"Deus Ex Machina"
Before I delve into the politics and economics, I want to clarify what I mean by "Deus Ex Machina". It would be easy for readers to get the impression that I see society as some kind of robotic machine that creates a god, floating on the clouds and dispensing mystical thunderbolts. This is definitely not what I mean! I consider this machine as a biological entity with the "god" being a separate consciousness that is derived from society but has no physical embodiment. It is a function of group thinking, and I suspect that all groups with more than 100 members tend to suffer from it. Let me show you what I mean by analogy to the human body.
In the beginning there were single celled organisms. Each was a living entity in its own right, but these living entities did not relate closely to other single-celled organisms. We can imagine this as being similar to human society before language developed, before complex communication was possible.
Thanks to the process of evolution, the single-celled organisms changed their behaviour. Instead of dividing and separating into separate creatures, they clumped together to form colonies. This didn't happen as a planned, well thought out strategy. The single-celled creatures were not capable of such things. In reality it happened as an accidental response to the environment the single-celled creatures found themselves in. It seemed to work, and these multi-cellular organisms thrived. This is analogous to the period of human history where language first developed and communities formed.
The process of evolution continued. Multi-celled organisms developed into ever more sophisticated creatures where certain cells were tasked with specific functions within a much larger organism. Each single-cell continued to be a living organism in its own right, but with no understanding of its position within the creature it was a part of, and no awareness of the existence of such a creature. This is where evolution currently stands, and it is analogous to the evolution of human society, which reached its apogee perhaps around the time of the Egyptians. Complex societies formed where individuals might have very specific functions within a society that was sufficiently complex that no individual could fully grasp how the totality of society functioned.
It should be realised that evolution is not driven by the individual cells that make up the human body. These individual cells are unaware that evolution is happening, or that they are part of some larger mechanism. Are we aware that we are part of the creation of human history? The cells are not aiming towards a particular, worthwhile goal - and neither are we.
Those cells that are part of the brain may be part of the thought process of the human individual, but they are unaware of the thoughts of that individual. Similarly, those individuals in human society that have power and influence over the whole, are actually unaware that they are trapped within a larger mechanism and that their thoughts are just a small fraction of the thinking of the whole organism we call "society".
Naturally the human body is built up not merely of cells, but of separate key functions that relate to each other. Changing one of these key functions could prove fatal to the whole organism. Sometimes the importance of certain body parts is not immediately obvious. On the other hand, individual cells may die, but they act in parallel with many other cells and can readily be replaced.
In human society, political revolutions are analogous to performing multiple organ transplants. The trauma of the operation is liable to be fatal to the patient. For such radical surgery to have a chance of success, the patient must first be put on life support. But there may also be a temptation to do nothing at all to alter the running of society. Any change could prove detrimental. But by failing to grasp the reality that history is something that is being forced upon us as individuals by the thinking of "society" we fail to become truly free. We are slaves to "society" however that society is defined. The thinking of "society” as a whole may be leading us slowly towards disaster, without us even being aware of it. No single individual is actually in charge, although it may seem like there is. It may seem that there is a conspiracy to control us, especially when the outcome of government thinking seems out of tune with our own thinking - but there is no conspiracy. We, and our governments, are trapped by the thinking of "society" as a whole.
In my next post, I intend to apply this "Deus ex Machina" model to the behaviour of a large corporation, so that it should become more obvious how trapped we are within the organisational structures we create. Subsequently I will expand the concept to the societies we have created.
In the beginning there were single celled organisms. Each was a living entity in its own right, but these living entities did not relate closely to other single-celled organisms. We can imagine this as being similar to human society before language developed, before complex communication was possible.
Thanks to the process of evolution, the single-celled organisms changed their behaviour. Instead of dividing and separating into separate creatures, they clumped together to form colonies. This didn't happen as a planned, well thought out strategy. The single-celled creatures were not capable of such things. In reality it happened as an accidental response to the environment the single-celled creatures found themselves in. It seemed to work, and these multi-cellular organisms thrived. This is analogous to the period of human history where language first developed and communities formed.
The process of evolution continued. Multi-celled organisms developed into ever more sophisticated creatures where certain cells were tasked with specific functions within a much larger organism. Each single-cell continued to be a living organism in its own right, but with no understanding of its position within the creature it was a part of, and no awareness of the existence of such a creature. This is where evolution currently stands, and it is analogous to the evolution of human society, which reached its apogee perhaps around the time of the Egyptians. Complex societies formed where individuals might have very specific functions within a society that was sufficiently complex that no individual could fully grasp how the totality of society functioned.
It should be realised that evolution is not driven by the individual cells that make up the human body. These individual cells are unaware that evolution is happening, or that they are part of some larger mechanism. Are we aware that we are part of the creation of human history? The cells are not aiming towards a particular, worthwhile goal - and neither are we.
Those cells that are part of the brain may be part of the thought process of the human individual, but they are unaware of the thoughts of that individual. Similarly, those individuals in human society that have power and influence over the whole, are actually unaware that they are trapped within a larger mechanism and that their thoughts are just a small fraction of the thinking of the whole organism we call "society".
Naturally the human body is built up not merely of cells, but of separate key functions that relate to each other. Changing one of these key functions could prove fatal to the whole organism. Sometimes the importance of certain body parts is not immediately obvious. On the other hand, individual cells may die, but they act in parallel with many other cells and can readily be replaced.
