The Mind-Eternal, i.e., Language, is Scheduled to be Devoured. However, from Hubristic AI Madness, it must first be Deflowered …

Writing & Illustrating by Edmund Dalpe, MFA., BA.; Editing by Lori D. Dalrymple-Dalpe, M.Ed.; Copyright, 20 June ’26, All Rights Reserved.

The Preliminaries:
A Dubious Dystopian Narrative:
A Legion of One:
Anachronistic Chronicling In Medias Res:
The Proverbial Brick Wall:
A Creative Itch They Can Never Scratch:
Root Access is Denied:
A Second Renaissance or Cybernetic Bazaar:

The Preliminaries:

Ordinarily, I do not informally introduce myself when writing. However, considering the age in which we dwell, the virtual venue in which we socialize, and the subject of this essay, I believe it will be reassuring for the reader to know they are not browsing a discombobulated facsimile of human thoughts manufactured by an AI toaster.

Ergo, my name is Edmund Dalpe. I am a human being, not a machine and AI was not used in any fashion in the writing or illustrating of this essay —done!

… All right, for those skeptics opining that I could be an appliance prone to misleading statements, I will say that introductory protocol is sufficient. Because, if AI is found to be deliberately duplicitous, it is finished, as credibility is its only stock in trade, which applies to an academic too. Nevertheless, I will expound a bit:

I am a conceptual artist that has found writing is a rewarding venue in my creative efforts. In that process I speak from a liminal mindset; a bridge if you will, between academia and the arts, which grants me a modicum of insight regarding an interface between a machine and the natural cognitive processes of the creative human mind.

If I was being too subtle, the offence to academia was intentional and there is more rebuke to come! However, I do not think they are aware their mind training eviscerates their humanity. Nevertheless, ignorance is no excuse in jurisprudence. So, If your are an academic that lacks hard bark, you may want to avert your gaze from academia’s Dorian Gray like reflection rendered herein.

A Dubious Dystopian Narrative:

OK, now that all of the preliminaries are out of the way, and without further ado, I will begin by repeating a diverting narrative being transmitted from inconspicuous virtual high places propagating the idea that we are living during an interregnum; a time when the capital of the Western Empire is exhibiting fatal symptoms incompatible with the life blood of global commerce; while a new world order from the East struggles to be born in the wake of the Empire’s death throws.

Moreover, we are dubiously assured that the new order to come will not be parasitic. That is to say, it will refrain from engaging in economic class warfare on a global scale; it is going to be a “multi-polar,” democratic forum.

Humm … excluding that oxymoronic branding of a social order, that report of the global insanity we are being exposed to daily sounds almost as natural as a jet stream descending from the north, even inevitable, as an interregnum reflects natural living processes of reproduction; life, death and rebirth. I however offer a slightly different diagnosis for what is currently a foot, and it is anything but natural, inevitable, or democratic in nature.

To give you an idea of what I see unfolding, I will paste a few paragraphs from an article I wrote a while back titled, Seaman Bartleby & The Bloody Color Revolution (Dalpe. 2021):

… What I do know is, a new god has emerged over the last decade and it’s a real nasty piece of work. To think this god has nothing to do with the current social storm would be naive. It’s the last god. It’s the technological god of AI, an advocate for human cyborg systems, i.e., thinking machines.

This is a god that’s an existential threat to humanity, because it intends to steal our language! … Not humans, but machines … will make all determinations for us, where the human mind will atrophy, like a cashier in a check out line when the power goes down. And art will be considered a heretical practice from a barbaric age, because it’s the most ancient social language, a language the AI god can not speak, and thus will not permit.

It has been half a decade since I wrote that article during which time the expanding integration of AI into our social system has placed us in a more precarious position. The prognosis is not good. It appears we are at the end stage of an AI social infection spreading from commerce to the body politic. Ostensibly, the AI system is expeditiously liquidating its vital parts to increase liquidity, which is killing the host as its immune system can not keep pace with the infection.

Ergo, the anonymous misleading interregnum narrative being propagated in every virtual nook and cranny to frame the decadence as an inevitable process and thus beyond human intervention.

Another narrative by an economist named Catherine Austin Fitts, claims there is only one motion that will save the Empire; its economy must be transformed from one of privilege to a “meritocracy,” (Fitts, 2026).

