5GW, Freedom, and Theory

Is there really such a thing as ‘moral’ warfare whatever its generation?

My first impulse is to say that 5GW makes ideas, values and the liberty to choose them more valuable than ever. If you know somebody might be out there trying to manipulate you it is natural to think very hard about what is going on in your world. It is also very natural to want to protect those things. Should 5GW become a widespread way of warfare the key for a society will be finding the balance between healthy suspicion and outright, paralyzing, paranoia.

I’ll have to think more about it.

If you know somebody might be out there trying to manipulate you it is natural to think very hard about what is going on in your world.

Very cool point, Arherring, and one I’ve considered often. The comments I left on Dan’s thread on The Struggle Against Evil were inspired by such a consideration.

Dan,

Your rhetorical questions would be more interesting if you offered guesses to the answers (or else go ahead and give the answers you probably already have!); but as with most of your rhetorical questions, they are interesting anyway!

I really hate the word ‘normative.’ Every time you use it, on various blogs, I cringe. To be quite honest, I’m beginning to wonder if the very concept is antiquated. Nonetheless, I’ll offer some fingertip feeling responses to your prodding:

What are the normative (moral) implications of 5GW?

Do you think it is wise or even helpful to equate normativeness with morality? That’s perilously close to saying that morality is relative: whatever the majority judge to be moral is moral; and, majorities may change.

Given that thought, I’m wondering if your question is inspired by the implications that 1) 5GW organizations may create majority opinions, albeit in a roundabout manner of operating, and 2) a resilient ‘outcome’ of 5GW campaigns may involve long-lasting majorities. Of course, the concept of ‘rule-sets’ also enters the picture. And so, a multiplicity of battling 5GW orgs might somehow lead to the ascension of widespread relativism, or if not then widespread nihilism, if one org cannot dominate all the others? How is this fundamentally different than what we now have?

Is normative theory a natural part of 5GW theory?

Ah, I wonder if you’re anticipating my post on transparency, huh? I’ve been experiencing system disruptions up-close and personal following an ice storm; so that post has been forcibly postponed although the next post, on resiliency, has been enriched by the experience. But to answer your question: probably, although I think that normative theory may be antiquated or at least deserve an update.

Should we have a “Normative Theory” section to this blog

Do you want one? What kinds of things would you put there?

should we expect to see normatively-centered 5GW blogs?

Don’t we already?

Now, while I’m at it (and don’t know if the electricity will hold the following days!), there’s this:

5GW is not any less “free”

— which reminds me of the first part of “Where is the ‘war’ part?”

But a recent post on Phatic Communion takes a whack at J.R.’s apparent assumption of a present liberty, albeit not directly: I May Be A Pyrrhonian. Interestingly enough, it similarly addresses Arherring’s comments in this thread!

And finally:

as it is unreasonable to expect that beliefs will be formed rationally

Ooooo, I love paradoxes!

(Incidentally, come to think of it, a “Normative Theory” category would only be useful for those who categorize their posts! Heh.)

Aherring,

Great comment, and I think it shows how normative (moral - heh) concerns may become important. The question of whether or not non-environmentally-driven thoughts are needed for “freedom” depends on whether or not you believe John Stuart Mill’s definition of “liberty.” So we’re tying things into philosophy. :-)

Curtis,

Haha — I’ve found it’s less likely that I’ll be contradicted in my thoughts if I phrase them as questions, whether than statements… So perhaps the questions themselves are a form of ideological 5GW? :p

Do you think it is wise or even helpful to equate normativeness with morality?

I’m using the term in the political science sense of “rules” (the same use of norm in Normal College). It’s just the word I’m used to in these circumstances, and I don’t mean to imply that it’s majoritarian or something like that.

Dan,

It would seem that normative theory in practice becomes more fully expressed as majorities adopt the standards — whether through explicit understanding or implicit understanding, explicit controls or implicit controls, vertical enforcement or horizontal enforcement, or all of these in concert. If we archetype the Barnett vs Robb debate, while folding in a consideration of 5GW confluence, then we must wonder (it seems) whether standards and rules become more fully expressed through conscious direction or through horizontal and largely implicit means: can standards be established, or do they form in the soup of confluence as a reaction to (and result of) so many horizontal forces? In either case, however, some sort of establishment appears to occur, by which majorities consciously, subconsciously, or consciously & subconsciously adopt the standards which the overall system appears to enforce (by whatever means.)

So the question of majoritarian authority becomes relevant! ;) Whenever I think of majoritarianism, I tend to think of it as a guiding principle most generally held in the conscious mind, which could be summarized as, “The majority will is always right; or if not, will tend to be right most of the time and therefore ought to be followed. (Errors will eventually self-correct.)” That is a normative belief, and one I generally oppose as a sort of political pseudoscience. However, one can take a very different view of the subject of majoritarian authority, one based upon an actual looking at what does happen in the world, and say, “However it forms, whether through vertical enforcement or the confluence of disparate forces, or through some combination of these, a majority standard will tend to form that will reflect the overall state of the system.” In fact, the first type of majoritarianism often relies on the truth of this statement and only errs by trying to universalize it; i.e., by channeling it into vertical controls, hierarchical structures, and so forth which will over time be adopted by real majorities; or, by purposely creating apparent majorities and justifying them by saying, See, the majority happened naturally as a result of real system dynamics!

In archetypal Barnett vs Robb terms, the erroneous majoritarianism operates from a belief in closed-source, vertically enforced, and hierarchical establishment of standards, whereas standards in fact really form as a result of confluential processes during the continual emergence of systemic reality. Applied normative theory tends to be the first; but one might consider normative theory as an explanatory theory that describes the emergence rather than prescribing the emergence.

—Now, this comment has only been an explanatory comment, itself, meant to clarify my perspective in the last comment I left in this thread! Plus: a bridge between us, since we appear to interpret normative theory differently. However, given the last sentence in the preceding paragraph, and given your rhetorical questions in the post, I suppose I should extend my fingertip feelings by saying that 5GW theory appears to assume the reality of the possibility that normative theory can be applied differently than it is typically applied; i.e., with the understanding that largely vertical establishment and maintenance of standards within a system is proving archaic and probably impossible. Is that the answer you were looking for?

However, given the last sentence in the preceding paragraph, and given your rhetorical questions in the post, I suppose I should extend my fingertip feelings by saying that 5GW theory appears to assume the reality of the possibility that normative theory can be applied differently than it is typically applied; i.e., with the understanding that largely vertical establishment and maintenance of standards within a system is proving archaic and probably impossible. Is that the answer you were looking for?

Not what I was looking for, but something much more beautiful. Thanks.