Though wildly different in so many ways, Saturn’s moon Titan has something important in common with the Earth. Among all the objects in the Solar System, they’re the only two with liquids on their surfaces. Saturn’s largest moon, Titan, stands out as a dynamic, icy oceanic world featuring Earthlike hydrocarbon reservoirs that cycle through its atmosphere, surface, and interior. Titan’s atmosphere also creates complex organic molecules that could sink into the moon’s subsurface oceans and form prebiotic chemistry. (from New Thinking Allowed)
American Experience | PBS • Premiered Jan 2, 2020 Joseph Welch finally asked the question of McCarthy: “Have you no decency, sir?” MCCARTHY chronicles the rise and fall of Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin senator who came to power after a stunning victory in an election no one thought he could win. Once in office, he declared that there was a vast conspiracy threatening America — emanating not from a rival superpower, but from within. Free of restraint or oversight, he conducted a crusade against those he accused of being enemies of the state, a chilling campaign marked by groundless accusations, bullying intimidation, grandiose showmanship and cruel victimization. With lawyer Roy Cohn at his side, he belittled critics, spinning a web of lies and distortions while spreading fear and confusion. After years in the headlines, he was brought down by his own excesses and overreach. But his name lives on linked to the modern-day witch hunt we call “McCarthyism.” Learn more about MCCARTHY, including where to watch the film: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexper…
“The ancient tradition that the world will be consumed in fire at the end of six thousand years is true, as I have heard from Hell.
“For the cherub with his flaming sword is hereby commanded to leave his guard at tree of life [in the Garden of Eden], and when he does, the whole creation will be consumed, and appear infinite, and holy whereas it now appears finite & corrupt.
“This will come to pass by an improvement of sensual enjoyment [what Thane called sensual accommodation].
“But first the notion that man has a body distinct from his soul is to be expunged.
“If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is: infinite.
For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro’ the narrow chinks of his cavern [Plato’s cave].”
William Blake (November 28, 1757 – August 12, 1827) was an English poet, painter, and printmaker. Largely unrecognised during his life, Blake has become a seminal figure in the history of the poetry and visual art of the Romantic Age. Wikipedia
[Interesting point to Prosperos students is the apparent dichotomy between Blake’s advice to improve sensual enjoyment and Translation’s implicit advice to diminish sense testimony.]
“The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”
― Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879 – April 18, 1955) was a German-born theoretical physicist who is best known for developing the theory of relativity. Einstein also made important contributions to quantum mechanics. His mass–energy equivalence formula E = mc², which arises from special relativity, has been called “the world’s most famous equation”. Wikipedia
Technocracy is a form of government in which decision-makers appoint knowledge experts in specific domains to provide them with advice and guidance in various areas of their policy-making responsibilities. Technocracy follows largely in the tradition of other meritocratic theories and works best when the state exerts strong control over social and economic issues.
This system is sometimes presented as explicitly contrasting with representative democracy, the notion that elected representatives should be the primary decision-makers in government,[1] despite the fact that technocracy does not imply eliminating elected representatives. In a technocracy, decision-makers rely on individuals and institutions possessing specialized knowledge and data-based evidence rather than advisors with political affiliations or loyalty.
