Saturday, June 27, 2015

Irreni Community After Religion

Hi! h A p P y  S a T u R d A y ! !

Today's topic: Irreni Community After Religion

The desirable aspects of religion are shrinking daily. The one big bastion that the non-religious acknowledge about religion is traditional community. People get together to do good.

Conversely a common criticism of secular society by the religious is lack of community: weddings, funerals, etc.

Today's topic is Irreni community replacing religious community and so the last desirable aspect of religion by the non-religious community is replaced to everyone's satisfaction. Religion, The End.

Religion is irrelevant because religion doesn't scale.  I'm going to switch things up though and present the solution first rather than progress from a problem argument  to its solution.

So here's your solution:

Religious community replaced: vote who you know.

Irreni's fundamental driver for motivating community engagement is one of the twenty big fancy pants ideas: vote-for-who-you-know voting. This is six-degrees of chain voting. You vote for a friend, who votes for a friend, who votes for a friend who then votes for Obama for President. All the votes in the chain vote count for the candidate.

Vote-for-who-you-know voting (VFWYK) is only possible with today's new technology: the vote bank. The vote bank is hosted on a handheld device made available to everyone called the device of life (DOL). All votes are public. This affords everyone access to see the chain of votes.

VFWYK voting turns voting on its head. Instead of voting for a candidate you don't know, you've never heard of and only made familiar to you via slick campaign ads that may or may not reflect reality then with VFWYK you vote for only people in your immediate sphere of family and friends, vote your tribe. If there is some candidate you want to vote for and no one in your tribe has a vote chain for this candidate then people are going to need to engage each other to create the vote chains. This is the exact opposite of getting to know the candidates vicariously via campaign ads. You get to know real people in your life.

VFWYK builds communities. VFWYK builds communities by requiring people to engage each other so as to have someone to vote for. This flips the concept of campaigning on its head.

All politics is local. We all know this. But corruption has made modern politics ethereal. We don't know the people we are voting for. At all. Now, the politicking will be local.

VFWYK is a spark. A spark that will motivate people to engage at the level where engagement has the most value: with those people in their day-to-day lives.

What is to prevent corruption of the VFWYK system? After all, I can just claim to know everyone? A couple of easy rules to thwart corruption. One rule would be having both people acknowledge they know each other as a matter of public record in the vote bank. Another rule would be to put limits on who one claims to know. How many people can you really know? 10? 20? 30? Just cap the number of people one is allowed to claim to know to say 30. The system will be self-correcting because VFWYK is not about a single candidate, a single issue. Perhaps one can claim to know someone for a particular election cycle, particular candidate, but then what about the other elections and candidates? VFWYK favors finding your tribe. Then your tribe finding a tribe-of-tribes for voting chains of like thinking folks. VFWYK builds voting blocks from the ground up, from the tribe up, rather than what we have today. What we have today is corruption where a single person can buy politicians and parties.

Harumph, you snort. Voting is just voting. Religious communities are so much more. Think about it though. What is politics if not society itself? Debates on health-care, marriage, rights-to-dignity in dying are just some of the toughest moral debates today in politics. Irreni brings people together for voting. VFWYK voting requires people to network, to agree, and to have conversations about not just any single topic or candidate but the entire expanse of social projects. The holistic conversations of all social issues will happen because who you vote for represents more than just a single topic or candidate.

So yes, VFWYK replaces the ineffectual, irrelevant, unscalable, and dysfunctional religious community of today with a vibrant, built-to-scale system that engages on social matters of all levels of importance. The party system of politics is top down and doesn't scale. VFWYK is bottom up and scales to any size.

VFWYK is just the foundation. There are other community building systems within Irreni:
  1. The right to individual currency: the money you mint will have no value unless you can get your community to trade in it.
  2. Direct funding projects: Kickstarter for public projects. 
  3. Real-time project pool: A top ten list of populist projects to be paid for by taxes. VFWYK applies. People involved with projects lobby their vote chains to spread the word. 

What's missing: tradition

Weddings, funerals and other social traditions are missing from Irreni. Tradition applies to a time when things moved much slower, where change came at a much slower pace and traditions passing from generation-to-generation made sense. Traditions are required no more and  Irreni replaces tradition with the COx principle that states that the dead have no hold on the living. Goodbye Christmas! Time for every generation to pick holidays that have meaning for them. 

Religion is irrelevant.

I just presented a solution for replacing religious community with secular community. Here is the problem argument for why religion cannot and will not ever scale:

  1. Dogma: claims are made without merit.
  2. Moral absolutes: moral absolutes are tenuous at best and only enforceable at a tribe level of people. 
Religion died in the US on June 26th, 2015. This is the day gay marriage was ruled a basic right. And here's why religion is dead: it wasn't just gay marriage. Let us look at the other great moral issues this week:

  1. Racism: massacre in South Carolina based on racism ingrained and wide-spread throughout the south, a Christian south.
  2. Climate change: The Pope says combating climate change is a moral issue.
  3. Guns: The Pope says you can't be a Christian and manufacture guns or own stock in a company that does.
  4. Virginity: Bristol Palin announces she is pregnant when she is a Christian and a national spokesperson for abstinence only education in America.
  5. Virginity: the average age for having a child nationally in the US has hit 30 years.
  6. Health care: Obamacare was kept intact by the Supreme Court. 
  7. TPP: Democrats caved and voted for it. 
These seven national stories represent stories where Christian morality can be found on BOTH sides of the argument. Southerners are Christians and racists. How can racism be moral? Christian? A Southern tradition? How can this be if Christianity is the source of morality? Is climate change a moral issue for American conservative Christians? How many Christians in this country agree with the Pope's proclamation this week that manufacturing guns or owning stock in gun companies prevents them from being Christian?  How many Christians believe that virginity is a virtue?  How many *average* Americans who wait until they are thirty-years-old to have kids are virgins upon marriage? What does Christianity even have to say about moral issues like health-care and the TPP. Nothing.

From racism, to gay marriage, to climate change,  to virginity, to gun ownership this week Christians will claim moral dogma supporting both for-and-against. Dogma Fail. Dogma can't be ambiguous. Christianity died not because of gay marriage but because Christianity provides no morality because Christians can be found arguing both for against every major moral issue. Dogma Fail. 

Religions don't scale because the illusion of moral absolutes cannot withstand the transparency of instant communication.

Moral ambiguity is a new meme that needs promoted. I love Christopher Hitchens as an outspoken anti-theist. I have watched at least twenty of his lectures on Youtube. However, I think Hitchens got it wrong on dogma fails. All Christians are hypocrites. Hitchen's best take down on hypocricy was to label all modern Christians as cafeteria Christians where today's Christians see the Bible as a buffet, a smorgasbord where they get to pick and choose the morals they see fit.

But the better argument to be made that Christian dogma fails is universal dogma ambiguity for even the most heinous of morals such as slavery and its twisted cousin, racism. How can you be racist and be moral? 

Want to have fun with someone against gay marriage?  Bring up divorce. Why is a divorce in one state recognized by every other state? Shouldn't it be a religious freedom for every state individually to decide to recognize divorce? Divorce is immoral after all, like homosexuality. Why isn't recognizing divorce a State's rights issue? Did you hear about the divorce case the went to the Supreme Court where Florida refused to recognize a divorce in California? What? You haven't? That's because this case never happened and divorce never needed to be morally debated because Christians wanted divorce and have no moral problem with divorce. 


Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. All the claims I have made about Irreni are unproven. The Irreni system accounts for this by calling for massive experiments in parallel. These experiments are to be run over the course of say 100 years. These experiments are to be scientific experiments and scientifically proven to match claims with evidence.

So VFWYK is a place to start. Where we may end up after 100 years of scientific experiments is anyone's guess. What's not a guess is that religion can never and will never scale because claims are dogma.


Scale your empathy, scale the world! 

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Beyond Forgiveness, People Are Programs

Hi! Happy Sunday!

There have been a couple of news stories recently that I would like to juxtapose in attitude. What is the correct attitude to have?

  1. Massacre in South Carolina Church resulted in nine dead.
  2. Teenager committed suicide after being released from Riker's Prison, N.Y. where he was held waiting for trial for three years, two-years in solitary confinement, and was eventually set free without charge.
What should our attitude be towards these two news stories?


Should we forgive the shooter? Wish him dead? Wish the shooter to be placed in prison with black inmates for violent retribution? Wish him to spend eternity in hell?

Fact: all mass shootings in this country are carried out by males, white males. It should be obvious to everyone that there is more involved than just pure free will, pure self-determination.  If only pure free-will were needed then all demographics would be committing mass shootings: women, kids, hispanics, blacks, and so on.

I realized early on in life there was no such thing as free will. Never has been, never will be. Biggest lie told by religion. Well, one of them. If people had free will then 100% of us would be exercising and eating right. People would quit smoking without a thought. Because we don't have free will we pay the price every single day, every one of us.

People are programs. People are DNA, people are their genetics. People are also their environment, their parents and their culture. Kinda hard to shoot up a black church and massacre nine people if you are born in a place with no blacks and no churches. Ask yourself this: if the shooter had lived in a different place where there were no blacks then would the shooter have chosen a different group to hate and shoot up? You just thought "of course!"  This is not just racism, but rather racism just happened to be the ultimate motive for someone predisposed to being motived to do harm. In some sense the "what" was irrelevant. Haters gonna hate and killers gonna kill. If this person had grown up in an environment without such hateful racism the the hate would have just taken on a different name.

So who's to blame? The DNA? The genetics? The parents? the culture? or the self-determination? Oh, and let us not forget the devil, the supernatural. There are still people in this day-and-age who actually believe the supernatural exists.

The answer, of course, is all of the above EXCEPT the supernatural, which doesn't exist. People are programs and life is a feedback loop. The problem is that people only want easy answers and just focus on one of the following: guns, parents, the shooter or even the devil.  The fact that there are millions of racists, gun owners, children of dysfunctional families, and people of age twenty-one who don't mass murder indicates that the root cause is not any one factor in general. In fact, given that there are millions of people that belong in each one of the afore-mentioned groups who are not conducting massacres suggests that the root cause is genetics and self-determination.

Anyone who cooks knows that some things in a recipe can be left out or substituted. But other things cannot be changed even a smidgen or the recipe will fail. To whit, there are many negative feedback loops in life that most of us filter out and go on to live happy lives. But some people are not so good at filtering out the negative feedback and these people take it for real. These people have an ingredient that most of us do not and this results in violence.

Should we forgive the shooter? A better question is we should use science to understand the shooter?

Imagine if Microsoft Windows crashes. Oh wait, you don't have to imagine, it happens...ha! Anyway would you "forgive" Windows? The Microsoft employees?  Of course not, that's silly. You just reboot. Oh you might get frustrated with Windows. And, like myself, you may even get so frustrated and determined so as to make the switch to Linux. But forgive? The software is buggy. That's all. Microsoft as a company could be "forgiven" but why even go there? Why have the angst?

Accidents represent cases in life where people die and we treat the death just like a software bug. We are all just one slip of the steering wheel away from a head-on collision. Every few years one will see a news article where an elderly person loses control of their car and drives into a crowd, sometimes with deadly results? What is there to forgive? It was an accident.

People are programs. It is time to move beyond the public concept of forgiveness and transcend to people are programs. Most wife beaters were abused themselves as a child. And so it goes. Recently I read about a husband who committed suicide when the wife cheated on him. Most of us would just get divorced. Gay people have taken all kinds of abuse and have died because their genetics blocks any other choice than to be gay. A woman gets pregnant  and commits suicide rather than get an abortion. It happens.  The degree to which we have self-determination is limited and not free at all. We do not all feel the same opportunities to make choices in the same situations. Far from it. People are programs.

People are programs. The first thing we need to do is just admit that truth and that free-will doesn't exist. Secondly, once we accept this truth we can finally make real inroads into reprogramming, rehabilitation and re-environmentation of people who have program limitations that pose a threat to others or themselves.


Children do not come with manuals. Adults do not come with manuals. Our understanding of human nature is limited. Very limited. Having said that then we limited in our options as to how to prevent violent people from hurting others again and so we perhaps we put them in prison for lack of answers. Prison, though, should be looked at as a challenge, a challenge for the entire species to do better to improve people programming. Prisons are our worst first solution to managing violent programming.

But that is not what happened on Riker's Island where a teenager who awaited trial was tortured for three years. The teenager ultimately was found innocent and the case was dismissed. He then committed suicide.

The teenager who spent three-years in Riker was accused of stealing a backpack. A backpack. What would be the sentence if found guilty? The teen in question had no priors. One year in prison? One month? A slap on the wrist and probation? This person spent three years in jail just awaiting trial. Three years was double, triple and perhaps infinitely longer than the time of sentence if acquitted as he eventually was. Infinity times 0 is still 0.

How can we claim to live in a just system where the time spent in jail awaiting trial is longer than the penalty for the crime ever would be. We are ever bit the unjust justice system we despised England for in 1776. 

But it gets much worse. The teen spent two years in solitary confinement. That's the worst legal punishment one can receive in prison. And yet there is another illegal treatment that we all are aware of happens in prison: rape. He spent three years in a prison what are the odds he was raped?

We know he spent two years in solitary confinement and also we know he most likely was raped, perhaps repeatedly.

This teen had mental health issues where ultimately committed suicide after leaving prison. What about does it say about this culture, this society, that we inflict rape and solitary confinement upon anyone? someone with mental health issues?  What does it say about a culture where anyone with mental health issues is tortured and made mentally worse. If one has mental health issues when going into prison then they are guaranteed to come out with a mental health that is worse, much worse.

When the two stories are juxtaposed one gets a very bleak picture. Butt rape of men is considered just punishment for male prisoners for any crime, evening if just awaiting trial. Rape is considered just punishment. Cry my beloved country, cry.

Rather than help criminals with their mental health we are inducing cruel and unusual punishment: butt-rape and solitary confinement. We are making  mental health much much worse.

How many Americans at this moment are wishing death, black violence and rape on this twenty-one year old who killed nine black parisheners even as I write this?

Beyond Forgiveness, People Are Programs

When I started Irreni my aim was to provide a bastion of solutions. Social commentary like the kind I just offered can be found anywhere.

So what is the solution beyond forgiveness?

As I alluded to earlier, all of the above is the root cause. The root cause is not simply guns. Or hatred. Or racism. As much as we may desperately want to over simplify the solution,  we cannot.

Irreni tackles the combination of "all of the above" causes with science and experiments. The first step is role playing, social simulation. Learn as much as we can using simulation. After that any claims of social programming are tested in the real world using the scientific method: data is collected, analyzed and reviewed. A final product of the experiment will be manuals of people. Parents will be given manuals of people programming when babies are born. Awesome.

Genetic engineering will have a big role to play in the future as well. People fear genetic engineering as some form of eugenics. However, there is no compulsion to modify people with genetic engineering.Instead,  genetic engineering can simply be applied simply to reverse engineer the DNA we are born with. By reverse engineering DNA we will be able to identify those who may violently react to hate speech in the real word where most of us do not and take steps accordingly.

Beyond forgiveness is people programming. As a country we have regressed from 1776, not advanced. We are in inflicting cruel and unusual punishment like rape as a standard practice for all male prisoners. It does seem a good first step would be to ensure prison is not inflicting more mental damage and more bad programming resulting in much poorer mental health for those who enter prison. After reversing our current practices then from there we can progress onto healing, reprogramming and re-environmenting.

