Look! Especially the bit at the bottom.
What is the logical conclusion of camera design? A tiny spherical sensor that could capture all of the visual information all around it in a single photograph. A veritable tiny black hole of a thing. It is pleasing that such a device would replicate the "floating sphere in space" physical form of stars and planets. It always seems that the universe enjoys the replication of particular forms at various scales. It's all just fractals, all the way down (and up).
20101005
20100908
information and the progressive distributions thereof
What is it, precisely, that allows for the entire project of human culture? What is it, precisely, that distinguishes our great cities from ant colonies?
What is it, precisely, that makes homo sapiens unique among the living objects on this particular planet? It is not our organizational ability, as a shoal of fish will tell you. It is not our efficient use of resources to expand our population base nor our complex building techniques, as an ant colony will tell you. And it is certainly not our emotional capacity, as any pet owner will surely testify.
Perhaps one of the few developed traits that truly distinguishes us from the rest of the known natural world is the conveyance of information unlimited by geography or time. With the invention of writing, homo sapiens struck out on a course of development completely unprecedented on this planet. Along the way, we have encountered a few inflection points that have radically altered the courses of civilizations.
Perhaps the most relatable of these inflections to the modern gaze is the invention of the printing press. Particularly notable is the manner in which this invention impacted the religious apparatus of the time. Before movable type was widespread, interpretation of religious doctrine was quite literally exclusive. A peasant seeking to know more about their world had precisely one option: to go to the cathedral. While it is often glossed over in architectural histories, the fact is that the old gothic church designs that some romanticize are incredibly complex pieces of architectural propaganda designed specifically to induce awe and faithfulness among the illiterate masses. So the people go to the church and the priest (who is can read) reads the bible to them. Inevitably, the content of the bible is parsed through the church's own ideology and priorities (and if memory serves, this process is actually formalized within the church doctrine). With the invention of the printing press, the exhausting process of prying exclusive knowledge from the few who possessed it began. Bibles could be printed for relatively little cost, and entire new sectors of the populace had access to the texts. The lutheran movement and the resulting schism followed in roughly a generation; the catholic church had lost its millennial grasp on its unified masses.
The printing press (along with wider literacy programs) allowed for the mass distribution of previously-exclusive information. People were suddenly able to digest their own sources of information and come up with opinions of their own. The fortress of the unquestionable heard for the first time the sounds of strange new weapons in the distance. [make no mistake, the fortress is still around: presently it's filled with fluorescent lighting and would like you to worry about your lawn. the logos abound and sales are final.] And it is for that reason that the internet is already as important an invention as the printing press.
It is simple to see how the internet is enabling more people more access to more information than they have ever had in their lives. So much so that it has become fashionable to somehow lament this fact. It is simple to recall the iranian elections and see how the internet can impact world events. Wikileaks.org is arguably one of the most important websites of our time, and its story has only just begun. It simple to see that wider distribution of information can only benefit humankind, and it is simple to see that the internet is fostering a whole new era of thought and culture.
What is it, precisely, that makes homo sapiens unique among the living objects on this particular planet? It is not our organizational ability, as a shoal of fish will tell you. It is not our efficient use of resources to expand our population base nor our complex building techniques, as an ant colony will tell you. And it is certainly not our emotional capacity, as any pet owner will surely testify.
Perhaps one of the few developed traits that truly distinguishes us from the rest of the known natural world is the conveyance of information unlimited by geography or time. With the invention of writing, homo sapiens struck out on a course of development completely unprecedented on this planet. Along the way, we have encountered a few inflection points that have radically altered the courses of civilizations.
Perhaps the most relatable of these inflections to the modern gaze is the invention of the printing press. Particularly notable is the manner in which this invention impacted the religious apparatus of the time. Before movable type was widespread, interpretation of religious doctrine was quite literally exclusive. A peasant seeking to know more about their world had precisely one option: to go to the cathedral. While it is often glossed over in architectural histories, the fact is that the old gothic church designs that some romanticize are incredibly complex pieces of architectural propaganda designed specifically to induce awe and faithfulness among the illiterate masses. So the people go to the church and the priest (who is can read) reads the bible to them. Inevitably, the content of the bible is parsed through the church's own ideology and priorities (and if memory serves, this process is actually formalized within the church doctrine). With the invention of the printing press, the exhausting process of prying exclusive knowledge from the few who possessed it began. Bibles could be printed for relatively little cost, and entire new sectors of the populace had access to the texts. The lutheran movement and the resulting schism followed in roughly a generation; the catholic church had lost its millennial grasp on its unified masses.
The printing press (along with wider literacy programs) allowed for the mass distribution of previously-exclusive information. People were suddenly able to digest their own sources of information and come up with opinions of their own. The fortress of the unquestionable heard for the first time the sounds of strange new weapons in the distance. [make no mistake, the fortress is still around: presently it's filled with fluorescent lighting and would like you to worry about your lawn. the logos abound and sales are final.] And it is for that reason that the internet is already as important an invention as the printing press.
It is simple to see how the internet is enabling more people more access to more information than they have ever had in their lives. So much so that it has become fashionable to somehow lament this fact. It is simple to recall the iranian elections and see how the internet can impact world events. Wikileaks.org is arguably one of the most important websites of our time, and its story has only just begun. It simple to see that wider distribution of information can only benefit humankind, and it is simple to see that the internet is fostering a whole new era of thought and culture.
20100901
panoptics and governance
Imagine for a second that every single time someone rolled a joint, they incurred a municipal fine. No matter what, no matter where they hid, every time someone did something that broke the law, they would be punished in some tangible way. Now consider why this idea is (presumably) offensive to you.
Ostensibly, privacy is an issue here. It certainly seems that the government being able to monitor its citizens' every action would infringe on personal liberty, does it not? But this presents the problem of what precisely the teleology of a system of laws entails. In this country, legally, your 'personal liberty' does not extend to breaking laws. If you can be proved to have broken a law (provided you end up in court), you are legally responsible and become a criminal. The end goal of our law is to enforce conduct that we deem appropriate. There are clearly certain ideas of what is appropriate that neigh universal in this day and age: don't kill humans, don't cheat, don't abuse. Of course, the list might not be as long as might be expected. Regardless, laws exist because humans generally agree that there are things that are wrong to do. The end result being that if you're caught speeding on a highway, a police officer gives you a ticket.
Of course, in our society, illegality and punishment have at best a tangential relationship. Our government has in effect failed in its endeavor to have a system of law. In fact you do not get a speeding ticket every time you push the needle. In fact many people do smoke cannabis as regular as going to the grocery store and live scot-free. What does this indicate? Does it imply poor vigilance on the part of the government? Or does it suggest that many of our laws are, for whatever reason, very ill-equipped to the lives that people lead? Our government, like most others, assumes that it can never catch all criminals all the time. And it probably can't. But the untold consequence of this fact is that our laws are increasingly unenforced. And unenforced laws not only undermine a citizenry's faith in their government, they completely negate the entire notion of having laws in the first place. It is for this reason that so much of our culture involves the image of government as an unwarranted intruder in our private lives. People's entire belief systems are bases around the assumption that government is unjust. And it is difficult to argue with these people, because much of the government we have in place right now does in fact rely on huge volumes of hypocrisy in order to exist. Unfortunately, in the past, this was necessarily the case on account of the physical impossibility of governance. But the time is rapidly approaching that actual just governance might be possible!
So! What if everything were monitored all the time in order to prevent any laws from being broken? What would happen? Well, this being a democracy, we would probably soon have many fewer laws! People do enjoy their freedom, and so a completely vigilant criminal justice system would quickly reveal those regulations that are ungainly or start to smell like totalitarianism. Of course, it would not be an easy process and so the system of litigation would necessarily have to be much more streamlined and easy to fend with. But digitization should help with that, no? We still live in a time prior to the government coming to terms with computers as a replacement for paper. Once that happens, the court system will become much less intimidating and inaccessible and perhaps the judicial wing of the american system will act in its appropriate role of regulating and mediating between the law and the citizenry in a reasonable fashion.
Now, this big brother utopia might still have a few problems to work out. But those are topics for the future!
Ostensibly, privacy is an issue here. It certainly seems that the government being able to monitor its citizens' every action would infringe on personal liberty, does it not? But this presents the problem of what precisely the teleology of a system of laws entails. In this country, legally, your 'personal liberty' does not extend to breaking laws. If you can be proved to have broken a law (provided you end up in court), you are legally responsible and become a criminal. The end goal of our law is to enforce conduct that we deem appropriate. There are clearly certain ideas of what is appropriate that neigh universal in this day and age: don't kill humans, don't cheat, don't abuse. Of course, the list might not be as long as might be expected. Regardless, laws exist because humans generally agree that there are things that are wrong to do. The end result being that if you're caught speeding on a highway, a police officer gives you a ticket.
Of course, in our society, illegality and punishment have at best a tangential relationship. Our government has in effect failed in its endeavor to have a system of law. In fact you do not get a speeding ticket every time you push the needle. In fact many people do smoke cannabis as regular as going to the grocery store and live scot-free. What does this indicate? Does it imply poor vigilance on the part of the government? Or does it suggest that many of our laws are, for whatever reason, very ill-equipped to the lives that people lead? Our government, like most others, assumes that it can never catch all criminals all the time. And it probably can't. But the untold consequence of this fact is that our laws are increasingly unenforced. And unenforced laws not only undermine a citizenry's faith in their government, they completely negate the entire notion of having laws in the first place. It is for this reason that so much of our culture involves the image of government as an unwarranted intruder in our private lives. People's entire belief systems are bases around the assumption that government is unjust. And it is difficult to argue with these people, because much of the government we have in place right now does in fact rely on huge volumes of hypocrisy in order to exist. Unfortunately, in the past, this was necessarily the case on account of the physical impossibility of governance. But the time is rapidly approaching that actual just governance might be possible!
So! What if everything were monitored all the time in order to prevent any laws from being broken? What would happen? Well, this being a democracy, we would probably soon have many fewer laws! People do enjoy their freedom, and so a completely vigilant criminal justice system would quickly reveal those regulations that are ungainly or start to smell like totalitarianism. Of course, it would not be an easy process and so the system of litigation would necessarily have to be much more streamlined and easy to fend with. But digitization should help with that, no? We still live in a time prior to the government coming to terms with computers as a replacement for paper. Once that happens, the court system will become much less intimidating and inaccessible and perhaps the judicial wing of the american system will act in its appropriate role of regulating and mediating between the law and the citizenry in a reasonable fashion.
Now, this big brother utopia might still have a few problems to work out. But those are topics for the future!
20100820
talkin' bout my generation
A person born in 1990 in this country can reasonably expect to have had potential access to a computer as a learning tool for most of their developing life. It seems as though the potential impacts of this reality have not been fully investigated.
Learning something from a computer is a very different process than learning something from a teacher or from a textbook. Because the lessons are usually structured as an exploration rather than an explanation, learning is presented and digested in a much more personal way than in the classroom. Right now, i am able to type fluently on an ipad because i was able to easily transition from typing on a physical keyboard -- the system i learned on -- to one that requires slightly different muscle memory but broadly similar keystrokes and thereby similar physical knowledge (of finger positioning and activation). One might argue that growing up with such a possibility is fundamentally different from not, and thereby it is easy to see this ability as unique to people roughly 20-25 years old or younger* ("millennials" as opposed to gen. x-ers).
Thus, it is easy to recognize what may well prove to be a massively disruptive social truth: as people born later and later gradually transition into positions of general social power and status, the norm for analytical ability and learning fluidity will gradually shift towards a higher degree of each, and society can (presumably) only benefit in response. These traits are beneficial because they (presumably) increase tolerance of change, dynamism, and responsiveness to environments. In a world increasingly characterized by change and swift realignments in norms, it can only serve us well to be more accustomed to such things, and the future is bright!
