Friday, December 30, 2005
Of Ghosts and Chickenhawks
David Swanson is excerpted here from www.AfterDowningStreet.org, my favorite website of the day:
My comments, submitted as a reply, below:
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has admitted that he "ghosted" a detainee, meaning that he made the decision to hold a prisoner without keeping any records of the fact.
While prisoners of war can be theoretically stripped of their rights by calling them other names (like "unlawful combatants"), they are probably most effectively stripped of all rights by keeping their imprisonment secret. That is what Rumsfeld says he did.
My comments, submitted as a reply, below:
The Administration tries to defend these types of practices by scaring us with terrorism, and saying that the practices are practiced on those who deserve no rights. But if there are no rights, no procedures to defend those rights, and no legal recourse for "certain people" that certain other people can choose, without any review by anyone else who is relatively impartial, then anyone can disappear, anyone can become a "ghost", anyone can be tortured. Allowing some of these loopholes, not necessarily "ghosting" per se (but close), under the Patriot Act was a huge, bipartisan mistake, which many Dems defend by saying "we thought that we could trust the Administration". Of course you can't, but even if you could, a United States that starts removing its Constitutional bridles from the government must eventually begin itself turning into another USSR or a northern version of one of the "banana" dictatorships that, showing warning flashes of our dark side, we helped create. As it happens, it feels like the transition is happening sooner than later. But perhaps We the People allowed this pattern to develop, by standing by when it seemed to be happening mostly to other people in other lands. And now our chickenhawks have come home to roost.
Donkeys v. Elephants v. Shrubs
In response to a post on AfterDowningStreet.org reiterating the "sameness" of Democrats and Republicans as a bit of a yawn toward impeaching Bush (although the writer acknowledged that Bush deserved impeachment, and the site as a whole wholeheartedly supports it), I posted the following today:
The original post, and also links to Representative John Conyers preliminary look at impeachment, entitled The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War, are to be found here.
While you do point out many good reasons that it would probably be an understatement to say that Democrats have a long way to go before they can assume the true moral high ground, this is true of the vast majority of governments through the ages. But where there was once Julius Caesar, a monster to some and a wise leader to others, there was later Caligula, a completely self-absorbed monster with hardly a shred of wisdom or rationality. Where the Democrats and even some Republicans might at least realize some limits upon the wisdom of allowing wars to happen or the environment to be degraded, and where run-of-the-mill Dems and Repubs might sometimes resort to skullduggery thinking it somehow necessary for the benefit of the nation, Bush and Company see only opportunities to gain more power, while lining their own pockets and those of their benefactors. This is epitomized by the act of awarding so-called no-bid contracts to the incompetent likes of Halliburton after lying the nation into war, sending children with their whole lives ahead of them off to kill and die on false pretexts of honor and "national security".
While the differences may be largely of degree, make no mistake that Bush has hastened the decline of our civilization, and we cannot afford not to impeach him. He is our Caligula.
The original post, and also links to Representative John Conyers preliminary look at impeachment, entitled The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War, are to be found here.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Fully Flippant Definition of the Day
synchrophant - a type of elephant which synchronizes with other elephants such that they all say the same thing at the same time. e.g. the Republican Party.
Interestingly, synchrophants are often sycophants as well, and synchronize best when being sycophantic to one another. It is the species of elephant most commonly related to the common parrot.
With apologies to self-actualized, freethinking Republicans, all three of you. I just thought of this while jogging this afternoon.
Interestingly, synchrophants are often sycophants as well, and synchronize best when being sycophantic to one another. It is the species of elephant most commonly related to the common parrot.
With apologies to self-actualized, freethinking Republicans, all three of you. I just thought of this while jogging this afternoon.
