Chaos Patch (#2)

So, latching onto both the theme and purpose of the Chaos Patch … Having too many places for community building is worse than not having enough of them. A lot of amazing commentary happens on all the different blogs of reaction-space, but it takes a full-time commitment to read them all.
— Survivingbabel (announcing blog plans, last time)

That says it all … or most probably not.

As SB suggests, detailed division of labor is one obvious solution to the dark-energy driven cosmic inflation problem. Perhaps overwhelming traffic congestion will catalyze that.

ADDED: The flood of darkness continues.

ADDED: CP#2 Topic Summary:– Abortion
— Tech-issues
— Environmentalism
— Does entropy always win?
— New blog announcement (Francis St. Pol)
— Khem chaos

May 24, 2013admin 25 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized

TAGGED WITH :

25 Responses to this entry

  • Erik Says:

    Regarding something from the previous patch: If missing out on an Alan Turing is such a concerning argument for permitting some degree of homosexuality, shouldn’t we ban abortion too? Just think how many potential scientists were aborted and lost forever! Imagine the research that could have been and never was!

    Bringing up Turing here seems to me to have a problem similar to the broken window fallacy – you see only one side of the issue. Like the glassmaker’s new suit, Turing is salient, but Clark Smith (who could have, say, invented a cheap manufacturing process of cable needed for a space elevator last year, bringing us a finished construction by 2017) was murdered in infancy and his contributions were lost to the world, so nobody concerns themselves about them.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    ‘Ban’ is easy to say, less easy to execute.

    [Reply]

    Erik Reply:

    The point stands if you replace ‘ban’ by ‘reduce, limit, prevent, stigmatize and suppress by whatever means’.

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    Discourage. Discouragement strikes the proper balance between reducing the amount of without going so far as to incite a viable backlash. Discouragement is a natural expression of one’s right to freely associate, but no more. We will shun you for capriciously killing babies (the consequence of chasing alpha cock) or take it up the poop chute (ditto) as is our right, and since it is we who build and maintain civilization, that means something.

    Thales Reply:

    *amount of counter-social behavior without going

    Posted on May 24th, 2013 at 8:59 am Reply | Quote
  • nydwracu Says:

    Since this seems to be one of the main discussion spaces, it’d be easier to follow if the recent comments section were enlarged past five.

    Or I suppose I could start using the email notifications, but then I’d have to check my email more than once a week.

    (bah, someone go develop Birch already… I’ve already gotten neck deep in this philosophy stuff just because it was being done so wrong I couldn’t let it go; the last thing I need is to end up in another, completely unrelated field for the exact same reason!)

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 24th, 2013 at 12:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • j. ont. Says:

    Leaning in for a second to bring up the supposed problem of ecological sustainability – something I’m reading about right now. What are the thoughts around here, if there are any?

    McDonough and Braungart push a kind of (secretly) capitalist ecology, where eco-friendliness is “woven into” the fabric of mass production. Aside from that, most of this shit amounts to a wimpy and impotent drum-circle-jerk of capital-bashing and class-faking.

    What say you guys? Global warming: yay or nay? (to its factuality, or its consequences)

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    The classic solution to the Tragedy of the Commons is Ownership. I’ll let the “Sages” take the issue from there if it pleases them.

    The AGW issue is a crock, both in underlying science and in consequence, a means to culminate more power in the Cathedral. They aren’t predicting catastrophic CO2 positive-feedback loops that’ll transform the Earth into Venus anymore, but you’re not supposed to notice how far back the goalposts have been moved, either. James Donald says that it’s gone the way of “Communism”, and I’m inclined to agree because even the Cathedral can only play “Baghdad Bob” for so long. Expect the Useful Idiots to parrot the liturgy until death, but keep your eyes on the clerisy.

    My observation is that AGW became a Schelling Point for all environmental anxiety including the real ones like population vs. land and natural resources & energy. Those are NP-hard, difficult to communicate, and so it’s easier to simply shout “Global Warming!” at the top of one’s lungs.

    [Reply]

    Chevalier de Johnstone Reply:

    No, the neoclassical utilitarian economic solution to the Tragedy of the Commons is Ostrom’s. The classic solution to the Tragedy of the Commons is, “Love thy neighbor.”

    Agree AGW is the new sale of indulgences for the gnosticism of the modern Cathedral.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    Nobel chemistry laureate Kary Mullis not only thinks AGW has no scientific basis, but is equally dismissive of the belief that the release of chlorofluorocarbons destroys the ozone layer, pointing out that “beyond the lack of any scientific evidence, it makes no sense anyhow that we could destroy ozone in the upper atmosphere. If a hole in the ozone layer appeared somehow, here’s what would happen: The UV rays from the sun would come through that hole and strike the Earth’s atmosphere, where they would be absorbed by the miles-thick layer of oxygen surrounding the Earth. Then it would make more ozone. When the UV rays from the sun combine with oxygen, they form ozone. The ozone thus formed absorbs UV light, which continues to come from the sun, and prevents it from penetrating any further into the oxygen below that has not been converted to ozone. That is why we have oxygen to breathe down here and ozone in the upper atmosphere. If all the nations of the world agreed to spend all of their money to eliminate the ozone layer – they couldn’t do it.”

    So why was such an unscientific belief ever given any credence? Mullis merely notes “the amazing coincidence that the American patent on the production of freon, the principle chlorofluorocarbon used in refigerators and air-conditioners, expired at just about the same time freon was banned. Those countries that had begun producing freon without paying for the privilege were asked to stop. And a new chemical compound, a commercial product that would be protected by patent, would soon be substituted and make a lot of money for the company that produced it.”

    He can only conclude that “scientists who speak out strongly about future ecological disaster and promote the notion that humans are responsible for any changes going on are highly suspect.” But thankfully, “They still wear priestly white robes and they don’t do heavy labour. It makes them easier to spot.”

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    As an antimodernist, nothing would please me more than to find that the very engines of modernity were being fueled with the seeds of its own destruction. But alas! I do not buy it. And even if AGW were true, there is every reason to believe that it would be a net benefit humanity anyway.

    Contraception is the next best bet for post-apocalyptic juiciness.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 24th, 2013 at 1:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • raptros_ Says:

    while we could probably find a technical fix in the thing that the folk over at discourse.org are building (i.e. so we have a place where it’s easy to have discussions), it’s probably best to admit that we’re not going to be able to keep up with everything.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 24th, 2013 at 3:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Thales Says:

    The last Chaos Patch has over a hundred comments. That’s not a discussion; that’s Digital Archaeology. So much of the present discourse is simply linking to something in some comment section of another older blog, an activity that feels like reinventing the wheel at best and daily uphill boulder-heaving at worst.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Emergent order takes time. (Which isn’t to say that entropy won’t win.)

    [Reply]

    survivingbabel Reply:

    In the end, that’s what civilization is, a fight against entropy. The Progressives are entropy, whether they understand that or not. Deconstruction = destruction = entropy. It’s incredibly hard work decreasing that local entropy.

    There’s a reason popping bubble wrap is so cathartic. It’s also a hell of a lot easier than manufacturing the stuff.

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    One man’s chaos is another man’s order. Blasting barbarians is pursuit of the global maxima.

    Chevalier de Johnstone Reply:

    @ Survivingbabel,

    Can you expand on the idea that Progressivism is entropy, rather than as Thales seems to be asserting an alternative form of order? Or if Thales isn’t, I will assert that, though I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Progressivism pretends to be order based on a fundamentally flawed anthopology. It has set itself more ore less against every natural hierarchy that has arisen in the history of man (husband:wife :: parent:child :: master:servant :: ruler:subject :: Christ:Church :: cleric:layman) which over vast epochs of trial and error and adaptation solve deep social problems–the types of social problems that (as I like to say) do not have “closed form” solutions.

    To substitute for this, Progressivism attempts to technocratically and rationally regulate everyone’s free and equal pursuit of his own conception of good in a purely unbiased manner. But it is impossible for one man’s freedom NOT to bump up against another’s. It does so at practically every turn. We are not atomic individuals. We live in families and communities, work, learn, worship, and play in mediating institutions–which foster natural and deep loyalties that are sand to the gears of the Progressive system…

    So in order for Progressivism to work by its own neutral and rational prescriptions, it basically has to dissolve (preferably slowly as with frogs in the pot) all the natural human hierarchies and insinuate itself in their place by a whole host of gimmicks. But tearing down of hiearchies is per se anarchic, i.e., entropic. And while the Cathedralized society attempts to bring order to increasingly deracinated and atomic individuals, it cannot fundamentally meet human social needs because that is not how humans really are.

    So my vote: Progressivism == Anarchy == Entropy.

    Posted on May 24th, 2013 at 3:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • towards an implementation of birch | raptros_ Says:

    […] over here, nydwracu once again brings up his proposed Birch system. i have some ideas on how it could be implemented. […]

    Posted on May 24th, 2013 at 9:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chevalier de Johnstone Says:

    @Thales

    Disagree. Order is order and entropy is entropy.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 24th, 2013 at 10:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Francis St. Pol Says:

    Longtime Dark Enlightenment lurker here. Just started a blog and I thought I’d give a shameless plug since this is a chaos patch.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 25th, 2013 at 6:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • northanger Says:

    @fotrkd
    Bicameral minds.. Caliban.. Cambions..
    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameralism

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    @ Northanger – I was looking at circadian clocks and came across the following (useful in relation to previous Swinburne/Egypt and Time discussions?):

    “The scarab [Milky Way navigator], the holy “ball-roller” of the Egyptians, embodies the self generating T-shaped [cf. Mercury/Hermes’ caduceus], hermaphrodite principle of Sun-Osiris and Moon-Isis. Both, the Ouroboros and the Scarab are an expression of the ‘hen to pan’, the eternal transformation [0 1?] of the Ever Unchanging.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 26th, 2013 at 8:32 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    Request new chaos patch.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2013 at 6:23 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment