Cognitive Encryption Enabling Collapse of Civilization
TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 22 Feb 2021
Drowned by the Undertow of Pseudophilia
22 Feb 2021 – The inspiration for this exploration is the possibility that the categories by which the global problematique is defined may effectively conceal a fundamental flaw — one that is necessarily poorly recognized. With respect to climate change, there is considerable familiarity with temperature, pressure, rain, sea level, and the like. Many such terms are defined in detail in definitions readily accessible online and in libraries. Such definitions are conventionally held to exhaust the meaning to be attributed to them. The challenge of global governance is to embody such terms in the articulation of remedial coherent global strategies — which the population is expected to find meaningful.
On the other hand there are articulations dating back thousands of years, in a diversity of cultures, configuring categories such as Earth Air, Fire and Water. These have evoked credibility over extensive periods and continue to do so for some. However the manner of their articulation, and the cognitive engagement with them, is considered totally outmoded and misleading by those who now define them unquestionably according to the insights of their respective disciplines.
The question here is whether, unknowingly, global civilization has in fact designed a trap for itself which inhibits any effective remedial strategy in response to issues such as climate change, inequality, disease, and the like. The nature of the trap could be understood as following from the insight of Geoffrey Vickers: A trap is a function of the nature of the trapped (Freedom in a rocking boat: changing values in an unstable society, 1972). Is the very nature of the definitions currently embodied in remedial strategies subject to the challenge articulated by Albert Einstein: Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.
The argument can be framed otherwise through reference to the surprising recognition of the “disconnect” from nature, evidenced by anecdotal tales of children not knowing where milk or eggs come from — given that these products are commonly taken from supermarket shelves (***). On the other hand it could be asked whether the promotion of “back to nature” holiday experiences, with exposure to sea, mountain, snow, forests, and wildlife, is an appropriately fundamental corrective — especially when such experiences are understood as captured and shared by photo and video.
As explored here the question is whether the categories by which reality is defined are better understood as effectively encrypted to ensure confidentiality — but for whom? Is a definition to be recognized as a form of encryption? So framed it is necessarily those articulating definitions who are designing the method of encryption in the light of the insights of their discipline.
As a useful metaphor encryption frames a further question. What level of encryption is used in the process of description? The art of encryption recognizes levels of encryption of ever greater complexity in order to ensure ever greater levels of secrecy and security — but for whom? What degree of encryption is associated with reference to “forest” or to “whale” in conventional strategic discourse? The question could be asked of problems such as “inequality” or of values such as “justice” or “peace”?
Such a question is clearly of relevance to “human being”, given the long-standing practice of recognizing some as “less than human” or even as “non-human”. Expressed otherwise, what is the encryption — if any — associated with such slogans as: “all you need is love”?
A corresponding metaphor offers further insight in relation to this argument. What indeed is hacking and who are the hackers? By what process is the encryption of definitions “hacked”? Who engages in hacking definitions and how are they framed and treated by the encryptors?
The argument here is that there is a possibility that the current global civilization has entrapped itself in a dysfunctional form of cognitive encryption which undermines every remedial initiative.
Surrogate encryptions of reality?
Tags: Big Brother, Big tech, Climate Change, Computer Science, Conflict, Encryption, Hacking, Philosophy, Science, Solutions, Spying, Surveillance, Technology, Virtual reality
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Join the discussion!
We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.