The Peter and Stefan Comic Strip (Ancap vs TVP RBE)

[STer]

As the poster above says, prove that your emergent behaviour has relevance in this context.  It's like talking about Quantum Mechanics.  Everything is quantum when you get right down to it but what relevance does that have to the discussion we are having about human behaviour?

 

Relevance in which context? The context I'm talking about is the rigid focus on the individual that underlies many anarcho-capitalists' approaches. Anarcho-capitalists often try to extrapolate from individual to group behavior. For example, they will say that if individuals one-by-one live a certain way, then this means society will become a way that reflects that.

 

But emergent properties mean that how society as a whole acts is not reducible to how each individual acts. It means some issues have to be dealt with at the group level, not the individual level (and some need to be dealt with below the individual level, such as at the cellular level.) Again, the important point is that the individual level is not the only one with unique properties and special characteristics and many problems either cannot be solved or can't be solved optimally at the individual level. Yet this is what most anarcho-capitalists seem to try to do.

 

I understand this can be hard to accept. It seems like a truism that if each person acts a certain way, then society as a whole becomes that way. But that is simply not how systems work. The reason they are called "complex" systems is because they are not simply reducible to the lower level that way.

 

Also what do you mean by "your" emergent behavior? I just heard Stefan the other day make a huge point to interrupt someone when they referred to "your philosophy" while speaking to him. He reminded them he doesn't have "his" philosophy. There is just philosophy and he was sharing philosophical ideas. I have to make the same point here. Emergent behavior is not "mine." It is a well established fact of nature. If you doubt it, let's go to the simplest examples. At one point, some people actually believed that the components of a substance had to share the properties of that substance. So, for instance, they thought that since water is wet, it must be made up of parts that are also wet. But this is false. Hydrogen and oxygen are not wet. But they come together in a certain way and a wet substance is created.

 

Again, I'd like to establish if you are saying you deny emergent properties exist or not? If you deny they exist, we can talk about that. If you agree they exist, then we can move on to further discussion of the implications of that if you wish.

[STer]

explained:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIlOtkBhRvI

 

Thanks for posting this LovePrevails. It is great to hear Stefan's thoughts about this topic directly.

 

He says in the video that this topic is essential and we agree there. I think it requires a lot more discussion because views on this topic underlie so much of everything else in the discussions that go on at FDR. I would like to see a lot more talk about entities, instances, concepts, emergent properties and so on because, like Stefan, I see this as a defining issue.

 

I don't disagree with a lot of Stefan's main points in this video. He mainly points out that often people take characteristics that only apply to individuals and try to ascribe them to groups. This can be used to manipulate people in many ways. I agree completely.

 

It's understandable why this aspect of things is so important to him to speak about. Much of his suffering came from being born into a family and culture he does not agree with and being pressured to match their concepts even though these concepts did not fit him. This is something many of us can relate to.

 

The problem is that he has ignored the other side of this. Traits that do belong to higher level systems should neither be ascribed to individuals nor should they be simply ignored.

 

I don't deny the special aspects of the individual level. I simply also see the special aspects of the other levels. They all have properties that do not obtain on other levels. Stefan and many anarcho-capitalists focus almost exclusively on the traits at the individual level and refuse to pay respect to the traits on other levels or try to minimize their importance, preferring to act as if the individual level is primary and everything else is just an extension of that.

 

There are a number of things that I think, at least from my understanding of what he said, are either incorrect or incomplete in the video that are telling.

 

1) He seems to be saying that since aliveness is a trait that inheres at the individual level, the other levels are not also important. But aliveness is not the only trait we care about. It's an important one and for that reason the individual level should never be ignored. But there are other characteristics that matter too and some of them inhere at other levels.

 

2) He seems to be saying that groups that often involve proximity are based only on proximity. But many concepts involve more than just proximity, referring to a certain type of relationship among the parts in addition to that proximity.

 

3) He focuses on physical attachment, while ignoring communication. Things can have no major direct physical attachment, yet still influence each other profoundly through various forms of communication. In fact, communication alone, without physical attachment, can go as far as to change our brains and brain chemistry and hormones. (this is how psychotherapy, which Stefan promotes greatly, works).

 

4) He focuses on an object's identity to the exclusion of focusing on its behavior. He says that if we take an instance out of a group it is part of, the thing itself still has the same identity. But what he fails to comment on is that while it may have the same identity, it can act very differently. Isn't that the reason he encourages DeFooing? Because even though you may have the same physical identity after leaving, getting out of the system has enormous effects on the person's behavior nonetheless.

