[Daktoria]

Yesterday on chat, a strange conclusion was realized which I've been concerned about for a very long time.

The concern is about whether or not life is about exploration.

(There was also another strange conclusion. Despite how Rei called me a moral absolutist before, Fasces got away with making an appeal to axiomatic (or probably more accurately, mantric) logic.)

If fascists emphasize that people must mature aside from exploratory attitudes and behavior, how then is it possible for fascists to identify with technology which requires exploration?

This isn't asking whether or not fascists are entitled to technology. For all that matters, fascists could command engineers to invent stuff, and then steal it from them.

What I'm asking here is how fascists can actually appreciate technology itself. If anything the drive towards primitiveness and naturalism would condemn technological invention.

Not only that, but the naive realism which fascism depends upon in asserting physical primacy would make technology unnecessary for a fascist society to cohere. Merely existing in nature would be sufficient experience.

Ergo, ecologically speaking, the best course of action would be to eliminate cars, refrigerators, computers, etc. from existence altogether. If you really want to survive as long as possible and as organically as possible, simple reversion to a primal state of nature would achieve fascist utopia.

[Andropov]

If anything the drive towards primitiveness and naturalism would condemn technological invention.

I don't know where you got this idea from. Marinetti's Futurists were among the biggest factions in the PNF.

"The true union of Europe; the union of government with science." -Oswald Mosley

[Andropov]

I can't speak for all fascists, but technology and science are paramount in my eyes; for me, the goal of all decision making should be progress at all costs. Morality and rights-based ethnics stifle the species from reaching its true potential. If anything, it's the liberals who are anti-science, opposing animal and human experimentation, preaching anti-industrial rhetoric about how we should be "closer to the environment" and other nonsense.

[Daktoria]

I'm trying to consider what fascists could gain from science. It doesn't make sense.

One, science is a means, not an end.

Two, as a matter of primitivism, science does not generate new forms of demand. It only generates new forms of supply to satisfy demand.

However, ecologically speaking, there really isn't a reason to develop science at all because scientific (and technological) development inherently degrades the environment. At the very least, you have to recognize the second law of thermodynamics which shows entropy is always rising.

To optimize societal survivability, the optimal strategy would be to develop as least as possible in order to minimize the rate of entropic growth.

I can't speak for all fascists, but technology and science are paramount in my eyes; for me, the goal of all decision making should be progress at all costs. Morality and rights-based ethnics stifle the species from reaching its true potential. If anything, it's the liberals who are anti-science, opposing animal and human experimentation, preaching anti-industrial rhetoric about how we should be "closer to the environment" and other nonsense.

I think you're referring to progressivism. Libertarian transhumanism is rather openminded when it comes to scientific endeavors.

[Preston Cole]

Technology is part of militarism, which is a fascist value. This alone suggests fascists don't reject technology on principle. If you're looking for fascists who are inherently opposed to scientific progress, you should look at the ultra-ecological types such as Pentti Linkola (a very radical dude), libertarian Green National Socialists (yes, they do exist), the Esoteric Hitlerism of Savitri Devi, whom I haven't gotten around to read, and the elitist traditionalism of Julius Evola. Generally, the more traditionalist types are anti-technology because it harms the nation's environment. The Romanian Legion of Archangel Michael was one of the interwar fascist movements, along with Nazism, that drifted toward environmental protection and, due to its Christian Orthodox conviction, was also palpably critical of technology, which I don't necessarily share as a Romanian nationalist.

As Andropov pointed out, early fascism was highly industrial and progressive as advocated by the Futurist wing of the PNF. Oswald Mosley of the BUF also proposed a sort of technocratic corporatism stressing scientific importance in areas like healthcare, agriculture, industry, etc. Not to mention that the Strasser Brothers of the Nazi Party had a more industrial workers' outlook and they can still be described as fascists.

There have been some efforts recently to absorb more Futurism into ideologies of the far-right, leading to the publishing of this interesting book.

On a historical note, Mussolini fucked up the war with Greece and subsequent conflicts because he relied on the physical strength of the Italian people, a return to Roman Era masculinity, while underestimating the technological capabilities of the Allies. This sort of mentality is clearly outdated in our age and fascists don't seek to resubscribe to it.

