Hegemony of The Medium?

Here some thoughts in the umbra of the disintegrating post-WWII political world order.

Hegemony usually applies to the "leadership, predominance, preponderance" of a state, "esp. the leadership or predominant authority of one state of a confederacy or union over the others" (OED), hence a political concept. In the twentieth century, we read, quoted in the OED, "the hegemon of the western hemisphere is the United States." (Forum Jan.­Mar. 1904 347 Cent. Dict. Suppl.) A political entity is composed of people, the polis being originally a togetherness of people under some kind of constitution that regulates how they live together and how the power of some over others is exercised according to law.

It seems to be a misuse of the word 'hegemony' to apply it to things or an idea. Freedom, for instance, is an idea, or even ideal, that a people can aspire to, and democracy as a form of government is regarded today as realizing an ideal of freedom in a state, but we don't say that the idea of democracy is hegemonic. Nevertheless it certainly predominates today in the West as an idea aligned with freedom or even as the idea of political freedom. Other ideas, such as justice or human rights, may predominate as guiding ideals in the modern world, but we don't say they are hegemonic.

Things themselves are not regarded as free, but may be used by us humans as means to realize our freedoms in living our lives. Life itself is a kind of movement as an exercise of our freedoms of movement. Freedom itself can only be grasped as a kind or kinds of movement. Our use of things from spear-heads through to super-computers running A.I. algorithms is understood as our human deployment of technology for our own ends and, as such, technology, it is said, cannot exercise any hegemony over us. It is our servant, invented by human ingenuity. Nevertheless, with the emergence of the cyberworld, digital algorithms automate control over movements of all kinds, including our own lives. The proponents of the ever-encroaching cyberworld proclaim that algorithmic control is all for the good, our own good, especially our convenience; all that is needed are some ethical guard-rails.

What is the case, however, when an idea becomes a thing, i.e. thingified, and hence moves in the world as thing, even with its own law of movement? This seems at first sight to be an idle, whimsical idea. After all, ideas are at home in the realm of ideas, but things are material, situated on the other side of the divide. How we humans value everything around us, including each other, is indeed ubiquitous. We cannot help but evaluate, estimate and thus appreciate or depreciate, like or dislike, desire or shun, enjoy or reject everything we encounter in the world. Our very social togetherness is borne by a constant mutual estimation of who each of us is, a kind of sociative movement I call interplay. Hence valuation, evaluation, estimation is practised in everyday life which can be conceived as guided by an ensemble of cultural values. In the modern age, at least in the West, the values of human rights have come to the fore as ideals to be lived up to and practised in any polity. Most states pay lip service, at least, to human rights as proclaimed in the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights. 

There is also a value that has been realized globally in an especially thingy way. The paradigm for this value-thing is money, which serves to sociate people economically through what has come to be called the cash nexus. But what is money? What is its essence, its specific whatness? At first, one could say, that money is the thingly embodiment of exchange-value and as such serves to mediate market exchange. The forms of appearance or 'faces' or 'looks' of this exchange-value are money and goods of all kinds, including services. But not all thingified value is exchange-value; it has further forms of appearance, starting with capital and wages, and proceeding to profit, interest and ground-rent, each of these being the income-forms of thingified value.

Capital itself is thingified value circling through its own peculiar movement via a series of quasi-Protean transformations of form that aims to generate more thingified value in the form of revenue than was first advanced in the form of money-capital invested in wage-earning employees and means of production. The principle or law governing this movement of capital is that The Medium of thingified value itself must be augmented, i.e. must accumulate or valorize. The residue remaining from the realized revenue after deducting all the costs of the production and circulation processes, comprising those for means of production/circulation, wages/salaries, interest and ground-rent must be positive, i.e. profitable. Otherwise the movement has failed and the continued existence of the functioning, entrepreneurial capital in question becomes doubtful.

The law (or principle) of valorizing thingified value is able to assert itself today globally without humans knowing anything about The Medium of thingified value. That is the beauty of this law of movement. It is a law of movement sui generis that no physical science can ever 'discover'. Why not? Because thingified value itself is nothing physical, but rather a thingified idea of estimation and evaluation realized behind the backs of the players practically sociating in economic life in a so-called 'free market economy'. Thinking from within the ontological difference is required to see it, but currently positivist thinking, that has closed off the ontological difference, has the upper hand. This closure of the mind ensures so far that The Medium remains inconceivable, i.e. without a concept. Liberal political thinking is thus unable to understand its own essential shortcoming, for it remains on the surface, pleading and striving futilely for the fairness of interplay among free individuals. The Medium circulating, valorizing below remains out of sight, beyond the mind's grasp.

Today we are witnessing how the United States, as the state most unequivocally dedicated to capitalism, and therefore tacitly to the law of movement of the valorizing Medium, is unknowingly, but for that all the more ruthlessly and effectively, asserting this law worldwide. The hegemony of The Medium is being exercised via a surrogate, camouflaged under the political slogan of America First, and no one is the wiser, not even right-wing Republican politicians nor oppositional left-wing activists. Instead of seeing The Medium for what it is, the capitalist economy is proclaimed to be the realm of individual freedom in which the players are free to play the rough, competitive gainful game, with its several winners and many losers. Tough luck, buddy, if you're a loser. The so-called Free World is founded on an equivocal idea of freedom that it strives to uphold, come what may. Hence the vilification and repression in the U.S. from the right of anyone calling attention to the ravages of capitalism. Conservatives in other countries follow suit.

The political hegemony of the United States, largely exercised through the U.S. dollar, is seen by many, since it is highly visible, but the weird thingy hegemony of The Medium remains invisible, beyond comprehension. The West's political hegemon is unknowingly itself subjugated to the hegemony of the latter's movements, rendering the 'Free World' a meticulously manicured ideology.

Further reading: On Human Temporality: Recasting Whoness Da Capo De Gruyter, Berlin 2024.

Social Ontology of Whoness: Rethinking Core Phenomena of Political Philosophy De Gruyter, Berlin 2018.  

Laws of movement & Energy.

An Invisible Global Social Value TT&S Vol. 5 no. 2, 2024.

Capitalocene & The global law of movement. 

Seminal: Critique of Competitive Freedom and the Bourgeois-Democratic State: Outline of a Form-Analytic Extension of Marx's Uncompleted System Kurasje, Copenhagen 1984, reprinted 2015.

Philorock song Do the Da Capo

Another philorock song:

Do the Da Capo

Featuring Willy P. and Pleon Exia.

Why AI isn't intelligent

It's already become accepted hype to speak of AI getting more and more 'intelligent', with ever-increasing computing power and sophisticated 'deep-learning' algorithms, to one day, inevitably, achieve Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). This is a spurious, tendentious claim otherwise known more impolitely as bullshit. Nevertheless it's taken the whole world in, and it is exquisitely monetizable.

It's easy to see why AI isn't intelligent once you have a firm grasp of the distinction between the phenomena three-dimensional time and one-dimensional time. But who today has such a firm grasp? And modern science will fight tooth and nail, with all sorts of self-serving, dogmatic assertions. to make sure that nobody ever understands the distinction.

Here is an analogy that some may find useful: Consider the proof of a theorem in mathematics. The proof can be written out employing the axioms and rules of inference for the specific mathematical entity concerned, be it the natural numbers, real numbers, a group, manifold, topology, or what have you. Anyone (human) reading the proof can go through it step by step to check if the proof holds water. That's fairly easy. 

The proof proceeds sequentially along a line of logical causality driven (from the temporal rear) by the applicable rules of inference. Logical causality is akin to the physical causality evoked by physics and the other modern sciences to explain causally (rather than understand) certain kinds of physical movement, be they physical, chemical, biological, psychological, etc. 

A mathematical proof is cut and dried, and can be checked with relative ease, perhaps even by an algorithm written to perform such a task. But who came up with the more or less ingenious proof in the first place? A mathematician! He or she was hit by a flash of insight that gave inspiration for the proof that could then be written down. The mathematician had the idea (εἶδος) in mind of finding a proof, and her/his power of imagination, looking into the temporal dimension of the future, spontaneously imagined the inferential path to such an envisaged goal, or end (τέλος). By contrast, rules of inference only work from what is already there, i.e. from the steps of the proof already made, with no inspiration, no spontaneous creativity involved.

Today we are expected to swallow that AI, by permutating what is already there (the data, the 'given'), according to rules of inference of a more or less clever algorithm, will eventually attain the intelligence of a mind (i.e. our shared psychic-temporal mind) that is genuinely exposed to the openness of three-dimensional time.

Further reading: 'Algorithmic Control of Movement in Time: Abolishing even our selves ourselves'.

'Turing's cyberworld of timelessly copulating bit-strings'.

On Human Temporality: Recasting Whoness Da Capo De Gruyter 2024.

Back to first principles

Way back in the 1960s when I was in high school we had different levels at which you could learn maths. There was 2S for second level Short, 2F for second level Full and 1st level, on which you went right back to first principles for grounding the foundations upon which the rest of the maths on top rested. In a way you could say that those studying the 2nd level courses were being short-changed in favour of learning by rote methods for solving mathematical problems that worked, without really knowing why.

Much later I learned that going back to first principles was something practised already by Aristotle, one of the West's deepest thinkers, whose concepts, despite vehement denial by  modern science, maintain their hold on our mind to the present day. Thinking deeply amounts to going backwards, not forwards. Thinking forwards amounts to continuing along the tracks laid down by ancient foundations that today are hardly visible any more.

At university I did a year of physics, continuing on from the 1st level physics I did at high school. I was not satisfied with the way physicists played fast and loose with the maths they needed to present their theories. All they needed was maths that worked for the theoretical explanations of the physical phenomena in question. The equations they came up with only had to be experimentally tested to 'prove', in terms of scientific method, that they were correct and hence true, that is. unless some other physical phenomena were discovered generating empirical data that did not verify the predictions generated by the theoretical model. This was called falsification. If enough instances of falsification were found, or maybe just one black swan, the physical model was in trouble and physicists proposed new models with modified equations. The empiricist scientific methodology was never put into question, and isn't even today. Especially in physics, whether it be quantum theory or cosmology or what have you, scientists demand that theoretical models be conjectured that can be tested empirically by generating predictions. Extremely elaborate and expensive apparatuses may be necessary to generate the data necessary for the empirical testing. Like most modern scientists today, physicists, too, have to compete for funding. Think of what it costs to detect a gravitational wave, as predicted from the theoretical model for the phenomenon of gravitation!

Being dissatisfied with physicists' treatment of maths in their mathematical models, and motivated by the urge to get to the bottom of things, I concentrated my university studies on the three types of maths offered at the time: applied maths, mathematical statistics and pure maths, the last of which seemed to me most promising in my quest for going back to first principles. Unsurprisingly in retrospect, I ended up being deeply attracted by a still fresh branch of mathematics at the time, category theory, in which I earned a Master's degree. Mathematical category theory seeks higher levels of abstraction on which it can investigate in one fell swoop several kinds of mathematical entities sharing the same structure. It thus strives for a kind of universal knowledge of mathematical entities.

After finishing my mathematical studies,  I returned to philosophy, having felt the need for more existential grit in my thinking. This landed me very quickly in German philosophy, for the analytic philosophy taught at Sydney University at the time (and even today) was, to put it succinctly, too dry. In retrospect I would also say that today's hegemonic Anglophone philosophy not only does not go back to first principles, but positively represses any attempt to do so. It has adapted very well to a positivist world in which facts are supposed to be the final arbiter of truth.

The category theory I studied in the final years of my pure maths bears the distinctive name, 'categories', redolent of Aristotle's foundational thinking on categories. Back in the 1970s I had no notion what category theory had to do with Aristotelean categories. Today I do. It is not merely fortuitous that I was immediately attracted in 1976 to a reading of Marx's Critique of Political Economy critically grounded in Hegel's dialectical conceptual system. Hegel's insistence upon systematically developing concepts to grasp the phenomena in question, and that in a proper order, also goes back to Aristotle. A concept can never stand alone, but only has sense and standing through its dialectical interconnections with other concepts that are either systematically prior or posterior. As far as I can make out, conceptual thinking is hardly taught today in universities.

Aristotelean categories are the most primitive, elementary concepts that come first of all. To grasp what a category is, your thinking first has to pass through the ontological difference encapsulated in the Aristotelean formula "the being qua being" (τὸ ὂν ᾖ ὄν). This famous formula is incomprehensible today, since the ontological difference has been forcibly closed down by the rise of positivist thinking, in tandem with the march of triumph of the 'hard' mathematized sciences. led by physics, in the mid 19th century. The second "being" in the Aristotelean formula is best interpreted as the present continuous participle of the Greek verb εἶναι, 'to be'. This allows us to hear it as a movement (of presencing for the mind: cf. my On Human Temporality), rather than as something 'standing', 'static', whereas "the being" in the first half of the formula says something that has come to a stand and is therefore static.

The first of the famous Aristotelean categories are 'what', 'how', 'how much' and 'in relation to'. Asking the question what something is (τί ἐστιν;) leads to the investigation of its whatness, its essence or quiddity. A something (τόδε τι, Etwas) has its whatness (οὐσία) in which it stands as a 'sight' (εἶδος) of what it is. These sights are seen and understood by the mind.