*whether or not this perception is demonstrably true is the purview of social scientists, not your humble editor.
Learning something from a computer is a very different process than learning something from a teacher or from a textbook. Because the lessons are usually structured as an exploration rather than an explanation, learning is presented and digested in a much more personal way than in the classroom. Right now, i am able to type fluently on an ipad because i was able to easily transition from typing on a physical keyboard -- the system i learned on -- to one that requires slightly different muscle memory but broadly similar keystrokes and thereby similar physical knowledge (of finger positioning and activation). One might argue that growing up with such a possibility is fundamentally different from not, and thereby it is easy to see this ability as unique to people roughly 20-25 years old or younger* ("millennials" as opposed to gen. x-ers).
Thus, it is easy to recognize what may well prove to be a massively disruptive social truth: as people born later and later gradually transition into positions of general social power and status, the norm for analytical ability and learning fluidity will gradually shift towards a higher degree of each, and society can (presumably) only benefit in response. These traits are beneficial because they (presumably) increase tolerance of change, dynamism, and responsiveness to environments. In a world increasingly characterized by change and swift realignments in norms, it can only serve us well to be more accustomed to such things, and the future is bright!
*whether or not this perception is demonstrably true is the purview of social scientists, not your humble editor.
Location:Syracuse
yikes!
and i apologize for the delay in content! in was spending my time having an elective surgery and moving many hundreds of miles across the nation to a giant strange house in the town where i attend university! but now your editor is all settled in and ready to spend the next indeterminate amount of time working in the most production manner possible. and so you should expect a rich seam of posts in the near-to-mid-term future! so let's get on with it, then!
20100809
"who might've lived one thousand years..."
How long do you expect to live? It is a slightly different question than how old do you expect to become. In fact, if you follow some of the research being done now to its logical conclusion, you might start to think that your answers to those questions might be quite a bit different than your parents'.
If we take for granted that most cultural traits that humans exhibit seem to develop at an exponential rate (with technology being perhaps the most easily recognizable), it seems reasonable to expect that the field of medicine will undergo radical changes in the next several decades. For instance, the recent arrival of the first synthetic self-replicating DNA is already being recognized as a milestone. Research like that coupled with the rapidly-advancing state of stem cell research means that the medical options available to doctors twenty years from now are going to be much, much different than the ones available to our contemporary physicians. And given that there seem to be creatures that basically don't age (forgive the website, just note the article they're posting was originally published in Discover), it seems feasible that we may one day be able to bestow that enviable trait upon ourselves. And why not? Who wouldn't want to live an extra century or two?
Bear in mind that this is merely the research being done right now. In one of the articles, they mention that the whole notion of stem cell research has only been around a decade, an extremely short time in the medical field. And the second decade of research is probably much richer than the first. If they are already replacing large patches of skin, corneas, and some organs, they're already treating leukemia and other blood things, what do the next ten years hold?
So if you're interested in the future, maybe do yourself a favor and try and exercise a little more in the meantime, and hope to live long enough that some day you won't have to. And always remember your Arthur Clarke: "Technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."
If we take for granted that most cultural traits that humans exhibit seem to develop at an exponential rate (with technology being perhaps the most easily recognizable), it seems reasonable to expect that the field of medicine will undergo radical changes in the next several decades. For instance, the recent arrival of the first synthetic self-replicating DNA is already being recognized as a milestone. Research like that coupled with the rapidly-advancing state of stem cell research means that the medical options available to doctors twenty years from now are going to be much, much different than the ones available to our contemporary physicians. And given that there seem to be creatures that basically don't age (forgive the website, just note the article they're posting was originally published in Discover), it seems feasible that we may one day be able to bestow that enviable trait upon ourselves. And why not? Who wouldn't want to live an extra century or two?
Bear in mind that this is merely the research being done right now. In one of the articles, they mention that the whole notion of stem cell research has only been around a decade, an extremely short time in the medical field. And the second decade of research is probably much richer than the first. If they are already replacing large patches of skin, corneas, and some organs, they're already treating leukemia and other blood things, what do the next ten years hold?
So if you're interested in the future, maybe do yourself a favor and try and exercise a little more in the meantime, and hope to live long enough that some day you won't have to. And always remember your Arthur Clarke: "Technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."
20100806
neo-democracy in the Digital Age
Here is a pressing question: why, in a period of time characterized by speed, digitalization, and interconnectedness, do we live in a constitutional republic?
Democracy is defined as government by the people, and democracy as we know it has virtually always been limited in some way. The normative democratic mode as has been practiced throughout most of western culture is republican in nature (in the constitutional republic sense, not the party-of-no sense). In a republic, representatives are elected to serve in a parliamentary body, which is usually charged with the dual task of proposing and refining laws. This is the system through which the American government exists, and we are thusly familiar with the process of electing our senators and representatives. Those representatives go on to serve in our parliament, which we happen to call congress and which happens to be arranged in a bifurcated way.
The idea is that the people express their opinions on what should happen by electing representatives who reflect those opinions, those representatives go on to propose and vote on bills, which, by gaining the support of a majority of other representatives, eventually become law. For our purposes, the checks and balances of the American system are unimportant. The gist is that the opinion of the majority of the population, through proxy of their representatives, becomes expressed in law. To refresh, a democracy is a system in which the majority opinion of the people is the determining factor in what ultimately governs those people. A republic is a form of democracy in which that majority opinion is expressed by proxy through elected representatives, who ultimately govern the people.
Now, reach in your pocket. Or train your eyes on the table next to you. Something. What do you find? If you're like most people, you find sort of tiny digital cellular device that you can use to make phone calls. Indeed, some might go so far as to call it a cell phone. The point here is that most of the conscious population in the year 2010 has one of these. Every individual typically has a unique number that they can be reached at so that they can exchange specific information with specific people with no regard for distance.
So we have devices that let us send information over long distances at very little cost, we each have a unique one of our own, why not use these things to vote? On, say, everything? Why do we tolerate living in a governmental system designed specifically for a time in which such a thing was simply not possible? Once you recall that the entire purpose of having a parliament is to enact the majority opinion of the people, why do the people even bother with a parliament any more? Gigantic national opinion polls are already conducted on 'the issues' regularly. Why not develop those polls to become more secure, more refined, and finally codified into a system of parliament? The technology to do such a thing already exists, and has existed for at least a few decades now. It is only a matter of time before the first western country adopts such a system, as such a system is the logical conclusion of democracy as we know it. America's people could be the first!
Democracy is defined as government by the people, and democracy as we know it has virtually always been limited in some way. The normative democratic mode as has been practiced throughout most of western culture is republican in nature (in the constitutional republic sense, not the party-of-no sense). In a republic, representatives are elected to serve in a parliamentary body, which is usually charged with the dual task of proposing and refining laws. This is the system through which the American government exists, and we are thusly familiar with the process of electing our senators and representatives. Those representatives go on to serve in our parliament, which we happen to call congress and which happens to be arranged in a bifurcated way.
The idea is that the people express their opinions on what should happen by electing representatives who reflect those opinions, those representatives go on to propose and vote on bills, which, by gaining the support of a majority of other representatives, eventually become law. For our purposes, the checks and balances of the American system are unimportant. The gist is that the opinion of the majority of the population, through proxy of their representatives, becomes expressed in law. To refresh, a democracy is a system in which the majority opinion of the people is the determining factor in what ultimately governs those people. A republic is a form of democracy in which that majority opinion is expressed by proxy through elected representatives, who ultimately govern the people.
Now, reach in your pocket. Or train your eyes on the table next to you. Something. What do you find? If you're like most people, you find sort of tiny digital cellular device that you can use to make phone calls. Indeed, some might go so far as to call it a cell phone. The point here is that most of the conscious population in the year 2010 has one of these. Every individual typically has a unique number that they can be reached at so that they can exchange specific information with specific people with no regard for distance.
So we have devices that let us send information over long distances at very little cost, we each have a unique one of our own, why not use these things to vote? On, say, everything? Why do we tolerate living in a governmental system designed specifically for a time in which such a thing was simply not possible? Once you recall that the entire purpose of having a parliament is to enact the majority opinion of the people, why do the people even bother with a parliament any more? Gigantic national opinion polls are already conducted on 'the issues' regularly. Why not develop those polls to become more secure, more refined, and finally codified into a system of parliament? The technology to do such a thing already exists, and has existed for at least a few decades now. It is only a matter of time before the first western country adopts such a system, as such a system is the logical conclusion of democracy as we know it. America's people could be the first!
20100803
because what else are you going to call it?
hello and welcome.
This is a blog written by me, jeffrey michael geiringer. My editorial direction will be simple. I will post things that interests me, and explain why. Within those parameters (mostly), my hope is that i will begin to articulate a vision characterized by large-scale societal analysis and uncompromising optimism about the future. The things that interest me are the ones that seem to hint at the deeper structures of society, although in some instances you may want to replace the concept of deepness with largeness (or just keep the both). I am interested in those structures because they seem to me to hold some clue as to where our society is headed, generally, and what the future will hold. I hope to play both weatherman and historian; i hope to analyze our society while participating in it.
The world that we live in right now is vastly different from the one you grew up in, whomever you are. Things are evolving quicker than ever. This is an incredibly important thing to keep in mind. If we as a species, as an existential unit, want to keep on existing at all, we must learn to not only live with change, but embrace it. The number of tragic things that simply happen because no one has ever bothered to do them differently is astounding. I believe that when we are actively shaping our societies and our selves, we will achieve a higher degree of freedom and prosperity than has ever been remotely conceived of.
These are my ideas,* these are the things that compel me. I hope that they will serve as commentary and analysis, an alternate opinion. It's hard to define the goal of such an endeavor, other than perhaps joining in the gigantic cultural conversation that exists in this form on the internet.
*in the sense that i am writing them down, not in the sense that they are originally "mine:" a topic for a future post that will probably address copyright law and the strange relationship between "originality" and innovation.
This is a blog written by me, jeffrey michael geiringer. My editorial direction will be simple. I will post things that interests me, and explain why. Within those parameters (mostly), my hope is that i will begin to articulate a vision characterized by large-scale societal analysis and uncompromising optimism about the future. The things that interest me are the ones that seem to hint at the deeper structures of society, although in some instances you may want to replace the concept of deepness with largeness (or just keep the both). I am interested in those structures because they seem to me to hold some clue as to where our society is headed, generally, and what the future will hold. I hope to play both weatherman and historian; i hope to analyze our society while participating in it.
The world that we live in right now is vastly different from the one you grew up in, whomever you are. Things are evolving quicker than ever. This is an incredibly important thing to keep in mind. If we as a species, as an existential unit, want to keep on existing at all, we must learn to not only live with change, but embrace it. The number of tragic things that simply happen because no one has ever bothered to do them differently is astounding. I believe that when we are actively shaping our societies and our selves, we will achieve a higher degree of freedom and prosperity than has ever been remotely conceived of.
These are my ideas,* these are the things that compel me. I hope that they will serve as commentary and analysis, an alternate opinion. It's hard to define the goal of such an endeavor, other than perhaps joining in the gigantic cultural conversation that exists in this form on the internet.
*in the sense that i am writing them down, not in the sense that they are originally "mine:" a topic for a future post that will probably address copyright law and the strange relationship between "originality" and innovation.
make it gold
make a change,
build it up,
fill it up,
and you can make it gold
make a flag,
sew it up,
raise it up,
and you can wave it high
make a sound,
turn it up,
turn it up,
and you can make it loud
-Nice Nice, "Make it Gold"
build it up,
fill it up,
and you can make it gold
make a flag,
sew it up,
raise it up,
and you can wave it high
make a sound,
turn it up,
turn it up,
and you can make it loud
-Nice Nice, "Make it Gold"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)