Talking About What Drives Change

Without also acknowledging the role of how the changes in instrumentality have shaped not only what we are able to do, as we extend our faculties ever more complexly, but also how we perceive, and conceive of, reality, seems to me to be unbelievably short sighted, to say the least. Which is why, as I think one might expect, that I read this piece with a great deal of skepticism. That being said, though, it does offer some interesting contrasts of views and I do recommend you give it a read.

For my point of view, of course, you get in trouble the moment you say things like "What causes change, culture or economics, when those things have become so complicated precisely because of electrification of information retrieval, and the power of iterative, self regulating, looping systems. And especially does this become more complex as new instrumentality makes message itself become a thing far more potently capable than ever before; putting the ability to manipulate information flow so completely, and seamlessly, that for once the ability to control the complete perceptual realities of the masses is now quite plausible. In fact, once VR is fully realized, to its full commoditization of fantasy potential, and then that potential for addiction to be institutionalized to realms only now being imagined by apocalyptic programming, that is itself just more commoditized fantasy; once that is realized the "Uncanny Valley" type of control will be like child's play. And intentionally so, naturally, as that is what the few have been willing the masses to be, consciously or not. because nothing is more impulsive, and manipulable, than the child like mind. And what could be more desirable for a behavior pattern when you want exactly those qualities to help you sell them on anything, and everything that makes you more powerful.

You also get into trouble when you say things like this:

",,,The distinction between ‘culture’ and ‘economics’ is closely related to a division in the field of political economy: there are scholars who highlight the primacy of ‘ideas’ and there are those who emphasise ‘interests’..."

There are a number of reasons for this but the one that sticks out for me right now is how limited the notion here is for "interests;" as it presupposes an unwarranted assumption as to what is indicated in "interests." And by that I mean how "practical" and "interests" get linked within only what one can do within the definitive confines of "interest" as constricted by the assumptions of Capitalism itself (which is unquestionably broken); whereas if one had an alternative, practical might be made to mean something quite different indeed. Which, I think, only goes to show you that it is ultimately absurd to think that you can separate ideas from interests in the first place. But maybe that's just me.

Anyways. Give this a read and see if you can think up other ways in which what I have been advocating contrasts to what these folks are saying. There should be some good things to think about no matter how you come out, with with them, or as doubtful as I am.