Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Whether or not we identify the trend is up for debate; but that's a matter of finding sources. I personally do see it, but I agree that it isn't "popular" yet. I think it's merely tending in that direction. The arbitrariness of the individual is simply to establish a precedent for an eventual paradigm shift.

It has experienced political opposition, but this is largely due to the fact, again, that we haven't yet experienced the paradigm shift. Furthermore, I agree that political programs to push anti-individualist agendas are undesirable. Rather than formulate arguments in support of them, I think that trying to open people's minds to this potential shift is a step toward the shift occurring of its own accord. I don't think the revolution (if we want to call it that) will find its origin in programs of political emancipation. It will be a much broader cultural shift, which I'm suggesting contemporary science and technology points toward.

I don't really see political opposition. It's a dream for the state. There's no other manifestation of the collective, and the collective will always require a "chief". Otherwise the collective is so much without a definition as to be irrelevant. Like a P2P network. You could call it a collective, but you can't identify it all, and it's exclusively for the benefit of it's individual users.

I see technology empowering either individuals or corporate bodies (all sorts of "corporate" bodies, collectives. State, business, etc.). Ultimately only individuals act, or direct action via 3rd parties and tools. HFT algorithms are written with specific purposes. While they can get out of control (which, when it occurs, is taken down and then tweaked), this is no different than any other machine when not closely monitored, especially with expansive parameters. This does not negate the individual. It empowers it.

Now that I am thinking on it, the argument that technology is negating the human appears to be a hybridization and repackaging of luddite and marxist ideas: Labor vs technology.

I think the language and the things themselves are changed. If anything, the fluidity of the language reveals that the thing itself possesses no essence. The language certainly changes, but this is because its signifieds are changing.

Language is basically a system of metaphysics. When we say a word, we act as if it points toward a static, stable concept. Language is always changing though, and the uses of words are changing; what this suggests is not only that language is a fluid institution, but also that the concepts it addresses are fluid and amorphous. "Capitalism" does not stay what-it-is.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't really see political opposition. It's a dream for the state. There's no other manifestation of the collective, and the collective will always require a "chief". Otherwise the collective is so much without a definition as to be irrelevant. Like a P2P network. You could call it a collective, but you can't identify it all, and it's exclusively for the benefit of it's individual users.

I know you don't consider FOX News to be legitimate news (and it isn't), but that doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as legitimate political opposition. If there's a champion for the mythology of the individual, it's FOX News. Beyond that, both democrats and republicans are still beholden to this mythology. The collectivist measures that manifest in this country are by no means truly collectivist in the sense that I speak of; they're liberal democratic collectivist policies, which still claim to bolster the welfare of the individual. Any speech or action toward radical collectivism faces unrestricted political opposition. We're a country founded on the mythical empowerment of the individual, and we're not ready to give that up by any means.

I see technology empowering either individuals or corporate bodies (all sorts of "corporate" bodies, collectives. State, business, etc.). Ultimately only individuals act, or direct action via 3rd parties and tools. HFT algorithms are written with specific purposes. While they can get out of control (which, when it occurs, is taken down and then tweaked), this is no different than any other machine when not closely monitored, especially with expansive parameters. This does not negate the individual. It empowers it.

But not only individuals act. More and more we're finding technology that acts on its own accord. We simply still reduce all action to human action because (as I see it) we're afraid to admit that technology can act effectively. We have to trace responsibility back to human individuals.

The uploading of algorithms or the inputting of data doesn't somehow maintain the human as some kind of responsible residue. I know you insist on connecting the individual to the technologies that it "creates," but this isn't a tenable position in my opinion. The algorithms we input aren't ours, and they aren't indicative of some intentional bond between us and our machines. The machines act of their own accord, and we can't assume full responsibility for their actions even if we want to.

Now that I am thinking on it, the argument that technology is negating the human appears to be a hybridization and repackaging of luddite and marxist ideas: Labor vs technology.

Actually, current Marxist theorists don't shun technology. They embrace it because they see it as contributing toward a potential post-scarcity society that would enable a form of radical collectivism. Furthermore, current developments in technology and science reinforce the ephemeral qualities of the individual, again contributing to notions of collectivity. The best Marxists, like Fredric Jameson, don't restrict themselves to the archaic, pseudo-scientific historical materialism of traditional Marxism. They're far more interested in and accepting of new technological development. Criticism of our inability to situate ourselves or affirmatively position the individual in contemporary technological society shouldn't be construed as a polemic against technology.

If there is any argument against technology, it comes from the individualist side. When technologies begin running out of control, or acting outside of the algorithms we input, the argument becomes: "It is our responsibility to shut down the machines."

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Read this earlier; I thought Ein might get a chuckle.

"Isn't post-modernism really one big cover-up for the failure of the French to write a truly interesting novel ever since a sports car ate Albert Camus?” — John Leonard

 

[Dak]

I know you don't consider FOX News to be legitimate news (and it isn't), but that doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as legitimate political opposition. If there's a champion for the mythology of the individual, it's FOX News. Beyond that, both democrats and republicans are still beholden to this mythology. The collectivist measures that manifest in this country are by no means truly collectivist in the sense that I speak of; they're liberal democratic collectivist policies, which still claim to bolster the welfare of the individual. Any speech or action toward radical collectivism faces unrestricted political opposition. We're a country founded on the mythical empowerment of the individual, and we're not ready to give that up by any means.

It might have always been mythical, in the sense that the state cannot empower the individual, but that isn't really here nor there. FOXnews is head over heels in collectivism. Watch that flag wave behind the images of tanks and badges. That is collectivism every bit as much as a "welfare" program. (And drawing that parallel is where I immediately piss off all FOXheads). Blue shirts, camo shirts, brown shirts. The colors of collective conformity.

But not only individuals act. More and more we're finding technology that acts on its own accord. We simply still reduce all action to human action because (as I see it) we're afraid to admit that technology can act effectively. We have to trace responsibility back to human individuals.

The uploading of algorithms or the inputting of data doesn't somehow maintain the human as some kind of responsible residue. I know you insist on connecting the individual to the technologies that it "creates," but this isn't a tenable position in my opinion. The algorithms we input aren't ours, and they aren't indicative of some intentional bond between us and our machines. The machines act of their own accord, and we can't assume full responsibility for their actions even if we want to.

I think this is completely divorced from reality (even if it may be argued that our consciousness of "Reality" is virtual, then this argument is also virtual and therefore no more "Real", as it emanates from the same consciousness. As stated by men more studied on this than I, you cannot "sneak up on the thing")in the logic and extreme you want to trace this out to. I cannot even take responsibility for my own origin, but this doesn't change my agency. To a similar degree, I cannot necessarily take full responsibility for a blown tire or a computer fault. So what?

Actually, current Marxist theorists don't shun technology. They embrace it because they see it as contributing toward a potential post-scarcity society that would enable a form of radical collectivism. Furthermore, current developments in technology and science reinforce the ephemeral qualities of the individual, again contributing to notions of collectivity. The best Marxists, like Fredric Jameson, don't restrict themselves to the archaic, pseudo-scientific historical materialism of traditional Marxism. They're far more interested in and accepting of new technological development. Criticism of our inability to situate ourselves or affirmatively position the individual in contemporary technological society shouldn't be construed as a polemic against technology.

In this light, I think there is common ground between an anarcho capitalist and a "enlightened" communist you speak of, as it regards anything that is post scarcity, or more concretely as it concerns matters of IP. It is in the realm of IP that anarcho-capitalists most often get called communistic, as it so happens. In an area of no *real* scarcity, and in the abstract, anarcho-capitalists do not support artificial scarcity, which certainly requires the state or something acting as such (copyright,trademark, and so on). However, although we might be able to Ctrl+P to infinity for some things, the physical media involved is *not* in a post-scarcity environment, and will never be. The universe is not infinite, as it is still expanding, and we see no reason to think it will or won't hit a limitation. Whether it does or doesn't, it in itself is limited.

If there is any argument against technology, it comes from the individualist side. When technologies begin running out of control, or acting outside of the algorithms we input, the argument becomes: "It is our responsibility to shut down the machines."

When a dog goes rabid, we put it down. This does not make us anti-dog.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

This is pretty cool. The entire 60 year archive of the Paris Review interviewing authors and poets about their craft. http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/#list

Hemingway and Borges have wonderful interviews on there.

I really like the way Hemingway speaks.

"When I am working on a book or a story I write every morning as soon after first light as possible. There is no one to disturb you and it is cool or cold and you come to your work and warm as you write. You read what you have written and, as you always stop when you know what is going to happen next, you go on from there. You write until you come to a place where you still have your juice and know what will happen next and you stop and try to live through until the next day when you hit it again. You have started at six in the morning, say, and may go on until noon or be through before that. When you stop you are as empty, and at the same time never empty but filling, as when you have made love to someone you love. Nothing can hurt you, nothing can happen, nothing means anything until the next day when you do it again. It is the wait until the next day that is hard to get through."

 

[Einherjar86]

It might have always been mythical, in the sense that the state cannot empower the individual, but that isn't really here nor there. FOXnews is head over heels in collectivism. Watch that flag wave behind the images of tanks and badges. That is collectivism every bit as much as a "welfare" program. (And drawing that parallel is where I immediately piss off all FOXheads). Blue shirts, camo shirts, brown shirts. The colors of collective conformity.

I think this is a case of misinterpretation. If (I emphasize if) FOX is "head over heels in collectivism," it's unconscious and of entirely the vulgar sort in that it promotes, above and beyond all else, the responsibilities and powers of the individual. Merely listen to the way their pundits talk about business owners, politicians, criminals, etc. Everything boils down to individual responsibility.

