Here are a few speculative scenarios that are currently in production. These images were rd_1 of speculation. There is a week before Crisis Fronts Research Final and will update then. I will be updating ss-em throughout the week with progress.
12.08.2009
Scenarios Rd_1
Here are a few speculative scenarios that are currently in production. These images were rd_1 of speculation. There is a week before Crisis Fronts Research Final and will update then. I will be updating ss-em throughout the week with progress.
11.07.2009
SS EM Launch
I am pleased to announce SS-EM.com which will be following the Thesis project of Erik Martinez and myself in the Crisis Fronts Degree project Studio.
11.05.2009
Counterfeit City_midreview
Here is a sample look at our current research from Crisis Fronts Degree Project studio at Pratt Institute. The entire deck is visible here.
Partner: Erik Martinez
In order to fully understand the expansive reach of counterfeit protocols we traced the lineage of a couple of examples. Below are 2 precedents that offered us insight regarding the points of deviation as well as ingress to the licit logistical infrastructures.
After looking at video games as urban incubators/simulations we decided to try and simulate the flow of goods with a some hardcoded data and protocols. A data sheet was produced from known protocols in use at active US ports. Variables such as loading time, scanning time, quantity, and logistical lineage were used to generate new data visualizations regarding slippage. This refers to the current international trade network and its susceptibility to counterfeit insertion. The following diagrams express the range of slippage as counterfeit percentage grows and the scanning time of containers is adjusted. The idea of system overload of logistical flooding has emerged as a powerful hacking method that is counter to the insertion method that has currently been explored.
While the previous diagrams are a visualization of the physical movement of goods assuming counterfeits are in the market, the following images address the ingress typologies of illicit goods. Injection and Flooding have proven to be a highly efficient set of protocols for insertion into the market.
Partner: Erik Martinez
In order to fully understand the expansive reach of counterfeit protocols we traced the lineage of a couple of examples. Below are 2 precedents that offered us insight regarding the points of deviation as well as ingress to the licit logistical infrastructures.
After looking at video games as urban incubators/simulations we decided to try and simulate the flow of goods with a some hardcoded data and protocols. A data sheet was produced from known protocols in use at active US ports. Variables such as loading time, scanning time, quantity, and logistical lineage were used to generate new data visualizations regarding slippage. This refers to the current international trade network and its susceptibility to counterfeit insertion. The following diagrams express the range of slippage as counterfeit percentage grows and the scanning time of containers is adjusted. The idea of system overload of logistical flooding has emerged as a powerful hacking method that is counter to the insertion method that has currently been explored.
While the previous diagrams are a visualization of the physical movement of goods assuming counterfeits are in the market, the following images address the ingress typologies of illicit goods. Injection and Flooding have proven to be a highly efficient set of protocols for insertion into the market.
11.01.2009
Midterm sprint
alright the image above was around 9pm...it is now 7am and there is a bypass loop in (grey curves on top) and a few other parametric things thrown in there. Now for churning out 50 of these.
Screen shots of diagramming technique using Grasshopper for Rhino4. Vbscript nodes in Grasshopper are reading excel sheets and are producing a parametric diagram. More to come...
The Inability to Disassociate
On the route to equality one must fundamentally choose to engage the individual or community as the lens through which to engage justice. While the individual may offer a unique position regarding rights and the path to equality, we naturally associate ourselves with groups in order to position ourselves among other individuals and establish difference. In an attempt to do so we find that the community clusters individuals with priorities pertaining to that which satisfies each person. While this process inherently excludes, this necessarily occurs because communities form based on the action of inclusion.
The definition of a community sounds a bit like how a utilitarian collapses society and treats it as a whole or as if it were a single person. This may be true, but the utilitarian fails to respect the diversity of properties responsible for distinctness. The Egalitarian also may in fact be fine with creating a level playing field, posing that one’s inheritance at birth posses no weight in the opportunity for equality. Either way, there is a fine line drawn that generates through exclusion either blinding inequality or a stripping of natural lineage.
Libertarianism offers a unique position for discussing ownership; falling somewhere between utilitarian and egalitarian with regard to the possession of morally acceptable acquisitions. The Entitlement Theory addresses the nature of ownership and how one comes to the state of owning something. The interesting notion within this theory is the moral obligation that is attached to the transfer of holdings. While there may in fact be a flow of ownership pertaining to a physical entity that would be just or moral, the Entitlement Theory is necessarily dependent on the notion that distribution is just if everyone is in fact entitled to the holdings they posses. The history of an individual leads to a virtuosity and coupled with basic needs produces a lineage or distribution of a physical entity. This being the case; how does one accurately take into account and quantify the history of a person’s just and unjust doings?
“The fact that a thief’s victims voluntarily could have presented him with gifts does not entitle the thief to his ill-gotten gains.”
Robert Nozick, Distributive Justice
Perhaps the thief acquired the holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer from the victim who obtained the holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition, but is it just that the thief, whose past is riddled with immorality, be presented with a gift that could have gone to an individual who actually deserved it? This may be a clear case, but there are scenarios that may begin to uncover more deeply rooted problems. The liberal would claim that life is more likely to go better if led from the inside. This is seemingly true; that a virtuous individual given the means to an end may prosper, but what about the individual who either cannot or chooses not to provide for themselves. In order to quantify the ability of an individual to function alone would require a deterministic look at an outcome.
“I am the possessor of reason and will; I conceive ends and I desire to pursue them; but if I am prevented from attaining them I no longer feel master of the situation.”
Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty
A consequentialist position necessarily requires that we understand what actions led to a current understanding. Not only is this flawed with regard to a temporal understanding, but also with regard to the trajectory of judgment. Is it conceivably possible to understand the lineage of every individual in totality, and for that matter the future? Who is deemed worthy to pass such judgment, and what are the protocols for judgment? A similar set of questions should be asked to the Egalitarian as they attempt to produce equality among peoples. In what ways are you creating equality, and who does the difference principal benefit? An acceptable answer to this question would require a fixed position of variables responsible for equality. Is such a condition obtainable? If we suspend this question and project forward, any response would be an attempt to address the goal for a decent life. This is the moment at which the libertarian and the egalitarian converge; both striving to create a moment where the individual is in a position to produce for oneself. This is an attempt to create a scenario for an individual that would allow them to live autonomously.
“Can we view ourselves as independent selves, independent in the sense that our identity is never tied to our aims and attachments?”
Michael Sandel, The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self
I don’t believe that we are capable of perceiving ourselves separate through an unalterable lens that is fundamentally rooted in collectivity. To fully be free of constitutive attachments would entail the absence of character and morality. One of the more logical examples may be the inability to detach from one’s family. You fundamentally obtain your character as a result of you participation in the collective nature of family, but perhaps this example is too easily assumed.
Any individual reading this would necessarily know how to read and most likely learned to read from school. That same school likely taught you other things and associated you with other students. You also either knowingly or unknowingly began to understand the hierarchies inherent to a school system. Your understanding and ability to explain situations differently is partially rooted in the knowledge obtained from this school. This entails that a product of an institution would necessarily understand things because of that institution. An individual may be aware to the biasness of this lens and attempt to rid oneself of it, but in order to shed this singular view, one would nessecarily need to call on the knowledge and formulated opinions obtained from the participation in this collective. The process of calling on experience exemplifies the inseparable nature of knowledge and its source.
The inability to disassociate experience and source leads to a contextual based understanding. Opposing this context based knowledge would mean that there is instead a universal understanding that has the ability to transcend context. The libertarian believes this to be true; there would in fact need to be a set of principals responsible for the deployment of justice that would not differ from one context to another.
“Justice is a human construction, and it is doubtful that it can be made in only one way.”
Michael Walzer, Complex Inequality
As we have constructed this ideology; it would be problematic to negate cultural factors when formulating effective social criticisms. This means we need to reformate the way we attempt to pinpoint justice. After all, the Libertarian requires that the justice of the distribution of rights is based on the past. The fundamental flaw of this is the inability to trace justice. Not only are we unable to trace justice back in time, but without a fundamental knowledge of what justice entails we are unable to locate it in the present. This becomes cyclical and perpetuates a constant flux. Since this is true, it would make sense that cultural factors have in fact played a part in the selection of justice throughout time. Even when individuals debate over what is just, they are inseparable from the experiences that have led them to this understanding, thus a contextual based notion of justice emerges. Perhaps we have ignored this and have sabotaged our own journey in search of justice.
“We are living in a time when the largest, most important question is how to live with diversity.”
Charles Taylor, Rethinking Secularism at The Cooper Union 10/22/09
Since cultural factors are needed in order to generate a social criticism that resonates with a particular people, this means that a universally acceptable notion of human rights has in fact not be reached. This goes to say that the community should play a greater role in developing the principals of justice. If the goal of a community were to promote benevolence and solidarity amongst the individuals, then perhaps an overlapping consensus could be reached. Taylor poses that a cross cultural dialogue could position communities in such a way that difference may not be recognizable with regard to conception of justice. A liberal may object based on the need to define what is in fact cultural, knowing that they will not stray away from what they believe to be non-cultural. The communitarian would claim that with time and continued cross cultural conversation, localized truth would be identified and understood to be a cultural byproduct. If we are to remain segregated and mute then the individual’s understanding of what is good will undoubtedly fail according to our actual collective moral experience.
The definition of a community sounds a bit like how a utilitarian collapses society and treats it as a whole or as if it were a single person. This may be true, but the utilitarian fails to respect the diversity of properties responsible for distinctness. The Egalitarian also may in fact be fine with creating a level playing field, posing that one’s inheritance at birth posses no weight in the opportunity for equality. Either way, there is a fine line drawn that generates through exclusion either blinding inequality or a stripping of natural lineage.
Libertarianism offers a unique position for discussing ownership; falling somewhere between utilitarian and egalitarian with regard to the possession of morally acceptable acquisitions. The Entitlement Theory addresses the nature of ownership and how one comes to the state of owning something. The interesting notion within this theory is the moral obligation that is attached to the transfer of holdings. While there may in fact be a flow of ownership pertaining to a physical entity that would be just or moral, the Entitlement Theory is necessarily dependent on the notion that distribution is just if everyone is in fact entitled to the holdings they posses. The history of an individual leads to a virtuosity and coupled with basic needs produces a lineage or distribution of a physical entity. This being the case; how does one accurately take into account and quantify the history of a person’s just and unjust doings?
“The fact that a thief’s victims voluntarily could have presented him with gifts does not entitle the thief to his ill-gotten gains.”
Robert Nozick, Distributive Justice
Perhaps the thief acquired the holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer from the victim who obtained the holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition, but is it just that the thief, whose past is riddled with immorality, be presented with a gift that could have gone to an individual who actually deserved it? This may be a clear case, but there are scenarios that may begin to uncover more deeply rooted problems. The liberal would claim that life is more likely to go better if led from the inside. This is seemingly true; that a virtuous individual given the means to an end may prosper, but what about the individual who either cannot or chooses not to provide for themselves. In order to quantify the ability of an individual to function alone would require a deterministic look at an outcome.
“I am the possessor of reason and will; I conceive ends and I desire to pursue them; but if I am prevented from attaining them I no longer feel master of the situation.”
Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty
A consequentialist position necessarily requires that we understand what actions led to a current understanding. Not only is this flawed with regard to a temporal understanding, but also with regard to the trajectory of judgment. Is it conceivably possible to understand the lineage of every individual in totality, and for that matter the future? Who is deemed worthy to pass such judgment, and what are the protocols for judgment? A similar set of questions should be asked to the Egalitarian as they attempt to produce equality among peoples. In what ways are you creating equality, and who does the difference principal benefit? An acceptable answer to this question would require a fixed position of variables responsible for equality. Is such a condition obtainable? If we suspend this question and project forward, any response would be an attempt to address the goal for a decent life. This is the moment at which the libertarian and the egalitarian converge; both striving to create a moment where the individual is in a position to produce for oneself. This is an attempt to create a scenario for an individual that would allow them to live autonomously.
“Can we view ourselves as independent selves, independent in the sense that our identity is never tied to our aims and attachments?”
Michael Sandel, The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self
I don’t believe that we are capable of perceiving ourselves separate through an unalterable lens that is fundamentally rooted in collectivity. To fully be free of constitutive attachments would entail the absence of character and morality. One of the more logical examples may be the inability to detach from one’s family. You fundamentally obtain your character as a result of you participation in the collective nature of family, but perhaps this example is too easily assumed.
Any individual reading this would necessarily know how to read and most likely learned to read from school. That same school likely taught you other things and associated you with other students. You also either knowingly or unknowingly began to understand the hierarchies inherent to a school system. Your understanding and ability to explain situations differently is partially rooted in the knowledge obtained from this school. This entails that a product of an institution would necessarily understand things because of that institution. An individual may be aware to the biasness of this lens and attempt to rid oneself of it, but in order to shed this singular view, one would nessecarily need to call on the knowledge and formulated opinions obtained from the participation in this collective. The process of calling on experience exemplifies the inseparable nature of knowledge and its source.
The inability to disassociate experience and source leads to a contextual based understanding. Opposing this context based knowledge would mean that there is instead a universal understanding that has the ability to transcend context. The libertarian believes this to be true; there would in fact need to be a set of principals responsible for the deployment of justice that would not differ from one context to another.
“Justice is a human construction, and it is doubtful that it can be made in only one way.”
Michael Walzer, Complex Inequality
As we have constructed this ideology; it would be problematic to negate cultural factors when formulating effective social criticisms. This means we need to reformate the way we attempt to pinpoint justice. After all, the Libertarian requires that the justice of the distribution of rights is based on the past. The fundamental flaw of this is the inability to trace justice. Not only are we unable to trace justice back in time, but without a fundamental knowledge of what justice entails we are unable to locate it in the present. This becomes cyclical and perpetuates a constant flux. Since this is true, it would make sense that cultural factors have in fact played a part in the selection of justice throughout time. Even when individuals debate over what is just, they are inseparable from the experiences that have led them to this understanding, thus a contextual based notion of justice emerges. Perhaps we have ignored this and have sabotaged our own journey in search of justice.
“We are living in a time when the largest, most important question is how to live with diversity.”
Charles Taylor, Rethinking Secularism at The Cooper Union 10/22/09
Since cultural factors are needed in order to generate a social criticism that resonates with a particular people, this means that a universally acceptable notion of human rights has in fact not be reached. This goes to say that the community should play a greater role in developing the principals of justice. If the goal of a community were to promote benevolence and solidarity amongst the individuals, then perhaps an overlapping consensus could be reached. Taylor poses that a cross cultural dialogue could position communities in such a way that difference may not be recognizable with regard to conception of justice. A liberal may object based on the need to define what is in fact cultural, knowing that they will not stray away from what they believe to be non-cultural. The communitarian would claim that with time and continued cross cultural conversation, localized truth would be identified and understood to be a cultural byproduct. If we are to remain segregated and mute then the individual’s understanding of what is good will undoubtedly fail according to our actual collective moral experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
