On the superposition of the dissolution of justice and provision
[This post is an exact translation of the previous one. I'm not usually doing this, but since that post has some importance and Google's translation is completely incomprehensible, I thought it better to.]
As societies evolve, tension inevitably rises between convention and the foundational ideal.
This tension is perceived as oppressive, and should convention rupture, this will only be experienced as liberating by some, while others will find it disturbing, in which the proponents of the ideal are filled with a militant spirit and the proponents of convention with an indulgent one.
In Plato's succession of forms of government, i.e.
The fall of inviolability corresponds with the dissolution of justice and the fall of esteem with the dissolution of provision, the former by definition, but the latter by necessary condition: Only when provision dissolves, esteem falls, oligarchs lose the right to their property. Likewise affection dissolves in parts with the fall of considerateness and deference; again by definition.
In how far timocracy and oligarchy restore affection, democracy provision or tyranny justice, is of secondary importance here - obviously they do it in diminished form - to understand the current situation we only need to know which development of which form of government rises which tension.
For we live in a chord of oligarchy and democracy and thus we live on the one hand
This is not realistic, since the pharma industry, for instance, could conduct mass experimentation with unpredictable vaccines for years before anyone would fight it - after all, it would take years before the consequences couldn't be concealed any longer. If, say, we'd indeed all be infected with HIV, we'd only know it ten years from now.
No, realistically WWG1WGA means nothing more than that the militant reformers of justice have to wait until such time, when the public won't stab them in the back, and the only way to reach that point is to let it suffer under conventional justice, by being targetted by all of Trump's enemies and feeling every injustice against him with him.
In a sense this is surprising, since it is not abominable to clean Augean stables, but you see, even Heracles couldn't do it without diverting two rivers and in all likeliness nothing has changed since Heracles' time in so far that the only way to get rid of institutional corruption is to incite public outrage over it.
Concretely the Leviathan is protected by the idea that a militant Behemoth would be like Hitler. We already have fascism, but a conventional one. Militant fascism appears threatening. There is no point in denying this, for we're facing indeed militant fascism. The only question that can lead to a certain degree of peace of mind concerning this is against what the militancy will be directed. Does someone, who already rules the world, have an interest in subjugating it? Only in so far as he does not rule it, right? But then he can only go after corrupt officials and the like.
Actually, if he wouldn't be resisted in this, it would be a surgical operation. But since there is resistance, it will get messy.
Peace research these days considers values, on which law is based, as a nuisance. Peace is thought from the end forth, that is from unperturbed coexistence. The law of the fittest is the truly ideal one, only that it causes values inspired outrage that effects cooperation. So research is conducted how to minimise these disturbances while leaving systemic efficiency intact.
I already said before that in the face of machine supremacy humans have started to try to become as much like a machine as possible, and this attempt to fit as neatly as possible into Darwin's understanding of the circle of life is an example of that.
But not everyone has blinded himself to that degree and those who know what they expect from life have enough power to deal the death blow to such visions of the future. Thus we don't have to ask how a possible future compares to such visions, but only how it compares to other possible futures.
And what is the choice then? Either reformed justice in a union of oligarchy and tyranny or reformed provision in pure democracy. Put like that, the latter sounds better, but it doesn't have the power to stop the subsequent sinking into pure tyranny, whereas the former can use the persisting tension concerning provision to catapult tyrannical elements into the rank of timocracy while oligarchy sinks into democracy and then the tensions concerning justice and affection can be used jointly to begin the Reign of the Saints.
I admit that the sole basis of this plan is my sense of harmony, but music verily contains the truth of the human soul. Or, to say it in another way: If we decided now to reform our provision while betraying our values, I am quite certain, even without harmonic considerations, that we would meet a shameful end. Then again, if we reformed justice, from a certain perspective we wouldn't have won anything, which, by the way, is particularly obvious to the empty headed. But the liberation from rotten conventional justice without sinking into pure tyranny is incredibly hopeful, because it means that the societal fuel hasn't been spent, and it hasn't, as opposed to the state of affairs in any society that ever came under the grueling yoke of tyranny. Rather, justice is purified before provision is reformed. And the correctness of this choice is clear to me, if only ex negativo.
As societies evolve, tension inevitably rises between convention and the foundational ideal.
This tension is perceived as oppressive, and should convention rupture, this will only be experienced as liberating by some, while others will find it disturbing, in which the proponents of the ideal are filled with a militant spirit and the proponents of convention with an indulgent one.
In Plato's succession of forms of government, i.e.
- aristocracy,
- timocracy,
- oligarchy,
- democracy and
- tyranny,
- of aristocracy is shared by considerateness,
- of timocracy by deference,
- of oligarchy by esteem and
- of democracy by inviolability.
