Order and Value

A piece of machinery that reduces (local) disorder has value. It might be a functional police force, a catallactic economic arrangement, or a sociopolitical mechanism implementing dynamic geography (or Patchwork, 1, 2, 3, 4). Others might be listed. Any complex adaptive system works like this (until it ceases working). Since Schrödinger, it has been taken as an abstract definition of life. In certain strands of philosophy, it has also been taken as the complete, rigorous meaning of a machine (as counterposed to a ‘gadget’ – which works only within a larger machinic assemblage). Only by exporting entropy does anything of even minimal complexity get to continue its existence. The production of order is functionality in its most elevated, teleological sense.

A piece of rhetoric which merely celebrates order, as something nice to have, is worth nothing in itself. “We want order” is the “give us free stuff” slogan of intellectually degenerated reaction. When examined closely, it is indistinguishable from political pan-handling. (Democracy has taught everyone how to beg.) It is unlikely that even the most radically degraded libertarian would be shameless enough to consider “wealth is good, poverty is bad” anything more than an expression of sub-comic emotional incontinence. “Order is good, chaos is bad” is a slogan of exactly equivalent merit. “We want order” is just “we want money” at a superior level of generality. Monkeys want peanuts, but we are reluctant to dignify their hungry hooting with the label ‘political philosophy’.

Entropy dissipation is a problem. It might quite reasonably be considered the problem. Any serious social theory is respected insofar as it elicits the question: So how is entropy dissipated? The main current of Anglophone intellectual culture focuses tightly upon it, in a broad lineage from Newtonian mechanics, the Scottish Enlightenment, the science of heat, classical economics, and Darwinian naturalism, into theories of complexity, distributed systems, dynamic networks, and productive multiplicities. Spontaneous order is the consistent topic. ‘Spontaneous’ means only: Does not presuppose that which it is tasked with explaining. If the genesis of order is not being theorized, order is merely being assumed, and then consumed. The difference is between a supply side problematic (“how is order practically produced?”) and an empty demand (“we want more order”). The former is industrial, the latter simply tyrannical, when it is anything at all beside vacuous noise.

Unless a pol-econ. theory can contribute to an explanation of the production of order (dissipation of entropy), it is wasting everyone’s time. “But I really want order” is just silliness. It’s astounding that it could ever be thought otherwise.

March 7, 2016admin 47 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy


47 Responses to this entry

  • Order and Value | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on March 7th, 2016 at 2:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    Talk is cheap. Show me the code. (https://lkml.org/lkml/2000/8/25/132)


    SVErshov Reply:

    this server runs Mod_Security which do not allow to use code into comments window.


    Posted on March 7th, 2016 at 2:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    For me learning (from The Emperor’s New Mind) that life means entropy-exporting and entropy-generating was a profound WTF. It is hard not to attach value judgements to such things, and life is more or less obviously something in the “good” category from a human angle[1], entropy in the “bad” category, and the idea that good can only be kept into existence by not only throwing the bad out but even making more of it, came across as profoundly tragic. Ironic-tragic.

    The recent interesting turn is that it seems intelligence is about this, too: https://www.insidescience.org/content/physicist-proposes-new-way-think-about-intelligence/987

    [1] although it is funny that more life does not mean better. The Amazon rainforest is a bad place to live because too much life: bacterial, parasites, snakes etc. Denmark is a better place to live because the weather does not promote much life, thus it tends to have almost exclusively the kind of life humans want and promote: flowers, cattle… apparently a slightly life-hostile environment is better, we humans are able to prepare the species we like for that, and not having a too vigorous natural, native flora and fauna is a boon.

    Anyway, to steer more ontopic, there are various historical narratives that tended to describe the Anglosphere as a fairly evil civ. There was such one from Spain, from the age of the Elizabethan rivalry, interestingly, it describes surprisingly Cathedralish psy-op moves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend Then there is a Russian one, like Dugin on honest agricultural vs. dishonest seafaring civs, and there was the WWI German “perfiduous Albion” narrative. Now, the point is, if you neither accept them wholesale nor write them off entirely, i.e. assume a seed of truth, just over-inflated, it would generate a model where the Anglosphere was very good at reducing entropy in the colonies but exported it into rival European civs. It is hard to evaluate this objectively, because 1) 90% of the people around here are from the Anglosphere 2) the rest are Anglophiles, like myself, for two reasons, one is that it is the only civ with some amount of critical resistance to the Cathedral and the other is that we grown up in a global culture generated by the victors of WW2 and educated accordingly. It is extremely difficult for anyone from Central Europe today to think of Churchill as an enemy who burns down your cities and not as some kind of a respectable jovial uncle and overall good guy fighting the good fight. In this sense the re-education was superbly succesful. So this is yet again a fish and water type of problem, but nevertheless it would be interesting to look at old Spanish, Russian, German criticisms of British foreign policy and draw some lessons of it. Of where the entropy was dissipated.


