Yet There Is Method In It

The Castle, by Franz Kafka, is the novel describing K.’s arrival at a village and his struggle to contact the officials who reside in an inaccessible Castle. The Castle is held in awe by the villagers but The Castle’s motives are illusive, as are the official’s identities, physical appearance and their communication skills. This is a world away from todays world of political propaganda and suspicion of authority.

K.’s engagement as the Land Surveyor is thrown into doubt when it is revealed as a rare mistake of the system. There is apparently no need of a land surveyor. His is offered the role of school caretaker but there is also no need of a caretaker. Incidentally there is an interesting piece on the BBC about finding meaning (or lack of meaning) in the workplace.

One of the only elements that keeps the readers sanity is K’s epic efforts to make sense of his situation. He is apparently very observant but still prone to occasional mistakes without complete information. There are lengthy monologues of the villagers explaining the ways of the village but sometimes I wish K. would just ignore them, for the readers benefit, and for his; they usually do not help him gain access to The Castle. He also seems to swing between being physically tenacious and physically helpless due to the snow – even the weather is kafkaesque in The Castle!

If I may abuse Kafka, I will paraphrase the whole novel as:

Landlady: It transpires that we have no need of a land surveyor.
K.: I want to talk to someone in charge about this.
Landlady: Your childish misunderstanding of the workings of the Castle are almost beyond belief and can only be because you are an outsider. Having an interview with an official from the castle is quite impossible. You will never be admitted to the Castle.

People’s actions seem meaningless to K. and to other villagers but are later explained as completely necessary and unavoidable to the participant. This is perhaps the point of the novel – if it has any. Hasty assumptions and generalizations on incomplete information lead to misunderstandings and despising (or feeling gratitude) without any real justification. This is all very existential and postmodern. This is similar to the shifting realities of the movie Rashomon in which it is clearly impossible for everyone’s version of event to be correct, but it is left unstated as to which, if any, is true. It also strongly reminds me of the X-Files episode “Bad Blood” where the two FBI agents recount their recent adventure in turn but misunderstand and half mock the other agent due to their subjective viewpoint.

An even greater overlap is with Gilliam’s movie Brazil. The insane decision making process of The Castle’s anti chamber is similar to Mr Warren’s barking of seemingly arbitrary answers to questions. There is a certain anonymity of the authority figures in both. Sam only reaches the Deputy Minister – not the Minister him/herself. Confusion of names is also a common theme: buttle/tuttle, sortini/sordini are routinely confused; in fact it is a central plot point for Brazil.

SAM: Excuse me, Dawson, can you put me through to Mr Helpmann’s office?
DAWSON: I’m afraid I can’t, sir. You have to go through the proper channels.
SAM: And you can’t tell me what the proper channels are, because that’s classified information?
DAWSON: I’m glad to see the Ministry’s continuing its tradition of recruiting the brightest and best, sir.
SAM: Thank you, Dawson.

One difference is The Castle’s authority is only maintained by the villagers deference to it’s authority. There is no mention of guards or prisons. Brazil is quite the opposite and takes its methods indirectly from Orwell’s 1984. There is also a hint of Gormenghast but expressed in The Castle as from the lowest rank rather than the highest. Steerpike easily subverts the bureaucracy and I wonder what would result if K. seriously attempted to infiltrate the castle, possibly as a semi-official messenger (through the same channels as Barnabas). I wonder if the Count of The Castle is a victim of bureaucracy as K. and the Earl of Gormenghast.

The writing style of The Castle is frankly rather painful. Rather like a river, it starts swiftly, windingly and clear. The story ends slowly and murkily. The blame cannot be assigned to anyone in particular, least of all Kafka as the book was published from an incomplete text that probably had been abandoned by the author. But was the author trying to frustrate the reader as K. is frustrated?

The closest experience one can have to conveniently experience the alienation of The Castle is to telephone a large company using a call centre and being put on hold. When you eventually get to talk to someone, they are the lowest underling and misinterpret your meaning (sorry to readers who work in call centres!). To apply a concept from the novel, how do you know you are talking to the company and not an impostor? There are people who have no business answering the phones in the call centre but they pick them up on a whim and one should not believe a word of their pranks!

Anti Citizen One

More people need to be aware of the dangers of fan death. I cite the cromulent Wikipedia as a reliable source of this phenomena….

Beware! Beware!

AC1

I attended an interesting debate on surveillance and privacy. Interestingly they presented both sides of the argument: that surveillance can have positive, as well as negative, effects – easy access to medical records, shopping reward schemes, more efficient government services, etc. The fact is our current life style is dependent on the surveillance infrastructure that has been established by governments and companies.

On the other hand, are the risks of identity fraud, personal details appearing the public domain, espionage or state suppression of dissidents. The defenders of surveillance often mention is maxim: “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” That may be true as far as it goes but who does not have something to hide?

One of the panellists mentioned a few items that some people have a need to hide: their contact details if they are escaping from an abusive relationship, their address if they work in animal testing or abortion clinic, if they have suffered from a health problem that carries a social stigma (for example mental health), if they have suffered from a crime that carries a social stigma (for example rape). Other ideas that were mentioned were: the food that your purchase (which might be interesting if you want private medical insurance or life insurance), your driving habits (car insurance), your friends and group associations (which can be profiled, with debatable accuracy, to show personality traits, sexual characteristics, political tendencies). Just look at the Jeremy Clarkson fraud incident.

If you don’t have anything to hide that is fine. But it is extremely arrogant to extend that principle to the whole of the population. There are currently at least two UK government committees looking at the impact of surveillance on society with their reports due this summer and autumn.

A recent government report cast doubt on the effectiveness of CCTV. One self admitted post-modern panellist said that he still supports CCTV as it comforts the public even if it does not reduce crime. I would agree that crime and the public perception of crime are distinct but interrelated issues, but I would prefer to use resources on measures that actually reduce crime rather than just make everyone else feel secure. (I don’t feel safer since I know its a placebo!)

Anti Citizen One

PS I am reading Kafka’s The Castle which shares some similar themes. And who could forget the movie Brazil?

I just finished Huxley’s Brave New World. I like it.

Especially the beginning with the authors challenge of the readers assumptions of right and wrong, and then controllers tales of our society’s ideals of family life which the audience find disturbing to the point of nausea. This juxtaposition is repeated again with John the Savages encounter with the “brave new world”.

This book is a perfect complement to Orwell’s 1984 – but the totalitarian government is not enforced by any “thought police” but by preconditioning and persuasion. This is repeated in a smaller scale in Philip K Dick’s “The Mold of Yancy”. The characters who are considered deviant are not taken away and tortured/killed (as in 1984) but are simply pressured to conform. Failing that, they are deported.

“Still shouting and sobbing Bernard was carried out.
‘One would think he was going to have his throat cut’, said the Controller, as the door closed. ‘Whereas, if he had the smallest sense, he’d understand that his punishment is really a reward. He’s being sent to an island. That’s to say he’s being sent to a place where he’ll meet the most interesting set of men and women to be found anywhere in the world. All the people who, for one reason or another, have got too self-consciously individual to fit into community-life. All the people who aren’t satisfied with orthodoxy, who’ve got independent ideas of their own. Everyone, in a word, who’s anyone. I almost envy you, Mr Watson.’”

It is 1984 but touchy-feely and just as effective.

Anti Citizen One

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was recently released in the cinemas. It apparently argues that Darwinism is incompatible with religion (which is a false dichotomy) and that it caused the holocaust. I almost want to watch it out of morbid curiosity!

AC1

Misplaced fears about terror, privacy and child protection are preventing amateur photographers from enjoying their hobby, say campaigners. BBC

“Jacqui Smith is to press ahead with moves to hold terror suspects for up to 42 days without charge despite the growing prospect of defeat on the measure.” Independent

I now have to address: what is the purpose of counter terrorism? Current trends would seem to indicate that its purpose is to resist political influence by terrorists. Apart from the danger of self identifying as victims (“potential terrorist targets” – see Slave Morality) this definition also can lead to being reactive, not proactive, to terrorism. For a resistance against a force to exist requires a force to be applied.

A more robust policy might be to allow that “people can go about their business freely and safely” (UK Home Office) or in “Preserving our Freedoms” (US Department of Homeland security). Apparently both these organizations apply these definitions without irony! Current trends indicate law enforcement calling for increased powers to “fight terrorism” without proper scrutiny. For example the FBI impeded their own investigation to give justification to have expanded powers. In the UK, local government put a family under surveillance to see if they were cheating school catchment areas (using powers that were justified by more serious situations).

If the law enforcement bodies actually worked toward their ideal of “preserving freedom”, then it is clear that the best – or at least better – reaction to terrorism is to ignore it at a social level and NOT to curtail civil rights. Call me crazy but wasn’t terrorism illegal before 2001? Like in the IRA campaign? (Obviously we need a new enemy to worry about since the end of the cold war. Read your Orwell.)

We live in a three way struggle – individual, state and terrorist. Individuals surrendering all responsibility to the state just don’t want to be free? What we need instead is a massive decentralization of infrastructure so any terrorist attack has reduced effect. I was reading in the New Scientist that the highly interconnected world (i.e. globalised and centralized) may be susceptible to a pandemic induced collapse of the civilization rather like the Roman Empire.

Anti Citizen One

PS See I did not even mention Nietzsche in one post…. D’OH!
PPS I wonder how long before terrorists target celebrities – that would probably cause the most anxiety in the TV viewing nations.

It is as if the capricious gods of rhetoric and irony smiled upon me this morning when I opened the paper and read an article by the never boring (but only occasionally sensible) Peter Hitchens concerning education and the teaching of history. Entitled “So what was your child taught today, sympathy for Mr Hitler?“Hitchens laments the “slow-motion national suicide” that is taking place in the history classes of our childrens schools.

His ire is directed at a worksheet intended for 13 year olds being taught about the Spanish Armada, who are asked to mentally role-play being a Spanish sailor about to set sail, to explore the motivations for the would be invasion of England and to elucidate upon these said motives by drawing up an “anti-english” poster. Further to his already ludicrous outrage, apparently the poor children also had to draw a spider chart illustrating at least four reasons why Spain was angry enough with England that they invasion could have been considered.

What is wrong with this? What indeed is Hitchens question, which he then boldly expounds to us; it is because if we swap the words Spanish with German, the event Armada for the Blitz and then finally Spanish sailor for Luftwaffe pilot we shouldcatch his drift.

Leaving aside the fallacies of the average argumentum ad hitlerum not to mention the barely comparable circumstances of the these two historical threats to England, what else is wrong with Hitchen’s rant. Unable to better himself in presenting the absurdity of his own argument I shall simply leave you to read his words and insightful analysis.

Now, I have actually checked to see how Spanish children are taught the same subject, and I have established beyond doubt that they are not asked to draw an anti-Spanish poster.

Not so long ago, they were taught that Francis Drake, that hero of my youth, was a wicked pirate.

Good for the Spanish.

They at least understand that national history, taught to the young in schools, is the lore of the tribe, the basis of our identity and pride.

It is not a matter of seeing all sides of the argument or working out why other people might have wanted to occupy, plunder and enslave us, as if that wasn’t pretty obvious.

I am in awe at the breathtaking arrogance of the man (ad hominem aside) that history is the “lore of the tribe”, lest anyone need that to be translated for them, I believe he is saying that history is propaganda. That the “basis of our identity and pride” is the myth of our national history, and not actually an account (albeit subjective) of a series of events and motivations.

Pupils are exposed to conflicting scraps of information, grandly called “sources”, and asked to make up their own minds – which means they are robbed of pride in their nation, and left confused and vulnerable to the BBC’s anti-British propaganda and the Leftist monopoly that runs the universities.

Oh I see, so there is something wrong in allowing pupils to “make up their own minds” or in other words to think for themselves?

I’m afraid as Peter Hitchens is well aware (hence the vicious nature of this diatribe) the only propaganda that is taking place here is the notion that recieved historical accounts are fixed, accurate, unbiased, precise and in no need of deconstructive analysis. I guess the nature of his arguing is so vicious purely because the very myths that he extols are the ones used constantly to justify and uphold the status quo of this rotten country that he so admires.

In my previous post Renaissance musings I declare that the postmodern slant on history is one of its great gifts to modern scholarship although by no means does it deserve all the credit for the Scientific method also provides the noble tools of falsification and verification. Tools that when applied sensibly (and as a postmodernist may request sceptically too), allow for us to present history as a reasoned account of events, motives, and causal connections and not simply the self-justifying myths that the establishment wants us to hear and know and think to be true.

A keen and very bitter debate is underway that highlights the dangers of overlapping language games and misinformation and misinterpretation.

A statement by certain scientists has attacked the Catholic Bishops Conference for spreading lies and misinformation in order to promote their opposition to animal-human hybrid experimentation. The controversy centres around an information pack published by the Bishops Conference for use in each parish and includes within it a statement that in some cases has been read from the pulpit decrying the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos.

According to the scientists there are blatant inaccuracies being reported misrepresenting both their position and their intentions. In specific the scientists argue hybrid embryos which have been designed to provide stem cells to treat human diseases are not half-animal half-human hybrids as has been suggested. Nor does it involve the cross fertilisation of a human egg with animal sperm as it is claimed the Bishops statement declared. Rather an animal egg with its nucleus removed and replaced with that from a human cell will create an embryo that possesses 99.9% of human DNA. And of course the embryos once harvested would be terminated and will not be allowed to gestate and develop full-term.

On a superficial investigation of the competing documents it would look to my opinion as though some form of wilful misinformation has been propagated by the Bishops Conference and clearly despite the ethics of the issue (which I am deliberately avoiding discussion of) such misinformation serves no good to anyone.

However if we scratch under the surface it would appear that the scientists reaction has been hasty and perhaps unfair. According to a spokesperson for the Church the documents prepared by the Bishops Conference are intended to highlight along with ethical objections overall to the research also specific problems with the scope of the proposed legislation. Thus talk of half-human half-animal hybrids express the fears of a procedural deterioration – a sort of slippery slope argument (a rhetorical device) that speculates on the extreme scenarios that ambigous legislation can entail. Particular attention is focused on clause 4 of the legislation that allows licenses to be given for the creation of hybrid and “interspecies” embryos which the bill defines as “an embryo created by using human gametes and animal gametes” – this according to the Bishops spokesmen includes half-animal half-human.

Reaction to this controversy has been mixed, with some editorials criticizing the scientists for getting wound up over challenges to their authority “This reflects a growing tendency to demonise anyone who doesn’t buy into their brave new world”. (Daily Mail editorial).

If a genuine and wilful misinterpretation has taken place then it must be condemned as a rhetorical gambit in an ethical debate. If on the contrary the Bishops statement is a more general attack on the idea of embryo research and a speculation as to teleological consequences – including extreme outcomes (which is consistent with their long-term view) then any criticism is misguided.

Is this a free-speech issue as some journalists are proposing? Could scientists say in all honesty that they would not if the legislation permitted at some point in the future push the boundaries of their research and create half-human half-animal hybrids – and thus fulfil the doomsday scenario that the Bishops present?

Clearly it would be unfair to expect those scientists currently engaged in the research – who explicitly claim this is not their intention – that they would not go that far – to commit or restrict their colleagues future research programmes in this way.

In my opinion then the “crime” here then has been twofold. The Bishops have been wilfully ambiguous – whilst expressing a valid range of concerns and objectionable scenarios imlicit in the text of the legislation – they have done so at the cost of directly discussing the current research proposals. Consequently the scientists involved in this research feel that their specific intentions have been ignored and they have been accused of doing something that they are not. A valid self-defence without a doubt but an overly sensitive response to a broader critical review.

This provides an interest insight into the differing ways in which science and religion work. Science is particular and reductionist, whereas Religion is general and holistic. These researchers have a specific aim and method and require legislation to allow them to proceed. The Bishops object not only to the specifics of this research but to all such research and thus refer to any number of potential undesirable outcomes.

It seems to me therefore that this is fast becoming less of an ethics issue and more about rhetoric (for both sides). Which alas if it is the case raises up the spectre of misinformation and false propaganda. And in the long run when we consider the financial and political interests that are closely connected with what we may call ‘institutional science’ the recourse to rhetorical argument and name calling by both sides will only damage the liberty to open debate that allows ethicists of whatever opinion to freely state arguments for and against any given area of research. And that scenario where informed debate becomes wholly stifled is a very worrying one indeed.

In a word: wow. This book examines the history of neoliberalism in economic policy since the 1960s (ish). As you probably know, neoliberalism supports free trade, deregulation and privatisation. The title comes from the idea that these economic policies can only be introduced by force (i.e. torture and electric shock) or by lies and deception (often using some crisis or shock as distraction or false justification).

The worrying thing is to maintain this unstable equilibrium, shocks need to be repeated to keep people off balance – eternal war (aka “war on terror”), unstable world markets, etc. As they said on the TV series 24 when Jack first talks to the “mastermind” in series 2:

Kingsley: If someone wants to buy it, it’s for sale.
Jack: How can you justify starting a war to profit from the outcome?
Kingsley: We’re just controlling the chaos, that’s all.
Jack: No, you’re causing it.
(emphasis mine)

You see these free marketeers don’t see themselves as bad people. But conveniently they stand to benefit most from the implementation of their ideas. They are totally self interested.

The neoliberal has the goal of “maximising wealth”. To say that this is best achieved by “unrestrained generation of wealth” is trivial to see – yet this is supposed to be an “insight”. But what is not considered, is the human and environmental cost. Since these things can be costed by pure neoliberalism – they cannot be preserved by neoliberalism.

The only hope for control of our world and our lives is independence of the institutions that propogate these ideas. These institutions include the IMF and World Bank. I am deeply skeptical about stock exchanges where all the traders see is a number (of stock value) and how the number goes up and down. The number does not express the social and environmental context of the company business.

Anti Citizen One

I have been thinking about faith schools and their role in broader society. To judge if faith schools are beneficial or harmful, I keep coming back to the question: “what is the purpose of education?” An answer to this would drive how the school operates and the selection procedure for admissions. In an even broader context, the purpose of education can be determined by the question “what is the meaning of life?” which obviously has no unanimous response. A better starting point might be “should we have universal education?” The Justification for our answer would inform us of the purpose of education.

The answer “education should fulfill pupils potential” is vague of course – they should fulfill their potential to do what exactly?

An obvious answer is “to make the pupil a valuable member of society“, which causes me to roll my eyes and sigh. Why should be suppose society as it stands should be the final goal of our lives? All we are doing is indoctrinating our children in our line of thinking.

Education “to prepare for work” should not be the final goal either. Not all interactions in our lives are commercial exchanges. We should have a broader view than serving the work place. I admit we might want this as a secondary objective of education – unless we want to abolish capitalism. But let us take things one step at a time!

I am thinking the purpose of education is to skill development of the student. There are various areas of development that I will consider separately, although I would admit there is some unavoidable overlap.

Skills (Motor and intellectual)

“necessary skills so that a particular function could be performed”. Of course learning how to perform a task requires some knowledge with which to practice the skill but the knowledge is not the goal, it is the means of learning a skill. The underlying skill in most academic subjects is critical thinking but this ironically seems to be absent in the population at large!

Of course an anti-realist probably would consider skills as just a type of knowledge! But talking and reading – is that within each language game or the foundation of the game? If it is a prerequisite for all language games, we have evidence that langauge is a skill.

Knowledge (Verbal information)

…which is traditionally called education. Or brainwashing. Verbal information is ripe to be understood by Wittgenstein’s theory as a socially constructed interpretations. Although knowledge is necessary to practice students skills, it should not be the goal. For example in English speaking countries, Shakespeare is regarded as required reading in schools. We would not consider someone who is unaware of Shakespeare as educated. But someone who is from a non-english speaking culture, this is obviously not a requirement for education. The same principle holds of the knowledge of history, social science, (theology!), scientific theories, etc – some knowledge should be taught but the knowledge is the “means” not the “end”. Endless exams that assess knowledge are therefore misguided.

After all, most verbal knowledge is in books. Just go to the library if you need it? Finding the book containing the knowledge you want is a skill anyway…

Attitudes, values and cognition

The only clear pattern in peoples values, all around the world, is the fact that they disagree. For example a conservative disagrees with a liberal on what is considered good and bad. In an extreme case, a cannibal disagrees with a vegetarian on what is a good diet. I admit there are some commonalities in value systems, but there are no universally agreed values at all. This immediately poises a choice: do we have different values taught in different schools or do we avoid talking about values all together? Should a school have a unified value system (e.g. faith schools) or a diverse system of values?

Since the purpose of schools is skill development, why do we need to involve values? Like knowledge, one particular value system is just brainwashing and indoctrination. Values are not the primary purpose of education and should not drive policy. If it was, we would have schools that transform into Sunday schools.

But most people imitate people in positions of authority. It is unavoidable that the values of the teachers will influence students. We must be aware how a school environment will unavoidably shape people. And in my subjective value system, students should be encouraged to think for themselves.

My argument is this: to avoid unnecessary indoctrination and to encourage independent thinking, students should be exposed to a mixture of value systems in the teaching staff and other students. Therefore faith schools are a bad thing.

Anti Citizen One (who happens to be an instructor in a certain extreme sport)