THE MANY KINDS OF FAITH
I think there are many kinds of faith.
– Confidence in reason-effort-trial-and-error – to transform.
– Belief in comforting demonstrable falsehoods – to oppose.
– Faith in comforting superstitions – to resist.
– Submission to the occult – to abandon.
And that each state in that spectrum corresponds to one’s agency or lack of it.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-21 08:25:00 UTC
Abrahamism was invented to resist the aristocracy (judaism), to undermine the aristocracy (christianity), and to attack the aristocracy (islam). It is the weaponization of lying by the underclasses using Falsehood, Fiction, Command, Reproduction, and Low investment education against the Aristocracy’s invention of Truth, Science, Law, Technology, and High investment education.
(worth repeating)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 11:33:00 UTC
AUGUSTINE IS STILL EVIL
—“Augustine took the view that, if a literal interpretation contradicts science and our God-given reason, the Biblical text should be interpreted metaphorically. While each passage of Scripture has a literal sense, this “literal sense” does not always mean that the Scriptures are mere history; at times they are rather an extended metaphor.”—
Yes, but abrahamism is inherently evil, because one perfect god rather than a family of gods, because that god is claimed to be perfect not merely immortal, because of man’s relationship to a god as subservient slavery not voluntary and contractual, because we cannot defeat and transcend these gods through action and wit, because rituals practiced, and the oaths made, and the prayers said mandate our ignorance, and because the effect of these rituals produces an addiction response that no reason or earthly incentive can break. In other words, when we lose reason, we cease to be human. If we are no longer human we are merely beast. A good slave. A good slave that rebels against truth, merit, transcendence of man, and creates a dependent ignorant people devoid of reason.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 10:10:00 UTC
NO, DECEPTION ISN’T NECESSARY
@ Mea Culba
I do make sense of what you are trying to say, but all I see is that you defend a prior intuition that you understand not that you describe a good or a necessity, and it is not clear at all you can make a rational choice without choosing between the alternatives.
A man does not study comparative theology, philosophy or literature without studying that which conflicts with it. I have taken it upon myself to eradicate all falsehood no matter how comforting and to question whether all goods can be produced without falsehood. And since they can, there is no need for falsehood.
And while I realize less developed cultures and states (those with less influence of commerce and law and greater influence norm and religion) cannot imagine that it is possible to create a high-roman or high-anglo-saxon order in the absence of falsehood the fact of the matter is that the only controlling factors are (a) demographic: elimination of the underclass, and (b) the scope of suppression of falsehood under the law. All else follows.
If you have a judiciary and a military (police/sheriff/militia) that will do as it is commanded by the judiciary then the judiciary in fact serves as a cult of truth and the various religions serve as cults of lies. It is this competition between meritocratic and hierarchical law and non-meritocratic equalitarian deception (religion) that describes the past 2500 years or more.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 08:27:00 UTC
The only Sovereign’s answer to ridicule, shaming, rallying, gossiping, fictionalism and deceit, is violence: the duel.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-19 20:17:00 UTC
Prof. Daniel Burston is merely using Peterson as a jumping board for shallow self promotion and creating a typical postmodern straw man by claiming inconsistency via nietzsche where peterson doesn’t make it. In other words, he’s stating that Peterson is using an appeal to authority and claims of general authoritative truth rather than an innovator that had both correct and incorrect insights – as do all thinkers.
PETERSON’S INSIGHT IS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN BRAIN STRUCTURE AND CHEMISTRY, THE MONOMYTH, AND THE MYTHS
Peterson does a number of less than perfect things. But (a) he is restoring stoicism (self authoring), (b) he is restoring myth as wisdom literature using the universal Monomyth>Archetypes>Plots>Virtues system, (c) he is illustrating that this set of teaching virtues by myth maps to personality traits, and how those traits map to brain chemistry and structures.
WHAT DOES “GETTING IT RIGHT” MEAN TO PETERSON? CORRESPONDENCE AND COHERENCE.
Peterson uses the term “got it right” when picking insights from different thinkers, and he lauds those with deep insight and literary talent in expression of them. But when he says “got it right” he is referring to an insight that mirrors both the findings cognitive science and the expression of that cognitive science in the
Furthermore the authority on the subject is Hicks. And It’s flawless. Which I’m happy to argue with anyone. From a purely technical standpoint, the argumentative structure originates in France as moral literature. Is reformed by Kant into rationalism and then the German Continental line. Is reformed by Marx (boaz, freud, cantor, lenin, trotsky, mises, rothbard, strauss) into pseudoscience. And was reformed by the french again into moral literature(Derrida,Foucault), then into pseudo-rationalism (philosophy without truth, Rorty etc.). But the technique has been the same whether in judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, feminism, postmodernism: Literary, pseudo-scientific, pseudo-rational.
But never deflationary truth: What we call “Science”.
While we did develop Darwin, Menger, Weber, Durkheim, Pareto, Poincare, Hilbert, Maxwell, Einstein, Spencer, and Nietzsche, and Hayek. Despite mises, brouwer in math and bridgman in physics, and various thinkers in Law, the Operational(Intuitionistic) revolution failed except in the physical sciences. We failed to continue the enlightenment into the social sciences and prevent the counter-enlightenemnts of the abrahamists (fundamentalists, marxists, feminists, postmodernists).
We were not able to solve social science without cognitive science, genetics, the failures of the postwar attempt at spreading democracy, the failure of communism, socialism, and the great society programs. And the failure of social democracy in those civilizations without accumulated genetic (higher Iq) and cultural (high trust) assets.
TESTING PETERSON AND HICKS
My analytic technique requires that we examine the method of argument – whether it is stated via deflation, conflation, or fictionalism, whether it’s scientifically true or not, and then I determine the changes that occur in the state of all existentially possible forms of capital, and whether those changes were voluntary or not.
So I circumvent ‘meaning’ entirely. In other words, I perform an accounting audit of the arguments. And his arguments hold. Sorry. Rock solid.
PETERSON’S ONE TROUBLING TOLERANCE
I would like to correct Peterson on simply one point: that our deception by marxism and postmodernism it is precisely abrahamic use of supernatural literature as in Judaism, christianity, and islam) to deceive and manufacture impediments to knowledge by method of conflation, overloading, suggestion, and ‘fictionalism’ (confusing the real and the ideal and the supernatural). And providing a means of producing an addiction response through ritual and prayer. All off which appear to cause catastrophic harm to all civilizations that adopt abrahamic deception by suggestion and addiction.
So, by tolerating abrahamic myths – any myths reliant upon fictionalism (conflation of supernatural, ideal, real; myth and history, wisdom and law) – Peterson is leaving open the door for abrahamic art of lying without which judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, and postmodernism cannot survive.
So, while I have a technical criticism of his work, as far as I know he’s largely on the right track, and his criticisms are correct.
CLOSING: THE HARSH REALITY OF WESTERN SUCCESS: TRUTH, MARKETS(Meritocracy) AND EUGENICS/
As far as I know, Peterson is reliant upon a combination of cognitive science and literary science, to use parables to inform for success and diagnose for unhappiness. And this is the traditional role of pagan myth. THe fact that parables make use of ‘external observer’ effect and convey every dimension of reality as do all stories, is something that should be of obviously anyone with experience in therapeutic psychology, knowledge of the function of therapeutic hallucinogens, the art of suggestion, or artificial intelligence.
Why? We are suggestible in when fire gazing and listening to stories because of the effect of the suspension of disbelief. By visualization via narrative analogy we can experience in the first, second or third person, that which we might feel pain in analyzing within ourselves.
It was only with abrahamism that the method of teaching and curing was weaponized against the underclasses in order to rally them against the aristocracy. It had a not insignificant role in the destruction of ancient civilization, and it is having a current highly significant role in destroying the modern civilization.
Why? Man was not oppressed. Man was and remains a beast that was first self domesticated ingroup, then forcibly domesticated by more domesticated outgroups by the combination of agrarian discipline, harsh winters, upward redistribution of reproduction, constraint on reproduction, delayed reproduction, aggressive exposing, sacrificing, hanging, burning,plague , illness, starvation, and war.
And the distribution of prosperity today is determined by the success or failure at that reduction of the scale of the underclass that has not yet been sufficiently domesticated for autonomous, responsible, participation in modernity.
Western man’s failing is the promotion of abrahamic underclass values via democracy and equality, rather than the origins and success of western civilization in truth, rule of law (non-discretionary rule. rule without rulers), Markets in everything – the consequence of which is incremental eugenics through upward redistribution of reproduction.
And that is the difference between the honesty of the ancient world, and the ongoing deception of the modern.
We are unequal. And our inequality is manageable, as long as we continue to shrink the size of the undomesticated lower classes until they are gone. After that we may find that our definition of lower classes may incrementally evolve. But at present it appears that there is a maximum human capacity around an average of 115-120, which means that we were close to optimum in the west before the industrial revolution. And that we have lost as much as a full standard deviation in average intelligence in less than 150 years.
And if rates of immigration and reproduction continue, we will have reduced humanity to barbarism once again before the end of the century.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-19 09:25:00 UTC
And NAXALT is a feminine cognitive bias, and cherry picking is the last refuge before the ad hominem. Don’t waste my time with sophisms.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 19:25:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887393002745991168
Reply addressees: @BaruchKogan @EOTOverton
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887369799550029824
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887369799550029824
YOU DON’T DEBATE AN INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST PERSON, YOU PROSECUTE HIM.
(and further criticisms of abrahamism)
—“If I organized a debate between you and Jared Howe would you do it?”—
Well, you know, I spent a whole day on the guy, and (a) he didn’t read anything much I posted, (b) he clearly didn’t understand it if he did, (c) I am not sure he understands himself what he’s saying (d) he resorted to simple chanting accusations without demonstrating how they applied to my argument, (e) he blocked me when it became increasingly difficult for him to not answer.
Now add to that (f) that it is pretty hard to write and read analytic philosophy because it’s turgid, and it’s harder to speak it and listen to it. And add (g) the audience will much more easily be bored with long chains of reasoning.
But you know, there are psychological reasons people favor kantian rationalism, just as there are reasons people favor theology. One of those reasons is preservation of cognitive investment. The other is that while science (what I do) doesn’t allow you to ignore any argument, rationalism (what jared does) allows you to ignore many arguments, and theology allows you to ignore any argument. Kant was trying to recreate theology in secular verse, and this was his reason: to resist the scientific revolution.
So I think if you asked me to debate hoppe on it, then we would show something important to the community. I think if you asked me to debate david gordon or walter block maybe. Because then the audience could follow. But none of them will debate me. They know better. And they cannot afford defloration in public.
So it’s not so much I wouldn’t do it, as I am not sure he’s capable of the argument, or intellectually honest enough to engage in it.
So when you ask me to debate him, I would enter a debate, but I would end up being a prosecutor: “If everything you say can be explained with science but you cannot explain everything sciences says with what you say? Why do you employ such a system of thought? Why is it you fear science just as theologian fears science?” The answer is because, kant reformed abrahamic lying from supernatural to ideal. Just as marx,boaz,freud reformed abrahamic lying from the ideal to the pseudoscientific. Just as the french(rousseau, Derrida) reformed pseudoscientific to outright fiction: reality by chanting.
Mises applied the same pseudoscientific reasoning as marx did he just chose different half truths in order to reform marx when marx ended failing. Marx had stopped writing after he read the marginalists because his labor theory of value was now dead. Mises updated marx by inverting universal common property ignoring externalities to universal private property to the exclusion of common property ignoring externalities. He did so by abandoning the labor theory of value for the mengerian subjective value, and abandoning the universal underclass strategy in favor of universal middle class strategy. He replaced the pseudoscience of the labor theory of value, and ignoring the darwinian revolution with the pseudoscience of (a) casting science as justificationary(constructive) rather than critical (subtractive), (b) conflating axiomatic(necessary) mathematics with theoretic science (contingent). (c) conflating truth(science) and morality(volition). Which is precisely the technique used by the abrahamists: conflating myth with history, advice with command, wisdom with law, dysgenia with good.
This does not mean marx and mises did not contribute to intellectual history. it just means like everything else Abrahamists do, it’s cherry-picking of half truths and half deceits, wrapped in exceptional mythological storytelling so that through overloading people can be ‘convinced’ by suggestion when they intuit that it’s reasonable. When in fact, the purpose of the argument structure is to bypass all reason. Suggestion is just ‘hacking’ the brain. And that is the purpose of Abrahamism: deceit.
FWIW: You can tell everything about an individual or group or civilization by their definition of truth. And in particular, whether that truth employs the fictional(supernatural), the cognitive(analytic), the ideal(logical), the empirical(existential), or the operational(actionable), or all of the above.
-Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 09:00:00 UTC
I think the argument is won. There is nothing good in christianity that was not there prior. Christianity was developed like marxism/postmodernism as a resistance movement by the underclasses and women against the aristocratic classes (men). And while the ancients relied on deflationary truth and deflationary institutions, christianity like judaism (and then islam) relied on conflationary truth and conflationary institutions. Where the ancients relied on truth, technology, law, the abrahamists relied on deception, superstition, and scriptural authority.
The matter is done. Christianity is done. Our natural religion was mythical-historical, nature-venerating, and stoic ritual in competition with epicurean experience.
And that is what we have seen since the dawn of the enligthenment: the continuous progress of science by a minority and the continuous resistance by the underclasses against it.
True is true.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 21:41:00 UTC
PART 3 – THE DEFEAT OF JARED HOWE, AND BY EXTENSION THE ENTIRETY OF ‘AUSTRIAN’ ECONOMIC PSEUDOSCIENCE.
Jared Howe,
I think you’re just a disingenuous at this point, and using the very method of mandated ignorance I accuse mises and rothbard of, of kant of by claiming special pleading for general rules of behavior.
You see, while you can identify possible truth propositions with justificationary reasoning, you cannot prevent false propositions with justificationary reasoning – that requires competition. Or what we call ’empiricism’: the competition between the ideal and the real.
—“You’re still contradicting yourself by rejecting the validity of a priorism via a priori truth statements”—
But what did I say actually?
I said apriorism in economics is demonstrably insufficient for the identification of *all* economic phenomenon (including both general rules, variations from those general rules.)
I said economics was indifferent from the others sciences in that it required survival from a competition between the analytic(thought), logical(words), existential(actions).
And that all economic phenomenon have proven to be resistant to deduction even if they are not resistant to operational (praxeologica) explanation through sympathetic reconstruction of a series of actions taken in response to available incentives.
I claimed that empirically, unavoidably, we have observed, that all truth claims about reality are contingent, including in economics. That even the a prior of ‘length’, ‘space’ and ‘time’ were false.
For example, “all other things being equal, increasing the minimum wage will increase unemployment” is not true in general, and is not true in all cases. In other words, it is a synthetic, contingent, a priori proposition. Which is a pseudoscientific posturing – a way of saying ‘a general rule’.
I am not claiming that spectrum of categories which kant referred to as a priori, are false so much as that they reflect dimensions of reality, that the scientific method is superior in describing and testing.
A Priori: “independent of observation.”
There are three dimensions to claims of a priori truth claim:
i) Aprioricity vs A posteriori,
ii) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, and
iii) Necessity vs Contingency
Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims.
(a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: 2+2=4 and all deductions thereof.
(c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: Childless women will have no grandchildren.
(b) “General” Synthetic A Priori : Increasing money increases inflation.
(d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.”
This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision:
(a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori
(b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori
(c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori
(d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori
Both Mises and Rothbard confess to this later in life. Sorry. It is what it is. They realized they had failed. Economics is like any other science “a mix of the empirical and operational”. And the praxeological movement and all that was related to it crumbled as nothing more than a pseudoscientific resistance movement against the continuing progress of science.
Competition between the rational and the real. Markets in knowledge just like markets in everything else. There is no justificationary reasoning available to man for real world phenomenon.
WELCOME TO THE REAL.
You are currently in the heavy-resistance phase, as the entire cosmopolitan program comes crashing down, including the marxist-postmodern, libertine-libertarian, and neo-conservative, as well as the social democratic and classical liberal. That is because all the enlightenment views of man and all the enlightenment counter-reactions against the progress of the scientific method (criticism) by various methods of justification(justificationism) have been demonstrated to be false.
Man was not oppressed by aristocracy. He was a beast that a small minority of gifted martial aristocrats domesticated from animal, to slave, to serf, to freeman, to citizen resulting in the diminution of the lower and increase in the middle and upper middle classes through reproductive suppression, war, starvation, and aggressive hanging.
Man is a rational actor for whom cooperation is possible and generally superior choice. But at all times he chooses moral or immoral action by little more than either habit or accounting of consequences.
And as such we invented the natural common law of reciprocity since no matter how complex our social orders, all conflicts over demonstrated investments are decidable by tests of reciprocity.
There is but one epistemological method and that is the the market for competition for consistency between the dimensions, and the market for competition for consistent application in reality.
And because of that competition, both truth and lie can survive. If only because it is cheaper to produce deception than truth.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 21:18:00 UTC