LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[The East Marches II]

Unless you want your biobots developing into suicidal non-producers, you better have a unified worldview to present to them.

I think you're misunderstanding. Social isolation doesn't cause cultural changes, it causes a philosophical breakdown that results in loss of the self.

No, I mean our lack of belief, even if fake, has created a hellscape and most people do not have the will to thrive in such a world. They crave meaning of some sort. If the powers that be abdicate such a responsibility, people will find it elsewhere.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think you're misunderstanding. Social isolation doesn't cause cultural changes, it causes a philosophical breakdown that results in loss of the self.

No, I mean our lack of belief, even if fake, has created a hellscape and most people do not have the will to thrive in such a world. They crave meaning of some sort. If the powers that be abdicate such a responsibility, people will find it elsewhere.

Yes, that makes you a postmodernist.

[The East Marches II]

No, I mean our lack of belief, even if fake, has created a hellscape and most people do not have the will to thrive in such a world. They crave meaning of some sort. If the powers that be abdicate such a responsibility, people will find it elsewhere.

Yes, that makes you a postmodernist.

I'm also insane and don't really believe in anything. If I'm making these observations, one wonders why the geniuses in the unis continue to tear down cultural meaning.

[The East Marches II]

Ethicists are nothing more than modern day priests and no government should take them seriously.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes, that makes you a postmodernist.

I'm also insane and don't really believe in anything. If I'm making these observations, one wonders why the geniuses in the unis continue to tear down cultural meaning.

So are you though. You're just saying that because no cultural meaning actually exists, we must create a false construct to be that meaning. There are postmodernists who have been saying that for decades. There's even a name for that philosophy.

[Dumb Ideologies]

No, I mean our lack of belief, even if fake, has created a hellscape and most people do not have the will to thrive in such a world. They crave meaning of some sort. If the powers that be abdicate such a responsibility, people will find it elsewhere.

Yes, that makes you a postmodernist.

It's a peculiar thing. I don't think you're misinterpreting them, but I find it difficult to grapple with an intellectual movement being sceptical towards and seeking to deconstruct metanarratives and then claiming that those alienated by the ideological conditions they've helped to create are evidence of their correctness rather than evidence of their social view not in fact being a grand liberation from "big stories" but instead being an anti-human mistake that needs to be retreated from.

It feels an awful lot like a group trying to close all the cake shops and then saying that people being sad about it is evidence for post-bakerism rather than a good reason to reopen the cake shops.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes, that makes you a postmodernist.

It's a peculiar thing. I don't think you're misinterpreting them, but I find it difficult to grapple with an intellectual movement being sceptical towards and seeking to deconstruct metanarratives and then claiming that those alienated by the ideological conditions they've helped to create are evidence of their correctness rather than evidence of their social view not in fact being a grand liberation from "big stories" but instead being an anti-human mistake that needs to be retreated from.

They didn't create the ideological conditions, the modernist ideology broke down because it was absurd. The postmodernists were considered loons not that long ago, but how could they be dismissed when we were met with absolute proof that we are not rational beings, and even with evidence that our consciousness is constructed and not independent?

[The East Marches II]

It's a peculiar thing. I don't think you're misinterpreting them, but I find it difficult to grapple with an intellectual movement being sceptical towards and seeking to deconstruct metanarratives and then claiming that those alienated by the ideological conditions they've helped to create are evidence of their correctness rather than evidence of their social view not in fact being a grand liberation from "big stories" but instead being an anti-human mistake that needs to be retreated from.

They didn't create the ideological conditions, the modernist ideology broke down because it was absurd. The postmodernists were considered loons not that long ago, but how could they be dismissed when we were met with absolute proof that we are not rational beings, and even with evidence that our consciousness is constructed and not independent?

They can be dismissed because their consequences were easily predicted. They can be dismissed because their practical effect on the world has been unmitigated disaster.

[United Muscovite Nations]

They didn't create the ideological conditions, the modernist ideology broke down because it was absurd. The postmodernists were considered loons not that long ago, but how could they be dismissed when we were met with absolute proof that we are not rational beings, and even with evidence that our consciousness is constructed and not independent?

They can be dismissed because their consequences were easily predicted. They can be dismissed because their practical effect on the world has been unmitigated disaster.