Beyond forgiveness is redefining justice. Justice is not about punishment. You do the crime you do the time is unjust. We do not have free-will, we have limited-will. It is time to label as immoral and vile any person who  would wish rape, death and harm as punishment for even the most heinous of criminals. It is time to move into a new era of people programming. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and if we can get to a scientific point in time were all humans are given programs to be productive to compensate for defective DNA then we will have a just society. Irreni moves us one step closer to a just society by a program of scientific experimentation of matching social programming claims against real world evidence. Irreni recognizes we are all in this together: together we stand and together we fall.

Scale your empathy, scale the world! 

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Irreni Solutions VS TPP Global Government


Zappy Saturday!

Yesterday the TPP, Trans-Pacific Partnership, was "defeated". Does anyone really think it is defeated? Probably the only thing that will change when it comes back around is the name.

The TPP is Global Government. But then all trade agreements and treaties are global government in some fashion. However, the modern difference with trade agreements like the TPP or NAFTA and historical trade agreements when this country first began is that the new treaties are multinational corporate treaties. These agreements are between global conglomerates and global corporations with presence in all the countries in these treaties. These are not treaties between countries in as much as they are treaties between global corporations using government.

The TPP is world scale. Irreni is world scale. What are the differences?
  1. Beneficiaries: The TPP benefits the few rich. Irreni benefits seven billion people and counting.
  2. Framework: Irreni is a technological framework for generating governments and social groups. The TPP is a draconian set of laws that all parties must adhere too.
  3. Unit of Governance: Irreni unit of governance is a tribe. The TPP is a country unit of governance.
  4. Top Down vs. Bottom uP: Irrenit creates world scale from the bottom up. The TPP is global government from the top down.
  5. Politics vs. People: The TPP is derived from politics for corporations. Irreni is by the people for the people. 
I'd like to focus some on that last point: Politics vs. People. I daily read current event news sources from both sides of the political spectrum, left and right, and what is surprising about the TPP is that a.) Democrats and Republicans in Washington were working together, for and against the treaty and b.) both liberal and conservative media were against it. Traditionally the Libertarian wing of the Republican party are all for free trade. Not this time. What's going on here?

I think the Libertarians are starting to wake up to the fact that "free trade" really means "global government". The two main planks in the Libertarian platform are free markets and smaller government. A secret, 26 chapter trade agreement is not free trade but global government.

In 1776 a new country was born at the stroke of 13 pens. Then again a new government with the ratification of one document.

In 2016 a new global government is fomenting by years-upon-years of trade agreements; slowly and without much attention. Until now.

Sooner or later collectively we need to wake up to being boiled alive politically, that we are all frogs being slowly boiled in a pot. Global corporations are more powerful than many countries. Facebook and Google already have more subscribers than India or China have population.

The US government sold out to corruption during the Reagan years and we Americans have been slowly being boiled like frogs to freedom death ever since. Tyranny is on our doorstep. TPP is on our doorstep.

My own anecdotal assessment is that Democracy died in this country during the Savings and Loan debacle under Reagan. The response to the debacle as well as the deregulation that made it possible was the death knoll for American Democracy. We are now in the last stages of our death throws.

Which brings me to my question for the day: when are we going to admit we no longer live in American style Democracy? When are we going to admit that the great American experiment is totally failed and corruption now reigns?

Which brings me to my follow up question for the day: when are we going to admit that we have no solutions for a revolution? Even if Americans were to revolt today then what would they replace the current government with?

Irreni world scale answers both questions. First, Irreni is formulated on the conclusion that the US Constitution doesn't scale. Second, Irreni provides a government framework using technology and does not provide a government itself.

Irreni World Scale uses a framework model that has long been in use for web application development: a common framework that while somewhat limiting in its frame capabilities, the limitations are justified by greatly enabling faster, broader implementation using common services, protocols and usability.

Time to wake up America...time to wake up world to the fact that our collective governments do not scale. Fundamental changes for scale need to happen. If not than the TPP is just the tip of the iceberg of global government slowly boiling us to freedom death. Ok, that was a bad mix of metaphors, hot and cold. ha!

It is time to start massive amounts of new social group experiments for scale out. These massive experiments need to be run as parallel experiments using a common scientific framework of processes, protocols and usability. It is time for Irreni World Scale. Our initial constitution was blind luck, good or bad, because we had no idea if it would work. We cannot afford a blind approach to global government and world scale. We need to run massive social experiments in parallel to prove what new government actually works best by the people, for the people and of the people.


Scale your empathy, scale the world! 

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!

Friday, June 12, 2015

Irreni Solutions Vs Hacking

Hi! Zappy Friday!

Today's post is 9 parts current events and 1 part Irreni.

First the Irreni part: people do not understand technology, scale or especially both when coupled together.

Second the current events:

The Real Question We Should Be Asking After the Massive Government Hack 

By Adam Levine

The parade of data breaches that expose information that should be untouchable continues because we're not asking the right questions. It persists because the underlying conditions that make breaches not only possible, but inevitable, haven't changed--and yet we somehow magically think that everything will be all right. And of course we keep getting compromised by a shortlist of usual suspects, and there's a reason. We're focused too much on the "who" and not asking simple questions, like, "How can we reliably put sensitive information out of harm's way while we work on shoring up our cyber defenses?"
In a hostile environment where there are known vulnerabilities, allowing remote access to sensitive information is not only irresponsible -- regardless the reason -- it's indefensible. Yet according to the same article in the Times, the Office of Personnel Management not only allowed it, but it did so on a system that didn't require multifactor authentication. (There are many kinds, but a typical setup uses a one-time security code needed for access, which is texted to an authorized user's mobile phone.)
As a computer scientist with two degrees from UC Berkeley then let me assure you that your data will never be safe. Ever. Why? Because there are humans involved. That was the opening comment in a class lesson on security.

For what it's worth there are uncrackable storage systems. The only problem is that even the person who encrypted the data cannot retrieve it.

My beef with Levine is the same as my praise, "The parade of data breaches that expose information that should be untouchable continues because we're not asking the right questions."

The right question is "who" not "how". The easiest, easiest way to breach any computer security system is with someone on the inside. How much would it cost to pay off someone inside the government or Sony to give you access? Target?
Now here's the thing: once you have access then you still need to download the data. For that you'll need computers somewhere on the Internet, preferably out of the reach of US law enforcement. Like say North Korea, China or Russia.

Here's a thought. Why is Edward Snowden the only "inside" person ever to be acknowledged by government and corporations? Oh that's right, Snowden outed himself. There is no conspiracy here, just an understanding of human nature that executives would rather blame data breaches on the Chinese or Koreans rather than to admit an inside job.

If I were a betting man I would bet all my money that the recent Federal Employee, Sony and Target hacks were all inside jobs.

And your inside person doesn't even need to be an inside person. Just steal someone's laptop at the airport. Did you know that laptops are high target items commonly stolen at airports?

To come back full circle to my first class lesson on security then there is no sure security with humans involved. Adam Levine correctly identifies multifactor authentication as required for modern security. But even that won't do you well with humans. RSA SecurID servers have been hacked.

To whit, Adam Levine is not asking the right questions either. The right questions are  "who is the inside person"or "who's laptop recently got stolen"?

Hollywood doesn't help things by depicting hacking passwords as trivially easy. The issue here is not just a single password of a user. There many passwords and intimate system topology knowledge required to gain access to databases. Adam Levine fails to ask the right questions of the human dimension.

From an Irreni perspective these security breaches teach a stark reality about technology scale: the "experts" in the media haven't a clue. Educating people on technology and scale is going to be a long, hard slog.


Scale your empathy, scale the world! 

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!

Friday, June 5, 2015

Irreni Solutions: Guns, Lots of Guns

Hi! Happy Friday!

Guns, lots of guns!

Guns, lots of guns is an epic line from the original Matrix movie. Of course the guns are not real because a.) The Matrix is a movie and b.) Neo and Trinity are preparing to go into the virtual reality with their lots of guns to fight a virtual reality war.  

I love guns in games, movies and television. Bombs too, I'm a big action movie fan.

I detest guns in real life.
Logic is the justification of ones own feelings. 
-Mark Twain
I'm somewhat of an enigma when it comes to violence. When it comes to the imagination I'm down with it. When it comes to reality, no guns. Does that make me a hypocrite or just human?

Guns are an excellent topic of discussion for Irreni World Scale. Guns represent a moral relativity challenge with each side wanting or not wanting guns sees the other side as morally wrong. I personally consider the 2nd amendment a tyranny and an oppression upon my person. I do not want guns. Gun rights are a moral wrong in my view. 

One moral argument that guns provide safety is provably logic justifying feeling. A gun will cost around $400 plus $100/year in ammo if one stays in practice. If you ask an insurance actuary about spending that kind of money on safety then they will tell that spending that kinda money on alarms, lighting and other non-lethal safety measures are far more effective. You are not home 99% of the time when you will actually get robbed at home. Guns can't do anything for an empty home. Get a dog. How many gun owners have been victim of home invasions while they were not home? Guess what? Guns in the home make no difference for home invasions when the home is empty. The question is this: many gun owners have spent the same amount of money on lights, alarms and other safety measures as they have on guns? The answer is less than 1%. There are more guns than there are Americans, yet home alarms not so much. Less than 1% of Americans have home alarms.  So the argument that guns are about safety is morally bogus. Guns are an emotional buy. Lets just admit that fact and move on. Guns and abortion are emotional topics mostly immune to rational argument. As Mark Twain aptly points out, guns and abortion are cases of logic justifying ones feelings.

And that's okay.

The disingenuous aspect to emotional debates like with guns and abortion is that a presumption of reason is proffered but the person making the argument is not compelled by the reason they give. Feelings are the at the root of the gun and abortion debate, not reason. This is not a case where science prevails. Science only aligns claims with evidence. Wants are first principles.

I'm bringing up guns to make a point. Irreni World Scale supports wants as well as science. Irreni World Scale promotes wants via the Sexy Principle. While it is true I heavily promote running massive amounts of scientific social experiments so as to match claims with evidence, I also advocate the Sexy Principle that we all state what we want:

Sexy Principle of Human Quality.

