If the Mind-Eternal is to be Devoured, 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.

“What is abundantly clear is the transformation of the academic mind-system from human to machine is that construct’s logical conclusion (AI); which is auspicious news for the Arts, whom are now free from academia’s interference. However, when we consider the vast sums of money being spent annually on propaganda and the digital AI control grid, the question of what the enframing nature of AI on the civilian mind will be, begins to clarify.”

Edmund Dalpe, MFA. July 4^th 2026.

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 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 appliance.

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.

In the future we can expedite the protocol, in the same way we use non-GMO and organically grown labels to identify foods we prefer for healthy minds and bodies. I think we should use the positive, not the negative label approach. That is to say, BE (Biological-Expressions), or or HE (Human Expressions) as opposed to non-AI. 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 about an interface between a machine and the natural cognitive processes of the creative human mind.

If I was being too subtle, the offense to academia was deliberate, and there is more rebuke to come! Unquestionably, they are unaware their mind training eviscerates their humanity. Nevertheless, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of 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 hypothesis 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 cannibalism as an inevitable natural process and thus beyond human intervention.

Catherine Austin Fitts, an acclaimed economist, asserts 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, Fitts 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 …

As an artist, I know something about entitlement, as my work is meaningful, not useful, and thus holds no entitlement whatsoever. So the question I ask relates to the meaning of the word “meritorious.” Who decides what is or is not meritorious and how does that determine entitlement? 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.

I am not interested in economics per-se, I am concerned with its marriage with AI, along with every other aspect of our culture; including the propagation of misleading and distracting narratives choking the commons; while the voice of the Art’s are limiting to a cybernetic appliance’s renditions of eclectic pseudo-art that prove novel, but as unavailing as its interregnum narrative.

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 central issue of the exclusion of the Arts in practical academic terms, as most minds are trained in that venue presently, 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. However, there is a gulf between a hypothetical idea, and what is metaphorically real. Ergo, going old school would be a tremendous advantage by speaking in objectively real metaphorical terms, and ditching the cell interfaces to the twisted god of AI would be central in a campaign to give voice to the Arts.

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 in some form in the Second-Language —Art!

Nevertheless, that is my understanding of Art, 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. For me, that process is a liminal conversation, a bridging process between the subconscious with the conscious mind, the individual with the social, the creative with the academic, the contemporary 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. That is to say, Art is the technological externalization of the human mind’s imagination manifest socially, and thus the foundation of all of human culture, including its subsequent Third-Language mind-system, i.e., academics.

Absolutely, academia will take exception to such thinking, as it infers they are latecomers in the game of knowledge formation, which undermines their mythology that underpins their alleged authority in all matters both great and small. However, 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, as if we were transplanted from another realm, where the understanding of how imagination socially evolved into mathematics, will remain an epistemological mystery for the Cartesian trained mind.

However, the record on the cave walls shows the Second-Language -Art established mathematics (Dalpe, 2018, pgs. 65-72), not academia, along with an array of other accolades of which they claim authorship, but are not entitled. Subsequently, that plagiarism is used to justify the exclusion of the Arts in such knowledgeable matters as AI’s integration into ever aspect of our culture.

Characteristically, academia defines the most important period in our social evolution with the misleading adjective of “prehistoric.” However, from the late 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 what, where, and when of anything is the foundation of human culture (Dalpe, 2018).

Unfortunately, the Cartesian 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 during the Mousterian Industry.

Hence, the unnaturally trained mind has no choice, but to accept the myth of “prehistoric” on faith, because their history is incomplete. From which one must conclude the inevitable fallacy, that the imaginative cognitive domain of the Arts have nothing to do with knowledge formation, and thus are reasonably excluded from all academic matters regarding AI’s integration into human culture.

All of which makes perfect sense, if one recognizes the process as animal husbandry. For birds, their wings are clipped. However, for humans, their mind must be pruned. That is to say, its legacy had to become “Prehistoric” by its transfiguration into a Third-Language mind system; which restricts the creative human mind to Cartesian thinking exclusively; effectively culling their ability to recognize or understand their legacy; because that requires a maturely developed non-Cartesian human mind.

From Plato’s initial assault on Art to academia’s linguistic larceny, that husbanding process required more than two millenniums of regimenting the human mind. Being that we are at the final stage of that process of building AI factory farms globally, I would estimate the findings expressed in the lead illustration of this essay are not unfounded. Permit me to deconstruct that illustration as an example of how to read a conceptual idea in the Second-Language, Art:

Firstly, the visual expression is a metaphorical associative array that socially communicates 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.

However, academia will claim that visual expression is to be understood as the conscious use of imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated as beautiful. As a conceptual artist I beg to differ, as that lead illustration is far from being beautiful. It is the tip of the spear pointed directly at the trained mind’s lack of humanity, like the Francisco Goya’s painting of the Third of May 1808. That is to say, Art can be beautiful, but also manifest from conflict, and often expresses such unpleasant social reflections.

Moreover, it is well established that Art can not be defined by its nature; much less by an academician who holds no authority in the creative domain. For them the world is comprised of nothing but systems that hold no meaning, except for their utilitarian function.

Apparently, academia has determined that Art’s function would be best for all concerned if it is restricted to aesthetic matters befitting its station, and thus is not entitled to have a voice in such matters regarding the integration of AI into human culture. Notwithstanding that mindset, permit me to circle-back to deconstructing the lead illustration as an example of how to read a conceptual idea in the Second-Language, Art:

The natural human mind understands that a visual expressions of any being metaphorically communicates that being’s knowledge, which means they are syntactical expressions that convey their specific type of knowledge in the larger context of what is being expressed.

For example, horse is knowledge of movement, because that being’s entire evolutionary trajectory is all about movement to its advantage in being. That is to say, to the natural mind there is no distinction between the words being and knowledge. Ergo, a being does not have or hold knowledge, it is knowledge, which means each being expresses a unique type of knowledge.

Therefore, 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 procedure or the details, as you will miss the point, because what I am expressing requires non-Cartesian thinking. As where a snake’s mannerisms in the way it moves speaks of concomitant knowledge, hence language, and so on and so forth.

Accordingly, the aforementioned illustration’s juxtaposition of the two linguistic beings as natural and unnatural tells you what I am expressing conceptually about language. Likewise, if one studies the cave of Chauvet in the same manner, as it is spoken in the same language, you will be thunderstruck by their insightful intellect, passion, and social commitment (Dalpe, 2018, pgs. 104-130).

However, as today’s virtual communities are filled with conversation as if the hypothetical narratives are real, I have to ask the question, has the social mind already crossed the Rubicon? Are humans actually content to live their lives with meaningless words being force fed to them in a virtual Animal Farm, (Orwell, 1945)?

The Proverbial Brick Wall:

Contrasting academia’s trans-human maternal desire for a machine interface, I would suggest opening that pending dialogue with the Arts after thousand of years would be more apropos than conversing with an appliance. After all, under academia’s watch our cultural heritage has transfigured into a garishly sterile bazaar with it gilded plastic veneer. A dialogue would add a meaningful balance to our commercial culture if an Art museum were to be built, instead of another bank with its aberrant server farm.

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, respectively.

However, that natural relationship between the two modes of being mindful never developed technologically. Let’s just say there were always communication problems; understandably so, as the academic mind has difficulty with human imagination. Nevertheless, culturally, academia’s lack of any effort to open a dialogue with the Arts is unacceptable.

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 female pronouns, which I interpret as an inference that 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. 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 biased account.

However, 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’s epistemological history to ensure that each human mind does not understand how knowledge formation is built imaginatively, and thus is compelled to think academically to ensure that everyone 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).

How should an artist respond to such disrespect from one’s partner? I will avoid descending to Plato’s level of menacing discourse. Instead, I will express a collective disappointment of the Arts in the Romantic language of Latin: Ars Gratia Artis! Meaning, Art for the sake of Art; that Art can not be defined, or have a useful Tuffy-Tool™ function. It is the procedural mind, that is to say the academic mind, that hold that mantel of utility, and do not confuse one for the other.

If and when that conversation happens in a candid and respectful manner, 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 mind. Otherwise, we are nothing but a Programmable Life Form (PLF) in a bazaar of salivating consumers.

A Creative Itch They Can Never Scratch:

For a comprehensive background to understand the motivation for the trans-human narratives that are pushing for AI integration into all human social systems, and why the Arts must be excluded from that conversation, we have to go back to the beginning.

Initially, and by initially, I am referring to a historical period toward the end of the Mousterian Industry when 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 social dialogue 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 knowledge became voluminous and more complex, it became necessary to edit that knowledge by making it 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 processes, which explains the schizophrenic state of the social human mind divided into two inimical camps; academia and the arts.

Consequently, for academia to open a dialogue with the Arts, that would require more than an interpreter, because they are different cognitive domains. Academia trains the human mind to think with a symbolic mind-system; which means they can no longer distinguish between a mind tool and the actual cognitive process of the creative human mind, or subsequently discern the differences between an hypothetical idea and reality.

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. Ergo, trained cognitive blindness; what I like to call Academic Sensory Syndrome, or the ASS affliction for brevity.

Subsequently, the trained mind can not think or perceive in the non-Cartesian core language as they never developed their mind as nature intended, and as the mind operates on the principle of use it or lose it, ergo, the creative process does not exist in their hypothetically systematic universe.

C++ is a good computational analogy to explain why an academic’s mind can not think or perceive 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 bound to the meaningful language of Art. Otherwise, an academic’s hypothesis will not socially compile. Ergo, their perineal pseudo dialogues that replaces metaphorical meaning with hypotheticals, and as the Arts think and speak in objectively real metaphorical terms, they must be excluded from any hypothetical social discussions regarding the promotion of AI, because one meaningful metaphorical fact will unwind their entire hypothesis.

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), not what it claims. Ergo, only meaningful Art of the natural human mind is where new words are formed in our social evolution (Madison, 1981).

Root Access is Denied:

Academia and their cybernetic machine are expedient as well as tenacious, but they are not creative, they do not understand the compiler, and their methods must follow its rules. Art, however is creative, but it does not understand they built the compiler, and thus subsequently fail to recognize their methods are not limited to its rules. If I pose that as a question as to which of those two adversaries would prevail in a conflict, Sun Tzu would have concluded, that the former will be triumphant in ever single engagement, until the latter understands their nature.

To facilitate the conditions for such an eventuality, I recommend we think and communicate exclusively in our meaningful metaphorical language, not their hypothetical language-system; which is elementary, because that mind-system circumvents meaningful self understanding. That is to say, the weapon of choice in our current struggle is the pen, not the sword, which brings us to another cliché, the former is mightier than the latter.

In that campaign, we need to reset language to its original nesting place. Yes, we will lose expediency when communicating, because the Second-Language is not kludgey like the Third-Language, but that is all we will lose. What I am suggesting is we engage in the Art of metaphorically real social expressions beyond the boundaries of that system’s artificially constructed edifices.

We do not have to be technologically proficient in drawing. A squiggle will suffice, as our imagination will fill in the blanks. After all, that is what “words” are in the Third-Language; a series of abstractly drawn archetypes, i.e., squiggles. Fortuitously, academia will not understand such meaningful expressions, because their mind was not developed holistically, nor can academia’s cybernetic machine equate meaningful expressions in their equations.

Simply stated the Third-Language of a mind or machine thinks in letter-form phrases called words —plagiarized from the Arts, while the Second-Language of the Arts think in letter-forms, which are actually archetypes in building to new word phrases. As an example of how the Second-Language —Art, creates an associative array of “letter-forms,” which are actually archetypes, to express a conceptual theory, I will deconstruct the root of the word archetype, which is ARCHE:

(A) is the syntactical horns, albeit upside down for some systematic reason. Likely to avoid confusion with the (V). Nevertheless, (A) communicates an idea as opposed to something you actually perceived. In other words it is expressing a syntactical state of mind. (R) refers to that state of mind in context to (C), which is the horse’s mane and thus communicates knowledge of movement of that state of mind. (H) is a fence that metaphorically expresses a boundary, which subsequently conveys the idea of that which is peripheral, not central. (E) is the syntactical state of mind that actually perceives, it does not not apperceive like the (A).

Now, string the pearls, which expresses a state of mind whose attention moves between an idea and that which is actually along its peripheries. That is an imaginative story that presents an interesting concept about the nature of such a mind that is both Cartesian and non-Cartesian when it is being probative.

As is apparent the metaphorical images called letters build the meaning of words. As is also apparent, that process is not expedient. Four archetypes required significant mental contemplation to build meaning. Hence, the Third-Language utilizes memorization to convey the meaning of words as a kludge, in the same way multiplication uses memorization to expedite addition.

That learning process, if one can call it that, manifests an array of hilarious cognitive problems, like an artists conversation with an academic, which is like pulling teeth. However, for the purposes of this essay, such a mind can not move between cognitive domains. As previously stated, their mind training is not holistic, because they substituted memorization for meaning, which is essentially to transforms knowledge into a religion. Ergo, everyone knows it is impossible to argue with a devout believer, Hence, the dental pliers.

The process of understanding how the natural human mind threads metaphorical ideas to say something complex socially. is difficult even for the extemporaneously trained mind. Yet, well worth the effort, as we hold the capacity to create new words, which academia and their mental machine can not.

However, to understand how that creative process forms concepts, we need to recognize human syntax, which is not a systematic rule of mind, it is an array of various states of mind. Like the (A) explains how to situate your mind in its imaginative state; a state of mind that does not literally perceive; it apperceive in a larger context —archetypal, i.e., fire up the boiler!

Another example is when dreaming or imagining we are flying like a bird we are exploring our ideas from a state of mind that holds the commanding heights. That is to say, we must recognize how we are dreaming , not just what we are dreaming. Because that is the glue that forms the metaphorical aggregate. That is to say, it is the conceptual realm when we string the pearls.

