philosophy – Overthought Consulting

The Universal Support Chain of Living & Knowing: On the Practical & Intellectual Value of Faith

August 12, 2026 Britton William FrostLeave a comment

In a recent essay, I described the importance of a practical philosophy – one which is not purely intellectual but applicable, and which holds the standard of what constitutes good philosophy as one which can be integrated into life, thereby enhancing it. I did not, however, provide much detail about what such a philosophy might entail, although it does seem that “supporting life” somehow is the standard of all good philosophy anyway. My thesis here is to construct an outline for that practical philosophy by putting forth a simple explanation of the different levels of knowledge to which we have access, and a means of prioritizing them as to cure the value crisis epidemic current to the western world. This is certainly the premise for a book or three, but for now my aim is to be so concise that the reader may find a way to apply this outline as to ascend from that collective delusion ever so slightly. As it has been said by many sages of the past, enlightenment happens one-by-one, and although we may not be not seeking full, spiritual enlightenment here, we should note that the truth of that idea permeates every graduation from one level of awareness to another.

Our problems in the west are spiritual in nature at their core – of the adoption and over-prioritization of various false values – and every individual creates their own narrative. The freedom formalized by the First Amendment but really granted to us by God, to think and say whatever we choose, creates potential for the persistence on a path toward or away from Truth and Goodness that the rest of the Constitution, and indeed all of spiritual mysticism, aims to protect. It is, after all, not the choice to think and say just anything – i.e. “self expression” – that should rest atop our individual value structures, but more so the being and becoming that is inherent to our nature, both to exist in a maximally purposeful way for others and within ourselves. This cultural obsession with self-expression is indeed a symptom of our collective reluctance to realize that the content of the First Amendment is only the starting point of that being-becoming journey, never an end goal of its own, for if we did not have access to that right, we could perhaps never come close to discovering who we are and what our real duty entails. Unfortunately, it is more than clear that most countries other than the United States struggle with that collective, existential reality, and there seems to be no lawful way to publicly break free of it out of legitimate fear of persecution.

Even in ancient Greek times, during the founding of the philosophies that give a foundation to our current political and social systems, they too had to learn the lessons of freedom the hard way. Socrates was seen as a heretic simply for challenging people in the streets of Athens to think critically on the most basic level, and he was executed for it. Ironically, his asking Euthyphro “what do you mean by piety” still seems a specific concern in today’s politically correct, post-truth social climate in which progressive atheists seek the moral high ground by glorifying victimhood and therefore deifying the alleged oppressors they claim to have created it. This indicates strongly that, despite the abundance of hard lessons, great literature, and technological advancements in the last two thousand years, the evolution of intellectual thought has not penetrated the culture at all. Mind the last two thousand years; we have witnessed numerous “Socratic figures” be executed just in the last two decades, in perfect parallel with the communication technologies that have advanced in that time, whether that be covertly through online censorship or being framed for suicide in the midst of revealing some of the darkest and most disturbing efforts of the elite class’s quest to remain elite. The examples of our collective inability to integrate the ancient wisdom about our nature, as expressed in the Upanishads and in scriptures cross-culturally, seem endless, and perhaps that points to the flaws in democratic collectivism itself: that when responsibility is placed on the consensus to course-correct, social compromise is valued over truth, and we just dig ourselves deeper. Freedom indeed is not free.

In a recent presentation by the prolific mythicist Jonathan Pageau on the rise of AI as a widely (and wrongly) perceived replacement for independent research and thought, a distinctly AI-proof, reorienting question for life was raised: “What do you serve?” This is a question that can be approached in many ways, depending on the context from which it is interpreted. There are of course the individual duties of one serving one’s own family, job, and country. There are also the institutional issues of industries and governments serving the greater good of the people or other interests of their choosing. For the spiritual person, we can ask of any subject or entity “does this serve God?”, from which questions about that God might also arise. Regardless, there are underlying patterns and principles that apply to these contexts and all others, and a universal outline of how we should structure our values and priorities across these knowledge-realms, so that the false dichotomies between them no longer cause conflict, is what I am aiming for today. My hypothetical outline of this “support chain for knowing and living” goes like this:

Of knowledge:

Spirituality informs philosophy, philosophy informs science, science informs the practical.

Therefore, in action…

The practical serves science, science serves philosophy, philosophy serves spirituality.

It is that simple.

Now, for my fellow philosophers… Not to belittle the body of epistemological literature that has come before us, but it is imperative that some degree of faith inform our ontology before we have such discussions. Otherwise, we delve into intellectual masturbation, and the fact that we confine that sort of activity to the mind (or to private academic circles) makes it no less a crime. That faith, however you want to view it, is that which has been described by all of the legitimate spiritual thought that preceded academic philosophy and still to this day looks down upon it with significant pity. This is the first support I’ll give as to why the “spiritual knowledge”, whether we are to categorize it as knowledge or something a bit different in kind, serves as the container for all else.

