Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

I see humans a negotiators for their part of the spectrum of the reproductive division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy. 1) Female consumption, short term (progressive) 2) Male biased production, medium term (libertarian) 3) Male accumulation, long term (conservative) And that through voluntary exchange we ‘calculate’ the optimum for the group, despite the fact that none of us senses the entire spectrum sufficiently to make a general judgement. I see the creative, productive, and ‘true’ processes as merely different points on the timeline of knowledge development: Knowledge Evolution | Production | Norm Evolution 0) Inspiring (sensing and perceiving) | (feeling) 1) Hypothesis |(free association) | (idea) 2) Theorizing | (experimentation) | (trial and error) 3) Law | (production) | (habit) 4) “True” | (truth statement) | (norm) So I don’t interpret a hierarchy of these different perspectives, but excellences in all three, each of which advocates for his temporal constituency. So my understanding is not one of ‘one-ness’, ‘or penultimate man’, or ‘hierarchy’, but that each of us supplies specialization in some domain. And that as needs emerge and opportunities emerge, we make use of the elites in that period with the ability to best lead us into exploiting it. In other words, I merely describe what is, not what I think should be. I don’t try to say that we should do X, only that if we want to evolve that we must NOT do things that prevent us from doing so. There is no recipe for free association (creativity). There are recipes for testing your hypotheses, such that we warranty that they are free of externality. Thanks