Anti-Philosophy · Uncategorized

Peterson is a Only a Third (Meaning via literature). The Rest is Doolittle (Law), and Taleb (Measurement)

William Butchman (et all),
Peterson’s claim is where he’s going wrong:  trying to justify his priors.

  • Yes, we can imagine and experience the world consisting of various combinations of objects, properties, relations, transformations, and values.
  • Yes we can develop our own mental models out of those arrangements (philosophies). Yes we can seek or create an existence in which we comfortably role play with others. Yes we can seek to produce social environments that achieve these ends.
  • Yes we can attempt to accomplish this “private construction of personal reality”, “interpersonal construction of interpersonal reality”, and “Social Construction of social reality”, and even political and institutional construction of political reality.
  • Yes we can construct these sets of objects, properties, relations, transformations, and values out of dream state experiences, supernatural, mythical, literary, extra-rational (pseudorational, pseudoscientific), historical(existential analogical), and various minimalist (scientific) narratives by which we construct explanations of causal relations making use of our objects, properties, relations, transformations (actions), and values.
  • Yes we can perform ideation (envision possibilities for additional desirable experiences) using each of these methods, and navigate through life by these different narratives.
  • Yes, the ‘cost’ of more parsimonious (minimalist, and deflationary) is higher in rational (autistic) terms and provides lower experiential (solipsistic) returns.
  • Yes, the most able can choose ANY of these methods by which to obtain satisfaction, and yes, the less able require increasingly experiential means, and yes the better able are more able to obtain by less experiential means. And yes, while the most expensive, the most demanding, and perhaps the most rewarding is a portfolio : a combination of solipsistic (rich) experiences, along with autistic (parsimonious) understanding of them.
  • And Yes the negative consequences of those narratives consisting of the Dream state, occult, supernatural, mythic, literary, pseudorational, pseudoscientific, socially constructed, can be mitigated by sufficient historical (scientific), narratives (explanations).

BUT…

  • 1) the material opportunities that arise from them empirically demonstrate that increasing precision, increasing correspondence, therefore increasingly deflationary and minimalist, and therefore more historical narratives, are far higher than all other methods combined.
  • 2) that in matters of conflict people will grant priority to physical safety, opportunity, and comfort; kin safety, opportunity, and comfort; material safety, opportunity and comfort; psychological safety, opportunity, and comfort, normative safety, opportunity and comfort, and institutional safety, opportunity, and comfort in precisely that order. And therefore they demonstrate the superiority of the material in fact as far as they can, then demonstrate status and reputation and self worth, then demonstrate the psychological as far as they can. And all seeming exceptions, under scrutiny will eventually fall to this explanation: costs to them.
  • 3) the function of the darwinian (historical, scientific, minimalist) model is to provide decidability ACROSS those narratives when we need them, and WITHIN those narratives if we choose to need them. In other words, darwinian (scientific) world-views, just like religion in the past, allow us to cooperate at larger scales across those narratives, making use of the range of people and range of experiences that those narratives can provide us with, while at the same time providing decidability across and between people making use of such narratives.

    Group Strategy > Religion > Literature > Philosophy > Science > Law.

    It is in the resolution of our disputes in law and war, and the preservation of non-retaliatory peace post-conflict that we define what is true. It is in the resolution of our disputes in all narrative structures that funnels down, over time, into every greater precision, leaving science (the most parsimonious, deflationary truth) that we ever-drive ourselves toward correspondence with reality no matter how undesirable. Because while we may seek cheap comforts of the mind, we will always fight expensively for material reality that allows us to preserve those fantasies.

  • 4) since those narratives are profoundly easy to use to conduct frauds, deceits, manipulations, defeats, and conquests, we can use the parsimonious, minimalist, scientific, historical to analyze (criticize) propositions within and across these models.

    And since the great challenges of our ancient world (monotheistic deceit), and the great challenges of the present world ( cosmopolitan pseudoscience, and pseudorationalism, and puritan pseudo moralism, and outright lying ) stem from our failure to develop both the methods of providing decidability (truth) across those new more advanced deceits (pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and propaganda), and the institutional means of preventing such deceits (law), then we are in greater demand for deflationary, minmalist, historical (evidentiary, existential) means of decidability – that which Peterson calls “Darwinian”.

    Ergo as the diversity of narrative, diversity of developmental range, role in group, class, trades, and specialization increases, the demand for decidability across them increases.

  • 5) Darwinian judgement in particular tells us of the long term, unintended consequences of accumulated short term actions. It does not tell us our limitations. It explains why we engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudosicence, literary loading, framing, and overloading; propaganda, and outright deceit – for darwinian ends.

CLOSING
We generate opportunities with richly conflated narration, and we generate decidability with minimalist, deflationary truth.

That is the difference between the good (desirable) within any context and the true (decidable) across any and all contexts.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

Anti-Philosophy

Peterson New War’s Problem, Last War’s Strategy

CRITICISM: PETERSON: FIGHTING THE LAST WAR, WITH A WEAPON THAT HARMS US AS MUCH AS IT HELPS.

(NET/NET (TL;DR): The narrative requires intention, authority, and indoctrination in an effort to create behavioral goods, but natural law, like the good of markets, requires only dispute resolution, caused by self interests, from which all ‘goods’ emerge – even the unimagined. Narratives explain values. Laws create them. )

THE ENLIGHTENMENT, THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, AND THE PROBLEMS OF CHOICE UNDER POST-HUMAN-SCALE
I’m still going to criticize Dr Peterson’s conflation of the true(decidable), the good(preferable), and the beautiful(best/excellent) the similarity between men’s judgements provides us with a ‘unit of measure’: man’s abilities. It is this unit of measure that assists us in determining candidate opportunity, objective judgement, and successful action. When we encountered the industrial age, we changed from group norms as the unit of measure (test), to the limits of man’s perception(test) as the unit of measure in methods of decidability. Everything grew in scale:, information, markets, awareness of differences, necessity of understanding that which was beyond personal limits to perception, individual limits to ability and action, and group limits to organization and understanding.

It was this intellectual transition from small, homogenous, and local to large, heterogeneous and remote, that both created great opportunity for mankind, and created all our personal, cultural, institutional, and international conflict. We changed from ‘markets’ where we interacted with and cooperated with, and disputed with people in familiar and consensus context, to markets of all kinds where we interacted with, cooperated with, and disputed with peoples and groups, and nations on unfamiliar and very different consensual contexts. And our normative means of decision failed to scale. So we required methods of decidability not born then of consensus within a context, but of decidability regardless of context (and preference).

This is the story of the anglo scientific enlightenment, the failed social scientific and political enlightenment that followed (French, German, Russian, Jewish, in europe), and the consequential and failed german scientific, social, and political enligthenment of the 19th and 20th centuries – cut short by the (Immoral and Destructive ) world wars.

And it was the failure of 20th century philosophy and 20th century social science, only recently rescued by late 20th and early 21st century physical sciences, that has allowed an opportunity for the second conquest of the west by a ‘Second Great Deceit” – this time by pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, and propaganda, mass media, and the academy selling utopia to women and the underclasses, just as the the first conquest of the West by the First Great Deceit was achieved by Supernaturalism, pseudo-reasonableness, writing, the pulpit and the state sponsorship of monotheistic religion as a cheap means by which the wealthy east, could rule the independent but poorer west.

The only central claim to ‘Darwinian’ thought is that it provides us with knowledge of long term consequence (outside of experience, outside of perception, outside of human scale), and that as such we possess decidability between what were previously either only preferential goods, or what were both preferential, normative, and institutionalized assumed goods that are in fact ‘bads’ (Islam’s (a) unearned respect, and (b) fixed scope of knowledge, or Judaism’s dual ethics and its parasitism upon the host’s commons, or Christianity’s superstition and submission to authoritarian falsehood as a means of creating docile agrarian labor forces and limiting the conflict of families, tribes, clans, chieftains, and states). With this long term tool we can understand the unintended consequences of comforting falsehoods. That is what ‘Darwinian’ thought provides us with: an understanding of consequences of scale.

THE WANT OF DISCOUNTS – TO PRESERVE HUMAN SCALE
I’m sympathetic. I’m human as well. Humans want an intuitionistic means of decidability to save them the labor of investigation and calculation. And the economics of time, energy, and ignorance prevent us from investigation and calculation. So our multitude of decisions must be reduced to simple general rules in the context of each era. We all want the Elephant to DRIVE, and for our minds to merely RIDE upon his labors, and enjoy the view. But that is to be animal – not human – to lack agency not possess it. Of course we would all love to ride easily on a river of normative conditions that suited our interests. But that is not the fate of our struggle against the dark forces of time and ignorance – only possible in the pursuit of the cooperation with others at sufficient scale to win the struggle.

So, while I agree with Jordan’s criticisms (as many of us do), his prescription is wrong. He’s wrong because he is playing to the reasons that religions fail modernity via conflation and deceit (his coherent truth) but literature, history, the common law of torts, and science achieve by non deceitful, non false, ends. He is against the current pseudoscientific religion of the state, but he’s regressing into fighting the last war, instead of continuing modernity by deflating the beautiful, the good, and the true, which is the source of western competitive success, and the reason the west dragged the rest out of poverty.

We have struggled for millennia to tame the Elephant of evolutionary intuition with the Rider of reason, and we have obtained extraordinary benefits from doing so.

THE SOLUTION TO THE PRESENT IS THE SAME AS THE SOLUTION TO THE PAST – RETURN TO TRUTH
The solution to the present second attempt to ‘christianize the west’ – this time through cosmopolitan pseudoscience of Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, and Adorno – is not to regress to the past, in order to admit failure to defeat the pseudoscientific cosmopolitan religion of the present, but to defeat the pseudoscientific cosmopolitan religion of the present, with literature(ideation of and decision between possible contexts), history(judgement within each extant context), and decidability (truth – decidability REGARDLESS of context: judgement regardless of preference or opinion. ).

Literary analogy can assist us in the free association that is necessary to identify candidate opportunities (ideation), but once possessed of an idea, we cannot, without deceit, choose other than to rely upon the record of man’s actions in matters of conflict (including law, norm, culture, religion, immigration, invasion, war, conquest, and genocide), and deflationary truth (science). Where by ‘science’ we mean not the via-positiva of investigation, but the via-negativa discipline by which we perform due diligence against ignorance, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, supernaturalism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, propaganda, and deceit.

We may only be able to SHARE literary(and platonic) means of general rules in pursuit of remote common goods, but we must at least possess the knowledge of, and a caste of people who, specialize in Judgement in matters of conflict, tat relies upon deflationary truth(science) for the purpose of those judgements.

No more lies. The west defeated the rest and dragged man kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, labor, starvation, disease, deceit and tyranny, by the the construction of one commons above all other: deflationary, testimonial, correspondent truth. Despite internal and external resistance at all times. We did it.

And no retreat into eastern mysticism, jewish superstition, greek platonism, continental rationalism, or retention any of the enlightenment fallacies of the nature of man, will resurrect our civilization.

THE TRUTH OF THE FOUNDING INDUSTRIES OF THE WEST: DOMESTICATION OF MAN FOR NECESSITY AND PROFIT

The unwritten, unstated, impolitic history of the west is quite simple: a small number of independent, voluntary, warriors using advanced technology and advanced tactics of maneuver, where tactics were highly dependent upon adherence to oath (contract), sought to preserve their sovereignty( their independence and spoils of war) through continuing a contract of peerage. This retention of sovereignty, and their demonstrated, existential, superiority in action (conflict), leaves only one method of dispute resolution available: markets in everything. War constitutes the most intolerant market we know of, and martial epistemology is the most scientific. And the martial ‘reporting’ that we incorporated into our society as ‘testimony’, has permeated our civilization so much so that we cannot (unfortunately) understand that it is our uniqueness. That the bond of warriors – the oath – is of higher import than the bond of blood in matters of the commons. And it is the multitude of consequences of this bond of testimony – oath- using the epistemology of war (minimalist, deflationary, correspondence), that the aristocracy by practice, the middle class by aspiration, the craftsman class by necessity, and the working class by utility have created The Truthful Civilization and the most expensive commons that man has produced. Meanwhile, the outcast underclasses, the practitioners of gossip: politicians, priests, academics, and public intellectuals have fought against at every opportunity.

The western aristocracy, having domesticated plants, animals, (and in large part, women), ever needing to increase the numbers of fellows possessing AGENCY IN FACT (both intellectual, physical, and existential), created a profitable industry: the domestication of the beast man from dysgenic, ignorant, superstitious, violent, parasitic, predatory, opponent, to eugenically produced human: rational, knowledgable, productive, competitive, through the process of slave, serf, freeman, citizen, and peerage. Humans were not oppressed. The beast man was domesticated through the organized use of violence to prevent his survival except through productivity in a market, and contribution to the informational, normative, institutional, and material commons.

Just as the West evolved by the use of advanced technology, contractualism, truth, and markets in everything to evolve not first, but FASTER than the rest (and earlier) civilizations, the Cosmopolitans have used the advanced technology of mass communication, and the specialization in mass communication by politicians priests, academics, and public intellectuals, and their ‘soldiers’ in the school system, the media, and the underclasses, to rally against, and fight the people who use TRUTH, by the INDUSTRIALIZATION OF LYING. The product they sell is the hope of salvation in the present from Socialism ( discretionary rule over discretionary production, and discretionary allocation of production to individuals, families, and commons) that is the organizing model of the totalitarian flood-plain civilizations of antiquity that profit from the retention and expansion of the underclasses using religion (lying). And the cosmopolitan strategy is nothing other than a reformation of the promise of salvation (utopia) after death that is the source of Egyptian, abrahamic, judaic, christian, and muslim religions of the underclasses and the tellers of comforting lies that organize them.

OUR CHOICES: THE POVERTY OF COMFORT OR THE PROSPERITY OF EFFORT
We can choose between the imperial, dysgenic caste system of large scale underclasses taught by supernatural literature, and conflationary argument, that doctor Peterson seems enamored of, OR we can choose the eugenic production of sovereignty, agency, and equality of norther european warriors and universal militia taught by adherence to the oath, the common law, the decidability of the science (due diligence in testimony), testimonial (deflationary) truth, and producing a smaller and objectively superior majority middle class society in which we are all possessed of agency in institutions, and agency in mind, and agency in the face of a universe yet waiting to be domesticated by our will.

The balanced argument (the market solution that is the product of western civilization) is that we need multiple forms of argument, education, economy, and a market (government) for exchanges of commons between the classes, to suit the needs of people who possess a range of abilities, from those who can but imitate to those who can most radically innovate.

But we can only achieve that diversity (market) of available models for our people, if the means of decidability between them is parsimonious, deflationary, correspondent, Truth that is produced by the due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit that we call ‘science’.

RETURNING TO HUMAN SCALE
Its quite simple. Let a thousand nations bloom. End the empires and let loose the creativity of mankind. Its between empires that we make our rapid evolutions from one condition to another. we can all live in a diverse set of Denmarks (small homogenous egalitarian kin groups with commonality of interest and redistribution) or we can live in large empires (Brazil, India, China, Islam, and the United States) where we evolve once again into castes with high concentrations of wealth, vast underclasses, and stagnation – and the myths, superstitions, and comforting lies we tell ourselves to justify our condition.

What has to change? Bring knowledge, capital, institutions, and norms to people – and expand ‘the good’, not people to knowledge, capital, institutions and norms – and degrade and consume ‘the good’.

There is nothing in western civilization that cannot be copied by moral peoples.. There is nothing in western civlization that cannot be destroyed by large numbers of immoral peoples.

Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
The Philosophy of Western Civilization
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.

Anti-Philosophy · Uncategorized

Philosophy (Moral Literature) Is Not Much Help

I AM NOT SURE PHILOSOPHY (LITERATURE) IS MUCH HELP
(from elsewhere)

It’s one thing to suspect, another thing to do.
Reading is hard.
Arithmetic is harder is harder than reading.
Accounting is harder than arithmetic.
Programming is harder than accounting
Natural Law is harder than programming.

If you look at the people who have been with us for a long time everyone has gotten better at argument. Some can use the basic arguments. Some people can use the various series. But how many of us can write natural law in operational grammar?

The beauty of Propertarainism is that it contains each of those levels: the historical argument, the causality of Acquisitionism (incentives), The epistemology of Testimonialism, the Ethics (and definitions of unethical) of Propertarianinism, the politics of Market Government, the competition of group evolutionary strategies, the aesthetics of transcendence …. and the logic, grammar, and rhetoric of natural law.

There is something for everyone no matter their level of ability. But just as some people can do arithmetic, some accounting, some mathematics, some programming … only some will be able to write natural law (for example, like James Augustus does intuitively or Joel Davis approaches). Myself I think it is more important for most people to recognize and READ it (just as reading can be taught to most people) than it is to WRITE it (which requires far less effort and ability).

The vast majority of people will learn propertarianism (natural law) from Eli, not me, and can be introduced by William Butchman or others.

Those who can construct grammatical arguments, I think, will be those who come by it intuitively, or who have financial, legal, and programming experience, or who simply work hard at it like any other of the ‘logics’.

The problem for those who study philosophy (literature), is that it is in fact just ‘literature’, and not a STEM discipline (science). And to some degree it anchors you just as religion anchors the theological. Natural Law, like programming, logic, and math, is a STEM discipline.

The difference between programming and natural law is merely that the comparison tests (incentives) of man, and the operations (actions) of man, are mere ‘calculations’, and as such broader, and less limited than the ‘computations’ of machines.

And while the machine checks our cognitive biases due to it’s rigid grammar, we must check ourselves in our arguments by checking our own grammar.

And that is the very hardest part.