I think this is completely divorced from reality (even if it may be argued that our consciousness of "Reality" is virtual, then this argument is also virtual and therefore no more "Real", as it emanates from the same consciousness. As stated by men more studied on this than I, you cannot "sneak up on the thing")in the logic and extreme you want to trace this out to. I cannot even take responsibility for my own origin, but this doesn't change my agency. To a similar degree, I cannot necessarily take full responsibility for a blown tire or a computer fault. So what?

Your agency is virtual, but this is simply the nature of consciousness. Action need not be traced to a conscious agent, and it's possible that modes of action exist that exceed the bounds of human intention and responsibility. It's entirely possible - plausible and probable, in fact - that most action and events that occur cannot be traced to human intention. I don't mean to deny human agency at all. However, it is completely true that our culture insists on assigning responsibility.

Say you do get a flat tire that results in an accident. I guarantee you there's a legal inquiry into who was "at fault."

When a dog goes rabid, we put it down. This does not make us anti-dog.

And whence the idea that we have the right to put down rabid animals?

 

[Dak]

I think this is a case of misinterpretation. If (I emphasize if) FOX is "head over heels in collectivism," it's unconscious and of entirely the vulgar sort in that it promotes, above and beyond all else, the responsibilities and powers of the individual. Merely listen to the way their pundits talk about business owners, politicians, criminals, etc. Everything boils down to individual responsibility.

Until the flag starts waving and the state beats the war drum. Then all of that takes a backseat. It's lip service. "Personal reponsibility to the state". A twisted take. Like how FDR twisted liberalism into a farce.

Your agency is virtual, but this is simply the nature of consciousness. Action need not be traced to a conscious agent, and it's possible that modes of action exist that exceed the bounds of human intention and responsibility. It's entirely possible - plausible and probable, in fact - that most action and events that occur cannot be traced to human intention. I don't mean to deny human agency at all. However, it is completely true that our culture insists on assigning responsibility.

Say you do get a flat tire that results in an accident. I guarantee you there's a legal inquiry into who was "at fault."

And yet this doesn't somehow make consciousness less than what it is, or somehow allow us to sneak up on it without staying contained within it. I do have an issue with "ignorance is no excuse", as it pertains to the predations of the state, IE, law enforcement. What is the difference between unconscious action and ignorant conscious action? The definition of ignorance?

Assigning responsibility is not bad in and of itself. Why is a mere inquiry into fault an issue? Of course that assumes the legitimacy of the inquiring body.

Cause and effect is real, even if we don't fully understand causes. Accepting responsibility and suffering consequences, or observing someone else do so, is The Greatest Instructor. When we attempt to disconnect actions from consequences, we create moral hazard and a host of other problems. This is why a free market economy trumps socialistic/command economies. The command economy and welfare state shields the actors from the direct effects of their mistakes, so the mistakes persist, until they overwhelm the system.

We learn through trial and error, or through observation of the trial and error of others. When we see something that appears to work, we duplicate and copy it. If it is really failing but that is shielded from our view, we work to ruin. This is the necessary part of "creative destruction" in (whatever other term you want to insert: "Free market", "Capitalism", etc.). To bouey one during failures, we should have savings/capital. Unfortunately, this is nearly impossible in the current system. As the money itself is debt, I don't see how we can call the current system capitalism. We exchange debt, not capital.

And whence the idea that we have the right to put down rabid animals?

Who said anything about rights?

 

[Einherjar86]

Until the flag starts waving and the state beats the war drum. Then all of that takes a backseat. It's lip service. "Personal reponsibility to the state". A twisted take. Like how FDR twisted liberalism into a farce.

It's more than lip service. It's ideology. It doesn't matter what's "behind" it; people hear individual, they think individual.

And yet this doesn't somehow make consciousness less than what it is, or somehow allow us to sneak up on it without staying contained within it. I do have an issue with "ignorance is no excuse", as it pertains to the predations of the state, IE, law enforcement. What is the difference between unconscious action and ignorant conscious action? The definition of ignorance?

Assigning responsibility is not bad in and of itself. Why is a mere inquiry into fault an issue? Of course that assumes the legality of the inquiring body.

Cause and effect is real, even if we don't fully understand causes. Accepting responsibility and suffering consequences, or observing someone else do so, is The Greatest Instructor. When we attempt to disconnect actions from consequences, we create moral hazard and a host of other problems. This is why a free market economy trumps socialistic/command economies. The command economy and welfare state shields the actors from the direct effects of their mistakes, so the mistakes persist, until they overwhelm the system.

We learn through trial and error, or through observation of the trial and error of others. When we see something that appears to work, we duplicate and copy it. If it is really failing but that is shielded from our view, we work to ruin. This is the necessary part of "creative destruction" in (whatever other term you want to insert: "Free market", "Capitalism", etc.). To bouey one during failures, we should have savings/capital. Unfortunately, this is nearly impossible in the current system. As the money itself is debt, I don't see how we can call the current system capitalism. We exchange debt, not capital.

I don't have a problem with any of this. I have a problem when individualism becomes so rampant and rooted that we can't conceive of any other form of action.

