Machinepack

So often, the seemingly valiant among us venture out and call the Cloud or Tree their new family, feeling wise and peaceful in nature, while their family at home lacks the facilities for proper imagination, and only suffers in their absence. They only sense their beloved's dissipating scent from the home, the empty space where their shoes belong, and the call of silence without the return of melody, once-sung in the kitchen. For that "escaped" person, too, may be deluding themselves: following some circularly enforced divination, donning the ego-mask of stoicism, or the far-less fashionable sense of simple selfishness. For it seems, at least in some manner, that solitude and silence are necessary precursors for high levels of abstraction, and is therefore necessary in self-actualization and knowledge acquisition. But it is additionally necessary, having made one's conclusions, to enact them. What good is a solution unapplied? A philosophy, existent only in the abstract, unapplied, is no philosophy at all. It is paradoxical. It's not only necessary to experiment and read, but to conclude, integrate, and propagate. A certain difficulty of any philosophical inquiry, therefore, is within the maintenance of the abstract. That is, how far away should we disconnect, (especially from our own culture), for what reason, and when?

An individual can, in the short term, travel further than a group. The individual can slip through cracks, hide in corners, sustain himself on rations, and work odd-jobs. The genius, noticed young, might get by on a lifetime of charity, or more frequently by being fortunately born into an aristocratic family. What of the rest of the other people? The group has to make decisions on the basis of their weakest member. Yet group-manners also exhibit a form of self-propulsion an individual lacks. A man can run from a crowd, but a crowd can chase a man. The Great Man cannot exist without Society, yet Society cannot exist without Great Men. Yes, we're painted on a canvas such that people are all secure, so that the few brave of us can venture far, intellectually or otherwise; however, the whole time their experimentation is resisted for fear of it's unknown. We'll happily watch as our university class is educated on revolutionaries, yet any budding flower of independent thought, or - God Forbid The Word! - revolution, nay, change, is uttered? - they are only met with crushing reforms. Then, how can we balance these forms? When should a person venture out in their lonesome, when should they remain where they are? How can we both expose ourselves to the security of group-living while simultaneously harnessing the potential for individual genius? When should we write, and when should we read? In order to gain any leverage on this increasingly abstract question, in the following paragraphs I will examine three general systems of living, their particular qualities and deficiencies, and advocate for what I believe is likely to be the most efficient social formation.

Firstly, a further exposition into the solitary lifestyle is necessary. This form describes an environment conducive to the most innovative of creative expression, the most free from devilish whispers, soul-shattering contortions, or strangling garbs of fashionable indifference. Creating purely for oneself, if the artist is truly honest in their pursuit, should necessarily create beauty. If it's not beautiful to the creator, who, after all, it was created for, who is the sole audience member, who can it be beautiful to? Assuming the literary author is well-trained in grammar and vocabulary, and that the painter is comfortable in their medium, what other voice, quietly singing, could sound sweeter? What mouth disconnected from its ear? Solitary living, for the artist, denotes absolute responsibility; for the lone man makes both every choice and every reward. Yet continual self-reflection without new input or information may only cement bad-habits, reinforce negative thought streams, or cause great disillusionment with others. Still, coincidentally, a self-defined goal also tends to propel a person to make better things in general.

The retortist could imagine some self-flagellating artist who creates terrible, shocking things. I see this hypothetical artist as only donning an ego, a lie, creating not entirely for oneself, but only for the image of others that they are. Meditation, or more generally, subtraction, will be the most important way for a potential artist to rid themselves of these outward ornaments of ego. The other delusion is the artist creating for some imaginary class of, (usually, somehow, stupider), unrealized individuals. What do you think results in a greater work: creating for oneself, in allegiance with honest motivation? or creating for a perceived loathsome class? Do not lie, nor cloud the heart of its honesty; for even in physical lonesome a man can be deluded into creating for his perceptions of audience. The lonesome must be ideologically alone - not just physically - to benefit from his isolation. Created in solitude, a work may harbor some transcendental quality. Yet, other than for the creator, what good is that work if it remains locked in a closet?

Grand expression held close to the chest, greedily kept in the clutches of its transmitter, is useless. We need to know! But how can you tell us? If, by some way, an honest idea was successfully widespread without defects, wouldn't it still suffer mutations within each person? To pretend to be able to enumerate potential outcomes of such a complex abstraction is to lie. But I put forth an example nonetheless: a well-designed, effective language, implemented on everyone, would still spontaneously create new slang, shortcuts, and mishaps that the "designers" failed to think of, or prepare for. Even the strictest preparations become maligned, contorted, and dysfunctional in some way only nature can imagine. Now, what greater reward ought there be for the designer of a tool than to watch his invention be utilized in ways he'd've never imagined? We have learned, (in large part compiled in A New Kind of Science by Steven Wolfram), that extraordinarily simple algorithms can create incomprehensibly complex results. Is our hubris so great to think we can account for the individual intellectual constitution of not only every person, but every potential person? Then, within these innumerable people, oughtn't there be someone necessarily smarter than oneself? This is all to say that creations inevitably distort - in meaning, analysis, context, reception (the definition of science is growth in the place of gain) - and that distortions are therefore impossible to avoid whilst living amongst masses.