- justice,
- affection and
- provision,
- conventional and ideal justice,
- conventional and ideal affection and
- conventional and ideal provision,
The fall of inviolability corresponds with the dissolution of justice and the fall of esteem with the dissolution of provision, the former by definition, but the latter by necessary condition: Only when provision dissolves, esteem falls, oligarchs lose the right to their property. Likewise affection dissolves in parts with the fall of considerateness and deference; again by definition.
In how far timocracy and oligarchy restore affection, democracy provision or tyranny justice, is of secondary importance here - obviously they do it in diminished form - to understand the current situation we only need to know which development of which form of government rises which tension.
For we live in a chord of oligarchy and democracy and thus we live on the one hand
- in a tension between conventional and ideal provision and on the other
- in a tension between conventional and ideal justice,
- Bernie Sanders and
- Q.
- in case Trump wins disturbance over the means used against him by his enemies and
- in case he loses a continued feeling of oppression caused by false flag operations of his supporters,
- in case he loses disturbance over the new economic order and
- in case he wins a continued feeling of economic oppression.
- persecution of Trump,
- willful ignorance of it and
- use of force against his supporters.
This is not realistic, since the pharma industry, for instance, could conduct mass experimentation with unpredictable vaccines for years before anyone would fight it - after all, it would take years before the consequences couldn't be concealed any longer. If, say, we'd indeed all be infected with HIV, we'd only know it ten years from now.
No, realistically WWG1WGA means nothing more than that the militant reformers of justice have to wait until such time, when the public won't stab them in the back, and the only way to reach that point is to let it suffer under conventional justice, by being targetted by all of Trump's enemies and feeling every injustice against him with him.
In a sense this is surprising, since it is not abominable to clean Augean stables, but you see, even Heracles couldn't do it without diverting two rivers and in all likeliness nothing has changed since Heracles' time in so far that the only way to get rid of institutional corruption is to incite public outrage over it.
Concretely the Leviathan is protected by the idea that a militant Behemoth would be like Hitler. We already have fascism, but a conventional one. Militant fascism appears threatening. There is no point in denying this, for we're facing indeed militant fascism. The only question that can lead to a certain degree of peace of mind concerning this is against what the militancy will be directed. Does someone, who already rules the world, have an interest in subjugating it? Only in so far as he does not rule it, right? But then he can only go after corrupt officials and the like.
Actually, if he wouldn't be resisted in this, it would be a surgical operation. But since there is resistance, it will get messy.
Peace research these days considers values, on which law is based, as a nuisance. Peace is thought from the end forth, that is from unperturbed coexistence. The law of the fittest is the truly ideal one, only that it causes values inspired outrage that effects cooperation. So research is conducted how to minimise these disturbances while leaving systemic efficiency intact.
I already said before that in the face of machine supremacy humans have started to try to become as much like a machine as possible, and this attempt to fit as neatly as possible into Darwin's understanding of the circle of life is an example of that.
But not everyone has blinded himself to that degree and those who know what they expect from life have enough power to deal the death blow to such visions of the future. Thus we don't have to ask how a possible future compares to such visions, but only how it compares to other possible futures.
And what is the choice then? Either reformed justice in a union of oligarchy and tyranny or reformed provision in pure democracy. Put like that, the latter sounds better, but it doesn't have the power to stop the subsequent sinking into pure tyranny, whereas the former can use the persisting tension concerning provision to catapult tyrannical elements into the rank of timocracy while oligarchy sinks into democracy and then the tensions concerning justice and affection can be used jointly to begin the Reign of the Saints.
I admit that the sole basis of this plan is my sense of harmony, but music verily contains the truth of the human soul. Or, to say it in another way: If we decided now to reform our provision while betraying our values, I am quite certain, even without harmonic considerations, that we would meet a shameful end. Then again, if we reformed justice, from a certain perspective we wouldn't have won anything, which, by the way, is particularly obvious to the empty headed. But the liberation from rotten conventional justice without sinking into pure tyranny is incredibly hopeful, because it means that the societal fuel hasn't been spent, and it hasn't, as opposed to the state of affairs in any society that ever came under the grueling yoke of tyranny. Rather, justice is purified before provision is reformed. And the correctness of this choice is clear to me, if only ex negativo.
Labels: 27, formalisierung, geschichte, gesellschaftsentwurf, gesellschaftskritik, gesetze, institutionen, sehhilfen, wahrnehmungen, zeitgeschichte, ἰδέα, φιλοσοφία
Eingetragen Am/um
20:29
