If we think of the feudal but personable social workings as a doubled-down stratified system, we could see each layer as a world unto itself, much like Banfields family/village of Amoral familism. i.e. each class in its grouping/network acts like a family/village. In which case the social order of feudalism is more apparent than it is an ordering. The example of the backward society is thus an isolate, a remnant of that previous social order which is no more (the greater scale or fractal is not there to embrace it, negotiate it, make deals with it) and where no substituting of loyalty from that class/caste/band for another world (nation, region, sport) has occurred. (And that remnant is something that organised crime it Italy used as a model). The social order is thus an outcome, as is any disorder.
So I would, as usual, rephrase this as human beings need to world. The integration of which, or lack thereof, is an outcome. Often this worlding will be assumed to order or to sort out our preferred ontologies… —just-so.
Where those ontologies remain in place, but the wrong 'sort' are in preferment (the elite are just not now one of us, or worse, are not who should be there, even if that isn't us exactly, or even me). Explains the maga urge to world without care. For a conservative radicalism, it is not that the system is rigged, but that who gets to the top is rigged. Or, even, not that rigging per se is bad, but who gets through that rigging at the moment is just not right somehow. Something is amiss with the world, but that the order is the wrong order.
Tear it all down, begger take the hindmost, drain the swamp. When balance is sought in destruction, little good can come of it, order or not. But it still is a worlding urge.
This is the result of money being made on the ressentiment of people whose disenchantment has nothing to do with alienated labour. We alienate our labour all the time. What has been alienated is their emotions from doing good in the world, and that everything is fucked. 400 hundred years ago no one had access to stainless steel and the hygiene it helps provide.
PS my ability to turn comments into notes has been greyed out across substack. I don't know why. I feel this alienates my involvement with substack.
I'm mildly surprised that you find this statement to be too strong. I thought that this is a minimal statement, weakly formulated, that could be the basis of agreement even among persons who disagree on other matters.
I think it says too much, and that there is a more parsimonious minimum.
One may prefer social order over disorder.
The urge to world will often come to terms with habit and routine and expectations and assumptions of how it is.
This preference for a need for social order, and thus the order itself, is an outcome of the repeated remains of the day. This is not in itself a need for social order in a strong sense. But a weak sense, yes. The stronger more parsimonious impetus is the worlding urge, give arise to the need for social order, among other outcomes in socially worlded animals as they consider their good selves in a group, or two, or many.
In viewing the remains of yesterday we lose sight of the more parsimonious framing, It always there, and you don't always know what you got 'til its gone.
from current reading, reaction soon, " Expressed in Pindar’s encomium to achieved or perfected excellence, this
same ideal urges us to realize or accomplish or perfect ourselves: to become the one you
are, a naturing of one’s first nature as a nature apt or able to acquire such perfections
involves Aristotle’s ethical evolution or fashioning of character as a second nature."
there is the worlding urge (a type of selfing without a self)(on the landscape to the body) and then there is a character equivalent, a derivative character, a second nature, such as the "need for social order".
narcissists can do neither, their lack, as a pathology allows us to see that within which we live/swim as fish in water.
"Human beings need a social order"
I think this is too strong.
If we think of the feudal but personable social workings as a doubled-down stratified system, we could see each layer as a world unto itself, much like Banfields family/village of Amoral familism. i.e. each class in its grouping/network acts like a family/village. In which case the social order of feudalism is more apparent than it is an ordering. The example of the backward society is thus an isolate, a remnant of that previous social order which is no more (the greater scale or fractal is not there to embrace it, negotiate it, make deals with it) and where no substituting of loyalty from that class/caste/band for another world (nation, region, sport) has occurred. (And that remnant is something that organised crime it Italy used as a model). The social order is thus an outcome, as is any disorder.
So I would, as usual, rephrase this as human beings need to world. The integration of which, or lack thereof, is an outcome. Often this worlding will be assumed to order or to sort out our preferred ontologies… —just-so.
Where those ontologies remain in place, but the wrong 'sort' are in preferment (the elite are just not now one of us, or worse, are not who should be there, even if that isn't us exactly, or even me). Explains the maga urge to world without care. For a conservative radicalism, it is not that the system is rigged, but that who gets to the top is rigged. Or, even, not that rigging per se is bad, but who gets through that rigging at the moment is just not right somehow. Something is amiss with the world, but that the order is the wrong order.
Tear it all down, begger take the hindmost, drain the swamp. When balance is sought in destruction, little good can come of it, order or not. But it still is a worlding urge.
This is the result of money being made on the ressentiment of people whose disenchantment has nothing to do with alienated labour. We alienate our labour all the time. What has been alienated is their emotions from doing good in the world, and that everything is fucked. 400 hundred years ago no one had access to stainless steel and the hygiene it helps provide.
PS my ability to turn comments into notes has been greyed out across substack. I don't know why. I feel this alienates my involvement with substack.
I'm mildly surprised that you find this statement to be too strong. I thought that this is a minimal statement, weakly formulated, that could be the basis of agreement even among persons who disagree on other matters.
I think it says too much, and that there is a more parsimonious minimum.
One may prefer social order over disorder.
The urge to world will often come to terms with habit and routine and expectations and assumptions of how it is.
This preference for a need for social order, and thus the order itself, is an outcome of the repeated remains of the day. This is not in itself a need for social order in a strong sense. But a weak sense, yes. The stronger more parsimonious impetus is the worlding urge, give arise to the need for social order, among other outcomes in socially worlded animals as they consider their good selves in a group, or two, or many.
In viewing the remains of yesterday we lose sight of the more parsimonious framing, It always there, and you don't always know what you got 'til its gone.
from current reading, reaction soon, " Expressed in Pindar’s encomium to achieved or perfected excellence, this
same ideal urges us to realize or accomplish or perfect ourselves: to become the one you
are, a naturing of one’s first nature as a nature apt or able to acquire such perfections
involves Aristotle’s ethical evolution or fashioning of character as a second nature."
there is the worlding urge (a type of selfing without a self)(on the landscape to the body) and then there is a character equivalent, a derivative character, a second nature, such as the "need for social order".
narcissists can do neither, their lack, as a pathology allows us to see that within which we live/swim as fish in water.
https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/reaction-babette-babichs-what-makes