Yet There Is Method In It

Formerly, powerful encryption techniques have only been available within military and academic circles. The computer revolution has put this resource into any users hands. This includes anti-government dissidents and terrorists. Even without attempting to hid the message, encrypted data is also similar in appearance to random data.

Governments may have the power to break strong encryption, but that ability would be of the highest secrecy. It would therefore hardly be used except in the most extreme cases. Rather than breaking the code (or admitting to breaking it), the UK government passed The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). This enables them to require people to hand over their encryption keys. If the user does not comply, they face up to 2 years in prison. Apparently “I forgot the password” is not a valid defense against this.

What is worrying is that most files on your computer are potential stores for hidden or encrypted data. If you are asked for the passwords, you MUST provide the password or face prison. You cannot prove that there isn’t data being hidden! If you are falsely accused, you go to prison.

This is not a hypothetical situation. There is an animal rights activist who claims is facing this dilemma.

Anti Citizen One

PS. Orwell’s big brother was an amateur compared to these people…

One of my pet interests is in languages, linguistics and the role of language in thought, knowledge and consequently philosophy.

There is a staggering statistic that most people are unaware of and that is that on average one language dies every 2 weeks. This decimation of microsocial linguistics is truly tragic as each language (no matter how obscure and premodern) contains axiomatic and idiomatic terms that are culturally specific and unique.  Take the Monchak language of western Mongolia that will be dead within a generation, this language has no word for grandchild but several for goats with different colours or markings. Why is this important, wouldnt fewer languages make cross-cultural communication easier?

The problem is this: with each language that dies an idea, or a way of formulating an idea, a way of percieving the world, in other words a nugget of knowledge is lost.

And this is important to a variety of human endeavours including science and medicine. Today pharmacologists searching for new drugs to combat rapidly evolving bacteria and viral diseases are looking evermore at the traditional herbal and medical traditions of remote pre-modern cultures. Different ways of looking at the world, and of harnessing its resources that 50 years ago would have been condemned and ignored as primitive and of little value, today is being reevaulated for the benefit of future generations. With each language that dies out, or goes unrecorded, snippets of information and ideas may be lost.

The National Geographic Enduring Voices Project are sponsoring and collaborating with the Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages. Please take a look at their website in order to at least get a better idea of why this is an important conservation project.

Carrying on my seemingly never ending series of posts on the TV show Babylon 5:

The Vorlon empire is a mysterious, authoritarian, manipulative and very powerful alien society that is central to the overall story of Babylon 5. They have been in existence for a long time and are a “more advanced” society than Earth – even in the story setting of the year 2258 and onwards.

They appear to be more interested in philosophy than in following a religion. Since they have occasionally presented themselves as Gods, they are more likely to be viewed as divine than have any obvious religion themselves. Their philosophy and understanding of all other species revolves around the answers to two primary metaphysical questions: “Who are you?” and “Why are you here?” They appear to be skeptical of socially constructed truths, based on this conversation:

Sebastian (the Vorlon Inquisitor): Who are you?
Delenn: I am Delenn.
Sebastian: Unacceptable answer! I already know your name! Who are you?
[snip section - Delenn is unable to answer without referencing external authority]
Sebastian: What a sad thing you are! Unable to answer even such a simple question without falling back on references, and genealogies, and what other people call you! Have you nothing of your own? Nothing to stand on that is not provided, defined, delineated, stamped, sanctioned, numbered and approved by others?

This type of question is considered meaningless by early Wittgenstein thought, who says it simply dissolves when analyzed. Even the writer, JMS stated ‘At some point the “answer,” such as it is, must transcend language.’ But most people, not having read Wittgenstein like to think they know “who they are” or you might say “nosce te ipsum“. If language games theory provides a social framework for us to agree some relative truths, it might be criticized for not providing anything that has not already been “approved by others”?

In a thought experiment, if we are washed up on a desert island with no hope of rescue, who are we then without external references? (Or in a more extreme case, washed up and suffering from amnesia.) Social mechanisms for defining “who are are” are overrated…

The questions can also be answered in a rather mundane way obviously, but they consider that a misunderstanding of the question.