My Slightly Flippant Comment of the Day
To the BBC, on the Bush's brazen surveillance policies:
If we go too far in allowing surveillance, there will be no such thing as privacy, and a lot more people will go to jail for meaningless "crimes" besides terrorism, such as smoking marijuana or having sex in the wrong position. In any case, there must be standards and processes beyond arbitrarily declaring someone a terrorist and therefore beyond legal protections, or the government that is supposed to protect us will in fact become the rogues and the terrorists.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=629&&&edition=1&ttl=20051222225026
If we go too far in allowing surveillance, there will be no such thing as privacy, and a lot more people will go to jail for meaningless "crimes" besides terrorism, such as smoking marijuana or having sex in the wrong position. In any case, there must be standards and processes beyond arbitrarily declaring someone a terrorist and therefore beyond legal protections, or the government that is supposed to protect us will in fact become the rogues and the terrorists.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=629&&&edition=1&ttl=20051222225026
Antagonistic and Harmonious Patterns of Life
What's it all about? My feeling is that it's very important that everyone enjoy living; not that I enjoy it at the expense of you, or you at the expense of me or someone else. That we all enjoy it. Although this idea resembles utilitarianism, which is often snubbed by those who want to have a "deeper" basis for their morals, even most people who want to rest their values on religious principal recognize it anyway, either through the notion of Good Samaritanism (making someone else happy or helping them through a time suffering and need) or through the notion of themselves receiving a later reward even if it is after death. We all want to be happy in the way (pattern of living) that we have learned. Many of us are too attached, however, to that pattern; instead of simply trying to exist in the way we have found, we try to make others live the same way (propagate the pattern) or try to destroy their alternate ways of living (cause the extinction of competing patterns). My belief, however is that the most important aspects of any way of living, or cultural/religious/moral pattern of society, is compatible with coexisting with other patterns, so long as those patterns adopt a similar attitude. Most of us are dealing with similar patterns of existence, trying to get through our lives on Earth; if there is a god and only one god, then it is the same god we are dealing with as well. In fact, even an atheist would be dealing with the same god and might even be seen not so much as denying the existence of God, but as merely refusing to use the same metaphor as everyone else, since we are all finite beings trying to explain the same existence from differing understandings and points of view.
So why do people from different walks of life fear each other? There are a number of reasons that come to mind:
1. Another's way of life tends to contradict one's own. It is not just that the beliefs or lifestyles are side by side within the world, which may be enough to trigger cognitive dissonance leading to paranoia, but that the alternate set of ideas may have some attraction to one's community and family, which could cause behavior oneself, one's family, or one's community would consider inappropriate, even criminal or schismatic. It might be feared that this will happen more or less through osmosis, or perhaps even because of proselytization by the other group.
2. The other group may actually wish the extinction of one's own group (ethnic or religious "cleansing") or the patterns of one's own group (proselytizing), or this may at least be feared.
3. One may wish one's own way (pattern) of life to become totally dominant, out of a combination of the escalation of these fears and being convinced that one's own way is totally the right one, and all the other ways are bad.
Note that by writing a blog and by trying to convince the reader of certain things, I too am trying to propagate patterns from my existence; I am trying to "provive", make my patterns, or the ones that I find valuable to the survival of my community, survive and propagate themselves, in the sense of a previous entry to this blog. But in this, I am no different from almost anyone else. (It is conceivable that from time to time someone might commit suicide in order to remove their own patterns from the world; but in most cases, suicide also involves making some sort of a point, in other words, propagating a thought pattern.)
But reasons 1-3 above, I believe, are generally rooted in paranoia. Once a group becomes paranoid and becomes a threat to others, then the fears of the other group become more legitimate, and the cycle spirals into an antagonistic pattern that is harder to break. Since this has already happened across the world for centuries, the question becomes, can we break the pattern?
The first step in breaking the pattern, or in any project, is understanding the problem. In human affairs, understanding, particularly if it is mutual, can do more to dispel many problems than one might think. Many people believe in deeds over words and thoughts. But in people, words are actions, and changes in thoughts quickly influence other less ephemeral actions as well. So if we can understand that our fear of each other is rooted in paranoia, and prove to each other that we both understand it, we can begin to trust each other with our differences, knowing that we are also the same in being human and wishing to survive and thrive in happiness.
