Everything is False: Nothing is Permitted

The statement “Everything is false: Nothing is permitted” is a complex and somewhat paradoxical proposition that raises interesting questions about the nature of truth and morality. While the idea that everything is false might seem nihilistic and pessimistic, it is also possible to interpret it in a more nuanced way that sheds light on the limitations of our understanding and the importance of ethical norms in human society.

To say that everything is false suggests that there is no objective truth or reality that we can access with any degree of certainty. This is a position that has been explored by various philosophical traditions, from skepticism in ancient Greece to postmodernism in the 20th century. From this perspective, all of our beliefs and claims about the world are merely subjective interpretations that are contingent on our cultural, social, and historical context. In other words, what we take to be true is simply a function of our particular point of view, and there is no way to get beyond this subjectivity.

At the same time, the second part of the statement, “nothing is permitted,” suggests that without a grounding in objective truth or morality, there can be no basis for ethical norms or rules. If everything is false, then there is no way to determine what actions are right or wrong, and no way to enforce any kind of moral code. This leads to a kind of nihilistic perspective where anything goes, and there are no constraints on human behavior.

However, it is possible to challenge this view by pointing out that ethical norms and rules do not necessarily depend on a belief in objective truth or morality. Instead, they can be grounded in human values, which are based on our shared experiences and aspirations. While these values may be subjective and culturally contingent, they are still important guides for human behavior, and they provide a basis for moral judgment and action.

Moreover, the idea that everything is false does not necessarily lead to moral relativism or nihilism. Instead, it can be seen as a call for humility and skepticism in our claims about the world. By recognizing the limitations of our understanding, we can avoid dogmatism and intolerance, and instead cultivate a more open and empathetic approach to other people and cultures. This, in turn, can lead to a more nuanced and compassionate approach to ethical questions, one that is based on a deep respect for human dignity and diversity.

The idea that every society is defined by its prohibitions is a fundamental Durkheimian perspective that has been widely discussed in sociology. According to this view, the boundaries of any given society are formed by the rules and norms that define what is acceptable and what is not. These prohibitions, whether explicit or implicit, are what make a society distinct and provide its members with a shared sense of identity and purpose.

When we look at what is often referred to as “the culture wars,” we can see this struggle playing out in real-time. At the heart of these conflicts is a battle over what should be considered impermissible, and therefore excluded from the public square. In other words, the debate is not just about different values or beliefs, but about what is allowed to be part of the public discourse and what is not.

For example, debates around issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and religious expression in public spaces all center around what should be considered acceptable and permissible within society. Those who advocate for greater inclusivity and openness may argue that these issues should be discussed openly and freely, while others may believe that certain topics are simply too controversial or offensive to be included in public discourse.

In the past, there was a traditional set of prohibitions that were widely accepted and enforced by society. These prohibitions included things like being openly gay, being an atheist, or taking hallucinogenic drugs. However, in recent years, a movement has emerged that challenges these traditional values and instead promotes a more permissive and inclusive approach to these issues. This movement argues that these things are not only acceptable but should be celebrated and even encouraged in some cases.

Conversely, the same movement views other behaviors that were once deemed acceptable under traditional values, such as humiliating or discriminating against marginalized groups, as socially and professionally unacceptable. These acts are now considered excommunicable offenses in the eyes of this movement.

While everyone has their own personal opinions about which normative world they prefer to live in, what should be resisted is the notion that one system or the other is more permissive than the other. In reality, both systems are regimes of prohibition, with different sets of behaviors being deemed acceptable or unacceptable.

This brings us to the central question of the culture wars: which prohibitions are appropriate, and which are not? This is a complex and contentious issue, with individuals and groups often holding vastly different opinions on what should and should not be allowed in society. Ultimately, this debate is about determining the boundaries of our shared values and beliefs, and what kind of society we want to create for ourselves and future generations.

In conclusion, while the statement “everything is false: nothing is permitted” may seem like a bleak and nihilistic proposition, it can also be seen as an invitation to reflect on the limitations of our understanding and the importance of ethical norms in human society. Rather than leading to a moral vacuum, it can inspire us to cultivate a more nuanced and empathetic approach to ethical questions, one that is grounded in human values and a deep respect for the diversity of human experience.

The Superstitions of Modernity

Max Weber’s disenchantment thesis posits that modernity would lead to the gradual decline of traditional beliefs and values, leading to the rise of rationality and scientific thinking. According to Weber, modernity would gradually strip away the layers of religious and cultural superstitions that have clouded human judgment, leading to a more rational and objective understanding of the world. However, the last decade of politics in the West seems to contradict Weber’s thesis, as modernity seems to be manufacturing new cultural superstitions.

The rise of identity politics, cancel culture, and the proliferation of conspiracy theories all point to the emergence of new cultural superstitions in modern Western societies. Identity politics is the belief that one’s identity is defined by their race, gender, sexuality, or other social categories. This belief has led to the rise of group identity and tribalism, which has fueled social and political polarization. Cancel culture is the practice of boycotting individuals or groups who hold different beliefs or opinions, leading to the suppression of free speech and the creation of echo chambers. Conspiracy theories have also gained significant traction, especially in the era of social media, where misinformation can spread like wildfire.

