Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[zabu of nΩd]

You really do impress me sometimes. I'll have to read up on this topic.

I suppose the long-term picture I'm more interested in is still that of technology and capitalism, rather than military power. I've been imagining a future in which the opportunities that drive economic growth inevitably dry up, or become a miniscule part of our economy relative to a vast majority of computer/robot labor (and/or regulated utilities).

I try not to indulge in much speculation on what "life" will be like at that point, but I would at least assume that the public sector of the economy will swell in scale proportional to the computer/robot "sector". Machine productivity will so greatly outstrip human productivity that it would be silly for governments not to nationalize a big chunk of the machine sector and create the most "optimal" welfare state that our future left wing has the political means to implement.

One thing I like about this scenario is that it's a great opportunity to minimize the influence of money in politics, and thus remove a huge distraction from the political discourse. The worst case scenario, I guess, is that the technological advances trigger an international "arms race" that obliterates civil rights, but I'm optimistic that large corporations will have a hand in that race, and thus preserve a balance of power between the public and private sectors.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I just went back to my posts in September to see if there was any follow-up, and ended up skimming through the epic "debate" with Vimana on consciousness. I got pretty much nothing out of that, but Pat's final summarizing post almost made it worthwhile

It's a game for me too, but like one of those games that you play with yourself. You know, like masturbating.

 

[Dak]

Ha, the game one always wins.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think two-party divisions in a nation such as ours are inevitable. You may have differing factions within and among the two parties, but ultimately those factions will side with a certain party if they think that party can actually realize their goals.

A functioning multi-party system seems, to me, like an oxymoron; I think a multi-party system would end up being either a vetocracy, or would gravitate toward a two-party system as various factions realize they can actually achieve something by ganging up.

Techno-capitalism might usher in a new era of machine production, but as far as governance is concerned I think we'll see corporation-states instead of nation-states. I don't think that's necessarily better or worse than nation-states. Different organization, different values. Unfortunately I don't have the time or desire to put much thought into political stuff as of late; most of my efforts have been directed toward my studies and publishing/presenting my work.

EDIT: some good commentary on the illogic of Western logic. It is actually in mathematics - the basis of Western logic - where paradoxes emerge.

http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/logic-of-buddhist-philosophy/

 

[Dak]

To your point about multiparty systems moving towards defacto two party: That is exactly what has been happening in Germany.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Pat - that article's longer than I have the energy for tonight, but it looks like a good read.

I think two-party divisions in a nation such as ours are inevitable. You may have differing factions within and among the two parties, but ultimately those factions will side with a certain party if they think that party can actually realize their goals.

A functioning multi-party system seems, to me, like an oxymoron; I think a multi-party system would end up being either a vetocracy, or would gravitate toward a two-party system as various factions realize they can actually achieve something by ganging up.

Yeah, vetocracy can be a big problem. Another thing is that a multi-party system can offer easy leverage to some really awful radical groups, whereas a two-party system forces those groups to moderate their views before being given a national spotlight.

I like this point in the Wikipedia entry on proportional representation voting: "Very small parties can act as 'king-makers', holding larger parties to ransom during coalition discussions."

Techno-capitalism might usher in a new era of machine production, but as far as governance is concerned I think we'll see corporation-states instead of nation-states.

That strikes me as unlikely. For one, when I look at the expanding size of our executive branch, the Federal Reserve, public health care, etc. I see a pattern of government institutions scaling up their economic reach in step with corporations. I also think the nation-state format carries strong cultural appeal, and it's hard for me to imagine citizens identifying with a corporation to the point that the corporation supplants the nation's cultural "mandate".

 

[zabu of nΩd]

EDIT: some good commentary on the illogic of Western logic. It is actually in mathematics - the basis of Western logic - where paradoxes emerge.

http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/logic-of-buddhist-philosophy/

I just read this. A great overview of the capabilities and limits of logic, though the author may have cut a few too many corners in tailoring the article to a general audience.

After all those historical examples that drive home the point that "the ineffable" cannot be described, he somehow has no problem describing the ineffable as something that can be enclosed in a set.

I also found the argument from ordinal logic a bit suspect. It could do with more unpacking of the claim "After we have been through all the finite numbers (of which there is, of course, an infinity), there is a next number, ω, and then a next, ω+1, and so on, forever," -- especially after he goes on to say that "How far, exactly, the ordinals go is a vexed question both mathematically and philosophically." Also, how do you go from saying there's an infinite number of finite numbers to saying a language necessarily has a finite vocabulary?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Btw, I left a comment on your blog post "Toward the Nova: the Role of the Dialectic in Modern Thought". Great read.

 

[Einherjar86]

I just read this. A great overview of the capabilities and limits of logic, though the author may have cut a few too many corners in tailoring the article to a general audience.

After all those historical examples that drive home the point that "the ineffable" cannot be described, he somehow has no problem describing the ineffable as something that can be enclosed in a set.

I also found the argument from ordinal logic a bit suspect. It could do with more unpacking of the claim "After we have been through all the finite numbers (of which there is, of course, an infinity), there is a next number, ω, and then a next, ω+1, and so on, forever," -- especially after he goes on to say that "How far, exactly, the ordinals go is a vexed question both mathematically and philosophically." Also, how do you go from saying there's an infinite number of finite numbers to saying a language necessarily has a finite vocabulary?

One of the biggest problems with Aeon articles is that they make a lot of compelling points but don't develop them at length. Part of this is due to length, as well as the fact that Aeon isn't a peer-reviewed journal and so they don't need to provide the kind of substantive evidence required in most professional publications.

From what I understand - and it's a lot of set theory - he's saying that paradox forms a fundamental aspect of mathematics itself. Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory introduced the axiom of choice, which abolished some paradoxes; but the axiom of choice cannot be derived from set theory itself. Set theory is non-axiomatic in and of itself, and thus is theoretically expansive ad infinitum.

Language, at any given point in history, is finite. It is comprised of a totally measurable number of spoken words, utterances, gestures, etc. But it is always evolving and producing; so it is infinite in its potentiality, but finite in its actuality.

Set theory, and mathematics in general, introduce the problem of actual infinity.

Btw, I left a comment on your blog post "Toward the Nova: the Role of the Dialectic in Modern Thought". Great read.

Thanks man, that's a great comment. I love your suggestion that capitalism might operate, as you say, in a self-reflective manner. One of the most important attributes that scholars often identify in modernist art and culture is an apparent self-awareness and feedback energy through that indeed propels development. I think capitalism is, without a doubt, an effect (if not the driving impetus) of a historical epoch that is experience self-awareness for the first time - that is, experiencing itself as a historical subject, as expressed in Richard Powers's novel.

To be honest, I'm always wary of dialectics, but not because I find them deceitful or misleading. I read a lot of dialectical theory and am often fascinated by it. But dialecticians inevitably seem to pursue some form of telos, and I believe that this precludes us from perceiving the dialectic as something less anthropomorphic. Let me try and explain quickly:

I think that the dialectic is the "self-refuting form of our relationship to reality" because I think, as a model, it closely approximates what occurs between our conscious perception and the external world. However, there's also a small problem in this reasoning because it separates human consciousness and constitution from reality itself; i.e. in this model, reality is something "out there," and human perception is something "in here." This is a misguided approach, because we - as humans - are part of the real. Our perceptions are material phenomena, not an effect generated apart from reality.

If we want to remain staunch materialists (as I do), then we must not sever perception from reality. Now we enter into the domain of process and flux; our internal perceptions, and our perceiving apparatuses, participate within the fluctuations of matter and energy that dictate all life and things. Now, this seems less dialectical, and indeed it sounds more like Deleuze's resistance to dialectics; but I don't think it means we can get rid of dialectics entirely. Rather, we have to realize that if perceptions are subordinate to the real - that is, if our perceptions are merely effects occurring within reality - then there is no reason to privilege our perspective on the dialectic itself. Instead, we have to entertain the possibility of what the dialectic becomes when we include our perceptions themselves as a part of reality. To paraphrase Hardt and Negri: "Reality is not dialectical, but our perceptions appear to be."

This is the point I'm interested in, and what I'm as of yet working on; but I feel as though there's something productive to say. The really exciting thing is that quite a lot of contemporary fiction that I'm interested in also expresses an interest in these ideas, and grapples with them (which gives me a lot to look at).

 

[Dak]

Techno-capitalism might usher in a new era of machine production, but as far as governance is concerned I think we'll see corporation-states instead of nation-states. I don't think that's necessarily better or worse than nation-states. Different organization, different values.

That strikes me as unlikely. For one, when I look at the expanding size of our executive branch, the Federal Reserve, public health care, etc. I see a pattern of government institutions scaling up their economic reach in step with corporations. I also think the nation-state format carries strong cultural appeal, and it's hard for me to imagine citizens identifying with a corporation to the point that the corporation supplants the nation's cultural "mandate".

To the point of corporation-states:

1. Most states are already essentially or literally corporations. That doesn't mean they are businesses, in the the traditional sense of the word. Corporations do not have to turn a profit. Businesses do. However, when one does not turn a profit, you must get funding and/or debt reprieves from somewhere, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Governments have the ability to get them both voluntarily and involuntarily - but only to a point. They get the dual ability due to cultural appeal, but this is limited by their ability to garner mass appeal, which is ever weakening in this technocratic era. People want it and now, and ever more debt burdened sprawling behemoths can decreasinly provide the it or the now. They increasingly sacrifice either the it for the now or the now for the it, and at some point this cannot continue.

2. Dynamism and "microwave mentality". These two go together, and this is why I believe the future is condensed government in over ever-shrinking spaces. I don't believe government as such will ever go away, but I think that what you might call "Sectors" will necessarily decrease, while the level of control will increase within sectors. People who believe they have the option, do not want to struggle - invoking the conservation of energy law. This lies behind the increasingly geographic/partisan divides within the US. This trend is going to have to lead to either new hard borders or the meaninglessness of them within the US in the future (most likely the former).

3. These new borders need sponsers, and this is where the "corporate" government comes in. While the "public sector" must always be tied to geography, the private sector does not have to be, and this is the most significant difference. The public sector will increasingly depend on the private sector to pull $ in from outside its geography, essentially "sponsoring" certain governance.

In the past the US/west has depended on military action to insert the western-sponsored central banking system to sponsor western governments, but I believe this model is reaching its final nadir.

 

[Einherjar86]

To the point of corporation-states:

1. Most states are already essentially or literally corporations. That doesn't mean they are businesses, in the the traditional sense of the word. Corporations do not have to turn a profit. Businesses do. However, when one does not turn a profit, you must get funding and/or debt reprieves from somewhere, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Governments have the ability to get them both voluntarily and involuntarily - but only to a point. They get the dual ability due to cultural appeal, but this is limited by their ability to garner mass appeal, which is ever weakening in this technocratic era. People want it and now, and ever more debt burdened sprawling behemoths can decreasinly provide the it or the now. They increasingly sacrifice either the it for the now or the now for the it, and at some point this cannot continue.

This was more along the lines of how I meant "corporation."

I'm not an economist or mathematician, but I have a theory that the spiraling process of debt can and will occur indefinitely. It isn't a logical argument, just a speculative idea on the transformation of value in a rapidly developing technological society.

 

[Dak]

This was more along the lines of how I meant "corporation."

I'm not an economist or mathematician, but I have a theory that the spiraling process of debt can and will occur indefinitely. It isn't a logical argument, just a speculative idea on the transformation of value in a rapidly developing technological society.

Well it can and will occur, but it depends on what you mean by "indefinitely". I think predicting an end to the cycle of debt is impossible, but it will continue until the primary monetary system/unit isn't debt based.

Additionally, people love something for nothing, so the idea of debt that theoretically doesn't have to be paid back is always appealing. Unfortunately, debts do get paid by someone somewhere, either by inflation or by eating the loss.

 

[Einherjar86]

Baudrillard ascribes the continuing amassing of debt to what he calls the "disappearing of the referential universe." In other words, the actual number that flashes on the Times Square ticker corresponds to no "real" amount of money or even to any real value. There is no real referent to which the national debt refers anymore before debt in and of itself has become a source of value.

One way to look at this is that it builds toward an inevitable catastrophe in which the sheer physical weight of all debt comes crashing down, taking the entire debt-based system with it. The other possibility is that the impending promise of technological deliverance will draw out the accumulation of debt indefinitely.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Well, I am a pessimist about this and my response will likely not make anyone happy; but I think racism is endemic to our culture on a historical level. I think there's no escaping it. Slavery is still incredibly recent in our past, and its consequences continue to weigh heavily on the black demographic. Lynchings continued nearly unchallenged until after WWII, and desegregation didn't make any real strides until the 1950s and '60s. The history of institutional racism in this country can be traced as recently as the teenage years of our parents, and there's no denying that it remains an influential factor in the social well-being of blacks today.

Because of all this, there is absolutely no removing it from our generation, and likely from the generation to follow. Simply bitching about these accusations does no good, because the wounds haven't healed yet. There are blacks alive in this country whose parents, brothers, sisters, etc. were lynched, and there are black youths being targeted by police. Anything can be racist because racism is simply part of our cultural DNA. There's no exorcising it.

Going from that kind of sentiment then, how do you explain the success of a lot of people who were next in line for the gas chamber before the tanks came rolling in?

The problem with the standard sociology type arguments about black poverty in America is that they work entirely on the basis of everything being about a general societal problem and they ignore the differences in culture and values between the different groups in America. If African Americans had a strong tradition of devotedly studying torah scrolls and had a culture that saw intellectualism as a major part of Black identity then they may be in a different place now. I'm not arguing for nature over nurture though, just that there are certain things that need to come from within a group for the positive changes to occur.

 

[Einherjar86]

Going from that kind of sentiment then, how do you explain the success of a lot of people who were next in line for the gas chamber before the tanks came rolling in?

The problem with the standard sociology type arguments about black poverty in America is that they work entirely on the basis of everything being about a general societal problem and they ignore the differences in culture and values between the different groups in America. If African Americans had a strong tradition of devotedly studying torah scrolls and had a culture that saw intellectualism as a major part of Black identity then they may be in a different place now. I'm not arguing for nature over nurture though, just that there are certain things that need to come from within a group for the positive changes to occur.

I don't think a vast majority of Holocaust survivors were financially successful. Do you have a number on this? Jewish people in general may exhibit financial success, but the actual survivors of the Holocaust faced destitution, poverty, and antisemitism. Large percentages of Holocaust survivors lived the rest of their lives in poverty.

People often say "look how successful the Jews have been"; but not all Jews were victims of the Holocaust (not in a physical sense, anyway). All blacks shipped out of Africa between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries were victims of enslavement, racism, and oppression.

 

[Dak]

Jews have been victims of persecution in Europe and elsewhere since at least the time of the Romans. But people have never been afraid to walk in Jewish neighborhoods, except possibly out of the fear of being mistaken for a Jew.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, do we want to talk about antisemitism, or do we want to talk about the Holocaust?

Jewish antisemitism is a separate and materially distinct phenomenon; it differs fundamentally from what happened to blacks under slavery. This is not to emphasize racism at the cost of dismissing antisemitism; but it is obvious that the material factors of slavery were far more economically disenfranchising than instances of antisemitism throughout European history.

Furthermore, Atlantic slavery was recent; Jewish persecution, when it took the form of slavery, is ancient.

 

[Dak]

Having to uproot and move from city to city/country to country, particularly throughout the middle ages, is pretty economically disenfranchising. Slavery was recent, but antisemitism has been going on for literally thousands of years.

 

[Einherjar86]

It doesn't matter when you have money with which to move and reestablish your family, trade, homestead, etc. You can't compare blacks in America to Jews in Europe as though it translates cleanly and neatly.

Jews actually enjoyed an economic advantage in the Middle Ages because Church Law forbade Christians from charging interest to other Christians. Jewish men made a killing off of this.

This isn't to say that Jews didn't face persecution and even mob violence; but there's one huge advantage that Jews had, which blacks don't have. Jews could convert to Christianity. Sure, perhaps this isn't what we might call a desirable solution; but it provided security and safety from Christian violence. They shouldn't have to do this, but they are able to.

Unfortunately, blacks can't convert to whiteness.

 

[Dak]

It doesn't matter when you have money with which to move and reestablish your family, trade, homestead, etc. You can't compare blacks in America to Jews in Europe as though it translates cleanly and neatly.

Jews actually enjoyed an economic advantage in the Middle Ages because Church Law forbade Christians from charging interest to other Christians. Jewish men made a killing off of this.

Yeah I meant to mention this. This was all wrapped up together with the antisemitism. Jews were both helped and hurt by never really being enfranchised.

Unfortunately, blacks can't convert to whiteness.

Well, not in terms of skin tone, but the points that are being made are about cultural differences.