[^^zix home page] [HYPER-SPACE (mfa)] [Quick Index/Map]
-[Promenade/Galleries]-
ma: z^futurist
See also: [L/D] [S/D]
See also: [af/art3/pkda2001 - pizoig gaming projects]
Ab Fr
\ /
+----------------+
/| /|
/ | / |
/ | / |
Fu / | / |
\ / | / |
+----------------+--Hu |
| | "RS-3" | |
[Quick Index] | Jz--+----------|-----+
| / | / \
| / | / Sc
| / | /
| / | /
|/ |/
+----------------+
/ \
Sp Ar
"Reality Structure 3" (mark II)
This iconosphere owes much of its
existence to Phillip Glass:Symp #3 & #2. [Learn more about the Iconosphere]
[Cross Product Space] (entry port ABxAB)
[Semi-linear blog-o-sphere] (and duck crossing)
z^futurist
(table of contents follows)...
More Triple-Cross Products
NOTE: Recent theoretical work on the possibilities of Quadrupple (4-tupple) Cross Products has been
suspended due to a lack of funding. Data processin continues - un-abated.
AxB (v) :: C -[ SC x SP (Earth) :: (expressed via) ART -> Eco Psychology, etc]-
See also: The name re-makes the thing (HUM x SCI (word) :: EXP as JAZ).
-^_6
On this page:
{Intro} (including keys)
{Foward Thinkers}
{A random rant about the fate of the earth}
{Seeing the Future}
{Properties of Futurists}
{Self, Reality and Society in the post-post relativity/qauntum era}
{What will you do?}
{Self, Reality and Society in the post-post relativity/qauntum era}
{Links}
Intro
In this section:
{Foward Thinkers}
Links:
-[the AccelleratorWatch.com dfn]-
via that page:
[H.G.] Wells is often considered the first modern
futurist. His -[Anticipations (1901)]-, a systematic (www: wnrf.org)
non-fiction exploration of the future in a wide
range of domains, was according to I.F. Clarke
"the first comprehensive and widely read survey
of future developments in the short history of
predictive writing." His brief Discovery of the
Future (1902) was also among the first texts on
the practice of futures thinking, an aspect of
the new discipline of sociology in Wells' day.
Foward Thinkers
{Vedaprajinananda Avadhuta}
{Marcus Anthony}
{Marlene de Beer}
{Bussey}
{Riane Eisler}
{Paulo Freire}
{Mahajyoti Glassman}
{Maheshvarananda} (social activist)
{Tobin Hart}
{Peter Hayward}
{Inayatullah}
{Vachel Miller}
{Milojevic}
{Helena Pederson}
{P.R. Sarkar}
{Gurukul Vice-Chancellor, Shambushivananda}
{Joseph Voros}
Vedaprajinananda Avadhuta
Marcus Anthony
Marlene de Beer
Bussey
Riane Eisler
Paulo Freire
-[wiki: ]-
Mahajyoti Glassman
-[wiki: ]-
Maheshvarananda
(social activist)
-[wiki: ]-
Tobin Hart
-[wiki: ]-
Peter Hayward
Inayatullah
-[wiki: ]-
Vachel Miller
-[wiki: ]-
Milojevic
-[wiki: ]-
Helena Pederson
-[wiki: ]-
P.R. Sarkar
-[wiki: Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar]-
Law of the Social Cycle,
the Progressive Utilization Theory (PROUT)
http://www.ru.org/proutfea.htm
the Theory of Microvitum
philosophy of Neo-Humanism.
Gurukul Vice-Chancellor, Shambushivananda
-[wiki: ]-
-[wiki: ]-Joseph Voros
Keys:
{Time: Past/Present/Future.}
See also: -[Time Travel]-
Futurisim is the concept of....
Futurist akeyis: The Concept of time
(past/present/future)
See also: -[time]- (scientist perspective)
-[time]- (spiritualist perspective)
-[Time Travel]- via: Fut x Abs (time)
Note: There is NO absurdist, artistic, fractalist, humanist,
or jazzist perspective of time; everything is "just" is;
that is, "is is"
-- (commonly refered to as "the is that is now").
-[(map entry)]-
To the futurist the future (and even the past and present are NOT
the immutable things that they generally are "taken as".
A random rant about the fate of the earth
In this section: {Introductory rant}
{Nationalism - The greatest curse..." - Albert Einstein}
Creative powers - survival of the self so that...
