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:
An Army 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 Zoo:

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. 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! So, If your are an academic that lacks hard bark, you may want to exit stage left to avoid gazing on your a Dorian Gray 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 predicament as an inevitable process and thus beyond human intervention. 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, the question I ask is, what can an artist do in the face of such social insanity?

An Army of One:

Well … 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. That means in all probability you are likely to be an army of one. That is to say, the odds will not be in your favor, which means you need to think outside of the box —big-time. Trippendicular thinking from the 60’s may be in order.

Obviously, that tech can out think its adversary by orders of magnitude. Ergo, going old school would be a tremendous advantage. For example, ditching the cell interfaces to the twisted god of AI would be central in that campaign. However, that tech is AI’s back door harvesting social reactions to gauge the efficacy of its social engineering efforts.

What is problematic is the Hoi Polloi are made dependent on that device’s fabricated vital services, as well as its addictive social entertainment. I mean, 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, that is the key to disrupt AI’s direct human interface.

So, to break that AI connection 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 process that requires your mind is off of its trained leash, that you leave your methods behind, while 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!

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 social conversation bridging contemporary conditions and ideas with our predecessors’, 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. Art is the foundation of all knowledge. And as academic thinking is exclusively Cartesian, and thus the wrong cognitive venue for creative thought, they need to cease and desist from engaging in disingenuous creative theatrics and that they should remain in their hypothetical ditch where they belong.

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, their history began abruptly after 50 thousand years of human culture rich in Art.

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. The capability of that period to socially express the whens and wheres of anything with a historical sense of being in time is the foundation of culture.

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 relational meaning inferred by the association. In other words, I am using the Second-Language socially to state that AI intends to consume our language, that is to say, our legacy.

However, academia will state authoritatively Art only speaks on an emotional level and its meaning is open to interpretation. NO. They are wrong on both points, because the academic mind is not speaking or thinking in the human vernacular. They interpret knowledge as a thing, because their mind is trained to think with a system.

Regardless of their training, the natural human mind understands that beings are various types of knowledge; horse is knowledge of movement; bird is knowledge of the overview; and snake is concomitant knowledge, and so on and so forth. Therefore, the snake speaks of concomitant knowledge, which is to say language. The juxtaposition of the two beings as natural and unnatural tells you what I am expressing conceptually.

The Proverbial Brick Wall:

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.

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 understand 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 a mind divided against itself. Without an epistemological understanding of the distinction in functionality between the two entirely different minds, the conversation that is 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 have a choice as to which path to chose. Otherwise, we are just a Programmable Life Form (PLF).

Like the stain glass windows of its predecessor’s cathedrals, the Overton Windows of academic universities are transparent to visual orthodoxy exclusively, and thus our “other” history from that “prehistoric” period those windows are opaque. Ergo. there is only one conclusion that can be drawn, the academic mind system is oligarchical.

A Creative Itch They Can Never Scratch:

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 explain the schizophrenic state of the social human mind and its division into two inimical camps; academia and the arts.

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. To be candid, I think academia has finally lost what is left of its proverbial mind.

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.

Moreover, when an academic claims they are speaking hypothetically, they are making a distinction without a difference. 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.

That means, 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, the base language can think outside of the logic of C++, but C++ is bound by the logic of the compiler.

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 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.

Sure, academia can continue in their pseudo systematic creative process of evolved sameness, and augment more complex rules based on the fundamentals they were gifted. They can even hasten the pace and complexity with their machines. But that will never change the fact that academics are frustrated cyborgs with a creative itch they can never scratch. Ergo, only Art is where meaningful new words are formed socially (Madison, 1981).

Root Access is Denied:

Interestingly, in 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.

The backwards compatibility of the subsequent language only refers to the rules they must follow. For example, a single cell life form is the basis for all more complex organisms. Ergo, complex organisms can do anything they want 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 is their Achilles Heal. Hence, I recommend we think exclusively in the manner of the progenitors. Speak metaphorically with images like the one at the beginning of this essay that hold meaningful impact. Share your experiences with genuine human expressions.

As an added bonus, by such actions, their disciples may lose interest in their AI 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 Zoo:

Nature could not quell the enduring spirit of the human will, not in a trial of a thousand years (glaciation). If the danger comes, it will be of our own contrivances.

Ergo, the question that is causing many sleepless nights in both camps, but for entirely different reasons is, will AI facilitate a Renaissance in human culture or will we descend into a zoo?

What is abundantly clear is the academic cognitive mind system’s transfiguration into a machine (AI) is that construct’s logical conclusion. And good riddens to academia and its mind system. Finally the human mind can free itself of a systematic parasite infecting its thoughts, as humans no longer need to be trained to think like cyborgs in order to run its industry.

However, if we consider the vast sums of money spent annually on propaganda and the digital control grid, the question is, what justification do they hold for exorcising such a contrivance over the creative human mind and its will?

Moreover, when we consider academia is no longer training PLFs as it is too busy training AI, the answer becomes woefully apparent.

Then in a century or millennium hence, what happens when nature’s evolutionary character presents the inevitable paradox in AI system? 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?

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 culture, a 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, where there is calamity there is profit! That is to say, conditions now favor Art, because systems are failing 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; 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.