The Philosophy of Governing

[judas69]

It's been long proposed in certain eastern traditions that the best way to govern, is to not govern at all. The best way to moderate a philosophy forum for example, is to not moderate it at all. Derek and speed saw this early on where the more they tried to forcefully restrict certain expression and behaviour via removing posts, closing threads, setting up rules (thinking in their naivety that this was expected) the more opposition they quickly faced.

The idea in very simple terms is just that the more you restrict, deny or surpress something by forceful means, the more you end up encouraging it. The more force you put into changing an aspect of nature and self, even with the intention of improving it, the more you disrupt it.

Iraq is another such example.

 

[Seditious]

The idea in very simple terms is just that the more you restrict, deny or surpress something by forceful means, the more you end up encouraging it.

lol that's the problem with having teenagers in a society.

 

[ARC150]

It's been long proposed in certain eastern traditions that the best way to govern, is to not govern at all. The best way to moderate a philosophy forum for example, is to not moderate it at all. Derek and speed saw this early on where the more they tried to forcefully restrict certain expression and behaviour via removing posts, closing threads, setting up rules (thinking in their naivety that this was expected) the more opposition they quickly faced.
The idea in very simple terms is just that the more you restrict, deny or surpress something by forceful means, the more you end up encouraging it. The more force you put into changing an aspect of nature and self, even with the intention of improving it, the more you disrupt it.

The act of governing is many-layered.
The idea of "to govern, is to not govern at all" is still a system of rule. Ask yourself just what that statement actually means. What is it to not govern at all? It is to let the natural course of things...take its course. This natural course is, in itself, a construct.

To use your example of this forum:
Forget, for the moment, the actions of the moderators and look to the construct of the forum itself. It is a system wherein you can create a topic. This topic can then be addressed with responses. These responses can again be followed by further responses...but how can this system of statement-response exist? There is an underlying code-struct that allows it to function - and in a very specific fashion. This is a rule; this is a governing construct.

The idea that "The more force you put into changing an aspect of nature...the more you disrupt it" is a misconstrued idea of entropy. While it is true, in the Newtonian sense, that action within nature somehow disrupts nature, it does not speak to whether that disruption results in structure or lack of structure. To bring the moderators back to point: Regardless of how specific Moderator-actions were received, the fact that Moderator-actions exist has certainly held sway with the way the forum operates.

To wax allegorical:
To say that a river runs its own course is to deny the influence of the banks that hold it to a specific path. Even chaos is bounded. There is a bigger picture here - one that recognizes governing force as innate.

 

[speed]

It's been long proposed in certain eastern traditions that the best way to govern, is to not govern at all. The best way to moderate a philosophy forum for example, is to not moderate it at all. Derek and speed saw this early on where the more they tried to forcefully restrict certain expression and behaviour via removing posts, closing threads, setting up rules (thinking in their naivety that this was expected) the more opposition they quickly faced.

The idea in very simple terms is just that the more you restrict, deny or surpress something by forceful means, the more you end up encouraging it. The more force you put into changing an aspect of nature and self, even with the intention of improving it, the more you disrupt it.

Iraq is another such example.

Actually, there really wasnt much opposition to our closing of threads, and deletion of posts. The only opposition I can remember, was with you Judas, fah-q, Lord Red Dragon, and blaphee over the nazi thread. And I stand by my deletion and closing of posts, as I think all but a few newcomers, discovered they couldnt just show up and post idiotic threads like this one. So, we went from total anarchy, to tight moderation in the beginning, to now enlightened moderation; not bad I say.

Furthermore, I think your laissez faire generalization here is a little ridiculous. Especially using Iraq as an example. That is suppression if you will, by force, with no government, social, or legal apparatus to support the military suppression. I closed idiotic threads, threads that turned into flame wars or during the course of conversation, turned idiotic. You were pretty much the only stated opposition, and you've returned from exile.

 

[judas69]

Speed, before I left you guys were closing topics because you felt the spelling and grammar of some posts did not meet forum standards, like this was some scholarly gathering place and not a metal forum. I mean days after you were in, new sticky threads of rules started appearing that outlined what you should and shouldn't do with respect to new topic creation etc, as if the ten commandments weren't enough.

