(reflection) (important) (possible change in strategy)
Look at the past two years of posts by Eli Harman and Michael Philip, and look at the change in their sentence structure, length, and chain of causal relations. I’m very conscious of these things. So I see it. Johannes is a bit of a character, but at least offline, he is loosely stringing very long chains of causal explanation together and is perhaps best at constructing analysis by a chain of unloaded incentives. Look at the change in the confidence of argument of Haille Mariam-Lemar. Roman usually conducts his arguments elsewhere but he is the best at enfranchising the other side. Look at what we’ve seen from Jesse Bjorn and Mike Enoch in understanding and applying testimonial truth and propertarianism.
It’s beautiful. But what is most beautiful, is the confidence that’s emerging. One of the things I wanted to do was increase the aggressiveness of the debate so that we spoke with confidence and conviction. I wanted to create a moral high ground that we weren’t afraid to argue without guilt, and with conviction. Truth is that moral high ground. And if we create a moral high ground to demand, we can stop complaining about the status quo, and work toward institutional change. We can demand institutional change. Revolt for institutional change.
While it’s a phenomenal amount of work, I can see a future where we can train people to speak truthfully the same way we trained people to speak scientifically-morally instead of ratio-morally, and instead of religio-morally. Where we conduct exchanges rather than impose majority rule. Where we treat tribes like younger and older families rather than people to defeat or resist.
But I’m still failing in some of my ambitions. I want to change the debate from criticism of multiculturalism and racism to advocacy of familialism and aristocracy. From genetic differences to differences in distributions. From equality and inequality to aristocratic success and failure. From corporate nation-states to private tribal families. From ratio-moral argument to scientific-truthful argument. Wherein each of us helping parent our tribes into a positive future for mankind. Each of us working to suppress error, bias, wishful thinking, deceit and outright lying. Each of us building not just the truthful society, but a truthful mankind.
And with that we future we create the aristocracy of everybody we intuit that is possible, dream that is possible, but can only be achieved by diligent pursuit.
We discovered truth. We discovered testimony. We discovered the jury and the common law and rule of law. We discovered high trust. And with them we discovered science, medicine and technology and with it and them, built the civil commons as a competitive evolutionary strategy, and by consequence the civic society and the economic velocity that comes with it.
But while it may take a particular people at a particular time in a particular place to invent a technology – it is also truth that all people at later times and in various places, can adopt that technology and gain the benefits of it.
But truth and trust are hard and expensive. They are however, the most important capital for the production of innovation and prosperity for all.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
Kiev, Ukraine.
July 19, 2015