The term technocracy was initially used to signify the application of the scientific method to solving social problems. In its most extreme form, technocracy is an entire government running as a technical or engineering problem and is mostly hypothetical. In more practical use, technocracy is any portion of a bureaucracy run by technologists. A government in which elected officials appoint experts and professionals to administer individual government functions, and recommend legislation, can be considered technocratic.[2][3] Some uses of the word refer to a form of meritocracy, where the ablest are in charge, ostensibly without the influence of special interest groups.[4] Critics have suggested that a “technocratic divide” challenges more participatory models of democracy, describing these divides as “efficacy gaps that persist between governing bodies employing technocratic principles and members of the general public aiming to contribute to government decision making”.[5]
History of the term
The term technocracy is derived from the Greek words τέχνη, tekhne meaning skill and κράτος, kratos meaning power, as in governance, or rule. William Henry Smyth, a California engineer, is usually credited with inventing the word technocracy in 1919 to describe “the rule of the people made effective through the agency of their servants, the scientists and engineers”, although the word had been used before on several occasions.[4][6][7] Smyth used the term Technocracy in his 1919 article “‘Technocracy’—Ways and Means to Gain Industrial Democracy” in the journal Industrial Management (57).[8] Smyth’s usage referred to Industrial democracy: a movement to integrate workers into decision-making through existing firms or revolution.[8]
In the 1930s, through the influence of Howard Scott and the technocracy movement he founded, the term technocracy came to mean ‘government by technical decision making’, using an energy metric of value. It was based on organising and directing economic activity within a geographical region nearly self-sufficient in resources and with a highly developed technology. Scott proposed that money be replaced by energy certificates denominated in units such as ergs or joules, equivalent in total amount to an appropriate national net energy budget, and then distributed equally among the North American population, according to resource availability.[9][1]
There is in common usage found the derivative term technocrat. The word technocrat can refer to someone exercising governmental authority because of their knowledge,[10] “a member of a powerful technical elite”, or “someone who advocates the supremacy of technical experts”.[11][2][3] McDonnell and Valbruzzi define a prime minister or minister as a technocrat if “at the time of their appointment to government, they: have never held public office under the banner of a political party; are not a formal member of any party; and are said to possess recognized non-party political expertise which is directly relevant to the role occupied in government”.[12] In Russia, the President of Russia has often nominated ministers based on technical expertise from outside political circles, and these have been referred to as “technocrats”.[13][14]
Precursors
Before the term technocracy was coined, technocratic or quasi-technocratic ideas involving governance by technical experts were promoted by various individuals, most notably early socialist theorists such as Henri de Saint-Simon. This was expressed by the belief in state ownership over the economy, with the state’s function being transformed from pure philosophical rule over men into a scientific administration of things and a direction of production processes under scientific management.[15] According to Daniel Bell:
“St.-Simon’s vision of industrial society, a vision of pure technocracy, was a system of planning and rational order in which society would specify its needs and organize the factors of production to achieve them.”[16]
Citing the ideas of St.-Simon, Bell concludes that the “administration of things” by rational judgment is the hallmark of technocracy.[16]
Alexander Bogdanov, a Russian scientist and social theorist, also anticipated a conception of technocratic process. Both Bogdanov’s fiction and his political writings, which were highly influential, suggest that he was concerned that a coming revolution against capitalism could lead to a technocratic society.[17][18]: 114
From 1913 until 1922, Bogdanov immersed himself in writing a lengthy philosophical treatise of original ideas, Tectology: Universal Organization Science. Tectology anticipated many basic ideas of systems analysis, later explored by cybernetics. In Tectology, Bogdanov proposed unifying all social, biological, and physical sciences by considering them as systems of relationships and seeking organizational principles that underlie all systems.
Arguably, the Platonic idea of philosopher-kings represents a sort of technocracy in which the state is run by those with specialist knowledge, in this case, knowledge of the Good rather than scientific knowledge.[citation needed] The Platonic claim is that those who best understand goodness should be empowered to lead the state, as they would lead it toward the path of happiness. Whilst knowledge of the Good differs from knowledge of science, rulers are here appointed based on a certain grasp of technical skill rather than democratic mandate.
Characteristics
Technocrats are individuals with technical training and occupations who perceive many important societal problems as being solvable with the applied use of technology and related applications. The administrative scientist Gunnar K. A. Njalsson theorizes that technocrats are primarily driven by their cognitive “problem-solution mindsets” and only in part by particular occupational group interests. Their activities and the increasing success of their ideas are thought to be a crucial factor behind the modern spread of technology and the largely ideological concept of the “information society“. Technocrats may be distinguished from “econocrats” and “bureaucrats” whose problem-solution mindsets differ from those of the technocrats.[19]
Examples
The former government of the Soviet Union has been referred to as a technocracy.[20] Soviet leaders like Leonid Brezhnev often had a technical background. In 1986, 89% of Politburo members were engineers.[20]
In 2013, a European Union library briefing on its legislative structure referred to the Commission as a “technocratic authority”, holding a “legislative monopoly” over the EU lawmaking process.[26] The briefing suggests that this system, which elevates the European Parliament to a vetoing and amending body, was “originally rooted in the mistrust of the political process in post-war Europe”. This system is unusual since the Commission’s sole right of legislative initiative is a power usually associated with Parliaments.
