People like to talk about the world of possibility as if there are new and yet undiscovered ways of doing things that humans have tackled for eons. While this may be true with technology, it isn’t with government or personal life.
Indulging in the fiction that there “might be” other options is a perpetual ploy to stop us from choosing one now. After all, tomorrow there might be a better one. Or like a hundred thousand yesterdays, there will not be.
Our lives are full of these little fictions. They are ways that other people convince us not to act, and to live in denial of reality, instead of looking at it systematically and figuring out what’s going on.
It is popular to deny that the fictions of individuals, like the incompetence of individuals, are the basis of our downfall. It is much more popular to blame impersonal and external forces, like corporations, kings, laws, conspiracies and secret societies.
Those are convenient for many reasons. First, they are not perceived as people, so no one is personally to blame. Second, they’re necessary, so they are easily complained about (like bosses in the afternoon) without any mandate to action or blame for inaction.
Our default state as children is to view all problems as arising from incompetence or stupidity. The adults spend many years educating away this knowledge, so that we “wisely” and “maturely” instead blame unfixably large and distant forces.
That blame-shift reflects wishful thinking on the part of most people. They are trying to invent an alternate theory to cover up the far simpler reality, which is that humans tend toward one of two basic outlooks on the world:
- Self-based: The world is a manifestation of the self. This means that what is most important is the novel, immediate, personal/social and individual thought-impressions like memories, emotions, judgments and a morality of altruism, egalitarianism, pacifism and other forms of inclusiveness, which is what bonds the personal to the social. Those who accept all are always accepted; those who accepted only some run the risk of being rejected.
- World-based: The self is a manifestation of the world. This means that was is important is the eternal, the real, the natural, the consequences of our actions in the long-term, and the underlying transcendent order that unites us to work toward goals beyond the immediate, tangible and material. The metric of acceptance is not how to manipulate other people into liking you, but a question of the causes and consequences of accepting any party.
Since 1789 and the French Revolution, the former has been more prevalent than the latter. To have a social order without leaders, you need to organize the mob toward some very simple values system that defeats the inherent pluralism of a mob.
This becomes a tautological values system: “we are united to fight for our right to be united,” namely the underpinnings of altruism and egalitarianism that make everyone feel accepted and are thus how you create and organize a mob in the first place.
Tolerance and universalism, or the same rules applying to everyone, are the bedrock of this new belief. It is an “ideology” in that it is invented in order to justify a behavior, and does not arise out of normal behavior which needs no justification because it is practical, traditional or geared toward great beauty.
The problem with tolerance is that it is an offer you cannot refuse. It is necessary for the ideology to succeed, and thus it is demanded. You can either give in, or you’re an enemy of the ideology and those who uphold that ideology must destroy you.
This one-way street shows the true nature of this ideology, which is to neutralize all opposition and set into course a path of decay which removes all constraints on the individual (eventually). It is a small fiction whose goal is to disable you.
Because it styles itself as altruistic and egalitarian, it cannot be opposed, since to do so is to oppose all things that are sociable and lead to including everyone, playing well with others, us all getting along, peace and love, etc.
And yet this ideology is reminiscent of a small child. When it does not get what it wants, it cries unfairness. Then it stomps off and finds other children that agree what happened was unfair. Eventually they return in a group, with the power of public shame as their weapon.
No one wants to be unfair, unjust or inequitable. And yet, no one wants to fail as a civilization, either. Conservatism arose not from a need to justify, but from a need to function. As liberalism fails, to that we return.
43 queries. 0.949 seconds
What if it’s not possible to return to it?
The world has changed much since the 1700s. The very idea of say, a ruling king, is almost laughable. I’m concerned about this.
Governing has to adapt, to technology. Technology has broken nation borders, there is a world-wide-web – it is fast, it has a life of its own and governing, whatever form it may take, can’t keep up. It’s a game changer.
Technology continues to evolve, governing isn’t. Even good old leadership couldn’t control events. It must adapt. People have more power now. Because of the internet, because of smart-phones. This is a problem if we continue to deny it. A good leader sees this, and make most possible use of it.
It is in the personal realm that conservatism has real value. People still fundamentally work the same, with the same needs as always. Governing changes with country borders, the people, the centuries and technology. What IS the best way to govern this modern world? Or are we waiting for a clean swipe?
Humans haven’t changed one bit however.
” Or are we waiting for a clean swipe?”
Exactly! Like you said, the changes that the modern world have brought are irreversible and, with the exception of a violent shock with all the calamities it would bring, change is impossible, or else any change would just be skin-deep, with no actual, essential modifications being produced.
Where I don’t agree with you is in two places:
1. “People still fundamentally work the same, with the same needs as always. ”
It is time to recognize in such a tendency (two view people always and everywhere the same) the egalitarian influence of the modern world. People have always differed from civilization to civilization, from time period to time period. This view, that people will always think, act the same and have the same needs, sanctions the egalitarian and internationalist idea that there has always been ONE human civilization and multiple cultures, which cannot be any further from the truth.
2. “Because of the internet, because of smart-phones. This is a problem if we continue to deny it. A good leader sees this, and make most possible use of it. ”
Actually, the power to enslave people is what has grown. People, with all their dependencies and passions, are weaker than ever. A human being has the more masters the more passions and dependencies he has. Just try to imagine what would happen with modern civilization if suddenly, something happened, and all the technology would cease to function.
Good to meet you, Mihai.
1. There is something to what you say, that people are not the same. But I believe they are ALSO very similar. I don’t know anyone from, say, a thousand years ago, only the people of today. So it’s a bit hard to say with certainty how things truly are. Perhaps we shouldn’t speculate much about it? I’m inclined to think people are very similar but I couldn’t know. Cultures must have changed. People belong to their culture, individuals are always humans. That’s how I reason.
2. I know this too well. Or more than most, anyways. See I’m very big on simplifying life. I don’t owe any phone, or computer atm. To be bluntly honest, and this is a good place for that, I am a homeless person without as much as a single dime. Only my backpack. I live pretty much as I please, dumpstering food from grocery stores and bakeries. It’s against the law to do so, and it does not bother me one bit. I chose this, on my own, apparently that is very liberal?
My point, though, to clarify, is that whether the population is weak or not, they have immense power to mobilize and communicate. Nation borders are hollowed out. Otherwise, I would not be here. People make their voices heard either as I’d call it, liberally, as I do, or they band together and scream not as one child, but rather are there a million voices. There is power even in a million weak voices.
It is unnatural and against nature to bring the dead back to life. As I’m beginning to understand things, this site is all about voicing radical honesty to make the cultural, peaceful revolution possible. If Brett manages with this, he will be not only the father of a new/old conservatism but also the grandfather of a new outbreak of Democracy, Socialism and Liberalism. If you want conservatism it will have to adapt, like everything else in nature. Well, let me put it this way instead. Technology has no life, it is undead but it has grown big. Ideologies are the same, no life, and conservatism has had no growth. It would need a million new arms to handle technology. Change or stay dead-dead. Gotta meet the demands of technology otherwise it couldn’t govern a technological people. I don’t think conservatism can. It is outdated and 50 years, or 300 years, too late. I will challenge Amerika the best I can, for the remaining of August. Let’s debate, brutally honestly.
I prompt for options that require no clean swipe. It may happen, then we can take it from there, if we survive. Perhaps I’m too negative?
Pleasure. T
“I will challenge Amerika the best I can, for the remaining of August.”
What for? Will it make any good to you and others? If yes, then what exactly, and what is the goal?
“Let’s debate, brutally honestly.”
I doubt it is possible. People, as you already have noticed, are similar. These days, debates are usually reduced to unsupported rants mostly about the commenters’ personal traits, rather than discussing ideas.
If we are “very similar”, what should people expect from you, something really different?
Perhaps, I’m too pessimistic. Perhaps, because of this gloomy “remaining of August.”
I will call Brett for what he is. And say there is simply nothing great about these politics that sets it apport from any other. Except that it appeals to certain people, the way other politics appeal to another sort of people. That is why, it can never work.
I test the fundamentals Amerika stand upon, honesty. That is the very thing that sets Amerika apart from other political places. It is very unique.
I will speak my truth, with honesty can we move forwards. Otherwise we’re not getting anywere. We’d all be simple hypocrits. I recognize Brett for what he is, an angry, judgemental individual with a coldness and cruelty to his shadow, because he is just like me. I will say so, that he has a chance to do something about it.
Debate is possible, it is new to me. Two days and I’ll learn. You debate me. Don’t just mess with me, this is no messing around kindergarten. I’m not here to be unsupportive, but supportive. If that is not tolerated the fundamentals are flawed. Perhaps there is more to them, than I am aware of?
Irreversible?
Nothing is irreversible. All of these systems are like paths in a forest. When one runs you into a lake of poo you just pick another path.
“Judgments and the morality of altruism”
Is action possible without judgment? Value is grasped through judgment. Or are you using the word in a stricter sense?
“Is action possible without judgment?”
No honest action is possible without reasoning and choice but I think the article is about judgments like armchair proclamations from people who are not interested in reality only making a moral statement.
Realist. “I should take I95 instead of the 805 freeway, because traffic will be lower.”
Judgment, left-wing. “Freeways should take poor people to richer areas so they can earn more money and we’re all equal.”
Judgment, right-wing. “Freeways are the last refuge of the scoundrel, anyone smarter than a bandicoot should avoid them.”
Why not? “Governing” evolves into control and manipulation. If this can be called “evolution”, of course.
Technology, esp. telecom, gives great possibilities of controlling people, so who wins?
At the lowest level, if a serf can’t read or hear your command (a simple & direct one, or long-term manipulation), how will he execute it? :) That’s why you’ll need well-developped networks of communication and maybe a global language…
Ah, don’t bother about that. The englishman have, through genius I cannot comprehend, managed to sneak in a colonialization of the world. Good work, generals.
I don’t believe in control. That is simply the result of mistrust and weak leadership.
Neither do I believe anyone could successfully control an entire world, which is the case, with modern technology. How could a world population be eaves-dropped upon? Would they check on themselves? And you couldn’t hinder crypts and new technological devices from appearing. Not even North Korea has a chance to succeed with any of this.
Dr. House, The Big Bang Theory, cat videos, porn, Web 3.0, cloud technology… :)
If i control all the best sci-tech personnel and enterprises in the world, all appearing advanced technologies are mine.
Who said “entire”? Most of it, a big part of it.
1349.
I don’t understand how Gregory House will eaves-drop upon an entire world, he is busy listening in to Cuddy and Dr Wilson.
I don’t believe in control. It is a nasty word. It means the leadership isnt working and have a problem handling things. Control creates suppression and fear in the people. They turn more miserable, and I believe history tells the story of controlled people revolting, overthrowing, assassinating regimes and leaders. But if you do believe in control, it MAY work to control people. But isn’t controlling people a simple testamonial to the fact you lack control? When there is no control you are in perfect control.
Well ‘I’ said entire. I have this belief that we may need a global change and that internet will be the artificial network that will make it possible. A global nation, or the disappearance of nations. It already exists and is called “Earth” people just have to realize it. To me, the web presents an interesting opportunity to make it so, now people can see it, they couldn’t before. And all their frivolous greed for entertainment and technology will prove, in the end, to be the component to make this happen.
But thats just my own, crazy idea.
Could you tell me how to make quotations?
“It means the leadership isnt working and have a problem handling things.”
Your average person has no way of understanding the different between leadership that is working and leadership that isn’t.
If there’s a recession, they assume bad leadership.
You can find all tags in the source: go to menu bar -> Vew -> Source. Find the fragment you liked and see what tags were used for this appearence.
Or you can go to this article:
http://www.amerika.org/meta/comments/?doing_wp_cron=1344473480.3895030021667480468750
Why artificial? You already have noticed that the Internet lives its own life. Why not to assume it to be a living organism, or, better a part of this organism, namely, its nervous system?
And Google is its brain, I guess.
By the way, our world is a chaotic system, that means a system where a tiny impact may create huge changes in its state (see wiki for the definition of chaotic systems, it’s not about lack of order, as some people think).
That is, studying our society may help finding the right time and right idea spread over the Internet, that give the required outcome. But, one should know what to want, why other people might want the same thing, and how to get there.
“I don’t believe in control.”
Life is full of paradoxes, and one is that anti-control leads to a greater form of control.
That is interesting. I pondered words like peace, security and control after posting this, I believe there may well be something to what you say. Probably it’s impossible to escape control completely. We need a little bit of it otherwise I don’t think it could work, anymore. But not too much =).
As I head out to get my Chic-Fil-A sandwich today, I’ll be thinking about this distinction you’ve drawn up.
It’s a great thing to get together with a group of people for a shared task, and having each one do what they’re good at and cooperate with others. A good coordinator is valuable, as are people who will do the smaller jobs that make the big ones go better. Those who kept the walkways clean and the supplies stocked can go home at the end of the day. Those whose vision gets carried out are the ones who will take the worry home with them.
Once the task stops being about getting it done the best way possible and starts to be about “we are the mods,” it turns into a big party and then a riot.
Didn’t go to Chic-fil-a. Had my grass-fed beef.
“We are the mods” ha haa
[...] and coming collapse. left (self) vs right (world) conservatism definition & left vs right http://www.amerika.org/politics/an-offer-you-cant-refuse/ 1789 French [...]