Pluralism is no longer strong enough to counter ideologism. We need hyperpluralism. If pluralism is a "live and let live" stance that acknowledges the right of all ideologies to exist, hyperpluralism requires all ideologies to be open-sourced and allowed to mix and match freely.
Conversation
Replying to
ok, I’ll play Phil101 on this. what about the ideologies that are against (hyper)pluralism, that hate all the other ideologies, that are xenophobic, fascistic, warmongering death cults with belief in whatever (ideological) god~ or just plain ol’ suicidal denial of climate change?
1
Replying to
Ignore their self-image as a connected thing. You don't have to "solve" their existence as a connected problem just because they think they're a connected entity/egregore. Bite off your piece. Let others bite off other pieces.
1
4
Replying to
actions speak, which sounds like liberal tolerance + laissez faire geopolitics to me. and other existences need re/solving when they threaten to nuke/annihilate/destroy yours. regardless, boundaries + jurisidictions remain: who/what determines what is “my” piece?
1
Replying to
You do. You have a better way of detecting bombs in churches, go for it and invent that. There is a difference between threatening any such big grand thing and actually being able to do that. You buying that posture of coherent grand threat is the main reason it is a threat.
Replying to
Explain to me how this is consistent with the proposition of hyperpluralism that all ideologies must be open, “mix and match freely.” This would mean not ignoring threats but “allowing” them to overtake. What is the limit of the (re)mix? Ignoring threats didn’t work well in 1937.
Replying to
Key here is what is being meant by ideology. Critical definition is that ideology is precisely that which conceals itself as normative. It operates via repetition, not reason. “For they know what they do, but they do it anyway, and they love it.”<–Zizek’s remix of Slotjerdijk