What I am trying to do here, and what many other peace activists have attempted to do over the years, is basically inject a small pattern into the overall pattern of human existence, like a small strand of DNA into a cell, to make the organism heartier. This can be a risky practice, and in fact I am rather opposed to most gene splicing. But at the same time, every act is a modification of the pattern, and everything we do in a world with a chaos of causalities (everything effecting everything else, directly or indirectly) is a risk. In most cases, I think that speaking one's mind is a positive risk -- even if you are wrong, someone can correct you, and it is known what sorts of patterns of thought are out there. (In the case of gene splicing, I think there is often less to gain and more to lose, with a greater overall risk, compared to talking. But that is a different discussion, which I am only forced to touch upon here by the analogy, which is meant to be illustrative. Another analogy might be to a module of code into a computer program, that positively influences the overall function. Perhaps this is a better one.)
So why do people from different walks of life fear each other? There are a number of reasons that come to mind:
1. Another's way of life tends to contradict one's own. It is not just that the beliefs or lifestyles are side by side within the world, which may be enough to trigger cognitive dissonance leading to paranoia, but that the alternate set of ideas may have some attraction to one's community and family, which could cause behavior oneself, one's family, or one's community would consider inappropriate, even criminal or schismatic. It might be feared that this will happen more or less through osmosis, or perhaps even because of proselytization by the other group.
2. The other group may actually wish the extinction of one's own group (ethnic or religious "cleansing") or the patterns of one's own group (proselytizing), or this may at least be feared.
3. One may wish one's own way (pattern) of life to become totally dominant, out of a combination of the escalation of these fears and being convinced that one's own way is totally the right one, and all the other ways are bad.
Note that by writing a blog and by trying to convince the reader of certain things, I too am trying to propagate patterns from my existence; I am trying to "provive", make my patterns, or the ones that I find valuable to the survival of my community, survive and propagate themselves, in the sense of a previous entry to this blog. But in this, I am no different from almost anyone else. (It is conceivable that from time to time someone might commit suicide in order to remove their own patterns from the world; but in most cases, suicide also involves making some sort of a point, in other words, propagating a thought pattern.)
But reasons 1-3 above, I believe, are generally rooted in paranoia. Once a group becomes paranoid and becomes a threat to others, then the fears of the other group become more legitimate, and the cycle spirals into an antagonistic pattern that is harder to break. Since this has already happened across the world for centuries, the question becomes, can we break the pattern?
The first step in breaking the pattern, or in any project, is understanding the problem. In human affairs, understanding, particularly if it is mutual, can do more to dispel many problems than one might think. Many people believe in deeds over words and thoughts. But in people, words are actions, and changes in thoughts quickly influence other less ephemeral actions as well. So if we can understand that our fear of each other is rooted in paranoia, and prove to each other that we both understand it, we can begin to trust each other with our differences, knowing that we are also the same in being human and wishing to survive and thrive in happiness.
What I am trying to do here, and what many other peace activists have attempted to do over the years, is basically inject a small pattern into the overall pattern of human existence, like a small strand of DNA into a cell, to make the organism heartier. This can be a risky practice, and in fact I am rather opposed to most gene splicing. But at the same time, every act is a modification of the pattern, and everything we do in a world with a chaos of causalities (everything effecting everything else, directly or indirectly) is a risk. In most cases, I think that speaking one's mind is a positive risk -- even if you are wrong, someone can correct you, and it is known what sorts of patterns of thought are out there. (In the case of gene splicing, I think there is often less to gain and more to lose, with a greater overall risk, compared to talking. But that is a different discussion, which I am only forced to touch upon here by the analogy, which is meant to be illustrative. Another analogy might be to a module of code into a computer program, that positively influences the overall function. Perhaps this is a better one.)
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Elections in Iraq
On yesterday's elections in Iraq and their "high turnout", I posted the following to the BBC forum:
Added the following 12/16/2005:
I may not have phrased this perfectly; "success" is meant to refer to Gandhi and King, whereas Kucinich's proposal has not happened -- yet. Just looking at the other comments surrounding my first one, I'd noticed that those with 25 or 30 "recommendations" did seem to be of the sort I described in my second comment, and of course I wouldn't put it past Karl Rove to try to stack discussion groups to some extent, similarly to excluding "antis" from Bush rallies and providing fake pro-Bush protesters after the 2000 election in Florida.
Hopefully this is an auspicious, new beginning for Iraq; only time will tell. It does not mean, Mr. Bush, that we should now condone the war that led to this point, or any war. War is always a terrible thing, and the consequences of this war will continue for a long time. What is really needed is to find ways to (nonviolently) break the worldwide cycle of violence.
