Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Hierarchy - The matrix that really exists
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Hierarchy - The matrix that really exists

2,027
views

Published on

English version of the book Hierarquia - a matrix realmente existent. …

English version of the book Hierarquia - a matrix realmente existent.
Author: Augusto de Franco
Translators: Leila Miranda and Joachim Lohkamp

More details at http://hierarchybook.com


1 Comment
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,027
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
1
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. HIERARCHYExplorations of Augusto de Franco aboutTHE MATRIX THAT REALLY EXISTS
  • 2. 2
  • 3. HIERARCHY: Explorations of Augusto de Franco aboutTHE MATRIX THAT REALLY EXISTSAugusto de Franco, 2012.Beta Version.English translation and revision: Leila País de Mirandaand Joachim Lohkamp.3
  • 4. 4
  • 5. The digital version of this work was given to thePublic Domain, edited with the seal of Escola-de-Redesas an unilateral decision of the author. Public Domain inthis casemeans that this work, in relation to its digitalversion, is not copyright protected, unless the moral rightof the author to be recognized for its creation. Total orpartial reproductions are permitted, by any means,without prior permission. Thus, the digital version of thiswork may be - in their original or modified form - copied,printed, edited, published and distributed for profit (sold)or nonprofit. It just can not be omitted from the authorshipof the original version.Escola-de-Redes is a network of people dedicated toresearch on social networks as well as to the creationand transfer of network weaving technologies.http://escoladeredes.net5FRANCO, Augusto deHierarchy: Explorations of Augusto de Franco about The MatrixThat Really Exists/ Augusto de Franco. – São Paulo: 2012.94 p. A4 – (Escola de Redes; 6)1. Social Networks. 2. Organizations. 3. Escola de Redes. I. Title.
  • 6. 6
  • 7. SUMMARYPRESENTATION | Suddenly you see the Matrix | 9INTRODUCTION | Does the Matrix exist? | 17PART 1 | How the Matrix is uploaded on you | 29In the Family | 33At School | 39At Church | 53In the social and political organizations | 61In the Barracks | 67At University | 73At work | 77PART 2 | Is it possible to exit the Matrix? | 85To exit the Matrix | 91Become a common person | 99NOTES AND REFERENCES | 1057
  • 8. 8
  • 9. PRESENTATIONSUDDENLY YOU SEE THE MATRIX9
  • 10. 10
  • 11. Suddenly your eyes are opened and what you see is: TheMatrix. And then you see it everywhere: at home, atschool, in the church, in the company, in business, in afootball game, in traffic, in public services, in socialmedia...To see the Matrix you just have to stop and observe thebehaviour of private people. Do you need an example?Observe the cues at the banks. When that patient clientof the bank arrives at the counter, after he was waitinglike forever, he is going to take as much or even moretime then the others before him. It is like he would say toyou: Now its my time to do what I want to do, so I will talkto the clerk a lot, I will inform myself about everything,taking advantage of my turn to do many differenttransactions... Now the others have to wait (like I had towait.) Because now its my turn. This is the typicalbehaviour of a private person (not common). But it isunbelievable how these persons that behave like this arenot aware of it.You want another example? Observe carefully yourfacebook timeline or Twitter stream. You will see tons offriends or people that you follow speaking about thegood, the beautiful and the true. You will see peoplewriting about ethics, values, awareness, transformation of11
  • 12. society... You will see people posting pictures of sweetkitties, dogs with ribbons, cute children with nice smiles,awesome landscapes... These people think (or,sometimes, they are not thinking at all because they areacting unconsciously) that by doing this they freethemselves from their sins (and liberating themselvesfrom the guilt of being not good enough). They areimagining (or even not imagining, but acting as they wereimagining) that by building a public persona identifiedwith the good, the beautiful and the true, they would beimproving themselves (because they judge themselvesas not good enough), repairing some defects that theysupposedly carry within them: but from where? Ok, theydont know and the fact of not-knowing, but acting (in thepsychoanalytic sense of the term) like this explainseverything (although, for themselves, it does not explainanything because these people are not seekingexplanations for what is as it should be).Even more interesting is that you will see that in socialmedias are tons of people celebrating fridays! And othercrowds are liking and retweeting these enslavingmanifestations. Automaticly. But from what do they reallywant to escape in the weekends? If you want to know,join a hierarchical organization. Anyone. And observehow people relate themselves to others within these12
  • 13. strange environments, how they are not themselves...Yes, they are machines.During many decades I was observing this herdbehaviour. Imagining, without to know how to excactlyexplain, that the hierarchie introduces deformations in thesocial field that are capable of inducing people toreplicate certain behaviours.So I began to explore in the space-time of these flows, totry to understand the structure and the dynamic that liesbehind this matrix that produces replicants.Until suddenly, I saw an amazing thing. And what I sawwas a non-human - a monster - depicted in the figurebelow:13
  • 14. It was just then that I saw the Matrix. And when I saw it, Ifreaked out. The picture is terrifying. It reminds me ofthose ships of alien predators in Roland Emmerichsmovie Independence Day (1996).Not by chance. Hierarchical organizations of humansgenerate non-human beings. But something preventspeople from seeing it. That is why I decided to write thisbooklet.São Paulo, end of the winter 2012.Augusto de Franco14
  • 15. 15
  • 16. 16
  • 17. INTRODUCTIONDOES THE MATRIX EXIST?17
  • 18. THE TITLE ORIGINALLY PLANNED for this text wasafirmative: "The Matrix Exists". I even opened aFacebook group, exactly called like that, to gatherthoughts about the topic. But as the conversation rolledon within the group, I began to be assailed by growingdoubts.As we all know, the idea of the​Matrix came up with theWachowski brothers film trilogy - The Matrix (1999), TheMatrix Reloaded (2003) and The Matrix Revolutions(2003) - whose argument (the first film) was passablypresented by distributors approximately like this: "in thenear future, the young programmer Thomas Anderson, ahacker alias Neo, who lives in a dark cubicle, is plaguedby strange nightmares, in which he is - against his will -connected by cables in a huge computer system of thefuture. On all these occasions he wakes up screaming atthe exact moment when the electrodes are to penetratehis brain. As the dream recurs, Anderson begins to havedoubts about reality. Through the encounter with themysterious Morpheus and Trinity, Thomas discovers thathe is, like other people, victim of the Matrix, an artificialintelligent system that manipulates the minds of people,creating the illusion of a real world while using theirbrains and individual bodies to produce energy.Morpheus is convinced that Thomas is the long awaited18
  • 19. messiah capable of facing the Matrix and drive peopleback to reality and freedom."The central thesis of the film - I mean not only the firstfilm, but the complete trilogy (1999-2003) - was seen bysome like this: "What we experience as reality is anartificial virtual reality generated by the Matrix, themegacomputer coupled with our minds "(1). And,somehow, this was the vision that became widespread.But I had no such apprehension of the metaphor. Whatcaught my attention was its social side, not thetechnological side, so to speak. Even because I thought(and still think) that every reality is virtual, in a broadsense of the term.Moreover, the film has also a conspiratorial story line. Asif there were manipulative centers responsible for themassive alienation of people. Although, I do not think so.There is no Big Brother (human or non-human) thatcontrols everything. I think the Matrix, if it exists, existsonly because it is replicated by us continually (as I wrotein 2009, in the text "You are the enemy") (2). Workingwith the metaphor of the Matrix means for me to rejectthe hypothesis that there is a culprit, a universal enemyresponsible for all evil that plagues us.19
  • 20. Then I turned the name originally imagined into aquestion, placing it as the title of this introduction. Thesocial thematic (or antisocial, as defined by Maturana)remains however. People keep reproducing very similarbehaviors - that distort the social field - as if under theinfluence of the same system of beliefs, values​​, normsof behavior and patterns of organization, or as running abasic program that was installed on their minds and theythink the world (or reality) is just like that. Now thatevokes the metaphor of the film The Matrix, wherepowerful machines with artificial intelligence, controlcaptivated humanity and people that just live their lives,monotonous or frenetic, in its modern human hives,without knowing it, taking what they see as reality.There is a parallel that gives meaning to a social grasp ofthe metaphor. In the Matrix that really exists, people donot see that their replicant behavior deforms the socialfield. They think that the social world can only beinterpreted through a set of basic beliefs of reference, bytaking self-evident truths, axioms that do not requirecorroboration. Examples of these beliefs are that:• The human being is inherently (or by nature)competitive.20
  • 21. • People are always making choices trying tomaximize the satisfaction of their own materialinterests (egotistical).• Without outstanding leaders its not possible tomobilize and organize collective action.• Nothing can work without a minimum of hierarchy.These basic beliefs are like parameters of the programthat was installed in people. So they do not realize that byacting on these assumptions (often undeclared, butalways present), they reproduce the social reality thatwas deformed. In other words, they do not realize thedistortion: because everyone knows that it is impossibleto be different.These common beliefs that are not scientific at all(although justified on scientific verisimilitude) are running- as malware - on the social cloud we call mind. And theyare so deeply installed downstairs - or anchored aspreconceptions on the undergrounds of conscience(whatever this is) - that they may not even haveperceived. In general people do not know that they areacting within the "event horizon" set for them. As in theknown anecdote about that guy who "because he did notknow that it was impossible, he went there and did it",people generally do not do anything different - which21
  • 22. contradicts these basic prescriptions of functioning of thesocial world - because they know that is impossible.Evidently, we are here dealing with culture, i.e., non-genetic transmission of behaviors, a program that runs onthe social network deforming the field (3). A software thatmodifies the hardware. A hardware that once modified,induces the replication of the software, i.e., automaticallyinstalls the program in the people that connects them toit.The culture that we are dealing with is one that has beenreplicated for millennia since the social network wasverticalized with the erection of centralized institutions.Some call it patriarchal or warrior culture. Actually itsemergence coincides with what we call civilization (wordshrewdly translated by William Irwin Thompsontranslated as militarization) (4). But this is just thehierarchical culture.In a general sense the word hierarchy is applied todescribe any arrangements of items (objects, names,values​​, categories) in which these items arerepresented as being "above", "below", or "on par" withthe other. In mathematics the concept denotes anordered set or a directed graph with no directed cycles22
  • 23. (directed acyclic graph, abbreviated DAG - Directedacyclic graph). But this is diferent from the original sense.The term came to designate orders of midway beingsbetween celestial and terrestrial bodies (and was used,for example, by Pseudo-Dionysius, the Areopagite, in the5th century, to describe the angelic choirs).The word comes from the Latin word hierarchy which, inturn, comes from the Greek word ἱεραρχία (hierarchía) ofἱεράρχης (hierarchēs), who was in charge of chairing thesacred rites: ἱερεύς = hiereus, priest, root = ἱερόςhieros , sacred + = ἀρχή arche, taking several relatedmeanings such as power, government, order, principle(organizational).The hierarchy is a priestly vertical power that installs itselfin a society artificially, introducing the need ofintermediation through separations (between upper andlower). In general it is represented by the pyramid (few inthe top, many in the bottom) or the spider (which has ahead and several arms or legs, as opposed to a star-fish,which has no central command and control). The celestialhierarchy (with its seraphim, cherubim, thrones,dominions, powers, virtues, principalities, archangels andangels) and the military hierarchy (with generals,colonels, majors, captains, lieutenants, sergeants,23
  • 24. corporals and soldiers) are the most common examples,paradigmatic, of hierarchy. But any standard organizationintroducing anisotropies into the social field and directingstreams of flow is hierarchical (either in a stateorganization, business or social, religious or secular,military or civilian). The basic organizational structure of agovernment agency, a company or an entity of civilsociety illustrates the pattern of an hierarchicalorganization (the names of particular positions, roles,positions or patents do not matter):The hierarchy is an organizational pattern thatreproduces itself as a whole. It is a deformation on thesocial field that affects all the events that occur in this24
