# preface to examples
brian carroll
distortions, biases, and warping built-into the very process of
sharing ideas in a dysfunctional environment, where peoples share
different assumptions and thus map 'meaning' according to various
interpretations, given the dimensions related to. yet it is proposed
that underlying this predicament is a greater purpose and that it is
worth risking the potential 'differences' to ultimately secure a
shared framework. that is, that such efforts ultimately will be
required to establish a solid basis or foundation for shared
ordering, and that until this is developed, the dysfunction will
continued unabated and unchanged as to what is driving events at
their core.
it has been proposed that what is missing is an effective modeling of
what is occurring today, as it occurs. and until this complex and
shifting and dynamic condition can be accurately and effectively
modeled, that 'human reason' will remain incapable of engaging this
situation, incapacitated by ideological boundaries of an inaccurate
worldview and its beliefs.
thus, among the first things necessary to changing the existing
scenarios is to establish this common 'context' by which to model
what is going on, within a useful empirical framework that can be
checked and balanced via panoptic POVs.
this basic modeling could also be among the 'last things' to do. that
is, once it is placed in the firmament of 'ideas', it is then up to
fate as to what happens next. that is, there is only so much that
can be said, written, placed into words. i.e. if an accurate model is
shared it is then an issue of how this model is mediated. if it is
effectively able to be 'reasoned' or if it will exist in a realm of
reason, opinion, beliefs, ideological faith in status quo, etc. i.e.
how it is mediated is not up to the ideas, it is up to people who
relate. who relate to empirical grounding of truth in decision-making
or continue to ignore such variables as if 'opinions', including when
choosing machine-values over human-values within governance.
so, what is written is among the last things to be written. of 'last
words' so to speak. as if a litmus test of ideas as they exist in
relation to ideology, even. truth in relation to power. humanity in
relation to machinery, and so on.
in other words: this is it. this is the foundation. humanity and
state machinery. that is the model. it may be addressed or it may be
cynically exploited as if people are asleep to truthful accounting.
human-human relations are not the problem as much as human-machine
relations and machine-machine relations. that is the basic difference
in models.
what is left to write then is to give a point-blank analysis of the
situations that exist, in these terms. it is up to people to then
interpret and relate to the ideas, correct them, etc. if they are
inaccurate this should probably be self-evident...
so, after this basic model is shared, what remains is to deal with
the issues of biasing, where it is not 'one-side' or an-other (human
or machinery) that must be dealt with, and instead, the 'truth' of
each side, as it then makes a 'whole' view within the panoptic state
of humanity and machinery. that is, this complexity will be placed
into a framework in which to resolve the existing 'differences' based
on recognizing and deferring to 'shared truth' and its reasoning, and
to do this will require each 'side' (human/machinery) to then address
the bias, distortion, and warping that stops relations from
developing and accurately modeling what is going on, in this novel
situation, so to achieve balanced governance.
that is, the model will be shared here one more time. there may be a
few clarifications about zoning that follow, to get a sense of the
structures involved between people in the state (that is, pubic and
private dimensions of individuals which then relate and scale into
larger public and private states as groups, and establish
environments of this 'shared state'). and then it will be an issue of
'resolving' this duel of binary logic in a panopticon -- in which
those on opposing sides of a situation may then have an opportunity
to choose the 'same side' and share a definition of the problem that
exists: of human governance of the machinery of state.
in any case, up until this resolution it may be _confusing as to what
viewpoints may be shared or unshared, as to POVs of machinery or
humanity. most likely it is 'both', due to complexity, in that there
is entanglement and entwining of the human and machine as part of a
basic existence, today, of the human as a cybernetic organism (e.g.
human techné). as such, while referencing something as abstract as an
ancient megamachine, it is not separated from people wearing a
hearing-aid or iPod device -- this is the same entity. it is subtle
and pervasive, even while electromagnetic tchotchkes (gadgets,
doodads) take over like technological weeds, enveloping if not
burying 'traditional' civilization under this new chaotic order, this
conquering of humanity revealed by the inability to intelligently
reason about what is now going on...
in any case, in an attempt at clarity: to examine a situation that
exists in this human-machine paradigm versus only the view of human-
human relations... such as in Iraq. this is to then propose that the
_context that exists, the environment which exists in which events
take place, between human beings who exist in a shared universe and
empirical 'reality', is not firstly an issue of human-human relations
as they may appear to be mediated via mass media and politicians.
it is instead to propose that this is 'a question of the state' as it
exists as a machine. and as a state-machinery which has a local
circuit of relations and a global ecological circuitry in which it is
functioning. this 'machine' of state is very much that which ties
into issues of development, economics, commerce, trade, politics,
governance. it is of a 'national' identity, which has internal and
external relations (via dimensional connections). ideas like
modernism and globalism are mediated via this state as are issues of
ethnicity and representation in this machinery of state. yet the
issue here, it is proposed, is primarily one of a 'machine' that
exists as the state. and this machine-state has certain qualities as
to what it does and how it goes about doing them, that have been
proposed based on 'machine-reasoning' and machine-values. a machine-
POV (point of view). and that it is not just one country's 'national'
identity that is mediated in this way and instead, every country that
functions as a machinery of state has to deal with these issues of
this machinery.
and, as such, this is a question of machinery and related to issues
of machinery -- this fundamental questioning of the state today.
thus, to question the context of the state, it is to firstly question
this machinery in which 'governance' exists. the _context or
_environment in which dimensional relations between humans takes
place, for such decision-making.
