NeoReaction, Or: Why Modernity?

[Vlerchan]

No, I have not suddenly taken a turn to gross illiberalism.

Since, basically, forever, I've had an interest in different strains of political extremism. The most innovative of this is on the Right: which, particularly in the last decade, has produced a flurry of thought. This can be split into two camps.

There's the broadly continental-based Identitarians (de Benoist, Faye, Sunic, etc.) which are steadfastly and primarily ethnonationalist, organicist and wholist. There work also tends to be more academic in tone.
There's the broadly Anglo-American-based NeoReactionaries which are much more difficult to place under a single banner and might be better identified with regards to what they oppose (progressivism). Their philosophy is much more individual-orientated.
It's the latter this thread will centre around. Like implied, there writings are diverse but the main ideas tend to form around aligning the symbolic and the factual (i.e., what persists in fact should persist in name). There's three main headings that I have identified.

Egalitarianism is to be Opposed, Fundamental Unequalness Exists. In lieu of this, Hierarchies (inc. of race- and sex) are promoted and embraced as natural.
Governmental Elitism. This isn't just anti-democracy but also anti-dictatorship, both of which are seen as populist. Depending on their ideological bent, there's a preference for either organic, hereditary-monarchies (or similar arrangements), techno-commercialism (government by joint-stock corporations)*[b], or other arrangements that align interest, actual-power, and rule.
[b]Freedom is the Flower of Virtue. Life can only be appreciated once order is ensured, and freedom should flow naturally from a state of security. In general, there is an emphasis on tradition and natural justice, as prerequisites of this state.
Don't worry. It triggered me too.

In this thread, I'm hoping we'll see some criticisms of these ideas. Which shouldn't be too difficult: these ideas are intrinsically repulsive - right?

So, what do people think of NeoReaction?

---

* N.B. This is usually accompanied by a preference for either Feudalism or libertarian free-markets respectfully.

[sqishy]

Since, basically, forever, I've had an interest in different strains of political extremism.

It interests us all to some degree I guess :D but I get you.

- - - - - - - -

I like your view on this; it's nice when we get some useful simplifying to what previously was seen as complex.

I'll give my basic reactions to the three headings you have given. I'll be different and not go into the emotive politics itself, but the reasoning behind.
[I'll say ER (Extremist Right) for here - EL would be its opposing Extremist Left.]


Egalitarianism is to be Opposed, Fundamental Unequalness Exists. In lieu of this, Hierarchies (inc. of race- and sex) are promoted and embraced as natural.

I suggest that's it a POV which sees, and then accepts, many aspects of one's existence as unchangeable and/or inessential to one's self/identity - doing otherwise would be to engage in unnecessary harm in some way.

This would contrast the EL, but in a way that grants each person freedom to define what aspects are changeable, and what ones are not changeable.



Governmental Elitism. This isn't just anti-democracy but also anti-dictatorship, both of which are seen as populist. Depending on their ideological bent, there's a preference for either organic, hereditary-monarchies (or similar arrangements), techno-commercialism (government by joint-stock corporations)*[b], or other arrangements that align interest, actual-power, and rule.

Would this be an example of a desired political system that grants minimal responsibility to each person in its running?

Therefore, could the EL be said to desire a political system that grants maximal responsibility to each person?



[b]Freedom is the Flower of Virtue. Life can only be appreciated once order is ensured, and freedom should flow naturally from a state of security. In general, there is an emphasis on tradition and natural justice, as prerequisites of this state.[/list]


There is some form of freedom here for sure, but I'd call it freedom within a given frame that is itself not free. Crude analogy would be the freedom of movement of a person within a given fixed room. There is a duality of smaller-scale freedom and larger-scale bondage.

Really though, mostly everyone is in a state of this, not just the ER. More delving needs to be done on this, because it's not a defining characteristics of the ER, and saying 'excessive bondage' is too vague and leads to ambiguity on who is in and who is out.

- - - - - - - -

EDIT: I've posted this link in another thread recently, but I feel it belongs more here even if it just adds some side humour:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4

[Flapjack]

No, I have not suddenly taken a turn to gross illiberalism.

Since, basically, forever, I've had an interest in different strains of political extremism. The most innovative of this is on the Right: which, particularly in the last decade, has produced a flurry of thought. This can be split into two camps.


