Category: Epistemology and Method

WHY DO YOU FEAR THE TRUTH?

( Cold Mirror, Asgeir Theodor, Josh Jeppson )

It’s not that I don’t understand. Its that I have failed as yet to help you understand. And while I may continue to fail, but I will try until I am at least comfortable, that I can do no better at trying.

ARGUMENT:

Militia, Heroism, Sovereignty, Jury, Truthfulness, Science, Sanctity of Nature, have produced the common interest, high trust, competitive excellence, and economic velocity that made western man surpass competitors in both the ancient medieval and modern world..

We can stack argumentative techniques by effectiveness of persuasion, largely because elites are copied by their followers, and the rest of the population is organized by those elites using law, commerce, and moral speech.

1 – Sentimental Expression (justification of moral and reproductive biases)

2 – Mythical analogy (justification)

3 – Moral/Religious Argument (justification)

4 – Rational argument (justification)

5 – Historical analogy (justification)

6 – Economic (correlative) argument.

7 – Empirical (causal argument – criticism)

8 – Existentially Descriptive (scientific and truthful argument – criticism)

Each of these maps roughly to a difference of a half standard deviation in IQ. With the upper classes that organize society (re: Pareto – the upper 20%, led by the upper 1%) utilizing the highest means of argument and the lower classes using the lower forms of argument.

The lower classes are DIRECTED, they are not themselves capable of leadership. So they require we USE the lower forms of argument in inciting them to ACTION, but we do not organize the upper classes by sentiment, we organize them by their means of argument – almost all of which is empirical.

So psychology is used by ideology in order to inspire the lower classes to action. While facts are used by the upper classes to determine the means of organizing and reorganizing the lower classes through law and violence, moral speech and gossip, and material incentive.

But upper (meaning middle, upper middle, and elites) classes merely USE the lower classes by giving them inspirations caused by incentives.

That does not mean that the upper classes rely upon the same arguments. It means they tell narratives, myths and fantasies to the lower classes in order to inspire them.

The problem is not in inspiring the lower classes. The problem is in developing a means by which to enact and sustain a change in the status quo.

So those things that inspire people being to the discipline of preferences – aesthetics. They do not belong to epistemology, ethics, politics. Those are domains of TRUTH independent of our preferences. Aesthetics is the discipline in which we USE truth and psychology together to achieve PREFERRED ends.

NET: if we eliminate by violence (law) deceitful methods, we are left with truthful methods only available to us. We can create religions but they cannot be constructed of lies. WE can create ideologies, but they cannot be falsely constructed.

I think truth is enough. It demonstrably has been.

REVERSAL

Conversely, if a man is not capable of motivation to transcendence by the truth, then how is he not incapable of transcendence if he fears the truth and requires untruth?

In other words: by stating that truth is not enough, you say you are already sub-human, and in need of dominance by your betters.

SO I UNDERSTAND

I understand that the lower classes need to be led by inspiration. I also understand that transcendence – to leave the subhumans behind, requires that we abandon comforting lies that exist to assuage our weaknesses.

If truth is not enough for you, then you cannot transcend and become fully human, and in doing so, become a god.

Instead, one is just another weak woman at the mercy of chemistry she cannot master, or an impulsive imbeclile who lives in fear of the universe.

So you see, I see your form of arguments as weakness. Not of strength. Of cowardice, not of heroism. Not of intelligence but of animal impulse. Not of truth, but of justification for failure.

Religions are for the majority peasantry. Cults are for the minority who are desperate. Truth is enough for aristocracy because they have the courage to confront and dominate a hostile universe that has no interest in man or his joys, but which seeks to end him. Truth is enough for ruling the peasantry. Truth is enough for transcendence. Truth is enough for aristocracy. Truth is enough for gods. Because that is what gods are: omniscient and omnipotent.

THE END OF THE ARGUMENT

As far as I know you cannot exit this argument except to admit that you are weak.

If you choose to abandon your weakness, and have the courage then I welcome your advice and counsel. If you remain a coward, hiding behind germanic attempts to restate Christianity in pagan language, or to restate paganism in christian language, then I think you are not really worthy of my time and effort.

I spend time on people to make bets. Very few bets pay. I need only a handful that do. Every other man who follows will do so out of incentives not necessarily understanding. And that is the domain of elites: rule.

Cheers

Curt Doolittle

The Philosophy of Aristocracy

The Propertarian institute,

Kiev, Ukraine

TRUSTWORTHINESS OF HISTORIANS?

History is a discipline.

That discipline can be pursued objectively(truthfully) or subjectively (falsely).

As far as I know, truthfulness is the most moral and trustworthy demonstration possible.

History tells me:

– That Man is a predator who cooperates when it’s to his advantage and preys when it s to his advantage.

– That cooperation under risk is an expensive and intolerable burden. And that conquest to reduce risk is rational and evident.

– That the empowerment of competitors appears not to produce beneficial returns.

– That conquest has lead to prosperity by the centralization of rents in exchange for the suppression of local rents and parasitism, and the consequent decline in local transaction costs.

– That his history is one of increasing aggression.

– That increasing aggression made cooperation more preferable.

– That to attribute change in incentives to change in man himself is the fallacy of wishful thinking.

– That if we act as if man has changed rather than his incentives that we will be conquered by the next higher wave of aggression.

– And that the only means of preserving cooperation is to preserve the incentives to cooperate rather than prey upon one another. Not to construct, preserve or advocate a fallacious history or properties of man.

So I suggest the opposite: that a man is both untrustworthy and dangerous if he advocates falsehoods even If he casts them as noble lies.

The search for blame in history is generally not reversible. Like religion it is a self satisfying means of resenting the envy of the status quo. And that we can but learn how not to repeat past mistakes of conquest or defeat by making incentives for conquest and defeat impossible.

Curt Doolittle

The Philosophy of Aristocracy

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.