Readings Packet [PDF file, 4.9 Mb] - Ada!

353 Pages·2008·4.92 MB·English

Inventing Systems
Spring Quarter2006
JeffGlassman/ArunChandra
Contents
MarianneBru¨n: Paradigms:TheInertiaofLanguage 1
HeinzvonFoerster:PerceptionoftheFutureandtheFutureofPerception 6
HeinzvonFoerster:EthicsandSecond-OrderCybernetics 13
HeinzvonFoerster:Disorder/Order: DiscoveryorInvention? 23
HeinzvonFoerster:MetaphysicsofanExperimentalEpistemologist 29
HerbertBru¨n: TheNeedofCognitionfortheCognitionofNeeds 34
CognitiveProcessesandSocietalProblems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Image . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
“Things” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
TowardsaCognitiveTechnologybywayofHeuristicResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
CognitiveTechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
HeuristicResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Wants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
HerbertBru¨n: DrawingDistinctionsLinksContradictions 40
StaffordBeer: FanfareforEffectiveFreedom 52
StaffordBeer: DesigningFreedom 70
1 TheRealThreatto“AllWeHoldMostDear” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
2 TheDisregardedToolsofModernMan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3 ALibertyMachineinPrototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4 ScienceintheServiceofMan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5 TheFutureThatCanBeDemandedNow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6 TheFreeManintheCyberneticWorld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
HumbertoMaturana:OntologyofObserving 112
1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
2 Theproblem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
3 Natureoftheanswer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
4 Thescientificdomain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.0 PraxisofLivingandExplanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.1 Scientificexplanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.2 Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
5 Objectivityinparenthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.0 IllusionandPerception:thetraditionalapproach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.1 Aninvitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.2 Objectivityinparenthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.3 Theuniversumversusthemultiversa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6 Basicnotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.1 Theobserver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.2 Unities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.3 Simpleandcompositeunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.4 Organizationandstructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
SPRING QUARTER 2006 ii InventingSystems
6.5 Structuredeterminedsystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6.6 Existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6.7 Structuralcouplingoradaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6.8 Domainofexistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6.9 Determinism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
6.10 Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
6.11 Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
6.12 Phenomenaldomains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
6.13 Medium,nicheandenvironment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
7 Basisfortheanswer:thelivingsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7.1 Sciencedealsonlywithstructuredeterminedsystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7.2 Regulationandcontrol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7.3 Livingsystemsarestructuredeterminedsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7.4 Determinismandprediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
7.5 Ontogenicstructuraldrift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
7.6 Structuralintersection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
7.7 Thelivingsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
MyClaim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
7.8 Phylogenicstructuraldrift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
7.9 Ontogenicpossibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
7.10 Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
8 TheAnswer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
8.0 DomainofExistenceandPraxis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
8.1 Cognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
8.2 Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
9 Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
9.1 Existenceentailscognitioninlivingsystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
9.2 Thereareasmanycognitivedomainsastherearedomainsofexistence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
9.3 Languageisthehumancognitivedomain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
9.4 Objectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
9.5 Languaging:operationinadomainofstructuralcoupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
9.6 Languageisadomainofdescriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
9.7 Self-consciousnessariseswithlanguage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
9.8 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
9.9 Thenervoussystemexpandsthedomainofstatesofthelivingsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
9.10 Observingtakesplaceinlanguaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
10 Thedomainofphysicalexistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
11 Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
12 Selfconsciousnessandreality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
HumbertoR.Maturana:CognitiveStrategies 141
WarrenWeaver:RecentContributionstotheMathematicalTheoryofCommunication 154
1 IntroductoryNoteontheGeneralSettingoftheAnalytical
CommunicationStudies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
1.1 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
1.2 ThreeLevelsofCommunicationsProblems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
1.3 Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
2 CommunicationProblemsatLevelA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
2.1 ACommunicationSystemandItsProblems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
2.2 Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
2.3 CapacityofaCommunicationChannel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
SPRING QUARTER 2006 iii InventingSystems
2.4 Coding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
2.5 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
2.6 ContinuousMessages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
3 TheInterrelationshipoftheThreeLevelsofCommunicationProblems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
3.1 Introductory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
3.2 GeneralityoftheTheoryatLevelA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
FriedrichEngels: OriginoftheFamily,PrivatePropertyandtheState 166
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
PrefacetotheFirstEdition,1884 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
PrefacetotheFourthEdition,1891 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
1 StagesofPrehistoricCulture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
1.1 Savagery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
1.2 Barbarism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
2 TheFamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
2.1 TheConsanguineFamily,TheFirstStageoftheFamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
2.2 ThePunaluanFamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
2.3 ThePairingFamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
2.4 TheMonogamousFamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
3 TheIroquoisGens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
4 TheGreekGens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
5 TheRiseoftheAthenianState . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
6 TheGensandtheStateinRome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
7 TheGensamongCeltsandGermans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
8 TheFormationoftheStateamongGermans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
9 BarbarismandCivilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Appendix.ARecentlyDiscoveredCaseofGroupMarriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
FranklinD.Roosevelt:TheEconomicBillofRights 237
KarlMarx:WageLaborandCapital 238
IntroductiontoKarlMarx’sWageLaborandCapitalbyFrederickEngels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
1 Preliminary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
2 WhatareWages? HowaretheyDetermined? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
3 Bywhatisthepriceofacommoditydetermined? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
4 Bywhatarewagesdetermined? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
5 TheNatureandGrowthofCapital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
6 RelationofWage-LabourtoCapital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
7 TheGeneralLawthatDeterminestheRiseandFallofWagesandProfits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
8 The Interests of Capital and Wage-Labour are diametrically opposed; Effect of growth of productive
CapitalonWages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
9 EffectofCapitalistCompetitionontheCapitalistClasstheMiddleClassandtheWorkingClass . . . . 251
HeinrichvonKleist:OntheMarionetteTheatre 254
FranzKafka:TheTrial 257
Chapter1:Arrest—ConversationwithMrs.Grubach—ThenMissBu¨rstner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Chapter2:FirstCross-examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Chapter3:IntheemptyCourtroom—TheStudent—TheOffices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Chapter4:MissBru¨stner’sFriend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Chapter5:Thewhip-man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
Chapter6:K.’suncle—Leni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Chapter7:Lawyer—Manufacturer—Painter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
Chapter8:Block,thebusinessman—Dismissingthelawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
SPRING QUARTER 2006 iv InventingSystems
Chapter9:IntheCathedral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
Chapter10:End . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
BertoltBrecht:TheStreetScene 334
BertoltBrecht:OnEverydayTheatre 338
M.C.Escher: EightDrawings 340
ComputergraphicbyHerbertBru¨n
SPRING QUARTER 2006 v InventingSystems
Paradigms: The Inertia of Language
Marianne Bru¨n
(1980)
When Thomas S. Kuhn published The Structure of truths,nevertobetestedandquestioned.Theyneversus-
ScientificRevolutionsin1962,hispreface,introduction, pected that these obvioustruths, which were their stan-
and numeroustraces in the body of the essay explicitly dardsforalldecisionmakingandjudgementsofconduct
conveyedto the reader that the author thoughthe knew andideas,couldbeerroneousinterpretationsofaccurate
hisreaders,theirgeneralconceptofscience,ofscientific observationsor accurate interpretationsof faulty obser-
questions, experiments,research, andof the universein vations. The second aspect of the matter, which hovers
whichtheirsearchfortruth,consistency,andknowledge withdampeningeffectonallphilosophicalandscientific
takes place. On the basis of thistacit assumptionKuhn endeavors, is the knowledge that we today can not tell,
explainshisparticularuseofthewordparadigmandde- by definition, within which paradigm we are dwelling,
velopsatheoryaccordingtowhich,inanygivenperiod, thinkingand acting, unless and untilwe are able to ob-
some paradigms rule over all scientific endeavors, in- serveus andit fromthe outside, justas we recognizeit
visibly, unquestioned and tacitly agreed upon, and that andusfromoutsidethetimesofGalileo.
radicalchangeorprogress, in anyfield ofresearch, can ThereareinKuhn’sessayatleastseventeenexplana-
onlyberegisteredandacceptedifandwhenthepresently tions,definitions,anddescriptionsofthewordparadigm,
rulinggeneralnotionsofself-understoodtruthsuddenly as he particularly would use it. Every chapter is an-
arerevealedasbeingtemporaryassumptionsandbeliefs, othersignificantvariationonthattheme. Thisessaytold
respectable for their consistency, but incompatible with me among other things that, if I wish to uncover the
morerecentandundeniableinsights. Inshort: itsgreat- paradigmwhichconditionsmythinking,Imighthaveto
est dynamic power is held by a paradigm while it is takealeap,toobservewithfreshattentiontheanomalies
notcalledparadigm,butcalledfacts,data,truth,nature, inmyenvironmentratherthanonlyitspredictableloops.
ethics, proper procedures, etc. As soon as a paradigm Havinglearnedthisfromhim,IwassurprisedthatKuhn
is called a paradigm (usually then refered to as a mere consented, for the second edition, to write an immense
paradigm),itspowercollapses. postscriptansweringhiscritics,reasoning,almostapolo-
InGalileo’stimeanypersonofintegrity,honesty,de- gizing,forhisleap,asifanyleapoutofaloopcouldever
cency,whowashealthyinmindandbody,knewthatthe appearreasonable. Ileavehimtohisdilemma,and,col-
sun circles the earth and that the stars are affixed to a lectingallaspectshementionswithrespecttohiscentral
slowly rotating crystal sphere. The philosophers spec- theme, I shall use the word paradigm whenever I wish
ulated among themselves about meaning, symbolisms, tospeakofanystructuralnotionandconceptwhich,un-
teachings, and proofsfor the existence of God, implied derlying the development of discourse, is tacitly taken
by these known and observable phenomena, but never for granted by all participants in that discourse, taken
questionedtheiruniversaltruth. Thescientistsdiligently to go without saying and left unquestioned, regardless
did research, bothanalyticaland synthetical, investigat- ofwhetherthediscourseleadstoanagreementoradis-
ing the mechanics of the phenomena, and whether the agreementonanyissue.
stars were affixed with crystal screws, silver nails, or The history ofmankindis a compositeof many,of-
goldenchains,andhowthe earthwasheldinitscentral ten simultaneous histories of different societies, which
place. It was a sin andcrime, punishedby law, church, retroactivelytellthestoriesofparadigms,theirinception,
andcommunityvigilance,to askandprobewhetherthe flourishing,andcollapse;andhowtherealwayshasbeen
knownwastrue,whetherphilosophicalthoughtandsci- a new paradigm waiting to substitute for the collapsed
entific research and problem-solving were based on all one. Thesestoriesdonot, however,sufficientlyempha-
onecouldknow. sizearecurrentandubiquitousphenomenon.Theyocca-
Today’sphilosophersandscientistsdonotsneerwith sionallymentionitas a deplorableexception,occasion-
contempt at those times. They know that the people ally as a successful defense of eternal truth. This phe-
then acted in keeping and in consequential consistency nomenonisbestdescribedastheinertiaoflanguage.
with all those of their assumptions and beliefs which Theinertiaoflanguageisbothasymptomandady-
they had either accepted or declared to be indisputable namicforce. Asasymptomitreflectstheslownesswith
MARIANNE BRU¨N 1 Paradigms:TheInertiaofLanguage
which the news are disseminated that no longer should outofthisabsurddilemma,theconvincingsecond-hand
everythingbetakenforgrantedthatfor“timeimmemo- languageproposestoprovidethegoodoldpremiseswith
rial” has been taken for granted. As a friendly, almost moredesirableconsequences. Hostiletoanycritiqueof
poetic example, let me mention that our language still thislanguage,itsspeakersaccusethosewishingtoinves-
hasthesunriseintheeastandsetinthewest,althoughit tigatelanguageof“playingwithwords”or“indulgingin
hasbeenknownfor2000years,scientificallyproven400 mere semantics”, of elitist tendencies and of contempt
years ago, recently even admitted by the church, that it for communication. They believe in the power of lan-
is our horizonwhich continuouslyrises in the west and guagebut fail to recognizeit. The language of the ide-
dipsintheeast. Nopoethasyettaughtlanguagehowto ologists and their friends, followers, and believers car-
expressthese eventsin consistencywith presentknowl- ries, attheexpenseoftheintendedmessages, manyun-
edgeaswellaslanguagelearneditfromaprevious,now intended messages, but also the indignant sentences “I
obsolete,knowledge. Withsunriseandsunset,language didn’tsaythat! That’snotwhatImean! Youknowwhat
preserves and reflects the geocentric paradigm. Due to I mean!” or simply and thoughtlessly “you know”; in
this inertia, language stores and offers for communica- additionthatlanguageoffersalotofinitialwithdrawals,
tiveusagemanyremnantsofmanyobsoleteparadigms. such as “It seems to me...; It appears that...; It has
Assoon,however,asitsofferofsuchremnants,such been said...; The truth of the matter is, of course...;
outdatedgoldenwordsofwisdom, worship,andeternal Mypersonalownopinionis...;” andmanymore,allof
value, is accepted by us and used in argumentativedis- which hint at unquestioned assumptions with regard to
course for the descriptionand solution of our problems unquestioned notions such as subjectivity (to be apolo-
today, for our teachings, our protests, our critical com- geticallyconceded),objectivity(that’swheretruejudge-
ments and proposals—assoon as we thus accept its of- mentbeckons),truth(helplesslydeliveredtointegrity).
