Iliberal_Verification.md 11 KB
Iliberal Verification
They claim to adhere to democratic processes to come to the right solutions, but it is not a process for discovering and accurately verifying. The process that is used is instead of a process for setting up a system to account for some metric and then having a democratic process insofar that multiple people will consider the means of generating teh metric and deciding what should be done about it. But that is nto the same thing as truly verifying by scrutinizing what system or metric would be most verifiable and then focusing on how to meet the highest standard for verification. That would be an engineering task with unlimited resources and an application which reveals its failures at every iteration. Instead, we the policy-minded who build a career out of public policy are more liable to evaluate the correctness of their proposal based on the number of or ease at which minds are brought to support their cause. Perhaps the ability to use the idea in a debate. It is not that a debate uncovers the most accurate information, however. That, again, would be an engineering task, and it might be something uncovered through a developmental cycle. A debate fills the requirement of having scrutinized something and having a victor chosen or discovered through reputation / response, or just purely by how one feels from the encounter and exchange. It feels progressive, and it is a necessary part of the social order, but it cannot supplant real technical analysis.
Moving Forward
It might seem that we disagree on very much, but since we often talk past one another, we never bother to define our terms. In actuality, defining terms is often all that is needed to come to an agreement, as it gives that opportunity for each side to broaden perspective and realize that there is yet more complexity in the matter; at least, that that we suspect that at least our own side doesn't get to have its truy complexity or sophistication revealed.
Ultimately, if we can define our terms, we will likely move the scope and level of analysis and agree that we are both talking about the same haves and have nots, though it would do us well to forego the need to proclaim that concern for the have nots is somehow evidence of one's superior morality or heightened sensibility.
In any case, there is always good reason for being concerned about the have nots, as they form, for better or worse, our environment and our compatriots. Their health extends ours and feeds back into us, protecting us, sustaining us and dictating what sort of barriers exist.
So it is never going to be difficult to establish that we need a better distribution of resources as we do not have the time to be busy busying ourselves with each type of resource. The question is how do we distribute those resources?
Malthusians don't like too much analysis assuming we can improve distribution of resouces.
Saying No
We reject their cynicism. There is no reason to expect that things are not improving. We attain our basal metabolic requirements with less effort than ever before. They claim that some have not been privileged, but there are fewer under such circumstances than before.
We reject their distaste for incrementalism. Assuming the disaster monster is afoot with a pace exceeding any incremental change, making us blind from realizing the problem, they come to believe we can be recruited to their cause through the erosion of our way of life and fall into despair. They don't believe in incrementalism because their vocation is one of deconstructing as a means to gain control. Any consequent synthesis is the implementation of ideals, and these take the form of the criticisms more than the structure which needs transformation or repair.
They don't understand that when you research and learn to create something, it all occurs incrementally, or that mos tincrements seem hopeless and pointless until a key increment is incurred. This is how it is realized o reminded that a zero sum and linear path of progress is not self-evident, but is the natural way to view progress in moments where the progress cannot be so easily discerned.
We reject a culture of conformity, particularly one which represents conformity not as an intolerant demand to adopt a practice without question, but instead as whatever can be regarded as normal, usual and expected. And then, without even the slightest pause to feed self-awareness, declares that one must adhere to the masses. The real conformity occurs in the mind. It begins with the realization of having an idea which is at odds with that of the social sphere, and then being compelled to discontinue any material application which extends, maintains or develops or can yield the detection of that idea. A conformity which assumes a moral dimension is traversed on the basis of adherence to uniformity. One which assumes that since it is put forward for the masses, ti is already unqestionable, and that the intent behind any questioning can be presupposed, and that this alone is sufficient to not allot the question any mind.
We reject the belief that any one man or woman can declare that they understand the belief of another, and can use this ascertainment to dictate terms of material and moral consequence.
We reject the suggestion to question one's own declaration of faith and to subject them to an evaluation which rejects the veracity that they believe what they clai. For who can prove that oen truly ever adheres to the testamint of a belief system. What of those who advance and evolve the ideas and sematnics of that system? Are they non-believers? Or is there belief an even deeper expression of that system's ideas, advancing them and strengthening them, or making them into a more viable form to evolve with time.
