I think just first we have to think who we are talking about when we talk about "the students", "The Taliban". — ssu

I am using "The Taliban" to refer to the entire loosely affiliated set of Afghan insurgents, more or less to avoid having to list any number of particular political factions within the region.

I think the worst outcome is that they indeed take control of Afghanistan...and then it's a pariah state that nobody wants to have any relations with. And the outcome can be similar anarchy as in the 1990's. — ssu

I don't think that the situation which we are about to face is either desirable or avoidable. They conquered the entire surrounding areas of the capitals, as well as, now, a third of the capitals themselves, in only three months and are only gaining momentum. All the hope in the world isn't going bring any form of peace or stability to the region. What I think that we need to begin to consider is how it is that we can provide living accommodations for the massive amounts of Afghan refugees that are about to become displaced.

Perhaps, the Afghan military is more capable than I am estimating, but, I think that the American estimates for the fall of Kabul, within one to three months, are nothing but accurate. There's an entire generation of Afghans who grew up believing that civil rights could be established within their country. They thought that the West was going to build schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. None of that is going to happen. They need to figure out how to leave the country as soon as possible.

You can contradict this with her conclusion to the text if you like, but can't you just let the council communists have their venerable Rosa Luxembourg?

Right, but what I'm saying is that, though some of said bureaucrats do only really have power in the formal sense, to even be given such a position, you have to come up through certain networks of influence, thereby making it somewhat requisite to accumulate power in an actual sense so as to maintain said positions. There are people who just draw up plans and look at forms, but, I'd suspect that the majority of military officials do actually have a certain degree of network-power.

Eh, even if you just chalk it up to arms capital, which I wouldn't necessarily, people within those positions do occupy positions of power within whatever networks of influence. It's not as if American military commanders are mere puppets of Halliburton and Lockheed Martin. In order to become a military official, you have to come up through or be granted a position within the various networks of influence that comprise of the overarching martial order, and, so, the do have actual power.

For all that they claim has been a success in the beaten way of jurisprudence and arms proliferation, I would prefer to leave American military strategists with the existential crisis they are sure to now develop because of that they lost to a decentralized insurgency in a country whose only real natural resource is opium. All of the military technology in the world was no match for people who are still riding on horseback and believe in what they're fighting for.

On the special features of The Battle of Algiers, there's an interview with an American military strategist where he explains that they show the film to people within the military so as to highlight the importance of morale, something that they only consider as psychological operations, in determining the victor of any given martial conflict. Had the United States truly believed that they could establish a veritable Liberal democracy within Afghanistan, they may have been able to sway the Afghan populace so as to effectively secure an emergent state that could have protected itself from the Taliban for long enough for their organization to dissolve, not that any Western nation has a right to go around nation-building as such. It is because of the cynical self-interest in waging the conflict that we will eventually have to consider it as a loss.

I, clearly, think that we never should have been there in the first place. I just don't want for American military strategists to be let to deny what the conflict in Afghanistan should have revealed to them after having been there for a few years any longer.


The Taliban will live, fight, and die for their beliefs. Without some form of humanitarian catastrophe, they will continue to fight and they will eventually win. I don't agree with the American presence in the first place, but, with it did come a certain degree of hope for Afghan citizens, though this has always been sort of false promise, of creating a veritable Liberal democratic state. Were I to live there now, I would run to wherever it is that I could. Godspeed to those who must!

I understand the distinctions in an abstract philosophical sense. I guess it just seems that what most nihilists tend to accept is a philosophical pessimist position, despite only ever referring to themselves as "nihilists".

Generally speaking, a distinction between existentialism and nihilism is within the response to the inexistence of God or some kind of divine order in the universe. Most existentialists think something along the lines of that it is then up to humanity to create meaning within the world and cultivate its own values, whereas most nihilists will reject the notion of meaning altogether and negate any ethical value judgements. Nihilists will often claim that the liberation from an instilled guilt, usually involving a rather nuanced and viciously eloquent critique of the Catholic Church, is liberating, but, I would argue that, when confronted by something the scope and scale of human atrocities to have occurred within the Twentieth Century, they, in order to withhold judgement, can only come to a set of postulates concerning human nature that, contrary to their claim, I would argue, are somewhat pathological and ultimately pessimistic. Another distinction is between the response to the philosophical pessimist postulate that the human experience is ultimately negative, characterized by Albert Camus as "the Absurd", which existentialists either suggest should be somehow overcome, as if it were somehow alterable, or revolted against, kind of for its own sake, which, in a political context, the dread nihilists whom I personally have qualms with take as an effective sanction for adventurist terrorism, but, as, up until around three years ago, there were probably a grand total of seven of them in the world, I think, we can dismiss their recent popularity within the Anarchist fringe as a passing trend, and which, outside of the cult pathology of political nihilism, a few nihilists also agree with, but, without being able to invoke their iconoclast, meaning, more often than not ultimates within a defeatist pessimism. What the more common response among nihilists is is to suggest that you should just simply accept the human condition for what it is, namely that the human experience is ultimately negative, and to vaguely offer some form of non-Western spirituality so as to cope with this, which doesn't differ too much from the philosophy of the seminal philosophical pessimist, Arthur Schopenhauer.

What I am saying is that what nihilists say that nihilism is is distinct from philosophical pessimism, but that, when it comes to what it actually turns out to be, the distinction becomes blurred.

I'm sure that's entirely sensible or, at least, seemingly so, but that does seem to just be a localized reconceptualization and salvaging of Liberalism. I'm more or less suggesting that this should be done to a certain extent, but also incorporating something like Libertarian Municipalism. There is sure to be a post-civilized general malaise. I think we ought to have some vision.

Do you mean?....

Anarchism is a political philosophy and it can more or less be simply defined as "libertarian socialism". — apokrisis

Effectively and ineffectively, yes.

The hey is about allowing vigorous and messy interest promoting - strong competition - but within a plastic set of global social constraints so a holistic balance can be arrived at. — apokrisis

So where I speak of successful modern technocratic societies, they are more "anarchic" in being an active and dynamical jostle of institutions. The state is merely a framework for delivering some kind of structured accomodation to the mass of often conflicting desires. — apokrisis

Right, but what you are still describing is just a functional Liberal democracy. It's as optimistic to suggest that, given a global societal collapse, Liberal democracy could be brought to its requisite best to adequately cope with the situation as it is for me to offer some form of nonviolent gradualist Anarchism. What I wonder of the Liberal democratic project is if it isn't or hasn't already achieved as much as it can. I feel like, after the fall of civilization, trying to revive Liberalism just may not be enough. You'd have seven or so people in a small city committed to the project and just generalized chaos everywhere else.

I sailed to the edge of a flat Earth in a dream before, but I'm not sure if that counts.

Heh, I always leave the comma outside of the quote and I live in the US. I never really paid too much attention to the grammatical aspects of English classes, though. Clearly, the period shouldn't be there, but I just kind of like it for some reason.

Assuming that we can place the comma outside of the quote and will eliminate the period, should it, then, be as follows:

"Søren Kierkegaard is famous for the maxim, "subjectivity is Truth", which appears in Concluding Unscientific Postscript."

Subjectivity was only capitalized because it was the first word of the sentence, whereas Kierkegaard, himself, who I am quoting, capitalized "Truth".

Forgoing Kierkegaard's capitalization and just writing, "subjectivity is truth", seems to make the most sense to me. I don't like the comma on the inside and, so, will not change my way of writing them unless docked for doing so.

That's all up to you, I think.

Oh, I see. I had misinterpreted your statement.

I have previously given a rather expository post as to what I prefer to Liberal democracy.


I haven't known Nietzsche to say much of Pascal, but, perhaps you're right?

I support the withdraw, despite that I think that the Taliban will continue to fight and eventually win. It's a sad and difficult situation within a country with a long and troubled political history.

The world's most powerful nation waged the longest war in its history against an organization primarily comprised of Pashtun tribesman and will probably have to consider it as a loss. There are just some things that people will never let go of, even if you can't agree with them. It's not much consolation, but I think that there is something to be learned from that.

I would chalk the rationale behind the so-called "War on Terror" moreso up to a justification for the expansion of the security apparatus than I would to a placation of the American populace so as to secure votes.


I haven't followed the conflict too much as of late as I kind of quit reading the news.

A strong society has strong institutions that look to the long view ... coupled to strong democracy that allows constant short-term challenge to those institutions. And you can engineer that balance. It is not about a conflict between left and right, good and evil. It is about plumbing and food security. Boring stuff that keeps the lights on and things headed in desirable directions. — apokrisis

On a second review of your post, it seems like you're just arguing for an effective Liberal democracy. That's just how Liberal democracy is supposed to function.

This doesn't need extreme political theories - either about communism or capitalism, left or right. Instead it needs general acceptance that the job of a political system is to encourage the right kind of institutional structure. Everything becomes a shade of some form of social democracy - until fossil fuel looks up and sees its accelerating rate of entropification being threatened. Then you get a bout of creative institution destruction like a world war or Thatcher's Britain. Society can be steered away from the long-termism that was beginning to creep into human affairs - ecological responsibility, anti-consumerism, social equality, etc - and rebuild itself with the shortest institutional timeframes in mind. — apokrisis

That seems like some kind of post-apocalyptic vaguely right-wing regionalism, which is neither not extreme nor beyond charting on the Political Compass. I'm also fairly unsure as to how not looking into the future or considering ecological responsibility is supposed to resolve the ecological crisis.

I deleted this comment to make this all just one post.

I guess there seems to be a difference between what nihilists say that nihilism is and what it more often than not turns out to be. It usually turns out to be a philosophy of despair and somehow ultimate within philosophical pessimism, generally connoting something like that existence is suffering. Perhaps, it's just because of that so many philosophical pessimists also happen to be existential nihilists that I feel confused.

That's a pretty good one, but I did kind of actually do that.

It's strange that @Nikolas quotes Simone Weil, who aided the Durruti Column during the Spanish Civil War. It could've been from a critique of hers of the Soviet Union, though, and, so, may have made sense in context.

Thanks!

Y'know, for all of thought, time, and effort that I have put into factional disputes within the Anarchist movement, I really haven't thought too much about economic democracy. I guess that people can get kind of lost in either critique or the persecutory delusions they harbor towards other Anarchists or sects within the libertarian Left, Anarcho-Pacifism being one of the minor ones. As I am considerably younger than he is, though, it is only within good chronology for me to claim that Peter Gederloos started this dispute, which, by now, I do think it time to set aside, despite that they'll continue to spam How Nonviolence Protects the State on r/Anarchism regardless as to what anyone, particularly I, as, anymore, I think that it's just me that that whole sort of thing is directed towards, does.

Everything in your post makes perfect sense, aside from that I don't quite know what you mean by your usage of the term, "shibboleths". You are using the term as kind of a dig against other political philosophies, no?

An interesting and optimistic assessment of technocracy that I'd have to think more about. I'm used to hearing the term used in a much more negative context.

Eh, I was practicing mock criticism and self-criticism unto myself by that point, anyways.

Personally, I feel like you haven't appreciated well enough the nuances to my political theories. Sure, in The ABC of Communism, Nikolai Bukharin used the metaphor of a communal store house for what communist society would be like. At first, everyone will work "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs", and, so, in so far that you needed anything from the storehouse, you could just go ahead and pick it up. Once, communist society is established, however, everyone can just go to the storehouse and get anything that they want to, as, as we all are well aware of, there will be a superabundance under Communism. When you ask an Anarchist for an explanation of this or that idea or how they can be practically effectuated, it is quite common to be told little fables like this.

When it comes to the ideological sect that I have formed unto myself, however, we are as ideologically pure as we are self-righteous, which, as we believe that only nonviolent gradualist Anarchism can significantly change the world for the better, is to say, "entirely".

Under certain Christian doctrines, pride is considered to be the cardinal sin, from which all others originate. Though I am not a Christian, I think that there is something to this philosophy of evil. Chauvinism, the excess of pride, in my opinion, created the First World War. I think that Kundera is much more poignant, but Eric Voegelin had a theory of totalitarianism that was later kind of co-opted by none other than William F. Buckely which posited that totalitarian states had set out to immanentize the eschaton, effectively to reify the final project for all of humanity, which later became fairly important for the concept of political religions, particularly within critiques of totalitarianism. I do think that we ought to take a leaf from Voegelin and a various set of political theorists in their critique of utopian projects. There's also a certain degree of cynicism that comes with such notions, particularly within neoconservative circles, however. If you right off every attempt to change the world for the better as some form of political crusade or another, then, you have just simply become a reactionary.

You might call the syncretic politic that I put forth "market-anarchism". Eduard Bernstein, who was famously castigated by Vladimir Lenin, is the theorist behind what later became an extremely divisive split within Social Democratic Party of Germany. He developed a gradualist approach to Socialism that he called "evolutionary socialism", effectively founding what we understand today as Social Democracy. What I'm advocating is something like "evolutionary anarchism", though it would be considerable less reliant, though not completely, on reform. I do think that this is an entirely sensible political philosophy that harbors little danger of messianism. It would make the world a better place, though.

That's all well and good and all, but how does technocracy effectively resolve anything? It was the preferred millenarian social organization that ushered in the industrial era and the same that brought about the so-called "information age". Obviously, in fields that require expertise, there is a need for specialists, but, structuring the whole of civil society as if it were an engineering department doesn't seem to make too much sense to me.

The quote, I think, is a clear dig at the Soviet Union, which was probably informed by Kundera's experience in Communist Czechoslovakia. It's very poignant, but, I think, unfair when applied to my reasonable and practical interpretation of Anarchism. In ways, I am still offering some radically new and ostensibly better world, and, so, haven't fully absolved myself of the false promise of utopia, but I don't think that my political philosophy even can become better at avoiding any potential catastrophes without being tried.

Thomas Hobbes thought that the State dissolved into discordant multitude as soon as it was formally legitimated by a constitution, an idea that was later theorized by Giorgio Agamben as "civil war as a political paradigm" in Stasis. His theory is quite good, but the concept was slated all too provocatively, which Tiqqun, the only faction of the libertarian Left aside from a few left-accelerationists I have failed to mention as it concerns my many detractors in this post and also the inspiration, upon reading The Cybernetic Hypothesis, a text with germane analysis, but unfortunately advances a return to the "Years of Lead", as, of course, a French intellectual journal has every right to do so, for my leaving the Anarchist movement in protest of its general proclivities towards crypto-Fascism and political violence, which I later rescinded when Joe Biden was elected, took to be a sanction for what seems like it ultimates in a relentless ultra-Left crusade in the extraordinarily well written and completely impolitic Introduction to Civil War. As I, too, take a leaf from Agamben, I, instead, advance a withdraw, the aforementioned "active disengagement", from the Spectacle, effectively the entire political foray, and eventual creation of a loosely affiliated set of freely associated Anarchist communes, which I believe can resolve the crisis which Hobbes called to light.

Sans as much of what is sure to be arcane to anyone else as is possible, the purpose of establishing an eventual participatory democracy is to eliminate the basis for such "internecine squabbling, inevitable conflict and consolidations of power".

I think that that's kind of a false dichotomy. You contrast technocracy, which, as it is advanced by whom you call "greenies", cyber-utopianism, I think, it is called, with a fringe set of political philosophies as if we ought to take the former at its word without any form of critique whatsoever.

That's the second time you've said that quote to me, and, though, the first time that I agreed with you doing so, but, this time I'm not quite so sure.

We have a form of Liberal democracy now and in the so-called "West" it's okay and in the rest of the world it's a little bleak. Overall, I think that the best assessment of the contemporary political system is to say that it's sub par. From there, I think we ought to consider some alternatives.

There are many, but, for me, only two matter. One of them, the Nordic Model, has been tried and, I would argue, has proven to be somewhat successful. It'd seem to me to make sense to then put the Nordic Model to greater use. That, I think, is what we can hope for from Liberalism.

The other is Anarchism, of which the historical examples of being tried are so few and far between that we just simply don't at all know what it will be like. It's entirely fair to suggest that the immediate establishment of Anarchist society globally could result in catastrophe, but that's not what I'm suggesting should be done. I think that Anarchist society could be established through a kind of gradual process. Some communities and initiatives will fail, but some will be successful. Over time, what I assume is that people will prefer Anarchism to Liberalism, and, so, the Liberal democratic project will gradually dissolve unto a pluralistic Anarchist participatory democracy. This, I think, doesn't quite hazard the same dangers as something like Communism in Czechoslovakia.

Isn’t that relocalisation of economies and transition engineering. I don’t even consider it a battle of left-right - globalising political theories. The best outcome after the collapse of state level order would be communities able to sustain local order - however that looks. — apokrisis

Sort of, I guess, though order can become quite terrifying when brought to a point of excess, as it very well may be, given a societal and ecological collapse.

