Klint Finley: Welcome to Mindful Cyborgs episode 55. I’m your host Klint Finley, and our oth­er co‐hosts Sara Watson and Chris Dancy are still out this week. But that’s okay because we have Damien Williams back with us again. Damien’s a writer at afu​ture​worth​thinkingabout​.com, and he stud­ies tran­shu­man­ism, pop cul­ture, and the occult. He’s also a phi­los­o­phy and reli­gion teacher at var­i­ous uni­ver­si­ties in Georgia. So, Damien, thanks for com­ing back.

Damien Williams: Thank you for hav­ing me again. I appre­ci­ate it.

Finley: So, last week we cov­ered a lot of ground, but where we left off was kind of this idea of cor­po­ra­tions essen­tial­ly becom­ing some sort of emer­gent non‐human intel­li­gence in and of them­selves. That also got me think­ing, before we ran out of time, about Kevin Kelly has this idea of the Internet as becom­ing essen­tial­ly a super‐organism. I find that some­what dubi­ous, per­son­al­ly, but that idea actu­al­ly I think fits either cor­po­ra­tions indi­vid­u­al­ly or even more­so the mar­ket­place, or you could even say cap­i­tal­ism itself as some form of super‐organism, as this kind of strange col­lec­tive intel­li­gence.

And we also have a pre­vi­ous guest, Alexander Bard I know has just put out a book essen­tial­ly argu­ing that the Internet itself is kind of God, or a god that we have essen­tial­ly made, this sort of meta­phys­i­cal enti­ty, if I under­stand his argu­ment cor­rect­ly. I actu­al­ly haven’t read his book, so I shouldn’t be try­ing to rep­re­sent it to you too close­ly. So I thought that would be a good chance to get into some of your more spir­i­tu­al or reli­gious and occult lines of thought. Do you see these top­ics inter­sect­ing arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence and tran­shu­man­ism?

Williams: Oh, absolute­ly. One of the last things I did before the con­fer­ence that I went to in Flint, Michigan, the Work of Cognition and Neuroethics in Science Fiction con­fer­ence— That was the most recent con­fer­ence I did, but before that I did a con­fer­ence back in December, kind of like more of a pre‐conference plan­ning ses­sion called Magick Codes. A bunch of us there, a lot of peo­ple from the Internet, Tim Maly, Ingrid Burrington, Eleanor Saitta, one of your pre­vi­ous guests… We were talk­ing about, specif­i­cal­ly, this inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­o­gy, Big Data, arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence, human aug­men­ta­tion, how all of these inter­sec­tions with the per­spec­tive of mag­ick and the occult.

And I think that there is actu­al­ly a very very fruit­ful con­ver­sa­tion to be had there, because we were talk­ing last week about this idea that the per­spec­tive of the net­work and the var­i­ous enti­ties with­in or that com­prise the net­work (Google, Facebook, Monsanto, what­ev­er) how the under­stand­ing of their intri­ca­cies and their day‐to‐day oper­a­tions begins to become so opaque that only a very very few are going to be able to under­stand it.

At the Magick Codes meet­up, we talked about this in kind of the terms of the techno‐priests. These are going to be the cler­gy of the net­work. These are the peo­ple who have a deep under­stand­ing of the occult or lit­er­al­ly hid­den knowl­edge of how the net­work oper­ates, of how the mar­ket­place oper­ates. And while you might have var­i­ous priests for var­i­ous denom­i­na­tions, peo­ple that focus on the econ­o­my with­in the scope of the United States, that have some [?] under­stand­ing of how it oper­ates in our world stage but they’ll focus on how it oper­ates in the United States. And they’ll have cer­tain priests that are even more close­ly aligned with a par­tic­u­lar cor­po­ra­tion. The cor­po­rate accoun­tant for Google, the accoun­tant and spe­cif­ic pros­e­ly­tiz­ing agents for Facebook or whomev­er. These act as the peo­ple who under­stand and seek to oper­ate with­in the mar­ket, the net­work as itself.

Now, this will be metaphor­i­cal if you want it to be metaphor­i­cal. And it can just be a handy way of talk­ing about things, to kind of get across this idea that there’s a lot of spooky stuff going on that nobody real­ly under­stands very care­ful­ly. But I think you can also do a lot of seri­ous work with con­nect­ing these con­cepts of reli­gios­i­ty and the occult, of look­ing at the oper­a­tions of mag­ick in the con­text of tech­nol­o­gy.

