De-Localized

For decades now, everyone who has thought about the matter at all has known that we were going to arrive here — which is to say nowhere in particular — and we almost have. It struck me forcibly in Cambodia, where connectivity was difficult enough to impinge on consciousness, that being linked near-continuously to nowhere (in particular) had become a fundamental expectation of my psychological existence. Twitter, ‘where’ I am still a novice, had drastically reinforced the blogger mentality that ejects the mind from place. Thoughts now latch onto online articulation as their natural zone of consolidation, entangled in social networks exempted from geography. A neural-implant twitter chip, uplinked through satellite to the Internet, seemed to be an inevitable consummation of current micro-media trends.

On the Shanghai metro, a large majority of travelers are submerged in their mobile phones, beyond speech, their attention sublimed out of space. The social networks to which consciousness has evolved, as an adaptation, are no longer found anywhere. As James Bennett predicted, in his formulation of the Anglosphere, cultural proximity has taken on a density that eclipses spatial closeness. It is already normal to live (psychologically), to a very large extent, outside space. Under many circumstances, the passenger standing next to you on the train is far more distant than the ‘voices’ on your twitter feed, even when every conventional standard of common social identity is satisfied. Minds that were biologically engineered over tens or even hundreds of millions of years to engage with their physically-proximate fellows are ever more elsewhere (or nowhere in particular) — in the techno-traffic ‘cloud’. Something seriously vast has happened.

It is certainly possible to exaggerate the extent of the change so far. Family, the most basic social unit, still interacts predominantly offline (in its nuclear form, at least). It might even be common to pursue most friendship offline, although this is already questionable among the denizens of advanced metropolitan centers. What is quite certain is that — in the absence of apocalyptic technological regression — the idea of a wider ‘organic society’ has been profoundly complicated by a micro-media revolution that is already entrenched, and which shows no sign of slackening momentum. This is the socio-historical environment in which virtual crypto-currencies will express their critical consequences. Exodus from geography becomes less of a metaphor with every passing year.

People have to live somewhere, but their lives are increasingly led nowhere. Realism requires that both sides of this quite novel, partially de-localized ‘situation’ receive appropriate attention.

February 5, 2014admin 44 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Technology

TAGGED WITH : , ,

44 Responses to this entry

  • Erik Says:

    I’m going to go with this view on it:

    “That we are seeing online communities that people invest into flourish tells us more that the cost of actual communities has risen than it does about the internet being harmful super-stimulus.”

    Online communities are allowed to have a moderator, allowed to discriminate, allowed to hold double standards, allowed to kick people out with great cruelty and mockery, allowed to have arbitrary entry restrictions, allowed to charge people for microprivileges like posting in the important forum…

    The vast thing that has happened is physical suppression IMO, not cyber-liberation. People aren’t fleeing to cyberspace; traditional societies are being crushed.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    That’s certainly a crucial piece of the discussion. When I see what’s happening around me here in Shanghai, however, I find it hard to dismiss the positive and attractive aspect of the process (I mean that in a non-judgmental sense). It seems that the girl on the metro, buried in her mobile, is being sucked out at least as much as she’s being pushed out — I’d hazard quite a lot more.

    [Reply]

    j. ont. Reply:

    The girl on the metro certainly is! There are millions of men online, lonely and bored, begging for her time. She doesn’t even have to be pretty. What human—properly conditioned in our narcissistic society—would not be sucked up into that?

    But with men I think it’s somewhat different—but I suppose I’m preaching to the choir.

    Unrelated: a little while ago I read that there is a part of the brain dedicated to figuring out what other brains are doing. It’s like a hyperactive prisoner’s dilemma organ. At the time I thought it was a bit like a modem—but I’m thinking now that it’s the other way around. Modems are, of course, tools built to help our brains figure out what all the other brains are doing.

    Knowing too much about what people think is obviously a double-edged sword. We’re already seeing this, in the form of Youtube comments etc.; pretty soon, as things get more high-definition, we’ll see swarms of really nasty (completely unfiltered) human sentiment, mixed in with little bits of genius.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2014 at 7:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Jack Crassus Says:

    “With our bodies hemmed in, our minds have only the cloud — and it is the cloud that has become the destination for an extraordinary mental exodus. ” – Software is reorganizing the world.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2014 at 7:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orlandu84 Says:

    Yesterday I was talking to the heating repairman on this very issue. As his apprentice worked on another job, he talked to me about his frustrations with mobile phones and computers. His apprentice did not like to talk to him nearly as much as he liked to converse on his cell phone. I interjected that the smart phone was quickly transforming how we think such that our minds rely upon the internet to function properly. Just as writing revolutionized human thinking by allowing us to offload thought permanently, the internet is doing so again as it allows people to access information instantly. This change of how we think also effects how we communicate and with whom. Although I would never blog about what I eat on a regular basis, I know people who do. I could never figure out the attraction till I considered what the food represented to them – community. Just as everyone shares himself at meals, these bloggers urgently long to share themselves with others.

    I strongly agree with Erik’s comments above in so far as declining communities and stricter speech codes suppress community and communication. To admin’s remarks, I would describe this phenomenon as a viscous circle: the more you substitute the internet for personal and physical interaction, the more you feel isolated in a world indifferent or hostile to you.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2014 at 8:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ex-pat in Oz Says:

    I’d add another consideration, which is that on the surface while the internet permits wide dispersion of networks w/o regard to geography, I’d suggest the more meaningful piece is the depth of the immersion of that network interaction. Intellectual curiosity can now be indulged, fed, trained, etc when in contact with a limited but influential network (where DE.NR excels– I am simply astounded by the intellectual rigor this movement demands of itself). Dunbar’s Number is around 150 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number) — that sounds right. As a middle aged guy who’s atomised socially, I’ve found new voice and community in blogs like this, where some of my own 150 blog/visit. That’s a good thing (for me).

