Again, I don't suggest that the value is separate from our feelings. It's just that the account we give of why we value it does not make reference to the way we feel, but rather to what the thing is. In other words, I value ice cream because of what it does for me -- its value is instrumental. I don't, however, value a human only because of what it does for me; I also value the human because of what it is -- its value is partly intrinsic.

Cybernetics is a general systems theory - it describes how systems adapt and perpetuate. The more a system is adaptable - the more pieces it has which are suited for particular goals or difficulties - the better a system (of whatever sort) will be able to function.

Of course to turn this into anything more than a sort of vague tautology you have to put information about real circumstances, real goals and the qualitative and quantitative relations between them. Like Praxeology it applies to any sort of system, but like Praxeology without a specific reference it's empty.

Many extremely common human values are fundamentally contrary to adaptation to reality. Anti-commercialism presents an obstacle to the material substrate which is required for any sort of outcome. Egalitarianism and herdism directly attack adaptive differentiation (though not usually intentionally). Collectivism puts a spurious gloss, basically ignoring the parts and the mechanisms in favor of defining a system by it's name.

And probably 1/3rd of the human race is subsconsciously a little Hitler who wants to boss people around, which also attacks adaptivity because the requisite information, responsiveness and skill is simply not available to the General Chairman of Teetotalers; bureacracy presents another problem because 'rules' can never possibly be made extensive enough to cover many situations, and the more extensive they are the more they crimp adaptability; and in any case they actually just end up being interpreted by the functionaries, serving primarily to eliminate their originality and outside-the-box solutions.

Whatever people would like to see done - other than frustration and extinction - any set of values or biases which directly attacks cybernetic adaptability, differentiation and specialization will inevitably run into material frustration. The human race is only alive today because most people are inconsistent with their morality.

I guess I'd point to two main points of concern, though I don't think either is particularly important.

The first would be to question whether there really isn't any way to advance the ideals you mention (egalitarianism, anti-commercialism) in a way that doesn't directly contradict what we can clearly observe to be true about reality. Anti-commercialism, for example, could seemingly be made plausible if it were put in the form of an exhortation for people to support small, family owned businesses for whatever reason is motivating the anti-commercialism in the first place. So if, for example, the anti-commercialist thinks that people are being phillistines when they shop at big box stores because they aren't taking the time to appreciate the value of their communal relationships with local businesses, it might make sense for him to try to spread awareness about it. That doesn't seem incompatible with reality. I just worry that you might be setting up straw men in some cases, and being uncharitable in others.

The second point of concern would be that I'm not sure how this cybernetics stuff (in the context of this conversation) is an important departure from Hayek (on the knowledge problem) and Mises (on the problems with bureaucracy). I guess I'm just not seeing the point. Why can't we just say that a lot of people clearly don't understand economics or political theory, and their opinions are predictably dumb with regard to these matters? Why bring in cybernetics?

I'm sorry I couldn't find a way to articulate my position more clearly, but I'm glad you got some benefit out of the conversation anyway.

So if, for example, the anti-commercialist thinks that people are being phillistines when they shop at big box stores because they aren't taking the time to appreciate the value of their communal relationships with local businesses, it might make sense for him to try to spread awareness about it. That doesn't seem incompatible with reality.
Yes, these sorts of things can always be sublimated. I do not think that humans are hopeless. But the fact is that, observable, and over most of human history, the decoupling of human social mores from violence and herdishness has almost never occured, and when it did we got the mother of all backlashes - that European civil war that ran from 1800-1945 with a few ceasefires. People can be 'trained', they're very flexible. That's essentially what the burghers are. Unfortunately, since the values themselves are still there and because the Duces, Reformers and Thugs are influential amongst the ignorant masses there is an essentially constant tendency to fight against such sublimation. And the more ignorant and 'moralistic' a person is, the easier it is to break the various canals and channels that these tendencies derive from. And it seems pretty straightforward that even if you could reduce the dangerousness of these sorts of ideas, because the basic premises and goals are either unattainable or false (at least as many people will inevitably interpret them) that we'd probably be better off without them. I've certainly never felt I'm missing out because I don't attach intrinsic values to the relative sameness or equiproportionality of what are inevitably diverse humans.

Vichy, I guess it's just sort of weird for me to think that if someone locked me away in a cell to waste away (and enjoyed doing it), the only thing that would bother you about that would be the thought that I could probably have contributed a bunch to other people's lives (including yours) and that on net, it might have been worth keeping me around. Surely you can conceive of the fact that it would be really horrible for me to be locked down there, and surely you can conceive of how badly you would feel if you were in my place, right? And yet clearly the guy locking me down there was happy to do it. Wouldn't it seem, though, that this guy ought to have taken my interests into consideration in some way when he was deciding whether to lock me up? Isn't there something impartially important about what happens to me in that situation that he's seeming to ignore?

Surely you can conceive of the fact that it would be really horrible for me to be locked down there, and surely you can conceive of how badly you would feel if you were in my place, right? And yet clearly the guy locking me down there was happy to do it. Wouldn't it seem, though, that this guy ought to have taken my interests into consideration in some way when he was deciding whether to lock me up? Isn't there something impartially important about what happens to me in that situation that he's seeming to ignore?
Not really. I mean, depending on the difficulty involved I might be willing to see the guy beheaded as a demonstrative point, but really whether I like it or not the outcome is decided by power. If I can't do anything about it the problem isn't with our theoretical jailer, the problem is with our inability to resist. Obviously he doesn't care or, as you indicated, he wouldn't be jailing you up.

As far as I'm concerned basic consideration and tolerance of people is just a way to get through in civil society, and the institution of justice is just a way to protect civil society. If you don't like civil society, or are inclined to think that whatever it loses is worth whatever you gain, then go on jailing people.

It just doesn't seem sensible to critique a person for fulfilling their values...it's a bit nonsensical, sort of like 'taking sides' in history. Why is anyone 'against Hitler'? Hitler's been dead for 60-odd years!

Well it makes sense to critique someone's values if you think that their values reflect ignorance of- or lack of consideration for something important. And that's what I'm arguing -- my suffering and loss of freedom are important (that is, I am suggesting that he ought to find them important), and his actions do not appear to take that into account. To devolve the example to a matter of mere taste, it would be like telling someone, "Well I realize that you don't want to try the sushi, but you really ought to try it anyway; it's delicious!" To preserve the structure: "Well I realize that you want to lock Danny up, but you really ought not to do that; he'll suffer and lose his freedom!"

This might be a "silly man-animal with his inherently empathetic moral psychology" vs. "tiny, ruthless Aspie who cannot conceive of silly man-animal moral psychology" debate...

Well it makes sense to critique someone's values if you think that their values reflect ignorance of- or lack of consideration for something important.
Yes, if you think they are ignoring values or valuation-factors which are important to them it makes sense. That's exactly what I do if I tell someone "Socialism would destroy the economy!" I figure that they aren't huge fans of starvation and whatnot. But if it turned out the person didn't care about propserity, there's not much to say to them on that remark.

Right, and I guess for me it's like, "As someone who is inherently wired to be able to understand what it's like to be in someone else's shoes, and to feel empathy, I don't see how you can not understand why my suffering is important." It's just...well...inhuman.

I agree with all of the positive things you say about Stef. But I don't hink it is a "both are over reacting thing." Try this for the difference. It is not an over reaction to hold Molyneux accountable for his avowed practice of destroying families for fun and profit. He just got another one of my son's friends. Defooed last week. Great kid. wonderful parents. The fellow went from winsome observer of the great things in life to posting angry, sad and lonely commentary. My son has crushed my wife's heart in the name of molyneux. And he is paying him $50 per month to boot.

There is nothing in LiMi that comes close to that level of ..... really can't think of what to call it. Maybe think in terms of a the morality of a TV preacher for an analogy.