Citizen becomes Cipher

[coberst]

Citizen becomes Cipher

 

Rugged individualism might be an appropriate expression for all the creatures in the world, with one exception. Humans have, in the last few hundred years, moved from being rugged individuals to our present state in which we have fashioned an alien environment in which we have become chess pieces or ciphers. We have invented the Artificial Kingdom where, as Simone Weil once noted, “it is the thing that thinks and the man who is reduced to the state of the thing”.

 

I think that we, women and men, have become chess pieces. We have become objects to be manipulated by the market and the corporation. We spend our days like the chess piece; we have a quantified value and are placed on the board and used as desired by some one who may be a real person. The real person has still the human characteristics of creativity, spontaneity, improvisation, spontaneously reactive, discontinuous, a mosaic more than syntax or cipher. Just what we find is missing when using the telephone to contact someone out there.

 

In an effort to understand where we are now it might help to start back in time and move forward. In frontier days each person was very much an individual. Rugged individualism was a popular expression. Each man and woman was a jack-of-all-trades and master of none. Each husband and wife was a team that together could and had to do everything that was needed.

 

In early America we were an agricultural economy. Most families were farm families we were all rugged individualist. The farmer was very much the jack-of-all-trades and the master of his or her domain.

 

As we move forward in time we see this team become a man working in a factory or office and the woman was at home raising the children and maintaining the day to day necessities for all family members. She washed, cleaned, shopped, sewed, and was still much of a rugged individual. Slowly the man became a specialized worker in a clockwork factory or office.

 

Moving forward in history we arrive at the present moment where not only is the man working in the factory or office but the woman joins him there also.

 

When we examine the factory or office workspace we find a very different occupation for the man and woman than the rugged individualism of emerging history of human evolution. We no longer are masters of our own domain but are ciphers in a clockwork that functions upon modern economic principles.

 

A pertinent example of this mode of commodification is how we have converted what was political economics into the modern economics. Political economy is the study of social relations. It is the study of culture. Political economy focuses upon the problem of how to regulate industrialization within the context of a healthy society, it worries about the problems of labor within a context of the laborer as an end and not a commodity—an object of commerce.

 

Economics, however, in its modern form, has replaced political economics. Economics has removed the pesky concern about labor as being human and has replaced labor as being a commodity—an object of commerce. Modern economics is now the study of scarcity, prices, and resource allocation. Economics has legislated that labor, as an end, is no longer a legitimate domain of knowledge for economic consideration. In doing so, over time, society has become ignorant of such concerns. Our culture has replaced concern about humans as ends with humans as means to some other end.

 

In the rugged individualist mode of living the individual was creative and master even though the domain of mastery was small. An individual’s personality is dramatically affected. Labor has become an abstract quantity and calculated into the commodity produced. We are the only creatures who have completely removed our self from what we were evolved to be. We are the only creatures removed from our grounding in an organic world. We came from a long ancestry of rugged individualist and now reside in the Artificial Kingdom. To what end only time will tell.

 

Do you feel like a cipher in our culture?

[CraigD]

Do you feel like a cipher in our culture?

In the sense I believe coberst means – feeling alienated, a mere “pawn in the game of life” – no.

In the rugged individualist mode of living the individual was creative and master even though the domain of mastery was small.

Another term for this mode of living is “subsistence farmer”. Though describing the same individual, the term has a less alluring ring than “rugged individualist”.

 

Subsistence farmers are less noted for creativity than effete, beholden-to-patronage urbanites.

 

A large fraction of present day human beings are still subsistence farmers. If offered the free choice between their present mode of living and a less masterful member of a more industrial one such as mine, I contend that a large majority of them would unequivocally chose the latter.

We are the only creatures who have completely removed our self from what we were evolved to be. … We are the only creatures removed from our grounding in an organic world.

These claim are major violation of the assumption of mediocrity, and also presumes knowledge of “what we were evolved to be”. The claim that human beings are “removed from an organic world” is simply scientifically false – metabolically, we’re nearly identical to humans of any historic era, and to similar animals.

 

I would argue the tautology that that we have evolved to be what we are, and also note that we are not unique in the animal kingdom in the degree to which individuals are specialized in function and controlled by collections of other individuals, a condition common to highly social animals, and much more dramatic among some of them, such as ants and termites.