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The Dunbar number point is crucial, I agree. If human social bandwidth is c.150, then as soon as the option to hunt around for roughly that number of communication partners worldwide becomes available, it’s going to carry people out of local communities automatically. What’s the chance that any significant proportion of the ‘voices’ you find most engaging are going to be found in close geographical proximity? (In this respect, Dynamic Geography, or social sorting by affinity, is a direct social competitor with post-local micromedia — and this in turn supports the critical point that the escape from space is an implicit denunciation of the ‘real world’ social environments presently available. Our neighbors bore us.)

    [Reply]

    Igitur Reply:

    In a random network you’ll be approximately Log(n)/Log(d) steps away from any other person, where n is your total population and d the number of contacts of each person. Plug in 20 million for a ~top 25 metropolis and 150 for the Dunbar number and we get… three.

    But wait, you say — are we not talking about “delocalized” populations? Yeah well, increase n at will. Increase it enough that it includes everyone who has read a lot of continental philosophy and suddenly… hey, I had a teacher who studied under Gilles Deleuze himself as a young woman. More realistically, I know someone (step 1) who knows the anthropologist Viveiros de Castro (step 2), who wrote for one of Robin MacKay’s journals (step 3), who once knew you, mr. @admin. Solve for n=4 and we get 500 million people.

    “Six degrees of separation” calculations usually include all the population of the planet, which is silly — there are scarcely any people doing philosophy, arts, science, politics outside the great big cities. So all the world is 25 metropolitan areas, apparently. Which ones?

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2014 at 9:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Igitur Says:

    Is Twitter more efficient in Mandarin? I have to say that it’s unusable in portuguese; not for any kind of thought-provoking one-liner anyway.

    Otherwise, this is what the idea of Shanghai as a fungible substitute for Singapore reminds me of:

    http://i.imgur.com/fHVTdHv.png

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Chinese letters are 3x as dense as English, so yes, it’s way more efficient. Still Chinese people today don’t do Weibo as much as they used to, the censorship is too tight.

    Actually most girls don’t type in their smartphones, they record short clips of audio and send them to their friends. Typing Chinese does take some effort. You’d think it would be easy to just make a phone call, but nope.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    (It would only be harsh karma to have a fragment of that hideous thing chiseled onto my gravestone.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2014 at 12:40 am Reply | Quote
  • bob sykes Says:

    But delocalized communities cannot act. They can complain, whine, etc., but action needs the physical presence of allies. So, dislocalization only serves to increase the power of the State v. v. the people.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Thought is the highest type of action (Aristotle).
    Also, this “whine” meme is getting to be even more annoying than the “creepy” one.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    If peer-to-peer networks can enable the exchange of money (and irrevocable contractual obligations) over the internet, can they do something similar with action?

    [Reply]

    pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    as rene guenon points out, after a certain level sometimes the best thing to do is simply preserve the tradition for after the fall, that things may then flower again.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2014 at 12:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Blogospheroid Says:

    Venkat Rao has written a very good article on this.

    http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/09/27/cloud-mouse-metro-mouse/

    In general, the ribbon farm blog has a lot of good reading material, especially the gervais principle series.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2014 at 12:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    After becoming familiar with the vocabulary and concepts utilized on this site, a perspective has been developed. This perspective largely draws on the frequency of concepts of “catallaxy,” “liberty,” and “exit-based solutions.”

    At bottom, the bulk of the interpretation by this site appears to largely be a form of repackaged libertarianism.

    One of the main contentions is that “liberty” leads to “catallaxy” and an interpretation of economics, action, and behavior most related to Austrian economics.

    Underlying this assumption is FAITH in evolution. That is, the concepts “liberty” is abstracted from regard very specific interpretations of human behavior and of the use of control. “Liberty” can not mean acting in accordance with the mandates of the “controlling drive” (rulers, society, etc). It can only mean the ability to act in opposition to the mandates of the “controlling drive” without fear of negative reinforcement.

    It is posited that “liberty” (understood as the ability to act in opposition to the mandates of the “controlling drive” without fear of negative reinforcement) will lead to “emergent” order which is superior to other forms.

    Implicit in this interpretation is that the “liberty” is harmed by subsidies from the “controlling drive” as much as from the aforementioned negative reinforcement (derivative from the Austrian economic perspective).

    In other words, the most superior “emergent order” will be “free” from the influence of the “controlling drive.” Quotes are placed around “free” because this order will still be subject to the pressures from nature, reality, etc. It is posited that these pressures from reality which are not influence by the “controlling drive” SHOULD be the pressures to influence agents’ behavior. Implicit in this interpretation is that the removal of the “controlling drive’s” influence will allow ever more of these “pressures from reality” to create ever superior forms of “emergent order.”

    In other words, it is posited that uncontrolled nature will create the most superior forms of order. It is this underlying faith in evolution that is at the bottom of your cherished concept, catallaxy.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Nice sifting! Not sure if you’re right in all details, only did a quick scan, but it seems ‘rightish’.

    “Catallaxy or catallactics is an alternative expression for the word “economy”.”

    “the “Science of Exchanges.””

    “The employment of this and kindred words in the sense of “reconcilement,” is evidently secondary, reconciliation being commonly effected by a compensation; something accepted as an equivalent for loss or injury.”

    What is this, ‘Neoreaction’, the political as a forensick ‘free-for all’?
    A discourse of distribution resentments?

    The ‘Cathedral’ and ‘Neoreaction’ are the same. If you accept the ‘Free Market’, is it not hypocritical to complain when it doesn’t go your way, when some players utilise other players against you, especially after the silent enjoyment of benefits rooted in the exploitation & misery of others, through coercive means: an exploitation that has never ceased?

    In it’s application, ‘Reality’ has always been an arbitrary, tentative regi-mentation, lending itself, always, to declarations of the ridiculous, bereft of understanding & ‘spiritual’ imagination.

    (admin: I haven’t forgotten about this:

    “Science is modern, not accidentally, but essentially. Modernity is no mere bet, but a venture, through which everything is hazarded, including itself. The widest horizons arise from ‘within’ it (but its ‘inside’ is not, in reality, inside).”

    I have responses from that time, but didn’t post them, The issues there are crucial, & require more consideration.)

    [Reply]

    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    in short form: libertarianism is retarded

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2014 at 1:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    @Different T

    I wouldn’t be so ‘harsh’, nyan_sandwich, but it’s difficult not to be.

    And yes, Different T, the obvious question, which I’ve mentioned before: Is the “controlling drive” not already the “superior form of “emergent order” that has issued out of ‘realist pressures’? If not, why not, what excludes it? Only the view of an idealised extension of optimisation strategies deriving from a current perspective of dissatisfactions, that proffers the results of its own historically entrenched bias as a self-fulfilling, ‘realist’ justification?
    Is it that ‘Neoreaction’ believes it has a better view of that ‘harsh Reality’, or does it wish to stop playing the neocolonial game, if there’s even a hint that it isn’t the coloniser?

    The ‘Cathedral’ could very well be a mess, but ‘Neoreaction’ doesn’t seem to be any different.

    [Reply]

    RiverC Reply:

    You may be criticizing the wrong aspect of the thing; the messiness is not the problem. The problem with a broken piano is not that it is a piano or a musical instrument, but that it is broken.

    The trouble is not that there is a Cathedral, but that the Cathedral is possessed by demons.

    [Reply]

    R7 Rocket Reply:

    The Cathedral put a man on the moon, but then it got stuffed full of Pajama Boys.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Local optima not always optimal.

    Or, to use your terms. evolution has not only produced the Cathedral, but it has produced NR.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    @Lesser Bull

    “Local optima not always optimal.”

    Yes, colonisers were concerned about profit for themselves, not local optimisations.

    “Or, to use your terms. evolution has not only produced the Cathedral, but it has produced NR.”

    ‘Evolution’ has allegedly produced everything, so what follows? What is to be valued?

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2014 at 4:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » More on Micromedia Says:

    […] De-Localized […]

    Posted on February 6th, 2014 at 5:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • RiverC Says:

    When the internet hides geography, it also hides the geography that it misses. To unplug will be to disappear from ‘the world’ – for good or for ill.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2014 at 5:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    @RiverC

    Didn’t the Chinese called Europeans “white devils” after the “Opium Wars”?

    The play of demonising others is everywhere, but why the resurgence of this language?
    Could modernity itself be amplifying the demonic? If concentrations of kapital & institutions
    enable industrialisation & modernity, do they concentrate, institutionalise, & increase evil, too? Along with a pragmatic acceptance of the ‘status quo’ – that buys the ideological spin of modernist progress, at the cost of ‘necessary evils’, ones that are usually exported, for which the buyer doesn’t have to pay, anyway – comes the steady development of a schizophrenic hypocrisy, one that is selective & opportunistic in its ethical practice, callous & forgetful in its consideration of all that it displaces. The loss of spiritual integrity is built in to any system that privileges the delimited arena of ‘profits’ over all other concerns, spiritual weakness is the result.

    “Weakening, Kraggash became evil; becoming evil, Kraggash grew weak. In vain he invented devil-worship. The followers of Marvinity bowed down not to the idol, but rather to the symbol. Evil, Kraggash turned nasty: dirt grew beneath his fingernails, noxious tufts of hair appeared on his soul.” Robert Sheckley “Mindswap (1966)

    It is often said, in ‘Neoreactionary’ blogs, that the ‘West’ has become ‘weak’, has it become ‘evil’ as well? Or was the ‘evil’ always there? And is it the case, that the techniques of propaganda & self-deception that obscure this are no longer functioning quite so well? Is that why ‘Neoreaction’ is stepping in? You see, all governments are, actually, of the people. And it’s often the people who are ‘demonic’.
    Why would you expect governments to be any different?
    Why would you expect the coercive mechanics that enrich(ed) the West, at the expense of Others, to cease functioning in the West, between & within groups, including those who practice & perpetuate it?
    Kind of like ‘Hell’ isn’t it?
    But there’s money to be made! lol
    I’m sure those with large investments in the British Virgin Islands aren’t complaining.
    Isnt that what ‘Neoreaction’ is calling ‘evolution’?

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    @Artxell Knaphni

    Thank you for commenting.

    Upon reading your blog posts, it is clear I do not have access to many of the specifics you discuss at this time.

    However, the parts that were understood created a sense that your position regards humans utilizing a mis- (or lower) interpretation of reality. Is it correct that you seek a more “spiritual” view? Something of a “higher” socialism? It is understood that you do not like the political, but we agree these things get translated.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    @Different T

    “However, the parts that were understood created a sense that your position regards humans utilizing a mis- (or lower) interpretation of reality. Is it correct that you seek a more “spiritual” view? Something of a “higher” socialism? It is understood that you do not like the political, but we agree these things get translated.”

    I don’t know that I have a ‘position’ really, that can be identified or specified, within the articulations or ‘effects’ of any conceptual system. I like Mahayana Buddhism, so that’s as it should be. As to the ‘spiritual’, I do not exclude considerations of this realm.
    If, by ““higher” socialism”, you refer to the conventional political meaning of socialism (after all, all politics is ‘social’), then I would have to say that it is not something I ‘seek’, or avoid. Rather, I see what any postion has to offer, in the way of insight.
    Insight, I feel, is the first step to an effective understanding.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    @Artxell Knaphni

    Thank you for expounding your views.

    First, this is a beautiful insight: “Only the view of an idealised extension of optimisation strategies deriving from a current perspective of dissatisfactions, that proffers the results of its own historically entrenched bias as a self-fulfilling, ‘realist’ justification?
    Is it that ‘Neoreaction’ believes it has a better view of that ‘harsh Reality’, or does it wish to stop playing the neocolonial game, if there’s even a hint that it isn’t the coloniser?”

    The higher “socialism” comment regarded your considerable usage of “coercion” and “colonialism.” For instance, this passage from Allan Ramsay appears key to your understanding:

    “the two last wars carried on by England against France and Spain, furnish a most melancholy illustration. To obtain the sole and exclusive commerce of the western world, in which the French and Spaniards were their rivals, was the modest wish of our merchants, in conjunction with our Americans. The fair, and truly commercial, method of effecting this would have been, by superior skill, industry and frugality, to have undersold their rivals at market: but that method appearing slow and troublesome to a luxurious people, whose extraordinary expences* required extraordinary profits, a more expeditous one was devised; which was that of driving their rivals entirely out of the seas, and preventing them from bringing their goods at all to market. For this purpose, not having any fleets or armies of their own, the powers of the State were found necessary, and they applied them accordingly.”

    This statement contains many assumptions that seem contradictory. First, that the Brits were sole aggressors instead of engaged in a feedback loop. Second, this aggression is deplorable. Third, commercial means are “fair” and therefore less deplorable. Specifically, the third point seems to contradict your contentions regarding “If you accept the ‘Free Market’, is it not hypocritical to complain when it doesn’t go your way, when some players utilise other players against you, especially after the silent enjoyment of benefits rooted in the exploitation & misery of others, through coercive means.” Maybe you consider your insight and understanding to take place “above” these considerations?

    “What is this, ‘Neoreaction’, the political as a forensick ‘free-for all’?
    A discourse of distribution resentments?”

    If possible, may you “unpack” this statement further? Current understanding leads to: NR is not concerned about the actual processes leading to the current outcome, rather its chief complaint is about the rights granted to the agents in question.

    Next, some of your insights regard the “fact” that the old Indian and Chinese traditions did not engage in such neo-colonialism. You do seem to admit that once Western traditions were introduced (or forcibly applied), the old Eastern traditions were displaced. The question becomes, why? Is it possible that those Eastern traditions were actually reliant on “isolation” in order to sustain themselves? In other words, do those traditions have no real defenses against “Other” traditions? If so, why not? Is it not at exactly this crucial point, that (to use terms from your blog) Eastern tradition becomes treasonous.

    Finally, some of your blog posts regard the way in which concepts and logic can be “mind-closing.” For instance, you may regard the preceding paragraph as utilizing bio-logics or say that it is primarily concerned with “considerations of this realm.” As a transcendentalist, are you familiar with Julius Evola. As of current understanding, his journey had a rather humorous conclusion. Do you have any insight regarding this?

    Posted on February 6th, 2014 at 11:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    @Different T

    [Different T] “Thank you for expounding your views.”

    {AK} You’re welcome, thank you for your careful reading.

    [Different T] “The higher “socialism” comment regarded your considerable usage of “coercion” and “colonialism.””

    {AK} I just describe the conditions.

    [Different T] For instance, this passage from Allan Ramsay appears key to your understanding:…”

    {AK} Yes, I like that quote. It’s a good statement, indicating the modern “military-industial
    complex”. lol

    [Different T] “This statement contains many assumptions that seem contradictory. First, that the Brits were sole aggressors instead of engaged in a feedback loop.”

    {AK} Well, I didn’t write the statement, Ramsay did, & he was an Englishman, reporting on the events of the time. That was his consideration at the time, does it reveal a socio-psychological pattern that is the effective horizon of Euro-global practice to date?

    Aggressions always have germinal contexts, can always be seen as products of “feedback loop[s]”, In all the contexts that have arisen, over the last 500 years, do we see an export of such contexts & ‘loops’? What common factors do we see, tying together the disparate global contentions of the period?

    [Different T] “Second, this aggression is deplorable.”

    {AK}If one doesn’t assume this, what distinguishes a ‘state’ from a ‘criminal organisation’?

    [Different T] “Third, commercial means are “fair” and therefore less deplorable.

    {AK} If military or otherwise ‘coercive’ means are involved, what distinguishes it from waging
    war, whilst others are only engaged in commerce?

    [Different T] “Specifically, the third point seems to contradict your contentions regarding “If you accept the ‘Free Market’, is it not hypocritical to complain when it doesn’t go your way, when some players utilise other players against you, especially after the silent enjoyment of benefits rooted in the exploitation & misery of others, through coercive means.” Maybe you consider your insight and understanding to take place “above” these considerations?””

    {AK} If other enterprises are competing on strictly “commercial” grounds, resorting to military actions to gain advantage, is hardly conducive to ‘fair trade’.
    As regards the “‘Free Market’” issue, it’s ironic. That is, it refers to the institutional development of that “‘Free Market’”, of its practices, techniques & militarism, & it states that those responsible are not exactly in a position to complain if others follow their example.

    [Different T] ““What is this, ‘Neoreaction’, the political as a forensick ‘free-for all’?
    A discourse of distribution resentments?”

    If possible, may you “unpack” this statement further? Current understanding leads to: NR is not concerned about the actual processes leading to the current outcome, rather its chief complaint is about the rights granted to the agents in question.”

    {AK} Well, that statement refers to the prior quotes about ‘catallaxy’, & ‘reconcilement’
    (“…reconciliation being commonly effected by a compensation; something accepted as an
    equivalent for loss or injury.””). A lot more could be said, but it would take too long to do the
    delineation now. About ‘NR’ not being concerned with aetiology, I would agree & disagree: yes, they want to deal with the problems, as they see them, but no, they have considered the historical forces, but only along lines of prefiguration that repeat the same ‘errors’, which have produced the current ‘malaise’, as it were.

    [Different T] “Next, some of your insights regard the “fact” that the old Indian and Chinese
    traditions did not engage in such neo-colonialism. You do seem to admit that once Western
    traditions were introduced (or forcibly applied), the old Eastern traditions were displaced. The question becomes, why? Is it possible that those Eastern traditions were actually reliant on “isolation” in order to sustain themselves? In other words, do those traditions have no real defenses against “Other” traditions? If so, why not? Is it not at exactly this crucial point, that (to use terms from your blog) Eastern tradition becomes treasonous.”

    {AK} Well, this is complex, & I realise my writings, thus far, on these topics have been speculative, they lay the groundwork for something else.
    The writings you’re referring to here, were an exchange with an Indian philosopher/scientist
    whose training strongly exemplifies knowledge of Western traditions. His position will be a hybrid, & complex. I’m not going to outline the nuances here, it would be difficult & speculative. I think we both had fun, playing with the concepts, in his case, “tradition/treadition”, etc..
    Regarding “isolation” & “defence” of tradition, we would have to specify what the nature of each is. Again, if one tradition stresses war, & the other emphasises other developments, that only means their encounter will reduce to the politics of ‘coercion’, Such a reduction is not exactly conducive to ‘other developments’. It is conducive to the production of a ‘regime’, however it disguises the fact.

    [Different T] “Finally, some of your blog posts regard the way in which concepts and logic can be “mind-closing.” For instance, you may regard the preceding paragraph as utilizing bio-logics or say that it is primarily concerned with “considerations of this realm.” As a transcendentalist, are you familiar with Julius Evola. As of current understanding, his journey had a rather humorous conclusion. Do you have any insight regarding this?”

    {AK} Delimited systems of “concepts and logic” can be ““mind-closing”” (your expression, not mine), if they are the exclusive horizon of thinking.
    The possibilities of “regard” are boundless, innumerable ‘perspectives’ are available, therein resides a kind of “freedom”, the liberty of the ‘speculative’.
    I’m not only a “transcendentalist”, that would entail a privileging of the ‘transcendental’ over the ‘immanent’, I don’t do this. At the heart of any ‘transcendental’ is the ‘immanent’ it is distinguished from, & at the heart of every ‘immanence’ is a ‘transcendence’. Whenever you use one, you’re using both, & that structure leads on to others.
    I’ve heard of Julius Evola, but he’s too political, seems bound by the doxa of myth & history.
    The task is to light up the possibilities, not be enslaved by them.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 9th, 2014 at 4:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    @Artxell Knaphni

    {AK} If one doesn’t assume this, what distinguishes a ‘state’ from a ‘criminal organisation’?

    [Different T] This comment is a strange re-frame. It seems very out of place.

    {AK} If military or otherwise ‘coercive’ means are involved, what distinguishes it from waging
    war, whilst others are only engaged in commerce?

    {AK} If other enterprises are competing on strictly “commercial” grounds, resorting to military actions to gain advantage, is hardly conducive to ‘fair trade’.

    contradicts

    {AK} As regards the “‘Free Market’” issue, it’s ironic. That is, it refers to the institutional development of that “‘Free Market’”, of its practices, techniques & militarism,

    Specifically, you state those “competing on strictly ‘commercial’ grounds” are dissimilar from those “resorting to military actions to gain advantage,” yet speak of the “militarism” of the “free market.” Are you not referencing the inherent “militarism” in the “commercial” grounds.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [Different T] “This comment is a strange re-frame. It seems very out of place.”

    {AK} Why so? It’s very simple.
    If there is an political entity known as a ‘state’: if that ‘state’ is conscious of its own territorial rights & interests, as distinct from those of others: & if that ‘state’ engages in unprovoked, hostile actions with other ‘states’ for commercial gain: how can such an action conform to any policy outside of that considered ‘deplorable’?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [Different T] “Specifically, you state those “competing on strictly ‘commercial’ grounds” are dissimilar from those “resorting to military actions to gain advantage,” yet speak of the “militarism” of the “free market.” Are you not referencing the inherent “militarism” in the “commercial” grounds.”

    {AK} If a nation-state loudly proclaims itself to be an advocate of the ‘Free Market’, this entails following classical ‘Free Market’ ideology. Such a procedure entails not using coercion. Freedom from coercion, by any means, whether that of government, corporate monopolies, or military interventions, is the alleged goal, in order to allow the ‘invisible hand’ of the market to carry out its ‘self-regulation’.
    Britain & the USA have always been the foremost proponents of this ideology, yet their practices have never been in accord with it. They have invariably been amongst the most ‘protectionist’ of economies, yet they wish others not to be, at all. They have invariably resorted to military interventions as a means of ‘regulating market forces’ in their favour (cf. Ramsay).

    So, there is a distinction between the classical formulation of what ‘Free Markets’ are supposed to be, & the actual conduct of its loudest proponents, hence the irony referred to in “{AK} As regards the “‘Free Market’” issue, it’s ironic.”

    There is no “inherent “militarism” in the “commercial” grounds”, it’s only a policy to gain an (unfair?) advantage.

    It is the actual history of trading practices by Britain & America, that “free market” & its
    “militarism”, that is ‘referenced’. That actual & systematic practice, contrasted with Britain & America’s overtly declared ideology of a ‘coercionless’ Free Market, produces irony & hypocrisy.
    One wonders if Ramsay would be any happier today?

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 10th, 2014 at 3:12 am Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    @Artxell Knaphni

    {AK} Why so? It’s very simple.

    [Different T] No, it is not. You assume the preconditions that make the very conception of “criminal” possible.

    {AK}If there is an political entity known as a ‘state’: if that ‘state’ is conscious of its own territorial rights & interests, as distinct from those of others: & if that ‘state’ engages in unprovoked, hostile actions with other ‘states’ for commercial gain.

    [Different T] In this statement, are you not assuming something other than “Aggressions always have germinal contexts, can always be seen as products of ‘feedback loop[s]'”. You go from the “germinal context of aggression” to “unprovoked, hostile actions” quickly and without explanation.

    {AK} how can such an action conform to any policy outside of that considered ‘deplorable’

    [Different T] And finally, you assume some sort of morality of peace (while again assuming all the preconditions that make the very conception of “peace” possible, and yet divorce them from consideration).

    Regarding the topic of the West’s “ironic” use of the “free market,” have you considered a more delineated approach. That is, if you define the proponents of the “free market” more specifically than “Britain and USA” you are likely to find the very agents touting the “free market” are against the protectionist policies and military interventions. Have you considered these systems contain disparate forces and that lumping them together for ease of conception harms the ability to accurately assess those forces and renders your diagnosis as “schizophrenic hypocrisy.”

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [Different T] “No, it is not. You assume the preconditions that make the very conception of “criminal” possible.”

    {AK} The “preconditions” of the concept of criminality would be a notion of law. International law, lacking any other superior authority, can only be derived from consensual agreements that, in their turn, ultimately derive from custom. The legislative consideration of conduct between nations is ancient, & analogues of modern international law can be found all over the ancient world. so there was always an awareness of the rights of other nations & their peoples. It should be noted that present day structures of ‘modern international law’ are equally consensual, & customary, as those of former times.

