Managing the Flock

I recently asked my network a question about Avatars. At its core is the question of authenticity. People who seem to see all reality as a collection of avatars get pretty uncomfortable when the idea is translated into a question about themselves. Nietzsche's discussion of masks in Beyond Good and Evil comes to mind. If there is nothing but illusion then what is it that sees the illusion? The problem with all world views is that each pretends that there is a space within which it's most caustic assumptions do not work - a kind of black hole where the laws of physics do not apply. A classic example is the contention by Buddhism that there is something called 'Buddha nature' and that the rest of the world is illusion. But the question becomes “What is it that privileges this Buddha nature?” In the end the answer is nothing but the assumption that it is privileged - the response must be a tautology or all is lost to the corrosive assumption.

The weakness of any code of logic is that it must be based on at least one core assumption about reality - one assumption that is taken as a synthetic judgment a priori - and that is its weakest point. Kick out the assumption and the code falls like the proverbial house of cards.

While I agree with Nietzsche that the more appropriate opposite of good is bad rather than evil, I am also focused on the question of the relative effectiveness of the use of these tools. The resources that the US government has available - or the resources that established political candidates have at their disposal - can magnify the impact and effectiveness of the use of these tools. I was recently drawn into a conversation about the effectiveness of 'political satire' and made the following observation: 'I can't watch shows like the Daily Show any more because I have come to understand that, while Jon Stewart is laughing at Bush and Chaney - Bush and Chaney are laughing dismissively at Jon Stewart - and they are getting the better of it! Political satire has been reduced to the level of public masturbation – with the same practical effect.’

One thing seems clear over all others - the special interests that most globally and effectively employ these tools will define the future for all others. They will build the mansions that they will live in. The rest are welcome to the crumbs - the bits here and there. But the developers of the tools will most likely not be the principal beneficiaries. I remember a comment by a philosophy professor - "Western philosophers tend to build a castle in the sky and then live in the tool shed in their shadow."

In 1979 I attended a symposium that BF Skinner participated in. He was putting forth his behaviorist theory which contended, at base, that you could predict what humans would do based upon empirical knowledge of their past behavior. A student asked a rather simple question - "What is the effect of that knowledge on my future response?" Skinner had no answer other than a reference to an increasingly unstable equivalent of the 'do loop'. I think that this needs to be a major concern - not only to the idea of individuality but for the future stability of human society. Although I do not subscribe to any religion, the biblical myth of the anti-christ seems relevant here. If the society is becoming more and more 'leadable' because the tools that allow leading have become more and more effective, then how susceptible to charismatically induced self-destruction will it become?

To return to my core question, if people are now reduced to the condition of sheep in a managed flock - lead to understandings of what they need, want and believe in - what it to keep the wolves from aspiring to the job of shepherd? And what to sheep who used to be human decide about their future when they realize that they are now sheep that used to be human? Just a few thoughts.