Chapter 5: Thoughts on Technology and the Times
“It shouldn't be too much of a surprise that the Internet has evolved into a force strong enough to reflect the greatest hopes and fears of those who use it. After all, it was designed to withstand nuclear war, not just the puny huffs and puffs of politicians and religious fanatics.”
-Denise Caruso
Sun Tzu’s ages old treatise on strategy is very intent on making the commander highly aware of the terrain of battle and ready to leverage the advantages towards victory. Similarly, it is sure to remind the leader of the disadvantages, such that the troops will be able to avoid them in an armed conflict. We too must be conscious of the social “landscape” of the times which is being so rapidly shaped in this era, as it always has, by technology. In very much the same way that the invention of mass manufacturing led to a consequential rearrangement of social life, information technology is shaping society as we know it as well. It seems obvious though, the trend that is developing is towards decentralization, reflecting, perhaps on a more esoteric level, the very form of the decentralization exhibited in the Internet and other networks. Though on a more basic level, it stems from the ability for individuals to access resources quickly and efficiently without the use of a centralized authority or bureaucracy. If we are what we eat, it seems that it is also true that we are what we use. But if society is becoming more and more decentralized, the more pragmatic question is what benefits and disadvantages does it offer to achieving our aims. As you’re probably expecting, I intend to inform you of what I perceive it to be. First the bad news: decentralization allows the problems of “social impetus” to become vastly larger in scope and scale. Essentially, the inherent nature of the Follower majority to retain their mental constructs and refuse changes to it used to be held in place by the centralized power stream of the Maintainers. Television and Newspapers, for example, used to be controlled by a few large businesses and nothing much more. Thus, admittedly, decentralization has done much to bring down the individual power of the Maintainers, the issue is that the increased communication between Followers actually creates a more cohesive environment for creating a creatively sterile community. In essence, the communication among all the various Followers is a feedback loop: it reinforces itself since their beliefs are all roughly the same. Everyone has become a Maintainer of each other and, is in turn maintained by others.
Even worse, the disorganization of power is worse in the sense that it is harder for the Creators to seize control. Strategically, it is harder now to identify the nodes which are responsible for influencing the most people than when it simply consisted of high-visibility groupings of Maintainers which kept society “on track.” Consequently, the Umbrella is confronted by a enormous grouping of smaller “influence hubs,” which must be tackled individually for control of the larger community. This is a problem that is indeed difficult to overcome, though a possible solution presents itself later in this piece.
And, perhaps most disturbing is the structural barrier which is present in a decentralized society. In fact, the passing of power to the Followers truly accomplishes the ideals of a “perfect” democracy, in which all voices are heard. But the problem is exactly that: that all voices are heard. And when all voices reinforce one another in the same majority paradigm, the points and issues of the small minority are hopelessly washed out in the louder, collective public mass.
Essentially, what is attempting to be expressed here is that the freedom of speech and freedom of creativity available through decentralization is only valuable when it is given to those individuals who are responsible enough to think independently of others. Otherwise, that greater democratization of freedom only leads to mass mentality and an outpouring of a society caught in the process of Maintaining each other’s mass, mainstream mental constructs. But of course, here is the first strength available to us through our surroundings. Mass decentralization has also allowed increased creativity and freedom to develop the paradigm among communities of Creators. Decentralized communities allow the free and open sharing of information, ideas, and concepts. If the individual members of the community act as engaged entities, producing their own thoughts and feeding off the inspiration from others, as Creators, then, that community develops and evolves with a vengeance. And, at least in theory, all pure groups of Creators work in this free manner. Mass decentralization will allow groups of Creators working in tandem to work through pre-existing societal constructs in a more efficient manner. However, on the other hand, a group in which innovation does not serve some kind of primary purpose only stagnates with increased freedom and dissemination of power.
Also inherent in decentralization is the speed and power evident in communication. This, while reinforcing the ability of society to maintain its paradigm indefinitely, has also granted untold advantages of mobility and organization to the Creators. Now groups of individuals which are separated by a physical distance and no longer hindered by that particular characteristic. Instead, they are linked by a mental will which is capable of allowing coordination and cooperation on a level impossible even two decades ago. This, ultimately, is the most powerful tool available in this movement and should be duly noted.
