diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'ch2.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | ch2.tex | 213 |
1 files changed, 213 insertions, 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@ +% 2 +\chapter{} + +How did this development come to be? +Surely more forces were at work than \enquote{Progress?} +This essay is not a history of the +information +revolution, but some +mention +must be made in passing. At some point +during the Second +World +War, a series of +decisions to computerize were reached. The +overriding concerns were military and intelligence applications. It should be noted that +private industry would never have invested +in this, or any other development. Without +government investment, bankers are paragons of timidity. + +The founders of the information, or cybernetic age, were Alan Turing, John Von +Neuman, Norbert Wiener, Claude Shannon +and later, Noam Chomsky. Hordes of electrical engineers --- whether they understood +what they were doing or not --- reworked almost every philosophical problem known to +humans in terms of circuitry and programming languages. These problems began, of +course, centuries ago. For instance the epistimological question: what is knowledge, +how do we know, how do we know we +know, how does it relate to the world outside, who controls knowledge, who has it +and who does not, what is it worth, how do +we talk about it (which is the question of +what language we shall use and how shall +we talk), and what instrumentalities we perceive through. + +Questions of the technology of knowing +must be interwoven with political and economic +considerations (within the confines +of what is scientifically and technologically +possible), which is to say knowledge systems are structured like intelligence and +counter-intelligence systems. There is to be +written a whole history of secret and coded +knowledges... priestly systems, rites, hierarchies and ceremonies of learning and +passage, memory systems, networks of initiates. . . In addition, one should ask: why did +one set of systems triumph—that is to say, +why were they preserved, and rrmembered— +and others fail? There is room for a history of +the politics of the promotion, funding and +triumph of intellectual knowledge systems +and this includes the rememberance of the +major streams of philosophy. Philosophy is +one of the atmospheric backgrounds which +provides for a general and unified state of +perception against which day to day knowledge is learned. + +The original choices for computers, binary, Boolean (Leibnizian, as Wiener would +have it) logic, reflected a dialectical, even a +Manichean approach and was an unfortunate decision. Why these choices? It was +easier to design electrical circuits that could +carry out the logic operations. + +The system began slowly, went on line +massively with mainframes and minis in the +fifties, mostly +in defense +and intelligence +applications, followed closely by banking +and business. + +In the seventies, a massive campaign was +mounted to \enquote{democratize} the computer. +The micro was developed by small, innovative businessmen-technicians. +Sales propaganda was disseminated +in the name of enlightenment, efficiency, transcendance +and power. Every possible sales technique +known to public relations, advertising and +mythology was employed to sell the computer. +Not only were ancient and modern +symbols deployed, but also fear. It became +possible, we were told, to have a computer in +the home that was once as large as a building +... and did the same work. + +One notes the parallel developments and +\enquote{needs}: The committment to the Great +Theater of perpetual war as the pressure +system out of which innovation and invention and progress came. This generated a +need for a vast corps of mind-workers. Cheap +education produced intellectuals. This led +not only to the further proliferation of mindworkers, but of mediators and mediational +systems. Intelligence and police (and their +surveillance systems); psychologists and +their theories; many schools of psychotherapy; sociologists; anthropologists; analysts; +coders and decoders; cryptographers and decryption experts; +disinformation-propagating operatives; advertisers; public-relations +flacks; consultants; historians in fifty modes; +economists, both practical and theoretical; +financial manipulators, and the buyers of +their services (bankers, securities dealers, +brokers, currency dialecticians); new critics; +hermeneuticists; structuralists; semioticians; +deconstructionists; quantifiers; metricians; +statisticians; propagandists; accountants and +auditors; lawyers and proliferators of law; +interactivists (and their connecting machineries); cosmic and microcosmic theoreticians; +agronomists; doctors; philosophical logicians +and inventors of yet newer and newer mathematics; salesmen; priests and ministers and +inventors of yet-new religions; logical and +scientific astrologers... And now, in the +present age, all this to be machined. + +They sought both unity and fragmentation. Now one must admit that there is a +propensity in some humans to generate new +unifying theories and technologies while +at the same time inventing and proliferating new explanatory systems and new subtheories . . . all of which promise to explain +everything. This seems to be a function of +the density of intellectuals, in terms of availability of jobs and competition, both relative +and absolute, to a general and non-theorizing +population. This insures that a fair percentage of those theories will be nonsensical, if +not fraudulent... which is no impediment to +their triumph. + +In addition, general systems theory took +hold, and every aspect of the universe was +designated a sub-system of some larger system and the largest --- and unknown --- system +of all was a function of these bureaucratically +minded spinners of holisms. + +The early cyberneticians thought that this +development would add to—if not exponentially, then at least incrementally—the sum of +human knowledge. Accompanying this development was an ancient agenda: the compulsion to impose order, predictability, to +eliminate risk and uncertainty. But as far as +this ancient agenda was concerned, the commitment should be shared, paid for by some +part of the public. New processes would in +turn create still newer knowledge. And, as all +things happen in this modern society, the +\enquote{system,} +with +all of its attendant +confusions, complexities and corruptions, with its +intense conflicts among the different programs, systems and equipment +manufacturers, with its political and business battles, has +been laid on in the most haphazard, ridiculous, expensive, inefficient and disorganized +way (repeating our earlier history of canals, +railroads, highways, transit systems, communications and technology in general). We +now have a conflict of computer, communicating and language-conversion systems +with many fundamental problems still unsolved. + + +(And here, lest we forget that the problem +is not merely \enquote{intellectual,} we must remember concrete institutions with which +intellectuals are connected, +and who provide their funding. How, and to whom, ideas +are sold: we must think about AT\&T, Sperry-Rand, IT\&T, IBM, Citicorp and Chase... We +must also not forget that there are unwritten +and true histories to be done of the Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, the CIA, all intelligence agencies of the +world, and how the intellectual thought of +these agencies permeates every aspect of +everyday life. We must think about the politics of international and national communications policy and how these issues are +fought out in corporations, legislative bodies +and regulatory agencies. We must think of +pricing, advertising, marketing, promotion, +generations of faulty computers, paper computers, imbecilic +competiton, suppression of innovation, influence-peddling, lobbying, +bribes, kickbacks and the rest of the common +paraphenalia of business ... especially at a +time when business becomes ever-more +\enquote{intellectualized.}) + +There was a nescessity to translate all +living and non-living forms, to simulate +events and natural processes, to chart their +interactions and simulate thse interrelations +and to begin to fill the memory and data +banks. This growing assemblage gradually +becomes the total environment ... at least +for a few. These developments are new but +are also, at the same time, the fulfillment of +an ancient desire: to control the material +world by the manipulation of secret know]ledge (secret, in modern times, by being +priced, being made into intellectual property, being classified). How does this differ +from the practices of ancient priests, shamans, magicians? + +Ancient magicians thought they could +control the environment. How did information +control the material world in the past? +By assuming a connection between the +internal system of intellectual order and the +\emph{external} system of \emph{material} order. One +controlled the cosmos by the uses of resonances +and dissonances, rhythms compatible with +the true natural rhythm of the spheres, by the +use of a chant, an incantation, a dance, a +ritual; or one could apply sacred geometry, +controlling shapes that were analogous to +the shape of the worlds one wanted to dominate\ldots\ magic. Magic embodies a primitive +theory of electromagnetism and telecommunication. +Magic desires to achieve telepathy +and teleportation. Voodoo, for instance, contains +the notion of a communicating medium +and the communicants who believe in it. +The Catholic Church is a communicating +organism with an apparatus of switches and +relays and a communicating language for +the input of prayers through a churchly +switchboard up to Heaven, and outputs returned +to the supplicant. And above all, all +ancient and primitive systems implicitly +propose the notion of an ordered, coherant +universe, expressible in a certain set of languages, +the manipulation of which manipulates +the universe. The question is: do these +systems manipulate the universe or a simulation +of the universe? What certain intellectuals +in modern society propose is electromagic. + |