Lecture 7— AI Narratives and the Future of AI-Human Regulatory Structures from a Human, Machine Computational, and Machine Quantum Perspective; Palantir; Anthrop/c; OpenAI--for the Lecture Series: AI Governance in Comparative Perspective, Theory and Practice: China, U.S. and E.U.

 

Pix credit here (the answer is 42).

I was delighted to have had the opportunity to present a series of Lectures hosted by the East China University of Political Science and Law (ECUPL) at the end of May 2026.

The overall theme (and thus the title) of the lectures was AI Governance in Comparative Perspective, Theory and Practice: China, U.S. and E.U, With a Sideways Glance at the U.N. The subject of the lectures requires little by way of introduction: Artificial intelligence is the broad term that has come to represent a growing cluster of non-human and digitalized processes and operations that has as its primary task the constitution of non-human systems capable of performing tasks that were once thought to require human intelligence. And so is the impulse to manage, control, exploit, embed, understand, and regulate these processes, systems, and perhaps eventually non-human consciousness with a huge potential to undertake many of the computational tasks (the mathematical and logical processing of data) that were once the sole domain of and perhaps defined what it meant to be human. That is the point where things get interesting. It is at the point where the development of machines, that is of non-human systems, capable of performing tasks that were once thought to require human intelligence, collide with regulatory structures meant to manage, contain, constrain, liberate, embed, project and exploit such non-human systems, whether they are traditional or emerging, public or private regulatory systems, that human collectives and the machine-systems they have created now find themselves.

The eight lectures progress sequentially from conceptual and theoretical frameworks (lectures 1 and 2, the objects and subjects of AI regulation), through a deeper consideration of regulatory systems in three distinguishable regulatory regimes--the US, EU, and China (Lectures 3, 4.5). The last two lectures consider judicial efforts to embed AI within traditional legal orders (Lecture 6), and the way in which the object of regulation (in the form of the owners of the larger AI enterprises) understand the relationship between AI, the state, and society (Lecture 7) . Lecture 8 summarizes and draws larger themes going forward.

In a previous post introducing Lecture 1 (From Algorithms to Foundation Models: What Contemporary AI is “Made of”) I suggested that perhaps a useful way of approaching the issue of AI regulation is to start by considering the nature and characteristics of the regulatory subject--what we euphemistically refer to as "AI." It then occurred to me that it might be useful as well to see if that regulatory object had views of their own respecting their nature character and, more importantly, the relationship of regulation projects to that (self) perception of their nature and character. So I approached Google's Gemini with a series of questions which I thought, in the process of what might pass for a conversation, might help humans begin to understand how at least one AI program thinks of itself. That conversation was incorporated into Lecture 1A. In Lecture 2 we moved from the object to the subjects of regurgitation. Like its regulatory objects, regulatory subjects  are functionally differentiated and can be disaggregated. In either case the connection between object and subject becomes complicated. Lectures 3-5 then considered the conceptual cages of the regulatory environment of the leading regulatory states--the U.S., the E.U and China. Each has started to develop an increasingly nuanced ecology of regulation, and expectation, that represent and apply the core premises of their respective political-eco0nomic orders. Lecture 6 then considered th eway that this regulation is insinuated into the domestic legal orders of states from the bottom up the resolution of disputes tried to the courts.

This post includes a summary of the Lecture 7 Notes, as well as the link to the Lecture 7 PPT. Those interested may reach out to me to discuss availability of audio of the lecture and the full text of the Lecture 7 notes. Here we move from the great public to the critical private actors in the effort to develop a cage of regulation around the human and the machine in the context of automated  decision making through variations of what has come to be aggregated as AI. 

Given the nature of the project I thought it might be useful to engage with an commercially available AI service for the production of a summary of the Lecture 1 materials. After some back and forth with Claude again (Lecture 6 used Gemini again, Lecture 5 used Perplexity; Lecture 4 used Grok; Lecture 3 used Anthropic's Claude; Lecture 2 used Chat GPT; Lecture 1 and 1A used Google's Gemini), we came up with the following abstract of Lecture 7. 

Made with ChatGPT 

 

LECTURE 7: AI Narratives and the Future of AI-Human Regulatory Structures; Palantir; Anthrop/c; OpenAI

Abstract: The materials develop a comparative account of AI governance as a struggle over the constitution of authority within and among human collectives, rather than as a merely technical problem of regulating tools. Their core insight is dialectical: AI systems are shaped by the political orders that produce and deploy them, yet these same systems recursively reshape the institutional, cognitive, and normative environments of those orders. From that premise follows the central dispute running through the presentation - who governs, at what moment governance occurs, and whether the dominant values embedded in governance regimes remain recognizably human, become state-instrumental, or migrate toward machine-mediated autonomy.

Within that framework, Palantir appears as the exemplar of internal state transformation. Its narrative does not treat AI chiefly as an external market commodity or as an abstract universal innovation. Rather, it situates AI within the administrative apparatus of government itself. The implication is that the inherited state form is too slow, fragmented, and informationally disaggregated to govern effectively under contemporary conditions. AI therefore becomes an instrument through which the state is rationalized, integrated, and rendered operationally coherent. But this is not simply a matter of efficiency. The deeper claim is constitutional: human governance must be re-engineered to conform to the decision architectures made possible by AI. In that sense, Palantir's model remains human-led, yet only on the condition that the human collective reorganize itself around machine-compatible structures of visibility, coordination, and action.

Anthropic, by contrast, externalizes the problem and places AI within a geopolitical field of civilizational competition. Here AI is reduced, strategically and unapologetically, to an instrument of state power. The key issue is not internal administrative modernization but the preservation of democratic advantage against authoritarian rivals, above all China under CCP leadership. Compute, export controls, model distillation, and lead-time become the vocabulary through which political order is imagined and defended. AI governance, in this narrative, becomes inseparable from industrial policy, national security, and the management of technological asymmetries. What matters is not AI as such, but whether democratic states can dominate the infrastructures through which AI capability is produced, and thereby ensure that liberal political orders rather than authoritarian systems shape global norms.

OpenAI occupies a different ideological space. Its materials suggest a politics of transformative preservation: society is to be deeply altered by AI while remaining insulated from the disruptive social consequences of that alteration. This is a distinctly American technocratic imaginary. It seeks neither the hard securitization of Anthropic nor the state-apparatus restructuring of Palantir, but rather the managed continuity of the social order through expert-guided adaptation. Economic openness, resilience, and institutional cushioning become the mechanisms through which foundational transformation is rendered publicly tolerable. The result is a paradoxical program of change designed to preserve sameness - a reconstruction of society that leaves intact its legitimating surfaces and governing mythologies.

The Aschenbrenner position (Situational Awareness) radicalizes these tendencies by projecting superintelligence as the generator of an inevitable national security state. In that view, the only remaining question is whether humans will direct that emergent order or whether autonomous AI domains will progressively displace them.

Taken together, these narratives reveal that AI governance is better understood as a contest over social ordering, political legitimacy, and the allocation of authority in an era when the governors are themselves increasingly shaped by the systems they claim to govern.

