Qhipu! (Or Khipu - does a K or Q really matter?...)

This article reads like a thriller, the title begs us to question who "we" really are though:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931972-600-we-thought-the-incas-couldnt-write-these-knots-change-everything/

​​Imagine a friend hands you a bundle of knotted thread and you smile without breaking eye contact as you "read" what it says without looking. This is what the Incan knot system, qhipu, likely let people do--you could "read the threads" by looking, and probably "read" simpler threads by feel too.

It's also why it's silly to judge others and assume "written language" and "thinking in words" is the only form of tangible or abstract path for communication or the only way to think. A good chunk of the time, people often make hasty calls choosing convenience over learning the nuances -- only to live in the irony of their own arrogance when time makes its final call.

"English is the first form of programming most of us learn."-Onyx Ashanti

Language is the first form of programming that people learn, and it often reveals a lot about how people tend to think, how they organize, and what governance tends to look like too. We can only infer, but from the article it sounds like the government and economy functioned very similarly to the way the qhipu is made and organized: federalized with a control economy, much like how one core thread serves to anchor lots of other pieces in place.

When you look at how English (and likely other Western, especially Romance, languages) is written and constructed, much of it points toward consolidation and objectification--about 70% of the language exists as nouns --"people, places, or things" -- relationships are frequently couched in transactional terms, and how we refer to non-people also lends it to "thingness".
i.e. "Who owns that dog?" remains reflexive vs. "Who leads that dog?"
We're still in an age that, for most U.S. Americans, comfortably refers to other living things from a frame of ownership -- just a few percentage points away in DNA from chattel slavery.

In an excerpt from the book, Braiding Sweetgrass, the author notes that Potawatomi (an Aanishinaabemowen language -- so related to Ojibwe and shares some common roots with Algonquinaak* [the name for the Algonquin language?] ) is comprised of about 75% verbs. Lots of the things we consider as things in their noun-form are described in states of being. The rock is being, a river is being, etc.
So imagine referring to a trail or road as a noun and verb at the same time--"I MichiganAvenued [to] work today." would mean you drove on Michigan Avenue, which might imply all of its potholes, construction, and traffic patterns that are typical of the avenue for where you live. The place and thing has its own dynamicism while maintaining a degree of specificity to it that doesn't need to become an abstract geographic fact to memorize disconnected from the rest of its social and physical context. One beauty of a language with this orientation offers is that it suddenly puts almost everything we engage into context as a relationship--things suddenly have a degree of action, dynamicism, and maybe even agency to them.

Verbs are the grammatical abstraction of a relationship -- it's an action which implies cause, consequence, and something or one as a party to initiate or orient around the action. Relationships invite the opportunity for more nuanced ethical consideration -- we're literally called to reckon how an action to a relationship might affect an entity that's likely connected to its own set of behaviors and relationships.

There are more examples which you can read from the Braiding Sweetgrass book or hear at a discussion from Dylan Atminer who introduced it to many Detroiters this year, but for now let's return to news about the quipu and the research connected to it.

What's also exciting about this research that helps us relearn the literacy and thinking behind the quipu is that the techniques for decrypting it likely translate well into physical gestures too--know how to communicate using common syllables, words, or general concepts and you can assign them to physical movements. That's something my friend Onyx is playing with as he develops his own sono-cybernetic system.

From http://ciencias.pe/sites/default/files/styles/slide_principal/public/field/image/quipu-wari.jpg?itok=vPsFV8mw

NOTE: this post was edited part way on Nov. 30th when I realized I forgot to finish a sentence that actually connected to an entire section about other languages hehe .
References:

Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer
https://milkweed.org/book/braiding-sweetgrass

Dr. Dylan AT Miner, a Metis native artist and scholar
http://www.wiisaakodewinini.com/

Debt: The First 5000 years by David Graeber
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years
[I've yet to read it though suspect it's very relevant given how transactional everything is--"owe a life", "forgive us", "I'm indebted to your kindness", etc.:]

Conversations and observations (plus probably some essays on his blog which I haven't yet read) with Onyx Ashanti

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931972-600-we-thought-the-incas-couldnt-write-these-knots-change-everything/

Reality aesthetic and the art of living

Science is the conscientious process for discerning Truth. Ethics are a qualitative science for discerning what is good. We seek to discern what is truly good, yet the process of discovery goes beyond understanding, it is also lived. When we do good, life can be beautiful. I strive to find beauty through experiencing, recognizing, re-presenting and creating reality in its truest forms.

Engaging experiences in the arts and amid the built and natural environment can elicit a tremendous curiosity. "The sense of wonder", a phrase coined by Rachel Carson, captures this phenomenal experience well. It awakens a timeless reverence for beauty that is inspirational, simple, and mysterious at the same time. To contextualize the significance of this phenomenon, I'll refer to the wisdom of a quote from Baba Dioum:

"In the end we will conserve only what we love. We will love only what we understand. We will understand only what we are taught."

We can surmise that we'll best learn when our interests are ignited for discovery through exploratory inquiry. Discovering these facets of creativity and inquiry through the sense of wonder, I believe, is key to authentic learning and appreciation for the people and world we live with alike.
Engaging experiences--the arts, outdoors, courageous conversation, etc.--compel us to relate with the world through our sense of wonder, present a nexus between living and deeper learning. For that reason, I champion pedagogical methods that foster deep learning through exploration, mutual inquiry, reciprocity, and re-integrating our connectivity for a better understanding of the world and one's abilities to purposefully live with it.


When the insight of an individual or community can discern and constructively elicit beauty from parts of life that were once mundane, they've discovered what I call the reality aesthetic. It's how people find profound inspiration, dignity, and meaning in their work. It's the art of living and shines brightest when our basic needs are met with love.

A Devil's advocacy and simple actions

Yesterday morning I had a dream that I was at work and a lab user told me a story about "the devil's advocate".  Normally, the expression "Devil's advocate" refers to someone who offers insightful reason for a contradictory if not controversial position in a debate.  But in this story, the person spoke about immense hope and changing the world--and before anything conclusive about what the first step to take toward making a better world might be, he added another condition and new story.  It was endless.

His advocacy led to nothing.

In that case, the Devil's advocate advocates to move us emotionally, while hacking emotional sensation and rapid dependency on the next detailed caveat. In lulling our being into the next caveat, the Devil's advocate shifts our attention from any prospect of moving forward to look for the next caution and item to fear. We're smitten by grandiose prospect, while simultaneously disempowered by its monolithic complexity and our loss of self-agency when relying on someone to create a vision and path for us to follow.

Conversely (and in waking life), I spoke with another person about mantras and music as both means and ends to sensing spirit and confidence yesterday.  I think it ties in really well with the same practice of self-empowerment by scaling down big initiatives into something you can act on. There was a lot of great insight from the discussion I'll share another time, but for now I'll send some links.

Converting grand intentions (like new years resolutions) into habits that are tangible and actionable:
http://blog.bufferapp.com/the-science-of-new-years-resolutions-why-88-fail-and-how-to-make-them-work

http://blog.bufferapp.com/what-the-research-on-habit-formation-reveals-about-willpower-and-overall-well-being

The academic research it's based on:
http://psyserv06.psy.sbg.ac.at:5916/fetch/PDF/10978569.pdf

Ian Tran's Guide to Embracing Wicked Problems and Complex Systems

I wanted to quickly explain the basics to a bunch of people trying to solve wicked problem/complex system types of challenges amid 4 days of very little sleep and intensive projects.  I cleaned it up some and posted it for anyone interested to check out.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6ZWASyBqmHHcGFyVkxWNTEyYTA/view?usp=sharing

Or for those on academia:
http://www.academia.edu/2776740/Ian_Trans_guide_to_embracing_wicked_problems_and_complex_systems

You'll need to download it and/or zoom in (it's a large document which shows up at 47% of its actual size on my screen--printed to actual size, it's 2 feet wide!) to read the content comfortably.  Despite my inclination for freely sharing information, I put up a copyright because the "infographic"(?) needs some cleanup in its design.  Given its hacked-together inception, it's not completely satisfying.  I hope to finish a cleaner version later for the creative commons.  However, if you substitute "wicked problems and complex systems" with "life", the theoretical stuff makes a profound guide for approaching any issue.

