From 0b82ce6f3d5b2872326baabc2df6d5a1e4320632 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raincloud Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 15:39:46 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] append context for DragonsDesk --- .../DragonsDesk/2024-11-23 Sargon v. Liberalism | 4 ++++ .../DragonsDesk/2025-01-08 EFAP versus Job.txt | 6 ++++++ .../DragonsDesk/2025-03-09 Luci's Lament.txt | 6 ++++++ 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+) diff --git a/yt/DraconianDiscourse/DragonsDesk/2024-11-23 Sargon v. Liberalism b/yt/DraconianDiscourse/DragonsDesk/2024-11-23 Sargon v. Liberalism index 4f84085..ac44426 100644 --- a/yt/DraconianDiscourse/DragonsDesk/2024-11-23 Sargon v. Liberalism +++ b/yt/DraconianDiscourse/DragonsDesk/2024-11-23 Sargon v. Liberalism @@ -1,5 +1,9 @@ +A note to Sargon - a Caution against Collectivism (Social Contract Theory; Individual vs. Group RIghts) + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGw3_iC4FB0 +Original comment: +=== I think you're being unnecessarily dismissive of Social Contracts. Granted you have a degree in philosophy that I don't, but the way that I see it is this: we are individuals first. Every single interaction that we have with other individuals creates a social contract. We constantly negotiate and re-negotiate these contracts so that we know what is acceptable between us, and what is not. So within my family, we have a certain contract. My family is nested within a local community, and a religious community. We share common values, codified or not within a more abstract social contract. Then that community is nested within our State (I'm in America) and that State has what is SUPPOSED to be an even more abstract common value. Then it goes up another level to the national, which again, is SUPPOSED to be even more abstract. Ideally, the closer to the individual you get, the MORE complicated the social contract, and the less codified, and the higher the hierarchy, the LESS complicated the contract, and the MORE codified. Obviously this has been eroded in America, where we have a federal beauraucracy that tyrannizes us with sweeping policy from on high, which is why our elections are so frought. But in totality, the social contract doesn't have to prioritize individual rights over the shared value of the group. My individual identity is nested within a group identity. There's a balance, because I will lose favor with my people (and likely, most people) if I prioritize myself above all. The collective doesn't get to decide without the individual, either, unlike our current governmental system. We are individuals, so we're already atomized in a sense. What the "liberal order," as you put it, seeks to do, is to break the bonds of each atom to separate each compound from its solid, perhaps crystalline structure, so that it dissolves into a solution, even unto all the mass becoming diluted by the liquid of all the other groups. What has happened is not the intended result of social contract theory; liberal social contracts work when there is a solid conservative hierarchal structure for them to fit into. What has happened is that the natural order has been reversed, due to all the bonds, or contracts, having been broken. So there are millions of individuals, now, who don't know where to go because they were cut off from their heritage, tradition, community, values, all of it. We naturally seek to form bonds (contracts), because we are a social species, so we're in the midst of the Great Scramble; each individual has nothing higher to subject themselves to. Some turn to religion and new bonds are formed there. Some turn to collectivist movements that seem to provide them some other sense of meaning that is, by all intents and purposes, a new and more primitive religion. The rest unite under the existing Order and push it to become a totalitarian regime, equally religious. And that's the structure releasing the enzyme, that seeks to destroy all other structures. TL;DR yes, atomization has occurred. But it's not because of the belief in social contracts; it's because of the subversion of said contracts due to the upending of the proper Order. diff --git a/yt/DraconianDiscourse/DragonsDesk/2025-01-08 EFAP versus Job.txt b/yt/DraconianDiscourse/DragonsDesk/2025-01-08 EFAP versus Job.txt index e2968aa..b635f41 100644 --- a/yt/DraconianDiscourse/DragonsDesk/2025-01-08 EFAP versus Job.txt +++ b/yt/DraconianDiscourse/DragonsDesk/2025-01-08 EFAP versus Job.txt @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@ +https://youtu.be/VDu4YZmXgRk + +I respond to a conversation about the Biblical story of Job that occurred during an EFAP mini superchat catchup on 2021-06-24. + +Original comment +=== ~ 3:39:00 Didn't Rags go to a Catholic school? IIRC he mentioned it previously, but point being, I thought he would know what Fear means in the biblical sense. Those words don't mean the same things they mean today. In the Biblical context, to Fear is to respect, to revere. But if God is capable of taking away everything you worked for in your life, perhaps we should fear him in the modern sense of the word, too... edit: I thought I was correct; Rags commented on this distinction later. Good boy Rag! diff --git a/yt/DraconianDiscourse/DragonsDesk/2025-03-09 Luci's Lament.txt b/yt/DraconianDiscourse/DragonsDesk/2025-03-09 Luci's Lament.txt index 4ecdefe..07c7473 100644 --- a/yt/DraconianDiscourse/DragonsDesk/2025-03-09 Luci's Lament.txt +++ b/yt/DraconianDiscourse/DragonsDesk/2025-03-09 Luci's Lament.txt @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@ +https://youtu.be/JGIzAWcIYI0 + +I respond to a story Called Luci's Lament, as read by one of my favorite channels, The Dark Somnium, published 2018-04-27. + +Original comment +=== The devil, or anyone who was alive for thousands of years, for that matter, would not be as cynical as she was in this story. Her Cynicism is laid bare by the assumption that all those with fortune and power universally got it through unjust means, by stealing from others. She also assumes that all suffering is the collective responsibility of humanity, and she refuses to put it in individual terms, yet still blames the drunken humans for rejecting her. We are all individuals first, whether we like it or not, and you're not going to convince anyone towards anything but discontent for you if you lay the sins of others at their feet. Responsibility that is everyone's, quickly becomes noone's, then they become forgotten and waved away. No, the collective is not responsible for the moral failures of others. We are each responsible for the moral failures of only ourselves. No, nobody who lived that long would still be so cynical. Cynicism is the adaptive mechanism of those who were traumatized by malevolence. It takes a lot of time to progress past that attitude, but it's possible, worth it, and perhaps inevitable, especially if you live for eternity. Nobody is capable of creating utopia. Utopia is a conceptual dream- the archetypical heaven where there is no suffering and all is perfect. There is no such thing in material reality, and we are not capable of bringing it about. Whenever we try, we create dystopia. This universe comes with entropy built-in. Every "perfect" thing is flawed, and every "perfect" thing you attempt to create will one day return to the dust from whence it came.