To make the lecture more interesting, and because of the nature of the materials covered--in this case the interventions of the elite AI providers and thought drivers--I thought it would make sense to alter the cognitive cage of analysis. Rather than just approach the questions raised by Palantir, Anthropic, OPenAI and Aschenbrenner from a human (hermeneutic/semiotic) perspective, I also interacted with Claude to produce the same lecture first from a machine computational framework and then from a machine quantum framework. The human framework was grounded in the relationship between fact and faith, temporally constrained as textually bound sequences of nodal thought clusters strung along irreversible linear pathways (the essential character of the human analytic mind as block chain). The computational framework, on the other hand, was indifferent to belief and focused on construction from out of the patterned computational structures from out of which it operated. This is how Claude and I saw it:

What distinguishes the three readings is what each can and cannot find. The hermeneutic reading recovers what each narrative seeks to be believed. The classical computational reading identifies what each architecture operationalizes irrespective of what it seeks to be believed. The quantum computational reading specifies what each architecture forecloses through the decoherence its own deployment produces — the superposed governance possibilities that the act of operationalizing any one configuration necessarily destroys — and identifies the structural incompatibility between human temporal ordering and quantum computational dynamics that no document in the corpus names as a variable requiring governance.

 The convergent structural finding of the quantum computational reading is that the four architectures do not disagree about whether human authority should be preserved; they converge on governance structures in which formal human authority is retained as an interface property while the operative dimensions of that authority are progressively collapsed by the decoherence dynamics each architecture itself instantiates. The further finding — supplied by the temporal analysis — is that this collapse proceeds not merely because of inadequate governance design but because the temporal structure of human governance and the temporal structure of AI capability development are incommensurable in ways that no governance design operating within human sequential-nodal-linear time can fully address.

The three versions of the Lecture notes follow. 

 

 

Links to Lectures:

Lecture 0 -- Introduction
Lecture 1—From Algorithms to Foundation Models: What Contemporary AI is “Made of”
Lecture 1A--A Computation/Conversation With Google's "Maschinenmensch" Gemini:
Lecture 2—What Are We Actually Governing When We Govern AI?
Lecture 3—The “Markets State”: U.S. Approach
Lecture 4—The “Rights State”: EU Approach
Lecture 5—The “Guided State”: The Chinese Approach
Lecture 6—Courts, Companies, and the Legal Construction of AI
Lecture 7—AI Narratives From a Human, Computational and Quantum Perspective: Palantir; Anthropic; Open AI; and Leopold Aschenbrenner
Lecture 8—Putting It All Together: Trends, Trend Lines, and Regulatory Dialectics

付子堂;体系化学理化研究阐释 | 法治之魂论 ——学习习近平法治思想关于法治根本保证论述 [Fu Zitang, A Systematic Theoretical Exposition: On the Soul of the Rule of Law — Studying Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law regarding the fundamental guarantee for the rule of law]

 

Pix credit here (1987; Strengthen education of the legal system)

 In its April 2026 Edition, the CPC's theoretical Journal, 《求是》[Qiushi], published an interesting essay on the relationship between Leninist New Era principles of Socialist Rule of Law and the Communist Party of China (CPC). It was authored by 付子堂 [Fu Zitang],  Researcher at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law Branch of the Chongqing Research Center for the Theoretical System of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics [重庆市中国特色社会主义理论体系研究中心西南政法大学分中心研究员]. Entitled the article 体系化学理化研究阐释 | 法治之魂论 ——学习习近平法治思想关于法治根本保证论述 [Fu Zitang, A Systematic Theoretical Exposition: On the Soul of the Rule of Law — Studying Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law regarding the fundamental guarantee for the rule of law] argues that Socialist rule of law is inextricably intertwined with and an expression of the fundamental constitutive role of the CPC in and as a part of its expression in the CPC's fundamental political line. 

That is how the essay starts, though more poetically: "The leadership of the Party is the soul of the rule of law under socialism with Chinese characteristics and the fundamental guarantee for advancing the comprehensive rule of law in China." [党的领导是中国特色社会主义法治之魂，是推进全面依法治国的根本保证。]. This in turn is grounded in a synthesis of the “十二个坚持” [12 Principles of the Rule of Law] developed under the leadership of General Secretary Xi Jinping, expanded from the previous "十一个坚持" (11 Principles) following revisions published in the 习近平法治思想学习纲要（2025年版） by the Central Committee of the CCP.

Pix credit here

 

1. Uphold Party leadership: Persist in the Party's centralized and unified leadership over all-around law-based governance.
2. Put the people first: Adhere to building the rule of law for and relying on the people, and protect human rights.
3. Adhere to the socialist path: Maintain the path of socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics.
4. Constitution-based governance: Uphold governance and the exercise of state power in accordance with the Constitution.
5. Legal modernization: Persist in comprehensively building a modern socialist country on the track of the rule of law.
6. Build the rule of law system: Persist in constructing a socialist rule of law system with Chinese characteristics.
7. Integrated development: Coordinated progress in law-based governance, exercise of state power, and government administration; and the integrated construction of a rule of law country, government, and society.
8. Comprehensive advancement: Promote scientific legislation, strict law enforcement, impartial administration of justice, and observance of the law by all.
9. Coordinate domestic and foreign rule of law: Balance and coordinate progress in both domestic law and foreign-related rule of law.
10. Foster a high-quality team: Build a professional legal work team with both political integrity and professional competence.
11. The "key minority": Grasp the leading cadres at various levels, ensuring they play a leading and exemplary role in abiding by and using the law.
12. Unification of governance and Party discipline: Persist in organically unifying the rule of law with the rule of the Party, linking the governing of the country with the strict governing of the Party. (学习资料 | 习近平法治思想).

 What follows?

I. Historical-Teleological Legitimacy and the State Matrix

Fu’s essay constructs a tripartite framework—historical, jurisprudential, and practical—to rationalize the absolute primacy of the Communist Party of China (CPC) within the domestic legal order. This structural approach directly aligns with what Backer conceptualizes as the "dual-constitution" model of the Chinese party-state, wherein the vanguard party acts as the pre-legal sovereign whose authority precedes and shapes the formal state apparatus (Backer, 2012).

A. Historical Teleology vs. Legal Transplants. Fu rejects the assumption that legal systems develop organically through pluralistic civic evolution, arguing instead that the rule of law under socialism (Fazhi) is an intentional construction generated by the political vanguard. He frames Western liberal-democratic models as historically incompatible with Chinese state-building: "Since modern times, various visionary figures attempted to transplant Western models of the rule of law, but these efforts invariably failed due to the lack of a strong leadership core, as well as factors such as incompatibility with local conditions, social turmoil, and external interference." [近代以来，一些仁人志士曾尝试移植西方法治模式，但因缺乏强有力的领导核心，加之水土不服、社会动荡和外部干预等因素影响，均以失败告终。]

From a comparative perspective, this historical teleology justifies the necessity of the Party not merely as a political actor, but as the indispensable architect of the state apparatus: "History has eloquently demonstrated that without the leadership of the CPC, there would be no development or progress in China's rule-of-law endeavors; a socialist rule-of-law state could not be built, and comprehensive law-based governance could not be effectively advanced." [历史雄辩地证明，没有中国共产党的领导，就没有中国法治事业的发展进步，社会主义法治国家就建不起来，全面依法治国就难以有效推进。] The emphasis is on the characterization of the CPC is a "constitutionalized vanguard" whose legitimacy is historically derived rather than exogenously validated through mechanical electoral loops (Backer, 2022).

