Post by Westernman (INTP) on Aug 25, 2018 21:57:31 GMT
As someone who has not endeavoured to research organisational structures in depth in the past, what I put forth here is shooting from the proverbial hip. I have included thoughts on the nature of organisation, a brief look at organisation amongst the alt right, and then more broadly what ultimate goal we need to inspire production.
What is organisation? What are the perennial factors around which men coalesce and organisations manifest? If we take organisational structure to be the combined wills of men toward a certain shared goal or vision, then surely an optimal structure will allow for the full discharge of a person's talents in the most suitable domain for the flourishing of ability, in turn harnessed for the good of the organisations vision. This would entail the appointment of the member to a fitting field.
The direction of the organisation can be conveyed as its mission, the ultimate meaning of the exercise. The mission informs and identifies the necessary actions as the organisation moves for this telos. The assorted actions become the functioning of the organisation which should in turn reflect the will and interests of members in accordance with their level of enfranchisement. Allowing for a multiplicity of functions is the way to getting consistent production by engendering engagement via the offering of multiple intellectual avenues and interests. Putting a magnifying lens on a sole topic for extended periods of time can pay off through thorough in depth analysis, but can also have engagement between member and organisation deteriorate if one is not engrossed in the allotted topic of research. Speciation will allow sufficient intellectual breathing space over time. The pit falls of splintering will be mediated by a strong executive function that will maintain the overarching goal of the project and intervene when functions deviate too far from the initial telos. The executive will be seeking harmony between members, function and mission.
Long term tending to members will have to take into account the psychological relationship between member and organisation. One of the main goals of an organisation, and organisations writ large, is to attain self-identification of the individual with their organisation. Highly Intelligent workers never want to merely "work" for an organisation, they want to identify with it and to belong. This can be seen in Google headquarters where people are drawn to its cult like aura and will sleep rough in the car park for opportunity of employment there as a noogler bugman. Perhaps we should seek such identification(more authntic than Google of course) through more specific branding, more parochial than perennialist, alt right, Christian, etc. I believed we were at least on the right track with 'deepright'. A certain level of iconography should be played around with. Symbols are one the many phenomena that men will coalesce around.
In a more primal sense men coalese around leaders, through an intuition of competence and power that is innate and pre rational. Take the alt right for instance. Whether it deserves an ontological status of organisation is dubious, but for the purposes of examination here, we will treat it as such. There are many camps within that advocate for different approaches to leadership and structure in general. What we have seen over the last two years in Spencer, is the emergence of a de facto leader of the alt right sphere. How he got this position, whether you think it was through media endorsement, personal drive and charisma, by a certain natural right as coiner of the term alt right, or through narcissistic tendencies, is something we can put on the backburner momentarily. The salient point is the emergence of a figure head from what was initially conceived as an eclectic mix of disaffected rightists who were formulating an alternative to Conservatism.inc. This process seems to have happened naturally, regardless of the dissenting voices who would have the movement remain anonymous, leaderless, and abiding by the rules of fourth generation warfare.
Before Spencer took the mantle and forged the alt rights public perception in his image, there had been a previous tacit agreement among its members that the structure would maintain a decentralised form and that all intellectual and monetary resources would not be funnelled into one organisation or person who claimed to represent the whole of the movement. This allowed for diversification and a big tent strategy to develop, which harboured everything from dailystormer trolls to Occidental observer phd's. There was not, however, a tacit agreement on avoidance of street activism and physical conflict as we have sadly seen in the fateful events of last August. In this sense the Altright was a victim of its decentralised structure which could not prevent members from being goaded onto the streets, attacked and doxed.
Attempts to centralise came initially at 'hailgate' and continued through accumulation of content under the flagship website sporting the brand name, Altright.com. This endeavour of consolidation however, failed to result in a more anti-fragile coherent organisation. Even concrete institutions like NPI seem to be failing him as viable platforms, which seems to have spurred him to tinkering with ideology rather than organisation. Spencer has recently gone on record as saying that not enough emphasis has been put on the 'alt' in 'alt right', and that the 'right' is the subsidiary element in the term. What he puts forth here is in essence deviating from his initial ideology of white identitarianism which he thinks as a standalone ideology has metastasised and may not retain enough political vitality to push the alt right over the hump and into the halls of power. Perhaps here he is hinting at a willingness to play the liberal power politics game of alliance between the upper and lower stratums of society, or perhaps not. The point is that by grabbing the altright and leading them into new intellectual pastures where the emphasis on the 'right' may be relaxed, we can see that this decentralised movement will eventually be centralised as such through the will of an emerging charismatic figurehead. If Spencer is successful he becomes the sovereign, in Carl Schmidt's usage of the term, by deciding the exception, in this case the fall away from a singular white identitarian ideology to allow for a political dualism. Ultimately I think we should avoid the confusion of ledership and organisation that the alt right has gone through.
