You are on page 1of 266

The Third Volume of Being Conscious:

The Additions
Advance Uncorrected Proof
O.G. Rose
Book I
Sociological-Awareness 5

The Creative Concord 6

Should We Get Rid of the Internet? 45

Joy to the World 47

Representing Beauty 59

On Materialism, Purpose, and Discernment 68

(Im)morality 70

On Want and Awe 78

On Love 79

Emotional Judgment 80

Self-Delusion, the Toward-ness of Evidence, and the

Paradox of Judgment 83

On Trust 89

Concerning Epistemology 97

Inception, Discrimination, and Freedom 101

Words and Determinism 105

On a Staircase 113

Transposition 114
On Is-ness/Meaning 114

On A is A 115

On Thinking and Perceiving 120

Ironically 138

Book II
The Map Is Indestructible
Innovating Credentials 144

Probable Cause 147

(W)hole Hope 149

Sensualization 153

Discussing Racism 154

On Beauty 164

Collective Consciousness and Trust 165

On Responsibility 168

The Specter of McCarthyism 171

What is a Judge to Do? 175

The (Trans)values of Justice and Love 180

The Tragedy of Us 182

Death is the Event Horizon of Reason 186

On Critical Thinking 188

Meaningful and Metaphoric Tendencies 189

Paradoxes of Awareness 192

Defining Evidence 194

Incentives to Problem Solve 194

The Death of Process 199

Experiencing Thinking 200

The Heart/Mind Dialectic and the Phenomenology of View(s) 208

The Phenomenology of (True) Ignorance 213

Trivia(l) 217

On Wisdom 219

Scripted 221

Flip Moments 223

In Defense of Bestiality 224

On Description 225

The Uselessness of Thought 229

Compelling 231

The True Isnt the Rational 232

Book I: Ironically
1. Sociological-Awareness may have similar effects on societies as self-consciousness has
on individuals.

2. Myers-Briggs Tests may do to individuals what theories do to societies.

3. Marx, perhaps in writing The Communist Manifesto, made the working class self-aware,
and as a result, the class acted differently than it would have had workers not know
about the theory. Making the people aware of Communism could have been that which
ruined its birth (especially if Communisms realization was inevitable and deterministic,
as Marx seemed to suggest).

4. Societies learn from history, but they learn to be self-aware.

4.1 Societies learn from theories, but

5. It is possible that a kind of Sociological-Awareness occurs when a society is aware of

clinical conditions like depression. Once people know about them, people are able to
think of the actions and emotions of themselves and others within the constructs of
these conditions, potentially worsening them.

6. To allude to On Thinking and Perceiving: to think is to be prone to kinds of


7. The more theories, titles, schools of thought, labels, etc. that exist, the easier it
becomes to box people into certain modes of thought. Before Kant, for example, a
person couldnt be called a Kantian, and so people, from a single belief (such as duty is
good), couldnt be associated with an entire body of thought that may or may not have
any relevance to their views on the world. Now, Kants thought having become well
known, a person, when listening to another speak, cannot help sometimes but think
that person is a Kantian upon hearing the person say something that sounds Kantian.
Of course, what is a Kantian to one person isnt necessarily what a Kantian is to
another, but it is this very tendency to associate itself that is worrisome.

Today, as if the tendency has been programmed into us, we cannot help but try to figure
out when listening to a politician, for example, if he or she is a conservative or liberal,
and this distracts us from what the person is actually saying. Furthermore, we cannot
help but associate the beliefs of those around us with bodies of beliefs that we are
familiar with perhaps this is a neurological tendency moderns have developed to cope
with having to deal with so much information and stimulation. Consequently, humans
are increasingly bad at nuance and quick to assume. This tendency to associate is a way
by which we can feel like we understand what a person believes, which can help us
avoid feeling ignorant and powerless before unknowns and uncertainties. Ironically, this
tendency makes us understand people less and increases ignorance.

The more theories and labels that exist, the easier it becomes to make these
associational errors. Consequently, it becomes increasingly difficult to listen to one
another. The less we are capable of listening, the less our society can function. It
becomes too boxed in.

8. The man who calls himself a writer may think of all he does as acts of a writer, even if
he never writes. A woman who calls herself an entrepreneur may think of herself as
having made a business, even if she is yet to complete the long, hard road. On the
other hand, for a man to call himself a writer may motivate him to live up to the title,
as may calling himself a teacher, businessperson, etc. It depends on the person, but
regardless, to label yourself is to take a risk.

9. The person who is overly-conscious that he or she can say sorry may be less likely to
change, as the person who knows Im Republican may ignore Democratic suggestions.

10. To call yourself a Conservative, Liberal, Marxist, Capitalist, etc., it like putting on a pair
of sunglasses with a red of blue tint: its far more difficult to identify things by their true

11. To clearly identify if someone is a racist, bigot, sexist, homophobe, etc., it is important
that the person not know that he or she is being considered as such, as it is important
that someone in a psychology experiment not know that he or she is in an experiment.
Otherwise, the results will be unreliable, but unfortunately, in a society where the ideas
of racist, bigot, sexist, homophobe, etc. are prevalent, it might not be possible to
ever achieve reliable results.

12. As David Foster Wallace warned, the appearance and establishment of irony might be a
sign of a society that, aware of itself, is regressing.

13. The way people react upon learning the probabilities of their genetics may have
similarities to how Sociological-Awareness influences behavior. For example, upon
learning that one is genetically orientated to become a doctor, the person may
intentionally and rebelliously become a writer.

The Creative Concord

1. Since unemployment stimulates productivity as much as employment, an artifex society
never fears losing jobs to immigrants or technology. It enables contributing immigrants
to stay, as it encourages all innovation and technology to be implemented. Considering
Thomas Sowells The Economics and Politics of Race and how most immigrants are
unusual in their drive and ingenuity, an artifex society is a pro-immigrant society.

2. Automation should be the goal of production, not the enemy. However, with a lack of
creativity, a society, at least subconsciously, comes to fear what it should want.

3. No one knows how to make a pencil, claimed Leonard Read, but without an artifexian,
there is no such thing as a pencil for no one to know how to make. The artifexian
doesnt single-handedly make a pencil, but the artifexian creates something for everyone
to construct. This alludes to how the artifex needs the material dialectic and vice-versa,
even though the artifex creates it, and how an artifexian society isnt a society without a

material dialectic (in the practical versus theoretical sense), but a society in which all who
work and own the means of production are also artifexian in one way or another. In this
way, the material dialectic is one with the artifex, realizing the creative concord.

4. Many farmers and craftsmen are artifexians, for many both own and work their means
of production. This alludes to the Jeffersonian Ideal (a society in which farmers read
Ovid while plowing the fields). Perhaps one of the great injustices of slavery, after the
slave trade was annulled, was when plantation owners stopped also working their
plantations, which ended the Jefferson Ideal and began a material dialectic. This made
the institutions susceptible to the alienation Marx warned would inevitably lead to
creative destruction, which Southerners ironically saw so clearly in regard to
Northerners, but failed to see in themselves. Perhaps racism contributed to this
blindness, for Southerners grasped how alienating Northern factories were for workers,
but, failing to consider blacks as human, they didnt recognize the alienation they were
causing themselves. Perhaps it would be beneficial to understand the history of slavery
in America through Marxist thought (a history that continues to this day in the form of
the cubicle worker).

5. People tend to be against studying what there seems to be no reason to study, and think
that to read when there is no test is to waste time. Friends and family tend to support
this view. Furthermore, those who major in history, for example, are warned that they
wont get a job, even though it is common knowledge that history is important to study
so that past mistakes arent repeated. Bent on being practical, society repeats past
mistakes, missing that history is always a practical study.

6. A wise, just bourgeoisie will balance investing resources in the proletariat and the artifex,
causing a gradual and sustainable rise in both the standard of living and rate of
employment until the society is unified in the artifex. The wisdom is found in the reality
that investing in the artifex will provide more creative solutions, increasing the
bourgeoisies profit, while investing in the proletariat will allow for the proletariats
growth into the artifex. However, this requires a certain type of investment in the
proletariat, an investment designed not to placate and satisfy so as to avoid violent
revolution (say through entertainment or welfare), but to advance, educate, and
encourage the proletariat in its own creative endeavors. A bourgeoisie that understands
the creative concord will understand that this will increase its wealth in every sense of
the word.

7. To borrow from Thomas Sowell, life isnt about problems and solutions, but trade-offs.
Most decisions have both positive and negative dimensions to them, not just benefits or
negatives. Often, if a country has a problem, say in Health Care, it looks for a solution
to the problem, rather than the best trade-off. Consequently, it refuses to accept any
policy that has any kind of negative consequence, retarding development and prosperity.
There will always be downsides: the question is, in the long run, what kind of policy can
channel the negatives toward fueling positives. One could say that a nation prospers not
to the degree it solves its problems, but to the degree it strategically manages trade-offs.
This insight is also key to understanding the need for a redefining of what is meant by

7.1 In an artifex society, high in technology and robotics, there will be a shift of capital
toward creative people. Individuals will then be pressured away from jobs like
manufacturing toward being creative, threatened by a lack of capital otherwise. Today,
people are pressured away from being creative toward jobs like manufacturing, because
creativity isnt perceived as profitable. In an artifex society, this problem of pressure
isnt erased; rather, the pressure is redirected toward, rather than against, creativity. Since
creativity drives prosperity, this shift will be beneficial to the society as a whole (even
though it may be a problem to those who dont feel they are creative or who dont want
to be creative). This is a good trade-off and it increases the standard of living, which is
arguably the whole point of a society.

8. Erich Fromm and Victor Frankl both make it clear that without purpose and creativity,
a person cannot work at the level, efficiency, joy, and speed necessary to compete and
thrive in the idea economy. Nor is it possible, without creativity, to integrate ones
social and work life together, which will continue to become increasingly necessary as
global competition intensifies. Creativity isnt a nicety, but a necessity.

9. There is an invisible hand, as Adam Smith noted, but it isnt inherently benevolent. In a
Banktocracy, Creditism, mixed market, etc., it can actually work a society toward
collapse. Overall, the invisible hand is amoral. It only tends to be benevolent in an
artifex society (or true Capitalism), for in that society, the majority isnt consciously or
subconsciously depressed, apathetic, thoughtless, or suicidal. In a depressed society, the
invisible hand constructs bombs; in a driven one, it uplifts the improvised. Its up to the
people, seeing that the invisible hand belongs to them. The invisible hand simply
increases the effectiveness of whatever is occurring: it maintains, but doesnt choose,

10. Americas entire system of Intellectual Property Rights must be revamped: it is one of
the prime culprits for the failure of society to incubate a strong artifex. Like the
unfortunate ability of banks to make money off of money, the current ability of
companies or people to use patens as a way to make money, rather than using patens to
protect profitable goods, is suicidal of the nation to allow. The practice makes those
seeking to become artifexians afraid they are breaking the law whenever they want to
create, inherently shrinks the artifex, and makes the nation more and more victim of the
self-destruction of the material dialectic. How exactly the system is to be revamped to
efface patent trolls or patent troll-like activities (for which companies from Apple to
Intellectual Ventures are guilty) is outside the scope of this paper, but a start would be
to make it so that people couldnt own a patent for a product that they have not first
produced, nor allow a company or individual to own a patent for more than a year
without making clear efforts to create what theyve patented. A patent that a person
doesnt use should be revoked in favor of someone who will use it. What exactly would
define use is again outside the scope of this paper, but perhaps making a thing buyable
by average citizens is a good place to start. Also, if an associational thinker desires to
create an invention that brings together all the parts of different inventions, he or she
should be allowed to do so easily, as Eliot was allowed to bring together so many
thinkers and references to construct The Waste Land: the thinker should be responsible
for simply referencing where he or she got the parts. Current laws ruin associational

10.1 The fact that an oil company can currently own patents on alternative energy to keep
that alternative energy from being produced is a threat to national security, considering
the threat the material dialectic poises to a country without a strong and growing artifex.
Patents are used now by companies to keep superior competitors from beating them,

which ruins the entire market system. Current patent laws break the arm of the invisible

10.2 Perhaps as grounds for change, it could be the case that current patent and copyright
laws infringe upon freedom of speech, especially of the corporate persons of startups.
If individuals dont believe that startups are corporate persons (that they arent big
enough to achieve the status), this is no different than saying blacks arent persons
because of their skin color. If current intellectual property laws keep startups from
beginning, yet those startups have no realistic way in which to know whether their ideas
have already been patented by a company like Intellectual Ventures, then the current
system of laws restricts their rights of expression. It is an unconstitutional system of

10.3 All that said, unless the society emphasizes creativity, creativity will continue to be a
threat (as already touched on), and the current system of Intellectual Property Rights
must remain. Faulty philosophies necessitate faulty systems. The current patent system
keeps new technologies (like 3D printing) from being released on a mass system and
raising unemployment until absolutely necessary, which is threateningly necessary in an
uncreative society. In a way, the current system of intellectual rights is needed to
maintain the status quo for a society that lacks the vision and/or capacity to move
forward. It preserves comfort, but comfort is lost as soon as it is made a goal in itself.
Both the education and patent system should be changed simultaneously, for both need
the other rightly ordered to grow the artifex.

10.4 If a company in the 80s had patented scrollbars, where would society be today?

11. On autonomy: The true opposite of obedience is not disobedience but independence.
The true opposite of order is not disorder but freedom. The true opposite of control is
not chaos but self-control.A Keep in mind that autonomy is not the same as selfishness;
in fact, a lack of autonomy causes a rise in selfishness. The autonomous individual
recognizes the autonomy of his or her neighbors and so becomes selfless. It is between
autonomous individuals that the strongest relationships can be found. The dependent
individual fails to recognize the autonomy of others and so becomes selfish. While the
autonomous person controls his freedom, the selfish one is controlled by it.

AQuote from Jay Griffiths

11.1 There is potentially a correlation between the degree children are allowed to roam
outdoors and their degree of creativity. One of the great causes of the decrease in the
artifex may be the loss of free and open spaces like farms and cities children can

11.2 Overbearing and overprotective parents restrict the growth of the artifex. Creativity
requires risk and a free spirit, but as Hara Marano warns in A Nation of Wimps and
Jay Griffiths reports in Why Parents Should Leave Their Kids Alone, modern parents
are emphasizing safety and comfort at the expense of creativity and personal
development. The burdensome concern of parents is making the youth mentally,
physically, and psychologically fragile, setting them up for depression in college (where
administrations, out of guilt, may use grade inflation as a means to help their students
cope, lest the psychological state of the student body bring down the university). Parents
are ruining their childrens capacity to be creative with a sense of dependency that
quickly rots into a sense of entitlement. Academics are replacing achievement, rather
than being synonymous with each other, and rather than develop self-confidence,
children are becoming narcissistic. The benefits of play have been replaced with the
benefits of concern, experimentation with schedule, self-regulation with collecting
experiences, and drive with desire. Fueling these problems, the cell phone enables
parents, in love, to make sure that their children do whats best for them twenty-four
hours a day. Unable to make decisions, children cannot decide to be fearless and anxiety
rises, as ironically caused by the love and over-protectiveness of parents.

11.3 Helicopter parenting can be as damaging to the family as divorce. A point of the family
is the creation of freedom, as fueled by committed love. If a family doesnt increase true
freedom, the family is broken. In a nation that doesnt allow freedom, the family is just a
group of friends or associates with a biological connection, while a nation that allows
freedom, but lacks families, is a nation that lacks freedom. A nation that praises
freedom, but doesnt practice it or enable it with creativity, is hypocritical. There can be
no freedom without the family, but there can be no freedom without creativity. Without
freedom, there is no joy.

11.4 In a creative nation, parents wouldnt have to worry that their children must get straight
As in order to get a good career with benefits. Perhaps one of the causes of over-
protective parenting is an increase in the stakes of doing well in school. Today, failure in
school is nearly the same as failure in life. In a creative society, this wouldnt be the case:
failure in school would drive productivity, as would unemployment. In regard to the
economy, Cs in history would be as valuable as As. Grades would define the difference
between life courses, not between life and death. This being the case, in a creative
society, parents would be more at ease and more willing to let their children fail,
recognizing that failure doesnt necessitate finality. Seeing that over-protectiveness is a
symptom of anxiety, which trickles down onto the children, a reduction of stress would
cause an increase in freedom for children.

11.5 True creativity ends endless adolescence, so a growth in the artifex may help save
marriage and restore the family. Yet, for reasons already mentioned, as the family falls
apart, it is probable that the artifex will continue to decrease, as it is probable in a society
with an increasing artifex that the strength of the family increases. Thanks to the
invisible hand, both trajectories are self-fueling.

12. To allude to Jean Twenge, Generation Me is growing, not the artifex, even though the
potential for a strong artifex continues to increase. It is perhaps the case that the
increase of this potential, through technology, innovation, and so on, to the degree left
unrealized, is to the degree the fabric of society decays. In an age of increasing potential,
it seems to be the case that those who get it right, really get it right, but those who get
it wrong, really get it wrong. Since the potential for a large artifex must increase, for
technology and knowledge must inherently compound through time, it is not an option
to restrict it. The only option is the development of character and creative capacities.
Failing to do this will result in social decline.

12.1 It seems to be the case that there is an inverse relationship between the decline in
creativity and rise in Generation Me. Of course, Generation Me often justifies its
narcissism in the name of creativity or free expression, but this kind of supposed-
creativity is just another version of the same, faulty spirit of revolution that Marx
pointed to. Oddly, it uses creativity toward violence rather than non-violence, and uses
ones creativity as a claim to entitlement and identity without discipline. Though such a
person is a potential artifex, he or she isnt one (but only the person can know that). No
one else can judge.

13. In a society lacking creativity, freedom will also manifest as rebellion, for it must be this
way to gain the creativity it needs to be constructively free. To be peaceful and
beneficial, freedom and creativity require one another. The loss of one is the loss of the

14. All investment is spending, but not all spending is investment. It is human nature
though to want all spending to be investment, for, especially with a central bank, this
premise gives humans a sense of control over the economy. Any premise that humans
want to be true, will be true, for humans choose the lens through which they interpret
evidence. It is also the case that there will be less opportunities for investment than
spending in a society lacking creativity, making it easier to believe the noted, faulty
premise (a premise which also makes creativity seem secondary to consumption).

15. College should enable students to make jobs more so than to get jobs. High schools, or
different kinds of colleges, should focus on the latter; doing so would restore a balance
between college and high school. No longer would people feel like they have to go to
college to get a good job; college wouldnt promise any kind of job (which may be a
welcome change to many administrators). Nor would people who didnt go to college
feel inferior to those who went: they would often be better off than those who risked
making it on their own.

15.1 Ironically, when the goal of college is to give people jobs, college fails; when the goal is
to foster humanity, college enables individuals to make and acquire jobs. If first things
come first, seconds thing follow (to allude to C.S. Lewis). It should be noted that as
creativity dries up and jobs with it, there is a high likelihood that people and institutions
will panic and so start stressing the need to get jobs at the expense of creativity. This
increases the likelihood that the trajectory will stay the same (if not accelerate). What
you fear is what comes unto you.

16. A benefit to creative destruction is that it naturally irons out monopolies: large
companies are constantly undermined by new technologies and entrepreneurships. This
is perhaps why many companies today buy up as many intellectual property rights as
they can (and why a broken system of intellectual rights is such a threat). With market
mechanisms thrown off, antitrust laws have to be created to atone for the failure of
other laws. Ironically, such laws tend to inhibit the free market and creative destruction
which address monopolies, cartels, and various forms of price fixing, which results in
supposed evidence that antitrust laws are needed. Furthermore, and even more
ironically, it should also be noted that by eliminating creative destruction, a nation turns
its government into a monopoly that only revolution can break up.

17. To allude to Hayek, if a thousand people are looking at a text in Arabic and one person
knows the language, all thousand can know what the text says. Cumulative knowledge
always exceeds individual knowledge. Thanks to the internet, if one person discovers
something out, humanity does too. The freedom of each individual is to the benefit of
every individual. The more people are allowed to be themselves, the more all will grow
too. Equality for all and individual success are unified thanks to creativity and
17.1 In a society where individuals are free to learn what they want and how they want, there
is a much higher probability that creative solutions will be achieved to various,
unforeseen problems. If everyone is forced to learn the same material, say through
standardized tests, fewer problems will be overcome. Creativity is the opposite of
standardization; by emphasizing creativity, schools would enable students to contribute
to the whole of cumulative knowledge, rather than just take from it. Any school that
doesnt enable students to solve problems that its administrators dont even know exist
doesnt prepare its students for the future.

18. The desire to know is a threat to freedom as much as it is its enabler. The desire can be
one of control or growth; without creativity, it goes in the direction of the former more
so than the latter. If toward control, the desire works to make complexities (like people)
understandable and predictable (when those complexities function most profitably when
left alone). The desire can also be directed toward making people all the same, which
inherently limits individual freedom (because freedom is ultimately always individual:
there is group freedom only insomuch as group activity enables individual liberty).

18.1 The desire to know can also manifest in the form of deterministic philosophies. Marx,
to some extent, committed this error. History is deterministic insomuch as people
believe history is deterministic and live out their presuppositions into history. It is
always tempting to believe such a view, as a sense of control is always a temptation. For
this reason, it is also tempting to devalue creativity, for creativity is unpredictable. In a
creative world, determinism only applies to the degree the society isnt creative, for that
is to the degree its future is, unfortunately, predictable.

18.2 In line with Concerning Epistemology, when the desire to know does rear an ugly
head, it tends to manifest through arguments of safety and hypothetical situations. For
example (in regard to putting up a large warning sign where a crosswalk is): What if a
child gets hit by a car? Isnt it better to spend the money on a sign and make the street a
little less aesthetically pleasing than risk a childs life? To this point, no argument can
stand. Consider also similar arguments that have been made in support of laws for
seatbelts, alcohol, food codes, health care, drugs, etc., and how so much of the lawsuit
industry finds its lifeblood from safety concerns or attempts to keep dreadful things
from happening. Once a concern for safety or wellbeing is raised (usually through what
if arguments), it is nearly impossible to put it back down it always has an emotional
advantage. This sort of argument is a manifestation of the desire to know that a given
dreaded thing wont happen, and the more safety measures that are taken, the more an
individual is able to feel that he or she knows something bad will not occur. Its always
loving to sacrifice freedom to safety, and similarly fatal.

18.3 The desire to know is virtuous only when directed toward the right end liberty.
Liberty is necessary so that what cant be predicted can occur. Though humans arent
omniscient, freedom overcomes fallibility.

19. Marx believed that as prices inevitably fell, consequence of the overproduction
necessary to give everyone a job, the income stream to the working class would dry up
and revolution would happen. If people werent given jobs and prices stayed high,
revolution would also occur, because people would still lack income and be unable to
purchase the overpriced goods. Revolution being inescapable, Marx figured it was best
to go on and get it over with.
Despite this deterministic prediction (that stimulated the revolution that made this
prediction accurate), it is important to note that in more Capitalistic nations, where
Marx predicted revolution would occur, revolution hasnt happened. Rather, revolution
has tended to occur in impoverished nations like Cuba, China, and Russia, where
Capitalism hasnt been vibrant. Worse yet, adding insult to injury, Marx was wrong that
the state would fade away once the universal class was achieved. Rather, the state tends
to refuse to give up power (though nations like Singapore have proven that it is possible
for a nation to have a benevolent dictator, at least for a time). Revolution doesnt occur
in industrial society nearly as much as it happens in pre-Capitalist nations. Nonviolent
revolution through creativity, on the other hand, is prevalent where Capitalism is
successful. Though Marx was wrong about the inevitably of revolution, revolution is
inevitable where creativity is lacking. Its not inevitable though that creativity ceases to
flourish, which makes revolution non-deterministic.

The very fact that revolution is so rarely destined is evidence that people are naturally
creative. It also evidence that the internet has made it the case that one creative person
can make up for the lack of creativity of a million others, which decreases the likelihood
of military conflict significantly. As creativity enables nonviolent revolution, so it
enables nonviolent wars.

20. It is not Industrial Capitalism that causes revolution, but Industrial Revolution

21. Though the working class of 2013 has much more to lose, you have nothing to lose but
your chains applies if in regard to why people should be creative they have nothing to
lose but their boredom.

22. According to Feuerbach, because humanity is alienated, humanity creates God to save it.
Though Karl Barth addressed this critique theologically, it should be noted that
disembodied religions or escapist doctrines alienate an individual as much as does
circumstances. On the other hand, creativity is a projection of divinity not out of this
world, but into it, making the world more godly.

23. In school, if a child fails math, society tells the child to study more, because the system
believes that all should be rounded out. In the real world, when someone isnt good at
something, society tells that person to do something else, recognizing that people are
different. This causes neurosis. On top of that, the system tends to fill students time
with classes they will never use at the expense of opportunities for play and creativity.
Yet, if a student doesnt do well in all areas, that student is denied access into a college
where he or she will be allowed to pursue his or her passions. It doesnt seem sensible
that a genius should be denied a chance to study literature at Oxford due to a C in high
school math.

24. Without new possibilities or problems, the standard of living flat-lines and alienation
sets in. Since new issues must constantly be identified, utopia as a state is not possible
on earth, because fulfillment is found in finding problems and figuring out possibilities
to fix them. Once there are no more problems, there are no more possibilities.
Therefore, the creative concord isnt a miracle elixir for a problem-free world, but a
system by which problems can be individually overcome with the human mind and
creativity. It doesnt mean hurdles wont come, but it does mean the mind will be ready.
24.1 If meaningful, the word utopia refers not to perfection, but movement toward
perfection. Any policy, hence, that stops movement (or artifexian growth) is anti-
utopian. Ironically, when people seek to create a state of utopia, they lose utopia; when
they seek only to move toward utopia, they achieve it.

25. Someone who identifies problems is pessimistic only to the degree that individual isnt
creative. Creativity negates pessimism.

26. There is such thing as disembodied creativity, which occurs (for example), when an
individual forces another to make art by threatening to give that person a bad grade. If a
person is forced to be creative, that individual is alienated in the same way he or she is
when lacking creativity all together. To be true, creativity requires freedom. I would also
argue that forced creativity is a contradiction and will inevitably dry up, while free
creativity keeps growing freely. Creativity occurs in incubators, not under controllers.

27. Though both creative acts, a distinction can be drawn between the terms innovation
and creation. Innovation increases the capacity of a preexisting entity to achieve its
end, while creation gives rise to an entirely new entity with an entirely new end. In a
way, innovation improves upon what exists while creativity adds to what exists.
Innovation is also, in some ways, less creative than creation, but that doesnt mean it
isnt as valuable. In fact, it can be more valuable. This is because innovation is not as
tied to personal expression as is creation. A true act of creation cannot be done by
anyone but the individual who does it, while an innovative act is one that anyone can do.
The exact way that innovation occurs, though, will have personal touches that only that
particular innovator would have added. In Aristotelian terms, the innovator personalizes
the accidents of a substance, while a creator personalizes both the accidents and the
substance. Of course, a given innovation can actually be a creation, regardless the term
prescribed to it, as a given creation can actually be an innovation.

27.1 Every individual needs to do something that he or she feels is truly mine, and the more
personalized the activity, the more that act will overcome alienation. Therefore, its
better to be a creator than an innovator, yet all innovators maybe creators. Only they

28. An invention is both an innovation and a creation or one or the other: it depends on the
particular invention. The same can be said of artwork.

29. Whether a given creative act is detrimental or constructive for a society is a subjective
value judgment. One person will believe the invention of the gun has increased the
standard of living, while another will believe the opposite. Creativity can be good or bad,
and what one person finds wonderful, another may find awful. For every person who
believes Starbucks has been a blessing, another finds it a tragedy. Regardless the
subjective value assessment, creativity drives growth through the artifex, and so is a
necessity and good. Every creative act cannot be said to be good, for there is no clear
standard by which to determine good in a moralistic sense.

29.1 The more creativity there is, the more there will be a kind of creative competition (like
free market competition) that will increase the good over the bad. This is why it is
especially tragic for creativity to be limited, for in this state, there is a higher likelihood
of low-quality or detrimental creativity, for there is a lack of competition to kick out the
bad. Creativity then is directed toward making new weapons of wars, for example, rather
than toward solving the problems that lead to wars (like food shortages, poverty caused
by a decrease in creativity, a lack of clean water, etc.). In seeing this, it will be harder for
the people to believe in the value and importance of creativity, for all empirical evidence
will suggest the opposite. Consequently, it will be difficult for creativity to grow and to
keep the system from undergoing collapse in the material dialectic. The same occurs in
regard to the free market: the more limited it is, the less it works, which makes it harder
for people to believe it will work if left to its own devices.

29.2 Though most startups fail, as do most artists, all creative acts contribute to creating the
environment of creative competition that generates excellence, and if out of a million
people, one creates something that succeeds, everyone benefits. Excellence occurs
where there is competition and pressure in the right direction, and it is needed in the
market as much as it is needed in the drawing room. Unfortunately, competition can
direct focus in the wrong direction (such as when children compete to see who can
make the craziest Youtube video). Again, the invisible hand isnt inherently benevolent
(such as where creativity and training is lacking).

29.3 Quitting, not failure, is bad. Failure sweetens and enables success, while quitting makes
success impossible.

29.4 Thanks to the internet, the creative genius of one individual will make up for the lack of
countless others. If one person comes up with a new idea, everyone does. As a result, it
seems as if creativity is prevalent, for it seems that the million came up with the idea just
like the one. Likewise, because of a few successful businessmen, it seems like the entire
economy is doing well. However, neither maybe the case the economy could be
struggling as creativity could be drying up.

29.5 Further evidence that people are naturally creative is YouTube: it is bursting with videos
of all kinds. Most of it, arguably, is junk, but seeing that its popular, others may
disagree. I believe the nature of popular art today is a sign that creativity isnt being
cultivated or trained; consequently, creativity is directed toward producing destructive
entertainment. I also believe that a key to cultivating creativity is developing character,
that if character is cultivated, creativity will follow. Again, thanks to the internet, one
individual with creativity and character can make up for the lack of a million others, and
this makes it seem as if the million have been properly cultivated. It also makes those
million dependent on that one (as if indirect, alienated slaves), and if that one doesnt
come through, the million will be in trouble (and maybe even explode in anger on the
creative). Unfortunately, the internet masks the problem.

30. To explain a little more what it means that creativity becomes a sin in an uncreative
society: creative individuals, when the minority, are made to feel guilty for seeking
creativity opportunities (seeing that it, for example, denies their parents the opportunity
to tell neighbors that John is working for Goldman Sachs), for not taking life seriously,
for wanting to play instead of work, for doing what doesnt easily fit into an explainable
box, and more.

31. If you do not have the skill to build a house, you are, in a way, enslaved to the man who
has that ability. If you learn this skill, you regain your freedom. In this sense, skills are
liberties. Likewise, if you arent creative, you are enslaved to the individual who can
create: if you cant create wealth, you are dependent on those who can. Government
policies that restrict creativity react against the governments lack of liberty by take
liberty from others. In this transaction, no liberty is gained; liberty is lessened. In the
free market, skills, abilities, etc. liberties are exchanged for one another. A person
who lacks one liberty can gain it by exchanging the liberty he or she has with someone
who needs it. Yet as liberties can be gained through free exchange, they can also be
learned. Since all individuals have the capacity to learn (even though people have varying
material liberties), all people have the capacity to be free. Keep in mind that no one is
free in the same way, for no one has the same exact set of skills.

32. Freedom as a whole (versus types or dimensions of freedom) is not easy to define, but
its easy to recognize.

32.1 Freedom is the capacity to transcend alienation. Achieving freedom requires

government, economic, educational, and social consent to the superiority of individual
liberty. Though a poor nation may have a Democratic Republic, the people will not be
free, for they will not have the ability to rise above their circumstances, nor may they
care that they are free (to some extent). In a dictatorship, the people are not free to rise
above a government they disagree with; in schools that dont teach students to think for
themselves, the students will always be enslaved to the commands of superiors.
Economic strength tends to make way for all liberties as economic weakness tends to
limit them. A strong economy doesnt mean that there is total freedom, only a trajectory
toward it. Freedom, like utopia, must be reached toward perpetually.

32.2 Freedom entails doing what an individual is made to do, not just what an individual
wants to do. A boat is not free when used on the street: it is misused. What a given
person is made to do is up to that person, but only wants within the framework of that
purpose will be acts of liberty. Without purpose, nothing defines a free act from a mere
act: a meaning of life is the prerequisite for a liberated life. Making a purpose entails
creativity, and if it is the case that humans are anthropologically creative, than it is by
being creative that a human does what he or she was born to do.

32.3 Freedom is success and a person feels free as he or she approaches success. The
possibility for success entails being part of a system, game, mission, etc. where failure is
possible, and what entails success is up to the individual striving for it. It is only by
having a purpose in life that one can have a standard by which to determine success or
failure in life. This is not to say an individual cant have successes without purpose, only
that a person cant have success. Freedom is possible only where failure is possible, and
there can be failure only where there is purpose.

32.4 Freedom is achieving what is sought.

33. It is easy to inflate the success of an individual Capitalistic with Capitalism as a whole.
Though many succeed, many also fail. Many suffer, as many suffer in any system.
Capitalism isnt a perfect system, only the most perfect system. Capitalism doesnt make
everyone successful, but it tends to increase success. Of course, those who have been
successful are those most likely to point this out, while those who have been
unsuccessful are most likely to disagree. This is why the question becomes whether the
system is, in fact, the best. This isnt a matter of opinion, but of objective fact.
Hopefully, this paper has made it clear that Capitalism is the superior system only to the
degree that creativity occurs within it.

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been
tried, claimed Winston Churchill. Likewise, Capitalism is the worst-yet-best economic
model. Yet, as Democracy only achieves this state of superiority if people vote and work
to be informed, so Capitalism achieves its apex only when people are creative.

34. Herbert Marcuse, a renowned supporter and critic of Marx, recognized that the
Enlightenment project, which occurred to make humanity more rational and fearless of
the unknown, resulted in humanity being more afraid and more dogmatic than ever
before. The Enlightenment led to the theatre of the absurd. Marcuse recognized that a
society full of rational individuals is overall irrational. This seems to be a point that
obliterates Hayek; however, it must be recognized that there is a distinction between a
rational society and a free society. Hayek doesnt propose that every individual needs to
be rational, but rather claims that the net product of free individuals is always superior
to the genius of any single person or group.

Whether a society is full of rational individuals is irrelevant if that society isnt free, for
then it isnt possible for there to be a net collection of knowledge that guides the
development of the society organically. Marcuse is right to identify that an increase in
rationalism leads to irrationalism (for, in line with Concerning Epistemology, it is
natural that rationalism leads to a restriction of freedom and central planning). As
rationalism increases, freedom tends to decrease, even though rationalism could
empower freedom. It is the decrease in freedom then, as a consequence of the rise of
rationalism, which leads to overall irrationalism in the way Marcuse warns. In the end,
Marcuses findings actually serve as evidence for Hayeks proposals.

The more intelligent one becomes, the more one can come to believe that intelligent
people should make decisions over those less intelligent (and the individual mostly likely
has plenty of experiential evidence to support this belief). Also, as one increases in
intelligence, it becomes harder to believe that the net sum of others is intellectually
superior to oneself. Accepting this requires a faith and humility that the individual has
no reason to assent to, and seeing that the person has been taught to question and
doubt everything in being taught to be rational, accepting Hayeks findings will go
against what that person has been taught is right. Therefore, as a society becomes more
rational, it becomes more unlikely that the society will be Hayekian. Consequently, it is
increasingly probable that the society be irrational in its total workings, even though it
be rational on an individual basis.

It is also important to note that just because a person is rational doesnt mean the
person is wise in determining which framework to exercise his or her intelligence within.
If one, for example, decides that only that which can be observed is real, one has created
a framework in which to exercise all thought (even though this may not be a true
framework to use). It may also be the case that the more rational a society becomes, the
more it fails to recognize the existence of various frameworks or the necessity of
thinking about which framework is best.

35. Another way to determine if everyone is creative is to make everyone try Julia
Camerons The Artists Way.

36. The loss of the artifex is perhaps at least partially due to the alienation of the introvert,
as written about by Susan Cain.

37. Its not possible for businesses to predict innovations like the internet, so creativity is
necessary to respond to unpredictability. In this sense, creativity is practical in the same
way as is a fire alarm. Its often not needed, but when it is, it can be deadly not to have.

38. Society needs doctors, for example, but society doesnt need to emphasize its need for
doctors. Society needs artists, engineers, scientists, etc. no occupation is any more
valuable than the other. Without doctors, we lack the health to embrace creativity, but
without creativity, life loses its liveliness (and the economy slips into the material
dialectic). It is common today to emphasize the need for scientists, doctors, and
engineers, but it is this very declaration that causes a shift of focus from occupations
that generate the happiness and creativity necessary for a society to thrive. When there
isnt creativity, society will need more engineers in order to maintain the economy via
broken window fallacies; when there isnt happiness, there will need to be more
doctors in order to address the increase in depression and stress. The very emphasis on
doctors is what generates the need for more of them, as the very declaration for needing
more scientists and engineers is what causes the society to lose innovation and so have
no one else to turn to for economic sustainability. When artists are lost, depression
increases, and this functions as proof that society, indeed, does need more doctors,
fashioning a self-justifying loop (a paradox touched on in both Emotional Judgment
and Self-Delusion, the Toward-ness of Evidence, and the Paradox of Judgment). This
is another reason for why when the artifex class shrinks it is probable that it will
continue to shrink.

39. It seems nonsensical to do a work you dont want to do in order to cover the costs
necessary for you to keep doing it (all so that you can raise children to live out the same
cycle). Yet this has become the story of the average American; consequently, the
American dream has deteriorated. Innovation has stagnated, and as wealth creation falls,
so the foundation necessary for careers and employment goes with it. America is the
place where people do new things, according to Peter Thiel, yet because of the work
ethic we have moralized, America is ceasing to be the nation for artifexians. Passion
results in mastery and creativity, but in a nation which labels the passionate as
irresponsible (and even immoral dreamers), mastery and creativity dry up. Creative
thinking is hard enough in itself, let along without the pressures of a society that
dismisses creativity as childish. Society tends to do this in the name of practicality, but
it is creativity and wealth creation which makes it possible for a nation to have practical
avenues at all. Practicality impractically bites the hand that feeds it.

40. Since unemployment drives economic growth in a creative nation just as much as
employment, it isnt employment or unemployment which ultimately grows the
economy, but creativity.

41. Creativity generates resources for economies to allocate. When creativity is low, the
environment must suffer. The material dialectic will devour something, even itself.
However, anarchy doesnt necessitate the protection of the environment; in creativity, a
technology for saving nature can be found.

42. Colin Woodard, author of American Nations, claims that America isnt a Union, but
eleven nations with cultures that have always been segmented (to some decree). That
division has only intensified with time. Today, more and more people are moving into
communities with like-minded people, avoiding discomforting differences. Perhaps
immigration in the past helped mitigate some of this problem, but that is no longer the
case. Not only does this not bode well for Democracy, but it is also a problem for
creativity and wealth creation. According to Randal Collins, author of A Global Theory
of Intellectual Change, creative, philosophical, and innovative thought emerges along
the border where two groups of opposing thought meet: it is in the space between
Aquinas and Averroes where genius emerges, per se. In a divided nation, creativity dries
up, the artifex shrinks, and the economy implodes.

42.1 To know you arent bipartisan, you have to be bipartisan; to know you arent a critical
thinker, you have to think critically; to know you arent creative, you have to be creative.
This paradox results in societies thinking they are brilliant when in fact they are foolish.
In a society lacking cross-pollination, where the truly creative can encounter the
noncreative (and so forth), the noncreative will never have any reason to think that they
lack artifexian capabilities. Consequently, the people will think they are artifexians, and
yet the society will collapse.

43. A problem with Capitalism is its tendency to gravitate toward a world in which
consumers can choose to only be presented with options they want to see. Creativity is
often a result of stumbling upon ideas as a result of encountering phenomena that are
outside a persons current scope. When consumers can choose to not confront that
which makes them uncomfortable (or when the system caters presented options to
personal histories), it is likely that creativity begins to dry up.

Individuals with opposing political perspectives are starting to move away from one
another, and Google is beginning to customize search findings relative to browsing
history. Furthermore, citizens can watch stations and read newspapers that will confirm
what they already believe, and colleges and businesses are gravitating more and more
toward specialization. This doesnt bode well for the artifex class, and may lead to an
impulsion of the material dialectic.

43.1 A person with options isnt necessarily a person whos free.

43.2 A person with choices isnt necessarily a person with different kinds of choices. Every
framework contains its own set of options. Freedom is movement between frameworks,
not simply between choices.

44. A society without a freedom of speech is a society that will lack creativity. The First
Amendment, more so than individual expression, guarantees the right to an
environment in which one can express themselves freely without fear. Pub culture, in a
sense, is what the First Amendment protects. Considering the work of Randal Collins,
without this freedom, it is going to be very difficult for a nation to innovate and grow
the artifex class. Furthermore, a culture that lacks conversationalist skills will also
struggle. Perhaps this is another reason why television culture, as Neil Postman writes
on, is so devastating to society: the television robs culture of the capacity to overcome
the material dialectic.

44.1 Since conversation incubates creativity, we should be graceful to the people we speak
with. The more free they feel around us, the higher the likelihood they will exercise

45. Creativity gravitates toward producing nonsense. What is nonsensical can be filled with
the imagination and mean whatever viewers want it to mean. Furthermore, it is
enjoyable to participate in a collective joke. Take Gangnam Style: eventually, the line
between where the joke begins and seriousness ends fades away (perhaps a similar point
could be made about Capitalisms tendency to blur holidays).

Creativity also gravitates toward vulgarity, because popularity can feel better than
greatness. Vulgarity feeds natural, animalistic tendencies, while art feeds less natural
dimensions of human beings.

Absurd and vulgar expressions of creativity (especially in a society lacking in character)

will be more popular than creativity that expands the artifex class. Consequently,
demand can shift toward fueling creativity that doesnt keep the economy from self-
imploding (via the material dialectic). Once such creativity becomes popular, it may be
impossible to shift demand the other way again before economic collapse.

(These thoughts will be expanded upon in Should We Get Rid of the Internet?.)

46. Occupy Wall Street is an example of a movement that seems to believe its responsibility
is to point out that something is wrong, while refusing the responsibility of determining
what to do to fix it. Creative movements, on the other hand, find problems to fix.

47. What Money Cant Buy by Michael J. Sandel warns that market societies (defined from
market economies) are growing, which are societies that are willing to value everything
through market terms (even at the expense of other values). Sandel warns that for a
thing or action to be given a market value transforms how humans perceive and interact
with that phenomenon. Money changes the meaning of goods, and this can be for the
good or the bad. The moment I try to pay children to read, they will view reading not as
a good in itself, but as a means to an end. Though money often incentivizes, Sandel
notes, it doesnt necessarily incentivize toward the end an employer has in mind. When
I begin giving children $2 for every book they read, this will incentivize them not to
become better readers, but to read shorter and easier books.

Monetary values arent always bad, but they arent always good either. Money shouldnt
be involved in areas that it will corrupt rather than improve (which areas are which
requires discernment and character to determine). Professor Sandel points out that
money can crowd out civic duty and self-motivation. Since self-motivation, in line with
the thought of Daniel Pink, is the engine of right brain and creative thinking, a failure to
keep market economies from expanding into market societies can result in a dwindling
of the artifexian class, the impulsion of the material dialectic, and collapse of the market

Creativity inherently cultivates the capacity to discern values other than monetary values,
for creative individuals must have vision and drive toward the end of their creation long
before money is involved. A creative person has to value what he or she envisions for
his or her self: though it may generate revenue eventually, this internal value has to
come first. Creativity cultivates character, and it is through character that people can
discern values other than market ones. Creativity also forces individuals to stand by
what they believe in, and so to take their beliefs very seriously.

47.1 Rampant marketization may be a result of a societys desire to escape the big questions,
perhaps evident by the loss of public discourse and meaningful, democrat debate.
Marketization most certainly (like our technological distractions) helps us avoid angst
and existential crises, for when the markets decide our values, we dont have to decide
them for ourselves. If we did decide them, we would have to pick standards of value by
which to make these decisions, and this would cause anxiety and be an additional
hardship to add to our already-oversized pile of responsibilities.

Creativity, on the other hand, forces an individual to take on the big questions. An
artifexian has to ask why am I doing this?, what if this doesnt work out?, what will
other people think?, etc., questions which ultimately lead to questions like who am I?,
what matters to me?, why am I here?, etc. It is not by chance that the loss of creativity
and dwindling of the artifex class has coincided with a loss of philosophy and political

47.2 Unless they educate themselves out of it, humans cannot avoid wanting purpose and
asking whats the point?. Creativity enables an individual to synthesis all experiences
and phenomena in ones life into a produced whole, hence making it possible to give
everything in ones life a point. Nothing in a creative life ever has to be pointless: an
artifexian can direct anything and everything toward a point of his or her making.
Nothing lacks the potential for value.

The movement toward market societies and the monetization of everything is perhaps
an effort to fill the void left by the loss of the individual capacity to add creative values
to life. Since people have lost the capacity to add values, people require the market to
add it for them. This line of thought will be expanded upon in On Materialism,
Purpose, and Discernment.

47.3 The creative individual has a standard by which to determine what he or she should
consume (this being what contributes to my project?). In this sense, creativity equips an
individual with Creative Judgment, which has an objective, teleological basis. Through
creativity, an individual is able to determine which things fit the ends of his or her
making. Also, what is consumed by a creative individual is usually directed toward a
project and so recycled into it. A noncreative individual, on the other hand, may decide
what to consume through emotions (which can lead to problems expounded upon in
Emotional Judgment), or may use reason, but without creating wealth to replace what
is consumed.

(These points might shed like on why many creative individuals are involved with
environmental and sustainability movements.)

47.4 Monetary incentives, in a society lacking creativity, will incentivize not creativity and so
market sustainability, but materialism and market self-implosion. If incentives only
direct individuals to produce or consume, rather than create and recycle, wealth will only
be distributed until it runs out, but never created and multiplied. Capitalism requires not
only incentives to produce and consume, but also incentives to create and creatively
recycle. Creative incentives tend to be self-created, so a free environment that
encourages and cultivates self-motivation is necessary for a Capitalistic system (versus
the socioeconomic environment of America today that labels the creative as reckless,
insensitive, and impractical). Social constraints are as damaging as government ones.

47.5 Creative incentives always usurp monetary incentives. Monetary incentives work when
they contribute to a persons sense of purpose and creative end, but not when they
replace purpose and creativity. The woman who takes care of children because she
believes it is her purpose in life perhaps will be insulated by monetary compensation
(unless she needs it to keep taking care of children), while a woman who needs money
to paint will be motivated by it. Every situation is different.

47.6 There is no perfect system through which to allocate resources. However, creativity can
perfect the imperfect, or at least build it toward something better. What enables
creativity should be the standard used to determine which system of allocation and/or
incentives to use relative to a given phenomenon.

47.7 Monetary incentives to get children to read, for example, only jumpstart their love of
learning if the incentives intentionally guide the children to a state where they can
cultivate creativity and purpose for themselves.

47.8 As money changes our toward-ness, so may licensing.

47.9 It is possible that the introduction of money to an artist for his or her work may
transform the artists toward-ness. Consequently, it may become more difficult for the
artist to enter the flow state (as expounded upon by Mihaly Cskszentmihlyi), which
may negatively affect creativity. Expanding this thought out, it is possible that once
artifexians begin creating wealth, the artifex class will become less artifexian. Ironically,
the profitability of the artifex may ruin it. Yet, that said, the artifex class is still the only
way to keep the material dialectic from collapsing the entire system; therefore, the
cultivation of character and self-motivation are of the utmost importance. It is one of
the greatest challenges to develop individuals who are not negatively transformed by
money, but this is necessary in order for wealth creation to continue and expand.

48. According to Sugata Mitra, mastermind behind Hole in the Wall experiments,
education is a self-organizing system. This means that a structure of education arises
without any intentional organization and that learning is an emergent phenomenon.
Teachers do not need to make learning happen, but let it happen. According to Mitra, if
students are equipped with the ability to find answers (which is globally possible now
thanks to Google and the internet) and presented interesting questions, children will do
the rest. All a teacher has to do is encourage and inquire. On their own, children learn,
master divergent thinking, and cultivate creativity, which are all necessary for the growth
of the artifex class and avoiding economic collapse.

48.1 As price mechanisms, when left alone, provide the guidance for participants to self-
organize the economy (according to Hayek), so encouragement and questions from
teachers guide students to self-organize education. Considering that this is all a teacher
needs to do, it is fair to question if unions and bureaucracy are needed.

48.2 The internet and Google has made it unnecessary for people to use large parts of their
brains to store up facts, leaving large parts of it empty. If these parts are not directed
toward creative endeavors, children will slip into boredom and depression. Considering
rising depression medication and Adderall prescriptions, there is evidence that this is
already happening.

48.3 The very nature of standardized testing forces schools to be managerial. If Mitra is right,
this is the exact opposite of what education needs. It is perhaps the case that
government is inherently managerial and, in nature, the antagonist of any self-organizing
48.4 It is possible that teachers who are themselves not very creative or in need of
management (perhaps after being brought up through a managerial school system that
stifled their autonomy), will not value and even discourage creativity and autonomy,
which will stifle the self-organization of education and creativity (to the determent of
the artifex class and society as a whole).

48.5 If education is self-organizing, it is evidence that humans are anthropologically and

inherently creative.

48.6 Mitras work, I believe, provides evidence for reconsidering the value and role of
Employment Testing, which will be expanded on in future work. For now, it can be said
that schools are Employment Tests in disguise (though everyone knows it, because the
main reason people encourage children to go to college is in order to get a good job).
If, on the other hand, it was less legally risky for businesses to offer these tests, schools
and colleges could focus on creating an environment where children taught themselves
rather than focus on building resumes. Concerns about tests ruin education as do
concerns about resumes. Considering this and Mitras work, a college that functions also
as an Employment Test is a terrible paradox.

48.7 The political theory of Liberty, which America is founded on, is a theoretical construct
for government similar to Mitras theory for education and Hayeks theory for
economics, all of which seem reminiscent of the work of Mandelbrot.

48.8 Considering On Thinking and Perceiving, the act of thinking is a threat to all self-
organizing, organic systems, such as the economy according to Hayek and education
according to Mitra, because a self-organizing system, by definition, cannot be
comprehended. The very act of thinking about such a system is that which creates a
perspective and framework in which management and central planning are proven
necessary. If you think about children teaching themselves alone in a classroom, you will
see chaos and errors more so than success (in line with thought expanded on in
Concerning Epistemology and Self-Delusion, the Toward-ness of Evidence, and the
Paradox of Judgment). Since it involves children, you are also primed for emotional
judgment and fears that arise from what if concerns (what if the children dont learn?,
what if this doesnt work?, what if something bad happens?, etc.). The very act of
teachers confirming that children are learning (even if the teachers are truly neutral and
bipartisan) can create evidence that proves education isnt self-organizing (say by giving
a test after a period of self-organization, which scares the children and turns off their
brains). Therefore, teachers must be careful before trying to be scientific about their
classrooms. When it comes to education, rather than think about whats best for
children, its best for teachers to simply guide and watch children do whats best for

49. Considering Dont Send Your Kids to the Ivy Leagues by William Deresiewicz, it is
possible that civilization has wired the best and brightest brains of the generation to be
unable to join the artifex.

50. When a society is lacking in creativity (and especially when colleges have a monopoly on
credentials, as discussed in Innovating Credentials by O.G. Rose), it is probable that
programs like Affirmative Action will be controversial. This is because when a society
lacks creativity, much of its hopes for succeeding rest in succeeding in college and/or
following the prescribed course set by the society, and when people feel as if they are
denied access to college because of their race, they can become resentful. With creativity
though, as it is with unemployment, the denied individual simply adapts and makes his
or her own way.

51. America, at least in the past, has been the most creative nation in history. Yet Americans
arent smarter than other peoples; in fact, they may be stupider. The difference is that
America creates an environment in which creativity and the artifex class can flourish.
Immigrants who come to America who werent creative in their home countries
suddenly become business leaders in America. It is not their intelligence that changes,
but their environment: they come to a place of liberty where they can self-organize.

51.1 It seems that a Democratic Republic is the best form of government by virtue of the
fact that virtually every major invention of the last three hundred years has come from
America. The rate that the standard of living has increased for the entire world over the
last three centuries far outpaces every period that came before it. Computers, cars,
airplanes, etc. all were invented in America and then distributed to the rest of the world,
benefiting the globe. Before the Democratic Republic was invented, thousands of years
passed with only moderate technological advancement. This isnt to say there werent
major inventions, only not as many or as frequently. America has single-handedly raised
the quality of life for the world because its societal structure incubates an artifex class.
However, in such an environment, we must keep in mind the warnings of men like Neil
Postman: not everything technology does is good.

If it is in reference to this historic impact that one says America is the greatest nation,
the statement is true. If, however, the statement is uttered to imply that America is
perfect, the statement is false.

51.2 Errors in Capitalism are contained and solutions distributed, while both errors and
solutions in Central Planning are dispersed. Through time, therefore, it is probable that
Capitalism prevails. Though Central Planning may leap ahead of Capitalism, like the
hare racing the tortoise, in the end, the tortoise wins.

52. If it is true that, anthropologically, humans are creative, a teleological, social ethic, as
Aristotle would have it, can be established. Since government and law cannot decree
that people be creative or how they should do so, and since creativity thrives in
freedom, it is then just for government and society to increase freedom as much as
possible. A truly free, capitalist society then, is a just one. Also, if human nature is
creative, then it is human nature to define the purpose of this creativity. Consequently,
humans arent bound by their natures, and the nature of humanity is liberty from nature.
This being the case, if man is anthropologically and ontologically creative, liberal
morality and teleological morality blend in creative acts.

52.1 Nikolai Berdyaev deserves wider recognition.

53. When larger businesses come to a community, it is argued that they bankrupt small
businesses and destroy the communitys culture. This equates culture to small
businesses, when in fact culture, more essentially, is creativity. Yet it isnt so much the
closing down of small businesses that causes the end of culture, but the loss of
creativity, which tends to occur simultaneous with the arising of big business. Not
because big business destroys creativity, but because as the economy grows, there is less
emphasis on, if not antagonism toward, creativity As creativity drops, so goes both
wealth and culture (which are inseparable).

53.1 If the culture of typewriters was still around, the world wouldnt necessarily be a better
place. Culture isnt an inherent good, though life without culture hardly lives.

54. Our behavior changes our ideas more often than our ideas change our behavior (to
borrow from Peter Selby). This means that society will probably not understand the
importance of creativity (and what exactly creativity is) until it itself starts being creative.
A leap of faith is necessary, which the society will see no reason to take (and, being
uncreative, lack the imagination to envision and conceptualize). Unfortunately, this is
often why society doesnt appreciate creativity until after an implosion of the material
dialectic and/or economic collapse, which then forces it to consider new ways of doing
things. Creativity tends to follow destruction, not because such is fated, but because
humans more often react than prevent.

55. Steven Levitt in his TED Talk The Freakonomics of McDonalds Vs. Drugs, perhaps
offers an insight into what Capitalism devolves into without a strong and growing
artifex class.

56. If creativity emerges from the subconscious mind more so than the conscious mind, this
suggests that humans are anthropologically creative.

57. To reference the thought of Steve Keen, Joseph Schumpeter, and Hyman Minsky,
Capitalistic societies are inherently unstable. When they achieve supposed-states of
equilibrium and/or tranquility, the societies forget about the last crisis and begin
speculating again, resulting in another crisis. The success of Capitalism inevitably leads
to times of excessive debt and destabilization. Instability is an inescapable dimension of
the system.

Along with this, Capitalism is unstable because Capitalism is driven by creativity, and
creativity is organic and unpredictable. Creativity is a stabilizing instability that balances
the destabilizing stability of Capitalism. Capitalistic stability occurs when this instability
is prevalent, and Capitalistic stability destabilizes when this instability is absent.
Creativity is Capitalisms necessarily instability: the structural and the organic require one
another. Creativity, which occurs on the level of micro-economics, changes
socioeconomic environments, which are on the level of macro-economics. What needs
to be created is relative to these environments, so as environments change because of
creativity, the goals of creativity also change. Creativity recreates creativity.
Consequently, there is a constant instability between micro- and macro-economics.

Furthermore, during times of tranquility and Capitalistic success, the creative are
chastised. They are frowned upon, for example, by parents and friends for being
impractical, weird, and not pursing stabile lifestyles. Arts and humanities graduates are
scoffed at, entrepreneurs branded as dreamers, and writers deemed fools. The list goes
on. When the economy begins to fail and people realize they have no choice but to
create jobs for themselves, entrepreneurship and creativity can make a comeback, but
usually not before then. Before then, creativity is turned on in the name of economic
stability, which causes, ironically, economic instability. Unfortunately, rather than restore
creativity, societies tend to turn to the financial sector to cover (but not fill) the hole of a

missing artifex with debt. When the artifex class shrinks, societies tend to grow the
financial sector to replace it.

Debt and speculation rise during times of tranquility while creativity falls. Though
correlation doesnt necessitate causation, there seems to be a relationship between debt
and creativity. It could be the case that as creativity falls and instability increases, the
society turns to debt and speculation to stabilize it and to artificially create wealth. It
could be that the society becomes materialistic and turns to speculation regardless, and
that creativity cannot keep up.

It seems that the instability caused in tranquility leads either/both to speculation and/or
creativity. During times of stability, it seems that it will be possible to finance debts in
the future, and since debt is easy and creativity hard, it is likely that a society tends
toward speculation versus creativity. As creativity drops, the society has to rely more on
debt to make up for (and hide) the loss of wealth creation. The shrinkage of the artifex
class seems to cause, or at least accelerate, the transformation of Capitalism into a
Creditism and/or Banktocracy.

Not all instabilities are equal, and while the instability of creativity leads to wealth
creation, the instability of debt leads to booms and busts. Capitalism, being a dynamic
system, requires some instability at its center to drive it, and either the instability of debt
or the instability of creativity will do. Both can exist in a system at the same time, but
theyre not the same thing. Debt from financial sectors must be backed ultimately by the
creation of wealth to keep from imploding. The instability of debt needs the instability
of creativity to maintain stability. Unfortunately, because creativity, in its nature, is
unstable, and because the society tends to turn against it during good times, to Minskys
point, stability seems to destabilize.

57.1 Another reason Capitalism might be inherently unstable is because wealth production is
usually driven by (creativity through) science and engineering, which can cause a
positivistic and materialistic worldview to spread. Creativity, by its nature, cannot fit into
the parameters of scientific verification and method, and its unstructured nature stands
in contrast with rigid science. Since during times of tranquility stability is valued, science,
in being stable, can come to be valued at the top of a social and academic hierarchy,
while creativity is left below. As a result, due to social pressures, the artifex class shrinks,
the material dialectic breaks down, and instability rises.

57.2 Because creativity is disregarded during times of tranquility, and because creativity,
which drives wealth creation, is innately unstable, Keen, Schumpeter, and Minsky are
right to assert that Capitalism is inherently unstable. That said, keep in mind that
stability and equilibrium are associated with good, while instability and
unpredictability are associated with bad because of societal values, not because
stability is actually superior to instability. To say Capitalism is inherently unstable isnt
to say Capitalism is bad, as to say creativity is organic isnt to say creativity should be
done away with. The statement simply reflects the nature of Capitalism, which arguably
is no different than the nature of life (which is unpredictable and unquantifiable).
Stability isnt a virtue, but simply a state of things, as is instability.

57.3 Arguably, it is not inevitable that, during a period of tranquility, a Capitalistic society
disregards creativity and causes the artifex class to shrink, and so perhaps Capitalism
isnt inherently unstable (though it might have instability driving it at its core). However,
it can at least be said that it is inevitable that social pressures against creativity increase,
and so likely that the artifex class shrink. The very fact that this tension is inevitable
could be said to verify that instability is unavoidable.

57.4 If creativity remains constant and grows, there will be a creation of new wealth to back
up debt and speculation amassed during tranquility, and so instability will be avoided.
Unless, that is, speculation greatly exceeds wealth creation, which is very possible, if not
likely. However, in a truly creative society, since a creative individual tends not to be a
materialistic individual, desiring to direct most if not all efforts and purchases toward
projects, debt and speculation may have little soil to take root in.

57.5 In line with Hayek, a society must create an environment in which stable instabilities
can freely flow and self-organize. Equilibrium occurs when creative, unstable, and
unpredictable forces push against one another, resulting in a balanced tension which
drives creative competition (as has already been described). This can only happen in a
free environment, while controlled systems stifle creativity.

57.6 Instability must be the finding of any model that accurately depicts a self-organizing
system, not because the system itself is necessarily unstable, but because the model
cannot handle it. Models are not economies.

57.7 Arguably, instability is more frightening than stability, but it cannot be said that stability
is superior if it never forces individuals to overcome their fears. In fact, the opposite
could be argued.

57.8 There is a need for a distinction between production and creation. Creation is the
making of novelties; production, the reproduction of once-novelties. Creation, not
production, drives the market.

57.9 Debt that can be paid off by production isnt as much a problem as is debt that can only
be paid off by creation.

58. Public debt keeps private debt from collapsing. Yet, public debt can cause a bond
market crisis and threaten the value of the currency. Both public and private debts are
problems in their own right. Both are addressed not by increasing debt, but by
increasing creativity (though this isnt to say debt cannot fund creativity).

59. The Efficient Market Theorem is true only when the market is creative. Likewise,
government stabilizes, but this stabilization is sustainable only to the degree that
creativity arises to back it.

60. The economy is optimally a balanced environment in which creativity can emerge and
flourish. Variables like inflation, public debt, etc. should be judged against the degree
they will enable creativity rather than grow the economy in their own right (for all such
growth is temporary and unsustainable).

61. The market is rational insomuch as it is creative, for the creative person predicts the
future insomuch as he or she creates it.

62. Determining if one car is more valuable than another is much more difficult than
determining if a car is more valuable than a horse (though that isnt to say horses are
bad, keeping in mind that value is relative to end). New technologies are easier to
value against present technologies than present technologies against one another. This is
both true in deciding if a new technology adds value or if it doesnt add value:
naturally having an attachment to what we are used to, we will only change our ways if
the new alternative is significantly better than what we already have (which is relative to
the individual).

When creativity is plentiful and so technological advancement abundant, it is easier for

the market to be rational in a way that is actually good and true. Creativity aids
rationality. Without creativity and a growing artifex, the efficiency of the market will

62.1 Even if the market is rational, that doesnt necessarily mean the premises which the
market is rational relative to are true premises. Financial crisis make it clear that, even if
the market is always rational, the market it isnt always right (however, this doesnt mean
that the free market isnt good and/or the best system, which is a different question).
Creativity is a better driver of efficient markets than rationality without it.

63. If Capitalism is unstable, it is inevitable that Capitalism leads to totalitarianism either

because freedom is lost down a road to serfdom or because the market collapses.
Capitalism is unstable without creativity and will inevitably fail; however, if creativity
stays high, this unstable environment in which creativity is possible will hold together.
Things will not fall apart the center will hold.

64. Lord Keynes concluded that Capitalism has no economic safety nets. This is true in a
sense, yet if human nature is creative, than the system has a recovering mechanism
embedded into it insomuch as people participate in it who have a creative nature
embedded into them. The system, in of itself, is unstable, because the system is unstable,
creative people. With people, there are no guarantees: one day they are like gods; the
next, monsters.

64.1 The recovery mechanism of Capitalism is creativity, and perhaps this is a reason artists
are associated with starving.

64.2 Unstable, creativity sets the bar of equilibrium higher and higher.

64.3 Sometimes, the horror of their deeds can bring out the divinity in people.

64.4 Keynes concluded that Capitalism had no automatic safety nets. Since Capitalisms fail
safes are the reactions of organic people, the very act of looking for safety nets (and so
thinking about them, in concordance with On Thinking and Perceiving) results in
individuals being unable to see them. The opening of a seed to observe its mechanics,
even when in hopes of learning how to help it grow, kills it.

65. Like Democracy, the greatest threat to Capitalism is success. When successful, people
become complacent and lost in short-term goals and benefits. Consequently, problems
arise which have to be addressed. People, in solving problems, then create new
problems to be solved; hence, the system is self-motivated. Since both are stably
unstable, Democracy and Capitalism are fitting for one another. The worst combination
with one of these is either a government or economy that requires more steering: this
throws off the self-motivated process. Of course, this means a main drive of the system
is failure and mistake. Ironically, therefore, governmental or economic models that try
to solve problems, rather than let people solve them, beget the larger problem of a
broken system. In trying to solve problems, they expand them.

66. Imagination threatens our way of life.

67. Where there is no demand, there is no economy. Demand manifests through spending,
which is a means by which a person achieves the end he or she demands. If a man lacks
a house, his demand manifests through his spending to purchase a house. If there was
no demand, there would be no spending, and so no economy.

If there was no lack, there would be no demand, but since humans are not gods, there
will always be some kind of lack. Hence, there will always be an economy. However, as
basic needs are met and as problems are overcome, there will be less and less lack and
so less and less demand. This will result in a reduction of spending and production,
which will hurt the economy. Ironically, the more successful the economy, the more the
economy fails.

Unless the nature of demand changes, that is. Demand most typically manifests either
because a person has a problem he or she needs solved or because a person wants
something that he or she doesnt have. Yet demand driven by problems or lack, as the
economy advances, is demand that will shrink. Fortunately, there is demand driven by
creativity, which is infinite.

The creativity of one person can never be the creativity of another; it is profoundly
individualistic. Humans will always lack the creativity of one another, considering
creativity is the manifestation of a persons one-of-one-ness. Hence, because there is
creativity, there can always be demand. However, that assumes the presence of
creativity; in a society where creativity is lacking, infinite demand will also be lacking,
and so a paradoxical economy one that succeeds toward failure will be present (at
least in the sectors lacking or law in creativity).

67.1 Creativity, often considered economically impractical, is economically necessary.

Without it, demand cannot last.

67.2 Demand driven by problems or lack, as the economy advances, is demand that will
shrink. To revitalize demand, the government may reduce the spending power of the
currency, doing so by putting money in peoples pocket through various means of
stimulus that simultaneously makes saving the money illogical. Though this may
revitalize demand for the short term and buy time for creativity to be incubated, if
creativity does not emerge, this stimulus will not, in the long run, work. This isnt to say
stimulus cant work, but that it can only work to the degree it stimulates the artifex.

In the act of spending, spending and demand conflate, but the reasons one demands
and spends vary. A person who spends to address a need or to invest is not the same as
a person who spends because he wants to use his money before it loses value; the
person who already has a demand is different from the person who looks for one. The
second person is less likely to spend his money well he is more likely to simply spend
than he is to spend/invest and so his money is less likely to benefit the economy as
much as it could.

All demand requires spending, but not all spending requires (real) demand (though, in
the act of spending, the difference between real demand and demand cannot be
determined). One can spend and not really want something; they can spend because
they force themselves to want something (because their money is losing value). In a
sense, demand can be inflated as can money; by inflating money, the government can
create demand that isnt there. Not all demand is good; when demand is toward
spending at the expense of investment, demand drives a paradoxical economy in which
success and failure become two-sides of the same coin (as already discussed). Demand
isnt an inherent good it depends on what is demanded and acts to stimulate demand
that orientate demand toward spending over investment are detrimental. However,
stimulations which orientates demand to growing the artifex are beneficial.

67.3 All investment is spending, but not all spending is investment; conflating spending and
investment has been an unfortunate mistake. Yes, investment needs spending to
function, as the artifex needs the material dialectic within itself (via sublation), but
when spending replaces or passes investment, spending fails (as the material dialectic

Causing the conflation of spending and investment is the idea that all spending is
someones income. Though this is the case, the income of a bartender does not affect
the socioeconomic order the same way as does the income of an inventor. When an
inventor makes money, more technology maybe invented, expanding the artifex and
keeping the material dialectic from collapsing. On the other hand, when a bartender
makes money, his livelihood is maintained, but he doesnt necessarily help the material
dialectic avoid self-destruction. This isnt to say bartenders shouldnt make money, only
that all incomes are not equal. And lastly, if everyone were to spend their money at a
bar, though all the spending would be the bartenders income, this would not be good
for the economy. The spending has to go toward investment (by being the income of
an artifexians, etc.), and though all spending maybe income and though all income
maybe beneficial to the one receiving it, not all income grows the artifex. Of course, the
income of a bartender may eventually end up, through his spending, in the hands of an
artifexian, but this will not be as efficient and guaranteed as a more direct route (which
is increasingly probable as increases the thoughtfulness of the spender, which may
decrease as stimulus increases) (on this point, consider the work of Hayek).
Furthermore, the artifexian maybe out of business before the bartender gets his income
to him, having already run out of money.

67.4 Though one would still have to determine the best rate to spend money so that the
economy could most efficiently absorb it, if spending a dollar always resulted in the
creation of a dollar or two dollars worth of wealth, spending would always be beneficial
or at the very worst, neutral (which, this being the worst that could happen, would make
spending always rational, since, through time, probability would have value inevitably
emerge). And for spending which is investment, this is indeed the case, but not all
spending is investment. The question then emerges: which spending is more likely to
be investment? Spending by the State or spending by the society?

67.5 Though all spending is someones income, not all spending solves problems and/or
increases the quality of life. Economies exist primarily to solve problems; providing jobs
spills out from this function. Spending which only provides jobs but doesnt increase
the artifex is spending that, though addressing problems within the material dialectic,
does not simultaneously address the problem of the material dialectic itself. Spending
may provide someone income to address their present expenses, but investment does
this as well as contribute to addressing future concerns.

67.6 All spending that results in creativity is good, even if creativity which fails, for all
creative spending contributes to an incubator of creativity and the artifex (if for no more
reason than tearing down the societal pressures against being creative).

68. Creativity is incredibly valuable: a single invention, like the car, can create enough wealth
to finance jobs for a hundred years. The power of creativity is immense and a little bit
goes a long way. Even if there is only one Steve Jobs in the entire world, Apple can still
change everything. Unfortunately, this being the case, the amount of creativity present in
a society can seem more pervasive than it actually is: the artifex class can be shrinking
and the society have the delusion that the artifex is not just stable, but growing. It is in
creativitys nature to conceal its erosion: creativity catches itself off guard.

69. It is not demand that creates wealth, but creativity. Demand is directed toward wealth
that already exists, while creativity is directed toward making exist what currently
doesnt. Creativity expands the parameters in which demand operates. Creativity grows
Capitalism beyond itself, while demand keeps it growing within itself. Both are
necessary, but a tree that stays alive but doesnt grow taller isnt much of a tree.

70. Tradition is to creativity what memory is to consciousness.

71. Is it necessary to increase the standard of living? Though always economically beneficial,
on a personal level, that is a subjective question. That said, it is, by definition, always
good to increase the quality of a persons life relative to the values of the person for
whom the increase occurs. How often this needs to occur is again a subjective question,
but, by definition, it is always good when it occurs. Therefore, the more it happens, the

72. It is important that the economy becomes ecologically sustainable, but it is also
important that we do not cause a French Revolution to achieve that end. When faced
with a crisis, we are always urged to do something immediately, but racing forward, even
when to save the world, can make matters worse. To save our environment, we must
grow and expand the artifex; after all, the only way we will save our environment
without destroying our societies is through technology and creativity. A quick glance
through World Changing by Alex Steffen gives one a sense of how artifexians can solve
our environmental problems. The more creativity in the system, the quicker and more
brilliantly our environment will be saved. It is tempting to use legislation, but legislation
can hinder creativity and lower the quality of life, trading our problems for new ones.
Though legislation may treat symptoms, creativity treats causes.

It is tempting to blame Capitalism for our environmental problems, and there are
grounds for this critique. The paradigm economics is the distribution of limited
resources versus economics is the creation of limited resources has had a heavy price.
That said, Capitalism is the system in which the artifex can be incubated; if it isnt, it
isnt so much Capitalisms fault as it the fault of those in the system. Furthermore,
Capitalism has phrases, and the phrases of the past must be overcome by the phrases of
the future. When you are a child, it is necessary that you be, to some degree, dependent
on your parents to survive; as you get older though, it is necessary that you learn not to
be so dependent. What helped you survive in the past is the very thing you must
overcome to thrive in the future. Likewise, the technologies that enabled Capitalist
nations to prosper are the very technologies we need new technologies to evolve out
from; otherwise, our development will stagnant. Creativity keeps the evolution going,
and where it drives up, Capitalism devolves.

73. If creativity is high, monetary and fiscal policy both become secondary. If there is too
much inflation in the system, creativity will eventually catch up to it; if there is too little,
creativity will bring prices down. The boom and bust cycle becomes a much smoother,
cyclical process, defined not so much by there being too much or too little spending or
saving, but by the catching up of money to creativity and/or the catching up of
creativity to money. High creativity smoothes out the curves upwardly.

74. According to Hayek, the function of prices is to coordinate the distribution of

resources. He argues that the free market is more efficient at distributing wealth then
government, and that government involvement causes inaccurate pricing, throwing off
the process of distribution. If this is true, according to Hayek, a free market, not the
government, is the most efficient way to realize John Rawls desire for a society that is
just because it is fair (which Rawls argues for through his veil of ignorance

That said, if a free market lacks creativity, alienation and the material dialectic will make
price mechanisms worthless. Therefore, in order for price mechanisms to fulfill their
function, a society must be creative. Prices, though they may efficiently distribute
resources, cannot create wealth.

75. Social entrepreneurship makes us believe that the more we consume, the more we
alleviate poverty. Creativity, on the other hand, in providing something to consume,
provides solutions to poverty.

76. The question of whether Capitalism inevitably devolves into a Banktocracy similar to
the question of whether Marxism inevitably devolves into Leninism depends on
whether or not it is inevitable that government expands (ironically). If it is inevitable that
government grows, because it is inevitable that business corrupt (and then cheat
through) a large government, it is inevitable that Capitalism, like Marxism, fails. If this is
the case, at the very least, creativity and an expanding artifex class maybe able to delay
this inevitable spoiling.

77. Creativity necessitates freedom, but freedom doesnt necessitate creativity. It is not
freedom that primarily defines Capitalism from Communism, but creativity, which
entails freedom. The focus on freedom by Capitalists versus creativity has resulted in
confusion and inefficiency in regard to policies and purpose. Freedom without act is
empty, while freedom with act can be world-changing. Furthermore, it is not freedom
that results in wealth, though it is the environment in which wealth/creativity arises;
rather, it is creativity. By focusing on freedom over creativity, Capitalists have
overlooked what makes Capitalism so great. This is an easy mistake, seeing that freedom
is so appealing in its own right, but by putting seconds things first and first things
second (as C.S. Lewis would put it), Capitalists have failed to show a complete picture
of Capitalism or present clearly why Capitalism is good for societies.

78. To address Antifragile by Nassim Taleb, humans are made creative by disorder: disorder
begets artifexians. Much of creativity emerges through cross-pollination across
disciplines, encountering the unpredictable, being outside of ones comforts zone, etc.
Without disorder, there is no incubator for creativity; consequently, there is no artifex,
and the economy self-destructs.

Humans and societies need volatile environments; otherwise, humans weaken. If

humans spend all their time in room temperate, other temperatures more easily harm
them, as a child that is never exposed to bacteria is more prone to get sick. Disorder
strengthens, as trial and error order benefits. Unfortunately, the benefits of disorder are
undividable from its downfalls, as trial and error, by definition, requires error.

Humans evolve through suffering, yet dont want to suffer: what evolves is averse to
evolution. This irony is common: often humans want an end without the means. We
want money without working, championships without practice, and treasures without
searching. Before our modern age, though humans didnt want to suffer, they didnt
have the technology or intelligence to create environments that shielded them from it.
Never before has humanity been able to protect itself from the volatility which
strengthens it. Until now, stability and comfort were never realizable temptations.

As humans are prone to fall victim to short-term gratification over long-term success,
humans are prone to fashion stability over volatility. Furthermore, it seems irrational to
prefer the volatile, seeing how comfortable and pleasant stability feels. Considering this,
what is rational is not always beneficial: to say the market is rational doesnt always
mean the market is good.

As humans create more stable environments, they not only make themselves more
fragile, but also less creative. Creativity is to uncertainty what smoke is to fire. Where
there is a lack of stability, the fragile those reliant on predictability and stability will
break, and the antifragile the creative, the entrepreneurial, the artifexian will emerge
and thrive. The robust will maintain their trajectory. Considering this, in uncertainty
(which is ultimately unavoidable in an imperfect world), a fragile system, like a fragile
people, loses a lot and gains little, the robust loses and gains about the same, and the
antifragile gain a lot and lose little.

A creative system is an antifragile system, and a society with a large artifex class is a
society that benefits from (inevitable and natural) uncertainty and volatility.
Furthermore, an artifex society is one that has a lot to gain and little to lose. As it is
rational to be antifragile, it is rational to be artifexian. To be creative is to be antifragile,
and so it is to ultimately be rational, though comfort and stability feel rational.
Uncertainty and volatility are inevitable in an imperfect world, especially one that is
increasingly complex. Hence, to be creative is to be ready for the inevitable; in other
words, to be creative is to be practical.

78.1 In a sense, the robust serve as the basis from which the artifexian can spring off from,
while the fragile are the ones who eventually fall away. In other words, the robust
maintain wealth, the antifragile create wealth, and the fragile lose it. Keep in mind that,
though antifragility entails robustness, robustness doesnt necessarily entail antifragility.

Without antifragility, when uncertainty occurs, not only can a society not benefit
creatively from it, but the society can only survive to the degree it is robust. Without
robustness, unpredictability breaks it.

Finally, though the event that breaks a society cannot be predicted, its fragility can be
measured by how much its size exceeds its artifex class.

78.2 A free market is where disorder and chaos are not prevented by an over-arching
manager of any kind. It is a system where the fragile ultimately break, the robust survive,
and the antifragile thrive. It is a system where those who are antifragile blossom to the
benefit of all, and where the fragile collapse before becoming too big to fail.

78.3 To borrow an example from The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb and critique from Daniel
Kahneman, if a turkey is fed for a year and then killed before Thanksgiving, the turkey,
unfortunately, lives a pretty good life (and may die before realizing anything bad
happened). Likewise, the lifestyle that makes a person fragile is, unfortunately, enjoyable,
and the lifestyle that makes one antifragile is, unfortunately, uncomfortable (and so
seemingly irrational). Though there is much downside to fragility and little upside,
temptation, feeling, and emotional judgment are toward consistency, comfort, and
fragility. The more humans can control their environments (ironically thanks to
creativity and antifragility), the more short-term rationality and emotion will drive
humans to make themselves fragile, all while making themselves feel increasingly less
fragile. Furthermore, the more humans benefit from creativity and antifragility, the less
they feel a need to value them. Human nature is toward fragility, and even uses
antifragility toward that end.

78.4 A society that equates wealth to stability is a society that, in becoming wealthier, will
probably become less antifragile. If such a society undergoes a black swan event, the
unpredictability and turmoil the society undergoes, rather than make it stronger, will
possibly destroy it. Furthermore, the wealthier such a society becomes, the less
antifragile it will probably be, and the more the creativity it does have will be used to
create stability (or wealth) and for selling products that stabilize environments, further
accelerating the loss of creativity.

Ironically, humans have to create companies and products that are profitable and
efficient, but not comforting and stabilizing in a manner that ruins creativity. Grasping
this will take a shift in the societys philosophy and values.

78.5 You cannot predict what will break a cup, though you can tell how fragile it is; likewise,
you cannot predict what will devastate a society, though you can predict how likely it is
to undergo self-destruction by the amount of creativity and antifragility in the system.
All this being the case, when it came to letting the banks fail in 2008 and considering
how America has moralized stability and established an uncreative education system,
had the government let the collapse occur, America probably would have been too
fragile to handle the shock.

Unfortunately, since 2008, American has become increasingly fragile, and fundamentals
seem weaker than ever before. However, on the upside, there has been a renewed
interest in entrepreneurship (perhaps in reaction to the lack of employment).
Furthermore, perhaps to be optimistic, the greater the collapse and destabilization, the
more the antifragile grow from it (assuming it doesnt kill them); hence, if another
financial crisis occurs, even if there is little antifragility in the system, that antifragility
present may benefit tremendously from it.

Ironically, there is an advantage to a bad economy, especially in a country where stability
and comfort are moralized as wealth. Disorder breeds creativity. Likewise, the more
debt a nation has, the more fragile it becomes and the more destabilizing the black
swan when it occurs; consequently, the more the event strengthens the antifragile.
Furthermore, a bad education system (if it doesnt totally demoralize them) can motivate
the antifragile, creative individuals to become more artifexian. This doesnt mean that it
is good to have inefficient systems (for it is possible to have both wealth creation and a
strong artifex), only that thunderheads have silver linings.

Furthermore, there can be a sort of disadvantage to creativity that arises inspired by, and
in, bad systems. This creativity can be geared toward stabilizing the disorderly system,
and hence effacing the environment that incubated the creativity (and that the creativity
may be reliant on, perhaps for inspiration). Creativity that emerges during good times
has a chance of being more pure, per se, and less reactionary. This makes the creativity
stable, in a good and true sense. Ultimately, humans have to be antifragile during good
and bad times. They cannot be reactionary, but this requires incredible character to
avoid. Otherwise, creativity creates its grave, and to be human is to be ironic. Hopefully,
knowledge can help us, but to what degree knowledge about human nature can change
it is unknown.

78.6 To be an Austrian is to not intervene to stop collapses and to pray there is creativity in
the system, while to be a Keynesian is, in a sense, to accept the loss of creativity.
Considering Americas lack of creativity, does that mean it was right to bail out the
banks in 2008? Banks have fundamentally shifted American Capitalism to a structurally
different phenomenon (which I call a Banktocracy), and, admittedly, had the banks been
allowed to collapse, it is possible that the collapse would have shattered the entire
socioeconomic system. It is hard to say whether or not this would have, in the long run,
been a good thing.

To take up debt is to buy time for creativity to create wealth. Debt that fuels spending
maintains the status quo or worsens the problem, but spending that gives rise to
investment and creativity prospers. Without creativity, ultimately, it wont matter if a
country is Keynesian or Austrian; in the end, the population growth will exceed the
creation of wealth, and the standard of living will plummet. Monetary and fiscal policy
cant make a country prosperous, because neither monetary nor fiscal policy are creative
in of themselves.

Monetary and fiscal policy can establish an environment that incubates creativity and/or
buys time for creativity to flourish, but nothing more. To be an Austrian is to create an
environment for creativity, while to be a Keynesian is to buy time for its development.
Ironically, Keynesian can simultaneously create an anti-creative environment by making
the socioeconomic order fragile, rendering Keynesianism counter-productive.
Keynesianism, which spends to unleash investment, in that very act, can replace
investment with spending.

However, theoretically, if creativity grew in Keynesianism, Keynesianism would work.

Keynesianism succeeds if creativity (or wealth creation) eventually backs the stimulus
spending, but, paradoxically, the act of spending itself can result in a decline in creativity
and increase in system fragility, making it unlikely, though not impossible, that this
backing occurs. On the other side of the debate, though Austrianism doesnt inhibit
creativity, if there is no creativity in the system, Austrianism still fails. Though the free
market, as Austrianism preaches, incubates creativity, it isnt guaranteed that creativity
will be present (which can be influenced by everything from family values, social biases,
religious convictions, and other, unpredictable variables). The free market doesnt work
by default, only if humans are creative (however, it might be the case that the lack of
creativity may force individuals to become creative in order to survive, which will mean
the free market has a sort of failsafe). Furthermore, if the powers that be do not
intervene and stimulate the economy, without creativity, all the savings of the citizenship
will be dried up as the market declines (as Keynes warned), making it so that no one can
take advantage of the lower prices once the market reaches bottom. Then, without
creativity, once the market bottoms out, it wont climb back up, not, at least, until
creativity reemerges (which cannot occur if the plummet proves fatal).

Keynesianism works that funds creativity without infringing upon Austrianism, per se,
and that doesnt efface the creative incubator; however, this sort of ideal Keynesianism
may not totally exist, if even in spurts. To the degree Keynesian spending results in
artifexian investment is to the degree Keynesianism works, and to the degree it reduces
the artifex and makes the system fragile is to the degree it fails. Pinpointing where the
line is that divides these two sides of Keynesianism though, may lie beyond the realm of
intelligibility (as Hayek would warn). Furthermore, fatally, if a Keynesian model is
followed long enough (perhaps to give intellectuals the time to pinpoint the noted line),
the system will be made fragile and antifragility will vanish. Then, when interest rates
begin to rise and spending has to be cut, there will be no creativity to produce wealth,
and hence the economic catastrophe the spending attempted to avoid will resume
(perhaps worse than ever). Hence, overall, Austrianism is better (though a time can
come when it is no longer a realistic possibility), but to cut spending when there isnt
any antifragility in the system to pick up the slack can still be fatal. Ultimately, that all
said, the question of spending versus saving, as with the question of government
intervention versus leaving the free market alone, is not as important as the question of
whether or not creativity is present. The main issue must maintain the primacy of our

In true Austrianism, there are no Fatal Depressions, only (small, mild, large, etc.)
collapses there is suffering but no Apocalypse. In Keynesianism, where collapses are
prevented and so larger collapses made possible, Fatal Depressions are inevitable, for
everything that is fragile must eventually break (though it may not be for a hundred
years). Furthermore, if Keynesianism is followed for a long time and then a nation
switches to Austrianism, this can cause a Fatal Depression (especially if there is no
creativity and/or antifragility in the system). Keep in mind that the nature of
Keynesianism is to make a system fragile, and so, if it is enacted long enough, switching
from it to Austrianism will be deadly. Yet without stopping this process that makes a
system fragile, there cannot be antifragility or a growing artifex. Keynesianism creates a

Keynesianism makes possible a Fatal Depression while simultaneously drying up

antifragility along the way that, when it is needed most, wont be present. Austrianism, if
it follows years of Keynesianism, will be a return to an environment that incubates
creativity, but after so many years of making the system fragile, that switch could prove
fatal (which would seem to be evidence that Austrianism doesnt work). However,
keeping a Keynesian policy indefinitely causes the artifex to gradually shrink, resulting in
the self-destruction of the system. It seems that the problem with Keynesianism is that,
one day, without realizing it, there is suddenly no exit.
To review, if the powers that be let a system undergo creative destruction, as they must
to avoid making the system fragile, but there is little creativity and antifragility in the
system, then the system may collapse. To allow creative destruction is to gamble with
the Apocalypse, which, considering Pascals Wager, never seems rational. The less a
nation has allowed Keynesianism, the higher the likelihood this gamble will turn out to
be profitable, but the longer a nation has engaged in Keynesianism, the higher the
likelihood a switch to Austrianism will have devastating consequences (which will make
Keynesianism seem superior). Yet a nation that doesnt convert to Austrianism is a
nation that will shrink its artifex and undergo self-destruction via the material dialectic
(perhaps through hyper inflation or civil unrest). When it comes to Keynesianism, if you
take it too far (as Lord Keynes himself was well aware), at some point, though no one
can say when, youre damned if you do, and youre damned if you dont. A fireman who
starts a fire to keep from freezing to death can still at any moment be burned alive.

Ultimately, that all said, though monetary and fiscal policy are important, they are not
nearly as imperative as the presence of creativity. Whether Keynesianism or Austrianism
works ultimately comes down to whether creativity is in the system. Rather than spend
our time debating between these two schools of thought, it would be best to address the
core issue. This isnt to say the economic environment isnt important, but to say that it
wont matter if, in the end, we fail to grow the artifex.

78.7 Whether a nation tries to cut or grow out of a debt crisis, without creativity, the effort
will fail. In this circumstance, if the nation cut, it will be able to claim that had we
grown, things would be different, and if the nation grew, it will be able to claim that
had we cut, things would be better. And both will miss the point.

78.8 As there is no such thing as a perfect system, there is no such thing as a completely non-
functioning system, because any system that has absolutely no benefits or functionality
wouldnt exist (for, at such a nadir, it would collapse and cease to be). Hence, as you will
always find problems in Capitalism and Socialism, Austrianism and Keynesianism, etc.,
you will always find benefits. Seeing problems and benefits isnt what ultimately matters:
what matters is how well the system works in sum. Furthermore, since there is no perfect
system, antifragility will always be beneficial and fragility always detrimental. Only in a
perfect world do the fragile never break; in an imperfect world of imperfect systems, the
development of antifragility and creativity will always be of the utmost importance.

78.9 Humanity is fundamentally creative, and creativity, at least in socioeconomic terms,

tends toward irony. Creativity is used to stabilize, which means creativity is used to
inhibit creativity, without which Capitalism self-destructs. Ironically, antifragility tends
toward fragility, for creativity produces that which allows people to create a stable
world. An uncreative caveman cannot invent a thermostat with which he can control a
rooms temperature; he has to adapt he has to be antifragile or die. To create
stability is to create the environment in which creativity is lost; it is to use antifragility to
produce fragility. Yet, in a free market, since stability feels good, it is this kind of
creativity that is likely to sell and spread. Perhaps knowledge of antifragility, the
importance of character, and the artifex can prevent this ironic tendency, but knowledge
doesnt often beat feelings, emotional judgments, and/or concerns across large bodies
of people. It may take something more.

79. Coming Apart by Charles Murray, if correct, outlines a diminishing of the artifex class.
If the New Upper and New Lower Classes live virtually separate and different lives,
creativity, being a phenomenon that emerges organically across differences and diversity,
will drop. When those with high IQs never encounter the limits of what IQ can do, the
geniuses of a society will never come to think outside the box: theres no need.
Furthermore, they never doubt the limits of what brilliant people can manage and
coordinate, having never encountered an instance where their brilliance wasnt enough.
Lastly, if Charles Murray is correct that the New Upper Class has a tendency toward
central planning, rather than turn to creativity to solve societys problems, it will turn
toward management and bureaucracy, which will dry up creativity and cause the material
dialectic to self-destruct.

79.1 The New Upper Class seems to have the resources to rebound from foolish behavior
and/or failures, while the New Lower Class does not. Since creativity requires failure, if
the New Lower Class cannot fail and recover, the New Lower Class will be limited to
the degree it can experiment and try to incubate an artifex. Consequently, it will be
limited in its capacity to create wealth and to increase not only its quality of life, but the
quality of life for all. Furthermore, the New Upper Class, by definition, is already
successful, so theres less motivation, though having the ability to fail without totally
failing, to attempt anything new and/or risky. Hence, the New Upper Class, though
having a monopoly on the ability to fail, will likely fail to use this advantage (of being
able to fail and recover) for achieving creative ends, resulting in a decline of the artifex.

79.2 To save our socioeconomic order, as Charles Murray claims we need to make those who
raise a family feel as if they are doing something meaningful which the community
honors, we should make the creative feel they are doing something important, rather
than imply they are wasting their time and need to get a real job.

80. Defending self-education and trusting in the curiosity of children, Astra Taylor, in her
talk The Unschooled Life, notes that school makes boredom something you are used
to so that you can do a job you hate. A school that is boring isnt a school that fails; in
fact, boredom is the ethos of school. Astra argues that the modern school system is
designed for the sake of making children into workers for a Capitalistic system, so that
they will, without question, do soul-sucking jobs that the economy needs them to do so
that the Capitalistic machine will keep running. If this is true, which I fear it is, the
school system, for the sake of Capitalism, was designed into the exactly opposite of
what Capitalism needs to create wealth. A school system thats ethos is boredom is a
school system that doesnt incubate the development of an artifex class, and so a system
that contributes to the self-destruction of Capitalism. If this school system was created
to support Capitalism, it does the exact opposite.

Astra Taylor was Unschooled, meaning her parents, rather than send Astra to school,
facilitated an environment in which Astra could pursue her own creative interests and
drive her own self-education. Yes, Astra eventually chose to enroll herself in public
school and university, sure that being an idiot with a degree was better than being a
genius without one, and notes how quickly she went from a lover of words to a lover of
standardized tests. She notes how her creativity and intellectualism suffered, but how
she found pleasure in handing over agency and having a rubric within which she and
others could know she was doing well. No longer was she judged by others as being
uneducated, and yet now, for the first time, she felt uneducated.

Astras experiences point out short-comings of modern education, and that education
that incubates artifexians might be a system that resembles Unschooling more so than
many universities. I myself am not well enough versed in Unschooling to say for sure
that it is the best model, but I am convinced that we need to trust more in the curiosity
of autonomy and children to be guiders of their own education. Astra notes that
everyone participates in Unschooling whether they realize it or not: the boy who comes
home and plays video games is learning how to play that game on his own, like the stock
broker who studies Dante in his free time is self-motivated to master The Divine Comedy.
There is no such thing as a human that isnt Unschooled at all, and perhaps if we put
more faith in people to educate themselves, artifexians would become increasingly

Astra quotes John Taylor Gatto, who wrote: [] genius is as common as dirt. We
suppress genius because we havent yet figured out how to manage a population of
educated men and women. The solution, I think, is simple and glorious. Let them
manage themselves. Im concerned that if we dont overcome our fear of being unable
to manage a population of educated men and women, our society will collapse,
destroyed by the self-destruction of the material dialectic. What you fear is what comes
unto you, and if we dont stop fearing destruction, destruction will come.

81. Sublation, according to Marx, is the process by which existing things turn into new
things. According to Marx, history is a sublation through which old things arent
thrown out, but integrated into the new. For example, on religion, Marx believed that
religion entailed a true pain of the citizenship, even though religious creeds, practices,
etc. were falsehoods. Hence, Marx believed religion would be sublated into the society,
keeping the true pain (in order to address it), but leaving behind the dogmas (which
often just preserved the hardships). Likewise, sublation is the process through which the
bourgeois and proletariat turn into the artifex. The true dimensions of the classes are
not lost, but the falsehoods or bad parts are. For the bourgeois and proletariat to be
absorbed into the artifex isnt to say they are destroyed, but turned into something

As technology opens up more and more creative avenues, it can simultaneously destroy
our capacity to be creative. Yet as technology advances and eliminates more and more
jobs by increasing the quality of life (not decreasing it), humans will have to find means
of gaining income either through creativity or government provision (the latter of
which, if not creative, will work against progress). Creativity gives rise to technology
which can destroy creativity unless creativity and intrinsic motivation are incubated
within the people. For the sake of progress, incubating the artifex is our only option;
otherwise, sublation of the bourgeois and the proletariat into the artifex cannot occur.

Without creativity, there can be no sublation, only deconstruction.

82. People of different ethnicities, political leanings, etc. who find one another genuinely
interesting, smart, engaging, etc. are people who will overcome differences. Considering
this, I dont believe it is by chance that an age lacking in creativity is an age in which
discrimination, sexism, racism, partisanship, etc. are worsening. Creativity overcomes
differences: an un-creative society a non-artifex society will probably be a society
plagued by conflict between differences, lacking anything genuinely interesting by which
to be genuinely attracted to one another over what divides us.

83. The relation between creation and production may be similar to the relation between
Being and being(s), as noted by Heidegger. Where Being is unveiled, it hides behind
being(s); likewise, where creation occurs, it hides behind production(s). So too seems to
be the relation between consciousness and unconsciousness(s), intentionality and non-
intentionality(s), and debt and money(s).

84. Marching through history, creativity is more so Hegels Spirit than is rationality.

85. Creativity counters status anxiety, to allude to the thought of Alain de Botton from his
wonderful Status Anxiety. Where this is a lack of creative drive, unfortunately, status
anxiety tends to manifest as a makeup-motivator. Status anxiety isnt entirely bad, but
it does tend to motive money creation over wealth creation, if you will, which doesnt
grow the artifex and contributes to opportunity gaps, a fall of real wages, and other
problematic gaps warned about by Robert D. Putnam. Additionally, those who are
creative virtually must overcome status anxiety, because being creative so often
requires a person to be an outsider.

86. There is a common debate over what people do when they dont have to work: some
believe people will sit around and do nothing, others believe people will be free to
pursue creative and productive ends. I think the answer depends on the person in
question, but I would argue that the more creativity that exists in a system, the more
people, when free to do what they want, will use this free time creatively and
productively. Seeing as the goal of work is ironically to free us from work, this makes
creativity paramount; otherwise, society wont be ready when the end it works for is
achieved, nor will it be able to handle various government programs.

87. Nearly three years after first finishing The Creative Concord, the work of Deirdre N.
McCloskey was brought to my attention, whose ideas I found were very similar to my
own. McCloskey points out that the human quality of life skyrocketed two centuries ago;
this isnt to say there wasnt innovation up to that point, but that the rate and size of the
innovation over the last few thousand years was nothing compared to what began two
centuries ago. This is The Big Event one of the most important secular events in
history and McCloskeys work centers on finding out what caused it. According to
her, Capitalism is responsible, but that still leaves us with the question of why?

One of McCloskeys most important points which I completely agree with and
hopefully pointed out in my own work but perhaps not as well is that the success of
Capitalism is not caused by the accumulation of capital. Capital provides us with money,
but it doesnt increase the quality of life: it provides a means by which we can participate
in the increasing quality, makes possible a price mechanism system which is paramount
for resource distribution (as Hayek argued), and also makes possible a market in and
through which products, services, innovations, etc. can be tested (as discussed in
Equality and Its Immoral Limits by O.G. Rose). As McCloskey puts it, there has to
be a market to test technology or its not obvious that its an advance. Capital doesnt
create wealth: it creates the test by which we determine what wealth is in fact wealth.
So yes, capital is important (and arguably necessarily for strong sustainability and fast
rates of innovation), but capital, in of itself, isnt what increases our quality of life:
creativity, innovation, and technology are responsible. Capital is simply the stage upon
which creativity performs. Without a stage, its hard for actors to perform, but without
actors, a stage is nothing in particular.

The belief that capital constraints are why an economy doesnt develop has lead to
thinking that expanding Wall Street, offering financial aid to the impoverished (domestic
or abroad), increasing wages, etc. (often at the expense of creativity), will lead to a higher
quality of life. This isnt true as I fear should be evident by the damage caused to our
economy by Big Banks, the failures of Johnsons War on Poverty to end poverty, and
the failure of rising wages to lead to real wage increases and its proof that ones
fundamental beliefs have a massive influence on how the person thinks about proper
policy. Failure to identify creativity and its incubating conditions as the cause of The
Big Event has lead to us enacting educational, governmental, and social thinking and
policy that works against the very creativity that makes our society what we want it to

Yes, capital constraints can make it difficult for creativity to flourish, but the availability
of capital can do the very same thing: it can turn us into consumers over creators,
disregard the importance of culture in favor of entertainment, etc. And most certainly,
just because capital alone doesnt improve the quality of life, doesnt necessarily mean
there shouldnt be welfare systems (thats a different question); however, it does mean
that welfare alone can, at best, maintain the status quo. Ironically, its the very success of
creativity (which lessens capital constraints) that can give rise to the belief that capital is
responsible for Capitalisms success. Considering this, I agree with McCloskey that the
word Capitalism has given us a lot of trouble, only further entrenching the dogma that
Capitalisms success is thanks to capital. It would be better if the word Capitalism was
replaced with something like Creativism perhaps that would do more to alleviate
poverty than anything else weve done for the last fifty years. And perhaps had
Capitalism been called Creativism from the beginning, intellectuals wouldnt have ever
turned against it.

Words have power.

An incredible increase in technology, creativity, and innovation are why The Big Event
occurred, but what caused the incredible increase? What happened two centuries ago
that changed the social environment in such a way that creativity was so incubated that
the quality of human life skyrocketed and The Big Event occurred? McCloskey argues
that it was because of the granting of liberty and dignity to ordinary people, which was
pioneered in America and spread around the world gradually from there. This
prominent role of liberty falls in line with modern psychologist studies on what causes
creativity, studies which have been emphasized throughout The Creative Concord and
its additions. Was there innovation before America? Yes: China was the king of
innovation for over a thousand year inventing gunpowder, paper, fireworks, etc. but
Chinas rate of innovation was much slower than what happened suddenly during The
Big Event. What happened two centuries ago was incomprehensible, and The Big
Event was thanks to a change in ideas about liberty and human dignity.

Dont ever think ideas dont matter.

To fully understand how liberty and dignity lead to a Technological Renaissance, I

would encourage you to study the McCloskey corpus.

87.1 Capital can help give rise to leisure, for it can make it possible for a person to purchase
that which will make life more leisurely, and it is during leisure that creativity can have a
space in which to flourish (though that isnt to say leisure is the only space). Hence, in
this way, capital can help facilitate creativity, but ultimately creativity is that which makes
life more leisurely (such as air conditioners, cars, etc.). That said, if everyone in the
world lived lives of endless leisure, this wouldnt necessarily mean that the car would be
invented: many kings and queens lived before Henry Ford. However, leisure does create
a space in which people can daydream, per se, and it is through daydreaming that
much creativity emerges (as has been discussed and studied by Daniel Goleman,
Howard Gardner, and others).

The expansion of leisure across an entire society tends to be a result of hard work, and
yet ironically when a society works hard, it tends to conflate leisure and lazy together:
the payoff of the hard work is socially frowned upon. Also, where there is widespread
hard work, there tends to be more extrinsic motivation than intrinsic motivation,
which also leads to people in times of leisure not knowing what to do and doing
nothing, which helps bring about the conflation of leisure and lazy (as discussed in the
additions of Joy to the World by O.G. Rose). Bertrand Russell, in On Praise of
Idleness, notes that one of the greatest questions of a society is what it does during
times of leisure, and unfortunately the expansion of capital and success of Capitalism
made possible thanks to creativity can lead to periods of leisure that facilitate doing
nothing more so than doing something creative, intrinsically motivated, etc.. And so
the success of Capitalism can lead to a shrinking of the creativity that made it successful,
all in the name of being more productive. Adding to the irony, consumption distracts us
from innovation, and yet innovation creates things we consume.

The belief that Capitalism is successful due to productivity and capital over creativity
and ideas has lead to costly and ironic consequences.

87.2 McCloskey argues that it isnt science that created the modern world its technology
and creativity and she points out that we have married science and technology as if
they share a causal and symbiotic relationship (she notes weve created the phrase
science and technology as if the relationship is a given). She says this should be clear to
us if we just think about what exactly science does: it tends to be about more esoteric,
abstract ideas such as Newtonian Physics, the Higgs Bosom, and so on. Most
innovations are not a result of scientific thinking, but because of creative insight and
tinkering and/or experimenting. Of course, science advances by experiments, but not
all experiments are scientific. A man whose house blows down every time there is a
storm will try to find a substance that makes his house stronger, and he will go through
a period of trial and error trying out different materials. Not a single scientific thought
may enter his mind: all he may think about is how do I solve the problem and make my
house stronger?. Granted, knowing science and which chemical compounds are
stronger will very much make his experimentation easier and more effective, but that
scientific reasoning isnt necessary. To touch on our modern circumstance, thinking it is
necessarily may lead to an educational system that emphasizes science at the expense of
the curiosity and creative thinking that science needs to bring about innovation and
technology. It seems to me that creativity and technology is a better phrase than
science and technology: the first entails the second, but the second doesnt necessarily
entail the first.

I dont mean to imply all scientists arent creative or that science doesnt value creativity
my point is only to emphasize that the relationship between science and technology
isnt as causal as we think. Considering that science can give us a better grasp on how an
innovation and/or technology works, science can help us know how to think so that
when a eureka moment does happen, we can better implement it. Science can help us
create a method and solidify the findings of experimentation, hence making it easier to
replicate and build off that creativity, but science, in of itself, isnt the cause. Also,
science cannot give rise to insights where there is a lack of freedom and dignity, though
it can where such philosophical premises are prevalent.

Science and technology tend to be corollary they tend to rise together but they dont
necessarily cause one another, though they can help one another (similar to the
relationship between leisure and technology). I think the relation to science and
creativity is similar to the relation because capital and creativity: science helps and its
very difficult to be innovative without it, but it isnt truly necessary, though it is arguably
necessary for fast rates of innovation.

87.3 Science tends to come after innovation to explain how the innovation came about and
why it works; in a sense, as free will is dressed in determinism (to use a point from
Words and Determinism by O.G. Rose), so innovation is dressed in science (due
note that determinism and science are closely-linked). In a sense, when we look at
innovation, we see science, as when we look at free will, we see determinism. Because
of this dressing, it is natural to think technology occurs within science, as it is easy to
think freedom occurs within determinism. Furthermore, it seems that our brains are
wired for low order complexity over high order complexity (as described in
Experiencing Thinking by O.G. Rose), and so we seem wired to find a linear
explanation for technology over a dynamic one. Since both technology and science are
more low order complexities, we tend to associate them together, when it is more high
order creativity that gives rise to both low order complexities. The phenomenological
experience of the concreteness of science and technology also tricks us: they both
being more tangible, we associate them together, while art, which is more abstract,
seems out of place alongside them. Additionally, science fiction has helped us further
think of science and technology as causal, when creativity causes them both. They are
corollary, and as any economist will tell you, what is corollary isnt necessarily causal
(though its a natural mistake to make).

87.4 Like science, McCloskey points out that a rise in rationality also isnt the cause of the
increase in creativity and technology. Both science and rationality existed since the
Enlightenment, but it wasnt until the American Experiment that they seem to have
helped and increased alongside technological and creative breakthroughs. McCloskey
also points out that the human ability to reason and plan out the future has proven to
be rather poor: take the World Wars, for example the Enlightenment didnt stop those
from happening. Reason helps creativity, but being reasonable isnt the precondition
for being creative.

Ironically, it seems to me that the current socioeconomic order, which wasnt created by
science and rationality, but creativity, has somewhat turned against creativity in the name
of rationality and science.

87.5 If when claiming corporations should only focus on profit generation one means by
profit wealth, and seeing as wealth only exists thanks to creativity, and seeing as
creativity often leads to a holistically fulfilling way of life for those who are creative, then
by all means, let corporations focus on profit, given that they do so within moral and
legal standards set by the society (as Milton Friedman argued pointed out by
McCloskey though he has been unfairly been paraphrased as saying otherwise).
87.6 If McCloskey is right, I fear that our habit today of choosing determinism a topic
taken up in Choosing Determinism by O.G. Rose works against the liberty and
dignity we need to be creative, which can result in a shrinking of the artifex and self-
destruction of the socioeconomic order.

87.7 The eruption of entrepreneurship and emphasize on creativity following the 2008
Financial Crisis is evidence that the socioeconomic environment of liberty and human
dignity will give rise to creativity regardless the restrictions on capital. It may also be
evidence that Capitalism is the best system, precisely because even when Capitalism is
gravely corrupted and loses sight of what its really about, Capitalism still manages to
come back around to what counts (though that isnt to say our economy isnt still in
severe danger).

87.8 McCloskey is interested in the question of whether a person can live a full and moral
human life and be Capitalistic, and I think the answer is absolutely, for a Capitalistic
can be an artifexian. But does Capitalism necessarily make a person live a full and moral
life? Absolutely not: good choices must be made.

87.9 Inspiration for these points primarily came from McCloskeys 2012 Annual Robert
Heilbroner Memorial Lecture at The New School, which can be found here:

88. Only creativity can stabilize an economy, and creativity is essentially unstable.

89. To use point by Bernard Hankins, when you turn on the news, how often do you hear
people referred to as consumers versus creators? Our very mindset works against us.

90. What Marx means depends on to who you talk. If a given reader of The Creative
Concord doesnt feel that I have been fair to Marx, Im more than willingly to admit
my potential short-comings. When it comes to interpreting Marx, to borrow the words
of Matsuo Basho, I seek not to follow in the footsteps of old men; [I] seek what they
sought. Even if my critique of Marx is flawed, I would defend the overall message of
the work: creativity drives the economy; without it, the economy must collapse.

91. This paper doesnt mean to make the artifexian out be a kind of John Galt. An artifexian
can be a peasant and even an immoral crook. This paper doesnt believe artifexians are
superior to others, inherently nobler, etc. Theyre simply different and in need of

92. Reasoning cannot save a nation, for nations inevitably come to reason backwards from
conclusions. Only creativity can save people from their minds, for what is yet-to-be-
created cannot be polluted by thinking or bias until it suddenly comes into being. This
buys a little more time for humanity from itself, time in which the next creation that will
buy humanity time can emerge. With each creative act, the clock resets, though it never
stops ticking.

93. Upon completing The Creative Concord, reviewers brought to my attention

similarities between my work and Richard Floridas. I have also been informed that
The Creative Concord might have overlap with the work of economist Robert Solow
and implications for neoclassical economic thought. Though I am unfamiliar with these
thinkers, I desire to acknowledge my potential indebtedness to them, if for anything, for
reasons described in Waking Life (Chapter 5: Death and Reality) and toward the end of
Arts and Physics by Leonard Shlain.

Should We Get Rid of the Internet?

1. Schools dont have as much influence as parents, so its important that parents also
cultivate character and discernment. Whether or not parents focus on creativity is not as
important as concentrating on these areas of development, for crafted creativity will
naturally flow from discernment and character, whether it be in the sciences, arts, etc.

2. This paper does not mean to imply that what is entertaining and popular cant be art.
Great art can also be popular, as entertainment can also be cultural. The issue at hand is
about what, in particular, has become popular planking, cats, randomness, etc. and
how these particular expressions dehumanize and humiliate. It is also possible that
technologies like the internet inherently incentivize the creation of such expressions,
hence requiring great wisdom to handle. The claim of this paper is that if there isnt an
increase in artistic literacy, these kinds of expressions will continue to garner attention,
and consequently, other, more beneficial expressions will be produced less and less. This
will be to the detriment of all.

3. Art fully satisfies through challenges.

4. Artists dont see the world the way it wants to be seen and the world reciprocates.

The arts are always in trouble. It is their nature to be in trouble.

-Archibald MacLeish

5. Character and creativity have to rise alongside one another. If we achieve higher forms
of creativity like the internet but not the character to handle them, our inventions will
best and dehumanize us. However, if we dont create and invent, society will be
destroyed by the material dialectic (as expanded on in The Creative Concord). The
only solution is to increase artistic literary and to cultivate character (perhaps, to start,
through a strengthening of the family).

6. Considering Antifragile by Nassim Taleb and points addressed in The Creative

Concord, the internet can provide a disorderedly environment that can incubate
creativity and strengthen the antifragile; however, when the fragile or robust encounter
the internet, the internet may stimulate only absurdities. In a sense, to the degree a
society is antifragile is to the degree the internet benefits it. Lastly, the degree the
internet is used to generate absurdities may be a gage of how large the artifex is, how
much antifragility is in the society, and how close the society is to self-destruction via
the material dialectic.

7. Technology, in overwhelming us with information, forces us to either become creative

or apathetic. The middle-ground is vanishing. In this sense, our creativity either checks
and balances our tendency to use it for self-destruction, or forces us to go on and finish
ourselves off.

8. Information overwhelms focus and causes daydreaming. Daydreaming generates
creativity, but without focus, creativity cannot be actualized. Furthermore, daydreaming
can lead to anxiety, while focus can lead to flow. The internet, in overwhelming people
with content, can spark creativity, and in the very same act, stifle it. What is the anchor
that can keep one from getting pulled too far out to sea in the information ocean? See
On Materialism, Purpose, and Discernment for more.

9. To allude to The Literature of Exhaustion by John Barthes, if someone today were to

write Beethovens 9th, the composer would be embarrassed. Its already been done, and
the style and technique of that work dont align with modern times. This isnt to say
Beethoven isnt appreciated today, but that a 9th Symphony made in 2013 doesnt
receive the same glory as does a 9th made in 1824. The fact that the 9th was made when
it was made is part of its renown: the 9th cannot be abstracted from the time and place it
was made in (and still be called a great work). A Beethoven that has to compete with U2
will not be remembered, as a U2 that performs in 1824 hardly holds an audience.

Lasting works of art, like great people, are inseparable from their historical setting.
Likewise, lasting art always engages in a conversation with the art that came before it.
Art made in 2013 has to be in a conversation with all its predecessors, as art made in
1922 had to do the same. That said, art made in 2013 has to worry about ninety-years
more than art made in 1922. In 1922, containing the entire Western Canon nearly killed

Ulysses, in failing to allude to Sartre, is not held at fault, but a Ulysses written today that
fails to do this is a Ulysses that fails. Consequently, art made today must do more than
the art that came before it. Ulysses accomplished all that an all-encompassing work
made in 1922 could accomplish. Because it was published in 1922, the work is perfect;
however, if Ulysses was published today, it would be flawed. Writers today who want to
surmount Joyce his Ulysses and Finnegans Wake must contain not just Shakespeare
through Cardinal Newman, but Shakespeare through David Foster Wallace, and they
must do so in a technique appropriate for our modern time.

However, Joyce was blinded by his work and it nearly cost him everything. If it costs a
person everything to write Ulysses and Finnegans Wake in 1922, then a work in 2013
that surmounts Joyce is unachievable. It surpasses what is physically possible. Unless
technology is invented that changes this, no one today can beat Joyce: accomplishing
such surpasses possibility. At best, someone can write a work as good as Joyce, but to
accomplish this is not to accomplish what Joyce accomplished. It is to be like the
Borges character who rewrote Don Quixote: it is to come in second place and be
insignificant, a plagiarist even. Ones only hope is to write something as good as Ulysses
and Finnegans Wake and then to die suddenly before it can be completed (somewhat
like Proust). Then, critics could imagine what the writer would have done had he or she
not been robbed of life so prematurely.

Considering all this, perhaps a reason why art today tends to be expressions of stupidity
or randomness rather than attempts for greatness is because there is no hope for
achieving it. At best, until humans surmount death, an author can be as good as Joyce,
but not better. Someone can read as much as Joyce, but not more. Someone can be a
plagiarist, but not original.

Technique seems to have driven humans past the breaking point of what is humanely
possible, driving us into exhaustion and despair. Since technique manifests itself through
humans, technique seems to have worked itself into self-destruction. It is only natural
then that culture fall apart.

What is to be done? If we give up, we perish. Therefore, we must invent technologies

that expand what is humanly possible. The artifex class, to take from The Creative
Concord, must be cultivated, and this can only be done by reinventing education.
Perhaps by investing in creativity, new technologies, medicines, etc. can be invented that
make writers capable of surpassing Joyce. This is not to belittle Joyce (for no one can
take from him what he accomplished in his moment of history), but to do what Joyce
would have wanted: drive art onward to new epiphanies, over the horizon on.

Joy to the World

1. All money is made out of thin air, but some ways to increase the money supply are
better than others. It can be increased through credit or interest. If interest rates are at
10%, then $100,000 can make $10,000 out of thin air. On the other hand, if a bank
gives out a loan for $100,000 when only holding $10,000, then the bank makes $90,000
out of thin (how much a bank can give out that it doesnt have is set by the Federal
Reserve). Whether or not to increase the money supply through interest or credit should
be determined by which contributes more so to production than overconsumption.

1.1 Increasing the money supply is imperative for a functioning economy, and interest
doesnt increase the money supply nearly as quickly as does credit. If production is
skyrocketing, interest rates can get in the way of growth; however, if production is
dwindling, interest rates can keep growth from outpacing it. If you believe humans are
naturally unproductive, high interest rates are a safe bet; if you believe humans are
naturally productive, low interest rates are better.

2. When interest rates are high, there is less borrowing. When interest rates are low,
borrowing increases. When interest rates are high, lenders want to give out money
because they can make more off their loans. In such a circumstance, lenders are
incentivized to give out loans even when it is toward overconsumption. However, since
less people can afford these loans, less people are likely to get loans. In this situation,
people are especially unlikely to get loans if it is going to be toward overconsumption
rather than productivity. High interest rates, therefore, shift the incentive for
overconsumption onto banks, while low interest rates shift that incentive onto people.
Since it is people who drive productivity, this is notably dangerous. Since banks simply
drive credit, and credit is, by definition, that which enables a society to live beyond its
means, when interest rates are high, the dangers of credit are contained. It is better for
banks to want to give out loans than for people to want loans. When people want loans,
people are incentivized to replace productivity with credit, which works in the short-
term, but not in the long run.

2.1 High interest rates help separate those who want loans to over-consume from those
who want to produce, while low interest rates blur them together. The higher the
interest rates, the more the potential producer must believe in his or her self, but interest
rates that are too high may demand too much self-confidence. Balance is needed.

2.2 If interest rates are high, since loans require more money from those who get them,
banks are more aware that they may not get their money back. Therefore, they must
believe the people they are loaning too are going to be producers. High interest rates
force both banks and people to focus on production, while low interest rates allow both
to emphasize consumption.

3. If the government promises to pay banks back for the loans the public defaults on,
banks will be less concerned with whether or not people can finance their loans. In fact,
banks maybe incentivized to give out as many bad loans as they can, knowing the
government will ultimately finance everything they give out just as long as they can find
people who are willing to take out loans. Banks then have incentivize to give out loans
easily, which makes overconsumption increasing likely (especially when the public wants
to over-consume, which is arguably human nature); in fact, banks have incentive to
incentivize bad behavior by borrowers, because the more people spend, the more they
need (bad) loans. Not only then does government reward bad behavior, but it actually
makes suicide profitable.

3.1 A society is especially in danger when banks dont believe they are going to be paid back
and interest rates are low.

4. When you tell people you are writing a story, learning piano, or starting a business, you
risk shifting your intrinsic motivation to extrinsic motivation (before you can handle
receiving extrinsic motivators). If they say great!, you can become reliant on that; if
they say so what?, you can become depressed. It varies from case to case. Either way,
be careful when you speak.

4.1 It seems that social media may intensify this problem. Considering this, social media
may be one of the worst things that ever happened to Capitalism.

5. Since money is an extrinsic motivator by definition, its hard to tell who receiving it is
extrinsically motivated versus intrinsically motivated. The amount of cash in circulation
is no help. Money may never sleep, but it doesnt tell you much. Furthermore, spending
cannot help you determine levels of intrinsic motivation, for you cannot tell the
difference between spending for a purpose versus spending for pure consumption.
Spending may drive the economy, but its not clear which spending will keep the car
moving versus only shove it down a hill that eventually levels out.

6. Money testifies both to the fact that the world can be better and that it isnt yet.

7. Though it isnt necessarily true that as spending rises so does real income (because it
could be inflated), it does seem more likely that as spending falls, so does real income.
Human nature seems much more likely to drive prices above what they should be than
below what they should be. The desire for immediate pleasure seems to trump fear of

8. It is possible that someone be intrinsically motivated to ride bicycles, which doesnt

increase production. However, when more of what a person does is extrinsically
motivated than intrinsically motivated, they dont tend to have joy. Since work makes up
the majority of a persons time, the nature of the motivation of a persons work will
have the biggest influence upon their level of joy. Those who are intrinsically motivated
in their work tend to be far better workers than the extrinsically motivated, and so
contribute more so to production. When joy is low, it is likely that production is also
lower than it should or could be.

9. If one could determine the level of intrinsic motivation in a nation directly rather than
through its overall joy, such would accomplish the same effect this paper outlines.

10. If a society doesnt indulge in economic growth, it is likely that growth isnt a bubble.
When it does indulge, a coming bust is likely.

11. A world that has an ever decreasing attention span and that is increasingly in favor of
sensationalism is one that will increasingly be more concerned with credit cycles than
long-term productivity. These conditions are supposedly worsened by television and our
mediums of information (according to Neil Postman), so it may be the very television
on which we watch the stock market that robs us of our capacity to focus on what
ultimately matters. Perhaps the worst thing that ever happened to Capitalism was being

12. Intrinsic motivation is not influenced by interest rates. Production, hence, is indifferent
to them, while credit is obsessed with them.

13. Credit may distract a society from production. Decisions and actions which increase
production are what, in the long run, matter, yet credit cycles make it tempting to focus
on credit rather than production. Though credit is good insomuch as it can stimulate
production, it can distract us from the very production we hope to stimulate. Credit is
like a magic trick: effective and deceptive. Credit that lessens production is bad; credit
that increases it is good. The challenge of a nation that chooses to have credit is to not
let itself make decisions based on the (credit) mask the economy wears over the face
behind it.

14. A society that doesnt ask why is a society that lacks intrinsic motivation.

15. Some can hear the term intrinsic motivation and assume you are against extrinsic
motivators as people can hear you say Constitution and assume you are Conservative.

16. Extrinsic motivation drives debt cycles, while intrinsic motivation drives productivity. It
is intrinsic motivation that makes or breaks Capitalism.

17. When people work to be wealthy, during a boom when people feel wealthy, why would
people work? This is especially true when people hate working. A Capitalistic system full
of people who hate their jobs is a terrible combination: credit is bound to outpace
productivity (correlative with the intensity of peoples hatred).

18. Intrinsically motivated individuals tends to be artifexians, as expounded upon in The

Creative Concord.

19. Credit without creativity busts.

20. Today, raising a family tends to be the prime motivation behind why people work. Yet
for a father to be motivated by a desire to provide for his family makes his motivation
contingent upon other people, and so there is a significant part of his motivation that is
extrinsic. A family is no stronger than its individual members, and each needs his or her
own intrinsic motivation beyond the family. A father can only provide for his children
as long as they are in the home, but once they leave, if thats all hes living for, he loses
everything. The same can happen to mothers. Furthermore, once a child leaves his or
her family, being there for them as a purpose is no longer possible. An intrinsic
motivator, to really work, cannot be contingent upon the presence or actions of others:
it must be entirely self-driven. The more self-driven the individual (distinct from
selfish), the more joyful.

Furthermore, children cannot bear the weight of being their parents purpose. Its hard
enough learning how to cultivate your own purpose, let alone trying to provide one for
others. Parents who depend on their children for meaning can become too overbearing
and intrusive, as can a CEO whose identity is too wrapped him in his or her business.
Consequently, familiar relationships can become guilt, obligation, and fear driven. The
same can happen if girls invest their whole lives into their boyfriends and vice-versa.

Yet a family provides necessary economic stability, so the solution is not to delete the
family, but the incubation of individual purposes within each family member (which are
unified by the purpose of loving family). People cannot be the projects of others, but
every person requires a project. No one can handle being a project, but no one can
cultivate joy without one.

20.1 It is possible that when a marriage becomes extrinsically motivated by children to

function, then the marriage gradually loses the intrinsic motivation necessary to keep the
marriage together. If this is true, the best thing a father and mother can do for their
children is love one another.

21. High divorce can be a sign that intrinsic motivation is lacking, and so a sign that credit
expansion is outpacing production.

22. The intrinsically motivated can receive extrinsic motivators, but the extrinsically
motivated cannot receive intrinsic motivators.

23. Intrinsic motivation surmounts guilt.

24. It seems that its not so much savings that pull a nation out of a Depression as it is a rise
in intrinsic motivation. It seems that people, during hard times, wake themselves up to
the things that truly matter in life, while such existential concerns are ignored during the
goods times. Perhaps the WWII generation became the greatest not so much because of
the war, but because of the Depression? Perhaps it was the Depression that enabled
them to be able to handle the war and to come out the other side ready to create
America anew? And perhaps its not by chance that every war after WWII hasnt gone
so well, since there wasnt a Depression beforehand? Perhaps the majority will never be
intrinsically motivated without such a collapse (especially in a credit-driven economy)?

25. In a sense, the best Capitalists have a Socialist heart.

26. The intrinsically motivated improve their selves for their selves, while the extrinsically
motivated improve their selves to do something. Paradoxically, in a sense, the consumer
internalizes while the producer externalizes.

27. As you pay off debt, you decrease your income, because as spending decreases, people
have less money to spend on you. Since one mans spending is anothers income
(generally), the loss of spending causes a drop in income. If you are not intrinsically
motivated, you will become less productive in this period, when the society probably
needs more production than ever before.

28. During deleveraging, government debts skyrocket to finance the unemployed. If they
raise taxes on the rich, the rich may leave. However, if they raise taxes on the
intrinsically motivated, the intrinsically motivated will keep working until he or she can
no longer afford to do so.

29. The less people feel like theyre in debt and the more they feel like theyre rich, the less
those people will feel a need to work if they are extrinsically motivated. In other words,
the most distant the debt feels, the less borrowers will take it seriously. The most
distant form of debt is that racked up by the government, which the people are
responsible for paying through taxes. When the government stimulates the economy, it
doesnt feel as if the people are responsible for financing that stimulation through
production. As tax money doesnt seem to the government to belong to anyone
(because the tax payer feels distant), so the debt owed to the government doesnt
either. Therefore, its hard to feel responsible for it, especially when times are good and
it doesnt seem like it will ever be called in. When times are bountiful, especially for an
extended period, it seems against human nature to prepare for droughts.

As the government struggles to take tax money seriously because it wasnt earned by
them and doesnt seem to belong to anyone, so its hard for the public to take debt
seriously because it wasnt spent by them and doesnt seem to belong to anyone.
Consequently, its hard for the public to increase productivity (especially when they hate
their jobs), as it is hard for the government to act fiscally responsible (especially when
voters will vote them out of office for doing so).

In fact, as government increases taxes to pay off debts, the public can become even less
productive, feeling that its labor isnt paying off. Yet this is when productivity is
desperately needed, yet it is exactly when productivity is least likely. Hence, a vicious
cycle begins.

30. When it is only possible for growth to increase with productivity because there is no
credit, quality of life immediately follows production: it is not possible to have a quality
of life (much) higher than ones level of production. Consequently, it is never possible
to feel like you dont have to work (other than when you actually dont have to work).
However, if production is ultimately driven by intrinsic motivation, then youll always
feel like working, because youll always like doing it.

31. It may be impossible for a government to successfully balance deflation and inflation
through deleveraging due to political interests, yet it may also be impossible for
Capitalism to avoid periods of deleveraging because it inevitably destabilizes itself during
times of stability. If this is the case, joy and intrinsic motivation are our only hope.

32. A free society is one that does not put all its eggs in one basket, per se. My neighbor is
free because he is free from the consequences of my mistakes (or at least he is supposed
to be in a free society). Yet, as a trade-off, he is also free from the consequences of my
successes. In a free state, mistakes are contained, but so are successes. On the other
hand, in a society under central planning, successes are inherited by all, but so are
mistakes. The question becomes then which society results in the most success overall.

The society that will be best will be the society that is most joyful. Central planning can
force productive activity for a time until alienation sets in. However, joyful workers will
be productive freely, and this kind of productivity is sustainable. The question then
becomes whether or not joy is higher in free societies versus societies under central
planning. Freedom can be overwhelming and alienating just as can totalitarianism.
Neither is perfect, but freedom is better primarily because it keeps overly large mistakes
from taking down the whole society. Consequently, through time, joy becomes
increasingly achievable.

Furthermore, hopelessness is more likely under a sense of force than freedom, and
when a people become hopeless, its hard to be intrinsically motivated, because its hard
(if not impossible) to be joyful.

33. Failure of those within a Capitalistic system to keep from destabilizing it by failing to be
intrinsically motivated creates objective data that government needs to intervene, even
though government is arguably, by definition, incapable of improving the system. If
Austrian thinkers are right about this, then the only way for a socioeconomic order to
survive is through intrinsic motivation (and the resulting creativity). Only joy can save

34. Since Capitalism isnt inherently stable (or at least not once credit is introduced), it is
arguable that government intervention is necessary. This seems like a logical conclusion,
but it assumes that government intervention works. If it doesnt, nothing can stand
between the public and the void of its purposelessness.

35. Boredom is the opposite of joy more so than hate, because hate at least reflects passion.
It may be the case that the best way to determine whether economic growth is a bubble
or not is by determining a nations level of boredom. If boredom is high, a bust is

36. If America has over fifty-trillion in credit, determining if this is fueling a bubble or not
can be gagged by how productive the society is, which can be estimated from its levels
of joy. It is doubtful that a minority of intrinsically motivated people will be able to
generate fifty-trillion worth of production.

37. If it is always probable that intrinsic motivation lessens during a bubble, then it is
probable that Capitalism always destabilizes itself. Furthermore, if the majority is always
extrinsically motivated versus intrinsically motivated, the majority of credit will always
outpace production.

38. The intrinsically motivated, through booms and busts, maintains production. They can
get a society out of a Depression that lacks savings, as they can keep growth from
bubbling. Unfortunately, as success can ruin Capitalism, success can ruin the intrinsically
motivated (as can compliments or encouragement if the individual becomes dependent
on them). Extrinsic motivators can transform the intrinsically motivated into
extrinsically motivated individuals, and so can setup those who are joyful to lose their

39. Perhaps there is a kind of cycle of intrinsic motivation rising until successful and then
falling once extrinsically motivated back and forth.

40. An individual can have intrinsic motivation and not necessarily be an artifexian, though
it seems unlikely that an artifexian wouldnt be intrinsically motivated. Someone who is
intrinsically motivated, even if not creative, contributes to production insomuch as the
individual contributes to the stability of the current system, which functions as a
platform off which artifexians can create. However, a society that is intrinsically
motivated but not creative will not create wealth, though at the same time, it wont lose

41. One of the difficulties of Capitalism seems to be that the more successful it becomes,
the more intrinsic motivation is separated from basic necessities. When basic needs are
easily covered, individuals have to turn to other goals and objectives, which can be hard
to do, especially if the society lacks creativity.

42. The paycheck, which must be given to people to make them to do work they dont want
to do, can transform the intrinsically motivated into extrinsically motivated individuals,
which ironically threatens the economy that makes paychecks possible.

43. If you use your free time to do something you love doing, people may tell you that
youre a workaholic, delusional, or stupid, and so contribute to the next Depression.

44. Ironically, income and productivity may have a converse relationship. Productivity and
income probably rise together in the short-term, but over the long-term, theyre
probably opposites (especially in a system with credit or easy credit), because the
majority is probably extrinsically motivated (since it seems to be more in line with
human nature). As income increases, the extrinsically motivated work less, having
achieved the end of their labor. Income probably stimulates productivity as credit
stimulates productivity, but too much income, like too much credit, can cause problems
(especially for a nation that lacks intrinsic motivations).

That said, this doesnt mean there should be restrictions on income. In fact, to not have
to worry about income at all, having enough of it, forces an individual to ask the hard
questions as does having none of it. Income levels dont seem to be the primary
problem or enabler, but motivation types.

45. If you are successful, and success is a result of extrinsic rewards, it will be hard to resist
judging the intrinsically motivated as failures (especially since all the evidence seems to
prove that they are, in fact, not successful, success being defined by extrinsic rewards).
If the society implies that extrinsic motivators equal success, it is likely that growth is
outpacing production and that a bubble is being inflated.

46. If there are more extrinsically than intrinsically motivated individuals in a society, growth
is probably driven by credit; if vice-versa, growth probably reflect production.

47. The immigrant seems to be a different sort of individual than the average citizen, and it
is possible that immigrants tend to be intrinsically motivated. Therefore, a nation that is
hostile to immigrants is more likely to undergo boom and bust cycles then a nation that
expresses hospitality toward them.

48. Extrinsic motivators can be distractions from ones lack of intrinsic motivation, as credit
can distract from production.

49. The high value of intrinsic motivation sheds light on the importance of values and
morals, for these contribute to motivations beyond instant gratification. These tend to
come from the family or the community. Put another way, character is of the utmost
importance. How this is instilled is a question for another time.

If credit is outpacing productivity, then character is needed like never before. If America
is lacking character and also becoming reliant on credit, America is in a dire situation.
Determining whether or not America is in fact lacking character may be reflected in the
countrys levels of boredom (which accompanies a loss of joy), which may reflect a loss
of values and/or the capacity to recognize values.

50. If America is one of the most joyless nations on the planet, America is probably
undergoing a bubble. The higher the depression, the worse the Depression.

51. The higher the number of people who dislike their job, the higher the likelihood that
growth is driven by credit rather than production. More than even joy, love of work
maybe more direct of a gage of credit as opposed to growth (but if a person doesnt
like their work, its hard to imagine that they would be joyful). Joy maybe a more
holistic gage, but not necessarily. However, since not everyone has a job, love of work
may give a false impression.

52. During a boom, it is likely that most extrinsically motivated individuals will produce less,
while the intrinsically motivated will maintain production, if not increase it. While the
extrinsically motivated tend to rise and fall with this credit-fueled tide, the intrinsically
motivated remain steady. While the extrinsically motivated over-consume during the
good times, the intrinsically motivated tend to continue spending in a manner the funds
their production. Someone who is intrinsically motivated is driven not by short-term
changes in the environment or socioeconomic condition, but by a long-term vision and

53. During a boom, if driven by credit, people probably look happy, but they probably
arent intrinsically joyful.

54. This paper, as is surely clear, is skeptical of the idea of equilibrium.

55. Work and productivity are not corollaries.

56. Joy is intrinsic existence.

57. What is productive is relative to the person being asked, but in an economy, what is
ultimately productive is that which society values. This is a metaphysical assessment
approached by cash flow and profits. Of course, all goods, like computers, books,
dances, inventions, etc., go through a period in which they arent valued because they
havent yet stood the test of time.

57.1 Considering The Creative Concord, what is productive is ultimately that which
grows the artifex.

58. One doesnt have to be productive in the eyes of the economy to be joyful, but those
who the economy considers productive must also be joyful to sustain.

59. A single person can fluctuate between being extrinsically and intrinsically motivated.
However, once a person is aware of this, a person can choose to stay intrinsically
motivated, though, due to social pressures and psychological tensions, this wont
necessarily be an easy choice.

60. It is possible that Capitalism, because it heavily uses extrinsic motivators (like salaries),
trains participants against intrinsic motivation (and makes workers feel like
commodities). Yet if intrinsic motivation is necessary for joy, Capitalism trains
individuals to be unhappy. It is therefore possible that Capitalism tends to cause a lack
of joy, yet it is joy which Capitalism requires to avoid destabilization.

At the same time, it seems that Socialism and various welfare state models are
economically unsustainable and limit freedom in a way that alienates citizens, similar to
how a lack of intrinsic motivation alienates. Though Socialistic states may have happier
people in them before economic realities come to pass, once those nations can no
longer pay their bills, that happiness may swing into serve social and civil unrest. The
greater the happiness and success of the prior Socialistic programs, the greater the rage
and failure.

Furthermore, welfare states dont necessarily cultivate intrinsic motivation within its
citizens, which is ultimately necessary for a joyful nation. Rather, as a boom via credit
artificially provides citizens with the fruits of their labor, so Socialism does the same
through the government. Rather than credit be used to supersede productivity,
government debt is used. Ultimately, this is simply another manifestation of a credit
bubble and has similar consequences.

Both Capitalism and Socialism must cultivate intrinsic motivation, but while Capitalism
seems to paradoxically efface that within itself through extrinsic motivators, Socialism
limits the freedom citizens need to cultivate intrinsic motivation within themselves,
causing alienation (as expanded upon in The Creative Concord). While Capitalism
may overwhelm with choices, Socialism can dishearten with too few.

Neither system automatically takes care of citizens: personal responsibility is needed

either way. That responsibility isnt simply about accepting consequences and working
hard; rather, it is about taking on the responsibility of cultivating within oneself a
purpose and intrinsic motivation for life. No state or economy can ultimately survive
that is filled with people who fail to take this responsibility on for their own lives.

60.1 It seems that Capitalism provides a good macro-framework for a society, but nothing on
the micro-level, while a Socialist society fails to address macro-concerns, though it better
approaches micro-ones. However, in Capitalism, people can choose to address micro-
concerns, while Socialism cannot choose to address macro-problems. Yet Capitalism
seems to train individuals through extrinsic incentives not to address its micro-concerns.

61. Capitalism seems to replace art with mass production, causing art to lose its aura (as
Walter Benjamin warns). This may result in a society devaluing creativity, which is
necessary for intrinsic motivation and a strong artifex. Not falling victim to this

tendency (or the tendency to lose intrinsic motivation), requires character, as will be
addressed to a certain extend in On Want and Awe.

62. Work and productive arent similes.

63. Bertrand Russell, in On Praise of Idleness, notes that one of the greatest challenges of
a society is knowing what to do with its leisure; unfortunately, that is what a Capitalistic
system that is extrinsically motivated tends to misuse. The intrinsically motivated seem
to have work lives that are integrated into their free time, while the extrinsically
motivated seem to have clear divides between their times of leisure and work.
Furthermore, extrinsic motivators seem to make individuals bad at leisure, yet the point
of work for the extrinsically motivated is to enjoy their selves. A reason for this is
perhaps because people are trained to do what they are told to do, and when no one is
giving them clear instructions, they dont spend their time productively. Furthermore,
during times of leisure, anything that is associated with work is shunned, such as
reading, deep conversation, etc. (which have come to be associated with work due to
college and grades).

A Capitalistic society that is productive during times of leisure, like a society that is
productive during times of economic growth or booms, is a society that is sustainable.
A society that fails at this challenge is a society that shall undergo alienation, boredom,
etc. As this emotional depression climbs, in a credit-driven society, the more likely an
economic Depression occurs

63.1 When an individual lacks intrinsic motivation, that individual can act in such a way that
those who are intrinsically motivated dont want to hang around that person. Hence,
that individual cant learn an alternative way of life, forming a vicious cycle. Considering
this, the intrinsically motivated need to be patient, as the extrinsically motivated need to
be non-judgmental.

63.2 One is more so what they do during their leisure than what they do during their job. If
one works as an engineer but spends their free time taking pictures, it is more accurate
to say to that person youre a photographer than it is to say youre an engineer. In our
culture, we define people by what they do to make money, when people are more so
what they do out of pure freedom. The man who watches football on Sunday is more so
a football watcher than a manager; the college kid who attends parities on the weekend
is more so a party attendee than a student, and the guy that works during his free time
to design an App to start a business is more so an App designer than he is a janitor.
What a person does without obligation is more a reflection of who that person is than
what a person is forced to do.

Our identity emerges from our freedom. Capitalism, which tends to commoditize
individuals, tends to also create a culture in which people are defined by what they are
commoditized into. This may increase the likelihood of emotional depression and social
dissatisfaction, which increases the likelihood of economic Depression. For the vitality
of our economy, it is important we begin defining one another by what we choose to be,
rather than by what we are obligated to do.

64. If the goal of a society is retirement and the economy is said to be booming, it is
unlikely that this assessment is accurate.

65. Not everyone who is intrinsically motivated makes cheese that others want, per se, but
they do make a certain percent of cheese that others want. No one can know which is
which, but if the economy is being deemed strong but joy is low, it is either the case
that there is little cheese or that the cheese which is produced isnt valued. Either
leads to economic difficulty (which hints at the importance of incubating the capacity
for citizens to discern value and the willingness to commit to that value, as discussed in
Should We Get Rid of the Internet?).

66. It is not necessarily the case that a given, intrinsically motivated individual drives
productivity, but it is ultimately the case that some, intrinsically motivated individual(s)

67. More so than it being an issue of extrinsic motivation versus intrinsic motivation, it is
an issue of extrinsic motivation replacing or being valued over intrinsic motivation, and
a failure to realize that extrinsic motivation must always, necessarily, lead into intrinsic

68. As with faith according to James, so it seems joy without works is dead.

69. A college that incubates intrinsic motivation does more good for the economy than one
that simply gets students jobs.

70. Considering what has been established, the higher the happiness, the higher the
likelihood of a bubble; the higher the joy, the less likelihood. That said, joy can devolve
into happiness as happiness can evolve into joy (though this paper believes it is unlikely
that joy devolves, making it a reliable indicator).

70.1 The best way to identify and define joy from happiness seems to be job satisfaction,
though thats not to say thats the only way.

71. A given person who is intrinsically motivated doesnt necessarily drive productivity, but
it is the case that productivity is ultimately driven by intrinsic motivation. Furthermore,
extrinsic motivation can work to get people to do what needs to be done (though at the
risk of snuffing out intrinsic motivation), but ultimately cannot provide the fuel an
individual needs to be productive for the whole of that individuals life. Furthermore,
productivity that is extrinsically versus intrinsically driven is prone to cause alienation
and unhappiness.

72. Money can buy happiness, but not joy.

73. Is it possible that a society values products that are a result of intrinsic motivation which
ultimately arent valuable? Not in any meaningful or sure sense: the act of valuing a
product cannot be defined apart from the act that makes it monetarily valuable. I value a
cup at $50 when I spend $50 to purchase it, which then makes it worth $50 (relative to
me, at least). As of this moment, its as if the cup was always worth $50, and it actually
cannot be said for sure that it wasnt. If a painting hanging on the wall today is bought
in fifty years for a million dollars, it cannot be said that the painting wasnt always worth
that much. If a singer today performs songs at an open mic for free, but later performs
those songs for $100 a ticket, the people who attend the open mic today are partakers of
an incredible sale. This isnt to say a person cannot value something, like a painting,
unless he or she pays for it, but that this value has no monetary weight until money is
put down on it. Until then, the painting is an unsigned social contract. Because
everything can be valued, everything is such a potential social contract. Yet, as an
unsigned social contract cannot be said for sure to even be a social contract, one
cannot say for sure that a person who values a painting but doesnt put down money to
at least see it actually values the painting. He or she might, but it cannot be confirmed
its a pure idea that, without transformation, ultimately has no (socioeconomic)
influence. The fact that the person spends time observing the painting may indicate that
he or she truly values it, but not for sure: other forces and influences may be at work
(though maybe not it cannot be said either way). However, if the person chooses to
put down money, such a free act indicates that the person probably does in fact value
the work. Even if the person was pressured into the purchase, the act of spending
money shows the person is committed to his or her valuation, even if he or she may not
totally agree with it. That commitment is ultimately what counts (especially in terms of
the overall economy).

73.1 All monetary values are values, but not all values are monetary values.

73.2 The act of creating a good is the very act that creates wealth. Though this wealth may
not be valued or valuable, it is still wealth. Wealth isnt always recognized as valuable:
wealth and value seem distinct. There is the act of creating it and the act of
recognizing it: there is the act of creating wealth and the act of recognizing its value. The
first is done by the producer; the second, the consumer. It seems that potential growth
develops in the divide between production and recognition. However, since it isnt the
case that one can value a product that shouldnt be valued (for the act of paying an
amount for a product is the act of making it that value), no potential decline can
similarly be formulated. The act of valuing something is the act of making it valuable.

74. To allude to The Creative Concord and The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb, if you were
a turkey that had been fed well for a year and another turkey told you that tomorrow
youre going to be killed for Thanksgiving, you would have 364 pieces of evidence that
the other turkey was objectively wrong. You would have every reason to believe that
tomorrow would be another day of bliss; furthermore, it would be irrational for you to
try to escape, seeing how well off you have been. And then suddenly it wouldnt be
irrational, because then suddenly the axe would be coming down. Likewise, the loss of
creativity, the amassing of debt, inflation, etc., arent problems until suddenly they are.
Considering this, being able to tell the difference between inflations with joy can help us
gage when our supposed evidence is giving us a false sense of security.

74.1 If you were a turkey who had been fed well for a year, you would be irrational to listen
to a turkey who warned you that Thanksgiving was coming. All your cases studies would
prove that he was wrong, and to listen to him would be to cave into fear. You would
have no reason to believe him, and even if you were objective and unemotional, you
would still, objectively, conclude that you should stay, unafraid. And yet, ultimately, it
would be rational to listen, even though there was no reason or evidence to fear
Thanksgiving. Studying history, which many economists do to provide a basis for
decision making and economic policy, can setup economists for disaster. They shouldnt
try to be scientists, as the turkey shouldnt try to scientifically and historically decide if
he is danger. Through that very act, the turkey sets himself up for execution.

74.2 Economists and policy makers are able to decide and influence what happens, and so
what history entails, and so the nature of the history from which they decide what policy
to create and enact. Scientists do not study the world they create (though they do study
it through their own frameworks), but the world that exists. Economists though are able
to shape and influence the history and world that they study, which, if they then try to
act scientifically toward, gives them a false impression of reality.

74.3 The separation of philosophy from economists was the death of economics.

75. As intellectuals are necessary for they contribute (in)directly to the atmosphere in which
the artifex is incubated, so too are the joyful.

76. It is not the case that joy is productivity, but that joy indicates productivity.
Furthermore, it is not the case that intrinsic motivation is productivity, but that
intrinsic motivation indicates productivity. Therefore, though joy isnt productivity itself,
it indicates it (and does so strongly).

If an economy is supposedly being measured as productive but joy is low, the system is
probably driven by credit; if the economy is being measured as strong and joy is high,
theres probably minimal credit driving the growth. Therefore, for example, if the Dow
Jones is at 16,500 but joy is low, it is unlikely that this 16,500 is an accurate measure of
reality this supposed growth is probably driven more so by credit than productivity
(which means there is probably a bubble). The size of this bubble can be indicated by the
divide between the size of the economy and the prevalence of unhappiness. On the
flipside, pent up demand can be indicated if joy is high but productivity is low a kind
of sustainable and coming boom is probable.

If the Dow Jones is at 16,500 and joy is high, this 16,500 is probably accurate in
general. Though in this state there will still be price fluctuations and the natural fall and
rise of businesses, there will be no boom and bust cycles. In this state, the divide
between estimates of growth and value can only be so divided from the existence of
actual assets and products. When productivity and joy are high, Capitalism is probably
its plain, slow, and exciting self.

This paper is not so much interested in the question of whether intrinsic motivation
necessarily leads to production (though this paper does claim that this is not only likely,
but also sustainable), as it is on gagging whether or not, once economists deem an
economy as growing or productive, that this is indeed the case. The paper hopes to
establish joy as a way to gage inflation more so than to claim that joy leads to
productivity, though it is probably (though not necessarily) the case (as it is probably though
not necessarily the case that extrinsic motivation influences a given individual to ultimately
be unproductive). Grasping this may help us determine the proper way to assess
economic evidence in a way that doesnt make it toward what isnt the case.

Representing Beauty
1. With eyes that see everything as potential posts, photographs, etc., we are the worlds
Big Brother.

2. In the sense that we are out to capture the world and render it into digitization, our love
toward the world isnt unconditional, but possessive.

2.1 Though not touched on and deserving a paper of its own, technology has deeply
changed our toward-ness in regard to relationships. A relationship is now a status and
isnt official until posted on Facebook. Again, the digital has become our legitimizing
standard. Also, we can find out about someones relationship status by checking their
profile: the hunt and mystery have been greatly reduced. Consequently, the degree in
which entering a relationship is a labor of love has been truncated.

2.2 Giving us the illusion that love is easy, friends on Facebook dont inconvenience us. The
same has occurred when it comes to sex: pornography makes it so that our sexual
appetites never challenge us. Furthermore, males are able to have sexual encounters with
women without ever being challenged to understand them. Like friendship, when sex
and the opposite sex become difficult, we now dismiss them as having rotted. Lastly, it
has been recorded that more and more people have to imagine pornographic images to
achieve climax during sex. This is prime evidence that humanity, at its most fundamental
level, has replaced actuality with digitization. Now, a photo-shopped woman is the
standard by which the beauty of a real woman is judged.

3. The degree a given individual sacrifices the actual for the digital can be estimated from
the number of times a person turns from the world to their technology.

4. It can be argued that writing is a way to escape the real world rather than face it. This
can be true, but only a given writer can know whether he or she writes to overcome (or
to escape) the void. The same can be said about any user of any given technology.

5. This paper, in being posted on Facebook, could potentially cause individuals to be

toward digitization and away from actualization; hence, one could argue that this paper
should only be distributed in print form. To take up this argument would be to have a
sort of Gnostic view of technology. Again, this paper is not arguing that all technology
is evil, only that it transforms human orientation. If not careful, this orientation will
disembody us.

6. Once a technology has been invented, a dichotomy of posted on Facebook versus not
posted on Facebook, for example, cannot be avoided. It becomes an everyday fact of
life, though its not always consciously considered. The question is now how do we
engage with this new mode of being, not whether or not it is good or bad overall. All
modes are good in some ways and bad in others; its up in us to decide which is which,
when and how.

7. Not only have we outsourced our cognition to the digital, but also our compassion. We
are now more concerned with posting about global hunger (and making sure that are
friends think we are moved to tears by it) than we are about actually doing something to
stop it.

8. The act of seeing another person take a picture of a party you are attending assures you
that the people around you think that the event is valuable; the act of watching another
take a picture of the kids playing in the yard shows you that an other thinks what is
happening is memorable (as may you); witnessing others carry out acts that digitize and
record reality are ways through which we can inhabit the consciousness of another and
overcome the uncertainty and angst with which others can confront us. Rather than
have to worry if others around us are having a good time, technologies help us know

they are feeling the same way as we are, and this helps us feel as if we arent being
artificial (even when we are).

On the other hand, if you arent enjoying yourself at a party and see lots of people
taking pictures, this can make you feel like there is something wrong with you (because
while others clearly think the experience is valuable and you know you should feel the
same, you dont). Consequently, you may enter into despair and depression. In this way,
technologies can direct people toward the void, but only because encountering (the)
other(s) can cause this orientation.

(On the other hand, seeing others take pictures can make it easier to dismiss your
feelings, because if people are taking pictures, you dont need to feel as if the experience
is valuable, for clearly it is.)

8.1 A picture is more likely to suggest the values of the photographer than the values of the
photographed subject, though a photograph seems to suggest the opposite.

8.2 More pictures are probably taken at a persons graduation than when that person
finishes a painting. The conversations a young boy had with his grandparents that made
him the man who would lead a company are less likely to be photographed than the
ceremony in which the man is inducted into the companys leadership. The
conversations with the grandparents are what mattered, but what is photographed seems
to suggest the opposite. We photograph accomplishments more so than the little things
which make those accomplishments possible. In fact, through photography, we suggest
those little things dont matter.

There is a correlation with what we photograph and what we value as accomplishments.

To photograph a thing is to validate it over what isnt photographed (or at least thats
whats implied). When people begin to start believing this is the case, they can start
photographing everything, afraid that they might be suggesting something is more
important than something else. OCD and stress can soon set in.

8.3 A photograph can also give us a sense that we understand something through simply
viewing it, when understanding requires much more than glances.

9. If we see ourselves in a picture posted on Facebook, it can comfort us, for we know that
others know we attended the party without we ourselves having to post a picture of
ourselves there (which could come across as egotistical). Had no picture been posted,
our popularity could be questioned not only by others, but also by ourselves. If we are
featured in a tweet, we can feel validated. If we write an article featured in the New
Yorker, the article becomes insightful (though it would have been insightful had it never
been discovered).

Whether or not something is digitized is how we determine its value. No longer must we
accept a subjective standard of value of our own making and judge entities relative to
that standard. Consequently, it is easier to avoid the void of reality. No longer must we
decide for ourselves if a party was good or not, and so no longer do we have to worry
about what standard we determine our assessment and about confronting that
standards arbitrariness. Our standard of valuation has been given to us by our
technologies. We no longer have to make it ourselves: our only responsibility is to

digitize existence (which many of us are nearly OCD about doing). This alienates us, but
distracted by our representations, we may not even notice.

Because the internet has become our standard for determining the value of our social
lives (say, through Facebook likes), our social life has become as rigid, structured, and
fixed as our work lives. What you have to do to have a valuable social life is clear
(receive likes, etc.), where you need to go to achieve that goal is set (places where
others with cell phones are), and all of this is easily scheduled. Unpredictability and the
organic have been mostly boxed out from our lives. The rules are always clear, the
standards always set, and uncertainty always minimal. Consequently, in organizing
ourselves in terms of work and social life in a way that keeps out unpredictability, there
is no opportunity for the void to confront us. Until something happens.

9.1 The more the digital is accepted as our standard of valuation, the more we feel as if we
have overcome subjectivity into objectivity, for the more it feels like we have achieved a
universal standard. In fact, the digital itself is an arbitrary and subjective standard, but
widely accepted, it seems more objective. Consequently, we feel we have achieved a true
something to overcome the nothingness of reality. Also, with this ostensibly objective
standard, the moment we post something to Facebook, it feels instantly validated. Since
validation is so easy to achieve, it seems increasingly illogical to spend ones life
dedicated to the arts. Though experts may have better quality, they dont have increased
exposure, and what good is quality if nobody likes it?

10. When the digital becomes too much like the actual, humans can catch a glimpse of the
void they use digitization to escape. This phenomenon is referred to as the Uncanny
Valley, which refers to when it becomes difficult for a person to tell whether a digital
depiction of a person is real or not and that person consequently begins to feel
uncomfortable. Humans get that same feeling when it comes to Google Glass, for it
feels that the divide between the technological and the biological is closing. When this
occurs, the artificial world humans have created in order to avoid actuality begins to
collapse, beginning the delayed existential crisis. To become one with technology we use
is to have our identities compromised, while using technologies to distract ourselves
maintains a degree of distance and preserves our selfhoods. Yet, in so using
technologies, our selves are actually lost, but not until we encounter the Uncanny
Valley do we have to admit that to ourselves.

11. The place art once resided has been filled with opinion (about art): weve subtly
switched from making art to making tweets.

12. In this paper, often where the phrase existential crisis is used, the phrase reality of war
would also be fitting.

13. What we are willing to pay for something isnt what that thing is worth; rather, paying
for something shows that we are committed to the value weve discerned for ourselves.
Money is a commitment, not the maker of what we are committing.

14. To judge the value of phenomena by digitization is to judge the digital as superior to the
real. This judgment entails systemizing reality into the digital, which results in
committing a grave error (as will be expounded upon in Self-Delusion, the Toward-
ness of Evidence, and The Paradox of Judgment).

15. We live in virtual reality.

16. A person who plays a videogame or watches a movie uses the digital to access the
digital, while a person who uses a cell phone or computer can use the virtual to connect
with the actual. Video games and movies are at least a closed loop while cell phones
remain open, and so video games and movies have a better chance at actually
enhancing reality, rather than overturning it. Also, video games and movies have set
limits, while use of other technologies can be perpetual. Though people may emulate
video games and movies, they do not confuse reality with them as they do with
Facebook, Twitter, etc. Society often worries about violence in video games and movies,
but we need to start worrying about the violence technologies do to our everyday

17. It is common now that people check on their phones facts and referenced videos,
articles, etc. in the middle of a conversation. Consequently, it is increasingly difficult to
enter conversational flow, which has detrimental effects on critical, creative, and
abstract thinking. Also, by having the ability to constantly fact-check during
conversation, not only are the times between studying and employing what is learned
blurred, but facts are emphasized at the expense of the capacity to connect facts and
derive meanings. As the act of taking a photograph to preserve a beautiful sunset is what
can negate it, so the act of making infinite facts constantly available is the act which
renders humans unable to use them meaningfully.

17.1 It is also the case that having constant access to the internet can give us a feeling that we
(can) know everything, which (can) affect(s) how intensely we look for new truth.

18. There have been a number of Youtube videos bringing to peoples attention the fact
that cell phones distract people from living. The issue though isnt that people dont
know this, but that humans do what they do not want to do and what they hate doing.
Like Paul (as depicted in Romans 7:15), we do not understand what we do, yet know we
do it. We know we are walking contradictions, and yet we cannot contradict ourselves

19. The phrase its like a movie seems to have the function of its Heaven on earth.

20. With the invention of emails, text messaging, and/or phones, a new, anxious mode of
being was fashioned of having unanswered messages. Before these inventions
(captured and captivated us), one could not be sitting at dinner with the family, aware
that he or she had texts to reply to, emails to answer, calls to return, etc. In the past,
ringtones didnt notify people in the middle of dinner that they had yet another message
to address, adding to their anxiety and pulling them further out of the moment (while
also presenting them with a temptation to check their phone while in the midst of
spending time with others). Before these inventions, it was easier to be present. Today,
though its easier to talk with the world, its harder to talk with the family.

21. The exclamation mark is the new period. Today, to end an email with I love you. rather
than I love you! is to risk divorce (or at least thats how it can feel). Technology has
made us uncomfortable with proper grammar. Consequently, because we are so use to
our texts, messages, and emails using exclamation marks, we can feel that we need to
reflect exclamation marks in our everyday conversation, simply to make sure that people
we are talking to know how much we love them (for example). This causes anxiousness
and a cheapening of communication caused by the very devices meant to facilitate it.
22. Alluding to What Money Cant Buy by Michael Sandel, as technology changes our
toward-ness to entities, so does money. When I see a painting without a price tag, I
may think thats beautiful. When I see a painting with one, I may think thats worth
$5000 wow. Since everything is potentially sellable, I cannot engage with anything as
if it doesnt have the potential to be monetarily valued. As digital reality has become the
standard against which we judge reality, money (which is mostly a digital phenomenon
at this point) has come to play a similar role.

23. To capture a moment always renders it artificial; to send a text is to outsource the
experience of the texts subject; to call your mother to tell her how much fun you are
having is to step out of the fun. Capturing reality always risks losing it. Whether or not
this risk is worth it is up to the one undergoing the experience.

23.1 To tell the family lets take a picture is to risk transforming the mood of the family
members. In making them self-aware of the beautiful moment they are in, the stability
of the beautiful moment is risked. Anytime one says take a picture, hashtag it, google
it, etc., those involved become self-aware and are pulled out of the moment, perhaps
then being unable to reenter it.

If you look at a windshield while driving rather than look through it, you risk getting in a
wreck. Likewise, moments, like the self, are to be lived through, not looked at. Whether
or not one should study their windshield while driving (perhaps to notice a crack that
needs to be fixed, etc.) can only be decided by the person driving. Either way, to do
such is to take a risk, and if one begins to think too much about making sure their
windshield isnt damaged, theyll begin checking it far too often (perhaps becoming
OCD). Likewise, if one becomes too bent on making sure all the important moments
are captured, they risk never experiencing moments for which life is lived.

24. Many holy books note the importance of silence and making ones words few. These
claims were made when conversation rarely happened (comparatively speaking). Then,
people didnt speak with one another unless they were face-to-face; today, as if spirits,
we can talk with anyone in the world. The possibility of conversation is constant. If the
writers of holy books thought people talked too much when the possibility of
conversation was much less, what would they think about our world today?

We, as a culture, are toward conversation, meaning that we are always in a state of
about to talk or could talk. Because the technologies of laptops, cell phones, etc. exist,
humans are rarely in a state absent of the possibility of talking (for cell-signals reach
about anywhere nowadays). Therefore, there is the possibility of a constant sense of
obligation (I should call my friend, etc.), for we now know that everyone knows that
we could, at any moment, contact them, and that if we dont call them, they might think
its because we dont like talking to them (and wouldnt a good friend or good child
assure his or her loved ones that all is well?).

Because people are always toward conversation, naturally, the amount of conversation
that occurs increases. With that, the likelihood the warnings of past holy books being
missed increases (such as what can be found in James 3, Proverbs, Surat Al-'A`raf 7:204-
206, etc.). What this means depends on the person answering the question. However,
regardless, if death and life are in the power of the tongue, the more one talks, the
more one plays with fire.
24.1 Yet, as we have become more prone to constant conversation, we are less able to handle
long conversation. We are able to have small, five-minute exchanges that add up to two
hours, but not one, two hour conversation. Conversation has been fragmented, like how
television programs are fragmented by commercials. In fact, our brains have been wired
to associate long conversation with talking too much.

24.2 In being able to speak to anyone at anytime, people are more prone to let their emotions
get the best of them and call loved ones and friends at an instance when it would be
better to remain silent. This can result in emotional breakdowns that will entail more
conversation and potentially further strife.

24.3 Thorough explanation is now associated with long-windedness and arrogance (except in
a lecture setting where its possible to check email). Statements that claim something as
true or false are also frowned upon, because technology primes us to assent to
relativism, for our technologies have rewired our brains in a manner that make us
struggle to fathom or conceptualizing a big picture and/or paradoxes.

24.4 Perhaps because we are so used to television programs in which characters are hiding
secrets, if someone doesnt share their problems and simply says Im fine, you can
come to believe they arent being genuine. Today, we associate ones true self with their
problems, so if someone tells you that Im fine when the person really is, we can feel as
if the person is refusing to open up to us. Consequently, being well is associated with
denial and being closed off. The very act of pressuring those who are well to open
up when they have nothing to hide can be the very thing that upsets them, an emotion,
which upon being detected, can make others feel they have evidence that there is
something wrong (and so motivate them to push harder, resulting in more discomfort
until the relationship is destroyed). This tendency to voice problems, perhaps
encouraged by modern psychology, can be the very thing that results in people needing
modern psychiatric counseling.

24.5 Because a person can always be talking, conversation addiction is a possibility,

necessitating the need for councilors trained in conversation withdrawal. Though this
sounds comical, its quite serious.

24.6 A work called On Modern Conversation would be advantageous.

25. In a world with television, it isnt natural for children to learn how to read from the
King James Bible, which is full of long, complex sentences sprinkled with semicolons
and colons that often start with And or But. As our technologies have influenced how
we approach debates (as expounded upon by Neil Postman in Amusing Ourselves to
Death), so too technologies have transformed our definition of literate. It is rather
recent that we came to believe that a child who could read see Spot run was capable of
reading: fourth graders once needed to understand Emerson before they were
considered literate.

Literacy requires the ability to untangle difficult passages, not the capacity to enjoy
popular fiction. Tragically, we hide our illiteracy by claiming that books that are hard to
understand arent well written. Rather than taking responsibility and transforming our
systems of education, we blame writers, of whom without literacy would be impossible.

25.1 It is possible that because children are taught that good writing is clear, that sentences
shouldnt start with and, etc., that children come to dismiss great works like the Bible
as foolishly crafted. As guided by their teachers, it is possible children come to dismiss
brilliance as beneath them.

26. Before the invention of writing or the Gutenberg Press, imagine when virtually all
information was spoken when all memorization was through the mouth. Today, what
we memorize tends to be off a piece of paper. Imagine a world in which you could only
memorize information for the exam tomorrow by talking to someone. Perhaps in this
world, the divide between memorization and wisdom wouldnt be so great.

27. Art forms arise and die as technological environments change. There is a reason lyres
are no longer used.

28. Why think about your loved ones when you can call them?

29. Parental meddling ruins marriages, and the cell phone makes that meddling not only
easier, but also makes parents feel more justified in doing it.

30. A friend can thrust your private life before a public theatre anytime.

31. Were all managers now.

32. I wish Burke and Tocqueville, who wrote on the French Revolution, would have had a
chance to write on the internet, which seems to be the great accelerator and propagator
of the French Revolution spirit, if you will.

33. The feeling that technology makes us safe is much greater than the actual degree
technology makes us safe.

34. We all want to be seen because we want to feel that were not the only one who doesnt
know whether we exist.

35. This is the first generation that has to deal with infinitum: the capacity to turn all we do
into something timeless. Cell phones make it possible to always talk with people, as
cameras and video cameras make it possible to capture every moment. Conversing,
learning, family, watching sports, researching, dating, communication, etc. are hardly
limited by time and space anymore. Social media and mobile devices make it possible to
turn the real world into a kind of World of Warcraft a kind of endless, addictive
game (in the Gadamer sense). It is uncertain yet rather humans will be able to handle
the ability to transposition experiences into something timeless: this challenge of
infinitum is great.

36. It is natural for society to be sucked into the technique that Jacques Ellul warns about
in The Technological Society, for we cannot resist advancing medication, cars, etc.
anything that will make us feel safer. Our concerns about safety are turning us into

36.1 Technique, as Ellul warns, has moved from something we do with our hands into
something outside of ourselves in technology. Consequently, technology, in a Marxist

sense, alienates us. Today, neither the bourgeoisie nor the proletariat own or work the
means of production: the means of production own and work us.

36.2 Now that the world has developed Facebook, there is a pressure to tell the world that
youre excited to go to the party tonight! or that youre excited to see Mom tonight!,
because if you truly cared, wouldnt you want to share? And what if your Mom found
out that you didnt post something on Facebook about her visit? What if she got upset?

Humanitys love and technology are inseparably linked.

36.3 Anxiousness and safety are corollaries.

37. In our technological world, we are emotionally desperate for emotions we are sure we
actually feel.

38. Technology changes the toward-ness of philosophy: before birth control existed,
contemplating the morality of premarital sex was different than contemplating it

39. To invent is to beget inescapable potential. With the creation of the epidural, though
one doesnt have to use one, one cannot be free of the possibility of using it.
Consequently, a woman cannot, in labor, be free of knowing that she could take an
epidural, perhaps causing an anxiety for her that previous generations didnt have to
experience. Furthermore, having the option can result in one thinking of themselves
(perhaps through the eyes of others) as stubborn or stupid for not taking it. And if
tomorrow every epidural on earth vanished, women would still be unable to escape the
possibility of being free of pain during childbirth, because they would know the
technology did exist, and so could be created again (even if knowledge of how to do so
was presently lost).

In regard to epidurals, considering that ones psychological state influences their physical
state (as evident in say sex), it is possible that the noted, mental anxiety actually increases
the physical pain of labor; consequently, labor today maybe more painful than it was in
the past, thanks to a technology that was created for the sake of easing the pain of
childbearing. This isnt to say epidurals are bad or that they shouldnt be used, but rather
to say technologies change us, can cause irony, and can produce anxiety (for those who
arent prepared).

The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz outlines how choice can cause unhappiness,
paralysis, and anxiety. Today, people are overwhelmed with choice, thanks to
technology, the removal of social taboos, and more. We choose our identity, choose
whether we check our phone or not, choose when we get married and have kids, choose
when we work or dont, choose whether or not we commit suicide, get a divorce, have
sex, take a picture, take a call, etc. Civilization has more choice and anxiety than ever;
furthermore, people are perpetually engaged in a state of making decisions, which
changes how people experience the world. Choices, expressions of liberty, have become
increasingly inescapable, and so has the possibility of considering hypothetical
alternatives and worlds. Hence, our imaginations are constantly considering what could
be, making it more difficult to accept what is. Furthermore, when one has options and
is dissatisfied with life, its that persons fault; when there are no options, its the worlds
fault. As choice increases, so increases personal responsibility and the likelihood of
being dissatisfied. In a way, this drives excellence, for it forces people to push
themselves to new heights; in other ways, this drives depression, for it makes everyone
feel inadequate and less satisfied.

To continue the thought, when we have the choice to use birth control, for example,
having children can actually seem more daunting than if we dont have that choice, as
can getting married. If we have the ability to call our parents, calling them can come to
seem as more of an indication of love than if you dont have a cell phone. Technology
increases options, and where options increase, anxiety can result. And as we are thrown
into the world in the way Heidegger describes, so we are thrown into technology,
anxiety, and toward-ness.

A society that is not aware of how technology can negatively affect minds is a society
that will not develop the ability to handle its creations. Furthermore, its creativity,
necessary for expanding the artifex and economic growth (as laid out in The Creative
Concord), which will be its destruction, and yet without creativity, the society is also
doomed. Developing character is the only hope.

39.1 Perhaps society has too much choice, but who decides which choice can be done away
with and which can stay? Once made available, who can do away with (a) choice?
Without a dictator, its inescapable, but who wants a dictator (note the irony)? Again,
developing character is the only hope.

39.2 People demand customization which, in increasing choice, makes them unhappy,
resulting in them demanding more customization. Likewise, people demand choice,
which, in increasing unhappiness, results in them demanding more choice.

40. Perhaps social media has integrated thingifying into our very being, making us naturally
turn the world into things, as Heidegger warned against.

41. As according to Heidegger we find ourselves thrown into a world and language, so we
are thrown into a technology so we are thrown into a toward-ness.

42. Technology can create thoughtlessness, in the sense that Hannah Arendt described
Eichmann: it doesnt make us stupid so much as it orientates us to accept certain
premises, and to do certain things, without question (and without realizing we even
think and do certain things without question). To allude to the thought of Thomas
Kuhn, it creates a paradigm upon which we operate, in a manner which makes us think
we question the ground upon which we stand, though we never do.

43. Life is found in peoples faces: put down your iPhone.

-Google Glass

On Materialism, Purpose, and Discernment

1. In a sense, the universal purpose of all is to (continually) find purpose.

2. The break down of a person (as mentioned) is not necessarily bad: in fact, it might be
inevitable for everyone to undergo. Such a break down can serve to help a person
better understand purpose or motivate a person to find it.

3. In line with The Creative Concord, to be an artifexian is to create incarnations of
ones reason for living. Furthermore, as creativity integrates ones social and work lives
together, purpose creates, out of ones life, a whole of life. Lastly, since one without
purpose cannot define a free act from a mere act, in being synchronized, a person can
be meaningfully free. This being the case, since freedom is the capacity to transcend
alienation, materialism is the inability to escape it. In relating to the world alienated, the
materialistic person relates to material things disembodied and abstracted (into his or
her own mind).

4. Whether or not the amount of possessions a person owns indicates materialism is

relative. While middle class Americans may not consider themselves materialistic
compared to the upper class, relative to most of the world, they seem to own far too
many possessions. Though it is the case that the more material goods a person has, the
more likely it is that person is materialistic, such cannot be said definitely. This is
because the more a person acquires, the more difficult it is for that person to have a
purpose which all those goods are toward. Hence, the more one has, the more difficult
it is to avoid de-synchronization, but only a given person can know the state of his or
her own life.

5. As a gear becomes invisible in a working machine, so morality and freedom are

invisible until one is immoral or enslaved.

6. One can be materialistic in one moment and not in the next, then be materialistic again.
Identity is a constant flux.

7. Without purpose, it seems hard to learn how to adapt, for there is nothing for which
one is adapting.

8. There is a sense in which purpose restricts freedom, though purpose makes freedom
meaningful. When it comes to discussing freedom, one must keep in mind that the
freest thing is nothingness, for nothingness is devoid of all limits. Yet if one is free in
the sense that one is nothing, this freedom is meaningless, for there is no subject to be
free. One is only free if there is a thing to be free that is, in a sense, limited (for anything
that exists has definition, and that with definition has limits). The one that is totally free
doesnt exist, yet the one who isnt free is alienated by existence.

For a being to be free (meaningfully) is for a being to (only) be limited by what is truly
outside that beings control and that beings own will. If I choose to open a door,
though I am no longer free to exist in a world in which the door is closed, this loss of
possibility is a consequence of what I willed. Hence, though it seems to signify the
opposite, the situation signifies my liberation. Likewise, though purpose seems to
restrict freedom, it is what actually gives freedom meaningful definition. Without it,
freedom cannot be defined from nothingness. Such indefinable freedom is no
remedy for alienation.

9. Without purpose, a person cannot say whether he or she is alienated. As to be in true

despair is to not know you are in despair (as Kierkegaard noted), so true alienation is to
not know you are alienated. Total alienation is, in fact, total. To have purpose is to gain
the dichotomy of alienated versus non-alienated: it is to transcend the purposeless state

in which you are alienated in being unable to say you are alienated. Once you gain this
language, you can escape your plight (though it is up to you to actually do so).

10. What has been said about material things can be said about the self. When the self is
visible, it de-synchronizes; when the self is invisible (thanks to purpose), the human is
whole. As materialism is inevitable without purpose, so is selfishness.

11. It is possible that a person be fragmented by having too many purposes or purposes that
do not easily synthesize. Though it is the case that without purpose a person is
necessarily materialistic and fragmented, with purposes, though the person isnt
materialistic, the person can be fragmented (if spread too thin).

12. Like a gear is invisible when its part of the whole that it was made to be part of, so a
person is invisible (to his or her self) when fulfilling his or her purpose.

1. Ethics teach creativity more so than morality.

2. Ethics is a game that acts like it can play a million games at once.

3. A problem with Ethics can be its playfulness.

4. When one says Ethics, the person may mean Ontology.

5. Even if God Didnt Create humanity, if God Said take care of the poor to the
(im)moral world, though it wouldnt necessarily be immoral not to do so (assuming you
didnt engage in any sort of game with the poor), it would still be Immoral. Gods
Existence then, is an (Objectively) Ethical question, though Gods Existence doesnt
necessarily have ethical ramifications.

6. There has never been a moral act, only (im)moral acts. All moral acts are in a bubble and
fail to take into account all other, relative positions. You can only say someone is moral
if you dont pay attention to everything outside your focus. No one has ever done a
moral act, only immoral and (im)moral acts.

7. If you come from an affluent family, you have a higher likelihood of doing well in
school. If youre born poor, your chances of getting into Harvard are very low. This is a
powerful point from Rawls. However, this doesnt necessarily mean that money gets you
into college; rather, certain genes may. Those genes may be the ones that society values
over others. Therefore, it isnt necessarily riches that get you into college, but genes. It
isnt then that Affirmative Action addresses racial discrimination so much as it addresses
the reality that not all genetic makeups are equally valued.

Society discriminates more against genes than it does race. However, it is more
preferable to blame race, for it seems easier for society to address racial discrimination
than genetic makeup. If we admit that society doesnt value all genes equally, it will seem
much more difficult to make our world a better place. Genes seem much more
unchangeable than race relations.

Affirmative Action, taxing the rich to help the poor, etc. treat symptoms of a bigger
problem, which is the fact that society doesnt value all genes equally. This must change.
The people we believe are born with natural advantages are those who happen to have
abilities that society happens to value. In a different society, those supposed advantages
could be handicaps. What constitutes a talent or an advantage is relative to the society
one is a part. An elite ability to program computers is useless in a world that doesnt use

7.1 Behind the veil of ignorance, a society would choose to value all genes equally.

7.2 Knowing that some genes make you better or worse than others is a topic that fits with

7.3 The conflation of law and morality results in endless confusion.

7.4 Determining if the rich deserve all that theyve earned shouldnt be asked; rather, it
should be determined if the society wants to eliminate poverty and then whether taking
money from the rich will actually contribute to that goal. The moral question only
confuses the issue. If taxing the rich doesnt result in the poor actually achieving a
higher quality of life, the policy should be amended or discarded appropriately. Do not
ask is it moral? when the question should be does it work?.

7.41 The nature of words is to conflate with one another (and so for neurons to cross

7.42 Politics is the arena in which law and morality are confused the most. Politicians ask are
food stamps moral? as if they are asking do food stamps work?.

8. Ethics provides us with an opportunity to avoid the existential crisis caused by

recognizing that we are (im)moral, by giving us the delusion that the moral life or good
life is possible.

9. We can determine what is right and wrong based on whats practical, but is the value of
human life really contingent upon whats practical? If you say yes, how can you say
such is the case? Whats practical to one isnt practical to another. Morality, even in
pragmatist philosophies, cannot escape relativity. Even when were practical, were still

10. If one would prefer, one could use the language of story rather than game. Games
arise between individuals as do stories.

11. If a girl is murdered by a man who has a tumor in his head which makes him
unemotional, though it may be unfair or even immoral to sentence him to capital
punishment, it wouldnt be against the law (unless some kind of exception is noted).
Yet, that said, it isnt necessarily immoral either, for the man violated the girl, as if he
were a tumor in the girls mind that made her commit suicide. As it wouldnt be unjust
to remove such a tumor from the girls mind and destroy it, so it wouldnt be unjust to
sentence the man to death. Yet, even if it is unfair to submit the man to capital
punishment, it was unfair of him to murder the girl; therefore, the question of whether it
is fair or just to give the man the death penalty is a question between unfair situations,
in which all involved are grounded in (im)morality. Therefore, it seems better to ask
whether its against the law to give or withhold the death sentence than it is to ask
whether or not capital punishment is immoral.

12. It is commonly stated that it is unfair that Major League Baseball players make millions
while nurses make a fraction of that, yet nothing changes. Therefore, there seems to be a
distinction between saying something is unfair versus caring about it. The very fact that
this supposedly unfair situation doesnt change is evidence that its not, in fact, unfair,
because if it truly were, people would do something about it. This seems to suggest that
morality is contingent upon what people choose to care about it. Therefore, what people
choose to live the moral life in regard to may entail selfishness. Again, morality hides

12.1 But arent there situations people are unable to change? Perhaps quickly, but not
ultimately: anything can be changed over enough time. In fact, the statement we cant
change it can be used to justify a lack of care, which can be evidence that the situation
that cant be changed doesnt really need to change. If it truly was imperative that the
situation be transformed, it would be. However, just become a situation isnt changed
immediately doesnt necessarily mean a given people doesnt care about it or that its
actually not unjust. Its a question of perseverance and commitment, not immediate

12.2 The realization that the continuation of sex trafficking, for example, may imply that a
given people doesnt truly think it is immoral may motivate that people to do something

13. Considering Aristotle and teleological ethics, if humans are anthropologically and
ontologically creative and inquisitive (as argued in The Creative Concord), then it is
fitting for humans to be creative and to be intelligent. Therefore, a just society is
one that enables creativity and intelligence to emerge through the self-organization of
citizens. All action, legislation, etc., which contributes to this self-organization can be
rightly deemed moral.

13.1 If it is human nature to establish games between one another, then it is can be said that
a just society is one that enables morality to emerge through self-organization. All
action, legislation, etc., which contribute to this self-organization can be rightly deemed

14. Considering teleological ethics, the loss of meaning and the loss of morality are the same
phenomenon. Also, if we cannot remain neutral toward morality, we cannot remain
neutral toward purpose, and nihilists are abstractionists. Considering that no one avoids
games, moral neutrality is impossible.

15. Who gets to decide what fits? Couldnt Aristotle be used to justify establishing a
dictatorship or a Philosopher King? Only those within a particular game can know
what fits that given situation. In a free market, individuals are free to determine proper
distribution relative to given situations, while the distribution is generalized and
abstracted from reality in large government models. Its better that the one who gets to
decide what fits is involved in the situation in which the question is asked in regard to,
rather than one overseeing many such situations, uninvolved.

15.1 The point of law isnt to determine what should be distributed to who, but to create a
framework in which particular individuals can determine what is just relative to a given
game. Likewise, the point of rights is to enable individuals to discover what is fitting,
rather than to define what is fitting. In other words, rights and laws are to contribute to
making an environment in which morality, which is a self-organizing system (like
education according to Mitra and economics according to Hayek), can emerge
organically. Morality is an emergent phenomenon.

16. Considering teleological ethics, it could be argued that if we must determine essential
nature to determine justice, then we are not free to create our natures. This may be true,
but we are free to choose whether we discover our natures, whether we attempt to fit
our natures to what is fitting, and what games and particular situations we enter into
in which to discover and realize our essential natures.

16.1 Keep in mind that the only truly free, limitless entity is nothingness.

17. Humans do not, in living their lives, think about Kants categorical imperative, though
they may happen to assent to it in every game they participate in (without knowing it).

18. There are no laws that say you can look at pretty women or eat, because laws arent
about what people are free to do, but about what the state will honor or disgrace.

19. Imagine watching a video about the Bystander Effect in which a person is lying on the
ground injured and seeing yourself walk by.

20. Recognizing that only the (im)moral life is possible entails a kind of confession and

21. As there arent universal laws so much as there are constant conjunctions referred to as
such, so there isnt so much morality as there are games that run into one another like
pictures on a movie reel.

22. Liberty is an environment in which necessary evils cancel one another out while
creativity raises the standard of living for all. In central planning models, evil can be
negated entirely, but so can good, while creativity is ironically managed toward the goal
of raising the quality of life.

23. For me to be good is to hope that the world will become good through me. Yet, since I
am (im)moral, I can only make the world (im)moral. Since it already is (im)moral, I can
do nothing.

24. Freedom and ethics emerge in choices to obey or disobey (limits/laws).

25. As it can be ironic to talk about rape because one can only discuss rape (versus the
actual experience), so it can be ironic to talk about charity because we can only discuss

26. Respect girls versus dont rape girls: the first includes the second, but the second
doesnt necessarily include the first.

27. Judgment dialectically emerges between the particular and the general. To Rawls,
outlined in his Reflective Equilibrium, we come to understand and revise particular
judgments in light of general principles, which causes us to revise our general principles,
and this causes us to revise our particular judgments. This process continues back-and-
forth, indefinitely, through history. To Rawls, this process can help us determine what
constitutes the good life, yet it will also give us a grasp on what constitutes purpose and

The rules of games can emerge out of, and be verified by, this dialectic on an individual
level, while society functions as a stage for this process. Society itself cannot participate
in Reflective Equilibrium (though Rawls may disagree), only provide a space in which
individuals can participate. From this wide array of individual reflections, an organic
whole, like a dance, can emerge.

27.1 To allude to On Thinking and Perceiving, this dance is perceivable, but not

28. The State mustnt step in to help individuals honor the good, but rather honor the
capacity of individual to freely determine the good (for the good cannot be determined
beyond the confines of particular games). The State is to honor the good through the
individual, not over the individual. In this sense, the State is at the mercy of the
individual to fulfill his or her duty. Its hands are tied down (though it can act like they
are free).

29. One can choose for the rules of a given game to be Kants ethical system or Rawls, but
this doesnt mean those rules are necessarily the best fitting. One can also live as if a
given ethical system is always true, though, again, that doesnt mean it is necessarily best
fitting. To truly determine which ethical system is best, one would have to live their life
a few times over, each time trying a different system (or various combinations of
systems), then go back in time and compare and contrast the results (though its not
clear what other standard there would be to make these comparisons than whats best
fitting). Since this is impossible, one has to be very discerning the first time through life,
which requires a profound awareness of the particular.

30. Essential, human nature entails teleological ethics (as realized in games), creativity,
liberty, and intelligence (as expounded on in The Creative Concord), which emerges
through organic, self-organization. A just society then, by teleological and
anthropological standards, is one that allows education, ethics, and economics to self-
organize (for these are tied to the anthropology of man).

31. What one tends to universalize as just and good tends to be relative to their Myers
Briggs type. A liberated system that allowed each person to live out his or her own
convictions would be fitting, since humans are that which are different.

32. If there is an Objective Good, all knowing, laws, games, etc. should be judged
against It. The more like the Objective Good a given good is, the higher the likelihood
that the good is fitting relative to the particular situation in question. However,
deciding what constitutes likeness to Objective Good requires discernment and an
awareness of particulars, so even if Objective Good Exists, games are unavoidable.

33. The concept of moral games may be appalling to some, but it does describe how
humans actually live their lives. We subconsciously live out various rules, rather than
spend our days thinking about Kant. The concept of games emerges from practice, not
from theory over practice. Like the concept of liberty, the reason this concept can be so
terrifying is because it forces us to recognize that we have much less control and
understanding than wed like to think (which is especially difficult to handle in an
increasingly globalized world).

34. Can you prove a chair is that which one sits in versus that which one spins? By what
standard can you decide one definition is superior to the other? By what the majority
does with chairs? If a million people called a sheep a dog, would that make a sheep not
a sheep? If a million people called a sheep this before someone, a thousand years later,
had a chance to call a sheep a sheep, would that make sheep dogs? Definitions tend to
be tied to how the majority uses a given thing. But what is the function of a person in
society? To know thyself? But who can know that?

35. The issue with Ethics isnt so much that one cannot say murder is wrong, for example,
but that it cannot be said which particular situation constitutes murder versus killing
(outside the particular experience of them).

36. The tendency to think in hypothetical situations and what ifs tends to generate anxiety
and confusion more so than morality.

37. Moral laws, like the laws of nature, tend to be established relative to what we are used
to (a thought expanded on by Hume and On Words and Determinism). Yet this
doesnt mean there isnt objective right and wrong within particular situations (which are
the only situations), as has been already touched on.

38. Ethics isnt relative, but particular.

39. Ethics can be terrible for ethics.

40. There is objective right/wrong in particularity.

There is no objective right/wrong in general.
There may be an Objective Right/Wrong (which particularity would be an image of
and/or reflect (in some manner that only those particularly involved would have any
basis to determine)).

41. Each individual has a personalized law book.

42. Its easier to say something is moral than to say something is true. Therefore, we
naturally gravitate to Ethics from Ontology.

43. In a sense, humans are good because they know of games, yet humans are also bad
because they are (im)moral.

44. Rawls should have been a lawyer.

45. All moral acts are also not immoral acts, but all not immoral acts arent necessarily
moral acts.

46. Ethics and principles can cause thoughtlessness in the sense that Hannah Arendt
described Eichmann so be thoughtful over what principles you establish.

47. If a womans husband is put in jail for thirty years, should she be deprived of sex the
whole time? Would adultery really be that wrong? Whatever the answer to such a
question, the conclusion from it cannot be used to conclude that therefore, adultery
isnt wrong. Perhaps in this situation one doesnt commit adultery, but that doesnt
mean adultery isnt wrong. Each situation must be approached one at a time, unto itself

Furthermore, if there were five, identical instances of such a situation, each situation
would have to be approached one at a time and not compared to the others. Perhaps in
one situation the wife acts immorally, but not in another. One would have to be
involved in each, particular situation to know (which probably isnt possible). That said,
this doesnt mean morality is relative, for in each, particular situation, there is an
objective right and wrong which those involved can know. Rather than relative,
morality is particular. One cannot generalize or abstract what constitutes objective
morality in one situation over the other four, but this doesnt mean there isnt an
objective ethic within each one.

Considering this, knowing the outcome or objective ethic of the other four situations
when a person is dealing with one of them doesnt help that individual decide what to
do; in fact, such knowledge can be a distraction and cause confusion. Consequently,
case studies, perhaps presented in an Ethics classroom, do not necessarily create value.
Perhaps they can help students understand retrospectively what may have been the
objective ethic in a given situation, but whatever conclusions are reached will not
(necessarily) apply to any other situation other than that one. Such an educational
practice can only help a student develop creative thinking, which can be helpful when it
comes to knowing whats right and wrong.

47.1 It is a logical fallacy to universalize from a particular. In Ethics, this fallacy can manifest
by someone arguing that, for example, since it may not be immoral for a woman to
commit adultery when her husband is in jail for life (for otherwise, she would be unfairly
denied sex), it cannot be said that adultery is wrong. Though perhaps it might be the
case that the woman doesnt act immorally (though I do not grant this), it cannot be said
that adultery isnt wrong, only that adultery isnt wrong in this particular situation. To
universalize from a particular is a fallacy: we can only universalize one particularity at a

It is possible that technology and the media have increased the likelihood that we make
this Ethical and logical fallacy. Upon seeing images of newsworthy stories, where, for
example, someone steals food in order to feed her family, we might be tempted to claim,
universally, that stealing isnt wrong. It seems that media and technology increase our
likelihood to universalize and to lose sight of our particular circumstances.
Furthermore, they seem to contribute to our thinking about situations which we arent
personally involved in, training us to think about abstractions as if they are familiar
particulars. This may give us an illusion of simplicity about complex situations, and train
us to form judgments about what we have no justification to form judgments about.

48. A problem with Ethics classes is that you cannot discus knowing as a valid compass for
the moral life, for you can only experience it. An Ethics class is, by definition, divided
from the experience of knowing. And in fact, relative to Ethics classes, such knowing
(and the games in which it emerges) can only be found to be invalid constructs. Since
knowing can only be experienced, a forum in which only discussion is possible cannot
realize knowing. The very act of discussing knowing and games (rather than
pointing to them), like opening the box containing Schrdingers Cat, renders these
constructs absurd. Therefore, if an Ethics class tries to study, objectively, rather
knowing is a valid, ethical compass, the class will always observe it as invalid, and so
then objectively conclude that other Ethical theories and practices are better.

48.1 The good life can be lived, but not discussed.

49. Ethics as game, an idea that owes a debt of gratitude to Wittgenstein, can also be
understood in the context of the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer. Gadamer understood
experiencing art not simply as a subjective experience, but as a stepping into a world; to
this, Gadamer drew a parallel with play and drama. To Gadamer (who plays on the
word play in regard to drama and play in regard to game), the nature of a game is to
draw participants into it until they are absorbed: he claims that play fulfils its purpose
only if the player loses himself in his play.A When a player enters the world of the
game, he accepts a nexus of presuppositions and aims which determine what he does,
yet a game doesnt need participants to exist: it is the game itself, not [participants]
thoughts which determines the games reality.B

According to Gadamer, play does not have its being in the players consciousness or
attitude, but on the contrary play draws him into its dominion and fills him with its
spirit. The player experiences the game as a reality that surpasses him.C How Gadamer
has described the aesthetic experience, which he sees as a way to understand
hermeneutics, also describes ethics. Like art and play, ethics is a world wholly closed
within itself, [yet] it is [] open toward the spectator [the student of Ethics], in whom it
achieves its whole significance. The [ethical] players play their roles as in any game, and
thus the play is represented, but the play itself is the whole, compromising players and
spectators [ethical people and students of Ethics].D As music is experienced not simply
in reading the composers score privately, but in the actual event of the concert, so the
good life isnt experienced by simply reading Ethical texts, but by the actual event of
living it out; as a festival exists only in being celebrated, so morality only exists in the
moral practice.E Outside the games in which morality is exercised, morality lacks reality,
though rarely, if ever, does a person step outside play altogether.

To interact with a person is to play with a closed world; to move between people is to
move between plays, each a nexus of presuppositions and aims which determine what
[we must be done] to live the good life.

AGadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. 2nd English Ed. London: Sheed and Ward,
1989: 102.

BThiselton,Anthony C., The Two Horizons. Grand Rapids, MI. William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1980: 297.

CGadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. Bloomsbury Academic, 2004: 109.

DGadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. Bloomsbury Academic, 2004: 109.

EThiselton,Anthony C., The Two Horizons. Grand Rapids, MI. William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1980: 298.

50. Even if (Im)morality is wrong, we live like its right.

51. Thinking creates Ethics.

52. (Im)morality is the groundwork for Ethics.

53. Morality that isnt tied to purpose is a knowledge of good and evil lacking roots.

On Want and Awe

1. A want is a will directed toward an end (and is such relative to that end). If I want
coffee, relative to the coffee, I want it; relative to other phenomena, I will it.

2. To live in thankful-wanting is to live in a loving state. Defining thankful-wants from

thankless-wants can be determined by seeing whether or not one is following the
parameters of what entails love (as defined in On Love).

3. One must be careful of wishes. Wishes seem to be wants that are prone to direct a
person toward that-which-isnt. This isnt to say imagination is bad, only that a
replacement of the real with the imaginary threatens to cause double-mindedness and a
state of split-living. Furthermore, this isnt to say that one shouldnt have wishes, only
that these wishes must be thankful-wishes rather than thankless-wishes. When from a
disposition of gratitude, wishes and wants converge in thankfulness.

3.1 There is a difference between the wish that makes a person do something and the
wish that an individual doesnt pursue. A wish that results in action is a thankful-want,
for it results in a person doing something in the present rather than abstracting the
person into his or her mind/future. Considering this, the word wish seems
unnecessary. Rather than wish to be a doctor or to have a child, one should thankfully-
want such.

4. Another term that causes confusion is desire. Often, we are lead to believe that desire
is selfish, and the term is associated with eroticism. Desire is the energy that fuels want.
It is neither good nor bad in of itself, but is such relative to its end. Considering this,
desire is good if behind thankful-wants, bad if behind thankless-wants.

5. The grateful person who lives in awe of a future in which he or she gets married is one
who will enjoy the experience of wanting this in and of itself. The one who lives in awe
of that future is one who desires for that future to remain yet to be, and if that person
doesnt get married, a future entailing marriage, in a way, stays as such. Therefore, the
individual receives what he or she desires regardless of whether or not that person
indeed marries. In this sense, to be thankful is to live only with a guarantee of life itself

6. Something that is impossible cannot be what is best, though the idea of it may seem
best versus some (imperfect) reality. Possible things can only be better or worse than
possible things; impossible things are incalculable. Perhaps it would be best if no one

died, but since this isnt possible (at least relative to our current moment in history), it is
meaningless to suppose this, distracting, and potentially abstracting. Furthermore, after a
grandparent passes away, a thankful person may wish for a world in which his or her
grandparent was still alive, but a thankful person will not be paralyzed from living by
that want. A thankful person may wish for the impossible or for a tragic occurrence to
have not occurred, but a thankful person doesnt abstract his or her self from the
present because of it. By no means is this necessarily easy, but at the same time,
overcoming the tragic with thankfulness is how one isnt overcome by the tragic.

7. As one is to be in awe of the past and future, one should be in awe of beautiful women
and riches (to offer two examples). This way a person keeps from lust or materialism,
for the individual desires for the moment in which a woman or riches are beheld to be
Eternalized. Consequently, the observer does not desire to possess the woman or goods,
but rather desires to reverently observe them. In a sense, to view phenomena in the
world in awe is to relate to each thing as a work of art.

8. As one is to live in awe of the future, one is to live in awe of the past, and so want the
past to remain the past and for the present (the state necessary for viewing the past as
such) to remain the present. If a mother loses her child and feels like she died with her
son, she is suspended by the past like the girl who is afraid of not getting married is
suspended by the future. Such a girl lives as if that future is the present, which abstracts
her out of the world, as the mother paralyzed by tragedy lives as if the past is the
present, tragically splitting herself apart.

To be thankful is to be present: a mother who thankfully-wants her dead son alive is one
who is not abstracted out of life into the past by the tragedy, as the bride who
thankfully-wants to be married is not blinded from today. A thankful person is thankful
that the past is the past, the present the present, the future the future: the thankful
person is fully present. Such a person is in awe of all stages of life. This state of being
isnt easy to achieve, but it is awe-full.

9. It may be the case that one can only be thankful (as has been defined in this work) if
one has a sense of meaning, as addressed in Joy to the World. Considering this,
Capitalism may require a spirit of thanksgiving to be good, functional, and to avoid self-
impulsion through the material dialectic.

10. In wanting marriage, a person inherently wants a good marriage, but the attitude this
want, if without thanksgiving, causes can result in a person getting into a bad marriage.
Wants lacking thanksgiving can sacrifice ends for means.

11. Its okay to want (insert), but not to expect (insert).

On Love
1. Distinct from kindness, love isnt necessarily nice. What constitutes nice is often
conflated with whats easy. Since love is hard, it cannot be said, in this sense, that love is
nice. Also, nice is often what society considers nice, which disregards particularities
and the uniqueness of situations. Rather than nice, its better to say love is kind: nice
is too vague and confusing a term.

2. Love doesnt mean dependency, for two individuals who are dependent on one
another are hard to tell apart: where the line of one begins and the other ends is
indefinable. Therefore, love that entails dependency cannot discern the self of the
other which the love is toward, and so the love must be toward an idea versus an
actuality. Also, since love, if meaningful, is toward a true self, love is toward an
autonomous being. Since love guides another into realizing his or her true self, love will
make the other increasingly autonomous. Love makes others independent, not

3. An important and prime function of meaningful love is getting individuals through

framework discrepancies and miscommunications. If two people have different
understandings of what constitutes sensitive, for example, it is love that gets the people
through the misunderstandings to where they can realize they misunderstood one
another and that their logic failed them. Love loves to laugh.

4. Falling in love is different from being in love, as falling in battle is different from
being in battle.

Emotional Judgment
1. People can most certainly experience awe and know they are beholding something
greater than themselves before they can articulate how they know such is the case.
Emotions can help point out an insight or situation to a person before the intellect, but
only the intellect can verify, judge, and/or articulate that insight or situation. Emotions
cannot determine if a phenomenon is important; though they can help an individual
determine what to forecast, emotions cannot constitute the forecast itself.

2. To be paralyzed wondering is this emotion pointing out something important or should

I push it away? is to be paralyzed by a fear of loss rather than introspection. True
introspection doesnt cause paralysis, for its always directed toward an end of action.
Action without thought and thought without action are what paralyze.

3. Principles arent always perfect filters, but they are far more stable and reliable than
feelings. Since nothing is perfect, objective judgment doesnt guarantee correctness, only
freedom from loops like those described in this paper. Objectivity and correctness
arent similes, though they tend to follow one another.

3.1 Empathy attempts to iron out the imperfections of principles.

4. How a person should take feelings into account requires objectivity and empathy to
determine. The EJ, though seemingly considerate, doesnt take into account the feelings
of others, because it judges the nature of those feelings along the EJs terms. The
selfless act is unintentionally self-centered.

5. Helping EJs is especially hard because EJs mean so well, yet they can make things so
much harder for themselves and others.

6. As with extroverts/introverts, there arent so much EJs as there are EJ acts and
dispositions. The term describes a mode more so than a personality.

7. Expressions like get some rest or take care of yourself can sound selfish to an EJ,
making the EJ susceptible to burnout. Once this happens, the EJ can be trapped in a
loop of feeling tired and lifeless. Rest is necessary for facing hard truths, and if replaced
by stimulation, hard truths will be harder to face.

8. To be controlled by emotions is to be pulled under by a wave, while to control ones

emotions is to surf.

9. To asses an individual accurately, a person must step into that individuals system of
logic, reasoning, and definitions. If a person considers it sensitive to back away, then to
judge that person as insensitive because the assessor considers it sensitive to move
closer would be erroneous. Assessing others necessitates empathy; a person must always
assess another by his or her terms. Failure to do this causes unnecessary conflict.

9.1 One of empathys most important functions is to try to define actions and terms as does
another; if one puts their self in another persons shoes but doesnt also take up that
other persons mode of engagement with the world, this empathetic act falls short.

10. An introvert who deals with EJ tendencies is in a precarious situation. Extroverts can
feel uncomfortable around introverts, and though introverts can also feel uncomfortable
around extroverts, they arent as likely to say something about how theyre feeling as are
extroverts. If an extrovert asks an introvert are you okay? or do you not like being
here?, an introvert can feel as if he or she is doing something wrong. If prone to making
an emotional judgment, the introvert may conclude there is something wrong with me.
The introvert may then try to be more extroverted, but unable to change his or her
makeup, the introvert will not derive the same kind of energy as does the extrovert from
extroversion. Consequently, the introvert wont feel anything, and from this might again
make the emotional judgment that there is something wrong with me. Having cut-off
his or her self from the introverted lifestyle that energizes the introvert, the introvert
sets his or her self up for depression.

11. EJs are susceptible to emotional induced illnesses (EIIs). They are also prone to stress
and anxiety, because upon feeling fear, the EJ can judge, in regard to what is causing the
fear, do not engage with. Yet fear takes action to overcome: to simply recognize that
fear is in ones head is like diagnosing cancer without treating it. Unfortunately, the EJ
can judge it is irrational to face fears, thus preserving anxiety.A

ANote inspired by The Magic of Thinking Big by Dr. David Schwartz.

12. Sometimes we have to go through life on autopilot. We might not like doing taxes or
what is monotonous, but sometimes youve got to do what youve got to do. These
times can be especially hard for an EJ.

12.1 To undergo EJ-tendencies is to be engaged in a kind of self-awareness. When youre

self-aware, you pay too much attention to everything you say or do. When an EJ does
this, the EJ is setup for perpetual disappointment in his or her self, for there are many
instances throughout a day in which an individual is on autopilot. Once a person
recognizes a single thing he or she does wrong, that person starts seeing lots of similar
things. Self-awareness is a vicious cycle.

12.2 Since it is not possible for a person to always think with an emotional charge, it is
inevitable that an EJ becomes disappointed in his or her self.

13. A single choice or sentence can set off an entire chain reaction of cause and effect.
Every EJ-charged choice can make a world of difference.

14. It can be difficult for an EJ to trust, for it usually feels frightening to trust someone,
especially if that person fails to provide what the EJ feels is an adequate explanation,
plan, etc.

15. Memory isnt stagnant, but malleable. If an EJ remembers something but doesnt feel a
positive emotion, the EJ can determine that the experience being recalled mustnt have
been a good one. If an EJ has a bad encounter with a friend, an EJ can suddenly
remember all engagements with that friend as bad, carrying the present emotion over
into the past.

16. An EJ can have a hard time accepting that it doesnt matter what others think, for an
EJ can associate being independent with being mean.

17. Such as through Descartes Error by Antonio Damasio, it has been claimed that humans
cannot be rational without emotions. This work doesnt disagree, nor does this work
think emotions are a negative. The hope of this paper is to note the proper order for
reasoning and emotions. To say emotions must follow reasoning isnt to say emotions
dont matter or are disposable, but that, as a car needs oil to run, this is the necessary
order for human flourishing. Without emotions, a person cannot be rational about
emotions, which color all of life. Furthermore, without emotions, life feels like nothing,
and empathy (necessary for civilization) is impossible.

18. Love is to embrace the idea of a person, while true love is to embrace an actual person.
True love can be hard for an EJ, because real people are hard to want to embrace.
Theyre imperfect. Its easier to love imperfections than to love them truly. However,
love without truth lacks a rock upon which to stand, and emotional waves will topple it.

19. It is perhaps the case that an EJ is prone to believe that every thought that enters the
mind is an indication of what the EJ believes. If an EJ thinks for a moment that a
person is overweight, the EJ may become upset at his or her self for thinking this way
about someone. The EJ may then try to stop thinking such thoughts, which makes the
EJ more likely to think them.

20. Not all brains are created equal. While one brain naturally associates, another naturally
analyzes; one conceptualizes, another actualizes. The one with more of a left brain will
have trouble understanding the right brained and vice-versa, but its important that both
learn how to empathize with the other. Otherwise, especially in relationships, pain will
be common.

For example, if an analytical individual disciplines an associational child in random

settings, the child will come to be constantly on edge. If a father voices his
disappointment at such a child during lunch, during every lunch, the associational child
will wonder is father upset?. However, the analytical father, who can easily separate
phenomena, will not understand why the child would be worrying about this, and in
fact, might get offended, only able to understand that his child would think this way if
he or she was choosing to, because that is how the analytical fathers mind works (and
we cannot help but think that others think like us). Rather, the child is thinking such
thoughts without willing them: since his or her mind is associational, thoughts come
without warning whenever the child encounters what can be associated with something
else. Its subconscious. Therefore, it is very important that the father only disciplines his
associational child in controlled settings. For example, whenever the father must speak
sternly, he should remove his child to a set place (say out to the garage). By doing this,
the associational child will know the rules, per se, and understand that when there is
something wrong, he or she will know it (for there are constant things the father will
always do when upset). If there arent set rules and environments, the child wont know
when things are good and when things are bad, which can cause significant anxiety.

The logic outlined in this point applies to many situations, and when there is such a lack
of empathy, it is especially devastating to right-brained EJs. For, rather than think is
father upset?, as used in the example, the EJ will think father is upset and I did
something wrong. Consequently, the EJ will always be upset at his or her self and slip
into dismay while assuming hurtful things about loved ones.

21. As we are prone to Emotional Judgment, we are likewise prone to not be convinced
until Emotionally Convinced.

22. The consequences of failing to identify Emotional Judgment are vast in all areas of life,
and I believe some of those consequences have been identified by Edward Scholosser
in the following:
Whether you agree that what Scholosser has identified is real or not, it should at least
be acknowledged that these are possible scenarios in a world where EJ isnt well-

23. As with other essays in this collection, the point of Emotional Judgment is to provide
a guide with which people can harmonize. Often, when it comes to problems in
relationships, we are told that it is an issue of miscommunication and that we need to
talk about our problems. However, no matter how long two people who speak different
languages talk, they will never overcome their differences, and if people never get a
translator, it wont matter that they recognize their problem is one of
miscommunication. It takes a philosophical framework to maximize personal
relationships. Philosophy and love arent enemies; in fact, they cant live apart.
Hopefully, Emotional Judgment provides a translator for a Japanese woman married
to a Chinese man somewhere, per se.

Self-Delusion, the Toward-ness of Evidence, and the

Paradox of Judgment
1. Humans are readers and read everything: we read atoms into chairs, humans into
arrogance, etc. Humans perpetually read entities into being, which means humans are
always primed to erroneously read into things. Our tendency to read into things
constantly threatens our peace of mind, and once we slip from reading to reading
into, we slip from assessing to judging. Judgment threatens peace, while assessment
preserves and authenticates peace.

1.1 This thought is expanded upon in Read(er). Ideally, this paper functions as a link
between Emotional Judgment and the rest of the essay collection.

2. Accurate assessment requires objectivity, which requires truth. A key way to determine
truth is to remove fear.

3. If a person requires that his or her trust be earned, the individual has created a system in
which nothing another ever does will warrant receiving trust. For example, if to receive
trust, a person must get a new job, once he does so, since he didnt do it sooner, trust
will not be given to him. To create a system in which a person must earn trust is to
create a system that will provide lots of evidence that a person shouldnt receive trust,
and will seemingly prove that the person who created the system was wise to make the
system in the first place. As evidence mounts, the creator of the system will become
increasing confident in his or her judgment that the person who the system was erected
around is untrustworthy, though the accuracy of the assessment will not increase as does
the evidence.

3.1 Upon concluding objectively that a person is untrustworthy, we may go and seek
council from family members, friends, or people in the surrounding community on how
to deal with this individual before something bad happens, failing to realize that we
have begun engaging in gossip. Gossip and judgment can tend to follow one another.

3.2 Judgment inherently self-deceives (and vice-versa). Self-deception is probable when trust
is lost. The topic of trust is pertinent to the topic of judgment and will be expanded
upon in On Trust.

4. It is important to make assessments in such a way that those around you dont think you
are being judgmental. Perception is reality. If those around you are in a loop of despair,
perceiving you as judgmental will result in those individuals backing away from you,
which will render you increasingly incapable of loving them and of being loved yourself.

5. To judge is to separate, and condemnation tends to follow separation. To not judge is to

practice I dont know-ness.

6. To judge is to cut off, abstract, and/or dichotomize. To judge is to make a duality of,
similar to reading (see Read(er)) and thinking (see On Thinking and Perceiving).
Love, on the other hand, is to be toward a non-dichotomized Existence, rather than
subjective reality.

7. As there is a distinction between judgment and assessment, there is also a distinction

between worry and awareness (or concern and care). Judgment, in dichotomizing reality,
abstracting entities out of the world, and fashioning lenses through which inescapable
loops are fashioned, tends to beget worry, stress, and fear. On the other hand,
assessment begets awareness. To stress, worry, and fear is to confuse life with death, but
to fail to think about tomorrow is to set oneself up to be blindsided by reality. To be
aware about tomorrow is to be care-full, but to fear tomorrow is to be concerned.
Care is good, but concern unhealthy. The terms care and concern are often used
interchangeably, as are judgment and assessment, but it is important to maintain a
distinction between these terms in order to avoid confusion.

8. The modern person constantly asks for proof. This seems like a reasonable demand, but
its only rational if all truth claims can be verified or justified by what humans consider
proof. If not all truths can be proven, than it isnt always rational to ask for proofs.
How can we know if all truths can be proven? We would have to know all truths and
what constitutes those truths. Since this is impossible, humans can never rationally
decide that all truths must be proven, nor can humans be sure that it is always
reasonable to ask for proof. The demand might be rational in one instance and irrational
in another, though humans wouldnt always be able to say which is which.

Also, since all proof or evidence is within a preset schema, if I ask for proof but do not
share the same schema as the person of whom Im making the request, then I might
throw out valid evidence simply because I lack the framework in which to comprehend
it. A framework functions as a translator that translates evidence into something a
person can understand; without this translator, the evidence comes across as nonsense.
As Chinese isnt nonsense though it may seem that way to someone who doesnt
understand the language, evidence that is considered nonsensical isnt necessarily invalid.
There is such a thing as nonsensical Chinese, but a person would need to know Chinese
in order to recognize it. Likewise, to determine if evidence is valid or not, a person must
approach it with the appropriate framework. The same can be said in regard to
assessment: a person must step into the system of the person assessing to determine the
probability of the assessments accuracy, as a person assessing must step into the system
of the one being assessed to determine the probability of the assessments validity.

Unfortunately, when the modern person asks for proof, he can be disingenuous and
simply trying to disregard the presented claim. In not being genuine, the demander of
proof isnt willing to approach whatever proof is presented through the framework in
which the proof is translated into sensibility. This is especially common if a person is
trying to convince another to act. Demands for formal studies, for example, can be
used as excuses to moralize inaction.

8.1 A similar point to this one can be found in the Additions section of A Point from

9. As evidence has toward-ness when used to justify something, so do memories when

recalled to remember something. As evidence can be misconstrued when toward
something, so memories can transform themselves to fit into the account, story, or
schema of the one doing the remembering. As memory tends to leave out what doesnt
match the preset complexes of the person doing the recalling, so too evidence tends to
be left out that doesnt fit into the preset frameworks. This phenomenon intensifies
when humans summon memories in order to prove something.

9.1 Since memory is alive, objectivity is difficult, and self-delusion likely. If we are judged as
crazy, those around us might suddenly begin remembering instances in which we
seemed insane, thus providing evidence for the case. We ourselves might even begin
remembering instances of mental breakdown, yet none of these memories may have any
reality. Memory is hard to trust, but without memory, we lack grounding for identity.
Remembering that memory is organic is key to being objective about it. Likewise,
remembering that we transform what we experience in ways that make phenomena fit
into our preset complexes will help us be objective about the world in which we reside.
However, if we begin worrying that our memories are deceiving us, we may collapse
into paranoia and enter a loop of despair.
10. As there is a distinction between judgment and assessment, worry and awareness, there
is also a distinction between pride and proud-ness. Pride is often said to come before a
fall, but this kind of pride shouldnt be confused with proud-ness. Of course, the terms
are often used as similes, so it is important to pay attention to context. To be prideful is
to say I am smart; to be proud is to say I am proud of your intelligence. Pride fashions
a lens (being judgmental) while proud-ness is an assessment. To be proud of ones
children is not the same as taking pride in them: the first is to acknowledge them
positively, while the latter is to derive a sense of self-value from them. Though the latter
seems innocent, it sets a parent up to rely on his or her children for self-worth. Also, to
be prideful results in one seeing lots of evidence that he or she should be prideful,
setting a person up for a fall. On the flipside, it is also prideful to say I am worthless,
for the speaker is still focused on his or her self. Consequently, the speaker will start
seeing evidence confirming his or her worthlessness, setting the individual up for a
loop of self-abasement. Pride is bad; proud-ness, good.

10.1 If you grow up hearing pride comes before a fall, you are primed to react negatively
when you hear someone say that they are proud of their family. Likewise, if you are
told do not judge, when you hear someone make an assessment that is worded in a way
that makes it sound like a judgment, you are primed to disregard what is said (regardless
its validity). It is important to be aware of the ways you are primed. Emotions often
cause an individual to overlook context, but context makes all the difference.

10.2 Humility, rather than self-abasement, is to think of yourself less. Pride is self-awareness,
and self-awareness sets up an individual for loops, distorting frameworks, and
abstracting lenses.

10.3 The danger of personality tests, like the Myers Briggs, is an increase in self-awareness as
an INTP, ENTJ, etc. Each personality type establishes a lens through which to view
oneself and all a person does. The consequences of such a toward-ness, good or bad,
are hard to pinpoint.

11. Since language is the mother of confusion, much of philosophy is simply a process of
defining words.

12. Judgment systematizes; assessment notes.

13. Forgiveness never fashions lenses, but, at the same time, forgiveness does not ignore
reality; it entails genuine assessment.

14. Problems noted in this paper can also have implications in the areas of romance, for
when a person says youre my boyfriend, that individual may create a lens in which that
individual sees lots of evidence confirming the perfection and infallibility of the other.
This sets the person up for disappointment, and asks the significant other to bear an
unbearable reputation.

15. We do not help people when we help our ideas of them. To simply suggest people do
what we think they should do to be helped isnt necessarily what will help them. In fact,
it may worsen their situation, which could function as evidence that they didnt listen to
us and do exactly what we suggested. This might make us more adamant in our
suggestions, which might cause more damage.
16. Judgment can subtly slip in through sympathy. When I see someone suffering, I can say
he is stressed, and suddenly view everything that person does as painful. As a result, I
might fail to give that person the space the person needs to develop his or her self,
believing I need to help (and seeing lots of supposed evidence proving this to be the
case). Assessment, on the other hand, entails empathy, which helps me avoid putting on
abstracting and hindering glasses. By putting myself in another persons shoes, I can
avoid thinking hes miserable and think rather hes going through hardship. Sympathy
is one of the most common ways people define others by their qualities, and though
seemingly loving, it is judgmental. Assess when others go through hardship, but do not
judge them by or in it. Judgment is never to a persons benefit.

17. If you judge someone as the cause of say stress, you will start to see lots of evidence that
the person is indeed the cause. In reality, the judger might be the cause, and it might be
the very act of judging which causes the stress. Also, in seeing someone else as the
cause, the judger builds evidence that he or she isnt the cause, making it increasingly
difficult to get the judger to cease generating stress (for his or her self and the one being

18. Empathy requires mediation for one to determine how to be empathetic. If I recognize
that I dont like being called and decide not to call something because I wouldnt like it,
I could make that person feel left out, being someone who enjoys talking over the
phone. To truly be empathetic, I cant always just do unto others what I would want
done unto me. That works in certain circumstances, but only when what a person wants
done unto them happens to match the values and paradigms of the other being done
unto. This occurs easily when it comes to say lying and murder, for it is fairly certain
that most people dont want to be attacked or lied to. Since most moral philosophers or
moral questions tend to be limited to these sort of extreme cases, it seems to be the case
that an empathetic golden rule is enough to live by. However, such a golden rule
doesnt give us any direction when it comes to deciding whether or not to go to lunch
with someone or to phone a friend. For that, we have to think what the other person
would like in concordance with his or her paradigms, frameworks, and preferences. To
do what we would like to have done unto us may in fact hurt those whom we hope to
love. To be effective, empathy must be informed by truth.

18.1 Kants categorical imperative also proves ineffective when it comes to issues like
whether or not I should call a friend, take a person to lunch, etc. If I take my friend to
diner because I believe it should be a universal law that friends should take one another
to diner, I am implying that introverted friends should always put one another into
uncomfortable and taxing circumstances. Though the categorical imperative may be
helpful in deciding whether or not to murder an enemy or when it comes to reporting a
theft, its limits manifest along the lines of where particularities divide.

18.2 These points ultimately highlight the limits of morality and ethics and the need to attach
these studies to a larger picture of character development.

19. Assessment isnt inherently good, though judgment, considering the distinction, is
inherently bad. Both assessment and judgment are prone to assume, which always
proves problematic.

20. You have to be careful when it comes to listening to others because people all have
different frameworks of interpretation.

21. Its easier to put your shoes in another persons shoes than your feet.

22. Some, when involved, misjudge, but when uninvolved, they feel unloving.

23. If you call someone deceived when they arent, you are now deceived. When that person
you have called deceived says youre deceived, youll laugh.

23.1 If you call yourself deceived when you arent, you are now deceived.

23.2 What you judge is what you become.

What you fear is what comes unto you.

23.3 If I tell you that you are deceived, I have now incepted that idea into your mind and
forced you to view everything through that lens (in line with Inception, Discrimination,
and Freedom). You now have to actively view everything as not effected by
deception. Of course, everything before had this characteristic, but it now takes effort
to view everything like this again, which makes it more likely that you will eventually see
things as effected by deception.

24. The irreconcilable opposite of action is judgment.A The judge lays down the law, rather
than do it.

ABonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. New York, NY: First Touchstone Edition,1995: 47.

25. If you judge someone to be angry and then you never see that person upset, youll think
that person has really improved, when in fact that person may have never had an anger
problem in the first place.

26. To shift into a mode of judgment pulls certain memories toward you into a new light: a
previously unnoticed comment suddenly emerges in memory as evidence that a person
is inconsiderate, while simultaneously making the judger believer he or she is objective
in reaching that conclusion. As subjectivity appears objective, judgment appears

27. To allude to On Thinking and Perceiving, judgment is associated with thinking;

perception, assessment.

28. It seems the nature of judgment to extend negative qualities out into what a person will
always do, while judging positive qualities as temporary.

29. Do not judge those who judge as judgmental lest you become judgmental; yet, at the
same time, do no fail to assess the judgmental as judgmental unless you be toward an

30. The judgmental dont think they judge; otherwise, they would stop. Furthermore, the
judgmental read a point like this and know it doesnt apply to them. Yet, at the same
time, one who assesses he or she isnt judgmental will seem to be like the judgmental

person in denial of his or her judgmental nature. Only a given person can know the
convictions of his or her own heart.

31. If you assess that a person is being judgmental and that person replies now youre
judging me, that person has tried to create a closed loop. Only assessment can break it,
but it requires honesty and discernment of the parities involved to determine and admit
who is assessing versus who is judging.

32. Humans are creatures that naturally see evidence for some case. All facial expressions,
all tones, all topics of conversation, etc., tend to be read as meaning something beyond
themselves. The mind seems like it naturally falls victim to the paradox of judgment.

33. The problem with judgment over assessment is that it is hermeneutical: it is a lens of
interpretation rather than simply an acknowledgment of (an) occurrence.

34. In line with Sociological-Awareness and Inception, Discrimination, and Freedom:

when you say I like theology or Im a good athlete or another incepts these ideas into
your mind, you become self-aware of these qualities, which results in you seeing the
world through a lens which pulls evidence for these premises toward you. In
deciding one is good at philosophy, one sees evidence confirming he or she is an expert,
and consequently, may be inspired to become better at it or to stop studying, thinking
that he or she has achieved mastery. It depends on the individual, but all should be

35. Ideas are lenses. If I believe my wife is angry, then I will see her lack of a smile as
evidence that she is angry, when her lack of a smile may signify nothing at all. Since
ideas are the lenses through which I see the world, to learn to think is to learn to see. To
lack thinking is to lack sight.

36. The difference between facts and evidence is toward-ness.

37. Judgment is misjudgment.

On Trust
1. A new day cannot assure you of itself before the sun rises. Whole Foods cannot jog by
your house to assure you that it will be there before you arrive. You cannot earn what is
part of the fabric of reality. It simply exists as it exists or it doesnt.

2. No one knows that the sun will rise the next morning: everyone trusts it will. No one
knows that they are going to wake up the next day: everyone trusts they will. No one
knows the supermarket will be there when they run errands: everyone trusts it will. To
acknowledge that trust is part of everything we do keeps life simple and profound
versus complex and complicated.

3. It may seem rational to trust a person only when that person proves to you he or she
can be trusted, but this is rather contradictory. Trust can only be something you give or
dont give. You cannot make it something people earn from you. People can verify that
you were right to believe in them, but you must never view this verification as earning.

4. Why should one trust? Because to do so is to acknowledge the pre-existence of trust and
to afford freedom for oneself and others.

5. Truth takes assessment, which can easily shift into judgment if one isnt careful.

6. Whats the difference between an addiction and a passion? Trust in anothers or ones
own perspective and the degree to which the persons addiction/passion is beneficial to
his or her emotional and physical health. A person buying many, many books could be
going overboard, or could it be sowing the seeds for a library.

7. In a sense to say youre changing is to say gravity exists. Were all changing because
were all in time: were learning.

8. Mistrusting, judging, or criticizing another person usually causes the person to self-
doubt, which can lead to self-delusion. A person not agreeing with anothers point-of-
view does not necessarily mean that person is mistrusting the other.

9. Often, we dont understand what it means to be judgmental. People are judgmental

whenever they judge a situation or person in a manner that isnt true. If a person really is
a constant liar, to deem him or her a liar isnt judgmental, but a statement of fact. A
person is judgmental when a person judges wrongly. However, since determining truth
takes a lot of information and discernment, most calling out of another will be
judgmental rather than a statement of truth, especially if the one making the claim is
motivated by fears or emotions.

9.1 In such an instance, it would be best to speak to someone you call out one-on-one,
considering the probability for mistake is so high. This will keep the damage of false or
mistaken discernment from spreading.

10. Equipping people with wisdom and discernment is usually different than telling a person
what to do.

11. When we act like trust isnt a given, that it is something that is earned, there is no chance
those around us can obtain our trust, for trust isnt a thing in itself, but a mode of
existence which is unconsciously assumed until expectations dont match reality. If one
never has expectations, then trust can never be broken. Trust always trusts.

11.1 This point is in regard to when trust is confused with living, not in verbal exchanges.

12. One who is considered untrustworthy may think I didnt know there was so much
riding on me doing what you thought I should do.

13. Trust can be violated if you have a preset complex for how things should work. To
elevate trust on a daily basis is to put oneself in the dichotomy of trust versus no
trust , versus engaging in pure being (as expanded upon in Inception, Discrimination,
and Freedom).

14. What is a true preset complex? Concerning questions like what constitutes a good job?
or what activity makes one happy?, people can have misunderstandings because they
have different truths in answer to such questions. This leads to misgivings about trust.
Where truth is compromised, so is trust.
15. When you speak negative or careless words, you give life and power to problems,
making the emotions (which spurred on those words in the first place) more

16. Time necessitates trust. If you consider your reality in any given moment, you can
perceive it as existing, whereas you cannot perceive the reality of tomorrow as such.
However, you can trust that the reality of tomorrow will be favorable.

17. As constant conjunction can never be advanced into a universal law (according to
David Hume), instances of one earning trust can never rationally be expanded to one
being trustable. Trust can only be given and verified, as a universal law can only be
projected onto and verified upon.

18. As this paper works to define trust so that a person doesnt refrain giving trust from
the trustable, this paper also endeavors to keep people from falling into false senses of
trust. If you confuse trust with living, you may think someone can be trusted when an
individual has not been given a verbal exchange in regard to which their reliability can be

19. As with trust, words dont prove, words verify. If a girl decides her mother loves her
because she says I love you versus because she believes it is true and trusts her mother,
the girl has set herself up to believe her mother doesnt love her as soon as her mother
doesnt say I love you. Also, the girl will be worried whenever she doesnt hear her
mother say I love you (and so become overly self-aware); furthermore, this girl will
always worry about not hearing I love you enough.

20. As one can never jump from instances of a cup falling to a natural law of gravity (to
allude to Hume), and as one can never jump from seeing instances in which a person
acts trustable to believing that person is trustable, so a person cannot jump from hearing
another say I love you to believing he or she is loved. As one must simply believe in
natural laws and give trust, one must simply believe in one another, despite what is said.

21. A person who demands an apology sometimes caused the problem for which he or she
is demanding an apology. If the other gives this apology, that individual will take
responsibility for what the other caused, resulting in a loss of truth, which makes trust
irrecoverable. The person who actually deserves an apology should trust that the
offender will feel the conviction of remorse and apologize out of his or her own
volition, not in response to a demand.

22. One can mitigate the confusion of language by choosing a good reading of language or
by simply not reading into a claim at all. To not read into language is to trust.

23. The word trust dichotomizes (as all words do) and is typically realized when it is
broken (I thought I could trust you, you broke my trust, etc.).

24. In many respects, an expectation is simply a reading of something into what it isnt, such
as reading shoemaker into good profession (when in fact shoemaker is shoemaker).

25. If someone says I love you, believe it, rather than wait until the person says it enough
times to earn your belief. If the person doesnt seem to love you, believe the person
does, and love the person back until their love emerges.

If someone says Im sorry, believe it, rather than wait until the person changes. If the
person doesnt change, believe the person wants to change (though the person may need
loving guidance to do so).

Trust words will be verified: live as if what is said is true.

25.1 If a person never says I love you, this doesnt mean the person doesnt love you, for
one can darkly speak such words to another (as expounded upon in On Words and

26. Trust, when used positively, has many synonyms, but when used negatively, trust has
one, primary meaning: disappointment. This being the case, the word trust should be
used with caution.

27. As a child, you are not aware that you are trusting Mommy and Daddy: you simply exist
and engage with your parents freely. Additionally, children do not read into things the
way adults do.

28. This relates to how one might not be able to force the feeling of happiness but one can
choose to be happy. One may not feel a sense of trust in my brothers decision to
become a mechanic, but one can choose to trust his or her brother.

29. Trust is often discussed in the context of fear.

30. The question what research did you do for this paper? highlights the argument that
people are more reliant on facts and research than on human testimony.

31. Love cannot grow without trust.

32. Love should not simply be given in words, gifts, or rituals, but in trust; otherwise, one
can only accept love with confusion.

33. If you think someone is a liar, you begin worrying about that person. Consequently, you
come to wear the glasses of worry, and perceive all actions of that individual within the
context of expecting lies and manipulative acts. Since no one is perfect, it will only be a
matter of time before the individual says something that could be interpreted as strange
or false. This can even happen retrospectively.

34. I trust you is to say I exist with you. Trust is a metaphysical underpinning of being.

35. When you interact with a person who has been called a liar, you will wonder if youre
being lied to. The person, upon noticing a change in your demeanor, will feel your
hesitation and/or criticism. This will affect how that person acts, and this will function
as evidence that the person really is a liar, when in fact it only shows that the person is
hurt in not being trusted.

36. Whether or not you think a person is trustworthy has no bearing on whether or not that
person actually is trustworthy.

37. If a person does indeed lie to you, this doesnt mean you cant trust that person again:
this means that person lied to you in that instant (people arent perfect, as we all claim to
know). It is always better to believe in the transformability of a persons character
instead of fixing it as something negative.

38. The solution to self-delusion and the paradox of judgment is to trust.

39. If one can be trusted with little things, they can probably be trusted with big things.

40. Understanding why people dont trust is just as important as trusting.

41. It is difficult to believe you need to apologize for things that are said or done out of
love. However, if something is done that is wrong, it is important that it is
acknowledged as such so you can do what is right the next time. If you dont apologize
for mistakes, it is possible that you will continue to engage with involved parties as if
you were right, resulting in you being offish and abstracted from truth. It is also likely
that in this mental place you will see evidence showing that you were right and
justifying your offish-ness, because you will still be viewing situations through a lens in
which evidence is toward your case (as expounded upon in Self-Delusion, the
Toward-ness of Evidence, and the Paradox of Judgment).

41.1 In one sense, forgiveness is framework repair and/or replacement.

41.2 If you call yourself (or someone else) deceived when neither is the case, you are now
deceived. Likewise, if you deem yourself or others untrustworthy, you are now such, in a
way, for in existing in a state independent of the facts and truths of the matter, you have
robbed yourself of the foundation which trust requires. You are untrustworthy not in
an intentional or moral sense, but in a factual manner. Without truth, trust cannot be

41.3 If I call you deceived or untrustworthy, I have now incepted that idea into your mind,
which may result in you abstracting yourself into an un-trustable state (in line with
Inception, Discrimination, and Freedom). Words have power. Since this is the case,
its important you are wise about who you choose to surround yourself with, for each
will have the power to destroy you or build you up.

41.4 If I am wrong, it is to my benefit to acknowledge that I am wrong, for this brings me

closer to truth.

42. To criticize is to try to create a world of your own liking (via inception, judgment, etc.).
If others cave to criticism and (for example) put on a different dress after someone asks
are you going to wear that?, the one criticizing will feel justified because now there is
supposed evidence that the person does indeed look better in a better dress. In being
the only judge, the criticizer determines what constitutes evidence. Also, in wearing this
new dress, no one will have an opportunity to say they liked the other dress, only to say
they like this dress, which will justify the criticizers view. Also, if the person kept the old
dress on and someone said they liked it, the criticizer could easily dismiss it as an

opinion or claim theyre just saying that to be nice. To criticize is to create a filter
through which only information that agrees with the criticizer can be processed.

43. Since trust entails vulnerability, we naturally dont want to trust. So, in a way, we are
eager to confuse trust with living and to discredit the trust-ability of others. The less
people we trust, the less people with whom we are vulnerable.

44. Today, empirical data is valued over human testimony. Therefore, when someone says
they will do something or they did something, we want evidence proving such is the
case. In such circumstances though, evidence isnt always possible. When evidence cant
be offered, the person demanding the evidence may think he or she has evidence that
the person cant be trusted.

45. If someone tells you about a book, it is unnatural to ask that person to prove to you that
the book indeed says what the person claims it does. Also, forcing an individual to
confirm every line the person quotes results in the conversation being unable to climb
to the point or goal. The capacity to associate breaks down, as does the capacity to see
the big picture.

46. It is dangerous to assess the trustworthiness of a persons words based on that persons
recollection, because the way in which two people remember a particular event differs.
Two people will likely retell it in different ways. Unfortunately, one could allow this
discrepancy to cause trust issues; that is, one of the two people recounting could think
the other, whose account does not match the others, is lying or wrong, but it is simply
the case that the other remembers the event differently.

This can happen in quick exchanges between people. Perhaps a friend says dont forget
to bring my earphones but the other not only forgets, but also forgets that he or she
was asked in the first place. So, when the friend asks do you have my earphones? the
other might reply, with all certainty, you never said anything about earphones. The
friend may insist otherwise, as the other may do the same. Unintentionally, the friend
implies that the other isnt telling the truth and cannot be trusted. This is very damaging
to a friendship or relationship as (mutual) trust is the key to freedom and necessary for a
relationship to flourish. That said, such a situation is common, and if the parties
involved arent prepared (by realizing people make mistakes), there will be unnecessary
ramifications of mistrust rather than an understanding that it was an issue of different
accounts. To be prepared, one must practice understanding, empathy, and come to
recognize truth as distinct from living.

Additionally, it is not beneficial to probe or quiz another to see if the person recounts
something the way you do. With the misconception that trust must be earned, however,
a quiz might seem entirely appropriate. Yet, it is very belittling and hurtful to the other
person, because it makes the other feel untruthful (and thus un-trustable) until that
person remembers the details you remember and as you remember them (which is
impossible). As touched on before, trust, which requires truth, is what affords freedom.
It is imperative in a relationship because without trust, there is no freedom for either

47. Considering Emotional Judgment: a person in a relationship who is an emotional

judger will be more emotionally affected by anothers lack of trust and when another (is
perceived to) break trust. Thoughts (even if not their own) are not separate from
emotions for an EJ; thus, to hear, the wedding wasnt like that, for example, is almost
inevitably going to be taken as a judgment over an assessment. Additionally, EJs are
going to trust more so based on emotion versus truth. To them, a question such as are
you really going to wear that? is a type of untrusting quiz question (as the question
demonstrates a lack of trust in the ones ability to make an appropriate clothing choice),
implying a judgment that the outfit selected is not flattering. A non-EJ will also suffer
very negative consequences from a lack of trust, as a non-EJ relies on truth as much as
an EJ relies on emotion. This type of thinker, non-EJ, will be pushed away or will push
away from a relationship that lacks trust or a verification of trust, as the person will not
be able to find any freedom within it. Without freedom there is no growth, and where
there is no growth, there is only stagnancy. Consider how a flame dies when covered: it
must be given freedom to breathe. Additionally, wisdom gives the flame a wick by
instilling within people the knowledge of how to trust one another.

48. Trust is in the very fabric of reality. We use a dollar (for example), and in using it, we
trust it has value. We also trust that the person receiving the dollar trusts in its value. We
do all of this subconsciously: we do not normally think about how trust is involved in
such a transaction. Such trust is passive. This is because trust underlies all that we do. It
is our relationship to truth, and our degree of trust reflects the degree to which we
believe in truth. In this previous example, the truth is that a dollar has value (man-made
value at least) due to a man-made truth. We have a relationship with this truth because
we use money and engage with it. If you hand a cashier a dollar for a pack of gum and
he takes it with a puzzled look and asks what is this?, you might have to face the fact
that you trust the dollar has universal value rather than the value be a definite fact. Trust
is necessary not only in the economy, but also in relationships. If one does not trust in
the value of a dollar, one would not exchange it. This would cause a predicament, as
most people do rely on money to acquire food. They would deplete themselves of
nourishment. Likewise, if one does not trust a loved one, the person cannot fully engage
with that person, starving the relationship. In a system that is based on trust, if one does
not give trust, one will end up depleted.

48.1 Take the example of someone fearing Im losing you. This isnt entirely true, especially
if the other is alive and still in contact. In the absence of truth is an absence of trust.
Trust issues, therefore, will develop when a belief such as Im losing you is held onto as
true. These trust issues will strain the relationship, not allowing it to grow and flourish.

48.2 Trust is tied up with the language of money and is associated with comfort. Yet, trust is
more ingrained in the fabric of reality than money. Money is earned; trust, received.

48.3 As we live, we trust in the dollar without thinking about it.

49. If someone tells me Ill meet you downtown at two and I call the person at twelve and
then again at one oclock to make sure the person will be there (especially if out of fear
rather than to confirm), I do not entirely trust what the person said or at least I act as if
I dont (though no one usually recognizes that this double-checking isnt trusting). I also
rob that individual of an opportunity to verify (distinct from prove) that he or she is
trustable. Though, if a person fails to do something the person said would be done, it is
entirely appropriate to ask about this, and in fact, it is best to do so. Then, you give the
person a chance to explain, rather than silently keep to yourself a feeling that the person
disappointed you.

50. It takes a lot of effort to resist reading into actions and words meanings that arent there.
If someone chooses to go to Whole Foods, it is easy to conclude the person likes Whole
Foods more than Trader Joes. If your boyfriend doesnt call you, its easy to believe hes
upset with you. All such readings must be resisted. When individuals feel as if all their
actions mean something negative, they become worried about all the possible
implications of their actions. This results in that person wearing the lens of worry
concerning how others see him or her, and suddenly this person may see illusive
displeasure on everyones faces. The person may conclude it must be because of
something he or she did and begin trying to make everything better, when theres
actually nothing wrong. This creates a terrible sense of bondage (as it is a situation
absent of trust). This person may then begin to say sorry and ask questions frequently to
make sure everyone is happy and okay.

