Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

DIM applied to future trends in future world superpower's

Rate this topic


DiscoveryJoy

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

 

this is for those of you who are familiar with Peikoff's DIM hypothesis about the future of the U.S..

 

It is said not only by Objectivist scholar's but by all sorts of intellectuals, that "the U.S. will go down and if the U.S. goes down, the world will go down with it". I'm sceptical of this view, if I try to apply DIM to the whole thing:

 

So the U.S. is undergoing a modal changeover from it's fastly approaching D2 towards an M2 which - when it happens - is to appear almost instantly without any warning to the dim-witted so to speak :smartass:  (with "dim" in this context standing for the vast portion of society that follows and drives the current DIM-trend according to Peikoff).

 

The M2-flavour the U.S. would take is Christian fundamentalism, since such a movement is already part of its culture, ready to replace the expiring D2 culture. Since this flavour of M2 is fully other-wordly-oriented, with total indifference to life on earth, it would lead to the U.S. becoming a third world country with a medieval state of technology.

 

Europe, too, has reached the end of the D2 road according to Peikoff. Since it has no M2 culture of its own, its desperation for answers must come through an open immigration policy that invites a foreign takeover. This is currently happening through Islamic immigrants, who will then create a Muslim empire in Europe. Again: Other-wordly orientation of an M2-flavour. So again, the consequence: A medieval state of technology.

 

So that's both the U.S. and Europe sinking to an other-worldy, mystical M2 culture, i.e. the lowest possible level of technological development and ultimately of military power possible. In other words: The future influence on world politics by these two regions would be reduced to zero.

 

Since this flavour of M2 is hence the most impotent possible in world politics, it is so easily outmatched by even a secular M2 country (just as the Soviet Union outmatched Iran or Afghanistan), since secularism at least implies an INTEREST in technology, the creation of SOMETHING in reality, on EARTH. This is the minimum required to outmatch both the U.S. and Europe. The next stronger player would be some form of a D1/D2 country that hasn't gone down its road so far yet: As we see, comparing post-WW2 European D1 culture outmatching the former Soviet Union, and even comparing today's D2 culture to the Ex-Soviet Union, there seems to be a certain flexibility about the D mode that still allows it to have some prosperity-advantage over M2. The strongest player would of course be an I country, which is not to be expected in the future world at all.

 

So my question is: What will the world look like politically, if the modal changeover has happened in the West in about 20 years? What countries will dominate the world, i.e. which of the many (probably all miserable) countries would it still be best to live in from a technological standpoint (standard of living)? I am particularly thinking about the following:

 

Will Russia await a fate different than that of Europe? I have been highly surprised to discover that the share of the Muslim population in Russia is not the lowest, but the HIGHEST in greater Europe, inspite of Russia's antireligious past. But what seems to be different is the status of Russia's culture. The country is keeping a secular M2-president in power, if you believe Peikoff. With the majority in Russia being non-muslim, this must mean the country must already have a strong M2-culture of its own. Be it driven by a nostalgia for old Mother Russia or by a newly discovered self as a sleeping giant - never really crushed and conquered in WW2 or even by the Soviet Union's fall, i.e. still maintaining something allegedly great about itself to believe in. I should expect it to resist any Muslim-takeover, since it has no void to be filled up. So Russia = Candidate number 1 for a new center of the world?

 

The Chinese story, on the other hand, seems quite mystical to me. I really have no idea what they're up to. Surely, their current strategy of imitating the U.S. as a model will collapse. Will they keep the good things they have learned from the U.S., is there such a movement? Or will they turn inwards again, sinking into some Buddhist form of M2, paralizing itself just like the U.S.? Or are they not most likely to join Russia in their thinking?

 

What about South America, is it possible that there is a strong Evangelical presence there spread through the U.S.? Will South America become like the U.S. or are there other M2 movements in the region?

 

Is there any current D1/D2 country that is significantly slower than the U.S. and Europe in its D process, so they can be around much longer? Maybe the most free ones like Canada, Australia and New Zealand?

 

How about India?

 

How would one classify the current state of Sub-Saharan African countries like Nigeria or South Africa? Is there any modal changeover to be expected on the basis of the U.S. downfall, and if yes, into what direction?

 

 

 

I am sorry for bombarding you with questions, just linking out loud a bit. But what do you think?

Edited by DiscoveryJoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Europe, too, has reached the end of the D2 road according to Peikoff. Since it has no M2 culture of its own, its desperation for answers must come through an open immigration policy that invites a foreign takeover. This is currently happening through Islamic immigrants, who will then create a Muslim empire in Europe. Again: Other-wordly orientation of an M2-flavour. So again, the consequence: A medieval state of technology.

 

Is the part about Europe becoming a Muslim empire something Peikoff said or something you're saying?

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the part about Europe becoming a Muslim empire something Peikoff said or something you're saying?

 

It's what Peikoff hints at in his DIM book. He gives the exact DIM-based reason I nearly quoted here from one of his footnotes. However, due to a lack of clarity (he doesn't literally talk about a "Muslim Empire" right there, but refers to the dangers preached by Geert Wilders http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHyxyEl5hz0 . I was curious and asked Dr. Peikoff about what he thinks about the future of Europe on his Q&A page (www.peikoff.com). This was his answer:

 

"I cannot recommend anyone who would apply my categories to Europe. I do not myself have nearly enough knowledge to comment on your question, to say that, if current trends continue, Europe will become a Muslim empire, with Sharia and all that this implies. Also, the continent will not survive very long after the U.S. finale."

 

So this just confirmes that which one is lead to believe about his assumptions about Europe from his DIM footnotes.

