Analog System Hacking 101: Alternate Visions built in the gaps

The primary problem I see is the lack of an alternative to the system as it is. We need to have a vision, perhaps multiple visions, of how people will be living their day to day lives “after the revolution” and the structures that will allow them to do that.

I look at how we live and value things in terms of the internet and then I go home and I visit my tv and newspapers reality parents… and I realize we are already living in a different culture, almost a different society. This for me hints at the kinds of alternatives we must generate.

With our alternate visions we can begin building alternate structures in the gaps of the current system. We can take the innovations and legal structures that already exist and adapt them to our purposes. Corporations, Churches, Non-profits, Co-Ops… these are things that already exist. How can we use them differently?

We have to look at both the structures that constrain our behaviours and the values and motivations that guide them. We are already freer than we usually realize.

Why I argue with you: motivations for conceptual sparring

You are wrong

About something. You may be close to my opinion or you may be diametrically opposed to it. Generally, I argue more if there is an error in thinking that I recognize than if you are merely factually wrong. It’s your thinking, not your facts, that I care about. This is why I sometimes play devil’s advocate and argue with a position I agree with… if I think you haven’t really thought it through.

“Semantic” does not mean trivial

Slight differences in terminology/worldview make huge differences over time. Like any chaotic system, it’s these TINY differences in initial conditions that make for big differences in results. You may think these small differences are meaningless or that I’m being “philosophical” (why the hell are these things used to dismiss arguments? Intellectual laziness!) but it will benefit you to correct these errors early in the chain of thought and action.

I like you

Basically if I’m arguing with you, I like you. Either I think you are capable of change and worth arguing to change your mind OR you are good at arguing and you’ll force me to play my game well. Most of the time if I don’t like you, if I think you are not worth arguing with, I’ll more or less ignore you and your wrongness.

It is a fun game

It’s like a cross between chess and sparring. Forces one to bring all their intellectual resources to bear at once. You have to be able to recognize what someone is saying, look behind it to the structure of their argument and identify the weak points you can use to collapse it. Then there is the strategic elements of framing the debate around your choice of distinctions. If you do this positioning well enough you’ve won before you even start.

Clarifying both our thinking

I challenge you in the hopes of clarifying your thinking… and more importantly MY thinking. The evolution of me is FAR from done. Hence the importance of clarifying my own thinking through our encounter. Nothing forces you to figure out what your opinions are as having to express them while they are being challenged.

Spreading my point of view

Even if I can’t convince you, even if you’d NEVER change your mind… you aren’t the only person I’m arguing for. I don’t like to argue without an audience. If you are wrong and I argue well enough, I might just convince our audience of my point of view. This is my motivation when I do argue with someone who can’t argue well and can’t change their mind. I have to put the argument out there for the audience’s sake.

Showing off how clever I am

Yes, I admit it! This is a motivation for me when we are arguing. I want the audience, hell I want you, to see how clever I am. How I can find holes in your thinking, how I can position your argument to look shaky. BUT even if no one else notices how clever I am… when I make a telling point, when I demolish your argument… I know how clever I’ve been.

I am gleeful in my arguing with you

Most of the time when I’m arguing, I’m grining my face off. I find the whole exercise powerfully enjoyable. I’m playing a challenging game with another player that I respect and like. I’m improving my thinking. I’m helping you improve your thinking. I’m spreading my ideas. And I’m showing off. So yeah, I’m arguing but I’m not fighting. I’m not angry… I’m gleeful.

Of Orchids and Mutants: Evolution plays dice with the universe

And so far, it’s been winning. Genetic diversity is part of the survival strategy coded into evolution.

When I was first learning about stock investment I was told about the 85% rule of risk management. (I am NOT giving stock advice don’t take my word for this, okay?) Simply put, you should put 85% of your investment capital in low risk stocks and 15% should be in high risk. And that high risk should be spread thinly to as many different high risk/high potential gain stocks as possible because you never know which one will hit.

Well it seems like evolution can tolerate a little more risk than my tutor could. 22% of humanity are of the high risk/high potential gain varieties. You know, the depressives, the ADD kids, the schizophrenics, probably the autistic spectrum folks. All those things our society defines as malfunctional are being actively selected for by the evolutionary process.

Why the hell would that be, you ask? Because the very same gene variants that predispose one for these conditions lead to HIGHER functioning under different environmental conditions. Evolution keeps the genes that lead to all of those problems around because you never know when one of them will be a hit… When one of them will save the species.

Makes sense if you think about it though, right? Were any of the great innovators of history… normal? Einstein was dyslexic, Nietzsche seems like he was likely schizophrenic, Van Gogh was a depressive who cut his own god damn ear off. And I don’t know what the hell was up with that (probably) gay, backwards writing weirdo Leonardo. And where would we be without them and other freaks like them?

“We are the future, Charles, not them. They no longer matter.”

- Magneto

PS

If you liked this piece you may wish for me to write for you. Direct any and all inquiries to coaching [at] edwardewilson [dot] com.

References:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/dobbs-orchid-gene

http://www.lifeoptimizer.org/2009/10/19/lessons-from-polymaths/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2051

http://www.scientificblogging.com/hammock_physicist/game_theory_art_acting_rational

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0001128/quotes

The Irrational is the Motor, The Rational is just a Mechanic

We in western society seem to have an awfully inflated sense of the relative importance of rationality. And an even more inflated sense of how rational we as a society actually are. Now, I am most definitely not saying that rationality isn’t good, I’m just asking that we get a little perspective here.

Life has done fine on earth for billions of years without needing our rationality. Homonids have done fine for millions of years without western rationality. In fact, if we look at the state of the world today, look at the mass production of war and environmental destruction… maybe (just maybe) life and humanity were actually better off without our rationality?

Every rational system is actually irrational. No matter how systematic and logical the approach is, at some point arbitrary and irrational assumptions had to be made as the foundational axioms. My favourite example is Euclidean Geometry. If we make different axioms we come out with a different but equally rational and useful version of geometry.

Economics, the dismal science, has hilariously irrational assumptions. It assumes that economic actors are rationally self interested. The briefest study of human decision making quickly disperses that assumption and yet we continue to make policy decisions based on economic theory.

Advertising, as noxious as so many people find it, at least has a better understanding of humanity. Advertising is largely based, now, on rationally analyzing (and exploiting) the irrationality of human decision making. They put our irrationality at the service of their rational self interest.

It brings to mind an axiom from Chaos Science. (Thank the gods for a science called CHAOS!) We get chaotic results because these on going systems have a sensitivity to initial conditions. When it comes to our systems of rationality those initial conditions that lead to chaos are the arbitrary assumptions that we built all this rationality on top of.

And here’s where it gets weird. The people trying to extend that rationality is the only solution to our problems brought about by our run away rationality… really don’t want us to examine the arbitrary assumptions underlying their rationality. We’re being told that questioning SCIENCE! is asking for the sleep of reason.

I’m more with Blake on this one, it’s Newtons Sleep that I think is our problem. Yes, let’s have rationality. But let’s not imagine that this rational lens is all there is to it.

Now I a fourfold vision see And a fourfold vision is given to me Tis fourfold in my supreme delight And three fold in soft Beulahs night And twofold Always. May God us keep From Single vision & Newtons sleep. – Wm. Blake

PS

If you liked this piece, you may wish to contact me about writing for your publication(s). Direct any and all inquiries to coaching [at] edwardewilson [dot] com.

Taboos and the Social Benefits of Irrationality

The other day someone was expressing to me that they didn’t like how certain creative works were censored and vilified when they came out. But when questioned further he indicated that he agreed that the content in the fiction would be objectionable to act out. I challenged him, saying he didn’t understand the purpose and process of taboo.

The reason that a book, like Lolita, is objected to, is because we have a taboo against pedophilia. Even if later the book is released for consumption it is very important to the process of taboo maintenance that the book be objected to and attacked. The purpose of this behaviour is not to stop the book, at least not in the long run. The behaviour of objecting to and attacking the book communicates that the behaviour IN the book is unacceptable.

Taboos are a very successful way of dealing with social norms, historically speaking. They allow society to communicate that an activity is unacceptable without even having to wait for the activity to happen. Taboo maintenance is a kind of preventive care for society.Even if I think Lolita is a great book, I understand and respect the social process that requires it be loudly condemned first.

