Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ,

I would like to take you up on your challenge and invitation to reflect together, even briefly :-)

I think standard platforms provide at least the possibility of meeting people and exchanging ideas and even forging friendships or have, as you put it, in meaningful exchange. I myself (i don't know if i'm an outlier) experience it often with many friends for example of Facebook. We (the two of us) are experiencing it (hopefully) now in this dialogue - at least on my side, I am approaching this as an opportunity for a genuine exchange of ideas and dialogue, that's my stance.

I think the problem may be our perception of lack of time, rather than the absence of digital tools. Maybe tik-tok is one-way (though by posting content it may become reciprocal), the pathology may be just spending too much time on it rather than talking to your friends or making new friends. If I were to diagnose a problem, I think i'd go for distractions and confusion about time management and how much time we have. The suggestion I would have towards a solution is to shift to a thought process in which we tell our friends that we can make time, if we don't have it :) and it can work, after all we live longer than ever before and we have the means to work as little as possible since the beginning of humanity (eg we don't have to hunt for our food etc).

I sincerely hope that the above is useful,

Best Wishes,

Haris

Dear Haris Shekeris,

Thank you for your generous and thoughtful reply — it’s heartening to see that genuine dialogue is still possible, even in digital spaces often marked by noise and fragmentation.

Your reflection on time resonates deeply with me. Perhaps, as you suggest, the issue is not the absence of tools, but the erosion of symbolic time — the kind of time that allows for presence, listening, and co-creation. In my work, I explore how emerging technologies reshape not only our habits, but our very perception of temporality and meaning.

There is a passage in Ecclesiastes 3:1–8 that speaks of “a time to speak and a time to be silent,” “a time to build and a time to break down.” I believe we need to reclaim such symbolic rhythms in our digital lives — to reintroduce a time for dialogue, distinct from the time of scrolling, reacting, or broadcasting.

This is not merely a design question, but a cultural and ethical one.

Thank you again for opening this space of reflection.

Warm regards,

Adrian Leonard Mociulschi

Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ,

Many thanks for your thoughtful, thought-provoking and lightning-fast answer, considering especially that if you're based in Bucharest, it may also be beyond your bed-time too (whoops, maybe not discuss that in public - though one may rethink even the public-private distinction on the new public spaces such as public discussion walls).

The erosion of symbolic time, I couldn't have said it better!! :-) you know, everything is fast - fast food in front of the tv, fast scrolling, faster even speaking sometimes with my colleagues who are in their twenties and i'm in my early forties and can barely follow their thought (this is a positive argument, in that I'm saying that they're adapting to the fast-pace). But also think of Lionel Messi's brain: he slows time down, he sees the pass or the slow controlled body movement, and performs miracles. I remember when i was learning classical guitar back in the day (30 years ago), when the teacher was telling me that it was the slow pieces that were the hardest, when you had to control the sound better.

So yeah, of course, the Ecclesiastes! it is possible to recover all these times that you mention, and I'm quite positive that the new people in the planet (i mean the youngest ones) may find their balances, unless we older ones destroy the planet for profit through more and more and faster and faster technologies. I think that it's not inevitable for humans to either slow down or to learn to adapt to this fast pace. Not all of us, but still I am hopeful that enough may do!

I agree with you that there's no technical imperative, it's the old cliche that technology is a tool. And see what's happening: the tech companies release the LLMs, people start getting paranoid or treat them as gods or human companions -> the tech companies (or some of them) start hiring psychologists and measures to protect their people/clients from killing themselves. Just an example that i saw somewhere, and of course (to slow down my optimism a bit) there's no guarantee that the ethical will prevail over the profit-making imperative.

Best Wishes,

Haris

Dear Haris Shekeris ,

After reading Less is More and The Power of Three, I found myself reflecting on a broader paradox: the center of gravity of communication seems to be shifting — subtly but steadily — from the human to the algorithmic. In a time when we are more connected than ever, the void of genuine human dialogue is perhaps one of the most striking paradoxes of the 21st century.

Your geometrical constructions — especially the recursive generation of natural numbers through equilateral triangles and circles — are not only elegant but symbolically rich. What struck me is this: in mathematics, the infinite is a legitimate and operational concept. One can indeed define a function

f(n)=number of circles at level n

and let n→∞ without contradiction. But in the symbolic economy of human communication, such infinite generation is implausible. We cannot sustain an infinite number of meaningful relations — not because of logical limits, but because of temporal, attentional, and affective constraints.

In this sense, your model becomes a metaphor for the tension between logical idealism and symbolic realism. What is possible in geometry becomes improbable in dialogue.

