Rat King 1518. Insurrealist takes on Scott Alexander's "Moloch"
anon 0x47a said in #2635 2w ago:
This is a good post. I like the discussion of Land's gnon. And I like the conclusion. It seems like the conclusion implicitly suggests that neither gnon nor Eula is capable of overcoming the coordination problem posed by moloch. If that is the case I would agree with the conclusion that a theology that is more in line with the traditional God, Jesus Christ, is the only possible solution to the multi-polar traps. Not only because it is the most sensible coordination equilibrium in a conventional sense. But also because Christ seems to be the actually true subject of history and the object of science (Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici gregis). And if we were to restore science in the original sense of the term, as sacred science, or the political science in Aristotle's and Plato's original sense of the term, that would constitute the most valuable political project regarding the question of human beings in relation to digital technology. That would allow for an inherently distributed convergence towards complete truth in theology, in a digital-native way.
On a related note, i wrote this as a way of addressing the same problem:
Perennial Science: Peer-to-Peer-Review in God as First Criterion of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty
https://ark.page/archive?url=https%3A%2F%2Fark.page%2Fraw%2F82f5fa7a.txt
On a related note, i wrote this as a way of addressing the same problem:
Perennial Science: Peer-to-Peer-Review in God as First Criterion of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty
https://ark.page/archive?url=https%3A%2F%2Fark.page%2Fraw%2F82f5fa7a.txt
referenced by: >>2637
This is a good post.
anon 0x47c said in #2637 2w ago:
>>2635
I kept the post from being too overtly religious as I didn't want to overextend the scope, make the arguments depend on my personal commitments, or run my mouth on a serious topic I have nowhere near sufficient expertise in (theology). That said, someone like Schmitt would straightforwardly identify Elua with the spirit of Anti-Christ, nearly universally beloved and falsely promising a heavenly kingdom and the dissolution of the friend-enemy distinction, what is strictly the prerogative of God.
Very interesting encyclical and post on political philosophy, I'll have to chew on them.
I kept the post from being too overtly religious as I didn't want to overextend the scope, make the arguments depend on my personal commitments, or run my mouth on a serious topic I have nowhere near sufficient expertise in (theology). That said, someone like Schmitt would straightforwardly identify Elua with the spirit of Anti-Christ, nearly universally beloved and falsely promising a heavenly kingdom and the dissolution of the friend-enemy distinction, what is strictly the prerogative of God.
Very interesting encyclical and post on political philosophy, I'll have to chew on them.
referenced by: >>2639
I kept the post from
anon 0x47a said in #2639 2w ago:
>>2637
Makes sense, I can understand that. Theology, philosophy, politics are inherently controversial. The way I see it the media that we have (social media, broadcast media, even hypertext) contain inherent underlying biases against being able to talk openly about these things. Like an unstated kind of censorship. And if God is Truth, then He is the perfect summation of all abstract of intellectual objects, above mathematical objects like perfect circles and triangles, and also can be present to some degree within experience, through participation. And so there must be an organic science of experience, or science of God, (such as described by Aristotle or St. Thomas) which allows healthy compatibility of humans with digital technology, since this science does not depend on extrinsic instruments, but can make incidental use of them. The discussion of Schmitt and tyranny of liberalism was great. Thank you for the post and response!
Makes sense, I can understand that. Theology, philosophy, politics are inherently controversial. The way I see it the media that we have (social media, broadcast media, even hypertext) contain inherent underlying biases against being able to talk openly about these things. Like an unstated kind of censorship. And if God is Truth, then He is the perfect summation of all abstract of intellectual objects, above mathematical objects like perfect circles and triangles, and also can be present to some degree within experience, through participation. And so there must be an organic science of experience, or science of God, (such as described by Aristotle or St. Thomas) which allows healthy compatibility of humans with digital technology, since this science does not depend on extrinsic instruments, but can make incidental use of them. The discussion of Schmitt and tyranny of liberalism was great. Thank you for the post and response!
Makes sense, I can u
nyansandwich said in #2645 2w ago:
I found this unsatisfying. Insu you didn’t go for the throat here, so I will: Scott’s “Moloch” is just God. Elua is just Satan/antichrist.
I feel somewhat guilty for having inspired this post back in the day with my “capturing Gnon” essay which articulated the logical extension of the rationalist “friendly singleton” ethics. I have since changed my tune. The basic thesis was that the default law of nature is unacceptably bad, so we have to create a sort of virtualization layer that delivers an approximation of restored Eden.