Cause and effect is real, but causality isn't. We might be able to verify that one thing caused another, but we cannot verify that it always will. The dangerous assumption occurs when we make that leap, which is what radical individualism is: the assumption that all action somehow reduces to human action.

Who said anything about rights?

You said that when we put dogs down it doesn't make us "anti-dog." We clearly perceive that we have the right, somehow, to make the decision whether or not to put a dog down. This right derives from the centrality of the human. The dog won't put itself down, so we have the responsibility to do so.

I'm saying that entire notion that we should put a dog down in the first place derives from a belief in human individualism. What I'm saying is that we don't have this responsibility to begin with; it's misplaced. So in a very extreme sense, yes; putting dogs down does make us anti-dog to the extent that it makes us pro-human. I'm saying that it's the humanist position that gives us the notion that we should put down dogs, or disconnect the machines, etc.

 

[Dak]

It's more than lip service. It's ideology. It doesn't matter what's "behind" it; people hear individual, they think individual.

They think they think that, but they don't. The core of the fascistic take of FOXnews is inextricably tying the individual to the state, while the "liberal" view does the opposite.

I don't have a problem with any of this. I have a problem when individualism becomes so rampant and rooted that we can't conceive of any other form of action.

Cause and effect is real, but causality isn't. We might be able to verify that one thing caused another, but we cannot verify that it always will. The dangerous assumption occurs when we make that leap, which is what radical individualism is: the assumption that all action somehow reduces to human action.

Cause and effect is real, but causality is never fully understood. We can only know in terms of probability. "Ceteris Paribus" is never a real situation.

All human action is human action. This is, of course, a truism. Who says all action, regardless of origin, is human action?

You said that when we put dogs down it doesn't make us "anti-dog." We clearly perceive that we have the right, somehow, to make the decision whether or not to put a dog down. This right derives from the centrality of the human. The dog won't put itself down, so we have the responsibility to do so.

I'm saying that entire notion that we should put a dog down in the first place derives from a belief in human individualism. What I'm saying is that we don't have this responsibility to begin with; it's misplaced. So in a very extreme sense, yes; putting dogs down does make us anti-dog to the extent that it makes us pro-human. I'm saying that it's the humanist position that gives us the notion that we should put down dogs, or disconnect the machines, etc.

What about all other animals(at least mammals) to include other dogs? When we put down a rabid dog we not only save ourselves but other dogs (and animals). It's about the closest thing to zombiism that exists. If you want to say we are anti something, it is anti-virus. Whether digital or biological. If you want to argue for Viral Rights, that would indeed be novel.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Check this ish out.



The Sudbury Valley School was founded in 1968 in Framingham, Massachusetts,[1] United States. There are now over 35 schools based on the Sudbury Model in the United States, Denmark, Israel, Japan, Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. The model has three basic tenets: educational freedom, democratic governance and personal responsibility. It is a private school, attended by children from the ages of 4 to 19.

At the Sudbury Valley School, students individually decide what to do with their time, and learn as an aside to their personal efforts, interactions and ordinary experience, rather than through classes or a standard curriculum.

 

[Einherjar86]

^I find that really interesting, but to be honest I'm not sure how much I'm down with the whole "let kids plan their education" deal. This, I believe, tries to assign way too much responsibility to young children; and hell, I'm skeptical of responsibility in adults even, as per my ongoing discussion with Dak.

They think they think that, but they don't. The core of the fascistic take of FOXnews is inextricably tying the individual to the state, while the "liberal" view does the opposite.

Conspiracy theories are dangerous...

"They think they think that, but they don't."

It sounds to me like they're thinking it. Who cares if they "tie the individual to the state"? Over and over again, I hear pundits exclaim: "It's about personal responsibility!" I'm not saying their isn't ideology at work on FOX, but a large part of it is an ideology of individualism.

Cause and effect is real, but causality is never fully understood. We can only know in terms of probability. "Ceteris Paribus" is never a real situation.

All human action is human action. This is, of course, a truism. Who says all action, regardless of origin, is human action?

You basically just reiterated what I said with your first comment.

As far as the second, no "one" person says all action is human action; but by thinking that way you're already falling prey to the myth of individualism yet again. It's a societal phenomenon, something that emerges out of a complex whole. The truth is that very often we can't trace blame, or sometimes even statements, back to an individual; and this is not even an epistemological claim (i.e. a connection exists, we simply can't prove it), but an ontological claim (i.e. no connection actually exists).

The efforts to assign blame and responsibility are founded on the ideology/mythology of individual action. We can see these efforts at work in all facets of our culture. Immediate situations require investigations in order to determine who, if anyone, is to blame. If no one in the immediate situation is to be blamed, then the investigation expands to include the materials involved in the incident, and their manufacturers. We are a culture obsessed with assigning blame, and everything that happens must somehow be traced to an original human primum movens.

