"The main things which seem to me important on their own account, and not merely as means to other things, are knowledge, art, instinctive happiness, and relations of friendship or affection."

-Bertrand Russell

Informationalism and Politics?


So, one will invariably ask: Is Informationalism liberal or conservative?

I would first like to point out that the platforms of liberalism and conservatism vary from party to party and from nation to nation. One must also define the type of liberalism or conservatism that they are using as their standard. I will be using America as the primary example, since it is my home. Classical liberal principles have achieved an almost total victory in Western Europe and America. In America, the two party system is not a clash between liberals and conservatives in the traditional sense. The clash is between two strains of liberalism. The "conservative" strain favors classical economics, with some departures, and practices a distinct American protestant morality.
The "liberal" strain of America favors a Keynesian economic approach, begun by the Democrat Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression. They tend to practice a secular morality, with some exceptions. Both are capitalist.

So who does the informationalist vote for?

In case you have not noticed, a great deal of these platforms and ideals from both parties are simply not the highest priority to the informationalist. An informationalist is interested in the pursuit of information.

The informationalist does not support one party of non informationalists against another at the expense of their own principles. Both parties make convicted judgments about their doctrines and about one another that are uninformationalist. One needs to only browse a few campaign adds to see that the interest of these two parties is actually disinformation.

So should we side with the lesser of the two evils? If there is one?

As always, the vote is personal and confidential. Informationalism does not support a party that does not support informationalism because it is at its own expense. When an informationalist votes, they should act as they always do, treating informationalism as a perspective which they take into account when they make their decisions.

In my opinion, it is far better to attempt to shape the political landscape so that we are dealing with fellow informationalists, as opposed to making the difficult decision as to who will impede information more than the other.

The Purpose of Informationalism


In a radically polarized and evenly divided society ruled by a minority, the often unknown but very real fear of all cultures comes into play. Stagnation.

Informationalism is an attempt at avoiding cultural stagnation. It is not a religion, it is not a law. It is a philosophy; it is a perspective.

Their exists no final redemption to informationalism. An individual cannot find salvation from themselves. However, perhaps one can see themselves in another light, and learn things that they did not know before.

Their is only the choice that pursuing information is conducive to our individual and collective will to offer some degree of understanding of our circumstances in the universe. It is an attempt to seek out knowledge in places beyond the walled cells our ethnocentric culture has built around us, and yet embrace the knowledge of that cell as part of who we are.

It is a way of recognizing the potential within every human being. It is when we think that perhaps for every problem, there is a solution.

Be attached to your theories, if you have confidence in them. But don't shut out the possibility that you might not be correct, that too is information.

"Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist. "

-Alpha Centauri

Informationalism and Privacy

One might ask, and one would not be foolish for doing so: How can the privacy of the individual be protected under Informationalism? If we value the pursuit of information above all else, how can one not allow other individuals to know the most intimate part of their lives?

This question cuts to the heart of the very nature of information. First, I will present an ideal. This is an ideal not in the sense that it is what informationalists strive for, but a fictitious creation of a society. In this ideal world all known information flows instantly from individual to individual. There is no delay beyond that of the currently accepted speed of light. In reference to the earth, it is possible to immediately know all that is know by every other fellow human being almost instantly. If this were the case, there would essentially be no individual. Thought would be the collective thought of the entire human society. In this world the nouns which we use to identify ourselves would be greatly depreciated in meaning. Is this society possible? And if it is, is it what an Informationalist would want?

Such a society is, of course, not possible with our current technological circumstances. But, if it were, would Informationalism dictate that the privacy of the individual must be eliminated?

My theory is to the contrary:

As stated earlier, the philosophy of informationalism is dedicated to the pursuit of information. The pursuit of information is a simple fact of volition and the will to power, but the choice to be an informationalist is not. It is possible to interject here the value of feeding data into as many individuals as possible.

Let us turn to the process of evolution for an example. If a species is present everywhere, such as humanity is today, it becomes difficult for variation to take place. If no community is isolated, then the processes of evolution become dubious. It is good, in the natural world, for some species to undergo isolation, as this gives birth to the different structures within the genetic code that allow for specific advantages. When suddenly combined with close cousins in cooperation, one can expect to see a burst in variation activity.

Likewise, the privacy of the individual thought could be treated this way. It is my theory that allowing the individual privacy of personal information can lead to unique points of view that might be stagnated if it is subjected to the pressing power of the whole. Intellectual variation might be destroyed if we lived in the presupposed ideal society.

But, where do we draw the line? What is private and what is public information? Where is the boundary between the private information that cultivates the individual, and the public information which betters all of humanity?

I suggest that the individual must be protected in their ideas and their identity. No one should be allowed to steal the idea or identity of another human being. A follower of informationalism seeks the information, but it cannot be forced, it must be given freely. So the informationalists themselves will respect the ideas and identities of fellow informationalists, and since their paradigm goals are the same the social harmony should suffer minimal disruption.

What about information from people who chose not to follow the philosophy of informationalism?

