RE: Glass Bees discussion

[Thomas Friese <tfriese@eumeswil.org>]

[Thomas Friese]  
>	"On the smaller scale they gave the impression of >intelligent ants,
distinct units working as mechanisms, that is, not >at all in a purely
chemical or organic fashion. This was one of >Zapparoni's business
principles, or if you will, one of the rules of his >game. When faced with
two solutions, it seemed as if he almost >always preferred the more subtle
one. This corresponded with the >trend of the times, and he was not the
worse for it." p.6
>
>We talked for hours on the concept of intelligence in the first >sentence. 
>Where does the intelligence lie - in the individual unit or in the team >of
units. The analogy is after all ants. How are ants intelligent? Or >bees for
that matter?
HBR wrote: Analogies like this seem to me to be references to the idea of
"Gruppenseele" (collective soul or hive mind) as formulated by E.N. Marais 
("The Soul of the White Ant") and Maurice Maeterlinck ("La vie des abeilles"
, "La vie des termites"). 

"Adnoten": The concept of "Gruppenseele" seems to have been a major issue in
occultism in the 20s - at a time, when EJ had a deep interest in the occult.
[Thomas Friese]  How specifically does this interest of his become apparent in that period (briefly)?

The ants also feature in Juenger's conversation with Jorge Luis Borges 
(which took place in Wilflingen on October 27, 1982):
"Then about Huxley - I took the view that the 'Weltgeist' had solved the
problem of political order better in the case of the insects than we had
done for us. Borges replied: 'Maybe so as far as concerns the interests of
the State, but the single ant counts for nothing.'
     But against that one could argue that all are provided for. They have a
place to live in, food and full employment, also a long hibernation sleep in
the winter. 
     Most of them are excluded from a sexual life, which could perhaps even
be a relief. But from love as well? When I stood in front of one of their
ant-hills in the noon-time sun and put my hand over them and it became
moistened as they scurried about and waved their feelers I believed I could
feel that they are happy. There should be some research into that; but we
agreed that zoologists are hardly in a position to do it." 
 
The idea of the collective soul or hive mind has become quite fashionable
again. Kevin Kelly, executive editor of "Wired" magazine, devoted the second
chapter of his book "Out of Control. The New Biology of Machines" (London
1994) to this very idea. Kelly sees the Internet as a huge beehive: "Just as
a beehive functions as if it were a single sentient organism, so does an
electronic hive, made up of millions of buzzing, dim-witted personal
computers, behave like a single organism. Out of networked parts - whether
of insects, neurons, or chips - come learning, evolution, and life." 
I'm not sure if Juenger would agree with Kelly and his optimistic
interpretation of technology; in "The Glass Bees" he definitely didn't.

[Thomas Friese]  Perhaps there is disagreement on the value but as far as the pure mechanism goes, the Kelly idea, as you've quoted it, seems so similar to Junger's own vision expressed in the description of the glass bee system in Zapparoni's garden.("Ideas float in the air ..." except Junger's was visionary and Kelly's is more observation ) In fact the idea that Zapparoni's glass bee hives is exactly like the internet has already been expressed on this list. Can't remember who said it. But I would agree - in a virtual sense the bees coming and going are the electronic impulses which give life to the net. The coordinating system - so astonishingly finely tuned - seems quite like the internet's data routing system, except that the net appears to be chaotic, without the central purpose that Zapparoni's bees seem to follow. Perhaps the net can be seen as overlapping interacting hives. There was also an analogy of computer viruses with the tiny malevolent glass bees that can bring down rocket ships.

Another point:
"Dort wirkten sie wie intelligente Ameisen, aber immer noch in Einheiten, die
als Mechanismen, also nicht etwa auf molekulare Weise arbeiteten. " 
As far as I understand it cutting-edge nanotechnology creates nano-mechanisms from molecular building blocks. ie a motor the size of a speck of dust whose moving parts are molecules. So, if my information is correct (it may not be), in the reality there isn't the distinction that Junger made. I am stuck on why Junger makes this distinction - any help? Any nanotech enthusiasts out there? 
 
[Thomas Friese]  Lastly, does no-one really know where Junger's wrote "Technology is the metaphysics of the 20th century."? I can't believe that!!!?





<<< application/ms-tnef: EXCLUDED >>>