Yup, not just mythos, but a return to a future of sci-fi with futures that are livable, even quasi-utopian (enough dystopias already!), not a projection of the European Middle Ages into stories of dynasties in space, and/or leaving behind of science for magical wish fulfillment and dragons (except for Smaug).
Want to stop rushing climate change? Tell stories of a world positively transformed by green tech. It's not impossible. Still, it's mostly unseen. That's the fault of our scriveners.
I think it would go without saying is the liberal intellectual and philosophical community were making the positive case, it would influence the creative arts in that direction to. I'm simply trying to influence the community which is most tuned-in to what I am saying.
And I do appreciate the comprehensive analysis, the thoughtful commentary. It matters to me to dig deeply and then process at level of "the why, the how and the implications." The ideas you share provide substance that is essential right now.
Going on Offense for Liberalism -- If liberalism means we don’t tell others what to think or how to run their lives, it withers under critiques of social shortcomings (as if all of them were attributable to liberalism rather than just a by-product of its liberality).
Defense against critiques does require a review of shortcomings but also requires a review of the nobler purposes that allow for making mistakes in judgment – even capitulations to critics exercising bad faith. Liberals need to confront the spectacle of bad faith rising out of emotionally undeveloped critics. Not all positions seemingly acceptable to liberalism are, in fact, acceptable. We don’t stay on the barricades when the battle is generally won. We take them down and live our inherited life.
But it’s quite right to argue for a restatement of the reasons why deliberate backsliding is contrary to our purpose as a liberal environment. And we can start with a rejection of the way “liberalism” has been mischaracterized. An essential restatement begins with blowing up the construction of “conservatism” as an antipode. “Conservatism” is, in fact, a psychological disposition derived from emotional immaturity, a state of insecurity, paranoia, rigidity, hostility – all the markers for emotional immaturity and the denial of full human intelligence by the epigenetic effects of the battering and neglect of infants/toddlers. Liberalism, on the other hand, is a rational and emotionally mature response to the question of governance once held back by privileged and belligerent immaturity. It is political, and comes in numerous flavors and intensities, depending on environmental circumstances and social scale.
Conservatism is a posture more than an ideology. In much the same way that libertarianism, when looked at honestly, is a posture. And both conservatism and libertarianism can be productive forces in a liberal polity. Liberal conservatism is a posture that's focused on preserving the institutions of liberty. This used to form a faction of the Republican Party. Most of these individuals, who are still alive, have moved to the Democratic Party. It's a useful posture. Bill Kristol is a prominent example of a liberal conservative intellectual who has made this jump.
Libertarians are their best, are fighting government overreach. They're activist lawyers suing to protect the First Amendment, and suing to prevent regulatory capture of state licensure schemes to the benefit of incumbents.
Again, both the libertarian and conservative posture are, within a liberal container, generative. But libertarian and conservative postures can be applied against illiberal ends. And I have certainly wasted a lot of words explaining that at this publication.
I think you can make this point with half the words. It’s a good point—liberalism does need a positive case. You explained that case with just one paragraph. I’d recommend expounding on that one paragraph with more concrete language. I’d love to read that!
I want to address your critique head on. I am not writing here for people who are looking for just the take-aways. I am writing for people who want understanding. Not just the "what to do" but the why, the how, and the implications. There are people who come here and are frustrated that I don't just "get to the point". And I see this feedback frequently, and I simply have to say that anybody saying such a thing is misunderstanding greatly what I'm trying to do here.
I don’t think you should tell people “what to do.” My suggestion was more about using concrete language to explain what you’re trying to say—actually explain it. Your entire point in this 14 minute read was one paragraph. I’d love to hear more about that.
The title names the thesis. The essay is not expansion of the thesis; it is the demonstration of the thesis. What I am arguing is that liberal intellectuals have become rusty at making the positive case, and that the rust has specific causes and specific consequences. If I published only the one paragraph you liked, I would have asserted the thesis without demonstrating it — and the demonstration is the point, because I am arguing against a discourse culture that has trained readers to accept assertions in place of demonstrations.
The reason the essay is fourteen minutes long is that the argument requires fourteen minutes of sustained attention to land. If it could have landed in two minutes, I would have written a Note. I did write a note — the one-sentence version is the post that preceded the essay. The essay does what the Note cannot do, which is make the case that the note compresses. Both forms have their uses. The essay is for readers who want the argument in its full form. The Nnote is for readers who want the compression. Neither is a failure of the other.
I understand this mode is not universally preferred, and I am not trying to convert readers who prefer the compressed form. I am trying to do the work the compressed form cannot do. The length is not an accident of verbosity. It is the form the argument requires.
I guess I’ll just be honest. When you write like this, the writing isn’t good. You repeat yourself over and over. You overmake points that require much less explanation. You get pedantic because it seems like you’re following a formula for “how one writes smart sounding things.” You think you’re using all these different forms of discourse for different purposes, but you’re not—you’re writing tedious things and good things (though IMO your ideas are almost universally awesome).
By way of example …EVERYONE knows that liberals have been making only negative arguments in the age of trump. Using a formal, structured format to over-analyze something that everyone already knows is just a waste of words. You don’t need to use a formulaic, forced style to say such simple things. Just say them and explain them briefly, once.
I hope you take this criticism constructively, as that is the intention. You have great ideas and I think feedback like mine is vital for you to learn how to express them better.
Yup, not just mythos, but a return to a future of sci-fi with futures that are livable, even quasi-utopian (enough dystopias already!), not a projection of the European Middle Ages into stories of dynasties in space, and/or leaving behind of science for magical wish fulfillment and dragons (except for Smaug).
Want to stop rushing climate change? Tell stories of a world positively transformed by green tech. It's not impossible. Still, it's mostly unseen. That's the fault of our scriveners.
I think it would go without saying is the liberal intellectual and philosophical community were making the positive case, it would influence the creative arts in that direction to. I'm simply trying to influence the community which is most tuned-in to what I am saying.
And I do appreciate the comprehensive analysis, the thoughtful commentary. It matters to me to dig deeply and then process at level of "the why, the how and the implications." The ideas you share provide substance that is essential right now.
Holding this as hope. Thank you
Going on Offense for Liberalism -- If liberalism means we don’t tell others what to think or how to run their lives, it withers under critiques of social shortcomings (as if all of them were attributable to liberalism rather than just a by-product of its liberality).
Defense against critiques does require a review of shortcomings but also requires a review of the nobler purposes that allow for making mistakes in judgment – even capitulations to critics exercising bad faith. Liberals need to confront the spectacle of bad faith rising out of emotionally undeveloped critics. Not all positions seemingly acceptable to liberalism are, in fact, acceptable. We don’t stay on the barricades when the battle is generally won. We take them down and live our inherited life.
But it’s quite right to argue for a restatement of the reasons why deliberate backsliding is contrary to our purpose as a liberal environment. And we can start with a rejection of the way “liberalism” has been mischaracterized. An essential restatement begins with blowing up the construction of “conservatism” as an antipode. “Conservatism” is, in fact, a psychological disposition derived from emotional immaturity, a state of insecurity, paranoia, rigidity, hostility – all the markers for emotional immaturity and the denial of full human intelligence by the epigenetic effects of the battering and neglect of infants/toddlers. Liberalism, on the other hand, is a rational and emotionally mature response to the question of governance once held back by privileged and belligerent immaturity. It is political, and comes in numerous flavors and intensities, depending on environmental circumstances and social scale.
Conservatism is a posture more than an ideology. In much the same way that libertarianism, when looked at honestly, is a posture. And both conservatism and libertarianism can be productive forces in a liberal polity. Liberal conservatism is a posture that's focused on preserving the institutions of liberty. This used to form a faction of the Republican Party. Most of these individuals, who are still alive, have moved to the Democratic Party. It's a useful posture. Bill Kristol is a prominent example of a liberal conservative intellectual who has made this jump.
Libertarians are their best, are fighting government overreach. They're activist lawyers suing to protect the First Amendment, and suing to prevent regulatory capture of state licensure schemes to the benefit of incumbents.
Again, both the libertarian and conservative posture are, within a liberal container, generative. But libertarian and conservative postures can be applied against illiberal ends. And I have certainly wasted a lot of words explaining that at this publication.
I think you can make this point with half the words. It’s a good point—liberalism does need a positive case. You explained that case with just one paragraph. I’d recommend expounding on that one paragraph with more concrete language. I’d love to read that!
I want to address your critique head on. I am not writing here for people who are looking for just the take-aways. I am writing for people who want understanding. Not just the "what to do" but the why, the how, and the implications. There are people who come here and are frustrated that I don't just "get to the point". And I see this feedback frequently, and I simply have to say that anybody saying such a thing is misunderstanding greatly what I'm trying to do here.
I don’t think you should tell people “what to do.” My suggestion was more about using concrete language to explain what you’re trying to say—actually explain it. Your entire point in this 14 minute read was one paragraph. I’d love to hear more about that.
What is the point you think I was trying to make?
The title, was it not? The positive case for liberalism?
The title names the thesis. The essay is not expansion of the thesis; it is the demonstration of the thesis. What I am arguing is that liberal intellectuals have become rusty at making the positive case, and that the rust has specific causes and specific consequences. If I published only the one paragraph you liked, I would have asserted the thesis without demonstrating it — and the demonstration is the point, because I am arguing against a discourse culture that has trained readers to accept assertions in place of demonstrations.
The reason the essay is fourteen minutes long is that the argument requires fourteen minutes of sustained attention to land. If it could have landed in two minutes, I would have written a Note. I did write a note — the one-sentence version is the post that preceded the essay. The essay does what the Note cannot do, which is make the case that the note compresses. Both forms have their uses. The essay is for readers who want the argument in its full form. The Nnote is for readers who want the compression. Neither is a failure of the other.
I understand this mode is not universally preferred, and I am not trying to convert readers who prefer the compressed form. I am trying to do the work the compressed form cannot do. The length is not an accident of verbosity. It is the form the argument requires.
I guess I’ll just be honest. When you write like this, the writing isn’t good. You repeat yourself over and over. You overmake points that require much less explanation. You get pedantic because it seems like you’re following a formula for “how one writes smart sounding things.” You think you’re using all these different forms of discourse for different purposes, but you’re not—you’re writing tedious things and good things (though IMO your ideas are almost universally awesome).
By way of example …EVERYONE knows that liberals have been making only negative arguments in the age of trump. Using a formal, structured format to over-analyze something that everyone already knows is just a waste of words. You don’t need to use a formulaic, forced style to say such simple things. Just say them and explain them briefly, once.
I hope you take this criticism constructively, as that is the intention. You have great ideas and I think feedback like mine is vital for you to learn how to express them better.