Showing posts with label Informatics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Informatics. Show all posts

Wednesday, 8 February 2017

Cyberspace


Electrons were launched like scout ships across static oceans, along routes gleaming copper and gold from silicon ports. The human empire had walked on every shore of its planet that it was possible to walk. Space had closed in on it, grown tight around its girth. But still, it needed to advance. So it reasoned the means by which to create space. Infinite space. Those first electron scouts were sent to discover the new Eden, the virgin continent, the new world. They came back to their designers with hope and plausibility. There was a New World. It was Cyberspace.

With a promise and a dream, life rushed in. Eager prospectors who saw the means to profit in it made port, putting cyberspace’s ready resources to use. It had cheap land to store information. A data trade route that bested the fastest roads the world could offer. Pastures in which to play, dangerous dimensions to explore. The ability to speak out across time and space. The more humans needed space, the bigger cyberspace became to fill that need.

But what was cyberspace, really? What set it apart from the real world?

The answer goes back way further than silicon and gold. The primal cyberspace was flesh and sound, then ink and canvas, and only now is it electronic code. Cyberspace is humanity’s oldest companion and greatest asset. It is, by the very nature of the word, ‘A place of guiding systems’. Whenever something holds inside of it information of things that are outside of it, that’s cyberspace. Everything that is real holds only the information that exists within its own form. A tree holds information about chlorophyll and photosynthesis and osmosis - only things about its unique self and the forces that have shaped it. But the abstract can be that same tree mashed and pulped into a book, filled with stories of planets and people, a medium through which information is passed, a language. Cyberspace was there in the savannah when a precursor human spotted a wildcat and ran home with its image inside to tell the tribe. Cyberspace was restive in the caves, splashed across the rocks with tales of birds and beasts and battles, waiting to update a user.

Cyberspace grew, and grew, and ran rampant whenever reality constricted, or broke apart to reveal what was hidden in its own spaces. Until it at last evolved past all former imagining into ones and zeros, photons and electrons, silicon and gold.

They once called it the Republic of Letters.

It was envisioned as a free exchange of information and ideas. A place where philosophies could be presented in abstraction, before selection for use in Reality. A place where information could be accumulated before judgements were passed on their content. A prototype, an imagination.
You want to know what cyberspace is? Shut your eyes and think. That’s cyberspace.

Now imagine everyone else thinking right at this moment. All those humming, drumming, buzzing thoughts, just beyond the real world. The whole planet is pulsating with it. Small notions, grand ideas. Each held in their own little cyber-sole, swimming in a school of cyber-phish. Communicating constantly, reading one another. Each gets drawn up in a network. Each contributes, in some small way, to the mainframe of a single all-inclusive mind. We now call that mind The Internet.

Of course, a very large part of it is devoted to memes and porn. That’s how a mind works, you see. The fleeting whims and jokes and fears and fragmentary notions sit bottom-heavy, rudimentary ruminations pulsing with energy, leaping up to the top and trying to stay there for as long as possible. That’s society. Each little tweet and tumble is a single possibility in a spectrum of possibilities, submitted to the senses and declared true and valid, or not, or a confusion of the two. But it is within our power to select the thoughts that are worth paying attention to; an important memory shared through flashbacks of pictures or video. News that may compromise or assist the network as a whole. Well-expressed ideas which provide the contextual framework for the influx of data.  The possibilities emerge over and over again to assert their probability, demanding attention and explanation.

We are not The Internet. Not its consciousness, not its intention, not what makes its executive decisions. If such a higher function exists in our great, many-headed cyber-brain, it has never revealed itself. What we are as its users are things used; little synapses firing off in cyberspace, forming something intelligible only on a large scale. But to this leviathan, we are also its citizens. And as its citizens we have something of a responsibility to understand its mechanisms. Like any space on Earth, Cyberspace has its own state, ideology, economy and culture.



New Terminology: Differentiating Cyberspaces

If I talked about how cyberspace looked in a one-user mind, the picture would be very different from how it looks in the internet. The way information travels through it is the same, but the information itself varies. It is composed of wholly exotic permutations of fictive structure. In the process of analyzing this structure, it helps to approach each in turn, careful not to muddy issues by running rampant paths from one realm to the next.

Intraspace

[Intra (within, exclusive) + Space (The intersection of dimensions)]

An exclusive intersection of dimensions

Intraspace is the cyberspace of a mind operating on an individual level. It is filled with conceptual patterns that allow us to make sense of what is around us, and perceptual figments or ‘spirits’ that are waiting to be fitted into a pattern, or form a pattern of their own.

Imagine for the moment that the human mind is a novel that you are writing. In a physical sense, it is a book with a leather cover for a skull, blank pages awaiting abstraction and ink to serve as a medium of abstract symbolism.

You start off writing this novel on Chapter One. Word by word, sentence by sentence, it begins to take form. You write the word ‘knife’. You elaborate a little more and write ‘the knife cut’. Already from the spirit of a few words, a conscious reader gets an idea of what kind of novel this is: a slasher thriller.

But then you finish rounding off the sentence into a grounded concept: ‘The knife cut the salmon’s flesh into three edible strips and the smiling sushi chef placed them atop three scrumptious lumps of rice.

The words – the spiritual figments – are present in each stage of the process, but they can confuse the reader when taken by themselves. They have to be considered with a degree of anticipation for more information if they are to make any sense.

You finish off the page, and reread what you’ve written. Already there’s a pattern emerging. You’ve used the word ‘like’ an inordinate number of times, and the word ‘massive’ at least seven. You could accept this as your literary style, and proceed deeper into the book page by page until the pattern of the novel is complete. This is the equivalent of adopting a worldview based on the things that you know – deciding that it’s the best way to get things done, and continuing to do it. What works on a small scale, works for mass production, right?

But then you decide that maybe this isn’t the best way to go forward. Maybe the style was wrong, and you really should be writing a slasher thriller. Maybe you should just see what it looks like when you remove the unnecessary ‘like’s and find a few synonyms for ‘massive’. You turn the page.

Chapter One, you start again.

This part of the process is lateral, generative thinking, in which you produce a number of competing patterns in order to select the best one. You could fill the whole book with different versions of Chapter One, and still not exhaust all the possibilities. Lateral thinking is often accompanied by observation, or what we can call inductive thought. The more possibilities of pattern you are aware of, the greater chance there is that you will find a naturally superior way in which to stylize information. But without pausing that industrious work at some point, you’ll never get past Chapter One.

After five drafts of the first page, you select what you see as the best. The metaphors are rich, but the vocabulary is simple. It’s the kind of writing that engages the senses, but packs deliberate symbolism behind every sensation. Eagerly, you rush forward.

Page after page, the book gets deeper. The story is simple: you set out the premises on the very first page, and now you’re just following them to their most natural conclusion.

·         The protagonist is Suzie.
·         Suzie likes Sushi.

So it would be pretty odd if in Chapter Three Suzie decided to open up an Italian restaurant. Less believable than if Suzie decided to become a sushi chef, anyway.

This pattern extrapolation moving forward is vertical thinking, or Logic, in which you take the things that you know and squeeze as much information out of them as possible, stacking up the cubes of data block by block to make the story as tall or as ‘deep’ as possible.

But every now and then, just like in real life, you add more lateral possibilities to the novel to bring richness to the story. The main plot – the main pattern – is about Suzie travelling to Japan to learn to be a master sushi chef. But there’s also a subplot about a Japanese wishing tree where Suzie makes an offering to a kami spirit and begs it to help her become the best sushi chef in the world. This happens in Chapter Seven, so you rush ahead and write Chapter Seven, and then know that logically for Suzie to get from Chapter Three to Chapter Seven she has to take a plane across from Jamaica, where she grew up.

We do this all the time in Intraspace. On one level, we’re deepening the story of our day-to-day existence. But then we decide that in the future, we might like the pattern of our life to change. So we begin to construct a pattern between the present and that possible future with a set of concrete changes: learning a language, learning a craft, dealing with emotional barriers. When the two patterns merge, they form a kind of super-concept that makes a new kind of sense we couldn’t possibly have been aware of just by imagining the possibility.

The novel continues. With twenty chapters behind you, you’ve got pretty good at this. Suzie’s kami answered her prayer and took her into the spirit world to be the sushi chef of the gods, where this kami fell in love with her and decided she could never go home. Suzie laces his next meal with a magical poison, and instead of dying he turns into an Oni. She escapes until such a time as she can feed him the cure, which heals his spirit and softens him to the idea of her going back to her own world.

And while the story’s imagined space has broadened dimensions laterally and vertically, so your own configuration of cyberspace has mirrored that expansion. Do I use the word ‘terrified’ here, or ‘frightened’?  you consider laterally. You find synonyms, because there’s one that’ll most accurately portray the emotion in context. You select it, running it up the flagpole vertically, and it can have a dramatic effect on the story. You do this about twenty times a minute in the process of writing, refining your style, editing to break up old patterns and replace them with better ones.

**

We use terms like ‘lateral’ and ‘vertical’ to emphasize that Intraspace is space. Lateral length is a dimension, and vertical height is a dimension. A series of intersecting points between them* form a shape of consciousness we refer to as ‘Ego’. The bigger the Ego is, the more self-conscious it is – the more aware it is of the pattern that has been scrawled across the intraspace by its thoughts**.



* These intersection points can be thought of as memory ‘beacons’; points of awareness within the mind than hold ideas together as though they were constantly being viewed, either episodically or through abstract connections to other ideas that are being viewed.

**Which isn’t to say a person with a big ego is a particularly adept thinker, or has made a sensible pattern across their intraspace. It just means that they are aware of their own ability to think. The consequent metaphors for such people are bound up in Earthling meatspace analogies, where air is often thought of as the basic medium for empty space. People with a big ego and little pattern are thought of as ‘windbags’, or ‘full of hot air’. A person with any ego in an undeveloped intraspace is an ‘airhead’.


But ego doesn’t encompass the whole pattern scrawled by thoughts, because we forget things; sometimes deliberately, but mostly unintentionally. They never really go away, they just reside outside of the shape of the Ego. And because we have eyes and ears and noses we’re getting these little nodes of thought popping up representational images in Intraspace all the time, and there’s no way we can be aware of them all at once. So Intraspace is automatically broadened by inductive data (expands laterally), and some of that data more fluidly yields itself to immediate knowledge of a concept (such as the perception of a clock’s moving gears giving a better understanding of mechanics than the clock’s face), and this is the basic awareness of reality we attribute to the sentience of animals.


But it’s also the grounding for what we call the Id – the unconscious functions of Intraspace that operate outside of memory and outside of directed thought. The mechanism of the mind sorts through data nodes in order to organize them the most effectively. In some cases a perceptual permutation of data may be structurally similar to a conceptual form of another permutation. So they end up being organized in a way that groups them together. So when the conscious center shifts – such as when the Ego expands or behaves in a way that deliberately seeks out an alternative pattern, in dreaming or creative thought – then we end up with a surreal combination of confused symbols. A giant rabbit checks the watch it keeps in little red waistcoat. The hydra rears its head, with many mouths attacking to feed a single corporate body. The Tower looms above, telling its own story in endless cycles revisited.




Part of why these symbols are dragged into the ego is because they are relevant composites of data structures already within conscious awareness.  This means that when consciousness focuses on a pattern in its immediate memory, the unconscious mind prioritizes data that is relevant to that memory. Actively we think ‘loan shark’ and understand what that description represents. But it is likely we will also get an image in our heads of something else, like a businessman in a pinstripe suit and a red tie, smiling with a row of shark teeth. This kind of sympathetic repatterning is how the Ego and Id interact. It’s often described as a ‘bubbling up’, as though there’s been a reaction in the Id that results in a particularly volatile association. But since the brain uses electricity I prefer to see in as a static discharge: as the brain storms, pockets of clouded data get charged with electrons. They are ‘grounded’ by an assembly of thoughts in the ego, and spark them as though pulled to a lightning conductor. Sometimes those thoughts are coherent enough to charge a lightbulb moment.

The Superego is at once similar and different from the Id. Like the Id, it exists in that realm of unconsciousness surrounding the Ego. But unlike it, it doesn’t produce and merge data: It orders it. This is subtly different from what happens when percepts collide in the Id: When the Superego functions correctly it is non-perceptual, focused rather on integrating conceptual information. But concepts have to be generated by first passing through the ego.




There were these stencil spinning tops that were popular when I was a kid, and I think of them as a perceptual image of the Ego-Superego interaction. The spinning top is the ego, moving across a piece of paper that plays the part of surrounding Intraspace. The needle is the accumulated pressure of conscious thought, pressing deeply into the page so as to make a mark. The needle at the tip of the spinning top roves around quite a bit, leaving a complicated trace of pattern that could, under analysis, tell a person everything about the spinning top that they want to know. If the spinning top is the ego, then that pattern is the ego extended to every instant of its existence – consciousness’s profits unrestricted by time and space – The Superego.

The brain is not a stenciled page, so the deeper pattern formed by the roving consciousness is a thought pattern. And the more fixedly the needle of consciousness attends to those patterns, the more difficult it is to get out of them. They form a kind of localized race track in the vicinity of the Ego, though they do not entirely encompassed it. The Ego may have traced an unusual pattern once in a moment of epiphany, only to veer off in another direction.

Id is composed of nodal points: small, localized patterns.

Superego is composed of a nodal network: an extensive, interconnected pattern.

And Ego, to complete the triptych, is pattern recognition and directed pattern formation.