In some ways the taboo process is a very clever system of social maintenance. A thought that is permissible to think and talk about is easier to put into action than one which is not. By attacking the thought of the act, the act itself is that much less likely to occur than if merely the act was condemned.

Now, I’m not saying that this is necessarily the best form of social maintenance just that it should be recognized for what it is. The purpose of objecting to and attempting to censor cultural products about taboo subjects is to make damn sure everyone knows that the subjects are taboo. It’s not about the art at all, ultimately.

And yes, this behaviour is irrational, in the sense that it wasn’t consciously formulated according to rationalist principles. The taboo process is a naturally evolved social process. It evolved because it works. I don’t think that positioning ourselves against this is a smart move. Rather than fighting against this process, which is deeply embedded in the human operating system, we should make sure that WHAT is taboo fits the norms that make sense for our modern and rational leaning society.

PS

If you enjoy my writing, you may want to hire me to write for you. Direct any and all inquiries to coaching [at] edwardewilson [dot] com.

Analog System Hacking 101: Systems for Radicals

Think about it in terms of emergent simplicity. The new state should take LESS energy after the reorganization is done.

If the new organization requires more energy than the old state it will not be sustainable.

The energy in a system is finite and relatively stable over time. A state that requires more energy over the longterm will collapse.

If there is excess or under utilized energy in the system this reserve can be used to change state but it shouldn’t be used as crutch.

The reason that radical movements fail is that they lack a lower energy stable state for after their high energy destabilizing.

What does a Politics need? A Brief Introduction to Network Autonomy

This is not a work of politics in the sense of me defending a position on an issue. This is Meta-Politics. This is about how politics are done. I call this approach to politics, Network Autonomy. And it begins when you ask yourself the following four questions.

How could the world be better?

How do you WANT the world to be? I want to see what your vision for the world is and know what specific changes you’d like to make. I think that if you don’t have a global context for your work it will lack coherence but if you lack specific goals you’ll never achieve anything. Take a moment now and write down half a page on “if the world was how I want it, it would be…” Then write down ten specific things you’d like to change, the smaller and more specific the better.

What is the situation now?

Now, I’d like to you look at your understanding of the world as it is now. How it works, what forces are pushing it in what directions. What is out there for you to effect change on or with? The more encompassing and nuanced your understanding of the world is, the more opportunities you will find to effect change within it. More than a surface description, try to find the principles that underly the patterns you observe.

How can we move things?

Now that you’ve painted your picture of how you’d like the world to be and how you perceive it to be now… where are the access points? Where are the levers that will allow you to shift things? How can you apply pressure to the actors that can enact the change you want? How can you convince the people you need to convince to do the things you want them to do?

Who are our allies for THIS desire?

At this point it makes sense to look for allies for your specific change. Find people who’s big picture is compatible with the small change. This way you don’t have to find people who agree with you on everything, just on this one thing. You also need to figure out how to explain how your desired change in terms of THEIR big picture. The better you can do this the more allies you will find. Once you’ve reached this point you are ready to act.

Mainstream vs Radical Politics

If you were to ask me whether you should participate in the mainstream politics of candidates and voting, or in the radical politics of protests and “direct action” I would answer as I do for most false dilemmas. Why can’t you do both? From what I can tell, you can have a lot more effect if you engage in radical politics rather than mainstream but it also requires a hell of a lot more effort, in general.

Power vs Degree of Aggregation

The more your input to the system is aggregated with that of others, the less power you have to effect it. In mainstream politics you have the least power when you are voting for the president, especially considering how the electoral college system works. And you have the most when you are voting for city council. One way to address this is to concentrate your effort where there are the least opposing voices and another is to create blocks of allies with the same opinion on a given issue.

What is my personal position?

I want what almost everyone will agree on. Liberty, Equality and the Pursuit of Happiness. I’m just kind of weird about how I think we’ll get there I want to free politics from the false containers of left and right, liberal and conservative. I want you to see it as I do, as the play, conflict and negotiation of our desire in the world.

PS

If you enjoy my writing and would like me to write for you OR would like my assistance with your political tactics, direct any and all inquiries to coaching [at]edwardewilson [dot] com.

