By Jutta Schmitt

6th May, 2003

It was one of those brief ad hoc journeys we sometimes make to Chiguará, a hidden, picturesque mountain village an hour’s drive from town. The usual Panamericana ride along the Sun Route leads through miles of a hot, desert like landscape with keenly shaped sandstone formations and forests of cacti and acacias on dark red soil. Where the Sun Route fades away and melts into a somewhat cooler climate, a narrow road branches off into the mountains and takes the voyager to the charming heights of what we like to call the “Independent Republic of Chiguará” for some of its remarkable, insubordinate inhabitants.

This small peasant village, once it has uncovered itself at the end of a fifteen minutes´ climb, clings onto a steep part of the mountainous region and opens up its very heart, the wide and friendly Plaza Bolívar, just a few corners after the entrance. Across the Plaza, facing the cathedral and inserted in a colourful line of neat houses, lies “El Momoi”, a friend´s house that carries the name of a legendary Andean dwarf and hosts one of Chiguará´s two modest restaurants.

As we stepped into the tiny, cave-like restaurant on the ground floor of El Momoi that day, a bunch of roses caught my eyes, held in a clay vase on a stool and caressed by a ray of sunlight that crossed the room through one of the small, open windows. Something struck me about the flowers, their petals seemed denser than those of other roses I had seen, absorbing and kind of retaining the light, making the filigree heads radiate in their own colours. From the kitchen, which can be looked into for being just an open extension of the main restaurant room, emerged Marina the waitress and greeted us warmly while the old, wooden staircase in the back of the room announced our friend Rafaela coming down, the stairs creaking noisily with each of her steps. She welcomed everyone with a long, firm embrace. We sat down at one of the tables with Marina whirling around us, serving black coffee and oven-baked, flat wheat cake, still warm and filled with grated cheese.

Hardly had we finished eating when the bearded face of Carlos Manuel, Rafaela´s husband, turned up at our table, his brown eyes sparkling in defiance. “How much time do we still have left?”, he asked, taking a seat. “We do not have to talk about the ifs, the only question here is when”, he said, reaching deep down into his pocket. To light came a wrinkled packet of cigarettes which he laid onto the table to share a smoke. The packet went round and so did a match. For a few moments we all sat quiet and meditative, observing the smoke from our cigarettes rise above our heads in dancing blue circles, forming a dense layer beneath the ceiling.

“So tell me, when will the bastards come for us, for our oil, for our water, for our country´s rich fauna and flora? When will they patent our indigenous peoples´ ancient knowledge, when will they claim royalty fees on the growing of herbs our ancestors have used already for medical treatment? When will we finally be strangers on our own soil, in our own forests, on our own shores? When will we stand under this deep blue sky and see it turn red, see our hearts´ and hands´ daily efforts be bombed to pieces, see the American flag insult our view? All we have been dreaming of, all we patiently have begun to construct since president Chávez came to power, is being obstructed and overshadowed by the big boot that threatens to crush us any time! My question is, when will that time come?” Carlos´ dark, persistent eyes searched for an answer in each of our faces.

The ray of sunlight that had painted the roses when we had entered the restaurant earlier, had meanwhile made its way through the open backyard door from where it reached our table, immersing Carlos Manuel into a bright aura that contrasted eerily with his sinister mood. Serenity and darkness uniquely touched each other and materialized in his person for a brief moment. “He seems a perfect reflection of our times”, I thought to myself as I watched him become contradiction. - Spring has woken up this country from decades of hibernation; here are its people, blooming and blossoming, acting and thinking and inventing their Bolivarian Revolution, gladly taking the risks of erring. They have simply had enough of five hundred years of foreign imposition of economic and political realities detrimental to their hopes, aspirations and very lives, of importing the ‘wisdom’ of societal models alien to their spontaneity and humanity or at least to what is left of these after the catastrophic encounter with an all-devouring, essentially self-destructive economic system, that has lived up to its deadly consequences throughout the past centuries. Here are a country´s people who have stood up to face and challenge their destiny, determined to change it of, by and for themselves. And now, in front of this newly rising sun, emerges a cloud and casts its dreadful shadow upon these creative efforts, the shadow of empire, the shadow of fascism, the shadow of corporatism expanding itself all over the globe in a last, desperate act before its inevitable, cataclysmic implosion. - Such were my contemplations while Carlos continued speaking.

“We know where they will come from; they will encircle us from the outside, from Colombia, Aruba, Curaçao, maybe even from Guyana, and they will suffocate us from within, employing terrorism within our borders. They lay the noose around our neck and soon they will be pulling it tight. All this because we have had the courage to take our destiny into our hands, with president Chávez at the steering wheel, navigating on oceans of black gold that lie beneath our soil. They, who keep trampling upon each and every authentic effort of our Latin American peoples to pursue the right to self-determination and happiness, they, who are spitting upon their own constitution, still dare give us lessons about democracy and human rights! Who in the world wants their kind of democracy? Who in the world wants their kind of human rights? No one in their sane mind, except our former ruling elite turned opposition, of course, would volunteer for such a farce!”

These were words coming from an eminently empirical man, who had constructed many of Chiguará's newer houses while maintaining the traditional art and craftsmanship and paying respect to the ancient style and architecture of the time-honoured buildings. A man of laborious practice and an inventive spirit, who formed part of a communal experiment, Mistajá Cooperative, launched under a new law for cooperative associations giving people the chance to voluntarily unite their work force in small groups of producers so as to organize their own production and distribution of goods and income. The democratization process of the Bolivarian Revolution was not at all limited to the political realm, but an active, economically and socially protagonist engagement had been encouraged in the form of autonomous cooperatives, open and flexible organizations under the control of both, their associated workers and the consumers of their products.

