In Rejection of the Null Hypothesis

 

Examples are used to elucidate a theory, but they are not a theory in themselves.  A fact on its own, without a theory accompanying it, is not an example of an example, as it elucidates no theory, and is instead only a sign without significance, lacking connotation.  This is not the entirely true however, as we are all immersed in a contextual paradigm, and we can bring our own theories to lone facts, and supply our own examples for a theoretical context.  A theory is supposed to explain many examples, and in fact, a complete theory will be capable of incorporating every relevant example.  Is it possible that a theory can accomplish such a completion, or will there always be an example or two to come along and disprove a complete theory, or prove the incompleteness of a theory?  How does a theory prove complete?  And would that not be tantamount to the end of time?

Our first problem, how do we decide whether an example provided is relevant to a category when following its formal criteria?  Well, you might say, we will need an example of a formal criteria first, as well as a property that has been decided, following this criteria, to be relevant to its operation.  Ah, but did you not just ask for an example?  How can we decide what is an example of a formal criteria without first having a formal criteria for a formal criteria?  Uh oh, we’ve just run into the paradox of self-reference.  This could be worse, because we have in the liar’s paradox an example of a formal criteria.  Or, more formally, it is an example of a recognized problem, with associative connections between forms.  Hey, we’ve stumbled upon a starting place!  What we’re interested in is which statements can be formally defined as partaking in the paradox of self-reference.  As in, what properties go into a statement that allow us to recognize it as a member of the set of paradoxically recursive utterances.  Ok, so what is an example of a statement that can fit the formal criteria for the paradox of self-reference?  First, we will need to concern ourselves with what constitutes an example of this type, and what types of examples there might be.   How can we list a set of examples for a property we have not defined?

To define our property we will need to construct a format allowing for the disambiguation of a statistical distribution of contextual content.  Further, a property will be defined by the function from which its value is derived, following the rules of inference which warrant its containment within a domain that satisfies a sequential limit with convergence upon a factor.  The limitations set for a function are dependent on the efficiency of the factor produced as the determining vector approaches the optimal features of an evaluative definition.  The determined co-efficient proceeds in line with the evaluative schema of the factor to which belongs the rules of its approximate dominion.  Evaluation can be mapped as a function of the sensitivity of a factor in response to the approach of a conditional through which its domain retains, at least, an harmonic constant.  This evaluative line is an effective result of the application of a predictive sampling to a distributive model with alternative orders ranked in accordance with their impact on the specific function.  The predictive model that appreciates the highest impact will coincide with the distribution sample that can best capture the concentration of the rates under inspection. The model that generates the lowest impact will be in essence of a type of paradox leading to an inflationary coinage by the so-called principle of explosion.  Explosive inflation will describe the characteristic of a collection of sets that do not contain the properties of their distribution in a fashion that could render them accountable.  The outcome of a collection as an empty set of uncountable (because non-existent) properties is vacuous, as an understatement, and does not pertain to the considered attributes of a singularity vector, as recognized by a delicate (wholesome) re-activity to the inputs that are its necessary condition.  In this way, we can describe a miscount as a systematic bias in which every set of a collection of sets is represented by properties they do not contain, or by properties that are said to contain them all, by virtue of an unconditional relation.  This type of error is quite homogeneous, and usually entails the assumption of the exhaustion of a subject matter in relation to a set of unrestricted predicates.  It is the assertion of an unconditional resemblance between classes, as apparently defined by a structural homogeneity in a proposition string.  Contrarily, we have set out to advance our proposition as the codified conditions under which the predicates are judged, through an anonymous, and unidentified, reciprocity of synthetic production.  We have compiled a stack of allocated solutions to instances of optimization procedure through the inhabiting of a stratified manifold allowing for the affordance of feature instrumentality.  We have not based our proofs on lists of supposed instance-cases, but have chosen a design protocol as a priority of generative induction. This is a system with a much stronger fidelity to the expression of a composite image.  The interpretive power can be directly confronted, at each point of departure, as it entails the consequences of its operations upon the model.  Succession is a factor of each positive, automatic predictor,  with each test case encoding an exclusive settlement for each phase considered,  without thereby determining the outcome of the recurrent notion, such that the approval of a phase relies on the compact security of its key detection.  The cumulative effect of this appeal, from which derives the source of its expense, supplies each class with the rules of its observance, for which is conserved the choice of an ultimatum, whereby a contract is fulfilled in the relevance of its terms, or otherwise annulled.  Each point of the conjecture correlates with a critical feature of the engendered design, through which the map is grafted onto the surface of a serial array, as esteemed by the calculated supposition of its derivative.   As such, the effective correlates of our map will exemplify the very features for which they hold distinction, stemming from the notional dependency of their design on the intrinsic qualities of their co-efficient.  In sum, the task is to clear the space for the event of their elaboration, in order to quantify the standing of their pairs, to escape the degeneracy of formal paradox, and to codify a sufficient schema for the classification of restrictive ascendancy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taking Hate Speech Lying Down (Part 1)

Hate speech is problematic.  It is not the only problematic speech.  Expressions of love are problematic, especially if they are true, and doubly so if they are reciprocated.  Except we don’t usually have public energy poured into political activism to denounce or advocate the right to express love to another.  We do have stalker laws, for protection against unwanted attention (and obsession) especially if it becomes threatening to the victim.  This would be related to conditions of consent for legal sexual behaviour.  Does stalking someone constitute “true love”?  I think we can unanimously decide that it does not.  But when does attraction turn into obsession, and when does obsession become threatening, and what makes this behaviour different to true love?   One answer could be because it is unreciprocated, but we know that an unreciprocated love does not necessarily lead to stalking, so there has to be some other condition.  Perhaps it is the perseverance and continued advances of an unreciprocated proposition that accounts for its migration into stalkerdom?   This is much closer to the meaning I feel.  In the event of an x-lover becoming a stalker, you have an initially reciprocated, or at least encouraged, attraction between two agents which is followed by a termination of reciprocity by one party, and this is met by a staunch refusal of the new terms of contract by the other, who proceeds to exhibit a behaviour of entitlement to a superseded order of affections.  Now, the stalker often does not keep expressing love, as the circumstances for coherent courtship have been removed, or never existed, and so they often revert to expressions of hatred.  This might include threatening behaviour, such as irrational outbursts of rage, or maybe sitting outside the person’s house at night in a car with the lights on.  These are both examples of signalling, though neither need to include speech at all.  No, hatred itself is not speech, and speech is not hatred.  So when does one “constitute” the other?  But we’re getting ahead of ourselves, at the moment we’re trying to understand the truth of an announcement, following the circumstances that allow one to enact it.  We want to know, why does the stalker begin to hate the victim, and how, in the case of a love once reciprocated, can it turn into its violent opposite of hatred?   What connection is there between these two apparently distinct phenomena?   Let’s listen to a song (for educational purposes only):

 

 

The lyrics have their own ambiguity, but they do connote a pattern. The song is, of course, about a love triangle.  Two women, and a man. From what we can gather , the man is in a relationship with one of them, and the second girl is jealous about what she takes to be their unbreakable relationship.  She is in love with someone who cannot reciprocate, because he is already in an exclusive relation with another (or at least, this is what our disappointed third-wheel believes).  Now, whether the boy does reciprocate depends on who we conceive his lyrics were directed towards, and that’s not entirely beside the point. What is important is a question of possession.  Possession by what?   Well, love, you fool.  But not just love.  There’s also an insistence on hatred.  Let’s refine our concepts a little, we’re going to need it…

First, we have speech, or a formal relation of signs, infinitely reproducible, and therefore capable of infinite redundancy.  I hate you I hate you I hate you etc.  That there is pretty straightforward example of hate speech.  Or is it?  And if not, why isn’t it?  This is easy, you’re thinking, it doesn’t count as hate speech because it is purely insignificant, it is just a grammatical structure repeated three times. Sure, it’s semantic content literally “means” that an agent of enunciation is expressing hatred toward some undefined other, but for it to actually have any significance it would need context and substance.  As of now it’s just a floating piece of linguistic redundancy.  So, what kind of context and substance are we talking?  Well, you’ll say, what we’re looking for is non-linguistic factors.  That is, we’re searching for a (non-linguistic) expression of content, and not just a content of (linguistic) expression.  Another way of saying it is we are trying to find what is unreproducible.  Or at least, something that is reproduced in a very different way than verbal expression.  At minimum, we’ll need an agent of enunciation.  Someone who is actually expressing the designated content of hate speech.  Any agent?  We could program a bot to send emails to hundreds of people with the simple message “I hate you”.  Does this get us closer to hate speech?  But wait, a bot like that has only the agency it was programmed to have by a programmer, so it is whoever wrote the code that is the agent we’re looking for.  Does this new figure sincerely feel a lot of hatred against the victims of his spam attack, or were they just randomly picked, and he’s only doing this as a faceless prank?  Ok,  we’ll run with this, one thing we will need in our quest to find a real specimen of hate speech is a sincere expression of hatred truly felt.

