You can make subtle changes, perhaps. I am just hypothesizing and talking to a black box presumably. So subtle changes. What does that mean? So when you are tweeting, you're establishing an officialized narrative. An officialized story because the University is not only an actor within the information space, but a structure as well. Structures exist in reality, as there is a beautiful library on campus that is functionally accessible and rather strong in terms of its institutional stability and viability to exist as a research arm of the scholarly community.

Structures, most importantly, exist in the mind, first and foremost. The idea of God is conceived in the mind. The structure of religion, church, and pastor are all structures of mind. Because the religion is no more powerful than the faith of the faithful in the private domain, just as the pastor is no more distinguished as a wise man if he is vulgar at Sunday service. The structure of law, court, and president, follow the same order. They are observed and reinforced so long as the mental structure conforms with the reality of its existence. Police without force is like a judge without a prison. A president without moral discernment nor vision is just a thug with a court and military force. A university without a scholar is just a monastery of lost knowledge. The university has to conform to the reality of its real existence. Hold tight to form.

Now subtle changes can enhance the conformity to that reality, I hypothesize. Since structures are constructed in the mind, not the reality of life, they can be augmented and adapted with sustained cultural education. Young men are all just looking for a place in the world where they fit. So they go into mathematics even if they don't love science because to be a man is to make lots of money which makes the home happy. Right. So the humanities are obviously important. The humanities serve to inculcate the logic of the culturally reproducible myth of society. God, Theology and philosophy are cultural disciplines, par excellence. They are the most powerful cultural devices to bring society into a community.

In America, money, false idols, and an outsized scientific regard have jaded the religious mind — for good and for evil. Religion can be a beneficent, humanizing force, or it can bring men to arms in service of their own earthly contests. Ideally religion and the church frame the mental structures of society to constrain human agency from doing harm and position the culture towards altruistic endeavors for a collectivity. It doesn't always work that way. Hence why the oratory of the pastor or high priest is so critically important. Action produces reaction.

Moral concern reproduces itself in cultural arrays. We have witnessed how the over abundance of morality has stifled true wisdom among the polity today. Liberalism has grown into a mob fantasy that retorts any criticism with the slight evocation of a hysterical indignation. So the overproduction of morality is a concern the combat, in my opinion, because what's grown from it is a mass fallacy that's stagnant and a recursive positive feedback loop. Since the system has grown so large and so outwardly extreme, you may reason that it's like a bubble that can burst rapidly. So institutions have to be careful. Liberalism is indeed dying. But it is still a flame burning. I imagine it's only a matter of time until that bubble bursts. You're already seeing the inability of liberal democrat to take over the political passions of the polity and construct the narrative. Liberalism has a specific critique which can provide a logical foundation to construct the structures of an adapted complex system. But I have no strategic thoughts on how to get there.

Go to the CB section of the library, pick up the book “our private future” as well as “the imminent dark age” for proper encouragement. I could be totally wrong, but I perceive a devolution to less modern ideals. And cough cough that is not as horrific as it sounds. Maybe? I don't know. But the system is definitely look towards a new theory of social organization. I have to be super careful because this can lead to false visions of a future that are idealized and utopian. It won't be so. Science has taken us far enough@to where technology is democratized, embedded and abundant. How do you manage it? Technology is humanity? So we can actually transform ourselves into a higher social organization. A richer human collectivity of laws, academy, and civil society. A higher vision of movement and technologically mediated cultural evolution. The software matters.

Networks are power. Think about humans living in multiple identity realms, occupying vast social space, and relating to and through various structures in the social organization. You may do one job with another research group, within a larger hobby network. You may be an undergraduate at UT, but really like the technical school in Hong Kong, so you take classes and interact in both networks along with a high school network where you and your closest friends talk about politics and relationship. So the private and the public domain are intersectional but bisected and decided by individuals who hold agency over their network's construction.

Think about his identity could change doing this. The problem is history. History, which I don't want to defame because my professors would disparage me for such ridicule lol, imprisons our future in some ways. Racism in America is particularly constraining on the mind and cultural practice of the mass habitus. I heard on a podcast by the Texas national security review that “Americans are book people.” In the sense that Americans are culturally shackled to the book, the script, the text of the constitution. Not to disparage free association and due process, but the rigidity of the republic and the justice system is dauntingly severe. Literature, said bourdieu, is the political mastermind. Think, I believe this is correct.

The codified logic of the written word carries weight. It produces a vision in the flesh without human-to-human communication. The word is profoundly important. The word can encode vision and the divisions that it facilitates. One may cite Marx. It codifying the class distinction, the mental structure of the secular philosophy discriminated the polity's abundant similarity upon economic levels. The vision produced the division.... the word is the master. The word is god. The subtle alteration in the publicly pronounced cultural dialectic can inculcate the logic or felt essence or taste of a higher social affiliation, a higher regard and discernment.

The slight enunciation of manners and officialized concern can make those who identify with the educational institution more reserved and astute, which is not necessarily culturally adaptive. That is far past my knowledge and concern. The language and it's meta-cognition can also deconstruct the structure of educational distinction. It can bind itself to a lower order and distinction through cultural goodwill. That is not an attack, just the sentiments of Bourdieu.

In a society where information is free and no one is hard tied to rigid fact and cultural perfection, the academy has a slightly less influential mandate, and may reserve itself to quiet corridors. Or instead it should bolster its presence in the information space as it is so desperately needed. It is practically adaptive that we have experts@leading and guiding discourse and discussion. The academy is the intelligence of a social body. Without it and the church we are wolves ( I cringe saying that, so sorry, just part of my philosophy).

The officialized identity of the University can be constructed in a novel light given the adaptivity and flexibility of the UI. Since everything is digital, UT can really serve very diverse intersections of the human community, globally. I know Harvard is doing this, making their lectures open access. You don't receive accreditation, and perhaps that's best suited to the elite schools in practice, but agents may embed themselves in diverse informational ecosystems. I don't know what the UT strategy is going forward. I remarkably came across the Robert Ovetz papers last fall and skimmed through the university strategic roadmap. It talked a lot about multiculturalism, curriculum, cultural education, student, access, social policy in America, etc. there are underlying political fissures that are evidently emergent in America as we pivot into a more diverse social construction. Climate activism was talked about, which I support 100% especially the radicals, the new left, and other social reformist groups. I didn't read much, but it's definitely interesting. Ovetz called the academy University Inc. I believe, talking about the corporatism that dominates the university field and appreciative direction. It's not so much about corporations anymore but fufulling the human's individual potential within a collective network. —— It will change the world and everything and everybody we know. So these are just ideas, thoughts, projections by a distanced undergraduate. I'm prepared to adapt. I'm just waiting for the signals to make light at midnight. The darkness will not overcome us. The collective is prepared and has faced challenge and adaption far more complex and harsh. I'm confident. Hope this literary babble isn't into the black box. Maybe there's something. Likely, there's not lol.

Peace be with you, Alex E. Towery.