  • 25. field because it conditions the interactive flow goingthrough certain paths (and not others).From the viewpoint of social network topology, hierarchyis synonymous with centralization. There is power -power in order to command the others - in the exactextent that there is centralization (i.e. hierarchy).To better understand this point of view it is necessary toexamine Paul Barans diagrams, published in the famouspaper "On distributed communications" (1964) (5), torealize the differences between patterns: centralized,decentralized and distributed.25
  • 26. In diagram (B) of the above figure we have thedecentralized pattern that does not represent a topologywithout a center but, on the contrary, a multi-centeredconfiguration. This pattern is nothing more than ahierarchy (corresponding to a hierarchical organizationchart of any entity, such as the one depicted in theprevious figure).The hierarchy is a centralizing intervention in the socialnetwork (or a deformation that makes the social fieldmore vertical) that allows you to delete nodes (disconnector delete people), separate clusters (separate or removeshortcuts), and suppress paths (clog streams, filter ordelete connections). Without doing any of these threethings it is impossible to erect a hierarchy (or exert powerover others, what is the same thing). In fully distributednetworks there is no way to do anything. However,actually existing social networks are not generally fullydistributed, but exhibit differing degrees of distribution (or,conversely, of centralization) (6).But without it - without centralization, without thepossibility of exercising power over others - it is said(says the hierarchical culture), that nothing would work:people could not be educated, they would not learn torespect rules that ensure social coexistence and they26
  • 27. would end in a war of all against all (because "the humanbeast would not be tamed"), companies would not evolve,we would not have developed philosophy, science, art,techniques, and finally ... progress. We would still be inthe stone age. In the Matrix people believe it or behaveas if they believe, which is the same thing.According to this point of view, therefore, the hierarchy isthe Matrix that really exists.When you live in hierarchical systems you become, tosome extent, an automaton and a Matrix replicant (a kindof unity borg) (7).Yes, in that sense something that strongly evokes theMatrix really exists. So better call the thing by its name.What follows are imaginative explorations in the Matrixthat really exist, that are, free investigations into thehierarchy.27
  • 28. 28
  • 29. PART 1HOW THE MATRIX IS UPLOADED ON YOU29
  • 30. 30
  • 31. IN THE MATRIX THAT REALLY EXISTS a standardprogram - the hierarchical program - is uploaded on you.This happens every time you connect to a hierarchicalorganization, or anything that is influenced by a socialfield deformed by a hierarchy.However, the hierarchical program is initially installed inpeople during their childhood and youth. In general,nowadays, this process should be completed by the ageof 21, (deployment time is, therefore, from 7 to 8000days). It is an obedience program. The goal is to restrictthe degrees of freedom and discourage cooperation. Itsmost damaging consequence is killing creativity (or, in amore rigorous judgement, making the rise of what hasbeen called to the human soul difficult).31
  • 32. 32
  • 33. IN THE FAMILYThe infection begins in early childhood. The institution incharge of this first task is family (the monogamousnuclear family, these days). Your task is: initialize thecontrol program (we cannot forget that it already revealswhat the Matrix is about - the Matrix is about control).Yes, it starts really early. Gerda Verden-Zöller (1978 and1982) was studying the root of the process by which thechild is dehumanized by their parents. She unveils thecontrolling behavior in mother-child relationship, "whenthe mother, in interactions with their children, aims theirfuture and uses it to educate and prepare them toachieve precisely the stated future. When this intentionaldynamic settles in maternal-child relationship, the motherstops to see her children as specific individuals, andrestricts her meetings with them to this condition. To theextent that such restriction occurs, a hug is not anymorea gesture of full acceptance of the specific children that isbeing hugged. It becomes a pressure with an intention.Similarly, the helping hand is no longer supporting theindividual identity of the child, and becomes an externalguide which negates this identity "(8).33
  • 34. Seeing a child or baby as a future adult, parents do notaccept them as they are at present time, but as what theyshould be in the future. Thus they transform the childreninto objects of an educational process. They do not reallyplay with the kids because they do not see them assomething that has value in itself (without any purposeother than the actual interaction in the present), butalways, in some measure, as a preparation for the future.As a result, children do not see themselves as valid forwho they are interacting with but only to the extent thatthey meet the expectations of parents, as they fulfill therole that parents expect of them. They becomedependent on approval (initially from the parents, andthen from anyone who fulfills the same function of controlover them). They start to adopt a "top" approval insteadof a horizontal recognition of their identity within acommunity. And that is why they have so many difficultiesto develop their social conscience (or, in a more rigorousjudgment of generating the quality of soul that we callhumanity).The mother and father, in most cases, do not play freelyand unselfishly with their children. They want to educatethem. They want to shape them so they become"someone in life," they want them to become a copy ofwhich they themselves were (or are) or a projected34
  • 35. overshoot of what they are-not. In a kind of compensatoryrevenge they want their children to be able to be (orhave) what they were (or have not). When this happens,the children cease to be what they are, they stop beingchildren and become adults projects, incomplete adultsthat need to be formatted so that they completethemselves according to the paternal projects.Here is the first lesson embedded in the program: youcannot be what you are in your free interactions withothers, but you have to become something different - youhave to be fixed, as if you had come with a defect fromthe factory - under the policies of others (the ones thatare above you). If you do not act like this, you will not beaccepted as a valid person. But there is a second lesson.The family privatizes social capital. The child learns todistrust when he hears his mother recommend: "Do notlet your buddies break your toys, they are yours, nottheirs." From an early age children are taught to separatewhat is "ours" from what is "others". They are taught toaccept (or tolerate) each other in their living space, butwith restrictions. They are taught that, somehow, those(others) are less legitimate. And since they are reallyyoung children are encouraged to stand out from theothers (the children of other families), they are rewarded35
  • 36. when they get higher grades, or when they do well(preferably better than their peers) in tests, when they wincontests, competitions and tournaments and thy arewarned (or at least not praised) when there are not thefirst or excel somewhat. The reasons for this behavioristpedagogy of rewards and punishments are never openlyexposed. Because their drivers do not even know whatthey are doing. Or because it is not needed.Your children are more equal than the other children. Thisalso does not need to be said: the child grasps it all justwatching the recurrent behavior of parents. Thattreatment that we should dispense to friends, we reservefor "our blood". For them, yes, we do free things. Ourfriends, however, we treat all on the basis of reciprocity(as economists take the concept and deform it): I helpyou today, but you are in my debt and should help melater on. This, of course, is implicit, tacit knowledge that israrely stated, but it is part of the handling code withstrangers: yes, the others, who are not of my family, whodo not have significant portions of my DNA or who are notpart of the closed circle of coexistence that was formedaround my "crib" or are not "my". They are "theirs" (orsomeone elses) and its you (or someone other than me)who must take care of them.36
  • 37. This is how each of these cores we call family conforms aprotection unit against interaction, a preventeddetachment from the outside world (against the other,especially the unpredictable-other). So this is the secondlesson embedded in the program: a separation, not a fullacceptance of the "outsiders", the devaluation of others(which will no more be seen as another-myself) and theovervaluation of an inner circle, composed of"insiders" (and the adult produced this way will neveragain get rid of it: he will spend a lifetime trying to build orjoin private closed groups where "insiders" are worthmore than "outsiders" and where the other is acceptedonly to the extent that it ceases to be himself to become a"we" organizational).But the program, in its basic full version, is really installedat school (acting as a church), and in some cases, at thechurch (acting as school), as we shall see in the followingtopics.37
  • 38. 38
  • 39. AT SCHOOLWell, then the child enters school and, as they say,escapes the frying pan to fall into the fire. No wonder thatchildren in general do not like going to school (except,sometimes to the so called pre-school, where they canplay, that is, be what they are: children). And no wonderthat, later, when they are young, will celebrate effusivelyto get off the school, as if they had regained freedomafter serving a sentence (if the school was good for them,they would regret having to leave it, right?).Then the child enters - i.e., the child is compulsorilyimprisoned by determination of the family and the state -in an institution structured to protect you from free-learning, which until then - excluding the instrumentalinterventions made ​​by parents - was going well. Thanks.But not now. Now the child will learn not what it reallywants to learn, but what someone wants it to learn. Itscalled education.Quickly the child finds no use for complaining. Soon itrealizes that resistance is futile: that is the first lesson. AsBob Black (1985) wrote, now the child is in one of these39
  • 40. "concentration camps to get in the habit of obedience andpunctuality that are good qualities to a worker" (9).Yes, the child is being formatted to work for someone or,in exceptional cases, to serve and reproduce a systemthat would require someone to work for others. To do so,the children will receive an implant, a set of memeticparameters that will ensure that the program that isinstalled on them by the school will be able to run withoutproblems. This special software that gets loaded into thechild is the basic version of "program-slave" (or, inexceptional cases, the "program-enslaving": in fact thebasic routines of both programs are the same).Unlike what is communicated, by entering the school thechild did not go into an environment capable to give riseto or accelerate their learning, not even in an institution ofknowledge transfer. Knowledge is there, of course, but itis only the legitimating excuse, the apparent product thatjustifies the existence of the factory or the lubricant forthe machine to run smoothly. So, anything will do the job,including maintaining the same curriculum in the 21stcentury that made sense in the Middle Ages. Becausewhat is essential is that the program will be installed.Thats why the child is there. At school.40
  • 41. But to do that, the school needs to be a hetero-didactinstitution. The school needs to strongly discourage theself-learning (learning by yourself, seeking and inventing)and prohibit - or restrict the interaction to the point ofmaking the alter-didacticism (to learn from each other, co-creating and sharing) impossible. If the school was notbased on hetero-didacticism, it would have no reason toexist.The hetero-didacticism is realized through thefundamental separation of bodies that school based on:the separation between a teaching body and a studentbody. This separation leads to a subordination: thestudents are under-ordered in relation to teachers. Hereis the first subordination that the child experiencesoutside their family nest. Some other people - who do notbelong to the childs family (its first community) - will nowbe able to say what it should do, will be able to boss thechild. And their parents are the guarantors of thissubordination. Those same parents that were warned ofstrangers now - paradoxically for the child - will tell it thatthere is a kind of stranger that it should obey to: its theteacher or professor. In order to smoothen this process,but extremely violent to the child psychologically, theteacher is often called "aunt" (to keep the link with familyrelationships that it already knows: its just a way to trick41
  • 42. the child sweetly) which is facilitated by the fact that thevast majority of the faculty in basic education iscomposed of women (yes, thats part of the system).Then the child is taught to obey. There is a shift. Obeyingthe parents is a preparation for obeying the teachers. Toobey the bureaucrats of teaching (teachers) will be apreparation to obey the religious bureaucrats (priests,pastors, rabbis, imams...and others). Sometimes thisprocess is concurrent, when the first hetero-didactexperience happens at school and simultaneously insome church (through catechesis), or if the school isreligious, or if all is open and scandalous is the same (asin a madrassa). To obey the parents and teachers is apreparation to obey the chiefs in general (in future socialorganizations, the state or enterprises the child will joinwhen its young or grown up).The fact is that the child continues to seek legitimation forwhat it does from someone who is above, and out of itsinteraction with its peers. The school is organized as acyst, separated from the community, protected from theinteraction with the neighborhood by fences, walls, gates,locks (and often inside the school the doors are alwayslocked, only the employee who carries the keys can openthem, in the case that this is permitted by the guidelines42
  • 43. of the establishment). There is no significant interactionwithin this closed environment, commanded andcontrolled by a director, and the people in the communitywhere the school is located. With rare exceptions (thatprove the rule), parents and other relatives, neighborsand friends of the child, cannot interfere with theeducational process to which the child is being subjectedto.At school the child is accepted to the extent that itcorrectly responds to the expectations from the high;here, for the first time, a top down order is beingestablished through a bureaucracy. The school (orsometimes the church) is the childs first experience ofbeing possessed by a non-human entity (an incident that,despite all the problems mentioned above, has notoccurred in the family). On entering one of thesedeformed social fields the child is violated by a hierarchyfor the first time.The main violation is a ban on playing. After entering theschool the child can not play anymore, except in certainperiods, under strict conditions and continuoussurveillance. Its called recreation time and if therecreation is a form of distraction it means that during allthe rest of the time the child is trapped in the schools43
  • 44. work, duty, penalty, yoke. The recreation time reminds ofthe right of those prisoners to take a sunbath periodically.The Portuguese word for "school break or recreationtime", is "recreio". In its origin, the word referred to the actof creating, producing something new. Recreating is howthe child learns. But schools are not about learning, theyare about teaching. Teaching is a forced and exhaustingprocess. So "recreio" was given new meaning to expressa kind of therapeutic refreshment, necessary to preventor remedy diseases caused by education.The "educators" (i.e., the teachers) argue that at the pre-school (early childhood education or what was calledkindergarten) the child can play. The problem is thatwhen you enter the school, the child is still a child, still inits infancy. Every primary school should remain akindergarten and should be considered a learning periodfor children. But this would not be teaching. And thenthere would be no school!Another important violation is the prohibition imposed ona child to learn what it wants to learn. At school the childhas no wishes. The child is subjected to a curriculum or aset of themes chosen by the bureaucracy of teaching(vertical or horizontal, it does not matter), which44
  • 45. previously were imposed or acknowledged and endorsedby the State. The outcome is that the child does not learnin freedom: the child is compulsorily educated. And thelearning problems that this violation of the fundamentalfreedom to learn entails is actually teaching problems(even the incorrectly called "learning disorders" are, forthe most part, introduced by teaching disorders). If wequit the will to teach and let the child freely learn (whatshe wants to learn and not what we want it to learn), mostof these disorders would simply disappear and it wouldbe not necessary to pump children full with hard drugs(such as methylphenidate, commonly used today - andcriminally) or dope them (with other substances that actstructurally as amphetamines).The prohibition on free learning - because learningwithout being taught is subversive: it is a danger to thereproduction of institutionalized forms of managementhierarchies of all sorts - it comes also with the banning ofinventing. Essentially both are the same thing becauselearning is always an invention (while teaching is areproduction). Then the child is discouraged to invent, tocreate, co-create, in short, discouraged to do the onlything able to leave it healthy while living in a disturbedsocial environment.45
  • 46. The child will be accepted, included, validated andrewarded to the extent that it knows how to reproduce agiven content or an expected cognitive behavior, not tothe extent that it ventures to generate, individually orcollectively, a new content or an unheard cognitivebehavior. If the child is caught drawing during a grammarlesson, composing a song during a Science test ordeveloping a game on his laptop during a physicaleducation activity it will be warned. If several children aregetting together to do any of these things it will be worse:the group will be punished, their parents will receivenotifications. Deviant behavior - from hetero-didacticism,especially when collective, can not go unpunished. Theteachers take it as a personal offense.Educators in charge with guarding and punishing the kidsdo not realize that by doing so they are rooting out thecreativity of those potential geniuses - and the real, yes,the real - of humanity. And they do not realize they arerobots, replicating the Matrix. They are fulfilling theirantisocial role: they are just murdering Mozart to run thisstrange human bending machine. As Saint-Exupery wrote(1939), "But there are no gardeners for people. An infantlike Mozart is marked just like all the others by thestamping press... Mozart is doomed ... It is something likethe human species, and not just the individual who is46
  • 47. wounded, who are getting injured. What torments me is...that in each of these people, a bit of Mozart is beingkilled."(10).The installation of the program is complete with theteaching of competition. At school the child isdiscouraged to cooperate and encouraged to competewith her or his peers. This is hierarchical violation in itspure state, the main evil consequence of the centralizingdeformation of the social field and of the vertical directionthe flows are forced to take. The hierarchy constrains thecurrent to flow upward. To do well in life is to climb, climbthe rungs of a ladder, to go from one school grade to theother getting the corresponding degree. For thispurpose, the child has to be plucked from the tangle thatshe conforms with her or his peers. She must beindividualized (or depersonalized by being disconnectedfrom her/his network of friends) and to receive - alwaysfrom above - the rewards due to his or her solo effort. Theevaluations are individual and not about a group thatcooperates (even if that may exist groups thatcooperate). The student will be better evaluated on theextend that he/she stands out from the "others" ratherthan approaching them. The solidarity, mutual help andcooperation are not valued​and they are not part of theevaluation criteria adopted by the school. Each one looks47
  • 48. after yourself. And the others be damned. This is how thechild is taught (i.e., deformed) by the competition.In the competition, strictly speaking, anything goes(everything that the command-and-control system cannotprohibit, prevent or suppress). As for the competitiveculture the most important thing is to take advantage, inschool children learn to cheat.The main trick is to copy your colleagues tests. Andcopying should not be a trick at all, as it is an action thatis actually a natural impulse to share. It just turns intocheating because there is a test (individual). If thechallenges of learning were collective, the "copy"behavior would not only be lawful but desirable. Imitation(or cloning) is a phenomenology of interaction deeplyassociated with learning. We learn only when we clone,i.e., strictly speaking, we copy. That is the way it is with allliving species. It is through cloning that termites can buildtheir sophisticated mounds. And that the birds can fly inflocks in such amazing formations (flocking) and the fishof the sea play those fantastic evolutions (shoaling). Allself-propelled entities that interact imitate each other.Thus also humans.48
  • 49. The child learns by imitating what it observes in itssurroundings, initially cloning the behavior of parents andsiblings, and then of the members of its extended socialenvironment (other relatives, neighbors and friends). Atschool, the child will clone the behavior of teachers, butat this stage the child is already connected to a widersocial network, but the child is strongly discouraged toclone the behavior of its colleagues. The social networkof the school class is centered on the teacher just toguarantee that it is not going to turn into a distributedsocial network. This is the hierarchy!The hierarchy cannot, however, avoid the dysfunctionsthat its disturbance causes in the social field. The basicsociability of humans is cooperative. Without cooperationwe can not be humans (because language and talkthemselves presuppose - and they are - cooperation). Butwhen the environment favors competitive attitudes anddiscourages cooperative attitudes, it is inevitable thatsocial and individual pathologies arise as dysfunctions.The dysfunction currently most evident is bullying. It is adisease of the environment and not of the people. Bulliescan only have such a behavior when they aredepersonalized by the system. They are symptoms of acollective disease that was contracted by the centralized49
  • 50. network. The supposed need to control or dominateothers would not manifest in individuals if they do not livein environments designed to control.It seems obvious that to end bullying in schools would besufficient to close the schools. While this is not evenconsidered, harassment will continue. And the bullyingoccurs in virtually all centralized environments or in allsocial fields deformed by hierarchy (in the workplace,neighborhood gangs, in military organizations etc).At the end of the seven to eight years of its ongoingtransformation into an object of teaching, serving as rawmaterial for the school factory, the service is almostaccomplished. The child which was caught when it wassix or seven years old was taught to conform itself to therestriction of its freedom (because resistance is futile). Itwas prevented from playing (because what counts is toengage in serious things that have a purpose andproduce a result). It was discouraged to learn what itwants to learn, to invent, to create and co-create(because none of that is important, but one should knowwhat was taught and reproduce the teachings received).And it was induced to compete (because cooperating is adelay in life and does not lead you anywhere). In fact thechild is now dead - had his childhood mowed - and what50
  • 51. rises in its place is a young formatted individual to obey(and to feel guilty and accuse others when she/hetransgresses). Its done. The hierarchical program wassuccessfully loaded in its basic version.Later the same school - or its vertical stretch, theuniversity - will teach the young arguments to justify it all.In fact the child will learn to repeat a bunch of claimsbased on beliefs (ideological, not scientific) that humansare inherently (or naturally) competitive, that life is astruggle in which each one makes choices to maximizethe satisfaction of their own interests, that only winnersmatter and that the winners are those who make(individually) the right choices and that nothing canoperate without... hierarchy!But long before it learns to rationalize, the child who wasinfected at the school and received the slave-program,will reproduce the program through its everyday behavior.Each schooled will become a schooler (and later willconvert all the organizations founded by them or in whichthey take part, in something like schools). Thats how thehierarchical system - the Matrix that really exists -reproduces itself.51
  • 52. 52
  • 53. AT CHURCHNot rarely, the church (and religion) acts on a child asschool (making it a victim of teaching, during the socalled catechesis). The religious intervention goesdeeper, however. Its goal is to inculcate idea-implants,malicious memes (programs) able to make the child areplicator of hierarchical configurations (usually priests).This operation is done on a level of depth that no seculareducation could achieve.In church the child is taught that there is a single beliefsystem fully correct and true (the one that it is receiving,of course, and therefore all others are wrong and false).Even when it is not clearly stated, it is implied: otherwisewhy would it be catechized in that religion and not inanother? Or why would the child not be receiving anecumenical initiation in all religious traditions?It is an experience of violation of the "human" to beinoculated with the perverse idea of denial of all otherbeliefs and invalidation of all other mystical conversationsdifferent from ours. The child alone would never reachsuch a conclusion, which is obviously stupid. That has to53
  • 54. be printed onto the child, marked, as we brand cattle witha hot iron (11).The separation between faithful and unfaithful, thedelegitimization of the infidel as an equal and its denial,rejection and exclusion, was one of the most perversethings introduced by the religious hierarchy (and actuallyin a deeper sense, the whole hierarchy is religious, isalways a sacred power, i.e., separate from the vulgar, theprofane) in societies. This is not about spirituality and themystical experience "in which a person lives itself as anintegral component of a wider field of relations ofexistence ... [and that] depends on the network ofconversations in which it is immersed in and in which theperson lives in who has that experience," as written byHumberto Maturana (1993) (12). This is related to theinstallation of that same slave program that the schoolexists to implant.The basic idea-implants vary with religious tradition, butare approximately the following, for millennia, at leastsince the "Indo-European" patriarchs (whatever it mayhave been) - as it seems, in civilizations derivative of thefirst hierarchical formations of ancient Mesopotamia (orcontaminated by them) - they have erected "a denial54
  • 55. frontier of all the mystical conversations different fromtheirs":Firstly you have to internalize the idea that you are aninferior being and that there is a higher being, asuperhuman, that you should fear, and to whom you mustsubmit yourself (becoming a servant of this superiorbeing: yes, this is exactly the word to be used here:"servant").Secondly you have to believe that even if you do not doanything bad, you are wrong, simply because you arewhat you are: a human (imperfect, impure and bad) andnot a superhuman (perfect and pure, the only being reallygood). In certain traditions that belief is reinforced by theperverse myth of original sin.Thirdly you have to give up trying to have an experienceof direct contact (unmediated) with this supposedsuperhuman power. For the superhuman to being able torelate to human beings, intermediaries (priests) wereestablished. And for you to be saved from theconsequences of mistakes (sins) inherent in the humancondition, a program has been built to protect you frominteracting with this terrible power, and at the same time,include you in the list of the faithful, i.e., the flock of those55
  • 56. who will be saved by him, if you provide the properworship. This program is religion.Fourthly and lastly you have to obey the directives of thepriests who constitute the church (teaching), outside ofwhich there is no salvation.It seems like school - and it is school, really - because therelationship that founds the school remains: teachers andstudents are two separated bodies. Where there isreligion there are always two churches: one that teaches- teachers (priests, pastors) and another that is taught -students (the laity, the flock).But it is even more serious. The goal of this wholeoperation is to make the world priestly, I mean, to forge asocial world that works only through mediation, and beingsanctified from top to bottom. Attention: you are no longerin an isotropic social cosmos. There is someone above(or something terrible, with immeasurable power) thatturned the flow vertical. This non-human power conferredspecial attributes to human intermediaries who, in turn,gained permission to reproduce themselves as a statusgroup, investing other humans with the same privatefunction of their condition and to anoint and consecrateenvironments, people and events (13).56
  • 57. Humanity is not composed of the same if some are closerto (or receive more blessings from) that superhumanentity than others. There are now also Saints, Rishis,Mahatmas, and righteous people... that have a differentstatus from ordinary people, sinners, and the unfair.Normal people are not just people, but kind of Saints thatfailed: if they are not Saints then this is a sign that theyare not good enough. There is a foundation to distributehumans according to the rungs of a ladder, by itsproximity to the supernatural hierarchy that permeatesthe human world (social).Even when nothing is said of it so crudely, it is implicit,that it comes along in the package. The most banal is(but not less cruel) that youll be thinking that there arepeople that are more important than others, moreimportant than you. Most people think that and behavebefittingly with such belief, filling up of reverence to speakto a superior (not just a church hierarch, but any higher, Imean someone who has more power, more wealth, morediplomas or more fame than you). Thats why we needjust a leap to go from the religious world to the secularworld. Powerful people, rich, full of titles and very famouswill be seen, in this vertical social order, as superior.Bosses have some transcendent reason to occupy their57
  • 58. position and must be nominated by their differential titles,obeyed, treated with some fear and often, with servility.A child who receives such a load of ideas (veryunfavorable, lets face it, from the standpoint of freedomand cooperation) - even if it receives everything in asweet way, through uplifting stories and floral andpastoral examples that exalt beauty, grace, theexuberance of nature created and invaded by divine love,as do the catechists - cannot recover easily. Somethinginside will be damaged for the rest of its life.But this is just the first intervention of the church. In manycases the young and the adult will remain under itsinfluence receiving program updates, first as laymen (ormembers of the flock, the student church). In other cases,in smaller numbers, the adult will enter the religious orderthat erected the teaching church, integrating his priestlybureaucracy and becoming a hierarch (a condition whichhe will hardly escape from unscathed after beingordained, i.e. after his ability to reproduce the verticalorder of the Matrix was recognized by the hierarchy).The process will reach its climax when, beside the churchand other organizations around confession or devotion(sects, religious associations, societies, sororities,fraternities), enter the scene of esoteric organizations58
  • 59. (such as the really clandestine masonic society and thesecret organizations of initiation, especially the military-religious orders that echo Templar traditions, throughwhich the program will be installed in its hard version, soto say, in its professional version, for developers).59
  • 60. 60
  • 61. IN THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONSThe child is dead, and now it is time to continue theprocess of impregnating the already formatted young.This continues in school (and sometimes in church). Butnow new institutions show up, such as social and politicalorganizations called "of youth", recreational clubs, or insome cases the gangs and criminal organizations (suchas drug trafficking, which recruit even children), or so-called "social movements" (mainly the rigged bycorporate organizations and political hierarchies,especially the high school student movement), civilsociety organizations of the new associationistbureaucracy of the NGOs (including corporations,foundations, etc.) and the so called service clubs. What iscommon to them all is that they are hierarchicalorganizations. They are kind of computer servers wherethe programs are ready to be downloaded and installed.Simply enter (connect yourself to) one of them and thedownload will start automatically. And the programs - thevarious versions of the same hierarchical program - areexecutable.61
  • 62. A little later and it will be the turn of the barracks (whenthere is conscription to the armed forces); in some cases-depending on time and place - clandestine politicalorganizations, said to be revolutionary (are in generalstructured in a highly centralized pattern, sometimesmilitary), or in the so-called youth parties. All of those willact simultaneously (excluding child labor) with the work(as a trainee or as disqualified auxiliary of generalservices) in companies and other state or civil societybureaucratic organizations, exactly when they are turningfrom the first youth (if one can say so) into youngadulthood."Youth" organizations are, in general, fields for initiationand training in autocratic and hierarchical methods andprocesses. Curiously, they are managed - overt orcovertly - in large part, by non-youth. Policies for theyouth are discussed in the central committees ofgerontocratic organizations where elderly leaders gatherand agree to recruit more and more young people tosubmit them to their supervisors or to frame them in theirhierarchies.When they are right-wing political organizations, theyouth organizations aim the inculcation of ideologies andtraining in methods of command and control. When they62
  • 63. are left-wing, they aim the inculcation of ideologies andtraining in methods of command and control. The maindifference is that in the former case, there is theassumption of maintaining order and the secularinstitutions (such as family, tradition and property andsometimes religion and race) and, in the second, thedeclared goal is to change the current order for anothertop-down order (also hierarchical, but with new actorsexercising command and control). Another difference: theso-called left-wing trains young people in techniques ofmass manipulation and conduction of assemblies,opening a participative space to do so (poorlyinteractive). In these "gather the herd" environments,which are always polarized by senior leaders, the youthwill learn to be professionals in assemblies, to vote forevery decision, to fake votes, to create and runcampaigns, to defend some proposals, to attack anddestroy opposing ones and sometimes, also learning todestroy the people that make such proposals, who will beconsidered as enemies. But all these organizations - left-wing or right-wing - are sidered by the imperative to trainnew leaders (who will replace the current hierarchs, alsocalled leaders).63
  • 64. A note on the role of parties, these hierarchicalinstitutions in which people learn to privatize the publicsphere.Parties are a special type of corporation to assert theinterests of one group over the interests of other groupsand individuals; based on (or taking as a pretext) aprogram, a set of ideas from which it is possible to gainand retain power to legitimate the exercise of commandand control of others (being illegitimate from the socialpoint of view, that is, from the point of view of distributedsocial networks).The first parties were religious - they were the priestlycastes who erected the state - and therefore parties are,in the origin, hierarchical organizations stricto sensu.Parties are a way to protect people from the experienceof public politics. To achieve that - either as a monopoly(in dictatorships) or as an oligopoly (in formaldemocracies) - the parties privatize public politics. Theirlegal existence indicates that people, as just people, donot need to do public politics in their daily lives and at thebase of society (in their communities): someone willmake politics for them! Even in the democracies of themodern world its assumed that people should not makepublic politics, unless you are a member of a party: a kind64
  • 65. of state employment agency, a private organizationauthorized to compete with other private congenersorganizations to have access to state institutions whichare recognized legally as public and, therefore,exclusively are in charge of public policy. If we take offthe liberal theories about the role of parties in democracy,what is left is more or less what was described above.Even if we make lots of effort trying to justify this unequalaccess to exercise public policy, it seems obvious that theparty system privatizes politics. When you give to parties- excluvely - the power to transform politics in policy,people automatically become customers of the system.After entering a party - even if it is in its sector reservedfor youth - the person begins to be deformed. He or shebegins to feel that society is an area of dispute forhegemony and that politics is a kind of "art of war". It is,in short, to impose the will of a group on society, by alllicit means (and, often, illicit).Youth who had its initiation in the political party life willhave great difficulties to get rid of the practice ofinstrumentalization of others on behalf of a cause (of asmaller group of people). They will often remain with theidea that the ends justify the means. They will learn to lieand use lies as a method; they will behave as members65
  • 66. of a gang and even against their declared "values​​", theywill justify - or at least omit or fail to report - corruptionand other crimes when committed by ours.To the extent that democracy is more the "metabolism" ofa community of projects than the project of someinterested in conducting a community somewhereaccording to their particular points of view or to satisfytheir interests - a bold and crude definition of a politicalparty - in these parties the young will learn, essentially,autocracy (and, what is more curious, he or she will do itincessantly reproducing speeches praising democracy).66
  • 67. IN THE BARRACKSDuring military service the hierarchy program is updatedwith the installation of a brute version, actually loutish.For the first time the hierarchy is openly presented as anecessary principle to live (or survive) in the universaland eternal war that supposedly makes the world.According to the intrinsic cretinism in military ideology,war is a reality permanently present: it has existed sincethe foundation of human society and will exist for all time.Si vis pacem, para bellum (if you want peace, prepare forwar) is the main motto, which is written on the walls of thebarracks. It should be obvious that if one prepares forwar, the future will be war and not something else. Onlyat the cost of high doses of ideological loaded upon anormal person can assimilate this contradiction.Accepting it means admitting the assumption that humanbeings are, by nature, homo hostilis, i.e. inherentlycompetitive and that, in the absence of a power abovethem to curb their primitive impulses, humans woulddestroy each other in a bellum omnium against omnes (awar of all against all), as written by the famous ideologistof State Thomas Hobbes (1651) (14).67
  • 68. Now, to prepare for war requires hierarchy. In war youcan not break, dilute, delay or mediate the vertical flow ofcommand-execution. As, in times of peace, people haveto prepare for war, then, even in the absence of anyconflict - which eventually justify the absolute control ofthe chiefs over their subordinates, as a matter of life ordeath - it is necessary to strictly observe and follow order-hierarchy-discipline-obedience. In other words, the wholeissue becomes a matter of life or death. Here is thenecrophiliac root of military ideology.In the barracks the young will experience, at first, what isthe command of one person over another (and thesubjection of one person to another) in all its crudeness,without any justification or need for rational explanation: ifyou are the boss, you can send a recruit to do almostanything: wash the patio, carry furniture for removal of anofficer, buy cigarettes at the corner bar, "pay" fortypushups ... This is deliberately encouraged to trainsubordinates in obedience. To support such anaberration, some additional scripts of the slave programMatrix will be inculcated in the recruits through aphorismsheavily laden with prejudices: "The top never fails, unlessbecause of a sole responsibility fault of the subordinate";"Only the one may give orders who learned obedience";68
  • 69. "Collective indiscipline is a command error " etc..;besides an infinity of other sayings of foul language, like"The barracks is the place where the child cries and themother does not see," or "Military can not: are allowed to;do no rest: relax position; do not compliment: salutes"- allof them, however, with the aim of deploying the spirit ofsubjection to hierarchy and submission to bosses.Hierarchy in its raw state is revealed in the stronglycentralized social network topology of the militaryorganization. There, it is prohibited to multiply paths ortake shortcuts that pass off (or bypass) the immediatesupervisor (e.g., the lieutenant can not go straight to thecolonel bypassing the captain and the major and violatingthe one path, skipping the compulsory stations of thecourse. This would be serious misconduct). All of that, ofcourse, spills over to other civil and religious hierarchies.Some religious or religious-military orders lead thedistribution of hierarchical positions to the extreme,justifying them by analogy with beyond merely humansettings. In this case the perversity is greater, but therewe are already in a programming environment - fordevelopers.69
  • 70. Last but not least, in the barracks the young will "learn"patriotism, a delusion with warmonger roots (the sameone that accompanied the installation of the modernnation-State, this fruit of the war - in fact of the Peace ofWestphalia. It is no coincidence that the military worshipthe imaginary community called nation, actually a domainof the State. The State reifies the nation to justify itself asthe autocratic apparatus that supposedly emanates fromthe nation. The military are one of the arms of the State(the armed wing), without which it would not have beenpossible to accomplish the erection of this organizationconstituted against others, against the enemies (and tobe so its enough just be another, it is not necessary tomaintain any belligerent posture), against other states.The international system of perverse competitiveequilibrium (which still could not be violated bydemocracy) is a pact between less than two hundrednation-states to centralize sociosferas where 7 billionpeople live.The patriotic fervor will be the fuel for the rulers to stay inpower, to reproduce the system of (state) institutions thatwant to impose their legitimacy to society with the aim ofmaking it their dominium (likewise feudal) and to continueproducing enmity in the world. The culture of patrioticfervor allows the generation of an identity matrix, an70
  • 71. identity based on war, state of war or preparation for war.The basic argument is the one of the real-politic(autocratic, not democratic): if we are not prepared forwar, if we do not arm ourselves, we will be invaded anddominated by those who are prepared and have armedthemselves (against us). It is a gangs argument.That is why patriotism is so important to the military.Without it, there is no way to recruit people to composearmed forces. Oaths, salute the flag, exaltation ofnationalism, sacred duty, to die for the fatherland ... this isall hard drugs and part of the ideological charge therecruits get while being prepared, in most cases, not for areal war (hot or cold) against any true external enemy, butto maintain an internal state of war or to the preparationfor war (paradoxically taken as a condition for peace) tojustify vertical conformation of the social field.To sum up, the young, in the barracks, barely out of highschool or even just out of elementary school, are thevictims of a rude intervention. Apparently, most of thecompulsorily enlisted are able to recover from the traumaafter completing their annual period of service. Thosewho decide to follow a military career, however, hardlywill get rid of the impregnation. In every place they go,they will reproduce the matrix that was printed on them71
  • 72. and that is composed of mythical, hierarchical andautocratic concepts of the eternal and universal war epicworld: order, hierarchy, command, control, discipline,obedience, honor, duty, bravery , heroism ... They willeducate their children with these "values​​". They will treattheir collaborators, in civil projects that they engage inafter they get out of the army or retire, as subordinates.They will require obedience, respect for authority andthey will restrain freedom they deem excessive.The barracks are the environment where the Matrix thatreally exists strips down at a point that it appears, almostnaively, as a caricature. This appearance is so crude thatit is laughable, as can be seen by any intelligent personwho observes the life in the barracks for sometime.72
  • 73. AT UNIVERSITYWhen approaching adulthood, some young - in growingnumbers in most countries - enter the university, ameritocratic medieval corporation which remained inmodernity and came to today under the monopoly of theaward of degrees (since the alleged monopoly ofknowledge, which it held eight centuries ago, was lostsometime in the recent past with the emergence of thenetwork-society).At the university the young will basically learnmeritocracy. The autocratic ideology they will receive isthat those who know more have the right to direct thosewho know less. Even when it is not said openly - thisautocratic Platonic principle that inspired academiesaround the world for more than two millennia - soundslike the natural thing to do.At the university, the youth will be taught that itslegitimate to erect epistemological courts, based on asupposed knowledge about knowledge, who will judgewhat is scientific (and should be accepted) and what isnot (and must then be rejected). In some cases,73
  • 74. especially in politics and sociology courses, the studentwill also be recruited to erect or be part of ideologicalbarriers, which will allow the crossing of a few visions andprohibit the entry of others (considered contraband in thelight of the dominant ideology in academia).At the university the young will join a corporation(perhaps the first experience of corporation that thestudent will have in life, except, in some cases, themilitary, if recruited; but the former is more like a caste).The young will begin to see the world from theperspective of the corporation of the ones who "know"and will believe that such a view is somehow superior tothe views of common people.It is also at the university that the young - who decide tocontinue in academic life - will get in touch initially withthe idea of ​​a career that is nothing else but aconditioned flow to climb positions of power, prestige andbetter pay in relation to the others, against the others orstanding out from the others, instead of interacting andapproaching them. In the dynamics of careerscompetition is strongly encouraged.Finally, at the university the young will receive thejustifications to defend and reproduce it all. It is there that74
  • 75. the student will contact the scholarly explanations aboutsocial reality and its laws, through formulations that arelargely non scientific, but compose the belief system oftrendy influential metaphysics accepted by their teachers- the priestly bureaucracy of knowledge.In short, at the university the young is still at school andeverything that has been said about the school can besaid, mutatis mutandis (and changing just a little bit),about the university. The priestly bureaucracy ofknowledge (the hierarchy consists of teachers, postdocs,PhDs and masters) is actually a bureaucracy of teaching.Now, however, the young is in a meritocratic hierarchythat will give the student the security to pass judgment onthe organization of the world, including the need tostrengthen universal meritocracy and, inevitably,hierarchy.In some countries, like the United States, there is thetradition of college fraternities (named by combinations ofGreek letters, such as Phi Alpha, Delta, Kappa, Beta,Omega etc..), that aim "to separate leaders fromlosers" (15). These fraternities - whose standard oforganization, secret rituals and ideology wereshamelessly copied from masonry and other esotericorganizations - play a greater role than is generally75
  • 76. evaluated in training the youth as an installer ofhierarchies, i.e., as an Matrix agent.When the young adult joins a company or any other stateor social organization, this young academic will bringthere the belief that the positions (especially theleadership) have to be associated with academic titlesconferred by the university corporation. Somehow,continuing to reproduce the school in all of them.76
  • 77. AT WORKWell, then the young people come to the place wherepeople celebrate Fridays and curse Mondays: theworkplace! This should be enough to make them suspectthat something is terribly wrong, but they do not take thiseloquent sign into account (that about 70% of their livesis not being enjoyed according to their wishes). They findit natural to pay tribute for six or five days a week to beable to live as they want in one or two days left.When the young adult gets a first job and goes to aworkplace, whether in a company or other hierarchicalorganization responsible to a State or civil society, theslave-program that was installed is finally activated.Somehow, that was why he received such a longpreparation. At work the contractor acknowledges that theslave-program is running well in the one who was hired(when no contractor has difficulty making suchrecognition, it is called sometimes the "employability").The slave-program is the password for the young to beadmitted in the fields of the Matrix reproduction. All77
  • 78. hierarchical organizations are fields of reproduction, butwe are now focusing on those that replace the freedom ofinvention by the prison of labor (routine).Yes, workplaces are environments of reproduction, not ofcreation. They require discipline and obedience to allowthat a process, a product or a service can be replicatedwith the fewest errors, in less time and at the lowestpossible cost (and this has been called quality andproductivity).For this purpose, companies and other general workingorganizations imprison the bodies of workers to enableleaders (administrators of people) to control them andcommand them closely. The assumption here is that theemployee does not fulfill its role voluntarily, but only if it issubjected to a system - feitorial or nearly feitorial(nowadays, taskmasters replaced the whip by the clock,the book of presence, the magnetic badge or the bank ofhours) - in which someone watches the workermovements to avoid that he or she wastes time, losesconcentration in the tasks and fails to "hit thetargets" (decreasing the quality and productivity).Over 90% of employers imprison bodies. Heads ofgovernment offices, business managers and "owners" of78
  • 79. NGOs often imprison bodies. If people did not have tosleep and if it was allowed by the laws, they would likethem to stay at their disposal full time: - 24 (hrs) X 7(days): tum, tum, tum ...Even when they say the contrary, they do not wantpeople to be entrepreneurs, creative, building innovativeproducts or processes and performing wonderful things,but that they "work". They want: "work" = "repetition andexecution of orders". If they wanted creation, innovation,they would not impose strange agendas to people(agendas that they had no opportunity to co-create), theywould not tear time in controllable units, with rigidschedules of entry and exit in a walled space. They wouldgive their employees (all of them) the best conditions forinnovation (they would, maybe, rent a house on aparadise island, on a pleasant farm, or maybe at anurban forest, or with a garden, they would cultivategardens ... in short, they would not organize or decoratetheir places - work places - in a so horrendous way, withno colors, art... all gray, like a prison or a convent) and,above all, they would not reduce your mobility: anessential dimension of peoples freedom to create.The key to the captors of bodies is to keep their workersout of creative chaos, protect them from their ownentrepreneurial spirit. So, to sterilize you, they put you in79
  • 80. the pyramid. Or in a concentration camp: at the entranceof Auschwitz one could read (and still can, above themain gate), the words "Arbeit macht frei" (Work makesyou free).The company (sensu lato) is a machine and the worker isnot an operator but a part of the machine. The machinehas to work to produce the processes, products andservices for which it was designed and built. For themachine to work, the part has to work as a part, playingexactly the role for which it was designed.The hierarchical company was created to protect peoplefrom the experience of being an entrepreneur. To enter acompany like that, people have to abandon their dreamsfor the sake of the dream of others. It is more or less as ifthe owner of the dream (or his servant or agent) wassaying: "You do not need to be an entrepreneur but letme do it for you; since you, of course, give up your dreamand adopt mine, working for me."At work (in a company or any other hierarchicalorganization) the young are taught to non-create, non-invent. They will soon learn that this could be bad for theircareer. It will make them uncomfortable to the chiefs: theyoung will be following paths that are not the ones they80
  • 81. (the hierarchs) made (for them). The own colleagues willrebuke their initiatives, they will see it as a kind ofdisloyalty - as a bad habit of "showing service". Newideas to improve a management model, a process, aproduct or a service, will be judged in the midst of theworker flock as a desire to "show off" to the bosses. Aflock of employees is more or less like those hordes ofbeings infected by some virus - very common in horrorfilms (or science fiction B-movies) - who will chase andtry to infect anyone who is not infected, yet.At work, the young man learns to be mediocre, toconform to a routine, to do things just like everyone elsedoes, in exchange to the possibility, to enjoy life in the30% of the time he has left, and he is going to see amatch, or date somebody, or goes to the beach or to themovies, socializing with friends at a Sunday barbecue orat a bar, or he will try to do some sports or a follow hishobby, or to travel over the weekend ... In fact he willlearn to bear the yoke, to suffer fatigue... daydreaming,dreaming of what he will do later, while making himbelieve that he is focused on what he is doing now. It isreally a slaves life, only acceptable for a person who wasloaded with ... a slave program (16). In a hierarchicalcompany the young will learn that he is not going to bepaid for his work (or for what it is worth), but the81