Added the following 12/16/2005:
The most popular comments here seem also to be the most onesided and singleminded cheers for the war and all. Assuming this is not orchestrated by anyone, I think people are forgetting all the hell that has transpired and the lies that led to the war. I don't have space for a laundry list. Let us hope for the success of democracy in Iraq, but let us not tumble headlong into militarism, but consider also the successes of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and Dennis Kucinich's proposal for a Department of Peace.
I may not have phrased this perfectly; "success" is meant to refer to Gandhi and King, whereas Kucinich's proposal has not happened -- yet. Just looking at the other comments surrounding my first one, I'd noticed that those with 25 or 30 "recommendations" did seem to be of the sort I described in my second comment, and of course I wouldn't put it past Karl Rove to try to stack discussion groups to some extent, similarly to excluding "antis" from Bush rallies and providing fake pro-Bush protesters after the 2000 election in Florida.
The Death Penalty and Stan Tookie Williams
The death of Stan Tookie Williams has inspired me to start a new blog against the death penalty, accessible at http://stopdp.blogspot.com. This note, which I also emailed to the governor's office, is also part of the first entry.
Governor Schwarzenegger,
Governor Schwarzenegger,
I'll never be able to watch your movies again. The man did everything he could to apologize for his legacy as a Crips leader in writing those books for urban youngsters who might be tempted by the gang life. It really looks to me like he might not have committed those murders, that false evidence was used against him. If this is so, we cannot have expected him to apologize for the murders themselves, to admit them. The death penalty is wrong to begin with; anyone who claims to have the power to decide who dies thinks much too much of themselves. This goes for judges and governors as well as "murderers". But to kill a man who might be innocent of the crimes, and who has in any case brilliantly proven that he has become a good man and done so much good, and could still have done so much good... The Terminator indeed. I will be publishing this on RavingModerate.com and stopdp.blogspot.com. Sincerely, Thomas Marshalek, The Raving Moderate
I would add that it some articles on the subject appear to suggest that Schwarzenegger was hedging his bets by complaining that Williams had not apologized for murders by Crips in general. If this were the case, he would truly be wrong in denying clemency, perhaps even abusing his power in a sense, because it is a principle of justice in this country that at least one should only be punished for the crimes for which one is convicted, not the ones for which one has not been convicted. Were he killed for someone's anger at murders by Crips in general, while the actual convictions for which he was sentenced to death were highly questionable, then the system has truly failed, and the Governor, in making this shift, would have a certain special responsibility. However, this is hypothetical at this point. I say, of course, that the system has failed whenever it executes a human being in the first place.
Friday, December 09, 2005
A Little Illuminati Fun | Observations on the Trials (Tribulations and Torturing) of "Terrorists"
Posted the following on Jeff Goldstein's (apparently conservative) "Protein Wisdom" blog, where I ran across his year old satire of John Kerry placed in an Illuminatus context, channelling Robert Anton Wilson. In a moment of weakness, I added a smiley at the end.
I also commented today on the BBC website on Condoleeza Rice's comments on the alleged lack of human rights abuses by the United States. The second and third sentences refer to another comment that we should remember that these folks are "terrorists":
Watched a great episode of the science fiction series "Babylon 5" while working out yesterday. The ISN (Insterstellar Network, or something like that) news crew came and shot footage of the space station, which was then edited together with innuendo from the reporter to recast our heroes as sick psychopaths trying to turn humans into aliens. A few overly broad strokes -- you could tell in advance at least one instance where the interviews would be taken out of context. Typical for the show: some great drama, a few klunkers, always keen insight into politics. You'd think sometimes that the show's creator, Michael Straczynski, knew in advance during the 90's about Bush II, not to mention Fox News. But this probably has more to do with the hackneyed but genuine fact that, as the show sometimes points out, "some things never change". At least not until the universe implodes. This episode really makes you question whether you know anything about anything, which brings up the interesting spectacle of Ramsey Clark working as a defense attorney for Saddam Hussein. Interviewed by Ted Koppel a few days ago, he refused to grant much about Saddam's guilt (gassing Kurds, raping and torturing etc.), insisting that we need to be openminded and that Saddam was "demonized" starting before the first Gulf War.
