Writing about myself is not a hard topic. As I have the need of being heard, and having the space to express who I am, at least in a less inhibited manner, is very gratifying. The definition of what the expression “Who I am” stands for needs to be further developed, as yes I am a distinguishable concrete human being, yet my understanding of myself is limited, fractured, and cannot be covered by this writing.

So, the expression stands for “who I believe myself to be (partially), and feel the need to share” a sharing born of the need of being seen, of yearning to further explore this side of myself, and confident of having a sufficiently cultivated experience (where the criteria for sufficient cultivation are self-defined) that it can be spoken of and spring novelty in the form of curiosity or understanding, at the very least in myself.

This exercise of presenting who I am not by facts only, but rather also by hypotheses and languaging artifacts, is to be seen at both an ideological level and a capacity level. As it stands for both what I understand myself to be (in a constantly deconstructing/abstracting/re-defining manner) and what I can do intellectually speaking (for the yearning to further explore exists, thankfully). I apologize for unnecessarily complicated portrayal of ideas, erroneous usage of the English language, or a deficient ability to communicate effectively my ideas.

What I propose is simple: to read my testimony and, hopefully, the way I've written my testimony will invite you to go beyond a simple informational back and forth. Where we might be used to analyze information, discard or modify our current understanding and move on. Yet we as humans have the capacity to go beyond.

For example for the presented information analysis scenario we might analyze the information but also analyze the way we analyze the information, and modify or discard our way of analyzing. Or we might attempt to analyze the way we analyze the way we analyze information, at this level I personally find it significantly harder to conceptualize and apprehend in written language. Yet I believe it is possible to use more abstract languaging artifacts as tools to produce change at such level.

Personally said language presents itself as shapes/patterns that I consciously “push” as to achieve something, completely subjective. At a societal level (and throughout history), we see symbols as the tools used to do exactly that; apprehend and modify our understanding/perspective of themes at a level of higher abstraction. The levels at which you wish to explore this reading are up to you, but now that we've been temporarily made aware of this notion of vertical/abstracting complexity, learning/novelty can be much more alive. I use the term alive because I believe this much more holistc experiencing allows a more human way of living.

There is also the concept of horizontal complexity, where there is a never-ending broadness of topics and depth/granularity of any given topic, where a primary concern of mine is given this “infinite” opportunities for novelty in the informational back and forth, one might grow comfortable and never pursue a more demanding vertical level approach of understanding. I say grow comfortable, because I believe there is a need for the exploration and development of our higher level faculties.

Where some of you might have already connected said higher level faculties with what has been regarded throughout history as the spiritual side of human beings. This spiritual side is much more complex than the mere exploration of a given subject through higher level languaging artifacts. Is there such a thing as spiritual math? I've kept myself centered to Alphabet-centered systems because I currently lack the capacity to adequately express ideas in other systems, such as math.