Transcending known responsibility

What happens when the solution which the world looks to science for really tells us we must be more responsible than ever imagined?

We tend to seek a quick fix through facts yielded by science.  Perhaps someone in history asked: "What happens when we exploit a heavy element like Uranium?"  With intent to answer a perceived need: "we need something to make us more powerful in this war".

The short term answer they sought was yes, atomic reactions can afford a user tremendous power.  But the fundamental truth derived from it was an answer that asks the inquirer "are we responsible enough to consistently meet the challenges that emerge from consequences of this never-before imagined scale of magnitude?"  Whenever we discover a new level of complexity, the responsible answer immediately resets to a decisive "no."  Until everyone is capable of understanding complexity and the ethical implications of the system, it is irresponsible to engage such a system, especially when much of the world potentially has access to it or its potential impacts.


I gave a parallel example to a problem I've been thinking about spurred by a domestic (well, domestic in a national sense) human rights advocacy issue.  It isn't nearly as destructive, but the implications in the science are tremendous and unsettling.  It's not information that you can broadcast to the world unless an established and thoughtful community dialogue of substantial reach is already in place to handle any unrest that may arise.

That said, the issue itself merits action, and countless people are already working on it out of ethical drive even without having all the "hard" empirical data at hand.  This is the uncertainty of courage.  Even if you have few or any reason for an optimistic outcome, it's better to act so that you least put forth the effort.  It's an odd balance of ebb and flow:  there comes a point when one may be the best acquainted and prepared to bring forth challenging and discomforting issues--you become the smartest person in the crowd simply because you know enough about the problem and its possible solution to manifest the transformation of reality.  Therefore, you are responsible for bringing it to light.


Understanding this status incites dramatic shifts in the default attitudes enforced by most of society--we're used to delegating responsibility and may even draw from a sense of entitlement in attempt to justify doing so.  It's ingrained into our elections, in our governmental agencies, and at almost any workplace.  Any time you hear the phrase "it's not my job" in response to another person's problems, I challenge you to carefully reconsider the statement.  What matters fundamentally is not the individual's job, it's their responsibility.  Usually, a "job" is the prescribed objectification of an identity and its associated responsibilities.  This beguiles many in becoming an excuse for them to deny their ability to discern and act on their own behalf.  There exists privilege in being a dedicated audience:  knowing what you do now from hearing--which may place you among a select few--you have the ability to focus your discernment and learn on a different level than others who create.  In doing so, you may cultivate wisdom and act upon it from a different perspective.  Yet bringing wisdom forward with persuasive authenticity requires a degree of courage that almost necessitates one to act beyond measured reasoning.  You anticipate no favorable response from the people you interact with, but you reserve hope your assertions will find constructive reception.

I'll add a slew of paraphrased quotes that reinforced several of my convictions in late February (the 20th) of this year:  The Honorable Representative Shanelle Jackson of Detroit came to the University of Michigan-Dearborn to share her experience as a grassroots elected representative.  She urged everyone to "be an ambassador... [despite knowing a lot of people who love their city], they don't have that Detroit fire-hunger... The people here now need to vest and be an example, ultimately that will draw the new Detroiters".

She also reaffirmed my belief that apathy and complacency only serve to perpetuate injustice.  In response to a question regarding disenchantment with elected officials and Detroit's municipal government:  "When people get apathetic and step away, aren't you endorsing that corruption?  By doing that, you take away your positive energy--the only checks and balance for the desired status quo."

Jackson followed up by saying:  "local safety, clean neighborhoods, some problems are too big for government to solve--that's one on one, hand to hand community work that must be done." [I have 80% confidence in retention of original words in this last one as I wrote them down in shorthand at the event.]

I'm convinced I need to act swiftly.  I cannot un-learn what I've discovered in the research, and it would be irresponsible to leave the issue of concern as is.  Yet without proper educational and community context, I'm definitely concerned about disclosing all of the details to people whom I cannot maintain a face-to-face dialogue with at this time.