Tag Archives: innovation

An Introduction to “Subject- & Object-Oriented Programming”

Do, “while, and “for” are what are known as “looping conditionals” in JavaScript. In this article, I propose a new such conditional: “be”.

Before we delve into be, a clarification and addendum are in order.  Be by itself is not necessarily a looping conditional (unlike do, while, or for).  Be may also to be accompanied by not-be in any (non-)existential platform: not-be shall henceforth be notated as “!be”.  As in Java, the ! operator here simply means “not”.

Be and !be may form a coupled loop, consisting of both consciousness and unconsciousness as these two latter terms refer to awareness and unawareness (respectively).  Practically, then, be denotes any possible state or trait of awareness, whereas !be corresponds with any such state/trait of unawareness. Be and !be may each interchange with consciousness and unconsciousness (for reasons I will leave out of this article; but, am happy to engage with otherwise).

The current project–which I will henceforth call “2be || !2be?” (or “to be, or not to be?“, for the more Shakespeareanly-inclined)–may be described also as an “enactive”, computational one. Enactivism (as described in, e.g., Francisco Varela’s work) and performativity (consult, e.g., Judith Butler) are necessary to invoke for the set Po of possibilities afforded by both the ubiquity and foreseeable reiterations of mobile computing.  Po, then, consists of (non-)existential computing possibility.  (It is trivial to add Pfor the present context, if such probabilities happen to be more relevant.)

Next, come the highly challenging questions of how we are to program consciousness and unconsciousness (see, e.g., Doug Hofstadter and Hubert Dreyfus’ works for the best overview understandings of the former project).  The subject- and object-oriented programming (SOOP) paradigm I propose as an answer to these problems will be grounded around them.  Be and !be will serve as SOOP‘sprimitive” values, standing in for consciousness and unconsciousness (again, interchangeably).  Consciousness and unconsciousness (or, in this case, be/!be) are simultaneously variables and constants of the more specific psychological state or trait class. In this particular way, SOOP could be considered a preliminary psychological extension of quantum computing.

To conclude this post, an example of 2be || !2be? code is provided:


     count = 1
     be
     {
document.write(count + “ times 7 is “ + count * 7 +    “
”)
     }    while (++count <= 7)

hypothetical be…while loop

The output of SOOP™ programs like the above will be considered in this article’s successor.

References:

  • David Bohm, 1951:  Quantum Theory
  • Eric Dodson, Ph.D.
  • Martin Heidegger, 1953:  Being and Time
  • Robin Nixon, 2015:  Learning PHP, MySQL & JavaScript with JQuery, CSS & HTML5 (4th ed.)
  • William Shakespeare, 1603 (approx.): Hamlet
  • Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch, 2000: The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience
  • Judith Butler, 1990: Gender Trouble

* SOOP is a pending trademark of Suraj Sood.

Innovation, authentic entrepreneurship, and martyrdom

Today’s entry will deal primarily with the art of innovation.

Innovation is something of a buzzword among our generation–perhaps so much so that it’s no longer entirely clear what it means. Accordingly, it has become worthy of my more penetrating (and relatively practical!) philosophical attentions.

Here are a few of the things that genuine, true-to-heart and cutting-edge innovation entails:

  • An insatiable thirst to succeed;
  • The correct resources/resource-gathering strategies (tricky, for the self-sacrificing entrepreneur);
  • A clear passion for what one does (much easier to identify, than to truly follow);
  • The ability to keenly foresee consumer needs that are mostly invisible to others (most people can’t do this well);
  • The will to follow up on a vision and successfully bring one’s ideas to fruition; and
  • The ability to persuade prospective partners and the masses that one’s product is truly worth investing in, and is far more effective than everything else out there (exactly because it’s so different from everything else).

Not everyone has the resources, willpower, psychological resilience, or even the innate creativity necessary to be an authentic innovator. There are many phases involved the in process of innovating, and many personal traits required by the visionary–self-sacrifice and the willingness to risk it ‘all’ (i.e. one’s own sanity) high up among them.

To be clear, this post is nothing very innovative. But I think it’s important to pause on what makes something truly novel and worth its target market’s while. There’s a lot of talk about entrepreneurship and innovation in our generation, but not the appropriate amalgamation of factors to turn enough of our ideas into longstanding realities during our own lifetimes.

“During our own lifetimes”–to the aspiring innovator, that “our” is relatively immaterial. Why? Because this type of person sees past the confines of their present time, the conventions that define their surrounding society, the go-to methods it deems “correct, respectable and reliable” in order to succeed. What’s familiar and “secure” is by no means the driver behind the unique innovator’s work-related impetus.

The successful pioneer commits unhesitatingly to the future worth of their investments, and plants the seeds necessary for their efforts to be of worth to the hearts and souls of a posterity that will benefit from (and henceforth reap the rewards of) their work.

The biggest problem, however–as I will discuss in the forthcoming days–is that the overwhelming majority of self-labeling entrepreneurs are far more attached to their own egos and material success, than to the thought of enhancing the future of their species’ hitherto undefined standards of life.