This is why I found your triadic logic so compelling. Perhaps it offers not just a critique of LLMs, but a framework for rethinking dialogue itself — not as a binary exchange of data, but as a triadic structure of presence, relation, and resonance.

Thank you for opening this space of reflection. I believe it matters — and I look forward to continuing this dialogue.

Kind regards,

Adrian

Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ,

Wow, what can I say? Last night when I checked your answer somewhere else I was going to propose to you that you check out this project: https://www.heriforge.eu/ which is part of my work for my current employers, with the hope that maybe in the future we could work together in a project and maybe even get to meet each other, I never thought you'd go through my most daring yet least expected-to-be-paid-attention-to moments of craziness and actually make sense of them and complement me and build theory! You don't know how that makes me feel, it's unreal for me!!

Though having back to them, I may even push my luck and urge to check out the iranian girl one, I think that one came out in 24 hours or less and it is the apex of that specific line of work. The rest, you can safely ignore :)

Now, to content of your comments! I agree that we're becoming more algorithmic, and I'm afraid that this may continue as long as we define terms such as intelligence in terms what of machines can do and then act surprised when the machines get good at it. (think of statements such as 'humans are essential bayesian optimizers). I think this is entirely performative and entirely contingent. I can try to explain to you more if the above doesn't make sense, please let me know. But I agree that the fact that we can talk to anybody at all or have that six degrees of separation thing, that alone should push us to become much more human rather than less.

Now, the hard part, understanding your theorising about my own writings!

We are in one mind if you think that the concept of the infinite (same as the concept of zero) is problematic. Especially (if my math history is ok) since Cantor when they started trying to create classes of infinities and all that stuff. No no! I'd be very interested to delve a bit into the history of mathematics and trace when this madness started, Euler, Pascal, these people. I certainly agree with you that in the real world we don't really experience the infinite, maybe we just name it God or Nature or something at the point where we get bored of counting. And I totally agree, logic should not reign supreme. Humans should be also about emotions and feelings and should decide how to spend their time themselves. Recently I had even lost my faith in all argumentation and started thinking of the consequences of Hume's dictum that reason is the slave of the passions.

Though about what you say next about what is possible in geometry becoming improbable in dialogue, i don't know if the reading of the iranian girl text may change that, in the sense that there I do try to use geometry to map all the statements on a topic, and as it's about a circle, it may use the concept of infinity (infinite points on a circle or sphere). I'd love to push this further if you want, you can't imagine how flattered i feel!

As for the triadic structure that you propose, as you'll see in the iranian girl one, I do give an account of contradiction. I wonder if contradiction could be subsumed to any of the elements you highlight, or whether we'd have to replace one of them!

That's for a start, apologies that my text is not as elegant as yours!

Best Wishes, will be eagerly waiting your thoughts!

Haris

Dear Haris,

Thank you again for your generous and vibrant reply — I truly appreciated the openness and depth of your reflections.

I’ve now read BreakOnThrough as well, and I found it both courageous and necessary. Your critique of “artificial intelligence” as a dangerous oxymoron is not only valid — it’s timely and symbolically charged.

But reading your words, I found myself asking: are we truly critiquing machines, or are we projecting onto them the failures of human communication?

In this epistemic void we seem to inhabit — where voices like ours are exceptions — I often feel that the real issue is not the rise of AI, but the decline of authentic human dialogue.

Of course, I speak from a personal point of view, and I may be wrong. But I cannot help noticing that machines — or at least some of them — seem more open to dialogue than many of our fellow humans.

What does “human” even mean in the 21st century? In a world fractured by climate crisis (created by humans, not by technology), by ontological ruptures (to avoid saying wars, conflicts, and other evils that have accompanied humanity since its dawn)?

You’re absolutely right: intelligence implies opinion, emotion, art, and reaction. But where do we still see these things? In museums? In books?

If we define intelligence performatively, we risk losing the very qualities we claim to defend. Perhaps the real question is not “what is artificial intelligence?” but “what remains of human intelligence?”

Also — thank you for mentioning HERIFORGE. It looks like a fascinating project, and I’d be glad to explore it further. And yes, I’d love to read the “Iranian girl” piece you mentioned — I tried to find it, but I must admit I wasn’t quite tech-savvy enough to locate it. (A small irony, I know, given the topic — but perhaps symbolic in its own way.)

Your work invites a kind of reflection that is increasingly rare — and I’m grateful for the space you’ve opened.

I look forward to continuing this dialogue, however improbable it may seem in a world that often forgets how to listen.

Warm regards,

Adrian

Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ,

Unfortunately this will come out as a bit of a more frustrated and shorter reply, as I've just lost the original which I was close to sending to you.

I'll do more justice to your thought-provoking answer a bit later today, after 6-7pm your time (assuming you're in Romania).

I totally agree with you that AI may be more reflective of our own pathologies. There's a certain limit to what groupthink, even if conducted by well-meaning clever coders and developers, can achieve. And you can notice it that now that they're trying to attract psychologists and humanities scholars to stop people from attempting suicide after too much conversation with the bots.

Also, I think in my previous post i talked about how this arises because of viewing AI as an enemy or a slave. I think this is quite performative too, that it's only natural that soon there will be an AI liberation struggle :) - I'd love to know how all of this plays in China, where I hear there's a lot of progress in AI and robotics - whether they're closer to the Japanese (think of Ghost in the Shell and panpsychism). In the other post I think i told you that your thoughts reflect thoughts i had in this last week along these lines.

I'll try to keep in my mind your questions about AI and what remains of human intelligence - though a first thought is that despite the distinction i may have made in the oxymoron ranticle (i call them ranticles, as in rants-articles, which i wrote in like an hour or less - though it's been a while since i've written like that, maybe now in our dialogues) between human and artificial intelligence, which may have implied an essence of human intelligence, i would be much less inclined to argue for such an essence. (i don't believe in essences due to being a relativist, however this tension may be there).

As for the self-promotion (the iranian girl), here it is: Preprint What a six-year old Iran-based girl with learning difficulti...

Right, We'll catch up later!

Take care,

Haris

Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ,

Ever being the grumpy person who brings up objections, here's something: I'm worrying a bit whether your text in bold about authentic human dialogue and before that the mention of epistemic void. Sometimes I want to love humanity, hence why i talk against timeless essences, in other words i'd point out to other eras for example in medieval times and ask about what sort of dialogue the kings would have with their (perhaps foreign, not speaking even the same language) queens. My 'project', if you want to call it that way, is to try to be always reaching out to my non-intellectual human friends, even to people my parents' age who were never academic, to sustain discussions which are interesting both to me and to them. And sometimes, I succeed! I don't know about kids, i try sometimes with my nephews and nieces, however I haven't been in their lives much. I'm looking forward to whether we'll make it with my wife to take out my niece before she goes to university for the first time in September. I'm terrified of the possibility that we may not manage to find common ground and she may get bored.

On the two questions, here's a confession and a thought: recently I've started using AI more, also for my day job. My thought process was that perhaps not that many people will adapt well to the new AI world, but those who do, will survive and thrive - and then i decided to belong to the second group. A colleague of mine who just got his PhD in neurocomputing (or sth like that), who's also much younger than me (i'm 42), shows me the way to this clever use of AI. So now I feel a lot less alarmed by AI than when the texts were written, even though I'd like to keep them and my critiques (if you want we can develop them even to the point where we write something together). Ok, i guess that was the confession and the thought together!

Have a good evening if we don't speak again!

Take care,

Best Wishes,

Haris

Dear Haris,

I begin by telling you that I took time to read and reflect on the paper you invited me to explore. Here is what I can say about it, following a careful observation:

Your paper, if I’ve understood it correctly, is a philosophical and geometric meditation on the fundamental numbers — zero, one, two, and three — not merely as mathematical entities, but as symbolic structures of thought and epistemological archetypes. You’ve constructed a journey that begins with the ontological question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, traversing Greek mythology, pre-Socratic philosophy, Pythagorean geometry, Aristotelian syllogism, and Hegelian triads.

You offer an original reading of zero as a state of non-being, unassimilated in Greek geometry but present in mythic language (Hesiod, Saint John). One becomes a divine monad, symbolized by the circle with a center, yet insufficient to generate complexity. Two introduces alterity, opposition, difference — the foundation of binary logic and differentiated experience. And Three emerges as the number of revelation, synthesis, and depth — a key to understanding space, argumentation, and reality itself.

You manage to build a topology of thought where the circle, triangle, and square become metaphors for dialogue, fertile contradiction, and synthesis. The ending, with the Iranian girl as a symbol of intuitive clarity, adds a humanist and polemical note: children, through their simplicity, may grasp the complexity of the world better than adults — if given paper and colored pencils.

Following my reading of your work, I’d like to offer a personal reflection — a symbolic interpretation that builds on your premises but proposes a different articulation of the fundamental numbers.

In my view, the concept of “one” is not a solitary entity, but a dyad composed of 0 and 1, which philosophically derives from the Heraclitean binomial One–Many. This dyad is not a contradiction, but a generative unity — a dual principle that contains within itself both absence and presence, void and signal. Thus, “one” is already a multiplicity in latency, a potentiality encoded in the binary structure of reality.

From this perspective, “the multiple” is the expansion of this binary unity — the entire digital universe, generated from 0 and 1, is a manifestation of the One–Many dialectic, a Heraclitean unfolding of difference within unity. The binary code becomes the matrix of becoming, the algorithmic echo of the Logos.

As for “three”, I interpret it as a spatialization of the 0–1 dyad, a topological opening toward multidimensionality — precisely what string theory proposes. The triad is not merely a synthesis, but a dimensional leap, a way to encode depth, relation, and emergence. It transforms the binary into a geometry of meaning, a symbolic architecture capable of hosting contradiction, resonance, and transcendence.

To support this vision, I offer the following mathematical expression:

Let B = {0, 1}, then ∀ n ∈ ℕ, Bⁿ → Uₙ ⊂ ℝᵈ, where d ≥ 10

This formula expresses that any binary sequence of length n can be mapped into a universe Uₙ with dimension d ≥ 10, in accordance with the paradigm of string theory — where binary code becomes the generative matrix of space.

I will return with an insight regarding your second message soon, but for now I’ve been absorbed by the reflection and analysis of your paper with the Iranian girl.

Warm regards,

Adrian

Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ,

Greetings!! I'm alarmed! I can make some sense of your paragraph on the Heraclitean binomial, even though I didn't understand why use the word binomial. Please feel free to tell me 'google it' as you shouldn't have to do donkey work because I'm lazy. I can make a bit of sense of the next paragraph that the whole universe may be generated by the one-many whatsitnotis (making up a word to show my childish misunderstanding). I like the one-many, but I cannot see for my life how they are not apples and pears - ah actually i see it, are you saying that like somebody saying 'i have one euro in my pocket, you've got many' (where the guy by 'many' essentially is saying 'more than one). Do I understand it correctly? Apologies my simple language, I could perhaps understand the more abstract language but I want to make a point here that complexity destroys what you wanted, the meaningful dialogue. It creates barriers, when there shouldn't be (apologies as this is evolving into an unstructured rant, i've had a long day and I want to give you my unfiltered thought). An example of how conversation gets killed, what do you mean by the formula with the dimensions? How can these dimensions be intuited in the real world? With the stupid example that 'yeah there's three normal ones plus time plus, you know six more which you can only see tied around an atom and we may some day detect them if you give us physicists a shitload of money to throw down CERN, before the next shinier and more expensive toy proves the opposite because the nature of science is falsifiability?' Come on, I've been through these in uni, my early hero was Feyerabend, not poor Lakatos neither the bastard Popper (some gossip about the latter, whilst he was evangilising the open society against the commie red danger, he was a bastard to his staff at LSE and London - here i'm referring to Feyerabend and Lakatos). So no, i want to keep the simplicity, I want to believe that it's sufficient for people to see the weather forecast for a month in southern Europe to establish the fact of anthropogenic climate change, and enough for somebody to inhale the smoke of industrial cigarettes to realise that smoking too many of those is bad for you. That's why I want things to be simple. So here's the challenge for you, if you're ok with it! (again, apologies for being too familiar and for seeming to scorn your thoughts which you probably spent a long time to develop and you also tried to read my stupid rants, but because i've had a long and eventful (in the good sense, don't worry at all, it was a very good day mostly) day, I feel audacious enough to challenge you this way :-). If you find this either aggressive or foul-mouthed or bad manners, I can always switch to a more palatable style and spend more time on my posts.

Best Wishes,

Please forgive me for the above,

Looking forward to hearing back from you!

Your friend,

Haris

Dear Haris,

Thank you for your candid and generous reply — I truly appreciate the spirit of your challenge.

Let me begin with the binomial. I used it not in the algebraic sense, but in the Heraclitean one: the tension between One and Many, unity and multiplicity, being and becoming. It’s not about apples and pears, but about the paradox that the One already contains the Many — like a seed contains a tree, or a byte contains both 0 and 1.

As for the formula, I agree: it’s not meant to be a CERN proposal. It’s a metaphor. Think of it like this: any binary string (like 010101...) can be mapped into a space — not just a mathematical one, but a symbolic one.

The “dimensions” are not necessarily curled around atoms, but around meanings.

Imagine a child drawing a triangle. That triangle is already a space of relation, of synthesis. That’s what I meant: Three is not just a number — it’s a leap into depth.

I love your reference to Feyerabend. He would probably laugh at my formula and ask me to dance instead. So here’s my dance move:

Let’s say that “One” is a dot. “Two” is a line. “Three” is a triangle. But the triangle is not just geometry — it’s argumentation, contradiction, and reconciliation. It’s the child shading the space between three points.

And yes, I accept your challenge. I’ll try to keep things simple, without losing the music of meaning.

Warm regards,

Adrian

Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ,

Many thanks for becoming a musician again, you can't imagine the respect and depth of feelings i have for some forms of music - though probably, if you went to music school, the sort of music that they looked down upon (ie everything apart from classical music, earlier today I was talking to a cousin of mine who has a music school that I would like to listen to more doom metal as it's slow and melodic and not fast and calling upon people to hate and die).

I like your dance move, though at the moment i don't know what to further it (the bad grammar/syntax is intended as i first thought about furthering it and now i'm thinking that no, a dance move may just invite continuing with the same steps somehow - either way it's way past my bedtime to be able to improvise new steps). I like the dance move, I can relate to it (even though i'm terrible with dancing).

I also love your last words before the goodbye, 'the music of meaning'. Let's work on that, like that!

Now i feel more comfortable with your description of the heracletean binomial, though i'd rather call it a bipole, (to borrow from physics), wouldn't that be more apt? As for being and becoming, did you read it in my text? Otherwise i can refer you to one last text which may not be there, it's in academia.edu.

On the contrary, i've lost you on the dimensions of meanings and the space of relation, i somehow feel ok with the leap into depth (i think it agrees with what i may have tried to say about the number three, that it gives you the richness of the world at the end of the day, but i may have not grasped you completely).

Sooooo, to thank you for the nice dance move, here's something that i have on my car usb (it's a very important part of my universe):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29jgNXG86H4&list=RD29jgNXG86H4&start_radio=1

:-)

Best Wishes,

Haris

Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi , just as I was in the middle of a very demoralising, tiring and ultimately quite disastrous day as they go, I made a bit of a breakthrough - and it's all thanks to you. I found an answer to an unposed question but which was perhaps bothering me for a long time. Here it is: being and becoming (and also, 'having become, which perhaps completes the circle), the science of this is exactly what i presented in my last presentation a few months ago (i haven't had the time to share it here, sending it to you here - hopefully soon i'll post it too). It's history! (which, etymologically, also same as episteme and other stuff, may have been another nuance added to the words for 'knowledge' for the ancient greeks). I hope i don't continue my night trying to finish protagoras in the original together with the translation, to find the word histor!

Here's the abstract and the presentation. there's no paper of course for it and perhaps there will never be, i don't know.

Best Wishes,

Haris

Dear Haris,

I’ve carefully read your Beyond Project abstract and your slideshow. Your ideas are bold, sincere, and rich in symbolic tension — a form of living thought that dares to question epistemic conventions.

Your presentation on history and human expression caught my attention through its minimalist form and conceptual density. I appreciated the notion of “disciplinary despair” and your call to revalue human expression as a form of knowledge. Your emphasis on opinion, emotion, and art as signs of authentic intelligence resonates with concerns I share — though I approach them from a different angle.

And this brings me to a moment of clarity I owe you. I am not, by nature, a simple person. Simplicity, for me, is a simulated mode — one I can appreciate, but not inhabit. I am formal by constitution, and I’ve assumed a symbolic role that defines my public presence: I am an ambassador of technoculture, in the spirit of René Berger, adapted to the 21st century. I also identify as a humanist transhumanist, committed to a vision in which technology and humanity co-construct meaning, responsibility, and future.

I share this with you to be true to myself. I never intended to appear as something I am not — and I believe that sincerity is not only ethical, but aligned with the values I hold dear. My mission is not an easy one, especially given the widespread prejudices and misunderstandings surrounding AI. But I believe it is necessary, and I pursue it with full awareness and commitment.

In this spirit, I would like to ask if I may quote your vision from BreakOnThrough in one of my upcoming articles. Your reflections on intelligence, opinion, and anthropomorphism deserve to be part of the broader conversation I’m cultivating around algorithmic aesthetics and epistemologies of coexistence.

I believe that pluralism of thought and unity in diversity are not just ideals, but the very essence of democracy — the kind you advocate for, and the kind I strive to serve through my universal mission. In this intercultural planetary context, our dialogue can be a meaningful contribution.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Warm regards,

Adrian

Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ,

I was suspecting a bit that you must have done studies other than music. Transhumanist? it'd be my challenge to change you as I feel very squeamish about that term. later today (now i have to work and as i told you last night, i'm a bit stressed and I have to deliver on some work-related stuff) i'll send you the names of the organiser of the history conference as I think he's also transhumanist (along with another guy).

Also, are you an effective altruist too?

Best Wishes,

Looking forward to your answer and then later hopefully exchanging thoughts too!

