glossaLAB - User contributions [en]

Draft:The Deliverance

2024-07-02T17:23:15Z

Yelena Volf: I added the article

== '''The Deliverance''' ==
''There is in every one of us, even those who seem to be most moderate, a type of desire that is terrible, wild, and lawless.''

''― Plato, The Republic''

What a perfect world we all live in! After so long, people have finally learned to live in peace and mutual understanding. Here, no one locks their doors when they leave their homes. Women are walking home late at night with no fear of being attacked. Children run freely on the playground and everyone knows that nothing bad will happen to them. People are born, live and die truly happy. Who would have guessed that only a hundred years ago it was completely different! Older generation still remembers all the horrible things: hunger, wars, murders, human trafficking, child labor, prostitution, environmental catastrophes, but they would rather forget all that. We, people, were extremely lucky to have such people as Dr. T who saved our lives when we were staying at the edge of our existence.

Dr. T was the superhero we all needed. Coming from a disadvantaged background, he was a fan of socialist and communist ideas and was eager to follow the idea of the perfect societal order that he was reading about in his books. Born in the eighties when the world was rapidly changing and was moving towards capitalism and globalization, he witnessed drastic turns, ups and downs in the society and the system. He was born 22 September 1980 at the exact day when Kate Bush released her song “Army Dreamers” as a protest against wars and the world’s armament. This song, to which his mother cried so much, became his personal anthem and as the absolute pacifist he was, he promised himself to make the world a better place. From childhood Dr. T was making his way. The teachers described him as an ambitious young man who was fighting against injustice in the system. He lost his father to the war in Iraq and his mother couldn’t afford to send him to college. But being a big dreamer and working hard he managed to get the scholarship and become the best student in his course. You know what people say, you cannot steal talent!

He wanted to pursue his career in science and he chose neurobiology as his major. Dr.T has always been extremely fascinated by the fact how our brain functions so during his senior year of college he wrote 113 papers on this topic considering the average is 70 articles a year. I also must say that he had a charming personality that allowed him to make great friends in his college years and became well-known in the college scientific community.

After completing his Doctoral degree he proceeded to dive into neurobiological science deeper and deeper. At the age of 38 he started working on his secret project that we all are grateful for now. The idea of the project was as follows: Dr.T was convinced that all the horrendous things that are happening in the world are anthropogenic; we as people are not ideal but we could become if we let all the bad feelings and emotions disappear from our lives. The world would be a much greater place to live in if everyone were happy, nice and helpful and with good intentions only. People are too unpredictable and irrational, running in the wake of their emotions. The government has little to no control over people's brains and, according to Dr.T, implanting a chip would be completely unethical as there is always a danger of hijacking the brain. Taking all this into account he presented his new way of solving the problem: the machine that would simply eradicate bad feelings and emotions affecting them through brain cells.

This idea was innovative and groundbreaking. The whole scientific community as well as his college friends and professors were stirred up. This innovation didn’t sit right with them. One by one the greatest minds of the world have been speaking out against this idea. Some of them considered it was impossible, others — inhumane.It seemed like there was nobody on Dr.T’s side. However, he stayed consistent and patient. He didn’t involve himself in the meaningless arguments trying to prove something to these people. Instead, he proceeded working on his concept. Luckily Dr. T. had one hidden talent: he always managed to appear in the right places at the right times. On the 1st of May 2020, at a very private party due to conditions of that time, he made acquaintances with Andrew W. who became his best friend and a comrade for the rest of his life. This was, as he mentioned later on, one of the most important episodes of his life that predetermined his future destiny.

Andrew W. was just as ambitious and energetic as Dr.T and most importantly he had the same dream - to make the world a better place. About half of his life he devoted to the system architecture of medical devices and when he first heard about the Dr.T’s project, he was captivated by the idea. Andrew W. was a perfect match for Dr.T as he had all the qualifications and knowledge that Dr. T was missing out on. Together they became a powerful tandem and soon they earned the recognition that they deserved. It took them 3 years to unite the theoretical part of Dr.T and practical part of Andrew W., and in 2023 the world saw the first ever machine. And they called it the Dalek-machine.

While working on their mutual projekt they were also trying to establish contacts in the upper strata of society and to find like-minded people and supporters of their idea. They were sharing their progress and attempting to persuade people that the machine would actually work. And they succeeded. So as soon as the Dalek-machine was introduced it was approved for animal testing on short notice.

Although it is scientifically proven that animals cannot experience complex emotions as humans do, Dr.T completed all the testing and was focusing on anger and sadness in stray dogs. The results were astonishing. The dogs showed certain improvement in their character, the aggressive ones became calm and happy and the ones that showed signs of depression became active and playful. Dr.T and Andrew W. both interpreted these results as positive and were inspired to start testing on humans. The only problem was the colleagues that argued the results claiming that the human nervous system with all the feelings and emotions is much more complex than the nervous system of animals and that we need more testing to be sure that the machine is safe to use on humans. The faced opposition could be an obstacle if not for the influential contacts who helped our tandem to dodge this little inconvenience. The results of animal testing were recognized as valid and they got the green light from the Institution Y. to start the first testing on humans.

The first people who took part in the testing, not by their choice, were the inmates of the maximum security prison Black Dolphin. These people committed horrible crimes and were sentenced to life imprisonment. Dr.T. reckoned that these inmates are the best experimental people claiming that the results, if positive, would be crystal clear and therefore remarkable, and if not, it wouldn’t make any difference for the people in Black Dolphin are ‘living dead’.

The principle of the Dalek-machine is that it affects brain cells through short vibrations, identifies negative feelings and emotions and destroys them. During the procedure an individual does not experience pain, but unpleasant tickling sensations due to the vibrations. It takes 7 minutes to complete the procedure and another 10 minutes for the person to realize what has happened.

Those inmates who underwent the procedure showed striking improvements. Dr.T himself was surprised that the machine worked so well. No harsh or uncomfortable sensations have been reported. There were no traces of anger or violence shown in the inmates’ personalities. Moreover, they developed empathy, something they had previously been found not to be capable of. When the testing was finished the only people who showed violence in this prison were the officers.

The results of this testing were described in detail in the article that Dr. T wrote together with his faithful scientific companion Andrew W. And as expected, the article and the experiment itself caused a huge resonance. Among other things, many scientists were concerned about the ethics of the experiment. But the larger argument was the fact that the machine worked. This was it! Something that could change our world for the better forever.

The controversy still did not die down and to dispel all doubts Dr. T decided to conduct five more tests in prisons. And as the results kept being positive, they were followed by experiments in mental hospitals, where the experimental subjects were people suffering from severe depression. The results showed the great effectiveness of the machine. People were freed from ongoing rage, sadness, hatred and guilt. They were not suffering from their emotional burdens anymore.

After numerous successful experiments, the scientific community largely had no doubts about the performance of the Dalek-machine. Of course, there was a small group of scientists who were strongly against the use of it. But that was not important, since the majority of scientists were in favor. The government and politicians were also very interested in this new breakthrough invention. To liberate all people from negative feelings and emotions is a dream, an utopia!

Dr. T persuaded the head of the Institution Y. to support his voluntary research program. According to this program anyone who was interested in taking part in the testing and freeing themselves from all negative feelings would have the chance to do so. In this way the Dalek-machine became available to ordinary people. Those who went through the procedure were unable to describe the feeling of being no longer the prisoner of their emotions and feelings. All they felt was unlimited love and appreciation to their life and the world they live in. The criminal rates were dropping drastically and the last conducted survey of happiness of the population revealed a 30% rise on the scale. This once again highlighted the effectiveness and the importance of the new invention of Dr. T and Andrew W. But an ideal world without violence and catastrophe was still a long way off. Dr. T's plan was to help all people on the planet. Under his initiative, and once again with the help of his influential friends, Dr. T succeeded in making the use of the machine widespread. Transportable stations similar to vaccination stations in the period of Covid-19 were set up all over the country. Each such station was equipped with 2 Dalek-machines that stood side by side so that visitors, such as friends or relatives, could hold hands during the procedure.

The procedure for ordinary citizens was advisory in nature. And of course in the beginning people treated this miracle invention with suspicion and apprehension. But thanks to great marketing after only a few years, no one could remember how it all began. In prisons, the procedure became coercive. It was like disarming a criminal once and for all. They also stopped feeling guilt, but the feeling of remorse was not alien to them. The government decided to release those inmates who recognized the deeds they had committed. And the prisons were getting emptier by the day. In psychiatric hospitals, the use of the Dalek-machine was soon introduced as a compulsory procedure. Affecting neurons, electric impulses from the machine stimulated the production of serotonin, which was especially important for people in the state of deep depression. And by changing the structural connectivity in brain channels, the machine also helped with ADHD, and importantly, PTSD. Dr. T and Andrew W. did not sit still and worked on improving their invention, so that the accuracy of the effect was maximized in healthy people. During 10 years of testing and limited use of the machine, a large amount of data was collected, which also allowed us to analyze the efficiency of the invention and the number of relapses.

The machine worked perfectly and of the hundreds of thousands of people who underwent ‘the Deliverance’ procedure — as Andrew W. called it in an interview with the New York Times — only 3 relapses were identified. It wasn't just a good indicator, it was a great indicator. There is little to no data on two of them except that both people were mentally unstable and committed suicide shortly after the procedure. Another man was a volunteer and stated that he felt no change afterward. He soon underwent another procedure and this time it was successful.

The data collected demonstrated how effective ‘the Deliverance’ was, prompting Dr. T to take action. He made a report in the Congress and proposed that the procedure be made mandatory for the entire population, from the youngest to the oldest, which also included ‘the Deliverance’ of just born children. The report aroused tremendous enthusiasm in the political upper echelons of society. Dr. T’s initiative was approved, despite objections about the ethics of the procedure. People did not have a choice to dispose of their bodies, but does it matter when a perfect world is at stake?

