4 ms·

OP here, if you're able to separate the act of "look behind the curtain" from the visceral feeling that things can change and you can be the one improving them

by mitko 5y ago

OP here, if you're able to separate the act of "look behind the curtain" from the visceral feeling that things can change and you can be the one improving them - then I'm very happy for you. I personally found it hard to separate the two for many year, and fell in the pattern of unifying them. Cynical outlook has been a helpful protecting mechanism, though no longer as useful, as I'm trying to find and play more win-win games.

jacknews 5y ago
Yes maybe my definition is wrong, I consider myself slightly cynical (I lived to see the excitement of cyberspace turn into Facebook after all), but perhaps I mean skeptical, although to me what you're talking about is more nihilism. There are some things that really don't change, and I guess that can be a source of cynicism. The poor will always be among you, lying politicians, the greedy rich, etc. But I'd argue that isn't cause for inaction, quite the opposite, though I can see nihilists just retreating to their beds in despair.
- mitko 5y ago
  Interesting point about nihilism, appreciate your discussion. I still identify as cynical in many domains, though I don't think of myself as nihilistic as the latter seems more absolute. Re: things that really don't change, I'd say "until they do". Plenty of examples in history where the whole system switches to a different equilibrium point (for example as in "Inadequate Equilibria" book). When I'm referring to cynicism, I'm talking about the difference between the mindset of "these will never change", vs "these are attractor points in the current social system, which all history so far have been used, but the system may have other equilibriums and solutions for which X=`the rich are not greedy`". Hope that's helpful!
  - jacknews 5y ago
    Helpful. The things that don't change I refer to, I really mean human nature, and I really think that doesn't change much. Some people just want to watch the world burn, etc, some people are greedy, narcissistic, lazy, psychotic, etc. The cause for optimism, is that we can change society to better deal with the nature of the beast, bring out the best, and suppress the ugly. There's lots of work to do!
- tekromancr 5y ago
  That is the epitome of fixed-mindset. We live in a world on near limitless abundance. We already live in a potential post-scarcity world. The only reason there are poor among us IS the greedy rich; but the greedy rich isn't some faceless, abstract, unkillable cosmic god. They have names and addresses; what they have can be taken from them as has happened many many times throughout history. Things can change, sometimes slowly, sometimes incredibly quickly. We have seen the impossible become inevitable over and over in the last few decades, and yet it still seems impossible for people to imagine the "impossible". I wonder if there is a name for that sort of fallacious thinking.
  - hoseja 5y ago
    The Norman nobles that were part of William's conquest are still better off, thousand years later.
  - jacknews 5y ago
    Yes, the rich can be stripped. But they'll be replaced by another elite. I think human nature will tend towards some kind of hierarchy. The opportunity is to make the currency of that hierarchy something far above basic needs, IMHO. Perhaps this could be a genuine use-case for cryptocurrencies, so that the ultra wealthy can 'keep score' in maths, rather than mega-yachts, private jets, dark satanic mills, etc.
    - tekromancr 5y ago
      > I think human nature will tend towards some kind of hierarchy Only if you ignore every society that that ever existed without a strict economic hierarchy, sure.
      - jacknews 5y ago
        Please show me a human society with no hierarchy, I do not believe it has ever existed. I consider myself an anarchist, as in, against unnecessary hierarchy, yet I still believe some hierarchy is inevitable, even necessary and desirable.

by mitko 5y ago

jacknews 5y ago

Yes maybe my definition is wrong, I consider myself slightly cynical (I lived to see the excitement of cyberspace turn into Facebook after all), but perhaps I mean skeptical, although to me what you're talking about is more nihilism. There are some things that really don't change, and I guess that can be a source of cynicism. The poor will always be among you, lying politicians, the greedy rich, etc. But I'd argue that isn't cause for inaction, quite the opposite, though I can see nihilists just retreating to their beds in despair.

mitko 5y ago
Interesting point about nihilism, appreciate your discussion. I still identify as cynical in many domains, though I don't think of myself as nihilistic as the latter seems more absolute. Re: things that really don't change, I'd say "until they do". Plenty of examples in history where the whole system switches to a different equilibrium point (for example as in "Inadequate Equilibria" book). When I'm referring to cynicism, I'm talking about the difference between the mindset of "these will never change", vs "these are attractor points in the current social system, which all history so far have been used, but the system may have other equilibriums and solutions for which X=`the rich are not greedy`". Hope that's helpful!
- jacknews 5y ago
  Helpful. The things that don't change I refer to, I really mean human nature, and I really think that doesn't change much. Some people just want to watch the world burn, etc, some people are greedy, narcissistic, lazy, psychotic, etc. The cause for optimism, is that we can change society to better deal with the nature of the beast, bring out the best, and suppress the ugly. There's lots of work to do!
tekromancr 5y ago
That is the epitome of fixed-mindset. We live in a world on near limitless abundance. We already live in a potential post-scarcity world. The only reason there are poor among us IS the greedy rich; but the greedy rich isn't some faceless, abstract, unkillable cosmic god. They have names and addresses; what they have can be taken from them as has happened many many times throughout history. Things can change, sometimes slowly, sometimes incredibly quickly. We have seen the impossible become inevitable over and over in the last few decades, and yet it still seems impossible for people to imagine the "impossible". I wonder if there is a name for that sort of fallacious thinking.
- hoseja 5y ago
  The Norman nobles that were part of William's conquest are still better off, thousand years later.
- jacknews 5y ago
  Yes, the rich can be stripped. But they'll be replaced by another elite. I think human nature will tend towards some kind of hierarchy. The opportunity is to make the currency of that hierarchy something far above basic needs, IMHO. Perhaps this could be a genuine use-case for cryptocurrencies, so that the ultra wealthy can 'keep score' in maths, rather than mega-yachts, private jets, dark satanic mills, etc.
  - tekromancr 5y ago
    > I think human nature will tend towards some kind of hierarchy Only if you ignore every society that that ever existed without a strict economic hierarchy, sure.
    - jacknews 5y ago
      Please show me a human society with no hierarchy, I do not believe it has ever existed. I consider myself an anarchist, as in, against unnecessary hierarchy, yet I still believe some hierarchy is inevitable, even necessary and desirable.