*

Intraspace is a fascinating realm, and arguably the most important of all cyberspace. Every single one of us operates in Intraspace – we can choose to avoid any other platform of existence, but not the platform of existence that allows us to think, and have choice. You have a kind of responsibility to yourself to understand your own mind. Everything done elsewhere is blind grasping until you do.



Socialspace

[Social (Relating to the aggregate of people living in an ordered way) + Space (The intersection of dimensions)]

An intersection of dimensions between people.

The novel you wrote about Suzie and the Kami has come far since where we left it. It’s grown deep and interesting, creative and insightful. But now you want to enable it to do what novels do: you want to share the model of Intraspace you developed with other people.

Socialspace is the cyberspace network held between users in a community, expressed through interaction and conversation. It has some similarities with intraspace, and some very big differences. For starters, nodes of data in intraspace were held as elemental quantities in a formless abyss. In social space, nodes of data are held as people.





Every user functions individually as a percept*, and while it may have deeper concepts and connections running through its Intraspace, the part that they share in Socialspace is two-dimensionally summarized.

*From the perspective of another user.

You aren’t going to try and publish all the drafts of Chapter One that contributed to your novel. You’re going to take out the redundant data and present a concise summary. Just so, when you walk outside wearing a summer hat you don’t announce “This is a hat I am wearing because the sunlight is directly above and I wish to avoid sprouting melanomas.” You just wear the hat, and if that isn’t a clear summary of your actions, you wait for people to ask.

The difficulty with these percepts – these people – is the same as in meatspace and Intraspace. How do you tell which are honestly based in concepts, and which are ‘hallucinatory’ percepts containing very little valuable data? You give the novel to your mother, who reads it. She thinks it’s wonderful. But is that just because she associates it with the percept that is ‘you’ which she nepotistically favors? You decide it’s better to give the novel to an impartial stranger. That stranger thinks it’s awful – but can you rely on the expertise of someone you picked off the street to know good literature?

This specialized function of telling good data from bad is facilitated by a Socialspace operator known as a Maven. Mavens collate sources of data in a social network and analyze them to determine the value of specific sources of data within their field. Should the maven be optimal, they then spread the certainty of their findings to others generously. Mavens aren’t one strange, general profession aside from ordinary life, though in some ways the Otaku fits that description – Mavens are integrated into the functions of everyday society. There are fashion mavens, or coupon mavens, or software mavens. 

There are book mavens who read a lot and would probably be the best choice of person to get an honest opinion about your novel. Quite often their professional life reflects this passion for information, and they become motor experts, or sports commentators, or editors. So this is the function mavens serve to Intraspace innovators: to let them know they’ve made a good summary. To let them know there’s integrity between what they can see in meatspace, and the reams of data encoded into that Intraspace summary.




After finding the right kind of maven, you’re left with the knowledge that your book is actually very good – a literary masterpiece, actually. And while that makes you happy, it hasn’t achieved the very best of what you set out to do. You want your masterpiece to be widely experienced by others, and be considered for a place as a memory beacon in their individual Intraspaces. But the maven can’t help you there. The maven knows what people want – but doesn’t know how people connect.

In Socialspace, intraspace nodes are connected in overarching patterns simply referred to as social networks. Within a social network there are very deeply ingrained paths, just like there are in thought patterns in the mind. The enterprising pioneer (you, the novelist) moves through Socialspace along these paths, trying to find a junction between them. You could ask your friend Arthur to read your book – Arthur is a chatterbox and you know he’ll mention your book to just about anyone he meets in the street. But while Arthur likes spreading information, he doesn’t exactly have many people who consider him a friend, and value his vocalized opinions. However Arthur speaks with a certain reverence about Hildegard, a well-known member of his social network. Hildegard is one of those people who everyone knows and everyone likes – not just in your own social network, but in groups of people you’d never dream of talking to. She is an experienced hiker, and is very active at her community church. And the strange thing about Hildegard that separates her from Arthur is that she’s everyone’s best friend. They are all desperate to get closer to her by sharing experiences with her, like watching a TV series she’s seen or reading a book that she’s read.


Hildegard is what is called a Supersocial, a person adept at forming data node patterns and then filtering data through that network. It’s estimated that the number of close, intimate relationships an average person can have at any one time is 12. For someone like Hildegard, that number is more in the region of 20. This means that on top of that there are hundreds if not thousands of people in Hildegard’s social network, many of whom are bound to be supersocials themselves.

Often when meeting these kinds of people, you get the sense that you’re an extra, and they are the protagonist. Even though most of the time you assume that because you are the all-seeing narrator of your own life, that makes you the protagonist by default. But in a way this is due to a perspective shift. Sharing your novel through Socialspace isn’t about restructuring your own mind at all – that was Writing It, the process of intraspace. Sharing a novel is about society’s mind, and society’s cyberspace. On that level you really are an extra – a blip of Id data on the extending map of human evolution. The mistake many people make is to attempt to be the conscious center of Socialspace and Intraspace. They believe that to get their novel known they have to be a Supersocial, making dozens of friends, learning to manipulate people they don’t like and get favors from those they do. All this wasted energy just means they have less time to operate on the Intra- level, and the only things they have to seed at the end of the exercise are inferior ideas.

Hildegard is the answer to this. You don’t want to approach Hildegard directly, because just having her blindly promoting your book won’t be an honest projection of enthusiasm – it’ll be reluctant, a favour. Instead, you study the 20 closest people in her network. These are the people you want to give the novel to – especially if one of those people is a maven. How it gets to them doesn’t really matter. 

Shove it in their mailboxes, claim to be doing market research, or just honestly say you’re trying everything you can to get the book off the ground. If the novel is good – which the mavens say it is – then there’s a very high probability it’ll reach Hildegard. And if it does, and she likes it so much she wants to share the experience with others – the novel diffuses through society. Suddenly people have Read That. Which was the point of the whole exercise.

So that’s Socialspace:

You, the pioneering data node, set out with the intention of changing Cyberspace.

The Maven acts as Socialspace’s relevancy feed, presenting valuable percept data to Socialspace’s Ego.

The Supersocial is that Ego, a person capable of directing user consciousness. They process the percept and funnel it into a Social Network, the conceptual Superego of society.

Once your data has been passed through the social network – you’re golden. You’re a part of the thinking process of society. You’ve transcended a platform.





Internet

[Inter (Out, Inclusive) + Net (Network: An arrangement of intersecting horizontal and vertical lines)]

A grid embodying the relation between dimensional points.

The Interspace – which I refer to as Internet because otherwise at a glance it could be confused for intraspace – is a growing innovation in the 21st century linking Socialspace to Intraspace on a digital platform. When we talk of cyberspace generally, we’re referring to the internet. You’ve probably heard of it.

