5 ms·

Overall, I agree, but cybernetics is practically a regression at this point. In a nutshell, it was an exploration to bridge gaps between the biological and the

Overall, I agree, but cybernetics is practically a regression at this point. In a nutshell, it was an exploration to bridge gaps between the biological and the mechanical. In human terms, it's designing machines for us, and changing our approaches towards them. Martial arts have explored the concept of a tool or a weapon becoming an extension of the body, which is essentially disciplined Taoism. Today, we are so ingrained with our tools and machines that we worry more about form factors and user interfaces as if they are getting in the way of a neural impulse and its desired digital result Also great suggestion on True Names. It predicted how people would interact and present themselves online before the Internet or even BBSes were even around

dogman144 4y ago
I generally agree. Cybernetics is a Google term (which is ironic given the theme) that’s a way into the body of research after that general yuck feeling OP has and also covers part of the topic. But I agree with “all this” is something more than just Cybernetics. What central field ties up all those genres I listed? I haven’t found one yet. The lack of a central field for it, at least from what I can find, paired with this growing into a very legitimate monster of a problem, is a risky combination. It’s manifesting in weird ways. Disgruntled engineers, disgruntled Uber drivers, disgruntled life-by-QRcode users, anger at sort of dystopian govt ideas via tech. A central field would help move towards a solution.
- Minor49er 4y ago
  I haven't heard of cybernetics being a Google term before I also see where you're coming from. I think since the concepts of cybernetics have been swallowed up by the modern world, "modernism" might be slightly more appropriate. Perhaps a new term is needed at this point too Some of those weird manifests you described have been compounding, too. At an extreme, there was the Unabomber, whose manifesto was anti-industrialization. One of his targets, David Gelernter, was a proponent of technology encroaching on our lives (almost to a hyper-cybernetic extreme, particularly in his book Mirror Worlds where he describes a then-future where everything and everyone had a real existence, but also a digital one too. The digital one would make it easier to monitor and control things that would manifest positively in the real world)
  - dogman144 4y ago
    Right. If you’re from a tech background and are looking for books that lead to other books, Cybernetics is a way in. A specific example is that Cybernetic Hypothesis book, which is full on hard-leftest French writer group writing under a pseudonym and covering the social<>anthropology<>economic<>tech aspect of “all this.” That same term will also lead to Norbert W and dry engineering Cybernetics, although his later books skew social impact as well iirc. The domestic terror angle is something I worry about. I’m in no way of condoning it, but the Unabomber is a clear example of ~tech despair leading into violence. So today, when the advocates for paying attention to this are basically Andrew Yang discussing out of work truck drivers and that Jon Stewart/Obama/Bezos dinner thing, it’s concerning to consider. The Unabomber occurred pre-iPhone and still escalated into something awful. So, what if tech/cybernetics/whatever the catchall phrase is the driver to this discontent which then leads to violence. Well, there’s a lot, to put it very mildly, of dehumanizing tech out there now and a population of users getting steered by it for years now. Many of them react via collective labor actions, but what will the others do?
- kubanczyk 4y ago
  > a Google term "keyword" (OED, meaning 1a: a word used in an information retrieval system to indicate the content of a document)
  - Minor49er 4y ago
    Google is also the name of the company. "It's a Google term" sounds like something that is discussed internally. Calling a search phrase a "Google term" doesn't make a lot of sense to normal people
hosh 4y ago
There is a world view that some would call the Machine World View. That things act upon each other, the system can be understood if all the ways things interact can be fully described, and that changes to the system involves acting upon parts of the system from the outside-in. The cybernetic bridge between biological and machine is still described in a form that is a Machine World View. An alternate world view is the Living System, that living systems are alive, have intrinsic motivation, have an inner purpose and direction, capable of growing and regenerating without some extrinsic motivating force. A living system is complex, and its behavior cannot be fully described. Taoism, and the related, and distinct, though adjacent _Chinese_ traditional medical arts take a holistic approach of a Living Systems World View. That bit claiming the connection of martial arts to Taoism is a misunderstanding, even if we were to scope it to Chinese martial arts rather than any traditional martial art. There is a better connection to Chinese cultural ideal of gongfu, and martial arts as primarily a way of life and a discipline for body, mind, and spirit.
- Minor49er 4y ago
  I can't say I've heard much of the Machine World View before. It does put a name to the common scientific view of people and nature With the connection between Taoism and martial arts, I particularly meant that Taoism seeks the balance between the self and nature, to bring harmony between them. When one has mastery over a tool or a weapon, it becomes as an extension of the body. There is a harmony between the body and the tool, and between both together and the world. Maybe the connection between the two isn't correct. I'll have to explore gongfu more since it might make a better analogy
  - hosh 4y ago
    Yes, the Machine World View is the mainstream world view of modern society. I got this from Carol Sanford's work on living systems, such as her book, Regenerative Life. It is a world view that, in my opinion (and not necessarily Sanford's), flawed, and the source of much malaise in modernity. As for the oness of weapon and wielder, perhaps you might be thinking of the non-dual perspective of unity consciousness, where everything arises together as a seamless whole, something that is better described in the Zen tradition. Two books relating to unity consciousness and martial arts come to mind. In the Japanese text, "The Tengu's Sermon on the Martial Arts" (a title sometimes translate as the Demon's Sermon on the Martial Arts), the author was trying to convey something along those lines. Embedded within is a parable entitled, "The Cat's Mysterious Ways" (Neko no Myojutsu). Another different (not necessarily Zen take) is Peter Ralston's, "Cheng Hsin: the Principles of Effortless Power". Note that none of these are talking specifically about tools, weapons or otherwise being an extension of the body. That unity is with the whole of reality and not simply user and object that is together somehow separate from the rest of "reality". I wouldn't say that Taoism tries to balance self and nature either, not if one were really to get into "wei wu wei". Ralston spent a whole book writing along those lines. As far as "gongfu" goes, that's the cultural ideal of mastery accumulated over a long period of time. A different approach would be to look at playing Go and how to think holistically with everything influencing everything.

dogman144 4y ago

I generally agree. Cybernetics is a Google term (which is ironic given the theme) that’s a way into the body of research after that general yuck feeling OP has and also covers part of the topic. But I agree with “all this” is something more than just Cybernetics. What central field ties up all those genres I listed? I haven’t found one yet. The lack of a central field for it, at least from what I can find, paired with this growing into a very legitimate monster of a problem, is a risky combination. It’s manifesting in weird ways. Disgruntled engineers, disgruntled Uber drivers, disgruntled life-by-QRcode users, anger at sort of dystopian govt ideas via tech. A central field would help move towards a solution.

Minor49er 4y ago
I haven't heard of cybernetics being a Google term before I also see where you're coming from. I think since the concepts of cybernetics have been swallowed up by the modern world, "modernism" might be slightly more appropriate. Perhaps a new term is needed at this point too Some of those weird manifests you described have been compounding, too. At an extreme, there was the Unabomber, whose manifesto was anti-industrialization. One of his targets, David Gelernter, was a proponent of technology encroaching on our lives (almost to a hyper-cybernetic extreme, particularly in his book Mirror Worlds where he describes a then-future where everything and everyone had a real existence, but also a digital one too. The digital one would make it easier to monitor and control things that would manifest positively in the real world)
- dogman144 4y ago
  Right. If you’re from a tech background and are looking for books that lead to other books, Cybernetics is a way in. A specific example is that Cybernetic Hypothesis book, which is full on hard-leftest French writer group writing under a pseudonym and covering the social<>anthropology<>economic<>tech aspect of “all this.” That same term will also lead to Norbert W and dry engineering Cybernetics, although his later books skew social impact as well iirc. The domestic terror angle is something I worry about. I’m in no way of condoning it, but the Unabomber is a clear example of ~tech despair leading into violence. So today, when the advocates for paying attention to this are basically Andrew Yang discussing out of work truck drivers and that Jon Stewart/Obama/Bezos dinner thing, it’s concerning to consider. The Unabomber occurred pre-iPhone and still escalated into something awful. So, what if tech/cybernetics/whatever the catchall phrase is the driver to this discontent which then leads to violence. Well, there’s a lot, to put it very mildly, of dehumanizing tech out there now and a population of users getting steered by it for years now. Many of them react via collective labor actions, but what will the others do?
kubanczyk 4y ago
> a Google term "keyword" (OED, meaning 1a: a word used in an information retrieval system to indicate the content of a document)
- Minor49er 4y ago
  Google is also the name of the company. "It's a Google term" sounds like something that is discussed internally. Calling a search phrase a "Google term" doesn't make a lot of sense to normal people

hosh 4y ago

There is a world view that some would call the Machine World View. That things act upon each other, the system can be understood if all the ways things interact can be fully described, and that changes to the system involves acting upon parts of the system from the outside-in. The cybernetic bridge between biological and machine is still described in a form that is a Machine World View. An alternate world view is the Living System, that living systems are alive, have intrinsic motivation, have an inner purpose and direction, capable of growing and regenerating without some extrinsic motivating force. A living system is complex, and its behavior cannot be fully described. Taoism, and the related, and distinct, though adjacent _Chinese_ traditional medical arts take a holistic approach of a Living Systems World View. That bit claiming the connection of martial arts to Taoism is a misunderstanding, even if we were to scope it to Chinese martial arts rather than any traditional martial art. There is a better connection to Chinese cultural ideal of gongfu, and martial arts as primarily a way of life and a discipline for body, mind, and spirit.

Minor49er 4y ago
I can't say I've heard much of the Machine World View before. It does put a name to the common scientific view of people and nature With the connection between Taoism and martial arts, I particularly meant that Taoism seeks the balance between the self and nature, to bring harmony between them. When one has mastery over a tool or a weapon, it becomes as an extension of the body. There is a harmony between the body and the tool, and between both together and the world. Maybe the connection between the two isn't correct. I'll have to explore gongfu more since it might make a better analogy
- hosh 4y ago
  Yes, the Machine World View is the mainstream world view of modern society. I got this from Carol Sanford's work on living systems, such as her book, Regenerative Life. It is a world view that, in my opinion (and not necessarily Sanford's), flawed, and the source of much malaise in modernity. As for the oness of weapon and wielder, perhaps you might be thinking of the non-dual perspective of unity consciousness, where everything arises together as a seamless whole, something that is better described in the Zen tradition. Two books relating to unity consciousness and martial arts come to mind. In the Japanese text, "The Tengu's Sermon on the Martial Arts" (a title sometimes translate as the Demon's Sermon on the Martial Arts), the author was trying to convey something along those lines. Embedded within is a parable entitled, "The Cat's Mysterious Ways" (Neko no Myojutsu). Another different (not necessarily Zen take) is Peter Ralston's, "Cheng Hsin: the Principles of Effortless Power". Note that none of these are talking specifically about tools, weapons or otherwise being an extension of the body. That unity is with the whole of reality and not simply user and object that is together somehow separate from the rest of "reality". I wouldn't say that Taoism tries to balance self and nature either, not if one were really to get into "wei wu wei". Ralston spent a whole book writing along those lines. As far as "gongfu" goes, that's the cultural ideal of mastery accumulated over a long period of time. A different approach would be to look at playing Go and how to think holistically with everything influencing everything.