Keep creating
the biological imperative
the creative urge
the need for pause/reflection/angst/thought/feeling/action/lounging-about/listening - rinse and repeat
(pratfall)
Introductory Rant
On the fate of the human race,....
Of course, one could argue (prior to the current era)
that if the human race was to "simply disappear"
-- with a whimper or without; then the world would
pretty much continue "onward", without really noticing.
Of course, further one could argue that domestic animals
and such (including those that we imprision in zoos so that the (rarely
motivated) few that care to see "an actual animal - usually the
young who have a natural (nice word, eh ;) curiosity) might well
notice, but then "the next generation" would only have curious
tales handed down to them of the "dog that walked on its hind legs",
or "the very noisy dolphin, that more often than not acted like
a shark", etc.
However much we might want to *assume* that (as with H.G. Welle's vision
in his "The Time Machine", that we simply pass from the earth and in the
end, it's just the "normal" slow, heat-death of the world as the sun
quietly goes out), that our passing would have no effect. It wouldn't
but the actions that we are now taking between what is (to me) becoming
more and more apparent and in-evitable day-by-day, second-by-second.
Many (well meaning, and most mostly upper-class, and mostly "civilised"
- by which i mean having access to a VCR/DVR/Tivo (no offence intended),
as well as at least ONE privately owned or leased automobile/van/suv/etc
- for personal, *not* professional or job-related, and "with an oppinon"
as to what's really wrong with the world) of course (from time to time)
become thoughtful (or even more-rarely concerned; and even more more
rarely worried) about the environment, the "quality of life", and (rarely)
"future generations".
I think that this is the most "distinguishing" (as in the distinguishing mark)
aspects of a futurist.
We "have to survive"; thus, we go about our business of survival (ie, a job
or the way in which we earn money to survive in the various forms of society
that derive from a money-driven (obsessed?) species).
But.
Of course, we ponder in varrying degrees about the future of the world
and of course our helplessness in changing or at least altering e
{Introductory rant}
{Nationalism - The greatest curse..." - Albert Einstein}
And action plan: P.R.A.T.F.A.L.L.
(you didn't *really* think that ANY of this was random did you?
Only a FOOL (one not one has the excuse of mental *frailty*)
would think: Messicans (read that as "illegal immagrants" - who
"well, and they can get all of the beneifits and they pay no taxes...
Creative powers - survival of the self so that...
Keep creating | Keep Surviving | Don't Die | (try not to think too much about OPTION FOUR - see/view/ref_to: "RoboCop")
the biological imperative
the need for: reflection/angst/thought/feeling/action/lounging-about/listening - rinse and repeat
(pratfall)
the creative urge
P.R.A.T.F.A.L.L: PAUSE
One of the most powerful concepts in the universe is: TO PAUSE.
(it is also an "substance" in a metaphysical, 'pataphysical
Links to absurdist forums...
HarleyTheParrot
http://www.mindsay.com/create.mws
P.R.A.T.F.A.L.L: reflection
P.R.A.T.F.A.L.L: angst
P.R.A.T.F.A.L.L: thought
P.R.A.T.F.A.L.L: feeling
P.R.A.T.F.A.L.L: action
P.R.A.T.F.A.L.L: lounging-about
P.R.A.T.F.A.L.L: listening
P.R.A.T.F.A.L.L: rinse and repeat
On the hydro-dynamics of the Pratfall in Absurdist Watre-Theatre
Next: (NEST - E.U. euro) - seeing the future
Futurism: Seeing the Future
The concept of futurism is closely linked with "far seeing", "remote viewing"
(as well as other astral phenomena), "speculation", as well as "wondering".
In terms of the "labels" applied to futurists, these include "seer", "prophet",
"scientist/philosopher/spirtualist", "shaman", "seekder", "visionary",
"science fiction author", "peace-nik", "gaist", etc.
Adjectives include: "speculating", "guessing", "new age", "not living in
the real world", etc.
Despite these, futurists are constantly asking the question "What if?"
-- and they aren't lovingly gazing at the balance sheet of a megalithic
corporation with expectations of next-quarter returns exceeding projections
either.
