Some Personal Observations Regarding
the CopySouth Workshop:
Trivandrum, Kerala, December 2008. Trevor Batten, Manila
January 2009
SECTION 2. Political Economic Contexts:
1.0 An Unfortunate Global Socio-Economic Model?
The
Paradox of Control:
No open, non-moribund system can
operate without changing its environment in some way. In turn,
"evolution" seems to be driven by the orgnism's (or
organisation's)
need to adapt to a changing environment. This means that all
entities
will iether be non-sustainable -and therefor liable to entropic
decay
-or will need to develop the ability to adapt to the (partially
self
created) changes in their environment. Attempts to fully control
the
environment are not likely to succede -because it would reduce
the
creative adaptability of the system to virtually zero -while
still
being unable to prevent evolutionary consequences of "cause and
effect"
operating within the system and its environment. In order to
survive
-any system therefore needs to be (to some extent) able to
programme
itself to develop and adopt a flexible creative response to the
changes
that unescapably produces within itself and its environment.
Clearly,
the slower the changes in the environment changes the more time
the
entity can take to adapt.
One way to avoid the changes is to keep moving (Nomadic
existance) -but
patterns of (land) settlement can make this increasingly
difficult. The
more closely interconnected the various components of the
environment
become, the more difficult it becomes to avoid the consequences
of
actions taken in that environment. When the speed of change
speeds up
-it becomes difficult for the whole system to adapt at the same
pace.
Differential development can be a powerful creative motor -but
also a
cause for social disorientation and conflict. In a commercial
based
system -the solution of problems caused by the system itself can
also
be a source of revenue by providing temporary solutions at a
price.
Permanent solutions are not only impossible (due to the process
of
evolutionary feedback) but would also limit economic activity
-because
there would be no pressing needs that warrented payment
for their
satisfaction.
Privatisation
and Control:
Privatisation appears
superficially to
create social and economic freedom through competitive choice.
However,
practical experience shows that without public control the
focus on
short-term gains undermines the long-term efficiencies of the
system.
The recent problems in the commercial financial system clearly
demonstrate that long-term sustainability is impossible
without some
"balancing" mechanism (theoretically, the "free-market
itself-although
the evolution of giant global corporations undermines
completely the
possibility of markets operating as a self-correcting
mechanism -due to
the control such giants can excercize over both their
customers and
their suppliers).
Open
and Closed Systems:
Open systems are weak in
internal
connectivity -and so the feedback created through "action and
reaction"
is reletively weak. If one tries turning up the heating in a
room with
open windows then the temperature will probably hardly rise,
despite
the large amounts of warmth (and energy) being pumped into the
room.
However, if one closes all the windows then even a small
amount of heat
(such as the body temperature of the occupants) will cause the
temperature in the room to rise.
In an area with a low level of population, "slash ans
burn"
farming techniques will probably allow land areas to recover
when the
temporary settlement is abandoned.However, in an area with
high
population densities -it is likely that the land will have
insuficient
time to recover before being resettled. The "low-density"
populated
area thus operates as an "open" system with little noticable
effects as
a result of the human intervention -while the high-density
population
area acts as a closed system where the effectsd of
intervention create
a noticable "feedback" which will require some form of
remedial action
if the system is to remain sustainable.
Neo-Colonial
Abstraction and the Creative Industries:
In an economy based on a
localised
system of capitalised (mass) production of material goods -the
finished
goods must (due to production costs) logically always be more
expensive
than the materials from which they are made. So the producer
of
expensive finished products always has the financial advantage
over the
supplier of cheap raw materials. Exploiting ownership of the
finished
physical goods can be a profitable source of income -but
ownership of
the the factory can be even better -while ownership of the
capital that
finances the production can be even more profitable (provided
the
company being bankrolled does not collapse).
However, in an economy based on the global outsourcing of the
production process, the danger of unintended "technology
transfer" is
always present. The design of the product and its production
process
needs to be revealed to the producer -but this also opens up
the
possibility of the finished product being sold by the
manufacturer -to
the detriment of those who initiated the process. Without the
protected
"ownership" of the design -it is difficult to claim
"ownership"
of the finished product when produced by a third party who is
outside
the system of direct ownership. Under such a system, the
economic value
of the ownership of the product becomes subsidary to the
economic value
of the "ownership" of the design (as well as the investing
capital).
Outsourcing therefore forces a dematerialisation of ownership
-away
from the product and towards the capital and knowlege required
to
produce and market the product. It as if the "design" and not
the
physical production process has the ability to "reproduce" the
finished
product. The introduction of the computer into the production
process
only reinforces the process-because control of the production
is then
"outsourced" to a machine (which can be located anywhere when
connected
to a telphone line). This "digital" outsourcing is cearly more
powerful
when not only the design but also the finished product can be
transmitted electronically. At this point -it should be clear
that of
the design has a higher economic value than the product itself
-then
the owner of the physical production process becomes analogue
to the
owner or producer of raw materials (under a system of
localosed
production). In other words, when the maximum value of the
product is
embedded in the design and not the finished object -then the
manufacturer becomes simply the producer of raw materials for
the
marketing process. Under these conditions -all the owner of
the
manufacturing process remains just as subservient to the
owners of the
capital and the design as the owner of the raw materials and
components
was to the owner of the finished goods within the traditional
industrialised production process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2.0 Exploitation of the
Meta-system:
Abstraction:
The shift away from
manufacturing and
towards outsourcing implies a logical shift from a practical
productive
mode of operation to a more theoretical and supervisory one.
This jump
to a
higher (meta) level of abstraction is part of a common pattern
that is
absolutely fundamental to western thought and practice.
Traditionally, universities were concerned with "educating" a
small
elite to deal with general abstractions so that they could
operate
creatively in innovatory situations which were "outside"
normal
conditions. Situations where the "operating conditions" were
still
unknown. It was their job to formulate the procedures
required-and not
simply to operate them.
This capability for abstraction has many practical advantages
-but also
its disadvantages. It offers a path to understanding -but can
be
abused:
An understanding of the "higher
levels
of abstraction" (meta-systems) aids the manipulation of all sorts
of
control and signal systems:
- Scientific advances
- Social and Political control systems
- Criminal Deceptions
- "Management Systems" (operating on "lower" levels of
abstraction without knowledge of system being managed)
- Professional Management
- Paper money
- Investment Capitalism (divorcing funding from production)
- Simulation (the pretence that the "simulation" is "real")
-
The separation of "form" from "content" in order to use "form"
to send misleading (or confusing) messages
Use
of false signals to "signify" things that are not true
-Financial fraud
-Artificifial (simulated) flavours
-The marketing of "disinformation" as "knowledge"
-"Democracy" as a control mechanism
- Offering a severely reduced range of choices, all of which
are within the parameters acceptable to the ruling system
- Pretending to listen to oponents but ignoring their input,
or using it to make one's own position stronger
- "Protective" devices which increase survelliance and
monitoring instead of providing protection
- The myth of "freedom" in a system of digital search and
control systems operating outside the knowledge of the user
- The Higher the "abstraction" the more removed it becomes
from its original context
- When people forget the origin of the abstraction, they
lierally no longer know what they are talking about
- The discussion is then based on "transcental nonsense"
with the
arguments becoming increasingly self-referential and
increasingly less
relevant to any practical problem
- The resulting discussion keeps people busy, provides
professionals with an income, but solves no practical
problems
Common
Applications
of Meta-Language:
-
Use of false signals to "signify" things that are not true
-
-The marketing of "disinformation"
- "Democracy" as a control mechanism?
-
(offering a severely reduced range of choices -all of
which are within the parameters acceptable to the
ruling system)
-
Separation of "form" from "content" in order to use "form"
to send misleading (or confusing) "content"
-
-Survelliance and monitoring systems sold as "protective"
devices.
- -The myth of "freedom" in a system of digital search,
surveiliance and control systems operating outside the
knowledge of the
user.
-
The need to present all human meaning in standardised
pre-programmed format
-
Without a common reference/language for comparason, how
does one distinguish "diversity" from "chaos"?
-
Dematerialisation of economy
- (exploiting levels of abstraction)
- -the need to identify correct level when in discussion
with others
-
-conceptualisations do not mean "anything goes"
-
-arbitrary rules (as in games)
-
-"grammer" (of calculi, models, simulations, etc..)
often derived from the physical systems they model
Information
and Disinformation:
Light pollution
forms 'eco-traps
'
Some species confuse large glass
buildings with bodies of wat
|
An
international team of researchers has found another form of
light pollution that could have an adverse effect on wildlife.
The scientists
showed that as well as direct light sources,
polarised light also triggered potentially dangerous changes in
many
species' behaviour.
They added that
road surfaces and glass buildings were among the main sources of
this form of light pollution.
The findings
appear in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.
Co-author Bruce
Robertson, an ecologist from
Michigan State University, US, said polarised light from
structures
within the built environment overwhelmed natural cues that
controlled
animal behaviour.
"Environmental
cues, such as the intensity of light, that
animals use to make decisions occur at different levels of
severity in
the natural world," he said.
"When cues
become unnaturally intense, animals can respond unnaturally
strongly to them."
As a result,
the false cues could create an "ecological trap" for species
attracted by the light.