I'm not saying one person says this; and trying to find the "one person" is another example of our obsession with locating responsibility solely in individuals. I'm saying it's a larger phenomenon of society as a whole; it only emerges when you have vast and complex legal and economic institutions that necessitate reward, punishment, or payment to an original individual or entity.

What about all other animals(at least mammals) to include other dogs? When we put down a rabid dog we not only save ourselves but other dogs (and animals). It's about the closest thing to zombiism that exists. If you want to say we are anti something, it is anti-virus. Whether digital or biological. If you want to argue for Viral Rights, that would indeed be novel.

The article I linked to in my blog, "Some of My Best Friends are Germs," basically provides the groundwork for something like bacterial rights.

Do you think that our action is somehow heroic, or that these animals were unable to survive prior to the development of the rabies vaccine? Was our arrival intended so we could be saviors to the mammalian populations of the world?

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't vaccinate, or we shouldn't put down rabid animals, or that we should allow sick patients to suffer. I'm saying that we can't think of ourselves as preventing pain. We might stop rabies from spreading to a population of a few hundred dogs in a small neighborhood, but at the same time we cause irreparable damage to microbiotic life. And that's a cost we have to pay; but we should acknowledge it, not bury it under the banner of "Salvation." The way in which you described our actions even testifies to the way we valorize and glorify our action toward other animals, as though we're the saviors of the animal world.

We need to think of ourselves as equally parasitic and as, in fact, detrimental to microbiotic growth, which is an essential component of life on this planet. It is true that we have become so fixated on our own role as superior organisms on this planet that we've ignored the larger way in which our behavior has affected the global ecosystem (and ignored the fact that we're not superior to microbiota; we're far inferior in terms of survival). I assign no moral responsibility or value to our behavior toward the planet; I do assign an ethical value to our attitude toward the world, which I believe should not grant us the position of "saviors."

 

[Dak]

^I find that really interesting, but to be honest I'm not sure how much I'm down with the whole "let kids plan their education" deal. This, I believe, tries to assign way too much responsibility to young children; and hell, I'm skeptical of responsibility in adults even, as per my ongoing discussion with Dak.

Either some teacher, parent, or bureaucracy (IE , other individuals) are taking responsibility or the student is. Notice I said taking responsibility, regardless of where it should or could/not lie.

We already do this outside of schools. Why not inside?

Conspiracy theories are dangerous...

"They think they think that, but they don't."

It sounds to me like they're thinking it. Who cares if they "tie the individual to the state"? Over and over again, I hear pundits exclaim: "It's about personal responsibility!" I'm not saying their isn't ideology at work on FOX, but a large part of it is an ideology of individualism.

I think this sums it up:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYPMiXO0-fA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYPMiXO0-fA[/ame]

It appears individualistic in it's appeal, yet the aim is collectivism. Whether it's an intentional subversion or not, it is a subversion. "Doing your duty", "Supporting the troops", supporting the prison industrial complex, or MIC, or any other such thing shrouded in the flag, is all collectivistic.

Try burning the flag, or smoking a joint, or not paying taxes: All anti-collective. The Foxhead would speak an intensely collectivistic opinion on that.

You basically just reiterated what I said with your first comment.

I thought the variation on the word choice was important.

As far as the second, no "one" person says all action is human action; but by thinking that way you're already falling prey to the myth of individualism yet again. It's a societal phenomenon, something that emerges out of a complex whole. The truth is that very often we can't trace blame, or sometimes even statements, back to an individual; and this is not even an epistemological claim (i.e. a connection exists, we simply can't prove it), but an ontological claim (i.e. no connection actually exists).

The efforts to assign blame and responsibility are founded on the ideology/mythology of individual action. We can see these efforts at work in all facets of our culture. Immediate situations require investigations in order to determine who, if anyone, is to blame. If no one in the immediate situation is to be blamed, then the investigation expands to include the materials involved in the incident, and their manufacturers. We are a culture obsessed with assigning blame, and everything that happens must somehow be traced to an original human primum movens.

Only if responsibility is placed on an individual and not on a group. Wars are about one collective assigning collective responsibility to another.

What I meant by not all action is human action is specifically that. I wasn't focusing on the "no one says". There are bugs flying around outside right now, action which is completely at odds with what I wish. It's outside my control. It's not human action.

Again, investigations into cause assist us in preventing the issue in the future. Unfortunately, between imperfect information and bias, it's never a perfect inquiry.

I'm not saying one person says this; and trying to find the "one person" is another example of our obsession with locating responsibility solely in individuals. I'm saying it's a larger phenomenon of society as a whole; it only emerges when you have vast and complex legal and economic institutions that necessitate reward, punishment, or payment to an original individual or entity.

While not always in theory, history is completely filled with collective institutions utilizing the reward/punishment of complex legal systems. The payment to the individual or entity is more tricky. For example, you could argue that fines and imprisonment for transgressing against another individual are individualistic. However this is not the case in our modern system. The victim is not benefitted at all, materially anyway, by these punishments. The state is. In fact the prison system is further predation on the taxpayer, forever and always the individual subjugated to the state.

