Old Abrahamic religious mindsets in new IT companies

[Alin Dosoftei]

I noticed how some wildly successful IT companies use organizational structures and strategies that resemble the outlook of specific Abrahamic religions. Much of this revolves around ways to take in consideration a non-linear unknown and around strategies in limiting the coverage of their structure of knowledge.

The modern concept of science supposes a confidence that knowledge can be expanded in any direction. In this sense, it appears that the complexity of the IT environment challenged too much this notion of linear expansion and it determined the resurgence of some psychological outlooks that resemble the ethos of specific Abrahamic religions. What makes them successful in this environment is that they take in consideration a non-linear complexity and that they do not aspire to develop an ecosystem of knowledge as control of the situation over everything. The specific ways in limiting the coverage of their structure of knowledge make them cope better in such an environment. 

A brief description of the ideas:

Microsoft
The original Microsoft concept under Bill Gates works with something similar to the Christian model of making the difference between the visible hardware and the psychological power of the software, like in “render unto Caesar things that belong to Caesar and unto God things that belong to God”. Its business model is based on just developing an operating system with additional applications, as a functional ecosystem of software amid a huge complexity. This limitation simplifies a lot the task of sustaining an ecosystem of coherence.
The usual human impulse is to not pay much attention to the difference between “God’s software” and “Caesar’s hardware”, even less to much more valuable perspectives you may have when you are not so focused necessarily on controlling the hardware and how much gain you can have by spurring other people to create hardware. 
Additionally, the expansion tactics of Microsoft look like textbook Christian conversion methods with their “embrace, extend, extinguish” approach. They continue the original approach of Jesus by embracing other people’s psychological “software” and extending it with unexpected perspectives that those people did not know how to integrate in their own thinking processes. This was creating internal interoperability problems, leading to the phase in which their own beliefs were extinguished and they had to rely on the belief in Jesus’ coherence. 
They were resigning themselves to the idea that only Jesus knew how the overall coherence made sense. The initial embracing phase appears as relinquishing control, but this is only to get you under much tighter vendor lock-in control. It was not so much about imposing directly a specific “software” on other people, but a surreptitious change in the standards with some proprietary extensions that those people did not know how to work with.
And he was able to do this by simplifying drastically his relation to the complexity of life when giving up any practical “hardware” aspirations in real life. In his ministry years, he did nothing practical in terms of social organization. He was commenting on the sideline, but he was not really into assuming organizational responsibilities and projecting a practical alternative administration. He stayed clear of all the complexity unleashed by involvement in practical administration that the politicians tend to be so aware of. He was just exhorting a seamless ideal “software” and “hardware” integration that is to come in the future. He was leaning on that plateau in the mind of that seamless future as a stable base for a sense of organization able to sustain a more fluid multi-track thinking with unexpected angles at the present tense. The other people were too caught in real life “hardware” issues to sense how Jesus was operating. 
The Windows ecosystem works in the idea of such a seamless software and hardware integration and it can keep some appearances of coherence in such a complexity by staying away from assuming full responsibilities. In this manner, it can have a much more fluid and versatile approach to the concept of software, which is so necessary in the IT environment, in which you don’t go too far if you have a linear thinking with a rather static self-centered organization. 
However, it achieves this feat by still keeping some appearances of overall organization as in a more typical static human psychological outlook. It does not really have groundbreaking ideas to create a new fluid sense of organization adequate to this complex environment. And, when problems appear, they can be presented as not stemming from their own responsibilities. In moments of reckoning with such practical issues, the Windows platform can even be presented as a savior. It accumulated and assumed the “sins” of its relation with the hardware and with the applications, so it dies and resurrects afresh, cleaned of all those “sins”.

Apple
Apple, on the other hand, has such a structurally Muslim approach. It works with something similar to the Islamic model of the walled garden of the Land of Islam versus the rest of the world. They are not so much interested in embracing what is not under their control beyond the walls. They focus on a piece of psychological area where they feel in control of the situation and thus they can keep things simple to create a well-tuned cohesion between “God’s software” and “Caesar’s hardware”. 
The Apple ethos has some awareness of the non-linear complexity of the world and it grows around the perception that it is much easier to keep the things simple in a walled garden where the scope of that complexity stays more manageable. Within this walled garden you can develop a well-optimized integration of software and hardware while letting unfold in your mind that psychological fluidity that lets you think beyond the existing trodden paths.
Islam is a holistic approach to life that gives you a sense of clarity and valuable psychological fluidity, showing you a coherent, simple and decluttered view in a complex world. However, it is so holistic exactly as a result of keeping things simple in a psychological walled garden. This is the kind of experience Apple offers to its customers. Its products have a simple, uncluttered beauty and they work well due to the focus on optimizing the integration between software and hardware. 
This psychological experience is also the main expansion tactic. They are not so much interested in embracing what is not under their control beyond their walled garden, in order to create “software” interoperability issues. People are attracted with this refreshing uncluttered simplicity that takes them out of the trodden paths in their minds. However, this also means that they entered in a walled garden. And, if they want to continue this experience, they have to stay within that garden and keep buying products there.


Google and Facebook
Microsoft and Apple, as reflections of the Christian and Islamic outlooks, are about an older Abrahamic mindset, from the period when the Jewish worldview was like an ecosystem of meaning conceived as the bearer of an abyssal truth amid a huge unknown. The rabbinical Jewish approach that grew after the divergent evolutions of Christianity and Islam has a more direct gaze into the complexity of the world. It realizes that the classical human concept of truth is not so linear and it needs deeper investigation. This turns into a study of a variety of perspectives within the psychological ecosystem in one’s mind and also into investigations about the huge complexity beyond it. 
Google and Facebook work with this rabbinical Jewish model of facing the complexity of the world and of noticing the relevant information and connections. They have a clear idea that you can’t just rely directly on an existing static psychological ecosystem to do that. Their specific approach turned into realizing that a psychological ecosystem and the unknown beyond it require different approaches. If you pay attention to what is beyond, namely the Google approach, then you need to have a clear mind, minimalistic about your own point of view, in order to really be relevant in facing its fluid complexity. If you pay attention to the psychological ecosystem, namely the Facebook approach, then you should have some sense that you are just swimming in a bubble of meaning with some internal coherence. This approach works with the awareness that such an ecosystem is largely a psychological construct. Thus, it can sustain in the same framework a concomitant unfoldment of a variety of points of view in human connections, with some overall coherence. 

I developed the ideas in a longer article:

https://alin-dosoftei.medium.com/old-abrahamic-religious-mindsets-in-new-it-companies-f0df5420366c

[exchemist]

7 minutes ago, Alin Dosoftei said:

I noticed how some wildly successful IT companies use organizational structures and strategies that resemble the outlook of specific Abrahamic religions. Much of this revolves around ways to take in consideration a non-linear unknown and around strategies in limiting the coverage of their structure of knowledge.

The modern concept of science supposes a confidence that knowledge can be expanded in any direction. In this sense, it appears that the complexity of the IT environment challenged too much this notion of linear expansion and it determined the resurgence of some psychological outlooks that resemble the ethos of specific Abrahamic religions. What makes them successful in this environment is that they take in consideration a non-linear complexity and that they do not aspire to develop an ecosystem of knowledge as control of the situation over everything. The specific ways in limiting the coverage of their structure of knowledge make them cope better in such an environment. 

A brief description of the ideas:

Microsoft
The original Microsoft concept under Bill Gates works with something similar to the Christian model of making the difference between the visible hardware and the psychological power of the software, like in “render unto Caesar things that belong to Caesar and unto God things that belong to God”. Its business model is based on just developing an operating system with additional applications, as a functional ecosystem of software amid a huge complexity. This limitation simplifies a lot the task of sustaining an ecosystem of coherence.
The usual human impulse is to not pay much attention to the difference between “God’s software” and “Caesar’s hardware”, even less to much more valuable perspectives you may have when you are not so focused necessarily on controlling the hardware and how much gain you can have by spurring other people to create hardware. 
Additionally, the expansion tactics of Microsoft look like textbook Christian conversion methods with their “embrace, extend, extinguish” approach. They continue the original approach of Jesus by embracing other people’s psychological “software” and extending it with unexpected perspectives that those people did not know how to integrate in their own thinking processes. This was creating internal interoperability problems, leading to the phase in which their own beliefs were extinguished and they had to rely on the belief in Jesus’ coherence. 
They were resigning themselves to the idea that only Jesus knew how the overall coherence made sense. The initial embracing phase appears as relinquishing control, but this is only to get you under much tighter vendor lock-in control. It was not so much about imposing directly a specific “software” on other people, but a surreptitious change in the standards with some proprietary extensions that those people did not know how to work with.
And he was able to do this by simplifying drastically his relation to the complexity of life when giving up any practical “hardware” aspirations in real life. In his ministry years, he did nothing practical in terms of social organization. He was commenting on the sideline, but he was not really into assuming organizational responsibilities and projecting a practical alternative administration. He stayed clear of all the complexity unleashed by involvement in practical administration that the politicians tend to be so aware of. He was just exhorting a seamless ideal “software” and “hardware” integration that is to come in the future. He was leaning on that plateau in the mind of that seamless future as a stable base for a sense of organization able to sustain a more fluid multi-track thinking with unexpected angles at the present tense. The other people were too caught in real life “hardware” issues to sense how Jesus was operating. 
The Windows ecosystem works in the idea of such a seamless software and hardware integration and it can keep some appearances of coherence in such a complexity by staying away from assuming full responsibilities. In this manner, it can have a much more fluid and versatile approach to the concept of software, which is so necessary in the IT environment, in which you don’t go too far if you have a linear thinking with a rather static self-centered organization. 
However, it achieves this feat by still keeping some appearances of overall organization as in a more typical static human psychological outlook. It does not really have groundbreaking ideas to create a new fluid sense of organization adequate to this complex environment. And, when problems appear, they can be presented as not stemming from their own responsibilities. In moments of reckoning with such practical issues, the Windows platform can even be presented as a savior. It accumulated and assumed the “sins” of its relation with the hardware and with the applications, so it dies and resurrects afresh, cleaned of all those “sins”.

Apple
Apple, on the other hand, has such a structurally Muslim approach. It works with something similar to the Islamic model of the walled garden of the Land of Islam versus the rest of the world. They are not so much interested in embracing what is not under their control beyond the walls. They focus on a piece of psychological area where they feel in control of the situation and thus they can keep things simple to create a well-tuned cohesion between “God’s software” and “Caesar’s hardware”. 
The Apple ethos has some awareness of the non-linear complexity of the world and it grows around the perception that it is much easier to keep the things simple in a walled garden where the scope of that complexity stays more manageable. Within this walled garden you can develop a well-optimized integration of software and hardware while letting unfold in your mind that psychological fluidity that lets you think beyond the existing trodden paths.
Islam is a holistic approach to life that gives you a sense of clarity and valuable psychological fluidity, showing you a coherent, simple and decluttered view in a complex world. However, it is so holistic exactly as a result of keeping things simple in a psychological walled garden. This is the kind of experience Apple offers to its customers. Its products have a simple, uncluttered beauty and they work well due to the focus on optimizing the integration between software and hardware. 
This psychological experience is also the main expansion tactic. They are not so much interested in embracing what is not under their control beyond their walled garden, in order to create “software” interoperability issues. People are attracted with this refreshing uncluttered simplicity that takes them out of the trodden paths in their minds. However, this also means that they entered in a walled garden. And, if they want to continue this experience, they have to stay within that garden and keep buying products there.


Google and Facebook
Microsoft and Apple, as reflections of the Christian and Islamic outlooks, are about an older Abrahamic mindset, from the period when the Jewish worldview was like an ecosystem of meaning conceived as the bearer of an abyssal truth amid a huge unknown. The rabbinical Jewish approach that grew after the divergent evolutions of Christianity and Islam has a more direct gaze into the complexity of the world. It realizes that the classical human concept of truth is not so linear and it needs deeper investigation. This turns into a study of a variety of perspectives within the psychological ecosystem in one’s mind and also into investigations about the huge complexity beyond it. 
Google and Facebook work with this rabbinical Jewish model of facing the complexity of the world and of noticing the relevant information and connections. They have a clear idea that you can’t just rely directly on an existing static psychological ecosystem to do that. Their specific approach turned into realizing that a psychological ecosystem and the unknown beyond it require different approaches. If you pay attention to what is beyond, namely the Google approach, then you need to have a clear mind, minimalistic about your own point of view, in order to really be relevant in facing its fluid complexity. If you pay attention to the psychological ecosystem, namely the Facebook approach, then you should have some sense that you are just swimming in a bubble of meaning with some internal coherence. This approach works with the awareness that such an ecosystem is largely a psychological construct. Thus, it can sustain in the same framework a concomitant unfoldment of a variety of points of view in human connections, with some overall coherence. 

I developed the ideas in a longer article:

https://alin-dosoftei.medium.com/old-abrahamic-religious-mindsets-in-new-it-companies-f0df5420366c

Well, what can one say but "Oh Christ!"😁

[MigL]

I guess it is true.
The human mind looks for patterns and connections; and often finds them when they are not really there.

[Peterkin]

On 8/6/2022 at 10:43 AM, Alin Dosoftei said:

I noticed how some wildly successful IT companies use organizational structures and strategies that resemble the outlook of specific Abrahamic religions. Much of this revolves around ways to take in consideration a non-linear unknown and around strategies in limiting the coverage of their structure of knowledge.

I'm not sure what that means.

Organizational structures are based on social structures and tend to reflect the mind-set of the cultures in which they exist. If they bear a resemblance to religious or other structures, that might be because humans structure things in similar ways through the ages. I see no reason to use only religious models for your observations of IT organizations, especially as one analogy regards values, while the other regards aesthetics, which are two very different entities, not comparable as structures.

I don't see a topic for discussion.

Even less do I see a need for giant font.  

Edited August 9, 2022 by Peterkin

[Alin Dosoftei]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I'm not sure what that means.

Organizational structures are based on social structures and tend to reflect the mind-set of the cultures in which they exist. If they bear a resemblance to religious or other structures, that might be because humans structure things in similar ways through the ages. I see no reason to use only religious models for your observations of IT organizations, especially as one analogy regards values, while the other regards aesthetics, which are two very different entities, not comparable as structures.

I don't see a topic for discussion.

Even less do I see a need for giant font.  

Indeed, long-term honed cultural mindsets are the likely source. There are some specific formulae able to provide some level of all-encompassing universal organizational structures and the IT companies that tapped into that had some phenomenal success. A more conscious perception of these formulae can bring increased awareness of the specific self-limitations they employ in order to sustain a workable level of coherence in a non-linear environment dealing with a huge amount of information. Values and aesthetics are nuances that may appear at the forefront when thinking about these two disparate applications, but I was more interested in the organizational structures and where it leads to when more aware of the way they find some sui-generis connections between the human concept of a self-centered ecosystem of knowledge and the huge fluid unknown beyond. Ultimately, this is what these religions and IT companies are good at, they can provide some relevant sense of organization on a large scale, with some sui-generis ways to take in consideration a huge fluid non-linear unknown beyond the more typical human sense of a static ecosystem of knowledge.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Alin Dosoftei

[Peterkin]

Uh-huh...