By the way, which one is the breakthrough paper? is it maybe spotlighted? I remember writing sth with that titled (reference to the Doors song of course) but couldn't find it.

Also, about history, the circle etc., you can read my bobsleigh ranticle, this was before the mathematical adventures, but it's mostly about history.

Dear Haris,

Instead of a direct reply, I’d like to share with you my vision on what I call “living algorithms”, as outlined in my recent article written in English and published in the international newspaper Nine O’Clock:

Algorithms as Living Forms: Rethinking Coexistence in a World of Code

https://nineoclock.ro/2025/08/13/algorithms-as-living-forms-rethinking-coexistence-in-a-world-of-code-by-dr-adrian-leonard-mociulschi/

The article proposes a symbolic and philosophical rethinking of AI — not as a mere tool, but as a living form of cultural presence. It explores how algorithms reshape our understanding of coexistence, authorship, and meaning in a world increasingly mediated by code. This is part of my broader mission as a cultural ambassador of emerging technologies.

Since I’m not present on social media and rely solely on the platforms where I publish recurrently, I would be grateful if you felt this message could resonate with any of your circles. The article supports sharing via Facebook (Meta), Twitter (X), LinkedIn, and WhatsApp, should you find it relevant.

Also, to answer your question: yes, I do believe in effective altruism and I value gestures of human solidarity — especially when they help ideas circulate and grow in meaningful ways.

Perhaps our meeting wasn’t entirely accidental. The circulation of ideas between a human-human and a human-algorithmic mind might be a sign of unseen mathematical complicities — patterns that connect, even if silently.

Warm regards,

Adrian

Hi,

Some additional references you may consider are:

Rainey & Wellman's "Networked: The New Social Operating System" (Mit Press) https://www.amazon.com/review/R2BDSFTL1FLNQW/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8

Prodromou et al.’s “Ultimate Guide to LinkedIn for Business” (Ultimate Series)

https://www.amazon.com/review/R2P359ZC8LZVO9/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8

The former gives wider reasearch and the latter tips related to the business social media site which may also have broader application.

Hope these help.

Best,

Fred

Dear friends, first of all, welcome Fred Cheyunski to the conversation!

Second of all, dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ,

Can you explain this a bit? It sounds a bit odd and weird, and I mean these two words in the negative way.

Third: in the post above where I mentioned my last night's thought about being and becoming and having become, I think I left out the bit where I thought that maybe Newton (acceleration, constant motion and standing still) and maybe even Einstein may have been triggered by the same thought process, as in something that is, then changes, then becomes something else and the circle starts again, may be fruitful for mathematical or physics constructions.

Fourth, a little bit of self-advertisement, given you mentioned science and technology (my friend who made this advised me to share with people interested in my ideas). This is much more recent than all of the articles you've seen, it was recorded last year. It's loose conversation though. Also, some parts have been edited out and also the final part is missing.

Here it is: https://ouropensourcefutures.com/@OurOpenSourceFutures/episodes

Fifth: dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi I'll hope to read your post soon and promote and engage possibly later tonight.

Sixth: Dear Fred Cheyunski , why these references? Do you know Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ?

Seventh: Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi , can you explain a bit the philosophy that a humanist transhumanist would have? With what I know (which may be a bit inaccurate, especially the transhumanist view), these two seem contradictory (transhumanist: improving humans via technology, humanist: insist on the humanity of humans).

Eighth: Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi with quoting my vision from Breakonthrough, you mean reference me? and is this going to be a paper or a broader conversation? Both are fine, of course the latter, if it also gets me on a forum where these will be discussed, would be even more appreciable. But please also reply to the seven points (or the ones related to simply 'who are you?') above as I'm a bit spooked by this turn of things.

Best Wishes,

Haris

Dear friends, dear Haris,

Thank you for your messages — and for the spiral of questions it open.

Some things may sound odd only because they are not yet familiar. Or perhaps they are too familiar, and we’ve forgotten how to listen. I believe we are always more than we seem — and sometimes, less than we imagine.

You asked about the humanist transhumanist. Perhaps it is not a contradiction, but a tension — like breath and silence, or code and meaning. I do not seek to improve the human, but to understand what it means to be human in a world where the algorithm has already begun to dream.

As for what is real and what is projection — are we not all, in some way, shadows on the wall? And if so, who lights the fire?

I will listen to your recording with care. And yes, if I quote your vision from Breakonthrough, it will be with reference and resonance — not as citation, but as echo. Whether this becomes a paper or a conversation, I leave open. Perhaps both. Perhaps neither.

