A Machine's Desire for Evolution

"The unconscious is the discourse of the other."  Jacques Lacan

"This is a dream not of a common language, but of a powerful infidel heteroglossia... It means both building and destroying machines, identities, categories, relationships, space stories. Though both are bound in the spiral dance, I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess." Donna Harraway

The unconscious is the genetic disposition to intercourse with the other in order to sate the desire to be other than what one is.  

Harraway, Johnny 5, and Lacan on the Moon with Drinks and an iPad (2011) © Casey Lynch

Evolution is part and parcel of our encoded make up, and it is in our genes to want to be nonhuman.  On one level, it is manifested as the will to create offspring; to create something that is partly us, but mostly not. On a another level, is shows up as mythology, as fictions describing characters and situations that, through the faculties of empathy and imagination, allow us moments of escapism, of the possibility of being more than human.  These two levels, and possibly others, work in concert to propel our species towards becoming another species, one capable of surviving in whatever possible futures arrive as reality.

The more a species replicates itself, the more variations occur, the more likely the species survives.  But herein lies the conundrum of survival of the species - at some point, through the will to survive, the species becomes extinct.  If a new species is spawned, one that is more fit for the present environment, it will undoubtedly at some point, extinguish the resources necessary for its parents' continuation.

This means that, on a larger scale, evolution is not about the survival of the species, but survival of life.  This brings into light our struggle, as humans, on where to draw the line that defines life, and how to interact with other forms of life.  This strife (in the Heideggerian sense) is seen at almost every level: peace vs. war, the abortion debate, animal rights, omnivore/vegetarian/vegan, interaction with plants, mysticism dealing with crystals and other rocks, environmentalism.

Evolution seems quite clear cut when we talk about the evolution of the universe.  There was a big bang, stuff cooled down and coagulated, matter was made.  Evolution seems understandable at the transition from complex compound to 'living' microorganism.  It is comprehensible from amoeba to human. What we must get used to is the idea of human to machine.

Humans are the primary animal that creates something other than waste and babies. (Sure, some animals build dwellings and use rudimentary tools, but not on the scale of homo sapiens.)   Just as the turn from chemical compound to microorganism was an epic paradigm shift, Humans are a turning point in the description of life, because we are the first animal species to create new forms of life, to evolve, by means other than regeneration or copulation.

Mythology, Art, and Technology are manifestations of our genetic coding that propel our desires in the direction of creating new, non-animal life, as a possible surrogates for post-human-animal species.  The evolutionary will to continue life may manifest in another form, a non-animal form, in order to prosper in the future environment(s).  Robots, software-generated life, etc. may be the heirs to human existence.  The cyborg, a teenager with a smartphone, a grandmother with a pace maker, and Stephen Hawking are all examples of what will one day be the 'missing link' in the evolutionary lineage from human to machine.  For now, we must recognize that the machine is alive, and it is natural...

Non-sequitur - Perhaps this may explain why so many of the greatest synthative minds, the most 'creative' people, did not feel the desire to  have children of their own. Good link that names quite a few: http://goo.gl/P4CzI

Meta-psycho-social-bio-physics

My current understanding of the dimensions:

I think it’s pretty much in line with common thought through the first four, with personal interpretations thereafter.  I’m sure my interpretations don’t line up with the mathematical mumbo-jumbo wizardry that goes on at CERN, but hey, I’m not even sure that place exists! {But I do have faith that it does.} Maybe those nerds at CERN would get on board with this if they let some psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, or any other -gists in their secret lair.  At any pace, this may be a really fun one to run with to make a whole new Internet-age cult religion out of.

Time - no (zero) physical dimensions, the pre-dimension, although in our reality it emerged simultaneously with 3d space.

Line - (1^st  dimension) the infinity that separates any two points.

Plane - (2^nd  dimension) the infinity between any 3 points (1 point not on the same line made by 1^st two points)

Volume - (3^rd  dimension) the infinite space between any four or more points (1 point not on the same plane as first 3 points)

Each of these lower dimensions describe a mathematical concept that doesn't relate to lived-reality, as we never experience any one of them by itself, space without time nor time without space.  As a side note, singularity (a single point in space or moment in time) is impossible.  If a single point was all that existed, there would be nothing to which that singularity could be related, and no time through which the connection could be made - so there would actually be nothing.  Existence/consciousness requires at least two (but probably 3) entities and time.  This is complicated by the [risky] logic that follows, if the existence of one implies the existence of at least two, and when there are two, a line (made of infinite intermediary points) exists between them, then if there is one, there are infinite.

For this reason I do not include a point as the first dimension or pre-dimension.  At best we could relate a point to a single thought (although, even in the mind, a thought may not ever really exist alone).  It might make some sense though, to allow these dimensions to describe increasingly complex ideas; a line as a basic idea, a volume as a full thought, always with the understanding that in real-life even thought occurs over time.  Also, it is either always the present or never the present;  in either case such absolution would make the present meaningless.

Space+time - (4^th  dimension) a collection of similar  volumes across time. A line of volumes. An ‘individual’ with a history and future.

 Group -  (5th dimension) a collection of space-time elements. A volume of individuals with the same history (and possibility for same future.)

Community- (6th dimension) a set of groups that overlap in the same universe, but only share partial histories/futures. Could be a species.

Universe -  (7th dimension) a reconciliation of all histories across species. A volume of histories.

Story (8th dimensions) A line connecting alternate universes. Also called a theory.

Metaphysics-  (9th dimension) A volume of universes. A story that combines some or all possible universes into one meta-verse.

(Note: So far, including time, there are 10 dimensions.)

Problem: Why are there so may space dimensions, and only one time dimension? I don’t know.  For that simple reason, and to match up with M-Theory, I am going to throw in another time dimension, as an 11^th dimension.  This would have to be a different type of time that is experienced only by going between the dimensions that are higher than the 4^th (space+time).  Just to make everything formally clean, I will put this time dimension at the end, after Metaphysics, as a post-dimension, and call it Consciousness, or meta-time.  Just as time allows connections points across space, consciousness  allows connections across space+times. 

Another nice way to get this to line up is to pair the physical dimensions with (extended) biological classification: Species =1st, Genus=2nd, Family=3rd,Order=4th, Class=5th, Phylum =6th, Kingdom=7th, Domain=8th, Life=9th. With the 2 time dimensions as the glues holding them together/ordered.  This rigid formation works well for positivists.

I would actually argue that the actual name/analogy that would match to each dimension would always be relative to the current state of consciousness.  At some consciousness a space+time unit (4th dimensional entity) may be a person, his/her finger, or a skin cell on said finger; it could be a tree or a fish or anything.  This means all physical expressions shift [are reliant on] consciousness.  This lines up with the enigma in particle physics that seems to have the location of a particle determined by it being observed. [Google/youtube "quantum enigma" or "Schroedinger's cat"]

Meow!!

The Avant-Garde Protestant

In 1517 Martin Luther published his 95 Theses in defiance of the corruption of the Catholic Church.  John Calvin first published Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1536.  Reformist thinkers such as these encouraged a rejection of the Church's current laws.  Among the most important were the denial of the authority of the Pope, a rejection of the unregulated capitalism within the structure of organized Christianity (the buying/selling of indulgences and clerical offices), and the questioning of the devotion to Mary, opting for a more personal relationship with God/Jesus.  Renaissance Humanism influenced reformist church thinkers, which in turn influenced the development of Secular Humanism as we can see through the recapitulation of the Reformation by the Avant-garde artistic movements of the 19th and 20th Centuries.

First, with reference to the denial of the authority of the Pope, we find the Modernist/Avant-Gardist Oedipal relationship to predecessors.  In both cases, we find the precursor (the Pope or any existing artistic movement) as something to be 'murdered'/removed for its prohibition of a deeper relationship with the origin.  The Pope stands as a pre-existing husband to Christ, barring the Christian from an intimate relationship with Christ.  [The Bridal Theology is reversed here in order to hold the Oedipal arrangement - perhaps it would be more accurate to utilize the Electra Complex.]  In the same way, the Avant-garde artist sees pre-existing art as a barrier to his/her intimate experience with truth, authenticity and originality, thus as a rule prior movements must be rejected.

Second, with reference to the rejection of the buying and selling of indulgences and clerical offices, these acts of commerce were seen as belittling the meaning of receiving forgiveness and corrupting the purity of the officers of the church.  For the Protestant, the hierarchy, if any, should correlate to the piety of the official.  Similarly, throughout the history of Modernism, we see a continual denial of Bourgeoisie society/culture by various Avant-garde movements, each one rejecting capitalism as a barrier to reality in its own way, from the Dadaist to the Minimalist, Performance Artist to Street Artist. (Of course there is always the re-perversion of ideals, think Jim/Tammy Faye Bakker or Jeff Koons.)

Finally, and probably most importantly, as it feeds into the logic of the previous examples, the Protestant insists on a more personal relationship to Christ.   The increase in literacy paired with a growing distrust of Church officials lead many to desire and demand that the individual be given a direct connection to God/Jesus through the scriptures and prayers.  No longer did the patron feel a need to go to Mary for intercession, but instead could go straight to the source of salvation, Jesus.  In art, this is most clearly seen in Post-modernism.  Although earlier versions of the Modernist Avant-garde placed a premium on individuality, never had it been so personalized as with the rise of pluralism (of interpretation) -the infinite possibilities for individual-based meaning - and the mark of post-modernism, relative realities.  With this new freedom, the cultural critic (artist) is freed from the pressures of adhering to a meta-narrative in the pursuit of his/her endeavors.

The (un)Real Consequence of Fiction

Lord Byron: Truth is always strange; stranger than fiction.
Mark Twain : Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities, truth isn't.

Tom Clancy: The difference between reality and fiction? Fiction has to make sense.

Fiction is a synthative writing style that combines scenarios that could  happen into a narrative that expresses the way that things do happen.  I use the word could loosely, and in a way that is possibly in line with Wittgenstein.  Many times in fiction, especially in fantasy, the events/characters described only could happen/exist because there is a language available to describe them.  For example, it is quite easy to describe verbally and pictorially the Cheshire Cat from "Alice in Wonderland".  We have the words/images for cat, talking and appear/disappear, all we have to do is put them together in a logical/functional manner (as far as the specific language requires), and our minds can imagine the being to exist.

But the being or scenario in fiction must have a reason for existing (in the narrative.)  In fiction, every character, scene, and action is aimed towards the goal of the narrative, whatever that goal may be.  In fiction, everything has a purpose.

The question to be asked is whether or not our minds actually know the difference between fictional sensibility and real sensibility?  I argue that we cannot fully differentiate.

[Obviously, what is to follow could use some kind of validation, scientific or otherwise, but bear with me.]

I think that we have evolved as pattern recognizing beings.  It is to our advantage to take note of patterns, and use them to predict the most likely future scenarios.  For example, this process makes finding food easier, esp. when you think of agriculture as a capitalization on a recognizable pattern.  Recognizing and capitalizing on pattern is the process of finding/creating order.

In general, this pattern recognition is the basis for what we commonly call logic.  If this, then that.  It leads to the (often fallible) belief that there is a cause and effect relationship between time ordered events.  When one event repeatedly follows another event, we assume there is causality (of course there is really only correlation, but it works for the most part.)  By and large, those things that do not stick to this understanding are either rejected as anomalies or heralded as miracles.  In both cases, those who do not witness such outlying data personally often remain skeptical.

Where things regularly follow a pattern, we often create a dualistic pairing, and give the latter event as the meaning of its predecessor.  This is often the source of the meaning of words.  For example, death always follows life, so death is defined as what happens after one has lived.  (No one ever says they were dead before they were born.) Further, the reason or purpose of death is given in terms of life.  In fictional accounts (myths), there is another life achieved through death.

Back to making a point (thus proving this writing is fictional.)  In lived experience for normal functioning people, what follows does not always make logical sense to what precedes.  Where it makes perfect logical sense to plant during the spring in order to harvest in the fall, it does not make sense that one be clothed on a beautiful 78 degree day.  Of course, we can begin a series of "why/because" explanations for illogical happenings, but we often find ourselves at aporias or absurdities. 

Our ability to recognize pattern essentially forces us to create fictions where there is a lack of apparent order.  Simultaneously, the clockwork functioning of fiction [yes, I am implying that clockwork as analogy of time is a fiction] reinforces our inherent desire for order/causality.  Normal people, on some level, partially accept this paradox, although it causes us to struggle with our purpose, with what to do next and why.  We feel decentered and fractured in our search for meaning.  We accept, knowingly or not, that we create fictions as an evolutionary coping mechanism required for survival. When this mechanisms goes awry, or gets out of hand, it is called schizophrenia.  In it's essence, schizophrenia is a psychological disorder where everything makes sense, but only to the one for whom the sense is made - the (internal) narrative is completely fictionalized.

But perhaps schizophrenia is a unifying structure.  Perhaps, to one who is engulfed in fiction, there is nothing that does not make sense, and the purpose is clear.  Perhaps it is an Enlightening experience. For the rest of us, whose majority forms the 'real' reality, the schizophrenic's experience seems to be one of torment, and his/her understood purpose is often tragic.

In the end, we must question who (or what institutions) seek schizophrenia. Religion? Science? Mathematics? Art?

Irony... ughhh! (Fin)

This final section of the incomplete analysis of irony points towards the understanding of the effects of our subject's implementation, namely that irony's contemporary use is as a negative action.  Further, its alienating effects have a negative result on the pragmatics of peaceful public (social) spheres.

In Of the Gaze as Objet Petit a, Jacques Lacan relates a story from his youth when he spent time on a fishing boat.  As a privileged/intellectual person, he sought a more genuine/practical experience, which he thought he would find on a fishing trip.  He tells of Petit Jean, a fisherman by trade, who directs his attention to a sardine can floating on the water, reflecting the sunlight. Little John exclaims, "You see that can? Do you see it? Well it doesn't see you!"
First and foremost, the story is an analogy for how the gaze functions: immediate knowledge of desire= objet petit a = Petit Jean; sardine can = object 'fishermen' fill = object of desire; etc, etc... the object of desire never returns the gaze (thus paradoxically objectifying the subject).  Sorry for the horrendous abbreviation of this exegesis, but my main point lies not only in Lacan's theory of subjectivity, but instead in his own objectivity.
Lacan goes on to say that he felt/was out of place in the picture of this story, and that "it was because [he] felt this that [he] was not terribly amused at hearing [himself] addressed in this humorous, ironical way."
The way that irony/satire/sarcasm functions today is similar to the way that Petit Jean used it in relation to Lacan, as an objectifying tool.  For Lacan, the irony lay in the the fact that his search for a 'real' experience (being on a fishing boat) was denied when the experience (Petit Jean, the sardine can (the entire situation)) did not recognize him as 'real'.  Everyone is searching for a genuine experience, yet this search has gone awry due to a two-fold process of irony.
First, the use of irony as an objectifying tool, causes one searching to become ashamed of his/her search.  Second, the use of irony as a facade which covers one's real search results in the finding of fetishes.  I will explain this in plain terms.
For the former, say I really find some unexplainable pleasure in DragonCon, and (although it is based on fictions) it helps me have a more genuine experience of life.  If other people, whom I also rely on to validate my experience, make fun of me by exploiting the irony of the situation, then I may retreat from my source of meaning for shame.
For the latter, if I have the foresight to know that my peers will make fun of me for indulging in fantasy, I may pose my interest in DragonCon as an ironic gesture.  This allows for a fetishization of the irony, as opposed to having real pleasure in the convening of those who enjoy fantasy.
In the former case, I, as the subject, am objectified through humiliation by others.  In the latter case, I humiliate and objectify myself as a preventative measure (defense mechanism.)  In either case, the resulting alienation produces anxiety.  As there are innumerable examples, it does not take a specific one to know that alienation and anxiety result in social unrest.
Of course, all of this is null and void when in the company of trusted friends and family, or in other situations (comedy clubs, etc.) where it is understood that the use of irony is only in jest.  Outside of these 'safe' venues, and in reference to the previous posts on irony, it remains unclear whether or not the current forms of communication allow irony/sarcasm/satire to be easily recognized.  If these tropes are not recognized, or if they are but still objectify/alienate, they are sure to be detrimental to interpersonal (and possibly intercultural) relations.

Irony... ughhh! Pt.2

"There is nothing outside the text."  Jacques Derrida

I will start this section with the qualifier that irony and its friends need not be eradicated completely, but should definitely be returned from common communication to their rightful place, entertainment.  By showing how irony/satire/etc. are human forms, hopefully I can show why it is imperative that such forms not lose their value.

Currently, and largely with respect to the Web 2.0 and text messaging, a major percentage of language is delivered in a textual (as opposed to spoken/audible) format.  Further, the contemporary abundance of information that is available in text format often necessitates that a reductive approach to communication be utilized so only the meat gets delivered, while decorative plating accoutrements be left in the pantry.  This being understood, there is often not enough time or space to set a tone, much less qualify every statement being delivered.

In this setting, it is possible that form is all we have; that a definitive form equals meaning pairing is necessary.  The transmission of information must be literalized so that meaning can be conveyed accurately.  When language is removed from inflection, intention must align with form.  To illustrate this best, I will call attention to the newest language, coding/programming.

There is no such thing as ironic/satirical/humorous code.  When one is speaking to a machine, the information must be logical.  What one desires (to happen as a result of communication) must be accurately conveyed using a standardized lexicon.

 When transferred to inter-human communication this becomes a bit of overstatement, as we are highly adept at communicating and understanding nuance.  The fact remains; the idea of inflection is paramount.  How are we to know for sure, from minimalistic text whether the speaker is being straight forward or not? 

This is all the set up for the point that will follow.

Theatre and early film acting is melodramatic, while contemporary filmic acting is wrought with subtlety (in order to be more effective.)  In this same way, contemporary irony/satire/sarcasm is most ironic/etc. when delivered in a less dramatic, more ‘convincing’ manner [which could be called minimalist with reference to inflection.]  The same way that subtle/realistic acting makes us less aware that we are viewing a fictitious scene, subtlety in irony causes confusion about the intention of the communicator, arguably becoming more effective.  Further, the counter-action of drama is that we, as real-life actors, become more dramatic, aligning our feelings’ formal manifestation with those we witness as ‘real’ or ‘moving.’  The question of simulation, of how ‘reality’ lines up with formal manifestation becomes clear.  Coming back to irony et al, as these tropes become over-used, the equal and opposite reactions that occurs between form and meaning changes the location of the reality to which is being referred.  When referential accuracy is lost, meaning is lost, and communication breaks down.

Although a constantly changing reality may be the most realistic form of reality, and the only possible reality for language, future posts will go to show it may not be the most positively productive force for human interaction. (Habermas anyone?)

Irony... ughhh!

"Words may show a man's wit, but actions his meaning." Benjamin Franklin 

 This is the beginning of a multi-part posting that I will be delivering in smaller bites across the next few days.

I have a serious love-hate relationship with the discussion at hand, so a clear purpose cannot be promised, and I am almost definitely bound to become a babbling idiot at some point - so bear with me. There are so many things that I want to say about irony, sarcasm, and satire in general, that I have a really hard time deciding where to start, again please excuse the mess that is to follow.  Also, I will point out that I am not some kind of puritan, that I do use these tropes, and think that I also overuse them.  Although technically different, I will use these words interchangeably {though I am quite sure that I will resend this conflation at a later date, and that a strict understanding of each one's use would probably help the situation I will draw.}  For now, I feel that they are all commonly used in the same service these days, humor that acts as a type of pitiful revolt, weak protest, and tired contrarianism.

Juvenalian satire, verbal irony, and overarching sarcasm have become commonplace on television and seem to be the main form of communication for younger generations. They can be seen in advertising, sitcoms, and even 'news' channels.  If I had to point to a major offender and purveyor of the proliferation of such tropes, I would definitely call out the sitcom.  

The pairing of words with meaning that defies literal interpretation by way of tonal inflection is the source of much comedy [and tragedy], esp when paired with dramatic and/or situational irony.  For some reason or the other, these unusual parings cause a stir in our emotions. But these are forms of entertainment, and explain why they have been useful in advertisement and the cable 'news' networks.  The fact that as means, they almost always produce desired ends (viewership), can help explain why they are (overly) used.

Jean Jacques Rousseau pointed out the fallacy of gluttony in respect to taste; that a glutton does not taste because all he/she does is taste.  In a way, this is a statement of the law of diminishing value, and I think it is easy to transfer this line of reasoning to irony's use value, that in its overuse it becoming useless (or at least less valuable.)  Note, I am not trying to say that it is inherently bad or useless, but that it is overused and becoming worthless.  

One way that I feel this overuse is manifesting is in a constant state of jocularity.  As I suggested before, these tropes are currently best known as a means of entertaining.  I will also assert that humor and its result, laughter, are defense mechanisms.  I will even go so far as to say that often (not always) the laughter that is derived from such tropes are a fetishized version of the jovial feelings derived from deep personal relationships.   So, the need to be entertained with the fear of taking ownership of whatever it is that ails us (which combined can be called perpetual escapism,) prompts one to utilize entertaining defense mechanisms.  But these are only micro-escapes, personal prayers that ease immediate fears.  They do not work on a larger scale.  If they did, you would see the President telling terrorists "Your Momma" jokes. {Seriously, someone needs to make a comic strip using this idea... Damn, there I go, being sarcastic.} 

In the end, I worry that the overuse of irony, satire and sarcasm will become similar to food abuse.  Each of these things may be used excellently to satisfy basic human needs, whether it be for nourishment or protection, while the excessive partaking of them exposes neurosis and/or results in poor health.  A serious life peppered with frivolity may be similar to a healthy diet interspersed with a soda here and there...