1. It tries to offer an abstract vision for the future.
2. It abstractly references what you want.
I don’t believe that everyone should participate in the political process with the same motivations but I’m a believer in a pluralist society where different people have different motivations.
I think this is (more specifically) the answer to the question I have been asking throughout this thread—that this says what you want. (It’s a little meta—it might be about what you want for everyone, as opposed to just yourself.)
I have the impression that I want to have a political conversation on a level that’s productive,
And given what seems to be what you want, your lack of interest in how to get from is to ought (specifically) now makes sense—you don’t know. What you want is general, not specific. (Maybe your vision is of a world where people who don’t share the same vision work together, or where things get done even if people don’t agree on everything.) You want to get from is to ought, not in one step (personally), but in two (with other people).
political conversation on a level that’s productive
What was confusing about this, is that the post presents a negative vision.
Thinking about this exchange a bit, it seems to me that the Kegan 4⁄5 split plays into this. I’m not at Kegan 4. I’m not operating out of a single system. If you model my as having a Kegan 4 motivation structure where a single system is driving me, your model will be off.
You said you wanted something. I asked why. It appears you didn’t have an answer.* “I prefer means of change X” or “I don’t prefer means of change X” seem like they probably aren’t based directly on preferences about the means of change, but rather other things you value + ideas you have about consequences.
*Maybe you don’t have an answer because:
“X is something I believe, but it is difficult to articulate.” (because ethics/other things are complicated)
“I think people should focus on practical results, and I think the practical results of the policies I’m against would be bad.”
“I am pointing out a current problem. I want solutions to the problem, not to extrapolate past ‘progress’ into the future. A process dedicated to creating value/making the world better should concern itself with creating value/making the world better, rather than concern itself with being an extrapolation of past trends.”
“I want people to brainstorm solutions to this broad issue, rather than focusing on narrow political concerns and otherwise operating in (traditional) ways that aren’t effective.”
Moldbug solution of rolling back all social progress is still bad. You can meaningfully say that ending slavery was good. The case goes for legalising homosexuality.
I agree with this statement. I also believe that people who agree with it have other beliefs about how the future might be improved. Beliefs which might shed light on:
I don’t have a good answer of what our political system should look like. But I do think that’s an important question. Discussing it is worthwhile. If we find a design that nicely fits together there are a lot of people who hate the status quo and who gladly take your political philosophy if they don’t have to do the leg work of thinking up the fundamentals themselves.
Perhaps I was jumping the gun, or you are interested in more people having shallower discussions, or focusing on what they want rather than why, because that is the best way to capture low-hanging fruit.
That’s not true. For the point of illustrating a more central point that I care about I said that X is benefitial. The thing I wanted to achieve by mentioning the example was to stimulate useful thought in the reader.
Perhaps I was jumping the gun, or you are interested in more people having shallower discussions,
You were explicit about not being interested in trying to understand distinctions that are more central to my article then a particular point about a particular policy person of Molburg.
I’m interested in deep discussions of my central points but not in deep discussion of whatever a person who’s not interested in the central points want to discuss.
If you want to have a deep discussion about how political action should be motivated, why not write a post that focuses on that?
If you want to have a deep discussion about how political action should be motivated, why not write a post that focuses on that?
In general, a fair point. Your post talks about two things. Let’s call them 1. Discussing/calling for reasonable politics. 2. Ruling out Moldbug.
Comparatively, there was a post a ways back that said something like: 1. Freedom of speech, people can talk about whatever. 2.Unless they’re nazis, then they should be banned.
Are there ways that can include 1 but exclude 2? Yes. I was asking which one of them it was. 1 reads like a call for ideas, idea generation, brainstorming. 2 is reducing things.
Both may be a part of finding/choosing solutions. But it isn’t super clear what it is that is being ruled out in advance before brainstorming.
Loss of freedom? Pre-existing systems of thought (like communism, or the agendas of the left or right)? Things that are unethical? Politically untenable? Or things that don’t emerge naturally as solutions to things that are considered problems?
I’m interested in deep discussions of my central points
Practical has to start somewhere. Is the post you made a call for political activism, or political thought (via blogging)?
Your post talks about two things. Let’s call them 1. Discussing/calling for reasonable politics. 2. Ruling out Moldbug.
My post makes a lot more points then those two. The point about Moldbug is not one that I deeply developed. Besides proposing a specific way to do politics I spent effort to argue that the causes of the Egyptian revolution (a major political event) should be seen differently. I explained the philosophy behind Wikileaks and do believe it’s valuable for people to understand it. Those are points that are developed over multiple paragraphes.
I don’t think influencing people’s opinion of Moldbug is important.
Unless they’re nazis, then they should be banned.
I remember that case. I think there’s a core difference between saying “nazis are bad” in an enviroment where most people believe “nazis are bad” and saying “nazis should be banned” at a venue which moderation policies that don’t involve banning nazis.
Is the post you made a call for political activism, or political thought (via blogging)?
Those two don’t feel like categories that I would use. It’s the nature of political thought that isn’t just play-acting to encourage action.
Those two don’t feel like categories that I would use. It’s the nature of political thought that isn’t just play-acting to encourage action.