So, what of an unlucky character having a bad day, until his frustration overwhelms him and he lets out a string of blasphemous curses against God, life and his fellow man.  He shouts it at the sky, and no one is around to hear him.  His hatred is genuine, so much so that he loses control under its influence, and he expends this energy in the form of shouting, but he’s content to abuse the void surrounding him.  Is this hate speech?  We definitely have hatred, truly felt, and an agent who experiences the affect and finds the words to express its content.  Or maybe he doesn’t find words, after all, no one is around to bother with articulation, so maybe he cries and shrieks as his face grows hot and wet at the exhaustion from this nervous attack of rage, he grunts and snarls incoherently, sneering at the sky, eyes crossed, fists clenched, emitting an occasional bellow of rampant fury, blindly indignant at his hapless fate, and spluttering madness and bile at the cosmic engines that condition his existence.

Ok, so we’re definitely getting the feeling the dude is a little unstable, and I’m reminded of the insulated “rage rooms” in certain private institutions for the treatment of psychotic patients, where the recovering individual can vent their frustration in relative safety,  which might include padded walls, or a punching bag, or maybe some old newspaper to tear apart and throw around.  Yet, this is not considered hate speech, but as the symptom of an illness,  one that reduces the culpability of the agent under treatment, precisely because their illness is directly linked to a disorder of agency.  If a psychotic screams at you that he hates you, he probably means it, but you were just walking in the park, and didn’t know this guy was on the loose.  You’ve never even seen him before.  What’s his deal?  You’re a really nice person, maybe if he just got to know you better? … Nevermind, the most important thing is avoid him like the plague, because he could get violent, and madmen have supernatural strength. What does it matter if his obscenities are meaningless, in that, he really has no reason to hate you, what’s important is the vibe he’s sending off, and you’re thinking he could be on some pretty heavy PCP.  After all, what does it mean when a disordered agent expresses their substantial confusion?   But a threat situation doesn’t need to have meaning to acquire significance. In fact, it is this ambiguity of significance that you find most threatening. We’re talking about an agent who is not reliable to predict their own actions following the cues of a postdictive process.  As in, his affective state has suffered a derangement from the coherence that would make it consistent.  Shame gives way to euphoria, euphoria to depression, and gentleness to aggression, all following the illogical progression of the chaos of intensity that is suffusing him, and completely at odds with the external world he finds himself in.  Yes, this is confusing.  In fact, it is what confusion feels like, when it finds substance.  It is true confusion.   You’re wondering what could cause this meltdown of sensible responsibility, but when you ask the lunatic, he fanatically ascribes it to a demon, or maybe an ubiquitous control apparatus, like some vast abstract machine of communication, that has been sending him unique messages, perhaps aliens, or an ultra-powerful programmer-wizard, who’s hacked into his brain and planted malware, and now he has these recordings playing through his mind, and all kinds of voices, of extremely varying pitches, shrieking, whispering, but also caressing, even angelic, deifying.

It’s the sky entities, he tells you, the storms, the rain and clouds, they’ve undressed his skin from his body and stretched it across the horizon, and when the wind blows, he can feel it tingling his asshole for miles, and when he smiles, the sunlight turns his teeth into diamonds, so he only open his mouth in the shade.  “Good teeth are more precious than diamonds”, he says with a smile, apparently neglectful of his behaviour just now, when he victimized you with hate speech. “This guy is seriously messed up” you think silently, “he needs a doctor, no doubt about it”.  He makes you feel uncomfortable, frightened, even a little weird, because his disordered mind is strangely contagious, and you can almost feel his confusion, but you make sure to constrain your empathy, lest you find yourself in a similar state as his through the power of mimicry.  The last thing you need is to get your mind all tangled up in another’s psychotic experiences because of the mirroring effects of an empathic disorder.  But it’s too late, you’re altruistic nature has sucked you into the vortex of his pathogenesis, and you become intimately aware of the surging intensities that form his disturbed physical and mental state, each seeming to cause the other, as though in a mixture of chemicals that never cross the threshold to a stable equilibrium, but instead react upon themselves indefinitely, now producing this affect, and now that.  You try to make sense of what he is feeling, through the construction of linguistic composition, but it’s such that words cannot express.   All you have are signs you can inscribe to the process, with varying levels of salience.  Generosity, paranoia, nostalgia, loathing, there’s that, but there’s more.  What’s the word?  Oh yes, sublimity, and an aesthetic experience of beauty,  he feels all this, but it’s all tangled up, lacking clear distinction, and you can tell it’s exhausting his capacity to predictably measure the consequences of his actions.  And there’s an experience of distance, of displacement, the doctors who speak to him come from another world, their words do not penetrate, they have no effect on him, but the messages he receives from within have a much greater significance, or maybe they can be heard behind the words of the doctors, encoded messages that they are not aware of, it is not they who are talking to him, but some other process, leaving signs for him to navigate.

The doctor asks him, “how are you feeling today”?  He hears himself answer “good, better today”.  The doctor smiles, he had heard all about the difficulty of bringing this patient in under an Involuntary Treatment Order, the patient had told his family he would see a doctor only if it had meant not giving away his freedom, of which he was extremely sensitive.  Many people are trying to take away his freedom, he had told the nurse.  When they had explained to him he was being placed under treatment, he was not subtle about his contempt.  He told them they had no authority, that the people who called themselves his family were of no relation to him, and that he could see through their lies like a clairvoyant.  He was a real jerk about everything.  He was sick of commands, he said, because they were all external forces trying to pass themselves off as an imminent condition of possibility.  They simply did not understand the importance of his task, and they could not perceive the new world he had discovered latent behind the overwhelming falsity of modern society.  They had never seen the ripples of sentience pass like a charge of electricity through the natural world, shimmering from off the leaves,  leaping from shrub to shrub, and then smoothing itself over a long field of grass, before disappearing into the thickets.  Yes, this was the living world, apart from the deadened regimes of stratified linguistic constructs, which could never say anything with meaning, or mean anything that they say.  His name had become a curse, and when he was addressed with it, it seemed to him a tactic of manipulation, a way to confine him into a few repetitive syllables, and he did not like the sound of them.  His name had become hate speech. 

There was still a few messages that reached him in the confines of his cell, only very subtly, and without the micro-perception that had accompanied his breakthrough, he would not have noticed anything.  The message was clear enough, it was a warning.  This warning was two-fold, on the one hand, it was the medical institution itself that was warning him with his confinement.  On the other, there was a secret path of signs showing him the way to behave to be released, and giving him hope that fate had not forgotten him, and in fact was only testing him, a very tough test, but he was being selected for an elite position as a prophet of the living earth, so it made sense the process would be filtered heavily for supra-normative strategies of survival.  He could tell the difference between the two agencies of signs by their intention. One displayed a malevolent continuum, and instructed him of his potential confinement for his own good, while the other was benevolent, it was warning him to escape.  That is, the first was threatening him with a warning, and the second was warning him of a threat. They both had territorial components, but one was attached to the boundaries of the medical complex, whereas the other was a porous boundary, it could contact him through any medium, or send him an omen from anywhere.  It was this that led him to consider the possibility of divine intervention.  Meanwhile, the doctors eyes all glowed red, though invisible to any ordinary observer, and below the level of appearance he was sure a few of them were demonic agents, possessed by some unfathomable evil, though there was one or two innocents who were just working the job for an income.

With a major effort of control, you manage to wrest back your cognitive independence from the affective boundary of the psychotic.  It was quite a powerful agency, which you had not expected, thinking all this time that a schizophrenic would have reduced, or negligent agency, one that did not have the capacity of self-possession.  Yet, here it was like a black hole, warping time all around it.  You looked at your watch, and realized you had been standing in the park with this fellow for well over an hour.  You new friend beamed at you, he was grateful you had taken the time to share his dreams.  You had entered his world, and now he was far less alone.  There were certain truths that had become more clear to you, as though an overcast day had been dissipated by the sun.

