Ive read your model so far and think you have a lot of good ideas. Id be interested in your thoughts on the following:
1. The "classic" ethical conundrum of mechworld is not about how we can value things, but what people can be held responsible for. I think there is fertile ground for hack-analysis here too - the idea that unchosen traits shouldnt matter, and relatedly equality of opportunity, seem to derive from this in some way.
2. Utilitarianism has always been a total theory, no matter how cool-headed and panic-free. It doesnt believe in any action "doing no harm", and accordingly should leave the private realm empty - even absent panics encroaching.
3. I have my doubts about the detethering. If we look over the whole of the panic era, there seems to be a clear direction to the changes in public morality, and much of it was predicted by earlier utopians. This suggests that there is some systematic to the process, even if advocates in the moment are left without rational means
Thanks, I went to read your substack and I see you don't post, only comment. You sound like you have a lot of mature things to say about these topics.
1. I see it as "Mechworld vs Everything Else", where EE broadly and overlappingly includes any sort of value judgment (this tastes better than that, peace is better than war), any sort of moral duty (I should do X, he should do Y), and any sort of supernatural belief. All these EE beliefs now need hacks to shelter them, and the Private, Policy, and Panic chambers are the macro-scale features of the resulting architecture. I'd agree additional hacks could be identified (like unchosen traits not mattering) to flesh out more sub-chambers and filigree on the building.
2. Maybe I'm using "utilitarian" too loosely to mean just any calculation based on PPPH? The Private chamber is created by the NoHarm Hack, where if you don't harm others' PPPH well-being (as opposed to their VSGS eternal salvation) you should be free to optimize your own PPPH, because this toleration optimizes society's overall PPPH. To me, that chain of reasoning feels quite "utilitarian" in at least a loose sense. I guess full systematic utilitarianism would also factor in how people willingly harm themselves, and would be willing to impose a single optimal solution on everyone, so that (as you say) the Private chamber would disappear. If there's a better term for my use of it I'm open to it, and If I've missed your point maybe you could say more?
3. I think Panics are detethered from certain prior moorings, AND drift in certain directions too. The Left Panics revolve around certain themes going back to at least c 1840, like the oppressed minority. The clear direction comes from the fact that within those themes, the goal posts are always being moved on the details. Gay marriage in 2015 is followed by trans bathrooms in 2016. Instead of fixed rules (like the Old Testament's 613 laws), we are dragged across the floor by a fixed thermostat of conflict: a certain minimum temperature of opposition is needed to keep the Panic fire going. As soon as enough people agree on one litmus test of character, the goal posts are moved to the next. No one is "deciding" it, but it happens organically because the themes are what they are, and a certain minimal amount of conflict is needed. Within this general drift, the panics still flail with respect to each other, because principles that used to tether them (like love your enemies) have been privatized. Do you buy this?
2. What you say here captures how people generally think. My point is only that conceptually, the 1.0 version already had the potential to erode private.
3. Generally agree with this. The nature of these themes and trends is one of my interests. I see them a bit more systematic and unified then you.
I would more say that its an exploration of one particular hack breaking down.
I found your theory of Left vs Right interesting because its orthogonal to modern vs reactionary. I think it fits quite well but less so in recent years, though the might just be the realignment people are talking about.
Ive read your model so far and think you have a lot of good ideas. Id be interested in your thoughts on the following:
1. The "classic" ethical conundrum of mechworld is not about how we can value things, but what people can be held responsible for. I think there is fertile ground for hack-analysis here too - the idea that unchosen traits shouldnt matter, and relatedly equality of opportunity, seem to derive from this in some way.
2. Utilitarianism has always been a total theory, no matter how cool-headed and panic-free. It doesnt believe in any action "doing no harm", and accordingly should leave the private realm empty - even absent panics encroaching.
3. I have my doubts about the detethering. If we look over the whole of the panic era, there seems to be a clear direction to the changes in public morality, and much of it was predicted by earlier utopians. This suggests that there is some systematic to the process, even if advocates in the moment are left without rational means
Thanks, I went to read your substack and I see you don't post, only comment. You sound like you have a lot of mature things to say about these topics.
1. I see it as "Mechworld vs Everything Else", where EE broadly and overlappingly includes any sort of value judgment (this tastes better than that, peace is better than war), any sort of moral duty (I should do X, he should do Y), and any sort of supernatural belief. All these EE beliefs now need hacks to shelter them, and the Private, Policy, and Panic chambers are the macro-scale features of the resulting architecture. I'd agree additional hacks could be identified (like unchosen traits not mattering) to flesh out more sub-chambers and filigree on the building.
2. Maybe I'm using "utilitarian" too loosely to mean just any calculation based on PPPH? The Private chamber is created by the NoHarm Hack, where if you don't harm others' PPPH well-being (as opposed to their VSGS eternal salvation) you should be free to optimize your own PPPH, because this toleration optimizes society's overall PPPH. To me, that chain of reasoning feels quite "utilitarian" in at least a loose sense. I guess full systematic utilitarianism would also factor in how people willingly harm themselves, and would be willing to impose a single optimal solution on everyone, so that (as you say) the Private chamber would disappear. If there's a better term for my use of it I'm open to it, and If I've missed your point maybe you could say more?
3. I think Panics are detethered from certain prior moorings, AND drift in certain directions too. The Left Panics revolve around certain themes going back to at least c 1840, like the oppressed minority. The clear direction comes from the fact that within those themes, the goal posts are always being moved on the details. Gay marriage in 2015 is followed by trans bathrooms in 2016. Instead of fixed rules (like the Old Testament's 613 laws), we are dragged across the floor by a fixed thermostat of conflict: a certain minimum temperature of opposition is needed to keep the Panic fire going. As soon as enough people agree on one litmus test of character, the goal posts are moved to the next. No one is "deciding" it, but it happens organically because the themes are what they are, and a certain minimal amount of conflict is needed. Within this general drift, the panics still flail with respect to each other, because principles that used to tether them (like love your enemies) have been privatized. Do you buy this?
I havent been on substack very long, Im thinking about posting. Heres some old writing of mine you might find relevant:
https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/hm1kjn/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_july_06_2020/fxgmddd/
https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/jwj8gm/utilitarianism_two_revealing_20th_century/
https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/fx9fnb/why_wonkism/
2. What you say here captures how people generally think. My point is only that conceptually, the 1.0 version already had the potential to erode private.
3. Generally agree with this. The nature of these themes and trends is one of my interests. I see them a bit more systematic and unified then you.
Your first link describes your theory of Left vs Right. Coincidentally I posted my own theory of that last night, which is descriptive psychological.
I would more say that its an exploration of one particular hack breaking down.
I found your theory of Left vs Right interesting because its orthogonal to modern vs reactionary. I think it fits quite well but less so in recent years, though the might just be the realignment people are talking about.
Tell me when you get your own substack, I'll subscribe.
Thanks, I will.
Have you defined the Six Core Beliefs somewhere?
Yes, in the section 4 table ("core belief" column): https://jurassiclocke.substack.com/i/140626702/hacks-summary
What Trump might call the "big beautiful chart" is in section 11: an attempt to pull it all together: https://jurassiclocke.substack.com/i/140626702/modernity-hacks-schematic