Tacherus
2yr ago
You allude to it several times in your post, and it coincides with my general view of Srinivasan.
He can be provocative and creative but I think he has a tendency to ask “technology” to do a lot of heavy lifting in ways that don’t make much sense to me.
A particularly striking example I’ll never forget is him describing (on a podcast somewhere I think) how a constitution should be a git repo and amendments are pull requests.
My response to that and many other things he says is “ok, and?”
He uses what I think of as like a tool theory or framing theory in contrast with mistake/conflict theory:
If we used the right (technological) tools or terms or framing the problem solves itself!
It’s a seductive way of thinking and can create very clever looking solutions, but I find it’s because the real problems are glossed over or not understood, which makes the solutions vacuous at best.
It sounds to me like this book is very much in that tradition of presenting a framing as though it solves something.
Maybe I’m reading too much into it though.
I can confirm this line of thinking having been raised Mormon.
I’d never even heard of “priesthood of the believer” until many years after leaving and so to hear Mormons tell it there’s
Catholics with their obviously political and non-Godly nicene creed and claim of papal connection to god
Mormons with their claim to modern day prophets and inspiration
the Protestants who didn’t like catholic rules so just made some stuff up
More options
Context Copy link