°
Nietzsche’s death of God unleashed modernism as social fission—breaking tradition and family like splitting an atom, releasing immense energy, most easily turned toward destruction.
The vacuum left behind, and the raw energy exposed, invited something new. Yet the shattering, and the cynical pleasure taken in the explosion, has never fused a stable ethos from the remnants.
°
Humans fight entropy by constantly attending to themselves—a survival instinct by checking our health and well-being.
This spills into endless self-focus: how we’re doing, fitting in, remembering, and fantasizing. It builds identity and worth… but what is our cosmic significance?
Rather than being “OK” after our self-attendance, we also insist on mattering to others. All this expended self-attentional energy demands externalized reciprocation, so we can finally justify our costly existence.
We are our own greatest overhead.
°
To gain authority, control everything around you. Show you “care” more—ask questions, interpose yourself, and stifle things you consider chaos.
Others, tired of responsibility, will shunt it to you, elevating you to middle management. But this comes at a cost: resentment from peers and a paycheck not high enough to erase disdain.
Authority built on control breeds isolation. True leadership inspires rather than dominates. Instead of control, seek influence through collaboration, not coercion, or risk becoming the aging, stuck, middle manager everyone despises.
°
Nobody likes to be controlled.
Some wish to live in peace, contented, but some always push. They cut against the grain or swim upstream; they are contrary and ornery, petulant and ungrateful.
Yet, contentment and comfort do not create resilient, authentic individuals. In a passive world to find a challenge from which to strengthen yourself is self-creation.
While seemingly childish and impulsive, this struggle (against nothing?) can grow into a strength from which mercy and compassion are real, not just affectations to dodge responsibility.
–
–
–
°
By declaring other values “good,” which is itself a value, we conflate and redefine them as familial. At best, they are a dysfunctional group that is variously at odds and antagonistic to each other.
The optimistic view…that all good things must be compatible , and that therefore freedom, order, knowledge, happiness…must be at least compatible , and perhaps even entail one another in a systematic fashion…is not self-evidently true… Indeed, it is perhaps one of the least plausible beliefs ever entertained by profound and influential thinkers.”
Isaiah Berlin
°
A second argument against representative democracy is the bureaucratic management that blocks change and disperses accountability. Meanwhile, the benefit of a monarch is that they should care deeply and be attentive lest their head be removed.
While power can operate behind the monarch, having a singular figurehead allows for a lightning rod and scapegoat; people crave a visible leader and target, not invisible functionaries. However, the risk of notoriety (becoming the figurehead) is rewarded with perceived power converted to real power: the monarch can tyrannically dismiss the puppeteers. This should force a tremulous alliance of mutual use and disdain.
The positive and negative aspects are long-term stability and a deft reliance on appearances to simulate balance and care, something democracy attempted to circumvent and yet has increasingly embodied.
°
One argument against democracy is governance by representatives, which means distant strangers who, despite theoretical accountability by voting, have split interests: first, they must promise that they care and will be effective (community solidarity for change), and second, they must make sure to be re-elected (self-interest as stability).
Both involve compromises that must be hidden: to be effective, you must work with the “enemy,” which runs against the cares of your constituents. The representative must necessarily be two-faced: hide compromise or stall effectiveness.
It seems there is a way in which social mores (ethics, values, social status) and an educated populace (reasonable consideration of multiple variables) could remove this antagonism, and yet harnassing a counterintuitive paradox (self-interest as community support) is the brilliance of democracy.
°
Confusion arises when actions (competence) are mistaken for ethical correctness (character).
Excelling in tasks doesn’t inherently mean one is doing the "right" thing morally. High competence can accomplish great tasks, while solid character can be ineffectual, even detrimental.
The confusion we encounter is twofold: those with skill rise to manufacture and undermine ethics, and those who fail repeatedly fall back on moral righteousness to claim a character that never existed.
°
First, logic doesn’t lead to thoughts: thoughts back into form from desire. Notions take shape from the possible harm or potential ramifications that feed you or free you. Logic is merely how we present our desires to sell them.
Consider "expectations" from a pathological person: they are not based on reason but a pattern of recognizing irrational audience demands, which continually ratchet upwards and spin sideways in their demands, conveniently shifting to maintain power. This is a vice of kaleidoscopic chaos, ever restricting while shifting in pattern.
The delusion is to consider that we can identify the pattern: our irrationality competing with theirs.
–
–
–
°
A liberal paradox: cherishing rebelliousness signifies a break from tradition, yet ironically cultivates instability through its commitment to disruption.
Embracing the underdog role (freedom from oppression) is as patriotic as embodying the victorious "winner" role (an American archetype.)
For us, fighting against the odds transcends typical political affiliations, emphasizing a personal (subjective) quest for success that resonates with national values (transcendent).
This interplay between destabilization and idealism is a conundrum: embracing persistent turmoil as a form of national idealism (undermining authority as it establishes itself) may be the very trait that sustains America’s humanity despite its perpetual, domineering striving.
–
–
–