The genius of the internet is in that in using it we become distinctly aware of what is meant by patterns -  how easy it is for data to move in some ways (and for some kinds of data to move) and very difficult for it to move in others. We’ve built artificial constructs that mimic the function of Socialspace user-nodes; Sites like Facebook and MySpace are artificial Supersocials, focused on the automation of the way data spreads within trusted networks and extended interest groups. Sites like Reddit and Tumblr are maven sites, where regular accounts plug choice information. Sites like Youtube, Deviant Art and Wordpress are User sites, designed to exhibit the creations of individual users across a variety of formats. These sites aren’t intended to exist in isolation, but to connect with one another and function in a way that sorts data, exactly as we select information in Intraspace and Socialspace. In a way it can be seen as the next evolutionary step of abstract thinking – a mind the size of a whole planet, each contributing to the focus of our awareness and actions.




Let’s say Hildegard loves your novel. She loves it so much, she finds you and asks you if she can share it with her friends. You give her the nod – the whole point of putting the book out there was to get as many readers as possible. In the bad old days, Hildegard would be forced to traffic the book manually through her Socialspace. But with the internet it’s much easier. Hildegarde has roughly two-thousand friends and nine-hundred followers. So she broadcasts in a single message that she likes your book. Quite a few people pick it up and start reading, hoping to stay relevant to Hildegard through their emotional attachment to her. Then they re-whatever their own review.

By chance you also pick up a Fan. Fans are people who are so in love with a work they are highly motivated to keep it alive in their day-to-day existence. In this regard, you’ve hooked Alice, who likes to make GIF-sets for her Tumblr account. She assembles a group of images that roughly portray the characters and world in your book. In a single collage, she’s depicted a kind of visual ‘blurb’ for your book that’s going to draw in more interest. People who are attracted to visual data more than pure text (let’s face it... that’s practically all of us) are now more inclined to associate your book with sympathetic themes. It’s like having an abstract cover placed over the ideas held within, and put on a bookshelf for people to see it clearly.

Then some mavens in Hildegard’s extended network hear about the book. One of them is an editor, and thinks it has serious publishing potential. The public approval you’ve garnered in the local network proves it. At last, you’ve climbed from simply scrawling the word ‘knife’ to a point of complexity that will affect thousands if not millions of minds, serving as a formal concept in their own ideas and inventions.

The internet managed this by its own lateral and vertical agencies within the server structure. Vertically the book has been promoted by Likes and Shares, which is to say by way of Affirmation. This means that it has a greater presence within a user base. However, that user base itself may be quite small, which accounts for why very good ideas will often get ‘cult’ followings. Even though Hildegarde operates in several different social settings, there are literally thousands of cultures to reach which are beyond the ability of one Supersocial to tap – even a Supersocial like Facebook, which keeps thinking up new ways to get people to communicate across cultural barriers.

The lateral axis of the Internet is seen in an idea’s fan base, and the ways it examines, comments or enriches the experience of an idea. What was originally a small culture can extend into an enormous one by branching off into movies, TV shows, fanfiction, soundtracks – just about any other medium, and its own interpretation of that idea. Lateral generation surrounding a dominant idea and its crucial factors not only extends an idea across the user population, but allows an idea to realize its most effective medium. You wrote a book, but as it turns out Suzie’s life is actually much better understood through the multimedia of a TV series. This doesn’t mean you were wrong to write the book – the series wouldn’t even exist if you hadn’t made the approach. Data has to undergo a process of weakening and strengthening to find its most effective format, just as data’s form in argumentation is teased to eke out sound reason.

In the Internet’s Ego, the important nodes that create a field of awareness are webpages, typically ones on which a user has an account. This builds up an identity profile which when effectively used acts as a conceptual representation of all aspects of their identity they deem functionally important. These can break off into 3-Dimensional facets, where multiple identities exist for the same user, a construction known as an ‘alter-ego’.

The SuperEgo of the internet is entirely more concrete and traceable than anything visible in cyberspace to date. It’s a combination of what you Like, but just as importantly what you Ignore. I say ‘ignore’ because ‘disliking’ something still patterns an association with it – a negative association, but one which will persist in the structure of an online profile. Ignoring is subtly different because it effectively excludes information from a user’s existence, marking it as irrelevant, and inaccurate.

The SuperEgo we lay down on the internet isn’t an active part of our profiles, but like the stencil spinning top it traces where we’ve gone in virtual space and how we’ve interacted with nodes along the way. Like Socialspace, this pattern is used to make up something that can be seen not as a user node’s ego, but the Internet’s ego. If the internet has a consciousness, some point of focused thought, it is the point to which the most nodes have trafficked their attention. The most likes, the most views, the most shares. It’s easiest to experience this after something newsworthy, when the same thought is affirmed across dozens of nodes on the network. It downloads to Intraspace, and we can’t help but think about it and its place according to our own identities.

*****

Hopefully understanding the way these three platforms connect will help people realize the importance of all three, and how to move between them if at any point they feel stuck. We know that this is how cyberspace operates, but not necessarily why it operates in this way. From the perspective of one Intra- node, why should the Inter- Ego matter? Why do people crave attention, be it from friends or strangers or even from their own mind?

I think that ultimately we have a strong conceptual awareness that observation premeditates control. We struggle for our ideas to be known not for the virtue of being known, but for the virtue of being used. When the precursor ran home with an abstraction of a wildcat inside to share the experience with the tribe, it was with the knowledge that it could enrich the lives of those updated. It was not done with the intention of controlling the actions of the tribe, but done so that members of the tribe could more readily control their own lives. That to me is what cyberspace is all about; providing a guidance map for others to realize there is more in the world than the one path they have walked throughout their lives. To provide that for something as reaching as the Internet seems to me to be a very positive trait. To want to inform oneself through contact with nodes of cyberspace – an entirely freeing, life-giving experience.




Inspirational Reading:

Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point

For understanding Socialspace and how ideas take off. Very good read, very diverse selection of experiences to draw from. Contains some gorgeous math on epidemics.












Edward De Bono's Lateral Thinking

A revolutionary novel in terms of understanding Intraspace according to vertical (selective) and lateral (generative) thought. Very short, as it mainly contains exercises.

Monday, 21 March 2016

The Equation: Algebraic Ideology


Ideology is often thought of as the lie that gives the right to rule. It doesn’t have the best track record in politics. We count racism, religious fundamentalism and despotic nationalism among the worst transgressions of its kind. Ideologies are powerful symbols: concrete ideas that give us the illusion that we know what’s going on in the universe, and that we have a means of controlling our destiny. That sounds good on paper. That looks good on posters. But all too often it ignores the fact that we hardly know anything about the universe at all, and that most of what we do know is wrong.
We also consider other useful things as ideology, such as ecological preservation, feminism and the many varieties of liberalism. Unfortunately the taint of ideology clings to these things and asserts that they are equally a basis of lies, constructed to present a course of action as sound. But to be honest that’s because political scientists… often aren’t real scientists. Science depends on a framework that can be used to separate truth from falsehood, and ideology fits in that framework.


