tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55750426267631298892024-03-05T07:08:59.210-08:00Grime and ReasonHumanity is the one common denominator.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-88150047982781273762017-02-02T10:54:00.001-08:002017-02-24T10:27:37.577-08:00Umberto Eco's characteristics of fascism, and how trump stacks up.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
Umberto Eco's characteristics of fascism, and how Trump stacks up.</h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i style="color: #414141; font-family: georgia, "times new roman", times, sans-serif;">1. <b>The cult of tradition.</b> “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.” </i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;">America First, Christian holy war versus Islam, American exceptionalism, backing by KKK, neo-nazi's and nationalists. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i>2. <b>The rejection of modernism.</b> “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.” </i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;">War on science and truth, ignoring evidence of risk viz a viz terror threats </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i>3.<b> The cult of action for action’s sake. </b>“Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.” </i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;">Er... yeah. Chaotic executive orders without reflection. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i>4. <b>Disagreement is treason.</b> “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.” </i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;">Sacked AG because deciding something may be unconstitutional is a "betrayal", anyone who doesn't think the same can get out. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i>5. <b>Fear of difference.</b> “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.” </i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;">Targets immigrants, refugees, LGBTQ, PoC.. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i>6. <b>Appeal to social frustration.</b> “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.” </i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;">Appeals to economic anxiety, plus "culture wars", plus fear and demonisation of the oppressed protesting their oppression </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i>7. <b>The obsession with a plot.</b> “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.” </i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;">Hysteria over impossible Sharia takeover, the "War on Christianity", and the threat of terrorism from foreigners </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i>8. <b>The enemy is both strong and weak.</b> “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.” </i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;">Islam is a massive threat to the might of the US, and also the ideology of backward sub-humans. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i>9. <b>Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy.</b> “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.” </i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;">Wanting to protect minorities, refugees, and asylum seekers from persecution is a betrayal of the country. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i>10. <b>Contempt for the weak.</b> “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.” </i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;">This is Trump we're talking about. He and his followers feel contempt for those they perceive as weak. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i>11. <b>Everybody is educated to become a hero.</b> “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.” </i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;">All of the above encourages people like the Quebec shooter to be a hero. Hopefully, it won't have a chance to be explicit teaching.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i>12. <b>Machismo and weaponry.</b> “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.” </i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;">I don't need to insult your intelligence and add anything here. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i>13. <b>Selective populism.</b> “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.” </i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;">The selected group of citizens were literally targeted and gamed by big-data via Cambridge Analytics, on whose board Bannon sits. FOX now the voice of the people. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i>14. <b>Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.</b> “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.” </i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;">A creationist is now reviewing the education system, and this was already shit to begin with..</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #414141; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , sans-serif;">So don't fucking tell me I don't know what fascism is when I say Trump et al are fascists.</span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-88577452295733015112016-11-15T14:26:00.002-08:002017-02-12T19:27:24.360-08:00A few words for anyone thinking about the possibility of the Left taking back the Democrats: Lessons from complexity theory and the UK Labour party.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This election was close enough for any one of a dozen or more mistakes or actions from either party to have been a determining factor. All those who are pushing one reason over all the others are merely exposing their own ideological biases, and that's understandable. Lot of people hurting. But, the only way to tackle a problem with so many aspects is a solution that tackles all of them simultaneously.<br />
<br />
This is hard. Real hard. That's why we simplify it. We find a meta-narrative that implicitly encompasses as many of the problems as possible, so that everyone can be on the same page as they go about their own way in doing things.<br />
<br />
IMO, the most meta-narrative, and the most useful narrative given it's existing, increasing, and global reach, is that of Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism encompasses a vast multitude of issues that both Left and Right each face, and want rid off. It's also a fight currently being fought on every continent, and believe me, they see the US and UK as the epicenter of it. It is synonymous with neocolonialism for a reason.<br />
<br />
So, in that context - The Democrats. Brief history: With the arrival of Reagan and Thatcher, the conservatives either side of the Atlantic borrowed and brutalised Hayeks ideals, ushering in the start of the Neoliberal hegemony in the West and Commonwealth. This hegemony was only cemented however when Clinton, then Blair, brought the major "Left-wing" parties in the US and UK into the neoliberal fold. Sure, when it comes to the "liberal" part, Democrats and Labour include social policy where conservatives do not; the Neo-part however, the economic side of things, was a bi-partisan agreement that gave the banking and finance sectors freedom to become integral players in politics, to the point that politics has become subservient to markets, and beholden to discredited economic dogma.<br />
<br />
So Neoliberalism had an uncontested hegemony for two generations, in which time the neoliberal corporate media normalised it to such an extent that it managed to frame itself as the political centre, as a benevolent, technocratic, even un-ideological alternative to the much maligned Left and Right. This is a lie. Neoliberalism is none-of-this. It is has ideological as any political ideology before it, though there is one key difference.<br />
<br />
Neoliberalism is not merely another political economic ideology, let alone a mere economic theory as some still manage to maintain. I recently came across a description of multi-national corporations as "meta-nationals", and this is *far* more appropriate. Neoliberalism is not bound by geographic borders, as other political ideologies most often find themselves. In fact, what neoliberalism represents is nothing short of an attempt to syncretise the scale of the nation-state, meaning to create an umbrella-like complex-system that incorporates nation states under it.<br />
<br />
I'm not saying this is by design, though many no doubt recognised the significance. This did not need to be planned; complexity always finds new scales of complexity to grow into, and just as the nation state once syncretised religions, so too will nation states be syncretised into something new. But neoliberalism is not it. It has inherent flaws, like maximising efficiency, that make it increasingly more fragile and prone to collapse, and the climate change narrative will ensure that the arguments that worked in the 1970s and 80s will not cut it any more.<br />
<br />
Ideologies emerge and spread if and when they are adaptive. Then, through dogma and institutionalisation, ideologies plateau and then start to fall behind the more rapidly evolving society outside of its bubble. That is where neoliberalism is now. There is no going back. There is no establishment rehabilitation. We are talking about a party for whom many have spent their entire political careers under a neoliberal, cross-party hegemony. Their contacts are neoliberals. Their thinking is neoliberal. Their donors are neoliberal. Their offices and colleagues and "enemies" are neoliberal. A shock event doesn't erase that memory, not at the individual scale, or the institutional scale. They will rationalise away blame. They will think they have to tack right just a tad more to capture Trump voters. They will maintain the same contacts and lobbyists, and friends that all stand to potentially lose in the event of any genuine change coming from the Left. They will fight.<br />
<br />
The old order must come down before the Dems will be effective in opposing Trump. In the UK, Corbyn, with politics like Sanders but minus the imperialism, won the leadership contest against three cookie-cutter establishment neoliberals. From day one, the neoliberal right of the Labour party, Blairites, connived and opposed Corbyn, briefing the press against him, putting far more energy into rebellion than opposing vicious Tory policy. Smear after smear from the press, from his own party, led eventually to most of the party resigning their Westminster posts and holding a vote of no confidence, which they comfortably won.<br />
<br />
So, another leadership contest, this time with purged members galore, 800% rise in party membership fee, and one opponent. Owen Smith. Former lobbyist for Pfizer (Incidentally, today a lobbyist for the Podesta Group announced his candidacy for Democrats Chair - took me back to the spring for a moment, before 2016 had done most of its damage), and on record as saying he thought himself and Blair as "socialist" (this is what I mean by the insidious way neoliberalism has effectively utilised the left to obscure right-wing structural ideology with social ideology and language.). Cobyn won. Again. With an improved mandate.<br />
<br />
So, we won? Nope. Not really. Neoliberals in Labour are still there. They are still agitating. Who knows how many awkward conversations they have had with the likes of Richard Branson, private health-care and rail owner who surprisingly doesn't like Corbyn, and the prospect of nationalised rail and a protected NHS.<br />
<br />
These kinds of conflicts are going to occur in the US. The establishment Democrats - by the way, "establishment" literally means neoliberal by 2016 - will fight anything that resembles actual change. As will the Hillary supporting neoliberal twitterati, comedians, and celebrities. That's why I was suspicious of Harry Reid and others endorsing Ellison. Everyone needs to make sure that they do not escape accountability, not for punishment's sake, but in terms of actually learning something.<br />
<br />
In some ways, I envy you; we didn't have the kind of shock doctrine moment to make use of. Maybe that can make a difference? Maybe Trump is so bad, the shock so deep, that they can reassess in ways Labour MP's could not? It's not impossible; one impassioned appeal by one to a group at the right time could unwind a number of ways. *But it is very unlikely*. In fact, I think doing so smoothly would be historically unprecedented.<br />
<br />
So, go forward expecting a fight. Establishment Democrats will not take kindly to the Left (who many still blame for Trump winning) demanding that the party get tough on the TPP, Fossil fuels, banking, finance, wealth redistribution or any of the many other things that desperately need addressing. That would lead to some many awkward conversations with peers and contacts over issues they essentially agree on, and guess what? They won't do shit, and like Labour in the UK, they will likely put far more effort resisting such changes.<br />
<br />
They will say it's "far-left", that Hillary got more votes than Sanders, that you can't win an election by being "soft" on immigration and crime, that whoever emerges is "unelectable", that finance is too important to risk it moving abroad, and many other things besides. Do not listen. They have proven how good they are at political analysis plenty enough already.<br />
<br />
So. Expect a fight. If it doesn't come, ask why not. Don't get caught up with what to promote; that is varied and messy and potentially divisive. Join people from Argentina, Brazil, Australia, Canada, the UK, Germany, Spain, Greece, India, South Africa, Nigeria, and wherever neocolonial neoliberalism has spread, and focus on opposing Neoliberalism. In the Democratic party, in meta-national organisations, and in your families and bars. If that is done, you may find that left and right have more in common than you think, given neoliberalism is neither, and fucks both.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAB680IyH60IMaiHpXUzUoiEjRhaMdvlcmGn1mSNVTS9WK0KmKw-I0IGaTOWAl-b2HML93xJXmbT_-xZiMJk5QXjT3oK9Jjsv2_pB1K80h5cpUK7PtB-UWQTmsMUSW0kLjqOLPOua6k0M/s1600/Neoliberal+Neoliberalismo.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAB680IyH60IMaiHpXUzUoiEjRhaMdvlcmGn1mSNVTS9WK0KmKw-I0IGaTOWAl-b2HML93xJXmbT_-xZiMJk5QXjT3oK9Jjsv2_pB1K80h5cpUK7PtB-UWQTmsMUSW0kLjqOLPOua6k0M/s320/Neoliberal+Neoliberalismo.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Countries most searching google for Neoliberalism (Blue) and Neoliberalismo (Red). </span></div>
<br />
<br />
Also, even if the Democratic party were to pull a Corbyn, intra-party sniping and rebellion aside, it would still only be one step. The problem, at heart is meta-national. The risk is meta-national, and for that matter, existential to many. We must become meta-national in our response, and, if possible, make that a central pillar of whatever comes next. For now, it looks like Neoliberalism is about to take a step back from the globalising trend many foolishly took for granted, but that needn't be bad. I mean fuck, the planet could do with a break from the needless stream of novelty trash being transported around the globe so we can spend more on things we know we will probably throw away. It doesn't mean that culture and communication will stop; we just need some time to get our fucking shit together regionally.<br />
<br />
TL:DR Rather than focus on what to promote, focus on what to oppose, something that encompasses as many of the individual problems as possible: Neoliberalism. But Neoliberals in Democrats will fight. Hard. Expect it, and use the unifying banner of anti-neoliberalism to win back the US system, and use it as a springboard to join the rest of the world in tackling the meta-national problem that is Neoliberalism.<br />
<br />
EDIT: By now, February 13th, it's pretty clear that a significant fascist element is challenging Neoliberalism. Resistance to this is paramount, but it is also vital that it not stop there, that we not allow Neoliberalism to try to take us back to an unsustainable "normal". That's done, it's broken, it's over. If they try, we will just suffer more and more until power is finally held accountable, and the US can rejoin the modern world in a new, more sustainable, and more time-appropriate, form.. </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-82592512100430412282016-07-26T08:36:00.001-07:002016-08-02T20:07:57.598-07:00The dynamics of the hegemonic ideological life-cycle AKA Why we are fucked in the West<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.42857em; margin-bottom: 0.357143em; margin-top: 0.357143em; padding: 0px;">
<i>I wanted to quickly outline the dynamics at play in the US and UK, to show how the betrayal of the left by the Democrats and New Labour set us on this terrible path. Again, I do not speak as someone who identifies as left. I speak as someone who is anti-ideological hegemony (so it just comes across that I am far-Left sometimes), and who understands these dynamics as universal dynamics across all complex adaptive systems. This is merely written in the context of political economy..</i></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.42857em; margin-bottom: 0.357143em; margin-top: 0.357143em; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.42857em; margin-bottom: 0.357143em; margin-top: 0.357143em; padding: 0px;">
When an ideology has cross party (or dictatorial) support for long enough, when that ideology is reflected in all shared cultural production at the expense of other identities, then it becomes hegemonic. Not just in power, but as part of peoples identities and their culture.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.42857em; margin-bottom: 0.357143em; margin-top: 0.357143em; padding: 0px;">
<br />
To give you an <i>extreme</i> example. The Nazi's took over all shared cultural production, from film to schools to public spaces.. everywhere was saturated with Nazi ideology. This feeds into people identity, either directly making them agree, making them ambivalent, or making them not disagree either through fear of some sort, or through thinking everyone else might agree. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.42857em; margin-bottom: 0.357143em; margin-top: 0.357143em; padding: 0px;">
<br />
In the US and, to a lesser extent the UK, a handful of corporations own all shared cultural production via national media, and have done for over two generations (except BBC/NPR/PBS - but they tow the state line anyway). Both parties support (or supported, until Corbyn) the Neoliberal political economic regime: the FED, the World Bank, the EU, the IMF, Central Banks, the Washington Consensus, Neoclassical economics, global finance, etc. Every piece of shared culture is filtered and shaped through a myriad of conscious and subconscious forces to, if not reinforce neoliberal ideology, then to not oppose it.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.42857em; margin-bottom: 0.357143em; margin-top: 0.357143em; padding: 0px;">
<br />
Now, party politics only functions when you have a Left and a Right. You go one way for a while, then the other party takes a turn and goes the other, correcting the previous mistakes. And thus we move forward in a balanced way. But when Bill Clinton and Tony Blair embraced Neoliberalism, they turned their parties from the left to the anti-left, and thus broke the functioning of party politics.<br />
<br />
When you have a hegemonic consensus, progress in governance doesn't happen. You simply keep moving in one direction, regardless of party. This creates what are known as path dependencies; the longer you go down said paths, the harder it is to reverse course.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.42857em; margin-bottom: 0.357143em; margin-top: 0.357143em; padding: 0px;">
<br />
So, what happens? Well, without any challenge to the hegemony, those involved do not see the root of the problem. Previously, religion acted as a moral challenge as in the Great Depression, but no more. Since government and institutions evolve at a much slower rate than the rest of society due to their doctrinal, ideological structure, tension begins to build. Like an earthquake.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.42857em; margin-bottom: 0.357143em; margin-top: 0.357143em; padding: 0px;">
<br />
This is where we are now. Power is in an ideological bubble, unable to see that it is their own ideological path dependencies and doctrine that are causing the tension. A growing number of people in society outside of that bubble <em style="font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px;">do</em> recognise it however, yet they are denied any route within the system by which to make reform.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.42857em; margin-bottom: 0.357143em; margin-top: 0.357143em; padding: 0px;">
<br />
And you know what JFK said about reform, right? Those that make peaceful revolution impossible and violent revolution inevitable. It's not just a slogan. It's real.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.42857em; margin-bottom: 0.357143em; margin-top: 0.357143em; padding: 0px;">
<br />
The <em style="font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px;">only</em> way that a hegemonic ideological structure can maintain itself in such a situation is to get more and more authoritarian. The hegemony doesn't evolve, society does, and so the tension grows and grows and grows until SNAP.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.42857em; margin-top: 0.357143em; padding: 0px;">
<br />
The way that these ideological hegemonies collapse is called a cascade event, or a transition. They happen quickly, suddenly, and unpredictably, and the violence (or energy) involved is determined by how much tension the ruling power has allowed to build. Not by those responding to it.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.42857em; margin-top: 0.357143em; padding: 0px;">
<br />
Voting Clinton or Owen Smith doesn't release the tension. It simply allows to keep building, because they are ideologically blind and unable to deal with the root causes of the tension, the root causes of why we have Trump. It doesn't make the threat of fascism go away with Trump losing, it makes the the eventual fascism likely to be even worse.<br />
<br />
That's because the energy in the tension will be higher. Which direction the cascade event falls depends on which force outside of the hegemonic system triggers the cascade. If to the right, we move *even further* right, meaning unsustainable fascism. If to the Left, we return to the mean, and correct the mistakes that were made over the last 40 years.<br />
<br />
Right now, the main priority should be in ensuring it breaks to the Left. I fear that should Clinton get in, the momentum from outside forces will come from the right; liberals won't mobilise in the same way if their own President is in. It could mean that come 2020, the insurgent challenger is on the Right once again, and the Left will once more be urging us to support the lesser evil. If Trump gets in, however fucked up that will be in the short-term, at least the Left will be the insurgent force, and the Neoliberal consensus will be well and truly shattered.<br />
<br />
There is no happy ending here. At least in the UK we have managed, somehow, to repel the Neoliberal backlash and maintain an anti-neoliberal Labour leader. The US is a much bigger shit-show.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-33784352489268430632016-07-24T16:26:00.004-07:002016-07-24T16:26:52.201-07:00Why Hillary may be a worse option than Trump (beyond the short-term).<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #292f33; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The following is a scenario that merely extends current, long-term Neoliberal trends, making two base assumptions that Clinton is a) Neoliberal, and b) Hawkish. I consider these premises to be self-evident, and I make no attempt to justify them in this short post. This scenario is why I think that Hillary winning in 2016 may be worse than Trump winning, in the medium-to-long term.</span></div>
<b id="docs-internal-guid-c072b24a-1f36-3277-78ce-5cf07fb21cd2" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #292f33; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It’s 2020. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #292f33; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Hillary Clinton is once again the Democrat nominee, with Elizabeth Warren long ago having sold out and no other anti-neoliberals left in the party. Third parties have failed to make headway, thanks to the rigged electoral commission still being half Democrat and half Republican. America is slowly “recovering” from yet another global economic crash - which people this time blame on those such as Kaine who pushed for more deregulation just before it happened - and any systemic reform is still being resisted. Hillary’s friends and donors hold sway in the White House, which has allowed Goldman Sachs to avoid collapse through yet more bailouts. The wealth of the rich continues to grow.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #292f33; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">National debt has increased even more (in line with wealth inequality), a situation not helped by increased military funding to counter the growing threat of Iran and Russia (due a deterioration in relations that's the result in large part of Clinton’s hawkish foreign policy strategies), as well as combatting both ISIS and white nationalist terror attacks domestically. This also results in even more powers for the FBI, NSA and CIA, and further expansion of the NSA base in Utah and enforced corporate cooperation.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #292f33; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The police have continued to kill blacks with impunity, and to become even more militarised, as “super-predators” start fighting back in larger numbers. Riots and bomb threats from a new Black Panther resurgence and KKK groups (empowered since the loss of Trump) rock major cities throughout the summer, while the media scream about the need to crack down on radical anti-neoliberals, far-left, and far-right (somewhat less so, mind). </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #292f33; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">TPP has been passed, and foreign-owned corporations are suing states that seek to pass environmental regulations to adapt to the increasingly violent and extreme impacts of climate change across the country. The subsequent rise in environmental activism has been labelled as domestic terror, with police forces infiltrating and preemptively arresting anyone with any connection to anti-fossil fuel direct action, including thousands of indigenous peoples. Drought and hurricanes rock the West and South like never before, yet corporations are largely untouched by water sanctions, and investment in infrastructure and adaptation is not forthcoming. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #292f33; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">From this situation, a new fascist emerges. Using the same language and techniques as Trump, only this time more conservative, and far less easy to ridicule. The Republican base takes to this newcomer in a broader fashion, the establishment more willing to work with him. People on the left who were anti-Hillary in 2016 remember the emotional blackmail and refuse to succumb to the same cries of “Vote Hillary or you support Fascism!”. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #292f33; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The fascist wins. Suddenly, the (neo)liberal “left” realise their mistake. They realise that this fascist has all the infrastructure he needs, infrastructure built under Democrats watch - to immediately impose fascism through declaring a state of emergency. They go to protest, and they are crushed by a police force that welcomes new poers and military equipment. Many ask.. "Maybe if things hadn’t gotten this bad before we stood up, we might have saved America?" </span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #292f33; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I don’t say I told you so, even though part of me scream it. I say welcome to the club, now let’s do something about it.</span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-88926562032015000972016-07-23T23:40:00.001-07:002016-07-23T23:47:03.608-07:00An Open letter to establishment Democrats and Republicans, and US liberals.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Let me begin by saying that America does not become fascist simply because a fascist becomes President. The US political system was explicitly designed for that not to happen. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
No. Trump needed Obama and Bush to create fascist infrastructure first.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Bush & Obama militarised police, built an unprecedented surveillance state, killed US citizens with no trial, gave sovereign power to banks and financial institutions, codified torture and pre-emptive war, and only <i>now</i> y'all are freaking out about fascism? </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Where the <i>fuck</i> have you been for the last 15 years? This is merely a culmination of decades of ideological hegemony.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Bush and Obama, Democrats and Republicans, Neoliberals, the lot of them, have together, with all of your help, created a turnkey fascist police state. Now that an actual fascist - recognisable to you only because he isn't a Neoliberal - might turn that key, <i>now</i> is the time you all realise? </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This isn't an aberration. This is the telos of consistently voting the lesser of two Neoliberal evils, interspersed with Neoliberal hope (but still neoliberal). Any ideological hegemony, be it a dictator or a "democratic" cross-party consensus, will devolve into authoritarianism as it tries to sustain its doctrine in the face of societal evolution and growing dissonance. By ignoring that, <span style="background-color: white; color: #292f33; font-family: "helveticaneue" , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 19.2867px; white-space: pre-wrap;">y</span>ou've all contributed to this approaching fascism. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
And if Trump doesn't win, it doesn't matter a jot in the medium-term. You've done fuck all to stop what is now inevitable. It will simply be 4-8 more years of increasingly authoritarian Neoliberal oppression, exponential inequality, unaccountable finance, militarising police.. until another fascist comes along, but this time in conditions worse than now.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
And it will keep going like that until shit gets so fucking bad that people revolt. You had a chance. You could have broken the Neoliberal hegemony. But Clinton’s hubris and ambition, the DNC's neoliberal colluding heart, and the indoctrination of neoliberal "left" scuppered Sanders.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
That was your shot. You won't get another. Not unless HRC wins, the DNC allow a democratic challenger in four years, then you vote for them. But all you Neoliberal "left" will be like "Don't split the party! Don't fight amongst ourselves! Look at the fascist! Support our Hillary!"</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Unless you break the Neoliberal hegemony, you <i>will</i> get fascism, sooner or later. And it won't be non-voters fault. It will be Neoliberals. The "Liberals" that besmirch the name recognisable to those in the 60s. The New Liberals. The Neoliberals. The now inherently anti-left Neoliberals thanks to the rapidly disappearing Overton window.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Only Neoliberalism has the power to change course, because only Neoliberals <i>have</i> power. But they won't. Not without a fight. Ideological hegemony doesn't just look in the mirror one day and say "Huh, we've gone too far, let's allow our opponent a turn to correct our mistakes". That's not how ideological hegemony ends.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Democrats and Republicans alike, both those in power and you who have supported them, have collaborated in creating a fascist infrastructure the likes of which the world has never seen. And now a fascist - only recognisable to you because he isn't Neoliberal - has come along with the key to the turnkey state, and <i>now</i> you freak out.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
You have stood aside while <i>your</i> guy built a fascist state, whether Bush or Obama, and instead of self-reflection, you guilt trip those who have had enough and can no longer continue to facilitate the gradual decline into authoritarianism.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Fuck that. Fuck you. Everybody who has supported Neoliberalism, or even failed to learn what the fucking word means, you <i>all</i> helped make Trump. Even worse, you supported the making of the tools and the infrastructure that means that simply having one psycho in one office is enough to have fully fledged fascist state.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
If the US wasn't in the grip of a dying ideological consensus, if it was a functioning democracy, Trump <i>couldn't do fuck all.</i> Again, the whole point of the US governance system was to avoid one man being able to create a tyranny. That fucked up way before Trump appeared.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
It fucked up under Bush. It fucked up under your precious Obama. I mean, how good a President can Obama be if Trump inheriting his system is such an existential threat?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So don't give me "Vote Hillary coz Trump!", because another Trump is inevitable anyway, and it was your bullshit ignorance and apathy that made it so. Unless every one of you can make a pact to never again vote for the lesser of two evils, to take Trump as the warning he is, to reflect on your own role in this shit-show and commit to becoming dedicated political reformers should conscientious people vote for Hillary against their will, then excuse me while I angrily dismiss your emotional blackmail. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
If Trump alone can make America a fascist state, you need to take a long damn look at yourselves and ask why that is so. All of you. You don't get to participate in building a turnkey fascist police state, and then blame others for allowing one to turn the key.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-19364294873108521622016-06-25T08:33:00.002-07:002016-06-25T08:33:50.733-07:00Brexit: the aftermath<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
So, did everyone have fun?<br />
<br />
Some did. I didn't. Not because I desperately wanted to stay. I didn't. Neither did I want to go. I seem to have been in an odd, sidelined group that couldn't decide either way. So let me get my own view out of the way so you can account for whatever biases you may think you find in here.<br />
<br />
IN: To me, this meant nothing more than a slow decline in a neoliberal system of supranational governance that was going to face insurmountable existential threats regardless of the way this referendum went. Don't get me wrong; there are things about the EU I love, with free movement of people and environmental protections among them. But there are things I hate about the EU too; the way they sided with neoliberal institutions to undermine Greece, the way they have handled refugees, and the seeming lack of any hope of reforming it out of it's neoliberal mode of being.<br />
<br />
OUT: There are things about leaving the EU that worry me greatly, not least the danger it poses to the things I love about the EU. I also feel deeply for those in the UK that are directly affected by the prospect of leaving the EU. I hate the idea that it emboldens the far-right, and the fact that it leaves even more hard-line neoliberals in the Conservative government empowered. On the flip-side, I think it is easier to reform one's own government that that of the EU, and I support the global trend of devolution and smaller-scales of governance.<br />
<br />
So to me, there was no good result from the out-set from this referendum. It should never have taken place, in my opinion. Not so much because of anything inherent about referendums, but because it is so damned complex that it is completely unreasonable to think that the population could come to an educated decision. Now, before one thinks I'm being patronising, I'm not criticising people's capacity to make decsions, not inherently. I'm criticising the media and those in power for having spent the last twenty years or so demonising everyone except those actually responsible.<br />
<br />
We've all seen the many examples of misinformation that have influenced people's thinking. Stretched services and infrastructure blamed on immigrants and not the chronic under-funding by government. A press that demonises the poor and minorities because fear sells papers. The incredibly simplistic and misleading soundbites perpetuated by a news media that barely bothers to actually parse fact from fiction. As many have said, the establishment can hardly complain that, after years of blaming immigrants for their own failings, the people then go out and blame immigrants for the stagnation they feel in their lives.<br />
<br />
So no, I don't think it should have happened. But it has. And now the shit has hit the fan.<br />
<br />
Personally, I'm disgusted by both sides of this debate. There was no good option here in my opinion; at best, there was a least worse option with the promise of worse to come anyway, Yet one would think from social media that we have voted to leave a land of milk and honey and opted for the Fourth Reich instead.<br />
<br />
Someone called Ahmed Gatnash posted this on Facebook that nicely summed up my feelings about the reaction of remain supporters:<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.08px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
If you don't know a single person who voted leave then you need to get out of your bubble. If you don't have different opinions on your news feed or timeline th<span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline; font-family: inherit;">en you're living in an echo chamber and likely only get the other side's arguments as interpreted through your own side, after application of appropriate spin. And that means that you're part of the polarisation.</span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; display: inline;">
<div style="color: #666666; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.08px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
It's easy to dismiss half of the entire population as ignorant bigots and racists if you've never tried to understand them or had even one genuine, heartfelt conversation. Even easier if your life rarely brings you into contact with them, which is especially the case for students.</div>
<div style="color: #666666; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.08px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
I actually see the same condescending attitudes from my (overwhelmingly young, cosmopolitan, progressive) friends towards their fellow citizens here that I see from white western orientalists commenting about what's happening in the Middle East - looking down, talking about but never to, and trying to fit everything into pre-conceived boxes without admitting a possible knowledge (let alone empathy) deficit.</div>
<div style="color: #666666; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.08px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
Populism and xenophobia aren't being normalised, they were normalised long ago. If you want us to head in a different direction you can either ignore the problem and hope it'll fix itself somehow, try to abuse people into change (good luck with that), or suspend democracy. If none of those options sound appealing then get out there and burst your bubble. This is a polarised country, and it certainly won't be politicians that fix that.</div>
<div style="color: #666666; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.08px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #666666; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.08px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: small; line-height: normal;">There are not 17 million people worthy of being labelled racist bigots in this country. There weren't before the vote, and that hasn't changed. I understand the frustration, but trying to seek a single answer to why Leave won is never going to work. <i>There is never a single reason for such large scale complex emergence. </i>That is true technically, and it is true if you just <i>look</i>. Yes, 71% of graduates voted Remain, but 29% voted Leave. Yes, two-thirds of people who value multiculturalism voted Remain, but one-third voted Leave. However you look at it, this isn't simply a right vs left issue, nor educated vs uneducated, or even urban vs rural. And it certainly isn't Racists vs Good People. </span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
Let me set this within a wider context. Neoliberalism is dying. The world economy is waiting to crash again. Nothing was reformed since 2008, and little has changed. The same people in power then, globally, are in power now. In that time, their wealth has grown significantly whilst everyone else wealth has stagnated. This merely extended a trend evident since the 1970's, and while the population at large may be unaware or unclear on what or who is to blame, they recognise their situation regardless. They look to London as a symbol of that exploitative power; do not be surprised that there is such antipathy toward it, and those pontificating from within its prosperous bubble.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
These people have been failed by neoliberalism, and calling them a bunch of racists isn't going to help. There was no coherent proposition that spoke to these people's needs in the contexxt of Remaining in the EU.<i> </i>There was no anti-neoliberal, pro-EU movement. There was no rationale presented that simultaneously sought to keep us in the EU whilst also addressing the stagnation and insecurity felt by millions around the country. Instead, we got project Fear, that wheeled out the very CEO's and economists that constitute the neoliberal hegemony to tell us, again, that we have to align with their interests because it is also in the peoples interest. People don't believe them anymore (I don't blame them), and the failure of the Left and Remain campaign to realise this cost them the referendum.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
At the end of the day, people were presented with successful talking heads telling them the status-quo was great, despite the status-quo being a dying ideology that has seen growing wealth inequalities across the country. A status-quo where the global rich invest in London properties driving the whole market up from already high levels. A status-quo that includes an unaffordable rental market that continue to climb. A status-quo which for years has blamed everyone else but themselves. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
The choice was that status-quo, or a roll of the dice. A roll of the dice that would simultaneously say Fuck You to those in power, and to those that failed to appreciate the perilous state millions find themselves in.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
You don't need to think 17 million people are bigoted racists to explain why Leave edged it, unless you are unable to see other reasons. If you cannot see that, you are part of the problem. In framing this referendum as bigots vs the enlightened, the Remain camp have played their part in making <i>actual</i> racists feeling like they are somehow representative of 17 million people. That has to stop now. We have to combat the threat from the far-right not by alienating those on the left who voted Leave, but by undoing the poisonous and exploitative systems that generated both the fear and misinformation, and the structural tensions and inequalities. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
We need to target neoliberalism. We need a coherent alternative. The SNP did it. The pirate party have done it in Iceland. Podemos have done it in Spain. Yet in the UK, many in Labour are <i>still</i> utterly blind to the state of neoliberalism, and are determined to undermine any effort by Corbyn to present a united front. I'm not a particularly big fan; I'd rather someone more dynamic and engaging. But he's got a mandate. He has support. And he potentially has the easiest job in the world: rallying people to an anti-neoliberal banner at a time when neoliberalism is on its last legs (which incidentally is when it is most dangerous).</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
So quit with the generalisations, quit with the blaming each other, quit with the divisiveness. The core problems facing both Leave and Remain voters are the same problems, so start acting like it. We have an emboldened far-right to slap down. Get to it.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-64310235177222908512015-10-06T15:06:00.001-07:002015-10-06T15:06:19.961-07:00First draft, first chapter.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Chapter one.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The first sign of trouble came with a
small, red, flashing light illuminating the cold, metal corridor that
had remained dark for several years. It was joined by a dull green
glow as screens lit up from their hibernation. The first noise for
several years quickly followed; a hissing cacophony from a row of
pods whose bottom edges slowly protruded from the opposing wall,
joined moments later by the sound of an alarm. Consoles kicked into
life, turning the green to a warm, white light as the front panels of
the pods slowly opened.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Of the five pods, the occupant of the
middle one was first to stir. Despite the soft lighting and
relatively low volume of the alarm, designed to minimise sensory
overload in such situations, the face revealed by the clearing
vapours scrunched it's eyes and slowly raised a hand to shield the
light. The alarm was harder for the subconscious to ignore however,
and within seconds the training kicked in. Stretching and bending his
legs, the man emerged from the pod, unclipped a variety of tubes and
sensors from the hood-to-toe, skin-tight, outfit, and turned to help
the others wake from their long slumbers.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
He didn't hang around. Unclipping the
others, he gently but firmly slapped their cheeks, bringing the sound
of the alarms to their senses. Sickness and disorientation was to be
expected, and he quickly gave two who were struggling a shot in the
neck to bring them round. It took a couple of minutes for everyone to
become functional, in which time two of the personnel were already at
the screens, trying to ascertain what could have happened that
required them to be brought out of deep-sleep and into a world of
flashing lights and alarms. Why couldn't the ship handle this?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
All five personnel, four men and one
woman, almost identical looking except for their exposed faces, were
now frantically working the touch-screen consoles. Something was very
wrong, that much was clear. They appeared to have no access to the
computers AI, which would explain why they had had to be thawed, and
were having to diagnose the problem themselves.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
They didn't have to wait long to get a
major clue as to what was up. A console turned red, warning of a hull
breach in sector 7G. Worse, the hull breach extended as far as sector
7D, a cargo hold, meaning the breach extended through four layers of
the ship.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“Have we been hit by something?”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“Shields are operational, no
indication of damage.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So what the hell was happening? Yes,
they were going fast, very fast, but between the AI, the sensors, the
offensive capabilities, and the shield, the ship was designed to bare
practically zero risk from unexpected asteroids. Some sort of attack,
perhaps? Yet, despite the AI apparently not being operational, the
shield appeared unaffected.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“The hull breach came <i>after</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
we were already awoken. Had it been an attack that had caused it,
what had happened previously to warrant the emergency protocol
initiation? Jones, you work thought the ship's log, find an answer.