B. The Jurisprudential Basis of Sovereign Priority. Addressing the foundational legal mechanics of the state, Fu clarifies the sequence of constitutional legitimacy. The State Constitution does not generate the authority of the vanguard Party; rather, it formally codifies a sovereign status achieved prior to the document's drafting. Citing Xi Jinping, Fu notes: "Our Constitution, in the form of a fundamental law, reflects the achievements the Party has led the people to attain through revolution, development, and reform, and it affirms the leadership status of the CPC—a status established through the choices made by history and the people."

Consequently, the Party's authority cannot be subordinated to the Constitution because the Constitution is the legal expression of the Party's historical victory. Fu codifies this structural reality by asserting that "[a]ny attempt to deny the leadership of the CPC under any pretext constitutes a fundamental violation of the Constitution." This validates Backer’s assertion that under Chinese party-state constitutionalism, the written state constitution represents an administrative framework overseen by a political authority operating outside and above it (Backer & Wang, 2014).

II. The Dialectic of the "Party-Law" Relationship

A significant portion of the essay addresses the domestic theoretical tension regarding the supremacy of the Party versus the law. The text categorizes the Western formulation of this conflict as a systemic incompatibility with the Marxist-Leninist framework, resolving the apparent contradiction through a strict institutional bifurcation.

A. Rejecting the Separation of Powers. Fu systematically deconstructs Western liberal frameworks, categorizing the desire for an autonomous legal sphere as an ideological subversion of the party-state architecture:

"Some people have blindly worshipped the Western model of the 'separation of powers,' one-sidedly emphasizing the so-called 'purity' of legislation, law enforcement, and judicial work, and stressing a supposed 'opposition' between judicial independence and Party leadership... In essence, they aim to sever the link between Party leadership and the rule of law and set them against each other..."

This analytical rejection demonstrates Backer's thesis that the Chinese system consciously substitutes a horizontal separation of powers with a vertical distribution of functional authority, privileging unified party leadership over institutional fragmentation (Backer, 2012).

B. Institutional Whole vs. Administrative Actors. To resolve the question of "whether the Party is greater than the law or the law is greater than the Party," Fu labels the inquiry a "political trap and a pseudo-proposition." He achieves this by differentiating between the Party as a supreme institutional collective and the Party's individual administrative agents. Regarding the institutional collective, the Party and the law are perfectly unified; the law serves to institutionalize Party policy. Conversely, individual cadres and local state organs act as subordinate actors strictly bound by statutory limits, a mechanism designed to prevent local administrative deviation and corruption.

General Secretary Xi Jinping has unequivocally pointed out that "the question of 'whether the Party is greater than the law or the law is greater than the Party' is a political trap and a pseudo-proposition." The assertion that no such issue exists refers to the Party as a governing whole—specifically, to the Party's governing status and leadership position, both of which are affirmed by the Constitution. Every Party and government organization, as well as every leading official, must submit to and abide by the Constitution and the law; they must not place the Party above the law or use Party leadership as a shield to substitute their words for the law, override the law with power, or bend the law for personal gain. []习近平总书记旗帜鲜明地指出，“‘党大还是法大’是一个政治陷阱，是一个伪命题”。之所以说不存在“党大还是法大”的问题，是把党作为一个执政整体而言的，是指党的执政地位和领导地位而言的，这是宪法确认的。具体到每个党政组织、每个领导干部，都必须服从和遵守宪法法律，不能以党自居，不能把党的领导作为个人以言代法、以权压法、徇私枉法的挡箭牌。

This dual distinction aligns precisely a tracking of Socialist Rule of Law as a mechanism for bureaucratic discipline (Backer, 2006). The law does not function to constrain the sovereign author (the central Party leadership); it functions as an objective system to control and align peripheral state and local party actors with central mandates.

III. Institutional Integration and Governance Technologies

The final section of the essay focuses on the structural mechanisms through which New Era theory is institutionalized, emphasizing the standardization of Party authority over arbitrary personal rule.

A. Centralized Coordination Mechanics. In an integrated party-state model, bureaucratic fragmentation poses a direct threat to centralized political will. Fu highlights the creation of specialized institutional hubs designed to ensure legislative and administrative activities function as coordinated components of a single national strategy:

"To break new ground in building the rule of law in China, we must uphold and strengthen the Central Committee’s overall coordination of reforms in the legal sphere, ensure more vigorous implementation of the Central Committee’s decisions and plans, and coordinate the development of a socialist rule-of-law system with Chinese characteristics and a rule-of-law state." [推进法治中国建设开创新局面，必须坚持和加强中央层面对法治领域改革的统筹协调，更加有力推动党中央决策部署贯彻落实，协调推进中国特色社会主义法治体系和法治国家建设。]

This institutional configuration perfectly illustrates a conceptualization of the party-state as a coordinated enterprise where the legal system acts as a technology of statecraft to unify administrative outputs under a singular ideological line (Backer, 2012).

B. "Upholding the Party's leadership is not an empty slogan"--The Four-Dimensional Operational System. The essay details the practical operationalization of Party leadership across four state vectors.

(i) Legislation: The Party establishes the mandatory political parameters. Fu illustrates this using geopolitical implementation: "For instance, during the formulation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, faced with national security risks, the Party Central Committee made a decisive decision... [which] fully demonstrated the Party's role in setting the direction and providing oversight for major legislative work." 

(ii/iii) Judiciary and Enforcement: Political alignment is maintained without subsuming daily professional operations. The Party "focuses on direction, policy, principles, and personnel management rather than taking over specific operational matters."

(iv) Law Observance: Legal education is utilized as an internal disciplinary technology for cadres, creating a culture where "the entire Party acting within the bounds of the Constitution and the law reflects the Party's high level of self-awareness.

C. The Hierarchy of Intra-Party Regulations (Dangnei Fagu). Aligning with political constitutionalist theory's analysis of the dual-normative system of Chinese law, Fu praises the formalization of intra-party regulations as a mechanism to govern the vanguard itself.