However, there is one caveat, you can only use archetypes, if you want to speak socially. That is to say ideas we all share imaginatively by virtue of being human. Sure, some archetypes have adapted to the technological environments we have constructed. Like the horse is often expressed as a car, which is why those damn cars appear to have a mind of their own. Nevertheless, most remain the same, water is the mind, while fish expresses a change in the mind, because they are water beings that dart, and so on and so forth.

Such meaningful expression may move AI disciples to step down from their trans-human 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. Academia views their trans-human AI campaign as an existential struggle, as where the Arts understand it to be a door being slammed on that reconciliation long overdue. Hence, this essay for having my nose bent.

There are several 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 generally that corpulently satisfied humans will not be spontaneously progressive during favorable conditions and thus will maintain the status quo. To use a cliché, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Accordingly, many have come to the inescapable conclusion that Art comes alive during conflict, which I do not disagree with as walking straight into that proverbial brick wall, i.e., talking to an academic, is a guaranteed visit from the sand-man. That is to say, problems, especially exigent ones, fires up our imaginative boiler. It is what has kept us alive for eons. Moreover, our history is replete with supporting examples like the Renaissance that was marked with significant conflict and rivalries, particularly the protestant reformation.

What is also abundantly clear is the transformation of the academic mind-system from human to machine is that construct’s logical conclusion (AI); which is auspicious news for the Arts, whom are now free from academia’s interference. However, when we consider the vast sums of money being spent annually on propaganda and the digital AI control grid, the question of what the enframing nature of AI on the civilian mind will be, begins to clarify.

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. Accordingly, that conversation that has remained in the horse latitudes for millenniums will never happen. AI makes that abundantly clear.

I am not a system analyst, so I will refrain from forecasting the consequences from such a rash move, but, like most divorces, I do know it is not going to end well, as is apparent with the current interregnum narrative being propagated. Under such conditions, the best one can hope for is a memorandum of understanding (MOU).

However, as the odds of a MOU being honored are about 854,00 to 1, which is the number of days in academia’s brief, but violent oligarchical reign over the social mind and culture dating back to Plato, the question is, what will the Arts do? Will Art permit 50 thousand years of human history to be digitally erased, as our humanity is not part of AI’s equations? And how will that manifest socially when humans recognize the paradox that the social systems they built are inhuman? And what happens in a decade, century or millennium hence when nature’s evolutionary character presents the inevitable rudimentary 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 human oversight must be part of that system’s algorithms in perpetuity. Because what academia is doing by integrating AI into every social system, without so much as a by-your-leave from the Arts, will transform human culture as profoundly as the birth of the Mind-Eternal, that facilitated the transition from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural communities.

Hence the alpha and omega of that social experiment begins to materialize, and thus, under no circumstances, no matter how exigent, can AI be permitted to roam free without a chaperon from the creative domain.

Moreover, in context to that oversight, what is paramount is AI must be open-source, as no one can be excluded from that social process, nor can anyone copyright a language any more than one can copyright the being that has built and spoken that language for 50 millenniums.

And there is the rub again. The academic mind trained with a mind-system obviously views everything in systematic terms and thus insists language performed by a machine is also a thing and therefore it can be copyrighted.

I hope it is clear that is a genetic fallacy on par with Descartes’s Epistemological Doubt, (Searle, 2005), both of which are symptoms of a severe case of ASS, which makes it difficult for the trained mind to distinguish between hypothetical ideas and metaphorical reality. Claiming that a machine appears to be able to language does not make that language a thing, any more than my claim of a car that appears to move like a mustang must be a horse.

The Arts understand that languaging is a meaningful performative social 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 archetypal language of the dreaming mind, the second Social-Language of Art, the academic Third-Language mind-system, or the Fourth-Language’s machine automation of the Third-Language; all are different evolutions of the Mind-Eternal that began during the late Mousterian Industry, which no individual may claim copyright, ownership, or sovereignty, as they are not entitled.

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 another cliché, “Where there is interregnum calamity, there is profit!” That is to say, conditions now favor Art, because systems are falling like dominoes, 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/: 2026.
Madison, Gary Brent; The Phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty; Ohio University Press; 1981.
NASA; Johnson Space Center Art Program; 1970.
Orwell, George; Animal Farm; https://dn710604.ca.archive.org/0/items/AnimalFarmByGeorgeOrwell/Animal%20Farm%20by%20George%20Orwell.pdf: 1945.
Plato; The Republic; https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1497/pg1497-images.html; 375 BC.
Searle, John R.; Mind: A Brief Introduction; Oxford University Press, 2005.