But aren’t any political systems the kind of theory led approach that will have little relevance in a collapse back to small communities scratching a living? — apokrisis

There'd have to be some model to work with. Anarchism seems rather apt for such generalized chaos.

What would be your ways of revolting against death? — Corvus

Honestly, doing things like reading the poems of Arthur Rimbaud, but, I would imagine that there is a kind of joie de vivre that I could actualize upon.

What I mean about the political complex that I have is that its born out of that I am an Anarchist who is both wildly unpopular within and neither agrees to or with the current direction of the Anarchist movement. I'm usually fairly clear, but rarely concise by that account. I also left the movement awhile ago and now, in as much good faith as I do pretense, claim to be a-political.

Not by any stretch of my imagination, but, if they want to fund us, we might consider letting them build some of micro-nations or whatever.


For all the absurdity there is to the expository nature of my political views, it really ought to be fairly well-understood as to what anyone means by "libertarian socialism". What has become of kind of a lot of movements within the libertarian Left, the various sects and whathaveyou, lead to much of the confusion and neurosis that I seem to have over clarifying my political position. If you think about any political philosophy, if you can't sum it up in a paragraph of less in The New York Times, then how can you possibly expect for most people to agree to it?

I'm content enough, personally, with Liberalism not to harbor too many utopian delusions of grandeur, but do ultimately asses it as being insufficient. Because I am both an Anarchist and Pacifist, I can write off a number of qualms that people generally have with political experiments, as it is somewhat safe to assume that there is a limited danger of authoritarianism and violence, but all kinds of other things could go wrong, famine, for instance. I do think that people need to start thinking beyond Liberalism, however, and where that effectively is, for me, at least, is Anarchism.

This sounds so interesting. I will check it out deeply later on. — javi2541997

Wait until you are repeatedly referred to it and then forced to prove that you are neither a Neo-Liberal nor a Marxist-Leninist.

I guess this philosophical/political/social etc… view is not necessarily related to socialism or leftist ideas. Anarchism is sui generis
These are just my points but who knows! There are a lot of essays that could be written in this issue. — javi2541997

There is a certain complexity to Anarchist political philosophy and nuance that is lost by the definition, "libertarian socilaism", but Bakunin, himself, referred to his political philosophy as "communist anarchism" and headed the International Workingman's Association, i.e. the First International, before being effectively ousted by none other than Karl Marx. There are very clear historical lines to be drawn between Socialism and Anarchism.


That Chomsky quote is a good counter-point to this particular kvetch of mine, but he is a member of the "Wobblies", the International Workers of the World.

I'm going to lose all of my credibility within the radical Left by explaining this, but I tend to view Anarchism as a kind of apothetical Liberalism. Aside from my preference for nonviolence, I think that any veritable politic ought to attempt to maximalize liberty and, I would argue, as it follows, equality, which are ideals that any left-wing Liberal, or even those of what I call the "radical center", could hold, but, as I do not think that this can be effectively done under the form of Liberal democracy that exists today, therefore necessitating a change too radical to happen in any immediate future, at least, through reform, do consider for myself to be an Anarchist. I don't think that a revolution could either be effective or ethical, however, even an ostensibly nonviolent one, and, so, mere advocate the active disengagement from politics as such and creation of a world otherwise, which is a major point of contention within the libertarian Left, as some form of revolution usually plays part and parcel to whatever their particular political philosophy more or less is. I also advocate for an open and pluralistic anti-authoritarian movement, including some Liberals and even Libertarians, which will lead some Anarchists to claim that I'm just a Liberal, but that idea doesn't really differ too much from either Spanish Republicanism or the government created during the Paris Commune. As to how pluralistic participatory democracy can be immediately effectuated and functional, I don't think that it can, which does, in a way, make me not an Anarchist, at least as Anarchism has proceeded from Bakunin, which would be a fine enough charge were it not to be a façade for the issue that some people take with that I am a Pacifist. I, instead think that, though I may still support certain communities, we'll have to somehow transition to a fully-fledged Anarchist society, which, given the rather fanatical bent of Anarchists today, does seem to place me in another school of thought, but has always just been exactly what sensible Anarchist praxis was.

I have always and always will have taken the side of one, Peter Kropotkin. Mikhail Bakunin's "communist anarchism" was a mistake. Anarcho-Communism is the ideologically pure historical Anarchist sect.

My jest aside, you are right to suggest that Bakunin, for what qualms I have with him, had good points to make about political ideologies in general.

My personal gripe is over not being able to get the very simple point as to what I mean to invoke by Anarchism across to anyone when I suggest that I am an Anarchist. Within the movement, it is a faux pas to say that it is "libertarian socialism", out of an appeal to an open plurality which I have argued is somewhat mistaken, as the other parties do not agree to being open or pluralistic. The "abolition of all hierarchy" also doesn't really mean anything in a political context. It just expresses a vague anti-authoritarianism. I do actually think that there ought to arise a broad-based anti-authoritarian movement, but, if I can't, for brevity's sake, say that Anarchism is libertarian socialism than I am not sure as to how it really qualifies as a political philosophy and not just some lifestyle trend.

Fanaticism is a plight of any political philosophy, Anarchism included, despite its defense mechanisms, but you're moreso talking about the caricature of Anarchism, to revel in generalized chaos, which, though it has unfortunately been recuperated to a point of excess, is only so characteristic of the movement in general.

I'm about half of the way through this video. It's very sobering, and refreshingly so.

It's somewhat strange for someone like Rupert Read to echo either ecological pessimist or left-accelerationist arguments that you'll hear from time to time in either Anarchist or Communist circles. Their general line of reasoning is that, in order to salvage the ecology, civilization needs to be so radically transformed that it can only effectively happen after a revolution. Personally, I think that this too is quasi-eschatological, near messianic, and, in all likelihood, completely undesirable, but people within the Left have totally insipid notions of what an actual global revolution would actually be like. What seems to be more reasonable, ethical, and viable is to actively disengage from society as such, salvaging what is good of it that we can, and to just kind of let it all fall apart. In the aftermath of the decline of civilization as we have come to understand it, an alternative and radically new society could hopefully be created. I would imagine a kind of synthesis between Communization, Anarchism, particularly, perhaps, the Libertarian Municipalism of Murray Bookchin, what is still veritable of Liberalism, effectively the oft-lauded rights established by the United Nations, aside from many of what ideals it still retains in tact, participatory and representative democracy, a generalized Pacifism, and, of course, a very practical concern for the environment. It'd effectively be somewhere between an eco-village, the so-called "Commune of communes", a scaled down set of international intra-governmental organizations like the United Nations or the European Union, a somewhat mixed-economy, perhaps, proceeding from the Nordic model, and even, perhaps, a few Libertarian experiments, such as something like micro-nations, so as to retain a certain degree of pluralism, created via a process analogous to the concept put forth in A Thousand Plateaus by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, "deterritorialization/reterritorialization", social disintegration and reintegration unto whatever emergent society could be created. That's an extremely optimistic assessment, though.

On some level, I find for the idea of living to see the end of humanity somewhat liberating. I could move to San Francisco, develop a MDMA habit, a co-dependent relationship with a person who had previously listed their entire Astrological chart on Tinder, start a Shoegaze band and be blissed out for the remainder of my rather troubled youth. If the world is just going to end no matter what anyone does, then, I think that we ought to, at least, celebrate it.

I only watched about half of that video, but, while he does offer what seem to be a lot of reasonable solutions to a projected ecological collapse, he doesn't say too much about what kind of society ought to be created in the wake of the decline of civilization. Though I have qualms with it, namely that either revolution or some form of utopian project are the favored catholicons of the far-Left, aside from that I would love to believe in so-called "green capitalism", I am sort of the line that, in order to prevent ecological collapse, we have to think about how to completely restructure the socio-economic organization of society, which, of course, hazards the inherent dangers of doomsday prophecy and quasi-eschatological cultic utopianism, both of which are quite common in green anarchist circles. What I have put forth, without any jargon, is effectively nonviolent libertarian socialism. As, without the elimination of entire sectors of the global populace en masse, I am extraordinarily doubtful of that a supermajority of the population is going to agree to participate within a socialist society in the coming eras, I do think that a pluralistic syncretic society is not only requisite, but also preferable, as the incorporation of political ideas outside of what I would prefer to tell you flat out is, but will say that I understand as Anarchism will have the effect of providing a certain balance to what would necessarily be an experiment in governance. My political position, however, is entirely absurd, as these ideas have never been seriously considered within either the libertarian Left or intellectual Liberal circles.

Being said, my grand political project isn't terribly related to the anxiety of death or even ecological collapse, though it is a proposed resolution to the crisis. If we are to seriously consider that humanity will someday end, perhaps, within a future that is much nearer than anyone has anticipated, I think that it could be considered as kind of a macrocosmic threshold to the microcosmic fact that life ends in the abyss of death, thereby providing kind of a significance to the lives that we lead here and now. If its all going to end someday, you can forget about your historical legacy and consider living a good life for what brief time it is that you do have it. In so far that we care that others do as well, which I think plays and parcel to good living, I don't have any real concerns with such a philosophy.

There is cross cultural research on such things. And it shows that angst is fairly specific to modern society. You could start with the Catholic Church developing a whole guilt-based economy of social control. — apokrisis

I was moreso just citing examples of common myths that seek to project the life of a ruler or civilization indefinitely. I wasn't really undertaking a serious anthropological inquiry.

You are right, though, that angst is a fairly modern phenomenon. I remember reading a book for a Cultural Anthropology class, The Forest People, which is about the Mbuti, who are commonly called "pygmies", though that is kind of a slur, in the Congo. Because of that most of their culture is transmitted orally, when an old person dies, there will be extraordinary displays of grief, whereas when a young person dies, it's considered as a fairly minor event, which does run somewhat contrary to the preference for human experience that I have put forth.

I don't know. My reaction to your post was one of nostalgia. And then chatteringmonkey said something interesting about decay positivity. My essential point is that the good old existential issue now has both its individual and collective dimensions being sharply felt. And that is an active area for a newly emerging philosophy of generalised societal collapse. It just feels more relevant. — apokrisis

Well, thanks, I guess. There was so much exposition upon the theories of Stan Salthe that, given that I knew nothing of them beforehand, I wasn't entirely sure how to respond.

I think that you make a good critique of cult pathologies that life-affirming philosophies can be prone to by citing the cyber-utopianism particular to Silicon Valley, but wonder if they haven't always hazarded such delusions. There isn't too much of a difference between a transhumanist cybernetic project that seeks to transform consciousness unto an information network and a quest for either a mythic grail or fountain that is thought to be capable of granting whoever drinks from it eternal life. Perhaps angst isn't somehow intrinsic to human nature? It'd be difficult to assess as to what role death played within hunter-gatherer societies. Most cultures have some sort of ritual for the disposing of the bodies of the dead, and, so, I would be willing to posit that death is something that people feel a need to somehow come to terms with is somewhat universal. The celebration of life in spite of death obviously hazards certain delusions of grandeur, but I would argue that such a predicament has existed since there has been so-called "civilization". When you think about some its absurdities, it becomes clear, to me, at least, that they born out of an attempt to make it as if certain people had lived forever. The official name for the Valley of the Kings was "The Great and Majestic Necropolis of the Millions of Years of the Pharaoh, Life, Strength, Health in The West of Thebes". There's a phrase that was coined in ancient China using the highest order of magnitude at the time, "ten thousand years", that was later ascribed to the People's Republic under Chairman Mao. These myths of eternal prosperity, I think, are born out of an incapacity to cope with the reality of death and are much older than any recent Postmodern phenomena. They are definitely indicative of a certain kind of hubris that any life-affirming philosophy hazards, though.

I may or may not watch this hour-long video later, but, it does look fairly interesting. As for how to cope with either environmental or societal collapse or even the end of kind of a lot of life on Earth, that, you are probably correct to suggest that I haven't put quite enough thought into, and, so, I may or may not get back to you on that as well.

She does have the world's most gold medals, and, so, if she wasn't feeling up to the competition for whatever reason, I don't see what the big deal is. Getting the "twisties" isn't some sort of personal triumph, but, were I to be a gymnast, I sure as hell wouldn't be willing to put up that kind of risk should I know that I'm just not feeling up to it. I'm sure that there are some renowned trapeze performers who have nights where they just aren't feeling up to flying through the air. It's probably kind of a bummer to have to know those limits, but it is entirely sensible to.

Same.

I said that I was fine with it in that case. I've been talking about psychologically motivated assisted suicide, quite particularly. I don't think that a psychologist can properly assess that a person is capable of such a decision. I'm fine with moving on from this, though.