I'm going to try and find out why we can't communicate with the AI.
The rest of you, manually initiate containment and repair. Go.”</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Jones was already
doing just that. It appeared that the first indication of trouble had
come from sector 7D: atmospheric changes, temperature rising, breach.
Followed by the same indicators in sectors 7E, F, and finally the
hull breach itself.</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“<span style="font-style: normal;">It
looks like whatever happened, it happened from the inside-out,
originating in sector 7D. Sir, do you copy? Sir?”</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The commanding
officer, for without the AI that was he was, at least temporarily,
was silent. He was staring, confused, dumbfounded, at the screen
before him. He was completely locked out.
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“Sir?”</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“It's useless. I
can't even begin to diagnose the problem. All the ships read-outs are
consistent, but the AI's completely inaccessible.”</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
He checked on the
progress of the automatic contingency protocol, which, for by now
obvious reasons, operated separately from the ship's AI. Every pod on
the ship was by now primed for evacuation, just in case things got
critical. Which they did.</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“We have more
immediate problems, sir. The hull breach is getting worse, and
without the AI, I cannot say for sure what is causing it.”</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“Best guess,
Jones?”</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="RIGHT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“Best
guess? Given where it started and the time between each floors
atmospheric changes, something from the cargo hold is eating through
the structure; acid, or something similar”.</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“No way something
like that would have got on board. Too big a risk for something we
can easily synthesise.”</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="RIGHT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“Well,
whatever it is, it was onboard, and it was a risk. Or a hope.”</div>
<div align="RIGHT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The
commanding officer looked at Jones, and quickly thought through the
implications. It couldn't have been an accident. Significant
resources had been committed to working through each and every risk,
and to mitigate them to incredible odds. That meant that whatever was
going on, it was most likely hidden, complex, and worse of all,
intended. And no one would intend to only do localised, repairable
damage. What's more, it was likely tied to the reason the AI was out
of commission.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“If
this is intended, then this is likely about to get much worse than it
currently appears.”</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="RIGHT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“Initiate
evacuation, Sir?”</div>
<div align="RIGHT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“Do
it. We can always pick them up when we are done. It's not like they
would even know.”</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Jones
ran along the gangway at full speed. The full speed his legs could
manage after years in the freezer, anyway. The echoes of his steps
rang out in rhythm with the alarm, his mind taking a moment to
recognise the synchronisation. Moments later, he came to a halt in
front of a control panel, lifted a protective shield, and placed his
hand against the screen. Nothing happened. Jones shouted down the
corridor.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“Sir,
we have a problem! The controls are dead!”</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="RIGHT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“We
have more than a problem; two more cargo holds are reporting
atmospheric changes!”</div>
<div align="RIGHT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Jones
could see the commanding officer frantically hammering on the
controls. He moved quickly, and was already at the nearest pod when
he heard the officer shout.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“Start
manually ejecting the pods, now!”</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Jones
yanked open the manual ejection mechanism next to the pod, pulled out
the pin, and pulled down a large, red lever 180 degrees. A hiss of
air made him step back, and without waiting to see if the pod
ejected, was on to the next one. Twice more he went through the
procedure, all the while calculating. Six thousand pods. Roughly ten
seconds per pod, no doubt slowing with fatigue long before the end.
Even assuming the other four joined him, that was well over 5 hours
work. Not nearly enough.
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“Sir,
we need more hands!”</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The
officer nodded, turned, and started methodically moving along the
line of pods directly next to those they had themselves emerged from.
Engineers. Security. The expendables. Jones hurriedly joined him. If
they could get enough people un-thawed, they might be able to get
everyone off the ship in as little as half an hour. They didn't have
half an hour.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
A new
sound gave the two men pause for a moment. Then another. More alarms.
The officer turned and looked at the displays. Two more hull
breaches. Red, flashing warnings everywhere. The increasing damage
was relentless, the cause still unknown. Jones and the officer looked
at each other, each searching the other for an answer. None came.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“What
the hell is going on here?”</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
One of
the newly awoken crew was trying to make sense of the noise and the
lights. Others started to stir. Jones looked at them, looked at the
screens, and started to cry.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“I'm
sorry. I'm so sorry..”</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The
situation was hopeless. He knew that. All along the ship, the
computer was reporting atmospheric changes consistent with those
before. Whatever was happening, it was happening everywhere, all at
once. All he had done by awakening his colleagues was to allow them
to experience their final moments.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
He
looked along the gantry. About two hundred yards away, he could see
the empty spaces that had formerly been the home to free pods. With
any luck, they might be able to harvest enough energy to keep going
until they found somewhere hospitable. But even if they didn't, they
were still guaranteed a better death than the people he had awoken.
He would even pick eternal slumber than experience the certainty of
death first-hand.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“We
might be going to die, but that doesn't mean we can't save some.
Everyone, start ejecti...”</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
He got
no further. Gravity failed, pressurisation failed a moment
afterwards, and the entire ship was shaken and blown apart. For what
is was worth, their deaths were quick.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Speeding
away from the explosion, three pods were adjusting their trajectory
and powering away from the ship. Not fast enough to completely escape
the resulting explosion, but enough to survive it. Whether surviving
meant anything at this point, only fate would decide. Fate, and the
on-board computers that charted a course for the nearest star cluster
with known potential for life-sustaining planets.
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-11574920862179689572015-10-06T14:59:00.001-07:002016-03-12T08:15:15.774-08:00Introduction to Complexity Resources<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2>
Articles</h2>
<h3>
<a href="http://www.synthesisips.net/blog/the-complexity-of-hayek/">The Complexity of Hayek<span style="text-decoration: underline;">:</span></a></h3>
Greg Fisher, Synthesis, February 2012<br />
There are a number of similarities between complex systems and
Friedrich von Hayek’s work fleshed out in this blog. For those who
want to build on Hayek’s broad approach to social systems, they need
look no further than complexity theory.<br />
<hr />
<h3>
<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3381">Life Before Earth?</a></h3>
Cornell University Library, March 2013<br />
This study suggests an extrapolation of the genetic complexity of
organisms to earlier times suggests that life began before the Earth was
formed. Life may have started from systems with single heritable
elements that are functionally equivalent to a nucleotide. The genetic
complexity, roughly measured by the number of non-redundant functional
nucleotides, is expected to have grown exponentially due to several
positive feedback factors: gene cooperation, duplication of genes with
their subsequent specialization, and emergence of novel functional
niches associated with existing genes. Fascinating idea to consider.<br />
<hr />
<h3>
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/simplicity-leadership-embrace-complexity-first">Want simplicity in leadership? Then embrace complexity first</a></h3>
Bettina von Stamm, Guardian, June 2013<br />
If you want to thrive rather than just survive, understanding and
embracing the principles of complexity theory can be extremely valuable,
and by embracing and living by those principles you will be able to
achieve what everyone is yearning for: simplicity.<br />
<hr />
<h3>
<a href="http://www.synthesisips.net/blog/what-to-make-of-the-complexity-paradigm/">What to make of the complexity paradigm?</a></h3>
Ben King, Synthesis, October 2013<br />
With so much at stake – global warming, resource depletion, growing
complexity etc – it is vitally important that we understand the dynamics
of paradigm shifts, so that we may both effectively communicate this
new paradigm and have realistic expectations of the challenges ahead.<br />
<hr />
<h3>
<a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt">How science is telling us all to revolt</a></h3>
Naomi Klein, New Statemans, October 2013<br />
Is our relentless quest for economic growth killing the planet?
Climate scientists have seen the data – and they are coming to some
incendiary conclusions using complexity and systems theory.<br />
<hr />
<h3>
<a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120178/problem-international-development-and-plan-fix-it">Stop trying to save the world; big ideas are destroying international development</a></h3>
New Republic, November 2014<br />
Fascinating article about the risk of unintended consequences and
negative path dependencies in international development, and the need
for the field to embrace complexity theory.<br />
<hr />
<h2>
Video</h2>
<h3>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeehPqQHBdI">Franz contemplates complexity</a></h3>
ContemplateThisDotOrg, April 2011<br />
I am not ashamed to say that by the end of this video I was crying
actual tears. Extremely beautiful short video about complexity theory
and complex adaptive systems.<br />
<hr />
<h3>
<a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford">Trial, error and the God complex</a></h3>
Tim Harford, TED, July 2011<br />
Economics writer Tim Harford studies complex systems — and finds a
surprising link among the successful ones: they were built through trial
and error. In this sparkling talk from TEDGlobal 2011, he asks us to
embrace our randomness and start making better mistakes.<br />
<hr />
<h3>
<a href="https://vimeo.com/44013533">Complexity theory and panpsychism</a></h3>
Dr N. Theise, 2013<br />
Dr. Neil Theise, LIver Pathologist and Stem Cell specialist, explains
complexity theory, and how sentience could be a function not only of
human brains, but of all life, and indeed, of all existence. Sentience,
according to his view, is the very interaction that creates all patterns
in the universe, including all matter and space. This is the closest
thing I have found to someone else explaining what I also concluded;
that consciousness is a spectrum stretching from the very small to the
very large.<br />
<hr />
<h3>
<a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/nicolas_perony_puppies_now_that_i_ve_got_your_attention_complexity_theory?language=en">Puppies! Now that I’ve got your attention, complexity theory</a></h3>
Nicolas Perony, TED, OCtober 2013<br />
Animal behavior isn’t complicated, but it is complex. Nicolas Perony
studies how individual animals — be they Scottish Terriers, bats or
meerkats — follow simple rules that, collectively, create larger
patterns of behavior. And how this complexity born of simplicity can
help them adapt to new circumstances, as they arise.<br />
<hr />
<h3>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTQbe9R4jB4">Complexity, Culture & Consciousness </a></h3>
Minds.com panel discussion, January 2014<br />
On the intersections of complexity theory, cultural studies, and the
evolution of consciousness, this google hangout features Neil Theise,
Complexity Researcher; Richard Doyle, Information Scientist; Erik Davis,
Religious Scholar; Michael Garfield, Evolutionary Philosopher; Mitch
Mignano, Cultural Historian; and Bill Ottman, Open Web Activist.
Incidentally, it was nice to see a bit of derision towards the skeptical
communities inability to deal with politics.<br />
<hr />
<h3>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P00A9IZ7Pog">Complexity theory: an introduction</a></h3>
Complexity Lab, April 2014<br />
A short introduction to the new area of complexity theory. For those
not familiar with the technical aspects already, the short film below
may be better.<br />
<hr />
<h3>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1_-sxXP7rw">Complexity Theory: A short film</a></h3>
Complexity Lab, June 2014<br />
An inspirational short film about complexity theory and the shift in
paradigm from the Newtonian clockwork universe to complex systems,
produced by Complexity Labs.<br />
<hr />
<h2>
Websites</h2>
<h3>
<a href="http://http//www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/complexity/home.aspx">LSE Complexity Group</a></h3>
The LSE Complexity Group has been working for over 20 years, with
organisations in the private and public sectors to address practical
complex problems. In the process it has developed a theory of complex
social systems and an integrated methodology using both qualitative and
quantitative tools and methods.<br />
<hr />
<h3>
<a href="http://www.complexcarewales.org/" title="Complex Care Wales">Complex Care Wales</a></h3>
An example of complexity as applied to healthcare, in 2010, a
multi-agency network was established across Wales, bringing together
practitioners from a range of disciplines and services to form the
Complex Care Forum. The purpose was to explore and develop practice,
aimed at supporting people who live with complex needs. This article is
intended to describe a new understanding of demand and capacity with in
healthcare, through work undertaken within Hywel Dda Health Board – an
integrated health organisation based in West Wales.<br />
<hr />
<h3>
<a href="http://grimeandreason.com/resources-and-links/www.santafe.edu" title="www.santafe.edu">Santa Fe Institute</a></h3>
The Santa Fe Institute is a private, not-for-profit, independent
research and education center, founded in 1984, where leading scientists
grapple with some of the most compelling and complex problems of our
time. Researchers come to the Santa Fe Institute from universities,
government agencies, research institutes, and private industry to
collaborate across disciplines, merging ideas and principles of many
fields — from physics, mathematics, and biology to the social sciences
and the humanities — in pursuit of creative insights that improve our
world.<br />
<hr />
<h3>
<a href="http://www.synthesisips.net/">Synthesis</a></h3>
Synthesis is a think-tank devoted to using the emerging paradigm of
complex networks in the social sciences to tackle social and public
policy concerns.<br />
<hr />
<h2>
Books</h2>
<h3>
<a href="http://aidontheedge.info/">Aid on the Edge of Chaos</a></h3>
Ben Ramalingam, Oxford University Press, 2013<br />
An excellent expose on the follies of international development sans an understanding of complex systems.<br />
“This excellent book does three important things. It provides an
informative tour of the reductionist thinking and over-simplistic
approaches that characterise so much current development policy and
practice. It draws on the ideas of complex adaptive systems research to
show that such flaws are neither inevitable nor incurable. And it
presents a series of powerful cases of how these new ideas are beginning
to make a real difference to the way we think about and work in aid. A
must-read for anyone interested in development, its current discontents,
and its future potential.”<br />
– Ricardo Haussmann, former Chief Economist, Inter-American
Development Bank and Director of the Centre for International
Development, Harvard University<br />
<br />
<hr />
<h2>
Online training and e-learning courses</h2>
<h3>
<a href="https://www.udemy.com/complex-systems-theory-an-introduction/">Complex Systems Theory: An Introduction</a></h3>
Complexity Lab<br />
This course is an introduction to the core concepts of complex
systems theory, an exciting new area that is offering us a fresh
perspective on issues such as understanding our financial system, the
environment and large social organizations. The aim of this course is to
bring the often abstract and sophisticated concepts of this subject
down to earth and understandable in an intuitive form. After having
started with an overview to complex systems this course will focus upon
five of the core concepts. It costs £16 to take, includes 17 lectures,
and is intended for a broad group of people but will be particularly
relevant for those with a background in a technical domain such a some
area of math, science, engineering or business.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-14674951817347091562015-10-06T14:57:00.001-07:002015-10-06T14:57:35.835-07:00University of Surrey Complexity Workshop: Rearranging the theoretical deckchairs.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This week I attended the fourth workshop of the Constructed
Complexities series, organised by the University of Surrey. The theme
for the workshop was ‘Socially constructed complexities, institutions,
and power’, a theme that has been at the heart of my philosophising on
complexity for the best part of a decade. That said, I have never really
delved into any established academic theory on the topic, and so I feel
extremely lucky to have had the chance to finally immerse myself into
how the complexity field is progressing within academia.<br />
<br />
It didn’t surprise me therefore that I had never heard of 90% of the
people referenced by the guest speakers, nor the majority of the
established theories covered. That said, much of the material felt like
familiar ground; generally what I would have expected from the
application of complexity theory to institutions and power. The first
day saw talks on the complexities of water management in New Mexico, the
nature of (and need for) social ontology, and the normative
implications of complexity for politics. Day two focused on various
frameworks of institutionalism (historical, sociological,
rational-choice, critical, etc), with a particular focus on
historical-institutionalism. The speakers were, without exception,
top-notch, and the discussion, like the food, was both delicious and
nutritious.<br />
<br />
Since so many of the concepts and terms were new to me, I won’t
attempt in this blog to critique the various modalities that were
presented; a lot of great minds have been debating the various forms of
institutionalism for two or three decades now, and I wouldn’t deign to
think two days of talks would be enough for me to do justice to them.
Instead, I want to provide an outside, critical perspective on the
overall endevour at hand, placing it within a wider, global, un-academic
context.<br />
<br />
Complexity is that rare beast; a framework pursued by multiple
disciplines that constitutes a paradigm shift in the way we see the
world, a la post-modernism and modernism. It is not surprising therefore
that much of the academic process has involved a) a lot of effort going
toward finding common terminology, and b) a continuous process of
changing focus, as new theories seek to emphasise elements neglected by
previous concepts. At various points, rational-choice theory, sociology,
the state, historical context, and others have been made the focus of
how to best view institutions, resulting in decades of publications and a
number of tools and frameworks to use in analysing institutions and
power.<br />
<br />
Before I go any further, I want to say that I am grateful for all of that. Such discourse is the raw material for <em>inspiring</em>
paradigmatic change, and while academia may not itself be first unto
the breach, so to speak, it is nevertheless a vanguard of sorts. <em>However, </em>it is apparent that it is not for me. Allow me to explain.<br />
For me, I see the<em> implications</em> of complexity theory on
institutions and power as being really very simple. Yet clearly this is
not reflected in the myriad of institutionalisms emerging. So what, I
thought, is the cause of this disparity. Am I overly idealistic in my
ideas? Was there more nuance for me to find? Or was it something else;
were we in fact comparing apples and pears?<br />
<br />
A thought occurred to me on the way home that I felt wrapped up the
dissonance I had been feeling: I use complexity theory to critique
power, while academia uses complexity theory to critique <em>theories </em>of
power. This is a crucial difference. Theories of power emerge from
study, from the examination of the existing processes and dynamics of
institutions, laws, behaviours, and relationships. Naturally, this is
going to result in a whole raft of ideas about ‘how things work’, a
process that is potentially endless, and almost impossible to quantify
with any conviction. The cynic in me cannot help but chime that here is
fertile ground for the replication of academia’s own historical
institutionalism; the numerous niches and nuances facilitating a
production line of publications that can nevertheless safely avoid what
for me is the central implication of complexity theory on institutions
and power.<br />
<br />
See, if you take out the theory, the bottom line is this: <a href="http://grimeandreason.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/a-call-for-skeptical-consistency.html" target="_blank"><em>complexity theory utterly de-ligitimises almost all manifestations of institution and power that exist in the world as of today.</em></a><br />
This was, I felt, something of an elephant in the room. While there
was ample evidence of a general disdain for neoliberalism and
conservatism on display, the bulk of the workshop could legitimately be
described as an effort to make <em>existing structures better</em>. This
throws up a quandary that I was at pains to subtly introduce in my
questions; can institutions and power actually use this complexity
theory discourse to reform itself from within, and within the timescales
necessary to avoid a) revolution, and/or b) catastrophic impacts from
ideologically-based path dependencies?<br />
<br />
My experience from studying history tells me that not only are the
two potential consequences just stated all too likely to recur given
enough time, but also that they tend to come about precisely because
power very, very, very rarely makes significant ideological u-turns once
path-dependencies have been established. Once we take this into
account, it gives a somewhat pessimistic perspective on the capacity
for <em>directly</em> inspiring real-world change via the academic
process. At best, it can hope to achieve lagged baby-steps of progress,
yet I cannot escape the feeling that, for many a reason that the various
institutionalisms could no doubt describe when applied
self-referentially to questions of funding-, sponsorship-, and
publication-systems, such discourse will always be constrained in its
ability to directly critique power itself.<br />
<br />
This is a <em>big</em> problem. The wider, global context is such
that to examine complexity in this constrained manner is akin to
re-arranging theoretical deck-chairs while a very large, distinctly <em>non</em>-theoretical
iceberg is baring down upon our shared ship. Climate change,
biodiversity loss, inadequate pandemic mitigation and management, the
threat of future bio- and nano-technologies; all present very real,
existential dangers to<em> billions</em> of people <em>within the next three decades.</em><br />
<br />
Another simple implication of complexity theory I consider to be
true; that new modes of top-down power transition from adaptive to
maladaptive over time, as a result of the difference in cultural
evolutionary speed between institutions and the society they govern.