So, we went from total anarchy, to tight moderation in the beginning, to now enlightened moderation

Before the onset of all these rules (which really did nothing but create unnecessary inflexibility) this forum was it's own well governed system, definitely not anarchy.

Uncompromising and inflexible views in governing may well create fear like we see in religion, intentional or not. An example again could be drawn from this forum, as many members choose not to participate for fear of ridicule, or meeting stated or implied standards.

And I stand by my deletion and closing of posts, as I think all but a few newcomers, discovered they couldnt just show up and post idiotic threads like this one.

You're calling this post idiotic? I wonder who else agrees with you; I personally think this is a great topic.

Furthermore, I think your laissez faire generalization here is a little ridiculous. Especially using Iraq as an example.

My example with Iraq had to do with the US going in and trying to change a society by force.

You were pretty much the only stated opposition, and you've returned from exile.

Do a google, you're not the most well-liked person here and regulars know it. I left because you decided on removing all my posts because you misunderstood the difference between sympathy and empathy; putting your ego over your ability to rule impartially.

 

[Vital Remains]

the govement kicks ass. i may not agree with some of the laws concerning what people can put in their bodies, but the government keeps a roof over my head and electricity to keep me warm.

 

[speed]

Speed, before I left you guys were closing topics because you felt the spelling and grammar of some posts did not meet forum standards, like this was some scholarly gathering place and not a metal forum. I mean days after you were in, new sticky threads of rules started appearing that outlined what you should and shouldn't do with respect to new topic creation etc, as if the ten commandments weren't enough.




Before the onset of all these rules (which really did nothing but create unnecessary inflexibility) this forum was it's own well governed system, definitely not anarchy.

Uncompromising and inflexible views in governing may well create fear like we see in religion, intentional or not. An example again could be drawn from this forum, as many members choose not to participate for fear of ridicule, or meeting stated or implied standards.



You're calling this post idiotic? I wonder who else agrees with you; I personally think this is a great topic.



My example with Iraq had to do with the US going in and trying to change a society by force.


Do a google, you're not the most well-liked person here and regulars know it. I left because you decided on removing all my posts because you misunderstood the difference between sympathy and empathy; putting your ego over your ability to rule impartially.

Look, despite your vendetta against me, we've co-existed in a tolerable fashion since you've returned. But, when you post threads like this, comparing my moderation with the Iraq war, this becomes a problem. And besides, I have no power now; none, zero, zilch.

 

[judas69]

The act of governing is many-layered.
The idea of "to govern, is to not govern at all" is still a system of rule. Ask yourself just what that statement actually means. What is it to not govern at all? It is to let the natural course of things...take its course. This natural course is, in itself, a construct.

By this logic you can't escape governing at any level and thus, the definition (and this topic) becomes useless even when considering ideas of anarchy. While I agree with you whole-heartedly (infact you're hitting on exactly what I'm getting at) I think we should refrain from labelling everything a system of government by nature of what things are ..as this is somewhat defeating to the topic. Besides, I surely did not mean to imply that there was such a thing as a state without limits.

Thus, in stating that "to govern, is to not govern at all" ..I mean to say not that there is no governing going on, but only that to best governing is that not imposing man-made restriction on the natural processes and tendencies of being.

 

[judas69]

Look, despite your vendetta against me, we've co-existed in a tolerable fashion since you've returned. But, when you post threads like this, comparing my moderation with the Iraq war, this becomes a problem. And besides, I have no power now; none, zero, zilch.

The topic reads "The Philosophy of Governing" on my screen ..perhaps it's a little different on yours?

Moderation is an example to this topic of discussion, stop making this about you for christs sake.

 

[speed]

The topic reads "The Philosophy of Governing" on my screen ..perhaps it's a little different on yours?

Moderation is an example this topic of discussion, stop making this about you for christs sake.