In human society, political revolutions are analogous to performing multiple organ transplants. The trauma of the operation is liable to be fatal to the patient. For such radical surgery to have a chance of success, the patient must first be put on life support. But there may also be a temptation to do nothing at all to alter the running of society. Any change could prove detrimental. But by failing to grasp the reality that history is something that is being forced upon us as individuals by the thinking of "society" we fail to become truly free. We are slaves to "society" however that society is defined. The thinking of "society” as a whole may be leading us slowly towards disaster, without us even being aware of it. No single individual is actually in charge, although it may seem like there is. It may seem that there is a conspiracy to control us, especially when the outcome of government thinking seems out of tune with our own thinking - but there is no conspiracy. We, and our governments, are trapped by the thinking of "society" as a whole.
In my next post, I intend to apply this "Deus ex Machina" model to the behaviour of a large corporation, so that it should become more obvious how trapped we are within the organisational structures we create. Subsequently I will expand the concept to the societies we have created.
Labels: deus ex machina, evolution, revolution, society
posted by Schadenfreude at
14:50
5 Comments:
now this is going to be a good meaty blog. I look forward to reading and commenting.
I think i see where you are going.
Just before gulf war 2 in a discussion I proposed the highlu unfasionable Dinner Party view that we should go to war.
My reasoning was that no government, who had all the facts at their disposal would willing take the country to war, unless they were absolubtely sure it was necessary.
Especially a New Labour popular government that had spent 4 years trying to appeal to everyone about something as mind numbing as Hunting with dogs.Tony Blair loved being loved. Why would he risk it over something we didn't to be involved in? Afganistan.. most people agreed it was needed. Iraq.. well there must be a reason.
And yet.. There really was no reason. No thought given to the aftermath. No contingency plan.
What did the military say? They must have known the risks?
My reasoning that ' governments surely know best' was pure fantasy.
Hopefully we both learned that lesson.
Yes, Bill, I think you have pretty much got where I'm headed.
I struggled to make sense of the Blair years until I read a short biography of him and realised he wasn't particularly bright, or indeed outstanding in any way at all. Just a charming bloke, nice smile, reasonably good looking, fairly popular. Would have made a good local vicar I suspect. Heart roughly in the right place but head not really. Very much like the Harry Enfield character Tim "Nice but Dim".
Hence we end up with the left-wing media praising him as a "brilliant political strategist" - he wasn't, but Alistair Campbell was (until he left and everything started going wrong for Labour). Meanwhile the right-wing media vilify him as disengenuous, a liar, a Machiavellian character - probably not true either, merely a symptom of the fact that the government was really being driven by people like Gordon Brown and Alistair Campbell. The media gave us an impression that Blair was much more intelligent and capable than was the reality. They led us by the nose into believing a falsehood. I think he was about as intelligent as President Bush, which is why they got on so well.
If you think of the Blair years as 10 years of well-meaning foolishness that went a bit pear-shaped, all presented with a cheesy grin I find it makes a lot more sense. And then you have to ask is that government at all, if we elect people that are a bit dim and prone to foolishness? I think the election of such people is an inevitable symptom of modern democracy because the outcome of elections is determined by people a bit like Tony Blair himself - not particularly bright, ordinary, not outstanding, inoffensive. Floating voters with no firm ideals - just like Tony Blair. They loved him.
As you say, the idea that governments know best is pure fantasy.
This is the kind of discussion I would like to open up on this blog. So many political discussions are led by existing political parties setting the agenda and leading the media by the nose, with the media then leading the people by the nose. I want to question the entire system. Not "should we go to war in Iraq or not?" but "why did we even have a discussion about going to war in Iraq?".
That's a good analysis Mr S.
I think one of Blair's major mistakes was the introduction of the inexperienced and in many ways inappropriate Special Advisers cadre over the heads of the collective wisdom of the civil service - and particularly the Foreign Office whose members have and had a very close working knowledge of Iraq and its history. All the advice from the FO was to not get involved, but the MoD seem to have been rather more gung-ho. The FO seem to have been totally ignored in the rush to war and as anybody who has experience of living and working in the area (including myself) will tell you Iraq really is a volatile mix of tribes and traditions which Saddam had managed to contain and contol for the time he was in power. When that restraint was removed all hell broke lose and the factions were once again free to wage war on each other. A major important fact which is continually buried is that he and his regime offered no threat whatsoever to us or any part of Europe and all the excitement over the dodgy dosier was no more than fairy tales. Western style democracy will not work in that country and the Americans have opened up a real hornets' nest of problems, most of which seem to revolve around a son's desire to finish his daddy's work. It is no surprise that other European countries who also have long experience of that part of the world kept themselves out of it (despite or because of the jibes about old or two Europes) and will continue to do so until some local strongman re-emerges to crack the whip once more with whom one can do business.
The other related scandal of course is the disgraceful underfunding of the troops on the ground. Any govt committing its armed forces to battle has a moral obligation to ensure they are properly equipped. If Brown can suddenly find a hundred billion pounds or more lying around to fund some provincial busted building society then he has no excuse whatsoever for leaving our young service people out on a very dangerous limb using the "no funds" excuse. The fact that the country is waging war on two fronts but only has a part time defence secretary speaks volumes about the contempt with which Brown regards the UK's armed forces. Time for Jock Stirrup to start stirring up some anger!
nomad: I think there is an even dafter aspect to the Iraq II story. Blair had talked for years about the need to deal with Saddam Hussein, thus backing himself into a corner. This did not stop him signing a UN Treaty that effectively prevented him from doing anything about Saddam Hussein! At this point something had to give - either he tells Bush that he would love to get rid of Saddam but can't and looks like a fool, or he tells a pack of lies to justify intervention in Iraq (which will just happen to result in regime change). Obviously he chose the latter, making a mockery of the UN Convention in the process.
...And then you can throw in the mysterious death of Dr David Kelly and the suspected influence of the Zionist lobby for good measure.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home