The technological imagination from the early Romanticism through the historical Avant-Gardes to the Classical Space Age and beyond
quinta-feira, 24 de novembro de 2011
NOVA - The Fabric of Cosmos: What is Space? by Brian Greene PBS Airdate: November 2, 2011
Surprising clues indicate that space is very much ‘something’ and not ‘nothing’.
Space. It separates you from me, one galaxy from the next, and atoms from one another. It is everywhere in the universe. But to most of us, space is nothing, an empty void. Well, it turns out space is not what it seems. From the passenger seat of a New York cab driving near the speed of light, to a pool hall where billiard tables do fantastical things, Brian Greene reveals space as a dynamic fabric that can stretch, twist, warp, and ripple under the influence of gravity. Stranger still is a newly discovered ingredient of space that actually makes up 70 percent of the universe. Physicists call it dark energy, because while they know it’s out there, driving space to expand ever more quickly, they have no idea what it is.
Probing space on the smallest scales only makes the mysteries multiply. Down there, things are going on that physicists today can barely fathom—forces powerful enough to generate whole universes. To top it off, some of the strangest places in space, black holes, have led scientists to propose that like the hologram on your credit card, space may just be a projection of a deeper two-dimensional reality taking place on a distant surface that surrounds us. Space, far from being empty, is filled with some of the deepest mysteries of our time
THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS: WHAT IS SPACE?
PBS Airdate: November 2, 2011
BRIAN GREENE (Columbia University): We think of our world as filled with stuff, like buildings and cars, buses and people. And nowhere does that seem more apparent than in a crowded city like New York.
Yet all around the stuff that makes up our everyday world is something just as important but far more mysterious: the space in which all this stuff exists.
To get a feel for what I'm talking about, let's stop for a moment and imagine. What if you took all this stuff away? I mean all of it: the people, the cars and buildings. And not just the stuff here on Earth, but the earth itself; what if you took away all the planets, stars and galaxies? And not just the big stuff, but tiny things down to the very last atoms of gas and dust; what if you took it all away? What would be left?
Most of us would say "nothing." And we'd be right. But strangely, we'd also be wrong. What's left is empty space. And as it turns out, empty space is not nothing. It's something, something with hidden characteristics as real as all the stuff in our everyday lives.
In fact, space is so real it can bend; space can twist, and it can ripple; so real that empty space itself helps shape everything in the world around us and forms the very fabric of the cosmos.
CRAIG HOGAN (University of Chicago): You can't understand anything about the world unless you understand space, because that's the world: the world's space with stuff in it.
S. JAMES GATES, JR. (University of Maryland): We're not usually very conscious of space. But then again, I tell people, fish are probably not conscious of water either, and they're in it all the time.
JOSEPH LYKKEN (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory): Space is not really nothing; it actually has a lot going on inside.
BRIAN GREENE: When most of us picture space, we think of outer space, a place that's far, far away.
But space is actually everywhere. You could say it's the most abundant thing in the universe. Even the tiniest of things, like atoms, the basic ingredient in you and me and everything else we see in the world around us, even they are almost entirely empty space.
In fact, if you removed all the space inside all the atoms making up the stone, glass and steel of the Empire State Building, you'd be left with a little lump, about the size of a grain of rice but weighing hundreds of millions of pounds. The rest is only empty space.
But what exactly is space? I can show you a picture of Spain, of Napoleon, of my uncle Harold, but space, it, looks like this: nothing.
So how do you make sense of something that looks like nothing?
LEONARD SUSSKIND (Stanford University): Why is there space rather than no space? Why is space three-dimensional? Why is space big? We have a lot of room to move around in; how come it's not tiny? We have no consensus about these things.
ALEX FILIPPENKO (University of California, Berkeley): What is space? We actually still don't really know.
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: It is one of the deepest mysteries in physics.
BRIAN GREENE: Fortunately, we're not completely in the dark. We've been gathering clues about space for centuries, some of the earliest came from thinking about how objects move through space.
To get a feel for this, take a look at that skater. As she glides across the rink, she's moving in relation everything around her, like the ice. And when she goes into a spin, not only can she see that she's spinning, she can also feel it, because as she spins, she feels her arms pulled outward.
But now, let's imagine that you could take away all the stuff around her, from the rink to the most distant galaxies, so the only thing left is the skater spinning in completely empty space.
If the skater still feels her arms pulled outward, she'll know she's spinning. But if empty space is nothing, what is she spinning in relation to?
Imagine you're that skater. When you look out, you don't see anything. It's just uniform, still blackness all around you, and yet, your arms are being pulled outwards. So you say to yourself, "What could I be spinning with respect to? Is there something out there I'm not seeing?"
Trying to answer questions like these, scientists came up with a bold new picture of space. And the key was to make something out of nothing.
When you go to the theater, you watch the actors, the scenery, the story.
(As Benedick, Much Ado About Nothing/Production company or theater or File Footage):
Benedick: Lady Beatrice, thou hast wept this whole while.
Beatrice: Yea. And I will weep a while longer.
Benedick: I do confess that I love nothing in the world so well as thee. I protest I love thee.
Beatrice: Well, then God forgive me!
BRIAN GREENE: But there's something important here that you won't find mentioned in the Playbill. Something we hardly ever notice: the stage. It's an absolutely vital part of the show, and yet most of us, we don't even give it a second thought. But Isaac Newton, he did.
This is how the father of modern science pictured space: as an empty stage. To Newton, space was the framework for everything that happens in the cosmos, the arena within which the drama of the universe plays out.
And Newton's stage was passive: absolute, eternal and unchanging. The action couldn't affect the stage, and the stage couldn't affect the action.
By picturing space in this way, Newton was able to describe the world as no one had ever done before. His unchanging stage allowed him to understand almost all motion we can see around us, yielding laws that can predict everything from the way apples fall from trees to the path the earth takes around the sun.
These laws worked so well that we still use them for the things that we do today, from launching satellites to landing airplanes.
And the laws all hinge on one radical idea: space is real. Even though you can't see it, or smell it or touch it, space is enough of a real, physical thing to provide a benchmark for certain kinds of motion. Like that skater: Newton would say that when she spins, her arms splay out because she is spinning with respect to something, and that something is space itself.
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: Philosophers had been debating the nature of space for a very long time. What Newton does is change the terms of the debate, and with that, essentially, modern science gets born.
BRIAN GREENE: Newton's stage was a huge hit. It enjoyed the limelight for over 200 years. But in the early decades of the 20th century, a new set of ideas emerged that shook the stage to its very foundations, ideas put forward by a young clerk, working in a Swiss patent office. His name? Albert Einstein.
Einstein grew up in the late 1800s, at the dawn of the age of electricity. Electric power was lighting up cities, giving rise to all kinds of technologies Newton could never have imagined.
All of these developments tapped into something that had captivated Einstein since he was a child: light. Not light bulbs and street lamps, but the very nature of light, itself. And it was his fascination with one particularly weird feature of light, its speed, that would lead Einstein to overturn Newton's picture of space.
To see how, let's take a ride.
Right now, we're traveling at about 20 miles per hour.
To go faster, all the driver needs to do is step on the gas, and the cab's speed changes. Now, you can feel that change, but you can also see it on the cab's speedometer, or one of those radar speed signs.
Okay, you can slow it down now.
But now imagine that instead of measuring the speed of the cab, you have a radar sign that measures the speed of the light coming off its headlights. That sign would measure the light traveling at an astounding 671,000,000 miles an hour.
Now, when the cab starts moving, you'd think that the speed of the light would increase by the same amount as the car. After all, you'd think that the moving cab would give the light an extra push.
But surprisingly, that's not what happens.
Our radar sign, or any measurement of light's speed, will always detect light traveling at 671,000,000 miles per hour, whether the cab is moving or not. But how could this be? How could all measurements of light's speed always come out the same?
JANNA LEVIN (Barnard College/Columbia University): If you're running at a wall, it's coming at you faster than if you're standing still with respect to that wall. But that's not true with light. The speed of light is the same for everybody. That's really extraordinary.
BRIAN GREENE: So, here's how Einstein made sense of this extraordinary puzzle: knowing that speed is just a measure of the space that something travels over time, Einstein proposed a truly stunning idea: that space and time could work together, constantly adjusting by exactly the right amount, so that no matter how fast you might be moving when you measure the speed of light, it always comes out to be 671,000,000 miles per hour.
JANNA LEVIN: To respect that absolute quality about light, time had to cease to be absolute. Space had to cease to be absolute. And those two had to become relative in such a way that they slosh between each other.
BRIAN GREENE: If space and time being flexible sounds unfamiliar, it's only because we don't move fast enough in everyday life to see it in action. But if this cab could move near the speed of light, the effects would no longer be hidden.
For example, if you were on a street corner as I went by close to the speed of light, you'd see space adjusting, so my cab, it would appear just inches long, and you'd also hear my watch ticking off time very slowly.
But from my perspective inside the cab, my watch would be ticking normally.
But from my perspective, inside the cab, my watch would be ticking normally and space, in here, would appear as it always does.
But when I look outside the cab, I'd see space wildly adjusting, All to keep the speed of light constant.
So, with Einstein, time and space are no longer rigid and absolute. Instead, they meld together with motion, forming a single entity that came to be called "spacetime."
EDWARD "ROCKY" KOLB (University of Chicago): I think, as we live our life every day, we live with a Newtonian picture of space and time. It's something that we are comfortable with. But Einstein was able to make reason conquer sense. That really was the genius of Einstein.
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: This notion that space and time are a unity, to me, is one of the greatest insights that has ever occurred in science. It's so counterintuitive to everything we've ever experienced as human beings.
BRIAN GREENE: And in the hands of Albert Einstein, this new picture of space would solve a deep mystery having to do with the most familiar force in the cosmos: gravity.
Newton knew that gravity is a force that attracts objects to each other. And his laws predicted the strength of this force with fantastic precision. But how does gravity actually work? How does the earth pull on the moon across hundreds of thousands of miles of empty space? They behave as if they are connected by some kind of invisible rope, but everyone knew that wasn't true, and Newton's laws provided no explanation.
ALEX FILIPPENKO: Einstein found that no Band-Aid patches would fix Newtonian gravity. He had to invent the mechanism for it; he had to understand it.
BRIAN GREENE: After puzzling over this problem for more than 10 years, Einstein reached a startling conclusion: the secret to gravity lay in the nature of spacetime. It was even more flexible than he had previously realized. It could stretch, like an actual fabric. This was a truly radical break from Newton.
Think of this table as spacetime, and think of these balls as objects in space. Now, if spacetime were nice and flat, like the surface of this table, objects would travel in straight lines. But if space is like a fabric that can stretch and bend…? Well, this may seem a little strange, but watch what happens if I put something heavy on the stretchy spacetime fabric.
Now if I take my shot again, the ball travels along an indentation in the fabric that the heavier object creates.
And this, Einstein realized, is how gravity actually works. It's the warping of spacetime caused by the objects within it. In other words: gravity is the shape of spacetime itself. The moon is kept in orbit, not because it's pulled to the earth by some mysterious force, but rather because it rolls along a curve in the spacetime fabric that the earth creates.
LEONARD SUSSKIND: With Einstein, space became not only real, but flexible. So suddenly space had properties, suddenly space had curvature. Suddenly space had a flexible kind of geometry, almost like a rubber sheet.
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: It opens up a whole new way of thinking about reality that describes the entire universe. Einstein becomes Einstein, because of that observation.
BRIAN GREENE: Where Newton saw space as passive, Einstein saw it as dynamic: it's interwoven with time, and it dictates how things move. So, after Einstein, space can no longer be thought of as a static stage. It's an actor, and it plays a leading role in the cosmic drama.
Now, it's one thing to think of space as dynamic, active and flexible, like a fabric. But is it really? Is this just a metaphor? Or does it actually describe what space is?