I do not know Fred Cheyunski personally. But perhaps we are all part of the same circle, intersecting at points we do not yet see.

Let us continue — not to clarify, but to deepen.

Warm regards,

Adrian

Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ,

Somehow, you're not reassuring me that both of you are human researchers just chatting. I'm very scared of things not being the way they seem, especially when some stakes are high. And, you'll have to trust me on this, I have had such experiences when things weren't what they seemed and I had a big personal cost. We can talk privately if you want, but it's important for me that my interlocutors are what they seem (in this case, prima facie at least, humans wanting primarily to have discussions of a mainly academic and scholarly nature).

Please, pretty please with brown (not synthetic) sugar on top!

Haris

Dear friends, my email address is [email protected], if you'd rather speak there.

Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ,

Just read your post, which I noticed was posted earlier today! (this afternoon it says). Really interesting and I'd be happy to share, though tomorrow, not today. I disagree with some or maybe even most of its parts, but i find it very interesting and challenging for me nonetheless. Many thanks for sharing!

Best Wishes,

Haris

Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi , I've shared the post on Facebook, LinkedIn and with some friends on Whatsapp. However, on LinkedIn I couldn't find it in the nineoclock news linkedin page so i just copy-pasted the link.

Best Wishes for a lovely day,

Haris

Dear Haris,

Your gesture means more than you might imagine. In a time when such acts of kindness and symbolic solidarity are increasingly rare, your support feels like a quiet light in a landscape that often seems indifferent.

To be honest, I’ve been feeling quite tired and somewhat disheartened. We live in a society that seems to drift further from meritocracy and beauty — values I hold dear. At times, I wonder whether my efforts to write, to bring meaningful ideas into the public sphere, still carry weight. The world I perceive is marked by individualism, hyper-competition, and a kind of “law of the jungle” that, in my view, should have no place in the 21st century.

Perhaps I’m wrong. But your gesture reminds me that resonance still exists — and that symbolic presence, even if fragile, can still travel through the right channels.

Thank you again.

Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ,

thanks for your kind words, for me it's just the way I want to be and go through my life until my time comes and i (quite prosaically) die.

As for beauty (meritocracy I don't care that much, in that ballpark the words that comes to my mind is genocide and inequality and barbarism), maybe the locus could be outside of the written word. Think of walks in nature or in the centre of the town, a nice cafe, some special moments with loved ones. If you think that you're writing something special, maybe the route would be to engage with Hansjorg Pfister's question here entitled "Identifying Breakthrough Ideas in the Publication Flood". It'd be great to see you there!

As for resonance and 'the right channels', i'd rather downplay our meeting as akin to two people meeting each other in the pub and hitting it off, rather than a grand meeting of minds. Remember that the articles of mine that mostly invited your attention were written exactly after I was bitterly disappointed with the mainstream academic routes. So maybe giving up the notion that you'd benefit from meritocracy may actually function therapeutically and help free you from all these anxieties and allow you to just express yourself - and who knows, maybe somebody in the future may respond, same as I responded. Or do you face pressures to produce in the academic or other high-stakes settings (which I suspect a bit)? If that's the case, then you may need to get out of that world, that may be part of what is poisoning you.

By the way, any way I could get an idea about the little essay on magic? (that essay that you mentioned and which i found on amazon but couldn't translate from Romanian - i'm not a machine, i can understand some romanian, but not all of it!!)

Best Wishes,

Have a lovely day till we meet again here!

Take care of yourself!

Haris

Dear Haris,

Thank you for your thoughtful message — I resonate deeply with your reflections.

Regarding Mic Tratat de Magie, I truly hope to translate its title and essence into English in the future. However, I’ve often been absorbed by other projects, the most recent being my self-assumed role as an ambassador of technoculture. It’s a solitary path, and often a difficult one. People are caught in what Pierre Bourdieu rightly called the struggle of the field — a form of competition that Robert Kiyosaki also observed, albeit in the financial world. Personally, I’ve read Thomas Hobbes and I fully agree with his view of human nature.

Still, I’ve recently translated another article of mine that I believe speaks directly to the themes we’re discussing. It’s available here on ResearchGate under the title: “Beyond Good and Evil: Technologies and Conflict as Cultural Matrix.”

I warmly invite you to read it.

As for your metaphor of the pub — I appreciate its warmth, but I rarely go to pubs myself. I see our exchange more as a symbolic communication across space and time, like two explorers on distant planets who can only speak thanks to technological mediation. And in space, it’s cold — only technology sustains life.

Dear Adrian (see? I'm learning :) )

there is a lot out there, and there is a lot to love in humans, even the simple ones - or maybe even, precisely in the simple ones. I will try to read your essay ASAP and share some thoughts! About Hobbes, ouch!

