Home >> History, Ideology & Science >> Political Theory

     Email   Print 

The Technology of Law and The Law of Technology - Part X

Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. - 5/6/2006

Sam,

I must say that your "apparent" disgressions on linguistic problems and concerning life-after-death are no disgression at all but very pertinent questions (all my analyses are, in fact, based solely upon life and death). These two are, in my opinion, the only pair of words that remain clear. Indeed, your disgression on linguistics provides us with a beautiful example of the contradictions and tensions implied in the couplet "identity and velocity". It would seem that the Law (as does Art) has its own rules of "tempo" and "weight". Indeed, your digression offers a great example of what I call "the inclined enclosing frame", that is to say, all is in motion, even the frame of mind. This is not yet a revolution, however great, this is a change, a metamorphosis.

Regarding your comments on life-after-death I should say that, in spite of your suggestive presentation, they are nothing new. The First world War marked a red line in history fostering a new figure: the anonymous soldier, the cell in the organism, the wheel in the machine . No other form of life-after-death was wished (and considered) by the old Celtic races: sons (propagation of genetic material). In fact, what other life-after-death more real than a son? Those evolutionary ideas! Does anybody still think it is a risk that they have appeared recently? As far as I know Nietzsche was the first who cast the problem in real terms. By the way, I must say that it was Nietzsche himself who thought about life-after-death in your terms and even went far beyond by asking himself, with his habitual poetic genius: "Wouldn't Life be just a strange kind of Death?". Anyway, Nietzsche stumbled on spurious Darwinism as most thinkers, even today, do, but he thought (erroneously?) that there was a truth hidden in Darwinism: a drive to continuous perfection and thus, to supermanhood. Ignoring Nietzsche´s "Rennaisance-like hysteria of power" and, over all his "sins", his titanic deviation, it seems that sometimes, depeneding on his turbulent style and his protean fogs, he brings an investigation to light, a choleric prophecy, a question of destiny: what does it mean to us, the self-appointed pinnacle of nature, its more powerful tool, this "ever-present" drive to perfection?

To put it in your terms, which trait is common, if any, to IDENTITY and SURPASSING? If we translate such ideas to our century (which, by the way, was considered by Nietzsche as his proper home) a question arises: are we tempted, with our technolgical advances (genetics and artificial intelligence) into achieving supermanhood in its more spurious, materialistic, vulgar and titanical ways?

But, in spite of these metaphysicaI depths, I still wish to be practical:-)

As the only real subject of the law of Life and Death, my writing is always focused on the individual. Humanity, society, seems to be only cast in History (of the past). To start with, it must be said that there is no longer the old "in versus out" (internal versus external) problem (the individual against nature, the state, or culture). As I have pointed out, in a certain way, you, too, live on an inclined plane. It is not only the world which, at an ever increasing "molto vivace" tempo, is changing and threatening us - but also it is our conceptions of world which are changing. From a birds' eye view, all these characteristics: fuzziness, extreme movement, ever faster tempo, the hunger for energy, are the signs of metamorphosis. Finally, the individual himself has to put a face to the dilemma, the "to be or not to be"? Is he with man or with superman? Are we transforming ourselves into information (the modern version of what the ancients called the soul, the spirit)? Is the age of information our supermanhood: the Supermind?

Then, how will the techno-future be related to the individual, which poisons and pleasures, which treats and fights are there for him? The individual should know, in the first place, that his position is, more than ever, ad hoc.

The First Premise: THERE IS NO EXIT. The technological organization is total. It covers the Earth completely - the environment is now auxiliary. He should also know that the new selection principle is technological, the arena is in n-dimensional spaces, the weapons are mathematics. The old knowledge of nature (and its possibilities) must be accompanied by technological knowledge (for instance, a full knowledge of techno-pharmacology). Technology admits all the old myths and probably new possibilities: masks, guerrilla warfare, etc... all are there for the individual. And it poses new dangers: totalitarianism is le must of these dangers. The domination of technology works with sweeping controls. The use of the mask seems almost essential to survival (the mask of mediocrity is the best). New changes in the selection principle are always possible, the spiritual man must be fully aware of the extension and velocity of the tech-waves. The arena is a magic space, changing abruptly. To survive, the mind of the spiritual man should be like that of a Tai-chi fighter's: open to all the possibilities, just like water (the spirit of Zen), a universal action from a universal point of view. Always ready to fight, always ready to play; extremely relaxed and extremely fixed. Technology feeds on the four elements, only the fifth, Eros, is out of its dominion. Sexual love, friendship and the muses are the only true riches. Whenever we enjoy these pleasures, we are out of the power of the technological Leviathan. There are no morals yet, only models. Stoicism, hedonism and all the other pre-Socratic concepts are always helpful tools (the two ages have some things in common).

