Posts Tagged ‘ Loss of Self ’

Let’s Do the Modern World All Over Again

This is a continuation of my last posting Whose Experiment are We?

I seem to be on a roll this morning, and I fell like continuing. One of our problems, out of many, is our ignorance of what happened to us in the last 500 years – when it seems like everything has happened. We call this the Modern World, but we have little understanding of what this was. When I say we, I refer to our intellectuals, who have some understanding of the bits and pieces of this puzzle, but it is such a big mess no one has been able to put it all the pieces together.

I think we need to simplify the problem and deal with the basics. Of course any simplification will be inadequate, but that is simply how our brain works – and we are not likely to grow another one anytime soon. The excellent book The Master and his Emissary, which is big enough to choke a horse, and which I keep referring to again and again, does an excellent job of explaining this.

We clearly make some big mistakes the first time around, we made the wrong basic assumptions. Now we need to ask ourselves: what were they? Another excellent book Telling the Truth About History (where the authors are all women) have sone some answers. Here are some chapter headings:

  • The Heroic Model of Science
  • Scientific History and the Idea of Modernity
  • History Makes a Nation
  • Competing Histories of America
  • Discovering the Clay Feet of Science
  • Postmodernism and the Crisis of Modernity

These gals cannot be considered radicals, but they have some radical ideas.

One thing they are overlooking, however, has been the destruction of the individual – and of society itself. Without these, we are not going to get very far.

Whose Experiment are We?

It seems to me that something is using us as one of its experiments – to see how bad things can get – and how many ways things can get bad. Human history has been the record of failure after failure – and some of these failures have been spectacular – things that could never have been anticipated in advance – and are almost impossible to understand in retrospect. It seems like something is playing with us – and that something is not very nice.

The pace seems to be quickening – as if time itself is speeding up – which indeed may be the case, if we seriously consider the nature of time itself, which is something that we create, and doesn’t exist without us.

The fundamental fact of my life was my childhood – which, was terrible – as every child’s was at the time – as were their parent’s before them. This no doubt is the reason for our obsession with terror. Terror, or fear, is built into our society – and we cannot imagine being without it.

Our rage at being treated this way – which continues right into our working life – is also fundamental to our nature, and forms part of our self-destruction complex. We see ourselves as the source of our problems, and are determined to destroy ourselves. Actually, we are not too far wrong – because we are no longer humans, but something else – perhaps techno-humans.

We need to recover our humanness – but have no idea how to do so.

The first step is obvious: to recognize our denial: our refusal to see how bad things really are. To get out of the comfortable cocoon that envelopes us. This is the last thing in the world we want to do – who wants to feel bad? But this is one of the things was have lost: the ability put suffering into context. Instead, we insist it doesn’t even exist.

In fact suffering, or pain, is an necessary part of our natural self-correction process. But the mess we are in, whatever it is, insists that we not be aware of it – and pretend nothing is wrong. The most important fact of our time is unacknowledged because it cannot be challenged, or even recognized.

Suffering is part of being human, and always has been. The only way we cannot be without it is to simply quit being – an amazing feat we have accomplished without knowing it.

The Great Experimenter must be chuckling to himself: “They have become nothing, how interesting!”

The Modern Face of Evil

I am watching the movie Inside Job, and I am learning from it. I am watching the handful of guys who wrecked the world’s economy profess to be innocent as lambs. What I couldn’t see was the millions of people who let them get away with it.

The modern face of evil is helplessness in the face of power – and people who are only interested in themselves. People who have lost the ability to be good – or to care for others. People who have ceased to exist – because this is what the loss of moral ability amounts to. People whose minds have ceased to function.

The movie provides a startling example: Iceland. Here was a people with everything – but the ability to see this modern form of evil. Have they learned their lesson? If so, I haven’t heard about it. This inability has become so widespread it has become invisible – which gives it complete protection.

Its first act on assuming power was to destroy its natural enemies: moral people. People sold their souls to the devil to obtain a temporary economic advantage here, and a temporary economic advantage there. Advantages that were never relinquished. They traded themselves for better jobs, new cars, a home in the suburbs. Above all, the chance to be like everyone else. And considered it a good bargain.

Something else was involved too: technology. It made the power complex (the modern expression of evil) possible. People and their technologies are the same thing, both effect each other in ways impossible to understand. But the end result is easy enough to understand: the end of the world.