Futurists include many claimig to having seen "visions" (hence the term
"visionary"). For instance, Joan of Arc (approx 1430) claimed to have heard
the voices of St. Michael and St. Margaret who guided her to take charge
of France's army to restore Charles II to the thrown as opposed to the
British who had taken the thrown and control of much of France. The fact
that these "visions" led to an almost complete rout of the British and
but for an il-fated attempt to retake the city of Paris, proved her
brilliance and bravery as a leader. Skeptics of course point out that
if her "visions" had been well and true, then she should have been
completely victorius.
This is a constant problem in reductionist thinking. -[see entry in Scientist[-
Its adherence to the priniciples of consistency and rational explantions
for everything cause it to rejct things that most reasonable people might
accept. That is not to say, that in many cases fraud, tricks, and other
entertainments are not often portrayed as bona fide (Latin: in good faith)
thngs. It is one thing to "see" things before they happen, it is yet
another for a young boy to climb a rope in the middle of a desert (at
night) and made to vanish.
Setting skeptical arguments asside, i must point out that in the end
analysis (even from a reductionist point of view), the utility of an
event, power, etc. CAN be demonstrated in the material world in many
cases. Let us now turn our attention to futurism.
One the one hand, the clear and present "now" often blinds most of us
to the potentials for change. For example, for countless centuries the
huns (raiders, etc) annoyed the emperors of China. Until finally, after
a series of smaller walls had been built, the Ming dynasty emperors
(approx 1350-1six00ce) began the massive work on the so-called
"Great Wall of China" (one of the few man-made objects that can be
seen from space). Despite the charge by skeptics that the wall did
not end the raids, the sheer scale of such a project had not seen
the like since the buidling of the pyramides in Ancient Egypt. Also,
the scale of the project might have had a profound affect upon the
casual raider seeing as its seemingly endless expanse allowed people
on foot to climb over it, but any horseback raider would have to
find their way around the over 2200km (1400 miles) long barrier.
This is visionary thinking at its best.
Other examples of construction include the Hoover Dam, the Pannama
Cannal, the Acropolis of Greece, the multi-generational cathedrals
of Europe, etc. Nor do such acts of the visionary have to have such
a large scale. For example the "Book of the Tau" (purportedly
written by Lao Tse, but more likely the work of several) prides itself
of consisting of only 5000 characters -- making it the shortest
"religious" work on the planet Earth -(see map)-.
Note that i make no distinction between what we might call "reality-based"
speculation (eg, science fiction, scientific projections, etc) and
fantasy (eg, works of pure fiction, fanciful tales, etc). Again the
attempt here is return to reductionist thinking since the "proof"
of the prediction is in the future -- which from a reductionist
POV (point of view) will clearly BE; ie, the predicted event either
will or will NOT occur -- and thus settle the matter.
Two of the most celebrated examples of fantasies coming true are by
informed, western-thinking writers. Johanes Kepler (who guided by
Galieleo's mathematical ideas and the astronomical observations of
Tyco Brahe was able to derive his "three laws" of planetary motion),
wrote a story about visiting the moon. In the story, he partook of
a potion made by his mother and was thus able to travel to the moon.
Later the charge of "witchcraft" was leveled at his mother (the
same crime of which Joan of Arc was accused of, leading to her
being tortured and killed by the British -- her "fortunate" predictions
from the Saints which aided the French were seen as "un-fortunate"
deviltries by the British).
The second example in a bizarre twist of life copying art was in the
work of Johnathan Swift. In one of his stories, he "predicted" that
Mars had two small moons. Later when it became possible with the aid
of the newest and strongest telescopes, the two moons were found.
They were appropriately named "Phobos" (Greek: Fear) and "Demmos"
(Greek: The Demon).
Passing from the world of fantasy to the world of speculative fiction,
we find things such as "science fiction writers". Oddly enough, one
criticism of the "thinness" of sf writings comes from the writer
C.S. Lewis. It should be noted that his "Tales of Narnia" are but
thinnly cloaked moralistic tales of properness of Christianity.
Regardless, he is well known for having said that people who read
the sf stories that included the much-over worked themes of a
love story, a detective story, and other "hack" plots of the cheap,
pulp fictions. The response has always been the same: It is precisely
because the story IS told in the sf genre that we are interested in
them. For exmaple, the controversial film "Guess Whose Coming to
Dinner?" brings the idea of inter-racial dating (and sex of course!)
to the fore-ftont. SF had already gone far beyond that with the
idea of inter-species dating. An example of the culmination of this
can be seen in the film "Galaxy Quest".