Furthermore, this dissonant gap exhibits exponential growth that results
in bottom-up, system-wide phase transitions (revolution)<em> unless the pressure is adequately released</em>. This is certainly possible in some contexts – civil rights for instance – but is highly unlikely, <em>even when faced with existential threats, </em>when the required reform means voluntarily letting go of central tenets of power’s ideological underpinning.<br />
<br />
I have read hundreds of sustainable development reports, yet I could
count on one hand those that have even mentioned the eternal growth
doctrine, neoliberalism, and the intentional creation and reproduction
of consumer identities, despite the central role they play in climate
change, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation. We all have a
duty, no matter how difficult the institutional, relational, and
systemic contexts we find ourselves in, to keep pushing, keep
challenging, and to never let go of our <em>human</em> context in the work that we do.<br />
<br />
It is my great hope that the work done by those at the workshop, and
the many influential thinkers they referenced, has been doing enough in
the background to quietly inspire and influence a broader coalition of
people who are less constrained in their application of complexity
theory to power; artists, musicians, activists of all shades. Certainly,
academia has a crucial part to play in the process of paradigmatic
change, but history tells us that rarely is it considered the focal
tipping point. Indeed, it is often one of the last to defend the
status-quo. Personally, I see myself as operating in something of a
mediating role; always trying to provide formalised weight to activism,
but equally motivated to agitate amongst academia.<br />
<br />
Time is short, the stakes are high, and power is at the heart of the problem. Perhaps then it is time to move away from <em>describing</em> what is happening using complexity theory, and more toward utilising that expertise to <em>judge</em>
what is happening. Sure, it won’t be for everyone, and there is always a
need for theory. Let’s just not forget that there is a growing number
of people suffering out there who see in academia an un-mobilised and
potentially powerful ally, and would really appreciate us moving away
from the deck-chairs, and focus more on helping to wrestle the steering
wheel from those too ideologically blind to change course.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-83065548570574895992015-10-06T14:56:00.001-07:002015-10-06T14:56:25.929-07:00Complexity and Vaccines.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Complexity is hard. It is hard because each and every one of us
develop in a cultural system, with the same pattern-finding brains,
conditioning us to identify cause and effect. Yet in sufficiently
complex systems, without computers to aid us, identifying causality is
simply impossible without the creation of, and attachment to, a
subjective narrative drawn from our own personal experience and mental
schemas.<br />
<br />
A consequence of this is the sustained phenomena of ideology, where
particular narratives are continually reinforced within a powerful,
sub-cultural sphere, pontificating on highly complex social issues with
an authority and certainty that complexity theory objectively denies
them. This holds true at multiple scales, whether its a village council,
an online forum, or Westminster.<br />
<br />
And so here we complexity theorists sit, witness to opposing forces
shouting at each other with stunning conviction, often needing nothing
more than a few cherry-picked quotes from a single, possibly
self-interested, source. Every time we hear an economic forecast
stretching two, three years into the future, every time we hear a
prediction on how much a 20 year infrastructure project will cost, what
do we propose? Are we to just sigh wearily while the opposing groups
have their turn reading the tea-leaves and proclaiming Truth? It’s
seriously getting boring shouting at the Today programme on BBC Radio4,
“but complexity!”.<br />
<br />
Now, I’m not saying that beliefs and values should have no part in
our collective self-organisation. By all means have idealism, I
encourage it highly, but it has to be recognised as a goal to aim for,
the objective of the strategy, and not the strategy itself. Almost by
definition, blanket, immediate reform shaped from an ideal tends to
emerge from initial conditions that were so crap that they inspired the
mandate for idealistic, radical change to begin with. Initial conditions
are important, really important, and history has shown what happens
when they are disregarded. It aint pretty.<br />
<br />
It doesn’t have to be this way. Once you get past the conditioning,
complexity is by definition intuitive. But damn, that conditioning..<br />
<h3>
Case in point: the vaccination debate.</h3>
Take vaccinations. Recently, vaccination rates in the U.S. have
declined to dangerous levels in some areas, resulting in outbreaks of
measles such as that which occurred recently at Disneyland. Some parents
are choosing not to vaccinate their children, with many citing the low
but real chance of side-effects, and others going so far as to claim the
whole thing is a Big Pharma based conspiracy. More people still are
hung-up on the issue from a question of personal freedom, the immorality
of being compelled to do something, and think that there should be a
choice, perhaps together with education.<br />
<br />
These people do not understand complexity theory, on a number of
levels. Primarily, I think the major problem is an inability to switch
between scales of reference, due to the cognitive dissonance that it
might entail. In this case, personal freedom is enshrined at the scale
of the individual only, with the systemic scale ignored, or else
presumed to emerge according to a bottom-up process only. It’s easier to
discern cause and effect at the scale of yourself, and more tempting to
elevate the risk factor, when viewed selfishly. It also signals a lack
of understanding regarding the potential for bottom-down emergent
forces; the way in which systems influence people. Conversely, the more
extreme anti-vax crowd impart the kind of cause and effect seen at the
scale of the individual – intent, control, homogeneity – onto the
system, personified as an evil there to fight, a powerful and
well-established narrative to cling on to.<br />
<br />
Where cause and effect is relatively simple to confabulate narratives
for at the scale of the yourself (it’s actually just as hard,
objectively, hence relying on epidemiology in pharmacology), resulting
in numerous anecdotes spread with personal belief, the systemic scale is
something of an abstraction. Time and distance conspire to hide cause
and effect from us, leading us to rely on those actively looking and
reporting back. Most do a good job, but it only takes one for enough
people to latch onto, with their worries and confirmation bias, to
suddenly create doubt in the public’s mind; a mind manipulated with fear
for the sake of click-bait headlines and newspaper sales. Whether doubt
is good or bad is not an inherent trait, it requires contextualisation,
and with vaccinations, doubt has a death toll.<br />
<br />
This is why it is particularly emotive for me – I can think of no
other area of research where so much effort has gone into satisfying
people that have made names for themselves through constant criticism of
proven work. I feel for the parents whose fear has been manipulated,
but I am also angry that so many can disregard the majority of people in
their community, and demand the right to bring back diseases that
should have been eliminated by now.<br />
<br />
I cannot imagine that their choice really is to usher in another age
plagued by avoidable, devastating illnesses, killing thousands of
children. But if you do understand that risk, and you still want both
sides given attention and respect, even for idealistic reasons, then
sorry, you’ll get no respect from me. And if you don’t care and actively
profit from this fear, than shame on you.<br />
<br />
You aren’t allowed to drive on the other side of the road, but no one
whines about losing their freedom because of it. I know vaccines feel
more invasive, but its the same deal. We all have to do it; we all have
to make sacrifices for the good of the whole. Order doesn’t just
magically spring from the rational self-interest of one scale of
emergence, whatever Ayn Rand might have you believe. So vaccinate your
kids, please. We collectively earned this opportunity, and no
individuals can claim the right to impose themselves, and take that
away.<br />
<h3>
Its the best that we have, but it can be better</h3>
Any form of governance, whether it’s politics, health systems,
education, etc, has no choice but to manage the complexity by applying
the same rules to everybody. That is how how the nation state and it’s
laws (should) operate, and that is how we practice medicine (to a
degree). It is far from perfect; having to rely on the use of averages,
probabilities, catering for the lowest denominators, and not having the
capacity to tailor rules to the scale of the individual, governing a
whole system will inevitably, unintentionally, screw individuals
occasionally.<br />
<br />
We just have to accept that, for now. We have no other choice. With any
controversial area, the alternative is to introduce chaos into terrible
initial conditions. As I said, argue for your ideal, but before that
ideal can touch decision making that affects all of us, first it must be
granted space to influence the scientific consensus. Not until
individualised decision-making is actually plausible will it start to
become immoral not to utilise it, but until then, we have to accept this
is the best we can do. You don’t have to like it, and you wont always
get what you want. Personally, I’m happy to listen to thousands of
passionate experts that have spent their lives trying to understand that
which I accept I am, objectively, personally blind to.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, if we do want individualised governance within
self-organisation – making each individual as free as possible, removing
the one-size-fits-all approach of age restrictions, drug prohibitions
and the like – we would need so much data available that it is hard to
imagine it not going terribly awry without a radically different
political economic structure than today. As I said, initial conditions
are vital to consider.<br />
<h3>
My/A conclusion</h3>
It’s imperative that the limits of knowledge, and the absurdity of
conviction, revealed by complexity theory is pummeled into all levels of
culture and governance. Shift the focus from ideology to methodology,
learn what constitutes good evidence so you can hold authority to
account without succumbing to frauds like Andrew Wakefield, and stop
being so selfish when it comes to accepting consensus, especially in
cases where the stakes are so high (climate change is another one).
Recognise the importance of the systemic scale, and learn to love
synthesising the dissonance that comes from incorporating the two scales
together.<br />
<br />
And yes, I do feel conviction in speaking of the absurdity of
conviction, and no, that isn’t hypocrisy. Belief and conviction is not
inherently bad, it’s the imposition of said conviction on others that is
bad. And when complexity applies as it always does in heated debates,
showing that conviction to be inherently unknowable, be it in
anti-vaxers, economists, politicians, whoever, that’s when I have to
clench my fist, sigh, and try not to feel too downhearted. Its a
necessarily slow process, this alternative to imposition – the gradual
accumulation of wisdom and knowledge – and I for one have no problem
using conviction to protect those gains. Join me in continuing to speak
out about these many abuses of authority, fellow complexity theorists,
so that we might get to a better place sooner rather than later.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-31182894273573774212015-10-06T14:55:00.001-07:002015-10-06T14:55:37.804-07:00A glance at transhumanism via the augmented pianist.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A few weeks ago, I downloaded an app for my android tablet called
Magic Piano. Like most other instrument based games, it works through
the visual representation of coloured orbs descending the screen; hit
them as they cross the illuminated line and viola, the right notes are
struck at the right time. Partly due to how expensive the in-app
purchases of new songs is, and partly due to how much Bohemian Rhapsody
by Queen rocks, it has pretty much monopolised my time on the app. It
didn’t take very long to become relatively proficient at tapping the
various combinations, and soon I was able to play the whole song in a
kind of flow state, subtly providing variation as I felt fit and gaining
a real sense of relaxation.<br />
<br />
This got me thinking. To what extent is the pleasure derived from
playing this app, and that derived from playing a real piano, different?
Both enter a flow state; could one flow state be more significant than
the other? And what if you tried to close that gap by making the app
experience as “real” as possible? What if you had an augmented reality
device that transcribed the music as descending orbs, but overlaid on a
real piano?<br />
<br />
This creates an interesting little thought experiment. Imagine this
entirely plausible, relatively near-term scenario whereby augmented
reality is provided by contact lens, or even a neural interface, and is
connected to smartphone and mic that can, after one listen to a piano
piece, transcribe the music onto the piano in a gamified format. What
could potentially result is a “pianist” that could trick others into
believing he can memorise and play <em>any</em> piece of music on the piano after just one listen.<br />
<br />
Now, the real interesting question is this: is the punctuation in
that last sentence justified? Has the user actually learned to play the
piano? Is the user now considered a pianist?<br />
<br />
One way to approach this question is by first asking what is the
difference between this user – the ‘augmented pianist’ – and a
‘classical pianist’, and then asking if that difference is an integral
and inherent part of learning.<br />
<br />
The main difference that I can see is that the augmented pianist has
essentially outsourced two things to an external device: identification,
and memory. Software can recognise which notes to play and when, while
the device is also taking the role of memory; the augmented pianist
doesn’t have the memorise the notes before he plays them. This
memorising, be it in terms of conscious, sub-conscious, muscle memory,
etc, could easily be interpreted as integral to the concept of learning.
Yet many things have been considered integral to concepts, only to be
left behind in the historical dust. The question is then, can learning
be considered to occur without the identification, and more importantly,
memory elements?<br />
<br />
The augmented pianist still learns some important stuff; on first try
with the Magic Piano app I was awful, and found it very difficult. Over
the course of a few days, I found that my coordination was massively
improving, getting much faster and dealing well with brand new
combinations of notes first time around. Obviously in the case of a
tablet app the experience is greatly simplified, but even if projected
onto a real piano, I don’t doubt that a similar experience could ensue,
only even more immersive with a genuine sound and environment.<br />
A brief look at the younger generations, and a basic historical grasp
of how cultural trends work, can easily lead one to argue that in an
augmented future where skills such as pattern recognition, note
recognition, memory, etc, can be out-sourced, the very definition of
learning may be about to change. No longer will one have to spend tens
of thousands of hours to appear proficient, or even possibly prodigal,
to an audience. This will significantly remove the barriers to playing
music, to experiencing a flow state that is, potentially, every bit as
immersive as the ‘real’ thing.<br />
<br />
This reminds me of the philosophical ideas on consciousness, the so
called ‘hard-problem’ of consciousness. Theoretically, everyone could be
zombies simply acting in the same way someone with real consciousness
would act; in the same way, everyone in the future could be pianists
with outsourced skills, a mere power-failure away from simply not being
able to play the piano. That said, a classical pianist is a mere falling
brick to the head away from not being able to play the piano as well –
is that really any different?<br />
<br />
And so I see it going many ways: there will be the classical snobs
insisting that augmented pianists are not pianists at all, and that use
of augmentation should be viewed like performance enhancing drugs in
sport; what is left of the record industry will be free to choose the
prettiest or most showman-like people instead of those that spent years
learning properly (I know this is already happening, but really no
music-related job, from bar-room pianist to the school play, will be
under threat); second-hand markets of cheap pianos and instruments will
thrive and a new market of ‘dummy’ instruments will appear that don’t
even work without external devices (much to the chagrin of classicists,
no doubt); and millions of people will get the joy of playing
instruments in an immersive and accurate feedback loop experience which
allows for people to enter flow states, and play any style they choose.<br />
<br />
As a little glimpse into a transhumanist future, I found these
questions really satisfying to mull over, and would love to hear any
thoughts you might have on how this impacts what it means to learn,
where else drivers are going to produce similar classicist/augmented
conflicts, and how excited you might be, or not, about the prospect of
bringing down the barriers to enjoy playing music. I’d like to think it
will usher in a new creative renaissance, especially as AI gets
incorporated even into creative design processes. In fact, I can think
of few better reasons for the introduction of a universal basic income
than to facilitate the explosion of creative possibility that is about
to hit.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-86476979482764626212015-10-06T14:54:00.003-07:002015-10-06T14:54:47.507-07:00UK Election: Complexity perspective.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="entry-content">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With the UK election upon us, it is a
fitting time to take a look at the offerings from a complexity
perspective. It is also a fitting subject matter; complexity theory is
as fundamental to politics as it to climate science, or any other study
of complex adaptive systems. Unfortunately, <i>unlike</i> climate science, participants in politics have yet to fully grasp the implications of this fact.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Rather than examining each of the
parties policies and methods to find areas compatible with complexity
theory, it will be a lot easier to briefly summarise what I believe are
some core facets of complexity theory that are relevant to today’s
political environment, before outlining their relevant political
implications. Then we can see how the parties match up.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here then are some core facets of complexity theory, and how I think these they should roughly translate into political policy:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1. Complex adaptive systems, be they
society, economics, finance etc, are inherently unpredictable,
proportional to the specificity and time-span involved. That is, the
more specific the prediction, and the further you predict in time, the
less likely you are to be accurate.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Political policy should not be solely
determined by, or legitimised by, confident assertions concerning
specific predictions and time-frames. This is most commonly found in the
influence economics has on political economic policy, with targets for
revenue collection, cuts, and growth figures creating a budget relying
on what amounts to a vast accumulator bet. If an economic prediction
included all of the disclaimers it should rightly give, people would be
far less happy about trusting the policy it supports.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Put it this way: if all you have to
support economic policies that will inevitably have massive negative
impacts on vulnerable people’s lives is some cherry-picked forecasts
from a sub-section of economists, don’t be surprised if you get ever
more blow-back as awareness of complexity seeps ever more into the
public consciousness.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>2. The more homogenous a system is,
the more fragile it is, and the more susceptible the system is to rapid
change (a cascade). Conversely, the more diverse a system is, the more
resilient and adaptable it is.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The question of homogeneity versus
diversity isn’t found at one level or institution alone. Within politics
as a whole, one could apply the dichotomy to the press, MP’s, the civil
service, the voting public, governmental institutions at all levels,
access to power, etc. Yet the answer will always be the same; the more
homogeneous a system is, the more vulnerable it becomes. Issues such as
proportional representation, donor transparency and accountability, and
the centralisation of power (see point 5) therefore come to the fore.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Between Labour and the Conservatives,
the two dominant parties contesting the election, there is a general
consensus in terms of political economy. Both broadly accept the
neoliberal model, to the extent of agreeing that austerity is a
necessary component of future economic policy. While it is encouraging
to see alternative views being expressed by minority parties that are
slowly gaining support, we are a far cry from the two party ideological
dichotomy the UK experienced for the majority of the 20<sup>th</sup> century, and so is more homogeneous.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This homogeneity will have two
consequences, I believe. One, on inherently uncertain matters that
receive undue cross-party support, maladaptive path-dependencies will
(and have, I would argue, with regard to austerity) emerge that will
cause increasing tension. Two, and in reaction to the prior dynamic, the
system will succumb to rapid change. If we are lucky, this change will
be in the form of a new political movement unhindered by established
power. If power resists however, the only thing that will be
accomplished is an ever decreasing likelihood of our being lucky.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>3. Given the inherent uncertainties
involved in complex adaptive systems, it is best to avoid potentially
long-term path dependencies, and seek to maximise agility and adaptive
capacity.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Path-dependencies represent risk.
Therefore it is vital that decisions with the potential to lock-in
massive resources for a long period of time be taken very carefully,
transparently, and with clear accountability. Additionally, path
dependencies that feature modern technology should simply be laughed out
of the room at this point in time. I’m looking at you HS2 and Trident,
for which both points apply.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Technology is progressing at such a pace
that the idea of spending tens of billions of pounds on a rail systems
that wont be ready for 20 years simply should not be entertained,
especially I would argue at a time when cuts are so vigorously being
sought in areas of social policy (I’d respect ideologues more if they
were at least consistent). There is every chance the country will be
serviced by a fleet of flying autonomous, hydrogen and solar powered
vehicles by 2035. This kind of long-term thinking and scenario building
is vital to consider in politics, and where once this was relatively
simple, today’s world of parabolic technological advance demands
adaptability, not 20 year turnaround times for yesterday’s technology.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>4. Also due to inherent
uncertainties, the management of complex adaptive systems requires an
iterative process of planning, implementation, monitoring, and
evaluation to identify potential maladaptive pathways and adjust/reverse
policy where necessary. This is important in order to identify
unforeseen feedback effects early, before they accelerate out of
control.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is easy to form the impression of
politics today that policies are introduced to great fanfare and
promise, only to not work, be counter-productive, and either require yet
more reorganisation, or else be allowed to slip into obscurity never to
be mentioned again (ahem,</div>
<div class="wp-caption alignleft" id="attachment_95" style="width: 310px;">
<a href="http://grimeandreason.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Policy2.jpg"><img alt="A cynics (justifiable?) view of policy implementation" class="wp-image-95 size-medium" height="284" src="http://grimeandreason.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Policy2-300x284.jpg" width="300" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text">
A cynics (justifiable?) view of policy implementation (click to enlarge)</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Big Society). Rarely are policy failures
the mistake of those designing and implementing the policy; it is all
to easy to view complex adaptive systems subjectively and come up with
any number of unforeseen problems that were entirely beyond his or her
control. Failure is not only unavoidable, <i>it should be welcomed. </i>Failure
done right, with adequate monitoring, assessment, and sharing of
information, is data that everyone can use. Only through accepting and
embracing failure and uncertainty, rather than the traditional misplaced
confidence and bluster of ideologues, can we hope to advance.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Instead of a linear process of guess,
impose, and take credit or shift blame, we need a circular process, an
evolving dynamic that focuses on predictable means, not unpredictable
ends. It needs to constantly monitor policy holistically, and be able to
adapt to changing circumstances. Politicians</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>5. Our inability to confidently model
highly complex adaptive systems means an experimental approach is
required. Without data rigorous comparative data, prediction is simply
fancy guesswork.<br />
</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To embrace failure in as productive way
as possible, we need to be able to experiment. While it would be
ethically dubious and highly problematic for a central authority to
impose different policies on different people at random, one could get
the same effect through maximally devolving our political system.
Subsidiarity therefore represents what I think to be the most compatible
political model with complexity theory. This is the optimal way to
generate the much needed comparative data, mitigate the risks associated
with centralised, top-down, system-wide policy implementation, and
maximise opportunities to find, share, and amplify successes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>In conclusion</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For politics to be compatible with
complexity theory, policy and practice would need to: ensure devolution
of powers to a subsidiarity model, and promote experimentation and
information sharing; practice iterative policy planning, implementation,
monitoring, and evaluation cycles in a transparent and participatory
fashion; substantially increase the diversity of actors and perspectives
influencing policy, across multiple lines such as race, gender, class,
etc.; take into account the place of our political system within the
wider, global system we are a part of; and to promote diversity and
civic freedom at all levels, and in all sectors of society, particularly
the press.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is clear then that the established
parties are far from anything approaching this ideal. After all, the AV
vote referendum alone was touted as a once-in-a-lifetime change, and
even that failed. Certainly some of the smaller parties are attempting
to go in the right direction, be it over devolution, anti-austerity, or
renewing participation through the use of social media. However, at
least this time around, there appears little chance that significant
change of the like I have outlined will result from this election,
regardless of whether Labour or the Conservatives win. Even if Scotland
were to get independence, the end result would merely be greater
homogeneity for both Scotland and the rest of the UK!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In my opinion, the most likely best-case
scenario would be the sudden rise of a brand new political party in
England, a la Podemos in Spain, or a sudden surge in support for one or
more of the smaller parties, such as the Greens, a la Syriza in Greece
or the Pirate Party in Iceland. It is certainly a better scenario than
what might cascade should neoliberal hegemony still reign in British
politics in the aftermath of another financial crash.</div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-37008651734829596002015-10-06T14:54:00.001-07:002015-10-06T14:54:02.269-07:00Individual versus collective? Stop being so 20th Century.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="entry-content">
There was a fantastic article in the Guardian on Sunday, the 9th of August. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/09/world-in-context-mindware-tools-for-sharp-thinking">‘The mistake we all make, and the simple experiment that reveals it’</a>
may sound like Buzzfeed click-bait, but it was actually a fascinating
and hugely important argument by Richard Nisbett about the difference
between individualistic and holistic thinking. The trick, sorry,
experiment, in question featured this picture:<br />
<br />
<img alt="" class="gallery-lightbox__img js-gallery-lightbox-img aligncenter" height="327" src="http://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/0593cea745bf1b9a77b13dcb3711517923124fbc/0_0_1430_858/1000.jpg?w=700&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=2b9c8751b1b97e0f6cf01701b7a94538" width="545" /><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<em>“One of my favourite experiments,
conducted by the social psychologist Takahiko Masuda, asks Japanese and
American college students to rate the expression of the central figure
in a cartoon where he is surrounded by other faces [see the Observer
Magazine’s own version on page 21). Japanese students rate the central
figure as less happy when he’s surrounded by sad figures (or angry
figures) than when he’s surrounded by happier figures. The Americans
were much less affected by the emotion of the surrounding figures. (The
experiment was also carried out with sad or angry figures in the centre
and with happy, sad, or angry faces in the background, with similar
results.)”</em></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Although I hadn’t heard about these
studies, I am not at all surprised by the findings. It has been clear to
me for a long time that much of Western philosophy and culture
struggles with the object/context relationship regarding self and
identity, and that Eastern philosophy is far more compatible with
complexity theory for not having this issue.</div>
<em>“Easterners tend to have a holistic perspective on the world.
They see objects (including people) in their contexts, they’re inclined
to attribute behaviour to situational factors, and they attend closely
to relationships between people and between objects. Westerners have a
more analytic perspective. They attend to the object, notice its
attributes, categorise the object on the basis of those attributes and
think about the object in terms of the rules that they assume apply to
objects of that particular category.”</em><br />
This is the unintended path dependency that underlies so much of what
is wrong about the West, in this new, 21st Century context. It is also
the one criticism I have for following a scientific skepticism way of
thinking, and the reason I left that community. Reductionism can be
(arguably always) arbitrary in complex systems when describing emergent
characteristics. This can create unfalsifiable interpretations of the
same phenomena that, even if pointing in the same direction, give the
illusion of incompatibility to those who speak different cultural
languages, or who have drawn different arbitrary divides. This is also
why the 21st century belongs not to the West.<br />
When a cultural artifact is so engrained into a society that it has
actually changed the way we think, it is incredibly hard to adjust
quickly. We have thousands of years of cultural capital all around us
founded on this lack, even rejection, of holistic thinking.<br />
I suspect that it is far easier to add science to holism, than it is to add holism to science.<br />
This is because for science, you have set rules – trust the evidence.
use the scientific method for everything. For complexity, as with social
science, the evidence is always interpretable, and so a whole new way
of thinking is required, one that does not have the certainty of
evidence showing clear cause and effect.<br />
As the world continues in a whirl of exponentially scientific
advance, the East will have thousands of years of their own cultural
capital to draw upon to understand it, tradition that is inherently
compatible with the networked, complex, world we are creating. To not
view the whole in the 21st century will be seen as backward, heretical,
dangerous. A deficiency, a virus the Earth will be figuratively trying
to sweat out.<br />
We’ve done the reductionist swing to the individual for hundreds of
years now. It has gone too far. Now we need to slow the
compartmentalisation, the specialisation, and the arbitrary barriers
(IP, borders, money) that deny us emergence of new ways of living. We
need to understand that *we* are the system, the system is us, both
important, both needed to be included.<br />
Not extreme capitalism that denies the system. Not extreme socialism
that denies the individual. That is the 20th Century talking. We need to
collectively decide what works best, where and when, free from
ideologies demands for hegemony, free from ancient institutions that
have lost all trace of imagination. And I think we will need Latin
America and Asia to lead the way.<br />
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-59821689338477813122014-06-28T04:42:00.003-07:002014-06-28T04:42:41.428-07:00Rumours of Potcoin interest among dutch companies? Yes please!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>Here's a google translation of an article about Potcoin found on a Dutch website:</b><br />
<br />
<b>http://www.artikelwebsite.nl/A1476/potcoin-waarde </b><br />
<br />
"<span class="long_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">Bitcoin</span> <span class="hps">has become</span> <span class="hps">a well-known</span> <span class="hps">method of payment</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">The value of this</span> <span class="hps">cryptocurency</span> <span class="hps">rose</span> <span class="hps">quickly</span> <span class="hps">to new heights</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">It is even</span> <span class="hps">expected that the</span> <span class="hps">value</span> <span class="hps">will continue to rise</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">Crypto</span> <span class="hps">crypto</span> <span class="hps">currency</span> <span class="hps">or</span> <span class="hps">currencies</span> <span class="hps">is digital</span> <span class="hps">money</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">Your download</span> <span class="hps">for each</span> <span class="hps">currency</span> <span class="hps">a</span> <span class="hps">wallet</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">With this</span> <span class="hps">wallet</span> <span class="hps">you</span> <span class="hps">also</span> <span class="hps">get direct</span> <span class="hps">your</span> <span class="hps">wallet</span> <span class="hps">address</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">Through</span> <span class="hps">wallet</span> <span class="hps">addresses</span> <span class="hps">purchases and sales</span> <span class="hps">can be sent</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">In</span> <span class="hps">the case of the</span> <span class="hps">POT</span> <span class="hps">is called a</span> <span class="hps">potcoinadres</span><span>.</span> <br /><br /><span class="hps">Why</span> <span class="hps">virtual money</span><span>?</span> <br /><br /><span class="hps">Perhaps</span> <span class="hps">virtual money</span> <span class="hps">could</span> <span class="hps">be expected in a</span> <span class="hps">virtual</span> <span class="hps">phenomenon</span> <span class="hps">as the Internet</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">Every day</span><span>, more and more</span> <span class="hps">people</span> <span class="hps">online payments</span><span>,</span> <span class="hps">do you need to</span> <span class="hps">log</span> <span class="hps">in</span> <span class="hps">to your</span> <span class="hps">bank.</span> <span class="hps">Many people</span> <span class="hps">do not like this</span> <span class="hps">because there is</span> <span class="hps">sometimes</span> <span class="hps">a thing</span> <span class="hps">goes wrong</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">Virtual money</span> <span class="hps">just</span> <span class="hps">gives</span> <span class="hps">a sense of security</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">You do not</span> <span class="hps">bench</span> <span class="hps">anymore.</span> <span class="hps">There</span> <span class="hps">are other reasons</span> <span class="hps">to think</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">The</span> <span class="hps">Coins</span> <span class="hps">can</span> <span class="hps">be won by</span> <span class="hps">minas</span> <span class="hps">them</span> <span class="hps">that way</span> <span class="hps">so</span> <span class="hps">you</span> <span class="hps">actually get</span> <span class="hps">free money</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">:</span> <span class="hps">I find</span> <span class="hps">interesting</span> <span class="hps">relatively new</span> <span class="hps">coin</span> <br /><br /> <span class="hps">DogeCoin</span> <br /> <span class="hps">ColoussusCoin</span> <br /> <span class="hps">QuarkCoin</span> <br /> <span class="hps">PotCoin</span> <br /> <span class="hps">Litecoin</span> <br /><br /><span class="hps">PotCoin</span><span>,</span> <span class="hps">for whom?</span> <br /><br /><span class="hps">PotCoin</span> <span class="hps">for</span> <span class="hps">people over</span> <span class="hps">18 who</span> <span class="hps">want to do in</span> <span class="hps">the form of products</span> <span class="hps">that are for sale</span> <span class="hps">in</span> <span class="hps">coffee shops</span> <span class="hps atn">(</span><span>for example</span><span>)</span> <span class="hps">or</span> <span class="hps">in online shops</span><span>,</span> <span class="hps">which</span> <span class="hps">is</span> <span class="hps">weed</span> <span class="hps">and</span> <span class="hps">/</span> <span class="hps">or</span> <span class="hps">hash and</span> <span class="hps">sold</span> <span class="hps">such</span> <span class="hps">purchases.</span> <span class="hps">The</span> <span class="hps">PotCoin</span> <span class="hps">will</span> <span class="hps">be exchanged</span> <span class="hps">only</span> <span class="hps">if</span> <span class="hps">the</span> <span class="hps">target</span> <span class="hps">virtual</span> <span class="hps">money</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">Currently, the</span> <span class="hps">coin</span> <span class="hps">is not</span> <span class="hps">yet</span> <span class="hps">widely</span> <span class="hps">interchangeable</span><span>, but</span> <span class="hps">this is changing rapidly</span> <span class="hps">as possible</span><span>.</span> <br /><br /><span class="hps">PotWallet</span> <span class="hps">wallet</span> <span class="hps">on your</span> <span class="hps">computer</span> <br /><br /><span class="hps">A</span> <span class="hps atn">wallet (</span><span>purse</span><span>) to</span> <span class="hps">save the</span> <span class="hps">PotCoins</span> <span class="hps">must be downloaded</span> <span class="hps">from</span> <span class="hps">the official website</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">The</span> <span class="hps">wallet is</span> <span class="hps">quite</span> <span class="hps">easy to download</span> <span class="hps">and is available</span> <span class="hps">for both</span> <span class="hps">Windows and</span> <span class="hps">Mac.</span> <br /><br /><span class="hps">Wallet Online</span> <br /><br /><span class="hps">There</span> <span class="hps">is also the possibility</span> <span class="hps">to take</span> <span class="hps">what one</span> <span class="hps">is</span> <span class="hps">as safe as</span> <span class="hps">possible,</span> <span class="hps">but the</span> <span class="hps">risk of burglary</span> <span class="hps">could in principle</span> <span class="hps">be higher than if</span> <span class="hps">you</span> <span class="hps">put a</span> <span class="hps">wallet</span> <span class="hps">on your</span> <span class="hps">computer</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">Larger an</span> <span class="hps">online</span> <span class="hps">wallet</span> <br /><br /><span class="hps">Mining</span> <span class="hps">pools</span> <br /><br /><span class="hps">Through</span> <span class="hps">the establishment of</span> <span class="hps">mining</span> <span class="hps">pools</span> <span class="hps">the</span> <span class="hps">designers</span> <span class="hps">of this new</span> <span class="hps">coin</span> <span class="hps">want to</span> <span class="hps">start</span> <span class="hps">caring</span> <span class="hps">at</span> <span class="hps">the</span> <span class="hps">PotCoin</span> <span class="hps">a widely</span> <span class="hps">accepted</span> <span class="hps">method of payment</span> <span class="hps">will</span> <span class="hps">be</span> <span class="hps">for</span> <span class="hps">products within the</span> <span class="hps">cannabis users</span> <span class="hps">and shops</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">Wallets</span> <span class="hps">can be downloaded</span> <span class="hps">for:</span> <br /><br /> <span class="hps">Windows</span> <br /> <span class="hps">Mac</span> <br /> <span class="hps">Linux</span></span><br />
<span class="long_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps"> </span> <br /><span class="hps">Value</span> <span class="hps">PotCoin</span> <br /><br /><span class="hps">The current value of</span> <span class="hps">the</span> <span class="hps">PotCoin</span> <span class="hps">is on the</span> <span class="hps">official</span> <span class="hps">website</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">We will</span> <span class="hps">keep</span> <span class="hps">an eye on</span> <span class="hps">the value</span> <span class="hps">and</span> <span class="hps">update regularly.</span> <span class="hps">Currently, there is</span> <span class="hps">no real value</span> <span class="hps">to be determined</span> <span class="hps">because the</span> <span class="hps">coin</span> <span class="hps">is</span> <span class="hps">still so young</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">However, the</span> <span class="hps">coin</span> <span class="hps">have</span> <span class="hps">been</span> <span class="hps">very popular</span><span>,</span> <span class="hps">as</span> <span class="hps">it</span> <span class="hps">is acknowledged</span> <span class="hps">as the official</span> <span class="hps">currency</span> <span class="hps">of exchange</span><span>,</span> <span class="hps">the value can</span> <span class="hps">rise explosively</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">On</span> <span class="hps">February 1, 2014</span><span>, the</span> <span class="hps">coin</span> <span class="hps">is estimated</span> <span class="hps">at</span> <span class="hps">0.00003100</span> <span class="hps">bubblews.com</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">According to rumors</span><span>, several</span> <span class="hps">Dutch</span> <span class="hps">companies</span> <span class="hps">expressed interest</span> <span class="hps">and</span> <span class="hps">view them</span> <span class="hps">what the possibilities are</span><span>.</span> <br /><br /><span class="hps">Editor's Note</span><span>:</span> <span class="hps">As long as the</span> <span class="hps">value of</span> <span class="hps">PotCoin</span> <span class="hps">not official</span><span>,</span> <span class="hps">you</span> <span class="hps">can</span> <span class="hps">not</span> <span class="hps">derive any rights from</span> <span class="hps">rumors and</span> <span class="hps">information</span> <span class="hps">and</span> <span class="hps">keeps</span> <span class="hps">buying these</span> <span class="hps">coins</span> <span class="hps">a gamble</span><span class="">."</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="long_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class=""><b>So, several Dutch companies are expressing an interest, huh? I like the sound of that!</b> </span></span><br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-79018551071947907772014-06-09T03:18:00.004-07:002014-08-01T22:07:12.568-07:00My Crypto Pick: Potcoin. And only partly because I'm a toker :)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div>
Cultural potential: </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Thousands of years of independent and linked cultural evolution has gone into the smoking of weed, from Hindu's to hippies and beyond. There is already a universal symbology, language and other cultural traits that have the potential to bond a community comprising of every age-group, every socioeconomic background, every corner of the globe. History has shown that altered states of consciousness, combined with a near universal shared history of oppression, is a pretty damn tight basis for shared community, and this is particularly true in this newly connected age that is collectively rapidly delegitimising said oppression, together. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Make the OK sign with your fingers. Now put your joining fingertips to your mouth. It is as universal a motion as tapping your wrist to ask someone the time. There is a reason r/Trees is so huge on Reddit. This community is already here waiting, and it is crying out for alternative, supra-national institutions, culture, and infrastructure through which to live their lives. Potcoin is instantly recognisable and, for good or bad, trusted, by it's name alone (however much a flaw that may represent in our individual psyche).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Further, the pot smoking community, as well as being global and huge (and therefore resilient), have disproportionately more time on their hands to contribute to growing the community, trading, and using Potcoin with vendors (they would also love to actually buy online if possible). Pot smokers are disproportionately active internet users already. Pot smoker's are disproportionately more creative. Pot smoker's are disproportionately more empathetic, since the altered state of consciousness breaks down individualised context imposed through our environment - thus they will disproportionately share more (as any toker who automatically gives someone a smoke in a time of need will attest). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Developer potential:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Proof-of-developer (PoD) is old news in crypto; it's only become big in the context of new coins because people seemed to trust in the right of developers choosing anonymity. Frankly, I'm rather stunned at how quickly PoD took off recently, and very happy about it too. Potcoins developers are as open as they can be, from being named and their personal history (read: awesome experience) being available on the website, to being active and open on twitter, to providing regular lengthy updates via the Summer of Potcoin blogposts, to bi-weekly Google hangouts and <i>even having a toll-free number for people to call through to their offices</i>. What other coin has that?!<br />
<br />
The website looks dope, seriously professional and thorough with a media section, vendor section, and an investors hub with price graphs and trackers. I have yet to see a more slick coin website in all honesty. They have a great new office in New Montreal, and regularly travel to conferences and events to publicise Potcoin, making a lot of contact throughout various parts of the cannabis industry. To aid this, they have created pre-loaded Potcards to give out to people, and which are now available in the Potcoin store. Oh yeah, the website has a shop too.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
CoinGecko doesn't seem to rate the developers too highly, though I haven't looked into what metrics they use. They must base the community metric more on present appearance than potential, otherwise the already decent score would be 2nd behind Bitcoin in my opinion. That said, 20th place in the average metric isn't bad, and it isn't far off the top-ten. From what I have seen, developers seem to be fairly quick to respond to feedback, but would hugely benefit from systematising in-house communication a bit more than is apparent (transparency is important), recruiting more members for out-reach and forum duties, and implementing a number of community functions that integrate evolutionary principles (already started intuitively).<br />
<br />
Vendor potential:<br />
<br />
There are over two thousand known uses for hemp, and that doesn't include the mahusive innovation gap primed to be filled due to restrictive legislation around the world. Hemp has so many benefits, it's one of the 20th century anachronisms that can only be rectified in the future. This community has the potential to feed into Potcoin for the 'community potential' reasons above, but also for corporate reasons. The potential vendor count for Potcoin is huge in comparison to other coins. They disproportionately need alternative payment and banking systems. They also disproportionately operate on the margins already.<br />
<br />
It isn't only retail outlets and traditional business entrepreneurs either; let's face it, a big part of Bitcoins growth was driven by the usefulness in the black market. Not only is there an obvious, globalised black market ready to back Potcoin, but it's also, on the scale of things, the lowest black market (and last) that the authorities will realistically cooperate together in stopping. This doesn't mean it is risk free, but it does mean that the explicit political and cultural goals of Potcoin have supporters in all strata of power. Smackcoin this aint. Pot has a growing lobby that is growing in legitimacy, forging international links in a way that other causes, let alone coins, struggle to.<br />
<br />
Summary:<br />
<br />
All in all, I really see Potcoin as going places, and pretty soon, for a whole gamut of cultural and systemic reasons. As I said at the beginning, I am not writing this blog for profit, far from it - if I were [immoral], I'd have waited until I could afford more than a tenner, which won't be till the end of the month. I have always and will continue to promote, <i>and criticise where appropriate and deserved, </i>anything I would love to see succeed and that isn't a lost cause. Potcoin fits that bill, 100%.<br />
<br />
Let's get high y'all.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-18158881655783247622014-05-05T04:25:00.002-07:002014-05-05T09:39:44.034-07:00A History of Civilisation in Ten Thousand Words.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The following blog is a new first-draft extract from my
book-in-progress, The Complexity Revolution: uncovering the universal laws of
life. This is a narrative of History extrapolated not from history books, but
through complexity theory, and the way in which the self, culture, identity,
and society emerge and interact. Again, the theoretical basis (chapters 2/3) is
missing here, this just being a first draft extract. Please excuse any typos,
mistakes, etc – this was written in two sittings, stream-of-consciousness, and
I haven’t proofread, fact-checked, or referenced it yet. If you find any errors, it’d save
me a small-job in the long run so feel free to point them out. What this
extract represents is a fundamental narrative, as readers of History are
accustomed to, but based upon a complexity-derived model that is previously
presented in the book. If you would like to see these diagrams and models
outlining the self-similar and universal dynamics underlying this narrative,
please feel free to send me a tweet: @grimeandreason, or email me, same name, @
gmail.com</span><br />
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<br />
<h1 style="margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: large;">A Brief History of Cultural Evolution</span></span></h1>
<span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt; text-align: justify;">Back at the dawn of cultural evolution, the bond we
felt to the known, and the fear inherent in the unknown, naturally created
power structures through the search for, and the proclamation of, ‘divine’
knowledge (and the fear and respect that such a claim would provide). The world
needed explaining to minds that had evolved to rationalise their own
environment: Why did these crops fail? Why did my mate just keel over dead?
What the hell does it mean when the Sun disappears temporarily? Explaining all
of this, or at least giving the appearance of doing so to our pattern-finding
minds, derives the authority that we evolved to defer to, a natural extension
of biologically emerging hierarchy. Imagine the questions and answers that
would arise to explain natural phenomenon such as eclipses or extreme weather
events! Such speculations brought forth power structures capable of
administering huge networks of large-scale settlements, such as those evident
in the Jungles of South America, complete with sophisticated calendar systems
that mapped the stars and convinced those early minds that a) the heavens and
the earth were somehow connected and b) that those in power weren’t entirely
full of shit. They may have had primitive data sets upon which to draw, but
these times would have had geniuses to work with it still.</span></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The emergence of Religion as
a fundamental identity</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; text-align: left;"> </span></h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Thus started what we would view today as religious
identity, where preachers and spiritual-leaders would monopolise ‘divine’
knowledge through exclusive use of literacy and cultural production and
transmit a cultural identity that, with high fecundity, would infect the <i>everyone</i>
within the system. This would create an immensely strong, and entirely
homogeneous shared cultural identity, one capable of extreme acts such as child
sacrifice, yet also the source of an immense bond, with every mind having
identical cultural influence, corresponding to extremely similar
subjectivities, hence the slow pace of cultural evolution. Yet this tight bond
also came with a great evolutionary advantage; it could maintain hegemony over
cultural identity beyond that which naturally occurred prior to cultural
evolutions emergence. Then, tribes most often fit what is called the ????,
which placed the natural (pre-culture) cap on our optimal scale of
self-organisation at around 140 (???), <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>still found today in army units and ????. The ability
to control potentially millions of people through what amounts to
indoctrination is what brought about recorded History in the first place. If
society hadn’t been a mere extension of our natural hierarchical organisation,
belief and ideology would have remained too disparate, too small-scale, to
begin to effect History in the global sense. The Greek historian Herodotus,
‘the first historian’ - apparently - wouldn’t have written all that he did if
wars consisted of two family groups having a mega-tiff. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The Bronze age is a perfect example of how even
large-scale cultural systems can take a relative (to our own time most
obviously) <i>age</i> to slowly, ever so slowly, attain the complexity that
forces a transition of self-organisation (let alone a transition to a new
fundamental identity). To give you an example of how a highly homogenous and
superstitious (that is, ignorant of science and objective knowledge or
thinking) cultural system can pretty much come to represent stagnation, the
Egyptians only way of calculating one-third of a figure, was to work out
two-thirds first, and then half it. This method was used <i>for around 1400
years</i>, and it wasn’t until the cultural evolution bomb that was the Greeks
that someone turned around and asked, “why”? It worked, nobody knew the
fundamentals as to why, and there simply wasn’t the cultural variation or
freedom of subjectivity to nurture, synthesise, and build-upon the necessary
concepts. Seen in relative terms, this would mean that whichever
freak-of-nature first worked out how to calculate two-thirds, and then half it
(if indeed it was the same person!), achieved one of the greatest, relative,
intellectual feats in all of humanity. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">It would be thousands of years before growing
complexity forced the emergence of the next fundamental identity, that of the
State, yet this is still a slight grey area for me. Levy is happy to see the
emergence of Greek city-states, and the Roman Empire, as examples of a new form
of fundamental identity, territory, and I can understand why. They did indeed
create new forms of identity to the prior Bronze Age - that is of no doubt. Citizenship
is a fundamental characteristic of the State cultural identity, and it cannot
be argued that Roman didn’t incorporate people of multiple religious identities
under this term, and for a very long period of time. But there are three things
that bother me. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Firstly, what is <i>eminently</i> debatable is just
how much cultural production Rome was responsible for, particularly the further
away you got. It is hard to imagine that the territorial, or state identity, in
any way supplanted, or even mass subverted, the existing religious cultural
identities of its occupied territory. Note the word occupied: without actually
saturating conquered areas with your culture by way of synthesis (the most
evolutionarily successful strategy), as the Moors did in Spain, all you are
doing is finding ways to extract wealth through taxes, fear, and force, not
create a new fundamental identity. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Secondly, and this merely provides the
complexity-based proof of the first point, communication structures did not
extend across the entire system, down to the local level, to the degree
necessary to saturate culture in the first place. Communication across the
system was limited to a tiny minority of traders (but more on this soon), <i>and
to the structures of power itself. </i>For one, Latin was a language used only
by the elite. For two, how this communication was then delivered to the various
local contexts was most often at the end of a very sharp, very pointy sword
(especially in rural areas more likely to be sustaining established religious
cultural identity), which <i>isn’t</i> the best evolutionary tactic by which to
convert new generations to your cultural identity (a lesson power has yet to
learn to this day, - see: Mr I have a Drone). </span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Thirdly, and again, this merely proves my second
point, History shows that these Roman experiments with proto-state cultural
identity that have so fascinated historians ever since, still heavily reliant
on and subject to the influences of Christianity from within, and multiple,
strong religious cultural systems from without, simply wasn’t sustainable at the
scale Rome had reached. Technological, tactical, and social advances were
happening in a period that wasn’t ready, wasn’t creative or subjective enough
at the societal level, to make much more use of these new tools than creating
awe-inspiring urban centres, and a war machine that could conquer most of the
known world. This had allowed Rome to overreach itself, and without the
accompanying advances in communication technology (and greater democratisation
of cultural production) needed to unite these peoples under a new fundamental
cultural identity, it simply collapsed from all sides as other people’s, united
by <i>genuine</i> shared cultural identity and desire to succeed, were able to
react and adapt to Rome’s power and exact their long-built up need for revenge.
I know that, again, this is rather tautologous, but the very fact that Greek
thought and Roman technological advance were largely lost to humanity, almost forgetting
entirely these experiments with statehood, and devolving once more to the
religious fundamental cultural identity of divine rulers and large-scale,
catastrophic culture clashes. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Although I have primarily used Rome in this narrative,
the same principles apply to Greece. Here though, it was of a different nature,
with different drivers and influences. The compartmentalisation of governance
across multiple city states; the first experiments with mass-participatory
democracy; Greece’s place on the Mediterranean ensuring a constant supply of
outside cultural influences through traders and travelling philosophers and
early scientists; the establishment of universities and halls of learning; and
by no means least, the mountainous terrain, which made Greece an extremely
difficult place to conquer; all of these combined to create an explosive
enabling environment for cultural evolution, which, like Rome before it,
managed to produce governing structures that bare many of the hallmarks of
statehood. Yet, once again, it wasn’t enough. Religious identity still provided
the foundation of everyone’s identity, with even the state-like characteristics
- the attempts at direct-democracy - infused with religious symbolism,
interpretation, and even inclusion in decision-making (even so, they still
managed to be a damned sight more enlightened regarding the design of the
systematic structure of politics than we have today even). Greece, like Rome,
was not a closed system. Other, less developed cultural identities were quite
capable of marshalling tens, or even hundreds of thousands of men on missions
of conquest, and so Greece, like Rome, existed in a state of perpetual war, or
threat of war. Communication networks were non-existent across societal scales,
and these civilisations would have seen Greeks as no different than animals,
such would the extent of homogenous indoctrination and dehumanisation. Genocide
ruled this age, and it didn’t discriminate when it came to cultural advance.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Strict authoritarian rule defined the history-deriving
scale of religious fundamental identity in the millennia that followed, for
Europe and most of Asia at least, as did (by definition) stagnation of
knowledge, since homogenous cultural identity minimised subjectivities, and
therefore innovation, to the extreme. Meanwhile, in the Middle-east, Greek
knowledge was being gathered together, synthesised, maintained, and
disseminated across it’s growing empire, which correlates (guess what? By
definition) with the less homogenised, less authoritarian ruled that emerged in
feedback with the widening and diverging subjectivities held within, and
brought forth from, Greek cultural identity. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">If you haven’t seen it already, I cannot recommend the
episode of Neil de Grasse Tyson’s Cosmos with the profile of Ibn Al Haytham.
When I first discovered this guy, it took me about two minutes of
research to conclude that here, indisputably, lies the greatest scientific mind
between Aristotle and Newton. It then took me a further 2.3 seconds to fall
into desperate despair. Why had it taken 27 years of reading, of growing, keen
interest in science, <i>and having nearly completed my History degree at
University, </i>for me to have ever come across the name? Incidentally, it was
through <i>my own</i> reading, not the university, that I first heard about
him. Nowhere in my studies had this period ever popped up - not in political
philosophy, intellectual and cultural history, or<i> even the history of
science</i>. I quickly looked to see what book I might be able to buy about
this incredible person, yet the <i>only</i> book I could find in English was a
profile in a series of science books <i>for small children. </i>My mind was
blown. Here I was, a highly educated, relatively independent mind in the UK, a
country with Islamophobia running rife through the (vertical) cultural
corridors of power, and I had to admit that my, and everyone else’s, entire
historical and cultural knowledge was a biased, imperialistic mess, <i>and I
had no way to know to what extent anything was true. </i>Selection bias was
clearly enough to make even the most intellectual mind unknowingly shape
cultural identity into the image power decides. This more than anything made me
integrate self-reflection and self-falsification subconsciously, into my very
worldview.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Anyway, I digress. Ibn Al-Haytham is an absolute,
grade-A, historical badass. Let me just run down a few of the many things he
accomplished having developed in the still here, despite the West’s best
efforts, Iraqi city of Basra: the correct model of how light travels, and how
the eye interacts with the light to allow us to see; a complete formulation of
reflection, and a detailed investigation and (correct) description of
refraction, including angles of incidence and deviation; other optical work
concerning the light reflecting from the moon, halos and rainbows, and
development of the ‘camera obscura’; alternative constructions and direct
proofs of some of Euclid’s theorems; and the most complete understanding of the
importance of the scientific methods, and human flaws of reasoning and
perception to date. Here was a person who, with the right genes, and the right
upbringing, with the right exposure to the right dissonance in the right order,
could break free of the conceptual bonds of his entire cultural environment.
Here is a quote from his biography page on Harvard University’s website (see,
they <i>do</i> know about these guys, it’s just, well, Newton’s more European-y):</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 40.5pt; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background: white; color: #111111; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 8.5pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In a short
autobiography, Ibn al-Haytham tells us that in his youth he scrutinized the
claims of the many religious sects teeming around him. In the end it was the
empirical strain and rational thinking he recognized in Aristotelian natural
philosophy, and the rigor of mathematics, that finally won his heart.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">It’s important to remember at this point however, that
science, as a non-fundamental identity (more on that, and those, later) was
never able to fully integrate itself into, or as, a fundamental cultural
identity. This shouldn’t come as a surprise; however cultural and socially
advanced this period, and this location, was, it was still utterly incapable of
providing an enabling environment for it’s saturation of the entire cultural
system. Again, language and literacy barriers are rife, and while scholars of
multiple faiths were often invited to debate and contribute new books and new
knowledge, this cultural evolution was inherently limited to a tiny elite, with
the vast majority of people still living largely unchanged to how they had been
for thousands of years (excepting urban areas, which like Rome, saw significant
advances in aesthetics and functionality). Everything may have been theocratically under Islam's control, this region wasn’t
homogenous in the way closed, European cultural systems were; they were the
mid-point between East and West, an obvious location for such cultural
evolution to emerge. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Unfortunately, that same fact also meant that they
were perfectly placed to be utterly annihilated by more homogenous, less
enlightened cultural systems that had the Middle East utterly surrounded. The
constant waging of religious-based conflict, the <i>constant genocide</i>,
whether from the West at the hands of the Crusaders, or the East at the hands of
one of the most alien-seeming, blood-thirsty, and devastating warrior cultures
ever known, the Mongols. Entire cities would be burned to the ground, their entire populace executed, down to the last child, methodically, each man being
given his quota to maximise efficiency. They did both because it made tactical
sense - striking terror into the hearts of your enemy at the mere mention of
you heading their way will always give an advantage - <i>and because they
could.</i> The Mongols, like the European crusaders, <i>shared no culture with
these people - they had no evident empathy for them whatsoever. </i>Who knows
whether individual moments managed to sneak glimpses of dissonance, hints of a
more universal reality, into the minds of these men as they slayed babies that,
lets face it, would have at least looked similar, who knows. What we do know is
that the societal scale identity, these cultures fundamental, top-down identities,
facilitated mass-genocide <i>regularly. </i>And it is a feature common to both
religious <i>and </i>state cultural identities, as the 20th century showed.
Hopefully, corporatism won’t follow suit, though has you will see later in this
book, many would argue it already is.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">At this moment such opportunities for a free mind was
still a fragile basis of identity and was almost wiped out, were it not for the
knowledge it produced being kept alive by the Muslim world. The Dark Ages
represented a throw-back to that pre-Greek time of theocratic rule (divine
kings), until that Greek seed was re-planted in Europe once more through the
Moorish in Spain, and on through the Renaissance in Italy. It was following
this time, when sufficient knowledge had been disseminated, replicated, and
disbursed in Latin, the growing lingua-franca (SP?) of an emerging, <i>international</i>
elite of thinkers, that science emerged as an unstoppable, but still, as ever,
far from fundamental, cultural identity. Early Modern Europe saw the first
major split in the dominant religious cultural identity, as new concepts and
thoughts brought dissonance to a point whereby an enabling environment formed
that allowed one man, nailing one piece of paper to a Church door, could be
discerned as the cascade-triggering event (how accurately, who knows) that
ripped that tension from its chains. Although Catholicism had been the major
source of funding for science, and cultural production in genera, in the period
of the Renaissance, it’s inevitable creation of dissonance meant that Protestantism’s
embrace of early science’s ability to empower the <i>individual,</i> over the
institution, was the <i>next </i>major catalyst for cultural evolution. This
evolution advanced in feedback with advancing communication technology, such as
the printing press, and the subsequent market forces driving the establishment
of common vernaculars across large, geographical regions, each feeding the
other to begin the process of accumulating truly objective knowledge.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">This generated an unstoppable new catalyst to cultural
evolution; the establishment of science as an indispensible cultural identity
due to it’s wide spread, and ultimately, because of it’s tremendous use for
power to achieve it’s own ends. Complexity and cognitive dissonance grew,
both from the religious cultural identity (continued fragmentation and growing
synthesis - a precedent had been set)) and the resulting emergence and growth
of non-fundamental identities such as science, art, and philosophy. This meant
that the enabling environment for a transition to a new and genuinely
fundamental cultural identity was arriving <i>exponentially, </i>in feedback
with the exponentially increasing domestic <i>and </i>international
institutional and communication network that formed the foundation of science
in this time. Most importantly however was the emergence of common vernaculars
across entire cultural systems, for it represented the medium through which
disparate identities would be shaped into a new fundamental Identity, that of
the State.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The emergence of the State
fundamental cultural identity</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The English Civil War, according to my premise,
represents the moment when cultural complexity hit the maximum threshold that
religious cultural identity could maintain. The dissonance had hit its peak.
Such was the power of this uprising, against the very notion of King Charles
being God’s personally chosen representative to rule over them, that families,
communities, and the entire country were torn apart, Royalists, desperate to
maintain the very fabric of their identity, indeed, their concept of reality,
versus those who had seen enough to convince them that divinity could be found
elsewhere. It is mightily interesting that it was during this time that, to my
knowledge at least, the first hint of understanding of emergence first gained
mass attention. Thomas Hobbes, on the front cover of his mammothly influential
book, ‘Leviathan’, depicted the image of a giant King, looking out over his
lands. Yet despite the head being that of a single, noble individual, the body
that holds that held is comprised of a multitude of individuals, representing
the subjects that make up his kingdom. The book itself didn’t directly
challenge the <i>sovereignty</i> of the King - if it had, it wouldn’t have been
so influential - but it did open the way to discussing the nature of that
sovereignty in a different way. By including the subjects within the image of
the King, Hobbes was making an implicit reference to the fact that the King was
<i>nothing</i> without the people, whatever his original intent. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Predictably, the transition didn’t go smoothly. For a
section of the populace to have executed the King, God’s own representative on
this earth, chosen by him to govern you… it is <i>impossible</i> for us to
overstate just how incredibly crippling and paralysing that would have been, to
people across the entire nation. The closest we in the West have to imagining
such an event of collective shock would be to think of the U.S. post September
11th. <i>But magnified</i> <i>thousands of times. </i>The natural order, the
order that no one could possibly have envisioned beyond, had been irrevocably
shattered. INSERT IMAGE HERE. Not only that, but it had been shattered <i>by
their own kin.</i> Nothing we could imagine could compare to what that must
have been like. <i>Every </i>royalist would have been talking about the
end-times approaching, <i>and sincerely believing it.</i> The fall-out lasted
through two periods of intense, bloody conflict, as the newly conceived
parliament struggled to impose its legitimacy. In the end, as always, the
eventual equilibrium saw the first-ever separation of powers to have stuck
through until modern day. King Charles II took the throne, his powers
significantly reduced, and parliament was able then to establish itself to the
point where opposing <i>political</i> parties created the dichotomy that drove
cultural production, <i>not</i> the clash between religious power and civic,
non-fundamental identities (within a cultural system), or large-scale religious
cultural identities (inter-cultural systems). But most importantly, and what made
this transition to statehood ‘stick’, was that the state eventually came to
tame the democratising force of the printing press, impose it’s authority over
cultural production, and begin the process of saturating culture with its own
image, diluting the cultural capital of religious cultural identity in the
process.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">This ‘balancing-out’ of the religious and state
fundamental cultural identities is the main, single, underlying cause of the
enlightenment. While the state may have had a good deal of control over
system-wide dissemination of cultural identity, religion still held the trump
card of having millions congregate at the localised scale every week. The power
of the sermon was still immense, and while the state may have lasted, and
evolved, to this day, this first few hundred years of history was still
dominated by religious conflict. Europe was ablaze, somewhere, for pretty much
all of this period, as Catholicism and Protestantism fought back and forth, as
though echoing the explosion Martin Luther had lit the fuse to, an echo that
lingers still today. Religion still had the most cultural capital, stored and
accumulated over thousands of years, and this will take an age to change; while
the state may have been catching up in the UK - the Houses of Parliament, the
tower(s) holding Big Ben (and Tom), etc - it could not be expected to compete
with the thousands of churches, castles, and palaces accrued from time long
past, and the identity held, and continuously transmitted from, within them.
Even the rapidly evolving scientific cultural identity took hundreds of years
to gradually rid itself, at both the individual and societal level, of
religions influence, only to have to do the same for that of the state.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Although the network of early scientists that helped
progress this new fundamental identity was extremely small, I bet that if you
were to quantify it’s growth, the amount of letters sent in this time would
have grown exponentially, just as the growth in peer-reviewed publishing has
been shown to be. Yet we are still talking numbers in the low hundreds, as well
as a pretty homogenous demographic of white men of wealth. Yet between the
emerging universities, scientific institutions, and men of patronage free to
further their studies whilst tutoring the young aristocrats (an important
group, since institutionalisation would be less of an issue), enough people
gained enough knowledge, through enough revolutionary books translated into
enough vernacular languages, to bring the capacity of innovation to more and
more people, <i>only now to the benefit of the state, and the continued
detriment of religion</i>. Advances in communication technology such as the
telegraph, photography, the establishment of newspaper and the fourth estate
relaying ideology authoritatively and en-masse, combined with the gradual
integration by the state of religious cultural identity (entirely naturally)
meant that religions monopoly on system-wide cultural production, their ability
to define themselves, waned dramatically, never to return in the West in a
governing form. Gradually, mass-culture became state-culture, homogenising the
nature of cultural production in a fashion that excluded religion entirely. The
state began to define itself, and the populace was powerless to resist its message.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">It is here that the story takes a tragic turn for the
worse that is familiar to all of us, not just in the West, but also around the
world. It was the first, globally reaching travesty of human universality to
imprint itself, forever, on the cultural identity of hundreds of millions of
people. No, I’m not talking about the two World Wars. I am talking about
colonialism. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Colonialism was what happened when competing
nationalist cultural identities realised they had the technology to basically
conquer the world, in the good old fashioned way that all but the very most
enlightened intellectual found entirely natural. And why wouldn’t they? Conquest
of the ‘other’ has been a staple of civilisation since civilisation first
began. While the state cultural identity may have contributed to one hell of a
lot of cultural advancement, morality was still bounded by shared culture; some
may have objected to killing other Latin speaking peoples, or destroying Greek
architecture, no one gave a damn about people who were so different as to be a
different colour! It wasn’t even an established consensus, until Darwin’s work
had had sufficient influence (in the 19th century!), that they were even the
same species as the clearly more civilised white folk. The state cultural identity,
with renewed legitimacy derived from “science” that just happened to justify
the abhorrent practices that were so enriching those in power. Yet it wasn’t
just about wealth. The state cultural identity had co-opted religious identity,
infusing its mission with religious righteousness and misplaced ‘good’-intent,
combining it’s ‘civilising’ mission with good old fashioned It should come as
no surprise then that so many should have travelled, sorry, been renditioned to
the States, as part of a systematic and global crime against humanity that
lasted for many generations. The justification through reason that the state,
and its beneficiaries, employed was so sophisticated that it was even able, for
a short while longer at least, to find residence in the minds of those few,
wealthy men who designed what became the pinnacle, for many, of the emergent
forms of ‘self’-governance. Personally, I see it as an idealistic high-water
mark that has receded ever since. Fortunately, it was so ahead of its time that
that didn’t, and doesn’t, matter. </span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The founding fathers of the United States,
blessed with an abundance of resources, officially separated church and state
(I say officially: thousands of years of cultural capital preserved through the
minds of those first immigrants hardly vanishes overnight - churches were very
soon aplenty), and laid the conceptual foundations for that which would come to
supplant the very state as the new fundamental cultural identity. First though,
back to Europe, where nationalism still had something nasty up its sleeve as
its global power began to wane (strangely, all that communication and transport
infrastructure Europeans built everywhere fed-back into a growing sense of
indigenous collective identity built around oppression), and resource hungry
state cultural systems, reaching their peak capacity of complexity given the
increasing influences of other cultures on previously more closed cultural
systems. With a leadership in every nation state, every anachronistic
empire soon to fall of the cliff-face of History, had a leadership whose
cultural identity was at it’s most purely nationalistic, it’s most exclusive in
terms of morality. Every such cultural system reflected this homogeneity of
power, every young, male mind infected with glorious tales of noble and
virtuous war, every young female mind disempowered into subservience, and with
the ingrained sense of duty forcibly imparted on all, by families, by
communities, by the state, an unquestionable cultural norm.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">An unfortunate trend that has remained steady
throughout History is the ever-increasing capacity for humanity to kill each
other. Not in the sense of actually being able to carry out the deed, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">that</i> has remained a constant, and we
would be foolish to think it cannot reappear. People at the turn of the 20th
century also regarded their own time as too advanced, culturally, to stoop the
levels of depravity the continent soon witnessed. They were wrong. Again,
communication networks, and the relatively closed and tightly controlled nature
of each competing nationalist cultural system, pre-determined what was about to
happen. Complexity had once again reached it’s zenith with the state cultural
identity, but whereas in the U.S where the transition happened gradually (after
a false start) - mainly due to nothing more than geography, that is, its
distance away from the major powers, combined with its sheer land-mass and
self-sufficiency in vital resources - in Europe it was sudden, explosive, and
brutally unprecedented. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The First World War, seen through this complexity
framework, has to be one of <i>the</i> most tragic sets of circumstances in the
history of humanity. It came at a terrible time: power was still highly
exclusive and almost at it’s peak of homogeneity; the mythology and cultural
identity, embodied most fundamentally by those in power, built around the
glory, nobility, and even the necessity of war; the largely untested technology
that appeared at that time, so dangerous that the Hague convention of 1898
(????) saw the introduction of international law prohibiting certain
technologies, such as gas, and aerial warfare; the sheer pig-headed,
testosterone fuelled stubbornness created by the purity of the elites cultural
identity, their unquestioning loyalty to 19th century thinking (at best); and
finally, but most depressingly, the still huge gap between the cultural
identities between the fundamentalist leadership, and the
indoctrinated-to-all-degrees-<i>and-none </i>multitude that was the <i>drafted</i>,
<i>and until recently civilians and students, armies. </i>Together with
whichever black regiments we could muster from the colonies, obviously.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The utter heart-break that is the first world war is,
for me personally using <i>this</i> framework, summed up best (or worst, I
guess) in the Christmas Day armistice of 1914. As an aside here, I cannot
implore you enough to listen to Dan Carlin’s latest series of Hardcore History
podcasts, covering the First World War. Describing the following scene, Dan had
me <i>wailing</i> with grief for a solid five minutes. Here’s why.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">By the time that first Christmas of the First World
War came around, it had already become clear that this was a war like no other.
The most intense and complex opening round of hostilities in human history,
featuring armies from a whole host of regions and states just piling into each
other, saw tens of thousands from all sides dead within weeks. Soon, the whole
thing devolved into what the Great War has primarily become known for, the
trenches, stretching from the border of Switzerland right up to the Belgium
coast. The wet, muddy, rat-infested trenches, where bodies would lie sometimes
for months, unable to be removed, were these men's <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">homes, </i>their every-day lives for four long years, should they be so
'lucky’. Raise so much as a finger, and bullets would ring out. The brutal,
constant pounding of the shells forcing men to dig themselves deeper and
deeper, often finding themselves digging into the bodies of former comrades,
adding to the images of gore and horror that would continue to torment those
who witnessed them for the rest of their lives. Barely ten yards separated the
two sides at various points in the front, two walls of flying steel forcing men
to behave like animals, desperately burrowing deeper for any safety at all.
The ‘shell shock’ that would later be diagnosed as PTSD was enough to
send even the bravest soldier insane, and yet within this hell on Earth,
something incredible happened: a deeper sense of shared humanity than that held
by the officers and politicians shone through, before being extinguished in the
name of more killing.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Across the entire Western Front, with a few
exceptions, guns from both sides were unusually quiet on that first Christmas
Eve in hell, even non-existent in places for the first time in months. At
first, some of the English soldier thought that the strange coloured lights
appearing along the German trenches might be some kind of signal, perhaps
indicating a fresh attack. Some even thought they might be some new weapon, or
a ploy to make the allies curious enough to show their heads. Then they heard
singing, and not just any singing: they heard the sound of Christmas Carols
which, despite being in German, were utterly recognisable to all the allied
soldiers that heard them. Many soldiers recorded the strange, surreal events in
their diaries, talking of hearing nothing but the beautiful sound of carol
singing, drifting eerily through the forest night, or out over the desolate and
pitted no-mans land. Allied soldiers began to sing back, slowly inching
themselves up, out of the trench, to get a better view of the <i>Christmas
decorations </i>appearing along the Germans lines. Gradually, soldiers from
both sides worked their way out of the trenches and across no mans land, where
they met, exchanged gifts, and laughed together, language barriers overcome
through sign language, a shared tragedy, and a joint sense of bewilderment,
disbelief, and dissonance. So, so much dissonance.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">What had happened here? Subject to the fundamentalist
nationalist ideologies of their leaders, drafted soldiers from both sides,
civilians really, suddenly found that the enemy, forever demonised and recently
dehumanised within their respective, nationalistic, top-down cultural
environment, shared with them cultural identity. It was a cultural identity
that stretched back much farther than even the foundation of the nation state.
Christianities spread across the whole of Europe had left a legacy of shared
music, lyrics, and traditions, never mind the language used, which came to the
fore with the coming of a shared celebration, Christmas. Hearing those songs
cut through the nationalist ideology like a knife, presenting a window for
empathy that was grasped by minds desperate for relief, desperate to not be
shot at, desperate not to have to shoot anymore. Hundreds of thousands of men
succumbed to the desire to ignore the moral exclusivity, the hate, and the
venom of their respective rulers cultural identity, even then more alike to
each other than they were to the average populace. Conversely, common soldiers
on both sides were slowly realising, as they chatted with the ‘enemy’ and
swapped cheese for cigarettes, that they weren’t so different either. Singing
carols together will do that to people, given the long, mutual, and
pre-nationalist history that they represent. More than that, it would have hit
them hard, right in their religious cultural identity, which for many soldiers
would have been stronger then than the nationalism that had compelled them to
fight in the first place. </span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">I can only imagine the dissonance, the heartbreak,
the sheer existential fear involved in joining fellow men in celebrating your
saviours’ birth one day, and then forced to resume killing each other the next.
It wasn’t even just the deep-rooted Christian identity that united them; the
mere appearance of a football would send soldiers on both sides into a frenzy
of laughter and joyful competition. Yet the officers on both sides, their
humanity unable to break through the pure, nationalistic state cultural
identity that so consumed them, the environment they grew up in, and the
group-dynamics they were trapped in, decreed that such <i>deviations </i>should
never happen again, ordering regular artillery bombings on Christmas days
thereafter. How dare they grasp for shared humanity?! It makes me openly sob to
tell the tale.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Yet nationalism <i>still </i>hadn’t run its course,
power still hadn’t finished with the development of ever greater horrors that
it could turn science toward. More importantly however, power wasn’t ready to
give up what was seen as a traditional, and given the lives lost, duty-bound
obligation to make the losers, sorry, instigators (actually, in this case it <i>was
</i>both, though all parties must share some responsibility), pay a heavy
price. It’s not hard to see why. Nobody came out of this war victorious.
Everyone, even those leaders who had supposedly won the war, must have had a
severely dented pride and troubled conscience, even if they consciously denied
it (I’m looking at you Churchill, though a lot of people took to justifying
their actions following the debacle). Someone had to pay. Someone had to
shoulder the blame. Yet all it did was create the perfect enabling environment
for a backlash. The Second World War was essentially made inevitable; not only
were communication structures still where they were at pre-WW1, worse in many
places that were still being rebuilt; you had an entire generation suffering a
bout of collective PTSD; you had economic hardship exacerbated by unfeasible
reparation payments, but worse of all you had an isolated Germany. It’s the
societal equivalent of taking someone’s freedom and locking them in jail, where
they cannot make new connections and develop greater, more inclusive empathy,
instead forced to introspect alone, with no outside help, with the inevitable
outcome that they blamed someone else and reoffended. Big time.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Here it is we see the culmination of what homogenous,
top-down cultural systems can become. The Nazi party are the single most
extreme case of cultural identity engineering I know of, <i>in terms of time
taken to get to mass genocide. </i>As you will see later, there is a
contemporary example that in many ways goes <i>beyond</i> what the Nazi’s did.
What the Nazis managed to do was take the science of propaganda and implement
it, on a massive scale: by targeting schools, they ensured that they would
complete their task as soon as possible; by using the Hitler youth to terrorise
the populace, they protected themselves from a potential source of revolt,
while also using them, a group inherently culturally different, and therefore
more easily manipulated into moral divergence, to subjugate older people, those
who potentially had actual power at the community level; by burning books,
utterly disenfranchising the Jews, closing institutions, and vetting all
cultural production, they rapidly reduced the amount of contrary cultural
capital available to those developing, and those who would find solstice in
them; by appointing Nazi supporters in prominent positions <i>throughout
culture</i>, they ensured no independent, smaller-scale cultural identities
could evolve without their influence. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">MAKE THIS GOEBBELS/GORING PIECE INTO A BOX.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria;">The Nazi’s <i>knew </i>what they were doing here, none
more so than Joseph Goebbels, in my view far more dangerous and evil a villain
than even Hitler. Without Goebbels, Hitler may have come to no more than
another hated dictator. Yet without Hitler, Goebbels would have made possible
the machinations of <i>whichever</i> messed-up mind from the First World War
had become obsessed with conspiracy theory and revenge.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria;">Check out some of these quotes from this master of
manipulation:</span><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #181818; font-family: Cambria;">“It would not
be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological
understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They
are mere words, and words can be moulded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”</span><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #181818; font-family: Cambria;">“Think of the
press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria;"> </span><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #181818; font-family: Cambria;">“Every age
that has historical status is governed by aristocracies. Aristocracy with the
meaning - the best are ruling. Peoples do never govern themselves. That lunacy
was concocted by liberalism. Behind its "people's sovereignty" the slyest
cheaters are hiding, who don't want to be recognized.”</span><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #181818; font-family: Cambria;">“What does
Christianity mean today? National Socialism is a religion. All we lack is a
religious genius capable of uprooting outmoded religious practices and putting
new ones in their place. We lack traditions and ritual. One day soon National
Socialism will be the religion of all Germans. My Party is my church, and I
believe I serve the Lord best if I do his will, and liberate my oppressed
people from the fetters of slavery. That is my gospel.” </span><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #181818; font-family: Cambria;">Here is someone who knows all too
well the fickle nature of free will, of the power that such knowledge grants
you, particularly over those who are under your trust, or your under you will.
The awareness of the German states’ supplanting of religion, in a very literal
sense, allowed them to use religious identity for their own ends, again
neutralising and utilising a potential source for revolt for its own ends.
Finally, in an exchange from the Nuremberg trials between a lawyer and Hermann
Goring, commander of the Luftwaffe, Goring makes clear just how universal they
had perceived this power of propaganda to be: </span><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 22.5pt; margin-right: 22.5pt; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #252525; font-family: Cambria;">Göring</span></b><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #252525; font-family: Cambria;">: <b>Why, of course, the people don't want war.</b> Why would
some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he
can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? <b>Naturally, the
common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood.</b> But, after all, it is
the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 22.5pt; margin-right: 22.5pt; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #252525; font-family: Cambria;">Gilbert</span></i><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #252525; font-family: Cambria;">: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have
some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United
States only Congress can declare wars.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 22.5pt; margin-right: 22.5pt; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #252525; font-family: Cambria;">Göring</span></i><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #252525; font-family: Cambria;">: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, <b>the
people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All
you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same
way in any country.</b></span><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-right: 22.5pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #252525; font-family: Cambria;">Now, I don’t
want to sound glib, but does this tactic not sound incredibly familiar, to the
entire West, nay, the globe? In a way it isn’t their fault, those in power that
is; society produces emergent properties that can carry events way beyond the
design or planning of any one person, or group of people. That’s the social
forces version of History, and has culture and cultural identity become more
complex, this force is growing stronger. It should come as no surprise in such
an enabling environment that fear becomes ever-more resorted to, what with it
being the easiest, and most effective, way of covering your own incompetence,
and/or getting what you want (which in an increasingly divergent cultural
context between rulers and subjects, will only get harder to achieve). But hate
as I do to say it, Goring is right, and Gilberts riposte merely evidence of the
superiority complex that comes with being able to maintain a narrative of
owning the moral high ground. It is a legacy that lives on to this day.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-right: 22.5pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background: white; color: #252525; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 8.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">END BOX</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In summary, they had utterly saturated the entire
cultural environment with their influence, indoctrinating some to subjugate the
others, and held it for long enough to facilitate the industrial-scale, and
-form, killing of millions of Jews, gays, gypsies, disabled, and other cultural
identities deemed a threat, or simply undesirable. The most depressing thing?
It took less than a decade to create the enabling environment, a Stanford
prison experiment writ large, with terrible consequences. After this, there
could be no return to the old ways. People had finally learned the lesson, one
they would misinterpret and soon forget anyway, but not before they could
establish <i>strong</i>, if still intensely western-centric (obviously), European-wide,
and then global, institutions. Yet, despite the EU, UN, and other supranational
bodies undoubtedly helped by employing sound separation-of-powers principles at
a scale above that of the state, I don’t think they can necessarily take the
credit they may imagine they deserve (and certainly not a Nobel Peace prize,
though neither could the main cause either. For that title, we need to go once
more across the pond, back in the nursery of a corporate cultural identity,
back in time just a wee bit to see what was happening while Europe was in
flames, twice.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The emergence of Corporate
fundamental cultural identity. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In the States, the state cultural identity was having
a tough time of it themselves, though hardly to the same degree. Having come a
fairly long way from the noble, non-interventionist (if you except the forced
migration of millions of humans) ideal, and incorporating most of the
Caribbean, and a good chunk of Mexico, into its domain, one has to wonder what
on Earth went wrong. What went wrong was the emergence of a new cultural
identity, not yet fundamental, but that nevertheless found itself with unimaginable
wealth, and therefore power. Powers over politics, over the very state cultural
identity, but not yet with a monopolistic hold<i> on cultural production.
</i>This created a stunning divergence in the cultural and moral systems
of those in power and those under it, in feedback with the huge growth in
inequality (see: wealth inequality as a measure of homogeneity of a cultural
system), <i>but not the required foundation to sustain it. </i></span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">This is evident in the mass-mobilisation of religious
communities during the Great Depression; cultural identity not yet cowed into
submission and seeing morality practiced that was contrary to what they
themselves believed. The combined efforts of religious and other,
non-fundamental identities, was enough to create an enabling environment for
the state to come down hard on those corporations, and their ideologue owners,
who were seen, as now, as responsible for the market crash, and redistribute
wealth to a degree that released the tension once more. But, after a period of
brief societal equilibrium, fundamental and non-fundamental alike, the slowly,
exponentially growing corporate identity did not just disappear. Rather, <i>it
gained control, </i>control over the banking system with the introduction of
the Federal Reserve, control over the newly emerging technologies of radio,
telephony, and television. Then it bided its time, and became a fundamental
cultural identity the way cultural evolution demands - slowly, and through
gaining uninterrupted control over cultural production for a couple of
generation. It became the background noise, the new shadows on the wall, and it
did it first in the States.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">This shift toward monopolistic corporate control of an
<i>unprecedented, one-way, system-wide</i> communication network had the same
consequences as would happen were religion, or the state, were (and are) in
control of such a system: mass indoctrination. Again, it isn’t some evil plot.
In fact, complexity theory practically<i> rules out </i>the possibility of a small
group of people even being able to control such a complex system as society.
The only reason people see the connection is because they are indoctrinated
into viewing control by the metrics power itself does: money. Yet this <i>isn’t</i>
control of the system, that’s control over wealth extraction, and to conflate
the two is to submit to the definitions power has provided for itself.
Eventually, the system will bite those people hard on the ass, but until then,
the U.S. is largely, and sustainably (in the near term), trapped in Plato’s goddamn cave again.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The reasons for this are numerous, obviously, it’s
massively complex, but can essentially be summarised as: it had the most
complex and facilitative enabling environment. The freedoms enshrined, for what
they are truly worth, in the U.S. constitution and its amendments granted unprecedented
freedom for cultural evolution to occur; it was the only superpower left to
fully exploit the now blindingly fast (supposedly, back then anyway) advances
of technology; it suffered barely any significant damage back in the homeland,
leaving a celebratory populace who had mostly been spared the lifelong,
crippling, psychological legacy the two World Wars left. Times were bloody
awesome, people had “never had it so good” - at least if you were white, male,
and reasonably wealthy and/or lucky, but then, since they were the only ones on
these new radios, and television sets, that counts as everyone, to a relative
mind. The American Dream was here, first in black-and-white, then in full Technicolor!
It was in Broadway, it was in every living room (that mattered), and it held,
and grew, and got more and more clever, and manipulative, all with one aim; to
make you part with the money you have earned. What is this ‘it’ I speak
of? Corporate cultural identity, everywhere, day and night. It isn’t capitalism
creating this cultural identity, creating these new desires and insecurities
and “personality disorders”, any more than it was nationalism <i>creating</i>
state cultural identity, or spiritualism creating religious cultural identity.
It was, and is, corporations and their CEOs. State governments and their
politicians, and organised religion, with its priests. Capitalism doesn’t exist;
it is an abstract ideal that complexity shows is as impossible to realise. All
ideology has, at its heart, the belief that if things are done in just this way
or that, optimal order will somehow emerge. That isn’t how it works. That <i>isn’t</i>
emergence.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Having had two generations in which to spread a TV or
Radio into just about every house, and having welcomed advertising and
corporate involvement in communications infrastructure in a way Europe didn’t,
the States saw the corporate cultural identity gain it’s monopolistic market
share of system-wide cultural production. Nobody knew it, but here was the
subversion of power that would <i>inevitably </i>lead to corporate cultural
identity subverting both religion <i>and </i>the state. So all consuming was
its reach, that even those who would consider themselves fully religious, or
nationalistic at heart, are subconsciously forced to wade through a sea of adverts,
each attempting to drill it’s way in new and innovative ways into your
subconscious, explicitly, <i>by design. </i>There is a reason Bill Hicks hated
marketing so much, and this is why. Marketing, PR, spin; all they represent are
more subtle and nuanced forms of propaganda, pure and simple. No cultural
system could withstand such an onslaught, and the exclusivity inherent in the
moral fabric of such a homogenous cultural identity has reeked unimaginable
devastation in its role of creating, sustaining and exaggerating the phantom of
the ‘other’, Communism, that twin enemy of both state and corporate identity
alike. You want to talk feedback? Look no further than the ridiculous arms
race, with its self-imposed, twisted logic of mutually assured destruction evidence
of ideologies inherent stupidity when it comes to thinking in terms of the
greater (than themselves) good.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Reagan and Thatcher were on the same mission, but they
were starting from different locations, and with a disparate amount of
institutionalised power behind them in their ideological goals. In the states,
corporate identity had already laid the foundation for the acceptance of
neoliberalism, for the acceptance of the ideologues personal definition, under
the idealistic myth that is capitalism, The American Dream, the End of History.
Thatcher meanwhile, in a cultural system whose state cultural identity had
retained its sovereignty over these new technologies (the BBC), and whose
cultural identity stretched way farther back than the relative blank slate that
was the U.S. Thatcher couldn’t take the neoliberal reforms as far as Reagan,
and it took until New Labour betraying their working class base and embrace
corporatism for the transformation, the subjugation, of the state identity to
be complete (at least, in its top-down form). But how <i>could </i>New Labour
have “betrayed their working class base”, while winning in a landslide? The
answer is they didn’t - they changed in feedback with their changing base, a
base that had by now had the same 20 or so years of dominant corporate culture
that the states had had from the fifties onwards. There was no working class
anymore, just a few diehard communities, suffering dissonance and exclusion in
a sea of consumerism. Not only that, but as the U.S’s closest cultural system,
the UK naturally and inevitably became the first and most receptive to the
growing corporate influence across the pond. With no language barrier and an
aura of glamour, U.S. culture found a home in the UK that only added to the
acceleration of the corporate cultural monopoly.</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Gradually, U.S. corporate culture reached every corner
of the globe, and where corporate interests went, the state duly followed. The
media gradually became more subservient the more their corporate masters
diverged in culture, the more inequality grew. Religion embraced corporatism’s
message, the appearance of vast, multi-million dollar turnover mega-churches,
taking the traditional, religious way of extracting wealth (though still using
fear, and other devices such as music and repetition that Goebbels was fond of)
and applying economies-of-scale. Any counter-cultural possibility had been
extinguished with the coming of Reagan and the freedoms he granted, in the name
of an economic ideology, to corporations. The West was lost to fundamentalism,
driven there by external fears and internal monopolistic control over cultural
production. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt;">If you think fundamentalism is too harsh a word, then you either
haven’t been paying attention, or else disagree with my theoretical premise,
that culture reflects identity, that culture <i>is</i> identity. U.S.
system-wide cultural production is <i>entirely</i> corporate, either directly,
or through power of mediation, with just the one public TV and radio channel in PBS and NPR (and even that is under constant threat of having it’s funding pulled). It has been
this way for decades; every single large scale producer of cultural production,
<i>all</i> functioning <i>not</i> for the public good, <i>but for their
bottom-line.</i> For a reflection of how far we have come, consider this. We
have just had a financial crisis like the West has not known since the 30’s.
Yet unlike that time, there was no mass-mobilisation, no rallying cries of any
influence from the pulpits, just a bunch of disparate, desperate, isolated
voices crying out into the ether. Unlike that time, the state is no longer
independent enough, cultural identity no longer diverse enough, to create the
enabling environment to legislate against those that<i> all but the most
hardened ideologues know are to blame for this mess. </i>A homogenous corporate
identity, free to define itself in culture <i>and </i>law, had instead created
the conditions required for <i>them</i> to survive such an enormous, and
usually reform-generating, systemic shock. Yet <i>nothing </i>has changed.
Inequality is <i>still</i> getting higher. The balance of fundamental and
non-fundamental identities, united by the horrors of war and a vision of a
brighter future, had once conspired to correct the greed of exclusive cultural
identity, and bring about two decades of rising equality. Not this time. <i>This</i> time
corporations have the power they then lacked, the power of mass-indoctrination.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<!--EndFragment--><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-69767448656691683622014-05-02T21:15:00.003-07:002014-05-02T21:30:54.594-07:00Thomas Piketty: a fundamental supplemental<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I have decided to start blogging sections of my book, particularly if they are topical or I need feedback. In this case, it is both. Keep in mind the following context for this blog: I had just completed, or so I thought, my work on what wealth inequality actually was, just two weeks before Piketty made himself known to me. This blog represents a messy first draft of what turned into a reformatting nightmare, but as you'll see, it was definitely worth it. Also, keep in mind this is just but one sub-section of my book, one application of the same theory applied across all of culture and history; you are thus missing all of the theoretical basis, and definitions/re-definition, that comprise chapters 1 & 2. Don't be surprised therefore if some terms seem to be used oddly, or in a new context. If anyone wants to read them btw, 90% of the book is done, so feel free to ask.<br />
<br />
<h2 style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-outline-level: 2; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';"><span style="font-size: large;">Thomas Piketty - a fundamental
supplemental.</span></span></b></h2>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p><br /></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">I first heard about the
nature of wealth's power law distribution, and I imagine its feedback-loop
quality of money-begatting-money, a long time ago. Yet it wasn’t until coming
to write this book that I began to express my idea <i>as</i> feedback loops. As
a consequence of this, I wasn’t satisfied in the slightest by my attempt I
showed you in the very first chapter of this book. What <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">was</i> influence? What <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">was </i>opportunity?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">(NOTE: I have had to roughly recreate the flow-diagrams illustrating feedback loops, since they won't format in this blog...)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><o:p><br /></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> WEALTH INEQUALITY</o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><o:p><br /></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">increases increases</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>OPPORTUNITY INFLUENCE</o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><o:p><br /></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>increases</o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Why then did I leave it
in?</span><span style="font-family: Times;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Well, I <i>had</i> intended to leave it in as evidence
of my workings toward identifying the more fundamental feedback loop that
almost immediately came to replace it. Then along came one Thomas Piketty. </span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Surprisingly, Piketty
has managed to turn doctrinal, ideological, neoliberal economic mythology on
its head <i>using evidence</i>. Only this time, he has used <i>lots of evidence</i>,
in a way that simply cannot easily be dismissed. That it took <i>this long</i>
for a book of this nature to come out is simply staggering, but not surprising.
Even History has a way better track record in interpreting the past, but then,
they have way more history of self-reflection, an entire academic field of it
in Historiography, to draw upon. I don’t know if there is even such a thing as
‘economography’, is there? Nevertheless Piketty has done what someone else soon
would have (there is probably a young economist or several currently shredding
their research in despair at what might have been), and sufficiently convinced
enough economists, using their own language and their own cultural identity, of
at least the potential that their corporately derived beliefs might be false.
This is why.</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">First, I have to make a
confession. I haven’t read the book. How the hell could I? I didn’t hear about
it until I was 55,000 words into this book, my work on wealth inequality <i>supposedly</i>
complete. Now, please don’t take this for the arrogance that will inevitably
appear in some of your minds, but when I read the expert commentary on
Piketty’s book, <i>I didn’t see anything new. </i>What I did <i>immediately </i>see
was that his findings corroborated <i>exactly </i>with my own, only inherently
limited in a number of ways. Allow me to explain why it is that what Piketty
has done is <i>describe </i>the dynamic of wealth inequality. What I have done,
and will subsequently show, is to <i>explain</i> the dynamic of wealth
inequality. In fact, complexity theory can, as ever, sum up what I mean best,
and in one sentence:</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">You cannot <i>explain</i>
emergent properties <i>solely</i> through recourse to the specific
characteristics of said emergent properties; you must describe the complex
system from which the emergent property emerges.</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">In other words, you
cannot explain economics with economics. You can only describe it, in the best
language we know how, the language economics uses to describe itself. This is
called a category error, a logical fallacy prevalent within the field of
economics; students are even revolting against the idea of doctrinal textbooks
that don’t describe <i>reality</i> in university. You can only explain
economics by describing society as a whole, for it is this from which the
emergent properties, which all economic activity is, emerge. Economics <i>does</i>
inherently realise this at a fundamental level, it is just that the doctrine
that still survives to this day, the dichotomy of Keynesian and Freidmanite
economics, was born of a time <i>when we did not have complexity to outline the
scale of what it was they thought they were achieving</i>. <i>It was
pre-computers for crying out loud, what possible hope did they have of coming
to non-ideological, non-politicised conclusions about the most complex sodding
system known in the entire universe?! </i></span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">You think climate
modelling is hard? Economics is the emergent property of <i>nested</i> complex
systems, that include the most complex object known in the universe, the brain,
<i>as each of its systemic nodes. </i>The data required to understand it is
potentially there, everything is digital bar the informal economies (a not
unimportant point, as I will come to later), but we have such an incomplete
conceptual framework analysing the data that it has taken until 2014 for an
economist to prove what generations of activists have been screaming for years,
globally: neoliberalism doesn’t work for the greater good. Period.</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">It is no coincidence
that the two extremes so easily mirror the socialist tendencies of the state
(the social contract, for what it was worth though in times of fundamental
balance, it can lead to equality), and the profit-driven necessities of
corporatism (Friedman's neoliberalist monster). Economics was never a science,
and can never be hoped to be taken as one now that they are starting to get the
tools so long as those economists embracing complexity continue to fail in
speaking out against their powerful peers, the ones they read about in the
textbooks… urgh, it’s hardly surprising is it?</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-outline-level: 3; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: #666666; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';">Piketty’s inequality curve.</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Anyway, I digress. The
thing that really struck me about Piketty, though again more for the fact of
the synchronicity than anything, was the fact that he had identified the same
curve to inequality that I had, only he had identified just one transitional
phase of inequality. Because Piketty is an economist, and not a sociologist, or
psychologist, or historian, he has been pre-conditioned to think in terms of
capitalism, not corporatism, or anything else for that matter, he attributes
all of the emergent properties of ‘capitalism’ - that is, economics - <i>to
capitalism itself.</i> Yet capitalism is just an idea, an unattainable,
abstract ideal that somehow feels able to reduce within itself <i>all</i> of
human behaviour. Yet trade, commerce, money, jobs; these are all but facets of
the overall whole, society, from which <i>the emergent property </i>of
economics, or capitalism if you prefer, emerges. Again, you cannot <i>explain </i>an
emergent property by treating it as it’s own, closed system, which is exactly
what economists <i>are </i>doing by reducing all of human behaviour into its
own cultural identity framework, thus eliminating <i>all other identities, from
all the other scales, in all their various, complex forms, from their models. </i></span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Traditionally,
economics, and in particular macroeconomics, had always assumed that equality
would rise as developed nations reached a stage of mature capitalism. As with
every established assumption about macroeconomics, it was based on flawed
theory and/or inaccurate data/research, born of a time before we have the tools
to adequate study such a complex system. And, as with every established
assumption about capitalism, it strangely seemed to assume that the end goal of
capitalism would fall on the side of the greater good. Well, what did you
expect? That the rationale of power would conclude they they should tell the public
that the theory that controlled and shaped their entire lives was no more than
an ideologically-derived guess?</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Either way, that
assumption, and the highly technical concepts of rising tides and trickle-down
BS that accompanies it, has done its job of convincing enough people enough of
the time already. It is too late to stop corporatism becoming a fundamental
identity. It doesn’t matter that Piketty has shown the dogma to be false, not
for the States anyway; elsewhere will heed his and others calls after him - the
Americans will just dismiss him as a French socialist, and move further into
the clutches of evidence-free totalitarianism, with people clinging desperately
to the myths that makes their position of inequality seem deniable (better than
than admitting you were duped by your own ideological ‘brethren’ - at least, <i>they
told you</i> they were your brethren), even as the inequality continues to
rise. And as Piketty showed, rise it will continue to so.</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">The curve Piketty
identified goes like this (according to Piketty’s theory): capitalism <i>began</i>
highly unequally in terms of wealth inequality in the West, before entering a
period of growing equality post-World War Two. Then, following free-market,
neoliberal reforms in the1970’s, inequality began to rise once more until it
was again at the peak of ‘early capitalism’. I will quote from Paul Mason, </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 16.545454025268555px; text-align: left;">culture and digital editor at Channel 4 News</span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"> and occasional contributor to the Guardian newspaper, on what Piketty found:</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 31.5pt; margin-right: 31.5pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">“</span><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #333333; font-family: Arial;">Piketty accepts that the fruits of
economic maturity – skills, training and education of the workforce – do
promote greater equality. But they can be offset by a more fundamental tendency
towards inequality, which is unleashed wherever demographics or low taxation or
weak labour organisation allows it… </span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 31.5pt; margin-right: 31.5pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #333333; font-family: Arial;">For Piketty, the long,
mid-20th century period of rising equality was a blip, produced by the
exigencies of war, the power of organised labour, the need for high taxation,
and by demographics and technical innovation… </span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 31.5pt; margin-right: 31.5pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #333333; font-family: Arial;">He notes that
redistribution has become a question of "rights to" things – healthcare
and pensions – rather than simply a problem of taxation rates. His solution is
a specific, progressive tax on private wealth: an exceptional tax on capital,
possibly combined with the overt use of inflation… </span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 31.5pt; margin-right: 31.5pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #333333; font-family: Arial;">To challenge his
argument you have to reject the premises of it, not the working out.”</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
Link here: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/28/thomas-piketty-capital-surprise-bestseller<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 4.5pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #333333; font-family: Arial;">I have collected
together this passage to deconstruct what I mean by Piketty’s category errors,
and to take up Mason’s argument, correct as it goes, and to challenge the very
premise of Piketty’s argument. The working out is fine; it is probably the
first, substantial non-ideological examination of wealth inequality ever
conducted, given that it has turned established “theory” on its head. Yet
because of Piketty’s category error, the attribution of cause and effect is
wrong. Capitalism didn’t start unequal <i>because</i> of capitalism, it started
unequal because of the <i>weakness</i> of capitalism<i>, </i>or I should say,
the weakness of corporate cultural identity. </span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #333333; font-family: Arial;">A
really simple way of showing this is as follows: if ‘capitalism’ was the
‘cause’ of high inequality pre-Second World War, <i>when did it start being the
cause of that high inequality? </i>At <i>some </i>point in the past, it matters
not when for this thought experiment, capitalism had to emerge; yet prior to
that date, <i>inequality was also really high, like, forever. </i>Which begs
the questions: What was the cause of inequality before capitalism? And how,
where, when and why did capitalism manage to ‘take the baton’ so to speak, and <i>become
</i>the cause?</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #333333; font-family: Arial;">Presented
this way, and it becomes clear that there is a glaring hole, or at least a more
fundamental layer to Piketty’s argument. It doesn’t matter <i>what</i>
fundamental cultural identity holds power; if they gain a monopoly on cultural
production for enough time, their rationales, justifications, and allure will
inevitably, unavoidably form a constant influence in a populations cultural
identity. <i>This</i> is the enabling environment, or lack thereof, from which
economics emerges, and it should come as no surprise that a culture monopolised
by exclusive propaganda creates, through the trillions of subconscious
decisions made by millions of nodes, an environment that enriches themselves.
It is not a conspiracy. It is not ‘evil’. It is the gradual, exponential drive
to separatism caused by the ubiquity and universality of wealth's power (law)
and its control over cultural production.</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-outline-level: 3; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: #666666; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';">What Piketty meant to say, well, said
but didn’t know it.</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #333333; font-family: Arial;">So
how does one resolve the thought experiment I presented regarding capitalism's
role in pre-World War Two inequality? If you were paying attention earlier in
this chapter, you will already know the answer. I don’t need a graph; since the
principle defies reduction, it is best put as plainly as complexity allows.</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #333333; font-family: Arial;">Until
corporate cultural identity began to be produced on a mass scale, it
necessarily follows that prior to this time, religious and state identities
were more ubiquitous (there is only a limited amount of ideological capacity
available). Since State emerged from Religion, and Corporate emerged from State
as the monopolistic holder of cultural production on the way to becoming a
fundamental cultural identity, it also follows that as corporatism grew, it
diluted both state <i>and </i>religious cultural identity and <i>at some point</i>
the three would have been in a period of balance. <i>This is the post-War
period Piketty speaks of. </i>Yet <i>before </i>this time, corporate cultural
identity <i>could not have </i>been responsible for high inequality. What
Piketty labels as ‘capitalisms early phase’ was in fact the period of <i>State </i>monopolisation
of cultural identity facilitating high inequality. It had been able to do so
because Religion had been sidelined one way or another from public affairs, and
corporatism was still in it’s early, non-threatening, subversive stage of
pre-fundamental status. Yet it isn’t so clear cut as this; more nuance is
required. There is more to society than the fundamental cultural identities, as
I have just shown. </span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #333333; font-family: Arial;">When
the fundamental identities are balanced, acting as a check and balance through
all requiring representation, it is not doing so through a solely top-down
dynamic. It never is. Civil society and the fundamental cultural identities
exist in cross-scale and intra-scale feedback, as one system. Given the space
afforded by no one ideology holding a monopoly on power for enough time,
bottom-up identities have greater freedom, emerge from a more facilitative
enabling environment, to add to this drive toward more fully representative and
inclusive reform. Trade unions were suppressed under the state, they are
suppressed under corporatism, but <i>in between</i> they had influence, just
one example of the many small-scale emergences that could have contributed to
fair and equitable reform.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #333333; font-family: Arial;">Notice,
when Piketty describes the dynamics behind whether the system is trending
toward equality or inequality, he uses many terms that are <i>not</i> category
errors; he is not describing economics, but describing wider society - labour
power, World War Two, demographics, etc. Yet when he is describing the
solution, he returns to the category error, and instead of offering
prescriptions at the societal level, can only turn to traditional tools of
economics, <i>other emergent properties. </i>Now, to be fair, emergent
properties can and do feedback across scales, and the emergent properties
Piketty targets - extreme wealth tax, for example - <i>do</i> hold the most potential
for initiating corrective feedback. But like Mason says of Piketty’s conclusion
of his solutions:</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 27.0pt; margin-right: 22.5pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #333333; font-family: Arial;">“He calls some of them
"utopian" and he is right. It is easier to imagine capitalism
collapsing than the elite consenting to them”.</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">The reason such corrective
measures are utopian is because we do not have the enabling environment to
implement them. The reason why we don’t have the enabling environment is
because our cultural environment consists almost entirely of homogenised,
corporate cultural identity, having held a monopoly over cultural production
for generations, and unsurprisingly it can draw on decades of doctrinal
intellectual endeavour to make an intelligent case for why we should not take
all their money they stole and give it to the poor.</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-outline-level: 3; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: #666666; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';">Why Piketty had the impact he did</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Piketty has been able to
do what he did, and have the impact that he has, is because he backed up his
general, unquantifiable references to wider society with quantifiable data.
Lots and lots of quantifiable data, in a language economists share. Yet,
despite his empirical work relying <i>solely</i> on data regarding emerging
properties - that is, his work incorporated only those things economics
measures, thus removing the rest of the vast, systemic influences and different
scales from his workings - he still managed to come out with the same
conclusions as I, with my more fundamental workings. Why was this the case? </span><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #333333; font-family: Arial;">Piketty has essentially
identified the most meta, quantifiable indicator there is in the field of
economics for understanding large-scale social dynamics. </span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Money has increasingly
become distilled as the primary indicator for success. It is a natural
by-product of the corporate profit motive, nay, inherent duty to profit above,
instead of, everything else. The quest for money is a universal necessity for
survival these days as it is an aspirational tool; everyone needs it. Everyone
wants it. Traditionally, economics interpreted this, somewhat tragically given
their power status, as everyone acting in rational self-interest, unaware or
unconcerned that power had enforced this interpretation of self-interest upon
the people in the first place. Further, economists couldn’t conceive of the
accumulation of money being anything other than a natural desire
in-and-of-itself, as opposed to the unwelcome necessity many (especially
artists) people view it as. That’s a conservative way of putting it - anti-fiat
money thought is making some significant cultural gains recently thanks to
Libertarianism, but more on that later.</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Whatever the underlying, individual,
subjective views on money that may emerge and die, or come to dominate, one
thing is certain. Money is the lifeblood of the majority of societies on this
planet now. It more than anything else determines success, and it more than
anything else segregates and forces the divergence of sub-cultural systems.
Wealth and power have <i>always </i>gone hand-in-hand, back to the earliest
days of civilisation, probably back to when wealth was measured by how many
pretty shells the chiefs mate wore around her neck. The reason why the two are
so closely correlated is because, up until now, it has always required wealth
to create large-scale, sustained, <i>challenging</i>, cultural production. I
say always; the times when this control over the production of cultural
identity by wealth slipped were those times when cultural evolution sped out of
the hands of those in power e.g. the arrival of the printing press and the
Enlightenment, the use of written language by merchants travelling across
cultural systems in the time of the Greeks. </span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Yet wealth will always bring enough power
to bare on the market to stamp out intolerable upstarts eventually, it will
always simply recourse to whichever official legal and political powers wealth
happens to control and influence, and bring money’s influence to bear to
outstrip anything an individual could hope to achieve. Besides, the costs
involved throughout the 20th century to produce mass-culture competitively grew
immense. What’s more, and it should go without saying, but wealth sticks to its
own, and since wealth determines the exclusivity, or not, of one’s cultural
identity, “its own” in times of high inequality is proportionately highly
defined, and highly selective - another feedback loop. This dynamic of
diverging-yet-homogenising cultural identities between those at the bottom and
those at the top, under the perceived notion that the latter is meant <i>to
represent</i> the former, is a dissonance time-bomb waiting to happen.</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Piketty demolished neoliberalism myths at
their weak spot, the point that indicates its methodology, the source of its
power; wealth. </span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';">The inherent immorality of wealth
inequality; ideal for a good indicator.</span></b><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">But back to the curve
and my point about Piketty’s major category error. Piketty thinks that the
fruits of economic maturity</span><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #333333; font-family: Arial;"> “can be offset by a more fundamental tendency towards
inequality”. Well, he is right, only it is not an inherent tendency of
capitalism, or even simply corporatism. It is way more fundamental than that;
my identical curve instead showed the level of homogeneity of fundamental
cultural identity, of which i predicted wealth inequality would be the best
indicator two weeks before I heard of Piketty.</span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"> This is what <i>leads to </i>growth inequality;
divergent cultural identity between the powerful, and the powerless, leading to
sub-conscious (and sometimes conscious) moral divergence.</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Why does wealth accumulate according to a
power law, not just in the West, but <i>everywhere</i>? The answer lies in
here, in morality, or more specifically, the inherent exclusivity of morality
that asymmetry of power creates. Inequality is about more than someone being
paid more than you; allowed to persist, it can create cultural segregation, as
the wealthy cluster behind security-manned gates, take different routes through
airports, and generally live a life of shared culture exclusive to only a few.
This cultural divergence leads to a moral divergence, as the wealthy interpret
and express their morality in unavoidably relative terms that, and to the
extent to, their own cultural environment, their peers, define. Such a cultural
and moral divergence as this underpins <i>all</i> of the favouristism,
nepotism, cronyism, elitism and corruption that makes the feedback loop, and
wealth’s power-law distribution, possible. </span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">If society were fair and just, a true
meritocracy, then wealth would be distributed as a bell-curve (you hear me
Libertarians?). Here then is an example of something mentioned earlier, a
cultural indicator that correlates with cultural identity. <i>The extent
to which wealth is not distributed by a bell curve - the severity of the power
law distribution - is the most direct, quantifiable indicator for the
homogeneity of a systems fundamental cultural identity. </i>Not only does the
dominance of one ideology as cultural producer allow for the wealth inequality
feedback (moral corruption) to occur, the extent of that dominance directly
correlates with how far the rest of society will <i>allow</i> inequality to
grow.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">WEALTH INEQUALITY</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">increases increase</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">LIKELIHOOD FOR CULTURAL AND</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">SYSTEMIC CORRUPTION MORAL DIVERGENCE</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">increases</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #333333; font-family: Arial;">This
feedback loop represents the fundamental basis for Piketty’s thesis, the
explanation of wealth inequality trends. In truth, he might well agree with
this idea - it doesn’t contradict his findings, quite the contrary. His
analysis of wealth always outstripping earned income is correct, it is just
that the degree to which it does is not determined by economics alone - it is
not some quality inherent to capitalism, and neither is economics the universal
theory of cultural evolution and beyond. Complexity is. This fundamental,
exponential dynamic <b>explains</b> exponential wealth inequality, the moral
divergence between power and its subjects, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">and</i>
the inevitability of power to corrupt, all at once - <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">at all scales, across all identities and communities, fundamental or
not, and throughout civilisation.</i></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Piketty glimpsed this when he said that
he could not see a way to turn the present tide of rising inequality. Mason
again: </span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">“</span><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #333333; font-family: Arial;">But,
says Piketty, a repeat of the Keynesian era is unlikely: labour is too weak, technological
innovation too slow, the global power of capital too great. In addition, the
legitimacy of this unequal system is high: because it has found ways to spread
the wealth down to the managerial class in a way the early 19th century did
not.”</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">This is Piketty recognising one of the
fundamental traits across the emergence of each fundamental identity; that
power dilutes <i>just enough</i> each time to release the tension, and grant
greater freedom for complexity to continue to grow. Yet it is not <i>just</i>
wealth that has been devolved to more people; that is but one, albeit highly
ubiquitous, metric by which to measure a cultural systems homogeneity at a
specific moment. There are many inherently unquantifiable metrics that comprise
the whole system - the entire subjective realm - that are required to
understand the <i>dynamics </i>of a cultural system, how it is likely to change
over time. For this, homogenisation of ownership over mediums of mass-cultural
production is the best measure to use, not wealth inequality. For this is the
very backbone, the very definition of the extent and depth of the top-down
cultural identity that allows for society to continue to allow inequality to
grow, to continue to hold the lid on the pressure-cooker, until something
blows.</span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">This suggests the not-too-pleasant
prospect that, unless the monopoly of corporate control over shared cultural
production is broken and severely rowed back, culture and morality between
power and subject will continue to diverge in the West, inequality will continue
to grow exponentially, and then snap. When it finally arrives, will almost
certainly be violent. Please feel free to counter that power laws are natural,
but in doing so be aware that you are claiming we have no free will whatsoever,
that we are mere slaves to natural, instinctive forces. We are not. We have
cultural evolution. We can use it to correct this indicator of ideological
corruption <i>if society chooses it.</i></span><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-GB</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<!--EndFragment--><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-21657550527961208392014-04-01T03:23:00.001-07:002014-04-02T00:17:25.653-07:00Just what in the hell is multiculturalism anyway?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Psst.. there is a TL;DR at the bottom, if you are that sort of person. </span><br />
<br />
This blog documents one of those moments where something, some issue you have always considered right, suddenly flips around on you, and you cannot un-see what you have seen.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My view of multiculturalism, from a UK perspective, up until about 4pm Bangalore time last Sunday:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"Multiculturalism is a great thing. A diversity of culture is as close to an objective measure as I know to measuring the healthiness of a societal system, that is, the rate, breadth, and sustenance of cultural evolution. I mean, look at any point of History.. could you imagine a time when so many people, of so many races, could live side-by-side for generations without major trouble? This may be anecdotal, but I was 27 before I first heard a racial slur used in anger, and that was in Serbia. That just wouldn't have been conceivable before. Multiculturalism, as demonstrated in the UK, is a continuing force for good, for overcoming prejudices, and for enlivening traditional British culture with a whole fusion of influences."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
OK, now I'm not saying I have thrown all of this out the window. It <i>has</i> been a positive force in reducing racism, it has led to a cultural renaissance in cooking, music, fashion, etc, and it has, for the most part, worked. But there's a hitch. I now feel I have to add punctuation. 'Multiculturalism' in the UK isn't quite what it says on the tin, as we can see by looking at what it means when people say that multiculturalism has been a success or failure. Additionally, it also highlights why I now view 'multiculturalism' as at best irrelevant, at worst a potentially dangerous turn of events.<br />
<br />
N.b From now, I will use 'multiculturalism' to denote my prior understanding, at that of the majority of people in the UK, of the term. I will use 'multi-culturalism' to denote what I now regard as the correct definition, as I will explain below.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When people point to successful multiculturalism, inherent in the concept is that of <i>successful integration.</i> Sure, we benefit from the influences and fusions of other cultures, but it is presupposed that integration <i>should</i> be the aim. Conversely, multiculturalism is seen to have failed when integration does not occur, as when cultures congregate into what become segregated areas, targets of mistrust and suspicion because of their 'otherness'. We thus see that 'multiculturalism' is a misnomer, or at least a slightly Orwellian-sounding word by matter of circumstance. For it is the <i>inputs</i> of the system only that are<i> actually</i> multi-cultural; it is through the process of multiculuralism, aka integration, that the intended output is in fact <i>cultural homogeneity.</i> Synthesis of cultural influences does not create plurality in-and-of-itself, indeed it creates homogeneity when forced through power's cultural filter that is multiculturalism. Rather than a new paradigm of social living, what multiculturalism in fact represents is the successful effort of integration of <i>races and ethnicities</i> into a significantly enough sized culturally-homogenous mass to maintain passive control. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>These is no mean feat in itself</i>, and relative to what preceded capitalism (for this is the paradigm under which this process is made viable) it was, and still would be seen to be in some places, a force for moral good. But as with every social paradigm, there comes a time when it is no longer adequate, no longer legitimate to a civil sphere that by definition evolves quicker than institutionalised power. Now is that time. What started as a noble experiment, multiculturalism has become an all-too-successful strategy for GovCorp to mitigate counter-cultural threats through the dictation of a new cultural/social environment that is homogenised, atomised, and thus increasingly vulnerable to the use of fear and misrepresentations of genuine multi-culturalism; the 'other'. It is a pattern repeated throughout history: culture's homogenise, the mass shared identity is then abused by those wielding the monopoly on cultural production, and the populace is blindly steered into horrendous acts, all facilitated by the shared moral limits brought to them by their shared, morally-exclusive propaganda.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is a dangerous path, regardless of any success that may have accrued regarding racism. We need to realise that the colour of your skin means sweet FA as an indicator of multi-culturalism, especially once you get beyond second-generation immigrants. Multi-<i>cultural</i>ism<i> </i>is about <i>what is inside your mind; </i>your identity, your moral sphere, your subjective beliefs and values. It doesn't matter anymore whether you are white or black; if you all read the Sun everyday and nothing else, you are both equally likely to be fucking idiots in a distinctly British way. Awesome. Multiculturalism should not be considered as it is in terms of the variety of skin-colour visible in the same shops and bars and T-shirts; it should be measured by the <i>presence of multiple cultures.</i> The clue is in the name.</div>
<br />
This realisation came so starkly when I noticed that, despite seeming to be the only white male within a two-mile radius of our neighbourhood here in Bangalore, and (perhaps slightly to my ignorant western eye) a highly homogenous ethinc mix, what I was seeing was nevertheless <i>actual multi-culturalism.</i> This contradiction with my previous notion of multicultural as meaning multi-ethnic hit me hard. Yet here, my day-to-day life consists of a myriad human interactions with informal workers in multiple sectors, a constant presence of a wide variety of architecture and trade (not the identikit houses and high streets we have in the UK), different songs, traditions, festivals, religions, and civic organisations, all highly visible and evident to everyone in a shared, multi-cultural environment.<br />
<br />
You cannot segregate cultures here in India like you can in the UK. Would the rich have to view disfigured child beggars on Oxford street? Would cows be tolerated in choosing to to sleep on busy roads? Would the rights of the poorest include a policy environment recognising and facilitating the highly informal economic sector? While you may cry "What about convenience, safety, what about the children?!', at what cost have we sanitised and, to use a corporate word, rationalised, western society? It is now possible to do all of your shopping in one place, and not even talk to a cashier; hell, you can do it all from home and not give the delivery guy a second-look. The west has regulated its way into mass social segregation and the loss of public-space grassroots expression, has allowed its populace to become products, and has allowed the social contract to be re-determined according to neoliberal macroeconomic mythological doctrine "our" representatives are now slaves to.<br />
<div>
<br />
I once saw the UK as a beacon for multi-culturalism. Now I realise it is the exact opposite: a prime example of how <i>culturally homogenous power</i> can indoctrinate, sorry, integrate (and maintain, though for how long who can say) <i>multiple</i> cultures under one, overarching ideological doctrine that actually acts against their own interests, all within a generation. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is the fundamental difference that makes India actually multi-cultural, and the UK merely multicultural. In India, (and I am not endorsing this, merely pointing out its relevance from a systems perspective) there is a caste system, a scale of inequality, and a variety of deep-rooted, mythological beliefs that keeps cultural identities numerous, distinct, and robust, yet all the while sharing the same physical space and thus making dissonance impossible to avoid. India has multiple loci of shared cultural identity: religion, state, civic, and commerce, that are all incredibly visible and that all have at least <i>some</i> influence on decision- and policy-making. It makes for a hodge-podge of cultural and community expression practised side-by-side, impossible to homogenise yet able to integrate <i>up to a point. </i><br />
<br />
This is key; this is multi-culturalism. No one has convincingly argued (and to my mind, could not..) that full cultural integration of outside cultures is a necessary or intrinsic good <i>in a globalising world</i>; in fact, attempts to do so have often coincided with mass genocide. There are people all over the world right now who share <i>enough</i> culture to create and maintain new communities, despite growing-up in radically different cultural climates. No <i>one</i> cultural identity can any longer morally claim authority to define the terms of what constitutes 'inclusion', or an 'official' national culture, or the 'other'. We learnt that already regarding religion in the West some time ago, with varying degrees of success, but the same holds true for political and economic ideologies also; all are trying to claim this authority by virtue of the impossible: the supposed ability to understand, predict, and control society, <i>a complex adaptive system</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Incidentally, I do not use the reference to genocide glibly by the way. Cultural homogeneity is in my opinion the single worst target to aim for (unless you are on an isolated island). Particularly today, in this globalised, interconnected world, cultural homogeneity within the present paradigmatic confines of the nation state will only lead to fascism without a radical redefinition of the social contract, so as to remove its inherent nationalistic duty, and extend domestically held rights, our cultural production, and thus our moral sphere, to all humans<i> and</i> the environment.<br />
<br />
This is particularly true of the West, where the sidelining or subversion of religion by the state and capitalism respectively, the vulnerable dependence on state spending of civic organisations (being cut as we speak), and the gradual and all-but-complete corporate subsuming of governmental and even fourth-sector stakeholders' individual and institutional frameworks, have all left the cultural landscape utterly monopolised by corporate culture. CEOs and politicians now speak the same, dress the same, go to the same places, swap jobs; the Venn-diagram of their cultural systems, and therefore their moral values and doctrinal priorities and sense of duty, are aligning, as competition between the two once opposing and balancing ideological identities declines. For all its benefits, for all the ska and the curries, multiculturalism has <i>not</i> been of any use in countering this homogenisation of culture, and the corporate power that lies behind it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Herein lies the secret of the UK's multicultural 'success'. The monopolisation of cultural production (mass-media corporate conglomerates, regulatory frameworks creating market barriers, the fencing off of the internet into a few, widely-used, exploitative and closed applications) afforded by neoliberalism has created such a homogenised mass-culture that it doesn't matter what colour someones skin is,<i> all </i>consume a cultural diet utterly dominated by corporate propaganda that is increasingly being paid for via your attention, your data, and your time (that most valuable commodity)<i>. </i>And by all, I mean all. Welfare systems and the exploitation of cheap labour and unethical mining operations abroad have made communication technologies ubiquitous even amongst the lowest levels of the socioeconomic ladder in the UK (as rich Tories keep reminding us, scornfully). The result is a homogeneous culture, a homogeneous populace, and the creation of enabling conditions for simple, easy mass manipulation.<br />
<br />
For Christ's sake, we now live in a society where people are locked up for causing offense in a tweet, where our intelligence agencies are making the Stazi look antiquated, where our entire governance model is directed toward patently false macroeconomic ideals that benefit only a few, screws everyone else, and oh, by the way, might kill billions as it drives the complete transformation of our planets climate. So why, in such a 'multicultural' society of educated people, are we debating the apparent abject apathy of the entire fucking UK? Well, we aren't even doing that: not even when it briefly popped into the news cycle earlier this year thanks to Russell Brand, everyone was too busy applying simplistic, vacuous, un-insightful misrepresentations of a lone comedians passionate cry for change. But, why?<br />
<br />
PR, spin, marketing... it all used to be called the same thing up until the early 20th Century: propaganda. The name was changed, because, well, they were marketers and they know that 'propaganda' sounded bad.. for some reason or other. 'Propaganda' was even the title of the first seminal text on the new art of marketing. One of the early drivers of marketing in the United States was efforts to find ways to claw back the money the rich now had to pay their slaves. And it is becoming a science, probing behavioural psychology and the cutting edge of social science research to find ever more subtle, effective ways to, let's call it what it is, undermine what free-will we may possess. Furthermore, the more homogeneous the culture, the identities of the populace, the more people there are to mass-target and successfully infect with mediocre, focus-group derived psycho-ops.<br />
<br />
"You're fat. People are judging you. You need this to be a good parent. What would the neighbours think? This product will solve that problem we just made you realise you had. Climate change? Here, why don't you buy some tanning UVF50 spray, and we will kindly donate a penny to some scam of a carbon-reduction scheme some corporate lobby group conceived of...". Beautiful people, plastered 8ft high, stare down at you from either side as you enter the secular cathedral that is the corporate shopping mall, niggling at your insecurities, creating whole new ones, all just to get your money. No doubt all the adverts will feature the same mix of ethnicity, perhaps a disabled person, proudly displaying just how wonderfully inclusive and tolerant this corporate paradigm of mind-crushing mass wage-slavery really is.<br />
<br />
Here's the rub: if there were something in our genes that made us inherently different when it comes to consuming, evaluating, and internalising culture, then 'multiculturalism' might be a) a useful indicator [of] b) something to strive for. But there isn't. The vast majority of us, regardless of skin colour, are still ideological victims, still subject to the same group-dynamics, pattern-recognition instincts, social-hierarchy insecurities, relative thinking, positive bias and the like that humans have contended with for millennia. Multiculturalism is a sham, a distraction, a mode of thinking stuck squarely in the 20th Century. Multi-culturalism on the other hand is a whole different kettle of fish; messier, more chaotic, a better enabling environment for cultural evolution, a system of checks-and-balances against the monopolisation of power by any one identity, and, on an anecdotal level at least for me, far more amenable to a healthy mind than the rigid, rule-laden, homogenous, boring, calcifying, increasingly immoral, cotton-wool wrapped worker battery farm that is the West.<br />
<br />
All that is required is that people give up on this idea that someone over there, out of sight, perhaps even hundreds of miles away, should be forced to submit to the exact same kind of cultural prison they are. It really isn't hard. Just want for people to be free.<br />
<br />
TL;DR Multiculturalism should not be about race or ethnicity. It is an
Orwellian misnomer that actually means 'cultural homogenisation'. What
was once a force for good has turned into a tool of power that is no
longer moral (at least in the west). Contrast with India, where I'm the
only white guy in my neighbourhood and yet I am experiencing real
multi-culturalism to an insane degree - and loving it. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-72237586381886223302014-02-06T02:35:00.001-08:002014-02-06T02:35:28.725-08:00First impressions of India.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I have been here in Bengaluru (though it took a few goes before I got out of the habit of saying Bangalore) for just over a week now. Obviously it's been a bit of a hectic time making the move from England, and now that I've got a moments peace as littlun sleeps I figured I'd write up my initial impressions. To begin with i'll include particulars for the benefit of friends and family, but after that I wanted to just put to words some of the more deeper impressions that have already laid themselves upon me.<br />
<br />
The area in which we are to live is called Jayanagar, and it is about 8kms or so south from the centre of Bengaluru (not the 22km a certain tuc-tuc driver tried to convince me it was). It seems a really nice, pleasant neighbourhood to live, though like almost all of Bengaluru there is building going on. Lots of building going on. Everywhere you look, entire families are apparently living on site, building from dawn till dusk - kids and grandparents alike carrying breeze blocks or mixing cement (incidentally, building regulations have presented themselves as a surprising area for philosophical inquiry, but more on that in a later blog). Within walking distance, but around 25p for a tuc-tuc if it's hot, is a large shopping mall that sells about 10'000 kinds of jeans but no children's underwear, and opposite is a more budget version with a small supermarket. In between that and the area we are staying is a really large, well equipped kids park, complete with an old, tired looking security guard.<br />
<br />
Noise is a major factor here. No more than two seconds go by without the honk of a vehicle's horn; the horn seems to be used for every reason (and none, for what I can ascertain) but primarily replaces the functions of whatever road laws are routinely ignored. It is in no useful way correlated with anger, which is only displayed in cases of extreme stupidity. Surprisingly, it works. It reminds me of a rolling game of Tetris where vehicles will simply slot into whatever available space presents itself. The most I have seen abreast each other so far is seven across a two lane road (at least I assume it was meant to be two lanes - actual lines are reserved for near the centre of Bengaluru, though they also may as well be absent). The freedom gifted by the lack of adherence to rules (I assume they do exist) actually means that traffic behaves as a complex system, each unit working to the simple rules of a) point in the direction you want to go, and b) keep at least 2cms from any other vehicle. It makes for an exhilarating ride, as well as a beautiful example of self-organisation, which nevertheless still seems relatively safe since you rarely go above 30mph. Before I wrote this, I did look up the figures and yes, India IS the vehicle accident capital of the world. But, as I suspected, the vast majority of serious consequences fall on pedestrians and so, given their open and comfortable (and plentiful) convenience, tuc-tucs are the way to go here. Besides, it's just too much fun watching the drivers face fall upon hearing that I live here, having offered me a vastly inflated price (happens at least 30% of the time, to me anyway). Besides the obvious noise like construction and traffic, the stand-out winner of surprise so far has been the squirrels. Yes, the squirrels, that manage to outmatch every other bird around with their incessant... well, it can only be called chirping. I refused to belief it at first, my mind preffering to think that that squirrel was simply miming. But no, they really are noisy buggers, the result I presume of an evolutionary effort to communicate above the human-induced cacophony.<br />
<br />
The apartment we are due to move into in the coming week ticks every box we wanted - security, ceiling fans, balcony - and looked every bit the abandoned 1970's western apartment I'd seen on rental websites. Strip lighting can work well, stick scarves over them and you can effectively repaint your room in an instant, and after lengthy negotiation between me, Guru (the co-director of the NGO that Angela now works for), and the apartments' owner, we agreed to commit, upon the place being cleaned, new bathroom unit installed, a working window in the toilet, and one window of each room having mosquito mesh placed across. One of Angela's co-workers, and the parents of Guru, both live in the same block of apartments, which also includes some swings within its gated walls. Will need a fridge stat; we are currently buying a small bag of milk each morning and evening since we don't have one in this top-floor apartment above Guru and Anita's house (Anita also being a co-founder of the NGO). Where we are now opens out onto a huge top-floor covered terrace, from where I write this now (pictures soon family and friends, honest!)<br />
<br />
Yet despite the noise, the midday heat (gonna get much worse come april), the constant attempts at conning me (actually, I quite like this game..), the dust, the sight of toddlers navigating building sites, the numerous, though very submissive, stray dogs... I bloody love this place. People smile at you. People talk to you. Yes, I know that I am experiencing something very different from the norm, especially when I have Sen-might-as-well-be-a-movie-star-Anna with me, but I also see it all around me. Community. Mutual-aid. People actually *talking* to one another, to strangers; it is an utterly necessary and indispensable function in an environment that is so heavily infused by the informal economy (the definition of which will also be subject to a future blog). The tuc-tuc drivers have been the most visible and accessible example of sub-community I've encountered, since they are simply indispensable for getting around. The drivers clearly do not have 'the knowledge' of London taxi-drivers; instead, the flow of traffic and the openness of the vehicle allows for them to share information and get directions - something I have yet to see another tuc-tuc driver deny. You also never see just one driver at the side of the road, trying to fix his (yes, all male) tuc-tuc, the average being I would guess 3-4.<br />
<br />
But all of this observation and interaction pales into insignificance when compared to what India has taught me most about so far. England. I wouldn't deign to suggest I have deep insights about India; that would take years. But England, and by extension much of Western culture? Mind blown. Already. I knew, deep-down... actually, no. Scratch-that. It wasn't so much 'deep-down' as a very-much-conscious and rationally-derived conclusion of mine that my complexity-based beliefs would feel more at home here. I just hadn't conceived that it would feel so damned immediate and comprehensive. Having removed myself from the environment that has kept me in an ever-increasing state of dissonance, I suddenly see so clearly the absolute folly of the West, but from a deeply personal perspective. In attempting to regulate and control every facet of life on the precept of safety, the West is driving its citizens mad. We are complex beings. The societies we create are both emergent properties of that complexity, and complex systems in-and-of themselves. By creating and enforcing literally thousands of laws that constrain individual autonomy, *and populations conditioned to obey them*, the West is trying to create an ever-more homogenous society *and* self out of beings that cannot and should not function like that. Every man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains; this has never been so true (excepting valid feminist contentions at the wording) in such a subtle and all-consuming way as it is today in the West. Of course, I would not be so naive as to think India is 'more free' than the UK in the 'official' sense; governance here is no doubt worse than the West. But civil society *knows it*. Here, there is a clear cultural divide between the bottom and the top. The word corruption is everywhere. By comparison, the citizens of the West are submissive slaves to the influence of top-down cultural production, all-too-ready to advocate for or ignore the world-destroying externalities that come with the West's incessant (manufacturing of the) craving for cleanliness, convenience, and perfection.<br />
<br />
Well, Sen's up now, so I'll wrap up. Bengaluru is awesome, we're gonna love it here, and the West is conducting a startling and unprecedented experiment in 'self'-organisation that to me resembles nothing more than a conceptual battery-farm demanding nothing less than the future of the world in order to keep collecting the eggs. Minds be damned.<br />
<br />
More soon. Watch this space...<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-26407434158542446092013-11-14T15:06:00.002-08:002013-11-14T15:06:36.611-08:00Philippines response: We can do so much better than this.So its been, what, a week now since the strongest storm ever recorded to hit land smashed into the Philippines? Yet the news is full of stories of communities and areas still utterly unreached by anyone. With so much devastation, a near complete lack of shelter and food has been joined in this time with infection of wounds, disease-ridden water, bloated, stinking bodies lining the streets. This is surely one of the closest approximations on the planet of hell on earth right now. It is also largely man-made.<br />
<br />
I'm not talking about climate change, though the evidence is certainly there to at least forward the argument. No, I'm talking about the gap between what is theoretically possible to achieve regarding disaster relief, and what we are witnessing a repeat of now; the shambling, complicated, delayed mess of confused good intentions that traditionally follows such large-scale catastrophes. That which is theoretically possible is a crucial and necessary component of judging actions. For example, if it were possible that someone could have saved a life, they would feel, and possibly be held, more responsible than if there were no chance to save it at all. Examining what is theoretically possible also helps to gauge to what extent a situation is entirely down to natures ferocity (with no realistic fault on us), and to what extent our own ineptitude is responsible. <br />
<br />
In my considerable reading on the climate and development field, I have got a pretty good idea on where we are at regarding climate change adaptation. There are a lot of great ideas out there; the rate of innovation in the field is considerable, but constrained in realising anything like the kind of change required to help countries like the Philippines withstand the prospect of many more such storms to come. The scale of the problem simply out-dwarfs the scale of the development and climate regimes within the wider system in which they operate. Whilst development continues to play second-fiddle, or even fiddley-fucking-dee, to the power and growth of the sectors <i>actually in charge - </i>oil, finance, banking, defense contractors - at both state and multi-national levels, we do not stand a chance in hell of making the necessary transition to avoid significant warming. Neither will we stand a chance in hell of getting anywhere near enough resources or political will to adequately adapt to that warming, raising the prospect of many more instance of watching a weeks worth of news stories covering a gradual descent into something that brings Dante to mind.<br />
<br />
It does not have to be like this. Let me paint a picture of what could be theoretically possible right now, if states could act cooperatively in mutual, long-term governance for the good of their people. Since this is theoretical, I am going to assume that the worlds resources are my oyster, and that they could be used in such a way that takes into account only those limitations implied directly from the resource itself. I consider none of these outrageous. We put a fucking man on the moon for crying out loud.<br />
<br />
Meteorology is sufficiently advanced to give a few days warning of such storms. This is a pretty decent window for preparation, <i>so long as the preparation itself is sufficiently prepared for.</i> It is possible to have climate-proof silos every ten miles of at-risk coastline and flood plain, that are stocked from permanent stockpiles of medicine, food, shelters, stoves etc upon notification of an incoming storm. The thing's storm-proof. Stick a team of engineers, medics, and police in there to ride it out. Have flares, a fog-horn, and a search-light ready to bring people in from miles around. Furthermore, storm-proof bunkers should house teams of engineers at at-risk airports, with runways and their obstructive paraphernalia cleared in advance.<br />
<br />
Fleets of solar-powered unmanned drones, with a few bases positioned throughout at-risk regions, could have the entire affected area mapped, assessed, and prioritised within 24 hours, using a mix of visual-recognition algorithms and real-time human assessment over live-feeds. This data would then be made public, for all the aid agencies to work from. It would then make sense, since the data is the same for all, to use this as the basis for an open-source project that enables all aid agencies to coordinate on the same platform. Requirements for each area would already have been provisionally assessed, so it would be relatively simple to allocate larger areas to agencies with more capacity, or specific areas requiring the specific skills of other agencies. All of this could be accomplished within a further 24 hours in my opinion. Meanwhile, with the airport hopefully secure, planes working on predetermined plans should already be en-route from neighbouring countries.<br />
<br />
In terms of technology, I have already mentioned drones, but think what might have been available to us right now if governments and arms companies were funding and researching ways to help and save people, rather than kill them. What about a plane that lands on the sea by an affected coastline, gets onto the land at the nearest opportunity, and automatically reconfigures itself into a stocked health clinic? What about small automated drones that can locate trapped survivors and deliver water to them, sending their location to the nearest help and the central coordinating platform? What about fully automated pick-up and supply parachute drops using fleets of drones from a base at the airport where aid is flying into?<br />
<br />
All of this is possible. Theoretically. What stands in its way is the combined effect of thousands of years of what we may now consider bullshit; separatism. I'm not talking about rebel groups. I'm talking about states, corporations, militaries, religions.. all the things that separate us as a species. The global outpouring of empathy and sadness after events such as this is testament to fact that there is far more that unites us than divides us, it's simply that we don't often get to see and realise that in the manufactured cultures in which we reside. Culture, resources, wealth, myths, identity; all are dominated by entities whose cultures prohibit the kind of cooperation, long-term thinking, and shift away from militarism that are necessary to make this vision a reality.<br />
<br />
The factors that create this gap between what is theoretically possible and what is actually happening stem from much wider areas than simply within the development field. The fault lies in our entire political and economic system. It is ideological, yet it is the system in which the development and climate regimes find themselves. On the one hand, the largest ever peer-review process the world has ever seen has concluded that we are in trouble. On the other, politicians and CEOs continue to undermine what political will arises, extract ever-more quantities of fossil fuels, and cooperate in effectively bringing us to ruin. When it comes to the crunch, which way will the cookie crumble? Will the development regime have enough independence to effectively revolt? To be sure, the early adoption of complexity theory in the development field, particularly with regard to climate, throws something of a spanner in the works. Of all governing regimes, this area seems to be innovating and evolving quickest - certainly considerably faster than the cultures that grant their resources and further contribute to climate change. A choice may have to be made soon. The emotive speech by the head delegate from the Philippines recently at COP in support of direct action is only the start. Will the western development field stand with their southern counterparts in demanding the kind of wholescale reform that is <i>really </i>necessary, and stop with all the hot air?<br />
<br />
Yet this need not be a conflict (though the possibility is certainly there, especially if cultures continues to separate through inequality). There is an urgent need for the kind of informatic, logistical, engineering, rapid response skills of the military and security services. There are, handily, already military bases all over the place that can the converted to development and disaster response use. There are also huge great fucking military budgets that could be put to far more constructive use. It would even be worth a shot in terms of satisfying <i>current</i> military and security objectives. You want to make people want to bomb you less? You don't wanna lose the feeling of being all manly and special? Try being more International Rescue than Team America. That said, the last thing I am suggesting is that we kit out a load of U.S. bases with solar-powered drones. I wouldn't give a handgun to a baby, and I wouldn't do that. All of this is predicated on an equitable, transparent, and inclusive international body headed by the development field, not generals. They are the ones innovating. They are the ones without a culture formed primarily around male violence. They have far more hope of coordinating, monitoring, and progressing such strategies, but only with the help of a political economic system that has corrected it's destructive short-termism and divisive dynamics. The private sector has to be onboard <i>at some point</i> - when may determine whether this thing goes to a fight.<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-30602252814611085052013-02-02T16:43:00.001-08:002013-04-22T14:09:14.070-07:00A question for Michael Shermer.I have kept this short and simple so that the main argument doesn't get overlooked again. It is in response to<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/what-is-skepticism-anyway_b_2581917.html"> Michael Shermer's piece</a> in the Huffington Post and I couldn't resist posing him this question.<br />
<br />
While I agree with much of what Michael says, there are still some glaring inconsistencies with regard to what is defined as a "value", and why. I do not understand it. Since many skeptics are self-described Libertarians, I'd like to put forward this argument as to why such a label is inconsistent with skepticism, even by scientific skepticism's own criteria...<br />
<br />
Society is a complex system. Political ideology is an attempt at predicting said complex system. Science has repeatedly shown, <i>through testing</i>, that it is impossible to predict complex systems over enough time. Further, the amount of time is determined by the extent and accuracy of the data describing both the initial state of the system and the dynamics involved.<br />
<br />
Using climate models as an example, I am sure Michael would agree that masses of research and refinements of algorithms have been necessary to get us to this point where models may starting to be considered potentially accurate. I'm not totally sure on that point, or to what extent. But that is irrelevant, because...<br />
<br />
<i>Established political ideologies, including Libertarianism, seek to predict a complex system using concepts that pre-date the very existence of the fields of study necessary to even create a model!</i><br />
<br />
It is like claiming climate scientists can make climate predictions without reference to meteorology! <br />
<br />
As Michael reminds us, <i>extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence</i> - a staple mantra ignored when skeptics openly identify with a political label. Sure, you may add disclaimers, claim that your belief is not dogmatic, but why then identify with an -ism at all? Why reinforce the legitimacy of ideology as an imposed construct? You might say that belief need not require positive proof, but <i>when the</i> <i>probability of being right is so incredibly low how can a skeptic possibly hold enough ideological conviction that they would be willing to gamble with people's lives?</i> You might say that ideology is all we have to work with politically, but isn't that partly down to ideology being anathema to constructive discourse? It's up to us to break that cycle.<br />
<br />
It's not just that complex systems are impossible to predict with such basic tools, its that those almost certainly false predictions are then imposed on non-believers in a manner our ancestors fought so hard to rid with religion. <br />
<br />
A skeptic should identify politically simply as 'skeptic', learn the words, "we can't know yet" and "we need more data" and "it is immoral to impose that policy on non-believers in that way with the data you have..." and start some serious, post-ideological political discourse as a community.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-83559587532382163772013-02-02T00:42:00.000-08:002013-02-15T02:19:01.192-08:00Crisis of skepticism? Conversation between Grimeandreason and Daniel LoxtonThe following is a storified twitter conversation (or the beginnings off... ;)) between me and Daniel Loxton on the remit of skepticism and the skeptic community...<br />
<br />
(Thanks to Kylie Sturgess for compiling the first half from a week ago..)<br />
<br />
Round 1:<a href="http://storify.com/kyliesturgess/discussion-on-twitter"> http://storify.com/kyliesturgess/discussion-on-twitter</a><br />
<br />
Round 2: <a href="http://storify.com/Grimeandreason/dan-loxton?utm_source=embed_header">http://storify.com/Grimeandreason/dan-loxton?utm_source=embed_header</a><br />
<br />
Note: in round 2, I have taken the time to adjust the order of the tweets slightly to reflect their 'reply' positions, if you get me. If it wasn't clear, I went back into twitter to check. I've let Dan know so that he can double-check. At a glance, it seems round 1 might be a straight time-dependent order, so it might be a little trickier to follow. Daniel enters stage about a dozen tweets in... <br />
<br />
<br />
I will add more as/if it arrives. I hope you find this useful - it's a much better format for debate than blogging in my opinion. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-25004717394792550222013-01-25T06:54:00.002-08:002013-04-23T14:23:21.570-07:00A call for skeptical consistency regarding political economy.<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
</style>
<br />
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
This blog has been a long time in the
writing, partly because I have strived hard to appear as objective as
I could, and partly because of the demands of life with an 18 month
old. Now, with a pressing need to write an ebook, I have to let it
go and get it out there, finished or not, for my own sanity! I hope I
have achieved my aim and can illicit some ideology-free debate on the
matter. Unfortunately, my experiences over the last year don't lend
themselves to taking that for granted, and I'm sure you can
understand why when I say that the purpose of this blog is to prove:
that the skeptical community is hypocritical in the way that it deals
with politics and economics; that these two fields as practised on a
macro scale are inherently flawed and illegitimate; and that they
should be treated by our community with the same level of respect and
ridicule as we do religion. So, while your pre-formed judgements
swirl into view, I'd like to provide a bit of context.</div>
<br />
I came into the skeptical community around the same time as I
begged my way onto a Philosophical Foundations of Cognitive Science
course at university. Since I was studying Intellectual and Cultural
History at the time it wasn't strictly speaking “allowed” -
personally, with hind-sight, I would make it compulsory. Since that
time, I have come to view skepticism as the most rational and
objective way of evaluating information not only because it bases
itself on facts and evidence, but because it takes that knowledge and
constructs a framework that tries to account for all the foibles,
errors of intuition and effects of group dynamics on individuals
thinking. One thing I am absolutely adamant about is that I cannot
abide submitting to ideology, and with that comes a genuine desire to
practice what I preach – I welcome any and all attempts to expose
my own hidden, unfounded values. I try to apply skeptical principles
to <i>all</i> of my knowledge and beliefs, something that I always
assumed the majority of skeptics (if not all) would agree with.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-style: normal;">
That assumption changed when the Occupy
movement first began in 2011. From a systems perspective it was
fascinating: the creation of a shared culture by people in almost 100
countries, forging links in identity beyond language and national
borders. Yet as objectively as I try to explain the unprecedented
significance of such an event, within two weeks I had lost count of
the number of strawmen, ad-hom attacks, post-hoc justifications and
outright, uninformed acts of hostility. When in debate face-to-face,
I have convinced all that I have met on the merits of my arguments;
it appears that the internet is another beast entirely. The
realisation that, despite all the rhetoric, here was ideologically
trollish behaviour fit for any of our traditional foes shook me
deeply. I was left feeling as though my community had been swept
from under my feet and all I could see were contradictions, illogical
justifications and an illusory unity just waiting to explode...
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<b>Some working definitions</b></div>
<br />
<span style="font-style: normal;">I have come to suspect that we
are yet to invent or mature all of the necessary vocabulary (and
certainly concepts) to talk about politics and economics in the way
that I wish; that requires discourse first. Religious secularism gave
rise to the realm of modern statehood, thereby creating space from which one
could talk </span><i>about </i><span style="font-style: normal;">religion,
both in terms of its content and dynamics (or lack thereof). We talk
freely of the faults of dogma, of organised religion, of religious
fundamentalism; I have struggled in writing this blog (as have others
providing feedback) to find words for these concepts outside of the
religious context. If there has never been an 'unorganised politics',
can 'organised politics' even make sense? In comparing politics and
economics to religion, I am not inferring that there is anything
</span><i>inherently</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> wrong with
any of them</span><i>. </i><span style="font-style: normal;">Rather,
that when in positions of authority all three can be said to be
top-down, ideological, unfounded systems of belief. Therefore,
I've chosen to use the term 'political economy', as per this
definition:</span><br />
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<br />
“<span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background: #ffffff;">The
study and use of how economic theory and methods influences political
ideology. Political economy is the interplay between economics,
law and politics, and how institutions develop in different social
and economic systems, such as capitalism, socialism and communism.
Political economy analyzes how public policy is created and
implemented. “<br /><br />Read more:
</span></span></span><a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/political-economy.asp#ixzz2DeHVbjoF"><span style="color: #003399;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background: #ffffff;">http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/political-economy.asp#ixzz2DeHVbjoF</span></span></span></a><br />
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
Ideally, I would like a phrase that
encompasses the overall power dynamics involved in the interplay
between religion, politics <i>and</i> economics over time, though for
the purpose of this blog political economy fits my requirements. Since the skeptical community have already found a consensus
regarding organised religions' legitimacy as a public authority,
political economy is what remains as the target of my ire. Here are
my three arguments, any of which should, in my opinion, logically
lead to an objective rejection of political economy by our community
comparable to our consensus on the legitimacy of rule by organised
religion.</div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<b>Argument 1: The moral case for
secularism </b><br />
<b> </b>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Why does the skeptical community think
that secularism is an inherently justified and necessary concept? I
do not think the answer can lie in the<i> content </i>of the dogma
itself; however enlightened or repressive the dogma, content is
subjective and so cannot be the source of objective proof in and of
itself. I think it is pretty clear that the imposition of <i>any</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
religious dogma on entire populations is widely considered the
immoral act that inherently justifies the concept of secularism. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This exact justification for secularism
should just as easily apply to political economy. We separate Church
and State to remove religion from public life; yet political economy
<i>is </i><span style="font-style: normal;">public life, and it has
created a</span> world that is as every bit governed by imposed
ideology as ever before, including religious. I have previously
blogged about the myriad of ways in which political economy is merely
the same, unfounded power structure as religion was/is, simply sans
the ridiculous (with hindsight) metaphysics of old. Just as religion
was the source of our normative culture in the past, so too are our
lives now measured, structured and judged by the normative values of
political economy.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Argument 2: Reference to
contemporary scientific consensus as a minimum requirement for
legitimacy.</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
It is easy to make such a post-hoc
moral argument for religious secularism from way away here in the
21st century. To skeptics, as well as to many non-skeptics, the idea
of a universal imposition of strict religious ideologies is clearly
immoral. Yet this has not always been the case. Once upon a time, the
vast majority of people would have vehemently disagreed with such a
proposition, going so far as to consider atheism or critical thinking
as that which was inherently immoral. The reason why secularism
emerged when it did in Europe was because the growing body of
knowledge accrued by early science began to challenge and disprove
Catholic dogma, thereby depriving the Church of its moral and
political authority (which in turn led to the reformation and the
enlightenment). One of the most bloody periods of European history
ensued, cementing in many of the great minds of the Enlightenment the
moral case for religious freedom and state secularism.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Once early science discovered the
various ways of studying nature, they used those tools (physics,
biology, chemistry etc) to great practical effect, a testament to
scientific method. It became clear that theology, without so much as
a mention of contemporary knowledge in its methodology or
conclusions, had has much legitimacy as it had reference to reality.
We are now at a similar crossroads. The body of knowledge has now
progressed immeasurably since the time of the foundations of almost
every theory of political economy currently established, creating the
same conditions as those religion faced when it was confronted with
demands for secularism. We have the tools to study social systems,
yet established attempts to explain the system rely on dogma that
pre-dates the existence of those tools. A political theory sans so
much as a reference to system theory, cognitive science, complexity
etc, should be viewed by the skeptical community the exact same way
as a theory of biology that ignores evolution and genetics, or a
theory of the universe minus any mention physics. It doesn't even
matter if you believe these tools do not represent sufficient
knowledge to reach objective conclusions; legitimacy rests on using
the best contemporary knowledge we have – and it doesn't make
political economy any more likely to be legitimate in this sense. Whether system theory, complexity et all are sufficient for the objectification of identity and morality remain to be seen - but we should all be able to agree on the basic, and crucial to this argument, point that established ideologies are now <i>known </i>not to be sufficient.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Argument 3: Predicting the
unpredictable</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Political economy, as with religion,
seeks to explain <i>and predict </i><span style="font-style: normal;">the
emergent properties of complex systems, be it on the individual or
societal level. Yet complex systems are inherently unpredictable
over enough time; how accurately and distantly one can reliably predict
depends on the depth and accuracy of our knowledge of the system in
question and the dynamics at play. The scientific language for such
knowledge has only been in development for a few decades; we should
not expect long-established political economy to be any more
accurate, or legitimate, than a climate model that pre-dates
meteorology, or a theory of biology pre-Darwin. </span>Therefore, any
skeptic that openly identifies with a political or economic label is
in effect endorsing the legitimacy of imposing a model that claims to
predict the unpredictable. While we cannot objectively disprove any
theory of political economy (special pleading makes it
unfalsifiable), neither can we objectively disprove religious values
and beliefs. In both instances, all that matters is that we can show
the dogma to almost certainly be wrong, given<span style="font-style: normal;">
that they both eschew the relevant scientific frameworks available
today. This isn't to say we shouldn't try, just that we must acknowledge the fact that we are probably going to be shown to be objectively wrong in our predictions at some point and build evolution into the governing ideologies of the future, i.e. full monitoring of policy, a comprehensive and fluid method of communicating best practices and lessons learned, systematic processes to avoid negative group-dynamics etc.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>In summary, religion and political
economy are, or have been, ideological belief systems imposed upon
society as a whole that have seen their conceptual underpinnings
exposed as false by the advance of science and knowledge. As such,
both are equally immoral in the objective sense of each being shown
to false by virtue of probability. Both should have equal scientific
and moral legitimacy within our community – none – owing to their
respective disregard for relevant, contemporary scientific knowledge.
</b><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>If the skeptical community
is to be consistent and objective on the issue of political economy,
skeptics should simply identify politically as 'skeptic', advocate
for more political and economic data, and (if we are to be really
consistent) argue the case for a new form of secularism that seeks to
transition away from this newly exposed form of imposed ideology.</b></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>The absurdity of the contradiction</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Having outlined my arguments, I just
want to further draw on this analogy between politics and religion
and what that might suggest about the challenge facing the skeptical
community. Be forewarned: I am now entering rhetoric mode befitting
the passion for which I feel about it. I would really appreciate it
if any counter arguments focus on the summary above, since that which
I seek above anything else is a logical refutation to the charge that
politics and religion should be considered by skeptics as equivalent,
<i>as per the arguments stated</i>.</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">In my
opinion, the skeptical community of today is analogous to the early,
C</span><i>hristian,</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> scientists
who could not yet bring themselves, be it through fear of persecution
or genuine belief/lack of questioning, to challenge the orthodoxy of
the day – despite the immense suffering that was happening all
around them. Many today express surprise that such great minds could
have seemingly not questioned their own religious belief given the
lack of evidence, but many would also know that surprise is merely a
product of our own post-hoc rationalisations. Back then, God and
religion was everywhere; culture was saturated with it and so, in
turn, were the vast majority of individuals. One should not
underestimate the power of cultural saturation of ideology to blind
even the greatest of minds to its absurdity and illegitimacy. Today,
it feels as though we are once again in the early enlightenment –
the evidence is now there for people to see, but there are not yet
enough eyes open to see it. Instead of ignoring the wanton abuse of
power by the Church, ahem, I mean State, and instead of focusing all our
efforts on pagan heathens, sorry, homeopaths, might I suggest we
collectively look at the bigger picture? If we do not, I dread to
think of what excuses historians of the future deploy to explain the
deeply ironic case of the skeptical community largely unaware of its
own political and economic ideology. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I'm sure that many might object to comparing religion with
politics on the grounds of severity or scale of consequence (perhaps
quoting Pinker), or on their differing capacity to adapt and change
to shifting cultural values. However, these are <i>quantitative</i>
arguments; they are not sufficient to falsify the arguments
previously presented - incidentally, given the huge population growth post-secularism, and the incredibly large net cast by a small number of nations, I would argue that in terms of scale, the State could well rival Religions collective past (and we've seen all too clearly what the State can be capable of in terms of severity) Objectively, I believe that there is<i> </i><span style="font-style: normal;">no
inherent difference in the objective legitimacy of authority of religion or politics, since
both ideological foundations have now been shown to be false by the
progression of science and culture</span><i>. </i><span style="font-style: normal;">I
regard someone who declares themselves a Libertarian Skeptic to be as objectively wrong as someone who calls themselves a Christian skeptic (although, to be fair. it's more understandable outside of this framework, since it is, imo, ahead of its time rather than a centuries out of date.)</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>The challenge ahead</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
Unfortunately, the majority of high-profile skeptics in our
community seem to promote scientific skepticism and so do not
address political economy, citing a pre-requisite of hard data in
forming skeptical conclusions: SGU doesn't do politics (and when it
does, as with Rebecca Watson's work on feminist issues, you end up
with petitions calling for their removal.); Brian Dunning, amongst
others, blithely say that skepticism is not applicable to political
“values”<span style="font-style: normal;">;</span> and economic
and political issues are barely represented at conferences, on
podcasts, and in blogs, despite the disproportionate suffering it
causes compared to staple feed such as homeopathy and psychics. In
my opinion such views do not portray any sense of debate regarding
the extent of scientific skepticism's remit. Instead, they present
the impression of an established orthodoxy that definitively
dismisses social sciences (and the social issues therein), since
empirical data, a degree of scientific consensus, and, I suspect, an
absence of established ideology within the community, appear
pre-requisites for an issues smooth inclusion into mainstream
skeptical discourse. It seems to me that the vast majority of
skeptics I speak to are far more confident in the legitimacy of
applying skepticism to political values than is suggested by the
choice on offer within our shared, mainstream culture. Whether that
is for business reasons, ideological reasons, group-think, I don't
know; more than likely a combination of all that and more.
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: normal;">We must recognise and challenge
these contradictions and hypocrisies inherent in </span><i>us</i><span style="font-style: normal;">,
of all people, absolving political economy of skeptical reasoning on
the grounds of them being 'values' (oh, how the religious would </span><i>love</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
us to accept that argument from them!).</span><i> </i><span style="font-style: normal;">
Obviously there </span><i>are</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
values in politics (in the study of complex systems, there will likely
remain considerable unknowns for some time to come) that </span><i>should</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
continue to be included for as long as they persist. I heard (and
agreed with) Mark Henderson, author of The Geek Manifesto,
elucidating the same point at Norwich SiTP recently – '</span><i>That
is what democracy is'</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
(incidentally, he apologised for being unable to answer my question
regarding why the imposition of political and religious ideology
aren't treated by skeptics as equivalent). As a matter of public
policy, values </span><i>must</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> be
allowed to proceed <i>at their evolutionary pace</i> – too quick, or as
now too slow, and the immorality grows. </span><i>Yet I do not see why
we should entertain such nonsense within our community. </i>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
<span style="font-style: normal;">Do we
expect History to look back on this time, this early growth of this
special movement, and ignore the question as to why we all put so
much efforts into fringe issues whilst allowing the present ruling
conflation of woo to run amok? Or will Historians say that perhaps
many turned a self-censored-eye to the drones, the wars, the
inequality, the global suffering, the economic models and systems
driving this race to an ever-warmer bottom, in favour of bravely
battling Homoeopaths and people claiming to be psychics? To ignore the
worlds most ironic case of group-think ever witnessed? I sincerely hope that they </span><i>do </i>get to<i> </i><span style="font-style: normal;">say
that, for it will mean we have managed to progress beyond it to look back.. This
whole issue pains me greatly, for the world desperately needs people
to encourage and nurture a transitional, controversial culture derived
from contemporary concepts and data to help pull us away from this
thus-far unbroken cycle of imposed ideology, before it either nukes or
asphyxiates us. If it isn't going to be us, the self-proclaimed
vanguard of independent thinkers everywhere, then who the hell is it
going to be? </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<u><span style="font-style: normal;">UPDATES:</span></u><br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: normal;">To read PZ Myers' polemic futherences of this blog, click here: <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/27/a-common-complaint-i-hear-a-lot-nowadays/">HERE</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: normal;">To read Steven Novella's tactful response to PZ's response, in which it seems he agrees that ideology is inconsistent with skepticism but that it's fine if people don't see it that way, click there: <a href="http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/bigfoot-skeptics-new-atheists-politics-and-religion/">THERE </a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
And for PZ's tour de force of a reply to <i>that, </i>click here again: <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/30/a-reply-to-steven-novella/">HERE AGAIN</a> <br />
<br />
Here's an excerpt:<br />
<br />
"As for that awful, dishonest, <i>destructive</i> claim that
“Political, moral, and social ideology are ‘outside the scope’ of
skepticism because they remove objectivity” — I ask, OK, so would you
claim that there is no rational, evidence-based argument against, say,
slavery? That it is impossible to make an objective argument in any
domain against treating people as property? If that’s the case, well then, fuck skepticism. It isn’t relevant or
useful anymore. It has abstracted itself into the realm of a private
academic circle-jerk, and we can stop arguing, because just maybe
atheists, who apparently have more rational minds, can just leave the
party voluntarily."<br />
<br />
Continuing, this is Steve's second reply, which I have only had time to skim read, in which he makes some very good points but again, imo, presumes too great a level of discipline and free inquiry in dealing with politics within the community. In my experience, people struggle with the very notion of post-ideological political discourse, skeptics included. Click away: <a href="http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/pz-replies/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter">AWAY</a><br />
<br />
You guessed it - <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/02/01/atheists-are-skeptics/">PZ replies</a> to the reply of the reply to the reply....and this time he's clearly calmed down a bit (not that I allow his rhetoric to influence my thinking on his actual arguments - though it seems many skeptics make no such basic allowance). It is, in my opinion, right on the money, and exposes some pretty weak flaws in Novellas arguments.<br />
<br />
Here's an excerpt:<br />
<br />
"...then there’s this distinction between empirical claims and
faith-based claims, which I simply don’t see. “Faith” is not a magic
get-out-of-jail-free word; I don’t think Novella would be stopped cold
in his tracks if a homeopath invoked faith and god as a mechanism behind
succussed water. Faith-based claims <i>are</i> empirical claims! When
someone claims a vast cosmic intelligence named Jesus created the
universe, I’m going to ask for their evidence for that claim; it is an
empirical claim not just about how the universe works, but about how
they arrive at their conclusions and what the chain of evidence that led
them to that assertion is. If they openly admit that their beliefs are not based on empirical
knowledge, that does not mean we retreat; it means we present the
evidence for how the universe actually works and was created. Faith does
not insulate a claim from skepticism as Novella argues; there is still a
body of evidence that may contradict their claims, and it does as no
service to simply throw up our hands and declare their arguments out of
bounds for skepticism".<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: normal;">Additionally, <a href="http://marcdavidbarnhill.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/clarifying-the-limits-of-skepticism-a-steven-novella-addendum/">here's some commentary from Marc Barnhill</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: normal;">And here is some <a href="https://richardreed84.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/the-scope-of-skepticism-steven-novella-the-accomodationalist/comment-page-1/#comment-267">balanced commentary from Richard Reed</a> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: normal;"> </span>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-72015985808481839192012-08-27T13:13:00.002-07:002015-01-30T08:13:36.007-08:00Building a sustainable community that avoids group-think and embraces cultural evolution.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
</style>
</div>
-->
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Having thought about the dynamics at
play regarding Atheismplus over the weekend, I figured I would try
and crystallise my ideas into a general guide for creating as
inclusive a community* as possible, one that guards against
group-think and facilitates both internal (community) and external
(social) cultural evolution. It would be utterly contradictory and
hypocritical for me to view this guide as anything other than one
person's thoughts, an embryonic seed at best, but it <i>does
</i>represent the kind of community <i>I</i> am waiting to emerge
before I would consider committing myself again. I can only assume
that I am not the only one.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Should those people leading the
momentum behind Atheismplus wish to heed any of this advice I'd be
more than happy for them to take it. If not, I care not. I do not
expect this vision to materialise suddenly in its full form anyhow;
I'm not naive enough to think there are not, in all likelihood,
several evolutionary steps still to play through before that were to
happen. If Atheismplus wants to go a different route, then that is
entirely their choice to make. I only hope that emotions cool soon
and we can actually get down to some serious inter-community
discourse.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
First of all I want to share a few
structural and cultural components that I believe are necessary to
create and maintain a sustainable community. Although I have written
this with Atheismplus in mind, I think many, if not all, of the
points are likely to be applicable to most communities that eek to be
more than simply an interest group. As I've said previously, I hold
no political allegiance one way or the other, so I wouldn't be
surprised if those who identify as either left or right both find
objections or concerns regarding these ideas. After that, I want to
share a few ideas for some shared culture that embraces the
principles I've laid out, shared culture that does not run the risk
of centralising the community or facilitating group-think.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Structural components of a
sustainable community:</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<ul>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The community structure should be
as horizontal as possible. Either you could limit this community to
being an autonomous part of a wider community, or else seek to found an affiliation, or federation, of groups, individuals and
organisations that together strive to cross-promote each others work
and collaborate as much as possible. Either way, such
cross-promotion should be used to maintain a conscious balance in
the diversity of discourse, both in terms of subject and of
authorship.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The functions and duties of
positions of authority should be as transparent and, where
applicable, as crowd-sourced as possible, across all scales
organisation.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Revolving positions of authority
can promote greater diversity, both within the affiliated groups of
the community and in any overarching administrative structures, of
which their should be as few as possible (a media contact point,
promotion and awareness, political lobbying, an open-source
arbitration process etc).</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
An agreement should exist on the
assumption that <i>nobody</i> speaks for anyone else but themselves,
<i>unless</i> speaking as a representative with a consensual
mandate, on whatever scale. So simple (yet so staggering common in
this debate), but just because individual A said X, does not mean
that all others who affiliate under the same moniker as A also
believe X, nor that it is official policy of the group unless
otherwise stated (and even then one should treat it with caution
unless there is evidence of a consensus process having been
implemented. Individual A could easily be speaking from an emotional
state and proclaiming personal, assumed belief and not fact, thereby
absolving affiliated others of assumed belief in X).</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Whether crowd-sourced community
guidelines are created for the community as a whole or by individual
groups and organisations themselves, they are vital to possess along
with mechanisms for grievances to be heard (<i>prior</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
to any incident that threatens to get out of hand). My personal
preference is for a 90% or so approval benchmark for acceptance of a
guideline or procedural process; this represents a strong mandate
that even those who get ideas voted down should be able to accept,
yet flexible enough to avoid bloc-voting tactics (it would be
interesting to see if there were any studies on the levels of
voluntary acquiescence to consensus at various levels). It is
important to have a set of guidelines with a sufficient enough
mandate to act as an objective framework that </span><i>everyone</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
can have confidence in appealing to. I've had experience in this
regard (anecdotal, I admit) and the impression that it was an
absolutely crucial component was apparent almost immediately.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
With these
guidelines, moderators should have an agreed mandate to use whatever
powers they have been given, by consensus, to ensure that guidelines
are followed. Some issues may be destined to end in flame war, at
least at first; for these, all you need is somewhere to park it,
away from the main message boards where with luck it will die a slow
death. If not, people are free to ignore it. For persistent
offenders you shouldn't be scared to suspend or revoke accounts.
It's not a free-speech issue; nobody is stopping them spewing shit
on Twitter or anywhere else, its just the consensus-derived
authority of a group of people choosing to stop you metaphorically
stalking them and screaming in their face 24/7.</div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Cultural components required for a
sustainable community:</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<ul>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
We must <i>all</i> completely flip
the way we view critical critique, and those who would offer it,
from the instinctively defensive and unconstructive assumption of
conflict to an acknowledgement of what is in fact a compliment:
someone has deemed your views worthy of time-spent constructing a
rebuttal. Obviously this can and is achieved already everyday,
though usually with issues that do not have unaddressed ideological
belief, however small and subconscious, as their foundations. <i>Those</i>
issues remain compartmentalised from our skeptical environment and,
it seems to me, from our skeptical way of thinking (I speak here
simply from my own experience, and not just about trolls). We need
to collectively recognise these unspoken biases and apply the same
level of critical thought (and respect) to all issues equally. A lot
of lapses and biting of lips will be involved, I'm sure, but there
is always “sorry”.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
We need to create a culture that
openly celebrates the best Devil's advocates out there. After all,
to be a good Devil's advocate one needs to go all out in researching
and trying to understand the rationales for what they may personally
see as unsavory arguments and beliefs. We can't expect to have
constructive debates (either for the inherent advance of knowledge
or the for the perception of the audience) with sceptics or
fundamentalists who do not share with us an objective framework for
debate; a culture that promotes the playing of Devil's advocate in a
constructive way is an alternative way to guard against the
emergence of group-think.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The written word has its uses,
obviously but it's shit for tackling social issues where advocates
are often all to willing to insert whatever tone of voice or choice
of interpretation is needed in order to validate pre-existing
unexplored or unfounded beliefs. If we revive the Socratic
tradition, actually utilise video technology to present
crowd-sourced debates and arguments, we could take it to a whole new
level. I'm sure that Socrates would be ribbing Plato hard now were
they to know about Twitter, but there is no reason that we cannot
harness the best bits of both direct debate and text.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There can be <i>no</i> taboos. I'm
serious on this one, but it's gonna be tricky. It might be that some
issues are so fresh or vulgar that time would be needed to develop
the culture a bit first, get some training in as it were, before it
starts to do more good than harm. But ultimately, everything that is
out there in this sometimes beautiful, sometimes seemingly FUBAR
world is best understood through critical, skeptical thought. It's
just something we will need to deal with as it comes, and all try to
(for want of a softer, less evocative word) self-police the
community.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
On 'self-policing', it would
ideally be a natural consequence of the redefinition of how we see
criticism, encouraging a culture of challenging each others views.
It will mean learning to control instinctive, defensive tendencies
at first, given the lack of critical discourse to date within our
present communities on social issues. The best way to do this in my
view is to have a code of conduct for debate (something we should
already be using i.e. awareness of fallacies, respect etc),
something we all subscribe, and hold each other, to. Furthermore,
this will help us enter into debates and discussions in a
constructive manner, under the assumption that everyone is coming
from the same place, not in terms of views and issues, <i>but in
terms of method. </i>
</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">This
is the central strand that runs through all of this advice: </span><i>
If you wish to have a sustainable community, it must be built
through a shared culture of methodology, not a shared culture of
content. </i><span style="font-style: normal;">This is the only way
to avoid group-think, facilitate cultural evolution and be seen to
be just the most damned reasonable and unobjectionable community the
world has ever seen.</span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="font-style: normal;">Here
are some ideas that embody these principles, examples of shared
culture that would both bind and challenge us as a community:</span></b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<ol>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">A
wiki for collating scientific evidence on social justice issues –
It should be completely open to all, but moderated in the manner
described above (very important), with room for debate on each
entry. Entries could be tagged for filtering and debate purposes –
tags should include, at a minimum, indicators of study quality
(whether it is blinded, has a large sample group, area of funding
etc), the appearance of objections with further room for debate, and
the theme of the study. It wont matter how people approach adding
entries, so long as it is sufficiently and effectively moderated by
enough users. For the sake of being a user-friendly resource, as
well as responsive to cultural evolution, the front page could
consist of portals for the top ten or so issues voted up and down on
a daily basis (obviously measures would need to be in place to
ensure it doesn't become victim to foul play). I don't know if such
a resource exists already (I have no time to research this blog as
well as write it) but it would be a really useful resource to have
to congregate around. It would also be a great media resource,
should they find the inclination to actually start quoting evidence.
If things get out of hand then folk could always turn to idea number
three..</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<ol start="2">
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">Podcast,
or preferably video-based production, for promoting diversity and
quality debate – One or two regulars artful in the ways of the
devils advocate play host to a different group or person each week,
providing a constructive counter-balance to controversial and
emotive issues. It would need to be meticulous in it's approach,
crowd-sourcing opinion in advance of each episode. Evidence likely
to be drawn upon for the debate would be compiled by each side in
advance and available to the public. In order to act as an exemplar
that the wider community would find constructive, it might be useful
to mirror the structure of the debates on idea number three..</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<ol start="3">
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">Debate
Arena – I've a feeling this sort of thing exists, but building one
from scratch would give the element of community ownership and
consensual design necessary to gain credibility. It could be
cross-referenced with the wiki for contestants to draw upon
evidence, with debates advertised in advance for research and
audience awareness. Contestants could tag other people into the
debate, either sourced in advance or drawn from the audience, should
the debate require different expertise to advance. People could vote
as the debate goes where they think points or arguments have been
won, contribute to visualisations that show which way, and to what
extent, a consensus is evolving and have the ability to award kudos
points to people who uphold their debating standards under pressure.
Participants would begin with their own interpretation of the
context of the debate, before embarking on a series of 2 minute
rounds (though this should be flexible on agreement, according to
requirements). A maximum of one correction of a rebuttal, one
rebuttal of your own and one argument to advance the debate allowed
per round, to really allow for granular exploration of issues and
avoid it simply becoming noise. Victory is declared if the crowd
consensus reaches a certain level and remains there for two further
rounds (a three strikes and you're out policy). Losers could of
course seek a rematch, giving plenty of time to perfect your next
material. With such a format, I would hope that over time there
would emerge people who elevate this style of debate to an art form,
applauded for their succinctness, speed of thought and clarity of
communication. Debates would be transcribed using voice recognition,
as well as being available for stream and download, with the
transcript open to editing should errors be spotted. This would
allow for easy citing in blogs and further debate. Personally, I
would absolutely love to see any debate, interactive or otherwise,
between DJ Grothe and Brian Dunning on whether skepticism is
actually applicable to politics. I respect the work of both of them
but I cannot ignore the possibility that two such prominent voices
seem content, publicly at least, in knowing that they entirely
disagree on an issue that should be regarded as a fundamental aspect
of what skepticism actually is. That's just my opinion, but I'd be
more than happy to debate it.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: normal;">EDIT: Another idea for how the debate might be won - The synthesis ending. Basically, the audience can participate by buzzing in and proposing a synthesis answer to the debate. Either contestant can opt to agree with the synthesis proposal, and if the proposal gains consensus level within the crowd, the first of the contestants to have agreed wins the battle. </span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">As I
said, I'm not telling anyone to do anything, merely presenting my own
ideal version of community in the hope that some people might see,
understand and adopt some of my ideas. That's even the last I'm
going to write on the matter. Between work and the baby, we've got
too much on at the present for me to contribute further to the
discussion on Atheismplus. Beyond replying to comments here and the
odd tweet, I shall remove myself now and wish you all good luck.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">* I
have used 'community' as shorthand for what Benedict Anderson called
the 'imagined community', different to a geographical community (of
which I say nothing) in its scope and number.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5575042626763129889.post-32175510690217533612012-08-23T15:08:00.001-07:002012-08-29T15:31:11.441-07:00An attempt at being constructive regarding this whole #FTBullies thing <style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The purpose of this blog is to try and
offer a hopefully new and constructive perspective to the
increasingly bitter debate currently ongoing within the
skeptical/atheist community. I am a relative newcomer to this issue
having only caught up with it over the last few days; I'm hoping my
relatively outside view might be of some value to someone. First
though, a little context is needed to try and minimise the seemingly
inevitable (potentially from both sides), knee-jerk, distinctly
un-skeptical responses that may ensue.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I've considered myself a skeptic for
many years. I hold to no pre-packaged political viewpoint. I like to
think that I take each issue as it comes, listening to logical
arguments on both sides and trying to form an opinion for myself
based on the evidence available. Yet I know as well as any that not I
nor anybody is infallible, and so if you find reason to disagree all
that I ask is that you reply with evidence, logic and respect in a
manner befitting the term skeptic. Straw is for horses.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This is my first blog for nearly a
year. During that time I have been feeling somewhat adrift, for
reasons that may colour my perception of what is going on (consider
this a disclosure). Last year, in the wake of the rise of Occupy, I
sought to debate politics with my fellow skeptics. In return, I got
insults, strawmen, prevarications, and the kind of trollish behaviour
we usually criticise our opponents of. On the one hand I had Brian
Dunning claiming that politics couldn't be assessed skeptically
because it was 'value-based', while on the other hand I had DJ Grothe
proclaiming the exact opposite. It suddenly occurred to me that all
one needed to do to break the skeptical consensus on organised
religion was to ditch the metaphysical stuff and call it politics.
The realisation that within our community, beyond religion,
alternative medicine and claims of the supernatural lay ideologies as
deeply entrenched as any that we seek to counter was a shockingly
painful one.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Anyone who believes that the skeptical
community possesses a rational quality that puts it above such things
as ideology, ignorance and “pointless” schisms, as I once did,
are simply being naïve. Don't get me wrong, we are in good company;
the vast majority of intellectual thinkers since the enlightenment
have made the same, relativistic mistake. But I'm not writing this to
point fingers, cast blame and root for one team over another. It
isn't constructive in an environment such as this. My area of
interest lies in networks and power relations, and their relationship
with culture and cultural evolution. So, in order to try and explain
this in as objective a manner as possible, I shall try to stick to
that framework to briefly explain why I think this situation is for
the best.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The basis for any community is shared
culture. How that culture is produced, disseminated and consumed
determines the social power structures that emerge. At one end of the
spectrum we have the cult, a strictly top-down model of cultural
creation and dissemination, resulting in a group of individuals bound
tightly together by virtue of having consumed an all-but-identical
shared culture. At the other end we have something like the skeptical
community; a far more networked collection of (often grass-roots)
affiliated organisations and individuals. Furthermore, thanks to the
internet we have developed this community largely through a
democratised meritocracy of cultural production, something that has
allowed people of independent minds to create bonds without the need
for a centrally-derived shared culture.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
However, there is another kind of power
dynamic that hasn't been addressed by this unprecedented (in scale
and rate of iteration anyhow) model of community. Within any growing
community, there will always be a relative disparity of power between
those that have risen to positions of authority and influence, often
the 'veterans', and those that are either primarily consuming or else
simply new to the scene. As the creators of the overwhelming
majority of the communities universally shared culture, these
influential people. to a large extent, determine the discourse and,
<i>as good skeptics should</i>, they primarily discuss that which
they know: alternative medicine, religion, pseudoscience etc.
However, it is my opinion that as well as being a handy rule to keep
in mind when embarking on a debate, limiting oneself in this way can
also be used to justify ignoring issues that fall outside of those
established within the shared culture, and/or conflict with one's
concepts and beliefs derived from other spaces entirely, outside of
the skeptical community (family, local 'real-life' community values
etc). This creates a naturally emerging, unsystematic top-down
element in the creation of our shared culture and, as a result, there
is a group-think dynamic at play that is far more ingrained in some
than others. This is where the split lies in my view. We have a group
of people that can see the elephants in the room, people who's values
from other communities cannot be so easily compartmentalised-away and
who cannot, for whatever reason, maintain the self-censorship/denial
necessary to maintain this veneer of complete unity. And, as with
every community that has ever come before us, we also have a group
that denigrates such up-starts as trouble-makers and upsetters of the
natural order.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Oh the irony.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The important thing is the veneer has
been stripped away. Now should be the time for all the major-players
to face up to the fact that there are fundamental aspects of
skepticism that have yet to be addressed. On this, you would all come
to us as equals. It is simply ridiculous to say that politics and
social issues are not the realm of skepticism; that may be the <i>desire</i>
of those that wish to maintain the illusion, but discourse and method
will emerge soon whether you like it or not. Social science may not
be as empirical, but that doesn't mean the answer is to simply ignore
social issues or, worse yet, to seemingly actively discourage its
discussion to a sometimes obsessive degree. Only through the
influential people openly discussing these issues sensibly,<i>
skeptically</i> (no more ad-hominems, no more strawmen, no more
disrespect), and with no taboos, can we hope to sustain this
community in a way that can act as an effective force for good.
Create and systematise tools to facilitate this communities
evolution, or die (metaphorically speaking, of course). This is what
must be done if you want to try and keep this movement together,
though in my heart-of-hearts I doubt if it is either possible nor
even desirable. If one thing has come out of this for me, it is a
feeling of confirmation that this movement, like all before it, does
not have what it takes to be <i>truly</i> unprecedented. While the
wider societies in which we all live continue to propagate radically
different, largely segregated cultural concepts, we cannot expect to
maintain a community through simply ignoring it. If that's what you
want, <i>call it a club</i>.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This has gone on long enough. In my own
personal opinion, if you cannot resist partaking in this runaway
tit-for-tat behaviour, launching strawmen and ad-hominem attacks,
gleefully interpreting emotional and distressed individual statements
as representative for an entire group (and this goes to both sides),
<i>then you do not deserve to call yourselves skeptics</i>. As you
might have guessed, and for the reasons I described in the beginning,
I find my sympathies lying with those that want more from a community
than possibly the most ironic case of group-think likely to have ever
existed, those that cannot separate their skepticism and their social
conscience Therefore I offer them some, in my opinion, much needed
advice, should they desire it.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<ul><ul>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Do not simply make the same
mistake again and think for one moment that <i>this time</i> the
community is going to be perfect. We are all the product of a shit
system, and we all bring issues because from it. Reinforcing an
us-versus-them narrative merely takes you along a well-trodden path
to a place you don't want to be.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If the energy and enthusiasm is
genuinely there then you do have an opportunity to create something
special. The world of politics in all its forms is crying out for
skeptical discourse.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This should probably be titled
rule number one, two and three: beware your own hidden ideologies
and confirmation biases. Actually put in effort at
self-reflection, mainstream and systematise it into forums and
debates and discourse. Learn about facilitation and
conflict-resolution. Skepticism and social issues has a bad
track-record; don't be complacent and assume that it won't be you
next. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Also importantly, apologise for
errors, things said in the heat of the moment, strawmen and the
like. Try and develop a shared culture of meticulous debate
etiquette: if the group-think and underlying ideologies of those
shouting loudest are as deeply held as I suspect, then it isn't
them that you are appealing to . It is that majority that primarily
consume that are the most reachable. I genuinely think that on the
larger issues you guys have the moral high ground. Make sure you
act like it.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If you want to be truly
unprecedented, there is a good rule of thumb to keep in mind (the
simplest there is, in my view). Facilitate cultural evolution. This
means creating discourse to find ways to systematise checks and
balances against group-think and the development of dogma: always
actively seek greater diversity; if in a position of high
influence, accept the role with humility and act primarily as a
facilitator, promoting as many voices as possible whilst ensuring
one's own voice is not dominating multiple discourses; create an
environment where people can be comfortable playing devils advocate
(far more constructive for the neutral reader should the current
level of debate out there remain so toxic); actively resist
attempts to create an us-versus-them culture, a breeding ground for
the development of group-think; and do not be afraid to remind and
correct those who share your (at present) beliefs when you feel
that they are out-of-line or in need of some self-reflection.<br />
<br />
UPDATE: There is a good critique by Massimo Pigliucci, with lively comments, to be found here:<br />
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/on-with-comment-about-richard-carriers.html <br />
Also,<br />
http://atheistethicist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/atheism-plus-arguments-and-concerns.html<br />
... is a reasoned blog by <a class="profile-name-link" href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054" rel="author" style="background-image: url(//www.blogger.com/img/logo-16.png);"></a>Alonzo Fyfe addressing some of the flawed responses to #atheismplus as well as a critique of the current circumstance.</div>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7