Tag: paradox


  • Theme:

    Social Overcorrection: Grasping at Symbolic Solutions

    1–2 minutes

    When trying to make up for mistakes, we become vulnerable to new forms of manipulation. In looking for immediate solutions, we tend to choose flawed solutions that are easy to hand.

    Applied to the social/communal sphere, our effort to avoid repeating atrocities (such as Nazism or slavery) creates new opportunities for totalitarianism: our insistent righteousness by saying “never again” becomes blind rigidity, overpowered extremism.

    Rather than learning from the past, we become more concerned with becoming virtuous and increasing our positional distance from it. As such, we cease to react to some forms of empirical reality and embrace the symbolic, as it alone offers an eternal, ideological guiding star divorced from the world’s complex muddiness.

    Since all symbols are stand-ins (reductive categorizations), the secondary traits of people (race/sex/religion) also become primary and more readily defensible. Yet, the symbolic defense becomes convoluted and complex, perhaps in inverse proportion to the discounted reality, as if we seek to recapture/recreate reality’s confusion, which we threw away for certainty.

    The past is thus repeated from our desperation not to repeat the past.


  • Theme:

    Paradox: fighting for natural rights

    1–2 minutes

    We cannot fight for natural rights with war and coercion, because it is antithetical to the spirit natural rights, forcing a hypocritical solution.

    Neither can natural rights be reinstated by appealing to settled peaceful times, because such a time is managed by industrial complexes and conglomerates that work fracture liberty and the individual into serfdom.

    From Robin Mackay and Armen Avanessian, #Accelerate


  • Theme:

    Freedom paradox: subjective/objective

    1–2 minutes

    Unsurprisingly, our freedom does not arise from the physical world: the objective realm limits us and is arguably antagonistic to our freedom. However, we phenomenally experience the world with subjective perception (limited, personal interpretation).

    Oddly, freedom resides inside the subjective realm as a fantasy construct, yet it transcends the individual as an abstract notion. It is both in you and beyond you.

    This inside/outside dynamic allows an abstract notion to be mapped onto the objective world through a subjective lens. As such, we can perceive our freedom and agency in action, even if our reading is delusional. To counterbalance our bias, we can share the expansion or constriction of our liberty with others.

    Consider that your level of freedom is based on shifting alignment, reframing your subjective stance: deciding contentment punctures the idealistic conceit of victimization or frustrated agency. Yet, it simultaneously allows others dominance if your actions do not deny authority over you.

    The contradiction of having and fighting for freedom is not only self-imposed but externally mediated, reverting the “subjective framework” back into a substantial, shared reality. And yet, it remains nonobjective, non-noumenal, completely accessible, and ultimately denied.


  • Theme:

    natural rights: a byproduct of peaceful industry

    1–2 minutes

    Natural rights stem from peaceful industry and cannot be restored through war or coercive government, as these oppose the spirit of natural rights. (War or Government will not restore your rights.)

    They also cannot be reinstated through settled peace and freedom, which would advance industrial and corporate dominance, further eroding natural liberty. (Peaceful will not restore your rights.)

    from Robin Mackay and Armen Avanessian, #Accelerate




  • Theme:

    Political hygiene

    1–2 minutes

    When a movement (such as the woke left or far-right) feels it cannot change the wider world (dethrone or enthrone Trump), it turns on those it can control: the people in its party or tribe.

    Inside the group, they increase the need for "ideological purity" to weed out interlopers and enforce/institute a hardcore of radicalized ideas, which demand alignment or at least lip-service obedience to remain in the party. (Since we have not made progress, we must go harder: you are either with or against us.)

    Examples of pejorative othering are terming: cuckservatives as in-party shaming on the conservative right or naming them a moderate or an ally to stack the progressive left hierarchically.

    Any criticality is erased, bad ideas flourish, and extremism distances what should be united.


  • Theme:

    Representative Democracy: contradiction

    1–2 minutes

    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.


  • Theme:

    Noble, Romantic Irrationality

    1–2 minutes

    Our cherished ideals—peace, love, nobility, altruism—are inherently romantic yet historically fraught with failure.

    Embracing these causes, despite their impracticality, has a romantic allure; we often find ourselves championing the losing side. This tendency towards romantic idealism is as irrational as it is compelling.

    Ironically, we place our hope in science as the savior from our own idealistic excesses, believing it will rectify the very failures bred by our romantic inclinations.


  • Theme:

    Technological efficiency paradox

    1–2 minutes

    Technology creates leisure by streamlining tasks, yet capitalism often repurposes this newfound time as an opportunity for more work, thereby increasing productivity and profit.

    This cycle perpetuates an unsustainable drive for efficiency, usually at the cost of genuine leisure. Robots, of course, don’t need leisure, so as we rush forward we either become robots or are displaced by them.

    The system logic’s embedded paradoxes imply its collapse, and yet we keep innovating our own survival.


  • Theme:

    Paradox: normalized over-individuation

    1–2 minutes

    We are embedded in a planetary society connected for information, resources, and cooperative survival, yet we are simultaneously reminded to realize our personal potential (self-actualize) as a form of agency to stand out within this wired hive.

    While being surveilled by the state and corporations, we are told to be private and autonomous, to be rebels. Personal actualization, we are told, comes from over-individuating, that is, leaning so hard into yourself that you are separated from consensus normalization. However, our very systems to communicate and sense our agency (our rebel status) in the world are technologically adapted against individuation in favor of communal alignment.

    All that to say, anyone who feels crazy under these antagonistic imperatives is sane is normal.


  • Theme:

    mapping: data vs subject

    1–2 minutes

    Retraining as remapping: We have been trained to consider charts, graphs, and geography when determining how we fit into social, political, or even viral epidemiological narratives.

    This statistical awareness is often a reductive summary standing in for the whole or the specific. Yet, we should consider whether the map/model is the ground against which we are the figure (ground>figure as data>individual) or the inverse, where we are the ground and the data is the figure (figure>ground as individual>data). If the data is the figure, we can fight to edit it and overcome it.

    We are trained to read a model (map/chart) a certain way—to see where we fit against the legend or true north—but if we self-compose (create ourselves) based on a low-resolution model, we can see that our society is trained to reinforce statistical normativity, so consider ourselves in relation to the position of external determinants.

    Whether the individual is subservient to the data (ground>figure) the normalization of relating to a model confronts the notion of “individuality”, from which we swing back to challenging the data (figure>ground) as a zero-point from which to model social autonomy, which of course remodels the model.