D. (1) Comparison of Alvin Toffler and the 3·1 System

(1) Comparison of Alvin Toffler and the 3·1 System

 

 

Alvin Toffler has previously presented an idea similar to the Samjae capacities that I propose in this book. His theory that the three elements of 'force (physical power), money, and spirit (knowledge)' are the sources of power seems very similar to my concept of Samjae capacities. Therefore, comparing and analyzing the similarities and differences between the two will help provide a detailed understanding.

 

First and foremost, Alvin Toffler's political theory differs significantly from my 3.1 System in terms of scale and structure. My theory of political phenomena is centered around three laws, designed to be described by mathematical models. Alvin Toffler's theory, on the other hand, does not encompass a comprehensive and sophisticated conceptual framework like mine, and only shares a similarity with the concept of the Samjae capacity, which is a part of my 1st law.

 

Additionally, Alvin Toffler's concepts of muscle‧money‧mind are quite similar to the fundamental elements of power in my Samjae capacities. To enumerate the similarities in detail, he also recognized that each of the three elements ① operates in various forms depending on the situation, ② can be transformed into other elements depending on the situation, and ③ can act in a multi-layered manner from micro to macro phenomena. However, while my 1st law includes the spatio- temporal interaction structure and order of the Samjae capacities, he failed to grasp this aspect. Moreover, the third element of Samjae capacities, 'ideology,' differs from his concept of knowledge, and this difference reveals a significant paradigm gap. While he refers broadly to values, knowledge, information, and human spirit in his third element, my third Samaje capacity, 'ideology,' refers solely to the values held by humans. Ideology does not include knowledge or psychological states such as human spirit. In my view, if human spirit refers to people's mental states, ideology and knowledge point to an objective conceptual system shared by people. Among these concepts, ideology, which expresses purpose, refers to value concepts, whereas knowledge, which represents information and facts, refers to factual concepts. (Mathematically, I believe that ideology can be described as a vector and knowledge as a scalar.)

 

It is quite evident that when Alvin Toffler talks about knowledge, he primarily thinks of fact-based concepts representing truth rather than value-based concepts representing purpose. As a result, he was able to emphasize the fact that knowledge, in a sense almost identical to what C.E. Merriam called the "economy of power," directly contributes to the proliferation of wealth and physical force.

 

Then, which is more appropriate to assume as a source of power, ideology or knowledge? In my view, there are several reasons to think that ideology is a better concept than knowledge when considering it as a source of power.

 

Firstly, whether it is ideology or knowledge, if it is a source of power, it must be able to generate power 'on its own' without the help of anything else. Ideology can do this, but knowledge cannot. During the Goryeo and Joseon dynasties, there were many people who had the knowledge to make excellent products or create new weapons, but they had no political power. A representative example is Jang Yeong-sil, a scientist who not only invented the sundial, clepsydra, and water clock during the reign of King Sejong but also created the metal movable type and its printing press in 1433. In contrast, Confucian scholars who controlled Neo-Confucianism, the prevailing ideology of the time, monopolized power. This is an example of ideology, not knowledge, being the source of power. In the Western Middle Ages, the clergy, who monopolized the prevailing ideology, also monopolized knowledge, which could lead to the misconception that knowledge creates power. However, just as Renaissance intellectuals like Spinoza and Galileo could not overcome the power of religion, scientific knowledge does not create power like ideological notions, which is no different in the West. On the other hand, Communist thinkers who successfully carried out realistic revolutions and seized power mainly moved based on Marxist-Leninist thought, which is "the combination of Marx's ideas and Lenin's reconstruction into a single ideological and action system," not knowledge about facts.

 

Secondly, there are many examples that demonstrate how erroneous notions can sometimes become political power. The witch hunts of the Middle Ages are a prime example. Witch hunts often began with the denunciation of a village resident, accusing various people of committing various misdeeds, causing various misfortunes to the village community or specific individuals. The judges of the witch hunts interpreted personal aggressiveness as the discourse of demonic magic and were people who could force such interpretations onto the defendants through persuasion and threats; in other words, they were people who held such notions. These erroneous notions are essentially ideas that cannot be considered knowledge. Then, what characteristic of these non-knowledge notions exerts political influence? The only answer is that these notions express ideologies that influence people's values. The notions of German Nazi racial discrimination and Japanese militarism are examples of ideas that were not knowledge but exerted political influence due to their ideological nature.