We’re talk­ing about a sys­tem that requires you to have an under­stand­ing of and a way of think­ing about oper­a­tions of cause and effect in the world that are in no way, shape, or form appar­ent to the vast major­i­ty of the rest of the world.

Finley: I should stop you there and ask you if you can real­ly give your own def­i­n­i­tion of mag­ick for our lis­ten­ers who might not real­ly be par­tic­u­lar­ly versed in this area.

Williams: Sure. Magick as I’m using the term right now is going to be used to describe a sys­tem of cause and effect rela­tion­ships that depend on emo­tion­al or intu­itive res­o­nance, a recog­ni­tion of sim­i­lar­i­ty between things that oth­er­wise might seem dis­sim­i­lar, and work­ing to have effects on one part of that equa­tion by oper­at­ing upon anoth­er part.

So James George Frazer writes in his sem­i­nal work The Golden Bough, he gives the def­i­n­i­tion of mag­ic, as sym­pa­thy and con­ta­gion. And he says that things that are like a thing, that have sym­pa­thy with a thing, can affect a thing. Or things that have been in con­tact with a thing, things that have con­ta­gion with that thing, can affect a thing. He says that all mag­ick­al oper­a­tions are based on this idea.

Now, I think that that’s a very rough def­i­n­i­tion of mag­ick. But it’s one that as a kind of start­ing point can allow us an inroad. And as the study of the occult and the inves­ti­ga­tion of occult thought and occult prin­ci­ples across cul­tures has gone on over the years, peo­ple have kind of worked to see if that def­i­n­i­tion always fits. It doesn’t always fit, but so far as a very rough, basic def­i­n­i­tion of mag­ick goes it’s not a bad one. The psy­chol­o­gist Karl Jung talks about mag­ick and the occult as those emo­tion­al­ly res­o­nant encoun­ters with imme­di­ate expe­ri­ence. Those things where we have a kind of unfil­tered expe­ri­ence with the true nature of real­i­ty, and our brain’s and our mind’s try­ing to fil­ter, try­ing to process that through our expe­ri­ence. So I think that some­where in the midst of these things, you get a def­i­n­i­tion of mag­ick that looks kind of like emo­tion­al res­o­nance, cause and effect through sym­pa­thy and con­ta­gion, through an under­stand­ing of how some­thing res­onates, how some­thing emo­tion­al­ly cor­rob­o­rates with­in you.

That being the def­i­n­i­tion that I’m work­ing with, you can take a look at things in the tech­nol­o­gy side of things, and we can start to see a kind of under­stand­ing of action at a dis­tance. We can see the hid­den, occult oper­a­tions of pro­gram­mers, of peo­ple who are seek­ing to get very spe­cif­ic out­comes by oper­at­ing on very par­tic­u­lar [?] com­po­nents, rit­u­al­ly oper­at­ing with­in very par­tic­u­lar sym­bol­ic frame­works. People who are using par­tic­u­lar cod­ing lan­guages, peo­ple who are using par­tic­u­lar setups of hard­ware because for their pur­pos­es, for their end goals, these are the things that get the job done. These are the things that have the res­o­nance and the capa­bil­i­ty, the pow­er, the effi­ca­cy, to do the work.

And they might be one of very very few with­in a small group, a small clus­ter of peo­ple, that under­stand their oper­a­tions. That tru­ly under­stand how these pro­grams, how these codes, how these sets of hard­ware, all inter­act togeth­er.

Finley: It seems like that metaphor works at least as well than… I’m think­ing kind of cor­po­rate brand­ing and the way every part of a cor­po­rate expe­ri­ence is exe­cut­ed, both inter­nal­ly and exter­nal­ly to the cor­po­ra­tion. I keep think­ing about all the require­ments that you have to do as an employ­ee of a large cor­po­ra­tion like say, Starbucks, as essen­tial­ly rit­u­al work, that you get like a binder that’s this gri­moire of things that you have to do a par­tic­u­lar way.

Williams: Absolutely.

Finley: So as a jour­nal­ist, I’m always get­ting press releas­es and talk­ing to peo­ple who work for these cor­po­ra­tions and they will say the damn­d­est things because they have require­ments that they always talk about a cer­tain prod­uct in cer­tain lan­guage, that they always say these right, mag­ick­al words that are what they think of as the right things that they have to say all the time.

Williams: Absolutely. That is absolute­ly true. A guy by the name of Dennis Lorusso actu­al­ly does work specif­i­cal­ly on the reli­gios­i­ty of cor­po­rate cul­ture. He talks about these ideas of the rit­u­al­iza­tion of cor­po­rate inter­ac­tions and bring­ing about this kind of reli­gious or rit­u­al space with­in cor­po­rate struc­tures, with­in some­thing like a Starbucks where you’re talk­ing about how the peo­ple in each indi­vid­ual Starbucks store inter­act with each oth­er, how they regard each oth­er. And talk­ing about cor­po­rate retreats and talk­ing about build­ing this com­mu­ni­ty that has this tone and this tenor of reli­gious, spir­i­tu­al engage­ment and bring­ing that kind of con­cep­tu­al­iza­tion, that kind of under­stand­ing of what you’re doing to the cor­po­rate work­place, and how pow­er­ful and poten­tial­ly dan­ger­ous that can be if you’re not aware of it. If you’re being oper­at­ed on by that with­out being aware of it.

Finley: I mean, the vast major­i­ty of peo­ple who are a part of it are com­plete­ly unaware of it. We’re kind of drift­ing off and mak­ing this sound real­ly hocus pocus‐y, I guess, but it real­ly is… To kind of divorce it from the mag­ick­al and occult lan­guage, we’re just talk­ing about the way that people’s lines of think­ing and emo­tions are manip­u­lat­ed. And these cor­po­rate struc­tures have a ten­den­cy to… People are par­tic­i­pat­ing in them with­out even real­ly think­ing about what they’re actu­al­ly doing and how they’re actu­al­ly oper­at­ing on oth­er peo­ple and being oper­at­ed on, them­selves.

Williams: Absolutely. There was actu­al­ly a claim that was made, and I don’t know how far we can take this claim and the depths of its truth. But the claim was made that all of the peo­ple that were real­ly active in the mag­ick­al and occult scene of Britain and the US in the 1950s, that from the 60s to the 70s as they began to be dis­il­lu­sioned, they took the skills that they had cul­ti­vat­ed over those times and [some?] ways of think­ing that they had cul­ti­vat­ed, and in the 80s start­ed to apply them to cor­po­rate mar­ket­ing and brand con­sult­ing, and start­ed the kinds of ways that peo­ple are using adver­tis­ing and ad agency work these days.

Its one of those off‐handed kind of anec­dotes, but you take a look at the prin­ci­ples that were devel­oped in chaos mag­ick (chaos mag­ick being the school of mag­ick­al thought first devel­oped by Austin Osman Spare in the mid/late 1940s), take a look at his work, how you oper­ate this lan­guage, how you oper­ate with uncon­scious manip­u­la­tion through and via lin­guis­tic decon­struc­tion and recon­struc­tion. And you can see many many of those tech­niques or things that are strik­ing­ly sim­i­lar to them at play in con­tem­po­rary mar­ket­ing tech­niques.

Finley: There’s even some pret­ty explic­it con­nec­tions. Ramsey Duke, I think his real name is Lionel Snell? If I recall cor­rect­ly (I might be wrong) isn’t he a mar­ket­ing exec or adver­tis­ing exec­u­tive? That’s like his day job?

Williams: Yeah, he had a deep back­ground with the mar­ket­ing and adver­tis­ing com­mu­ni­ty. And a lot of his con­sul­ta­tion and a lot of his work and a lot of the peo­ple that he worked with end­ed up being ad execs and ad con­sul­tants. So this thought, this think­ing, it does con­tin­ue out. It does have a con­nec­tion to that world. But like I said, I just don’t know if you can make the claim that most of the peo­ple who were involved in that went out to that. Definitely a non‐zero num­ber.

Finley: Yeah. I’m just kind of think­ing about some of the core peo­ple at least from the orig­i­nal chaos mag­ick peo­ple. There’s Peter Carroll, who has his own com­pa­ny that sells I think sup­ple­ments and stuff. And so I guess you could make the argu­ment that he applies those same lines of think­ing towards not adver­tis­ing con­sult­ing, but just active­ly adver­tis­ing his own com­pa­ny brand. And then Ramsey Duke, obvi­ous­ly. I for­get who the other—there were kind of three big guys, weren’t there?

Williams: Yeah.

Finley: And I for­get who the oth­er one was, but was it Ray Sherwin? Or am I think­ing of some­body com­plete­ly wrong?

Williams: I’m try­ing to remem­ber. There’s a spe­cif­ic quote that I was try­ing to remem­ber as well that talks about, it says some­thing along the lines that if a magi­cian wants to tru­ly make use of their skills in today’s world, they need to go into adver­tis­ing. I’m try­ing to remem­ber pre­cise­ly who that was, and it’s escap­ing me at the moment. I’ll try to remem­ber that.

I also want­ed to say, tak­ing it back from the over­ar­ch­ing struc­ture of cor­po­rate America to the spe­cif­ic ques­tion of more human aug­men­ta­tion and tran­shu­man ide­al­ism. The idea of the mag­ick­al process and the mag­ick­al refine­ment as laid out by peo­ple like Aleister Crowley and Osman Spare and mem­bers of chaos mag­ick com­mu­ni­ty and mem­bers of the Golden Dawn com­mu­ni­ty and mem­bers of the Western eso­teric study groups. People like Anton Faivre in the ear­ly 90s talk­ing about the resur­gence of what was called Naturphilosophie, this idea of this nat­ur­al, holis­tic, under­stand­ing of humanity’s philo­soph­i­cal and meta­phys­i­cal and spir­i­tu­al place in the uni­verse.

All of this is about [?] alche­my, espe­cial­ly the Jungian study of alche­my. All of this is about refin­ing the human being, refin­ing the nature of the prac­ti­tion­er. Of mak­ing per­fect the inter­nal will of the prac­ti­tion­er. This is at the core of a lot of con­tem­po­rary thought about mag­ick from the 19th cen­tu­ry to now. And this idea finds a very clear mir­ror in a lot of the ways that we talk about human aug­men­ta­tion these days. This kind of per­fectibil­i­ty, this get­ting to a place where we are this kind of pur­pose­ful­ly reflex­ive sub­ject. We’re con­stant­ly adapt­ing to our envi­ron­ment and our envi­ron­ment is adapt­ing with us, and we are in this kind of state of per­fec­tion of poten­tial. We have per­fect­ed the poten­tial of what we can come to be.

Within Faivre’s work talk­ing about Naturphilosophie, talk­ing about Western eso­teri­cism, he talks about this idea that mag­ick was seen by many as a way to kind of reverse the fall of man, [?] the very Christian ide­al of orig­i­nal sin. To take that and to reverse it to active­ly, on an indi­vid­ual lev­el, seek to undo that work and to make our souls per­fect again. But back in the mag­ick­al con­text, it becomes the respon­si­bil­i­ty of each indi­vid­ual magi­cian, the respon­si­bil­i­ty of each prac­ti­tion­er, to per­fect your soul. To find the gold from the dross, as it were.

And that mir­rors, like I said, very clear­ly this kind of indi­vid­u­al­is­tic way we tend to think about human aug­men­ta­tion these days. Even though there are many so‐called com­mu­ni­ties of grinders and bio­hack­ers out there, this idea of becom­ing what you envi­sion your­self as, this idea of per­fect­ing your vision of your­self and becom­ing who you want to be, is still this very indi­vid­u­al­is­tic mod­el of aug­men­ta­tion. It pays a lot of lip ser­vice to the idea of inte­gra­tion and mutu­al adapt­abil­i­ty with­in the ecosys­tem, but so much of that still seeks to bend the ecosys­tem to our needs and our desires, rather than inte­grat­ing us with­in the ecosys­tem and adapt­ing to the over­ar­ch­ing needs and over­ar­ch­ing desires of the thing itself.

Which mir­rors the way a lot of peo­ple talk about the dif­fer­ence between mag­ick and reli­gion. Magick is seen as impos­ing the will [inaudi­ble]. You are impos­ing your will on the spir­i­tu­al world, the nat­ur­al world. You are bend­ing it to your desires. Whereas many see reli­gion as inte­grat­ing their self or mak­ing their self sub­ject to this over­ar­ch­ing will, this over­ar­ch­ing kind of spir­i­tu­al ecosys­tem. But more recent­ly, many have seen that that line is blur­ri­er than we like to think it is. That the dif­fer­ence between invo­ca­tion and evo­ca­tion, the dif­fer­ence between call­ing a spir­it to do your will and peti­tion­ing some­thing to solve a prob­lem for you, is a mat­ter of per­spec­tive, and it’s a mat­ter of where you hap­pen to be stand­ing at a giv­en moment. It’s not as clear a divi­sion as many like to make it out to be.

Finley: Maybe just one last thing before we wrap up. We start­ed out in the last episode talk­ing about some good and bad exam­ples in pop cul­ture kind of wrestling with some of these ideas of non‐human con­scious­ness and intel­li­gence enhance­ment and all of that sort of thing. But we didn’t real­ly talk about what we would like, more specif­i­cal­ly, to see as an out­come of these types of tech­nolo­gies. So I was won­der­ing if maybe you could talk about that a lit­tle bit. What would you like to see as kind of a best‐case sce­nario for this tech­no­log­i­cal vec­tor?

Williams: Honestly, and it’s going to sound a lit­tle weird, but hon­est­ly the title of your show kind of hits home for me in that regard. The con­cept of mind­ful­ness with­in the con­text of our tech­no­log­i­cal adap­ta­tions and our aug­men­ta­tions and our progress” is, I think, the best pos­si­ble out­come, the most best‐case sce­nario that I can envi­sion for this. This idea that we come into, through the use of our tech­nol­o­gy and also through a more con­cur­rent shift in our per­spec­tive and pos­si­bly val­ues about and in rela­tion to our tech­nol­o­gy, the sense of mak­ing the changes that we make pur­pose­ful­ly, inten­tion­al­ly, mind­ful­ly. Rather than sim­ply mak­ing changes and hop­ing for the best in their out­come, or blind­ly decry­ing any poten­tial for change and say­ing, It’s all going to end in atom­ic fire.”

There’s no guar­an­tee that it ends in atom­ic fire, but there’s no guar­an­tee that it ends in hap­pi­ness and rain­bows, either. We have to, at every step of our aug­men­ta­tion, at every step of our tech­no­log­i­cal vec­tors on that path we have to ask our­selves, What are we doing, and what does the impli­ca­tions of our actions look like?” What is the ulti­mate respon­si­bil­i­ty that we will bear for what we do?

And that’s not in an admon­ish­ment kind of tone. That’s not to say, Oh, you bet­ter think about what you’re doing before you do it. Maybe then you won’t do it.” It’s to say think clear­ly about what it is that you are choos­ing. Know the respon­si­bil­i­ty that you will have to bear. And then, if it is still tru­ly impor­tant to us as a species that we con­tin­ue on this path, to do so, but with open eyes and open arms to the respon­si­bil­i­ty that we will even­tu­al­ly have to car­ry.

In the even­tu­al­i­ty that we do man­age to cre­ate a machine mind and machine con­scious­ness and that we’re aware of it… (That’s to say that maybe we’ve already done so and it’s Google and we just don’t know yet.) But in the even­tu­al­i­ty that we man­age to make one that we know we’ve made, we’re going to have to rec­og­nize that respon­si­bil­i­ty to it and respon­si­bil­i­ty of its actions falls not just on it, but on us as its cre­ators. And the way that we cre­ate it, the start­ing prin­ci­ples with which we cre­ate it, the val­ues with which we under­take its cre­ation and its edu­ca­tion will mat­ter. And to rec­og­nize that even right now, even as we are ten or fif­teen or twen­ty or fifty years out from actu­al­ly man­ag­ing that kind of inten­tion­al cre­ation of a non‐human algo­rith­mic intel­li­gence, a machine con­scious­ness, even now we need to be con­sid­er­ing what we are build­ing into those basic start­ing prin­ci­ples. What we’re build­ing into as assump­tions, as foun­da­tion­al assump­tions, the work that we are using to even­tu­al­ly get us to that point.

Ultimately that’s what I want to see come out of it. A more inten­tion­al­ly mind­ful, pur­pose­ful aware­ness of our choic­es and the con­se­quences and the poten­tial impli­ca­tions of that.

Finley: I think that’s a great place to stop. So thanks again for com­ing on and for shar­ing your wis­dom with us.

Williams: Thank you so so much for hav­ing me. This has been a real­ly real­ly great con­ver­sa­tion. I’ve enjoyed it so so much.

Finley: Thanks. Me too.

Further Reference

The Mindful Cyborgs site, where this episode's page has additional links and credits.


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.