But the question remains: are there more strategies and ideas available to us that should be noted in the move towards global Creator control?
-Denise Caruso
Sun Tzu’s ages old treatise on strategy is very intent on making the commander highly aware of the terrain of battle and ready to leverage the advantages towards victory. Similarly, it is sure to remind the leader of the disadvantages, such that the troops will be able to avoid them in an armed conflict. We too must be conscious of the social “landscape” of the times which is being so rapidly shaped in this era, as it always has, by technology. In very much the same way that the invention of mass manufacturing led to a consequential rearrangement of social life, information technology is shaping society as we know it as well. It seems obvious though, the trend that is developing is towards decentralization, reflecting, perhaps on a more esoteric level, the very form of the decentralization exhibited in the Internet and other networks. Though on a more basic level, it stems from the ability for individuals to access resources quickly and efficiently without the use of a centralized authority or bureaucracy. If we are what we eat, it seems that it is also true that we are what we use. But if society is becoming more and more decentralized, the more pragmatic question is what benefits and disadvantages does it offer to achieving our aims. As you’re probably expecting, I intend to inform you of what I perceive it to be. First the bad news: decentralization allows the problems of “social impetus” to become vastly larger in scope and scale. Essentially, the inherent nature of the Follower majority to retain their mental constructs and refuse changes to it used to be held in place by the centralized power stream of the Maintainers. Television and Newspapers, for example, used to be controlled by a few large businesses and nothing much more. Thus, admittedly, decentralization has done much to bring down the individual power of the Maintainers, the issue is that the increased communication between Followers actually creates a more cohesive environment for creating a creatively sterile community. In essence, the communication among all the various Followers is a feedback loop: it reinforces itself since their beliefs are all roughly the same. Everyone has become a Maintainer of each other and, is in turn maintained by others.
Even worse, the disorganization of power is worse in the sense that it is harder for the Creators to seize control. Strategically, it is harder now to identify the nodes which are responsible for influencing the most people than when it simply consisted of high-visibility groupings of Maintainers which kept society “on track.” Consequently, the Umbrella is confronted by a enormous grouping of smaller “influence hubs,” which must be tackled individually for control of the larger community. This is a problem that is indeed difficult to overcome, though a possible solution presents itself later in this piece.
And, perhaps most disturbing is the structural barrier which is present in a decentralized society. In fact, the passing of power to the Followers truly accomplishes the ideals of a “perfect” democracy, in which all voices are heard. But the problem is exactly that: that all voices are heard. And when all voices reinforce one another in the same majority paradigm, the points and issues of the small minority are hopelessly washed out in the louder, collective public mass.
Essentially, what is attempting to be expressed here is that the freedom of speech and freedom of creativity available through decentralization is only valuable when it is given to those individuals who are responsible enough to think independently of others. Otherwise, that greater democratization of freedom only leads to mass mentality and an outpouring of a society caught in the process of Maintaining each other’s mass, mainstream mental constructs. But of course, here is the first strength available to us through our surroundings. Mass decentralization has also allowed increased creativity and freedom to develop the paradigm among communities of Creators. Decentralized communities allow the free and open sharing of information, ideas, and concepts. If the individual members of the community act as engaged entities, producing their own thoughts and feeding off the inspiration from others, as Creators, then, that community develops and evolves with a vengeance. And, at least in theory, all pure groups of Creators work in this free manner. Mass decentralization will allow groups of Creators working in tandem to work through pre-existing societal constructs in a more efficient manner. However, on the other hand, a group in which innovation does not serve some kind of primary purpose only stagnates with increased freedom and dissemination of power.
Also inherent in decentralization is the speed and power evident in communication. This, while reinforcing the ability of society to maintain its paradigm indefinitely, has also granted untold advantages of mobility and organization to the Creators. Now groups of individuals which are separated by a physical distance and no longer hindered by that particular characteristic. Instead, they are linked by a mental will which is capable of allowing coordination and cooperation on a level impossible even two decades ago. This, ultimately, is the most powerful tool available in this movement and should be duly noted.
But the question remains: are there more strategies and ideas available to us that should be noted in the move towards global Creator control?
posted by Tim at 5:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home