Now, personally, my inclination is to believe that Saddam is about as bad as he has been portrayed in the press. I opposed both wars on Iraq not on the basis of any sympathy for him, but rather because war almost by definition is horror and devastation for so many people, not just some targeted, "evil" leader, and because I believe, following the lead of such folks as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, that violence is a bad excuse for a lack of imagination in solving problems. In the Foundation trilogy, Isaac Asimov wrote "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -- and the character uttering the phrase was no idealist. I carried this quote around on a sign in D.C. during a protest of the first Gulf War. I also did echo the complaint about demonization during both wars, and I think it is true, but my complaint is more that the bad things about Saddam were trotted out only when it was convenient, as part of making the case for war, whereas prior to the first war the United States actually aided and abetted his evil practices. Then the old charges resurfaced as one excuse for the present war. However, knowing what we know now about the ways that the current administration tries to manipulate the news, Clark's comments are not wholly to be dismissed. We need to keep asking ourselves, what do we really know? How much are we being spun? It is this uncertainty that makes conspiracy theories intriguing at times. Still, I really doubt Saddam is any kind of an angel. But Clark is also doing his job as a defense attorney; if an adversarial system of justice is to have any chance of succeeding, the defendant must be able to tell his side of the story and make his arguments. It may seem damned obvious that a defendant is guilty, but sometimes we will be wrong anyway. According a defendant his full rights and representation is the only way we have right now to minimize this risk; to make even one exception and summarily execute even the worst and most obvious dictator would tend to create a slippery slope towards wholesale witch trials, as it sometimes seems that the Bush Administration would like in the context of its other prisoners in the so-called "War on Terror". Furthermore, as Clark points out, in this specific instance it is even more important, and I think the Bush Administration understands this much, that the world sees a fair trial of Saddam so that others can respect the legitimacy of both the new Iraqi government and the United States -- although we have additional work to do in terms of regaining this respect in the wake of George W. Bush.
Thought it was interesting at the time (of the 2004 Presidential election) that BOTH the "liberal" and the "conservative" candidates were members of Skull and Bones. Illuminati conspiracies running the world????? Also, there was a little historical subplot in Illuminatus in which George Washington was replaced with another George W. (I'd have to look up the name of the replacement). Now we have George W. B. fomenting chaos. Bush was also the 46th Governor of Texas, and Cheney is our 46th Vice President. 46 is 2 times 23, so we have 2 times 2 times 23 in the White House now, and 23 is of course an important Illuminati number. Hmmmmmmmm... :-)Protein Wisdom item is here.
I also commented today on the BBC website on Condoleeza Rice's comments on the alleged lack of human rights abuses by the United States. The second and third sentences refer to another comment that we should remember that these folks are "terrorists":
Ms. Rice may at least be skirting the question of "extraordinary rendition" by only referring directly to the actions of Americans. Incidentally, two of the reasons prisoners are accorded rights are that not all are guilty of what they are accused of, and that governments often abuse the leeway that they are granted, hiding behind presumptions of guilt. There must be standards of evidence and procedure beyond arbitrarily slapping a label of "terrorist" on someone, thereby triggering a clause that says "do what thou wilt"."Extraordinary rendition" refers to the practice of sending prisoners to prisons around the world, presumably so other countries can do the dirty work of torturing and abusing prisoners so the US can keep its hands clean. A recent conversation on Democracy Now also brought this practice to mind. The BBC thread is here.
Watched a great episode of the science fiction series "Babylon 5" while working out yesterday. The ISN (Insterstellar Network, or something like that) news crew came and shot footage of the space station, which was then edited together with innuendo from the reporter to recast our heroes as sick psychopaths trying to turn humans into aliens. A few overly broad strokes -- you could tell in advance at least one instance where the interviews would be taken out of context. Typical for the show: some great drama, a few klunkers, always keen insight into politics. You'd think sometimes that the show's creator, Michael Straczynski, knew in advance during the 90's about Bush II, not to mention Fox News. But this probably has more to do with the hackneyed but genuine fact that, as the show sometimes points out, "some things never change". At least not until the universe implodes. This episode really makes you question whether you know anything about anything, which brings up the interesting spectacle of Ramsey Clark working as a defense attorney for Saddam Hussein. Interviewed by Ted Koppel a few days ago, he refused to grant much about Saddam's guilt (gassing Kurds, raping and torturing etc.), insisting that we need to be openminded and that Saddam was "demonized" starting before the first Gulf War.
Now, personally, my inclination is to believe that Saddam is about as bad as he has been portrayed in the press. I opposed both wars on Iraq not on the basis of any sympathy for him, but rather because war almost by definition is horror and devastation for so many people, not just some targeted, "evil" leader, and because I believe, following the lead of such folks as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, that violence is a bad excuse for a lack of imagination in solving problems. In the Foundation trilogy, Isaac Asimov wrote "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -- and the character uttering the phrase was no idealist. I carried this quote around on a sign in D.C. during a protest of the first Gulf War. I also did echo the complaint about demonization during both wars, and I think it is true, but my complaint is more that the bad things about Saddam were trotted out only when it was convenient, as part of making the case for war, whereas prior to the first war the United States actually aided and abetted his evil practices. Then the old charges resurfaced as one excuse for the present war. However, knowing what we know now about the ways that the current administration tries to manipulate the news, Clark's comments are not wholly to be dismissed. We need to keep asking ourselves, what do we really know? How much are we being spun? It is this uncertainty that makes conspiracy theories intriguing at times. Still, I really doubt Saddam is any kind of an angel. But Clark is also doing his job as a defense attorney; if an adversarial system of justice is to have any chance of succeeding, the defendant must be able to tell his side of the story and make his arguments. It may seem damned obvious that a defendant is guilty, but sometimes we will be wrong anyway. According a defendant his full rights and representation is the only way we have right now to minimize this risk; to make even one exception and summarily execute even the worst and most obvious dictator would tend to create a slippery slope towards wholesale witch trials, as it sometimes seems that the Bush Administration would like in the context of its other prisoners in the so-called "War on Terror". Furthermore, as Clark points out, in this specific instance it is even more important, and I think the Bush Administration understands this much, that the world sees a fair trial of Saddam so that others can respect the legitimacy of both the new Iraqi government and the United States -- although we have additional work to do in terms of regaining this respect in the wake of George W. Bush.
Friday, December 02, 2005
More Thoughts on Pattern Theory
Yes, this is still a political blog. Hang on tight. By talking about the shifting, changing, and - yes - evolution of patterns, we can stand back a couple of feet from some of our emotional reactions to events in our own political and personal lives and be somewhat objective and analytical, from time to time.
Physical patterns basically have three ways of surviving and/or propogating same/similar patterns, vis a vis other patterns. Let us create a term for survival and propogation as a single concept, since these are the two basic ways in a which a pattern can continue to be registered as having a place in non-abstract existence -- we'll call this concept "provival" The modes of provival are side by side coexistence, interdependence, and competition. Let us first consider these modes where they are relatively successful. In the first, coexistence, the primary pattern -- that is the pattern in question -- is basically indifferent to the existence of the secondary pattern, at least with regard to provival, because it is able to continue in its current state without significantly interacting or being affected by the other (pattern). In the second, interdependence, the primary pattern in fact exists in its current state, or achieves a subsequent state with strong provival qualities, in part because of the effects of the other. The primary pattern takes on qualities of the other, or is otherwise influenced by the other in a manner that at the "worst" has little effect on provival, and at "best" enhances it ("bad" and "good" being value-neutral designations in this theoretical discussion, because this discussion applies to any pattern). This process of influencing the other is likely to manifest itself as a two way street, since most patterns will have some effect, direct or indirect, upon each other when they come into contact. This is near the essence of chaos theory. But the degree and nature of the effects may be asymmetrical, as well as diffuse. Finally, in the mode of competition, the existence, survival and propogation of the other presents a threat such that the primary pattern, in order to provive, must contain the kinetic (active) ability to cause the alteration, diminishment, or extinction of the other. Which if any mode will be the most successful, where success is defined by provival, depends of course upon the how the mode is implemented, the nature of the other pattern, and the modes and methods it employs. In an inanimate world or when unaffected by intelligence, there may not be "choices" as to the mode or the methods; things simply "happen", although there may random or quasi-random factors involving such things as quantum and chaos theory. Chaos and other modes of randomness are important to take into account in any case, since the universe consists of untold numbers of patterns interacting with each other. But to a certain degree, we should be able to focus on discrete interactions between discrete numbers of patterns, just as physics can focus on Newtonian mechanics for many practical purposes even while allowing that there are chaotic and quantum factors to be taken into account; the latter factors also can be used practically in many situations.