fer,languageturnsintoanunstoppableavalancheofsuch The list is too long for me to continue it much fur-
forceof inertiathat neitherthoughtnoraction cankeep ther. I wish, however, to emphasize a distinction that I
clear of it. The old anti-scholastic, anti-dogmatic sen- drawbetweenideologistsandideologies. Ideologiesare
tence “actions speak louder than words” has long since thetracesleftbyideologists. Thestuffofwhichideolo-
been transformed into a self-deprecating dismissal of giesaremademayoriginallyhavebeenoldornewideas,
language,directedatitself,butiseagerlyusedbyevery ingeniouslydesigned propositionsor the pipedreamsof
speakerwhowishestopromoteandjustifyunspeakable a moron, they may have been notions I should like to
actionstakento discreditorto silence speechwhenever share or to oppose: regardlessof content and potential,
itmightservethought,ideas,reflections. bothbecomecorruptedbyideologists. Theaccumulated
In human society language is so powerfulthat only languageofbygonetimes,powerful,familiar,andobso-
violence(andthatisnotlanguage)canstopit. Whereits lete, uses the ideologists and makes them its speakers.
powerfailstoservemydesires,itwouldbeamistaketo Through them it thwarts those specific human attempts
blamesuchfailureontheweaknessoflanguage. Rather whichwecallideasandwhich,rebelliousagainstallthat
Ishouldblametheweaknessofmyrelationtolanguage. is,wouldengendernewthoughtandnewprocedures.
IfIfailtonoticethatIthinkandspeak,undertheinflu- The dilemma is that neither insight nor good inten-
enceoflanguage,inpatternsandconstructsaccumulated tion, notevensyntactic and grammaticalcare, will pro-
and preserved in the junkyards of long since vanished tectmefrombecominganideologistaslongasIamun-
paradigms, then this shows my lack of consciousness able or unwilling to create the suitable language which
with regardto just that power with which languagecan speaksasIthinkandnotlouderthanmythoughts.
quicklymakemespokesmanforideologies,inwhichev- Thisisaproblemforeverybody,andIshalltrynow
erybodyisalmostalways“right”atthe“wrong”time. I tobrieflydescribesomeoftheobstaclestoitseasysolu-
recognizeideologistswhenIheartheirspeakingandread tion.
their writing. Their convincing language was already IfIlearn,graduallyorsuddenly,thatthereisfarmore
convincing before they use it. It could be used, just as humanmiseryandsufferingintheworldthanfairytales
well,forthepresentationofothercontents,otherideolo- and schoolshave let me know; that there are thousands
gies. Thelanguageofideologyinsiststhatitsstatements of explanations why misery cannot be avoided for ev-
arewhatitcallstrue,namelynotonlyconsistentwithone erypropositionsuggestinghowtopreventit;if,inaddi-
anotherbutalso with the rulingparadigmofsupporting tion,Inoticethattheseobservationsincreasinglydisturb
evidence, logic, and all the taken for granted premises. andhauntme,sothatIbegintolookwithgrowingcon-
Atthesametime, thislanguageshowsanddeploresthe tempt on the once (and secretly still) loved treasures of
untenability of its consistencies and how the observed culture,ethics,morals,beliefsandvalues,asthey,taken
evidence is a betrayal of its believed premises. To get for granted, provide safe conductand sanctuary for ev-
MARIANNE BRU¨N 2 Paradigms:TheInertiaofLanguage
ery brutality, violence, negligence and malice that can understandthatinitssocialconceptualimageofitselfthe
costume itself in their name; then, finally, feeling help- satisfactionofallhumanneedsmustbeaccomplishedbe-
less and desperate, I begin lookingaroundfor help and foreandsothatthepurposeofsocietycanbeenvisioned.