 

This is a sort of case where he seems to me to play both sides. On one hand, he advocates leaving an abusive family system because of the huge impact being away from that family system can have. And then on the other, he downplays the level of influence of the system by pointing out that even if you leave you still have the same basic identity, as if that is the only relevant characteristic. How can you both downplay the importance of higher-level systems and simultaneously advocate that it is crucial to leave unhealthy systems because of how damaging they are?

 

I think a lot of everything I point out here is reflected in one place. Internal Family Systems Therapy is emphatic that different situations arise from different levels of human systems and must be dealt with at different levels. The author even goes so far as to say that therapists who can only deal with the individual level must seek further training. Yet Stefan took this and reduced it down to the MeCosystem. He took an all-levels system and reduced it down to the individual level, ignoring all the other levels. I think it is symbolic of how he and many anarcho-capitalists attempt to do the same when considering the world as a whole.

Yes, talking to Stefan is the main point. But I never give up. I have so much to give and I see so much need. Sociology, the distant sister of economy is totally unknown here. Society is meant to be seen with sociology, economy is just second opinion.

 

 

Armitage, you keep advocating for more focus on sociology rather than just economics. But it seems to me the field more important than either one of these is ecology.

[Armitage]

Good.  These are the issues you need to resolve.  Don't fall into the trap of thinking that you can force people to be good.  Or thinking we just need to set up a system where everything is free and everyone will be happy.  These are traps.   Straighten this out in your head and the desire to control others will be removed.

You want to help me, but so do many others - and in exactly the same way. I see we've got some strong stereotypes here. For example, everyone's thinking that TVP is a centrally directed system and thus everyone who likes TVP, likes to have things and people under control. And that's because of what parents did in early childhood, not because of anything else. This is something we can hardly deny, nobody has a perfect life and thus explanations that explain everything, explain nothing.

 

Firstly, TVP is not a centralistic system. The only thing that is central in there is a design guidelines (so pipelines fit into each other and computer language standards are used) and central display of global resources index, so that they're available to anyone. Standardization is there only to promote freedom. If we each used our own personal language instead of English, we'd be trapped by it, that's hardly a freedom.

Secondly, each person is different. For example, I am a veteran of the inner battlefield, of introspection and mindfulness practices. Trying this kind of well-meant but simplistic psychologism on me is like asking Buddha if he ever tried meditation. 

Thirdly, I have one strong vice and that is an intellectual pride. I have an intellect, I am proud of it and because of that, I hold it to the highest standard. Intellect is a gentleman's game like golf, you keep your own score and it is up to your pride as a gentleman to keep the score straight. I have this pride as well and I know if someone else proves me wrong or doesn't. You could defeat my intellectual pride very easily, if you told me something new. You didn't, so what my intellectual pride does, is getting greatly offended, by how you underestimate TVP, me, or my ability to find any traps or whatever that might lead to totalitarian regimes and so on. Now that I think of it, it's kind of annoying and unnecessary to get offended by well-meaning people like you, who do their best and can't really know how I keep my score.

 

Of course we can set a system, where everything is free and where present reasons for unhappiness do not apply. Of course we can design an environment, where being good will be the most obvious and most comfortable course of action. Nobody has to force people to be good, if people are so eager to react blindly en masse to something as small as a change of price of one article in supermarket, then being good in a good environment and good social know-how will be easy indeed. We have the knowledge, resources, technology and a moral duty to use them.

 

And I desire to control others?   I wish people controlled themselves. And I know what environment and education should be prepared, so that becomes a reality quickly and naturally. Yes, even Stef contributed to this knowledge. Don't think that Stef knows everything or that he is the only one who deals with this topic, or that Jacque Fresco says something different. Jacque Fresco just progressed from this stage, "what is the moral thing to  do?" into the stage "what are the instruments to that the moral thing becomes a universal standard and not a laborious process of lone, isolated Libertarian parents scattered around the world?" People like Fresco can do this step in a flash. From ends to means, from present means to their roots. Stefan is taking hell of a time. 

 

Armitage, you keep advocating for more focus on sociology rather than just economics. But it seems to me the field more important than either one of these is ecology.