The Equation

Okay, so imagine that everything we know as a functional, interdependent species can be given a material value. These values fit together into what we can call The Sum of Human Knowledge:

                The Sum                              Human Knowledge
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 =                           15

Now in regard to society, we attempt to direct human action towards a kind of calculation: we take smaller, scattered parts (1+2+3+4+5) and piece them as neatly together as possible (15). Given everything we know in the world, the 15 at the end of the calculation is in this sense the Ideology. It’s the point we’re trying to reach by adding everything together.
The process of calculation, on the other hand, is the State. It’s like saying, “Okay, now the best way to do this calculation is to start at the beginning and add the 1 to the 2 to get another 3, then 3+3 is 6, 6+4 is 10, add the 5 is fifteen.” But then someone else comes along and says, “No no no, that method takes far too long. Start with the larger numbers, so 5+4 is 9, then…”
And then a third person comes in and says, “You need to add things simultaneously from each end. 2+1 is 3 and 4+5 is 9, then you have all multiples of 3 so you can divide 9 by 3, then count the number of 3s and multiply 3 by that number to get an answer.”

Ultimately they all want the same thing – to calculate the sum through to a single neat conclusion. But state argues over the cognitive method of doing so in the best way.
-
Now, human knowledge itself is only a very small part of a larger equation. Humans live within a much larger world that what is known. So, in our equation we also have to include some mystifying unknowns, which best take on the form of algebraic variables:

                                State                                     Ideology
1+2+3+4+5+x+y+a+b+c =             15+x+y+a+b+c

The State continues to calculate what it can, leaving the variables for when they become concrete numbers it can deal with. But suddenly the question of ideology is a lot more complicated. So long as people know that there is more in the universe than they are aware of, they will speculate on what numbers are represented by the variables. So while we can all more or less agree that basically human existence consists of 15, there is considerably fiercer debate over what the other variables are, and if our method of equation is wrong because it hasn’t considered how difficult it may be to factor in new numbers. What if x is a meteor shower that takes the form x = 1/0, and undertaking a difficult calculation is meaningless because the answer is clearly going to be impossible anyway?
We’re left with two wrestling elements; state and ideology, and how to keep things going as smoothly as possible while one deals with the knowns and the other speculates the unknowns.
Possibly the most essential step is realizing how we determine the numbers behind the variables. Practically on a daily basis we discover new information, for example that y = 11… no… no wait… it’s actually 10,84. And the exact same happens for thousands of variables and ‘known’ ‘constants’ each day, which then have to be added and subtracted and devised by the weary State. Inevitably someone decides that G = God and cannot be known, except that maybe 3 and 56 and 97 might be some information worth throwing into the equation just to be safe.
The Deductive method emerges in mathematical equations to suggest an abstract, rational means of finding the numbers behind the variables. This is saying that if x(1/5) + 1/3 = 4/3, then x = 5.
The Inductive method emerges as a means to find and record the equations where they exist in the real world. This means that after careful observation, a scientist finds that x(1/5) + 1/3 = 4/3; they record constant numbers and leave those they can’t record as variables. They still need deduction to do the calculation, unless they are prepared to do a much deeper empirical study of the equation as it exists in nature.

The combination of these methods is generally considered much better than simply stating x = 45 and factoring it into an equation, which would simply be false knowledge, and thus a blatantly false ideology.

You should be getting two things out of this analogy:

1.       Ideologies as they exist in the world are all based on assumed knowledge so long as there remain unknowns for human beings to decrypt. As far as we can tell, there are infinite unknowns.

2.       Though we are unaware of exact numbers that does not mean we are ignorant of mathematics. A few people and a lot of computers in the world are actually really good at doing mathematics.

This means that an ideology in a system of unknowns needs to always admit that there are things it does not know that influence the equation, and that we can still attempt to deduce those things. It also means that through mathematics we can predict with a reasonable degree of certainty that the properties of the things we know share properties with the things we don’t. For example, we can be reasonably certain that both constants and variables are all numbers.
To a large degree this means changing the way we think about ideology, and consequently changing the way we think about State. Both of them need to be calibrated to deal not only with the numbers we’re pretty sure of, but made to find a way to ensure that new variables entering human knowledge are as accurate as possible. In other words, those doing the calculation (which is ALL of us, consciously or unconsciously) need to have a superior method of selecting information and testing it to determine if it is inaccurate.


Variations in Calculative Sentence Structure

In order to communicate ideas with one another and form an ideal state, we have a fixed number of options as to how we can transfer information between people. These can be conveyed through the bases of sentence structure which we are all at least unconsciously aware of. Each conveys information or makes us aware of a lack of information. Each can be considered a process of information, or simply put information processing.



Opinion

*
“Sam has such nice teeth,” Clara says.
“Why?” Bianca asks.
“Just look at them,” Clara replies, sighing wistfully.
*

In the above encounter, Clara shares what is called an opinion. In informatics – and logic as a particular branch of information processing – Clara makes a statement. Unlike questions or commands, statements are either true or false. Sam either has really nice teeth, or doesn’t.
Bianca then poses a question. Questions are neither true, nor false. The essential nature of a question is to demand clarification – to request argumentation. A lot of the time people see arguments as a bad thing: they ask “What?” or “How?” with a degree of hostility, because a question means that one person cannot see the exact thing that another person can see. On the other hand a perfectly benign question can be seen as hostile by the one questioned, to which they simply reply “Because I said so!” or “I’m entitled to my opinion.”
Both of these and even Clara’s “Just look at them” fit roughly into the third category of Commands. We’ll get back to commands later, but at the moment it’s enough to say commands instruct a person to do things at face value, without engaging anything beyond a person’s opinion. Commands should never be used outside of emergency situations or without corporate consent, where operating in an executive command structure may be necessary for group survival.
Opinions at their face value are statements. They should only be left unquestioned so long as a person engaged in conversation is aware of the argumentation behind them, and agrees with it, in which the correct response is “I know.” If a person isn’t aware of the argumentation behind an opinion, then it should always be followed up by a question to determine the nature of that argument.
Further, we might infer that so long as a difference in opinion exists, the person being engaged with is unaware of the argument that led to that opinion. As such, a difference in opinion automatically necessitates argumentation.