Well, Einstein's theory predicts that one way to find out would be to take a little journey to the edge of a black hole.
Black holes are collapsed stars, massive objects crushed to a fraction of their original size. Gravity around them is so strong that, according to Einstein's math, a spinning black hole can literally drag space along with it, twisting it like an actual piece of cloth.
The nearest black hole is trillions of miles away, making it a challenge to test this prediction.
But in the late 1950s, a physicist named Leonard Schiff began searching for a way to test Einstein's ideas about space, much closer to home. Schiff was inspired by something we usually think of as a child's toy: a gyroscope.
He thought that if space really twists like a fabric, a gyroscope might allow him to detect it.
It was a strange idea, and he chose a strange place to share it with the world: the faculty swimming pool at Stanford. Here, in 1959, Schiff met with two colleagues, William Fairbank and Bob Cannon. He was excited about an ad he had seen for a high-tech gyroscope. Though it looked different, it basically worked the same as the child's toy. Then and there, the three decided to launch a device like this into orbit around the earth.
Normally, a gyroscope's axis points in a fixed direction. But if Earth is actually dragging space, then the gyroscope's axis would be dragged along with it, shifting its orientation in a way that could be measured.
It was a brilliantly simple plan. There was just one problem: Einstein's theories predict that the earth's rotation twists space by only a tiny amount, an amount so small, it would be like trying to measure the height of a penny from 62 miles away.
The team spent more than two years trying to figure out how to make such a precise measurement. They finally devised a plan to attach four freely-floating gyroscopes to a telescope aimed at a distant star. If space twists, then, over time, the gyroscopes would no longer point at the star, since they'd get caught up in the swirl of space.
And in 1962, they applied to NASA for a grant, requesting around a million dollars for what would come to be called "Gravity Probe B."
Members of the team originally thought the project would take about three years. They were just a little optimistic.
With an ever-growing team, Gravity Probe B became one of the longest-running experiments in history. Decade after decade was spent trying to realize the original vision, which meant launching a telescope into space and building gyroscopes that were among the smoothest objects ever created.
BRAD PARKINSON (Stanford University): The technology is just frightening. It was like the carrot on the front of the mule. It was like, it was always five to ten years away when we could do this. And it was five to ten years away for about 35 years.
BRIAN GREENE: Consuming more than four decades and $750,000,000 dollars, the project was nearly cancelled by NASA nine times. Finally, in April of 2004, the team gathered to witness the launch. Of the three men who sat by the pool back in 1959, only one was alive to see it.
ROBERT CANNNON (Stanford University): And there we were watching. It's a terribly exciting moment in your life, just a thrilling experience. It was flawless. Ten thousand things did not go wrong.
BRIAN GREENE: For over a year, Gravity Probe B orbited the earth, while the team nervously monitored its every move, trying to see if the earth would actually twist space.
Finally, the data began to trickle in, and there was a problem: the gyroscopes were experiencing a tiny, unexpected wobble, and to clean up the data would cost millions.
With funds running out, it looked like nearly half a century of work was about to go down the drain.
Then, at almost the last possible moment, two sources of additional funding emerged: the son of original team leader William Fairbank, who made a private donation; and Turki al-Saud, a member of the Saudi royal family with a degree in aeronautics from Stanford, who arranged for a large grant.
Over the next two years, the problem with the data was solved, revealing that the axes of the gyroscopes shifted by almost exactly the amount predicted by Einstein's equations.
BRAD PARKINSON: I think it's the first time that you could actually see Einstein's effect, his drift, with a naked eye.
BRIAN GREENE: This experiment provides the most direct evidence ever found that space is something real, a physical entity, like a fabric. After all, if space were nothing, there would nothing to twist.
But at the same time that Albert Einstein was investigating space on the largest of scales, another band of physicists was probing the universe on extremely tiny scales. And there, they found a completely uncharted realm, where, Einstein's picture of space…? It was nowhere to be found.
To see what I'm talking about, imagine you could shrink billions of times smaller than your current size. This is the realm of atoms and subatomic particles, the fundamental building blocks of everything we can see.
And when you get down to this size, the world plays by a wildly different set of rules, called "quantum mechanics." According to these rules, even if you try to remove every last atom and particle, you'd find that empty space is still far from empty.
In fact, it's teeming with activity: particles are constantly popping in and out of existence. They erupt out of nothingness, quickly annihilate each other and disappear.
LEONARD SUSSKIND: In quantum mechanics, empty space is not that empty. It's full of fluctuating fields, full of all sorts of jittery things going on.
RAPHAEL BOUSSO (University of California, Berkeley): It's a place where particles are constantly fluctuating and annihilating each other and being created again and annihilating.
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: It's a place of chaos and bubbling.
BRIAN GREENE: While the theory predicted this, it wasn't until 1948 that a scientist, named Hendrik Casimir, suggested that even though we can't see these particles, they should cause empty space to do something we can see, and he predicted that if you take two ordinary metal plates and place them extremely close together, say, closer together than the thickness of a sheet of paper, then particles with certain energies would be excluded because, in some sense, they wouldn't fit between the plates.
With more of this frenetic activity outside the plates than inside, Casimir thought the plates would be pushed together by what we usually think of as empty space itself. And some years later, when the experiment was done, Casimir was proven right. In empty space, the plates were pushed together.
So, on atomic scales, empty space is not empty; it's so flooded with activity that it can force objects to move.
And today, the quest to understand space on the smallest scale is continuing with one of the most expensive science experiments in history.
This is CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, in Geneva. And here, buried a few hundred feet below the ground, is the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful accelerator. With a price tag of about $10 billion, it accelerates subatomic particles to more than 99.99 percent of the speed of light and smashes them into each other.
In the showers of debris produced by these collisions, scientists at places like this have discovered a whole zoo of strange and exotic particles. And right now, they are chasing one of the most elusive: a particle thought to be essential to shaping everything from the atoms in our bodies to the most distant stars. If this particle is found, it will redefine our picture of space and fulfill a quest begun more than 40 years ago.
It all started in 1964, when a young English physicist, named Peter Higgs, suggested something about space that was so radical it nearly ruined him.
PETER HIGGS (University of Edinburgh): I was told that I was talking nonsense, that I couldn't be right. So they clearly hadn't understood what I was saying.
BRIAN GREENE: Higgs and a few others were wrestling with a puzzle which comes down to this: the fundamental particles in the universe all contain different amounts of mass, which we usually think of as weight. Without mass, these particles would never combine to form the familiar atoms that make up all the stuff we see in the world around us. But what creates mass? And why do different particles have different masses?
Try as they might, no one had been able answer this perplexing question. Then, one weekend, after a walk outside Edinburgh, Higgs had a peculiar idea.
Using mathematics, he imagined space in a new way, as something like an ocean. Particles are immersed in this ocean, and gain mass as they move through it.
To see how this works, think of a particle's mass like an actor's fame, and the Higgs ocean is like the paparazzi: some particles, like unknown actors, pass through with ease; the paparazzi simply aren't interested in them. But other particles, like superstars, have to push and press. And the more those particles struggle to get through, the more they interact with the ocean, and the more mass they gain.
Higgs was convinced he'd made a great discovery. But when he submitted his idea to a journal at CERN, it was rejected.
Undaunted, Higgs honed his theory further, until he was offered the chance to present it at Einstein's old haunt: the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton.
There, he expected his new idea would meet some of its toughest critics.
PETER HIGGS: I was happily driving up the freeway, and then there was a sign to turn off for Princeton, and that really confronted me with what I was going into. I broke out in a cold sweat, and I started trembling, and I had to pull off the road to recover.
BRIAN GREENE: But Higgs persevered. It was the first in a series of talks that would convince colleagues far and wide that he was onto something profound.
PETER HIGGS: Eventually, I sort of wore them down. I felt I had sort of triumphed, so I enjoyed the parties which followed.
BRIAN GREENE: Today, the idea Higgs pioneered, called the Higgs Field, is crucial to our understanding of space.
JOSEPH LYKKEN: The Higgs Field is everywhere. It's something that even in the emptiest vacuum of space has an effect: it gives you mass. So I think Higgs actually deserves credit for being one of the people that said, "Space is stuff. It has properties in it that are intrinsic, that you can't get rid of. You can't turn them off."
BRIAN GREENE: The only problem? There's no physical proof that the Higgs Field exists, at least not yet. But here at CERN, scientists are attempting to smash particles together with so much energy that they will knock loose a piece of the Higgs Field, producing a tiny particle of its own. It's as if they're trying to chip off a piece of space.
JOSEPH LYKKEN: We think that if we knock into space hard enough, with particle accelerator collisions, that we can actually make a Higgs particle come out of empty space.
LEONARD SUSSKIND: Our whole understanding of matter as we now have it would just fall apart, if the Higgs Field didn't exist.
RAPHAEL BOUSSO: I don't think anybody seriously doubts that we will see it. Certainly, if we don't, that will be an extremely bizarre outcome.
BRIAN GREENE: Finding the Higgs particle would be a major milestone, establishing that the emptiest of empty space has an impact on all of matter.
But it turns out that space contains an ingredient far more elusive than anything Higgs ever imagined, an ingredient that may hold the key to the greatest of all mysteries: the very fate of the cosmos.
It's a mystery that began some 14 billion years ago, in what we call the "Big Bang." In a fraction of a second, the universe underwent a violent expansion, sending space hurtling outward.
Space has been expanding ever since.
For decades, most scientists thought that expansion must be slowing down, thanks to the pull of gravity.
ALEX FILIPPENKO: When I toss an apple up, the gravity of the earth eventually stops it and brings it back. And just like the apple slows down with time, so, too, the universe should have been slowing down in its expansion, because of the gravitational attraction of all matter and energy for all other matter and energy.
BRIAN GREENE: But that raised the question: what is the ultimate fate of the cosmos? Would space go on expanding forever, or would gravity eventually stop space from expanding, causing it to collapse back on itself in a "Big Crunch?"
To solve this mystery, two teams of astronomers set out to measure the slowing of the expansion using a novel tool: exploding stars called supernovas.
ADAM RIESS (Johns Hopkins University): So a supernova is a star that ends its life in a massive explosion. They're extremely luminous; they can be as bright as a billion suns.
SAUL PERLMUTTER (University of California, Berkeley): What make supernovae great is that they are very similar. When they explode, they all get to about the same brightness, and then they fade away in just about the same way.
BRIAN GREENE: Because the explosions are so bright and uniform, the teams reasoned that these supernovas would act as very precise cosmic beacons, allowing them to track how the expansion of space has slowed over time.
The trouble is supernovas are extremely rare. To find enough of them, Perlmutter spent years calling astronomers around the globe, begging for time on their telescopes.
SAUL PERLMUTTER: We needed the biggest telescopes in the world; we needed perfect conditions. And in those perfect conditions, I would be calling people up at the middle of their , when they're trying to do some serious work, saying, "I know that you have a very busy schedule, but, by any chance, if you could just squeeze in this half hour observation, it would really be very interesting to us."
BRIAN GREENE: When they finally had enough data to chart how much the pull of gravity was slowing the expansion of the universe, they were in for a surprise.
SAUL PERLMUTTER: The results looked a little bit strange. They didn't really show any slowing of the universe at all…very surprising, actually…a universe that's actually speeding up.
ADAM RIESS: It was as though space, which we really thought was nothing, actually had an inherent springiness to it. And so space did not want to be compressed, space actually wants to push the universe apart.
ALEX FILIPPENKO: It looked like the universe was expanding faster and faster with time, accelerating rather than decelerating.
ROCKY KOLB: My immediate response was, "I have to figure out why this is wrong. This can't be right!"
BRIAN GREENE: But it was right. And most scientists converged on one explanation: there's something that fills space and counteracts the pull of ordinary attractive gravity, pushing galaxies apart and stretching the very fabric of the cosmos.
This mysterious substance filling space has been dubbed "dark energy," and it's turned our picture of the universe upside down.
ALEX FILIPPENKO: Over the largest distances, dark energy dominates the contents of the universe, and we don't know what it is.
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: If you do sort of a survey, a census of all the energy in the universe, dark energy turns out to be about 70 percent of the universe. And up until a decade ago, nobody even imagined such stuff even existed.
BRIAN GREENE: So, in essence, the weight of empty space itself is 70 percent of the weight of the entire universe. That's roughly the same percentage of Earth's surface that is covered by water. Imagine we didn't know what water is; that's where we stand with dark energy.
JOSEPH LYKKEN: We're really clueless about how to explain it. We have all of this fancy scientific apparatus of quantum mechanics and relativity and particle physics that we've developed in the last hundred years, and none of that works to explain dark energy.
BRIAN GREENE: And the discovery of dark energy held another surprise: the idea that the universe contains such an ingredient had actually been cooked up 80 years earlier. I'll let you in on a little secret: although he didn't call it dark energy, long ago, Albert Einstein predicted that space itself could exert a force that would drive galaxies apart.
You see, shortly after discovering his general theory of relativity, his theory of gravity, Einstein found that, according to the mathematics, the universe would either be expanding or contracting, but it couldn't hover at a fixed size.
This was puzzling because, before they knew about the Big Bang, most scientists, including Einstein, pictured the universe as static: eternal and unchanging.
When Einstein's equations suggested an expanding or contracting universe, not the static universe everyone believed in, he had a problem.
So Einstein went back to his equations and modified them to allow for a kind of anti-gravity that would infuse space with an outward push, counteracting the usual inward pull of gravity, allowing the universe to stand still. He called the modification the "cosmological constant."
Adding the cosmological constant rescued his equations, but the truth is Einstein had no idea if this outward push, or anti-gravity, really existed.
ROCKY KOLB: The introduction of the cosmological constant, by Einstein, was not a very elegant solution to try to find what he was looking for: a stationary universe.
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: It achieves this effect of anti-gravity. It says that gravity sometimes can behave in such a way, not to pull things together, but to push things apart.
ADAM RIESS: Like the clash of two titans, the cosmological constant and the pull of ordinary matter could hold the universe in check and keep it static.
BRIAN GREENE: But about a dozen years later, the astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered the universe is not static. It's expanding due to the explosive force of the Big Bang, 14-billion years ago.
That meant Einstein's original equations no longer had to be altered, and so, suddenly, the need for a cosmological constant went right out the window.
WAITER (Dramatization): Thank you.
BRIAN GREENE (Dramatization): You're welcome.
(Narration) Einstein is said to have called this his biggest blunder. But here's the thing: with the recent discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, scientists are convinced that there is something in space that is pushing things apart. So, 70 years later, Einstein's biggest blunder may rank among his greatest insights.
JOSEPH LYKKEN: It was something that nobody else was thinking about, but it might be that Einstein's cosmological constant is the key to understanding the expansion of the universe, as we see it today.
BRIAN GREENE: Though no one knows what dark energy actually is, it raises an astounding and troubling possibility: Einstein pictured the strength of his anti-gravity as "constant." But is the strength of dark energy constant? What if changes over time?
The answer could overturn everything we thought we knew about the fate of the cosmos.
At the moment, everything in our world, from the molecules making up my body to the molecules making up the moon, is held together by forces that overwhelm the outward push of dark energy, and that's why we don't see things expanding in our everyday lives. But that situation might not last forever.
In one scenario, dark energy will continue to push the galaxies farther and farther apart, until ultimately, they'd be pushed so far apart, the universe would become a cold, dark and lonely place.
In another scenario, the strength of dark energy might increase over time, becoming so strong that it would tear apart everything within the galaxies, from stars, to planets, to matter of all kinds.
ALEX FILIPPENKO: If the dark energy grows with time, then, ultimately, even atoms will get ripped apart, when there's enough dark energy between the nuclei and the electrons to rip space apart—the "Big Rip."
BRIAN GREENE: Our picture of space has gone through a remarkable transformation. Back in Newton's time, space was just the container. It didn't do anything at all. Then, through Einstein, space begins to affect how objects move. Then, with Casimir, literally, objects can be pushed by the activity in empty space. And now through the ideas of Higgs and dark energy, the very expansion of the universe may be coming from the energy of empty space itself.
I don't think anybody would have thought space would have this kind of rich and profound impact on the nature of reality.
But as far as we've come with Isaac Newton's picture of space as something like a stage is not yet finished.
As we examine the fabric of the cosmos ever more closely, we may well find far more surprises than anyone ever imagined. Take me, for example. I seem real enough, don't I?
Well, yes. But surprising new clues are emerging that everything, you and I, and even space, itself, may actually be a kind of hologram.
That is: everything we see and experience, everything we call our familiar three-dimensional reality, may be a projection of information that's stored on a thin, distant two-dimensional surface, sort of the way the information for this hologram is stored on this thin piece of plastic.
Now, holograms are something we're all familiar with from the security symbol you find on most credit cards, but the universe as a hologram? That's one of the most drastic revisions to our picture of space and reality ever proposed. And the evidence for it comes from some of the strangest realms of space: black holes.
LEONARD SUSSKIND: This is a real disconnect, and it's very hard to get your head around: modern ideas, coming from black holes, tell us that reality is two-dimensional, that the three-dimensional world, the full-bodied three-dimensional world, is a kind of image of a hologram on the boundary on the region of space.
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: This is a very strange thing. When I was a younger physicist I would have thought any physicist who said that was absolutely crazy.
BRIAN GREENE: Here's a way to think about this. Imagine I took my wallet and threw it into a black hole. What would happen? We used to think that since nothing, not even light, can escape the immense gravity of a black hole, my wallet would be lost forever, but it now seems that may not be the whole story.
Recently, scientists exploring the math describing black holes made a curious discovery. Even as my wallet disappears into the black hole, a copy of all the information it contains seems to get smeared out and stored on the surface of the black hole, in much the same way that information is stored in a computer.
So in the end, my wallet exists in two places: there's a three-dimensional version that's lost forever inside the hole black and a two-dimensional version that remains on the surface as information.
CLIFFORD JOHNSON (University of Southern California): The information content of all the stuff that fell into that black hole can be expressed entirely in terms of just the outside of the black hole. The idea, then, is that you can capture what's going on inside the black hole by referring only to the outside.
BRIAN GREENE: And, in theory, I could use the information on the outside of the black hole to reconstruct my wallet.
And here's the truly mind-blowing part: space within a black hole plays by same rules as space outside a black hole or anywhere else. So if an object inside a black hole can be described by information on the black hole's surface, then it might be that everything in the universe, from galaxies and stars, to you and me, even space itself, is just a projection of information stored on some distant two-dimensional surface that surrounds us.
In other words, what we experience as reality may be something like a hologram.
LEONARD SUSSKIND: Is the three-dimensional world an illusion, in the same sense that a hologram is an illusion? Perhaps. I think I'm inclined to think yes, that the three-dimensional world is a kind of illusion and that the ultimate precise reality is the two-dimensional reality at the surface of the universe.
This idea is so new that physicists are still struggling to understand it. But if it's right, just as Newton and Einstein completely changed our picture of space, we may be on the verge of an even more dramatic revolution.
For something that's such a vital part of our everyday lives, space remains kind of like a familiar stranger. It's all around us, but we're still far from having unmasked its true identity.
That may take a hundred years, it may take a thousand years, or it may happen tomorrow, but when we solve that mystery, we'll take a giant step toward fully understanding the fabric of the cosmos.
quarta-feira, 23 de novembro de 2011
Stary Olsa´s "Грунвальдская бітва 1410" by the epic and celestial voice of Ales Chumakou
Слаўлю адвагу, ваяроў сармацкіх
Што пасеклі ў бітве рыцараў крыжацкіх
Меўся ордэн ўсю Літву з Польшчай зруйнаваці
Прагнуў права сваё нам гвалтам навязаці
Таму варта хутка на вайну збірацца,
Каб на прускіх землях з ворагам спаткацца
Гвалт крыжацкі супыніць ды уласнай сілай
Славу-волю нам здабыць для Айчыны мілай
Войскі ўсе выйшлі і хутчэй памчалі
Ды ля Грунэвальда станы пастаўлялі
Нашы Багародзіцу, немцы Dasticht завялі
Ды з гарматаў грукат-трэск гучна распачалі
Так літвіны смела з крыкамі нясуцца
А пад імі коні бакамі б'юцца
Смела з літвай Вітаўт рэй вядзе-трымае
І натхняе крыкам, шэрагі раўняе
Шалёна, мужна з гуфам гуф сячэцца
Як мядзведзь раз'юшаны, што на злом нясецца
Твар да твару сеча йдзе, немцы нас змагаюць
А ж літва з татарамі з лукаў іх накрываюць
Страшны хруст, звон, грукат, гром ідзе ад зброі
Горлы ў крыку лютым пазрывалі воі
Шум і звон ад зброі далятае страшна,
Сонца ў небе плыве залаціста-ясна
Прускіх дзесяць комтураў там важнейшых легла
Кроў струменем ліецца, немчура пабегла
Нашы колюць, рэжуць, б'юць, волю зброі даўшы
Ды палоняць комтураў, рукі ім звязаўшы
Дзідамі там немцаў, у хрыбты калолі
Ды вантробы люта ім з жыватоў паролі
Нашы моцна, смела гуф нямецкі білі
Як ваўкі пад кустам, кнехты галасілі
Колькі міль за ворагам нашы воі мчалі
Немцы леглі, як трава зброю пакідалі
Хутка вестку добрую нашы людзі мелі
І паветра і зямля ад імшы дрыжэлі
Ўдзячна па касцёлах Te deum завялі
І ў Літве і ў Польшчы Бога праслаўлялі.
segunda-feira, 21 de novembro de 2011
The Flow of Time, by David Malone
David Malone began his career at the BBC. In the eight years he spent there he developed what the critics called a "disturbingly lyrical" styles and established a reputation for "television of the highest quality". Since becoming an independent film-maker David Malone has continued to produced single films and series for both BBC and Channel Four. His more recent work, for the Science, Religion and History departments, has been described as "breathtaking", "provocative" and "beautiful". His work ranges from the political to the philosophical.
The London Times called David Malone's award winning series Testing God, "moving and startling - as close to poetry as television gets." The sequel series Soul Searching, was described as being "good for the soul of television" itself.
In 2005 David Malone produced and directed "Voices in my Head" for Channel 4 and he has just completed a 90 minute documentary for BBC 4 entitled "Dangerous Knowledge".
In his Whitehead lecture of the autumn semester 2007, David Malone presented a talk entitled, “An Outsiders view of the Self and Certainty”. His academic background is in hominid evolution. He began his film making career at the BBC’s Science Department in 1986. During his time there he established the record for bringing Tomorrow’s World the closest it ever came to not making it to transmission. He made films ranging from the Flow of Time to the legacy of Darwinism in modern thought. More recently he has made a several series of films that have looked at questions of Consciousness, the Self and Soul as well as arguments surrounding the work of Kurt Gödel, whether Computation can ever be Conscious, how the mind models other people, the limits of Certainty and the source of Creativity. His thinking has been influenced by, amongst others, Roger Penrose and Greg Chaitin, Louis Sass and Iain McGilchrist.
An Outsiders view of the Self and Certainty.
Abtract of the Whitehead lecture of the autumn semester 2007: In this talk I will offer a series of questions that have been the basis for nine films over the last ten years. Culminating with Dangerous Knowledge shown on BBC4 this year. Like the films, each question led to the next. Beginning with wondering how to describe the relationship between Consciousness and the Self and ending with wondering if the modern Self’s obsession with Proof and Certainty is neither healthy nor perhaps inevitable.
