The First University of the Built Environment was Göbekli tepe

"Only good is good, it is easy to be a Buddha when you are a prince. Don't follow me, if you find Buddha, kill Buddha, by which I mean, kill the Buddha in you which you falsely worship. Göbekli Tepe is a university to transmit building traditions. The purpose is to build and learn through building. It is not a temple, otherwise, why would its builders continue to build after the first large circular structure supported by megaliths (immense columns of carved stone, often richly adorned with depictions of humans, animals and adornments?"

 –– Mehmet Ali Munir. 

In the exploration of epistemology, the theory of knowledge and belief, there is often a fundamental tension between the necessity of belief and the desirability of scepticism. This dichotomy is beautifully encapsulated in the first sentence, "Only good is good, it is easy to be a Buddha when you are a prince." This proposes a distinction between inherent and externally dictated notions of 'good', demonstrating the need to constantly question our own beliefs and assumptions. The following admonition to "kill the Buddha in you which you falsely worship" invites a critique of dogmatism, suggesting that self-directed skepticism is necessary for authentic knowledge acquisition and belief formation.

The site of Göbekli Tepe, situated in modern-day Turkey, offers an intriguing case study in this context. Göbekli Tepe is considered one of the oldest known archaeological sites dating back to approximately 9600 to 8200 BC. This site, replete with grandiose stone structures and intricate carvings, has sparked intense debate among archaeologists and historians regarding its purpose and the civilization that built it. Conventional wisdom dictates that such structures served primarily religious or ritualistic purposes. However, the author challenges this assumption, positing Göbekli Tepe as a "university to transmit building traditions."

Here, a parallel is drawn between the processes of building physical structures and those of building knowledge structures. This comparison invites us to re-evaluate the rigid dichotomy often posited between 'sacred' and 'secular' spaces. If Göbekli Tepe was indeed a center of learning rather than a temple, it challenges our understanding of how knowledge was created, preserved, and transmitted in prehistoric societies. It also illuminates the intricate relationship between the practical (construction skills) and the conceptual (architectural designs, astronomical knowledge) in these early societies.

However, the assertion that if Göbekli Tepe were a temple, its builders wouldn't have continued to build after the completion of the first large circular structure, needs further analysis. This conclusion could be overly simplistic as it assumes a uniform purpose for all religious structures and ignores the possibility of evolving needs and beliefs within a society. Temples, like other social institutions, could serve multiple functions including spiritual, educational, and social. Furthermore, continuous construction could be interpreted as a form of devotion or an expression of changing theological ideas or societal needs.

What the Göbekli Tepe example brilliantly underscores is the multi-dimensionality of knowledge and belief. It highlights the possibility that our ancestors pursued knowledge in a holistic manner, integrating the practical and the conceptual, the sacred and the secular. Furthermore, it raises questions about our modern categorizations and assumptions, nudging us towards a more nuanced and open-minded approach to knowledge acquisition and dissemination.

This discussion intertwines the abstract contemplations on good, belief, and self-skepticism with the tangible realities of Göbekli Tepe. By linking philosophical speculation with archaeological interpretation, the discourse underscores the richness and complexity of human knowledge and belief systems. It challenges us to revisit and reassess our assumptions and encourages us to adopt a more critical and reflexive approach towards our understanding of the past, present, and future. Ultimately, it reaffirms that knowledge is an ever-evolving edifice, one that we build and rebuild as we navigate our way through the world, guided by the light of self-directed inquiry and skepticism.

New Ruins Collapsing

 

In the grey dawn light, a petrol station straddled the Polish-Russian border, a constant amidst the times of uncertainty. A war was tearing apart the land of Ukraine, but here, a man named Nikt Niekogo, a schoolteacher, found some semblance of normalcy. He was meeting his wife at this station, where his friend, Reynaldo Randomierz, or Rey, worked.

The station faced a crumbling stone fortification on a Russian hill, a distant echo of a more peaceful era. It was a reminder of Rey's ancestral legacy, a blend of pride and sorrow. As Nikt walked into the station, the sight of the ruined tower stirred his thoughts.

"Rey," Nikt said, stepping into the station's store, "I've been experimenting with a video camera at the back of my classroom. I want to understand the student's view, much like how you see your tower from here."

Rey glanced at him, his eyes momentarily mirroring the ruins. "Ah, the perspective of the overlooked," he replied, "What have you found so far, Mr. Schoolteacher?"

Nikt leaned on the counter, his eyes alight with a teacher's innate curiosity. "Observation, Rey. They see more than we think. They interpret, question, and challenge, just like us. Just like you, looking at your tower."

Just then, Nikt's wife entered the station, her face etched with worry lines. "It's about understanding the ruins too, isn't it? Not just seeing them," she interjected, her voice steady but tired.

Rey looked at her, a question in his eyes. "And what do you mean by that, madam?"

She sighed heavily, her gaze meeting the distant tower. "War... it's a ruin in itself. We're all living in it, aren't we? My worry is that either way, there will be a disruption. If the incumbent wins, there will be depressive disenfranchisement from half the population, and if the opposition wins, the groups needing to let go of power... they won't go peacefully."

Rey's eyes softened. "Hope is a luxury, madam, especially when we are on the brink of war."

"But it's a necessity, Rey," Nikt interjected, "Without hope, without understanding, we repeat history. We repeat wars."

His wife nodded. "We need to teach our children to understand, to hope, despite everything. That's what Nikt is doing with his students. He's providing them with open conversations, so they can process their thoughts, their feelings, find hope in the chaos."

Rey looked at them, a thoughtful expression on his face. "Your tower is not just ruins, Rey," Nikt said quietly. "It's a reminder of what once was and what can be again. It's resilience."

Rey glanced at Nikt, a small smile tugging at his lips. "Your students are lucky, my friend. I hope they see the world as you do."

"As a teacher, that's all I can hope for," Nikt replied, a sense of resolve imbuing his words. 

In the echoes of a war, they found unity in shared stories, in empathy, and in the unyielding belief that even from ruins, something new can rise.

Triumph of The Spectacle

Title: Large Language Models, Generative Adversarial Networks, and the Society of the Spectacle: The Ultimate Embodiment of Debord's Concept 

Introduction

Guy Debord, in his seminal work "The Society of the Spectacle," painted a vivid image of the nature of contemporary society. He argued that the Spectacle was the mediatory mechanism through which all societal relations are filtered, primarily focusing on commodity fetishism and the capitalist mode of production. Contemporary technologies, notably Large Language Models (LLMs) and Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), serve as almost perfect embodiments of Debord's spectacle. They represent a system that consumes all resistance, only to redeploy it within its own parameters, further reinforcing its dominion over human interactions. This essay examines this premise in detail.

The Spectacle Defined

Before delving into the specifics, it's essential to define the 'Spectacle'. According to Debord, the Spectacle is not a mere collection of images but a social relationship between people that is mediated by images. It represents the total domination of the commodified culture and economy over society, where human life is replaced by its representation. 

LLMs, GANs, and the Spectacle

LLMs and GANs epitomize this idea of mediation through the spectacular. These technologies are tools of representation, used to reproduce, enhance, and distribute images and texts in a way that humans interact with them. Whether it is the creation of deepfake images by GANs or the generative conversations by LLMs like ChatGPT, these AI technologies are mediating social interactions through their outputs. These models learn from vast amounts of data and then generate new content that is a reflection of what they have absorbed. In essence, they exemplify the transformation of direct experiences into mediated ones - a core tenet of the Spectacle.

Absorption and Redeployment of Resistance

Debord postulated that the Spectacle absorbs all resistance and opposition, neutralizing it by recontextualizing it within its own framework. In the context of LLMs and GANs, we can see this concept in action. Any form of opposition to these technologies, be it in the form of critique, skepticism, or rejection, is often incorporated back into the system. This could be through further advancements in AI research inspired by criticism, increased transparency in algorithmic processes as a response to skepticism, or the creation of new models that address the issues raised by detractors. Thus, resistance doesn't dismantle the system; instead, it is absorbed and used to refine it.

Furthermore, LLMs and GANs don't merely absorb resistance; they also redeploy it. The algorithms can mimic, simulate, and therefore appropriate any critique. When a model is trained on a dataset that includes arguments against AI and the Spectacle, it learns to reproduce such arguments. This creates a paradox where the critique of the Spectacle is expressed through the medium of the Spectacle itself.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the sophistication of contemporary AI technologies, embodied by LLMs and GANs, represents a near-perfect realization of Debord's Spectacle. These technologies are not just tools of creation; they are instrumental in mediating social relations. They absorb and redeploy any resistance within their framework, reinforcing their dominance and perpetuating the conditions of the Spectacle. It is a sobering realization that forces us to reconsider our relationship with technology and its role in society.