Hauntology (2013) as a concept is a way of describing how neurological information processing structures are reflected in the content and evaluation of information that is processed and stored. Information is learned in light of what we already know; it is categorised in light of the links that can be created between the new information and that information which has already been categorised in memory.
(This seems like an appropriate point to reiterate my aversion to dealing with theory when we could be dealing with fact, originally brought up in my third blog).
It reflects the way the past informs and, in so informing, defines the limits of the ways we can conceive of the future. We can only know things in terms of knowledge we already know, and what that can be extended to show us when new information that is integrated into our knowledge structures. It reminds me more of Freud than of Marx in some ways.
Conceptually this can be paralleled against the way we think of the future. We cannot conceive of the future, save in terms of the past. We can know tomorrow only in terms of how it is the same or different to today, and yesterdays. Predictions about the future are shackled by present realities and, unfortunately, this can lead to absurdities.
Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park and other science fiction novels, in his discussion of scientific rigour (with particular reference to climate science) in relation to public policy (2003), highlights the orthodoxies of process which strangle innovation by institutionalising bias in analytical frameworks.
The quoted section below really highlights the foundational nature of technologies in innovation and the futility of much of the despair directed towards the future. What it also suggests is that while our conception of the past and future is limited by the concerns of the present and past, there is a quality that advances us beyond these limits - innovation, the ability to take past and present information and use it to discover new information or synthesise new knowledge. Fifty years ago we could imagine a flying car, but we didn't predict an internet that brought information to individuals, denecessitating advancement in taking individuals to information. We can't effectively reconcile future innovation into our existing knowledge categories, not until it happens; put simply, there's a limit to our powers of conception and it is okay.
But hey, surely we could all use a few more Marxist theory offshoots in our lives. Who's the who living with a pastward focus?
“Let’s think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?
But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn’t know what an atom was. They didn’t know its structure. They also didn’t know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS? None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn’t know what you are talking about.
Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it’s even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future.
They’re bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment’s thought knows it.
I remind you that in the lifetime of most scientists now living, we have already had an example of dire predictions set aside by new technology. I refer to the green revolution. In 1960, Paul Ehrlich said, “The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Ten years later, he predicted four billion people would die during the 1980s, including 65 million Americans. The mass starvation that was predicted never occurred, and it now seems it isn’t ever going to happen. Nor is the population explosion going to reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago. In 1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and falling. But nobody knows for sure.”
'Aliens cause global warming', Michael Chrichton (2003)
n.d., (2013), 'Hauntology', Wikipedia, viewed 23.5.2013 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauntology>
Chrichton, M., (2003), 'Aliens cause global warming', James Michelin Distinguished Visitor's Lecture presented at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California, 17 December <http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Aliens_Cause_Global_Warming_by_Michael_Crichton.html>
Rushkoff, D. (2013) 'Present Shock', rushkoff.com, viewed 23.5.2013 <http://www.rushkoff.com/present-shock/>
discoholicmusic
stormborns
pixelskylines
ellievsbear
areudirty
annaxmalina