 

And - honestly speaking - footage like this one gives me a lot of reason to be worried about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ-QX8LuKHA

 

But I don't want to turn this into an "Will-Europe-really-become-a-Muslim-Empire"-thread. I am much more interested in the alternatives, i.e. hopeful challengers to this threat by other countries, assuming that the trends described so far for the U.S. and Europe are indeed going to lead to the mentioned outcome.

Edited by DiscoveryJoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to bet over the next 20 years, I'd go with the generally-held idea that the U.S. will remain the most powerful country, with China next. Though China will remain significantly behind in per-capita terms, it has the mass of population to make up for that. India will likely rise faster than it has in the past, reaching somewhere like China is today. 

 

I can't add much within the framework of D1, D2, M1, M2 etc., but what are you predicting for the U.S.... do you think Christian fundamentalists will win an election and impose their views, and that masses of voters will find their ideas attractive? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to bet over the next 20 years, I'd go with the generally-held idea that the U.S. will remain the most powerful country, with China next. Though China will remain significantly behind in per-capita terms, it has the mass of population to make up for that. India will likely rise faster than it has in the past, reaching somewhere like China is today. 

 

I can't add much within the framework of D1, D2, M1, M2 etc., but what are you predicting for the U.S.... do you think Christian fundamentalists will win an election and impose their views, and that masses of voters will find their ideas attractive? 

 

I might be wrong about the 20 years, but I do believe it to be just decades, not centuries from now. Just let me first quote the introductory remarks from DIM part 4, chapter 16:

 

RELIGIOUS TOTALITARIANISM IN America - that is my prediction.

"God is dead," said Nietzsche in the nineteenth century. To which a recent book title gives the twenty-first-century reply: God Is Back.

 

Peikoff assumes this to come true in one or two generations, but in one of his podcasts about the NSA-Snowden affair he also claims that had he known how far advanced the power of the state in monitoring us already is when writing DIM, he would have predicted religious totalitarianism in America to happen much faster. So doing the Math, and further taking note of the economic collapse Yaron Brook often predicts for about 20 years from now, 20 years might be a pretty good estimate.

 

 

So just to sum it up:

 

In "DIM Hypothesis", Peikoff explains the whole history of Western thought in terms of fundamental approaches to epistmology and explains how all transitions in history - from Ancient Greece to Rome, to the Middle Ages, to the Rennaisance, the Enlightenment, Fascism, Communism and Post-WW2 happened in detail and why. Finally, he compiles a lot of evidence about the current state of U.S. culture: The growing influence of the New Christianity, the Baptists, Mormons, Evangelicals in statistical terms; the influence on youth-culture (Christian Tattoo Association, Mega-Churches full of Jesus-loving youngsters, rising sales of Christian music to teenagers etc.); the rise of religious colleges and identification of students as "Born again" or otherwise fundamentalist Christian giving many concrete examples, figures and numbers; the growing influence of religion on the military and politics. You should really read at least the last chapter (16) of part four of that book (much of which can be read without a DIM-background). You don't have to wait, I got it as an e-Book for almost nothing compared to the rich content it provides. Really interesting and quite convincing. I wish there was much more documentaries on this U.S. development on Youtube. The most shocking I could find is the Jesus Camp movie: http://vimeo.com/34473505. If this is how education is possible in America today, what do you expect these kids to turn into in one or two generations, especially if things get worse and worse materially, crisis after crisis, and people start looking for answers that no one else can give them but kids like these grown up?

 

I think Peikoff makes a very good point, already in his first book "The Ominous Parallels" about how the widely accepted philosophy in a country - NOT some economic breakdown crisis - is the ROOT cause for the rise of totalitarianism, i.e. how a country must first be culturally RIPE for this to happen, at the example of Nazi Germany. "The DIM Hypothesis" kind of completes this task by expressing this issue in terms of combinable categories of thinking, i.e. Disintegration, Integration, Misintegration, really telling the whole story of Western thought from beginning till end.

 

So yes, I think what you are asking must happen, if trends continue. But I'm surprised you are even asking me this, I thought this possibility should be accepted knowledge among you guys here, the core reason why you are fighting?

Edited by DiscoveryJoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... evidence about the current state of U.S. culture: The growing influence of the New Christianity, the Baptists, Mormons, Evangelicals in statistical terms; the influence on youth-culture (Christian Tattoo Association, Mega-Churches full of Jesus-loving youngsters, rising sales of Christian music to teenagers etc.); the rise of religious colleges and identification of students as "Born again" or otherwise fundamentalist Christian giving many concrete examples, figures and numbers; the growing influence of religion on the military and politics.

It seems clear that the more fundamental Christian denominations have grown more open and politically-assertive about their beliefs. This is probably the result of Reagan trying to make them a key part of the GOP vote-base. And, some of the more fundamentalist sub-cultures are scary.

However, just because one sub-culture is becoming more assertive and is adapting concrete practices (like rock and tattoos) to appeal to youth, it does not follow that it is growing in size. It could be, or it may not. To get a sense, one has to step back and look at the population as a whole. When I do this, I see that the percentage of people who call themselves christian is slightly lower today 76% than in 1970 91%. (That link has a few other interesting poll questions too.) Meanwhile the people admitting not to have a religion has gone from negligible to 15%. How do you reconcile this type of overall statistic about the U.S., with the details of the specific religious groups?

Another way to step back and understand the influence is to ask what "social" policies have been enacted into law. The abortion fight is ongoing, and christians have managed to introduce restrictions in many states. However, on homosexuality and drug liberalization, the religious view seems to be the losing side. On evolution, try as they might, the religious side only has minor victories. What do you see as the top couple of areas where the religious side is winning?

 

There's no doubt that a lot of people in the U.S. are religious. And, yes, it is scary that over 70% still think angles might exist! It is like playing it deuces-wild with co-voters like that. Yet, this type of craziness has been around virtually forever, and is waning -- too little too slowly -- at the margin. So, why will the influence in the next two decades be worse than in the last two?