It is essential to truly care for others, but this is not the same thing as being worried
about displeasing and assuming you displease others. The former includes trust,
while the latter precludes trust. For freedom, one must trust in oneself and continue to
fill the buckets of those around them (regardless if empty or overflowing), and to not
worry about whether or not others are pleased by your efforts to enliven them. To avoid
both confusing trust with living and the pain of disrupted trust, it is best to give trust
abundantly. This may seem counter-intuitive, as giving trust means it can be broken;
however, if trust is employed in line with its true meaning, there is a lesser chance it will
be damaged in the first place. So, one must enable and foster trust in their life and the
lives of others (which entails surrounding and filling oneself with truth versus
preferential judgments). This can only be done by trusting, a necessary vulnerability.

51. Paradoxically, while trust is a vital element in our economic existence, as it connects to
ones relationships, trust is decreasingly accentuated while double-checking facts on
ones iPhone (for example) is increasingly common. As mentioned, a persons story
might not be trusted because it doesnt match anothers recollection, highlighting how
the information age fosters a sense of getting the facts right over taking ones word
for it. Of course, it is handy to be able to check in which field Babe Ruth played his first
major league game; however, when a smart phone is used as a test key, per se, of ones
words, trust is whittled down and human interaction is more about being right then it is
about engaging in conversation. Of course, if someone says, I wonder where the great
Bambino played his first big game? then perhaps you can endeavor to find out, but
reaching for a smart phone, even in a harmless way, still reinforces information over

As discussed before, trust necessitates truth, but it does not demand it be empirical.
The internet, however, equips us to readily treat experiences and people with empiricism
by making facts so immediately accessible, thus increasing negligence of trust and
blurring the line between living and trust further. This doesnt encourage interpersonal
trust to develop, but rather fact-acknowledgement and further confusion of trust with

51.1 Thinkers like McLuhan, Postman, and Levinson discuss this notion more fully, making
the point that technology inherently causes lack of interaction and participation, of an
audience. This can be extrapolated to a lack of participation in interpersonal
relationships when technology becomes an element of such interactions.

51.2 As no one thinks they overuse their iPhone, no one thinks they dont trust.
52. Escape from untrustworthiness can only come from trust, but when someone is
believed to be a liar, no one is likely to trust that person, for that could encourage the
world of lies in which said person supposedly exists. This is potentially ironic as the
claim that the person is untrustworthy in the first place could be the lie that opened
Pandoras Box. Recognizing one made this mistake takes discernment, but worry and
fear cloud discernment when a person believes another is untrustworthy (making it
extremely difficult and painful to know right from wrong for both parties involved).

53. If you are told that someone youve interacted with is a liar, you may begin to worry that
you too are deceived. In this position, you put on the lens of worry and feel a sense of
horror that everything you thought was true, isnt. This makes it hard to trust anyone,
even yourself (for fear of this horror), and primes you to read into words and actions.

54. If upon reading this paper you demand proof, you prove it.

54.1 Sometimes, to ask for confirmation is to hollow.

Concerning Epistemology
1. Freedom is an environment in which rational activity eventually rises to the top, but it is
irrational to let the environment of freedom exist in the first place. Unless, that is, one
defines it as rational to let people be rational, but why should that premise prevail?
There is no objective foundation that justifies freedom: freedom can only be known as a
justification and end in itself.

2. Jesus didnt waste words in Matthew 6.

3. Ironically, the belief that life is invaluable, in making worry likely, can cause freedom and
the value of life to be diminished.

4. Worry is likely as is a fear of death, stitched into us by our biological calibration for

5. To ask a person what he or she is going to do before that person does it (which worriers
are likely to do) sets that person up to be unable to adapt to unforeseen circumstances
without lying.

6. When one defends freedom, there seems to be something that subconsciously makes
that person feel heartless, cold, and inconsiderate. A reason for this is because freedom
seems to be at the expense of peoples wellbeing, and so seems to be inconsiderate. In the
abstract, the idea of freedom is an apparent contradiction with the idea of safety, though
such isnt the case in particularity and actuality. Unfortunately, one cannot grasp this
except to experience it, for to think about the particular is to think about it in the
abstract (where they conflict and where a person never ventures in actuality).
Furthermore, even if one does succeed at the hard work of thinking about a
particularity, it is not possible to think about multiple particularities simultaneously
without them slipping into abstractions. The human mind only thinks abstractly, and so
cannot avoid making the thinker feel heartless when it comes to defending freedom.

7. For emphasis, this paper is not promoting dangerous behavior and decisions; on the
contrary, it hopes to promote wise decisions, which almost always lead to safety (when
safety is controllable), while also revealing the insatiable cycle worry is prone to cause.

8. To be smart entails being safe, but being safe doesnt necessarily entail being smart. To
tell someone to be smart is to tell that person to think for yourself, which entails
being safe. However, to tell someone to be safe is to tell that person to watch out,
which emphasizes that the world is dangerous and that the person should be worried
about it. The first phrase is empowering; the second, concerning.

8.1 To try to be safe is to try to control what isnt necessarily controllable, while trying to
be smart is to be discerning about what falls within a persons control. One is only truly
safe if that person is locked away in a bubble-wrapped room, but to be safe in this way
is to sacrifice living for safety. To be safe is to set as ones standard a bubble-wrapped
room, per se, while to be smart sets as ones standard the full realization of ones

9. Thinking in Platonic forms, as written about by Nassim Taleb in The Black Swan,
increases the likelihood that a society worries. There is no perfect system, and a society
that looks for the perfect system rather than the best system will never be satisfied. One
who believes in perfection will find his or her self justified to worry until perfection is
achieved, for until then, there is something to rationally and lovingly worry about. Such
a person will never be free.

10. Whether or not a command economy, management, bureaucracy, etc. are always bad
cannot be claimed, but it can be said that all worry-based activity and thinking changes
the toward-ness of those it influences.

11. What has been said about worry can also be said about fear. Furthermore, frustration,
anger, and pessimism are also self-justifying systems. When a person realizes this, a
person can be more discerning about when anger, realism, and concern are appropriate.

12. In line with Self-Delusion, the Toward-ness of Evidence, and the Paradox of
Judgment, one who is worried about being brainwashed, being in a cult, or anything
similar, is a person who will suddenly see evidence confirming such to be the case
(hence making it seem like it has always been the case). Identical is the situation if you
begin worrying about someone else being brainwashed, in a cult, etc.

All learning could be called brainwashing, and we are most tempted to call truths we
disagree with such. When people learn that which goes against what we believe, our
entire worldview can be threatened, and such a threat can bring out the worst in us. It is
tempting at such times to accuse the other of being brainwashed, but calling someone
this is one of the most destructive acts a person can do to another. It turns a persons
worry on his or her self, and since worry is a self-justifying system, that person will
begin seeing evidence that leads that person (objectively) toward his or her own mental
collapse (which, upon reaching, will make it seem as if the person, was in fact,
brainwashed). This isnt to say a person cant be brainwashed, but that only under the
most extreme circumstances is telling another youre brainwashed an act of care versus
concern. To claim someone is brainwashed is to set a person up to use his or her mind
for self-destruction objectively, and if the person making this claim isnt right, the
claimer is a destroyer.
13. If one worries about racism or being seen as racist, about being liberal or perceived as
liberal, about hurting someone emotionally or being emotionally cold, about being a bad
parent or being an overly-soft parent, about being fat or skinny, about being beautiful or
too materialistic, about being too domesticated or too career-oriented, about being
depressed or too energetic, about being too old or being too young, about being busy or
being lax that individual makes it difficult to be discerning about what matters.

14. A society that worries about bad parenting, for example, will see it everywhere.
Evidence that a society is worried about this could be the wide prevalence of literature
on good parenting, for this could be evidence that the society believes most are in need
of this kind of education. Furthermore, any topic of which is written extensively on
could be evidence of worry, but this cannot be said for sure.

15. Considering what has been outlined in this paper, men are in trouble if they need
suffering and toughness to become men.

16. The door example mentioned at the beginning of this paper is symbolic of the division
between past, present, and future.

16.1 Furthermore, considering the door example, if you dont open the door when I voice
worries about it today, and you dont open it tomorrow, or the next time, it will perhaps
seem as if the more times a murderer isnt found, the higher the likelihood one will
eventually show up until one has to be there. For isnt it the case that one can only get
lucky for so long?

17. Do not choose to stop worrying in a way that has you thinking about stopping more so
than doing it.

18. Since worry is self-justifying, it is probable that the NSA and Homeland Security will
continue to grow.

19. The words care, concern, and worry are more slippery and prone to conflation than
most words since the wellbeing of people is at stake (which makes emotional judgment
more likely).

20. The nature of irrational fears is to appear rational; otherwise, they wouldnt concern us.

21. Accurate discernment is more likely in a free environment in which particular people
can freely discern whats best in particular situations.

22. People are best equipped to pick the dichotomies by which to understand the situations
in which they are involved (for they are most familiar with the subjects of such choices).

23. The nature of worry is to want to use a top-down and/or forceful approach to make
sure everyone is okay before its too late. This isnt to say such an approach shouldnt
be used, only that a person must be aware of how worry self-justifies itself and always
appears as needing immediate and unprecedented action.

24. If I am on television and say look at my tie, with four words, I change the orientation
and toward-ness of millions of people. Likewise, if I were to say you can die of cancer
on television, I make millions worry and transform the framework through which they
see the world and themselves. If any ability is god-like, isnt this?

25. If you consider loving someone being concerned about them, then you cannot lovingly
allow a situation in which there is nothing to worry about.

26. No one thinks they worry too much; otherwise, they wouldnt do it.

27. Say a child pulled on a drawer and it fell onto her, cutting her forehead. A week later,
after getting her daughter some stitches, say a lawyer came up to the mother and told
her that he could, through a lawsuit, make sure this never happened again. How could
the mother say no? Why would she say no? Wouldnt she be heartless to do so?
Freedom cannot be conceptualized (and what good is it if people are hurt?), so all
evidence would show she was wrong and immoral if she turned down the offer (and so
provided grounds for the lawyer to call child services). The very asking of the question
makes it so that she cannot (rationally) say no, as the very act of parents becoming
helicopter parents and governments growing is the very act that pins down the people
into accepting and moralizing it.

27.1 To allude to The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Jesus is freedom, the
free market, hands-off parenting, etc., while The Grand Inquisitor is safety, Socialism,
helicopter parenting, etc. Also, in line with On Thinking and Perceiving, it should be
noted that thinking is structured to support The Grand Inquisitor.

28. A vital ability is the capacity to define matters of wisdom from matters of fear.

29. If technology rewires the brain, shouldnt the government regulate how much
technology people are allowed to use? On what grounds could you argue that they
shouldnt? Isnt it better safe than sorry? As you can see, better safe than sorry is a free
ticket for overbearing parenting, gradual and endless government regulation and growth,
and more. This isnt to say there should be no parenting, growth, or regulation, but that
a failure to realize that fear is a self-justifying system calibrates the human toward a
certain outcome regardless if that outcome is best. Realizing how fear makes us biased
will help us be more discerning, rather it be in favor or against parental or governmental

30. According to Barry Schwartz in his Ted Talk Our Loss of Wisdom, wise people are
like jazz musicians: they know when and how to improvise. According to Mr. Schwartz,
in todays society, rules and incentives are replacing wisdom, and a reason for this is
because rules save us the trouble of thinking. Where there are rules, there is no need for
wisdom and discernment, and improvisation is frowned upon. Slowly rules dull moral
discernment, and with discernment goes empathy and character. A reason for this death
of wisdom through reliance on rules is fear: we want to assure bad things dont happen.
We no longer trust the judgments of people, and where there are standards there is a
sense of security. Unfortunately, the price for this safety is guaranteed mediocrity, and
a society that fails to realize that fear is a self-justifying system is a society that is likely to
lose wisdom in the way described by Barry Schwartz. Worse yet, such a society may
destroy wisdom out of a sense of love and/or responsibility.

31. At least on an emotional level, worry transforms all arguments, statements, or points
against it into rationalization.
32. If upon reading this paper you worry about worrying, you defeat the purpose of this
work. Furthermore, if you worry about how not worrying could cause a catastrophe, you
prove the works central claim.

Inception, Discrimination, and Freedom

1. Inspired by the Maverick Philosophers Dont Worry, Be Happy:

If you worry about a dreaded thing and it happens, you suffer twice.
If you dont worry and it happens, you suffer once.
If you worry and it doesnt happen, you suffer once.
If you dont worry and the dreaded thing doesnt happen, you dont suffer at all.

Therefore, it is never rational to worry.

Even if it were the case that a thing could be avoided by worrying, you still suffer once
by worrying to prevent the second suffering. To worry is to guarantee suffering; to not
worry is to have a chance to avoid it.

Perhaps the magnitude of the suffering caused by worrying is less than the magnitude of
the suffering caused by the dreaded thing? Perhaps the smaller suffering of worry results
in a person avoiding the larger suffering of the dreaded thing?

Well, perhaps the worry causes a dreaded thing?

In one sense, it does: worry is dreadful.
If one worries to avoid the dreaded, the person, ironically, causes something dreadful.
Worry is a hopeless act.

To worry is to guarantee suffering; whether or not that worry prevents a worse suffering
or even causes a worse suffering depends on the situation and requires discernment to
determine. However, since worry is fundamentally irrational, it is unlikely that there are
many situations in which the benefits of worry outweigh the negatives.

To worry is to gamble.

1.1 Worry tends to fashion self-preserving dichotomies, for the one who voices a worry
usually cannot be alleviated of his or her concerns until told that their worry is justified
(even if it isnt). The worrier is, just by worrying, in a sense, automatically right. There is
a hidden pride in worry.

Worry tends to breed worry, and when a worry is eventually fashioned that lacks truth,
for a person to alleviate the worry, he or she must lie, for the individual must tell the
worrier your worry is justified. This is the point when the dichotomy tends to be
preserved, for either a person wont lie, which keeps the worry from being alleviated, or
the person will lie, fashioning a false sense of reality. False realities are always split from
being, and hence alienating.

2. The inability of a running back to explain to you how he runs so well doesnt mean he
cant run, as the inability of a musician to explain how he makes music doesnt mean he

is a fake. Often, failure of a person to explain something is conflated with not knowing
what one is talking about, when in fact the lack of explanation could signify a deep
connection with being.

What is unexplainable is often genius, though it seems impossible that a person who
cant explain what he or she is doing could be doing something incredible. It seems
more likely that the person simply doesnt want to admit their ignorance. If you ask one
to explain why what theyre doing is unexplainable, youll figure out quickly what side of
the fence theyre on.

2.1 In regard to writing, Austin Farrer said the genius is in [the] fingertips, and it knows
not what it does; when the will is in full gear, it has no technique, only the next phase
of the work.A In our modern positivistic, bureaucratic-heavy world, anyone whose
genius is in [the] fingertips faces a dilemma, for their genius cannot be verified in
process. If Tolstoy were alive today, bombarded by friends and family who couldnt
understand what he was doing with his life, he may never have written War and Peace; if
Nikola Telsa would have needed to submit a report to a manager every time he wanted
to invent, there is no telling how many of his works would have never seen the light of
day. Also, it can be the case that such men and women of genius have difficulty closing
loops in their minds, so when asked what are you doing with your life? and the asker
shows displeasure at the lack of a clear answer, it can be incredibly difficult for such
geniuses to regain focus. Management and verification, like the embracing of
dichotomies, may preserve separation from being.
AFarrer,Austin. The Essential Sermons. Edited and Introduced by Leslie Houlden.
Cambridge, Mass. Cowley Publications, 1991: 1. Also found in A Proof of the Faith:
Austin Farrers Case for Theism, a dissertation by William McFetridge Wilson,
Department of Religious Studies, University of Virginia, 1983: 11.

3. The problems of emotionally-charged language are especially detrimental in a situation

involving (an) EJ(s) (as described in Emotional Judgment).

4. It is perhaps easier to believe in right and wrong then in right and right or wrong and

5. Dialogue isnt innately virtuous.

6. The word dream is often used in regard to a phenomenon that cannot be understood
independent of experience. This phenomenon is an encounter, to some degree, with

7. Dont say I am be.

8. Avoid the temptation to typecast yourself (as an INTP, an engineer, etc.); once you do
so, in line with Sociological-Awareness, how you live and think will change. This is
similar to how what someone says to you transforms how you engage with the world,
having been thrust into a dichotomy.

9. To recognize what one doesnt have control over is an act of self-control.

10. What is referred to as fallenness in this paper can be tied with what Heidegger calls
throwness. It should also be noted that this papers use of the Christian and Jewish idea
of The Fall is appropriate, considering Jesus as The Word, Kabbalic understandings
of Adams responsibility to name the animals, God Speaking to Create, and the Tower
of Babel.

11. Helping a person in need is much easier than the thought of helping another lets on.
The moment people think about helping someone rather than just doing it, they place
themselves within the dichotomy of doing it versus not doing it , where thoughts
like Im so busy and what if Im being taken advantage of? are associated into. This
isnt to say that a person shouldnt think before acting, only that an individual should
recognize the difference between thinking in order to determine how to best go about
doing something and associational thinking trigged by anxiety. Ideas are more daunting
than reality: the world of the mind is often scarier than the world itself.

12. Thinking of life in terms of moving to the next phase places a person in a dichotomy
that makes moving on in life harder. Its easier then to think I dont want to adapt,
when the person has no choice. No one wants cars to wreck, but they do. When a
person gets stuck in a machine, it doesnt stop, not because the machine is cruel, but
because the machine is a machine. Life is the same: you have to change when you have
to change, and thinking about changing can make it harder to do (especially when
thinking is done out of anxiety and not in order to determine how best to change). This
isnt a cold or heartless point: its neither considerate nor inconsiderate. Its simply the
way of things.

13. If a person is reaching for an ice cream cone and I ask them do you want ice cream?,
now that individual must think do I?, when before he or she would have just eaten it. It
is because of my words that I have placed that person, who was on the verge of
enjoying summer, into a place of potential anxiety. Words have power.

14. Wisdom is telling someone you should wear a nice outfit when you go to work, while
instruction is if you dont wear a nice outfit when you go to work, Ill be disappointed
in you. Instruction is enforced wisdom. Wisdom contributes to a transcendence of
dichotomies, while instruction tends to breed them. Whenever force infringes upon
freedom, dichotomies are likely.

15. As there is a universe of difference between not and probably not, there is a wide gap
between thinking about doing and doing.

16. There is a difference between will and want. A person can will something without
wanting to do it, as one can do without thought or words. Will can transcend
dichotomies into being if it doesnt cross, like an intersecting river, with wants, words,
thoughts, etc.

17. If someone asks do you want to go out to eat? and you say either way is fine with me,
this doesnt mean you dont care whether or not you go out to eat. You neither care
nor dont care. Because thinking inherently dichotomizes, this is very hard to
understand. It is easy to confuse being with apathy, but the person isnt apathetic: the
person simply exists.

17.1 The brain is associational, and this makes dichotomized thinking more troublesome. If
to the question do you want to go out? you answer either way is fine with me, and if
this is interpreted as a polite way of saying I dont want to go out, and the person
associates going out with having fun, the person who asked the question may wonder
why dont you want to have fun?. Since fun is always good, if a person doesnt want to
have fun, there must be something wrong with that individual. This is when concern
and anxiety can set in.

17.2 Introverts often face this sort of problem.

18. You engage with (pure) being when your thinking and perception arise into (pure)
perception, as will be expounded upon in On Thinking and Perceiving.

19. To the degree a person is split from being is to the degree he or she is alienated and

20. The strange manner that this paper is written in reflects the difficulty of discussing
something inherently ineffable (being).

21. It takes a lot of thinking to engage with the real world.

It takes a lot of speaking to be fulfilled in silence.

22. Do not speak unless necessary unless you add unnecessary complexities and
dichotomies to life, abstracting and splitting it up more than what is necessary.

23. In reference to a distinction drawn in On Thinking and Perceiving, thinking is

dichotomization, while perception leaves the oneness of reality over-flowing.

24. Actions speak louder than words, and like words, actions fashion dichotomies. If a
person starts playing a board game around you, you can now start thinking of yourself
as not playing. This described your state before the other began playing the game, but
now you are engaging with this characteristic as an active non-characteristic.
Consequently, you can then begin thinking of yourself as unsociable, boring, etc., and
start wondering why wont I play the game?, which can make you feel obligated to play
even if youre busy (especially if youre an EJ). In this sense, the choices and actions of
those around you place you within dichotomies (as do their words). However, if you
dont become self-aware, the fact a person is playing a board game nearby wont affect
you. To remain in a state of perception (rather than thinking) can help you avoid self-

24.1 This point sheds light on some of the dangers of scheduling and voicing preferences.

25. Discrimination only occurs to minorities. Prejudice and stereotyping can be thrust upon
majorities, but not discrimination. This is because discrimination occurs when
individuals treat others as if certain understandings of the world, terms, etc. are better
than others unconsciously, and this can only occur if individually rarely encounter
alternative understandings and frameworks. For example, if the minority believes that it
is sensitive to give people space while the majority believes it is sensitive to give
people hugs, the majority will come to believe the minority is insensitive. Since the
majority has lots of people confirming that their understanding of sensitive is right, they
will discriminate against the minoritys understanding unconsciously. To the majority,
the minority is simply wrong: it has nothing to do with discrimination (though it has
everything to do with it).

26. The very act of speaking is what language must overcome to achieve actuality.

On Words and Determinism

1. Since people are not completely free over what they think, they are not responsible for
their thoughts as much as they are their words. People have much more freedom over
what they say than over what they think. This is why words shape a person more so
than thoughts (though this isnt to say thoughts dont shape a person at all). Character
develops out of ones freedom and thus responsibilities. The freer the act, the more it
will mold a person.

2. Ones thoughts are tied to what one says, and so in managing ones words, one can
manage their thoughts. If one speaks negatively, one will think negatively; if one speaks
positively, one will think positively. If one thinks negatively but speaks positively, he or
she will eventually cut off oxygen to the fire of negativity, and it will only be a matter of
time before the dark thoughts die away. That said, one cant speak positively without
speaking in truth. Optimism that denies reality resides in falsity, and so cannot bring
light to darkness. Light is truth.

3. To allude to On Thinking and Perceiving, speaking is tied to thinking; silence,


4. Faith is the substance that gives reality to the unseen. Words are spoken from faith,
whether it be from faith that the words actually mean something, faith that the words
will actually reach someone else understood (and as intended), or faith that words will
bring about an intended future/world. Since words bring forth the world, words give
reality to the unseen. Faith, through words, creates the world. In this sense, trust creates
the world.

5. To master yourself is to master your words.

5.1 Wisdom is the knowledge of how to use your words. To be wise is to relay ones
knowledge rightly and at the right time. A wise man is someone who has mastered his
words; he doesnt necessarily speak little, but is always economic with his words. A wise
person is a person who knows how and why to talk. One increases in maturity as one
increases in the ability to control ones tongue, because all other disciplines naturally
follow from this member. If words create a dark world, one cannot see how to master
any other discipline. Controlling the body comes from controlling the tongue, and one
who cannot control the tongue their small rudder cannot control their life.

5.2 When you think negatively about yourself, voice the opposite.

6. Every time a celebrity does something scandalous and a story on the scandal fills the
media, our freedom is violated. But freedom can only be violated if freedom exists.

6.1 Freedom cannot exist independent of the possibility of violation. A completely safe
freedom is restricted.

7. You are free to prove that determinism is true.

7.1 I am not free when someone asks is determinism true? to exist in a world in which I
am not asked this question at this moment, but I am free to reply yes.

7.2 The very desire for determinism to be true shows that one isnt determined (yet, at

8. If one divides the amount of times a person acts by the amount of times a person acts
under the influence of words, then one can calculate the percent to which a person is
free in his or her life rather than determined.

9. In a sense, causality is spacetime.

10. It is natural that humans would find evidence for determinism, because a human cannot
experience but one course of spacetime. Once a person chooses a given path, there is no
such thing as a world in which that path isnt selected. Consequently, it seems as if there
never could have been any other world, for relative to that moment, there never could
have been.

11. The paper life is written upon is a blank sheet called time. It is written by what lives.
What constitutes causality is what is written. Causality never lifts a pen.

12. Determining causality requires ontology.

Metaphysics is inescapable.

13. To manage your tongue is to manage your future.

14. The future is born from a dance of wills: each word is a step in the dance.

15. A bird can squawk I love you, but a person can mean it.

16. If I call someone fat, a mere three letter word, I have forced that individual to
experience a mode of being in which he or she feels depressed. I have violated that
individuals freedom wrongly. Though, if I say that same word to someone who isnt
easily bothered or in a society in which fat is beautiful, the person will experience a
different world. In this case, I have potentially violated that persons freedom for the

If I tell someone they should have fun, it could be received as a loving suggestion or as
a criticism based on the context and the speakers motive. Either way, the words
illuminate or darken the world/future that follows, depending on the motivation behind
them and how they are received. This will be influenced by the listeners preset
understanding, and that will be shaped, in its own right, by how the listener uses words
for his or her self.

If people say I love you because they are worried the recipient of those words doesnt
know that they love them, they speak out of a negative motivation (fear). This creates a
world in which this fear is perpetuated. In speaking from this place, the person never
faces the negativity in their mind: they feed its fire by giving it oxygen with words. If,
however, someone says to another youre making a big mistake and they are speaking
out of a place of wisdom (such as knowing that taking drugs will lead to an addiction),
this person is speaking from a positive motivation. This will create an illuminated world.
The motivation of words determines the lighting of the proceeding world.

People should gage the motivation of their words to determine if they should speak
them. What motivates words determines if a person summons forth a world/future of
light or darkness, because motivation is derived from will and reason (and therefore
freedom). However, good intention isnt necessarily good: motivation must also be
equipped with truth.

17. While many contradictions in space arent contradictions through time (two different
cups can occupy the same space at different times), temporal contradictions are always

18. Words are in the world but not of it because youll never find the word cat walking

19. By saying lets go the movies, I cause myself and those with whom I am speaking to go
somewhere. There, perhaps, I am hit by a car and paralyzed for the rest of my life. One
could say that it was the choice to go to the movies that caused me to be paralyzed, but
it was actually me saying lets go to the movies which brought that about. The words,
which I created, caused the series of events I underwent. Choice begets the fate.

20. If there were no words, determinism would be true (or at least freedom and fate
couldnt be defined apart).

21. Perhaps I am determined to say something, but I choose what I say in particular.
Perhaps I am determined to be a good athlete, but I choose in which sport. Perhaps
determinism influences me generally, but I control the particularities within those

22. I create the causality I undergo.

23. Phenomena do not come after causality, but causality comes after phenomena. It would
be more accurate to say causality undergoes things than it would be to say things
undergo causality.

24. Words are a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

25. Choice and causality are two sides of the same coin. They are like rivers constantly
crossing one another: they are one in one moment, different in another.

26. I am not determined to name my/(the object) son Daniel.

Only the free name.

27. What is free can choose to be determined.

28. Humans are free in particular and determined generally. I am forced to eat, but I choose
what and when I eat.

29. When one speaks of determinism, the person speaks of how humans cannot choose the
total nature of what they undergo. When one speaks of freedom, the person speaks of
how humans can choose what determines them.

30. Unlike animals, humans can undergo angst.

31. To say a person is a you/you-ness also implies a person is a thinker/perceiver (see On

Thinking and Perceiving).

32. Words mean what we put in dictionaries, yet who reads dictionaries?

32.1 Dictionaries define what make us free.

33. One creates when one speaks.

One causes when one acts.
One creates and causes when one speaks and acts.

34. To say something negative is put one drop of red dye into milk: it takes a lot of milk
(positive words) to dilute the little bit of red away.

34.1 At any moment, you can force someone to need a whole lot of milk. No one is free
from the possibility of anothers negativity.

35. Definitions are things in action: actions define words. If I say I love you and then
punch you, you come to understand love as a fight.

36. Words freely move phenomena between deterministic courses.

37. As the best way to cut down on crime is to delete laws, the best way to raise
understanding is to delete words. The less terms, the more clarity.

38. While humans know they are alive (having the idea of life to realize), animals dont.

39. In line with On Trust, determinism is living; freedom, trust. As determinism is void
of language, trust void of language is living.

40. Conversation is struggle freedom.

41. If a movie camera connected to a screen was able to turn around and video itself, the
image on the screen wouldnt be the camera: it would be an image of the camera. The
camera can never be on the screen. Likewise, to speak about speaking is to turn the
thing into a representation of the thing, as to speak about freedom dresses it in
deterministic/causal clothes. As the fact the camera can never be on screen doesnt
mean the camera doesnt exist, so it isnt the case that the inability to speak about
freedom renders freedom non-existent. Speaking is freedom, though it isnt about

42. An unspoken thought, not subject to reaction (though perhaps a result of a reaction), is

43. Within spacetime, all entities can say is that an act may be creative, as all one can say
(following Hume) is that a ball may fall when released. The divide between probability
and certainty is the gap between Heaven and earth.

44. If a ball hits a ball, a ball must move (given that its environment doesnt hold it back). If
a ball hits a person, the person doesnt have to say anything (though the person does
have to hurt).

45. Because we have words (which add uncertainty to the deterministic), we trust.

46. Since a parrot can say something to get attention or to be fed, one could argue that
animals are capable of bringing unto themselves a world of the person feeding the bird.
Therefore, animals can do more than just cause events to happen insomuch as they
happen. Yet, a parrot would be incapable of this without humans. Humans transfer
human-ness to the parrot, per se, as touched on in the paper.

47. Freedom emerges within restrictions.

48. When man is allowed to live free, life seems to just go through the motions.

49. Determinism ends along open lips.

50. Freedom and determinism are two sides of the same coin.

51. It seems that people who believe in God believe in free will more so than those who
dont. Perhaps this is by chance or perhaps it is because thinking and speaking focused
on the metaphysical (which is often transcendent of spacetime) is easier to identify as
distinct from causality than thinking and speaking focused on what is within (and
dressed in) spacetime.

52. We cannot say animals speak in any meaningful sense. This isnt to say animals dont
communicate in some fashion, only that it cannot be defined from their deterministic

53. I cannot enter the mode of any other language like my mother tongue.

54. As we must think deeply about the conflation of language and words, we must think
deeply about the conflation of images.

55. Only a free man can declare that he isnt free.

56. In line with On Materialism, Purpose, and Discernment, to be free entails being
synchronized toward a purpose. Yet, like a doorknob is invisible when one opens a
door, when one is free, ones freedom is invisible. Hence, when one is free, it seems
like freedom doesnt exist.

Imagine being born into, and surrounded by, a glass sphere your entire life. You
wouldnt even know it was there, being so accustomed to the sphere. Unless, that is,
there was a hole in it. Looking at that hole, you wouldnt see the sphere, but the lack of
it. From seeing that space though, you would be able to deduce that you were inside of
Likewise, in always being encompassed in freedom, we dont notice that its there. In
fact, we can only deduce the existence of freedom from spots where we lack it. Yet,
looking at that space, rather than make this deduction, we deduce freedom doesnt exist
at all. We are like someone in that glass sphere who concludes that the sphere doesnt
exist because we dont see it in the space which we are staring, rather than figure out
how to go about fixing the hole.

The space where freedom is broken is the space in which we can realize that freedom
surrounds us.

57. A language that is one with the phenomena it signifies is spoken by people who have no
past or future.

58. In speaking, we have agency; outside of it, the world does.

59. You cannot take a class in dog as you can take a class in German.

60. It is better to prove animals are human than to prove humans are animals.

61. There is a sense in which it is unfounded to talk about how animals talk since we
ourselves are not animals. Perhaps doing so makes one guilty of a kind of Orientalism
and prejudice against animals. Yet we must be careful to push such a notion too far,
because if humans didnt talk about what they didnt understand fully, humans would
never speak, seeing that speaking itself is an act that is hardly understood.

62. Someone like Peter Singer may accuse me of racism for defining the difference between
humans and animals, like a racist defining the difference between whites and blacks. To
my defense, I do not believe that to say one thing is different from another is the same
as saying one thing is better than the other. Furthermore, to say animals are different
from humans isnt to say that it isnt immoral to mistreat them.

63. To control your tongue is to restructure your mind and emotions.

64. Words have elasticity, and words are sticky.

65. On the question of whether speaking or thinking comes first: perhaps thinking and
speaking are two sides of the same coin of consciousness. Whether the coin lands on
heads first in one instance or on tails another doesnt change it into a penny.

66. There is a sense in which the object-cup functions to the brain similarly as does the
word cup. The brain reads it as signifying the definition/phenomenon of the
perceivers choosing as the brain reads cup to signify the object-cup.

67. A baby sees a cupboard/wall (a paragraph), a growing baby sees a cupboard against a
wall (sentences in paragraphs), and a baby person sees glasses in a cupboard against a
wall (words in sentences in paragraphs). And so the mind formulates.

68. Rules of conversation:

Never speak out of fear.
Never speak out of guilt.
Never speak to make sure that (insert).
Never speak to convince yourself that (insert).
Never speak to the detriment of others.
Never say anything that has any hint of mistrust motivating it.

69. Determinism can be viewed as a rational philosophy which follows from a naturalistic
worldview, but it doesnt seem that one can be rational without free will. Without
freedom, a person cannot be lead to the most rational conclusion; rather, the person
must always be lead to the determined conclusion. Every rational decision is under the
influence of forces indifferent to rationalism. Therefore, one cannot rationally be a
Determinist, though thats not to say one cannot choose to be a Determinist.

70. Technically, what constitutes a miracle cannot be established, for Natural Law cannot be
established (only constant conjunction). This either makes every phenomenon a
miracle (as is every act that directs the river of determinism), or means that the
dichotomy of miracle versus non-miracle ultimately breaks down. In a sense, at (pure)
being, miracles are natural.

71. The less time between thinking and action, the more causal the individual; the more
time, the more creative. Considering this, good athletes are, in a sense, deterministic.
Furthermore, there is a sense in which the extrovert is a casual being, while the
introvert is a creative being. All humans are a mixture of extroversion and introversion,
as all humans are a mixture of causation and creativity. As humans oscillate between
causation and creation, so they move between extroversion and introversion.

72. Words not only create courses in spacetime (as do actions), but make us toward
courses before they are realized (even courses beyond our horizons).

73. Like consciousness (beh)in(d) a brain, since freedom cannot be observed (while
determinism can be, for causality is visible and what freedom is always clothed in),
arguments for freedom can be similar in structure to negative theology, for God is also

74. What deterministic forces would give rise to the idea of determinism?

75. If determinism is true and yet freedom is also real, we were determined to be free. Does
this mean we arent free? Or does this mean we actually have something to be free
from (without which, freedom would be meaningless)? To some extent, determinism is
necessary for freedom. If nothing was determined, freedom would be determined for

76. Often, it seems that to say something is deterministic is to say that is unconscious,
while to say something is conscious is to say that it is free this is why the question of
whether or not consciousness is a material phenomenon seems to lie often at the heart
of the free will debate. But is an inanimate object, like a pen, deterministic? Not to itself,
for the pen is unconscious the pen is neither free nor determined; rather, it just is (if
even that). Only conscious entities can think of things in terms of determinism, which if
consciousness constitutes freedom, is ironically proof of freedom. Furthermore, it
should be noted that the very fact that we are concerned about the question of free will
is perhaps evidence of a sort of horror we feel at the idea of not being free, a horror
perhaps we feel only because we are free.
77. The categories of freedom and determinism vanish if determinism is true, but not if
freedom is, because individuals can freely choose to live deterministically. Hence, the
presence of determinism can be proof of freedom.

78. Thinking is toward linearism and determinism, not freedom or the dynamic, and so to
consider freedom, we must be meta-thinkers, critical of thinking critical thinkers.
Thinking structures reality to appear to the mind as deterministic, and so the act of
thinking about freedom is the very act which makes it appear false/determined: the act
of thinking about freedom is what makes it appear absent. In other words, determinism
is the outfit freedom wears as a result of how thinking structures reality to appear to
us. To allude to Heidegger, in thought, as Being is hidden/unveiled in being, so
freedom is hidden/unveiled in determinism (keep in mind that Being/being emerges
simultaneously in thought, as argued in A is A by O.G. Rose).

79. All phenomena wear a clothing of determinism: all phenomena appear as having to
have been. Once you see a cup on a table, it is as if it was never possible for that cup
not to have been on that table at that time and place, and relative to the moment the
cup is observed there, indeed, it could have never been any other way. But relative to
before the moment the cup was put on the table, there were infinite possible places the
cup could have ended up. Regardless where the cup ends up, it appears dressed in a
having to have been this way-ness. Hence, the very way phenomena appear to us in
reality make us toward determinism, for reality appears deterministic.

Consequently, perhaps because reality makes us toward determinism, we are tempted

to try to make our studies, such as Economics, History, Political Science, etc., as
deterministic and/or predictive. We want economists who will tell us what the
economy will do versus economists who will tell us what the economy may do. We want
inevitable outcomes, not guides we can freely choose to follow or disregard, and reality,
because of how it is dressed, does not help us catch our mistake.

Furthermore, it is possible that humans want determinism to be true, for than reality is
theoretically possible to best. Where there is unpredictability, there is an inability to
control; where there is determinism, all that is needed is the right theory (which
determinism is only a matter of time). However, it is hard to grasp the point of History,
Economists, Political Science, etc., if humans have no agency. If we are but billiard balls
rolling across a table, knowing we are billiard balls will not enable us to stop moving; in
fact, all it will do is make us realize that we are helpless.

80. We live in an environment shaped and largely created by hitherto unparalleled semantic
influences [], to borrow from Hayakawa, and hence live in an environment that is
constantly determining us, while simultaneously validating the existence of freedom.A
Language [] makes progress possible, and hence progress is possible thanks to that
which traps us and tells us that were free.B
AHayakawa, S. I. Language in Thought and Action. Orlando, Fla. Harcourt, Inc., 1990:

BHayakawa, S. I. Language in Thought and Action. Orlando, Fla. Harcourt, Inc., 1990:

81. If there were no words, what would be?

82. A rock cannot, by some spark/will, begin a deterministic chain of causality, only be
caught up in a chain of causality that is already set in motion by something else. A
human, however, by some spark/will, can begin a deterministic chain of causality,
which perhaps the rock is caught up in.

83. People speak lenses (onto you).

84. Words spoken change the world.

Words kept within only change you.
Discern if you need to change the world or yourself, if you need to change yourself
before you change the world, if the world needs to change but not you, or if you need to
change while the world stays the same.

On a Staircase
1. Metaphysics is taken to be a confused understanding of reality by many modern
thinkers. Furthermore, questions like what is the meaning of life? are considered bad

If a cow turns toward his herd and says were cows and one of the cows says no were
not, and then the cow says Ill prove it to you and begins herding the other cows like a
farmer, those in the herd may believe hes right, were cows. Yet the very act of the one
cow treating the others like cows proves that the cows are not just cows: clearly they are
capable of being human.

If a human turns to others humans and says metaphysics is junk and the other humans
say no its not, and the first human begins teaching them about the world through a
purely physiological lens, the other humans may begin to believe hes right; we dont
need metaphysics, philosophy, etc.. Yet the very act of the one being able to approach
the world as purely physiological proves that the human is not purely physiologically:
clearly he is capable of deciding which scope to view the world through. Thus,
metaphysics is valid and unavoidable. To be humans is to be metaphysical.

1.1 Metaphysics is necessary because humans can move between frameworks and scopes.
For example: a person can choose to believe in metaphysics and then change his or her

2. A thing is recognized as part of a whole if the whole is recognized prior to the part(s).
Failure to recognize the whole-ness of a part though, doesnt mean a thing isnt a part.
Humans build upward after descending: humans do not start at the bottom and then
build up. The Tower of Babel is only built by those created from Heaven.

3. The question what is the meaning of life? requires multiple answers.

First (for scientists), what is the meaning of life (to the world)?.
Second (for all human beings), what is the meaning of life (to humans in the world)?.
Third (for the linguist), what is the definition of life?.
Finally (for each person), what is the meaning of life (to me)?.

4. To allude to On Thinking and Perceiving: meaning is related to perceiving; meaning,

4.1 To think about the question what is the meaning of life? is to think about something
we can only perceive.

5. To ask what is the meaning of life? is to create the possibility of an answer, for it is
possible to define, linguistically, what is the meaning of life?.

6. While what is the meaning of life? is an invalid question, what is the Meaning of Life?
may not be. If it isnt, what is the meaning of life? could have Meaning insomuch as it
reflects the Meaning of Life, though the question cannot have meaning alone.

1. It seems that definitions are achieved through perception more so than thought (to
allude to On Thinking and Perceiving).

2. If A = A, the sound wave of cup should arise to an experience of the sound wave of
cup , rather than an experience of (the) meaning (of cup). Likewise, the experience
of a cup shouldnt arise to cup. Unless, that is, it is possible for humans to experience
A as if it werent A. If this is so, humans must not simply be a walking A = A, per se,
but perhaps a walking A A.

3. One does not experience a unicorn, yet from the idea of unicorn, one can live as if
unicorns exist. Humans are able to live in a world as if it were the world they lived in.
We cant reside in two worlds, but we can reside in a world and a world simultaneously
(but never without the other).

4. Synthesism and Dualism are not similes.

5. There is a sense in which consciousness is pure subjectivity, yet it seems consciousness

transforms phenomena into object-ivity. A cup for example is actually
atoms/space/color/etc. there is no cup, per se, yet the consciousness reads such
into reality. Relative to consciousness, cup is cup (A is A), yet what-actually-
constitutes-the-cup isnt cup. In the act of reading cup out of what-actually-
constitutes-the-cup, the consciousness begets an objective phenomenon which is
(simultaneously) experienced subjectively. The validity of the objectivity versus
subjectivity dichotomy is hence questionable, for the dichotomy seems to be something
consciousness projects onto reality, which seems constituted rather by
objective/subjective phenomena (not to be confused with objective and subjective
phenomena). It seems that objectivity and subjectivity are two sides of the same coin,
which are appear-ently divided by consciousness (consequence of how it reads
spacetime). It seems strange that something in the world could do such a thing.

On Is-ness/Meaning
1. 3/4 dimensional beings do not flux between 3/4 dimensions and 1/2; therefore
identity, relative to dimensionality, is constant. Yet, identity fluxes between entities of
different dimensionalities. Each dimension is a mode of being, and each is just as valid
as the other. None are less real or more real, for each requires one another to be.
Hence, A = A is as valid as (A A) = (A A). Both contain and require the other.

2. Relative to a given atom which makes up a cup, the cup is a B while the atom is an
A. Since the atom never experiences cup, this cup is what the atom is without.
Hence, the total fabric of reality for the atom is A = A (without B) (as will be
expounded upon).

2.1 Keep in mind that a given A = A is different from another A = A and is B relative to
a different A = A. Hence, the total reality of a given A = A is an A = A (without B).

3. To ask what is that? upon hearing the purring of a cat behind a door is as mystifying as
asking what does Faulkner mean?

4. An individual can think a different meaning onto a thing at any moment, instantly
transforming what it is into another is-ness. In this sense, being is liquid.

5. To look at a picture and say its of a cat and a dog is to transposition the picture into
words. It is also the case that the picture a picture of a cat and dog, the picture =
the picture. To describe, therefore, is to lie. All acts of being are truthfully deceptive.

6. To conceptualize a cup is to read atoms up and eleven dimensions down into a cup.
Furthermore, we read atoms up and higher dimensions down into ourselves. We
transposition up and down simultaneously, splitting us, marrying irony.

7. To allude to On Thinking and Perceiving, when one perceives rather than thinks, a
being opens his or her self up to the wholeness of a phenomenon, rather than just a part
(even though the being cannot conceptualize such to be the case).

8. Is-ness and meaning are indivisible. As meaning is indivisible from meaning, so is-ness
is indivisible from is-ness. Is-ness cannot be conceptualized, though that doesnt mean it
cannot be experienced or perceived. Therefore, all conceptualizations or discussion
about is-ness will actually be about is-ness, though the given individual may think

9. Metaphysics is necessary because what constitutes a given A of a given A = A is

relative, because scopes vary. What constitutes B is also relative.

10. As mathematics can never be axiomatic (as realized by Gdel), because what constitutes
A is relative, thinking can never be axiomatic.

On A is A
On A is A

1. To observe a thing is to see (that thing) is (that thing), which is to see (that thing) is
(that thing) is (that thing)ad infinitum. In other words, to see that thing is to see an

2. A reason we perhaps like things that make no sense (like many Youtube videos) is
because A is A signifies contradiction, so what is more real to us is that which is funny
or ironic (see Kierkegaard) since, as C.S. Lewis put it, to find something funny is to
counter the way of the world (as is to be horrified).

3. The term Nothing, versus nothing, is self-contradictory. While the term nothing
signifies something/nothing, the term Nothing signifies nothing as a thing-in-itself,
versus a relation or directionality of (a) thing(s). By definition, Nothing Isnt.

4. Depending on the context, / usually signifies toward-ness (and maybe,

simultaneously, interchangeablity).

5. In a sense, the more people think about things, the more things are toward nothing.
For example, if I think about a cup and what constitutes it, I will think about the
porcelain that makes the cup, then I will think about the paint that is on the cup, then
what makes up the porcelain, then the particles that make up the porcelain reducing
the cup into smaller and smaller parts, toward nothing.

On B

1. Nothing Doesnt Exist (by definition), but nothing is real (in relation to things). The
reality of nothing is derived in the space between A1 and A1 A(x) and/or between A
and B. It is between scopes, per se, because nothing isnt a thing-in-itself. In many
respects, the reality of nothing, real to A, is what makes A, A, and B distinct from A.
The directionality or orientation of A toward B is an overcoming of nothing (and/or
contradiction) oriented by B (non-contradiction). A is a non-contradiction, per se, to
the degree that it is toward B, and a contradiction to the degree that it is toward A.
In other words, A is a thing (unto itself) to the degree it is toward B (or toward itself-
as-a-thing-in-itself). The more toward B a given thing, the less it undergoes alienation.

2. To address identity, meaning, reference, and signification: a thing is that thing

insomuch as it is without (That/that)-which-that-thing-isnt. For example, A1 is A1
insomuch as A1 is without A(x) A1 and without B. Therefore, a thing is
identified/named/referred (to) insomuch as a given observer identifies/names/refers
(to) That/that which that thing is without. Thus, it is impossible to
identify/name/refer (to) a given thing (for a given, finite observer cannot possibly
signify/conceptualize/etc. all phenomena which a given thing is without) only
approximation is possible. Identification/naming/reference, to be accurate and truly
possible, requires there be nothing that a given thing is without (which is impossible in
the context of the world). Relative to a-thing-unto-a-thing (B), a thing is without
nothing, for it is all there is (in that context). Therefore, the best way to
identify/name/refer (to) a given thing (like A1) is relative to B, rather than relative to (a)
different A(s). A given person, in this regard, to overcome alienation, should also
identify his or her self relative to B.

3. Let us consider a hypothetical C: if C signifies C/(C-isnt-C), C signifies A. If C

signifies C-unto-C, C signifies B. If C signifies (C-isnt-C)/(C-isnt-C), C signifies
an-idea-that-isnt or a-thing-unto-itself-that-isnt-unto-itself, which is a Contradiction
(and/or Nothingness) and an impossibility. Thus, C is an unneeded complexity, as are
all permutations or terms other than A and B.

4. To avoid confusion, the rest of this paper will use the term B-unto-B rather than A-
unto-A (in regard to B Is), seeing that the terms are ontologically interchangeable.
Since B signifies B-unto-B, the term B can be used rather than B-unto-B without
error, while the term A cannot be flawlessly interchanged with the term A/(A-isnt-
A). While is-ness and is-ness/meaning are one in B, they arent in A (human
experience). That said, anytime the term A is used, understand the term is used to
signify A/(idea-of-A), even if it isnt written as such (which is sometimes done to avoid
confusion, though its technically incorrect).

On A/(Idea-of-A)


On A/(Idea-of-A) is A/(Idea-of-A) (Without B)

1. When a person says A is A (to signify B), quoting Aristotle, that individual engages in
thought, and relative to thought, the principle holds, as it holds relative to the world-
unto-the-world. However, the principle doesnt hold relative to thinking-unto-world (yet
one probably says A is A in order to, ironically, determine how to thoughtfully engage
with the world). Keep in mind that though A is A doesnt hold for thinking-unto-the-
world, it does hold in regard to perception-unto-the-world (in line with On Thinking
and Perceiving).

2. The idea-of-a-thing is caused by a thing, but an idea-of-a-thing isnt a thing. An idea is

its own thing, per se, as a child is his or her own person despite being conceived by his
or her parents. If I think cup over there while looking at cup here, and I move cup
here over there, cup over there isnt the same as cup over there now. Each idea is its
own thing, as each scene in a movie is its own thing, and each idea of a given scene is
distinct from the given scenes which the ideas are of. By running together, they seem to
be one, and in a way are, yet remain distinct.

3. Meaning is subjective, while is-ness is objective. There is no such thing as subjectivity

without objectivity or vice-versa (for then objectivity simply is, and it would be
meaningless to call it objective). Therefore, unto humans, as a thing is/means, so a
thing objective/subjective-ifies. Keep in mind that subjectivity always refers to an
experience of objectivity, while an experience of objectivity by objectivity is simply is-

4. A always implies directionality, for A always implies (a) B-toward-a-different-B or B-

laid-over-B, while B never signifies directionality, being rather the end of A.

5. Nothing is a contradiction unto itself, but everything is nothing to everything else (when
conceived). To think about a thing is to make it a contradiction, to hurl it toward

6. Though there is no thing in the world (the term, if meaningful, signifies a human
toward-ness to an unfamiliar actuality), the term is used in this paper to signify a(ny)
given actuality.

7. As there is no thing in the world, per se, there is nothing in the world when a thing is
thought about. Thinking gives nothing being.

8. To conceptualize an is-ness is to layer it with meaning, begetting a new ontology of is-

ness/meaning. To think is to mean, so to think is to engage with (and beget) this
ontology. Even if people are aware of this and desire to escape this ontology, if they do
so through thinking, they only go deeper.

Transcendence and Being

1. If a book is a book, does a book is/mean a book? No a book not-is/means words-

a book . The paradox of this last point opens the door to the question of being, which
will be fully addressed at another time.

2. God has being unto God, but that being is (always) Being unto us (and all else). In order
to avoid confusion, when used in regard to God or things-unto-themselves, it can be
better to use the term Being consistently (seeing that a given reader of a document will
always have some Being in relation to him or her, seeing that he or she has being (or
finitude) by virtue of reading finite works).

3. Mislabeling Being/being as nothing can cause alienation.

4. The word nothing is ultimately a pure word it refers only to itself (in use).

5. The terms Being and being can be in regard to how a phenomenon reveals itself, per
se, or it can be used in regard to the is-ness or Is-ness of a thing. Though this paper has
made a distinction between is-ness and being, other papers may not do so. Being is a
term that can be used as a noun, a verb, or a noun/verb. Being can be used in regard to
the action of revealing (toward-ness), the is-ness of a thing, or the is-ness of a thing as it
reveals itself to others.

5.1 Furthermore, considering that is-ness is Transcendent, one can usually use the term Is-
ness interchangeably, as one could use the term Being (as distinct from Being/being as
hiding/revealing), as long as a distinction is drawn between the terms Being,
Being/being, and being. However, the term is-ness shouldnt necessarily always be
capitalized, but can be when the term is-ness is used in regard to an entity it Transcends
(such as that with is-ness), though doesnt have to be. Though is-ness and Is-ness are
usually interchangeable, the term is-ness shouldnt be capitalized when referring relative
to is-ness, for is-ness doesnt Transcend itself.

5.2 The terms Existence, Exist, and Exists can be interchanged with the terms Is, Is
and is-ness (as these later terms can be interchanged for one another), assuming the first
three terms are capitalized. It is not necessarily the case the lowercase terms existence,
exist, or exists are interchangeable with Existence, Exist, Is-ness, Is, etc.

5.3 The term Is is usually interchangeable with the term Is, as Is-ness is usually
interchangeable with Is-ness, but not when in regard to the question of what Ultimately
Transcends A versus only temporarily transcends A (relative to B). Is implies what
may Ultimately Transcend, while Is implies what does Ultimately Transcend. This
distinction is rarely necessary to make.

5.4 The need for all these interchangeable terms is due to the limits of language and for
emphasize on certain points at certain times. Please forgive the confusion.

6. Since A is/means, there is a sense in which it is absurd to say there is no meaning, for
this must signify there is no is-ness/meaning . However, in a sense, there is no
meaning, for there is only, technically, is-ness/meaning. Furthermore, to engage with
Existentialism, it is also absurd to ask does essence precede existence or vice-versa?, for
there is only essence/existence, per se.

7. If A1 signifies cup on table and A2 signifies same cup next to sink, A2 is nothing
relative to A1. However, if a person picks up the cup on the table to put it next to the
sink, the individual makes A1 toward A2, which is like B until the cup is put next to
the sink and A2 is realized as A2. Up to the very instance in which A2 is realized as A2,
A1 is toward what is nothing relative to A1. Ultimately, this is the perpetual relation
between A and B (versus what is only like B). A is always toward B, and so always
toward what is nothing relative to A, though B isnt nothing unto itself.

8. The reason a thing means nothing (unto itself) is because meaning is self-contained
within a human. Though a thing always means an-idea-of-that-thing (to a person), a
thing means nothing to itself, for it just is to itself its being reveals itself to itself as
what it is. Nothing happens, so theres (only) nothing it can mean. However, a given
thing doesnt experience itself as meaning nothing, for it doesnt think; only a given
human can think, ironically, this way about his or her self. Yet a person who thinks I
mean nothing has given his or her self meaning, for that person has established I am in
saying I mean (nothing). The last term in the sentence makes the speaker miss the
implication of the first. To say I am is to say I mean (things into is/mean-ness), so it
cannot be the case that a person means nothing; if a person is, a person means (things)
(into ideas-of-those-things). I mean nothing is a valid expression only when used to
signify I mean entities toward ideas (of themselves).

9. In early works, I used the expression A = A to signify A is A. I also concluded that A

= A means (A A ) = (A A) and is ultimately without B. Though the expression
A = A can still hold insomuch as it is held in mind simultaneous with (A A ) = (A
A), I found that terms like (A A ) = (A A) did not quite work. First, the function
of = was never clear, and also the technical way to write (A A) = (A A) (without
B) is as A/(A A ) = A/(A A) (without B), for though is-ness is meaning, a
thing still is (unto itself) under, per se, the is-ness(/meaning) given to it by humans.
The expression (A A) = (A A) (without B) is technically right relative to logic
and thought (insomuch as A A is regarded as the meaning of A), but it doesnt quiet
hold in sum as does the more technical expressions.

10. If the term A is used to signify A/(A-isnt-A), A is A is a valid expression, as is A =

A if the = signifies is/means.

11. (A = A) without B is a simple term that signifies the difficult A/(A-isnt-A) is A/(A-
isnt-A) (without B), as is (A A) = (A A) (without B). Likewise, though not
technically right, the following is a simple way to sum up the findings of this paper:

A = A signifies:
(A A) = (A A) and (A = A) without B.
A = A (always) points to (A A) = (A A) (without B).

12. In conclusion, the fabric of reality is:

A/(A-isnt-A) is A/(A-isnt-A) (without B)

Reality is irony.

On Thinking and Perceiving

1. Because of the distinction between thinking and perception, Peter Singer is incorrect to
assert that saying animals arent human is the same as saying blacks arent human.
Humans can eat animals: there is no holocaust going on. However, Singer is right to
target the profound cruelty of modern ways of manufacturing animals into food, for
animals are deserving of respect in sharing in a dimension of our humanity. However,
animals are never to be respected at the expense of humans, for that is to treat animals
humanely, even though animals are, in a way, more spiritual than humans. A good way
to respect animals is to follow Barths advice in Church Dogmatics III.1.

2. Whether or not a human is concluded to be mind and body or body will be

determined by when a given study is done. One study will find that humans are both,
while another will find a different result. Both will be right relative to their given
moment. This is why psychology, philosophy, and science have been unable to efface
dualism once and for all. One moment its dead; the next, its back.

3. To dream is to think without any kind of perception. Consequently, in a dream, thinking

has to work by pure association. It works by a logic of what goes with what? versus
what goes to what?.

4. To experience the spiritual thoughtlessly (and so un-freely) is to engage with

meaningless spirituality which, at best, alienates. The spirit must be chosen to be

5. To prove animals can think, one would have to be able to prove that animals can read
and have movies playing in their heads (as described in the paper). If one did manage
to prove this of a certain animal, this would not prove that animals can think, but rather
prove that this particular animal is actually human. Even if the creature doesnt look like
a human at all, the creature will still fall into the category (though this rest cant
necessarily be said about every other creature within that particular creatures species).
To kill and eat this creature then would be to commit cannibalism (in line with what
Peter Singer warns). Even if such a particular creature were found, the categories of
human and animal would remain fixed.

6. Grasping the distinction between thought and perception may also help establish the
difference between IQ and EQ and the importance of both.

7. There is a relationship between knowledge and freedom because the more one knows,
the more one can think in such a manner that recognizes the division between
perception and thinking and then will their unity.

8. Many individuals have claimed to have had out of body experiences. Every time a
person perceives a window and thinks about their grandmother, indeed, that person has
such an experience. Out of body experiences are mind out of brain experiences which
may or may not end when the brain shuts down (which, if a resurrection of the body
occurs, is ultimately never). Such an experience is of the soul, not of the spirit, though
this semantic distinction is not meant to devalue anyone who has had an out of body
experience. It is also possible that a fully physical body could be one that is able to
move freely through space and time (perhaps gaining the capacity to control wave
frequencies), and it is possible that an out of body experience is one in which a person
gains full physicality (and the capacity to occupy multiple places in spacetime
simultaneously). Hence, such an experience would be when soul (or mind) and spirit
unify, though it may seem physicality is lost.

9. To say people think differently isnt just to say that people have different opinions,
but that the various processes by which people come to conclusions are fundamentally
different. One may think from details to a big picture, another might think the other
way around. When one isnt thinking though, this difference fades out, and unity is more
easily achieved. It may be impossible to truly understand that people are different in this
way until one experiences the absurdity of it (to be esoteric), for until then, one only
understands it through their given mental process. By definition, this means they dont

10. To allude to Hume, if I prefer scratching my finger to destroying the whole world, I
have acted unreasonably, because I have chosen to destroy the perception I require to
fulfill my desire. Whenever thinking contradicts perception as such, a person acts
unreasonably, for the individual negates the ground of thinking. I am rational when I
am actual, though what is actual takes more than being rational to determine.

11. To touch on Kant and using the term judgment as does he: because my perception is
reliable, so too is my judgment. In the times my judgment fails, I have methods by
which to determine how and why. Judgment is a combined effort of both thinking and
perception, and determining it entails knowing when to stop thinking to liberate
perception and when to invite thinking back to direct perception. If and when I doubt
my judgment, I have reasons and methods by which to reestablish its credibility;
otherwise, judgment is reliable. It should be noted that Kant was wise to search for a
ground to judgment in aesthetic experience, seeing that the more particular and actual
an entity becomes, the more it becomes like artwork.

12. In a way, a blind person is less spiritual than someone who can see, but someone who
can see is more likely to infringe his or her perception with thinking. Consequently, the
blind man is balanced out with those who can see. This isnt to say thinking is anti-
spiritual, but that thinking renders humans spiritually paradoxical.

13. Without language, its hard not to be an animal, if not impossible. To speak is to
separate thinking from perception. With each new word, a person becomes more a
person, yet the more that person becomes abstract. Naturally, a person eventually comes
to think this is a window, and so naturally becomes a non-animal and abstracts his or
her self out of the world.

Without words, thinking and perception blur. Thinking is negated, rather than fulfilled,
and humanity is lost. Yet, in words, spirit is lost. Words label what we perceive with
associational thoughts: they cover the world like a blanket, transforming everything we
see into things. The more language we learn, the more we cover the world in snow.

Thinking and language seem inseparable, especially considering that language isnt
limited to just words. A person can communicate with images; for such a person, images
are words. Words are not sound waves: words are anything that associate: words are
metaphors. Thinking is association as language is association; human-ness is
association. Thinking is language: I am my voice.

Yet, as language enables us to think and so to be free, language cuts us off from pure
perception. It is a friend and a foe. One cannot be human without language, but without
language, one becomes a spirit. Words are a path to the spirit, but there words must be
left behind. This is why many mystics claim the Divine is unspeakable. Indeed such is
the world.

14. In a way, when thinking and perceiving cross, the viewer applies his or her I to the
perceived. I am being selfish in such an instance, for I am not adding my I to all I
perceive. If I did so, my thinking would fuse with my perception, and my I would fuse
with the world.

15. If I hurt my thumb, is it me who hurts or my thumb? I am only hurt insomuch as I

think about my pain. If I perceive a cut in my hand, it is not myself that hurts until I
think I am hurt. Likewise, the part of me that I think about when asked who are you?
is who I am for the question. The more I am able to define my thinking from my
perception, the easier it will be to keep from confusing what my body undergoes from
what I undergo. If I am called ugly, I will recognize that the statement must be false,
because the name-caller has never perceived my thinking (seeing that thinking
transcends perceptibility by definition). I cannot be ugly. Hence, as it isnt offensive to
be called hideous by a blind man, so it shouldnt be hurtful to be called ugly. Beauty that
is skin deep is beauty of an object, not a person.

Yet, my protection from being called ugly is thanks to my willingness to step outside of
the world and self I perceive. I achieve invincibility by ceasing to be. In separating my
perception from my thinking, I create a distance between my body and self that helps
me keep myself whole. One would think that by splitting myself I would lose my mind,
when the exact opposite is true. I never lose my mind until I refuse to step out of the
world. I gain myself in my willingness to give everything up.

Yet still, I can only realize my spirit by unifying my mind with my body (my thinking
with my perception). In achieving this, I too obtain protection from being called names,
for I recognize my profound particularity and artistic being (my one-of-one-ness).
Consequently, I recognize the absurdity of being called ugly, for there is nothing I can
be compared to but myself. I am words like ugly and/or beautiful no longer apply.

16. A fully spiritual person doesnt perceive and think nor perceive, but
perceives/thinks, which is an entirely unique and distinct phenomenon in itself. By
definition, it transcends words. Whether this state is possible or an ideal is a conclusion
that, if achievable, would be ineffable.

17. It is natural for a human to think while perceiving, for it is natural to be fallen.
Likewise, it is hard to perceive without thinking when interacting with others, for it is
difficult to love your neighbor as yourself and much more natural to love your idea of
your neighbor as yourself.

18. The relationship between thinkers and perceivers is perhaps similar to the relationship
between introverts and extroverts.

19. Though everyone is both, perhaps perceivers are more right-brained while thinkers
are more left-brained.

20. If your thinking embraces your perception, you will never be bored. You will always be
surprised (by joy), for you will never see something coming. Rather, you will see what
is there.

21. If the term Heaven is meaningful, it must signify the highest possible physicality and
particularity. On the flipside, if Hell is meaningful, the term must signify utter
disembodiment and abstraction. Using the terms as such, it would be accurate to say
that a given human is constantly oscillating between Heaven and Hell.

22. If my leg is cut off, my spirit loses a leg, but my spirit is reduced only if I will to perceive
this affliction as a lessening.

23. Since it is the case that a natural law can only be falsified relative to a given moment, no
natural law is falsifiable. Consequently, Poppers new criteria by which to establish
natural laws stands for a given instance, but not for good, though it is a fantastic
criteria by which to establish natural probabilities. Hume prevails.

24. To reference A is A: thinking divides A from B (though there is no A without

thinking), while perception unifies A into B.

25. Nothing signifies an orientation of being against itself.

26. Thinking is so present-to-us that we think we think about all we perceive, when we
think about nearly none of it.

27. One could perhaps associate perception with the subconscious and thinking with
consciousness. Perhaps the subconscious emerges when a perceived phenomenon
breaks through into thought, and vanishes (like the I) once that break through
occurs. Yet, at the same time, since dreams are instances of pure thought, perhaps the
subconscious should be associated with thinking and consciousness perception. This
though, would conflict with most standard understandings of the terms.

28. Aquinas argued that thinking was primary while Duns Scotus argued for the
predominance of the will. Aquinas believed that the mind could not help but be drawn
to the good, but Duns Scotus warned that this meant the will wasnt free, for it had to
follow the mind wherever it went. Though perhaps it cannot be helped that one be
drawn toward the good of a nearby beautiful woman or a good steak, it is the case
that one is not necessarily drawn to higher goods like literature or art unless they will to
experience those goods. Often, those goods entail learning and training to appreciate. In
theological terms, one has to will to experience the Beatific Vision in order to be
unable to look away from it. Willing, as such, entails thinking, for one has to think about
what he or she has to do to achieve that experience. Also, one has to know about the
Beatific Vision in order to will to experience it. Ultimately, will and thinking are the
same phenomenon that manifests in different ways that are easy to put under different
titles. In one instance, though ultimately two sides of the same coin, will precedes
thought, while at other times thought precedes will. Whether Aquinas or Scotus is right
depends on the moment and person. Lastly, to will to experience the Beatific Vision is
to think about the Beatific Vision, and to the degree this is done well is to the degree the
individual will be drawn to it, unable to resist. Yet, since the individual willed to think
about the Beatific Vision, this loss of freedom is an expression of freedom, for it is
what the thinker wanted. To will something entails thinking about it, and thinking about
something entails willing those thoughts. Will and thought are one.

29. There is a difference between will and want

30. To allude to Heidegger, we dont think about a doorknob until it doesnt work: it is
when we turn it and the door doesnt open that we stop and recognize the doorknobs
existence. It is when something is broken that it stands out to us.

Considering what this paper has defined as spirituality, to think is to break pure
perception. Every time we think, we break perception, and so notice what we think
about (whether it be in our mind or before our senses). The same can be said when it
comes to the mind or self. We dont notice it until we break it by thinking about it,
yet in breaking it, unlike the doorknob, it vanishes all together. The self can never be
thought about in-and-of-itself, for the self is only engaged with through perception. Yet,
if never thought about, selfhood is meaningless.

What we think about is what we break from pure perception.

30.1 Philosophy is often an effort to return to a state of pure perception, yet in seeking this
state through thinking, it breaks itself off from the very thing it seeks. It has what it
wants until it looks. Yet what one has is meaningless until beheld.

30.2 The very act of thinking is what philosophy must overcome to achieve actuality.

30.3 The human is the stumbling block and the stumbled.

31. In line with On Materialism, Purpose, and Discernment, to have purpose is avoid
materialism, to unify life into a whole of life, and to open ones self up to full
physicality, full embodiment, and so full spirituality. Materialism is a way of thinking, so
the one who is materialistic cannot engage in pure perception. As to open ones self up
to perception is to open ones self up to actual and full materiality, so to have purpose is
to do the same. To not have purpose is to necessarily be materialistic. Therefore, the
one who doesnt have purpose cannot purely perceive or avoid abstraction. This isnt to
say purpose is perception, but that purpose must come before it (such as the purpose to
run a business, to write a book, or to achieve pure perception). Furthermore, purpose,
which is a kind of refined and focused thought and/or intentionality, makes perception
more meaningful than normal thinking.

31.1 To resurrect the body is to transcend materialism.

31.2 To allude to The Creative Concord, in lacking purpose, a person also lacks the
capacity to be meaningfully free, for the person lacks a standard by which to define a
mere act from a free one. Hence, the person cannot transcend alienation or materialism,
and so must think at the expense of perception.

31.3 Considering the Heideggerian example of the doorknob, what one perceives is invisible
to that person, which makes, in a sense, what one thinks about what one breaks (off
from perception). Yet, without this breaking, phenomena would necessarily be
meaningless and so purposeless. Considering this, humans must break in order to be
meaningfully whole or synchronized with life the one who lives meaningfully breaks
first. Likewise, humans may need to be materialistic to recognize their need for purpose,
as one may need to experience despair in order to realize his or her despairing state and
need for joy.

32. I can think about something without willing to do so, yet I can also think about things
by willing them into mind. The two are like constantly running rivers that cross here and
there, not always by chance.

33. Since there are always things a person is thinking about at the exclusion of other things,
a person is always an animal to some things, while a human to others. In this sense, we
can never be fully human.

34. Considering (Im)moral: it is the very act of thinking which shrinks ones perception of
being into the dichotomy of right and wrong. Thinking stands between a thinker and

35. Thinking works by splitting; words spread the crack(s).

35.1 The fundamental function of thinking is splitting.

36. Once a person thinks, reason is forever restless; once the familiar becomes strange, the
familiar forever unsettles. Once one thinks, one realizes humanness; once a person
comes into personhood, personhood is never again comfortable.

37. Thinking filters experiences through an idea of perfection within us (resulting in

generalities, idealism, etc.), while perception opens us up to the beautiful unfiltered
actuality before us.

38. To deem a thing a thing is to pull the perceived into the thought.

39. To allude to Read(er), to perceive is to experience subject/context; to think, subject

and context.

40. To think cup, like naming an object cup (which is distinct from responding to said
object), is to pull a phenomenon from perception into thought. It is arguably this
activity that makes a person a person, distinct from an animal (but not un-animal), yet it
is this act, ironically, that abstracts the human from the world.

41. To think about perception is to try to see the mirror behind your reflection.

42. The older a person becomes, the more likely it is that their thinking overrides their
perception. Children are less prone to abstraction.

42.1 To think about perception is to efface it, and so to make it seem as if there is no
perception, and so no distinction between thinking and perception. Likewise, to touch
on (Im)morality, to think about teleological ethics (and any teleological reasoning for
that matter) is to make teleological ethics seem absurd. The same applies in regard to
thinking about purpose and meaning, since these are realized through a dialectic
between perception and thinking. In a sense, perception is teleological; thinking, anti-

42.2 Perhaps the older people become, the more likely it is that they dont ascribe to
teleological ethics and a sense of purpose.

43. When it comes to understanding the economic work of Hayek, the educational work of
Mitra, the physics of Mandelbrot, the admonishments of Taleb, and the political theory
of Liberty, thinking is your worst enemy, yet it takes thought to learn.

44. The act of thinking harder about a problem can be the very act that makes that problem
more difficult to solve. Ironically, the more difficult a problem becomes, the harder
humans tend to think about it.

45. Generally, Eastern thought has focused on perception at the expense of thought, as
Western thought has focused on thinking at the expense of perception.

46. To think about a perceived thing transforms it into a symbol pointing toward the
thinkers concept of it. To put thinking above perception is to put ones symbolic
conceptualization of the world above the world itself, which, in disordering being by
confusing the symbol with the symbolized, causes abstraction and anxiety.

47. There are perhaps phenomena like synchronicity which are valid in perception yet

48. If humans are purely material phenomena, then at some point science will be able to
bring people back to life once it has figured out how to turn bodies back on, per se. If
humans are purely marital beings, resurrection is scientifically possible. One day, we may
all have a scientific afterlife.

49. As one shouldnt claim Tolkien isnt smart because Middle Earth doesnt exist, one
shouldnt claim a person who thinks isnt smart just because he or she abstracts the
world into that which it is not.

50. Thinking, when how it works isnt understood, is a threat to freedom. If people dont
realize that the act of thinking singularizes phenomena and abstracts them from the real
world (as if they are all there is), people will begin thinking about a world in which
freedom, objectively, doesnt work. Consequently, individuals will conclude that
freedom needs to be restricted, when in fact such only needs to be the case in the
unreal, abstract world beget by the act of thinking itself. Without education, freedom is
empty, yet thinking, when its functionality isnt understood, can destroy freedom.

51. To think is to study a painting after stepping close enough to touch it with your nose.
To perceive is to stand back.

52. It is hard to let your thinking merge with your perception, as it is hard to see yourself
not looking in the mirror.

53. To think about thinking isnt to engage in perception, though its the thinking most like

54. The nature of thought is toward control, while the nature of perception is toward

55. One never think about (all of) what is, only a scope it, and though one never perceives
(all of) what is, in perceiving, one is open to it.

56. It cannot be said that spiritual man is simply a person with all the abilities found in
nature that humans lack, for it cannot be said for sure that spiritual doesnt signify all
those capabilities and others we dont know about.

57. Reminiscent of the Reflective Equilibrium by John Rawls, the human gains
understanding of understanding (miraculously) and then experiences understanding as a
state, which then redefines the humans concept of understanding, which then redefines
the mode in which the human experiences the world, restarting the process over and
over again. Likewise, as the human grasps the bigger picture, the humans grasp of
smaller phenomena is reinvented, which then reinvents the humans grasp of the bigger
picture, and so on. Furthermore, what one thinks about influences how one perceives,
and then what one perceives redefines what one thinks about, back and forth, on and on
as the human climbs higher and higher toward pure perception and fully physicality.

58. Postmodernists have pointed out that belief in a single superstructure or common
rationality into which all phenomenon fit has been used to silence minorities, and so
Postmodernists have worked to deconstruct all such structures. Yet to avoid throwing
out the baby with the bathwater, perhaps perception can provide us with a common
ground that thinking couldnt without causing such oppression. Though there cannot
be a common ground of thought, perhaps there can be a common ground of
perception, though determining what constitutes it would take much thought and
risking oppression. Perhaps the way is narrow, but perhaps there is a way.

59. The rational exists within rationality, but not outside of it. Where there is no thought,
there cannot be thoughtfulness (only an appearance of such). Considering this, there
needs to be a distinction made between the rationality considered within thinking and
that which emerges in perception. For example: it is rational to believe 2 + 2 = 4, but it
is not so much a matter of rationality that a tree doesnt change into a bird as it is a
matter of perception. This rationality of perception is what science is grounded in, and
it is often conflated with the rationality of thought. This isnt to say that there is no
thinking in science, only that the kinds of rationality science use varies. Grasping this
may help us overcome some epistemological confusion.

60. Nothing is real in thought, but doesnt exist in perception.

61. An informing of thinking with perception and perception with thinking is a kind of
forward, backward, forward approach, a kind of thinking about a phenomenon,
stepping back into perception to grasp the phenomenon in its world, and then re-
thinking about the phenomenon again in light of ones perception of it. This is to focus
upon and think about an entity, check and balance that abstraction with actuality, and
then re-approach the entity in light of ones perception of it. And this kind of
epistemological approach profoundly transforms how a person approaches every field
of knowledge and day-to-day personal interaction. In seeing ones thinking as
abstractions of perception, one is more likely to be skeptical of his or her own thinking
and humble about his or her ideas. This will help one avoid forecast errors in
economics, for example, and also help a person not lose sight of the world among
mental images of it.

61.1 To make a Heideggerian point, perhaps it can be said that Being, in a way, Doesnt Exist
relative to what we think about, but that Being Exists relative to what we perceive. If I
think about a cup, I am toward a reality (being(s)) in which the cup stands out from
the world it is in, even though, in reality, the cup doesnt stand out as such. Relative to
the reality I am toward, Being Doesnt Exist; relative to the reality that is, Being
Exists. Being Doesnt Exist relative to realities that dont exist, and to think (about a
thing) is to shrink my scope into fashioning a mental and abstract reality that isnt.
Unlike thinking, which singularizes my world and makes me toward that singularity as
if it were the world, to perceive is to be open to the world; in other words, to think is
to bracket off ones self from Being, while to perceive is to open up ones self to
Being. That said, without thought, Being would be meaningless, even though
experienced, and so to fully experience Being, one needs to both think and perceive in a
manner that informs and suffuses the other.

61.2 To make a theological point (though it can be dangerous to entertain theology in a

philosophical work), it is perhaps the case that people who believe in God more
naturally carry out the forward, backward, forward approach to engaging with the
world (and merging perceiving and thinking), not because they are conscious of doing
so, but because that way of engagement comes with theism. Regardless if God Exists,
believing in God teaches (or at least should teach) one to step back from what he or
she thinks about the world, ones sense of right and world, ones sense of truth, etc., and
to bring it before God, which in turn puts the person into a mode of perceiving rather
than thinking (before rethinking). This isnt to say one must be a theist to merge
perceiving and thinking, only that it seems to (unintentionally) come with the theistic

62. If I think about a cup, I am toward a world that isnt, and if I realize such (that I think
about nothing though nothing doesnt exist), thinking can move me into perceiving. (In
other words, conceptualizing A is A can make me realize without B if I realize A, A,
Aeternal regression) And this is perhaps the only way thinkers can become perceivers.

63. If I perceive a cup without thinking I could pick it up, relative to me, I do not add that
potential to the world; however, if I were to think, I want something to drink, its as if
my mind casts that potential in front of me, like a fishing line, which I then choose
whether to realize or not (like a fish choosing whether to take the bait). In a sense the
potential to pick up the cup is always there, regardless whether I think about it, yet in
another sense, the potential isnt there unless I think about picking up the cup, for
relative to me, without thought, the possibility is meaningless. Likewise, there is always
the possibility that I wont die until Im a hundred and thirty and that Ill have a chance
to go to outer space, as theres always the possibility that Ill become president, etc.
but without action and phenomenon that point to the realize of these possibilities and
that result in practical thought about them, these possibilities are of no significance. In
this sense, it seems as if there needs to be a distinction between meaningful potentiality
and meaningless potentiality, which is always relative to an individual subjectivity,
seeing that meaningful and meaningless are terms that imply some subjective value

Thinking adds meaningful potentials to the perceived, and by extension, makes possible
meaningful realization/action. To realize a potential that one doesnt think about is to
act meaninglessly, while to realize a potential that is thought about is to act
meaningfully. This isnt to imply one kind of action is necessarily more valuable than
another (though they might be relative to an individual), and instead of using the term
meaning, one could just as easily use the language of thoughtful versus thoughtless.
Rather, this is to say there are different kinds of action, and that some action is more
meaningfully action than others. When I blink instinctually, though this act is in fact an
action, relative to me, I hardly notice it, and it is certainly not as meaningfully an action
to me as is the choice of which college I attend. Both are an action, yes, but which to me
even seems like an action (which to me even seems like something I choose to do) is
relative to which action I think about (more so).