There's the broadly continental-based Identitarians (de Benoist, Faye, Sunic, etc.) which are steadfastly and primarily ethnonationalist, organicist and wholist. There work also tends to be more academic in tone.
There's the broadly Anglo-American-based NeoReactionaries which are much more difficult to place under a single banner and might be better identified with regards to what they oppose (progressivism). Their philosophy is much more individual-orientated.

It's the latter this thread will centre around. Like implied, there writings are diverse but the main ideas tend to form around aligning the symbolic and the factual (i.e., what persists in fact should persist in name). There's three main headings that I have identified.


Egalitarianism is to be Opposed, Fundamental Unequalness Exists. In lieu of this, Hierarchies (inc. of race- and sex) are promoted and embraced as natural.
Governmental Elitism. This isn't just anti-democracy but also anti-dictatorship, both of which are seen as populist. Depending on their ideological bent, there's a preference for either organic, hereditary-monarchies (or similar arrangements), techno-commercialism (government by joint-stock corporations)*[b], or other arrangements that align interest, actual-power, and rule.
[B]Freedom is the Flower of Virtue. Life can only be appreciated once order is ensured, and freedom should flow naturally from a state of security. In general, there is an emphasis on tradition and natural justice, as prerequisites of this state.

Don't worry. It triggered me too.

In this thread, I'm hoping we'll see some criticisms of these ideas. Which shouldn't be too difficult: these ideas are intrinsically repulsive - right?

So, what do people think of NeoReaction?

---

* N.B. This is usually accompanied by a preference for either Feudalism or libertarian free-markets respectfully.
This isn't very widespread is it? I don't see the harm, if a presidental candidate was suggesting this stuff then it's worth criticising but for now it is just a few extreme liberals online, they're not hurting anyone and are probably very nice people.

There have been anarchists for decades, I don't see the reason for alarm.

[Judean Zealot]

1) In Defense of Egalitarianism

I would first challenge the neo-reactionary to justify his assertion that fundamental inequality rightfully exists. That a natural aristocracy exists I will not deny, but that those individuals are such is not an inevitable consequence of their condition or a socially stratified right; it is merely the natural result of diligence with a minimal base of precocity. And even this is not a fundamental inequality: it is merely that these men of intellect and virtue are best suited for the task of leading their fellow men, not they are more profoundly human. All men are created equal in dignity and sanctity, and this equality is made immutable by their shared purpose in God's world and shared belonging to that unique class of beings with both intellect and free will.

2) In Defense of Republicanism

Despite the natural ascendancy of the diligent and virtuous, this does not give them natural sovereignty over their fellows. The innate sovereignty of the human will cannot be limited unless its negation is dictated by that same Nature which has put it in place. The only reservation Nature's God has placed upon the sovereign individual is that necessity of being a social creature, and thus bound by the laws of nature to form societies, of which government is a necessary extension. Consequently, when we consider that government's moral sanction arises from society in general, it is nothing but theft and tyranny to remove it from the individual capable of contributing to whatever aspect of society's sovereignty that is under discussion. I imagine it's a given that, provided the individual is intelligent and virtuous, he is capable of doing so regardless of heredity or social order, and it is thus contrary to the law of nature to deprive him of that right.

3) Against Monarchy

History has most clearly demonstrated to us that of all forms of government, the monarchic is among the most prone to violent disturbances with regards to succession, as well as the lawful succession of the least qualified of men. Not so in a well regulated republic, where the educated citizenry are capable of electing reasonably knowledgeable leaders.


That's all for now, but there's plenty more to write.

[Vlerchan]

This isn't very widespread is it? I don't see the harm, if a presidental candidate was suggesting this stuff then it's worth criticising but for now it is just a few extreme liberals online, they're not hurting anyone and are probably very nice people.
It's largely confined to the internet and at the moment has relatively little real-world impact. Though that Ross Douthat was talking about it on the NY Times should probably indicate that it's starting to stake a presence.

Nonetheless, the point was that people address the subheadings for the intellectual challenge rather than because they pose a pressing, real-world problem (in which case, you're probably wasting your time here).

There is some form of freedom here for sure, but I'd call it freedom within a given frame that is itself not free.
Here - a distinction should be drawn between freedom, on one hand, and chaos and anarchy on the other.

If the fruit of freedom-without-form is destruction then are people truly free? Destruction - in that case - can bound quite tightly.