Thus, while the "plot" of a science fiction work might be rather
"thin" in traditional sense and therefore fain to be even refered
to as "literature", we see that many of the ideas that CAN be
explored tradtional literature are NOT. Take for example, the
common theme of transformation of humans. In the story "StarBurst"
by Frederic Pohl a common theme of "transscendent evolution of
the mind" is thoroughly explored. In the story, eight astronauts
leave for Alpha Centauri on a 20 year trip to settle a new world.
Being cut off for humanity for so long actually ends up forcing
them evolve simply to survive. They (among other things) solve
here-to-fore un-solvable mathematical problems, advance physics
a hundred years in less than just five, evolve language itself
far beyond the pathetic thing that we "get by with", etc.
Note that the last of these "language" is one of the most imporatnt
developments of humans. We have now even taught sign language to
chimps and gorillas -- who have in turn taught it to their children.
The biologist/futurist John Lilly was one of the first humans to
attempt to "speak with" dolphins. -(see map)-.
Setting asside the "fact" that chimps and gorillas may never be
able to understand the calculus of variations, chess, or even
concept of evolution itself -- many humans apparently will never
be able to understand these things either -- we must realise that
THE lesson here is: Someone had enough vision to evey TRY to teach
chimps and gorillas language in the first place.
While it is tempting to embue futurists with absolute psychic powers,
this should again just be seen as yet another attempt at absolutist,
reductionist thinking. From the scientific POV, if something isn't
repeatable then it ISN'T science. See -[Religion vs Science (in Spirituality)]-
The late, great writer/futurist Isaac Asimov pointed this out in
an essay where he underscored the idea tha sf writers are for
the most part un-able to predict the future. He pointed out in
one of his novels he "briefly" touched on the problem of so many
people living in a city that it might become crowded. He introduced
the "futurist" concept of a moving sidewalk (which we see in many
air ports today). And yet he insists that the clearest possible
prediction would be the idea of "rush hour traffic". That is,
he (living in New York) "missed it". All the signs were there:
The growing number of people in a city, by the very nature of
all of the buidlings, the streets in a mega city CAN'T be
widened, more and more people are driving cars, and more and
more people are living OUTSIDE the city but oddly enough want
to work INSIDE it. The solution would (as he put it) have been
a brilliant work of SPECULATIVE fiction and he could have named
it "Crunch!!" -- alluding to the fender benders and of course the
inward vieing of such a mass of humanaity and metal that utlimately
some sort of "chain reaction" must occur.
The point here, is there is indeed a fundamental difference between
"speculative fiction" and "science/fantasy fiction". When we look
at the works of Jonahthan Swift (most notably "Gulliver's Travels")
we see that he is using fiction (in the form of supposedly true
travel narrative) to hold a mirror to existent society that he
saw around him. By the same token, in ??name?? Bellamy's novel
"Looking Backward" he was trying to see how things around him
might turn out. Even the works of (arguably) the "fathers of
Modern Science Fiction", H.G. Welles and Jules Vernes, i think
must be placed in the realm of speculative writers rather than
science fictionists as such. But, first...
Note that we must exclude the work of seers in generatl as
their works are NOT those of fiction. A notable example is the
"Quatrains" (also known as "The Centuries") of Nostradamos. We
reject his work as "futurist" not because he may have been
a fraud (as many of a scientific nature maintain), nor that
he may have actually had psychic powers, but mainly that AS
a seer, he was not trying to SPECULATE or GUESS or CREATE
what the future was to be (as do futurists), but that he sought
actually SEE the portions of the future that were already
laid down. That is, he attempted to see through those portions
of the shifting sands of time, to find and understand the
un-changing bedrock of the future. For example, when he saw
a man which he mysteriously refered to as "Hister" who would
bring the world to the brink of destruction, what he was doing
(however you look at it), was fundamentally DIFFERENT than
the obsucre physician in "Darkest Africa", Albert Schweitzer
who had already written letters warning that this "little
corporal" who at the moment was a nobody trying to gain a
seat in the Weimar Government was more dangerous than he looked.
Scweitzer as an informed and educated man of his times was
making a speculation (yes, a prediction if you will), but he
was making it based on the facts, observations, and even rumors
of his time. The psychic goes (or puports to go if we MUST wear
our skeptics hat) far beyond that. I once (in a sort of odd
trance) predicted the end of the world in 2003. How little did
i undersatnd that such a prediction would in fact come true;
albeit, only for me did the world end then -- not by any sort
of tragedy, but that by that point in time (some 30 years in
the future) i had become an artist. When 9/11 occured, i thought
that it was the end of the world. But, alas it was only a marker
of the end of one century and the beginning of a new -- and the
new one doesn't really look at all that different from the
previous. In fact it reminds me of the crusades of almost a
thousand years ago.
