Objectivity is an Asset

Favorite quotations, etc.
Riggerjack
Posts: 3181
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by Riggerjack »

How is this:
For the same reason you own a firearm because you think it is irrational to hide and shiver under your blankets when you hear a bump in the night, so too I must now analyze the actions and policies, and make preparations to deal with a monstrous malevolent bureaucracy. I don’t just get to hide under the blanket and pretend the monstrous malevolent bureaucracy does not exist. I have to deal with it and go around it. I cannot tolerate my own destruction.
different from this:
One might be the target of intolerant worldviews.



One might. In which case, paying attention to the subtractive nature of direct opposition should be considered.
The bureaucracy will take actions. You have no control over these. You do have control over your own actions. If you pitch your actions directly against others' actions, the net effect is subtractive. This means if you lack the greater power, ALL of your power is negated.

That seems a poor allocation of resources.

But if you understand that the bureaucracy does not have your interests at heart, and that you have limited resources, simply evading the forces bureaucracies bring to bear, leaves the majority of your own resources available for your own use. If one can't comfortably evade, one is likely to play the bureaucracy's game, on its terms. The bureaucracy will determine the patterns of your thought, restricting them to thoughts opposing the bureaucracy.

Where is the freedom there? How is this any kind of win? Is the self image of Resistance/Rebel/Heroic Defiance worth all that?

Don't you want more for yourself?

User avatar
Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by Mister Imperceptible »

Sure. I pretend to believe in the bureaucracy’s mission statement and I pretend to comply with their policies and they firehose me with cash. I would rather live in a world where that was not necessary, but this is just temporary until I am FI.

Not understanding what you are driving at here RJ.

Are you saying I should go John Galt? That has merit, but it’s much easier when you have a hundred or few years of expenses saved.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3181
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by Riggerjack »

Do you want to go John Galt? If so, you should consider it. Note that John Galt did not put his efforts into opposition to anyone. He simply stopped engaging those who opposed him.

What I am trying to say, is one should be extremely choosy in who/what one opposes. Opposition is in itself costly. So opposition should be only carefully chosen.

Volunteering ones own mental/social/emotional resources to oppose someone else's mental/social/emotional resources is SUBTRACTIVE.

The sum is less than its parts.

One CAN win negative sum games. But a life of negative sum games will end with less than it started with.

Don't you want more for yourself?

User avatar
Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by Mister Imperceptible »

I think I am down with what you say, although you probably overestimate the amount of energy required to post.

I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who makes things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3181
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by Riggerjack »

although you probably overestimate the amount of energy required to post.
Neurons that fire together, wire together.

I'm not just concerned with how much of my resources are used. I am also concerned by what I think. Every time I post some thought in opposition to anything, that thing constrained my thoughts, displacing perhaps useful thoughts.

At the same time, the brain juices just rewarded me for acting out thought in opposition to my outgroup. I am training myself to oppose. I am training myself to waste resources in exchange for short term chemical rewards. I am training myself to be content with being merely oppositional. I am trading my sense of agency, and what do I get?

I want more for/from myself.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3181
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by Riggerjack »

Back to the algorithmic programming, I was talking to Mrs Riggerjack about this.

Her response:

"I feel like facebook is finally getting this about right. When I get videos, they are all about kitties, cars, or semis, all stuff I want to watch."

Perhaps the best defense against an algo programmed worldview, is to not get one's worldview delivered by algorithm. And maybe watch more puppy videos. :lol:

User avatar
Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by Mister Imperceptible »

You have to know the game you are playing if you are going to win the game. As evidenced by the indignation of poster quoted by the OP, who has apparently since left the forum, people are suffering cognitive dissonance because they do not know the game being played. If I can articulate the game being played, people might not allow themselves to be played so easily. Maybe then people could talk to each other again. Your posts (seem to) suggest that acknowledging the game being played is oppositional and therefore that pointing it out has no value, or negative value. I respectfully disagree, but, speaking objectively :D , this depends on whether one benefits from the game. If I am benefiting from playing others for fools, then naturally I derive negative utility from others pointing out that I am doing so :D

Many forumites have rage quit and/or deleted their posts in recent years, and you may have noticed I am not one of them because I do not need to cancel or censor the world when someone says or does something I disagree with. My autonomy and resolve have never been stronger, and this is because I can hold contradictory thoughts in my head. For example, I could suggest to the OP that in a resource scarce world, indicating that the world is a better place for women and minorities is no consolation to my working class father who was too busy working and paying his mortgage to enjoy common white man pastimes such as beating his wife or oppressing minorities, but I understand where the OP was coming from and therefore gave it a charitable interpretation instead. Objectivity is indeed an asset :D

NewBlood
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:45 pm

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by NewBlood »

Riggerjack wrote:
Thu Apr 07, 2022 2:52 pm

"I feel like facebook is finally getting this about right. When I get videos, they are all about kitties, cars, or semis, all stuff I want to watch."
I love this :-D

J_
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:12 pm
Location: Netherlands/Austria

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by J_ »

jennypenny wrote:
Sat Mar 19, 2022 7:02 am
Again, I'm not implying we -- as individuals or a group -- do nothing or ride the sidelines. What I'm saying is that you can't know what to do to help a situation without being able to analyze it objectively first. You also need to be able to keep reactions in check ... overreacting to everything is hard on us as individuals and it makes solving problems as a group almost impossible. We need to make sure we take a step back sometimes to help keep our perspective, and we need to be mindful of our negativity bias to avoid despair.
I agree, and think these are wise words from @jennypenny.
Striving to find objectivity, how difficult it may be, is always beneficial to a better understanding a situation and, as a consequence, a more relevant reaction.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3181
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by Riggerjack »

@MI
let me restate what you wrote:

"You have to know the game you are playing if you are going to win the game. As evidenced by the indignation of poster quoted by the OP, who has apparently since left the forum, people are suffering cognitive dissonance because they do not know the game(s) being played. If I can articulate (one of) the game(s) being played, people might not allow themselves to be played so easily.

Your posts suggest that acknowledging the game being played is oppositional and therefore that pointing it out has no value, or negative value."

The game is what the game is. I suggest you CHOOSE your game, and play to win. Even negative sum games should be played to win. Ultimately, I'm talking about winning. I'm talking about YOU winning, however you define it.

Opposition, isn't a game, it's a tactic. It's a tactic we are taught with our ABCs. It is a tactic reinforced throughout our society, and our biology. It is a rewarding tactic, in that one WILL get the chemical success signals, even when only playing within one's own mind.

In my mind, there are 2 potential MI's. MI1 is oppositional. He wrote:
For the same reason you own a firearm because you think it is irrational to hide and shiver under your blankets when you hear a bump in the night, so too I must now analyze the actions and policies, and make preparations to deal with a monstrous malevolent bureaucracy. I don’t just get to hide under the blanket and pretend the monstrous malevolent bureaucracy does not exist. I have to deal with it and go around it. I cannot tolerate my own destruction.
Both MI's are aware of, and against this "monstrous malevolent bureaucracy".

MI1 knows how to oppose it. How to signal to others that this is the thing that must be opposed, and try to rally them in opposition. He's been trained in opposition and support, his whole life. He knows there is a role available and ready for him, with rewards available.

MI2 knows all that MI1 knows. But M2 is looking for ways to win, not merely oppose. He knows what resources he brings, and the resources lined up to oppose him. M2 is looking for a way to find/use a force multiplier, or perhaps find a way to divert opposing resources before they can be brought to bear.

The only difference between MI1 and MI2 is the decision to look for more effective means. MI1 is playing opposition. MI2 is trying to win.

This is an option for all of us. We can simply decide to look for other ways of accomplishing our goals. But we can't even consider this question, when we are lining up in opposition.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3181
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by Riggerjack »

In other words, your position on stupid people was crafted for you, before you ever thought about finding a seat. And once you took that seat, all the evidence available to you reinforced your position. Everyone around you sees what you see. It's obvious, as it should be.

This is the post-modern perspective. The individual can not achieve consciousness outside of the field. Particle/wave. The meritocrat will eventually come to choke on his own affluent just like the industrialist. Etc. etc.
I don't have a modernist/post-modernist/meta-modernist model in my head. So I can't think of an answer along these lines.
....
I have a friend who is a huge fan of HP Lovecraft. While I'm not a horror aficionado, I'm not a fan of Lovecraft. When I read Lovecraft, the ending is telegraphed halfway thru, and there is no anticipation for the italicized, shocking ending!

Now, I know I'm not some psychic who can predict how a story will end, but I have also grown up in a society that has reinvented Lovecraft's stories in many different venues and mediums. So the Italicized, Shocking Ending! has been presented to me in many banal ways throughout my life.

So now I have a very hard time seeing the original works as original, in any way. This robs me of the experience of discovering Lovecraft, along with any appreciation I would have developed, had I started with the curriculum of Lovecraft Appreciation 101. This doesn't make me superior to Lovecraft fanboys, it simply makes their experience inaccessible to me.

...

I have a similar experience with Modernist/Post-Modernist thinking. I find it banal. A simple model that only points out the most obvious, used by white-belts on other white-belts.

But I don't know if this is because I grew up in a post-modernist world, or because the whole value of the model is to point out the very obvious to the most oblivious. I do know that if one doesn't pay close attention it is easy to not see the way one's way has been cleared to reach approved viewpoints. I haven't found any reason to investigate further, but I am open to the possibility that greater meaning is available, if I go thru the trouble to acquire it.

To check, I dug a bit into Metamodernism. Not much, a few vids I couldn't stomach, and a bit of reading (none of the books, just online).

What I found was that Hanzi describes "what he thinks of as gold" in terms I recognize:
You may recognize the figure above as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. What the figure conveys is that our traditional welfare society seeks to guarantee only the most basic human needs of food, survival and security. In contrast, there is no explicit purpose to guarantee us a warm, meaningful community, a good sense of self and opportunities for fruitful personal development throughout life’s long journey.

The listening society, then, is the endeavor to include higher human needs in the guarantee that we give ourselves and each other. This is, of course, no easy task and must be seen as a long-term goal comparable to the building of the traditional welfare society—a process that went on for over a century. It is not self-evident how we should go about ensuring that the higher needs are met. What is needed here is a joint, long-term effort to find solutions in the various areas of social life: in public health and healthcare, in schools, in work-life, in social services, in every area we can think of.
...
Far from everyone feels part of a meaningful community. Many children never experience good and reliable friendships growing up—we all know the stories: the adolescence boy who gets stuck at home in front of the computer, does not develop important social skills, cannot get a girlfriend, and then has difficulty adjusting to adult life. When we send our children to school, there is no guarantee that they will have friends and be allowed to form the social bonds they need for their development. But the same applies not only to children, but also to adults. Many adult men, in particular, lack deep friendships and go on long lonely paths through life, never talking about feelings or deeper issues with anyone, even though they may have a job and a family. Many adult women feel different and alienated, suffer from loneliness—especially in later life. Both women and men go through long, difficult years of being involuntarily without a life partner or other positive sexual relationships. Even within marriage, our relationships often do not exhibit genuine closeness. A similar situation exists in the world of work. Many people’s professional lives are devoid of truly rewarding cooperation with other people. Others struggle to even enter the labor market, to participate in social life: the unemployed youth, the tuckered out old man, the socially awkward and deviant. The lack of community is a companion of so many people. And the fear of exclusion is a driving force in so many people’s lives. Many of us die alone.

How do we ensure that no one goes through life involuntarily without good friendships? That as many as possible have a life partner, if they want one? How do we keep families together? How do we ensure that people feel part of society and have a sense of community at work or in their neighborhood? That no one has to grow old and die alone? A wide range of actions are needed, from pre-school age, through the school years, in adult relationships, in the workplace, and in health and social care for all ages. So many concrete situations need to be changed to better promote the formation of positive bonds between people. Emotional and social intelligence need to be developed at all levels.
But our approaches are entirely different. I agree, that is gold ore. But then I go off in my own direction talking about historical gold mines, refining techniques, geographical mapping, and exploitation patterns. See my journal for examples of this dry writing, if you have trouble sleeping.

Whereas Hanzi has a different method of harvesting gold. He seems to be a huge fan of the Philosopher's Stone method. It looks like:
It is not enough to have societal development that gives us “more of the same” that we already have: more jobs, more welfare, more day-care places, higher wages. We must create something new, develop what we already have, take it to a new level. What we need to change to develop our economy is how we interact, how we talk and relate to each other—both personally and politically.

We need to develop a language, a way of thinking and doing politics that allows us to talk together about the really difficult and deep issues of social life. We need to develop a new political culture. The democratic culture we have today deserves our respect and is admittedly good at solving many problems. But there are also sufferings that our current political culture simply cannot cope with. That is why a new political thinking is needed.
Which to me, reads like a complaint that he can't create gold from lead, because we need better lead. :roll:

...

I don't remember where I ran into this link, but it is worth the time to read and ponder:
https://donellameadows.org/archives/lev ... -a-system/
which includes this gem:
The systems analysis community has a lot of lore about leverage points. Those of us who were trained by the great Jay Forrester at MIT have all absorbed one of his favorite stories. “People know intuitively where leverage points are,” he says. “Time after time I’ve done an analysis of a company, and I’ve figured out a leverage point — in inventory policy, maybe, or in the relationship between sales force and productive force, or in personnel policy. Then I’ve gone to the company and discovered that there’s already a lot of attention to that point. Everyone is trying very hard to push it IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!”
This is the part of systems thinking that causes me the most confusion. That people are capable of mapping systems, and identifying the leverage points. But for some reason can't seem to perceive that every one of those leverage points is contested, and currently set at a compromise point that represents the net interest of concerned parties.

I.e., None of these leverage points are directly leverageable. Forces applied to contested levers are simply oppositional. There was a time when that lever did something useful, but its usefulness attracted vested interests, who then compete for control of said lever. The competition for lever control leads to subsystems being created to negate the effectiveness of opposing forces. And those subsystems will be used by both sides trying to control the lever, negating nearly all effort to move the lever.

In other words, if one understands a societal system, and its feedbacks, and is thinks there is some controllable lever that could be used to fix anything, ever, maybe spending some time identifying all the current interests already trying to use that lever is in order. Perhaps some more reading, or more thinking could help. I don't know.

What I do know, is that I have never seen a lever that was still connected to anything, that wasn't also contested. And that nobody I have heard talking about that lever ever acknowledged the other, contesting interests, except as outgroup indicators. :roll:

....

All that was a long and convoluted way of saying "I don't know" about a post-modernism framework, because I never built a postmodern framework; and your comment has had me wondering why, for a while, now. :oops:

Riggerjack
Posts: 3181
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by Riggerjack »

I thought I should mention that I recently had confirmation of the complete failure of my algorithmic defenses. :oops:

I was searching for information about an injection pump for my backhoe. The engine is common, but the injection pump is not the one commonly associated with that engine. I had to dig pretty deep to find what I needed. I did all this on my personal PC, over the weekend. No VPN, no effort at defense. Simply the expectation that when my search was over, that would be the end of it.

The week before, IT at work had pushed the new MS browser onto my work PC. I don't play with the software settings on my work PC, so the new browser opens with a page full of news and ads. I WFH thru the company VPN.

So I was surprised to see an ad for the specific model of injection pump I had been looking for on my private PC, showing up on this ad page of my work PC accessed thru the company VPN.

That's nothing earth shattering, but I found it startling. And since I had talked about algorithmic defenses here, I should also mention the failure of same. I'll have to give this more thought.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9370
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Riggerjack wrote:I don't have a modernist/post-modernist/meta-modernist model in my head. So I can't think of an answer along these lines.I have a similar experience with Modernist/Post-Modernist thinking. I find it banal. A simple model that only points out the most obvious, used by white-belts on other white-belts.

But I don't know if this is because I grew up in a post-modernist world, or because the whole value of the model is to point out the very obvious to the most oblivious. I do know that if one doesn't pay close attention it is easy to not see the way one's way has been cleared to reach approved viewpoints. I haven't found any reason to investigate further, but I am open to the possibility that greater meaning is available, if I go thru the trouble to acquire it.
I thought it was interesting, given your prior identification with libertarian thought, that your theater post was a very clear and thoughtful description of what some might refer to as "structural violence." I agree that "post-modern" is the world we grew up in, therefore anybody capable of Level X cognition (not everybody) will find the basic model fairly obvious, even if they are not familiar with or do not like the associated vocabulary. I also don't believe that anyone can go beyond "post-modern" without fully integrating this perspective. IOW, I disagree with Jacob's take that there is both a Modern (orange) and a Post-Modern (green) approach to the Meta-Modern (yellow.)
This is the part of systems thinking that causes me the most confusion. That people are capable of mapping systems, and identifying the leverage points. But for some reason can't seem to perceive that every one of those leverage points is contested, and currently set at a compromise point that represents the net interest of concerned parties.

I.e., None of these leverage points are directly leverageable. Forces applied to contested levers are simply oppositional. There was a time when that lever did something useful, but its usefulness attracted vested interests, who then compete for control of said lever. The competition for lever control leads to subsystems being created to negate the effectiveness of opposing forces. And those subsystems will be used by both sides trying to control the lever, negating nearly all effort to move the lever.

In other words, if one understands a societal system, and its feedbacks, and is thinks there is some controllable lever that could be used to fix anything, ever, maybe spending some time identifying all the current interests already trying to use that lever is in order. Perhaps some more reading, or more thinking could help. I don't know.
This also applies to personal relationships or even the personal growth of an individual. Because the leverage points are contested, and currently set at a compromise point, simple tactics such as "letting go of your side of the rope" can have rather huge and possibly unforeseen effects. IOW, the practice of compromise often yields result where "the whole is less than the sum of the parts" rather than "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" that could be achieved through emergent or transcendent solution or perspective.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3181
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by Riggerjack »

I thought it was interesting, given your prior identification with libertarian thought, that your theater post was a very clear and thoughtful description of what some might refer to as "structural violence." I agree that "post-modern" is the world we grew up in, therefore anybody capable of Level X cognition (not everybody) will find the basic model fairly obvious, even if they are not familiar with or do not like the associated vocabulary.
That's why I brought up my Lovecraft cultural handicap. I think I may equally have a modern/postmodern/metamodern cultural handicap.

I find it interesting that you view Libertarianism as somehow opposed to understanding "structural violence". I don't understand how someone could understand structural violence without turning away from politics, and I see voting libertarian as a ballot saying "I Object".

For what it's worth, here in Washington, the Sec of State removed 3rd parties from the ballots. So I voted this morning (mail in), and it took less than 15 minutes. Now, since I can't vote libertarian, I tend to vote republican. Only because I'm here. If I were in Mississippi,and similarly restricted, I'd vote Dem.
I also don't believe that anyone can go beyond "post-modern" without fully integrating this perspective. IOW, I disagree with Jacob's take that there is both a Modern (orange) and a Post-Modern (green) approach to the Meta-Modern (yellow.)
Yeah, I've been quiet about Wilber's stuff around here for a while. I struggle to understand the significance/usefulness of that model, too. MHC seems like just another rankings system for people who like to collect merit badges.
This also applies to personal relationships or even the personal growth of an individual. Because the leverage points are contested, and currently set at a compromise point, simple tactics such as "letting go of your side of the rope" can have rather huge and possibly unforeseen effects.
Yes. But nobody is suggesting someone study systems theory to have better personal relationships.

Wait... :?

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9370
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Riggerjack wrote:I find it interesting that you view Libertarianism as somehow opposed to understanding "structural violence". I don't understand how someone could understand structural violence without turning away from politics, and I see voting libertarian as a ballot saying "I Object".
Good point, but makes me want to quibble the difference "structural violence" vs. "structure as violence."
Yes. But nobody is suggesting someone study systems theory to have better personal relationships.

Wait... :?
:lol: This pops out even at the Dave Ramsey level of relationship therapy where good practice might be described as "filling your partner's love bucket." :roll:

Riggerjack
Posts: 3181
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by Riggerjack »

makes me want to quibble the difference "structural violence" vs. "structure as violence."
The difference being one is taught, with a framework de-emphasizing causes, and the other being learned thru experience? :lol:

If truth be told, I find myself surprised when reading social sciences. Most of it seems obvious, but framed in the wrong way.

For example, I despise hierarchies. Their purpose is to move and concentrate resources, while to the extent possible externalizing negative externalities. They are by nature negative sum.

Yet JBP published his thoughts on hierarchies, and I agree with everything he says on the subject. I simply reject his framing. He was answering a question along the lines of "Do hierarchies have value?"

Well of course they do, else they wouldn't exist. To me, they relevant question is "do hierarchies create more value than they destroy?" which clearly has a different answer than the first question.

And that is my frustration with social sciences. They are very good at answering the wrong questions, and have built frameworks to avoid awkward thoughts.

I don't know how any form of advancement works without awkward thoughts. :?
Last edited by Riggerjack on Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

NewBlood
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:45 pm

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by NewBlood »

Riggerjack wrote:
Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:59 am
That's nothing earth shattering, but I found it startling. And since I had talked about algorithmic defenses here, I should also mention the failure of same. I'll have to give this more thought.
Thanks for sharing, Riggerjack. That's certainly disconcerting, if not earth shattering...

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9370
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Riggerjack:

I'm not sure if we are still on the same page.
As the anthropologist Nancy Scheper-Hughes suggests: ‘Structural violence erases
the history and consciousness of the social origins of poverty, sickness, hunger,
and premature death, so that they are simply taken for granted and naturalised so
that no one is held accountable except, perhaps, the poor themselves’ (ScheperHughes 2004:14). The goal of those who use the concept of structural violence
is to highlight ‘the history and social consciousness’ of poverty, premature death
and disability and to locate the causes of this type of violence.
- emphasis mine

http://www.medicalpeacework.org/fileadm ... 4_2012.pdf

By obvious analogy, what you were attempting to argue with your theater post would be:
The structure of the theater (society) itself erases the history and consciousness of the social origins of "stupidity", ...so that "stupidity" is simply taken for granted and naturalised so that no one is held accountable except, perhaps, the "stupid" themselves
OTOH, with "structure as violence", the argument would be more like the higher that hierarchy grows, or the larger the structure becomes, the greater the structural violence, whatever the form of that structural violence may be, and whomever it may effect.

So,to me, the second seems much more in alignment with stereotypical Libertarian thought than the first. I have some Libertarian leanings myself (bipolar with my Sesame Street Socialist leanings), although I sometimes think that being a Female Libertarian is the same kind of "stupid" as being a Trailer Park Republican :lol: ;) (NOTE: This is me talking about myself being "stupid", not trying to start any kind of political altercation!)

Riggerjack
Posts: 3181
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by Riggerjack »

The goal of those who use the concept of structural violence
is to highlight ‘the history and social consciousness’ of poverty, premature death
and disability and to locate the causes of this type of violence.
I would agree with this. With the caveat that "they" are as likely to succeed using (my very limited understanding of) their methods, as JBP is likely to come around to my way of viewing hierarchies. I would say he has no interest, or incentive to look at the world as I see it. And neither do "they".
OTOH, with "structure as violence", the argument would be more like the higher that hierarchy grows, or the larger the structure becomes, the greater the structural violence, whatever the form of that structural violence may be, and whomever it may effect.
At first blush, I would agree with this. But I see hierarchies as a result of other processes, so while size has much to do with harm, which processes are engaged to create/maintain the hierarchy has much to do with levels of harm. So while all hierarchies are negative sum, some are net positive, with the majority net negative, and size is strongly correlated to harm, but not directly driving harm.

Contrast this viewpoint with a search pattern for "which hierarchies cause most harm?" with harm having variable meanings.

Different questions yield different results. One tells us something about how we do harm, the other is good for letting us know who to blame.

Isn't it odd, which inquiry gets attention?
although I sometimes think that being a Female Libertarian is the same kind of "stupid" as being a Trailer Park Republican
This is because you still, (despite all the evidence to the contrary) ascribe economic interest to political position, then recognize the contradiction you create, as a contradiction you can assign to your subject. I have met republicans in trailers, and libertarian feminists. They didn't seem at all confused to me. Certainly less interested (than average) in holding the Child/Parent role in a transactional relationship, but not confused.

User avatar
Slevin
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 7:44 pm
Location: Sonoma County

Re: Objectivity is an Asset

Post by Slevin »

Riggerjack wrote:
Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:59 am

At first blush, I would agree with this. But I see hierarchies as a result of other processes, so while size has much to do with harm, which processes are engaged to create/maintain the hierarchy has much to do with levels of harm. So while all hierarchies are negative sum, some are net positive, with the majority net negative, and size is strongly correlated to harm, but not directly driving harm.

Contrast this viewpoint with a search pattern for "which hierarchies cause most harm?" with harm having variable meanings.

Different questions yield different results. One tells us something about how we do harm, the other is good for letting us know who to blame.

Isn't it odd, which inquiry gets attention?
I think thats a more metamodern argument. You see the postmodern view (hierarchy is highly associated with violence to those on the lower end of the hierarchy) and the modern view (hierarchy allows us to get shit done and build the best stuff we ever have), and find the intriguing argument that sits in the center. Hierarchy can be bad, but it doesn't HAVE to be net bad. So how do we build better hierarchical structures where they are needed, and eliminate the ones that are only causing harm (or how do we lessen the harm when we can't structurally remove the hierarchies)?

Post Reply