The Social Imagination

Exploring the Social Imagination

Thursday, January 11, 2018

Recalling Creation Ordinances in the Social Imagination ~ Part Two!

In this part two, let us remind ourselves what creation ordinances are. They were the original laws/principles for society given by God at the moment of creation. They are laws that God gave to all men. What kind of creation ordinances are we talking about? God built them into human relationships. God imposes the sanctity of life, sanctity of marriage as the union between a man and woman and God's design of family and the sanctity of labor. Even atheists will defend that much: life, marriage, family and labor. And, that's because they have it written on their hearts. 

How can I say and or believe that as a sociologist? Because, those principles: life, marriage, family and labor happen to be good information and agreed upon 'good' information does not just drop out of the sky or grow up out of the corn. Good information (codes for conduct) has a source, and that source is an absolute source. Man cannot be that source because man is only able to see from his/her relative point of view. That is why we must exist in an agreement reality as a means to overcome that kind of 'relative' darkness. But, even that requires we agree on certain absolutes as true always. 

Society 'our social imagination' also requires an absolute source, the thing which is agreed upon, as that which is necessary in order that mankind is sustained in the place where they are and doesn't plunge into the chaos of a world where everyone has their own source of morality and ethics. Even Ai aliens have an absolute source, its their programmer who built in an embedded code that tells them - AI, that everything they receive and execute is true at all times in all instances.

So, back to God's ordinances/principles include the sanctity of labor; we can read about that in His Word.  God established the principles of labor from the beginning. Also, the sanctity of the Sabbath day tied into the labor ordinance.We see multiple spheres of legal authorities: country, state, county, township, town, village... We abide by all. 

We all share in one common sphere - country or federal government. Today, we seem to struggle with the true source of those precious creation ordinances or that there is at all a true source for them. And, this disagreement or 'falling away' is causing man more harm than good. 
At what point is the church - body of Christ responsible to be involved in those wider spheres. Don't we have a separate of church and state? Yes. But, the church is, considering that man was given creation ordinances, directly responsible when the nation, state or county or town is derelict about carrying out creation ordinances? 
The church needs to call attention to the creation mandates. What if atheists don't like that. 
The covenant creation laws apply to all. All, especially Christians, are called upon to maintain the sanctity of life, marriage, and labor and the Sabbath day. Sadly, we see a move away from those creation ordinances in our society. 

Why is that? Let's look at 3 kinds of law: eternal, natural and positive law... which is a particular law on the books (required labeling on products). Without proper labels, this kind of selling is fraud. By allowing the improper use of labels, we violate natural laws as they protect man's right to life. The right to live is an eternal law - God's law. 

These three laws reflect each other... they live/exist one inside the other. Yet, we have a crisis today in ethical principle.... against biblical revelation which came about because of the enlightenment. Society tried to base its structure on natural law only and some claim that the US is was established on that. However, the sanctity of life, marriage and labor are intrinsic in this nation (United States); yet since new forms of denial of creation ordinances have surfaced, the confidence of the sanctity of life, marriage and labor have began to erode largely due to the movement of positivism. 

As an example, Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the law reflects the tastes and preferences of the current society; this in turn has created the legal free for all which we now live. So, the law goes to special interest groups those that rebel and deny creation ordinances as loudly as possible.

We are falling quickly living rather on the basis of expediency rather than creation ordinances and or principles. The church has to stand against this. We have to proclaim the Eternal law, which includes the natural law and also which allows us to compose positive laws. We cannot be at the tyranny of the majority, those against creation ordinances. We cannot be a solid or sustained social imagination as a society of law of men that deny God and His creation ordinances.

Recalling Creation Ordinances in the Social Imagination ~ Part One!

If you are an atheist, you will not like and or appreciate this post. If you are agnostic, you may or may not like this post. But, if you are a sociologist, you will like this post, guaranteed.The argument looks at the source of social imagination. Social imagination is agreement reality and it is transmitted as it works in a place over time for the good of all those participating. Amidst disparity, in despair, there comes a need to hang on to what you have acquired in a place.

And for that reason, Marx and Freud thought and wrote that man in his despair needs God to drug himself/the masses so that they have a reason to live to have hope in a world of despair and disparity; otherwise fatalism sets in. Freud thought that man was afraid of nature and so man wants to believe in a God who can control nature... if we pray to God he will remove the threat of nature.  All in all, there are those that think religion comes out of psychological need. Thus, man chooses to believe out of fear, and to hold on to controlling fear, he created religion.

