From: Lev Lafayette <lev-AT-ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Totalitarian/Authoritarian/Democratic Technics
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:36:09 +1100 (AEDT)



> 
David,

Your comments on the partial applicationof technology revives structure over
agency, and indeed, suggests that it is explicit in many technologies. Indeed,
most technologies seem designed for specific rather than general purposes.

Nonetheless, the totalising aspect of technology is very strong. Despite
specific uses, the general tendancy is for technologies to expand in scale and
scope; more power, greater efficiency and so on. There is a general tendancy to
totality in that sense, of which romantic non/partial technological fantasies
cannot withstand the relentless (and some would say tragic) march of modernity.

Keep in mind I am actually very fond of these romantic partial technology 
fantasies. My favourite poem is William Blake's 'Jerusalem'; I am particularly
endeared by how for many years the French refused to adopt the first modern
communications system (the telegraph) over the last and greatest pre-modern
system; semaphore. I'd probably prefer the latter to the Internet, but look
where we are.

I am in your agreement with your statements on authoritarian/democratic
organisational theory. I am very pleased to see that that the link between
positivism and dictatorial behaviour. Such a position is often overlooked
in anglophone thinking, probably due to a lack of a word like <<l'esprit>> or
'geist'.

The point on democratic theory presupposing a level of trust could also be
applied to technology. It may even be definining subjective definition of
democratic vs authoritarian technics.



-- 
Lev Lafayette. lev-AT-ariel.unimelb.edu.au http://ariel.unimelb.edu.au/~lev
* Electorate Officer for Neil Cole, MLA for Melbourne, Parliament of Victoria.
* Thesis in progress: 'A Social Theory of the Internet'. Ashworth Centre
for Social Theory, University of Melbourne.
* President of Mimesis, Inc. An association promoting roleplaying systems.

> 
> Lev,
> 
> Thank you for the sympathic phrase about my english.
> 
> 2 problems subsist in the debate :
>         1 Can a technology be of total application ? I mean that a technology could
> be ever partial. For instance the technology of a programming langage such as pascal
> can serve one kind of applications (burautics, database, games) if you want to do
> artificial intelligence, you must use a prolog or a lisp/scheme langage. On another
> side, i've read a book about technonology who says that a technology cannot be pure,
> it is pure at the beginning but it is also submitted at material constraints : the
> radiator of cars are a good example (sorry but I don't remember the details).
>      Another is logical programming and electronics : I've done a lot of formal
> logic, and when now I want to apply it to electronics, I have to works a lot on
> composants, on electricity properties (tension, density) wich are not logicals
> properties.
> 
>       2° for the technology of human behaviour, it is not so easy that it seems :
> humans have thought that they can control humanity. This is a dictatorial point of
> view, this is also a démocratics point of view and a management point of view. These
> 3 ones are qualitatively differents :
>          On the dictatorial one, we meet something like positivism : it is the army
> organisation, but mens are considered like machines (tools) it is also stalinism.
> Husserl said truthly that this cannot works (the crises of european sciences), and
> we know that people will not support this without resistance of all kind : it can be
> guerrilla or "farniente".
>          The hitlerian point of view is more like modern management, using the
> sentimental facts at the same level of the technological one. cf. the book of Franz
> Neumann : "structure and practice of National Socialism" 1944, Oxford University
> press.
>           The management point of view is not only technical, it also sentimental
> and human : the manager must evaluate he human potential of the interprise. It is
> important that a workers likes him or hates him, or likes another one, or hates
> another one. But this is not technical.
>           In a democraty, there is, of course, a lot of technical things ; but there
> is also a trust dimension who make the stability of the state. There is some
> democraties which doesn't work because the people doesn't trust on the system. As
> you know it is also tru for the money politic.
> 
> David
> 
> --------------D77E1A52CA874B56463F7353
> Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
>  name="dcotte.vcf"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Description: Card for dcotte
> Content-Disposition: attachment;
>  filename="dcotte.vcf"
> 
> begin:vcard 
> n:Cotte;David
> tel;pager:http://home.nordnet.fr/~dcotte
> x-mozilla-html:FALSE
> adr:;;;;;;
> version:2.1
> email;internet:dcotte-AT-nordnet.fr
> fn:David Cotte
> end:vcard
> 
> --------------D77E1A52CA874B56463F7353--
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list technology-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 


-- 
Lev Lafayette. lev-AT-ariel.unimelb.edu.au http://ariel.unimelb.edu.au/~lev
* Electorate Officer for Neil Cole, MLA for Melbourne, Parliament of Victoria.
* Thesis in progress: 'A Social Theory of the Internet'. Ashworth Centre
for Social Theory, University of Melbourne.
* President of Mimesis, Inc. An association promoting roleplaying systems.


     --- from list technology-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---