If fascists emphasize that people must mature aside from exploratory attitudes and behavior, how then is it possible for fascists to identify with technology which requires exploration?

Incorrect, Mr. John Adams. Fascist attitude requires its citizens to be orderly and dutiful, but it also wants them to transform into avid explorers, conquerors, fearless soldiers. Of course, the latter is an exaggeration, but give The Doctrine of Fascism and the Fascist Decalogue a read and you'll get more familiar with the fascist outlook. Fascism isn't opposed to the use of technology to explore, that's just stupid, but instead is opposed to the use of technology for other purposes: artificializing foods, the modernize-without-limit mentality, basically the modern liberal mentality of using technology for self-interest. The Fascist Doctrine says "fascism takes from history what has proven to be irrefutably useful, but denies the values that have only proven to lead to decadence" (paraphrasing).

[Daktoria]

Still Preston, the only reason you'd need technological development is because of inter-group conflict. For example, consider the Germanic, Hunnic, and Mongolian barbarians as they raged against Rome and later central Europe.

As a fascist, you could avoid needing industrialized militarism by attacking engineer backed societies. You'll note that western allied (industrial capacity) technological growth occurred under more liberal conditions, and Soviet technological growth was extensively subsidized by western industrial capacity.

Incorrect, Mr. John Adams. Fascist attitude requires its citizens to be orderly and dutiful, but it also wants them to transform into avid explorers, conquerors, fearless soldiers. Of course, the latter is an exaggeration, but give The Doctrine of Fascism and the Fascist Decalogue a read and you'll get more familiar with the fascist outlook. Fascism isn't opposed to the use of technology to explore, that's just stupid, but instead is opposed to the use of technology for other purposes: artificializing foods, the modernize-without-limit mentality, basically the modern liberal mentality of using technology for self-interest. The Fascist Doctrine says "fascism takes from history what has proven to be irrefutably useful, but denies the values that have only proven to lead to decadence" (paraphrasing).

I want you to talk with Fasces over this point. It's rather crucial to our discussion over chat yesterday, especially in light of how Rei acknowledges and agrees to the political being fundamentally personal.

That said, exploration isn't identical to conquest. As an engineer, the pursuit of scientific endeavors would bring massive headaches if you focused with only militarist outlook. Exploration is about being openminded in order to universally consider possibilities. Yes, you choose* options when experimenting, but theory designs practice.

*This is another point worth mentioning because if fascism denies free will, that's another facet which prevents it from appreciating technology.

[Fasces]

His definition of exploration differs from yours. He is talking about space exploration. You are talking about a dull esoteric analysis of philosophical foundationalism that has absolutely no bearing on the discussion one actually wants to have.

More than that, you attach meaning out of context to other issues where they do not apply. You completely misunderstood me, which isn't surprising, because it seems to be your intent to completely misunderstand. Your line of questioning last night was irrelevant, and repetitive. I appreciate technology, and I don't need free will to do so. I don't care if that appreciation is nothing more than an arrangement of chemical impulses, and I do not believe that to cheapen the appreciation. Your claim, that the self exists separate from the environment, and that you would be yourself in another country, in another economic station, or another time, is so self-evidently ridiculous that it doesn't merit defense, much less form the basis for a philosophical attack on other schools of thought.

Let me ask you - where does this self come from? Where does this will you describe exist? By what mechanism is this independent and free will implemented into the infant?

[Rei Murasame]

On a random note, I don't understand how anything that I've said is particularly related to this topic, yet I've seen you link to posts by me twice now, Daktoria. What's that all about?

If you're going to do that, you need to explain why you've done so, rather than simply implying mysteriously that there is some contradiction between myself and Fasces on some issue, when there is none in sight.

[Daktoria]

Fasces, it exists in a priori analysis and synthesis via understanding of space, time, and math, all of which are concepts we use to structure the senses and experience reality.

Strictly speaking for example, all you see are colors in locations. You don't "see" shapes. It's only through aesthetic judgment that shapes are experienced by categorizing stimulus. If you want to, you can break down experience and reformulate it to see what I mean. Just stop thinking. Stop feeling. Stop judging. Just point your eyes in a direction and do nothing. If you feel anxiety or electricity or tension, then you haven't broken down experience yet. Unfortunately, we can't force relaxation, so the best you can do is be patient. Don't anticipate, just look.

You can try listening to ambient sound too or touching a surface. Don't feel, think, or judge. Just do the action. It's weird, but if you're relaxed, eventually, you'll be able to experience where artificial judgment leaves. Also, once the tension leaves, you can realize what it is to perceive reality outside of instinct, habit, or reaction. Just pick a curiosity, or not.

You do this long enough and free will becomes very evident very quickly because you realize there's more to who you are than just biological imperative. On the other hand, yes, it is a bit weird. Doing so kind of unwinds your socialization because you don't feel as conscientious as before. You become more openminded and less awkward. You realize there's a difference between impressing others and merely experiencing reality.

Some people have thought I'm high when I behave this way. I've never used drugs, but w/e. The soul is not substance. It's not phenomenal. Whether you want to breakthrough empiricism or not is your choice. I can't force it upon you, but if you don't do it, you're objectifying yourself.

I don't care if that appreciation is nothing more than an arrangement of chemical impulses, and I do not believe that to cheapen the appreciation.

When you say this, I don't believe it's possible for you to even believe at all because objects don't believe. We recognize a difference between subjects and objects. The difference is one class of entities is self-instantiating. The other class of entities is limited to inertia. Your emotions or intuitions of "caring" would just be nature, so it would be unnecessary for anyone to recognize your emotions or intuitions at all. Recognizing nature would be enough. There'd be no reason to have to bestow you an identity to understand reality.

[Fasces]

You do this long enough and free will becomes very evident very quickly because you realize there's more to who you are than just biological imperative.

Determinism isn't limited to biological imperative, something you simply cannot seem to grasp.

In any case, do not confuse my beliefs on the matter with fascist thought. I consider myself by default a materialist, something fascism is not.

[Daktoria]

On a random note, I don't understand how anything that I've said is particularly related to this topic, yet I've seen you link to posts by me twice now, Daktoria. What's that all about?

If you're going to do that, you need to explain why you've done so, rather than simply implying mysteriously that there is some contradiction between myself and Fasces on some issue, when there is none in sight.

I think the OP explained it well enough. On one hand, you accused me of moral absolutism. On the other, Fasces was allowed to say yesterday that we just accept axioms at some point when acknowledging existence.

Likewise, you acknowledged the political to be personal.

Well INTP (exploratory) personalities, for example, are both engineering and libertarian personalities. It wouldn't really be identifiable for a fascist to build society on top of non-fascists, especially libertarians.

It's all related as a matter of technology. Technology is how you solve problems, create customs, supply demand. There's no reason to believe in a nation's identity when it's sustenance is catalyzed by a system of political administration over personalities with alternative political identities.

Yes, all political personalities will come together, but they will come together because of engineers inventing things for them to come together with. The State would be nothing without them.

[U184]

The concern is about whether or not life is about exploration.

Exploration is the means by which physical beings interact with their enviroment.

Fascists view conflict as a fact of life that is responsible for all human progress.

Conflict is a form exploration, it opens new doors and requires commitment.

Technology is the child of conflict and science is the absolute expression of exploration.

Under those terms, Fascists could be seen as pure explorers that embrace all technology.

[Andropov]

Free will is nonsense; we live in a causal and deterministic universe. Everything is caused by something else. Furthermore, the human brain operates in a mechanical fashion; all our thoughts, emotions, and impulses are derived from chemical reactions.

[Daktoria]

KFlint, I'd agree if by conflict, you meant problem solving.

However, the only way you can say scientific and technological exploration is taking place is if you objectify society.

That said, objects do not explore. They merely react to stimulus.

Free will is nonsense; we live in a causal and deterministic universe. Everything is caused by something else. Furthermore, the human brain operates in a mechanical fashion; all our thoughts, emotions, and impulses are derived from chemical reactions.

Then you're no different from the computer I'm typing on right now. No, I can't have a conversation with my computer. If you're the same, then it'd be impossible to have a conversation with you.

Without abstractness, there are no values. Without values, there are also no words. Nature is not contingent upon values, so if you're purely natural, there's no need for you to be valuable.

[Fasces]

Why don't you answer my questions, Dak?

Where does this self come from? Where does this will you describe exist? By what mechanism is this independent and free will implemented into the infant?

What you're describing is no different than a belief in God. It is an unprovable axiom, on which you rely. The irony of this being, of course, your assault on the supposed axioms of others without introspection to the foundation of your own belief set. This is what I attempted to get through to you yesterday, yet you did not seem to grasp, as you still don't.

My lack of belief in free will, by the way, is more of a philosophical position than a practical one. I do not believe we can control for all inputs, and in the absence of that control, individual will emerges. The fact that it can be understood does not make it less. Unlike yourself and the Chinese Room, a simulated intelligence, is no less real, in my eyes, than a real one. You rely on a something existing that is by definition unknowable and unprovable.

[Rei Murasame]

I think the OP explained it well enough. On one hand, you accused me of moral absolutism. On the other, Fasces was allowed to say yesterday that we just accept axioms at some point when acknowledging existence.

I don't see how this is contradictory, since when I told you that you are an moral absolutist, I was saying that you are basically an idealist holding onto a set of morals which you think are able to transcend history.

When Fasces told you about axioms, he was speaking in a completely different context, and I would add that axioms are part of many philosophies and that all philosophy can be historicised.

you acknowledged the political to be personal.

And what do you think that statement means? The statement "The personal is the political", is an erasure of the artificial boundary between both, it is an acknowledgement of the intersectionality of multiple deterministic influences on an agent, to list a few:

• The culture
• Fragmented philosophies which circumscribe our choices within a particular role
• The relations of production
• Public policy
• Historical narratives
• Bonds of blood
• etc.

In other words, the idea that there is nothing which can be said to be 'just purely personal'.

[Andropov]

Then you're no different from the computer I'm typing on right now.

Functionally, no.

If you're the same, then it'd be impossible to have a conversation with you.

http://alice.pandorabots.com/

[Daktoria]

What you're describing is no different than a belief in God. It is an unprovable axiom, on which you rely. The irony of this being, of course, your assault on the supposed axioms of others without introspection to the foundation of your own belief set. This is what I attempted to get through to you yesterday, yet you did not seem to grasp, as you still don't.

My lack of belief in free will, by the way, is more of a philosophical position than a practical one. I do not believe we can control for all inputs, and in the absence of that control, individual will emerges. The fact that it can be understood does not make it less. Unlike yourself and the Chinese Room, a simulated intelligence, is no less real, in my eyes, than a real one. You rely on a something existing that is by definition unknowable and unprovable.

Axioms are fine when they engage the very premises of perception and judgment in the world because the goal is to show importance, not existence.

For example, without free will, it's impossible for you to prove (even to yourself) anything nevermind prove nature exists. "You" would be incapable of instantiation such that "nature" would be doing the proving.

The reason Searle's argument applies is because Searle isn't focusing on whether or not data processing is taking place. He's focusing on whether or not value assignment is taking place. Yes, a concrete system exists. No, that doesn't mean the system is important.

Without importance, there is no conversation. Likewise, as long as you look at the system externally, you're never going to appreciate technology.

I don't see how this is contradictory, since when I told you that you are an moral absolutist, I was saying that you are basically an idealist holding onto a set of morals which you think are able to transcend history.

When Fasces told you about axioms, he was speaking in a completely different context, and I would add that axioms are part of many philosophies and that all philosophy can be historicised.

You know I'm going to ask how philosophy began.

And what do you think that statement means? The statement "The personal is the political", is an erasure of the artificial boundary between both, it is an acknowledgement of the intersectionality of multiple deterministic influences on an agent, to list a few:

The culture
Fragmented philosophies which circumscribe our choices within a particular role
The relations of production
Public policy
Historical narratives
Bonds of blood
etc.

In other words, the idea that there is nothing which can be said to be 'just purely personal'.

The statement means if you build a "fascist" society off the ingenuity of libertarian personalities, your society isn't really fascist.

http://alice.pandorabots.com/

See my response to Fasces on the Chinese Room above.

[Fasces]

Answer my question, Dak.

[Daktoria]

It exists in the concept of who you are.

Maybe "you" reject that, but then "you" don't really exist anymore than an extension of nature. Nature doesn't need you, so there's no need to recognize you.

Your very question would be moot.