They didn't have an effect, they simply described the world as it is, and were correct. Rationalist theories failed to predict what they predicted about politics and psychology.

Also, history itself backs them up.

[The East Marches II]

They can be dismissed because their consequences were easily predicted. They can be dismissed because their practical effect on the world has been unmitigated disaster.

They didn't have an effect, they simply described the world as it is, and were correct. Rationalist theories failed to predict what they predicted about politics and psychology.

Also, history itself backs them up.

They have been activate participants and the driving force behind the bakery shop closures to use DI's example. They shouldn't be taken seriously, they themselves believe in nothing anyway. Force is apparently the only reality that will break through to them.

[Dumb Ideologies]

It's a peculiar thing. I don't think you're misinterpreting them, but I find it difficult to grapple with an intellectual movement being sceptical towards and seeking to deconstruct metanarratives and then claiming that those alienated by the ideological conditions they've helped to create are evidence of their correctness rather than evidence of their social view not in fact being a grand liberation from "big stories" but instead being an anti-human mistake that needs to be retreated from.

They didn't create the ideological conditions, the modernist ideology broke down because it was absurd. The postmodernists were considered loons not that long ago, but how could they be dismissed when we were met with absolute proof that we are not rational beings, and even with evidence that our consciousness is constructed and not independent?

If people accepted and internalised such analyses they'd be filled with constant doubt, depression and directionlessness. It would also contribute to injustice as any systemic analysis of power and inequality can simply be dismissed as a metanarrative. Would it not then seem to be the most absurd "big story" of all, the most undesirable in both individual and collective terms, and be required under its own terms of reference to be cast aside? It doesn't seem to take anyone anywhere except permanent inertia, the heat death of the intellectual universe.

[United Muscovite Nations]

They didn't have an effect, they simply described the world as it is, and were correct. Rationalist theories failed to predict what they predicted about politics and psychology.

Also, history itself backs them up.

They have been activate participants and the driving force behind the bakery shop closures to use DI's example. They shouldn't be taken seriously, they themselves believe in nothing anyway. Force is apparently the only reality that will break through to them.

You would be proving them right. Foucalt might say that you are constructing your own prison because it is safer within the walls than without.

[United Muscovite Nations]

They didn't create the ideological conditions, the modernist ideology broke down because it was absurd. The postmodernists were considered loons not that long ago, but how could they be dismissed when we were met with absolute proof that we are not rational beings, and even with evidence that our consciousness is constructed and not independent?

If people accepted and internalised such analyses they'd be filled with constant doubt, depression and directionlessness. It would also contribute to injustice as any systemic analysis of power and inequality can simply be dismissed as a metanarrative. Would it not then seem to be the most absurd "big story" of all, the most undesirable in both individual and collective terms, and be required under its own terms of reference to be cast aside? It doesn't seem to take anyone anywhere except permanent inertia, the heat death of the intellectual universe.

It's not a "big story", it's the rejection of big stories. It says that the world is a chaotic place that is unpredictable, because humans are not rational beings, but rather that our rationality is constrained by socially constructed "prisons", and that our selves are themselves constructed. It has rejected systemic analysis of power and inequality because any systemic analysis falls apart when you find out that those "in power" are also in a "prison."

[The East Marches II]

They have been activate participants and the driving force behind the bakery shop closures to use DI's example. They shouldn't be taken seriously, they themselves believe in nothing anyway. Force is apparently the only reality that will break through to them.

You would be proving them right. Foucalt might say that you are constructing your own prison because it is safer within the walls than without.

And so what? It's not like they believe in anything anyway. Meanwhile it's been a total front collapse for normalfags. People crave that security. Most can't even give me a reason not to kill them that doesn't involve some form of force retaliation. You can't apparently reason with them, you can't argue on the same moral plane even, that leaves only force as the ultimate resolver with those sorts.

[Dumb Ideologies]

If people accepted and internalised such analyses they'd be filled with constant doubt, depression and directionlessness. It would also contribute to injustice as any systemic analysis of power and inequality can simply be dismissed as a metanarrative. Would it not then seem to be the most absurd "big story" of all, the most undesirable in both individual and collective terms, and be required under its own terms of reference to be cast aside? It doesn't seem to take anyone anywhere except permanent inertia, the heat death of the intellectual universe.

It's not a "big story", it's the rejection of big stories. It says that the world is a chaotic place that is unpredictable, because humans are not rational beings, but rather that our rationality is constrained by socially constructed "prisons", and that our selves are themselves constructed. It has rejected systemic analysis of power and inequality because any systemic analysis falls apart when you find out that those "in power" are also in a "prison."

You can surely see how that massively serves the interests of the existing elites. Saying everyone is equally imprisoned obscures that those with more resources and more social capital are able to exert more influence over the shape of the social and political systems, and that they'll tend to do so in ways that benefit their interests over others. If that level of analysis is off limits then critique is dead in a ditch. When you're done taking part every piece of lego you've still got to put it back together in some shape or another unless we go back to living as cavemen and grunting at each other; you've still got to address questions of resource allocation, you've still got to try to build/maintain a good society. You can't just sit in your pants, wonder if you exist, and slap yourself whenever you start trying to look at pictures bigger than yourself. That's madness.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not a "big story", it's the rejection of big stories. It says that the world is a chaotic place that is unpredictable, because humans are not rational beings, but rather that our rationality is constrained by socially constructed "prisons", and that our selves are themselves constructed. It has rejected systemic analysis of power and inequality because any systemic analysis falls apart when you find out that those "in power" are also in a "prison."

You can surely see how that massively serves the interests of the existing elites. Saying everyone is equally imprisoned obscures that those with more resources and more social capital are able to exert more influence over the shape of the social and political systems, and that they'll tend to do so in ways that benefit their interests over others. If that level of analysis is off limits then critique is dead in a ditch. When you're done taking part every piece of lego you've still got to put it back together in some shape or another unless we go back to living as cavemen and grunting at each other; you've still got to address questions of resource allocation, you've still got to try to build/maintain a good society. You can't just sit in your pants, wonder if you exist, and slap yourself whenever you start trying to look at pictures bigger than yourself. That's madness.

The underlined part is what the postmodernists have a problem with, because it appears from what we have learned about the ruling elite that they don't simply act in their own self-interest, but rather that most have ideologies which they believe in just as strongly as regular people, which means that, according to the postmodernists, they have constructed a prison for themselves in which they are obligated to serve a purpose, even if they do not want to. The age old example is that of a king or emperor. Kings and Emperors may not want to be kings or emperors, but they have constructed for themselves an ideology which obligates them to be such, and so they are really as much slaves to the ruling ideology as much as anyone else, perhaps even moreso, as every action they undertake will be scrutinized in light of this and they even lose their own individuality to their place in the system.

[Dumb Ideologies]

You can surely see how that massively serves the interests of the existing elites. Saying everyone is equally imprisoned obscures that those with more resources and more social capital are able to exert more influence over the shape of the social and political systems, and that they'll tend to do so in ways that benefit their interests over others. If that level of analysis is off limits then critique is dead in a ditch. When you're done taking part every piece of lego you've still got to put it back together in some shape or another unless we go back to living as cavemen and grunting at each other; you've still got to address questions of resource allocation, you've still got to try to build/maintain a good society. You can't just sit in your pants, wonder if you exist, and slap yourself whenever you start trying to look at pictures bigger than yourself. That's madness.

The underlined part is what the postmodernists have a problem with, because it appears from what we have learned about the ruling elite that they don't simply act in their own self-interest, but rather that most have ideologies which they believe in just as strongly as regular people, which means that, according to the postmodernists, they have constructed a prison for themselves in which they are obligated to serve a purpose, even if they do not want to. The age old example is that of a king or emperor. Kings and Emperors may not want to be kings or emperors, but they have constructed for themselves an ideology which obligates them to be such, and so they are really as much slaves to the ruling ideology as much as anyone else, perhaps even moreso, as every action they undertake will be scrutinized in light of this and they even lose their own individuality to their place in the system.

That's true to an extent but some people are selfish or power-hungry, some sets of social arrangements can be unjust and people can be justified in wanting to change them. While postmodernists undoubtedly tut at the status quo, the way that they tut at any movement to alter anything gives the impression that anything is an equal prison to anything else so why bother. And clearly that's not what they're intending because many of them come out with - admittedly very vague - aspirations for destabilising illogical hierarchies and liberating people by loosening social norms (though often in some questionable and slightly troubling ways, but that's maybe a point for another time).

[United Muscovite Nations]

The underlined part is what the postmodernists have a problem with, because it appears from what we have learned about the ruling elite that they don't simply act in their own self-interest, but rather that most have ideologies which they believe in just as strongly as regular people, which means that, according to the postmodernists, they have constructed a prison for themselves in which they are obligated to serve a purpose, even if they do not want to. The age old example is that of a king or emperor. Kings and Emperors may not want to be kings or emperors, but they have constructed for themselves an ideology which obligates them to be such, and so they are really as much slaves to the ruling ideology as much as anyone else, perhaps even moreso, as every action they undertake will be scrutinized in light of this and they even lose their own individuality to their place in the system.

That's true to an extent but some people are selfish or power-hungry, some sets of social arrangements can be unjust and people can be justified in wanting to change them.

Some people are, but were they born that way is the question that the postmodernists seek to answer? The answer is that they were not, rather, they are so because modernist philosophy convinced them that it was the rational thing to be self-interested, which is a criticism that has existed since the 1800's when Dostoevsky writes Luzhin's monologue about coats and halves of coats. But I am getting sidetracked. We are blank slates who are conditioned into believing certain things, even our self-interest is socially constructed because there is no self without the society to distinguish it from, and so selfishness is learned, and it derives from those who believe themselves to be rational and free of morality. That is to say, even selfishness is an ideology which people believe, not an inevitability. The postmodernists think we need to deconstruct the self to such a degree that we realize that everything we believe we have constructed, and that only that way can we throw off such shackles.

As for the question of how it benefits the rulers, not necessarily. Many postmodernists do criticize revolution, however, on the conceptual grounds that inmates cannot take over a prison and fix their problems.

[Dumb Ideologies]

That's true to an extent but some people are selfish or power-hungry, some sets of social arrangements can be unjust and people can be justified in wanting to change them.

Some people are, but were they born that way is the question that the postmodernists seek to answer? The answer is that they were not, rather, they are so because modernist philosophy convinced them that it was the rational thing to be self-interested, which is a criticism that has existed since the 1800's when Dostoevsky writes Luzhin's monologue about coats and halves of coats. But I am getting sidetracked. We are blank slates who are conditioned into believing certain things, even our self-interest is socially constructed because there is no self without the society to distinguish it from, and so selfishness is learned, and it derives from those who believe themselves to be rational and free of morality. That is to say, even selfishness is an ideology which people believe, not an inevitability. The postmodernists think we need to deconstruct the self to such a degree that we realize that everything we believe we have constructed, and that only that way can we throw off such shackles.

As for the question of how it benefits the rulers, not necessarily. Many postmodernists do criticize revolution, however, on the conceptual grounds that inmates cannot take over a prison and fix their problems.

You sound as though you believe in this worldview, at least to some extent. On what grounds then can you promote tradition, monarchy, and organising societies around religion, rather than some kind of neo-epicurean maximisation of pleasure to most-thoroughly loosen the chains?

How can you accept this anti-framework and then positively argue in favour of anything?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Some people are, but were they born that way is the question that the postmodernists seek to answer? The answer is that they were not, rather, they are so because modernist philosophy convinced them that it was the rational thing to be self-interested, which is a criticism that has existed since the 1800's when Dostoevsky writes Luzhin's monologue about coats and halves of coats. But I am getting sidetracked. We are blank slates who are conditioned into believing certain things, even our self-interest is socially constructed because there is no self without the society to distinguish it from, and so selfishness is learned, and it derives from those who believe themselves to be rational and free of morality. That is to say, even selfishness is an ideology which people believe, not an inevitability. The postmodernists think we need to deconstruct the self to such a degree that we realize that everything we believe we have constructed, and that only that way can we throw off such shackles.

As for the question of how it benefits the rulers, not necessarily. Many postmodernists do criticize revolution, however, on the conceptual grounds that inmates cannot take over a prison and fix their problems.

You sound as though you believe in this worldview, at least to some extent. On what grounds then can you promote tradition, monarchy, and organising societies around religion, rather than some kind of neo-epicurean maximisation of pleasure to most-thoroughly loosen the chains?

I would say that my worldview is one of Christian existentialism. I believe that everything man has constructed is constructed, and that as such man cannot construct any true meaning in this life. To avoid the problem of suicide, I believe that the only way to have meaning is to embrace the Christian God, for he promises true meaning in this existence, that we exist to be redeemed. Tradition is merely instrumental in all this, but redemption is accomplished and will be accomplished.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You sound as though you believe in this worldview, at least to some extent. On what grounds then can you promote tradition, monarchy, and organising societies around religion, rather than some kind of neo-epicurean maximisation of pleasure to most-thoroughly loosen the chains?

I would say that my worldview is one of Christian existentialism. I believe that everything man has constructed is constructed, and that as such man cannot construct any true meaning in this life. To avoid the problem of suicide, I believe that the only way to have meaning is to embrace the Christian God, for he promises true meaning in this existence, that we exist to be redeemed. Tradition is merely instrumental in all this, but redemption is accomplished and will be accomplished.

That sounds like a soul crushingly horrible worldview.

[Proctopeo]

If people accepted and internalised such analyses they'd be filled with constant doubt, depression and directionlessness. It would also contribute to injustice as any systemic analysis of power and inequality can simply be dismissed as a metanarrative. Would it not then seem to be the most absurd "big story" of all, the most undesirable in both individual and collective terms, and be required under its own terms of reference to be cast aside? It doesn't seem to take anyone anywhere except permanent inertia, the heat death of the intellectual universe.

It's not a "big story", it's the rejection of big stories. It says that the world is a chaotic place that is unpredictable, because humans are not rational beings, but rather that our rationality is constrained by socially constructed "prisons", and that our selves are themselves constructed. It has rejected systemic analysis of power and inequality because any systemic analysis falls apart when you find out that those "in power" are also in a "prison."

That is in of itself a "big story".
Just a pretentious one.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I would say that my worldview is one of Christian existentialism. I believe that everything man has constructed is constructed, and that as such man cannot construct any true meaning in this life. To avoid the problem of suicide, I believe that the only way to have meaning is to embrace the Christian God, for he promises true meaning in this existence, that we exist to be redeemed. Tradition is merely instrumental in all this, but redemption is accomplished and will be accomplished.

That sounds like a soul crushingly horrible worldview.

It is necessary. I couldn't really live without it.

[Dumb Ideologies]

You sound as though you believe in this worldview, at least to some extent. On what grounds then can you promote tradition, monarchy, and organising societies around religion, rather than some kind of neo-epicurean maximisation of pleasure to most-thoroughly loosen the chains?

I would say that my worldview is one of Christian existentialism. I believe that everything man has constructed is constructed, and that as such man cannot construct any true meaning in this life. To avoid the problem of suicide, I believe that the only way to have meaning is to embrace the Christian God, for he promises true meaning in this existence, that we exist to be redeemed. Tradition is merely instrumental in all this, but redemption is accomplished and will be accomplished.

Huh. I guess that makes sense. Internally at least. Having had no religious experiences or calling to religion it of course sounds like utter bobbins to me. I've experimented with trying to force myself into belief but I just feel faintly ridiculous and like I'm making shit up.

But as I've said before given the long-lasting popularity of these things it's quite possible it's all true and I've been given a spiritual smoothbrain that can't see because I'm unworthy in some way.

Anyway, thanks for explaining. Helps me understand where you're coming from a bit more.

[The New California Republic]

I would say that my worldview is one of Christian existentialism. I believe that everything man has constructed is constructed, and that as such man cannot construct any true meaning in this life. To avoid the problem of suicide, I believe that the only way to have meaning is to embrace the Christian God, for he promises true meaning in this existence, that we exist to be redeemed. Tradition is merely instrumental in all this, but redemption is accomplished and will be accomplished.

Huh. I guess that makes sense. Internally at least. Having had no religious experiences or calling to religion it of course sounds like utter bobbins to me. I've experimented with trying to force myself into belief but I just feel faintly ridiculous and like I'm making shit up.

But as I've said before given the long-lasting popularity of these things it's quite possible it's all true and I've been given a spiritual smoothbrain that can't see because I'm unworthy in some way.

I was Anglican, but clearly I didn't run into the aforementioned suicidal impulses without it or else I obviously wouldn't be here. I still read the Bible, but doing so doesn't hold any special significance except academic curiosity, similar to when I read other books like the Koran and Book of Mormon etc.