The Post-Modern Prometheus: Part Two
Commentary on the Drafts for Sensory-Enhancing Bio-Technology Implants
Second of Four Parts:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Despite being skeptical about whether that could happen, to be honest, I didn't expect that applications would have progressed as quickly as they have. I hear that you know little about why applications were introduced in the beginning, so let’s start there. Who said it…? I’m searching… correction: thinking…! Isaiah Berlin. The philosopher today is discussing what will be present in fifty years. Well, it was during the early 21st Century that a philosopher, Nadichandni, planted the seed of the idea when discussing the idea of knowledge limitations as a source of social problem. With ever increasing amounts of information available to the public, spin becomes a more pressing problem, and spin happens anyway in every level of life; people naturally cannot help but have a certain viewpoint that comes from their background and past experience that puts a spin on things, let alone tendencies humans have to certain patterns of thought and belief. However, Nadichandni argued that this was frequently a hindrance that needed highlighting.
Nadichandni’s arguments were a furthering of Borges’ argument in “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius”. Taking shot at the movements behind totalitarian governments during his time, Borges, additionally sketching an interesting philosophical contemplation, discusses a fiction where intellectuals created the blueprints for an unreal world where everything is an idea, a creation of people’s minds only. It doesn’t exist outside human mentalities. Though, once people believed these blueprints “humanity’s greatest work”, the ideas started to enter the real world, destroying all of the real things in the world. The comfort “the symmetry” – the order that spoke of neat, simple answers or a path towards the answers for all social and political questions – provided meant they were believed, accepted, even loved by some people. Borges:
Almost immediately, reality gave ground on more than one point. The truth is that it hankered to give ground. Ten years ago, any symmetrical system whatsoever which gave the appearance of order - dialectical materialism, anti-Semitism, Nazism - was enough to fascinate men. Why not fall under the spell of Tlon and submit to the minute and vast evidence of an ordered planet? Useless to reply that reality, too, is ordered. It may be so, but in accordance with divine laws - I translate: inhuman laws - which we will never completely perceive. Tlon may be a labyrinth, but it is a labyrinth plotted by men, a labyrinth destined to be deciphered by men.
Nadichandni argued that the same was with any viewpoint, however. Any ideology or “political preference” is taken in a similar way as a “greatest work” – it feels like it provides the true way, the path to the answers. After all, why hold it as correct or so useful, otherwise? Clearly, a political leaning is not horrendous like the ideologies Borges names. But people believe their political leaning imparts a direction to all social and political solutions. ‘Left’, ‘right’, ‘central’, ‘anarcho- capitalist’, or any other preference, tells us what’s best for society. All ideologies, regardless of extremity and maybe merely something like saying “my politics are centre- left”; “my politics are centre-right”; “I’m liberal”; “I’m a libertarian”; “I think government in general is bad”, etc., can present potential problems of misunderstanding about the world. The problem is we don’t read someone else’s arguments, body language, conversations. We interpret them. Hence we use our viewpoints to comprehend arguments and information, but this inevitably puts our fingerprints, to varying degrees, over our understanding of the world’s arguments and information. Any lack of knowledge in any subject also presents the same problem: if one is lacking information about a subject, then one obviously isn’t going to be immune from being duped on the subject.
Take human societies. Each person differs due to their unique place in the world. This includes family ties, abode, social place and interactions with all things. The most elemental example might be vocation, or primary vocation. One’s vocation provides a resource of knowledge you possess and others do not. As such, a joiner could con those who are not joiners in some way in business transactions because the latter don’t know anything about joining. Of course, competition and the sustainability of such practice, if it occurred, should hamper it. But it can occur because of the imbalance between people regarding the properties and resources of information on joining. And this is the case for all information. Such a thing usually won’t happen with questions of expert-knowledge because we can minimize the worries of such things happening by the trust that comes with independent analysis and peer review. But, it can. Especially in new areas of study and controversial subjects.
Technically, this phenomenon arises from the relativity principle in physics that Einstein used to rewrite our understanding of physical mechanics. Simply, because a person’s place in the world and their experiences in spacetime determine their knowledge, understanding and views. A person’s actions over time are far too complicated to map, and trying to talk about them in terms of Einstein’s work is stupendously absurd. But everyone’s encounters with others at certain times, their readings, their key markers that move their thoughts, in principle, all occur because they are at, or do, such-and-such at a point in spacetime. The same is for everyone, their crossings over time form their growths as minds and thinkers. In this sense, people’s knowledge and views are relative – actually physically, as everything exists as a result of certain physical conditions – to all their study and experiences, which lead to this knowledge and these views. Their experiences thus leave them more knowledgeable in some areas than others, and also maybe full of better understandings of various things, or vice-versa.
Nadichandni called it a principle of difference, which can totalize. Any piece of knowledge, lack of knowledge or distortion of knowledge has the potential to unbalance a person’s understanding of a subject. To totalize. It totals on a point, and totalizes on a local scale when it completely dominates understanding of a subject. If you imagine someone’s world-picture as a 3-D map, misunderstanding about one point or a subject creates a certain image over an area of this map, or features universal to it, that are just wrong.
Totalizing is a strong tipping of balances and variance between elements in systems. As such, it can be related back to the logical laws of which systems are constituted. Systems gain their content by the application of the logical laws of identity: that an object or element, a, exists because it possesses properties that give it its unique position (logical laws, to be frank, are not so much applied to the universe, as just are).
Simply, in all systems the elements which compose the system are all unique in some way. This is necessary for the world to be from its very basics. Be it the world of Jeeves and Wooster; the reduction of the continuum to infinitesimals; or the whole of whatever exists, each possible thing that can be selected as an element in these systems exists as a result of the things that make it stand out: those properties they possess that are distinguishable from their surroundings: Bertie Wooster’s French dinner jacket; Jeeves’ reputation as a deus ex machina for problem solving; the measurement of three centimeters; the Leibnizian / Newtonian quantification of the infinitesimal; the universe we live in, the multiverse, if one exists.
I think a nice name for this understanding of elements in systems as defined by their properties, which includes or infers to those relative to the element, is the principle of logical difference. The principle of difference can be defined as understanding that a equals a because a does not equal b, c, d, e…
The name is a play on Rawls, I have always believed, even though it’s basic logic. It produces totalizing when variation between elements produces a great imbalance in this principle of logical difference. So, totalizing is where one element in a system has a monopolizing effect with a property, to some degree, over other elements in the system. As such, a black hole can be said to be totalizing its neighbor matter in the property of spacetime and existence, by possessing the attributes of such high gravitational pull that the existence of the matter around, certainly in the form it is in, is threatened.
Totalizing, though, thus occurs all over the place. And it is a powerful way to describe anything that might cause confusion to someone trying to understand something about the world because it is totaling and totalizing that occurs in information exchange, processing and comprehension that causes all misunderstandings about the world. Accordingly, the point about totalizing is that it shows one must always be on guard against anything on its way to totalizing. And, it is something that can occur in everything. This needn’t be dire, nor alarmist: one simply needs to recognize this so one can dodge it when possible. As such, critical thinking should improve, as looking at the world this way, or, if you like, knowing this, this should generate more people who will self-analyze their views; withhold conclusions for longer while still learning about things and to attempt to understand more frequently what causes the viewpoints of others; where they could be right and you wrong; you right them wrong; where both wrong or right, in that the matter is a very subjective experience that might make it unfair to call one absolutely correct and the other absolutely wrong; and where one should understand where simplicities or complexities should be employed.
