Technology (the technique used to do things) changes over time.
Technique occupies space over time. As it advances, change accelerates to occupy more of your space. There is a new normal to get used to, and it is attributable to the technique used to do things.
Common to both political science and economics is organization theory. Organizational technologies develop, intentionally or unintentionally, to do things faster and better; thus having an efficient-causal identity but, really, the development of technique is focused on the effect, having been actually caused by the purpose, thus having an “attributive value.”
Organizations have a reason to exist and they can be described as organic (due to a spontaneous self-assembly) or inorganic (attributable to intending the effective outcome). There is a difference in the attributive value of the means to ends, and in the realm of politics and economics this becomes the domain of philosophy, to describe and explain the efficient cause of the attributive value.
(See other articles by griffithlighton on the attributive value published on the World Wide Web. See also abstract works of art by griffithlighton conceptualizing the notion of efficient and effective causal identity and the work of art that is its attributive value, existing on demand.)
Repetitive patterns emerge that can be attributed to an efficient purpose, which we then describe as having a causal identity. This sequence of events (which is the occupation of space over time) is described by sociologists as routine tasking (having a cause defined by the purpose, which is verifiably effective over time).
Repetition by design (which smacks of the self-assembly) can be mathematically expressed. (See, for example, Societal Systems by John M. Warfield, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Univeristy of Virginia, 1976.) It is an existential ontolologic that is a well-known, fundamental element of creating works of art having an aesthetic appeal.
Appealing to the natural aesthetic is present both in nature (which can be described as having cause without purpose) and in works of art created on demand (with the cause being the measurable purpose). Most of the works of art I publish reflect the notion of this “appeal to the natural aesthetic,” which is an “objective reality” common to both the artist and the “spontaneous” self-assembly we see in nature by natural design (existing measure and resisting nothing).
Spontaneously, nature, having no resistance, being completely self-determined, operates with repetitive design as it occupies space over time. While the purpose may be undetermined and completely ambiguous (existing cause without purpose), it is much like the artist who is the quintessential model of self-determination.
The artist assembles the order of things in the form of abstract expression, re-creating what’s really out there, on demand, to arbitrate the existence (the measure) without resistance (being and nothingness).
The image just below, for example, “edging the gap” intends to represent the attributes of a spontaneous self-assembly. Using digital graphics means the artist has to deal with “the edge effect.” An image is made of squares, and when you circle the square (or curve the space over time) the edge effectively appears. In this image, instead of trying to eliminate the effect I simply used it as part of the design, having a naturally repetitive-design effect that appeals to the natural aesthetic, by design. While I created an original work of art (attempting to imitate life) it is still the old ontologic that naturally appeals to an aesthetic value.
The same thing happens with organizational technologies, especially at the margin, creatively edging the gap between what the designer (the author) wants or intends and what nature re-presents by means of a self-determined, self-assembly, existing on demand.
Hegel described the ontology as dialecticism. There is an added identity but it derives from the antecedents. This means that reality is actually a product of determinism; but since it could actually be anything (with nothing to resist it but itself, which agrees with the notion, and mathematics, of a multi-universal reality), there naturally exists an object of self-determination that is so similar to the object of artistic, abstract expression, it seems to me that’s exactly what it is!
Organizational designs are intended to be deterministic. Even the laissez-faire model has the element of determinism, with the outcome being naturally determined by pluralistic forces, undirected by authoritarian, elitist authority. Capitalists fill this gap (edging the effect) with “boundary spanners,” as organization theorists describe it, circling the square to smooth out the rough spots that just seem to pop up no matter how routine the task. The result is a bureaucratic model of power and political economy, which is what I mostly write about.
Much of what is described as capitalism — mostly consolidation of industry and markets — is designed to prevent what naturally “just happens” using a laissez-faire model of power. Specifically, it is designed to attain the measurable results we have now — maintaining extreme income inequality while, at the same time, arguing the utility of its natural aesthetic in the form of being laissez faire, which it measurably is not, by design.
Maintaining the natural-model legitimacy (the ontologics) of a free market, capitalists recreate the technical jargon to describe and explain the means to ends. Technical terms are created to fit the moment (neologisms), having a new interpretation to transact what measurably exists as objective reality, being derived from the natural laws of supply and demand, authored (and disambiguated) by the invisible hand. The semantics of the new logic is simply to mask the motive with the aesthetic of a natural existence, supported by technical terms and concepts that have the import of inviolable expertise and authority.