Religious Movements: Secular and Otherwise

Apparently, I operate by a unique definition of “religious movement” so I thought I’d explore that for you here. My definition arises from a feeling I get when I am talked to by certain groups. When I’m talked to by Atheists, Apple people and Vegans it feels like I’m having the same conversation I have when I’m talking to evangelical Christians.

And so I began to look at how these groups were acting, and how they were communicating. I started to see similarities in the patterns of behaviour regardless of the differences in the content. And my approach to reality is to trust in the structure far and above the content. This is related to that principle, cui bono. Instead of listening to a group’s propaganda about what they are doing, look at what they are actually doing and who benefits from it.

The truth is, nothing I’m saying here is particularly new. It was all said prior and possibly better by Eric Hoffer in his masterwork, The True Believer. And that’s one of the keys right there. Metaphysical beliefs aren’t necessary for a movement to be religious but BELIEF itself is. They have to believe in the movement, in it’s value and in it’s goals.

The next commonality is the moral element of their rhetoric. That is, not only are they describing something that they do… and YOU should too! There is kind of two elements to this. One is the evangelical conversion intent behind the communications. And second there is the morality language they use as they express that to do other than what they are doing is just wrong.

Any social group or movement is constructed in terms of an in group and an out group this is unavoidable. However, HOW that in group out group dynamic is constructed helps identify groups as religious or not.

One segment of the out group are defined as potential converts. “they’d agree with us if they just understood.” This is usually the category that I fall in with these religions. The “you don’t get it” out group has fairly compatible social practices to the in group and fairly similar content. All they need are small changes to become in.

The next segment of the out group are defined as morally inferior. “What they’re doing is just wrong!” This category of people have social practices that are at a fundamental level incompatible with those of the in group. They also tend to have widely different content/beliefs. It would take significant changes for them to become in.

The last segment of out group is the enemy. Interesting “we” are never out to get them rather, “they’re out to get us!” This script probably does the most to support in group cohesion. The in group has to stick together to protect themselves from the enemy group. The enemy group tends to be diametrically opposed on a core tenet. This enemy group is also quite likely to self-identify AS a group.

Quite simply, the behaviour is not religious if there is no social grouping going on. Moreover, it is ORGANIZED social behaviour. There are publications and meetings and doctrines to help us figure out what beliefs and practices are and are not compatible with the movement. The lone believer does not a religion make.

Lastly, the movement has an identity label. People identify as Atheists, Vegans and Apple users. One of the ironies is that it is this self-identifying that makes it so easy for enemy groups to target them. General rule of thumb, the enemy group is almost always another religious movement.

Is it just me or has there been a sharp increase in religiously organized social movements over the last few years? I suspect that this is because the internet just makes it so much easier to organize in this way. Search engine mindfulness even increases the value of labeling your grouping. I don’t know about you, but this is a trend I’m watching with great interest.

PS

If you enjoyed this piece and would like me to write for you, direct any and all inquiries to coaching [at] edwardewilson [dot] com.

Welcome to The Future: stop waiting for it to happen and start living it

In Neuromancer by William Gibson, the book that introduced us to the word cyberspace, a character was killed for less RAM than is probably in your pocket right now. In the futuristic world it describes you’d be killed for tech you now take for granted.

In Star Trek, set in a reality where faster than light travel and teleportation are both possible, Captain Kirk walked around with a communicator that flipped open but was barely better than a transistor radio. You likely have a device in your pocket that allows you to talk to anyone in the world at any time. The only thing we are missing is that little sound his made when we flip our’s open.

Physical computers are disappearing. We don’t have computers we have access devices, like smart phones. Our data exists in “the cloud”. Out there, somewhere else. And because our information exists in some transcendent other realm, people everywhere in the world can access it. Our data is non-local and so always local… everywhere.

The means of production, at least for media, are in the hands of the people. Rejoice! We have movie studios in our homes, publishing houses in our back packs. To say nothing of whatever the hell twitter and google wave are. Random Joe in the street has more media power than any elite in history.

Virtual reality is old hat. Why go into the world of the computer when we can layer the information space over top of our physical and social spaces? With the combination of location awareness and increasingly sophisticated access devices the digital graffiti is going to get very very interesting, very very quickly.

In the past we used to write about the future as if it was going to be a Utopia or a Dystopia. Well of course it wasn’t going to be either extreme. There is no break with history. We are living in a realist future. You can see how it has elements of both the utopian and the dystopian but its all wrapped up in the ongoing living of our lives. We can still push it towards the utopian direction if we want. We can extend our future to those who aren’t experiencing it yet.

This is the future. Stop waiting for it to happen and start living it.

PS

If you enjoyed this piece you may wish to hire me to write for your publication. Direct all inquiries to coaching [at] edwardewilson [dot] com

References

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/gibson.html

http://www.urbeingrecorded.com/news/2009/12/06/breaking-open-the-cloud-heads-in-an-augmented-world/

http://mutateweb.com/library/headmap.pdf

The Manifesto of Dionysian Daoism: Saying Yes to Life

A brief thumbnail sketch of my ethical system, Dionysian Daoism.

Amorphous gray blobs

People are too fucking certain of things, too unwilling to admit their ignorance and say maybe. The percentage of reality we can perceive is minuscule compared to that which we can’t. Instead we spend our time cutting up the world and forcing it into little boxes so that we can say what it “is”.

Learn to see shades of gray where you used to see black and white. Allow your reality to be fluid and maybe you’ll have the flexibility to adapt to it.

Change is the only constant

Up down, good bad, pleasure and pain… “The times they are a changing.” Everything is moving along. Doesn’t matter if you consider what is, good or bad; it will be different soon. If you don’t adapt yourself to this basic reality you will be washed away by the flow of the Tao.

Don’t look for reasons look for patterns, batman said

The irrational was here first. Every rational system no matter how complete rests on arbitrary and therefore irrational assumptions. “Underneath our poised exterior we are completely out of control.” We call this irrational reality beyond our rational filters,Tao or Chaos. And you must have it in your heart to give birth to a dancing star… to live life to it’s fullest.

Say YES! to life

The good, the bad, the irrational… you face one and only one choice, to say yes or no to it. Regardless of what you say, it will continue to be what it is. As such I utterly reject any any denial of desire. Desire IS life. Without desire we wouldn’t have climbed down from the trees, crawled out of the ocean, or even teamed up as multicelled organisms. So fucking what if desire leads to pain? It also leads to pleasure. That’s life. Live (with) it. Only once you’ve said yes to what is and yes to your desire can you start doing something about them.

Take responsibility for your Desire

If you spend your time and energy talking about what should be or what people should do you are doing it wrong. You’ve externalized your desires as an abstract “should” and divorced yourself from both responsibility and the ability to take meaningful action. And it’s BULLSHIT. When you say something should be a certain way you are really saying you WANT it a certain way. The other problem with should is it allows you to take in imperatives from other people that you don’t even want just because you “should”.

At it’s most fundamental level “should” is denial of life. There is what is, there is what I want and there is what I’m going to do about it. Take responsibility and you take your power back.

What does not kill me makes me stronger

Contrary to common usage this does NOT hold true for everyone. This is not the default setting, this is a CHOICE. You decide whether or not it is true in your life. By saying yes to life, by taking responsibility for your desires, and by learning from and adapting to EVERY experience.

I am not most people

People are different and to try and treat people as if they are all the same is to mistreat everyone. I am me not you or anyone else. When and if we judge (I don’t recommend it most of the time) we MUST judge things by the appropriate standard, it’s own standard. As such, hierarchies exist and are natural. Hierarchies of talent and hierarchies of affection. I’m sorry but I really do love Timmy better than I love Tommy, I can’t help it and neither can you.

Me THEN you

Out of these natural hierarchies emerges my basic ethical principle… me THEN you. I clearly care more about me than I do you so it only makes sense that I’m going to do good for me before I do good for you. I still want to help you, not because I should but because I WANT to. And so I will, as soon as I’ve taken care of me. This makes sense for the reality of power as well. Until I have the power to take care of me, how the hell is it realistic that I’d have the power to take care of you?

I am the Walrus!

There is no essential meaning to life, just as there is no essential self. If you want these things you must create them. I am my own work of art (in progress, of course) and I am the one who decides what my life means. This is the most liberating and empowering of things. Koo koo ka choo!

PS

If you like my writing, I might be willing to do some for your publication… in exchange for money. Direct any and all inquiries to coaching [at] edwardewilson [dot] com.