TimIsACoach on Nostr: Proudmuslim wen Eco nostr? ...

Proudmuslim (npub1cys…7zym) wen Eco nostr?

quoting note1tgg…4qt6

From a very broad perspective there are two sides to SAIF when it comes to the things it wants to influence and change in the world, downstream from its theoretical and cultural analysis which most followers are familiar with. On the one hand it focuses on the political and institutional; from grand scale institution infiltration, building of new models of governance (once again downstream from its excessively non-rigid (and in many ways non-primary) theoretical foundations), setting up businesses & networks and members working their way to top positions within governments, companies, media and academia. The other side it focuses on is the cultural; which is the side that is both more directly visible and simultaneously much more difficult to describe (as it is something that can not be planned). By outsiders, this side is sometimes seen as unimportant and/or nonsensical to focus on, which is something that is in many ways a flaw that exists within the Muslim community more broadly as it shuns the new in favor of a reactionary myth.

The former side is a long and difficult process but evidenced from the more concrete examples I named is much more easy to grasp. The latter on the other hand in some ways has primacy even over the theory itself (which it goes hand in hand with) as culture informs the theory, as well as the political dimension. In this way, cultural flows function as an accelerant of the process itself, where mastering and subsequently influencing the cultural flows goes hand in hand with a virality that functions as a spreading event for the swarm (and thus for the realisation of the political goals mentioned earlier).

In this sense, on the cultural side it is much easier to name its function within the process itself than to state clear end goals. This gets into an important point with regards to culture as the claim that Muslims have neglected culture might raise eyebrows. As evidenced by the above, when SAIF talks about culture it does not mean a deliberate, planned out idea of culture but rather a working with the cultural flows in a sense where the process itself is as much guided by the cultural flows surrounding it as it attempts to guide those flows in return. In this sense, SAIF believes that hyperstitions require an understanding of and correspondence with these flows to come to fruition and that any other approach is doomed to fail.

This is exactly why the theory and the political side are non-rigid because they themselves exist only by way of locking into an increasingly tightening loop with culture (which turns into a spiral via these differing facets playing their part). Beyond the process, there is really only one concrete end vision (moreso than a goal), which is a merger with the cultural production and trends of the future itself, not as a singular event in time but as a continuous productive force.

Ecoreactionair@

P.S.

Small addition is that cultural flows does not mean the sensibilities of individual or even the majority of actors. Misunderstanding this might make someone question our stance towards the masses in this process; which is often misunderstood or painted as antagonism (which is wrong) but simultaneously we maintain they have little bearing upon cultural production other than to be steered by these flows (similarly to how trends are in fact not made but ruined by mass participation; which is why cultural production can never be a singular event). To lock in a loop with culture is to go beyond merely being steered (which becomes increasingly difficult due to the process of modernity itself but is nonetheless a necessity).