If you have a fluid hierarchy then "normal" cannot simultaneously be normative because of the need for diversity, complexity, specialization and indeed hierarchy. Normal as normative only works in a static society where roles are preordained essentially from birth, because normative normalcy is contextualized by that person's place in the hierarchy, thus avoiding competition via Girardian mimesis. But in a fluid hierarchy (e.g. of meritocracy, perhaps its ideal form), normalcy cannot be normative in a univocal sense / manner because this would lead to a mimetic contagion and to the war of all against all (envy rivalry, ect.). Thus the modern ethic of authenticity is a replacement / substitute for the traditional notion of preordained social role, in that it affords niche differentiation in order to increase group resiliency and preventing mimetic rivalry. The downside / danger / vulnerability of the traditional solution is that it locks people into roles, to a degree, that may be quite unsuited for their temperament, innate and acquired skills, context, ect., thus leading to inefficiency and potentially revolutionary resentment if things become too rigid. The downside / danger / vulnerability of the modern ethic of authenticity (see Charles Taylor) is that the more internally sourced locus of purpose can lead to relativism and atomism when the society / environment furnishes these distortions of the real moral power of the ethic (see Taylor on the malaise of modernity (in research notes) for how this plays out Essentially, the point / hypothesis is that you can't have a normativity of normalcy (except in a much more broad, baseline sense) in a fluid hierarchy. While you can have one in a static / inherited hierarchy (remember these are all gradients), this mode of society is I think both no longer viable for us as a social imaginary after the development of modern self-consciousness (see Linda Zabzebski on humanity's two great ideas [understanding the world and understanding the self] and Charles Taylor on ratchet points of history and the moral good of the ethic of authenticity in modern individualism) and is inferior to a fluid hierarchy for the same reasons, treating people like children to be wacked with sticks from birth based on narratives wedded to always partly arbitrary institutional power, whereas a fluid (meritocratic) hierarchy models natural selection and all life, has greater potential for goodness, treats people with greater dignity and Christian charity, allows for emergence, is more honest and humble about the inherited arbitrariness of power and authority and takes account of the increased knowledge humanity has gained through history. Granted it may be more risky in certain respects but for all the above reasons it is I believe deeply the higher, more good path)
This is crucial. The supposedly Christian path that Pageau claims mediates between static top-down hierarchy and revolutionary emergent fluidity, or whatever terms you wish to use, he claims is exemplified in his example of a nun who knows a priest is keeping prostitutes and who barges into his room while he's engaged with one and kneels before him saying she wishes to confess her sins. While amusing, and while the spirit is correct - pointing out the corruption of authorities without directly revolting, the specific form is (at least in our current historical context I will defend) very wrong, for one in that it avoids confronting the issue entirely but more importantly is disingenuous by **pretending** this person still holds special moral authority as though it were a confer-able substance immune to corrosion or enhancement through behavior (a literalizing of e.g. anointing oil or a lawful signature as magic or some nonsense). Furthermore, the illusion is up; few in the modern world are going to pretend that purely inherited authority is legitimate, and essentially no one truly believes it. There's no going back on this point. Authority is participatory and transjective just like everything else. While I obviously agree that the pure critique of postmodernism misses the purpose of critique (reform, not total dissolution) and the necessity of (some form of) hierarchy and authority (what I like to call contextual competence, further polishing a piece of Jordan Peterson terminology I respect the choice of), critique is as inevitable and necessary as hierarchy because corruption (i.e. sin) is inevitable, as Jonathan acknowledges. However, I think the crucial point here is that this critique needs to be made with open clarity, clear transparency, which is entirely compatible with respect for the authority / sanctity of a given position itself, but acknowledges the real emergent good of modern self-consciousness and authenticity which calls out corruption directly and understands social imaginaries as contextual rather than eternal and inevitable, which they clearly are, and anyone who claims they've got a lock on the best format is deluded, as Pageau himself acknowledges regarding the solution to the current breakdown not being political, which should flow from more spiritual principles, and his gentle (how "nice") admonitions of Neoreactionary monarchist LARPers in his orbit. Admittedly the proper form of critique that takes into account the modern good of radical honesty requires right-hemisphere finesse and grace so as not to sully the deserved reverence of the position of authority itself that is being participated in and currently corrupted, but I maintain it is possible. Now, arguably a more "feminine" (using Pageau's language) behind-the-scenes, 1-on-1 talk with the corrupt authority may be the best first step, but even here, unlike the nun in the example, one can be direct and still respect the position of authority itself. And fine, maybe even before this act one can simply encourage the good in that individual as the first and primary attempt; it depends on the severity of the corruption I'd guess. But there is no need for disingenuousness. The action of the nun in his example was admirable and quite probably the best possible thing she could do in her historical situation and context, but in our era is a kind of dishonesty, certainly it is disingenuous, and advocating this kind of critique as the best or only admissable kind I think collaborates at a deep level (unsurprisingly) with a strand of reactionary fideism Pageau is still mired in *in spite* of his passionate