Flux

“We live in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning.”

- Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation

In this current society the expert relies upon a community of experience and understanding to make his or her interpretations of reality and this works because of a feedback loop which naturally occurs. Trust in this expert community is assumed and though there is not a particular instance of consensus a dependence forms, rendering artificial trust. Much like the denomination of currency, that trust becomes something unconsciously accepted into the culture; when the trust dissolves, it seems as though the public have engendered this crisis, yet it never had a footing in reality and that is why the system collapses. Collapse of an uneven and non-reciprocal feedback loop is natural; it happens all around us in nature.

A certain manufacturing of reality and a narrative superimposed regardless of how this is merely simulation of reality ensues, and the invisibility of the expert, much like the invisible hand of economics guides this reality forwards, and its precariousness is at times disguised. Trust is posterior and a superimposition. If there is no resistance but rather passive acceptance of the way things are, trust is assumed regardless of any sense of misgiving of ambivalence on the matter. Even though in actuality humanity feels threatened and delimited by the government's dependence of the "expert", and even if this is at large a social illusion, as the consistency and overall unity of science is, the attitude goes unrepresented, because the simulation takes precedence over the more fluctuating reality.

 “Because they claim to be concerned with the welfare of whole societies, governments arrogate to themselves the right to pass off as mere abstract profit or loss the human unhappiness that their decisions provoke or their negligence permits. It is a duty of an international citizenship to always bring the testimony of people's suffering to the eyes and ears of governments, sufferings for which it's untrue that they are not responsible. The suffering of men must never be a mere silent residue of policy. It grounds an absolute right to stand up and speak to those who hold power.”
― Michel Foucault

People's behavior continues as though they trust the cult of the expert because in actuality they are dependent both psychologically and physically. The proliferation of trust leads to less need for control and likewise, when trust deteriorates, the boundaries of social movement and freedom of expression are delimited. 

And yet there is underlying reflexivity which may have been disguised under the auspices of modernity, as though modernity brought for the first time reflexivity and decision making, but only to a small number of people. This calls into question the actual nature of reality; has an adaptive, reflexive principle always existed and only lately been ousted by the cult of the identity, of individual control, and the veering away from dependence? As science tends towards a hegemony which may not exist in branches of science itself but rather in its relationship with government, a hegemony of culture and control of society understanding of cause and effect, reality is delimited and contained. The individual begins to confuse the reality which presents itself with the reality which has been interpreted through controlled mechanism and delimited cultural influence.

“But it must be seen that the term 'catastrophe' has this 'catastrophic' meaning of the end and annihilation only in a linear vision of accumulation and productive finality that the system imposes on us. Etymologically, the term only signifies the curvature, the winding down to the bottom of a cycle leading to what can be called the 'horizon of the event,' to the horizon of meaning, beyond which we cannot go. Beyond it, nothing takes place that has meaning for us - but it suffices to exceed this ultimatum of meaning in order that catastrophe itself no longer appear as the last, nihilistic day of reckoning, such as it functions in our current collective fantasy.”
― Jean Baudrillard, In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities

Once identity is transformed into commodity and meaning dissolves into a linear, controlled idea of identity the understanding of variation and the importance of difference. Once linearity is recognized as a tool that can be overused, that can be implemented in opposition to diversity, it takes on viral form and if there is one misunderstanding that bears similarity in our own lives it is the recording of identifiable plants; as we identify plants that are familiar we introduce them into our household and do not view the complexity which have led to their own development; we replace ecosystems and frame them into a linear form as so to establish a linear control, which cannot remain in an environment where flux is the impetus for survival; our household rules and our opposition to difference put us in a vulnerable position where our feeble tools are not capable of adjustment.

Existence is ordered to frame expert analysis and the expert simulates a reality which defines itself aside from and intuitive, widely derivative reality; it creates a reality which is self-reinforcing and derived of itself; like a monoculture crop which slowly develops a higher vulnerability to an ever changing external environment. A reality which perpetuates itself in relative isolation except from a determined range of hosts; this is dangerously close to a viral condition, in which the only way possible to sustain ourselves is to destroy our environment.

