You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Innovating consensus and the rise of governance-as-a-service
Hi, I enjoyed your article and like where your thoughts are headed. I want to offer a principle I've adopted, take it for what it's worth. Labeling and defining another's viewpoint, especially the viewpoint of the majority, weakens an argument and weakens it's persuasiveness. I'm thinking about "Statist" here. It's a very popular term in crypto and anarco capitalist circles, but I think it serves to create an "other," serves only to speak to the group (crypto circles and anarco capitalist circles), not those outside of the group, which means it weaken the argument's persuasiveness.
Thank you for your article.
I use the word "statism" as in a culture, which can be studied the way a bacteria culture in a petri dish can be studied, so rather than metaphor, an actual culture, a meme pool. The environment in which a culture grows shapes it, for example, when ancient greece collapsed, the information and science which were contained within that meme pool could not be processed by the Roman Empire, which was more centralized and therefore had a culture that was defined by limitations, box-like-thinking, and that resulted in for example Ptolemys' epicycle model of the solar system.
My vision with project Resilience[1], and the transaction-web, is a form of culture that is defined by possibility rather than limitations, similar to the past decades internet culture.
Sure, my comment is mostly to stir some thought on communication. "Statism" alienates readers who do not already agree with your perspective. To someone you would call a "statist" the very notion of "statism" seems utterly absurd and possibly offensive, either way undermines attempts to convince a person of your logic.
Also, odd to bring up Ptolemy. It's easy to hold the opinion of him as 'box like thinking' when put next to Copernicus, Kepler or Galileo . But in the Almagest he all but invented Trigonometry and developed a system that explained all available observations at a time when conic sections were poorly understood. He also mentioned the heliocentric model as being simpler in the course of this book.
No I meant during the regression from ancient greece to the roman empire, so before the renaissance in western culture, and I don't question his intelligence, rather, his ability to express it through the lens of the legal system he lived in (for example, he understood heliocentrism, but still conformed to geocentrism as an expression of dominance culture where those who ruled him liked to view themselves as the center of the universe. )