Conversation

snav
@qorprate
"egregore theory" if taken seriously enough comes perilously close to reproducing the flaws of Hegelianism (over-reification + attribution of *prior* essence to a group)
7
2
58
snav
@qorprate
if i were a lefty i'd call it "dangerously fashy" but it's not really that so much as "fake", which isn't a term i use lightly
2
20
snav
@qorprate
the root of the problem here is that the ontological status of an "egregore" is as a (static) "being" as the fundamental metaphor, whereas the notion of a "spirit" (breath) implies movement or motion first, even though both (typically) rely on the basic organism metaphor
5
1
21
snav
@qorprate
here's a diagram where i try to demonstrate what the problem with "egregore" is, and although i fear i'm confusing the issue further, i couldn't help myself
Image
4
4
36
Mikael Brockman 🥸
@meekaale
maybe egregores are spirits combined with a strong tendency of self-unification and self-reification so you could distinguish e.g. between the spirit of a nation and the nationalistic organismic egregore that is the more “fashy” memetic mutation of the spirit
2
4
Mikael Brockman 🥸
@meekaale
I guess then it’s like okay but how much causal reality do we attribute to the egregores or are they more like freeriders coopting the work of the spirits into some epiphenomenal narcissism
1
4
snav
@qorprate
i think if u attribute any causality whatsoever to an "egregore" then your causal analysis has gone egregiously wrong
2
2