Let’s track back and begin with the ground level of this “support chain” I seek to devise, which is to commit our practical day-to-day pursuits to the totality of scientific pursuits. Before you take me to confuse science with scientism, what I mean by the “totality of science” is simply the endeavor of well-meaning, curious people to impartially collect empirical data, observe emergent patterns as potential, practical truths rather than certain, universal ones, and with respect to a higher metaphysical authority, apply that knowledge in a way that is pragmatically useful and in accordance with that higher authority (the scientific method intrinsically possesses no such authority, for it is not that kind of thing). Even in the mundane cases of how we go about daily tasks, relate to one another, get from one place to another, etc. there are patterns that can be recognized which, if understood from a certain viewpoint, can improve our lives exponentially. There are flaws that we can realize and improve upon in those and all other areas: how not to overcook an egg, how to effectively resolve conflict with your spouse, the best route to take to or from work. While we may be tempted to aim for the most efficient means through any of these tasks, there are unlimited, unforeseeable variables that might affect the outcome on any given day, and under any set of conditions. The smart person simply looks for these patterns and tries to perfect them, regardless of the conditions that may arise. When things don’t work out in accordance to that plan, the rule can actually hold you back, causing frustration and further delay. Theawareperson (not all smart people are aware, and that’s a bigger problem!), knows that this rule we’re attempting to formulate (e.g. route B is faster than route A) is simply aimed toward efficiency, and that adaptation to current conditions, no matter how far it might deviate from the norm, is required to achieve what by any standard is the best result. The amount of time you leave your egg in the hot pan will vary based on the size of the egg, the heat of the burner, the type of pan, etc. The approach to smoothing things over with your wife will vary depending on the time of the month, what else might be influencing both of you in the moment, and the time of your dinner reservation this evening. The quickest route to work might be determined by whether it is raining and how you drive; maybe the route that is usually by far the quickest will take twice as long if the wash that runs through it will have traffic backed up for miles (Arizonans will get this one). There is no one-size-fits-all answer to any problem that is rooted in the question “how?”, the not-so-simple question that science at its best is equipped to answer. Qualification (those bodies of knowledge beyond science) must inform quantification, for mathematical precision alone, the ultimate tool of science, is neither practical nor possible.

So, there are two types of questions that we should consider in our practical decisions, and scientific thinking can be of great benefit even if it isn’t exact. The first is: “How do we get from A to B, given all of the observable conditions right now?” Whether we are actively doing science or just living life, if we stay impartially observant of those conditions, regardless of what rules and expectations we have set up for ourselves for the sake of efficiency and survival, all things being equal, we remain present with the world as it is right now and can come to the most precise empirical conclusion for grounding our next action. We are not disregarding the totality of our experience and knowledge from the past, but considering that totality as a category of input data that can inform our larger perspective, allowing us to make the best choices in this physical life, by the physical standards that the physical part of our nature demands. That is to say that such input data is not the ultimate determinate of our decisions. Just to make these sorts of observations often takes a tremendous amount of emotional control, for our egos want to cling onto these patterns we have formulated in our minds whether they correspond to objective reality or not. We do tend to make emotional decisions, but by considering that the emotions that arise in us in the face of change are important factors for consideration too, we begin to see the crucial distinction between mere emotional reaction and truth-oriented intuition, the latter which is something objective science cannot account for. In accepting all of these and other factors as patterns unto themselves, we may see that the practical serves the scientific, even if we aren’t scientists ourselves, and insofar as the scientific endeavor takes legitimate inspiration from the fact that there is so much beyond it to which we are connected. For this reason, it is crucial that the scientific establishment keep in mind that they are meant to serve the well-being of humanity, and that any data gathered which does not consider both individual and collective human nature, might be useless and in fact harmful. We should demand that scientific inquiry be humble and relevant to our lives which are governed by value structures which are beyond the capability of quantifiable, empirical investigation. Science is done by us, so it should be for us as well – for all of us – otherwise that powerful tool becomes a weapon by those who possess it.

This leads us to the second question in our practical affairs, and this one rises above the physical variables to which scientific inquiry is inherently limited, confirming that we are more than just “lumbering robots” in Richard Dawkins’ materialistic terms, but emergent of a greater conscious reality: “Why?” Here we approach a need for a “philosophy of life” that accounts for the unforeseeable, incalculable events and phenomena of the broader metaphysical realm that gives us a higher level of awareness and understanding, albeit still in some systematic way. What do I mean by ‘why’? It is reason beyond the ‘how’! At the end of the day, who cares how things work? That is a matter of personal interest or not (most people just want things to work), efficiency and expediency over understanding and authentic experience. What gives our minds peace is knowing the why: why I like my egg cooked that way to begin with, why my wife needs a certain kind of communication given certain environmental conditions, why it matters that I find a way to get to work on time regardless of the road conditions. These are questions of values, and they point to the necessity of science to be oriented toward serving philosophy in the human pursuit to understand the world while still having to live in it. Why-answers, after all, involve highly variable degrees of objectivity, as in the very different examples I have given above. Whereas science treats its subject matter as objective stuff, why you like your egg cooked a certain way might be “just because”, and that is an aesthetic issue about which an eloquent poem, that could serve some other purpose in a reader’s life, could be written. Why your wife needs a certain kind of communication could have to do with her association with the objective category women as well as her individual, subjective needs and desires that deviate from the norms of that category – primary of which is to keep the relationship together. Getting to work on time has more to do with upholding the principles of good character that are mutually understood by all people of integrity and success, for what those social norms are worth.

Philosophy contains an abundance of thought-data – various ways of making sense of the phenomena we observe and experience – supported by various value structures that are implicit to them, among which discerning qualifications can be made. Philosophy is perhaps the only academic subject (not all of it, by everyone everywhere, mind you) which makes full use of both left and right brain processes. The penetrating, linear, left-brained logic that forms the backbone of “valid” philosophical argument means that only those philosophies which “make sense” and can be defended in linguistic (and even mathematical) terms pass the test of genuine philosophical scrutiny. The near-infinite breadth of the right brain’s capability to see coherence and associate phenomena across disciplines, no matter how chaotic things might seem at first glance, also allows the philosopher to raise attention to what is invisible from the ground level where most others would get taken by the current while not realizing they were floating down a river to begin with. And this error of the ego-mind can happen in philosophical circles too, not just in the case of the mad scientist and the rabbit hole of the layperson.

Given the influence of left-brained logic on this type of inquiry, philosophy is to some degree limited to a linear pursuit of seeking sense in things, as if making-sense is a quality inherent to the objects of that inquiry. It isn’t, neither in physical reality when physicists fail to reduce their understanding of light to the subatomic level (or the cosmic one), or in conceptual form when Bertrand Russell failed to formally reduce mathematics to symbolic logic. What we find in such endeavors is not more order and precision, but unfathomable chaos, raising the broader question about why it matters that we must have knowledge to begin with. And no, personal satiation is not a legitimate excuse, much to the chagrin of the Marx-Foucault lineage of the twentieth century philosophers (mostly French) who took sick pleasure from others’ seeking sense in their own maliciously disruptive philosophies that in fact said absolutely nothing.

I could, and would love to, go on for much longer about good philosophy vs bad, as well as good science vs bad (which is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one), but we must move on to the higher level of awareness – that one which shall dispose of bad philosophy and science with laughable ease and give true meaning and even usefulness to that little which remains. Within the spiritual realm that philosophy serves are values which are simply not subject to debate. For as broad and overarching as this realm is by nature, and despite all the “faith” that is required to access it, it is strangely the one level on which certain knowledge exists, and all else we consider to be knowledge must be founded on or aimed toward it in some way. Only then can we fathom unity among all people, regardless of creed. One of those invaluable virtues is “sacrifice/letting go” – there is great reason why this virtue shows up in all legitimate, mystical traditions, so let’s examine it.

The idea that we can truly own anything leads to possession – not merely of a physical sort, but of clingyness to delusions or comforts which keep our minds stagnant. Otherwise, we take credit for everything, become righteous, and then toward what do we aim our gratitude if we have any left? More intellectually speaking, acceptance of things as they are whether we understand them or not is actually the first step toward understanding anything, and this requires us to “let go” of baggage in the mind. The peace that one can experience in this practice is far more powerful than the “gotcha” sensation of grasping intellectual concepts, as if victorious. While understanding can be adjacent to competition, for you can understand something while others do not, making you seem “smarter” and eliciting a feeling of pride, the peace of letting go is far beyond that dopaminergic stimulus. It is not about sensation at all, but relief from the restraint of sensation, whether good or bad. Peace, therefore, is nothing to attain but rather a disposition that is found when you let go of the need to attain things. Allowing nature to take course while not imposing your own goals onto it, you can then observe phenomena with clarity and see how your gifts might align with and serve that broader spectrum of processes.

This returns us to Jonathan Pageau’s question about what we are in service to, and the answer, it seems to me, is the infinite breadth of life that encompasses the environment around us. When our goals are too self-contained (personal desire) or too far beyond our influence (saving the planet), we literally lose touch with reality, become depressed or intellectually deranged, and we lose grip on the problems that are not only within our reach but which demand of us that we solve them in the unique ways that only we are gifted to (you’re special – get over it).

This spiritual principle of letting go is infinitely useful in informing philosophy about our purpose (a concern many are drawn toward philosophy to answer, but almost always come up empty): When we let go of what we cannot control, what we should control – our purpose – reveals itself through no effort or seeking of our own. Because of the non-linear ways in which these life lessons reveal themselves, the philosophical mind still may be prone to clinging onto their precious logic where things “make sense” to them, but this is only an assumption, and spiritually-speaking, it is a regressive one. Clinging onto the idea that things must make sense is itself a violation of the letting-go principle, and it will enslave you to purposelessness caused by your erroneous, unaccepting thinking, until you correct that. The key is to let go of your own left-brain, reserving its capacities for linear reasoning as a tool once clear observation is already in place. As Iain McGilchrist puts it, the right brain – our ability to see things as they are, in their infinite complexity and chaos – is indeed the masterful mode of perception, whereas left brain logic is the helpful emissary – the organizing tool – which assists us toward pragmatic ends when they’re needed. It takes spiritual discernment to qualify when it’s needed to begin with, hence why the spiritual and the practical are on either end of this chain I’ve described.

To conclude in a manner which aligns with what I see as my place on the chain, I’ll loop this back to the disclaimer that I made earlier: that we must have some baseline faith about ontology/metaphysics to ensure our inquiry is Truth-directed before waxing in epistemological circles. The letting-go principle, which is not the only inarguable virtue available to us, is a spiritually-informed way of trusting Nature, allowing those matters which are worth philosophical discussion to reveal themselves to us. Of course, this approach will discredit most work being done by tenured professors across the western world, but what good have they done for us on the whole when most of them fanboy the French? Once faith is engaged, philosophy, the meaning-seeking discipline, no longer needs to seek; it can just take what it is given and make real headway in people’s real lives, which is what the gift of the intellect is burdened to serve, as with any other type of gift, whether it be motherhood, athletics, music, art, technical expertise, or physical labor. At that point, philosophy has an accurate foundation to guide science’s pursuit of precision, inspiring all of our “how” questions with a valuable “why”, gracing an ease of flow in even the most mundane pursuits of our day-to-day, practical lives.

In Pursuit of a not-so-New “Practical Philosophy”

July 22, 2026July 22, 2026 Britton William FrostLeave a comment

I do not and will not ever consider myself to be a political philosopher, but perhaps one which analogizes politics from the outside-in, and notes how political pursuits complement or detract from overall human well-being. To that issue, I might defer to the structures of thought underlying what are often shallow “issues” motivated by the least sophisticated parts of human nature, pitted against those of the other. What is needed to clear the air is a practical philosophy, accessible to anyone when one’s intention to reach genuine understanding is the primary driver of the expansion of the one’s attempt at something resembling coherent thought. The “thought” underlying those more shallow issues tends to reveal that the political level of analysis is a construction in itself in which its participants are led into the intellectual slaughterhouse – i.e. to miss the point entirely, therefore tricking both sides into disagreement. Take the issue of abortion as one of the most obvious examples: all talk on “the left” is about “freedom of choice” which, under the guise of liberty and justice sounds like a worthy ideal, but it leaves out of the conversation entirely the choice that was already made to create the circumstances in the first place; no political effort is ever taken to systematically improve individual decision-making regarding character assessment, partner choice, and the divine standards for intimate relations overall, and so the problem, and the emotionally-charged argumentation which results, persists. The right side of that argument, although the priors are established through religion, simply misses the point that just because something is morally wrong (which abortion irrefutably is), that it should not necessarily be illegal, and by aborters continuing to abort, natural corrective consequences on the individual and collective levels will follow, but not before reaching some catastrophic rock bottom which we might be karmically indebted to accept.

Obviously in this example, a practical philosophy would focus on the root of the issue – how we can prevent the argument about the legality of something that is so clearly wrong having to happen at all, because at least then the majority of individuals are attempting to make all of the right choices by default, and despite the fact that we will all sometimes fail by the temptations of the flesh, merely holding in mind “good for its own sake, for that alone is worth it” and realizing everyone else holds that in mind too, will naturally, exponentially improve our conditions through interconnected accountability.

There are many books that I could point to for a practical philosophy, all of which contain varying levels of intellectual nuance – yet that is never what holds one back from the attempt. Who am I to say that any of them, despite their breadth of truth, would be of interest to you? That these books are mostly not being read, and that reading itself is a dying competency, points us more firmly in the direction of why a practical philosophy is needed to begin with – one which addresses the values that have been relinquished in everyday life, by the everyday person, and the false values which have taken their place – one which is coherent with the nuance of classical works yet also does not entirely sacrifice the sentiment of our current culture’s idiocracy. The new field of “Wigarthan Studies” is a solid start.

What are some of these books and authors, in case one does want to make that effort? If one merely seeks validation for one’s begrudgingly accurate understanding collective human nature within modern society, Schopenhauer will do nicely. If one prefers a historical context of the philosophical underpinnings from the Enlightenment period to arguably the last philosopher of any profound significance, Wittgenstein, there is perhaps no better book than “Explaining Postmodernism” by Professor Stephen R. C. Hicks. For those who claim to be “scientifically-minded” but have found themselves trapped in the no-man’s land between scientific facts and real meaning, Rupert Sheldrake’s early work is vital, and so generally are the works of Jung, Frankl and Alan Watts. A deep and thorough philosophical takedown of current political fashion comes indubitably in the form Sir Roger Scruton’s “Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands”, and any of his other 60 or so books on aesthetics and human nature. How do you cultivate order in your disorderly life, both physically and metaphysically? Look no further than Jordan Peterson’s “10 Rules (and “10 More Rules…) For Life”. If one prefers a timeless, though nearly idealistic, moral rationale, Kant’s “Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals” will be your jam – and although it is by far the book listed here with the fewest pages, it may take the most time to read – 10/10 will or will not recommend, depending on how you are.

There really is something for everyone and anyone who seeks deep understanding of the underpinnings of popular cultural beliefs. There are many angles that can get you to the same truths – in a classical “Perennial Philosophy” fashion. For that majority who are infected by culture and therefore subject themselves often unknowingly to the effects of these trends full force, there is still a desperate yearning for something greater, more meaningful and profound, than the ironically similar mechanisms for both survival and complacency that their primitive, neurological reward systems reach for most hours of the day out of sheer boredom. Since reading a book is such a slow endeavor which delays and never promises gratification, that statistical majority who failed or would have failed the “marshmallow test” as a child hardly even have access to it. They lack the patience and discipline, and probably the innate reading comprehension anyway given the decline of qualitative IQ levels, to extract truth from words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and to allow those intricate patterns to fall into place over the course of a book as a new message, a valuable perspective on life and reality, that could inform action and decision-making, serving themselves, their families (where families still exist), and the greater good in this life and beyond. Those essential, lost mechanisms of learning become our handicaps for functioning so that thriving becomes an ideal reserved for fantasy – a fantasy whose sentiments socialists/communists have weaponized into the unattainable “Utopia” toward which their genocidally infantile philosophies aim. It is so uncanny, in fact, that the rapid technological takeover as a replacement for reading, thinking, and everything else that empowers individual authority, resulting in mass decline of life satisfaction across the globe, might somehow be connected to those oppressive systems of thought. Marx did, of course, describe his own thought as “scientific” and advancing of technology toward greater efficiency. Not that he had the best interest of factory workers in mind to begin with, but most who come to agree with Marxist ideals do so from a place of empathy, whereas technological advancement and efficiency as the greatest good is dehumanizing by default and calls for the politicization of labor unions rather than the seeking of authentic justice. Unsurprisingly, Marx’s blindspot can be emphasized from his privileged, upper-class, free-of-any-labor-experience-whatsoever place in the socioeconomic hierarchy of his day – the very oppressive, puppeteering class that he still convinces the average leftist today to detest.. not to mention his skin color! Dang whitey!

I am not interested in providing a takedown of Marxist thought, mind you, for Sir Scruton and others have already achieved sufficient success in that realm. I am only acknowledging what is so that we can move on from false thought, rather than giving it the attention that it demands to continue to spread like the intellectual virus that it is. I seek only to observe the broader, metaphysical conditions for a practical philosophy to thrive, of, by, and for the soul, without having to filter through a Kantian nerd brain such such as my own. Unfortunately, this requires plenty of clearing away the conditions which prevent such a philosophy from “catching on” within a West which was once founded on ancient, spiritual principles but has been distracted by new-scientific atheism and such ilk, in worship of its own intellect and, even worse, inventions. For us to make way for truth, we must expel the clutter of falsehood and be keenly aware of what to avoid going forward in work, education, and life.

More essential than referencing some systematic set of principles thought up by smart people would be an embodied way of life that in fact creates and supports life when at its absolute best. A practical philosophy is an embodied one; it lives by example in the home which presupposes that life was already created under conscious and willing conditions by people who aim toward the good, and outside of the home all the same in support of the freedom that healthy home life grants us. We are to do what is good not because some system of government or dogma tells them to, but because treating all words, actions, and decisions as ends unto themselves, and not merely as means of material gain, means that everything we are already inclined to do, from creation to cultivation to preservation, is of itself worth doing. This is what the US Constitution affords us, in fact: the freedom to rebel against the very system that governs us at the fallible human hand, as long as it aligns with God’s will. Even Kant himself, whose book “Practical Philosophy” attempts to merge the pragmatic with the metaphysical in this way, but his attempt is less precise as he heavily favored pure principle over pragmatism; he didn’t leave his house much to put his own thoughts into action, nor did he often explain how his process of thinking accounts for its content in the real world. Since stagnation has risen with life expectancies, our movement out in the world will be more vital in its breadth of application than in Kant’s day, so may it be as practical as it is principled, potent while perhaps a bit proud.

While we do have to face falsehood and fight evil from time to time for a practical philosophy to work, the even-better news is that we really do not have to change who we are. Finding the courage within ourselves to align with and do good despite cultural or familial circumstances only requires self-honesty. When we take an objective look into the mirror of the subjective, we realize that we are just subjects in that we each may have unique takes on serving the same roles that the greater of humanity has needed for its flourishing since long before utopian ideals were constructed by the elite class. So, as the great mythicist Jonathan Pageau asked in a recent talk on AI and the loss of individual human authority, “what do you serve?”

This is our mantra – our attention-orienting question to ask ourselves when faced with any dilemma or choice – that needs no referencing from others or from culture, for those can be swayed by the technologies and systematic patterns of thought and governance that we have created. Who is to say that just because we created them, that we control them as mere tools when those very tools are taking not only our jobs but our decision-making responsibilities via preference algorithms (as if our preferences must be so narrow) and therefore the consciousness out of engaging with work, research, and everyday life. The patience and presence to read a book, sit with the ideas, and assess them qualitatively, rather than to consume an AI-generated synopsis like fast food for the end of dopaminergic gratification, is a universal skill, not only applicable to information, but to discover for yourself and for good what is true, what works, and what is worth passing down as wisdom to whomever comes under your wing. You can repeat that process in any experience, any job, or any conversation, and you’ll only improve your life by maintaining that coherence of thought and experience as your center… but you’ll never improve your life by outsourcing your authority in all of these ways, no matter how trivial it may seem. This authority in fact is the foundation of a not-so-New Practical Philosophy I would like us to pursue, and one need not be a philosopher to pursue it because it is not about “more” thought, but a moral framework of self, others, and all, within which the better we think, the better we can do.

A simplified definition of “quantum physics” – because numbers are hard!

February 3, 2026 Britton William FrostLeave a comment

Guess what’s trending on @threads right now… Quantum physics!
In light of numbers being hard, let me simplify it for you in a way that is absorbable and applicable to everyday life…

Absorbably… the word ‘quantum’ refers to the minimum amount of physical matter involved in a conceptual phenomenon for the potential of observing that phenomenon to manifest (e.g. a “photon/light particle” in relation to the concept of light). This implies that there is always more to physical interactions and phenomena than just physical matter, most of which is rarely if ever measurable. ‘Physics’, of course, is the study of the fundamental principles of the physical universe. Therefore, ‘quantum physics’ is just an alternative, scientific term for ‘metaphysics’, the study of what is beyond (meta) physics (what can be quantified).

Historically… “Quantum physics” is a modern attempt to numerically represent applied metaphysics and consciousness research, which have already been under study by mystics long before the ruler was invented. Since the beginning of rational thought, a small minority of thinkers have known that concepts like light, heat, Truth, Goodness, are not physical in essence, and that their power increases exponentially with each instance, or “quantum”, that is applied.

Applicably… The chart above is perhaps the most practical representation of quantum levels ever composed. For reference, everyone and everything, every idea and event ever conceived, contains its own consciousness field that can be mapped onto this chart. About 80% of the human population exists under the 200 level, and only about 5% is above 500, but the power and influence of the values above 200 (courage, acceptance, reason), and especially 500 (love, joy, peace) are so great that they offset being outnumbered by the lower consciousness field of the majority, keeping humanity itself afloat.

Look at this chart everyday. Treat it as a meditation. Whatever leaps out to you is what you should attend to, and the level just above that is where you should aim your intentions. Otherwise, avoid anything under 200.

There ya go. “Quantum physics”.
God bless Dr. Hawkins!

A Morning Meditation

September 28, 2022September 28, 2022 Britton William FrostLeave a comment

“I really only love God as much as the person I love the least.”

-Dorothy Day

Your love for God, your understanding of the world, your connection to nature and the universe, your pursuit of Truth — however you view the metaphysical source and governing body of all things — exists in all, and in it are all contained. Every part is necessary for the functioning and flourishing of everything else in it, and therefore, your willful coherence with all else is necessary for your functioning and flourishing as well.

Of course, people can act in a way that you will perceive to be out of line, but that should be just fine as far as you are concerned. This raises the distinction between acceptance and tolerance, for an individual possesses the capacity — which each also has a duty toward themselves and others to cultivate — to accept everything and tolerate nothing. That is to intuit, without interference from emotion or sense, what is true and good for one and for all and not to tolerate, to the extent that one can be locally effective, anything that is not.

This process is not about you. You may need to focus on yourself for some time — to build a boundary between yourself and others for some time — to get to know certain aspects of yourself to the point where intuitive reflection is at all possible. But, that is not the goal. You are not the goal. Total coherence is the goal, and you have a vital duty to play your role. The separation you create between yourself and others is merely so that you may discover what that role is. However, others will play a role in determining how it is that you will provide value to all (of which they are a part), so your engagement with them is ultimately necessary. It may not be what you expect or desire, but that is why one must tame the ego fire.

To cohere with all does not mean you must work with just anyone, but rather that you must accept them for where they are and what role from which they are capable of serving, depending on where they are on their path of spiritual development, whether that be to feed the poor and heal the sick or to delve into self-destructive hedonism before hitting rock bottom to merely realize they exist. Regardless, they are in need of your love, from near or far, and that implies full acceptance. Without that, there is incoherence, and thus, incompleteness. Your love for God, nature, truth, others, and yourself is only as good as your love for the one who you love the least, for they too play a role that is necessary for you.

Though, again, that is not the goal…

American Impressionism: Representing the Western Ideal

August 23, 2022August 23, 2022 Britton William FrostLeave a comment

On the 10th of July, 2017, I had the pleasure of attending a talk on American Impressionism at the American Museum of Western Art in Denver, Colorado, and to view their impressive (pun intended) Anschutz Collection of works. The experience gave me much to think about, including but not limited to the differences between American and French Impressionism, both in terms of style and purpose, and how impressionism uniquely fulfills the purpose of art more generally. As a philosophizer with an interest in aesthetics, rather than as an artist, I naturally am more inclined to discuss purpose than I am style and technique, though those things are not mutually exclusive.

fffe1e42c2bf6c51c589541cca7f1303

On the Critique of Art

It is an interesting thing that philosophers do in discussing meaning and purpose of art. One symptom of this activity is that we often take for granted the technical skill of the artist in favor of a work’s meaning or lack thereof. We take for granted that the artist is satisfied with the degree to which he has shown what he intended to. We take art as a top-down process, while for the artist, it is a bottom-up process. For this reason, we hold art to a very high standard, and that puts pressure on the artist to show us something true, assuming, often falsely, that they are trying to show anything at all. Perhaps we should show more gratitude to the artist in this regard, for the technique is the necessary tool, usually cultivated over many a year, through which the artist expresses what is dear to us or, at the very least, to them. That is the disclaimer I would like to preface with before I go on philosophizing. I am not a visual artist myself, and I do admire those who are proficient in that medium, even if they do so with no or poor intention.

Anyway, and on that note, whether the artist says what he attempts to sufficiently is its own matter, so we should approach our critique gingerly, as to see through any such shortcomings. We simply want to understand the message that lies beneath. It is the same in music, where if one really listens, the technical quality of the recording doesn’t matter. The content’s form is what matters, for it inspires the function, and intentional functions merely serve the form, as Roger Scruton shows in his BBC documentary. Very often the artist is not able to communicate his ideas in any way other than through his brush or instrument. Clearly, though, he somehow understands what he is doing. He is like a scientist of meaning in this regard, as science is a bottom-up process for the scientist who hopes (naively) that truth will emerge from the compilation of facts, but it is also a top-down object of criticism for the philosopher.

Is this not fair, however? Does the purpose not precede the style of the work? I think any informed critic should agree that it does. To agree, one must understand what art does, generally speaking. That is to reveal something true about reality or human nature which is normally hidden, suppressed, or taken for granted. It shows us something that we as individuals or as a society need to pay more attention to. Even if that message is to show that beauty can exist in isolation and complexity, I think this point still stands.

There is also the purpose of much contemporary work which is to “be the best it can be for the sake of itself”. This purpose may, though not always, neglect the objective standard by which we might judge art (insofar as we might consider symbolic truths about reality and human nature to be objective), and it rather qualifies art according to the power of human creativity, even if the product of that creativity lacks an organized structure toward a higher purpose.

This approach to judging art is a postmodern one: here are no universal standards for anything, quality is merely relative, and meaning may be interpreted in an unlimited number of different, subjective ways with no one way being more accurate than any other. We take the human creation to be larger than the reality that gave birth to it and that permanently contains it. This is a mistake of the ego-mind. Postmodern pseudo-intellectuals (e.g. most French philosophers of the 20th century, the scientismists of today, such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) make with human rationality. They worship rationality as their God and fall in love with its creations no matter how disorganized they may be, all at the expense of what the work might be trying to tell us. What postmodern art, literature, philosophy, and even science are trying to tell us, in the rare occasion that they are trying to tell us anything at all, is in fact false. Even when it does land on something true, it is by coincidence because truth was never the intention to begin with.

Does Impressionism Fulfill the Purpose of Art?

What I like about impressionism, whether French, American, or otherwise, is how subjectively true it is. One could say, in other words, that it is authentic. A good impressionist painter is skilled enough to get their message across, and it is one which only that particular artist can convey. Nevertheless, it tends to be digestible to anyone while maintaining its individuality.

Is this not the dream of the west? In its high form, western ideals, particularly in America, allow one to be one’s own authority for what is good. This can, of course, be taken too far — as to put the search for “my truth” ahead of what is the truth, but this is not the overall intention of genuine liberty. It is more a matter of not letting the how deter one from the what one decides will fulfill one — and more deeply, that the what is founded on a why that we all agree is for the good in a just society. We all have different stylistic expressions of doing what we do, but there is an underlying law of reason that maintains that our individual efforts have some universal truth and benefit.

Contemporary, abstract art has no distinct subject matter, and it therefore leaves us to question whether the overall viewpoint which represents it is valid. It is, rather, an abstract perspective on an equally or more abstract subject. If the picture which the art represents is not real, then what is the representation (the art itself) worth? This probably-not-real-and-definitely-not-meaningful style of art is the perfect accompaniment to the aforementioned political and cultural climate in the west, which opposes the ideals of free expression of ancient truth on which the United States Constitution is founded, for example (supporters of this type of art, unsurprisingly, claim that beauty is subjective and are actively trying to destroy traditional values in education and politics). It values “my truth” over the truth, and in convincing the collective ego that “my truth” is a worthwhile pursuit, it tears people further away from meaning, leaving them as weak, powerless, and confused as an otherwise perfectly rational person observing Duchamp’s “Fountain” (it’s just a urinal) would be. Contemporary art is a movement representing the fear of and disregard for beauty, ancient wisdom, and one’s own individual authority. Both nature per se and

1-fountain-feature

life-sustaining expressions of sexuality, as countless specific examples would show in the style’s erotic manifestations, are portrayed as unimportant or nonexistent. In this movement, nothing is sacred.

Impressionism, more gracefully, is the style of visual art, painting in particular, which contains infinitely variable impressions of things which we all know are of value beyond our selfish ends. The subject matter — nature and our relationship to it, from landscapes to lovers — maintains its sacredness and is

mtn

conveyed in a style that is especially unique. It is an abstract perspective on a concrete picture of reality, we could say. American impressionism, overall, is an easily-perceived yet highly creative expression of the many great, natural wonders of the American countryside and ways of life — i.e. the foundation on which freedom of expression itself is held as the paramount liberty, and where “trust in God (or truth itself)” is the default principle. In my travels outside of the United States, for example I have been complimented on my strong sense of self and belief that things will unfold as they should, which those people have attributed to my “American-ness”, rightly or wrongly.

Lovers

Conclusion: Is American Impressionism Superior?

…to other contemporary styles of art? It seems so. By a classical measure, American Impressionism is good because of its return to classical subjects such as nature and love, and its attempt to convey awe for their beauty, rather than to bastardize it. It holds weight by creative measures as well for its uniquely subjective approach in doing so. However, if you enjoy chaos for its own sake, you are well within your rights to prefer contemporary abstract and absurdist art forms (I’m not talking down on Eric Andre — comedy is a unique case. See my MA thesis). The difference between preference and goodness is another issue. In general, it is permitted in the west that we can have disagreements about these kinds of topics and still function, yet that the cream will still rise to the surface, and that in extreme cases, it is worth fighting for. I wouldn’t consider one impressionist seeing a landscape one way and another seeing it another way as a pressing disagreement, but rather that some people can accept what is true and good for one and for all in their own way, and others are free to reject it at their own peril, also in their own way (have fun with that).

All art movements represent something about the values of the culture from which they emerge, and it does seem that there are at least two art movements going on right now, corresponding to the two general views on life. There is the ilk of culture that glorifies what opposes traditional conceptions of beauty and, therefore, sustainable ways of life — both through art and by flaunting their mutilated bodies in the street — and these are the “progressive” folk who align their aesthetic preferences with the shock and hedonism of contemporary abstractism. Then there are those who see that we have indeed inherited some values and structures that are worth holding onto, and that true power of both individual and collective thriving requires that we agree on some foundation of abstract-yet-observable conceptions of what is true, good, and beautiful. American Impressionism, insofar as I can tell, is making a real effort to acknowledge this foundation while leaving more than enough room for individual expression. American Impressionism: universal good, subjectively understood — just like the us.

Debunking the “Free Will Illusion” Part 2: Three Levels of Self-Governance

August 13, 2022 Britton William Frost1 Comment

To continue from my previous post, self-governance is not as common as we’d like to think, but I intend to hold that it is still possible for everyone in certain cases and following a degree of conscious effort to understand the self. That said, it seems plausible that it is not a function of most of us, most of the time.

Although there are many, I want to focus on three sources of self-governance from which we can draw principles for living, as I mentioned at the end of the last section. They can be from morality (truth), from self-enforced boundaries (the self), or from external authority (others).

Appealing to external authority for the formulation of principles, regardless of how true they are or how good the results they produce, is a logical fallacy — i.e. an error in reasoning. Whether they are copy and pasted from your father, mentor, religion, or boss, nothing is true or good because of the person’s position of authority, and you give up your own inner authority by blindly following that of another. People have varying degrees of just authority, and such a degree may represent their ability to guide someone toward the truth if it is indeed the truth for which they live — this means that they have good intentions. Good intention is unconditional and does not seek money or control, and it is only from those with good intention that we can truly learn anything. Still, lead us they need not. Their wisdom should merely help us to guide ourselves. It could, on the other hand, be that the authority is merely self-serving (as is the case for leaders for whom pride is the driving force of their reign), and one’s ability or inability to distinguish between others’ true or ill intentions means that one is vulnerable to selling their soul’s autonomy to the ones who seek it. External authority is never the answer for principle-setting.

Self-enforced boundaries come merely from the self. They are often overcorrective, flight response limits to external stimuli and events. So, although one is the sole, conscious arbiter of these rules, they are at the willing hand of the world, and so boundaries are not set with clear consciousness. They draw a line in the sand and say “I will do that and not do this”, regardless of the circumstances, thereby, paradoxically, letting circumstances control their rigid minds. They shortcut the work one must do in order to adapt to external circumstances as to “do right” under any conditions, which requires cultivating a filter for what one will allow oneself to be influenced by. Boundaries, rather, build a wall against facing circumstances as they are. They mistake defensiveness for genuine protection, and they only delay the cultivation of character.

The human mind, much like the body, is anti-fragile. The more one is exposed to and observant of something, the more one understands its patterns, and the less one fears it. Boundaries do not seek to understand things in themselves, but rather, avoid those things from fear. However, this type of self-governance is a step in the right direction for someone who was previously guided more directly by external authority.

Genuine moral principles, in contrast, constantly, voluntarily take on the challenge of being tested. It is as if one’s belief system is in a constant state of exposure therapy. With every test, a principle gets stronger because it is both being exposed to its foe and making use of the wisdom gained from facing all of the tests from the past. Expose yourself to nothing, and you will go weak. Principle must come from self-awareness, but not arrogance, and understand that the external world is not within one’s control. Therefore, minor improvements occur in one’s principles over time. A principle-forming person knows that the only thing he can control is his responses to externals, based on his patterned understanding of those externals and how he is both a keen observer and a dutiful participant in all of reality. This type of person is a spiritual person who has gratitude for life and all of its struggles and joys, and they relish the duties of observation and self-improvement. This path implies a belief in some universal conception of truth and goodness, and self-improvement equates to the process of sharpening one’s perception as to orient them closer to that universal state with every thought, word, and action.

Self-governance from the cultivation of moral principles is a path rooted in unconditional acceptance — unlike boundaries which are seen as good under the condition that they don’t cause one pain, or external authority which has no intrinsic right to speak on others’ behalves to begin with — and they are the only governance pattern whose origin really is in truth and goodness for one and for all. “Truth and goodness for one and for all” is perhaps the core value from which any sustainable principles originate, for it is universal and non-polar in nature, which relinquishes the ego’s need to believe and prove things…

As it turns out, the ego rules most, and those people would rather take the easy path of outsourcing their own moral authority anyway.

Tolerance vs. Acceptance

August 13, 2022 Britton William FrostLeave a comment

The difference between tolerance and acceptance is essentially a difference between being morally negligent and spiritually connected.

Tolerance, as promoted by progressive political circles and cultural movements such as body positivity and pride, masks its negligence for what is true, good, and beautiful as false compassion, seeking to covertly destroy all standards and traditions, cultural and governmental, built and conserved in the name of God since the beginning of civilized culture. This does not result in the utopian clean slate that they dream of, not that they have the wisdom or manpower to build something better in its place anyway, but delves us back to the tribal, Arian hell that was the only form of conflict resolution between humans thousands of years ago.