    admin Reply:

    Isn’t this just competition?

    From my PoV, Anglosphere societies should definitely undergo psychological mortification when they’ve been out-competed. That is, indeed, shameful. The idea they should feel in any way discomforted about out-competing others, in contrast, is simply preposterous. Suck it up losers. You’re going to hear it from Gnon, anyway, so you might as well hear it from us first.


    TheDividualist Reply:

    Not sure where discomfort comes into the picture: you were looking into a model about where to dissipate entropy into, I raise that historically it was mainly dissipated into competitors.


    TheDividualist Reply:

    …although of course some amount of discomfort could be derived from the fact that the Cathedral can be interpreted as a former competitive tool of the Anglosphere that was now turned against itself and became self-cannibalizing. Read that link about the Black Legend against Spain – it will feel very familiar, today the Cathedral generates basically the same against its _own_ past and own white folks. It is perfectly possible that the Cathedral evolved out of a competitive weapon that at some point stopped serving the civ that made it and started serving just itself.

    admin Reply:

    Which is as it should and has to be. So why should their ‘critiques’ — i.e. grievances — remotely concern us?

    The only societies to learn from are those dissipating entropy to us.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    “The only societies to learn from are those dissipating entropy to us.”

    … Syria?

    admin Reply:

    Is there any reason to think Syria is dissipating entropy (rather than just randomly bleeding matter-energy)? Of course, Europe is importing entropy, but that doesn’t imply the reciprocal.

    The phenomenon to look out for (at the population level) is pro-functional demographic selection. (The British 19th century ‘transportation’ policy was a clear example, the Singaporean immigration policy an especially striking contemporary example.)

    Disordered demographic policy as high-comedy? An immigration lottery.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    … I suppose the other candidate would be China. It would be more in line with orderly economic growth (dissipating entropy to the West), in keeping with reactionary principles. Though a mega-death civil war might be exactly the kind of entropic war-machine the West needs… (if you forgive the darkness). You’re not going to be getting mass immigration into WW3, so it solves that problem.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    Also, if you look at the post-war boom, the technological and manufacturing achievements during the war, the “production-miracle”… War is God, may as well let Him do His thing.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    Also, when the war breaks out, the current empire will come crashing down, the welfare state will be disabled in favor of mass industrial mobilization. Muslims will either flee back to the mid-east, or they will fight and prove their worth in the (order-generating) chaos, seeing as they have experience in civil wars they could be a good investment, or the (fragmenting) continent will regain its metallic killer-instinct and export them or send them into camps. The masses of currently useless and unemployed young men will finally have a job, it’ll give them a sense of purpose, and it’ll also be great for culture, art and literature, which has always consolidated around horrific tragedy. Then, when the fires subside, there’ll be a patchwork by default, as leviathan geopolitical inertia will have been shattered like a glass wind-chime in a hurricane. Europe will no longer exist, but there’ll be a new age, of untold transformational technology, and the survivors will benefit for all the usual obsidian-hearted Malthusian reasons. It’ll be a new age of incredible wealth and prosperity, which will last maybe at least until the singularity. Or for a short time until peace makes everyone decadent again, and expanding social democracy rears it’s lazy and dysgenic head. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    TheDividualist Reply:

    Look, it is simpler than you think: my main point is simply that dissipating entropy is not such a difficult subject, one obvious outlet is through competition. This has nothing to do with grievances.

    But on a more general note, it would be unscientific to say that dinosaurs don’t need to be studied because mammals won. The scientific way is to study everything because you never know what you find.

    What I found is that it looks like the Cathedral emerged from such a competitive weapon. Mammals used it to kill dinosaurs, and now it seems it turned into a suicidal weapon of self-destruction. The Black Legend of Spain is one good example, the anti-Spanish propaganda was very similar how the anti-Western post-colonial grievance propaganda works today.

    Another good example is (roughly) WWI era propaganda, such as the #SlovakLivesMatter kind. If you read this, https://web.archive.org/web/20091027110656/uk.geocities.com/gogastransylvania/Seton-Watson/RacialProblems17.htm I think it will become instantly familiar: this is very similar to how the Cathedral media handles the police shooting of blacks in the US. Really, eerily familiar. It was used to fuck with with the Central Power, and now the very same kind of narrative is used to fuck with American Vaishyas. Even down to the same method that as today it is omitted that the policemen are very often blacks, the same way it was omitted that the gendarmerie were Slovaks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cernov%C3%A1_massacre

    So we have two examples how the Cathedral type Anglo self-hatery today works exactly the same way as the kind of propaganda that used to be used against competing civs.

    These are the types of interesting things one can learn from studying dinosaurs.


    Lesser Bull Reply:


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    “The recent interesting turn is that it seems intelligence is about this, too”

    Not to burst anyone’s bubble, and the mathematic formalization is a great achievement in itself, but Spengler beat him to the core insight with ‘Man and Technics’ by about 85 years.


    Posted on March 7th, 2016 at 2:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    The difference is between a supply side problematic (“how is order practically produced?”) and an empty demand (“we want more order”). The former is industrial, the latter simply tyrannical, when it is anything at all beside vacuous noise.

    That’s like asking ‘how do we prove the Riemann Hypothesis?’ instead of ‘we want it proven’ The former is preferable, but obviously much harder.


    admin Reply:

    It’s exactly like that. Thankfully, there are centuries of dedicated intellectual effort to draw upon.


    Posted on March 7th, 2016 at 2:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Gentile Ben Says:

    A Deleuzo-Nietzschean “dramatization” of order (production of multiplicities, the field of forces): Not “Qu’est-ce que?” but “Qui?” Do I understand aright?


    admin Reply:

    I’d place this more in the mainstream (industrial) Anglo tradition.


    Marxist toady Reply:

    Well, “theories of complexity, distributed systems, dynamic networks, and productive multiplicities” are certainly discussed more explicitly in Deleuze (via DeLanda) than in Newton or Milton or Smith. Are they implicit there? Sure — and I’d be happy to read the unpacking. But until then this just reads as evasiveness.


    admin Reply:

    People have become so used to D&G being thermodynamically and cybernetically reconstructed, they forget how little of this language is actually there. (Do they use the word ‘entropy’ even once?)

    A situation in which the connection of distributed systems analysis to transcendental philosophy has to be relayed through D&G does not strike me as optimal.

    SVErshov Reply:

    @Gentile Ben

    “A situation in which the connection of distributed systems analysis to transcendental philosophy has to be relayed through D&G does not strike me as optimal.”

    indeed, as Latour said: “Transcendental already owned by banks”


    Gentile Ben Reply:

    “People have become so used to D&G being thermodynamically and cybernetically reconstructed, they forget how little of this language is actually there. (Do they use the word ‘entropy’ even once?)”

    I am admittedly not used to this yet. I’m currently studying D&G (and D apart from G) and was triggered by the link to Capitalism and Schizophrenia. I’ve always wondered how much D&G currently influences XS. An explicit XS vs. D&G showdown is maybe fodder for a future post, but I think “been there done that” might be the response.


    Posted on March 7th, 2016 at 3:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dan Says:

    “A piece of rhetoric which merely celebrates order, as something nice to have, is worth nothing in itself. “We want order” is the “give us free stuff” slogan of intellectually degenerated reaction. ”

    I disagree forcefully. Order is a North Star that should be re-emphasized constantly. Order is admittedly an incomplete wish, but it is an incredibly important guiding principle. The demand for order leads to rules, and by following those rules, a person (far from simply receiving free stuff) creates order in their own life and others.

    – An appreciation for order supports property rights, borders, law enforcement and many other intrinsically conservative things.
    – An appreciation for order helps one accept that inequality is part of reality, and this is a key reactionary concept.
    – An appreciation for order fosters deep respect for what has worked in the past.
    – An appreciation for order is wary of change, and rightfully so.
    – An appreciation for order would have kept us out of Iraq and Libya.
    – An appreciation for order can give a person bearings in the most confusing of times.
    – Consider Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore, revered by reactionaries as favorite model. Singapore’s guiding principle has been order uber-alles. It is almost as if reactionary principles flow from the seeking of order.