And here he was, an actively and enthusiastically engaged worker, co-manager and co-owner of Mistajá Cooperative, a craftsman, architect and agronomist, one of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans who had committed the whole of their energy to the unique effort of creating not only a new political system, but a different kind of socio-economic fabric that would have a human face and touch. As he lit another cigarette, he rose from his seat as defiant as he had taken it. “Are you prepared? I am prepared”, he said. “So let them come. Other than that I am afraid there is not much to say these days. Everything is fine, and yes – not everything is fine at all!” He bid farewell to us, stepped though the backyard door and disappeared in the bright sunlight.

I doubted he or anyone here was prepared. - How do you prepare to face and counteract an arsenal of conventional, nuclear, chemical, biological and even geophysical weapons in a combination of low, medium and, in the end, high intensity warfare? -, I asked myself. I thought of the biological warfare disguised as a 'war on drugs' the Americans were conducting in neigbouring Colombia, this tragic country converted into a macabre test ground for chemical and biological agents, threatening its immense biodiversity and its inhabitants´ health and lives. I remembered December 15th, 1999, the fateful day of the decisive popular referendum in Venezuela, when the new constitution was submitted to the people for approbation. That day, the federal State of Vargas had literally been swept into the ocean by devastating torrential rains, product of a climatic constellation never before experienced over Venezuela´s coastal region in what could well have been a test case for remote control of atmospheric phenomena.

A fresh and strong breeze from the Plaza came through the entrance door of El Momoi, and as I felt the cool wind in my hair, the ultimate logic and apex of a hostile, dying, globalized mode of production imposed itself onto my mind in a mighty picture. Nature itself - man´s natural environment and habitat, his very lifeline, had been converted into a lethal weapon of war as the logical result of a process, that had started out as the ‘liberation of man from the yoke of nature’ and that had progressively converted tools and means of production into weapons and means of destruction.

Time had come to leave. When we got up from the table, Rafaela reached for the stool where the roses stood in their clay vase. Carefully, she picked one of the beautiful flowers from the bunch and gave it to me in a warm, spontaneous gesture. “Where do you get these incredible roses from?”, I asked her. “From the most special rose gardener in the region”, she replied. “Who would that be?”, I inquired. “Mistajá Cooperative”, she said with a smile. As I marvelled at the silently glowing rose in my hand, a true piece of natural art and artistic nature, it flashed through my mind: “They can trample upon and crush all the flowers, but they cannot stop the coming of spring!”

However and uncomfortably, I couldn´t help thinking that his may well not be true anymore.

-----oOo-----

Venezuela, Labour Day 2003

To Learn to Act and Think the Revolution

By Franz J. T. Lee

01/05/03.

A spectre is haunting the Fourth Reich -- the spectre of Chavéz!

All the oligarchic powers in Venezuela and abroad have entered into a fascist, neo-liberal alliance to exorcise this spectre: Otto Reich and CAP, Aznar and Estanga, Ortega and Gaviria, "Friends of Venezuela" and Enemies of "Castro-Communism". Where is the "party" in the "opposition" that did not decry Chavéz as a "dictator", as a "tyrant"? Where is the anti-governmental "stormtrooper of the apocalypsis" that did not try to assassinate his character?

After the brutal massacre of dozens of bolivarians, especially between April 11 and 13, 2002, after various serious attempts of political and economic coups, that normally no oppressive government ever would have survived, now Chavéz is No. 1 on the hit list of the mercenary "Death Squads". With the most democratic constitution that the world ever has seen in the hand, for the majority of Venezuelans, for 85% of 24 million people, who have been languishing in critical misery and poverty over the last half-a-century, two things remain very clearly: No puede ser!! Uh, Ah, Chavéz no se va!! Their President must remain in power, if necessary, till 2021.

Never mind the Damocles Sword of global fascist "shock and awe", of a possible foreign intervensionist "awestruck" over Caracas, the Bolivarian Republic is fulfilling its historic, social order, demonstrating praxically to the world a viable, possible alternative to neo-liberal savagery in Venezuela, in Latin America, and elsewhere. Definitely, the belligerent, corporate oil mongrels of Washington, London and Madrid, in their global fascist megalomania, first would have to eradicate every single worker, peasant, buhonero, child or bolivarian, in barbaric invasion, would have to raze the whole of Venezuela to the ground, in their forward march of trying to establish a Global Fourth Empire. They would have to develop arms against "miracles", against a people in arms, to eliminate all the people's armed forces, would have to commit war crimes against a revolution in arms, in the arms and hearts of millions across the globe. They would have to extinguish the very Bolivarian revolutionary spirit from the very globe.

Now, what have the above got to do with "Labour"? With May 1, with Labour Day? Yesterday, why did Chavéz, in a speech to the nation, so vehemently attack Capital and Capitalism? Why does Lula speak about a "class war" in Latin America?

Looking through my window here in Mérida, outside there, at the foot of Pico Bolivar, everything is still near and clear, simple and easy, only a limited panorama enters our vision. Higher up, things already move to a distance, they are seen in another context, more related, complex and they can only be reflected as such. To explain this complex, complicated matter to someone who forever has been living, acting and thinking in a flat limited world, is well-nigh impossible. For her/him to understand concepts like Labour, Ideology or Revolution, s(he) must make some intellectual effort, must ascend Pico Bolivar, at least to the second station of the "teleférico", of the cable car, lying in the middle part.

Who reaches the top, has an all round view, see things in the far distance, everything appears vague, cloudy and intangible, but s(he) can see all sorts of relations, have a global vision. And because s(he) has seen the other levels and degrees already, this mension can be used for precise, incisive and decisive investigation and research work, enabling her/him, to mount other "inaccessible" heights and depths, to reach other microscopic and macroscopic spheres of productive world revolution and creative, galactic emancipation.

This has to be kept in mind, in the Bolivarian schools and people's universities, where revolutionary práxis and theory have to be developed, studied, applied. To mix up the levels, degrees and mensions of things, of reality, can only lead to confusion, to reactionary "escualidism", to political bankruptcy of the so-called "opposition".

In short, simple things, like conserving potable water, not to sing more than one song under the shower, realities that are able to be captured by an opressed, uniformal mind, can and must be expressed straightforwardly as levels, and as such, they could be understood precisely. Complex things, like Práxis and Theory, like Ideology and Practice, cannot be expressed as simplicity, it is not their natural habitat. They presuppose intellectual work, social reflection and intellectual reproduction. Vague things like revolution and emancipation, include simple and complex issues, but scientifically and philosophically, they can only be seen rationally, with real, true Reason, with Wisdom, and should be understood and explained in an opaque fashion; to explain them in a simple and complex way, as catechism or manual for beginners, is simply a useless task, will just call turmoil and devastating typhoons on the scene, and this will transform itself into an ill wind which blows nobody "good".

In real socialization, true education, there are three legitimate ways to express any "event": simply, complex and vague, thus, reflecting its even, uneven and combined development. The most precise scientific and philosophic method is precisely the latter, no matter how "concrete" we generally want to be, to be down to earth. Creatively, the Bolivarian Revolution has to be acted, be thought, be formulated transhistorically, it needs a Práxis-Theory, that considers political economy, social class differences, the labour struggle, its internal, intensive "class struggle", a philosophy that surpasses all forms of global lies, ideology and mind control.

Everybody, every Venezuelan worker, every Bolivarian should know what is Labour, what is a Labourer, what is Capital, what is Capitalism; should learn the transhistoric lessons, resulting from such gruesome phenomena like September 11 or April 11, the hard way, by her- or himself, by means of simple Práxis, complex Theory and vague Emancipation.

Very briefly, in our conception of History, there are, exist and transcend various relations between Nature and Society; one of them is Labour, which forms the very essence and existence of the Patria, of the Fatherland. This Relation, Labour, we identified as Alienation, as the process of Estrangement itself in History. Hence, it is not Labour which is alienated, and that it should be emancipated from Alienation. Alienation is Labour per se, and Labour is Alienation ab ovo. Creativity, Creation, Recreation, are certain identifiable things, however, Labour, Work, are completely different things.

Ever since the 19th century "Social Democracy", ever since the 20th century "October Revolution", a lot has changed within the international working class, from war to war it was transformed, has transformed itself. Now, in the Third Millennium, Workers of the World, Quo vadis? What do you have to lose? Your "golden" chains? No! Meanwhile, your very heads!

Looking at the British "mad cows", looking at the US-British human butchery in Iraq, it's Labour Day, 2003. May Day! May Day!! It's S.O.S.! Millions of useless "cattle", ten thousands of dirty, unciivilized "Arabs", were slaughtered like "Jews"; they were burnt in a horrible nazi "holocaust". Look at the fascist, heinous "awestruck" in Baghdad!! We thought that those times were gone; we still wonder how it could have happened at all. But, Big Brother is here! He is ignipotent, he is omnipotent, blows anything, from Twin Towers to the Cradle of Humanity, to Mesopotamia, to blazes!

When absolutist feudalism was toppled by the French Revolution, when the Industrial Revolution was driving the serfs and peasants off the lands because their agricultural labour was obsolete, Vagrant Laws -- especially under Henry VIII already, by hundred thousands -- just massacred the unwanted en masse. Of course, then, the modern working class, the proletariat, the future physical labourers were also born, came of age.

Now, we are experiencing another Global Technological and Nanotechnological Transvolution, a Revolution, that is ushering in a post-productive mode of existence, mainly utilizing "intellectual labour forces", thus condemning physical labour forces to extinction; globally, over the last decades, machines, computers, the intelligentsia drove hundreds of thousands of physical labourers into dire poverty, into obsolescence.

After Iraq, more massive global Euro-American butcheries are on the global order of the day; in the 20th century, it was called fascism or nazism. Today it is called "Anti-Terrorism", "Civilization", the New World Order or Globalization. And, the international working class, the obsolete sector, is now the "terrorist class". Long live the "terrorist class"! You have nothing to lose, except your "terror"! It's Civilization or Barbarism! It's Hobson's Choice!

Until now, in all modes of production, War supposedly had cured all Labour Problems -- will it succeed this time? Will the pipe-dreams of the giga-corporations in the oil-rich Persian and Caspian regions sweep away the physical labour class by the billions? Can the O.78% of the current working class, the intellectual labourers, still save humanity? Can the Venezuelan práxico-theoretical "Miracle of Caracas", the emancipatory result of decades of revolutionary dedication, light the transhistoric trail towards historic beauty, truth and love?

-----oOo-----

INTUITIVE PHILOSOPHY AND INFORMATION WARFARE

by Carl Zimmerman

"Bits and Bytes" will replace bullets and bombs

Imagine a future scenario of "information paralysis." The only information you receive is from a source that defines your survival needs, and tells you what to learn and say, which foods to eat, how you must dress, and whom to trust, mistrust and associate with. This is different than the old, familiar type of dictatorship, in which disobedience meant imprisonment or death. With information paralysis, disobedience is virtually impossible because you are denied access to the information needed to implement it.

How did this happen? Your country, which includes you, lost an "information war" imposed by an adversary. Many experts believe that information war (cyber war), using "bits and bytes" as weapons, will replace "bullets and bombs" conventional warfare as the major form of warfare in the future.

Information is a strategic resource that may prove as valuable in this postindustrial era as capital and labor were in the industrial age. Cyber-armies will consist of small numbers of highly mobile networks with decentralized information for their own tactical initiative and for central commanders to alter strategies if necessary in sync with changing conditions. The winner is the one that knows more, dispersing the "fog" of war yet enshrouding the loser in it.

Throughout history, information wars have been conducted, such as the Mongols of the 13th century and recently the U.S. and its allies in the Persian Gulf war. Although the Mongol "hordes" were almost always outnumbered by their adversaries, they conquered and held one of the largest known continental empires for more than a century. Their success was due to dominance of battlefield information. Their "arrow riders" kept field commanders, often separated by hundreds of miles, in daily communication. Even the Great Khan, thousands of miles away, was aware of field developments within days. The role of information in the victory of the U.S. and its allies in the recent Persian Gulf war is well known.

The computer "viruses" spread by the "intruder community" exemplifies cyber-warfare on a small scale. Today, viruses destroy specific software such as word processors, but in the future "logic bombs" will destroy the entire operating system. The operating system will "burn itself out" trying to find elusive files.

Imagine the chaos caused by destruction of computerized operating systems of hydroelectric and nuclear power plants, water supplies, aircraft traffic control, public transportation. This would enable unseen conventional cyber armies to impose the "information paralysis" scenario described earlier. By controlling the flow of information, these armies would remain hidden, impervious to retaliation.

Know yourself and "out-know" your enemy

War is politics, and in the wars (and business) of the industrial age, winning has depended more on "who you know than "what you know." In the information wars (and probably business) of the postindustrial era, the reverse will be the dominant determinant. To prevent information paralysis or overcome it if it should occur, you will need to know more than your adversary, especially more about your adversary than your adversary knows about you. This will enable you to move faster and achieve a higher success rate.

Put objectivity in perspective

You will not have enough time to wait for data collected by independent observers and interpreted by machines before making decisions and taking action. In short, you will have to give up "the cult of objectivity," which has dominated the behavior of most thinking people in the western world for more than a century. Objectivity, however, should not be totally discarded, as it will continue to be a valuable operational tool. You will just need to put it into perspective, using the combination of intuition and objectivity that works best, depending on the situation. To accomplish this difficult task and, thus, prepare for future information wars, I offer the following interrelated recommendations:

Know yourself

Know your allies

Know your adversaries

Know your philosophy

Know yourself at all times. This is critical in understanding the people and events that impact on you, and earning the respect of your allies. It is also valuable in resisting your adversaries' disinformation "traps" intended to manipulate you into making bad decisions. The disinformation may be positive (flattery) or negative (portraying an ally as an adversary).

Know your allies--You can't win any war alone.

Know your adversaries, especially their strengths and weaknesses.

Intuitive philosophy is the key

I believe that intuitive philosophy is the key to knowing yourself, your allies and your adversaries, and winning future information wars. To explore this further, let's start with the following definition of philosophy for the postindustrial (information) era:

"The relationship between thinking and reality."

"Thinking" --your own and others'-- will be your most powerful weapon in coping with the realities of information wars. When you consider the speed and flexibility that these realities will impose, the intuitive ideas (thinking) of many modern philosophers will be more beneficial in this type of conflict than objective concepts. Examples of these intuitive ideas, many of which will be discussed in future issues of this newsletter in relation to information warfare and other subjects, are as follows:

- Integrate your ideas and avoid fragmentation of your thoughts (D. Bohm) --an excellent defense against disinformation and thought control.

- Understand the role of emotions in maintaining the structure and function of the body (S. Freud) for your own physical health and peace of mind. Also, listen emphatically, which will be an asset in obtaining support and cooperation of your allies.

- Understand the role of the "collective unconscious" in human communications and bonding (C. Jung). This will be another asset in your relations with allies, and may be helpful in turning adversaries over to your side.

- Recognize the "crowd symbol" of your culture and that of your adversaries (E. Canetti). Identify the bias formed by the current leading technology that shapes your culture and those of your allies and adversaries (M. McLuhan). These will help tremendously in understanding, communicating with and influencing allies and adversaries.

- Develop your own intuitive philosophy, and change it to best meet your own needs and situation. Trust your thinking and intuition. These will be your greatest assets in information warfare.

© 1997 by New Renaissance. All Rights Reserved.

**************************************************************

Topic: Objectivity, Subjectivity and History

8th February, 2000

Natural Science and Philosophy - http://www.homestead.com/pandemonium2/files/juttcarl_0008.html

Jutta:

Objectivity, which tests the validity of scientific observations and hypotheses independently of the observer, is presumably independent of history. Paradoxically, objectivity was initiated under specific circumstances at a particular time in history.

Consequently, should the use of objectivity change as these circumstances change historically? For example, should today's intensified reification (objectification) of humanity, which is due mainly to an almost overwhelming use of technology, be tempered by increased use of subjectivity to arrive at a validity that coincides with human needs?

Carl

-------------------------

Hi Carl,

Your question touches on at least two different levels of the term "objectivity", that is, the epistemological and methodological level, which I have to illustrate at first, before being able to respond to you query.

1. The epistemological level gives an insight into various definitions of "objectivity", and has to do with the fundamental question of philosophy, as it deals with the relation of subjective recognition towards objective reality. Depending on how subjective recognition is being related to the objective world, we can differentiate the following conceptions of "objectivity" according to the main philosophical cosmovisions, in a very simplified way:

1.1. Objectivity in Philosophical Materialism.

For philosophical materialism, "object" is a reality and denotes the (natural) thing, that "exists" independent from and "outside" of subjective (human) recognition. "Objective reality" here is the material world, that exists outside of and independently from subjective (human) recognition. Accordingly, "objective" means "independent" from the subjective recognition of a human observer. The so called "laws of nature" for example are being conceived as "objective" in this sense. Thus, objectivity within this context consists in an "adequate reflection" of objective reality by subjective recognition, whereas adequate means the "coincidence" of subjective recognition with the recognized object itself.

According to this definition, a scientific observation or hypothesis is attributed "objectivity", if the described "facts" or circumstances in objective reality correspond to the scientific observation, "independently" from the very observation as well as from the very observer. The most radical variant of philosophical materialism is mechanical materialism as exposed by Büchner, Moleschott and Vogt, for example, where subjective recognition is denied in the sense, that it is completely equaled with objective reality itself, being reduced to "matter in motion", push and pressure. In this cosmovision, objectivity is "absolute" and ahistoric.

1.2. Objectivity in Philosophical Idealism:

For philosophical idealism, "object" also is a reality, but one of a different kind, as it denotes a property of subjective recognition itself, that exists as its product or simply as a different mode of being of "subject" or "spirit" (Hegel for example). Here, "objective reality", in the last analysis, coincides with the spiritual world itself, as a different mode of being of the spiritual world, and thus is "dependent" upon and "inside" of subjective recognition. "Objective" means dependent upon and determined by the subjective recognition of a human observer.

The "laws of nature" within this conception are being conceived as "objective" in the sense of being "materialized", subjective, logic relations (Hegel). Thus, objectivity within this context consists in the "adequate expression" of subjective recognition in and by "objective reality", having "adequate" the same meaning as in philosophical materialism: the "coincidence" of subjective recognition and recognized object itself.

According to this definition, a scientific observation or hypothesis relies on itself, depends upon the observer, and is attributed "objectivity", if the described "facts" or circumstances in objective reality express or "reflect" the scientific observation.

The most radical variant of philosophical idealism is subjectivistic idealism as exposed by George Berkeley, where objective reality is radically denied in the sense, that it is completely equaled with subjective recognition itself, being reduced to "images of the mind".

1.3. Objectivity in Agnosticism:

For Agnosticism, "objective reality" denotes a common supposition, an illusion. As the intellect or subjective recognition is exclusively aware of impressions, in other words of thought-things and not "real things", the existence of an objective reality remains a mere supposition in agnosticism. Agnosticism is, in the final analysis, another variant of philosophic idealism and comes very close to Berkeley's subjectivistic idealism. Yet, in agnosticism, objective reality kind of has "the benefit of the doubt".

Now, with regard to the first part of your question, Carl, we can determine, that you depart from the cosmovision as exposed by philosophical materialism, when you state, that "objectivity, (...) tests the validity of scientific observations and hypotheses independently of the observer, ...". You further state, that objectivity ... "is presumably independent of history. Paradoxically, objectivity was initiated under specific circumstances at a particular time in history."

Only if objectivity is being considered "absolute" in the mechanical-materialistic sense, can we affirm that it is "independent of history". However and not so paradoxically, philosophical materialism appears in "history" (we say: the labour process) precisely within the rise of the bourgeois society, and tightly connected to the development of the so called exact Natural Sciences. Philosophical Materialism provided the basis for the evolution of the Natural Sciences, which, on their part, prepared the ground for the coming capitalist mode of production, giving birth to an immense increase of the productive forces (technology of the industrial age). As a consequence, the social relations of the agricultural-based, feudalist mode of production began to shake, ending in the famous French Revolution, the political victory of the new, bourgeois mode of production.

So, "objectivity" as exposed by philosophical materialism and as the scientific method of the Natural Sciences is closely tied to the rise of capitalist society, and has not yet lost its validity.

2. As for the methodological level, it gives an insight into the Formal Logical context, of which "objectivity", as a scientific method claimed by the exact Natural Sciences as mentioned before, forms an intrinsic part.

"Objectivity" in this sense is postulated as an absolute concept, that is, as being cut off from any relation towards its counterpart, subjective recognition. The only "relation" established towards the latter is, that subjective recognition has to exactly "reflect" the facts of objective reality, that it has to "simulate" objective reality, as if it was objective reality itself. Formal Logically spoken, objectivity is the primary postulate here and thus is given an axiomatic connotation, which expresses itself in the value "true"; whereas subjective recognition (subjectivity) is given a secondary, derivative, and thus relative status, and attributed the value "false". We arrive at the famous two-value or "binary" range of the Formal Logical parameter setting, that only allows one kind of exclusive either-or non-relation.

Now, with regard to the second part of your question: "Consequently, should the use of objectivity change as these circumstances change historically?"

Doubtlessly, as history (the labour process) shifts into another stage of this capitalist mode of production, no longer based on the exploitation of physical labour, but intellectual and rational labour, there will be a change in the scientific parameter setting of "objectivity" from a Formal Logical based to a dialectical or at least "enhanced Formal Logical" one.

The challenges of the exploitation of intellectual and rational labour, "materialized" in modern technology, force a change of the old, formal logical parameter settings of scientific "objectivity".

And finally: "For example, should today's intensified reification (objectification) of humanity, which is due mainly to an almost overwhelming use of technology, be tempered by increased use of subjectivity to arrive at a validity that coincides with human needs?"

Technology in its different historic appearances, from the stone-axe to the computer, is always the exact expression and materialization of the (non-)relation: society ("humanity") versus nature. "Humanity" is only one part of this relation. Paradoxically (indeed), so called "scientific objectivity" has been nothing else but exactly subjectivity, in the sense and for the sake of the "human needs" of society.

Regards, Jutta.

-----OoO-----

by Carl Zimmerman

"...The opportunity to create and build our own worlds from scratch..."

Imagine this dialogue between a parent and teenager in the not Too distant future:

Parent: Why does your generation want to leave "mother" Earth And colonize Mars? They will have to take great risks and pay enormous costs in lives lost and material destruction if initial attempts fail.

Teenager: Colonizing Mars gives us the opportunity to create and build our own worlds from scratch. We don't have to waste our lives dealing with problems inherited from previous generations on Earth. We believe that justifies the risks and costs.

Parent: What problems?

Teenager: Ecological disasters and people conflicts--racial, ethnic, sexual and personality - to name a few. In the Mars colonies, we can't afford these problems. Survival depends on innovation and cooperation based on contribution, not personal style. For example, when an airlock problem is detected, there's no time for debate. We'll listen to the autistic airlock expert who can do nothing but fix airlocks and has a 100% history of success.

We can't afford failure

This imaginary dialogue depicts the direction that the U.S. and many other developed countries are taking today-space exploration and colonization. Currently, the main goal is to develop new technologies that will improve the quality of life on Earth, but as the dialogue suggests, the colonists may "fall in love" with living on other planets. This will especially happen if the cost of solving major problems, such as ecological disasters, on Earth becomes prohibitive. Models which predict the innovations that are likely to succeed will improve the quality of life on Earth as well as for our colonists on distant planets.

In some previous innovations, such the airplane, the consequences of early failure were limited (e.g., a biplane crashing on the side of a barn). For innovations needed for space exploration and colonization, the costs of failure would be enormous, including, for example, ecological disasters during testing on Earth and destruction of entire colonies on other planets.

Predicting changing needs and their impact on populations is required to predict successful innovations

Ideally, in order to produce a successful innovation, we must predict the essential needs of the space colonies, and identify what does and does not exist today that will meet these needs. The "what does not exist today" will tell us which innovations will have to be developed. However, innovations based solely on "guesstimates" of future needs and technologies run a high risk of costly failure if these conflict with actual future needs.

Innovations that reflect only the present state-of-the-art without any assumptions of the future will almost certainly fail. Innovations should be based on the right balance between what we assume is needed tomorrow and what we know will work today. How can this be accomplished? The following will help:

If we depict a region and its components, including the population and, for example, their possessions and architecture, after classifying them an evolutionary model would emerge, suggesting a "cast of characters" and behavior over time. To understand the system and how its future may be affected by some event(s), choice(s) and/or policy(ies), we would build a mathematical model of the system as it exists at a particular time, and describe the processes that will increase or decrease its different components.

We could apply the traditional approach of physics, that is, identify the components and the interactions operating on these, both to and from the outside world. From this, we can predict the functioning of the system at that time based on the causal relations between components, which we presume are present.

However, the predictions can be correct for as long as the taxonomy (classifications) of the system remains unchanged (Aristotle fans, please take note). The mechanical model of deterministic equations for a given time cannot produce new types of objects and variables. Its predictions will only be valid until some moment, unpredictable within the model, when there is an adaptation to innovation, and new behavior emerges. Consequently, we need models that not only predict what future needs will be, but when they will change and what change in population behavior will result.

Equilibrium does not exist in the real world

The basis of scientific understanding has traditionally been the mechanical model. In addition to focusing on causal relations between components at a particular time, it is assumed that this system has run itself to equilibrium, so that the correspondence between object and model is made through balance of variables at equilibrium. In economics, for example, equilibrium is represented by optimal utility for the actors, where consumers minimize cost of goods and services, and producers maximize profits. This approach assumes that all the actors know what they want and how to get it, and are doing what they want given the choices available. However, we know that equilibrium does not exist in the real world.

Today, system dynamics is available to replace this oversimplified static approach, which is based on unrealistic assumptions, in developing models for rational prediction of population behavior, need and innovation. These are based on the following parameters:

1.Values of external factors, reflecting the "environment" of the system, such as temperature, climate and soils, and expected changes in these over time.

2.Values corresponding to population "performance" due to their internal characteristics, such as technology, and knowledge level and application, and expected changes in these over time.

Change comes from within the system

"If it's not in the heart, it's not in the head."

(Salesmanship proverb)

"The clouded mind sees nothing." (The Shadow, a fictional character)

Since system dynamics models required for predicting successful future innovations are concerned with evolution, these must be model systems in which adaptive and structural changes can occur. The internal characteristics of the actors change endogenously, and new variables and mechanisms of interaction can appear spontaneously within the system itself, leading to a changed taxonomy.

In order to make the model work, it must be simplified. This can be accomplished with two assumptions:

1. Events occur at an average rate.

2. All individuals of a given type are identical and of an average type.

Chaos equations are better predictors of successful future innovations than bell curve equations

Errors introduced by assumption #1 (above) can be corrected by probabilistic dynamics, which assumes that all individuals are identical to an average type, but that events of different probabilities occur. Consequently, probabilistic dynamics includes sequences of events that correspond to runs of good or bad "luck" and their probabilities.

Systems with nonlinear interactions between individuals eliminate the concept of a simple, constant trajectory. Elution of the system will be described by a probability distribution that gradually changes in shape from a single modal "bell curve" (sharply peaked and centered on a mean) to spreading and splitting into a multi-modal distribution with peaks that correspond to different attractors of the dynamics (attractor=position where the dynamic system converges). These attractors could be point or cyclic , but most likely, based on previous experience, will be chaotic.

Since unpredictable runs of good or bad "luck" will occur, a precise trajectory of the system does not exist for predicting future behavior. Also, these deviations from the average rate of events means that a system can "tunnel" through apparently impassable potential barriers, and can switch between attractor basins and explore the global space of the dynamic system in a manner that the system cannot predict.

Adaptations For Space Colonization

Since the innovations for future space exploration and colonization will be dynamic systems, the relationships of the system variables will be nonlinear. Consequently, we expect chaos equations to provide very useful descriptions of relationships for mission-critical biological, ecological and economic systems. Already electronics hardware such as solid state lasers, oscilloscopes and analog computers make extensive use of chaos equations. We've only scratched the surface of their potential.

About The Author

Carl Zimmerman is a retired techno-marketing writer in the U.S. He worked for a major global manufacturer of animal nutrition and health products. He has a B.S. degree in chemistry and an M.B.A. in marketing.

© 1997 by New Renaissance. All Rights Reserved.

**************************************************************

Comments and Observations regarding Carl Zimmerman's article:

"PREDICTING SUCCESSFUL INNOVATION FOR SPACE

EXPLORATION AND COLONIZATION"

By: JUTTA SCHMITT

INTRODUCTION

n an earlier sketch of what a comprehensive comment and critique of

Carl's article could look like and of what components it would have

to be composed of, we mentioned four main perspectives, from which

observations concerning the topic "Space Exploration and

Colonization" can be made, that constitute, according to our criteria, the

cornerstones of an exhaustive and comprehensive critique:

1. Assuming, that future space travel and the building of space

communities is to the benefit and on behalf of "all humankind".

2. Assuming the necessity of such an endeavour, given the current and

future destruction and devastation of Planet Earth.

3. Assuming, that future space travel and the building of space

communities is just another variant of guaranteeing the survival and

dominance of a few, call them "elitists", call them "the world ruling

class", call them "Illuminati".

4. Assuming the absurdity of such an endeavour, given the fact, that

the worst case scenario on Planet Earth (total environmental disaster)

would still make it a more likely place to "survive" under the given

technological possibilities, than any other reachable place in our

Solar System.

Carl's article consists of two parts, firstly, the setting, which

introduces the general vision and justification for space exploration

and colonization, and secondly, the calculus for predicting

successful future innovations, which is based on the assumption, that change

comes from within the system, depends entirely on endogenous factors, and

thus is predictable to a certain extent and according to chaos equations

rather than conventional probability calculus.

Please note, that the observations we will make refer exclusively to

part one of Carl's article, concerning the general vision of space

exploration and colonization. - A critique and comment with regard to

part two, determining the calculus for the prediction of future

innovations, clearly depends on the definition of "change", that is,

whether change is considered to be determined by internal or

external, internal as well as external, or neither internal nor external

factors.

The Setting

The setting of Carl's article consists of the explanation and

justification, why there should be such a thing like the exploration

and colonization of space. For this purpose, he introduces his article

with a temptative quotation, that invokes the dream of a new dawn for

humankind, of a new beginning, a new world, where the mistakes of the

past don't count and won't enter: "...The opportunity to create and

build our own worlds from scratch..."

The arguments in favour of and against this enterprise are being

expressed in a dialogue between a teenager and his parent, where the

teenager "personalizes", or better, represents the arguments of the

future, and the parent the arguments of the past. The risks and costs

concerning human life and social products that might be destroyed in

the course of the space exploration and colonization enterprise, are

being counterpoised with the promising outcome of space exploration and

colonization, which is, that human life acquires a new meaning, as

being usefully employed at any moment and not being wasted carrying the

burden of a disastrous inheritance from previous human generations on Earth,

having to solve natural and social problems, like ecological

disasters and people's conflicts.

Now,

1. assuming, that future space travel and the building of space

communities is to the benefit and on behalf of "all humankind", and,

2. assuming the necessity of such an endeavour, given the current and

future destruction and devastation of Planet Earth, we could imagine

the following arguments added to the dialogue of the teenager and the

parent:

Riding into the Future on a Trojan Horse

Parent: The picture you draw of space colonization, and of human

cooperation based on mutual contribution, seems wishful thinking to

me. Is it not just a daydream of yours? What is really "new" about it?

Teenager: This is no daydreaming at all; we are talking about the future

of mankind, the survival of the human species, and we are talking of

a better world - a "new" world in the sense of a new beginning,

independent of any disastrous heritage from previous generations on

Earth.

Parent: True, mankind has always dreamt about "the future". These

dreams have found many expressions, ranging from the little man's wishful

thinking and daydreaming to the great religious, social and

technological utopias.

Teenager: What do you understand by "utopia"? Is there a difference

between daydreaming and utopia?

Parent: There certainly is. Daydreaming is an individual concern; in

the final analysis, it is the reflection of a troubled world and offers a

"virtual solution" to the daily coercions of real life of the little

man, of the exploited worker. Utopia has the same origins like

daydreaming, but expresses a social concern, picturing probable

solutions for society as a whole. If we deal with this concept in a

scientific way, and do not discard it in the sense of "building

castles in the air", we find, that the root of the word "utopia" is "topos",

a Greek term, which denotes "place". Utopia means "somewhere", "some

place", and stands as a fill-in for everything that seriously has to

do with a better world, a new world, a new beginning "somewhere", some

place else.

Teenager: This is most interesting and directly concerns us here in

our debate! Tell me more about "utopia", please.

Parent: As I mentioned before, there are different kinds of utopias.

The religious utopias picture a "new world", the "promised land" which

also is the "lost land", in other words: paradise! The religious utopias

are utopias of time, and the only ones, that indicate a direct relation

between the "lost land" and the "promised land", between the past and

the future, in a way, that the future lies in the past, and the past

in the future. The "promised land" comes at the end of time, and it will

resemble the "lost land" at the beginning of time. I think we can

learn a lot from this regarding to what expects us in the "future".

Teenager: It seems to me, that the direct relating of the past to the

future, as expressed in the religious utopias, is based on a circular

notion of time, which makes sense of course, if we consider, that

production way back then was entirely based on agriculture, on the

ever returning circle of the seasons of the year. Time, however, and as we

all know, is linear. Time has a beginning, it was produced by the Big

Bang, the birth of our universe, and probably will also have an end,

when our universe collapses. So, according to our linear

understanding of time, there is no direct connection between the past and the

future, as to be able to say, that the future lies in the past, and the past

in the future.

Parent: I am not quite sure about this. I am not convinced, that the

circular and the linear notion of time are that different from each

other. - Take a line, bend it, and let the ends meet. What do you

have?

Teenager: A circle. … Hm….

Parent: Now, take a circle, cut it open at any point of your choice,

and stretch it. What do you get?

Teenager: A line. … Hm … where are you heading with your argument?

Parent: What I want to hint at here, is, that also in your linear

conception of time, the past and the future are directly related,

just like in the circular notion of time.

Teenager: Can you give me a concrete example?

Parent: You said at an earlier point of our discussion, that

"survival depends on innovation and cooperation based on contribution, not

personal style". Consider, that survival also used to depend on

innovation and cooperation based on contribution in early primitive

societies, where problems like conflicts among tribe members could

not be afforded either, for the sake of the survival of the whole group!

So, it seems by looking at our past, we perfectly see our future.

Teenager: This has severe implications on our conception of "new". If

the future lies in the past, and the past in the future, how can we

possibly talk about anything "new"?! Now I begin to understand, why

you initially asked me, what was "new" about space exploration and

colonization. Surely not the factors, on which human survival

depends. And surely not the fact, that a "new" beginning for humankind is

needed. In fact, I have to ask you now: what then is "new"? - Do the utopias

provide us with a conception of "new"? How did they describe their

"new somewhere"?

Parent: The utopias basically operate with two different conceptions

of "new": "New" understood in a spatial sense, concerning a far away new

location, and "new" understood in a temporal sense, concerning a far

away new time. The famous social utopias of Thomas Morus and

Campanella - liberal the one, totalitarian the other -, picture their respective

designs of society on a remote island, isolated and "cut off" from

the rest of the world, being the "island" a spatial metaphor of the "new

beginning". Of course there have been explicit space-utopias, that

have actually been "realized", like Christopher Columbus' geographical

utopia that made him set off in search of the "new world", which, in fact,

did not yet exist for the European Continent of his time. As far as the

utopias of time are concerned, we have already mentioned the

religious utopias. Another kind of utopias of time are the technological

utopias, like for example Francis Bacon's "Nova Atlantis", which is a design

of a new society according to the technological inventions of a new time.

-

Now, if we consider space and time to be quantitative parameters

within which the process of history unfolds itself, the utopias only

pictured their respective new worlds, their "future" in a quantitative manner.

Teenager: In what other ways can a "new future" be conceived,

qualitatively spoken?

Parent: Firstly a word on what we understand by the term "new" in the

context of our discussion. You will have noticed, that generally, the

term "new" and the term "future" are often being associated with each

other, mostly and unfortunately in a way, that an old story is being

sold to us as "new", simply because it has to do with "the future",

understood as the time, that quantitatively "lies ahead" of us, which

does not necessarily mean, that there will be a qualitative

difference to the present and the past with regard to a given state of affairs.

So, we have to distinguish a quantitative, illusionary or "fake future"

from a qualitative genuine future.

Teenager: What do you mean?

Parent: Take your dream of a better world, of a "new world", for

example. You imagine a planet out there in the universe, in the best

of all cases with earthlike conditions, that waits to be "colonized",

waits to be "detected". The only "new" thing about it is, that you have to

go onto a long journey, that you have to travel to get there. As long as

you yourself stay the same, as long as the basic relations between

you and your fellow explorers stay the same, as long as you use

technology based on the same exploitation of physical, intellectual and rational

labour, as long as you simply export the same explorative-exploitative

attitude of mankind towards nature to just another place, there is

nothing really new about the whole thing! The only "new" thing is the

journey itself. If you ride into the future on a Trojan Horse, you

might just as well stay at home, because you will end up exactly where you

started! This is what "fake future" means, nothing but an illusion.

[To be continued)

----------------------------------------