Changing Patterns using Transformation Pathways (Part #2
Restrictive approaches, from a purely genetic perspective, can be usefully contrasted with the multidisciplinary study framed as biosemiotics, as edited by Marcello Barbieri (The Codes of Life: the rules of macroevolution, 2007). Building on a range of disciplines **o from biology and anthropology to philosophy and linguistics **o this draws on expertise in the study of organic, mental and cultural codes brought together by the emerging discipline of biosemiotics. It suggests that the genetic code was only the first in a long series of organic codes, and that it has been the appearance of new codes that have paved the way for the major transitions in the history of life.
Despite this broader framework, it is curious to note the failure to mention the potential of any Chinese insight into the matter, even though this is integrated with a rich understanding of life -- one long adapted to healing processes. Similarly a separate study makes only passing reference to: The TAO, biosemiotics and the problem with semantic closure entailed by reflexivity (Mario Giampietro, et al, The Metabolic Pattern of Societies: where economists fall short, 201, pp. 71-73).
The argument with respect to 64 distinct codons, as the key to life, is based on 3-fold combinations of the DNA bases (A, C, G, T). The polarization fundamental to the global dynamics of life could however be usefully distinguished in terms of pairs such as:
|
|
|
"Us" versus "Them": These polar mindsets could however be seen as characteristic of "us" (at one extreme) and of "them" (at the other). Rather than seeking definitional closure at all costs, there is a case for distinguishing intermediate mindsets that are typically excluded:
- one characterized primarily as conditioned by the perspective of "us"
- the other as condition by perspectives of "them"
These two intermediate conditions constitute "grey areas". The four conditions could be schematically represented by the following.
 | ||||
| Extended "Us" | Extended "Them" (otherness) | |||
| "Us" ("in-the-box") | campus-tolerated study (SETI, etc) ("out-of-the-box") | beliefs deprecated by "us" as characteristic of "them" (UFOs, alternatives, etc) | "Them" ("against us") | |
| C | A | G | T | |
 |  |  |  | |
Learning from the Taliban as an example: The relevance of the schematic above can be usefully explored in relation to the current Western response ("Us") to radical Islam ("Them"). The question after a decade of conflict is whether there is anything to be learned from "Them" -- an inquiry that could be fruitfully extended to include radical Christianity and radical Judaism.
In commenting on the views of a panel of experts (What Have We Learned: lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq; Pick Your Battles: ending America**Os era of permanent war***, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2014), Marc Jampole notes that Foreign Affairs writers all learn the same thing from recent wars -- unfortunately, it**Os how to fight future wars (OpEdge, 4 November 2014). This judgement applies to other commentaries (Paul D. Wolfowitz, Lessons Learned: The Iraq Invasion, World Affairs, May/June 2013; Stephen M. Walt, Top 10 Lessons of the Iraq War, Foreign Policy, 20 March 2012; Patrick Devenny, Legal Advice from the Taliban, Foreign Policy, 29 May 2009).
The slightest effort to learn from ISIS or the Taliban is however framed as highly controversial and suspicious, if not traitorous -- a faint voice to be silenced by any means (Joris de Bres, Blowing Up The Bamiyan Buddhas: It Makes You Think, New Zealand Herald, 5 December 2002; The Saker, I am NOT Charlie, Information Clearing House, 8 January 2015; Rony Brauman, Ce qu**Oil y a de non Charlie en moi, Le Monde, 16 janvier 2015). As noted by Michel Chossudovsky (The Attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the ***Kosher Grocery Store***, Global Research, 9 January 2015):
While the French media in chorus point to the jihadist threat to ***Freedom of Expression***, not a single French media has had the courage of raising the broader issue of State sponsorship of terrorism and the insidious role of the French government and its intelligence apparatus in supporting Al Qaeda affiliated entities not only in the Middle East and Africa but also in France. In a bitter irony, the campaign following the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo has not contributed to sustaining ***Freedom of Expression***. In fact quite the opposite. It has contributed to a new wave of media censorship
Rather than desperately seeking closure in terms of a single voice, under the banner of solidarity with "us" in the face of the threat of "them", where is the recognition of the need for multiple voices to counter the blinkered danger of "yes men" -- singing from the same hymn sheet, as argued in a special issue of Le Monde (Non à l'Union sacrée, 16 janiver 2015)? How is insight to be gleaned from any contrarian voice -- to be valued rather than condemned, as was the diabolus in musica? The case has been variously argued by Edward de Bono (Six Thinking Hats, 1985; Six Action Shoes, 1991; Six Frames For Thinking About Information, 2008). Valuable insights are offered by Aaron Doncaster, Learning from the Taliban: a message to the western anti-war movement, Rad-Green, 14 November 2009). How to move beyond the assumption that "Them" are unquestionably wrong and "Us" are unquestionably right?
