Convergence

Haidt: “We argue that the social conditions that promote complaints of oppression and victimization overlap with those that promote case-building attempts to attract third parties. When such social conditions are all present in high degrees, the result is a culture of victimhood in which individuals and groups display high sensitivity to slight, have a tendency to handle conflicts through complaints to third parties, and seek to cultivate an image of being victims who deserve assistance.”

Bitcoin: “What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.”

(XS emphasis in both.)

Insignificant coincidence? Or a key to the crucial conflict nodes of the 21st century?

This is the thesis I’m tempted by:

September 9, 2015admin 38 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Critique

TAGGED WITH : , ,

38 Responses to this entry

  • Convergence | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 3:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Frog Do Says:

    I can’t be the only one thinking of reliance on third parties as a sort of bizzaro anarchist arbitration system.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 4:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • chris b Says:

    De Jouvenel high-low power dynamic.

    As for your push for protocol governance, how is that not utterly opposed to this -http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.tw/2011/10/thos-carlyle-on-steve-jobs.html and this http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.tw/2010/02/from-mises-to-carlyle-my-sick-journey.html

    Governence by steam is rejected. Carlyle is core in this, or else neoreaction is a blob of nothing.

    [Reply]

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    You are aware there is a lively group of Heroes, Priests, Kings and Ablemen on the other side of NRx (E.H Looney, MA etc.)? Why not give your obedience to them?

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    The entire HRx thing is nonsense. The whole trike deathmatch thing is as well. It’s utter gibberish.

    [Reply]

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    No one said anything about a ‘deathmatch’, there’s just various claims being made. In my understanding, the trike was initially about the symbolic unity of religion, ethnicity (or HBD demographics), and laissez-faire economics as a right-wing paradigm and it was to further act as a diplomatic tie between separate tendencies of reaction. If you think the thing has turned into a ‘deathmatch’ that plan obviously didn’t work very well. I haven’t seen anything like that, but maybe I’m not paying attention.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    In my (admittedly partisan) understanding of the Trike, it accounts for the pragmatic compact of — for instance — Han ethnic hegemony, Confucian traditionalism, and economic classical liberalism within Singapore, a society that serves as the best available proxy for Neocameral political arrangements. These commitments are independent axioms (not mutually derivable) which, despite actual and potential tensions, are demonstrably capable of co-producing a functional social order. (Yes, yes, we can take the time out to harass whichever strand we hold primarily responsible for a shortage of native babies.)

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    @admin

    Necessary but not sufficient.

    I suspect that ethnic hegemony, traditionalism, and economic liberalism AND the particular boldness of a LKY or LKY-like figure is a better account of the required ingredients.

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    I want to be clear that I acknowledge Confucian traditionalism (not to mention capitalism and Chinese ethnocentrism) as significant aspects of LKY’s identity as a leader. However, the point is that the combination of these trike branches do not in of themselves account for LKY’s founding and shaping of Singapore. LKY’s particular genius and his drive as a statesman cannot be reduced to the traditionalism, liberalism or Han hegemony that LKY *used* to create a successful state. Ethno-nats, techno-commercialists and theonomists can never achieve anything unless they are also instrumentalists.

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 4:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    True, Haidt, but parochial.

    Question the premise: why are victims given precedence?
    Seems to me it’s about a particular third party whose con is about taking money for ‘charitable’ causes.

    [Reply]

    Metanoid Reply:

    Concern for victims is the defining ethic of societies historically shaped by the biblical tradition because Jesus was forever siding with victims against the mob. And then went on to become the worlds iconic universal scapegoat. As MM (also John Gray and others) claims, the dissenting tradition of Christianity has ditched its theology and forgotten its origins whilst keeping its thought patterns. Progressivism is Christianity with Alzheimer’s, Christianity which has degraded into an idolatrous cult of victim worship with rival victim groups jostling for ‘sacred’ holy victim status.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 5:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Little Hans Says:

    Isn’t Jim’s depiction of Natural Law – oft quoted around here – one which relies on an imagined third party?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Jim’s Natural Law piece is innovative in part because it focuses on the conditions for withdrawal of third parties (i.e. legitimate retaliation). Still, it’s a good, sharp question — requires some mulling time.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 5:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • Henk Says:

    Loss of trust is compatible with leftism and both among its causes and consequences (“Bowling Alone”): a nice little positive feedback loop.

    Bitcoin is thus one possible technical solution to the problem of maintaining the levels of taxable commercial activity required to maintain “progress” in spite of the severe loss of trust resulting from “progress.”

    [Reply]

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    In my exp. leftists hate any mention of zero-trust exchange.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    ‘Rightists’ too, sadly.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 5:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Convergence | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 7:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • Barnabas Says:

    Excellent support for Moldbugs post on the futility of rightist activism.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Activism is not the same as action.

    [Reply]

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    ‘Activism’ is the action taken by an aggrieved individual or group of individuals against a democratic system they take to be unfairly persecuting them. It usually centers on the ‘unquestionable right’ of the aggrieved party to have their grievances aired, and if enough people feel that they share in this grief they will usually find some TTP (a ‘democratic leader’) to voice their grievances before the nation. One of the necessary factors is that in no way can an aggrieved party ever ‘exit’ the allegedly corrupt system, because fighting it is tied inextricably to the dignity of their person. Not only that, but they do not allow for anyone to stand outside of their personal, victimized struggle, as they view ‘neutrality’ itself as a wanton act of betrayal against their unjustly afflicted honor.

    Victim culture has won out to such an extent that nowadays even the ‘majority’ identifies as a victim.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    in no way can an aggrieved party ever ‘exit’ the allegedly corrupt system, because fighting it is tied inextricably to the dignity of their person.

    Yikes, that’s a mind-fuck. I liked it better when I thought that Jesse Jackson et. all were just opportunistically adopting a rhetorical position for the sake of material gain.

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    @Kwisatz

    That moment when you realize Al Sharpton and Sasha Grey are pretty much the same.

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 9:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • freihals Says:

    The existence of objective third parties (relative to interacting parties) is so necessary for ordered human social interaction that I think it’s impossible to identify a social system that thrives without it. It is the essence of the third party not it’s energy that is fundamental to proper social order and continued good function. This is the particular strength of Jim’s Natural Law article.

    In reading this post, I suddenly recall a piece written by Szabo ” Trusted Third Parties Are Security Holes ” http://szabo.best.vwh.net/ttps.html in particular the conclusion. TTPs are costly, inefficient, and dangerous and the best systems are ones that have by design eliminated the need for TTPs.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 10th, 2015 at 1:18 am Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    Moldbug seems to agree with you. To a large extent, the software project Urbit, to which he has devoted his life for years, looks like an attempt to eliminate a trusted third party (TTP) in the software stack. Namely, we trust third party developers of the software that runs on our computer: device driver developers, OS developers, the thousands of anonymous third-party programmers submitting patches to the code that runs the web servers that we all interact with on a daily basis, and onward.

    Moldbug seems to think that he can write an OS kernel that is small enough that it is self-proving; that is, small enough for anyone to read it line by line and convince themselves that it is not pwned.

    If you read the literature on Urbit, Moldbug’s style is clear in a lot of the verbiage. And that voice is continually emphasizing the smallness and self-contained (self-defining) nature of the code.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    BTW, the fatal flaw of Urbit is that is a hosted VM. That’s the only way to make it small and abstract enough to be human-comprehensible, but you still have to trust the bare-metal OS that hosts Urbit. You don’t, however, have to trust any ‘ware that is downstream of the OS.

    [Reply]

    k Reply:

    Not too fatal: the bare-metal OS could get very, very bare-metal

    [Reply]

    freihals Reply:

    Admittedly, I am unfamiliar with Urbit and likely I will not have the time to study it. Now beyond BTC, there is Etherium. As a second generation blockchain technology, it takes the BTC cryptographic proof and adds digital steroids. The extension leads to smart contracts that remain on the chain forever and, because of design, are unalterable by third party.
    It would seem that human technological development has far outpaced the ability of our social structures to co-evolve. The principles that underpin the development of blockchain technology are available for generalization to human social systems. The question is not can we map this generalization but do we have the adaptive desire to do it.
    Ethereum Whitepaper: https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    My grasp of Urbit is very patchy, but what little I understand is impressively conceived. The idea of treating reputation as real estate (disciplined by market transactions in a scarce good) is truly excellent.

    [Reply]

    freihals Reply:

    You are certainly not the first to tell me that Urbit is masterful and I *should* spend some time with it. Taking time to study Urbit is well tempting. My only concern here is that I deflect time away from building workable systems to studying a practice model of one. Now, I wonder if there is any overlap between this concept of reputation as real estate and his ideas( as blogged )on primary property? Getting property right goes to first principles.

    Posted on September 10th, 2015 at 2:04 am Reply | Quote
  • Irregular Commenter Says:

    Two points come to mind regarding admin’s thesis:

    1. The complex interdependence of both forces of production and forces of consumption in (what we may call for brevity’s sake) Modernity have reached a point where not only conflict resolution, but the very idea of a morality, have been off-loaded and outsourced. Individuals live in material abundance, even with a nominal ideal of autonomy, and they are utterly unable to choose and coordinate their own actions.

    2. It is no coincidence that what Haidt’s post refers to as a culture of dignity and a culture of victimhood both rely not only on egalitarian premises, but on this off-loading of right and wrong into a formal third-party apparatus. The destruction of the personality is also the destruction of character, what any ancient thinker would have recognized as a loss of virtue.

    Running anything like a cohesive society requires that there be some bounds on unrestricted self-interest. The question is where and how these constraints arise. The grievance-hustling movements of the “social justice” Left demonstrate that the tendency towards outsourcing, off-loading, and externalizing those constraints (“moral” or otherwise) is ultimately dysfunctional, and worse yet, it is antagonistic to the social structures and institutions that could inculcate good character and moral development.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 10th, 2015 at 3:37 am Reply | Quote
  • Shenpen Says:

    I don’t know, what I noticed could be seen almost the opposite: while leftism used to be about grabbing governmental power, now it is more and more focused on acting directly, without the need for government. For example SJWs look like they are not interested in suppressing free speech by laws, they are doing it by direct hounding.

    I don’t live in America, I see SJWs mainly on Reddit. But I see they focus on doing their thing on their own, like brigading, not calling third parties.

    I see this everywhere. Feminism used to be about making pro-woman laws. Now it is about complaining about movies and comics books. It seems far more direct. They are more interested in telling Protein World to fuck off directly rather than making a law that protects fatty feelings.

    Maybe it is just a form of paramilitary tactic to grab governmental power anyway, but I don’t really see they are using third parties much, I think they are relying on themselves in the sense of “twitterstorms” forcing their opponents to resign etc.

    [Reply]

    Henk Reply:

    The SJW phenomenon is an interesting area of study. I think we end up with a clear distinction between SJWs and the, uhm, “traditional” Left.

    Even though we like to talk about the Left as grossly anti-order, the “traditional” Left is of course a highly organized force. Moldbug’s “Cathedral” coinage draws on this. We clearly weren’t dealing with a chaotic “Bazaar”-like movement—before the SJWs arrived.

    The SJWs could not do what they do without drawing on a deep store of leftist cultural capital slowly accumulated over decades. The resulting rich weaponry of Political Correctness etc. is a leftist cultural commons maintained for the Left’s collective benefit.

    SJWs are now grazing on a commons that they never invested in and probably are already overgrazing. The Cathedral’s commons is in danger of classic tragedy by actions of a crowd that found an open gate and –for the time being– can’t be denied access.

    If this is correct, we should see parts of the “traditional” (Cathedral, non-SJW) Left start to feel around for ways to repeal “open access” to their commons of cultural weaponry and restore discipline. Could the Trumpening be an early tentative effort?

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    Interesting take.

    [Reply]

    Metanoid Reply:

    Current SJW activism is an interesting regression to the primitive lynch mob. Rene Girard calls this kind of group reconciliation by rounding on a victim ‘The Scapegoat Mechanism’. His hypothesis is that this mechanism is the very origin of all human civilisation, a primitive social mechanism for resolving conflict; and that Christianity is a critique and expose of this mechanism.

    What makes the SJW’s an interesting case is that in the post Christian west the only people it’s deemed ok to persecute are those one can smear as persecutors.

    So we have a kind of ironic inquisition, consisting of lynch mobs of self proclaimed ‘victims’ persecuting whoever they can scapegoat with trumped up charges of ‘persecutor’.

    [Reply]

    zzz Reply:

    It’s helpful that the facts are obvious and obviously trivial, and the damages undetectable, incomprehensible, and uncontestable.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 10th, 2015 at 7:49 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    perhaps it is worth to compare bitcoins to paypal. paypal has charge back function and it been exploited brutally to scam online retailers. bitcoins community has zero trust to paypal, nobody with little experience going to sale bitcoins for paypal, because every offer to buy bitcoins with paypal is a scam. system which works and sytem which does not. Bitcoins for online retailers clearly better, no loses related to scams (huge otherwise) and no comission to pay to third party.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 10th, 2015 at 4:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Scharlach Says:

    Fascinating convergence, but I’d move slowly here. After all, isn’t the neocameral corporation a TTP in its own domain, providing guarantee of contracts, etc.?

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 11th, 2015 at 4:52 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment