Re: “the search engines of Google Rex only index whatever pleases the throne.”
Years ago, I attended a conference presentation by Google on the architecture of its search engine. No mention was made of any sort of censoring ability. Perhaps that has changed. Can you give any references to backup your claim that Google’s search results are now filtered for conformance to corporate policy?
It's far worse than 'corporate policy', I'm afraid Frank - but thus far, the legal cases in which Google is embroiled have managed to rebuff disclosure, and until Google gets caught up in disclosure we won't know the whole story. But it is a fact that Google has been tweaking search engine results in support of its own political alignments for some time. They suppressed, for instance, the Hunter Biden laptop story, which later turned out to be true and not a Russian op as had been accused, and they utterly suppressed the Great Barrington Declaration during the recent Nonsense.
I am short of time, but I'll just throw in this article as a point of reference for now:
There’s a lot to chew on here. In this comment I’ll just cite and comment on a few the phrases I completely resonate with:
a) “yet the encyclopaedia and its digital successors represent a role we inheritors of the mantle of civilization cannot quite survive without.”
b) “it is by having shared knowledge that we agree upon reasonable restrictions”
c) “civilized people require a collective encyclopaedia in order to support an epistemic commons”
In a civilization of predominately democratic states the established knowledge base should be accessible to all citizens. Anything less leaves doors open for social manipulation by special interests. We currently have a predominately democratic civilization, but at present its continued existence as such is problematic. So, we’re in a “what would you like for Christmas” discussion. Christmas could come with the survival of our present civilization, or if and when we get past the presently threatening dark age.
The “encyclopedia” I would like for Christmas goes beyond anything that presently exists. But first, a couple of definitions:
encyclopedia: a web based repository of commonly accepted knowledge with links to proposed, but not yet commonly accepted knowledge
knowledge: a story about some significant aspect of objective reality from which propositions can be constructed that most people agree are true.
A few characteristics of my dream encyclopedia:
a) web based
b) multilingual
c) multimedia
d) dynamic
e) multiple views
f) regular expression searchable
g) AI interface
h) linked to tutorials
i) linked to discussions
However, it seems to me that some of the social cohesion problems you touch on would not be entirely addressed by even my dream encyclopedia:
1) “the positions which clash are experienced as utterly irrefutable for whomever adopts them”
2) “each faction is committed to their own standard of argument, and so disagreements proceed from entirely different sets of practices and premises”
It seems to me that given the nature of the human psyche, there’s no fix for (2). With regard to (1) I’m not sure that presently there are sufficient social reality propositions that a majority agree on to sustain an advanced civilization. Without sufficient agreement on some fundamentals our civilization will eventually collapse. I suggested a few of these in a reply at “The Great Graveyard of Humanity”.
Thanks for this discussion, Frank. The encyclopaedia problem is becoming more urgent, because what's currently happening is that tech companies (and I include the Wikipedia foundation in this) have their own metaphysical commitments and political agendas, and are forcing through their interpretations in various places. This not only makes knowledge suspect in any of the many contexts that have been politicised and removed from empirical investigation (more on this in two weeks here), but it also thwarts attempts to negotiate new understandings.
I note that the dictionary prior to 2020 managed to maintain separate senses under words, and could therefore record all the different meanings of words without having to attempt to socially engineer language. This is not currently the case. Political causes now lead dictionary definitions (witness the gerrymandering of the meaning of 'vaccine' in the last four years) - another serious sign of the problem.
I do not believe we can get over this hump without a significant realignment on important epistemological issues, for which there is currently neither the forum nor the mechanism to arrange. This in a sense is the root problem with our rapidly emptying encyclopaedia.
If we are committed to an online form, the one thing I can say is the Wikipedia is foredoomed because it is modelled on the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and (worse) has set up practices that are nonsensical and contradictory. For instance, contributors to the Wikipedia are prohibited from doing 'original research' yet responsible for determining 'notability', for which no neutral (you might say 'objective', although I won't) measurements exist. So Wikipedia editors are already in impossible ground.
I think what we need is a way of arranging an encyclopaedia that is closer in form to the form of a dictionary, that records meanings of words through observation. This would allow competing forms of knowledge conception to be indexed together in the encyclopaedia - which would be an incredible step forward for epistemology. But to get there, something has to be done about the conceptual crossfire caused by the red team-blue team divide in the United States, from whence so many of our problems sadly either originate or are exacerbated.
"each faction is committed to their own standards of argument, and so disagreements proceed from entirely different sets of practices and premises."
When I first began to really feel the pressure of our new circumstances (sometime back in 2016 I think), my trouble evidently lay in how to communicate without ceding the linguistic ground. It felt to me that if I allowed my interlocutor to set the rules of the linguistic game, I could never express myself. And most of the work I've been doing since has been to find a way to use my own language and hold my linguistic ground when confronted with the various linguistic fields others were trying to pull me into. It's still a struggle, but I have more control of the situation and feel less bamboozled and flustered than in the past. That said, I also have come to recognise when there simply is no point in attempting a conversation, much the way one learns not to bother in discussion with cult members or religious fanatics. We've talked about this before and you seem to feel you've been able to build bridges where I see no way of doing so, but then, I lack tact, and perhaps that can make all the difference. Thanks for another compelling piece, Chris.
Sorry I have not had the time to comment/reply to pieces at analogy. I hope I can rectify this in the coming month. I am visiting my daughter in Jerusalem. While she’s at work I have all day for studying and writing.
I’m not sure what you mean by the “language game”. Here’s how I see the situation:
In each of our minds we attached words to different mental patterns. With these words we each build our own mental constructs. At the beginning of a conversation with a new person I should assume that the other person has at least a slightly different meaning for a word than I do. Hence, for meaningful dialogue effort must be spent in establishing common meanings. This assumes the other person really wants to engage in meaningful dialogue. My experience is that most people don’t.
I agree that often “there simply is no point in attempting a conversation”. We all consider our own ideas as parts of ourselves, so our initial reaction to any differences is to protect ourselves. Before meaningful dialogue can take place, all parties have to feel safe. Challenges to one’s ideas are taken as personal attacks. So, some degree of trust (commonality) must be established before substantive conversation can take place.
That’s my theory, anyway. I often feel that I have not managed to apply it successfully.
In another vein, would you care to say more about what you mean by “our new circumstances”? Is what you mean similar to Chris’s New Normal?
Where in Jerusalem? I lived there from 1993 to 2002.
The "linguistic game" to which I refer is the rhetorical field of play. If we're talking woke ideology for instance the language plied will be one of "oppressed vs oppressor." If you attempt to argue on its own terms or by the rules of the victim game, you will always lose. For instance, to explain to someone with that mindset that the black-and-white vision is itself oppressive, they will respond that you are expressing white guilt (even if you're black or brown). This is because the game is rigged. As soon as you are drawn into their field, it's game over.
As for feeling "safe," this is a new notion entirely and one with which I disagree, largely because of its woke cousin "unsafe"--which simply means "uncomfortable." The world you and I were raised in was one in which "uncomfortable" was not remotely a horrible thing, but a means to growth and inner development. Indeed, as an artist, I was taught that it was my duty to unsettle people. And this was part of the fun of the endeavour and the experience of art. It was also the idea of education and debate as well. In fact, most spheres of human interaction involve unsettling circumstances... and the idea was to embrace the great adventure.
I believe this "safe/unsafe" axis encapsulates well our new circumstances. I grew up watching Evel Kneivel and playing with his toys. Now kids are crying to mama because of a micro-aggression, and adults are running to HR for the same.
I’m in Tzur Hadassa, a sizable residential community outside of Jerusalem. Interesting experience. My daughter is a journalist for Bloomberg and my son-in-law was just yesterday release from reserve duty in Gaza. It’s certainly an interesting time to be on a family visit in Israel.
Thanks for helping me get a better a better understanding of what’s meant by “linguist game”. The Wikipedia entry focuses on Wittenstein’s use of the term. There, a key sentence appears to be: “The meaning of the word depends on the language game within which it is being used.”
The creation and use of language appears to be a uniquely human capability. Other life forms obviously communicate, but as nearly as we can tell, their communications are nowhere near as diverse and complex as ours. When and how humans developed language is, and probably always will be, somewhat of a mystery. Humans use language for many different purposes. In this discussion, it seems to me that we’re talking about two different purposes. One is in dialogue where the objective is to develop a common understanding about what is, the other is to stimulate new thoughts. In pursuing the second objective it is often useful to create some emotional discomfort. Such is not the case when pursuing the first objective. There is an emotional element in all natural language communication. What is, is impervious to emotion, and hence to arrive at a common understanding of what is, it is useful to try to establish mutual levels of trust. Anyway, such is my understanding.
One of my own purposes in reading and writing here at Stranger Worlds is do advance my own understanding, so encountering discomfort is useful.
I don't know Tzur Hadassah. Sounds interesting all round for sure.
Wittgenstein did indeed write about language games and certainly helps one think creatively about language. I wasn't making a direct allusion to his ideas, but they do apply here. And you make a good point in that regard. No doubt I've been influenced by Wittgenstein. He's among the philosoohers i have patience for and find rewarding.
I like your distinction between types of communication and the role of discomfort. It seems on point. I suppose i tend to worry about in-group language that creates an out-group, and that is common to both specialised fields and cults.
Thanks for the kind words, Asa. I feel quite strongly that being able to hold one's own language together coherently is vital for sanity, and a much underappreciated capacity too (I believe I wrote about it last year from a personal perspective, during April). As for 'building bridges' - I'm not sure I would put it this way although such is always my hope. To some extent I have been able to 'cross between worlds' and thus appreciate where other people live, which I suppose is the reason for Stranger Worlds in the first place... But building those much-needed bridges is far more difficult. If I initially hoped that I could foster a community here that might be able to do so, I am now coming to accept that just the attempt at the discourse matters, especially under current circumstances. Anything that opens up new or newly-rediscovered paths might be worthwhile. As long as we can still talk, there is hope.
Indeed, “the attempt at the discourse matters”. Although I have not found them yet, surely there are other places on the web where others are making similar attempts. As far as we know, everything has a beginning. All rivers begin as small trickles in different places.
Re: “the search engines of Google Rex only index whatever pleases the throne.”
Years ago, I attended a conference presentation by Google on the architecture of its search engine. No mention was made of any sort of censoring ability. Perhaps that has changed. Can you give any references to backup your claim that Google’s search results are now filtered for conformance to corporate policy?
It's far worse than 'corporate policy', I'm afraid Frank - but thus far, the legal cases in which Google is embroiled have managed to rebuff disclosure, and until Google gets caught up in disclosure we won't know the whole story. But it is a fact that Google has been tweaking search engine results in support of its own political alignments for some time. They suppressed, for instance, the Hunter Biden laptop story, which later turned out to be true and not a Russian op as had been accused, and they utterly suppressed the Great Barrington Declaration during the recent Nonsense.
I am short of time, but I'll just throw in this article as a point of reference for now:
https://public.substack.com/p/telegraph-uk-govt-bbc-and-google
Hi Chris, thanks for the bits of history.
There’s a lot to chew on here. In this comment I’ll just cite and comment on a few the phrases I completely resonate with:
a) “yet the encyclopaedia and its digital successors represent a role we inheritors of the mantle of civilization cannot quite survive without.”
b) “it is by having shared knowledge that we agree upon reasonable restrictions”
c) “civilized people require a collective encyclopaedia in order to support an epistemic commons”
In a civilization of predominately democratic states the established knowledge base should be accessible to all citizens. Anything less leaves doors open for social manipulation by special interests. We currently have a predominately democratic civilization, but at present its continued existence as such is problematic. So, we’re in a “what would you like for Christmas” discussion. Christmas could come with the survival of our present civilization, or if and when we get past the presently threatening dark age.
The “encyclopedia” I would like for Christmas goes beyond anything that presently exists. But first, a couple of definitions:
encyclopedia: a web based repository of commonly accepted knowledge with links to proposed, but not yet commonly accepted knowledge
knowledge: a story about some significant aspect of objective reality from which propositions can be constructed that most people agree are true.
A few characteristics of my dream encyclopedia:
a) web based
b) multilingual
c) multimedia
d) dynamic
e) multiple views
f) regular expression searchable
g) AI interface
h) linked to tutorials
i) linked to discussions
However, it seems to me that some of the social cohesion problems you touch on would not be entirely addressed by even my dream encyclopedia:
1) “the positions which clash are experienced as utterly irrefutable for whomever adopts them”
2) “each faction is committed to their own standard of argument, and so disagreements proceed from entirely different sets of practices and premises”
It seems to me that given the nature of the human psyche, there’s no fix for (2). With regard to (1) I’m not sure that presently there are sufficient social reality propositions that a majority agree on to sustain an advanced civilization. Without sufficient agreement on some fundamentals our civilization will eventually collapse. I suggested a few of these in a reply at “The Great Graveyard of Humanity”.
Thanks for this discussion, Frank. The encyclopaedia problem is becoming more urgent, because what's currently happening is that tech companies (and I include the Wikipedia foundation in this) have their own metaphysical commitments and political agendas, and are forcing through their interpretations in various places. This not only makes knowledge suspect in any of the many contexts that have been politicised and removed from empirical investigation (more on this in two weeks here), but it also thwarts attempts to negotiate new understandings.
I note that the dictionary prior to 2020 managed to maintain separate senses under words, and could therefore record all the different meanings of words without having to attempt to socially engineer language. This is not currently the case. Political causes now lead dictionary definitions (witness the gerrymandering of the meaning of 'vaccine' in the last four years) - another serious sign of the problem.
I do not believe we can get over this hump without a significant realignment on important epistemological issues, for which there is currently neither the forum nor the mechanism to arrange. This in a sense is the root problem with our rapidly emptying encyclopaedia.
If we are committed to an online form, the one thing I can say is the Wikipedia is foredoomed because it is modelled on the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and (worse) has set up practices that are nonsensical and contradictory. For instance, contributors to the Wikipedia are prohibited from doing 'original research' yet responsible for determining 'notability', for which no neutral (you might say 'objective', although I won't) measurements exist. So Wikipedia editors are already in impossible ground.
I think what we need is a way of arranging an encyclopaedia that is closer in form to the form of a dictionary, that records meanings of words through observation. This would allow competing forms of knowledge conception to be indexed together in the encyclopaedia - which would be an incredible step forward for epistemology. But to get there, something has to be done about the conceptual crossfire caused by the red team-blue team divide in the United States, from whence so many of our problems sadly either originate or are exacerbated.
Many thanks for your thoughtful comment, Frank!
Chris.
You forgot "plagiarism"!
I think this captures the issue pretty elegantly:
"each faction is committed to their own standards of argument, and so disagreements proceed from entirely different sets of practices and premises."
When I first began to really feel the pressure of our new circumstances (sometime back in 2016 I think), my trouble evidently lay in how to communicate without ceding the linguistic ground. It felt to me that if I allowed my interlocutor to set the rules of the linguistic game, I could never express myself. And most of the work I've been doing since has been to find a way to use my own language and hold my linguistic ground when confronted with the various linguistic fields others were trying to pull me into. It's still a struggle, but I have more control of the situation and feel less bamboozled and flustered than in the past. That said, I also have come to recognise when there simply is no point in attempting a conversation, much the way one learns not to bother in discussion with cult members or religious fanatics. We've talked about this before and you seem to feel you've been able to build bridges where I see no way of doing so, but then, I lack tact, and perhaps that can make all the difference. Thanks for another compelling piece, Chris.
Hi Asa,
Sorry I have not had the time to comment/reply to pieces at analogy. I hope I can rectify this in the coming month. I am visiting my daughter in Jerusalem. While she’s at work I have all day for studying and writing.
I’m not sure what you mean by the “language game”. Here’s how I see the situation:
In each of our minds we attached words to different mental patterns. With these words we each build our own mental constructs. At the beginning of a conversation with a new person I should assume that the other person has at least a slightly different meaning for a word than I do. Hence, for meaningful dialogue effort must be spent in establishing common meanings. This assumes the other person really wants to engage in meaningful dialogue. My experience is that most people don’t.
I agree that often “there simply is no point in attempting a conversation”. We all consider our own ideas as parts of ourselves, so our initial reaction to any differences is to protect ourselves. Before meaningful dialogue can take place, all parties have to feel safe. Challenges to one’s ideas are taken as personal attacks. So, some degree of trust (commonality) must be established before substantive conversation can take place.
