You said: "My political outlook is grounded in what I consider the fundamental values of the Western liberal tradition: individual liberty, equality before the law, freedom of speech and religion, private property, democratic government, and the rights of the individual."
This is not the way I see the world. It is contrary to my conceptualization of “human nature”, “world history”, personal lived experiences, etc, etc.
This is not the way I see the world. It is contrary to my conceptualization of “human nature”, “world history”, personal lived experiences, etc, etc.
* I don’t support individualism. I understand why individualism was superficially seen as a “solution” from within the context of Monarchy (primarily European Christian Monarchies, and the devine right of kings), but that history isn’t the history of the world.
* I support relational sovereignty, not “equality before the law” (foreign law that privileges foreign ideologies) within Westphalian exclusive governance over geographical regions.
* Like I don’t multiculturalism actually exists, I don’t believe alleged “freedom of speech and religion” actually ever exist. I’ve referenced the concept of “Boutique Multiculturalism” and the rebranding of Protestant Christianity to “secularism” already.
* I recognize that contemporary Lockean property is built upon Anthropocentrism, which I don’t subscribe to. Roman property, which inspired Christian property and later Western/Lockean property, was even worse (Pater familias - the oldest living male head of the household—legally owned all family property and held absolute authority over everyone in the family.)
* I wrote about how I don’t consider “Canada” to be a democracy, and that applies to many western so-called “democratic governments”. In the case of the USA, the founding fathers added features to the USAs governance institutions based on their fear that democracy might break out.
This is one of my favorite things you've written. I really enjoyed it. Keep up the great work! If I may be so bold, I'd to ask you to put just a little bit more of your own opinions into these because I really enjoy the way you think but even more so the way you articulate it.
Understood, and when I learn that other people have interest in a topic I will spend some energy on the writing.
Sometimes I post those chat transcripts as a way to make putting the idea out there quicker (for those who wouldn’t search the topic themselves), and sometimes it is because I want the language to be more “mainstream” with references to ideas which more of the general public would be aware of (LLMs being advanced search engines into previously authored content).
This article was a bookmark, along with me reposting a reply from a thread where one person’s grouping of ideologies they put under the title of “Western liberal tradition”. That note was within a thread that included a new person, as well as the person referenced in this article.
Like so many things, I note that different people have a different idea of what “Western civilization” means, or what is included within the “Western liberal tradition” (Enlightenment forked into a few different things. For instance, socialism is said to be built on a different fork of Enlightenment thinking than Liberalism, but I have found few in USA/Canada who self-identify as Socialists who actually think within the Socialist fork).
It triggers some of what I’ve been told is my Autism profile when people seem to include specific labels within their personal identity, but then can’t discuss why. It feels like they have made a social group cohesion choice, and that they are granting the labels “honour by association” based on liking specific people, rather than having personally investigated the meaning of the labels.
And, as I have come to better understand, if you try to ask why people have associated themselves with specific labels, including referencing dictionary/Wikipedia/etc, many of the things that come up with Autism/Allism communication failures get demonstrated.
This Parody is helpful to share what I mean, and what I regularly observe:
Persons with allism tend to suffer from a lack of empathy, or mind blindness, in that they have difficulty understanding or intuiting the needs and thoughts of others. They assume that the independent actions, facial expressions, voice inflections, and factual statements of others are intended to be hostile, argumentative, or condescending. May suffer from delusions of persecution and believe that others are judging them or attacking them; difficulty understanding the motives of others; believes the thoughts and opinions of people are related to his/her own participation and existence in the world.
Fully (fully!) grokked, and thanks for clarifying. I'm on THE team. There is no other team. New system, same team = my solution to resilience, and I wouldn't be HERE without YOU. Thanks!
A cut from: https://substack.com/@russellmcormond/note/c-334947885
****
You said: "My political outlook is grounded in what I consider the fundamental values of the Western liberal tradition: individual liberty, equality before the law, freedom of speech and religion, private property, democratic government, and the rights of the individual."
This is not the way I see the world. It is contrary to my conceptualization of “human nature”, “world history”, personal lived experiences, etc, etc.
This is not the way I see the world. It is contrary to my conceptualization of “human nature”, “world history”, personal lived experiences, etc, etc.
* I don’t support individualism. I understand why individualism was superficially seen as a “solution” from within the context of Monarchy (primarily European Christian Monarchies, and the devine right of kings), but that history isn’t the history of the world.
* I support relational sovereignty, not “equality before the law” (foreign law that privileges foreign ideologies) within Westphalian exclusive governance over geographical regions.
* Like I don’t multiculturalism actually exists, I don’t believe alleged “freedom of speech and religion” actually ever exist. I’ve referenced the concept of “Boutique Multiculturalism” and the rebranding of Protestant Christianity to “secularism” already.
* I recognize that contemporary Lockean property is built upon Anthropocentrism, which I don’t subscribe to. Roman property, which inspired Christian property and later Western/Lockean property, was even worse (Pater familias - the oldest living male head of the household—legally owned all family property and held absolute authority over everyone in the family.)
* I wrote about how I don’t consider “Canada” to be a democracy, and that applies to many western so-called “democratic governments”. In the case of the USA, the founding fathers added features to the USAs governance institutions based on their fear that democracy might break out.
https://r.flora.ca/p/canadian-democracy
This is one of my favorite things you've written. I really enjoyed it. Keep up the great work! If I may be so bold, I'd to ask you to put just a little bit more of your own opinions into these because I really enjoy the way you think but even more so the way you articulate it.
Understood, and when I learn that other people have interest in a topic I will spend some energy on the writing.
Sometimes I post those chat transcripts as a way to make putting the idea out there quicker (for those who wouldn’t search the topic themselves), and sometimes it is because I want the language to be more “mainstream” with references to ideas which more of the general public would be aware of (LLMs being advanced search engines into previously authored content).
This article was a bookmark, along with me reposting a reply from a thread where one person’s grouping of ideologies they put under the title of “Western liberal tradition”. That note was within a thread that included a new person, as well as the person referenced in this article.
Like so many things, I note that different people have a different idea of what “Western civilization” means, or what is included within the “Western liberal tradition” (Enlightenment forked into a few different things. For instance, socialism is said to be built on a different fork of Enlightenment thinking than Liberalism, but I have found few in USA/Canada who self-identify as Socialists who actually think within the Socialist fork).
It triggers some of what I’ve been told is my Autism profile when people seem to include specific labels within their personal identity, but then can’t discuss why. It feels like they have made a social group cohesion choice, and that they are granting the labels “honour by association” based on liking specific people, rather than having personally investigated the meaning of the labels.
And, as I have come to better understand, if you try to ask why people have associated themselves with specific labels, including referencing dictionary/Wikipedia/etc, many of the things that come up with Autism/Allism communication failures get demonstrated.
This Parody is helpful to share what I mean, and what I regularly observe:
https://psychcentral.com/blog/aspie/2018/09/allism-spectrum-disorders-a-parody
Persons with allism tend to suffer from a lack of empathy, or mind blindness, in that they have difficulty understanding or intuiting the needs and thoughts of others. They assume that the independent actions, facial expressions, voice inflections, and factual statements of others are intended to be hostile, argumentative, or condescending. May suffer from delusions of persecution and believe that others are judging them or attacking them; difficulty understanding the motives of others; believes the thoughts and opinions of people are related to his/her own participation and existence in the world.
Fully (fully!) grokked, and thanks for clarifying. I'm on THE team. There is no other team. New system, same team = my solution to resilience, and I wouldn't be HERE without YOU. Thanks!