Reason

*                
“Sam has such nice teeth,” Clara says.
 “Why?” Bianca asks.
“Because they’re so straight and white,” Clara explains.
“Why?” Bianca asks impishly.
“Because Sam visits the dentist regularly, and had a brace as a kid.”
“Why?” Bianca laughs.
“Because teeth don’t always grow to suit the purpose we put them to, and need to be doctored to achieve that purpose, and dentists are the ones trained to do it,” Clara continues.
“Why Why Why?” Bianca chants.
“Because genetics isn’t a perfect means of transferring physical characteristics and favours the mutation of simpler organisms, and consequently there are loads of bacteria that have developed to break down the structure of human teeth, and we’ve had to evolve intellectually to find ways to deal with things like bacteria, and one of those ways is to use special chemicals and surgical techniques that take a lifetime to learn, so it requires a human being with specialized knowledge to implement them.” Clara gasps for air.
“Why?” Bianca coos, relishing the ease of the question.
Clara sucks in another breath. “Simpler organisms produce larger populations more rapidly and have a much shorter reproductive cycle so selection of different genes within their population group occurs at a catalyzed rate, as does mutation because they haven’t developed the defenses necessary to prevent radiation from affecting their genetic code,” she spits out rapidly.
“Why.”
“SIMPLE ORGANISMS REQUIRE FAR FEWER RESOURCES AND HAVE ACCESS TO FAR MORE RESOURCES ALLOWING THEM TO BREAK DOWN THEIR ENVIRONMENT AT A RATE THAT PROMOTES CONTINUOUS POPULATION GROWTH, UNTIL SUCH A TIME THAT THEIR POPULATION GROWS SO LARGE ONLY THOSE THAT ARE BEST ADAPTED TO ACQUIRING RESOURCES AND SURVIVING ON LESS RESOURCES WILL BE IN A POSITION TO REPRODUCE. ALSO BECAUSE THEY ARE SUCH BASIC LIFEFORMS EVEN THE SMALLEST MUTATION AFFECTS THE ENTIRITY OF THE ORGANISM.
“Clara?”
“Yes?” Clara asks, nearly defeated.
“Why?” Bianca says, brimful of mischief.
“Because simple organisms are essentially made of the things that they eat, and so they don’t require more resources than they are made of unless it’s to replace energy they’ve lost or to reproduce.”
“Why?”
“Because we live in a universe where energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred from one place to another.”
“Why?”
Clara shrugs. “I don’t know. Just look at it. As far as we can tell energy has never been created or destroyed. So it’s our operating theory of how the universe works, until something different happens.”
“Clara?” Bianca asks.
“Yes?” Clara replies meekly, filled with dread.
“I agree, Sam really does have nice teeth.”
*

Reason functions on the idea that every valid conclusion – every valid opinion – is preceded by an argument in which one or more premises are combined to provide a new interpretation of the information they contain. Just so, every premise is the conclusion of a different argument with its own premises. This means that everything we know is essentially created through the interaction of very basic principles – like mathematical functions – whose existence we can theorize and subject to a thorough analysis, but never definitively prove (the unknown always exists, so absolute certainty never exists).



What it also means is that opinions which cannot be substantiated by people using premises through argumentation are unproven opinions, and possibly (but not automatically) false. Reason is saying that the possibility of a thing isn’t enough to base a life on – it has to be traceable back to some definite source in the laws of reality. In regard to The Equation, there has to be a mathematical principle underlying why the variable ‘x’ is accepted as 45.
It’s worth noting that Clara ends her arguments off with the same command: “Look at it : Just look at them.” A command lies at the root of any chain of arguments because laws are at the root of any chain of arguments. We’re all subject to reality; we’re all under reality’s command. But there is a big difference between following reality’s commandments and the commandments of people. People are fallible. They make mistakes. Reality can be cruel, but it is always true.






Utopian Ideology

Unchallenged Statements: Liberalism*
*Okay, there are a lot of variations of liberalism. Liberalism was one of the very early named ideologies, and is based on the ‘lie’ of fundamental human rights developed by philosophers like John Locke, who didn’t lie so much as make invalid arguments, as they were based on the premise of religious faith – that God had made man in a certain way.
These days people like to call their ideology ‘Liberalism’ because all liberalism involves constitutional human rights. But tons of ideologies aside from liberalism assert very good rights, such as the property rights of Anarchy, and the Rights of all Animals in Anti-Establishment thinking. Since human rights entered the mainstream there are also liberal conservatives, such as the Neo-Liberals.
The particular strain described here is what is liberal in much of Europe and the large and loud American left: Democratic Welfare Liberalism. This is based on the idea that rights are worthless without the means to express them, and attempts to provide all human beings with the same means to express their rights and fairly pursue their own happiness. Ironically enough this ends up being a kind of opposite of the Anarchic model: in both cases people are allowed to plug in their own numbers for unknown variables. In anarchy the right variables are rewarded with money, health, and victory. In Liberalism the right variables are rewarded with covering the debt to reality for all the wrong variables chosen by others, in order to ensure everyone still has money and health at the end of the calculation.

Consider this alternative to the Bianca-Clara paradigm:

*
“Sam has such nice teeth,” Clara says.
“Sam has rotten teeth,” Bianca says.
“Well, we’re both entitled to our opinions,” Clara replies democratically.
*

And both are entitled to their opinions. But one of those opinions is nevertheless wrong, and the other is right. All that the conversation has achieved is to propose two interpretations of reality, and to avoid conflict between them. This is the essence of what in ideology is the Liberal model: that everyone is entitled to live their life in the way that they see fit. But simultaneously, it goes to lengths to avoid argumentation, and to avoid the consequence of asserting a falsehood as a physical reality.
Opinions exist as face value. They are necessary. But they are not the only necessary thing: In a world where variables can be assigned any number without consequence, reality falls by the wayside and the only means to give the equation an appearance of integrity is to stop the calculation from unfolding. People have to be content with ignorance. Historically speaking, ignorance can be associated with pain, hardship, and itchiness.
Statements left unchallenged lend themselves to Liberalism; an ideology in which truth and falsehood exist without a means to process which are which. People who want to smoke, smoke. People who don’t, don’t. And there are designated zones for people to do this so that everyone remains calm and orderly. The Equation under Liberalism says that variables must be allowed to be all possible numbers, and calculated through to all possible answers.



Unchallenged Commands: Fascism

*
“Sam has such nice teeth,” Clara says.
 “Why?” Bianca asks.
“Because the sky is blue and the grass is green. It’s just the way the world is.”
“Well, those things are true, so I suppose Sam does have nice teeth,” Bianca agrees unthinkingly.
*

Even if what people say is true, their argumentative form can be invalid. This means that at some point what they are saying loses any connection to the laws of reality – and as most people notice, what we imagine and what is real are two very different things.
Two premises, like ‘the sky is blue’ and ‘the grass is green’ can both be true. Simultaneously, Sam can have nice teeth, so that can also be true. But the argument is invalid on the basis that the information in the conclusion isn’t contained within the premises: so if it is true, it is because of some other some other reason, and needs to be defended with an entirely different argument.
We can be given commands, and they may even be good commands at times, but so long as we don’t argue we have no means of determining if we are acting according to what is real or what a person imagines. This is an ideology called Fascism. It consists of following a person’s opinions without ever following the chain of premises back to their basis in the laws of reality.
**
In Fascism, Commands left unchallenged become variables where either truth or falsehood are selected, and then processed. The Equation under Fascism says that variables are specific constants, x = 4, y = 5, z = 6. That’s how it’s going to be for everyone and we calculate it accordingly, even if that means genocide.

What about Questions?
Well, to be fair the trifecta of the utopian ideology would be “Questions left unchallenged.” And that might be appropriately termed Conservatism.



Unchallenged Questions: Conservatism

*
“Sam has such nice teeth,” Clara says.
 “Why?” Bianca asks.
“They’re really pretty,” Clara gushes.
“That’s an alteration of the same thing you just said,” Bianca points out.
“I like Sam’s teeth.” Clara continues to stare at Sam, who starts to feel a little awkward.
*

In applying Conservatism to The Equation, the constants we know get calculated, and the variables can sit next to them as a string of ‘+ x + y + z’. Conservatism calculates the numbers it’s pretty sure of (1+2+3+4+5=15) and gets an answer. Then the French get annoyed and the whole Enlightenment thing happens and we’re left with way more information to process, and Conservatism says, “Hold on, stop looking at things! Let’s work with what we know.”
Except we don’t really know anything. Because right from the beginning the few constants of the equation we were so sure of turn out to be a little different (1,2+2,7+3,3+4,1+4,9), which we know now because we’ve refined the observational tools with which we determine the laws of the world in the first place. Which we wouldn’t do as Conservatives because devoting energy to solving the variables would slow down the State’s calculation of the ‘known’ numbers.
Facts change: the biggest lie in all of history is that they don’t**. Even our approach to science has been affected by it. In general knowledge (or general assumption), scientists make a hypothesis, and then collect reams of data to show why their hypothesis is correct. This proof proves it. And then it becomes a working theory, or a fact.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**Unless you count things like the success of forceful mass protest, which almost inevitably turn out to be a result of a small group of people with weapons fighting a small group of people with weapons on behalf of a large group of people who are tired of being led by a small group of people with weapons. The October Revolution never happened. I have serious doubts about what really happened during the chaos of The French Revolution. But the lie was so great, it gained actual power and led to Iceland’s recent liberation from state debt and India’s Independence from Britain. But I’d largely attribute those to the fact that masses of people weren’t working, and weren’t spending taxable money, and that scared the small group of people with guns who lived on that work and money. Such Revolutions could have been fought from a living room while reading a good book. But people do love to Toyi-Toyi.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But this goes against the very idea of what a ‘proving’ is. Historically speaking when you prove a warrior you don’t just give her a sword and a shield and a suit of armour, make her train extensively and say, “Now that’s a warrior.” That equipment and training is just a hypothesis of what a warrior is. When you prove a warrior you throw everything you can at it to take it down. And if she emerges from the battlefield, scarred and bloody but alive at the end of the day, then she’s been proven.
And that’s the attitude we’re missing in popular science. A person gathers data to support their hypothesis rather than making every effort they can to defeat it. We hold a fanfare every time someone comes up with a weird idea about how the universe works, but hardly pay any attention when someone ‘disproves’ an old theory, because it feels like a step backward, and we’re fixated on the idea that Progress means New. There isn’t a Nobel Prize for the best critical ‘disproving’ of a theory. And as a consequence, we are consciously driven to only look in the places where we know we’re going to find the answers that make us right.
This is the legacy of inefficient observation, kept alive by the Conservative mindset. To embrace the known, and vilify the unknown. To hear a question – and reply with a conclusion.

***

So in the three possible sentence types – commands, questions, and statements – we can find three ideologies based on the rejection of argumentation. These might further be termed Utopian ideals because they aim at a world without conflict, where everyone either agrees or agrees to disagree, and face no consequences for rejecting the variables of reality.

But ideology is of course much more complicated. Argumentation plays a central role in the advancement of our species. We want to know how to deal with problems. We want to master the laws of reality, rather than fumbling blindly through life. We want to challenge the unfairness of the world, and our own ignorance of it. So we end up with a contrary span of Dystopian ideals – ideals that allow us to grumble and curse and shake our fists at the sky, declare that life is shit while triumphantly overcoming its challenges with brains and finesse. And these ideologies fundamentally exist because of an acceptance of Argumentation, a quest for Reason.



Dystopian Ideology


Challenging Statements: The Anti-Establishment

*
“Sam has such nice teeth,” Clara says.
 “Fuck you and your preconceived ideals of beauty, Clara,” Bianca says, speaking through the obscene microphone of two splayed fingers.
“What? But I just –”
“You just went and dropped a Patriarchal dump on Sam’s face. Who cares how you or anyone else thinks her teeth look? Why does she need white and shiny teeth, to eat from the corporate feedbag? When you’re a vegan you don’t need teeth, you can just eat delicious puréed soup all day.”
“I was just trying to point out that she did really well on her brace and she must have a really good dentist!” Clara exclaimed defensively.
“Right, you were approving of how society normalized poor Sam with SURGERY and RIDICULE. Do you think Sam wants teeth like that? Have you even ASKED her? HUH?”
Clara bursts into tears. “OH MY GOD I NEVER KNEW I WAS SUCH A MONSTER!”
*

That’s the anti-establishment ideology. Essentially it has the task of challenging all the statements that people take for granted, forcing them to come up with actual reasons for their opinions and eventually reach a mutual understanding over the contents of the world. Politically they embody what is called ‘The New Left’ (who arrived and mixed in with Liberal Democrats, which is confusing), a coterie with specialized debaters who focus on things like race, sex, gender, animals, religion, medicine and the environment in order to draw awareness to the fact that our understanding of these things is often false. In The Equation, this is represented by the response to the established (1+2+3+4+5), and any emerging information, such as the announcement that x = 6. The Anti-Establishment wants to know Why, and quite often they’ve prepared a speech to tell you Why Not.
The trouble is that the anti-establishment often takes it too far. As noted, at the base of any line of questioning is a theoretical Law, a Command of Reality. Coming into contact with these laws, many of the Anti-Establishment refuse to take them at face value – but can’t get past them. They deny them outright, and try to do things differently, which has had the effect of spreading new age mysticism and exhibiting a mistrust of industry that borders on primitivism. If the anti-establishment approach to the Laws of Reality were at all scientific, I have no doubt it would be extremely beneficial in at least proving theories. Unfortunately a lot of the time it involves taking psychedelics and hanging around with dolphins, which is far less effective.



