Conversation

Replying to
If you’re not solving for convergence anyway, and various degrees of exit are a legit option, do you even need agreement on methods? Nothing of consequence rests on people agreeing on conscious methods of inquiry, 90% of the time. Life is not a science. Why enforce a standard?
2
11
I am not surprised left and right versions of enlightenment convergentism are good evil twins. A sufficiently classical liberal is indistinguishable from a fascist. A sufficiently clueless progressive is indistinguishable from a Stalinist. The culture war is among convergentists.
3
17
It is 1760 vs 1850. Neither is postmodern. The postmodern resolution to the culture war would beceverybody declaring “happy to be misunderstood” and going their own way, trying to figure out solutions to material conflicts that take disengagement as a first principle.
1
13
Divergentism is NOT centrism. It is epistemic exit via willingness to be misunderstood. It is similar to “courage to be disliked” except without courage as a default. You just go away to where being disliked is irrelevant.
3
19
My fork point: death is the only truth. Everything else is compliance with standards and passing audit examinations. So long as you’re staying alive and retelling your story to your own satisfaction that’s your truth.
2
16
The enlightenment was never more than like 0.1% of the population excitedly clustered around a single gloworm convinced they’d learned to stare into the sun and dreaming wishfully of eternal daylight for all.
3
19
1700: world population ~600 million, and maybe a few hundred people in Europe convinced they’d become societally enlightened and the rest would soon think as they did. 2019: 7 billion, and maybe a few hundred thousand believe something of the sort.
2
17
Somehow the entire world got along without “enlightenment” truth narratives until around 1700, and almost the entire world even after that. I’m not even sure it had much impact on the scientific/industrial revolutions. Much of the causation went in the other direction.
1
11
Like read stories of Leibniz and Spinoza and both drawing scientific+philosophical inspiration from Galileo. Leibniz did calculus and other technical things. And philosophy. Spinoza was a lens grinder. And did philosophy. Chicken-egg perhaps but I think science egg came first.
2
11
Ironically if you look at where the main trunk of enlightenment thinking ended, it landed on roughly a justification of postmodern divergence. Hume era argument that you can’t justifiably and rigorously believe very much with the kind of confidence modern convergentists crave.
1
16
Replying to
Screenshot tweet if you like. RT prevention is not the main reason I’m protecting tweets, though the friction is kinda helpful in going dark.
1
1
Show replies
Replying to
Even tho I’m not a fan of calling it “postmodernism”, I’m really liking this thread and the forking metaphor. What’s missing for me is how “PoMo” is not only a methodology of divergence, but also tools that enable critiques of Enlightenment & other epistemes.
1
1
Replying to
Which are subverted modes of turning the methods of enlightenment reason onto itself though! A certain 9/11 style hijacking vibe to it.
1
Show replies
Show replies