They destroyed the world in the hopes of getting a better one – which never materialized. In the process they lost something they could not recover: their selves.

The Financial Crisis

New York Review - The Wall Street Leviathan

“The world has become too complicated to understand – and I won’t even try.”

This was what I felt when I first saw this article in the New York Review. But after a good night’s sleep and a excellent breakfast, I retrieved it from the wastepaper basket. Below are the first and last paragraphs:

With its revealing accounts of the Wall Street practices that led to the recession of 2008 and 2009, the recent report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) is the most comprehensive indictment of the American financial failure that has yet been made. During two years of investigations, the commission accumulated evidence of many hundreds of irresponsible, self-serving, and unethical practices by Wall Street bankers and systematic tolerance of them by regulators.

Written by the six members appointed by congressional Democrats, the FCICreport concludes, “The crisis was the result of human action and inaction, not of Mother Nature or computer models gone haywire.” Many readers would think the conclusion obvious. But Wall Street professionals repeatedly claimed that similar crises occurred frequently in the history of modern capitalism, that they are merely the price paid for a dynamic and innovative economic system, and that individuals were not to blame. They thus minimized their own responsibility for the events and cast doubt on the need for significantly more intense regulation of their activities. The FCIC majority dismisses such arguments.

In the prologue of Regulating Wall Street, the editors, hardly known as progressives, remind financiers how useful strong regulations were in the past:

Many players on Wall Street and in corporate America in the 1930s hated the new regulatory regime imposed on them…. But in the long run…the new regulatory regime was one of the best things that ever happened for Wall Street and corporate America. Why? Because it created confidence among investors—then and in the decades to follow—that Wall Street finally had become a level playing field.

We would be far better off if the powers on Wall Street would remember this lesson

And now from me:

He doesn’t even mention the people – assuming, probably correctly, that they no longer matter – or even exist.

Beware of Reality, My Child

For it will try to deceive you every way it can. At one time we were dependent on it, but we now live in a world of our own making, one that we have complete control over.

But we all must agree completely about this new world. There cannot be many worlds, only one. And it has to be completely determined by us. If we lose confidence in this world, if we listen to doubters, it will disappear – and take us with it.

Complete Control Over Other People

This is what people have always dreamed of, but no one really had – even the most powerful people in the world had to live with the knowledge that their subjects really despised them.

Mankind’s first breakthrough here was the Nazi death camps – where complete control, with no restrictions, was possible for the first time. The inmates were not human, and didn’t have to be treated as such. There was nothing they could do to retaliate – not even in their own minds, which were destroyed too.

For the first time, complete control of human minds became possible – by the simplest of methods: systematic degradation of their bodies and minds, in conditions they could not resist. This was accompanied by something equally shocking: a total breakdown of moral behavior in those who did this.

Here again, the method was simple: a economic collapse, which affected the Germans to an extraordinary degree – WWI, followed by the Great Depression. The Germans thought they knew everything and could do anything – they could make war on the rest of the world as they pleased. When this grandiose dream collapsed, they collapsed, and Nazism took over.

Similar things happened in other countries:  in Spain, Italy, and Japan – and also, in a slightly different form, in the USSR. Human brutality had become organized on a vast scale. This was made possible by the powers of mass communication (the radio and the cinema), completely under the power of a political party and the industrialists, who gave the people what they wanted most: jobs – and a sense of national unity, in the form of a war. Human dignity had been forgotten completely.

This was phase one of a two-pronged attack – as it turned out. Mankind and its technologies had something else to show the world. They formed a complex - to a degree never before possible. The first step was Television – the most powerful medium for mass control ever devised. Its objective was simple: to turn the people into consumers – and it succeeded in this admirably. But its most important affect was to destroy their minds, which it accomplished in coordination with the next step.

The next step was a complete takeover of the economy by a global coalition of large corporations – made possible by the next technical breakthrough: the computer/software/internet complex. This completely changed the character of the workplace: which became the center of a new power complex – which controlled everything - most importantly, their employee’s minds.

The effect of this on its people was – to use a word I use frequently here: extraordinary. Note the word: extra-ordinary. In other words: super-real. It had produced a super-reality populated by – what else, super-people!

In reality, however, something more complicated happened. People acquired split personalities: a super-powerful consciousness, and a powerless unconscious. As always, the unconscious one dominated the whole.

As a practical matter, power gravitated outward (not inwardly towards the Self, as usual) and came to reside in the Organization – which became all-powerful. People flocked (like chickens) to this new center of power.

Why? Because it was all-powerful, and had control over everyone. And they wanted to control – and to be controlled too.

Complexity and the Loss of Agency

This is a chapter in the book Autonomous Technology, on page 279. I skipped over the first 278 pages, but this one stopped me dead. Langdon Winner starts off with some quotes from Ellul’s Autonomy of Technique, a landmark work:

Technique has become a reality in itself, self-sufficient, with its special laws and determinations.

Technique tolerates no jugement from without and no limitation.

Technique, in sitting in judgement on itself, is clearly free from the principal obstacle to human action.

The power and autonomy of technique are so well secured that it, in its turn, has become the judge of what is moral, the creator of a new morality. Thus, it plays the role of creator of a new civilization as well.

He then goes on to another topic, one that I have noticed myself:

We are completely immersed in technology, but have no idea how it works, or how it is made.

We can all drive a car, for example, but cannot make one – or even repair one. Lot too long ago, every child knew how horses were made and could harness and drive one. And, if pressed, could even make a serviceable horse-drawn vehicle, because he had been around those who had made them.

The situation now could not be more different. Society has become so complex technologically we are unable to form a coherent, rational picture of the whole. And many theories have appeared that make this seem like a good thing:

1. Adam Smith’s picture of the invisible hand that regulates the economy without human intervention. This is now seen to be the gospel truth – and is part of a new religion: neoliberalism.

2. Access is all that is required:

There is not need to understand electricity or plumbing to operate a garbage disposal. No comprehensive grasp of airline organization is necessary to fly United…Obliviousness to such things is, in fact liberating. It permits us the time to lead lives which encompass a variety of activities we could not otherwise.

3. General systems theory has its own beliefs. It claimed, the best I can make out, that a comprehensive theory of everything social was possible. Lately, its inventor Ludwig von Bertalanffy has become more pessimistic.

4. The solution of the average citizen is simpler:

He immerses himself in the metaworld of shows, extravaganzas, commercials, news, and televised sports events, and allow them to represent a larger world he cannot experience first hand. Instead he seeks satisfaction, titillation, and a minimal level of real information. He rests content in the belief that if anything does happen, there will be a televised special on it.

I was initially attracted to Complexity Science. But became disillusioned with it when it refused to face the most important complex of our time: the massive, all-important one formed by the interactions of technology and society. It couldn’t see the elephant in its own living room.

Computer Craziness

I read somewhere that the radio was responsible for Nazism. I am sure this is an exaggeration, but I am also sure there is some grain of truth in it. The explosion of technological advances in the last three hundred years were enough to drive any society crazy.

I suspect this is intuitive to most. The problem is in following up on this intuition. We have to avoid too much of a logical, narrow, detailed analysis, and concentrate on the big picture. Immediately we run into problems, because we are not used to concentrating on our intuitions, or emotions – which are, by their nature, impossible to analyze.

We have carefully stayed away from them, because they were seem as the root of our problems by Enlightenment thinkers. Reason alone would save us – they reasoned.

Our perceptive thinkers have now realized this was a huge mistake. And plenty of other people, who are the worst kind of thinkers, are now busy destroying the Modern World: lock, stock, and barrel – certain that this process will create the best of all possible worlds – simply by destroying the one they have.

I refer you to an article on Page 7 of the April Harper’s Magazine entitled Check it for Yourself. Here are two quotes beloved of Tea Party advocates:

Benjamin Franklin said: “The Constitution only gives the people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”

Thomas Jefferson said: “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout history: whether man should be allowed to govern himself, or to be ruled by a small elite.”

There is only one problem: neither man said either thing. Does this affect them in the least? No, it sounds like something they should have said, and that is good enough for them. Historical accuracy be damned!

But what about computer craziness – the subject I started to talk about?  The foregoing was only intended to illustrate some of the craziness that has swept over us. Let me return to the subject – which is, in summary: that we have forgotten how to be human – and become machines instead. Various parts of the same machine.

I cannot resist another quotation, this one from page 21 of The Master and his Emmissary, an important new book:

The defining features of the human condition can be traced to our ability to stand back from the world, from ourselves and the immediacy of experience. This enables us to plan, to think flexibly and inventively, and, in brief, to take control of the world around us rather than simply respond passively.

Few would argue with this, but nearly everyone does their best not to do it.  They do their best to not be human! Why? Because they don’t want to be destroyed!

“But what,” you may say, “Does this have to do with computers?”

For me, computer is a code-word for a complex consisting of computers, their software, and the Internet that ties them all together. I have spent some time recently looking into just what this is – and have been shocked at what I found. Especially its effect on its practitioners. They have been devastated!

I can remember when computers and their programming were just a hobby – a fun high-tech game. Bill Gates started off this way. But soon became a ruthless business man, intent on crushing his rivals. Some of his executives became multi-millionaires – and lots more jumped on his bandwagon, hoping to do the same. Most ended up being ground to pieces. You have to be very tough to go through that meat-grinder unscathed.

Which reminds me: Liz Taylor just died – a perfect example of that process. A tougher woman never existed – compared to Marilyn Monroe, who did not survive at all – except on film.

In my experience, it is the same in Silicon Valley: in the process of creating successful companies people are destroyed. True, they were severely damaged people to begin with, with terrible childhoods. The Machine just continued that process.

People are Inhuman

Perhaps I should have said this differently: “People are Evil.” I certainly would not be saying anything new. People are both good and evil, and this has been known forever.

But we seem to be losing this balanced perspective. People have become conscious of their positive side – to an exaggerated degree. And buried their negative side in their unconscious. The result is a personality that barely exists on its own – divided as it is by hostile camps. This gives their negativity a huge advantage, since they are not aware of it. The result is a society intent on destroying everything, including itself – but is aware of nothing.

Let me see if I can put this in even grimmer terms. The most shocking thing about 20th Century society was the mass elimination of its undesirables – its death camps. Historians have pointed out that this also occurred in the Middle Ages – but that is not really important. Mass exterminations have been with us for quite awhile – there are even Biblical examples.

But in our times these have been directed at a new target: the majority, not the minority. The result has been the greatest mass extermination in history – but one that has not been noticed. There are no real people left.

I am listening to The Brothers Karamazov, in an excellent audio version:

After spending four years in a Siberian penal settlement, during which time he underwent a religious conversion, Dostoevsky developed a keen ability for deep character analysis. InThe Brothers Karamazov, he explores human nature at its most loathsome and cruel but never flinches at what he finds.

The Brothers Karamazov tells the stirring tale of four brothers: the pleasure-seeking, impatient Dmitri; the brilliant and morose Ivan; the gentle, loving, and honest Alyosha; and the illegitimate Smerdyakov: shy, silent, and cruel. The four unite in the murder of one of literature’s most despicable characters – their father. This was Dostoevsky’s final and best work.

Hardly a bed-time story for children! But perhaps I underestimate the young, they can be cruel too – for no good reason, just as part of their child’s play.

But what strikes me most about the story is the importance people have in it. Evidently, his readers had no trouble keeping track of all the characters (with multiple names) and all the interacting subplots – which baffle us now. This was still a society what was still very much alive. But one that was destroyed by oncoming events no one could stop.

It is my belief that something similar has happened in the West – primarily in America, the leader on popular culture. These events were complicated – or to be more exact, complex: the interaction of many forces and actors. The favorite whipping boy is technology, but it is equally true that people changed themselves to make them more compatible with the latest technologies.

Two things (at least) are involved are involved here: people’s love of power, and their identities. Technology enhances both of them. In the US, a person’s identity is bound up with their house – which must be as elaborate and expensive as possible – quite to the amazement of other cultures, who can get along with much less. The same is true of their car: a status/power symbol that has attained universal status.

To summarize, these have become a complex, which has taken on a life of its own. Everything (and everyone) in this complex affects the others, and all are changed by it. The whole thing is often referred to as technology (since this makes a good story, and we have no understanding of complexity science) but this is a misnomer.

Hell is Where Nothing is Going On

Hell is not like it used to be, where life was – well, hell. Everlasting torture wasn’t pleasant, but at least it was not boring.

We must remember that Hell didn’t really exist, and even if it did, no one came back from the dead to report on it. It existed very much in the present, a living threat to the living. People were supposed to be afraid of it, and they were. It was an effective means of social control when people still believed in the afterlife.

Now they do not, hell still exists very much as before: in the present. But it has moved into our unconscious, and tortures us from there. In our conscious lives, its presence is a lack of presence – where nothing is going on.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 363 other followers