The article I linked to in my blog, "Some of My Best Friends are Germs," basically provides the groundwork for something like bacterial rights.

Do you think that our action is somehow heroic, or that these animals were unable to survive prior to the development of the rabies vaccine? Was our arrival intended so we could be saviors to the mammalian populations of the world?

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't vaccinate, or we shouldn't put down rabid animals, or that we should allow sick patients to suffer. I'm saying that we can't think of ourselves as preventing pain. We might stop rabies from spreading to a population of a few hundred dogs in a small neighborhood, but at the same time we cause irreparable damage to microbiotic life. And that's a cost we have to pay; but we should acknowledge it, not bury it under the banner of "Salvation." The way in which you described our actions even testifies to the way we valorize and glorify our action toward other animals, as though we're the saviors of the animal world.

We need to think of ourselves as equally parasitic and as, in fact, detrimental to microbiotic growth, which is an essential component of life on this planet. It is true that we have become so fixated on our own role as superior organisms on this planet that we've ignored the larger way in which our behavior has affected the global ecosystem (and ignored the fact that we're not superior to microbiota; we're far inferior in terms of survival). I assign no moral responsibility or value to our behavior toward the planet; I do assign an ethical value to our attitude toward the world, which I believe should not grant us the position of "saviors."

Ironically, this viewpoint is also messianic.

 

[Dak]

On a slightly unrelated note:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/its-official-st-louis-feds-not-labor-force-data-officially-chart

Why unemployment numbers are growing irrelevant.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-08/more-101-million-working-age-americans-do-not-have-job

 

[Einherjar86]

I think this sums it up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYPMiXO0-fA

It appears individualistic in it's appeal, yet the aim is collectivism. Whether it's an intentional subversion or not, it is a subversion. "Doing your duty", "Supporting the troops", supporting the prison industrial complex, or MIC, or any other such thing shrouded in the flag, is all collectivistic.

Try burning the flag, or smoking a joint, or not paying taxes: All anti-collective. The Foxhead would speak an intensely collectivistic opinion on that.

The aim doesn't matter as much as the appeals to individuality, which are the most important part. I know you like to paint yourself in the minority, but in all honestly no one is going to gracefully give up their beloved individuality. The ideology is vulgar collectivism; liberal democratic collectivism which still caters to the cult and mythology of the individual because that is the most powerful ideology at work in this country and what everyone values the most.

If the aim of the governmental/political institutions and movements truly is collective as you claim, then it's a concealed or hidden agenda. This, again, is conspiratorial, since it posits intentional concealment. The entire conception is flawed, from my perspective, since conspiracy has to identify intentional agents acting willfully at its heart. If the nature of cultural movement itself is toward collectivization, then it isn't conspiratorial and, in fact, it supports what I was saying earlier. We haven't moved away from the individual yet, but it's gradually happening. In your view, this movement is being done individually, maliciously, artificially, and hence undesirably. I wouldn't see the movement happening in that way.

Furthermore, I don't see it happening. Since the programs, institutions, organizations, etc. are all being performed based on appeals to individuality (conspiracy theories count here), it undermines the argument that we're already there. We can't claim that society has made such a move until the individual is removed from its loftily regarded place.

What I meant by not all action is human action is specifically that. I wasn't focusing on the "no one says". There are bugs flying around outside right now, action which is completely at odds with what I wish. It's outside my control. It's not human action.

Again, investigations into cause assist us in preventing the issue in the future. Unfortunately, between imperfect information and bias, it's never a perfect inquiry.

I'm not talking about you, though. I'm talking about the tendencies of our culture. Our culture still strives to identify human agency everywhere. Sure there are microbes that float in the air that you don't control; but if someone gets sick and dies, our institutions still conduct inquiries to determine whether any blame can be assigned to the doctors.

While not always in theory, history is completely filled with collective institutions utilizing the reward/punishment of complex legal systems. The payment to the individual or entity is more tricky. For example, you could argue that fines and imprisonment for transgressing against another individual are individualistic. However this is not the case in our modern system. The victim is not benefitted at all, materially anyway, by these punishments. The state is. In fact the prison system is further predation on the taxpayer, forever and always the individual subjugated to the state.

You see it as collective, I see it as individualistic. It's where we can assign blame, be it an individual or corporation. Hence the desire to redefine corporations as individuals.

Ironically, this viewpoint is also messianic.

I assume you mean my argument, but I don't see how.

 

[Dak]

The aim doesn't matter as much as the appeals to individuality, which are the most important part. I know you like to paint yourself in the minority, but in all honestly no one is going to gracefully give up their beloved individuality. The ideology is vulgar collectivism; liberal democratic collectivism which still caters to the cult and mythology of the individual because that is the most powerful ideology at work in this country and what everyone values the most.

If the aim of the governmental/political institutions and movements truly is collective as you claim, then it's a concealed or hidden agenda. This, again, is conspiratorial, since it posits intentional concealment. The entire conception is flawed, from my perspective, since conspiracy has to identify intentional agents acting willfully at its heart. If the nature of cultural movement itself is toward collectivization, then it isn't conspiratorial and, in fact, it supports what I was saying earlier. We haven't moved away from the individual yet, but it's gradually happening. In your view, this movement is being done individually, maliciously, artificially, and hence undesirably. I wouldn't see the movement happening in that way.

Furthermore, I don't see it happening. Since the programs, institutions, organizations, etc. are all being performed based on appeals to individuality (conspiracy theories count here), it undermines the argument that we're already there. We can't claim that society has made such a move until the individual is removed from its loftily regarded place.

Being unwilling to give up your own individuality while insisting that others do so is still collectivism. It always has been.

I also don't see where this supposed shift away from the individual is occurring at. Academia has been anti individual all the way back to Plato (really further). I think your Continental philosophy line of study combined with the insulation of academia has created a situation where you see a swelling trend towards something that has been cyclical publicly, and a steady push in the Platonic line of succession.

That all these things are appealing to the individual, whether it's business advertisement, political advertisement, etc, is only evidence against the idea that the individual is fading. I think the trend is going in the opposite direction. Increases in technology and therefore personalization are "hyper-phyling" us, nevermind the more obvious trend of hyperspecialization for work and research.

I think a big part of the disagreement is really what we see as individualistic vs collectivistic:

You see it as collective, I see it as individualistic. It's where we can assign blame, be it an individual or corporation. Hence the desire to redefine corporations as individuals.

That's supporting the strength of individualism by trying to cloak collectivism in it. Probably no more obvious example.

I assume you mean my argument, but I don't see how.

We need to save the virus' from ourselves. Savior. Messianic. Of course, in all cases digital and many biological, individuals act as both creators and/or destroyers. To create but not destroy is quite messianic.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's not messianic at all. I never said we should stop treating sick patients. It's a complete dismissal of the messianic position.

Anti-individualism in academia by no means constitutes an already-strong thrust toward anti-individualism. Academia, especially as far as leftist theory is concerned, is on the outskirts of culture; it doesn't occupy the center of cultural movement.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

What is the logic for logical reasoning?
Some say our capacity for abstract thought is a cognitive trick, yet this argument undermines itself. Can we trust our reason?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2013/may/15/what-logic-logical-reasoning


Daniel Dennett: 'You can make Aristotle look like a flaming idiot'
Daniel Dennett, a cheerleader for Darwin and atheism, attracts fierce criticism for his views on free will. He talks about his new book and explains why philosophers have to walk a tightrope

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/22/daniel-dennett-aristotle-flaming-idiot

 

[Dak]

What is the logic for logical reasoning?
Some say our capacity for abstract thought is a cognitive trick, yet this argument undermines itself. Can we trust our reason?

I agree, and this is the paradox that the various post-modernists cannot avoid. If they are right, then they are also as full of shit as anyone else.

It's not messianic at all. I never said we should stop treating sick patients. It's a complete dismissal of the messianic position.

To treat sick patients is to kill viral bodies.

Anti-individualism in academia by no means constitutes an already-strong thrust toward anti-individualism. Academia, especially as far as leftist theory is concerned, is on the outskirts of culture; it doesn't occupy the center of cultural movement.

It's been there all along in both academia and it's effects on policy (policy almost invariably being "collective" in nature), regardless of it's effects on culture. To not take center stage is not the same as not having a strong influence.

 

[Einherjar86]

This actually has little philosophical merit today:

What is the logic for logical reasoning?
Some say our capacity for abstract thought is a cognitive trick, yet this argument undermines itself. Can we trust our reason?

I agree, and this is the paradox that the various post-modernists cannot avoid. If they are right, then they are also as full of shit as anyone else.

This is an empty retort. "You can't claim that logic is a trick b/c you must rely on logical arguments in order to do so" is a flawed comprehension of the claim and begs the question.

The argument isn't that logic does not exist, but that it is a "cognitive trick." You're both (maybe not Jimmy, not sure where you stand on this issue) mistaking essence and appearance. Ray Brassier (not a postmodernist by any means) gives the refutation of the "self-refuting" objection:

Ultimately, the question-begging character of the 'self-refuting' objection [...] becomes readily apparent when we see how easily it could be adapted to block the displacement of any conceptual framework whatsoever by spuriously transcendentalizing whatever explanatory principle (or principles) happens to enjoy a monopoly in it at any given time. Patricia Churchland provides the following example [...]: 'The anti-vitalist claims there is no such thing as vital spirit. But if the claim is true the speaker cannot be animated by the vital spirit. Consequently he must be dead. But if he is dead then his claim is a meaningless string of noises, devoid of reason and truth.' Here as before, the very criterion of intelligibility whose pertinence for understanding a given phenomenon - 'life' in this case, 'meaning' in [Brassier's case] - is being called into question. But [...] anti-vitalism does not deny the existence of the various phenomena grouped together under the heading of 'life,' but rather a particular way of explaining what they have in common.

