The Non-Monopoly Of Western Philosophy

I think the answer is that we need to specialize and have the market do its job as did the pagans – and not try to create another abrahamic monolithic framework. The framework that developed the west is competition (m arkets) and a division of powers, and an absence of a clerical class, with civic duties performed by the monarchy, nobility, and lesser nobility (influential citizens).

Markets in everything.

Via positiva (narratives/inflating and loading) via negativa (calculation and unloading/deflating).

If people compare me to one or the other then I’m going attack peterson justifiably. If people think peterson is right, then they’re simply wrong. He’s informative, explanatory, and accessible the same way that storytelling is more accessible than calculation.

Via Negativa does not sell except as a defense because it is not the means by which we form narratives that allow us to cooperate despite only minor overlaps in interest.

Via Positiva sells but is open to supernatural, pseudoscientific, and pseudo rational content (falsehoods) and detriments to a people because narrative are cheap, and easily loaded framed and suggested and obscured. And we are vulnerable to suggestion by the narrative because if we were NOT vulnerable to it, the act of communication which requires suggestion via continuous disambiguation would not be possible.

There is NO TRUTH. There exist a market wherein we compete between via positiva imagination and opportunity and via negativa limits and constraints. All we can attempt is truthfulness through competition.

I you cannot understand this principle the you understandn othing of testimonialism(via competition), vs falsificationism(via negativa) vs justificationism (via positiva).

If peterson had not come out against controlled speech, then he would still be unknown and irrelevant. His book was irrelevant. Haidts was far more influential and haidt’s research far better and more empirical. There are hundreds of people who have written and spoken of similar things, but few of them (a) can afford to come forward (b) started out as libertarian activists so that they speak in the frame of reciprocity vs duty or consensus, (c) have a platform(opportunity) and funding that he has. (d) and he has higher disagreeableness than others (hence his appeal to those of us more scientific than agreeable).

I have to defend myself from this kind of bullshit.
But he is another example of offering explanation and confirmation bias, but not providing a solution other than moral confidence.

If you want a spectrum, today it’s Taleb (risk), doolittle (law), haidt (politics), forgot his name (education, and Peterson (religion, myth, propaganda).

In a market we specialize. Simpletons want a single rule to follow. The mind wants a single rule to follow, We all want consensus. Christianity and Democracy are errors of monopoly and consensus.

Markets in everything.

Via positiva for children, general rules for adult, and laws for the wise.

Opportunity, action, and limits.
Leraning, acting, and limiting.

The intergenerational transfer of AGENCY.

Leave a Reply