On 'Disclosure'

The truth is in here...

The following text is offered after many months of reflection on the subject of 'disclosure'. As an incipient movement with techno-religious leanings (especially as it gets inscribed into Washington-Silicon Valley UAP circles), I remain extremely dubious. Broken down into what I would consider its constituent parts - the laudable ends of government transparency, accountability and declassification (of UAP-related information, now seemingly underway with the Pentagon's "PURSUE" initiative) - there isn't much to critique. But as those parts organize into a whole greater than the sum, Disclosure the movement is born. And I demur. The text is part of my developing political economy of UAP series of critical (and indeed self-critical) essays, and the political theory that might follow from them - or be required for them.

This present essay should be considered in draft form; therefore comments are greatly appreciated. And finally: several AI models were deployed during the foundational research for this essay, based on my informed views and prior reading; other essays in this series were also grounded in this foundational research (essays which are forthcoming). For the writing of the essay itself: the conceptual structure, the argumentative pathways, the major and minor theses - these are all strictly the author's; AI was instructed to remain within the confines of my thought as I dialogued with the model and supplied it with notes and extensive reflections, and sometimes complete prior drafts of text. As some may know, my native writing can be, at times, rather baroque. While I attempt to intervene to restore this where I deem it necessary, I employ AI to edit down my writing so that it has a better stylistic flow. (I also find that my own inner thinking is, as a consequence, beginning to take on something of the "clip" of AI-edited writing, reminding me of Nietzsche's own self-observation that, after adoption of the typewriter, his prose and the thinking that drove it took on the aphoristic style that eventually became his philosophical signature. Less can be more.) This practice is not without its dangers - AI blandness and repetitive writing formulae being, of course, the most irksome. Nevertheless, while AI (specially and primarily Claude) can be said to be a kind of co-author, I remain solely responsible for the arguments, facts and final editing of this text. (And to my students: no, you should labor first, for years, to produce unassisted writing before your skill in thought and pen is such that AI can be a true tool, rather than a crutch. Which is a danger we all face, it should be admitted.)

---