Working on my theory of time, where time is actually MANY different phenomena that we lump together, falling along several axes.
The first two temporal axes are, Dis-unified v. Unified, and Directional v. Non-directional
Dis-unified Directional: Discrete Time (Planck Time)
Unified Directional: Linear (normal time)
Dis-unified Non-directional: Random (stochasticity)
Unified Non-Directional: Cyclical (obvi.)
The next two axes are trying to capture something like Necessary/Contingent, Ontological/Epistemic:
Necessary Ontological: Space-time, or some basal time
Necessary Epistemic: Time as Kantian a priori
Contingent Ontological: Time as entropy
Contingent Epistemic: Clock time
If I were to propose a normative theory of science, it would be something like: 1. Coherence 2. Depth 3. Robustness 4. Precision 5. Creativity/generativity 6. Simplicity
Coherence can be understood in explanatory, qualitative, Bayesian or other statistical terms. I’m more or less agnostic about whatever form it takes.
Depth & Breadth are both important actually, and need to be optimized in a dynamic sense, as a kind of search stay problem. The ideal dynamic optimization of the two cannot be given in advance. These are thus trade offs.
The point highlighted by this article, that people’s advocacy for prisons & police is by no means solely driven by rational self interest & economy but by a deep seated overriding moral drama undergirded by racism is incredibly sophisticated & important.
in the same way extractivism has entered our terminology to give us a way to discuss ecological destruction independent of its purely instrumental causes, I wish ‘retributivism’ came to be understood the same way.
i.e. retributivism & extractivism are both ideologies & structures which can & do exist independently of capitalism or instrumental ends
None of these facts, however, mean that these phenomenon are less real, or somehow less legitimate.
For example: The typical Texan accent has been shown to become typified and affected in response to the influx of people from outside Texas. i.e. the Texan accent emerged as a way of self differentiation to cultural change.
A similar thing happened with British English (to which Appalachian dialect is the most extantly similar) and then the Kings English which originated to differentiate from American & lower class English. The Mid Atlantic accent in the US also has a very similar origin.
Some facts about Democracy, drawing on political science, economics, etc:
Defining democracy is difficult. For Schumpeter it means competitive elections & competitions of elites. For Dewey it's participatory & delegative. For Arendt its about the agora & councils. For commies its about worker control.
Suffice it to say,
Democracy means rule by the Demos, the masses
Republic means a representative government as the will of the people
Liberal means a set of constitutional rules guaranteeing individual rights
The key issue with the idea of totalitarianism is that its analytic description of its object fails to differentiate between it and the characteristics of states in general, let alone of great powers.
Arendts definition of totalitarianism is the most sophisticated and least interested, yet it applies equally to all great or imperial powers. Popper, Orwell, Rand, and whoever else manage to end up just defining states in general.
Now all of this would be fine and good if its proponents acknowledged that, and applied the principle consistently, which would lead them to a kind of anarchism necessarily while also ceasing to be effective as a cudgel to be used against communism.
To get the numbers desired by the thing you posted you would: 1. Have to include the Nazi soldiers the USSR killed in their numbers 2. Attribute to China & the USSR the single fastest population explosion in history 3. Apply to capitalism & find 100 Million dead every 5 yrs
Mind you, I don't merely mean that the above methodology is *sufficient* for the numbers provided, but is, at minimum, *necessary*. If the numbers stated are true that implies, first, that 1. Killing Nazis is bad & 2. Mao & Stalin have super heroic demographic powers
But, what's more, the methodology of attributing, non causally distinguished deaths, inferred from the difference between projected demographic growth & actual population, when applied to the US, UK, capitalism, etc, is roughly 20x communism during the same period.
Taylorism: 'Scientific' work management, using regimentation, control & studies to maximize output per labor & control dissent
Fordism: The above, PLUS a down home intrusive corporation that pays its workers enough to purchase its goods, in exchange for higher output & rents
'Progressivism'/the 'Progressive' Era: Governments institute regulations on behalf of large corporations, in the name of 'social health', these shut down smaller businesses & assure US goods access to foreign markets. A mixture of charity & eugenics are used to control the poor.
