Search the Community

I've written a rather long, 62 page paper (.pdf) on Individualism vs. Collectivism. I wrote this for a newsletter I have been providing for friends and family since 2013 (I was motivated initially by the Snowden Revelations). I've noticed recently however that most of my friends are leftists/progressives/Marxists and basically either say nothing in response or even get offended and I get a lot of snarky comments even from family although I have a few supporters too. I'd like to have my work read, reviewed and commented/edited by someone a little more "Anarcho-Friendly". The writing is designed somewhat for a more liberal audience (i.e. my friends and family) so there are some things I can't go into and I try to keep it up to date with current events (a few of Molyneux's videos are linked). I do my best not to rant on the left but there's a lot of stuff that clearly bothers me about them in my writing. Lots of stuff about race/gender/identity in the Anarchist vs. Collectivist view, economics and centralized planning, a huge section on mass human migration and capping off with R vs. K topics and even a little section on the connections between Buddhism and Anarchy. I am happy to email or share with others for free. I have more documents from the past too and I am interested in having someone, who has a moderate amount of web traffic, potentially host my writing (anonymously) if they are OK with it (of course withing some reasonable editorial flexibility). Shoot me a line if this interests you - the file is too big to upload... Thanks! V.A.

DISCLAIMER: I couldn't talk about existence without hitting on the topic of determinism so, well my hands were tied. Any gap I left in the argument would get filled by either determinism or free will (individualism) so I had to tackle them. It's why I've put this disclaimer here to begin with and I'd hate to have any discussion removed for, well, a bias. If my ideas here are truly worth exploring then they're going to be explored elsewhere. I'd prefer if it began here though. If anything I've written were to be read by the FDR team this would be it if only because I haven't yet jotted down how self-sacrifice doesn't and has never existed in reality. This is the first time I've ever written any of this down and the first for many of these arguments too. I don't want it refuted, I want it refined. Hopefully there's enough truth in it to warrant that. If anything, holding to this position and arguing for it should make anyone on either side of the debate leave you alone. They'll never again ask you what reality is. They'll never again ask you what a concept is. They'll never again ask you what the difference is and they'll never again ask your opinion on it. FORWARD (yeah I put a forward in): This was something else. I don't know if I'm nuts or what but this should challenge, or entertain, people on any side of this question. I tied it into philosophy itself. I also used the term individualism as the opposite of determinism. It's not really but it better relates my point if I even have one. I just posted this through a sock puppet account under Stef's 'What is Existence?' video which I still have yet to watch. It's my understanding that the topic of determinism is a no-no, at least I think it still is. Believe me I didn't want to go there but as it turns out I may have, and I'll leave it up to you, added a little something special to whatever debate is left. Suffice to say when it comes to free will and determinism, both are correct, both are wrong, people who hold either view have never truly spoken to each other and, before you even ask, no I'm not advocating for agnosticism at all. In fact I advocate for both determinism and individualism operating at the same time and being mutually compatible. Bonkers right? I didn't think that's what was going to happen but it did. First on the point of requiring a creator, this is a product of humans having evolved with their recognition of cause and effect tied into their ability to recognize individuals and their capacity for thought and intention. This is paramount to understanding everything I'm about to talk about and it's informed quite a lot of my perception of the universe. I suggest you spend a lot of time thinking about that. So in other words, when we evolved the ability to recognize another person we simultaneously evolved the ability to recognize what effects they caused. This makes sense considering how we, even today, understand what another human being is by this very standard. We have words for their ability to both create and understand cause and effect like intention, agency, motivation, and so on. What went wrong in all this is that humans, especially primitive ones, saw intention in all effects in the natural world too. The wind was caused by another being because humans only understood effects as being caused by other beings. This belief that a being is causing all the effects in the natural world is none other than the belief in a god. This is why even atheists can claim a feeling that there is a being that controls and manipulates the natural world. It's a byproduct of our understanding of cause and effect. Taking this one step further, I doubt there is any other way to evolve an understanding of cause and effect given that without the concept of an individual, another person or being, every effect is caused by the universe and nothing else. There would be no difference between cause and effect. Humans and other animals would be perceived as no different than rocks or air or space. It would be a 100% deterministic existence. Second on the point of the mathematical code (physics) that appears to operate consistently through the universe, this is total speculation on my part but it makes sense to me: the universe can and only does work one way isn't a demonstration that it was coded specifically for a purpose or by another being. As the fallible humans that we are we can make mistakes. We are able to create models without full knowledge and understanding of the universe and thus errors are a part of every model we can create. Errors aren't a part of the universe however. They are a creation, a byproduct, of our individuality. Can a rock have an error? No. Can I add 2+2, get 5, and have that be an error? In my own mind yes, but the act of writing the numbers down with a pencil, the mechanical motion of my arm, the movement of electrons in my brain, the physical structure of every atom involved, all of these didn't falter even a bit. The universe doesn't have errors. See it's not a code. It's not, "The universe is a code," but rather, "The universe is is." In even the limited way we can understand the meaning of the word 'is' that's the universe. The universe is 'is'. Error only exists in concepts. Third on the point of why we have something rather than nothing, well the universe is binary...to us. What is the significance of a binary universe? Well it's both very simple and very perplexing. Take time now and try to define either existence or non-existence without the use of the other. Done? You cannot. They require each other to exist and in that they aren't really any different. I mean consider the statement, "Non-existence exists." It makes your brain explode. So on the point of the universe being binary, binary code, existence is 1 and non-existence is 0. Everything operates on binary because binary is how existence...exists. Is there any energy in [X] position or not? 1 or 0? Is there less energy in [Y] position or not? 1 or 0? The question isn't, "Why do we have something rather than nothing?" They require each other. What is existence? It's not non-existence. What is non-existence? It's not existence. Existence itself is the universe. Let's use the word universe this time: what is non-existence? Not the universe. Even in describing what non-existence is we require an entire universe to do so. So what it all comes down to is that the concept that we can have one without the other is a problem in our reasoning and nothing more. Again it's a byproduct of our ability to recognize and understand individuality. Without this we wouldn't see existence and non-existence as separate things. They would be the same. Of course everything would be the same as everything else and we'd just be deterministic. Cause and effect would be the same too. We'd be no different than rocks. Now, the true Big Question about the universe isn't why it exists but how a perfect system of reality, a singular...thing, was able to evolve the concept of individuality at all. In the entirety of the universe there was never a single individual or even the concept of it...until there was. How did a universe create a creature that then created the concept of a universe not existing which is so impossible the universe could not and will not ever create it? Even individuality comes with it the concept of one being separate from the universe. That should have been impossible. Hell, the first time humans divided by zero was a milestone in things the universe should never have created...yet did. If you found any of those questions interesting you missed my point entirely. Tee hee! Again, humans see the universe as binary. It's not really, but that's how we can understand it. Those questions I just asked were preying on our propensity to do this. Concept of the individual? Can't exist without it's opposite. The concept of an error? Same thing. Existence and non-existence require each other. To me the concept of the individual is as paradoxical as the concept of determinism. I contend that they, like existence and non-existence, require each other to exist. In fact, break down individuality and determinism to their most basic parts and you're just dealing with existence and non-existence all over again with regard to free will. The arguments for both self detonate and all either side is doing is arguing exclusively for one as if they are mutually exclusive. Consider these examples: I believe I am an individual. The universe is deterministic. The universe created the concept of individualism. Determinism created individualism. I believe I am predetermined. The universe is individualistic. I created the concept of determinism. Individualism created determinism. What I think all of this comes down to is that there is no example of an opposite in the entire universe since all opposites are a question of existence vs non-existence. What is the opposite of [X] position? It's not [every other position in the universe] or no position. What is the opposite of heat? It's not cold because it's on a spectrum. What is the opposite of energy? Not energy, which is just non-existence. Even our categorization of the universe, our attributing of INDIVIDUALITY to different mechanics of it, is wrong. Is there a difference between a particle and a wave? No. Matter and energy? No. THIS atom and THAT atom. No. When you're dealing with what the universe is outside of the concepts humans use to understand it (where the concept of objectivity is able to exist) it's just the universe. It's a singular '1'. There is no standard to distinguish what a particle is versus what a wave is. What the position of Jupiter is to the position of our Sun. The ability for humans to successfully interpret what reality is is what objectivity itself is. A successful interpretation is objective truth. It's not reality itself, it's just a small observable chunk of reality fed through the system of logic and reason producing a result that is able to appeal to others' logic and reason. The concept of objectivity itself can't be applied to the universe, just our understanding of it: 'Humans, possessed of their ability to conceptualize individuality, are able to develop an objective standard for their interpretation of a deterministic universe.' Weird I know, but I think that's what's going on. Both sides of the argument between individualism and determinism are trying to apply objectivity to the universe. You can't do it. All you can do is apply objectivity to concepts of the universe and, indeed, that is what both sides are doing. One side argues that the ability to think, reason, choose, [insert Stef's argument here], proves that individuality exists. The other argues that the concept of an individual is just that, a concept, and thus our actions in reality are at the mercy of cause and effect since we are no more than atoms at the whim of physics. Both are correct. What the person arguing for individuality is actually arguing for is that, 'our ability to successfully interpret the universe is objectivity itself.' He's right. What the person arguing for determinism is actually arguing for is that, 'reality isn't subject to or will change according to our ability to interpret it'. He's right. What either fail to grasp is that the only way to understand and interact with each other and the universe, to interact with whatever true reality is, is through concepts and thus objectivity is entirely exclusive to an interpretation of reality. It boggles the mind yet only an interpretation can be objective whether that interpretation is individualism or determinism or whatever. In other words, a thought can be true but not the truth of the thought. I can state in truth that I like ice cream but I cannot prove it in reality. The thought exists, yet the truth of it is unknowable. I require concepts like logic and reason to do so. As do you, not to mention a myriad of assumptions. Attempting to apply truth to reality is no different at all than asking questions like, 'What is the meaning of the universe?' or more trivially, 'What does it mean for the universe that I like ice cream?' Actual reality cannot be objective or true or any of those things. There is no meaning. It's just an 'is' as the Buddhists would put it. I understand that this sounds like an appeal to agnosticism but far from it. In fact agnosticism, instead of trying to apply objectivity to reality as individualists and determinists do, apply the concept of subjectivity to the universe. This takes form in the twin camps of those who claim nothing can be known of the universe at all and those who claim that our thoughts alone are enough to shape reality itself (infinite multiple universes). So to sum that up: 'Objectivity isn't a measure of the truth of reality but rather a measure of the adherence to themethod we use to interpret the truth of reality.' Objectivity is like the code used to compress a JPEG. Yes you lose information in the compression. Yes the image is of lower quality than the original. Yes the result is certainly not the original and cannot be reverse-engineered into the original. Yet so long as the coderan perfectly it was objective. A solid method, in fact the method, is all that has ever mattered in determining truth. We call this reason and logic and have turned it into the twin disciplines of science and philosophy. It is the only method for determining truth because running the code itself is objectivity. It doesn't matter what you believe but rather how you believe and I'm not just saying that to be quaint. I 100% mean it. In fact I dare say Stef, at some level, already knows this: 'Reason equals virtue equals happiness.' What someone believes is entirely a product of how they believe thus arguing over theproduct of a faulty method is entirely pointless. If you've ever watched a debate or heard the sentiment, 'You argue for the audience not your opponent,' you're already aware of this. You cannot change a person's conclusion without first changing their method. This is why, perhaps subconsciously, Stef always delves into why someone believes what they believe or asks about what they ask about. In this way he's the most effective debater on the planet (Disagree? Step up!) and perhaps the first to finally marry the remainder of the 'scientific' method (just the method really) to philosophy. It's not enough for Stef to prove that what someone believes is incorrect. He finishes the job and seeks to prove the all important WHY. Not why they are wrong but why they believe falsehoods. Philosophy you see doesn't exist to eradicate untruth. It does only as a consequence of it's actual goal that has been lost up until quite recently. Neither does it exist to pursue truth as that is for logic and reason itself. Did you never wonder, given their adherence to logic and reason, what the difference was between philosophy and science? It's described as 'thin' but it's not. The difference is that science uses logic and reason, operates the objectivity code, in the interpretation of reality. Philosophy uses logic and reason, operates the objectivity code, on itself. Why? ERRORS. God knows there are errors. If everyone's code was running properly we wouldn't need philosophy at all. So much truth is elementary and the rest can be left to science. No, what philosophy was meant to do, and what Stef does when he delves into why people believe as they do, is to eradicate false (not even faulty because there is only one) methods. Stef and others like him are debugging people. This is why, besides projection, people will label 'Stef's philosophy' (as if it's his and not just logic and reason) as a cult. It's because they recognize that it's not just peoples' beliefs that change but their entire methodology. However, given that such people aren't introspective (all introspective means is one's ability to recognize their own methodology including assumptions) they see another's intent in the change of the other person. They see Stef's intent - his 'brainwashing' - instead of a change in the method of the other person. Gee, now where do we have an example of people, especially the religious, attributing an effect to another's intent? That pesky byproduct of the recognition of individuality. You think religion is old? You have no idea. Hey quick question, "What's a false methodology called?" Answer: "Culture." This is why the religious can get along despite their texts commanding unbelievers be slain and even hate atheists more than anyone despite no atheist text or intention of harming the religious on their part. It's why statists at each others throats and blaming the worlds ills on each other stand in unison against anarchists. It's the method of belief that unites them. They can communicate an interpretation of reality they both understand and thus better identify with each other. When we speak to them we speak another language and, in fact, they find it threatening no matter what. Why? Philosophy is designed to correct and destroy these false methods. Philosophy is an attack on everything you believe falsely. Hell, is it any wonder we have the term 'mind virus?' That would make philosophy the anti-virus software of humanity. Last thought: consider that if our centers of logic and reason functioned on a level that could understand the entirety of the universe (which I believe would be impossible) the knowledge that '1=/=0' is sufficient enough to facilitate the entire understanding of said universe. In fact, that's what every single conceptual model comes down to. That's all math is. Everything we know is a product of that single equation and, fancy that, you need one in order to prove the other. Sound familiar? Existence =/= Non-existence. As for the original question, 'What is Existence?' Well I've defined existence as 'is' itself. What is is? Can you even ask that question? Is is... Can you even answer that question? I contend that you cannot. It's a paradox in the same realm as defining existence and non-existence without reference to each other. In fact it's the same thing. We just don't have a word for the opposite of 'is'. I suppose 'non-is' is the best we've got which should help demonstrate how this use of opposites is, again, strictly bound to concepts and not to reality. So to number all the super controversial things I've said: 1) The ability to perceive and understand cause and effect is a byproduct or is a necessary component of individuality. 2) God is the attribution of personal intention to cause and effect which came as a consequence of evolved individuality. 3) Attributing intention to cause and effect is necessary in order to evolve individuality. 4) The universe does not have errors. 5) Errors are strictly conceptual. 6) The universe is interpreted as binary by humans. 7) Existence and it's opposite, non-existence, cannot be defined without the use of the other. 8) The inability to conceptualize existence apart from non-existence by humans is why we interpret the universe as binary. 9) Individualism and determinism are paradoxical beliefs. 10) Individualism and determinism require each other to exist. 11) The reason the argument persists is that both sides assume they are mutually exclusive. 12) The are no opposites in the universe; only in concepts. 13) Attributing individuality to the mechanics of the universe is incorrect. None of it is separate. 14) Objectivity is strictly conceptual and cannot be applied to the universe 15) Objectivity is the successful use of the ability of humans to utilize the method of logic and reason to interpret reality. Objectivity describes the use of this method, not reality itself. 16) Humans, possessed of their ability to conceptualize individuality, are able to develop an objective standard for their interpretation of a deterministic universe. 17) Both sides of the determinism argument are trying to apply objectivity to the universe. 18) Objectivity cannot be applied to the universe; only the use of concepts to interpret the universe can be objective. 19) What the person arguing for individuality is actually arguing for is that, 'our ability to successfully interpret the universe is objectivity itself.' 20) What the person arguing for determinism is actually arguing for is that, 'reality isn't subject to or will change according to our ability to interpret it'. 21) Individualism and determinism is the application of objectivity to reality. 22) Agnosticism is the application of subjectivity to reality. 23) There is only a singular method to determining truth. 24) The singular method to determining truth is objectivity itself and when used properly it is said to be objective. 25) Reason equals virtue equals happiness is a rephrasing of item 24. 26) What is believed is a product of how one believes. 27) Arguing against the conclusion from one's methodology for belief does not change their conclusion. 28) Changing one's methodology for belief is the only way to change one's conclusions. 29) Stef explores why people believe what they believe in order to change their method. Their conclusion changes merely as a consequence. 30) Philosophy uses logic and reason not as an interpretation of reality but as an interpretation of itself in order to find and correct errors in the method. 31) People label philosophy itself as belonging to Stef and the change in people's methodology as brainwashing by Stef for the same reason they attribute the intention of a being to cause and effect. 32) Introspection is the ability to recognize and analyze one's own methodology for determining truth including one's assumptions. 33) Culture is a false methodology. 34) Methodology, objective or otherwise, is what people identify in others as camaraderie or as threats. This is why the religious identify with each other despite their incompatibility. The ability to be religious is the foundation to their beliefs not the belief itself. 35) Objective methodology is virtue. 36) Belief is irrelevant compared to method. Everyone identifies and interacts according to their methods and not their beliefs. 37) All conceptual models rest on the axiom that 1=/=0 thus existence does not equal non-existence is just another way of communicating 1=/=0. 38) The universe and existence are merely other terms for the word 'is'. 39) The word 'is' cannot be properly defined as a concept as it is the foundational axiom of all conceptual models and conception itself. 40) ' IS ' = [1=/=0] If anything this should have provided some zany reading while on the toilet. That's where I do most of my reading anyway. It's the best I'm going to hope for and hey, if I'm so off my rocker as to not even be correct enough to be wrong, well I'm just living up to my name.

I have an older brother who lives in England who loves socialism. Unlike him, I do not have a Doctorate in Philosophy I have an associates degree from a trade school in IT. He's returned to southern california and the inevitable debates have arisen when we meet: 1. You cannot rely on the market to solve your problems because it is 50/50 chance of a solution, where as a law will make people uncomfortable and force them to change. His example: Whether or not I have created a Dispute Resolution Agency, it is still fifty fifty that the girl abused by her father will get any immunity from such services, nor if they belong to a collective such as Christian Conservatives, abuse will be condoned and resources pulled will be aggregated towards a DRA that supports their views, where as a law will outlaw that. His secondary premise is that people are comfortable with things and nothing will get done if they are comfortable that's why there needs to be laws. 2. The reason why Compton sucks is evidence that the market has failed. Because they choose shitty services when they can choose better ones but don't. They cannot rely on fixing the neighborhoods the way England has. England uses social welfare to make sure that people get better and more humane treatment, because socialism helps people become liberated and individuals, and without that there would be no recovery. Even though these practices are corrupt he thinks you cant destroy something just because it is corrupt, because everything is corrupt. 3. You need a central authority because if you don't have it, people will hurt one another and some people may become exploited and not be able to market their skills and become solid individuals. He states something about how a free market company called Phil Jones Gas sucks and takes 24 hours to get a gas repairman which means icy cold death for people, when British gas does it right away, and that people can choose to use British Gas (socialized gas) but use Phil Jones because it is easier and it's already there, which means with no regulation people will get shittier service. 4. Redistribution is good because of John Lock's philosophy about property, which says it would inefficient to have people share everything and it would also be inefficient for people to have too much property. He also uses Plato and Aristotle to similarly make the claim the redistribution is good and necessary for the government to do. 5. Even though the government is corrupt, it must stay in place because no one will have any order without it. Regulations are good and what keep things fair. After hearing these revolting 5 points, I must say, it's much too difficult to argue, I know it's wrong, I can't allow it to go unchecked, and I hear now that my brother want's to get into politics in England. What kind of counters does everyone see in some of these points, I apologize already if it is hastily typed, I can try to clarify on any of the points. Thanks guys.