People like Noam Chomsky get great fame doing bad epistomology about
who has power, and as a result do great harm to idealistic nerds who
don’t read between the lines to selectively target their attacks at weak
institutions (Exxon, Pentagon) instead of strong ones (State, academica
incl. MIT).
This, in a nutshell, is the fundamental problem with the NRx view of
power. Exxon, the Pentagon, the State Department and academia aren’t
opposed to each other at all. As institutions, they may have differing
goals and priorities, even conflicting at times, but they’re
fundamentally concerned with preserving and managing the present state
of things.
You’re certainly not wrong about the concerns of the noted institutions, but the fundamental problem with the NRx view of power is that it’s not based on anything other than vague feelings (which are then rationalized after the fact by cherry-picking examples).
It’s not that they’ve *incorrectly* analyzed things, they simply aren’t bothering and don’t care to.
I can't fucking imagine how you could conclude that academic institutions are a bigger center of power than the fucking Pentagon, which is one of the major funders of several entire fields of academia. It's incoherent nonsense.
Moldbug analysis of power is a simple boolean state (If win is true). Which to me usually shows a sign of shallow thinking.
In hindsight calling Assange a winner is a bit sad of course.
If your worldview has the underdog somehow systematically beating the
overdog, your epistemology is simply wrong
I don’t think “epistemology” means what you think it means. Maybe you
should have read the big fat sociology book that somewhat conclusively
answers the question you’re clumsily groping your way towards. I believe
it was published in 1979.
in the same way, and to the same extent, as a geocentrist who has to
keep adding epicycles to account for anomalous observations.
Heliocentrists, of course, were adding epicycles too. Epicycles come
from being wrong about how things accelerate, not about
what they do or do not orbit, and therefore have absolutely
nothing whatsoever to do with the epistemology of this debate.
"I don't think "epistemology" means what you think it means. Maybe you should have read the big fat sociology book that somewhat conclusively answers the question you're clumsily groping your way towards. I believe it was published in 1979."
You sound like someone who's been corrupted by cathedralist memes. The only true way to uncover the past is to read primary sources from project gutenberg while high, and then discount the primary sources that don't fit your overarching goal of proving that America is a communist country, or that progressivism is worship of an evil squid god, or some other far-right tripe
>big fat sociology book that somewhat conclusively answers the question you're clumsily groping your way towards. I believe it was published in 1979.
Which one? Asking as a dilettante always hearing about stuff but never actually having put in the research to understand wtf people are talking about.
Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction.
It's primarily a book about class, its expression, and its reproduction across generations, but it *also* discusses how power is complex, multi-faceted, and context-dependent. In particular, the overdog does not consistently win. On the contrary, the overdog will often lose on purpose or proactively forfeit in order to demonstrate that he is secure in his position and the silly ankle-biting of the little people is no threat to him.
For a super crude example that's not actually in the book: If you're *persistently* accosting random strangers, threatening to beat them up, and *everybody* instantly and very politely gets out of your face, it's usually not because you're a fearsome warrior god; it's more likely because you're the 5'5 senile village alcoholic and they all feel sorry for you. Bourdieu demonstrates that, in somewhat subtler form, you see the same basic truth at work in employer-employee relationships, in politeness judo over formal dinner, in status struggles between different types of starving artists, in demarcation conflicts between social and political institutions, and so on, and so forth.
You consistently winning doesn't prove you're the overdog; in certain contexts it may well be evidence of you being the underdog.
Word of warning, Bourdieu's prose style is fucking atrocious; he likes his sentences 90 words long and with dependent clauses stacked six levels deep. My copy is about 500 pages and I read it at a speed of 5 pages per hour *on a good day*.
…
thx for clarifying
I’m mildly comforted by the fact that it looks like the post was downvoted and the top comments are reasonably critical of Moldbug.
As always, I’m less comforted by the fact that the LW community gives time of day to an out-and-proud totalitarian dipshit.
” This means that activists like King, Schwartz, and Assange are only effective in bullying the weak ”
Those poor, persecuted segregationists…
This, in a nutshell, is the fundamental problem with the NRx view of power. Exxon, the Pentagon, the State Department and academia aren’t opposed to each other at all. As institutions, they may have differing goals and priorities, even conflicting at times, but they’re fundamentally concerned with preserving and managing the present state of things.
Telling how there’s no mention of JStor in here.
Okay, nope, not reading this.
I don’t think “epistemology” means what you think it means. Maybe you should have read the big fat sociology book that somewhat conclusively answers the question you’re clumsily groping your way towards. I believe it was published in 1979.
Heliocentrists, of course, were adding epicycles too. Epicycles come from being wrong about how things accelerate, not about what they do or do not orbit, and therefore have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the epistemology of this debate.
Oh well, who am I kidding.
Wow, the pusillanimous pentagon. I am so redpilled, now.
I read
and just couldn’t continue.