Post by aarvoll (INTJ) on Aug 22, 2018 21:01:35 GMT
Our enterprise currently has a dual aspect. Both the architectonics of organization and the art of organization, i.e. the theoretical and the practical, are now being engaged by all of us contributing to this exercise. Theory and practice are somewhat inextricable in this context. In expressing a theoretical notion in this forum we each exert an organizational force, since regardless of whether our proposals are implemented each of us does shape, to some extent, our collective mode of conception of the topic. At a deeper level all of our theoretical statements here are practical contributions to an underlying empirical phenomena- namely the sum of the modifications to each of our action brought about by our involvement in this experiment. Our social action is generated from a pre-rational ground, and our theorizing about the dynamics of organization within social bodies can be seen as an attempt to catch up with ourselves in terms of our ability to communicate the underlying dynamics of our praxis.
Nassim Taleb constantly undercuts the value of theory vis-a-vis practice, and it would seem that theory is indeed subsidiary to practice since it’s possible to have practice without theory (animal behavior) but not theory without practice. Practice is subject to evolutionary pressures, so practices that end up being maintained (cultural heuristics) are anti-fragile, meaning that they respond positively to volatility. Theories are fragile, they depend on long chains of reasoning and a large set of concepts; the more complex the theory, the greater the odds of conceptual conflation or a misstep in logic, and the greater the odds of falsification (theories don’t respond well to volatility). The long chain of developing operational heuristics is undisturbed by theoretical revolutions. Paradigms of rationalization come and go in medicine, but the work of the practicing physician, as a constantly developing art, carries on all the same. When our practice is built off of a single theory our organization is fragile.
The moral to extract here is that our organizational theory needs to constantly give priority to practice. We want to minimize the opacity of our theory and encourage it to become transparent to underlying praxis. If we were studying a static system then theory would have a chance to crystalize, but since even theoretical propositions in this context disrupt their empirical subject matter the dynamism and inherent volatility of the paradigm forces us into a pragmatic approach to theory, i.e. theory as a tool operant within an evolutionary system. Our attitude toward theoretical innovation should be as toward a novel practice which may or may not stand up to selection (that selection is a mix of artificial and natural, we partly decide what practices continue through our agency, but the practice also needs to survive in an unconscious collective psychic ecosystem - and we don’t know exactly what selective pressures are at work there). Of course even when we don’t seek to innovate, but merely to emulate established convention, we don’t know ahead of time which historical modes of collective effort are applicable to our context, which implies that we should diversify our portfolio of already theoretically established practices. Some practices (both innovative and emulative) will fail, some will succeed, and we need to be in a position where the downside of failure is small compared to the upside of success. That raises the question of the measure of success in this context, and from our present vantage point it seems to me that the baseline of success must be the continuance of this process as a whole. When a practice fails it will mean some wasted effort (though failed experiments aren’t really wasted in that they help us to rule out possibilities), whereas when a practice succeeds it not only keeps us in the game, but also enhances or expands it. This asymmetry of upside and downside outcomes is not automatic however, evidenced by the fact that many social experiments online have quickly come and gone. The trick to building anti-fragility in our model is a strategy of bar-belling.
Bar-belling is the practice of concentrating some effort on very low risk strategies (80%) and some effort on very high risk strategies (20%). In our circles we might look at the TRS strategy as low risk, where comrades hug-box on comfortable issues, producing an emotional dependence that keeps traffic flowing to the site. The high risk strategy would be the Ryan Faulk strategy (or at least what it used to be), constantly pushing out ahead of the base, challenging comfortable notions and potentially having an enormous impact. Only a genius can make a career out of only the high-risk, since you have to basically always get it right to stay in the game. No single media outlet could emulate Ryan Faulk- they would alienate most of their audience at some point and go out of business. A media ecosystem, on the other hand, can adopt an anti-fragile strategy of majority investment in conservative (in an apolitical sense) outlets, with marginal investment in “high-exposure” progressive outlets. That creates an evolutionary paradigm wherein the media conglomerate doesn’t get killed by its high risk losses and when those risks pay off adaptive strategies can then be reabsorbed and increase the fitness of the low risk enterprises.