Sebastian: Do you know why you’re here?
Delenn: I was sent [by Kosh].
[snip]
Sebastian: You’ve answered the wrong question! Why are you here now, in this place, in this life?
Delenn: I was meant to be here!
Sebastian: Meant? By whom?
Delenn: I don’t know!
Sebastian: How can you be sure?
Delenn: I don’t know!
Sebastian: No, you don’t!

Obviously, there has been no agreed answer to the purpose of life. The question “Why are you here?” may be answered in two ways: “what purpose does it fulfill?” (teleology) or “what prior circumstances lead to the event?” (as Russell points out). The implied question that is chosen by the answerer is quite revealing of their world view.

I think we mentioned this question before in another guise. To recap briefly, the question supposes that there was a possibility of non-existence (or the possibility of not being “here”) and that a reason exists for our existence – both could be considered debatable.

Philosophers have been debating the meaning of life since the beginning of philosophy. Most early philosophers declared an objective purpose to life. This was usually one of: virtue, happiness, knowledge, etc. The answer to “why are you here?” becomes the search for truth or virtue or whatever. But how does the philosopher know what he knows? Nietzsche claimed most arguments of the “true” world are simply a “paraphrase of the proposition: ‘I, Plato, am the truth’” a.k.a. argument from authority.

Of course it is possible there is a trivial answer or no answer at all. If we are just biological organisms, are we just the same organism for our whole life? Am I my “soul”, which is constant for one or many lives? In Buddhist philosophy, the teaching of Anatta states that there is no “self”.

On the other hand, am I the same person I was 5 years ago? My memories, behaviors, personality and abilities have changed over the years. What then remains of my former self? On the more speculative side of things, if your mind could be copied exactly, would the copy be also “you”?

For further reference: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on identity. It seems to be a load of waffle to me though!

AC1

It is commonly said now that we live in a postmodern age or situation. This literally means that we no longer live in the modern age, or the age of modernity.  Some of my thoughts have been described (by myself and AC-1) as being postmodern. What does this entail? The following is a brief outline of the major principles. But first a caveat: in common with the applicable definition of postmodernism, my explanation is but one of many, supporters (Jacques Derrida) and opponents (Richard Dawkins) alike may offer a differing description to the one that I provide.

Why Postmodernity. This is a reference to the abandonment of modernity, which occured through a loss of confidence in its values. This loss of confidence followed instances of global trauma that blighted the 20th century; fascism, communism, world war, terrorism, the holocaust, ethnic cleansing, nuclear weapons, pollution, the unjust effects of science and industry, trivialisation of life, racism and sexism. Postmodernism infers that modernity took an arrogant view of premodernity that was unjustified and wrong. It explicitly states that: Change does not mean Progress. Postmodernism has directed a near revolutionary suspicion towards three facets of human existence.

• Our collective understanding of ourselves in history.
• Our personal understanding of ourselves.
• The values of Reason and Rationality.

We, Ourselves, in History. Multiple areas of thought (including Philosophy, Theology, History, Science, Literature etc.) have attempted to make sense of life in the context of an overarching history or drama. “The story of man”. Such stories take the form of metanarratives, take for example the Marxist critique of Capitalism, or the Christian concept of the consummation of history. These stories share one thing in common, namely that human history is a story of progress and improvement. Culminating in the idea that the modern is a better time and place to be than the pre-modern or the primitive. And that those cultures and societies that are yet to be fully modernised (pre-industrial) are primitive and inferior, have nothing to teach us and would be better off modernising and embracing science, capitalism, democracy, marxism, monotheism or whatever value system is in vogue.

Postmodernists suspect that such metanarratives are devices whereby the powerful impose views of reality which serve their own interests. Consider the motivations for the U.S. led invasion of Iraq; both those publicly expressed (regime change/weapons of mass destruction) and those privately suspected by the common person (oil, increased funding to the defence industry). The Postmodernist (similar to and in common with the Existentialist) lay their stress upon the fragmentary and absurd nature of experience and history.

Who am I, the Self? The notion of a coherent and identifiable self is rejected. And a fragmentary interpretation is adopted. Me, I, the Self are terms we use to attempt to describe differing pressures that affect our experience of life; historically by ones genetic inheritance, internally by virtue of your unconscious and subconscious mind, and externally by virtue of coincidence and circumstanc. Thus the idea of who I am, and of what constitutes the self, differs from person to person, across continents, and over time. Me, I and the Self are therefore arbitrary and unfixed inventions.

Knowledge is Power. One of the fundamental expressions of postmodernity is its suspicion and loss of confidence in reason and rationality. It is seen (like the metanarrative) as an exercise in control and domination. Rational argument and debate are seen as weapons of manipulation, that can easily be used by powerful groups for the furtherance of their own ends. Such groups control education, the direction of academic research, the means of communication. These groups use rationality and reason to establish criteria as to what counts as knowledge, who can be considered authoritative (consider the case of scientific ‘experts’ being called to give witness in legal proceedings, particularly where two experts disagree) and what is regarded as being conceivable or even true.

Postmodernists pay particular attention to language. Does it refer to reality (picture theory of words, Wittgensteins Tractatus) or is it rhetoric in the service of power and control (propaganda, Wittgensteins Language Games). The problem with language is that without an ability to identify reality and to create a trustworthy shared world of meaning, reasoning is impossible.

Consequences of Postmodernity. Include the rehabilition of premodernism and so called primitive societies. Consequently this results in an interdisciplinary ‘method’ of thinking. And ultimately provides a critique that challenges the notion that change is progress and that we should always be on-guard against a cultural superiority complex.

In a news article today it has been announced that Civil Servants working within the Education Department will in future be able to take bank holidays under the religious days of their choice.

At present the country has 8 set bank holidays that apply to all workers, some of which (including Christmas Day and Good Friday) have their roots in Christian festivals. Under the new proposal it means staff who do not celebrate the Christian calender (for example) may choose to work from home on those days which they can then take-off in lieu on those days that they wish to mark.

This proposal means that Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Muslims, Ba’haists, Zoroastrians and Pagans (amongst others) may work on Christmas day if they choose, and have their festivals such as Diwali, Hannukah, Eid etc., marked as a bank holiday instead. This proposal would also appear to be applicable to atheists and secularists alike, who may choose to transfer any one of the 8 current bankholidays to another date of their choice, for whatever reason they choose.

In my opinion this is a positive move. Some ‘right wingers’ have already criticised this initiative for being politically correct or for denigrating the Christian heritage of our country. This is a mute point as it is quite possible to describe this country as being post-christian in terms not merely of religious adherence but of practise. I think the idea of cultural flexitime is an excellent compromise and avoids the extreme of having multiple extra bank-holidays established in order to appease minority faith groups.

Chad Varah was the founder of the Samaritans, a charity that espoused listening therapy for the suicidal and despairing.

When founded in 1953, suicide was still viewed as a symptom of mental illness and moral depravity, Varah preffered to view it as a symptom of circumstance, whose genesis in individuals could vary for enormous reasons.

He was motivated to found this charity when as a newly ordained priest in the Anglican church he conducted a funeral for a 13 year old girl who had committed suicide upon experiencing her first menstrual cycle. Uninformed about adolescence and sexual development she had assumed it to be a symptom of a sexually transmitted disease and in despair and shame, took her own life. He vowed from that moment to help all people in despair and to offer therapeutic advice on sexual matters without judgement or condemnation.

Consequently upon founding the movement, named by the media after the ‘Good Samaritan’ of Christian scriptures he established certain fixed rules.

• The Charity was to be secular.
• It’s therapy was to be listening based.
• It’s members were to be taken from all branches of society.
• They should be neither “prudish” nor “preachy” as the problems they would encounter would be of an extremely personal nature, and the aim of the therapy was to listen to the person in need, and not to lecture them.

Chad Varah, mirroring Augustine of Hippo centuries before, freely admitted in his biographies to sexual experimentation before his marriage and his ordination in the church. This he saw as giving him an insight into the angsts and emotions encountered by those who suffered turmoil in an age where sex and sexuality was never openly discussed. He was an advocate of open and thorough sex education. And in later life whilst continuing to minister as a priest he also sat on the board of reference for the Adult magazine ‘Forum’.

He died aged 95 on the 7th November 2007, if not a “saint” as classically defined then perhaps a “model” and “Iconic” figure of the postmodern-paradigm.

Existentialist thought asks “is there any purpose in existence?” We can consider a purpose for existence can come from an external authority or from our own subjective judgment. We can briefly consider polytheism: if there are multiple external authorities, we still have to make a subjective choice between them.

How does an external authority assign its purpose to our existence? Imagine this discussion:

A: You ought to do X. (Note: X is an arbitary action)
B: Why should I do X?
A: Because X is good.
B: How do we know X is good?
A: X is good because authority Z said so. (Note: Z is often called God)
B: Why ought we accept Z as authority?
A: Because Z is good.
B: Saying Z is good and also Z defines good is tautology.
A: Ok, Z is your creator and benefactor. There fore we ought to accept Z.
B: You are going from an “is” statement to an “ought” statement. That is not valid logically.
A: You owe Z your obedience.
B: This implies I should obey because it is “good” action. But what is “good”?
A: You ought to accept Z because it will make you happy.
B: Happiness is not a criterion of truth. (Note: Fancy a shot of morphine?)
A: Your conscience says accept Z.
B: Not a criterion of truth. And people have difference urges of conscience. Therefore conscience is subjective.
A: You need faith in Z.
B: Ah! So you are saying we just believe in Z without proof? How very existential!

So even if there is a God, there is still this question of what is “good”.

All systems of belief have this underlying characteristic. If people ask what is the basis for “ought” statements, but decide to maintain their beliefs, they immediately accept existentialism! If they abandon their beliefs, they become nihilists – which is not what I am advocating.

Interestingly, the Catholic Catechism does hint at the freedom of choosing what is right and wrong – but it is more a choice of two external standards of right and wrong. I need more time to research the proposition that “God is Good”.

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.” Catechism of the Catholic Church

After assigning man “control his own actions”, why do they assume we ought to “of his own accord seek his Creator”?

If we have freedom, we have existentialism.

Anti Citizen One

After the arrest of Salvatore Lo Piccolo, allegedly of the Sicilian Mafia, the following list of commandments were discovered:

1. No-one can present himself directly to another of our friends. There must be a third person to do it.
2. Never look at the wives of friends.
3. Never be seen with cops.
4. Don’t go to pubs and clubs.
5. Always being available for Cosa Nostra is a duty – even if your wife’s about to give birth.
6. Appointments must absolutely be respected.
7. Wives must be treated with respect.
8. When asked for any information, the answer must be the truth.
9. Money cannot be appropriated if it belongs to others or to other families.
10. People who can’t be part of Cosa Nostra: anyone who has a close relative in the police, anyone with a two-timing relative in the family, anyone who behaves badly and doesn’t hold to moral values.

The best one is the last line: you can’t be part of the Mafia if you are immoral. The point is that they are putting forward a system of morals that they are capable of following and holding it up as an example of “morality”. Almost everyone else would not be able to follow their moral code. Conclusion: just because people going around calling things “good” does not mean anything more than “I approve of you”.

Anti Citizen One

A pet topic of mine: copyright law. It needs reform. I read an interesting speech calling for “Fair use reform; limits on secondary liability; protections against copyright abuse; fair and accessible licensing; orphan works reform; and notice of technological and contractual restrictions on digital media”.

To quote FN (again):

“Just see these superfluous ones! They steal the works of the inventors and the treasures of the wise. Culture, they call their theft—and everything becometh sickness and trouble unto them!”

Radiohead’s recent album release, although not directly addressing the copyright problem, did make a small step in the right direction. They allowed people to pay from zero to £100 to get their album at the purchaser’s discretion. This removes the record company from the equation. I think record companies can be grouped with the “superfluous ones”.

Anti Citizen One

It makes one think that maybe the policy makers in this country are perhaps reading this blog, for in a delicious moment of synchronicity the Conservative party have announced plans to introduce co-operative schools. A model that is not that far removed from the one that Ac-1 and myself have been pondering: A decentralized, yet state-funded education system.

This linked article gives further details.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7083878.stm