I am struck by an apparent conflict. On one hand, my understanding (which is not sophisticated) of Post-Modernism is closely aligned with a general view which holds that much of the apparent progress of science, technology, societal organization, etc. consists of mere narratives or at least is subject to one's choice of values. In other words I understand that Post-Modernism aligns to the idea that objective progress is not in the offing or at least, has not yet been found (or maybe just that we cannot conclude that it has been found).
Along those lines, maybe, sure, life is better for some people than others, but this is simply zero-sum exploitation by the lucky over the unlucky (even if this exploitation is unconscious and is simply by their participating in the larger system)... that sort of thing. Now, of course there is some of that sort of phenomenon really happening in society. The noteworthy thing about the general view I am trying to articulate is that it holds that this zero sum gamesmanship is all that there is going on and there is no rising tide for the average.
On the other hand, a coder will face a problem (more often a set of problems, but one will suffice). They will either solve that problem leading to the possibility of producing an artifact (program) with the desired properties or not. The existence of that artifact ostensibly had to do with some goal that programmer (or their employer) had in mind, thus its presence, once created, is progress toward that goal.
Was that a worthy goal? Certainly this whole claim that progress is made by coders can be undermined by some view that all realistically achievable goals have balanced positive and negative consequences, and thus, if that view is true, their achievement leads to zero total progress from some global perspective. Lets leave that aside for the time being.
So, does the reconciliation lie in my misunderstanding of Post-Modernism (or in some inhomogeneity within Post-Modernism that leaves room for views that do not attack the idea of objective progress)? I believe that the two views I have tried to articulate to must not be in conflict within you (author) given that, to some degree you embody both perspectives, so I am curious about your take on that apparent conflict.
To engage with the content of your post... I am curious a little bit about your triad (is that the right spelling... anyway, the architect, hacker, and program). With respect to what do these names apply? It seems that "The Architect" is primarily about the program (architects the program). "The Hacker" is primarily about some aspect of the larger environment (they are not hacking the program, but are using the program to affect some other party). "The Program" too seems to be about some aspect of the greater environment even when adopting either of the hacker or architect roles (many of the concerns about big tech right now can be seen as algorithms hacking or architecting institutions or people).
Is that asymmetry with regard to what the architect influences vs. what the hacker and the program influence of any interest or use to you?
I think you're coming at this as a philosopher, looking to find validation of your philosophy ideas. The hello world meme (or whatever you want to call it) has more relevance and utility than you're giving it credit for. About half-way through, when you leave behind the dev culture topic, and start focusing solely on philosophy, you lost me. I read a lot of self help, only dabble in more hands-on philosophy, so this was too academic for my taste or education. I like where you're going with this, maybe I am just not quite the right audience for it.
Hey! Just stumbled upon this and I gotta say I’m impressed! It’s *just* the right amount of explanation behind the thinkers to be interesting. Are you thinking of resuming this? Or are you posting some where else?
I am struck by an apparent conflict. On one hand, my understanding (which is not sophisticated) of Post-Modernism is closely aligned with a general view which holds that much of the apparent progress of science, technology, societal organization, etc. consists of mere narratives or at least is subject to one's choice of values. In other words I understand that Post-Modernism aligns to the idea that objective progress is not in the offing or at least, has not yet been found (or maybe just that we cannot conclude that it has been found).
Along those lines, maybe, sure, life is better for some people than others, but this is simply zero-sum exploitation by the lucky over the unlucky (even if this exploitation is unconscious and is simply by their participating in the larger system)... that sort of thing. Now, of course there is some of that sort of phenomenon really happening in society. The noteworthy thing about the general view I am trying to articulate is that it holds that this zero sum gamesmanship is all that there is going on and there is no rising tide for the average.
On the other hand, a coder will face a problem (more often a set of problems, but one will suffice). They will either solve that problem leading to the possibility of producing an artifact (program) with the desired properties or not. The existence of that artifact ostensibly had to do with some goal that programmer (or their employer) had in mind, thus its presence, once created, is progress toward that goal.
Was that a worthy goal? Certainly this whole claim that progress is made by coders can be undermined by some view that all realistically achievable goals have balanced positive and negative consequences, and thus, if that view is true, their achievement leads to zero total progress from some global perspective. Lets leave that aside for the time being.
So, does the reconciliation lie in my misunderstanding of Post-Modernism (or in some inhomogeneity within Post-Modernism that leaves room for views that do not attack the idea of objective progress)? I believe that the two views I have tried to articulate to must not be in conflict within you (author) given that, to some degree you embody both perspectives, so I am curious about your take on that apparent conflict.
To engage with the content of your post... I am curious a little bit about your triad (is that the right spelling... anyway, the architect, hacker, and program). With respect to what do these names apply? It seems that "The Architect" is primarily about the program (architects the program). "The Hacker" is primarily about some aspect of the larger environment (they are not hacking the program, but are using the program to affect some other party). "The Program" too seems to be about some aspect of the greater environment even when adopting either of the hacker or architect roles (many of the concerns about big tech right now can be seen as algorithms hacking or architecting institutions or people).
Is that asymmetry with regard to what the architect influences vs. what the hacker and the program influence of any interest or use to you?
I think you're coming at this as a philosopher, looking to find validation of your philosophy ideas. The hello world meme (or whatever you want to call it) has more relevance and utility than you're giving it credit for. About half-way through, when you leave behind the dev culture topic, and start focusing solely on philosophy, you lost me. I read a lot of self help, only dabble in more hands-on philosophy, so this was too academic for my taste or education. I like where you're going with this, maybe I am just not quite the right audience for it.
Hey! Just stumbled upon this and I gotta say I’m impressed! It’s *just* the right amount of explanation behind the thinkers to be interesting. Are you thinking of resuming this? Or are you posting some where else?