AainaA

As envisaged in the 11th century, the future is not something you thread on lightly – it is a science, and like all proven sciences in the current inert world is still as fixed as any other fantasy statement.

One would consider without too much thought, the future as in yesterday’s tempest would still be as coherent as the century’s past “thought” of today. Just look at how a collection of Fatimid Glasses produced in Syria circa eleventh century would be more than welcomed at Sotheby from about 90k sterling each from the AlSabah collection. These were designed in the 11th century, and as much as the future has passed its stages from one family to the other, the value has not really evolved much.

I’ve been thinking what it would be like; say ten to twenty-five years from now, how the Internet would have at least changed the way people worked on it, or the fact the way people actually work – and assuming they do, on the platform they likely would embrace without choice. Seeing how the masses send text messages, and how the younger generation those who perceive the reality in images, instead of spelling out words, and more likely crunching numbers, and how user-interfaces and peripherals are being designed to fit into smaller carry-alls, be it a Gucci, Fendi or even a Kawakubo Rei, one would have, at the same time, considered at least the presence of nano-materials , and that too would play a role in the ‘evolution’ of the perceived ‘expectations’ of today.

Although I could, if I wanted to, hyper jump say about seventy-thousand years from now, and with that ‘hope’ that the minds of the masses would severely self-manifest a ‘state’ of the future beyond their in-time itself, and only then can we speak in terms of design, of the massive transformation between what is literally deemed the future, from what has been re-designed a thousand times but never managed to entice beyond say, the colours of Per Spook, Bodem coffee cups {o they all look bloody similar with nothing to note about the massive slants in yes, that too will change!! In the future, if one allows oneself going beyond the conventional thought}; or even the nano-tiles concept by Hiroo Iwata, or even Machiko Kusuhara’s supposedly defined ‘future’ in the areas of multimedia – of course, it is envisaged, welcomed to a degree, but how far into the future are we talking or even contemplating the future should be in terms of design when the current contemporary structure of the ‘perceived’ world has yet to embed itself strongly enough to account for a ‘future’ infrastructure before the culmination collective consciousness of its era, to determine, yes, that it is part of its era, and that yes, it did play a role in its ‘evolution’ but how many per cent of it would have played to ‘instigate’ say a whole new dimension in thinking, that would literally off-set the way the masses think?

“We can not afford, in our globalized, interdependent world, to turn over our otherwise intelligent minds to ideologies and theologies.  We cannot afford the divisiveness and arrogance inherent when one believes that theirs is the only way, the “right” way, and that other paths are “evil” or inferior even if they work very well ~ Earon Davis”

The Q in mind was prompted just hours ahead before Loic left a message on Twitter, asking what people in his list thought were the directions Twitter would most likely take. I thought of it … not so much how evolved things would be, rather how everyone would be — submissively fat, ugly and scornfully lazy. Unless they’re @loic, @mikiane, or … @sacca then of course, that’s another story altogether since they’re shakers instead of couch critics – they’re their own critics – these perfected reflective of those stars in the night skies that make for something of their own, or at least the platforms we’re all using to make our lives less misérable. I too could be in that square peg, but I know I’d never fit into a square peg, I’m too complexed a mind, a spirit as it is and not trying to be lofty, to the so-called entities who seem to think in my favour what I should be doing, if not for the world, at least to make them look good, because they’re seeing me, or keeping me as ‘friends’ in their pocketbook {O you know whom you are when you’re reading this!!}.

These people move about – I’ve been on Twitter for as long as I refuse to remember — its odd how humans must place a number {a time} to an edifice, or even contemplate the idea of ‘time’ in their in-time otherwise that too, would seem less credible – a measure of time in an illusory reality is still worthless to me, and to the many who think and perceive the reality beyond what one is experiencing today… but yes, being on the Net for a longer time, seeing these luminaries play roles here and there in one forum and the other, that likely over at the other… account at studying how these, the live wires in the night trailblaze paths for others to follow, but as envisaged in the 11th century, the future is not something you thread on lightly – it is a science, and like all proven sciences {not the least the ones you’d find to be still in a stimulus so to speak} in the current static world, though active as it may be, lest you forget your thoughts herein this illusory ‘holographic’ state is still as static as any other non-existent statement — yet when we do look, earnestly, nothing much has really changed or evolved – yes, the past was indeed in design, far superior in thought for they were, if they weren’t thinking or contemplating the design, of the Universe itself whereas these our laudable ones today, thought within their square pegs, and hope to only think outside the box, laterally, when they’ve literally exhausted their limitations.

How and where do I see Twitter, or the many applications that have more or less restructured how the connected world ‘work’ online?

I’d most likely see Twitter being more than a generic application – being exploited using APIs designed for both hardware and other software, I see it as being the ‘seed’ rather than seeing it just as another entity on its own, for to ‘evolve’ beyond just itself being an application like say electronic email, it would have to take unto newer dimensions – one cannot be say a generic applicable solution if one is constantly fused within oneself, not embracing part structure of say … a parameter value of ‘intelligent design’ in the sub-structure of a fantasy in an illusory holographic universe which in reality, is neither past, present or future, although in itself can be perceived as a working model for an idea that could be permissibly enhanced if need be, and in itself, approach its own development.

I also see it as being part of how communications, and telecommunications play in the future – how email has evolved over the ‘years’ not being unified in any way with other communication derivatives – the likes of facsimiles, voice and video mails etcetera, and where Twitter is concerned that could easily be transformed religiously into say a quantum computational consciousness, depending of course how far into the future, and how short a time do we envisage seeing the future of intelligent design being served in our peripherals, or even hardware.

Where do you ‘see’ applications like Twitter, say ten to twenty-five years from now ?