On Chaos

Turbulence is nonlinear dynamism, so remarking upon it very quickly becomes reflexive. In any conflict, an emergent meta-conflict divides those who embrace and reject the conflict as such, and ‘meta’ is in reality reflexivity, partially apprehended. So ignore the sides of the war, momentarily. What about war?

Moldbug really doesn’t like it. The closest he ever comes to a wholly-arbitrary axiom — comparable, at least superficially, to the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle — is exhibited in this context. Following some preliminary remarks, his first exposition of the formalist ideology begins: “The basic idea of formalism is just that the main problem in human affairs is violence.” As with Hobbes, the horror of war is the foundation of political philosophy.

This is by no means a trivial decision. With avoidance of war identified as the fundamental principle of political order, an ultimate criterion of (secular) value is erected, in simultaneity with a framework of genetic and structural explanation. Good government is defined as an effective process of pacification, attaining successively more highly-tranquilized levels (and stages) of order:

… there are four levels of sovereign security. These are peace, order, law, and freedom. Once you have each one, you can work on the next. But it makes no sense to speak of order without peace, law without order, or freedom without law.

Peace is simply the absence of war. The Dictator’s first goal is to achieve peace, preferably honorably and with victory. There is no telling what wars New California will be embroiled in at the time of its birth, so I will decline to discuss the matter further. But in war, of course, there is no order; war is pure chaos. Thus we see our first rule of hierarchy.

In this model order and chaos are strictly reciprocal. Suppression of chaos and establishment of order are alternative, inter-changeable formulations of the same basic political reality. There is no productivity proper to government other than the ‘good war’ directed against the Cthulhu-current of chaos, violence, conflict, turmoil, and inarticulate anarchy.

No surprise, then, that widespread dismay results from outbreaks of conflict across the digital tracts of neoreaction. How could any Moldbug sympathizer — or other right-oriented observer — not recognize in these skirmishes the signs of anarcho-chaotic disturbance, as if the diseased tentacles of Cthulhu were insinuated abominably into the refuge of well-ordered sociability? Beyond the protagonists themselves, such scraps trigger a near-universal clamor for immediate and unconditional peace: Forget about who is right and who wrong, the conflict itself is wrong.

I don’t think so.

Entropy is toxic, but entropy production is roughly synonymous with intelligence. A dynamically innovative order, of any kind, does not suppress the production of entropy — it instantiates an efficient mechanism for entropy dissipation. Any quasi-Darwinian system — i.e. any machinery that actually works — is nourished by chaos, exactly insofar as it is able to rid itself of failed experiments. The techno-commercial critique of democratized modernity is not that too much chaos is tolerated, but that not enough is able to be shed. The problem with bad government, which is to say with defective mechanisms of selection, is an inability to follow Cthulhu far enough. It is from turbulence that all things come.

The question Outside in would pose to NRx is not ‘how can we suppress chaos?’ but rather ‘how can we learn to tolerate chaos at a far higher intensity?’ Dynamic order is not built deliberately upon a foundation of amicable fraternity. It emerges spontaneously as a consequence of effective entropy-dissipation functions. The primary requirement is sorting.

To sort ourselves out takes a chronic undertow of war and chaos. Initially, this will be provided by the soft and peripheral shadow-fights we have already seen, but eventually NRx will be strong enough to thrive upon cataclysms — or it will die. The harsh machinery of Gnon wins either way.

Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn.

ADDED: Highly on point (with even a smidgen of Hobbes).

April 25, 2014admin 53 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Chaos

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

53 Responses to this entry

  • northanger Says:

    Outstanding: [“F = T ∇ Sτ”]

    [Reply]

    Wilhelm von Überlieferung Reply:

    When one is overwhelmed by the forces of the Dionysian, one must ally himself with Apollo.

    Upon sighting a destination of greater complexity and thus freedom of action, orient your sails to the perpendicular such that you maximize the balance between emergence and self-organization. With the winds of chaos turbulent, and your sails of self-organization full and taut, your journey is all but won.

