Remember, my stated goal for the year is to learn philosophy to acquire the tools necessary to disambiguate the body-mind problem with respect to IQ and genius, if possible. Well, here’s a bit of Anonymous Conservative to store away for later:
John C Wright, the amazing Castalia House author who everyone is raving about lately, (and whose new book, The Book of Feasts & Seasons, with an amazing 4.9 Amazon rating,, is available at the Castalia House Store for only $4.99), has given this site some much appreciated linkage recently.
In one post though, he pointed out that he felt the work here was incomplete, because it didn’t deal with the spiritual. He is correct, of course. If you meet pure evil, face to face, you will realize that there is clearly something much deeper than a mere mechanism, which happens to produce evil as a byproduct of some other purpose. As one examines evil up close, the only answer which really makes sense is that the evil are soldiers, with a mission, serving some authority. They will sacrifice their own interests, destroy their own lives, and fall on their own swords, in a genuinely selfless pursuit of their evil purposes. They will even do evil when it doesn’t matter, and when there is no sense to it. Their evil mechanism is so self-sacrificial that it seems the type of thing which nature would eliminate over time. He is right about the spiritual lacking here, and I encourage others to not mistake its absence here for some endorsement of a non-spiritual world model.
One part of his response I take issue with however, is his assertion that the rabbits hate him because he exposes them to truth. A proper explanation of this touches on the spiritual, in part because a full understanding of the rabbit’s hate offers a window into the same hatred satan holds for the good.
John C Wright, Social Justice Warriors, and Hate
I recognize a recurring theme from the time when AC pointed out that Vox Day is almost incapable of understanding how rabbits expect him to respond to group dynamics. It seems that when two minds meet, the mechanistic cause (as in noumena of the physical universe) of one can be completely misunderstood by the other- lacking the mechanism itself- through mere ignorance. Because most minds have, as part of our meatbrains, the tendency to explain through empathic projection, we have a tendency to attribute incorrect motives rather than mysterious ones.
Take JCW as an example. The rabbits have been attacking him out of contempt for his weakness, and he can’t comprehend this motive. But he can comprehend hatred, and their actions would be comprehensible if they were motivated by hatred (and furthermore the secondary symptoms of contempt and hatred are similar enough that novices to psycholinguistic analysis may be forgiven their prognostic clumsiness). Therefore, he ascribes the motive of hatred to their actions.
This is an example of mis-attributing a metaphysical motive where a physical cause is perfectly explanatory. It is also possible to mis-attribute a physical cause where another physical cause is active. A good example may be taken from the Aspie hijack, which I vomited on the comment section of one Vox Popoli post or another:
Ya know, reading AC and thinking back on those instances when people refused (or were unable) to perform simple math problems…I’m starting to believe there’s an aspie hijack analogous to the amygdala hijack for narcissists. It’s nearly the same thing, except that the anxiety comes from the unsolved problem and the apparently illogical nature of the other person.
See, the behavior makes sense to the neurotypical person. To them, “frame” control means never answering a simple, direct question in the context of a debate. But now that I understand this, I won’t be hijacked, because the person is acting according to a logical system (albeit one I don’t share).
In this case, the aspie is unable to comprehend that a neurotypical would prefer local incoherence, when this causes agitation for the aspie. But this is because neurotypical “victory” in the rhetorical realm requires that the issue in question never reaches resolution, and so judgment is always held in abeyance. This is because the weight of public opinion cannot be brought to bear on a solved problem, but if the question is never answered they can keep the political process going until the rhetorically superior side wins. The answer to the math question was never important, but the question itself served as a starting place for opinion and disagreement.
This is directly opposed to the aspie conception of “opinion” and “disagreement”, which is based on ignorance and ambiguity, and can be resolved by bloody solving the God-damned math problem!
The obvious thing to do next is to disambiguate all possible sorts of mis-attribution. I’ll use statistical errors as an analogy. A Type I error, or an “error of commission”, is to mis-attribute a metaphysical motive (like love) to a purely mechanistic action (like hormones). That is, a person may accidentally mistake the behavior of his teenage paramour for perfect, undivided loyalty and devotion when, in fact, her affection will only last as long as her chemical pair-bond. (Further, it is non-trivial for him to prove that his paramour is a mind at all, rather than a robot made of meat, containing nothing of eternal substance.) A Type II error, or an “error of omission”, is to fail to recognize a metaphysical motive (evil) in an action that is not purely mechanistic. For example, malice on the part of elites may be misread as incompetence on the part of their puppet government.
Responses to comments tomorrow, promise.