YOU TO THE POWER OF ME: U M3 JAKE WHITESIDE In order to effectively share my beliefs, I must establish an interpersonal wavelength to drive my ideas along. The most succinct and efficacious method I can imagine to do so is to ground a set of assumptions to continue from. The first assumption to be understood is this: At the core of our human relations is logic. Jean Oesterle says that Logic is nothing else than the art that guides us in coming to know something previously unknown to us. Understanding that, it can be said that humans employ logic to satisfy a natural and unshakeable desire to know and learn (without this fact, why would education be relevant? How would humanity still exist?). The second necessary assumption is that behind the entirety of mathematics, there is also logic. Mathematics could be called codes of understanding, or strings of reasoning that we apply to things in order to progress. William P. Thurston attempts to define mathematics as the theory of formal patterns (162). These patterns are just logic in the form of numbers, variables, exponents, symbols, and so on. Our third and final assumption is that mathematics and logic are circular basically equal. It can be seen that through things like geometric proofs, mathematics employ logic to verify and validate truth. Likewise, logic uses mathematics to work through how things work, for example, how certain angles can fit together to make a structure stronger or
more stable than another. Building on these assumptions, the question I seek to explore is this: If logic is at the core of our actions and relations to one another, and logic is also at the core of mathematics, and those two are circular, is math at the core of our actions? In other words, is math the nuclear core of humanity s interactions? To clarify, this document should be a step up in core complexity and a step further in R human nature in comparison to another production of mine, Binary Co e. In that production, I D argue that at the core of the human being is binary code. I believe the same here, but in a more complicated form. Just as our relations to each other are multilayered and require usage from each of the three aspects I believe make up a human the mind, body and soul, the code of conduct at the level of our relations is more accurately represented with multilayered mathematics, rather than basic binary. With the preliminaries accounted for, my first expedition is into the ever-changing realm of power relations. Power relations between human beings can be ubiquitous, obvious, sub-surfaced, powerful, weak, prevalent, governmental, or anarchical. Essentially, they are complex. Scientifically, humans are made of the same stuff, but somehow manage to remain unique not quite the same as any other person on Earth. Our relations are the same. We push power around amongst ourselves in a generic way through showing superiority intellectually or physically, throwing our alliance towards a similar cause or, more specifically, leader, and we do everything we can to know who is in charge. The uniqueness in that is the way we receive others power. A team leader at a place of work may have a task force consisting of eight people, but may not be able to eke eight people s worth of work from them. Reason being that one team-member may understand and accept the task she is given and complete it with the speed and skill of two
people, two other team-members might not understand, and another dislikes the leader. The three people that cannot or refuse to function on the same level as everyone else slow down the team s productivity. The way each person understood and responded to the leader s power was different and unique. The mathematical formula would look something like this: W(x)+(f(iy))=responses of all kinds where W=power, x=modes of power dissemination, f=the function of power, i=human, and y=the variable nature of any given human. This formula strikes me as the most effective way to portray this aspect of powerrelations, largely because in our human existence, everything we do is quantifiable. We do x amount of hours of work, or we have y amount of ideas. Even things that don t seem to deal with numbers do, entirely so. Writing a book becomes a probability equation. What are the odds that that word would be combined with that phrase in that chapter? It can be said, then, that our interactions, as they relate to power, can be quantifiable as well. Knowing that the largest variable lies in the way people receive power, we can move to the fewer ways that power is employed. Michel Foucault presents the chapter Panopticism in his book Discipline and Punish in order to show us the functional evolution of power throughout history. In the past, humans enacted their desires to rule over each other in more physically violent forms than we do presently. Henk Geertsema says that The use of power often, if not always, implies some element of violence (1). I agree, but it must be clarified that the level of violence is what is important here. Hospital nurses ask patients to rate their pain on a scale of zero to ten. The general goal is to get that pain level to a flat zero. In that case, healing is at the maximum, because the body is able to rest and repair itself. The natural goal for power, then, is to make it as
effective as possible. What better way to do that than minimizing the physical pain in favor of more pleasant modes of power? Foucault provides the example of a plagued town as a picture of the discipline-blockade (295). He says that power is manifested through discipline in a perfectly violent way. Every person in the town is separated from each other and forced, under the pain of death, to stay indoors until the plague is eradicated. Watchmen and administrators preside over the town pictures of power and instillers of fear. Foucault says: [In the plagued town], there is an exceptional situation: against an extraordinary evil, power is mobilized; it makes itself everywhere present and visible; it invents new mechanisms; it separates, it immobilizes, it partitions; it constructs for a time what is both a counter-city and the perfect society; it imposes an ideal functioning, but one that is reduced, in the final analysis, like the evil that it combats, to a simple dualism of life and death: that which moves brings death, and one kills that which moves (292). This town is the epitome of our history s power-relations. Foucault shows us a much more current, architectural establishment of power, one that he says is permeated throughout our modern society. He presents the Panopticon, a building designed by Jeremy Bentham, as the perfect structure of discipline. Through it, inmates are kept segregated from one another and their unseen observer in such a way as to psychologically force them into disciplining themselves. Inmates are made not to know if they are being watched, and the paranoia of that makes them act consistently as if they are. It is a streamlining, if you will, of power relations. He says: Whenever one is dealing with a multiplicity of individuals on whom a task or a particular form of behavior must be imposed, the panoptic schema may be used (293). In modern days, we see panopticism in our supermarkets, with cameras that may or may not be turned on, or the black domes on the ceiling. It is in other places, as well, such as speed meters that may or may not send
captured speeds and pictures to law enforcement, or internet safeguards in workplaces to keep employees away from inappropriate or distracting websites. These two methods of power dissemination, the plague-town showcasing of power and the panoptic schema of paranoia are systems we use or have used to subject each other to our control. I ll take the Panopticon as an example to apply to mathematics. On an architectural level, using complex geometry is the only way that Bentham could design the building to suit his desired needs. Fig. 1 Beyond the architecture of the building, panopticism is employed as an increase in efficiency. In the factory setting, an employer only needs to hire a single guard with a closed-circuit television system to effectively plant the seeds of paranoia into hundreds of employees, which will bloom into maximum productivity. Our actions in relation to power, then, become a mathematical question of what kinds of power are employed to what kind of people to get what kind of effect. Foucault s formula would look something like this: (-g+i)+p=homogenous effects of power where g=guards, i=inmates, and P=panopticisim All of this information suggests that at the core of our connections with one another as they relate to power are both capstones and cornerstones of mathematics. There is power. When
somebody seeks to use power over another person, they employ methods such as panopticism, which, I believe, has its roots in mathematics. If this is correct, then by extension, people draw upon the statutes of mathematics to control one another. Karl Marx argued that the self-expression of man, or indeed the central value of man is labor. He writes: "Labor is, in the first place, a process in which both man and nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material reactions between himself and nature. He opposes himself to nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate nature's productions in a form adapted to his own wants (197-8). Labor, in Marx s view, is man s way of controlling his surroundings. If it s true that work is at the core of mankind, and that work is a power relation, then it can be said that power and control are at the core of mankind. Mathematically, it is possible to simplify most expressions. In other words, it is possible to break off the unnecessary portions of an expression to get the core value. If we start with a human, and simplify him into two parts his being and his actions, we can toss away the idea of his body. From there, we can break his actions into subcategories and discard everything but his labor his self-expression. From there, we can translate labor into its previously agreed upon equal control. Drawing on our previous discussions of power relations and mathematics, we can simplify control to its core mathematics. At the beginning of this document, I posed the question: is mathematics at the core of our human interactions? Following the logic of our recent simplification, the answer is yes. Yes it is.
In that case, humanity is a contest. In any game or contest, it is common knowledge that the victorious contender will be the one who understands the inner workings of the game and applies that knowledge to his advantage. In the case of humanity, then, it s all about who s the greater mathematician.
Works Cited Oesterle, Jean. What Is Logic and Why Should We Study Logic? Societyofscholastics.org/veritas/. International Society of Scholastics, 10 Mar. 2010. Web. 6 Dec. 2014. Thurston, William P. On Proof and Progress in Mathematics. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 30.2 (1994): 161-78. Web. 28 Nov. 2014 Foucault, Michel. Panopticism. Ways of Reading. Ed. David Bartholomae and Anthony Perosky. Boston, M Bedford/St. Martin s, 2011. 282-309. Geertsema, Henk G. Power and Conflict in Human Relations. Tentative reflections from a Christian Perspective (n.d.): n. pag. Allofliferedeemed.co.iu. Steve Bishop, 2008. Web. 6 Dec. 2014. Marx, Karl. Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected Works, Vol. 35, Karl Marx: Capital, Vol. 1. [S.I.]: International Publishers, 1996. Fig. 1. http://abspatial.blogspot.com/2013_07_01_archive.html. Web. 6 Dec. 2014.