Christian vision, which to be honest is I think the thin but strong line holding him back from fascistic NRx rhetoric. This he exemplified in a Q&A, where he disengenuously waffled and gave a psuedo pass to the Orthodox dogma about the age of the planet despite clearly knowing it to be false in the sense meant by the dogma and the questioner. This kind of disingenuousness is insidious; it's an acid that eats away at the long-term resiliency of the religious authority he so privileges in apparent favor of a short-term attempted save. It is perhaps worst of all in Eastern Orthodoxy actually (though I'm no expert) insofar as it's even seemingly codified in the pithy exhortation / creed to "cover thy father's nakedness" (referring to Noah as symbolic of [especially patriarchal and religious] authority), a creed that was weaponized by a blatantly polemical trolling infernalist mocking Fr. Adrian Kimmel with the phrase after claiming he was a heretic or some such and directly challenging his authority and mocking him. Mocking, I'm unsure of the value of even in the most seemingly appropriate of times (e.g. Trump), but absolutely in a case where the mocked party showed nothing but good faith and the engagement was one on one. That is unjustifiable. Similarly this same kind of disingenuousness and indifference to the truth was exemplified by a Traditionalist acquantaince toward a less dogmatic Christian acquantaince regarding the historical analysis of sacred texts (containing "revealed" doctrines), with the latter desiring to engage with them to get as close to the truth of what occurred as possible with all the tools available, in this context focusing on the historical method, and the former advocating he / anyone *"bracket"* such historical / methodological questions that raise any doubt on the authority of (only key?) religious dogma(s) (for the sake of one's salvation, presumably?). This is perhaps the most insidious example of all, as a form in a vacuum, because it explicitly privileges fideistic, voluntaristic "belief" (whatever that is, ask Vervaeke to help you) over the desire for and commitment to truth (including the gradient of plausibility [matching degree of likelihood to strength of evidence, contra the Traditionalist's Pascalian spiritual instrumentalism], in my view, which admittedly supposedly began with Locke, but genealogical fallacy and all). Furthermore, even if you're going to claim this sort of 'submission to authority' is scriptural and properly Christian, you still rest on shaky grounds. The NT is anti-legalistic for good reason in favor of action based in the holy spirit and in charity / agape, as Pageau seems almost constantly pleasantly (thankfully) surprised at, as if it's so weird, and when Paul in e.g. Romans 13:1 speaks of submitting to governmental authorities the better translation is something like "orderly arranged under" which is perfectly compatible with virtuous, forthright, respectful truth-telling to authorities, and I still think things like civil disobedience are utterly not just compatible with but required by Christian virtue in many scenarios (esp regarding violence, ect.)
If you have a fluid hierarchy then "normal" cannot simultaneously be normative because of the need for diversity, complexity, specialization and indeed hierarchy. Normal as normative only works in a static society where roles are preordained essentially from birth, because normative normalcy is contextualized by that person's place in the hierarchy, thus avoiding competition via Girardian mimesis. But in a fluid hierarchy (e.g. of meritocracy, perhaps its ideal form), normalcy cannot be normative in a univocal sense / manner because this would lead to a mimetic contagion and to the war of all against all (envy rivalry, ect.). Thus the modern ethic of authenticity is a replacement / substitute for the traditional notion of preordained social role, in that it affords niche differentiation in order to increase group resiliency and preventing mimetic rivalry. The downside / danger / vulnerability of the traditional solution is that it locks people into roles, to a degree, that may be quite unsuited for their temperament, innate and acquired skills, context, ect., thus leading to inefficiency and potentially revolutionary resentment if things become too rigid. The downside / danger / vulnerability of the modern ethic of authenticity (see Charles Taylor) is that the more internally sourced locus of purpose can lead to relativism and atomism when the society / environment furnishes these distortions of the real moral power of the ethic (see Taylor on the malaise of modernity (in research notes) for how this plays out
Essentially, the point / hypothesis is that you can't have a normativity of normalcy (except in a much more broad, baseline sense) in a fluid hierarchy. While you can have one in a static / inherited hierarchy (remember these are all gradients), this mode of society is I think both no longer viable for us as a social imaginary after the development of modern self-consciousness (see Linda Zabzebski on humanity's two great ideas [understanding the world and understanding the self] and Charles Taylor on ratchet points of history and the moral good of the ethic of authenticity in modern individualism) and is inferior to a fluid hierarchy for the same reasons, treating people like children to be wacked with sticks from birth based on narratives wedded to always partly arbitrary institutional power, whereas a fluid (meritocratic) hierarchy models natural selection and all life, has greater potential for goodness, treats people with greater dignity and Christian charity, allows for emergence, is more honest and humble about the inherited arbitrariness of power and authority and takes account of the increased knowledge humanity has gained through history. Granted it may be more risky in certain respects but for all the above reasons it is I believe deeply the higher, more good path)
This is crucial. The supposedly Christian path that Pageau claims mediates between static top-down hierarchy and revolutionary emergent fluidity, or whatever terms you wish to use, he claims is exemplified in his example of a nun who knows a priest is keeping prostitutes and who barges into his room while he's engaged with one and kneels before him saying she wishes to confess her sins. While amusing, and while the spirit is correct - pointing out the corruption of authorities without directly revolting, the specific form is (at least in our current historical context I will defend) very wrong, for one in that it avoids confronting the issue entirely but more importantly is disingenuous by **pretending** this person still holds special moral authority as though it were a confer-able substance immune to corrosion or enhancement through behavior (a literalizing of e.g. anointing oil or a lawful signature as magic or some nonsense). Furthermore, the illusion is up; few in the modern world are going to pretend that purely inherited authority is legitimate, and essentially no one truly believes it. There's no going back on this point. Authority is participatory and transjective just like everything else. While I obviously agree that the pure critique of postmodernism misses the purpose of critique (reform, not total dissolution) and the necessity of (some form of) hierarchy and authority (what I like to call contextual competence, further polishing a piece of Jordan Peterson terminology I respect the choice of), critique is as inevitable and necessary as hierarchy because corruption (i.e. sin) is inevitable, as Jonathan acknowledges. However, I think the crucial point here is that this critique needs to be made with open clarity, clear transparency, which is entirely compatible with respect for the authority / sanctity of a given position itself, but acknowledges the real emergent good of modern self-consciousness and authenticity which calls out corruption directly and understands social imaginaries as contextual rather than eternal and inevitable, which they clearly are, and anyone who claims they've got a lock on the best format is deluded, as Pageau himself acknowledges regarding the solution to the current breakdown not being political, which should flow from more spiritual principles, and his gentle (how "nice") admonitions of Neoreactionary monarchist LARPers in his orbit. Admittedly the proper form of critique that takes into account the modern good of radical honesty requires right-hemisphere finesse and grace so as not to sully the deserved reverence of the position of authority itself that is being participated in and currently corrupted, but I maintain it is possible. Now, arguably a more "feminine" (using Pageau's language) behind-the-scenes, 1-on-1 talk with the corrupt authority may be the best first step, but even here, unlike the nun in the example, one can be direct and still respect the position of authority itself. And fine, maybe even before this act one can simply encourage the good in that individual as the first and primary attempt; it depends on the severity of the corruption I'd guess. But there is no need for disingenuousness. The action of the nun in his example was admirable and quite probably the best possible thing she could do in her historical situation and context, but in our era is a kind of dishonesty, certainly it is disingenuous, and advocating this kind of critique as the best or only admissable kind I think collaborates at a deep level (unsurprisingly) with a strand of reactionary fideism Pageau is still mired in *in spite* of his passionate Christian vision, which to be honest is I think the thin but strong line holding him back from fascistic NRx rhetoric. This he exemplified in a Q&A, where he disengenuously waffled and gave a psuedo pass to the Orthodox dogma about the age of the planet despite clearly knowing it to be false in the sense meant by the dogma and the questioner. This kind of disingenuousness is insidious; it's an acid that eats away at the long-term resiliency of the religious authority he so privileges in apparent favor of a short-term attempted save. It is perhaps worst of all in Eastern Orthodoxy actually (though I'm no expert) insofar as it's even seemingly codified in the pithy exhortation / creed to "cover thy father's nakedness" (referring to Noah as symbolic of [especially patriarchal and religious] authority), a creed that was weaponized by a blatantly polemical trolling infernalist mocking Fr. Adrian Kimmel with the phrase after claiming he was a heretic or some such and directly challenging his authority and mocking him. Mocking, I'm unsure of the value of even in the most seemingly appropriate of times (e.g. Trump), but absolutely in a case where the mocked party showed nothing but good faith and the engagement was one on one. That is unjustifiable. Similarly this same kind of disingenuousness and indifference to the truth was exemplified by a Traditionalist acquantaince toward a less dogmatic Christian acquantaince regarding the historical analysis of sacred texts (containing "revealed" doctrines), with the latter desiring to engage with them to get as close to the truth of what occurred as possible with all the tools available, in this context focusing on the historical method, and the former advocating he / anyone *"bracket"* such historical / methodological questions that raise any doubt on the authority of (only key?) religious dogma(s) (for the sake of one's salvation, presumably?). This is perhaps the most insidious example of all, as a form in a vacuum, because it explicitly privileges fideistic, voluntaristic "belief" (whatever that is, ask Vervaeke to help you) over the desire for and commitment to truth (including the gradient of plausibility [matching degree of likelihood to strength of evidence, contra the Traditionalist's Pascalian spiritual instrumentalism], in my view, which admittedly supposedly began with Locke, but genealogical fallacy and all). Furthermore, even if you're going to claim this sort of 'submission to authority' is scriptural and properly Christian, you still rest on shaky grounds. The NT is anti-legalistic for good reason in favor of action based in the holy spirit and in charity / agape, as Pageau seems almost constantly pleasantly (thankfully) surprised at, as if it's so weird, and when Paul in e.g. Romans 13:1 speaks of submitting to governmental authorities the better translation is something like "orderly arranged under" which is perfectly compatible with virtuous, forthright, respectful truth-telling to authorities, and I still think things like civil disobedience are utterly not just compatible with but required by Christian virtue in many scenarios (esp regarding violence, ect.)
???
I think you have concise thoughts but that was far too long for a youtube comment. You should seriously channel that energy and write a book