The Post-WWII consensus, plus FDR-style Corporatism: The state will now support banks, big farms & big corporations through protection, subsidies, tax breaks & purchases. The US lives high off the hog of WWII rebuilding. Surplus corporate rents used to buy off labor.
One interesting this is that if Many Worlds/Everett is true, and, is at it claims, a local theory, then Bohmian mechanics could be a valid description within light cones (i.e. causally local areas), & it is, after all, more consistent with other work into wave functions etc.
Also, inasmuch as causally local areas are well-described, that they operate akin to quantum computers (with discrete operations in discrete time!), 'simulating' outcomes (as in Bohm, or more literally, Many Worlds), is quite interesting.
Because the mechanisms of Quantum Computation provide a kind of meta-solution to that of observation, and poorly defined versions of measurement--causally local quantum computational areas can compute Bohm-like empty branches which cohere into realities once 'observed'
Structures, whether social, cultural, political, ecological, linguistic, biological and/or technological, are self-contained relations, which contain their criteria of differentiation/conditions of reproduction, & are conceptually (tho not necessarily genetically) autonomous
Structure is typically opposed as being, solidity, stability & reproduction to genesis/genetics—or origin, becoming, change & growth on the one hand, and is opposed as path, condition, form, vessel, and constraint, to function, on the other hand.
When structure is opposed to genesis, it is because it is referring to something’s conceptual, and emergent autonomy, it’s ability to stand on its own in a well defined way & reproduce/maintain itself, in a coherent, repeatable, modellable way.
The universe, now 13 billion years old, will cease to produce new stars in 100 Trillion years. Relativized to a day, that means our arrival in the universe is 11 seconds past midnight, or relativized to a 75 year lifespan, we're 3.56 days old.
In 10^15 years the sun will be super chilly, at 5 degrees Kelvin, in my relative scale, that's 1.12 seconds into the first day, and 8.5 hours into the first day of an average life.
10^30 years is when stars will fall into super massive black holes. On a day scale, we are only in .00012% of the first nanosecond of the first day, or, relativized to an average life, we are 3% into the first nanosecond. Or, alternatively 2.08*10^28 Planck Times after Midnight.
I think a lot of them are real people in the literal sense, but aren't real in the sense of being intelligent, good faith, willing to engage or worthwhile to talk to, but also I think it's super cool someone of his fame would say the above, as it's a taboo thing to admit
I mean libs will talk about 'Russian bots' but they'd call accusations of natsec or corporate sockpuppetry a "conspiracy theory", even tho it's literally documented--not to mention all the 4Chan sockpuppets, literal cops, and Facebook grandmas, who are all equally unreal
Racist advocates of eugenics & critics who eschew the analysis of genes & evolution entirely both make a similar error: vastly over estimating the behavioral & other relevance of genes, evolution & individual traits, while also vastly over stating our knowledge of genetics lol
Like, humans have been subject to selection for sociality, culture, plasticity, extended development, tool use, language and so on for 100s of thousands to millions of years, and the polygenic & developmental background of most traits makes genocentrism moot anyway
idk how stupid you have to be to think humans can be sub categorized into forwardly predictive absolute genetic groups, let alone ones manipulable based on contextually elicited phenotypes in such a short time frame.
Capitalist elites care about profit and will exploit every last drop for it, while state elites care about sovereignty and control, even if it costs them money. But these are interested selfish people, it's the doe eyed down home fascism of the middle class that worries me.
Capitalists and the state will sell you down the river if it suits them, but they also can be, as a turn of phrase, bargained with--make it profitable or less costly to leave you alone and they will--but the middle class will actively hurt themselves to hurt other people.
It is the middle class, in their suburbs with their "way it is" sensibilities, who are willing to sacrifice economic security and peace (and thus their children's lives), for the sake of a fascist, white supremacist, police state, brutally repressing & eviscerating commons
i was reading this historical engineer talking about how masonry, and the use of stone, wood, and brick to build stable structures & infrastructure developed piecemeal by trial & error over 20,000 years, and in the last 100 years, we've thrown it all out entirely.
So all these classically built bridges and buildings have lasted 1000 years, thru earthquakes, foot traffic, cars, bombs, and so on, and then these MIT grads come in, build glass and steel monstrosities and then those collapse within 50 years.
he points out how when they put their specifications into their CAD and other models, they collapse, but irl they last longer, and use far less energy than do the modern designed buildings
these ling books are dope. one is about syntactic under determination of verb phrases, the other about communicative but semantically unanalyzable words & the last about a general computational model of phonological & syntactic learning, categorization, and use.
The long and the short of it is this, neither the received view of semantics nor syntax can account for successful language with logically analyzable phrases or computational rules absent pragmatics—i.e. no pragmatics & social contextualization & no syntax or semantics
the model ling one shows that people learn phonological & syntactic rules thru dynamically optimized, almost bayesian, computational models, inferring from frequency & absence (in direct contrast to what standard generativism, nativism, cognitivism or minimalism predict)
If Putin were as powerful as the Dems say he is, the rational response would be to capitulate to his demands, because in politics, the welfare of one's people (let alone the pragmatic integrity of one's state???) should/would trump lofty notions of 'letting them win' or w/e
there's a reason US election meddling works (usually after a lot of failed attempts, but still) and it's because the people being fucked with know that if they don't capitulate the US will murder them en masse.
If Putin were truly the political actor Dems say he is, then the solution would be simple--give in to his demands, by making peace with Russia--an act, which, even if the worst claims about Putin were true, would still make rational sense. pragmatics > pride.
The hydraulic theory of human action, whereby ‘repressing’ emotions causes them to build up until one ‘lets them out’, or where punishing or threatening someone just makes them stronger is sincerely a sinister folk theory of human agency
It ranks with ‘marketplace of ideas’ for seemingly trivial metaphors that pull a lot of conceptual weight
The reason that bombing a countries non military targets causes them to upscale their will to fight is because it raises the stakes for *other* people for something they were committed to doing anyway
The GOP knows that if you want a center right policy, you have to shoot for the extreme right, and it will usually land in the middle.
Meanwhile, Dems, Liberals & Centrists think that if you shoot for the (current) ‘middle’, the other side will acquiesce out of principle.
The net result is that the tactic the GOP uses which is designed for real opposition, faces none, and thus there’s just been a massive shift right. Meanwhile, conservatives even if they may find parts of it distasteful nonetheless relish this fact because it entrenched them.
Thus the effect of Never Trump and Center Righters, given that they’ve duped liberals, is to enable an incredibly far right reactionary turn. One which, even in my short life time, used to be unthinkable.
I did a whole thread on inequality, hierarchy and Jordan Peterson and a while ago, but the marshmallow test tweet made me want to recap some of the main points made, about standard explanations for inequality and why they are useful, correct or (almost entirely) not.
There are several main functionalist accounts of hierarchy & inequality, those which attribute a utilitarian reason for its existence: 1. Incentive effects 2. Selection effects 3. Development effects 4. Information/Search effects 5. Transaction costs
The incentive explanation is simple: remove all inequality and there are no incentives. Assuming pre-existing, given variations in ability, resources, preferences, skills, technologies & information, rewarding everyone the same way eliminates incentives to utilize them.
The funniest thing about the lesser of two evils logic liberals propose is that all it means the GOP has to do is run progressively more horrible candidates, bc it will drive the Dems to do their policy work for them lol.
Like if they know that Dems will always say “it’s no time to be a purist, we have to be moderate and choose the lesser of two evils”, this incentivizes the GOP to always go further to the right, bc they know even if they lose the battle, they’ll win the war.
This isn’t even controversial—this is a well described problem in the political economy, game theory, commitment, bargaining & signaling literature—which is ironic considering the neoliberal shills constant appeal to economics and policy work