It is superseding the Age of Enlightenment as the dominant paradigm. It also applies to our models, many of which still retain the apparent logical necessities of Enlightenment hierarchical categorization. Entanglement is much more hier(an)archically synplex. Yes, we are still in transition, retaining elements from the Enlightenment. And when we do see evidence of entanglement we try to fit that round peg into the old square hole. But it's time begin to frame our evidence within that new paradigm where it makes the most sense.
From this 2016 piece that began framing it that way way back when. In the New Year and New Decade it's time to play catch up.
"Unlike the Enlightenment, where progress was analytic and came from
taking things apart, progress in the Age of Entanglement is synthetic
and comes from putting things together. Instead of classifying
organisms, we construct them. Instead of discovering new worlds, we
create them. And our process of creation is very different. Think of the
canonical image of collaboration during the Enlightenment: fifty-five
white men in powdered wigs sitting in a Philadelphia room, writing the
rules of the American Constitution. Contrast that with an image of the
global collaboration that constructed the Wikipedia, an interconnected
document that is too large and too rapidly changing for any single
contributor to even read."
"As we are becoming more entangled with our technologies, we are also
becoming more entangled with each other. The power (physical, political,
and social) has shifted from comprehensible hierarchies to
less-intelligible networks. We can no longer understand how the world
works by breaking it down into loosely-connected parts that reflect the
hierarchy of physical space or deliberate design. Instead, we must watch
the flows of information, ideas, energy and matter that connect us, and
the networks of communication, trust, and distribution that enable
these flows."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.