A fortiori, I don’t put much stock into any kind of “emancipatory” project, even the emancipation of Capital. That doesn’t mean that xenofeminist-like trends can’t have any part to play in future formats, but there will be future formats. Queerness is a little peculiar. On the one hand, it’s evolutionarily self-destructive, but on the other, the liberal atomization ratchet still seems well apace. I don’t know what will happen to it, because while the whole identity mania is a ridiculous dead-end, there’s plenty to deterritorialize about human subjectivity, and that means things should keep getting weirder for some time.
I remain unconvinced by the notion that humans have ever been running this planet. Currently, there seems to be a handover from various external agents to ChatGPT. Still, if we can find a window of opportunity, who knows, maybe Kernel Liberalism would be cool.
The planet as such, most certainly not. But if nothing at all could be governed, there'd be no use for brains. So yes, it's a matter of finding scope and indeed what I'm proposing here is mainly a reduction in scope to much more defined and defensible grounds, both intellectually and practically.
I guess brains developed to assist in the continuance of certain evolutionary algorithmic goals. And our capacity to be objective gave us a certain uprightness of being. But most great leaps of science seem to have proceeded from some form of external intuitive download... Szillard at the traffic lights picturing a chain reaction etc. And our acquired intellectual rigidity blinds us as to meaningful self knowledge. We imagine a simulation but can't see a way to find the ones and noughts.
And they assist how? By collating information and controlling connected systems accordingly. Those same scientists will also tell you that intuition is built over many years of careful and intentional practice. I don’t mean to suggest the self-sufficiency of control, only that it has its place, even if usually quite difficult if not outright impossible to find.
Yes, control is totally useful and necessary. Just that evolutionarily derived control is inevitably fear-dominated and leaves us constantly under threat from Leftist betas desperate to insert negative feedback loops - safetyism & fairness - into the heart of human culture.
The argument against science as the principle vehicle through which civilisation has come about for me relates to the fact that things are in such a mess right now. When the external agents and the libidinal energy flow they serve to guide pull out, things fall apart very quickly, leaving various bona fide geniuses clinging to right-wing ethnonationalism in their desperation to understand why.
Your analysis would benefit from a comparative politics perspective. To get a sense of what compromises are workable and worthwhile, it's always good to look around and see what other countries are doing. From the top of my mind, we have:
1. Germany's Defensive Democracy - where the Blob decided to rule openly
2. France with its (Social) Democratic Republic - from afar seems the most similar to OG Liberalism
3. Eastern European/Middle Eastern Kleptocratic Democracies - coming in various shades from Orbánism to Putinism to Erdoğanism
4. Royal Democracies, e.g., Morocco and Thailand
5. Japan where they have elections which LDP party always won in the last 70 years through some kind of black magic
BTW all of them have an administrative state, so I don't think it's going anywhere.
This is good, yes, and thank you. To clarify, when I say days counted I mean something at the historical scale, not 5 or even 20 years. As for "as we know it", the way I see it, it subsists on certain differentials that in practice are becoming (partly due to overexploitation of substrate by the administrative state itself) unsustainable, so it has to find new ones, evolve into a different format entirely, or die.
The administrative state is like the free market and democracy. Unchecked, the latter two produce monopolies and the Gilded Age, or stimmy checks and permanent budget crises. The former inflames tensions within the population to justify expanding itself and eventually metastasizes into the Blob.
Imo, we should sharply limit the administrative state instead of trying to get rid of it, like we did with the free market and democracy.
Regarding (1) I immediately thought of Rothbards discussion on slavery- how since the slavery can run away in the future, any contract in the present is non binding. Obviously this is logically inconsistent with his other ideas, but is an interesting point. Maybe contract law under liberalism needs to be revisited. In DeFi dapps, all lending is collateralized and instantaneous, and the only penalty is seizure of collateral. Projects that tried to create unsecured lines with credit scores have generally failed. Going back to the slavery example, perhaps unsecured credit should be viewed as wrong for the same reasons - with the mechanisitic benefit that our contemporary machines can enforce secured but not unsecured credit.
Easy to see how this could be extended more broadly to all contracts.
Sir, I have a few questions, what is R/ACC's perspective on concepts such as queerness and xenofeminism etc? My questions are a bit bad, but sorry.