There is a simple phenomenological seeing exercise for learning to see the category of 'something'. Think of a potato with your mind's understanding. You will presumably agree that you see the potato as (or qua) 'something'. Now think of a chair. You will presumably also agree that you see the chair, too, as (or qua) 'something', albeit as a different something. The category of 'something' is available to our mind, through which we can understand anything at all as something. It is given to understanding prior to our seeing anything at all, no matter whether it be through sense perception or through our imagining mind. 

I say 'our' mind because we share this category that enables us to understand anything as something. 'Something' is a universal category available to our understanding prior to anything given by empirical experience. We understand a potato, a chair, etc. as something, and this 'as' is the mind's interpretation of it. Hence it is called the hermeneutic As. Anything we experience ontically, i.e. simply as being, whether it be through sense perception or mental imagination. is always already interpreted by the primitive category of 'something', which is different from anything in particular. This difference is called the ontological difference that is held open by the hermeneutic As that interprets the ontically given 'fact' ontologically, i.e. in its mode of being (understood as a continuing present participle indicating the movement of mental presencing).

The categories laid out by Aristotle address the things (πράγματα) encountered in the everyday world, thus constituting a kind of ontological scaffolding for understanding, in the first place, the world of physical, extended things (called Vorhandenes by Heidegger). One can say that the categories are examples of what is uncovered by going back to first principles (πρῶται ἀρχαί), at least with respect to physical things. In their primitive simplicity, they cannot be taken back (or re-duced, 'led back') any further. As simply discovered for the mind, they are true (ἀληθές). They are deployed by Aristotle in his Physics, which is an ontology of physical things that can be moved (κινούμενα), hence an ontology of physical movement.

By contrast, modern physics is a science (ἐπιστήμη) of the movement of physical entities based on an epistemology of empirically verifiable or falsifiable hypothetical models into which ontic facts, or data, are fed. It skips over the ontological preconceptions tacitly already assumed (and thus 'baked in'), prior to constructing or modifying any theoretical model. In this sense, it does not go back to first principles, and cannot do so since the ontological difference has been closed off to modern science, which pretends that it has rid itself of 'metaphysics'. It does not know that it is caught in the Aristotelean ontology of just one kind of movement: efficient productive movement.

Going back to first principles differs from the Da Capo I propose. The latter entails not just going back to first, elementary, primitive principles, but re-examining, revising and recasting them. Although it can be said that the Aristotelean categories retain their truth in hermeneutic phenomenology with regard to the ontological interpretation of physical things, Aristotle's ontology of movement is restricted to the efficient-causal movement of physical things, as if that were the only kind of movement we encounter through our openness to the world. Aristotle at least allowed phenomena that were fortuitous (τύχῃ) and accidental (κατὰ συμβεβηκός), but placed them beyond the grasp of science. This has led historically to a narrowing of the view of phenomena of movement in the bloody-minded attempt to force all kinds of movement into the corset of efficient-causal movement. 

The conception of efficient causality goes hand in hand with the concept of one-dimensional, linear time developed by Aristotle, no matter whether it be a straight, circular, elliptical or curved line. Straight here refers to Newtonian inertial movement; circular and elliptical to movement of the celestial bodies; curved to cosmological movement in general-relativistic space-time. Wherever efficient causality or a weaker modification thereof (e.g. probabilistic) is taken as axiomatic, the absolute will to power over all kinds of movement is the secret driving force. The tyranny of this absolute will to power must lead, and has led, to the denial of free movement that can be seen most blatantly in neuroscience, in which there is an intense focus on trying to 'causally explain' the generation of consciousness by movements in the material brain. The onslaught on human freedom by neuroscience is complemented by the progressive algorithmization of movement that goes so far as to interpret even human intelligence itself as algorithmic. As a mathematician, I have, of course, published on the cyberworld and its digital ontological cast.

Further reading: On Human Temporality: Recasting Whoness Da Capo De Gruyter, Berlin 2024.

Movement and Time in the Cyberworld: Questioning the Digital Cast of Being De Gruyter, Berlin 2019.

The stone is in the psyche

In his De Anima Aristotle writes the famous sentence οὐ γὰρ ὁ λίθος ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ, άλλὰ τὸ εἶδος ("The stone, namely, is not in the psyche, but the sight;"·  III viii 432a1). It seems obvious that the stone is not in the psyche, doesn't it? But look closer. The conventional translation of εἶδος (_eidos_) is 'form', rather than 'sight'. 'Sight' or 'look' is preferred here because εἶδος means literally 'that which is seen', from ἰδεῖν, 'to see'. The kind of seeing here is psychic-mental seeing. Is there any other kind of seeing for us humans who, for Aristotle, are cast as a kind of animal (ζῷον)? For Aristotle, the psyche (soul or anima) has two kinds of openness for the world: sense perception (αἴσθησις) and mental understanding (νόησις). Sense perception for Aristotle is of five kinds and requires five different kinds of sense organs in the body, or soma (σῶμα), which can only perceive in the present, when the thing (or person) perceived physically affects the somatic sense organs. (Throughout De Anima Aristotle focuses on extended, physical things or persons qua extended, physical somatic things.) Things perceived by the senses are therefore outside the soma, not inside it. An inside/outside distinction applicable to extended, physical things, each of which occupies a place (τόπος), is valid here.

But the psyche's faculty of sense perception is not exhausted by the somatic sense organs receiving sense data from outside in the present, since sense perception is always already combined with the mental faculty of understanding what is perceived. The psyche's faculty of mental understanding (νοῦς), employing the power of imagination (φαντασία), allows the psyche to perceive the physical thing presenting itself sensuously also categorially, at the very least as something, the most elementary category, but also qualitatively and quantitatively, e.g a big, red ball qualitatively and quantitatively as something. Otherwise the psyche would not understand what it is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting or feeling. If, with your sense of touch, you feel something, you at least feel it as, or qua, something, even if you cannot identify it further, say, as a ball. Everything imaginable is interpreted from the ground up as such-and-such. The 'as' here is the hermeneutic as. The ontological category of 'something' is always already understood pre-ontologically and employed ubiquitously by the psyche's mental faculty.

The something seen — say, a chair seen by the sense of sight — is also seen in full (in the mind's φαντάσμα of it) as the extended material, physical thing it is, and not minus its matter. Looking at the chair, you perceive it in full as a physical, extended, material thing and understand it as a chair, i.e. something that is good for sitting down upon. Insofar, your understanding of the chair qua chair is the same (αὐτο) as the thing itself. This observation, however, contradicts Aristotle when he claims that the mental faculty, or mind, only understands what it understands ἄνευ ὕλης ("without matter" III vi 430b33). He splits the thing perceived or understood into its sight (εἶδος) and its matter (ὕλη), not taking into account i) that sense perception and mental understanding work in tandem and ii) that mental understanding (the νόησις of νοῦς) is not tied to being presented sensuously with something in the present. The mind, too, sees through its imaginations (φαντάσματα) and it is able to wander and hop through all three temporal dimensions, calling or allowing all that is to presence in its imaginative mental focus and be understood as such-and-such. Note that an imagination here does not imply a mere image or unreal copy of the thing imagined, but a "mental concept of what is not [necessarily ME] actually present to the senses" (OED). The alleged lesser ontological status of an imagination is a consequence of the mistaken dichotomy between the so-called 'real' outside and the 'imaginary' inside, at the same time attributing a superior ontological status to that which is sensuously present (apparently outside) over what the mind thinks (apparently inside).

Aristotle's assertion that "the stone is not in the psyche" results from confusing the psyche with the soma. The stone is obviously not in the soma, for both are physical, extended, material things to which an inside/outside dichotomy pertains, and each is somewhere in its place. By contrast, the psyche is not a thing, not a being (τὸ ὄν) at all, but the name i) for our openness to the world through sense perception and mental understanding and ii) for our power of self-movement as living beings. This openness is three-dimensionally temporal, to which the psyche essentially belongs. Its extent is therefore as extensive as the three-dimensional temporal openness itself, and hence all-encompassing: we humans cannot experience or understand anything at all which does not presence within three-dimensional time in our mental focus. The material stone presences either sensuously or unsensuously in our mental focus and is understood in full as such, i.e. as a stone with its material. 

The psyche has no outside, and therefore also no inside. The confusion arises when the physical-material of the soma is conflated with the sensual perception/mental understanding of the psyche. Then e.g. we seem to have thoughts in our head or our brain, etc., and something called consciousness is said to be inside, even located somewhere within the somatic brain, and we humans are driven to try to make something resembling so-called conscious cognition that is today called Artificial Intelligence. 

There is no external connection between the soma and the psyche as two different things; rather, the soma is encompassed by and presences in the three-dimensional temporal psyche insofar as we experience it at all. And the stone is in the psyche.

Further reading: On Human Temporality: Recasting Whoness Da Capo De Gruyter, Berlin 2024.