All Civilizations Evolved a Group Strategy And Means of Persisting It

All civilizations evolved the following necessary information systems:

(a) a Group evolutionary (competitive) strategy,

(b) a Mythology to explain, justify, and lionize it in Emotions,

(c) Wisdom literature to communicate it in Stories,

(d) a System of Argument to persuade and defend it in Reason, and;

(e) a set of Institutions to persist it across generations with limited modification.

**|Civilizational Strategy|: Group Strategy > Mythology >
... Wisdom Literature >** 
**... ... System of Argument > Institutions.**

(Note: We use “Wisdom Literature” in the more general sense above, rather than the narrower sense of a collection the sayings of sages developed as oral tradition but eventually written down.)

The Geographic Origin of Group Strategies

  • HOSTILELANDS: African Ethics (pre-Christian). Africa is akin to the Desertlands because of the sheer number of competitors, the hostility of the disease gradient, the plethora of wildlife, combined with the primitiveness of the available technologies. This is the only possible strategy until one or more core states can evolve, and create suf?cient stability in some regions. (this is occurring now).
  • DESERTLANDS: Muslim Ethics: (I am still working on this one because I don’t get that it’s causal, but opportunistic.) What can I justify now in order to make this minor advance now? And thereby accumulate wins by wearing down opponents over long periods. The ethics of opportunism. As far as i can tell Islam is just an excuse for justifying opportunism. We can consider this the combination of religion and justifying opportunism – a long term very successful strategy because it’s very low cost
  • STEPPELANDS: Russian(0rthodox) Ethics: What can I get away with now by negotiation and subterfuge, and hold by force later? (steppe raiders) The ethics of steppe people surrounded by competitors, always hostile and unpredictable. This is a dif?cult and expensive but only possible strategy, when one is surrounded by hostile opportunity seekers. While seemingly expansive, it’s actually a fearful one, aggression as the only possible means of controlling defensive positions across open territory.
  • BORDERLANDS: Cosmopolitanerish) Ethics: What will someone consent to Regardless of future resentment and retaliation? (borderland/subculture/ deontological ethics: rules) The ethics of diasporic, migrating traders, or herding peoples who can prey upon the locals who hold territory. This is a very low cost (parasitic) ethics that avoids all contribution to the host commons, but requires preserving the ability to exit (migrate). it is the raider strategy by systemic and verbal rather than physical means.
  • FORESTLANDS: Family, Clan Farms, Villages. Transportation expensive. Forests are dark and scary places full of brigands. Aristocratic Ethics: What will someone not retaliate against even if we agree to it?(rulers/teleological ethics: outcomes) The ethics of warriors who must hold territory. This is a very high-cost strategy because while professional warrior aristocracy is militarily superior, smaller numbers mean threats must be constantly suppressed when small, as soon as identi?ed. (Pro?ting from the domestication of man)
  • RIVERLANDS: Riverlands strategy defends against Steppland and Desertland strategies. (Pro?ting from the domestication of man) Chinese Ethics: What can I get away with now, but over time make it impossible to change later? The ethics of long term ruling bureaucratic class. Sun Tzu strategy, and Confucian hyper familism. This is an exceptionally cost-effective strategy if one possesses a territorial resource (heartland), and can fortify that heartland.
  • FERTILE RIVER LAND: (Pro?t from the subjugation of man) (Cyrus was lost). Bias to Empire.
  • COASTAL-ISLAND LANDS – Athens, Scandinavia Bias to Trade
  • ISLAND LANDS – Cyprus, Crete, BRITAIN, Naval bias to Trade.
  • DIASPORIC PEOPLE – Gypsies, Travellers, Jews

Rock Paper Scissors: Elites and the Three Methods of Coercion

There are three formal means of coercing groups of people with institutions. And we can use these three Archetypes to imagine the extremes:

**GHENGIS KHAN -- THOMAS JEFFERSON -- MOTHER THERESA**VIOLENCE...........EXCHANGE............SUBSIDY 
RIGHT...............CENTER..............LEFT 
FATHER...............SON.............SISTER/MOTHER

The three means of coercion are as follows:

1) FORCE, or the threat of force

A person has a VIOLENCE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when it has been made known to him that failure to do so will result in some form of physical aggression being directed at him by other members of the collectivity in the form of inflicting pain or physical harm on him or his loved ones, depriving him of his freedom of movement, or perhaps confiscating or destroying his treasured possessions.

The Physical:

Body and Movement

Using Force or Violence

The fear of harm or promise of defense.

By the Dominant or Established Male

Force:

Tool: Physical Coercion

Benefit: Avoidance Benefit

Strategic use: Rapid but expensive.

“Seize opportunities quickly with a concentrated effort.”

Limits: Via-Negativa: Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges, and Politicians)

STATE(ORDER): Formal Limits.

Violence(Harm) < -vs- > Defense (Protection) :  Defense, Taxation, Keeping the Peace

2) REMUNERATION or payment

A person has a REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way if it has been made known to him that doing so will result in some form of material reward he will not otherwise receive. If he behaves as desired, he will receive some specified amount of a valuable good or service (or money with which he can purchase whatever he wishes) in exchange.

The Material:

Resources and Opportunity

Using Bribe or Trade

The fear of loss of gains, or promise of gains

By the Brother, Ally, or Ascendant Male

Exchange: Remunerative Coercion With Material Benefit –

Strategic use: efficient in cost and time, only if you have the resources.

Possibilities: Via-Practica: Economic Power (people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation).

TRADE(LAW-COMMERCE): Formal Cooperation:

Boycott (Deprivation) < -vs- > Trade (Gain)  :  Reciprocity, Property : Boycott:  Markets Laws.

3) MORAL Claims (collective goods)

A person has a MORAL INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when he has been taught to believe that it is the “right” or “proper” or “admirable” thing to do. If he behaves as others expect him to, he may expect the approval or even the admiration of the other members of the collectivity and enjoy an enhanced sense of acceptance or self-esteem. If he behaves improperly, he may expect verbal expressions of condemnation, scorn, ridicule or even ostracism from the collectivity, and he may experience unpleasant feelings of guilt, shame or self-condemnation.

The Social:

Cooperation and Insurance

Using Undermining or Advocacy

The fear of ostracization or promise of inclusion

By the female and especially dominant female

Words:

Tool: Verbal, Moral Coercion

Benefit: Ostracization/Inclusion, and Insurance benefit

Strategic Use: slow, but inexpensive.

“Wait for opportunity by accumulating consensus.”

Wants: Via-Positiva: Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals)

RELIGION(SOCIETY): Formal Indoctrination

Ostracization (Risk-Death) <–vs–> Inclusion (Safety-Life) : Conformity Obedience : Gossip, Undermining.

And In addition, non-coercive informal institutions:

  1. The Informal Organic Norms

THE PEOPLE: Organic Norms and Traditions: Pragmatic Habits

Degrees Of Coercion

We can scale each of the three-axis of coercion by degree of coercion:

1) INFLUENCE – informing others in their interests

… 2) COERCION – coercing others to follow your interests

… … 3) POWER – organized coercion of others for your or collective interests

|Coercion|: Neutral > Influence > Coercion > Power

And Scale each axis by dree of certainty:

|Certainty|:Undecidability > Possibility > Potential > Probabilitye > Likelihood > Certainty

Combinations of Methods of Coercion:  “Chords” of Coercion

Influence, coercion and power can consist of one or more of these method, often in great complexity.

Groups tend to give priority to one or more different weighted combinations, or perhaps ‘chordic’ representations of these strategies. They do so out of habit, and class inclination, just as they follow religious and class sentiments due to their upbringing.

People who belong to institutions have different capacities for adopting these strategies. Force requires discipline and long Time Bias. Remuneration requires cunning and invention. Moral claims require loyalty to consensus, and absorption of, and therefore payment of, opportunity costs. Different social classes have different time biases and consist of people with different time preferences, requiring different types of discipline under different social and economic conditions. ie: it is easier to have a long time preference if one is genetically disposed to better impulse control, and lives in greater security. It is easier to have a short time preference if one is more persuaded by impulses, less disciplined, and in an environment of scarcity.

There are different costs to these institutions: Force is extremely expensive. Creating non-corruption, and order (some network of property definitions and their means of transfer). Property is a term for a scarce good that must used, consumed or transformed in the process of production, even if that process is human sustenance. Remunerative institutions require the complex task of concentrating capital then maintaining it in a constantly changing kaleidic and competitive environment. Moral claims require constant advocacy, verbal skill, maintenance of numerous relationships, and constant payment of opportunity costs.

The social classes are organized by intelligence expressed by empathy or dominance. Intelligence is the ability to absorb content in real-time, to learn abstractions in time, and to permute those abstractions in application to problems in real-time. Intelligence regresses toward the mean over generations. Therefore class membership is an indicator of the likelihood of class mobility, and upper-class position is difficult to maintain. While we use the word ‘middle class’, and most people in the west live middle-class lifestyles, the middle class means possessing disposable income and participating in the market. Therefore the majority of citizens are in the upper proletariat and lower-middle classes, which we call the working, white-collar working and craftsman classes.

The Social classes have different access to each of these forms of coercion. Those in the institutional class, or upper class, have access to force in the form of policy and law. Those in the capitalist class, or middle, have access to capital: money, and market institutions.

In each strategy peoples form elites, and organizations for utilizing those strategies. The elites create philosophical frameworks. Each of these frameworks consists of moral claims, and institutional means of perpetuating those claims, and the social benefits of adopting those claims.

Each of these institutions is open to corruption, which is the privatization of opportunity and reward, for personal consumption at group expense. Corruption is fraud.

Each of these strategies, their organizations, institutions, and elites compete against other strategies, organizations, and elites, and each attempts to use its organization for discounts against other organizations.

This competition is analogous to the game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, if more complicated: each group can successfully compete against one another under most circumstances, but can defeat and be defeated by some other combination of forces.

At its base, there are only three tools of social organization. These three forms can be combined, as they are in the majority of the population in some manner or another. Or they can be used as one of three specializations, each of which attempts to play rock, paper, scissors, with the other two.

The Relation Between Elites and Classes

( … )

theecoercivetechnologies

The Three Orders: Kin, State, and Cult

We make use of Authority and State, Law and Trade, and Education and Religion, but we choose a dominant bias with which to employ them in our social orders, yielding:

(1) Kin and Law and Nation and Federation – Create Self Determination

(2) State and Corporatism, and Empire – Limit Self Determination

(3) Cult and Religion, and Globalism – Eradicate Self Determination

… depending upon homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population; to overcome resistance to the creation and preservation of commons – so that why is it that one bias in the order is always better off than the others?

The Order of Development of The Three Institutions

Religion(Theology) -> State > Law ==> (Middle east)

Religion(Mythology)  -> Law -> State ==> (India)

Law > Religion > State  ==> (no one)

Law > State > Religion(Philosophy) ==> (Europe)

State -> Law -> Religion ==> (China)

State-> Religion(Confucian) -> Law  ==> (China – Failed Law)

Political power originates in the ability of humans to organize by individual influence, group coercion, and institutional power.

It just so happens that we use gossip to rally and shame and ostracize people from production and opportunity for consumption. Religion. But then we scale.

It just so happens that you need to use violence to suppress parasitism sufficiently for a market to form, at that scale: State But then we scale further.

And then to use law to suppress cheating, fraud, and to impose performance, and restitution, and if necessary, punishment: Law. But then we scale further.

And then we use wealth created by the application of violence and law and to force market participation rather than parasitism, to pay off those who cannot be forced.

And then, we hit the novel inflection point, and scale further:

And so we then use force, law and gossip to suppress the suppressors, and rely entirely upon rule of law, without a group that exercises power.

So the sooner one develops rule of law, the sooner one starts suppressing the parasitism of the monopoly.

Tools of Rule

**REPUTATION (Tribe, Band, Village)**Individuals in small groups develop reputations and their survival depends on those reputations.We evolved for reputation. In fact. our consience serves to attempt to limit the damage we can do to our reputation. Because status (reputation) is the most infulential asset we have in survival after our health and natural ability. The reason is simple: the returns on coperation are not replacable by individual achievement.

Weapon: Ostracization (death sentence)

Records: Memory of Locals

RELIGION (Polity)

Religion evolved to provide an understanding of the word, virtues to imitate, and general prohibitions, across clans, tribes, and conquered nations, so that people could cooperate more easily and retaliate (feud) less frequently.

Weapon: ostracization (deprivation from opportunity)

Records: the memory of locals, religious registries and ceremonies.

LAW

Law evolved to standardize punishments across clans, tribes, and conquered nations, to keep the peace, preserve productivity, preserve taxation, and legitimize (provide value by) rule.

Weapon: violence, deprivation

Records: written ledgers of crimes and punishments.

CREDIT

Credit rule evolved to increase productivity by the promise of consumption in the present, such that the primary form of social punishment was loss of consumption, status, and signaling.

Weapon: deprivation of consumption, status, and signaling.

Records: written and electronic records of creditworthiness.

DIGITAL REPUTATION

Social media is creating a digital reputation but so isall online activity.

Weapon: deprivation of opportunity, consumption, status, and signaling.

Records: Electronic Records of behavior in all walks of life

DIGITAL PRIOR RESTRAINT

State surveillance of all behavior private and public.

Weapon: Deprivation of choice to behave according to ‘rules’.

Records: Surveillance. Predicted behavior from records in all walks of life.

The Result is the Ternary Logic of Political Science

There are three states of logic, in order:

  1. False

  2. Truth candidate (actionable)

  3. Undecidable (In-actionable)

There are three options to cooperation

  1. avoidance – to separation (ostracization)

  2. exchange – to integration(cooperation)

  3. parasitism– to predation (conflict)

There are three means of coercion

  1. Remuneration (deprivation of trade, or benefit from trade) Middle class – Libertarian Meritocratic

  2. Force (imposition of harm, defense from harm) Upper class – Conservative Eugenic

  3. Undermining (ostracizing/inhibiting opportunity, including/generating opportunity) Under Class – Progressive Dysgenic

So We Can Organize by Three Methods

  1. Kin – Law (Law, Economic)
  2. State – Force (Military, Political)
  3. Cult – Ostracizaton (Mythology, Social)

So We Can Rule by three axis of decidability

  1. Reason and Command (China India) – Requires Justification

  2. Empiricism(science) and Law (Europe) – Requires Truth

  3. Sophistry and Propaganda (Semitia) – Requires Sophistry

We can govern by three axis:

… …  Military Elite (Unaccountable)

  1. Bureaucracy (china) – Upper Class – Authority

… …  Financial Elite (Unaccountable)

  1. Markets, Law, Courts, (Europe) – Middle Class – Republic

… … Academic Elite (unaccountable)

  1. Priesthood (Semitia)  – Underclass – Theocracy – Byzantium, Islam

Producing three axis of elites

 

1. Military, Militia, (external)

2. Juridical Police, Sheriff (internal)

  1. Priests, Politicians, Public Intellectuals (familial, social)

and of late minor elites

  1. Economic: Entrepreneurial, Financial, Treasury

  2. Scientific, Technical,

Proucing Three Consequences

  1. Administration and Stagnation (strong:china, weak:india)

  2. Production and Evolution (Europe)

  3. Parasitism and Degeneration (semitia, gypsies)

A Quick Note on Serialization

And I hope you see the pattern we call Serialization that we use to produce Types:

  • Development: Sensory, Motor, Social, Rational, Skills
  • Aging: Youth (to 16), Ascendant Adult (to 35), Established Adult to death
  • Memory Adaptation: Right Now, Three Seconds, Three weeks, Three Months, Three years,
  • Mindfulness: personal, interpersonal, social, political, existential
  • Thought: Consiousness, Daydreaming, thinking, reasoning, ratioanalising (rationalism), calculating computing.
  • Institutions: In-Family Traditions. Class Traditions, Informal Institutions, Formal Institutions
  • Rules: Traditions, Norms, Laws
  • Ethics: Manners, Ethics, Morals
  • Ethical Methods: Imitative Ethics, Rule Ethics, Outcome Ethics
  • Stories: Mythology, Narrative(story), Literature, History
  • Paradigms: Theology (intuitive), Philosophy (Rational), Law(Evidentiary), Science(empirical), Logic(logical).
  • Sciences: Formal (Logics), Physical, Natural (Behavioral), and Evolutionary
  • Natural Sciences: Language, Psychology, Sociology, Economics, Law, Group Strategies
  • Physical Sciences: Physics, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Biology, Sentience
  • Mathematics: Counting: Numbers, Counting, Arithmetic, Accounting. Sets: Algebra, Computability, Combinatorics. Space: Trigonometry, Geometry, Differential Geometry, Algebraic Geometry, Topology. Time or Change: Calculus, Analysis)

Or scalar both directions:

  • Moral: Evil, Immoral, Unethical, Bad <- Amoral -> Good, Ethical, Moral, Virtuous.
  • Extremes of Brain Structure: Female: Psychotic Solipsistic Sensitive Empathic <- Balanced -> Rational, Analytic, Aspie, Autistic :Male

Or as we have seen above scalar in three directions:

  • 1 – Force: Coercion by Defense or Threat
  • … … … … … … … … 2 – Remuneration: Coercion by Bribery or Deprivation
  • 3 – Undermining: Coercion  by Inclusion or Ostracization

Or say, the four dimensions of the Nolan chart of political biases:

……………………………………………1 – Libertarian (Individual)………………………………..

3 – Socialist (Consumptive) ———–|——— 4 – Aristocracy (Conservative)

…………………………………………2 – Authoritarian (Collective)…………………………………

And we use all various combinations of these lists, spectra, hierarchies and graphs.

Why? Because when we create these definitions we convert rules of thumb to systems of measurement. And on the one hand, by providing the context for any term, it turns out to be the best way to educate people because the world they learn about “fits together”. And on the other hand, it nearly eliminates the ability of ignorant, biased, or deceptive people to engage in the many techiques of conflation, so that they can perpetuate an error, advance a bias, or lie.

So by using terms defined in a context of other terms, we disambiguate those terms and increase the precision of the speaker to use due dilligenc in speech, and the ability of the audience to insure they’re undersattnding and not being subject to a falsehood.

The ranking assuming we eradicate the Semitic dark ages:

Europe, China, India, Iran-Assyria-Babylon, Egypt Mesoamerica, Semitia (Jewish Muslim), S-Pacific, E africa, W africa Africa, S Africa, Austronesia

The only hard choice being Iran vs India and that choice possible only because the Persians were not able to shake off Islam and reassert Persian civilization despite efforts just as the Germans can’t sake of Christianity despite their efforts and reassert germanic civilization.

Human variation

The Demand for Group Strategy (coherence, choice, calculation, coordination)

The Demand for Mindfulness is Demand for Education

The Neural Economy

The Neural Economy, Uncertainty, and Worry (neuroticism)

The Demand for “Meaning”

The Demand For Agency (Will to Power, or control, or survival)

The Demand for Mindfulness

I mean the physical, cognitive and emotional discipline to control the subject of attention on the present intent, insulated from distractions whether personal, environmental, or interpersonal.

—“People are not evolved for producing statements of secular epistemic purity but rather for survival through cooperation through language. “—

Decidability and mindfulness are market goods. We require these goods to compensate for a complex unpredictable (kaleidic) world.

Traits Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism

  1. Personal: The market demand for personal mindfulness (Spiritualism) whether empathic-feminine (theological), moral-masculine(rational), or analytic-masculine(scientific) exists, and all three demands exist for most of us.
  2. Interpersonal: The Market Demand for interpersonal mindfulness by creating a standard dialog, set of signals, and manners that are costly to learn and practice, but that by practicing display to others you are worthy of honest cooperation on the same terms.
  3. Social: The market demand for social mindfulness (limitation of fear and comfort in the ethical, and moral. These are moral rules that serve the group’s competitive strategy – and all reflect the environmental challenges of the age of transformation in which men invented religions.,
  4. Political: The market demand for political mindfulness (limits on political action and on rulers actions). I won’t cover each of them here.
  5. Strategic: The Market Demand for a group strategy – gypsy parasitism, Jewish parasitism, Muslim parasitism, predation and conquest, Christian undermining of the truth, knowledge, reason, law, property, aristocracy by rallying the peasantry and women and slaves against all and being as expansionary as islam – to counter islam. Buddhist submission and obedience Hindu class duty and function in the ‘harmony’. Chinese hierarchical family (bureaucracy). Anglo aristocratic egalitarianism (entrepreneurship and corporation).

**+2 – Dominance (Real, Techne-Science, Materialism, Action)**Statism Nationalism (Tribalism) Achieves mindfulness because of participation in state

Soldiery Achieves mindfulness through military fraternity Agency Achieves Mindfulness because of achievement or success

**+ 1 – Utility( Idealism, Philosophy, Reason, Choice, Mind)

Aristotelian**-Anglo Philosophy

Continental and Platonic European Philosophy

Confucian–Daoist Philosophy

**0 – Insulation (Accommodation, Ritualization, Thought, Intuition )

Stoicism** achieves mindfulness through small daily task completion in a virtuous manner. Shinto achieves mindfulness through the precise repetition of ritual in a respectful manner.

Buddhism achieves mindfulness through meditation and escape from reality.

**-1 – Submission (Supernatural, Theology, Empathy, Feeling)

Christianity** achieves mindfulness by personal and collective prayer (and song). Islam achieves mindfulness by many memorizations and ritual prayers during every single day.

Judaism achieves mindfulness by separatism and deep indoctrination

The question is, given how the various religions solved mindfulness (Stoicism-epicureanism, buddhism, hinduism, abrahamism) which produces agency (stoicism), which produces optimism (hinduism), which produces withdrawal from reality (buddhism) and which denies and escapes reality (abrahamism).

( … )

Male vs Female bias

The Demand for and Difference in Moral Organization

Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism.

morality

personality

Affinity

The Difference in Religious Organization

monoply

The Difference in Political Organization

Indian Religion,  Chinese wisdom,  European ratio-scientific Literature, European Law, Prussian Monarchy and Bureaucracy, Chinese time horizon,

The Differences In Civilizational Time Horizons (Planning)

(Chinese eternity), monarchical lifetimes, (democratic tomorrows), theological stagnation

 

Jewish

(Undermined England, Germany, France, Ukraine, and Russia)

The Jewish religion was the first to require literacy. While philosophy required literacy, religion came to literacy late and last. Literacy both prohibited a bottom class, and gave access to higher-paying administrative jobs. By the second century, nearly all jews had given up farming – or given up on the religion.

The resulting diaspora, selection for ingroup bias, the exit of failures, upward redistribution of reproduction to Rabbis, and frequent retaliatory prosecutions and bottlenecks produced expected results.

  • Racism
  • Supremacy
  • Nepotism (Sustaining Judaism and Jewish People)
  • Serial Monogamy until Late.
  • Separatism (state within a state), (Buiding Support for Israel)
  • Poly Logicalism (Asymmetric) Ethics
  • Fictionalism Loading-Framing->Storytelling-> Fictionalism( occult->supernaturalism, magic->psueudoscience, Sophistry->idealsm, )
  • Parasitism (avoidance of braoder commons, privatizing comons)
  • Rebellion (Tikkun Olam – Repairing the world (making it safe for jews))
  • Globalism (making the world safe for rebellion, parasitism, separatism, nepotism, by eradicating other’s choice of self determination)
  • Federalism (Prevention of Authority, Aristocracy and Nationalism)
  • Hazarding
    • Physical Degeneracy ( avoiding integration )
    • Financialiaztion, Gabmgling, Usury, Baiting into Hazard, Unproductivity.
    • Marketing and Consumerism (Propaganda, False Promise, Hyperconsumption,)
    • Propagandism (social construction )
  • Undermining
  • Insurrection
  • Revolution
  • Retaliation (Murder)
  • Civilizational Destruction and Degeneracy

The most racist of peoples, Jews can claim they aren’t because they aren’t responsible for the consequences.

Latin American (Indo-European-Amerindian)

(Curently Invading and colonizing North America)

West European

(Under Conquest by Latin American, Judaism, Islam)

Organizations

Japanese

(preserving kinship)

Buddhist

(Under conquest by China: Mongolia, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Manchuria, Zungharia, and infringing on Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam.

Indian (Indo Iranic (western Eurasian) – Ancestral North Indian(Western Eurasian) – Ancestral South Indian (African)

(Under Conquest by Islam, partial by China)

African

(Under Conquest by Islam)

The Costs of Differences in Civilizational Strategy

The chinese strategy of delay and deceive until the battle is won comes at the cost of truth before face, corruption, and

The Conflict of Civilizations and Incompatibility of Civilizations

( … )

The Persistence of Group Strategies

GIVEN;

The disproportionate returns on increasing scales of cooperation in a division of sensation, perception, cognition, prediction, memory, wants, advocacy, negotiation, and labor.

AND;

The Competitive Value of Marginal Increases in the Rate of Adaptation by Physical and Caloric, Social and institutional, Cognitive and Technological means.

AND;

A Group’s Founding Relationships:

To The Natural World,

To Choices toward Others,

By An Organizational Model,

By Means of Mythology, and Paradigms

By Means of Persuasion and Negotiation,

and

By Grammar of Communication

AND;

The Spectrum of Relationships with The Natural World

– Peers, Ascendants, Transformers, Conquerors of Nature (Europeans)

– In Harmony with Nature – bias mankind (East Asians)

– Interwoven Supernatural and Natural — bias supernatural (Hindu)

– Subjects of the Supernatural (Semitic)

AND;

The Spectrum of Choices Toward Others:

– Predation, Parasitism, Rent Seeking, Free Riding, Undermining

– Competition by the degree of Non-imposition, Cooperation, and Trade

– Boycotting Avoidance of con?ict or cooperation

AND;

The Spectrum of Means of Organizing Order and Elites Internally

– Force/Defense: Military/Judiciary — Authority (positive)

– Remuneration/Deprivation: Finance/industry – Markets (exchange)

– Undermining/Inclusion: Priesthood/intellectuals – Resistance (negative)

AND;

The Spectrum of Mythologies

– History (truth), Essay, Science

– Literature (analogy), Mythology

– Deceit (fraud), Scripture, Theology

THEREFORE;

All civilizations produce:

(a) A Group Evolutionary (competitive) Strategy,

(b) A Group Organizing Strategy to Pursue it

(c) A Mythology to explain and justify it,

(d) A Wisdom Literature to communicate it,

(e) A System of Argument to persuade and defend it, and;

(f) A set of Institutions to persist it.

(g) A Set of Traditions, Values, Norms, Habits to Act upon it.

|STRATEGY|Strategy > Organizing Strategy > Mythology > Wisdom Literature > System of Argument > Institutions > Traditions, Values, Norms, Habits > Actions.

Human Faculties

Communication, Grammar, Epistemology, Suggestion, and Due Dilligence

Spectrum of Speech

  • CRITICISM
    • Polemic: an individual’s expression of anger by criticism in political matters.
    • Diatribe: an individual’s expression of anger by criticism.
    • Criticism: opinion or factual objection to statements or actions.
  • PERSUASION
    • Prosecution: adversarial falsification (criticism) of one or more theories. Or what we call ‘science’.
    • Argument: adversarial competition between theories – or what we call reason.
    • Debate: competition between theories before an audience.
  • COLLABORATION
    • Discourse: an exchange between parties for the purpose of the exploration of competing ideas.
    • Dialog: exchange of information for the purpose of understanding ideas
  • COMMUNICATION
    • Testimony: Speech that communicates facts, warrantied to be free of wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, bias, and deceit, under threat of perjury (harm).
    • Ordinary Language: negotiation of ordinary behavior in ordinary daily life.
    • Opinion, Essay or Narrative: Speech that communicates opinion.
  • STORYTELLING
    • Narration:
    • History:
    • Fiction (analogy, Parable)
  • DECEIT
    • Denying or Ignoraing
    • Obscuring, or Leaving Out
    • Suggesting,  Loading, Framing, Overloading:
    • Fiction (Deceit):
    • Fictionalism:
      • The Physical : Magic to Pseudoscience to Pseudomath (Pseudoscience)
      • The Verbal: sophistry to idealism, to platonism (Philosophy)
      • The Imaginary-Emotional Spirituality to occult to theology (Theology)
  • FRAUD
    • Avoid Liability  (Grey Lie)
    • Commit Fraud (Black Lie)
    • Bait into Hazard (Evil, or Purple Lie)

Human Faculties, Suggestion and and Fictionalism

(explain vulnerability)

Methods of Argument

  • Expressive (emotional): a type of argument where a person expresses a positive or negative opinion based upon his emotional response to the subject.
  • Sentimental (biological): a type of argument that relies upon one of the five (or six) human sentiments, and their artifacts as captured in human traditions, morals, or other unarticulated, but nevertheless consistently and universally demonstrated preferences and behaviors.
  • Moral (normative) : a type of argument that relies upon a set of assumedly normative rules of whose origin is either (a)socially contractual, (b)biologically natural, (c) economically necessary, or even (d)divine. (Also: RELIGIOUS)
  • Reasonable (informal)
  • Rational (logical and formal) – Most philosophical arguments rely upon contradiction and internal consistency rather than external correspondence.
  • Analogical (HISTORICAL) A spectrum of analogical arguments – from Historical to Anecdotal — that rely upon a relationship between a historical sequence of events, and a present sequence events, in order to suggest that the current events will come to the same conclusion as did the past events, or can be used to invalidate or validate assumptions about the current period.
  • Scientific (directly empirical): The use of a set of measurements that produce data that can be used to prove or disprove an hypothesis, but which are subject to human cognitive biases and preferences. ie: ‘Bottom up analysis”
  • Economic: (indirectly empirical): The use of a set of measures consisting of uncontrolled variables, for the purpose of circumventing the problems of direct human inquiry into human preferences, by the process of capturing demonstrated preferences, as expressed by human exchanges, usually in the form of money. ie: “Top Down Analysis”. The weakness of economic arguments is caused by the elimination of properties and causes that are necessary for the process of aggregation.
  • Ratio-Empirical (Comprehensive: Using all above): A rationally articulated argument that makes use of economic, scientific, historical, normative and sentimental information to comprehensively prove that a position is defensible under all objections. NOTE: See “Styles of Argument” below.
  • Testimonial: (OPERATIONAL) categorically consistent, Internally consistent (logical), Externally Correspondent (Instrumentally observable), Operationally articulated (Possible), Fully Accounted, Moral (free of imposed costs).

Mythology and Metaphysics

consistency across dimensions

Wisdom Literatures

 

Tree of Group Wisdom Literatures

 

Confucianism, Aristotelianism, Abrahamism, Hinduism->Buddhism

Burial …
… Animism ….
… … Sun Tzu Realism ( Martial Realism)
… … … **Confucianism** (harmony)
… … … … Daoism (Tolerance)
… … Proto IE Religion
… … … Proto Vedic
… … … … Hinduism
… … … … **Zoroastrianism**
… … … European Sky Father (martial realism)
… … … … European Common Law (legal realism)
… … … … … **Platonism** (idealism)
… … … … … … **Aristotelianism** (realism naturalism)
… … Proto Semitic (Animism)
… … … Proto Judaism
… … … … … **Abrahamism** <- **Zoroastrianism** (Authoritarianism)
… … … … … … Rabbinical Judaism (Justificationism)
… … … … … … Christianity (resistance)
… … … … … … … The Augustinian Conflation (compromise)
… … … … … … … … Orthodoxy – Catholicism, (settlement)
… … … … … … … … … Protestantism, (reformation)
… … … … … … … … … … Evangelicalism (folk-religion restoration)
… … … … … … … Islam (7th c+)
… … … … … … … … Fundamentalist Islam (11-12th c+)
… … … … … … … … … Wahabi Fundamentalist Islam (20th c+)

Grammars of Civilizations Tell Us Their Strategies

1 – Aristotle Wrote Proto Empiricism: Reason, Naturalism, Proto-empiricism, Law, Calculation. (TRUTH, What is.), So the greeks and romans crossed from tradition into philosophy and then empiricism (science). Truth Regardless of Cost.

2 – Lao Tzu, Sun Tzu, and Confucius, all 6th-5th C BC wrote Philosophical WISDOM LIT. Lao Tzu crossed the line into the questionable. (WISDOM, What should be) Note that Buddhism was developed in India in the 5th Century BC, but did not succeed there.

3 – The Persians wrote supernormal and supernatural wisdom literature. Zoroastrianism 6th C BC. (UTOPIAN UNIVERSALISM) They did not make the full leap from religion to philosophy.

4 – The Indians wrote both mythology and wisdom literature, bordering on political science, from 1500 to 500 bc, then developed gods through 500AD, and continued to evolve through contributions of ‘saints’ through 1500AD despite Islamic conquest and interference. (WISDOM, RITUAL, PRAYER, What should be)  in the broadest sense,

5 – The Egyptians wrote no systemic text for their natural religion (mythology, animism, polytheism,  They practiced traditional trade: RITUAL AND SACRIFICE Supernatural (Animism, Anthropomorphism, heathenism ) Doctrine and Ritual.

6 – The Semitic Abrahamists , from 6th c BC, to 6th c AD, evolved traditional Semitic polytheistic religion into monolatry, then monotheism, then branched into Christianity, rabbinical Judaism, and islam (an others). (wrote Mythology, Resistance, Rebellion, Separatism, and Lie and Destruction of all of the above. (COMMAND, UTOPIAN LIE) They conflated theology, philosophy, and law into authoritarian religion.

The Axial Age (Civilization Formation) Anchored Us All

—“Axial Age (also Axis Age, from German: Achsenzeit) is a term coined by German philosopher Karl Jaspers in the sense of a “pivotal age”, characterizing the period of ancient history from about the 8th to the 3rd century BCE. During this period, according to Jaspers’ concept, new ways of thinking appeared in Persia, India, China and the Greco-Roman world in religion and philosophy, in a striking parallel development, without any obvious direct cultural contact between all of the participating Eurasian cultures.”— Wiki

It’s just a fact that the ‘wisdom literature’ of each civilization (a) relies upon the grammar, (b) relies upon the argumentative methodology of the law, (c) relies upon the mythos. It’s inescapable.

There is a reason Jews appropriated Babylonian history, and integrated Greek idealism to create Pilpul (justificationism in theology that relies upon the same techniques as justification in astrology and numerology) … and predictably enough, the same argument you are making (critique – the via-negativa of pilpul’s via-positiva).

There is a reason the Jews appropriated European sciences to create the pseudosciences of Freudianism, boazianism, marxism, neo-marxism, feminism, and HBD-denialism, and European rationalism to create postmodernism, and European math to create with the outliers being Keynes and Foucault – both homosexuals.

Just as there is a reason Confucius couldn’t solve the problem of politics and the Chinese speak in contrasts (riddles).

Just as there is a reason westerners speak in law, evidence, and testimony.

The ‘Axial Age’ anchored us all.

We Don’t Know Our Group Strategies

We call these  ‘metaphysics’ or values as if they are arbitrary – and they aren’t.

Within each strategy, classes develop sub-strategies

There are

There are a limited Number of Strategies – and we can Enumerate Them

There are only so many human strategies – and we discovered and exploited all of them.

It Takes Three to Maintain Equilibrium

The ABC of strategy, and the necessity of trinaries to produce equilibria  Personality, Morality,  Class, Political System, Strategy

The Conflict of Civilizations

All Surviving Strategies Succeed, Some are Moral or Immoral, and advance man, hinder, or regress man

( … )

Evolution, Path Dependency and Group Strategy

Path dependence is when the decisions presented to people are dependent on prior decisions or experiences made in the past. So whether the information is genetic and invisible to us, metaphysical (a paradigmatic interpretation of the universe, world, man and our societies, presumptive habit

We Can Reform Our Group Strategies

The Indo European Revolution as Instigator of Strategies – the formation of organized religion

The Greco-Roman Rational Revolution as the instigator of strategies – the formation of Abrahamic religions

The British Empirical Restoration of Aistotielaims reuniting our law and custom with our theory and academic Cause of Most Strategies

french division of functions made an operational error – but not a natural error. Violation of physical natural or evolutionary laws.

The german search for secular theology – spread natural errors

The jews, however, took it again, to extremes –

jews

MAN

Sigmund Freud (Psychology)

Franz Boaz (anthropology

Stephen J Gould (Evolution)

NEO MARXISM (Critique = Undermining,

Straw Manning vs Heaping Undue Praise -> “Lying”)

(Critical Theory, Undermine, Abandon Revolution)

Antonio Gramsci

FRANKFURT SCHOOL

Critical Theorists

Jürgen Habermas (philosopher)

Axel Honneth (philosopher)

Oskar Negt (philosopher)

Alfred Schmidt (philosopher)

Albrecht Wellmer (philosopher)

Claus Offe (philosopher)

Theorists

Herbert Marcuse (philosopher)

Max Horkheimer (philosopher)

Theodor W. Adorno (philosopher)

Erich Fromm (psychoanalyst),

Friedrich Pollock (philosopher)

Otto Kirchheimer (jurist)

Leo Löwenthal (philosopher)

Franz Leopold Neumann (Activist)

Henryk Grossman (economist)

Siegfried Kracauer (critic)

Alfred Sohn-Rethel (economist)

Walter Benjamin (philosopher)

Ernst Bloch (philosopher)

POSTMODERNISM (Relativism, No Truth, No Explanation,

Just Power. Using Social Construction of falsehoods,

and social deconstruction of Truths)

Jacques Derrida (philosopher)

Michel Foucault (philosopher)

Jean-François Lyotard (philosopher)

Richard Rorty (philosopher)

Jean Baudrillard (philosopher)

Fredric Jameson (philosopher)

Douglas Kellner (philosopher)

FEMININSM

LIBERTARIAISM

Rand-Rothbard

CULTURE

POLITICS

ECONOMICS

Karl Marx (Economics, Sociology)

Ludwig von Mises (Economics)

Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz (Economics)

MATHEMATICS

Georg Cantor (mathematics)

Niels Bohr (less so einstien)

The Myth of Oppression

The Myth of Oppression And The Demand for Adaptation to Physical, Natural, and Evolutionary Laws within the limits of the group’s strategy.

Throughout history the myth of oppression is just that a myth. Instead, just as we contained Christianity and then failed, just as we contained Islam for 1400 years, just as we contained bolshevism, just as we contained fascism to resist bolshevism, and just as we contained the communist movement, just as we contained the soviets,  just as we have tried to contain the Islamist movement, just as we are trying to contain the Chinese Imperial movement, just as we are now trying to contain the Turkish Muslim and Iranian Muslim movements, we contained the Jewish movement throughout history. And the bolsheviks and the soviets were the only time the jews gained access to power to implement their culture at scale.  Most of our history consists of trying to contain authoritarian, non-market, anti-rational, anti-scientific and much larger populations to self-determination, markets, reason, and science. Despite the women and underclasses within, and the hordes without. And the simple reason is that we, the Japanese-Koreans, alone can trust one another, because of our defeat of tribalism, because of our homogeneity, and because of our empirical monarchies.  The three outliers today are (a) the gypsies that practice organized petty crimes, (b) the jews that practice organized social and political crimes of undermining, ( c) the Muslims that practice organized cromes of psychological undermining.  With the rest of the world practicing traditional warfare.