Chaos is usefel for people who do not want to be held responsible, that is as much true in personal relationships as on the media coverage of events in our time.
It also explains why chaos has also been used in areas like the Middle East for decades, because before we can discern what is going on, it is often over and people have moved on, leaving life changing interventions, death and carnage behind.
There is a duality in chaos, and I think it is summed up in the line at the end: âOf course you donât play by the rules, because if you play by the rules youâre fuckedâ. This is true of a miscreant who has done wrong and, according to the rules, is due to be punished and lose the game. Someone like that may create chaos to hide, to break the game so that the consequences of their actions never catch up to them.
The other side of chaos, though, is that sometimes the rules are wrong, and the game should be broken. Someone like Gandhi, who recognized that the game was rigged, and âif he played by the rules he [and India] are fuckedâ. And so he broke the rules creatively, and used chaos to change the rules.
Both uses of chaos seem at play in current affairs: People with real grievances about the order of society who have tried and failed and feel hopeless about seeking justice by institutional means, and are willing to burn it down and start fresh; and people who have abused the order of society to their own ends, defying the spirit of the rules, and would rather burn it down than be judge by it.
This can make for strange bedfellows, e.g. Jill Stein allying with Trump, and Liz Cheney allying with Democrats.
Chaos is good Clickbait.
If everybody turned the TV off and just lived their life quietly in peace with each other⌠it would take away the fuel & the fire would die.
If they made up their own currency and only worked jobs that paid in that currency and only paid bills that took that kind of currency and they set the prices ⌠totally nuther fire would die.
Imagine if artificial intelligence could manipulate all of the radio waves and suchlike waves to input that idea into everyone except for the ones that donât need to have that idea.
That would be pretty spacely space sprockets, man. I wanna see that movie.
True enough, although there are denied conditions into playing games, generally, may change the game plan bit!
For instance the relationships between de-facto and de-jure interpretations of the law appear confusing at times, and different spins may be put to test these games, to further diminish , or in rare cases , exemplify some exceptions to the concerning rules of the games.
That the whole public policy shift from one to the other may not have taken place, had it not been for whistle blowers , or the bravest of the brave who could challenge long outstanding states of the status quo.
I think there has always been this duality around, but that the chaos is laid down to make us unable to make a distinction. One simple way to cause confusion is to take a statement to extremes, as often happens here in threads. For example, a moderate statement that protests the collateral damage of policies is taken to mean the opposite of that policy should be implemented. Or the one-sidedness of a policy is criticised and is said to be advocating for an equally one-sided approach from the other side.
The black-or-white attitude denies that most of the world is grey. The best policies are thought out from all sides, but chaos suggests that we havenât got enough time for a comprehensive look. Another way ahead is the QM approach, in which we implement a policy but review it after one cycle, then after three cycles, and then regularly after nine cycles. If necessary, the review restarts the process. The general argument put forward against this is, again, chaos. I know because I tried to implement QM in a medical environment.
When you are responsible for such processes, you become sensitive to troublemakers. This awareness also helps in debates, where group dynamics always come into play, and someone always plays the chaos card. As moderator or chairman, I have always seen the chaos card as sabotage and either put the person on the spot by making them responsible for the process or throwing them out. This may be possible in companies, but what do you do in societies?
Much of the current chaos is deliberately orchestrated to serve vast geopolitical goals, from a WEF âgreat resetâ to transhumanist AI-human merging to mass population reduction to the establishment of a global âone world governmentâ biodigital spatial web surveillance state with CBDC social credit systems. Along with all of that comes the typical dialectics pushed on the people to divide and conquer them plus a whole host of psyops and psychological manipulations/gaslighting through media. Politicians and the rich keep getting richer and more powerful, meanwhile everyone else becomes angier, poorer, more desperate and more hateful of each other.
Not many people can see through the political nonsense and smokescreens to what is really going on, how our world is being permanently transformed before our very eyes. The chaos is supposed to blind you and appeal to your ego so you choose a side and ârah rah!â fight for that side while hating the others. Itâs so easy to see, but apparently also so effective most people have no clue whatâs being done to them and what sort of future they are being corralled into.
All geopolitics have subsumed national interests, concurrently, so that all memory could be wiped and subsequently rebooted?
Yes/No
&WHY?
Or is that an erasable hard copy
In that case itâs a toss up,
Flipping the coin
Heads or tales? Determinations rule that the short term favors more risk and chip collection, while risks become negligible on the long term.
Debate: more convincing affect before transcription into effective utilization of 
tools 
before and after all bets are off.
)(
Cause:
1776
It seems a mistake to think that most of the chaos is centrally orchestrated. People who want to hide in chaos sow it in their immediate vicinity, or latch onto chaotic movements that are present in their lives. Each one of them acting individual can create a more general chaos, particularly when the chaos-agent-par-excellence is made the leader of the free world. Thatâs still emergent rather than orchestrated.
Orchestrated chaos can exist of course, Iâd describe Gandhi as an agent of orchestrated chaos. But I also think Putin and the current ruling regime in Russia are orchestrating chaos. While I agree much more with Gandhiâs goals, both he and Putin are using chaos to create the opportunity for systemic change.
My main point above is that chaos is value-neutral. The contrast to chaos can be order, but it can also be sclerosis, rigidity, caste. Chaos is creative destruction.
@Bob, I can see why you wouldnât want that in a medical environment. And even though I sympathize with the goals of progressive activism, I donât think itâs something you want at the top of a global political order either. But a little bit of chaos in the right places is healthy.
I love the idea of making people undermining a project responsible for it. I read somewhere that one of the most effective ways to change a personâs mind on a policy question is to get into specifics, to ask over and over again, âHow would that idea work?â (and Iâve found useful for reflecting on my own policy preferences). For the right kind of troublemaker, putting them on the spot could harness their chaotic impulses while forcing them to acknowledge the value of the constraints.
Like you, I donât know how that ports to society. The scale of the institutions is so much bigger, itâs hard to give any individual real responsibility over the outcomes we care about.
In your experience, was it enough to label a troublemaker as such? Having been a troublemaker myself, Iâve noticed that when itâs pointed out that Iâm a contrarian or argumentative, it makes it a lot easier for others to discredit my objections and rapidly move on. Could it be enough to have a reliable way to flag troublemakers in society, to give everyone a heads up that their suggestions should be taken with a grain of salt?
I havenât heard of this, what does QM stand for? Iâve often thought that laws should sunset after a certain number of years and need to be reviewed, but always pegged the number of years in proportion to the share of the vote. I like the idea of laws that get stickier as they are reaffirmed.
I think that Gandhi is an example of what you wrote in the last post about rules being wrong. Gandhiâs campaigns of mass civil disobedience created a sense of chaos for British authorities without engaging in direct violence. By encouraging Indians to break unjust laws, boycott British goods, and refuse to pay taxes, Gandhi provoked the British into responding with repression. This response often backfired by highlighting the moral contrast between British brutality and Indian nonviolence, generating global sympathy for Indiaâs cause.
If, as in the case of the British Empire, the oppressors are oblivious to the immorality of what they are doing, then chaos seems to be the only means to make them aware of it. There have been numerous examples of imperial insufferabeness, mostly connected with colonisation, and Gandhi was probably fortunate at that moment in history. Others tried and were just wiped out.
There are two kinds of troublemakers.
-
The troublemaker with a valid objection to a process because they care.
-
The troublemaker who has an invalid objection to a process because they donât care.
The task is to determine which one they are, which is made easier by giving them responsibility. This also gives me an advantage because if they donât care, it is easier to get rid of them
Like I said, someone who disrupts a process because they care is dedicated. You want more people like that (I was one). That is why I often confronted people with the question, which kind of troublemaker they were. Very often they were so surprised that they became dedicated.
The abbreviation QM commonly refers to Quality Management, a systematic approach to ensuring that an organisationâs products or services meet consistent quality standards.
1 Like
In ruling interjection sorry:
But do You agree to the valueless neutral quality of chaos in itâself?
Or even agree to disagree or disagree to agree? ( a singular interpretation of legal or formalized effect/affect for which one can committed for?
Trump and Vance are chaos agents so are MAGA Republicans in Congress and Elon Musk. Biden represents the old guard establishment. Despite hints of leftist activist leanings in the past, Harris is promising solidarity with the old guard. That includes unwavering support for Israel on the warpath with the threat that if elected Trump will cave into the authoritarian bad actors like Putin and make matters worse.Even the climate has become an actor in the drama, with both sides vying for the hearts and minds of voters in electoral swing states made chaotic by hurricanes.
1 Like
Unfortunately, more is gained economically in chaos than in order. Instability is one of the most effective ways to introduce new ideas and force drastic changes. In her book The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein provides well-known examples of how this tactic evolved and became a standard practice for many regimes worldwide.
1 Like
Indeed, Martin Alonso Aceves Custodio. In disorganized and chaotic states, inventors, investors, and capitalists are presented with more and better opportunities. Why. Because problems are opportunties to produce and market solutions. Contrarily, the more happy and satisfied people are, the fewer problems they have, and therefore, fewer are the incentives for capitalists to invent anything.
Problem solving is the mother of invention, and invention is the mother of profit, Martin Alonso Aceves Custodio.
Also, Martin Alonso Aceves Custodio, observe the dependency capitalism creates in economy⌠the dependency of both the working class and the government on the capitalist.
The thing that empowers the capitalist is the unemployment created by the lower working class, being unable to acquire money either in the form of wages or bank loans and credit. The source of money - the banks - only deal with clients they can make returns on, so the working class stays broke until they can find employment. Stagnation. If theyâre unemployed, they canât pay taxes, so the government needs them to work so it can make its money. Solution: Avoid inflation from stimulus spending (go Hayek) and set the private investors free so they can create employment so we can get our taxes⌠and the capitalist wins again, having both the government and working class under its thumb.
Imagine the markets that will be created by global warming problems in the future (if, indeed, its happening). Itâll be a venture capitalist heyday.
Yeah true, now how about water being charged for usage regardless whether for drink or for watering lawns.
Next, as global warming and the cutting down of trees in the rainforests and elsewhere, it is not inconceivable that charges will be maid on oxygen consumption through in or out of the bottle.
Think Musk may be right about building another world on Mars, the cost of replenishing natural sources of sustainable material may even dwarf the cost of a new worldâs ordered start up!
2 Likes
I agree. Many of her supporters will be disappointed, as they were disappointed with Obama â and for similar reasons.
Her campaign is certainly historic. If she wins it will be a progressive victory even before any of her policy plans take shape, because it will be a big public demonstration that American notions of equality are real: a woman of color, a child of immigrants, can ascend to the top. I donât know how well the âstereotype threatâ research has survived the replication crisis, but I canât believe it wonât have an impact on how historically marginalized people relate to the institutions of government.
But like Obama, sheâs a moderate to conservative Democrat. Her policy preferences arenât nearly as progressive as the fact of her campaign. I donât know her stance on Israel (and I think thatâs deliberate on her part), but I donât expect a radical departure from current policy.
Still, current Democratic policy is mostly good, itâs broadly progressive and weakly redistributive, and not at all radical. Anyone on the left who would be disappointed by her will be infinitely more disappointed by a Trump presidency. Thatâs how two-party systems work.
Did anyone catch Trumpâs breakdown at a gathering missed it but searching for it will post it if recovered; but thatâs in line with his style.
The one where he tells the heckler to go back to mommy & that she should get the hell knocked out of her?
Or the third assassination attempt?
The one where he tells the heckler to go back to mommy & that she should get the hell knocked out of her?
Or the third assassination attempt?
[/quote]
No, the latest where two attendees at a town hall meet get sick and Trump says â letâs not continue with this, but just danceâ and proceeds to dance for over 40 minutes on stage , if I heard that right