To take an example from the period, one can look at the information wars and spin concerning man-made global warming. Despite mountains of information on the subject, for many people not experts on the subject, it’s complicated and primed for confusion. Just take someone who might know very little about the subject or natural science in general. You watch a news report. You’re told that man-made global warming is apparently a massive concern, though life carries on much the same. The news story is that a new report is, supposedly, the strongest evidence yet that global warming is increasing, most likely from human carbon emission. An expert from the University of Some Place arrives on the television to deliver confirmation. But then, an expert who disagrees completely is interviewed. They’re from some university, and head of Fancily- Titled Organization. They claim it is cyclical solar activity that corresponds with increased sunspot numbers. We are beginning a new cyclical peak again, and temperatures are rising on other planets in our solar system that confirms this. Seems to make sense, what they say. But are they disagreeing with the former’s overall claims, or certain details? I’d need to see that again. But onto the next news item. What to believe? I simply don’t have the time, what with work and other commitments. Also, do I care? My couple of free hours most days of the week I’m too tired or would rather do something else. Whomever you speak to seems to have lots of answers, but I can always find someone else with some other view. I don’t have the time. I might believe the majority of experts in the right areas and their peer-review, but without being an expert, I am frequently confused whenever I hear conflicting ideas. I could do with being an expert: it’s the only way I can know for sure, or, at least be as close to knowing the matter as I could be.
It may seem ironic, but experts suffer totalizing as well. If you’re a contrarian within a discipline, this won’t be much of a surprise, though. It’s always the same with any lack of information at any level. What does an expert (pre-advent of applications level) do? Certainly in intellectual matters? They provide original insight. Yet, frequently, the amount of reading, time and energy that can be required to produce this original insight – say, showing weaknesses in arguments that the Cambrian Explosion supports the idea that punctuated equilibrium occurs, at least at certain times in evolutionary time – leaves the expert nevertheless lacking in other areas. Maybe this work makes them believe too greatly the frequency by which punctuated equilibrium occurs; maybe their focus on where change occurs rapidly in a relatively short evolutionary time obscures a bigger picture that punctuated equilibrium hasn’t and doesn’t occur anywhere near as much as they believe. Knowledge of a particular epoch’s history may hold vital historical examples, but without being an expert in that epoch oneself, or having good access to knowledge on that subject, one’s expertise totalizes over one’s understanding of other areas within a localization – the region of one’s most well known study. This totalizing here occurs from what, in cognitive bias studies, is known as focalism. Take two physicists who disagree on the idea that cold fusion can be made possible. Either it can or it can’t. They’re both experts. So despite their expertise, one is wrong and the other right, maybe with circumstances dictating that their conclusions are the cards dealt – simply one is more optimistic a personality than the other, or the other knows a colleague that is really informed who, it just so happens, educates them well enough that they believe what turns out to be the correct answer to this question.
What leads people to this behavior, among other factors? As Nadichandni pointed out, neurological and psychological tendencies cause potential confusion to humans which shouldn’t be ignored. The reality is people have been designed to be affected greatly by things such as the way other people react and how they appear emotionally and in social standing, and to have psychological shortcuts in order to make the world easier to understand and brain computation quicker.
…cognitive biases are tendencies in decision making that appear to arise because of the brain’s and mind’s construction. Dozens have been identified that include, among others, focalism: where subjects focus on one particular part of information because it forms a basis for their understanding on a subject, or area of a subject, which affects conclusions they make; the “curse of knowledge”, where good reading of a subject can make it difficult to see things that a non-informed person might notice immediately; and phenomena like trait-ascription bias: where subjects understand the complexity of their situation, but not always for others.
My favorite is some brain activity when one disagrees with a group majority’s opinion, especially if disagreement will produce social ramifications for oneself. With the beginning of neuroscience, we now know that in most cases, when humans disagree with a majority, or feel like they are being portrayed successfully as against a majority opinion, the Rostral Cingulate Zone is activated highly, an area of the brain which produces chemistry that makes us feel we have made an error of some kind and need to reform ourselves somehow; and the nucleus accumbens is activated strongly, which is an area activated when one expects a pleasing spur, or has undergone something pleasurable, helping build a psychology that will be happy to do this pleasurable thing again. In short: brains try to make us feel we have transgressed if we disagree with the social group, especially a strong one, even if we believe ourselves correct; and our brain’s chemistry encourages us to give incorrect answers if this means we will be in the group’s favor. Or, take the so-called “curse of knowledge”. An expert in an area might have been teaching a status-quo for forty years about what art can be. Maybe creativity and time input are essential for aesthetic qualification. Suddenly, Duchamp arrives with his shovel. How could it be art? It’s a shovel he’s exhibited. He’s done nothing to it. To an outsider, this might have seemed daft. It’s making an artistic statement, at the time a very original one, making it artwork. The professor teaching art theory for four decades, though, has had forty-years of being instilled with certain notions of what an artwork is. Mix these with emotional pull, and you have the reaction of many experts in the field when Duchamp presented the piece.
The crucial thing to realize is that knowing about these factors that totalize doesn’t point towards a perfect state of thought for clear, critical thinking. One just strives towards better thinking – like a computer can always compute better. These cases should be understood as totalizing over oneself... The word totalizing may seem too much, but it is the same principle, even if watered-down ten-fold times, and when it causes great misunderstandings, it is certainly apt.
Obviously, it’s not authoritarian, but the principle is the same. The authoritarian is when totalizing occurs on a grand scale over a whole society, affecting all people. The totalitarian is too strong a word to apply to aspects of one person’s mentality and understanding. It is a social system where a minority group completely dictates to the majority, limiting the majority’s ability to exercise opinion and change. To achieve this most effectively, the totalitarian requires, at least desires, control over people’s minds. The stronger the tyranny: the more absolute the control over people’s minds. This is why Orwell’s newspeak is so frightening. If implemented fully, the ability to have a dissenting thought would never exist, let alone would the ability to express one. It either is, or is close to, the worst system of totalizing over people: one from which one cannot come back.
But this quality of controlling minds thus isn’t confined to governmental systems, “cultural hegemonies”, or propaganda machines. Nadichandni argued that this makes the totalitarian additionally sublime. Group culture that treats the questioner as “anti-revolutionary” or that threatens them with isolation and accusations. Party systems that encourage “ideological purity” and party- line- towing that can result in parliamentary deadlocks and a generally embedded suggestion that agreeing with anyone else from any other party or party-independence must mean you have strayed from what is “right”. Religious and quasi-religious cultures and fads that discourage disagreement and wrap their ideas into everything else. All these exercise limits over people’s freedom to act and think. They are tiers, tiers below totalitarian systems implemented by governments. But they can completely totalize people’s lives with limitations, misunderstandings and their ability to think freely, critically, and effectively. Theories about the world that are encapsulated in causes or beliefs that become an “agenda”, or “country X is the world’s worst nuisance”, etc., can make one imprint one’s theory on the world to a crippling degree, rather than allowing the world to formulate one’s theory, and produce the same effect. But so can ideas and worldviews people have on any subject, as well as cultures that press such adherence to a viewpoint. This is the wonder of the theory of totalizing: these latter are not the totalitarian, but they are totalizings. Previously, one might discuss to what degree something like a quasi- religious movement or society where people are free to express their opinions, but through lack of interest public political apathy reigns in a stupefying way for the autonomous system, is totalitarian. Maybe this is often too strong a word. Instead, with the theory of totalizing, one can describe them directly in what they do, and place them relative to other totalizings, be they on the scale of the totalitarian, or local totalings.
“Localized” totalizings are far, far from the totalitarian or a systematic totalizing. But these two are not what one should be concerned about, if you care about free thought, society and understanding. We should be concerned with all totalizing. The theory of totalizing legitimizes the idea that some totalitarian regimes are more totalitarian than others, in that they totalize their people more than others – maybe general wellbeing is better under one than the other. A system that stupefies people through preoccupations with pleasure and entertainment, maybe Huxleyian soma, is arguably better than one that totalizes completely without such comforts. But because of this, it implies there is a spectrum from the worst to the best. And this means that when one isn’t under a totalitarian governance, when the whole society isn’t totalitarian, nevertheless, aspects of society that possess heavy totalizing need to be fought, as well as totalizing that occurs in people’s understandings of the world – totalizings we hold over ourselves, usually without realizing. The world is always changing and is too complicated for a “best of best scenarios” to occur – new events, perspectives and changes always mean that everything comes with pros and cons – but by the theory of totalizing, it means there is a theoretical limit to which one is striving when trying to understand the reality of the world and in promoting wellbeing. The goal is thus to always attempt to be as close as one can to that limit. Players in this constant personal vigil now include bio-applications, with their pros, and their cons.
End of Part Two