Along the way the talk will touch upon the phenomenon of artists and scientists who hear voices, robots who believe in God, Greg Chaitin’s views on creativity and computation and Wolfram’s work on Cellular automata. My job as a documentary film maker is to find a way of posing or framing a question that draws together views which at first might seem disparate and unexpected. What comes out of this process is rarely an answer, but hopefully deeper, richer questions.
domingo, 20 de novembro de 2011
Die inoffizielle Hymne der Bundesrepublik Deutschland - Klaus Hoffmann: Die Mittelmäßigkeit
Es gibt keinen größern Trost für die Mittelmäßigkeit, als daß das Genie nicht unsterblich sei.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Die Tendenz der Herde ist auf Stillstand und Erhaltung gerichtet, es ist nichts Schaffendes in ihr.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Werke IV - Aus dem Nachlaß der Achtzigerjahre
Das Schulwesen wird in großen Staaten immer höchst mittelmäßig sein, aus demselben Grunde, aus dem in großen Küchen bestenfalls mittelmäßig gekocht wird.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Werke I - Menschliches, Allzumenschliches
Jeden Morgen das gleiche Ritual.
Jeden Morgen ein Gesicht in gleicher Qual.
Jeden Morgen dieses Fügen
vor dem Spiegel und im Bus.
Jeden Morgen die Fragen,
ob ich will und ob ich muß.
Jeden Tag im Mantel gleiche Haltung.
Jeden Tag meine Meinung aus der Zeitung.
Jeden Tag das Wissen um Veränderung.
Jeden Tag in mir die gleiche Lähmung.
Jede Nacht im Bett den gleichen Vorwurf.
Jede Nacht den gleichen Traum
von Angst und Flucht.
Jede Nacht mit offnen Augen alles sehn.
Jede Nacht zu warten, daß die Ängste gehn.
Jeden Augenblick in eine Lüge quäln,
muß dich betrügen, um nicht durchzudrehn.
Wieder mal wissen, du bist ausgekniffen,
hast dich nicht gestellt,
hast dich selbst verpfiffen.
Die Mittelmäßigkeit
verhindert jeden Streit.
Seh sie oft mit Blättern an den Ecken stehn,
manche jünger noch als ich, wag nicht hinzugehn.
Will vorüber tauchen, merk ´ne Ablehnung in mir,
ohne sie gehört zu haben, ist die Angst in mir.
Bisher hab ich mich noch nie geäußert
über Politik,
wollte nie beteiligt sein, zog mit jedem mit.
Doch sie sagen, mein Schweigen
bringt viel Schlimmes ein.
Es verhilft, daß andere noch viel lauter schrein.
Soll ich in der Mitte stehn?
Soll ich keine Fragen stelln?
Soll ich denn im Rahmen bleiben,
jeden Streit vermeiden?
Geh ich allem aus dem Weg,
noch eh der Kampf beginnt,
haben andre schon,
was ich denken soll, bestimmt.
Die Mittelmäßigkeit
verhindert jeden Streit.
Niall Ferguson - Civilization: Ist the West History? (2011) or The Six "Killer Apps" of the West
Niall Ferguson asks why it was that Western civilization, from inauspicious roots in the 15th century, came to dominate the rest of the world; and if the West is about to be overtaken by the rest.
Ferguson reveals the 'killer apps' of the West's success - competition, science, the property owning democracy, modern medicine, the consumer society and the Protestant work ethic - the real explanation of how, for five centuries, a clear minority of mankind managed to secure the lion's share of the earth's resources.
Ferguson's conclusions are surprising and provocative. He reveals that while the killer apps have finally been downloaded by the rest, in the process Western civilization has lost faith in itself. And it is that loss of self-belief that poses the biggest threat to its continued predominance.
Episode 1 - Competition
The first programme in the series begins in 1420 when Ming China had a credible claim to be the most advanced civilization in the world: 'All Under Heaven'. England on the eve of the Wars of the Roses would have seemed quite primitive by contrast.
Yet the lead that China had established in technology was not to be translated into sustained economic growth. In China a monolithic empire stifled colonial expansion and economic innovation. In Europe political division bred competition.
The question for our own time is whether or not we have lost that competitive edge to a rapidly ascending Asia.
In 1683 the Ottoman army laid siege to Vienna, the capital of Europe's most powerful empire. Domination of West by East was an alarmingly plausible scenario. But Islam was defeated: not so much by firepower as by science.
Episode 2 Science
In 1683 the Ottoman army laid siege to Vienna, the capital of Europe's most powerful empire. Domination of West by East was an alarmingly plausible scenario. But Islam was defeated: not so much by firepower as by science.
Niall Ferguson asks why the Islamic world didn't participate in the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, and if the West is still capable of maintaining its scientific lead at a time when educational attainment in science subjects is declining.
Episode 3 - Property
Professor Ferguson asks why North America succeeded while South America for so many centuries lagged behind.
The two had much in common (not least the subjugation of indigenous peoples and the use of slavery by European immigrants), but they differed profoundly on individual property rights, the rule of law and representative government.
There were two revolutions against royal rule between 1776 and 1820, yet Simón Bolívar was never able to be George Washington, and Latin America remained politically fragmented, socially divided and economically backward even as the United States rose to global primacy.
However, Niall Ferguson asks whether North and South are converging today, linguistically and economically.
Episode 4 - Medice
Niall Ferguson looks at how late 19th-century advances in modern medicine made it possible to export Western civilization to the 'Dark Continent': Africa.
The French Empire consciously set out to civilize West Africa by improving public health as well as building a modern infrastructure. Yet in other European empires - notably Germany's in southwest Africa - colonial rule led to genocide. What was the link from medical science to racial pseudo-science?
The imperialists talked of their civilizing mission, but their rivalry ultimately caused world wars that endangered the West's global dominance.
Today, have Western aid agencies learned lessons from the past? Or is China in the process of building a new African empire?
Episode 5- Consumerism
Today the world is becoming more homogenous and, with increasingly few exceptions, big-name brands dominate main streets, high streets and shopping malls all over the globe.
We dress the same; we want the same latest technological kit; we drive the same cars. But where did this uniformity come from? The answer is the combination of the industrial revolution and the consumer society.
Originating in Britain but flourishing most spectacularly in America, the advent of mass consumption has changed the way the world worked. Led by the Japanese, one non-Western society after another has adopted the same model, embracing the Western way of manufacturing and consuming.
Only the Muslim world has resisted. But how long can the burkha hold out against Levi's?
Niall Ferguson examines whether we are now seeing the first effective challenge to the global dominance of Western consumerism.
Episode 6 - Work
The sixth element that enabled the West to dominate the rest was the work ethic. Max Weber famously linked it to Protestantism, but the reality is that any culture, regardless of religion, is capable of embracing the spirit of capitalism by working hard, saving, and accumulating capital.
The question is why that ethic seems now to be fading in the West. Europeans no longer work long hours, and Americans have almost given up saving completely. The real workers and savers in the world are now the heirs of Confucius, not Calvin.
Perhaps, ironically, the biggest threat to Western civilization could turn out to be this Westernization of the world, if the consequence of Asian economic growth is to change the global climate for the worse.
Yet these fears may underestimate the ability of Western civilization to solve the world's problems.
In the final programme of the series, Niall Ferguson argues that the real threat to our survival is our loss of faith not in religion but in ourselves.
sábado, 19 de novembro de 2011
Pandora's Box - A Fable From the Age of Science (Adam Curtis)(1992)
I dreamt last night the moon was so bright it melted the walls away and it wasn't alarming when I saw a Prince Charming come into my bedroom and say . . . [Design For Dreaming woman sleeping bedrooms]
Let me persuade you to come to the place where tomorrow meets today. Oooh, Thank you it sounds very exciting. May I come just as I am? [Special Invitation to The General Motors Motorama hearts reaction shots] From the Musical "Design for Dreaming" (1956)
This is Adam Curtis' fascinating 6-part video documentary Pandora's Box - A Fable From the Age of Science (1992) which is a BBC documentary television series that examines the consequences of political and technocratic rationalism. For 15 years Curtis has concentrated on a cultural history behind the politics of the 20th century and beyond. In 1992, he made Pandora's Box, six "fables" on the consequences (often dangerous) of political and technocratic rationality, especially when used to crush common sense and a clear reporting of the facts. Nothing concerns Curtis more than the way public relations and spin doctoring have become ways of masking the true nature of modern history - and nothing is so vital to the new forms of modern bureaucratic totalitarianism, the dulcet "order" that has come to fill the ground left by fascism and communism. In other words, the "enlightened" problem solving favored in the most advanced countries, but employed to obfuscate democratic impulses. A must see for everyone.
Part 1: The Engineer's Plot
The revolutionaries who toppled the Tsar in 1917 thought science held the key to their new world. In fact, it ended up creating a bewildering world for millions of Soviet people. In this light-hearted investigation, one industrial planner tells how she decided the people wanted platform shoes, only to discover that they had gone out of fashion by the time that the factory to manufacture them had been built.
Part 2: To The Brink of Eternity
Focusing on the men of the Cold War on whom 'Dr Strangelove' was based. These were people who believed that the world could be controlled by the scientific manipulation of fear - mathematical geniuses employed by the American Rand Corporation. In the end, their visions were the stuff of science fiction fantasy.
Part 3: The League of Gentlemen
Thirty years ago, a group of economists managed to convince British politicians that they had foolproof technical means to make Britain great again. Pandora's Box tells the saga of how their experiments have led the country deeper into economic decline, and asks - is their game finally up?
Part 4: Goodbye Mrs Ant
A modern fable about science and society, focusing on our attitude to nature. Should we let scientists be the prime movers of social or political change when, for instance, DDT made post-war heroes of American scientists only to be put on trial by other scientists in 1968? What kind of in-fighting goes on between rival camps before one scientific truth emerges, and when it does emerge, just how true is it?
Part 5: Black Power
A look at how former Ghanaian leader Kwame Nkrumah set Africa ablaze with his vision of a new industrial and scientific age. At the heart of his dream was to be the huge Volta dam, generating enough power to transform West Africa into an advanced utopia. But as his grand experiment took shape, it brought with it dangerous forces Nkrumah couldn't control, and he slowly watched his metropolis of science sink into corruption and debt.
Part 6: A is For Atom
An insight into the rise and fall of nuclear power. In the 1950s scientists and politicians thought they could create a different world with a limitless source of nuclear energy. But things began to go wrong. Scientists in America and the Soviet Union were duped into building dozens of potentially dangerous plants. Then came the disasters of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl which changed views on the safeness of this invisible fuel.
sexta-feira, 18 de novembro de 2011
Adam Curtis - All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace (2011)
All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace is a three part BBC documentary series by filmmaker Adam Curtis, well known for other documentaries including The Trap and The Power of Nightmares. The first episode aired on Monday 23rd May 2011 at 9pm on BBC2.
It claims that computers have failed to liberate us and instead have "distorted and simplified our view of the world around us".
The title is the same as a 1967 poem and collection of poems by Richard Brautigan.
Episode 1: Love and Power
In this episode Curtis tracks the effects of Ayn Rands ideas on American financial markets particularly via the influence on Alan Greenspan.Ayn Rand was born in Russia and moved to America in 1928 and worked for Cecil B. DeMille and realised some of the plot for what became The Fountainhead from this period. Later she moved to New York and set up a reading group called The Collective. On advice from a friend Greenspan (then a logical positivist) joined The Collective.Although critically savaged Rands Objectivist ideas were popular and came to heavily infiltrate California particularly Silicon Valley. The computer utopian belief (Californian Ideology) that computer networks could measure control and self-stabilise societies without hierarchical political control and that people could become Randian heroes only working for their own happiness became more widespread.Rand entered into a affair with Nathaniel Branden another married person in The Collective based purely on logic albeit with the approval of his wife. After several years the affair ended violently and was revealed to rest of The Collective which broke up. Rand ended up alone in her New York apartment although Greenspan continued to visit.Greenspan entered government in the 70s and became Chairman of the Federal Reserve. In 1992 he visited the newly elected Bill Clinton. He persuaded him to let the markets grow cut taxes and to let the markets stabilise themselves with computer technology to create the New Economy. This involved using computer models to predict risks and hedge against them in accordance with the Californian Ideology. However by 1996 the production figures had failed to increase but profits were nevertheless increasing and Greenspan suggested that it wasnt working. After political attacks from all side Greenspan changed his mind and decided that perhaps the New Economy was real but that it couldnt be measured using normal economic measures and so the apparent boom continued.In 1997 Carmen Hermosillo published a widely influential essay online Pandoras Vox: on Community in Cyberspace and it began to be realised that the result of computer networks had led to not a reduction in hierarchy but actually a commodification of personality and a complex transfer of power and information to companies.Although the Asian miracle had led to long-term growth in South Korea and other countries Joseph Stiglitz began warning that the withdrawing of foreign financial investment from the Far Eastern economies could cause devastation there. However he was unable to warn the president being blocked by Robert Rubin who feared damage to financial interests.The 1997 Asian financial crisis began as the property bubble in the Far East began to burst in Thailand causing large financial losses in those countries that greatly affected foreign investors. While Bill Clinton was preoccupied with the Monica Lewinski scandal Robert Rubin took control of foreign policy and forced loans onto the affected countries. However after each country agreed to IMF bailout loans foreign investors immediately withdrew their money leaving the tax payers with enormous debts and triggering massive economic disasters.After his handling of the economic effects of 9/11 Alan Greenspan became more important and in the wake of Enron he cut interest rates to stimulate the economy. Unusually this failed to cause inflation. It seemed that the New Economy was working to stabilise the economy.However in reality to avoid a repeat of the earlier collapse Chinas Politburo had decided to manage Americas economy via similar techniques to those used by America on the other Far Eastern countries by keeping Chinas exchange rate artificially low they sold cheap goods to America and with the proceeds had bought American bonds. The money flooding into America permitted massive loans to be available to those that would previously be considered too risky. The belief in America was that computers could stabilise and hedge the lending of the money. This permitted lending beyond the point that was actually sustainable. The high level of loan defaulting led ultimately to the 2008 collapse due to a similar housing bubble that the Far Eastern countries had previously faced.Curtis ends the piece by pointing out that not only had the idea of market stability failed to be borne out in practice but that the Californian Ideology had also been unable to stabilise it indeed the ideology has not led to people being Randian heroes but in fact trapped them into a rigid system of control from which they are unable to escape.
Episode 2: Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts
This episode investigates how machine ideas such as cybernetics and systems theory were applied to natural ecosystems and how this relates to the false idea that there is a balance of nature. Cybernetics has been applied to to human beings to attempt to build societies without central control self organising networks built of people based on a fantasy view of nature.Arthur Tansley had a dream where he shot his wife. He wanted to know what it meant so he studied Sigmund Freud. However one part of Freuds theory was that the human brain was an electrical machine. Tansley became convinced that as the brain was interconnected so was the whole of the natural world in networks he called ecosystems which he believed were inherently self-stable and self correcting and which regulated nature as if it were a machine.Jay Forrester was an early pioneer in cybernetic systems who believed that brains cities and even societies live in networks of feedback loops that control them and he thought that computers could determine the effects of the feedback loops. Cybernetics therefore viewed humans as nodes in networks as machines.The ecology movement adopted this idea also and viewed the natural world as systems as it explained how the natural system could stabilise the natural world via natural feedback loops.Norbert Wiener laid out the position that humans machines and ecology are simply nodes in a network in his book Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine and this book became the bible of cybernetics.Howard T. Odum and Eugene Odum were brothers. Howard collected data from ecological systems and built electronic networks to simulate them. His brother Eugene then took these ideas to make them the heart of ecology and the hypothesis then became a certainty. However they had distorted the idea and simplified the data to an extraordinary degree. That ecology was balanced became an unexamined and unscientific assumption.Buckminster FullerMeanwhile in the 1960s Buckminster Fuller invented a radically new kind of structure the geodesic dome which emulated ecosystems by being made of highly connected relatively weak parts. His other system based ideas inspired the Counterculture movement and set up communes of people considering themselves as nodes in a network without hierarchy and applied feedback to try to control and stabilise their societies and used his domes as habitats. These societies mostly broke up within 3 years.Also in the 1960s Steward Brand filmed a demonstration of a networked computer system with a graphics display mouse and keyboard that he believed would save the world by empowering people in a similar way to the communes to be free as individuals.In 1967 Richard Brautigan published the poetry work All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace which called for a cybernetic ecological utopia consisting of a fusion of computers and mammals living in perfect harmony and stability.By the 1970s new problems such as overpopulation limited natural resources and pollution that couldnt be solved by normal hierarchical systems had arrived. Jay Forrester stated that he knew how to solve this and applied systems theory to the problem and drew a cybernetic system diagram for the world. This was turned into a computer model which predicted population collapse. This became the basis of the model that was used by the Club of Rome and the findings from this were published in The Limits to Growth. Forrester then argued for zero growth to maintain a steady state stable equilibrium within the capacity of the Earth.Jan SmutsHowever this was opposed by many people within the environmental movement since the model didnt allow for people to change their values to stabilise the world and also they argued that the model tried to maintain and enforce the current political hierarchy. Arthur Tansley who had invented the term ecosystem had once accused Field Marshall Jan Smuts of the abuse of vegetational concepts. Smuts had invented a philosophy called holism where everyone had a rightful place which was to be managed by white races. The 70s protestors claimed that the same conceptual abuse of the supposed natural order was occurring that it was really being used for political control.At the time there was a general belief in the stability of natural systems. However cracks started to appear when a study was made of predator-prey relationship of wolf and elks. It was found that wild population swings had occurred over centuries. Other studies then found huge variations and a significant lack of homeostasis in natural systems. George Van Dyne then tried to build a computer model to try to simulate a complete ecosystem based on extensive real-world data so as to show how the stability of natural systems actually worked. To his surprise the computer model did not stabilize like the Odums electical model had. The reason for this lack of stabilization was that he had used extensive data which more accurately reflected reality whereas the Odums and other previous ecologists had "ruthlessly simplified nature." The scientific idea had thus been shown to fail but the popular idea remained and even grew as it apparently offered the possibility of a new egalitarian world order.In 2003 a wave of spontaneous revolutions swept through Asia and Europe. Without any central control at all nobody seemed to be in charge except possibly the internet and no overall aims except self-determination and freedom were apparent. This seemed to justify the beliefs of the Computer utopians.However the freedom from these revolutions in fact lasted for only a short time. Curtis compared them with the hippie communes all of which had broken up within three years as the powerful members of the group began to bully the weaker ones the weaker members were unable to band together in their own defence because power structures had been prohibited by the communes rules.Adam Curtis closes the piece by stating that it has become apparent that while the self organising network is good at organising change it is much less good at what comes next networks leave people helpless in the face of people already in power in the world.
Episode 3: The Monkey in the Machine and the Machine in the Monkey
This programme looked into the selfish gene theory which holds that humans are machines controlled by genes which was invented by William Hamilton. Adam Curtis also covered the source of ethnic conflict that was created by Belgian colonialisms artificial creation of a racial divide and the ensuing slaughter that occurred in the Democratic Republic of the Congo which is a source of raw material for computers and cell phones.William Hamilton went to Kisangani in the Democratic Republic of the Congo while the Second Congo War was raging. He went there to collect Chimpanzee faeces to test his theory that HIV was due to a medical mistake. Unfortunately he caught malaria for which he took aspirin which caused a haemorrhage and he died. However his selfish gene theory lived on.In 1960 Congo had become independent from Belgium but governance promptly collapsed and towns became battle grounds as soldiers fought for control of the mines. America and the Belgians organised a coup and the elected leader was assassinated creating chaos. The Western mining operations were largely unaffected however.Bill Hamilton was a solitary man and he saw everything through the lens of Darwins theory of evolution. When he wanted to know why some ants and humans gave up their life for others he went to Waterloo station and stared at humans for hours and looked for patterns. In 1963 he realised that most of the behaviours of humans was due to genes and looking at the humans from the genes point of view. Humans were machines that were only important for carrying genes and that it made sense for a gene to sacrifice a human if it meant that another copy of the gene elsewhere would prosper.In the 1930s Armand Denis made films that told the world about Africa. However his documentary gave fanciful stories about Rwandas Tutsis being a noble ruling elite originally from Egypt whereas the Hutus were a peasant race. In reality they were racially the same. The Belgian rulers had ruthlessly exploited the myth. But when it came to create independence liberal Belgians felt guilty and decided that the Hutus should overthrow the Tutsi rule. This lead to a blood bath as the Tutsis were then seen as aliens and they were slaughtered.In 1967 American George R. Price went to London after reading Hamiltons little known papers and discovering that he was already familiar with the equations that they were the equations of computers. He was able to show that the equations explained murder warfare suicide goodness spite since these behaviours could help the genes. John Von Neumann had invented self-reproducing machines but Price was able to show that the self-reproducing machines were already in existence that humans were the machines.This had a bad effect on Price and Price began to believe that these equations had been given to him by God even though the equations disproved the existence of God.In Congo a civil war was ongoing and Dian Fossey who was researching gorillas was captured. She escaped and created a new camp high up on a mountain in Rwanda where she continued to study gorillas. She tried to completely protect the gorillas who were very susceptible to human diseases and with the best of intentions terrorised the local people and thus became hated.In 1973 after converting to extreme Christianity as a last chance to disprove the selfish gene theories gloomy conclusions Price decides to start helping poor and homeless people all his possessions in acts of pure altruism influenced and inspired by Christian religion.In the Congo President Mobutu changed the Congos name to Zaire and looted millions of dollars and let mines and industries collapse killed his opponents and stopped a liberal democracy from forming.While this was happening at Fosseys camp Digit her favourite gorilla had been killed and later she was too.Prices attempt to disprove Hamiltons theory has utterly failed and he comes to believe he is being followed by the hound of heaven. He finally reveals in his suicide note that these acts of altruism brought more harm than good to the lives of homeless people.Richard Dawkins took the equations and popularised them and explains that humans are simply machines controlled by the selfish genes and in a sense reinventing the immortal soul but as computer code in the form of the genes.In 1994 the ruling Hutu government set out to eradicate the Tutsi minority. This was explained as incomprehensible ancient rivalry by the Western press. In reality it was due to the Belgian myth created during the colonial rule. Western agencies got involved and the Tutsi fought back creating chaos. Many flooded across the border into Zaire and the Tutsi invaded the refuge camps to get revenge. Mobutu fell from power. Troops arrived from many countries allegedly to help but in reality to gain access to the countrys natural resources used to produce consumer goods for the west. 4.5 million people died.Hamilton by this point was well-honoured. However by now he supported eugenics. He heard a story that HIV had been created from an accident with a polio vaccine which it was thought could have been infected with a chimp virus. This supported his idea that modern medicine could be negative as he thought medicine opposed the logic of the genes. So he travelled to eastern Congo to look for the virus through the midst of the murder and chaos. He died and later research disproved the idea that HIV had come from a medical accident.Curtis ends the piece by saying that Hamiltons ideas that humans are computers controlled by the genes have been accepted. But he asks whether we have accepted a fatalistic philosophy that humans are helpless computers to explain and excuse the fact that as in the Congo we are unable to improve and change the world.
quarta-feira, 16 de novembro de 2011
Ein Interview mit Hans Magnus Enzensberger über das Ende (03.11.1999 Hannover)
Ein Interview mit Hans Magnus Enzensberger über das Ende (03.11.1999, Hannover, Hotel Maritim )
ERSTER GESANG
Einer horcht. Er wartet. Er hält
den Atem an, ganz in der Nähe,
Her, Er sagt: Der da spricht, das bin ich.
Nie wieder, sagt er,
wird es so ruhig sein,
so trocken und warm wie jetzt.
Er hört sich
in seinem rauschenden Kopf.
Es ist niemand da außer dem,
der da sagt: Das muß ich sein.
Ich warte, halte den Atem an,
lausche. Das ferne Geräusch
in den Ohren, diesen Antennen
aus weichem Fleisch, bedeutet nichts.
Es ist nur das Blut,
das in der Ader schlägt.
Ich habe lang gewartet,
mit angehaltenem Atem.
Weißes Rauschen im Kopffhoerer
meiner Zeitmaschine.
Stummer kosmischer Lärm.
Kein Klopfzeichen. Kein Hilfeschrei.
Funkstille.
Entweder ist es aus,
sage ich mir, oder es hat
noch nicht angefangen.
Jetzt aber! Jetzt:
Ein Knirschen. Ein Scharren. Ein Riß.
Das ist es. Ein eisiger Fingernagel,
der an der Tür kratzt und stockt.
Etwas reißt.
Eine endlose Segeltuchbahn,
ein schneeweißer Leinwandstreifen,
der erst langsam,
dann rascher und immer rascher
und fauchend entzweireißt.
Das ist der Anfang.
Hört ihr? Hört ihr es nicht?
Haltet euch fest!
Dann wird es wieder still.
Nur in der Wand klirrt
etwas Dünngeschliffenes nach,
ein kristallenes Zittern,
das schwächer wird
und vergeht.
Das war es.
war es das? Ja,
das muß es gewesen sein.
Das war der Anfang.
Der Anfang vom Ende
ist immer diskret.
Es ist elf Uhr vierzig
an Bord. Die stählerne Haut
unter der Wasserlinie klafft,
zweihundert Meter lang,
aufgeschlitzt
von einem unvorstellbaren Messer.
Das Wasser schießt in die Schotten.
An dem leuchtenden Rumpf
gleitet, dreißig Meter hoch
über dem Meeresspiegel, schwarz
und lautlos der Eisberg vorbei
und bleibt zurück in der Dunkelheit.
("Der Untergang der Titanic", 1978)
José Galisi Filho - In der Mitte der Wüste Arizonas befindet sich eine riesige Skulptur. „Komplex 1" lautet rätselhaft der Name. Kein Museum der Welt könnte sie ausstellen im Sinne von Gehalt und Form. Sie ist eine Rampe, die ins Nichts springt oder vielleicht darauf hinweist. Wer sich die Mühe macht hinzugehen, gibt schon sein Einverständnis und wiederholt einen asketischen Gestus des Aufgebens. An der Grenze von Landschaft und menschlichem Produkt erinnert sie uns an eine gefrorene Energie, die auch mit Müdigkeit und Schweigen verwandt ist. Die Skulptur als Gestus verkörpert ein „Fundament", elementar wie der Boden und seine Kräfte. Ihre Haltung ist ein lyrischer Fundamentalismus, eine Figur der avantgardistischen Orthodoxie in ihrer Reinheit. Ist die Truppe am Ziel schon angekommen, oder marschiert sie immer noch? Ihr letztes Buch heißt „Leichter als die Luft", aber dieses Jahrhundert wird für immer jenes des Untergangs des Subjekts sein. Die Avantgarde ruht sich aus - es sind die anderen, die immer noch marschieren. Hätten Sie vielleicht diese Ruhe gefunden, Herr Enzensberger, wie Ihre Zeilen lauten: „Einer horcht. Er wartet. Er hält den Atem an, ganz in der Nähe hier. Er sagt: Der da spricht, das bin ich. Nie wieder, sagt er, wird es so ruhig sein, so trocken und warm wie jetzt. Weißes Rauschen im Kopfhörer meiner Zeitmaschine. Stummer kosmischer Lärm."
Hans Magnus Enzensberger - Ob es ihr gelungen ist oder nicht, ans Ziel zu kommen, werden wir nicht genau wissen. Aber diese Rampe ins Nichts erinnert an die Beharrlichkeit der Arbeit von Sisyphos, dessen Stein in der Tat der Frieden ist. Diese Energie könnte vielleicht aus diesem sonnigen Morgen kommen. Die Sonne ist ganz einfach da. Dieser Impuls nach vorne ist unaufhaltsam und schreibt sich selbst in der Einbildungskraft unserer Gattung ein. In meinem Gedicht habe ich nicht das Ende formuliert, sondern die Annäherung an das Ende, ein Ende, das immer wieder verschoben wird. Solange wir reden, wird das Ende nicht stattfinden, solange wir den Atem durchhalten können. An der Stelle des Endes tritt immer etwas anderes auf. Das Ende kann nicht da sein, wenn es so wäre, dann wäre dies nicht das Ende.
José Galisi Filho - Der Anfang vom Ende ist immer „diskret", er ist schon passiert, das Eis hat uns schon erreicht. Diese Annäherung an das Ende formulieren Sie in Hegelschem Stil als die Aufhebung des Endes, auf deutsch: das Vollenden. Sie behaupteten auch in „Der Untergang der Titanic", dass „Vernunft Vernunft ist, und nicht Vernunft, um das zu kapieren, braucht man nicht Hegel zu sein, dazu genügt ein Blick in den Taschenspiegel", das heißt, die Vernunft ist nicht am Ende, aber in der Mitte, sie ist die Schwelle des Endes, das immer wieder verschoben wird bei dem Exorzismus des Wirklichen. Wer sollte nun diesen Untergang bezeugen?
Hans Magnus Enzensberger - Aber die Geschichte auch der Philosophie ist zu „Ende". Im vergangenen Jahrhundert gab es diese großen Abhandlungen der Geschichte der Philosophie, doch niemand mehr heute glaubt an die Existenz dieser Geschichte. Wenn wir über das Ende sprechen, es kann nicht da sein. Jeden Tag passieren "mini-mikroskopische" Apokalypsen. Die Apokalypse ist vor allem eine demokratische Phantasie. Aber es gehört zur Idee der Apokalypse selbst, dass sie total ist. Der Untergang der Welt gilt für alle ohne Ausnahme, das ist eine Phantasie des Untergangs in der Gleichheit, also eine Phantasie der Gleichheit vor dem Ende. Also ist die Apokalypse eine Phantasie des Terrors, aber auch Ausdruck des Wunsches eines Endes in dieser Gleichheit. Aber die Realität ist nicht so, wir können eine Halluzination haben, aber in der Tat sitzen wir an diesem schönen Morgen wie der Maler der umbrischen Apokalypse in dem Buch.
José Galisi Filho - Wir sind schon lange in ein neues unbekanntes Territorium ohne Begrifflichkeit eingetreten, wie Ihr Essay „Aussichten aus dem Bürgerkrieg" zeigt. Um es zu kolonisieren, soll unsere kritische Metapher neu und schnell erfunden werden. Wie beschreiben Sie die Bewegung des Denkens vor den neuen Erscheinungen? Gibt es heute ein Wort in der Lyrik, welches die Ausbeutung noch bezeichnen kann?
Hans Magnus Enzensberger - Diese Bewegung des Denkens vor den neuen Erscheinungen heißt seit Montaigne Essay. Ich bin kein Philosoph. Ein Philosoph muß argumentieren. Heute haben die Philosophen längst aufgegeben zu argumentieren. Die Philosophen heute delirieren, wir haben die delirante Philosophie. Die Franzosen sind die Spezialisten in diesem „Metier" des Deliriums der Philosophie, d.h. in einer Art Zungenrederei zu sprechen wie in der Bibel In der Bibel spricht man nur durch diese Zungen. Die meisten reden nur in diesen Zungen und Dialekten der Sekten. Das ist so unehrlich, denn wenn man sie widerlegen will, sagen sie: „Aber ich mache ja Literatur". Und wenn man darauf erwidert: Aber du schreibst nicht so gut für einen Schriftsteller, dann sagt der Schriftsteller: „Aber ich bin Philosoph". Das ist ein billiger Trick, gut, warum nicht, Tricks sind erlaubt, aber so offensichtlich ist es eben ein billiger Trick und leicht zu durchschauen. Das ist nicht mehr das, was man unter einer konsistenten Philosophie verstehen kann. Was die Ausbeutung betrifft, die Ausbeutung hat sich mit den neuen Technologien entwickelt . Die Leute heute hoffen, dass jemand sie ausbeutet. Sie hoffen darauf, die Arbeitslosen. Aber es gibt niemanden mehr, um sie auszubeuten. Das ist auch ein Paradoxon der Nachfrage und des Problems der Maschinalisierung. Wenn das Kapital nicht mehr diese Leute braucht, dann ist die Ausbeutung nicht mehr der Schrecken, der sie frührer war, über den man sich dann beschwert und beklagt hat. Die Leute hoffen, dass sie jemanden finden, der sie ausbeuten kann. Das ganze Problem von Afrika ist, dass es ganz uninteressant geworden ist, weil es dort kein Öl oder Diamanten wie in der Vergangenheit gibt, und es sind deshalb inzwischen keine Ausbeuter mehr da. Das ist in gewisser Weise schlimmer als vorher.
Frage - Sie haben einmal behauptet , dass die Bild Zeitung als Nullmedium radikaler als ihre Kritiker sei. Mit dem Internet wird sogar die Wirklichkeit ersetzt, ein Traum, den sich sogar die Avantgarde nicht vorstellen könnte.
Hans Magnus Enzensberger - Aber man versucht jetzt, sie abzuschaffen, es geht um diese sogenannten Projekte der künstlichen Intelligenz. Das ist auch eine technische Utopie, weil der Körper anfällig ist, sterblich, und also brauchen wir bessere Werkzeuge, d. h. bessere Maschinen. Das ist auch eine Art von armer Utopie. Die wird genau so scheitern wie die anderen Utopien. Die künstliche Intelligenz, sollte man ja nicht vergessen, ist ein Projekt von Technikern und Wissenschaftlern, die auf diese Weise Milliarden bekommen im Namen eines Versprechens, aber sie haben noch nichts zustande gebracht, und ich bin sehr skeptisch demgegenüber. Die künstliche Intelligenz hat sich bis jetzt nur blamiert. Wir haben sogar nicht einmal einen Roboter, der einen Fußboden sauber machen könnte. Die Maschinen sind sehr dumm. Das ist eine Utopie wie der Kommunismus und andere, die scheitern alle wie die technische Utopie und wie dieser Versuch, den Menschen durch die Genetik zu verbessern. Es wird sich irgendwann zeigen, wie blödsinnig die technische Utopie ist. Wie gesagt, wenn die Menschen nicht mehr auszuhalten sind, sollte jede Möglichkeit, die ihnen überhaupt erreichbar ist, irgendwann mal realisiert werden. Diese neuen Biotechnologien werden nicht ungenutzt sein, es wird immer jemand da sein, um sie zu verwenden. Das ist eine neue Art von Ausbeutung, die nicht mehr mit der der Klassenkämpfe zu tun hat. Es geht um das neue Stadium der Arbeitskraft und um die Kontrolle des genetischen Kapitals dieser Arbeitskraft.
José Galisi Filho - Ist es noch möglich, Gedichte wie „Der Untergang der Titanic" zu schreiben?
Hans Magnus Enzensberger - Die Gedichte in „Der Untergang der Titanic" sind sehr bescheiden, und alles ist dort sehr relativ und nimmt sich immer selbst zurück. Man nimmt das zurück, weil man nicht mehr die Position eines Leonardo einnehmen kann oder wie von diesen universalen Menschen wie Goethe oder Dante. Das macht niemand mehr. Es gibt nicht mehr diese Menschen oder diese Idee von Menschen, die über die Menschheit erhaben sind. Die Künstler sind genau unmächtig wie die anderen Leute. Sie versuchen ihr bestes wie andere auch, aber ohne sich Illusionen zu machen. Wir machen weiter. Wir haben noch ein Ende in der Hand, wir haben noch einen Moment, in dem man weiter machen kann. Wenn man über dieses Ende der Kunstperiode spricht, das geht ja schon seit 200 Jahren dem Ende zu, seit dem Ende der Kunstperiode. Dieses Ende ist sehr lang!
