Appendixes 1 & 2

   Appendix  

One

Go gog go

(The limitations of language  and  historical parallels between concepts of "Knowing" and the physical world.)

         Several years ago I introduced a hypothesis which has held up fairly well. It suggests that our understanding of the physical world is paralleled by our epistemological   concepts.  So you have the rigid world of Aristotle, and the Gods, - then in the time of Locke we understand how "Truth"  could be shaped by the means of perception  - the tabula Rosa,  which in turn could be compared to the gravitational constant of Newton.

       In 1905 Einstein told us that perception varied according to the perceiver (Relativity)  a short while later Heisenberg suggested that  both perceived and perceived were in flux and this led to the suggestion that we could know either location or direction, but not both when, for instance trying identify the position of a electron. This is the quantum viewpoint.

     These notions parallel our  conception of "truth"  which for immediate purposes we'll   call the definition of the  physical world.  To use an analogy first the model and the camera were considered static and reliable, then we thought the camera changed as the model remained static ( gravitational constant and tabula rosa) then  we believed that  both the "camera" and the subject being photographed were changing in time and space.

       This, essentially was "the great liberation" the freedom from the chains of circumstance and likewise the death of god and the  birth of the superman  because  it implied there was no good or evil there was only what you could get away with. 

        Like many a criminal in the dock the lamentations were not for the agony of the soul, but because one got caught at it.

         I've stated that I refuse to relinquish claims to the metaphysical - I will not relinquish that  weapon, if only because historically man has used the presumption of metaphysical superiority to enslave his fellow man, but irregardless the world we inhabit is not physically much different from that of centuries past.

       As is said of Nietzsche's pronouncement  "The believers did not believe him and the for the non believers it made no difference."

        Quantum information theory is a strange bird indeed. Wittgenstein despaired of ever getting language to make sense other then perhaps as the thing in itself, but like hope from Pandora's box, the fact that we remain must contradict all such despair.

       We might well draw an analogy with religion, which while not proving the existence of a God, nevertheless proves the existence of man's desire to believe there is.

        It is as if by transmitting one letter of the alphabet we would be able to convey an encyclopedias worth of information.

         The problem, (which I make no claim to be able to solve,)  is how to find the correct original unit out of a near infinite number of possibilities, or perhaps an infinite number of possibilities.

           As it stands however such challenges need not be undertaken if world domination is our simple goal.  

             Here's the kicker - as technology amplifies the data field it consequently simplifies the amount of information needed to be transmitted in order to effect a response, in particular from the human population.  In other words  in dealing with a school of fish or a flock of birds in flight you no longer have to convince each one of them of the direction you want them to go. All you have to do is "convince" the point bird.

        To draw the quantum analogy further consider a wall of doors. Each of the hundreds of doors has a number on it.  You wish to convey a great deal of information but your means of doing so is limited.  What you do is tell the bird the right door to open - so it only need to know one thing even as it provides the receiver with a wealth of info.

     The problem facing mankind today is just this. It is a two sided sword. We control the masses by controlling the lead birds in the flocking behavior; behavior which has been made possible by the ubiquitous presence of media.  And in turn we control any contrary messages  by arresting people in extreme cases - but ignorance has a subtler and vastly more effective way of advancing it's purposes.

      And once again, we create “opinion leaders to give the masses condoned thoughts, even, as in the case of the Soviet Union's “Krokodile”, or the John Stewart show to the extent of officially sanctioned opposition   and then at the same time does not reach the level of exposure as to even require censorship.

     Hackers, libertarians and people on all sides of the political spectrum, consciously at least, express concerns that the world is taking on the model of  1984. It's important to remember though that Orwell was not speaking about right wing or left wing political systems - nor was he even speaking about the excesses of the technostate.  Difficult as it may be to accept one of the primary criteria for the existence of a 1984 is that the celebrity has taken the God role.

    It simply refuses to admit the validity of anything that opposes it's core principles.  The NRA, which I do not oppose offhand, suggested that the way to prevent mass killing of schoolchildren was to arm five year olds and give them lessons in shooting. They did not understand how  out of place this seemed to be to most people.

    We create things, sometimes even things meant to do good, and they get out of hand.  Thus along with promotion of the official line there is the seeming ignoring of the non sanctioned points of view  until under the guise of preservation of the state offenders are silenced.


     In my own life, in a case that I've seen happen to many others as well, I began as something of a writer researcher  who worked for the government and as I continued learning I became less employable as the years went by. My understanding was not the understanding that gets paid for.  I was not saying what the employers wanted to hear.

      Or consider the case of Reagan. He's a guy, whatever you may think of him that provokes widely varying reactions from the public. some see him as the savior, others as a monster, and It's save to say neither side is being duplicitous.

     The key factor here is that, as in the case of politics and business as well, technology favors market domination, which means it does not tolerate differences of opinion  - the gun and the bow and arrow may coexist for awhile- but not for long.


             Appendix two


               (Prelude to a new world)


For behold, we venture forth to a new world
a world where fame comes to they who do nothing
and achievements are ground into oblivion
where right and wrong, good and bad and ye even life and death   are predicated by no more then the wheel of fortune

where nothing adds up
Where the gods preen before their mirrors
and their dogs sign checks with paw prints

The Senators bathe at three
Children carry the firewood
The “little fishes” age prematurely
on the Isle of Capri


         "When I return the dead shall  rise from their  graves
           and they shall outnumber the living"
          Ishtar, Sumerian goddess, circa  2500 BCE




           Conclusion:

              The Technostate  has two requirements;

              1) It must be free to create and expand markets*
              2) It must be rendered immune  from prosecution for
                anything done in furtherence of the creation of markets**



        *By the expansion of markets we mean markets for business to flourish in.

          **   In practical terms it must absolutely control all thought and perception whilst denying that to any one else.  The phrase is "to dominate the market"




            What it means

               It means that no one is safe  from the fluctuations of  systemic variance - you personally may do a good job at what you do but that does not prevent the decision to move to somewhere where economic advantages  are greater.

               And I repeat - one does not have to be convicted of a crime  to be punished. The trial itself becomes the critical object, not the verdict. The trial demonstrates to the system that actions are being taken - that the controller/decision makers have a desire or direction that they want to see instantiated.


              We witness here technology taken to it's fullest extent - to wit- to the "world lever", amplified beyond any previous abilities.

           You can think of it in terms of flocking behavior, or schools of fish. Think of the incredible ability of flocks to turn as directed by the bird at the point. In classical democratic decision making paradigm each individual  would consider the options available and reach a conclusion that would be best for them-  but in the technostate that does not happen - under the quite possibly questionable belief that what is good for one is good for all.

               This sometimes false belief in the commonality of interest  can in turn be manipulated for the interest of very small segments of society through propaganda.

          The tendency of humans in groups to surrender individual thought in favor of the crowd has long been known and studied. As the case may be many technological developments of the past century have served to create a sense of intimacy which in turn has replaced actual direct human communication.
  
            This is evident from radio, to movies, to television, and now to Facebook - all of which bring the semblance of human lives into our own.  There is a difference however that should be obvious. A friend in real life may be one of maybe ten people, on face book it is one of 50,000   - hardly comparable.