Not only politicians of his own country but also the heads of all other states were interested in the invention. At this point the Dalek-machine started conquering the world. Well-developed countries were sending Dalek-machines to the poor-developed country to help facilitate the ‘the Deliverance’. And so new orders were established in the world because the old ones were no longer fit for the times. The procedure became compulsory for everyone. In just 5 years, 95 percent of the world population was spared. Dalek-machines became an integral part of maternity hospitals. Newborns received this procedure on the third day after birth. Therefore, the new generation does not even know about the existence of bad feelings. Despite all the successes of the campaign there was still a large swath of people who had not yet gone through the procedure, namely politicians and the military. But soon it was their turn. This was a huge victory not only for the new society, but also for Dr. T. There was no one left to give cruel and thoughtless orders and no one left to carry them out. One by one the wars stopped as they no longer made sense. People didn't want to fight anymore, they didn't need to. It is true that people in their nature do not want war, they do not want to die or lose everything they have. Instead of fighting, people started cooperating to build a brave new world. And soon the borders were blurred and everyone could go wherever and whenever they wanted to. People went back to being the citizens of the world and got closer to nature.

Our new society also no longer needed prisons, mental hospitals and other freedom-restricting institutions. Everyone was happy and no one was aggressive to others or to themselves anymore. Some of the institutioт have become museums as an unforgettable memory of a terrible past.

Andrew W. underwent the procedure under the Dr.T careful guidance. And Dr.T was the last person on the planet Earth who still didn’t liberate himself. But he was very happy because his biggest dream came true.

= Epilogue =
Dr. T and Andrew W. have managed to create a brave new world in which there is no place for suffering, aggression, and violence. A world where people have no choice and no control over their bodies from the very beginning. They don't even have a chance to feel hatred, shame, or sadness. Because people have never experienced sadness and are always happy, they do not see the contrast and do not really recognize the brightness of this emotion. Many are in pursuit of recreational substances to make themselves feel even happier. People always need more, that is their nature.

However, under the cover of eternal happiness, some individuals, curious and restless, begin to question the purpose of their existence and wonder why things felt different in the stories and memories of their great-grandparents. In a world devoid of true freedom and genuine human experience, the seeds of doubts and disagreements are sown. These budding doubts and desires may lead to a possible revolution, indicating that the pursuit for more may eventually lead some people to seek not only greater pleasures, but also true meaning and freedom. While society continues to thrive, the never-ending argument of how the world could be if the people had to choose whether or not go through the Deliverance. This argument revokes rebellious spirits reminding us that human nature, despite all attempts to control it, can always seek its own path to self-awareness and liberation.

File:Y. Volf Utopia.pdf

2024-06-16T15:52:02Z

Yelena Volf: This is the story I wrote. The AI aka Chat GPT was used to find synonyms or reformulate what I already wrote. https://www.glossalab.org/w/index.php?title=Huxley%27s_%22A_Brave_New_World%22&oldid=10550 This is the link to my contribution. The novel "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley was published in 1932. This novel is considered a dystopia and shows us a frightening scenario of the possible future. The events take place in a fictional World State in the 632nd year of the era of stabilit...

== Summary ==
This is the story I wrote. The AI aka Chat GPT was used to find synonyms or reformulate what I already wrote.

https://www.glossalab.org/w/index.php?title=Huxley%27s_%22A_Brave_New_World%22&oldid=10550

This is the link to my contribution.

The novel "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley was published in 1932. This novel is considered a dystopia and shows us a frightening scenario of the possible future. The events take place in a fictional World State in the 632nd year of the era of stability or the Ford Era. Henry Ford is a very respected person for creating the world's largest automobile company. People in the World State refer to him as the Lord God. Science and technology rule the world. Even people aren't born here, they come out of the incubators that have different conditions. These conditions predispose to which societal group a person will belong. There are four groups named after the letters of the Greek alphabet: alphas, betas, gammas, deltas and epsilons. These groups have different characteristics, for example, alphas considered the people of upper class, workers of mental labor and they perform the most highly skilled work; at the same time Epsilons, people of lower class, who cannot even read or write and perform unskilled labor. The groups are easy to identify by the color they are wearing: alphas - gray, betas - red, gamma - green, deltas - khaki and epsilons - black.The motto of the World State is “Community, Identity, Stability”, identity does not exist here, everything is common and everyone belongs to everyone else. Art and history do not exist in this world, and everything people can do is dive into the entertainment industry and take Soma, a drug, to fix their mood.The plot evolves around Bernard Marx, an alpha male, and John the Savage. Bernard feels alienated by his smaller physical size. He shows an interest in John the Savage, who was raised in an isolated community and has experienced all the emotions of humanity. Bernard introduces John to the "Brave New World," where John is amazed and horrified by the shallow, pleasure-seeking culture. Bernard and John's rebellion against the system gains momentum. They try to expose the flaws of society, but their efforts fail. John's emotions and personality make him a target of persecution and he is forced to flee to a lighthouse on the coast. At the end of the novel Bernard and a group of journalists go to the lighthouse to see John, who has become a celebrity. The journalists provoke John, who cannot control his emotions and attacks them. In the chaos that ensues, John commits suicide.The novel ends with a hint that even rebellion and individuality can be hijacked by the system. This story is a warning about the risks of sacrificing individuality and freedom in the name of stability and efficiency. The central questions in the novel are the role of technology in society and the nature of happiness.

Clarus:Utopias and the information society

2024-06-14T15:30:32Z

Yelena Volf:

{{TOC_left}}
This elucidation is attached to the seminar ''[https://sites.google.com/unileon.es/utopias-and-the-inf-soc/ From Ancient Utopias to Cyberutopias. An introduction to political philosophy]'' held at the Munich University of Applied Science under the supervision of [[User:JDíaz|J.M. Díaz Nafría]]. The goal is contributing to the conceptual clarification to which glossaLAB is devoted to, namely the understanding of information and systems from multiple perspectives, and at the same time contributiong to the objectives of the seminar as explained in the next paragraph.
==The relations between utopias, systems and political philosophy==
One may ask, what has this purpose to do with the historical study of utopias and its manifestation in current cyberutopias, as an introduction to political philosophy. Well, the relation is probably much stronger than what one would think in first sight.

One needs first bearing in mind that a '''system''' is the result of interacting parts whose cooperative activity makes the system to endure (preserving some kind of identity) and that creates some functionality for the system itself and for the environment where it happens to exist. At the same time, it is clear that any '''utopia''' is devised, first of all, to fulfil some wishful characteristics and, second, to endure. Since, in addition, it is composed by parts whose interaction suppose to be responsible for the wishful objectives, then a utopia is nothing but a system, indeed a social system. However it is not as any other social system we may be willing to study, it is a system proposed as a goal that suppose to be worth being pursued, i.e., a goal we may strive to achieve, and even sometimes the target of a programme we may carefully plan. The Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano puts it very nicely in the following words:
<blockquote><poem>"Utopia is on the horizon. I walk two steps, it takes two steps away, and the horizon runs ten steps further. So, for what does the utopia works? For that, it serves to walk."
—E.Galeano</poem></blockquote>
And when we speak of walking for a social system (particularly if it requires decision making) that's nothing but '''politics'''. From that perspective, political action always involves some utopia, be it more or less explicit. And when we want to delve into the different political approaches to understand them better, then we need to focus on the utopias which are moving the political action, and that is doing '''political philosophy'''. And what about '''dystopias'''? That's something we dislike, we wish to avoid them. That's clearly not a model to fulfil, but rather a model to scape from. Therefore, it is also a reason to walk for the social system, though in the sense of walking away.

Indeed the study of systems enables us to preview the space of possibilities in which the system may move. And we may see that if we set the (social) system in a particular way, the space of possibilities often displays areas which are better to avoid. A saylor needs to mark in the navigation chart not only the seaports but also the pitfalls to avoid. All in all when we analyse any utopia from its utopic and dystopic sides, we are clarifying the ultimate meanings of political approaches which is a way of doing political philosophy and even assesing the value of political proposals.

You can find below a (non-exhaustive) list of topics which are worth working in, classified according to the family of utopias in which they can be categorised using the clasification proposed during the lectures. Participants can work in just one topic or in several ones and find the connections existing with other concepts within the network of clarified concepts.

===Creating a user===
{{#ev:
youtube
|id=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uwNx35JL70
|450
|alignment=right
|container=frame
}}
Obviously, the first simply step to do for working in glossaLAB platform is creating a user, identified by your full name and providing a brief research profile of yourself (condensed in a paragraph). Since we will measure the diversity and integration of disciplines when your user has been created, you should go to your user page (e.g. User:Modestos Stavrakis) and select -at the bottom of the edition page- the categories corresponding to the knowledge domains of your studies (the set of categories, organised in 9 trunks, contains more than 60, which are derived from the Universal Decimal Classification of disciplines). In this video you can see the process of user creation, the logging into the platform as accredited user and the initiation of the editing.

==Preliminary clarifications (for participants in the seminar)==
As a previous step to clarify other terms in more detail, we will continue herewith the clarification of the concepts I ask you about since the beginning of the seminar. You don't need to make any deep research on the meaning, the idea is collecting the different views you have with respect these concepts, but nevertheless with the purpose of improving what has already been clarified before. Indeed, you may see other clarifications from your colleagues when you arrive to the page.
*If your view is significantly different to what already was given (or the page is still empty), you can add a new paragraph and start your contribution with the following format (suppose you are clarifying 'concept' and your user name is Anne Smith):
<pre>'''Concept''' can be understood as ...
Supporters of this understanding: [[User:Anne Smith]]</pre>
*If your understanding is very similar to what some of your colleagues has clarified before, you can just try to improve it (don't worry about overwriting because the original text can be recovered and the novelty you provide can be distinguished using the history tool), or to contribute with some further detail in the same direction. Below the corresponding paragraph you should add your user name to the list of supporters as shown above.

To provide your views just follow the following links:
[[Utopia (preliminary)]] | [[Dystopia (preliminary)]] | [[Abstract vs concrete utopia (preliminary)]] | [[Information society (preliminary)]] | [[Cyberutopia (preliminary)]]

==Guidelines for contributors (participants in the seminar)==
The elaboration of your contribution(s) is something you can do in collaboration with other colleagues and assisted by the course's teacher. You need first to determine in what family of utopia your are you going to work in the first place. It may happen, when you start, that there are other entries worth being added (for instance, a concept you use which is not clarified yet). If you need to open a new voice, you can create a new article and communicate the action to the supervisor to provide the necessary components to be properly managed and supervised.

Since your contribution needs to be adequately embedded within the glossaLAB's conceptual network, therefore, it is important to be aware what is already there and to establish connections with other conceptual clarifications. First of all, your topic may already be opened and it may have some content you should review in order to enhance or complete in the way you wish. The documentation section within the [https://sites.google.com/unileon.es/utopias-and-the-inf-soc/ seminar's website] contains published materials you can use for backing-up your contribution(s).

==Possible Seminar's Topics==
===The perfect Language===

[[The computable language]] | [[The analytical language]] | [[A unified language]] | [[The perfect translator]]

===The Perfect Thinking===

[[The computable mind]] | [[Artificial Intelligence (Cyberutopias)]] | [[Deep Learning]] | [[Machine Learning]] | [[Spiegel's "Her"]]

===The Perfect Wisdom===

[[The universal library]] | [[The ubiquitous education]] | [[The web as a reservoir of wisdom]] | [[The network as a new paradigm for wisdom]]

===The Perfect Social Order===

[[The computable social order]] | [[Homeland Earth]] | [[Making peace with nature]] | [[Engineering the environment]] | [[Cybersubsidiarity]] | [[Other worlds are possible]] | [[A Global Sustainable Information Society]] | [[Huxley's "A Brave New World"]] | [[Wachowski Sisters' "Matrix""]]] | [[Deleuze's "Control society"]] | [[Neom: An absurd city project in Saudi Arabia]] | [[Project Cybersin]] | [[Draft:Smart City|Smart City]] | [[Draft: The Deliverance |The Deliverance]]

===The Perfect Transparent Society===

[[A transparent world]] | [[The network transparency]] | [[Orwell's "1984"]] | [[The social dilemma]]

===The Perfect Trustful Society===

[[A trustful information society]] | [[crypto-anarchism]] | [[cyber-punk]] | [[The anarchist shaping of technology]] | [[e-Participative Democracy]]| [[The soft power]] | [[Huxley's "A Brave New World"]]

===The Perfect Purpose ===

[[Humans reason d'etre]] | [[Maximal human expression]] | [[Love for mankind through a higher purposes]] | [[Shaping of technology through the will and purpose of mankind]] | [[Interdependency of all other perfect utopias with 'The Purpose']] | [[Examples of purpose as shown in fictional works like: E.E.Smith's "Lensmen-Series", David Brin's "The Uplift War" end co...]] | [[Examples and consequences of lost purpose as shown in fictional works like: Huxley's "A Brave New World"]] | [[The danger of misguided purpose]]

[[Category:GlossaLAB.edu]]

Clarus:Utopias and the information society

2024-06-14T15:26:21Z

Yelena Volf: /* The Perfect Social Order */

{{TOC_left}}
This elucidation is attached to the seminar ''[https://sites.google.com/unileon.es/utopias-and-the-inf-soc/ From Ancient Utopias to Cyberutopias. An introduction to political philosophy]'' held at the Munich University of Applied Science under the supervision of [[User:JDíaz|J.M. Díaz Nafría]]. The goal is contributing to the conceptual clarification to which glossaLAB is devoted to, namely the understanding of information and systems from multiple perspectives, and at the same time contributiong to the objectives of the seminar as explained in the next paragraph.
==The relations between utopias, systems and political philosophy==
One may ask, what has this purpose to do with the historical study of utopias and its manifestation in current cyberutopias, as an introduction to political philosophy. Well, the relation is probably much stronger than what one would think in first sight.

One needs first bearing in mind that a '''system''' is the result of interacting parts whose cooperative activity makes the system to endure (preserving some kind of identity) and that creates some functionality for the system itself and for the environment where it happens to exist. At the same time, it is clear that any '''utopia''' is devised, first of all, to fulfil some wishful characteristics and, second, to endure. Since, in addition, it is composed by parts whose interaction suppose to be responsible for the wishful objectives, then a utopia is nothing but a system, indeed a social system. However it is not as any other social system we may be willing to study, it is a system proposed as a goal that suppose to be worth being pursued, i.e., a goal we may strive to achieve, and even sometimes the target of a programme we may carefully plan. The Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano puts it very nicely in the following words:
<blockquote><poem>"Utopia is on the horizon. I walk two steps, it takes two steps away, and the horizon runs ten steps further. So, for what does the utopia works? For that, it serves to walk."
—E.Galeano</poem></blockquote>
And when we speak of walking for a social system (particularly if it requires decision making) that's nothing but '''politics'''. From that perspective, political action always involves some utopia, be it more or less explicit. And when we want to delve into the different political approaches to understand them better, then we need to focus on the utopias which are moving the political action, and that is doing '''political philosophy'''. And what about '''dystopias'''? That's something we dislike, we wish to avoid them. That's clearly not a model to fulfil, but rather a model to scape from. Therefore, it is also a reason to walk for the social system, though in the sense of walking away.

Indeed the study of systems enables us to preview the space of possibilities in which the system may move. And we may see that if we set the (social) system in a particular way, the space of possibilities often displays areas which are better to avoid. A saylor needs to mark in the navigation chart not only the seaports but also the pitfalls to avoid. All in all when we analyse any utopia from its utopic and dystopic sides, we are clarifying the ultimate meanings of political approaches which is a way of doing political philosophy and even assesing the value of political proposals.

You can find below a (non-exhaustive) list of topics which are worth working in, classified according to the family of utopias in which they can be categorised using the clasification proposed during the lectures. Participants can work in just one topic or in several ones and find the connections existing with other concepts within the network of clarified concepts.

===Creating a user===
{{#ev:
youtube
|id=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uwNx35JL70
|450
|alignment=right
|container=frame
}}
Obviously, the first simply step to do for working in glossaLAB platform is creating a user, identified by your full name and providing a brief research profile of yourself (condensed in a paragraph). Since we will measure the diversity and integration of disciplines when your user has been created, you should go to your user page (e.g. User:Modestos Stavrakis) and select -at the bottom of the edition page- the categories corresponding to the knowledge domains of your studies (the set of categories, organised in 9 trunks, contains more than 60, which are derived from the Universal Decimal Classification of disciplines). In this video you can see the process of user creation, the logging into the platform as accredited user and the initiation of the editing.

==Preliminary clarifications (for participants in the seminar)==
As a previous step to clarify other terms in more detail, we will continue herewith the clarification of the concepts I ask you about since the beginning of the seminar. You don't need to make any deep research on the meaning, the idea is collecting the different views you have with respect these concepts, but nevertheless with the purpose of improving what has already been clarified before. Indeed, you may see other clarifications from your colleagues when you arrive to the page.
*If your view is significantly different to what already was given (or the page is still empty), you can add a new paragraph and start your contribution with the following format (suppose you are clarifying 'concept' and your user name is Anne Smith):
<pre>'''Concept''' can be understood as ...
Supporters of this understanding: [[User:Anne Smith]]</pre>
*If your understanding is very similar to what some of your colleagues has clarified before, you can just try to improve it (don't worry about overwriting because the original text can be recovered and the novelty you provide can be distinguished using the history tool), or to contribute with some further detail in the same direction. Below the corresponding paragraph you should add your user name to the list of supporters as shown above.

To provide your views just follow the following links:
[[Utopia (preliminary)]] | [[Dystopia (preliminary)]] | [[Abstract vs concrete utopia (preliminary)]] | [[Information society (preliminary)]] | [[Cyberutopia (preliminary)]]

==Guidelines for contributors (participants in the seminar)==
The elaboration of your contribution(s) is something you can do in collaboration with other colleagues and assisted by the course's teacher. You need first to determine in what family of utopia your are you going to work in the first place. It may happen, when you start, that there are other entries worth being added (for instance, a concept you use which is not clarified yet). If you need to open a new voice, you can create a new article and communicate the action to the supervisor to provide the necessary components to be properly managed and supervised.

Since your contribution needs to be adequately embedded within the glossaLAB's conceptual network, therefore, it is important to be aware what is already there and to establish connections with other conceptual clarifications. First of all, your topic may already be opened and it may have some content you should review in order to enhance or complete in the way you wish. The documentation section within the [https://sites.google.com/unileon.es/utopias-and-the-inf-soc/ seminar's website] contains published materials you can use for backing-up your contribution(s).

==Possible Seminar's Topics==
===The perfect Language===

[[The computable language]] | [[The analytical language]] | [[A unified language]] | [[The perfect translator]]

===The Perfect Thinking===

[[The computable mind]] | [[Artificial Intelligence (Cyberutopias)]] | [[Deep Learning]] | [[Machine Learning]] | [[Spiegel's "Her"]]

===The Perfect Wisdom===

[[The universal library]] | [[The ubiquitous education]] | [[The web as a reservoir of wisdom]] | [[The network as a new paradigm for wisdom]]

===The Perfect Social Order===

[[The computable social order]] | [[Homeland Earth]] | [[Making peace with nature]] | [[Engineering the environment]] | [[Cybersubsidiarity]] | [[Other worlds are possible]] | [[A Global Sustainable Information Society]] | [[Huxley's "A Brave New World"]] | [[Wachowski Sisters' "Matrix""]]] | [[Deleuze's "Control society"]] | [[Neom: An absurd city project in Saudi Arabia]] | [[Project Cybersin]] | [[Draft:Smart City|Smart City]] [[Draft: The Deliverance by Y.Volf | The Deliverance]]

[[Category:GlossaLAB.edu]]

===The Perfect Transparent Society===

[[A transparent world]] | [[The network transparency]] | [[Orwell's "1984"]] | [[The social dilemma]]

===The Perfect Trustful Society===

[[A trustful information society]] | [[crypto-anarchism]] | [[cyber-punk]] | [[The anarchist shaping of technology]] | [[e-Participative Democracy]]| [[The soft power]] | [[Huxley's "A Brave New World"]]

===The Perfect Purpose ===

[[Humans reason d'etre]] | [[Maximal human expression]] | [[Love for mankind through a higher purposes]] | [[Shaping of technology through the will and purpose of mankind]] | [[Interdependency of all other perfect utopias with 'The Purpose']] | [[Examples of purpose as shown in fictional works like: E.E.Smith's "Lensmen-Series", David Brin's "The Uplift War" end co...]] | [[Examples and consequences of lost purpose as shown in fictional works like: Huxley's "A Brave New World"]] | [[The danger of misguided purpose]]

[[Category:GlossaLAB.edu]]

Clarus:Utopias and the information society

2024-06-14T15:24:57Z

Yelena Volf: /* The Perfect Social Order */

{{TOC_left}}
This elucidation is attached to the seminar ''[https://sites.google.com/unileon.es/utopias-and-the-inf-soc/ From Ancient Utopias to Cyberutopias. An introduction to political philosophy]'' held at the Munich University of Applied Science under the supervision of [[User:JDíaz|J.M. Díaz Nafría]]. The goal is contributing to the conceptual clarification to which glossaLAB is devoted to, namely the understanding of information and systems from multiple perspectives, and at the same time contributiong to the objectives of the seminar as explained in the next paragraph.
==The relations between utopias, systems and political philosophy==
One may ask, what has this purpose to do with the historical study of utopias and its manifestation in current cyberutopias, as an introduction to political philosophy. Well, the relation is probably much stronger than what one would think in first sight.

One needs first bearing in mind that a '''system''' is the result of interacting parts whose cooperative activity makes the system to endure (preserving some kind of identity) and that creates some functionality for the system itself and for the environment where it happens to exist. At the same time, it is clear that any '''utopia''' is devised, first of all, to fulfil some wishful characteristics and, second, to endure. Since, in addition, it is composed by parts whose interaction suppose to be responsible for the wishful objectives, then a utopia is nothing but a system, indeed a social system. However it is not as any other social system we may be willing to study, it is a system proposed as a goal that suppose to be worth being pursued, i.e., a goal we may strive to achieve, and even sometimes the target of a programme we may carefully plan. The Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano puts it very nicely in the following words:
<blockquote><poem>"Utopia is on the horizon. I walk two steps, it takes two steps away, and the horizon runs ten steps further. So, for what does the utopia works? For that, it serves to walk."
—E.Galeano</poem></blockquote>
And when we speak of walking for a social system (particularly if it requires decision making) that's nothing but '''politics'''. From that perspective, political action always involves some utopia, be it more or less explicit. And when we want to delve into the different political approaches to understand them better, then we need to focus on the utopias which are moving the political action, and that is doing '''political philosophy'''. And what about '''dystopias'''? That's something we dislike, we wish to avoid them. That's clearly not a model to fulfil, but rather a model to scape from. Therefore, it is also a reason to walk for the social system, though in the sense of walking away.

Indeed the study of systems enables us to preview the space of possibilities in which the system may move. And we may see that if we set the (social) system in a particular way, the space of possibilities often displays areas which are better to avoid. A saylor needs to mark in the navigation chart not only the seaports but also the pitfalls to avoid. All in all when we analyse any utopia from its utopic and dystopic sides, we are clarifying the ultimate meanings of political approaches which is a way of doing political philosophy and even assesing the value of political proposals.

You can find below a (non-exhaustive) list of topics which are worth working in, classified according to the family of utopias in which they can be categorised using the clasification proposed during the lectures. Participants can work in just one topic or in several ones and find the connections existing with other concepts within the network of clarified concepts.

===Creating a user===
{{#ev:
youtube
|id=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uwNx35JL70
|450
|alignment=right
|container=frame
}}
Obviously, the first simply step to do for working in glossaLAB platform is creating a user, identified by your full name and providing a brief research profile of yourself (condensed in a paragraph). Since we will measure the diversity and integration of disciplines when your user has been created, you should go to your user page (e.g. User:Modestos Stavrakis) and select -at the bottom of the edition page- the categories corresponding to the knowledge domains of your studies (the set of categories, organised in 9 trunks, contains more than 60, which are derived from the Universal Decimal Classification of disciplines). In this video you can see the process of user creation, the logging into the platform as accredited user and the initiation of the editing.

==Preliminary clarifications (for participants in the seminar)==
As a previous step to clarify other terms in more detail, we will continue herewith the clarification of the concepts I ask you about since the beginning of the seminar. You don't need to make any deep research on the meaning, the idea is collecting the different views you have with respect these concepts, but nevertheless with the purpose of improving what has already been clarified before. Indeed, you may see other clarifications from your colleagues when you arrive to the page.
*If your view is significantly different to what already was given (or the page is still empty), you can add a new paragraph and start your contribution with the following format (suppose you are clarifying 'concept' and your user name is Anne Smith):
<pre>'''Concept''' can be understood as ...
Supporters of this understanding: [[User:Anne Smith]]</pre>
*If your understanding is very similar to what some of your colleagues has clarified before, you can just try to improve it (don't worry about overwriting because the original text can be recovered and the novelty you provide can be distinguished using the history tool), or to contribute with some further detail in the same direction. Below the corresponding paragraph you should add your user name to the list of supporters as shown above.

To provide your views just follow the following links:
[[Utopia (preliminary)]] | [[Dystopia (preliminary)]] | [[Abstract vs concrete utopia (preliminary)]] | [[Information society (preliminary)]] | [[Cyberutopia (preliminary)]]

==Guidelines for contributors (participants in the seminar)==
The elaboration of your contribution(s) is something you can do in collaboration with other colleagues and assisted by the course's teacher. You need first to determine in what family of utopia your are you going to work in the first place. It may happen, when you start, that there are other entries worth being added (for instance, a concept you use which is not clarified yet). If you need to open a new voice, you can create a new article and communicate the action to the supervisor to provide the necessary components to be properly managed and supervised.

Since your contribution needs to be adequately embedded within the glossaLAB's conceptual network, therefore, it is important to be aware what is already there and to establish connections with other conceptual clarifications. First of all, your topic may already be opened and it may have some content you should review in order to enhance or complete in the way you wish. The documentation section within the [https://sites.google.com/unileon.es/utopias-and-the-inf-soc/ seminar's website] contains published materials you can use for backing-up your contribution(s).

==Possible Seminar's Topics==
===The perfect Language===

[[The computable language]] | [[The analytical language]] | [[A unified language]] | [[The perfect translator]]

===The Perfect Thinking===

[[The computable mind]] | [[Artificial Intelligence (Cyberutopias)]] | [[Deep Learning]] | [[Machine Learning]] | [[Spiegel's "Her"]]

===The Perfect Wisdom===

[[The universal library]] | [[The ubiquitous education]] | [[The web as a reservoir of wisdom]] | [[The network as a new paradigm for wisdom]]

===The Perfect Social Order===

[[The computable social order]] | [[Homeland Earth]] | [[Making peace with nature]] | [[Engineering the environment]] | [[Cybersubsidiarity]] | [[Other worlds are possible]] | [[A Global Sustainable Information Society]] | [[Huxley's "A Brave New World"]] | [[Wachowski Sisters' "Matrix""]]] | [[Deleuze's "Control society"]] | [[Neom: An absurd city project in Saudi Arabia]] | [[Project Cybersin]] | [[Draft:Smart City|Smart City]] [[Draft: The Deliverance by Y.Volf [The Deliverance]]

[[Category:GlossaLAB.edu]]

===The Perfect Transparent Society===

[[A transparent world]] | [[The network transparency]] | [[Orwell's "1984"]] | [[The social dilemma]]

===The Perfect Trustful Society===

[[A trustful information society]] | [[crypto-anarchism]] | [[cyber-punk]] | [[The anarchist shaping of technology]] | [[e-Participative Democracy]]| [[The soft power]] | [[Huxley's "A Brave New World"]]

===The Perfect Purpose ===

[[Humans reason d'etre]] | [[Maximal human expression]] | [[Love for mankind through a higher purposes]] | [[Shaping of technology through the will and purpose of mankind]] | [[Interdependency of all other perfect utopias with 'The Purpose']] | [[Examples of purpose as shown in fictional works like: E.E.Smith's "Lensmen-Series", David Brin's "The Uplift War" end co...]] | [[Examples and consequences of lost purpose as shown in fictional works like: Huxley's "A Brave New World"]] | [[The danger of misguided purpose]]

[[Category:GlossaLAB.edu]]

Draft:A Brave New World

2024-06-13T22:31:44Z

Yelena Volf: Completed

The novel "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley was published in 1932. This novel is considered a dystopia and shows us a frightening scenario of the possible future. The events take place in a fictional World State in the 632nd year of the era of stability or the Ford Era. Henry Ford is a very respected person for creating the world's largest automobile company. People in the World State refer to him as the Lord God. Science and technology rule the world. Even people aren't born here, they come out of the incubators that have different conditions. These conditions predispose to which societal group a person will belong. There are four groups named after the letters of the Greek alphabet: alphas, betas, gammas, deltas and epsilons. These groups have different characteristics, for example, alphas considered the people of upper class, workers of mental labor and they perform the most highly skilled work; at the same time Epsilons, people of lower class, who cannot even read or write and perform unskilled labor. The groups are easy to identify by the color they are wearing: alphas - gray, betas - red, gamma - green, deltas - khaki and epsilons - black.

The motto of the World State is “Community, Identity, Stability”, identity does not exist here, everything is common and everyone belongs to everyone else. Art and history do not exist in this world, and everything people can do is dive into the entertainment industry and take Soma, a drug, to fix their mood.

The plot evolves around Bernard Marx, an alpha male, and John the Savage. Bernard feels alienated by his smaller physical size. He shows an interest in John the Savage, who was raised in an isolated community and has experienced all the emotions of humanity. Bernard introduces John to the "Brave New World," where John is amazed and horrified by the shallow, pleasure-seeking culture. Bernard and John's rebellion against the system gains momentum. They try to expose the flaws of society, but their efforts fail. John's emotions and personality make him a target of persecution and he is forced to flee to a lighthouse on the coast. At the end of the novel Bernard and a group of journalists go to the lighthouse to see John, who has become a celebrity. The journalists provoke John, who cannot control his emotions and attacks them. In the chaos that ensues, John commits suicide.

The novel ends with a hint that even rebellion and individuality can be hijacked by the system. This story is a warning about the risks of sacrificing individuality and freedom in the name of stability and efficiency. The central questions in the novel are the role of technology in society and the nature of happiness.

Draft:A Brave New World

2024-06-13T22:21:13Z

Yelena Volf: The beginning of the plot