The entire expanse of folk living are obligated to communicate models of living quality. We cannot deliver expectations of quality of life unless we know what these expectations are. We should all be movie makers promoting our own expectations. We should all be role players in role playing games to try out expectations and experiment what it is like to be in someone else’s shoes.

Irreni solutions argues for wants, not rights. Irreni replaces rights with wants. There should be no universally enshrined rights. All morals are relative.

I want guns in entertainment. I do not want guns in real life. I will vote and advocate my wants. Rights have always been deceptive because rights, like wants, require the will of the people. Anything that requires our will is not a right, but a want. Rights have never been uniformly applied as those who argue for rights posit. Rights smack of religion and the supernatural. Wants are all natural and mutable generation-to-generation, supporting the COx principle:

COx Principle of Human Quality.

Contradictory Oxygen principle is an allusion to an expression oft uttered where someone sucks all of the "oxygen" out of the room by talking over everyone else. In this case of COx I am referring to the dead stealing all of the oxygen from the living. Of course the dead do not breathe and ergo the contradictory oxygen principle. This principle states that no generation of living folk can obligate the next generation of folk after passing on...especially to the point to where someone is born into a completely proscribed, planned and obligated situation brought about by the dead. This is tyranny of the dead for the living. We are building out planet Earth materially, legally and culturally and that should not presume any obligation on the living because of what was built in the past. 

The COx principle values wants over rights: every generation gets to decide what they want. So let us be honest with each other about what we want with guns. How do we resolve competing wants if rights are no longer emblazoned in some fundamental document such as the constitution?

Let us consider three approaches to resolving relative morals:
  1. Vote off
  2. Concensus
  3. Holistic approach
Lets use a different example than guns for this next bit of discussion. Let us use the case of the two home owners: a hypothetical case whereby one home owner in San Francisco wants to add another floor onto their house so as to allow a view of the San Francisco bay. However, if the first home owner adds a floor then a second home owner's current view of the bay will be blocked.

The firs approach above is we have the vote off. One case of the the vote off would perhaps be a city zone meeting. Or perhaps another case of the vote off would be law suit brings the case in a front of a judge who decides, a judge who was previously voted into office.

The second approach to resolving relative morality is consensus where the two home owners case could reach consensus via arbitration. Both home owners could agree to abide by an arbitration agreement determined by a mediator.

The third approach, the holistic approach,  is where Irreni solutions are heading. No decision lives in a vacuum of isolation. For example, all things being equal in the two home owner case would could consider factors unrelated to the subject at hand. If, say, home owner one performs 200 hours of community service every year and the second home owner only lives part-time in the city then one holistic approach might be to favor the first home owner because home owner one has higher value to the community.  An obvious problem with this holistic approach is wealth is usually the top metric of value in any community whereby the wealthy would always be judged more valued. That's not fair.

The holistic priorities then would necessarily need to be agreed upon by the community as a whole within a community such that all parties were aware of them at all times. Even better would be if a scoring system were continually in place at all times. Call this ones citizenry metric. Where would such data live? In the Device of Life (DOL) of course. Every citizen has incentive to participate in citizenry actions to tip the scales of moral relative decision making.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.  The holistic approach in the previous paragraph was proposed just now would need to go through experimentation. But the idea remains to promote a holistic approach to relative moral resolutions that is scored across the expanse of a cultures moral landscape.  The objective is to promote holistic citizenry participation far greater than just paying taxes and voting that we have today.  The approach is to promote the entirety of a community's wants as the entire set above and beyond any single want. 

Coming back full circle then how should hot button issues such as guns be handled? All in? All out? No. Because all in or all out is about rights and not wants. The Irreni solution is to use a holistic approach. We promote different communities that have overall narratives of the kind of society people in that community want to live in and then give those relative moral communities boundaries. Some communities will have will have guns and some will not. Wants, not rights, are the answer.

For me I'll be in the community where guns are unfettered in entertainment and yet not allowed in reality. That would be my preferred community.

Communities of differing moral standards will spill over into each other where gun communities will exist next to gun-free communities. This is not a problem. This will just be one of the many new frontiers that Irreni World Scale will need to resolve where today a Supreme Court regulating interstate and inter-country commerce has surely failed.


Scale your empathy, scale the world! 

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!

Monday, June 1, 2015

From Caitlyn Jenner to Mybrid Trees Wonderful

Hi! Happy Monday!

Casual conversations, how they bore me.
--Supertramp, Lyrics, Breakfast in America

To be nobody-but-yourself -- in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else -- means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting.
--e. e. cummings

Let me stand next to your fire!
--Jimi Hendrxi

I want to say congratulations to Caitlyn Jenner for being true to herself. Well met!

I thought I'd take this national moment of identity conversations to talk about my own identity, my name Mybrid. Mybrid is a name I designed, I engineered. Mybrid is me. I am the only Mybrid to be, my ego is free.

I've changed my name twice: in 1984 to Mybrid Trees and then again in 2014 to Wonderful. I would not say I'm struggling to be myself. I have either perfect self-esteem, no self-esteem, or just self-esteem, depending on how one looks at these things. People's opinions of my identity are of no import to me. My actions? Yes. My character? Not ever. I like pop culture and the symphony with no cognitive dissonance in between.