As has been stated before, informationalism is a choice. One cannot be forced to be an informationalist. However, in the instance that a non informationalist possesses information that is paramount to an issue such as the survival of the human community as a whole, regardless of my opinion, humans will do as nature dictates.

"Technological advance is an inherently iterative process. One does not simply take sand from the beach and produce a Dataprobe. We use crude tools to fashion better tools, and then our better tools to fashion more precise tools, and so on. Each minor refinement is a step in the process, and all of the steps must be taken."


- Alpha Centauri

Informationalism and God


It has been stated earlier that it is of particular difficulty for one to be considered a follower of any religion and still be an informationalist.

Informationalism regards the existence of a personal god as a highly unlikely claim. And so, it is not in the nature of informationalists to believe in claims which are highly unlikely. While not dismissing the idea completely, it is very difficult to reconcile the belief in a personal conscious god and an established religion with Informationalism. This is because religions, especially major religions, are in the habit of limiting the flow of information. This limiting of information is sanctioned by a higher power whose will we cannot ultimately know, and thus following this will is counterproductive to the informationalist.

The personal god is an anthropomorphization of the universe. The informationalist acknowledges that the primary drive of human beings is the will to control our circumstances. In such a world, it is possible to fulfill all our biological and personal desires. Since we know that this is often not the case in the actual world, we impose the structures of our imagination onto the actual world. In this sense, our interpretation of events can be used to construct a system that is not in concordance with reality. When this lack of concordance with reality interferes with our desire to pursue information, due to the fact that it may to contrary to our image of the world, it has become something that is uninformationalist.

If one, however, believes in the pantheistic version of the universe, that god is all and all is god, this can be acceptable. Such a proposition is not unlikely. Since informationalists regard the personal god as a creation of man, the impersonal god can simply be the universe itself. The blind watchmaker, which is all and all is it.

Upon close examination this view is not different from the position of atheism. This is because the definition of god can be altered because of its lack of rigid linguistic status, and has thus been rendered to be a definition that expresses the definition of the atheist or most specifically weak atheism. Take Spinoza for example; the god of Spinoza worked by natural laws and did not possess a conscious of his own. The god of Spinoza posessed the universal consciousness and did everything out of necessity. Therefore, once can see that it is possible to bring the definition of god into terms that are acceptable for an atheist. However, obviously, the simple webster's dictionary defines god as something that is highly likely to be not the case. Atheists in this sense are pantheists and pantheists are atheists. So, disbelief in god is not against informationalism, it is dependent on your definition of the god in which you believe.

Even Polytheism on the pantheistic level is acceptable. If gods are divided into blind forces which operate by certain principles. In a sense, the religious terms can be brought into concordance with the philosophy of informationalism, and thus informationalism can thrive.

However, subscribing to the personal and conscious gods of most religions does not match these criteria. Thus it is not desirable if one has decided on the philosophy of Informationalism. It is not an issue of theism and atheism; it is an issue of perspective.

"If our society seems more nihilistic than that of previous eras, perhaps this is simply a sign of our maturity as a sentient species. As our collective consciousness expands beyond a crucial point, we are at last ready to accept life's fundamental truth: that life's only purpose is life itself."

Sheng-Ji Yang

The Philosophy of Informationalism


What is informationalism you might ask?

Informationalism is a philosophy that is based on the assertion that the acquisition and freedom of information is important to the survival of humanity.

Throughout history there have been many factors that separate human beings into classes. Until recently these were mostly of the material sense. However, the modern world is drive mostly by the trading and acquisition of information. Informationalism maintains that the current goal of society should be to acquire as much information as possible, and to make it available to as many people as possible.

Why is this important?

This is answerable in both a social and an evolutionary way. Socially, distinctions between people these days are defined mostly by the amount of information that they possess. It is clear that a person who acquires a monopoly of information in a certain area, or overall, will unavoidably tyrannize other human beings. Those who possess information tend to see themselves as superior to those who do not have information. This is not always a correct assertion. Without the free flow of information a society can only maintain a certain size and prosperity. In order to move beyond this, information must be freely accessible to all members of the society. This will prevent its slide into despotism and eventual ruin.

Biologically it is simple. Variation is paramount to the success of a species. Introducing information into different human beings will generate different perspectives and ideas. Human beings with their different talents will use their information in different ways. We therefore maximize the potential for acquiring new information by allowing all available minds to analyze the information which we possess. This is important because, in order to survive, it is ultimately important to understand the phenomena which govern the world.

Skepticism

The acquisition and distribution of all information is very important. But an informationalist must always practice a degree of skepticism. One may possess information, but it may not be correct information. It may even for a time appear correct and later turn out to be false. The lesson to be learned from this is that it is not the information itself that is most important, but the drive to acquire it. As long as one is constantly seeking to better the information that one possesses, the more likely they are to make important contributions to themselves and to society.

Why pursue Information?

It is not imperative to pursue information. This is dependent upon one's goals. Informationalists fall in line with the evolutionary principle that the primary purpose to life in nature is survival and propagation of the species. Humans can chose not to find this important, and simply die. The choice to pursue information is just that, a choice.

Good and Evil

Informationalists do not believe in an eternal law of good and evil. Moral judgments are simply calculations made taking ones desire into account and determining how general events will affect the desired outcome. Informationalists desire the acquisition and propagation of information, and view desires to block this and evil desires. We are aware, however, that this justification is simply our own, and thus a degree of moderation will be practiced in dealing with those who do not agree. Informationalists do not seek to harm other human beings, because this will limit the amount of minds that can receive information. Forceful action can only be taken when one attempts to force the containment of information through violent means.

Religion

To be an informationalist means one must be open to all modes of information and maintain a degree of skepticism. The scientific method is regarded highly because of its success in acquiring information. Religion, while not demonized, is certainly not condoned. Many major religions regularly attempt to obstruct the free flow of information. Thus, compliance with such religious practices is not possible for an informationalist. Informationalists cannot subscribe to a religion in the sense that it believes it is the only true view of the world. An informationalist may partake in the religion in ways which further the acquisition of information.

Unskeptical certainty is not advised in any case. Especially in matters of god. Universal principles that do not interfere with Informationalism are acceptable, but a personal deity clearly crosses the boundary of skepticism and is not advised.

Goals

Informationalists seek to build a society that maximizes the acquisition and flow of information. It should be a peaceful, global society with equal access to modes of information. In the interest of humanity, it is important to make the society extra-global in order to further the acquisition of information.

"The free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

-Alpha Centauri

The Issue of Gay Marriage(This appeared as a Letter to the Editor in "The Dispatch", a newspaper in Davidson County).

This letter is written in consideration of the attempt by constituents in Thomasville to support the movement to redefine the North Carolina Constitution to define marriage as a union specifically between a woman and a man.

It is true the democracy is one of the founding principles of our collective government. When an assembly of citizens gather to vote on an issue, it is the general agreement that the majority will rule.

However, another founding principle of our government is the right of every individual to privacy and protection of property. This is to prevent the threat of the so-called "tyranny of the majority". There are certain issues and rights which are protected, and thus no legitimate vote can be made to have these rights taken away from any citizen, or in a philosophical sense, any human being.

Another principle of our government is the separation of religion from the public sphere of society, meaning the government. While religion may be the business of regimes in countries like Iran, it should be of no consequence within our government. This protects us from the tyranny of a church, no matter what creed it may follow. It also protects us from the tyranny of one church over another, so we do not have to live in a society plagued by religious wars of supremacy, such as in Iraq. The government is meant to protect the rights and property of the individual. Thus, within the private sphere, which encompasses everything else, all is permissible as long as it does not violate the right to privacy or property of another citizen. Other matters are not open to change, you cannot vote away your rights, and you cannot vote away the rights of another citizen.

Homosexual individuals who are citizens of this country have the same rights as the rest of us. This includes the right to happiness and liberty. Allowing homosexuals to marry before the state does not have a negative or legitimately unlawful effect on the property of any individual. Thus, homosexual couples have the right to have their union recognized by the state, if the state chooses to recognize as well the state of union between a man and a woman.

The churches who do not agree with this are protected by our government as well. The state cannot force these churches who do not wish to marry these couples to do so. The church has no bearing in the public sphere and the state has no business in the sphere of the church. Any individual who asserts the supremacy of their church doctrine over the state is violating the social agreement he or she consented to explicitly or tacitly, and thus is not entitled to protection of their person and property by the state. The only thing at hand is the protection of liberty and property.

Some might suggest the following: that if homosexual marriage is allowed, then there would be nothing to stop polygamy or other forms of objectionable union; that it would destroy the American family; that it goes against what is natural; that it is against the Bible.

I answer that while homosexual marriage does not violate the rights of the individual, these other forms of marriage would do so. Polygamy is known to often be a forced process, and so must be outlawed for the protection of the individual. Also, that there is no evidence suggesting that the American family would be harmed by this, if anything it would help our staggering divorce rate. Finally, evidence of homosexuality as a natural phenomena are abundant, and once again Religion has no bearing in public discourse.

It is clear then that what the constituents of Thomasville, and others throughout the country are trying to accomplish is immoral and incompatible with the founding principles of our government. Should we wish to hold to these principles, these referendums must be dismissed. It is acceptable and required that one tolerate the opinions of a fellow citizen as long as they do not violate the rights of another citizen. But, if citizens attempt to impose a morality that is clearly against what is accepted in government, then other citizens have the right to ignore the decision.

The want of Homosexuals to marry can only be defeated by force, and to use force in this case is wrong. To attempt to force these individuals to do this is clearly violating their rights. They, on the other hand, only wish for citizens to respect the rights which they are already entitled to have. The many attempts of individuals to impose this immoral morality upon our fellow citizens is, upon close inspection, unacceptable and bound to failure.

I will not include my views as to if it is right or wrong in my eyes for homosexuals to marry. I can only say that as one who respects what began in 1776, that while I may attempt to persuade others to alter their views, that I could not respect myself for denying them the freedom allowed to me.