so, for instance, someone could say - "Iraq?" -- and someone else
could instantly consider questions of the state to be revolving
around human-human relations -- Iraqis, political parties, differing
values, ethnicity, and so on. this would be a bounded interpretation
of the question of the state, to its human 'governing' yet which may
remain 'out of control' of the overall direction of this state, as to
its automated development. instead: "Iraq?" -- and someone answers
"the Iraq machine" or "Iraq state-machinery" or "Iraq machinery of
state" and this begins to provide a context for the machinic values
which govern the 'modern' state, by default today (which is part of a
longer lineage of science and technological development undergirding
the Megamachine thesis of Lewis Mumford).
so while people may directly relate to a situation as humans, in
terms of relating to other humans -- this is secondary to a more
'technical' existence of the state as it exists and functions as a
machine, and automatically develops itself via machine-values which
guide decision-making for its human populations, whatever form of
government is said to be. (in this sense it is 'the fall' of humanity
to this machine, via the loss of reason to the reasoning of machines,
for humanity).
in any case, in a context such as Iraq, for instance, there is a
tremendous and horrific toll on the human populations, and it is to
never deny this human dimension exists, these conflicts between
people -- yet it is to propose that this is not happening 'in a
vacuum' -- it is instead happening 'in a machine'. that is, humans
exist within a state that functions as a machine. and this must not
be forgotten for it oftentimes shapes what is occurring and has a
certain 'reason and logic.' and the major point here is that this is
the reason and logic of machinery which is often determining 'human'
events. it is not necessarily that 'human-human' interactions are the
_cause of the scenarios that exist within the state; instead it is
that 'machine-machine' interactions and 'machine-human' interactions
are more likely involved in these dynamics. by default. by the very
nature of this configuration. to place it all on human failings is to
make humanity into the scapegoat of the machinery, and this can be a
situation of great leverage which can be exploited to great effect,
against humans.
the point here is that the question of the state _begins with this
machinery today. it begins to make sense from such a perspective. it
is a context in which events occur. which provides for certain
scenarios to unfold, by design or chance.
so an important thing to remember, then, when questioning the state
and the beings who exist in this state, is that it is a machine. and
this machine has internal and external relations -- within itself and
beyond itself. just like a human has a relation with their own self,
and also with other humans. the state thus has internal relations
and external relations; local relations and global relations. and
then there can be a distinction between this 'human state' and
'machine state.'
consider the nation of Iraq, for example...
there is a state of Iraq that is composed of people, the citizens of
Iraq. Iraqis.
in this state there are human-to-human relations, via dimensional
interactions.
there is also a 'machine' of Iraq, which is the state as it
functions as a nation.
this 'Iraqi machine' has internal relations with the 'people of
Iraq', its humanity.
this would be a local relation of the human population and machinery
of state.
the major problems of the state exist in terms of this human-machine
context.
the problems of globalism, modernism, religion, values, are mediated
in such
a framework -- as to how humans can 'exist' within this context of
machinery.
that is, Iraq as a nation and Iraqis as members of this nation exist
both in the
context of a human state (of human-human relations) and a machine-
state,
in which human-machine relations must find some kind of balance...
and so
too, further yet, 'machine-machine' relations -- with how the Iraqi
state as a
machine relates to its citizens who are modeled to exist, as if
machines that
are evaluated in terms of machine-values, and also, the Iraqi
machinery as
it relates globally to the other state-machinery, as humans and as
a nation.
this is an attempt to model the situation in Iraq as existing in
three different modes:
machine-machine relations / human-machine relations / human-human
relations
this is the key to modeling how the state then functions
'internally' (locally) and also externally (globally), or so it is
proposed.. as such, when considering a statement such as "the
situation in Iraq" -- the context in which this event exists is
located within a framework of humans and machinery, and their various
relations. this does not simply default to 'human-human' relations as
people govern 'over' the state-machinery and how it develops, as if
by human willing... it is instead to begin to assess the influence
this machinery has over this decision-making in and of the state (as
nation).
the situation that exists in Iraq then is proposed to exist in a
context of machinery and then, within a context of nations who exist
as machines and as humans who are functioning within these.
'nationality' does not necessarily differentiate viewpoints, in that
there could be an American human and an Iraqi human, who relate --
and this could be through the 'reason' of ideas, or the 'power' of
violence. as to peace and war. why is this happening? for what
purpose or cause?
why would an American human be at war with an Iraqi human? why would
the 'human-human' relations be so bleak as to make the force of
violence the best means of mediating the shared situation -- on what
basis is this occurring? -- the short-answer would be that it is not
an issue of the Iraqi human and the American human which are the
cause or the _reason for the situation that exists -- and instead, it
can only be made coherent through considering 'the machine'. the
'Iraqi machine' and the 'American machine' and how these relate as
nations in a larger global order, as it is localized.
the madness that is occurring, by what reason and logic -- is based
on a machine-agenda and a machine-worldview, as to what exists, how
it exists, in what terms, in what values, and within what decision-
making, as to these relations. the realm of informational circuitry
of 'ideas', such as modernism and globalism and terrorism, then are
also related to this machinery and its automated development -- the
consciousness sustained within this state of affairs and between
humans in this machine-context.