I changed my named to Mybrid Trees Wonderful for both personal and social reasons.

On the personal side I had just read the book Neuromancy by Gibson. Gibson rightly predicted the advent of the world-wide-web in 1984. He then goes on to predict that unique words and unique names will become a highly sought after commodity for search engines, worth a lot of money.  Further, Gibson goes on to predict that in the when faced with so many languages in the same hyperspace then iconography would make a comeback. Iconography dominated when people could not read or write. A icon in the past was coat of arms or an Anvil sign advertising a blacksmith. I wanted my own icon.

So, given Gibson's predictions I wanted to create a unique name of which I'm the only one in the Universe and see if his prediction came true. A science fiction experiment!  I also picked an icon, Trees. I'm a rather tall fellow and I thought Trees are emblematic of my physical tall nature as well as emblematic of an unmoving self-esteem nature.

Secure people such as myself are like trees. We are resigned as to who we are. Secure people are not into chasing approval or are interested in how people see us. Our approval position is wherever we happen to be at whatever moment. Trees. Trees are not social movers or social climbers. We just stand. If I ever had an inkling to change gender I would just do it. I feel very, very lucky that I was born to not have to struggle with my identity in the face of others and so I sincerely congratulate Caitlyn Jenner for a struggle that e.e. cummings aptly expressed for most of us in his quote above.

On the social side I changed my last name to Wonderful just for zappy fun! And it has been fun! People love to talk about it and it is such a good time. We are all better off if we say positive, zappy words like Wonderful. I considered changing my name to Kindness. Or Hug. Or Kissme. ha ha! Mybrid Kissme! Woot!

I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
--Winston Churchill

Where was I, oh yeah,  I socially changed my name to Mybrid as I am literally your "My" when someone says the name "My-brid" and that means I will speak the language of thee. My name is your name. A my hybrid, a mybrid. And yet socially Mybrid is not a known name and may invoke a wee bit of curiosity.

I say wee bit of a curiosity because I speak people, not just languages. For example, I worked selling shoes and there is a homosexual sub-culture in shoes. I learned the gay culture lingo the best I could and fit in to the extent I got along. Never had a problem. When I run into people I try to immediately speak their specific "thee" language and accommodate their projections of what they expect. Why not? It is usually trivial, a courtesy to do and makes people comfortable. A regular chameleon, I am. My ego is usually not demanding, but yours probably is. If you project liberal, I can do liberal. If you project conservative, I can project conservative. Easy peasy. Your ego gets tender loving care around me. Respect. R E S P E C T. Sock it to me! I am always ready to meet you, but whether you are ready to meet me is another matter.

I say I project your expectations of identity because if ethics every get challenged then I stick to my guns. My morals are my morals. But lets face it, how often during the day do serious questions of ethics ever really come into play in our interpersonal interaction? 

To summarize, Mybrid is a hybrid of two words, my hybrid. Mybrid is a mirror name where I will take your projection of what you think I should be and reflect that back. I speak people. But lurking behind that mirror is the fact that Mybrid is a totally engineered name, something odd. Mybrid is a name designed not to identify me, but to identify what you identify of me. That's weird.  And yet the uniqueness of the name is an open invitation for you to discover who I am?   Some people either have the time or are curious enough to make the enquiry as to my name. Then the conversation can become not so casual and not so boring, with me trying to speak you, you trying to speak me and the conversation becomes a dance of two. I do feedback loops in infinite regress. ha! Let me stand next to your fire! Zap it to me!

Which is better: a good eye, a good spouse, a good neighbor or the understanding of consequences? It is none of these things, but rather a being a warm and gentle person who understands the price of individual dignity and the worth of human fellowship; this is best.
--Frank Herbert, The God Makers

Mybrid Trees Wonderful means a warm and gentle person who understands the price of individual dignity and the worth of human fellowship.


Scale your empathy, scale the world! 

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!

Irreni Solutions VS EVIL

Hi! Happy Monday!

I am going to start this blog post by positing a moral dilemma:

Which is good and which is evil: minimum wage minimum work or always give 100% best effort?

Let us argue for minimum wage, minimum work. This philosophy is easily visible in commissioned sales. For example, I worked at JC Penney as a shoe salesman in my younger years. I literally was paid a base salary, minimum wage, plus commission. The more shoes I sold the more money I made. If I sold no shoes I literally made minimum wage. This is the business owners perspective of minimum wage, minimum work.

From the worker's perspective workers get paid for productivity. When you first hire onto your very first job in life you will be at the bottom of the pay grade in general because you have low productivity, meaning you are inexperienced and inefficient. As you gain experience then you gain productivity and you will qualify for a raise. Workers also oft times get asked to take on new management roles, new responsibility but with no raise. Workers resent this, morally, because more responsibility should mean more pay.

Now let us argue for giving your all, giving 100%. Always put your best foot forward. This is not a statement about pay but a statement about self-esteem. If you are not giving your all then you are only disrespecting yourself and being immoral with yourself. There is another competition based, dog-eat-dog argument for best effort: may the best person win. The winners get paid the best, get promoted and move up in the world. Losers don't. Sports!

