I say the same thing over and over again:
the history, the novel, the myth, the parable.
all of these are no more than what they pretend to be. (See Durant).
I have a problem with inflation, conflation, and fictionalisms because of the externalities produced.
The problem is, that the desire for that feeling we have when listening to the storyteller around the fire, surrender our suspension of disbelief, and transport ourselves into the world of imagination and free association – that externally controlled dream state – is both profound, and worthy of that profound feeling.
But why must it include inflations, conflations, and fictionalisms? I must certainly include what we call hyperbole (exaggerations) for the purpose of illustration. It must certainly contain loading for purposes of value attribution and path finding. It must certainly be organized by archetypes and the rise-fall combination of story arcs in order to fit into a grammar of general rules of behavior like all other rules of calculation we make use of.
But why can we not maintain the original path of our people by maintaining a separation of narratives, like we have a separation of powers, a separation of disciplines, and a separation of property?
Why do we have to fall into the same mistakes as did the eastern into europeans – the ones that are gone? The ones who failed?
That something is desirable or useful does not mean it is preferable and good.
Many myths parables and stories – if not all of them – convey metaphysical assumptions about the structure of reality. The ‘literature of artificial awe’ is and always has been a cancer.
It is a cancer upon our people and upon mankind. It is no different from heroin, cocaine, sugar, carbohydrates, – substitutes for the euphoria of oxygenation produced by exercise and success (dominance expression). Or the opposite (“E”).
It is far easier to criticize a near neighbor of marginal indifference than a distant relative of vast differences. SO it is easier to illustrate further improvements by those are more right (hoppe, mises, hayek, popper, kuhn…) than it is that those who are vastly wrong (marx, freud, boaz, cantor).
And so it is far easier for me to illustrate and explore increases in precision with a peterson or hoppe than it is a zizek or any of the host of nonsense philosophers that still l live and work today – if only because people of similar mind are not interested, and the work required to correct a vast error rather than improve a fundamental by increase in precision is equal but unequally productive.
I have made a business of criticizing near neighbors for the simple reason that they are less wrong, and so the returns on the investment are higher.
Peterson is just a good example, because the only difference is externalities (me) and internalities(him). I mean, if I criticize some logician not only will no one understand it, but it doesn’t increase my ability to address the issues of MEANINGFUL BUT CUMULATIVELY DESTRUCTIVE ideas.
My job isn’t to teach meaning. it is to create law, so that even well intentioned fools do no harm – not because they have ill incentives, but because like children running with scissors they know not the risk that they impose upon mankind.
The kind of moral man (and women) all of you demonstrate that you are on a continual basis is a purely genetic and deterministic result of the provision of greater stimulation from certain categories of information (stimuli). I understand this. And for this reason some of you are more enamored of empathic stories, and some of decidability, while a few can manage to do both.
So there is a difficult problem to solve that we all understand: moral men of such masculine dispositions so desirous of political change, desire inspiration to act as a group. Meanwhile the purpose of such action that produces the outcome such men desire, is not myth but law. Not to produce agreement or consent, or understanding, but to prohibit alternatives to it by law.
One cannot program others to agree with you. That is only possible with lying.
One can however, eliminate the incentives to agree with you by providing counter incentives not to act in discord with it.
I might produce eventually a bible of sorts, and it might be as I’ve stated before, composed of excerpts from literature through the ages that DOES inspire. But I have understood as has hayek that all such efforts at monopoly of values will fail, and that the only monopoly of values that exists is the parasitism of the underclasses and those who can profit from enabling their parasitism.
Via positiva does not matter except to inspire and confirm that which already exists and is therefore irrelevant. Revolutions occur because of rational incentives merely justified by narratives. The only institution that solves our problem is law. And the only means of imposing the primacy of that institution is to use the only weapon that this institution has available to it: the prohibition of falsehood no matter how attractive or useful thereby forcing all to evolve in accordance with markets.
Most men go to their deaths understanding that their intellectual labors were failures. Hayek did not. And I don’t plan to.
Fictionalism of today is just religion of yesterday and such defenses are no more than a few century shift in such defense from one set of one era’s norms of comprehension to another eras set of norms of comprehension – but the problem remains.
The enlightenment – or rather – the continuous evolution of western man from blacksmith to aristotle, to hume, to darwin et all, is produced by the incremental suppression of comforting falsehoods that imprison us in lack of agency.
Not all drugs are physical. Many, and the cheapest, and most effective are verbal.
I must do my work. The truth is not comforting. It is disruptive. And I understand its import as we suffer the third conquest of empty verbalisms that we call leftism – the priesthood.
Just because I have spent the past ninety days working on technology and limiting myself to idle confirmatory chatter does not mean that I have lost sight of my mission. History is the only justice whose verdict I covet.
And I am confident I will win my case.
Cheers
Yes. The problem is that people want utility, not truth.
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-truth-If-so-what-is-it