Double vision
|
Insects, such as
stoneflies, lay their eggs on asphalt instead of water
|
|
Dr Robertson
said that water was the primary source of
horizontal polarised light in the natural world, and that many
animals
- including birds, insects and reptiles - had highly developed
polarisation vision.
This particular
form of light played a key role in the animals' lifecycle, such
as finding breeding and feeding sites, he added.
A well
documented example is the way that baby sea turtles rely
on the direction of starlight and moonlight reflected off the
water's
surface in order to help them find the ocean when they emerged
from
their nests.
Yet, there are
examples of turtles in urbanised areas heading towards the
brighter buildings and street lamps.
Dr Robertson
said that expanding urban areas meant that there were more
structures and surfaces to confuse wildlife.
"Any kind of
shiny, black object - oil, solar cells, asphalt -
causes problems," he explained. "The closer they are to
wetlands, the
bigger the problem."
"Light from the
sun is vibrating in all possible directions,
but after bouncing off smooth flat surfaces, like water, it only
vibrates in the horizontal direction; it has become polarised.
"This
is why polarised sunglasses make it easier for us to see
on a bright day - they remove only the horizontally polarised
light
that reflects off water and roads," he told BBC News.
If Animals get confused by
"disinformation" can we expect humans to be immune from it?
Understanding the Meta-System:
Within the context of a
"dematerialised" economy, based on the
exploitation of "higher" levels of abstractions the computer is an
ideal medium. One which through the division between "software"
and
"hardware" apparently fits in with a long standing
belief in the mind/body duality (and the supremacy of the
latter).
The cultural tradition that separates "science and technology"
from
"art and design" is another useful marketing tool -because it
allows
the computer to be marketed as a "technological system" that can
be
used by non-tednical people without the need to understand the
inner
workings of the machine.
However, it seems that in practice, technology is itself a form of
"language" -and that by encouraging only a few people (required to
develop and maintain the system) to understand that language -the
rest
are open to commercial and ideological exloitation -due to their
lack
of understanding of the fundamental principles (and languages)
which underlie the
machine they are so dependant on. This process is
self-reinforcing,
because the deception can never be understood from within the
conceptual confines of the conceptual context provided -which is
largely based on such binary divisions as "form" and "content",
"technology" and "language" and "science" and "art".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3.0
The Shift from "Process" to "Information":
A Clever Trick?
It seems to me that it is the
artificial separation of "information" from "process" (by
"information
Society propagandists and theorists) that creates and perpetuates
the
conceptual climate in which it is difficult to sort out the
mystifications which have undermined our traditional defences
against
political and economic exploitation.
"
On ARPA's 50th Anniversary and the
Internet" is a critique of the article
"ARPA's
50th Anniversary and the Internet, A Model for Basic Research"http://futurezone.orf.at/hardcore/stories/253842/>
In this article I wrote:
"Indeed, it has been the shift (lauded in the ARPA article) from
the
image of the computer as a complex (algorithmic -rule based)
simulation
system to a simple communication device that has enabled the
computer
to be commercially and politically exploited as a (postmodern)
propaganda machine. The self-reinforcing nature of this paradigm
shift
has allowed the change to take place without most people
understanding
the power of the system to actually question the "information"
being
distributed by that system.... The knowledge that these research
projects developed has not been
shared with the people (generally) -but to the contrary, the
people
(via the academic system) have been told (outside a few
specialists)
that such knowledge is not interesting -while the products of that
knowledge has been used to enslave people further. This has been
done
by creating and commercially exploiting "intelligent" systems
which
people generally cannot compete against, but they are encouraged
to use
-even though they have no understanding of how they work. In other
words The product of this US government funded research has
been commercially exploited by US companies to make it almost
impossible for non-specialists (worldwide) not to become clients
of the
companies involved (this is called "customer binding" in the
trade). I call it
'Digital Feudalism'."
Process and Information:
In my experience, the conceptual
shift
from "Process" to "Information" is rather subtle and not easilly
understood without a more detailed understanding of the
nature of
"systems"and "information":
Basically, a "system" is a set of dynamically changing
relationships
which form the specific context within which any event takes
place.
Clearly, systems can from complex hierarchies -for example "baseball"
is a "system" of rule based actions which take place within a
promotional "system" that operates within the socia-economic
"system"
known as America. "Information" informs us of the current
behaviour of
some aspect of a selected "system" which provides the context. The
"information" is useless (and/or misleading) unless one undertands
the
context. Knowing a baseball score might inform one that one's
favourite
team has won the league competition -but it might also suggest
fraud
(if the result is unlikely) -or provide information regarding the
likely mood of one's partner.
Treating "information" as a value free "objective" fact -destroys
awareness of its contextual nature -and encourages unconcious
acceptance of its implied context. By making
the technological. economic and social context implicit (and
invisible) it remains outside concious discussion. The concept of
"process", on the other hand, makes the nexus of contexts explicit
and
therefore open to interrogation.
It is an understanding of the "connectivity" of "process" (as
manifest
in dynamic systems but not in static, self-contained, objects)
that
allow us to understand that every action leaves a "footprint"
which can
be forensically traced. In order to interpet the evidence
correctly, we
need to understand the nexus of (physical and conceptual)
languages
through which the evidence manifests itself in our sensory and
conceptual system. The search for this coroborating evidence
protects
us from the confusion of "anything goes" which has been promoted
by
"postmodern" propagandists.
------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
4.0 The self-sustaining
Industrial-Military-Edutainment Complex:
Based on creative, symbiotic (and
partially self-generating) interactions between military and
civilian
(commercial) research and marketing systems -(conciously or
unconciously) promoted by the educational and entertainment
business,
which provides both knowledge based resources, the required social
conditioning to encourage consumers to maintain the system and the
funds to financially sustain the total nexus.
Basically, the system knows three
modes of operation:
1. WAR:
The destructive use of superior
armaments and/or propaganda in destructive war against all those
who
oppose the hegemony of the system.
2. RECONSTRUCTION:
A post-war reconstruction -which is
supposed to provides captive consumers for the victorious nation,
grateful citizens in the defeated nation -and a warning to those
who
still wish to oppose the system.
3. PEACE:
A stabilised "maintenance" mode
-in
which commercial. political and military hegemony is used to
maximise
profits to sustain the system and fund research in support of
the above
two modes.
For optimal results, all three
components (Commercial
Production System, Military System, and Communication
System) have to interact in a
synergetic way so that each component supports the operation of
the
others:
- The Production
component generates wealth that can be used to sustain the
system both
economically and materially. This wealth can also be used to
bribe or
seduce potential opponents (the carrot). Military research
can be
subsidized by selling civilian versions of the technology
when it
becomes no longer classified -and in some cases, civilian
products can
be used for military applications.
- The Military
component acts as a physical deterent (the stick) to those
who might
oppose the system. The production (and destructive use) of
weapons
provides a continuing market for the commercial production
system. The
instalation of puppet governments in "Liberated" countries
encourages a
"grateful" public who support their liberator. The post-war
"reconstruction" offers ample oportunity for commercial
development.
- The Edutainment
component provides both a research system and a self-funding
propaganda system. Research institutions can be used to
develop
ideas and products that can have military, commercial or
civil
applications. The educational system propagates the
knowledge required
to sustain the system -but (together with the communication
and
entertainment systems) also creates and disseminates the
concepts and
images that promote and sustain the system. By
commercialising the
education system and promoting the entertainment system as
big business
(in a dematerialised, electronic, economy) the esutainment
system also
becomes a weatth generating area with a dificult to define
border with
the production system.
Is
"Logically self-sustaining" also "Materially self-sustaining"?
In order to remain self-sustaining, the system is
self-promotional and supported by vested interests
(stakeholders) operating within a "democratic" system which
allows
individual choice within the parameters set by "doctrine"
(Doctrine is defined by the US military as a conceptual
system that
allows personal freedom of choice within the limits defined
by the
command structure -without the need to consult a commanding
officer)
-
So who are these "stakeholders -and how great is their
participation in
the social dialogue?
-
Is everybody a "stakeholder" -or are some
people excluded (for some reason or another)?
Do those with the most power to make changes within the
system also
suffer the consequences of those changes as much as those
with less
power to make such changes?
-
-What are the roles (rights and responsibilites) of social
groups,
individuals and organisations within the decision making
process?
The self-referential and tautological nature of the nexus makes
the entire system very difficult to oppose iether in practical
or
ideological terms. The system has a raft of people working to
produce
and promote ideas that make it seem very attractive to friend
and foe.
It can use its wealth to co-opt potential dissidents and, if
required,
can use physical force to great effect if all else fails.
Certainly, the
propaganda system seems to have effectively created the
conceptual
environment within which the Industrial-Military-Edutainment
Complex
appears completely sustainable. However, although based on a
commercial
exploitation of "dematerialisation" -the system itself, the
rewards it
provides, the environment in which it operates and the humans
who are
part of the network (in any way) have not (yet) been
dematerialised.
Presumably, any
system that operates in a physical environment must be
compatible with
that environment. In theory, the Industrial-Military-Edutainment
Complex seems invulvarnerable (until recently at least). In
practice,
it may prove that the unknown factor of "physical reality"
cannot be
ignored -and the system may prove to be unsustainable in the
physical
universe.
It is one thing to win the War -but can one also
win the Peace?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------