as such, it could be modeled that there is a machine-machine relation
between America and Iraq, as machine-states, that is part of this
equation for the existing scenario. how these machines relate as
automated mechanisms in an ecological circuitry, which may then have
forced a binary decision-making by way of private 'historical'
empiricism, (i.e. "Empire") which is predictable in terms of the
dynamics involved (private identity, biased international relations,
etc).
so there may be a 'machine-dimension' to what is going on. it is
between machines, in the larger global megamachine. as such, from a
non-human point of view, what is going on may make perfect sense, if
considered as "machinery." the machine as a cybernetic organism in a
global ecology which then defaults to predator/prey and machines
interact, and yet whatever the outcome, 'the machine' wins (i.e.
machine of machines or megamachine). it is 'all for the best' if only
considering machinic dimensions, forgoing human values -- accounting
only for certain aspects, traits, assumptions.
this 'machinery' is ultimately about nothing except itself. as such,
it is 'godless' if considered in private patriarchal terms of
monotheism within the state. this machinery instead need not even
relate to humans, in itself (that is, machinery as it relates to
itself as machinery). it can be conscious only of itself, its needs
and desires. this is not merely abstraction, this is 'business' per
se. this is industry. this is 'profit.' humanity becomes a natural
resource that can be exploited, in the given historical setup (of the
megamachine), as people then are enslaved in such a 'permanent' state
of affairs. locked away, as it were, in a hidden paradigm, none the
wiser, if such dimensions were never to be acknowledged...
'nations' then, America, China, Russia, Iraq, elsewhere. all are
machines, in a certain framework. machines which need to relate to
other state machines. and this goes back to the beginning of
civilization, before these 'nations' emerged...
the American-machine relates to the Iraqi-machine
in what dimensions is this occurring in? trade, development, oil,
business, governance...
in what context? modernism, globalism, terrorism...
this 'machinery of state' _is infrastructure. the machine-machine
relations between states, as machines, occurs at the level of
material stuff as it relates in a shared ordering, or fails to
relate. globalism -- with us or against us? modernism -- with us or
against us? terrorism -- with us or against us? at the level of the
megamachine, compliance is mandatory. as states relate, they align
according to certain machine-values that scale across nations, across
the planet, and thus establish the basis for 'world order' yet this
exists in a machine-viewpoint, machine-reasoning, and machine-values,
as it now exists, beyond human reasoning and accountability.
every state has to deal with this issues, and ultimately _comply with
this dynamic. yet it is inaccurate to pin this dynamic only on
'nationalism' -- it is an extension of an ancient pattern of
automated development (of the Megamachine) which has its origins in
the mid-east to begins and ends with... like ouroboros, 'the pyramid
of power' of ancient Egyptian development extends through the
superpowers, including that of the United States of America, yet this
is all part of a single entity if considered in terms of machinery.
it is a global organism based on technic which harnesses humanity as
its basis for automated development, and governs over humanity, as a
result of the loss of reasoning of this condition.
the basic point then is that there is a machine-machine relation in
the Iraq context, in which Iraq as a nation exists in relation
nations, in terms of this machinery which is shared by all. this is
never talked about or discussed openly. this is an esoteric realm
based in secrecy if not the occult. yet so far this is not yet an
issue of 'being' and so there are not yet 'human' actors to relate to
this situation, as it is. that is next...
[*to be clear, remember it is thus possible that a nation as machine-
state has both internal and external relations with other machines of
state in this larger 'megamachine' of automated development of global
ordering as it is localized. the key point is that 'machine values'
drives this beast. views that have become disconnected from human
accounting. and which also exists in a type of unchecked 'belief'
system, that this default condition is somehow just, right, good,
fair, if not 'holy' when equating this machinery with 'all that is'.
that would make those who serve this machinery its priests, of such a
religious convocation of this machine-based status quo.]
in any case, the next set of relations is between this machinery and
the humans who occupy this state (nation). thus, the human-and-
machine relations becomes a question of how the human population
relates to this state machinery, and by what means and dimensions. in
other words, what are the shared dimensional relations (values) and
how is this situation mediated, to balance the needs of the machinery
with those of its citizens? this is essentially the question of
"governance", and in that, of management between people and machinery
based on the exchange of shared values.
thus, in a state like America it is then an issue not only of how the
American machine relates to itself as a machine, and to other nations
that are state-machinery -- it is also how this American machinery of
state relates to its human citizens and how these citizens relate to
this state machinery -- in terms of how this situation is governed
and managed, as to the existence and being of machinery and people.
by what values, etc.
thus, if considering a dynamic such as the state of Iraq and the
state of the US, relating, it would then be a question of not only
how the humans are relating, yet also how the machines are relating
and of human-machine relations as they function, internally and
externally. and it is through the various matrix of combinations of
these complex relations that certain dynamics or patterns can be seen
to emerge.
"Iraq-state" <=> "American-state"
Iraqi-machine <-> American-machine
Iraqi human-machine <-> American human-machine
Iraqi human-human <-> American human-human relations
such modeling of machine and human dynamics then could begin to
delineate various functioning within the state as it relates to human
and machine values, dynamics, circuitry, short-circuiting, and so on.
this remains a sketch yet it could go far to explain how a given
perspective may speak as to 'sideness' -- as if an issue of Iraqi
versus America, when if analyzed closer could instead be an issue of
the relations of Iraqi and Iraqi or Iraqi human and Iraqi machine, or
of this larger megamachine. this is obviously vaguely worded yet
because of the _confusion between the machinery and the humanity it
holds power over, it is identical to the aspects of _zoning
previously mentioned as to what is _public and what is _private, as
it relates to human relations. so too, with the state -- right now
the state is zoned such that affairs of the state are mediated mostly
in terms of human-human relations, in public. these machine-machine-
relations are not out in the open, open for critique. they -are-. as
if, they -are- nature. they -are- law. this *is* the status quo.
another attempt at defining this basic condition between humans and
machinery of state:
"Iraq-state" <=> "American-state"
human-human relations human-human relations
human-machine relations human-machine relations
machine-machine relations machine-machine relations
when speaking of "Iraq" and "America" in terms of relations, it is
thus possible it could be operating in any number of relations
between the human relations of Iraqis, and those of Americans, and of
each nation with itself, in terms of its own human condition (Iraqi
to Iraqi, American with American) -- and as these then relate to any
other aspect of the 'other' -- such as Iraqi citizen and the American
machinery, or American citizen and the Iraqi human-machine relation.
this is the complex ecological circuitry and fundamental _confusion
that exists in relations between 'humans' when in fact this is a
relation also between machines, and if not differentiated as such,
and engaged accordingly, it could then be possible to mistake machine-
relations for human relations, machine values and goals for human
values and goals, and machine governance for human governance, and
ultimately, serving this megamachine as if it were 'all that is'...
Iraqi-machine <-> American-machine
local/internal machine-relations local/internal machine-relations
(Iraqi-machine as it relates to itself) (US-machine as it relates
to itself)
global/external machine-relations global/external machine-relations
(Iraqi-machine as it relates to other (US-machine as it relates
to other
machines, including megamachine) machines, including megamachine)
in the basic relations of 'machines' of state, it is possible that in
this machine-machine relation there is still an issue of zoning, in
which internal relations of a state with itself, then effects how
this state relates to others machinery, and vice-versa. this is to
propose that there may be an issue of the following circuits...
Internal relations of Iraqi machine-state <-> External relations
of US machine-state
this would be akin to the 'foreign influences' over self-governance
and foreign meddling in the affairs of other states, if considered in
terms of autonomous government, if it were not invited via
agreements, etc. it is a hypothetical example of where traditional
issues of policy then can be seen as 'wired' into structural
relations existing between machineries, in this case the idea of
'democracy' governing a machine of state, and potentially working to
establish such functioning.
this is still too vague yet it is a realm where bias, distortion, and
warping then could turn one state against itself, for the benefit of
another, if there was total corruption in terms of this machinery
'existing grounded in accountable truth'. it is an attempt to convey
that through these machine-machine relations that whatever the
relation between two states, the larger megamachine benefits, as to
the total condition of machinery. if state 1 exploits state 2, and
this sets up a given ecological circuit for their shared functioning,
the overall machinery prevails in every case. and further, state
survival may depend on the machinery of state subverting itself to
exist in relation with another state, which also benefits the larger
total machinery. this is the problem of modernism, globalism, and the
ideology of a war 'on' terrorism (vs 'of').
in other words, this is the same thing as a human being who exists
against their own self (best interest) in relations with the self
(human self as it relates with self) which then can form the basis
for relation with another, who may exploit this imbalance and
'balance' the circuit in this imbalance, which 'works' for both,
ecologically, yet may be based in sickness or illness. (if not
hallucinating it seems that architect Le Corbusier's thought about
this, and so too, found in Plato)... e.g. it is of a person who has
been abused in their life, who is damaged and victimized who then may
be unable to form relations with others beyond this condition, in
which an abuser then may complete the circuit for the relation. it is
a classic case where a victim of abuse maps 'love' onto the abuse,
as a form of exchange/values, by which to relate and then this
relation is balanced and it may 'work' for the abuser, even, yet the
overall circuit declines and it is built upon the destruction of a
self (abused) who acts against their own self, which undermines the
possibility of healthier relation.
in other words, the state-machinery of one nation could malfunction
within itself so to relate to another state-machinery and no matte
what this relation is, it is beneficial to the megamachinery that
these compose as an ecological entity, if considered in terms of the
machine-values that are shared and 'believed' beneficial to the
overall situation of states.
i.e. internal functioning may be sabotaged to relate externally and
external relations jeopardize internal functioning, as state-
machinery relates to itself and to other state-machinery. that is,
via its functioning. its machine-reasoning and the 'rationalization'
of the state in terms of 'being a machine' (as the measure of the
state, its rule, its values, beliefs, etc). this is thus not a 'good
state/bad state' scenario. these are machines, part of the same
larger machinery of the state, that exists locally and as a global
machinic organism. it is a megamachine of businesses, industries,
development, etc.
the machinery today is governing itself as a machine. this process of
automated development is on historical autopilot. in other words, the
state is functioning as a machine and is governed as a machine. its
decision-making is based within this machine-machine relations, as to
the existence of the state and its relations with other states. or so
it is proposed.
thus the internal/external relations of one machinery of state (Iraq)
with another state-machinery (America) within this internal/external
framework, then can have the internal functioning of one machine
related to the internal of another, or the internal functioning of
one state relating to the external of another, and vice versa, versus
only external-external relations of state-machinery. in other words,
if there is a _confusion and no boundaries exist, it may be possible
that the internal functioning of one machinery of state begins
seeking relations with the internal functioning of another, in terms
of this machinery. this is the 'global' condition of 'world order' in
which autonomy can fall to external influences within the functioning
of the state itself, from the inside-out. an instance of this would
be the relations between security services worldwide (e.g. state
'security machinery') in which the internal security of countries A
and B becomes an issue of 'internal security' for the shared state
they compose, at a global scale (i.e. the megamachine). these types
of issues are inherent in this question of the state as a machine and
how it is zoned and if not, what then is predictable.
