But this isn't even remotely proof that convergence is only possible via violence and that, left to their own devices, people will diverge from one another into mutually incomprehensible discursive worlds with no common regularities of structure in maps/values/etc.

Show thread

It should be no surprise that coercively hegemonic ideological frames grow particularly weak from not needing to actually be persuasive when they're being subsidized. Remove the subsidies and we see a mass proliferation of bad memes in a society that atrophied under the hegemony.

Show thread

In any case there's a far better explanation for the proliferation of divergence in our era, which is to say that we briefly had artificially universal fake narratives, fake values, fake maps, imposed by centralized violence. But that system broke down.

Show thread

The fact that wide divergences in values and worldviews are occurring right now at a societal level is not particularly illuminating because it's a very limited dataset. Even the last ten thousand years is a tiny dataset when it comes to exploration of ethics and physics.

Show thread

As we get old we might each experiment in unique contexts and develop divergent hyper particularized tastes, one person liking peanut butter with mustard, another salmon with ice cream, while still converging in terms of how we think and what we value.

Show thread

So we know that there are convergent tendencies within a subset of Things That Matter and we know that there's nothing in principle stopping such convergence from extending to the entire set of Things That Matter. Why assume then that divergence will dominate?

Show thread

Moreover we know that there are relevant connections across the Humean gap as a result. The convergent creation of regularities in our maps of the world creates convergence upon certain regularities in our moral values (if only the trivial one of accuracy as instrumental value).

Show thread

At the same time we *know* that there are emergent convergences in epistemology, the regularities of physics are universal and minds that don't care about preserving corresponding regularities within themselves as maps will walk off a cliff ignoring gravity.

Show thread

Divergence in some cultural and contextual particulars is inherent and indeed related to entropy; any system becomes more entangled with its environment over time in complex ways. But we don't care about a lot of those particulars because they're *irrelevant.*

Show thread

What I object to in Rao's narrative is not the existence of such dynamics, but the sweeping assumed universality of the narrative. It is, in short, nihilist (both morally and epistemologically). It ASSUMES there's no universally accessible truth to be gravitated towards.

Show thread

Example: When I was six and thrown into a room with a small number of random kids from the wider population it was pretty easy to be like "we both like Jurassic Park, we're friends!" but as you age you develop a lot more opinions & litmus tests. "What is your position on Qanon?"

Show thread

Rao admits the existence of localized clustering where folks with commonalities group together to preserve those commonalities, but those groups in turn diverge from one another as they each pick up more and more particularities.

Show thread

The descriptive appeal in our context/era is of self-evident and there are certainly processes that behave like so. Minds often grow more individuated over time in terms of experiences, perspectives, etc, leaving less common overlap with others.

Show thread

Rao has a narrative of social divergence over time that's leveraging implicit comparisons to entropy pretty hard. Basically: the total shared frameworks between individuals decrease. I think this is dangerously wrong. ribbonfarm.com/2022/02/23/dive

the very-first entry, @rechelon 's "The Abolition Of Rulership Or The Rule Of All Over All" captures many of the ideas best, i think:

c4ss.org/content/49202

i think talking about anarchy as "complete/ideal/direct democracy" is just misleading, i know it misled me at first.

before learning about libertarianism and anarchism, i genuinely though majority rule was the best humanity could achieve. and that's just … sad?

Show thread

mutualists in the 1890s 🤝 mutualists in the 2020s

brutal takedowns of georgism

Good time to remember that "rights" only exist insofar as the government allows them to. Freedom is something we must *take* for ourselves.

Show older
Mastodon

The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit