I may be peeking at the end of the book here, but I'm guessing the surprise twist is that the sum of all subjectivities is a kind of decentralised and emergent objectivity? What the lettered and high-minded sought, but could not find, because they wanted to impose it from the top down?
Sort of. I can get down with methodological Hegelianism, but no Absolute Spirit. In other words, it's all an evolutionary process, ceaselessly unfolding. That said, I think good protocols can help generate stable equilibria. Decentralization protocols (forgive my Yankee spelling) are more likely give rise to more antifragile institutions. Bad experiments are not catastrophic, and fail locally. But in terms of the emergent, I'd argue it's niches of emergent inter-subjectivity, where the closest we can get to objectivity are the basic protocols.
Excellent. Also where can I buy the Marx shirt? 😁
Let me refer you to the fashion House of Che and see if they still carry that line.
I may be peeking at the end of the book here, but I'm guessing the surprise twist is that the sum of all subjectivities is a kind of decentralised and emergent objectivity? What the lettered and high-minded sought, but could not find, because they wanted to impose it from the top down?
Sort of. I can get down with methodological Hegelianism, but no Absolute Spirit. In other words, it's all an evolutionary process, ceaselessly unfolding. That said, I think good protocols can help generate stable equilibria. Decentralization protocols (forgive my Yankee spelling) are more likely give rise to more antifragile institutions. Bad experiments are not catastrophic, and fail locally. But in terms of the emergent, I'd argue it's niches of emergent inter-subjectivity, where the closest we can get to objectivity are the basic protocols.
Good stuff! One slight glitch: "If you like my X more than your Y, and I like your Y more than I like <your> X" should be "my X", I think?
Indeed. Thank you!