However, this is a political blog, so the specific types of patterns I am interested in are human beings and patterns that directly and perceivably affect human beings, especially ones that human beings can influence. So I am interested in applying this theory of patterns to questions, most obviously, or war and peace, and also to issues such as our attitude towards our environment and towards one another as human beings. But let me also remind everyone that this theory of patterns, or if you prefer, way of looking at everything as patterns, applies to all realms of analysis pertaining to the physical or non-abstract world, for example chemistry, physics, and biology. The interesting thing when you get to human beings is really the question of choice. Without choice, patterns arise, jostle and affect each other, sometimes propogate, and then eventually disappear, perhaps replaced by their progeny of same or similar patterns. With choice and intelligence such as our own, the same things happen, but they don't just happen. We human beings are able to think about, choose, experiment with, and refine our modes of provival -- or choose indifference or extinction. Of course, any choice or strategy may backfire and produce the opposite of its intent, unless the actor is truly indifferent and so has no intent. So the discussion of provival becomes not just a question of examining uncaring forces, but of what we "should" choose to do about the condition of our existence, since we care -- whatever it is exactly that means!
An additional interesting wrinkle to the provival of human patterns is the aspect of guessing. Unlike, say a kaleidoscope or chemicals interacting in a beaker, humans try to look ahead at what the other pattern is going to do next and how it will affect them. Examples from game theory and economics are brought to mind. Both patterns are trying to maximize provival; it is possible to imagine instances in which provival is maximized by either cooperation or conflict, as generically outlined above, but that also depends what the other chooses. However, it seems to me that this is an argument for building mutual trust as a long term process; when our guesses at the behavior of the other become more reliable and we are working for either common or mutually compatible goals, cooperating, success will be maximized. Imagine our energies being directed as vectors, which are additive in their combined effect. If we combine them in a common direction, there will be greater progress for both (or more) patterns/people/civilizations. If we apply these vectors in opposite directions, our provivial efforts would tend to cancel out. Let us take war as an example: One side may defeat the "other" and declare "victory", but meanwhile many people have been killed on both sides rather than nurtured so that they could contribute to the provival of society; schools, hospitals, and other buildings have been blown up rather than built; violence has been given longer term credibility and inertia rather than discredited; and in general many patterns contrary to the pattern of human provival have been carried out and given inertia, and much energy has been expended that could have been applied more constructively and effectively to the provival of either humanity as a whole or to that of one side or the other. Two vectors pointing in the same or similar directions move much more quickly towards a common goal.
(It may be another interesting essay to consider the current Iraq war and of the so-called "War on Terror" in the context of the professed or likely goals of all sides involved. An additional factor in the dance of human patterns is the renegotiation of goals themselves, which takes place in the context of a hierarchy of goals, in which provival itself may be the "highest" goal, but the negotiation will affect the precise nature of what type(s) of pattern(s) provive(s).)
Like everything else on this blog, this is to be continued in future posts and/or edited above...
Physical patterns basically have three ways of surviving and/or propogating same/similar patterns, vis a vis other patterns. Let us create a term for survival and propogation as a single concept, since these are the two basic ways in a which a pattern can continue to be registered as having a place in non-abstract existence -- we'll call this concept "provival" The modes of provival are side by side coexistence, interdependence, and competition. Let us first consider these modes where they are relatively successful. In the first, coexistence, the primary pattern -- that is the pattern in question -- is basically indifferent to the existence of the secondary pattern, at least with regard to provival, because it is able to continue in its current state without significantly interacting or being affected by the other (pattern). In the second, interdependence, the primary pattern in fact exists in its current state, or achieves a subsequent state with strong provival qualities, in part because of the effects of the other. The primary pattern takes on qualities of the other, or is otherwise influenced by the other in a manner that at the "worst" has little effect on provival, and at "best" enhances it ("bad" and "good" being value-neutral designations in this theoretical discussion, because this discussion applies to any pattern). This process of influencing the other is likely to manifest itself as a two way street, since most patterns will have some effect, direct or indirect, upon each other when they come into contact. This is near the essence of chaos theory. But the degree and nature of the effects may be asymmetrical, as well as diffuse. Finally, in the mode of competition, the existence, survival and propogation of the other presents a threat such that the primary pattern, in order to provive, must contain the kinetic (active) ability to cause the alteration, diminishment, or extinction of the other. Which if any mode will be the most successful, where success is defined by provival, depends of course upon the how the mode is implemented, the nature of the other pattern, and the modes and methods it employs. In an inanimate world or when unaffected by intelligence, there may not be "choices" as to the mode or the methods; things simply "happen", although there may random or quasi-random factors involving such things as quantum and chaos theory. Chaos and other modes of randomness are important to take into account in any case, since the universe consists of untold numbers of patterns interacting with each other. But to a certain degree, we should be able to focus on discrete interactions between discrete numbers of patterns, just as physics can focus on Newtonian mechanics for many practical purposes even while allowing that there are chaotic and quantum factors to be taken into account; the latter factors also can be used practically in many situations.
However, this is a political blog, so the specific types of patterns I am interested in are human beings and patterns that directly and perceivably affect human beings, especially ones that human beings can influence. So I am interested in applying this theory of patterns to questions, most obviously, or war and peace, and also to issues such as our attitude towards our environment and towards one another as human beings. But let me also remind everyone that this theory of patterns, or if you prefer, way of looking at everything as patterns, applies to all realms of analysis pertaining to the physical or non-abstract world, for example chemistry, physics, and biology. The interesting thing when you get to human beings is really the question of choice. Without choice, patterns arise, jostle and affect each other, sometimes propogate, and then eventually disappear, perhaps replaced by their progeny of same or similar patterns. With choice and intelligence such as our own, the same things happen, but they don't just happen. We human beings are able to think about, choose, experiment with, and refine our modes of provival -- or choose indifference or extinction. Of course, any choice or strategy may backfire and produce the opposite of its intent, unless the actor is truly indifferent and so has no intent. So the discussion of provival becomes not just a question of examining uncaring forces, but of what we "should" choose to do about the condition of our existence, since we care -- whatever it is exactly that means!
An additional interesting wrinkle to the provival of human patterns is the aspect of guessing. Unlike, say a kaleidoscope or chemicals interacting in a beaker, humans try to look ahead at what the other pattern is going to do next and how it will affect them. Examples from game theory and economics are brought to mind. Both patterns are trying to maximize provival; it is possible to imagine instances in which provival is maximized by either cooperation or conflict, as generically outlined above, but that also depends what the other chooses. However, it seems to me that this is an argument for building mutual trust as a long term process; when our guesses at the behavior of the other become more reliable and we are working for either common or mutually compatible goals, cooperating, success will be maximized. Imagine our energies being directed as vectors, which are additive in their combined effect. If we combine them in a common direction, there will be greater progress for both (or more) patterns/people/civilizations. If we apply these vectors in opposite directions, our provivial efforts would tend to cancel out. Let us take war as an example: One side may defeat the "other" and declare "victory", but meanwhile many people have been killed on both sides rather than nurtured so that they could contribute to the provival of society; schools, hospitals, and other buildings have been blown up rather than built; violence has been given longer term credibility and inertia rather than discredited; and in general many patterns contrary to the pattern of human provival have been carried out and given inertia, and much energy has been expended that could have been applied more constructively and effectively to the provival of either humanity as a whole or to that of one side or the other. Two vectors pointing in the same or similar directions move much more quickly towards a common goal.
(It may be another interesting essay to consider the current Iraq war and of the so-called "War on Terror" in the context of the professed or likely goals of all sides involved. An additional factor in the dance of human patterns is the renegotiation of goals themselves, which takes place in the context of a hierarchy of goals, in which provival itself may be the "highest" goal, but the negotiation will affect the precise nature of what type(s) of pattern(s) provive(s).)
Like everything else on this blog, this is to be continued in future posts and/or edited above...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)