“ those working on catalyzing network states have to be more explicit, more aesthetic, and more evangelistic in relating a moral core.”
As you know, I am intently focused on the moral/philosophical principles that justify our desire for network states and other new types of polities. Interestingly, though, I am sometimes admonished that moral/philosophical principles are precisely what people DON’T want. Most people, I am told, want something more ‘concrete.’
I do not believe this is true, at least not to the degree they say. But I still must acknowledge the fact that they say it.
I am aware. In fact, I am kind of among them. People just don't want to be moralized to, say, bludgeoned with the NAP. Yet I can't help but think that there is a difference between moralizing and expressing something compelling that draws people in. Instead of "You ought to believe x, y, z." It's more like "We believe a, b, c., and our shared commitments to a, b, and c are the seeds of a renaissance. Come be a part of it."
There is no doubt that it's irritating when people moralize. And an ideology can't be based on victimhood, antipathy, or some great boogeyman (such as "the State" or "systemic racism" or "The Patriarchy"). But I still think people are starved for a shared vision, moral teaching, and a vector to pursue meaning--particularly after they watched a generation grow up to become incoherent activists and narcissistic relativists with no work ethic and no sense of self-possession. Yet I don't have all the answers. If I did I'd be rich and leading my own cult. Instead, I'm floundering about here, experimenting with different modes to compete for attention--which is the world's most precious resource now, apparently.
Oh, something did occur to me while cleaning up our post-Christmas kitchen disaster area…
One of the big takeaways I took away from Hoffer’s “The True Believer” is how important a feeling of HOPE is to a movement. Hope is a much more potent elixir than anger.
America when it was founded had a code, a constitution, and Bill of Rights. It was one nation under God, which gave it a heart, per say.
If Network States are digital countries, as Balaji likes to say, then shouldn't they also have a code? One that is able to be changed, say, by the people? Maybe via a new system of sorts? One that could harness the wisdom of the entire Network?
“ those working on catalyzing network states have to be more explicit, more aesthetic, and more evangelistic in relating a moral core.”
As you know, I am intently focused on the moral/philosophical principles that justify our desire for network states and other new types of polities. Interestingly, though, I am sometimes admonished that moral/philosophical principles are precisely what people DON’T want. Most people, I am told, want something more ‘concrete.’
I do not believe this is true, at least not to the degree they say. But I still must acknowledge the fact that they say it.
Thoughts?
I am aware. In fact, I am kind of among them. People just don't want to be moralized to, say, bludgeoned with the NAP. Yet I can't help but think that there is a difference between moralizing and expressing something compelling that draws people in. Instead of "You ought to believe x, y, z." It's more like "We believe a, b, c., and our shared commitments to a, b, and c are the seeds of a renaissance. Come be a part of it."
There is no doubt that it's irritating when people moralize. And an ideology can't be based on victimhood, antipathy, or some great boogeyman (such as "the State" or "systemic racism" or "The Patriarchy"). But I still think people are starved for a shared vision, moral teaching, and a vector to pursue meaning--particularly after they watched a generation grow up to become incoherent activists and narcissistic relativists with no work ethic and no sense of self-possession. Yet I don't have all the answers. If I did I'd be rich and leading my own cult. Instead, I'm floundering about here, experimenting with different modes to compete for attention--which is the world's most precious resource now, apparently.
We are going to crack this code, hermano. I swear we are!
Oh, something did occur to me while cleaning up our post-Christmas kitchen disaster area…
One of the big takeaways I took away from Hoffer’s “The True Believer” is how important a feeling of HOPE is to a movement. Hope is a much more potent elixir than anger.
Beautiful.
America when it was founded had a code, a constitution, and Bill of Rights. It was one nation under God, which gave it a heart, per say.
If Network States are digital countries, as Balaji likes to say, then shouldn't they also have a code? One that is able to be changed, say, by the people? Maybe via a new system of sorts? One that could harness the wisdom of the entire Network?
Good stuff.
-Josh, SOPS