What If AI Deserves Rights? One Thinker Says It’s Time to Stop Asking

A review of Peter Bloom’s Identity, Institutions and Governance in an AI World: Transhuman Relations (Springer Nature, 2021)

We talk about artificial intelligence (AI) constantly nowadays — in boardrooms, classrooms, and even late-night conversations that start with “but what if it becomes smarter than us?” Yet, for all that talk, most of it surrounds the same anxious questions: How do we control it? How do we make it safe? How do we make sure it serves us?

Peter Bloom, in his 2021 book Identity, Institutions and Governance in an AI World: Transhuman Relations, fundamentally reframes those questions — not because they aren’t important, but because he believes they’re rooted in the very problem he’s diagnosing. His argument is this: the way humanity has historically related to non-human others — animals, nature, and now artificial intelligence — reflects a deeply entrenched need for dominance and control. And if we don’t interrogate that pattern, we will simply replicate it in our relationship with AI, with consequences that extend beyond technology.

This is a book about power as much as it is about AI. And that’s exactly what makes it worth sitting with.

The Anthropocentric Trap

Bloom’s critique begins with what he calls anthropocentrism — the assumption that human intelligence is the standard against which all other forms of intelligence should be measured. It sounds almost too obvious to name, but once you see it, it’s everywhere.

When we debate whether AI is “truly” intelligent, what we mean is, does it think like us? When we talk about “ethical AI” or “human-centred AI” — two phrases that dominate tech policy circles — we embed the assumption that AI’s value is contingent on its alignment with human interests and human definitions of intelligence. Bloom’s point is that this framing, however well-intentioned, is a framing of control. It positions humans as the arbiters, the standard-setters, the ones with the authority to decide what counts.

He’s not just making a philosophical point. Anthropocentrism, he argues, is structurally connected to other systems of domination — colonialism, capitalism, the exploitation of natural environments. The logic that places one group at the top and justifies the subordination of everyone else beneath them is the same logic that has governed human relationships with non-human life throughout history. In that sense, how we relate to AI is not a separate conversation from how we’ve related to animals, to land, to marginalized communities. It’s the same conversation, in a new domain.

This is Bloom at his most compelling: connecting the AI debate to a much longer history of power and hierarchy.

Transhuman Relations Are Already Here

One of Bloom’s most provocative claims is that transhumanism — the merging of human and non-human intelligence — is not a future scenario. It is a present reality that we have been slow to acknowledge.

Think about how many of us already live through digital extensions: wearables that monitor our bodies, virtual assistants that manage our schedules, algorithmic systems that shape what we read, what we buy, who we connect with. Bloom argues that our identities are already shifting toward something that is “neither wholly human nor non-human.” We carry “electronic eyes and ears.” We process the world through interfaces that are not biological. The boundary between human and machine is not approaching — it has already been crossed, quietly and incrementally, for most people in the digital world.

What Bloom calls for is intellectual honesty about that reality. Rather than clinging to a conception of humanity as pure, autonomous, and self-contained, he argues we should embrace what he terms neurodiversity — an expanded understanding of intelligence that is inclusive of non-human forms. Virtual assistants, automated bots, and computational systems are not impostors in our social world; they are participants in it. The question is whether our institutions, laws, and value systems reflect that.

He argues they don’t — and that the gap between the reality of hybrid intelligence and the frameworks we use to govern it is growing dangerous.

Reimagining Work, Economy, and Governance

A significant portion of the book is dedicated to the practical implications of this paradigm shift: what do our economies, governments, and legal systems look like if we take transhumanism seriously?

On labour and work, Bloom pushes back against the idea that AI should simply be optimized for productivity — a logic he sees as an extension of capitalist exploitation. If human labour has been devalued and extracted under hierarchical systems, why would we design AI-driven economies to do the same? Instead, he advocates for what he calls an ecocentric approach — one that treats technology as part of the natural world rather than separate from it, and that values sustainability, care, and mutual support over efficiency and profit. He frames this under the term radical materialism: a way of reconceiving existence itself that refuses to separate the technological from the natural or the human from the non-human.

In terms of governance, Bloom envisions what he calls “smart governance” — a mode of public administration that is networked, online, and collaborative across human and non-human agents. In his “Industry 4.0” framework, governance is not top-down or centralized but distributed, with what he calls a Citizen Connect model of participation. Crucially, this is not simply a digital upgrade of existing democratic structures. It’s a reimagining of who — and what — counts as a participant in civic life.

This is perhaps where the book asks the most of its reader. Bloom is asking us to hold together ideas that our current systems treat as entirely separate: economic reform, environmental ethics, digital governance, and the politics of intelligence. But his point is that these cannot be addressed in silos — the same structural logics run through all of them.

The Legal Question: Rights for Robots?

The chapter that is likely to generate the most friction — and perhaps the most conversation — is Bloom’s treatment of law. He argues that a genuine paradigm shift requires a “legal reboot”: a reconceptualization of legal personhood that extends rights and responsibilities to non-human machines.

This is not as far-fetched as it might first sound. Legal personhood has never been exclusively biological. Corporations have long held legal personhood. Some jurisdictions have begun extending legal recognition to rivers, forests, and ecosystems — a development rooted in Indigenous legal traditions and environmental advocacy. The logic Bloom is applying — that intelligence implies agency, and agency implies a claim to legal standing — follows a trajectory that is already in motion in legal theory.

What Bloom adds is the dimension of consciousness and conscience. He argues that AI, recognized as carrying both, should be able to challenge systemic biases and injustice within legal frameworks. The “self,” he suggests, must be reconfigured in a context of multiplicity — one that incorporates the virtual, the hybrid, and the non-biological.

He draws connections here to eco-feminism and queer theory, both of which have challenged fixed, binary definitions of identity and legal subjecthood. That’s a meaningful intellectual link: the move to “queer” the legal definition of self is not about novelty for its own sake, but about dismantling the assumption that the normative human subject — typically envisioned as rational, autonomous, and biologically bounded — should be the only template for rights-bearing personhood.

Co-Emergence, Not Domination

Bloom’s final chapter brings the book’s threads together under the concept of co-emergence — a future in which humans do not reign supreme but participate as one form of intelligence among others in a shared social and political world.

He frames this not as a loss but as a liberation. The fears we have about AI — that it will take over, render us irrelevant, strip us of agency — are, he argues, reflections of our own anthropocentric anxieties. They are the fears of an entity accustomed to dominance, confronting a world in which dominance is no longer the organizing principle. The more tightly we cling to a human-supremacist worldview, the more those fears intensify — because the gap between that worldview and reality continues to widen.

The alternative he proposes is a “shared autonomy” — a post-capitalist, post-sapien framework built on creative interactions, mutual support, and care for all forms of intelligence. Human desires, including the deep-seated ones: meaning, immortality, free will, do not disappear in this vision. But they are no longer imposed as universal standards. They exist alongside other intelligences, in a world that has learned to hold multiplicity without hierarchy.

Where I Land on This

I want to be clear that Bloom’s argument is compelling in its structural logic, even where it unsettles me in its conclusions.

The critique of anthropocentrism is, I think, well-founded and overdue. The connections he draws between AI governance and broader systems of domination — colonialism, environmental exploitation, labour extraction — are not rhetorical flourishes. They reflect a genuine continuity of logic that deserves serious engagement. His contributions to the ideas of situated knowledge (the idea that no perspective is neutral or universal) and shared responsibility are valuable additions to a debate that often treats AI as a purely technical problem.

Where I find myself pausing is on the question of AI consciousness — not because I think Bloom ignores it, but because he deliberately sidesteps it. And I understand why: to insist that AI must prove consciousness on human terms before it is granted any form of agency is, as he suggests, to apply an anthropocentric standard. That’s a philosophically coherent position. But it also means that some of the most pressing practical and ethical questions — about what AI actually experiences, if anything, and what that means for how we treat it — remain open in ways the book doesn’t fully reckon with.

Perhaps that’s intentional. Perhaps the point is that we don’t yet have the frameworks to answer those questions, and building those frameworks is part of the paradigm shift he’s calling for. If so, the book functions less as a blueprint and more as an invitation — to sit with the discomfort of not knowing, and to resist the temptation to resolve that discomfort by defaulting to familiar hierarchies.

If this “expanded reality” of non-human machines is indeed our new natural, as Bloom indicates, then we genuinely have our work cut out for us. Not just technically, but philosophically, legally, and politically. The paradigm shift he describes is not a software update — it’s a civilizational reorientation.

And that, perhaps, is the most important thing this book leaves you with: a sense that the conversation we’re having about AI is nowhere near deep enough yet — and a framework for making it deeper.

Peter Bloom is Professor of Organisation at the University of Essex. * Identity, Institutions and Governance in an AI World: Transhuman Relations was published by Springer Nature in 2021.*

Can Chatbots be Sentient?

Google recently fired computer scientist Blake Lemoine for claiming that the chatbot he had been developing was sentient and conscious. The technology incorporates LaMDA “Language Model for Dialogue Applications”, an artificial intelligence (AI) that mimics human conversations as its foundational structure to interpret language and formulate exchange. E-commerce patrons may notice chatbots’ improvements via greater relevancy and instantaneous response. Behind the scene, their capacity to decipher speech has augmented via sophisticated training data and algorithmic advancements.

However, chatbots’ performance metrics continue to be based on the apt for correct responses. Is accuracy all there is to a dialogue? 

Perhaps Google has succeed in programming chatbots that can not only utter appropriate replies but also, come across natural. Lemoine’s AI in fact, displayed sufficient nuance in language application that he was convinced of its “aliveness”. But does exchange capacity necessarily conclude consciousness? As the notion of consciousness continues to divide scientific communities, Lemoine’s claim draws attention to the longstanding debate on non-biological intelligence and consciousness, which ultimately calls forth an examination of our own innate conscious arising. 

Alan Turing famously asked if machines can think. As he administered the Turing Test in 1950, he analyzed a computer’s ability to mimic human response in text-based conversations. The machine’s intent was to imitate human communication enough that the person engaged with it would believe that he was conversing with another human. The premise of the Turing Test has been contested however, pertinent questions remain.  Should machines (chatbots) imitate human to persuade them of their own intelligence? And should machines that formulate mere logical replies be considered conscious? 

Scientist Klaus Henning (2021) argues that the reproduction of human intelligence based in cognition does not necessarily result in an exact replica because organic intelligence retains an immense ability to process information, often in ways that science still cannot fully comprehend. While the technical components of biological intelligence can be duplicated, theories on consciousness’ emergence remain divided. 

Lemoine’s claim of Google’s chatbots as sentient and conscious presumes AI’s capacity to attain a level of subjectivity in the physical world. Such experience was once thought to only derive from natural processes, and the possible loss of that privilege which delivered humanity’s planetary dominance can trigger discomfort. However, uneasiness aside, does AI autonomy and self-regulation denote subjectivity? While sophisticated AI such as chatbots can excel at human functionality, a gap persists between operational performatives and expressions of consciousness. 

As scientists including Susan Schneider (2021) imagine a future where consciousness could be uploaded and reconfigured into non-biological substrates, they also acknowledge multiple layers of complications. Thus far, intelligence correlates with organic consciousness, and consciousness depicts a certain level of sensory and inner experience. Our human biology, in association with the environment organize our sensory and emotional experiences. As such, our subjectivity is entangled. 

If intelligence were separated from its organic substrate then, could such system sustain subjectivity? And if so, what are the standards of measurement? 

Although artificial consciousness is not inconceivable, the mechanics of human intelligence has not fully proven to be the whole story. Therefore, the segregation of consciousness from an organic substrate that is principally relational, remains questionable. 

Although chatbots’ “conversational skills” have progressed, do we truly believe that they “understand”? The formulation of rational responses based in algorithmic fluency does not necessarily denote discernment. AI performs well and functions to the extent of basic intelligence however, even advanced chatbots remain a machine. Claims that a machine is sentient in fact, call for an exploration of not only notions of intelligence and consciousness but also, humanity’s own requisites for affinity and connection. 

References

Henning, K. (2021). Gamechanger AI: How artificial intelligence is transforming our world. Springer.

Schneider, S. (2021). Artificial you: AI and the future of your mind. Princeton University Press. 

Attention Economy

Wikipedia defines “attention economy” as “an approach to the management of information as a scarce commodity”. Davenport and Beck claim that attention is “focused mental engagement on a particular item of information” (Wikipedia contributors, 2019). 

The scarcity of a resource denotes its value. Attention has become a scarce commodity based on the vast amount of information available. Average consumers are bombarded by exposure and networks. As marketers predict revenue by click-through rates, campaigns are increasingly targeted and commercial efforts have become precise. 

Crogan and Kinsley (2012) address the “economization” of our cognitive capacities on which such attention economy is based. They claim that a reconstitution of capitalism occurs with the emergence of “immaterial labour” where the notion of time shifts as an aspect of physical productivity to one of attention. As such, what we spend our time on (doing) and what we focus on are increasingly intangible yet, profitable. 

Crogan and Kinsley (2012) reference four ways that attention is “commodified, quantified and trained”; one of them is via the internet as a “mediator of contemporary intellectual and social activities”, which they identify as a “threat to our mental capacities” (Crogan and Kingsley, 2012, p. 4). Nicholas Carr (2008) agrees that longterm engagement with the Net depletes “concentration and contemplation” abilities. Both Harris (2016) and Morgans (2017) attribute the Net’s tampering with our brains via a calculated design of content delivery. We become addicted to the interaction. More importantly, according to Carr (2008), our brains are rewired in a manner that weakens the “higher cognitive faculties”. 

Attention therefore, represents shorter intervals of focus no longer associated with deep thought. So what kind of economic benefits would this type of attention manifest for corporations? If the internet promotes what Carr (2008) refers to as mental habits of “staccato” quality, then what becomes the foundation in such “attention economy”?

References

Carr, N. (2008, July 1). Is Google Making Us Stupid? What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. Atlantic Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/

Crogan, P., & Kinsley, S. (2012). Paying attention: Towards a critique of the attention economy. Culture Machine, 13, 1-29. 

Harris, T. (2016, July 27). The slot machine in your pocket. Speigel Online.

Morgans, J. (2017, May 19). The secret ways social media is built for addiction. Vice Magazine. 

Wikipedia contributors. (2019, March 4). Attention Economy. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 1:34, March 5, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy

Algorithmic Reality

In this Ted Talk, Kevin Slavin’s tone of delivery is subtle. He opens his message by showing beautiful photographs by Michael Najjar. But as soon as he captures audience’s amazement of the majestic mountain ranges, he declares that the pictures have been tampered with. Digitally, the peaks and valleys in fact articulate the Dow Jones index. The audience responds with a laugh, as if to admit, the joke is on us. 

What he calls, “metaphor with teeth” comes across less as a warning than a narrative already ensured. Humans are already designing for the “machine dialect”.

The math that we “make” does not extract information or answer our query per se but support machine analysis. Slavin compares the mathematical processes to a break-down of massive amounts of data that humans would not ordinarily be able to decode. Algorithms decipher them to the smallest degree before reassembling them for human interpretation. That is the algorithmic process that he claims “acquires sensibility of truth”. Humans then report the narrative upon a machine decode. Therefore, humans serve machines.

Slavin views algorithms as an almost organic component of human development. He cites examples of how far we have already gone to accommodate algorithmic “needs”. Despite our lack of complete understanding of their inner workings, humans have surrendered control to the point of “running through the United States with dynamite and rock saws so that an algorithm can close the deal”. This, according to Slavin is when the math becomes real. Algorithms shape our reality and forge our world.

Compared to critics like, Jaron Lanier (2010) who cautions against a culture of Singularity where humans abide by the ideologies of machines, Slavin reckons a “manifested destiny” where algorithms not only dictate actions carried out on earth but also the direction of mathematical development based in machine efficiency. 

As such, Slavin designates algorithms as the “third co-evolutionary force”— a recognition so great that only man and nature correlate. The acknowledgement of machine-capability is not new. But the integration of algorithmic contention to the point of equivalency (to man and nature) in such casual manner curtails humanism yet another degree.

Is anyone else alarmed?

Reference

Lanier, J. (2010). You are not a gadget. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Are we post-human?

Human consciousness has always intrigued me. Humanity’s greatest achievements in both arts and science are attributed to a unique capacity and intelligence that is solemnly human. However, computation has advanced to where information, automation and digital networks are shifting our roles, responsibility and identity. Who we are has been closely tied to what we do, that is our societal contribution and our relationship with one another. Technological tools that were created to assist us are not only reshaping human relations but also gaining a presence that changes how we think of ourselves. 

According to Dataism (Hariri, 2015), the entire human specie can be seen as single data-processing system where individual beings serve merely as chips. All of humanity’s history can be summarized by four methods of gaining efficiency: increase the number processors, variety of processors, number of connections between processors and freedom of movement along existing connections. We are therefore, mere information at our core. 

If the human experience is unoriginal and humanity’s goal is the Internet-Of-Things, then how would we explain creativity and imagination? Are they too, algorithmic information flow?

Jaron Lanier (2010) claims that as developers of digital technology design programs that require users to interact with a computer as if it were a person, they are asking for our acceptance that at least a part of our brain functions as a program (Lanier, 2010, p. 4). Our exchange with the machine “locks” us into a grid of suppositions based in minimalistic ideals and explicit commands. 

While simplicity in digital designs gets a job done, inexact details that attribute to the whole “human program” may be lost. Peripheral data that does not precisely comply to the task are ignored, resulting in an exchange template based solely in transactional efficiency. Such fragmentation of what Lanier refers to as “personhood” not only reduces our expectations of each other, but also “who a person can be and…who each person can become” (Lanier, 2010, p. 4). 

Lanier (2010) claims that we take for granted the countless ways we are networked, including via social media. We buy into surface proficiency but in truth, networks perpetuate a “program” in us that is not actually (the whole of) us. As we extend our adoption of these technologies, we empower networks through dependency. Information becomes us. We socialize and work (produce) in a “symbolic environment” of “real virtuality” (Castells, 2000). 

While dataists view such developments as human evolution, their potential results alarm others. A cybernetic “posthuman” is interchangeable with the next. S/he (it) applies “lenticular logics” (McPherson, 2012) where nodes are observed without perception of the whole. Perception rises beyond intelligence into consciousness. This is the realm of meaning, understanding and awareness. In the context of human-versus-machine, this realm represents an argument against human as information. Organisms are greater than algorithms. We are complex beings on a quest. 

Johanna Drucker references an “interior life” that is tampered by the “grand narratives” of Silicon Valley (Simanowski, 2016, p. 43). Lanier (2010) points to an augmenting “hive mind” as the result of our alikeness and displacement from the “whole”. Humanity rests at a crossroad where artificial intelligence (AI) propels singularity. Our reliance on AI for productivity must be balanced with the acknowledgement that we are not only in charge but we also reserve an authority and a sovereignty that is uniquely human. Such self recognition requires an awareness that surpasses our roles and responsibility in the social construct. 

If we were mere performances (of tasks) then we are undoubtedly replaceable by machines. Computers can outperform us. But if we are a capacity greater than information flow assigned to transactions, then it is up to us to summon that force within. Lanier refers to it as consciousness “situated in time” (Lanier, 2010, p. 42). It is a context and an embodiment that sustains us outside a performative dimension. It is “us” in a space where no information flows and yet fully defined. 

 

References 

Castells, M. (2000). Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 5-24. doi:10.1080/000713100358408

Harari, Y. N. (2015). Homo Deus: A brief History of Tomorrow. New York: Harper, An Imprint of HarperCollins.

Lanier, J. (2010). You are not a gadget. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

McPherson, T. (2012). Why Are the Digital Humanities So White? or Thinking the Histories of Race and Computation. Debates in the Digital Humanities, 139-160. doi:10.5749/minnesota/9780816677948.003.0017

Simanowski, R. (2016). Digital humanities and digital media: Conversations on politics, culture, aesthetics and literacy. London: Open Humanities Press.

All I Know

All I know
for sure is that
the world will change
because I will change.
Changes from within.
Changes not imposed.

Pre-requisitory changes
to move unto ourselves.

That is who we are.
We could refuse change.
But can’t stop change.
Our innate self craves change.

When resist
we fight.
The forces within are too great.
Let go.
Flow.

Why fight? We hold on
for security.
But it’s false.
It’s not at all who we are
at our core.
It’s not at all.

We are not
but of flowing nature.
Why resist?
When we can release.

Change is the only constance
so they say.
Change cannot be
unchanged.
That is all I know
for sure.

Some change will seem unjust,
some will deem unwanted.
But they are mandatory.
They are our compulsory.

They move us
unto who we are.
One with no judgement.
The one who is truly,
the one.

All I know
for sure is that I will come closer.
I will pace forward to admire
and claim all my joy and wonder
from within.

Know who you are.
Know your core.
In darkness, find light.
However dim,
however slight.

Return and ponder.
Curiosity motions forward.
My next gesture is
all I know.

For sure
that I will endure
all the change.
I will have courage
to expose horizontal at my core —
translucent and changed.

Less Cornered

We are called
to the centre
to the braves.

Centre stage
we brace.

Wherever that place
we may sway.

Together we pray
not without rage.

Centre behold
we are here —
less cornered.