A study of other cultures is essential (a full, real-time adaptation to any place and any time). "Umheilicht" must be overcome with two movements of extreme tension: a deep study in history (natural, universal, human, religious, philosophical, etc.) and the diary observation of the technological breaking point (what the old historians called: the "short time" and the "long time"). To combine these two fields is the mark of the cultivated future man. As Goethe beautifully stated: our feet firmly on earth (reality), our minds always connected to the stars. That is our destiny and also our pleasure.

These are nothing more than incomplete advices. The total field is changing all the time. Fully settled in traditional knowledge, the spiritual man should always be attuned to the last movement, ever changing his mind without changing his heart. The (re-)creation of new myths is the superlative "work" bestowed upon the unique person. "Life is UNCONDITIONAL, death is only the beginning."

Well, thats all for now. In my next letter, I'll talk about the king: the technician and his politics. It is essential for the unique person to know who and how rules. Your turn.

Best regards
roberto


Dear Roberto,

Indeed, we are almost in full agreement (does this begin to worry you? ...;o))

I also think that the age of information will see the revolutionizing of the very process of evolution, its speed, its ends, its means, its distribution (all-pervasiveness). I am not sure that we have a choice (between Man and Superman, for instance). I think the phase transition will occur when a new principle of selection is introduced, as you have suggested. It will be a principle of selection between competing models of civilization. In this, its nature will be no different to its predecessors. But it will employ different criteria. For the first time, technology per se, as DISTINCT from humanity - will have a say. From now on - and ever more so in the future - we are TWO equal partners: the Man and the Machine. The increasing complexity of the latter will render it intelligent and the equal of Man himself.

Actually, what you are talking about in your letter is a kulturkampf, a clash or battle of cultures. I tend to doubt this specific outcome - I think transition will be smoother and that disparate cultures will COHABITATE - though I fully agree with all your premises. Here is why:

Culture is a hot topic. Scholars (Fukoyama, Huntington, to mention but two) disagree about whether this is the end of history or the beginning of a particularly nasty chapter of it.

What makes cultures tick and why some of them tick discernibly better than others – is the main bone of contention.

We can view cultures through the prism of their attitude towards their constituents: the individuals they are comprised of. More so, we can classify them in accordance with their approach towards "humanness", the experience of being human.

Some cultures are evidently anthropocentric – others are anthropo-transcendental. These two lingual coins need elaboration to be fully comprehended.

A culture which cherishes the human potential and strives to create the conditions needed for its fullest materialization and manifestation is an anthropocentric culture. Such striving is the top priority, the crowning achievement, the measuring rod of such a culture, its attainment - its criterion of success or failure.

On the other pole of the dichotomy we find cultures which look beyond humanity. This "transcendental" look has multiple purposes.

Some cultures want to transcend human limitations, others to derive meaning, yet others to maintain social equilibrium. But what is common to all of them – regardless of purpose – is the subjugation of human endeavour, of human experience, human potential, all things human to this transcendence.

Granted: cultures resemble living organisms. They evolve, they develop, they procreate. None of them was "created" the way it is today. Cultures go through Differential Phases – wherein they re-define and re-invent themselves using varied parameters. Once these phases are over – the results are enshrined during the Inertial Phases. The Differential Phases are period of social dislocation and upheaval, of critical, even revolutionary thinking, of new technologies, new methods of achieving set social goals, identity crises, imitation and differentiation.

They are followed by phases of a diametrically opposed character:

Preservation, even stagnation, ritualism, repetition, rigidity, emphasis on structures rather than contents.

Anthropocentric cultures have differential phases which are longer than the inertial ones.

Anthropotranscendental ones tend to display a reverse pattern.

This still does not solve two basic enigmas:

What causes the transition between differential and inertial phases?

Why is it that anthropocentricity coincides with differentiation and progress / evolution – while other types of cultures with an inertial framework?

(continued)