Technocratic Alienation

One of the glories of the Metaphysical poets was the association of their sensibilities. Eliot lamented a dissociation that he detected occurring after their reign in the literary world in the 17th century. This disassociation can perhaps be explained by the division between the rational and mathematical side of our nature from the rest of it - the aesthetic, the emotional, the ethical - caused by Descartes. All of the latter were in some sense demoted by the prioritisation of reason and even Maths as the sole detector and mediator of truth on which reliable knowledge could be founded (it is interesting that this heralded the period of philosophical alienation where we were dislocated from the physical, ‘noumenal’ world unable to prove that it exists). A dislocation was created in our nature between the human and the scientific side which alienated us from ourselves. We still still see this dislocation in our relationship with technology which can often demote or reduce the human in an insulting way. “The computer says no." Winston Churchill said we want scientists on tap not on top. He was Boris Johnson's hero but, in spite of this, Boris abdicated his over-arching humanity and wider vision than the purely scientific one in favour of the rule of scientists during the pandemic.

Eduardo Paolozzi’s take on Blake’s ‘Newton’ outside the Scottish National Gallery

The Triumph of Determinism

Does the direct real-time feed from a Labour  focus group on "what went well" to the nano-bots that were injected into his bloodstream mean that what we are looking at when we watch Keir Starmer is an actual AI Embodiment of a focus group speaking its words to us like a body-snatched replicant? Is this a horror story worse than Frankenstein or Alien in that all traces of a human consciousness have been replaced by circuitry without our knowledge? Is he just human reduced to mouthpiece for the data that streams through him - "5000 extra appointments in the NHS, the highest rate of growth in the G7...."? Is the real Starmer experiencing the horror of being one of Bacon’s Screaming Popes? After he is deposed will he, waking in a rest home in the Surrey countryside, need to be rehabilitated by being taught how to be a human again?

Human AI

I watched the interview on the 6 o’clock News last night where Chris Mason asked Keir Starmer for his reaction to the fact that he is the least respected PM in history. Starmer’s style in his response (and the style of Reeves and Phillipson) is to project contentment and satisfaction with what he’s doing whatever is happening and to act like an affectless human pianola spewing out ready-made sound bites that will read well in the press. He’s like a human version of AI.

My friend asked his phone the question ‘Is Keir Starmer an android?’ and the AI feature gave this helpful answer…

“No, Keir Starmer is not an android; he is a human politician and lawyer who has served as the Leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He has been described as having a robotic demeanor by some critics, but this is a metaphorical expression of his political style, not a literal description.”

Controlling Meaning

Are the Culture Wars about more than the control of the narrative? Perhaps they are about the control of MEANING and interpretation, things that distinguish human beings? The creation of meaning derives from the motherboard of the one doing the creating.

Disallowing Learning

In the latter stages of my teaching career, I noticed the greater and greater tendency to disallow the teacher-learner dynamic on the grounds that the superiority implied meant that it was a kind of “punching-down” oppression. It became more and more fashionable to make a public exhibition of one’s humility in learning, Rousseau-style, from the children. Of course everyone learns stuff in whatever profession they are in so teachers would always be learning things (and sometimes from interactions with children) but this doesn’t justify disallowing the process of teaching. I wonder if there is also now a tendency to disallow the idea that there is a reservoir of wisdom in age in spite of the fact that a definition of wisdom might be the accumulation of knowledge from time and experience?

Malice v Stupidity

 More on MALICE v STUPIDITY. “Let’s rub the Right’s noses in diversity.” Philip Gould (Tony Blair’s SPAD). In the immediate particular this is malicious but it was only said because, in the general, it was believed to be morally justified (it was done for the educational *good* of the Right) for a dangerously stupid reason. The justification was founded on the assumption that, regarding immigration, the Right is devoid of “compassion” which is immoral. This is a stupid and self-righteous idea and a dangerous one if it contributes to the delegitimisation of the Right and the destruction of democratic two-sided conversation. To believe in malice in the general *and* the particular is harder in the West. It is easier to believe in regarding the Russian Revolution as, because of personal matters like the execution of his terrorist brother, figures like Lenin were fuelled by hatred of the establishment and the aristocracy. In the cases of Gould and Blair I think they would be paralysed without a sense of moral justification and horrified by the idea of acting out of naked malice. Especially in the case of Blair with his messianic bent they *had* to feel a sense of justification.

Reality as Given

 If you unburden the human mind of the centrality with which Enlightenment Descartes invested it in Cogito ergo sum it can relax and cheerfully and gratefully accept reality as given.