Think Forward.

Rare diseases are not as rare as they seem... 10130

Aziz Daouda, 10 mon.
- Politics - Science - Society -
3.6 min read.
On Saturday february 22, I had the privilege of attending the 6th Rare Disease Day. Dr Khadija Moussayer, President of the Moroccan Rare Diseases Alliance, did me the honour, and I thank her for allowing me to sit at the table with the great medical professors who were going to discuss cutting-edge medical issues, requiring expertise and mastery of various subjects, as well as a deep humanism and a certain love of the country and its people. Unfortunately, I was only able to attend half of the proceedings, for which I am very sorry. So-called rare diseases are not in fact all that rare. They may be rare in terms of numbers, but they are so common that they are a daily occurrence in medical circles. They are rare because they are often invisible in a social environment that does not yet understand them or does not understand them well enough. They have a heavy impact on the emotional, sociological and economic life of families and enormously on the lives of the people affected. They are not yet adequately treated in university curricula, and are poorly understood by general practitioners and even by many paediatricians. Increasingly easy access to medical treatment is bringing these conditions out into the open, revealing their complexity and diversity to the medical community itself, as well as to families and society at large. They have an enormous psychological impact on families, disorientating them, tearing them apart and impoverishing them. Because of their genetic nature, they leave the families and individuals concerned in doubt, and plunge them into anxiety, disgust and self-hatred. Negative emotional reasoning and feelings of responsibility are never far away. This is often the driving force behind heavy social prejudice. Tradition and lack of education do the rest. They can go so far as to break up a family and often make the woman responsible. I myself met a young woman who was repudiated and rejected simply because she had given birth to a Marfan child. Her husband and family blamed her for the problematic birth and put her out on the street. Today, she is bringing up her child alone and is fighting to feed him, look after him, educate him and have his difference understood and accepted at school. Rare diseases are even more problematic, when you consider that doctors don't come across them every day in their consultations, and can even go so far as to ignore their existence. Their diagnoses are so complex at times that they require the intervention of multiple highly qualified specialities to define their existence and the protocols to be followed. More than in any other situation, the person diagnosed needs to be followed by more than one specialist at the same time. Is this always the case? Special tribute must be paid here to Professors Asmaa Quessar and Amine Benmoussa, who addressed the issue from the haematological point of view, explaining the complexity of the manifestations of some of these diseases and the impact of certain treatments. Professor FZ El Fatoiki focused in particular on skin manifestations, which in fact hide many things inside and are therefore crucial to diagnosis. Professor Imane Chahid received a special mention for her presentation on type 1 neurofibromatosis, which goes beyond café au lait spots. She recommended the creation of working groups involving all the specialities concerned, in order to limit patients' medical wandering and save time, efficiency and money. We need to explain to mothers that café au lait spots on a baby's skin are not ‘touhimates’. This ignorance can delay the treatment of a child with the disease, with all the consequences that can entail. That's true. One of the problems faced by families is medical wandering. Patients can spend a long time consulting and treating symptoms - ophthalmological, gastric, dermatological, etc. - before being diagnosed with a rare disease. Wandering is extremely costly. The testimony of a father who lost two children was particularly poignant. It was an emotional moment. The dignity and courage he showed make him an admirable character. I was reassured by the youth and commitment of more than one of the speakers. The sheer number and quality of people in attendance, and the questions asked by professionals and parents, show that there is a growing interest and expertise. The clarifications and commitment expressed on behalf of Moroccan geneticists by Prof. Karim Ouldim augur better days ahead, and a probably innovative approach to rapid and early diagnosis, and hence to treatment. In a way, he was responding to Prof. Chahid's call to work in clusters. Taking an interest in genetics brings us back to the question of data and the power of our computers. When it comes to genetics, AI is going to play a vital role, and if Morocco is not to suffer from the biases of others, it must compile and process its own data and train machines capable of understanding the specific genetic characteristics of Moroccans, because there are some, and that's normal. Any delay in this area will result in a lack of control, a squandering of skills, waste and a failure to respond effectively to the real needs of citizens. A fundamental question hovered over the room just before the lunch break: why is it that the work carried out by eminent Moroccans, the results of research carried out in the country and other discoveries are not taken into account in the establishment of public health policies? The gap between Moroccan research and the spheres of political decision-making is simply abnormal. A country can only progress from within through scientific research and hard work. Public policy must be based on innovation and research in the Moroccan field. Benchmarking is good, but research at national level is even better. I had the impression, and I was not the only one, that politicians go so far as to ignore, not to say despise, national skills, preferring to put their trust in foreign consultancies that are often ill-advised and ignorant of Moroccan realities and particularities. This is one of the reasons why our health and other systems are being hampered and impacted. It's unfortunate to be asking such questions in 2025. The day was an immeasurable success and deserves a great deal of media coverage, because the aim was to raise awareness. Lalla Khadija Moussayer and her team succeeded. We can never thank them enough for that. Thank you also for giving me the opportunity to meet Professor Mohammed Itri, an eminent paediatrician who left Rabat to teach at the CHU Ibn Rochd, but who never forgot his neighbourhood and his childhood neighbours...
Aziz Daouda Aziz Daouda

Aziz Daouda

Directeur Technique et du Développement de la Confédération Africaine d'Athlétisme. Passionné du Maroc, passionné d'Afrique. Concerné par ce qui se passe, formulant mon point de vue quand j'en ai un. Humaniste, j'essaye de l'être, humain je veux l'être. Mon histoire est intimement liée à l'athlétisme marocain et mondial. J'ai eu le privilège de participer à la gloire de mon pays .


8100

33.0

Chapter 5: Synthesis- The Consilience of the Framework 66

Satta Abraham, 4 h.
- Philosophy -
3.2 min read.
The evidentiary power and utility of this integrated framework—Orbits, Latticework, Pipeline—lies in its consilience. It weaves breakthroughs from wildly disparate fields into a single, coherent explanatory tapestry, revealing a universal pattern of successful inquiry. From Ballpark to Trading Floor: The narratives of Moneyball and The Big Short are isomorphic: Both begin with a philosophical reframing of value (what makes a baseball player valuable; what is the true risk of a mortgage bond). Both proceed through scientific, data-driven discovery of a massive market inefficiency (OBP vs. price; real default risk vs. AAA ratings). Both culminate in the formulation and execution of a winning model (a roster of undervalued players; a portfolio of credit default swaps). They are the same story, told in different arenas. From Sideline to Boardroom- José Mourinho’s Tactical Objectivity: The strategic success of football manager José Mourinho, particularly in his early career at Porto, Chelsea, and Inter Milan, can be precisely deconstructed through this lens. Lacking a storied playing career, he was unburdened by the sport’s internal, dogmatic "ways of knowing." His Outer Orbit philosophy was defined with stark clarity: winning is the sole aesthetic. His Middle Orbit work became legendary: obsessive, scientific analysis of opponents, involving countless hours of video to identify specific tactical vulnerabilities in individual players and systemic gaps in team shape. His Inner Orbit genius was in formulation: he would design rigorous, often defensively-oriented game models tailored to exploit those precise weaknesses, demanding robotic discipline from his players. His famous 1-0 victories, frequently derided as "anti-football" or "boring," were direct, logical products of pursuing objective victory over subjective aesthetic approval. He demonstrated that objectivity often requires enduring backlash from a consensus invested in a different, more romantic model of the game. From Factory Flow to Protein Fold: Taiichi Ohno’s andon cord and Demis Hassabis’s AlphaFold: Both are profound interventions based on latticework understanding. Ohno designed a human-technological system to make local truth (a defect) instantly global, optimizing a physical manufacturing lattice. Hassabis built a computational system to infer the spatial relationship lattice of amino acids from evolutionary data, optimizing our understanding of the biological lattice. One is mechanical and human, the other digital and abstract, but both are solutions born from seeing a problem as a network of relationships to be modeled and managed. The Contemporary Imperative-The Age of the Synthesist: The historical drift of knowledge since the Enlightenment has been from integration toward fragmentation. The Renaissance ideal of the uomo universale (universal man) gave way to the Industrial Age’s demand for the hyper-specialist. The 20th century perfected the silo. The 21st century, however, presents us with a stark imperative that demands a synthesis, a return to integrated thinking, but now armed with powerful new tools and facing problems of unprecedented scale. Two convergent forces make the orbital, latticework methodology not merely beneficial, but essential for competent navigation of our time. The Nature of Our Tools: Our most powerful analytical engines—Artificial Intelligence (particularly machine learning and large language models) and, on the horizon, Quantum Computing—are inherently cross-orbital and lattice-native. Deploying AI effectively on any complex problem, from drug discovery to climate modeling to ethical dilemma resolution, requires precise philosophical framing (defining objectives, values, and constraints to avoid perverse outcomes), robust and curated scientific data grounding, and exquisite mathematical formulation of the model architecture and training paradigm. These tools fail, often catastrophically and insidiously, with fragmented, siloed, or philosophically unexamined input. They demand, and therefore will select for, synthesist thinkers who can navigate all three orbits and think in terms of interconnected systems. The Nature of Our Challenges: The existential problems that define our epoch are quintessential latticework challenges. They cannot be contained within academic departments or government agencies. They are not "physics problems" or "economics problems." They are system problems. The specialized intellect, trained to dig ever deeper into a single vertical silo, is architecturally unequipped to even properly define them, let alone solve them. These challenges demand minds capable of orbital thinking across the lattice, minds that can hold multiple models, trace second- and third-order consequences, and formulate strategies that are robust across multiple domains of reality. Objectivity as the Foundational Operating System. The pursuit of objective truth is not a passive state of receiving revealed wisdom. It is an active, disciplined, and often confrontational chase. It requires the moral courage to question foundational premises in the Outer Orbit, the intellectual rigor to map reality without favor or illusion in the Middle Orbit, and the creative potency to formally synthesize understanding in the Inner Orbit. It demands that we see the world not as a collection of unrelated events, but as a vast, dynamic lattice of interlocking causes and effects. And it is best navigated with the structured, self-correcting protocol of the Objectivity Pipeline. This framework proposes objectivity not as the cold, emotionless province of a narrow scientism, but as a universal operating system for understanding, a scalable, rigorous, and ultimately humane methodology applicable with equal force to the equations of a physicist, the ethical calculus of a jurist, the investment thesis of a historian, the innovation of an engineer, and the strategy of a state. Subjectivity is the fog of un-modeled complexity. The Orbits Model, the Latticework Theory, and the Objectivity Pipeline constitute the navigation system—the charts, the compass, and the piloting protocol. In an epoch defined by overwhelming information, pervasive misinformation, and tools of god-like power whose misuse carries existential risk, mastering this chase is no longer an intellectual luxury or a philosophical pastime. It is the essential meta-skill, the foundational logic upon which reliable judgment, effective action, and meaningful progress depend. The choice before us is not between a subjective world and an objective one, but between wandering in the fog and building a lighthouse. The architecture for the lighthouse is here. The materials are the disciplines of thought we have inherited and refined. The builders must now be us.

Chapter 4: The Objectivity Pipeline- A Sequential Protocol for Execution 72

Satta Abraham, 4 h.
A theoretical framework, no matter how elegant, remains an intellectual curiosity unless it can be translated into a practical, repeatable protocol. The Orbits Model and the Latticework Theory converge into a disciplined, sequential, and recursive process I call ‘The Objectivity Pipeline’. This seven-stage pipeline provides the operational scaffolding to move from a nebulous, subjective problem to an objective, actionable solution. Define: Articulate the core problem, obstacle, or Wildly Important Goal (WIG) with surgical, unambiguous precision. Vague, multifaceted, or emotionally charged aims guarantee vague, conflicted outcomes. This is a pure Outer Orbit activity. Identify Variables: Catalog the key agents, forces, constraints, and measurable factors involved in the system. Move into the Middle Orbit. What are the inputs, outputs, and actors? Distinguish between independent variables (potential levers) and dependent variables (outcomes). Map Relationships: Diagram the causal, correlational, inhibitory, and influential links between the identified variables. This is the cartography of the latticework. Tools include causal loop diagrams, systems maps, influence diagrams, and process flows. The goal is to visualize the system's structure, revealing feedback loops, bottlenecks, and leverage points. Model: Construct a formal representation of the mapped system. This is the decisive leap to the Inner Orbit. The model can take many forms: a set of statistical equations, a system of differential equations, an agent-based computer simulation, a Bayesian network, or even a rigorously structured qualitative framework. The model is a simplified but functional analogue of reality, designed for manipulation and testing. Simulate: Run the model. Conduct experiments in silico. Test scenarios, stress-test assumptions under extreme conditions, and observe the range of potential outcomes the system logic produces. This stage provides a safe, low-cost environment for failure and learning before committing real-world resources. Verify: Return to the Middle Orbit. Collect new, out-of-sample empirical data—data not used to build the model—and check the model’s predictions against this observed reality. Does the world behave as the model forecasts? If not, the error is not in "reality"; it lies in an earlier stage of the pipeline. The process must recursively return to Definition, Variable Identification, Relationship Mapping, or Model Formulation for correction. Optimize: With a reasonably verified model, adjust the controllable variables within it to find the most efficient, effective, or robust path to achieve the goal defined in Stage 1. This is the stage of generating prescriptions and strategies. The Four Disciplines of Execution (4DX): The corporate strategy framework developed by McChesney, Covey, and Huling (The 4 Disciplines of Execution, 2012) is a streamlined, commercialized instantiation of the Objectivity Pipeline, designed for team-level implementation. Define: Focus on the Wildly Important Goal (WIG)—no more than one or two overwhelming priorities. Identify Variables: Differentiate between Lag Measures (the ultimate outcome metrics, like revenue or customer satisfaction) and Lead Measures (the predictive, influenceable activities that drive the lag measures, like sales calls or quality checks). Map Relationships: Create a Compelling Scoreboard that is simple, public, and visually maps, in real-time, the relationship between lead measure activity and progress toward the WIG. Model & Cadence: Establish a recurring Cadence of Accountability, a short, rhythmic meeting (e.g., weekly) where team members report on commitments, review the scoreboard, and plan new commitments. This cadence functions as a live, human-powered simulation, verification, and optimization loop, embodying stages 5-7 of the pipeline in a behavioral rhythm. The Lucas Paradox and the Anatomy of Perceived Risk: The Lucas Paradox, introduced by Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Lucas in 1990, refers to the persistent empirical observation that capital does not flow from capital-rich countries to capital-poor countries at the scale predicted by neoclassical growth theory, despite higher marginal returns to capital in poorer economies. This phenomenon is not a failure of investor rationality, nor is it primarily a behavioral anomaly. It is a failure of overly narrow models of risk and return. In its simplest form, the canonical model assumes that capital responds to differences in marginal productivity adjusted for measurable risk. Under those assumptions, capital should flow aggressively toward emerging and frontier markets. It does not. The paradox arises because the model omits structural variables that dominate realized outcomes in cross-border investment. The conventional framing treats the problem as one of portfolio optimization under uncertainty, focusing on variables such as growth rates, inflation, fiscal balance, political stability indices, and currency volatility. These variables are necessary but insufficient. Empirical research following Lucas has repeatedly shown that capital flows are far more sensitive to institutional quality, property rights enforcement, legal predictability, capital controls, sovereign credibility, and the risk of expropriation than to marginal productivity alone. Once these variables are incorporated, much of the paradox dissolves. A latticework-consistent approach does not redefine the problem as “exploiting irrational fear.” It reframes it as identifying structural wedges between theoretical returns and realizable returns. The relevant distinction is not between perceived and actual risk in a behavioral sense, but between modeled risk and true system risk, much of which is institutional, legal, and political rather than financial. A pipeline-compliant analysis therefore proceeds differently. It defines the problem as understanding why expected returns fail to materialize when capital is deployed across jurisdictions. It expands the variable set to include enforceability of contracts, durability of political coalitions, susceptibility to policy reversal, credibility of monetary and fiscal regimes, depth of domestic financial markets, and exposure to global liquidity cycles. It models the interaction between these variables, recognizing that risk is not additive but multiplicative. Weak institutions amplify shocks, truncate upside, and skew return distributions through tail events rather than through mean variance alone. Failing to be conscientious in pursuing objectivity using pipeline steps can have severe consequences at a global level making it an approach valid for consideration and study.

The Radiance of a Lady 70

Boucharfou, 5 h.
- Lifestyle - Poetry - Romance -
0.4 min read.
​Your love illuminates my heart, And you have forbidden me to reveal this honor. How can the light of your brilliance be dimmed When it radiates from everywhere? It shines like a sapphire, a diamond, or a jewel, And dazzles everyone with your blonde beauty. You do not believe in my love, In turn, While I can love no one else but you; This is my destiny, this is my faith. You are my heart and my soul, You are my destiny, you are my law. I cannot bear it when you are far away, beautiful woman, You who soothe my heart in flames. In you, I find all my vows, You who make my days happy. ​Dr. Fouad Bouchareb Inspired by an Andalusian music piece, "Bassit Ibahane" December 13, 2025 https://youtu.be/wlvhOVGyLek?si=5tt6cm0oChF1NQJJ

Chapter 3: The Latticework Theory- Reality as an Interdependent, Multi-Layered System 241

Satta Abraham, 1 d.
- Philosophy -
2.5 min read.
The conceptual framework commonly referred to as “Latticework Theory” integrates formal ontological analysis with applied epistemic reasoning. Willard Van Orman Quine’s analytic ontology, as outlined in "On What There Is" (1948), establishes rigorous criteria for identifying entities, categories, and relations within complex systems, providing a foundation for understanding which elements and interactions are structurally significant. Charlie Munger’s notion of a “latticework of mental models,” as articulated in his speeches and compiled in "Poor Charlie's Almanack" (2005), complements this by advocating for the disciplined integration of knowledge across domains to improve strategic decision-making under uncertainty. Together, these perspectives underpin a framework in which authority, information, and incentives propagate across layers of agents and institutions, producing outcomes that cannot be inferred from the isolated properties of components. Deviations at any node can be corrected when feedback is accurate, timely, and actionable. Failures occur when feedback is impaired, misaligned, or ignored. This framework provides a lens for analyzing industrial operations, national governance, financial systems, and technological risk in a unified, empirically grounded manner. The Toyota Production System (TPS), developed by Taiichi Ohno and detailed in "Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production" (1988), exemplifies this framework at the operational level. TPS integrates authority, information, and incentives to align local actions with system-level objectives. The andon system, which allowed assembly line workers to halt production upon detecting defects, transmitted local observations directly to organizational decision nodes, enabling immediate corrective action. Empirical analyses, including studies of manufacturing efficiency, demonstrate that this configuration reduced defect propagation, accelerated problem resolution, and increased overall reliability compared to designs that optimized individual workstations independently. For instance, companies implementing TPS principles have reported defect rate decreases of around 60 percent, reflecting the structural alignment of authority, information, and incentives rather than isolated interventions. Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew illustrates the same principle at the national level. Between 1965 and 2020, per-capita GDP rose from approximately $517 to $61,467 in current U.S. dollars. By 2020, public housing coverage reached approximately 78.7% of resident households. Scholarly analyses attribute these outcomes to a central coordinating constraint: administrative meritocracy combined with credible enforcement. Recruitment and promotion emphasized competence and performance, anti-corruption measures ensured policy credibility, and social and industrial policies aligned skill formation, investment, and housing. These mechanisms were mutually reinforcing, producing system-level outcomes that cannot be explained by any single policy instrument but rather by ontological reasoning. Financial markets and strategic advisory practice demonstrate analogous dynamics. Many successful hedge fund managers and macro investors, such as George Soros (who studied philosophy with a strong historical focus) and Ray Dalio (who emphasizes historical pattern recognition in his investment principles), draw on deep historical expertise. Studies and industry insights highlight the value of humanities backgrounds in finance, with hedge funds actively recruiting liberal arts graduates for their ability to provide broader contextual understanding. This expertise enables pattern recognition across interacting variables, resource constraints, institutional incentives, technological change, political legitimacy, leadership behavior, and stochastic shocks, while facilitating analogical judgment about systemic regimes. George Soros’s concept of reflexivity formalizes the empirical reality that market prices and participant beliefs mutually influence one another. In feedback-dominated systems, quantitative models fail unless interpreted in historical and structural context. Historical insight therefore provides an advantage in long-horizon investing, geopolitical risk assessment, and capital allocation, as evidenced by the track records of such practitioners. The Boeing 737 MAX incidents of 2018 and 2019 provide a negative case that clarifies the ontology’s conditions. Investigations revealed that the MCAS system relied on single-sensor inputs, information about its behavior and failure modes was inconsistently communicated to operators, and engineering authority was constrained by commercial and schedule pressures. Incentives prioritized rapid certification and cost containment over systemic reliability. Local anomalies propagated to produce two hull-loss accidents with 346 fatalities. Analysis demonstrates that robust interconnection alone is insufficient. Outcomes depend on the alignment of authority, accurate information, and incentive structures that empower corrective action. Across manufacturing, national governance, finance, and technology, the same structural principle emerges: effective outcomes require the alignment of authority, information, and incentives, with feedback channels possessing sufficient fidelity and remedial capacity. Misalignment in any dimension produces fragility and amplifies errors. The Orbits Model operates within this substrate, with inner orbits requiring empirical validation and outer orbits constrained by systemic coherence. Empirical evaluation relies on archival records, institutional data, and observable system outcomes, providing a unified framework for analyzing complex adaptive systems. The Latticework framework thus integrates ontology, applied epistemics, and structural empirics, combining theoretical rigor with practical observation across domains.

Theosophy 287

Tupan, 1 d.
Theosophy is a spiritual movement that emerged in the late nineteenth century with the ambition of bringing religion, philosophy, and science into a single, coherent vision of truth. Drawing on both Eastern and Western mystical traditions, it promotes the idea of a timeless or “perennial” philosophy underlying all world religions. Central to this outlook is the belief that the soul evolves over long cycles of reincarnation and karma, gradually awakening to deeper spiritual realities. The movement was formally established in 1875 by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891) and her collaborators with the founding of the Theosophical Society, and it went on to shape many of the spiritual, philosophical, and artistic currents of the modern era. At the heart of Theosophical thought is the idea of a divine, impersonal Absolute that lies beyond the limits of human understanding—an idea comparable to the Hindu concept of Brahman or the Neoplatonic One. From this unknowable source, all levels of existence are said to unfold, descending through a hierarchy of spiritual planes and beings until they manifest in the material world. This cosmological vision reflects strong influences from Indian philosophy, especially Vedanta and Buddhism, while also incorporating elements of Western esoteric traditions such as Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, and Kabbalah. A defining feature of Theosophy is its emphasis on spiritual evolution. In The Secret Doctrine (1888), Blavatsky’s most influential work, she presents an elaborate account of planetary and human development governed by the laws of karma and reincarnation. According to this framework, humanity is currently passing through the fifth of seven “root races,” each representing a stage in the unfolding spiritual and psychic capacities of the species. The ultimate goal is a conscious return to divine unity, achieved through inner transformation and esoteric knowledge. Blavatsky maintained that her teachings were not purely her own but were inspired by highly advanced spiritual beings known as the Mahatmas or Masters. Said to live in remote regions of the world, these adepts were described as guardians of ancient wisdom and exemplars of humanity’s spiritual potential. Whether understood literally or symbolically, they expressed the Theosophical ideal of enlightenment and supported the Society’s mission of awakening latent spiritual capacities in all people. The influence of Theosophy reached well beyond the boundaries of the Theosophical Society itself. It played an important role in introducing Western audiences to ideas such as karma, reincarnation, and subtle energy systems, and it helped spark broader interest in Eastern religions. Its impact can be seen in the work of artists like Wassily Kandinsky (1866-1944), composers such as Gustav Holst (1874-1934), and spiritual thinkers including Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), who later founded Anthroposophy, and Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986), who was once proclaimed a World Teacher before ultimately distancing himself from the movement. Despite internal disagreements and the often complex nature of its teachings, Theosophy laid important groundwork for the later New Age movement and for modern forms of spiritual pluralism. Its effort to present a shared mystical heritage across cultures anticipated contemporary conversations linking science and spirituality, psychology and mysticism, and Eastern and Western worldviews. In this sense, Theosophy is more than a historical curiosity. It represents an ambitious attempt to reinterpret ancient wisdom for a modern world, grounded in the belief that spiritual truth is universal and that humanity’s deeper purpose lies in awakening to its own divine origins.