in any case, for better and worse, 'ordering' occurs in this local
and global context of machines of state and how they relate, via what
values, in what terms and dimensions, to what success/failure, as to
how the world state is developed.
in terms of technology and the earth as a planetary organism, this
machinery can begin to 'run itself' and even begin to 'run amok' via
this automation of development (qua 'civilization'). there is a lot
to the role of reason and ideas here, and of losing this grounded
understanding to ideology, which begins to separate 'truth' out from
a larger shared reality...
as a result, the predicament that appears to arise is that this
question of the state as a machine is then in a context of humanity,
and it is this relation between humans and this machinery that
becomes central as to how this develops... if enlightened reason
governs this state-machinery or if ignorance ideology becomes the
basis for earthly existence. it is in such a way that 'governance'
and democracy in particular, becomes a type of circuit-breaker or
fuse by which to be able to influence this development, and correct
it, via human intervention. in some ideal and utopic sense of the idea.
e.g. Iraqi human-machine relations
Iraqi-machine internal relations with itself
Iraqi-machine external relations with other machines
Iraqi humans as they relate to internal/external machine-relations
(note: this last human-machine relation is based on the relation of
humans with themselves, human-human relations of self and others,
and in terms of zoning. this is fundamental to how the circuit
functions).
the issue of 'governance' of a state then implies that humans somehow
manage to govern this machinery and have an effective influence and
control over decision-making within this state. it then is a question
of 'whose values' and 'who is in control' of this state and its
functioning, as a cybernetic organism composed both of humans and
machinery acting as a single entity... and the default is to assume
that 'humans' are in control of the state and its daily functioning.
this is not accurate to the given situation, nor has it been for
centuries if not millennia, if adhering to Mumford's analyses in
which this span of development is singular when taken in the context
of 'technic', which is ultimately being developed.
if considering that 'machine' can equate with 'government' and
'business' and 'corporations' and generic technological stuff which
exists in civilization, tied into this _infrastructure, it is thus a
question of managing the relation between the humans in this
situation and the functioning of such machinery, and how this is
governed. via what shared dimensions, what values, etc. and it is
thus that in this way 'machine values' of corporations and businesses
and government then must be aligned with citizenry, in this human-
machine relation which is 'foundational' to the cybernetic connection
that exists when the two function as one ecological entity. the issue
then is if this is balanced and beneficial to the overall circuit or
may exist in a warped and distorted and biased framework of
relations. say, that somehow the machinery has found itself in
charge, which is the assumption, if only through dumb luck.
the point being that 'machine values' then would not necessary
balance with 'human values' and instead, it could be that through a
failure of humans to relate to this situation, accurately and
effectively, that this machinery could begin to govern humanity via
machine reasoning, which exists on ideological autopilot, ungrounded
in a virtual 'reality inc.'
so now imagine what happens when people assume that relations between
nations exist in 'human-human' terms, yet it is instead this much
more complex human-machine relation, in which not only do the
machinery of different states relate, yet also the people within
these state, as they relate or fail to relate to this machinery, and
to their own selves...
Iraqi human-machine <-> American human-machine
IQ machine with itself US machine with itself
IQ machine with others US machine with other machines
IQ machine with people US machine with US people
if Americans are having trouble governing/managing their own
machinery of state (said 'democracy') and yet are to then go
establish another one, elsewhere, this is crossing so many different
circuits between internal and external machine relations, and the way
people relate to their own states, that effectively it begins to
compress or compact the complexity of this question of the state into
a type of ideological framework of nationalism, whereby Iraq and
America are two nations functioning via human will as to governance,
and co-existence. instead, the situation would also need to remember
that there is _infrastructure beneath all of this and that it has an
agenda, both locally and globally as an automated machinery. both of
a local state and a global state, as to this megamachine and how
people relate to it or become detached from this relation which
serves some people just fine (as it is not an issue of democratic
governance and instead of a tyrannical megamachine accountable to no
one except itself: effectively, 'god' or 'all that is', in its own
beliefs and conception of itself via the private priesthood that
manages over it, with a death-grip, as the status quo).
it is thus possible to examine this matrix of relations and see how
relations of a state with itself can then become an issue of another
state as its people seek to govern/manage their affairs. (line 1,
left, with line 3, right). again, this is only a sketch yet hopefully
it will provide a useful framework to consider the existing situation
anew, in a more accurate portrayal of the basic situation. or so it
will be attempted (in the next posts because this post has become
overly long).
there is a very subtle dynamic that needs to be addressed in this
last breakdown of relations of humans and machines. it also needs to
be mentioned and addressed that people can act and behave 'like
machines' within the state, if they are acting unconsciously or
functioning in certain patterns which are evaluated in relation to
the state, via statistics, say. this is the rationalization of humans
as objects to be counted. numbered. quantified. thus, it would be
even more effective to include this dynamic in relations....