What happens when you mix these two code of ethics, these two moral positions? The minimum wage folks will resent the 100% folks because taking on additional responsibility or being twice as productive sets a new standard for the same pay. The 100% effort folks will resent the minimum wage folks because you can't get ahead by staying even.

Should you take on new responsibilities for no pay? Does that reflect poorly on everyone else or just make you look good? Are you just a brown noser, kissing ass if you take on too much work?

Which morality should you have? Bosses and businesses owners are notorious for being Scrooge-like evil in trying to exploit workers for no pay, no benefits for their own largesse. This implies 100% effort folks are contributing to evil by driving a wedge between standards of fair pay and fair benefits for some defined amount of work. On the other hand, defined fairness of pay and amount of work stifles the 100% effort folks and are contributing to evil by limiting peoples potential. 

Recently we are faced with this moral dilemma every day in the news in the US. Should we increase minimum wage to a living wage based upon some nebulous notion of fairness? Should we eliminate minimum wage altogether and let best efforts decide?

The reason we cannot answer this question on the whole is on the whole we want a single answer. Demanding a single moral is evil. The only reason we can argue a single moral personally is that we are one person. Projecting that onto the masses is arrogant. The Irreni World Scale solution is the moral good: choose both. This dilemma exposes why the golden rule is so evil. Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you means you get to apply your moral standard as if it is the only moral standard. That is evil. The new standard for good and evil is the information rule: doing unto others as they are, not as you are.

But when? When should wage standards be applied like with Labor Unions and when should unfettered best effort be applied like with commission sales?

That, my friends, is what Irreni is all about. Irreni is about answering these moral questions on a case-by-case basis using science and experimentation given the circumstances.

One insight into this dilemma is to recognize  we must include the fact that life is a feedback loop. In some very real sense life is only the feedback itself. Wall Street glommed onto this fact that perception is reality by only giving 99% buy recommendations after the bust in 2000. If perception is reality for our moral dilemma then if we collectively argue for wage standards then wage standards become the moral. If we collectively argue for best effort wages then best effort wages become the norm. This explains why today the liberals and conservatives are engaged in a perpetual tug-of-war over who can out-shout the other so as to win the perception war and reality. The moral standard will be whatever we convince ourselves it will be.

But life is not just a feedback loop. Some people thrive in a competitive environment and some people thrive in a habitual environment. Seems counter-moral to throw either personality type into the wrong moral bin.

From the ground up the moral answer to the dilemma posited is to assess each and every one of us for our innate competitive nature and ability. Likewise, from the top down we also assess each industry for inherent competitive nature and responsibilities. An Irreni approach is to run experiments trying to mix-and-match standard wages and best effort wages to people so as to optimize quality of human life for all interests; individual and business.

The Irreni approach means we need to embrace moral relativity. This means we need to reject once and for all a single moral standard for everyone. We need to reject the notion that if one person makes $15/hour for a job, so does everyone else. We need to reject the notion that dog-eat-dog competition in the market place is the only healthy market place. Perhaps instead of saying occupations such as sales are only commissioned based then we allow every occupation for people to choose commission or wage standard?

We need to morally allow people their differences in nature. My nature is best effort. Oft times the wage standard folks have resented me in my past for "showing them up". I understand their perspective because to them I'm trying to raise the work standard for the same amount of pay. Also I agree that businesses should be paying for additional responsibility because in fact business decision makers setting pay rates justify all their own high wages, perks and privileges solely upon a quaint idea of merit and responsibility. In this sense best effort folks such as myself are not fair to wage standard folks. But a zebra is not going to change its stripes and I'm not going to quit taking initiative. What to do?

Another insight as to what to do let us consider gay marriage. Gay marriage is setting a new moral landscape. That landscape is we need to recognize that organically people have very different natures. This is true when it comes to work ethics and most aspects of life. Irreni World Scale is going to ask you to embrace these differences not as deficiencies for being different, but moral advantages for being different. The moral advantage is that people of different moral character who will do things you are not inclined and therefore present you with a vicarious free-will opportunity to do things on your behalf. What risk taker doesn't need the reliable routiner and what reliable routiner doesn't need a risk taker? Leaders and followers.

There is an adage that every good leader must be a good follower. Sorry, that is just not true because people have different organic natures. In my industry most leaders are abrasive personalities such as Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison,  Steve Jobs and the list goes on-and-on. All aholes. Aholes don't make good followers.  What is true is that we all need to recognize our mutual moral benefit of acknowledging and promoting people commensurate to their characters. Fairness historically has meant treating everyone the same under the golden rule. Fairness today means treating everyone differently as to their nature using the information rule. Gay marriage is leading the way.

Irreni World Scale represents the ongoing experimentation needed to mix-and-match our various ever changing natures with both survival and quality-of-life work so as to optimize both. It will be a blooming, bloody sausage making mess but it will be the best mess of treating everyone as important and to their nature. A single moral standard for seven billion people is evil. Let us embrace moral diversity and erase moral adhesion to a single norm from our ethos.

And finally one last note about moral relativity. There are some stripes we will never change in our lives but there are many stripes we will. This means the process of identifying any given person's stripes will be a constant evaluation and a constant realignment throughout any given person's life. 


Scale your empathy, scale the world! 

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!