  • 82. willingness to be available to the managers or owners todo any work (they want them to do).Everything is organized so that the young does notrealize that he is the entrepreneur, not the company. Sohe does not see that the company is a medium for him todo something, not a working camp (as if he is a slave?), aprison where he has to pay a penalty eight hours a day(as if he had been convicted of some crime), almostevery day of the week (always bored and anxious, likethe kids at school, always waiting for the time that the bellrings), or an idol that he should adore. If the youngcannot see, then it is a sign that the impregnationprocess is completed, the program has successfullyloaded, it is fully installed and running well.The young man is now fully integrated into the Matrix andcan now be considered a responsible adult.Family, school, church, youth organizations, parties,barracks, university, business and other workorganizations (state or social) - all these institutions loadthe program, update the program (or one of its differentversions). It is nearly impossible to escape them all. Andwhat is common to them all, or apparently so different,with many differing or even opposite goals? What is82
  • 83. common is the hierarchy, the more centralized thandistributed pattern of organization, with all that it implies:the management model based on command-and-control,the existence of leadership of one person, therequirement of obedience (or sub-ordering). Restrictingfreedom and discouraging cooperation seems to be thegoal.People in the Matrix will react to all this saying: "- Butcould it be any other way? If we do not organize people inhierarchical systems they would still be in the stone age,living in groups, wandering, busy to survive and their lifewould be - as Hobbes wrote (1651) - solitary, poor, nasty,brutish and short ? "(17).These objections are, obviously, suggested by thehierarchical program installed in them. But telling themthey are people that are just giving a voice to a typicalbeing, the standard individuals of the Matrix that reallyexists are being converted into private individuals, asdiscussed below.83
  • 84. 84
  • 85. PART 2IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET OUT OF THEMATRIX?85
  • 86. 86
  • 87. BEFORE ANYTHING we need to know what it means toget out of the Matrix. The Matrix that really exists is notan external reality to the tangles that we are in (andwhere we are - as we are, we, the humans). It is a socialfield deformed by hierarchy. It is in the middle of us in adouble sense: it is among us (we weave relationshipswith others) and it is also within us (because we introjector mirror the social tangle settings in which we exist aspersons).To stop to reproduce these (hierarchical) settings in ourrelations with the others is the first step to break free ofthe Matrix. This seems to be the decisive step to start toclear the deformations and not the opposite, as is oftenbelieved. There is a widespread belief - with ahierarchical background - according to which first theperson has to have an inner transformation (as anindividual) and then change the (social) settings in whichhe or she is immersed in. However, it seems, the changeof visions, conceptions and ideas do not changebehavior: only behaviors change behavior. The Matrix isnot reproduced because of our beliefs, convictions andvalues, but rather because of our behavior, because ofthe way we relate to others. If we do not obey (someone)and do not demand obedience (from anyone) there wouldbe no hierarchy. It would be enough, in essence, to give87
  • 88. up bossing others, i.e., to command them and controlthem. As simple as that.To boss people and to obey people, however, is not todesire to do this, but to act so as to effectively performthe command and obedience. Nobody can do it if youcannot select flows, eliminating nodes, connections orshortcuts in the social network.Nobody can do this alone. One must have a centralizednetwork of people to erect a hierarchy (in fact, thehierarchy is already the centralization of the network). Toexit the Matrix a person needs to change the topology ofthe social networks she or he is connected to, towardsmore distribution (or less centralization). Its not enough,although, just to have a desire to do this or just speak orwrite about it. It is necessary to change the networksettings. Its not a question of just a new software, its anew hardware what matters.Escaping the Matrix is like building a refuge, a shelterprotected from the influence of the social field deformedby the hierarchy (or by the more centralized thandistributed network topology). This result will betemporary - huts or shelters are like bubbles - and thusthe effort to escape should be intermittent. Sooner orlater the influence of the hierarchical environment will88
  • 89. burst the bubble. And another bubble should then beopened (18).The bubbles (huts or shelters from the influence of theMatrix) are just more distributed than centralizednetworks. The more distributed the network, the less itwill suffer from the influence of the Matrix, which is justanother way of saying - the obvious - that there will beless centralization (or less hierarchy in the environmentalsetup).To exit the Matrix you have to hack the institutions thatput you into the Matrix (i.e., who installed the program inyou): family, school, church, hierarchical organizations(including entities of the civil society, corporations andpolitical parties), the barracks, universities and business,governmental and social organizations that employpersons for compensation or that are agents of theirwork.However, although necessary, this is not enough. Its notenough just to cut (to hack) or break (to crack) the codeof these institutions (and deprogramming them): youhave to reprogram them, or better, program what theywould be without hierarchy (and this is not just hacking,its more of netweaving), not only generically, but for you89
  • 90. and for the tangle where you are glocally inserted. Forthat, you need to become a common person.In the movie The Matrix, Neo (Thomas Anderson) is ahacker. But a hacker is still an uncommon person and, assuch, can not get out of the Matrix. A hacker is a differentperson, a kind of "digital Zionist," a member of a"thirteenth tribe", an elite whose members are able torecognize themselves based on their differentialattributes, i.e., from what they stand out from the others(rather than the ones that approximate them) (19).Neo is a hacker while it would be necessary for him to bea netweaver to exit the Matrix. And then he would not bethe chosen one. He would be a common person, chosentogether with all who are in the same tangle, when thiscluster got caught by the flow (i.e., when the configurationof the cloud of connections that surrounds it becomesmore distributed than centralized). All of us are chosenwhen caught by the flow.Exiting the Matrix is abandoning yourself into theinteractive flow, let it invade the worlds that we set in ourliving, pierce the walls that we erect "against the winds,the tides and the stars" ... (20).90
  • 91. TO EXIT THE MATRIXTo exit the Matrix you need to be un-taught. There is noother way. Youre in the Matrix because you were taught,i.e. programmed. Now you need to be deprogrammed.Not enough, however. You also need to bereprogrammed. Both, deprogramming andreprogramming should be done ​​by you and the otherpeople who interact with you in your tangle. Butdeprogramming and reprogramming are not teaching, butfree and common learning. All autodidact learning orlearning with your peers gets the teaching out of you.The key out of the hierarchy is unlearning. Unlearninghierarchy, yes, but the word unlearning is used here in aopposite direction to the heterodidatic learning, it means,when you learn not what you want to learn but whatsomeone else wants you to learn (i.e., teaching). In thissense, to unlearn hierarchy is learning to disobey (orunlearn to command, which is the same thing).In the Matrix that really exists, teaching obedience is aconstant. It begins in the family, is deepened in school, isbased with transcendent reasons in the church, gets91
  • 92. instrumentalised in the social and political organizations,is exacerbated in the barracks, becomes rational in theuniversity and is consolidated in the workplace.To deprogram the part of the program (its deepest layer)that you received in the family, it is necessary to stop toreplicate family everywhere, resisting the temptation ofbelonging (or forming) an owner or closed group (21),stopping to make projections of your parents in the chiefsand authorities in general (22) and - most important -relearning how to play (23). But reprogramming will onlybecome real when you begin to live in a network(distributed) or live in the community (open) with yourfriends (regardless of the degree of relationship theyhave with you), with no other purpose than to delight inthe enjoyment of living with them.To deprogram the schooling that you were a victim of,one must give up teaching others. This is harder than itsounds because it is not only a question of avoiding to bea teacher (which most people are not), but avoiding toreproduce the teaching behavior, in all its forms. Give upthe will to lead others or convince others - even with thepretext of facilitating their learning process and to giveopportunities for them "to be included" (where?) -requires constant attention. Reprogramming will come92
  • 93. when you begin to act as a catalyst for learningprocesses in free communities of seekers and pollinators,structured as distributed networks.To break the script that you may have received in thechurch, you have to give up to meet exclusively inclusters of those who profess the same faith (or belief)and believe that there is a (unique) way to truth (24). It isnot necessary that you abandon your spirituality or yourmystical life, not even your god (since you do not want toimpose it on others, separating believers fromunbelievers). This process is not complete while you arebuilding (or joining) the priestly orders who proclaimthemselves the only way, the only door, the only hope ofsalvation, i.e., while you re-edit (or belong to) any ofthese flow traps constructed for herd sheep to feed them(called churches) (25). Reprogramming will come whenyou - if applicable and if you want to do this - start sharingpost-religious forms of spirituality with others in newEcclesias (as "lovers assemblies"), such as networks ofseekers who are willing to celebrate their love andpollinate each other and the ways they live theirspirituality or mysticism.To deprogram what you received in the social andpolitical organizations, you have to let go of theconservative mind - "conservadorismo" - (which wants to93
  • 94. freeze and reproduce preterit settings resisting theinteractive flow) and also the transformer mind -"transformacionismo" - (who wants to convert people intowhat they are not, to lead them into a radiant future thatwould be installed with the transformation of society inwhat it is not, by performing some authoritarian utopiaable to install a new order) (26).Therefore, it would be sufficient to adhere to democracy,but as this word is not taken in the original sense ofdeconstitution of autocracy but often confused with agovernance model or a political form of the stateadministration, to just use the term (without adjectives) -would lead to a confusion with the representative orelectoral system - not helping to make it understandable.Reprogramming will come when you - giving up theregressive notions of patriotism and nationalism, andbecoming a citizen of your transnational glocality - beginto relate to networks of social and political interaction(public) in neighborhoods and areas of activity withincommunities that exercise cooperative democracy at thebase of society and at the daily lives of people (whocoexist with you) (27).To deprogram what you eventually received in thebarracks or military organizations in general (includingthe political-military organizations, as certain political94
  • 95. parties; or religious-military, as some churches, sects andorders), you have to renounce war and the constructionof enemies. Enemies are created by fighting someone.But there is not a good fight, there is not a good struggle,there is not just a war of good against evil. Just as therighteous king legitimates autocracies, the "warrior oflight", involved in an ongoing fight against the "Warrior ofDarkness", legitimizes the existence of war (and, hence,the employment and manufacturing of the gun). The war(or politics practiced as the art of war) is, in itself, the evil.The only enemy that exists is the creator of enemies. Ifyou fight, you will be the enemy. Reprogramming willcome when you do not fight. If you do not fight, there isno fight at all.To deprogram what you received in college you have torenounce meritocracy, giving up to erect (or validate)epistemological courts able to approve (or disapprove)people based on heterodidatic checks of knowledge thatwas "taught". Reprogramming will come when you beginto assess the tree by its fruits, not by certificates issuedby some botanical corporation (28).To deprogram what you received in companies and otherworkplaces, you have to learn to collaborate (work withothers), or, in other words, to unlearn to work for others95
  • 96. and putting other people to work for you. Reprogrammingwill happen when you become an interdependententrepreneur, i.e. a co-entrepreneur, a co-creator of ideasand a co-maker of projects in shared ventures (29).Learn to disobey (or unlearn how to boss people); resistthe temptation of belonging to a group, stop transferringand projecting the images of our parents in bosses andauthorities and relearn how to play; catalyze free learningprocesses; horizontally share your spirituality andcelebrate what you love; exercise cooperative democracyand avoid to create enemies; evaluate the trees by theirfruits delegitimizing the epistemological courts, andcreating and making things together. It seems difficult, butnobody ever said it was easy. However, it is notnecessary to do all these things at once.The hierarchical program you are hacking is the same inall these traps of flows whether it is in the family, theschool, the church, at social and political organizations,the barracks, the university, or the companies and otherhierarchical work institutions. To change the code fromone of these institutions is enough to change theprogramming of societies of control. You can choosewhere you want to start. But to start is not to finish. To96
  • 97. reprogram glocal social spheres it is not enough to hack,you must also do net weaving.In short, all this can be summed up in one word:networking. Networks should be seen in this sense ashierarchical deconstruction movements and asenvironments of formation of other worlds, protected - atleast temporarily - from the influence of the Matrix thatreally exists. It would be an impossible task for anindividual. But you are not an individual as the Matrixwants you to believe (because the Matrix is a factory ofindividuals). It is necessary to abandon the illusion thatyou are an individual and become a person. A commonperson.97
  • 98. 98
  • 99. BECOME A COMMON PERSONWhen a person relates to others in a more distributedthan centralized network, she or he learns to become acommon person. But in the Matrix that really existspeople, in general, are not common people (in the senseof commons), but private individuals (closed in theinteraction with the unpredictable other). The Matrix is akind of factory of private persons.Private persons could turn into common persons if theywouldnt want to be unusual people. But immersed in avertical current that drags everything up, people want tobe unusual (and behave befittingly with such a desire).So they isolate themselves from interaction and then canno longer be common persons.Yes, a common person. This is perhaps the most difficultconcept to grasp because of its disconcerting simplicity. Itarose from the observation that, in hierarchical structures,we are not ordinary people, as we strive to be unusualpeople and stand out from the similar ones (rather than toapproach them).99
  • 100. The term common has here the sense of commons, thecommon good, something to be shared by a community(not ordinary, normal or remarkable, nor mediocre, as isgenerally attributed pejoratively). Thus, a common personis one who keeps the same conditions of other peoplesharing their tangle, although each is, in its particulars,totally different, and always unique.The common person is the one who shares (she is reallywhat she shares, letting themselves to be swept by thebreath, permeable to the interactive flow) and not onethat achieved success because of their inheritedcharacteristics (the "blood" or "cradle"), or thecharacteristics acquired by the efforts they made ​​to getahead or to progress or to evolve in her spiritual path.The common person is someone who managed tocoexist, the one that could anticipate the fullness of livingtogether or living in a social network prefiguring a socialsymbiote.Common persons are not failed saints or heroes. Rather,saints and heroes fail to be common persons (30). Saintsand heroes are unusual people, results from theescapades of humanity, attempts to individualtransformation outside the interactive flow and are, in thatsense, humans fleeing the interaction and not the100
  • 101. opposite, as the hierarchical culture tried to inculcate,according to which common persons are not goodenough, as if they were failed saints or heroes or justlosers (losers, as the American culture likes to tell,associating success with virtue) - because they could notwin accumulating wealth, power or many titles. The samecan be said about the so-called celebrities, which, from acollective or network point of view, are symptoms of apathology of interaction (31).When asked, people who believe in that sort of things -and there are many - often say that life is like that. Its afight. And we need that to succeed in life. But who wins?Are we really in a war? The problem is that we are. TheMatrix exists only because people behave as if they werein a war.You can exit the Matrix, yes, but its hard. Because it isnot easy to be a common person, in contrary to what itseems. In the Matrix we are induced to gain someadvantage and stand out from ordinary people. When weinteract with someone in any hierarchical environment weare evaluated by these differences and then we began tocultivate them. As a reflection of the vertical flows whichwe start to value, our life also turns vertical. Its like weabsorb the anisotropy generated in the social field by the101
  • 102. hierarchy. In our rush to climb, we began to imitate thepersons at the top and despise the ones at the bottom. Indoing so, however, we replicate the Matrix.James Joyce (1902) was right when writing in a letter toAugusta Gregory, that "there is no heresy or philosophythat bother the church more than a human being" (32).The church is an example of how the Matrix reallybecame into existence. There is nothing more dangerousto the Matrix than a common person. It is moredangerous, infinitely more dangerous than a saint or ahero. This is the reason for the religious discourse ofdevaluation of the common person in favor of unusualpeople (like the saints and those who received theanointing through the intermediation of the hierarchy: thepriests that were holy as full faculty members through theoperation of rituals practiced by other priests of the samehierarchical status: metastasis).To examine the behavior of private individuals is a way toreveal the Matrix that really exists. They want to bepowerful, rich, very titled, famous. In general, they arenothing like this, but they behave according to the illusion(undeclared, often unconscious) that they could be.Actually there is a desire to imitate the powerful people,rich, titled or very famous. Then they close themselves102
  • 103. from interaction, being selective in relationships (which -from the point of view of the network - is the failure of allthe so called "successful people") (33).If you want to "be successful", go ahead. But be awarethat success is an indicator of adaptation to the Matrixthat really exists.But if you do not want to adapt to the Matrix, if you wantto be a revolutionary or a reformer of institutions, if youwant to save the family, improve the school, reform thechurch, modernized the hierarchical company, changestate democratic institutions making them moreparticipatory, you can be in peace. Enjoy with Cypher (34)that juicy virtual steak. And forget that you will continue inthe Matrix. It will be easier to bear.103
  • 104. 104
  • 105. NOTES AND REFERENCES(1) Cf. ZIZEK, Slajov (2002). Matrix: ou os dois lados daperversão, in IRWIN, William org. (2002). Matrix:Bem-vindo ao deserto do real. São Paulo: Madras,2003.(2) Cf. FRANCO, Augusto (2009). Você é o inimigo.Available at http://www.slideshare.net/augustodefranco/voc-o-inimigo-3900733(3) The idea of a social field - like a force field (means bywhich a force communicates its influence) - wassuggested in 2007 and published in the book NovasVisões (2008), to describe the effect of the socialnetwork topology on people (such as in a physicalfield it is possible to determine the intensity anddirection of the force at each point). In a distributedtopology, the social field would keep the sameproperties in all directions. A centralized topologyintroduces an anisotropy (favoring certain directionsor conditioning the flow to pass through them to thedetriment of other possible directions). This anisotropy- introduced by the hierarchy (i.e., by the105
  • 106. centralization) - is then seen as a deformation in thesocial field. In general it is described as a field forcedto be vertical (privileging the vertical direction or pathsof ascent and descent). In the presence ofhierarchical organizations, the social field suffers adeformation, not only inside of it, but also in itssurroundings. The concept (or picture) has noanalytical purposes, but intends to demonstratesomething (or illustrate): people in a deformed socialfield tend to behave in a manner consistent with theavailable paths, regardless of their individualcharacteristics: for example, in a vertical field, onetends to privilege the vertical direction, disputing withothers the possible paths of ascension (competition),instead of establishing horizontal relations with them(collaboration). This view is consistent with thehypothesis that collaboration is an attribute of howhumans organizing themselves and not a function oftheir individual distinctive characteristics (like theirprinciples, visions and values​​). Cf FRANCO,Augusto (2008). School Networks: New views onsociety, development, internet, politics, and worldglocalization. Curitiba: School-of-Networks, 2008.106
  • 107. (4) Cf. THOMPSON, William Irwin org. (1987). Gaia: umateoria do conhecimento. São Paulo: Gaia-Global,1990.(5) BARAN, Paul (1964). On distributed communications:I. Introduction to distributed communicationsnetworks. (Memorandum RM-3420-PR August 1964).Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation, 1964.(6) The degree of distribution (or centralization) of anetwork depends on the number of connections (afunction of the number of nodes), on the number ofnodes disconnected with the elimination of the mostconnected node and on the number of connectionseliminated by removing the more connected node. CfFRANCO, Augusto (2009): The power of socialnetworks. Available at http://www.slideshare.net/augustodefranco/o-poder-nas-redes-sociais-2a-versao(7) In the fictional universe of Star Trek (The NextGeneration), the Borgs are a "race" of alien cyborgs,humanoids of various species assimilated andimproved with the injection of nanoprobes andapplication of cybernetic implants that alter theiranatomy and their biochemical functioning, expanding107
  • 108. their mental and physical abilities. When they findtheir prey - any members of other civilizations, whichthey are always hunting - the Borgs recite, with somevariations, the following litany: "We are the Borgs.Existence as you know is over. We will add yourbiological and technological qualities to ours.Resistance is futile." There is no such thing as a Borgsocial network, with some significant degree ofdistribution, because there is no Borg-person.Transformed into replaceable individuals, the Borgsare replicated in series by a structure highlycentralized in their queen (yes, the system is anabsolute monarchy), the only one who can think freely(if that is possible without talking to other people).Their brains are wired to a collective mind (the BorgCollective) controlled by a central hub (Unimatrix A).The stated goal of the Borg people (which can only becalled people at that particular original meaning of theLatin word populus = "contingent of troops") is "toimprove all the species bringing order to chaos." Apossible interpretation of the metaphor is: somehowanyone turned into a replaceable part of a centralizedorganization (hierarchical), is - to some extent - aBorg. Note from the book FRANCO, Augusto (2011).Fluzz: vida humana e convivência social nos novos108
  • 109. mundos altamente conectados do terceiro milênio.São Paulo: Escola-de-Redes, 2011.(8) MATURANA, Humberto & VERDEN-ZÖLLER, Gerda(1993). Amor y Juego: fundamentos olvidados de lohumano – desde el Patriarcado a la Democracia.Santiago: Editorial Instituto de Terapia Cognitiva,1997. (There is also a Portuguese version: Amar ebrincar: fundamentos esquecidos do humano. SãoPaulo: Palas Athena, 2004).(9) BLACK, Bob (1985). The Abolition of Work and OtherEssays. Port Townsend: Loompanics Unlimited, 1986.A Portuguese translation of the manifesto "A aboliçãodo trabalho" is available at http://www.4shared.com/file/219719893/b8942012/A_ABOLIO_DO_TRABALHO_Black.html(10) SAINT-EXUPERY, Antoine (1939). Terra doshomens. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira, 2006.(11) Considering the evolutionary history of the homosapiens, people have no reason to be guided by theidea that there is a (unique) true belief and to adoptpractices of exclusion and denial of the ones whohave their own different beliefs and do not want to109
  • 110. abandon them and turn to the beliefs of anothergroup just to be accepted and validated by such agroup (which is what characterizes the religiouspractice). This would have drastically reduced thepossibilities of interaction between groups ofdifferent origins, with obvious negative impact ontheir survival. If humans had followed such policies,exchanges would not have happened and tradewould not have flourished. For the adoption of suchguidance leads inexorably to the formation of closedgroups of believers, and induces the enclosure in theclusters that share the same faith (or rather, thesame belief), with no shortcuts to other clusters(composed by the infidels). But thats what was doneby ​​religions for millennia (producing enmity in theworld and countless wars) and they are still doing it,albeit on a smaller scale (as in highly connectedworlds it is almost impossible to maintain thisbehavior), except perhaps in certain strains of theIslam (with disastrous results, well known byeveryone today).(12) Cf. MATURANA, Humberto. Op. cit.(13) At the edge, even war weaponry can be blessed (asdone by some hierarchus maximus of a church -110
  • 111. considered by their religion as infallible - in themiddle of the last century).(14) HOBBES, Thomas (1651). Leviatã. São Paulo:Martins Fontes, 2003.(15) Cf. BLUMENTHAL, Matthew (2007). Fraternidadesepara líderes de perdedores nos EUA. Folha deSão Paulo: Caderno Cotidiano, 14 de outubro de2007. Available at http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/cotidian/ff1410200727.htm(16) It is no coincidence that the concept of work hasemerged in ancient Mesopotamia with theconnotation of suffering. Incidentally, in Sumerianmythology, according to the "Epic of Creation" -which contains some of the earliest mentions weknow of a priestly culture, hierarchical and autocratic- the men would have been created by the gods to"work forever and free the gods .. .", or bear theyoke, and suffer fatigue. Men have been created asworkers - inferiors, slaves of the gods - to providethe freedom of the gods, who then starteddemanding worship from men. Worship originallymeant, according to biblical accounts, working forthe superior beings: work for a deity and that deity111
  • 112. was simultaneously "lord", "ruler", "king", "governor"and "owner" - in short, superior. The ancient men ofthe autocratic hierarchical systems not properlyworshiped their gods, but they feared them andworked for them. And, of course, for their humanintermediaries: the priests. Cf Epic of Creation -Enuma Elish (or Enûma Eliš) is the Babyloniancreation myth. It was discovered by Austen HenryLayard in 1849 (in a fragmentary form) in the ruinedLibrary of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh (Mosul, Iraq), andpublished by George Smith in 1876. See SMITH,George (1876). The Chaldean Account of Genesis.London: s / d. 1876. Here is the passage quotedfrom the Enuma Elish: "He created man (andwoman) living beings, to work forever, and releasethe gods of other charges ...". A dubious version inPortuguese is available here: http://www.angelfire.com/me/babiloniabrasil/enelish.htmlTablets 1 and 2 are available: http://wikisource.org/wiki/Enuma_Elish(17) Cf. HOBBES, T. Op. cit.(18) Cf. FRANCO, Augusto (2012). Small Bangs:instruções para construir uma bomba criativa.112
  • 113. Available at http://net-hcw.ning.com/page/small-bangs(19) Cf. FRANCO, Augusto (2011). Netweaver Howto(Como se tornar um netweaver). Available at http://escoladeredes.net/group/fluzz/forum/attachment/download?id=2384710%3AUploadedFile%3A164075(20) SAINT-EXUPERY, A. Op. cit.(21) Cf. FRANCO, Augusto (2011). Resista à tentação depertencer a um grupo. Available at http://www.slideshare.net/augustodefranco/resista-tentao-de-pertencer-a-um-grupo(22) A measure to deprogram the software that wasinstalled on you by the family and to stop projectingyour parents in the bosses and authorities ingeneral. The best way to do this is, obviously, not tohave bosses. But even that is not enough. Oneshould also not be anyones boss. And you do nothave to respect the authorities in particular. Allpeople must be respected: they are equal to you. Achild should be respected in its humanity as anysenior. The elder must not be more respected than113
  • 114. the younger because they could be your father ormother, as it is currently said. The rich, powerful,wise and famous person should not be revered in adifferential mode, as often occurs. There is no onemore important than you. It is not only necessary tobelieve that, but to behave coherently with thisconviction.(23) Perhaps the main measure to reprogram what thefamily embedded in you - when they wanted toeducate you, teach you, format you, prepare you tobe an adult with such and such preconceivedcharacteristics - is to relearn how to play. No matterhow old you are, it is always possible to play, tointeract with others without expecting results, withouta purpose other than pleasure, and the enjoyment ofsharing. If you find it impossible to do this, then yourcase is lost. You can only exit the Matrix bybecoming a child again.(24) It is not that there cannot be a truth (for you). Thekey here is to give up the idea that there is a path tothe truth that can be revealed to others by anorganization. In this spirit Jiddu Krishnamurti made aremark on October 21, 1980: "Truth is a pathlessland. The man did not come to it through any114
  • 115. organization, any belief, no dogma, no priest orritual, nor through philosophic knowledge or anypsychological technique. He has to find it through themirror of relationships ... "See Krishnamurti, Jiddu(1980). Available at http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/pt/about-krishnamurti/dissolution-speech.php(25) The Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (aka Osho) solvedthe riddle when he identified the gods of religions asprograms that make the flow vertical: "I have noGod, therefore, I have no program for you in whichyou can be turned into a slave". Incidentally, Osho,as Krishnamurti and Tao - Zen included, whendisconnected from the religious adhesions ofBuddhism, acting as an antivirus program or a gameto destroy certainties - that can be of much help inthe effort to get out of the Matrix.(26) We call "transformacionismo" - the transformer mind- the kind of perverse ideology according to whichhuman beings come with defects that must berepaired by any hierarchical institution (be it aschool, a church, a military organization, acorporation, a party, a State or some kind of spiritualorder, sect, society or fraternity). These institutionswould be, on the one hand, reformatories to educatepeople, to say, teach them, train them, tame them;115
  • 116. or, on the other hand, environments to give rise totheir inner development, putting them on the path oftheir mental or spiritual evolution. This perversionacquired other forms nowadays, more explicitlypolitical, from the belief that the transformation of thepeople (in that what they are not) come with thetransformation of society (in what it is not, byperforming some authoritarian utopia that ultimately"will put the house in order"). This transformationwould be promoted by the conscious intervention ofpolitical, social or environmental activism - alwayscrowded in hierarchical organizations - which wouldtransfuse their awareness to the ignorant massesleading them toward a bright future. This ideology isdeconstructed with the acceptance that we must bewhat we are and not what we are not (there isnothing wrong with us), that there is no place to goother than that for which we go (and that can not beknown beforehand for some wise organization ofbeings more aware or more evolved, whichpossesses some superior knowledge of themechanisms immanent or transcendent to history)and that the distributed social networks (peopleinteracting freely) are not a tool to change but thechange itself.116
  • 117. (27) Para uma visão da democracia cooperativa cf.FRANCO, Augusto (2011). Democracia: umprograma autodidático de aprendizagem. Availableat http://www.slideshare.net/augustodefranco/democracia-um-programa-autodidatico-de-aprendizagem(28) Cf. FRANCO, Augusto & LESSA, Nilton (2011).Multiversidade : da Universidade dos anos 1000 àMultiversidade nos anos 2000. Available at http://www.slideshare.net/augustodefranco/multiversidade-10753463(29) Cf. FRANCO, Augusto (2012). Cocriação:reinventando o conceito. Available at http://www.slideshare.net/augustodefranco/cocriao-reinventando-o-conceito-1132190730) George Orwell (1948) in their disturbing Reflectionson Gandhi drew perhaps the most profound (andcourageous) critique of religious discipline by takingas an example that "Gandhi imposed the discipline tohimself and that - although he may not urge hisfollowers to observe it in every detail - he believed itto be essential if we wanted to serve God andhumanity. Firstly, do not eat meat and, if possible, any117
  • 118. animal in any form ... No alcohol or tobacco, noseasoning or condiment, even vegetable ... Secondly,if possible, no sex ... And finally - this is the mainpoint - for those seeking goodness there should beno close friendships and exclusive loves." Thencomes the harsh criticism of Orwell: "The key in thefact of being human is that we do not seek perfection,it is that sometimes we are likely to commit sins in thename of loyalty, it is that we assume asceticism to thepoint of making a friendship impossible, that in theend we are prepared to be defeated and fragmentedby life, which is the inevitable price we pay when wefix our love of other human beings. No doubt alcohol,tobacco etc. are things that a saint must avoid, butsainthood is also a thing that human beings mustavoid. For this there is an obvious replica, but wemust be cautious in making it. In this era dominatedby yogis, it is too quickly assumed that not only the"detachment" is better than full acceptance of earthlylife, as well as the ordinary man only rejects itbecause it is very difficult: in other words, that theaverage human being is a failed saint. It is doubtfulthat this is true. Many people do not sincerely desireto be saints, and it is likely that the ones that reachsanctity, or who aspire to it, have never be reallytempted to be human beings." Realizing that the118
  • 119. "common man", the "average human" is not "a losersaint" was the big discovery of Orwell, unmaskingwhat was imposed on us by the churches placing asthe ideal for the overcoming of the human, theirimprovement, the "spiritualization", as if there weresomething wrong with living your life without beingsubmitted to any religious discipline, asceticism, evenwhen directed to the good of humanity (like thesaints, bodhisattvas and Mahatmas - that perhaps,have failed to reach to be ordinary people). SeeORWELL, George (1948). Reflections on Gandhi inORWELL, George (1984). Inside the whale and otheressays. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2005.(31) Psychologists, psychoanalysts and psychiatrists whotreat pathologies and incidents to who remains inthis condition [celebrity] have a lot to tell about thepersonality disorder that may lead, in certaincircumstances, when combined with other factors, tothe emergence of self-destructive impulses ... Even ifsuch extreme consequences do not happen, there isalways an isolation (that cruel isolation that all thegreat hierarchical leaders and drivers of herdscomplain about), caused by the impoundment offluzz. To a certain extent, in hierarchical societiesand organizations we turn ourselves (all of us, not119
  • 120. just celebrities) into beings of appearance, deformedby broadcasting, using our antennas almost solely tospread the features of our persona (as we wantothers to see us) and not to capture other patterns ofcoexistence. That is how we have not developed ourhub-features and, consequently, we lose interactivity,especially because we do not keep ourselves opento interaction with the unpredictable others, in fear ofbeing confused with anyone, with beings of lesserimportance than we think we have (because theyhave fewer titles, less wealth, less abilities or lesspopularity than us). To protect ourselves from freeinteraction, we now live only with those who look likeus and we are becoming more like them, by amechanism that has been explained by physicistMark Buchanan (2007) in The social atom [op. cit.below]. As a result, we are increasingly trapped inthe underworld of the unique world: though living in amegalopolis of ten million inhabitants, we attend thesame clubs, live in the same neighborhoods, weenjoy our holidays in the same places and do thesame travel itineraries, play the same games, weuse the same clothes and have the sameconversations ... When one puts himself in a processof fluzz, he ceases to struggle to go upward, tosucceed, to match or imitate the rich, the powerful,120
  • 121. the famous and the ones that have many titles.Freeing themselves from the requirement to be aVIP (very important person), he or she begins torevalue its horizontal relationships. In thistherapeutic journey, they heal from the socialdiseases associated with disturbances in the socialfield introduced by hierarchy, and walk at their ownpace and in their own way toward the ultimate goalof turning into a common person. Note extractedfrom FRANCO, Augusto (2011). Fluzz: op. cit. Seealso Buchanan, Mark (2007). The social atom. SaoPaulo: Leopard, 2010.(32) “There is no heresy or no philosophy which is soabhorrent to the church as a human being”. Letter toAugusta Gregory (22/11/1902) from James Joyce byRichard Ellmann (1959). Cf. ELLMANN, Richard(1959). James Joyce. Oxford University Press, 1983.(33) The failure of "successful people" is that they areprivate people. People who closed themselves to theinteraction with the unpredictable other, and, in doingso, despite being well known, blocked connections tothe cloud that involve them, cut the shortcuts in theclusters (by refusing to serve as bridges), excludedothers from their living spaces and simultaneouslyexcluded themselves from other worlds, being121
  • 122. isolated from the human superorganism and missinga part (just that unusual part that marketers,professional politicians and social psychologistsseek and cannot find) of the immense potentialitiesof the social. Very few successful people allowcommon people to approach them. Their addresses,emails and phone numbers are kept private. Theirwork environments are protected by porters, securityguards, secretaries and advisers. Their websites andblogs are closed to comments or mediated. Theirparticipation in social media is always to use them asa broadcast, to public relations and advertising ofthemselves (to be more famous and earn theeconomic, social and political differentially conferredto the ones that reach such a condition). This endsup manifesting as what they believe to be theirpersonal lives, as individuals, supposedlyautonomous, so important that they cannot bevulnerable to the paparazzi relationship. As a result,they begin to develop that sociopathy better knownby the name of fame. Actually they get sick becauseof their poor interactivity. Who does not want to bethe door, do not find paths. Success is the best wayto lose paths. The loss of paths is also a measure ofnon-network, or an expression of power. Thecounterpart of this which will be very important is the122
  • 123. lack of importance to the network (and its notimportant if these successful people have thousandsor millions of followers in social media or if theirblogs have thousands or millions of pageviews).Who does not find (new) ways, can not find a wayout of the Matrix. Note partially extracted FRANCO,Augusto (2011). Fluzz. Op.(34) Cypher was assigned to the Zion hovercraftNebuchadnezzar under the command of Morpheus.Cyphers job, as with all other operatives, was to freehuman minds trapped within the Matrix. Cypher wasdreadfully unhappy with the nature of reality incomparison to the relative comforts found within theillusory world of the Matrix. Cf. http://matrix.wikia.com/wiki/Cypher123
  • 124. 124
  • 125. 125
  • 126. 126
  • 127. 127
  • 128. Augusto Franco is a writer, speaker and consultant. He isthe creator and one of the netweavers of Escola-de-Redes - a network of people dedicated to research onsocial networks and the creation and transfer ofnetweaving technologies. He is the author of over twodozen books on local development, social capital,democracy and social networks.128