Dana Klisanin is a psychologist,[1] futurist,[2] and game designer.[3][4] She is known for her research and writing in the field of digital altruism,[5] and the impact of the digital era on heroism.[6]
Current Projects[edit]
Klisanin is researching “collaborative heroism,” a form of heroism taking place in the situation of cloud computing in which individuals collaborate to achieve noble goals such as the Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Earth Charter. She is designing and developing an interactive adventure game, Cyberhero League, designed to promote the cyberhero archetype in society. The game, selected as a winner of the World Future Society’s BetaLaunch Technology competition, enables players to learn about and tackle global challenges through completing apprenticeships with partnering nonprofit organizations.[16] She is the Founder and CEO of Evolutionary Guidance Media R&D, Inc. and Director of the MindLab at the Center for Conscious Creativity.[20][21]

View at

Medici Land Governance to be Showcased at The Land and Poverty Conference with The World Bank

Next week from the 25th — 29th of March, The 2019 Land and Poverty Conference will take place in Washington D.C., where Chris Chrysostom of Medici Land Governance (MLG) will be showcasing the progress that MLG has made in land title registry on the Open Index Protocol. Now titling property in places that include Zambia, Rwanda, Mexico, and Wyoming, Medici Land Governance is using blockchain and other technologies to build next-generation land administration systems in the developing world.



During the 1990s, the World Wide Web provided a way for people to use a network of computers to efficiently exchange files. In general, content for the Web was created by a relatively small group of individuals or small “content development groups.” Once created, the content (HTML pages and media files) was uploaded to servers and then downloaded by “content consumers” who used a web browser to display webpages. The average person was not involved with creation of Web content. This period of time is now referred to as Web 1.0.
The evolution of the Web has led to what is called “Web 2.0”. What is new about Web 2.0 is the gradual and continuing increase in technologies that allow more people to participate in Web content creation. These facilitating technologies include advances at the level of the computer hardware available to most people and at the level of software that makes it easier for people to create Web content.
“Web 2.0 is both a usage and a technology paradigm. It is a collection of technologies, business strategies, and social trends. Web 2.0 is more dynamic and interactive than its predecessor, Web 1.0, letting users access content from a Web site and contribute to the contents of that Web site. Web 2.0 enables users to keep up with a site’s most recent content edits even without visiting the actual Web page. It also lets developers create new Web applications that draw on data, information or services available on the Internet to more precisely manufacture their programs to fit their desired demographic.”[1]
Web 2.0 is an umbrella term encompassing several new Web technologies. These technologies will be outlined later. “It harnesses the Web in a more interactive and collaborative manner, emphasizing peers’ social interaction and collective intelligence, and presents new opportunities for leveraging the Web and engaging its users more effectively.”


Possible Network Topologies











Tommy Robinson and the Contemptible Politicisation of Freedom of the Press.

Tommy Robinson Bitchute.jpg
Link To Tommy Robinson Statement and relevant Video footage Context

I do think this case is a watershed in Civil Liberties, Free Speech and Freedom of the press. The Case recently which Mr Robinson ( Yaxley Lennon) brought against Cambridgeshire police, on another matter similarly saw the appointment of a “Special Interest” Judge and a similarly tainted verdict. The Language choices in the judgement are Pertinent to a subtext of authoritarian condescension, even by the arcane standards of Legal Language any independent observer can grasp the sneering tone and incredulity in the written words, should one attend a reading of the judgement in person I am sure it would be redolent of Peter Cook in Drag.



I will do a fuller analysis after the sentencing hearing tomorrow for which I will obtain a transcript before taking a scalpel to this Ongoing travesty of Justice.

The Nepotistic establishment stitch-up can be seen early on Both The Judge in the Case and Leading Counsel for the AG Hail from the same Chambers.


Caldecott is Head of the Chambers from where the Judge Worked before becoming a Judge?



Dame Victoria Sharp

Dame Victoria Sharp was called to the Bar (Inner Temple) in 1979. She became a Recorder in 1998-2008. She was appointed as a Justice of the High Court in 2009, and was assigned to the Queen’s Bench Division. She was a Presiding Judge on the Western Circuit from 2012 to 2013.

She was appointed as a Lady Justice of Appeal in 2013.

She was appointed as the Vice-President of the Queen’s Bench Division in January 2016, and President of the Queen’s Bench Division in June 2019.





The Judgement in Full

Yaxley Judgement.jpg


para 24 p.7

” During the hearing, the respondent submitted a further affidavit (his third)”,

para 35 p.11.

The evidence suggests, however, and we find, that two months after the order was made the relevant information had not been inputted into CREST. This is a regrettable departure from standard practice, which is accurately described in the guidance issued by the Judicial College (Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts 2015 (revised May 2016)) at para 5.1: “any reporting restriction is shown on the Crown Court list under the name of the relevant case – allowing a ready means of checking whether there are such restrictions in place”.


38. We have viewed the Video, and an agreed transcript is in evidence. The content of what was said, done and broadcast is central to this case. We will need to consider it in some detail when we come to the specific allegations of contempt.

Point 8 page 13 AG’s Case. (8) At another point, the respondent incited viewers to harass the criminal defendants. The words relied on are:- “You want to harass someone’s family? You see that man who was getting aggressive as he walked into court, the man who faces charges of child abduction, rape, prostitution – harass him, find him, go knock on his door, follow him, see where he works, see what he’s doing. You want to stick pictures online and call people and slander people, how about you do it about them?”


44. p.14 introduction respondents (<i> Tommy/Stephen</i>) case? The respondent’s most <blockquote>recent affidavit</blockquote> provides some further responses to the Attorney General’s specific points: ( <i>Italics ED</i>.)


47. Mr Caldecott argues that the actus reus of this offence is committed by the reporting in and of itself. The fact, if it be so, that some information is in the public domain has no bearing on the question of whether an act of contempt has been committed. As to mens rea, he submits that negligence may be sufficient but in any event subjective recklessness as to the existence and terms of the RRO is enough as a matter of law.

48. Mr Furlong accepts that breach of a s 4(2) order is capable of amounting to contempt. In his skeleton argument, he made four main submissions as to the law. First, he argued that contempt of this variety can only be made out on proof of “disobedience to an order of the court properly made”. Secondly, he invited us to conclude that on a proper analysis this RRO was not “properly made”. Next, he argued that contempt cannot be made out unless it is proved that the respondent had knowledge that an order was in force, postponing publication; it is not enough to establish reckless in that respect. He <b>Draft 9 July 2019 10:45 Page 15 </b> High Court Unapproved Judgment: AG v Yaxley-Lennon [2019] EWHC 1791 (Admin) further argued that it would be wrong to import recklessness into this branch of the law at all.


57. In our judgment, therefore, it is enough to establish <b>subjective recklessness</b>, as defined in R v G [2003] UKHL 50 [2004] 1 AC 1034. A person who publishes material in breach of an RRO will be guilty of contempt if he or she foresees the possibility that the publication may be a breach of such an order, but proceeds with publication, taking an unreasonable risk. Someone who knows or suspects that an order is in place but does not know its terms is clearly put on inquiry. If the person makes no enquiry, or fails to take reasonable steps to find out what the terms are, it will ordinarily be easy to infer <b>subjective recklessness. </b>

59. As it is, we reject the respondent’s evidence that he looked online and that he and a colleague looked at screens and the court door, to see if an order could be found. This is an account that, if true, one would expect to have featured prominently at some stage before it was first advanced in the witness statement the respondent submitted in the proceedings before the Recorder of London on 22 October 2018, many months after the event (for example, before the CACD). 60. The version of events the respondent has now put before us is more elaborate still, adding significant details that were not mentioned before.

Breach of the strict liability rule


69. In support of these arguments, the Attorney General relies in particular on the passage in the Video that we have aleady quoted, which is characterised as an incitement to the respondent’s supporters to harass the defendants. Because of its importance to this part of the case, we repeat the passage: “You want to harass someone’s family? You see that man who was getting aggressive as he walked into court, the man who faces charges of child abduction, rape, prostitution – harass him, find him, go knock on his door, follow him, see where he works, see what he’s doing. You want to stick pictures online and call people and slander people, how about you do it about them?”

70. Mr Caldecott also relies on what he submits are the “abusive and emotive terms of the Video” generally which can best be gauged by looking at the Video itself. Examples of this are the following:


top of page 20

[p40] “just trying to show people who are watching this is what’s happening, this is what the case is this is how many girls were victims. This is what they’ve said and this is what they’ve done [male bystander] Dirty bastards innit. [Respondent] Yeah mate. [female bystander] Should fucking hang him …”



75. The respondent says his words were not intended to encourage his followers to harass the defendants but rather to denounce the media for their behaviour towards him and others. However the issue raised by the application is the meaning and effect of his words. In our judgment, those words and the manner of their delivery were an encouragement to others to harass a defendant by finding him, knocking on his door, following him, and watching him, and this gave rise to a real risk that the course of justice would be seriously impeded. A little later in the Video, the respondent asked viewers rhetorically why there were not dozens of national media outside court waiting and “why are they not trying to approach these criminals or show where they live or show where they work or show what they’re doing or why why why why …?” All of this has to be assessed in the context of the Video as a whole, in which the respondent approves and encourages vigilante action. <b>We are sure that what the respondent said in this passage will have been understood by a substantial number of viewers as an incitement to engage in harassment of the defendants. </b>


76. …. Further, the medium matters, as well as the message. The dangers of using the un-moderated platforms of social media with the unparalleled speed and reach of such communications, are obvious. In this case, the respondent was engaged in the agitation of members of the public in respect of what he presented as a serious threat to society. His words had a clear tendency to encourage unlawful physical or verbal aggression towards identifiable targets. Harassment of the kind he was describing could not be justified. It is not necessary to assess the level of risk that such conduct would in fact be engaged in, beyond concluding that it was real and substantial. Furthermore, there was plainly a real risk that the defendants awaiting jury verdicts would see themselves as at risk, feel intimidated, and that this would have a significant adverse impact on their ability to participate in the closing stages of the trial. That in itself would represent a serious impediment to the course of justice.



Direct interference with the administration of justice


78. The Attorney General’s case is that two aspects of the respondent’s conduct amounted to contempt at common law, because <b>they involved interference, or created a real risk of interference, with the administration of justice</b>. The first is his conduct in confronting some of the defendants, and one other person attending court “<b>in aggressive and provocative terms</b>” and openly filming them “<b>so that they would know that these encounters were likely to be made available to the public via social media</b>”. The vices of such behaviour are identified as (a) the creation of a real risk that those defendants would not attend Court in a frame of mind that allowed them to participate properly in their trial and (b) disrespecting the authority and dignity of the court and the administration of justice, “which require that persons who are required to attend court should be able to do so without let or hindrance or <b>fear of molestation</b>.” As will be apparent, there is a degree of overlap between this aspect of the Attorney General’s case and the strict liability limb, with which we have just dealt.

79. We find that the respondent’s conduct did give rise to a real risk that the defendants he confronted would arrive at Court in an upset and agitated state, unsuitable for participation in the serious proceedings in which they were due to take part. <b>The true nature of the respondent’s behaviour when confronting the defendants outside court can only be properly appreciated by viewing the Video</b>. It can properly be characterised as of an intimidating nature, and “aggressive and provocative”. We agree with the submissions made on behalf of the Attorney General.

82. This brings us to the second aspect of the respondent’s conduct that is said to amount to common law contempt: “taking photographs of persons while they were entering the Court building (or the precincts thereof), and [simultaneously] publishing those photographs, which are administration of justice offences contrary to s41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and, in the circumstances of this case, contempt of court at common law meriting committal proceedings.” Again, it is right to recognise a degree of overlap between this and other aspects of the Attorney’s case, but this remains a separate and distinct ground.

85. ……. There is threshold of seriousness which the Attorney General must surmount: a s 41 offence is not in and of itself a contempt of court. The question should be approached as one of substance: did the respondent’s conduct in filming the defendants as they arrived at court and simultaneously broadcasting the footage interfere so significantly with the due administration of justice as to go beyond mere disobedience to the statutory ban on photography, and justify the more severe sanctions attaching to contempt of court?

86. This is essentially a question of fact and degree, for the Court’s evaluation. At one end of the scale may be the actions of a foreign tourist, taking pictures of the courtroom scene purely out of interest in the architecture or design of the interior, in ignorance of any rule against doing so. Towards the other end would be the recording and online publication of a video of sentencing remarks, in deliberate contravention of a welladvertised prohibition on filming in court, accompanied by derogatory comment, as in Cox. In our judgment, the filming here went beyond mere contravention of s 41. It crossed the threshold of seriousness, and justifies the imposition of sanctions for contempt.


87. We would identify the following factors, considered cumulatively: (1) This was targeted behaviour, not incidental filming; (2) it was engaged in at what the defendant must have known to be a time of high anxiety for the defendants, when they were entitled to be presumed innocent; (3) knowing that the defendants did not wish to be approached; he had attempted it before, at Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court; (4) when the respondent’s approach predictably elicited aggressive responses, he sought to exploit these against the defendants by implying that they were incriminating; (5) this was done very publicly, in a way that was likely to and did attract the attention of passers-by; (6) the filming was persistent, and involved a degree of following, whilst live streaming. The filming must of course be assessed in the context of the harassment with which we have dealt already. It is also necessary to have regard to the wider context. If the court were to condone the live broadcast of these defendants being aggressively confronted as they arrive at court, in conjunction with prejudicial commentary and exhortations to engage in harassment, it would pose a risk to the wider interests of the justice system.

<i><b>Grant of Permission ( Human Rights , and Threshold. Aspects. (ED.) </b></i>


100……But they too are proceedings brought by a disinterested public authority, the aim of which is to protect the administration of justice. There is no case that holds, in any context, that a Law Officer must show a strong prima facie case in order to pursue committal. The Court will of course examine the case advanced by the Attorney General. It will consider the public interest. It will not grant permission to pursue any grounds which appear fanciful, fail to disclose a reasonable basis for committal, or are for any reason an abuse of the court’s process. In our judgment, it is unnecessary and would be undesirable to import the test of “strong prima facie case”, and to subject an application of this kind to a preliminary vetting on its merits. We note that in Solicitor General v Holmes at [45] this Court identified the applicable threshold as a “prima facie case” and observed that “detailed consideration at the permission stage about the precise strength of the application to commit for contempt in the face of the court are to be discouraged.” We take the same view about applications of the kind before us.


Reasons for granting permission


102. Mr Furlong did not seek to persuade us that any of the Attorney General’s allegations of contempt lacked a reasonable basis in fact or law. Nor did he submit that these proceedings represent an abuse of the Court’s process. He advanced two main arguments in opposition to the grant of permission. First, under the heading “Delay, proportionality and the public interest”, he pointed to the history of the proceedings, the length of time that had passed since the original incident, the respondent’s incarceration, and the adverse impact of those matters on the respondent’s health and wellbeing. Secondly, he pointed to differences between the three grounds now relied on and the allegations of contempt that had previously put forward, and questioned whether it was fair and in the public interest to allow the Attorney General to advance the new, and modified case. 103. We did not find these submissions persuasive. Mr Dein QC had submitted to the CACD on behalf of the respondent that since he had served the equivalent of four months Draft 9 July 2019 10:45 Page 30 High Court Unapproved Judgment: AG v Yaxley-Lennon [2019] EWHC 1791 (Admin) No permission is granted to copy or use in court imprisonment the matter should not be remitted. The court disagreed, on the basis that the sentence might be longer if a finding was again made against the respondent, and a determination of the underlying contempt allegations would in any event be in the public interest: see [78]. We shared that assessment. We considered events since the hearing in the CACD, and reviewed the medical and other evidence before us, but did not consider that these materially affected the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal. It is true that the case now advanced by the Attorney General differs in some respects from the way the contempt allegations have been put before, but we did not see any unfairness in that. We were unconvinced by Mr Furlong’s that the case as now put might divert the case into a political rather than a legal assessment of the respondent, his conduct, and that of his supporters. In our judgment, the case raised important issues about how the law of contempt applies to those who seek to report and comment on criminal proceedings and, in particular, how they conduct themselves in and near the courts.