re: "The United States, like every country, is a fiction. Just like the dollar is fiction. Go far enough down that particular rabbit hole and you might discover that nearly everything is fictive, but let’s stay away from that conversation."
i like to think of these things as "constructs." sure, by some definition many things may be fictions, but some fictions are more useful and constructive than others!
to me, the difference is the level realness we ascribe to these concepts.
like, a house is a construct because it is literally constructed. it's made of concrete and/or wood and/or metal and/or whatever a house is made of.
it didn't exist. then it did. then at some point it won't again.
but at some point in there, we all (or most) agree, it's a house! it's a bunch of things that add up to a house.
the united states is also a construct, to me, in a similar way. it is constructed of people, of land, of laws, of ideas and ideals. and we all (or some) agree, it's a country! like a house, it is constructed of things that exist. (of course, laws and ideas and ideals don't exist in the same physical way that people's bodies or the dirt of the land do, but thoughts exist too! concepts exist!)
so, that's why i think of these things more as constructs than fictions. because fictions sound like they DON'T exist, whereas constructs i would say DO exist, albeit conventionally and temporarily.
(in a buddhist paradigm, most things that exist that we contend with are impermanent like that. they arise, abide for a short while, and then disappear. whether physical or mental.)
I like your contract explanation. It aligns well with my thinking that everyone and everything has become so centered around litigation. There is almost a palpable thirst on such a grand scale it is essentially in the air that “If only something perfectly terrible would happen to me then I could sue and get so rich nothing terrible would ever happen to me again.”
Is there any benefit to the U.S. being a hyperobject? Is there a benefit to not having the country easily move in radical directions? I think we're all familiar with the negatives (as you stated above), but we tend to forget the harms of having things change quickly. Things can get better, but things can also get much, much worse. I'm not advocating for complete stasis, but I think there are some benefits to having a complex system that is difficult to radically change.
A lot of change could occur with just adding or subtracting a couple of Supreme Court justices (campaign finance, gerrymandering, anti-trust, voting rights, etc.), so I don't think the U.S. is as complex as we think it is. A lot could change if people reminded themselves that the President appoints Supreme Court justices and then showed up to vote based on that fact.
I'm not necessarily presenting it as a good or bad thing, only acknowledging that there comes a point where systems, when sufficiently complex, can neither be controlled nor even fully understood. It's kind of scary but not necessarily bad. What we're saying play out in the US (and around the world right now) is a stasis, I think, born out of a frustration with the seeming inability of anybody to get necessary things done, which speaks to the complexity of the nation and aligns with the hyperobject hypothesis. I also think there's something about a hyperobject possessing something like intelligence is worth considering in greater detail.
I agree that it's an interesting thought and wonder what can be done. In some instances, we asked for the complexity (e.g. rivers are on fire, so we need some environmental laws) and in other instances we didn't (e.g. the Supreme Court overturning campaign finance and media fairness laws that resulted in a flood of misleading political speech). I'm not sure a country of 330 million people will ever not seem complex, but I do think some minor changes (mainly coming from the Supreme Court) would prevent bad actors from hijacking the system when we aren't paying attention. Creating that change is absolutely something people can do simply by showing up. It certainly takes a lot of effort to pay attention to the workings of the U.S. government and it seems like that was the intention of bad actors.
If we look closer, deeper, we can see that a single cell is a community of processed. Simple tissues are communities of cells. Organs and limbs are communities of cells and tissues, and organ systems are communities of organs, tissues and cells. Human bodies are communities of communities. No cell lives alone. As soon as it multiplies (by division) it becomes a community. Fish, birds, and mammals live in family communities and larger, packs, flocks, schools. Humans create communities of convenience at every opportunity. We live in an environment of communities that are constantly changing, from famoly and friends to coworker, bosses, jobs, organizations, churches, religions, corporations and international communities of all types. We plan to plan to plan to create communities of communities of communities. And we compete. Communities, at all levels, cooperate and compete - irrespective of many of the desires and goals of their members. Whicj communities survive and grow? Those that survive and grow. Healthy cooperation and competition leads to success. Unhealthy cooperation and competition leads to failure. Most new communities are short lived. Pizza hut is short lived. It might die - be eaten, next year. The Catholic Church is long lived, a community of communities of communities - likely to last a long time, we can barely see its depth in our limited lifetimes.
At least one founder hoped the citizenry’s primary concern could eventually be art: “I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine.”—John Adams
It's called bureaucracy. Bureaucracies survive and thrive despite the people in them, not because of them, and regardless of the governance and individuals in them at any given time.
He's made up a new word for an old and very enduring concept.
I also suspect he's read Umberto Eco's 'Travels in Hyperreality' (1986), and perhaps hasn't acknowledged his own remash.
I think it goes way beyond the administrative state into much more abstract notions that inform us who we are: the cultural stuff, the history, American projection, its economy; it's more than just people pushing buttons. It's the totality of the American experience as experienced as a Oneness with many tentacles.
You think McDonald's and Pizza Hut aren't bureaucracies? IBM, Apple, Disneyland, Hollywood, Coca Cola, Nike? You think bureaucracies don't also have and perpetuate cultures.
Umberto Eco was almost entirely focused on American culture when he wrote about hyperreality.
No, no. They ARE bureaucracies but every bureaucracy serves something. They are not self-directed by their nature. And yes, hyperobjects like the ones you mentioned do form and perpetuate distinct cultures but they are so much more than that. They are economic drivers, they're employers, competitors, all of it beholden to the larger hyperobject that is McDonald's or Pizza Hut or IBM. Bureaucrats are like synapses in the brain. They make sure messages are being delievered and receieved, but they're not the ones sending the thoughts in the first place. But if you're asking whether a bureaucracy itself is a hyperobject, darn tootin'.
I think you might enjoy Samuel Goldman’s book on this topic as applied to contemporary America. (You can get a flavor from some of the newspaper reviews of the book.) he looks at what narratives we’ve told ourselves about America in the past and how can we live better today.
After Nationalism: Being American in an Age of Division (Radical Conservatisms) https://a.co/d/9ZcUIL9
I think the term “hyperobjects” was coined by Timothy Morton. He has a book by that name and mentions hyperobjects a few times in earlier books like Ecology Without Nature and The Ecological Thought (which is a comparatively breezy read, only a hundred pages or so). Really heady stuff but easier to read than most academic/theoretical gobbledygook.
dear michael,
i appreciate this and you!
re: "The United States, like every country, is a fiction. Just like the dollar is fiction. Go far enough down that particular rabbit hole and you might discover that nearly everything is fictive, but let’s stay away from that conversation."
i like to think of these things as "constructs." sure, by some definition many things may be fictions, but some fictions are more useful and constructive than others!
thanks for sharing as always!
love
myq
I like that - a construct versus a fiction. I’m not sure what the difference is, but I like it!
thanks!
to me, the difference is the level realness we ascribe to these concepts.
like, a house is a construct because it is literally constructed. it's made of concrete and/or wood and/or metal and/or whatever a house is made of.
it didn't exist. then it did. then at some point it won't again.
but at some point in there, we all (or most) agree, it's a house! it's a bunch of things that add up to a house.
the united states is also a construct, to me, in a similar way. it is constructed of people, of land, of laws, of ideas and ideals. and we all (or some) agree, it's a country! like a house, it is constructed of things that exist. (of course, laws and ideas and ideals don't exist in the same physical way that people's bodies or the dirt of the land do, but thoughts exist too! concepts exist!)
so, that's why i think of these things more as constructs than fictions. because fictions sound like they DON'T exist, whereas constructs i would say DO exist, albeit conventionally and temporarily.
(in a buddhist paradigm, most things that exist that we contend with are impermanent like that. they arise, abide for a short while, and then disappear. whether physical or mental.)
or maybe this is all a fiction! thanks again!
Hyperobjects sound a lot like “super-organisms”. They commonly self-cannibalize as well but perhaps they do it in a more efficient fashion.
I like your contract explanation. It aligns well with my thinking that everyone and everything has become so centered around litigation. There is almost a palpable thirst on such a grand scale it is essentially in the air that “If only something perfectly terrible would happen to me then I could sue and get so rich nothing terrible would ever happen to me again.”
Is there any benefit to the U.S. being a hyperobject? Is there a benefit to not having the country easily move in radical directions? I think we're all familiar with the negatives (as you stated above), but we tend to forget the harms of having things change quickly. Things can get better, but things can also get much, much worse. I'm not advocating for complete stasis, but I think there are some benefits to having a complex system that is difficult to radically change.
A lot of change could occur with just adding or subtracting a couple of Supreme Court justices (campaign finance, gerrymandering, anti-trust, voting rights, etc.), so I don't think the U.S. is as complex as we think it is. A lot could change if people reminded themselves that the President appoints Supreme Court justices and then showed up to vote based on that fact.
I'm not necessarily presenting it as a good or bad thing, only acknowledging that there comes a point where systems, when sufficiently complex, can neither be controlled nor even fully understood. It's kind of scary but not necessarily bad. What we're saying play out in the US (and around the world right now) is a stasis, I think, born out of a frustration with the seeming inability of anybody to get necessary things done, which speaks to the complexity of the nation and aligns with the hyperobject hypothesis. I also think there's something about a hyperobject possessing something like intelligence is worth considering in greater detail.
I agree that it's an interesting thought and wonder what can be done. In some instances, we asked for the complexity (e.g. rivers are on fire, so we need some environmental laws) and in other instances we didn't (e.g. the Supreme Court overturning campaign finance and media fairness laws that resulted in a flood of misleading political speech). I'm not sure a country of 330 million people will ever not seem complex, but I do think some minor changes (mainly coming from the Supreme Court) would prevent bad actors from hijacking the system when we aren't paying attention. Creating that change is absolutely something people can do simply by showing up. It certainly takes a lot of effort to pay attention to the workings of the U.S. government and it seems like that was the intention of bad actors.
If we look closer, deeper, we can see that a single cell is a community of processed. Simple tissues are communities of cells. Organs and limbs are communities of cells and tissues, and organ systems are communities of organs, tissues and cells. Human bodies are communities of communities. No cell lives alone. As soon as it multiplies (by division) it becomes a community. Fish, birds, and mammals live in family communities and larger, packs, flocks, schools. Humans create communities of convenience at every opportunity. We live in an environment of communities that are constantly changing, from famoly and friends to coworker, bosses, jobs, organizations, churches, religions, corporations and international communities of all types. We plan to plan to plan to create communities of communities of communities. And we compete. Communities, at all levels, cooperate and compete - irrespective of many of the desires and goals of their members. Whicj communities survive and grow? Those that survive and grow. Healthy cooperation and competition leads to success. Unhealthy cooperation and competition leads to failure. Most new communities are short lived. Pizza hut is short lived. It might die - be eaten, next year. The Catholic Church is long lived, a community of communities of communities - likely to last a long time, we can barely see its depth in our limited lifetimes.
To your health, Tracy
Founder: Healthicine
It sure feels like that’s the case.
At least one founder hoped the citizenry’s primary concern could eventually be art: “I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine.”—John Adams
What I would give to be able to study Tapestry and Porcelaine.
It's called bureaucracy. Bureaucracies survive and thrive despite the people in them, not because of them, and regardless of the governance and individuals in them at any given time.
He's made up a new word for an old and very enduring concept.
I also suspect he's read Umberto Eco's 'Travels in Hyperreality' (1986), and perhaps hasn't acknowledged his own remash.
I think it goes way beyond the administrative state into much more abstract notions that inform us who we are: the cultural stuff, the history, American projection, its economy; it's more than just people pushing buttons. It's the totality of the American experience as experienced as a Oneness with many tentacles.
You think McDonald's and Pizza Hut aren't bureaucracies? IBM, Apple, Disneyland, Hollywood, Coca Cola, Nike? You think bureaucracies don't also have and perpetuate cultures.
Umberto Eco was almost entirely focused on American culture when he wrote about hyperreality.
No, no. They ARE bureaucracies but every bureaucracy serves something. They are not self-directed by their nature. And yes, hyperobjects like the ones you mentioned do form and perpetuate distinct cultures but they are so much more than that. They are economic drivers, they're employers, competitors, all of it beholden to the larger hyperobject that is McDonald's or Pizza Hut or IBM. Bureaucrats are like synapses in the brain. They make sure messages are being delievered and receieved, but they're not the ones sending the thoughts in the first place. But if you're asking whether a bureaucracy itself is a hyperobject, darn tootin'.
I think you might enjoy Samuel Goldman’s book on this topic as applied to contemporary America. (You can get a flavor from some of the newspaper reviews of the book.) he looks at what narratives we’ve told ourselves about America in the past and how can we live better today.
After Nationalism: Being American in an Age of Division (Radical Conservatisms) https://a.co/d/9ZcUIL9
Great suggestion - thanks!
I think the term “hyperobjects” was coined by Timothy Morton. He has a book by that name and mentions hyperobjects a few times in earlier books like Ecology Without Nature and The Ecological Thought (which is a comparatively breezy read, only a hundred pages or so). Really heady stuff but easier to read than most academic/theoretical gobbledygook.
Cool! Thanks for the tip.