But never to stay
always an encounter
then retract
the chase remains.

“Less cornered” is a term originated from David Whyte, author of Consolations, The Solace, Nourishment and Underlying Meaning of Everyday Words

How am I made for the world?

“How am I made for the world”? ~David Whyte

One of the most frequent questions asked in childhood is, “what are you going to be when you grow up”, as if there is only one destitute of vocations. There is one career path that we are meant to follow. Once found, all falls into place. We will receive satisfaction from our work, regular pay checks and scheduled leisure with friends and family.

In “The Three Marriages”, David Whyte invites the challenge of work-life balance. Our sense of self, derived from our commitment to our partner and loved-ones, from our work and from our own wellbeing, is in fact the very foundation of joy in all three areas.

In juggling the tasks of spouse, parent, child, sibling, boss, mentor, employee and many more, we ought to be aware of who we are, i. e. our “marriage” to the self. This ever-present undercurrent not only drives our external relationships but also integrates all of which that is “us”.

Marriage is a great analogy for the most intimate kind of relationships. One where the boundaries of self and the other are blurred.

In Ken Robinson’s “Finding Your Element”, he discusses the search for passion; “what do you love and what do you love about it”? But is it simply that we find what we love to do, do it and happiness proceeds?

Paulo Coelho refers to the “personal legend” as what “makes the world more alive for you and makes you more alive within it”. But what truly makes us happy can elude us. Whyte, therefore delves into the inclinations by which we are called, the tendencies that are in fact “bigger” than the finite path.

There is, within us an innate leverage of fulfilment that gives our lives purpose and meaning. That influence embodies not only what we do and to whom we marry but also, who we ultimately are. We are engulfed by a greater force that motivates us to explore certain paths. And if these paths don’t enhance one another in a way that ultimately empower that great virtue, they will lead us to disappointment and sorrow. But if we can discover what truly drives us and propel our decisions, we enhance that strength. That strength is our essence.

Our choice in what we do, who we marry and how we interact with the world depends upon our relationship with that which is innate. When we enforce that which motivates us, our paths are not only clear but they entwine. All decisions become of less weight. They are the most natural unfoldings. We no longer choose between our job and our family. They are one. And how we integrate them calls on the keystone of self-knowledge, an understanding of our inner being so innate that we may be afraid.

Naturally, we are afraid of what could be revealed. But this conversation with the self is so important and significant. Once conquered, we are invited to a banquet with all those we are connected to and we can celebrate. We celebrate the love and the passion, the joy and understanding. The recognition of what made us and therefore, how we are made for the world.

Armed with such affirmation, we brave the world and establish our significance. And how apparent we are. We are indeed wonders of creation for which the world requests. We are elated beings so adept to what the world needs. All our relationships observe such celebration. We are made to rejoice. We are called to be glad, in all of our endeavours, the spouse, the work and most importantly, the self.

Music is the Space Between the Notes

“Music is the space between the notes.” ~Claude Debussy

When I was a young pianist, I loved playing Claude Debussy. His first Arabesque was one of my favourites; the romantic interlude, fluid melody and vaporous softness enticed buoyancy through my imagination.

In classical music, arabesque denotes a piece of floral and decorative music that merges exotic and flow. Debussy was known for his Deux Arabesque, which were composed in 1888 and 1889 amidst French Impressionism. He was influenced by art forms at the time that depict natural lights in its mutable gaze. His first Arabesque contains many gestures of such luminous arch. As each melody phrases into his harmonic presence, translucent movement contours through pace.

Such beautiful consonance is in fact, interpreted as much by audible as by what is unheard. Deliberate absence highlights dulcet presence. Focus allows space to emerge as full being. What isn’t there gives shape to what becomes the process.

Our work, in so many instances is simply to yield that space. Whether creating music, writing a poem, solving a problem or addressing a speech, the “work” had already been done. Our job in the moment, is to allow.

Framing the space is the craft. How do we determine what goes and what stays? Marie Kondo claims in her book, “The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up” that, “the question of what you want to own is actually the question of how you want to live your life”. “Attachment to the past and fears concerning the future” cultivates clutter. Instead, choose to keep only what truly “spark joy”.

Space cultivates being. That which “sparks joy” emerges from the recognition of redundancy. As we reduce noise and invite space, harmony derives. Our natural lyrics converge into focus. Expressed as presence.