Sorry for the delay, tentative.
I understand how I betrayed my ideology in your framework, but I also understand how my ideology stands beyond your frames. Here, my saw and axe, catch by the drift that one simply does not be a philosopher after genuine commitment to some political stance, make sure you catch them with a clear head alone. To elaborate realistically, when I start to draw up an equation of Arrow Debreu competitive equilibrium and manifest a chart of jurisdiction for ILP, I would be merely subphilosophising under influence of basic ethical principles and microeconomic axioms upon which my symposium constitution and Baysian mathematics are grounded.
The actual actions of running it pertains to subphilosophy, as I have explained above. Philosophy itself is the questioning of the politics of running it. The politics here is not about identifying who is the owner of the site or who constitute the moderating team, or how they interact to come up with the rules. It is not about whether ILP should be structured as the biparlimentary UK government or as the trifeet standing situation of America, based on analysing a survey of member ethos, because all these pertain to decided and predetermined ethics of democracy. The politics is about descaling Western democracy as a whole into the ministate to which our 21st cetury sixth living dimension, cyberhood, belong. It is capitalism versus communism on the existential level, in the end, so far.
Here there is a chance to conduct an experiment. But you do not believe my rant since chance is one of those things that are not universally visible. I blame you not. But I show you the picture that once we philosophise, that is, once we take the stance of demolishing commonplace democracy and the semi or quasi democratic endeavours in the confusion, by grounding some political principle based on cap versus com, then we are commencing our downgoing, our subphilosophising, our tragedy, where we work towards a cmoprehensive system of running and moderating employing economics and mathematics, but then, we would be actively styling ourselves, and styling on an altogether grander dimension. Following these efforts, following successful moderators go home after a hard day of work at ILP and talk proudly to the wives about how satisfactory and challenging the day has been, I would be back into this very thread with a new post, in the same spirit yet calling for a new philosophy, a new politics, a grander style.
This is the ring of the eternal teturn, the being and becoming that constitute the ring. We can walk it with full discernment and affirmation, or we can drift along it with semidiscernment and quasinegation by not doing much, not even subphilosophising much. Along this ring, not enjoying the Moment of cyberlife, not opening to the Augenblick where existence spreads itself in perspectivism, but instead reactively relying on brick stone rules that are necessarily fixed in dunamis and lack in potentia, is to bring upon a gloom of unsatisfaction over the state, is to remain content with the following ethos,
which comes from the Nachlass, with unoriginal translation, but original emphasis on the original M words. Oringinal translation and its full context is available in the 2nd volume of Heidegger’s lecture course, English version by D F Krell.