See the duality of means and ends. Ecology is the end, the final arbiter and the thing that keeps us alive. But the means to affect ecology the most, are not in ecology itself. We will not fix the world by letting it slowly grow over with moss. We will fix the world by technological application and by using social science in design of the environment and offering a preferable life style on top of our technological abilities and resources. The greatest polluters are the greatest industries, hence the importance of economy and technology for ecology.

Sociology is a great eye-opener. Ecology tells you nothing about the human society. Sociology tells you about the impact of technology and science on society, about impact of pretty much anything on society. People here consider just very few things and their effect on society or individuals. They need to stop to see the society as a black box that only responds to childhood abuse and war trauma.

[_LiveFree_]

Ok, who gives a crap what Stefan Molyneux says just because he says it???You obviously have not listened to the podcasts. If you had, you would have heard many podcasts where long term listeners and supporters disagree (and even argue! *for shame!!*) with the Dream Crushing Big Chatty Forehead of DOOOOOOOOOOOOM!Stef has spent decades working out the logic he presents here. To accept the ideas that he puts forth as gospel would be a major giant middle finger *F--- YOU* right to Stef's face.Make no mistake about it, the people you are conversing with are not blind automatons parroting some bald guy's ideas on an obscure corner of the interwebs. We have put into practice in our own lives the non-aggression principle and dealing with ourselves and our relationships with that same moral consistency. It is extremely difficult, but everyone who has a donator status, I guarantee you, donated because they felt grateful for the positive changes in their lives.You may think you're arguing against just Stefbot and some lowly minions, but in reality, Stef isn't even here. You're arguing against Nathan, Mike F., Kevin, PT, Heath, tasmlab, TheRobin, Muffles (i giggle), LovePrevails, Think Free, and xelent. Everyone of us knows what's really going on here and with you. If you really want to talk with Stef, stop wasting your time with us and go do it. It's not like he's a rock star. He's a self-employed philosopher with a podcast...and a forehead.How many areas of your life do you just argue back and forth without ever doing anything? I know of two already; putting RBE into practice and talking with Stef. Arguing is easy (especially on the internet). Taking action is scary because it means things will change. It means you might fail.

 

 

 

You cannot social engineer on top of dysfunction. It's building your house on sand. 

 

Before I came across FDR, I believed that there was a roll for government. After FDR, I realized I was just scared of my father. I finally let my guard down and watched as he completely walked all over me. It was easy then to walk away from him forever.  I was expecting to have do the same thing with my mother. As it turns out, being completely open and vulnerable with her has allowed our relationship to strengthen and grow in a healthy manner. I've also been able to break the cycle of unhealthy patterns in romantic relationships. The point is, I was not free. And because deep down I knew this, I was always trying to fix the world of its dysfunction instead of facing my own. 

 

The world cannot be saved through societal reorganization. It can be saved if you face your past and walk right towards it completely unshielded. The world is a mess because individuals are a mess. If i take a filthy car and reorganize where all the parts go and make a very different looking car, it's still going to be made of filthy parts. But, if I take the time to do the painful and grinding work of removing every spec of dirt, then that car will eventually shine. No rebuilding necessary. Not only that, but it will run much more efficiently and smoothly because there won't be any dirt clogging the works.

 

RBE is a distraction from the work you really want to be doing. Saving the world is not about intellectualism, genius, right or wrong, or the "best plan". It is about courage and doing what you already know you need to do. You have a small 10 foot radius around you were you can change this world for the better. Make that shine before telling others the best way to do things.

 

The greatest argument against anything Peter Joseph says is his tragically obvious self-hatred. 

[Armitage]

I listened to many, many podcasts with Stef. Do you say there are other podcasts where people are allowed to disagree with him and they are not instantly marginalized as someone who went through childhood abuse and doesn't want to admit it? Oh, I hope so! Because all the guys here seem to think so.  (by the way, I am now officially scheduled on the 12th December show, I mistook the date for January)

 

 

You can not know how I work on myself. I do, in a great, systematic, many year-spanning effort. I learn so much these days and I find things on my own. I meditate for hours and contemplate. I integrate all good advice, including Stef's. But that's my business. You can not possibly find out how much work I've done on myself, even I am not quite sure. However, part of this learning is learning about you and other people on this forum and how to communicate with you. Please keep calm and carry on with feeding me more information.

 

So what do you think basically is, we are damaged people. As long as we are damaged and dysfunctional, we should not trust ourselves with any kind of social engineering. We should do what, try to fix ourselves while fighting unemployment, trying to make ends meet, watching the world institutions collapse, empires causing wars? 

I would say a service to the world, even in groups, is the most powerful instrument of personal development available today. Yes, we should do our best to win our deep inner game against ourselves, but we gain power to do it by outside action - and our inner victories give us in return a strength for this action. There is a striking similarity between the world inside and the world outside. And we will not win by focusing only on the inside, because the world outside creates dysfunctional people every day in all areas of poverty. Poverty is the war without gunpowder, it is economic violence.

 

I am good at systems, all kinds of them. I am also educated to understand systems. No matter of my deep inner game, I can do a good job with systems of all kind. Systems aren't people after all. And I know a good or bad system when I see it. Don't tell me some kind of personality dysfunction can affect this, because the greatest thinkers and philosophers were in social aspects very dysfunctional people. (founding fathers of America, founders of Sociology, etc.) If the society is sick, then I can be dysfunctional, a bit hurt, yet at the core fundamentally healthy and sane, and that entitles me to social engineering. If you want something new, you don't want someone who's good at fitting in today, you want someone fitting in the future.

 

 

I will tell you a secret. Most people are not individuals. They are bodies with meat computers in their head and these meat computers all run viruses and nothing else. There are great social epidemies of memetic viruses and people divide themselves according to which meme are they infected with. They are friendly or hostile, depending on what memetic viruses do you carry. They will defend the integrity of their meme and behave as a mindless group. The only difference is in labels. The labels always vary, but the behavior is always the same, tribalistic. Tribalist groups can kill, even if their label says "thou shalt not kill" or "pro-life". So we are not really dealing with individuals. 

You can recognize a true individual very easily. It is someone who installed a firewall, at some point in his life. Once he can critically think and filter the incoming information, he is usually cast out of his tribe... But he can still have a lot of crap in his head - and a lot of pain in heart. Such an individual then painfully revises everything he ever believed about reality - or only as much as he has to. There is sort of a fellowship of criticism between such people. We can help each other straighten out the bullshit we keep having. Behind our firewalls we can finally conquer our inner world and become true individuals. It is as much an act of personal revolution as Marx envisioned with the class revolution. It is a birth of sentience. But you can never know how much crap someone still has in his head. And you can not tell what happens when someone clear this crap out sufficiently. Then something happens that we are reminded of by Nietzsche's philosophy, something not yet well-described by modern psychology, perhaps except Jungianism. Such individuals are out there as well.

 

 

On the more civilian note, do you have any more information about Peter Joseph? What self-hatred? I am not his follower, or anyone's. His materials changed the direction of my life, but it was a one-time steering, I'm not attached to him or what he did ever since. I'd say he's a Stef-grade thinker, far from stupid, far from perfect, and what is most important, he takes action and has production skills.

As for taking action, what the hell does that mean? I am surrounded by people who do not habitually take in information. They ingest more beer than information and have a great social life.  I am bored out of my mind when hanging out with them. Realization or not, the progressive ideas make me feel alive. But how do we communicate with people who use their mind just for work assigned by someone else? How do we bring up deep topics, when they just want to have fun and drink? Even masters degree students, mind you.

[_LiveFree_]

You're still not getting it. That's ok.

 

 

What would really be interesting to know is how Peter Joseph's work changed the direction of your life. That is a post I'd really want to read.

[Armitage]

You're still not getting it. That's ok.

 

 

What would really be interesting to know is how Peter Joseph's work changed the direction of your life. That is a post I'd really want to read.

In my experience, when people tell me I'm not getting it, I'm getting it from so many points of view simultaneously, that they don't recognize it. Do you still mean solving our own inner problems as the key to fixing the world? I thought I answered you. 

 

Peter Joseph taught me two important things:

 - Economy is not boring. It's exciting, terrifying and much more simple than it sounds by all the financial stock market mumbo jumbo.

 - He pointed me towards The Venus Project, the beginning of another journey.

[_LiveFree_]

Oh come on, 2 little bullet points? Your life completely changed directions and you give 2 bullet points. The amount of words you've written in 42 posts is astounding, but I ask you about a life changing occurrence and you write 2 bullet points. 

 

This is the kind of stuff I don't understand. Your experience is far more interesting than anything you've written prior. Yet you keep avoiding it. Why?

[Armitage]

Oh come on, 2 little bullet points? Your life completely changed directions and you give 2 bullet points. The amount of words you've written in 42 posts is astounding, but I ask you about a life changing occurrence and you write 2 bullet points. 

 

This is the kind of stuff I don't understand. Your experience is far more interesting than anything you've written prior. Yet you keep avoiding it. Why?

Well, there were many more of shattering, terrible and beautiful experiences in my life. This was just bit of steering.

If a car changes direction, it may be the right direction, but it doesn't change the car. Maybe this was the direction I was searching all along, so there was not much to change, only a lot of information to learn. I mean, Peter Joseph may have some personality similarity, he's a very intuitive man just like me, his style of seeing the world probably matches mine, so there's nothing to disagree about. (that's what drives me away, see further)

The second movie Zeitgeist Addendum, I agreed and resonated with it so strongly, that I could only watch it by pieces, having pauses once in a while. Very few things strike my heart with such an emotion. Both parts of the film, the banking stuff and the TVP stuff.

 

I don't avoid things, I understand and move on. The things I understand, they drive me away. Away to connect them to other areas, teach them, discuss them, even manifest them if possible. I am seeing double, everything I understand, I see the thing itself and I see what might be or what should be. I am a fundamentally restless misfit, professional fence sitter and running train jumper. I never follow, I always bring in the missing element, even if I fundamentally agree, so it looks like I disagree. I agree, but supplying what is missing is more important than agreement (and I don't think I can help it, it sort of happens). Agreement is boring. (and usually means it's the time to get some workin' done. Screw that. Discussion and learning is my work.) 

 

Well, I'm just a young, old, outworn soul, under a personal dictatorship of a voracious and militant brain, who I have to feed constantly, or neither of us is happy. We travel the world together, looking to play the biggest game in town, which seems to be for now a large-scale social engineering of the future. Really, nothing else is satisfyingly ethically meaningful for me and challenging enough for Colonel Brain. Well, maybe parenting would be, we'll see about that some day.

[_LiveFree_]

I see.

 

This is yet another sock puppet account of STer (which is probably not your original account either.)

 

I really wish you'd delete all of your sock puppets and create one account with your real name and a picture of yourself. If you really have important info to share, then put up or shut up. Stop hiding behind the internet. Show me you have the balls to stand behind what you're saying. Right now, all you look like is a lonely troll. Unless your goal is to piss off people here, you'll never change anyone's mind.

 

I STILL don't think you're a troll, after all the mess you've posted. You'd get a much better response if you changed up the tactics you've been using here. I sincerely mean this. I'd really like to see you become the resident Zeitgeister as opposed to "remember that one troll with all the accounts that showed up after the Pete vs Stef debate?"

 

Pull up a chair, make yourself at home. Challenge the living shit out of all of us! Just do it in an honorable manner.

 

(This is just my opinion. You obviously don't have to do what I say. But if you are sincere in your efforts, and I believe that you are, you'll find a much better response this way.)

[Armitage]

What? I guess I should check out this STer guy, he seemed reasonable to me, yet his posts were hidden because of some negative reputation thing... And a bit TLDR, truth be told.

 

I mean, I'm not him. He's from America. I'm from Czech Republic. 

Koukni, šřžíéášěéťď, tohle na tvojí klávesnici nenajdeš, co? Jestli mi nevěříš, tak jdi do prdele, vole. Tady máš moji adresu a nechtěj mě nasrat. Co bys ještě chtěl za důkazy? Měl bych se vyfotit na Karlově mostě? Vždyť jsem Čech jako poleno. No možná ze Slezska, to je jedno. Kolik lidí jste si takhle spletli s tím chlapem? Možná byl každý z těch účtů někdo jiný, to nemůžeš vědět.

Clear enough? Consider me not STer for now, later you can find some Czech guy and he'll confirm you the grammar and idioms. Now, would you please give me a briefing on who is STer and why is he so similar? 

Yes, I'm sincere in my efforts. And, STer is self-proclaimed INTJ. I am an INTP, borderline INFP. (which means a basically honest and nice guy, haven't had a single sock puppet account in my life and haven't ever killed anyone in a MMORPG)

[_LiveFree_]

Ok, man. Consider me done. 

 

Welcome to Trollville. 

[Armitage]

Ok, man. Consider me done. 

 

Welcome to Trollville. 

So you still think I'm some American guy? The pen-stealing former president Václav Klaus and the alcoholic current president Miloš Zeman rings no bells to you? (and the alcoholic minister of finance, calling citizen activists dickheads)

OK, today I there is a scheduled march around some major vistas in the Prague center, do you want any photographs?

 

And what is this Trollville, is it some kind of account status punishment?