More delving needs to be done on this, because it's not a defining characteristics of the ER, and saying 'excessive bondage' is too vague and leads to ambiguity on who is in and who is out.
Liberal authors, since the 1800s, have been quite clear in their claim that Order would emerge from Freedom. Read Rothbard for perhaps the most extreme example.

That security dominates freedom is pretty specific to anti-liberalism.

---

It's also worth nothing that this is not intended to be a discussion about the entire Extreme Right - which has a number of different modern and historical trends - but rather the specific strain of NeoReaction.

Would this be an example of a desired political system that grants minimal responsibility to each person in its running?
In NeoReaction the aim is to align the interests of the rulers with the interest of society-at-large.

Beneath the rule of heridetery-monarchs, for example, it is in the interests of the monarch to maintain and further the prosperity of his kingdom, which is essentially his private-property. Importantly, there is a flattening of time-preference, where a monarchs fortunes are bound to the long-run stability and success of his domain.

[phuckphace]

I think it's pretty dumb. I've referred to it before as "right-wing fanfic" which I think is literally true in some cases.

I think they tend to confuse modernity and progress. hence, they assume that primitive things like hereditary monarchy must be better because they were done "back then." to me, progress is things like penicillin and indoor plumbing. modernity is "mind my pronouns, shitlord." you can have one without the other.

I mostly agree with their views on hierarchies and freedom being contingent on security. I disagree that these intersections are really meaningful because the rest is mostly tl;dr blog posts by a guy who has read way too much Tolkien.

[Vlerchan]

I disagree that these intersections are really meaningful because the rest is mostly tl;dr blog posts by a guy who has read way too much Tolkien.
Moldbug actually believes that the government should be transformed into a joint-stock corporation where voting rights are contingent on owned-shares.

He's actually pretty hyperfuturist once you exclude his preference for Victorian social mores.

[phuckphace]

Moldbug actually believes that the government should be transformed into a joint-stock corporation where voting rights are contingent on owned-shares.

He's actually pretty hyperfuturist once you exclude his preference for Victorian social mores.

steampunk meets cyberpunk. his comic book collection must be the size of his blog.

it's one of those things that you think is an elaborate joke until you realize no, he's actually serious. it makes your garden-variety Hitler fan seem pretty sensible - at least Hitler was real.

[Judean Zealot]

I'll just add - whenever I read Orthosphere I get the impression that they are trying to hide shoddy reasoning behind elaborate rhetorical flourishes.

[sqishy]

Here - a distinction should be drawn between freedom, on one hand, and chaos and anarchy on the other.


I meant freedom more in the literal meaning, then political associations with it. I did say I would be seeing the underside of the viewpoints, but in a relevant way.

Chaos would be the most free state of existence of all, and that wouldn't be any different in the socio-political realm. I didn't necessarily say that freedom was a good thing.



If the fruit of freedom-without-form is destruction then are people truly free? Destruction - in that case - can bound quite tightly.

Destruction is more likely to bound your actual and possible existences, than unbound them, yes. However, destruction tends to reset states of affairs by undoing construction, construction here being concentration of ability toward some certain things over others.

Construction is more likely to unbound you but by giving a much greater ability to access certain regions of socio-political realm. However, that draws you away from ability to access other regions - we can't expand out ability overall to do things at will, even at the level of concentration. We generally choose only where our ability can be directed. Limitation is paired with freedom.

We don't want the absolute freedom of pervasive force, because that's a mess with too much change/difference for our lives to work with. If Tarantino directed all of GoT then we could've got a nice picture for this.

We also don't want the absolute bondage of pervasive form, because that'll give you an environment which might as well have been made by a stereotypical god that suffers with OCD on similar godly scales. Too little change/difference for our lives to work with.

I would say that ER is closer to (not at) absolute construction, and EL to absolute destruction.



Liberal authors, since the 1800s, have been quite clear in their claim that Order would emerge from Freedom. Read Rothbard for perhaps the most extreme example.

I'll check him out.

Hegel would be relevant here too.



That security dominates freedom is pretty specific to anti-liberalism.

Yes; the reverse would be for liberalism.



It's also worth nothing that this is not intended to be a discussion about the entire Extreme Right - which has a number of different modern and historical trends - but rather the specific strain of NeoReaction.

Noted; I was setting my general scope before I would narrow down (excuse? :P).



In NeoReaction the aim is to align the interests of the rulers with the interest of society-at-large.