Even more interesting is the manner in which social conditions are tailored to suit expert knowledge; a hegemony of "science" ensues, which is more state-developed than intrinsic to the field of science. A human model develops to avert problems of maladjustment and to hold in contrast unfitting human developments. There is a tendency towards forgetting the actual development of scientific understanding, which is assisted by the informal knowledge of the culture that it inhabits; science as intrinsically cultural is something that ought to be thought of more. Like the realm of politics, the experience of life cannot simply be narrowed down to suit the aims of a monolithic regime; there must be a feedback system which accepts complexity and divergence from norms, otherwise the possibility of adaptation weakens and the human experience, both social and cultural, is weakened.

Modernity disguises the devastation in cause upon culture and this already-mentioned possibility of a relationship between expert and laypersons is ignored despite the possibilities it might contain. A cultural existence diminishes when the void, either political, economic, scientific, or social, is entered. Such unbelievable crossover in all aspects of the humanities takes place on the matter that it becomes impossible to refute the statement that diversity and individual freedom are necessary for survival. And relationships based on control or the limitation upon overall social relationships or practices serve to destroy engagement with reality, focusing attention rather to the cultural construct which developed in an uninhabitable void. 

The autonomous vision of the future focuses itself upon the perfection of the species without an adequate understanding of feedback and the ultimate value of humanities and culture and variation therin for people to actually maintain an interest in preserving life. Surveys and statistics of anonymous nature undermine far reaching complexity and one complexity is not apprehended the feedback system that was in operation slowly disintegrates. These narrow tracks of development which are not apprehended in the field of science itself but do enter the basic structure of society create monolithic shadows that cast over the social experience. Even the determinism of democracy, a democracy that is no democratic, because the parliament is not the elect, and it is the only option, is an instance of the monolithic lives that are currently self-forming and self-reproducing. Because of anonymity, because of speed, because of blind faith... whatever you like.

To view science as a reciprocal arrangement and a system whereby basic empirical knowledge is useful and not disregarded because of a missing professional background would be more progressive and the generalities would unfold in greater relief; only to appreciate the narrow, localized experiences can advance understanding and the undermined value of direct, mutable experience diminishes actual connection which is intrinsic to sustained existence. At present the secular state (I will stop referring to the problem as "science", because what I really mean is accepted formal norms) assumes an understanding of human value and neglects lay knowledge which is in truth a highly useful working knowledge.

The invention of identity, and the cultural problems of setting restrictions upon self-expression give more emphasis to overarching theory rather than adaptive understanding. As a consequence the secular state defends indeterminacy within its own cultural constructs and language definitions which are only partial representations of reality. The actual precariousness of science ought to enter the state level more effectively, and trust must be based upon mutual dependence not anonymous dependence which gradually shatters the ability of individuals to innovate outside of current norms.

“The crumbling castle, looming among the mists, exhaled the season, and every cold stone breathed it out. The tortured trees by the dark lake burned and dripped, their leaves snatched by the wind were whirled in wild circles through the towers. The clouds mouldered as they lay coiled, or shifted themselves uneasily upon the stone skyfield, sending up wreathes that drifted through the turrets and swarmed up hidden walls.”
― Mervyn Peake, Titus Groan

Like all secular models without a basis in cultural identity that is free-forming, this current arrangement will moulder and crumble. Inconsistencies with actuality flare into better relief and the human responsibility for natural knowledge becomes more transparent; it cannot be placed into singularity that can be stored and made autonomous as it is a working relationship built at large to preserve diverse value and a glowing culture which is open to dramatic change and is in fact the underlying basis for any sort of conscious effort to improve life. If life is drawn as a singular, non-fluctuating, predictable quality then all the motivation underlying consciousness is undermined; human freedom is intrinsic to self-identification and the ability to change.