    Perhaps order should be a given but it most assuredly is not. When folks want to empty the prisons (Rand Paul!) or throw open the border or force incompetent people into positions they are not qualified for, they certainly do not have order in mind.


    TheDividualist Reply:

    Beyond just emphasizing it, it would actually useful to tell people what it is.

    My conception of order is that order simply equals predictability, and as thus is an economic good, it plays a role in economic calculations, it makes exchange possible, division of labor possible, investments possible, and low time-preferences possible. Unpredictable circumstances tend to encourage barbarism and improvidence, it is even rational to act so then.

    This is why human history is so tragic: unpredictability is generated by crime, corruption etc. so barbarous or improvident behavior, high time preference behavior, and yet in unpredictable circumstances high time preferences are actually rational. You don’t sow so that some random looter may harvest over your dead body. That is a suckers game. Better eat the seed stock. It takes half a wonder to break this vicious cycle: beyond IQ, had Reaction already figured out what breaks it and what does actually create the alternative which is called civilization? Is there a situation where it is the best interest of a king or other form of government to enforce anti-corruption instead of joining the ranks of the corrupt, despite the fact that the society is in such a chaos that he cannot be sure to rule and thus collect income for a long time?

    I think predictability is the only model that explains the Carlyle-pyramid. Disorder as in generic random crime and looting is fully unpredictable. Tyrannical order, as long as the tyrant is basically sane, punishes murder and looting etc. is more predictable, but there is still the unpredictable element of the whim of the tyrant. One level higher a rule of law is more predictable, it takes the whim element out of it. However when and if laws are too restrictive, people will routinely break them, and they will not always be enforced which still has an element of unpredictability: you never know if the policeman cares about that one joint you smoked or that few movies you pirated or not. Too restrictive laws have these “well, this is technically illegal, but everybody does it anyway” types of situations which are not ideally predictable. Thus liberty is the highest level of predictability, where the law is adapted to how most people actually behave. Another good explanation of liberty is that the law does not try to override Schelling points, it mainly bans only those things that would result in private revenge anyway. You could say that liberty is Schelling-predictable: the law is what you expect it to be.


    pyrrhus Reply:

    It’s a game theory situation. While society benefits from low levels of disorder, individuals may benefit, at least in short run by disorder creating activities. Corruption, favoritism, robbery, whether by the individual or the State can be highly profitable, and yield Darwinian benefits. This is what we are seeing now in the West, massive looting by those in a position to extract rents from the rest of us.


    TheDividualist Reply:

    Yes, but the big question is how is it even possible that sometimes it was overcame? If you look at things ten thousand years ago, how high odds would you have given that something like civilization emerges?

    Is it possible that it was done by dissipating entropy outwards? That order in Rome required conquests and Empire, that Victorian London required conquests and Empire, that New York was a good place as long as there were settlers in the frontiers further West fighting Indians, and once it was not possible to export entropy, rot set in? As this seems to be a likely explanation. The kinds of elites who lean towards corruption could be pushed to fleece someone else, literally, the Crassus types would become consuls then proconsuls of a province and then basically they were allowed to pocket taxes. See also the Warren Hastings guy Burke tried to impeach. Looks a lot like corrupted types of elites were pushed to hunt outside. Not the native population. And the kinds of high-T, low-IQ young men who are likely to become criminals were recruited into army or navy and conveniently “spent”. And of course one awesome example of entropy-export was the whole Australian penal colony thing. So this seems likely.

    But, then again, Singapore is very good at keeping low entropy without exporting it. How are they doing it? Maybe via importing low-entropy i.e. IQ-shreddery?

    Similarly, currently, the big problem of the West is exporting entropy and yet not lowering it at home. Despite having a net positive sum of brain drain. So that is a really unusual level of fuckup.

    So there is maybe some kind of hope that not all is zero sum.

    admin Reply:

    Why would anyone devote themselves to the analysis of “spontaneous order” if they didn’t (deeply) “appreciate order”? The fact that recent hooligan-democratic elements have departed from this tradition is not an argument against the tradition. Your entire list is entirely consistent with the Anglo-industrial mainstream. Recent Hyperborean-reactionary trends seek to ditch it.


