On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 3:53:36 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Jul 2020, at 00:17, PGC <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > > > playing early stage strategy games purposefully NOT pursuing objectives > too ambitiously to maximize later degrees of freedom... and philosophically > questioning individuality with equality in the sense of "doesn't equality > mean more degrees of freedom for individuals generally?" that intrigues > yours truly these days. With a strong notion of equality, any cheater is as > visible as the unfair advantage obtained. PGC > > > > Equality in the social domain means equality of right. I am not sure what > you mean by “strong equality”, and very generally, I don’t think there is a > mean to make all cheater visible. >
In a more equal setting, the folks forcing us to acknowledge or suffer the effects of the fantastic length of their giant yachts, degrees of power, influence, money etc. would be harder to hide, which is a circumstance not afforded in the current setting that fetishizes freedom and individuality in order to gain large unfair advantages that translate into toxic effects for communities. The visibility of certain types of questions such as: "Do you really need a yacht that is 20 km in length? Why? Don't you need a therapist if you get that thing based on an empire in which you underpay folks?" would be more pronounced. Good gardening implies a form of equality: if I focus all efforts on the success of a couple of singular roses, then I get a toxic piece of earth. If I pay attention to the whole, affording equal opportunity for life to thrive, then cheating may not be entirely eliminated but again... some invasive species taking up lots of territory would stand out. Same in music: if everything is geared to a single soloist, or a musician in some orchestra tries to be more equal than the others... then most of us know we're either getting payed for the nonsense or they are overplaying. Equality appears relevant if we want some form of increase in personal degrees of freedom not based on the ignorance or exclusion of others. I argue the crazy, radical, unrealistic forms of equality: that starving, sick, or suffering people receive the same degree of care and attention afforded to the privileged among us. The insane notion that we don't kill each other, or spend large amounts of resources to prepare to do so in order to control each other in some kind of childish psychological personal fantasy. The crazy idea that we don't abandon each other while maintaining agility of freedom or that we don't ascribe more intrinsic value to some lives as we do to others... for whatever reason. Foremost, it is a question which I want to see taken to extremes by various discourses to study what emerges. What would it mean to live in a social or philosophical setting that would be extremely equal? Some would try to be more equal than others :) but jokes aside even though never jokes aside. Dialetheism without the trivial relativism. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1a252117-2f9b-4dc7-a62a-45b9706d793eo%40googlegroups.com.
