Legitimated by forces legitimized for this (and, as it will be seen, temporarily) magisteriality and capricious, legitimized by the same hand, marginality are eternal historical cohabitants and allies, alternately intercepting the notorious free will (which, moreover, this freedom is often denied) - must base their relations on the principle of dominance, and nothing else - after all, it contains the archekey to existential dynamics - the only important development (only development, moreover, not limited to), in relation to which the rest should take the role of tools, but not goals . But what is this world without errors and failures? Ideal car? Perfect program? A city where a person is explicitly denied presence. The dominant embraces a person - everything and without exception - subordinating all his processes, both reflexive-internal and socio-cultural external, to a well-developed, voluntary deformation. The degree of subordination of a person directly depends on his “morphological” development: the deeper and further developed his processes are. Everywhere and everywhere, through the alluvial dust of civilization, it will shine through - the center of gravity of human experience, swarming among the garbage piled up in a heap, which external culture has not found application.
The researcher does not always have time to keep track of the varying superiority of cultural dominants: now he is loosening the trampled soil of the lawn, filling it with the fresh wind of the era, when it suddenly turns out that he is in the backyard, and the main action has shifted to the west. An inquisitive thought has just begun to understand the many-sided, abrupt relations of modernity/postmodernity with the supremacy of the second, as some signs of the first return to the sociocultural scene, as if wanting, moreover, in a reckless way, self-completion through the violent psychosis of modernization, experiencing a piercing need to replace the "construction barracks".
The person of the informatization workshop, the informatization worker and employee is a tool and conductor of the information age, absorbing its ideals and ideology, lowering them from above to the soil of the consumer flock. If magic is a complexity that is not yet / already the strength (resources) to explain - it becomes inexplicable - then our world is completely permeated with magic, the hands of which are informatization producers. In contact with the magical machine, they are forced to absorb its “character” traits (let’s not deny it to her), try them on themselves, obey the ritual requirements, which receive clear explanations and legitimacy through the machine itself and for it. These requirements are cosily rational. But this is their key trick, because when they form a unity, they give rise to magic, though technical. Without them, the magic will be speckled with holes through which human hands will treacherously shine through. To prevent this, obedience is introduced into the rank of the highest value, and ultimately leading to voluntary deformation and interweaving of the rules of some spheres with the rules of others. The paradigm steps, which expand by narrowing, and fill by drying up, proudly serve as the epoch-making breeding ground for this mixing. The result of the process is a person who is forced to make a cultural mistake as an adequate response - to apply progressive (modernist) technologies and gestures, instrumentally serving the soulless machinery of efficiency, to a living subject in his role as an existential analog seeker.
Fear. It is difficult to frighten a person of informatization production. He meets any, even the most difficult tasks and trials with a belligerent stance of a proud man. This is because he is firmly, in an eidotic spirit, aware of the existence of final solutions - the demons of formal laws, logical conclusions and clear, phenomenologically solid definitions are constantly whispering about this to him. He is ready for tasks of any scale: the time is already coming when he dares to program the very process of communication with the Cosmos and the Universe using language (as if no one had done this before). Noble knight of Heaven and Earth, day and night, one and zero. Nothing itself comfortably fits under the vaults of its recursive structure. But he has not yet become a fearless knight of freedom, because there is still something that frightens him and horrifies him with meaninglessness, something that is expelled from the crude idealistic digital narrative, something that does not lend itself to the tricks of reduction to the familiar apparatus of unambiguous “Yes” and “No” . The name of this is Man, this machine defect, the only important object of the blind humanities, idling in their self-invented pseudoscientific dreams.
Fear of a person does not dare to fight against the all-illuminating beacon of rationality, turning into a mistake processed in advance by templated constructions, bringing a soothing wind of answers and “thought-out” ridicule as mechanisms for mastering the phenomenon. The guarantee of peace of mind and thought cannot cost too much, even if the cost is delusion itself. A verbal web of answers that give rise to even more questions - a non-existent trick, endless demagoguery, tedious, violent, causes a keen desire to conclude a contract with the mind, the subject of which will be what lies on the very surface. This is a contract with the signature "End!". But this is not a real end: it seems that only now does a person begin.
Conveying information consumers in a pipeline, the accompanying product here is a frightened person, pitifully hiding in an anonymized veil of digital distance: we are closer to the world, but even further from it than ever; Alienated from analog responsibility for ourselves, we are some reagents-diluents of an immense digital connection. This is a digital courage, however, far from courage.
To speak, to think, to know a person is possible only with the help of an unpredictable language - a living, mobile, multi-membered insect - disgustingly unfixable, not constant, elusive - often entering into a relationship of mutual exclusion with a language that is sufficient for everything else. A person of informatization production with horror runs away from this thorny jungle, from an unfamiliar Other, a disobedient fool, to the territory where he is always waiting for the warm embrace of understandable schemes and algorithms that can motherly reassure with the words: “Nothing and nothing are one and the same” .
Fixation. The world of the consumer of information products is the world of magic, the absolute game of faith and calculated delusions; the world of the producer of information products is the world of naked ones and zeros and their cynical-functional articulations, which always appear as they are, without the “childish whims” of transcendental motives, objective spirit or divine particles. Once and for all squeezed between the beginning and the end, the entrance and the exit, squeezed by the utilitarian digital hyperbole, these cubes, by all the rules of the game, strive for a position of rest and their ideal fixation. Fixed means saved. Fixed means immersed in the sphere of security, giving rise to guarantees for the suppression of breakdowns and crises. Fixed means being at a safe distance from surprises and redundancy. Finally, fixed means not posing a threat to either oneself or others. A kind of anti-superposition, in which nothing unprogrammed is required: neither destruction nor creation. Fixed means sporadically sterile.
Fixation is a favorite technique of information production, which lies at the heart of the continuous increase in information efficiency. Unfixed in all its "human" roots, longing for loss, for its cozy hut of oblivion deep in the neural forests. It is unacceptable. Everything should be fixed: a sign, a symbol, a metaphor, a person. An unfixed sign is a lost sign, which means it is a mistake. An unfixed thought is a lost thought, which means lost resources for its production. An unfixed person means a lost person, since control over his core entropy and generic historical structure is weakening. The persistent tradition of Art Nouveau again found a source of energy. Once again man is subjected to the violence of fixation: to be described and placed in Bacon's utopian city, where all the streets are born under the dictates of the Cogito.
But we already have the experience of madness: a person is lost not when he is not fixed, but vice versa - a person disappears when some forces manage to capture him in a cursive snapshot of a language and code constant. Fixation is the end of man, in the sense that was felt by our pathological conscience in the XNUMXth century. This is the methodological device that carries doubt in itself, develops this doubt and weaves it into the threads of morality, due to which it continues to exist, albeit in a negative empirical way. Taken in ethical quotation marks, it becomes the ideological basis for the existence of algorithms, a necessary predicate of the "checkpoint" - the classical tradition of constant improvement of modernity reinterpreted in a modern way.
A person cannot help but rebel against his imprisonment in the prison of fixation (whatever nature it clothes (degenerates) itself with: political, economic, ideological, professional, etc.), loosening its walls by means of a continuously rediscovered, verbally and symbolically expressed instrument that affirmed that , which has long been known and radically deeply used - the unconscious. The clash of the humanities and the technical seems to be once again making a spiral in its history, which, in a certain light, looks like a learning process of arrogant self-confidence. Developing more and more sophisticated and self-confident algorithms - a successive series of fixations - informatization production, in moments of calm, some unfamiliar voluntaristic rest, enters the game with centripetal unity, placing these algorithms in a human shell, taking for an ideal "spirit program", striving for modernist analogy in depth. However, he has not yet been able to hide the leash of guiding logic, even if it is not clear - it still too clearly betrays in itself nothing more than a psychological act of weakening an equally strong leash. Professional, high-tech illusion of choice - but no more. An archetypal, skillful trick - giving more opportunities, a tighter grip and deeper control of an intoxicated creature. But it is still a narrow corridor in which "too human" has no place. A person again escapes from such a resulting fixation, at the same time leaving his cultural manifestos on the walls of the corridor, which, perhaps, are still destined to take their place on the pages of history.
Answers. An unanswered question is an ever-accumulating burden that overwhelms the clouded mind, immanently threatening this mind with darkened areas of the human, keeping it in constant tension, far from the postulates of some kind of vital economy, to which, as they say, we aspire by our very nature. The model of “obedient concepts”, in which everything unfinished, incomplete in any mode accessible to a limited but obedient sign, is forcibly expelled from the internal discourse, recognizes only the category of answers as significant and worthy of attention. Questions are just tools, devoid of intrinsic value. They are means that exist for, and are always highlighted in this perspective. This characteristic dynamic is a necessary constraint for the expansion of controlled freedoms and the "establishment of language", the purposeful production of both products and people.
Informatization production determines its professional, and at the same time, (quasi) existential dynamics through the category of answers. But no questions. The impotence of questions lies in the fact that they are demanding of internal dynamics, which enter into a reckless battle with a vague term of explanation, contradictory and opposed within the framework of the efficiency machinery of its highest value - external, economic dynamics, which leaves its mark on a person in the form of alienation analyzed by feelings. Answers are a measure and a gesture of calming, stopping and completing.
But what is the question if one tries to go beyond the horizons of the Latinisms quaestio and problema? We see that the question is the engine, the core of the dynamization of the human spirit, the metaphor of which is condensed in a team of horses (even if running wildly from the City in flames), the primacy of which is freedom in action (in the pagan spirit). Receiving an answer, the question approaches its legitimate, constantly haunting death, which, as it sometimes seems, it craves with all its nature, in places, not disdaining suicide. But the question is death, is it not the death of man himself, and thus Death itself? And isn't this event highly valuable for traditional economical communication? The economic project answers in the affirmative. But the human project in every possible way objects to this. For a human building, the question is the force that this building holds together, glues together many disparate, motley names in one formulation (however, far from a formula). The question is not even a way of existence of life and its “what was required to be proved”, it is, perhaps, life itself, its very flesh, although already at a high level, but still not amenable to gestures of “academic conscientiousness”. Any other project cannot be built on questions, but they are the only suitable material for a human, humanitarian building. Trying to build a person on the answers means to set him up, to program him - an ideal move for a technical organism. But human programming is no longer what the words themselves point to (or rather, the grammar of signs), because even before they are realized in the realm of the conceivable, the person is already thrown aside, and something else becomes the object. Human programming is a classic oxymoron and, by and large, sheer nonsense. Here the abyss between the human and the technical (informatization, in our case) is highlighted to a colossal scale, which only He himself can cross in one step. Collective responses - there is the training of history, the material of which is a faceless object-man, captured in the responses. This is the same as denying the "higher question", and this is exactly what all production strives for, not excluding informatization.
Home space. As we are trying to show, the modernist return (which undoubtedly already has a different name - culture does not like to return to the past without supplementing it in any way) is a kind of socio-cultural workshop that nurtures a new person, the dominants of which are the derivative dominants of the dominant culture itself. Abruptly interrupted in the "barracks of postmodernity", the process of unlimited quantitative production improvements (and could it end in principle?) - modernity - naturally continues its path through the forces of qualitative improvements, the most suitable tools of which are information and informatization - conductors of some kind of transhuman, technical "spiritualization ". Therefore, we see it as justified to emphasize the person of informatization - the person of informatization production, as a key archetype of sociocultural genesis.
And again* we turn to art - our eternal barometer - sensitively listening to its vibrations. The subject and environmental style, named according to the highest innovative standards of non-violent, independent and intrinsically valuable designation - hi-tech - with its unpopular, short-term, but still seductive story, highlights some moments of mental (without avoiding, moreover, notes of psychologism) threads of a person. Allowing and even building his semiotics on the fusion of techniques that work effectively in spaces, on the one hand, domestic and, on the other, professional deployment, he uniformly positively, having already concluded an alliance, perceives the directive subordination of one to another. But the rules of the game of these two spaces often intersect only along an apparently forced tangent: the house is the time and place of a living person, while work requires a production machine, the boundaries of which must be clearly delineated by the formula for production efficiency. What could be the danger if the requirement to be clearly marked in the hierarchical structure of subordinates and subordinates begins to play an important role in a place where a person, removing all protective masks, assumes the most relaxed position, while becoming the most inattentive, dispersed and, thus, vulnerable ? Without proper elaboration - in essence, and making a mental and experiential divide between home and work spaces - this can lead to a shift in human, family, friendship, personal, etc. relations with relations of workers, hierarchical, subordinating, relations of efficiency and efficiency.
The high-tech style, which has not received high worldly popularity, has certain grounds for growth now, in the era of the deployment of deeply penetrating informatization, in the era of limitation for the limitless - that which continuously strives into an artificial microworld, not limited to simple observation. Information design, highlighting all other types of design with its nobility, here, having not yet learned selectivity, can become a powerful mixing factor, including inappropriate, anti-historical and, in the end, dehumanistic and predatory. Informatization, so to speak, has not yet figured out itself, the result of which should be, in particular, the theoretical approval of its types and subspecies. In the meantime, informatization is one for everything: both for the house and for what is outside it.
Errors. The program is the fixation of certain relations in terms endowed with a transparent, unambiguous meaning, devoid of any “too human” lyrics. Ambiguity is the first and key source of errors, included in the theme of the discursiveness of things in the most fundamental way. To the extent that Man cannot be investigated, understood (of course, through concepts) without taking into account the mistakes he makes - an integral part of his being - so intolerantly he inscribes mistakes in his own models of everything else that extends beyond him, including those like him.
Informatization production, like any other (unless we slide, in the spirit of formula-charged "everything", in relation to the expression "human production" into reductionism), does not accept errors as a factor that openly threatens efficiency and, therefore, its very "materialized" existence. A person, on the contrary, cannot be fully and sincerely conceived without mistakes, not being able to break with losses and gains - some kind of thickening engines of inspiration and gestures of openness bestowed on him by mistakes themselves. Perhaps there is nothing closer and more humane (No one, even from his transcendental side, makes mistakes) than mistakes, just as there is nothing more distant and intolerable than mistakes.
The inseparable connection, both physical and beyond, between man and errors is objectified at the existential level in the phenomenon of openness, whether we mean any structure, or weave it into the flesh of the very possibility and condition of existence (even and artificial). The “voice” of openness always sounds like the voice of freedom, giving a person legalized potential for highlighting his existence, bringing it to the limit in an extreme (vitally desired and even manic) form of error (already in a different, transcendental form) - a borderline situation. The production motive is different: to the limit, expel the Error from one's discourse, and then close the "black box", providing a magical, sterile function as the highest service value.
The strategy of informatization production is as follows: to capture the object in the tenacious embrace of the result, close its poetry in a final and clear utilitarian pose and finally achieve a voluptuous modernist ideal - a module (without history and context, according to P. Kozlowski), trained for endless reuse. Man and the culture created (constantly created) by him act differently, which in the eyes of the above-mentioned force is nothing but naivety and helplessness - to rediscover what is already known. And this does not apply to the turns of the technological spiral - here we are talking about the rediscovery of exactly the same thing that was already known with full confidence that sooner or later what has been achieved will cease to be an achievement and historically slip aside.
Openness is always both openness to error and openness from error (to something imposed by this error). The voice of errors should never be silent, because this is the voice through which a person hears himself, recognizes himself and identifies himself. Openness is Danaid's barrel - meaningless, painful work, the value of which is that it never ends, it is in itself, and always will be, without the danger of being plundered, torn off, without the danger of getting lost and, in the end, closed.
So, raising the final thesis, let's say: a person permanently enters into an alliance with that which acquires its formal legitimation through a mechanically bound fallacy. Human life is life through mistakes: we grasp, fix a person, and in the next moment we make mistakes in trying to form an idea about him. Such a mental, or rather, existential, project delay within the framework of Man, even in terms of some kind of anthropology, is fundamentally unremovable until he himself is eliminated ...
Human. As a conclusion.
Protected by repetition, human life is essentially unique.
J. Derrida:
“Repetition separates strength, presence, life from themselves. This separation is an economical and prudent gesture of that which puts aside itself in order to preserve itself, which saves up waste for later and gives way to fear.
Repetition through violent embraces of the word - the servant in the office of the Logos.
More from Derrida:
"The word is the corpse of psychic speech..."
The substitution of incomprehensibility - the source of fear through danger - for the fictitious softness of intelligibility (opposition) is a favorite trick for all technical, and in particular, informational modernity, the second ideal of which, perhaps, is reuse, which intelligibility takes as the basis of its movement.
"Look at the thing - your Self is reflected in it. Listen to others - you yourself speak in them." Rediscoveries of this kind and their poeticization are initially born out of some kind of break (whether it is historical or anthropological), out of convention, out of some kind of mistake, marking time in one place, and not being resolved by any forward movement. Such a rediscovery is a failure in the efficiency machine, which constantly appeals to the formula "this has already been said" if it is not addressed to the higher turn of the spiral.
The informatization worker is a savage of the future, on the crest of the intention of the World Spirit, regressing to some sarcastic mythopoetics of decline, fear, surprise - everything that is not subject to program inversion and, perhaps, degeneration. Ready-made templates and power over information are his eternal companions, never betraying him, in contrast to the unfortunate, annoyingly interrogative speech activity. He speaks, and in his voice there is an echo of a digital distrust of everything different from it, a kind of digital, binary cynicism, which, however, has yet to find itself in the place already prepared for it - the pages of unconscious, ever-returning schemes.
*Cm.
Source: habr.com