❌ No Paradigm¶
One concern in putting this module together has been language itself - in particular the word "sacred". Words like this have such inertia as a result of all the uses to which they have been put over the generations. They have been misused repeatedly in the service of violent and oppressive narrative structures which do not truly serve our species.
There is, to quote Douglas Rushkoff, Nothing Sacred. Which also means everything is sacred.
What I most want to say here cannot be said. Instead, simply recognize that you cannot acquire everything, which is why any path to the sacred (meaning beyond yourself) has always had to do with letting go. We are not on a hero's journey. We are on a fool's errand to give back the evil which does not belong in this world.
Without cause, God gave you being.
Without cause, give it back.
How does this fit into KERNEL?¶
We must take great care with the language we use to describe our intentions when working with a global, shared and ownerless platform for computing. This is because the plot of our narratives is actually written in economic code and executed without the context stories provide. The possibilities for the kinds of transactions we can enter into are therefore endless, but this is neither a good nor a bad thing. It is simply a (very strange) fact of the time in which we live.
"Languages are not a barrier because the melodic contour of the song describes the nature of the land over which the song passes. The rhythm is what is crucial to understanding the song. Listening to the song of the land is the same as walking on this songline and observing the land."
Marianne Brün begins by discussing the tacit assumptions of a work on The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn, along with the claims he makes about the term "paradigm" and the dilemma this lands him in, which she will unpick in the course of her essay.
In short: its greatest dynamic power is held by a paradigm while it is not called paradigm, but called facts, data, truth, nature, ethics, proper procedures, etc. As soon as a paradigm is called a paradigm (usually then referred to as a mere paradigm), its power collapses.
Assumed knowledge, like heliocentricism or the existence of a particular God, creates the framework for investigation. However, it has throughout most of human history been
a sin and crime, punished by law, church, and community vigilance, to ask and probe whether the known was true, whether philosophical thought and scientific research and problem-solving were based on all one could know.
We cannot sneer at this history, knowing that the people of bygone times acted in accordance with what they knew, and could not have suspected that much of their knowledge was based on flawed interpretations or faulty observations. Of course, this implies that
We today can not tell, by definition, within which paradigm we are dwelling, thinking and acting, unless and until we are able to observe us and it from the outside, just as we recognize it and us from outside the times of Galileo.
In order to bypass the problem Kuhn created for himself above, Brün defines her stance:
I shall use the word paradigm whenever I wish to speak of any structural notion and concept which, underlying the development of discourse, is tacitly taken for granted by all participants in that discourse, taken to go without saying and left unquestioned, regardless of whether the discourse leads to an agreement or a disagreement on any issue.
The Inertia of Language¶
Our history can be seen as the retroactive telling of various paradigmatic stories;
their inception, flourishing, and collapse; and how there always has been a new paradigm waiting to substitute for the collapsed one. These stories do not, however, sufficiently emphasize a recurrent and ubiquitous phenomenon [...] This phenomenon is best described as the inertia of language.
This inertia is both a symptom of paradigmatic stories, and the dynamic force behind their telling. It can be traced through facts like how the sun still "rises", even though we have known for hundreds of years that it is the Earth's horizon which dips into dawn, and rises into darkness.
Due to this inertia, language stores and offers for communicative usage many remnants of many obsolete paradigms.
If we accept these remnants in what we write, speak or hear, then we subject ourselves to the unstoppable inertia behind it. This is something for which we must take individual responsibility:
In human society language is so powerful that only violence can stop it. Where its power fails to serve my desires, it would be a mistake to blame such failure on the weakness of language. Rather I should blame the weakness of my relation to language. If I fail to notice that I think and speak, under the influence of language, in patterns and constructs accumulated and preserved in the junkyards of long since vanished paradigms, then this shows my lack of consciousness with regard to just that power with which language can quickly make me spokesman for ideologies, in which everybody is almost always “right” at the “wrong” time.
Ideologues always use language which insists on its own truth and consistency, yet is hostile to critique and frames the observed evidence as a betrayal of its believed premise. Ideologues believe in the power of language but fail to recognize it and so they become no more than the tools of their own ideologies:
The accumulated language of bygone times: powerful, familiar, and obsolete, uses the ideologists and makes them its speakers. Through them it thwarts those specific human attempts which we call ideas and which, rebellious against all that is, would engender new thought and new procedures.
This brings us to the dilemma faced by authors like Kuhn:
Neither insight nor good intention, not even syntactic and grammatical care, will protect me from becoming an ideologist as long as I am unable or unwilling to create the suitable language which speaks as I think and not louder than my thoughts.
Overcoming this begins by facing squarely the human misery and suffering in this world, seeing how it is largely created as a result of our culture, ethics, morals, beliefs and values and then attempting to join "the problem-solvers" so that we might stand ready for the day when
The universal paradigm, in whose invisible and unquestioned embrace human misery can accurately be named a somehow excusable and certainly always expected commonplace, will stand exposed and rejected, to be replaced by one that I (from my present outlook) would prefer or (a radical change in social consciousness) by none.
We're arguing for the replacement of the paradigm which casts human suffering as an excusable certainty with none, rather than Brün's preference, but her following analysis is still on point.
The Reward-oriented Hierarchy¶
My conjecture is that we all live, speak, and act, perceive, judge, and decide under the unquestioned, untouchable, and firmly established guidance of an image which I call “the reward-oriented hierarchy”. By calling it so, I maybe able to show that particular dynamic property of language which, undetected, blocks creative, and thus political, thought processes.
Brün makes a clear distinction between (1) the premise of any society, which is the satisfaction of all human needs before and so that (2) the purpose of society can be envisioned, which is better means to meet our needs; the use of freedom from need for enjoyment of diversity and difference; the exploration of ideas; and the implementation of inventions.
We do not live in such a human society. Our society has developed an image of itself, according to which the satisfaction of needs has to be deserved and earned, so that it be understood as a reward [...] The premise of the reward-oriented hierarchy states that the necessities for the satisfaction of human needs are scarce. This scarcity poses individual and social problems of production and distribution. Finally, the premise declares that the problems of scarcity can not be solved before individual and social problems are solved.
Our present knowledge and technology could remove scarcity, but its economics and language linger on. This is exactly why shared networks which merge the two explicitly and allow us to program dynamic flows of value are so fascinating. They're the only piece Brün was missing back in 1980. She already understood then what many still do not: the problem is not primarily social or political. It is linguistic.
On Your Marx¶
We cannot use the language of this reward-oriented hierarchy in which we are so deeply embedded to discuss its own premise: we must first teach it to experiment with itself in order to discover how it labors under the paradigm it ought to expose.
In particular: can we find the language whose grammar, syntax, and sentence structure would make it consistent with the premise that all human needs have to be satisfied first, before and so that individual and social problems can and will be identified and solved?
Brün quotes Karl Marx and shows how his analysis of labour may be applied to language to make a very subtle point about how insidious paradigms truly are. Though we can use Marxist analysis to reveal the contradictions of capitalism, showing that there are contradictions is not revolutionary. It is the contradictions themselves which are revolutionary because they generate the antagonisms which the system cannot resolve without disintegrating. Therefore, Marxist analysis is a great starting point, but what it lacks - and what Brün dreams of - is a fundamentally economic language largely free from the accumulated inertia of past paradigms.
If we are to live up to Brün's dream of a society which solves human need as its premise, we must
become the creative artists who compose language to teach its writers and speakers how to be thoughtfully and carefully inconsistent with undesirable premises, to be incompatible with the morals, the religions, the armed forces, the arguments of the reward-oriented hierarchy.
This kind of dream cannot be realised in natural language, no matter how eloquent:
Communicative language is accumulated language based on obsolete and present paradigms and can not speak for those of us who think and dream in another paradigm.
Language is not the standard against which thinking is to be measured; on the contrary: language is to be measured by a standard it barely reaches, if ever, namely the imagery of human doubt and human desire [...]
If the imagery succeeds in containing, anti-communicatively, for later, the simulation, the structural analogy to that which was found wanting, then, who knows, it may tell us or someone some day with breathtaking eloquence and in then simple terms what we, today, almost speechlessly have wanted so much.