True. The action you wanted out of this post seemed to be coming up with figuring out action, rather than executing it:
If we find a design that nicely fits together there are a lot of people who hate the status quo and who gladly take your political philosophy if they don’t have to do the leg work of thinking up the fundamentals themselves.
Something like political design/science/communication. Might have been a better choice of words, though I’m a bit fuzzy on which/what you’re pointing at beyond “let’s not rule out politics”.
your lack of interest in how to get from is to ought
The people I know personally who do things that have political impact don’t spend time discussing how to get from is to ought and the people I know who do discuss how to get from is to ought don’t have any political impact.
I don’t believe in action being grounded in abstract principles that you build up.
Your post does two things:
1. It tries to offer an abstract vision for the future.
2. It abstractly references what you want.
I think this is (more specifically) the answer to the question I have been asking throughout this thread—that this says what you want. (It’s a little meta—it might be about what you want for everyone, as opposed to just yourself.)
And given what seems to be what you want, your lack of interest in how to get from is to ought (specifically) now makes sense—you don’t know. What you want is general, not specific. (Maybe your vision is of a world where people who don’t share the same vision work together, or where things get done even if people don’t agree on everything.) You want to get from is to ought, not in one step (personally), but in two (with other people).
What was confusing about this, is that the post presents a negative vision.
Thinking about this exchange a bit, it seems to me that the Kegan 4⁄5 split plays into this. I’m not at Kegan 4. I’m not operating out of a single system. If you model my as having a Kegan 4 motivation structure where a single system is driving me, your model will be off.
You said you wanted something. I asked why. It appears you didn’t have an answer.* “I prefer means of change X” or “I don’t prefer means of change X” seem like they probably aren’t based directly on preferences about the means of change, but rather other things you value + ideas you have about consequences.
*Maybe you don’t have an answer because:
“X is something I believe, but it is difficult to articulate.” (because ethics/other things are complicated)
“I think people should focus on practical results, and I think the practical results of the policies I’m against would be bad.”
“I am pointing out a current problem. I want solutions to the problem, not to extrapolate past ‘progress’ into the future. A process dedicated to creating value/making the world better should concern itself with creating value/making the world better, rather than concern itself with being an extrapolation of past trends.”
“I want people to brainstorm solutions to this broad issue, rather than focusing on narrow political concerns and otherwise operating in (traditional) ways that aren’t effective.”
I agree with this statement. I also believe that people who agree with it have other beliefs about how the future might be improved. Beliefs which might shed light on:
Perhaps I was jumping the gun, or you are interested in more people having shallower discussions, or focusing on what they want rather than why, because that is the best way to capture low-hanging fruit.
That’s not true. For the point of illustrating a more central point that I care about I said that X is benefitial. The thing I wanted to achieve by mentioning the example was to stimulate useful thought in the reader.
You were explicit about not being interested in trying to understand distinctions that are more central to my article then a particular point about a particular policy person of Molburg.
I’m interested in deep discussions of my central points but not in deep discussion of whatever a person who’s not interested in the central points want to discuss.
If you want to have a deep discussion about how political action should be motivated, why not write a post that focuses on that?
In general, a fair point. Your post talks about two things. Let’s call them 1. Discussing/calling for reasonable politics. 2. Ruling out Moldbug.
Comparatively, there was a post a ways back that said something like: 1. Freedom of speech, people can talk about whatever. 2.Unless they’re nazis, then they should be banned.
Are there ways that can include 1 but exclude 2? Yes. I was asking which one of them it was. 1 reads like a call for ideas, idea generation, brainstorming. 2 is reducing things.
Both may be a part of finding/choosing solutions. But it isn’t super clear what it is that is being ruled out in advance before brainstorming.
Loss of freedom? Pre-existing systems of thought (like communism, or the agendas of the left or right)? Things that are unethical? Politically untenable? Or things that don’t emerge naturally as solutions to things that are considered problems?
Practical has to start somewhere. Is the post you made a call for political activism, or political thought (via blogging)?
My post makes a lot more points then those two. The point about Moldbug is not one that I deeply developed. Besides proposing a specific way to do politics I spent effort to argue that the causes of the Egyptian revolution (a major political event) should be seen differently. I explained the philosophy behind Wikileaks and do believe it’s valuable for people to understand it. Those are points that are developed over multiple paragraphes.
I don’t think influencing people’s opinion of Moldbug is important.
I remember that case. I think there’s a core difference between saying “nazis are bad” in an enviroment where most people believe “nazis are bad” and saying “nazis should be banned” at a venue which moderation policies that don’t involve banning nazis.
Those two don’t feel like categories that I would use. It’s the nature of political thought that isn’t just play-acting to encourage action.
True. The action you wanted out of this post seemed to be coming up with figuring out action, rather than executing it:
Something like political design/science/communication. Might have been a better choice of words, though I’m a bit fuzzy on which/what you’re pointing at beyond “let’s not rule out politics”.
That’s one example of things I pointed out as valuable in the post it’s however not the only thing I argued to be valuable.
The people I know personally who do things that have political impact don’t spend time discussing how to get from is to ought and the people I know who do discuss how to get from is to ought don’t have any political impact.
I don’t believe in action being grounded in abstract principles that you build up.
That makes sense. I’m curious about the positive aspects of your vision—though that does seem like the topic for another post.