Violence And War

Andrés Ginestet          

 

IQ1

The ongoing discussion about war needs to be linked to the ongoing discussion at another place about the IQ level segregation; that is one of the main causes for war: What happens is that when IQ levels segregate a society, it becomes stratified and rigid and conflicting (Volkmar Weiss + Bourdieu + Darendorf + x)

War does not break down demography growth in total, only in a selective way. As any violence is not useful to human species because it is emitted by natural systems, but it is useful to the natural systems as a total, what we have to understand is: what is a war good for in the perspective of the evolution of life in nature? What I found out is that a war erases the visible structure of a culture and society by erasing buildings, books, etc... and after a war, the communication between different IQ levels becomes tainted with solidarity instead of segregation. Why? Because a physics professor needs a house to be housed, he depends on the IQ-level 70 person carrying the stones to build his house. So it was after WWII. For this reason Germans take so much care of the mentally handicapped. It is a way of expressing solidarity and cohesion between all IQ levels, not segregating them, not dividing citizens into more or less worth citizens. The handicapped challenge the solidarity between IQ levels in a specific way. A new visible and physical social tissue gets produced, i.e. in Germany, in the new cities built around the 1950’s after total destruction due to bombing.

But then, during war itself, it is a certain level of IQ that gets used in battle. Armies do design their IQ settings for a logical reason, an internal reason to war. This has little to do with what we call complexity governance and IQ integration. In order to not to need a war, we have to regulate and control complexity and this means in a specific way that we have to get solidarity into the game between the different IQ levels. This solidarity is not meant in moral terms. It has a moral effect. But the real reason for this solidarity is a reason tied to the logic inherent to complexity governance.

As early as in the year 2000 I sensed an urge to act towards the future and to reset the path for human thinking. For this reason I produced in year 2000 the Mechanical Valley Concept, which was destined to marginalize the economic financial crisis we have now. I was not able to explain my decision and to work it enough, except with very few persons, like Sherwood McGinnis. Sherwood McGinnis would very simply ask the right questions. Our meeting was not at all due to any fate. It was a choice made within a complexity evolution of a specific type. Sherwood McGinnis and me met out of the necessity set by a complexity pattern.

 

IQ2

My daughter asked at one point, one morning if a dictatorship is bad at all. My answer was, that dictatorships are “necessary steps” in the evolution of human social organization. Dictatorships are necessary “steps” to the construction of human societies. The reason is, that dictatorships reduce drastically human complexity by imposing a one and single complexity pattern, the pattern imposed by one tyrant. This is the equivalent of a complexity reduction by the means of violence.

The imposition of complexity patterns happens by the means of the restriction of freedom (we call it contingence or C3 in complexity theory). My daughter knows how much we care about complexity construction and about the fact that complexity is not in the focus of human observation. This is the reason why we have set up a program to construct a World Wide Grid of Complexity Observatories: WWGCO. We have decided that the understanding of complexity needs to be as common, general and universal as understanding temperature, space, time or the physical proprieties of matter. Readingcomplexity needs to be understood as driving a car and observing traffic lights andsigns.

My daughter asked if we might face a new kind of dictatorship in the future, because politics do not care about complexity. And I answered, that the future probably would be constructed in the same way as the past, with maybe some slight and small differences. We will face in the future a new type of dictatorship and restriction of freedom until complexity gets understood as being the ruling and dominant category of thought for human species. The reason for it is that we missed the opportunity of regulating complexity in time. We have passed the threshold of critical complexity. The function, the mathematical function, this oscillating function rose at full speed and is tipping down right now. We have not managed to set up a critical mass of persons capable of dealing with this situation. Even if we do work, as we do at full speed, ahead of events,we risk failing our target: the avoiding of large turmoil.

The future dictatorship to be expected could be parallel to a much larger amount ofviolence, destruction, war, etc.

This can be avoided if we learn to master the complexity that presently masters us, before we set up a cycle of total decay.

Isaac Asimov described this development in a very clever way in his series Foundation.

The Psychohistorian Hari Seldon was the master of the evolution in long planning terms. Also, he had only one chance, to deal with critical masses. José Ortega Y Gasset had described this quality of the evolution of intelligence previously in his book “La Rebelión de las Masas”.

On the other hand, reality is meaningful enough, as much as lessons out of the past. Karl Mannheim was born in troublesome times, made his work, which only served after WWII, in the 1950’s, and which still has not been understood, as it should be. The difference between utopia and ideology is still not in the field of awareness of a critical mass of persons sufficient to steer human destiny.

Complex systems collapse, unless complexity governance is conceived and applied as a sustainable pattern of complexity, which, i.e. needs to be cyclic instead of rigid. Democracy, i.e. is a cyclic structure which fits evolution. But the oligarchy dominating democracy structures nowadays is rigid and perverts democracy principles. Any form of privilege of any rigid structure (mainly those tied to absolute complexity, or C1) damages the stability of a cyclic democracy. We have absolutely no complexity governance at all. We have no sufficient complexity education, research, understanding, explaining, communicating, etc.

 

There is no human species yet. Right now, we all together are C1 units, perfectly fittingin a natural design, which is the opposite of a human design. We are perfectly designed amounts, single units of biological matter, closed, defined and separate, evolving like bacteria, still, because our awareness has not yet reached a critical state, sufficient to elevate human kind into the noosphere of complexity awareness. Right now, we are nothing but lumps of living meat, like cattle, because we endure complexity structures and we just start understanding the difference. We begin to emancipate. We begin to understand the meaning of complexity, of the fact that we are complexity expressions, capable of seizing the meaning of the same complexity out of which we are made. We become human. We still start becoming human.

 

For this reason, on May 21st 2012, at the XIV The Hague World Symposium of Victimology, I renounced to my human condition publicly, and I renounced to my human rights. I do not want them. They are not fitting to the situation. I qualified myself as a “Complexity Expression”. I have no rights. I only know responsibilities. I have no right to be happy. I have the responsibility to be happy and to construct happiness.

 

Author Note : First version written around 20.6.2010, rewritten 29.05.2011, rewritten 09.06.2012, reedited 20.08.2012.