Furthermore, though both the mechanical and the meaningful act appear intentional
and/or willed, the realization of meaningless potential are realizations in which free
will cannot be meaningfully defined from mechanical act and/or determinism. It is in
acts that entail the realization of meaningful potential that an individual, relative to his
or her self, can recognize that he or she has (meaningful) freedom. Yet, that said, an
individual can freely choose to think this expression of (meaningful) freedom is actually
controlled by subconscious and/or unidentifiable forces (such as chemicals in the brain,
etc.), and so meaningful acts may not be as good of a proof to an individual that he or
she has free will as maybe instances in which the persons freedom is violated (as
expounded on in On Words and Determinism). It depends.

64. In Lost in the Cosmos, Walker Percy asks Why is it that the look of another person
looking at you is different from everything else in the Cosmos? That is to say, looking at
lions or tigers or Saturn or the Ring Nebula or at an owl or at another person from the
side is one thing, but finding yourself looking into the eyes of another person looking at
you is something else. Perhaps the answer to this is because non-human entities do not
resist being bracketed off by thought into that-which-it-isnt, while humans, in being
thinking and perceiving beings, do resist being bracketed as such. Hence, to consider a
human is to attempt what cannot be done, and yet must be done for humans to have
meaning. Whats do not resist being thought about, but Whos do, perhaps in the same
way that Being resists conceptualization by hiding behind being(s) (to allude to
Heidegger). In the moment of the stare, a person thinks about who can only be
perceived, yet who must be thought about to have meaning. In the stare, one sees the
reflection of a walking contradiction.

65. To allude to the thought of Heidegger and Karl Popper: when we are thinking about
Being, we have grounds upon which to think that we are thinking about being(s) versus
Being. Heidegger, who was concerned with getting to Being past being(s), was driven
by this paradox his entire life. However, in perceiving, we have no reason to think that
we are undergoing being(s) instead of Being (beyond even the words Being/being). As
we can accept the validity of scientific probabilities until they are falsified, so we can
accept that, in perceiving, we are undergoing Being instead of being(s) until such turns
out not to be the case. Perhaps one could argue that this premise cannot be falsified, but
perhaps that is not so much the case as it is that, by definition, if humans were to stop
perceiving Being, there would be non-existence. One could say that that the premise the
universe exists cannot be falsified, because the moment the universe ceased to exist, so
too we would cease to be, but that doesnt mean the premise isnt true.

66. In psychologically, there are two, general modes of thinking called holistic and
analytical. Generally speaking, the holistic thinker looks at whole situations to make
judgments, while the analytical thinking breaks down situations into parts and then
analyzes how the parts work together. Considering this, holistic thinking is like
perception, while analytical thinking is like thinking (as defined in this paper).
Holistic thinking is more natural than analytical thinking, and analytical thinking has to
be learned. However, it seems that often analytical thinking divorces itself from holistic
thinking, as holistic thinking often doesnt acquire analytical skills. To use the terms of
this paper, the thinker often leaves behind perception, as the perceiver can devalue
thinking; though, as argued by this paper, we need both. In a sense, a thinking informed
by perception and a perception informed by thinking is a kind of holistically analytical
mode of engagement with the world. As long as these two stay divided, we will fail to
acquire the new kind of thought we need.A
APargraph inspired by Study: American Liberals and Conservatives Think as if From
Different Cultures, posted January 21, 2015, as can be found here:

67. In The Allegory of the Cave, Plato proposes that if a person was born chained up
looking at shadows and unable to see the light and the world behind him, hed come to
believe the shadows constituted reality. Likewise, Plato proposes that we have come to
believe what we see is real, when really such things are the shadows of the world of the
forms (put another way, Plato says that the world of becoming is a shadow of the
world that is). Using this line of thought, one could say that what we perceive are the
forms of what we think.

Yet, shadows arent completely unreal, for they are outlines of actualities: if shadows
didnt resemble what caused them, then they would be (totally) unreal. (Furthermore,
there is no such thing as an entity that doesnt cast a shadow when hit by light, so to say
a shadow is unreal versus a part of reality is somewhat incorrect.) Hence, thinking is
an outline of what is perceived, per se; additionally, there are some things that, without
shadows, we couldnt see at all (such as a solar eclipse to the naked eye), and technically,
things without shadows are things that dont exist, so, technically, we couldnt see
anything at all without shadows.

That said, thinking isnt unreal, just not complete, and thinking gives us an outline of
what we perceive, which may allow us to see/understand things that we couldnt
through perception. At the same time, what we perceive can give us an understanding of
what we think that, without perception, we couldnt grasp. By grasping the shadows, we
can better grasp the forms; by grasping how things become, we can grasp better what
things are.

67.1 The world of forms is right in front of us: it is the wall upon which the shadows are

68. As it is easier to grasps metaphors of abstractions than direct abstractions, so it is easier
to think about beings than Being. According to Heidegger, Western philosophy never
thought about Being, only about being(s). Heidegger described being and philosophy as
a tree in the ground of Being thats leaves (representing philosophical branches like
Ethics, Politics, Ontology, etc.) cant reach the soil. To think about Being, philosophy
had to be uprooted and done anew.

To Heidegger, Being is what all being(s) share, and outlining the nature of Being is what
drove Heideggers thinking. Heidegger realized though that, ironically, to think about
Being is to engage in being(s): Being is frustratingly prior to thought/being(s). Being
hides in being(s) as Being arises in being(s): Being always arises and hides
simultaneously. The being which reveals Being is the very being which conceals It. This
poised a challenge to engaging with Being as Being, but Heidegger thought it was
imperative to overcome this obstacle. Otherwise, Heidegger believed that the
objectification and/or thingification of the world the changing of it into things
couldnt be stopped. Heidegger believed that the logical end of Western thought
(philosophy which had confused being(s) with Being) was the thingification of man,
and if a new way of thought wasnt discovered that didnt confuse being with Being,
humans would lose their humanity. Hence, Heidegger was after a new kind of thinker
and a new kind of thinking, but unfortunately Heidegger never figured out how to
engage with Being as Being. Being and Time went unfinished, and though his career
arose to some of the most profound thought in history, he didnt accomplish his goal.

Heidegger was looking to draw a distinction between thinking and perceiving, and the
new way of thinking he was searching for was perception. The perceiver is the one who
lets Being Be, while the thinker translates Being into being(s). In a sense, it was
Heideggers very search for Being as Being that concealed Being behind being(s):
Heidegger encountered Being until he started thinking about It. To think is to objectify
and/or thingify: to think is to pull out phenomena from the world into a singularity
that never exists (as such). If I think about a book (as book), I pull it out of the atoms
that compose it, the context/oneness of the room and table it rests upon, its
namelessness, etc. I pull out a being from Being (I pull out a Being as being from
Being as Being). If I perceive a book though, I perceive Being Being.

The human who is aware of the distinction between thinking and perceiving is the
human whose perception transforms his or her thinking. Perception was the new way
of thought that Heidegger was after, yet perception without thinking is meaningless.
Though Being as being(s) thingifies, it also gives Being as Being meaning. Humans
need both: without one, humans lose the other. Humans need Being to be meaningful;
otherwise, though humans may avoid thingification, they will stand alienated.

68.1 Heidegger claimed he was preparing the way for the new way of thinking, though
humanity wasnt there yet. Heidegger also admitted that, though he knew it was
necessary, he didnt know how to escape Being as being into Being as Being.
Heidegger also claimed that philosophy needed a different mood, which Heidegger
knew but couldnt put into words. That mood is perception, which entails an openness
to Being. To describe perception is to think: the experience of letting Being Be is only
that an experience. Achieving pure perception is up to humans, for it is up to humans
to let Being Be. When successful, Heidegger proposed that maybe then the last God
will come, but he wasnt sure if that would be when humanity was saved or destroyed.

68.2 Heidegger, in writing to demolish metaphysics, appeared to be engaging in metaphysics.
When so critiqued, Heidegger claimed that he was going back into the ground of
metaphysics in order to escape it; furthermore, Heidegger could claim against such a
critic that the reason Heideggers thinking appeared metaphysical is because the critic
was still thinking metaphysically and failing to engaging in new thinking.

Similarly, perception appears as thinking when thought (and written) about, as Being
appears as being(s) when conceptualized. Yet perception is thought about (at least
here) in order to define itself from thinking and to so escape thinking, as Heidegger
engaged in metaphysics to escape metaphysics. The reason perception seems like
thinking is because the act of thinking about perception rather than engaging in
perception is the act which translates perception into thinking. As Being can only Be as
Being, so perception can only be itself in (the experience of) perception.

As Heidegger went back into the ground of metaphysics to escape it, so this work digs
into the ground of thought to do the same. And as one could not say Heidegger was
engaging in metaphysics without thinking in the very way Heidegger wrote against, so
one cannot think against perception without failing to hold the distinction between
thinking and perception that this paper deems necessary.

As the one who fails to ascent to Being is the one who continues to metaphysically
ascent to being(s), so the one who fails to ascent to the distinction between thinking and
perceiving still conflates the two together in thought. To claim that the distinction
between thinking and perceiving is incorrect requires engaging in thought, which is
engage in the Being as being ness which must be overcome. Furthermore, one can
only say that perception isnt the new thought Heidegger wanted by engaging in the
old thought that Heidegger was against.

To deny the distinction between Being as Being and Being as being(s) is to engage in
the metaphysics which conceals Being as Being.

To deny the distinction between thinking and perceiving is to engage in the thinking
which conceals perception.

Humans seem setup for irony.

68.3 Thinking is the act which translates Being into being(s).

Perception is the act which lets Being Be (unto the perceiver).
And the transformation of thinking by perception is to escape metaphysics.

68.4 To give Being as Being meaning is to give Being as Being being. Without being, Being
as Being is Transcendent. Though transforming Being as Being into being(s) risks
thingification, without such an act of transposition, Being as Being is forever
Transcendent of humans, and that Transcendence, in its unrealizable-ness, alienates
humans (like a God-Who-Is-Absent yet Exists and is necessary to know for humans to
be human). To say humans require meaning is to say humans require being, and yet it is
this very desire for meaning which can changes humans into things if not directed
toward the realization of Being as Being (and if the distinction between thinking and
perception is missed). By grasping the importance of perception and transforming
thinking, not only does one open themselves for Being to Be, but one also determines

how to think and engage with Being as being(s) in a way that avoids thingification. In
a sense, the grasping of Being as Being is to evolve Being as being(s).

68.5 What-Is-perceived Is Being; what-is-thought is being. In a sense, being doesnt exist: it is

a kind of nothingness humans travel through toward Being. Reaching Being
necessitates existential crises. It could be said that being is a nothingness that exists only
in relation to Being, as the space between two cups only exists because of the presence
of the two cups that frames it. In this regard, it is humans that create nothing, for it is
humans that conceptualize being(s) from Being into being-ness. In a sense, humans are
anti-gods: while God Creates from nothing, humans create nothing from Something.

That said, there is no such thing as nothing (by definition): to say being is nothingness
is to use the term nothing in a relative sense. If I were to stand very close to a painting
and only see a section of it, that section as a painting unto itself wouldnt exist such
would be a kind of nothingness. However, if I backed away from the painting and saw
the whole of it, I would realize the section was something insomuch as it was part of the
bigger work. The section as a painting would be a kind of non-being, while the section
as a part of a whole would be (a thing). Likewise, being as being is a kind of
nothingness, while Being as being is (a thing). The difference between experiencing the
section as a painting versus the section as part of a whole is orientation and
perspective: the difference is where the viewer stands. Likewise, the difference between
being as nothing and Being as being is the orientation and mind of the person: the
difference is the knowing of the viewer (of the distinction between thinking and

Being(s) only exists in the ground of Being: being doesnt exist as simply being, though
being arises in thought as if there were no Being. Hence, being arises as nothing,
though nothing is an impossibility. The arising of nothing is the hiding of Being.

Since Being is hidden by its unveiling in being(s)/nothing(s), Being is encountered in

irony. To be toward Being is to be oriented for irony. The more Being the being, the
more irony undergone. Furthermore, beings are manifestations of Being who are
toward Being, yet it is the very being of these begins which hides Being as begin(s)
unveil(s) Being. A being is an unveiling and hiding of Being; hence, being(s) are ironic
in nature. To ask to be or not to be? is to ask irony or not?.

This line of thought will be expanded upon in later works.

68.6 Realizing that the act of thinking concealed Being, Heidegger decided to think about
Being coming to being rather than the other way around. This resulted in Heidegger
being interested in poetry and art, for Heidegger viewed the coming of the muse unto
the artist as the coming and unveiling of Being unto being. In creativity, then, a person
stands between, shepherding Being into actuality.

The greatest manifestation of creativity is flow. In flow, the right brain takes over and a
person enters a state of pure focus that seems to transcend time. In a sense, one could
associate right brain thinking with Being and left brain thinking with being, as one could
also associate flow with pure perception.

Creativity emerges often from daydreaming, a state of perception: it is from a

suspension of thinking that new thinking emerges. When a new idea emerges from
perception, thinking then moves in to actualize this new idea. Homage is paid to Being
as Being, and more such homage is given as the person then, in humility, accepts his or
her limitations in Being as being and actualizes the glimmer of Being into being(s).
The problem isnt so much that humans can only exist in a state of Being as being as it
is a fail to recognize the distinction between Being as Being and Being as being. In
creativity, proper homage is given.

In a way, flow, where thinking and perception seem to fuse, is the new thought
Heidegger sought, hoping to turn back the thingification of the world which he
believed Western Philosophy had ushered in (by confusing being(s) with Being).
Ironically though, flow, which gives rise to creativity, also gives rise to inventions and
new technologies which cause the objectification Heidegger wanted to stop.
Furthermore, technology, which causes thingification, also expands possibility and
lessens labor. What increases the quality of life is that which objectifies humans into

To Heideggers defense, it doesnt seem he was against technology so much as he

viewed it as a sign that Being was being ignored. To objectify is to treat Being as
being(s), and Heidegger believed, for example, that paving roads for cars was to view
landscapes as things to be civilized rather than experiences to be underwent. Heidegger
seems to have been right in this assessment, for with the rise of technology has rose
alienation. Yet without the production of technology, the artifex class would shrink and
the civilization would collapse, torn apart by Marxs material dialectic (as touched on
The Creative Concord).

Perhaps it is not so much technology that is the problem as it is the thinking that
generates and proceeds from technology. Due to the structuring, dichotomizing, and/or
veiling of thinking, it is already natural for beings to forget the question of Being
amongst being(s) (without even realizing it), and it seems that technology makes that
forgetting easier while also distracting us from that forgetting (placing us in a state of
distracted from distraction by distraction, to allude to T.S. Eliot). However, this isnt
because technology is innately bad, but because humans are naturally forgetful. This is
fortunate: if technology were fundamentally flawed, the only way to save people from
alienation would be to shrink the artifex: the collapse of civilization wouldnt just be
probable, but inevitable.

As thinking makes us think of things as things to be used, so metaphysics makes us

view the world as that which humans have dominion over (not as stewards, but as
lords). Thinking thingifies. Thinking results in economists viewing the economy as a
thing to be controlled rather than that which we should (guide into) letting be, in
teachers viewing education as a thing to be bestowed versus an organic emergent, in
parents viewing children as things to be kept safe versus shepherds of Being who must
Be/be. Thinking makes humans biased toward taking initiative and/or control from
creating an environment in which phenomena can grow/be themselves. In this sense,
thinking and freedom are at odds. For freedom, new thinking is needed, which is
glimpsed in flow, where thinking and perception fuse. Considering this, an artifex, to
stay an artifex, needs to grasp the distinction between thinking and perceiving.

We must learn to generate technologies without losing ourselves, as we must engage in

metaphysics without objectifying reality. We need a metaphysics that opens us to Being,

as we need technology that makes us more human, not less. The idea of perception will

Perhaps technology will ultimately save us from technology, as Heideggers metaphysics

may ultimately save us from metaphysics. Perhaps, in the end, technology will dig into
the ground of thingification in order to push out from it, as Heidegger dug into the
ground of metaphysics to escape through it. Perhaps the end of what increases our
quality of life through thingification will be the overcoming of things.

68.7 It may be the case that faith is to reason what perception is to thinking, and that to
argue for faith (well) is to step from thought to perception.

68.8 These thoughts on Heidegger arose like the realization of the identity of the third on
the road to Emmaus: I wrote On Thinking and Perceiving, and then, upon returning
to Heidegger, a spirit flared up within me, and I recognized perception.

68.9 These notes on Heidegger were deeply informed by Professor Mary-Jane Rubenstein, as
found in Heidegger on Being & Ontotheology here: Professor Rubenstein proves its
sometimes hard to tell whos more brilliant: Heidegger, or the people who explain

69. The early Wittgenstein believed that the problems of philosophy could be solved if we
learned to understand the logic of language. To him, thought followed linguistic
structures, so if we learned to speak clearly, we would also learn to think clearly. This
would enable us to receive the philosophical answers to the questions that have troubled
us for so long.

Even if this is true, this would only dissolve or solve the philosophical questions that
apply to thought, but not perception. To map out the structure of language may map
out the way we think about the world, but not how we perceive the world, which must
remain beyond thought as mysterious and even mystical.

To use Wittgensteins metaphor, language cannot be laid against reality like a ruler;
rather, language can only be laid like a ruler against one phenomenon in reality at a time
while disregarding all the others. As I can only think about the window before me while
I perceive much more, so language can only lay a ruler against one thing. Like thought,
this abstracts me out of the world. In a sense, Wittgenstein sought to deconstruct the
language of this realm I abstract myself into, created by the act of thinking and language
itself. However, as the later Wittgenstein realized, not all language functions the same or
is about the same realm: there are many different language games (as he called them).

According to Wittgenstein, what cannot be said we must remain silent about, but that
doesnt mean those things dont exist. Though we cannot think about pure perception
itself or talk about it, this doesnt mean perception doesnt exist or that it doesnt give
rise to certain philosophical problems. Philosophy consists of both questions which
must be answered in thought and questions that must be answered in perception. The
questions which can be answered in perception are those which we cannot think about,
yet thought can help us know where to perceive even though we must leave thought
behind upon entering that space.

To talk about philosophical inquires which can only be perceived is nonsense, and
Wittgenstein was right to pursue such a line of thought. However, since humans both
think and perceive, to deconstruct the philosophy of thought will not bring wholeness
to beings who also must wrestle with the philosophy of perception. To talk about the
limits of language as a way to point out the nature of perception is how language and
thought can both help us articulate the silence which Wittgenstein wanted us to remain

70. To think about perceiving is to use thinking as Heidegger used metaphysics to come
out of and/or reform metaphysics. The act is to help us understand what perception is
and to enable us to it is to think about thinking in light of perceiving versus in light of
thought. It is easy to think of thoughts as representing a dimension in the world, when
in fact they represent a dimension humans lay over the world (which they perceive).
Thoughts are real, but not real in the same way the world is real unto itself. By grasping
the distinction between perceiving and thinking, we grasp these two dimensions of the
world that appear as one (in thought) to humans. In hiding perception in the act of
thinking about it, though we seem to ignore it, the act enables us to unveil to ourselves
the world weve always been staring upon.

71. There is a no inherent in being: if I think about a tree, I am suddenly confronted with
my inability to know the tree as the tree is unto itself. To think about the tree is to
confront a limit. Yet if I just perceive the tree, I experience no such limit: the no only
arises when I think, and in that moment, it seems as if the no is always present, when it
is only present in the act of thinking itself.

72. The distinction between thinking and perceiving I believe is helpful for understanding
Reason and Existenz by Karl Jaspers: simply associate the reasoned with the thought
and the existenz with the perceived.

73. In Jayber Crow, on reading and interpreting books, Wendell Berry writes:
Persons attempting to find a text in this book will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a
subtext in it will be banished; persons attempting to explain, interpret, explicate, analyze, deconstruct,
or otherwise understand it will be exiled to a desert island in the company of only other explainers.

Found in many places (The Truth in Painting by Derrida comes to mind), why does this
line of thought strike us as having truth to it? I would argue that the thought is hinting
at the reality of perception and thoughts inability to fully capture the perceived. The
paradox is that this line of thought is trying to translate into thought a truth of
perception that can only be fully experienced in perception, but not necessarily
understood. We can know more than we can tell, as Michael Polanyi put it.

74. In line with the thought presented in A is A by O.G. Rose, to think is to create (an) A
is A, and so that which points to (A A) = (A A) (without B) in thinking, the
is and the is not arise together, two-sides of the same coin. However, in the act of
perceiving, there is no A is A, per se there is only That-Which-Exists-Existing,
though in no meaningful sense, since it cannot be thought of without perception being
impeded. This isnt to say That-Which-Exists is meaningless, but that in the act of
perceiving (and so not coloring over it with thinking), That-Which-Exists cannot be
considered meaningfully (at least in terms of thought). The A is A and the (A A) =
(A A) (without B) arise together in the act of thinking (like being and Being), and

vanish together in the act of perceiving. To think of them though is to separate them,
and yet they cannot be separated. To think is to ironize.

When I think a cup is a cup, I transposition the phenomenon into what it isnt, for it
is only a cup relative to me (and those who share my scope). Hence, when it comes to
the question of identity, identity is never that which is recognized or realized: identity is
always that which is created (by thought). There is no A is A in That-Which-Exists (at
least not beyond the A Is A of Existence Is Existence). When I think/realize/create
A is A, I lay the A is A over Existence-Existing I lay A is A over That-Which-
Isnt-(the)-A is A. To think, hence, is to generate contradiction contradiction that
necessarily appears as non-contradiction (as A is A) and the existential tension
created by this fact should motive all of us in life to be constantly self-critical. For what
we think is always, to some degree, false the thought is never utterly equivalent to the
perceived, the A is A never utterly encompasses Existence-Existing and yet what we
think always presents itself as true. The truth of what we think hides us from its falsity.

75. The act in which we learn something about (insert) is the act in which something is
hidden from us about (insert). To think is to unveil/hide.

76. Thought singularizes, threatening discernment in a discerning act.

77. Thinking is (toward) atomism.

77.1 When I look upon a table, I naturally focus in on one of the objects; I dont naturally
focus out. The direction of thinking is inward, not outward.

78. We need to be abstracted to be whole.

79. The oneness perceived is an image and likeness of the singularities thought, but not
the same confusing and revealing.

80. On Gdel: the Liars Paradox occurs in thought but not perception.

81. To speak is to create a dichotomy; to eradicate this dichotomy, further speaking is

required. If I say you are judgmental (to allude to Self-Delusion, the Toward-ness of
Evidence, and the Paradox of Judgment), one could argue that I am being judgmental.
However, in this hypothetical situation, Im only having to make this judgment because
you erected the judgment-dichotomy in the first place. Judgment created it, and
judgment is required to eradicate it. When one judges, in a way, it is as if one creates a
language which only judgment can communicate with. If a person judges, to get that
person to stop, it requires judgment, for that is the only language the individual can
understand within the dichotomy or framework the person has created and put his or
her self within.

Likewise, if a person makes an absolute truth claim, it requires the absolute claim that
truth is relative to break down. The second statement is inherently contradictory, but if
truth is indeed relative, than the claim truth is truth or truth is absolute (which would
translate into relativism is absolute) is also contradictory. It requires a contradiction to
correct the contradiction. The absolute statement truth is relative is necessary to make
the dichotomy of truth is absolute self-efface. To obliterate a dichotomy, one must
erect an anti-dichotomy (as if a martyr or sacrifice) to close the loop, per se.
Yet, that said, though the statement truth is absolute is effaced by the statement truth
is relative (which corrects/counters the dichotomizing statement which that
dichotomizing statement needs to transcend back into pure perception), this doesnt
mean Truth Isnt Absolute, only that a phrase like there are no absolutes, though
inherently contradictory, isnt inherently wrong (since it is only necessary to efface the
dichotomy erected by the statement truth is absolute).

In this same line of thought, it could be asked why do I write if language incepts and
dichotomizes (see Inception, Discrimination, and Freedom)? Dont I fuel the
problem? As thinking, which divides one from perception, is necessary for perception to
obtain meaning and freedom, so language, which threatens to abstract us into
dichotomies, is necessary to transcend dichotomies. Likewise, an absolute statement is
necessary to transcend absolutes (into Absolute-ness (A = A-ness)), as judgment is
necessary to transcend judgment (into Non-Judgmental-ness or Pure Assessment-
ness). Clearly reality is up-side down, in some strange way. Perhaps pointing to this
paradoxical and contradictory situation is the function of the term fallen.

Since we are all standing on our heads, we must stand on our heads in the eyes of
others to stand right side up.


1. Thinking can make a perceiver aware of the atoms which (for example) a perceived cup
masks, as thinking can make one aware of the sky outside which one cannot see. Yet
when one perceives a cup, one perceives the atoms, just not the atoms unto themselves.
Likewise, when one perceives a room, the person perceives all the things in the room
simultaneously. Thinking can help one know what he or she perceives, but thinking
cannot help a person perceive. Whether or not this knowledge is valuable or more
valuable than the perception of a phenomenon depends on whether this knowledge
infringes upon perception (and it also depends on who is asked).

2. In line with On Materialism, Purpose, and Discernment, to be creative is to think and

work with and toward a purpose. To have purpose, in being what synchronizes life into
a whole, is to have the way one thinks about the world be like the one world: it is to
make the conceptualized world like the perceived world.

2.1 To have purpose is to unify life into one like existence: it is to think about the world as
the world is unto itself and to orientate ones thinking to be like perception. Without
purpose, one is abstracted from the actual world. This doesnt mean one with purpose
will necessarily grasp the distinction between thinking and perceiving, only that the one
with purpose can transition in and out of perception and embrace thinking with it (easily
and meaningfully).

2.2 To have purpose is to be toward material things as if they are one, which is found in
perception. Hence, to be toward material things with purpose is to be toward them as
they are in existence, which makes an individual less abstract and toward full physicality
and/or full spirituality.

2.3 When one purely perceives, everything becomes invisible, as everything becomes
invisible when perceived as one in existence. This isnt to say things disappear, but that
they blend into a whole like a gear in a machine vanishes when the machine works.
Furthermore, the particularities of things arent lost, but rather, to those toward full
embodiment and away from abstraction, particularities become more particular while
each particularity doesnt distract from every other particularity (in a sort of balance).
Particularities come to be seen in their wholeness, as a gear is seen in its wholeness
when invisible in a working machine.

2.4 The invisibility of a gear in a machine is a testament to that gears particularity, for only
that gear can make the whole function like that merely a gear or any gear wouldnt
have the same effect, though a different gear may still have caused the whole to function
(though it would have beget a different whole). Such a gear becomes invisible in a
machine when participating in its purpose and identity to make the machine work. The
machine doesnt work at the expense of the gear, for there is no working machine
without it. The functioning of the whole is a testament to the harmony and efficiency of
each of its particular parts.

Likewise, the oneness of existence is a testament to each particular thing being exactly as
each particular thing is in its particularity. The slightest difference, and all of existence,
being one, changes. For a leaf to bristle is for existence to shutter.

3. The fact that a human perceives a cup versus atoms in the shape of a cup is a result of
the biological and ontological nature of the human. The way a being perceives seems to
be stitched into a beings being. A human isnt taught to perceive atoms shaped like a
cup as a cup; rather, a human naturally does the latter (though that isnt to say a human
doesnt need to be taught the word cup). Likewise, as Noam Chomsky writes, humans
arent entirely taught language; rather, they have a natural ability, stitched into their very
being, to decipher and learn language(s). As knowledge can help one know what he or
she perceives but not grant the innate capacity to perceive, teaching can help a person
learn how to speak, but teaching cannot give someone the capacity to speak or change
the universal language patterns which humans naturally have.

3.1 Thinking also seems stitched into the being of humans, so it seems that it is stitched into
the being of humans that they deceive themselves thoughtfully. Thinking isnt an
objective act: it creates dichotomies, causes the paradox of judgment, fashions
hierarchies, is prone to fashion kinds of Sociological-Awareness, abstracts humans
from actuality, etc. This isnt to say there is no objective truth, only that a thinker must
think aware that his or her thinking makes the subject(s) of thought distant. Thinking, in
enabling a person to know truth, is the very act which makes truth so hard to know.

3.2 What Kurt Gdel found about math can be said about all of thought. As numbers are
an entire system that cannot be axiomatic beyond its self-justification, so thinking
fashions an arbitrary system in which conceptualized phenomena are given toward-
ness. In thought, the object-cat is made toward the idea of cat as if this relation is
axiomatic, though this particular toward-ness itself can never be said to be such. All
thought, like mathematics, is arbitrary, though that doesnt mean thinking can never be
true. It just cannot be true in the way we tend to think.

All this isnt to say one shouldnt think life is meaningless without thought, and its
thanks to thinking that the thought thinking is a self-justifying system exists. Rather, as
by realizing that worry is a self-justifying system one can be more discerning about
which concerns are actually valid versus just seeming so (see Concerning
Epistemology), by realizing that thought is self-justifying, people can be more
discerning on how to think and perceive well.

3.3 What is true about thought is true about the self. The self exists like math exists: it is a
self-contained, self-created system beget through and within thinking. Yet, as it is
erroneous to say that math is an illusion or useless because it is non-axiomatic and
seemingly unreal, so it is erroneous to claim such of the self.

In this regard, prone to call the self an illusion, Buddhism goes too far, as Western
thought goes too far the other way. It is inaccurate to claim that math is useless or
should be forsaken because it isnt axiomatic, as it is inaccurate to say such of the self or
thinking. Like math, thinking and the self do accurately orientate us in the world and
create value. However, problems emerge when thinking is conflated with, or valued
above, perception, as problems emerge when the world is seen solely in mathematical
terms or when math is valued over physicality.

Math, thinking, and the self are very real to us theyre simply not real in the way other
things are, which are not exclusively real to us (such as a rock is real and also real to
me, while 2 is real to me but not real unto itself). In grasping the distinction between
perception and thinking, these states of being are easier to keep from conflating. All in
all, it is simply a question of order: thinking should follow perception, not the other way
around. Though, as thinking beings, it is natural for humans to do the very opposite, as
it is natural for humans to be ironic.

3.4 To have a self is to exist in dichotomies (such as the dichotomy of selfish versus
selfless). This is because it is in the act of thinking that the self emerges, and to think
creates, at the very least, the dichotomy between thinking and perceiving.

4. Perception is more real relative to the world, but thinking is more real relative to
humans. The human is caught between two realities ironic, split.

5. Asserting division over oneness is a sign of prejudice, as is asserting thinking over


6. Since the fabric of reality is irony, if you describe a real situation accurately, then you will
be ironic. (And good writing is ironic.) In other words, irony comes not from trying to
be an ironist, but from trying to be a realist.

7. A person must be something in order to create nothing in the space between scopes.
Therefore, because people fashion nothing, it cannot be said that people are nothing.
Nothing cannot fashion nothing, because there is nothing there to fashion. Likewise, a
person cannot feel nothing unless that person is someone. The very fact that a person
undergoes existential crises is evidence that the person is there to undergo them: the
very fact that a person feels nothing is great evidence that a person isnt nothing. Yet
that feeling tends to be the main motivation behind people trying to find assurance of
being and to feel something. To escape nothingness is to escape liberation from it.

8. A-being-(A-isnt-A) (without A-Being) is the ontological environment that makes the
paradox of judgment, inception, creativity, Sociological-Awareness, and all the other
happenings outlined in Ironically possible.

9. Irony is a diving deeper into the world, yet irony (ironically) tends toward cynicism
(which is an escaping out of the world). Irony tends toward anti-irony: the irony
Hannah Arendt praised tends toward the irony David Foster Wallace feared. Wallace did
not believe that irony was necessarily evil, but hated the irony that had transformed into
(and been institutionalized as) cynicism. In a sense, Wallace proposed some like a New
Sincerity in order for civilization to (ironically) regain the capacity to be ironic (and
meaningfully insincere). Wallace, I believe, would have agreed with Arendt that irony
could be used as a weapon to defeat evil, breakdown totalitarianism, and empower
critical thinking, yet at the same time, he would have warned that irony tended toward
institutionalization and transforming into anti-irony he would have warned that the
targets of irony will eventually absorb irony, making the targets invincible and spoiling
irony into cynicism. One could say that irony-with-critical-thinking saves the world, but
irony-without-critical-thinking destroys it. Since critical thinking tends to lessen with
time, so irony tends to become a force of destruction. Consequently, irony, which can
be used to break up the ideologies that tend to breed totalitarianism like Nazism, can
(ironically) become one of those very ideologies.A

Since irony as engagement tends to become irony as detachment, since irony that is
necessary tends to become irony that destroys, since irony that is irony tends to
become irony that is anti-irony, and since irony is toward losing itself, irony is ironic.
And so irony is pure: it is what it is: the substance, accidents, and essence of irony
match. Irony is axiomatic: irony is complete; as it emerges, it hides; as it is defined, it is
undefined. Hence, the foundation, nature, and reality of reality, is irony.

AParagraph inspired by What Hannah Arendt Understood About Irony that David
Foster Wallace Didnt by Laura Miller.

10. Truth, to touch on Heidegger, is the pre-judgment that provides a standard by which to
separate evidence from non-evidence, a standard which is then confirmed or denied by
the evidence. Truth comes before evidence, but evidence is what makes us realize the
truth was always present, or that what we thought was truth was never present (as such).
Evidence, in a sense, is glimmers of truth through the landscape of what-is-underwent,
across which evidence and non-evidence cannot be defined apart. In the establishment
of truth arises the possibility of conforming or denying it; if it is denied, it is as if the
truth was never a truth; if it is confirmed, it is as if the truth was always a truth.
Evidence always points to the truth through which a person judges evidence from non-
evidence, yet that truth, with the realization of evidence, is hidden behind it, making it
seem as if truth wasnt present until after the evidence was realized. The act of
confirming truth is the act which hides it: in realizing truth, in a sense, it is negated. The
irony of truth is that without evidence, it is meaningless, but with evidence, it is un-

Being, likewise, is the pre-concept(ualization) that provides a standard by which to

separate that-which-can-be-consciously-experienced (experience(s)) from that-which-
cannot-be-consciously-experienced (non-experience(s)), a standard which is then
confirmed or denied by experience(s) (of consciousness). Being comes before
experience, but experience is what makes us realize the being that was always present or
that what we thought was (a) being never was (as such). Experience, in a sense, is
glimmers of being through the landscape of what-is-underwent, across which
experience and non-experience cannot be defined apart. In the establishment of being
arises the possibility of confirming or denying it; if it is denied, it is as if the being never
was such; if it is confirmed, it is as if the being always was. Experience always points to
the being through which a person conceptualizes experience from non-experience, yet
that being, with the conceptualization of experience, is hidden behind it, making it
seem as if being wasnt present until after the experience was experienced. The act of
experiencing being is the act which hides it: in experiencing being, in a sense, it is
negated. The irony of being is that without experience, it is meaningless, but with
experience, it is hidden.

(Keep in mind, though the distinction isnt held here (though it will be in the following
note), that one could use the term Being to refer to the being-of-pre-experience and
being to refer to the being-of-post-experience (as one could use the term Truth to
refer to the truth-of-pre-judgment and truth to refer to the truth-of-post-judgment).
Considering this, one could say that a primary question of Heideggers was to realize the
Being which all being(s) share, the Truth which all truth(s) entail.)

10.1 In line with On Thinking and Perceiving, what you perceive hides behind what you
think, and what you think is how what you perceive is unveiled to you. Yet, in a chair
being unveiled to you upon thinking about it, so the chair hides behind this chair; in a
sense, the chair is never unveiled to you. Rather, a chair appears as if the unveiled
chair. The chair is the veil and the chair is behind it, but we cannot think about the
chair without veiling it (with chair). We can only perceive the chair, but in perception,
nothing can be named and all is one the chair cannot be divided from the cup, the
cup from the sky, etc. Hence, we cannot so much perceive the chair as we can perceive
(the nameless) all as one (chaircupskyabladeofgrass...). To think is to veil, as to
perceive is to more so leave alone. Consequently, the chair is always hidden either
behind thinking (chair-ness) or amongst oneness (chaircupskyabladeofgrass-ness).
Hence, people operate through a hiding/unveiling, a paradoxical appearing/negating.
Ontologically, humanity is split, operationally ironic and calibrated for invisible self-

Being, likewise, hides behind what you think, and what you think is how Being is
unveiled to you. Yet, in (a) being unveiling-into consciousness upon thinking about it,
so Being hides behind this being; in a sense, Being never appears to you. Rather, (a)
being appears as if Being. (A) being is the veil and Being is behind the veil, but we
cannot think about Being without veiling it (with being). We can only perceive Being,
but in perception, nothing can be named Being cannot be known as Being. To think
is to pull out being from (the Ground of) Being (into (the idea of) being), as to perceive
is to not transfer Being into know-ability (being). Consequently, we can only know of
Being through being-which-isnt-Being: Being, in thought, is unveiled and negated
simultaneously; Being, in thought, is indivisible from being: all is one-ness is indivisible
from all is one of one-ness. Though in perception Being isnt technically negated, it is
negated insomuch as Being isnt knowable, and so is indefinable from the negated,
meaningless, and/or Non-Being. Considering this, Being can be reasoned to, but not
experienced. Hence, people operate as Being-being(s), a paradoxical unveiling/hiding.
Ontologically, humanity is toward the Being which their toward-ness veils/negates;
ontologically, humans are K(s) in The Castle by Franz Kafka.

10.2 To grasp the line to think is to pull out being from (the Ground of) Being, imagine a
man standing directly over a flower. The man pulls out the flower, but looking directly
down upon it, he doesnt see the roots. If the man didnt know any better (or if he
couldnt know any better), the man might not realize that there are any or even realize
the flower was uprooted. If uprooted and the flower was still held close to the ground, it
would look as if nothing had happened at all: the mans hands being around the flower
(holding it up) would be the only difference from the flowers natural state. And so is
the relationship between being and Being, thinking and perception: the key to
identifying Being and perception from being and thinking is recognizing the difference
of effort and initiative the key is to notice the hands around the flower and to
remember the exhibition of effort, per se. Sight will trick you.

10.3 Thinking doesnt change Truth and Being, but translates Them into truth and being.

10.4 Being stands as a between (thought and perception, something and nothing, etc.).

10.5 Being is invisible behind thought and in one-ness.

Being is indefinable behind being and in perception.
(Being will be written on more extensively outside Ironically.)

10.6 The human is a walking translator-of-Being-into-being, begetting irony wherever the

human is definably human.

11. To explain Being (amidst being(s)) is like walking around the perimeter of a tower thats
too tall to see the top. You cant enter it, you cant climb it, you cant grasp why it was
built, and you cant tell where it goes. All you can do is walk around the tower and trace
out its shape, as if walking around a giant hole. And the shape you trace out, once you
arrive back where you began, is irony.

12. Irony isnt cynicism: irony is the fabric of reality. For A isnt A (being) to
encounter/realize A is A (Being) results in irony, for to encounter Being is to unveil
oneself as not-Being, and so the encounter manifests as ironic. Since the fabric of
reality (that which holds reality together) is A/(A-isnt-A) is A/(A-isnt-A) (without
B), the fabric of reality is irony. Our culture is one that is encountering Being, for our
culture has institutionalized irony. As David Foster Wallace realized, irony, which once
challenged the establishment, has now become the establishment; consequently, it
reflects the ground of being.A Our culture mirrors reality. In a sense, our culture is more
akin to Being than any culture before; unfortunately, humans maybe incapable of
handing it. Though humans are able to receive fire, that doesnt mean they arent made
of wood.

The principle of reason, as Heidegger called it, is the principle of being: being reasons
toward Being into ironic experiences. To encounter Being is to encounter the-inability-
of-being-to-realize Being, resulting in beings having to face the greatest question: Is
Being unrealizable because theres Nothing (There), or because Being Is Something
(unrealizable) (by definition)?. As Thomas Pynchon put it (according to Harold Bloom):
Behind the curtain of being, is there a One or a Zero?. Beings experience Being as
One and Being as Zero exactly the same (like Schrdingers Cat), and in a sense,
beings experience both simultaneously. Furthermore, to experience Being as One is to
confirm Being Is One, but the experience of Being as Zero is exactly the same: the
experience that confirms One confirms Zero, negating both, resulting in anxiety. And so
being is stuck in irony. Though (as made clear in On A is A ) there is reason to
believe Being Is Something (that B Is), the experience of B is still necessarily ironic,
given the state of being. The enlightened and the nihilist share reflections.

Civilization and culture have marched through history to the limit of questions, as
made evident by our art: cat videos and The Sound and the Fury are the smoke of a
blazing culture that has maddeningly encountered Being Is One/Zero. No long can the
culture deny or hope for a different situation: the culture is pressed up against a wall.
Can art save us? Perhaps insomuch as art can help us realize that beings are a nothing
without. Is that enough for being to catch a glimmer of Being through the transience?
One would have to try to find out.

If you do take up the quest, keep in mind On Thinking and Perceiving, and remember
that the light-bulb that goes off in your mind when you have an epiphany might be a
Byron the Bulb.

May your slow and wandering steps be moved by Love: may you find yourself in a dark
AInspiredby David Foster Wallace was Right: Irony is Ruining Our Culture by Matt
Ashby and Brendan Carroll.

Book II: The Map Is Indestructible

Innovating Credentials
1. According to Charles Murray in Coming Apart, the better a society gets at identifying
talent, the more social mobility will decline. This is because as talent is identified, it is
gathered together (usually into universities), separating the talented from the untalented,
hence cutting the untalented off from the genes, social capital, and resources which can
help them climb up the social ladder. Furthermore, as the talented are gathered, they
tend to marry and form communities together, further concentrating their genes, social
capital, and resources. This creates a large divide between the lower and upper classes,
one that is mostly a consequence of the institutions of higher education. There are two
ways to overcome this problem: shove everyone into an Ivy League or break up the
monopoly colleges have on credentials. With credentials distributed, talent wouldnt be
concentrated, and not only would this increase social mobility, it would help keep those
with high IQs from living in a bubble and failing to see how everyday Americans live
everyday life. This would help increase diversity, empathy, and the sense of lifes

2. We must ask ourselves which is worse: the possibility of discrimination against

minorities and the unprivileged through employment testing, or the college monopoly
on credentials, which hurts minorities and the unprivileged?

3. If a person lives in Spain for six months and learns Spanish fluently, but also takes
Spanish classes, how can it be said for sure that the individual would have learned
Spanish without the classes? Following this train of thought, once a person attends
Medical School, it can never be said for sure what abilities the person gained from

education versus from experience. If the person claims he gained everything from
experience, he could be wrong; if he says education is what equipped him, he could also
be wrong. As two rivers that merge become indistinguishable, so school and work
experience become indistinguishable in an individual who goes through both. Hence,
where one is required by law to attend school before they are allowed to gain work
experience, it will never be possible to determine if the individual could have become
equally capable had he or she just went straight into a job. There will always be room for

Perhaps an individual doesnt need school as much as a person needs work experience?
But how can we tell unless we compare a person who wants to be a doctor who goes to
residency with one who goes to school but not residency? And even if we carried out
this experiment, the results would only, necessarily, apply to those involved in the
experiment there would always be room for doubt. Yet if going straight to residency
resulted in the same level of skill as someone who either was just educated or who both
attended residency and was educated, wouldnt it be more efficient to just attend
residency? Surely it would be, and this pushes the need to consider the value of
employment testing. (Furthermore, employees that turned out to not be qualified could
be more easily fired, employers not feeling obligated to keep them because of all the
college debt they had amassed. Additionally, employees could move around more freely
between careers (after finding out what each is really like), not being saddled down by a
major or debt.)

That aside, my main point is that there will always be doubt about whether individuals
can be qualified without college, because most of the people in our civilization that are
qualified have also gone to college. For this is how the society has, in essence, forced it
to be (via licensing, resumes, social expectations, etc.). Hence, the society has made
itself, in a sense, have to believe that education is necessary for expertise: by how it has
arranged itself, it has arranged the evidence to appear to itself as such (and also made it
so that the only way it could change is by undergoing a significant existential crisis). This
will make it very difficult for the society to believe the suggestions presented in this
paper about employment testing. Whether or not this paper is ultimately right will be up
to others to determine, but the toward-ness of evidence, if not recognized, will make it
hard for others to make a clear and accurate discernment.

4. The college monopoly on credentials contributes to the formation of intellectuals and

experts whose authority has been warned about from the works of Thomas Sowell to
Nassim Taleb. Where there are intellectual elites there tends to be forecast errors,
assumptions of competence, and overconfidence (as Malcolm Gladwell has lectured on),
all while making us increasingly less antifragile (or capable of gaining from disorder)
and increasingly fragile (to use the lexicon from Antifragile by Nassim Taleb).

5. Where there are more tests, testing becomes more a dynamic and organic process (as
free exchange is described in Equality and Its Immoral Limits by O.G. Rose), and so
the more tests come to accurately reflect reality.

6. I would point out that the college monopoly on credentials has lead to high tuition
prices, which leads colleges to making themselves hyper-real to help justify the cost (to
allude to Baudrillard). As a result, college is often the best four years of a persons life,
and I fear this can contribute to overall unhappiness. College also indirectly teaches
students that the best four years of life are made by others for them given that they
can afford the entrance fee rather than the best of life be that which people create for
themselves. College gives students a taste of paradise that is then taken from them, and
having tasted paradise and lost it, and the only possibility of regaining it is either by
going back to college or making it themselves (no easy task, especially for those who
arent intrinsically motivated), most despair.

7. Because colleges have a monopoly on credentials, a lot of pressure is put on elementary,

middle, and high schools to prepare kids for college. This pressure may make it difficult
to discipline children who are acting up in class, and also make it unimaginable for a
teacher to expel a student, even if that is needed to wake up the student. Disciplining
students can cause teachers incredible existential anxiety, knowing how much rides on
school performance. If discipline is what children need to straighten up and handle
education, the monopoly on credentials held by colleges contributes to the failure of
schools to equipped children with what they need to succeed. However, if teachers
knew that college wasnt the only way, they would feel much freer to do what needs to
be done to give students the best possible education.

8. Especially as it undergoes inflation and a masters degree increasingly becomes the new
bachelors degree, the monopoly on credentials increasingly forces people to choose
between marriage, children, and advancing themselves professionally. People are
increasingly marrying later in life, and though this isnt inherently bad, I believe the
monopoly on credentials unnecessarily forces this trade-off upon people. Inherently,
those better-off socioeconomically can more realistically make this trade-off, for they
arent as much in need of the economic benefits and stability that marriage can provide,
nor are they as much in need of starting a fulltime job earlier in life. Furthermore, those
who start a family younger, for whatever reason, are unnecessarily handicapped in trying
to advance themselves professionally, when they very well might be the most qualified
and best for the job.

9. Online education improves access to credentials for the everyday person, but I dont
believe its as effective as breaking up the monopoly entirely. I believe there is still a
stigma against an online degree, and furthermore, my passing of a test for a particular
business is much more likely to be a reflection of my competence for the business than
my obtaining of a general education degree. Additionally, online education is still very
experience and unnecessarily time-consuming.

10. I believe innovating credentials would go a long way to addressing many of the
concerns of Ivan Illich, as written about in his Deschooling Society.

11. The Secret Shame of Middle-Class Americans by Neil Gabler brings to light a
disturbing reality: a large percentage of the middle class lives on the brink of bankruptcy;
the line between lower class and middle class is increasingly fading away, more of a
matter of appearance than substance. This isnt to say much of the middle class is in
poverty, but to say that they are suffering from financial distress, pressure, and fragility,
and the cause for this isnt materialism, but a desire to provide opportunities for
children in a world where failure to attend college has increasingly dire circumstances. If
the college monopoly on credentials was broken up, the financial fragility of the middle
class would be greatly reduced.

11.1 Considering Trumps America by Charles Murray, it is conceivable that the college
monopoly on credentials is a reason for the rise of Donald Trump in the 2016 Election,
and perhaps it will in the future contribute to other black swans in politics.
Furthermore, the political movement against free trade should rather be a movement
against the monopoly on credentials, for if there was more free enterprise in
credentials, there would be much more mobility to escape the negatives of the creative
destructive which enriches America.

12. It is probable that colleges will be against the ideas presented in this paper, seeing that it
will break up their monopoly; then again, perhaps colleges will recognize how much
they will benefit from the new system of accreditation, if for nothing more than the fact
it will provide a liberal critique that will bring out the best in them.

13. To allude to Barry Schwartz and his TedTalk Why Justice Isnt Enough, college
admissions can never be fair and just. Schwartz argues that those who are accepted into
colleges tend to deserve it, but it is not the case that those who dont get into colleges
dont deserve to be admitted: there is some fairness, but only some. Colleges cannot
possibly provide accommodations to everyone who deserves to be admitted, and
consequently lots of people who should attend UVa dont get the chance. Admissions
offices argue that they have good reasons for admitting person x and not person y, but
Schwartz believes they are fooling themselves: ultimately, its all arbitrary, but frankly
there is no way for the selection process not to be ultimately arbitrary. This being the
case, Schwartz believes colleges should put all the worthy applicants into a hat and draw
names at random: in fact, this would be fairer, and give people a proper sense of the role
luck plays in determining outcome, leading to valuable humility.

I think Schwartzs idea should be implemented, but along with it I think there needs to
be a breakup of the college monopoly on credentials (which will lower incentive to
game the system, help break up opportunity-for-credentials inequality, lower concerns
about indoctrination at schools, etc.). Both innovations would help make the world a
more just and fair place, while simultaneously increasing humility and hope in the future.
The credential monopoly broken up, whether pulled out of an admissions hat or not, a
person would still have numerous options, and at any point could prove that he or she
was as qualified as someone from an Ivy League. Yes, lots of deserving people still
wouldnt be admitted into Harvard, but this fact would not shrink the future prospects
of the individuals nearly as much as it does now.

Probable Cause
1. If you hate your mother, when given a choice between seeing your mother one last time
and going to China to help victims of an earthquake, you probably will feel like going to
China, because it is in your self-interest (and against your self-motivation) to see
someone you hate. However, regardless, that doesnt mean you cant choose to see your

2. We may feel guilty for feeling like doing what we are self-interested to do more so than
what isnt within our self-interest, but since feeling something isnt the same as believing
that something is better than something else, nor is feeling the same as choosing, there
is no need to feel this guilt. A feeling is not a judgment, but failing to take seriously the
admonishments offered in Emotional Judgment by O.G. Rose, we may have primed
ourselves to deny the realities regarding ourselves that we have to take seriously in order
to understand which socioeconomic system is best for our society.

3. It is possible that the more money is divided (or defined separately) from wealth, the
easier it is to confuse self-interest with selfishness.

4. Capitalism is an unfortunate word, as is Socialism, because there is capital in Socialism

as there is society in Capitalism. The terms Creativism and Statism seem like more
accurate terms.

5. No system is perfect, but in our Social Media age, all systems can be turned against
quickly, regardless how well they work.

6. The minorities I am friends with are those whom I will be more self-interested to help,
and this is why housing discrimination accidentally pioneered by the State in its efforts
to help by providing cheap housing can be so costly.

7. We cannot be motivated by a love of humanity in the same way we are motivated by the
feeling of motivation we experience toward those of whom we actually know, unless
that is by humanity we mean how we imagine humanity.

8. Is it less moral to care about people I know (and so have a self-interest in of some
kind) than it is to care about people I dont know? Perhaps the answer seems like it
would depend on whom you asked but the question seems irrelevant to me. Perhaps I
do selfishly maintain friendships because my friends make me feel good. But who in
the world would have friends if friends didnt, in some way, make a person feel good?
Perhaps there are rare individuals who could be friends with those who the person
didnt like, but such wont be the case for the majority. Without the good feeling, the
moral and communal act of friendship wouldnt happen prevalently (nor be wanted). To
ask if being friends with someone you dont like is more moral than being friends with
someone who makes you feel good might be a fair question in an Ethics classroom, but
elsewhere, it avoids the question of motivation. If emotionless friendships are more
moral than emotional friends, who cares about moral friendships? What good does
being moral add to life?

All this isnt to say we shouldnt be friends with those who we dont feel like being
friends with: my point is that neither kind of friendship is necessarily better than the
other, and that we cant expect to motivate a society to take care of people they dont
know, for the majority will always side with their emotions over metaphysical, Ethical
theories. This is just a biological fact: its only bad if we pretend otherwise.

9. It is perhaps the contrast with Socialism that has contributed to Capitalistic self-interest
being thought of in purely selfish and material terms. But as weve already touched on,
self-interest necessarily entails being interested in others. All humans are webs:
everyone is a you that is much bigger than just you (to allude to the thought presented
in The Truth Isnt the Rational by O.G. Rose).

10. If a murderer believes its in his self-interest to murder, it actually isnt, since the crime
will put the person in jail. If the murderer wants to go to jail, it probably still isnt in the
murders self-interest, seeing as he hasnt been to jail and only thinks he wants to go:
reality will give him a wake up. And if reality doesnt, then someone who can perhaps
rightly be called evil has been discovered, and law should exist so that an evil person

can be dealt with, for there is no system, whether Capitalism or Socialism, that can
create a world where (the possibility of) evil doesnt exist at all.

11. The probability of overcoming racism, sexism, etc., will be greater when the efforts to
do so are grounded in the biological reality that humans feel self-interested motivation
more so than they feel Ethical motivation. In other words, telling people to care about
race issues will never be as effective as making it in peoples self-interest to stop racism.
Success will also be more so likely when there is a test (such as free exchange) to
determine which efforts actually work, to determine, for example, if a housing project
actually helps with minority homelessness without causing housing discrimination or
not. Perhaps this paints a less Ethical picture of humanity than we would like to paint?
Perhaps not; either way, we must accept human biology and the natural limits of
empathy for us and the majority. The sooner we do so, the sooner we can enact
initiatives that work at solving discriminatory problems.

12. Ethical motivations may drive us long enough to appeal to the State to act on our
behalf, but it is improbable they will drive us as would self-motivation to act for the
change we want to see (over the long term). Additionally, once the State acts on our
behalf, the State also hides us from the reality that we dont feel in acts of Ethical
motivation what we feel in acts of self-motivation, leading us to be deceived about what
will actually fix the world.

13. Not only is it because we dont feel what others feel that we need free exchange, but this
biological fact is also what makes free exchange (and freedom for that matter) possible,
a point explored in the short story The Feeling by O.G. Rose.

14. Human nature is such that the majority cannot be motivated equally by the needs of
others as their own needs motivate them because of how humans biologically feel. And
perhaps this is part of what it means to say humans are fallen or (im)moral (to use
Christian language and allude to (Im)morality).

15. Logistics impacts self-interested motivation: when I live isolated, the number of people
who I am motivated by self-interest to help is much less.

16. For an American, the very human nature that pulls into focus a horrible incident in
America over horrible events in the Middle East is the very human nature that makes it
improbable that people will do anything about horrible events that dont directly impact

17. In a way, the family is a kind of welfare system: everyone takes care of everyone else.
But while my self-interest is necessarily tied into family members, it isnt so tied with
people who live across the country; consequently, how I feel about helping family
members is much different than how I feel about people I help through welfare and
taxes. This doesnt mean welfare is bad, but that it is unlikely to motivate people to help
others as effectively as does the family.

(W)hole Hope
1. On the lexicon of this work: hole hope is a good phrase because it implies there is
nothing there in and of itself. Yet a hole is always in something, and a hole hope is a

hole in reality (in a whole of reality). It is where a person carves out a space in the
mixture of the good and the bad so he or she can imagine good alone. Whole hope,
on the other hand, seems like a good phrase to me, for you can only have a whole of a
thing. To be a whole, there has to be something there, as there does for a hole, but in a
whole, there are no holes (what exactly constitutes the whole depends on the
person). Additionally, the two phrases can only be told apart on paper: they are
homophonous, which alludes to how the hopes can only be told apart by a given self, to
a given self, but not to other selves.

2. We all struggle in our relationships, but when we encounter people who seem to always
be happy (as most people act and appear around others), we can come to think there is
something wrong with us. Consequently, our natural tendency to function as hole hope
for one another can unintentionally make people feel as if there is something wrong
with them (by comparison). By functioning as that which others can idealize, we can
unintentionally setup others for disillusionment in the same act we provide individuals
with a hole to hope in.

3. To use the distinction from On Thinking and Perceiving by O.G. Rose, another
difference between whole hope and hole hope is that whole hope blends thinking
and perceiving, while hole hope either thinks over perception or perceives over thinking.

4. To borrow from the thought of Bernard Hankins, humans are what they like, and to
know what a person is like entails knowing what the person likes. Our likes are glimpses
into what we are like. Therefore, when we do something we dont like, we are, in a way,
confusing ourselves, for in these moments, what we are like doesnt match with what we
are doing (which should be what we like). When these likes conflict, alienation and
unhappiness are likely. And when there is a dissonance between what you like and
what you are like, hole hope is especially likely.

5. To borrow the thought of Sartre, we cannot feel as if we are living in a prison unless we
desire that which, within our life, we cannot obtain. If we conform our goals to the
conditions of our life, we will never feel imprisoned (though someone may be
imprisoned). By choosing the right hopes, we can always be free; by choosing the wrong
hopes, well always be chained. The one who hopes realistically and wholly will not end
up everywhere in chains.

6. The artist, who must work and practice for years before achieving a flip moment that
makes it all worthwhile, must take on a necessary risk that no flip moment will ever
arrive. The artist must risk it all being a waste to make it all worthwhile.

7. All realities are mixtures of the good and the bad, and this being the case, it is wise to be
careful to tell someone who lives on a farm I wish I had a life like yours. Such
statements imply that the lives of others are easier than yours and that they dont
undergo the difficulties that you do (which might imply that you are worthy of
affirmation). Everyone has their own, tough circumstances: the artist, though not having
to perform surgery, has an operation carried out on him or her whenever the artist is
asked about occupation, while the doctor, though making good money, has many
sleepless nights. Never imply others dont know what you are going through or have it
easier than you everyone has their own unique challenges all realities are mixtures of
the good and the bad.

8. Opposites attract often because of hole hope: it is easier to imagine that which is
different from us as that without reality than it is to imagine that similar to ourselves
without reality. This isnt to suggest that opposites cant be in a relationship or happy
together, but to claim that if we arent aware of hole hope, our discernment will be
impeded. And when it comes to relationships, discernment is needed to the utmost.

9. We do not experience nature and inanimate objects as holes as much as we do humans

(though that isnt to say they cant be holes), because humans have consciousness. To
fill with hope a non-conscious thing would take our agency, our reality, which we
have experienced as a mixture of the good and the bad, hence making idealization
more difficult. People though, in having entirely different consciousnesses, are able to
be thought of as experiencing a unique subjectivity that is good alone or bad alone,
unlike our own subjectivity, which we must know as a mixture. That said, un-conscious
things that (subjective) humans relate to (via ownership, etc.), have a higher likelihood
of being a hole than does an inanimate phenomenon without (much) human
interaction. In other words, a house, being where a human lives, is easier to make a
hole than a random rock in the forest, for it is easier to imagine the house making
better a persons life (and so possibly our own life).

9.1 Facebook, movies, etc., make hole hope much more frequent, possible, and difficult to
avoid (as does the desire to please people, for this entails trying to know what other
minds are thinking).

9.2 Marketing and Hollywood thrive off creating and feeding hole hope.

10. We can stay single to keep imagining ourselves never hurting anyone, as we can get
married to imagine ourselves never being hurt.

11. Perhaps we can prefer talented children to talented adults because there is more room
for hole hope, and perhaps the same can be said about artists who die young versus
those who die old.

12. When you hole hope about the life someone lives, the house another lives in, etc., use
the language of I cant know versus I dont know it will help curb the idealization.

13. To wonder what do people think of me? is to think about a hole, making you
susceptible to idealization and being overly-critical. And it is a hole worse than a hole
of Europe or something like that, for you can visit Europe and find out if your
idealizations are wrong, you cannot enter into another consciousness: there is always
more uncertainty.

14. If you live by hole hope, you wont have anything to give others (besides holes).

15. Romance culture often thrives off hole hope.

16. Disappointment requires expectation; where there is only acceptance and adaptability,
there are no let downs. Expectation, in a way, is an act of imagination, for it requires
abstract thought and an envisioning of the future (and what it could be). Furthermore,
to have expectations is to prime yourself for hole hope, for it is to train yourself to
imagine and hope for expectations about the future to be realized (and the results of
those expectations).
17. Drugs, when taken, always come with a feeling of the high never ending; in the act of
taking the drug, we are, in a way, simultaneously blinded from its temporality. In the
high, there is a sense of timelessness time just seems to fade away. In other words,
drugs are taken, consciously or subconsciously, in hopes that they can always work, and
in being high, they feel like they will. When the high wears off, it comes with a feeling of
that wasnt supposed to happen. And so the person thinks that maybe next time will be
different. And so addiction forms.

Like drugs, hole hopes can create in us a sense of elation and timelessness, and a sense
that the hole hope will always sustain the individual. In hole hoping, there is
inherently embedded a belief that it will always work to hole hope is to hope
timelessly. And hoping for a hole hope that will always sustain us, like druggies
searching for a drug that transcends the addiction, we end up as holes. But like the
druggie, the hole hoper can easily partake in self-deception, blinded by the high.

18. The existential void (or hole) people often feel can lead to hole hope, which is an
attempt to transfer the internal hole to an externality. And nothing changes.

19. Never underestimate the human capacity to preserve states from which the human can
(w)hole hope humanitys creativity knows no limits when so called.

20. We love to be followers; from there, we can imagine how we would lead differently and
perfectly in a world where nothing is perfect.

21. To put it generally, hole hope is from the future/past to the present, while whole
hope is from the present to the future/past.

22. As it favors children, it is a possible that hole hope favors celebrities, artists, etc. who
commit suicide or die early, for we can imagine freely what could have been and/or
what they dealt with within. Likewise, hole hope may favor those who put off
marriage and having children, for it gives us space to imagine how such people can
become anyone, and likewise such people can feel that way about themselves.
Additionally, in avoiding marriage and children, such people can feel as if others think
of them as having infinite potential, and that is comforting: makes them feel as if they
have (potential) significance in this world where so few do. It is possible that one of the
main drives of human action, along with ideology preservation, is to maintain hole hop
being in our favor for as long as possible.

23. According to Eric Hoffer, a doctrine that inspires a mass movement has to be
unverifiable, and perhaps a reason for this is because what cannot be verified is that
which leaves open space for hole hope. Perhaps hole hope is indispensable for mass
movements of any kind.

24. Hole hope can give rise to an elation as can the imaginary, one that supersedes the
real (temporarily), precisely because the real is a mixture of the good and the bad, while
a positive hole hope is compromised only of the good. Furthermore, the imagined can
be thought of as better without being in denial, while the real can only be thought of as
better in denial, and this contributions to the (ignorant) bliss. Hence, hole hope gives
rise to elation in the same way as does a solution to a problem: it gives us a sense of
solving what is wrong with life.
25. Perfection projection the projecting of the good alone over the good and the bad
is a phrase that could refer to hole hope (in a purely positive sense). Ironically,
perfection projection can create a standard that, in us being unable to achieve it, results
in our disillusionment, or it can set us up for disillusionment when we encounter reality.

26. If you are in a prison and tortured, it is not hole hope to believe you will be happier
outside the prison (assuming you dont think of the outside world as without
problems), for this hope is grounded in the reality of the torture and misery (and is in
fact whole hope). To warn against hole hope isnt to warn against hope. Hope is

1. To act is to create histories. If every night I eat a snack around 2AM, I come to be
known as someone who eats snacks at 2AM: I acquire an identity from a consistency.
Considering this, to sensualize can be to create consistencies by which people know me
and my world. If I enjoy philosophical conversations whenever they arise, from this
consistency, people come to know me as a philosopher, and in a way, come to believe
they have access to my subjectivity: from the consistency, people believe that I, in my
subjectivity that only I can access, genuinely like philosophy. The consistency gives
others a sense of access to my consciousness, which is only truly accessible to me.

If you tell me that I dont have to be home by any particular time, and for two years
there isnt a problem and then suddenly youre upset at me for being late, because of the
consistency that was established, I can feel betrayed, upset, hurt, and the like. This is
because you betrayed the unspoken rules established by the consistency, and what
other standard could I have possibly used (in the absence of direct speech) to know
what I could and could not do then (unspoken) consistency?

Humans live an incredible percentage of their lives relative to metaphysical consistencies

that are usually sensualized indirectly at best. Knowing this can help us keep from
violating the rules established by a consistency, and also be aware of the kind of rules
we are perhaps unintentionally establishing by acting certain ways consistently. Like
scripts discussed in Scripted by O.G. Rose, consistencies are like game boards, and
as we live, we are always creating new boards. The more consistently we live a certain
way, the more a board is completed and a game upon that board instigated, perhaps
without even our knowing it.

2. If a limb fell out of a tree and hit my right hand, my hand would move: it would be
caused. However, if I were to reach over and pick up a cup, my hand would also move,
but rather than simply be caused, it would also cause (the movement of the cup). Yes, my
hand is caused by my mind to move, but my hand also causes: the picking up the cup is
a moment in which my right hand (is) caused/causes. Furthermore, my mind causes itself
to cause my hand to cause and be caused: my mind is at its own mercy.

A rock cannot cause itself; only living things can be their own cause (arguably, the
definition of a living thing is that which can cause itself, and so that which is free).
Yes, living things can also be caused I can be nudged by a car and forced to stumble

forward but not only be caused: living things can also cause. Inanimate objects can only
be caused while animate entities can cause and be caused.

To be free is to be your own cause: freedom is the capacity to cause versus only be caused.
Freedom is expressed vividly in resistance: if a limb falls toward my hand and I brace for
impact, I have shown that I have the freedom to stand against causality, meaning I am
not simply the product of causality. I can, in a sense, redirect causality, versus simply
only be carried along whatever way causality goes (I can reroute the river versus only be
carried by it, per se). This isnt to say that humans have total freedom, but it is to say
that humans arent totally unfree: we are (un)free creatures.

To will freely is to a cause something into causality versus only be in causality. Since
everything that is physical is causal, it is easy to believe nothing causes and is only
caused: everything is dressed in determinism, per se. We are always in the river of
causality, and the times it redirects and changes are so gradual and subtle that we rarely
notice; relative to us, the river always continues straight ahead, carrying us along.

To be free is to cause oneself (in)to causality. To sensualize is to translate the

metaphysical into the physical: it is to translate what the mind causes itself into a world
of things that are caused. In this way, sensualization is evidence for free will.
Abstractions do not exist in the world, and for humans to translate them into the world
is to translate freedom into determinism, a cause unto itself into the caused. To
sensualize is to add to the domino series of causality versus only be in the domino
series, per se.

Sensualization is a free act. Yes, what is sensualized is caused insomuch as sensualization

occurs in a sequence of one after the other, but it isnt the case that just because
something is in a sequence, it is determined and not free. Sequence doesnt necessitate
determinism, only an appearance and/or outfit of it. Something in a sequence may be
determined, but not necessarily: further investigation is required.

For humans, the mind is a cause unto itself that the body participates in (while in
causality). To the degree an animal sensualizes is to the degree an animal is also free, and
to the degree a human doesnt sensualize is to the degree a human isnt free (or at least
cannot be said to be meaningfully free: the line between determinism and freedom
cannot be drawn). To the degree an animal thinks into causality (adding, redirecting, etc.)
is to the degree an animal is like a human, and to the degree a human simply thinks in
causality (participating, being carried along by, etc.) is to the degree a human is not like
a human. Regardless the being though, to sensualize is to act freely.

Discussing Racism
1. Both theological and racial conversations are prone to generalize, to say about the many
something based on the few (and so overlook individuals, ironically like the racist). The
Christian is prone to portray all Atheists as immoral pagans, while the Progressive is
prone to portray all whites as racists. Is there truth to these generalities? To some
degree, relative to accepted frameworks, but they arent helpful for reconciliation or
progressing discussion.

It is always too easy to generalize about the other, but when you believe the other is
the oppressor, a sense of justice being on your side makes this generalization easier to
commit. Justice can deceive, precisely because it feels so clear.

2. The act of writing this paper is to put myself at risk of being called a racist, and if I am
so called, this would be a perpetuation of the theological character of modern race
conversation that hinders racial progress.

3. The fact that the race conversation has come to have theological character is evidence
that humans are naturally and perhaps inescapability religious.

4. It is ironic that Conservatives, who are often Christians, are the ones who most often
dislike the theological character of modern race discussion, and that it is Progressives,
often less religious, who embrace it.

5. As Christianity has fallen, racism has risen.

6. Unclear phrases lead to a field day for the press.

7. People, especially Conservatives, can feel that they arent sanctified against racism in
the eyes of Progressives until they become Progressive that unless they convert, they
are hell-bound and this hinders reconciliation. Conservatives come to feel the
modern discussion on racism is more about political ideological and political
manipulation than it is about racial reconciliation, even though there are institutional
forces working against minorities.

8. Progressives today may feel as if Kings project for equality has failed and that we need
to head in a more Black Power-esq direction, but it could very well be the case that
King succeeded but that we ruined his success (perhaps in ways described in the works
of Thomas Sowell). Either way, the consequences would look the same.

9. Im afraid any slogan that must be explained is a slogan that will impede reconciliation.
But what phrase doesnt need explaining?

10. Where there is a God of the Gaps, there will be existential tension, even if the
explanation is true. Perhaps there is a gap in Evolution that God bridges, hence proving
God Exists, but even if this is so, it will just not be emotionally satisfying (it will feel
more like denial), and also be shaky ground for a reconciliation between science and
religion. And so it goes with racism.

11. Our impulse for justice and desire to see injustice end can make us just not care to
take the time to work through clarifying and restructuring the race conversation, as this
paper has suggested. For if we take time doing that, are we not leaving the injustice
unaddressed? And yet if not taking that time will preserve injustice, our desire for justice
can be the very thing that keeps us from achieving it.

12. What constitutes a micro-aggression is relative: to one girl, holding a door open for her
is polite; to another, it is a reminder of male dominance. To not hold the door for the
first girl is to be rude and to not act as you should (normal) while to not hold it for the
second girl is to act as you should (normal) too. What constitutes normal is relative,
and like a doorknob that works (to use Heideggers thought), what is normal isnt
noticed; in a sense, its taken for granted. Hence, when a person feels micro-aggressed
against, the person feels hurt by what is normal to someone else someone else who
very well may not have said thank you when the door was held for that person, taking
it to be normal. And so the person who holds the door feels like he is in a lose-lose
situation: to not hold the door is wrong to one but not another (and which girl is
which?). And not being told thank you and only spoken to when opening the door is
offensive, the man may become bitter and feel existential uncertainty, not knowing what
he did wrong and by what standard. And so he may become bitter and stop holding
doors all together, not caring what women think and trying his best to avoid them

The idea of micro-aggressions created by Chester M. Pierce is prone to cause

existential uncertainty that will hinder reconciliation more than help it. Micro-
aggressions dont have to be intentional; according to psychology theory, they can be
subconscious and even a result of good-intent. They occur when a dominate group
alienates a marginalized group, usually unconsciously. But of course, who decides which
groups are the dominate and which are the marginalized, and by what standard?
Furthermore, who decides which acts are a micro-aggressions, and again, by what
standard? The question arises: if I feel I am a victim of micro-aggression, am I?, and by
what standard can it be said either way? Perhaps I claim I am a victim of micro-
aggression because I want to be pitied or because I think that if people think Ive been
marginalized, theyre more likely to listen to what I say? Perhaps even suggesting this
possibility is a micro-aggression? Perhaps some dynamic system is needed to tell which
micro-aggressions are valid and which arent, but what system would that be? By what
standard? Can one even put limits on what constitutes a micro-aggression without
committing a micro-aggression.

Little is clear, especially not to the average person.

The idea of micro-aggression was created to help achieve reconciliation between

dominate and marginalized groups, but tragically it results in existential anxiety that
impedes the achievement of that goal (and considering Self-Delusion, the Toward-ness
of Evidence, and the Paradox of Judgment by O.G. Rose, it is likely that anxiety will
reinforce itself). Fear of it may cause it, and hope of seeing it to stop it may result it
being seen when it isnt there. Self-aware and in fear of committing a micro-aggression,
people might become unnatural and nervous, and this alone could be seen as a micro-
aggression. And eventually people, always feeling under a surveillance camera, per se,
may give up and just avoid all together those around who they have to even think about
the possibility of micro-aggression (especially if they think someone who claims to
suffer discrimination can have the power of the State on their side), worsening
segregation and the loss of diversity even as diversity is praised (especially in a society
that assumes the worst instead of assumes the best, as discussed in Assuming the
Best by O.G. Rose; especially in a society that implies that we are unjust to not be
offended, such as by a paper that makes claims like this paper does).

12.1 Where there isnt toughness, there wont be diversity, for people wont toughen
through the hardship of encountering the other who is hard to understand.
Furthermore, there cant be diversity where those who suffer are overly-admired, for
there will be incentive not to toughen through.

12.2 Rather than focus on ending micro-aggressions, it would be better to focus on teaching
and incubating empathy. Concerns over someone saying something racist, sexist, micro-
aggressive, etc. turns the other into a threat, while empathy turns the other into an
invitation to think and live differently.

13. Institutional discrimination is real and only institutions can cause it, by definition.
Discrimination can be caused by individuals, but I would appeal to the reader to believe
when I claim that institutionalized discrimination is worse than individual
discrimination. Institutions can cause thousands of black men to go to jail, while
individuals can do terrible things, but not on a systematic scale. Systematic impact takes
institutional involvement, and when it comes to the conversation on racism in America
today, I would suggest we focus on eradicating institutional racism more than racism,
not only because racism is difficult to discuss (as this paper has warned), but also
because institutions are far more dangerous, and if racism was erased and yet institutions
remained, institutions would incubate it right back into existence. If racist institutions
are removed, lacking an incubator, racism will fade.

The State is the main source of institutional racism. The State creates the War on Drugs
and the Jim Crow South, not corporations. Yes, in a sense, business is an institution, but
it is not nearly as much of a threat, lacking the legal force of law. Institutions alone can
stop institutions: as the State created the Jim Crow South, it also ended it. Other than by
bribing the State, a corporation could not end Jim Crow; no how much money it had, if
the State didnt want to erase Jim Crow, no business could force the State to do so. And
convincing the State to change itself is notably difficult; it would have been better had
the Jim Crow South never come into existence in the first place (especially considering
how racist laws incubate racism, as I believe is shown in the Stanford Prison
Experiment and the Milgram Experiment).

C.S. Lewis warned that if you put first things first, second things followed, but if you put
second things first, you lost both. Likewise, if you focus on ending institutional racism,
racism will follow, but if you focus on racism, neither will improve. Tragically, I fear the
current race conversation distracts us from putting first things first, and all in the name
of justice.

13.1 Institutions incubate existentialism, and institutional racism incubates racial

existentialism. Consider Erasure by Percival Everett for an example of racial

14. Where there is The Eggshell Phenomenon, people will feel like Big Brother to one

15. If oppression was always intentional and never emergent, stopping it would be much

16. The whites who judge Muslims as terrorists are like the Progressives who judge whites
as racists: neither think they are being judgmental, but rather, on behalf of helping
making the world a better place, they are being true. Likewise, when the two shut down
the free speech of the other, they dont believe they are shutting down free speech, but
rather, in the name of justice, silencing the voice that perpetuates oppression.

17. To use language from Experiencing Thinking by O.G. Rose, if it is the case that
discrimination, sexism, etc. can only be overcome by high order complexity, then
overcoming these discriminations is unnatural for low order humans.

18. Does privilege lead to the impoverishment of the unprivileged or does impoverishment
lead to the existence of a privileged class?

19. The phrase Majority Privilege points to the centerless, invisible, formless,
uncoordinated, metaphysical structure that oppresses minorities, rather those minorities
be the handicapped, introverts, the Deaf, etc.

20. As Christians can make people feel they are going to Hell if they dont become
Christian, so Progressives can make people feel they are a racist if they dont become

21. No society can help but be majority orientated, as laws cant help but favor the
majority. This being the case, a great way to lessen the impact of Majority Privilege is to
shrink the State, even though the State could potentiality help minorities. This doesnt
mean everything that State does is wrong, but it does mean that to grow the State is to
risk worsening the impact of Majority Privilege.

22. What is true for the general isnt necessarily true for the individual, and vice-versa, but
this is something we all know when we think about it and forget as soon as we move on.
It rises into consciousness and then falls away.

23. Poppers standard of falsification is useful for helping us achieve existential stability,
not only for (imperfectly) identifying reliable truth.

24. Though there is truth to privilege, we must be careful that we dont use it in a manner
that trains our brains to form habits of associating x characteristic of a person with y
identity (similar to how stereotyping forms bad, associational habits); otherwise, the
mental mechanisms out of which racism springs will remain potentially active, even if
racism is defeated on the surface.

Indeed, many white people in America are privileged, but as it is wrong to say Chinese
major in math versus some/many Chinese major in math, so it is wrong to assume
that a white person is a person who had life easy. Now, if by privileged one means
that whites in America are free of existential tensions that blacks face, thats one thing
(though we must be careful to avoid implying white people dont face any existential
tensions, and also must be careful to avoid playing the game who suffers worse a
game no one wins); but if by privileged one means well off, then it is especially
problematic to stereotype white as privileged. There are more white people in poverty in
America than any other group; yes, mostly because whites are the majority, but if all
whites were well off, this shouldnt be the case in sheer numbers or percentages.

