RE: Glass bees & individual ants

[Thomas Friese <tfriese@eumeswil.org>]

GK wrote:
German text:

Dort wirkten sie wie intelligente Ameisen, aber immer noch in Einheiten,
die als Mechanismen, also nicht etwa auf eine rein chemische oder
physikalische Weise arbeiteten.  Das gehörte zu Zapparonis
Geschäftsmaximen oder, wenn man so will, zu seinen Spielregeln.  Oft
schien es, als ob er zwischen zwei Lösungen um jeden Preis die
raffiniertere bevorzugte.  Aber das lag im Zuge der Zeit, und er stand
sich nicht schlecht dabei.  [Ernst Klett Verlag, 1957, 11.]

The translation strikes me as fine, though I am confused by the "die" in
"die als Mechanismen."  Perhaps a native can explain.  Can it possibly
mean "rather than as mechanisms"?
[Thomas Friese]  I don't have the German here so could someone explain why there are two different versions of precisely the passage of interest :
"Dort wirkten sie wie intelligente Ameisen, aber immer noch in Einheiten,
die als Mechanismen, also nicht etwa auf eine rein chemische oder
physikalische Weise arbeiteten."

and

	"Dort wirkten sie wie intelligente Ameisen, aber immer noch in Einheiten, die
als Mechanismen, also nicht etwa auf molekulare Weise arbeiteten." (from Richard Brem)

 
[Thomas Friese]  My question yesterday about the distinction Junger makes in the underlined text has to my mind become more interesting - what is the nature of these mechanisms: not chemical, not physical, not molecular, not organic? What then? When Richard strikes the Smoky Gray he sees "a coil of wire spring out of its belly. Several sparks followed ... and from the golf club rose a rust-brown cloud.... A splash hit (him), burning a hole in the sleeve of (his) coat."
Tell me if I'm belabouring the point unneccessarily .....


I can understand how a group could spend hours discussing this passage
with the questions you mentioned.  My response is that, from our
individualistic, 20th-century point of view, a creature cannot really be
said to exist without consciousness of itself as an individual.  When
working with the group, it would be conscious solely of the tasks to be
performed and perhaps of the feeling of belonging to the group and the
project.  Only when separated from the group could it possibly achieve
what we consider an individual existence.  Usually an ant, when
separated, is still performing a group function; but it may happen that
by accident it could find itself completely cut off from the group, then
its first and lasting thought would be to get back.  But it might have
to solve problems along the way, and the solutions might be individual
ones.  I imagine that an ant on its own over time would become aware of
its separation, its vulnerability and ultimately itself.  I wrote a
little story about it in a work called 51 REINCARNATIONS.  If you wish,
you can read it at this link:

http://www.starfishy.com/calliope/essay/kern.html

[Thomas Friese]  I'll certainly get to it.

Mark Twain wrote a humorous little piece about ants, about how everyone
spoke of their diligence and efficiency, but when he followed one around
it did all sorts of stupid and wasteful things.  Jünger presents a
picture in which each ant performs a task with individual precision,
working separately, which is perhaps very un-antlike.  Zapparoni could
have made his little robots all do the same thing, but he preferred to
make them capable of relating differently to the environment and doing
separate things.  
[Thomas Friese]  Yes, they are working on individual tasks (ie they are specialized) but as a whole they working in a coordinated manner for the same purpose - to collect and refine honey for their boss, Zapparoni.  Real bees are also divided into classes, yet there is no individuality. A quote to illustrate what I find ultimately worrying about this bee/ant/mechanism theme:
		
	" In this place, however, a mind was at work to negate the image of a free and intact man. The same man had devised this insult (the ears. TF): it intended to rely on man power in the same way that it had relied on horsepower. It wanted units to be equal and divisible, and for that purpose man had to be destroyed as the horse had already been destroyed." Glass Bees. 141

Approach TV, Hollywood, Disney, the Web and all mass media with great scepticism. Lest you also begin to think and act like a worker bee!
 
This satisfied his own intellectual and creative
needs, but did not necessarily produce robots in harmony with
nature--one of the themes of the book.

The other day I saw something on TV that relates to this passage.  A
program on computers and technology reported that soon we may have pet
robots:  a toy cat that will purr when petted, move its head in response
to touch, meow and so on.  Apparently it will not eat or defecate, so it
will mark an improvement on real cats.  The Japanese manufacturers were
said to be in no rush to produce the computerized mechanical cat, as
they wanted to add new sophisticated features.  Who knows, perhaps it
will hide from dogs, watch the goldfish and play with a ball of string.
And perhaps each one will be slightly different in its emphases:  one
will meow loudly, another softly; one will roll on its back, another on
its side.  Enough combinations, and you have a personality.  And why
stop at cats?  Parakeets, little doggies, iguanas.  Beautiful androids
can't be far behind.
[Thomas Friese]  There are such temptations in Zapparoni's world! 
I watched the story, laughed and went on to other things, and only two
days later realized that I should have paid more attention, since it was
pertinent to the theme of THE GLASS BEES.  (I'm trying to stop watching
TV.)

My chief concern about robotic animals is not so much that human beings
will lose touch with nature as that they will look on real animals as
simply pre-programmed units, as Descartes assumed them to be. Then the
robot-friendly humans could perpetrate fresh horrors upon their animal
kin.

GK


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