The epistemology of low agency

H/T Koanic:

Pseudo-chrysostom says:
2019-03-17 at 20:10

There are many nomenal consequences to low world-formation capacity. One of them is this: a lumpenprog lives in a world with no agency.

Things like ‘war’, ‘poverty’, ‘success’, ‘crime’, ‘riches’, ‘peace’, ‘safety’, and et cetera, are seen like abstract energy fields, emanating from the cosmos de novo, that may randomly seem to ‘imbue’ some locations (they do not even see the inhabitants of such locations), and not others; they are not seen as things that are *done*, something that some *agent* in particular is *performing*; something that *brought into being* by the agent, the conduit or substrate through which the phenomena might be instantiated (and without which, it cannot).

They almost always speak in terms of the passive voice: ‘someone should get rid of that guy’, ‘[X] people should just disappear’, and et cetera. Sotto voce: intentionality is something that other people have.

You may, for example, correctly point out that the prevailing conduct of many portions of ruling/high-status populations in the west, and large portions of populations taking cues from high status populations, amounts effectively to an official europoid genocide policy. If pointed out to such a person they might so oft say, ‘thats crazy, noones trying to kill off white people’, and, they will, more or less, *be almost completely earnest in asserting this feeling*, because *they literally do not, **can not**, think in such terms*.

They are practically allergic to the idea of anyone ever simply, ‘directly’, *doing* something. This of course has manifold implications in the formation of political opinion, amongst other things. Whenever they conceive of some state of being in their head that they desire (we may ignore for the moment what felicity it may or may not have in coherence with actual Being), they feel an instinctual preference for the most circuitous, tangential, and proximate approaches to influencing some thing in order to bring it about; and heaven forbid anyone ever actually be *in charge* of the business.

Now why, might one think, would an otherwise less capacitous dasein feel attracted to producing needless complexifications in such approaches to governance? The reason is simple of course; they do not actually see the complexity involved. Such that would be encountered in, or created by, such approaches.

This is the reason for a certain ‘double valence’ in the patterns of behavior or assessment of events by the congenitally solipsistic; ‘penny wise and pound foolish’.

They can be, in more parochial contexts, almost anally retentive in their concerns or recalitrance with regards to some risks (such as a persons ability to, for example, responsibly own a firearm); yet at the same time, in more transcendent contexts, they can be unthinkingly foolhardy in pursuing or advocating for some such massively upsetting policies (such an alien immivasions, de-structing cultural superstructures, reformating directly responsible governance into indirect irresponsible non-governance, and et cetera).

They, at the same time as phobically recoiling from instances of direct authority (responsibility), desire intensive micro-managing of particular affairs. More than once over time have more conscienteous writers (sometimes called ‘conservative’) observed a contradiction here in this, between what is said in one context and done in another; all of it however and in fact, is springing from the same mode of thought.

When a solipsist criticises someone, *they are telling you about themself*. When he nervously recriminates over all the trouble people could possibly get up to without ‘supervision’ (who’s supervision? *passive voice*), *he is not actually talking about them*. When he heedlessly advocates massively upsetting adventures on national scales, *the scales do not actully exist in his mind*. When he thinks about great wars, great economies, foreign nations, foreign peoples, *other people*, he is not actually thinking of these things, in terms of forming a world of such motions, that is more felicitously responsive too and coherent with the World. What he thinks of when he thinks of these things, rather, are *idols and caricatures*, which have their own private particular motions, irrespective of relation to something in greater reality, that are nominally referred to by the same designation as something in greater reality. A truer relationship of such greater things is not something that he can truly produce, not something that can truly ‘fit’ within him.

He is heedless of the greatest of risks, of life and civilization in general, because he does not see them. He is disproportionately concerned with trivial risks, because there, now, finally, tendrils of reality start coming down to levels he can begin to actually comprehend.

Because he cannot really see such much more transcendent contexts, he also cannot really see what feedback from reality on the matter looks like; the caricatures that exist in his mind continue to exist safe from devalidation. In great matters he feels endlessly confident, because in his mind it is easy, and in his mind his answers are not contradicted; he may even fancy himself rather genius, with how effortlessly he may twirl what mental artifaction he would be fain to call [the-subject-in-question]; or perhaps a bright specialist rather, conveniently specialized in such higher things that are difficult to verify, rather than things where chronic mistakenness would be easier to verify and identify ahead of time.

(Contemplation of modernity is full of such ironies to appreciate; persons who are *least* qualified for a certain matter, are disproportionately attracted to it, to being *authorities* on it.
One might not help but be tempted to consider, if you say have someone who cannot even imagine how axial tilt causes seasons, how could you expect them to come to good conclusions on somethings so much more massively important to the course of civilization?)

But come some less transcendent contexts, phenomena from Outside become increasingly intrusive in their presentation to himself, poking through veils of narcissism; he can more ably *see* such things, see *contradictions* to conceits he may be holding in such matters, in ways he cannot so easily deny or dissimulate (to himself, most importantly). It reminds more conscious parts of him of something he would not like to be reminded; reminding him that he, on some level, perceives that the world, at least parts of it that he can see more easily (and such parts he is extra ordinarily concerned by), *is not in fact* as easy as the caricatures he some times imagines; on some level, he *knows* it isn’t, and this is a source of constant cognitive dissonance for him. *He is deeply disturbed by the motions of a reality he can scarcely comprehend*, and this concern is exacerbated by, is sublimated into, an intense desire for control; the fear of people having authority, and desire for micro-managing of people, derives from the same impulse.

He is allergic to the idea of anyone having sole direct authority over anything, because, in a part of himself he can hardly acknowledge, he imagines himself in the same situation with the same responsibility, *and finds himself wanting*.

H/T le Chateau:

What’s revealing about this video is that these cucked Swedes are completely sincere. And if your only goal in life is to maximize happiness/goodfeelz/dopamine while minimizing accountability/badfeelz/cortisol, and this pushes out all other considerations, then this behavior isn’t even hypocrisy, technically. You have to imagine the interviewer prefacing every question with “Would it make you more happy or more afraid if…?”

The assumption that the point of life is to be carefree and happy is conceited (hence all “hypocrisy” is logically justifiable via principle of explosion), but this conceit is an unexamined assumption shared by most people.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The epistemology of low agency

  1. bicebicebice says:

    Classic rabbits bumming smokes of each other, goodfeelz sticks toke it up son itz on the house, the white man provided this.

    If orangutangs stopped driving cars and started to chimp, I would be worried, I would not be worried if chimps just chimped as usual all day long. Sapes not even once.

    Is this a real person problem, or is it the usual cigarette bumming? No real kavemen really cares about whats going on inside the head of serfs, and if the globohomogayplex finds you wanting then you were a sape all along.

    “do what makes you happy son” except for of course actually living a christian life working towards happyness instead of injecting it. Who gave the genetic underclass the right to vote? It is never part of the deal that the slave labor replaces the owners, but h/t history that’s just what happens maaan.

    how many ways can one rephrase laughing at the same rock doing in all honest actually nothing at all? how many times can you squeeze it? “heh look at that stupid worker ant going about his business like a worker ant hehe,” said the soldier ant. Was it ever funny?

    Thardism is making excuses for sapes, but what is is called when kavemen makes excuses for thards? What i’m trying to save is, in real Sweden all the “swedes” you see in this video are sterilized, the ooga boogas making ITZ-pornograhpy would have been shot at the border, or you pay 5 sek to see them at the zoo, preferably stuffed.

    “ayo yol up what about muh asian food and epic sceptic commentary” no u u get the oven 2

  2. bicebicebice says:

    I’m trying to say “predestination” without saying predestination, nam sayin?

  3. bicebicebice says:

    It sounds so simplistic, but what can be more simple, having instant peace, by knowing “ah they are sapes and im not , good”. Now you get the added benefit of “should I spend time and energy on these or my own, knowing what I know”? Giving away anything for free is a sin!
    If you are interacting with something and it always leaves a bad taste in your mouth, itz probably sapery.

    When some sjw-sape gets clobbered by xirs ooga booga affirmative action partner 3, I don’t think “Damn this is the end for the American Cowboy”. These critters just exist for no damn reason at all, but unlike most I have grown very tired of their antics and just don’t find them particularly endearing. This is where the thard would like to have a word with you “excuse me these people have been tricked by the jew”. history backs this fact up, we can do it, we fund and push this “muh climate” but excepting farting cows going we throw 5 billion sapes out the airlock. Hard scientific data on racial hygiene and IQ supports a going back. We need to go back.

    It is one thing ignoring general sapery and directly seeing every gruesome little detail, but at the back of your head you know you got all sorts of rampant ungodly activity going on in your backyard, because sapes gonna sape.

    Dissecting a sape you are not to stumble upon anything complex, it is a monkey in manpants doing the bunga bunga, all the solutions one would use on an intelligent being are thus null and void.

    I am imagining a jew in a maga kippa, some black guy and a mutt waving the american flag altogether watching this clip thinking “damn sweden is over good thing we didn’t end up like them”.

    Can I have a newspaper for Neanderthals please? The shitting on “sape did thing” just isn’t cutting it anymore. The K vs thard divide is getting clearer.

  4. Schrödinger's Psych Evaluation says:

    If only those Swedes had learned to say “no” in a humorously self-deprecating manner… The thing is, people like that will choose to doom entire nations in order to appear virtuous for the moment. So, they were kind of asking to be trolled.

  5. grey says:

    What is the difference between a ‘sape’ and a ‘thard’ plz?

  6. thordaddy says:

    Which is to say some men possess free will and some “men” reject said possession. Yet, per “equality” dogma, this does not effect “manhood” one way or another. The analogous psyche-op would be the “gay man” who is allowed to be sexually attracted to boys and not have such fact affect “manhood.”

    So the reality… The radically autonomous reality is that one can be a male who is sexually attracted to boys because “possession of no free will” and STILL BE A MAN!

    And the highest IQs in the alt-rite refuse to reframe.

    Clown World, indeed.

  7. bicebicebice says:

    “grey says:”

    the sape is languid, safe for muh dick rape and jewey-tunes ♪, whereas teh thard is lackadasaical but that is only true because of if his languishing activies. sapes gonna sape. If you get in on this wild shitride well civilizations fall and empires collapse because damnit sapes gonna sape.

    here is a real redpill; trump colluded with the sapes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s