hope and find that for a long time already people have Thepurposeofsocietyisthedevelopmentofevermore
collected their wits and their wants and assembled, in satisfactory means of production of the necessities that
small and large groups, in order to find, to generate, to willmeettheneeds;thedevelopmentanduseofthefree-
inveigle, to teach, if need be, to force varioussolutions domfromneedfortheenjoymentofdiversityanddiffer-
ofthoseproblems,whichthese groupscallunnecessary ence;theappreciationandtheapplicationofideaswhich
humansufferinginflictedbyhumanbeingsonhumanbe- providenewanswerstooldquestions;theinvitationand
ings,andwhichotherscallfateorsimplybadluck. SoI implementationofinventionswhichprovidenewproce-
attempttojointheproblemsolvers,Ireadtheirwritings, duresforthesolutionofoldandrecurrentproblems.The
listentotheirspeaking,studytheirtheories,projectsand purposeofsocietyis,thus,thejustifiedlyhopefulpursuit
strategies,contributetothediscussionsinsmallandlarge ofallthosealternativepathsofconsequenceswhich, be
circles, educating and preparing myself for the day of theyeversoaudacious,unheardof,unspeakable,donot
change:thedaywhen,atlast,theuniversalparadigm,in interfere with their indispensable premise: the satisfac-
whose invisible and unquestionedembrace human mis- tionofallhumanneeds.
ery can accurately be named a somehow excusableand We do not live in such a human society. The his-
certainly always expected commonplace, will stand ex- tory of our society began when people discovered that
posed and rejected, to be replaced by one that I (from the premise can be treated, through actions and words,
mypresentoutlook)wouldpreferor(aradicalchangein as a consequence. Under this treatmentour society has
socialconsciousness)bynone. developedanimageofitself,accordingtowhichthesat-
All analysisof state and facts andprocesses tries to isfactionofneedshastobedeservedandearned,sothat
show somethingto everybody,which, withoutthe anal- it be understood as a reward. Ever since then, and up
ysis, wouldnot be seen by everybody. All analysis, to- to the present day, we live in a reward-oriented hierar-
gether with speculation and experiment, is, therefore, a chy. In cooperation with natural circumstances and by
small or large step toward the exposure of the unseen fostering cultures and civilizations in which economies
but ruling paradigm. My analysis, skilled and guided andlanguagesupportedoneanother,itbecamepossible
bystudy,concern,andanti-ideologicalcare,leadsmeto to hide the old natural premise behind the new artifi-
conjecture what our most powerful, contemporary, rul- cial one. The premise of the reward-orientedhierarchy
ing paradigm might be. My conjecture is that we all states that the necessities for the satisfaction of human
live,speak,andact,perceive,judge,anddecideunderthe needsare scarce. Thisscarcityposesindividualandso-
unquestioned,untouchable,andfirmlyestablishedguid- cialproblems,inparticular,problemsofproductionand
anceofanimagewhichIcall“thereward-orientedhier- distribution. Finally,thepremisedeclaresthattheprob-
archy”. Bycallingitso,Imaybeabletoshowthatpar- lemsofscarcitycannotbesolvedbeforeindividualand
ticulardynamicpropertyoflanguagewhich,undetected, socialproblemsaresolved.Thusisgenerated,consistent
blockscreative,andthuspolitical,thoughtprocesses. withthispremise,a largebodyofconsequences,result-
Living organisms, including human beings, have to ing in apparently consistent and reasonable criteria for
obeysomenaturallawsinordertomaintaintheircontin- theplanningofeconomicsandtheteachingoflanguage.
ued existence as living organisms. I use the word need Thereweretimeswhenhumaningenuityandtechnology
whenever I wish to speak of conditions which must be indeed could not yet procure the necessities to meet all
metcontinuouslyandunconditionallyiflivingorganisms humanneedsofallhumanbeings. Thesetimesarepast.
are to be able and to be motivated to maintain them- Our present knowledge and technology could remove
selves, their identities, their existence. The conditions that scarcity and replace it with abundance. The times
must be met continuously, because the conditions con- of scarcity as a dictate of nature are over, but its eco-
tinue in consequence of having been met. (The living nomics and language not only linger on, but even have
needfoodin orderto be hungryagain.) Theconditions grownmorepowerful. Underthese economics,scarcity
mustbemetunconditionally,becausewithoutthecondi- is maintained and used for temporarysolutions of indi-
tions called needs having been met no other conditions vidualandsocialproblems.Language,atthesametime,
exist. (Thedeadcan’tbesocial.) declaresscarcityastandardforvalueandmotivation. In
Itis,thus,notopentochoiceordispute:thesatisfac- mutualsupport,economicsandlanguageinternalizethe
tionofneedsisthepremiseforanyformoflife. Inpar- reward-orientedhierarchy in order to maintain and jus-
ticular:thesatisfactionofallhumanneedsisthepremise tify only those actions, morals, ethics, religions, ideas,
foranyhumansociety. Andeverysocietywouldhaveto thoughts and inventions, which are consistent with the
MARIANNE BRU¨N 3 Paradigms:TheInertiaofLanguage
premiseofthereward-orientedhierarchy. ofthesecretreward-orientedhierarchywhich,asanun-
Thisprocesshasbeenso successfulthatit isalmost questionedparadigm,rulesourlanguageandthusatleast
impossible, today, to discuss it. We live in a reward- partofourthinking.
oriented hierarchy and we also speak its language. Its Marx wrote an analysis of capitalist economy with
languageisconsistentwithitspremise.Ifwewanttodis- thepurposeofshowingthatanaccurateanalysisexposes
cussthepremise,wealsomustdiscussitslanguage.Itis thecontradictionswhichacapitalistorientedsocietysuf-
thecommunicativelanguageanditwillconveythoughts fersfrom,orpunishes,orevenperpetuates. IfaMarxist
which are consistent with its accumulated past. If we writer agrees with that analysis and that purpose, then
wishtoconveythoughtsthataretoshowthatthereward- she agrees that what Marx wrote was, and is, as far as
oriented hierarchyis not the only possible human soci- it goes, true. It was true in that it described and ana-
ety,certainlynotthemostdesirablehumansociety,then lyzed what then was the case, and it is true, in that the
its language can not help us, unless we teach it to ex- contradictions are still in evidence. But the truth that
periment with itself in order to discover how it labors therearecontradictionsisnotrevolutionary.Thecontra-
undertheparadigmitoughttoexpose,andhowitcould, dictions themselves, however, are revolutionary, in that
if changed, continually renewed and cared for, become they generate those antagonisms which the system can
consistentandcommunicativewithotherpremises,long not resolve without disintegrating. If the Marxist now
forgotten ones and some never heard of. In particu- writes: “only the truth is revolutionary!” then she in-
lar: can we find the language whose grammar, syntax, advertently speaks the language of the reward-oriented
andsentencestructurewouldmakeitconsistentwiththe hierarchy (which she opposes) where “the truth” has a
premisethatallhumanneedshavetobesatisfiedfirst,be- higher status than contradictions, where “the truth” is
fore andso thatindividualandsocialproblemscanand consistent with the premise, while the resolution of an-
willbeidentifiedandsolved? tagonism is not. It is not revolutionary to encourage
KarlMarxwroteinWageLabourandCapital: the exploited, under the pretext of communication, to
trust and use and follow the language of the exploiter.
“Capital does not consist in accumulated Itwouldcertainly be moreto the point, althoughpossi-
labourserving living labour as a means for bly less communicative, if the writer or speaker would
newproduction. Itconsistsinlivinglabour show and explain how the term “the truth” is nearlyal-
serving accumulated labour as a means of ways used in order to obscure the view of the consis-
maintaining and multiplying the exchange tency of a statement or theory with some premise that
valueofthelatter.” ought to be discussed, but instead, under the spell of
“the truth”, remains taken for granted. So that the re-
Myapplicationofthissentencestructure:
lationshipsbetweensomefrequentlyusedwordsbeclar-
ified and also be available to paradigms other than the
Communicationdoesnotconsistinaccumu-
reward-orientedhierarchy,Iusetheword“truth”when-
lated languageserving living languageas a
everI wishto speakofthetime duringwhichtheintent
means for new thinking. It consists in liv-
andcontentofaperson’sstatementcannotandwillnot
inglanguageservingaccumulatedlanguage
be accidentally in conflict or accidentally in contradic-
as a means of maintaining and multiplying
tion with the intent and content of any other statement
thecommunicativevalueofthelatter.
whichthispersonwouldmakein responsetoanysitua-
tion,question,orstatementpresented.Thetime:because
Neitherlivinglabournorlivinglanguagecanbelib-
Irefertothepassingpresenceofarelationaleventrather
eratedfromservingaccumulatedlabourandaccumulated
thantothevalueoftimelessformsinformalizedlogics.
language by workers, writers, speakers, thinkers, who
Not: because, were I to write “only” instead, I should
failtoidentifyandtorecognizethatservice.Theconjec-
usethewords“knowledgeanderror”insteadoftheword
turethatthereward-orientedhierarchymayindeedbethe
“truth”;andwereItowrite“notonly”instead,Ishould
underlyingparadigm of our social process, can be sup-
use the word “belief” instead of “truth” and instead of
portedbytheobservation,thatitslanguageisusedeven
thewords“knowledgeanderror”.
by those workers, writers, speakers, and thinkers, who
The accumulated language of past and present
objecttoitsmanifestationsinthestructureandsystemof
paradigmsdeniesusthattime. Ourwritersandspeakers
our present-day society. One can sooner find an agree-
mustatlastrecognizeitsincompetenceandbecomethe
menttothestatement:“weliveinareward-orientedhier-
creativeartistswhocomposelanguage,sothatitteachits
archy”than to the statement: “the languagewe use, ei-
writersandspeakershowtobethoughtfullyandcarefully
thertodefendortocriticizetheobviousreward-oriented
inconsistentwithundesirablepremises,tobeincompati-
hierarchy we live in, is consistent with and affirmative
MARIANNE BRU¨N 4 Paradigms:TheInertiaofLanguage
ble with themorals, thereligions, the armedforces, the
argumentsofthereward-orientedhierarchy.
It is a symptom of a reward-oriented hierarchy that
iteducatesandconditionspeoplesothatpeopledemand
communicativelanguagenotonlywhereithelpstomain-
tainthesystem,butalsowhereitcannothelpinchanging
it.
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.
There may be occasions where communicative lan-
guage is tolerable. Whenever only criticism, reporting,
andcomplaintisintended,communicativelanguagewill
do. Italwayscanaccuratelytellwhatis.
It breaks down and turns traitor as soon as its
premises are asked to support a consequence they can
notsupport.
Far too many political writers and speakers, carried
away by concern, commiseration, inherited and learned
discipline, and particularly by the desire to be under-
stood, to be convincing, have rendered their powerful
and necessary communications indistinguishable from
oneanotherandfromtheother.
Sothatlanguagemaynotbecomeafossilizedfetish,
let it be praised for the thoughts it expresses, but ruth-
lessly criticized for the ideas it fails to articulate. Lan-
guageisnotthestandardagainstwhichthinkingistobe
measured; on the contrary: language is to be measured
by a standard it barely reaches, if ever, namely the im-
ageryofhumandoubtandhumandesire.
Tomeasurelanguage,withimageryasastandard,is
the function of art in society. The arts are a measuring
meta-languageaboutthelanguagethatisfoundwanting.
If the imagery succeeds in containing, anticommunica-
tively,forlater, thesimulation,thestructuralanalogyto
thatwhichwasfoundwanting,then,whoknows,itmay
tellusorsomeonesomedaywithbreathtakingeloquence
andinthensimpletermswhatwe,today,almostspeech-
lesslyhavewantedsomuch.
ComputergraphicbyHerbertBru¨n
MARIANNE BRU¨N 5 Paradigms:TheInertiaofLanguage