Is this the definition for NR [my shortenings may be useful later perhaps] when it gets paired with traditional ideology (monarchy, inherent difference seen between people, etc)?



Beneath the rule of heridetery-monarchs, for example, it is in the interests of the monarch to maintain and further the prosperity of his kingdom, which is essentially his private-property.

The ultimate benevolent landlord. The God analogy for property in this context?



Importantly, there is a flattening of time-preference, where a monarchs fortunes are bound to the long-run stability and success of his domain.

Would it be fair for me to say that this is a predominantly consciously future-oriented task?

- - - - - - - -

Many questions I know, I will try not to interrogate you further.

[Vlerchan]

it's one of those things that you think is an elaborate joke until you realize no, he's actually serious. it makes your garden-variety Hitler fan seem pretty sensible - at least Hitler was real.
With regards to governance, what do you support?

Platonic Republicanism like Judean Zealot (that's correct - right?), or something more reminiscent of the populist dictatorships of the 20th century?

I'll just add - whenever I read Orthosphere I get the impression that they are trying to hide shoddy reasoning behind elaborate rhetorical flourishes.
I get the same feeling about a considerable amount of reactosphere material too. Lots of meandering between historical anecdotes probably doesn't help too much with conciseness either.

However, destruction tends to reset states of affairs by undoing construction, construction here being concentration of ability toward some certain things over others.
Destruction establishes a social environment of it's own - one generally of fear, which is highly restrictive.

It's not purely negationary, if it can be claimed to be negationary at all.

I would say that ER is closer to (not at) absolute bondage, and EL to absolute freedom.
I'm of the opinion that both just see different paths to freedom.

The ER visualises it through establishing bondage of foreign and dangerous elements. The EL visualises through the severing of bondage. That there, by the way, might be a better centre point to discuss their political positions from.

Is this the definition for NR [my shortenings may be useful later perhaps] when it gets paired with traditional ideology (monarchy, inherent difference seen between people, etc)?
I realise on re-reading that, what I stated is basically the specified intent of all government structures.

So, certainly not.

What distinguishes them on the front of governance, is there emphasise on placing rulers in a relationship with their subjects where long-run welfare is emphasised.

Would it be fair for me to say that this is a predominantly consciously future-oriented task?
Yes.

Many questions I know, I will try not to interrogate you further.
I like discussing political ideology. Interrogate away.

[Judean Zealot]

Vlerchan

Platonic Republicanism, particularly as viewed by Rousseau and Strauss (although I disagree with Strauss' interpretation of Rousseau).

[phuckphace]

With regards to governance, what do you support?

Platonic Republicanism like Judean Zealot (that's correct - right?), or something more reminiscent of the populist dictatorships of the 20th century?

I find both pretty appealing for different reasons.

ideally yes, a republic of model citizens is probably the most workable, but there's also an irresistible draw to the idea of troublemakers having their shit kicked in by jackboots.

[sqishy]

Destruction establishes a social environment of it's own - one generally of fear, which is highly restrictive.

It's not purely negationary, if it can be claimed to be negationary at all.

This social environment of fear would be in response to anticipated destruction, rather than actual destruction. Such an environment needs to be stable - destruction is threatened, not acted upon, so that people stay on certain pathways. This is more a constructed environment - a general state of affairs is being actively maintained.



I'm of the opinion that both just see different paths to freedom.

Alright then. I'd be taking the angle that they see different paths due to their different definitions of freedom, both of which would be a good thing for them.



The ER visualises it through establishing bondage of foreign and dangerous elements.

What is foreign and dangerous here is what threatens one's current identity and/or world. One can see it metaphorically as building a house to be safe from the unpredictable weather outside, but it could also be seen that one is actually hemming oneself in the house even it could be sunny and warm.



The EL visualises through the severing of bondage. That there, by the way, might be a better centre point to discuss their political positions from.

I'm finding myself actually taking a dualist angle on this - freedom and limitation are integrated with each other.

ER and EL desire 'FREEDOM!' ultimately through a worldview and where they stand in it in order to get the best out of life, with necessary sacrifices being made in different aspects (make freedom great again, or something).

Would a discussion on responsibility of the govt, and the responsibility of each person in its state, be a good area?



I realise on re-reading that, what I stated is basically the specified intent of all government structures.

So, certainly not.

What distinguishes them on the front of governance, is there emphasise on placing rulers in a relationship with their subjects where long-run welfare is emphasised.


Yes.

NeoReactionary ER: Intentional alignment of the interests of a population with that of its rulers, though emphasis of slow-release long-term welfare.

Just trying to get a definition going, and then see how the inequality-natural/govt-elite/virtue-for-freedom sections interact with it.



I like discussing political ideology. Interrogate away.

Alright then!

[phuckphace]

I'll just add - whenever I read Orthosphere I get the impression that they are trying to hide shoddy reasoning behind elaborate rhetorical flourishes.

this was my impression as well. I think there's a mistaken idea that a collection of bad ideas can sound good if you write about them in a pretentious academic tone (sounds familiar - gender theory anyone?)

as for rule by joint-stock corporations under a CEO-king: honestly I'd rather live under Marxism. at least they, unlike Moldbug, betray some awareness of the world.

[Vlerchan]

This social environment of fear would be in response to anticipated destruction, rather than actual destruction. Such an environment needs to be stable - destruction is threatened, not acted upon, so that people stay on certain pathways.
Freedom-without-bounds would have both destruction, setting expectations, and anticipated destruction, setting form.

Would a discussion on responsibility of the govt, and the responsibility of each person in its state, be a good area?
Well, both questions - the question of the individual-versus-collective is fundamental to all ideologies, so it is going to be applicable here.

[...] but there's also an irresistible draw to the idea of troublemakers having their shit kicked in by jackboots.
Would there be snappy uniforms?

Though, being honest, I tend to find that the people that can best put this ideal forward stick in my mind as those in the group most likely to get stomped.

as for rule by joint-stock corporations under a CEO-king: honestly I'd rather live under Marxism. at least they, unlike Moldbug, betray some awareness of the world.
I had a think about this and decided it might be workable if:

There is a confederation of Corporate-councils that rule over their immediate localities. Each citizen-consumer pays a tax to live in a given locality.
There is strong rights to exit allowing citizen-consumers to re-locate at will and thus there is an incentive for Corporate-councils to offer conditions that maximise welfare.
Through this mechanism the price of shares increases and decreases. It should be noted that the shares are priced on the basis of the long-run expected value, which is contingent on the 'sales' of a given corporate council.
This confederation is presided over by an hereditary-emperor, owed an annual tide, who possesses few substantial powers other than complete control of defence.
Sounds at least operable to me.

[sqishy]

Freedom-without-bounds would have both destruction, setting expectations, and anticipated destruction, setting form.


What do you mean by actual destruction being the setting of expectations? (sorry if I misunderstood)

I see the 'upper bounds' on achievable freedom, being such a state so as to have anticipation itself on anything specific, be much more unreliable than reliable.

That'd probably be going beyond the scope of large-scale society and politics though, if we want to be that free.



Well, both questions - the question of the individual-versus-collective is fundamental to all ideologies, so it is going to be applicable here.


Alright. I'll return tomorrow/soon with more on this.

[Vlerchan]

What do you mean by actual destruction being the setting of expectations? (sorry if I misunderstood).
What people anticipate is reflective of what came before it.

So - perceptions with regards to destruction occurring prior determines the behaviour of those anticipating further destruction.

I see the 'upper bounds' on achievable freedom, being such a state so as to have anticipation itself on anything specific, be much more unreliable than reliable.

That'd probably be going beyond the scope of large-scale society and politics though, if we want to be that free.
I'm also unsure what you mean here. Would you mind rephrasing please?

[sqishy]

What people anticipate is reflective of what came before it.

So - perceptions with regards to destruction occurring prior determines the behaviour of those anticipating further destruction.

Anticipation of the future is set by memory of the past, yes.

The everyday inductive reasoning played out with a continual presence of destruction, yes.
However, my dualist freedom-bondage angle here is arguing that eventually it won't be seen as destruction anymore, if the destruction is of the same kind. The short-term destruction will have long-term stability at least, if the destruction keeps being of a certain kind. The expectation gets reassured till it isn't seen as a destruction anymore, but rather an aspect of the world.

Example: Humans dying.



I'm also unsure what you mean here. Would you mind rephrasing please?

(Mutually assured confusion :D )

The high-level freedom I speak of is analogous to prime numbers in mathematics - all conditioned anticipations/expectations will become meaningless, as the future will always have the capacity+actuality to not resemble the past, so much so that no amount of memory is going to give you any certain advantage.

Pure freedom is really not achievable, because that means even the given frame 'usual' freedom is set in, is thrown out the metaphorical window.

Trying to keep this in the socio-political realm, sorry for by abstractions but I am holding to my post.

[Vlerchan]

However, my dualist freedom-bondage angle here is arguing that eventually it won't be seen as destruction anymore, if the destruction is of the same kind. The short-term destruction will have long-term stability at least, if the destruction keeps being of a certain kind. The expectation gets reassured till it isn't seen as a destruction anymore, but rather an aspect of the world.

Example: Humans dying.
The fact that destruction becomes normalised does not mean that it fails to impinge freedom. The fact that it is predictable also does not mean that the world has become stable.

I can't speak to dead relatives (least whilst maintaining an impression of my own sanity) which appears a significant restriction of my freedoms. Furthermore, even when it's predictable - i.e., terminal cancer - that does not lead to it enforcing stability of conditions (it still destabilises those around the dying).

all conditioned anticipations/expectations will become meaningless, as the future will always have the capacity+actuality to not resemble the past, so much so that no amount of memory is going to give you any certain advantage.
This capacity+actuality to not resemble the past (hereafter: randomness) does not increase with time.

I see no reason that predictions in period t would be less precise than predictions in period t+1 where the same quality of information is accessible.

[sqishy]

The fact that destruction becomes normalised does not mean that it fails to impinge freedom. The fact that it is predictable also does not mean that the world has become stable.

I'll put this in terms of states of being.

You're seeing destruction as being in opposition to freedom. Destruction reduces the kinds of situations one can have the ability to be in (e.g. warfare in the US will reduce the chance of you having most social interactions we know of now, in the New York of that situation).

You see destruction to reduce the number of states of being one can be in, these states defined through their unique type, am I correct?


I'm seeing freedom as being not of the range of states of being you can occupy, but rather the unpredictability and diversity of states of being one can be in - each state of being is less open to expectation from other states of being, each one is more outside the scope of prediction.

Destruction is the leveling of capacity to access certain states of being.
Construction concentrates this capacity in certain ranges.

It is much easier to access 'far off' ranges of states of being, when you're less concentrated in a certain region already. It is more unpredictable when one travels to far-off states of being, states of being that have much less in common with each other.

So, for me, destruction tends in helping freedom, instead of hindering it.



This capacity+actuality to not resemble the past (hereafter: randomness) does not increase with time.

I see no reason that predictions in period t would be less precise than predictions in period t+1 where the same quality of information is accessible.

For a greater given number of events, the upper limit on how much randomness you can have, increases. There is more randomness in the occurence of the first 100 primes, than the occurrence of the first 10.

[Vlerchan]

You see destruction to reduce the number of states of being one can be in, these states defined through their unique type, am I correct?
I see destruction as limiting opportunities - in both an actual and precedental manner.

So - Yes.

I'm seeing freedom as being not of the range of states of being you can occupy, but rather the unpredictability and diversity of states of being one can be in - each state of being is less open to expectation from other states of being, each one is more outside the scope of prediction.
This denies human agency which seems fundamental to a coherent doctrine of political freedom. That freedom is to be obtained implies it's an object that must be accessed - which implies an active participant.

Nonetheless - if this argument desires to discuss the aims of certain ideologies I would argue the one I propose is much closer to the post-Enlightenment usage which - I imagine - guides most modern thinkers on the matter.

For a greater given number of events, the upper limit on how much randomness you can have, increases. There is more randomness in the occurence of the first 100 primes, than the occurrence of the first 10.
We are not bound to a certain time - thus there is no increasing number of events and no increasing randomness.

[sqishy]

This denies human agency which seems fundamental to a coherent doctrine of political freedom. That freedom is to be obtained implies it's an object that must be accessed - which implies an active participant.

I don't see how it denies human agency. Freedom in this sense is a perspective that is less/not dependent on certain constructed ideas/situations/etc. One can jump between perspectives on the world, without losing oneself along the way.



Nonetheless - if this argument desires to discuss the aims of certain ideologies I would argue the one I propose is much closer to the post-Enlightenment usage which - I imagine - guides most modern thinkers on the matter.

Alright then.



We are not bound to a certain time - thus there is no increasing number of events and no increasing randomness.

What do you mean here?

[Vlerchan]

I don't see how it denies human agency. Freedom in this sense is a perspective that is less/not dependent on certain constructed ideas/situations/etc.
Note the claim here

"each state of being is less open to expectation from other states of being, each one is more outside the scope of prediction."

If 'more free' means 'more outside the scope of prediction' then I would imagine 'free' means 'outside the scope of prediction'.

If a state is outside the scope of prediction then I necessarily can't have chosen to place myself there, which denies human agency on the matter of freedom.

What do you mean here?
There is no increasing number of events for a human perspective that moves with them (which human perspectives do).

[sqishy]

Note the claim here

"each state of being is less open to expectation from other states of being, each one is more outside the scope of prediction."

Yes.


If 'more free' means 'more outside the scope of prediction' then I would imagine 'free' means 'outside the scope of prediction'.

Pure freedom would be this, yes.

Note that I go for a spectrum view of human freedom, not all-or-nothing. You have degrees of it, and pure freedom is unattainable as a human being.



If a state is outside the scope of prediction then I necessarily can't have chosen to place myself there, which denies human agency on the matter of freedom.

How?

Just because someone can be said to have freedom, doesn't mean they can predict future circumstances.



There is no increasing number of events for a human perspective that moves with them (which human perspectives do).

I'm still not sure what you mean (cognitive glitch on my part probably), so I'm going to say that memory is what 'moves' with us.

[Vlerchan]

Pure freedom would be this, yes.

Note that I go for a spectrum view of human freedom, not all-or-nothing. You have degrees of it, and pure freedom is unattainable as a human being.
But you understand that your conception of freedom increasingly denies human agency as it scales? The least free state is that in which the individual has the most control over the lives.

How?

Just because someone can be said to have freedom, doesn't mean they can predict future circumstances.
If I understand your claims surrounding freedom correct, and thus far you have indicated that I seem to, then someone having freedom means they can't predict future circumstances. It being more difficult for people to order and control their own lives seems like it might be antithetical to making them more free.

Under the conception of freedom I propose, that person can still act on their predictions, because it's based on opportunities.

I'm still not sure what you mean (cognitive glitch on my part probably), so I'm going to say that memory is what 'moves' with us.
It's fine. Perhaps we'll approach it some other day and understand each other a bit better then.

[sqishy]

But you understand that your conception of freedom increasingly denies human agency as it scales? The least free state is that in which the individual has the most control over the lives.

If I understand your claims surrounding freedom correct, and thus far you have indicated that I seem to, then someone having freedom means they can't predict future circumstances. It being more difficult for people to order and control their own lives seems like it might be antithetical to making them more free.

They are free from their identity being bounded by a certain range of circumstances/situations.

'Lesser' freedom allows oneself permission to order their lives in certain ways, yes. Their identity/self is defined through certain constructions, but not by another person. One can and does fulfill their own desires.

However, 'greater' freedom is more than this - to have freedom to construct certain things, is not necessarily connected to having freedom to not be bounded by these constructed things. A greater level of freedom permits one to not have their identity/self be bound by the certain constructions that they make. One can, but not necessarily does, fulfill their own desires.


If this may be confusing or even disappointing, do rest assured that I'm not trying to slither away from you, but that my view on freedom is different from more common/vernacular ones. Not presuming it's better, only that it is different.

Judean Zealot might have some ideas which are relevant here (i.e. you are invited).



It's fine. Perhaps we'll approach it some other day and understand each other a bit better then.

I'm good with this.

[phuckphace]

Would there be snappy uniforms?

Though, being honest, I tend to find that the people that can best put this ideal forward stick in my mind as those in the group most likely to get stomped.

totally, mang. a totalitarian regime without a uniform is like a gaming PC without Razer accessories. you can pull it off but something is just missing.

I don't doubt this at all really. a surprising amount of Lebensunwertes Leben makes itself at home among the far-right ranks (bit of a dirty secret but it's there)

[Judean Zealot]

totally, mang. a totalitarian regime without a uniform is like a gaming PC without Razer accessories. you can pull it off but something is just missing.

I don't doubt this at all really. a surprising amount of Lebensunwertes Leben makes itself at home among the far-right ranks (bit of a dirty secret but it's there)

Generally of the sort who are so proud of their whiteness that they cover it up with grotesque tattoos.

[phuckphace]

Generally of the sort who are so proud of their whiteness that they cover it up with grotesque tattoos.

let's not forget calling gay people degenerates while frolicking with a whole set of loose women