The first of these was the reliance of truth on ritual, or significance on the circumstances giving rise to potential acts.  Ritual is a test, with degrees of improvisation and/or rigid protocol, following a code of propriety, in service of the virtue of ren.  Some societies had standard lengths of mourning, as well as proper conduct at a funeral.  Of course, if some estranged second-cousin mourned at a funeral louder and more publicly than anyone else there, this would be a transgression of propriety, and humiliating for the family and friends who were closer to the deceased. This humiliation would feel like a violation of the identity of the mourning parties.  The only defense would be to humiliate or remove the offending party, so he would cease or change his behaviour. This is an example of a conflict of interests. Two or more agencies who are following incompatible codes of ritual behaviour. In effect, two or more exclusive properties of bodies that are unable to amalgamate without one or the other suffering a sacrifice to the dignity of their identity. The word that best describes the affect that accompanies the undignified interruption of a ritualistic agency is hatred.  That is, there is an involuntary proscription of the virtue of an acting agent, which violates a sacred process, and this forced reduction of behavioral rights leads to resentment.  The essence of the ritual experience is optimal cue integration, this is the ability of the agent to incorporate the circumstances that allow for it to act in a manner compliant with the emergent teleology of a sovereign assembly of property rights.  In short, it is the ability to behave.  

Already I can predict the opposition that may arise to these conceptions. In anticipation of these concerns we will devote some time, in this already long post, to an explanation of what is a rational behaviour of an agent.  There are sociologists who emphasize rationality over ritual, and others who emphasize ritual over rationality.  A dualism will not satisfy us here.   Indeed, we are wary of rationalists, who are often disastrously inept at recognizing optimization cues.  We are also wary of rituals, since most of them become rigidified to the point of suffocating repetition, and besides just being boring, these pose a perfect environment for the predations of psychopathic individuals, who are excellent at exploiting easy opportunities to gain social trust.  If the ritualized code is readily vulnerable to affective mimicry,  you can bet that it will make for easy pickings for the masters of deception who want to use you for their own inhuman ends.  Hence the adaptive principle of a transformational complexity for behavioral codes.  Novelty is the most adaptive trait.  It is the first and last line of defense against parasitic intrusion.  For example, the event of novel adaptation which is marked by the boundary of the Hajnal Line was an evolutionary innovation against the parasitism of extended kin-relations. It is also why living with your parents as an adult has definite connotations of parasitic behavior, but only within the Hajnal Line.  It goes both ways, as anyone can tell who has visited their parents after many years of independence only to be treated like you are their property.  This can often take the form of an infantilizing influence.  It is this enforced dependence that is adaptive for the parasitic agent, and maladaptive for its host. We call this process of castrating subjection Oedipalization.   

Finally, we’re getting somewhere.  But we still need to do considerable tweaking to unleash the full explanatory power of this paradigm.  We have truly only touched upon the problem.   That will have to wait for tomorrow, as the morning birds are singing, and I am making the executive decision to get some shut-eye.  Serialization helps to ration our reading.

 

Mandatory Digressions (An Introduction)

This promises to be a crooked investigation.  To begin with Trump and arrive at Fnargl.  So far my expertise on the subject has been confined to twitter, but as the Trumpenvolk plant their frenzied memes ever more forcefully into my cortex, slowly conditioning my thoughts until I find myself prostrate before the Trump Shrine I have built in my wardrobe, rubbing the mutant head of TrumpKek I have tattooed on my inner thighs, and fantasizing about our next first lady in every honorable position, I realize I have to remind myself that my marginal support for our Savior Of The White Race comes solely from a state of detached nihilistic irony.  So that’s why I’m writing this.  I only hope this admission of less-than-sincere enthusiasm will not provoke the Trumpsters, or is it Trumpets, no, Trumpists, Trumpians? … Anyway, the last thing I want to do is fall on the radar of the Trumpenvolk as an enemy of The Cause, because those guys rule the internet, and I have no intention of becoming Jew-fuel for their oven parties.  So let’s keep this analysis objective.

Let’s start with the basics:  Populism.  This has been a target of anti-Trump rhetoric from the beginning, namely, he’s an unprincipled demagogue, feeding off the growths of resentment that have been festering in the hearts of the fashy-inclined ever since they entered the ZOG-mandated education system, where they were made to attend pious lectures on the pernicious influence of their Aryan purity,  and coerced into watching interracial cuckold-fetish pornography until their viking hearts screamed out in the primordial anguish of their selfish genetics.  Yes, life under the stomping boot of The Synagogue was a dystopian nightmare for every budding pan-European identitarian.  But what the hell am I talking about? … Oh yes, demagoguery,  which is to be strictly distinguished from democracy.  See, the first is where a con-artist manipulates the masses by appealing to their base and rotten natures, winning their support with false promises and offensive lies, dividing a populace with an “us vs them” mentality,  playing an exclusionary game of tribal intimidation, breeding conflict and hatred, bigotry and mega-Hitlers, and relying on the popularity that comes from being the schoolyard bully, while all the weak-willed and domesticated slave-minds fall in line behind them, hypnotized like stroked chickens, and grossly infatuated with the erotics of domineering sadism.  The second is where respected representatives work hard through public service to win a legitimating majority of votes from an altruistic and educated electorate.  That’s a big difference.  It’s the difference between lies and truth.  Between barbarism and civility.  Between hard fascism and soft socialism. But you don’t need me to remind you.

 

What we need is a mechanism that will prevent majority decision-making from crossing the ever-threatening threshold into dastardly mob rule.  In theory, this should be a breeze, considering the vast gulf between tyranny and democracy that we have outlined above.  Social consensus brooks no debate, democracy is the very opposite and antithesis of tyranny.  Our only problem is the ease with which the former transforms into the latter.  Quite the paradox of synthesis!

Coincidentally, the giants of media have recently re-opened the debate on possible filters for democratic enfranchisement.  The premise is quite simple: ignorant people vote for bad policies, like lower income taxes.  These misinformed voters are oblivious to the fact that government spending is the main stimulus for our economy of fairness and equality, and without it, we’d all be up the allegorical creek without a welfare recipient paddling into the new subsidized housing next door.   Disastrous gentrification would be all but inevitable, and that’s a major cause of global warming, terrorism, crime, poverty, you name it, it’s bad.  There has to be a better way.  Luckily, we have epistemology.  Yes, that’s right,  if there is a decision to be made, more knowledge ensures better outcomes.  How convenient!  Now all we have to do is spread the gospel of education reform, because if there’s one thing we can be sure of in the West it’s that education is universal.  A fact is a fact: undeniable, solid, encyclopedic.  Epistemology knows no privilege.  Can there be anything more egalitarian than learning?  It’s available to everyone. Well, except the disabled, and maybe the majority of the electorate, but that only proves the rule.  Take for instance the idea of a mandatory civics test in order to be eligible for voting rights.  Mr. Harsanyi has obviously thought this proposal through for a long time, and he provides a few examples of the kinds of questions he feels are essential to his litmus test for civic participation.  Two of these are “what rights are granted by the first amendment?” and a related inquiry “what is freedom of religion?”

Well, readers?  Do you have the answer?  We don’t have all day.  10 more seconds.  Pens down!  If you answered, “the right to believe and say anything I damn well please provided I understand that it can be persecuted as libel in a court of law, you low-life media schmuck”, you’d be correct, even if a little needlessly provocative.  Congratulations!  You have proven yourself to be educated.  I think we can now all feel a lot safer in your hands.  The benefits of this type of knowledge is endless. For example, if we organised a federal program to teach every Joe and Grace the fundamentals of the constitution, they would learn that there is nothing in the document that grants authority to the federal government to preside over the education of the populace.  Yes, if you want to teach your children that a coming apocalypse will involve an alien mothership piloted by a Thetan Fnargl that will genocide the Caucasian race and restore the Black Nation to its former position as masters of the universe the government can do nothing more than protect your right to believe it.  Hail Xenu!   Freedom of religion baby.  It’s the bomb.  Harold Bloom’s American Religion is unthinkable without it.  It’s enriched our lives with lively cults and heresies for centuries. Sure, the earth is a disk carried on the back of cosmic turtle-riding elephants, it’s says so in my sacred book.  Whatchagonnadoaboutit?   After all, a fact is a fact, and the first amendment is a fact of law.  So talk to the hand.

Ok, ok.  I know what you’re thinking.  Kevin Williamson thinks so too.  Even Ilya Somin is wary of the objectivity of a political factoid filter.  The problem with facts is twofold.  First, it’s not certain that more knowledge will lead to a change in preferences. Second, there’s no way to be sure your knowledge tests are free from bias.  You have to give WaPo credit for giving us both sides of the debate on facts.  They’ve tried to give us all the facts on the efficacy of facts.  What would David Hume think of all this?   Will our philosophers help us out here?  Or is that entire tradition dominated by western imperialism to the point of intrinsic and irretrievable bias?  Are facts factual, or are they backdoor values?  A sneaky method of rigging the system under the presumption of benign guidance?  A sham of objectivity  peddled by the ignorance of amateur epistemologists?  The mind figuratively boggles.  Can democratic education survive this subversion of its key tenets of unbiased inclusivity?  I’ll leave that question as an exercise for the reader.

