According to Durkheim (and me), humans prefer to bind together not so much by directly and explicitly valuing each other, but instead indirectly, by choosing something “sacred” outside ourselves to see the same together (and differently from other groups).
A dividing line that might be important is that many people that would thus be classified as magicians would prefer to be the priests of a larger society, whereas many magicians reject exotericism and prefer to keep their teachings secret. Depending on which one you yourself fall into, you might be a magician, or you might be a failed or upstart priest.
If you want to try sweeping policy changes, prove them on a smaller scale first. You have ideas about organizing society with prediction markets. Could you organize a *company* with prediction markets, replacing a traditional hierarchical org chart? So the company does whatever its internal prediction markets say it should do, instead of what managers say it should do.
If you could make that work then it would certainly create publicity and evidence for your ideas about national policy. You would need to found a startup organized based on the principle, since it's unlikely any existing company would be willing to "convert" to it. Let even the business plan be determined by a prediction market, like everything else!
> It is true that, in certain cases, magicians form a society among themselves. … But these associations … are rare and rather exceptional. To practice his art, the magician has no need whatever to congregate with his peers. He is more often a loner. In general, far from seeking company, he flees it. "He stands aloof, even from his colleagues."
> Furthermore, and above all, when magic societies of this sort are formed, they never encompass all the adherents of magic. Far from it. They encompass only the magicians. Excluded from them are the laity, … A Church is not simply a priestly brotherhood; it is a moral community.
What if a magician, of sorts, decided to defect from the norm (or more accurately: *all* norms), and build a revolutionary platform (transcending not just Twitter/Facebook/Reddit/etc, but religion, "logic", society, politics, journalism, culture, and even "reality" itself)?
Would that be interesting? Would it "change the game" (in that it defines an entirely new one, quite literally), at least plausibly?
"Asking for a friend" (who lacks seed funding, and refuses to go to the den of vipers that is Silicon Valley, for what should be obvious reasons, and also many other not so obvious reasons). 😇
This framing reminds me of Deleuze and Guattari's treatment of the dynamic between the magician-king and the jurist-priest that maintains the balance of the state apparatus. https://www.atlasofplaces.com/essays/nomadology-the-war-machine/ (An essay that is mostly notable because it contains their comparison of Chess and Go).
A dividing line that might be important is that many people that would thus be classified as magicians would prefer to be the priests of a larger society, whereas many magicians reject exotericism and prefer to keep their teachings secret. Depending on which one you yourself fall into, you might be a magician, or you might be a failed or upstart priest.
Yes, a useful distinction.
I don't know about magician, but as a conspiracy theorist I am a type of seer.
What compelling societal injustice do prediction markets solve that would provide the emotional impetus for a grassroots movement in support of them?
If you want to try sweeping policy changes, prove them on a smaller scale first. You have ideas about organizing society with prediction markets. Could you organize a *company* with prediction markets, replacing a traditional hierarchical org chart? So the company does whatever its internal prediction markets say it should do, instead of what managers say it should do.
If you could make that work then it would certainly create publicity and evidence for your ideas about national policy. You would need to found a startup organized based on the principle, since it's unlikely any existing company would be willing to "convert" to it. Let even the business plan be determined by a prediction market, like everything else!
How do we distinguish between a community and a moral community? I guess I should read Durkheim.
Regarding:
> It is true that, in certain cases, magicians form a society among themselves. … But these associations … are rare and rather exceptional. To practice his art, the magician has no need whatever to congregate with his peers. He is more often a loner. In general, far from seeking company, he flees it. "He stands aloof, even from his colleagues."
> Furthermore, and above all, when magic societies of this sort are formed, they never encompass all the adherents of magic. Far from it. They encompass only the magicians. Excluded from them are the laity, … A Church is not simply a priestly brotherhood; it is a moral community.
What if a magician, of sorts, decided to defect from the norm (or more accurately: *all* norms), and build a revolutionary platform (transcending not just Twitter/Facebook/Reddit/etc, but religion, "logic", society, politics, journalism, culture, and even "reality" itself)?
Would that be interesting? Would it "change the game" (in that it defines an entirely new one, quite literally), at least plausibly?
"Asking for a friend" (who lacks seed funding, and refuses to go to the den of vipers that is Silicon Valley, for what should be obvious reasons, and also many other not so obvious reasons). 😇
This framing reminds me of Deleuze and Guattari's treatment of the dynamic between the magician-king and the jurist-priest that maintains the balance of the state apparatus. https://www.atlasofplaces.com/essays/nomadology-the-war-machine/ (An essay that is mostly notable because it contains their comparison of Chess and Go).