A central aspect of my work as a human researcher is the complexity theory based interpretation of the (abstract) concept of ‘saving the world’ or just ‘worldsaving’. Bringing a background in diverse scientific fields I intend to contribute to a transition from a formal interpretation of world saving to useful and useable strategies and research results to ‘implement’ or ‘initiate’ or ‘augment’ world saving. As we lack the foundational research in this field (in my opinion) I want to include these steps into my work and always aspire optimization of the steps, assumptions and representation. My approach to achieve all this ‘in parallel’ led to a series of decisions and investments on my part which were difficult to understand as I was not able to communicate the simplicity behind my strategy. Because simplification is what prevented our world from being saved so far, and as such I want to stay ‘as far’ as possible from incorrect simplifications. Especially working alone in a field which yet lacks its explicit foundation will pose many risks of incorrectly simplifying complex relationships and correlations (the personal bias). To avoid oversimplification (minimizing the bias) within my approach, I followed a strategy which I call ‘agile refractory action research’ (ARAR). The strategy of ARAR is simple: Produce a model how the goal you intend to find looks like. This model should be fuzzy (open to variations) and elements in the model placeholder for properties or functionalities which your research reveals as sufficient and necessary requirements. After an ensemble of these placeholders is defined, the initial model ‘world model’ is now the meta-model to this system. From the meta-model perspective, your model was only ‘one’ of many possible attempts and as such can contain an arbitrary amount of inconsistencies or bias. With continuous and self-actualizing research about each of the placeholders current scientific and activist status and priorities one can show ‘refractory’ of the original model if the placeholders are overarching the present solutions (by abstraction towards optimization). If solutions to the (complex, dynamic) system are ‘better’ or more general then the placeholder-systems, the meta-model must be updated. The progress of research is then the continuous improvement of understanding how a problem’s solution would look like, until the meta-model is sufficiently approximated by the placholder and found solutions so that it can be implemented as a real model. This implementation will again yield a new meta-model. In my case,, I intended to find a robust strategy how to communicate a science of worldsaving while implicitly augmenting this disciplines ability to connect to the present world state. I identify as performance measure for a plan to ‘save the world’ its capability to synchronize to a present complex world state without much additional information necessary to understand the plan without loosing the plans generality. This can only be done through consistent complexity reduction. I released 2/2019 the model of a world saving plan, identified 8/2019 its metamodel and worked on its re-integration as a model until 02/2020. Since then I work on implementing the (meta-)model with the target 8/2020 as a model which would be easy to understand and complex to implement. As such, the model I delevoped contains above 400 internet domains, an unknown amount of pages and literature I produced and a workload which was not in line with ethical standards of work. As I worked self-employed in a virtual system I initiated no serious attempts for funding and at no time there was a simple description about what I was doing, because this would have caused the impression (both to an observer and to my subconscious self) that I would ‘know’ how ‘things work’ while I was not able to transparently prove that my model indeed is a meta-model of a plan to save the world.
On 28th August 2020 I started to release entries on the domain Alien.Actor which are thought to tell the story and its content (again) in parallel. I worked a lot of variants to dissociate authorship from my research as I think of consensus-based science as the only valid form of science, and while an individual apparently represents an entire research discipline, their only valid approach can be to continually render the results and progress they make as ‘invalid’. Now that I do not find convincing arguments for this incorrectness anymore and start to publish the backgrounds, I do not want to claim validity, but I claim that the model can now be used for implementation and is ‘ripe’ so to say.
The language and understanding around world saving as terminus and complex subjective concept and the variety of topics associated with it easily lead to a complex system of starting a thought before a systems theory was taken into consideration. As such I started the discussion from a systems theory based perspective and build an empty model full of invalid statements to force myself iterating through all placeholders to improve the entire model sequentially. The complex systems on our world which are in use (healthcare, digital language, software, infrastructure, politics, bureaucracy) were not build for the complex culture by which they are used. As such, the systems are not operating for human culture but for elements of the system which have more control and influence on them then others. The asymmetry of fairness and information is interpreted as a lack of gauge of complex systems in my research. At the top of the controlling systems of other systems there are no transparent intentions and civilizatory values but individual and corporate interest. For a canonical step into the research-discipline about and around worldsaving I define the science as an agile transdisciplinary systems science. We use the term ‘agile’ to point out that a ‘science’ of worldsaving implicitly has to undertake research, and hence experiments about worldsaving and thereby changes the observation while researching it. As such, for this discipline there is no clear distinction into theoretical and applied ‘worldsaving’ and as such I kept the model and its content as isolated as possible and as connected as necessary to the real world throughout the past months.
One of the concepts of this domain was to ‘produce’ an abstraction of ‘any’ author to make transparent the background to the many projects and domains I’d want to work on which resemble a plan to save the world (and models for all necessary aspects required by such plan). As such I try to bootstrap a system with high complexity and an entire theoretical framework in parellel to proposing a variety of projects for activism, open source coding and cooperation. On the one hand it was probably not clear which idea belongs to what type of project/idea. On the other hand I’ve not yet found cooperation on the deeper / systems layer. I started networking 10 days ago but most likely I was yet unable to communicate my thoughts and intentions properly (which I started to mention in the respective conversations). I tend to repeat myself when I cannot see what and where others’ thoughts move to and now that I align to an authorship which I can consider valid within my system, I hope some clearness about my systems will start to spawn throughout the current month.