Ahem, this is the first post in the thread:

It's been long proposed in certain eastern traditions that the best way to govern, is to not govern at all. The best way to moderate a philosophy forum for example, is to not moderate it at all. Derek and speed saw this early on where the more they tried to forcefully restrict certain expression and behaviour via removing posts, closing threads, setting up rules (thinking in their naivety that this was expected) the more opposition they quickly faced.

The idea in very simple terms is just that the more you restrict, deny or surpress something by forceful means, the more you end up encouraging it. The more force you put into changing an aspect of nature and self, even with the intention of improving it, the more you disrupt it.

Iraq is another such example.

Does this not sound like a rather direct attack/smear? And a smear based in little fact: these claims that the more opposition we faced with our moderation, the cool running of the forum before moderation, etc. All nonsense.


But regardless of this, lets address your statements or anecdotes to support your position: 1) you've somehow made a connection with Iraq and governance/freedom. Now, correct me if Im wrong, but the central problem in Iraq is about the total lack of governance. Now this flies in the face of your original "eastern form of governance" or less governance makes best governance intention. If it is suppression and oppression you wish to talk about, you've become confused. 2) That moderation, and particulary derek and I's excessive oppressive moderation hurt the board, and it stopped working as well as it did before it was without moderation. I think this is also clearly erroneous, as the forum voted to have moderation because the forum was not running smoothly on its own.

Clearly neither example works, and both are about oppression, not this laissez faire freedom you wished to discuss

 

[Nile577]

Hmm, governing...

1 - Self

The more force you put into changing an aspect of nature and self, even with the intention of improving it, the more you disrupt it.

With respect, I find the joint classification of 'self' and 'government' - as if they are comparable entities - rather troublesome. The notion that it is impossible to effect change in self, regardless of whether that change is 'positive' or 'negative' would mean that the 'self' loses all sentience, having no power to alter its situation. This resolves in a tautology, whereby one is unable to decide to do nothing because deciding to do nothing will constitute an example of the will to self-govern.

Therefore, I am not convinced that ARC150's logical qualm can be dismissed so easily, especially 'simply for the purposes of this thread.'

Even if it were possible, it seems to me that the idea of utter resignation to fate is rather unattractive. Man is part of nature (he gives natural things 'meaning') and in his existence is able to interact with the world through care. I believe hard work pays off in the real world and that it's quite possible to improve your understanding of something, change your behaviour, or alter your circumstances and environment in a 'positive' way. Evidence for this is how one's linguistic ability in a foreign language can be improved with six months of diligent study.

2 - Iraq:

Moving to the sphere of government and specifically Iraq, it seems to me that if the current governing body were to dissolve and American and British troops were withdrawn, the country would wade through a bloodbath until might dictated that it divide in three. At this point, distinct governing bodies would emerge.

Speed makes an astute point in recognising that the lack of government is a more pressing issue. Hussein maintained the unity of a bitterly divided nation through a mixture of authoritarian repression and calculated laissez faire. Its ethics aside for a moment, under this strong government, fewer lives were lost each day and more people had electrical power, water and access to basic human amenities. You seem to recognise this in suggesting that by interfering we have 'worsened' the situation in Iraq, but considering the regime which preceded the American was, at least overtly, more fascistic and oppressive, I am confused as to how this corresponds to the thesis of your argument.

3 - Forums:

This will cover everything I ever want to say on the matter, since discussion of moderator 'power' on the internet worries me and makes me feel ill.

It's a difficult issue, I think. I don't agree with your idea that because this is a 'Metal' forum all qualitative standards are inherently pretentious and meaningless. Or rather, I might agree that Metal is mostly anti-authority but how you set things up above makes it look as if you juxtapose the genre with intellectualism as if to argue: metal can never be ‘intellectual.’

Yes, I agree, by your definition, this forum isn't and never will be solely geared towards 'academic' philosophy, but I do not think this means that it should wholly cast away common standards of written communication (spelling, grammar etc). These standards arise separate from 'academia' and I am confused as to why you equate them in your post.

Also, following from a thread here about the art of conversation, can the point not be made that, qualitatively, a little exclusivity in debates can sometimes (not always) be a good thing?

I think this touches on a post I made in response to 'Vital Remains' in the 9/11 thread. I concur with you to an extent that enforcing standards is rather unnecessary but I think my agreement would come from a differing viewpoint. The issue seems to be whether great ideas can come in poorly worded, misspelt form. Yes, of course, they can. Are form, spelling and grammar important though? Yes, they are. While leaving said posts intact allows individuals (rightly or wrongly) to decide how much a poorly presented post undermines an argument, it also has the downside of potentially putting off new visitors who see a forum filled with illiteracy and conclude that this can’t be reconciled with the stated goal of having 'intelligent' conversations. Therefore, my personal preference in moderation is to gently suggest that such posts be improved only if they are excessively bad. This, hopefully, straddles the line between the pedantic and the wholly lacking in standards.

What constitutes 'excessively' bad? Well, it sucks, but ultimately that's down to personal preference. I'm quite sure an expert would pick apart my threads and find clumsy or redundant phrases and I will also readily admit to being absolutely woeful at spelling. However, using a spellchecker and proof-reading posts to make them as accurate as possible is surely a simple courtesy to other readers. Allowances should be made, of course, for those whose first language is not English.

Finally, the title of this board jointly implies a certain implicit 'elitism' - other discussions on ultimatemetal are supposedly NOT 'intelligent' - while also subtely mocking such elitism - philosophy is somehow different from 'normal' thought and hence needs its own area (where we know so much about nothing at all?). A certain dramatic pretence (you pseuds!) is evident in 'THE philosopher' also, no? This in itself is a form of governance and it is in accordance to the aims of this sectionalised board that moderators are appointed. In everything I have seen, Derek and Speed were superb moderators and always placed what they felt to be the health of the board above personal drama.

I do sympathise with your views somewhat - I am mostly against moderation. I have, however, yet to see a productive forum without it. If it is any comfort, I would never delete or close a post based on a disagreement with its opinion. Perhaps it is best to think of us as a ‘necessary evil.’ For my part, I will try and moderate with a minimum quota of ‘assholeness’

(Just long and tedious posts)

 

[judas69]

1 - Self
With respect, I find the joint classification of 'self' and 'government' - as if they are comparable entities - rather troublesome. The notion that it is impossible to effect change in self, regardless of whether that change is 'positive' or 'negative' would mean that the 'self' loses all sentience, having no power to alter its situation. This resolves in a tautology, whereby one is unable to decide to do nothing because deciding to do nothing will constitute an example of the will to self-govern.

Therefore, I am not convinced that ARC150's logical qualm can be dismissed so easily, especially 'simply for the purposes of this thread.'

Any apparent contradition is completely resolved when you understand that to not "self-govern" is to not "self-block". By imposing unnecessary rules in a system, you are blocking it; this should have been apparent.

I believe hard work pays off in the real world and that it's quite possible to improve your understanding of something, change your behaviour, or alter your circumstances and environment in a 'positive' way. Evidence for this is how one's linguistic ability in a foreign language can be improved with six months of diligent study.

The more you desire to change, the more you have to change. It's no wonder the complexity of problems increases to match the level of advancement.

2 - Iraq:

Moving to the sphere of government and specifically Iraq, it seems to me that if the current governing body were to dissolve and American and British troops were withdrawn, the country would wade through a bloodbath until might dictated that it divide in three. At this point, distinct governing bodies would emerge.

Speed makes an astute point in recognising that the lack of government is a more pressing issue. Hussein maintained the unity of a bitterly divided nation through a mixture of authoritarian repression and calculated laissez faire. Its ethics aside for a moment, under this strong government, fewer lives were lost each day and more people had electrical power, water and access to basic human amenities. You seem to recognise this in suggesting that by interfering we have 'worsened' the situation in Iraq, but considering the regime which preceded the American was, at least overtly, more fascistic and oppressive, I am confused as to how this corresponds to the thesis of your argument.

Fundametalism in their religion for example, is very much an overlooked governing body.

3 - Forums:

This will cover everything I ever want to say on the matter, since discussion of moderator 'power' on the internet worries me and makes me feel ill.

It's a difficult issue, I think. I don't agree with your idea that because this is a 'Metal' forum all qualitative standards are inherently pretentious and meaningless. Or rather, I might agree that Metal is mostly anti-authority but how you set things up above makes it look as if you juxtapose the genre with intellectualism as if to argue: metal can never be ‘intellectual.’

Yes, I agree, by your definition, this forum isn't and never will be solely geared towards 'academic' philosophy, but I do not think this means that it should wholly cast away common standards of written communication (spelling, grammar etc). These standards arise separate from 'academia' and I am confused as to why you equate them in your post.

Academia is inflexible by nature of what it is. Do you want to hold non-intellectual metalheads to the same uncompromising standards? What about members from different countries whose native language is not english? Perhaps they should spend a couple years in deep study of the language before they even think to make a post.

Inherent to intellectualism appears to be intolerance; I'd prefer not to see that here.

Also, following from a thread here about the art of conversation, can the point not be made that, qualitatively, a little exclusivity in debates can sometimes (not always) be a good thing?

I think this touches on a post I made in response to 'Vital Remains' in the 9/11 thread. I concur with you to an extent that enforcing standards is rather unnecessary but I think my agreement would come from a differing viewpoint. The issue seems to be whether great ideas can come in poorly worded, misspelt form. Yes, of course, they can. Are form, spelling and grammar important though? Yes, they are. While leaving said posts intact allows individuals (rightly or wrongly) to decide how much a poorly presented post undermines an argument, it also has the downside of potentially putting off new visitors who see a forum filled with illiteracy and conclude that this can’t be reconciled with the stated goal of having 'intelligent' conversations. Therefore, my personal preference in moderation is to gently suggest that such posts be improved only if they are excessively bad. This, hopefully, straddles the line between the pedantic and the wholly lacking in standards.

What constitutes 'excessively' bad? Well, it sucks, but ultimately that's down to personal preference. I'm quite sure an expert would pick apart my threads and find clumsy or redundant phrases and I will also readily admit to being absolutely woeful at spelling. However, using a spellchecker and proof-reading posts to make them as accurate as possible is surely a simple courtesy to other readers. Allowances should be made, of course, for those whose first language is not English.

Finally, the title of this board jointly implies a certain implicit 'elitism' - other discussions on ultimatemetal are supposedly NOT 'intelligent' - while also subtely mocking such elitism - philosophy is somehow different from 'normal' thought and hence needs its own area (where we know so much about nothing at all?). A certain dramatic pretence (you pseuds!) is evident in 'THE philosopher' also, no? This in itself is a form of governance and it is in accordance to the aims of this sectionalised board that moderators are appointed. In everything I have seen, Derek and Speed were superb moderators and always placed what they felt to be the health of the board above personal drama.

I do sympathise with your views somewhat - I am mostly against moderation. I have, however, yet to see a productive forum without it. If it is any comfort, I would never delete or close a post based on a disagreement with its opinion. Perhaps it is best to think of us as a ‘necessary evil.’ For my part, I will try and moderate with a minimum quota of ‘assholeness’

(Just long and tedious posts)

The one assumption you've made here is that the society, the message board, the poster, his message, the moderator and subsequent ideas of betterment and improvement, exist on a scale towards perfection. To strive towards perfection is to get caught up in striving and ultimately making matters worse thus, the claim is not that the society left alone is perfect, but that it is more balanced than the alternative.

We live in an imperfect world and to assume or expect perfection or a seemless society without trouble or tradeoff, is to be blinded by your own intellectualism.

 

[Nile577]

This will be my final post in the thread.

Any apparent contradition is completely resolved when you understand that to not "self-govern" is to not "self-block". By imposing unnecessary rules in a system, you are blocking it; this should have been apparent.

This makes no sense.

'Self-block' implies a belief that ascetic renunciation of the will leads to perfection (a state of 'non blockedness'). This renders the concluding statement of your post, in which you dishonestly castigate me for the same, transparently hypocritical. Far from being 'completely resolved,' unfortunately the contradiction is evident and is not refuted as expressed in my initial argument.

