Nisteling

It has been quite a deliberate decision on my part to steer as clear away as possible from any reference to the ‘world at war’ business that has been going on, on all of our television screens of late.

Yeah I have been in one of these -
they are hugely FAST!

For one thing, from a psychological perspective – and don’t forget, I have had some training in a classical school of psychology under the late Paul Ritter, the polymath who was one of the people who laid the foundation stones at the original World Trade Centre sites many many years ago now – so, well, from that perspective of psychology, the talking heads on our screens are exhibiting limited dimensionality in their ‘delivery...’

One of the most important ideas I have come across in recent times is something ‘invented’ I suppose, you might say, by another Australian – Robert J. Burrowes. He calls his idea ‘nisteling,’ which is a way of ‘deep listening’ to people when they speak or deliver a portrayal of their personality, whether in entertainment or in a political message or just generally, any communication that involves and includes their physical person. As you will certainly know, another nearby resident over here – Kate Bush – after many years, returned to the stage in an acclaimed concert in England. And of course, she is another of ‘we’ interested bystanders in psychology, in her case she has been a long-time proponent of Reichian ideas on physiological expression of the human psyche.

Another great mathematician and philosopher, A. K. Dewdney, the person who cast doubt on the technical reality of mobile phone calls from planes involved in the 9/11 affair, was another with much to say about dimensionality and how people use it and how it also ‘shapes’ the ways in which we act and move.

Pietro Frua's Monteverdi -
a 'sharp' design 

With true shape and geometry, you are still able to humanise the outcomes even when you employ very sharp lines and edges. One need only reflect on the work of the greatest Italian designers of recent times to see the subtlety that sharpness may display.

By contrast, current expressions of geopolitics are crude and blunt – and polyphonic. Well perhaps not polyphonic even though there may be some effort being exerted to make it so; it’s more cacophonic.

BNY Mellon was one of the first banks to ‘discover’ the impact of internet and computerised communications and data storing and analysis systems. They started a subsidiary variously called Eagle this-and-that back in the early 90’s – Eagle Star, I believe was an iteration which was quite famous and successful. Now, they are probably the leading financial technology providers who use ‘the Cloud.’ Personally I don’t have much problem with the Cloud at all, it’s another way Boston Intelligence establishments of the US government can have some control over the world – and they do it all quite efficiently. God, without these kinds of logistical understandings, the cheeseburger is going to be quite inaccessible to poor people like myself. I am fascinated that investment funds associated with Mellon are still able to return 12% when everything has been cut-back so much in order to procure what looks like the old school Harvard Business Method calculation annual growth figure.

The only difficulty in my mind, with the nominal results, is in the human delivery of the message. Neil Woodford, the leading light of these ‘investment funds’ sounds like he is talking about a wine brand. Sounds like he is a tee-totalling accountant talking about a wine... Sounds great, just doesn’t sound right to a wine drinker though. What do I know? He’s supposed to be in charge of billions. People give him billions apparently, to ‘look after’ and to invest. Which I suppose, is a great vote of confidence for the LSE where he got most of his academic credentials.

A girl sad because her iCloud
selfie account wasn't hacked.

Which leads me to a last fascinating point for today - can you learn to make a million bucks from ‘zilch’ base at an academic institution? Well... It seems that if you are as bright as Neil Woodford, you can certainly achieve an annual return of over 10% if people give you several billions to play with.

That however, is probably not, what you or I are intending to achieve. We, being on the poor end of the social and economic scales, are after much more absurdly ambitious percentages!

But then that’s what makes Woodford look and sound like a boring twat – he’s not overjoyed by the results he has achieved. But then again, that’s the difference between Pietro Frua and some faceless committee who designs Ford cars in the US to day. Frua’s children all made it to high security museums in Switzerland where people who appreciate them still make pilgrimage. The IRS has not understood enough to thieve the ownership plate numbers from compromised design collection managers – and they never will and they do not even care.

The subtle sharpness of great design is ever comprehended only by the few and the rare. To their great joy.