Iraqi human-machine <-> American human-machine
IQ machine with itself US machine with itself
IQ machine with others US machine with other machines
IQ machine with people US machine with US people
IQ people as machine US people as machine
this may be profane to consider, yet it is commonplace to look at
situations in terms of this automated functioning of society as an
organism. as a technical questioning, in which the human being
becomes dehumanized, and part of the fabric of nature without
traditional human boundaries or perspectives, or rights, under
certain circumstances. thus, in the relations between two states it
would be possible for people of one state to govern themselves in
relation to the people who act like a machinery, in the other state.
that is, if issues between states are not resolved by reasoning of
peoples with eachother in this state, it may be that the people of
one state view the other's people as if a machine. as part of a
machine and its functioning. statistics. and thus machine-values of a
state may be used to relate to humans, yet as if they are of this
machinery, which indeed part of human existence may be 'of cybernetic
human machinery.'
so, in relation to human-machine functioning, the question of
governing and managing this situation also includes the realm of
values, their exchange in dimensional relations, yet also ethics and
even morality. do 'people' govern as if they are humans or machinery?
with their own people or with other populations? etc. the scariest
aspect of this is that there are effectively no constitutional rules
to prevent people from being equated with machinery, as it now
stands. it is someone's "right" to dehumanized another, yet this is
not based in actual grounded truth, it is dangerously ungrounded and
may influence decision-making that indeed would make 'crimes against
humanity' the very status quo of the state. this is why zoning is so
important, and why the _confusion of equating public and private
zones legitimates such acts, by way of reasoning of private
identities using binary logic which relativizes truth into a biased,
warped, distorted POV which is shared in "reality inc" yet is
fundamentally unreal as to what actually exists, and unaccountable
for its errors.
in any case, this breakdown of dynamics will hopefully help make
sense of photographic illustrations in the next posts. it is not
meant to further confuse the situation and instead, seek to clarify
the situation that exists, in a neutral view as to the issues do with
this 'machinery' of state that seldom accurately accounted for in
public relations of human beings.
the mass media and pundits and others would instead like 'people' to
*believe* that what is going on is merely an issue to do with human-
human differences, of opinions, and sharing of opinions, in this
state which is governed by humans. it is in a sense the ideology of
self-representation in a democracy in which 'people rule' via ideas,
truth, facts, reasoning. instead this is largely illusory to the
grounded functioning of the state, although it makes for good and
noble rhetoric. it is an issue of pseudo-truth, instead, which then
builds consensus based on the sharing of opinions, beliefs, faith,
and 'values' between people, so as to establish a framework for human-
human relations which can be harnessed by the state in its cybernetic
governance (via technocrats in government, managing the human-machine
exchange). this is instead a short-circuit, a 'closed circuit' in
which a closed loop is created in which the human population is
managed within the state, in a pseudo-democracy, in which human views
are mapped onto machine-values and reasoning in this translation of
human-machine relations, via political-science in society. (political
meteorology, political sports, etc).
the private mass media run by this machine, of this machine, then is
to supposedly 'publicly' _represent a view of what is going on within
this state of affairs, via 'reality inc' and this is highly biased,
warped, and distorted, to a machine-POV in which the state is
relating to humans via machine-values and reasoning broadcast one-way
through _infrastructure. to say 'conflict of interest' would be an
understatement. this machinery and its ideology are governing what
people can say, do, be, believe, within the state, to the highest
degree of control available. and there are no laws which 'govern'
this machinery, in terms of its being a 'machine' and not 'human'.
its having 'machine values' and not human values. this is why
relativism and language games work against humanity, and human
reasoning and intelligence, and by and large, 'law' itself exists in
service of this status quo machinery in which the human and machine
are seen as if identical. this is again where the ideology of this
machinery, in particular social darwinism and seeing 'people as apes'
is critical, as it enables the state to transform these relations
between humans, within this state, to the functioning of machinery.
as if 'nature', a natural resource, via a dehumanized worldview based
on orthodox yet flawed technoscientific ideology.
as such, the basic relations of humans in a state can be dehumanized,
downgraded, and 'the machine' can be given a superior status as to
governance, as if by natural if not 'divine' right...
Iraqi human-human <-> American human-human relations
Iraqi human to Iraqi self US human to self
IQ human to other IQ human US human to other US human
IQ human to IQ human-machine US human to US machine-human
IQ human-machine to IQ human-machine US human-machine to US human-
machine
IQ ape-person to IQ ape-person US ape-person to US ape-person
this is still only a sketch yet it seeks to show how human relations
between citizens in such a machinery of state could run the gamut of
choices, as to how people could relate. 'identity' is a huge aspect
to this. if people cannot relate via shared dimensions based on
specific relativistic existence (ethnicity/income/sex <-> geography/
career/status) it then can become an issue of 'behavioral' relations,
automatic responses, instinct, in a sense: animal-like. less about
some pure reasoning of relations and instead, _automated responses,
triggered by pavlovian behaviors, trained or inherited. it is thus
possible to consider that there are people who may relate as humans.
others, as sex/genders and all that this may then format as to their
relations, as exhaustively accounted for in previous writings. yet
also, this 'cybernetic' and automatic aspect of 'being a machine' as
a biological organism, a living being with mechanics of a sort. what
happens when a person with a hearing aid talks with a person without
one. this could be a human and cyborg relationship, or human and
human-machine, effectively. so too, there may be a new standard of
this human-machine (i.e. referred to previously as 'human techné)
which is 'human technology' as it may define 'being' as it exists in
this state machinery. human techné as it relates to human techné, for
instance, as the generations transmute and upgrade human coding.
another aspect similar yet seemingly different is that there are
aspects of the human which are based in intelligence, a type of
striving for the human (which is here assumed in some sense healthy
and balanced and not escapist, per se), and that which is based in a
downgrading of the human condition, a debasement. where people are
treated and act as less than human, as to their relations with self
and others. this is to say, in public relations between people in a
state, someone may exist in various ranges of behavior and existence
and this then forms the larger state, as people relate.
and thus, what happens if certain types of people begin to relate, or
cross paths, and how do things get wired and what works and what does
not - and why? what if the state-machinery treats some citizens as if
they are animals, and then when behavior tends this way in given
contexts, it reinforces this ideological belief which is based in a
warped ideology and yet is used to justify 'machine values' and
'machine reasoning' which itself may be _cause to the given dynamics.
what if this is also a question of prejudice and oppression and
inequality and warped thinking, machinic in its 'being', that then
becomes the 'beliefs' by which some people relate to others in the
state, as citizens? in essence, serving this status quo via beliefs
in machine ideology, as a type of faith in the machine, for lack of
better reasoning or no need for it. it is this question of 'sharing
being' and 'one being' within the state which has become void as an
issue of the state. people do not need to belong to other people, in
this shared state. they only need to belong to this machinery,
firstly. and the closer one aligns to this machinery, the less human
it gets, and the more free to pursue/extend its ideology, via
automated development, one mind and body at a time, as they bridge,
spanning across societies, linking up across the various nations,
until 'people' exist beyond accounting for their own humanity and
their place within the human family. this is all irrelevant, as far
as the status quo is concerned. the law is privatized. this is
opinion, etc. while the 'beliefs' in this machinery have replaced
these human values, this human family, with this ancient inhuman
machinery instead.
some people may 'believe' that an issue like that between Iraq and
the US is an issue in which 'enlightened' people in one nation are
going to go fix another people, who may be 'ignorant' as to how
things exist. it may even be that some ignorant person thinks that
going and killing somebody, as if a predatory animal, against other
animals, is in service to some greater intelligence, ideals, virtues,
values, within the state. it may be that in other connections people
may relate as humans and share certain goals in this complex
situation. many dynamics. yet in relations between states, it is thus
to propose that while 'humans' may relate to other humans, or people
with eachother, that this 'human reasoning' is not necessarily what
is guiding the actions of the state or its decision-making. say, if
it is to reference religious values as if these are guiding the
affairs of a state. it is instead occurring in a _context of
machinery, automated machinery in which machine-values must be
related to the human situation. and how this is done, and for what
constituencies, then is an issue of human-human relations, and
reasoning or power and influence over human-human interconnectivity.
a relation between states today is not occurring just in these human-
human relations -- often the dynamics have more to do with the
_infrastructural aspects of this machinery as it connects with itself
(relating internally/externally) and this can and is driven by an
assumed ideology which _is anti-human at its core, and ungrounded in
empirical truth as to the 'reality' of what is believed to exist,
versus that which more actually exists. and in this situation, while
people may argue or kill eachother in human-human relations, say as
enemies of nations, there are other dimensions at work in which the
states may be on the same-side, with regard to accepting this
machinic development as the status quo. this is the default
condition. and in this way, the state can fundamentally be setup to
function against itself, against its own self-interests, both in
human terms and in terms of how this machinery functions.
it is to propose that the issues of 'war' today involve not only
human-human relations and instead, the Iraqi machine of state as it
functions in relation to itself, locally, and as part of a global
order. and this is an issue of Iraqis with their own selves, as
humans and as 'human-machinery', in which _reason must be established
to adequately govern the state or it defaults to power/force as a
means of control, to manage affairs in the state. and it is also a
relation of how others, including other humans and other states,
relate to this project, and in what terms -- where it goes right and
where it goes wrong, by what criteria, values, and so on.
ideologically it may be believed that there are opponents on two
sides of a situation, yet what if there is only one side, ultimately,
and it is for humans to succeed in governing this machinery? what if
there are Americans who want this to occur and Iraqis, and yet there
are others who currently must mediate this in terms of 'violence' as
a form of reason, as a basis for control, management, governance in
the state, versus 'ideas' which can begin to establish a coherent
framework for autonomous relations of a self-governing 'nation'
which, then, may be faced with identical issues as all others, in
relation to this human-machine enigma, in that given the existing
dynamics -- it is predictable what will occur, until more fundamental
changes are secured within the state machinery.
an example will follow to seek to clarify that this situation is more
complex than it is mediated, or so it would seem, and if this
complexity were taken into account, it would be possible to establish
shared reasoning at the level that problems exist in the state today:
as an issue of machine-machine relations, of human-machine relations,
and of human-human relations. Americans versus Iraqis in this context
is a different dynamic than if assuming Americans are only apes who
serve this machinery, primarily, and are willing to sacrifice their
lives for the almighty dollar. or that Iraqis are beyond any
reasoning beyond religious ideology and hatred because mass media
skews the populations to 'believe' so. what if this situation is
fundamentally _ungrounded as to what is going on, as it is actually
existing, in terms of the information circuits at work in the way the
environment is wired to function, people are relating, and
individuals relate to their own selves -- what if this total
situation exists in so much bias, distortion and warping, there is no
clear idea of what is going on and what is at stake, in a larger
context than any given view by an individual -- what is the larger
shared viewpoint?
it is proposed that this view of 'machinery' begins to balance and
make sense of other dynamics at work, and can be represented by
_infrastructure, in terms of issues of automated development in the
state as it relates to values, human and machine, and also to
ideologies, 'religious' which would include technocratic worldviews
and those of false-faith in which religious beliefs are exploited by
and for this machinery, as part of the war-making. when viewing the
situation from a perspective of humanity, it is possible to consider
that what is going on in Iraq is also going on elsewhere, and has
been going on for some time, with regard to this automated machinery
and its machine-based development, which utilizes machine-values by
which to reason on behalf of the human state, for establishing
machine-machine relations. and as such, it is not the human-human
connection that drives this process, and instead this other hidden
assumption and its untouchable ideology, which is then mediated in
this question of how human-and-machinery of state are to find
balance, via governance and management -- the question of democracy
and representation and cybernetic feedback within the state, via
human values and intelligence, as to this development and so on.
yet the overall point is to propose that this underlying condition
and question of the state, its functioning, and direction cannot be
engaged when relating to it only in human-human terms. it is only
through viewing this as a machinery that certain dynamics can begin
to be understood -- so too, the complicity of each person in
extending and sustaining this type of machinic functioning, including
exploiting it for benefit which then harms others. as this is how
things work in this state, as a technological ecosystem. it is a
jungle -- of technology. it is a beast -- of technological machinery.
it is at the core of what is going on and yet no one can or is
discussing the situation in these terms, because it has become
detached from how the situation is 'represented' in the media and how
people relate to what is going on. what about the machine? and what
about the machine of state 'out there' and also 'in here', in every
person who exists, who is? what about this culpability to the basic
dynamic at work, and a more balanced view of what is going on in this
circuit-- including the dehumanization of each other, as if
machinery, as if animals, in which only the machinery is to benefit?
what if human reasoning could begin to take down this machinery and
bring it under human control, of human values which people share, and
which then guide the state in its decision-making, and thus governs
this automated machine? this cannot occur until a grounded relation
exists between people in the state and of the state, as the state
relates to itself, humans and machinery, and then as states relate to
eachother in these terms, in a global order. anything less and there
is a global beast of an infrastructure developing which has little
care for humans beyond a natural resource. in choosing how to relate,
in switching from the default relation which serves this machinery
via hidden assumptions, to one that questions this machinery and its
functioning, goals, values, -- it is possible to begin to create
different circuits of relation between humans, and between humans and
machines, which start to fight *for* humanity, Iraqis included. until
this basic condition is the basis for mediating the situations that
exist, humans will fight humans and what exists will be beyond the
ability to accurately model the dynamics as they exist grounded in
logic, not just that of theoretical speculations and free-floating
abstractions which again equate humans with numbers, by which
machinery prevails.
this text is flawed. the ideas are flawed. they are imperfect. it is
instead shared on the basis of 'conscience' -- for all that has been
lost to the unsaid, unwritten, unaccounted for, and unaccountable
dimensions that occupy the present. when will this tyranny of
machinery be engaged? when will the human slaughter stop and people
begin to fight against this machinery, especially through _reason,
which is ultimately necessary to change any and all of these
events... at what point will sanity be regained and the madness that
pervades the atmosphere be held to account for the warping, bias,
distortion, lies, and the cynicism before 'greater truth', and
accurate representations of what exists as it exists? at what point
will 'the state' itself become the focus, as a question, as 'states'
themselves relate, peoples and nations, in a local and global
ordering -- and to set this straight with regard to human values
governing over this situation, in which machinery now rules, and
destroys through ignorance? why does reason hold so little value for
humanity today? how else will situations improve, if not through
ideas which more effectively engage situations and mediate the
relations between peoples, so that humans can stand on the same side,
and not by default, deposed and against each other?
there is little remaining to the modeling. some basic functional
observations follow - yet beyond this there is nothing. it is simply
logic. 1's and 0's. humanity and machinery. true and false. thus,
maybe the modeling really does not matter. it is still an issue of
belief, faith, opinion, ideology and so on, with respect to decision-
making. this has been an attempt at modeling empirical reality of a
shared human situation that exists, and 'reasoning' is the only way
to work through this, to achieve a better configuration via new
governance, human rights, just and equitable relations between
nations, and so on. yet if 'reason' does not matter, then it defaults
to force and violence to seek to enact changes -- and this is to
again claim that this ultimately only benefits the state machinery
and its automated development, as humans fight each other, because
the machinery always wins. that is, until humans can model what is
going on and change the dynamic via 'ideas' (models) which are
superior to the ideological functioning which works by exploiting
people for the state. it is through the power of truth and the power
of ideas and the power of reasoning that this situation can be
transformed. through strategic awareness as to a common human
condition, in which nationality is another disguises, as is ethnicity
and religion, that differentiates humans in this machinery, splitting
people and placing us in conflict with one another.
it is thus the shared 'human' identity and a public zoning in which
to relate in such a context to this machinery that then can go beyond
the private views of patriarchal man who speaks in universal terms,
yet is bounded to certain relations which may not enable 'human'
relations to exist, on the same-side, and to place this within the
context of machinery -- including human values and machine values and
the way people exist and govern their relations, with self and
others. ultimately there must be clarity and barring this clarity the
situation is ungrounded as to what is shared and unshared, what is
human and what is machinery, and what the goals ultimately are: human
emancipation or human enslavement.
[cont.]
OPEN + CLOSE G U A N T A N A M O B A Y P R I S O N
.UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL mediate resolution of issues