Search the Community

Good afternoon. I was wondering if Stefan might be interested in taking up the topic of Arthur Koestler's GHOST IN THE MACHINE, as it may relate or dispute the r/K selection theory and the genotype/phenotype distincion, in relation. In a nutshell: Koestler put forth the thesis of the "triunal brain" (reptilian, mammalian, and neo-cortex), and that the way these evolved together was something like nature "slapping" the neocortex onto the existing structures in such a way as to cause problems in communication and control between the three parts ("flight or flight" response as a result of previous experience, or even inherited experience, "amygdala hijacks", etc.) I'm wondering if this theory may be of more value than an epigenetic explanation, since it explains the problem debating "nature vs. nature" in this competing brain structures, and highlights the problem of conceptual abilty (or lack of, or of a refusal to think, etc) vs. more "primal" involuntary responses (the latter probably resulting from a genetic basis.). Koestler's book is a bit older, and some of the science is in question, by today's standards and findings, but it seems that the triunal brain theory is still accepted, with modifications. Assuming its validity, would this be seen as a competing theory to genetic r/K selection, or complimentary? Thanks in advance, Joe

hey thinkers, i'm confused regarding this. please help me out. Stefan mentions quite often that 80 to 90 percent of household spending is done by women. He uses this stat to point towards female power/authority. Or at least, as a counter-argument to the patriarchy. i've seen this, but am still confused as to what exactly it means. If my wife buys me pants this counts in that figure, no? Like...if women buy the laundry machine, and the groceries...this counts towards the figure. So i'm not exactly sure what this says about women "controlling" the purse. Doesn't this stat just prove that women do more shopping for the household? Or am i missing something. thanks

So in having spent the better part of 5 years invested in the atheism, men's rights, and anarchist communities it wasn't until around 7 months ago that I began to catalogue my beliefs regarding these topics. Not to my surprise they coalesced around particular principles that I had been holding to and so engendered my involvement in these areas. Yet something I hadn't expected happened. I discovered a coalescence with regard to my enemies. That is, I found a link between feminists, theists, and statists though I quickly whittled that down to a commonality through ideological belief. Well of course right? But that commonality wasn't just that they were ideologues but that they shared the exact same belief in common. I had discovered a singular belief common to all ideologies that to do this day I've been unable to disprove. Quite a claim right? It was a few months later I discovered that with the addition of a single psychological relationship to identity, one could develop a conservative or liberal mindset. Fast forward another month and I am blown away by r/K selection theory and how it accorded with my own observations. Now granted my only exposure to r/K is through Stef himself so I am unaware of the entire breadth of the argument presented by Anonymous Conservative. Yet in Stef never mentioning this angle or rather this explanation I feel it is my duty to outline some of it here. Suffice it to say, I may have discovered the actual logic to the 'r' and 'K' mindset respectively. That evolution engenders these is almost without a doubt, but I contend that even as biological motivations, they actually rely on one logical axiom and then one more relationship to identity. That is to say, 'r' and 'K' are the result of a logic system that evolution is responsible for implanting. It is like computer code. The evidence for my theory which I will provide Stef albeit in a messy, first-draft form, is that it goes further to explain the phenomenon of social justice and feminism and the 'arguments' and perspectives they purport to have. When my theory is taken into consideration what they say makes logical sense though granted it must operate on a single false axiom from the start. From here I have begun to predict their response to current events with an accuracy that one would consider prophetic but really it's elementary. Again, quite the claim. Karen Straughan expressed interest in the material regarding the feminism aspect and she has been sent a copy. This is the best means I know of to contact Stef and the crew and so here I am. Now while I imagine I've made some mistakes in my own reasoning, the bulk of the treatise I've written is with regard to the logic system of the Left or 'r' demographic with the 'K' taking a backseat so to speak. If I have failed (should any discrepancies be discovered) in my attempt to establish this logic system as a necessary part of human psychology, that doesn't mean it isn't how the 'r' and 'K' operate regardless. It just means they're operating on faulty reasoning whose origin is unknown rather than entirely disproven. That there exists problems with both the 'r' and 'K' would naturally have us assume that their's is a faulty system of reason to begin with. But I digress. The summary is attached as a PDF file and was written for Karen in particular. There is also some conjecture regarding MGTOW and reference to a previous conversation we had had. These shouldn't confuse you but I want to make you aware of this regardless. This summary is about 15000 words and the treatise itself is about 100000 words. It's not as though it takes more than a few pages to argue my point but that the breadth of its applications are so vast I took the time to explore many of them. Now in the summary, given that it was written for Karen in particular, doesn't explore in full the claim that all ideologies are fundamentally founded on the same belief, but the greater treatise does. If the summary whets your appetite for it I will provide it with Mike's blessing (given the size of the file it too large). Though really, it's so elementary you'll figure it out yourself and kick yourself for having missed it. Or I'll tell Stef in an interview. It's so obvious and seemingly trite as to make you question your ability to think and observe the world at all when it's full influence is demonstrated. Stef said, though I'm sure he was quoting another, that ideology was the creation of arbitrary categories (or something like that). As it turns out I was establishing just that, save I had established that ideologies were axiomatic identities that existed without criteria. This will prove to be an important distiction. I guarantee it. All the best everyone and, should this argument prove useful, consider this my donation to FDR. Stef, you said getting therapy was payment enough but hell, I can still do more. Why not establish a logical axiom upon which all ideologies are based, the logic system for 'r' and 'K', and with that the 'key to the kingdom' with regard to human allegiance itself? This is going to make Bill Whittle's head explode. Or maybe I'm wrong. Only one way to find out. PS - The summary was written in the span of 36 hours so please, I needn't be shown any spelling or grammatical errors. There are plenty I'm sure. Summarization of Treatise.pdf