    [Reply]

    northanger Reply:

    @northanger

    http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/2/2114/1.html

    The initial progeny of the first spore were sedentary. Being rooted to one spot made sense when that microbit of territory was overflowing with edibles. Now the immobile form these first bacteria assumed is no longer a wise idea. Numerous cells switch gears. Rather than reproducing couch potatoes like themselves, they marshall their remaining resources to produce daughters of an entirely different kind – rambunctious rovers built for movement. Unlike their parents, members of the new generation sport an array of external whips with which they can snake their way across a hard surface or twirl through water. This cohort departs en masse to seek its fortune, expanding ring-like from the base established by its ancestors.

    [Reply]

    Wilhelm von Überlieferung Reply:

    Remarkable, and… inspiring.

    northanger Reply:

    …a statement of correspondence that intelligence is a force, F, that acts so as to maximize future freedom of action. It acts to maximize future freedom of action, or keep options open, with some strength T, with the diversity of possible accessible futures, S, up to some future time horizon, tau. In short, intelligence doesn’t like to get trapped.

    aligns with:

    Modernity [is] distinguished by the attempt to develop from the identification and appropriation of being by knowledge toward the identification of being and knowledge.… The Wisdom of first philosophy is reduced to self-consciousness. Identical and non-identical are identified, [and] the labor of thought wins out over the otherness of things and men. (Levinas)

    Joanna Macy

    …this work thrives and requires groups. It needs to be done in groups so we can hear it from each other. Then you realize that it gives a lie to the isolation we have been conditioned to experience in recent centuries, and especially by this hyper-individualist consumer society. People can graduate from their sense of isolation, into a realization of their inter-existence with all.

    Yes, it looks bleak. But you are still alive now. You are alive with all the others, in this present moment. And because the truth is speaking in the work, it unlocks the heart. And there’s such a feeling and experience of adventure. It’s like a trumpet call to a great adventure. In all great adventures there comes a time when the little band of heroes feels totally outnumbered and bleak, like Frodo in Lord of the Rings or Pilgrim in Pilgrim’s Progress. You learn to say “It looks bleak. Big deal, it looks bleak.”

    Our little minds think it must be over, but the very fact that we are seeing it is enlivening. And we know we can’t possibly see the whole thing, because we are just one part of a vast interdependent whole–one cell in a larger body. So we don’t take our own perceptions as the ultimate.

    [Reply]

    northanger Reply:

    Absolutely love Michael Scharf’s A new Equation for Intelligence F = T ∇ Sτ – a Force that Maximises the Future Freedom of Action, and hope he, eventually, got some sleep 🙂

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    It’s undoubtedly tapping into something important.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 25th, 2014 at 10:30 am Reply | Quote
  • northanger Says:

    Which passes this test:

    Practically speaking — which it always should be — the fork taken is to formulate thoughts within the ‘voice’ of a synthetic (fictional) subject instead of propounding them in the name of a privately and socially accredited one. The preliminary hypothesis: greater experimental diversity of thinking is to be expected when it is conducted in the mode of ‘what might be thought’ — comparatively free of ego-commitment and first-order social games. (Orwellian ‘thought-stop’ is the confirmation of this hypothesis from the other side.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 25th, 2014 at 11:38 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    “I don’t think so.”

    thank God.

    His senses have returned.

    One may be disinterested in gravity, but it will always be interested in you.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 25th, 2014 at 11:44 am Reply | Quote
  • Wilhelm von Überlieferung Says:

    Who will erect the first physical outpost against the enemy. The first think-tank of intellectual reputability to strike fear into the crowds of the mundane. The first monastery of NRx where the minds and bodies of able recruits are whipped into fighting shape and spirit; imbued with a warrior-monk ethos and a honed reactionary Weltanschauung.

    And more importantly, who is going to fund it. Surely, there must be a man of wealth seeking a legacy of defiance. Why let philanthropy go to waste on egalitarian and regressive aims?

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 25th, 2014 at 12:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • On Chaos | Reaction Times Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on April 25th, 2014 at 1:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • MW Says:

    If you don’t like war, you will be taken over by people who do.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    I like stirring quietly with a spurtle – any points for that?

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    The only way to avoid war is to always have a party involved that is guaranteed to win it. That’s pretty expensive.

    [Reply]

    Puzzle Privateer (@@PuzzlePrivateer) Reply:

    Yes I was thinking this too. Too much pacifism and you get steam rolled by Genghis Khan. Too little pacifism and you end up just causing chaos everywhere.

    You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

    [Reply]

    MW Reply:

    Is there a historical example of an army that obtained functional dominance over its nearest competitors and then just stopped? I think states are prone to hubris like that — they get good at fighting and then want to continue, but that gets really expensive. Look at the US, the gains from its first few wars were tremendous: independence, territorial expansion, total victory over a secessionist movement. Now, it’s spending zillions of dollars fighting low-intensity tribal warfare halfway across the globe.

    Machiavelli envisioned a cycle:

    valor produces peace; peace, repose; repose, disorder; disorder, ruin; so from disorder order springs; from order virtue, and from this, glory and good fortune.

    Of course, one can counter by saying that things go bad and just stay bad (or were never good in the first place) in many parts of the world.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 25th, 2014 at 2:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Deogolwulf Says:

    It is noteworthy — wouldn’t you say? — that a multitude of people who fancy themselves rationalists and realists base their political philosophy on strong emotion, and strike out at once for utopia, like a wolf-startled herd bolting for refuge.

    “As with Hobbes, the horror of war is the foundation of political philosophy.”

    So too, as inadvertently with Hobbes, does it end in the totality of liberaldom, mechanico-materialism’s most fitting expression in the political realm. A craven flight from the battlefield of reality into the home-comfort of nihilism becomes mandatory, becomes “good”; to stand and fight in the field becomes condemnable, becomes “evil” — and all this whilst maintaining that good and evil are non-cognitive.

    Anti-war is the continuation of anti-politics by other means, the anti-political utopianism of liberalism promised for universal fulfilment; and, yes, the world to become a mere talking-shop and shekel-factory! And anti-politics is anti-reality, anti-nature towards human nature, the source of all utopianism. With utopia in mindsight, and with the goggles of mechanico-materialism fixed over the eyes, every moral, social, governmental, and existential problem comes to be viewed as an engineering problem — a symptom not of hard-headed realism but of utopianism, a retreat from reality.

    When our political philosophies arise not primarily from the realism of warriors, but are manufactured in the utopianism of intellectuals, war does not begin to fade into the distance; it begins to approach universality, be it sublimated or in low intensity. The war to end all war is boundless, never-ending, harries every corner of every field; and the politics to end all politics is alike, tending to smother all things.

    But if modernity — with its mechanico-materialistic worldview transferred most efficiently though liberalism into the realm of politics as anti-politics — looks best able to bring closer to realisation a non-violent order, an efficient, well-run administration of things, a realm of commerce undisturbed, and — why not? — to tranquilise all, make pleasured, pacified dopes of all, will not the neoreactionaries take it up explicitly and in earnest, and blink and be happy in anticipation of the last men of history, for whom they will be aiders and abettors, heralds and trailblazers, field-engineers and lab-technicians, in spite of their name?

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 25th, 2014 at 3:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • Metamorf Says:

    I’m new here. Apart from this comment, I’m just an interested observer, a by-stander if you like. But from that standpoint, I’m wondering why there’s even this meta-concern over “chaos”, “war”, “entryism”, and the like. I suppose those are understandable issues if you want to form or be a part of a “movement”, whatever that may be. But what I’d suggest is that that may be a mistake, since it immediately leads into the weeds that so many others have gotten hopelessly lost in (and that many have already mentioned) — interminable internecine squabbles, “splitisms”, heresies, excommunications, etc. All of which simply make the scene unintelligible and boring to anyone not already a part of it. What makes “NRx” interesting to me is that it’s a phenomenon rather than a movement, something charged with a lot of potential energy that emits sparks in a lot of different and often unpredictable directions. Even, dare I say, in the direction of a reimagined “neoprogressivism“. Which, I guess, is just to say that I agree with admin’s embrace of entropy but would suggest even less worry over labels.

    [Reply]

    toby Reply:

    “I’m wondering why there’s even this meta-concern over “chaos”, “war”, “entryism”…

    in the direction of a reimagined “neoprogressivism“…

    would suggest even less worry over labels.”

    LOL

    [Reply]

    Metamorf Reply:

    Exactly.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    I’m in the Confucian camp on this. The first step is the rectification of names.

    http://www.dbschlosser.com/rectification-of-names/

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Indeed.

    [Reply]

    Metamorf Reply:

    Okay — can hardly wait to watch the “proper awarding of punishments” step.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 25th, 2014 at 4:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • scientism Says:

    The way I see the current neoreactionary movement is basically as a series of critiques. It began as a critique of democracy and a limited critique of certain aspects of liberalism. Now it is being extended into a deeper critique of Enlightenment liberalism, more fully challenging the modern conception of culture, morality and authority, and rooting out liberal presuppositions. It will continue this way until it exhausts itself. NRx is incomplete and people are going to find themselves challenged by it over and over again. Some people are balking at the recent developments, but there’s more to be done. We live in a world created by a vast, sprawling totalitarian intellectual edifice that self-consciously reformed every area of society: politics, morality, religion, art, science, even mathematics. Until reaction has touched every part of it, its job will not be done. Every reactionary, by necessity, communicates using the language of those they oppose and assuming many of the same presuppositions. That can’t last. Reaction will work out its contradictions and everybody is going to be very upset. But from their salty tears a phoenix will rise.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    So in sharp focus are you saying: in what way is the Idaho Project ‘neo’?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Idaho Project Reaction recognizes innovation, which it aims to control (through subordination of commerce to politics, and tech to FAI-type social oversight). It reacts to the ‘neo’, rather than promoting ‘neo’ through strategic reaction.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    Nothing like this then?

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    “Reaction will work out its contradictions and everybody is going to be very upset. But from their salty tears a phoenix will rise.”

    This is beautiful. But now I have Don McLean’s “Chain Lightning” stuck in my head.

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    The Indian’s tell us that the Phoenix can rise
    From the smoldering ashes that once were my eyes
    And watch beautiful colours from black and from grey
    Be formed into wings and take me away
    Where evil is darkness and goodness is light
    And love is the lightning that cuts through the night
    And strikes only once in a dark place in time
    And forms a gold stairway that all of us climb.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 25th, 2014 at 7:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    “Turbulence is nonlinear dynamism…”

    What is, or is not, ‘chaos’ or ‘turbulence’, very much depends on where you stand, so to speak. Is it better to speak of a contest of ‘orders’, each one of which views the others as ‘chaos’?

    Obviously, explicit ‘conflict scenarios’ signify the ‘turbulent’ to those who desire peace. But do they so signify for the aggressors of such conflict? If not, why not?

    That one conception of ‘order’ chooses to displace another through the tactic of violent conflict doesn’t demonstrate anything other than that ‘order’ has chosen to emphasise the culture of war, in order (lol) to gain an advantage.
    All ‘orders’ that have prevailed, historically, through invasive acquisition, tend to valorise such cultures of conflict, which effectively constitute the effective horizon of possibilities they seem able to consider.
    When this is the case, such ‘orders’ are only able to configure themselves, internally & externally, according to this horizon, as in a trauma. ‘Peace’ is permitted, to the extent that it is seen to enable more effective configurations of this type. The ruling obligation to be in accord with this horizon effectively shuts out, or complicates, possibly superior solutions to problems which would be utilised by a culture based on the valorisation of specific & relevant merits, rather than one hamstrung by relevances to non-specific, socio-hierarchical considerations. Imagine a scientific institute where the scientists have to compete with each other using physical violence, as well as having to promote their work to warring business interests. How would a peaceful Einstein figure, say, fare in such an environment? Would one develop at all?

    It is the case, that people are able to curtail violent propencities (sic), especially when they perceive that it is in their ‘interest’ to do so. It is the case, too, that they often resort to conflict for the same reason.
    So, ‘perception’ & ‘interest’ are core factors in the production of conflict.
    It is the case, that cultures of ‘interest’ (‘self’-interest, etc.) are actively engineered & exploited, in ways that promote conflict. So it’s not unusual if problems arise.

    “… there are four levels of sovereign security. These are peace, order, law, and freedom.”

    Is this calculus of superveniences not an enforced imposition, an arbitrary regimentation that is specifically not to be characterised according to the metaphorics of a suddenly emergent ordering, the abrupt production of a crystalline harmonious polity. Why? Because the first stage, of ‘peace,’ is merely a cessation of overt hostilities, one that shouldn’t be mistaken for an overall consensual agreement. It is a state of forced expedience, not that of amicable understanding. The state of war transitions from the battlefield to the realm of unresolved, sullen resentments. Any subsequent ‘order’, ‘law’, or ‘freedom’ is often only a veneer over this basic irresolution. This can only be exacerbated by iniquitous applications & distributions of this veneer. Can one really call this ‘peace’?
    That this is so, is testified to by increased balkanisation & ‘independence’ movements.

    “Once you have each one, you can work on the next. But it makes no sense to speak of order without peace, law without order, or freedom without law.”

    Unilateral declaration, by any group, whether ‘ruling’ or not, does not constitute voluntary adherence by all. Without voluntary adherence by all, only resentment & potential balkanisation is incubated. ‘Neoreaction’, of course, exemplifies this. So, no, none of it is going to produce coherence. Because your grid of polity constitution has no ‘real’ purchase on anything, it’s a weak, outdated fiction.

    “Peace is simply the absence of war.”

    This is reminiscent of Jerry Pournelle’s phrase, “Peace is just the ideal we deduce from the fact that there are lulls between wars.” [From an interview in
    “Dream Makers” Charles Platt, 1979]

    “Any quasi-Darwinian system — i.e. any machinery that actually works — is nourished by chaos, exactly insofar as it is able to rid itself of failed experiments. The techno-commercial critique of democratized modernity is not that too much chaos is tolerated, but that not enough is able to be shed. The problem with bad government, which is to say with defective mechanisms of selection, is an inability to follow Cthulhu far enough. It is from turbulence that all things come.”

    “Darwinian systems” are an ongoing race of elements adapting to conditions which they themselves constitute. Thus, any particular reading of ‘conditions’, done in a sectarian way, merely becomes a new ‘element’, reflexively producing new ‘conditions’, instantly outmoding itself.

    1) “The techno-commercial critique of democratized modernity is not that too much chaos is tolerated, but that not enough is able to be shed.”
    2) “The problem with bad government, which is to say with defective mechanisms of selection, is an inability to follow Cthulhu far enough.”
    3) “It is from turbulence that all things come.”

    Thus, according to your logic, if an ideal ‘Neoreactionary’ government was able to shed all ‘chaos’, there would be no ‘turbulence’ left, from which anything could come?

    If you wish to reject that possibility, then you face the ineluctable conclusion that Neoreaction wholly depends on the very countervailing social forces animating its ethos of alleged dissatisfactions, that you call ‘chaos’, in order to produce anything at all. So why complain about chaos in the first instance, if you’re only going to praise & promote it as an engine of productivity, in the second instance?

    Or perhaps you’re valorising the lean, mean, new machine of polity that would result from the process of ‘Darwinian’ contention? But that would presuppose a degree of teleological faith in the superior results of a deliberate & designed institutional breakdown? That would be ok, if Neoreaction wasn’t incessantly trawling the very history of ideological wrangling & sedimented stumblings that have led to current scenarios. It’s not as if Neoreaction has a new transformative vision, not with all the regressive reality-talk. But it does languish in its own entrails, so that doesn’t really inspire faith.

    “The question Outside in would pose… ‘how can we learn to tolerate chaos at a far higher intensity?’… The primary requirement is sorting…To sort ourselves out takes a chronic undertow of war and chaos.”

    There’s more faith here, in the werhrmacht? Deleuze’s “war machine”? or the ‘military’ of your ‘Neoreactive’ state?

    I’m going to quote a note I wrote in early 2011, it seems apt:

    “file structure of Anthropic Insanity
    This is the closest I can get to current affairs/events.
    The file structure of Anthropic Insanity.
    An anarchy of nation-states, with it’s attendant theatricks, called “history”. A very wasteful pursuit, much of the time. And, moreover, not reflective of international trade realities, which operate.”

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Thank you.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 25th, 2014 at 8:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • nyan_sandwich Says:

    Fantastic.

    The failure of academic scientists is that they have too low a tolerance for chaos and too slow a response to a failed experiment. They have roughly one idea per year and pursue those ideas all the way through the 18 month research cycle even if it could be falsified with 5 minutes, some kitchenware, and a high chaos tolerance.

    The comparative success of engineers and entrepreneurs is their high chaos tolerance and ability to shed stupidity quickly, so that only intelligence remains. They have multiple ideas per day and falsify them with quick and dirty high-chaos experiments. They make orders of magnitude more mistakes than scientists, and yet produce orders of magnitude more wealth.

    The failure of democratic megastate universalism is that it has no mechanism to safely handle high-chaos experiments and no mechanism to shed stupidity. If duels or free association or land-only tax or whatever is good social technology, the current regime has no way to find out. It universalizes everything so a failed policy is a failed state (eg socialism) is a failed significant part of the world. Even if it could handle failure, no one has the authority or perspective to just try shit and throw out the stuff that doesn’t work. Thus any step made has to be made extremely carefully with lots of debate beforehand. But debate in a democracy is not intelligent, so it’s best if no steps are made at all.

    Thus, at best, state-level social technology has not improved since the onset of democracy, and in fact has decayed to the extent that change has been made at all.

    Move fast and break things.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 25th, 2014 at 8:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Says:

    Kalish linked to that excellent pdf on negentropy. A very good read, rudimentary enough but also expansive enough to really be useful.

    [Reply]

    Piano Reply:

    Link?

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 25th, 2014 at 8:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • peppermint Says:

    Moldbug wrote to break the bondage of our minds to equality. Yes, formalism should be questioned; I would hold above all else the production of knowledge and beauty.

    The Left, of course, claims to love knowlede and beauty and peace, but its slogan is Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, which translated from French means terror, confiscation, and murder.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    Google translate gets better all the time…

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 25th, 2014 at 11:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • Stirner (@heresiologist) Says:

    I think that the Swiss have the sanest approach to peace and order. They are not hippie dippie activists. Instead, they have universal military service, with Swiss serving in the equivalent of the National Guard until their are 40. The Swiss military is completely focused on defense, and they take that very seriously. There are bunkers in the mountain with mortars prepositioned to aim at obvious approaches, and Swiss soldiers practice and train how to defend their small patch of land. Bridges leading into Switzerland are wired for demolition, and the country is armed to the teeth, even though every neighbor has no fear of Swiss aggression.

    In the nuclear era, they found that the threat of nuclear extortion and warfare was unacceptable, so they inserted into their building codes that private residences and commercial buildings would need to have blast shelters and air filtration systems to enable the Swiss populace to ride out a potential nuclear strike. Incredibly, they even maintain such policies today.

    One can’t fuck with the Swiss. Nuke them, and they will all climb into their bunkers. Attack them, and their troops will all know every inch of your attack vector, and the best place to shoot you. There is a story about the Swiss in WWII, some Nazi general said that he had 200,000(?) troops to invade Switzerland, and that the Swiss only had 100,000 men at arms to defend their border. The Swiss general replied that his solders would all report to their positions, fire two rounds from their rifles, and then go home. The Swiss general then walked out of the meeting, and the Nazi’s never fucked with the Swiss.

    This is how Chaos is harnessed in civilization. One does not wish away the barbarians at the gate. Instead, you build the defense of civilization into the foundations of society, constantly ready to unleash horror, but otherwise continuously enjoying the fruits of Cosmopolitan living. The Chaos is not ignored. It is captured and channeled to positive ends.

    Alas, the rest of us are not Swiss, so that is why we can not have sane governments.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    There are a number of reasons why the Swiss government is saner than ours. I don’t want to put too much stress on the advantages of a good constitution. It’s true that no constitution is better than the character of the men who work it. But the Swiss did a better job than the US framers in keeping the executive branch from running amok.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Council_%28Switzerland%29

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    yeah then USG told them to name names and they opened the books next

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 26th, 2014 at 4:23 am Reply | Quote
  • northanger Says:

    Postmodern Argumentation and Post-Postmodern Liberalism, with Comments on Levinas, Habermas, and Rawls, Jeffrey Reiman

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 26th, 2014 at 4:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chuck Says:

    A maximally order seeking political philosophy practically complements Neocameralism as it obviates the main critique of this model: its inability to tolerate and readily dissipate internal sociopolitical discord (civil war by other means). Of course, realizing Neocameralism as sometimes envisioned, where peoples migrate to the Landeshoheit of desire, would mitigate the problem — but, in practice, this is unworkable. In light of your tentative revaluation of order’s virtuousness, let us ask: If chaos + maximum dissipation is good, what’s now the critique of (populist) democracy? And since (populist) democracy (with no nannying technoelite) is overly destructive, what’s now the principled critique of mediaocracy — this is, mediaocracy, as such, not its leftwing incarnate (assuming the two can be disentangled)? More philosophically, can one drop the order telos and still claim to be a Moldbugian neoreactionary? This needs some meditation..

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “… what’s now the critique of (populist) democracy?” — Structurally defective principles of entropy dissipation (in a society that can vote away — in reality, vote to diffuse — consequences).

    I’m reluctant to accept that the “telos of order” has been dropped. Moldbug describes spontaneous order as the highest type of order, and spontaneous order is a dynamic relation to chaos.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 27th, 2014 at 4:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • laofmoonster Says:

    Entropy of content promotes competition; entropy of infrastructure promotes decay. But the distinction is not always clear: one system’s content is another system’s infrastructure. Just hope that creative destruction points upward and not down.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 28th, 2014 at 10:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    @ Different T

    Que? Oh, yw. lol

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 29th, 2014 at 2:39 am Reply | Quote
  • Karl F. Boetel Says:

    What would Carlyle do?

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 29th, 2014 at 2:44 am Reply | Quote
  • In defence of Dugin » The New International Outlook Says:

    […] of incredible potential, indeed, if you look closely enough at NRx the hints are already there that Chaos is a central defining characteristic of the thought of all branches of the Trichotomy on multiple […]

    Posted on September 10th, 2015 at 4:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Uriel A F Fiori Farizeli Fiori Says:

    this belongs here
    http://www.businessinsider.com/groundbreaking-idea-of-lifes-origin-2014-12

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 26th, 2016 at 8:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • “In his house at R’lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming” – Antinomia Imediata Says:

    […] goes: Cthulhu may swim slowly. But he only swims left. and then Land The techno-commercial critique of democratized modernity is not that too much chaos is tolerated, […]

    Posted on April 20th, 2016 at 2:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • thoughts #3 – Antinomia Imediata Says:

    […] is stability and opening of possibilities. it’s the very result of the antinomic structure of reality. the ever-now expanded and […]

    Posted on May 12th, 2016 at 10:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Do Caos – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on June 24th, 2016 at 1:13 am Reply | Quote
  • Memetics – Strange Rider Says:

    […] Outside in – Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » On Chaos […]

    Posted on February 28th, 2017 at 4:33 am Reply | Quote
  • flatness – Antinomia Imediata Says:

    […] of freedom is the maximization of entropy production, that is, of intelligence. As Land puts […]

    Posted on April 18th, 2017 at 5:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • the nightmare of paralysis – Antinomia Imediata Says:

    […] exactly the opposite of unconditional acceleration, its only true enemy. if all things come from turbulence, stagnation is anti-production per se. it’s a break in the intelligence […]

    Posted on May 4th, 2017 at 6:00 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment