Looking from below – Seeing from above

Abstract

It looks like the main point of these text is methodology of finding (on or more of) the complementary “views/ images” of the same topic. The new point of view has no absolute value. It however widens the horizon (-> looking/ seeing from above…). The complementary principle seems to be close to the holistic approach (-> much like: energy doesn’t disappear – it just changes states). I find a parallel to this system (-> Physics) in substitution and sublimation processes (-> Psychoanalysis).

Main points:

The very effective commodification (and codification = restriction) of uses of handheld wireless devices.

The »gap between consumer and production uses« with the most popular mobile devices »widens«…

The consumer market is centered on providing »services« (services for the masses – also for the »niche groups«). It tries to locate and impose themself as »necessary services« or »identity creators«.

These identities correspond to (virtual) realities, that are »hardcoded«/ »hardwired«.

The Capital(ist)/ Provider becomes owner/ provider/ distributer of ideas, identities, realities – hidden behind the expression »services«.

The consumer/ buyer is king. Of course – it’s the supermarket identity that we know from before.

Spectrum Eology on the individual level becomes Mental Hygiene.

Where lies the intelligence? One can easily agree with the statement that the intelligence (as the most cherished human parameter) lies within the individual. What we share in common is cluture – the abstract values constructing the world of humans into multilayered matrix of ever flowing/ changing meanings. Without is chaos, within is culture. The culture relies on conventional reality – the more this reality is firm – the stronger the culture. The culture is another word for the system of values that we share. Primarily it is the language – the communicative element. It is the stuff that bonds us together (it may be called humanity or history or ideology or nation or poetry or family or art or football or look or voice or sound or ether or electromagnetic spectrum…). Every communication channel is a subsystem of values that provides us with a new (sub)identity – if we happen to be immersed in it. All channels can be regarded as layers of abstract identities. They define (parallel) worlds of realities. These are what we share. From here on we are part of something bigger (than life) – the culture. Where and what is the basic individual identity/ reality? Something that is both without and within? When looking from below and seeing from above? Clearly it must be the smallest structural element and the broadest synthetic/synthesizing system at the same time. Macrocosmos and microcosmos? Of course – it is the mind/ observation point of an individual. This is what I / eye stands for.

Mimicking the services

The starting point of my approach to Spectrum Ecology is the realization of the large steps that were made by the industry/ providers/ technology into commodifying the use of wireless devices (mimicking the role of »a service«). It happened in just a couple of years of wireless telephony boom (but not yet in the internet age…). The widespread use clearly means that there are at the same time psychologic reasons (on/ in one hand) and marketing reasons (on/ in the other hand) for it – a well balanced situation of »demand and supply« relation. Here is appropriate time/ place to write my association when seeing the title Spectrum Ecology. Since it is a derivation of a (more conventional) term: (environmental) ecology, it brought to my mind another (a more conventional) derivation (for now/ here use): Mental Hygiene, derived from the term (body) hygiene. I will use it from now on as parameter (a concept) that is complementary to Spectrum Ecology (one can easily understand that it is linked with the duo »personal« and »collective«). This basically means that I make an equation: Ecology = Hygiene (which is understood) and I also link the constructs Spectrum Ecology = Mental Hygiene. As I tried to point above, the confrontation is between the (\”virtual\”) identities/ realities and the notion of the individual – as the one providing the »real« reality. Of course this two oppositions are pure abstraction.

Possesion of the “other”

I remember being very surprised how quickly the wireless telephone set became a young girls beloved pet. As if it naturally replaced the Barbie doll in their hands. While boys liked the simple arcade games, the girls rushed into »collecting« people. The »other« was finally at hand – easily reachable everywhere and at every time. The system of values seems to be: you are worth more – the more people call you and the more people you (can) call. One is not alone. As it often happens, the externalization (materialization/ objectivization) of some sort had happened. But if we think in terms like action/ reaction or substitution/ sublimation or the complementarity of actions – something was swapped/ replaced in the original equation. The notion/ representation of power (in the eyes of the beholder) moved to »possesion of the other« (this power became the »I«) and the (capital/ big) »Other« as the possesor of power was effectively hidden. One does not see the huge and well organized networks that »serve« us and fullfill our needs (->”provide” for our “needs”). “Providing for our needs” is the definition of a parental relationship, though the “love” (as ether, medium, communication channel,…) – or some other “parental” reason – was replaced by “(love of) money”. Love, however, remains in the equation – it just appears on the other side of equation – as a negative value.

Swapping (of the immaterial bodies) of meanings

When something is externalized, something else gets internalized (-> fills in the blanks). Because it is a swap – it is normal (-> logical) that the external replaces the internal (and the opposite way – matters of State, Nation,… become very personal affairs). Such swapping is not a new thing – it is the way the abstract bodies get their real/ material bodies (gradually, but more and more so, when they lose their symbolic meanings – a modern kind of idolatry). From mother to Mother Nature to Mother Earth, to Mother Mary to Motherland (in some national contexts)… Every abstraction is a complexly (associatively -> it means that the constituting elements are already complex bodies of meaning…) structured entity – therefore already an abstract (mind) body which is »felt« but not understood (-> it is impossible to deconstruct a mind body (-> a myth) back to basic meanings/ reasons – it is all just interpretations – stories). Our ability to make (imaginary) visualizations forces us to make it visible (to others; to communicate; to see us »in the eyes of the beholder« – to get identity). This is how the process of constructing »the self« works. A viewer from below (-> he/ she), who is at the same time a viewer from above is conforms to the concept of \”subject\”. It (-> he/ she) can synthesize/ juggle with meanings / tell (new) stories. This seems to brings us closer to the notion of juggler/ creator of new (stories?) – an artist?

Ethics and Aesthetics…

But can one really see from below while looking from above/ while synthesizing the realities/ identities? Probably not – when your are »without« you are not »within«. I use the term »see« as related to the term »understand« and the term »look« as a simple act of sensing/ registering (-> aesthetics). Again, like above, we can now equate the complementary terms “looking/ sensing” = “aesthetics” and “seeing/ understanding” = “ethics”. Ethics meaning “a stand/ a position”.

Killing is bad, but…

So, to continue: by exchanging (-> swapping) the external notion of Spectrum Ecology with the internal/ individualized notion of Mental Hygiene, we get two complementary systems that we can compare. By inputting the same question to each of the systems we get comparison system that is broader and as such more valid. At the least it gives us the possibility of getting two different answers. Whenever they output wildly different (-> contradictory) results, it means, that the two abstract systems are not conforming (they are not mirror images viewed from two opposing observation points – the within and without, the external and internal, the collective and individual…) – though (because they are complementary) they should be. Different results (for example: A question \”Should we prohibit the use of cell phones because they burn our brain cells\” gets answers: 1.) Yes, they are damaging – it’s a serious ecological problem, 2.) No, cell phones improve my communication with other people – they make me happy;) show, that the two (complementary) concepts are well separated entities. The absolute answer (-> one answer) is lost, however.

/the example above could be understood more easily if we took some other example, for instance: Is killing good? 1.) No, one should not kill; 2.) Killing some people (the terrorists) is good; /

Here maybe a theses: Absolute power is more successful – the more such relativisations take place. It is related to the concept of fragmentation/ atomization…

This is again a paradox – if we make some reduction of equation (absolute power = number of relative truths). Absolute is linked with relative (one enables the other), power with truth (…). These iterations are points of hidden meanings.

Atomization/ Fragmentation of Meaning, Production of abstractions

The democracy and consumerism have this law: if ruler/ provider succeeds to mimick his/ its role/ identity as a service (as does the modern democratic state), then the relation of the factual ruler /servant is turned around – the servant starts feeling as a ruler. Even more so, when the ruler (seemingly) provides service for servants basic needs (-> a parental relation). The money in the role of a mediator (medium) is an abstraction of exchange value.

The (mind) abstractions (that lead to motivations) can be divided into two groups: the emotional abstractions (are in close contact with the body) – this is the world of the subconscious. These structures (of mind) are not easily deconstructed and remain as basic abstractions – though they appeare very complex, since they are impenetrable for (logical) analysis. The other group are logical abstractions – they are constructed through associative linking of other abstractions (of meaning). They are part of the culture and they can be deconstructed. The inertia that makes it appear as a firm and rigid structure is in the collective nature (mind?) that they inhabit.

Now we can imagine the hierarchy of these abstract bodies. The least abstract (–> the most basic) abstractions are: our (physical) life, food and shelter. The higher level abstractions are: friendship, relations, love, belonging, looks, spiritual values, good times. The least abstract entities must be put out of equation (as in the social states they are), so that the more abstract »needs« fill in the blanks. These are easily commodified/ modified by the services providers, and have become ever changing products/ goods for the leisure market. The fact however remains: colonization of (abstract) territories (of motivations/ interests) took place – somebody owns the net, somebody produces our motives/ interests and provides for the exchange of abstract goods (illusions for money).

Marketing ideology of the post-industrial world

While internet proved quite a hard place to provide this exchange, the mobile phone (wireless) market never had this problem. It was incorporated into the system from the very start. But while the the computer-on-the-net can be the producing machine, the mobile phone set is just the reproducing machine. This puts the provider of content on the same side as the provider of the net. On the other side is the consumer. Same as it ever was.

So, to compare with the (historic) social organizations:

Slavery -> ownership of humans

Feudalism -> ownership of land

Capitalism -> ownership of production facilities

Post-Capitalism -> ownership of information

 

Post-Capitalism can be characterized as ownership of information (ideas, and interests, and concepts, and meanings, and motives, and lifestyles, and identities/ (virtual) realities/localities). Owning = providing? Seeing = Understanding.

And appropriation in the Age of Post-Capitalism? When there was no land left it turned to ethereal (Spectrum) and is now happily grabbing the abstract worlds of our identities… ourselves. Hm, could it then be a feedback loop? Another aspect of Slavery?

I like feedback loops. Especially those that are not simple (linear) amplifications, but rather those that are processors/ transformers of meanings. These are generators – something new happens – relations get mixed and new forms grow. Paradoxes are the best jokes.

Borut Savski