5 ms·

I have also read Kaczynski. The two main problems are: his notion of freedom, which is too simplistic (almost akin to absence of conditioning) and his rose-col

I have also read Kaczynski. The two main problems are: his notion of freedom, which is too simplistic (almost akin to absence of conditioning) and his rose-colored view of an imaginary past which dis not exist ever (past without technology in which life was a kind of perpetual paradise). Otherwise, the reading is interesting. But being free is something in the heart, as so many mystics of all religions living in labour camps have taught us.

Beltalowda 5y ago
I don't think Kaczynski offers very good solutions; they're unbalanced and far too extreme: he throws out the baby with the bathwater. But I do think he correctly identifies several severe pain points in our society that not enough people are talking about; I think that's the real value of Kaczynski's work. I think it's unfortunate that Kaczynski resorted to such extreme measures to publish his work, which I think has put many people off (not too dissimilar to how the IRA put off many people from the Catholics' rightful cause, or the PLO/Hamas in Palestine, etc.)
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Please, let's not keep up this nutty craziness of crediting a deranged terrorist for ideas that he stole outright from serious anarcho-primitivist theorists and scholars who have never engaged in the slightest sort of politicized violence. It's just disgraceful.
  - klik99 5y ago
    What better way to understand the flaws in the system than understand the gripes of those who were driven truly to the edge? He didn't exist in a vacuum. Most "deranged terrorists" you have to really read between the lines of what they're saying to see how the system failed them, because it's easy to place blame in the wrong places, but he was smart and eloquent (which deranged people can be). Looking at what he got right, what he got wrong, and how he fails at a solution is important - if ignored then people coming to it will see nothing to refute it, just a lot of people avoiding looking at it. In a sense the Unabomber manifesto is a visible symptom of some invisible systemic problems. You don't have to agree with the conclusions to see value in something - heck, I see Marx discussed in republican think tank pieces occasionally because they agree with some parts of his analysis, even if they disagree fundamentally with his proposed solutions.
  - Beltalowda 5y ago
    > ideas that he stole outright Maybe; but I'm not familiar with anyone who has stated the case so well, although he obviously had predecessors as anyone has. Perhaps a failing on my part, but there's probably a reason that his writings have endured in spite of the person. Either way, I think it's a mistake to dismiss ideas merely on account of who either proposed or popularized them. I think the ideas can be divorced from the person. Or more contemporary; personally I think Donald Trump was a horrible president and all-round horrible person. But I also think he occasional said some things where he was actually right, and not everything he did as president was wrong either. Too often do I see people dismiss things merely on account of "Trump saidit!" I understand the sentiment, but you risk not addressing problems merely on account of who brings them to attention, which at best means the problem continues to exist, and at worst ignoring them makes them worse. This can be very dangerous. At any rate, if you know of better authors to read, then please, let us know.
    - i_am_proteus 5y ago
      Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society and Propaganda The interesting bits of Kaczynski's manifesto are a less-well-written rehash of Ellul. Ellul's writing was found in Kaczynski's cabin. People know about Ted and not Jacques because Ted lived in a cabin and killed people, and Jacques was a college professor in France.
      - lariati 5y ago
        I would just add Neil Postman's Technopoly as a much easier read. I have never been able to get through either of those Ellul books and have tried several times. I am not even sure if it is Ellul himself or translated French thought in general I find so painful.
    - davidthewatson 5y ago
      I'd suggest Byung Chul Han. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byung-Chul_Han https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byung-Chul_Han Checkout The Burnout Society, The Disappearance of Rituals, and The Palliative Society. It's difficult to know if the language stems from a "lost in translation" problem, but I enjoy the writing tremendously, especially for its mind-expanding quality. It's like a gateway drug. The writing is aphoristic - like reading an anti-David Foster Wallace - phenomenological minimalist vs. metafiction maximalist but with similar insights and mind-changing impact. It took me several hours to read a 12 page chapter because of the need for lookup, learning, references, and reflection. I'd also read Thomas Szasz, The Second Sin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz Similar to Han, but a generation earlier, his work was influenced by Foucault. Finally, I'd have a look at Kazimierz Dabrowski. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimierz_D%C4%85browski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimierz_D%C4%85browski To me, Dabrowski's positive disintegration plays a significant role in helping to frame the discussion here since "dropping out" can be easily mapped onto one of Dabrowski's levels in the positive disintegration framework. Regardless, the tension between the individual and society plays a significant role in the work of these three authors.
  - Taywee 5y ago
    Please, let's not build the habit of disregarding ideas because we don't like the mouth they come from. If an idea is good it's good, if it's flawed it's flawed. Ideas should be able to stand or fall by their own merit. I'm not going to defend the Unabomber's actions, but I don't agree that we should disregard every thought he ever had because he's a terrorist; that's a cop out and not a convincing one at that. It's also reductive, as the situation with Kaczynski is a hell of a lot more complex than "deranged terrorist". We aren't doing anybody any favors, least of all ourselves, by reducing history and people to the simplest headlines that don't represent any of the nuances of reality.
    - darkerside 5y ago
      When someone is mailing bombs to people, airing their grievances starts to feel like a moral hazard.
      - pfortuny 5y ago
        Just a piece of unsolicited advise: either morality should not be defined by feelings. These are not universal. There are lots of things which feel good but can be bad (like saying yea to a child’s desire) and vice-versa (like saying no to a child’s desire).
        darkerside 5y ago
        Care to expand? I don't think your point really got through here
      - mmmpop 5y ago
        When someone engages in sexual activities with underage people, we then throw out all of their positive contributions to society. OH wait
        darkerside 5y ago
        If they were doing it as a publicity stunt to get their contributions noticed? Then yes, I think there is a good argument for doing so because of moral hazard. Doing otherwise incentivizes undesirable behavior in the other people who have made similar contributions but haven't achieved infamy.

Beltalowda 5y ago

I don't think Kaczynski offers very good solutions; they're unbalanced and far too extreme: he throws out the baby with the bathwater. But I do think he correctly identifies several severe pain points in our society that not enough people are talking about; I think that's the real value of Kaczynski's work. I think it's unfortunate that Kaczynski resorted to such extreme measures to publish his work, which I think has put many people off (not too dissimilar to how the IRA put off many people from the Catholics' rightful cause, or the PLO/Hamas in Palestine, etc.)

zozbot234 5y ago
Please, let's not keep up this nutty craziness of crediting a deranged terrorist for ideas that he stole outright from serious anarcho-primitivist theorists and scholars who have never engaged in the slightest sort of politicized violence. It's just disgraceful.
- klik99 5y ago
  What better way to understand the flaws in the system than understand the gripes of those who were driven truly to the edge? He didn't exist in a vacuum. Most "deranged terrorists" you have to really read between the lines of what they're saying to see how the system failed them, because it's easy to place blame in the wrong places, but he was smart and eloquent (which deranged people can be). Looking at what he got right, what he got wrong, and how he fails at a solution is important - if ignored then people coming to it will see nothing to refute it, just a lot of people avoiding looking at it. In a sense the Unabomber manifesto is a visible symptom of some invisible systemic problems. You don't have to agree with the conclusions to see value in something - heck, I see Marx discussed in republican think tank pieces occasionally because they agree with some parts of his analysis, even if they disagree fundamentally with his proposed solutions.
- Beltalowda 5y ago
  > ideas that he stole outright Maybe; but I'm not familiar with anyone who has stated the case so well, although he obviously had predecessors as anyone has. Perhaps a failing on my part, but there's probably a reason that his writings have endured in spite of the person. Either way, I think it's a mistake to dismiss ideas merely on account of who either proposed or popularized them. I think the ideas can be divorced from the person. Or more contemporary; personally I think Donald Trump was a horrible president and all-round horrible person. But I also think he occasional said some things where he was actually right, and not everything he did as president was wrong either. Too often do I see people dismiss things merely on account of "Trump saidit!" I understand the sentiment, but you risk not addressing problems merely on account of who brings them to attention, which at best means the problem continues to exist, and at worst ignoring them makes them worse. This can be very dangerous. At any rate, if you know of better authors to read, then please, let us know.
  - i_am_proteus 5y ago
    Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society and Propaganda The interesting bits of Kaczynski's manifesto are a less-well-written rehash of Ellul. Ellul's writing was found in Kaczynski's cabin. People know about Ted and not Jacques because Ted lived in a cabin and killed people, and Jacques was a college professor in France.
    - lariati 5y ago
      I would just add Neil Postman's Technopoly as a much easier read. I have never been able to get through either of those Ellul books and have tried several times. I am not even sure if it is Ellul himself or translated French thought in general I find so painful.
  - davidthewatson 5y ago
    I'd suggest Byung Chul Han. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byung-Chul_Han https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byung-Chul_Han Checkout The Burnout Society, The Disappearance of Rituals, and The Palliative Society. It's difficult to know if the language stems from a "lost in translation" problem, but I enjoy the writing tremendously, especially for its mind-expanding quality. It's like a gateway drug. The writing is aphoristic - like reading an anti-David Foster Wallace - phenomenological minimalist vs. metafiction maximalist but with similar insights and mind-changing impact. It took me several hours to read a 12 page chapter because of the need for lookup, learning, references, and reflection. I'd also read Thomas Szasz, The Second Sin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz Similar to Han, but a generation earlier, his work was influenced by Foucault. Finally, I'd have a look at Kazimierz Dabrowski. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimierz_D%C4%85browski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimierz_D%C4%85browski To me, Dabrowski's positive disintegration plays a significant role in helping to frame the discussion here since "dropping out" can be easily mapped onto one of Dabrowski's levels in the positive disintegration framework. Regardless, the tension between the individual and society plays a significant role in the work of these three authors.
- Taywee 5y ago
  Please, let's not build the habit of disregarding ideas because we don't like the mouth they come from. If an idea is good it's good, if it's flawed it's flawed. Ideas should be able to stand or fall by their own merit. I'm not going to defend the Unabomber's actions, but I don't agree that we should disregard every thought he ever had because he's a terrorist; that's a cop out and not a convincing one at that. It's also reductive, as the situation with Kaczynski is a hell of a lot more complex than "deranged terrorist". We aren't doing anybody any favors, least of all ourselves, by reducing history and people to the simplest headlines that don't represent any of the nuances of reality.
  - darkerside 5y ago
    When someone is mailing bombs to people, airing their grievances starts to feel like a moral hazard.
    - pfortuny 5y ago
      Just a piece of unsolicited advise: either morality should not be defined by feelings. These are not universal. There are lots of things which feel good but can be bad (like saying yea to a child’s desire) and vice-versa (like saying no to a child’s desire).
      - darkerside 5y ago
        Care to expand? I don't think your point really got through here
    - mmmpop 5y ago
      When someone engages in sexual activities with underage people, we then throw out all of their positive contributions to society. OH wait
      - darkerside 5y ago
        If they were doing it as a publicity stunt to get their contributions noticed? Then yes, I think there is a good argument for doing so because of moral hazard. Doing otherwise incentivizes undesirable behavior in the other people who have made similar contributions but haven't achieved infamy.