It has been finally recognised that much of the work of Jules Vernes
has indeed "come to pass". One example, was his story "Twenty
Thousand Legues" under the Sea" which of course introduced us to
Captain Nemo. (Please don't get me started on the two horrible
movies made out of Vernes' wonderous novel "The Mysterious Island".
It so thoroughly disgusts me that such a beautiful work of literature
should be so "monstrasized" by people who should know better, that
i am speechless; well, almost. The colosest example is that if we
were to take Charles Dickens' "A Cristmast Tale" and change it
"just a bit", so that now Ebeneezer Scrooge became the AntiChrist,
Bob Cratchet became one of the Old Testament Prophets, and Tiny
Tim was in fact Jesus returned for the "final battle" -- that is
to so pervert the original writing into Christian appocolyptic
thinking in the same way that "The Mysterious Island" has been
perverted.)
Regardless, Vernes' work on submarines has found its wasy into
modern practice. This was mainly due to his being well informed
in terms of science and technology of his time and using his
literary talents as a speculateur. Even his more fanciful
"From Earth to Moon" follows (for the most part) strict guide
lines of science; eg, the concept of "free fall", as well as
knowing that by placing the "launch cannon" near to the equator
that it would get a "boost" from the rotation of the Earth itself.
For the most part, Vernes despised H.G. Welle's "flights of fancy"
that were clearly impossible.
While Vernes (like Mark Twain before him) speculated on the use
of a hotair Balloon as traveling to distant lands, Welles took
off into time. Pre-dating Einstein's work by ten years, he viewed
time as the analogue of space. That is (as Soderbach LINK) has
pointed out) when we travel in time it is the same as if we
had traveled in space. While Welle's time traveler (protrayed
quite well in BOTH films based on the story) travels some
800 thousand years into the future (our future), he might just
have well travled to a distant world.
I must now addrss why i view Welles as not a science fictionist,
but as speculative fictionist. In the first place, the time traveler
doesn't come back to our century to change something in the "here
and now" to change the future, he goes forward to change THEIR
future. We need only mention his use of metaphor in speculating
how the so-called "blue and white collar" worker mentality might
evolve in the future. Even in his story, "The Invisible Man", it
is more about alienation of the individual (in much of the same
tradition as Robert Lewis Steven's "Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hide" ??sp??
as well as Franz Kafka's "The Metamorphsis"). In almost every
case was NOT the science fiction write such as Isaac Asimov,
but the speculative fiction writer. And as such (like H.G. Welles,
Mary Shelly, Bellamy, Jonahthan Swift) a futurist is the clearest
sense of the word.
Thus, when i speak of Philip K. Dick as "the author/futurist" i do
so with his clear "agenda" as to where he not only thought we were
going, but also where he thought we were. He was one of the few
sf writers of his time (or of any kind of writing) who didn't think
that the future was that rosy. And while many worry of the same
oppinion and published, they were if not merely swept aside by
more imaginative writers feeding the public the pablum they so
desired. For example where-as the very successfull Robert Heinlein
gave us (in his story "Farnhan's Freehold") a view of the future
when black people would be the dominant species and eat white
babies as a dellicacy, Dick in his mirraculoouly un-successful
writer gave us a BLACK captain of a rocket that would rescue
a religious group of misfits from a vengefull government in
his very first novel, "Solar Lottery". I need not put it to you
who was the real futurist and who was the exploiter. Dick's
introduction was well known to everyone who had ever sought out
the "dark side" of the future instead of the glowing "onward
and upward" twaddle that most writers, films, etc were turning
out. I like to think that producer/futurist Gene Roddenberry had
been prompted by writers such as Dick when he placed Nichel
Nichols as one of the top officers on the "Enterprise". Not that
i want to denigrate Heinlien too much (he like most of us are
the product of their time) and he did take on the ideas of an
evolving future. Similarly, Cordwainer Smith (Paul Linebarger)
did so, as did Asimov and others.
If futurists weren't ignored, they were often attacked.
Herbert ??name?? oil usage, Rachel Carson (still a target
today by so-called convervatives (aka: reactionary destructors).
I think that it has come time (not that i think that time exists)
to say what futurism is (list-wise)...
Properites of Futurists
1. Futurists do not accept the present as REQUIRED. That is, unlike
the deists of the romantic era, they more often than not view the
world as NOT "the best of all possible worlds". This is only briefly
touched upon in tradtional works. Even in the film "The King and I",
the tragedy of the King not being able to change is held up against
an implied backdrop that "England" (read as the modern world) is
if not perfect, then at least much more of an exemplar to the world.
It doesn't matter that it is England (it could be the United States,
Russia, or even Argentina). The implication is that the "backdrop"
is used for colour and as a recognisable reference point against
which the PLOT can be advanced.
Thus, while in even both the Disney and non-Disney versions of Huck
Finn, we get a "sugar-coated" pablum. The key to Twain's story is
(among other things) this: A black man (a slave; supersticious) goes
on a journey (forced by events to escape to the outside world). In
the process he learns what freedom is, and in the end becomes an
actual human being -- while nearly being killed by a little white
boy's "fun and games". THAT is why they routinely BURN the book, not
because of the antics of to side-show men, not because of the "boat
of death", and not because of a trip on a raft. The book is FEARED
because of the ideas that it embues. That is, that Twain as futurist
saw the present and speculated about the furture. His story of
"A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" another example
of casting about his skeptial eye about the "Guilded Age" and using
time travel as both metaphor and distancing element.
Futurists ask questions of the present; often uncomfortable or odd ones.
2. Futurists must necessarily speculate, guess, or even use absurdity
to accomplish what they want to say. Again, in a backward looking view,
the futurist may not even in the present know or understand things that
have just happened. But, they feel compelled to "tell the truth" even
if it means resorting to fiction or absurdity.
For example, following "The War to End all Wars" (commonly refered to
as "World War I"), the major general of the Allied forces remarked
that the "Treaty of Versailles" was not a treaty of surrender, but
only a temporary cease fire and that in less than 20 years France and
Germany would be at war again. When General Foche wrote that he was
both a futurist and a historian as well as very much a particpant
in the events that occured. It was if nothing else "an informed guess".
Similarly, the group of futurists, The Dada'ists, reacted using absurdity.
They had seen countless suffering in the first modern war and with no
real change in the status quo. Their "manifestos" ranged from well
reasoned treatises to responses to the question "So, What is Dada?"
in the manner that "Dada is a form of Fire Insurance." Similarly, the
poets in Italy under the editorship of Eugenio Montale published their
"Cuttle Fish Bones" papers with poems and such using anti- or total
il-logic.
3. Futurists find the odd side out and are not affraid to explore it.
One of the clearest examples of this is the consistently excellent
work of the British sf writer/futurist D.F. Jones. Jones is best known
for "Collasis: The Forbin Project" made into a suprisingly excellent
film of the same name. The series consists of a trillogy revolving
about an "ultimate computer" called "Collosis" whose task is to
prevent World War III by predicting and controlling nuclear weapons.
Thus, forming an invincible power and thus assuring the continuation
of nuclear stalemate and thus preventing nuclear war. Of course, in
the best of sf tradtions, things do not go as planned. In Jones' other
work "Implosion" the story line follows the use of a sterilising agent
released against England by an un-disclosed "Eastern Block" country.
The express point being to take the lovely sceptered isle by a war
of population attrition; hence the name "implosion". Jones in the best
tradition of the un-relenting UN-happy ending (George Orwell's "1984",
as well as Aldrous Huxley's "Brave New World" spring to mind). I can
only hope that the similarly-themed film "Children of Men" makes us
think at least half as much -- maybe even leaving us more than just
a little disturbed.
Futurists look at the half full/empty glass and ask questions about
glass, water and who owns the future of the glass or the water?
4. Furturists are not affraid of failure. If the work is about a dark
future, then if those events fail to occur, then who could be
happier than the author?
Self, Reality and Society in the post-post relativity/qauntum era
In a recent episode of Star Trek Voyager "UniMatrix Zero",
one of the drones is discoverd by the Borg Queen to be
a spy/traitor and is "disconnected from the Borg Collective"
(read this as "local realtity/structure matrix for the Borg)
and the Borg Queen says, "I know that this is a discomforting
state of mind to be in" - not an exact quote. Compare this
with the idea of the "damaged" telepath "Rod" in Cordwainer
Smith's "The Planet Buyer" who finds his ability to (mostly
and for the most part at random) shut out the thoughts of
others as a *superior* state of mental being.