Several governments in European parliamentary democracies have been labelled ‘technocratic’ based on the participation of unelected experts (‘technocrats’) in prominent positions.[2] Since the 1990s, Italy has had several such governments (in Italian, governo tecnico) in times of economic or political crisis,[27][28] including the formation in which economist Mario Monti presided over a cabinet of unelected professionals.[29][30] The term ‘technocratic’ has been applied to governments where a cabinet of elected professional politicians is led by an unelected prime minister, such as in the cases of the 2011-2012 Greek government led by economist Lucas Papademos and the Czech Republic’s 2009–2010 caretaker government presided over by the state’s chief statistician, Jan Fischer.[3][31] In December 2013, in the framework of the national dialogue facilitated by the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet, political parties in Tunisia agreed to install a technocratic government led by Mehdi Jomaa.[32]
The article “Technocrats: Minds Like Machines”[3] states that Singapore is perhaps the best advertisement for technocracy: the political and expert components of the governing system there seem to have merged completely. This was underlined in a 1993 article in Wired by Sandy Sandfort,[38] where he describes the information technology system of the island even at that early date making it effectively intelligent.
Engineering
Following Samuel Haber,[39] Donald Stabile argues that engineers were faced with a conflict between physical efficiency and cost efficiency in the new corporate capitalist enterprises of the late nineteenth-century United States. Because of their perceptions of market demand, the profit-conscious, non-technical managers of firms where the engineers work often impose limits on the projects that engineers desire to undertake.
The prices of all inputs vary with market forces, thereby upsetting the engineer’s careful calculations. As a result, the engineer loses control over projects and must continually revise plans. To maintain control over projects, the engineer must attempt to control these outside variables and transform them into constant factors.[40]
The American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen was an early advocate of technocracy and was involved in the Technical Alliance, as were Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert (the latter of whom later developed the theory of peak oil). Veblen believed technological developments would eventually lead to a socialistic reorganization of economic affairs. Veblen saw socialism as one intermediate phase in an ongoing evolutionary process in society that would be brought about by the natural decay of the business enterprise system and the rise of the engineers.[41]Daniel Bell sees an affinity between Veblen and the Technocracy movement.[42]
In 1932, Howard Scott and Marion King Hubbert founded Technocracy Incorporated and proposed that money be replaced by energy certificates. The group argued that apolitical, rational engineers should be vested with the authority to guide an economy into a thermodynamically balanced load of production and consumption, thereby doing away with unemployment and debt.[1]
The technocracy movement was briefly popular in the US in the early 1930s during the Great Depression. By the mid-1930s, interest in the movement was declining. Some historians have attributed the decline to the rise of Roosevelt’s New Deal.[43][44]
Historian William E. Akin rejects this conclusion. Instead, Akin argues that the movement declined in the mid-1930s due to the technocrats’ failure to devise a ‘viable political theory for achieving change’.[45] Akin postulates that many technocrats remained vocal, dissatisfied, and often sympathetic to anti-New Deal third-party efforts.[46]
Critiques
Critics have suggested that a “technocratic divide” exists between a governing body controlled to varying extents by technocrats and members of the general public.[5] Technocratic divides are “efficacy gaps that persist between governing bodies employing technocratic principles and members of the general public aiming to contribute to government decision making.”[5] Technocracy privileges the opinions and viewpoints of technical experts, exalting them into a kind of aristocracy while marginalizing the opinions and viewpoints of the general public.[47][48]
As major multinational technology corporations (e.g., FAANG) swell market caps and customer counts, critiques of technocratic government in the 21st century see its manifestation in American politics not as an “authoritarian nightmare of oppression and violence” but rather as an éminence grise: a democratic cabal directed by Mark Zuckerberg and the entire cohort of “Big Tech” executives.[49][50] In his 1982 Technology and Culture journal article, “The Technocratic Image and the Theory of Technocracy”, John G. Gunnell writes: “…politics is increasingly subject to the influence of technological change”, with specific reference to the advent of The Long Boom and the genesis of the Internet, following the 1973–1975 recession.[51][52] Gunnel goes on to add three levels of analysis that delineate technology’s political influence:
“Political power tends to gravitate towards technological elites”.
“Technology has become autonomous” and thus impenetrable by political structures.
“Technology (and science) constitute a new legitimizing ideology”, as well as triumphing over “tribalism, nationalism, the crusading spirit in religion, bigotry, censorship, racism, persecution, immigration and emigration restrictions, tariffs, and chauvinism“.[51][53]
In each of the three analytical levels, Gunnell foretells technology’s infiltration of political processes and suggests that the entanglement of the two (i.e. technology and politics) will inevitably produce power concentrations around those with advanced technological training, namely the technocrats.[51] Forty years after the publication of Gunnell’s writings, technology and government have become, for better or for worse, increasingly intertwined.[54][55][56]Facebook can be considered a technocratic microcosm, a “technocratic nation-state” with a cyberspatial population that surpasses any terrestrial nation.[57] In a broader sense, critics fear that the rise of social media networks (e.g. Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Pinterest), coupled with the “decline in mainstream engagement”, imperil the “networked young citizen” to inconspicuous coercion and indoctrination by algorithmic mechanisms, and, less insidiously, to the persuasion of particular candidates based predominantly on “Social Media engagement”.[58][59][60]
In a 2022 article published in Boston Review, political scientist Matthew Cole highlights two problems with technocracy: that it creates “unjust concentrations of power” and that the concept itself is poorly defined.[61] With respect to the first point, Cole argues that technocracy excludes citizens from policy-making processes while advantaging elites. With respect to the second, he argues that the value of expertise is overestimated in technocratic systems, and points to an alternative concept of “smart democracy” which enlists the knowledge of ordinary citizens.
When asked about his artistic influences, Marco Grassi often credits sfumato as one of them. The technique, which gradually blends colors, light, and shadow, emerged during the Renaissance, and lent itself to the hazy yet realistic canvases that characterize the era. Though compelled by it, Grassi also knew he wanted to push the style further, merging its core principles with that of contemporary art.
And so Grassi’s own visual language emerged. For years, the Italian artist has created monumental paintings replete with microscopic details, achieving a stunning sense of hyperrealism. But this effect goes beyond simple figuration—it’s also ethereal and fluid, most clearly captured in how Grassi renders skin. Each painting manages to find the softness and vibrancy of its subject’s skin, while also elevating their bodies through surreal compositions or poses.
One such painting is Breathe, which depicts a woman nestled in a sprawling bed of flowers, leaves, and other greenery. The figure and the organic forms surrounding her are both remarkably realistic; but, in combining the two, Grassi generates a more dreamlike atmosphere.
Ethereal Embrace is another poignant example of this. In this composition, a woman has collapsed over a table as a swan perches beside her, its wings open and draped over her. From afar, the swan may appear threatening in how it towers above the woman; but, upon closer inspection, it seems to be a source of comfort instead, much like the clever, tender-hearted animals that populate fairy tales.
“I usually incorporate symbolic and surreal elements,” Grassi explains to My Modern Met. “I’ve painted various images that explore human nature, as well as others that address the relationship between humans and the natural world.”
We had the chance to speak with Marco Grassi about his creative influences, process, and his relationship with hyperrealism. Read on for My Modern Met’s exclusive interview with the artist.
Detail from “Paradox of Evolution.”
What originally drew you to hyperrealistic painting, and how have you developed your representational skills over time?
I wouldn’t say that painting in a hyperrealistic manner was necessarily my goal from the start—it just sort of happened. I have always admired the Old Masters and tried to see reality through their eyes. I wanted to capture the gentle expressions of their figures and the soft transitions they perfected during the Renaissance. Over time, my style evolved into what it is today: a combination of hyperrealism with elements of surrealism and symbolism.
Detail from “Paradox of Evolution.”
What is the process of creating one of your paintings?
Everything starts with an idea—something I care about, something that worries me. Then the idea takes shape, first blurry, but the more I think about it, the more defined it becomes. I begin by making numerous sketches, planning the composition, the model’s pose, the environment, and the color palette. Then I prepare the canvas. I prefer to sketch my composition directly on it first. I then proceed with multiple layers of color. Many assume that details are the most important layer, but without proper preparation of the underlying ones, they would look off.
“Paradox of Evolution.”
Detail from “Virtual Reality.”
How do you achieve such microscopic levels of detail in your paintings?
I think, to some extent, I am precise and meticulous. However, I consider the observation of nature to be the most important aspect. How does light hit a surface? How does it change color? How do shadows behave? All these questions are just as important when studying the human form as they are when capturing the tiniest detail. The same principles apply.
“Ethereal Embrace.”
Detail from “Ethereal Embrace.”
What is the traditional sfumato technique? Why is it important to your work, and how have you reinterpreted it?
Sfumato is a painting technique developed during the Renaissance. It involves blending colors, light, and shadow so seamlessly that transitions become imperceptible, with brushstrokes nearly invisible. I’ve always admired its extremely subtle gradations, muted tones, and delicate glazes, and I naturally incorporated them into my work early on.
I believe sfumato can give paintings an otherworldly softness and refinement. However, when we compare Renaissance works to my paintings, despite sharing the same fundamental principle, they remain quite different. I apply the sfumato technique not just to broad transitions but to every detail, every nuance of the skin. I also think I blend more colors—whereas the Old Masters often used a gradation of a single hue, my approach involves a richer interplay of tones.
“The Secret Room.”
You often depict women in your paintings. What compels you about women as artistic and thematic subjects?
That’s true. Most human figures I’ve painted so far have been female, even though I’m currently working on a new painting that represents the male figure. When I search for a model, I usually have a clear idea in mind: I’m looking for a certain expression, an aura, and the traits I’ve sought for my past projects, I’ve found in different female models. Besides that, I feel drawn to an antique aesthetic—a timeless beauty that isn’t necessarily tied to contemporary trends.
“Edge of the Self.”
How would you describe your work in only a few sentences to someone who is unfamiliar with it?
I paint lyrical and hyperrealistic representations, mainly of human figures. I almost never depict a person simply as they are. I usually incorporate symbolic and surreal elements, transforming limbs into inanimate materials like fine china or precious stones. My works often explore human nature or our corrupted relationship with the natural world and non-human animals.
“Mother of Pearl.”
Detail from “Mother of Pearl.”
Marco Grassi in his studio.
What do you hope people will take away from your work?
First of all, I truly hope they enjoy the painting. It’s something I can never get enough of when I visit a museum or art gallery. I love the moment when I first encounter a work of art that speaks to me. I hope others feel the same way when they stand in front of my paintings.
Besides that, there are many themes that I deeply care about and that often lie behind my works. I’ve painted various images that explore human nature, as well as others that address the relationship between humans and the natural world. My hope is that looking at my paintings goes beyond mere observing details. I hope it becomes a moment of reflection—and perhaps even self-reflection—on what we are doing to our home, planet Earth, to each other, and to other animals, whom we treat as objects despite their sentience.
EVA BARON
Eva Baron is a Contributing Writer at My Modern Met. Eva graduated with a degree in Art History and English from Swarthmore College, and has previously worked in book publishing and at galleries. She has since transitioned to a career as a full-time writer. Beyond writing, Eva enjoys doing the daily crossword, going on marathon walks across New York, and sculpting.
NEW HAVEN, CT—Calling such concern for linguistic precision a clear indicator of a thriving country, a panel of historians from Yale University issued a statement Thursday announcing that quibbling over the exact definition of a concentration camp was a sign of a healthy society. “Studies of the past tell us that nitpicking the particular semantics of the term ‘concentration camp’ as they pertain to a place the government is actively sending people with no criminal history is highly associated with national stability,” said historian Kristen Boyd, who added that the more pedantic one’s reasoning for a facility not fully satisfying the criteria for a true concentration camp, the better that bodes for a country’s future. “Time and time again, history shows us that caveat-laden arguments about what is or isn’t a concentration camp only occur in countries with sound political systems. When people are splitting hairs over the specific methodology and intent behind mass detention and human rights abuses, that’s when you know you’re looking at a vibrant, civilized society. It’s as true today as it was a hundred years ago. Civilizations are healthier when citizens are raising trivial objections to the use of the term ‘concentration camp’ on the grounds that their neighbor’s rendition to an oversight-free mass prison still technically exists within a legal framework, at least on paper.” Boyd went on to state that blindly insisting that anyone who wound up in a concentration camp must have done something wrong to get there has historically always been a sign of a healthy conscience.
“I am inviting you to discover that deeper than any pattern, deeper than personality, deeper than success or failure, deeper than worth or worthlessness, there is a radiance that is undeniable and always present. It is the truth of who you are.”
Gangaji (b. 1942) American Spiritual Teacher
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DAILY REFLECTION BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE SCHOOL OF PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY
Translation is a 5-step process of “straight thinking in the abstract” comparing and contrasting what seems to be truth with what you can syllogistically, axiomatically and mathematically (using word equations) prove is the truth. It is not an effort to change, alter or heal anything.
The claims in a Translation may seem outrageous, but they are always (or should always be) based on self-evident syllogistic reasoning. Here is one Translation from this week.
1) Truth is that which is so. That which is not truth is not so. Therefore Truth is all that is. Truth being all is therefore total, therefore whole, therefore complete, therefore otherless, therefore pure, therefore one, therefore united, therefore harmonious, therefore orderly, therefore infinite. I think therefore I am. Since I am and since Truth is all that is, therefore I, being, am Truth. Since I, being, am Truth, therefore I, being, have all the attributes of Truth. Therefore I, being, am total, whole, complete, otherless, pure, one, united, harmonious, orderly, infinite. Since I am mind (self-evident) and since I (being) am Truth, therefore Truth is Mind. (Two things being equal to a third thing are equal to each other.) Since Truth is mind, therefore Mind has all the attributes of Truth. Therefore Mind is total, whole, complete, otherless, pure, one, united, harmonious, orderly, infinite.
2) For somebody who can’t walk without crutches to be able to walk normally would be an unlikely miracle.
Word-tracking: walk: function, perform a function, to move about, go on a journey, a day’s work, a day’s journey expedition: foot, footing, foundation crutch: crook, support, to hold up normal: standard unlikely: not expected to happen, not expected to be miracle: wonder, smile, an act of God
3) Truth being all that is, Truth is always likely. Truth being all that is, there is nothing that can act outside of Truth, therefore everything is an act of Truth (or an act of God) OR everything is a miracle. Truth being all that is, therefore Truth is the norm. Truth is the standard. Since Truth is whole, therefore wholeness is the standard. Since Truth is otherless, Truth is not dependent on anything outside of Itself, therefore Truth walks without crutches. Truth being the norm and I (in the Universal sense of I) being Truth, therefore Universal I am always sure-footed.
4) Truth is always likely. Everything is an act of Truth (dor an act of God) Everything is a miracle. Truth is the norm. Truth is the standard. Wholeness is the standard. Truth walks without crutches. Universal I am always sure-footed.
5) Truth being sure-footed, miracles are always likely.
Weekly Invitational Translation Group invites your participation. If you would like to submit a Translation on any subject, feel free to send your weekly Translation to zonta1111@aol.com and we will anonymously post it on the Bathtub Bulletin on Friday.