The night is getting old, and we’ve only just started.  Stay with us noble browser of the blogosphere!  That was only an introduction.  Not more than a joke.  But now we’re getting into the meat.  This is where the mask comes off.  The gaping maw of our problematic yawns before us. Nevermind that we could reveal too much of our nature.  It’s too late to stop now.   Already there are dark snares lurking in the peripheries, and mocking voices, they have already come this far, they say, and have journeyed further.  We are falling behind even while we race ahead!  Cities live a million lives in a day, and our poor hands are hovering timidly over our qwerty, too carefully, too cautiously!  Our ordered political lives are lost, and chaos has broken its cover, and now stakes its claim upon our beautiful empire of absolute knowledge, as does the jungle over some lost relic in the abandoned cities of long-dead tribes.  The facts?  Illegal.  Values?  Only war survives…

(to be continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interrogation Of The Wisdom Of An Arch-Fiend

This piece is carrying on from another Future Primaeval post titled “Inference With A Vampire”, in which Brennan introduces, under so many names, the concepts of Induction and Duration, and establishes from them a methodical sociology of cumulative knowledge.  Now, there’s a lot going on in IWAV that we will likely do the injustice of neglect, but justice is not our primary intent, what we are looking for is instead to awaken the vampire from its undead position as a perfect and indifferent observer, and reconnect it with the social fields through which it has conveyed itself.  This is already to do some violence to the vampire, as its original vision was in line with a relative constant that has been extracted from the variations of relations it has encountered.  Is handling the vampire this way possible?  Would we now already have turned our vampire into a puny human, or enacted some equally damaging transfer of power?   The last thing we want to do is to mummify the vampire, who is already so devitalized.   Since this is a question of epistemology, there will be inherent bias in what we take to be relevant information in our vampire studies.  Do we concern ourselves with its secret life as a blood-sucking monster and murderer of human children?  Does it eat human children, or does it feast on the elderly for (warped) ethical reasons?  We are told that the vampire is “evil”, so presumably children are on the menu.  Further, let’s say we are undertaking a (perverse?) study of the sexual psychology of women in Victorian England.  We are curious as to whether the vampire has first-hand experiences of these feminine desires, perhaps as a voluptuous agent directly involved in the nefarious details of the private life of Victorian women in the bedroom, or has it simply read Freud in an armchair from a position of total celibacy?  Can vampires make love to humans? …. Damn, already so many questions, and honestly, I already have the suspicion that the best approach to this problem is a stake through its heart, but this is not an “interrogation of the vampire”, we are just trying to learn from its so very valuable experience, which by all accounts is incredible.

Our vampire is known to be a very adept master of the sciences, updating its belief according to the facts of hard science as they are discovered, as well as being an astute consumer of the details of other forms of social knowledge as they emerge.  But hold on, we are reminded that the vampire lacks one essential feature of every human life.  Mortality.  Sure, it is in a more intimate relation with death than any human could conceive, being not so much alive as an animation of death itself, but it is this curse that restricts it from ever crossing over to either side, it’s in purgatory, not human, not dead, but between worlds, and excluded from both.  How could it ever become attached to a social form to the extent that its life is irretrievably entangled with the success or failure of their project, when it is incapable of vital involvement?  A social field, inextricable from the intensities of bodies that traverse it, is from the perspective of the vampire simply an alienated matter to be observed, without ever intervening in a capacity that allows it to affect the variables from within the dimensions that define their nature.  Our vampire is an archetypal outsider-intellectual to the nth-degree.  It’s basically a platonic form in itself, and all but useless, like heaven is for a pigeon.  A problem we are trying to avoid is the essentializing of human knowledge and psychology, as though there were objective facts of experiential value that a simple duration of observation will allow a theoretical monster-genius to comprehend, free from any compromising engagement.  It seems our vampire has yet to fully understand the implications of the age of entanglement, and here we thought it was the best scientist an indefinite duration of ethical malpractice could produce.  At best, it will be an excellent behaviourist.  Let’s not even get into the sorts of experiments it might have conducted on humans in the dark immunity of its dungeon dwellings.

I would just conclude, that if one is looking to revive a concept of a living body of traditional knowledge, using the vampire as an analogy is probably counter-productive, and this has been a question of probability all along.  As an entertaining defense of the wisdom of the library however, it has a lot to recommend it.