 

In short, I find coberst’s entire essay an expression of sentimental nostalgia, literally for “the old West”, though I suspect for the “good old days” in general.

 

Individual happiness and health is not necessarily greater now, in any particular locale or social stratum, than it has been in the past, but not necessarily less. Assertions to the contrary are unsupported by objective evidence.

 

Furthermore, the view of human history and prehistory as a smooth, gradual transition from farming to manufacturing is inconsistent with historic and archeological evidence. The distribution of human social roles among farming, manufacturing, and leisure, and attendant data such as population density and systems of trade and government, has followed many trends as the many conditions affecting them change. Although it’s comforting to some (such as me) and alarming to others to believe that the present times are somehow different, and that this change will now cease or trend only in one way forever, this isn’t, IMHO, a rational conclusion. The only constant is change.

[Pyrotex]

There ARE NO "good old days". There were just "old days" and they were different, in one way or another, or in many ways, from the "current days". Assigning judgements of "better" or "worse" to those "old days" (ANY "old days") is a pleasant exercise in fantasy that we call 'nostalgia'. Those judgements are, however, arbitrary.

 

Just met a self-proclaimed "conservative" who attributes ALL modern problems to the "fact" :doh: that Americans today don't have the respect for righteousness, lawfulness, hard work, honesty, integrity, self sacrifice (and so on and so on... blah, blah, blah) as did the men and women who lived through WWII and the 1950's. Apparently crime, lying, cowardice, gangs and atheism were all invented by teenagers in the year 1960.

 

What a banner year!!! :(

 

Isn't it nice to know that there was a perfect world at one time? No. I guess not.

[Boerseun]

As an interesting aside, consider the following:

 

We all know people who long for the "good old days", or even actively do so ourselves.

 

Now, it seems as if things were easier and better when we were younger. Or so we might think. All the "old days" that we may long for, occurred in our youth. In our youth, we were generally in better shape physically, and healthier, than we are today. So, the longing for those good old days, might simply be our brains remembering a better physique, with healthier organs etc., and then erroneously connects that feeling of better health to the sociopolitical environment of the time, instead for seeing it for what it is, the yearning for the long-lost vigour of youth. And everybody will experience it, in all cultures, around the globe.

 

I think its a case of saying "I want to be young again, because the world was a better place then". But I think we should be honest and say "I want to be young again, because being young feels good".

[coberst]

Craig

 

Let’s try to empathize with the frontier family who is a farmer or small merchant. Such a family must face alone all the tsunamis of everyday existence without help from anyone other than a few neighbors. Such a family has no “safety net” of any kind. There is no insurance, pension, social security, hospital, and no hardware store with all the technology to help when things go wrong. Such a family must reconstruct reality constantly when faced with a reality that they are unprepared for. Such a family must constantly recreate a new reality as reality constantly shakes the foundation of their understanding.

 

McLuhan was, I guess, the first to express the insight that technology is an extension of the human body.

 

These hand-held gadgets for communication might very well represent the end of ‘understanding’ for almost all citizens by 2050. I can see it already on the Internet discussion forums where communication is becoming a stream of consciousness without coherent grammatical or thoughtful content or construction.

 

I am going to deal with numbers and ratios not that I think my numbers are accurate but I think they may be useful for comprehending certain things.

 

Suppose we establish a knowledge-to-understanding ratio K/U, i.e. the amount we know divided by the amount we understand (i.e. need to create).

 

I would say that a frontier family might have K/U ratio of 20/1. As time passes and there is less need for understanding (creativity) and more need for knowing because the demands of the frontier diminish and ‘civilization’ encroaches I would say the K/U ratio might go to 50/1.

 

After one hundred years I suspect the ratio might easily move to 100/1; after leaving the farm and moving to town and going to work in the factory the ratio might very well go to 1000/1.

 

Today’s modern man or woman may very well have a ratio of 10,000/1. The person with a PhD might very well have a ratio 100,000/1.

 

I have heard college professors say that you never really understand a subject until you try to teach it. I suspect a PhD who is also a long time teacher might have developed an understanding of many things and thus dropped the ratio back to 10,000/1.

 

I think that within the next 50 years ‘understanding’ will be only seen in a museum.

 

I should give you an explanation of what I mean by the word ‘understand’.

 

Understanding is a step beyond knowing and is seldom required or measured by schooling. Understanding is generally of disinterested knowledge, i.e. disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

[coberst]

As an interesting aside, consider the following:

 

We all know people who long for the "good old days", or even actively do so ourselves.

 

Now, it seems as if things were easier and better when we were younger. Or so we might think. All the "old days" that we may long for, occurred in our youth. In our youth, we were generally in better shape physically, and healthier, than we are today. So, the longing for those good old days, might simply be our brains remembering a better physique, with healthier organs etc., and then erroneously connects that feeling of better health to the sociopolitical environment of the time, instead for seeing it for what it is, the yearning for the long-lost vigour of youth. And everybody will experience it, in all cultures, around the globe.

 

I think its a case of saying "I want to be young again, because the world was a better place then". But I think we should be honest and say "I want to be young again, because being young feels good".

 

I have no enthusiasm for the current world situation. We have created a culture that will destroy our civilization within the next 200 years if we do not begin to engage this marvelious brain that we were born with. We must reject our bovine tendencies of ether standing staring blankly into the distance or running madly with the herd.

[Pyrotex]

I have no enthusiasm for the current world situation. We have created a culture that will destroy our civilization within the next 200 years if we do not begin to engage this marvelious brain that we were born with. We must reject our bovine tendencies of ether standing staring blankly into the distance or running madly with the herd.

At one level, I agree with you.

 

If modern trends continue, then civilization (as we understand it) will end within 100 to 200 years. I think maybe the key word here is "continue".

 

Look back over the last 2,000 years of European history. At almost every century they were facing the "end of civilization" as they understood it at the time. Chaos came! And the underpinnings of civilization did indeed change. Some cities collapsed, as did some states and some institutions and some cultures and some trade routes. But others popped up like mushrooms. Culture shifted. Technology changed how life was lived. Something unavailable (like books) suddenly became common and cheap. Something fearsome (like armored calvary) suddenly became impotent in the face of someone's clever idea (like pikes). Romantic love got invented. Paper money and credit. Far away discoveries. The deaths of tyrants and the dissolution of inquisitions. The iron fist of religion (which held civilization together) broke apart into fragile glass fingers (metaphor!), and civilization showed that it didn't NEED the iron fist to hold together. People found "freedom" (the anti-christ is at the door!) and it changed cultures and politics, but human civilization went on (in some different form).

 

I suspect that we are now, as we always have been, approaching a "tipping point" (metaphor!) of our current culture. 200 years from now, oil will be a precious and hoarded commodity used only to enable a few shrinking military systems to postpone their rusting dissolution. People will return to the farmlands with horses, but will still have their com/TV/datalink/phones in their pockets (or implanted in their skulls).

 

It will be a different and unrecognizable world. OUR civilization will have indeed ended. But a NEW civilization will have taken its place.

[coberst]

Pyrotex

 

I think that our technology is driving us to destruction. It seems ironic that our marvelous brain has been so successful in developing technology that will destroy us because our brain has not helped us develop the moral structure required to live together.

[Pyrotex]

I think that our technology is driving us to destruction. It seems ironic that our marvelous brain has been so successful in developing technology that will destroy us because our brain has not helped us develop the moral structure required to live together.

Maybe. Maybe not. Sometimes even the best idea leads down a blind alley. (metaphor!) Maybe we have all the moral structure we ever had, just configured differently. Maybe we or our children will have to pay for our mistakes and errors. It has always been so. Our destruction will just look a little different than the destruction of, say, The Holy Roman Empire, and will lead to something quite different (but no less temporary) than, say, the Renaissance.

[LaurieAG]

Maybe. Maybe not. Sometimes even the best idea leads down a blind alley. (metaphor!) Maybe we have all the moral structure we ever had, just configured differently. Maybe we or our children will have to pay for our mistakes and errors. It has always been so. Our destruction will just look a little different than the destruction of, say, The Holy Roman Empire, and will lead to something quite different (but no less temporary) than, say, the Renaissance.

 

Hello Pyro,

 

Coberst might appreciate this. I think it's remarkable that a movie has finally been made of the first (old) english written saga 'Beowolf' and I have yet to see a critics opinion that refers to Grendel (and his mother) as being a metaphor for the internecine warfare that the Danes had been involved in (even Beowolf's father was involved in this) and Beowolf came to help solve.

 

So much for lessons learnt.