Some brainstorming here trying to predict the future by understanding the past and present.
Modernism was largely about rationality, empiricism, and cutting away unnecessary elements of things to leave the most meaningful whole. It thrived on building and perpetuating grand narratives and was immersed in objective facts. The first major problem it had was that it was highly successful, building grand narratives such as Marxism, Fascism, National Socialism, and Liberalism which captured the entire world, but each of those narratives were inherently flawed, because as the bible tells us, man cannot live on bread alone, and something claiming to be a "purely rational" world view is not, and the inherent contradictions of something believing it is rational when the whole of it required an underlying basis of irrationality
Postmodernism was largely a reaction to Modernism, and as a result questions grand narratives and objective facts strongly. Postmodern society has 2 major problems imo. First, what it sets out to do -- it mostly sets out to deconstruct and eliminate grand narratives or objective facts. Second, what it does in the hands of the people who get it. It is essentially the self-conscious level of Loevinger's ego development personified. People below that level can use the questioning and self-conscious nature of postmodernism to give them excuses not to follow rules. People at that level still lack good models of people who aren't like them, especially people at a much lower level of ego development and so allow the philosophy to be used to harm, and people above that level of ego development end up discussing things at a level that postmodernism and therefore its establishment adherents are incapable of discussing things. As a rule, people at a lower level of ego development can't comprehend the way of thinking of people at a higher level of ego development than themselves, and it's still a special skill to recognize people at a lower level of development because most people assume others are basically like themselves.
So that would lead to a post-metamodernism (I don't think the oscillation of Metamodernism itself is a good foundation to rest a society, so I'm imagining a superposition model where different elements are laid on top of each other and not necessarily coalesced into a solid synthesis) whose primary purpose would be to find shared frameworks destroyed by postmodernism, while avoiding the negative final outcomes of modernism's absolutism.
This worldview would probably live at either the autonomous level of ego development or begins transitioning towards the integrated level of ego development, which is construct aware and thus would be inherently aware of the limitations of assuming everyone else is at the same level of ego development as you, and so would tolerate people at different levels but would also try to accommodate (but also find ways to regulate) those at lower levels of ego development. I tend to believe that a core goal of the ideology would be trying to get individuals to the very highest level of development they can so they can become part of the "ubermensch" class that can actually process post-metamodernism, because as people rise in ego development level and rise closer to using "true post-metamodernism" the more likely they're perceived to be reaching personal fulfilment of self-actualization or beyond. It does mean that people who are seen as at a lower level (this doesn't necessarily have to be explicitly like "oh you're at level 6 of Loevinger's model", instead it's just an understanding that the people can't yet carry superpositions of paradoxical ideas yet) are treated somewhat paternalistically, they're not seen as fully human because they can't comprehend how to think in the contemporary way.
Modernism was largely about rationality, empiricism, and cutting away unnecessary elements of things to leave the most meaningful whole. It thrived on building and perpetuating grand narratives and was immersed in objective facts. The first major problem it had was that it was highly successful, building grand narratives such as Marxism, Fascism, National Socialism, and Liberalism which captured the entire world, but each of those narratives were inherently flawed, because as the bible tells us, man cannot live on bread alone, and something claiming to be a "purely rational" world view is not, and the inherent contradictions of something believing it is rational when the whole of it required an underlying basis of irrationality
Postmodernism was largely a reaction to Modernism, and as a result questions grand narratives and objective facts strongly. Postmodern society has 2 major problems imo. First, what it sets out to do -- it mostly sets out to deconstruct and eliminate grand narratives or objective facts. Second, what it does in the hands of the people who get it. It is essentially the self-conscious level of Loevinger's ego development personified. People below that level can use the questioning and self-conscious nature of postmodernism to give them excuses not to follow rules. People at that level still lack good models of people who aren't like them, especially people at a much lower level of ego development and so allow the philosophy to be used to harm, and people above that level of ego development end up discussing things at a level that postmodernism and therefore its establishment adherents are incapable of discussing things. As a rule, people at a lower level of ego development can't comprehend the way of thinking of people at a higher level of ego development than themselves, and it's still a special skill to recognize people at a lower level of development because most people assume others are basically like themselves.
So that would lead to a post-metamodernism (I don't think the oscillation of Metamodernism itself is a good foundation to rest a society, so I'm imagining a superposition model where different elements are laid on top of each other and not necessarily coalesced into a solid synthesis) whose primary purpose would be to find shared frameworks destroyed by postmodernism, while avoiding the negative final outcomes of modernism's absolutism.
This worldview would probably live at either the autonomous level of ego development or begins transitioning towards the integrated level of ego development, which is construct aware and thus would be inherently aware of the limitations of assuming everyone else is at the same level of ego development as you, and so would tolerate people at different levels but would also try to accommodate (but also find ways to regulate) those at lower levels of ego development. I tend to believe that a core goal of the ideology would be trying to get individuals to the very highest level of development they can so they can become part of the "ubermensch" class that can actually process post-metamodernism, because as people rise in ego development level and rise closer to using "true post-metamodernism" the more likely they're perceived to be reaching personal fulfilment of self-actualization or beyond. It does mean that people who are seen as at a lower level (this doesn't necessarily have to be explicitly like "oh you're at level 6 of Loevinger's model", instead it's just an understanding that the people can't yet carry superpositions of paradoxical ideas yet) are treated somewhat paternalistically, they're not seen as fully human because they can't comprehend how to think in the contemporary way.
Funny story.
Our daycare isn't run by an illegal immigrant. It's run by a girl whose family has probably been in this country for hundreds of years. She learned how to run a daycare from her mother, who also runs a daycare in this city.
But interesting thing. Thanks in part to Trudeau's immigration policy which has filled every available space with people from other countries, this young lady is shutting down her daycare, and shes leaving the city she was born and raised in. He's doing that because she can't find a place to live and run her business at essentially any reasonable price.
Food for thought when the rich and powerful on the left go on TV to bemoan their poor unloved indentured servant class who pick their cotton and raise their kids for them. Many stories have more than one side.
Our daycare isn't run by an illegal immigrant. It's run by a girl whose family has probably been in this country for hundreds of years. She learned how to run a daycare from her mother, who also runs a daycare in this city.
But interesting thing. Thanks in part to Trudeau's immigration policy which has filled every available space with people from other countries, this young lady is shutting down her daycare, and shes leaving the city she was born and raised in. He's doing that because she can't find a place to live and run her business at essentially any reasonable price.
Food for thought when the rich and powerful on the left go on TV to bemoan their poor unloved indentured servant class who pick their cotton and raise their kids for them. Many stories have more than one side.
They think they're not Redditors because they left reddit but they never really left.
Linus was on Jimmy Fallon the other week, now they're putting out videos like this. I have to assume that LTT is about 3 days from bankruptcy and they're doing whatever they can to keep the lights on at this point. I assume next we'll start seeing "15 harry potter facts nobody knows (#4 will shock you)" coming down the pipe. RIP ltt
If the AI bubble pops (and I do think it will) how many of the mag 7 collapse immediately?
Just like Trudeau up here: shit on the president for years then it's all shock when there's consequences.
These people are stupid.
These people are stupid.
It's like saying Leonard da Vinci was a redditor. it's obviously, self-evidently wrong because reddit didn't exist in any regard in the 1500s.
So here's an idea: imagine if there's something way more dangerous than AI waiting in the depths of the power of GPU computation, and Bitcoin and AI are just sideshows being used to make sure nobody is bothering to pay attention to those things?
That's an interesting train of thought. I'll have to look more into it.
It does feel intuitive, because a coin made of silver is going to be a reasonable size for a reasonable amount of value, but your gold coin is going to be tiny unless it's either debased or for a massive amount of value.
It does feel intuitive, because a coin made of silver is going to be a reasonable size for a reasonable amount of value, but your gold coin is going to be tiny unless it's either debased or for a massive amount of value.
Honestly, pennies were supposed to be part of a dollar, which is a certain amount of gold.
As it stands, because of the destruction of sound money, the dollar has lost 99% of its value. What was considered a penny in 1800 would be considered a dollar today (or less). A 1800 dollar worth of gold today costs about 140 dollars.
The copper in a penny used to be worth far less than the value of a penny, but today they can't make a penny out of copper for a penny. They moved to Zinc, but it turns out they can't even make a penny out of Zinc for a penny.
The right answer is to not devalue the currency by 99%, but I'd be ok with eliminating most change to the level of a quarter at this point. I'm not going to bend over to pick up a penny ever, a nickel basically ever, and even a dime most of the time. It's only a quarter where the amount of money is even worth the effort to bend over and pick up.
It's like, the penny represents a smaller and smaller amount of value, it stops making sense to track such a small amount of value. Again, the solution is to stop having so much inflation. If they're not going to do that, it does make sense to eventually abandon coinage that becomes trivially valuable.
As it stands, because of the destruction of sound money, the dollar has lost 99% of its value. What was considered a penny in 1800 would be considered a dollar today (or less). A 1800 dollar worth of gold today costs about 140 dollars.
The copper in a penny used to be worth far less than the value of a penny, but today they can't make a penny out of copper for a penny. They moved to Zinc, but it turns out they can't even make a penny out of Zinc for a penny.
The right answer is to not devalue the currency by 99%, but I'd be ok with eliminating most change to the level of a quarter at this point. I'm not going to bend over to pick up a penny ever, a nickel basically ever, and even a dime most of the time. It's only a quarter where the amount of money is even worth the effort to bend over and pick up.
It's like, the penny represents a smaller and smaller amount of value, it stops making sense to track such a small amount of value. Again, the solution is to stop having so much inflation. If they're not going to do that, it does make sense to eventually abandon coinage that becomes trivially valuable.
Some people are pointing out that the dei executives in the federal government aren't being fired but are instead being given different roles. Now absolutely that could mean someone in the federal government is being sneaky and they are going to continue on their work with the dei, but it is also entirely possible that they put competent managers into at least some of those positions and with that particular mandate completed the organization doesn't want to lose a competent manager.
I know some people who has been perfectly decent people in some very stupid positions over the years. They are able to get things done, but the thing they are trying to get done is stupid. In that case, it's a net positive not losing that management, you can put them towards something productive like making sure they actually get their purpose as an organization done.
Of course, I don't want to disregard the idea that some of these institutions just are hanging on to dead wood. We've seen some dei managers and they won't be contributing positively to any organization they are a part of. Some of those people who have retained employment even though the reason that they were hired has disappeared probably should find themselves laid off as their position is mad redundant.
I know some people who has been perfectly decent people in some very stupid positions over the years. They are able to get things done, but the thing they are trying to get done is stupid. In that case, it's a net positive not losing that management, you can put them towards something productive like making sure they actually get their purpose as an organization done.
Of course, I don't want to disregard the idea that some of these institutions just are hanging on to dead wood. We've seen some dei managers and they won't be contributing positively to any organization they are a part of. Some of those people who have retained employment even though the reason that they were hired has disappeared probably should find themselves laid off as their position is mad redundant.
