"How can God and religion today be relevant to include the present and future generations?" - such a question in the book Synthesis. Creating God in the Internet Age "by Alexandre Bard and Jan Söderqvist. By discussing the human condition of the Internet, capitalism, individualism and the death of God in the era of authors, the authors suggest moving from passive observation to the front of active action. Man is both religious and creation - these are two basic assumptions by which Bard and Söderqvist support their anthropology and the emerging religious-philosophical movement - synthetism. According to them, the time has come when a person who is creating must finally create God if he hopes to survive in a technocratic-bureaucratic world. This God can no longer be personal, since a person is no longer individual - therefore, the authors of the Internet see not only as a network model of reality, but also offer to perceive it as the foundation of reality, its mode of action.
Alexander Bard, a Swedish thinker, songwriter and producer, has written a series of books about the Internet revolution known as The Futurica Trilogy, along with media theorist Jan Söderqvist. The authors argue about the influence of the age of information on the writing of history, the political consequences of globalization, the consequences of the materialism and technological advancement. It turns out that we all are machines of the body, and this, according to the authors, is a great news.
We invite you to get acquainted with the ideas of the philosophers and sociologists of hooligans and provide a translation of their excerpt from the latest book. The time has come for philosophy, religion, and human concepts to change. But how?
Everything is religion, but everything is also politics. And politics is religion, and religion is a major part of politics. In addition to utopias, there are no visions, and without vision, there is no collective and organized hope of a better life in a society in which desirable changes occur. In a society that does not have utopias, cynical isolationism takes on the public scene. Therefore, such a society is the most dangerous one. Every person cares about himself and his loved ones, but shows a lack of interest in the affairs of others. Such a lack of social contacts sooner or later destroys all major areas of society. The opposite of Utopia, as you know, is dyplination. The upcoming ecological apocalypse emerged as the largest and most dominant dipole of our time. The key issue that will lead to the fate of the 21st century is how to prevent or at least manage the approaching ecological apocalypse in order to improve our situation or, if possible, postpone the end.
collage by David Delruelle
We live in an age that does not have a utopia that can be believed, while at the same time everything is shaded by the narrative of the last court, which is not only powerful but also threatening in political discourse. Environmental issues are constantly on the agenda, as are collective conscience, as these issues are constantly overlooked by politicians who prefer to give priority to short-term solutions to small issues. The latter may create conditions for occasional activities, but at the same time harm or even prevent the necessary steps to improve the environment. In a society where everyone speaks contradictory things, and with a great noise turns into pseudo growing pliurarchija causing paralyzing hipercinizmo status (see. Netokratai [1]). But it is precisely in such moments chaotic history and establishes a new metaphysical system - braškančioje Paul Christianity in the Roman Empire and Kant's individualism together with the French Revolution only a few very clear examples - so there is no reason to believe that our age in this regard will be different.
The hypocritical state is caused by a mismatch between the dominant ideological paradigm and the surrounding material reality. Moreover, the lack of utopia and the emergence of dichotomy are decisive evidence that the current paradigm has reached the end of the way and has lost all the remnants of any importance. The main problem is the material reality that is not around us - albeit continuously creating an endless flow of problems - and the current ideological drought. A new metaphysical narrative is needed that is more suitable for a new age than the old one, in which dystopia is replaced by a likely utopia, which can prevent distortion from becoming a reality. It is not enough to draw a picture of a powerful duplication and to moralise about those who help it to become influential in opinions and behaviors. In the subconscious, man is firstly driven to end the desire for death and the willingness of mazochistic pleasure. In keeping with this logic, eco-morality only accelerates and enhances ecological dystopia, instead of blocking it or relaxing it, though it believes in doing so and claims it. Distopia, rather, should be used as a lever in shaping an open and contingent environment of creativity and intensity that is oriented towards the future and into a synthetic utopia.
All the political ideologies that fall under the umbrella of capitalism are essentially individualist. Conservatism is my existence of an authentic individual who has been lost and therefore needs to be restored by digging into the past. Anarchism regards the individual as the purpose and the meaning of existence, and therefore seeks to reduce the influence of politics in order to liberate the spontaneous inner self-realization of the individual. Liberalism - an older and more pragmatic relative of anarchism - unlike the latter, he perceives the individual's self-realization as metaphysically related to the expropriation of the Kantian object. Liberal imagination is different from the anarchist, because in particular, stresses the need for all resources belong to one or more individuals are turning to more complex atoms and thus reduce the metaphysical liberal reward growth. Thus, unlike anarchist, the liberal law and the state consider it necessary to protect the property, which is the subject of the fetish of individuals. Socialism also aims to fight for the fulfillment of the individual, but the conservative class system sees as a candidate for this utopia obstacle, because the upper class manages the most important resource to society and refuses to share power and goodness. Democratic socialism of the revolutionary diversity is appointed as the answer to the question, what is the most effective and at the same time ethically fairest way to achieve a common goal - the working class to take over the senior class goods and thus create a society without classes. This goal is common to all socialists: they all seek to liberate the individual from the self-realization and liberation from the class system to the final triumph of communism.
All this means that if sinteizmas aims to succeed in the Internet age as metaphysics, it must construct an entirely new basis utopia: it could be an idea, the opposite of all forms of individualism, užvaldžiusiam network society, where the individual is reduced to a distant past strange residue. It is even necessary for the people of informationism to give hope that it is impossible to do so. Starting from a capitalistic perspective, synthesis should have no way of doing this, since individualism in philosophy is dead, like atomism in physics. The utopia of synthetism must be formulated as a full-fledged network dynamics. How can a network be fully-fledged if it is not free and open to the surrounding world and future in this contingent and relativistic universe?
Like cosmologists and quantum physics scientists are looking for a consensus on general theory of physics, so also the syntheologists are seeking information science to create a social theory of everything. The syntactic utopia is most surprising that it can not be formulated in advance because it is in a contingent and uncertain universe, which means that it needs to be performed before it is named. Therefore, it is extremely important for both synthetic ethics and creative development that ideas should not be hidden from the public for virtual walls or towers of legal documents, and that they can use dividends completely free of charge on the Internet [2]. The Synthistic utopia is first and foremost in which ideas are free and undignified, where the memes [3] form memeplexes and freely circulate among people and networks, are transformed without resistance, and the only obstacle to such a movement can be the lack of attention, which leads to the elimination of all Memetal losers. Thus, the movement of digital integrity is supported by the Synthetic Movement as an indispensable stage for achieving a situation that we call utopian memetics.
collage by David Delruelle
Treating sinteistinio faith distinct in potential strangers met by chance a temporary utopia communities, for example, spontaneous meetings Burning Man festival in Nevada - probably one of the world's largest remaining places where the exchange of business cards to support the vulgar and profane. It is there that the synthetic dream of a religious intersubject becomes a reality. You and I become us, which is significantly more than the sum of its parts. This is borne out by the fact that this is strengthened when spontaneous meeting participants eventually split up for themselves. You and I do not become just us; they become mutually exclusive - the character as a part of the phenomenon is rotated, reformed, radicalized and expanded.
Sudden entities synchronization makeshift utopia over time instead of only the depreciation is increasing, because of the infinite memory now loving strangers meeting where there is no longer the instrumental only getting worse. It is in this ecstacy that is directly related to religious affiliation that a synthetic entity is born and raised. When there are no other social factors, it is in this, most at risk of all, meeting - without any connections between people, with the exception of the synthetic faith - Syntheos [4] is most prominent. What is our time, eco-villages and inclusive festivals (Burning Man, Going Nowhere, The Bortherland, etc.), if not experimental, temporary utopia that shape the tangible fixed utopia concept and turning towards her?
Exiting beyond the boundaries of temporary utopia, we are still living in times when the communal world view is shattered due to the complete instability of the ancient times. History does not rule us. As a general rule in Plurarcticism, the only thing left to us is a planet broken up by virtual subcultures. Human life on this planet can only be saved by the ever-increasing physical distribution of monasteries. This requires a certain subculture, whose mission to the planet as a whole and the preservation of human life which are aware that in order to successfully accomplish this task, it is necessary first of all to withdraw from a radically individualistic paradigm and its program atomism, capitalism and ekspancionizmo. From this necessary refusal, there is the utopian theatrical anarchism's idea: the dream of a long-term society without national states and capitalist expansionism. However, just as Karl Marx calls socialism the necessary path towards communism, we must also assume that there is experimental practice towards theological anarchism. Synthesis is a practice that is spontaneously derived from spontaneously emerging needs in the shadow of spontaneously formed technological structures. Here, this movement appears: as a response to the strongest needs of the new era, it is implemented through the use of new, destructive technologies. It is just as possible as possible for the synthesized memeplex to get involved in the new communicative-technological reality and spread it.
Political ideology in the age of the Internet has two metaphysical outcomes. First, the enormous development and deployment of the Internet opens up a contradiction between the emerging netocracy, which seeks to free up information flows with ever-growing networks, and the marginalized bourgeoisie, which, along with nation states and large corporations, seeks to restrict and control information flows. Secondly, the ecological apocalypse is approaching, which must surely be prevented if humanity ever wants to survive. Synthetic policies are, first and foremost, environmentalists. However, in order to achieve the goal of sintezia to open the door to theological anarchism, it has to engage in a conflict with the old structure of capitalist power, which consists of national states and huge global corporations.
In order to overcome the state-corporate state apparatus and its disfocal, apocalyptic and hypermetric metaphysics, synthesizers (such as the American philosopher Terence McKenna in his prophetic speech at the University of California back in 1984, eight years before the World Wide Web, developing light) argues that it is necessary to have a free And unlimited access to the most powerful weapon, free and open Internet. McKenna claims that free and open Internet is the only option to save mankind planet for human habitation, creating a long-awaited and much needed counterweight eschatologiniam desire, which is an integral part of capitalism. Therefore, first of all, what must be done by the synthetic all-in-one theory is the combination of two new political movements of the late-capitalist masses: environmental protection and the movement of digital integrity. It is unlikely that this is just the coincidence that both movements occurred in the same region of the world - in northern Europe and the coast of North America. Internet development in these countries is the fastest, psychodelic experimentation is the most common, and the perception of the vulnerability of the planet is likely to spread and it is easier to find its way. Both of these movements are two sides of the same metaphysical medal, and synthetics is the same medal.
The most important issue with regard to the free and open Internet is, of course, the degree of transparency that the public is capable of raising. It is important to realize that the transparency issue is never the transparency itself - admitting that the heart for brothers and sisters in the community is a sacred act and in synthetism, rather, the problem is how transparency affects the network pyramid, i.e. Y ,. Who ducks before, risking that, for a short time, the first to lose power? Does the current clarification strengthen the top, middle, or bottom of the current structure of society? Is the structure of power reformed by approaching the radical equality published by the utopias of synthetism, is the existing structure of power even more consolidated while preserving social inequality?
We can look for answers, for example, in the pragmatic ethics of the French philosopher Michel Foucault: if the clarification starts from the top, That is, if the rulers themselves reveal their secrets first, transparency can be painlessly implemented in the entire power structure from top to bottom. On the other hand, if the clarification starts from the bottom, as a result of it, there is no doubt a capitalist police state, and with it, besides all the other disadvantages caused by such development, the ecological apocalypse is soon to be inevitable. First of all, citizens need to know everything about the actions of the state and large corporations, instead of allowing the state-owned corporation to track and record citizens' opinions and preferences.
So, according to synthetics, the battle between WikiLeaks and other undermining organizations, which seeks to expose secret government activities, is a sacred project, and efforts by national and major corporations to track and record citizens' views are a flagrant violation of universal human rights. Transparency in society must be transmitted from the top, constantly moving the lower layers. The turn should be this: first of all, a man of power goes to bed, and then a citizen. It is precisely here that the opposition between the new synthetic netocracy and the structure of the old state-corporate power becomes the brightest.
Net-tracking the Internet as a relational phenomenon: to be nether means to be identical with the network itself, to act as if it were a web player. The bourgeoisie, in turn, perceives the Internet as a correlational object that is alien and hostile to the individualist entity and therefore, as a problematic object, must be ruled and controlled, if necessary, by force.
This explains why precisely the netocracy is the driving force behind the power of the old power to defend the free and open Internet, while the old nation state and large corporations lose the unmotivated and ethically dubious power of the power. The old bourgeoisie is motivated by the dangers of freedom and equality on the Internet, and it is an outright attempt to conquer and nourish the network, which, after using the information advantage, could defend its positions of power. It is a great political conflict of the third millennium, and there is no doubt that synthetism chooses as the integral metaphysics of the age of the Internet. The world needs at least as much as more demons. The harshness with which they are being persecuted, slandered and punished is a clear proof that the state corporation understands the seriousness of the situation.
collage by David Delruelle
Since the 1960s, individualism and his close atomicism are under great pressure from the new super ideology - the dynamics of relativist and his comrade network. The capitalist patriarchy - perhaps the most striking individualistic structure of power since Napoleon's times - is attacked by feminism demanding a gender equality as well as a queer movement requiring equality between people of different sexual orientations and identities. Feminists represent the interests of women's individuals, while the queer movement fights for the civil rights of individuals with a sexual diversity. This, of course, means that both of these movements are essentially individualistic. The critique of the Patriarchate emanates from the individualist paradigm inside. However, there is plenty of network-dynamic arguments in such a critique, such as the statement that freedom of the woman from the patriarchy is also a man's freedom, or that the liberation of homosexuals and transsexuals also means the liberation of heterosexuals from repressive heteronorarity. Thus, divisive critique begins in the midst of individualism-informationalism in the collective subconscious, by liberating new passions and desires, thus revealing the disadvantages of individualism, in order to gradually, but surely, establish a new, independent paradigm in which the old individual is dead.
Still, the first relationalist attack on an individualist paradigm comes from the environment, aggressively demanding that capitalism cease to be subjected to environmental degradation and the reckless waste of resources. Environmental awareness, without focusing on isolated individuals or atoms, clearly relies on the theory of network dynamics. He sees the planet as a closed system, which must only be perceived as a system, since all its actors and parts are completely subordinated to the network that surrounds them. So environmentalism gives priority to the network, and not to the individual; First, in this context, man reduces himself to divide from an individual. It follows that clear ethical limits are determined according to what a person can do with the interests of the dynamic network. Environmentalism is globalization, because national environmental policy is meaningless - it is necessary to fight for global solidarity, which in the network-dynamic theory includes not only people, but also crops and natural diversity as such. It is logical that environmentalism, as the bearer of radicalism, takes away socialism.
However, environmentalism is the most powerful response to the desperate desire of the destructive death of the old paradigm simply because it is fighting for a free and open Internet. This struggle is increasingly evident in the evolving political ideology, which is based on the utopian possibilities of the new paradigm instead of supporting the distortionary scenarios of the old paradigm. Environmentalism rejects atheism in the context of metaphysical history as its power to deny capitalism. Meanwhile, the digital integral movement is a dialectic denial of denial, and can therefore be considered in parallel with the movement of synthetics. Rick Falkvinge, the founder of the Pirate Party and one of the pioneers in the digital integrity movement, in Swarmwise draws attention to the relationship between movements. Environmental awareness is driven by the belief that natural resources are endless, not inexhaustible, as the capitalistic mythology constantly assumes. Thus, according to Falkvinge, the Pirate movement is based on the assertion that culture and knowledge spreading among people in a society in which the sharing of information is not subject to additional taxation is not an end in itself but rather an endless amount of any future resources.
Distinction is concerned with finality; Utopianism is about infinity. Hence, the answer to the question of what should be done is to fight for a free and open Internet. More important is the engine that drives the new utopia, rather than the brake that holds the old duplication. What we are talking about is not simply an alternative to a market that shapes public opinion: synthetism is de facto the name of metaphysics, which is based on the movement of digital integrity. This explains why fighting for a free and open Internet is a major political concern in the 21st century. All other important political conflicts that are triggered by the growth of informationalism and its shade of color depend entirely on the outcome of the main conflict. This struggle involves not only a growing non-Croatian turning away from the ruling bourgeoisie, which manages the world from the time when the paradigm of printed writing was universally accepted. For the fight against free and open Internet, the head of an upcoming eco-apocalypse is dismayed: a potential catastrophe that is blamed for capitalism, obviously disabled, to prevent it.
The earth is at risk of becoming uninhabited for several generations - many devastating consequences for which a person is responsible are no longer recoverable. The solution is to stop the development leading directly to the ecological apocalypse and turn it into an environmentally friendly direction. We already know how top-down capitalism, with individualism, treats the ecological apocalypse at the forefront of state religion. There is no doubt that this terrible catastrophe was caused by a system that has repeatedly shown that it is not capable of counteracting damage. On the other hand, the growing and striving to establish a netocracy burns by the desire to save the Earth for human life. Unlike the cynical and self-condemning bourgeoisie, it provides access to a large arsenal of new communication tools that will be used for this purpose. Thus, free and open Internet is a necessary link to make ecological rescue a reality.
[1] The Netocrats is the first book of The Futurica Trilogy, in which Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist discuss how the history of writing changes over the Internet, gaining the information-technological dimension (value for money).
[2] From the glossary at the back of the book: "Divide is the opposite of an individual, to an infinitely indivisible person or phenomenon, unlike an indivisibly indivisible person or object."
[3] Mema - an idea or behavioral pattern that emanates from a particular cultural member. The term "first to use" was introduced by the British thinker Richard Dawkins in 1976. Written in The Selfish Gene. Dawkins uses this term when considering the propagation of ideas and cultural phenomena and compares it to evolutionary laws (value past.).
[4] From the glossary at the end of the book: "Syntheos, translated from Greek, means the created god or god, appearing where there is a developing man. It is the fourth, summing up and meaningful, synthetic pyramid concept, celebrated in autumn equinox and starting at the Quarter of Synthea. "
credits: Alexander Bard & Jan Söderqvist
