Anda di halaman 1dari 6

Extracto sacado del documental “Visions of Heaven and Hell" de 1994:

There is a very similar pattern that you find in the structure of societies and structure of companies and in the
structure of computers.
And all three are moving in the same direction, that is, away from a top-down structure of a central command
system, giving the system instructions about how to behave towards a system that is parallel that is flat which is a
web, and which change moves from the bottom up.
And this is going to happen across all institutions and technical devices is the way they work.

Podemos encontrar patrones muy parecidos entre la estructura de los ordenadores y la estructura de las sociedades
o las empresas.
Y los tres están avanzando en la misma dirección, es decir, alejándose cada vez más de una estructura arriba-abajo
en el sentido de un sistema de mando centralizado que da instrucciones sobre como comportarse. Estamos yendo
hacia un sistema que funciona en paralelo, un sistema que es plano, que es una red y que cambia y se mueve de
abajo hacia arriba.
Esto mismo, estamos por verlo, acabará también pasando en la forma en la que funcionan todos los demás
dispositivos técnicos e instituciones.
Cita sacada de no sé sabe donde.
There are no limits to Spratly Island micro-cartooning cyber city-state platforms like GNU social.
Anime will be the last of human things. Google AI is Deleuzean anime-becoming. My children's children will
become anime through a time-stamped genetic transition database connected to the blockchain.
GREETINGS ULTIMATE EXIT PEOPLE
The T-Shirt slogan: EXIT > VOICE
An older version: Vote with your feet.
The anti-fascist protection rampart (EL MURO DE BERLIN)
Albert O. Hirschman: “My principal point –and puzzlement – is easily stated: exit has been accorded an
extraordinarily privileged position in the American tradition, but then, suddenly, it is wholly proscribed,
sometimes for better, sometimes for worse, from a few key situation (…) The United States owes its very
existence and growth to millions of decisions favoring exit over voice”.
Exit, Voice and Loyalty (Hirschman).
James C. Bennet: “A network commonwealth would seek to promote cooperation in all areas where existing
commonalities permit greater cooperation between similar cultures. It would seek, as far as possible, to create a
common economic, informational, and residency space for citizens of its member nations. It would differ from the
EU in not attempting to dictate the social policies of its member nations, not attempting to relocate executive
agency power in community-wide bodies, and not maintaining large cross-community subsidies to help
governments resist needed restructuring”.
From a critic: “The elite that has emerged from Silicon Valley is perhaps the first in history dis-attached from any
notion of physical space, even the physical space of our shared earth. But ‘ultimate exit’ is an illusion, at least for
the vast majority of us, for even if we could settle the stars or retreat into an electron cloud, the distances are far
too great, and both are too damned cold”.
The semantic space of ‘disloyalty’:

 Switching
 Defection
 Shopping
 Objectivity
 Deracination
 Xenophilia
 Openness
Affinities:

 The culture of the ‘Anglosphere’


 The commercial model
 Virtual network technologies
 Capitalism
TRANSCRIPCIÓN:
Greetings, ultimate exit people. This is a new thing for me. As most things are for everybody these days, it's all
part of learning to inhabit the net.
You all have a t-shirt, right, this is the retro cold war flavored version of a quick and basically irrelevant nostalgia
term we owe the exit voice distinction to this man
Here's the crucial book the third term tends to go missing, perhaps that's because it seems to be inherently morally
coercive.
I'm going to assume people here are thick-skinned enough to take it.
The principle differential of the 21st century ideological spectrum will be loyalty: it will divide those at the
extremes to invoke loyalty to various large scale social collectives as the supreme political value from those
professing or simply demonstrating minimal sensitivity to this appeal
hile tempting and in certain respects plausible to map this spectrum back onto an ideological polarity, stretching
from radical collectivist to radical individualist much is missed by doing so
The disloyal lists have their own model of connectivity bias to the commercial ideal of the exchange and to the
technological ideal of virtual connectivity
The opportunity for frictionless switching within a global network or network of networks epitomizes disloyalty
as a positive techno commercial achievement and networks are collectivities
The distinction between the politics of loyalty and its other is more productively drawn between hot and cold
collectivities:
Hot collectivities are based on passionate attachments
cold collectivities are based on pragmatic calculations
hot collectivists have motherland's on fatherland's
cold collectivists shop around
loyalty in this ideological sense is essentially a macro social phenomenon
dis loyalists are probably no less loyal to their families friends and dogs although they are quite likely of smaller
and more highly nucleated families more carefully selected friends and cats or lizards rather than dogs
they were discussion to be had of differential rates of divorce and parental abandonment with inspection and we
become and we can be confident that the loyalist social conservative constituency will ensure such a discussion
takes place
the pure loyalist idea of societies that have a big family well for disloyal is it is a functional arrangement of
strangers
if strangers seem to somehow like a bad thing your loyal ISM is showing
humans are excitable social animals
if this spectrum were reducible to loyalty and its denial there is little reason to doubt that matters would have been
already too solved definitively in the loyalists favor that the spectrum exists as an ideological generator and not
merely a measure of departure from virtue is due to the positive sense of the disloyal pole which is competence
if there is a single striking pattern to modern history it is that this loyalist or cold collectivities tend to win
romantic losers are losers for a reason
pretty much whatever it is that you're trying to do doing it coldly works best
loyalism after all precludes selection
to choose among options is already disloyal ISM at work the discrimination between success and failure only
operates outside the sphere of loyalty
pragmatic calculation selects between connections. passionate attachment by definition does not
run a performance selected system against an unselected one and the outcome is predictable
the tenth and primarily disjunctive relation between loyalty and competence is the keystone of modern social
science
it is rediscovered every time a social phenomenon boost tracks water models based on games systems exchanged
or unintended spontaneous order
every theory of modernization that appeals to some species of alienation acknowledges it
social process and loyalty degrees there is Cadillac scene and that is the only social phenomenon that is
understood to work
there are other things that work naturally but they're functional principles are incalculable
loyalists have traditions that work well enough to still exist which is hard anything that isn't dead is doing
something right
hot coal activities are in their own way evidently functional their opacity to social scientific formalization however
is suggestive of a deeper disloyalty at work
they have been tested and selected by cold forces beyond the social sphere
every passionate attachment was honed dispassionately in the butcher's yard of nature and deep history
when orders of loyalty work it is because they were not built in the same way they are sustained
the competitive dynamics they exclude worked them even more ruthlessly from without whatever was done well
even the carving of a culture passionate attachment was done coldly everything gets carved bring the machinery
inside and you have social Darwinism
leave it outside and you still have social Darwinism visit of course is a very cold way of looking at things
some like it hot understandably so there's an argument
everything with which we have become familiar under the name of politics
the hot collectivity argument as it develops within maternity isn't easily identified with left or right it goes roughly
like this
look we understand we really do that when things get cooled down enough they can start superconducting
truly extraordinary stuff starts to happen we get that it's unintelligible extraordinary stuff these days growth
change connectivity artificial intelligence whatever but we're not made for this temperature we need more warmth
and we're going to insist our leaders deliver some for us
there's a whole thermo-politics discussion our squabbles over the temperature control which soon gets huge but
that's not why we're here is it
ultimate exit begins where the fight over the thermostat stops if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen don't
argue or compromise split cold by nature and cold by destination Antarctica the seat bed the asteroid belt
I don't know whether anybody here is old enough to remember Siberia that needs to come back
political heat dissipation is what the 21st century is about
archipelago is actually the warmest version
meta-utopia you tape sounds toasty but really it isn't it's meta ethical and implicitly recognizes that the integrity of
an exit based system depends fundamentally a punished moral indifference
dynamic geography and experimental government searches for optimum switching conditions which are icy and in
the end the great Yeti in-ear camera system
I'm going to assume the people here get all this stuff with cold clarity
here's the prediction there aren't a lot of cold collectivists relatively speaking but they're going to be better at
getting out than hot collectivists are at keeping them in
the heat is making us sick but it's incompetent so what it does so chill thank you

Cyberia: Juego para Playstation.


Scott Alexander: “Forty years ago, Robert Nozick proposed a very strange utopia, which he considered the
culmination of libertarian principles. Ten years ago, Mencius Moldbug proposed the same utopia, considering it
the culmination of conservative principles. Three years ago, unaware of either, I independently invented a role-
playing game around the same utopia, considering it the culmination of liberal principles. Nozick called it Meta-
Utopia. Moldbug called it Patchwork. I called it Archipelago”.
Robert Nozick (META-UTOPIA): “A wide and diverse range of communities, which people can enter if they are
admitted, leave if they wish to, shape according to their whished; a society in which utopian experimentation can
be tried, different styles of life can be lived, and alternative visions of the good can be individually and jointly
pursued”.
Patri Friedman: “The barrier to entry in the government market is gargantuan… Currently, small groups of people
cannot readily experiment with new sytems. This deprives the world of useful information about improved ways
of governing – as well as letting people keep their illusions about methods which would prove disastrous in
practice. Lowering the barrier to entry and the cost of swiching is likely to be effective. How can this be done?”
Mencius Moldbug: The basic idea of Patchwork is that, as the crappy governments we inherited from history are
smashed, they should be replaced by a global spiderweb of tens, even hundreds, of thousands of sovereign and
independent mini-countries, each governed by its own joint-stock corporation without regard to the residents’
opininos. If residents don’t lie their government, they can and should move. The design is all ‘exit’, no ‘voice’”