Why Conspiracy Theories?

[constant escape]

In terms of jumpstarting the ideology on a mass scale, one strategy would consist of antagonizing entropy itself, the corporeal manifestation of which is death edit: which expresses itself in the vital framework as death. So we can pick up wherever the likes of Nikolai Fyodorov dropped off. Not sure if his crusade against death was indicative of a larger movement though, I'm inclined to say Russian cosmism.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I don't believe science accounts for everything there is to be accounted for

nothing can account for everything there is to be accounted for

it's not a discredit to your cosmology that it requires a leap of faith, it's always turtles all the way down at some point

I'm just saying cosmic oneness isn't any more or less desirable, in a cosmic sense, than not pursuing cosmic oneness

as an end in itself that's all it is, an end in itself

what about anyone who prefers to wait for the heat-death of the universe, rather than pursue a premature untethering of spirit from body?

to say that course is less desirable than yours is where the leap of faith comes in

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I am curious about the more concrete yet quite grandiose claims about an ideology that combines egalitarianism with vitality

and reconciles science, (most of) theology, and the whole history of philosophy

or, I'm very skeptical but I applaud your efforts

does it require this faith in the pursuit of cosmic oneness, or can the more immediate, worldly elements be separated from that?

 

[constant escape]

nothing can account for everything there is to be accounted for

it's not a discredit to your cosmology that it requires a leap of faith, it's always turtles all the way down at some point

I'm just saying cosmic oneness isn't any more or less desirable, in a cosmic sense, than not pursuing cosmic oneness

as an end in itself that's all it is, and end in itself

what about anyone who prefers to wait for the heat-death of the universe, rather than pursue a premature untethering of spirit from body?

to say that course is less desirable than yours is where the leap of faith comes in

No consistent system can account for everything there is to account for. It would need to be a system that consists of some meta-unity among contentious and contradicting forces/theses. That is, if it is to account for everything. Not sure its possible, but I'm also not sure its impossible.

I mean its worth aiming for 100%, but realistically we'd just need the majority in order to effectively calibrate the species, as a psychic system, to the cosmos. (edit: majority of humans, that is)

One point of unclarity that just occurred to me was how to calibrate to the cosmos if the cosmos has a net entropic tendency. In a certain way, the kind of ideology I have in mind would involve calibrating to cosmic forces that are themselves opposed to the net cosmic state. Dematerialization would be the cosmos bootstrapping itself into salvation, and we would just be one phase of the process.

 

[constant escape]

I am curious about the more concrete yet quite grandiose claims about an ideology that combines egalitarianism with vitality

and reconciles science, (most of) theology, and the whole history of philosophy

or, I'm very skeptical but I applaud your efforts

does it require this faith in the pursuit of cosmic oneness, or can the more immediate, worldly elements be separated from that?

Your last point has been a major concern: seeing if there is a way to extract the more recognizably practical elements from the larger metaphysical framework. I think it can, and it has to do with the reconciliation of egalitarianism and vitality.

As a point of departure, what do we think of a society with a class system, but those classes are not otherwise demographically skewed or biased? That is what I meant by equality across demographics (apart from economic), at the cost of equality across individuals.

Could that be a stepping stone toward real egalitarianism? A phase in a gradual, conservative process, rather than attempting to implement something more radically egalitarian immediately?

Part of the egalitarian/vital ideological synthesis could involve a kind of brutal progressivism, which would view the dominator as greater, host to greater vitality, than the dominated - but even greater, even more vital than the dominator is the one who is able to distribute surplus vitality to the dominated. Nietzsche himself said that only great men can be kind, only I would make the point of not limiting it to men (even if one argues he meant human).

I think that could be one approach. Another approach to an ideology that is at once egalitarian and vital would involve a kind of selective privileging of various components of various ideologies - a superposition of ideologies. But that would take a ton more work to package into a more intuitive and appealing form.

edit: and as an aside, I currently intend to formulate the political dimensions of this cosmology so as to arrive at communism, which I think would be the best society to serve as a springboard for entering higher orders of intelligence.

 

[version]

 

[constant escape]

Love stuff like that.

 

[vimothy]

that all seems ludicrous to me. we could think of ourselves as machines, but to no obvious end.

sorry, this was a bit snarky. not sure why, it's actually an interesting point to consider. I think it's ironic however, that this idea of super intelligence often seems to rest on the idea of humans becoming machine-like, in losing their autonomy and becoming tools for some other entitys purpose. accelerationism is a bit like cattle campaigning for the development of industrial farming

 

[constant escape]

sorry, this was a bit snarky. not sure why, it's actually an interesting point to consider. I think it's ironic however, that this idea of super intelligence often seems to rest on the idea of humans becoming machine-like, in losing their autonomy and becoming tools for some other entitys purpose. accelerationism is a bit like cattle campaigning for the development of industrial farming

It seems one useful understanding involves breaking it into two separate belief-choices. The first, whether or not it is inevitable that there will, in effect, be some higher order entity of our own creation, and second, whether or not we can magnify our will so as to better align with it, which doesn't necessarily mean cater to it, but negotiate with it.

 

[constant escape]

And I don't see a glaring issue with defining intelligence in such a way as to place us on the same scale as the likes of thermometers. Perhaps just high enough up the scale starts involving autopoiesis, whereas lower on the scale needs to be created/organized by some outside force.

 

[vimothy]

a thermometer is not intelligent in any sense. theres no scale there, it's a category error to regard the two as comparable

 

[vimothy]

It seems one useful understanding involves breaking it into two separate belief-choices. The first, whether or not it is inevitable that there will, in effect, be some higher order entity of our own creation, and second, whether or not we can magnify our will so as to better align with it, which doesn't necessarily mean cater to it, but negotiate with it.

I'm not sure they're really separate. if we give rise to it, obviously we can determine it to some extent

 

[constant escape]

Well here is just where I jettison the semantics of the word "intelligence" - I'm just talking about the scale of matter that is ordered, and perhaps the kind of high-enough-up-the-scale I have in mind would be the emergence of intelligence, rather than the scale itself being a measure of intelligence.

So perhaps the scale wouldn't be of intelligence, but by orderedness, with the lower end being ordered-by-some-outside-force, and the higher end being self-ordered.

 

[constant escape]

I'm not sure they're really separate. if we give rise to it, obviously we can determine it to some extent

I guess the crux would be whether we create it or just act as the midwives for something that is beyond our cognition.

edit: and arguably technology has always involved this cognitive gap between the user and the technical object (?), but what is also arguable is that this gap is increasing.

 

[vimothy]

Well here is just where I jettison the semantics of the word "intelligence" - I'm just talking about the scale of matter that is ordered, and perhaps the kind of high-enough-up-the-scale I have in mind would be the emergence of intelligence, rather than the scale itself being a measure of intelligence.

So perhaps the scale wouldn't be of intelligence, but by orderedness, with the lower end being ordered-by-some-outside-force, and the higher end being self-ordered.

I dont believe in this self ordered idea of tools, they're all essentially ordered from the outside, but some are more complex than others

 

[constant escape]

I dont believe in this self ordered idea of tools, they're all essentially ordered from the outside, but some are more complex than others

Yeah thats what I'm saying could be the distinction, but a distinction that emerges at some level of complexity. Until that level is reached, matter would only be ordered more or less randomly by outside forces/"laws", or just some kind of stochastic interaction with other matter/energy.

So yeah tools would be below that level. But I do believe that the human machinery is engineerable, just that it is way beyond our grasp, perhaps even our imagination for the most part. But those things expand as we develop, no?

edit: and the complexity would just be the scale of orderedness. A wrench's orderedness is limited to a higher scale than that of a thermometer, which is itself limited in orderedness to a much higher scale than the human. Techne would then just be the process of contriving ever more precise means of ordering matter at ever finer/smaller scales, with ever greater efficiency.

 

[vimothy]

not necessarily, that's an assumption

 

[vimothy]

can you design a process whose outcome is not determined by your design? I dont see why that should be possible

 

[constant escape]

can you design a process whose outcome is not determined by your design? I dont see why that should be possible

I think you can design components that can interact in ways, forming aggregates and relations that supercede the complexity of your design.

 

[constant escape]

Like tat example of an ant colony. You'd only need to program a few basic protocols into the ant, and the ant serves as a component/part of a much more complex system.

I think the specific protocols were

1 - wander around for food within some radius of the anthill
2 - when food is found, exude some kind of hormonal substance in your tracks as you return to the hill
3 - if a hormone trail is found, follow it away from the anthill, toward where the food is found