We reject the notion that a rejection of oen's faith can be used to assert a position of morality, that one might suyggest that they failed to prove taht they believe the approprifate belief or the belief that they claim, or that an aesthetic can be used to qualify whether they sufficiently believe a doctrine, belief system, or acknowledgment of metaphysics.
We reject the notion that we can ascertain the purpose for one's blief, or the purpose for believing a system of belief. Limiting the possible logic and rationale for adhering or participating in abelief system to some parameter or interpretation which best serves another's abilit yto lay judgment upon you.
How do we unearth the better reality from the one we see?
Do we convince them and ourselves that it's even ebtter than ever, or do we loathe and despise until all join up with our discontent and revolt.
Finally, one can rationalize the short sight of all mortal men and forgive it. There is no expectation to serve that which lies beyond, therefore we can all choose to add the degree of flair or depth of style and symbolism that one so esires, but it makes no more difference thant he lightest of dust in the wind, thus no one need hear judgment of the faux holy - or is that something we can never do away with, no matter how deep we conquer? If taht is the doom of the flesh then surely I hope we can each say that they've tried.
And what of the eternal - if matter brings it still? Could I still have my rest? Could I, perhaps, have my essence laid to rest at an even interval - perhaps a modest proposal to return ever million years? Tastes. sights and sounds once more. Let me gander at its greatest delight and if it suits and serves I will decide to stay, bt only until I begin to weep and then I will plan another slumber, perhaps for 2 million. Then things will be improved, and those who only loved will now have time, patience, and most of all - mastery in all things enjoyed but not succumbed.
And then, what do we yearn to resolve? Do we wish to communicate oru disparate understandings? I think that there are minds who expect a good world because they see it being promised to them but that it is more subject to impairment on the basis of bad luck, drama, deplorables, conflicts of entites beyond our control, and so on. That is, they have suffffered much, and they deserve to have a good life brought back to them, so they hope it will be something which is delivered.
For others, they expect that anything being delivered to them will be, at best, a massively deprciated and devaluaed circumstance and, at worse, and most likely, a manipulative trap. They also know that abiding to the status quo will mean that their goals, plans and dreams will be unattainable.
They do believe, however, that something can be done about all of it. it might just be taht everything has to be started from a new more basic instantioant, where the patterns necessitating mutability are more readily observable, and some of the previous pitfalls can be removed and avoided.
How do we begin to understand the personal differences leading to having one form of expectations to the other? Personality, emplyoment? Fmaily beliefs politics age life trajectory?
Are these differnces borne of chance and moemntum? A weathering withint he system? Or is it the fundamental structure of one's being? Their very nature and purpose to contribute an idea as a force of nature? How would we best understand the conception of a balanced system? One in which components of harmony are brougth in as per their purpose, or one wherein the forces ta play etch out components and their properties across time? Our understanding of evolution would suggest an adaptation on the basis of a circumstance, but an understanding of elegant purpose and balance would suggest that there is no difference between instantiated components bearing qualities of design vs their having been wrought into their particular form.
This brings us back to the question of the simulation. Do we exist because there is a simulation, or do simulations exist because of a need for anything to exist at all? The very notion for there to be a state is, in and of itself, the order for a system of explicit forms to be brought into being. It is itself for something to be simulated.
Delayed Reactions
I suppose it's better late than never. I have long been disappointed at the lack of presence from certain figures, including JP, GS, JR, LF, DM, and on and on. Some of them even virtue signalled about it, which goes to show you just how susceptible we are to the programming. The world's foremost expert on Totalitarianism belief systems and clinical pschology, and he couldn't manage to keep a clear and discerning mind about the whole affair.
But now that they are coming around, parking discussion amongst their fans, and demonstrating to other media personalities that it is appropriate to risk being heard, we might be seeing the beginning of a mass awakening to counter the mass psychosis. What could be a better time than now? Can I blame myself for having been an early skeptic in this whole ordeal? It becomes difficult to understand just how much effort one ust be applying at every possile opportunity, as each mind is thre difference, but there are always more minds, and then still one's own.