    SVErshov Reply:

    let me hypotesize that spontaneuose assemblage of order in each particular case can have in build parameters or range of parameters. once parameters fulfilled scaffold of order is created in form stable networks providing emvironment for competion. if a winner of comtetion race affecting the environment so it runaway out that range of those specific parameter environment become toxic and everybody dies.

    as analogue of this model we can use self assembling oligopetides PuraMatrix, it shipped in 2-4pH as liquide once pH changed to around 7.4 these peptides self assembling into nano wire network scaffold and able to provide support for growth and differentiation of different stem cells. in case if this culture contaminated by bacteria, pH again becoming acidic and scaffold network dissipate.


    Posted on March 7th, 2016 at 3:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • 4candles Says:

    Hmm … you’re not suggesting we do some work are you?

    “And there it was, on the video. I actually watched her start a new story – two actually – open an immaculate notebook, with a giant question mark, jot down a few scrappy thoughts, cross-legged, meditating or some shit, then cross some kind of threshold – you could see it, as if something had cut through her body, switched her – and then she seriously set to work, patiently, full of – what the fuck do you call it? – intention, rolling back the rug, chalking a huge diagram on the floor, all swirls and numbers and ancient evocations, then building what I can only describe as a voodoo shrine, pasted together out of candles, clippings from poetry books, kitchenware, pictures, drug paraphernalia, bits of dead animals, and electronic trash. She’d get up, wander around the number maze in loops, muttering some cryptic stuff, in a whisper – the audio was too crap to pick it up – then back to the shrine, shifting pieces about, nudging it towards convergence. It was mad as fuck, obviously, but the horrible thing was that I began to pick up on the purpose, I could see it coming together, like a wave out of hyper-space, the necessity of it, I just couldn’t stop watching, seeing it arrive. I mean, holy fuck. And then a jolt went through her, harsh and electric. She snapped out, crossed over to her laptop, and typed in the name. Ascryption. That’s how it works.” (XS, ‘Deadlines’)


    Posted on March 7th, 2016 at 9:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Grotesque Body Says:

    “Unless a pol-econ. theory can contribute to an explanation of the production of order (dissipation of entropy), it is wasting everyone’s time.”

    So aren’t we obliged to start with Claude Shannon?


    Posted on March 7th, 2016 at 10:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • Pseudo-chrysostom Says:

    Naturally, the number one method of importing entropy *into* a system is diversity.

    Stability means homogeneity. ‘Common sense.’


    Aeroguy Reply:

    Strict homogeneity actually IS entropy’s final state, like in the case of heat, it is heat perfectly distributed throughout the system, perfect equality. It’s a common misunderstanding grouping like with like as the only order, grouping pairs of opposites is just as orderly. The trick is that two systems might be equally orderly but one system can still be better than another, order isn’t the end all be all of good. What makes one order better than another is how well it can maintain, grow and multiply that order (thus why male/female pairs are better than same sex pairs). To do this the laws of physics requires that it consume energy (aka produce entropy).

    There are actually two types of order. At the beginning of the universe order was maximum, the second law of thermodynamics is the mechanism that makes the arrow of time. Primordial order is order in the simplest sense and utterly sterile. The other order is the one Admin is interested in, spontaneous order, unlike primordial order it has complexity, complexity that couldn’t exist without a corresponding amount of entropy (entropy can also be described as information) that was pushed outside the boundary (boundaries and hence borders are essential to maintaining order). Complexity is significant because it enables intelligence to exist. Spontaneous order feeds on the energy of primordial order and potentially other spontaneous orders, thus accelerating the decay of primordial order into entropy in exchange for maintaining and growing it’s own localized order (thinking requires the production of entropy). Boundaries are important, but energy and order must come in if entropy is to pushed out or else entropy will overtake the system.

    Take cancer for instance, it’s cells mutinying against the body, it’s a great short term strategy for that rogue cell to multiply and expand it’s localized order by feeding on a larger order, the body. The threat of cancer is present in any hierarchy. We see networks layered on hierarchies on networks, hierarchies are how higher orders are created, networks on the other hand can be anti-fragile. The highest level is always a network (composed of contestants in the grand competition for the title of apex order) because a lone hierarchy is too fragile to exist for long.

    There is energy to exploit everywhere, some paths require higher more complex order to access them, it so happens that those paths also have far more energy to access, the universe isn’t entirely cruel after all. The path isn’t a static one, but one of growth and yes, even change (think mutations, most are benign, many are fatal, but some rare few are beneficial, sexual reproduction has evolved independently on many separate occasions precisely because of how it’s able to exploit beneficial mutations even at the cost of not passing on your own exact DNA to your clone children).


    Posted on March 7th, 2016 at 11:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • Seth Says:

    The point made here will need to be repeated loudly and often in the coming months.


    Cichlimbar Reply:

    Except there is no point being made here. Just a perennially inchoate rambling. Whatever point you’re “noticing” is in fact of your own making.


    Posted on March 8th, 2016 at 1:21 am Reply | Quote
  • JRM Says:

    “A piece of rhetoric which merely celebrates order, as something nice to have, is worth nothing in itself.”

    Unless the “celebration” you cite is a reasonable short-hand for more profound possibilities.

    Also, “something nice to have”- isn’t that a broad category which includes everything from predictable sources of physical sustenance to effective means of inter-generational communication (e.g., linguistics, written language, books).

    “We want order” is the “give us free stuff” slogan of intellectually degenerated reaction.”

    But couldn’t “order” be justified on purely aesthetic grounds? e.g., Classical Greece. Thermodynamic models are insufficient as yardsticks of aesthetics, are they not?


    Posted on March 8th, 2016 at 2:58 am Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    ‘Spontaneous’ means only: Does not presuppose that which it is tasked with explaining.

    People cannot get over the cause/effect divide. They are accustomed to demanding effects from other people, and forcing those people to find the method (cause) of achieving those effects. When it comes to politics, they do the same: they demand what they desire, not the situation that would create it. All of liberalism consists of efforts to validate the separation between cause and effect.


    Posted on March 8th, 2016 at 4:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • frank Says:


    “You only get pseudo-order when you seek order; you only get a measure of order and control when you embrace randomness.” — Nassim Taleb, Antifragile.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Taleb is the greatest neoreactionary and he doesn’t even know he is one.


    frank Reply:

    I wonder if he’s exposed to these parts of the internet, especially to Moldbug.


    Posted on March 8th, 2016 at 6:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dotplot Says:

    Hi ya’ll

    My skills are weak and I am not wise. I have elite GRE, NVAD, and GMAT scores, safe employment, and physical fitness. How should I proceed to build order?

    Where should I search for good advice? Who should I ask?


    Posted on March 11th, 2016 at 10:39 am Reply | Quote
  • The Very Best of Last Week in Reaction (2016/03/13) – The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] Land: Order and Value. A concise statement of The Problem for political theory. Wishing for order is like wishing for […]

    Posted on March 16th, 2016 at 3:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Arian war arts Says:

    ▬ „I was thinking about Phillip Rieff’s vertical/horizontal distinction. It occured to me that the Christian cross has a raised horizontal bar, to remind us that the vertical lifts up the horizontal, but that the vertical bar is longest, so that it retains its pre-eminence, even as it serves the material plane. So the Christian cross is modified from the ancient one in a subtle way. Rieff argues that the safest course of life is to live in movement more or less horizontal, but reminds us that this is “that which ought not to be done, but is permitted” : this may have an analogy with exoteric religion, which has certain things permitted, but not encouraged. Rieff also insists that there is a difference between transgressive (Revolutionary) order or disorder, and a permissive order (which openly specializes in the horizontal), and a further distinction still between older orders, which merely permitted without dignifying the permission. So his sociology may have some relevance to students of traditional order, like the Middle Ages….” — Logres


    Posted on August 7th, 2016 at 6:13 am Reply | Quote
  • a Says:

    > the so-called new paradigms are in a sense “older” than the “old” paradigms. The so-called “old” paradigms were in most cases strategically successful specializations in a general framework.


    Posted on August 12th, 2016 at 8:02 am Reply | Quote
  • This Week In Reaction (2016/03/13) - Social Matter Says:

    […] Land has a magisterial piece on Order and Value. We talk about Order a lot around here. Land admonishes put your political theory (and money) where […]

    Posted on February 4th, 2017 at 10:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ordem e Valor – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on February 15th, 2017 at 8:02 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment