symbioidlj | (no subject)

Reading an article by Bill Joy, a technologist who has become anti-technology. He was talking about machines taking control and an elite who would work the machines. Discussing different elites, he said:

"Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes "treatment" to cure his "problem." Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or make them "sublimate" their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they will most certainly not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals."

This got me thinking about freedom and happiness. Being an anarchist I desire freedom. The freedom comes from removing the constraints of modern capitalist society, and the hierarchical systems that enforce needless rules upon a person. I'm not going to go on about anarchism here, but this thing got me questioning...

If I could have a life of security, a life where I was free to have a "hobby" as he says. A world where desire for power was channeled towards "hobbies", all my needs were met. Would I complain? I would be happy to be free to pursue my artistic desire without time constraints (see, the concept is that the robots will save us from the drudgery of mundane work). If I were told what hobby was mine, I would not be happy. I suppose this defeats my whole question. Initially I was going to ask:

Would you rather be free and miserable or enslaved and happy?

And I thought it was a tough question, being that I think I'd rather be happy and mildly enslaved... but the enslavement I'm thinking of isn't really enslavement in my mind. It's the ultimate freedom. Free to pursue desires without interference from outside forces. The ability to contribute to a better social world, without work being in the way. But if enslavement meant that you would be told what to read, do, think, watch, etc... then fuck that. But aren't we already in that state? I mean, not completely, but as the media is increasingly dominated by a few large corporations, we are already being dictated as to what we are free to watch. A sitcom in one apartment, or a sitcom in a different apartment. A hospital drama, a white house drama, a police drama. And all these things will really have mainstream social values. Sure, musically we have a wide variety of options, but the radio will only present specific choices for the masses to choose. The rest of us, those who desire to think for ourselves, to seek out good music, will do so. But so long as the masses believe that the radio is the be all and end all of good music(and believe me, there are more out there that think that than you think) I often wonder why people don't step outside their paradigm. Why do some people question and others not? Is there some sort of genetic structure that turns some into thinkers and dreamers and others into slavish followers? Again, I'm being elitist. I believe that everyone thinks to some degree, they question to a certain degree, but I believe that they limit themselves to specific confines of thought that society deems structurally sound. i.e.: It's ok by societies standards to think that there's an alien conspiracy, at worst, it's considered a bit kooky, but to be an anarchist, or to militantly question the system itself and seek massive change(vs a mere conspiracy which there is no hope to alter) is to be completely unacceptable. I admit that I myself am limited. I try to question even my views, and step outside, and it's hard. I admit. But I try. What bothers me is that many people don't seem to even attempt to really question their own views. I feel that my understanding of the way things are is a meta-system. i.e.: that my world view is foundational and that it's a larger insight into the world around us than the limited framework of our daily lives. That my view incorporates a deeper reasoning into why things are the way they are, instead of the explanations they give us. I have, IMO, stepped outside that structure of thought, that paradigm. But I know there must be other things outside my paradigm, a meta-paradigm beyond mine that incorporates mine, but explains it in different terms than I am able to. I don't know what it is, but I feel that that's the goal I should be reaching for. I feel that, however, in order to do this, I will just as much have to reject anarchism as I have the bourgeois culture that pervades me. I have no clue where that is. I believe the roots are in chaos, nihilism and the like. I had started a "Gaian Fractal Manifesto" at one point, but stopped. Maybe it's time to work on it again? Anyone interested in such a manifesto?

The concept is, well, a manifesto that is based on life systems, chaos, Taoism, cybernetics, Buddhism, quantum physics, anarchism, etc... I want to sort of open-source it so people can dissect it, modify it, add to it, subtract from it, analyze, add footnotes, etc.. Then, possibly post into a manifesto archive. To create a larger evolvable manifesto, or rather, a base genetic code for people with similar views to work from, and then fuck it up to their liking and allow those people to post to a central archive of modified 'festos. oh oh, I said a naughty word... central archive. sounds kinda suspicious, methinks.

OK, sorry this has been a rambling mess, but you know me!

PLUR,
sym