(important post)
—“My point is that a philosophy that puts emphasis on truth telling is distinct from a philosophy that views truth or deceit as just tools for social manipulation. Are we living in reality, the world, which exists independent of human perception and is indifferent to it, to which we need to adapt ourselves in order to survive – or are we living in a socially constructed world that depends on a group consensus which is manufactured with specific social goals in mind. In the former, truth matters more because it gives us an advantage in perceiving reality, in the latter it doesn’t because only social “truths” matter. Violence is an honest approach which an accurate perception of reality facilitates, deceit is an indirect overcoming of immediate weakness, an adaptation that a weaker (in terms of violence) competitor would employ. Deceit as a political strategy of the left would then be an adaptation to the success of truth. Or, lacking a material way to compete, deceit would be used to trick the superior into believing they occupy an inferior position, etc.?”— A Friend
Truth and violence – truth requires violence. Deceit may or may not require violence. Hence we must master violence.
Well, you’re again, trapped in your own frame, but you’re insightful and you are arguing to incentives rather than norms so you’ve progressed farther than most ever will.
But, Instead (a) a science consists in a coherent, consistent, and correspondent, method of decidability independent of goals. (b) a philosophy consists of coherent and consistent method of decision making in pursuit of some anticipated goals. (c) a religion consists of a normative contract to adhere to a method of decision making, in pursuit of some anticipated goals, regardless of correspondence, and with the minimum coherence and consistency. (d) an ideology consists of a set of narratives without constraint of correspondence, coherence, or consistency, for the purpose of achieving a political end under majoritarianism (democracy).
So when you say:
—“Are we living in reality, the world, which exists independent of human perception and is indifferent to it to which we need to adapt ourselves in order to survive”—
Meaning, “Do we make our decisions scientifically.”
—“or are we living in a socially constructed world that depends on a group consensus which is manufactured with specific social goals in mind”—
Meaning “Do we make our decisions according to an ideology or a religion?” (I have never found a philosophy practiced in politics except via cherry picking among some set of them.)
Well, we make our decisions by science, philosophy, religion and ideology, (a spectrum of declining truth), given their utility to us. So each of us cherry picks a portfolio of decidability from that list.
We are living in an objective reality. We act in that reality according to our interests. We justify those interests with narratives (excuses). For some of us truth(Science) is an advantage (eugenic meritocracy), and for some of us truth is a disadvantage (dysgenic equality), and fiction (‘fictionalisms’) is an advantage.
In Propertarianism I merged philosophy, logic, and science into a single vocabulary, grammar, and syntax. Now, with that science, logic, and philosophy you can *describe* every single political order truthfully, because as a science, propertarianism provides commensurability (perfect commensurability). (The question is whether I can make it into a religion. That may be what is required for our people. Adherence by contract to the truth may be better than pressing each individual into mastering it – for costs alone.)
Now, one can use science to develop a plan, philosophy, religion, or ideology to advance your interests, or you can use a fictionalism to develop a plan, an ideology, and a religion.
Does that science, logic, and philosophy mean that the left can construct their ideology and religion truthfully? Well, yes. Does that mean they need to? No. They can function by creating fictionalisms – they HAVE TO because truth means they must admit inferiority. Does it mean we need to construct our science, logic, philosophy, and law scientifically? Yes. Because that is our group evolutionary strategy – and it is the optimum group evolutionary strategy. The only reason we are in the current position was our failure to state our group evolutionary strategy honestly. Truth is our advantage, and always has been.
So the advice I would give to all of us given my studies, is that our reproductive differences were equilibrated as hunter gatherers. They were disequilibrated by the necessity of property leading to a new compromise between the genders that we call ‘marriage’. And that in the present era, we are now wealthy enough to express our reproductive strategies in non-universal means. As such *WE ARE SPECIATING* according to our differences in reproductive strategies – just as all species speciate according to differences in reproductive strategy and advantage.
And as such we have only two choices: being defeated so they win, defeating the others so we win, or separating and creating a market in which either or both many win.
And I think this question is the question of our time. the era of monopoly is over. Universalism is dead. It was all a convenience of wars of religion under agrarianism.
If you grasp this it is profound.