We shape the world and the world shapes us.
Conclusionary rhetoric shoots first, and asks
questions later, arguing backwards from conclusions—
or desired states—from often opportunistic,
disingenuous, evidence.
Conclusionary rhetoric, once exposed, can easily
be understood for what it is:—a kind of industrial
strength and scale, or ‘prefab’ method of both
setting out to simply get what we want, and
systematically taking aim at all those who stand
in the way.
At the same the time, conclusionary rhetoric
seriously corrupts serious discourse.
Logic and science—and it could be said, the
very essence of democracy, as well—do not,
however, work by arguing backwards from
conclusions. Here, we instead aim for truth. If
a way of looking, or thinking, or a theory can
be demonstrated to be false, we give it up.
This way of looking does not begin with
conclusions, but rather with real problems, with
real troubling facts in need of explanation, with
real contradictions.
And that makes all the difference.
We shape the world and the world shapes us.
The classic von Neumann model of a central
processor, now seen as a major bottleneck in
high-speed information flow, surrounded by
its computational assets of data and memory,
shares many of the same limitations of the
traditional large orchestra, with its central, rather
rigid, military-like conductor. In contrast,
distributing processors by nesting them in
clusters of data sets, and then linking these
together in dynamic, flexible, task specific ways,
is very much more like the more egalitarian
structure of a string quartet or small
performance ensemble.
This potentially parallels the crucial difference
between control, on the one hand, by intellect,
and limit, on the other, by intelligence.
It also parallels, interestingly, the difference
between the centralized generation of energy
characteristic of fossil fuels, and that of the
inherently decentralized nature of renewables.
This is all, it seems to me, very exciting.
[sketch…more later….]