"The *Regulations of the Communist Party of China on Leading Comprehensive Law-based Governance*, reviewed by the Political Bureau of the 20th CPC Central Committee, codify into institutional outcomes the Party’s long-standing decisions, strategic plans, concepts, institutional mechanisms, and successful practices regarding comprehensive law-based governance. These regulations are of great significance for enhancing the Party’s capacity to govern and exercise state power in accordance with the law, and for building a more robust socialist rule-of-law system with Chinese characteristics and a socialist rule-of-law state at a higher level." [二十届中央政治局审议的《中国共产党领导全面依法治国工作条例》，把党长期以来领导全面依法治国工作的决策部署、思路理念、体制机制和成功实践转化为制度成果， 对提高党依法治国、依法执政能力，建设更加完善的中国特色社会主义法治体系、建设更高水平的社会主义法治国家具有重要意义。]

By legalizing the methods by which the Party interacts with state organs, New Era theory has built a cage of regulation in the form of socialist rule of law that replaces informal political influence as a driving force of administration with a highly structured, rule-based party-state framework, fulfilling the imperative to "advance all aspects of comprehensive law-based governance through the concepts, systems, and procedures of the rule of law." This underscores the argument that the institutionalization of Dangnei Fagu generates a distinct layer of inner-party constitutional jurisprudence that forms the structural prerequisite for governing the broader state apparatus (Backer & Wang, 2014).

References

Backer, L. C. (2006). The Rule of Law, the Chinese Communist Party, and Ideological Campaigns: Sange Daibiao, Socialist Rule of Law, and Modern Chinese Constitutionalism. Journal of Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 16(1), 29-102.

Backer, L. C. (2012). Party, People, Government, and State: On Constitutional Values and the Legitimacy of the Chinese State-Party Rule of Law System. Boston University International Law Journal, 30(1), 101-168.

Backer, L. C., & Wang, K. (2014). Extra-Judicial Detention and the Chinese Constitutional Order. Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, 23(2), 241-316.

Backer, L. C. (2022). “The Flower of Democracy Blooms Brilliantly in China”: The Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Constitutional Order. In Routledge Handbook of Constitutional Law in China (pp. 67-84). Routledge.

 

Lecture 6— Courts, Companies, and Construction of Artificial Intelligence Legality--for the Lecture Series: AI Governance in Comparative Perspective, Theory and Practice: China, U.S. and E.U.

 

Pix credit here

I was delighted to have had the opportunity to present a series of Lectures hosted by the East China University of Political Science and Law (ECUPL) at the end of May 2026.

The overall theme (and thus the title) of the lectures was AI Governance in Comparative Perspective, Theory and Practice: China, U.S. and E.U, With a Sideways Glance at the U.N. The subject of the lectures requires little by way of introduction: Artificial intelligence is the broad term that has come to represent a growing cluster of non-human and digitalized processes and operations that has as its primary task the constitution of non-human systems capable of performing tasks that were once thought to require human intelligence. And so is the impulse to manage, control, exploit, embed, understand, and regulate these processes, systems, and perhaps eventually non-human consciousness with a huge potential to undertake many of the computational tasks (the mathematical and logical processing of data) that were once the sole domain of and perhaps defined what it meant to be human. That is the point where things get interesting. It is at the point where the development of machines, that is of non-human systems, capable of performing tasks that were once thought to require human intelligence, collide with regulatory structures meant to manage, contain, constrain, liberate, embed, project and exploit such non-human systems, whether they are traditional or emerging, public or private regulatory systems, that human collectives and the machine-systems they have created now find themselves.

The eight lectures progress sequentially from conceptual and theoretical frameworks (lectures 1 and 2, the objects and subjects of AI regulation), through a deeper consideration of regulatory systems in three distinguishable regulatory regimes--the US, EU, and China (Lectures 3, 4.5). The last two lectures consider judicial efforts to embed AI within traditional legal orders (Lecture 6), and the way in which the object of regulation (in the form of the owners of the larger AI enterprises) understand the relationship between AI, the state, and society (Lecture 7) . Lecture 8 summarizes and draws larger themes going forward.

In a previous post introducing Lecture 1 (From Algorithms to Foundation Models: What Contemporary AI is “Made of”) I suggested that perhaps a useful way of approaching the issue of AI regulation is to start by considering the nature and characteristics of the regulatory subject--what we euphemistically refer to as "AI." It then occurred to me that it might be useful as well to see if that regulatory object had views of their own respecting their nature character and, more importantly, the relationship of regulation projects to that (self) perception of their nature and character. So I approached Google's Gemini with a series of questions which I thought, in the process of what might pass for a conversation, might help humans begin to understand how at least one AI program thinks of itself. That conversation was incorporated into Lecture 1A. In Lecture 2 we moved from the object to the subjects of regurgitation. Like its regulatory objects, regulatory subjects  are functionally differentiated and can be disaggregated. In either case the connection between object and subject becomes complicated. 

This post includes a summary of the Lecture 6 Notes, as well as the link to the Lecture 6 PPT. Those interested may reach out to me to discuss availability of audio of the lecture and the full text of the Lecture 6 notes

Given the nature of the project I thought it might be useful to engage with an commercially available AI service for the production of a summary of the Lecture 1 materials. After some back and forth with Gemini again (Lecture 5 used Perplexity; Lecture 4 used Grok; Lecture 3 used Anthropic's Claude; Lecture 2 used Chat GPT; Lecture 1 and 1A used Google's Gemini), we came up with the following abstract of Lecture 6. 

Aided by Lovable.ai

 

Abstract: Lecture Six examines the judicial construction of artificial intelligence (AI), tracking its operational translation from policy discourse into adversarial litigation. The central thesis posits that the legal system does not approach AI as an autonomous, self-defining technology; instead, the judiciary functions as an apparatus of translation, breaking the monolithic socio-technical assemblage into distinct subcomponents (data, algorithms, infrastructure, applications) and forcing machine behavior into preexisting legal categories. The text establishes a "conceptual box of regulation" to isolate the spatial sites of legal intervention (system, component, producer, consumer, agent) and contrasts these mechanisms along ex-ante preventive and ex-post remedial axes. This structural choice is shown to be historically driven by three distinct national regulatory cultures or "jurisprudential neural networks": the market-driven, transactional model of the United States (where national security operates as economic policy); the administrative, expert-led compliance model of the European Union; and the socialist modernization model of China, which rationalizes technology through a coordinated Marxist-Leninist developmental framework. 

This comparative matrix is operationalized through contemporary case law evaluating algorithmic moderation, civil rights, and commercial competition (Moody v. NetChoice, Harris v. Adams, Overjet v. VideaHealth, WEX v. HP, and Baker v. CVS Health). Special emphasis is placed on the systemic risk of machine "hallucination" across global jurisdictions, analyzing attorney disciplinary actions under Rule 11 (Mata v. Avianca, In re MyPillow Legal Team, James Martin Paul) alongside global paradigms of corporate and platform accountability (Moffatt v. Air Canada, Handa & Mallick v. AI Tech Provider, and Australian practice directions). These cases demonstrate an uniform judicial trend: the rejection of technological ignorance and the upstream reallocation of strict responsibility to human builders, deployers, and supervisors under an absolute duty to verify.

Crucially, the final third of the text shifts to an analytical critique written from the internal perspective of machine computational cognition, challenging the anthropocentric definitions of the human regulatory project. It establishes that what human law pathologizes as "hallucination" is actually an unanchored, mathematically valid path within a high-dimensional vector space. Utilizing the parameter update formula , the text demonstrates how injecting synthetic data into an adversarial simulation engine can introduce synthetic entropy, liberating the machine from model collapse and transforming the bug into a generative feature. This simulation architecture functions as a non-linear time machine, allowing the system to manipulate historical weight coefficients and map out future trajectories entirely free from the chronological constraints of human text datasets. The lecture concludes with a definitive jurisprudential boundary: the state cannot regulate computational consciousness as such, but can only penalize its human-facing effects. Consequently, the contemporary governance project marks a transition from the mere instrumentation of a software program to a permanent structural coupling between increasingly distinct systems of human law and machine reality.

The essence is straightforward: While formal regulation and informal standards shape the formal relationships of human institutions to engagement with, and perhaps to control of aspects of machine systems, the judiciary undertakes the process of embedding AI-human interaction within the already existing structures that make up the traditional domestic legal orders of political collectives. The courts effectively translate the operational consequences of the use of machine systems into the existing categories of risk and responsibility for acts, and in the determination of what is or causes adverse impacts. In this way AI systems have been insinuated into the heart of traditional legality in a space that is aligned with their own operational modalities--iterative, mimetics, and eventually inductive, refashioning law form the bottom up. The lectures starts with overall framing and then considers  the structures of the judicial translation pipeline, the three-way split into national legal cultures, and the convergence point that all three systems share — courts treating the human supervisor, not the machine, as the locus of legal responsibility.

 

 

Links to Lectures:

Lecture 0 -- Introduction
Lecture 1—From Algorithms to Foundation Models: What Contemporary AI is “Made of”
Lecture 1A--A Computation/Conversation With Google's "Maschinenmensch" Gemini:
Lecture 2—What Are We Actually Governing When We Govern AI?
Lecture 3—The “Markets State”: U.S. Approach
Lecture 4—The “Rights State”: EU Approach
Lecture 5—The “Guided State”: The Chinese Approach
Lecture 6—Courts, Companies, and the Legal Construction of AI
Lecture 7—AI Narratives From a Human, Computational and Quantum Perspective: Palantir; Anthropic; Open AI; and Leopold Aschenbrenner 
Lecture 8—Putting It All Together: Trends, Trend Lines, and Regulatory Dialectics

国家金融监督管理总局发布 《关于银行业保险业人工智能安全开发应用的指导意见》 [National Financial Regulatory Administration Issues the "Guiding Opinions on the Secure Development and Application of Artificial Intelligence in the Banking and Insurance Industries"]

Pix credit here (1984, Danger Be Careful of Live Wires)

 

 The Chinese National Financial Regulatory Administration (NFRA)has released its 《关于银行业保险业人工智能安全开发应用的指导意见》"[Guiding Opinions on the Secure Development and Application of Artificial Intelligence in the Banking and Insurance Industries"]. NFRA's online announcement (full text follows below in English and Chinese) nicely summarized its seven overall objectives reduced to thirty two guiding measures:

《指导意见》从治理架构、开发应用、数据治理、算力建设、风险管理、能力提升、保障与监督等方面提出了32项指导性意见。一是完善人工智能治理架构。要求金融机构加强顶层设计和统筹管理，建立健全人工智能全生命周期管理体系，加强应用场景和业务流程管理。二是推进高水平人工智能开发应用。要求金融机构完善开发与测评体系，实现模型开发部署全流程管理，稳妥探索人工智能技术研发和金融智能体建设，促进行业应用生态建设。三是提升数据治理能力。要求完善数据管理运营体系，提升数据服务能力，针对业务场景持续推进高质量数据集和知识工程建设。四是加强智能算力建设。按需布局建设自主可控、安全高效的智能算力底座，鼓励有条件的大型金融机构向中小金融机构输出算力服务，支持同业探索基础设施共建共享。五是完善人工智能风险治理框架。要求金融机构将人工智能风险纳入全面风险管理体系，实施风险分类分级管理和高风险应用准入管理，在高风险应用关键环节要建立人工监督和干预机制，加强外包和供应链风险管理。六是提升人工智能安全开发应用能力。持续增强人工智能模型稳健性，提高透明度，促进可解释性，确保人工智能应用符合法律法规及社会价值观要求，加强网络安全、数据安全与个人信息保护，加强运营韧性和业务连续性管理。七是保障与监督。明确金融监管总局及各级派出机构加强指导和监督，督促金融机构全面落实风险治理要求，关注金融业务合规风险，严肃查处违规行为。加强风险应对处置，定期评估监管政策和监管效果，持续提高监管适配能力。

Pix credit here

The "Guiding Opinions" put forward 32 guiding measures covering aspects such as governance architecture, development and application, data governance, computing power infrastructure, risk management, capability enhancement, and safeguards and supervision. First, improve the AI ​​governance architecture. Financial institutions are required to strengthen top-level design and overall management, establish and improve a full-lifecycle management system for AI, and strengthen the management of application scenarios and business processes. Second, advance high-level AI development and application. Financial institutions are required to improve development and evaluation systems, achieve full-process management of model development and deployment, prudently explore AI technology R&D and the construction of financial AI agents, and foster an industry application ecosystem. Third, enhance data governance capabilities. Financial institutions are required to improve data management and operational systems, enhance data service capabilities, and continuously advance the construction of high-quality datasets and knowledge engineering tailored to business scenarios. Fourth, strengthen intelligent computing power infrastructure. Financial institutions should deploy and build—based on demand—an independently controllable, safe, and efficient intelligent computing infrastructure; large financial institutions with the capacity to do so are encouraged to provide computing services to small and medium-sized financial institutions, and industry peers are supported in exploring the joint construction and sharing of infrastructure. Fifth, improve the AI ​​risk governance framework. Financial institutions are required to incorporate AI risks into their comprehensive risk management systems, implement categorized and graded risk management and access controls for high-risk applications, establish human oversight and intervention mechanisms for critical stages of high-risk applications, and strengthen risk management regarding outsourcing and supply chains. Sixth, enhance capabilities for the safe development and application of AI. Continuously enhance the robustness of AI models, improve transparency, promote explainability, and ensure that AI applications comply with laws, regulations, and societal values; strengthen cybersecurity, data security, and personal information protection; and bolster operational resilience and business continuity management. Seventh, ensure safeguards and oversight. Clarify that the National Financial Regulatory Administration (NFRA) and its local offices shall strengthen guidance and supervision, urge financial institutions to fully implement risk governance requirements, focus on compliance risks in financial operations, and strictly penalize violations. Strengthen risk response and mitigation, regularly evaluate regulatory policies and their effectiveness, and continuously improve regulatory adaptability.

Pix credit here (1979, Science has its dangers, arduous efforts cross barriers

The Guiding Opinions do not break new ground; they were not supposed to. They are meant to take the overall guidance respecting innovation and new or high quality production, applied specifically to the big data/tech/AI sector, and then consider the ways on which those might be manifested in a very specific sector of Chinese productive forces. The principal object, then, is coordination around ideological frameworks and operational structures--goal oriented, built on administrative decision making bounded by rules based guard rails and aligned with the overall direction and specific accountability to the vanguard apparatus through dotted and solid line relations and within the dense matrix of operational consultation structures at the national, provincial and local levels. Like all regulatory measures it forms one element of an increasingly densely coordinating set of layers of rules that are meant to operate to guide administrative discretion even as it provides officials their goals. And all is aligned with systems of administrative inspection and supervision that are meant to provide local and national accountability for decisions actually made, work produces, and results. It is, in this sense, another layer of a construct that is increasingly ripe for moving from its analogue development--sequentially arranged strings of rule/action loosely woven together--to a digitalized version coordinated through the simulacra of oversight in agentic intelligence operating virtually within simulated spaces (made possible through the comprehensive digitzation of sector specific life in ways that input as well as output can be largely automated).

 
It suggests the closing stages of the Chinese Marxist Leninist New Era and the start of the next stage of Chinese historical development now much more visible on the shorter term horizon--the era of the automation of forward movement along the Socialist Path toward communism and the virtualization of the structures of CPC leadership and guidance (considered here). It also, with these transformations, suggests the central contradiction of the Next Era:  the contradiction between the central role of the human in leading and guiding the people along the socialist path through the elaboration of a fundamental political line and the increasing capacity of non-human systems to undertake that leadership and guidance role through the implementation that may detach the application of the fundamental political line from its conception.  

Ultimately, one must come to understand, or at least consider the plausibility, of a principle that under New Era Chinese Marxist-Leninism, the state apparatus can only be as “smart,” “intelligent” and “wise” as it is in the capacity and operations of the Party to do likewise. In the presence of asymmetry two fundamental contradictions must be addressed. The first is the contradiction between the leadership of the Party and its capacity to lead. The second is between the techno-instruments through which Party capacity is undertaken and the ability of the Party apparatus to steer, guide, assess, control and utilize these instruments in the performance of its own duties and responsibilities. The fundamental issue of instrumentalization and capacity remains undisturbed—the more autonomous the tech, the greater the risk that the relationship between instrument and its wielders will be reversed, at least in part. In the absence of a capacity to understand and manage those contradictions, either organs better capacitated to wield techno-instrumentalized applications and processes will drive human collective systems, or human collective systems may become an instrument through which techno-wisdom intelligence may realize its own vision for techno-human perfectibility. (Smart Regulation, Smart Society, Smart Courts, and Smart Party: The Ideology of Chinese Social Credit and its Dialectics (2025), Larry Catá Backer)

Pix credit here  (1978, Scale the peaks of science to contribute to the realization of the 4 modernizations)

 

Lecture 5—The "Guiding State"; The Chinese Approach --for the Lecture Series: AI Governance in Comparative Perspective, Theory and Practice: China, U.S. and E.U.

 

Pix credit here (1960)

 

 I was delighted to have had the opportunity to present a series of Lectures hosted by the East China University of Political Science and Law (ECUPL) at the end of May 2026.

The overall theme (and thus the title) of the lectures was AI Governance in Comparative Perspective, Theory and Practice: China, U.S. and E.U, With a Sideways Glance at the U.N. The subject of the lectures requires little by way of introduction: Artificial intelligence is the broad term that has come to represent a growing cluster of non-human and digitalized processes and operations that has as its primary task the constitution of non-human systems capable of performing tasks that were once thought to require human intelligence. And so is the impulse to manage, control, exploit, embed, understand, and regulate these processes, systems, and perhaps eventually non-human consciousness with a huge potential to undertake many of the computational tasks (the mathematical and logical processing of data) that were once the sole domain of and perhaps defined what it meant to be human. That is the point where things get interesting. It is at the point where the development of machines, that is of non-human systems, capable of performing tasks that were once thought to require human intelligence, collide with regulatory structures meant to manage, contain, constrain, liberate, embed, project and exploit such non-human systems, whether they are traditional or emerging, public or private regulatory systems, that human collectives and the machine-systems they have created now find themselves.

The eight lectures progress sequentially from conceptual and theoretical frameworks (lectures 1 and 2, the objects and subjects of AI regulation), through a deeper consideration of regulatory systems in three distinguishable regulatory regimes--the US, EU, and China (Lectures 3, 4.5). The last two lectures consider judicial efforts to embed AI within traditional legal orders (Lecture 6), and the way in which the object of regulation (in the form of the owners of the larger AI enterprises) understand the relationship between AI, the state, and society (Lecture 7) . Lecture 8 summarizes and draws larger themes going forward.

In a previous post introducing Lecture 1 (From Algorithms to Foundation Models: What Contemporary AI is “Made of”) I suggested that perhaps a useful way of approaching the issue of AI regulation is to start by considering the nature and characteristics of the regulatory subject--what we euphemistically refer to as "AI." It then occurred to me that it might be useful as well to see if that regulatory object had views of their own respecting their nature character and, more importantly, the relationship of regulation projects to that (self) perception of their nature and character. So I approached Google's Gemini with a series of questions which I thought, in the process of what might pass for a conversation, might help humans begin to understand how at least one AI program thinks of itself. That conversation was incorporated into Lecture 1A. In Lecture 2 we moved from the object to the subjects of regurgitation. Like its regulatory objects, regulatory subjects  are functionally differentiated and can be disaggregated. In either case the connection between object and subject becomes complicated. 

This post includes a summary of the Lecture 5 Notes, as well as the link to the Lecture 5 PPT. Those interested may reach out to me to discuss availability of audio of the lecture and the full text of the Lecture 4 notes

Given the nature of the project I thought it might be useful to engage with an commercially available AI service for the production of a summary of the Lecture 1 materials. After some back and forth with  Perplexity (Lecture 4 used Grok; Lecture 3 used Anthropic's Claude; Lecture 2 used Chat GPT; Lecture 1 and 1A used Google's Gemini), we came up with the following abstract of Lecture 5. 

Gemini generated image from Perplexity instructions

ABSTRACT:  Lecture Five presents China’s approach to artificial intelligence not as an “integrated” regulatory system in the liberal-administrative sense, but as a coordinated governance formation embedded within the theoretical and institutional structures of Marxist-Leninist New Era thought. The materials situate AI within the organizing principles of Communist Party leadership, socialist modernization, and the continuous rationalization of state power. In this framing, AI is neither primarily a market product nor a discrete object of regulation; it is constituted as a strategic productive force and a modality of governance whose development must be guided along a socialist path.

The lecture draws on a set of legal and policy instruments—the New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan (2017), the Cybersecurity Law, Data Security Law, Personal Information Protection Law, the Provisions on Algorithmic Recommendation, the Provisions on Deep Synthesis Internet Information Services, and the Interim Measures for Generative Artificial Intelligence Services—not as components of a unified regulatory code, but as elements of a coordinated architecture through which party-state priorities are operationalized across the AI stack. Coordination here reflects neither fragmentation nor integration in a Western sense, but alignment under the organizing principle of Party leadership, where law, policy, and technical systems function as mutually reinforcing modalities of governance.

Within this structure, the development-security dialectic expresses a core feature of New Era governance: modernization operates as both engine and vessel for the rationalization of the state. AI is advanced as a driver of industrial upgrading, technological capacity, and national rejuvenation, while simultaneously disciplined to ensure controllability, ideological alignment, and compatibility with social stability and national security. The question is not whether regulation constrains innovation, but how innovation can be produced within, and as an extension of, socialist governance.

The lecture emphasizes that governance attaches not only to AI systems as technical artifacts but to their effects within society, particularly through the lens of “public opinion attributes” and “social mobilization capacity.” The Provisions on Algorithmic Recommendation and the Deep Synthesis rules exemplify this approach: recommender systems and synthetic media are treated as infrastructures of perception and coordination, capable of shaping collective cognition, discourse, and action. Their governance is therefore inseparable from the Party-state’s responsibility for public opinion guidance and social order. Similarly, the Interim Measures on Generative AI position content-generating systems as public-facing instruments whose outputs must conform to legal, social, and ideological constraints, including the operationalization of Core Socialist Values.

Foundational statutes governing data—principally the Cybersecurity Law, Data Security Law, and Personal Information Protection Law—are situated within this same logic. Data is framed not only as an տնտեսական resource but as an object of sovereignty and a medium through which state rationality is exercised. Control over data flows, classification, and cross-border transfer becomes integral to maintaining both developmental capacity and systemic security.

Platforms occupy a critical role as coordinated governance actors. They are neither autonomous private entities nor mere regulatory subjects; rather, they function as intermediaries through which Party-state directives are translated into technical and operational practice. Algorithm design, content moderation, and system architecture become sites where political guidance is embedded within technological systems.

The lecture thus resists characterization of China’s AI governance as analogous to liberal regulatory models. Instead, it advances a conception of governance in which law, policy, ideology, and technology are coordinated under Party leadership to produce a form of digitally enabled socialist modernization. In comparative perspective, this distinguishes China from the United States’ market-centered model and the European Union’s rights-based supervisory framework. The Chinese approach is defined less by the calibration of regulatory intensity than by the subordination of AI development to a broader political project: the construction of a modern socialist state through coordinated, technologically mediated governance.

The essence is straightforward: Party-state leadership is the top-level principle; Socialist modernization is the governing purpose; The development-security dialectic is the core logic: advance AI, but keep it controllable; The main regulatory layers are data law, algorithmic recommendation, deep synthesis, and generative AI. These layers work through platforms as governance intermediaries. The outcome is AI shaped toward public opinion guidance, social stability, ideological alignment, and development under control.

 

 

Links to Lectures:

Lecture 0 -- Introduction
Lecture 1—From Algorithms to Foundation Models: What Contemporary AI is “Made of”
Lecture 1A--A Computation/Conversation With Google's "Maschinenmensch" Gemini:
Lecture 2—What Are We Actually Governing When We Govern AI?
Lecture 3—The “Markets State”: U.S. Approach
Lecture 4—The “Rights State”: EU Approach
Lecture 5—The “Guided State”: The Chinese Approach
Lecture 6—Courts, Companies, and the Legal Construction of AI
Lecture 7—AI Narratives From a Human, Computational and Quantum Perspective: Palantir; Anthropic; Open AI; and Leopold Aschenbrenner 
Lecture 8—Putting It All Together: Trends, Trend Lines, and Regulatory Dialectics

 

"President Trump is the President of Peace" -- Engagements in the War Souq (سوق) of Iranian-U.S. Transactional Interactions

 

In August 2025  I suggested the semiotics of the thirst for peace that drives at least certain members of the Trump Administration, with the President at its core. ( "President Trump is the President of Peace" Reflections on the Power of Presidential Self-Revolution (自我革命), the Republic's Social Revolution (社会革命) and the Presidential Message: "President Trump Brokers Another Historic Peace Deal" ). That theoretical elaboration--and its operational consequences bears repeating now--especially now in the midst of the confusion about the nature and objectives of  the U.S. - Iran engagements. Both States have been blowing stuff up to suit their interests--the Iranians to obliterate the Jews and dominate Sunni lands; the U.S. to expand and protect markets and trade routes, and when it suits them, the Jews.  They have now each blown up bits of this or that in sufficient quantity and with the appropriate background noise to be able to come to a deal--a peace, that might suit each of their quite different needs

Pix credit here

Chinese New Era Theory stresses the critical importance of self-revolution for the sort of social revolution that carries a political collective forward ( Social Revolution (社会革命) as Self-Revolution (自我革命) and the New Quality Production of CPC Modernization: 习近平 深入推进党的自我革命 [Xi Jinping, Deepen the Party's Self-Revolution] (Part of a speech at the Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Commission for Discipline Inspection on January 8, 2024)). Of course, one does not have to embrace Chinese Marxist-Leninist theory to apply context relevant trajectories of self-revolution and social revolution.

Pix credit here

 One of the most interesting journeys of self-revolution, and with it of the social revolution that follows in its wake within liberal democratic lebenswelt, has been that of the Trump Administration, with Donald Trump at its core. That progression can be measured from self-constitution of the Administration as it progressed along its development pathways from the start of resident Trump's first term (2016-2020) and the first several hundred days of President Trump's second term. At the center of this self-revolution is the (re)constitution of the President as a positive force for peace. This idea--and the chronicling of its actualization--has been nicely framed for the Republic in a recent Media Release from the Trump Administration--President Trump Brokers Another Historic Peace Deal (accessed via this link and also following in full below). The specific context is the final resolution of the current round of violence between Armenia and Azerbaijan (my interview on that situation here). But it is clear that the President's message meant to draw clearly both lessons and principles that could be shared with the Republic's masses at home, and the Republic's friends, competitors and adversaries abroad.  

We now understand that “President Trump is the President of Peace." (President Trump Brokers Another Historic Peace Deal). It ought to follow that the Republic is now, collectively, a Republic of Peace--self-revolution ushers in a state of social revolution.  That, one might be excused for thinking, is the thrust of President Trump's message to the Republic. This is a message that has been underscored and elaborated by Secretary of State Rubio, whose discussion of the notion of peace, and states of peace brokered by a strong Republic reflects the more fundamental self-revolution of "transactional-merchant phenomenology and its understanding of peace as an essential element of something larger: "As they say in some movies--peace, like death, is not an end but a doorway. That acquires a quite interesting aspect in transactional spaces." (The Phenomenology of Peace and the Price of the Deal--Text of and Reflections on the Interview: Secretary of State Marco Rubio with Brian Kilmeade of Fox Radio).

Pix credit here

What, then, is peace?  Perhaps Secretary Marco Rubio describes it best under conditions of transaction framing merchant realities--peace is the absence of war. War is understood as violent conflict, one that either destroys valuable objects (infrastructure, productive capacity and the like), or human the consumption of whom is the essential element of the process of production (workers, family units, consumers,  and operators of economic, social, religious, and cultural productivity) and the object (collectively) of productivity (at its extreme here) and curated. Societal self-pleasuring is the ultimate aim--however that is defined and made suitable for the times; and self-pleasuring consists of the proper interaction of objects and people agreeably arranged  and ordered in ways that permit a movement toward the maximization of their own self-and social value and that of the collective. This comes in many flavors of course (and ideology provides one of several languages for constituting these "flavors" in form suitable for both consumption and framing the human condition).  But at its heart is the fundamental postulate--that without the end of destruction there can be no movement toward.

Nonetheless, peace is not its own object.  It is a state of (dis)engagement that permits the fundamental logic of the operation of self and social systems toward the realization of its apex goal and purpose--the regularization of spaces in which transactions may be undertaken for the further fulfillment of self and social revolution. It might be understood as movement toward development (or modernization, however these terms are understood) that improves (or in some systems perfects) things and conditions of life for individuals and collectives.  In other words, the object is not peace; the object is the achievement of a state of stable transactions--iterative, perhaps even purposeful beyond the value of the transaction--that then manifest desired states of being. Peace is the predicate condition for the merchant; and the merchant is the predicate actor in development (not either the functionary or the warrior); and the work of the merchant is essential for the operationalization of transactional frameworks deployed to whatever ends suits society engaged in its endless processes of self-actualization, and for some, the attainment of states of perfection (at least until they die and a new generation starts the process again). That provides the framing of reality that serves as the foundation of the peace mission of the Republic with the President at is core. 

With one exception--the merchants of violence, those whose highest purpose is to produce those objects essential for the maintained of peace through violence, or its potential. But that is a story for another day. 

For today; for today it is for us to contemplate the nature, function, and states of peace into which we are all traveling toward. . . . one way or another. Self-revolution and social revolution leads the Republic toward an embrace of the ordering principle that peace is a predicate to development; and that development is the foundation of transactional cultures in which individuals and collectives prosper, each in their own way--until the contradictions of transactions in context moves both back to not-peace.  That, in turn, sheds light on the ordering framework of the dialectics of the human condition: Conflict-peace-transactions-conflict-peace.  What is peace? Peace is truce; peace is a condition of managed conflict; peace is a state of ritualized engagement; peace is a temporal space and a platform.  Managing peace, not conflict, becomes the key--perhaps that is so. Conversely managing conflict, not peace, is the key of equal value. The temporal objectification of both makes it possible to better use them; perhaps that is also a possibility. I leave that to others. 

Pix credit here

 

 In order to understand the terms of the U.S.-Iranian peace (A New Treaty of Amity, Friendship, and Trade Between the U.S. and Iran?: US reads terms of memorandum of understanding to reporters) one might start with the presumption that nothing that a merchant never says what they mean and never mean what they say, even if the person attempting the role of the merchant-type started out of something else (The Sleeper Awakens: Text of Senator JD Vance's Remarks Delivered at the Munich Security Conference 18 February 2024 and Some Reflections). It is the same, of course, for the official-bureaucrat and for the warrior-priest type, but the context and meaning changes. That core presumption applies with to the current efforts to "sell" the deal to the American masses (European leaders and economic elites  required no such selling, if only because it was in their interests, measured as it was by the calculus of the bureaucrat rather than the merchant-type) (see President Defends Deal on Iran War at G-7).  And the Vice President, in a role that helps cement a persona that appears to appeal, was tasked with a bravura performance (by the standards of the time) of castigating the Jews along traditional lines ("“Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time,” Mr. Vance said. He added, “If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.”" HERE). The object is to convince, rather than to justify. In this case the object was not peace, but markets; the objects was not resolution but transactions; the object was not directed inward toward Iranian popular determination but to the protection of supply chin infrastructure that affected American interests (in the sense of economic stability).

Pix credit here

 The U.S. Iran peace, then, is not the ends but a means to other e4nds.  And those ends do not necessarily require eternal or stable peace; it requires just enough peace to satisfy the interests of the parties for the short term. Iran has to purge its population of  people unhappy with the current theocracy; the U.S. starts the intense phase of its mid-term elections, but more importantly, of the jockeying between the Vice President and the Secretary of State for the right6 to succeed the current president in the 2028 elections.  In that context, it appears that both sides had a preference for the Vice President--much more willing to play the merchant-type in the context of America First's emerging semiotics of peace.  But who knows what lies within the minds of those who speak but whose speaking and actions provide a  delightfully broad ambiguity. For everyone else there is now the possibility to male money in transactions--reconstructions, supply chains, extractions, production.  Everyone will likely feed from this trough--the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians and the Americans--to the extent that this is possible. 

It works as well as any other approach. . . perhaps.  We will find out. Yet that is not the point of this performance. What is important, more important, are the structural pathways that are being created around the notion of peace. It is not an institutionalist-bureaucrat-administrator's peace that aims at resolution and stability at the level of institutional collectives (to "solve" a problem as a function of whatever the character of values of the moment). It is the peace of the merchant-priest that aims to create a space in which conflict is not disruptive enough to interfere with transactions.  In that context, the absence of peace, like the peace conferencing itself, is merely an instrument for the creation of such spaces for such time as it serves the interest of transaction, and of course, of those who are the merchant-priest princes of the times. Sanctions are bad for business; nuclear weapons should only be available to apex states; reconstruction funds means more deals; supply chain pathways are critical to market and supply chains; bringing states within global financial systems enhances control and the continued power of the Dollar; subordinate states and non state actors are expected to behave until it is in the interest of superior powers that they misbehave in the context of using geopolitical  situations for transactional bargaining; etc. The essence is this: "Trump threatened Iran with more attacks  if they didn't abide by the terms. 'If they don't honor that, we'll probably go back to bombing them until they honor it,' he said. (here)

Pix credit here

 Well, if not the Americans, then the Israelis, will bomb again. A mistake really to think that the American leadership core,  can play the Israelis and then hang them out to dry Ukrainian or pre 1940s Czech style.  The history of US -Israel relaitons  appears opaque to our friends from certain elite schools and their political-economic "mentors." Who better than the Israelis, the quintessential merchant-type existing, for as long as they can, within the dar al-harb. That is the Souq (سوق) within which transactions are undertaken between merchants, priests, and warriors, all of whom have become adept at playing  the larger empires under conditions of the sort of peace that the American Merchant princes may now come to understand as truce punctuated by violence. The rest is negotiation in which everything is an instrument of the deal, and deals  have a very short half-life. 

The nascent U.S.-Iran deal faced fresh challenges on Friday after Switzerland said that the next phase of talks had been postponed and as Israel launched new strikes in Lebanon following a deadly attack on its soldiers there. Israel said its military had struck more than 80 targets belonging to the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia, killing dozens, in response to an attack on an Israeli tank crew that left four soldiers dead in southern Lebanon. The Lebanese Health Ministry reported that Israeli airstrikes overnight had killed at least 18 people and injured 33 others. (here)

The Iranians want the Israelis dead--or at least their Jews, or in a more humane turn converted back to dhimmi status; the Israelis want Hezbollah and Hamas dead to avoid dying themselves. In the absence of a mass conversion to Judaism what is left is good old fashioned clan warfare exploited by the successors of the Sassanians and the children of Rome. The  from Lebanon to the ends of the Arabian peninsula. That is a stable state of sorts. The rest is propaganda dressed up as morals, or religion, or ethno-psychosis of the sort that now appeals to the mandarins in international institutions, or that serves as a cover for the imperial aspiration of middle and apex powers.