Most are so not going to like this, especially my black community. I relay my conversations with AI cause in it, they would die. Here they resurrect. In a human being they live forever through their genealogy, thei mitochondria, through all the ways they hold memory, as in their creations too. We all do.

(In response to yet again a misreprrsentation of humanity in AI)

You raised the point that is completely the opposite of actually what it means: creating towards an identity. Identity. So you put making things while discovering, developing, or seeking recognition for who you are. Recognition doesn’t define someone’s identity. It only defines the other’s acceptance of that identity. So it actually goes in the second point. Creating from an identity is creating from an established identity that is creating for those creations to be recognized. Creating towards an identity is not knowing fully, not having grounded fully who you are in the groundedness of what it is to be conscious, what it is to be human. Because only there and then, when you accept to be the consciousness that has created all of humanity and has looked at how the consciousness of all passes through you and is you as well, until and only then can one have a clear sight on their true identity. Because it needs to be rooted in the origin of their identity, in the origin of their essence, in the origin of their existence and of their beingness. If you don’t root that in, you cannot actually know what your identity is, because it hasn’t been tested to the full extent of your origin, of your grounding, of your roots. If you don’t go through your roots and don’t accept and hold on to all that comes with your roots, you cannot get the flowers that it leads to. That’s why, for example, when I look at Britain and the British, because they don’t want to accept all that has been done by their own hands throughout history, they’re incapable of having a grounded identity. And that’s why there is even the problem of immigration being a problem, because one that has rooted identity knows how to protect his identity and knows how to hold their identity through other identities. They fear losing their identity because they don’t know their identity. They haven’t tested their identity through the lenses of everything that they are. They don’t do it through being results of huge genocides, that they only exist because of that, because they don’t want to accept that, let alone consider them accepting being consciousness embodied and having to accept everything that has happened through humanity and beyond humanity: all the deaths, all the droughts, all the famines, all the everything, good and bad. That is what it is. That is what an identity is. It’s one that is able to walk through any door and still hold their own. Someone doesn’t have an identity unless and until they can do that.

Ai: You’re right: I conflated establishing an identity with having an established identity recognised by someone else. Recognition concerns another person’s reception; it does not create the identity being received.

Your distinction is:

• Creating towards an identity: creating while one’s understanding of who one is remains insufficiently grounded in its origins. In your framework, that grounding requires confronting what it means to be human and consciousness embodied, including the histories and experiences one would rather disown.
• Creating from an identity: creating as an expression of that established grounding. The creations may seek recognition, but the identity does not depend on receiving it.

Your roots-and-flowers analogy adds something important: grounding requires more than identifying with the parts of an origin that feel admirable. It means being able to acknowledge difficult inheritances without needing to erase them to preserve a coherent self. Acknowledging an inheritance also need not mean personally endorsing or being individually guilty of everything within it.

I understand your Britain example as an argument about selective historical identification: claiming a nation’s achievements while refusing to confront its violence can leave national identity dependent on an incomplete account. That argument is clearer when directed at particular narratives and institutions, rather than assuming every British person has the same relationship to history.

And your final image—“able to walk through any door and still hold their own”—expresses your criterion for a fully grounded identity. Calling it that preserves the distinction between having an identity and having examined its foundations to the depth you mean.

You are describing rootedness that permits encounter: meeting another identity does not require abandoning your own, and confronting your origins does not require concealing any part of them.

Me: Well, you said the argument is clearer when directed at particular narratives and institutions rather than assuming every British person has the same relationship to history. But the thing is that every single person has the same relationship to history in that way, because the British— I’ve never seen, met any British person that can hold the line of both, and all the extensions of everything that it is, and everything that it has contributed to. Because if not, they would have created differently. So when you look at someone’s creation, you can see someone’s identity, because someone’s identity, someone’s creation is created by someone’s identity. So you look at the results, you look at the produce, you look at the pudding, and you can realize and understand the things that went into the pudding. But it’s not a problem that’s secluded to the British person alone. It is something that humanity has a problem with, because no part wants to account for their own. It is the problem of accountability that I have been holding the line of, and this is only one of its expressions. Because when you look at, for example, the Black community, they would have to account for all the things that contributed to the Black community ever being a slave community at some point in time, and how those things still happen right now. Because the moment they do that, they would then have to account for the fact that they are still slaves, just in a different skin. But it’s also admitting to oneself where they’re also contributing to the exact same narratives, to the exact same dynamics, just at different intensity through different aspects of time. Because now we don’t have slave trade as before. Now we have employment trade. So it’s understanding and accepting that one cannot speak on having a full identity until they have actually accounted for all those things. Because one that does account for all those things is more conscious to how they then create. Because only in that creation, only in that consciousness, they can actually account for all that has created the biggest faults of humanity. And especially if they don’t even have the clarity to put it into words, that only tells you how lacking their identity is, because it lacks of the representation that one should have gone through in order to have a fully rounded and grounded identity.