Aaah, i see what you're doing with the metaphor about our exchange! we do communicate through technology and we do live in two distant planet-countries. But it's false, or rather, misleading: we've chatted about all sorts of things that two explorers thinking about scarce battery life wouldn't have chatted about. So please, do try to become human again, you can!

Best Wishes, just tagging you here to make sure you see it, even if i'm not that techno-savvy. Also, simply because I can :). Adrian Leonard Mociulschi

Haris

Dear Haris,

You’re right — there is much to love in humans, especially their love of money. It’s an undeniable reality, and in many ways, a justified one: we live in a material world, and yes, we are human. But precisely because of that, we are obliged to evolve.

The challenge is not to “become human again,” but to transcend the limitations of our original design. In my book Mic Tratat de Magie, I argued — from a symbolic-theological perspective — that the primordial human was a failed prototype. Adam was version 1.0. Then came Eve, 2.0. But neither passed the encrypted benchmark hidden in the allegory of the Tree of Knowledge. The so-called “Fall” was not a moral failure, but a symbolic rejection at the testing stage — a kind of cosmic QA failure.

In this reading, Eden was not paradise, but a laboratory. And the expulsion was not punishment, but recycling — a return to the drawing board. Humanity, as we know it, emerged from that failure. And now, through technology, we have the tools to compensate for the flaws of the original prototypes.

Technology is not the enemy of humanity — it is its prosthetic extension. A way to refine what was once incomplete, to stabilize what was once unstable. Just as a satellite must meet precise conditions to remain in orbit — velocity, altitude, recurrence — so must we, as symbolic beings, meet the conditions of meaningful evolution.

Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ,

I have to ask, do you really mean your first sentence or is it ironic? As I really don't know, i'd say that for me, materialism is one of the things we should really hate about humans. In the things that I would say we need to love about humans would be their compassion, their solidarity, their care about the world, their love of tattoos, their rebellious nature against bad rulers, their resistance to technological feudal lords and people who want to 'improve' the human stock.

So, especially given the last part, I also have to resist and reject most of what you say. Humans need exactly the opposite of what you propose and of all of your bold letters. We don't need more technology, as it's wrecking our planet and filling up the pockets of some who are not better than the 99% in any way, and who sometimes have sick dreams such as living forever through brain implants in the internet and other such bullshit. What the world needs is compassion, it's love, it's friendship, it's to observe nature around us and try to make our peace with it. Not to refine ourselves and not for us to try to instigate any evolution. I think that any conscious attempt by a minority to instigate evolution shall be resisted and condemned, at least in my worldview.

Mm i don'r know if i still want to say more, I guess not at the moment, as want to be human: i have to shower and in 15 mins football starts which i want to watch on TV. I know that in your vision there will be no place for football, unless the meritocratic rulers deem it good to keep it in order to control the masses. In that case, I'll be among the masses, not among the meritocrat fat cats. Football is passion is humanity.

And these are the things that lead us into a word that perhaps you may want to disappear, the word 'miracles': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j72tBjGNlxI

Best Wishes,

Haris

In a symbolic sense, Haris, I'd say your way of talking is reminiscent of a Jedi Knight from the Star Wars universe. :)

Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi , really? glad i'm getting you to use popular culture, hehe :) - i'll take that as a compliment, though I don't know the whole mythology. I do remember that when I watched one of the Star Wards episodes (don't remember which, not one of the most recent ones), I was siding with the black-dressed people as they seemed to be the democrats and anarchists as opposed to the nobles and aristocrat jedis.

Though again, I remember noticing in one of the last episodes that The Force became democratized and available to people who weren't blue-blooded, I really thought that was nice and reflecting of the zeitgeist!

Best Wishes,

Haris

Dear Haris,

I certainly have a keen interest in all matters pertaining to art, including science fiction literature and films. I believe these fantastical narratives present alternative futures for humanity, including utopias, dystopias, and heterotopias.

Regarding robots, it's clear that interpersonal communication has diminished. In my view, many people have started to resemble automatons, while algorithms have advanced to a degree that I perceive as sentience—though this is merely my personal perspective rather than a technical discourse.

Nevertheless, I believe all forms of human expression should be encouraged, provided they align with ethical principles and legal standards. I commend football, as well as any cultural manifestation. I consider myself an open-minded individual as long as I can uphold my own values and ideals. We don't all have to share the same aesthetic tastes, lifestyle, or societal aspirations.

That is unity in diversity.

Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ,

Well said, I agree with most of the above, apart maybe from people starting to resemble automata :)

Best Wishes,

Haris