Cybernetic polytheism is hard to do right, because you have to have a strong sense of cybernetics first. You need to understand and explore the center and the edges of a large scale optimization dynamic, explore the empirical details it entails, and generally get a scientific understanding of it… then, for lulz, you might name it and personify it.
“Evolution” is a good example. This process is instantiated in biology. It operates over heritable patterns of deoxyribonucleic acid whose transcription into protein by living cells constructs new cells and agglomerations of cells in the shape of bacteria and macroscale organisms… each with basically the same DNA as before, but with minor variations. There is math here: punnett squares, fixation, etc.
Now we could just leave it at that. The science is good enough.
But not everyone has time for the biology, or has the patience to learn the math. Also, the existence of biological structures has been attributed by non-biologists to gods with narrative character that doesn’t really map that well to the biological principles.
Thus there is a strong temptation to perform a narrative correction and offer “better theology” to translate the science into something with more cogent emotional resonances.
Like… species were not created by a benevolent watch maker who loves us. That’s crazy.
Actually, if biological nature (or biological nature’s author) has any moral character, that character is at least half evil. This entity thinks nothing of parasitism or infanticide, except to promote them if these processes produce more copies of DNA and censor them of they produce fewer copies of DNA.
It tries countless redundant experiments (the same mutation over and over again) that leads to both misery and death, but even calling these experiments is generous… there is almost no intentional pursuit of knowledge (although HSP genes are pretty cool, and sort of related), no institutional review boards to ensure the experiments are ethical, no grant proposals arguing in favor of the experiments in terms of the value of the knowledge they might produce.
Evolution, construed as a god, is a god we should fear and probably a god we should fight.
We can probably do better than it does, and if we don’t do better it will have its terrible way with us. Those who worship this god without major elements of caution and hostility are scary cultists… they are sort selling their great great grand children into slavery to something that won’t reward them, and can’t possibly feel gratitude. A narrative from old school horror or science fiction, that matches the right general tone, is Azathoth.
But you can’t just make up the name Azathoth and say that it is a god and coin a bunch of other weird names, and make up some symbolic tools for dealing with them, and mix it together willy-nilly, and not mention biology or evolution at all.
You have to start with the science and end with the science.
I didn’t/don’t have time to do the science justice, so I just tried my hand at the esoteric. It was scratching a personal itch, if I get time I might revisit this.
These are tough topics and I can see how it might feel right to just “publish something” rather than sit on one’s hands. I have the same issue myself (minus the courage to just go for it anyway) which leads me mostly to comment rather than top post. My sympathy… you have it!
Cybernetic polytheism is hard to do right, because you have to have a strong sense of cybernetics first. You need to understand and explore the center and the edges of a large scale optimization dynamic, explore the empirical details it entails, and generally get a scientific understanding of it… then, for lulz, you might name it and personify it.
“Evolution” is a good example. This process is instantiated in biology. It operates over heritable patterns of deoxyribonucleic acid whose transcription into protein by living cells constructs new cells and agglomerations of cells in the shape of bacteria and macroscale organisms… each with basically the same DNA as before, but with minor variations. There is math here: punnett squares, fixation, etc.
Now we could just leave it at that. The science is good enough.
But not everyone has time for the biology, or has the patience to learn the math. Also, the existence of biological structures has been attributed by non-biologists to gods with narrative character that doesn’t really map that well to the biological principles.
Thus there is a strong temptation to perform a narrative correction and offer “better theology” to translate the science into something with more cogent emotional resonances.
Like… species were not created by a benevolent watch maker who loves us. That’s crazy.
Actually, if biological nature (or biological nature’s author) has any moral character, that character is at least half evil. This entity thinks nothing of parasitism or infanticide, except to promote them if these processes produce more copies of DNA and censor them of they produce fewer copies of DNA.
It tries countless redundant experiments (the same mutation over and over again) that leads to both misery and death, but even calling these experiments is generous… there is almost no intentional pursuit of knowledge (although HSP genes are pretty cool, and sort of related), no institutional review boards to ensure the experiments are ethical, no grant proposals arguing in favor of the experiments in terms of the value of the knowledge they might produce.
Evolution, construed as a god, is a god we should fear and probably a god we should fight.
We can probably do better than it does, and if we don’t do better it will have its terrible way with us. Those who worship this god without major elements of caution and hostility are scary cultists… they are sort selling their great great grand children into slavery to something that won’t reward them, and can’t possibly feel gratitude. A narrative from old school horror or science fiction, that matches the right general tone, is Azathoth.
But you can’t just make up the name Azathoth and say that it is a god and coin a bunch of other weird names, and make up some symbolic tools for dealing with them, and mix it together willy-nilly, and not mention biology or evolution at all.
You have to start with the science and end with the science.
I didn’t/don’t have time to do the science justice, so I just tried my hand at the esoteric. It was scratching a personal itch, if I get time I might revisit this.
I see below that you’re aiming for something like “fear in political situations,”. This calls to mind, for me, things like the triangle hypothesis, the Richardson arms race model, and less rigorously but clearly in the same ambit also things like confidence building measures.
These are tough topics and I can see how it might feel right to just “publish something” rather than sit on one’s hands. I have the same issue myself (minus the courage to just go for it anyway) which leads me mostly to comment rather than top post. My sympathy… you have it!