Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

RE:   PROPOSITION: Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy, The Academy, Democratically Elected Political Parties, and the Media are all limited by the same set of ‘lies’: because they are seeking to ‘cheat the universe’ not adapt to it. And we have run out of ways to cheat nature at our present level of scientific, technological, and economic scale:

1) The false promise that man will coalesce on the equalitarianism and egalitarianism of the extended family, clan, and tribe when evidence is that in the presence of sufficient wealth that CAN possess the luxury of pursuing their genetic, intuitionistic, and contextual bias – that they will.

2) The enlightenment false promise of an aristocracy of everyone instead of the demonstrated evidence of equality producing a peasantry of everyone.

3) The Cognitively Feminine Counter-Revolution against the Darwinian (cognitively masculine) explanation of man and the eugenic revolution it inspired: Freud, Boaz, Marx et al.

4) Where that cognitively feminine counter-revolution made four false promises:

• • i) the end of scarcity with the false promise of endless growth,
  • ii) the nature of man as moral rather than an amoral and practical superpredator, both male political and female social, for whom we’ve developed a spectrum of institutions to constrain our behavior to moral (reciprocal and proportional),
  • iii) the malleability of man given the wide difference in adaptive velocity (intelligence) and self-regulation (conscientiousness).
  • iv) and the necessity of continuing natural selection given that the difference in the distribution of people and peoples is due to the group limitation on neotenic evolution, and the accumulation of genetic load, where both mutation and sortition cause the formation of classes that are organized by their rate and value of their rate of adaptation – because mankind evolved to specialize in adaptation itself, and we sort by adaptation itself, and we compete by adaptation itself.
• BTW: What you’re both talking about is the “Wilsonian Synthesis” or the unification of the sciences. (E. O. Wilson – Consilience )
  
  

DIVORCE: Yes the problem is we need a divorce so we can pursue our genetic, biological, interests because there are no incentives NOT to, and every incentive to do so. Because we can organize over larger geographic territories of social, economic, and political cooperation. We desire to sort to common interests, with the political, economic, social, and cognitive organization that most suits our genetics, intuition, and self-selected knowledge. I would thank Gregg for the framing of a divorce fighting over children since this is the most accurate and intuitionistic narrative that explains our condition. (Of course, I agree that divorce is necessary since no incentives to can be constructed. Or said differently, agrarianism caused a homogenization of relationships that under industrialization are no longer of value, so we are seeing the return to demand for separation, isolation, and return to speciation that was ended by the unification of the world by the Europeans under the age of sail. The only moral solution is divorce. There is no possibility of reconstructing agrarian incentives, without reconstructing the demands of the agrarian economy.   NOTES:

RE:   PROPOSITION: Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy, The Academy, Democratically Elected Political Parties, and the Media are all limited by the same set of ‘lies’: because they are seeking to ‘cheat the universe’ not adapt to it. And we have run out of ways to cheat nature at our present level of scientific, technological, and economic scale:

1) The false promise that man will coalesce on the equalitarianism and egalitarianism of the extended family, clan, and tribe when evidence is that in the presence of sufficient wealth that CAN possess the luxury of pursuing their genetic, intuitionistic, and contextual bias – that they will.

2) The enlightenment false promise of an aristocracy of everyone instead of the demonstrated evidence of equality producing a peasantry of everyone.

3) The Cognitively Feminine Counter-Revolution against the Darwinian (cognitively masculine) explanation of man and the eugenic revolution it inspired: Freud, Boaz, Marx et al.

4) Where that cognitively feminine counter-revolution made four false promises:

• • i) the end of scarcity with the false promise of endless growth,
  • ii) the nature of man as moral rather than an amoral and practical superpredator, both male political and female social, for whom we’ve developed a spectrum of institutions to constrain our behavior to moral (reciprocal and proportional),
  • iii) the malleability of man given the wide difference in adaptive velocity (intelligence) and self-regulation (conscientiousness).
  • iv) and the necessity of continuing natural selection given that the difference in the distribution of people and peoples is due to the group limitation on neotenic evolution, and the accumulation of genetic load, where both mutation and sortition cause the formation of classes that are organized by their rate and value of their rate of adaptation – because mankind evolved to specialize in adaptation itself, and we sort by adaptation itself, and we compete by adaptation itself.
• BTW: What you’re both talking about is the “Wilsonian Synthesis” or the unification of the sciences. (E. O. Wilson – Consilience )
  
  

DIVORCE: Yes the problem is we need a divorce so we can pursue our genetic, biological, interests because there are no incentives NOT to, and every incentive to do so. Because we can organize over larger geographic territories of social, economic, and political cooperation. We desire to sort to common interests, with the political, economic, social, and cognitive organization that most suits our genetics, intuition, and self-selected knowledge. I would thank Gregg for the framing of a divorce fighting over children since this is the most accurate and intuitionistic narrative that explains our condition. (Of course, I agree that divorce is necessary since no incentives to can be constructed. Or said differently, agrarianism caused a homogenization of relationships that under industrialization are no longer of value, so we are seeing the return to demand for separation, isolation, and return to speciation that was ended by the unification of the world by the Europeans under the age of sail. The only moral solution is divorce. There is no possibility of reconstructing agrarian incentives, without reconstructing the demands of the agrarian economy.   NOTES: