The Logic of 'r' and 'K'

[Mr. Wrong]

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

[Will Torbald]

"I exist" is a self contained argument. "I am right" yeah, but about what? Compared to what? It is not a self contained argument. It's just a statement.

[Mr. Wrong]

"I exist" is a self contained argument. "I am right" yeah, but about what? Compared to what? It is not a self contained argument. It's just a statement.

Oh whoops! I understand the contention. I didn't define 'axiom' in the summary. My mistake. I am using axiom not in the philsophical definition as follows:

 

An axiom or postulate as defined in classic philosophy, is a statement (in mathematics often shown in symbolic form) that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.

 

The definition I use is the logical one:

 

Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof (for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.)

 

So the axiom exists without reference to or comparison to or contrast to anything. It is assumed true i.e. axiomatic. It isn't self-contained at all and really, that's the issue. A 'rightness' operating without any criteria. Said criteria is only found and used to justify the axiom ex post facto. It's the old observation that 'everyone knows that they're something, but they don't know what.' These justifications are called ideologies. It's why (self) doubt is so integral to learning and to science and why we needed to adopt it as a methodology. It's because a 'rightness' is always assumed.

 

Self-righteousness is the default. Doubt isn't.

 

Read on and besides it's like I said, I may be wrong when I claim that everyone operates on these axioms. But I've made one hell of a case that SJWs and Feminists and ideologues of all sorts certainly do.

[Will Torbald]

No, an axiom in the logical sense exists without reference to an external comparison, but it's self consistent with itself. "I exist" can be confirmed compared to myself because if I didn't exist I couldn't claim that I do. It's self referencial. What you're advocating sounds exactly like "confirmation bias", which is not an axiom, but an informal logical fallacy. You assume the conclusion, and then look for pseudo-evidence that confirms your initial prejudice. In that sense it is a perfect argument that SJW's are full of confirmation bias, but it's not an axiom. You could leave your entire disertation as it is, replace axiom with bias, and it works. The only problem is that everyone already knows this to be true.

[Mr. Wrong]

Well they don't know this to be true - at all. Otherwise Stef and 'everyone' would cease being confused by these ideologues and attack their core beliefs rather than their ex post facto justifications for them; like feminism itself which is just an enormous justification for 'woman' as an identity existing without criteria. They'd also stop assuming that the 'identities' SJWs et al mention are in anyway the same as the ones we use which by definition describe an exerise of agency.

 

In other words, they'd stop playing into the hands of ideologues and making futile their efforts.

 

They'd also have discovered the logic of 'r' and 'K' before the science regarding it and outlined that logic before I. Nobody knows this to be true or at least they know the term 'bias' but have no understanding the breadth of it's influence and application. As a philosopher I give Stef way more credit than that so I must assume he doesn't know this already. That is, he doesn't know how ideologies are formed and their relation to an unspoken alliance according to self-righteousness and not the claimed content of the ideology itself. Furthermore he doesn't know that ideologies are predicated on the separation of identity from behavioral criteria and this engenders behaviors that define what is called 'socialism' and why it operates as an ever expanding hive-mind.

 

No one I know has any clue Torbald. Did you read it all and miss the forest for the trees or what? I mean, did the entire summary just tell you things you already knew?

 

As for the axiom bit, I'm still going to challenge you on that.  Existence and rightness are nigh interchangeable in this context. That is, a 'rightness' with regard to the observation of one's existence and with that observation, how one observes themselves to exist. One must assume that their observation of their existence is 'right' or 'correct' in order to assume that one exists at all. Yes the act of even posing the question necessarily assumes 'I' or 'I exist' which is why I 'I am right' exists subsequent to it. Consider that 'I am wrong' applies itself to 'I exist' resulting in 'I am wrong that I exist' which is, of course, a self-defeating argument.

 

There is no need to include 'as?' in the axiom. That is, no need to ask 'I exist as...?' since 'I' implicitly assumes the 'as'. Now I suppose logically it shouldn't, but 'I' is the self which is necessarily something or in this case 'as something'. That 'something' is ourselves as individuals. So just as the axiom 'I exist' exists without reference to an external comparison but is consistent, so too would be your claim (should you make it) that 'my identity exists' or '[Enter your name here] exists' or 'Will Torbald exists'. If there is some way to divorce oneself, one's identity from 'I', I would like to hear it. Otherwise I am pretty certain 'I am right' is an axiom. Furthermore 'rightness' doesn't require any reference to an external comparison given it only deals with the self ('I am right') and given that this rightness is based on nothing more than one's belief about themselves, said rightness is consistent with itself. Consider again 'I am wrong' in this context:

 

'I (who I am, my identity, my self, my 'soul') is wrong.' Except with regard to that. And that. And that. You get the idea.

 

Also, 'wrongess' assumes the existence of alternatives, of other 'I's' or selves. What is 'right' or true doesn't require reference to any such alternatives. It merely must be, must exist in order to be 'right'. So 'rightness' can operate without reference to anything external while wrongness cannot. Ergo rightness or, as a whole, self-righteousness can exist as an axiom. This isn't to say such rightness is at all objectively true, but nevertheless exists as an axiom we all share.

 

Also, the problem with claiming that 'I am right' is a mere bias is that it is absolutely impossible to challenge. It's not simply an inclination nor does it exist in a system wherein non-bias can even exist. It is the only belief one can hold with regard to the self. So if it's not an axiom and not a bias, what is it? Maybe I'm all sorts of wrong here and it is just a confirmation bias, but then obviously I don't understand how it isn't an axiom.