La Vanguardia Pacifica

I'm sorry but it sounds as if you're advocating that there is an objectivity that is knowable if we just tune our reality-tunnels to see it correctly. In my view, there is no objectivity that is knowable in CN except for the tally on the NS sheet. Even then, statistics may conceal the "actual" strength of an alliance.

Francoism is a subjective set of doctrines that you apply to Pacifica. For Pacificans, it would be the orthodoxy, the "objectivity" of the state of Pacifica and her members. I would think that Tygaism, Manoism and whatever set of -isms you care to throw around would have the same attributes. The map is not the territory and as such, an interpretation of reality, no matter how many others claim it to be "objective" is not reality itself.

Let's take your example of the map a little further.

You are at point A and want to work out a route to point B. You could carefully analyse the contours of the land and the various environmental obstacles in the area, thus allowing you to plot the quickest and safest route between these two points. Or you could take a rough estimate of the land and sketch out a basic idea. Or you could ignore the land altogether and draw out a map that looks pretty to the eye. Or you could base your map on assumptions and superstition. Or you could just take a wild guess and start walking in a random direction. All else being equal, which of these is in your self-interest?

Of course it is a simplistic example, but it does demonstrate that not every option is in one's objective self-interest. A scientific observer can determine that the first option here is clearly the best option to take for the individual, whether they want to take it or not.

This is the basis of Francoism. It's about looking at the world in a scientific manner, analysing and mapping out the land, and then carving the best route through it. And I would say the advantages of this over the superstitious map are proven by the results.

I think both of you have a point. If we stick with the map analogy, I think Vladimir has an excellent point in that policies that are well-thought out, and political directions that have some solid reasonings behind them are typically better than policies and directions that are based on purely emotion. However, I think Crush also has a point in that if two cartographers drew the same map and both tried to determine the fastest route, we run into three problems:

1. 1. Not all destinations are the same. One person's objective might be increase the size and power of their own nation, while another person's objective might be to become the most notorious rogue nation in CN history. The same applies to CN alliances - different alliances have different demographics and different goals. You can try to expand on tools of analysis that can be applied universally, but there is no single direction for every alliance.
   
2. 2. No two cartographers are necessarily the same, and therefore, no two "maps" are the same. Is one necessarily better than the other? Perhaps, but without any objective oversight, it is impossible to truly tell which one is better. It is perhaps more fair to say that each map contains some element of truth, and it is up to the reader and later writers to piece together what is true and what is not.
   
3. 3. It is easy to draw a map with the fastest route to a set destination for an average player. However, not everyone is the same, has the same strengths and the same commitments. Similarly, even if two alliances or two players are headed in the same direction, given that they are different implies that they could take two very different paths that are just as valid as the other.
   

The initial focus of the article was that the final destination can be scientifically determined. Thus I didn't discuss the different routes that lemmings could take to the cliff, I asserted that running off the cliff at all was not in their objective self-interest.

So to go back to the map, we might say that it is in the objective self-interest of the individual to go to the nearest town (assuming you start in the wilderness) rather than into a minefield or quicksand. This is an extreme example of course, and the objective self-interest might be harder to determine if there are two towns that you have to choose between, but the principle remains the same: that an objective self-interest can be determined.

In point two you speak of oversight, but I fail to see why this is necessary. Science doesn't require a god-like creature to sign-off on the best theory, it is capable of doing so itself. You imply this yourself at the end of the point, and this is indeed why Francoism puts such powerful importance on the lessons of history. There will always be disagreements, but that doesn't mean that both sides of the disagreement hold equal merit.

Point three is the most interesting in my opinion, and is certainly true to an extent. However, I would posit that this does not open the field to the differentiation that you seem to assume. Regardless of the strengths and weaknesses, certain general paths remain the best option -- the brick road over the sheer cliff-face. And moreover, and perhaps more importantly, we must remember that it is the material world that shapes consciousness rather than vice versa; thus if you start down a certain path you will develop strengths and weaknesses based on it, digging yourself into an aptly named path-dependency. So it is much more than just looking at your consciousness and trying to cram it into an immediately suitable path.

The truth of this can be observed in the early Order, when many of the founders came from electorally democratic, imperialist and even viciously anti-Pacifican regions that had little in common with what we now recognise as the Order. Indeed, even having an Emperor at all was a battle. You might have looked at this and seen our strengths to be in electoral systems, bureaucracy, espionage, diplomacy, and so forth. But it was the superior path of the Order that ultimately shaped us to be stronger than we ever could have been by taking that path of least resistance.

Edit:

By a happy coincidence I just came across this quote and found it quite fitting for our discussion, unintentionally summing up the main difference I see between Francoism and the idealistic/moralistic/etc conceptions of politics:

"In terms of most communication theories and common sense, a map is a scientific abstraction of reality. A map merely represents something which already exists objectively 'there'. In the history I have described, this relationship is reversed. A map anticipated spatial reality, not vice versa. In other words, a map was a model for, rather than a model of, what it purported to represent." (quoted in Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities)

Hmmm... Interesting counter arguments.

For point one, I'll concede the notion that the "best interest destination" can be obtained by careful analysis, and more easily obtained than simply wild guessing or, as you seem to put it, "superstition." However, I disagree that the destination can be completely determined objectively - between two analysts, they each have their own value system of what is good and what is not, and so while they may both come to the same conclusion, it is entirely possible that they arrived at that conclusion with different methods. This inherent subjective analysis leads me to point two:

Between two cartographers, there are certain similarities and certain dissimilarities. First, note that both cartographers are human, which has two implications -

1. Their work, no matter how good and polished they make it, is flawed in some way. Hell, their maps could be better than what a computer program could whip out, and they would still have some slight margin of error.

2. If we assume that all humans are unique, it is probably also fair to assume that two maps created by two cartographers are also unique. Therefore, the error in one map is not the same as the error in the second. Therefore, while both maps contain vast amounts of useful information, neither map is 100% accurate, meaning that both maps together can overshadow their own faults. So, again, you are right, it is entirely possible one map could be better than a second map in every possible way, but that would assume that the second map has absolutely nothing to offer. In a field such as mathematics, this is not nearly as much as a concern. 2+2 is always going to equal 4 (for arguments sake), and answers are typically "black and white." However, when talking about two different philosophies, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single philosophy that doesn't contain some kernel of truth that another philosophy has left out. Whether or not that kernel of truth is relevant to the destination of our hypothetical traveler brings me to point 3:

Given the initial intentions, a single cartographer may yield different maps for different objectives. For instance, when figuring out where the borders of a territory are, a cartographer will draw a political map. For showing natural resources, a geographical map. In an environment like Cybernations, the set of possible objectives is obviously much narrower given that we are limited by the game mechanics. For instance, Francoism makes the assumption that freedom is to grow ones nation, or to achieve other goals without being hampered by the chaos that is in the state of nature*. While I do think Francoism is itself flawed (for reasons that I've already written about), I do think it probably the best "public map" that we are privy to, if we are to keep with the analogy. However, that does not make Francoism in itself the ideal map, or even necessarily. For instance, Voxism, as I've understood it, has an entirely different meaning of freedom which does not require the social hierarchy of complex alliance organization, meritocratic governments or other tools that the NPO and Francoism employs. Therefore, given different goals, as determined by the individuals themselves and not by any single scientist, there are two totally different maps, each appropriate for their own purposes.

*Kindly correct me if I'm wrong

I would suggest that value-systems as you describe them amount to apriori assumptions, and as such should be removed from consideration. One might argue that electoral democracy is a part of their value system, for example, but what does this prove? Not that it is ultimately desirable, and certainly not that it is better than the alternatives. The appeal to a 'value-system' is little more than an attempt to put an assertion above debate -- thus any counter-argument to electoral democracy can simply be dismissed without fear. Politically useful perhaps, but scientifically negligent.

This is in fact what I meant when noting 'superstitious' belief: "a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like." [1]

To blend this into the third point, if we can objectively determine objective self-interests, and if 'value-systems' are not divine, then it stands to reason that the essence of freedom itself can be objectively determined -- which was the entire point of The Meaning of Freedom. Thus, as you suggest, we can have different types of map that are useful for different types of exorcise, but these maps are all based on the same material reality and, in the final analysis, merely show different elements of the same thing -- a geological map may show the minerals in a rock while a political merely shows its existence, but if said geological map puts the city of Freedom to the west while said political map puts it to the east, then regardless of the different purposes, (at least) one map must be wrong.

Your first two points seem to be essentially the same subject, and so I will address them together. I agree that no one is infallible -- I know that I'm not -- and I would certainly never suggest that a theory -- a map -- should rely exclusively on the work of one man. It is through this that the scientific claim of Francoism shines: it is always willing to listen to new criticisms and theories, and if these prove to be correct then it is willing to change accordingly. That is to say, if I draw a map and someone points out that the scale of the mountain range is wrong, Francoism would demand that this be checked and, if appropriate, changed to better mirror reality. Indeed, I'm sure the other Imperial Officers could bore your ears off with complaints about my demands for more in depth criticisms of my first drafts -- I find little to be more frustrating than simple agreement.

Thus while we can never claim that our science is as ostensibly perfect as a mathematical axiom, we can claim that it is scientific in its approach and, that if flaws are found, that they can be corrected.

As far as this goes then, the more cartographers the better, as such promises the potential of highlighting more errors, both in the thought of the original cartographer and in those who came after.

However, you take this truth down the wrong path when you suggest that it means that all philosophies have have an element of truth, that none are perfect, and that thus (if we take your assertion to its conclusion) we must deal in syntheses of all philosophies*. If you forgive me for saying (and for paraphrasing Trotsky), it falls into the all too common intellectual laziness that the truth is always 'somewhere in the middle'. Should a Soviestani school synthesise Creationism and Evolution simply because they are two separate theories and in all probability neither is perfect? I don't think so. Instead we should strive for a philosophy that seeks out and recognises errors in order to correct them. Thus while we can examine the criticisms of Creationism to see if they hold any merit, the philosophy itself should be thrown out, with the criticisms merely used to refine the theory of Evolution.

To make the assumption that all philosophies are equal is to go down a long and dangerous path to nowhere.

*Correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems to be a lot more pleasant and productive debating such matters through the blogs. I guess those extra couple of clicks act as a sufficient bouncer to keep out the politically-charged riffraff. [/snobby elitism]