An Emergent Order

[thirdform]

but you cannot have an egalitarianism of games, materialism will always predominate because it is non-philosophical and free-form and open, whereas idealism is by its very nature confined within its own limits and tends to being a closed system.

 

[thirdform]

Yeah, this is why I'm hesitant to consciously subscribe to any of them. I know Third will say you're subscribing to one whatever you do, but I think there's a distinction between actively choosing one and trying to break away from all of them while being left with the residue of whichever one you grew up in. I'm sure Third will say "Yes, the distinction is cowardice!" but I don't think that's the only component.

It's not that the distinction is cowardice (though it can be) but it is meaningless and really not any kind of distinction at all.

 

[version]

but you cannot have an egalitarianism of games, materialism will always predominate because it is non-philosophical and free-form and open, whereas idealism is by its very nature confined within its own limits and tends to being a closed system.

I don't view all these frameworks as equally convincing. There are some I think are bollocks. The hesitation comes from not being able to prove any of them are bollocks or legitimate because all I'll ever have to go on is books, gut feeling and personal experience.

 

[germaphobian]

the philosopher determines social being by social consciousness, whereas the materialist proper determines social consciousness by social being.

Is there any way of proving that this distinction is the correct distinction, the correct duality?

 

[thirdform]

I don't view all these frameworks as equally convincing. There are some I think are bollocks. The hesitation comes from not being able to prove any of them are bollocks or legitimate because all I'll ever have to go on is books, gut feeling and personal experience.

it's ok, history will force you to choose. You might not even see it as a choice, but you will choose, and you will be happy.

 

[germaphobian]

the philosopher determines social being by social consciousness, whereas the materialist proper determines social consciousness by social being.

I mean, this distinction/observation was made from within a marxist framework, but is there any way of proving it by stepping outside the marxist framework itself? if this claim—that social being determines social consciousness—is internally consistent within marxism, but cannot be verified independently of marxist assumptions, then it dosen't function as a universal truth but more as a theoretical axiom. whic is exactly the point to be made

 

[version]

it's ok, history will force you to choose. You might not even see it as a choice, but you will choose, and you will be happy.

Yeah, maybe. You can only really have my current mindset in a relatively comfortable situation, I suppose. If the UK ever gets really mad then I imagine all this sitting around pondering abstracts will go out the window somewhat.

 

[thirdform]

you remind me of the poet in Naguib Mahfouz's Cairo Trilogy, actually. Except I am not sure if you even write poems.

Also you are obviously dissimilar in the sense that you don't look on fascism as neutrally as you do liberalism and communism. but the hesitation is the exact same of the egyptian intellectual under the british yoke. An interesting poison, wouldn't you agree?

Now, what if I told you fascism and liberalism are just two different political forms of the same class rule, of the same civilisation? that liberal democracy always conceals fascism as a blunt instrument inside its glove?

 

[thirdform]

I mean, this distinction/observation was made from within a marxist framework, but is there any way of proving it by stepping outside the marxist framework itself? if this claim—that social being determines social consciousness—is internally consistent within marxism, but cannot be verified independently of marxist assumptions, then it dosen't function as a universal truth but more as a theoretical axiom. whic is exactly the point to be made

The search for absolute truth is pointless. that is my point, or more rather, it is a pseudo-problem for the religious. Same as free will and determinism. In reality everything is determined to some degree or another.

 

[version]

you remind me of the poet in Naguib Mahfouz's Cairo Trilogy, actually. Except I am not sure if you even write poems.

Also you are obviously dissimilar in the sense that you don't look on fascism as neutrally as you do liberalism and communism. but the hesitation is the exact same of the egyptian intellectual under the british yoke. An interesting poison, wouldn't you agree?

Now, what if I told you fascism and liberalism are just two different political forms of the same class rule, of the same civilisation? that liberal democracy always conceals fascism as a blunt instrument inside its glove?

I don't write poems, no. I don't write at all.

Yeah, I have a very negative view of fascism. I'm not sure how neutral I am on liberalism. I like the general idea of personal liberty and the 'live and let live' kind of attitude I had drummed into me as a kid, but I'm not keen on liberal economics and liberalism seems weak when it comes up against illiberal attitudes.

 

[germaphobian]

The search for absolute truth is pointless. that is my point.

But you just made a foundational ontological claim - the philosopher determines social being by social consciousness, whereas the materialist proper determines social consciousness by social being.

 

[thirdform]

if we take power to intersect with that of rule, then claims to absolute truth have to flow, as a consequence. But once we reverse this, and work from the most basic level of reproduction of immediate life, then this concern seems .. trivial.

 

[thirdform]

I don't write poems, no. I don't write at all.

Yeah, I have a very negative view of fascism. I'm not sure how neutral I am on liberalism. I like the general idea of personal liberty and the 'live and let live' kind of attitude I had drummed into me as a kid, but I'm not keen on liberal economics and liberalism seems weak when it comes up against illiberal attitudes.

liberalism is all ideology and no organisation.

 

[version]

liberalism is all ideology and no organisation.

That's sometimes how D&G and some of the other French guys come off to me, although I know some people seem to claim they're closer to anarchism.

 

[thirdform]

But you just made a foundational ontological claim - the philosopher determines social being by social consciousness, whereas the materialist proper determines social consciousness by social being.

yep because to confine your materialism to philosophy is a truncated and abortive materialism and will sooner or later succumb to the idealism inherent within the constructions of philosophy. even materialism is a word, an idea. But materialism in the sense of matter as motion is undeniably correct.

 

[version]

you remind me of the poet in Naguib Mahfouz's Cairo Trilogy, actually. Except I am not sure if you even write poems.

I don't write poems, no. I don't write at all.

This is bundled up with what I've been discussing here, tbh. I don't feel any desire or compulsion to write and don't really see the point, just feels like I'd be contributing more noise.

 

[thirdform]

This is bundled up with what I've been discussing here, tbh. I don't feel any desire or compulsion to write and don't really see the point, just feels like I'd be contributing more noise.

good, so get disciplined. don't be like some of our friends who model their lives on Kerouac

 

[version]

To me, the wrong action seems worse than inaction. The downside's obviously that being risk averse is very limiting, you deprive yourself of the possibility of the right action and inaction is arguably an action in its own right and can be just as wrong or right as anything else.

 

[germaphobian]

yep because to confine your materialism to philosophy is a truncated and abortive materialism and will sooner or later succumb to the idealism inherent within the constructions of philosophy. even materialism is a word, an idea. But materialism in the sense of matter as motion is undeniably correct.

if ‘materialism as matter-in-motion’ transcends philosophy and language, how do you articulate this truth without relying on the very philosophical constructs (words, ideas, frameworks) you dismiss as idealist?

 

[thirdform]

That's sometimes how D&G and some of the other French guys come off to me, although I know some people seem to claim they're closer to anarchism.

anarchism is just classical liberalism sexed up.