A fortiori, I don’t put much stock into any kind of “emancipatory” project, even the emancipation of Capital. That doesn’t mean that xenofeminist-like trends can’t have any part to play in future formats, but there will be future formats. Queerness is a little peculiar. On the one hand, it’s evolutionarily self-destructive, but on the other, the liberal atomization ratchet still seems well apace. I don’t know what will happen to it, because while the whole identity mania is a ridiculous dead-end, there’s plenty to deterritorialize about human subjectivity, and that means things should keep getting weirder for some time.
Thank you for answering.
I remain unconvinced by the notion that humans have ever been running this planet. Currently, there seems to be a handover from various external agents to ChatGPT. Still, if we can find a window of opportunity, who knows, maybe Kernel Liberalism would be cool.
The planet as such, most certainly not. But if nothing at all could be governed, there'd be no use for brains. So yes, it's a matter of finding scope and indeed what I'm proposing here is mainly a reduction in scope to much more defined and defensible grounds, both intellectually and practically.
I guess brains developed to assist in the continuance of certain evolutionary algorithmic goals. And our capacity to be objective gave us a certain uprightness of being. But most great leaps of science seem to have proceeded from some form of external intuitive download... Szillard at the traffic lights picturing a chain reaction etc. And our acquired intellectual rigidity blinds us as to meaningful self knowledge. We imagine a simulation but can't see a way to find the ones and noughts.
And they assist how? By collating information and controlling connected systems accordingly. Those same scientists will also tell you that intuition is built over many years of careful and intentional practice. I don’t mean to suggest the self-sufficiency of control, only that it has its place, even if usually quite difficult if not outright impossible to find.
Yes, control is totally useful and necessary. Just that evolutionarily derived control is inevitably fear-dominated and leaves us constantly under threat from Leftist betas desperate to insert negative feedback loops - safetyism & fairness - into the heart of human culture.
The argument against science as the principle vehicle through which civilisation has come about for me relates to the fact that things are in such a mess right now. When the external agents and the libidinal energy flow they serve to guide pull out, things fall apart very quickly, leaving various bona fide geniuses clinging to right-wing ethnonationalism in their desperation to understand why.
Your analysis would benefit from a comparative politics perspective. To get a sense of what compromises are workable and worthwhile, it's always good to look around and see what other countries are doing. From the top of my mind, we have:
1. Germany's Defensive Democracy - where the Blob decided to rule openly
2. France with its (Social) Democratic Republic - from afar seems the most similar to OG Liberalism
3. Eastern European/Middle Eastern Kleptocratic Democracies - coming in various shades from Orbánism to Putinism to Erdoğanism
4. Royal Democracies, e.g., Morocco and Thailand
5. Japan where they have elections which LDP party always won in the last 70 years through some kind of black magic
BTW all of them have an administrative state, so I don't think it's going anywhere.
This is good, yes, and thank you. To clarify, when I say days counted I mean something at the historical scale, not 5 or even 20 years. As for "as we know it", the way I see it, it subsists on certain differentials that in practice are becoming (partly due to overexploitation of substrate by the administrative state itself) unsustainable, so it has to find new ones, evolve into a different format entirely, or die.
The administrative state is like the free market and democracy. Unchecked, the latter two produce monopolies and the Gilded Age, or stimmy checks and permanent budget crises. The former inflames tensions within the population to justify expanding itself and eventually metastasizes into the Blob.
Imo, we should sharply limit the administrative state instead of trying to get rid of it, like we did with the free market and democracy.
Regarding (1) I immediately thought of Rothbards discussion on slavery- how since the slavery can run away in the future, any contract in the present is non binding. Obviously this is logically inconsistent with his other ideas, but is an interesting point. Maybe contract law under liberalism needs to be revisited. In DeFi dapps, all lending is collateralized and instantaneous, and the only penalty is seizure of collateral. Projects that tried to create unsecured lines with credit scores have generally failed. Going back to the slavery example, perhaps unsecured credit should be viewed as wrong for the same reasons - with the mechanisitic benefit that our contemporary machines can enforce secured but not unsecured credit.
Easy to see how this could be extended more broadly to all contracts.
Wasn't aware about DeFi and unsecured lines. I don't know much about contract law, but that's very interesting.