Importantly, social identity is *only* an address. That is why a trivial marker (facial hair) works to distinguish the two universes. It happens to be gendered but that’s unimportant. It could be a nongendered trait like long hair.
Conversation
Interestingly, Marxist thought gets this whole idea in a degenerate way: “none of us is free until all of us are free” or “the oppressor requires liberation as much as the oppressed.” That’s a good special case of entangled history.
1
5
Where it fails is treating aspects of the context, like class, as immutable. A workers paradise isn’t classless. It’s a degenerate one-class, end-of-history society. To transcend class-structure, you need something with equal expressive power that preserves Turing-completeness.
1
12
Replying to
History doesn’t restart. Fukuyama looks like a dumbass for claiming it’s end. If it were to restart, truly impossible, it would only open us up to the same damn stories occurring over and over with even less self awareness or hope of transcendence.
1
Replying to
only secondary sources and a couple of lectures: I understand he himself has backed off from end of history talk
2
I view this thesis as an expression of Utopianism. It is the exact peak of a zeitgeist which we are now all reacting to the deficiencies of
2
getting away from Fukuyama: history is nothing more than an ongoing interpretation of stuff that others saw worthy of memorializing. talking about restarting this process gets into murky totalitarian territory (Bolshevism)... also... turns out they weren’t really able to restart!
1
Replying to
We’re talking past each other entirely. We don’t share frames enough to really communicate here.
1
Replying to
apparently history ended but then there was 9/11, the war on terror, economic dislocation, Trump, is my gist. If you think he deserves more of a shake I’m onboard. My sense is his big thing is state capture now.
1
Replying to
Yep that’s the pop misunderstanding. The theory does not say significant events stop happening. Only that they don’t constitute history in a useful technical sense, because they stop mattering in key ways.
Replying to
what I hear is, “there has been born conditions where a higher order of abstraction qualifies the meaning of events, not the events themselves (where the meaning of events can only be discerned by highly specialized experts)”. Am I wrong?
1