Academia is inflexible by nature of what it is. Do you want to hold non-intellectual metalheads to the same uncompromising standards? What about members from different countries whose native language is not english? Perhaps they should spend a couple years in deep study of the language before they even think to make a post. Inherent to intellectualism appears to be intolerance; I'd prefer not to see that here.

I directly covered the issue of non-native speakers (as does Derek in the guidelines thread) in my post. 'Non-intellectual' (what does that term mean anyway?) Metalheads are welcome to post here. I have no bias against such people. I do, however, detect strong intolerance in your posts of those you deem 'intellectual.'

We seem destined to disagree. I understand your position but cannot accept it. For the purposes of this board, mostly, moderation is just done to merge similar threads, delete double posts and sticky certain items deemed important. I can anticipate what your refutation will be but, since I cannot state my case more clearly than I already have, and worrying over moderation as opposed to contributing to the board alarms me, I will leave the discussion at this point.

I'm pleased that you contribute here and regularly start new threads. Please, even if you dislike the system, do continue to post!

 

[judas69]

'Self-block' implies a belief that ascetic renunciation of the will leads to perfection (a state of 'non blockedness'). This renders the concluding statement of your post, in which you dishonestly castigate me for the same, transparently hypocritical. Far from being 'completely resolved,' unfortunately the contradiction is evident and is not refuted as expressed in my initial argument.

There is no allusion to "perfection" in self-blocking so, you're really stretching it there I'm afraid.

As far as the alleged contradiction goes, Arc was arguing that a true state of non-government could not exist because all things by nature of their attributes create unavoidable limits and restrictions in the system and consequently, unintentionally act as an inescable form of government (not in the way of determinism). I did not disagree with this, but I assured him in so many words that this would only bog down the point of this discussion which had everything to do with "man imposed governing" in a general sense.

Then you came along and apparently misunderstood his arguement for one grounded in determinism, something I had assumed you weren't doing because (1) few people are determinists and (2) you would just be introducing a separate topic which would only convolute the discussion.

Assuming that this was not grounded in determinism, my response was fitting for someone who was thinking that it was probably not possible to not govern oneself, as you had asked, because what would non-governing entail if it, itself, could be considered a form of governing? My simple answer to this was to reword "non-governing" to "non-blocking" which is to say, leave it all up to nature (which I mentioned to Arc previously that this is infact what I was getting at).

However, it is clear to me now that you were infact going the way of free will vs. determinism (sadly) which again is pointless and only creates an unnecessary detour we will never resolve enough to even consider my topic.

 

[judas69]

All this talk (the most from Nile) and absolutely no comment towards the topic, very telling.

 

[Nile577]

However, it is clear to me now that you were infact [again] going the way of free will

egads that's incredibly lame humour. sorry.

 

[judas69]

Once again, it appears you're out to sea.

 

[OldScratch]

egads that's incredibly lame humour. sorry.

Actually it's pretty darned funny. It's good to lighten things up here now again, I think!

 

[speed]

I was just reading a book about Taoism and Confucianism, when I realized what judas was getting at here, but failed to really elaborate on or explain.

In Taoism, there is an idea of harmony/order that is essentially anarchistic. As Chuang-tzu said 24 centuries ago, "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone." This theory has been said to coincide with the idea of spontaneous order from Friedrich Hayek. Spontaneous order for all the non-economists out there is essentially the phenomenom that occurs when individuals follow a set of self-interest based rules without a central authority designing a plan for everyone. The result of this spontaneous order is a pattern that is almost always more effective and efficient than something that is planned. Thus, as in Toaism, there is a belief that nature, chaos, etc, will actually develop the most efficient patterns/system. It is in effect, analagous to chaos theory.

I'm actually a huge fan of Hayek, even if he 's considered to be a very right wing libertarian capitalist, as most of his thought transcends economics, or questions the very validity of economics. But, again, the very idea of taoism, offered these very naturalistic and I'd say wise ideas, millenia before laissez fair and anarchist economics arose in the west.

 

[judas69]

Don't forget speed, not a week ago you considered this thread "idiotic" and well, subsequently helped destroy it on no other basis but your own personal incomprehension of such an intuitive topic and of course, suspected indignation.