Applying this to our efforts means identifying those practices which maintain continued interest. Those practices will relate to sociality and to intellectual stimulation. Since some of us will not remain interested in theories of organization for long we may need a parallel schedule of events, albeit semi-determined by our organizational work, allowing greater freedom of thought and self expression. All of us have very interesting ideas and we want our opportunity to be heard, and just as importantly to receive feedback. My suggestion would be to create a parallel daily schedule of non-organizational posts— allowing for the possibility of opting into both activities. The same system of ranking would continue for those proposing organizational amendments (though we may add the institutional weight mechanism mentioned by Ken this week), and a parallel selection process, operating according to the same ranking system for now to keep it simple, would decide on a favorite intellectual contribution (org posters rank in the org schedule non-org posters rank in the non-org schedule- again participation in both is possible). The highest rated non-organizational post would then be pinned somewhere visible on the main page of the forum. These “winning” posts could easily be converted into a collective blog maintained on a separate site, which would have the added benefit of advertisement for our endeavors here.
When numbers allow we should separate academic posts by category. 7 contributors to organization and 7 contributors to each academic category. When more than 7 people want involvement the organizing schedule we can select based on ranking from their other academic involvement. If more than 7 people want involvement in a given academic category, we can speciate that category into sub-disciplines. The week's organizer will have to be responsible for collecting roll call for involvement in categories, posting an explanatory guide for involvement on the main page, and determining sub-disciplines based on feedback from contributors.
Also, we will be more likely to survive if we also engage in informal communication. I would propose two venues: 1. A weekly group voice chat (optional) 2. A randomly assigned rotating weekly interlocutor- the idea would be to require one conversation, text or voice, per week with whomever you are matched.
Lastly, as every conspiracy requires shared goals I’ll briefly outline the sequence of goals I personally have in mind: functioning online academy -> physical academy with media outlets (publishing, radio, video, etc) -> physical community growing around the academy with industries and a selective filter for recruitment-> a culture and religious conception crystallizing (eugenic laws determined)-> a network of communities sharing that culture that is anti-fragile to civilizational collapse -> a new civilization -> a new world order -> space stuff.
And I’ll post my “communications network” slides here, that I designed for a separate group.
hierarchy slides.pdf (66.01 KB)
Nassim Taleb constantly undercuts the value of theory vis-a-vis practice, and it would seem that theory is indeed subsidiary to practice since it’s possible to have practice without theory (animal behavior) but not theory without practice. Practice is subject to evolutionary pressures, so practices that end up being maintained (cultural heuristics) are anti-fragile, meaning that they respond positively to volatility. Theories are fragile, they depend on long chains of reasoning and a large set of concepts; the more complex the theory, the greater the odds of conceptual conflation or a misstep in logic, and the greater the odds of falsification (theories don’t respond well to volatility). The long chain of developing operational heuristics is undisturbed by theoretical revolutions. Paradigms of rationalization come and go in medicine, but the work of the practicing physician, as a constantly developing art, carries on all the same. When our practice is built off of a single theory our organization is fragile.
The moral to extract here is that our organizational theory needs to constantly give priority to practice. We want to minimize the opacity of our theory and encourage it to become transparent to underlying praxis. If we were studying a static system then theory would have a chance to crystalize, but since even theoretical propositions in this context disrupt their empirical subject matter the dynamism and inherent volatility of the paradigm forces us into a pragmatic approach to theory, i.e. theory as a tool operant within an evolutionary system. Our attitude toward theoretical innovation should be as toward a novel practice which may or may not stand up to selection (that selection is a mix of artificial and natural, we partly decide what practices continue through our agency, but the practice also needs to survive in an unconscious collective psychic ecosystem - and we don’t know exactly what selective pressures are at work there). Of course even when we don’t seek to innovate, but merely to emulate established convention, we don’t know ahead of time which historical modes of collective effort are applicable to our context, which implies that we should diversify our portfolio of already theoretically established practices. Some practices (both innovative and emulative) will fail, some will succeed, and we need to be in a position where the downside of failure is small compared to the upside of success. That raises the question of the measure of success in this context, and from our present vantage point it seems to me that the baseline of success must be the continuance of this process as a whole. When a practice fails it will mean some wasted effort (though failed experiments aren’t really wasted in that they help us to rule out possibilities), whereas when a practice succeeds it not only keeps us in the game, but also enhances or expands it. This asymmetry of upside and downside outcomes is not automatic however, evidenced by the fact that many social experiments online have quickly come and gone. The trick to building anti-fragility in our model is a strategy of bar-belling.
Bar-belling is the practice of concentrating some effort on very low risk strategies (80%) and some effort on very high risk strategies (20%). In our circles we might look at the TRS strategy as low risk, where comrades hug-box on comfortable issues, producing an emotional dependence that keeps traffic flowing to the site. The high risk strategy would be the Ryan Faulk strategy (or at least what it used to be), constantly pushing out ahead of the base, challenging comfortable notions and potentially having an enormous impact. Only a genius can make a career out of only the high-risk, since you have to basically always get it right to stay in the game. No single media outlet could emulate Ryan Faulk- they would alienate most of their audience at some point and go out of business. A media ecosystem, on the other hand, can adopt an anti-fragile strategy of majority investment in conservative (in an apolitical sense) outlets, with marginal investment in “high-exposure” progressive outlets. That creates an evolutionary paradigm wherein the media conglomerate doesn’t get killed by its high risk losses and when those risks pay off adaptive strategies can then be reabsorbed and increase the fitness of the low risk enterprises.
Applying this to our efforts means identifying those practices which maintain continued interest. Those practices will relate to sociality and to intellectual stimulation. Since some of us will not remain interested in theories of organization for long we may need a parallel schedule of events, albeit semi-determined by our organizational work, allowing greater freedom of thought and self expression. All of us have very interesting ideas and we want our opportunity to be heard, and just as importantly to receive feedback. My suggestion would be to create a parallel daily schedule of non-organizational posts— allowing for the possibility of opting into both activities. The same system of ranking would continue for those proposing organizational amendments (though we may add the institutional weight mechanism mentioned by Ken this week), and a parallel selection process, operating according to the same ranking system for now to keep it simple, would decide on a favorite intellectual contribution (org posters rank in the org schedule non-org posters rank in the non-org schedule- again participation in both is possible). The highest rated non-organizational post would then be pinned somewhere visible on the main page of the forum. These “winning” posts could easily be converted into a collective blog maintained on a separate site, which would have the added benefit of advertisement for our endeavors here.
When numbers allow we should separate academic posts by category. 7 contributors to organization and 7 contributors to each academic category. When more than 7 people want involvement the organizing schedule we can select based on ranking from their other academic involvement. If more than 7 people want involvement in a given academic category, we can speciate that category into sub-disciplines. The week's organizer will have to be responsible for collecting roll call for involvement in categories, posting an explanatory guide for involvement on the main page, and determining sub-disciplines based on feedback from contributors.
Also, we will be more likely to survive if we also engage in informal communication. I would propose two venues: 1. A weekly group voice chat (optional) 2. A randomly assigned rotating weekly interlocutor- the idea would be to require one conversation, text or voice, per week with whomever you are matched.
Lastly, as every conspiracy requires shared goals I’ll briefly outline the sequence of goals I personally have in mind: functioning online academy -> physical academy with media outlets (publishing, radio, video, etc) -> physical community growing around the academy with industries and a selective filter for recruitment-> a culture and religious conception crystallizing (eugenic laws determined)-> a network of communities sharing that culture that is anti-fragile to civilizational collapse -> a new civilization -> a new world order -> space stuff.
And I’ll post my “communications network” slides here, that I designed for a separate group.
hierarchy slides.pdf (66.01 KB)