83,229
edits
Great delamination: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
They now bear no relation to each other. The separate realms have become “[[non-overlapping magisteria]],” to use {{author|Stephen Jay Gould}}’s excellent term.<ref>{{br|Rocks of Ages}}.</ref> It is a [[category error]] to apply standards developed in one to situations arising in the other. | They now bear no relation to each other. The separate realms have become “[[non-overlapping magisteria]],” to use {{author|Stephen Jay Gould}}’s excellent term.<ref>{{br|Rocks of Ages}}.</ref> It is a [[category error]] to apply standards developed in one to situations arising in the other. | ||
=== The Onworld | === The Onworld=== | ||
Online — the “[[onworld|Onworld]]” — is unilateral: one-to-many, deterministic, delineated, rigid, scaled, binary, definitive, eliminative and final. | Online — the “[[onworld|Onworld]]” — is unilateral: one-to-many, deterministic, delineated, rigid, scaled, binary, definitive, eliminative and final. | ||
Like the code is it made out of, it is exact, precise, machined. | Like the code is it made out of, it is exact, precise, and ''machined''. | ||
It has, therefore, zero-tolerance. “Tolerance” implies sloppiness, ambiguity and weakness. The Onworld is ''digital''; tolerance is ''analogue''. | It has, therefore, zero-tolerance. “Tolerance” implies sloppiness, ambiguity and weakness. The Onworld is ''digital''; tolerance is ''analogue''. | ||
The Onworld consists in, and of, [[data]]. Data is of the past. Irony: despite its apparent hyper-modernity, the [[onworld|Onworld]] is mechanistic, [[finite]] and historical: it is not futuristic, but ''backward looking''. | The Onworld consists in, and of, [[data]]. Data is of the past. Irony: despite its apparent hyper-modernity, the [[onworld|Onworld]] is mechanistic, [[Finite and Infinite Games|finite]] and historical: it is not futuristic, but ''backward looking''. | ||
By contrast, real life — the “[[offworld|Offworld]]” — is bilateral: one-to-one, graduated, ambiguous, deprecated, provisional, malleable, nuanced and forgiving. | === The Offworld === | ||
By contrast, [[Offworld|real life]] — the “[[offworld|Offworld]]” — is bilateral: one-to-one, graduated, ambiguous, deprecated, provisional, malleable, nuanced and forgiving. | |||
It ''flexes''. | |||
The Offworld is human, ''[[Infinite game|infinite]]'' and forward-looking. It is futuristic. Being ''human'', it offers scope for redemption, reinvention, and reconfiguration. | It acknowledges that for all you do know, there is [[Finite and Infinite Games|infinitely]] more you do not. It is necessarily ''tolerant'', open-minded, and constructive, for that is what you have to be when you don’t know what is coming next. | ||
The Offworld asks us to apply our imaginations, open-mindedly: to be constructive: to form alliances, to learn, to create excellent outcomes, using whatever criteria for “excellent” then appeal to whoever happens to be about. | |||
The Offworld is ''human'', ''[[Infinite game|infinite]]'' and forward-looking. It is ''futuristic''. Being ''human'', it offers scope for redemption, reinvention, and reconfiguration. | |||
===The Dissimulacrum=== | ===The Dissimulacrum=== | ||
This means that what ''was'' a “simulacrum” — the Onworld began as an edited, enhanced, better | This means that what ''was'' a “simulacrum” — the Onworld began as an edited, enhanced, efficient, ''better'' version of the [[Offworld]] — increasingly no longer ''is''. The two have delaminated. Where it once made sense to conflate the two, there is now much danger in doing so. | ||
Nowadays ''online'' discourse and discourse ''in real life'' are qualitatively, quantitatively different. | |||
No-one is perfect —neither the judge or the judged — so in the Offworld we must make allowances for error, misunderstanding, misapprehension: our own, and each other’s. But in the Onworld, that ostensible fallibility has fallen away. It is not possible. Judgment is simply a special case of categorisation. We can, do, and to get by, ''must'' categorise. | No-one is perfect —neither the judge or the judged — so in the Offworld we must make allowances for error, misunderstanding, misapprehension: our own, and each other’s. But in the Onworld, that ostensible fallibility has fallen away. It is not possible. Judgment is simply a special case of categorisation. We can, do, and to get by, ''must'' categorise. | ||
| Line 33: | Line 40: | ||
He cannot prove, or even give evidence, that Bowie was fundamental to things keeping together, but the date for the great weirding checks out. | He cannot prove, or even give evidence, that Bowie was fundamental to things keeping together, but the date for the great weirding checks out. | ||
There | There followed a collective expiry of cultural touchstones, across the spectrum, within a year: Bowie, Harper Lee, George Martin, Prince, Muhammad Ali, Ronnie Corbett, Glenn Frey, Leonard Cohen, George Michael, Carrie Fisher and of course Rick Parfitt from Status Quo. | ||
From then things just got weirder. [[Trump]], [[Brexit]], [[COVID-19|Covid]], Ukraine, Crypto, the neo space-race — these are all symptoms of a collective mind that has lost its way. | From then things just got weirder. [[Trump]], [[Brexit]], [[COVID-19|Covid]], Ukraine, Crypto, the neo space-race — these are all symptoms of a collective mind that has lost its way. | ||