What Brassier is saying is that "cognition" isn't being called into question, nor is "logic" as it appears to us (that is, as a phenomenon), but rather how we essentialize or explain them. Calling logic a "cognitive trick" doesn't undermine our ability to make logical statements.

To treat sick patients is to kill viral bodies.

First, you implied that I was suggesting we should let patients die to save viruses. I denied this, but merely said we should refrain from thinking of ourselves as saviors in any sense: toward animals, toward viruses, or toward other humans. Now you're suggesting that I'm being messianic because of the fact that we continue to treat sick patients, when I already explicitly stated how I'm not saying we should stop treating patients but that we should stop thinking of ourselves as "saviors."

It's been there all along in both academia and it's effects on policy (policy almost invariably being "collective" in nature), regardless of it's effects on culture. To not take center stage is not the same as not having a strong influence.

It hasn't had a strong influence. Academic leftism has been traditionally ignored and even scoffed at. Only recently, with the expansion of technology and new media, has it been able to make a more profound impact on the wider cultural sphere.

 

[Dak]

This is an empty retort. "You can't claim that logic is a trick b/c you must rely on logical arguments in order to do so" is a flawed comprehension of the claim and begs the question.

The argument isn't that logic does not exist, but that it is a "cognitive trick." You're both (maybe not Jimmy, not sure where you stand on this issue) mistaking essence and appearance. Ray Brassier (not a postmodernist by any means) gives the refutation of the "self-refuting" objection:

What Brassier is saying is that "cognition" isn't being called into question, nor is "logic" as it appears to us (that is, as a phenomenon), but rather how we essentialize or explain them. Calling logic a "cognitive trick" doesn't undermine our ability to make logical statements.

I don't think the argument on consciousness or cognition is purely semantic or organizational. The core of the attack is on the dependability of human thought. If human thought is undependable, that includes the thought of questioning it.

Again, I see no difference between arguing against thought compared to "Trying to sneak up on the thing itself from behind". It's impossible to understand something else from an objective perspective, much less to understand our understanding. If you can explain how this is somehow vastly different I'm interested.

First, you implied that I was suggesting we should let patients die to save viruses. I denied this, but merely said we should refrain from thinking of ourselves as saviors in any sense: toward animals, toward viruses, or toward other humans. Now you're suggesting that I'm being messianic because of the fact that we continue to treat sick patients, when I already explicitly stated how I'm not saying we should stop treating patients but that we should stop thinking of ourselves as "saviors."

Well we can stop thinking of ourselves as saviors, but that is a semantic difference. The fact is that we take action (ignoring the motivations, or conscious/subconscious/unconscious factors, etc), and that these things have effects, up to and including destruction or creation (although obviously not really in the technical material sense: No matter is ever destroyed). Maybe a more accurate phrasing would be we constantly reassemble to new forms. When we do not reassemble in what we deem a "destructive" way, we "save" something. Or maybe by destroying one thing we "save" something else.

It's a semantic argument.

It hasn't had a strong influence. Academic leftism has been traditionally ignored and even scoffed at. Only recently, with the expansion of technology and new media, has it been able to make a more profound impact on the wider cultural sphere.

I could understand how you think this, since we disagree on what constitutes collectivism and individualism.

If you look at almost every philosophical writer of note, they are overwhelmingly collectivist, if not communist. The United States is the "Nation that Bacon Built" (not talking about Krig's favorite food). Bacon was a collectivist utopian like the rest of his peers.

Even the supposed lone voices "crying in the wilderness", like Jefferson, were only lone to a point. Then you get all this talk of "an Empire of Liberty".


On a slightly different note:

http://themisescircle.org/blog/2013/05/22/crypto-anarchy-and-libertarian-entrepreneurship-chapter-i/

I want to focus specifically on this portion:

If an entrepreneurial idea is to be adopted, it must be attractive to people who are not concerned with government risk. It is unacceptable to propose that people just stop putting money in banks and trade only in gold coins, as did both Rothbard and Mises. Libertarian entrepreneurship must simultaneously increase the division of labor and reduce risk. As successful as the homeschooling movement has been, it can never directly challenge the control of the public schools over children. An idea that promotes atomism makes everyone poorer. Not an easy sell, and self-defeating in the end too. Loners stand no chance against the state.

Individualism does not have to equal atomism. This is the biggest shortfall of homeschooling for religious reasons, although it's not the homeschooling itself that's the issue, as the atomization takes place across the full range of activities excluding those of the religious practices (or sometimes even including those).

The P2P structure is incredibly individualistic, and very free market. We all benefit as each on of us benefits, rather than one section benefiting at the expense of another, which is collectivism: The daily sacrifice of the individual.

The strategy, therefore, is to promote decentralization by enabling people to coordinate with one another by a shared system of rules or traditions rather than through a mediator. Promote independence from particular organizations by promoting greater dependence on networks and on society as a whole.