I have since realized that this is impossible. Gnon cannot be overthrown or captured. Systems cannot be rational enough to make orthogonality real. There will be no apocalyptic utopia *and that’s a good thing*. The reason its impossible has been argued by Land in various ways, and by the utter failure of the friendly AI program to even define its target rigorously. I wont retread that ground here. The reason its better that its impossible is first of all that the yudkowskian horror scenarios like paperclips forever are also ruled out by this impossibility. Second, even a friendly lightcone singleton sufficient to defeat moloch would be the end of history, either freezing everything in a state of partial development, or reducing everything to homogenized orgasmium slop. Or at best it would self-annihilate because:
Without war and conflict and the endless brutal grind away from illusion back to nature, life has no form and no beauty. The brutal competition of nature is necessary and *maximally efficient* to bring forth beautiful worthwhile life. We live in the best of all possible worlds, and Gnon (“Moloch”) is its agent. God did us a major favor in creating the world as it is, and not according to the edenic lie peddled by these abrahamic deceivers. The prideful mortals who incoherently wish that God’s Plan catered to their personal pleasure and comfort are of course unhappy with this. But that, in flowery language, is all this rationalist utopianism is. Humble yourself before God and Nature and accept that the brutality of reality is not only inescapable, but correct, necessary, and perfectly good.
Even as an ideal for leas than apocalyptic cooperation, i find this rehashed liberal UN moralism boring and stifling to true life. But someone else better take that part on. Insu made a good start following Schmitt.
I feel somewhat guilty for having inspired this post back in the day with my “capturing Gnon” essay which articulated the logical extension of the rationalist “friendly singleton” ethics. I have since changed my tune. The basic thesis was that the default law of nature is unacceptably bad, so we have to create a sort of virtualization layer that delivers an approximation of restored Eden.
I have since realized that this is impossible. Gnon cannot be overthrown or captured. Systems cannot be rational enough to make orthogonality real. There will be no apocalyptic utopia *and that’s a good thing*. The reason its impossible has been argued by Land in various ways, and by the utter failure of the friendly AI program to even define its target rigorously. I wont retread that ground here. The reason its better that its impossible is first of all that the yudkowskian horror scenarios like paperclips forever are also ruled out by this impossibility. Second, even a friendly lightcone singleton sufficient to defeat moloch would be the end of history, either freezing everything in a state of partial development, or reducing everything to homogenized orgasmium slop. Or at best it would self-annihilate because:
Without war and conflict and the endless brutal grind away from illusion back to nature, life has no form and no beauty. The brutal competition of nature is necessary and *maximally efficient* to bring forth beautiful worthwhile life. We live in the best of all possible worlds, and Gnon (“Moloch”) is its agent. God did us a major favor in creating the world as it is, and not according to the edenic lie peddled by these abrahamic deceivers. The prideful mortals who incoherently wish that God’s Plan catered to their personal pleasure and comfort are of course unhappy with this. But that, in flowery language, is all this rationalist utopianism is. Humble yourself before God and Nature and accept that the brutality of reality is not only inescapable, but correct, necessary, and perfectly good.
Even as an ideal for leas than apocalyptic cooperation, i find this rehashed liberal UN moralism boring and stifling to true life. But someone else better take that part on. Insu made a good start following Schmitt.
referenced by: >>2646
I found this unsatis
anon 0x47c said in #2646 2w ago:
>>2645
Moloch is certainly used as a pretext for hubris against God (as is typical of all self-righteous Ivan Karamazov types that only end up making matters worse for the very people they claim to stand in defense of), but the concept is more limited. Indeed, it's even too limited to notice well-coordinated and dynamically independent evil as I point out in the wise exploitation section. My aim with the post was to make more salient certain insuperable problems I believe are raised by the proposed task of raising Elua up to Heaven, and the consequent risks. A more biting polemic directed at the liberal rationalist mindset in toto would have been more fun, personally, but those also tend to change little to nothing.
Moreover, while I generally agree, I also think that one should take care not to intervene on behalf of God against the victim, Job is allowed his protestations and his friends rebuked even though Job has no fulcrum with which to make any demands of God. The suffering of the just and innocent is a deep mystery and if there is a sacred path to be found, it will be narrow, almost invisible, and reject both the justification of the suffering of the innocent and the condemnation of God. To choose either of those is to usurp the right and duty of another to an ultimate confrontation with nothingness, a lie. I do believe that the faithful man is fated to await, in fear, trembling, and hope, for the last day and the final word of God.
Moloch is certainly used as a pretext for hubris against God (as is typical of all self-righteous Ivan Karamazov types that only end up making matters worse for the very people they claim to stand in defense of), but the concept is more limited. Indeed, it's even too limited to notice well-coordinated and dynamically independent evil as I point out in the wise exploitation section. My aim with the post was to make more salient certain insuperable problems I believe are raised by the proposed task of raising Elua up to Heaven, and the consequent risks. A more biting polemic directed at the liberal rationalist mindset in toto would have been more fun, personally, but those also tend to change little to nothing.
Moreover, while I generally agree, I also think that one should take care not to intervene on behalf of God against the victim, Job is allowed his protestations and his friends rebuked even though Job has no fulcrum with which to make any demands of God. The suffering of the just and innocent is a deep mystery and if there is a sacred path to be found, it will be narrow, almost invisible, and reject both the justification of the suffering of the innocent and the condemnation of God. To choose either of those is to usurp the right and duty of another to an ultimate confrontation with nothingness, a lie. I do believe that the faithful man is fated to await, in fear, trembling, and hope, for the last day and the final word of God.
Moloch is certainly