In the same way, for the most part one of the key dividing marks
between the "collective" (whether it be religously, governmentally,
socieitally, etc base) and the "individual" (ie, the self, the
apparent island in the universe of possibilities) - has been the
connections or not between this usually quite-apparenent *reality*
of the collective and the *often-nebulous* concept of the self.
From what we know of cultural relativism - each person is indeed
NOT an island unto themselves (as per John Donne's "The Tolling
Bell - an Elegy") and even the most out-cast character is still
a "part of the main". Often such an out-cast is defined by they're
very being OUTSIDE of the some-thing which is their normal society.
We are reminded of the fanciful concept of the "outsider" as
superior to the "norms" (clods, poor saps, etc) of society who
don't see the structure of the matrix - or at least accept it's
imlications as inevitable. Thus, we have the various forms of
the *non-conformist* in various venues of literature/folk story/etc:
The "man with no name" in many westerns, the "myserious stranger"
in most forms of fiction, the "mad scientist" (or their "good"
counter part: The renegade/crusading scientist), wanderer, the
"other", "the outsider", or even just the rebel (viz, "Number 6"
in "The Prisoner", "Johnny Yuma" in "The Rebel", or even the
role usually of the seer/shaman within their own society.
Thus at the same time that the "outside-stepper" seeks to become
an individual (or is borne into that role) they both become above
and beyond the normal "morality" of the society - and they are
also set aside; forever un-able to enjoy the fruits of civilisation.
And yet, we know that all individuals - indeed the entire universe
is integrated and communicating on the quantum level at all times
-- and in-escabably so. There is no more chance of being cut off
from the rest of the universe than there is of surviving a fall
into a non-rotating black-hole. Indeed: That would be the *only*
way of leaving the "universe of discourse" behind. And even then,
it is likely that such a journey (possibly *the* last journey
for the *invidual*) would be accompanied by bits of matter and
energy from their universe - if only their space suit, a bit
of space dust, the stray photon or neutrino, or the random book
of poetry.
In a sense: Due to the quantum nature of our universe - we are
ALL crags of the universe of discourse "main".
And at the same time: Due to the relativisitic nature we are
ALL absolute points of reference in a
reference-less universe.
Thus at one and the same time the "hero" is both a boon and a bane
to society. As with the old phrase: "How history gets written,
depends upon who wins the battle.".
- in short: The Hero.
Self, Reality and Society in the post-post relativity/qauntum era
In this section:
{mind} (in FUT; mind + matrix, 1984, etc)...
The Mind
mind, free will IN: matrix, 1984, etc)...
Choice is (seemingly) implying a valuation scale with costs,
weights, payouts, etc. In Copeland's "young economist" [2] he
is taking the idea that we see a result and try to deduce a
cause. But, as with Meursault, it may be just that one choice
is as good as another (ie, there is no reason for any choice)
and as such no choice at all. Posssibly, one of the potential
employeres showed up first and the young economist (like
Meursault) chooses that one. In this case, "choice" is
equivalent to simply waiting for the first (or any)
choice. [Note 2]
In fact, one could argue that NO choice is made at all
-- as if there are no other alternatives. Note that in "Godot"
the two alternatives are to continute to wait (and hence have
Godot tell them what to do; ie, choose for them) --or--
commit suicide.
Note2
(this section only)
[1] Copeland argues thusly,
In light of this admission [that that choice must
at lease exist in the case of not chosing to
starve to death implies choice], Skinner's
insistence that our ordinary way of talking,
in which we mention choices, is superflouous or false and should be replaced by his own language, is obviously arbitrary. i thas not been warranted by his writings.
To help determine the adequancy or inadequacy of Skinner's position, we may ask, "What would it be like for there NOT to be any choices? Suppose we imagine an outstanding yound man about to receive his Ph.D. in economics from a leading
university
[2] Here we should at least "play" (as a strategy)
skinner's non-choice-conditioning-is-everything game.
Because, (a) it may be true (Theorem: A sufficiently
complex conditioning scheme is indistinguishable from free
choice), and (b) it will undoubtedly provide useful tests
for both reality and the illusion of free choice.
What will you do now?
Links
-[the AccelleratorWatch.com dfn]-