PGP

Nobody has the right to life, property and the pursuit of happiness in this situation. It is win/lose.

I wasn't actually. What I am curious about is "the why". ie . why is mysticism OR sci method more advantageous to you? What you beleive or don't believe is relatively unimportant to me in this conversation. Your reasons/experience/imperative for believing interest me more atm.

To you.

I view mysticism, statism, communism, feminism, environmentalism......etc etc all as different approaches ti the unknown. They are stories that are told to warn and console and we all know where that leads to. Philosophy and the sci method are also approaches to the unknown. The difference being that there is a recognition that we know relatively nothing and the more we find out, the more the unknown grows. Exponentially. Which method has proven more advantageous? The former of mysticism and all the rest or sci and phil? The answer is important.

If you're posting this on FDR to point out the evils of statism, I think you may be preaching to the wrong audience.

Second-Handers ¶ "Isn’t that the root of every despicable action? Not selfishness, but precisely the absence of a self. Look at them. The man who cheats and lies, but preserves a respectable front. He knows himself to be dishonest, but others think he’s honest and he derives his self-respect from that, second-hand. The man who takes credit for an achievement which is not his own. He knows himself to be mediocre, but he’s great in the eyes of others. The frustrated wretch who professes love for the inferior and clings to those less endowed, in order to establish his own superiority by comparison . . . . They’re second-handers . . . . They have no concern for facts, ideas, work. They’re concerned only with people. They don’t ask: “Is this true?” They ask: “Is this what others think is true?” Not to judge, but to repeat. Not to do, but to give the impression of doing. Not creation, but show. Not ability, but friendship. Not merit, but pull. What would happen to the world without those who do, think, work, produce? Those are the egoists. You don’t think through another’s brain and you don’t work through another’s hands. When you suspend your faculty of independent judgment, you suspend consciousness. To stop consciousness is to stop life. Second-handers have no sense of reality. Their reality is not within them, but somewhere in that space which divides one human body from another. Not an entity, but a relation—anchored to nothing. That’s the emptiness I couldn’t understand in people. That’s what stopped me whenever I faced a committee. Men without an ego. Opinion without a rational process. Motion without brakes or motor. Power without responsibility. The second-hander acts, but the source of his actions is scattered in every other living person. It’s everywhere and nowhere and you can’t reason with him. He’s not open to reason." Perhaps the epitomy of the prevailing cultural "Zeitgeist" emotion of Petrograd Josephus.

Firstly, I want to say that I am currently in the exploratory stage of getting my mind around this stuff. I know enough to know that I know almost nothing. I am speculating and playing around with this stuff here in an effort to understand it. Secondly, cheers for the reply and to Hannah above. I really need this feedback. My points are not a refutation of the desirability of the peaceful world talked about on FDR. They relate more toward what the actual position that gov currently fulfills and how it fulfills it and why. I want to suggest this: ok, people would be upset with the mugger but this is going to be an isolated incident within the current framework of police and the state etc. After all, the gov doesn't like competition!!! People do pursue goals everyday without violence. But, it occurs within the perceptual framework of the state. It's not limited to statism, it relates similarly to religion. The structures act as limiting factors on the things people have to concern themselves with. Through this "narrowing of the field of vision" so to speak, people are capable of making a limited number of decisions and taking on a limited weight of responsibility. Everything else is "assumed" based on the empirical evidence that they are alive today because of behaving/existing in the same state (existentially) as their parents and all before. ie it is advantageous to success. That is not to say people cannot think they act morally atm. They can. Like someone who works for an ambulance service funded by a government. They are saving lives but they are doing it within the rotten framework. But they don't have to think about it, so they inhabit a "state" of success and are "moral" to the extent that they can/choose to, exert moral agency. The historical and present "moral framework" could be described as a codified strategy for success at a particular time and in a particular culture. It is a way of dealing with the unknown that has proven successful therefore it perpetuates or it fails to deliver success (even relative to another moral framework) so it implodes or is abandoned. So, for instance, alot of people here have asked certain questions of themselves, applied standards to themselves and then asked these questions and applied these standards to others in their lives and this has had consequences. I t has risks and it has no guarantee of success. Indeed, it may even have meant giving up the "known" and "secure" , limited and narrow and prison-like such as it was for something unknown. It's a dangerous business but it's the only business worth doing IMO. I think Nietzsche said somehting like "truth is that which adds to life". For people here, the truth that adds to life is NAP etc. But, for alot of people, the truth that adds to life may be a cowardly yet prudent truth of a gun to the head and a hand in their pocket. Even if they choose not to recognise it assuch. Just my ramblings!!!

I have a few points but I will be posting something on this in the near future, just my own analysis pulling info from different disciplines. Firstly, I didn't say it in the comment, but perhaps the issue is not violence of the state or of the individual sans state, but the "framing" ie the predictability of violence by the state. People fear chaos. Without the moral guide of UPB or some similar moral system, that does not rely on violent structures and systems, most people currently(I have to assume) fear the unknown (or chaos), greater than they fear statist violence. An analogy being, people do not mind the gun to the head as long as they know it won't go off if they hand over the money and "play the game" so to speak. Fear of the unknown is a real existential nightmare for most people, that's why we get ideologies. After religion, we get communism, statism or any other such ideology. These -isms narrow the range of concerns of the individual and promise a kind of abundance. They have moral codes but part of the moral code is the necessity for violence. It is the price people seem to be willing to pay. It's a good many years since I did labwork, but one of the questions that preoccupied me was this: Is it better to use existing methods to study a particular research subject and see what results, or, is it better to determine the goal (what is useful to find out) and to design or even develop the new methodology to this end? To ask an existing question and get a relatively predictable answer or to ask a new question and get an unpredictable answer (if you get one at all)? In general, I would imagine, the former is much more likely to get funding. This question/dichotomy has alot of implications for me. In a way, it relates to the UPB/every other moral system dichotomy. In the existing system and indeed all before, the same general attitude to the unknown was taken. Wash, rinse, repeat gives us culture, safety and predictable outcomes. UPB is perhaps an effort at the latter strategy. The goal is a peaceful society that has not existed. The method is UPB. But the answer is unpredictable for people. It opens up the possibility of chaos and an expansion of what they have to pay attention to and take responsibility for. Most people prefer the gun to the head.

It is difficult to imagine the pyramids or other megalithic structures without a state dictating what a society does with its resources. It is also difficult to imagine the advances in propulsion ans space exploration without states rattling their sabers. It is easy to imagine people being free to chaotically knock about without direction or desire to create something unimaginably large or of epic scale. If you want proof, just try to get a small group of people to decide on where to go for a meal. This is not to say that I am a fan of states, but it leads to some questions that cannot be answered through shaming people into behaving a certain way, or offering some kind of monetary incentive to join forces. Are the pyramids worth the life cost? They have generated untold millions in revenue of the years and will continue to do so virtually indefinitely. I suppose what my mind is trying to comprehend is some sort of compromise in ideology. There are thousands of arguments against statism, and all of them are very valid. What I would like to know is, does everyone here belive that there isn't a single aspect of statehood that has a positive outcome? Is it that we choose not to accept that there is benefit to a power structure, or is it that there really is nothing good about people being persuaded to collectively focus their energy? I imagine that given structure, groups of people can accomplish bigger tasks and do so more quickly, and I have a hard time believing that a corporation has the capacity to do that. It wasn't the MoonCo Inc that sent a rocket into space and it took a long while before a corporation had the incentive to even try. I am willing to bet that it would have taken a lot longer for a corporation to make that leap if the state hadn't put all the leg work in ahead of time killing astronauts and monkeys in the name of patriotism. Crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, crowd dancing.... I don't know if they can pull it off in the same way. Reminder, during WWII there was a lot of voluntary effort, collecting tin cans and such that was used for a state effort. Perhaps not the most beautiful effort, but it hints to a way to collectivise without violence. Apologies for the rambling thoughts. The underlying question I suppose is whether or not there is any possible positive aspect of a state and if so, how can it be implemented without violence to push the envelope of human potential? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This question appeals to me. I am not conversant with all of the anti-statism arguments, but the question of structure intrigues me. Firstly, the issue of the megalithic structures. I have been to and I am familiar with the the heritage of these structures in mega and neolithic times here. And indeed, these structures draw large crowds to this day, generating wealth for those stakeholders involved. The history and rationale of these structures is, of course, down to a question of historical interpretation. Nonetheless, enormous quantities of human and natural resources were expended in their construction, often to what could be thought irrational and wasteful extents. Relatively aswell as quantitatively. Positioning of these structures seemed to relate to an aesthethic sensibility and significance aswell as belief (pagan and later Christian) tradition. The structure of these communities was along hierarchical lines of family and dominance etc. The question of structure is paramount IMO. Motivation toward a particular goal is an issue of emotional impulse. Now, the question of what determines the direction of the impulse is determined by the framing of the reality or more precisely, the perception of the reality. For instance, the neolithics here would site Cairns in beautiful and prominent locations, one would imagine as a mark of honour and recognition and remembrance and also as a dominant marker on the landscape as an occupation of territory by a particular tribe at a particular time. A select few benefitted and their offspring benefitted based on a win/lose paradigm. The question of hierarchical structure is a question of the relationship of the individual and the surrounding individuals to the unknown. How exploration and understanding of the unknown should be gained. The state is not even a consensus, it is a consensus of selection of individuals whom determine direction and allocation arbitrarily and expediently based on current concerns. The framing of the existence and perception and responsibilities of the citizens is limited by the parameters of the state construct ie a selective decision-making structure of a few for all. What a different hierarchy could have achieved is unknowable. A question I have thought of is: do the ends justify the means (as in statism, the "best" compared to all the other systems, so to speak) or do the means justify the ends (as I posit, the anarchist, rules-based, aspiration to virtue society.). There are of course within a particular social framework, possible benefits to statism. The existence of statism in it's current form is a testament to this. It has endured. Going back to the question of motivation, one of the basic problems with the state is that it is "limiting". It limits potential as a compromise. The very same social framework that produced the pyramids under slavery and waste and fear could, if based on virtue and justice broaden out the imperative and creativity of the human race greatly. Currently, I am struggling with the issue of faith in humanity. Is the state a necessary limit on the the creativity and variability of choice of humanity as a mitigation of risk/the unknown/capacity for violence? Is the alternative of an anarchistic approach to the unknown based on virtue an achievable goal? Should we know the end-point but never have the possibility of reaching it without coercion and violence, or not know the end-point but use the very best and peaceful aspects of our being to reach it? Perhaps it is the framework of the decision-making process in pursuit of the goal of the motivation that matters. Fear or courage. Subjugation or freedom. Expediency or truth.

Yes, but she's an empowered, yet still victim, multimillionaire, yet marginalised feminist. She is entirely right in her expectation that men will at once telepathically know what she wants, despite her indications otherwise, and expend resources, time and brainpower to find out exactly what picks her locks while behaving respectfully yet boldy in their approaches. Completely reasonable and consistent. Now, where's my crystal ball......

http://memoirsofanamnesic.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/the-necessity-of-virtue-jordan-b-peterson/ "And it turns out that it’s not that difficult generally to put people in a situation, normal people, where they’ll do something that really doesn’t look very good. Those of you who are familiar with psychology know about the Milgram experiments, for example. You know about the Zimbardo prison experiments: you take perfectly normal college students and put them into a situation that they know is a dramatic farce, they know isn’t real, give some of them the power of prison guards and make some others arbitrarily into prisoners and in three days you have to shut the whole experiment down because the prison guards have turned into Nazis and they’re enjoying torturing the prisoners even though they know (whatever know means) that they’re innocent. That says something about the manner in which people conduct their existence. They’re very susceptible to malevolent action. If you look at Genesis, a very old book, a very influential book. There’s a strange sequence of events that befalls Adam and Eve. It’s in two sentences. A snake gives them an apple. And that wakes them up. Well, there’s a good book by a southern California primatologist that was just published last year that suggested the reason that humans have such great vision, way better than most animals except for raptors (birds), is because our visual systems were designed to detect predatory snakes. And the way she discovered that was by comparing the populations of predatory snakes around the world to the visual acuity of the primate groups that lived in those areas. And what she found was essentially a one to one correspondence. Our visual system, which is the ability to see, and to be enlightened let’s say (because enlightenment for example is associated with vision) – the snake gave that to us because we had to pay attention to predatory things that were after us for tens of millions of years."

Perhaps government is inherently a construct that reduces complexity in the world. ie. people believe that by giving up all the things they give up for government that the functioning of government is framing their existence. By having their existence framed within the rules and laws and norms of the construct, the great complexity (feared) and chaos that would otherwise ensue is avoided. So, at the moment an-other might feel safer waking down the street or indeed planning for the future with the knowledge that government-imposed framework for society allows calculation of probability more efficient and the range of probability outcomes narrower. Perhaps the existence of government is like other social and hierarchical constructs as it allows people to focus on the narrowest possible range of variables to survive and reproduce. I suggest that the existence of the construct is primarily due to this adbication of responsibility, of self-determination and of confidence in the individuals effectiveness and capability in the relative "lack of order" that not having a gov could be perceived as. This could be viewed as a yielding to (or recognition of) a lack of robustness and resilience on the part of the individual. So, an individual who tends towards anarchism might be expected to have the traits of independence, robustness, critical thinking, resilience, self-confidence, capability and adaptiveness as examples. I suspect that high-IQ is probably a necessity also. So, before morality comes into the picture at all, the pre-requisite of these traits precludes (atm) most people from even the possibility of embracing anarchy. Perhaps, if this is correct, it is the new "constructs" of social and economic interaction and the "rules" that must be put in place as a replacement for government before a critical mass is achieved. Just a thought, could be crazy, might be stating what has been said before, but I'd be interested in feedback.

I've started watching this guy and I find his talks on evil, order and chaos and hierarchy fascinating. In this talk, particularly starting at about 40m, he explores the relationship between the personality trait of "orderliness" and authoritarianism. If anyone else has read or watched him in depth and has any formed any views on his approach I would be most grateful to have some comments.

Firstly, sorry to hear about your illness and secondly, great to hear that you are doing well. I can say fairly confidently that your experience mirrors my experience with my eldest brother, there being twelve years between us. It was only at the beginning of this year after getting a little distance from him that I realised what a fool I had been with him. Down through the years, he had done me a few spiteful turns but the family was so tumultuous this was the least of my worries and I had what I thought of at the time as a genuine affection for him. He was my eldest brother and I looked up to him. The cloudiness in my thinking toward him blinded me to his attitude and actions toward me. This culminated last year when, after getting him a job, loaning him a van to drive, paying the tax and insurance on the van and giving him a loan on the long finger for training to do the job, I found myself badly in need of support from him on a fairly serious personal situation I found myself in. Emotional and social support and understanding. It was not forthcoming. Indeed, it was at this point that I realised I was ignoring for years what he had openly said, that he didn't give a damn about anyone else. His phrase was always the one from Pirates of the Caribbean (I think): "Take everything, give nothing back". With a little distance, I could see he had deep resentment for me for a number of reasons. One of the main reasons was that I had passed him out in life. I looked for opportunities to help him. He looked for opportunities to tear me down. The tag on the end of my comments here is important to me: By their deeds you shall know them". If you have made the efforts and there has been no reciprocation, this is a good indication. The fact that he showed the attitude towards your illness is very indicative. It is not that I have de-fooed from him aswell as others (before I came across FDR btw), it is that I just stopped being the doormat, the initiator of effort, the supplier of resources gratis, the workhorse, the placator. My relationship with him was a self-dillusion and in the rear-view mirror, it becomes more insignificant every-day in my thoughts. I hope this helps. Edit: Just to be clear, I am cognisant that my own behaviour in this relationship and my choices need to be dealt with and explored and that is what I am starting to do now, hopefully with therapy soon.

Thanks for that Josh. I have a million and 1 questions, but I don't want to throw any out willy-nilly atm. I know I'm learning when I have the mild sensation of rusty gears starting to turn in my head!!!

Josh, this is something that I have skipped over thus far. I just haven't learned enough to put a label of having a particular approach to philosophy yet. However, the issue of the moral shaming in a free society is something I currently have difficulty with. Part of my motivation for exploring all of these philosophical issues is that "shaming" and "exclusion" is currently such a powerful social control mechanism in perpetuating dysfunction and conformity. Analogous to the "white feather" in WW1 Britain. What is your position on this, I am curious as to the post-modern approach to this issue? Or, if you had a particular video link that delved into it, that would be great. Cheers.

I haven't thought that much about God and religion for years in any big way, but a question occurred to me just now that may be irrelevant, easily answered. The concept of God is that he is limitless, omnipotent and all the rest as above. ie he is without constraint, without definition, without limitation, infinite possibility without boundary. However, if one has all of these attributes, there can be no "being", as "being" necessitates constraints and limitations and definition. So, converse to this, in the very act of making a choice, God creates a limitation and a set of constraints in the very act of creation and the manifesting of a "something". Could be gibberish, but there it is.

One of my favourite books just for its irreverence and two fingers to EU is Bernard Connollys "Rotten heart of Europe". In it he makes a very perceptive observation of the French and what are called the "enarques". Basically in political terms, the technocratic elite of the Republic. He observes that they do not view money and the control of monetary and fiscal policy as primarily an economic function for public good but a lever of control in directing society and culture as a whole. This would include the likes of Trichet and d'Estaing. Speaking of the enarques approach to economics, he says: "In this respect, as in a number of others, some enarques were akin to the officials of the Nazi Deutches Ahnenerbe, whose activities included the promotion of a specifically German science of meteorology so that German weather could be freed from the physical laws that determined everyone else's weather" I have the version from the mid-90's but it has also been reprinted in 2013 with an update. IMO, anyone who wishes to get a true analysis of the "European project" would be well served in reading this book. It has been prophetic, mainly because it is a wholly rational analysis.

A very interesting discussion on masculinity and the challenges and issues for men today. One of the guests in Jordan Peterson and he would be a good guest to have on the show on these issues IMO. Hits on alot of important points and interpretations.

Dave, virtual hug for being a good man!!! Inspirational stuff. Welcome!!!

Hi LaForge, not here long myself. Having been to the Netherlands a couple times and being from the USS-EU myself also, I can empathise. I had a lecturer from the Netherlands also and I spent the entire 3 years disagreeing with the socialist version of the curriculum we had. It was all veered towards "the good for the greatest number of people". Drove me nuts. Anyway, that's my rant quota for today, Welcome brother!!!

Reminds me of a Homer Simpson quote when running for office: "I hate the public so much, why won't they vote for me...."

Hi OMG!!! Great to hear about the parenting. Welcome to the board!!!

There is a character in Game of Thrones called Butter-BUMPS. I just thought everyone should know that........

Yes, all valid points. But, to me, marriage (in terms of vows) is primarily about children. When the vows are made and children follow, it is the vow and all the social support etc that binds through the hard times and the inevitable challenges, maintaining the marriage through the rearing of the child. The child is at the mercy of the world it comes into and the vows etc are centred around ensuring the child has the most healthy and stable upbringing as Stefan illustrates through the stats of this matter. You could equally say that for you and a gf it is not necessary but across whole populations, IMO it serves a useful function in this regard. As regards intervention by family, friends etc thats a fair point but in general the vows would suggest (ideally of course) that the couple know each other and themselves enough to commit publicly. In terms of the integrity of the individuals in the couple, it is a formal commitment to an entire life together based on shared values. Undertaking the vows, in a way necessitates the individuals to reach a point ~(in terms of self-knowledge and connection) where they can categorically commit. I'm not saying it is absolutely necessary for everyone. In fact, in alot of cases I know of couples who never got married stayed together and raised fantastic kids approximate to what a good marriage would do, but in general I class it as a useful institution.