Is there no case for questioning the collective psychosis regarding Charlie Hebdoat a time when the Coalition of "Us" is ensuring the deaths of many of "Them" in Syria? These are deaths systematically uncounted, forgotten and unmourned by "us" (US-led coalition launched 29 air strikes against Isis on New Year's Eve, The Guardian, 1 January 2015). Is there no shame on "us" for framing the killing of "them" as a matter of international honour for "us", as separately explored (Honour Essential to Psycho-social Integrity; John V. Whitbeck, Reflections From Paris Who is marching anywhere to honor those killed in Baga?Information Clearing House, 12 January 2015 )?
There is seemingly no notion that there may be something of significance to be learned from "Them", beyond how to convert them -- or to subdue them militarily, as implied by threats (Nick Cullather, Bomb them Back to the Stone Age: An Etymology, History News Network, 10 June 2006; Ted Cruz: Bomb ISIS 'Back to the Stone Age', NewsMax, 30 August 2014). How is the methodology and purpose of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation*a(ICSR) then to be assessed (and challenged) in producing its latest report Talking to the Taliban: Hope over History? (2013)?
As with the Catholic view of Protestants over centuries (duly reciprocated), "they" are considered beyond the pale, lacking any reasonable intelligence, sense of honour, or other values worthy of respect. The savagery of "them" is highlighted by every means, for purposes of propaganda; that of "us" is effectively censored (Beheading versus Befooting: in quest of the lesser evil for the greater good, 2014). The basic message of "camp-us" is: Nothing to learn; we know all that needs to be known.
As yet there has been no "Wow" moment of recognition that: They may have a point. But what could it possibly be -- a code within a code? Where are they coming from? Why do they consider it "right"? Are those with radical perspectives -- like Osama bin Laden -- tortured and/or killed beforeendeavouring to comprehend their worldviews? What of value has been learned from those in the Guantanamo Bay Detention camp? This is perhaps to be recognized as the kind of "camp-them" which "camp-us" would create for any aliens, as with the reservations for indigenous peoples in the past, and as dramatized by the science fiction movie District 9 (2009)?
There is great historical irony to the repetition of the patterns and mindsets framed by the manual of the Inquisition known as The Hammer of the Witches(1486) -- curiously echoed in the metaphor of recent policy recommendations (Hammer and Anvil: How to Defeat ISIS, Foreign Affairs, 8 January 2015). Military and cultural historians of the future may well frame matters quite otherwise (Transforming the Unsustainable Cost of General Education: strategic insights from Afghanistan, 2009). As Sun Tzu advised in The Art of War: It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
As concluded by Steven Metz (Strategic Horizons: U.S. Must Learn the Real **yLessons**O of Afghanistan, World Politics Review, 16 January 2013):
The lesson is that the conceptualization of counterinsurgency that has driven the United States for the past decade only works under a very specific set of circumstances. If these circumstances are not present, America needs a radically different approach. Unfortunately, there are few signs so far that this has been learned. Within the U.S. military, the idea still dominates that with a bit of tweaking and refinement, the methods used in Iraq and Afghanistan can provide a model for the future. If this continues, disasters await.
In those terms, what did "Us" learn? Why do the various texts on "why do they hate us" indicate that so little has been learned from "them" (Lee H. Hamilton, Why Do They Hate Us? The Huffington Post, 4 December 2014)? Ironically Hamilton's argument helps to clarify the answer (point by point) by failing to recognize how many of the values held by "us" in principle fail to correspond to the reality of implementation in practice, as perceived by "them":
We treat people humanely. We abide by the rule of the law. We are a generous and caring people. We offer a vision that will provide for a better future for the world's children, beginning, first and foremost, with a promise of life over death. We believe deeply in the power of education and economic opportunity. We oppose indiscriminate violence. We strongly encourage political participation and tolerate differing points of view.
This hypocrisy helps in understanding why so many are attracted to "them" -- and not to "us"? (Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies, Why Do People Hate America? 2003; Ryan Mauro, Understanding Islamic Extremism, The Clarion Project, 26 January 26, 2014; Tawfik Hamid, Understanding Islamic Extremism, 2011; Michael S. Rozeff, Truly Massive Display of Hypocrisy by Western Leaders, Information Clearing House, 11 January 2015).
"Camp-us", according to its critics, can however also be understood as constituting a form of "extremism" exhibiting its own form of "terrorism" (Peter Bergen and David Sterman, U.S. right wing extremists more deadly than jihadists, CNN, 20 April 2014; Noam Chomsky, America, the World's Leading #1 Terrorist State: U.S. covert operations routinely resemble acts of terrorism, AlterNet, 3 November 2014; Noam Chomsky, Charlie Hebdo We Are All -- Fill in the Blank, Information Clearing House, 11 January 2015). Rather than Charlie Hebdo, there are potentially valuable learnings from exploring identification with those attracting universal disapproval, as separately discussed in the case of Anders Behring Breivik and Josef Fritzl (Gruesome but Necessary: Global Governance in the 21st Century? Extreme normality as indicator of systemic negligence, 2011; Looking in the Mirror -- at Josef Fritzl ? Global conditions on reflection, 2009).
Given how little useful learning there appears to have been, does this disprove the argument of Marvin Minsky (Why intelligent aliens will be intelligible, 1985)? What does the lack of learning capacity imply for any potential contact with real extraterrestrials, as separately discussed (Communicating with Aliens: the psychological dimension of dialogue, 2000; Writing Guidelines for Future Occupation of Earth by Extraterrestrials: be done by as you did? 2010).
Relevance of I Ching pattern? To benefit from the patterns explored with respect to the 3-fold combinations of the 4 DNA bases (A, C, G and T), the latter are used here to label the 4 mindsets (polar and intermediary) as indicated by the correspondences in the table above. The argument can be developed further by representing the distinctions using the binary symbolism of broken and unbroken lines. Their correspondence with "us" as "unbroken", and "them" as "broken", is of some mnemonic value -- especially as indicating the assumed "integrity" of the former and the "flakey" nature of the latter (especially when framed as "alienated").
Of particular relevance to any commentary on the recent Kazakh discovery is the traditionally recognized binary coding pattern of 64 hexagrams of the classic Chinese I Ching (or Book of Changes). This has been an inspiration to various mathematicians -- although, as a pattern of signs, it does not appear to feature significantly in biosemiotics, nor in the study on which Kemp reports. In contrast with a purely mathematical approach, this pattern has been applied to challenges of life, collective governance and personal decision-making over centuries -- long preceding the genetic code (despite the assumptions of biosemiotics). As a pattern, its resemblance to that of the genetic code has long been variously remarked (Katya Walter, Tao of Chaos: DNA and the I Ching - -- unlocking the code of the universe, 1994; Johnson F. Yan, DNA and the I Ching: the Tao of life, 1993; Martin Schonberger, I Ching and the Genetic Code: the hidden key to life, 1992). A checklist of related resources is offered by Andreas Schöter (Yijing).
The juxtaposition of codons and hexagrams patterns, as seemingly unrelated approaches, could be seen as a potentially fruitful response to the challenges of comprehending "life" and "everything" -- and a less presumptuous one, given its multicultural assumptions (Enhancing the Quality of Knowing through Integration of East-West metaphors, 2000). The possibility has been discussed separately (Archetypal otherness -- "DNA vs. I Ching", 2007) as a means of reframing the problematic polarization which characterizes so much of global dynamics (Climbing Elven Stairways: DNA as a macroscopic metaphor of polarized psychodynamics, 2007).
Comprehensible configuration of patterns: The approach taken here is not to argue any such case in detail but rather to consider ways of configuring patterns of 64 distinctions so that they are comprehensible as a whole and memorable to a greater degree than the "laundry lists" of codons typically presented as the key to understanding life. As described by Kemp himself, the recent discovery is based on arguments which are "often dense and impenetrable, filled with complex mathematical formulae".
With respect to the number 37, as the key feature of the report, Kemp notes the discovery that: "37 recurs frequently within the code. For example, the mass of the molecular 'core' shared by all 20 amino acids is 74, namely 37 doubled". In an allusion to the imaginative tale of Douglas Adams regarding the meaning of life, Kemp comments: "Forget 42". This had been quixotically declared by Adams to be the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything -- as determined by a supercomputer designed by "hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings".
The number 37 thus relates to the argument of the authors that their result supports the hypothesis of directed panspermia, namely an early intervention by extraterrestrials (Space Ethics to Test Directed Panspermia, Life Sciences in Space Research, October 2014). It is however curious that the argument for an extraterrestrial origin of a code hidden within the genetic code should exclude potential insights regarding "life" from a code of "extra-western" origin . This is all the more striking given references to "hidden", "key"and "life" in earlier literature relating to the genetic code and the I Ching. [The potential relevance of that number is discussed further in an annex]
"Wow" moment with respect to Chinese intelligence? Given the degree to which the "Wow moment" of SETI research has inspired the Kazakh report, it is appropriate to ask whether an analogous "Wow" moment might be recognized as having characterized the acknowledgement of the intelligence of the "aliens" of global society -- whether that of indigenous peoples or of the Chinese. When could this message from China be understood as exhibiting intelligence by the West? Historical markers before and after the SETI "Wow" might include:
- 1300: The Travels of Marco Polo (c. 1300), a book that introduced Europeans to Central Asia and China.
- 1703: recognition of the importance of the binary code by Gottfried Leibniz(Explication de l**Oarithmetique binaire, qui se sert des seuls caracteres 0 et 1; avec des remarques sur son utilite, et sur ce qu**Oelle donne le sens des anciennes figures Chinoises de Fohy, Memoires de l**OAcademie Royale des Sciences. 1703). This provided an explanation of binary arithmetic, using only the characters 0 and 1; emphasizing its usefulness, and how it gave sense to the ancient Chinese figures of Fuxi.
- 1911: phases in recognition of the so-called "Yellow Peril", dating from the late 19th century, as originally reviewed in 1911 (Greenberry G. Rupert, The Yellow Peril, or, the Orient vs. The Occident As Viewed by Modern Statesmen and Ancient Prophets, 2009)
- 1924: Carl Jung foreward to the I Ching as translated by Richard Wilhelm (I Ging: Das Buch der Wandlungen, 1924)
- 1956: Joseph Needham (The System of the Book of Changes. In: Science and Civilization in China; the fundamental ideas of Chinese science, 1956).
- 2014: World Bank report that China**Os economy will surpass that of the USA in 2014 (Joseph S. Nye, China**Os Questionable Economic Power, Project Syndicate, 6 November 2014)
Perhaps the "Wow" moment could be usefully understood in terms of "Western-Oriented Worldview".)
Comments
Post a Comment