diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'ch6.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | ch6.tex | 111 |
1 files changed, 111 insertions, 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@ +\chapter{} + +At this point in history, the conceptual +and theoretical constructs are distilling and +summarizing the past into programs that +mimic natural and human activities. And +conversely, the rich paper records are being +concealed, secreted away in caves like the +treasure of the Niebelungs. The distillation +remains in databases, +hoarded by large corporations and governments. + +More and more the world is seen in terms +of information no matter what the reality is. +Just look at the account books, the numbers, +the projections, the returns. But computerized account books tend toward a sort of +semi-autonomy --- market-to-market, interactively linked --- and drive this outer reality +before it. The investment in computer-compatible thought is so great that more and +more we become trapped in this new culture +and they cannot admit that we have been led +down the wrong fork in history's decision +tree. + +If all is fundamentally the same, it follows +that a data base in one language should have +the power to talk to data bases of other +disciplines in other languages (mediated, of +course, by programmers, protocols, translators, modems, computers, networkings...). +One might have to descend into the primal +language and then, choosing the right fork in +the decision tree, emerge into the proper +language. If only one can design the right +protocols, ones that will not only link among +unlike, competetive machines with unlike, +competetive architectures --- IBM's, +Control Datas, Apples, Crays, DEC's --- but also unlike +transmittal systems run by competetive companies. Languages can be united because +each field and domain, each way of looking at things, +should be a subset of the one, +universal, primal language. Perhaps what is +expressed in one domain should be considered as an encryption of what is expressed +in another domain. + +However, not only do computers in different disciplines not translate into one +another well, but different manufacturers +and communicating companies (to say nothing of nations), while proclaiming one world, +one language, falling prices, one global village, and universal compatibility, fight one +another tooth and nail. They erect a maze of priced mediations and product differentiation, +countering speed and directness of transmission with profitable labyrinths, in +different time-zones, each turn and gate +tolled and tariffed, competing and maintaining secrecy, organizing those to whom they +sell services on a need-to-know-and-pay +basis, playing the differentials among different states of being, business and knowledge. (Citicorp, for instance, computerizing +and gaining speed, places its headquarters in South Dakota in order to --- taking +advantage of the laws --- gain advantage which allows it to keep checks for a certain time and +thus enjoy a float in the empyrean.) + +There are certain laws to be deduced from the observation of business practice. Information +management, traffic control and +pricing follows the timeless strategy of railroads in the past: which is to say, given a +certain limited distance, the problem becomes to increase distance by increasing price. +Economies of scale are developed, need for certain volumes regardless of content, development risk to be paid for by the consumer. +Tesseracts of tax shelters spring up. An incredible maze of contradictory laws emerge +requiring incredible expenditures of intellectual energy and computing time. +Information theorists always leave out the costs. +Claude Shannon quantified information; +AT\&T and IBM priced it. Shannon's theory did not develop in a vacuum; he did his work +for Defense and Bell. Where did the money come from? What did the funders want and +what did they not want? What other enterprises cross-subsidized these developments? +What solids were melted down, who was liquidated to fund the Great Enterprise? No +different than the practices of the ancient Phoenecians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, +Venetians, Fuggers, or any other merchants in history. (In addition, of course, the amounts +of energy, in terms of electricity, required to run and cool computers is staggering.) + +If we take into account the human, informal, anti-organizational, shadow-organizational networks, +the person-to-person +contacts, those who emerge to resist this development, +those who have an interest in not +sharing information, we see vast, centrifugal +forces at work. On the one hand, the emergence of a unified system, a sort of electronic +Catholic Church: on the other, a sort of +electrofeudalism. + +Given all this potential convertibility, +how can money talk to nuclear particles, +pension funds speak recombinant genetics, +prime numbers retrieve fictional heroes\ldots ? +Can we really create a translation program, +which is to say a unified field theory? Or +should we, not having been invited to the +initial feast of reason, create a \emph{disunified field theory}? + +The primal-language business, like the +origins business, is highly competetive (since +the costs of computer runs is much more +than paper experiments). One of our many +ultimate transformational and alchemical +media, a primal liquidity in which all life is +dissolved, reconstituted and redisolved is +genetics. What is the market value of bioengineering as expressed in some form, with +purchases involved, with manufactured products and processes at the end, investible +end-products and investors screaming for +their dividends, trying to hurry time up? +Will it cost the world's savings to transform +humans and will we be left with one creature +at the end? + +We raise the same questions about particle-wave physics and its ruinously expensive paraphenalia. +Finance, literature, genetics, nuclear physics: four (of many) primal languages; three +media in which translations from realm to realm can be seen as new versions of progressive metamorphoses. + |