RE:

 

  1. DISAMBIGUATION

RELIGION: Assertion: Religion requires a false promise of freedom from the four categorical laws of nature i) physical, ii) behavioral iii) evolutionary, and iv) formal laws (logics with which we explain the first three), in exchange for internal (group) non-aggression, producing mindfulness in submission at the cost of non-adaptation. The constant is submission and devotion. And internal cost bearing.

TRADITION: Assertion: Tradition requires loyalty demonstration as a means of confirming internal non-aggression, producing mindfulness, in demonstrated responsibility, and tradition varies empirically through time via continuous adaptation. The constant is responsibility and loyalty by external cost bearing. So do the chinese have a religion? The japanese? Could the German romantics have succeeded in restoring classical thought? Could the english or the americans have done so? People require mindfulness across the masculine-systematizing-loyalty to feminine-empathizing-devotion spectrum. Mindfulness is just a pseudo-religious term for the neural economy. The optimum means of achieving mindfulness is responsibility. However our irrelevance increases as the population and division of labor (and class difference) increases, and so our responsibility and percieves status and value run up against limits, eliminating feedback. So we develop norms, traditions, philosophies, laws, and yes, religions, in order to provide the mindfulness and shared frames of reference and percieved value sufficient to preserve cooperative velocity, possibility of organizing and planning complex agrarian production, and non-friction, non-aggression and non-retaliation across emergent differences, competencies, responsibilities, and emergent classes. In other words, The difference between the use of tradition and law versus a religion is the same as between markets and dicatatorships: rates of adaptation. And the difference in ‘sacredness’ of tradition(adaptive) and religion(maladaptive) is biased to religion. So Americans combined the european vision of the primacy of man, the secular constitution as a tradition and christian love as a religion. But limited religion and aristocracy from participation in the empirical state government. in other words, *Americans restored the high cost of meritocratic society for which only the voluntary adherents are fit.*

PHILOSOPHY: Synthesis and Choice. As far as I know, (and others may not) philosophy (choice) and science (truth) are fully demarcated, and philosophy – if it continues to exist at all – as a brige between religion and science, is limited to the continuous reformation of good, choice, and preference as we continuously evolve advances in knowledge and the capture and transformation of energy and mass. Even so, ontology (the sciences) will not change. All that will change is our means of organizing categories so that we can make increasingly complex choices.

SCIENCE: Decidability (Truth). The production of testimony sufficient for the production of decidability in matters of conflict, under threat of perjury. The production of testimony submissible in court, under threat of perjury. The origin of science is european traditional law(prehistoric). (This origin of reason, empiricism and science is what Peterson cannot seem to remove from religious frame.) LAW: decidability (truth, reciprocity, sovereignty, duty(responsibility) )

SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUALS: The foundation of the european law before napoleon’s destruction of europe consists of the military aristocracy’s reciprocal insurance of self determination by self determined means, by sovereignty in demonstrated interests, reciprocity in display word and deed, by truth before face and duty before self, thereby limiting us to markets for voluntary association in all aspects of life: association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and war, thereby limiting us to rule of law, juries, and independent judges, for matters of dispute resolution, such that the community insures the judgment rendered against retaliation cycles that plague other civilizations, at the cost of suppression of harms of those unfit for the same responsibility and same limits, including the suppression of tehir reproduction which only serves to increase their harms. This is the most prosperous and adaptive civlization possible. Only the west achieved it. The Chinese nearly did but fell to bureacratic stagnation, just as the middle east fell to clerical stagnation. Just as we are presently falling to ‘credentialist’ stagnation.

Sovereignty is in fact the foundation of western civlization. Peterson’s right (as have been nearly all anglo empiricists).

  1. The American Tradition: The constitution appears philosophical but combined with the evolutionary empiricism of the common law, and blackstone’s commentaries as their explanation, the it is a scientific document that prohibits the parasitism of the aristocracy, the church nobility, and the undesirable peasantry (Generally considered the catholics). The foundation of western civilization is the primacy of our ancient traditional law that binds all, including the chieftains, kings, and emperors.