 

Sovereign Assembly Theory Of Property Rights

This is a post to clarify (or perhaps complicate) some of the insights that I gleaned from the short post by Warg Franklin on “Three Types Of Property”.  First let’s discuss the distinction that Franklin has made between Primary and Secondary Property, taking his example of a wallet as an instance of the first category.  Now, what Franklin has done to justify this categorical induction is that he has implicitly placed the wallet in a system of intensive (and extended) agency.  In other words, the wallet has been included as a component in an imminent relation with a sovereign assemblage that is defined by its capacity to effectuate a credible defense and deterrence threat.  This is Franklin’s “contest of force” whereby the wallet is a secure possession backed by the potential vigor of its securing agent.  Arguably the wallet is not in fact sovereign (or primary) property and is rather secondary property in relation to the securing agent that can affect their rights of possession.  What this means is that if you leave your wallet somewhere unattended, outside of the range of its potential security, then it becomes inert, the object becomes a standing reserve that can be expropriated, appropriated, or stolen. In my definition primary property cannot be considered apart from the system of agency that enacts rights of possession.  More nuanced, we can say the wallet is a primary property as long as it has been secured in range of an extended system of agency, or what’s the same thing, has become a component in the assemblage that secures it.  We can keep the idea of secondary property if the deterrence or defense threat is effectuated by an assemblage that is exterior (and separate) from its imminent relations.  For example, the police academy is an assemblage that secures your wallet by a law of authority (credible deterrence) but is exterior to the “man-wallet-fist” assemblage in which the wallet is a territorial component (in Franklin’s terms, the form of this security relies on the “grace of a higher power”, or a transcendental relation).  A heavily encrypted digital wallet is less ambiguously a primary property as its security is imminent to the functions of its use.  An iphone can be stolen as hardware but the private keys that lock its software effect a credible, and even unassailable, defensive composition.  In this instance we would say the software is primary and the hardware is secondary.

To include consensus property in our definition we will need to accommodate for a theory of perceptive materialism.  This is not so difficult.  All it means it that an assemblage (as a formal, and irreducible, relation of composition) exists independently of our minds, but also that the perception of the reality of the assemblage can be erroneous to a minimum or maximum degree.  Take for a study the Howard Hawkes film “The Outlaw”.  Pat Garret is an officer of the law, but in the desert this authoritative declaration of official rights is a purely transcendental relation and predictably neither outlaw, Billy The Kid or Doc Holliday,  recognize his legitimacy apart from his capacity to affect its emergence.  They aren’t going to take his word for it.  They ride by the law of the gun.  The Kid is a formidable gunfighter who aims before he draws his weapon, because “his hands are quicker than his eyes”.   In a one-on-one contest he will outdraw Garret every time.  So a theory of primary property here will have to account for the co-efficient of speed of the hand-tool affect and its dynamic relation with the visual precision that achieves the accuracy of its discharge.  Other characteristics of the gunfighter are also relevant, such as his retention of composure under pressure etc.  All of these factors combine to create an emergent property that is dependent on its components without being thus reducible.  Now, in the final scenes (spoiler alert) there is a variation of the “it works better with bullets” trope, whereby Garret believes he has deceived The Kid into accepting an unloaded weapon, thereby decomposing the dynamic assemblage by which The Kid can execute a credible threat.  Long story short, The Kid perceives the emptiness of the cartridge by the weight of the gun in his hand and accomplishes a “double switcheroo” whereby Garret ends up with the disassembled component.  Garret acts as though he has a loaded gun, falling victim to a misperception of the content of the assemblage, which of course does not change the  configuration of its real (independent) material properties.  We can conclude that an action of an agent does not need to be in alignment with the reality of its constitution.  This in turn has far-reaching consequences for ideas of consensus property, and goes a short way towards explaining the concept of preference cascades.  Garret’s disposition changes irrevocably once he learns of the objective attributes of sovereign formation and is confronted by a fully-armed and flawlessly calm Billy The Kid.

There’s a lot more to be said about the game-theoretic aspects of sovereign contests (games of chicken and bluff), as well as ideas of institutional legitimacy as an emergent property of formal rules of relation.  This would take us into questions of empirical thresholds, as well as distinctions between pragmatics, tradition, and charisma as qualifying rules of legitimacy, and even the problem of succession.  That would be moving into another post so I will leave it here for now.