Veritas Machina

I had never seen the original Mad Max movie from 1979. The new Mad Max movie is coming out and with good reviews. I've always felt a bit of guilt about having not seen Mad Max, so I finally sat down and watched it. It was not what I expected. My vision of what Mad Max is was previously tainted by exposure to other post-apocalyptic media. I was not expecting a complex story about police, and gangs.

At the beginning of the film we watch as the Main Force Patrol (MFP) take down an escaped prisoner named Nightrider. There is a sense that the MFP's authority is legitimate. The titular hero, Max, is ultimately responsible for taking down Nightrider. As the story continues it becomes clear that the MFP are a self proclaimed police force. They are no different than the gangs they are fighting. The police headquarters is a crumbling relic, metaphorical for the state of the outdated institution. Max talks about leaving the police force because he doesn't want to become like the people whom he is fighting.

The other police don't share these reservations. When they are told to take down Toecutter's (Nightrider's gang) gang by any means necessary, as long as the paperwork is clean. , they don't hesitate. Apparently, paperwork is what sets them apart from the others? Toecutter's gang disfigures one of Max's friends by burning him beyond recognition. This happens in the wake of Max's family being killed by Toecutter's gang as revenge for killing Nightrider. Max, enraged, takes an upgraded black MFP pursuit cruiser heads out for revenge. He falls to the level of the gangs killing all of Toecutter's gang.

The story is about how the police are only different from the people they fight because of a badge, or perhaps because of paperwork? This work is particularly powerful in 2015. In the wake of police brutality, police killings, and systemic racism it is apparent our police, in America, are a gang. In some countries like Mexico, Spain, and India the line may even be blurrier.

The Language of Subversion

The language we use is important. Words mean specific things. When we don't think about the underlying meaning of the words that we use, we can be misunderstood or our words misconstrued.

Subversion, not adversion.

The word subvert has two parts. Sub-, which means “below” in latin. Vertere, means “to turn” in latin. So the word, subvert, mean to turn from below. This is consistent with the definition of subvert, which is “to undermine the power and authority of an established system or institution.” Note that sub means from below, and that when we use the word subvert we almost always mean that the persons undermining the system are doing so from below hierarchically.

The word advert, as in advertising, also has two parts. The second part is now familiar to us as meaning “to turn.” Ad- however, means “toward.” So advert then means “to turn toward.” In the context that the word advertising is used this means “to turn the audience toward an object of attention.” This object can even be cultural, such as Gillette's campaign to sell razors to women that resulted in a cultural obsession with shaving underarm hair and legs. Not that in this case it is almost always someone higher on the hierarchal ladder, like a corporation, that is doing the turning.

Adversion is the act of producing conformity. Subversion is the act of producing nonconformity. Conformity is the act of allowing society to choose an action for you. Nonconformity is the act of refusing to allow society to dictate how you will act. Conform when you choose. Do not conform when you choose. Don't allow adversion to decide how you will live. Live subversively and choose for yourself.

Subversion, not submission.

I have heard it said that if we want to see more transparency in government and business then we must give up our own privacy and be equally transparent. On its face this seems logical and would act to ensure integrity, when anyone can know anything about you.

The problem with this line of reasoning is one of degrees. An individual has a small finite amount of power to effect the world around them. A small group of people has a larger amount of power. A city council has power to effect a larger area and so on. Eventually, we come to large governments like the US, and transnational corporations that wield power that rivals that of governments. When an entity has the power to wield power over entire regions and peoples, then a higher degree of transparency is necessary to check that power. Contrarily, an individual should be empowered by making their private life private. This gives the individual more degrees of freedom to act within.

The sad truth is when a corporation or government can see every move an individual makes then that entity has the power to curb the freedom of that individual. When that same entity is held to a high degree of transparency then it prevents that entity from abusing it's power to curb the freedom of the individual.

This is about oppression. If an individual oppresses another individual then it is a crime. It is incredibly difficult for an individual to oppress an organization, and if they managed to it would undoubtedly be considered a crime. If an organization oppresses an individual or many individuals then it should also be considered a crime. Instead, we justify things like the surveillance and police states as a way to protect the people of that state. Instead, these things are means of oppression. A means to keep people in line, so they don't challenge the state. Corporations also wield their power to suppress individuals they have wronged, or view as a threat to them.

The Outlaw is a figure that stands out in the history of story. Raven and Prometheus stole from the gods and gave to humanity. Robin Hood stood up to the corrupt monarchy (and in some stories the corrupt church) and gave back to the less fortunate. And for a more modern example: Batman. Batman is often portrayed as at odds the police; and even the conception of morality held by other heroes in the DC universe.

What do all of these characters have in common? Defiance. Challenging the status quo. Recognizing the system as flawed and deciding to live outside it. Vigilante stories and revenge fantasies are increasing popular. These stories are about people taking control of themselves, their circumstances, and their environment.

What is deeper though is that these are people expressing their freedom. They do so in a social environment where doing so makes them a criminal. There also real world examples of this. Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden come to mind. These are people who saw abuses of the system and decided to step outside the bounds of that system to do what they saw as right. It is a problem when people feel that they need to step outside of a system to do what they think is right.

The Enlightenment philosophers would like us to think that we left the State of Nature to enter into State of Society. The State of Nature is a state when all people can make any choice they want without answering to anyone else. Also known as anarchy. What we are talking about is freedom. We feel trapped when societal constraints prevent us from doing things we feel are right. We do not willingly enter into the Social Contract. We are afraid to break it. So instead we create fantasies about people who aren't afraid to express their freedom. We are free, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Do not be afraid.

The subversive is an important thing. It is a medium of change. It shifts constantly. You don't see it if you don't look for it, but it is there. Always there. Underground music, something new that hasn't been tainted by industry. Independent films, movies that don't need approval from on high, nor their funding with strings attached. Fashion, more visible perhaps, but often looked down upon for being too different. But is an expression of individuality. Alternative news, telling stories that the mainstream media won't touch, or doesn't think to investigate. Independent publishers, telling stories that won't be published else where.

At the core of all these things is freedom. We always have the power to engage in subversive behaviour, but many don't out of fear of reprisals from mainstream society. Subversive behaviour is outside the norm and therefore on the edge. Nothing starts out being mainstream, it starts as a vision of an individual. Once something goes mainstream and enters the collective consciousness it is no longer subversive. The idea of revolution for instance has entered the mainstream consciousness and has been co-opted for blockbuster movies and even commercials. It is because we know something is wrong, and that nothing less than massive social upheaval is going to change it. Many of us however engage in escapism and experience this through these movies and such rather actually engaging in action to bring it about.

The mission of Veritas Machina is to find truth in the machine. The machine is made of the physical, mental, and social worlds.

The physical world as described to us by science and observation is the closest we can get to truth. Our perceptions are subjective however, and thus even our most unbiased descriptions of the universe are subject to this bias.

The mental world is were we learn about ourselves, and again truth is subjective. This is the world of ideas. Ideas are not real, but they have real world effects as our physical bodies interact with the physical world to bend it to our will, for good or ill.

The social world inevitably rises from the mental world that we all live in, because we all have our own. But we are not isolated, our wills interface with those of others, and thus social structures evolve. Constructs take on real world effects. Money has worth only because we have imbued it with this power in a sufficient amount of peoples mental worlds. Scraps of paper and metal may be all they are, or electronic bits now. But they have power because enough people give them power, thus they have become real.

This is the backdrop of progress. The physical world will always constrain what is possible, but new constraints have been introduced through ideas and technology. Left to it's own devices the universe will grind us all to dust. Our increased intelligence has introduced a new force to the equation, a human force.

Will we die with the Earth, when it is inevitably stripped from the face of the universe? Or will we overcome this by leaving this rock? Truth is the basis of all of these things. Truth is what allows us to build computers, and spaceships. These exist because physical reality IS. No matter how subjectively we look at things, a computer runs because of circuits, and electrons. There aren't elves running in circles powering it. This being said, truth affects our mental world because it constrains what is possible.

Granted, what IS possible and what we BELIEVE is possible can be completely different things. If you told someone in the dark ages that we would be talking to people in space. They would say what is space? The whole idea would be ludicrous to them. It seemed impossible to them, but here we are doing it. The possible is ever expanding as our understanding of truth grows. And our understanding is growing exponentially. Because of science our understanding has increased more in a 100 years than in the last 10,000.

A bold claim, but just think about the technological advancements since 1900, and think about the technological advancements prior to that. Some of the prior advancements were amazing, but nothing like what we are seeing today. The internet, robotics, space travel, and many believe that AI is right around the corner. This is an amazing time to be alive.

Okay, that is a bold claim. I am going to have to defend it. Advertising is not mind control, but the way that mega-corporations use it to influence our culture is. If a mom and pop shop buy some airtime for a commercial, it is not mind control (You have to advertise for people to know you exist). When a massive use of imagery and ideology is thrust upon us by people with nearly limitless funds to advertise something, it is. When I watch television (which I do very little of anymore), or even catch myself watching the adverts before a YouTube video I start feeling like this guy.

Advertisers have made radical changes to our culture a number of times. The two examples I'll use are women's shaving and bottled water. In 1915 shaving companies (Gillette included) took advantage of a new fashion trend to market safety razors to women: the sleeveless dress.

The ad above is the first ad published in the campaign that created a new insecurity for women. Some ads tried to explain it as more hygienic but most were concerned with aesthetics. By 1922 It had become accepted that women's “objectionable” hair needed to be removed. The same happened with women's leg hair in the 1930s as skirts got shorter. This is happening again, in 2014, with men's body hair.

The above is property of the company that produced it. Bottled water has a similar history. Beverage companies wanted to sell us water in a bottle and charge more than 2000 times what it would cost you at the tap. But it has to be better for you right? Nope. Bottled water is actually much more likely to carry waterborne illness than tap water. This is because tap water is regulated by the FDA, whereas there is no such regulation on bottled water. SO unless you are in a country where the drinking water is literally unpotable, you shouldn't buy bottled water. This is funny because they try to make tap water out to be the less appealing option, like in the ad below. The reality is that half the time it is tap water.

Advertising has convinced women that they have to shave their armpits, and legs to be beautiful. Advertising has convinced us that bottled water is safer than tap water, which is not true. Both of these advertising campaigns changed our cultural perceptions in just a few short years. Imagine how much advertising has changed our culture as a whole since the 1900s when it started. Is it so hard to believe that advertising and the media are at least partially responsible for the change in female body image, violence, and rampant consumerism? These campaigns have and will continue to shift our cultural perceptions towards what mega-corporations want us to perceive so they can make money off of us. This is a problem, because this distorts the truth and changes the consensus of what we want people to be. Do we want people to be insecure, violent, and materialistic? Welcome to America 2014.      The solution? Don't buy in. We cannot realistically avoid all of the signals that are sent out by these mega-corporations without being hermits. But knowledge arms you. Learn. Don't buy products that don't conform to your perceived reality. Or better yet don't buy products that don't conform to the reality you'd like to see. Our money is our power against those controlling what we see. Without it they are weakened, and they have to change the signal.

For more information:

This is the best article I found on The Great Under-arm Campaign.

The movie Tapped explains the bottled water industry very well.

In the beginning there was nothing...