earthworldpsion

Ellul wrote “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes” and “The Technological Society”. Both, I think, address a lot of what Kaczynski was addressing in Industrial Society and Its Future (ISaiF).

In saying whataboutists, I was referring to a section of ISaiF called, “The Danger of Leftism.” I was trying to avoid a direct callout to a political practice by saying this, but it may have obfuscated the point too much. Here, he talks about the derailing of discussion that happens when your space includes leftists. As I remember, he says this is due to the rabbit hole creation that happens in attempting to address issues pertaining to minorities. In this way, your discussion veers away from the point at hand,which is actually a part of the CIA guide to disrupting dissidents (get people to fight over definitions and what the purpose of conversations is).

The bureaucracy point is my own playfulness. I think a lot of people in governmental or academic circles have dealt with people who are more concerned with the rules at hand and the perception of following those rules than they are with the creation of good work. The section on oversocialization in ISaiF may clarify what I mean. It points at a class of people who are very, very concerned with the perception of others that is very common in the academic world.

Edit: I forgot to address Byung-Chul Han’s relation. He writes short books in the style of Baudrillard, in that, it is heavy on social criticism. Specifically, I am thinking of “In the Swarm” and its critique of group thought in the social media age.

I do not think Kaczynski offered a terrible amount beyond what Jacques Ellul wrote. He does have a fascinating story, and he contributed through his manifesto, at least, the idea of oversocialization which has been expanded on by the likes of Byung-Chul Han (indirect as it might be). The other point I can think of would be the introduction of whataboutists to right wing movements and the detriment it has, but I think that thought will occur in places with heavy-handed bureaucracies. I don’t think I had seen the statement expressed so bluntly though.

I found the manifesto interesting, but it wasn’t compelling beyond the few strokes of wisdom. In academia, you see exactly what he is talking about, especially nowadays.

If one comes across it in their career, I highly recommend the Department of Energy’s documentary on the issue. The mishandling of restricted data seems extremely egregious in this case and does not deserve the dismissal that your comment seems to have ascribed.

Nothing controversial about it. That’s a very simple deterrence argument a la Schelling.

If you’re comfortable with band structure, I’d recommend looking into the states that arise in flat band systems e.g. quantum Hall states and spin liquids. Otherwise, you can read some electronic structure books to get a sense of how flat band systems differ from the traditional approach. I recommend John Singleton’s book from the Oxford series.

As an aside, it’s a lot like how people talk about non-Fermi liquids (nFLs). The positive definition of nFL is hard to come by in texts, so when someone talks about nFL behavior, you have to ask them what measurement/model they are studying.