 

So yes, I think what you are asking must happen, if trends continue. But I'm surprised you are even asking me this, I thought this possibility should be accepted knowledge among you guys here, the core reason why you are fighting?

To be honest, I don't "fight" that much; but, until recently Objectivists were mostly focused on statism in economics and material life (environmentalism, public-education, business-regulation, labor-laws, health-care). The threat from Christian fundamentalists is a new focus. I think it ought to be a target as it gets more assertive. At the same time, the other problems aren't going away; so, I don't think it deserves primary focus.

I'm open to being convinced that Christian fundamentalism is a more important problem than old-fashioned secular statism, but nobody has been able to point to evidence that I find convincing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm open to being convinced that Christian fundamentalism is a more important problem than old-fashioned secular statism, but nobody has been able to point to evidence that I find convincing.

It's not a bigger problem right now. But Peikoff is looking at the viability of the two, and believes that the former is more viable than the latter (after all, religion has been around for thousands of years, and hasn't consumed itself the way statism tends to do). 

 

It's not so much that he predicts the rise of Christian fundamentalism. It's rather that he predicts the rapid decline of the currently dominant philosophical beliefs characterized by mis-integration, while Christian fundamentalism remains constant. If that happens, Christian fundamentalism will take a dominant position in the culture by default. 

 

The way I look at it, this prediction rests on two distinct assumptions: 

1. the currently dominant culture is approaching a breaking point

2. as that happens, it's proponents will create a set of conditions where it will become extremely difficult to promote a third, rational alternative to dis-integration (liberalism, multiculturalism, environmentalism, political correctness, statism, etc.) and mis-integration (religion). 

 

I think there are signs of both. As Liberalism is becoming more and more absurd and destructive in the West, it is also hard at work at suppressing rational debate. Obviously, we're not at a breaking point yet, but in the past two decades or so there have been some significant changes in that direction. We've seen the rise of an especially aggressive brand of political correctness, hate speech laws (that, ironically, protect religious fundamentalists from criticism), and some very dangerous economic policies (I'm referring specifically to deficit spending on an unprecedented scale, across the developed world). You might say that we've had all that before, but I don't think it was ever to this extent.

 

I think this evolution will prove destructive not just to the developed world in general, but to the intellectual movement that's driving it. And, at that point, it's at least plausible that religious fundamentalism will be there to take over.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... the rapid decline of the currently dominant philosophical beliefs characterized by mis-integration,... ...

In what form would this decline manifest itself? If some aspects of college-establishment thought becomes too absurd, there's a good chance of seeing a reaction arise from within the same college-establishment.

Also, I've not read DIM, but I don't see why a more disintegrated philosophy should be less powerful or prevalent than a more cohesive one. For instance, the hard-line commies of the past had a real problem: their ideology was impractical. In contrast, a modern leftist is quite happy using the mixed economy, and even praising "the market". The mixed -- "not too extreme either way" -- idea is quite attractive to most people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what form would this decline manifest itself? If some aspects of college-establishment thought becomes too absurd, there's a good chance of seeing a reaction arise from within the same college-establishment.

Also, I've not read DIM, but I don't see why a more disintegrated philosophy should be less powerful or prevalent than a more cohesive one. For instance, the hard-line commies of the past had a real problem: their ideology was impractical. In contrast, a modern leftist is quite happy using the mixed economy, and even praising "the market". The mixed -- "not too extreme either way" -- idea is quite attractive to most people.

I think Communism failed because it didn't have the ability to go through the corrections you describe. Dissent wasn't allowed, so there was never a reaction from within, that would've allowed the absurd policies to be reversed.

 

Liberalism is moving towards a similar treatment of dissent. People might not be rounded up and sent to labor camps, but they are losing their jobs (and with it their power to affect change in any way) for a lot less than they used to. The spectrum of ideas considered politically correct is shrinking noticeably by the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberalism is moving towards a similar treatment of dissent.

The U.S. does have a section of intellectuals who ground themselves in religion. Though a minority, they're not "kooky right" either. Some of the colleges and think-tanks they come from are respectable. Do you think these will continue to grow relative to the liberals? If so, in what form will this first manifest itself on the political scene? Will we see the Democratic party become less liberal on "social issues"? Or, will it mean that voters move closer to the GOP, on the margin?

Basically, I have a hard time going from the more abstract discussion to the concrete physically-manifest signs that one could watch for: to see if the theory is right.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems clear that the more fundamental Christian denominations have grown more open and politically-assertive about their beliefs. This is probably the result of Reagan trying to make them a key part of the GOP vote-base. And, some of the more fundamentalist sub-cultures are scary.

However, just because one sub-culture is becoming more assertive and is adapting concrete practices (like rock and tattoos) to appeal to youth, it does not follow that it is growing in size. It could be, or it may not. To get a sense, one has to step back and look at the population as a whole. When I do this, I see that the percentage of people who call themselves christian is slightly lower today 76% than in 1970 91%. (That link has a few other interesting poll questions too.) Meanwhile the people admitting not to have a religion has gone from negligible to 15%. How do you reconcile this type of overall statistic about the U.S., with the details of the specific religious groups?

Another way to step back and understand the influence is to ask what "social" policies have been enacted into law. The abortion fight is ongoing, and christians have managed to introduce restrictions in many states. However, on homosexuality and drug liberalization, the religious view seems to be the losing side. On evolution, try as they might, the religious side only has minor victories. What do you see as the top couple of areas where the religious side is winning?

 

There's no doubt that a lot of people in the U.S. are religious. And, yes, it is scary that over 70% still think angles might exist! It is like playing it deuces-wild with co-voters like that. Yet, this type of craziness has been around virtually forever, and is waning -- too little too slowly -- at the margin. So, why will the influence in the next two decades be worse than in the last two?

 

To be honest, I don't "fight" that much; but, until recently Objectivists were mostly focused on statism in economics and material life (environmentalism, public-education, business-regulation, labor-laws, health-care). The threat from Christian fundamentalists is a new focus. I think it ought to be a target as it gets more assertive. At the same time, the other problems aren't going away; so, I don't think it deserves primary focus.

I'm open to being convinced that Christian fundamentalism is a more important problem than old-fashioned secular statism, but nobody has been able to point to evidence that I find convincing.

 

I think Nicky kinda has already given the answer I was about to give you. He's right: The point is not really a current rise of Christian fudamentalism (although even Peikoff takes on the so-called decline of the latter by challenging widespread studies of alledged decreases in religious convictions: Dissatisfaction with religious institutions does not mean moving away from mysticism as such. Peikoff takes all people who practice certain cults, natural religions, believers in witches, etc. into account as well, which no religious survey would really consider. They, too, are potential sympathizers of Christian fundamentalism, when it gets really serious).

 

The real point is, as Nicky pointed out, there is no alternative mode available at the moment that people are really confronted with to the extend that they might give credence to it besides Christian fundamentalism, neither a misintegrative (M2 = Nazism, Communism, Christian fundamentalism, etc.) nor integrative (I = Objectivsm)) one.

 

Reading Peikoff (beginning of chapter 13), what is required for modal changeover (i.e. a culture changing its dominant mode (the options are M1, M2, D1, D2, I)) are at least two things:

 

1. Knowledge of an acceptable alternative mode.

 

2. Triggers.

 

In our current D2 culture, there is a knowledge only of the alternative mode of M2 in the form of Christian fundamentalism. Objectivism hasn't really reached enough people to recall in their memory something like "Yes, there was once this book I read called Atlas Shrugged" or "Yes, I once heard this wonderful talk by Yaron Brook who warned us and was right all along, and he really had a convincing alternative". But they WILL remember "Yes, I remember Pat Robertson promising me the Kingdom of God and how easy it felt to get there, so let's really give it a try, there's nothing to loose!"

The trigger that causes such enforced mental reorientation would be a catastrophic economic collapse, in this case something worse than the great depression, which is what we are heading towards. People need to really fall to their hands and knees before they really change something as serious as their epistemological mode. An event or a series of events that - quoting Peikoff - "lead people to question and to conclude that the established mode is unsafe, backward, invalid, and/or evil".

 

This is the same thing that happened in Nazi Germany, that's the reason why it happened so suddenly and no one really expected it. An alternative had been known all along: Hitler. But it seemed rather uncomfortable to follow him, since things were still running quite okay. Just one great depression, hyperinflation and Hitler now became very viable, in fact the ONLY thing viable. Things could now change rapidly over night. People often ascribe the rise of Nazism to economics alone, blanking out the fact that countries around the world lived and even live today under even worse conditions than they did in late Weimar Germany. Where's their Hitler, if economy alone necessitated him?

 

Note that 1. and 2. always go in tandem with each other, there is no modal changeover ONLY by knowledge of an alternative or ONLY by a trigger. Just as people could live under starvation indefinately during the Middle Ages before Aquinas due to the promise of salvation in heaven (lots of triggers but no alternative mode known), so are we today able to really take it to the uninhibited max in sticking to our current D2 drug (alternative mode of Chrstian fundamentalism known, but no trigger yet).

 

For those who have also read parts of DIM, I hope I am getting this all right, otherwise please correct me.

 

Concerning Christian fundamentalism and Peikoff's take on the alledged decline, and everything else I have just tried to put together, you would have been able to look some things up on the Google books version of DIM: http://books.google.de/books?id=m-dbR-EoK50C&pg=PT206&dq=dim+hypothesis&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q=dim%20hypothesis&f=false. I'm saying "would", because I don't know what happened: Just yesterday I was able to preview the relevant chapter "What's next" (see table of contents), but it is now no more available for preview. But luckily, I have the full version ;-)

Edited by DiscoveryJoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We just had a mini economic crisis, and people were looking for answers. They were fed a story about the divide between "main street and Wall St.". Some of them were motivated enough to "occupy Wall St.", others claimed that "Crony Capitalism" caused this mess. Essentially, people fell back to the tried and tested villains. In the bargain, the government had a free hand to ignore the rule of law and enact some emergency financial bailouts.

 

I don't expect any German style hyperinflation in my lifetime, but even if it were to happen, I expect people will blame the "fat cats" of Wall St., appropriate some more of the wealth of the rich, intensifying redistribution... as was done during the Great depression. I can see that some people would attend church more frequently and piously, but I cannot visualize it leading to (say) more people buying into Pat Robertson's idea that the U.S. is being punished for liberalizing gay-marriage. 

 

Am I trying to imagine the wrong concretes here? Do you have something else in mind?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what form would this decline manifest itself? If some aspects of college-establishment thought becomes too absurd, there's a good chance of seeing a reaction arise from within the same college-establishment.

Also, I've not read DIM, but I don't see why a more disintegrated philosophy should be less powerful or prevalent than a more cohesive one. For instance, the hard-line commies of the past had a real problem: their ideology was impractical. In contrast, a modern leftist is quite happy using the mixed economy, and even praising "the market". The mixed -- "not too extreme either way" -- idea is quite attractive to most people.

It's not the economy. It's the goal of the thought process. It's not a disintegrated philosophy, but a philosophy OF disintegration. The goal is to destroy thinking. What Capitalism and Communism have in common is that they are both economic THEORIES, i.e. complex pieces of integration - correct or incorrect. The mixed economy rejects the idea that wealth is really created by individuals, but it also at the same time rejects the mutually exclusive idea that wealth is really created by the collective. It is a blank cheque on answering the question of WHAT wealth creation IS, i.e. a refusal to clearly advocate for any connection between the creation of wealth and an unambiguous cause of it AT ALL. At least that's how I would put it.

 

But "hey", they could say, " 'creation of wealth' - that again is waaay to much integration. How about destroying the next connection - the one between wealth and the fact that it has to be created? Let there be no 'wealth creation' but just 'wealth'. Since wealth just IS and that's all we know, there can be no idea of its previous creation or even of the possibility to create new amounts of it. So let's not talk about this 'economy' stuff, since there is simply nothing any more to economize about. So what do we do with all that wealth that we still want to identify and pursue, but that just IS? Let's just allow everyone to take it from wherever he can. There is no stealing, really, there is only taking, so let anyone who stops people from taking stuff be punished by law!"

 

You see, we haven't quite arrived at the end of the road just yet, there still is quite a lot left to destroy, and after all wealth has been successfully been "taken" and consumed, there will be no more need for them to look up "wealth" in some dictionary so they can dismantle any integrations they find within its definition - by then wealth will simply no longer BE, with no need to reject the concept but to look at reality. Looking at this reality, they will find that the end result of the philosophy of disintegration is a total desaster. There will be no motivation to go two or three steps back to a mixed economy anymore, because what would there be to gain from that? Finding your way uphill overland back to the river head to place your raft in it again doesn't change the fact that it is a RIVER that DOES flow towards a deadly WATERFALL! And if you're not dead already from the first drop, you still don't want your legs to be broken AGAIN. Well, one could say, but how about constantly paddling against the stream while in that raft? I'd say that's fine, but then you're just doing NOTHING, because that's definately not the point of rafting altogether, you will just find it completely pointless. You might aswell ask: Why did I even enter that river at all?

 

I think this shows why a philosophy of disintegration is less powerful than a cohesive one once the end result has been understood or even experienced.

 

This isn't to say that a cohesive philosophy of misintegration's river has no waterfalls, it's just that they're often not deep enough to kill you. You might get hurt - even injured for a while, your raft will tumble, but you generally stand better chances of keeping on rafting no matter what. I think that's just the kind of river you take because you don't have a good river map to avoid waterfalls. Or because it happens to be the kind of river that flows much faster than the fall-free ones, so it can give you a continuous enjoyment of flow, even without any effort of paddling whatsoever. Or because it happens to be the kind of river that flows much slower than the fall-free ones, so you have a chance to peacefully enjoy the amazingly beautiful landscape around you without even having to pay close attention to the raft's balance (it might even make you forget that you're hardly moving forward anymore, making you wonder whether rafting should still be pursued as an end in itself or just as a means to sightseeing).

 

I think this shows why a philosophy of misintegration is more powerful than one of disintegration once enough potentials have been understood or even experienced.

Edited by DiscoveryJoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We just had a mini economic crisis, and people were looking for answers. They were fed a story about the divide between "main street and Wall St.". Some of them were motivated enough to "occupy Wall St.", others claimed that "Crony Capitalism" caused this mess. Essentially, people fell back to the tried and tested villains. In the bargain, the government had a free hand to ignore the rule of law and enact some emergency financial bailouts.

 

I don't expect any German style hyperinflation in my lifetime, but even if it were to happen, I expect people will blame the "fat cats" of Wall St., appropriate some more of the wealth of the rich, intensifying redistribution... as was done during the Great depression. I can see that some people would attend church more frequently and piously, but I cannot visualize it leading to (say) more people buying into Pat Robertson's idea that the U.S. is being punished for liberalizing gay-marriage. 

 

Am I trying to imagine the wrong concretes here? Do you have something else in mind?

 

The public's reactions to the mini economic crisis you mention, i.e. their demands or answers, are fully compatible with a Christian fundamentalist world view. They form the intersection between their demands and those of the D2s. The D2s hate Wall Street because it is about self interest and stands for something and anything that stands for something must be destroyed. The M2s hate it because they too, are against self interest but they stand for something else: Sacrifice to God and his will. Hence Wall Street must be destroyed.

Same story, btw, for environmentalism, which can both be viewed as a means to destroy industrial civilization for the sake of destroying it (the D2s' goal) as well as a religiously motivated demand (the M2s' goal). Don't think that Christian fundamentalists have any use for technology and industry that adapts nature to man's needs. If life on earth isn't the goal but a sin, then a feudal no-progress, zero-growth society is the optimal society. This goal is best achieved by vilifying industry. The fundamentalists have very well understood that, hence their recent shift from rejecting climate science to embracing it.

So the new M2/D2 alliance you see today is not based on modal kinship but on convenience: All these intersections of interests the fundamentalists have with the nihilistic left come in very handy in winning over the country in the long run. Supporting the nihilistic left's demand for destruction of big business and industry only accelerates the process. It serves to totally destroy the country economically so the real collapse can happen. That will create a state of such hopelessness, demoralization and powerlessness, they will be just like fruits so ripe for the plugging that all the fundamentalists will have to do is pick them up and tell them exactly what to do. Because - contrary to the D2s - THEY will know what to do for THEY will be the only ones who are NOT hopeless and powerless, but have a vision. Once the fundamentalists have gained the power with their support they can just throw them away, because they won't need them anymore.

 

Just reminds me of the very eloquent sentence I read somewhere in DIM:

 

"The haters of God are godsend to his lovers."

 

 

 

"To-big-to-fail" is what the D2-dominated public supports out of fear of an imminent catastrophe. A catastrophe which then, evidently, has NOT happened yet. Everyone knew that a bailout would be possible to achieve immediate results. They just hate it because it didn't destroy the rich guy, but no one really seriously wants inaction. But a real crisis hasn't happened yet, as long as you can count on a government that has the power to borrow and spend as it pleases. The fact that life still goes on as usual just shows that there has been no full collapse.

Edited by DiscoveryJoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a fascinating thing to think about. I don't see any country as being a 'great country' the way America once was. There will probably no other super power except maybe China. India, Brazil and Russia are just pipe dreams unless they radically change. Russia has all the potential, but it's too wretched. Also America is going to become oil independent, and it's going to start exporting oil. That's going to lessen Russia's power, politically and economically. Digging up resources and selling them is about all these primitive cultures can achieve. (Too bad Russia sucks so much because Russian women are incredible.) On India, you need only listen to Jim Rogers on why it's simply a mess. And there's an old saying that goes: Brazil is the next great country in the world, and always will be.

 

Africa is laughable. It won't happen. Disintegration through and through.

 

So, I'm particularly interested in the Chinese mode. That country is going to grow into 40% of the world's GDP by 2040, unless they stall along the way. China has been the center of the world before. The Chinese are highly pragmatic. They have a communist party that embraced market and entrepreneurship. I think that's because the Chinese are Chinese first, and everything else comes second. They also see knowledge and certainty differently. The Chinese mind sees things in shades of grey rather than black and white. That is a double edged sword. It means that they can open up markets while calling themselves communist and get away with it in their own minds, but it also means that there is room for bad ideas.

 

Think of China as a gigantic Taiwan. If anyone doubts they have the culture and mindset to be a first world country, I ask you what the hell are Taiwan and Hong Kong if not first world Chinese countries? There's nothing about them that prevents them from developing per se. Developing with a 1.3 billion people is just a bit more turbulent.

 

If the economy stalls to any extent, I have no doubt they will happily go further towards even more market ownership to continue their path. They are not stubborn, they are dynamic, and many of their leaders engineers. They are not communists first, they are Chinese first, and they want to see China become a first world country above all, and they will do what they have to get it. They still think of themselves as the middle kingdom, the center of the world.

 

They also have huge foreign reserves. In addition, Chinese people can buy Chinese goods, they don't need to export forever. This has happened before, just look at Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and HK for an idea of how it goes. It is almost formulaic.

 

You said that they will 'collapse' because they have copied America. I think you are misinformed. China's economy is quite different from America's. They produce and export and save a lot. America borrows and imports and saves nothing and goes into debt. There's a big difference there.

 

In addition, many of China's major industries are state owned. Banks are much more state regulated and owned than in the US. The communist party has much more control over their economy. Direct control. But they are moving away from that, as America moves towards more control.

 

Economic power brings potential military power. That is a concern.

 

China's culture is influenced mainly by Confucianism and Taoism. Major religions are Buddhism and 'Chinese folk religion'. Now Confucianism is really mixed. There are good parts and bad parts. Confucianism is better than Christianity, and there were enlightenment thinkers who were quite enamored with Confucianism, considering it supremely rational. If the Chinese focus on the good parts then they will do better. Still, they may be mystical in some aspects of their lives, but that doesn't prevent them too much from being rational and pragmatic in their business and career.

 

I guess I would see their mode as misintegration, definitely not disintegration. As Peikoff states, that mode can last indefinitely, since it's mixed.

 

I don't see them ever moving to integration. There is the sliver of hope though. Yangism was a 'rational self interest' type philosophy. Confucianism itself is apparently a mix of Moism, the altruist philosophy of ancient China, and Yangism, the egoist philosophy of ancient China.

 

I see the communist party as just another dynasty. The leader is just another emperor. And the communist party is full of modern day 'mandarins'. Study hard enough and you can be part of the party too.

 

There are actually benefits to monarchy over democracy, especially social democracy. (Democracy: the god that failed. Hans Hermann Hoppe.) The communist party can make quick changes, and they can make long term plans without worrying about re-election. How many politicians in America were engineers or scientists? The communist party has an incentive to be the ruler of a prosperous country, since it's in power. And many Chinese consider the economic growth to legitimize their rule.

 

And in terms of Russia, I think Rand was once asked if there was any hope for Russia. She said simply, 'no.' I think that's about right. They will probably hover around second world status and throw their weight around, but full development is unlikely. Misintergration.

 

There is no I mode country.

Edited by Peter Morris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We just had a mini economic crisis, and people were looking for answers. They were fed a story about the divide between "main street and Wall St.". Some of them were motivated enough to "occupy Wall St.", others claimed that "Crony Capitalism" caused this mess. Essentially, people fell back to the tried and tested villains. In the bargain, the government had a free hand to ignore the rule of law and enact some emergency financial bailouts.

 

I don't expect any German style hyperinflation in my lifetime, but even if it were to happen, I expect people will blame the "fat cats" of Wall St., appropriate some more of the wealth of the rich, intensifying redistribution... as was done during the Great depression. I can see that some people would attend church more frequently and piously, but I cannot visualize it leading to (say) more people buying into Pat Robertson's idea that the U.S. is being punished for liberalizing gay-marriage. 

 

Am I trying to imagine the wrong concretes here? Do you have something else in mind?

I don't think culture is driven by "what people think". I think it's the other way around (what people think is driven by culture), and that culture is mostly driven by specific events, or individuals who achieve notoriety by creating something remarkable.

 

I also think some of the philosophical trends that are causing the masses to think the way they currently think (the pragmatism and nihilism that's causing them to reject principles and seek shortcuts and quick solutions to their problems) may have ran their course. 

 

If pragmatism is replaced with altruism, for instance, the masses will just think accordingly. They will no longer settle for quick fixes and moderation, they will demand broad, decisive change. And I think that is far more important than the concrete political positions. If it's the religious right which is prepared to deliver that decisive change, then people will go with whatever concretes they have to offer, as long as it's altruism and it's decisive. I don't find it implausible at all that, just as public opinion swung in favor of gay rights in the past couple of decades, it will swing right back if the larger picture has religious fundamentalists leading a cultural and political revolution towards some new ideal, away from pragmatism and moral nihilism.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I guess I would see their mode as misintegration, definitely not disintegration. As Peikoff states, that mode can last indefinitely, since it's mixed.

Thanks, Peter, for your very extensive answer. Will get to some points later. But just for the record:

 

According to Peikoff, only among the PURE modes you find the potential for them to last indefinately, NOT among mixed ones.

 

M1 and D1 are mixed modes and instable because they form the transition to M2 and D2, i.e. each of them moving back to their epistmelogical root of mis- and disintegration, accepting it fully.

 

M2, D2 and I are pure modes. But only M2 (Plato) and I (Aristotle) can last indefinately, because they don't tilt. They make not compromise and provide something people can work with without any internal contradiction in their approach. The D2 approach (Kant), too, doesn't compromize, but human beings cannot exist without integration, hence that mode bears in it the seeds of its own destruction and is doomed to perish on its own grounds, in order to make room for a viable alternative.

 

When Kant said "I found it necessary to deny reason in order to make room for faith.", I think an appropriate answer would be:

 

"I found it necessary to deny Kant, in order to make room for thought."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got a reply by Peikoff to this question, in which he confirmed that both "secular" totalitarianism (like Communism) and fundamentalist religion have the identical existential results.

 

To me that is incomprehensible. Just compare the Russian Army or the High-Tech German Wehrmacht or Japanese Armies during WW2 to the Armies of Iran (Theocracy).

 

Furthermore, there was the building of the Autobahn and a lot of other economic activity in Nazi Germany, compared to almost nothing in Iran. Of course this doesn't change the fact that both systems are evil, both supress a lot of reason that would have allowed people to really flourish and be really productive in the long run. But how can one equate the existential results of a religious fundamentalist system that pursues a world totally outside the perceptual world and doesn't care about any material values on earth to a - by pretense - "secular" totalitarian one that pursues the well-being of particular groups in society (which is meaningless, since the group is not an entity), but for this purpose at least has to and does create real material values as a side-effect?

Edited by DiscoveryJoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm speaking for the book here.  Personally, I can see several different scenerios.

 

DIM goes beyond the idea that when D2 collapses Western Culture religion will be dominant by default, DIM says religion will grow to fill the void because when people flee D2 for answers there is a significant religious base already existing and it provides, for better and worse, a system of answers that integrates together.   One example from the book is once people move beyond an intellectual movement that finds no answers in “Schrödinger's Cat” they will turn to the one that provides consistent answers and that is religion.  Or that once people accept there are truths and absolutes there is one source of those that influences the culture.  Religion could find itself awash with sudden refugees looking for answers the D2 culture never could provide since it denies there existence.

 

Also realize this doesn’t mean 100% conversion of the heathens here.  The American Revolution was waged based on minority support.  Several generations in however is all is needed to gain a greater foothold. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got a reply by Peikoff to this question, in which he confirmed that both "secular" totalitarianism (like Communism) and fundamentalist religion have the identical existential results.

 

To me that is incomprehensible. Just compare the Russian Army or the High-Tech German Wehrmacht or Japanese Armies during WW2 to the Armies of Iran (Theocracy).

 

Furthermore, there was the building of the Autobahn and a lot of other economic activity in Nazi Germany, compared to almost nothing in Iran. Of course this doesn't change the fact that both systems are evil, both supress a lot of reason that would have allowed people to really flourish and be really productive in the long run. But how can one equate the existential results of a religious fundamentalist system that pursues a world totally outside the perceptual world and doesn't care about any material values on earth to a - by pretense - "secular" totalitarian one that pursues the well-being of particular groups in society (which is meaningless, since the group is not an entity), but for this purpose at least has to and does create real material values as a side-effect?

 

 

They are the same thing intellectually from the DIM perspective.  Both start with a false one and mis-integrate to a logical many.  One is God and the other is Society, but the rest of the totalitarian structure follows from there with the same methodology.  To paraphrase one of my favorite lines from the book, whether it is an omnipotent consciousness or an incompetent unconsciousness it is still M2 since it is the many from the one.   

 

As for short term results – Nazi Germany went on a spending and building spree that was unsustainable but built monuments before collapsing (and Hitler’s building projects were falling apart and unsustainable before the Allies bombed them) while Iran basically went straight to the collapse, but the result is the same – A ruined culture used up with no hope of wealth generation to build.  This has happened with the Soviet Union, North Korea, and even Cuba.  If anything, the fundamentalist’s nations like Iran are simply more honest about the end state. 

 

Plus you have to remember Iran did not have a healthy state of capital to cannibalize to begin.  They wouldn’t have had oil rigs if not for the free societies that built them.  The Nazis had a country to plunder and conquered states to drain on their journey to ruin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think culture is driven by "what people think". I think it's the other way around (what people think is driven by culture), and that culture is mostly driven by specific events, or individuals who achieve notoriety by creating something remarkable.

 

I also think some of the philosophical trends that are causing the masses to think the way they currently think (the pragmatism and nihilism that's causing them to reject principles and seek shortcuts and quick solutions to their problems) may have ran their course. 

 

If pragmatism is replaced with altruism, for instance, the masses will just think accordingly. They will no longer settle for quick fixes and moderation, they will demand broad, decisive change. And I think that is far more important than the concrete political positions. If it's the religious right which is prepared to deliver that decisive change, then people will go with whatever concretes they have to offer, as long as it's altruism and it's decisive. I don't find it implausible at all that, just as public opinion swung in favor of gay rights in the past couple of decades, it will swing right back if the larger picture has religious fundamentalists leading a cultural and political revolution towards some new ideal, away from pragmatism and moral nihilism.

 

Yes, the larger picture of the ideal surely overrides answers on particular questions.

 

But culture, I would say, simply IS what people think, so there is no need to find a causal relationship among the two. Hence both must change together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm speaking for the book here.  Personally, I can see several different scenerios.

 

DIM goes beyond the idea that when D2 collapses Western Culture religion will be dominant by default, DIM says religion will grow to fill the void because when people flee D2 for answers there is a significant religious base already existing and it provides, for better and worse, a system of answers that integrates together.   One example from the book is once people move beyond an intellectual movement that finds no answers in “Schrödinger's Cat” they will turn to the one that provides consistent answers and that is religion.  Or that once people accept there are truths and absolutes there is one source of those that influences the culture.  Religion could find itself awash with sudden refugees looking for answers the D2 culture never could provide since it denies there existence.

 

Also realize this doesn’t mean 100% conversion of the heathens here.  The American Revolution was waged based on minority support.  Several generations in however is all is needed to gain a greater foothold. 

 

Whether it will grow dominant by default or gradually is a question of its own. My reading of Peikoff is clearly that it will grow dominant immediately:

 

As we have seen, the "one" modes, within M and D alike, have always used their Aristotelian element to escape the extremism (as it would now be called) of the "twos". But today, without Aristotle, there is no such escape. If there is a culture war in America, it can be only a clash of the "two," - that is, between D2 and M2. This is a break from the whole pattern of Western history, which always presented a substantial transitional period to ease the passage from one pure mode to another - from I to M2, through M1; from M2 to I, through M1; from I to D2, through D1. But now, with epistemological mediation out of the picture and the door to the mixtures closed, the pattern is broken. If a modal change does occur in our country, the change will not be gradual, moderate, or unnoticeable. You will notice it. (DIM Hypothesis, page 292)

 

But my question isn't so much about what happens in the West, but whether the forms of M2 are different in other regions of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've re-read some posts, but the discussion still seems too abstract to me. I'm having a hard time connecting it to actual things happening. So, forget that, forget today... let's talk about the future. Let's say we get this shift into M2. Maybe 10 years, maybe 20. Let's suppose we have reached a point where we can conclusively say we have made this shift. What does it look like? What are the concretes in law and social behavior? Let me throw out a list:

 

1. Atheists banned from holding elective positions

2. Only Christians allowed to hold elective positions

3. Homosexuality criminalized

4. Social security phased out

5. Short skirts banned in public

6. Only slutty women wear skirts that end more than a few inches above the knee, in public

7. Second and Third trimester abortions disallowed in all states, and a lot of procedural hurdles to first trimester abortions

8. Being christian becomes very important to get ahead at work

9. A large number of conversions from minor religions like Hinduism, Judaism and Islam to Christianity

 

This list is fiction. But, could you come up with some such list? Of course, one cannot predict details, but the idea is not to get details right. Rather, I'd like to get a flavor of what types of changes you expect, but expressed in terms of some concrete examples. Examples which may not come true, but are still representative of the M2 scenario.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are the same thing intellectually from the DIM perspective.  Both start with a false one and mis-integrate to a logical many.  One is God and the other is Society, but the rest of the totalitarian structure follows from there with the same methodology.  To paraphrase one of my favorite lines from the book, whether it is an omnipotent consciousness or an incompetent unconsciousness it is still M2 since it is the many from the one.   

 

As for short term results – Nazi Germany went on a spending and building spree that was unsustainable but built monuments before collapsing (and Hitler’s building projects were falling apart and unsustainable before the Allies bombed them) while Iran basically went straight to the collapse, but the result is the same – A ruined culture used up with no hope of wealth generation to build.  This has happened with the Soviet Union, North Korea, and even Cuba.  If anything, the fundamentalist’s nations like Iran are simply more honest about the end state. 

 

Plus you have to remember Iran did not have a healthy state of capital to cannibalize to begin.  They wouldn’t have had oil rigs if not for the free societies that built them.  The Nazis had a country to plunder and conquered states to drain on their journey to ruin. 

 

The fact that they are the same thing intellectually isn't really my point. I think that's clear.

 

But that one-of-your-favorite lines brings me back to the point, namely that the omnipotent consciousness (I take that to mean Hitler's self-overestimation) will do something, while the incompetent unconsciousness (the Ayatollahs?) will do nothing. That doing something will initially turn into something physical, but later on, too, will end up in nothing. But wouldn't that just (with still no alternative form of that M2 mode in sight) lead to repeating to do something again, until the new created something repeatedly turns into nothing, leading to another attempt at doing something....?

 

Both Communism and Nazism used science to achieve irrational goals (not just perverted irrational science, but also rational one like rocket science, or figuring out chemical means of oil production). Although that science was a product of an I-containing culture that preceded it, it is the M2's ideology that permitted science to be used for the irrational goal and and to be maintained indefinately for the same reason.

 

Then there's the question of how long the something remains something before it turns into nothing again. Doesn't it also depend on resistance from outside (Churchill vs Hitler)?

 

My idea is that one might be able to make a projection of how well different kinds of M2 cultures could do if they were given the same opportunities and under the influence of the same circumstances. The idea is to discover that the religious one would remain on a straight line of zero, while the "secular" one at least would periodically move in cycles between zero and the something. The nature of the circumstances would then determine whether the length of those periods spans just years, decades, or even generations. This would also mean that - given no alternative to M2 in the world - it's worth looking at in what place in the world at least some cycle is currently in its positive state for long enough to still jump onto it - hopefully that cycle lasts for at least some considerable span of one's own lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...