    [Different T] In this statement, are you not assuming something other than “Aggressions always have germinal contexts, can always be seen as products of ‘feedback loop[s]‘”. You go from the “germinal context of aggression” to “unprovoked, hostile actions” quickly and without explanation.

    {AK} Yes. Well there are developmental logics of germination, & of escalatory feedback, when it comes to European conflicts, & this might suffice to explain local hostilities. In the Ramsay example, both France & Spain had been enemies, & were potential threats. It can be seen that, given a scenario of uncertain relations between neighbouring states, fraught tensions ensue. It can be seen, too, that once one state becomes a recipient of colonial revenues, others are driven to replicate this in order to maintain financial parity & security: wealth buys military capability (“…do we see an export of such contexts & ‘loops’?”).
    Colonial revenues, however, issue from areas which are not threats to state security. So, aggression against those areas is ‘unprovoked’: those areas were not aggressors.

    [Different T] And finally, you assume some sort of morality of peace (while again assuming all the preconditions that make the very conception of “peace” possible, and yet divorce them from consideration).

    {AK} The concept of peace is thousands of years old. The morality of peace, likewise.
    If you’re questioning the assumption of preconditions for actually enabling peace, that would be different.

    [Different T] Regarding the topic of the West’s “ironic” use of the “free market,” have you considered a more delineated approach. That is, if you define the proponents of the “free market” more specifically than “Britain and USA” you are likely to find the very agents touting the “free market” are against the protectionist policies and military interventions. Have you considered these systems contain disparate forces and that lumping them together for ease of conception harms the ability to accurately assess those forces and renders your diagnosis as “schizophrenic hypocrisy.”

    {AK} It may be that the architects of ‘Free Market’ thought had only ‘free trade’ in mind when designing the theory, but this does not exclude the actual practice of coercive ‘military regulation’ as it were. And as we see from history, there has been no restraint in this area of implementation, especially with regard to colonialism.
    Of course, there are always “disparate forces”, Ramsay is a case in point. I’m not “lumping them together”, I’m referring to the very real contentions & exploitations between states, contentions which benefit economies & treasuries, which would have indirectly benefited Ramsay, too. It is to his credit that he spoke up.

    It seems ironic that a more charitable & nuanced understanding is sought in the case of European hostilities and their aetiologies, just at the point when ‘Neoreaction’ is reversing away from such conciliatory (PC?) discourses. lol

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    @Artxell Knaphni

    [Different T] Before a point by point response, the overall sense of your post in a certain regard is that subjugation is a “modern” phenomena among nations.

    {AK}Colonial revenues, however, issue from areas which are not threats to state security. So, aggression against those areas is ‘unprovoked’: those areas were not aggressors.

    [Different T] This statement is ahistorical. Were not coloniser’s most often working directly with a certain amiable faction in the colony?

    {AK} It may be that the architects of ‘Free Market’ thought had only ‘free trade’ in mind when designing the theory, but this does not exclude the actual practice of coercive ‘military regulation’ as it were.

    [Different T]A very simple counter-example can be demonstrated. How do you perceive the nationalization of firms with large amounts of direct foreign investment?

    {AK} It seems ironic that a more charitable & nuanced understanding is sought in the case of European hostilities and their aetiologies, just at the point when ‘Neoreaction’ is reversing away from such conciliatory (PC?) discourses. lol

    [Different T] It is not clear how you come to this conclusion or why you consider this discourse representative of NR.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    @Different T

    [Different T] Before a point by point response, the overall sense of your post in a certain regard is that subjugation is a “modern” phenomena among nations.

    {AK} I didn’t suggest that. Not sure where you got that from. My referral to ‘modern international law’ & ‘ancient analogues’ alone, suggests the opposite.

    [Different T] This statement is ahistorical. Were not coloniser’s most often working directly with a certain amiable faction in the colony?

    {AK} Whether or not this was the case, is not necessarily significant. Trade has often continued on between nations at war.

    {AK} It may be that the architects of ‘Free Market’ thought had only ‘free trade’ in mind when designing the theory, but this does not exclude the actual practice of coercive ‘military regulation’ as it were.

    [Different T]A very simple counter-example can be demonstrated. How do you perceive the nationalization of firms with large amounts of direct foreign investment?
    .
    {AK} The quoted sentence refers to the beginnings of ‘Free Market’ theory & the history of modern European colonial exploitation through coercive ‘military regulation’ since, say, 1600. It does not refer to uncoerced, free trade. Your counter-example is not relevant.

    {AK} It seems ironic that a more charitable & nuanced understanding is sought in the case of European hostilities and their aetiologies, just at the point when ‘Neoreaction’ is reversing away from such conciliatory (PC?) discourses. lol

    [Different T] It is not clear how you come to this conclusion or why you consider this discourse representative of NR.

    {AK} When narratives of mitigating circumstance are offered for unprovoked European hostilities, yet rejected as ‘left-wing’ ideologising when applied to the allegedly innate ‘criminality’ of minority groups, a certain irony is revealed. Your discourse is merely questioning, but nevertheless suggests such a narrative as explanatory of European aggressions. NR essentially rejects or elides such narratives when it comes to the minority groups it attacks.

    Posted on February 11th, 2014 at 1:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    @ Artxell Knaphni

    {AK} I didn’t suggest that. Not sure where you got that from. My referral to ‘modern international law’ & ‘ancient analogues’ alone, suggests the opposite.

    [Different T] This is the statement that caused the confusion:

    {AK} so there was always an awareness of the rights of other nations & their peoples.

    [Different T] However, your intent is clearer now.

    {AK} So, aggression against those areas is ‘unprovoked’: those areas were not aggressors.

    [Different T] This statement is ahistorical. Were not colonizers most often working directly with a certain amiable faction in the colony?

    {AK} Whether or not this was the case, is not necessarily significant. Trade has often continued on between nations at war.

    [Different T] The intent is to show that having allies in the colony who were “provoked” was usually part of the package.
    [
    Different T] A very simple counter-example can be demonstrated. How do you perceive the nationalization of firms with large amounts of direct foreign investment?

    {AK} Your counter-example is not relevant.

    [Different T] The intent is to draw attention to political policies which result in the loss of property and the nullification of agreed upon contracts without any direct physical force. To make things simpler, you could substitute “direct foreign investment” with “private investment” and achieve the same effect.

    {AK} When narratives of mitigating circumstance are offered for unprovoked European hostilities, yet rejected as ‘left-wing’ ideologising when applied to the allegedly innate ‘criminality’ of minority groups, a certain irony is revealed. Your discourse is merely questioning, but nevertheless suggests such a narrative as explanatory of European aggressions. NR essentially rejects or elides such narratives when it comes to the minority groups it attacks.

    [Different T] I am unsure what you refer to here. I am most interested in understanding how you maintain your view of colonization while not making the complete Marxist leap that all property is “coercive” and all subjugation (or to use Marxist terminology, oppression [understood as subjugation which Marxist’s do not favor]) is evil.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    @[Different T]

    [Different T] The intent is to show that having allies in the colony who were “provoked” was usually part of the package.

    {AK} Having allies in a state is one thing, having the sanction of the rulers of that state, can be another. And if there are no ‘rulers’? Is it ‘Christian’ for the ‘Christians’ of that time to waltz in & take over?

    “In 1542, the Spanish Dominican priest Bartolomé de Las Casas published his Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, in which he describes the horrors and atrocities of the conquest of the Americas. Las Casas had arrived in Santo Domingo in 1502 and witnessed the invasion and conquest of the New World. He accompanied the conquistador Diego Velázquez, and in his Short Account he describes the massacres of Velázquez in Cuba, of Hernán Cortés in Mexico, and of Francisco Pizarro in Peru. According to Las Casas, the conquistadors engaged not only in wholesale slaughter of the predominantly peaceful indigenous population but took pleasure in the most gruesome mutilations and torture. He describes how the conquerors would kill and maim the civilian population or burn them alive; how they would kidnap and abduct entire groups into slavery and bondage; and how they would drench the land in a sea of blood and misery.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [Different T]” The intent is to draw attention to political policies which result in the loss of property and the nullification of agreed upon contracts without any direct physical force. To make things simpler, you could substitute “direct foreign investment” with “private investment” and achieve the same effect.”

    {AK} You’re talking about investments in territories whose customs are arcane to the investor. If those “agreed upon contracts” contravene the laws of those territories, you’re talking about criminal alliances.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [Different T] “I am unsure what you refer to here. I am most interested in understanding how you maintain your view of colonization while not making the complete Marxist leap that all property is “coercive” and all subjugation (or to use Marxist terminology, oppression [understood as subjugation which Marxist’s do not favor]) is evil.”

    {AK} Were European states not using Christianity as a justification for ‘civilising’ incursions into foreign territory? Does not Christianity speak of ‘doing unto others as one would have others do unto oneself’? Would this not apply to territorial permissions?

    Colonisation and property are two different, yet relating, concepts.
    Property has to do with the propriety of possession, or belonging. What should belong to whom, or whom should belong to what?

    I believe Proudhon said: “Property is theft.” But Marxism does believe in property, just not ‘private property’.
    The notion of property, propriety, belonging, etc., cannot be dismissed so easily, in any of its forms. A conceptual analysis, & speculation, can show the likely tendencies & extrapolations of differing mappings of the idea of property onto the entities of ‘the individual’, ‘tribe’, ‘community’, ‘society’, etc., but each of these entities is problematic, can be characterised in multiple ways, the multiplicity being impossible to stabilise without agreed upon reference points.

    Could it be that the incomprehension shown by the West (Islam & Christianity). continues on? That the same banal metaphysical assumptions essentially govern their prevalent outlooks? That this deliberated set of limitations has become entrenched, the reifications of an ad hoc ‘rationality’ that can only affirm its own limitations, as ‘profits’ or ‘dreams’, without any other awareness? Innately teleological, in a very particular way, its every valuation, devalues all else not on its itinerary?

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 13th, 2014 at 1:03 am Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    @Artxell Knaphni

    Thank you for another excellent comment.

    {AK} Having allies in a state is one thing, having the sanction of the rulers of that state, can be another.

    [Different T] It is unclear why you bring up this distinction, especially when the territories in question did not have Western conceptions of “state.”

    {AK} And if there are no ‘rulers’? Is it ‘Christian’ for the ‘Christians’ of that time to waltz in & take over?

    [Different T] Your quoted passage is from a priest who provides an answer to the question for you. Does not your perspective look at colonization as a whole and not at the most “deplorable” instances. This goes back to:

    “Next, some of your insights regard the “fact” that the old Indian and Chinese traditions did not engage in such neo-colonialism. You do seem to admit that once Western traditions were introduced (or forcibly applied), the old Eastern traditions were displaced. The question becomes, why? Is it possible that those Eastern traditions were actually reliant on “isolation” in order to sustain themselves?”

    {AK} You’re talking about investments in territories whose customs are arcane to the investor. If those “agreed upon contracts” contravene the laws of those territories, you’re talking about criminal alliances.

    [Different T] No. You are now combining conceptions in strange ways. You go from “customs” to “contracts” (a legal term) to “laws” (in this instance, enacted ex post facto) and end at “criminal” (another legal term).

    {AK} The notion of property, propriety, belonging, etc., cannot be dismissed so easily, in any of its forms. A conceptual analysis, & speculation, can show the likely tendencies & extrapolations of differing mappings of the idea of property onto the entities of ‘the individual’, ‘tribe’, ‘community’, ‘society’, etc., but each of these entities is problematic, can be characterised in multiple ways, the multiplicity being impossible to stabilise without agreed upon reference points.

    [Different T] Weakens your statement:

    {AK} Could it be that the incomprehension shown by the West (Islam & Christianity). continues on?

    [Different T] Could it be that the West uses “agreed upon reference points” in order to “stabilize” this multiplicity.

    Is it that your position is only “a discourse of distribution resentments?” Not among modern “economic” considerations, but of more fundamental energies “if one tradition stresses war, & the other emphasises other developments.”

    Finally, you mentioned this earlier: “Well, this is complex, & I realise my writings, thus far, on these topics have been speculative, they lay the groundwork for something else.”

    These comments appear more as an extrapolation on the “speculative.”

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    @[Different T]

    [Different T] “Thank you for another excellent comment.”

    {AK} You’re welcome, thank you for your questions.

    [Different T]” It is unclear why you bring up this distinction, especially when the territories in question did not have Western conceptions of “state.””

    {AK} “Western conceptions of “state”” have not been the only conceptions of state.

    [Different T] “Your quoted passage is from a priest who provides an answer to the question for you.”

    {AK} His answer is one of horror & reluctance to use the word ‘conquest’ for the atrocities. The quote is from here: http://www.politicalconcepts.org/issue1/conquest/
    It’s an interesting article.

    [Different T] “Does not your perspective look at colonization as a whole and not at the most “deplorable” instances.”

    {AK} This seems illogical. A “perspective” that “look[s] at colonization as a whole”, cannot exclude ““deplorable” instances”, if it is to remain holistic. Unless you think the ““deplorable” instances” are insignificant anomalies? But there seems to be sufficient numbers of such as to indicate definite trends.

    [Different T] “Next, some of your insights regard the “fact” that the old Indian and Chinese traditions did not engage in such neo-colonialism. You do seem to admit that once Western traditions were introduced (or forcibly applied), the old Eastern traditions were displaced. The question becomes, why? Is it possible that those Eastern traditions were actually reliant on “isolation” in order to sustain themselves?”

    As both Chinese & Indian traditions are ancient, it is difficult to characterise them simply. Different things could be said of them at different times.
    You could turn that round, into, were they self-sufficient? And wealthy, too. For was it not their wealth that attracted both Mughal & European invaders?
    Why was the West (Middle East & Europe) not able to develop wealth independently? Why the focus on violent expansion & military technology?

    [Different T] No. You are now combining conceptions in strange ways. You go from “customs” to “contracts” (a legal term) to “laws” (in this instance, enacted ex post facto) and end at “criminal” (another legal term).

    {AK} I disagree. There are multiple ranges of historical consideration informing each of these words. In any case, “agreed upon contracts” was your introduction. ‘Laws’ would apply to some of those territories, ‘customs’ & ‘mores’ to others: likewise, with ‘criminality’ & transgression of custom.
    Prefacing genocidal slaughter with a ceremonial mechanics of ad hoc legislative formality does not alter its fundamental barbarity.

    [Different T] “Weakens your statement:”

    {AK} You don’t seem to have completed your response?

    [Different T] “Could it be that the West uses “agreed upon reference points” in order to “stabilize” this multiplicity.”

    {AK} Well, yes, of course. I guess, everyone does, to different extents & in different ways.

    [Different T] “Is it that your position is only “a discourse of distribution resentments?” Not among modern “economic” considerations, but of more fundamental energies “if one tradition stresses war, & the other emphasises other developments.””

    {AK} It’s not worth ‘taking a position’, the whole thing’s such a mess. Getting some clarity & perspective is necessary. That, if an entire tradition so frequently wages war on innocents, it is a ‘regime’, not a ‘civilisation’.

    [Different T] “These comments appear more as an extrapolation on the “speculative.””

    {AK} Extrapolations & speculations are both forms of extension.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    @ Artxell Knaphni

    Again, “I am most interested in understanding how you maintain your view of colonization while not making the complete Marxist leap.” However, indications now appear that this will not be understood.

    To break with the current style of this discourse, we could discuss “selection bias” among the earliest explorers, that modern histories of China (India is not mentioned because personal knowledge does not allow) would not be nearly as kind, or how the current economic theory along with technology can achieve many of the aims of “colonization” without the use of the “barbaric practices” you find deplorable. However, it is becoming increasingly likely such discourse would not be productive. As in, it would not further the understanding mentioned in the beginning of the comment.

    Your “positions” (or maybe your lack thereof) have become clearer, though.

    Finally, you mentioned this earlier: “Well, this is complex, & I realise my writings, thus far, on these topics have been speculative, they lay the groundwork for something else.”

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [Different T] “Again, “I am most interested in understanding how you maintain your view of colonization while not making the complete Marxist leap.” However, indications now appear that this will not be understood.”

    {AK} I don’t really know much about Marxism. I like Adorno, & the Frankfurt School.
    In a general sense, yes, you could totalise the concept of ‘coercion’ & see oppression everywhere. Where, then, do you put non-coercion? There are answers to this, but they’re complex.

    [Different T] “… how the current economic theory along with technology can achieve many of the aims of “colonization” without the use of the “barbaric practices” you find deplorable.”

    {AK} One has to distinguish between the formal aims of “current economic theory” & the practices that actually occur during implementation of those theories.

    [Different T] “Your “positions” (or maybe your lack thereof) have become clearer, though.”

    You can’t really fixate, overly, on this or that position, if the results are bad. The theory could be great, but the implementation not so great. So you would have to theorise about the bad implementation. Or the theory could be wrong, so you need another.
    I’ve been trying to create & implement an information management system or ‘workflow’, on my computor, on & off, for months. I’m not a programmer, so there are limitations. I have found that it is crucial to specify what one actually does, what one wants, & what one might want in the future. This entails a need for flexibility: to create facets of order, orderings, instantly: to have frequently used ‘orderings’ always available but not have them exercise a limiting, ‘coercive’ effect on researches. It’s not always easy to achieve this, given the variability of functions in different softwares. If one commits data to a software, that ties you in to its procedures, which might render interoperability difficult with future softwares you might wish to use. There are multiple considerations involved, you have to attend to all of them, if you wish to get things right.

    [Different T] “Finally, you mentioned this earlier: “Well, this is complex, & I realise my writings, thus far, on these topics have been speculative, they lay the groundwork for something else.””

    {AK} The “something else” is thinking from the 70s/80s/90s. That thinking assumes all contemporary ‘extremities’ & much more.

    Posted on February 14th, 2014 at 12:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • To Mayberry, Minerva, or the Matrix? | The Ümlaut Says:

    […] is a very different view of the future from, say, the transhumanist mind-meld of some neoreactionaries (who largely think, not without good reason, that technology and cultural […]

    Posted on February 16th, 2014 at 8:53 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment