3 ms·

Do people share these values? They are implemented by authority. And some new values are old mistakes that are repeated ad nauseum. Kissing the scepter doesn't

Do people share these values? They are implemented by authority. And some new values are old mistakes that are repeated ad nauseum. Kissing the scepter doesn't mean you love the scepter. Rejection is a strong possibility. Most ideas do die (dei?).

kelseyfrog 4y ago
People share these values. The most dangerous unforced error is to fool oneself that true-believers don't exist. Deciding the because one must be forced to believe universalizes into other's being forced to believe is an empathy gap. If you wish to understand how how these ideas take root, don't fall into the "enemy is strong and weak" trap. Deciding that oneself believes because principles but others believe because they are forced to or are told to is a good way to fight the wrong fight. You cannot simply wield and old value against a new symbolic universe. You either have to derive it in the new universe or create an even newer symbolic universe which probably can't happen yet because the problems with the new symbolic universe have to be realized within itself, not within the old universe. Take free speech as an example. The DEI universe was created as a response to the symbolic universe free speech was forged in. In order to value free speech again, a post-DEI symbolic universe has to be developed as a response to the internal contradictions of the DEI universe - not the contradictions external to it. Trying to maintain a steady state symbolic universe is itself a contradiction - it's simply not possible. Evolve or die.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  There are certainly a lot of true believers. And intellectuals often reflect future changes in society, but I think the ship for DEI has sailed as the ideas from its opposition are on the table as well. Even if inertia creates new initiatives today and tomorrow. And the alternative ideas are more popular among intellectuals. Maybe not academics, but intellectuals.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    It might help to speak of the specific alternatives created as a response to DEI. Would you care to share?
    - raxxorraxor 4y ago
      I believe the set of beliefs associated most often with DEI are weakest with no opposition at all. I believe a lot of it is reactionary. This is why it needs huge media events where people can be outraged. But as far as ideas goes that would be general humanism like color blindness, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association, guilty until proven innocent, equality instead of equity (although a balance here is probably most desirable, DEI tends toward totalitarianism). Maybe DIE isn't opposed to all these values, but it has positioned itself as such. And I believe opposing such values became en vogue by a class of academics to set themselves apart ironically. Although its ideas aren't that new as well.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Sorry, but I think we're talking past each other. My claim is that the values you mentioned(free speech &c.) are derivatives of enlightenment thought whose epistemological basis is objective reality. This appears tautologically true for true-believers within objective reality. The DEI values are derived from an internal contradiction within objective reality which is something like, "How can X,Y,and Z bad things exist when people can [supposedly] embody <the values you've listed>?" That's the contradiction I'm referring to within the symbolic universe of objective reality. This contradiction creates cognitive dissonance that is typically either resolved through individual failings (individualism being another value) or in the case of the avant-garde, substituting the whole or parts of objective reality with an alternative one ie: the subjective one. The big hurdle here seems to be understanding objective reality as itself a totalizing and reified instantiation of a particular symbolic universe. It's something that's difficult to explain through text, but a glancing shot might be to examine the contradiction at the horizon of objective reality, namely that the displacement of a subjective reality by objective reality's totalizing nature precludes the values that objective reality contains, specifically "the individual's freedom to choose one's reality." In a universe where individuals are free to choose anything, not being able to choose subjective reality feels like the universe singing a version of Meatloaf's ballad on repeat[1]. I can't help but point out that the values you've mentioned (to me) aren't a response to DEI, but what DEI is responding to. The way I know this is that they predate DEI. Values that are a response to DEI cannot predate DEI. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27d_Do_Anything_for_Love_(But_I_Won%27t_Do_That) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27d_Do_Anything_for_Love_(Bu...

kelseyfrog 4y ago

People share these values. The most dangerous unforced error is to fool oneself that true-believers don't exist. Deciding the because one must be forced to believe universalizes into other's being forced to believe is an empathy gap. If you wish to understand how how these ideas take root, don't fall into the "enemy is strong and weak" trap. Deciding that oneself believes because principles but others believe because they are forced to or are told to is a good way to fight the wrong fight. You cannot simply wield and old value against a new symbolic universe. You either have to derive it in the new universe or create an even newer symbolic universe which probably can't happen yet because the problems with the new symbolic universe have to be realized within itself, not within the old universe. Take free speech as an example. The DEI universe was created as a response to the symbolic universe free speech was forged in. In order to value free speech again, a post-DEI symbolic universe has to be developed as a response to the internal contradictions of the DEI universe - not the contradictions external to it. Trying to maintain a steady state symbolic universe is itself a contradiction - it's simply not possible. Evolve or die.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
There are certainly a lot of true believers. And intellectuals often reflect future changes in society, but I think the ship for DEI has sailed as the ideas from its opposition are on the table as well. Even if inertia creates new initiatives today and tomorrow. And the alternative ideas are more popular among intellectuals. Maybe not academics, but intellectuals.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  It might help to speak of the specific alternatives created as a response to DEI. Would you care to share?
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    I believe the set of beliefs associated most often with DEI are weakest with no opposition at all. I believe a lot of it is reactionary. This is why it needs huge media events where people can be outraged. But as far as ideas goes that would be general humanism like color blindness, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association, guilty until proven innocent, equality instead of equity (although a balance here is probably most desirable, DEI tends toward totalitarianism). Maybe DIE isn't opposed to all these values, but it has positioned itself as such. And I believe opposing such values became en vogue by a class of academics to set themselves apart ironically. Although its ideas aren't that new as well.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Sorry, but I think we're talking past each other. My claim is that the values you mentioned(free speech &c.) are derivatives of enlightenment thought whose epistemological basis is objective reality. This appears tautologically true for true-believers within objective reality. The DEI values are derived from an internal contradiction within objective reality which is something like, "How can X,Y,and Z bad things exist when people can [supposedly] embody <the values you've listed>?" That's the contradiction I'm referring to within the symbolic universe of objective reality. This contradiction creates cognitive dissonance that is typically either resolved through individual failings (individualism being another value) or in the case of the avant-garde, substituting the whole or parts of objective reality with an alternative one ie: the subjective one. The big hurdle here seems to be understanding objective reality as itself a totalizing and reified instantiation of a particular symbolic universe. It's something that's difficult to explain through text, but a glancing shot might be to examine the contradiction at the horizon of objective reality, namely that the displacement of a subjective reality by objective reality's totalizing nature precludes the values that objective reality contains, specifically "the individual's freedom to choose one's reality." In a universe where individuals are free to choose anything, not being able to choose subjective reality feels like the universe singing a version of Meatloaf's ballad on repeat[1]. I can't help but point out that the values you've mentioned (to me) aren't a response to DEI, but what DEI is responding to. The way I know this is that they predate DEI. Values that are a response to DEI cannot predate DEI. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27d_Do_Anything_for_Love_(But_I_Won%27t_Do_That) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27d_Do_Anything_for_Love_(Bu...