If nothing else, learning methods of propaganda and unethical rhetoric are suggested, if only as a means of safeguarding oneself from their negative effects. But of course, this is a side-topic. Our inquiry involves creation and transmission that can survive the passage of time. How can you incite change on a large scale without at least having some audience in mind? And yet with the audience comes the same problems dismissed in "selfish" creation: you're compelled to appeal to the aesthetic or intellectual preferences of the lowest common denominator of your class, and therefore, in the absence of extreme caution, you expose your work to the fashionable, timely, or degrading. Which of course, in appeal to inciting lasting change, signifies inevitable regression. A paradox, surely. But some basis in my logic can be attacked: if it is so that creation for masses is inevitably timely, the clevermost solution is to devise evolving contexts, not timely content. Do not eat seeds and complain of a scant diet. Plant them, and wait. That is to say, the majority of the benefit for the personal artist, as described in the previous paragraph, comes not from the conclusion of their work, but from the generative experience in the midst of its conception. So then, if possible, the solution is to create contexts in which people can personally self-actualize.

As the masses dilute an individual's constitution for the holy, his individually realized genius, and in solitude a person may personally transcend, but cannot possibly work an entire farm enough to feed himself and others, perhaps, as Buddha taught, there is a middle route available..

Seemingly contrary, great artists, writers, and thinkers have suffered the "successful" fate far beyond their lifetime. Poets unknown in antiquity become spiritual forefathers to a new literary generation. It is as if it is the keystone of the proper prophet to be shunned in his lifetime. We celebrate our failed artists in retrospect. And yet, to consciously seek segregated consciousness, that is, to pursue a fruitless art, is only to harm, and to continue creating and publishing without positive feedback can be accurately defined as insanity. Then, the double-bind ensues; should one choose a faithful insanity or a diluted wisdom?

Perhaps neither. Recent intellectual and artistic advancements usually commence in the form of the small group. The Dadaists, Y-Combinator, the Italian Renaissance, the Greek schools, the Bloomsbury Group, Wu-Tang Clan, the psycho-analysts in Vienna, Jesus Christ's 12, etc. What characteristics enable the success of a small group as opposed to the other formats, and how can we harness it?

Issues with communication and interpretation (ex. of law) are largely forgone: individual distortions are small enough both in quantity and quality for them to be individually addressed, yet widespread enough to warrant continual refinement and documentation. Compare that to our previous systems.

In mass: laws are often obscure, requiring specialized training for interpretation. They're frequently changed and the average man becomes subject to them while his chance for enacting change is miniscule, and long lasting change is nearly out of the question.

In solitude: laws or rules exist, but they're refined only by a single, self-serving individual. The lone-man lacks the organization and leverage necessary for intergenerational change, and has no motivation to remain faithful to his "laws", as they both inflict and commit. The smallest fine is received by the Judge courting himself. His faithless behavior may even be subconscious. Furthermore, there's no reason to write their rules, that is, to solidify them, and therefore they're never standardized. So they're broken. And when they die, their laws die, too, whereas a small group enables members to craft reality. Small groups don't create as narrow a target for success as individual creation does, risking loss of potential, however, it does enable clarity and enhanced probability of actualization of said goals.

In creating for oneself, as all is contained within the mind, the "target" can be lost quite easily. We can say to ourselves, looking at our unshapely creation, "Oh yes, I suppose that's what I meant all along." and walk about drumming our hands on our thighs, self-deluded and stupid as ever. But in a small team - one in which there exists honesty without brutality - we have at least two pairs of eyes and ears to impress, and another mouth to become clear about goals. We can no longer forgo nor ignore the analysis of the usual weaknesses of our character. And with this shared responsibility inevitably comes self-propulsion and healthy, constructive reflection. Furthermore, the problems with the dissociation of community are addressed. In a small group, individuals are exposed both to potential for the cultivation of their individual genius as well as protection, intimacy, and responsibility afforded by their community. The man in large society is tantalized by the draw toward immoral behavior, toward continual anonymity, meaninglessness, purely floating by charity, petty crime, and laziness. The man in solitude is drawn toward the double-bind, the crushing weight of labor, the scream-without-a-mouth. Yet the man ordained within a small group can forgo these problems. He is no longer isolated from his labor. Perhaps, in a small, intelligent group, distortions will serve as a positive effect, much like continual refinement of marble to reveal a statue. Perhaps it's an overly optimistic view, but rather than running unchecked, such distortions may result in fertile soil from which further creativity can grow, illuminating the aforementioned cultural baggage, showing points of improvement or it may serve as a "canary in a coal mine", indicating where members of the group are perhaps acting in a self-deluding or uncharitably verbose manner, which then can be addressed accordingly.

To contain a social system is a necessarily impossible task, as its structure is less like a mathematical equation and more like a program to process data. It is to be all-encompassing, it is context rather than content. I do not claim godliness to emanate as soon as three smart people sit down together. But I do believe that it's more likely to occur in isolation or while entrenched in the feelings and opinions of civilizations. Or, more mildly, I believe it makes people happier.

We, as I see it, generally delight in two tasks. 1) Being generally competent. 2) Having satisfying relationships. My definitions are intentionally left quite vague, as to allow interpretation, as, as previously stated, the most seemingly microscopic of changes in an algorithm can compound over time, like a cancer quickly spreading across a progressively weakened body. I don't want to apply some rigidly fixed ideal to an imaginary society before it even comes about. However these simple requirements are enough to underline a huge score of human satisfaction. And yet somehow, rarely is even one of two fulfilled today. The first requirement becomes failed largely due to the increasingly isolated form labor has taken since the industrial revolution. The man who fixes simply one type of machine, or anyone newly entering the American workforce in the year 2024 knows it first-hand; yet this imposition even baptizes the supposedly holy, creative activities. Is it not of deep concern to the would-be contemporary artist that art itself, that which is to be defined by its own ever-changing manner and individual actualization, has both a severe connotation and a relatively stagnant university curriculum? To me, the things that are described as "artsy", I shall only call "lies", or "dead". Worse yet: this is quite a privileged point of view. To live off art is a near impossibility, at every twist and turn you will find salesmen ready to capsize your creation. Consider the infinite iterations of the aspiring actress turned pornstar: the writer turned copywriter, the musician turned jinglist, the poet turned… barista.

Those in the most desolate of positions, Hollywood actors (dreams of film), copywriters for Fortune 500 companies (dreams of literature), or the well-connected marketer (dreams of both) are viewed as productive, above-average members of society; the type of person who "good people" marry, and in the case of the actors, as idols worthy of worship. Yes: some of the most sought after, well-respected, members of contemporary society are the most deeply imbued, really, drowning, in the sticky sludge of sin. One of the great shames of humanity was that we were able to arrange some of engineering's greatest minds at Palo Alto, but we put them to work on creating weapons of mass destruction, to create nuclear bombs. Then we used them. We are the solemn ram, unable to cease the growth of our horn turning inward. These were rare men of seemingly divine intelligence. They, too, are worshiped and made the subject of biography. So what does that say about the remaining commoners in society? Those who are not worshipped as gods, nor are the perverted artists, but are instead the simple cogs upholding a burning machine? What of them and their smoking flesh and blood?

These aforementioned somewhat niche intellectual or aesthetic pursuits are often only attributed importance after their individual pioneers have become jaded or dead. The beauty of a small group is of mutually agreed-upon importance. That which is insignificant, inaccessible, or impossible in a crowd or unmotivatable in isolation can become commonplace in the crafted design of a small group society.

I separate the general topic of "technology" and "art" only for clarity. It is a remnant of that isolated labor I criticize, and, like a spot of mold on a strawberry, it indicates the coming rot of the patch. For the necessarily increased isolation in labor in a consumerist, widespread, dopamine-based society, also accelerates its own destruction: increased consumerism directly leads to harm to finite environment, mass communications urges us away from deep, creative work, and dopamine-based society increases options of selfish, unwise, short-term rewarding behaviours, all of which are conducive to the downfall of a system. We have become the ceaseless botanists of our own orchard, cheering prematurely at the innovation of larger fruits, ignorant to our weak branches. And, as time will unfortunately prove, stressed limbs snap, engineered produce will drop, rot, and people will starve. Although they are aware of it, and are attempting either temporal methods of avoidance, or simply selfish methods, the powers that be have a motivation to uphold the isolation of labor. Chiefly are its ideologically isolating effects.

This is not to say that small groups are entirely immune from these issues. If any leverage is gained in creating a large group, continual guard on all fronts must be upkept by all members, as small groups seemingly urge themselves toward growth or division, toward becoming solitary or massive. Any mere scent of bureaucracy must be wildly, savagely stomped out. Wise, computational thinking on the topic (that is to say, engineering small changes and observing or controlling their effects on a large time scale) is necessary in order for a proper society to grow. But the potential success found in a small community, one with direct skin-in-the-game, shared responsibility, seems to me the most probable, imaginable, realistic, and possible basis for happiness and success, the fulfillment of the two baselines above.

I urge the reader, having read this far, to understand my urgency. You've already illustrated something rare: 1) A dash of literacy. 2) A dash of attention span. I suggest you keep in mind your surely-appropriate critiques of my positions and logical arguments, but also to not fiddle too heavily over petty "could-be-better" word-choices, phrases, or examples. If you require more examples or evidence, I suggest you look around and within yourself. A concerning amount of people in Western Society are regularly taking some sort of prescription drug that alters their perception of reality. Their attention spans, due to technological "advancements" are so fried that what I'm writing, especially this far in, is impossibly accessible to them. The levels of propaganda, paranoia, lack of critical thought, and general anxiety are so high, so self-correcting, so, from a pure engineering point-of-view, well-crafted, that I can't help but not listen to anyone besides myself, as you shouldn't, I think, either. As Oscar Wilde wrote: "All that is realized is correct."