This is excellent, but also I so desperately want to believe that not everybody is motivated exclusively by status and power games.
I think a more nuanced interpretation is that a sufficient percentage of people are primarily motivated by status / power games that coordination requires an alignment of purpose and status.
I do think there is a lifestyle threshold beyond which many people would happily ignore status/power games to pursue personal projects. Sadly, this means that as society moves the floor higher, and a growing proportion of people drop out of status/power games, the only ones left playing are dark triad personalities, and these people end up at the top of all power structures. I think this explains a lot about how the richest societies have evolved actually.
I think the usual phrasing is "you might not be interested in politics/war, but it is interested in you." There may be some who think they can have reached this "lifestyle threshold" to opt out of status/power games, but when the war comes, their homesteads will burn just as surely as those of the men who played and lost.
Following the line of thought circling around the ideology shaped hole implied by the extrapolation of C.force —> C.culture, I feel like the shape of things follows closely the advancement of the conceptions of identity stages. Those also are following a “coherence like” mechanism, where the central coordination point is more and more integrated from the outside (force) to conformity with a social cast (culture / moral conformity to bridge uncertainty towards how to coordinate) towards rational discourse (consensus of paradigm? As outlined in Kuhns Paradigm shift). But looking at the smoldering fortress of rationalism, I cannot help but looking even further into our little bubble of Meta modern post rationalism…a way of identifying not with identity and ideology, but with the form of optimal coordination itself.
This calls for a form of ethics that i cannot phase otherwise than alignment.
A way of dealing with things that prioritizes finding optimal solutions for the sake of achieving non zero outcomes, optimizing for real coherence, not only consensus.
A self similar hyper local grounding in the needs of the hyper agent itself.
Think Plinz framework of ethics for coordinating diverse cognitive agents. A Meta rational project.
Abandoning the need for global solutions to bridge heterogeneity in goals and worldmodels, for a approach to locally integrate over the necessities of the coordination Itself.
Not creating a functional agency via top down coercive overpowering, but frontrunning inside out bottom up outcompeting the consensus structure in their respective Nash equilibria, via being alive, not scaling “script like” behaviors, but identifying as the same live player. Serving the highest possible agend.
The longest game.
It’s true that this approach is highly overshooting the engineering affordances you outlined in the ideology 2.0 specs, but I think that would be by design. Enlightenment as well was a consensus seed, not aiming for cult like IFLS or woke shaped power struggle, but degenerated into, giving in to moloch.
Functional adaptation needs ambitious exploration into the possible, not only the probable, exploring the very ground that lays open, fresh as ever, under the piled up abstractions of our very own Tower of Babel.
To start anew is to aim high and dig deep, into what is the case.
Who knows what deployable “shapes” we will bring back, for a new round of the game of men.
This is excellent, but also I so desperately want to believe that not everybody is motivated exclusively by status and power games.
I think a more nuanced interpretation is that a sufficient percentage of people are primarily motivated by status / power games that coordination requires an alignment of purpose and status.
I do think there is a lifestyle threshold beyond which many people would happily ignore status/power games to pursue personal projects. Sadly, this means that as society moves the floor higher, and a growing proportion of people drop out of status/power games, the only ones left playing are dark triad personalities, and these people end up at the top of all power structures. I think this explains a lot about how the richest societies have evolved actually.
I think the usual phrasing is "you might not be interested in politics/war, but it is interested in you." There may be some who think they can have reached this "lifestyle threshold" to opt out of status/power games, but when the war comes, their homesteads will burn just as surely as those of the men who played and lost.
Exceedingly great article!
Following the line of thought circling around the ideology shaped hole implied by the extrapolation of C.force —> C.culture, I feel like the shape of things follows closely the advancement of the conceptions of identity stages. Those also are following a “coherence like” mechanism, where the central coordination point is more and more integrated from the outside (force) to conformity with a social cast (culture / moral conformity to bridge uncertainty towards how to coordinate) towards rational discourse (consensus of paradigm? As outlined in Kuhns Paradigm shift). But looking at the smoldering fortress of rationalism, I cannot help but looking even further into our little bubble of Meta modern post rationalism…a way of identifying not with identity and ideology, but with the form of optimal coordination itself.
This calls for a form of ethics that i cannot phase otherwise than alignment.
A way of dealing with things that prioritizes finding optimal solutions for the sake of achieving non zero outcomes, optimizing for real coherence, not only consensus.
A self similar hyper local grounding in the needs of the hyper agent itself.
Think Plinz framework of ethics for coordinating diverse cognitive agents. A Meta rational project.
Abandoning the need for global solutions to bridge heterogeneity in goals and worldmodels, for a approach to locally integrate over the necessities of the coordination Itself.
Not creating a functional agency via top down coercive overpowering, but frontrunning inside out bottom up outcompeting the consensus structure in their respective Nash equilibria, via being alive, not scaling “script like” behaviors, but identifying as the same live player. Serving the highest possible agend.
The longest game.
It’s true that this approach is highly overshooting the engineering affordances you outlined in the ideology 2.0 specs, but I think that would be by design. Enlightenment as well was a consensus seed, not aiming for cult like IFLS or woke shaped power struggle, but degenerated into, giving in to moloch.
Functional adaptation needs ambitious exploration into the possible, not only the probable, exploring the very ground that lays open, fresh as ever, under the piled up abstractions of our very own Tower of Babel.
To start anew is to aim high and dig deep, into what is the case.
Who knows what deployable “shapes” we will bring back, for a new round of the game of men.