"Metapraxic theory" | Poal: Say what you want.

931

•

The theory that metalevels surrounding a system of action are more important in success than the system itself.

Then there are two major corollaries:

If you invent a system you should already be thinking about exploiting it.
If you publish a system you should already know how to exploit it.

The easiest and possibly earliest example of this rule is sophistry vs logic. Logic is a system for determining truth; sophistry is a system for twisting the truth to win an argument. Utilizing fallacies where necessary to succeed in dominating the discussion.

Regarding leftist ideologies, I'd like to bring up two:

Critical theory is at its base very simple; it says that anything and everything are subject to criticism and discussion and there must be a "conversation" about potential alternatives. (Note that keyword.) This seems reasonable on its own, but it's often weaponized by continuously criticizing one's opponents while disallowing criticism of one's own positions, either by painting said criticism as immoral or illogical, ignoring it outright, or even acting to censor it. Another system derived from it, "deconstruction", where any system shown to have a flaw must be torn down and replaced, benefits greatly from these tactics.

The Marxist dialectic describes a method where two sides (thesis and antithesis) come together and form a synthesis. Basically, a system for compromise. Marx goes further though and says this is continuous, so your synthesis becomes your new thesis (the way things are). This is supposedly never-ending, but if you can manipulate the antithesis (argue changes to the norm), and then block antithesis and prevent a new synthesis when thesis is what you want it to be, then you've won. (Essentially preventing the Overton window from shifting.)

I should note that, in the 2nd corollary above, a satisfactory (and possibly preferential) answer to "how to exploit it" is "you can't" - so long as you're right about that.

I should also note that this is very close to a computer hacker's mindset; either breaking systems or preventing them from being exploited.

Edit: Another note; this theory is self-referential, it's possible to exploit the exploits. Or worse.

Just been ruminating on this, and came up with this term. I'm basing this on things others have pointed out, that people (notably leftist thinkers) are already utilizing at least some of what it implies; I'm merely generalizing the concept and giving it a name: *The theory that metalevels surrounding a system of action are more important in success than the system itself.* Then there are two major corollaries: * *If you invent a system you should already be thinking about exploiting it.* * *If you publish a system you should already know how to exploit it.* The easiest and possibly earliest example of this rule is sophistry vs logic. Logic is a system for determining truth; sophistry is a system for twisting the truth to win an argument. Utilizing fallacies where necessary to succeed in dominating the discussion. Regarding leftist ideologies, I'd like to bring up two: Critical theory is at its base very simple; it says that anything and everything are subject to criticism and discussion and there must be a "conversation" about potential alternatives. (Note that keyword.) This seems reasonable on its own, but it's often weaponized by continuously criticizing one's opponents while disallowing criticism of one's own positions, either by painting said criticism as immoral or illogical, ignoring it outright, or even acting to censor it. Another system derived from it, "deconstruction", where any system shown to have a flaw must be torn down and replaced, benefits greatly from these tactics. The Marxist dialectic describes a method where two sides (thesis and antithesis) come together and form a synthesis. Basically, a system for compromise. Marx goes further though and says this is continuous, so your synthesis becomes your new thesis (the way things are). This is supposedly never-ending, but if you can manipulate the antithesis (argue changes to the norm), and then block antithesis and prevent a new synthesis when thesis is what you want it to be, then you've won. (Essentially preventing the Overton window from shifting.) ----------------- I should note that, in the 2nd corollary above, a satisfactory (and possibly preferential) answer to "how to exploit it" is "you can't" - so long as you're right about that. I should also note that this is very close to a computer hacker's mindset; either breaking systems or preventing them from being exploited. Edit: Another note; this theory is self-referential, it's possible to exploit the exploits. Or worse.

(post is archived)