An aesthetic identity movement is one where everything is dominated by how things look on the surface, not what they actually do/mean in material reality. Performances of people having identities, not actions of people in reality. To some extent this is a spectrum, but I think there are attractor states of high/low performativity.
It’s possible for a state not to be an aesthetic identity movement, e.g. by having rule of law, actual infrastructure, etc.
It’s possible for a movement not to be an aesthetic identity movement, by actually doing the thing, choosing actions based on expected value rather than aesthetics alone, having infrastructure that isn’t just doing signalling, etc.
Academic fields have aesthetic elements, but also (some of the time) do actual investigation of reality (or, of reasoning/logic, etc) that turns up unexpected information.
Mass movements are more likely to be aesthetic identity movements than obscure ones. Movements around gaining resources through signalling are more likely to be aesthetic identity movements than ones around accomplishing objectives in material reality. (Homesteading in the US is an example of a historical movement around material reality)
(Note, EA isn’t only as aesthetic identity movement, but it is largely one, in terms of percentage of people, attention, etc; this is an important distinction)
It seems like the concept of “aesthetic identity movement” I’m using hasn’t been communicated to you well; if you want to see where I’m coming from more in more detail, read the following.
An aesthetic identity movement is one where everything is dominated by how things look on the surface, not what they actually do/mean in material reality. Performances of people having identities, not actions of people in reality. To some extent this is a spectrum, but I think there are attractor states of high/low performativity.
It’s possible for a state not to be an aesthetic identity movement, e.g. by having rule of law, actual infrastructure, etc.
It’s possible for a movement not to be an aesthetic identity movement, by actually doing the thing, choosing actions based on expected value rather than aesthetics alone, having infrastructure that isn’t just doing signalling, etc.
Academic fields have aesthetic elements, but also (some of the time) do actual investigation of reality (or, of reasoning/logic, etc) that turns up unexpected information.
Mass movements are more likely to be aesthetic identity movements than obscure ones. Movements around gaining resources through signalling are more likely to be aesthetic identity movements than ones around accomplishing objectives in material reality. (Homesteading in the US is an example of a historical movement around material reality)
(Note, EA isn’t only as aesthetic identity movement, but it is largely one, in terms of percentage of people, attention, etc; this is an important distinction)
It seems like the concept of “aesthetic identity movement” I’m using hasn’t been communicated to you well; if you want to see where I’m coming from more in more detail, read the following.
Geeks, MOPs, and sociopaths
Identity and its Discontents
Naming the Nameless
On Drama
Optimizing for Stories (vs. Optimizing Reality)
Excerpts from a larger discussion about simulacra
(no need to read all of these if it doesn’t seem interesting, of course)
I will take a look at them. Thanks.