There's an interesting online book, Meaningness and Time by David Chapman, about people's ways of relating to meaning through history and the concomitant structures of the self. Chapman's model is based on a parallel with Robert Kegan's model of psychological development including through adulthood. In it there's a stage where rationality, or systematicity, is the governing principle, which for Chapman relates to the Modern period.

To Chapman, coming into systematicity is a key step both personally and historically, but it does involve some disentangling from personal bonds. You'll recognize similarities to your Ted Kaczinsky quote in the excerpts below (from here; manually scroll the contents box to see where in the book you are). But Chapman gives no sense of 'society' alienating its members from the small scale in order to achieve efficiency; rather both appear as consequences of the 'systematic' way of being.

A systematic culture answers “why” questions with “becauses.” The answers are reasonably consistent and coherent. [...]

A systematic society has a multitude of social roles—unlike a choiceless society, which has only a few. [...] Roles fit together into complex institutions—church, state, corporation, community—that accomplish society’s proper goals. [...] Systematicity makes possible the division of labor. This crucial social technology enabled the spectacular economic, artistic, technological, and intellectual advances of the systematic era. [...]

In the choiceless mode, you are defined by your relationships; mainly family ones. [...] The function of your self is balancing your personal impulses with the needs of others, according to those roles. Morality—being a good person—means maintaining harmony by conforming to collective clan decisions. The choiceless self belongs, and is embedded in a web of mutual caring.

This sort of self is incompatible with complex social institutions. Efficient, specialized work gives you obligations to strangers, on the basis of explicit rules, not felt needs. A self devoted to balancing needs based on relationships cannot make sense of systematic society. It can only experience impersonal obligations as unjust demands imposed by the powerful [...]

Creating a systematic self involves hardening boundaries, so other people’s emotions don’t flood you and compel your actions. [...]

[Ethics] means doing what is necessary to maintain the system and uphold its values.

There's an interesting online book, Meaningness and Time by David Chapman, about people's ways of relating to meaning through history and the concomitant structures of the self. Chapman's model is based on a parallel with Robert Kegan's model of psychological development including through adulthood. In it there's a stage where rationality, or systematicity, is the governing principle, which for Chapman relates to the Modern period.

To Chapman, coming into systematicity is a key step both personally and historically, but it does involve some disentangling from personal bonds. You'll recognize similarities to your Ted Kaczynski quote in the excerpts below (from here; manually scroll the contents box to see where in the book you are). But Chapman gives no sense of 'society' alienating its members from the small scale in order to achieve efficiency; rather both appear as consequences of the 'systematic' way of being.

A systematic culture answers “why” questions with “becauses.” The answers are reasonably consistent and coherent. [...]

A systematic society has a multitude of social roles—unlike a choiceless society, which has only a few. [...] Roles fit together into complex institutions—church, state, corporation, community—that accomplish society’s proper goals. [...] Systematicity makes possible the division of labor. This crucial social technology enabled the spectacular economic, artistic, technological, and intellectual advances of the systematic era. [...]

In the choiceless mode, you are defined by your relationships; mainly family ones. [...] The function of your self is balancing your personal impulses with the needs of others, according to those roles. Morality—being a good person—means maintaining harmony by conforming to collective clan decisions. The choiceless self belongs, and is embedded in a web of mutual caring.

This sort of self is incompatible with complex social institutions. Efficient, specialized work gives you obligations to strangers, on the basis of explicit rules, not felt needs. A self devoted to balancing needs based on relationships cannot make sense of systematic society. It can only experience impersonal obligations as unjust demands imposed by the powerful [...]

Creating a systematic self involves hardening boundaries, so other people’s emotions don’t flood you and compel your actions. [...]

[Ethics] means doing what is necessary to maintain the system and uphold its values.