'Conservatism' is neoliberalism with spikes

[BigMoaner]

the reckon he was one of philosophy's greatest readers - he knew his stuff and onions back to front and back again. I would say he was a mystic rather than a philosopher. A few of his quotes have had more positive effect than x10 self help books for me. Love him.

 

[RD2003]

But Conspiracy Denialists are even worse. They willfully render themselves blind about the real workings of the world.

There are still people around who believe JFK was killed by a lone nutter. They believe it because they want to believe it. There is a certain personality type who simply cannot stand the thought of a conspiracy.

I do think that conspiracies happen all the time, at all levels of politics, business, academia etc etc. The trouble arises when you get people who start believing that everything is one big conspiracy, and in the juvenile idea that if only we can somehow get rid of the baddies everything would be OK. The only way to counter it is by 'patiently explaining' (ha) that the world isn't as bad as they think, but actually a whole lot worse, and that there is actually very little they can do about it as it's just the nature of things. It rarely has any effect, however as, more than most people, those who believe in an overarching conspiracy only hear what they want to hear.

 

[BigMoaner]

But Conspiracy Denialists are even worse. They willfully render themselves blind about the real workings of the world.

There are still people around who believe JFK was killed by a lone nutter. They believe it because they want to believe it. There is a certain personality type who simply cannot stand the thought of a conspiracy.

I'll deny conspiracy if it's bollocks (there's a truism right there). Such as the vax is designed to kill/enslave us all. That to me is bollocks, and should be called as such - hope you're not arguiing for some moral/truth relative thing. The vax one's, those to me are conspiracy (evil forces behind it all). It's not that deep. Each case on it's own merit. That's how the faculty of reason works.

 

[BigMoaner]

Urgh the using conspiracy as some kind of edgy epistimological toy - no if bollocks is bollocks, it's bollocks.

 

[phildwyer]

I'll deny conspiracy if it's bollocks (there's a truism right there). Such as the vax is designed to kill/enslave us all. That to me is bollocks, and should be called as such - hope you're not arguiing for some moral/truth relative thing. The vax one's, those to me are conspiracy (evil forces behind it all). It's not that deep. Each case on it's own merit. That's how the faculty of reason works.

Aye. But just as there are Conspiracy Theorists congenitally inclined to believe every conspiracy theory, there are Conspiracy Denialists who are incapable of believing that conspiracies exist.

Years ago it was JFK. For ages these people stuck to the idea that Oswald was a lone loony. There aren't too many of them around any more, but they've moved onto RFK now. They'll tell you with a straight face that Sirhan Sirhan acted alone. That's the kind of mentality I'm talking about.

 

[krtek a houby]

Aye. But just as there are Conspiracy Theorists congenitally inclined to believe every conspiracy theory, there are Conspiracy Denialists who are incapable of believing that conspiracies exist.

Years ago it was JFK. For ages these people stuck to the idea that Oswald was a lone loony. There aren't too many of them around any more, but they've moved onto RFK now. They'll tell you with a straight face that Sirhan Sirhan acted alone. That's the kind of mentality I'm talking about.

Not to mention the sad sacks who believe that Biden started a war with Russia, Trump and Musk are good for democracy and China doesn't do cultural imperialism.

 

[NoXion]

Aye. But just as there are Conspiracy Theorists congenitally inclined to believe every conspiracy theory, there are Conspiracy Denialists who are incapable of believing that conspiracies exist.

Years ago it was JFK. For ages these people stuck to the idea that Oswald was a lone loony. There aren't too many of them around any more, but they've moved onto RFK now. They'll tell you with a straight face that Sirhan Sirhan acted alone. That's the kind of mentality I'm talking about.

While it's true that there are a scant handful of conspiracy theories that might be at least somewhat plausible, the vast majority of conspiracy theories, especially those produced by today's conspiracy-minded milieu, do not even make any logical sense within their own parameters, or are so ridiculous that they would be rejected as plotlines for even the trashiest of cheap novels and pulp comics back in the day.

It's rather telling that you have to reach back as far as the assassination of JFK to find an example of an event around which a "plausible" conspiracy theory can be built.

 

[phildwyer]

It's rather telling that you have to reach back as far as the assassination of JFK to find an example of an event around which a "plausible" conspiracy theory can be built.

That's just the most obvious example, there are plenty of more recent conspiracies. Epstein's a good one.

 

[elbows]

While it's true that there are a scant handful of conspiracy theories that might be at least somewhat plausible, the vast majority of conspiracy theories, especially those produced by today's conspiracy-minded milieu, do not even make any logical sense within their own parameters, or are so ridiculous that they would be rejected as plotlines for even the trashiest of cheap novels and pulp comics back in the day.

It's rather telling that you have to reach back as far as the assassination of JFK to find an example of an event around which a "plausible" conspiracy theory can be built.

We do have a really famous example of a much more recent possibility that huge swathes of the mainstream decided to ridicule as a conspiracy theory, only to have to change their stance later and concede that several versions of the theory could not actually be ruled out with a reasonable degree of certainty. That SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes Covid-19) might have ended up in the population via a lab.

This example offers lessons and subthemes of various sorts if we drilkl down just a little. Here are a few of them:

That many different versions of the theory are likely to exist. Even if you cannot completely exclude any of them, some will end up looking more plausible than others, and some versions will more obviously have been shaped by the views of the people spreading that version.

That beyond the most obviously absurd and incompatible with reality theories (eg flat earth), this stuff should not be treated in a completely binary way. Our desire to reach conclusions rather than to leave possibilities open can lead to mistakes. This can work both ways with 'conspiracy theories', with too many people tempted to want to decide that something either did happen that way or did not. Instead of being content to leave a spectrum of possibilities on the table, open to the possibility that some of them might reflect what actually happened without leaping straight to believing that something certainly did or did not happen that way.

That much like human history and various other forms of commentary, all sides should acknowledge that it is not trivial to remove politics, propaganda, value systems and worldviews from all of these matters. Even science struggles to be free from bias, and even the scientific methods available within the discipline are imperfect and continually require more rigour. We find this out that hard way at times, such as via early flaws in pandemic expert advice, but large clues about this sort of issue are also clearly visible when it comes to things like the replication crisis. ( Replication crisis - Wikipedia )

I have no easy answers for overcoming all of these things. So far I have only reached the point of promoting the mantra "be less certain".

But in practice that turns into "be less certain when you can afford to be less certain". Because there are a great many situations when we need a sense of certainty in order to make decisions or express views clearly. But if we want to reduce the chances of making mistakes including our own worldviews veering off in a self-defeating and unproductive direction that we'd want, with the benefit of hindsight, to avoid, we should strive to give ourselves the luxury of being content not to reach a conclusion whenever the opportunity presents itself.

During the pandemic there were a great many things that had practical and policy implications that I did not think I could afford to be uncertain about. But there were some that I could afford not to reach a conclusion on, and some of the lab theories fell into that category.

 

[NoXion]

That's just the most obvious example, there are plenty of more recent conspiracies. Epstein's a good one.

The circumstances of Epstein's death were most certainly mightily suspicious, but I get the impression that so many wealthy and powerful parties would have benefited from his untimely death, that absent evidence it's hard to build anything that's both specific and coherent out of it. The mad-libs style speculation around what little is publicly known about the event, tells us more about the views and prejudices of the theorists propounding their pet stories, than about the facts of the case.

We do have a really famous example of a much more recent possibility that huge swathes of the mainstream decided to ridicule as a conspiracy theory, only to have to change their stance later and concede that several versions of the theory could not actually be ruled out with a reasonable degree of certainty. That SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes Covid-19) might have ended up in the population via a lab.

I've always accepted that the escape of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from a lab was a possible origin story of the pandemic. But that by itself hardly requires conspiracy, at minimum it merely needs the kind of carelessness that might lead to a biosecurity breach. Local officials in China certainly conspired to try and hide the initial stages of the pandemic, but that's exactly the drearily mundane arse-covering type of conspiracy that tinfoilers never show any interest in at all. It was also a conspiracy with an inherently limited shelf-life, as time went on and the spread of the virus dragged in more and more people, things reached a point where it became impossible to hide.

 

[phildwyer]

The circumstances of Epstein's death were most certainly mightily suspicious, but I get the impression that so many wealthy and powerful parties would have benefited from his untimely death, that absent evidence it's hard to build anything that's both specific and coherent out of it. The mad-libs style speculation around what little is publicly known about the event, tells us more about the views and prejudices of the theorists propounding their pet stories, than about the facts of the case.

It's not the circumstances of his death that are mysterious--those are pretty freaking obvious--it's the circumstances of his life.

 

[BigMoaner]

This goes into somewhat I believe Byung Chul Han’s strange and fascinating “conservatism”, although I’d say he still very much on the left. I’d say he has a very quiet conservatism, he kind of walks away from “solutions”, and enters instead almost metaphysical realms. What ever he is, I think he is electrifying and was the heavy weight we needed midst tech revolution

 

[elbows]

This goes into somewhat I believe Byung Chul Han’s strange and fascinating “conservatism”, although I’d say he still very much on the left. I’d say he has a very quiet conservatism, he kind of walks away from “solutions”, and enters instead almost metaphysical realms. What ever he is, I think he is electrifying and was the heavy weight we needed midst tech revolution

Well I find it easy to believe that we need more people to explore such themes, so I will give him some points for going there.

But when it comes to his formulations and where he takes some of the concepts, alarm bells go off for me. I expect if I took more time to read his works I would end up with very mixed feelings, strongly agreeing with one sentence only to be horrified by what was then built upon it later.

From what little I know of his thoughts so far, it would not surprise me if he ends up being a total dickhead when it comes to the subject of transparency. All sorts of horrors are attributed to transparency by him, raising my suspicions. Well he is apparently a catholic, so probably prefers that form of the confessional

I'm not well read enough to say much more than that about him, though if I do find the time this is an angle I will explore further, this quote is from the wikipedia page about him:

Der Freitag writer Steffen Kraft criticized him for drawing on anti-democratic and anti-technology philosopher Carl Schmitt, and alleged that he "confuses cause and effect: it is not the hope for more transparency that has turned democracy into technocracy, but the refusal of even progressives to consider the consequences of information technology on the political process." (original quote in German: "Ursache und Wirkung: Nicht die Hoffnung auf mehr Transparenz hat die Demokratie zur Technokratie gemacht, sondern die Weigerung selbst Progressiver, die Folgen der Informationstechnik auf den politischen Prozess zu bedenken.")

That criticism is right up my alley because probably what I am looking for are people who dont suffer from "the refusal of even progressives to consider the consequences of information technology on the political process.". Theres an elephant in the room there and so far most of those who are prepared to acknowledge the elephant just want to turn the subject into a cliched dystopian vision of our fate, rather than exploring the wonderful potential for information flows to change the nature of power and how humans organise themselves.

 

[BigMoaner]

Well I find it easy to believe that we need more people to explore such themes, so I will give him some points for going there.

But when it comes to his formulations and where he takes some of the concepts, alarm bells go off for me. I expect if I took more time to read his works I would end up with very mixed feelings, strongly agreeing with one sentence only to be horrified by what was then built upon it later.

From what little I know of his thoughts so far, it would not surprise me if he ends up being a total dickhead when it comes to the subject of transparency. All sorts of horrors are attributed to transparency by him, raising my suspicions. Well he is apparently a catholic, so probably prefers that form of the confessional

I'm not well read enough to say much more than that about him, though if I do find the time this is an angle I will explore further, this quote is from the wikipedia page about him:



That criticism is right up my alley because probably what I am looking for are people who dont suffer from "the refusal of even progressives to consider the consequences of information technology on the political process.". Theres an elephant in the room there and so far most of those who are prepared to acknowledge the elephant just want to turn the subject into a cliched dystopian vision of our fate, rather than exploring the wonderful potential for information flows to change the nature of power and how humans organise themselves.

thanks for responding, interesting points. Well he would say the dystopian cliched state is already here. That genie is out of the bottle and it is here now. He sees the world as a miserable panoptican where "survellance and freedom are indisguishable." He is a nihilist I think, from what I can gather from him, 4 books in. But this is his strength and the actual reason I think he wants to write what he is writing and why he is so popular at the moment. He does not put a positive spin on anything. He basks in the negative, in pain, in the inherent misery of human existance. And then he compares and contrasts this wtih the never ending nerve shredding drive of neoliberalism where the disciplined subject is replaced by the "achievement subject", fuelled by endless ideas and projections of safety, happiness, "positivity" - which he believes in the main are modern ideological constructions. Look at the billions spent on self help, on therapy, on never actually resting where you are.

It's philosophy in the negative. He negates rather than affirms and this is where he deepens his thought via heidegger and zen buddhism. He's blowing minds at the moment. I would say he borders on the mystic rather than philosopher. Nihilists serve a purpose - they can stop a flow of dangerous compulsivity that drives us on and on, often to perilous ends. he was asked in an interview what his solutions were "any solutions i have will lead to more problems". He sees the "greatest activity in inactivity". Not scared therefore to talk ontology or metaphysics or religion.

This one video is prob teh best intro into this thought you will get. Give it a try! Be fascinated waht you think. only ten mins. the first few mins are a little stodgy, but stick with it. it's someone else reading from his work, not him.

 

[elbows]

I am not convinced that this sort of nihilism isnt just a product of the neoliberal crap too, that sick beast can actually feed on that stuff and has done for many decades. Its offered no escape from that plight at all, its been around in the modern form for longer than I've been alive, and its been no antidote so far.

Buddhism has interesting aspects. Politically I remain very suspicious of what some of its central tenets lead to, at worst a passive acceptance that enables the status quo.

 

[BigMoaner]

I am not convinced that this sort of nihilism isnt just a product of the neoliberal crap too, that sick beast can actually feed on that stuff and has done for many decades. Its offered no escape from that plight at all, its been around in the modern form for longer than I've been alive, and its been no antidote so far.

Buddhism has interesting aspects. Politically I remain very suspicious of what some of its central tenets lead to, at worst a passive acceptance that enables the status quo.

...watch teh video though...

 

[BigMoaner]

Buddhism has interesting aspects. Politically I remain very suspicious of what some of its central tenets lead to, at worst a passive acceptance that enables the status quo.

agreed, though a practicer of buddhism for years. A lot of buddhist modernism is junk and is the perfect neoliberalm self soothing mechanism. But that's only part of teh buddhist picture - most "teachers" spend about 2 minutes talking "interdependance" which is absoloutly essential for understanding the true consequences of "no self".

as for hope and nihilism - i try not to fall down on either side, but if you really pay attention, then i think hope in the forms of entirely new political projects outside of capitalism is over. barely anyone can imagine or think through in a straight line what a world post capitalism looks like. As Zizek says, it's easier to imagine the end of the world. Nihilism one of the most powerful (and little understood) of human concepts, even on a stricktly theraputic, individual level. You have to have sometimes a walking away, or giving up. Melville's Bartleby is probably the greatest example and a popular reread at the moment. The main character starts refusing everything by saying "no i would rather not." so his colleagues ask him to file something, and he says "no i would rather not". they offer him meals and he says "no i would rather not". the landlord asks for rent and he says "no i would rather not". till he is dying on a park bench with a look of peace in his eyes. Nihilism in the most extreme. And the exact opposite direction of everything we are told we should be doing or even worse what is is "natural to do". The back door escape known by all mystics since time dot. And BCH walks this path too somewhat. What's the alternative, the other direction? And then weighing the two.

 

[BigMoaner]

Reading Braudillard’s America at the moment and it’s so funny and frightening at the same time. I would say your average (thinking) conservative would agree with most of what he writes. If you’re a conservative who believes in the (loss of) important rituals and traditions then a lot of the “postmodernists” like Braudillard are your friends.

 

[BigMoaner]

.

 

[Serge Forward]

No thanks.