Challenging Commands: The Anarchists

*
“Sam has such nice teeth,” Clara says.
Bianca looks over at Sam. She sees the teeth. She is kind of unimpressed by the teeth. It looks to her like Sam didn’t brush them this morning.
“Sam’s teeth look rotten to me,” Bianca says.
“What? Just look at them,” Clara says, annoyed. “Tell me they’re not perfect.”
“I just did.”
“Fine,” Clara huffs. “You think whatever you like. I’m getting the name of her dentist.”
*

The ideology of anarchism asserts that there is an underlying, impartial mediator of rational ideas operating in the world. People are perfectly entitled to drive as fast as they want to on a public road. But if they die, then in hindsight it probably wasn’t such a good idea to drive so fast. But hey, they chose to do it.
The same thing may be said of the argument between Clara and Bianca. Clara knows on a superficial level that her commands can’t be enforced, and on a deeper level that no amount of reason will certainly convince Bianca that what she says is right, should Bianca willingly choose irrationality, or reject the constancy of a Law of Nature. There has to be some kind of recourse for two people who cannot reach a single opinion after an argument.
As such they agree to disagree on the understanding that people can’t force one another to think things. However what can force people to think – or forever remove that ability – are the true and constant laws of nature upon which all further argument are built. Clara uses Sam’s dentist and lives to ninety. Bianca looks after her own teeth, gets tooth decay and dies at the age of twenty-five. This is society functioning as an arena of hypothesis, where selecting a principle and sticking to it will either disprove or prove the hypothesis of their opinion. In the equation, this can be seen as a kind of educated betting on the nature of variables. After determining x is a number from 1 to 10, ten anarchists each choose a different number based on their calculations and plug it into The Equation. The one left alive and healthiest at the end of the day was the one with the right number.
Anarchism has the benefit of siding with the best thinkers, and never letting the worst assert their number as the only one placed in the bet. As ideologies go, it’s self-involved and practical. But it’s also not inclined to pursue anti-establishment ends to persuade people of its correctness, despite the overlapping dystopian nature of the two ideals. Anti-establishment thinking often betrays its difference from anarchy in that it would overthrow authority in order to present its own statements as a rational basis of a new authority. Anarchism doesn’t believe there should be any authority but the Laws of Reality.



Challenging Questioning: The Rational Objective

*
“Sam has such nice teeth,” Clara says, uniformly stating her admiration with neither bashfulness, nor remorse.
“According to what standard?” Bianca asks, smoking a cigarette.
“According to the standard by which teeth are made, to perform the function they were made to perform,” Clara elaborates. “Of all teeth, Sam’s are the whitest and brightest. Not everyone may agree with that, but the truth of it is undeniable. They’re healthy because a dentist has used advanced dental techniques to shape them into a functional geometric crescent, and subjected them to a wide array of chemicals that prevent bacterial decay. We should all aspire to such heights of dental hygiene, now that Sam has shown us that it’s possible.”
“They could be whiter,” Bianca says indifferently.
“Of course they could!” Clara says passionately, “That’s the beauty of scientific advancement – the very firmament of the human spirit! We can aim for the highest – and then surpass it. Seek out the very best for ourselves – and then ask for more. Every single human being has the potential to push our understanding forward, and reap the rewards of that understanding. That’s the whole point behind society – the mutual benefit of all who partake in it. If there were no benefit, then there would be no point.”
Bianca shifted uncomfortably. “Wow Clara. You really care about teeth.”
“I care about everything,” Clara insists brightly, her eyes sparkling. “I’m into everything. I’m headed to the stars.”
*

Objectivism is the ideology of eminent progress, in which it is believed that the variables in The Equation hold the answers for all life’s difficulties, and the clearer and more precisely they are expressed – the more human knowledge accurately reflects the content of the universe – the better the experience of humanity as a whole will be. As such it focuses not only on questioning, but questioning well and answering better. The way to do this is to study means of rational argumentation – logic – and use it to seek out the integrity of valid arguments in order to reap their profits.
The trouble is that being objective and rational takes effort – way more effort than simply holding to a political doctrine, or picking one based on its popularity or uniqueness. And ultimately there just aren’t all that many people willing to make the conscious choice to do that. But there are plenty of people who can see the vision and integrity of the Objectivist ideology, and seek to manipulate it. In the 1980s the ‘New Right’ emerged*, and they had firmly set-out principles of financial management that would save liberal governments from their own wastefulness. As one can expect, their success lasted about as long as it took to get over the financial crisis that got them elected. Then the New Right split into factions who disagreed over what to do with the pull they had left, and the world mostly went back to its old confused self.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Again, we have liberals arguing about what constitutes liberalism. Here they called themselves ‘Neo-Liberals’, blending together liberalism with heavy conservative elements, consumer capitalism, and libertarianism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Objectivism arose in the core understanding that Something Must Be Done to avert disaster, and the further The Equation gets from its true constants, the greater the disaster we will have to face. But it would be fair to say there’s a good deal of disagreement over what that ‘Something’ is. Traditionally ‘Something’ is antagonism to restrictions on personal choice and free enterprise, in which a government’s role is purely for defensive and judicial purposes. But it could also be interpreted as integrity’s overthrow of the entire system by refusing to do any work non-thinking people can exploit without direct force (jobs like education and artistry) until such a time that only those willing to compete rationally are left. Above all, the movement makes it clear that no-one should ever consent to be ruled by force. Personally I find that Objectivism resembles different ideologies at different times (‘15’ now, ‘18’ after the next calculation, ‘67’ once y is solved and added in), and at the moment it calls for Anarcho-Capitalism in a Libertarian State. But there’s a conceivable future where the absolute mechanization of an algorithmically adaptive working class is possible, and then Objectivism would contain heavy elements of Anarcho-Socialism in a Totalitarian State. It’s a system designed to calculate according to what we know, but is different to Conservatism in that it prioritizes the investigation of the unknown.



***

There’s a Utopian ideal attainable for those who don’t want to look, or think. There’s a dystopian ideal that’ll never win but will keep fighting as best as it can. And it a nutshell, that’s ideology: Two disparate forces – the order of the known and the chaos of the unknown – calibrating The Equation for eternity.



*******

Post Script

I know, I know, it’s more complicated than that. HUNDREDS of ideologies exist, both for true and untrue variables. I haven’t even mentioned words like ‘Populism’ or ‘Statism’. But that’s because they can all be filed as variations of States or of the six primary Ideologies. Someone takes an old ideological bent of Conservatism like ‘Religious Fundamentalism’ and makes a branch specific to the use of Christianity and it’s ‘Christian Fundamentalism’. Or someone decides to make a specific kind of Utilitarianism where stew is the primary need and basic right of all humanity and it’s ‘Herbert-Johnson Orthodox Stew Communism’.
But you know what? Complexity isn’t an excuse to avoid reorganization. People need to realize that some ideologies are diametrically opposed and can’t overlap without going against their basic principles. They need to realize that others can overlap while holding on to their principles. And organization, analogy, and comparison go to lengths to achieve that.

You’ll also notice I’ve avoided describing Communism, Capitalism, and Socialism in any great detail despite their influential position in history as ideological maxims. That’s because these are part of another subset equation of Social Structure called ‘Commerce’ which I’ll try to explain at a later date. They specifically deal with socio-economics, and are all based on the acceptance that resources are unevenly distributed through the world and need to be moved so as to accord with human use. The method of motion is tied to the State, and it is the use of the resources that differentiate these three commercial ideologies from one another. They can each function in different ways within the primary Utopian and Dystopian ideologies.