Optimisation

suspended

Well-known member
Yeah I mean that's sometimes how it feels, like leaning into being interesting means not re-iterating NPR talking points. But it's weird cuz all the grounding for what's "interesting" or a hot take or whatever is the immediate social context. Murray Davis says "Interesting theories are those which deny certain assumptions of their audience, while non-interesting theories are those which affirm certain assumptions of their audience." So boringness is a kind of redundancy, a predictableness.

In information theory, any data that doesn't give you more insight, that you can't actually learn anything from, is not even considered information. Information is "a difference that makes a difference," something that changes how you understand or (more accurately) act.
 
but its not bizarre under the philosophy of the idiot because its primarily about maintaining freedom or at least the illusion of freedom... im not just a subject to these forces i exceed
 
To the extent that science is differential, its pragmatics provides the antimodel of a stable system. A statement is deemed worth retaining the moment it marks a difference from what is already known, and after an argument and proof in support of it has been found.

Science is a model of an "open system," in which a statement becomes relevant if it "generates ideas," that is, if it generates other statements and other game rules. Science possesses no general metalanguage in which all other languages can be transcribed and evaluated. This is what prevents its identification with the system and, all things considered, with terror. If the division between decision makers and executors exist in the scientific community (and it does), it is a fact of the socioeconomic system and not of the pragmatics of science itself. It is in fact one of the major obstacles to the imaginative development of knowledge.
 

linebaugh

Well-known member
relevant thread
 

suspended

Well-known member
To the extent that science is differential, its pragmatics provides the antimodel of a stable system. A statement is deemed worth retaining the moment it marks a difference from what is already known, and after an argument and proof in support of it has been found.

Science is a model of an "open system," in which a statement becomes relevant if it "generates ideas," that is, if it generates other statements and other game rules. Science possesses no general metalanguage in which all other languages can be transcribed and evaluated. This is what prevents its identification with the system and, all things considered, with terror. If the division between decision makers and executors exist in the scientific community (and it does), it is a fact of the socioeconomic system and not of the pragmatics of science itself. It is in fact one of the major obstacles to the imaginative development of knowledge.
That's gotta be Lyotard. Is it Lyotard??
 

suspended

Well-known member
relevant thread
You're kind of exactly the person who should lead something like that and that's why you never will. You'll be shoved out the way by all the power mad cunts and arseholes.
This is such a big part of the problem, and why I'm most interested in understanding the selection mechanisms that rule our society (some designed, some evolved/naturally occurring). Nobody in their right mind would get into politics these days, so the positive feedback loop works its way into hell.


One useful concept here is the Sir Philip Sidney game. We have a common expression equivalent in the US, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease." You end up in competitions of exaggerated need, with the reward (grant money? institutional attention?) going to whoever is the best actor, the most melodramatic, the most delusional.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
Anti irish yet again. it’s like when women make great music and people are determined to find the male genius pulling the strings behind it, that’s exactly what’s happening here. But yes it’s lyotard
im just as Irish as you are why would i be anti-Irish
 
\\
This is such a big part of the problem, and why I'm most interested in understanding the selection mechanisms that rule our society (some designed, some evolved/naturally occurring). Nobody in their right mind would get into politics these days, so the positive feedback loop works its way into hell.


One useful concept here is the Sir Philip Sidney game. We have a common expression equivalent in the US, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease." You end up in competitions of exaggerated need, with the reward (grant money? institutional attention?) going to whoever is the best actor, the most melodramatic, the most delusional.
part of my job is to make these appeals, this language game... asking people to fund research
 
Im familiar with some of the slate star codex stuff, i read the nrx essay. seems youve played a part gus?
 
Rights do not flow from hardship, but from the fact that the alleviation of hardship improves the system's performance. The needs of the most underprivileged should not be used as a system regulator as a matter of principle: since the means of satisfy ing them is already known , their actual satisfaction will not improve the system's performance, but only increase its expenditures.

The only counterindication is that not satisfying them can destabilize the whole. It is against the nature of force to be ruled by weakness. But it is in its nature to induce new requests meant to lead to a redefinition of the norms of "life." In this sense, the system seems to be a vanguard machine dragging humanity after it, dehumanizing it in order to rehumanize it at a different level of normative capacity. The technocrats declare that they cannot trust what society designates as its nee d s ; they "know" that society cannot know its own needs since they are not variables independent of the new technologies.

Such is the arrogance of the decision makers - and their blindness. What their "arrogance" means is that they identify themselves with the social system conceived as a totality in quest of its most performative unity possible. If we look at the pragmatics of science, we learn that such an identification is impossible: in principle, no scientist embodies knowledge or neglects the "needs" of a research project, or the aspirations of a researcher, on the pretext that they do not add to the performance of "science" as a whole. The response a researcher usually makes to a request is: "We'll have to see, tell me your story." In principle, he does not prejudge that a case has already been closed or that the power of "science" will suffer if it is reopened. In fact, the opposite is true.

Of course, it does not always happen like this in reality. Countless scientists have seen their "move" ignored or repressed, sometimes for decades, because it too abruptly destabilized the accepted positions, not only in the university and scientific hierarchy, but also in the problematic. fThe stronger the "move," the more likely it is to be denied the minimum consensus, precisely because it changes the rules of the game upon which consensus had been based. But when the institution of knowledge functions in this manner, it is acting like an ordinary power center whose behavior is governed by a principle of homeostasis.

Such behaviour is terrorist, as is the behaviour of the system de scribed by Luhmann. By terror I mean the efficiency gained by eliminating, or threatening to eliminate, a player from the language game one shares with him. He is silenced or consents, not because he has been refuted, but because his ability to participate has been threatened (there are many ways to prevent someone from playing). The decision makers' arrogance, which in principle has no equivalent in the sciences, consists in the exercise of terror. It says: "Adapt your aspirations to our ends-or else."
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
he did this to me earlier today and i said shiels i dont understand that its hurting my head cant you put it in your own words for me but he just shouted in a rage IM FUCKING SICK OF YOUR ANTI IRISH ATTITUDE AND I WONT HAVE IT ANY MORE
 
Top