Baseline thinking seems to have some similarity to the financial concept of optionality, and the legal concept of discretion. Optionality means a given choice is available to make, but the obligation to make it is null. Discretion is defined similarly in terms of jurisdictional authority. Both idealize eliminating or minimizing as close to 0 as possible the risk of not choosing an option. My question would be whether the Party wants positive discretion/optionality (or alternatively a society full of sincere people) or is willing to settle for negative optionality/discretion (which would mean a society that interests must be managed via social credit incentive structures, and can be modeled in a very complex simulation). This comment is also in reference to your translation of the piece on chengxin culture. There are larger differences to be found between the two, but more wracking is needed.
Separately, I recently discovered this substack while journeying down a rabbit hole, and I have quickly found several new rabbit holes just from looking up the references you make. I must thank you for not just your insight and the sense of coherence you have provided, but also all the new tabs you've opened up on my computer and new reading you've given me!
Yes, the Party Central Committee with Xi Jinping at its core will one day be able to run thousands of simulated PRCs each with a different set of policies to determine the scientifically correct way forward without the messy twists and turns that praxis involved during the accumulation of revolutionary experience as the Party feels for the rocks as it leads the state across the river.
The rock and the river will be virtual thanks to the Party AI. Perhaps as in Philip K. Dick's 'The Minority Report' future thought criminals will be picked out before they offend for special treatmen. That would be the scientific way for the Ministry of Public Security to move ahead using virtual/social social/virtual science.
Thank you, Daev! Reminds me again of how much scientism there is in Party Thought. Absolute certainty in one's methodology brings confidence that the leadership will get it right eventually even if they make a few errors on the way that fortunately produce a rich harvest of scientific experience.
People who question the leaders are just ignorant peasants who do not know the Way of Marx-Lenin-Mao-Deng Thought updated by General Secretary Xi for the new era!
I've always liked D. W. Y. Kwok's book "Scientism in Chinese Thought, 1900-1950".
Baseline thinking seems to have some similarity to the financial concept of optionality, and the legal concept of discretion. Optionality means a given choice is available to make, but the obligation to make it is null. Discretion is defined similarly in terms of jurisdictional authority. Both idealize eliminating or minimizing as close to 0 as possible the risk of not choosing an option. My question would be whether the Party wants positive discretion/optionality (or alternatively a society full of sincere people) or is willing to settle for negative optionality/discretion (which would mean a society that interests must be managed via social credit incentive structures, and can be modeled in a very complex simulation). This comment is also in reference to your translation of the piece on chengxin culture. There are larger differences to be found between the two, but more wracking is needed.
Separately, I recently discovered this substack while journeying down a rabbit hole, and I have quickly found several new rabbit holes just from looking up the references you make. I must thank you for not just your insight and the sense of coherence you have provided, but also all the new tabs you've opened up on my computer and new reading you've given me!
Yes, the Party Central Committee with Xi Jinping at its core will one day be able to run thousands of simulated PRCs each with a different set of policies to determine the scientifically correct way forward without the messy twists and turns that praxis involved during the accumulation of revolutionary experience as the Party feels for the rocks as it leads the state across the river.
The rock and the river will be virtual thanks to the Party AI. Perhaps as in Philip K. Dick's 'The Minority Report' future thought criminals will be picked out before they offend for special treatmen. That would be the scientific way for the Ministry of Public Security to move ahead using virtual/social social/virtual science.
Thank you, Daev! Reminds me again of how much scientism there is in Party Thought. Absolute certainty in one's methodology brings confidence that the leadership will get it right eventually even if they make a few errors on the way that fortunately produce a rich harvest of scientific experience.
People who question the leaders are just ignorant peasants who do not know the Way of Marx-Lenin-Mao-Deng Thought updated by General Secretary Xi for the new era!
I've always liked D. W. Y. Kwok's book "Scientism in Chinese Thought, 1900-1950".