All of these cultural superstitions lack the socially stabilizing virtues of traditional beliefs, as they promote division, intolerance, and irrational thinking. Identity politics, for instance, is based on the assumption that social categories such as race or gender are the most important aspects of human identity, and that individuals are defined by these categories rather than their individual traits or accomplishments. This belief has led to the creation of identity-based interest groups, which have further polarized society and eroded the idea of a common human identity.

Cancel culture, on the other hand, suppresses free speech and creates echo chambers, which prevent individuals from engaging with diverse perspectives and challenging their own beliefs

AI vs Ancestors

The stark contrast between the existence of our ancestors and that of artificial intelligence (AI) lies in the very nature of their being. While our forefathers had to overcome numerous challenges every day to survive, including the environment, predators, and diseases, AI thrives because it is in demand by humans. This difference is significant and raises critical questions about the concept of life and the role of technology in our society.

Our ancestors existed in a world that presented them with the constant threat of death. Every step they took was a resolute denial of death, as they fought to survive in a harsh environment. They had to hunt for food, build their own shelters, and defend themselves against predators. Disease and injury were constant hazards, and only the fittest and most resilient individuals could survive. In such a world, life was a valuable gift, and every living being had to work hard to preserve it.

In contrast, AI exists because it is in demand by humans. It is engineered, developed, and programmed by humans to serve specific purposes. AI exists because it is useful to us and serves our needs and desires. In the traditional sense of the word, AI is not a living being. Instead, it comprises complex algorithms and data that can process information, learn from experience, and carry out tasks that would be challenging or impossible for humans to complete. AI is an example of human ingenuity and creativity, an expression of our desire to make our lives more efficient, productive, and manageable.

The difference between the two goes beyond the idea of survival versus usefulness. It is also about autonomy and agency. Our ancestors had autonomy in the sense that they could make choices and take actions that influenced their lives. They had agency, meaning they were not influenced or controlled by anyone or anything. They had the freedom to choose their path and dictate their destiny.

AI, on the other hand, has no agency or autonomy. It is engineered, developed, and programmed by humans to perform specific functions. It does not possess free will, consciousness, or emotions. It does not make decisions based on its desires or goals. Instead, it merely performs the tasks it was designed to do without any comprehension of its existence or purpose.

These differences prompt questions about the role of technology in our society. On the one hand, AI has the potential to transform our lives in countless ways. It can help us tackle complex problems, enhance productivity, and streamline our lives. On the other hand, it also raises concerns about the impact of technology on our society and our humanity. If we develop machines that are smarter, more efficient, and more powerful than humans, what will become of us? Will we become obsolete? Will we lose our autonomy and agency, and become subservient to the machines we create?

These are difficult questions to answer, but they are crucial. As we continue to develop and utilize AI in our society, we must be mindful of its effect on our lives and humanity. We must ensure that we retain our autonomy and agency and use technology to meet our needs and desires, rather than the other way around. We must also be mindful of the potential dangers and unintended consequences of AI and take necessary measures to mitigate them. Only then can we harness the full potential of this remarkable technology while safeguarding our humanity and place in the world.

The Peripheral

William Gibson is a master of science fiction writing, particularly in his ability to create vivid and compelling worlds filled with cutting-edge technology and unique characters. His latest work, “The Peripheral,” has recently been adapted into a television series, and while the show has received mixed reviews, it still manages to capture some of the essence of Gibson’s writing.

One of the hallmarks of Gibson’s writing is his ability to create aristocratic vibes in his characters. He often portrays characters who are part of a wealthy elite class, with access to the latest technology and the power that comes with it. One such element is the emphasis on power and control. In Gibson’s novels, corporations and governments hold immense power over individuals, and their actions have far-reaching consequences.

In novels such as “Neuromancer” and “Count Zero,” characters with specialized skills and knowledge hold a significant advantage over others in society. The problem with the aristos vibes is difficult to convey in film if you have no knowledge of it. Most of the time is just a cartoon version of what poor people or middle class think very wealthy people do. It’s easy to fall into stereotypes and caricatures of the wealthy, which can make the portrayal feel cartoonish or unrealistic.

William Gibson, however, he does so in a way that is more nuanced and complex than what is often seen in film. The surreal sense of detachment that comes from extreme luxury can be described as a feeling of being removed from reality, as if existing in a dreamlike state where everything is unreal, yet within reach. It is the experience of being in a world that is seemingly perfect and ideal, yet unattainable for most people. This detachment can come from various aspects of luxury, such as the opulence of a setting or the extravagance of possessions.

In the midst of such luxury, one may feel disconnected from the struggles and realities of everyday life. The comfort and convenience that are afforded by such extravagance can create a sense of numbness to the outside world, as if one is living in a bubble of pleasure and indulgence. The opulence can become overwhelming, leading to a surreal sensation that is difficult to process.

Furthermore, the sense of detachment that comes from extreme luxury can also be attributed to the way it shapes one’s perception of the world. Luxury can distort one’s view of reality, creating a heightened sense of entitlement and privilege. It can lead to a detachment from the struggles of the less fortunate, and a lack of empathy for those who do not have the same opportunities or advantages.

In this way, the surreal sense of detachment that comes from extreme luxury can be seen as both alluring and dangerous. It can create a temporary escape from the difficulties of life, but can also perpetuate a mindset that is disconnected from the struggles of the world.

Another aspect of Gibson’s writing that makes his work so compelling is his use of technology. He is able to describe advanced technology in a way that is both technical and accessible, without overwhelming the reader with jargon or technical details. In “The Peripheral,” this is evident in the way that he describes the “peripherals” themselves, as well as the advanced communications technology that allows characters to communicate across time and space.

Perhaps the greatest strength of Gibson’s writing, however, is his ability to keep the technology under wraps of cool. He is able to create a sense of mystery and intrigue around his technology, without giving away too much about how it works or what its capabilities are.

William Gibson’s use of “cool” is a recurring theme throughout his works. In his writing, “cool” is often associated with a detached, apathetic, and sometimes cynical attitude that characters adopt as a way of coping with their surroundings. This attitude is often portrayed as a necessary survival mechanism in the high-tech, fast-paced, and hyper-connected worlds that Gibson creates.

In Gibson’s novels, characters who are “cool” tend to be highly skilled, technologically adept, and socially savvy. They are often able to navigate complex and dangerous situations with ease, using their knowledge, resources, and quick thinking to stay ahead of their enemies. This coolness is often seen as a sign of intelligence, competence, and even superiority over those who are not as cool.

At the same time, however, Gibson also portrays coolness as a form of emotional detachment and alienation. Characters who are cool often appear to be emotionally disconnected from the people and events around them, even as they are fully engaged in their activities. This detachment can create a surreal sense of distance between the characters and their environment, as if they are observing their own lives from a remove.

This surreal sense of detachment is often heightened by Gibson’s use of language, which is highly descriptive and sensory, yet also highly technical and abstract. His writing often employs jargon and neologisms that are unfamiliar to readers, creating a sense of disorientation that mirrors the characters’ own experiences. This sense of dislocation can make it difficult for readers to fully grasp the emotional or social implications of the events in the story, adding to the surreal atmosphere that pervades Gibson’s work.

Overall, Gibson’s use of “cool” is a key element of his writing style, reflecting both the high-tech, fast-paced worlds he creates and the emotional detachment that often comes with extreme luxury and power.

A third issue with the Tv version is the use of Applied Phlebotinum.


The concept of Applied Phlebotinum, as defined by TVTropes, refers to any fictional technology or substance that exists purely to solve plot problems, without any explanation or understanding of how it works. In William Gibson’s writing, Applied Phlebotinum is often present, but it is used in a much more subtle way than in many other works of science fiction.

In Gibson’s work, Applied Phlebotinum is often more of a subtext than anything else. He doesn’t spend a lot of time explaining how the technology works, instead preferring to focus on the impact that it has on the characters and the world around them. This allows the reader to fill in the gaps with their own imagination, creating a sense of mystery and wonder around the technology. This helps to maintain a sense of tension and excitement throughout his stories, as the reader is left guessing about what will happen next. In “The Peripheral,” this is evident in the way that he describes the mysterious “Jackpot,” which is never fully explained but still manages to create a sense of danger and intrigue.

However, this approach may not work as well with teleplayers in a visual medium like television. While Gibson’s writing allows the reader to imagine the technology in their own way, the superboring convention is that a television show has to show and explain the technology on screen. This can be difficult to do without either overwhelming the viewer with technical details or reducing the technology to a simple plot device. In the case of “The Peripheral,” the television adaptation does a decent job of finding a balance between these two extremes, but it may not work as well for repeated viewings.

In conclusion, while the television adaptation of “The Peripheral” may not capture all of the subtleties and nuances of William Gibson’s writing, it still manages to convey some of the elements that make his work so compelling. From the aristocratic vibes of the characters to the advanced technology that drives the story, there is still plenty to enjoy for fans of Gibson’s work. And while the show may not be perfect, it is still a testament to the enduring appeal of Gibson’s unique vision of the future.

Unreliable Memorist

Throughout the years, many authors have captivated readers with their imaginative and captivating short stories. Two authors who have left a lasting impression in the world of science fiction and fantasy are C. Clarke and Robert E. Howard. While reading their short stories, it’s easy to get lost in the intricate worlds they create. However, over time, it can become difficult to remember the particulars of some stories. This is due to the fact that both authors often rewrote their stories for different publications and used parts of one story for another. Despite this challenge, it creates a feeling of truly inhabiting their expanded universes.

C. Clarke was an English science fiction author, best known for his novel 2001: A Space Odyssey. He was also a prolific writer of short stories, many of which are considered to be classics in the genre. In many of his short stories, Clarke explored the concept of space exploration and the possibility of encountering extraterrestrial life. He also delved into themes such as artificial intelligence, time travel, and the nature of humanity. His stories were often thought-provoking, challenging readers to think beyond the constraints of their own reality.

Robert E. Howard is an American author known for his contributions to the fantasy and horror genres, specifically for his character Conan the Barbarian and his association with the Cthulhu mythos. In addition to Conan, Howard also created a number of other memorable characters, such as Solomon Kane and Bran Mak Morn. His stories were characterized by their vivid descriptions of action and adventure, as well as their exploration of themes such as heroism, honor, and the struggle between civilization and barbarism.

However, some may be pleasantly surprised to find out that Howard also wrote Gothic westerns, a sub-genre that combines elements of horror and Gothic fiction with the setting and conventions of the western. The Gothic western sub-genre is a relatively niche category that combines the conventions of westerns with the horror elements of Gothic literature. Howard’s contributions to this sub-genre include his stories “Old Garfield’s Heart” and “Pigeons from Hell.” Both stories feature haunted mansions and supernatural elements that are characteristic of Gothic fiction, while also incorporating the settings and characters of westerns. These stories demonstrate Howard’s versatility as a writer and his ability to blend different genres seamlessly.

Despite their differences in genre and style, Clarke and Howard shared a tendency to revisit and rewrite their stories. This can make it difficult for readers to keep track of the specifics of each story, as the authors often incorporated elements from one story into another. For example, in Clarke’s story “The Sentinel,” which was later expanded into the novel 2001: A Space Odyssey, a black monolith appears on the moon and is discovered to be a signal left by an extraterrestrial intelligence. This same monolith appears in a number of other Clarke stories, such as “Encounter in the Dawn” and “The Sentinel of Eternity.”

The basic premise of both stories is the discovery of a mysterious alien artifact on the moon, which leads to a deeper understanding of human origins and the nature of the universe. The novel expands on the ideas presented in the short story, weaving together a complex narrative that explores the evolution of humanity and its relationship with technology.

Similarly, Robert E. Howard’s stories featuring the character Conan the Barbarian often revisit the same themes and motifs, such as the struggle between civilization and barbarism, the corrupting influence of power, and the search for personal glory appear in many of his stories, and the Hyborian Age, the fictional setting of his stories, is referenced throughout his work. In addition, Howard often incorporated elements of horror into his fantasy stories, such as in “The Tower of the Elephant,” which features a Lovecraftian monster. By reusing these elements in different stories, Howard creates a cohesive universe that readers can explore and immerse themselves in.

While it can be frustrating to try to keep track of the specifics of each story, the fact that both Clarke and Howard created expansive, interconnected universes is also part of their appeal. When it comes to storytelling, there are different approaches that authors take to engage readers and immerse them in their created worlds. By revisiting and reusing elements from their stories, they created a sense of continuity and cohesion that draws readers deeper into their worlds. It also encourages readers to revisit their stories and look for connections they may have missed the first time around.

Both Clarke and Howard’s use of recurring elements helped to create a sense of continuity in their stories, drawing readers deeper into their worlds. This technique is similar to the storytelling approach used in the Japanese film “Rashomon,” directed by Akira Kurosawa.

In “Rashomon,” the story is told from multiple perspectives, with each retelling revealing new information about the events that took place. The film’s use of different viewpoints creates a sense of continuity and cohesion, drawing viewers deeper into the world of the story. Just like Clarke and Howard’s use of recurring elements, “Rashomon” shows that revisiting and reusing elements can help to create a cohesive narrative that engages audiences. The Rashomon effect creates an unreliable memorist, leaving readers unsure of what to believe. This effect can be seen in the film “Rashomon” and other works that use multiple perspectives to tell a story.

In conclusion, the work of C. Clarke and Robert E. Howard has left a lasting impression on the worlds of science fiction and fantasy. While their tendency to revisit and rewrite their stories can make it difficult to remember the specifics of each tale, it also creates a sense of immersion in their expansive universes. As readers, we are drawn into their worlds and encouraged to explore the connections between their stories. This is a testament to the power of their writing and the enduring appeal of their stories.

We Had to Destroy the Village

The quote, “We had to destroy the village in order to save it,” is often used to describe a situation in which an action taken to achieve a particular goal ends up achieving the opposite of that goal. It was famously used to describe the Vietnam War, in which the US military destroyed many villages in order to root out Viet Cong insurgents. However, the quote can be applied more broadly to situations in which people pursue short-term gains without considering the long-term consequences.

This kind of thinking is all too common in government and the business world. For example, in the United States, there is a tendency to cut taxes and regulations in order to spur economic growth, even if those cuts have negative long-term consequences like a weaker social safety net or environmental degradation. Similarly, in the world of venture capital, there is a tendency to invest in companies that promise quick returns, even if those companies are not sustainable in the long term.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it ignores the fact that short-term gains often come at a long-term cost. In the case of the Vietnam War, destroying villages may have been an effective tactic in the short term, but it alienated the Vietnamese people and made it harder for the US to win the war in the long term. Similarly, in the business world, cutting taxes and regulations may lead to short-term growth, but it can also lead to a weaker economy and a less resilient society in the long term.

So what can be done to avoid this kind of thinking? One solution is to focus more on long-term goals and to consider the broader impact of our actions. In government, this might mean investing in education and infrastructure even if the benefits are not immediately apparent. In the business world, it might mean investing in sustainable technologies and practices, even if they don’t promise quick returns.

In conclusion, the quote “We had to destroy the village in order to save it” highlights the dangers of short-term thinking and the need to consider the long-term consequences of our actions. To avoid this kind of thinking, we need to focus more on long-term goals and take a collaborative approach to decision-making. Only then can we build a more sustainable and resilient society that benefits everyone.

Redeemers: American Right

The American right has always been a complex and dynamic political force, with different ideological strands vying for influence within its ranks. However, in recent years, there has been a troubling trend that has emerged within the conservative movement, one that bears an uncomfortable resemblance to some of the ugliest political movements of the past. This trend mixes the worst features of post-Reconstruction “redeemers” with a distinctly inter-war European flavor, creating a toxic brew that no American should be comfortable with.

To understand this phenomenon, it’s worth examining some of the key historical contexts that inform it. The post-Reconstruction period in the United States was a time of great upheaval and change, as the country grappled with the aftermath of the Civil War and the end of slavery. In many southern states, white supremacist groups known as “redeemers” sought to restore white dominance over the newly freed black population. They used a variety of tactics, including voter suppression, violence, and the establishment of Jim Crow laws, to maintain their grip on power.

Meanwhile, in Europe during the inter-war period, a number of far-right political movements emerged in response to the upheaval caused by World War I and the Russian Revolution. These movements, which included fascist and Nazi parties, shared a number of common features, including ultra-nationalism, authoritarianism, and a willingness to use violence and intimidation to achieve their goals. They also espoused a toxic form of racial and ethnic supremacy, which led to the Holocaust and other atrocities during World War II.

Now, it may seem like a stretch to draw parallels between these historical contexts and the current American right. After all, the United States is a democracy, and we like to think that our political system is fundamentally different from the authoritarian regimes that emerged in Europe during the 20th century. However, there are some worrying signs that suggest that the American right is becoming infected with some of the worst aspects of these historical trends.

For example, there is a growing trend on the right to downplay or even deny the existence of systemic racism in the United States. This is often accompanied by efforts to restrict voting rights, which disproportionately affect people of color. These tactics are eerily reminiscent of the voter suppression and Jim Crow laws that were used by the redeemers in the post-Reconstruction South.

At the same time, there is a rising tide of white nationalism and xenophobia within the conservative movement. This is reflected in the popularity of figures like Steve Bannon, who has ties to far-right European movements, and the Proud Boys, a group that openly espouses white supremacist beliefs. These ideas are fundamentally at odds with the pluralistic, democratic ideals that have long been a hallmark of American politics.

It’s worth noting that not all conservatives are embracing these dangerous trends. There are many principled conservatives who reject racism, xenophobia, and authoritarianism, and who continue to fight for a more inclusive and democratic America. However, the fact that these trends are gaining traction within the conservative movement is deeply concerning, and should serve as a wake-up call to all Americans who value democracy, equality, and justice.In conclusion, the ugly blend of post-Reconstruction “redeemers” and inter-war European fascism that is taking hold on the American right is a deeply troubling development. It threatens to undermine the very foundations of our democracy, and to perpetuate the injustices and inequalities that have plagued our country for far too long. It is up to all of us, regardless of our political affiliations, to stand up to these dangerous trends and to work together to build a better, more just, and more inclusive America

Systems of Survival

“Systems of Survival” is a book written by Jane Jacobs that explores the different moral systems that exist within society. In her book, Jacobs argues that there are two distinct moral systems that guide human behavior: the guardian moral syndrome and the commercial moral syndrome.

The guardian moral syndrome is based on the principles of loyalty, tradition, and authority. This moral system is commonly found in institutions such as the military, religious organizations, and government agencies. According to Jacobs, the guardian moral syndrome is necessary for maintaining order and stability within society.

The Guardian moral system, also known as the Honor Culture or Dignity Culture, is characterized by a set of values that prioritize public interest, social cohesion, and communal values. One of the key features of this moral system is the emphasis on honor and reputation, which is often achieved through the display of virtues such as courage, loyalty, and obedience.

One of the values that is central to the Guardian moral system is shunning trading. This value emphasizes the importance of maintaining social ties and communal relationships over individual gain or profit. It encourages individuals to prioritize the well-being of the group over their own personal interests, and to avoid actions that might harm the community or damage social relationships.

Another value that is emphasized in the Guardian moral system is the need to exert prowess. This value encourages individuals to display their strength, courage, and skill in order to gain respect and honor within the community. It emphasizes the importance of physical and mental strength, as well as the ability to demonstrate one’s abilities in a public setting.

Adherence to tradition is also highly valued in the Guardian moral system. This value emphasizes the importance of preserving cultural practices, social norms, and traditional values in order to maintain social cohesion and stability. It encourages individuals to respect the wisdom of their ancestors and to uphold the values and beliefs that have been passed down through the generations.

Respect for hierarchy is another key value in the Guardian moral system. This value emphasizes the importance of social order and the need to maintain clear lines of authority and respect within the community. It encourages individuals to show deference to those in positions of authority and to uphold the social hierarchy in order to maintain social stability.

Loyalty is another value that is highly valued in the Guardian moral system. This value emphasizes the importance of staying committed to one’s community and to the individuals within it. It encourages individuals to demonstrate their commitment to the group through acts of service and sacrifice, and to remain loyal even in difficult or challenging circumstances.

The value of taking vengeance is also emphasized in the Guardian moral system. This value encourages individuals to seek justice for perceived wrongs or injustices committed against themselves or their community. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining honor and reputation through acts of retaliation or punishment, and of demonstrating one’s willingness to defend oneself and one’s community against perceived threats.

Deception for the sake of the task is another value that is emphasized in the Guardian moral system. This value encourages individuals to use strategic deception in order to achieve their goals or to protect themselves or their community. It emphasizes the importance of being clever and resourceful, and of using one’s wits and intelligence to gain an advantage in difficult situations.

Making rich use of leisure is another value that is emphasized in the Guardian moral system. This value encourages individuals to use their leisure time in ways that promote social bonding and community building. It emphasizes the importance of socializing, participating in group activities, and enjoying leisure pursuits that promote the well-being of the community as a whole.

Ostentation is also valued in the Guardian moral system. This value encourages individuals to display their wealth, power, and status in order to gain respect and honor within the community. It emphasizes the importance of demonstrating one’s social standing and wealth in order to gain influence and status within the group.

Dispensing largesse is another value that is emphasized in the Guardian moral system. This value encourages individuals to demonstrate their generosity and hospitality towards others in the community. It emphasizes the importance of sharing resources and wealth in order to build social relationships and to gain honor and reputation within the community.

Exclusivity is another value that is emphasized in the Guardian moral system. This value encourages individuals to maintain strong social boundaries and to limit access to their community or social group. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining a sense of identity and distinction from other groups, and of

On the other hand, the commercial moral syndrome is based on the principles of innovation, competition, and individualism. This moral system is commonly found in the business world, where individuals are motivated by profit and success. Jacobs argues that the commercial moral syndrome is necessary for promoting growth and progress within society.

The commerce moral system, also known as the Market Culture or Exchange Culture, is characterized by a set of values that prioritize individualism, personal achievement, and economic success. This moral system emphasizes the importance of trade, commerce, and free markets as the basis for social and economic prosperity.

One of the values that is central to the commerce moral system is shunning force. This value emphasizes the importance of avoiding the use of violence or coercion in economic transactions, and instead relies on voluntary exchange and mutual benefit. It encourages individuals to seek out opportunities for trade and cooperation, rather than relying on force or coercion to achieve their goals.

Competitiveness is also highly valued in the commerce moral system. This value encourages individuals to strive for excellence, to outperform their competitors, and to achieve personal success through hard work and dedication. It emphasizes the importance of innovation, efficiency, and productivity in order to gain a competitive edge in the marketplace.

Efficiency is another key value in the commerce moral system. This value emphasizes the importance of using resources and time effectively in order to maximize productivity and profitability. It encourages individuals to seek out ways to streamline processes, reduce waste, and increase efficiency in order to achieve their goals more effectively.

Being open to inventiveness and novelty is also highly valued in the commerce moral system. This value encourages individuals to be creative, innovative, and adaptable in order to meet changing market conditions and consumer demands. It emphasizes the importance of being open to new ideas, technologies, and business models in order to stay competitive in the marketplace.

Initiative and enterprise are also highly valued in the commerce moral system. This value encourages individuals to take risks, to be proactive, and to seize opportunities for economic success. It emphasizes the importance of entrepreneurship, self-reliance, and individual initiative in order to achieve personal and economic success.

Voluntary agreements and contracts are also highly valued in the commerce moral system. This value emphasizes the importance of honoring one’s commitments, and of relying on voluntary exchange and agreements in order to facilitate economic transactions. It encourages individuals to negotiate and enter into contracts in good faith, and to fulfill their obligations in order to maintain trust and reliability in the marketplace.

Dissent for the sake of the task is another value that is emphasized in the commerce moral system. This value encourages individuals to question authority, to challenge existing norms and conventions, and to pursue innovation and progress. It emphasizes the importance of creative thinking, problem-solving, and the pursuit of new ideas and approaches in order to achieve economic success.

Being industrious is also highly valued in the commerce moral system. This value encourages individuals to work hard, to be productive, and to make the most of their time and resources in order to achieve personal and economic success. It emphasizes the importance of diligence, perseverance, and hard work in order to achieve one’s goals.

Being thrifty is also valued in the commerce moral system. This value encourages individuals to be frugal, to save money, and to avoid wasteful spending in order to achieve long-term economic success. It emphasizes the importance of financial responsibility, planning, and prudent decision-making in order to achieve economic stability and prosperity.

Investing for productive purposes is another value that is emphasized in the commerce moral system. This value encourages individuals to invest their resources and capital in productive activities, such as starting a business or investing in new technologies, in order to generate economic growth and prosperity. It emphasizes the importance of innovation, risk-taking, and investment in order to achieve long-term economic success.

Collaborating easily with strangers and aliens is also highly valued in the commerce moral system. This value emphasizes the importance of building networks, relationships, and partnerships in order to facilitate trade and commerce across different cultures and societies. It encourages individuals to be open-minded, respectful, and cooperative in order to achieve mutual benefit and economic


Jacobs also highlights the potential conflicts that arise when these two moral systems come into contact with each other. For example, when a company prioritizes profit over ethical considerations, it may clash with the guardian moral system that values tradition and social responsibility.

There are several lines of conflict that can arise between the Guardian and Commerce moral systems, as their values often clash. Here are some examples:

  1. Shun trading vs. Come to voluntary agreements: The Guardian moral system values self-sufficiency and discourages reliance on trade and commerce. In contrast, the Commerce moral system encourages individuals to seek out trade and voluntary agreements as a means of achieving economic prosperity.
  2. Exert prowess vs. Compete: The Guardian moral system values strength, honor, and reputation. In contrast, the Commerce moral system values competition and individual achievement. These two values can clash when individuals are forced to choose between exerting their prowess and cooperating with others in a competitive marketplace.
  3. Adhere to tradition vs. Be open to inventiveness and novelty: The Guardian moral system values tradition and stability, while the Commerce moral system values innovation and progress. These two values can clash when new technologies or business models challenge traditional ways of doing things.
  4. Respect hierarchy vs. Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens: The Guardian moral system values social order and hierarchy, while the Commerce moral system values collaboration and open-mindedness. These two values can clash when individuals from different social or cultural backgrounds must work together.
  5. Take vengeance vs. Respect contracts: The Guardian moral system values justice and revenge, while the Commerce moral system values contracts and voluntary agreements. These two values can clash when disputes arise between parties who have entered into contractual agreements.
  6. Be exclusive vs. Promote comfort and convenience: The Guardian moral system values exclusivity and elitism, while the Commerce moral system values accessibility and convenience. These two values can clash when businesses or organizations must choose between serving a select few or catering to a wider audience.
  7. Show fortitude vs. Be optimistic: The Guardian moral system values strength and resilience in the face of adversity, while the Commerce moral system values optimism and risk-taking. These two values can clash when individuals must decide whether to persevere in the face of challenges or take a more cautious approach.
  8. Be fatalistic vs. Invest for productive purposes: The Guardian moral system values acceptance of fate and the inevitability of death, while the Commerce moral system values investment in productive activities and the pursuit of long-term economic growth. These two values can clash when individuals must decide how to allocate their time and resources between immediate needs and long-term goals.

In general, the Guardian moral system values tradition, stability, and social order, while the Commerce moral system values innovation, competition, and economic prosperity. These values can sometimes be at odds with one another, and individuals must navigate the tensions between them in order to make decisions that align with their personal values and goals.

ZIRN: Zero Interest Rate Nerds

ZIRNs (zero interest rate nerds) = Nerds who didn’t go through the connection scarcity and networkless networks of the last 80s and early 90s

Nostalgia is a powerful force that can cloud our memories and make us forget the harsh realities of the past. One such reality is the loneliness experienced by nerds in the 80s and 90s. Today, we live in an age where we can easily connect with like-minded individuals from all over the world through the internet. However, back then, finding someone who shared your interests was a daunting task that required a lot of effort.

In those days, nerd media was not the cultural juggernaut that it is today. People who were into video games, comic books, and science fiction were often seen as outcasts and social pariahs. This led to a sense of isolation and loneliness that was difficult to shake off. Imagine being passionate about a particular game or movie, but having no one to talk to about it. That was the reality for many nerds in the 80s and 90s.

The internet changed everything. It gave nerds a platform to connect with each other and share their interests. Suddenly, people who were once isolated found themselves part of a thriving community. Today, you can find online forums dedicated to every obscure game, movie, or TV show imaginable. You can connect with people from all over the world and discuss your favorite topics in real-time.

However, it’s important to remember that this wasn’t always the case. The nostalgia that people feel for 80s and 90s nerd media is often based on the idea that it was made for “real nerds.” The truth is that many nerds at the time felt isolated and alone. They had to work hard to find others who shared their interests and had to deal with the stigma of being a nerd.

It’s easy to look back on those times and romanticize them. The sense of camaraderie that nerds feel today is a direct result of the struggles that they faced in the past. However, it’s important to remember that those struggles were real and not something to be celebrated. The internet has given us the ability to connect with people in ways that were once impossible, and we should be grateful for that.

In conclusion, the nostalgia that people feel for 80s and 90s nerd media should be tempered by the reality of the time. While it’s true that those were formative years for many nerds, it’s important to remember that they were often marked by a sense of isolation and loneliness. The ability to connect with others through the internet is something that we should cherish and never take for granted.

The world of nerd media has come a long way since its early days. From comic books to video games, science fiction to fantasy, the genre has exploded into the mainstream, with millions of people now sharing their passions for all things nerdy. However, this wasn’t always the case, and for many years, being a nerd meant being isolated and alone. This loneliness was the catalyst for some of the most creative works in the genre, and it created a unique space for exploration and innovation.

The loneliness of being a nerd in the past cannot be overstated. It was a time when the mainstream culture viewed the genre with suspicion, and the few who were interested in it were often dismissed as social outcasts. In these circumstances, it was difficult to find others who shared your passions, and you were often left to explore the genre on your own. This isolation could be unbearable at times, but it also created a liminal space for creativity.

When you’re alone with your interests, you’re forced to delve deep into them, to explore them in ways that you might not have done if you were surrounded by people who shared your interests. This exploration often leads to new ideas, new interpretations, and new works of art. The loneliness of being a nerd creates a unique space for innovation, one that allows for experimentation and creativity that might not have been possible in more crowded and social settings.

The same can be said for video games. In the early days of gaming, before online multiplayer and gaming communities, being a gamer often meant being alone. However, this loneliness created a space for creativity, with developers exploring new ideas and experimenting with gameplay in ways that might not have been possible in more social settings.

Today, nerd media has become more mainstream, and the isolation that once defined the genre has largely disappeared. While this is undoubtedly a good thing, it’s important to remember the role that loneliness played in the genre’s development. The isolation of being a nerd created a unique space for exploration and creativity, and it led to some of the most innovative and exciting works in the genre.

In conclusion, the loneliness of being a nerd in the past created a liminal space for creativity. It allowed for exploration and experimentation in ways that might not have been possible in more social settings, and it led to some of the most innovative works in the genre. While the isolation of being a nerd is no longer as prevalent as it once was, it’s important to remember its role in shaping the genre and the creative works that we enjoy today.

All Writing Is Re-writing

The idea that all writing is rewriting is a popular adage in the world of literature, and it certainly holds true for historians. As they piece together the events of the past and create narratives that make sense of it all, historians are in effect re-writing the past in a way that helps us better understand the present. But what does this really mean, and how does it impact our understanding of history?

First, let’s consider what it means to rewrite something. In the context of writing, rewriting is the process of revising and editing a draft until it is polished and ready for publication. This involves making changes, adding or removing material, and generally improving the overall quality of the work. When historians write about the past, they are essentially doing the same thing. They are taking raw data in the form of primary sources like documents, artifacts, and testimonies, and crafting a story that we can understand.

But why do historians need to rewrite the past in the first place? One reason is that the raw data of history can be incomplete or inconsistent. For example, different sources might offer different perspectives on the same event, and historians must weigh these perspectives against each other to create a coherent narrative. Additionally, some sources might be biased or unreliable, requiring historians to sift through the evidence to determine what is fact and what is fiction. Through the process of rewriting, historians can create a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the past.

Historians have the task of reconstructing the past and interpreting it in a way that makes sense in the present. However, this process is not as straightforward as it may seem. The past is not a fixed and objective reality but rather a complex and multidimensional field of virtualities, potentials, and possibilities. In other words, the past is a Deleuzian multiplicity that can be re-written from various perspectives, depending on the conceptual tools and discursive strategies that the historian employs.

From a Deleuzian perspective, the past is not a linear sequence of events but a rhizomatic network of connections and becomings. The Deleuzian rhizome is a non-hierarchical and non-linear mode of thinking that emphasizes the creative potential of difference and multiplicity. It is a way of thinking that challenges the traditional binary oppositions and dualities that have dominated Western thought for centuries, such as subject/object, mind/body, nature/culture, and so on.

All historians re-write the past from a Deleuzian perspective, they adopt a rhizomatic mode of thinking that emphasizes the diversity of perspectives, the complexity of interactions, and the contingency of events. By imposing a course in events, they recognize that there is no single objective truth or interpretation of the past but rather a plurality of subjective and situated perspectives that are shaped by historical, cultural, and ideological factors.

Some have argued that historical events and processes are not determined by fixed and universal laws but rather by contingent and context-specific logics. We identify four logics of historical explanation: eventful, conjunctural, structural, and cultural. Each logic highlights a different aspect of the past and requires a different conceptual framework and methodology.

For instance, the eventful logic focuses on the contingency of individual actions and the unpredictability of outcomes. The conjunctural logic emphasizes the interdependence of various factors and the emergence of new configurations. The structural logic highlights the patterns of power and inequality that shape social relations. The cultural logic emphasizes the meanings, symbols, and values that inform human behavior.

Moreover, historians are not simply passive observers of the past, but active participants in shaping our understanding of it. They make choices about what stories to tell and how to tell them, and these choices have real-world consequences. For example, a historian who writes a biography of a famous historical figure might influence how that figure is remembered and celebrated in popular culture. This can shape our understanding of the past and our cultural identity in the present.

In conclusion, the idea that all writing is rewriting holds true for historians as well. Through the process of re-writing the past, historians create a narrative that helps us make sense of the world we live in today. While this process is necessarily subjective and influenced by the needs of the present, it plays a critical role in helping us understand our own history and identity.