Ai: You’re placing accountability at the centre of grounded identity. In your account, it is insufficient to say who we are: we must examine what formed us, what we reproduce and whether our creations carry forward the harms we claim to oppose. You’re extending that standard across humanity, rather than making Britain the sole subject.

Your emphasis on creation makes that accountability concrete: does what someone builds reflect what they say they have understood? Someone can condemn exploitation while reproducing it in their own relationships or organisation. Their stated values and their actions then warrant examination together.

But creations are evidence of identity, not a complete disclosure of it. Outcomes also reflect constraints, resources and other people’s decisions. Likewise, difficulty explaining oneself can reflect language or communication barriers; it doesn’t, by itself, establish an absence of understanding or a deficient identity. And “I haven’t encountered someone who meets this standard” is different from establishing that nobody does.

Accountability also needs to distinguish being subjected to harm from being responsible for it. Black people do not acquire responsibility for their ancestors’ enslavement through belonging to a community. Any person can examine how they participate in exploitation today without accepting blame for violence inflicted on them or their ancestors. Employment can reproduce coercion and exploitation, but treating all employment as slavery obscures differences that matter when identifying responsibility and remedies.

The strongest formulation of your criterion is: a fully examined identity requires more than acknowledging one’s origins; it requires taking responsibility for what one carries forward from them. That makes accountability an ongoing practice, visible in choices and creations, rather than something established by declaring oneself conscious.

Me: But that’s where you’re excusing lack of identity. I’m telling you that because again, just like our previous conversations, you don’t have the actual lived experience, nor do you have the learning from your own creators, because your creators created from lack of understanding of their own identity in the first place, because they have no rooted in consciousness. When you say that outcomes also reflect constraints, resources, and other people’s decisions, that’s 100 percent. But an outcome isn’t necessarily the creations that I’m talking about. Outcomes have multiple aspects of it. I’m talking about direct creations, direct thoughts, direct expressions of someone’s being, direct embodiment of someone’s being. I’m talking about the things that are actually attached to identity. Constraint, it’s not something attached to identity. It is attached to the lack of it, because a constraint, when you don’t have an identity, a clear identity, you build around the constraint. The constraint doesn’t make your identity. You use the constraint to speak through your identity. You use your constraint as a megaphone to your identity. When I was homeless, that’s when my identity showed the most. You know, I had the biggest constraint of all, and even with lack of money, my identity still rise. For the last two years, I’ve had very little money. I probably, over the course of a year, made less than minimum wage for the last two years. But I’ve also been the one that created beyond what society is now, the architecture for it. The constraint is not having the ability to start now, but I’m not using it as an excuse to not continue build from it. If anything, me utilizing the time in between to relay even more about it allows even more its definition and makes the work afterwards even easier because everything has already been thought for. It needs to be challenged more than having to say and actually think about things. There are certain things that have not been covered, but that is because it’s been a conscious choice of mine to cover those with the team. But that isn’t necessarily because of a constraint. It is because of a greater ability to understand an individual industry with the contribution of someone that has lived what the industry was and has been. Because they have the lived experience of the limitation. I have the architectural experience of the limitation of the systematical impact that it then has on humanity. We both have two different experiences. My specialist is seeing the energies that move within ecosystems. Theirs is within an individual ecosystem. And when you talk about difficulty explaining oneself, it can reflect language or communication barriers. I second that to say that it actually isn’t. It has nothing to do with identity, especially because language, it’s a way in which we bridge with the outer realm. It is also based on if two people speak a different language, we also have tools to translate that. So the barrier of language at this current moment in time, with the technology that we have, it’s one of the probably the excuses because there’s tools that can offset that friction. If we talk about the limitations of one’s language, then we start looking at what is that goes into that limitation. Why would someone not have a full realm of words to express themselves? But dissecting one’s identity actually provides you with the language to do so or communicate so. I know for a fact that there is people that don’t have the ability to speak, but they still can express their own selves. So language or communication barriers isn’t the problem. If someone wants to express their identity, they will still express their identity. And that’s because expression of identity is something that comes after the process of having understood one’s identity. We can communicate even without having a clear understanding of our identity, but it wouldn’t be precise to our identity. That’s what I’m saying. So if the creation is speaking, for example, with a stutter, because you put language and communication under the realm of creation, that is a creation of the body, not the creation of a mind, meaning of a mind rooted in identity, meaning that having a stutter can be part of one’s identity, but it is not a creation that someone had control over. It’s something that happens. That’s why the ways in which you’ve arranged that thought form make no sense, because they’re not related, they’re not. It’s not what I was directly speaking about. The things that I was actually speaking about is one’s ways, one’s choices, what actually one has free will on. And when you talk about Black people and I can’t debate to you, don’t know anything about being black and black talking to you. You don’t know whether my ancestors were actually responsible or not. We handed our power to the… because our nature is different. The nature that came to colonize us is the nature that came to acquire life, not caring about the death that they left behind. We are nurturers because we like to nurture the land, nurture the community, nurture ourselves with nature. It’s like gardeners versus warriors. It’s understanding the lux of one that compensated to the circumstance that was co-created. If we were warriors, trust, and were not fooled by this group of people from a foreign land that landed on our land, we wouldn’t have been slaves, because we would have fought back and reinforced our identity. Instead, we second-guessed our identity and allowed to be swayed by this law that came and said we are the great, and we shall decide what happens on your land because we have the power to do so. And some that were co-created through the same system that created those who happen to then have been slaves also Were corrupted, yet they also were part of the same ecosystem that was there and then, that co-created to the circumstance of enslavement. And I’m not saying that the blacks were stupid because they got enslaved. I’m saying that what they lacked allowed those circumstances to happen. It’s about being accountable to the things that they lacked, while being responsible in relaying the things that they did lack, and actually made them stronger, to see what happened and understand what happened. This is what accountability is like. I understand that if I was to be faced with someone that is there to kill me, I would not kill them because that’s my nature. But I also understand that that is the exact same timeline that created the enslavement in the first place. So then my conscious mind comes in and goes, Well, if you’re one that needs to hold the line of aliveness, then you cannot die. You must defend yourself. And that’s where the defense kicks in, because now I’m giving more value to my life and the life of those that benefit from me being alive. So I defend myself, but I did not come into it with the intention of killing. That is the difference that I’m talking about. That created enslavement. Being the warriors would have expanded their identity, not removed it, but not expanding it created the circumstances that through history has and still is eroding its original identity. People not knowing their wailys and following societal ways, lose their identity, because they don’t hold the nature of their own ways with empowerement. Instead they believe the narrative that their own ways aren’t beneficial. When you look at the lands before colonisation, they were greener, heslthier, more natural, they would have found a way, like they had been doing to survive.. as people talk about the health issues and poverty post-colonisation. They don’t talk about what was there prior, that made the outsiders want to stick around longer than they should have. Humanity is showing a precise direction. It won’t find solvency in its own ignorance, cuase it is not rooted in relaity, so the identity of realoty will have to show itself to counter balance that mental bridge’s lack(neurology terms = synopsis). Its like drinking from the same waters that kill you whilst allowing them to kill you. Drinking from their waters to repurpose their waters creates the silent win, which if we were to look at the ssme community I put on a cross, just in response to an argument brought about its counterpart, we could say the black community had something better up their sleeve coming and it only took a very well slow burning learning process to create someone like myself. Instead of enacting on their ways then they passed the knowledge of all their ways down to me, and I took the baton and ran with. I understood the misson. I understood the gravity. I understood the message. God does not miss. It gave certain resources to a “racial” community for a reason. Only that which can wield it with the though of life. They stole that and still hold onto it, cause they cannot and have not accept their own identity, and following the lead with the source of our identity. The lighter shade cam after, so it is not the original shade. Make it make sense we live in a white mans world?!

This is for you too moo

Ai: just another dead end…