PROLOGUE — Symbols and Models

We live in a ruling structure whose very existence is arbitrary, whose appearance is mirage-like, whose machinations are privatized, and whose very motivations are questionable. In all of these considerations, there are the numerous contradictions which the ruling structure delivers to us on a regular basis. Our lives are filled with the contradictory expectations of the ruling structure. But the very contradictions of our experience in these regards provide us with the best kind of evidence. Those strenuous exertions and other bureaucratic machinations are working to keep us precisely where we are in the social mold. Because of all these distances, these divorcements, these alienations, these contradictions, these perception gaps, we find reason for designing accurate models which will enable better understanding our dilemma. Think of the models as maps which will grant us aid in escaping the mazeworks of delusion. In these matters, ours is a philosophic exercise having a specific purpose.

To summarize, we must say that, in the absence of direct perception there can be no accurate and no exact knowledge. Observers caught in this quandary must rely on interpolations and interpretations of what they perceive is actually occurring in their lives. This condition so suffuses world power structures that analysts are forced to rely completely on their own interpolations and interpretations for clarified understanding of events and the significance of certain powerful movements. And here is precisely where contaminating influences can produce skewed interpretations. For if we yield to our suspicions, so powerfully provoked by the alienating machinations of social structure, then we fall into a reliance on symbol and not on fact. We acquire facts at a certain level in our research process. After that however, we rely on interpolations and interpretations; the materials from which accurate models of the superstructure are fabricated,

In the absence then of direct perception, of direct knowledge, of direct access, one must construct models in order to gain some measure of survivalistic understanding. To know is to have the ability to better survive. To know is the power to exert force for change. To know is the ability to direct changing influences with precision into the social structure. Other than this kind of knowledge, we can neither know our own positions, the power and threat of technology, or the manner in which ruling structures will be changed by technology. As concerns the dynamic tension into which we have been thrown, whether we cannot directly see and whether will not be permitted to see, makes no real difference. We feel and respond. With every impact on our lives, set by decrees originating in those structures, we are informed of significant movements. Like riding a tiger. One does not need to anatomy before recogiuzing how the beast responds to stimuli. Survival in such a circumstance is the rationale for tenaciously holding to one’s objectives and learning how to steer the tiger.

Models are the similacne of the large systems and machinations which we cannot directly see. When we lack complete and direct perception, models are the maps to guide our vision and our understanding. Furthermore, accurate models are not the result of extending thought into symbolic realms; a process which we are cautioned not to engage. Some condemn and eliminate the model making process because of this potential for error and delusion. This is especially true when analysts examine the seemingly complex structures of bureaucracies and governments, The criticism derives from the notion that complexity introduces random features, phantom structures, the chance coherence from otherwise chaotic activity. There are those who refuse to accept what clearly presents itself as order, refusing to endorse the models which those ordered patterns reveal. Others refuse to accept the realities which they consider to be phantoms, the result of ephemeral orders.

Indeed, many believe that models concerning world structure and world rulerships are derived as a result of micropatterns in an otherwise chaotic system. Many say that these micropatterns are misperceived as order by the naive. If so, then the connectivity among such micropatterns is indeed extraordinary, a result of equally random coherence. We cannot accept, endorse, or proliferate that self-deceptive claim which insists that subjective observations are projections, the result of externalized desires and other misperceptions. In this very schema, much of what actually occurs in the world structure is cloaked.

In the absence of abundant technical bibliographies, and without familiarity in the pertinent themes taught in these bibliographies, one cannot indeed forge the formidable barriers which prevent delusional reliance on symbols rather than facts. Nonetheless, accurate models can be drawn by observing ruling world structures simply because the ambitions and movements within those structures are directed by humans, and not by demigods. Models can sometimes predict an outcome, when information leaks permit. One can also add refined features which derive from reliable information leaks. One balances these “leaked’ pieces of information against a wide framework of experience and observation, deriving and perfecting a model on which to make tests. One tests a model to judge its accuracy, modifying its features to match in some more accurate way what reality is revealing. In this way, models are refined until they most nearly match the unknown reality.

The development of models is the necessary process when confronting an unknown, whether natural or social. Experience and factual bases are materials from which reliable model making finds its start. The simplicity of directives, of commands, of demands, and indeed of all the machinations so strenuously exercised in the channels where power flows are simple human responses. These preclude all random coherence effects, and permit the designing of truly simple models which so accurately describe the behaviors which we observe in the world that they cannot be erroneous. The models which we will present function well on several different concern levels with precision. They also hold up with reasonably sharp precision when different event scenarios are applied to them. Thus, the comprehension of large bureaucratic complexities can be primitively modelled on the basis of personal experiences. One cannot always predict, but one can interpret.