Usually, this wonderful leap of logic involves attributing god-like correct functioning and infallibility to an emergent mechanism at the higher levels which would work great if only humans would cede all agency to the Higher Power at that level. Markets, gods, take your pick.
-
-
This means even where you and I agree that something has gone wrong rather than as designed by somebody, nobody is accepting responsibility. It’s a “who owns this externality” argument.
Show this thread -
If the only consequences of your actions that you own are predictable ones, and all externalities are attributable to other people’s (predictable and mockable) misguided actions, are you really acknowledging any agency at all?
Show this thread -
Real agency results in 2 kinds of surprise 1. Unexpected material consequences 2. Unexpected responses from others with agency You’re not accepting your own humanity and attendant material and moral agency if you don’t act in ways that generate BOTH kinds of surprise.
Show this thread -
If no unintended consequences are ever the result of what you chose to do, you are viewing your agency like an animal’s. If people never respond to you in surprising ways it means something a bit more complex.
Show this thread -
It is some combination of: a) you’re only pushing their animal buttons b) they’re like you, and only have animal buttons c) you’ve blinded yourself to their surprising responses IoB is b vs b.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Please: Beeves.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.