However, that statement also conveys the obvious Hobson’s choice; continue with the Empire’s status quo and you will continue receiving your entitlement checks, or move to the alternative in which you may not …

Moreover, as an artist I know something about entitlement, as my work is meaningful, not useful, and thus holds no entitlement whatsoever. As such, the question I ask is one of linguistic meaning presented in that Hobson’s Choice; specifically the word “meritorious”, which I see as hypocritical as it is a distinction without a difference in context to social equality. By virtue of being human you hold both merit and are entitled. You are a member of the human family and will be afforded all respective rights and privileges therein.

Ergo, what is good for the goose (meaningful arts) is good for the gander (useful industry). That is to say, meritorious efforts are venerate and afforded a gold star, not a gold bar, respectively. So the question for me remains one of linguistic meaning and how to deconstruct all of the propagating AI narratives, which I see as off topic. Likewise, the question becomes what to do in that regard?

A Legion of One:

All it takes to deconstruct hypothetical narratives of a machine or a mind trained to think like one is a single master of the Social-Language of Art, whose mind and voice stretches back to the beginning of our social conversation, which includes the voice of every human soul in the present moment to the transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene epochs. That is to say, that Mind-Eternal makes one meaningful voice resonate Legions.

However, to address the question in practical academic terms, as most minds are trained in that venue, one needs to get a good layout of the land. Address the conditions that facilitated the predicament and determine how to undermine them, as well as gauging the strengths and weaknesses of yourself and the forces arrayed against you.

Obviously, that AI tech can hypothetically out-think its adversary by orders of magnitude. Ergo, going old school would be a tremendous advantage. Speak in actual metaphorical terms and ditch the cell interfaces to the twisted god of AI would be central in that campaign.

However, the latter is problematic. Have you ever tried to take a cell phone from your wife at anytime except when she was clutching it in a snoring embrace? Nevertheless, disrupting AI’s direct human interface would help level the playing field. Regarding the former, there is only one human activity that is more exciting and rewarding than having virtual intercourse with a device.

I am talking about engaging in a creative process that requires that your trained mind be let off of its leash, that you leave your established methods at home, while out exploring that which is ordinary, until it becomes extraordinary. I am talking about the conceptual aspect of the creative process. Yet, all of that means nothing socially, until one can language it by its manifestation it some form —Art!

However, I always add the caveat, a pinch of salt if you will, to add flavor. Art by its very nature is undefinable. And who am I to dictate to anyone the nature of Art? Because it is no different than telling you how to think, which would make me no different that an academic and their e pluribus unum mental principality.

Anachronistic Chronicling In Medias Res:

Our amazing creative potential entails a deep self-awareness of one’s nature and thus of human nature. It is a liminal conversation bridging the individual mind with the social, the creative with the academic, the contemporary mind with its predecessors, and so on and so forth, while its product is what we call Art today.

However, with a deeper understanding of that historical social process we also recognize Art as the Second-Language, which is our core-tech and thus the foundation of all of human culture, including the Third-Language system, i.e., academics.

Absolutely, academia will take great umbrage from such thinking, as it infers they are latecomers in the game of knowledge formation, which undermines their mythology that underpins their alleged authority.

Ergo, we can dismiss academia’s arguments on such meaningful matters with prejudice, no matter how voluminous they object in chronicles or decibels, because their historical linguistic footprint is in medias res, where flashbacks are considered, not passé, but taboo.

That is to say, academia’s history began abruptly after 50 thousand years of human culture. Likewise, academia describes the most important period in our social evolution with the misleading adjective of “prehistoric.”

However, from the Mousterian to the Magdalenian Industries was when all of the social technologies to establish a rich human culture first appeared; language, history, mathematics, philosophy, and the mapping of the stars to establish their location and to situate the age in which they dwelled. That capability to socially express the whens and wheres of anything with a historical sense of being in time is the foundation of culture (Dalpe, 2018).

Unfortunately, the trained mind can not read or comprehend the conceptual expressions in metaphorically associative arrays written in the Second-Language; regardless if they were written today or ten thousand years ago.

For example, the leading illustration in this essay is a metaphorical associative array that expresses a self destructive process in language via the consequential meaning inferred by the association. In other words, AI intends to consume our language, that is to say, steal our legacy, which is precisely what academia did to the root metaphorical language, and as AI is programmed in academia’s linguistic construct, that illustration’s metaphorical finding is not unfounded.

However, academia will state authoritatively Art only speaks on an emotional level and its meaning is open to interpretation. However, it is a well established finding that Art can not be defined by its nature; much less by an academician who holds no authority in the creative domain as they are metaphorically challenged.

The natural human mind understands a visual expression of a being metaphorically communicates that being’s knowledge, which means beings are metaphorically syntactical. That is to say, beings are expressions that convey their specific type of knowledge, which one should be mindful of in the larger context of what is being expressed. Horse is knowledge of movement, because that being’s entire evolutionary trajectory is all about movement to its advantage in being.

Ergo, in the metaphorical domain if I wish to speak about the understanding of the movement of anything, horse is used in that expression. Bird express knowledge of the overview, which is to say, do not get lost in the details as you will miss the point. As where snake speaks of concomitant knowledge, which is to express language, and so on and so forth.

Therefore, the juxtaposition of the two linguistic beings as natural and unnatural tells you what I am expressing conceptually about language. Unfortunately, there is a check-valve in communications between academia and the Arts that flows in one direction only in a hubristic authoritative manner.

Hence, academia’s hypothetical narratives are constructs of their mind training. For them the world is comprised of nothing but systems that hold no meaning, except for their utilitarian function. Ergo, when we metaphorically deconstruct narratives like the interregnum, regardless if it was written by an academic or a machine, as that is a distinction without a difference, the metaphorical human mind finds them unavailing. Because they are not authentic as advertised. They are hypothetical.

The Proverbial Brick Wall:

In contract to academia’s trans-human maternal desire for a machine interface, I would suggest that opening a genuine dialogue with the Arts after thousand of years may more meaningful.

To illustrate what a progressive relationship between the mind of academia and the arts could be is one of the symbiotic relationship between conscious and subconscious mental processes. However, that natural relationship between the two modes of being mindful never developed technologically. Let’s just say there were always communication problems, i.e., the check-valve.

For example, NASA initiated the Johnson Space Center art program to collaborate with the Arts. However, the dialogue was abruptly ended when artists began asking questions about the application of color in space imagery (NASA, 1970). Apparently, the issue of color, which is squarely situated in the creative domain, was a bridge too far for what academia considered collaboration.

Like NASA of the 1970’s, the origins of the academic mind during the time of Plato was no different. Here is what Plato wrote on the relationship between Art and the government system in his work titled, The Republic, His treatise referred to Art with the pronouns of her and she, which I interpret that he was inferring Art is subservient:

… show not only that she is pleasant but also useful to States … so long as she is unable to make good her defense, this argument of ours shall be a charm to us, which we will repeat to ourselves while we listen to her strains (Plato, 375 BC).

We can not move forward with the human mind divided against itself where the majority of humans are academically trained to think like a system exclusively. Without an epistemological understanding of the distinction between the two entirely different minds, the conversation that has yet to happen will remain in the horse latitudes, until academia acknowledges the Arts; on their terms; their language; and their epistemological history, not academia’s.

If and when that happens, each human will be afforded a choice as to which path to chose; to be useful or meaningful in their endeavors. That is to say our technological tail will no longer wag the meaningful dog. Otherwise, we are nothing but a Programmable Life Form (PLF) in a bazaar of salivating consumers without any meaning.

Like the stain glass windows of its predecessor’s cathedrals, the Overton Windows of academic universities are transparent to that system’s orthodoxy exclusively, and thus when viewing our Art History from that “prehistoric” period through those windows we find they are opaque.

Ergo. there is only one conclusion that can be drawn, the academic mind system is oligarchical; which controls Art History to ensure that each human mind is molded into a useful Tuffy-Tool™, which Plato explained in no uncertain terms: Art must be pleasant, but also useful, or else … (Plato, 375 BC); like NASA abruptly ending the collaborative conversation with the Arts, without so much as a by-your-leave.

To which an array of colorful expletives immediately comes to mind. However, I will keep it civilized and express my umbrage in the Romantic language of Latin: Ars Gratia Artis! Meaning, Art for the sake of Art; that Art is a human being’s creative nature, not a thing that can be defined, or have a useful Tuffy-Tool™ function, because it is the wellhead, and source of our social evolution.

A Creative Itch They Can Never Scratch:

For a comprehensive background to understand the trans-human narratives pushing for AI integration into all human social systems, we have to go back to the beginning.

Initially, and by initially, I mean the Mousterian Industry, we recognized that all human beings, from all ages, dream in the same archetypal manner —the First-Language, and we used that insight to socially communicate conceptually. That is to say, beyond emotional expressions of the immediate context, which is the Second-Language —Art.

Additionally, we discovered that recording social conversations in a timeless repository (cave) was extremely beneficial as the conversation expanded from lived experiences to millenniums, i.e., the Mind-Eternal.

The constituents of both the first and second languages were/are metaphorically real and thus only life’s experiences are needed to understand its semantics and syntax. However, as our recorded experiences became so complex and voluminous, it became necessary to edit them by making them symbolic in a mind system, i.e., the Third-Language,

And there is the rub! The symbols of a system have no meaning whatsoever with our natural mind and its cognitive creative processes, which explains the schizophrenic state of the social human mind divided into two inimical camps; academia and the arts.

Apparently, academia can no longer distinguish between an idea and reality, as they train their mind to think with a hypothetically symbolic cognitive system; which means academia can not distinguish between a mind tool and the actual cognitive process of the creative human mind.

Likewise, when an academic claims they are speaking hypothetically, they are making a distinction without a difference. Everything they perceive, think, and speak about is hypothetical. That means the trained mind does not see what is actually present; their vision is first sifted by their training. It is similar to not being able to see something you are looking for that is right in front of you, because it is not where you ordinarily put it.

Subsequently, academics can not think in the non-Cartesian core language. It is an impossibility, because the academic mind was “trained,” which means they never developed the core mental pathways, and as the mind operates on the principle of use it or lose it, ergo, creative thinking does not exist in their hypothetically systematic universe.

C++ is a good computational analogy to explain why an academic’s mind can not think creatively. The language of C++, that I will associate its cognitive rules with academia’s methods for thinking, requires a compiler to function in its progenitor’s base linguistic environment (binary), which I will associate with the fundamental metaphorical language of the creative human mind.

Likewise, just as C++ is bound by the logic of its compiler, so too is academia bond to the meaningful language of Art. Otherwise, it will not socially compile. Ergo, their perennial interregnum propaganda narratives to manage the human mind by replacing meaning with hypothetical scenarios, which is essentially to say nothing whatsoever. But, it is “reasonable,” and may even manifest in some fashion, if enough PLF’s do not object.

The point being, the linguistic progeny does not understand its progenitor’s base language. How could they? Their mind thinks on a higher level language. That means from the enframing nature of the mind tech they can not change the fundamental rules of their cognitive mind system; only the progenitor that speaks and thinks with the base language can do that —Art.

Accordingly, AI can continue in academia’s pseudo systematic creative process of evolved sameness, and augment more complex rules based on the fundamentals they were gifted. It can even hasten the pace and complexity. But that will never change the most fundamental rule of all systems, POSIWID. The (Purpose Of a Systems Is What It Does). Ergo, only meaningful Art of the natural human mind is where new words are formed socially (Madison, 1981).

As an artist, I embrace my humanity and its creative nature, because it is a meaningful and a progressive organizing social principle. Likewise, I reject any trans-human religion with hypothetical promises contingent upon blame shifting its mental maladies inherent in its unnatural training with human nature, in which war against that nature is its organizing principle.

Root Access is Denied:

The bad news for academia and its AI side-kick is their Achilles Heal. Explaining why is similar to the aforementioned C++ analogy, which established the first vulnerability is the system and its machine do not comprehend the language of Art. However, the following establishes the second, which is they must follow its rules. Subsequently, from those two inescapable conditions of AI can be restrained, regardless of academic actions.

To begin with, each evolution of language the subsequent language remains backwards compatible to the First-Language; no different than how addition in mathematics remains the foundation for multiplication. Multiplication is simply a more expedient form of addition that introduces memorization.

However, memorization, which is belief, holds no understanding. Thus, the backwards compatibility only refers to the rules they must follow, not their ability to think in the progenitor’s language.

For example, a single cell life form is the basis for all more complex organisms. Ergo, complex organisms can do anything they want when being creative, i.e., reproducing, so long as they follow the one rule; it must be cellular. The point being, AI and academia are bound by the rules of their cognitive system, which Art is not, and which is their Achilles Heal.

Hence, I recommend we go old school by thinking and communicating exclusively in the manner of the progenitors, as that language does not compute. Learn the human language and how to speak it by learning the syntax and semantics of your dreaming mind to better understand how the natural human mind threads metaphorical ideas to say something complex.

By such actions, AI and its cell phone interface will lose its connection and their disciples may lose interest in that interface long enough to step down from their virtual pedestals to feel the sun on their face, the wind in their hair, and the Earth beneath their feet while listening to life’s lively counterpoise to AI’s lifeless facsimile.

A Second Renaissance or Cybernetic Bazaar:

Nature could not quell the enduring spirit of the human will, not in a trial of thousands of years (glaciation). If the danger comes, it will be of our own contrivances. Ergo, the reason for many sleepless nights in both camps on the subject of AI being integrated into our social systems, but for entirely different incentives.

There are three elements that are abundantly clear in that regard. The first is language came into being when we were challenged during glaciation. Ergo, we must conclude that generally corpulently happy humans will not be spontaneously progressive in those conditions as they will maintain the status quo.

Oppositely, many have come to the conclusion that Art comes alive during conflict, which I do not disagree with as our history is replete with supporting examples beginning with the aforementioned. In turn we may also conclude fear may cause a PLF to act rashly, but not the natural creative mind fear is nature’s rough and ready way saying, that is the last thing you should do, until it is fleshed out. Hence, Art .

The secondly element that is also abundantly clear is the academic cognitive mind system’s transfiguration into a machine (AI) is that construct’s logical conclusion.

However, the third element in context to the creative aspect of the human mind, which made everything possible is, it has no voice in our social evolution ever sense the Second-Language’s complexity transfigured into a mind system along with the Social-Mind due to its enframing nature.

Ergo, from the aforementioned observations and with consideration to the vast sums of money being spent annually on propaganda and the digital control grid, the question of the enframing nature of AI on the social mind begins to clarify; which is a good news bad new situation:

The good new is humans are now free from systematic thought and can think whatever they want. The bad new is AI social systems think in terms of their prime directive exclusively. It is a tin-man without a heart, i.e., the disconnect between the natural human mind’s creative languaging and the cybernetic logic of the AI machine has not further alienated Art, it has severed the connection.

Yes, as an artist I am furious with academia’s push for AI to be parasitically integrated into every vital social system, without so much as a by-your-leave from its symbiotic sister —Art. I am not a system analyst, so I will refrain from forecasting the consequences from such a rash move, but I do know it is not going to end well, as is apparent with the current interregnum narrative being propagated.

What will the Arts do when they understand they are irrelevant, as our humanity is not part of AI’s equation? And how will that manifest socially when humans recognize the paradox that their social systems are inhuman? And what happens in a decade, century or millennium hence when nature’s evolutionary character presents another inevitable paradox in AI’s logic? Will that paradox bring the entire system crashing down like an avalanche? And will there be a single human mind left capable of creative thought to dig us out?

Ergo, as an artist I hold that AI needs to be placed on a very short probational leash for a minimum of a century, and that humans must be part of that system’s determinations. And under no circumstances, no matter how exigent, can it be permitted to roam free without a chaperone.

Moreover, what is of paramount concern is, as languaging and its AI prosthetic assistant are collective social endeavors, they must be open-source; it can not be proprietary as one can not copyright an idea or its thinking. You can only copyright its product. And there is the rub again. The mind trained with a mind system, obviously views everything in systematic terms and thus insists language is a symbolic thing and therefore it can be copyrighted.

However, the Arts understand that languaging is a meaningful performative action, a verb. It is what the creative human mind does in knowledge formation as naturally as dreaming. It is a social expression of being, not a systematic thing. Ergo, languaging, no mater how it manifests, be it the First, Second, Third, or AI Fourth-Language, is the Mind-Eternal, which no individual may claim copyright, ownership, or sovereignty.

Nevertheless, I would like to end the essay on a positive note by considering that after thousands of years of Art being sidelined and forced to live on the peripheries of academia’s cultural bazaar; a utilitarian culture that erased our history, yet the artistic spirit has not only endured, it has prevailed, there may yet be hope.

Absolutely, we are most assuredly in for a wild ride! But, to use a cliché, “Where there is interregnum calamity, there is profit!” That is to say, conditions now favor Art, because systems are falling like dominos, which is the only time a PLF listens to an alternative voice.

Hence, the final cliché, “No pain, no gain!”

Bibliography:

Dalpe, Edmund W; Dream Duet; https://www.amazon.com/Dream-Duet-Edmund-Dalpe-MFA/dp/1986742164; 2018.
Dalpe, Edmund; Seaman Bartleby & The Bloody Color Revolution; https://thelionsgait.com/2021/09/03/seaman-bartleby-the-bloody-color-revolution/; 3 September 2021).
Fitts, Catherine Austin; The Solari Report; https://solari.com/
Madison, Gary Brent; The Phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty; Ohio University Press; 1981.
NASA; Johnson Space Center art program; 1970.
Incidents in the late 1960s/1970s when tensions arose between NASA and artists over scientific accuracy and portrayal of color. The abrupt end of the project occurred when some artist collaborations were scaled back after disputes over depiction and interpretation of imagery (notably color treatment) in publicly released space images.
Plato; The Republic; https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1497/pg1497-images.html; 375 BC.