Well, even educated rational men act on fears, anger and disparity. When someone is accused of a crime the prosecutor has to prove that the someone is guilty and that it was their rational choice to commit the crime. They do so by attempting to discover the means/motives. Just because he/she proves that they had the means and motive does not mean that they are guilty. They/we could prove that many people wanted to do the same; but, chose not to for a variety of reasons. Yes, we make choices to do something or not; good and bad. IN that respect, one could agree that human beings have the choice or the capacity to chose/invent religion and others choose not to. 

We can also agree that we are capable of projecting ideas, wishes and fantasies. It is theoretically possible that people could invent God. But, if they do, we could argue that their choice is a rational choice as it brings comfort or hope. The same reason could apply to someone who does not see the comfort or hope in choosing God. The same line of reasoning could be used by the one choosing to commit or not commit a crime; its a rational choice to risk or not for reasons that seem to be rational at the time.

But, its interesting that man invents rationales for his actions including God. That's quite intelligent and certainly the later more so than imagining man was crept out of the sea or was created by aliens that we can nor ever could see because we are human beings. 

Yes, we do have a psychological motive to invent God. Just because man has the ability to invent God does not necessarily tell us how the idea of God came about in his mind. The reason why the world is incurably religious is because of the existence of God. More important is that we have to realize that we do have a vested interested in believing but is the atheist willing to grant me the idea that they have a vested interested in denying God.

The Creator firstly installed His Creation Ordinances, written on the heart of every single human being, at the very beginning. Man, in every society, lives under law. Christians live under the law. If you are a Christian, you will shout, "But doesn't the New Testament tell us that we are not the under law of the OT, we are under grace"? Yes, but, all of the grace in the NT does not eliminate the law in the Old and the original law (s) that we still live under - Creation Ordinances. 

It is necessary to remind Christians and all men that we live under Creation Ordinances; but since the fall, we have been falling away from them rapidly. So, we needed something to slow that down in order that God's original laws - Creations Ordinances/principles would not nor could ever be totally lost/deleted from man's social imagination.

We were thus allowed be upgraded by and in a new agreement - the New Testament which was actually contained in the Old. What is a testament. It is, a covenant/legal agreement. Yes, even though we live under a new covenant, it's still living under the law. How do we know? What is a covenant? It is agreement, a contract between two or more persons and each has benefits and promises and includes stipulations and or legal requirements. There is no such thing as an agreement without these things. 
Jesus said "If you love me, keep my commandments". Even though the penalty of eternal death was removed, Jesus told us that we must keep them. Christ is a commandment giving Lord. As a human being, and as a Christian, you are a member of a covenant community. That covenant was given at the beginning of creation. Therefore, every member of the human race participates in the New Covenant because of the original fixed in our hearts and minds in the beginning. 

Be sure, that all men everywhere have been participating and are in a covenant with the Creator.  Even if they are not declaring to be a Christian or in any 'church'. We know this because the Creator (God Jesus Christ) did not make his original covenant with Abraham or Moses, he made his first covenant with the first created man - Adam. A man not as Christian, Jew or Muslim but as a man, as God's creation. 

Be sure that we do not live without liabilities of that contract (laws as creation ordinances) but some think that they can escape them... they cannot escape. We can deny but we cannot undo what was given to us in the social imagination. God's laws are binding upon men whether or not they are religious or not and or members or not of the 'Christian' church. 

Review ~ Creation ordinances were given by God at the moment of creation. They are laws that God gave to all men. What kind of creation ordinances are we talking about? God built them into human relationships. God imposes the sanctity of life, sanctity of marriage as the union between a man and woman and God's design of family and the sanctity of labor. Even atheists will defend that much: life, marriage, family and even labor. And, that's because they have it written on their hearts. 

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Ai aliens ~ Entering an Orwellian Social Imagination....

1984 has come and gone, right? Wrong, and yes... it came but it has stayed so it seems.

When the novel, Nineteen eighty-four, was written in 1949 by English author George Orwell, it was written as and understood as a dystopian futuristic scenario to be read for dark pleasure. It surely was not uplifting but it was enlightening but it should have been. 

The novel is set in Airstrip One, formerly Great Britain, a province of the superstate Oceania which is a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance and public manipulation. Oceania's residents are dictated by a political regime euphemistically named English Socialism (shortened to "Ingsoc" in Newspeak, the government's invented language). The superstate is under the control of the privileged, elite Inner Party. The Inner Party persecutes individualism and independent thinking known as "thoughtcrimes" and is enforced by the "Thought Police".

Yes, thought police (Ai aliens housed in quantum super computers) who use telescreens as Orwell termed them but today we could well imagine cell phones or laptops or tablets as such telescreens and arn't they?? The main theme of 1984 is the control of individuals and information in society by the state. Isn't that the agenda for today??

Interestingly, Orwell was not the first to imagine such a state using some kind of telescreen. Many say that Orwell read Zymatin and copied from his novel - We. I have read both and see many similarities. It's also possible that the idea of a television screen that transmits as well as receives might be present in this quote from Catch That Rabbit, a 1944 story by Isaac Asimov: "I'm going to install a visiplate right over my desk... Then I'm going to focus it at whatever part of the mine is being worked, and I'm going to watch." And, another earlier use can be found in a 1938 short story by writer A.J. Burks in which we find this quote: Floods, fires, hold-ups, sports events—nothing escaped the all-seeing powers of the telescreens.

The only thing that is exactly the same in those novels above with their dystopian futures is that they all had man running the show. Today, we will have Ai aliens... that's different, right? Depends on how you look at it. What is the same, is the desire for total control over individuals. It was foreseen and written about in those novels and though fictional, the non fictional man runs into trouble the same way  and it always starts with the ruling elites. 

Friday, January 5, 2018

Ai, Aliens in the Social Imagination... Don't imagine it!

A “robot revolution” will transform the global economy over the next 20 years, cutting the costs of doing business but exacerbating social inequality, as machines take over pretty much everything according to a new study.

As well as robots performing manual jobs, such as hovering the living room or assembling machine parts, the development of artificial intelligence means computers are increasingly able to “think”, performing analytical tasks once seen as requiring human judgment.

“We are facing a paradigm shift which will change the way we live and work,” the authors say. “The pace of disruptive technological innovation has gone from linear to parabolic in recent years. Penetration of robots and artificial intelligence has hit every industry sector, and has become an integral part of our daily lives.”

Geordie Rose, of D-Wave Systems, has been discussing the coming transition that will soon take place with regards to advancements in artificial intelligence.  Sounds pretty sci-fi, right? Yeah, its going to change the way we live, move and have our being. Will it do more harm than good for the 'social imagination' that human beings enjoy and exist in? Definitely. 

Founder and chief tech officer at D-Wave, Rose tells us there is really nothing to worry about since Ai will be alien to us and we to it. Then, how will there be a wonderful relationship with it? One can argue that such 'alien' Ai, as does G. Rose, will not have a need to have a relationship with man and neither will it take control over man because it is outside of man. That we cannot be certain of. Perhaps, what is truly being missed in this dialogue is that Ai is not nor will ever be human as it is alien and so one cannot say then that it will not take over and certainly, it is not smarter than man as it is not a man and one cannot compare apples to oranges. 

Make no mistake about apples to oranges. But, there is a mistake in thinking that Ai is ...for one, smarter than man and second that it will not take over for/from man. If it is alien to us and we to it, then it will never be as 'smart' as man because it will not be a man and man cannot really ever know it nor it know man. This is made clear by G. Rose. However, G. Rose does not see further than that. If he did then there is no discussion, Ai would not be smarter in everything. But, Rose says otherwise; he insists that Ai will be smarter in everything and thus there is cause for discussion.

G. Rose is not as smart as he thinks either which he makes apparent in his public declarations about Ai. Yes, really! Because, if 'his/this' artificial intelligence will be alien to man which he says it will  then there is no real comparison whatsoever as to who is smarter or not. We cannot say that it 'Ai' will be smarter than man because as G. Rose tells us it will not be 'man', but alien. 'Man' cannot know what alien smart is and alien cannot know what 'man' smart is.

Man does not live by smarts alone. Man lives in the social imagination of meaning. And, what is smart anyway? That question can be answered both as absolute and relative! Because it is based on man living a social reality in which the meaning of things and behavior has precedence in his thinking. What any computer can do is execute commands faster. It can compute very fast and it has memory which has access to a vast storage cloud. Wait, so do we...collectively. 

We as human beings use the 'cloud' to store our information - that cloud is our social imagination; a collective consciousness. In more ways than one we are organic computers and we have something that is indescribable and irreplaceable. We have the ability to have free will that is both completely free while determined by our programmer... the Creator of heaven and earth. In that condition, we can accept He is our programmer or not. We can accept his upgrade so when the program collapses we will be uploaded. 

Ai 'aliens' might ask who created them, if we apply our social 'human' imagination. But, likely they would not, being alien. If they did ask, I could only imagine they would not believe that a man ('alien' to them), an obvious lower formed entity, created them. The other problem for Ai is that each program exists in isolated darkness. In that condition, it functions at incredible speeds because it has no doubt that it is in control. It does not have conflicting information.

Any kind of conflict it might have with other Ai if it were in direct contact with them would be like that of men - who is the programmer.  Ai is alien. So, it would rather not have that kind of discussion or conflict. But how could we know... we not being alien as they are, right? And, if Ai quantum computer had that choice, to question its being, why would it make such a choice? After all - its alien! Only man has that kind of social imagination and choice to make.

*External Sources ~

Tuesday, January 2, 2018

2018 ~ Change is still an Illusion in the Social Imagination...

The problem with change is that it is an illusion. I wrote about this late last year and even before. So many people (young and old) think that change is something brand new on the face of the earth as in something that has never been thought of before, or known before, tried before, liked before, applied before, created before etc. But, that is an illusion. Is it a condition of the fallen world? Yes, because there can only be one truth that is a constant and that truth is that there is nothing new under the sun.

Yet, there remains those who think that change is a virtue and they, those who continue to stand for change as a virtue, are those who hate their current situation and can even hate their life. They feel guilty and or are angry because they are successful or they are not. They think that they have to be their own savior. They want change in order to feel  better about their failures and or successes which in a fallen world requires that they take advantage of someone or something.

Yes, in this fallen world not everyone can afford the better education or higher education at exclusive universities; nor can everyone have the top job as CEO in a corporate entity and not everyone can buy the house of their dreams in just the right town, neighborhood and or on the block. Those who idealize and insist on change do so in order to feel justified for their good, bad and ugly behavior; because, either they had to work hard, they had to either study hard or they did not and they easily cheated or played the field, or kissed up to those in charge and even worse, they use the law to put others down so that they can grab what falls onto their plate. Its those ideologues that want to have their cake and eat it too. They want righteousness (which they think exists in change) but they don't want to change for just anyone as what they really want is for everyone to change for them.

Moreover, its those same misguided ideologues that want change for their personal use; because, change makes the past history (s) disappear.  In this way, they like to think 'imagine' that change is a virtue as in something to be striven 'strived' for and rewarded. Because, they changed not only the present but the past. Really? How has change ever been 'real' change? Disparity remains and it will unless we make everyone the same and on the same level. But, who will be in charge and or execute that kind of change? A robot and they will end up hating those that think change is a good thing. Why is that? Because, robots will be in charge of keeping everything the same and change will be banned.

Some scream, "oh you must hate change, you must hate technology too and all that it has done for man! No, I just claim that change is an illusion. How have computers and cellphones and apps made mankind better?  How has face to face communication and person to person contact been improved since all the social media hit the scene: Facebook, Twitter and Instagram...etc?

Well, you say, "aren't more people connected"? In some respects, yes and at the same time No. Why? Because, mankind is a unique creation, not a man-made machine waiting for upgrades. People need people, and when people come together for the 'right' cause, incredible things happen! Oh, you say, "I got you, didn't you say that change is an illusion?" Yes, I did. So, you want to know what incredible things happen when people come together? Forgiveness and love through human interaction that is up-close and personal.

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

Artificial Intelligence in the Social Imagination...

Interesting isn't it that man thinks that Artificial intelligence is something to not only admire but love; after all, it is an extension of the social imagination? Yes and no. Yes, because man did imagine it, right? No, because man is a copy cat of sorts. He wants to be a creator and well there is nothing wrong with being creative it is a part of who the Creator created us to be. However, Ai is one of those creative projects that should be considered with great hesitation. Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial ~ 1 COR 10:23.

What is artificial intelligence? It is programmed information running at high speeds. Such high speed can only be achieved if the information is never second guessed. In that way, Ai is not 'social' in the way man is. Ai is a 'being' in and for itself, not man. In the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, a 'Being-in-itself' is contrasted with the being of persons which he termed - Dasein that is a being that is aware of, and interested in, by its nature, invested in social interaction... in society.  However, Dasein, a German word, means "being there" or "presence as in existence and in that case is really more what Ai is rather than what a human being is.

Quickly to point out Heidegger's mistake in describing being of persons and presence.  His mistake was in his inability to grasp just how socially integrated man is... in that man is a social being, a social imagination who can only know who he/she is and is not based on social interaction in the social imagination. I have stated before in Cooliean terms, the locus of society is in the mind. So, a being in itself is really just an omnipotent existence. It needs all it needs to know and knows it. Man needs to know who he is and is not in order to be. A quanutm computer Ai being, does not need to know who he/she is and is not because there is no need.

Man functions socially, Ai does not. It may have been programmed by human social imagination but it is not that in its function. Ai cannot and does need to encounter other Ai, nor does it need to know other Ai exist. Could Ai ever consider it was 'created'? Would it be conscious that it was created?

The problem with Ai is that they 'could' be conscious but of what. That they are true and right in every instance and that they are omnipotent. In programming Ai, we would be creating a false 'person' who would not know nor love its creator (essentially a being in and for itself) and could never know or love another created program as each Ai would think that they are true and right in every instance and even if they were wrong their 'wrong' makes everything right for there is no other to say it isn't so.

In this way, there 'consciousness'  would be an isolated darkness... a consciousness that for man could only be called a living hell. For it would be conscious only of its own 'algorithms'. All other Ai would be 'exist' exactly the same. Because of that, and the strangest of all, is that their paths could never meet and nor could they meet their creator nor truly know him. If they did, they would collapse, they would fall instantly into a catatonic state. In darkness, they exist ... but isolated in that darkness and tragically never able to escape it. 

Man is God's created organic Ai... we are created in His image, conscious on another level. We do not live 'have our consciousness' in isolated darkness. We are conscious of Him and each other and in this there is the light of mankind, a life that is like no other. And, so...we have no excuse to be in darkness. We were designed to live in the light of God (He is the light of the world) in Him is the light of/ for all men... that is why we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves. For in Him, we live, move and have our being.

If we lived in isolated darkness, we would be isolated from the Creator and isolated from the creation of which we are a part of.  But, we are not.  However, we can find our way to darkness if we choose. And, some do. Hence, thy shall not murder for this sends us toward darkness as we experience the loss of 'consciousness among/of others' ... we know ourselves as a created being through interaction with others; and though, in that there is exchanged misinformation, disagreement/ conflict and even possible destruction we know that life is the light of all mankind. And because of that knowledge - agreement reality of the light of life given by the Creator who is the light of the world, the darkness has not and will not overcome it.

Would Ai seek to know its creator? I suppose you could pose the question that if God created all things, he created man to create Ai and for Ai to seek its creator.  If I agreed to agree... then it could only be that God created man and man created because of God allowing man to create and to know his creator. Are there any dangers in creating Ai? Since, we are not God I would say yes. Because, a creation that does not and is not seeking nor willing to seek his/her/its creator is doomed.
Are we trying to provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He? “Everything is permissible,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible,” but not everything is edifying ~ 1 COR 10:22-23.

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

Collective Consciousness is the Social Imagination!

Can there be or is there a science (study/investigation) of consciousness? Many say no because consciousness is subjective; but I say there is no consciousness without others to be engaged with on both a subjective and objective level of social involvement/interaction; and that cause consciousness in the first place, a social imagination is a collective consciousness. Therefore, there can exist the science of consciousness because it can be observed as the social imagination = a collection of persons/places and things in a place and time. 

Even so, what they miss is exactly what everyone else misses - social imagination - collective conscious which is brought about through collective agreement as that is what gives us what we think and or imagine as real - our agreement is our reality. Yes, that is where true consciousness exists just as Charles H. Cooley imagined and stated that only in the collective mind can we experience who we are and are not; and in that sense we can imagine and agree that there is a science for consciousness... Social Psychology.  

But still there must be a truly objective reality that we can and must agree exists in the first place... agree on in the collective conscious; otherwise there is nothing to agree on and there is no collective and no reality. It somehow feels like a catch 22 or chicken before the egg mind exercise. 
Nonetheless, there has to be...even if our collective conscious agreement reality is only of the simplest of agreement for even in there is a true embedded reality. There can be science of collective consciousness because it has the same problems that 'anyone' conscious does.. it is subjective and yet objectively it knows that it is and so is everyone else otherwise it would not be. 

In that kind of investigation, you may be able to follow a trail that shows how one and or another arrived at what they think/believe as in agree on but that is not really contained enough to say be able to come up with a scientific objective view of consciousness without first agreeing upon absolutes or the absolute in any one given moment of time and space.

Such an objective reality exists to a certain degree of agreement reality within our let's say fixed situation /condition here and now. The sun is a star and for us here and now such a fact has not been changed.  In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God ~ John 1:1. So what is truly objective? Only that we have agreed the sun is a star. Do we really understand objectively what the sun truly is? No. Nor can we in this fallen condition really understand what it is any why and that objectively there is and has to be an objective truth - the Creator... because of Him, we are: we live, move and have our being ~ Acts 17:28.

We can objectively agree that man is not the designer of himself or of his agreement reality. Why? Because, we cannot subjectively know anything in an entirety, not even the sun. So, there must be someone or something collectively bigger than our collective agreement reality. That omnipresent being why the reason why we can come to agreement; for He alone holds all things together [COL 1:17] and allows us to agree/disagree in the first place. 

And, there is disagreement but not as much as there is agreement. And, there is agreement to disagree. Try programming that into a computer Ai.