But putting the significance of organisational leaders aside, what is the most primal cause for a strong, anti-fragile organisation? What exactly should we coalesce around? I will quote my post on Monday's entry:
"I think we could distill our aims here to Ken's elucidation of "a scholarly and academic organization to discover a powerful metaphysic as the basis for a world altering religion". The seed planted at the dawn of every great civilization is a new religious impulse, a unique metaphysical lens for the eyes of burgeoning population. The call for a 'Svalbard readiness' is apt in more ways than a mere call for communal organisation. A 'svalbard readiness' is what drove Christian monks to Iona and Skellig Michael while the continent descended into chaos. Peripheral Christian settlements like these acted as culture dishes from which a more resilient Christianity grew. From humble beginnings in uncertain times, decisions made by a negligible number of dedicated men can make profound changes to the religious structure of a people and thus its racial character over time."
To Spengler post for a moment; Civilisation is cyclical. It doesn't take a genius to perceive that we are in an epoch of dissolution where tradition is falling away, chased into redundancy by rationalism, liberal outlooks on life and general pervasive nihilism. Spengler recognized and proclaimed that each civilisation will have the tectonic shift away from the religious world picture of culture man to the corrosive rationalism of the late civilisation phase. And this skeptic, rationalist proclivity is indeed corrosive. There is no ingenuity, no creativity in the skeptic. He comes on the world stage and dissolves all that has been built before him by religious impulse and metaphysical systems. His very rationalism is dependent on philosophy which in turn bloomed from a theology of sorts. However, as a cyclical reading of history conveys, after such dissolution there will be a new religious dawn. This is what we should keep one eye on, sowing the seeds of a metaphysical/religious system that may not come to fruition in our lifetimes. We can achieve this through an online academic endeavor which will take form through trial and error while following this ultimate vision. A lofty goal indeed, but what else would prove an adequate motivator?
As for voting systems I am in favour of Ken's for simplicity.
Though I will review Aarvoll's again when I have time.
What is organisation? What are the perennial factors around which men coalesce and organisations manifest? If we take organisational structure to be the combined wills of men toward a certain shared goal or vision, then surely an optimal structure will allow for the full discharge of a person's talents in the most suitable domain for the flourishing of ability, in turn harnessed for the good of the organisations vision. This would entail the appointment of the member to a fitting field.
The direction of the organisation can be conveyed as its mission, the ultimate meaning of the exercise. The mission informs and identifies the necessary actions as the organisation moves for this telos. The assorted actions become the functioning of the organisation which should in turn reflect the will and interests of members in accordance with their level of enfranchisement. Allowing for a multiplicity of functions is the way to getting consistent production by engendering engagement via the offering of multiple intellectual avenues and interests. Putting a magnifying lens on a sole topic for extended periods of time can pay off through thorough in depth analysis, but can also have engagement between member and organisation deteriorate if one is not engrossed in the allotted topic of research. Speciation will allow sufficient intellectual breathing space over time. The pit falls of splintering will be mediated by a strong executive function that will maintain the overarching goal of the project and intervene when functions deviate too far from the initial telos. The executive will be seeking harmony between members, function and mission.
Long term tending to members will have to take into account the psychological relationship between member and organisation. One of the main goals of an organisation, and organisations writ large, is to attain self-identification of the individual with their organisation. Highly Intelligent workers never want to merely "work" for an organisation, they want to identify with it and to belong. This can be seen in Google headquarters where people are drawn to its cult like aura and will sleep rough in the car park for opportunity of employment there as a noogler bugman. Perhaps we should seek such identification(more authntic than Google of course) through more specific branding, more parochial than perennialist, alt right, Christian, etc. I believed we were at least on the right track with 'deepright'. A certain level of iconography should be played around with. Symbols are one the many phenomena that men will coalesce around.
In a more primal sense men coalese around leaders, through an intuition of competence and power that is innate and pre rational. Take the alt right for instance. Whether it deserves an ontological status of organisation is dubious, but for the purposes of examination here, we will treat it as such. There are many camps within that advocate for different approaches to leadership and structure in general. What we have seen over the last two years in Spencer, is the emergence of a de facto leader of the alt right sphere. How he got this position, whether you think it was through media endorsement, personal drive and charisma, by a certain natural right as coiner of the term alt right, or through narcissistic tendencies, is something we can put on the backburner momentarily. The salient point is the emergence of a figure head from what was initially conceived as an eclectic mix of disaffected rightists who were formulating an alternative to Conservatism.inc. This process seems to have happened naturally, regardless of the dissenting voices who would have the movement remain anonymous, leaderless, and abiding by the rules of fourth generation warfare.
Before Spencer took the mantle and forged the alt rights public perception in his image, there had been a previous tacit agreement among its members that the structure would maintain a decentralised form and that all intellectual and monetary resources would not be funnelled into one organisation or person who claimed to represent the whole of the movement. This allowed for diversification and a big tent strategy to develop, which harboured everything from dailystormer trolls to Occidental observer phd's. There was not, however, a tacit agreement on avoidance of street activism and physical conflict as we have sadly seen in the fateful events of last August. In this sense the Altright was a victim of its decentralised structure which could not prevent members from being goaded onto the streets, attacked and doxed.
Attempts to centralise came initially at 'hailgate' and continued through accumulation of content under the flagship website sporting the brand name, Altright.com. This endeavour of consolidation however, failed to result in a more anti-fragile coherent organisation. Even concrete institutions like NPI seem to be failing him as viable platforms, which seems to have spurred him to tinkering with ideology rather than organisation. Spencer has recently gone on record as saying that not enough emphasis has been put on the 'alt' in 'alt right', and that the 'right' is the subsidiary element in the term. What he puts forth here is in essence deviating from his initial ideology of white identitarianism which he thinks as a standalone ideology has metastasised and may not retain enough political vitality to push the alt right over the hump and into the halls of power. Perhaps here he is hinting at a willingness to play the liberal power politics game of alliance between the upper and lower stratums of society, or perhaps not. The point is that by grabbing the altright and leading them into new intellectual pastures where the emphasis on the 'right' may be relaxed, we can see that this decentralised movement will eventually be centralised as such through the will of an emerging charismatic figurehead. If Spencer is successful he becomes the sovereign, in Carl Schmidt's usage of the term, by deciding the exception, in this case the fall away from a singular white identitarian ideology to allow for a political dualism. Ultimately I think we should avoid the confusion of ledership and organisation that the alt right has gone through.
But putting the significance of organisational leaders aside, what is the most primal cause for a strong, anti-fragile organisation? What exactly should we coalesce around? I will quote my post on Monday's entry:
"I think we could distill our aims here to Ken's elucidation of "a scholarly and academic organization to discover a powerful metaphysic as the basis for a world altering religion". The seed planted at the dawn of every great civilization is a new religious impulse, a unique metaphysical lens for the eyes of burgeoning population. The call for a 'Svalbard readiness' is apt in more ways than a mere call for communal organisation. A 'svalbard readiness' is what drove Christian monks to Iona and Skellig Michael while the continent descended into chaos. Peripheral Christian settlements like these acted as culture dishes from which a more resilient Christianity grew. From humble beginnings in uncertain times, decisions made by a negligible number of dedicated men can make profound changes to the religious structure of a people and thus its racial character over time."
To Spengler post for a moment; Civilisation is cyclical. It doesn't take a genius to perceive that we are in an epoch of dissolution where tradition is falling away, chased into redundancy by rationalism, liberal outlooks on life and general pervasive nihilism. Spengler recognized and proclaimed that each civilisation will have the tectonic shift away from the religious world picture of culture man to the corrosive rationalism of the late civilisation phase. And this skeptic, rationalist proclivity is indeed corrosive. There is no ingenuity, no creativity in the skeptic. He comes on the world stage and dissolves all that has been built before him by religious impulse and metaphysical systems. His very rationalism is dependent on philosophy which in turn bloomed from a theology of sorts. However, as a cyclical reading of history conveys, after such dissolution there will be a new religious dawn. This is what we should keep one eye on, sowing the seeds of a metaphysical/religious system that may not come to fruition in our lifetimes. We can achieve this through an online academic endeavor which will take form through trial and error while following this ultimate vision. A lofty goal indeed, but what else would prove an adequate motivator?
As for voting systems I am in favour of Ken's for simplicity.
Though I will review Aarvoll's again when I have time.