Anglo-American, German, and French: The anglosphere produced the modern state, the agrarian, commercial, legal, financial, secientific and technological revolutions, before germany profited from their distribution into europe in the 1800’s becoming the most scientific and educated population in human history prior to the second great destructon of the german civilization. The French rebelled against the anglo empirical innovations, by kiling the protestant middle class, then killing the aristocracy, then killing the holy roman empire, and the monarchies, then creating the pretense of a secular state on the catholic model. Hence nothing good has come from france since that time: “France is the origin of bad ideas”. Meaning utopianism – violation of the laws of nature – begins in France. The Germans, whose duty and piety alone cause the production of commons the world envies, beginning with kant, try to create a secular theology with philosophical rigor, to maintain the same protestant and pre-christian militial tradition. This led to ‘continental philosophy’ which is perhaps little more than a fantasy moral literature that is the least successful of the Anglo empirical, french-feminine authoritarian, jewish-marxist undermining, german dutiful to the commons. Why does it matter? Every civilization doubles down on it’s previous traditions, only seeking to use it’s internal method of argument (education, persuasion, commuication) to reframe past habits in new justificationary prose. We don’t change our group evolutionary strategies. We develop new myths, wisdom lits, arguments, and excuses to justify them.

  1. LOYALTY vs DEVOTION: Loyalty invoves paying a cost (harm) over time regardless of duress. Devotion requires paying a cost of care (work) over time, but abandoned in duress. ie: masculine loyalty and feminine devotion. Masculine military, and feminine religion. (Notice the problems in the dating market given the natural conflict between masculine search for responsibiity and loyalty, and the female search for hypergamy, and hyperconsumption in exchagne for devotion.

  2. WOKE: The sequence Judaism (anti-productivity, empiricism, loyalty, duty, truth ) to marxism (anti-Darwin), to neo-marxism(anti-adaptation, anti-immigration), to postmodernism (anti-truth and decidability), to anti-male feminism (anti-family-compromise), to pc (anti-normative), to woke (anti-responsibility), to anti-western (anti evolutionary adaptation) , makes use of the same method of warfare against the institutions of cultural production by the use of false promise of freedom from the laws of nature ‘after’ some revolution occurs, if only the underclasses undermine the middle and upper classes that are forcing the lower classes to adapt (pay the cost of behavioral regulation, including limiting reproduction) in order to not consume the surpluses that would otherwise be devoted to the production of capitalizing commons. This method of warfare we observe as the female expression of anti-social behavior at small scale (undermining), and the weaponization of female anti-social behavior as a method of warfare from within (sedition). WOKE is just a repetition of the christian destruction of the ancient world by the false promise of freedom from the laws of nature if only ‘white people’ who are those who discover, apply, adapt to, and evolve more closely to, would ‘disappear’ under the pretense that these more advanced culturess and classes are oppressors rather than continuing the hundred thousand years of human self domestication of animals into humans.

  3. PETERSON: In historical context, it’s clear that peterson is attempting to continue the european project of augustine, acquinas, smith, locke, and jefferson of unifying Europe(Athens) and Semitia(Jerusalem) by both resurrecting the stoic tradition (self authoring, responsibilty), along with the Christian doctrine of Love. He is too impassioned (and evangelical) to recognize his objectives in that historical context – he, like the philosophers, often studies all to much literature and literary philosophy instead of the history of traditions, economics and law. The rather obvious reason for the demand for both is that the european aristocratic tradition that discoveres, adapts to, and evolves so rapidly by adapting to the laws of nature, where those laws of nature are unkind to man, and they treat the humans it’s domesticating as farm animals that may be domestiated from barbarian, to slave, to serf, to freeman, to citizen if able to demonstrate capacity to carry that responsibility at the cost of self sacrifice. And the christian tradition merely makes it possible for human beings to endure those laws of nature (gods laws) and the process of domestiation by the exhaustion of the expression of love – which in fact is the only solution to the prisoner’s dilemma: it’s the solution to the problem of social science under evolutionary pressure. The left’s program is rather obviously nothing more than the revolt against the darwinian revolution and it’s explanation for the disproportionate evolutionary rate of western civlization in the bronze, iron, and steel ages – hindered only by the three waves of attempted expansion into the old world of the south eurasians and their stifling regressive devolutionary religious traditions. Of which Woke is just the most recent invocation.