Again, there is truth to White Privilege, but we must be careful that we dont engage
with a truth in a manner that forms the neurological habits behind the very racism and
discrimination we are trying to overcome. Otherwise, the battle we win today will not be
won for long.

25. It has been said that bigotry doesnt have to be obvious, that many of the Southern
racists were usually nice people to be around. By this, a person means to suggest that we
can be bigots even if we arent bad people, and though there is truth to this, I think it is
unlikely that the majority will ever understand this as true racism and bigotry. There will
always be talking past one another, perhaps with dire consequences.

26. Of all entities that can spread Majority Privilege, intentionally or unintentionally,
government is the most effective, for only government can use legal force, create new
laws legitimizing legal force, choose to enforce laws or not, and also be protected by a
morality that results from the common conflation of moral and legal.

27. What does it mean to call someone a racist? As Socrates taught, like most words,
racist is a word that everyone thinks they know what it means but that is rarely
systematically defined; furthermore, what a word means is relative to the framework in
which the word is used. Considering The Long Truce by A.J. Conyers, someone who
ascents to tolerance of disagreement is going to define racist as meaning something
different than someone who ascents to tolerance as agreement: for the later, youre a
racist if you dont agree if a certain premise, worldview, etc. is true; for the former,
youre a racist if you dont accept disagreements between premises, worldviews, etc.
Unfortunately, words dont wear upon their faces the frameworks in which they are
defined (as things dont wear the case which they are evidence toward), and when
someone uses a word, it strikes the person as self-evident what the word means; hence,
not only is misunderstanding likely, but the feeling that the hearer of a word is an idiot if
he or she misunderstands, or worse yet, that the person is intentionally
misunderstanding. In an increasingly Pluralistic world, this phenomenological problem
of speech makes conflict likely.

28. As Christians can look at horrible art and claim its good because it depicts a Bible story,
and likewise degrade great art because its not explicitly Christian, so the same can
happen in regard to how Progressives relate to art (athletics, politics, etc.).

29. If you give someone a hammer, the person can suddenly see nails everywhere. Likewise,
if you give someone the ideas of White Privilege, racism, and the like, the person can
see evidence for (or against) them everywhere. Does this mean there is no truth to these
ideas? Not at all: indeed, there are real nails racism, privilege, etc. but awareness of
the narratives can make it more difficult to see reality. And yet without the ideas, we
wouldnt have reason to look for anything. To be human is to be ones punchline.

30. Who is a bigot? What does it mean to be a bigot? If I dont believe in gay marriage, am I
bigot or only if I think that LGBTs are less human than heterosexuals? Dont I think
that in a way if I dont believe LGBTs should be able to get marriage? Perhaps, but what
if I have a strong argument against LGBT marriage (having reading Robert George)?
What if I believe the truth forces me to be against LGBT marriage? Am I bigot, or only
following the argument? Is the very act of asking this question bigotry? (A similar stream
of thought could be applied to race matters.)

It is not always clear what constitutes bigotry, but like most words, it always seems clear
to the one who uses the word. A reason it is difficult to discuss race, gay rights, and the
like, is because the terms of the discussion arent clear or defined: when people begin
discussing race, theyre not sure if what they are saying is racist and/or bigoted, and at

any moment, theyre afraid they can have the label slapped on them. This hinders

To cut right to the chase, a large question is the following: is a person a bigot who
associates x with y or who equates x with y? If I associate a minority with crime (or
some members of that minority), is that the same as believing whites are genetically
superior to minorities? Certainly, both acts are terrible but it seems that a reason why
discussing race can be difficult is because many people dont think they are better than
blacks, but do associate blacks with gangs, and hence are guilty of stereotyping, but in
their minds, not necessarily bigotry, and calling the person a bigot will probably just
activate the persons self-defense mechanisms (and relative to the persons self, he or
she isnt a bigot), hindering discussion. It would seem valuable to avoid conflating
stereotyping with bigotry, though both should be avoided.

31. We naturally generalize: its necessary. Unfortunately, this natural tendency makes it easy
for us to speak of whites and blacks as two giant masses, losing sight of individuality.
If we say whites need to stop talking about black people as thugs, we also need to stop
talking as if all white people talk about black people as if they are thugs.

32. Potentially alienating, it should be noted that the average, modern white doesnt feel as
if he or she had anything to do with slavery, that he or she is perhaps forced to benefit
from a legacy that he or she doesnt want to benefit from (though a given white cannot
know for sure if he or she so benefited), and that he or she is being forced to repent for
a sin he or she didnt commit. Of course, this doesnt mean modern whites today dont
benefit from the sins of their fathers, but we must be careful to discuss the topic in a
way that strikes people as Original Sin: all such narratives create anxiety (take the guilt-
burdened Christian, for example). Truth when worded poorly is truth that is likely to be

33. In fiction, action or plot details shouldnt be poured in from the top, meaning they
shouldnt arise without believable justification from the plot or logic of the story. For
example, if a story presents itself as Southern Literature, the appearance of a UFO
would be poured in from the top and violate the logic of the work; it would feel like a
broken promise to readers, impacting trust. Likewise, deus ex machina story moves
when a resolution is achieved by a sudden, unexpected, and convenient occurrence in
the plot is considered pouring in from the top. For a story to work, all the plot points
have to logically lead into one another; if something comes out of left field, the reader
will be dissatisfied. In other words, if a plot feels like the author inserted something that
the story couldnt insert on its own, the experience will be ruined.

I believe similar things can be said about race relations: if a solution for problems of
race feel poured in from the top forced upon the people by the State like an author
forcing a plot device upon the reader the solution will backfire. If people feel the
Oscars are giving out awards to minorities to come off as progressive, people may feel
that the Oscars are pouring it in from the top, that the Oscars are so giving out the
awards to make people happy, not because they are genuinely believe the awards should
go to who receive the awards. Perhaps the Oscars do in fact believe this, but that may
not be how the public feels, and if the Oscars claim they are genuine, people may feel
they are just saying that: the Oscars are caught in an inescapable, Schrdinger-esq
both-ness. Seeing as reconciliation has much do with how people feel around one

another, the existential tension pouring in from the top can cause threatens the
Progressive project.

34. Can any classification be falsified? If I decide that object-cat should be classified under
cat, that a person should be classified under genius, that a sentence falls under
misleading, that a thinker is an absolutist, that some evidence is overwhelming, that
certain legislation is discriminatory, that x should be under y, etc., how could my claim
be falsified? By what standard is x intellectually dishonest, racist, brilliant, kind,
human, etc.? By what the majority thinks? Has the majority never been wrong? It
seems that classification is necessarily problematic, but without classification, would
sanity be possible? Sanity seems to require a leap of faith.

Are moral classifications possible? How do we decide which acts of killing fall under the
category of murder? It would seem such would be a matter of law determined by
debate (the debate being focused on telos and/or ends). But how do we debate moral
matters if After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre is correct and weve lost the capacity to
have moral conversations? For that matter, have we also lost the capacity to have
conversations about Aristotelian ends? Such questions seem to be matters for another
time, but pivotal nonetheless.

35. The phrase Majority Privilege, Majority Superiority, etc. are phrases that cover
everything in a country; in America, the terms include Christian Privilege, Extrovert
Privilege, White Privilege, and so on (orienting the empathy of judges, the focus of
store managers, etc. toward the majority), without having to come up with numerous
more phrases and conceptual constructs. Furthermore, the phrases can be used in regard
to all nations on the planet and locally, for what constitutes the majority in one nation
or locality can be different than from another.

36. In her talk Deconstruction White Privilege, Dr. Robin Di Angelo notes that a strong
sign of modern, White Privilege is how so many white people live in segregation: they
are never seriously involved with anyone of a different ethnicity. While I dont deny this
happens, I would note that this is probably a likely situation for whoever is the majority
of a given nation: practical segregation, even if not intentional segregation, is simply
probable, a reality of numbers.

Furthermore, in response to Dr. Angelo, though I dont deny in America Majority

Privilege entails a racial element, I would argue that the first mover in the creation of
Foucauldian power structures against minorities is numbers, though that isnt to say that
then race doesnt come to be unfairly associated with certain, negative attributes. As
discussed in Equality and Its Immoral Limits by O.G. Rose, compounding what
minorities face already under Majority Privilege, due to laws, minorities (especially when
dressed a certain way) come to be associated unfairly with gangsters and threats. The
human survival instinct is powerful (considering evolution, it is likely one of the
strongest human instincts), and laws can unintentionally make that instinct all the more
powerful and difficult to overcome.

36.1 Dr. Robin Di Angelos thoughts on how the binary of race makes it difficult to discuss
race is insightful. I would argue the binary can be avoided by using the phrase Majority
Privilege instead of White Privilege. Perhaps through education people can learn to
escape the binary, but this doesnt strike me as practically likely as would simply
emphasizing being the majority instead of being white. The question of whether to
use the phrase Majority Privilege or White Privilege is to me a question of emphasis
and practicality, and because I believe Majority Privilege is more helpful for
reconciliation than the other phrase (though there is truth to it), I side with it: for
example, I think it is easier to convince a white man abandoned by his dad, mocked by
rich whites, and who has worked a job he hates since he was sixteen of the validity of
White Privilege without using the phrase.

36.2 It could be argued that soon whites in America will be a minority, and hence the phrase
Majority Privilege is inadequate, but I would point out that though whites will soon be
a minority relative to all minorities, they will still be a majority to a given minority. Its
going to be a very long time before any single minority eclipses white America, and keep
in mind that no one practically lives in a world where all minorities are combined into
one. I think comparing White America with Minority America is a fallacy: one group
is compared with many-groups-as-if-one-group.

36.3 A conversation about race that is hardly understood even by the college educated is a
conversation that will not help us overcome racism, and in fact may worsen racial

37. Marketing is hard, and a business that fails in marketing is a business that fails. Today, it
is even harder to have good marketing when social media emergently selects your
marketing for you. Considering Kings warnings about the importance of picking the
right words, and considering that most marketing fails, it is very unlikely activism will
accomplish its ends today, having lost control of the words by which the world knows
and understands it.

38. As the medium is the message, to allude to McLuhan, so the medium is the mentality:
media impacts toward-ness as does technology (to allude to Representing Beauty by
O.G. Rose). When television was first introduced, there was no editing technology, no
24/7 media cycle, no Social Media, etc., and so the existential pressure of the medium is
the mentality was much less. Now, it is all consuming. Today, if you are speaking on
television, you are aware that everything you say can be edited, taken out of context,
misunderstood without you having any chance of explaining yourself, and so on, and if
you are being interviewed, knowing all this can happen in the back of your mind, you
have to answer complex questions. Being on television is a sign of being important, but
to be on television is to step into a high risk zone in which countless things you couldnt
predict could happen to you. On television or online, you might be aware that the real
is dead (alluding to Baudrillard), and knowing that people will doubt that youre
genuine, you will struggle and fight to make it clear that you are genuine, but even if you
succeed, you cannot know youve succeeded. You cant see, sense, or hear your audience
you cannot receive feedback from your listener on how the conversation is going (and
if you do, its often from trolls) youre in the dark. And youre in the dark while
speaking to millions of people with countless personality types who will interpret and
understand what you are saying differently, and since one person will applaud you for
what another will despise you for, there is no clear standard for when you have spoken
well versus horribly (and this hints at why people avoid questions so often on

Now imagine hosting a discussion about racism.

39. To limit who has access to truth, for whatever reason, is to flirt with the religious
mistake of claiming only certain people have access to God. Furthermore, a society that
allows citizens to privilege their own views (either because they think everyone else is
too close to the situation to see it clearly, others dont understand racism, etc.) is a
society that will probably disintegrate into theological denominations and tribes, not
only because such privileging causes existential tension between disagreeing parities, but
also because everyone will be forced to choose a prophet.

40. We are all exhausted by being around people who dont share our views, and if we
believe God or justice is on our side, we can easily rationalize only surrounding
ourselves with people who agree with us.

41. If the discussion of race can be endless as can be theology, failure to reach any
conclusion will result in a failure for reconciliation, and to not engage in discussions on
race is in of itself racist, then it is improbable that reconciliation will be achieved.

42. So that discussions on racism can productively advance, it should be acknowledged that
racism today is different from racism in the past, for racism today is much more
associational (minorities are associated with gangs, for example) versus eugenic
(minorities are considered an inferior race). In other words, racism today is more of an
assumption of what x race does versus what x race innately and genetically is (though
of course these can overlap). Considering this, a lot of overcoming racism today is about
tearing down the institutions that incubate the associations of x race with y, whatever
those institutions might be.

43. Deconstruction is justice, Derrida once said, and for him, deconstructionism was about
justice from the very beginning. Derrida wanted to deconstruct standards of the
normal, literary canons, gender norms, and anything else that necessarily created a
standard against which some were in and others out. There is validity to this project,
but taken too far, and society ends up like the French Revolution, having torn
everything down with nothing but chaos and oblivion to show for it. Where there is
definition, valid or invalid, there will be that which falls into the definition and that
which falls outside of it, and unless we to live in a world without definition, there must
be some degree of in-ness and out-ness. The proper balance, I believe, is to have
various standards that are perpetually open to letting in everyone, that are always open
to revision, transformation, and empathy, but that is a topic that must be unpacked at a
different time.

44. Our bodies speak and say things to those around us even when we say nothing: we
cannot avoid having to learn the art of language by keeping silent. We are always
speaking beings.

45. Religions tend to promise paradise, and when paradise doesnt show up, its easy to
inspire revolution to hurry it on.

46. Unfalsifiable, religious thinking always risks solipsism, self-righteousness, the pride and
judgment of the Pharisees, and self-segregation.

47. Any of us can define ourselves as a minority as anyone can call themselves a Christian,
and likewise, anyone can claim youre not really a minority, as anyone can claim youre
not really a Christian.
48. Good religion that always seeks and/or finds confirmation for what it believes risks
radicalization, as does good activism.

49. It is important that the discussion on racism not come to be filled with kindly
inquisitors, as discussed by Jonathan Rauch in his work Kindly Inquisitors.

50. What is theological in character tends to also be a theory of everything that which is
prone to commit the fallacy of monotheorism (as discussed by O.G. Rose elsewhere)
and though there is usually if not always truth to such ideas, they tend to lead people
into wearing one set of glasses through which to see the world, and so only certain
phenomenon can be toward them as evidence (as discussed in Self-Delusion, the
Toward-ness of Evidence, and the Paradox of Judgment by O.G. Rose). This is likely
to impede the discussion on racism (especially if the map is indestructible).

51. It is incredibly difficult to not think of solutions, marketing, etc. in terms of your
intelligence level, worldview, and the like.

52. There is a difference between eugenic racism and associational racism, between
believing a race is genetically inferior and associating a skin color with x, and arguably
though both forms of racism, movement from the first to the second is evidence of
moral improvement, even though there is still work left to be done.

53. It is difficult to identify acts of mistreatment that are essentially racist versus
accidentally racist (to allude to Aristotle), and perhaps the distinction doesnt practically

54. Collective Consciousness and Trust by O.G. Rose discusses how today the media is
constantly destabilizing relationships between the races, and in this environment it
seems to me that learning to speak well is more important than ever before. And yet the
very instability makes discussing the topic more difficult, and furthermore our
technologies seem to increase the amount we talk while lowering our capacity to master
the art form. In this environment, racial metamentality and existential anxiety seem

55. As the Christian can feel good to hear someone say Im lost and need Jesus, so the
fighter for justice can feel good to hear someone say Im bigoted and need help against
my prejudice.

56. Truth stands, but it doesnt market itself: it seems like it needs no marketing.

On Beauty
1. As it is possible for everything to be beautiful (to someone), so it is possible that
everything in the world is also dangerous. It is possible for me to hurt someone with a
toothpick, a small stone, a piece of paper, and so on, just as it is possible for someone to
find each of these entities elegant. Considering that there might be no such thing as a
non-dangerous object in the same way there might not be such thing as a non-
beautiful object, perhaps beauty and danger are somehow related.

2. As judging a man by his strength alone is improper, to judge a woman by the standard
of beauty alone seems wrong, yet judging a painting by that standard seems proper. At
the same time, telling a woman that she is beautiful can be a compliment, but only
insomuch as the woman isnt objectified and/or reduced to simply her quality of beauty,
as if she is nothing more. This seems to be like treating a living human like an inanimate
object (more particularly, like a mirror), and it is precisely because a painting is inanimate
that considering it simply by one quality isnt such a violation. But perhaps like women,
paintings shouldnt only be considered in terms of beauty? Perhaps they should also be
considered in light of the ideology they point to, their history, their mission, etc.?
Perhaps beauty is only the attractive invitation into something more?

3. The idea of beauty as suspending and/or beauty as awe-full is similar to the idea of
the sublime found in Burke and Kant.

4. Since beauty is an individual reflection, it is collectively a reflection of the spirit of the

age and peoples overall ideology. Art is how we read the soul of the people.

5. Do note that this paper has not been asking what is art? but what is beauty?, two
questions that are easily conflated because beauty and art share so much in common.
Another paper is needed, one titled On Art, but that will have to wait for another time.

6. Experience is extension.

7. On Beauty and Being Just by Elaine Scarry and For the Love and Beauty by Arthur
Pontynen are books that should be read alongside this work.

8. For a thing to be ugly is to see a reflection you dont dislike.

9. Considering On Thinking and Perceiving by O.G. Rose, is beauty a matter of thought

or perception? It seems to initially be a matter of perception an open up to that
leads to thinking a response to that which you opened up to thanks to perception.
Beauty suspends you, gets past your preset ideas, and surprises you, and this aspect of
beauty is a matter of perception. However, once you are surprised, you think, for you
reflect, but these thoughts are ones you will only have because of the perception of
beauty which functions as the groundwork. Beauty seems to be an elevating dance
between the two.

10. The act of observing the beautiful is often the act of wondering why you cannot
articulate what you are observing. In other words, beauty is often an experience of
thinking failing to be perception (as discussed in On Thinking and Perceiving by O.G.
Rose), and hence the realization that there is a (hidden) difference. This realization is
also the acknowledgment of a mysterious standard existing against which we determine
something is beautiful versus not, and what constitutes this standard might be a matter
of perception, and hence that which thinking longs to understand but that its very touch
is that which pushes it out of reach.

Art forces us to face questions we dont know how to face, and if we have any tools to
help, these tools cause us more confusion.

Collective Consciousness and Trust

1. Language and thinking can be discriminatory and offensive in structure, whether we
want them to be or not. If I say white and blacks (insert), I imply there is a separation
between whites and blacks: I state there is a distinction, and so something that can be
interpreted as discriminative. If I think there are some black CEOs, I think something
that might be interpreted as denial of the reality that there are more white CEOs than
black CEOs, and so I think something that can be thought of as denial of racism. To
speak and to think often entail making distinctions, clarifications, separations,
generalities, hierarchies, etc. all of which can be viewed in our society as discriminatory
(and probably will be to those concerned with discrimination). In a society that is cynical
and struggles with trust, the very way thinking and language organize and structure
concepts will often provide evidence that this cynicism is warranted.

1.1 Theres an emphasis on the need for conversations about racism, sexism, etc., but if we
fail to identify how language functions and can naturally come off as offensive, these
conversations will only add to the problem, especially when these conversations are

2. In a collective consciousness, the white who acts like a redneck racist feeds the
stereotype everywhere, as the black who acts like a gangster does the same. The minority
can justify the stereotype in the eyes of the majority, justifying thoughtlessness.

3. An extrovert ideal, discussed by Susan Cain in her book Quiet, may worsen the
problems caused by a collective consciousness.

4. If racial reconciliation is eventually achieved, it could be claimed that it wasnt achieved

soon enough, sowing seeds of disunity. If the concerns of feminists, anti-sexists,
progressives, etc., are overcome, it could still be claimed that it was an injustice that it
took so long to right the injustice, and so sow seeds of discontent. One person could
suggest such online, and cause doubt and dissatisfaction in all. To exist in time is to exist
in processes, processes which can always be labeled as too slow, for a moment of
injustice is a moment always infinitely too long and unacceptable. In a collective
consciousness, anyone, anytime, can drop a comment that undermines everything,
throwing everything into question.

5. While media erases locality, its simultaneously and paradoxically local. Media makes us
passionately furious over injustices and discriminations that are happening in cities like
Ferguson and Baltimore, but there are few protests over the atrocities in North Korea,
few slogans like North Korean lives matter. This isnt to say the protests against
American injustices are invalid and shouldnt happen; my point is that our passions
against injustice arent equally passionate against all injustices. Truthfully, we cant expel
equal energy toward all problems in the world, and it is only natural that the problems
closer to home would bring out more emotion than the problems far away. However, to
be effective bringers of justice, we need to recognize this about ourselves, and also
recognize that in a collective consciousness, this tendency is intensified, and the reason
we need to recognize this is because our passions against injustices in America can make
us feel like were doing something, and so unaware of our lack of effort to stop horrors
in North Korea. Not because we should necessarily refocus on energy, but so that we
become more critical and real about ourselves: we are not the perfect saints we can think
ourselves to be. A Facebook wall full of protests against LGBT discrimination is not a
wall full of protests against what is happening in North Korea, but both will create a
sense of doing something. And yet though we do something in some ways, we dont
do it in others. Our selflessness is selfish. This is unavoidable (as pointed out in
(Im)morality by O.G. Rose), but what is avoidable is being ignorant about this truth
and so less discerning.

6. One image of the rich can destroy trust in the American experiment, as one image of the
government can destroy trust in the Democratic Republic.

7. If its too late for us to believe in the genuineness of one another and to extend trust,
then it is too late for us to believe in the capacity of free individual to be their own
problem solvers and to choose to freely live in a manner that is best for themselves and
all. Unable to believe in individuals and so unable to believe in free exchange (and what
overcome existential uncertainty) (as described in Equality and Its Immoral Limits by
O.G. Rose), we must resort to State power and intervention; because of how we see the
world, we can see no other option. And the more trust is broken and cynicism
developed in the collective consciousness, the more we will be primed to run to the
State, and if the State causes problems, we will hence be more primed to create those

7.1 If weve lost the capacity to believe in people, weve lost the capacity to believe in
freedom: we must be Pro-State.

8. The fact most people are anonymous online increases the likelihood that some
offensive, rude, inconsiderate, etc. is said, threatening trust in the collective

9. If 1% of the country was racist, homophobic, sexist, etc., then around 3.2 million people
would be such, and online, the racism, homophobic, sexism, etc. would seem
everywhere, potentially ruining trust for everyone.

10. Something thats hard to say but needs to be said is difficult enough to say to one
person, let alone millions across the internet.

11. In line with thought presented in Representing Beauty by O.G. Rose, as trust
dissolves throughout the collective consciousness, how we are toward one another also
changes, perhaps making us more cynical or scripted (to allude to Scripted by O.G.
Rose) two modes which also dissolve trust in themselves. Hence, the dissolving of
trust comes to feed itself, until one day cynicism is privileged.

12. Social media can, at any moment, reinvent social relations, and this is an existential
reality with which no society will easily cope. When we invented the technology, we
underestimated how endlessly and detrimentally meta(mental) humans could be.

13. By eroding trust and making us toward what is outside our locality, it is possible that
our collective consciousness has had a negative impact on social capital (which is
necessary for democracy, civilization, etc.), as discussed by Robert D. Putnam in
Bowling Alone.

14. In a collective consciousness, the legitimation crisis Habermas warns about seems

15. Thanks to collective consciousness, we are all increasingly more personas than people,
as tends to happen to someone like David Foster Wallace and all other victims of
litchat (as discussed in David Foster Wallace and the Perils of Litchat by Laura

16. Humans seem poorly equipped to be able to tell how profoundly technology impacts
them. Take the clock, for example: it is often forgotten that the clock isnt time itself.
Not when a person is asked directly, but in practice, as a person lives out his or her life,
the person practically forgets that time isnt a clock it seems virtually impossible for
this not to occur. Additionally, are we even capably anymore of being able to imagine
what the world would be like without clocks (including the sundial and the like)?
iek argues that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than Capitalism (perhaps
because the end of Capitalism is the end of the world), and this notion certainly applies
when it comes to the clock. The clock didnt necessarily have to come into existence: time
would still exist if clocks didnt. And without clocks, how would we meet up with
someone, show up for work, organize our responsibilities, and so on? Thanks to the
clock, human life is profoundly different, so profound in fact that the impact is invisible:
it consumes us entirely.

The internet is like clocks.

17. Once people dont trust one another, they cannot work together to stop

18. The very technology that creates the collective consciousness, and hence requires a
higher level of intellectual responsibility, also seems to be the very technology that
makes us less intellectually responsible.

19. A reason trust is difficult to establish is because for every hundred good things a person
does for us, it only takes on bad for us to be upset (and note we tend to remember the
bad more than the good). The same applies over a collective consciousness, and the
proportions dont shift.

20. Perhaps the problems faced by the church and religion are similar to the problems of
collective consciousness and trust, worsened by idealism (as arguably the church asks

21. As immorality increases, so does the desire to erase freedom, as described in On Kafka,
Character, and Law by O.G. Rose. Likewise, as immorality increases, so increases the
belief that we are right not to believe in the genuineness of one another and to refrain
from trusting people. Our technology trains us in a manner that our immorality

On Responsibility
1. In high order justice-arguments transcending intelligibility, if they are not recognized as
inherently problematic unless translated into low order-terms, lawyers can use these
invisible arguments to plant doubt in the minds of jurors and members of the court, and
if the court allows these arguments to work, lawyers will be incentivized to use them
constantly. This will potentially ruin the judicial system.

2. When you appeal to high order justice, your position cannot be disproven; hence, you
are, at least in your mind, always right. It is a great means for ideology preservation,
precisely because it cannot be said for sure that you are in the wrong. It also lets in
enough doubt that you can think of yourself as a critical thinker, but not so much doubt
that your worldview is threatened.

3. As Death is the Event Horizon of Reason by O.G. Rose argued that apocalyptic
thinking changes the rules of conversation (ruining debate and dialogue and making
the Habermasian ideal impossible to achieve), so it goes with determinism: it too
changes the rules.

4. It may be argued that humans arent responsible for their actions because they lack
perfect knowledge about all choices and the consequences of their choices, but as is
argued in On Perfect Knowledge by O.G. Rose, it is precisely our lack of perfect
knowledge that makes free choice possible, and hence there is still responsibility.

5. As discussed in The True Isnt the Rational by O.G. Rose, we choose determinism
here and there relative to what preserves our ideology; likewise, we shift between light
views and heavy views of responsibility when its best for our worldview.

6. We consider it an injustice if a person isnt held accountable for doing x, as we call it an

injustice if how a person is held accountable for x isnt proportional to x. If a person
receives the death penalty for J-walking, we consider it an injustice, as we think the same
if a person who murders receives a week in prison. But how does a person decide if a
punishment is proportional or not? Intellectualism or experience?

7. Law should be as unmoving and simple as the law of gravity. The more constant and
simple the law, the less likely people will feel oppressed by it. Understanding it and
feeling as if it isnt arbitrary, the people are more likely to feel that the law is a fair fact,
like gravity (and would probably make the law easier to abide by too, without fear of
accidentally breaking it because the law is so complex).

8. As argued in There is No Big Brother by O.G. Rose, as our default should be against
State growth (though that isnt to say all State growth is necessarily bad), so our default
should be against determinism (though that isnt to say there is absolutely no truth to
determinism). The power of the idea and the consequences of misusing it are just too

9. All high order arguments distinct from arguments that high order complexity exists
are inherently problematic, not because there is no truth to them, but because we
cannot comprehend the truth to them. And yet at the same time there are in fact matters
of high order complexity which we must point out. Clearly thinking is no easy matter:
danger lies on all sides. Do note also that there is a difference between saying x is a
matter of high order complexity and saying the same, but also and therefore you
must do y.

10. We should stay closer to the shore versus paddle outinto the waters of high order
complexity , considering Hayek and all the unintended consequences that can occur
when making decisions in regard to that kind of complexity.

11. When arguments lack substance, emotionalism is likely both to make up for and to hide
that lack of substance. Hence, it is natural for emotionalism to accompany high order-
arguments, not because there is no truth to them, but because relative to humans, there
is a lack (or hole) where we lack the capacity to conceptualize the complexity.
Additionally, emotionalism tends to drive us out into the sea of high order justice
because emotions search for justification, and when we cannot find it in low order
complexity, we are likely to paddle out from the shore in search of it where what we
think cannot be proven or disproven with certainty.

12. The death of personal responsibility may contribute to the growth of (creative) appeals
to high order justice, for it is a means to legitimize not taking personal responsibility
for oneself or another. In that line of thought, it is also possible that the ethic of
personal responsibility checks and balances the creativity of people to come up with
ways they arent responsible for x (via high order-reasoning).

13. Freedom and power are very similar in meaning (though not exactly similes), for to
have power to do x is to have the ability to do x, which means you are free to do x.
Everyone has power, but not everyone has the same amount of power, and no one is
totally free to exercise their power. If you have zero freedom but lots of power, you will
be unable to use your power and your power will be worthless; but if you have lots of
freedom but no power, you will be unable to realize any of your vast opportunity.

14. In the act of realizing a potential of total freedom, it becomes an expression of free will,
and in this moment, it is hard to tell free will and total freedom apart (like thinking and
perceiving when the rivers cross and merge, to allude to On Thinking and Perceiving
by O.G. Rose).

15. Much of the denial of free wills existence is likely a result of an erroneous conflation of
total freedom and free will.

16. I often wonder if those who argue for determinism realize the extraordinary
consequences of their philosophy.

17. The absurdity of the idea that we dont have freedom at all should be noted. What does
it even mean to say that humans dont have free will? That we dont control what words
or thoughts come into our heads? What controls us then? Chemicals, genes, and/or the
environment? But are we not made of chemicals and genes and situated within
environments that we move between thanks to our genes and chemicals? Then it is us
who makes these choices, unless that is we are not our genes and chemicals? Then what
are we, and what exactly moves our genes and chemicals to make us move in such a way
that makes us think we have free will? Our brains? Our bodies? Are we not our brains
and bodies? If you say no, then what are we? Spirits? If were spirits, then were not
bound by causality, but if were just bodies and its our bodies that make us do what we
do, then it is us that makes us do what we do. What else could it be? What else
experiences what I experience other than (what makes me) me?

18. Where there is no responsibility, it doesnt seem to me as if there can be a (meaningful)

distinction between distinction and discrimination.

19. Responsibility is perhaps a societys most important philosophical construct: if people

dont believe that the person running a company is responsible for achieving that
position, for example, and if people believe that those not running the company have no
chance of running it due to factors outside their control, then people will come to resent
the socioeconomic order, and revolution will become a moral obligation. How a society
thinks about responsibility will impact how a society thinks about everything.

20. If Deirdre McCloskey is correct about the bourgeois virtues and their contribution to
The Great Leap Forward, seeing as those virtues require a philosophy of personal
responsibility/freedom, then to the degree a society continues to leap forward will be
relative to its philosophy of responsibility, freedom, and/or determinism.

21. To say we have free will isnt to say that everything we do freely is good, nor is to say
that free will doesnt need to be developed.

22. If life was completely a result of what we wanted, who wouldnt be crushed by the

23. If a person says x isnt their fault, how can we say one way or the other? Philosophical
argument, but even a perfect scientific argument cannot force people to believe this or
that, let alone a much more uncertain and less empirical philosophical proof. Ultimately,
the mood of the time will decide the winner, right or wrong.

24. We want to be responsible for our successes and victims of our failures, and though we
cannot have both, that wont stop us from trying, regardless the costs, so gradually and
slowly that we wont realize what we are attempting until the consequences are
inexorable and self-defeating.

The Specter of McCarthyism

1. According to what standard should a person face consequence y for expressing x, and
why should z person be the one who can say which standard should be applied?

2. We notice quickly when our free speech is violated, but not when we violate the free
speech of those (irrational fools) who think differently than we do.

3. We worry more about failing to punish those who say what we believe they shouldnt
say than we do about punishing people for what we misunderstand them as saying.

4. Once, the Conservatives wanted to keep children from reading books with explicit
content to protect family values; now, Liberals want to keep children from reading
books with explicit content to protect emotional and mental health. Concerns change,
but if SMFS remains strong, our rights will not.

5. When SMFS is high and people change their minds, it is clearer that their hearts have
also changed (and easier to have existential stability over that change).

6. There are numerous quotes from the Founding Fathers about the importance of the Bill
of Rights (though many argued a Bill of Rights wasnt needed), and for too long these
quotes have only been considered in terms of government restraint.

7. As argued in (Im)morality by O.G. Rose, Ethical theories can be created to justify just
about any premise (given that present creativity is robust), so any movement that
threatens SMFS can be created in the name of any cause. Creativity is Promethean fire.

8. Speech we hate is the point upon which we can most clearly identify the difference
between the ability to speak and the freedom to speak like two rivers that split from
out of one another before merging back again and yet it is ironically this point we are
most likely not to think of as a freedom of expression, compelled by (just) revulsion.

8.1 Considering this, justice and free expression necessarily live in tension, for our desire
for justice must make us be against free expression we believe perpetuates injustice, and
yet our desire for free expression must necessarily make us favor the voicing of what
we dont like to hear.

9. Ironically, concerns about discrimination are prone to discriminate, for when we choose
to be concerned about discrimination against LGBTs, for example, we are choosing not
to focus on discrimination against the Deaf. This alone doesnt make us bigots (and is a
kind of passive discrimination versus active discrimination), but it does mean we are

10. The phrase politically correct lacks clear meaning, and is usually used to degrade versus
advance conversation. The phrase doesnt seem very useful.

11. Why are ad hominem attacks and ad hominem associations gaining such prominence today?
By this, I mean to say there is a huge increase in the number of articles with a title such
as Im a black cop: I know how the police work or Im a gay Conservative: I know
how Republican treat LGBTs. Furthermore, there is an increase in claiming that
someone is a Socialist, racist, bigot, etc., as if this functions as an argument for why
the person is wrong (a fallacy covered in Basic Math by O.G. Rose). It does not
necessarily follow that a gay Conservative has more insight than does a straight
Conservative, as it isnt the case that the Pope has more access to God than a mechanic,
and though we all know this is an ad hominem fallacy, it is still being made in mass. Why?

I believe some of it has to do with decreasing SMFS, for it leads to a feeling that its not
safe to speak, but someone who doesnt fit into stereotypes, such as a black cop or gay
Republican, is somehow protected. Since the person isnt easily boxed into an assumed
set of beliefs, we are forced to listen to the person to identify what the person believes.
Furthermore, since the person doesnt fit into a clean ideological box, its more difficult
to accuse the person of being an ideological, partisan, etc. And since the black cop or
gay Republican is protected, there is a sense that the person can say things others of us
cant, and hence that there is a higher likelihood of hearing some truth.

Were thirsty for truth.

Lastly, I believe the spreading of cynicism is making us more prone to commit ad

hominem fallacies. As everyone increasingly feels to be within a black box, as described
by Wallace at the end of Up, Simba, we are increasingly desperate to find people who
feel real and genuine to us. Those who dont fit into a clear ideological box feel like
they have a higher likelihood of being real, and hence we are attracted to those kinds of
speakers, partially out of desperation.

12. Reconciliation requires truth telling and putting the truth in the open, presenting falsities
as truths hinders reconciliation, and no one thinks that what they believe is true isnt a
truth that should be put in the open.

13. People are terrified of being labeled a bigot, racist, etc., because once so labeled, the
claim cannot be falsified, and they are stuck: no exit. This fear is intensified when the
State is in the business of ending bigotry, because once labeled a bigot, the person not
only cannot escape the label (as a person cannot earn trust from a person who chooses
not to give it, to allude to On Trust by O.G. Rose), but also because the person is
frightened of State force. Additionally, there are no clear rules on what constitutes
bigotry, and this leads to existential uncertainty; furthermore, people fear that asking
what is bigotry? in of itself can be viewed as a kind of question a bigot would ask.
Together, all this fear results in people self-segregating themselves away from those who
they feel may label them a bigot, and also makes people feel always threatened by a
sudden classification. This contributes to an existential tension that can lead to social

13.1 Similar points can be made about patriotism, for example: after September 11th, people
were terrified of being labeled unpatriotic, leading to similar tense consequences.

14. Liberal science is just too slow for our mass information age, much slower than our
hunger for justice can accept.

15. What has been said about speech can also be said about forgiveness.

16. Considering that offense is necessary for knowledge development, a society with a
strong Emotional Immune System is imperative, as discussed in The Emotional
Immune System by Adarsh Ramakrishnan and O.G. Rose.

17. When defending free speech is equated with supporting injustice, the society will begin
losing knowledge, perhaps while it believes itself to be increasingly knowledgeable
increasingly losing the capacity to tell.

18. When Conservative ideas are offensive, real knowledge will probably come from the
Right; when Liberalism is offensive, real knowledge will probably come from the Left.

19. Who decides which ideas are too obviously false/true to debate? Indeed, there are
plenty ideas that scientists, scholars, and so on have tested and know theyve tested and
hence have reason to believe they are obviously true. For these people, asking
questions about these tested ideas can be a kind of slap in the face of progress, and yet
those asking the questions may just genuinely want to understand. The problem is
though that the general public often doesnt know these ideas have been tested its not
their job, perhaps and so may constantly want to debate these premises which the
experts have already debated countless times before. This can lead the experts,
frustrated, to supporting either central powers that will silence the debate, or they can,
tired, just say the premise is true when they are asked about it. Theyve grown so tired
of explaining why that they just dont feel like explaining and arguing about it anymore,
but problematically, without explanation, the truth cant bring existential stability to the
general public. This can contribute to social unrest. Does this mean experts have to
explain ideas constantly and continually, like Sisyphus like an assembly line worker?
For our sake, perhaps so.
20. For a group to lower SMFS in the name of justice is for a group to necessarily imply
and/or claim that we are right. This claim, even when true, is always divisive (even
when for the best, in the end), for it divides a people up into right and wrong.
Considering this, all threats to SMFS are also threats to social unity, even when
threatening SMFS is a good decision. And as this mustnt be forgotten, it mustnt be
forgotten that those labeled wrong will want to return the favor.

21. The hate speech against you is always the kind that free speech isnt meant to protect.

22. Where SMFS is low, there is likely to be widespread self-censorship. This is

problematic: you never know about the words people choose not to say because they
are afraid to say them, potentially leading to data seeming to show one result but
another actually being true, groups thinking they are more supported than they actually
are, colleges thinking students feel safe when students are actually too afraid to say they
dont feel safe, and so on. Where there is self-censorship, there is likely to be unreliable
data, and also there is likely to be repressed thoughts, emotions, etc. that could bubble
up to the surface violently, spread secretly without anyone realizing it, and so on (efforts
to silence injustice may grow it inside). Where there is self-censorship, though people
may say they feel like they can feel speaking, they wont feel free to speak freely, and
where people feel trapped, they are likely to rebel.

Where SMFS is low, when asked what do you think of x?, given the topic is
controversial, people are likely to answer indirectly if at all, afraid of their life being
potentially ruined by reactions. This could create the impression people support x when
really the majority are against it; furthermore, the impression could arise that people
understand x, when really they dont and dont feel they can say I dont understand x
without facing backlash.

But isnt it good that people dont feel they can say I support Nazism, for example?
Arent there some things were glad people dont feel they can say? I would argue that
its good for (the majority of) people to not want to say I support Nazism, but that its
actually bad if people feel they cant say I support Nazism. The reason for this is
because where people feel they cant say I support Nazism, support for Nazism is likely
to grow (for Nazis are able to portray themselves as martyrs, Nazi rationalization wont
be noticed, caught, and debated away, etc.). Where there is self-censorship, perhaps
caused by those trying to genuinely make the world a better place, the world can be
threatened by a reemergence of evil.

How do we get people to a place where they dont want to say I support Nazism?
Debate, free speech what Rauch supports. But what if that fails? In this tragic world, it
always will to some degree: there will never be a world entirely without bigots.

23. If there is going to be a legal category of violent speech in a society, then determining
what falls under that category must be according to standards of falsification versus
subjective impressions. If someone says something that offends me over diner, though
it is possible the person meant to hurt me with his or her words, there is still the
reasonable possibility that it was an accident, and furthermore I dont yet have reason to
believe it was the intent of the individual to hurt me. However, if the person follows me
home and repeats the statement countless times and wont leave me alone, it becomes
reasonable to believe that the persons intent is to hurt me with words. Since it can be
falsified whether or not the person followed me home, I have a concrete standard by
which to determine if the person did indeed have the intent to hurt me with words. In
this situation, it would be reasonable to categorize the persons actions as violent

Falsification is necessary to keep the legal category of violent speech from suppressing
free speech and making people feel like they cannot speak freely. If you say x and claim
I was hurt by x, there is still the reasonable possibility that I wasnt hurt but am just
claiming I was in order to use the law against you (for some vengeful person). However,
if I tell you that I was hurt by x and ask you to stop and you keep saying x with a
growing smile on your face (which can be falsified), it is now reasonable to believe that
your intent is to harass me: what constitutes the reasonable has flipped.

If I say x that hurts you and say x every day for a week even after you told me to stop, it
is reasonable to believe my intent is to hurt you. However, if I say x once a year for five
years, its reasonable to believe I keep forgetting your admonishment. If I say x about a
general group of people, it is less likely that my intent is to hurt you then if I say x about
you in particular: if I say white people tend to harbor racist views, it is less likely that I
am trying to hurt someone than if I say you are a racist (however, it is not necessarily
the case I am committing hate speech; more evidence is needed).

The main point is that there cannot be a legal category of unintentional hate speech as
there can be a category of unintentional manslaughter (though this still has to be
defined from accident). When someone dies, there is (usually) objectively a body
proving that someone died: it is a fact that no one in particular can observe is the case;
it is the fact that no one in particular can falsify the claim x person is dead. However,
if I claim that I was hurt by statement x, only I in particular can know this is the case,
and though this might be true (and is likely so), I cannot from this feeling alone prove
intent to hurt me, only that I was hurt. Yes, this would be enough for a society that
establishes a legal category of unintentional hate speech, but it would not be enough to
make falsifiable the possibility that the person meant to hurt me with statement x. Any
society that didnt require evidence of intent to hurt with words would be a society
where people would quickly feel they couldnt speak freely.

24. If the map is indestructible, as discussed in The True Isnt the Rational by O.G.
Rose, and if an apocalyptic ideology arises and liberal science is dead, its hard to see
how we wouldnt be doomed.

What is a Judge to Do?

1. The court is where law and justice are conflated at one moment, not the next, and its
never clear when theyre conflated and when theyre not, nor which to whom.

2. Those inspired to write the Bible didnt know about Capitalism, but that doesnt mean
that the Bible has nothing to say about Capitalism. Determining if this was the case
would require neoreading, which isnt the same as misreading. Similar things can be said
about the Constitution.

3. If legislatures know that when the law is ambiguous judges will use their hermeneutic
method to interpret the law, when the majority of Supreme Court judges share the

ideology of the legislature, the legislatures have incentive to intentionally write the law
ambiguously, especially so that they can avoid blame from the public, avoid criticism, get
it through the Congress (seeing as its hard to criticize and stop what you cant
understand), and garner support (seeing as whats vague is easier for people to project
onto it what they want it to mean idealistically). Knowing how judges interpret can
influence how legislatures write laws.

4. If citizens in America feel like their freedom is threatened by the long history of court
cases that what courts have decided and that they dont understand or know about can
impact their freedom then people will not feel free. Simplicity is necessary for the
phenomenology of freedom (though that isnt to say creating an environment that feels
free isnt complex).

5. What is the nature of reason that judges can divide along ideological lines and genuinely
conclude they arent ideological (if in anything, the selection of their hermeneutical
tools, knowing that x hermeneutic would lead to y conclusion, a conclusion which they
like)? Judges genuinely think they sacrifice their subjectivity for the sake of objectivity,
and as discussed in The True Isnt the Rational by O.G. Rose, since the map is
indestructible, this is very doable, especially for those of great intelligence.

6. Is it the case that the hermeneutics a judge chooses to use says something about that
judges subjective personality? Perhaps, but it doesnt follow that the selected
hermeneutic is wrong, nor that what a judge does subjectively necessarily leads to false
conclusion. Subjective and false arent similes, nor are objective and true.

7. Does the Constitution apply to people or citizens? Perhaps here, but not there?

8. Our age of Constitutional deliberation strikes me as an endless recapitulation of the war

between the 14th Amendment and the 10th Amendment. The two can hardly exist
together, if at all. How so? is taken up in The War Between Process and Justice by
O.G. Rose.

9. If an LCer argues that LC hermeneutics are only applied after the people change to
support whatever the LC hermeneutics will bring about, then the judge still has to
accurately discern when the people change. And yes, surely courts only change after
people change, but to change through amendment isnt the same as changing through

10. Judges are at the mercy of whoever brings a case up before them: they cannot summon
whoever they want, like experts or professors.

11. Should the quality of a judge be determined relative to the hermeneutics they think
should be applied, or relative to what the law says?

12. It is natural to call unconstitutional with what you disagree.

13. It is surely a great temptation to side with the interpretation that makes everyone happy
(seeing as being depicted as a monster is never fun), and seeing as its always possible
to depict yourself as rational (seeing as the map is indestructible).

14. When a judge is appointed, we wonder what kind of Constitution will that judge write?,
and so dies judging.

15. Should we make a method of interpreting the law part of the law?

16. It is wonderful if the Constitution always agrees with us without us ever interpreting it in
our favor.

17. People agree that judges should follow the law, not their subjectivity, but when judges
rule for a horrible outcome that aligns with a horrible law, we tend to attack the judges.
We agree with following the law in the abstract, but not when it actually happens.

18. Judges arent to be the boundaries of law, but rather law is to be the boundaries of law.

19. Are justices more so lawyers or philosophers?

20. Judges are perhaps worse at being activists when they try to be activists.

21. Once a judge neoreads or misreads over the Constitution or once the Executive
Branch acts outside the Constitution to accomplish x, it is difficult to imagine x being
solved without this kind of extreme action, increasing skepticism of the Constitution
we simultaneously cherish, and hence increasing intensity between LC and OT thinkers.

22. Theologians, judges, and economists are very similar, and often search for
interpretations after deciding what x means (not that this makes the interpretations
wrong). We tend to decide our foundation after deciding our building.

23. We are happily objective when a judge sides with us and says I have to do what the law
says regardless what I want.

24. For which activists should judges be activists?

25. The point of the poem is to be beautiful.

Interpretation x is beautiful.
Therefore, the poem means x.

26. By what standard does a judge determine a text is ambiguous, and hence in need of
various hermeneutical methods to be understood? Surely it is by the judges subjectivity
that a text is deemed ambiguous there is no objective standard for what constitutes
ambiguous. Hence it is by a judges subjectivity that he or she decides it is appropriate
to apply a certain hermeneutical model to a text, a model which the person decides to
use by his or her subjectivity, relative to what the judge thinks is the best model to use.
If the judge uses multiple models, the judge decides in which order to use the models,
which can change the interpretation at which the judge arrives (consequence of
subjective choices). But again, subjective isnt a similar with false.

26.1 Should LC hermeneutics or OT hermeneutics be used to decide if a text is ambiguous

(which is different from asking if LC or OT hermeneutics should be applied an
ambiguous text)? Should it be against the dictionaries and history of the day when the
law was written or against the macro-purpose of the Constitution or law in general?

27. The more cases, the more information, etc. the more a court can justify any decision, for
at any infinity anything that can be justified can be justified. And the more I read the
dissents of various Supreme Court cases, the more I feel that any opinion can be
justified (by sincere and genuine people). And then I imagine a world where there have
been so many Supreme Court decisions that every possible interpretation is justified.

28. The judge is in whom the tension between subjectivity and objectivity is most painful.

29. Should an officer who doesnt agree with The War on Drugs refrain from enforcing
laws against drugs? What about judges? Is there such thing as a lawless judge or only a
lawless officer?

30. If law was only recorded orally, would it be less interpretable?

31. The judges that stand up for our views are heroes; those who stand against them,
members of an oligarchy.

32. Perhaps Constitutions exist precisely to keep governments from expanding their powers
for the sake of stopping unforeseen events, rather than unforeseen events being
justification for more liberal hermeneutics.

33. The power of a judge rests not so much in getting to select which hermeneutic to use
(though that is part of it), but in deciding which laws or parts of law are ambiguous

34. The question for the Founders doesnt seem to be big versus small government so
much as it was constraint versus unconstrained government. If our current size of
government was achieved by the passing of amendments that would be very different
to the Founders then if it was reached without the passage of amendments.

35. Do we have to neoread religious texts to make them work in Pluralism? Is that the
same as misreading them? Does God approve of neoreadings? Can pastors, priests, and
theologians convince the religious fairly that God does approve of neoreadings?

36. Most Americans think of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as going hand in hand.
But the more appropriate analogy is ball and chain. The Bill of Rights was a restraint
imposed on the new federal government to keep it from running out of control.A Or at
least that is how OTers thinks of the Bill of Rights, and hence are incredibly skeptical of
unenumerated rights. The debate about unenumerated and enumerated Rights can be
helpful for highlighting the major differences between OT and LT thinkers. In regard to
the Constitution, an unenumerated right is a right that can be inferred from directly
expressed rights, while an enumerated right is a right that is directly expressed.

At the time when the Constitution was being drafted, the Federalists were against
including a Bill of Rights, for they feared people would consider the list exhaustive, that
[i]t would imply that the listed rights were the only rights of Americans.B To quell their
fears, the Ninth Amendment was added, which reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people.c

Now, the question is this: [d]oes the Constitution provide any legitimate foundation for
the enforcement of unenumerated rights?.D For OTers, the 9th Amendment means that
it is possible for new amendments to be added that include newly realized rights it is
not the case that the Bill of Rights is the limit to all rights that can be added to the
Constitution. For the OTer, once a new right is added to the Constitution, then it can be
enforced, but not before. For LCers, unenumerated rights can be enforced, amendment
or not, when they are objectively, deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition.E
These rights are protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and
hence should be enforced.

Interestingly, in such cases, LC judges dont so much decide that the Constitution gives
people x right or that the Constitution makes people realize they already have x right,
but rather decide that the Constitution takes from itself the need or capacity to decide x
is a right people already have, precisely because x is a right people already have. This is
an important point: LCers dont read a right into the Constitution (as they are often
accused by OTers); rather, they read a right out of the Constitution (or to put it another
way: they read the Constitution out of the human right). Until this is understood, LCers
and OTers will continue to talk past one another.
AOConnor, Sandra Day. The Majesty of the Law. New York. Random House Trade
Paperback Edition, 2004: 59.
BOriginalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate. Edited by Steven G. Calabresi. Regnery
Publishing, Inc. Washington D.C., 2007: 115.

COriginalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate. Edited by Steven G. Calabresi. Regnery

Publishing, Inc. Washington D.C., 2007: 115.

DOriginalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate. Edited by Steven G. Calabresi. Regnery

Publishing, Inc. Washington D.C., 2007: 118.
EOriginalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate. Edited by Steven G. Calabresi. Regnery
Publishing, Inc. Washington D.C., 2007: 135.

37. Lifetime appointments when life expectancy is sixty are different than when ninety.

38. Do the just and the good always merge? What of the lawful, the just, and the

39. The meaning of language is never constant, but language written down in a particular
place at a particular time must at least be recognized as meaning what the language
meant at that time and place in addition to what it means to us now. Which meaning has
more weight depends who you ask.

40. Making judges heroes and/or villains is dangerous.

41. Alluding to Death is the Event Horizon of Reason by O.G. Rose, this paper could be
accused of engaging in apocalyptic thinking, but I would push back and claim that
apocalyptic thinking undermines arguments and reasoning, while the use of
apocalyptic hypotheticals in this paper has been used to help us grasp truth and
understand the differences between OT and LC thinking. Furthermore, I dont think the
apocalyptic hypothetical in this paper undermines OT thinking, but rather points to
potential problems with it in order to create imperative for reforming the Amendment
process. The point isnt to undermine OT or LC thinking, but to help it.

42. Judges arent activists, but their rulings may have activistic consequences.

43. The point of the Constitution was to both centralize States into a Union through a
Federal Government while simultaneously restricting the power of that Central
Government over the States.

44. Neoreading should be checked and balanced by self-criticism, but who doesnt think
they are self-critical? Furthermore, neoreading may help preserve true ignorance.

45. The conflation of misreading and neoreading has caused a lot of pain, unnecessary
dismissal, and talking past one another, as has the conflation of neoreading and
intentionally changing the text to say what you want it to say. Wanting to change the
meaning of the text perhaps motivates neoreading, but isnt what neoreading is,
seeing as neoreading is balanced by the objectivity of the text and the need to maintain
the texts internal consistency against any new thesis.

46. On the phenomenology of neoreading: while doing it, you wonder if you are betraying
the text, existentially nervous, and to many others, you are in fact misreading.

47. Understanding how Christians hermeneutically relate to the First Testament from the
Second studying thinkers from Irenaeus to Moule might shed light on how justices
like Breyer interpret the Constitution.

48. Neoreading helps end the debate of the death of the author. No, a text doesnt mean
just what the author intends, but interpretation must maintain the internal consistency
established by the author (though that doesnt mean multiple variables cant be adjusted
simultaneously). Whether a valid neoreading is equally as valid as a valid reading intended
by the author is a question for debate that will depend on who you ask. The answer is
subjective, and this is why judges of different ideologies are picked this is why there
are different English professors.

49. To know when youre neoreading versus misreading, you have to read the text and
know what it says. But if youre misreading the text, seeing as you have to know what
the text says to know you are misreading, you cant know it. Hence, if youre misreading
the text when you think youre neoreading it, you cannot know it. This is the great
hermeneutical dilemma, one that has profound implications for those who read holy
texts as well. This doesnt mean all interpretations are equal or that its not possible to
know x interpretation is better than y interpretation, but it is to say there will always be
existential anxiety.

50. What issue would arise that would seem worthy of the focus of democracy that would
not also seem worthy of judicial decision?

The (Trans)values of Justice and Love

1. Between Conservativism and Liberalism, there is a transvaluation of values that, in
people failing to identify, has greatly contributed to the chaos and speaking past one
another of modern politics.

2. The word freedom means more so to leave alone; justice, to change. Yes, it could
be viewed as an injustice to violate a persons freedom and hence a matter of justice to
leave alone someone, but in my opinion, justice isnt usually used in that way. Usually,
when people are concerned about justice, they are concerned with a failure of action,
and hence justice is more likely than freedom to be a force of positive or totalitarian
change in a nation.

3. If you believe a person who disagrees with you is perpetuating injustice versus simply
mistaken, you are much less likely to be friends with that person.

4. All unified theories that attempt to explain everything that happens in the world
through one concept, such as religion, race, genders, status, class, etc., versus a mixture
of lenses, is bound to cause misunderstandings, but if it is believed that it is unjust to
not view everything that happens in the world through a single lens, then understanding
the world will require people to risk being labeled as unjust.

5. While backed by legal force, justice is more prone to demand action of others than is
freedom. For good or for bad.

6. There is a point where those who defend the oppressed themselves become oppressors
for all the right reasons, a point where those who love become unloving out of love.

7. For good reason, those who believe x is a matter of justice are often blind to how x is
also a matter of power.

8. Justice and love might be antifragile, to allude to the thought of Nassim Taleb. If you
criticize someone who is fighting for justice, your criticism can be used as proof to the
other person that their fight is needed, precisely because you stand in opposition to it. If
you set a boundary between you and your father, that father might conclude that he
needs to love you more (as he defines best to express), using as evidence the fact that
you set a boundary at all. If someone opposes a persons justice, the person can have
evidence that he or she is (an) oppressed (minority) and hence that injustice is alive; if
someone doesnt interpret anothers love language as loving, that person has evidence
that while he is loving, his wife is hateful.

9. Those who ruin the world in the name of love and justice will not stop until the world is

10. Many personal problems are due to the fact that lovers exist in different moral
universes, longing for one another and constantly trying to help one another out of love.
Someone you love is someone you want to do the right thing for, but in existing in
different moral universes, your genuine attempts are often lost in translation. This leads
to you becoming disheartened when your acts of love are received indifferently and the
other never feeling loved, ironically. However, if you realize you exist in different moral
realms, there is hope for feelings of love.

11. To allude to The Tragedy of Us and The Creative Concord, both by O.G. Rose,
not only must we cultivate the life of the mind to properly use the (trans)values of love
and justice, but we must also do so to save us from the tragedy of ourselves and the
self-destruction of the material dialectic, from which only creativity can save us. Failing
to master thinking will lead to destruction from many sides.

12. The problem with justice is that it justifies everything by virtue of being what it is: if I
believe x group is evil, then refusing to unify and work with that group becomes just; if
I believe x group is a group of Nazis, murdering them is an act of justice; and so on.
Considering this, if I want to stop x group, seeing my actions in terms of justice is an
incredible asset: the framework justifies any means necessary, and if I fail, I fail

13. Thinking can stop or fuel the non-contingency of justice.

The Tragedy of Us
1. Does Capitalism have a tendency to destroy Non-Western cultures? Perhaps thinkers
like Edward Said, author of Orientalism, has warned that the West can misrepresent
other cultures in a manner that aids it in its Imperialistic tendencies. But I dont believe
Capitalism forces Westerners to destroy Eastern culture; in fact, its socioeconomic
success makes it possible for the West to be open to and experience the East. Before
Capitalism, tourism was must less available to the everyday person; now, traveling to far
off places isnt limited to the aristocracy. But perhaps Capitalism practically forces the
misrepresentation of Non-Western cultures, and hence destroys them through
misrepresentation? Perhaps, but Im not sure if they would survive under Socialism,
which fueled Maos Cultural Revolution.

1.1 Do note that a Randian Libertarian would be against the use of force to destroy foreign
cultures that isnt Capitalistic at all. Capitalism entails free change and contractual
agreements, and when the West forces the marketization of foreign cultures beyond
what they want, the West fails to act Capitalistic. But does Capitalism practically force a
destruction of cultural values in favor of marketization? Perhaps.

2. Like the question of art and culture, does Capitalism practically force the destruction or
mutation of religion? If Charles Murray is correct and the majority needs religion to be
moral (a pointed raised in Coming Apart), and if it is the case that morality is necessary
for freedom, then Capitalism is self-destructive.

3. As Conservatives can conserve in a totalitarian way, so Liberals can liberate in a way that
brings about totalitarianism.

4. Global Capitalism may gradually force artists, filmmakers, writers, and so on to attend
universities for credentials necessary to be seriously considered by agents, publishers,
etc., and this alone may curt the development of art and culture. I dont know if we
would have Faulkner, for example, if getting published required him to have a degree. In
other words, it is perhaps the case in Capitalism that people come to be required to
achieve credentials, and that the processes by which people achieve credentials to do x
are the processes in which people lose the capacities to do x. Again, Im especially
concerned about this in the arts, for I am of the opinion that the arts tend to consist of

personalities that are crushed under systemization and bureaucracies, often composing
accreditation processes. Not always, but often.

5. Economically speaking, it makes sense to be a Capitalistic, as culturally it makes sense to

be skeptical of Capitalism. At least in Capitalism people can choose to be cultured, but
what if Capitalism if practically forces people to lose their cultural capacities?

6. Conservatives and Liberals also disagree on what is meant by privilege; for the
Conservative, privilege implies only virtual force, while for the Liberal it implies
practical force, resulting in the two camps having profoundly different views on the
moral obligations of the State.

7. I personally believe that Capitalism doesnt essentially change us for the worst, though
despite the work of McCloskey, I do think Capitalism today can influence and/or
virtually force us to give into our base natures, destroying culture and hence Capitalism.

8. I also think the differing views on virtual force and practical force can help shed light
on the disagreements between Liberals and Conservatives on LGBT issues, and also
help explain why Conservatives find these issues often different from what was suffered
by black minorities in the Jim Crow South.

9. Each day, it becomes increasingly difficult to talk about a thing versus a network of
things, though that isnt to say the thing ever truly existed. Likewise, it becomes
increasingly difficult to discuss the economy versus the socioeconomic system,
though that isnt to say the economy ever truly existed.

10. When people have freedom, like air, since there isnt much of a system, freedom can feel
absent, while for some strange reason, perhaps because of contrast, when there is a
mixed system, people can feel freer. Then again, perhaps not.

11. When you are in a mixed market, it is impossible to tell to what degree problem x is a
State problem versus a free market problem, which makes it possible for there to be
endless debate about what is needed more of to solve x: the State or the free market.
And since a given variable can be (unrealistically) isolated from the whole system,
Gdel-esq, there will always be creative ways to argue one way or another, but that
doesnt mean all the arguments are false. Anxiously.

12. What is power? Is it the ability to make people do what you want them to do regardless
what they want? It would seem so, and Foucauldian, it would seem true power would be
to make people do x while making them think they want to do x. If a person is forced
by either power or true power, the State has a moral obligation to liberate that person,
but though it might be possible to identify when power is used, how can you tell when a
person is forced by true power to do and want x from when a person freely chooses
to do and want x? If it isnt possible (which I dont think it is), we must learn to live with
our (im)morality. Otherwise, we will pressure the State to stop what attempting to stop
will threaten the freedom of all.

13. The Liberal generally believes more regulation is needed while the Conservative
generally believes more freedom is needed, and so the two sides believe that to solve a
problem, more is needed of what the other side believes causes the problem. Its almost
funny, in the way Kafka is funny.
14. Even if its citizenship fails, a reason the State may struggle to fulfill the moral duties that
its people must address is because government programs lack a market test, increasing
the likelihood of not only error, but large-scale error that could potentially have
systematical consequences. A business is tested by the market to determine if it offers
actual value, while a non-profit can be sustained by grants even if it fails such tests. This
doesnt mean every non-profit is a failure, but it does increase the likelihood for error.

15. Freedom is morally replacing character, I believe, and self-denial is increasingly

considered good only to the degree a given person wants to self-deny. This is
paradoxical does Capitalism virtually force this change? If so, freedom internally
contradicts, perhaps just like us.

16. Can the State instill virtues in its people as can social institutions that Capitalism
practically forces into oblivion? If not and freedom requires virtues, then freedom
erodes what it requires.

17. If people are immoral and free, the system will fail.
If people are moral and free, the system will not fail.
If people are immoral and not free, the system will fail.
If people are moral and not free, the fate of the system is not clear.

Does freedom practically force immorality?

Does freedom practically force morality?

Replace morality with cultured.

18. For the State to make investments within the free market can avoid structurally changing
the socioeconomic order to a mixed market for example, the State can finance the
invention of an alternative energy source within the military (but not through a private
contractor, for then it is picking winners and losers) but once the State begins trying to
stimulate the economy through tax subsidies, for example, it has begun to mutate the
free market into something else. This could be called public entrepreneurship, I think,
and it could help to create wealth. But how can you identify what State action entails
spending within the free market versus structurally changing the free market? This
question isnt easy to answer, and if there is no answer, it might be best for the State to
stay out of the way altogether the risk for error is too great.

19. If it is the case that after the 2008 Financial Crisis the love of culture and creativity is
now growing, it could be argued that Capitalism isnt inherently contradictory that it
evolves from its mistakes and dialectically grows through response, evolution, and
continuation. And indeed, the emphasis on entrepreneurship has surged since 2008, so
perhaps there is hope for Capitalism. Unless, that is, there are within it too big to fail-
entities, which would (eventually) ruin the free market, as discussed in No Exit by
O.G. Rose.

20. If human nature is mostly bad, then whatever in Capitalism individualizes destroys
Capitalism. But perhaps human nature is mixed: perhaps one person is good and
another bad. The question is then what is the majority?, and this will decide the fate of
the freedom.

21. Deidre McCloskey argues that dignity is much of why Capitalism is successful: it
dignifies work and dignifies the everyday worker. If she is correct that dignity is a prime
reason for the success of Capitalism, than anything that threatens this dignity, threatens
prosperity. If taxes make people feel like their work isnt appreciated (say because it is
spent inefficiently, provides welfare for people who dont really need it, etc.), for
example, prosperity can be threatened (and this should be taken into consideration
whenever new taxes are proposed). The more dignity feels taken for granted, the less
meaningful it will become, as the more freedom to speak freely is threatened, the less
meaningful will be the freedom of speech (as discussed in The Specter of
McCarthyism by O.G. Rose). Furthermore, if McCloskey is correct about the
importance of dignity, no third world nation can become prosperous without first work
being made dignified.

It is possible that whenever a State enacts mixed market or State-centered

socioeconomic policies, the State inherently teaches anti-bourgeois virtues, as
McCloskey calls them, and if McCloskey is correct about the importance of these values,
State action teaches values that destroy wealth creation. At the same time, if Capitalism
tends to incubate materialism and anti-creative values, per se, then Capitalism also
incubates values that will destroy culture and cause the material dialectic to self-
destruct. Perhaps Capitalism incubates both its life and destruction simultaneously?
Such wouldnt be surprising in a world where irony is life.

22. To be good is to have to face a day when goods conflict, and perhaps a way we cope
with this reality is to create hierarchies (perhaps in line with our human nature, as
discussed in Homo Hierarchicus by Louis Dumont). By considering one thing as more
important than the other, we can help ourselves cope with the reality of having to

23. Ironically, because Capitalism is successful, it makes us forget the tragedy of us, which
sets us up to turn against Capitalism when we in our freedom, unprepared are
exposed to the reality that facing hardship, pain, etc. is inescapable. On this line of
thought, perhaps a problem with Capitalism isnt so much that it destroys culture, as it
changes culture to (comforting) entertainment, presenting us with stories that dont
force us to see clearly the Greek tragedy that is human life. And so we are unprepared
and primed to turn against our freedom in the name of freedom from tragedy, which is
freedom from life.

24. Perhaps the self-destructive forces that Capitalism incubates within itself end up
stimulating people to be creative, stopping the self-destruction before it fully occurs?
Perhaps as Capitalism destroys culture, it incentives people to be more cultured,
stopping the culture-crisis before it ever fully materializes? Perhaps the nature of culture
is to always be on the verge of collapse, and to hold this against Capitalism is to make
Capitalism responsible for the nature of culture? Perhaps something similar can be said
about community, and that as Capitalism destroys community, it incentives people to
recreate it? And perhaps these internal contradictions of Capitalism actually drive
creativity and communal reinvention?

Thats all very well and good, but what if Capitalism essentially arises to too big to fail-
entities somewhere along the way? Then Capitalism is essentially doomed, as discussed in
No Exit by O.G. Rose.

25. To say Capitalism is corrupt is to more so say people are corrupt, while saying
Socialism is corrupt is to more so say government is corrupt.

26. Perhaps a lack of encounter with, and education about, tragedy has contributed to us
lacking an emotional immune system able to handle it (to allude to The Emotional
Immune System by Adarsh Ramakrishnan and O.G. Rose).

27. Though perhaps Capitalism collapses due to its own contradictions, let us not forget that
the Soviet Union did collapse due to its own contradictions.

28. To allude to In Defense of Pedophilia by O.G. Rose, it is perhaps the case that
Capitalism practically forces a culture to become based on controversy for
controversys sake, along with a collapse of artistic literacy. If so, Capitalism practicality
forces a socioeconomic order in which the rational becomes the self-destructive.

29. Is Capitalism the best humanity can do? Perhaps not, but as we change the bathwater,
we must be careful not to throw out the baby.

30. It should be noted that Conservatives generally believe that government cant be
involved in something without the government becoming a micromanager, even though
perhaps the government doesnt intend to ultimately act this way. Likewise, Liberals
generally believe the market cant be left unregulated without forming monopolies that
are too big to fail. Both could be right.

31. The system isnt all bad, but since it isnt all good, terrible at nuance and passionate, we
will throw it out entirely. Or well keep it without question.

32. With Capitalism tends to come Capitalization: the replacement of values with market
values, culture with consumerism, and so on. As Welfare impacts the acts and values of
people, so does Capitalism: all systems impact toward-ness, for good or for bad.

33. As discussed by McCloskey, does Capitalism practically force itself to become a system
containing a Prudence only philosophy?

34. The ideal Capitalism not only provides freedom, but simultaneously educates appetites
so that citizens dont settle with base consumption. But is this ideal possible? Or does
Capitalism practically force the corruption of human appetites, regardless how hard
people try to educate appetites for the better?

35. A leader makes decisions, while a true leader makes tragic decisions.

36. It seems we are all different thinkers looking at different sides of the same tragedy of
us, being only able to circle what is already a circle.

Death is the Event Horizon

1. On the theme of threats to rationality: a society that is bored is a society that will
struggle to think well. Boredom is not so much a state of having nothing to do: a person
who lives in New York, which is full of activities, can easily be bored. Rather, boredom
is a state where an individual has lost the capacity to give significance to what he or she

does; it is a state in which a person doesnt see any point in doing one thing versus
another. A bored person, therefore, is someone who will struggle to be rational and
thoughtful, for rationality and thoughtfulness requires a capacity to give significance to
certain ends and issues which motivates thoughtfulness and rationality. In other words,
to allude to The True Isnt the Rational by O.G. Rose, where there is boredom,
individuals will not select a being true from which to define being rational. Without
the capacity to see and giving meaning, the person has no motivation to be rational and
thoughtful, and considering this, boredom threatens rationality. Boredom erases the
distinction between the meaningful and the not meaningful, and with this distinction
goes the motivation to critically think.

Significance creates reason. When I think of my mother as significant, I have reason

and/or motivation to speak to her; it becomes rational to talk to her. Bored, I lack the
capacity to accept premises from which to reason and be thoughtful, for I lack the
ability to have reason to accept premises (over others). Boredom takes from me the
ability to have a groundwork or basis for rationality. In a way, it is worse than
apocalyptic thinking, for while apocalyptic thinking changes the rules of rationality,
at least there are still rules. In boredom, there is nothing no rules. And so then if
there are real issues which threaten a society, there will be no motivation to address
those issues, and furthermore no capacity to give significance to them. As a result, the
issues will not be addressed, and the threats will not be stopped.

How is boredom overcome? Purpose and intrinsic motivation, which are hence
necessary for rationality and thinking well. How are these obtained? That is a question
for another time, but do see The Creative Concord by O.G. Rose.

2. The person who believes certain actions can result in a person going to Hell will reason
differently than the person who doesnt believe in Hell: they shall reason relative to
different rules, if you will. Failure to realize this results in people failing to realize there
are rules they need to learn if they are to talk with others in a way that makes sense to
them. Learning these rules is as necessary as learning the rules of grammar.

3. If you believe that not bailing out Greece will result in the collapse of the entire EU, you
will reason according to different rules than the person who believes letting Greece fail
will not bring down the entire EU. Perhaps it is the case that, in the long run, defaulting
would be better for Greece, but though someone may agree, if that person also thinks
Greece wont survive the initial shock, then what is best in the long run is that which
cannot be done. What doesnt kill you makes you stronger, but what kills you, kills you.

As should be clear, determining if a situation is in fact apocalyptic should be done at

the start of all debates, as the rules should be established before starting any game. If
rule-establishment is done halfway through, chaos, inefficiency, and confusion will

4. In our Age of Numbness, the one who doesnt use apocalyptic language will not be
heard (until the day when we are numb to such language as well), and in this
environment, full of people desperate to be acknowledged, apocalyptic thinking will

5. Since apocalyptic premises change the board, per se, such premises should undergo
unusually intense skepticism, perhaps what could even be called irrationally intense
skepticism. The premises could be true (and do note that to be skeptical of something
isnt the same as disbelieving it), but the premises, in so dramatically shifting the rules
of debate, must pass the strictest of standards. And yet ironically, it is precisely these
premises that will seem as if they shouldnt have to pass any standard at all: there is no
time for skepticism when the fate of the world is on the line!

Apocalyptic thinking changes the rules of debate in its favor while simultaneously
making skepticism of it absurd and even a threat to the wellbeing of humanity. This is
why apocalyptic thinking is so problematic only failure to recognize its problematic
nature is more worrisome and also why debaters love to use it: apocalyptic thinking is
virtually indestructible. And when a debater fights for what he or she believes is a just
and good cause, to use an indestructible weapon is to guarantee achieving that just and
good end. Not using it would be unjust and immoral.

On Critical Thinking
1. The reality that you cannot know you dont know unless you know should create an
existential tension within you that always motivates you to learn, question, and think
(against the current of mere thinking, the nature of which is to settle, stop, and freeze).

2. In a sense, critical thinking is being wrong versus being right (as Heideggerian terms)
it is a mode of being that questions its sense of grounded-ness in actuality, and does
so regularly.

3. As no one thinks they dont critically think, no judge thinks that he or she does what he
or she believes is right, rather than do what the law says. All thinkers, like all judges,
think they are authentic; likewise, all interpreters of a book (like the Bible), think they
interpret correctly. Otherwise, they wouldnt think, judge, and/or interpret the way they
think, judge, and/or interpret. Our eyes blind.

4. We stop searching for truth when feel like we know it for then there is no reason to
keep searching and we always feel like we know the truth.

5. What has been said about critical thinking can also be said about objectivity. To know
you lack objectivity, you would have to have objectivity; hence, if you lack objectivity,
you must think have it. Furthermore, as we experience our thinking as critical thinking,
nobody experiences their subjectivity as subjective: they experience it as objective (and
everyone elses as subjective). The experience of subjectivity is as objective necessarily,
for otherwise, you wouldnt think what you think and if you think you think
subjectivity, you experience it as objectivity true that you are subjective, which is what
you think. Hence, when it comes to getting behind our subjectivity, as with thinking,
we find our self faced with paradox and irony. But the road to objectivity is the road to
critical thinking a road you must necessarily think you travel.

6. As the number of times a person is correct increases, so decreases the probability that
the person will (continue to) critically think.

7. As with objectivity, if you are only critical about x, then you are more of a thinker than a
critical thinker, but the fact that you are critical about x will hide this reality from you,
seeing as you have evidence (to yourself) that you do indeed critically think. And since

no one can critically think about everything, we are all only thinkers, at our best when
we try to be what we can never be

8. A few months after my first draft of this work, I discovered Being Wrong by Kathryn
Schulz, in which I found many of the same ideas presented here. Schulz asks the
question how does it feel to be wrong? and notes that it feels like being right (though
realizing you are wrong feels terrible). Furthermore, Schulz points that if you want to
learn how to think, learn how to be comfortable with being wrong.

As first noted in Assuming the Best by O.G. Rose and in line with Schulzs thought, I
cannot think of anything I am wrong about, because if I thought I was wrong, I
wouldnt think the way I did. To think is to think you are right: if you think of
something as wrong, you think you are right to think of it as wrong. Empathy and
assuming the best help an individual escape this paradox, as does critical thinking, for
to think critically is to critique the way thought structures reality toward the thinker.
But even then, the paradox is hard to escape.

8.1 Education reform has been a consist theme of my work, and I think Schulz offers
further reason for why: school teaches us that being wrong is to be stupid and/or a
failure, and so trains us to never be wrong. However, since being wrong is inevitable,
school actually teaches us to avoid ever wondering if we are wrong, for that way, we
never have to give up the appearance, to ourselves and others, that we are always right
(and so never stupid and/or a failure). School teaches us to deal with being wrong by
always being right, but since that isnt possible, we learn to conceal our faults. Indirectly,
hence, school teaches us to never introspect and to never be creative, both of which
require the willingness to fail. On this note, if The Creative Concord by O.G. Rose is
correct and without creativity the economy will collapse, school contributes to the
shrinking of the artifex and self-destruction of the socioeconomic order.

Further in line with the thought of Schulz, school also teaches us to think of everyone
who disagrees with as wrong, since school has taught us to think of ourselves as always
right. Furthermore, school teaches us that people who are wrong are either stupid
(unable to think), ignorant (able to think but unaware), or evil (aware of the truth but
unwilling to believe it), and this is deadly in a Pluralistic Age. This way of thinking sets
all up to think of ourselves as superior to others and to think of others as in need of our
help. When everyone is trying to save each other though, no one can live together.

I believe school teaches us this because of how schools do grading; in fact, it may be
impossible to grade and not teach these kinds of dangerous ways of thinking. Until
schools though stop having the pressure upon them to help sort out whos going to
college (and which college: a prestigious one or not), I fear schools will never reform in
a manner that teaches us to critically thinking and to be creative. Until schools are no
longer responsible for determining who goes to college, and more pressingly, until
colleges cease to be the method by which society determines who gets which jobs,
schools will continue to be a threat to Capitalism and our globalized world. A way, I
believe, schools can be reformed can be found in Innovating Credentials by O.G.

Meaningful and Metaphoric Tendencies

1. To allude to A is A by O.G. Rose, a thing is an A is A without B, and considering
what has been said about metaphor, we have to determine which without B is the best
for us to grasp A is A. Since an A is A is always an A isnt A is A isnt A (without
B), it is perhaps because a thing already consists of a negative essence that it needs a
proper negative framing by which to grasp it as most true. A thing is an is not-ness,
if you will, and so a metaphor, which is a description via what a thing isnt, ironically,
helps us grasp what a thing is (an is not).

2. Where there is a failure to understand and cultivate good metaphor and meaning, there
can be an urge to suppress the impulse for them, via either a redefinition of what they
are (such as defining metaphor as poetic decoration and meaning as self-delusion),
or a direct disregarding of their importance. This can lead to great unhappiness, as the
suppression of meaning most certainty has, as written about by Viktor Frankl and

3. Not only can an unwilling to accept non-explanation negatively impact ourselves, but
also those around us, for if an event occurs involving a person and we are unwilling to
accept coincidence, human error, etc., we can end up imposing certain solutions
upon the person which only make the problem worse (for the individual).

4. Is there a difference between meaning and explanation? Yes and no, in the same way
that there is and isnt a difference between water and H20. Though the two make up
the same substance, they are different in how they are seen. Water hits the mind as
more poetic and sensual than H20, which comes across as more scientific and factual.
Yet, though the two expressions are different, they are indivisible: there can be no H 20
if there is no water, and vice-versa. Also, one could say H20 is an explanation, while
water is what that explanation means.

If I say the universe was created by God, it is an explanation for the origin of the
universe that entails a meaning, for the origin claims God Exists and God thinks the
universe important enough to create (along with everything in it). The explanation
entails a meaning, and in a sense, the meaning is the soul of the explanation; the
explanation, the body of the meaning. Explanation is relative to meaning, as meaning is
relative to explanation.

If a cup ends up on a table because I put it there, the meaning of (the sight of) the cup
on the table is human action has consequences, causality leads to outcomes, and so
on, and at the same time, the explanation for how the cup got on the table is that
causality works and someone wanted to put it there. To give another example: if a
painter paints a painting, the explanation for how the painting came into existence is a
painter painted it, and perhaps the painting symbolizes something about modern life. If
this is the case, then another/the explanation of the work is that a painter wanted to
paint a symbol about modern life. Considering this, explanation and meaning are two
streams that seem to merge and run together, making them indivisible, even though they
can be considered distinctly. Considering this, I think the term meaning/explanation is
a valid one.

What has meaning will have an explanation, and what has an explanation will have
meaning. Since everything ultimately has an explanation (despite human prejudice),
everything ultimately has meaning.

5. Metaphor is a means by which we can grasp complex ideas, and so a means by which we
can grasp the meaning/explanation(s) of those complexities. In such cases, our
metaphors shape our explanations/meanings, as our explanations/meanings shape our
metaphors. If we dont grasp this relationship, we wont be careful about the metaphors
we use: we wont be careful about how we create that which influences how we think
(and so influences that which leads to more metaphors). Do our metaphors shape our
explanations/meanings more than our explanations/meanings shape our metaphors?
Both, it seems.

6. Impulse for meaning/explanation can be driven by sadness and grief: if something tragic
happens, we can demand an explanation. If someone we care about dies in a car wreck,
it is natural to want to know why, but if were unwilling to accept, out of a kind of
prejudice, an explanation such as it was an accident or bad things happen, we will
struggle to ever have peace of mind. We have to learn to be able to accept explanations
that we feel arent good enough, or what isnt good enough for us may consume us.

7. To those who claim their thinking isnt shaped by metaphor, I would start by asking
them if they used words.

8. For a powerful example on how metaphor impacts how we think about reality, consider
what Thomas Merton has to say about falling in love, as found in Love and Living.
First Harvest/HBJ Edition, 1985: 2526.

9. Keep in mind that whenever there is a large State and the option for the State to do
something about problems, faced with an explanation for problems that humans have a
prejudice against (and especially where the mentality better safe than sorry prevails vs.
better wise than foolish), whenever there is an accident, there will be a demand for
State action (to make sure it doesnt happen again, to compensate the victims, etc.), even
if State action isnt the best course. This isnt to say all State action is bad, but that if we
arent aware of our tendencies to resort to it even when we shouldnt necessarily do so,
our chances of using the State well will be much less likely. In other words, our inability
to live with coincidence and non-explanation will work to grow the State and potentially
impede freedom.

10. If we cant live with coincidence, we cant live without ourselves, for we are coincidence
beings. That said, Nihilists can take it too far in saying there is only coincidence, when
reality is rather a mixture.

11. To allude to the thought of Experiencing Thinking by O.G. Rose, metaphor makes it
possible to understand some high order complexities (which otherwise would be
thought of as nothing) in low order terms (in a unique way that actually reverently
preserves their high order-ness). At the same time, we cannot forget that the high
order isnt merely our low order understanding of it, nor try to think of what actually
has no explanation (that is good enough for us) as high order complexity, for this is
just another way of refusing to live with (what we consider) non-explanation/meaning.

12. We create and search for metaphors, purposes, ideas, and explanations like a man
searching through a ring of keys to find the one that turns the lock, hoping its there.

13. We create metaphors that then make us and motivate us to see meaning where we find
meaning lacking. We shape our [metaphors], and then our [metaphors] shape us.A
AAllusion to the McLuhan-esq thought of John Culkin.

Paradoxes of Awareness
1. Globalization makes creativity and passion more imperative (as expanded on in The
Creative Concord by O.G. Rose), for the need for wealth creation as well as competing
in the global economy (and the 100 Meter Dash of globalization, as Friedman put it) is
more critical. Hence, there is an increase in the likelihood of Purpose-Awareness as
purpose becomes more imperative, which ironically can efface purpose as purpose
becomes more important. For in the globalized age, purpose will be increasingly talked
about, which can actually be a threat to purpose.

2. A moral life is a life that can learn.

3. If you want to learn your purpose, start with learning.

4. Tips for knowing purpose:

- Do all the things youve off-handedly said or thought you wanted to do.
- Learn.
- Dont be afraid.
- Be righteous.

5. Likes can distract you from your purpose: this is why the question what do you like to
do? isnt necessarily as good of a question as is what are you willing to sacrifice for
without glory?.

6. Though packing flowers may not be my passion, it enables the passion of florists in the
area this is an example of how you may not be doing your passion at work, and yet
still be working for passion.

7. A television that is assembled 99% correctly wont turn on: all the parts have to be in
place for the device to work. The same can be said for knowing purpose: everything has
to be in place.

8. Does an author write for his or her text to be interpreted (as a meaning) or to be
experienced (as meaningful)? Experience seems to entail interpretation, but does
interpretation entail experience? Perhaps, but I think rather than be so focused on what
is the right interpretation of a text, we should instead ask what is the right experience of
a text?. Artists create works to be experienced, not just interpreted, and I think our
heavy focus on interpretation can result in us missing the experience (and the
interpretation with it, ironically). If we determine the right experience, from this will
follow the right interpretation.

Dante experienced something, and from this experience, wrote a book we can interpret.
But it was primarily Dantes hope that we shared in what he experienced, however
imperfectly that may be. He primarily wanted the book to relay an experience, and used
literary mechanisms and that-which-can-be-interpreted to accomplish this goal. At the
very least, he wanted us to experience what was going on inside of his head, which was

perhaps inseparable from literary technique. I think something similar can be said about
Faulkner, Shakespeare, and others.

This isnt to say we shouldnt interpret, but that we shouldnt let our focus on
interpretation impede our being open to experiencing the text. Asking one another
how did you experience the text? is just as important as asking how did you interpret

9. We might be more focused on finding a work that makes us happy than finding what
makes us happy.

10. If you dont understand, that is precisely why you keep listening: it is not why you say
out-loud I dont understand.

11. It seemed to me that they would not be my readers but readers of their own selves, my
book being merely a sort of magnifying glass []
-In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust

12. Not wanting to talk about a subject isnt necessarily the same as not talking about a
subject, but because the brain naturally thinks in terms of intention, we cannot naturally
grasp this distinction. Non-intentional human action is inconceivable (and the fact
thinking is intentional veils this reality).

13. Passion, which is emotional but not merely an emotion, gets you through what doesnt
tickle your emotions (perhaps until emotions catch up). When you merely feel like doing
something, its not clear if it is enjoyment or passion that makes you do it: the two
blur and become indistinguishable. On the other side, if youre only doing it because
have to, its not clear if its passion or duty getting you through; again, the two blur.

14. A reason paradoxes of awareness can occur is because of the distinction between
thinking and perceiving, and conflating these only increases the likelihood of such a

15. When people answer the question do you like your job?, they usually answer relative to
the facticity into which we all thrown, but some answer simply relative to emotion
and/or the ideal. To those in the first camp, answering the question not relative to the
fact that we all have to make money is meaningless, and so they naturally consider the
question of like as relative to what is necessary. No, most people wouldnt do the job
they do if they werent paid to do it, and although technically this means they dont
actually like their job, relative to a world in which money is a reality and we all have to
deal with the cards we are dealt, they do in fact like the solution they have found to the
problem of how to make it. They are at peace.

Again, if money wasnt an issue, most people wouldnt do the job they are doing: they
would be horse trainers, skiers, musicians, etc. However, since money is an issue, people
do other things, and at peace with the way of the world, these individuals are able to
like these others things, but it should not be forgotten that this like is in the context of
the facticity of the world. This doesnt mean the like is insincere, but adaptive and, in a
way, tragic.

All of us should seek the job of our dreams, but this doesnt mean we should sacrifice
the job that will sustain us for the job that is our ideal; rather, this means we should take
the job that we can like and that addresses our facticity while toward our ideal job,
per se.

Listed from worst to best are the states of work a person can be in:

5. In a job you dont like while not toward any ideal job.
4. In a job you dont like while toward an ideal job.
3. In a job you like while not toward an ideal job.
2. In a job you like while toward an ideal job.
1. In an ideal job.

For those who fall into category one, all is well most of us are living in the other four
categories. Until the first category is achieved, I would encourage you to accept nothing
less than category two, for you have control over this, while getting your dream job isnt
always in your (immediate) power.

Defining Evidence
1. Studies give an appearance of telling us more than they do, of providing certainty when
they provide possibility, of speaking universality when they hardly even speak

2. Evidence does not wear on its face the right definition of the case it is to be toward
(though it often strikes us as if it does, the definition already being set in our minds).

3. The amount of inflation in a system, public satisfaction with government, the number of
unhappy marriages, etc. all of this can be made to look as if they are improving or
falling apart by simply shifting a definition.

Incentives to Problem Solve

1. When things are good, bad things stand out; when things are bad, bad things dont stand
out. And so it is precisely amongst goodness that badness can feel the most bad, and
it is in this kind of circumstance that we are very likely to be susceptible to Emotional
Judgment and the Paradox of Judgment, as warned about by O.G. Rose.

2. A broken school system full of heroes will be a system that seems to change more lives
for the better than a school system that isnt broken that maintains a high quality of
academic achievement. A system where kids make Bs from Cs is a system that will feel
as if it makes more of a difference than one in which kids come in making As and leave
making As. But at the same time, a system where kids come in making Cs and leave
making Cs will feel similar in regard to how much of a difference is being made to the
one where kids come in making As and leave making As.

3. Metaphysical phenomenon can have physical causes, as physical phenomenon can have
metaphysical causes. Phenomenon can be physical, metaphysical, and (meta)physical.
Without the physical, there could be no recognition of the metaphysical, as without the

metaphysical, the physical would be without recognition. And in the (meta)physical, the
two are confused together.

4. Rationality driven by problem-solving over problem-prevention is rationality that may

drive a free market into the ground.

5. Evidence of our reality prejudice and how difficult it is to be metaphysically confident

can be glimpsed in how a scientist can say we dont need philosophy and we respect his
opinion, while we laugh out of the room the philosopher who claims we dont need

6. Our prejudice against the metaphysical in favor of the physical is somewhat ironic,
seeing that we are mostly surrounded by (in)animate objects versus inanimate objects,
a distinction elaborated on in On Consciousness, Creativity, and Being by O.G. Rose.

7. Some of the consequences for failing to overcome our reality prejudice were listed in
this work, but I also believe our reality prejudice works against our willingness to
explore creativity, to forgo high order complexity, to give into Emotional Judgment,
and more, as elaborated on in the works of O.G. Rose.

8. Philosophy that problem-solves over problem-prevents fails to make as strong of a case

for its necessity alongside science as does philosophy that problem-prevents over

9. A person can use the word reform to mean remove as a person can use the word
remove to mean reform to determine what it is actually meant, abstract discernment
is needed.

10. To use the language of A is A by O.G. Rose, what we experience as (an) A is A

(physicality) can train us to not think of ourselves as (an) A/(A-isnt-A) is A/(A-isnt-
A) (without B) ((meta)physical). Furthermore, we are prone to forget we communicate
and think via abstraction, and hence to forget the role of abstraction when considering
problems and reality (as warned by Alfred Korzybski).

11. Regardless of their validity, emotional cases will probably have an advantage over non-
emotional cases when it comes to which cases people choose to take up (through their
you), seeing as rationality comes after a case is taken up. This isnt to say what is
emotional is necessarily false, but that what is emotional will have a vividness other
equally valid cases lack.

12. An exclusively empirical society that says we dont have enough data is also a society
that, once it decides to do something (such as to establish public education, illegalization
of drugs, etc.) as picked through some you will try every possible version of it before
trying something entirely new, with each possible variation getting perhaps ten years of
testing time before anyone can speak objectively about it. And so reform will probably
happen and keep happening indefinitely.

13. State power can be used to problem-solve, and in these instances, incentives air on the
side of State intervention.

14. It is possible that the State is fundamentally a problem-solving institution versus a
problem-preventing institution, precisely because people dont tend to vote for people
on issues that are yet to become, in fact, issues. Furthermore, the problems that
politicians prevent are the problems that no one experiences to know they should vote
for the politicians for preventing those problems. Perhaps citizens can suppose
politicians did something good (though this confidence is experientially indivisible from
delusion), but citizens dont have to suppose the one who solves a problem did
something beneficial for the country: its a matter of fact. Lastly, the State intervenes
where force is needed where the freedom of free exchange is inadequate and it
doesnt seem as if force is preventive in nature as much as it is solution-orientated. I
dont mean to say the State cant be a problem-preventer, only that it seems to me to be
more orientated toward problem-solving.

15. A person who is perceived as not having preferences is often called laid back, as if
being without preferences comes naturally to the person, while the stubborn person
who expresses preferences and then overcomes those preferences is thought of as dying
to self. The one thought of as laid back, however, perhaps had to fight hard to not let
his or her preferences get the best of him or her, but because the person does so well at
being selfless, no one appreciates what the person has done: others dont see anything
happening. Hence, the problem-solver is rewarded; the problem-preventer, overlooked.

15.1 A society with an Extrovert Ideal, as Susan Cain writes on, might be a problem-solving
society more so than a problem-preventing society.

15.2 The bias toward problem-solving over problem-preventing effects personal

relationships as well. For example: someone is incentivized to be accommodating
toward someone who gets upset when things arent the way the person likes (the
incentive being keeping the person happy), while one is less incentivized to
accommodate the person who doesnt voice his or her preferences, but rather internally
deals with them (introverts, for example, who tend to silently cope, may notice this bias
toward extrovert verbal coping, which can be frustrating). This creates a bad incentive
structure, where people are rewarded for not learning to deal with and overcome their
preferences, while those who do are treated with less consideration. For the one who
internally copes, no one sees the person struggling to overcome his or her wants
and/or desires, and no one may realize the person fought this battle. However, people
do see the person who voices or expresses his or her preferences overcoming them
(assuming they are overcome), and so that person can come to be treated more nobly
than the one who internally copes. Gradually, this can lead to people not working to
keep problems from becoming problems, but rather just solving problems once they
come around. This is alright until one of those problems is irreconcilable once it
becomes a problem, and I fear this is how many families and marriages fall apart.

15.3 This also can contribute to the formation of a paranoid environment in which
everything is assumed to be a problem.

15.4 Likewise, I fear we are incentivized to be Emotional Judgers (as warned about in
Emotional Judgment by O.G. Rose), to worry and fear (admonished in Concerning
Epistemology by O.G. Rose), to always speak (discussed in On Words and
Determinism and Inception, Discrimination, and Freedom, both by O.G. Rose), and
other, detrimental tendencies.

16. To allude to the thought of Scripted by O.G. Rose, society favors preventive
measures for which there is a social script, but gravitates toward problem-solving
where there is no such script. The society favors exercise, because we as a collective
conscious agree exercise is important, but when it comes to other preventive measures,
we arent so favorable. And even though we do acknowledge the importance of exercise,
we still pay and honor doctors with social status over physical trainers, so even when
there is a supporting script, metaphysical confidence is usually weaker (though this
isnt to say there is never any truth to a social script, only that such scripts threaten to

17. When it comes to problem-preventers, its much harder to know who to thank, than
when it comes to problem-solvers.

18. Does vividness of problem x increase to a person as does that persons feeling that he
or she can solve problem x? Perhaps, but why does a person feel he or she can solve
problem x instead of problem y? The very fact a person feels this way can in fact be a
consequence of vividness, ever-intensifying the vividness.

19. If one person becomes passionate about a topic during a conversation with another
person, for example, the other person who doesnt feel this passion may be off-put and
confused by this emotional display, and, not experiencing the same vividness of the
topic, conclude the person is becoming emotional because he or she lacks evidence for
his or her case evidence, by the way, that the person cant see, having not taken up
the case to see the world and evidence through, and so the person has reason to believe
objectively that the person is becoming emotional because he or she lacks evidence.
Someone who doesnt feel the same vividness as another must be careful not to judge
someone who is emotional as irrational, and at the same time, those who are passionate
must be careful not to be upset at someone for not seeing what is vivid to them, a
frustration that is difficult to resist falling into, precisely because (seemingly) the truth is
so obvious.

20. Because of how we are rationally and empirically walled off in the closed loops
(ideologies) we choose to step into, we require people to teach themselves more than
we can teach them, for the change to a more true and new case (ideology and/or
being true) has a much higher likelihood of working through an internal change and
conviction than in the space between people trying to change one another (and
considering this, if a culture struggles to think well, it is unlikely it will ever come to do
so). Arguably, all changes to a new case are ultimately an internal matter, even if
stimulated by externalities).

21. The one who problem prevents is an individual who doesnt truly allow evidence to
come into existence verifying the problem exists. Unfortunately, this means it is possible
for someone to claim he or she is a problem preventer when the person actually isnt,
using the negative space to justify his or her self and the actions that individual wants
to implement. We must be aware of this possibility.

22. It is possible that this paper could be helpful when it comes to the conversation about
gun rights. We cannot see the violence that owning guns prevents, for we cannot see
which criminals decide not be criminals in fear of the presence of guns in peoples
homes. However, we do see the violence carried out with guns, and hence are likely to
be under the impression that guns do more harm than good, for relative to what we
observe, this is indeed the case. And yet gun violence can function as evidence both
that guns should be removed and that guns should be more widely owned, for perhaps
if everyone had a gun, there would be less crime? Which case is it? Perhaps guns do in
fact do more harm than good, but if we are to be discerning about this, we must be
discerning about how difficult it is to discern.

23. Just the (phenomenological) way reality is makes us orientated to problem-solve over

24. Reality prejudice also contributes to procrastination: the further something is away, the
harder it is to make it motivate us.

25. In line with what this paper has said about vividness toward which The
Heart/Mind Dialectic is naturally directed consider: how many protests have there
been to stop ISIS versus stop racism? Certainly, racism in America needs to end and
there is no excuse for how minorities have suffered under the government, but ISIS is
estimated to have killed over twenty-thousand citizens by the UN. Shouldnt there at
least be as many protests against racism as there are against ISIS, not necessarily to
militarily invade, but to stop them? Why there isnt perhaps can be explained by the fact
that racism in America is more vivid than terrorism in the Middle East: since America
is wealthier socioeconomically than the Middle East, problems in America stand out to
us more so than in the Middle East. This drives our passions and motivations in a way
that isnt necessarily unjust, but that can be blinding. As we fight for justice, we mustnt
lose sight of all injustices.

26. To allude back to the hypothetical debate about home-schooling, it isnt the case that
youd have to measure the same student staying home versus going to public school
(which is impossible due to the pesky limits of spacetime) in order to make a study
compelling, only to be certain (but then of course, we have to debate what exactly
constitutes certainty). This is similar to the Humean induction problem Popper tries to
overcome by introducing his criteria of falsification the point being that it is very
difficult to jump from compelling to certain (though that isnt to say it can never be

If a person really wants to believe x is bad, seeing as there is a gap between compelling
and certain, that person can always find space and doubt by which the person can
preserve his or her ideology, and do so in such a manner by which the person can
genuinely make his or her self believe that he or she isnt persevering his or her ideology
(especially if the society allows the person to get away with that kind of reasoning, if not
support it).

Do note, this paper isnt trying to critique scientists or scientific methods I believe
most whom are truly acquainted with science are humbly aware of the epistemology
problems they heroically work to overcome but rather how people culturally use
(supposed) science and scientific methods to legitimize or delegitimize claims. The
public uses what could be called hard empirical standards, using what allows a person
to always discard cases the person doesnt want to be true.

27. As hard empirical standards can threaten human dignity, it is also the case that
completely discarding epistemological methods can also threaten human dignity, for

without them, humans are susceptible to superstitions and untested ideas, and humanity
will struggle to accumulate human knowledge and progress.

28. The quest for perfect [evidence, certainty, proof, etc.] is profoundly utopian. Like all
such quests that ignore human realities, it points the way to dystopian nightmare.A
AAllusion to Feminists want us to define these ugly sexual encounters as rape. Dont let
them. by Cathy Young, as can be found here:

The Death of Process

1. The act of searching for a rational argument for why marriage should only be defined as
between a man and a woman or for a rational argument for why the definition should be
expanded, the act of searching for a rational argument for why racism is on the decline
or on the rise, etc., is not the same as claiming marriage should be between a man and a
woman or racism is on the decline. Searching for an argument isnt the same as taking
a stand. Perhaps the reason a person looks for a rational argument for a certain position
is because that person believes in that position, but the beliefs of an arguer neither
makes an argument valid nor invalid. The argument has to be examined on its own
terms. Perhaps it is the religious convictions of a person that make that individual search
for a philosophical, non-theological argument against LGBT marriage, but that doesnt
make the rational argument any more or less true.

2. Appeals to studies and science can also be appeals to process which can be associated
with disbelief. Such empirical methods are important and necessary, and appeals to
them are common in modern debate and argumentation. However, we have to be
careful that we dont begin thinking by empirical methods exclusively, the pitfalls of
which are expanded on in On Defining Evidence and Incentives to Problem Solve,
both by O.G. Rose.

3. Thought processes have died with process in general: the death of skepticism and the
death of process are chapters in the death of thought and philosophy. If I ask why go
to college?, for example, it is now assumed that I am saying I dont want to go to
college, rather than inquiring into what college is for and its merits. If we cannot think
through things without being against them, thought is dead, and with thought goes
meaningful and functioning life.

3.1 Similarly, the death of process can also impact personal relationships: if a married
couple, for example, thinks that talking through a decision is to be against the
decision, the couple will likely fight constantly.

3.2 As with structure, where intellectual processes die, emotional processes replace them.

4. This paper doesnt propose for people to not act, but for people to think before they
act, and to act in such a way that doesnt entirely erase process. This paper inquires on
how we should act against how we perhaps feel or want to act.

5. If the concerns of Equality and Its Immoral Limits by O.G. Rose are valid, the death
of process will contribute to those concerns comes to fruition. The State will be
appealed to, and this will lead to costly existential uncertainty in unforeseeable ways.
Perhaps there are instances in which that is a good and necessary risk, but with the
death of process, the chances we will be discerning about when such is the case is much
less. Do note here that an appeal to the free market or States rights can be an appeal
to a process that not only addresses socioeconomic problems, but also changes hearts.

6. If a quick solution doesnt fix, or only temporarily fixes, a problem, but the slow
solution completely addresses the problem, the slow solution is superior.

7. Weve become so cynical that weve lost the ability to believe that appealing to a process
isnt the same as appealing to a position.

8. Because bureaucracy has grown significantly, the amount of time a judicial process takes
has significantly lengthened, and this in itself has contributed to the death of process,
for when people want justice, naturally and understandably, they want just now.

9. Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke is a case study on what

happens when rational and justified longings for justice overcome and erase necessary
but corrupted processes and systems. All should read it, especially those passionate
about justice, as all should be.

10. The due process of law cannot survive, except in symbol, in a country where process is

11. It is very difficult to avoid suspending thinking for the sake of justice.

Experiencing Thinking
1. As we have a bias toward intention thought versus unintentional thought, we also have a
bias toward intentional action. When it comes to problem-solving, we are therefore
primed to act directly to solve the problem, when such intervention may not actually be
the solution. It depends, but if we arent aware over how mental bias against the
unintentional and high order complexity/causality, our chances of being discerning will
be less.

2. Both low order and high order causality/complexity are necessary: this paper doesnt
desire to establish a hierarchy. We need equality between them and an appreciation of
both, not ranking. But this will be difficult for us, given our natural tendencies.

3. Liberty is a higher order system: individual entities are left to their own devices without
an over-arching system directly organizing their actions (and so translating high order
complexity to low order complexity). Whether liberty is better than management is a
different question; the point here is only that freedom entails high order complexity.

As Concerning Epistemology by O.G. Rose argued that liberty naturally yields before
fear since fear is natural and a self-justifying system, liberty also naturally yields because
people naturally ascribe to low order causality/complexity/system over high order. In
other words, there is a natural orientation away from liberty toward central planning,

one that is perhaps only checked and balanced or corrected by a nations history,
legacy, religion, etc.

The yielding of liberty is accelerated by the education system, which naturally comes to
favor low order complexity, seeing that high order complexity is less natural, cannot be
systemized, and cannot be (easily) graded (similar to how education moves away from
creativity, as expounded on in The Creative Concord by O.G. Rose).

3.1 What comes naturally is what comes without effort and that is only avoided with effort.
If the majority will also head in the direction of less effort, than, overtime, all things that
are natural will occur. Unless fate can be defied.

4. Religion may help individual ascribe to high order complexity even if they dont
understand it or any of the thoughts presented in this paper. People believed in high
order complexity through religion not necessarily because they understood it, but
because they ascribed to the religion (and then came to understand it). Religion can be
used to teach people to be ignorant, but it can also teach individuals to believe in
something that they dont understand and then work into understanding, rather than
only believe in what they can understand outright. As Cardinal Newman talks about
how we can ascent to the truth that a Shakespeare sonnet is beautiful before we
understand it (and then come to understand it, motivated by the beauty), so we can
ascent to the truth and validity of high order complexity before we come to understand

Religion teaches people to seek truths in a mode that they are true before they know
they are true, only coming later, after the skeptical process in that mode, to decide the
truthfulness of the ascribed-to-truths. In this way, not only does religion teach people to
give high order complexity a chance, but it also teaches people, perhaps coincidentally,
the lessons presented in Assuming the Best by O.G. Rose, lessons similar to those
Isaiah Berlin offers us on verification when he tells that, when our friend tells us its
raining outside, we know what the statement means before we go and verify if it is
raining the statement has meaning before verification (though perhaps we disagree
with that meaning afterwards). But if we will only go see if it is raining once it is verified
to us that it is raining outside, we shall never carry out the process in which we can learn
what is true (which, ironically, would make it seem as if were right not to believe).

Considering all this, it is perhaps not by chance that liberty and religion tend to go
together, as do Atheism and Central Planning. This, of course, doesnt mean religion is
true or necessary for freedom (though it might be), but that religion has perhaps had
unintentional consequences that are beneficial for grasping and allowing high order

4.1 It should also be noted that, though religion has been used to cause great evils, most
religions tend to favor morality, and morality, dynamically and organically, thorough
high order complexity, organizes the majority via free will to act in a manner that
stabilizes and benefits the society, making central control or large States unnecessary.
Though, on the other hand, as morality wanes (perhaps due to a loss of religion),
immorality can make central control arguably necessary.

4.2 Considering all this, it is perhaps not by chance that a society that loses religion is a
society that becomes less and less accepting of high order complexity, and so less free
and even creative.

4.3 Believing what you dont understand isnt always a vice.

5. The humanities and arts might not seem as important as math and science, in the same
way that high order complexity might not seem as concrete or relevant as does low
order complexity. This isnt to say math and science arent complex and different or to
suggest the humanities and arts are more important, only to say that they are different
and that our minds might favor and grasp one over the other. Likewise, we may have a
bias toward straight talk over indirect talk, though that isnt to say straight talk isnt
often needed and that we dont often need more of it.

6. We may have a natural desire for there to always be intention even where it isnt (as we
may have a natural desire for meaning and design). If this is the case, we may, without
our realizing it, see intention where it isnt, causing us to misread high order complexity
as low order complexity, priming us for misjudgment. That isnt to say there is never
intention, meaning, or design, but that we must be aware of our tendencies to
misunderstand the world.

7. It would seem that there is sexism, racism, and discrimination that is intentional and
also that which is unintentional, and a society that doesnt make this distinction may
read intent to where it isnt, consequently misreading situations and potentially causing
misunderstandings and unnecessary conflicts. Furthermore, the society may damage its
capacity to overcome these hard realities of discrimination, and try to fix the problems
in ways that worsen them.

8. One of the great dilemmas is that high order complexity appears and/or looks like no
order complexity that the one who ascents to high order complexity looks like the
one who rationalizes meaninglessness. How do you tell the difference? Its very hard,
and without critical thinking (as defined in On Critical Thinking by O.G. Rose), it
might be impossible. And so a society without critical thought might have no hope.

9. Our natural bias against high order complexity results in us having a bias toward
sensualization (as defined and discussed in Sensualization by O.G. Rose), for the
metaphysical is indefinite, uncertain, and a high order complexity.

10. As thinking conceals perception from us (as discussed in On Thinking and Perceiving
by O.G. Rose), low order thinking conceals high order thinking, for the act of
considering high order complexity is the act of translating it into low order complexity.
To consider is to conceal.

11. Low order causality: a billiard ball hits another and the second moves.
High order causality: a billiard ball hits another, the second moves, you remember that
time you played pool with your sister, and think about that story about her you wanted
to write.

12. If not discerning, to manage, intervene, and even consider, can be to translate high order
causality into low order causality.

13. It should be emphasized again that high order causality isnt a phrase that is meant to
imply any kind of superiority to low order causality. There is no hierarchy; both are
vital. Instead of the phrase high order causality, one could just as easily say abstract
causality or indirect causality, as one, instead of low order causality, could say
concrete causality or direct causality.

14. The bias against high order complexity can be highlighted by our openness to the idea
of abolishing philosophy from universities (as supported by Stephen Hawkins, for
example), but not mathematics.

15. An empirical society, or a society that considers empirical data the most valid, will
probably be a society that favors low order complexity/causality (over high order

16. Institutions that encourage thinking may unintentionally encourage low order
complexity/causality (over high order complexity/causality), as school unintentionally
encourages analytical thought over creativity.

17. Humans tend to dismiss as non-order any order that the designer has to be present for
us to realize (via explanation).

18. A person who is called scattered-brain might just someone who thinks in terms of
high order complexity, or someone who isnt thinking coherently at all. The paradox is
that the high order thinker often appears the same as the non-order thinking, creating
existential uncertainty (which the non-order thinker may use to justify his or her lack of
thought, or which the high order thinker may consider as evidence that he or she isnt a
stronger thinker at all).

19. To appeal to experience over intellect can be an appeal to high order complexity, which
can seem like an appeal to nonsense to the intellectual (especially the intellectual who is
in position to gain power).

20. Creativity is a high order causality that immediately changes into, and vanishes behind,
low order causality, as perception that is thought about seems to vanish behind the
thought (as described in On Thinking and Perceiving by O.G. Rose). Considering
this, a creative society requires both an understanding of low order and high order
complexity, but unfortunately it is probable that a society will be biased toward low

21. In line with the thought presented in Rewarding Discrimination by O.G. Rose, State
action is likely where there is a bias toward low order complexity, and as a result of this
action, the State grows and becomes increasingly a high order complexity. Yet, unlike
high order complexity (like creativity), State high order complexity is paradoxical, for
it tends to be motivated by, operate according to, and only capable of thinking in, lower
order complexity. Hence, the State is a high order complexity that is inefficient.

21.1 Where there is no distinction made between low order complexity and high order
complexity, it will be more difficult to articulate and understand this problem of the

21.2 The natural orientation of the human and brain favors the State over free exchange and
individual action. This is because the human is toward and/or favors low order
complexity over high order complexity, for the later is, virtually by definition,
unobservable, and so in a sense inconceivable and irrational (though it might be rational
to those who assent to high order complexity over their natural leanings). High order
complexity requires assenting to what can only be abstractly known and what entails
less control: though you can control if a billiard ball moves by hitting it with another
billiard ball (low order causality), you cannot control whether hitting the billiard balls
together makes you come up with a new idea for a battery charged by motivation (high
order causality).

The brain favors what it can conceptualize and control, by virtue of being a brain (that
which thinks). This doesnt mean the brain cannot develop an openness to the
unknown, but that this takes work. Yes, in a sense, creativity is a kind of lack of
control, but I would point out that when an artist paints, he or she has control over
what is produced and imagined, even though he or she may not have control over what
creatively emerges from out of nowhere to inspire the creative expression. In this sense,
being creative still entails a translation of high order complexity into low order
complexity, and though it is more high order than pure analytical thought, it is not as
high order (relative to you) as say the freedom of another individual whos
consciousness you cannot access.

The other requires the individual brain to assent to more high order complexity than
does the creative act (though this isnt to imply creativity isnt high order). Considering
this, a society that doesnt even incubate an understanding of creativity is unlikely to be a
society that handles the even higher complexity of the other. Furthermore, it is unlikely
the society be one that allows freedom to remain free (and so a matter of high order).
A society that fails the lower challenges is unlikely to succeed at the higher ones.

To leave the other alone to keep the State from intervening on the freedoms of
individuals, for example is to resist the urge to translate high order complexity into
low order complexity. This urge exists because the brain naturally desires to
understand, and assenting to the validity of freedom is to allow others to do that
which you have no control over (and so that which you cannot predict, understand,
and/or conceptualize). Furthermore, the brain naturally values initiative and/or action
(which translates high order into low order), and this too benefits the State and its
growth. The brain is wired to desire State involvement, and to maintain that
involvement and to give it the benefit of the doubt. This doesnt mean that State action
is never the right course, but that if we dont recognize the orientations of our brain, our
ability to be discerning will be less.

22. Jazz, like much of black culture, strikes me as high order complexity (as expanded on
in Cypher Mentality by O.G. Rose and Bernard Hankins), and this is a reason I think
it was once argued whether or not Jazz was real music when it first started.
Improvisation is also high order complexity, and something that if just dont get it, its
very hard to explain. Often the word it is used to describe that which is constituted by
high order complexity, but if you dont get it, I cant explain it to you.

23. It is very difficult to collect high order complexity data; as far as I know, humans have
no means for gathering it. Considering this, a culture that is focused on data gathering
(for whatever reason: perhaps to keep track of how much police brutality is happening,
to keep track of non-profit work, etc.) is a culture that may not incubate high order
complexity well. If data is required to justify action if a program that cant provide
certain results will be canceled consequently action that consists of or produces high
order complexity will be action that is discontinued. Considering this, a culture that is
data-driven will be a culture that struggles to finance and perpetuate creative institutions,
seeing that those institutions operate efficiently in terms of high order complexity.

23.1 Also, if people are aware that data is being collected about them and that the data
collectors are looking for certain kinds of data, those people may be incentivized to
avoid high order complexity or to make it low order complexity, even when that is
inefficient and threatens creativity. In this way, the act of collecting data can change how
the data is created (and so change what is objectively the case). If humans learn that
human action creates data, humans may change how they act to create better data, even
if that action doesnt create better results.

24. Because humans are creatures of low order complexity, humans are primed to
standardize, to create lists, to generalize, to summarize, and to transposition high order
complexity into low order complexity. We must be aware of this if we are to keep
ourselves from making the world simpler than we can to still understand it.

25. One may note that a person could call anything a high order complexity relationship,
when in fact there is no connection whatsoever, and so the phrase high order
complexity/causation could be used to justify nothingness and/or false premises. This
is a fair point, and so we must be careful how we use the phrase. At the same time, high
order causality does exist, and so we much acknowledge its presence when its there;
furthermore, we must learn to cultivate the ability to discern its presence.

26. The motives of those who ascribe to high order complexity are easier to question than
those who ascribe to low order complexity, because what is high order cannot be
directly experienced, and so easier to question, while the low order entails directly-
experienced phenomenon and events, hence not creating space in which it can be

27. As brought to my attention by Shegufta Razzaque, the term high order complexity can
be associated with emergent phenomena and thought of in light of Systems Biology.

28. High order complexity causes more existential uncertainty and tension than low order,
and this may contribute to a leaning toward science over the humanities hard science
over soft science.

29. High order complexity hides behind/in low order complexity, as Being hides being/in
being(s) (to allude to Heidegger). We know high order through the low order: we
know of it through that which hides it.

30. What makes the world work is high order complexity, but we are low order
complexity beings.

30.1 This is why Democracy self-destructs: the majority votes according to low order
complexity, and through time, it is only a matter of probability that they increasingly
vote against high order complexity that benefits and sustains the society, the damage
increasingly compounding.
31. To realize a high order system isnt being grasped by an intellectual, an economist, an
expert, or etc., youd have to be able to think in terms of high order complexity, which
humans can only handle up to a very limited point. Lacking dynamic conceptualization,
and confronting the low order evidence being presented by the intellectual, the
economist, the expert, etc., as proof that he or she does fully grasp the high order
system, you have reason to think that he or she is right. Like the intellectual, you cannot
grasp a high order system, and hence cannot fully grasp what the intellectual doesnt
understand to make a case that the person lacks full understanding; you cannot create
linear evidence that will satisfy staunch empiricism which will prove there is high order
complexity which the person doesnt grasp. When asked for evidence that high order
complexity is being misunderstood, you will be unable to provide it, and so prone to fall
for the tricks of those who claim to grasp the dynamic.

32. It is possible that introverts are more high order while extroverts are more low order,
which would help us understand why we live in an Extrovert Ideal society, assuming
the thesis of Susan Cain in her book, Quiet.

33. Tragically, technology increases and spreads our capacities to translate high order
complexity into low order complexity, contributing to our (mis)understanding of the

34. When high order complexity is translated into low order complexity, the fact this
translation/hiding occurs is hidden from us in the act of translation/hiding: the act of
hiding is also hidden. Hence, we have no reason to think we translate/hide high order
complexity; hence, we have no reason to think we (mis)understand.

35. On the topic of discrimination as also brought to my attention by Shegufta Razzaque

I think it is the case that most discrimination, implicit bias, oppression, etc. (at least
today) are a result of high order complexity more so than low order complexity, and
seeing as human brains struggle with high order complexity and tend to automatically
understand it in low order terms, this contributes to our failure to understand modern
oppression and to think of it in terms of individual agents (which can make people
defensive and miss the paramount problem). At least today, it isnt so much that people
actively oppress (low order) as it is that people act dynamically and organically in such a
way that oppression occurs without any direct center (high order). The oppression isnt
found in the acts of a single agent so much as it is found in the collective; to reduce the
oppression down to the acts of agent is to look where the oppression will not be found.

This being the case, failure of society to understand oppression and discrimination in
terms of high order complexity has contributed to people looking for oppression
where it cannot be found, seeming to give them objective reason and evidence to think
that oppression and discrimination dont exist today. Humans naturally think only in
terms of low order, and when they encounter a high order concept, they instantly
translate it into low order terms, confusing themselves. When discussing racism in
America today, we are mostly discussing a high order event, but in failing to have that
language, we can only think of it in low order terms.

Lastly, I believe institutional discrimination incubates discrimination, that the high

order activity described here is primarily a result of institutional agents more so than
individual agents, for the individuals are dynamically and organically oriented by the
institutions. What constitutes those institutions is a different question, and it is possible
some of them were created for the very purpose of helping end oppression.

35.1 This understanding of discrimination as an emergent phenomenon may help

Progressives and Conservatives find common ground, seeing that it is virtually the same
language used to describe how the free market works, at least from a Hayekian view.

36. We tend to call nonsense what is non-sense-able, and that makes us bias toward low
order complexity. If our five senses cant experience it, we think it doesnt exist. Since
we cant sensually experience the order of the books on the shelf (from section four of
this paper), we tend to say there is no order the order doesnt exist. Granted, perhaps
what we cant sense is non-sense, but that doesnt mean it is false. There can be reality
to what is non-sense.

37. If it is the case that racism, sexism, etc. can only be overcome by high order
complexity, than overcoming these discriminations is unnatural for low order humans.

38. What can (seemingly) provide low order versus high order solutions to problems is
not only that which will be (seemingly) rational to use, but it will likely be that which
alone seems to offer solutions, seeing as high order solutions transcend conceivability.

39. How do you identify something as that which cannot be known? What is the
intelligible method by which unintelligibility can be identified? In other words, what is
the low order method by which high order complexity can be identified as high order
complexity (seeing as low order naturally translates high order into itself)?

40. There is always risk involved in engaging with high order complexity, as there is always
risk involved in engaging with what you dont understand. The higher the high order
complexity, the greater the risk, and yet we are ill-equipped to identify high order
complexity, let alone various levels of it. We should be aware of our limits; perhaps that
will help.

41. Could intellectuals call something that is low order a matter of high order complexity
to get away with being the only ones who understand it, hence giving themselves
monopolistic value? Absolutely, but that doesnt mean high order complexity doesnt
exist it means we must be wise and discerning ourselves, to avoid being deceived by
those who perhaps dont even realize they are deceptive.

42. Unlike low order complexity, people can choose to disbelieve in high order complexity
without being in denial, only in ignorance (note that they wouldnt know they were in
ignorance, by definition, for you can only know youre ignorant if youre not ignorant).
As Dostoevskys Underground Man can always choose to deny 2 x 2 = 4 (showing
that will, in a way, can be stronger than reason), we can always choose to deny the
complexity which we cannot grasp. Precisely because we cannot grasp it, we can deny it
without knowing better without existential ramifications and furthermore we can
choose to deny any process by which we could know better, grasping no reason to
engage in that process. Hence, without any existential ramifications, we can choose to
deny high order complexity, and so live out our lives.

Additionally, if a society cannot follow arguments (even if it chooses to be willing to

follow them), then it can deny the existence of high order complexity without being
intellectually dishonestly, and furthermore believe they have evidence that it doesnt
exist (for there is no evidence of it like there is for low order complexity). If following
arguments is an art that has been lost (something schools may have contributed to),
people will not change, for they wont see the need to change. And so they will always
be able to say high order complexity is a myth, and not seeing the truth, they wont have
reason to think they are wrong.

The Heart/Mind Dialectic and the Phenomenology of

1. As argued in The True Isnt the Rational by O.G. Rose, since the map is
indestructible because any given ideology can be equally defended and rationalized
within itself whatever premise one emotionally selects is a premise that the mind will be
able to defend (within the premise and its corresponding ideology). Whatever ideology
the heart leads the mind to, the mind will be able to justify, all while the mind hides
from itself the role and influence of the heart, so providing itself with an illusion of
objectivity from the top down and the bottom up. (This doesnt bode well for ever
ending the Culture Wars or overcoming political disagreements.)

2. This paper should be read with Ending Racism by O.G. Rose, which applies The
Heart/Mind Dialectic to history and how that impacts and/or organizes our
understanding in the present. It further argues how emotions toward x change as does
the understanding of x through history, and how we fail to learn from history because
we cannot learn to feel from history: we can only experience history in terms of our
heart/mind, not the heart/mind of past people.

3. On the flute that is ideology, the heart is the air blown into it while the mind is the notes
selected. Based on what song the person wants to play, the person plays differently: the
notes define the breath, while the breath affords and emphasizes with varying strength
the notes.

4. When a man comes on stage and begins singing beautifully, is it primarily a mental act
by which you recognize this beauty, or is it primarily an emotional reaction to what you
are experiencing? How do we recognize talent? It is both an emotional reaction and an
intellectual recognition: you acknowledge both technique and the expression of that
technique. So it is with most things in life: recognition is a simultaneously mental and
emotional act.

5. The heart and mind almost seem designed to self-deceive we seem wired to be wrong
for we seem wired to be right.

6. Many Conservatives care about helping the poor, but unlike Progressives, Conservatives
believe rightly or wrongly that the best way to help the downtrodden is to get
government out of the way and reduce the size of the Welfare state. Yet when many
hear the phrase Conservatives care about the poor, I will venture to say that people feel
more cynical toward the phrase than the statement Progressives care about the poor
(though perhaps not when you point this out to them): many believe in the intentions of
Progressives much more than of Conservatives. The same can be said about phrases like
Conservatives care about stopping racism, ending sexism, etc., or facts like every
Conservative candidate is white versus every Progressive candidate is white. We just
naturally and effortlessly question the motives of the Conservative, while we are
naturally less skeptical of the Progressive, even though its possible that the Progressive
could be using Welfare to garner votes (the mere suggestion of this possibility can cause
backlash). Both could be genuine just as easily as both could be deceptive, but it would
seem to me that the emotional/mental benefit of the doubt goes to the Progressive
(perhaps rightly or wrongly). Why?

It would seem as if a reason for the emotional/mental favoritism toward Progressivism

is due to how the heart/mind is orientated toward low order complexity over high
order complexity (to use a distinction from Experiencing Thinking by O.G. Rose).
Humans tend to emotionally/mentally favor low order complexity (perhaps because
they are more so low order creatures than high order),and since State action is low
order while free market activity is high order, it seems to me those supporting State
action naturally receive more emotional/mental agreement than those who support the
action of dynamic systems. I think that even Conservatives who believe in the free
market can often feel/think that Progressives are more genuine in their concerns for the
poor, even though they believe Welfare worsens the situation of the impoverished
(rightly or wrongly).

Considering this, it would seem that those who support low order solutions have a
heart/mind advantage to those who support high order solutions, even if it is the high
order solutions that will actually work. Seeing as State action is low order, State actions
will always have a heart/mind advantage over high order alternatives. We must be
aware of how the phenomenology of view(s) favors the low order over the high
order if we are to be discerning, not because State action is always wrong, but because it
can be wrong.

6.1 As another example, I believe a thinker likes Ta-Nehisi Coates has an emotional/mental
advantage over a thinker like Thomas Sowell. This doesnt necessarily mean Coates is
wrong to support reparations or that Sowell is right to support free markets thats a
different question but it does mean if we are ignorant of how the heart/mind favors
low order complexity, we will be less discerning (though do note its possible to lack
discernment and still happen to be right).

7. Considering The Heart/Mind Dialectic, if you disregard a loved ones thoughts, you
always disregard a love ones heart (and vise versa).

8. Offense is intensified relative to the degree the emotion is shared by others (and so feels

9. The fact humans have a heart/mind more so than a heart and mind is another reason
why its probable Capitalism functions as opposed to more Socialistic models, as argued
in Probable Cause by O.G. Rose, a paper deeply indebted to The Theory of Moral
Sentiments by Adam Smith.

10. If we feel/think toward issue x, we wont be motivated toward issue y, even though
issue y might be more important. It is possible that our heart/mind directs us toward
issues that arent as important as others, but since we are directed toward issue x, we feel
as if we are interested in current events and hence informed. Blinded by a feeling of
being informed, we are uninformed (but no one who is truly uniformed thinks they are
11. Because the mind and heart are deeply linked, what strikes us as worth thinking about
is that which has an emotional draw, and if a society isnt debating the idea, it will lack
that emotional pull. This truth points to the importance of activism, for the activist tries
to raise public awareness of an issue the public otherwise wouldnt think about. The
activist has the power to change what the public feels/thinks is worth thinking about.

12. We must think of what we disagree with as irrational, for we wouldnt think what we
did if we thought it wasnt rational. And yet in line with The True Isnt the Rational
by O.G. Rose, other people, according to different premises, are in fact rational relative
to those premises. Hence, how we naturally experience other views hides us from the
rationality of those views, providing us with a sense of rationality and superiority.

13. Because we have hearts/minds, we dont slip down logical slippery slopes as quickly
as people might think (though thats not to say we dont eventually head down that
slide). We experience the slippery slope more so as a slippery hill: thanks to our
emotions and changing motivations, we can put our foot down and stop the descent, at
least for a time.

14. Considering that we have hearts/minds, neither Liberalism nor Conservatism operates
independent of emotion or intellect. Conservatives can have bleeding hearts just as
much as can Liberals.

15. Traditionalists who argued against LGBT marriage are quickly labeled bigots, and yet is
Rauch a bigot for opposing polygamy? I dont think so, but note how what we consider
bigoted is relative to what we feel/think (which is shaped by the spirit of the age).
This is a reason why bigot isnt a very helpful concept its relative and historically
situated though that isnt to say bigots dont exist.

16. Does the heart or mind have more influence within The Heart/Mind Dialectic? That
seems to vary from person to person, but does one have more impact societally and/or
in a democracy? In my opinion, the heart heads up change and the mind follows, and
hence the group that has emotions on its side is the group that will eventually garner the
side of the mind as well. For logic and rationality are more malleable and capable of
justifying any given case than what we often realize (consider The True Isnt the
Rational and The Map is Indestructible by O.G. Rose), more than we can perhaps let
ourselves realize.

16.1 Where there is an Extrovert Ideal, as discussed in Quiet by Susan Cain, the heart will
probably lead the mind.

17. Due to emotional/mental experience, what a thing symbolizes and points to changes
from person to person, though the thing itself remains constant.

18. Being objective entails knowing you cant be objective, for that is an objective truth a
way of seeing.

19. As there is a Heart/Mind Dialectic, so there is a Mind/Body Dialectic.

20. We are shaped more by what we feel when we read than by what we read. This means
we must be aware when we read, but at the same time, not overly-aware, unless we fall
into the errors discussed in Paradoxes of Awareness by O.G. Rose.

21. How we phenomenologically experience a topic is more of what we debate than the
topic itself.

21.1 Thanks to The Heart/Mind Dialectic, Bloom is right: the history of literature is a
history of misreading.

22. Most people dont mind talking bad about polygamists, but most have come to feel
wrong for talking badly about LGBTs. Why? This is arguably a moral advancement, but
its not like the majority of people have actually thought hard about the real differences
between LGBTs and polygamists such as has Jonathan Rauch rather, for most,
without doing any work, they just feel differently without really being able to explain
why. It seems that people are more shaped by the zeitgeist of the culture than they
realize, and it seems this zeitgeist influences what ideas we take seriously, and hence
what ideas we are motivated to investigate. Because we investigate, we believe we are
critical thinkers, but what we are motivated to investigate is relative to what other
people are thinking about. Yes, our investigation is self-motivated, but rarely is what our
investigation of self-motivated; in other words, our self-motivated investigation takes
place within an area of the cultures choosing. The investigation hides from us our lack
of independence with an appearance of independence.

23. We pick our ideology via our you in such a way that we believe we pick it via
rationality self-hiding, self-deceiving. The same can be said about the media, systems

24. To be objective is to, in a sense, leave behind ones own person to learn from the
object (whatever it might be). Being objective, a person perhaps can know a thing, but
the person cannot be spoken to by it without the presence of the observers self. The
aim of art is to speak to you, not simply to be known by you, and that requires your
you. And yet, if your you is too present, you will speak to you through the thing,
instead of the thing speaking to your you. There must be a balance, and what
constitutes that balance is probably relative to the person in question.

24.1 To live in a world in which nothing speaks to you is to live in a world unmoved.

25. What is the case has less influence on our lives than our experience of the case our
experience impacts what cases we investigate, which cases we take the time to debate,
how many counter examples we feel like creating, etc. the you is more impactful than
reason. To be objective, we must fight against the you which we require to have an
ideology at all.

26. To emphasize, what you feel and believe changes what stands out to you as evidence
for or against x, and this will allow you to feel objective about yourself when you are in
fact more so subjective. The Liberal professor who denies tenure to a Conservative peer
doesnt think of himself as ideological: he or she just sees evidence that the professor
shouldnt receive tenure much more vividly than such evidence against a Liberal
candidate (similar things can be said about judges, say for the Noble Prize). Not because
the professor intends to be ideological, but because its as if the professor cannot help it
(naturally, at least). Hopefully, learning about The Heart/Mind Dialectic will help, but
like Saint Augustine, Im always skeptical of how much knowledge can save us, and yet I
must believe it at least improves the situation. Tragically.

27. Does what you do change what you think more than what you think change what you
do? Yes/no: we think/do.

28. If you read a paper about how you need to wear different glasses while wearing old
ones, the very fact you successfully read the paper could be proof to you that the paper
is wrong. And yet.

29. Is thinking or feeling better? It cannot be said: they are indivisible.

30. Politicians know well that the mind follows the heart more than the heart follows the

31. As we naturally think we know more than we do, we experience less than we realize we

32. We dont tend to learn to (not) do something until weve experienced the consequences
for doing that thing, for it is experience that impacts our heart (while pure ideas tend to
more so impact the mind), and the direction of our heart determines the direction of
our mind more so than our mind impacts the direction of our heart.

33. Hegel wasnt completely wrong: it is the heart/mind which marches through history,
not simply the mind.

34. Why is there a heart/mind versus a heart and mind? Because we are we are human:
the answer is axiomatic.

35. Ideas and emotions both motivate, but ideas are weak motivators. Emotions naturally
motivate and we are naturally motivated by them, both in what we do and what we
think. Ideas motivate ideas and emotions much less than emotions motivate emotions
and ideas, and in a conflict between emotions and ideas, emotions will feel like the
winner, or else the right motivator. And yet if emotions tended to be good motivators
more than they were bad, the human race would not be prone to error or in need of
education: what we naturally did would, more so than not, be a good course of action.
Ideas are needed to sanctify emotions: if truth is sacrificed for emotion, both are lost,
but if emotion is sacrificed for truth, true emotion is gained (for emotions cannot die if
a person is alive, while ones knowledge of truth can fade away before death and easily

Ideas are weak motivators while emotions are strong motivators. This can be good, for
something like confidence is a weak pride (being truth-based), while arrogance is strong
pride (being emotion-based). In being weak, confidence is good and helps establish
heathy boundaries in relationships, for example, while its strong manifestation is prone
to hurt relationships. Problematically though, it is easier to be motivated by arrogance
than it is to be motivated by confidence, for arrogance feels more than does confidence,
and hence is more likely to motivate than is confidence.

In conflicts, resolving them usually takes discernment and an understanding of truth,
and usually, conflict entail emotions. Problematically, those involved in the conflict will
not feel like discerning as they will feel like fighting, being upset, etc., and so to fix a
situation, one has to work against the strong motivation of emotion with the weak
motivation of truth and ideas. This is hard enough whats then also very hard is getting
others to listen to the truth that is discerned, for this truth will not motivate or feel as
valid as the emotions. The longer the history of the conflict, the harder this will be.

Considering this, it is likely the majority be in conflict and unlikely to escape, and
perhaps this points to why history repeats. It is unlikely the ideas of this paper will be
easily remembered when a person is in the middle of an experience of an emotion (even
with that said), and it is unlikely that this paper will motivate people as much as will their
emotions. Ideas are naturally handicapped, and perhaps this helps explain why our
world feels so full of liars and fake emotion. For our emotions to blossoms well, we
must overcome them with what is weak in their presence.

The Phenomenology of (True) Ignorance

1. We say dont just tell people what they want to hear, but this assumes people are able
to tell when they are telling people what they (dont) want to hear.

2. Our ideology presents us with (supposed) evidence that is only such to us, artfully
hiding from us the groundlessness of our knowing angst-causing true ignorance.

3. If you know you dont know x, you know the x by which to compare your ignorance
too, but if you dont know you dont know x, you dont even know the standard against
which to begin grasping what you dont know.

4. If you are incredibly informed about x and yet truly ignorant about y which proves x is
false, you are still incredibly informed.

5. Everyone is a denier of what threatens his or her personal situation. The professor
denies reports saying college isnt worth it; the Pro-Lifer denies reports that fetuses
arent human; coal miners deny Global Warming; and so on. The professor looks for
scraps of information verifying the usefulness of college against the onset of articles
questioning college; the Conservative digs up reports about Global Cooling in the 70s;
and so on. We claim people who disagree with us are deniers, but we are all deniers in
different ways, especially considering that we are all truly ignorant in many more ways
than we are informed, and yet we all take leaps of faith accepting an ideology anyway.

5.1 The professor who searches for reports providing evidence that college is still important
is like the coal miner searching for evidence that Global Warming isnt real (though that
isnt to say theyre equally right): both are (naturally skeptical) of what threatens their
way of life. But while the professor has a job that allows him or her to comb through
data all day identifying whats valid and whats not the coal miner has much less
time, and yet is likely to be dismissed by the professor for being uninformed and closed
minded. The coal miner and the professor are similar in being deniers for having
that natural, human impulse but the coal miners denial is much less socially accepted,
and also the coal miner is treated as much more biased than the professor because the

coal miner is less informed (when its much easier for the professor to be informed).
Neither is necessarily morally superior to the other.

5.2 Failure to recognize that we experience a State 1 as a State 2 and hence as learning
makes it easier for us to be a denier without realizing it.

6. Its as if the mind wants to accept empty phrases as Gospel.

7. True ignorance structures bias, prejudice, stereotypes, etc., and since there is no such
thing as a human being who isnt truly ignorant in some way(s), there will always be soil
for bias, prejudice, stereotyping, etc. This doesnt mean people shouldnt try to stop
being biased, prejudice, stereotyping, etc., but it might be better to focus on changing
institutions than changing how people think, for most people who are prejudice are truly
ignorant about their prejudice (though we arent truly ignorant about the prejudice of

8. It could be said that Socrates mission was to unveil to others their true ignorance while
also revealing his own true ignorance to himself. (Perhaps this is true teaching.)

9. When you look at a book you havent read, you know you dont know whats in the
book, but when you dont look at a book you dont know exists, you dont know what
you dont know.

10. To allude to On Responsibility by O.G. Rose, how responsible are you for knowing
about what youre truly ignorant? If you dont have someone in your life to make you
aware of x and you are truly ignorant about x, can it be said you are responsible for not
knowing about x? The answer may vary from person to person.

If youre not responsible, is someone else responsible for not enlightening you? On the
other hand, if you know a person is totally ignorant about x, are you morally obligated to
enlighten that person? And what does it matter if one is totally ignorant about x unless
one can change x for the better? But if one is totally ignorant about x, one cant know if
x is something one can change for the better. And are there not books you can read to
realize youre totally ignorant? But if youre totally ignorant, you dont know which
books you need to read. And so on.

This question on responsibility might be one of the great questions.

11. As we are very bad at knowing what we sound like, so we are very bad at knowing how
ignorant and/or objective we are, and as we are shocked to hear a recording of our
voice, so we are shocked the rare times when we are forced to acknowledge our level of
ignorance. And as our inability to identify our real voice is biological, so our inability to
recognize our ignorance seems innate.

12. We all know were supposed to check our sources, but unfortunately we are usually
truly ignorant about which sources weve check and which we havent. On this point,
The Myth of the Woman Who Spilled McDonalds Coffee and Sued would be a good
case study in true ignorance.

13. Waiting until you encounter something you dont understand before reading books is
like waiting until a fire to buy a fire extinguisher. And yet, since we dont know what we
dont know until we encounter it, we are all tragic clowns.

14. True ignorance also has ramifications for the arts. A role of art is to expose people to
what they dont know they need to experience, but this means there is little demand for
this kind of art (because no one knows they need it). Hence, it isnt marketable and
publishers cant attempt selling it, not because they dont think the work is good, but
because they have a business that could go under at any moment. This contributes to a
culture that lacks art which could awaken citizens to higher ideals, but no one is directly
responsible: true ignorance is to blame.

In the past, where consumer demand wasnt all-powerful and marketability less of a
problem, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Goethe, and other great artists could force the world
to experience what it didnt know it needed to experience. According to Harold Bloom,
Shakespeare made us more human in ways humanity didnt know it needed. Today, it is
questionable if historys greatest playwright would even be published. The market
controls what shapes culture, and what shapes culture today I fear isnt that which we
are truly ignorant about needing (and often that is precisely which helps humanity
reach new heights).

15. It is as if we are incapable of realizing that we are not skeptical of what we believe. We
can consider this possibility, but forget it in our everyday lives immediately thereafter.
We can conceptually be skeptical of ourselves (maybe), but not practically each and
every day. Practicality seems to necessarily self-delude us about our self-skepticism, as it
necessarily seems to self-delude us about how seriously we will take this point.

16. We necessarily think of a decision we disagree with as irrational and, to some extent,
rational to negate and even ridicule.

17. What you know you dont know is a small percentage of your total ignorance, the high
majority of which consists of what you dont know you dont know. The ignorance we
are aware of is much less than the ignorance which we can only experience as knowing.

18. It is not possible for anyone to look at all the evidence that would take a thousand
lifetimes and yet we must all form an ideology as if we have (while not letting
ourselves truly recognize that we havent). We must form an ideology as if we arent
ignorant when we necessarily are incredibly truly ignorant (and this can help preserve
ideology, as discussed in The True Isnt the Rational by O.G. Rose).

19. You oversimplify it if you say people are oversimplifying it: they are truly ignorant, as
are you.

20. A man can say you dont know what you dont know and then say something that he
doesnt know he doesnt know (is false).

21. As it is easier to convince someone to change who has a bad motive versus no motive
all you have to do is make the person turn inward and recognize the evil of their intent,
while if there is no motive, theres nothing to see so it is easier to make a person
recognize their ignorance versus their true ignorance.

22. Knowing we are truly ignorant hopefully creates an existential tension within us that
compels us into being more objective and critical of our own feeling that we are
objective, but if this is lacking and we are truly ignorant of this lack, perhaps not.

23. When saying x and about to say y, while truly ignorant about topic y, you will feel about
y what you feel about x: nothing or intelligence. When you are about to say something
about which you are truly ignorant, you dont know it: no sign pops up to warn you.
You speak. If you knew that what you were about to say wasnt true, you might very
well silence yourself, trying to be intellectually honest, but alas, truly ignorant, you speak
on. This phenomenology of speaking doesnt bode well for democracy, the
Habermasian project, and could very well be a major threat to liberal democracy.

24. Education lessens ignorance, but it may increase true ignorance by contributing to our
failure to grasp the profound extent to which we are truly ignorant. When you know you
are educated, you are more likely to interpret the feeling of true ignorance (which is
necessarily as knowing) as a sign that you understand, precisely because you are

25. If you believe in x, you must think (unconsciously) that a person who doesnt believe in
x isnt objective, for you necessarily experience your subjectivity as objective, and
hence experience believing in x as objective by extension (and yet your true ignorance
is unfathomably extensive, as it is for all humans).

26. It can seem sometimes that what we are truly ignorant about is designed by us around
what will preserve our ideology. If not intentional, it just seems to happen naturally,
because of how life is: for example, it seems likely that our ideology will reflect our
environment, and our environment naturally keeps out that which would make us
question our ideology without us realizing such is kept out. Just because of how life is,
we end up being truly ignorant about what threatens our ideology.

27. People think a lot less for themselves than their ideologies will allow them to realize.
People are much more ideological than their ideologies will allow them to know.

28. We never experience a claim we are about to make as unsubstantiated; otherwise,

unless intellectually dishonest, we wouldnt say it. We necessarily experience what we are
saying as backed: we remember reading this there and hearing this there that backs
up what we say. And if someone asks us to substantiate our claim, though we may fail,
we still feel that there is an explanation somewhere, lurking in the back of our minds,
our memory failing us. We just know what were saying is true: we necessarily
experience what we say as such, and we are necessarily truly ignorant about how much
we say that lacks substance.

We never realize how many of our claims are unsubstantiated, but we notice quickly
when the claims of others are unsubstantiated. In truth, virtually every claim is
unsubstantiated, because ultimately everything we know is grounded in uncertainty and
relies on authority (see Ludwig by O.G. Rose); when we say x is unsubstantiated, we
ultimately mean x is less substantiated than acceptable. Ive never seen Pluto with my
own eyes, so I cant actually substantiate the claim that Pluto is real without trusting in
authorities who could be lying to me: much of what I call proof and that which
substantiates is that which I myself couldnt substantiate (without authority). Ultimately,
considering all this, we call often unsubstantiated that which we dont want to be true,
all while we ourselves believe lots of things that arent substantiated that we necessarily
experience as substantiated.

As we experience in ourselves being wrong as being right, we experience the

unsubstantiated as substantiated: we experience ourselves in the best possible light,
comically and especially when we are trying to be objective about ourselves and to
know ourselves, as Socrates (ironically) employs of us.

29. The problem with misrepresenting x is that we dont realize we are mispresenting x;
truly ignorant, we think were declaring the Gospel. If only we knew when we were
misrepresenting, generalizing, stereotyping, etc. but tragically we necessarily experience a
false portrayal of x as accurate. Considering this, educational efforts to stop these
misrepresentations are unlikely to succeed, because the way we experience ourselves
leads us into thinking that these efforts never apply to us, only others (ironically helping
us preserve ideology). Furthermore, truly ignorant about when we mispresent, the way
we experience reality keeps us from recognizing the times when we need to put these
lessens into practice. At best, it seems education can inform us that we are truly
ignorant of the times when we misrepresent x, and hope that this lesson will make
students more self-skeptical and open.

30. Since it is the nature of thought to grasp whatever it experiences, it is the nature of
thought to support confirmation bias (which is only worsened by the reality that we
can only hold one case within us at a time, as discussed in Self-Delusion, the Toward-
ness of Evidence, and the Paradox of Judgment by O.G. Rose). It could almost be said
that thought is confirmation bias.

31. What we know is true is what well naturally stop thinking about, and seeing as not
everything we know is true is in fact true, were naturally helpless, thoughtless, and/or
paranoid. There is an absurdity to thinking about what we know is true, and out of all
we know is true, how could we have any sense of what we should rethink versus
accept? Will not everything we know feel the same? And if we open this Pandoras
Box, how could we live without ending up like how Martha Nussbaum describes
Euripidess Hecuba: unable to trust anything, unable to avoid becoming an animal.
Perhaps this is a fate we those who rely on trust and who are fooled by it all must
eventually suffer: the legitimization crisis and similar phenomena are symptoms of

32. If x is caused by y, Im not prohibited by the nature of reality from saying z caused x. I
have free will, after all, and how can I ever be sure that x is caused by y and that Im not
identifying an erroneous line of causality? If I claim incorrectly that Republican
extremism is due to the failure of the welfare State, how can I be sure that Im wrong?
Truly ignorant and in a world that doesnt keep us from saying what is false as true, I
can utter what is false as truth, and then arguably no one can disprove what I say, seeing
as there is always room for uncertainty.

33. Because there is true ignorance, we must always be careful to concentrate power: a large
State will act out of true ignorance just as much as we do, but at least our ignorant
actions cannot ruin a country of lives.

1. Evidence that our age is indeed trivia(l) is the fact of how concerned we are about
saying the right things: avoiding offending anyone, being sensitive, and so on. This
isnt to say there isnt a place for being considerate, but the nature of being
considerate today is more like trivia than it is about a(n) (imperfect) way of being.

2. The fact everything seems to be a joke these days is also a sign that we live in a Trivia(l)

3. The actions of people cannot be organized around the unexpressed thoughts of an

individual. What is thought unexpressed is real relative to the thinker, but isnt real to
others. As a result, thoughts cannot be the standard against which what people do can
be assessed, but rather it must be against what people say.

If I am thinking Sam should ask me if I want something to eat and Sam doesnt so ask
me, I shouldnt judge Sam as thoughtless. However, if I ask Sam would you make me
something to eat? and he intentionally ignores me, I am more justified to think of Sam
as thoughtless (though I should not jump to that conclusion). Simply put, words are a
fairer standard by which to assess reality than thoughts.

If we do not decide our course of action by what people say versus by what we think
people are thinking, our lives will devolve into chaos and metamentality (as discussed
in Metamentality and the Dismodern Self by O.G. Rose). Using words as the absolute
standard of assessing situations, organizing activity, and discerning truth can save us
from anxiety, but the trivia(l) zeitgeist Im afraid may threaten the integrity of words to
us, along with our capacity to take them seriously. If this occurs, anxiety will be
increasingly unavoidable and common.

4. Un-advancing conversation may pass the time and feel sufficient enough in the moment,
but ultimately it can lead to people feeling discontent, for all humans need not just
words but words for thought and words that make a better life, not just regurgitate what
life is, for life will throw curve balls. When a problem arises, the real shortcoming of
un-advancing conversation will become apparent, and the fact we are so well trained in
trivia(l) conversation may contribute to us having overconfidence in our problem
solving capacity, worsening the difficulty we face.

5. We make our readings and then our readings make us; we decide what we say and then
our words decide who we are. If we read like were merely minds on sticks, such is what
well become; if we talk like were merely collections of answers to trivia questions, well
live like gameshow contestants always trying to prove ourselves.

6. In other words, those who administer intelligence tests quite literally do not know what
they are doing [] The idea that intelligence can be quantitatively measured along a
single linear scale has caused untold harm to our society in general, and to education in

APostman, Neil. Technopoly. New York, NY. Vintage Books, 1993: 131.

7. In this life, if we discover truth, no words are written in the sky that read well done;
when our intellectual work rewards us, we dont know for sure we are rewarded: the
confidence must come from within. In our judicial system, we dont know if the police
are right more often than they are wrong or vice-verse; in politics, we dont know if
more good laws are passed versus bad, even if this is the case; in life, we dont know if
we make more good decisions or bad: whatever our life course, we can never know for
sure if it is the best course or only a good course. To live this life is to live never
completely knowing if you are right or wrong: you can reason and determine that you are
probably right or wrong, but the leap between probably and definitely is as wide as
the gap between is and ought. To live is to live with existential uncertainty.

Unfortunately, in school we are trained to think that whether we are right or wrong, we
will soon find out either way: the teacher will tell us, and hence somebody knows. But in
life nobody knows if we are living our life the best we can, if the judicial department is
more right than wrong, if a new innovation is good for the country, and so on.
Nobody knows the answer, but school teaches us indirectly that someone knows the
answer the authority and hence we go off into life without a sense of how much
existential uncertainty we must learn to live with and face. And when the day comes
when we must face this uncertainty, we have no tools to deal with it, though we feel
ironically that we are equipped, back at our mental desks, thanks to the school system
that educated us.

We sit, waiting for words to appear in the sky.

On Wisdom
1. To critique the overall word defining-method used in this paper and others like On
Beauty and On Love: couldnt I define the word discernment as meaning wisdom
and wisdom as meaning discernment? Why does wisdom necessarily have to be the
particular word that means what this paper defines wisdom as meaning? In other
words, arent all the attachments of words to various meanings arbitrary? Theres truth
to this: considering the work of Gdel, I can always attach x to y or z to c and move the
variables around however I want without impacting any conclusions, just so long as the
system in which the variables are situated remains consistent. The incompleteness
theorem can apply to defining words just as much as it applies to making mathematics

That said, though words can be move around within a consistent system, the distinctions
themselves between the words/meanings cannot be erased and are not arbitrary. Why
we use word x to refer to distinction y and not w could be seen as a matter of personal
preference (which words are judged as better than others, and so on), and people can
certainly disagree and argue for a different sorting. Regardless what assortment emerges
though, and regardless who may disagree with the assortment of the words this paper
has presented, the distinctions themselves are not arbitrary and are absolute (the same
can be said in math). In regard to this paper, I stand by the distinctions traced out in this
paper as true and valuable, even if there is room for disagreement about which terms are
better referents for which phenomenon.

2. The urge to call people we like/love nice, funny, wise the skys the limit is hard
to resist and few do. This seems harmless enough, but with time, the consequence is
that metaphysical values lose their worth and meaning. If I call someone strong who
lacks muscles, object-ive reality checks and balances my claim, preventing me from
inflating the world into meaningless. However, if I call someone wise, there is no

(direct) physical manifestation to check and balance my claim and the person who I call
wise may very well believe it. With time, out of love, words like wisdom tend to lose
meaning and come to be nothing more than a polite thing to say versus a noble, life-
long pursuit. The journey is lost.

3. Generally speaking, wisdom tends to manifest as a no. This is because what we

naturally want to do often tends to be bad for us; not all the time, but often, especially
before character development, which could be seen as will sanctification. While will is
often a yes, wisdom is the no that checks and balances the will; on the other hand,
sometimes the will is a no that wisdom counters with a yes. Wisdom directs will and
purifies it, but this is difficult and precisely what will doesnt want. (Un)fortunately, since
there is no direct physical manifestation of wisdom, we can convince ourselves that we
have wisdom when we dont and continue to do what we want to do, and this self-
delusion is exactly what we will feel like doing.

4. Is wisdom un-conditional knowledge, meaning wisdom is knowledge that is true in

every circumstance? Perhaps this describes some of the practical material of wisdom,
but unconditional knowledge is still knowledge, in my opinion, though perhaps it is the
best kind of knowledge. It is not different in kind, only degree.

5. Wise and profound are often used as similes, and though there is a sense in which a
wise person is in fact a profound individual, the word profound can also describe
knowledge. It depends.

6. Is wisdom a simile for awareness? Though I had considered including a section in the
paper about this, I decided awareness and discernment were too similar to draw any
clear distinction between them. If you disagree, Id be interested in what you have to

7. An important life skill is discerning when you act out of fear versus wisdom, as
discussed in other works by O.G. Rose such On Worry.

8. A wise individual is talented in contingency thinking.

9. Wisdom is most meaningful and needed when it is opposed, when there is conflict,
when emotionalism is rampant, and so on: this is when its need and value are most

10. To say that person is wise is to imply that wisdom is a mode of being, and if a person is
always open to the highest mental act, there is truth to this notion.

11. If I say that is a rock and the thing is in fact a rock, I have not spoken arrogantly,
though I might sound like I have. To be right isnt to be arrogant, though an arrogant
person tends to be someone who thinks he or she is always right. But someone who is
actually always right isnt arrogant, but problematically those who only think theyre
always right necessarily think theyre right about being always right. Wisdom is needed
to tell the difference, but those who have the wisdom to tell the difference are those
likely to be thought of as arrogant (about their capacities).

Those who are wise are more likely to be right than wrong (if they are truly wise), and
hence likely to be called arrogant, appearing the same as someone always claiming to be
right. Additionally, those lacking wisdom probably lack the discernment to tell the
difference between being wise and being arrogant, increasing the likelihood they will
conflate arrogant and wise. A wise person can probably tell, and may tell others the
difference between arrogance and wisdom and be right, but this may be further proof
to others that person is always right.

12. If wisdom is dead, so is gone the ability to know it is gone versus never existed.

13. Wisdom is orchestra music.

1. As discussed in Metamentality and the Dismodern Self by O.G. Rose, as scripts
become prevalent, so too spreads metamentality.

2. If Baudrillard is correct and the real is dead, scripts hold us up from falling into the
void. Or perhaps they are the void.

2.1 When the real is dead, it isnt possible to tell if an increase or decrease of (insert)
alongside an increase or decrease of talk, action, etc. about (insert) is correlative or causal.

3. As rules replace wisdom according to Barry Schwartz, scripts replace thoughtfulness

thoughtlessly (to allude to Hannah Ardent).

4. What is called a script in this work has similarities to ideologies, as described in The
Truth Isnt the Rational by O.G. Rose, though I would say scripts are more group
ideologies while ideologies is a term more in reference to the premises an individual
ascents to by which that individual defines and organizes being rational. Scripts are
more what emerge in the space between individuals about how the individual(s) should
interact, constructively live, be politically correct, and so on, while an ideology, a being
true, is more so the standard by which an individual orientates his or her self from
within the midst of all the scripts. To put it simply, ideology is more individual, while
script is more collective.

5. X is not a Liberal or Conservative issue is now what a Liberal or Conservative says to

win approval for (Liberal or Conservative) issue x.

6. In line with On Thinking and Perceiving by O.G. Rose, perhaps overcoming scripts
requires a mixture of perception and thinking.

7. Today, the actions of the media itself have become the main story of the media media-
awareness is a new self-consciousness the media is its story. Consequently, we have
become cynical and increasingly aware of the various scripts by which we live and

8. Legends, myths, etc. can function as scripts.

9. We dont want sensitivity so much as we want genuineness and empathy, but where
genuineness seems impossible and empathy what none of us are equipped for, well
settle for sensitivity. Perhaps well be sensitive to one another, but this may very well

just feel scripted to us, failing to give us the genuineness for which we long in a
scripted world.

10. Where there are scripts, the line between lip service and meaning it is gone.

11. A scripted world is one in which Liberal Arts and Humanities are needed, but one in
which the ability to recognize their value very well may be lost.

12. Every face is covered by an invisible mask.

13. Like technology according to Representing Beauty by O.G. Rose, scripts change

14. We become our images.

15. If you start your article with a defense of the argument you are about to criticize, you
will come off as objective. Unfortunately, as readers become familiar with this script,
this method will stop working, and yet defending an opposing view is precisely what a
good argument tends to do, meaning we will increasingly feel as if an argument isnt
objective that very well might be. To tell the real from the fake, we need critical
thinking, and if we lack critical thinking, we lack the capacity to know we lack it. This
points to the importance of education, even though education can teach destructive
thinking as if it were thinking that helped humans approach truth.

16. The word scripts could be used interchangeably with the word boxes. What I mean by
this is that the brain associates, and to save time and energy, the brain gradually comes
to associate a person who believes x with a person who believes y and z, and then
naturally comes to label that person c. This tendency isnt inherently wrong, only
natural, but this can lead to negative consequences.

Consider the sentences slavery contributed to black poverty and slavery didnt
contribute to black poverty. Who do you think believes which? Naturally, a Progressive
would be associated with the first sentence; a Conservative, the second. But is it the case
that a Conservative cant ascent to the first sentence? Not at all, and though we know
this, we tend to be deeply skeptical that any Conservative could be truly genuine when
he or she claimed to believe in the first sentence. Its likely well think the Conservative
is just trying to garner our vote, and well tend to think the Progressive who ascribes to
the idea that slavery contributed to black poverty believes it more so than does the
Conservative who claims to believe the same. Likewise, if someone is pro-life, we are
also skeptical that the person could believe slavery contributed to poverty, because we
tend to associate pro-choice with Progressivism, and Progressivism with racial justice.
None of this necessarily follows, and though we know this, we dont naturally practice
what we know.

We tend to think in boxes. If someone is a Christian, we assume the person is a

Republican; if someone is against abortion, we assume the person is also against welfare.
We box, and it should be acknowledged that these boxes are often accurate (for
reasons described in A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell). However, they arent
always accurate, and we tend to see in culture warnings that we shouldnt stereotype,
meaning we shouldnt put people in boxes, all while we continue to assume the person
who say we shouldnt stereotype are Liberal. We shouldnt box, but what we must
accept is that we naturally do so, whether we want to or not, whether we know better or
not. Education will change this only insomuch as it can rewire our brains.

To break through the human tendency to box, we must mix examples: we must be gay
Conservatives and Green Libertarians. This way, we have some chance of avoiding
being boxed and hence being heard. But if a day comes when this in of itself feels
scripted, we will be in vast trouble: the real and the fake may be indivisible for good.

17. When someone calls the racist monster and murderer Dylan Roof a terrorist, our
subconscious minds often cannot help but wonder if this is being said because the
person genuinely believes it, or because the person learned on social media that this is
what is supposed to be said about Dylan Roof. Like Schrdingers Cat, its both,
simultaneously: we cant know. We are stuck in existential uncertainty, a(n)
(in)genuineness, per se. And we dont know what to do: opening the box kills the cat.

18. It is possible that we use scripts to help us avoid cynicism, for people are often not as
cynical about whats scripted versus whats not. Until, that is, scripts come to feel like
scripts to people.

19. Scripts can be useful for ideology preservation, for we can keep these bundles of ideas
in mind and allude to them at least subconsciously (to ourselves) whenever we
encounter that which counters what we believe, hence enabling us to stick with our
ideology. Just knowing that C.S. Lewis is out there, for example, can help the Christian
stay Christian when he or she encounters Richard Dawkins (though that doesnt mean
Christianity is necessarily false).

20. In a scripted world, where the authentic and inauthentic are indivisible as
(in)authentic, it is hard to imagine how racism, sexism, and other forms of
discrimination could ever be overcome into reconciliation. Likewise, it is hard to
imagine how we could ever again come to have faith in any kind of leader, movement,
community, or institution. But we must overcome.

Flip Moments
1. It cannot be said for sure that an economy is strong and/or has recovered until it
passes the test of higher interest rates, only that it may be strong and/or that it may have
recovered. Additionally, at least until interest rates rise, Keynesianism is true.

2. A flip moment is a sensualization (that often legitimizes a position and/or theory).

3. To allude to Experiencing Thinking by O.G. Rose, understanding flip moments is to

understand a matter of high order complexity, which us low order humans are
naturally terrible at grasping. Considering this, if a society cannot follow dynamic
arguments (such as those presented in this work), even if the society is willing to follow
them (willing and capable arent similes), the society can deny high order complexity
and dynamic arguments without being intellectually dishonest, and furthermore have
grounds to deny them, seeing as they dont have evidence in their favor as does matters
of low order complexity. Potentiality is never fully empirical.

3.1 It is possible to call high order complexity a myth while low order complexity cannot
be so labeled, which naturally leads to a certain orientation for low order complexity
at the expense of high order.

4. To be proven right, we can be overly eager for flip moments: we can be overly eager to
risk collapse.

5. But how do you know what constitutes a flip moment? How do you know that calling
in debt is such a defining moment, or that raising interest rates will close the debate
between the Austrian and Keynesian? That is a great question and there is certainly
room for debate: not everyone will necessarily agree on what event is in fact a flip
moment. However, my point in this paper is simply to argue for their existence at all, to
point out how arguments and views formulate in the space before them, and how in
that space, ideologies can be equally defended without intellectual dishonesty.

6. There is a sense in which we are enslaved to flip moments, stuck in time.

7. Studying history might be the best way to guess the direction a flip moment will go
when it occurs, but that assumes an accurate understanding of history (which isnt

8. Our hunger for flip moments to be proven as right (or wrong) perhaps contributes
to our tendency to appeal to the Supreme Court versus Federalism, as discussed in The
War Between Process and Justice by O.G. Rose.

9. Considering The True Isnt the Rational by O.G. Rose, since the map is
indestructible, belief in what will occur at a flip moment can stand to all criticism until
that flip moment occurs (given that the flip moment doesnt leave open room for
varying interpretation), which is when it might be too late.

10. The present wears an always.

a necessarily.

In Defense of Bestiality
1. It should be noted that what has been said about the controversial can only be said
about the negative, apocalyptic, horrifying, etc., and this is why the news tends to only
cover the negative. People complain about this, as they complain about the
controversial, but its also what people want according to ratings, even though they may
not think its what they want (perhaps not wanting to admit this truth to themselves).
The negative draws people in, as does the horrible and destructive, a truth Walker Percy
highlighted at the beginning of The Message in the Bottle.

2. If controversial, sexual acts can hurt the social sinews that hold together marriage, and if
it is the case that single motherhood is a strong indicator of poverty, then once
controversy becomes rational, so causing a collapse of the family and increase in poverty
also becomes rational.

3. As discussed in Death is the Event Horizon of Reason by O.G. Rose, apocalyptic

thinking ruins democratic discussion and rational debate, and perhaps a reason we are

attracted to it is because it can be controversial? And once controversy is rational, so too
becomes this way of thinking which threatens rationality.

4. As there is controversy in art, there is controversy in politics, and politicians have begun
to learn that they can score big political points by being controversial, outlandish, etc. As
critical thought and political literacy have depreciated, citizens have lost the capacity to
discern the difference between substantial and unsubstantial political controversy, giving
politicians a free pass to be unsubstantially controversial for the sake of marketing

5. Quietly living together can be controversial.

6. Whats rational can be irrational.

7. If there are a hundred cans with balls underneath them and one without one, and you
choose a can, though it is probable you will pick one with a ball under it, does it follow
that you dont have freedom?

8. Soft determinism is to say that once x happens, y will necessarily occur, though x isnt

On Description
1. If you are Liberal, you are likely to think that an article about Trump voters that doesnt
refer to them as racists is dishonest and propaganda, as Conservatives are likely to
think the opposite. When Liberals use the word racist, it seems to me they often mean
something that falls in line with the thinking of Berger: a racist is someone who reacts
against socioeconomic changes and the loss of givens in a manner that tries to preserve
those givens, contributing to the exclusion of minorities and/or those who dont
ascribe to those givens. And indeed, this is a kind of racism, seeing as societal givens
in America favor white Christians, and so to preserve them is to preserve what benefits
whites more than other minorities. And yet Conservatives are likely not to agree with
the definition of racism, and so rationally relative to what they think is true disagree
with the description as Liberal political correctness or the like. So the same would all
go if Conservatives described Liberals as anti-American.

If Liberals dont refer to Trump voters as racists, fellow Liberals may accuse them of
being dishonest (honesty and empathy can conflict); if they do refer to Trump voters as
racists, the voters are likely to think the Liberals have no idea what they are talking
about, and relative to Conservative descriptions of themselves, this is indeed the case;
however, relative to Liberal definitions of racism, this is indeed not the case.

Ive never met people who didnt agree that it was important to be honest and seek truth
regardless where it may lead, but as the problem of description should make clear, such
convictions alone are not enough, prone to contribute to tribalism.

2. The problem of description might also help us understand why so many debates
ultimately become emphasis debates, about if x is more so y than z though x is both.
For Liberals, though Trump voters are concerned about employment, they are more so
concerned about cultural changes, and hence it is accurate to say Trump voters are

racists to emphasize the racism. Conservatives may not deny that some Trump votes
are racists, but argue that the statement Trump voters are racists creates the impression
that all Trump voters are racists the emphasis leads to misunderstanding.

When describing something, it may very well prove impossible to not be susceptible to
accusations of emphasizing x over y: the nature of spacetime and causality is such that I
can only discuss one thing at a time and that I must discuss things in some order, and
this being the case, it seems I can always be accused of emphasizing x too much over
y since I discussed it first instead of y (and hence implied x is truer). Furthermore, since
humans are naturally ideological and prone to confirmation bias, readers who are more
on the side of y are likely to (unconsciously) believe I am against y because I mentioned
x first or because I have discussed/mentioned x without mentioning y.

Considering all this, I believe we need to be careful before critiquing an argument on

grounds of emphasis and disregarding a thinker because of his or her emphasis. There
doesnt seem to be an agreed upon standard on what constitutes emphasizing x too
much and/or too little anyway, and once we step into this territory, it seems very
difficult to escape it, perhaps hindering much more useful discussion.

But perhaps at the end of the day its emphasis all the way down; perhaps emphasis is
to what all disagreements ultimately come down? Perhaps, but I believe this conclusion
must be earned every debate and discussion, not immediately brought up. If ultimately
the problem of emphasis cannot be avoided, perhaps awareness of this inevitability will
at least help us mitigate the problem and maintain more fruitful discussion.

3. If two Christians have been persecuted in America (for whatever reason), then the
statement Christians in America are persecuted would be objectively true, and yet LGBTs
who have been persecuted would likely take offense; for them, Christians in America
arent really persecuted like LGBTs are, so much so that the statement Christians in
America are persecuted is false (in the sense that the statement implies too much, that it
implies equality with LGBTs in persecution). But the true statement isnt Christians are
persecuted equally with LGBTs in America, only Christians are persecuted in America,
and so we highlight a problem with language and description that I believe is very
consequential for our internet age.

If I am Christian and believe it is wrong for Christians to be forced to service LGBTs

for their wedding and a court so forces two Christians, I will be believe that it is objectively
true that Christians are persecuted in America. If I post this on Facebook Christians
are being persecuted in America and someone lashes out at me, this will function to
me as evidence that this person isnt informed of the facts or worse is in denial of them.
I have not (at this point) claimed LGBTs arent persecuted, only that Christians are
persecuted for their beliefs, and the fact a person lashes out to me can function as
evidence that indeed, Christians are under attack. Would I be wrong? Yes and no: it is
not the case that Christians in America are put under the same stresses as say a black gay
Muslim, and yet I could state the phrase Christians are being persecuted in America
and say something that is true. Furthermore, though it might be the case that Christians
arent persecuted as much (quantity and/or quality) as are black, Muslim LGBTs, it
would not follow that the persecution of a given Christian isnt worse than the
persecution of a given black, Muslim LGBT, meaning there is always rational space for
someone to post something on Facebook that ignites a firestorm, a firestorm which will
function as evidence to each tribe that their tribe is indeed the right and under attack.
A true description can nevertheless be a true-yet-incomplete description, and failure
to recognize this is likely to contribute to tribalism in our Pluralistic Age. The fact
something is true isnt necessarily enough, and yet can any truth to be utterly complete?

4. It is rare to find writing that doesnt prime us to interpret presented data in one way
versus another: most writing will use phrases like the data shockingly shows versus the
data shows, studies confirm versus studies find, the horribly rally happened versus
the rally happened, and so on. With these minor descriptions, regardless how accurate
they might be, the writings come to contribute to tribalism. Also, readers gradually come
to learn to outsource interpreting the data presented in articles to the articles themselves.
Not only does this fail to train us to critical think, but it also fails to train us to resist
confirmation bias (especially confirmation bias that is subtle enough, only unveiled
through descriptions, that we can genuinely believe we arent engaging in confirmation
bias at all); we are especially likely to fail if we believe the descriptions contribute to
calling out and stopping injustice, heresy, Communism, and so on: just confirmation
bias is very difficult to stop (not that there is necessarily any other kind).

5. Not to say there arent other kinds of argumentation, but it seems to me that there exists
argument by logic and argument by description (not to say both kinds of
argumentations cant be found in a single work). Description is argument: if I describe a
cup so well that an undeniable image of it forms in your mind, and if you feel something
toward the cup, I make the cup real to you. To describe something well is to make it
difficult for people to deny that it exists, in the same way that if I present a well-
constructed syllogism, I make it hard for others to not follow me to my conclusion. Of
course, readers can deny my argument, as they can deny the validity of a moving
description, but at a certain point, when the description is so vivid and the syllogism so
undeniable, the objection becomes denial.

Take a book like Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates: what he describes is
so vivid and emotionally impactful that the reality and truth of what he describes
becomes hard to deny; he has made an argument by description that moves the reader
to a new view, practically identical to a syllogism (and in fact, art might be the best if not
the only way to move people between internally consistent systems, as discussed in
The True isnt the Rational by O.G. Rose). Of course, a fantasy world can be
described well (such as in The Lord of the Rings by Tolkien), as a beautifully crafted
argument can turn out incomplete or wrong (take most philosophers and theologians):
the point is that like logic, right or wrong, description is a method of convincing people
to change their minds.

Logic without description is incomplete and unreal, for we dont live in a world that is
merely logical, as we dont live in a world that is merely experience: the two complete
one another. Good writing combines argument by description with argument by logic,
and the best minds are aware that description is a such a powerful tool that they need to
seriously examine their worldviews before directing people toward it, lest they
unintentionally describe people toward falsity (perhaps worsening the very situation a
writer describes for the save of fixing). Humans tend to be more moved by description
than mere logic, for as described in The Heart/Mind Dialectic and the Phenomenology
of View(s) by O.G. Rose, humans are not primarily heads on sticks, but bodily, and so
it is imperative that a master of description be deeply thoughtful and logical to make
sure his or her skills are used to lead people in the right direction. Problematically,
novelists can make enemies of philosophers as philosophers can downplay the role of
novelists, weakening both.

Another way argument by description works is by presenting x so vividly that the

reader is able to compare and contrast his or her experience of x, and if they fit
together, the reader can feel that his or her experience (and his or her interpretation of
that experience) has been validated. The experience is supported, like evidence
supports an argument, and the more support an individual garners, the more reason
that person has to make the leap and claim x has been proven.

Similarly, like witnesses in a court case, if ten people all describe x similarly, we have
reason to believe that x is indeed like they have described it, and the more people who
come forward with similar descriptions, the more unlikely it is they are all making it up
(especially if the describers have never interacted before, which can be increasingly hard
to tell in our internet age). Eventually, enough subjective experiences are collected and
compared that a threshold is passed and it becomes reasonable to believe as described,
x is true (even if ultimately it is proven we were wrong about x: remember, being right
and being rational arent the same). Likewise, eventually a novelist or essayist offers up
enough descriptions and perspectives that a threshold is passed and it becomes
unreasonable to think the writer is lying or completely wrong.

(As a side note, in academia, I think there is also a kind of argument by authoritative
consensus: eventually enough experts say x is true that a threshold is passed and it
becomes unreasonable to think x is false.)

To describe is to argue, and good description is a good argument. No, describing a cup
well doesnt tell the reader what to do with the cup, but it might imply that the reader
should fill it with liquid and drink. Description alone isnt always instructive, but the
same goes with logic: a syllogism proving Socrates is a man doesnt tell me who
Socrates was or if people have human rights. More work must done using all the tools
we can find in the toolbox: to fail to understand description as a method of
argumentation is to make our work more difficult to complete.

5.1 To allude to On Thinking and Perceiving by O.G. Rose, arguments by descriptions

seem to be more perceptive; arguments by logic, more so thoughtful.

5.2 That all said, a distinction should be drawn between argument by description and
dismal by description, the latter being more ad hominem and problematic. To say that
paper was reductive to describe a work as a way to dismiss it rather than deconstruct
its argument is not what I mean to defend.

6. Some mostly look for descriptions that fit reality like thinkers look for ideas that
match actuality. To me, Tolstoy represents more of the describers; Dostoevsky, more
of the thinkers. While Tolstoy risks creating empty bodies, Dostoevsky risks creating
disembodied minds. Those who dont long for descriptions that fit with reality those
who are fine just seeing it might prefer Dostoevsky, while others who dont long to
explore ideologies and ideas those who are fine just believing what they believe
might prefer Tolstoy, who helps them see the world in which they live believing what
they believe. To those of one personality type, Tolstoy might not be too new, while for
those of another personality, it is Dostoevsky who is too new. Those who have seen
the world Tolstoy describes might find him old; those who dont care to study
existential tensions might find Dostoevsky lacking in artistic skill. It is possible that our
personality type forms our tastes and objective judgments of writers and artists.

Some may read to see; others, to determine how what they see connects. Some may
find a text too dense as attempting to stuff too much into each sentence, not giving
readers a chance to process while others find the same text engaging and not wasting
time. As may some like opera because in not knowing the language, theres more room
for imagination, some may like a lack of details in story, while others cant stand music
they cant understand.

Arguably, since the experience of books changes based on personality type of the reader,
it doesnt make sense to have a greatest book of all time, only greatest book of all time
for INTPs, per se. That said, I dont what to be confused as saying that there are no
such thing as artistic standards: I dont believe beauty is entirely subjective. Rather, by
recognizing that the experience of art itself changes based on personality, we might
become better at exercising empathy and seeing art through new eyes.

The Uselessness of Thought

1. As discussed in The True isnt the Rational by O.G. Rose, rationality is bound,
defined, and directed by its truth premises; likewise, so is intelligence. Considering this,
intelligence is overrated; experience is likely more important, seeing as a persons
intelligence is bound, defined by, and directed relative to, his or her experiences.
Intelligence without experience is like a bird without wings, but wings without a bird
cant fly either.

2. Edmund Burke argued that habit and custom are more by which humans operate than
thought, and he did so in a book that readers must think about. To think about Burke is
to attempt to understand and evaluate his argument through the very means he argued
often prove inadequate. In a sense, Burke can never be intellectually consented to, only
lived, and how we live is often in a manner that preserves ideology.

If we learn x from experience, how do we evaluate the truthfulness of x without

thinking about what we have experienced, thus translating experience into thought,
which necessarily loses much of what experience entails? Similarly, the word experience
is always lacking much of experience. Considering this, if the whole truth cant be
captured in language, only parts of it, how can we ever discuss and debate the whole
truth? Considering Habermas, do note that discussion and debate are necessary for
keeping a society from being controlled by poor and totalitarian thinking.

Reasoning is how we evaluate truth, and yet truth isnt only learned through reason, but
problematically, it is evaluated by reason. Reason is how we check and balance what we
experience so that we arent at the mercy of our experiences; our thinking, kept from
always blowing this way and that. Propositions held us stay grounded, but if not all truth
can be formulated into propositions if some truth can only be grasped by habit
(without awareness of the grasping) then some truth is in the sky which we cannot
reach. And perhaps some of that truth above us can save us? But perhaps to lose
grounding is to lose everything? How can we tell but by thinking?

To say some truth cannot be grasped by reason is to say our quest for truth must always
remain open the loop can never closed (or at least if could, we couldnt know it
could, and that if we did close the loop, we could never know we closed it). Perhaps this
is true, but perhaps it isnt mustnt we think and debate this proposition?

3. To stop learning is always an act of faith, and though we may not stop learning in
general, we often stop learning about particular subjects. If I dont start learning, I have
faith that what I would gain from learning isnt worth the effort; if I stop learning at
point x, y, or z, I have faith and trust that what lies beyond what I have learned will not
change my views, add enough value to make it worth the effort, and so on there is
letting go on both sides, per se.

Thought cannot help us determine if it is worth the time to learn about x, if we should
stop learning about x at point y, and if what we know about x is indeed enough.
Thought seems useless to stop or start itself; neither act seems like it can be thoughtful.

4. In deciding what I should do with a cup, there are millions of things I could do with it,
and yet I usually just consider about two options: pick it up or not. I dont think through
the millions of things I could with the cup put it on my head, throw it, step on it, etc.
and yet in a strange way, I practically do. It would seem that before I begin thinking
about what I should do with the cup, I have subconsciously already weighed countless
options and decided many arent even worth considering, and yet paradoxically, this
takes consideration to determine.

Before I begin thinking, its as if I have already thought: weighing seems to happen
before thought and what makes thought practically possible, for if I had to think
through literally everything I could do with a cup before making a decision, before every
phenomenon, I would be paralyzed. Before I consider options, there seems to be a kind
of weighing that happens which sets the parameters of my considering, without which
it would be practically impossible to think. I seem to weigh certain options as worth
considering and others as not considering, an act which should take consideration to
do, and yet an act which seems to come before consideration.

The thinking that happens before thought is a strange, human ability: we know that
certain options arent even worth considering, and yet to know that, we should have to
consider those options. We practically act irrationally, and yet if I didnt bracket out
certain options, the people I was around would think I was acting irrationally,
impractically, and that I was wasting time. If someone asked me what do you want to
eat tonight? and I began thinking about restaurants a thousand miles away, the person
would wonder if I had lost my mind. To fail to think before thought, to weigh, is to
live impractically and insanely.

How do we come to weigh? Is it a skill we consciously develop? It doesnt seem to be

so, but rather seems to happen emergently relative to how we live our lives. If we usually
use a cup to drink water from it, when we see a cup, our practical life has bracketed out
considering the possibility of using the cup to grow a flower in it; if I live in a place
where cups were often used to make flower gardens, that possibility would more likely
fall before my conscious mind. My personality and how I live my life seems to be
relative to which weighing orients itself, and it is with creativity and out of the box
thinking that when I encounter a cup, if Im not used to using it to make a garden, that
I would think up that possibility.
Perhaps more so than a kind of thought before thought, weighing might be
something that is a result of habit: perhaps it isnt as much a mental act as it is bodily
(though that isnt to suggest there is a dualism between mind and body). Weighing
seems to be an act of thought, but perhaps that is simply because to consider weighing
we have to translate it into thought, hiding its true nature (in the act by which we can
consider and recognize its existence intelligibly). If weighing is more a result of habit
and routine, it would seem that we can sometimes achieve the ends of rational thinking
without reason, which by the way is the only way we could achieve those ends, seeing as
reason would otherwise eternally regress and/or paralyze itself, considering countless

If the mind didnt weigh, we couldnt practically function, and in fact people working
on a job together tend to get along best, for example, if everyone weighs in similar
fashions: it streamlines the process. However, while practically enabling us, weighing
also makes us susceptible to being closed minded without realizing were closed
minded (for we dont see the options we dont consider and that we have
subconsciously disregarded), and because we weigh, we seem to need to develop
creative thinking to check and balance ourselves and keep ourselves from boxing
ourselves in.

Furthermore, since weighing seems to be orientated relative to our practical lives, the
phenomenon of weighing may help us come to understand why peoples nationality,
race, occupation, and the like can have such a large impact on how they think (in
addition to the general groundlessness of any ideology, as discussed in The True isnt
the Rational by O.G. Rose). According to who we are, we weigh, and especially if we
lack creativity, we need others to help us realize the ideas, possibility, and thoughts that
we bracket out without even realizing it (before thought). This isnt to say its
impossible for us to know certain truths unless were a certain kind of person, but it is
to say that its unlikely well realize some truths that are universal to all without certain
people around to help us see what we dont realize were missing.

Thanks to weighing, for the sake of being able to practically live our lives, we fence
ourselves into a space, without which we would have nothing, and yet fences also close
off possibilities. We require limits, and seem to establish them for ourselves before
thought, and yet should strive to transcend our limits. We enable and disable ourselves
in the same act, searching for a balance in ourselves.

Thought seems to be useless when it comes to stop itself from being weighed in one
direction versus another, and yet without weighing, thought wouldnt be possible:
thought seems to require what it is virtually helpless to shape (at least not without
conscious effort).

1. The subjective and objective-myth, along with the conflation of subjective and
wrong, objective and right, has made it easy to avoid people with who we disagree,
for in our mind we necessarily think of them as subjective/wrong, and necessarily think
of ourselves as objective/right; hence, those we disagree with are those who cant be
reasoned with, and its rational to avoid those who will only waste our time.

1.1 Furthermore, the subjective and objective-myth has also impeded our capacity to grasp
both-ness subjective/objectivity versus subjective and objective, for example.

2. The fact were all inescapably objective/subjective points to why those personally
invested in something, even if they are genuinely trying their best to be objective, cannot
help but have their discernment impacted. However, that doesnt mean they are
necessarily wrong, and in fact, personal involvement in a story can contribute to people
being more correct than those not invested, for those invested have reason to look
closer. The conflation of subjective and wrong very well may have contributed to the
discounting of views that though less objective, very well might be more right.

3. Society has come to see science as the best way to obtain truth, and though there is truth
to this, science is more so about reliability (though that isnt to say that what is reliable
cant also be true, though keep in mind I can rely on a falsity). Science teaches us that
if we drop a ball, we can reliably believe the ball is going to fall, because under the high
majority of circumstances, such occurs (unless were on the moon, for example). Science
cannot establish that its true that balls always fall, but science can establish that its
reliable and so reasonable to think that when you release a ball, it will fall. Science
cannot save us from the subjective/objective problem, only give us a sense that weve
made reliable or unreliable progress, which is invaluable.

4. To allude to the thought of Bernard Hankins, objects are objective: (object)ive. If I

pluck a string on a guitar, it is object-ively true that I struck a string on a guitar (though
perhaps different words could be used). If I am bad at guitar and pluck on the string, the
object will make it clear to the world that Im not very good: the object wont cushion
the blow (considering this, perhaps the key to compelling and convincing a person is
through objects?). Objects force us to deal with objective reality, and it is because we
are a conscious in an object-body that we are subjective/objective beings. Perhaps if
there was ultimately only subjectivity, there would be no objects.

5. Facts convince only insomuch as an interpretation of those facts is irrefutable, assuming

there is such thing as an irrefutable interpretation.

The True Isnt the Rational

The Rational and the True

1. An individual, relative to his or her being true, can make mistakes: he or she can act in
such a way that his or her being rational doesnt line up with his or her being true. In
other words, a person can fail to be intellectually consistent, but that doesnt mean an
individual isnt (overall) rational. Making mistakes isnt the same as being irrational: a
person can be wrong and rational at the same time.

2. Imagine a world where idiots defended the truth and geniuses defended lies, and
considering the distinction between being true and being rational, recognize that such
a world is possible.

3. The market functions not simply according to rationality, but according to what people
believe constitutes rationality (relative to their being true).

4. Being right and being wrong are always within spacetime, and hence relative to the
information available at the time, and considering this, a person can be right and
ultimately be wrong if the data were to shift due to new developments. If this occurs,
do note that this doesnt mean the person was always wrong an important distinction
only that the person is wrong if he or she doesnt change with the data, relative to
which what constitutes being right and being wrong is determined. I believe that
thinking a person is always wrong if the data shifts contributes to people not shifting
with data (which problematic in Pluralism), and us believing a person is smart who is
right versus consistently thinking through premises. Yet a person can be right and
unintelligent: a person can be wrong relative to the data now, and happen to be right
when the data luckily shifts. This will make it seem as if the person was always right,
when the person was wrong before and right now. Intelligence should be gagged relative
to premises and data, not so much relative to the case (unto which data and premises
ultimately shift).

5. Does thinking help us pick a being true or does it only complete and defend a being
rational (that might be false)? Does thinking help us be true or only be rational only
defend ideology?

6. A person experiences a being true not so much as a being true but as a the way things
are, and this can contribute to ideology preservation.

7. As we conflate true and rational, so too we conflate true and logical, true and best
all which seem to Cartesian hangovers. At the heart of all these conflations seems to
be a failure to recognize that what is subjectively rational isnt necessarily objectively
rational (though I question the very possibility of splitting subjective and objective as
anything more than a point of emphasis): people realize these arent the same when
asked directly, but often in conversation we find ourselves using the word rational to
mean objectively rational one moment and then subjectively rational the next,
contributing to great confusion.

8. It is hard to imagine a need to invent the field of behavioral economics in a world

where true and rational were never conflated in the first place.

9. We must think of what we disagree with as irrational, for we wouldnt think what we
did if we thought it was rational. And yet other people, according to different premises,
are in fact rational relative to their premises. Hence, the experience of other views hides
us from the rationality of those views, by how we necessarily experience them as
irrational according to ourselves. The Phenomenology of Argument contributes to the
difficultly of living together, and ideology preservation, for that matter.

10. An individual being true can emerge within a collective being true, and that being
true can be in a national being true, and so on. And the larger being true will influence
the formation of the individual being true, all orientated and justified by (a) being
rational(s) along the way.

11. Is it really the case that people make decisions based on rationality alone? This is an
important question and most commonly asked in economics, where understanding how
people make decisions essential for determining the right incentive structure to create.
Economically speaking, what is rational is what maximizes utility, profit, and so on, but
I believe this understanding of rationality, though holding some truth, gives us a very
incomplete understanding of rationality. If I want to fire someone but doing so will
decrease the profit of my company, I very well may fire the person, because relative to
what I want, it is rational to do so, even if it isnt financially rational. If I have a
preference for a fancy ice-cream brand but it is much more expensive than another
brand, I very well may choose the fancier brand, because relative to my preference, that
is the rational course of action, though relative to my bank account, I may act foolishly.
I act rationally and irrationally at the same time relative to different premises: I am
(ir)rational (as I am (im)moral, to use a term from (Im)morality by O.G. Rose).

Considering this, it is true that humans are rational creatures, but not rational in a
manner that is a simile for best or most profitable. Certainly people dont always act
rationally relative to what maximizes utility, but relative to them, people do in fact
mostly act rational relative to what they want, what they define as true, what they define
as good, and so on. This may render the word rational almost useless for the
economist, but I do think its important to understand that humans are in fact mostly
rational creatures. Unfortunately, people can be rational and idiotic simultaneously.

12. To make humans more true (and more rational relative to truth), we must, one by
one, go through each topic worry, ignorance, perception, etc. and work through
each topic, increasing awareness and understanding. There is no easy road to more true
rationality, though in humans being naturally rational, the road can seem much shorter
to them than it is in actuality.

13. What is rational is never rational relative to rationality itself, but relative to finances,
family, love, an objective, an individual, a particularity, a circumstance, etc. In other
words, there is no such thing as rational only rational to, and yet rationality seems to
always strike us as non-relative, tricking us to overestimate how wide our rationality
stretches. We consider rationality an umbrella, not a point.

14. If you conflate true and rational, you must believe the person who disagrees with you
is incapable of reasoning, and hence incapable of discussion.

15. You can be correct relative to premises that are false.

16. If you want to jump off a cliff, is it rational for you to do so? Relative to your will to do
what you want, yes, but perhaps not relative to your will to live. It seems there is an
interest relationship between will, truth, and rational, one that will have to be
explored elsewhere.

17. To use language from Experiencing Thinking by O.G. Rose, human thought is low
order and high order to the degree it dies to itself, which it is never thoughtful to do.

18. All rationality is relative to a worldview (truth) that is (non-rationally, not irrationally)
selected before rationality.

19. It is unreasonable to expect those who dont ascribe to your worldview to act
morally/rationally according to you, and yet this doesnt mean your morality/rationality
is necessarily false, only that you are caught expecting people to be rational relative to
what you consider rational in a world where you can do nothing else.

20. Perhaps imagination plays a significant role in a persons selection of a being true? If
so, it is tragic that imagination is ignored in school, and furthermore imagination has a
large role in organizing rationality, for it contributes to the picking of the truth against
which rationality is defined. Ironically, the removal of creativity for the sake of
increasing rationality may in fact retard rationality.

Perhaps there cannot even be rationality without imagination, nor vice-versa. Perhaps
imagination leads us to truth, relative to which rationality is then organized. Rationality
then helps justify the truth as reliable, giving us reason to trust our imagination and our
being true. If this is all the case, then it could be said that imagination determines the
toward-ness of reason.

20.1 Music is both the notes that compose it and the story it tells: perhaps it could be said
that reason helps determine what a thing is helps us determine which notes compose
the song while imagination helps us determine what a thing means helps us
determine the meaning of the music.

20.2 It should be noted that a distinction could be made between negative imagination and
positive imagination: imagination that takes us out of the world (to avoid seeing it)
versus deeper into the world (to see it in a new way).

20.3 It should also be noted that without imagination, it is hard to see how a person could
leap from truth-fact set A to truth-fact set B from one ideology to another
especially if we accept the premises that empathy requires imagination and that empathy
is critical thinking (argued in On Critical Thinking by O.G. Rose). It would seem that
imagination might be the only hope we have to escape a map, if indeed the map is
indestructible, seeing as we cannot move beyond (what we are in) what is to (what we
arent in) what isnt without imagination.

21. It seems rational to overestimate the effectiveness of thought, for it seems to make
rationality more rational. On this point, society seems almost designed to make us
overestimate the effectiveness of thought, for society is designed by thought, and what
is designed by thought is that which will make thought more rational (and keep in mind
that thought is what makes rationality possible, versus simply luck that isnt even
thought of as luck).

22. Considering The Heart/Mind Dialectic and the Phenomenology of View(s) by O.G.
Rose, since we dont select our worldview through the mind alone (if we select it at all
versus be thrown into it), it is very possible that art has more power to change
worldview and/or truth than does philosophy, but that said, art may be less capable
than philosophy of making us more rational. The same could be said about apologetics
versus aesthetics, and considering all that has been said, a college that doesnt focus on
the arts is a college that might be, at best, only capable of making students brilliantly
rational, but if they are wrong, then college enables students to preserve a false
worldview and preserve erroneous (potentially apocalyptic) ideology.

22.1 We cannot put experiences into words, and so we never actually talk about what we
experience, only relay ideas. Hence, though perhaps we can make people more rational,
it is doubtful we can do much to make others more truth. At best it seems, we can
rationally and philosophically explain why rationality and philosophy can only impact us

rationally, and that said, perhaps we can then point a person in a direction down which
the person can have true-impacting experiences for his or her self.

23. Misunderstanding is a rational event, for there could be no (mis)understanding without

rationality, and it occurs between necessarily rational individual, both of whom could be
wrong, and both of whom must necessarily think of the other as irrational. Where there
was no rationality, there would be no misunderstanding, and yet problematically we
necessarily think of a misunderstanding as a result of a lack of rationality, versus a lack
of similar premises.

24. Art changes minds more so than does arguments, for art influences people toward new
truths relative to which rationality is defined, while arguments often only influence how
people reason.

25. To determine how rational a person is, you would have to compare them relative to
their truth, not yours, and it might be impossible for anyone to truly understand the
truth of another.

26. The limits of rationality are itself, and hence problematically strikes itself as limitless,
always translating what it bumps against into rational terms (rightly or wrongly).

27. We must think those who dont think like us either mustnt listen, think, be good,
and/or ascribe to our fundamental axioms. Or we must think were wrong, which if we
do, we must at least think were right about being wrong.

28. There is no guarantee that truth and being rational will necessarily align, seeing as
being true and being rational arent necessarily the same.

29. Seeing as the rational is relative to the true, and seeing as the true is influenced by a
persons background, location, likes, and so on, it is likely that similar people will ascribe
to similar rationalities, and hence come to emergently be like one another, without any
direct coordination, brainwashing, etc. Who a person is and how a person thinks will
probably reflect one another.

30. Few people see quality in arguments with which they disagree, for it is rare to find
someone who can move between worldviews and truths, relative to which rationality
is orientated and organized. Furthermore, it is nearly impossible for a person to say a
person is rational who holds a different worldview, for relative to the first persons
truth, the other is in fact not rational. This poises a grave challenge for Pluralism.

31. Reason can only find that a system is consistent and convince those in and outside the
system of such, but its very weak to move a person into its system and grounding
truth. Reason is helpless where beauty is needed.

32. The true is against which the rational is organized and achieves definition as itself.


1. How worldview is being used in this paper could be associated with how Jung talks
about myth. According to Jung, a myth is the narrative in which a person lives,

operates, and understands the world. It is the standard by which what constitutes
rational, spiritual, loving, and so on, is defined. In this sense, everyone lives within a
myth, rather religious or nonreligious (as everyone, to allude to The Rational and the
True, has a definition of what constitutes being true). Relative to their appropriate
myths, being for gay marriage and being against gay marriage are both rational, so the
question becomes rather why does a person pick the myth a person does? The answer
is tied to ones family, society, background, etc. why the person is you, per se.

All humans are myth creators, for all humans reason relative to their standard of truth.
Reasoning is always toward a myth, for reasoning is always toward an idea of what
constitutes truth. Being rational and being mythical are two sides of same coin, per

1.1 We create myths in order to handle large, complex ideas, and in order to determine for
ourselves what constitutes being rational and being true. Today, words like
government and corporation function as myths through which we can understand
our socioeconomic condition. The McDonalds Coffee Lady is a myth we can
reference to allude to the idea that lawsuits are out of control (whether or not the story
is true, or whether lawyers really are out of control, are secondary concerns), as
attending Harvard is to participate in a myth that ascents to the idea that Harvard
equals accreditation. The examples go on. And as we constantly create myth(s), for the
sake of helping us grasp reality, we also create symbols: we turn Republicans into
symbols of corruption, as we turn Democrats into symbols of government take-over.
These symbols help us organize reality and point to the myth in which we operate,
live, and die.

2. Ideas seem to come as Sams Clubs, not Food Lions, if you will. What I mean by this is
that it seems that ideas always come in bundles. You cant get a position on military
spending without getting one also on marriage, abortion, and taxes. It doesnt seem as if
you can buy one idea and one idea alone at a time. You have to take bundles to start,
and then sell off the parts over time. Trash them, customize them, etc. later on, but to
start, you have to take them all.

3. The reality that facts and worldviews arise together gives us insight into the question of
why so many people keep the beliefs they grow up with, and why so many people who
share a few views, tend to share many (a question explored in A Conflict of Visions by
Thomas Sowell). What must the nature of reason be how must it function for such
to be the case? For ideas to come in packages, not separately? The answer is that what a
person defines as reasoning arises relative to what a person considers true, and what a
person considers true is a worldview against which all reasoning is defined a
worldview a person cannot select either reasonably or factually, only through you,
per se. As a result, those who share an even somewhat similar worldview will share
very similar reasoning, and so come to similar conclusions about most subjects.
Furthermore, since reason and facts are relative to worldview, there is never a
rational or factual reason to leave a worldview. Reasoning structures reality relative
to you: the only reason a worldview would shift is because there is a shift in you.

3.1 Another reason why ideas seem to come in bunches is because to accept the Pro-Choice
position on abortion, for example, you must accept with it the underlining being true
that grounds that position in (a) rationality (a) rationality you must necessarily accept
as grounded in truth in accepting the position. Hence, to accept one position, you must
take on a being true that will influence all your rationality (your entire being rational).
And without trying, this lens will lead to you seeing evidence for other issues, and
hence you will have reason to ascent to those positions, which naturally must be similar
in some way to the position of Pro-Choice, since all the positions are grounded by the
same being true. In other words, since (a) being true and (a) being rational necessarily
come together, to accept one case is to accept an underlining being true that shapes all
rationality about all topics, which means you cant accept one position without it
necessarily influences all your positions.

4. To call someone irrational is to say Im rational (for you must be to be able to

determine who is rational and who is irrational).

5. We dont pick our own facts so much as we pick our worldview and this orientates
which phenomena become facts toward us. This is why we can say you arent entitled
to your own facts and be sincere. Indirectly, we pick our facts by picking which lens
through which we see the world, and so decide what the failure of others to believe is
evidence that they choose their own facts.

6. Without empathy without critical thinking (as expounded on in On Critical

Thinking by O.G. Rose) moving between worldviews will be impossible, and
ignorance will always be ignorant of its ignorance (which is why ignorance is so hard to
escape: there never seems to be a need to flee it).

7. Facts emerge with frameworks it is in frameworks that phenomenon are turned into
evidence toward an observer and from these facts, there is a transfer of objectivity
to frameworks. Hence, it is a closed system, one that is subjective, yet appears concrete.

8. If you have no training with philosophy and only deal with facts and science, you will be
especially prone to fall victim to the paradox of judgment, the transfer of objectivity,
and seeing facts that arent there. You must learn to jump between scopes and see facts
within scopes; otherwise, error is probable.

9. A Conflict of Visons by Thomas Sowell is helpful for understanding the power of

ideology and its role in the modern world, and rather we ultimately agree with Sowell
isnt nearly as important as recognizing the importance of his investigation, which I
believe poises a great challenge to achieving any Habermasian goal of Pluralistic unity.

10. Everyone experiences their worldview as justified or grounded, and yet every worldview

The Real Drive of Human Action

1. Liberals think the country is becoming Conservative as Conservatives think the country
is becoming Liberal, because the brain pays more attention to what disturbs its ideology
versus what maintains it. Conservatives are convinced there are conspiracies against the
free market as Liberals are convinced there are conspiracies against government, for we
are most certain about that which protects our way of seeing the world. If we are certain
Liberals are going to destroy the country, we are certain of what we need to do to save
our country (stop Liberals), and vice-versa. When we feel that what we believe in is
changing, we are primed to create an enemy, an enemy who functions as an explanation

for why things are changing (when perhaps there is no explanation). This act, in of itself,
is a function of ideology preservation.

1.1 Also, by creating an enemy, an individual can blame the short-comings of his or her
being true on something external to the being true, versus accept that the being true
doesnt work in and of itself. It is preferable to believe a thing is causing ones way of
life not to work as it should than it is to believe that ones way of life is incapable of
working as it should.

2. The end of the rational life is convincing the self it is rational.

3. We learn more often to be better at ideology preservation than to make our ideology
truer. Not we necessary mean to do this: ill-equipped to know truth beneath our
ideology, we are like those trying to see the ground directly under a building. Whatever
we see, the structure covers it.

4. Racism and discrimination are probably often a result of the natural tendency of humans
to preserve ideology, and results because people are afraid of encountering people who
will challenge their ideology, which is often people who are different from them. Do
note that it is not so much the person they fear, so much as it is the challenge the person
may pose on their view of the world. This may result in a rejection of the person, but
not simply because the person is who the person is, but because the person causes the
individual to existentially reflect on his or her self (which causes anxiety). Racism and
discrimination result not always because of direct dislike, but indirectly as a result of a
persons dislike of existential anxiety. Its isnt the other the person is upset at so much
as it is the questions the persons presence makes the individual ask his or her self. This
leads to the self-segregation of Conservatives and Liberals, races, religions, etc.

4.1 This point might hint at why people who are Conservative think of their town as a
Liberal town and yet Liberals thinks of that same town as a Conservative town; why
Christians think of a place as Atheistic; Atheists, the same place as religious; why
fighters of racism think of a place as racist; those who arent passionate about racism,
think of a place as equal; and so on. We tend to be so bent on preserving ideology that
any encounter that makes us challenge ourselves is remembered much more vividly
than when there are no such challenges (similar to how we remember one mean
comment a person makes and forget all the nice ones) (do note I mean vivid as
discussed in Incentives to Problem Solve by O.G. Rose). It is only a fact of
probability that every town consists of some percentage of those who are opposed to
any given ideology, and hence a person will always encounter those whom challenges
the persons ideology. And these inevitable encounters will be remembered much more
vividly, and hence contribute to the person thinking (objectively) of a given place as
opposed to his or her ideology in some way. I believe this important to recognize, for it
will help a person not be so dissatisfied with where the person lives, and help the person
not necessarily view as problems that which is simply vivid, probable, and unavoidable.

5. A reason humans skillfully preserve ideology is because being wrong undermines their
confidence in the entire act of believing, which is the necessary tool they need to
organize the chaos and information of living. If belief cant be trusted, it cant be trusted
that whatever belief puts together will stay together.

6. Thinking through topics and ideologies takes time and energy, and this very blunt fact
contributes to ideology preservation and confirmation bias, for it makes it probable that
when a person invests time and energy in thinking, the person will do so toward
strengthening his or her ideology, versus against it (especially considering that
questioning ones ideology brings with it existential tension).

7. The concept of bias is useful for ideology preservation and discounting ideas that
threaten us without facing them, even though bias in of itself doesnt make an idea false
(as discussed in Basic Math by O.G. Rose).

8. As discussed in On Responsibility by O.G. Rose, reality doesnt force us to believe in

free will or determinism we decide the lens through which we see reality. If we want,
we can see x as a result of freedom and y as a result of determinism; hence, we are more
responsible for x then we are for y. Likewise, if we want to see another as responsible
for x and not for y, we can choose to interpret the situation as such (so long as we dont
allow ourselves to realize we are interpreting the situation as we so think is correct). In
this way, free will, total freedom, and/or responsibility help us preserve ideology and
self-image the fact we control how we interpret that the experience of phenomena
x doesnt carry with it a given interpretation of x is invaluable for ideology.

9. At infinity, there will be evidence justifying every possible case, given an observer is
capable of interpreting phenomenon fittingly. Likewise, as the population approaches
infinity not just presently, but through all of history it will increasingly be the case
that evidence can be found for every possible case. Hence, through time, determining
truth becomes increasingly difficult, and ideology preservation increasingly easy.

10. Believing that discussing politics and religion is bad for relationships is a great belief for
ideology preservation. Furthermore, it makes the one who avoids questions that
threaten your ideology the person who cares about others.

11. How do you substantiated an axiom, and how do you determine what constitutes an
axiom? How you answer this question will probably help you preserve your ideology.

12. Like situation creation, personality and mood can be used to preserve ideology: I can
be cold to make true that idea that reality is hard, or be happy to make true that
people are nice (seeing as happy person tend to make the people around them joyful).

13. Nietzsche wrote that man would rather will nothingness than not will, and in the same
way, I believe that man would rather have an ideology of nothingness than not have an
ideology (though that isnt to say its necessarily possible not to have a worldview). In
many respects, to will is to have an ideology: all will creates ideology and is within
ideology. If I will x instead of y, I have a reason for willing x that is beget by a
framework and/or worldview in which x is valued (for whatever reason) over y. If I
rather do x than y and yet still do x, it is because for some reason, at the given time of
the choice, I believe I should do x instead of y (perhaps to take care of a family, perhaps
due to peer pressure, etc.). All acts are orientated by and within a worldview, and hence
point to their corresponding framework; in a sense, all acts are symbolic all acts
point. Humans rather carry out acts that point to nothingness than not act at all; in
other words, humans rather be nihilists than not be anything.

When a person wills, a person extends his or her worldview into the world. In action, a
worldview always changes the world. In some shape. In some form. Perhaps in a little
way. Perhaps in a big way. Every moment of everyday, countless people are changing
the world in(to) the image and likeness of their worldview; the world is full of
competing potters. And people rather shape the world into nothingness than not shape
at all.

14. We pick our ideology via our you in such a way that we believe we pick it via
rationality. We must.

15. It can seem sometimes that the role of rationality is mostly to hide ourselves from the
fact that we pick what we believe based on (not necessarily bad) irrationalities (axioms,
fundamental premises, emotions, etc.) that the main function of rationality is self-
deception, to hide us from ourselves. And yet we require rationality to live like human
begins. Humans are ironies.

15.1 Similarly, logic seems often to exist to aid our truth and to keep out the truth to the
degree it doesnt align with our truth. The function of logic often seems to be the
preserving of ideas, such as the idea that the function of logic often seems to be the
preserving of ideas.

16. In her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Ardent proposes that citizens can
support totalitarianism because such regimes can restore consistency, meaning they can
smooth, if you will, a country of differences into a singularity. They can make a country
of many ideologies a country of one ideology, and this can make its people feel less
existentially threatened (especially if they never encounter those holding ideologies that
are smoothed out). Ardent proposes that a reason people can support totalitarianism
regimes is because they preserve ideology and guarantee its protection, and this falls in
line with what I propose the main drive of human action.

17. To be unable to think is great for preserving your ideology, for you lack the ability to
threaten it by thinking for yourself or comprehending external ideas, and consequently,
your ideology is safe. Perhaps this is why there has always been a spirit of anti-
intellectualism in the world, as discussed in The House of Intellect by Jacques Barzun.

18. Every interpretation of reality necessarily entails a belief that the interpreter is capable of
accurate interpretation: even if the interpreter believes humans cant understand the
world, the interpreter must believe that he or she can be accurate in concluding that the
complexity of the world transcends human conceivability. Hence, for a human to
believe any view about reality (as all must), the human must believe something
egotistical about his or her self (even if it is true). In a foundational way (a way that
arguably makes sanity possibility), we cannot avoid a kind of selfishness, and perhaps
this primes us for ideology preservation.

19. We are always trying to convince people to join our side, whether we realize it or not.

20. We are all masters at contained doubt, at letting in just enough doubt that it helps us
strengthen ideology, but not so much that our ideology is broken.

21. We seem innately designed to interpret the world in a manner that makes us feel right
and good because we are right. To put it another way, we seem gifted in unconsciously
living in such a way that optimizes self-deception.

22. Intentionality contributes to ideology preservation, for intentionality contributes to self-

justification self-justice, per se. When I experience x, I do so either indifferently or
through focus. If there is a pencil on my desk, I either glance over it, continuing about
my business without much thought, or I focus on it, perhaps picking it up. If I focus on
the pen and think about it, I experience it one with my thoughts about the pen: if Im
thinking about picking the pen up, I experience the thought pick up the pen in the act
of focusing upon it. In other words, I experience my intention of x (y1) at the same
time I experience x: when I focus on the pen, I dont experience x and y1 so much as I
experience x/y1.

Because when we experience x we experience x/y, our experience of the world primes
us to forget that everyone else experiences x as either only x or as x/y x1 (yx1 being a
different intentionality of x from y1). Though we experience everything in the world as
one with our intentionality (or interpretation of, understanding of, idea of, etc.)
toward it, everyone else experiences everything in the world either indifferently or one
with their intentionality. And we all experience things as so united with our
intentionality that its difficult to grasp that others dont see what is obvious to us. This
can contribute to misunderstandings, ideology preservation, and a feeling that if people
dont see the world like you do, they dont see whats obvious, which either means their
stupid, ignorant, or intentionally looking away (in line with the admonishments of Being
Wrong by Kathryn Schulz).

Similarly, when you put a cup in a given spot, you experience it as one with the reason
for why you put it there. It seems so obvious to you that the cup wasnt put there
randomly, but when someone else comes upon the cup, they experience only a cup
(randomly) in this spot. If people experienced things one with the intentionality
behind those things (regardless the source), we would be much less likely to constantly
find ourselves in conflicts and misunderstandings. Unfortunately, because we dont
experience things with the why behind them, we are prone to misunderstand them,
especially since we do experience the whys we are responsible for as one with the
things those whys are behind, making us feel as if the intention is obvious, and hence
that those who dont get it are either careless, stupid, or even evil.

In other words, we experience the world in a way that self-justifies ourselves: we

experience the cup we put in spot x as one with the reason why we put the cup there,
and hence that the cup is justified to be where it is if someone moves it, they work
against a kind of justice, per se a way things should be. Likewise, if we are a
Christian, we experience that world in a way that makes me justified to be a Christian,
and if someone else isnt, there is a sense in which that person works against justice.
This makes us primed for conflict when we encounter those who are different from

We experience the world as if our understanding of it is just as things should be

and hence our worldview is protected thanks to intentionality by an armor of justice.
And this armor protects ideology, for it comes to feel as if questioning it is to question a
kind of cosmic justice. And so we dont.

22.1 The phenomenology of intentionality contributes to ideology preservation, for things
say back to you the intention you read in, under, and/or over them, which means your
experience of the world confirms the narrative(s) of why you believe the world is how
the world is. For example, when you experience Democrats, you experience them one
with the narrative you believe applies to them, good or bad, and this helps protect
and/or support your worldview.

22.2 You experience an intended-objected as if your intention is written clearly upon it, yet
only can see it (as if everyone sees it too). Likewise, you experience the explanation
behind x as if it is one with x, and this makes you feel as if there is nothing to explain.

22.3 You only experience x without y if you are indifferent, and in such cases, x doesnt
impact ideology, for there is no connection to x by which to influence ideology. Hence,
what you care apart influences ideology. Care preserves ideology.

This begs a question: is love an act of ideology preservation? Perhaps (and perhaps
every act is) who would love someone that stands against their understanding of
reality? If a Republican marries a Democrat, to some degree, they must believe that its
important to be in a relationship with someone who challenges you, and hence, their
marriage preserves their ideology. It doesnt seem likely that a Republican who believes
spouses should have the same politics would marry a Democrat who believes spouses
should challenge what one another thinks unless someone changes their minds
(which one never has to do, given they have the creativity for it), it seems highly unlikely
a relationship would blossom (at least not one without conflict). It seems to me as if a
common ideology is required for love to blossom, even self-sacrificial love. But perhaps
not: this inquiry probably deserves a paper.

23. Foucault was fascinated by the question what is the function of knowledge?, and it
would seem to me that the answer is ideology establishment and preservation (whether
true or false). Without ideology entirely, there would be chaos and overwhelming
existential anxiety: there would be absolutely no certainty, and it would be difficult to
live in the world; but with the existence of ideology, there comes the maddening quest
for objectivity and the possibility of apocalyptic ideology.

Foucault realized profoundly that knowledge is always conditioned by the possibility of

what can be thought at the time of a given knowledges emerging, which is relative to
society, social norms, technological development, and more. He refers to this as the
pre-conceptual, and I would argue that this basis is often ideology, the parameters in
which knowledge dynamically and organically formulates and that knowledge ultimately
functions to establish, legitimize, and preserve, even though knowledge carries with it
(the motivation for) the question for objectivism. As there is a structure (of society, of
language, of religion, etc.) that structures knowledge, so the structure of ideology
structures thinking, and with that ideological structure impeded, thinking inherently
preserves that ideology, if for no more reason than to spread the presence of that pre-
conceptual structure in the world.

Knowledge is an improvisation that occurs within the pre-conceptual that requires the
pre-conceptual to not spill into chaos (where existential tension emerges). In other
words, a being rational is an improvisational occurrence within a being true; a being
true leads a person to formulating a certain self, which leads to the (improvisational)
formation of a certain being rational. Motivated by existential tension, a point of the
self then is to live in such a way that lines up the individuals being rational with his or
her being true (relative to which right and wrong, perfect and imperfect, etc. is
determined), and even though a given being true can be totally wrong, that wont stop
the self from successfully engaging in ideology preservation and pre-conceptual

24. For good and for bad, a mind that doesnt change is like a rock.

25. As Taleb talks about trees in Antifragility, the longer an ideology isnt overturned that
it is in fact an ideology the higher the likelihood it will never be overturned that it
will always be an ideology.

26. It is advantageous for ideology preservation to believe that you are the only person who
knows the truth, for it disqualifies others from being capable of making you question

27. If you are a Christian, you will feel there is too much Atheism; if you are an Atheist, you
will feel there is too much religion; if you are a Liberal, you will feel Conservatives are
controlling the world; if you are a Conservative, the Liberals are coming; and so on. As
we notice Heideggers broken doorknob, we notice that which breaks and/or
threatens to break our ideology much more than we notice that which confirms it or
doesnt threaten it. In other words, we will always feel there is too much of what we
dont do or believe in; we will always feel we are surrounded by threats to our ideology,
even when we arent threatened at all. This perhaps motivates our tendencies to ideology
preserve and to negatively portray the other.

27.1 To use language from Incentives to Problem Solve by O.G. Rose, you naturally notice
everything that goes against your ideology much more vividly than what doesnt.
Hence, you are likely to constantly feel that your ideology is being questioned and that
everyone and everything is against you, which doesnt bode well for democracy,
especially in an age that is skilled in vilifying the other.

28. Skepticism is usually thought of as objective, but it is actually usually biased: we are
skeptical of what threatens our ideology much more than we are skeptical of what
confirms it. Skepticism is usually toward skepticism is naturally biased though it
helps us preserve our ideology to believe it is objective. Ideology orientates the toward-
ness of our skepticism; it is the standard by which we (subconsciously) decide what and
what not to be skeptical of. Not even our means of achieving objectivity can avoid our
nature our tendency to preserve ideology.

29. How we are friends, how we are lovers, how we are workers, how we are students, how
we are kind, how we speak, how we share truth, how we confess, etc. all impacted by

30. Memory, focus, notice, etc. (subconsciously) formulate and occur in a manner that
preserves/confirms ideology.

31. When you have a case and/or framework, you have something to hold x data versus
y data in memory, and hence are more likely to remember and notice x versus y (like a
broken doorknob, to allude to Heidegger). X stands out, and hence a case, without you
trying, creates an impression of the world that x is more valuable and real than y, when
relative to a difference case, the complete opposite impression could be experienced.
The hints at how we can ideology preserve without even meaning to do so (seeing as we
must hold some framework, regardless) even unconscious experience of the world is
toward ideology preservation.

32. Hypocrisy is rarely too high a price to preserve ideology.

33. Ideology preservation can function like when you meet someone you know but you get
a sense that the person cannot remember your name. When that person returns minutes
later and starts calling you by your name, you think the individual may have asked
someone, but you rather not find out so talk with the person like nothing happened.
Consequently, the person feels like he or she didnt hurt your feelings, and you get to
feel that the person may have remembered your name after all.

34. Right or wrong, we are all in the business of protecting the system/language we have
adopted by which we best understand and articulate what we have experienced.

35. As discussed in The Phenomenology of (True) Ignorance by O.G. Rose, the act of
thinking is an act that both hides and unveils truth. Since humans are creatures of
ideology preservation, our thinking tends to hide what threatens our ideology more so
than unveil those threats, all while the act of thinking strikes us as an act of
understanding the world for what it actually is (nothing hidden). Thought often hides
us from ourselves: it hides our ideology from the fact that it is a (potentially false)
ideology (versus truth).

To offer an example of how we use the hiding/unveiling of thinking to ideology

preserve: we tend to let in just enough truth through our thinking to make us feel
opposed, and this way, we feel more objective about what we think, and consequently
objectivity becomes another means of ideology preservation.

Thinking is often depicted as an act of understanding truth, but it is just as much an act
of hiding truth in such a way that we (genuinely) believe we are understanding truth as
itself. (The genius who doesnt realize this probably thinks incredibly well in a manner
that hides him or her from the reality that he or she is an ideology preserver like the rest
of us.) Do note though that ideology isnt a simile for false: just because we preserve
ideology doesnt mean we are necessarily wrong. The point is that thinking isnt simply
an act of unveiling truth, but also of simultaneously hiding it.

36. According to On Critical Thinking by O.G. Rose, critical thinking is empathy, and
hence the other is needed in order for us to develop critical thinking about ourselves.
Ideology preservers, this would hint at why we can feel such strong existential tension
before the other.

37. If you want a sense of how humans ideology preserve, study romance: how a boy and a
girl know how they feel for one another and yet act like they dont; how a girl will
suspect a boy likes her but not wanting to break his heart, will try to send indirect signals
telling him that shes not available; how two people will try to speak to one another by
speaking about something else; how two people will avoid confirming that what they
think is true so that they can continue to exist in a safe space of possibility; and so on.
How people love can teach us how people think.

38. If there is no truth, there is (still) ideology.

39. Surely love and the desire to be loved is a greater drive of human action than ideology
preservation? This is a fair objection, and I would acknowledge that the desire for
acceptance is indeed a great motivator. However, I would argue that people want not
only to be accepted, but also for what they believe to be accepted, hence helping them
ideology preserve. Furthermore, once a person is accepted, I believe the motivator of
love falls into the background, and then ideology preservation becomes the main
driver of human action. Certainly, if a persons acceptance is threatened, the want to be
love shoots right back into the forefront, but once love is a given, ideology
preservation takes control.

What about the desire for people to like us? Even if we are securely loved, we are still
driven from day to day by a desire for the people around us to like us, yes? True enough,
and certainly the high majority of us like to be disliked, but I would also argue that a
reason we like others to like us is because it makes us feel that we are right about
ourselves that the way we are is likable and right, that how we think is right, and so
on. I would argue that being liked is a way that we ideology preserve, and that the
question of which comes first, the desire to be liked or the desire to be right, is like
asking if the chicken or the egg comes first. At best, its a tie, and I would acknowledge
that the desire to be accepted can be equally as motivating as the desire to be right (and
ideology preserve), but I do not think ideology preservation is less motivational.

40. Ideology is a system of beliefs that can do the believing for you.
(Just be sure to preserve your ideology in such a way that you never realize you have an

Certainty Deterrence and Ideology Preservation

1. Considering On Critical Thinking by O.G. Rose, critical thinking is that which tries
to consider not just a proposition but a nest of propositions, even though critical
thinking may or must fail.

2. Wittgenstein writes in On Certainty that when we first begin to believe anything, what we
believe is not a single proposition, it is a whole system of propositions. (Light dawns
gradually over the whole.)A I think that this insight gives an explanation to the inquiry
Thomas Sowell sought to answer in his A Conflict of Visions. In that work, Sowell
explores how it as that people who tend to agree on a few premises, tend to agree on
lots of them: he asks why it is that Conservatives and Liberals seem to have beliefs that
come in box sets. In other words, Conservatives tend to have the same views on
Abortion, Capitalism, LGBT Marriage, and so on why dont people have more of a
mixed bag of beliefs, being for Abortion yet against LGBT Marriage and State
intervention to fix the environment? The reason, Sowell concludes, is because Liberals
and Conservatives hold different fundamental axioms that lead (via being rational) to
certain whole worldviews. For example: Conservatives believe being free is the prime
virtue, while Liberals believe being equal is, and this fundamental axiom shapes how
each thinks about a whole range of topics.

3. Isnt this altogether like the way one can instruct a child to believe in a God, or that
none exists, and it will accordingly be able to produce apparently telling grounds for the
one or the other?B So it goes with Conservatism and Liberalism.

AWittgenstein, Ludwig. On Certainty. New York: First Harper Torchbook Edition,

1972: 21e.

BWittgenstein, Ludwig. On Certainty. New York: First Harper Torchbook Edition,

1972: 16e.

4. According to David Hume, we cant jump from is to ought, and as Wittgenstein

traces out in On Certainty, neither can we jump from believe to know.

5. Supposing it wasnt true that the earth had already existed long before I was born
how should we imagine the mistake being discovered?A Its not clear if the mistake
could be recognized as a mistake, and considering this, another way ideology can be
preserved is by situated around that which cannot be disproven or even proven that
which must just be. Is-ness is an invincible defense against reason.
AWittgenstein, Ludwig. On Certainty. New York: First Harper Torchbook Edition,
1972: 39e.

6. In the language game of philosophy, common sense cannot be easily defended, but
outside of it, common sense is so undeniable that it doesnt need an argument or
defense. It seems that common sense vanishes as soon as one thinks about it, in the
same way that perception vanishes behind thought (to allude to On Thinking and
Perceiving by O.G. Rose). Perhaps it is this kind of vanishing that made Wittgenstein
so concerned about our grasping of the role of language games.

7. Personality can function as does ideology, and what has been said about languages
games and ideology preservation in this work can apply to being INTP (to use a
category from Myers-Briggs) just as much as it can apply to being Liberal.

8. Please see They Live, directed by John Carpenter.

9. If humans are a result of an un-rational evolutionary process, can humans trust in their
cognitive abilities? How can we be sure that consciousness accurately grasps the world?
We cannot be, but using Poppers falsification, we can at least create enough of a sense
of certainty by which to live. This same argument can be used to help us overcome
Descartes Evil Demon.

10. Considering what has been said about certainty and deterrence, it could be said that
what we are certain about is held up from the side rather than from underneath,
phraseology explored in The Indestructible Map by O.G. Rose.

11. Compelling is often a better standard against which to rate an argument than
certainty, for absolute certainty is often unobtainable. There is a Humean gap between
compelling and certain, and so a person can always find space for doubt, preserving
ideology, but in such a way that the person can genuinely make his or her self believe
that he or she isnt persevering ideology (for to realize ideology needs protection is to

acknowledge it isnt invincible, which means it isnt completely true, which works
against ideology preservation).

12. To combine Popper and Wittgenstein: we are certain about what if falsified, falsifies our
entire ideology, and yet we require the possibility of falsification for our ideology to be
meaningful (if for no reason to give us a (perhaps self-deluding) sense of validity).

13. The squirrel does not infer by induction that it is going to need stores next winter as
well. And no more do we need a law of induction to justify our actions or our
predictions.A Once we accept a being true, what constitutes being rational becomes
instinctual to us, and what we accept as being true incubates (intellectual) habits and
instincts. In a sense, rationality sinks beneath conscious thought, and yet isnt rationality
a mechanism of thought? Yes, but not the parameters in which that rationality operates
and is framed. Consciousness (being rational) operates within free range, the fences
being the subconscious (the being true).

AWittgenstein, Ludwig. On Certainty. New York: First Harper Torchbook Edition,

1972: 37e.

Situation Creation

1. If at all, we tend to let just enough of other ideologies in so we can give ourselves a
sense of objectivity, but not more than we can handle. This is a way to preserve ideology
while convincing ourselves we arent protective of ideology.

2. We tend to locate ourselves within a diverse group of people like ourselves. True
diversity is a state of mixed ideologies: there can be more of a difference between whites
with different ways of seeing the world than between different ethnicities who do the
same kind of work.

3. If you are interested in the ideas of this paper, read Being Wrong by Kathryn Schulz,
which puts it finger on many of the ideas expressed here.

4. As we are situation creators, we are evidence absorbers, taking in everything that

justifies our being true/ideology and happening to miss everything that challenges it.
Something similar happens with hermeneutics: we naturally tend to take in everything
that supports an interpretation and happen to miss everything that challenges it.
Theres a way in which the way a being rational is established from a being true is
hermeneutical in occurrence.

The Map Is Indestructible

1. True or false, ideologies, distinct from ideas, necessarily entail consistency, and hence are
necessarily (in)consistent.

2. The manner however perfectly or imperfectly by which we generate a life language,

whole hope, and sensualize is often relative to what preserves ideology (to allude to
many of the works by O.G. Rose).

3. Science and empiricism have a tendency to make us toward A is A without realizing
the rest of the equation ( A/(A-isnt-A) is A/(A-isnt-A) (without B)).

4. A map that 1 to 1 delineated a territory would be a map that needed a map, and that
map would need another map, and so on indefinitely. So it goes with thinking: if
thinking didnt to some degree abstract the physical world, we would need thoughts to
understand thoughts, ad infinitum. So it goes with identity: if identity was simply A is A,
there would be an eternal regression.

4.1 If thought perfectly delineated perception, it would be useless.

5. Humans are animals but not simply animals, and language is one of the ways humans
are distinct. Language, in short, can be about language. This is a fundamental way in which
human noise-making systems different from the cries of animals.A Likewise, human
images can be about something other than the images themselves, and humans are able to
see imagines in their imagination that arent empirically before them. Additionally,
animals struggle with each other for food or for leadership, but they do not, like human
beings, struggle with each other for things that stand for food or leadership, such things
as our papers symbols of wealth [].B We live in an environment shaped and largely
created by hitherto unparalleled semantic influences [], so much so that for humans,
it is often more important to have the symbol than what it stands for, though this
would never be the case for animals.C

AHayakawa, S. I. Language in Thought and Action. Orlando, Fla. Harcourt, Inc., 1990:

BHayakawa, S. I. Language in Thought and Action. Orlando, Fla. Harcourt, Inc., 1990:

CHayakawa, S. I. Language in Thought and Action. Orlando, Fla. Harcourt, Inc., 1990:

6. It seems to me that Hans Gadamer and his games would be appropriate to bring into
the discussion about Gdel and the groundlessness of thought.

7. What Korzybski in Science and Sanity refers to as the unspeakable seems similar to
what I call the perceived.

8. The semantic problems of correct symbolism underlie all human life. Incorrect
symbolism, similarly, has also tremendous semantic ramifications and is bound to
undermine any possibility of our building a structurally human civilization.A So it goes
with ideology.

AKorzybski, Alfred. Science and Sanity. Fort Worth, TX. Institute of General Semantics,
2010: 36.

9. According to Korzybski sanity is connected with correct symbolism, but I would point
out that one can be sane in being insane, and will be if a person has a consistent and violent
ideology, such as the members of ISIS. Relative to their ideology, members of ISIS have
a correct symbolism and are sane to them, everyone else is crazy and yet this
sanity is by no means good.A
AKorzybski, Alfred. Science and Sanity. Fort Worth, TX. Institute of General Semantics,
2010: 36.

10. As described in The Message in the Bottle by Walker Percy, the Keller Moment is
when a person realizes that there is a connection between the thought and the
perceived the signifier and the signified and hence enters into full humanness,
and yet this is also the very moment when the person is now at risk of the errors warned
about by Korzybski, and also able to take The Pynchon Risk.

11. As we read unconsciously into the world the structure of the language we use, so we
unconsciously read into the world the ideology we live by.A

AKorzybski, Alfred. Science and Sanity. Fort Worth, TX. Institute of General Semantics,
2010: 25.

12. No one thinks they arent a Philosopher King, and the consistency of their ideology
gives them objective reason to believe they are right. Every ideology produces a
Philosopher King it is more extraordinary to find a person who doesnt view his or
her self as a Philosopher King (perhaps this is the New Philosopher King)?

13. Thinking is the map; perception, the territory. And as you cannot experience the taste
of a fruit by thinking about it, you cannot know the territory through the map: you
can never experience through thinking what you can experience through perception, but
without thinking, what you experience in perception would be meaningless, and you
would have no control over what you experienced in perception. The experience of the
abstract is never the experience of the concrete, but the concrete cannot be
meaningfully experienced without the abstract.

14. Korzybski seems to think of the idea of humans as a mixture of the natural and
supernatural in dualistic terms, but the Thomistic concept is different: to Aquinas,
humans are (super)natural, not natural and supernatural, if you will the super falls
on the same scale as does the natural. But I may be giving less credit to Korzybski than is

15. Like thought and math, ideology holds itself up but doesnt ground itself, and yet
appears as if it is solidly upheld (by something objective and even Transcendent). This
helps preserve ideology, for it gives ideology the appearance of being that which
doesnt need to be questioned and/or that which cannot move.

16. Ideology can be situated within ideology, which can be situated within ideology, on and
on, making The Pynchon Risk more absurd to take.

17. Where ideology cannot establish itself as true, ideology can strive to add uncertainty (as
if adding a Liars Paradox) so that it can justify staying the same.

18. A function of certainty and sanity, for that matter, is to protect us from The Pynchon
Risk, and a way it does that is by convincing us that there is no need for us to take the
risk our ideology is the truth, and hence the other ideologies are false (without

19. The very fact that the map is indestructible might be a reason why people tend to
believe what the people around them believe while thinking of themselves as rational
and not just believing what others tell them (for every ideology is rational relative to

20. If you could step into the realm of the mind, youd be where you couldnt observe
the-phenomenon-of-cat being its signifier youd be only where signifiers were (being
(signifiers where there lacks any of the signified)). But in the world, you cant observe
any connection necessarily linking a word to what-the-word-signifies. You are that
connection, which links the signifiers in the mind to the signified in the world, but do
you create objective connections? Are you in your being of you objectively such?
What connects the world of thought and the perceived world isnt solid, or at least not
knowable as solid.

21. It is possible that some axioms are justified by other axioms, and that those axioms are
justified by even more axioms, ad infinitum, and in this case, even if you could undermine
a justification, youd not necessarily succeed at defeating the ideology stuck taking
The Pynchon Risk forever forever on the verge of it being worth it.

22. As math needs an outside system to be grounded, ideology needs other (S/s)ystems,
but unlike math, we have a vested interest in protecting ideology, and so while we dont
use the groundlessness of math to protect mathematics, we do self-protect ideology.

23. With the work of Neil Postman in mind, perhaps it is the case that ideology is easier to
preserve in our age of mass media, which is always drowning us in new information with
which we can justify ourselves and doubt everyone else.

24. Preserving ideology, a person decides if he or she is convinced by a premise: no one is

forced to be convinced, as Dostoevskys Underground Man was not forced to accept
2 x 2 = 4.

25. We all perceive reality, but we never perceive reality as perceived reality, only reality.
Likewise, we all hold subjective truth, but we never consider subjective truth as
subjective truth, only truth. We all experience/think ideology, but we never
experience/think ideology, only what is. The system is invisible as even that which is

26. Is it possible for us to seriously think someone we disagree with is objective? If not, that
is a challenge for Pluralism.

27. How does one choose an ideology? might be like the question how does one fall in

28. If you militarily fight an enemy fueled by an apocalyptic ideology, and kill everyone who
holds that ideology, the roots still exist, and easily more followers, more weeds, can
emerge. To beat an apocalyptic ideology, the military option will only be as effective as
is simultaneously launched an intellectual war against the ideology to discover a
contradicting inconsistency within it (though that isnt to say the military option is never
necessary). This means someone must take The Pynchon Risk, with no guarantee of
success, and considering this, there is no guarantee that a military can ever defeat an
opponent fueled by an apocalyptic ideology, seeing as weeds can grow back at any
point from an indestructible map, especially if that group doesnt follow any code of

29. Post-Secularism, as it is called, is a consequence of facing the reality that the map is

30. Ironically, it is possible that religion, which Korzybski was no fan of, helps people think
like Korzybski wanted people to think. This is because in believing in God, a person
believes in that which knowledge cannot fully conceptualize, and yet can conceptualize
truth insomuch as it does so aware that its concepts of God are (infinitely) incomplete.
Theology consists of an apophatic and cataphatic dialectic: a dialectic of using
negative and positive terms by which to refer to God. If I say God is just, I am
saying something true about God, and yet I am also saying something false, for God
isnt just in the way I mean when I use that word, I being bound to the finite. God Is
Just, and though God is just points to that In-finite Truth, the claim itself isnt True.
When I assert a positive claim about God, it is also a negative claim: I know God via
(mis)understanding (not simply understanding nor misunderstanding).

This dialectical thinking is remarkably similar to Korzybski, who wants us in the act of
asserting an identity, to recognize that identity isnt the thing identified that the
signifier isnt the signified. We can only know things by abstractions which they arent;
at best, we can (mis)understand a phenomenon (we can know an A is A which isnt
what-A-signifies). For Korzybski, to learn this is necessary for the development of
sanity and good thinking, and so a case can be made that theology actually helps people
be sane, but this would horrify Korzybski. Furthermore, the dialectic of theology can
help people always question the limits of their knowledge, and hence question their
ideology (their invisible being true and being rational). In this way, theology might
help train a person against their natural tendency to ideology preserve, but of course
theology could be used just as easily to preserve ideology. At least though this method
of preservation entails within it a skepticism of positive claims.

As a final note, the believer may point out that the fact that reality is known in a way
that is theological is to be expected in a world Created by God especially a Christian
God, who Creates humans in His image and likeness. But this claim could simply be an
example of ideology preservation, though it may also be a claim toward actuality.

31. No matter how complete the ideology, it doesnt touch the world it floats.

32. No ideology is irrational: it exists precisely because it is rational (unto itself, relative to its
being true). And yet most ideologies are false; in fact, only one of them can be true,
right? Yes, but by what standard? An ideology?

33. Because the map is indestructible, interpretation is limitless, rather meaningful or

meaningless, ever-awaiting a glimmer of Being to break into being and confirm one
thing as one thing and another thing as another.

34. Despite all of Enlightenments predictions that religion would vanish as reason grew,
religion has only strengthened, and that is because the map is indestructible, and the
very tool of reason that erases slopping thought is the same tool that strengthens and
defends the map perfectly.

35. Forever, ideology enables us to be interesting without being true.

36. Charles Taylor, one of the great minds navigating the confusion of the world today,
argues that it is impossible to get people to cease creating and believing in Master
Narratives, and that the effort to keep Pluralism from ripping the world apart by erasing
Master Narratives is doomed for failure. I believe he is correct because the map is
indestructible, and also agree that what is needed instead is a better Master Narrative
that engulfs other conflicting Master Narratives into a peaceful harmony. What
Narrative is that? Hopefully one that can overcome the challenge of an apocalyptic

37. When it comes to ideology, most people keep the ideology they grow up with, and the
reason they can do that and think of themselves as rational and intelligent is because the
map is indestructible (and because perhaps they really are).

38. Humans are meaning seek animals because humans are equipped with the capacity to
create and recognize meaning, which is the same capacity that enables humans to create
ideologies. If humans werent motivated to live meaningfully, humans wouldnt create
ideologies, but then what would be the point of life?

39. Further strengthening the map, keep in mind that one person could realize that
Christianity is a bad idea and not an ideology, for example, while another person may
not realize this, because the idea that makes the first Christian realize this isnt as
indisputable as the first Christian thought. An indestructible map can be confused with
a bad idea due to a lack of thought, and because a Christian can always claim thats
what happened that there has just been a failure of thought a Christian can always
protect his or her ideology rationally and reasonably (for theres always space), as the
Christian has every rational incentive to do.

40. If the map is indestructible, what is the point of critical thinking and suffering the
existential tension of questioning ones ideology? Wont that, at the end of the day,
rather than overturn an ideology, only strengthen it? If a person puts everything at risk,
as Liberal Education strives to make students do, wont everything put at risk only
become more so everything? If ideology is invincible, then what is gain from
challenging ideology?

Discovering it is actually a bad idea thats the benefit. But what if the challenged is
actually an ideology? For that reason, should it be strengthened?


41. Following the thought of Understanding Media by Marshall McLuhan, technology,

more than anything, might be the greatest map shaper and shifter.

42. Because the map is indestructible, when we encounter people we disagree with, we are
prone to ridicule, dismiss, and/or insult them, to commit intellectual errors, to commit
logical and argumentative fallacies out of desperation banging so long against a wall
that will not budge.

43. People believe the worldview what gives them words for what theyve experienced.

44. The limitlessness of books is because the map is indestructible.

45. What doesnt work for at least a time is that around which no dogma, ideology, and/or
political platform map will formulate.

46. Hopefully this work has helped shed light on why the ideologies people hold seem to be
shaped by where they live, who they are around, what jobs they do, etc.

47. It is asked do apologetics ever convince anyone but the convinced?, and in line with
this inquiry, I wonder if the same can be said about any argument in general. This
question should concern all Habermasians of the world.

48. Creating spaces of free thought and intellectual debate might be ways of avoiding the
reality that no thoughts can defeat one another: if we create spaces for sharing and not
determining truth, we perhaps dont have to face the existentially horrifying reality that
the map is indestructible. Defending opinion and the pursuit of truth (over truth)
saves us anxiety.

49. If the map is indestructible, intellectuals are those most capable of creating worldviews
that cannot be overthrown, for right or for wrong, and so they are those who we should
be most skeptical of (for they are naturally gifted with the ability to create a theory
justifying any premise, regardless to the degree is aligns with reality), and yet intellectuals
strike us as those whom we neednt be skeptical of they being most intelligent and
those of whom are already most self-skeptical. Intelle