That’s my theory, anyway. I often feel that I have not managed to apply it successfully.
In another vein, would you care to say more about what you mean by “our new circumstances”? Is what you mean similar to Chris’s New Normal?
Where in Jerusalem? I lived there from 1993 to 2002.
The "linguistic game" to which I refer is the rhetorical field of play. If we're talking woke ideology for instance the language plied will be one of "oppressed vs oppressor." If you attempt to argue on its own terms or by the rules of the victim game, you will always lose. For instance, to explain to someone with that mindset that the black-and-white vision is itself oppressive, they will respond that you are expressing white guilt (even if you're black or brown). This is because the game is rigged. As soon as you are drawn into their field, it's game over.
As for feeling "safe," this is a new notion entirely and one with which I disagree, largely because of its woke cousin "unsafe"--which simply means "uncomfortable." The world you and I were raised in was one in which "uncomfortable" was not remotely a horrible thing, but a means to growth and inner development. Indeed, as an artist, I was taught that it was my duty to unsettle people. And this was part of the fun of the endeavour and the experience of art. It was also the idea of education and debate as well. In fact, most spheres of human interaction involve unsettling circumstances... and the idea was to embrace the great adventure.
I believe this "safe/unsafe" axis encapsulates well our new circumstances. I grew up watching Evel Kneivel and playing with his toys. Now kids are crying to mama because of a micro-aggression, and adults are running to HR for the same.
Hi Asa,
I’m in Tzur Hadassa, a sizable residential community outside of Jerusalem. Interesting experience. My daughter is a journalist for Bloomberg and my son-in-law was just yesterday release from reserve duty in Gaza. It’s certainly an interesting time to be on a family visit in Israel.
Thanks for helping me get a better a better understanding of what’s meant by “linguist game”. The Wikipedia entry focuses on Wittenstein’s use of the term. There, a key sentence appears to be: “The meaning of the word depends on the language game within which it is being used.”
The creation and use of language appears to be a uniquely human capability. Other life forms obviously communicate, but as nearly as we can tell, their communications are nowhere near as diverse and complex as ours. When and how humans developed language is, and probably always will be, somewhat of a mystery. Humans use language for many different purposes. In this discussion, it seems to me that we’re talking about two different purposes. One is in dialogue where the objective is to develop a common understanding about what is, the other is to stimulate new thoughts. In pursuing the second objective it is often useful to create some emotional discomfort. Such is not the case when pursuing the first objective. There is an emotional element in all natural language communication. What is, is impervious to emotion, and hence to arrive at a common understanding of what is, it is useful to try to establish mutual levels of trust. Anyway, such is my understanding.
One of my own purposes in reading and writing here at Stranger Worlds is do advance my own understanding, so encountering discomfort is useful.
I don't know Tzur Hadassah. Sounds interesting all round for sure.
Wittgenstein did indeed write about language games and certainly helps one think creatively about language. I wasn't making a direct allusion to his ideas, but they do apply here. And you make a good point in that regard. No doubt I've been influenced by Wittgenstein. He's among the philosoohers i have patience for and find rewarding.
I like your distinction between types of communication and the role of discomfort. It seems on point. I suppose i tend to worry about in-group language that creates an out-group, and that is common to both specialised fields and cults.
Thanks for the kind words, Asa. I feel quite strongly that being able to hold one's own language together coherently is vital for sanity, and a much underappreciated capacity too (I believe I wrote about it last year from a personal perspective, during April). As for 'building bridges' - I'm not sure I would put it this way although such is always my hope. To some extent I have been able to 'cross between worlds' and thus appreciate where other people live, which I suppose is the reason for Stranger Worlds in the first place... But building those much-needed bridges is far more difficult. If I initially hoped that I could foster a community here that might be able to do so, I am now coming to accept that just the attempt at the discourse matters, especially under current circumstances. Anything that opens up new or newly-rediscovered paths might be worthwhile. As long as we can still talk, there is hope.
With unlimited love,
Chris.
Indeed, “the attempt at the discourse matters”. Although I have not found them yet, surely there are other places on the web where others are making similar attempts. As far as we know, everything has a beginning. All rivers begin as small trickles in different places.