Thread by @owenbroadcast

was sitting at my desk yesterday thinking about how a society trying to adhere to or appealing to the “letter of the law” cant function (said in some classic chinese philosophy). there has to be an element of the flexible “spirit” operating behind the law and then realized:

in some ancient chinese text, the hua he ching i think (like the tao te ching 2) it says in an overly legalistic society “no one can move”. i think its either that or everything becomes a hyper semantic enforcing of what terms seem to mean + when they do or dont apply (like now)

example of this ive occasionally been using to parachute up to a more meta level irl when people try to back me into a political conversation about a specific topic, as its very timely and topical, is the difference between a “riot” and a “protest”, thats one place it falls apart

“a riot” is something the authorities have a duty to stop (theoretically), whereas a protest is something the authorities are forbidden from stopping (theoretically), but now two people look at the same thing and cant even tell if its a riot or a protest. so that just falls apart

so now ur locked into a situation wherein how things are interpreted and seen is the difference between “very illegal” or “constitutional right”. doesnt work. i guess its always been that way but feels extra nefarious in the information age (it necessitates information warfare)

of course thats obvious for essentially all of us but i like using that example w people because, most people think theyre “just” dealing with “reality” but that shows that there can be a subjective element determining things + that the subjectivity functions as a by proxy weapon