José Galisi Filho - Gescheiterte Künstler wie Hitler haben die ästhetische Apokalypse gewollt..
Hans Magnus Enzensberger - Goebbels war auch ein Künstler und Schriftsteller. Diese These vom Gesamtkunstwerk des Totalitarismus, was will sie genau sagen? Es gibt auch Theorien darüber. Das sind die wild gewordenen Künstler. Das sind Künstler, die nicht verstehen, dass die Kunst nicht allmächtig ist. Diese Illusion der Allmacht der Kunst. Ein intelligenter Künstler weiß, dass er nicht allmächtig ist. Ein Heiner Müller wusste genau, dass er nicht allmächtig war. Aber Hitler und Speer hatten infantile Machtphantasien gehabt. Ohne sich bewußt zu sein der Problematik der Ohnmacht der Kunst. Ohne Selbstreflexion.
José Galisi Filho - Wo ist der Schüssel, der das Jahrhundert Kafkas für immer schließt? Es gibt Hoffnung, glaubte damals Kafka, aber nicht für uns, nicht für uns aus Brasilien, wir wollen kein Rest der Geschichte sein...
Hans Magnus Enzensberger - Ich denke, Brasilien ist eines der Länder, das noch eine wirkliche Utopie hatte, die glaubten, sie hätten eine Zukunft auf ihrer Seite. „Wir kommen erst noch!", wir haben sozusagen etwas, was uns bevorsteht. Das hatte aber der Westen nicht mehr, kein Land der Welt hat so ein Motto wie in der brasilianischen Flagge „Ordem e Progresso" (spricht auf Portugiesisch), Ordnung und Fortschritt. Das ist ja aber phantastisch für ein Land. Auch das gibt es genau wie für das Ende der Kunst, die sich immer weiter fortsetzt, obwohl es seit 200 Jahren das Ende der Kunst gibt und immer noch ein Ende, das immer wieder verschoben wird, auch da gibt es diesen Glauben an die Zukunft. Diese große Zukunft Brasiliens wurde immer versetzt und weiter verschoben in der Moderne,
die kommt erst noch. „Eines Tages werden wir eine große Macht sein" hieß damals das Motto, d.h. eines Tages werden wir die Probleme, die noch vorhanden sind, mit der riesigen Vitalität lösen, die wir haben, doch das Fehlen der Strukturen und Institutionen, ich weiß es nicht, ich bin sehr skeptisch. Ich sehe nicht diese Lösung in Brasilien, wie auch in der Kunst nicht, die immer weiter macht mit dieser Relativität, unaufhaltsam. Es gibt kein Ende. Dieser Fortschritt ist deswegen nicht gekommen und wird nie kommen auf diesem Weg. Was kommt der Ordnung und dem Fortschritt? Jedenfalls bin ich da skeptisch. Und ich kenne Brasilien sehr gut, diese Relativität ist typisch für Brasilien, doch es wird deshalb auch nicht zugrunde gehen, es wird kein Ende geben, aber immer mit „Desordem", Unordnung und einer Mischung von (spricht auf Portugiesisch) „Progresso e um pouquinho de Regresso!" (Fortschritt und ein bißschen Rückschritt).
José Galisi Filho - „Weil es also ein anderer ist/Immer ein anderer,/der da redet,/und weil der,/von dem da die Rede ist/schweigt." Von wem ist da heute die Rede, im Jahrhundert des Untergangs des Subjekts?
Hans Magnus Enzensberger - Das sind die ganzen Leute ohne Stimme in dieser Welt, und das ist eine riesige Masse bzw. die Mehrheit der Menschheit. Die Menschen, die schweigen, kommen nicht vor. Und der Versuch des Stellvertretertums ist auch interessant, es gab immer im Marxismus die Avantgarde, die Avantgarde des Proletariats, der Arbeiterklasse, der Partei. Die Avantgarde der Partei war das Zentralkomitee, das Politik an der Stelle der anderen macht. Das ist ein Problem wie in der Kunst, wenn man sie für andere macht. Und es ist genauso problematisch wie in der Politik, weil man nie weiß, wer überhaupt in der Lage ist, für die anderen zu sprechen. Das ist zweifelhaft. Dieser Mann sieht uns im Hotel und putzt den Boden, wie soll er verstehen, was los ist in der Welt. Das ist ganz schwierig. Ich weiß nicht, ich kann mich unterhalten mit den Leuten der brasilianischen „Favelas" (Slums), aber ich kann überhaupt nicht für sie sprechen.
José Galisi Filho - In ihrem Buch gibt es ein Gedicht über den brasilianischen Samba. Sehen Sie diese musikalische Gattung als Kitsch der „World Music" oder als eine Art nostalgisches Reservoir für den deutschen Mittelstand im Urlaub auf Mallorca oder Ibiza?
Hans Magnus Enzensberger - Natürlich - mit dem Samba passiert ähnliches wie in den zwanziger Jahren mit dem Tango (und heute mit dem kubanischen Song): unfreiwillige oder absichtliche Parodie, Travestie der Formen, Verdünnung - „Multikulturell": das bedeutet immer (unter anderem) Mißverständnis, Trivialisierung. Nicht immer ist das Hybride ein Vorzug. „Brasilianisierung", das sehe ich ähnlich. Auch ich halte so etwas für unvermeidlich (übrigens in dem Sinn, dass Europa in 30 Jahren vielfarbig und hybrid wird). Aber der Preis ist höher als Ullrich Beck vermutet. Keine Idylle, sondern starke Konflikte, mit „Favelas", Gangs, Rechtsunsicherheit. São Paulo ist ja kein Sanatorium!
ERSTER GESANG
Einer horcht. Er wartet. Er hält
den Atem an, ganz in der Nähe,
Her, Er sagt: Der da spricht, das bin ich.
Nie wieder, sagt er,
wird es so ruhig sein,
so trocken und warm wie jetzt.
Er hört sich
in seinem rauschenden Kopf.
Es ist niemand da außer dem,
der da sagt: Das muß ich sein.
Ich warte, halte den Atem an,
lausche. Das ferne Geräusch
in den Ohren, diesen Antennen
aus weichem Fleisch, bedeutet nichts.
Es ist nur das Blut,
das in der Ader schlägt.
Ich habe lang gewartet,
mit angehaltenem Atem.
Weißes Rauschen im Kopffhoerer
meiner Zeitmaschine.
Stummer kosmischer Lärm.
Kein Klopfzeichen. Kein Hilfeschrei.
Funkstille.
Entweder ist es aus,
sage ich mir, oder es hat
noch nicht angefangen.
Jetzt aber! Jetzt:
Ein Knirschen. Ein Scharren. Ein Riß.
Das ist es. Ein eisiger Fingernagel,
der an der Tür kratzt und stockt.
Etwas reißt.
Eine endlose Segeltuchbahn,
ein schneeweißer Leinwandstreifen,
der erst langsam,
dann rascher und immer rascher
und fauchend entzweireißt.
Das ist der Anfang.
Hört ihr? Hört ihr es nicht?
Haltet euch fest!
Dann wird es wieder still.
Nur in der Wand klirrt
etwas Dünngeschliffenes nach,
ein kristallenes Zittern,
das schwächer wird
und vergeht.
Das war es.
war es das? Ja,
das muß es gewesen sein.
Das war der Anfang.
Der Anfang vom Ende
ist immer diskret.
Es ist elf Uhr vierzig
an Bord. Die stählerne Haut
unter der Wasserlinie klafft,
zweihundert Meter lang,
aufgeschlitzt
von einem unvorstellbaren Messer.
Das Wasser schießt in die Schotten.
An dem leuchtenden Rumpf
gleitet, dreißig Meter hoch
über dem Meeresspiegel, schwarz
und lautlos der Eisberg vorbei
und bleibt zurück in der Dunkelheit.
("Der Untergang der Titanic", 1978)
José Galisi Filho - In der Mitte der Wüste Arizonas befindet sich eine riesige Skulptur. „Komplex 1" lautet rätselhaft der Name. Kein Museum der Welt könnte sie ausstellen im Sinne von Gehalt und Form. Sie ist eine Rampe, die ins Nichts springt oder vielleicht darauf hinweist. Wer sich die Mühe macht hinzugehen, gibt schon sein Einverständnis und wiederholt einen asketischen Gestus des Aufgebens. An der Grenze von Landschaft und menschlichem Produkt erinnert sie uns an eine gefrorene Energie, die auch mit Müdigkeit und Schweigen verwandt ist. Die Skulptur als Gestus verkörpert ein „Fundament", elementar wie der Boden und seine Kräfte. Ihre Haltung ist ein lyrischer Fundamentalismus, eine Figur der avantgardistischen Orthodoxie in ihrer Reinheit. Ist die Truppe am Ziel schon angekommen, oder marschiert sie immer noch? Ihr letztes Buch heißt „Leichter als die Luft", aber dieses Jahrhundert wird für immer jenes des Untergangs des Subjekts sein. Die Avantgarde ruht sich aus - es sind die anderen, die immer noch marschieren. Hätten Sie vielleicht diese Ruhe gefunden, Herr Enzensberger, wie Ihre Zeilen lauten: „Einer horcht. Er wartet. Er hält den Atem an, ganz in der Nähe hier. Er sagt: Der da spricht, das bin ich. Nie wieder, sagt er, wird es so ruhig sein, so trocken und warm wie jetzt. Weißes Rauschen im Kopfhörer meiner Zeitmaschine. Stummer kosmischer Lärm."
Hans Magnus Enzensberger - Ob es ihr gelungen ist oder nicht, ans Ziel zu kommen, werden wir nicht genau wissen. Aber diese Rampe ins Nichts erinnert an die Beharrlichkeit der Arbeit von Sisyphos, dessen Stein in der Tat der Frieden ist. Diese Energie könnte vielleicht aus diesem sonnigen Morgen kommen. Die Sonne ist ganz einfach da. Dieser Impuls nach vorne ist unaufhaltsam und schreibt sich selbst in der Einbildungskraft unserer Gattung ein. In meinem Gedicht habe ich nicht das Ende formuliert, sondern die Annäherung an das Ende, ein Ende, das immer wieder verschoben wird. Solange wir reden, wird das Ende nicht stattfinden, solange wir den Atem durchhalten können. An der Stelle des Endes tritt immer etwas anderes auf. Das Ende kann nicht da sein, wenn es so wäre, dann wäre dies nicht das Ende.
José Galisi Filho - Der Anfang vom Ende ist immer „diskret", er ist schon passiert, das Eis hat uns schon erreicht. Diese Annäherung an das Ende formulieren Sie in Hegelschem Stil als die Aufhebung des Endes, auf deutsch: das Vollenden. Sie behaupteten auch in „Der Untergang der Titanic", dass „Vernunft Vernunft ist, und nicht Vernunft, um das zu kapieren, braucht man nicht Hegel zu sein, dazu genügt ein Blick in den Taschenspiegel", das heißt, die Vernunft ist nicht am Ende, aber in der Mitte, sie ist die Schwelle des Endes, das immer wieder verschoben wird bei dem Exorzismus des Wirklichen. Wer sollte nun diesen Untergang bezeugen?
Hans Magnus Enzensberger - Aber die Geschichte auch der Philosophie ist zu „Ende". Im vergangenen Jahrhundert gab es diese großen Abhandlungen der Geschichte der Philosophie, doch niemand mehr heute glaubt an die Existenz dieser Geschichte. Wenn wir über das Ende sprechen, es kann nicht da sein. Jeden Tag passieren "mini-mikroskopische" Apokalypsen. Die Apokalypse ist vor allem eine demokratische Phantasie. Aber es gehört zur Idee der Apokalypse selbst, dass sie total ist. Der Untergang der Welt gilt für alle ohne Ausnahme, das ist eine Phantasie des Untergangs in der Gleichheit, also eine Phantasie der Gleichheit vor dem Ende. Also ist die Apokalypse eine Phantasie des Terrors, aber auch Ausdruck des Wunsches eines Endes in dieser Gleichheit. Aber die Realität ist nicht so, wir können eine Halluzination haben, aber in der Tat sitzen wir an diesem schönen Morgen wie der Maler der umbrischen Apokalypse in dem Buch.
José Galisi Filho - Wir sind schon lange in ein neues unbekanntes Territorium ohne Begrifflichkeit eingetreten, wie Ihr Essay „Aussichten aus dem Bürgerkrieg" zeigt. Um es zu kolonisieren, soll unsere kritische Metapher neu und schnell erfunden werden. Wie beschreiben Sie die Bewegung des Denkens vor den neuen Erscheinungen? Gibt es heute ein Wort in der Lyrik, welches die Ausbeutung noch bezeichnen kann?
Hans Magnus Enzensberger - Diese Bewegung des Denkens vor den neuen Erscheinungen heißt seit Montaigne Essay. Ich bin kein Philosoph. Ein Philosoph muß argumentieren. Heute haben die Philosophen längst aufgegeben zu argumentieren. Die Philosophen heute delirieren, wir haben die delirante Philosophie. Die Franzosen sind die Spezialisten in diesem „Metier" des Deliriums der Philosophie, d.h. in einer Art Zungenrederei zu sprechen wie in der Bibel In der Bibel spricht man nur durch diese Zungen. Die meisten reden nur in diesen Zungen und Dialekten der Sekten. Das ist so unehrlich, denn wenn man sie widerlegen will, sagen sie: „Aber ich mache ja Literatur". Und wenn man darauf erwidert: Aber du schreibst nicht so gut für einen Schriftsteller, dann sagt der Schriftsteller: „Aber ich bin Philosoph". Das ist ein billiger Trick, gut, warum nicht, Tricks sind erlaubt, aber so offensichtlich ist es eben ein billiger Trick und leicht zu durchschauen. Das ist nicht mehr das, was man unter einer konsistenten Philosophie verstehen kann. Was die Ausbeutung betrifft, die Ausbeutung hat sich mit den neuen Technologien entwickelt . Die Leute heute hoffen, dass jemand sie ausbeutet. Sie hoffen darauf, die Arbeitslosen. Aber es gibt niemanden mehr, um sie auszubeuten. Das ist auch ein Paradoxon der Nachfrage und des Problems der Maschinalisierung. Wenn das Kapital nicht mehr diese Leute braucht, dann ist die Ausbeutung nicht mehr der Schrecken, der sie frührer war, über den man sich dann beschwert und beklagt hat. Die Leute hoffen, dass sie jemanden finden, der sie ausbeuten kann. Das ganze Problem von Afrika ist, dass es ganz uninteressant geworden ist, weil es dort kein Öl oder Diamanten wie in der Vergangenheit gibt, und es sind deshalb inzwischen keine Ausbeuter mehr da. Das ist in gewisser Weise schlimmer als vorher.
Frage - Sie haben einmal behauptet , dass die Bild Zeitung als Nullmedium radikaler als ihre Kritiker sei. Mit dem Internet wird sogar die Wirklichkeit ersetzt, ein Traum, den sich sogar die Avantgarde nicht vorstellen könnte.
Hans Magnus Enzensberger - Aber man versucht jetzt, sie abzuschaffen, es geht um diese sogenannten Projekte der künstlichen Intelligenz. Das ist auch eine technische Utopie, weil der Körper anfällig ist, sterblich, und also brauchen wir bessere Werkzeuge, d. h. bessere Maschinen. Das ist auch eine Art von armer Utopie. Die wird genau so scheitern wie die anderen Utopien. Die künstliche Intelligenz, sollte man ja nicht vergessen, ist ein Projekt von Technikern und Wissenschaftlern, die auf diese Weise Milliarden bekommen im Namen eines Versprechens, aber sie haben noch nichts zustande gebracht, und ich bin sehr skeptisch demgegenüber. Die künstliche Intelligenz hat sich bis jetzt nur blamiert. Wir haben sogar nicht einmal einen Roboter, der einen Fußboden sauber machen könnte. Die Maschinen sind sehr dumm. Das ist eine Utopie wie der Kommunismus und andere, die scheitern alle wie die technische Utopie und wie dieser Versuch, den Menschen durch die Genetik zu verbessern. Es wird sich irgendwann zeigen, wie blödsinnig die technische Utopie ist. Wie gesagt, wenn die Menschen nicht mehr auszuhalten sind, sollte jede Möglichkeit, die ihnen überhaupt erreichbar ist, irgendwann mal realisiert werden. Diese neuen Biotechnologien werden nicht ungenutzt sein, es wird immer jemand da sein, um sie zu verwenden. Das ist eine neue Art von Ausbeutung, die nicht mehr mit der der Klassenkämpfe zu tun hat. Es geht um das neue Stadium der Arbeitskraft und um die Kontrolle des genetischen Kapitals dieser Arbeitskraft.
José Galisi Filho - Ist es noch möglich, Gedichte wie „Der Untergang der Titanic" zu schreiben?
Hans Magnus Enzensberger - Die Gedichte in „Der Untergang der Titanic" sind sehr bescheiden, und alles ist dort sehr relativ und nimmt sich immer selbst zurück. Man nimmt das zurück, weil man nicht mehr die Position eines Leonardo einnehmen kann oder wie von diesen universalen Menschen wie Goethe oder Dante. Das macht niemand mehr. Es gibt nicht mehr diese Menschen oder diese Idee von Menschen, die über die Menschheit erhaben sind. Die Künstler sind genau unmächtig wie die anderen Leute. Sie versuchen ihr bestes wie andere auch, aber ohne sich Illusionen zu machen. Wir machen weiter. Wir haben noch ein Ende in der Hand, wir haben noch einen Moment, in dem man weiter machen kann. Wenn man über dieses Ende der Kunstperiode spricht, das geht ja schon seit 200 Jahren dem Ende zu, seit dem Ende der Kunstperiode. Dieses Ende ist sehr lang!
José Galisi Filho - Gescheiterte Künstler wie Hitler haben die ästhetische Apokalypse gewollt..
Hans Magnus Enzensberger - Goebbels war auch ein Künstler und Schriftsteller. Diese These vom Gesamtkunstwerk des Totalitarismus, was will sie genau sagen? Es gibt auch Theorien darüber. Das sind die wild gewordenen Künstler. Das sind Künstler, die nicht verstehen, dass die Kunst nicht allmächtig ist. Diese Illusion der Allmacht der Kunst. Ein intelligenter Künstler weiß, dass er nicht allmächtig ist. Ein Heiner Müller wusste genau, dass er nicht allmächtig war. Aber Hitler und Speer hatten infantile Machtphantasien gehabt. Ohne sich bewußt zu sein der Problematik der Ohnmacht der Kunst. Ohne Selbstreflexion.
José Galisi Filho - Wo ist der Schüssel, der das Jahrhundert Kafkas für immer schließt? Es gibt Hoffnung, glaubte damals Kafka, aber nicht für uns, nicht für uns aus Brasilien, wir wollen kein Rest der Geschichte sein...
Hans Magnus Enzensberger - Ich denke, Brasilien ist eines der Länder, das noch eine wirkliche Utopie hatte, die glaubten, sie hätten eine Zukunft auf ihrer Seite. „Wir kommen erst noch!", wir haben sozusagen etwas, was uns bevorsteht. Das hatte aber der Westen nicht mehr, kein Land der Welt hat so ein Motto wie in der brasilianischen Flagge „Ordem e Progresso" (spricht auf Portugiesisch), Ordnung und Fortschritt. Das ist ja aber phantastisch für ein Land. Auch das gibt es genau wie für das Ende der Kunst, die sich immer weiter fortsetzt, obwohl es seit 200 Jahren das Ende der Kunst gibt und immer noch ein Ende, das immer wieder verschoben wird, auch da gibt es diesen Glauben an die Zukunft. Diese große Zukunft Brasiliens wurde immer versetzt und weiter verschoben in der Moderne,
die kommt erst noch. „Eines Tages werden wir eine große Macht sein" hieß damals das Motto, d.h. eines Tages werden wir die Probleme, die noch vorhanden sind, mit der riesigen Vitalität lösen, die wir haben, doch das Fehlen der Strukturen und Institutionen, ich weiß es nicht, ich bin sehr skeptisch. Ich sehe nicht diese Lösung in Brasilien, wie auch in der Kunst nicht, die immer weiter macht mit dieser Relativität, unaufhaltsam. Es gibt kein Ende. Dieser Fortschritt ist deswegen nicht gekommen und wird nie kommen auf diesem Weg. Was kommt der Ordnung und dem Fortschritt? Jedenfalls bin ich da skeptisch. Und ich kenne Brasilien sehr gut, diese Relativität ist typisch für Brasilien, doch es wird deshalb auch nicht zugrunde gehen, es wird kein Ende geben, aber immer mit „Desordem", Unordnung und einer Mischung von (spricht auf Portugiesisch) „Progresso e um pouquinho de Regresso!" (Fortschritt und ein bißschen Rückschritt).
José Galisi Filho - „Weil es also ein anderer ist/Immer ein anderer,/der da redet,/und weil der,/von dem da die Rede ist/schweigt." Von wem ist da heute die Rede, im Jahrhundert des Untergangs des Subjekts?
Hans Magnus Enzensberger - Das sind die ganzen Leute ohne Stimme in dieser Welt, und das ist eine riesige Masse bzw. die Mehrheit der Menschheit. Die Menschen, die schweigen, kommen nicht vor. Und der Versuch des Stellvertretertums ist auch interessant, es gab immer im Marxismus die Avantgarde, die Avantgarde des Proletariats, der Arbeiterklasse, der Partei. Die Avantgarde der Partei war das Zentralkomitee, das Politik an der Stelle der anderen macht. Das ist ein Problem wie in der Kunst, wenn man sie für andere macht. Und es ist genauso problematisch wie in der Politik, weil man nie weiß, wer überhaupt in der Lage ist, für die anderen zu sprechen. Das ist zweifelhaft. Dieser Mann sieht uns im Hotel und putzt den Boden, wie soll er verstehen, was los ist in der Welt. Das ist ganz schwierig. Ich weiß nicht, ich kann mich unterhalten mit den Leuten der brasilianischen „Favelas" (Slums), aber ich kann überhaupt nicht für sie sprechen.
José Galisi Filho - In ihrem Buch gibt es ein Gedicht über den brasilianischen Samba. Sehen Sie diese musikalische Gattung als Kitsch der „World Music" oder als eine Art nostalgisches Reservoir für den deutschen Mittelstand im Urlaub auf Mallorca oder Ibiza?
Hans Magnus Enzensberger - Natürlich - mit dem Samba passiert ähnliches wie in den zwanziger Jahren mit dem Tango (und heute mit dem kubanischen Song): unfreiwillige oder absichtliche Parodie, Travestie der Formen, Verdünnung - „Multikulturell": das bedeutet immer (unter anderem) Mißverständnis, Trivialisierung. Nicht immer ist das Hybride ein Vorzug. „Brasilianisierung", das sehe ich ähnlich. Auch ich halte so etwas für unvermeidlich (übrigens in dem Sinn, dass Europa in 30 Jahren vielfarbig und hybrid wird). Aber der Preis ist höher als Ullrich Beck vermutet. Keine Idylle, sondern starke Konflikte, mit „Favelas", Gangs, Rechtsunsicherheit. São Paulo ist ja kein Sanatorium!
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)

























