What one tolerates, therefore, is directly rooted in ones own view of oneself. Tolerate falsehood of the misinterpretation of information, you devalue your own intellect. Tolerate incompetence by supporting diversity quotas, and you devalue the well-being of the structures enforcing them. Tolerate anything evil, including the proposition that morality per se is relative and therefore that there is not intrinsic order or goodness to the universe, and you devalue your own soul by replacing it with your ego and outsourcing your true inner authority, making it impossible to improve and live a fulfilling life.

Acceptance, on the other hand, shows that you can detach and at least desire to understand that things are as they are, and that you don’t have control over those externals, but only over how you respond to them. Acceptance is the first step for living a true life because it exemplifies mastery over the things that one doesn’t allow to possess them. Whereas tolerance is born out of guilt, shame, anger, or pride, acceptance is a prerequisite, though merely a prerequisite, of truth, goodness, and love.

Debunking the “Free Will Illusion”

July 26, 2022August 13, 2022 Britton William Frost1 Comment

The other day, I read this PsyBlog article that attempts to explain a psychological study which, according to the author, seems to imply that humans are mechanical robots merely controlled by neuronal impulses in our brains, and that free will is an illusory conception that humans have constructed to cope with death. There have been numerous studies, including the one described in that article, which show that neurons in the brain begin to fire before the person can report being conscious of their decision to pick up a pencil or before they can predict exactly which one of five circles on a computer screen changes color, for examples (the latter example is the experiment referred to in the article). The article also mentions the term ‘unconscious’ several times, and the usages imply that ‘unconscious’ should be defined merely as ‘the mechanical workings of the brain’. My aims in this post are to explain why that is an oversimplified and unsophisticated definition of ‘unconscious’, and also to suggest, partly on that basis, why these studies not only do not imply that free will is an illusion, but that they have virtually no bearing on what constitutes free will to begin with.

A Less Trivial Definition of ‘Unconscious’

There is one thing that the article (and anyone who would agree with it) gets right: we are not in total control of what we see, understand, and believe. However, this truth cannot be maintained to every degree of analysis imaginable (the highest degree being the ontology of free will and morals, arguably). This raises a semantic problem. Everyone has their own definition of what constitutes “unconscious” and even “free will”. The level of analysis that the article attempts to operate on is one of moral ontology, but it fails. Instead, it maintains the assumption that all that exists in us are mechanistic processes, and those processes are “unconscious”. We are our brains, and our brains are computer processors that take in data and organize that data for output, and when we are faced with stimuli relevant to our experiences, we merely react in accordance with our pre-organized data. Eh, well, partially correct! We are more nature than nurture after all. But, how does this imply that we don’t have free will? Let’s step back first. What can we infer from this article’s usage of ‘unconscious’?

“Neural activity is unconscious”, materialists will hold. Yes, we know that to the same extent that we know that digestion in the intestines is unconscious, and it need not be overstated. It is merely a biological process per se. However, biological processes tell us very little about our conscious world — the reality that we actually experience. They presuppose that the origins of our behaviors and decisions are pre-programmed inside our brains, and the neuronal activity is the first step in activating those programs (which we call decisions). This is an assumption, albeit a rather interesting one. Those who believe that this process is the causal origin of our behavior commit the most basic fallacy in science: correlation without causation. Why do they assume that the brain is the beginning when the brain requires the world to gather information to begin with, and why would anyone assume that we are disconnected from objective reality to the extent that we are separate and not intimately connected to it in a way that our actions most likely have ancient origins. What is left over when we commit to this materialist view of perception?

A lot, I would say. In fact, one can control some aspects of even these biological processes. If I am lactose-intolerant, I can consciously avoid dairy so my digestion maintains a regular track. In the same way, I can somewhat control what my brain “processes”. If I am at a music festival, for example, and I have to decide whether I want to attend the concert of a band I have already seen or that of a new band I haven’t yet seen, my decision will affect what my brain processes. If I choose the familiar option, I will go into the show having certain expectations based on what I have already processed from previous shows of theirs. If I choose the unfamiliar band, (which is statistically less likely), then I am choosing a new path. My experience will not be dictated by any biases, and, in a way, the show will present a challenge — a challenge to what I already know and expect in music generally. It is not only those biological processes that are necessarily unconscious, but so are some of the decisions we make which come prior to those processes. We can, however, take control of those decisions if we think about learning and decision-making in the right way. So, let’s think about it like this: perhaps the origins of our behavior and decisions are in the world, but not in the minute-by-minute, stimuli-centric world that neuro-materialists would like to believe. If it were that way, then we would not even be able to inquire about how our minds work as we’re doing now (which requires temporarily stepping outside of them), much less to overcome social pressure to leave our friend group at a music festival to see the band we want to see, alone.

What I am dancing around now is the more nuanced meaning of ‘unconscious’ that we find in fringe psychology and spiritual circles.

“To know oneself is to make the unconscious conscious.” — C.G. Jung

We can observe, in my field of birth chart astrology, that people live out their charts until they seek knowledge about them. The birth chart represents one’s innate set of perceptions and predispositions for responding to different aspects of reality. Someone is likely even living out their transits when they come to me for consultation — i.e. there is something external compelling them to learn about themselves at a particular time — but free will is clearly expressed in how they make use of the information I give them. The better one knows oneself, the more opportunities they will have to express their free will. There is still no guarantee, however, that they will. As I always say, I don’t tell people what to do; I help them own what they choose to do.

There is a strong case that it is not when someone is acting from their proclivities, but rather only when someone acts against what is normal and comfortable for them, that they are expressing free will. This “opposition to the self” kind of behavior must be founded on moral principles, boundaries, or in the very least, external rules. These represent three different degrees of self-governance and the spectrum of our human relationship to that concept, and only one fully shows that free will can be expressed in any case. In the next post, I will describe these three levels and show the connection from free will to that one of them, perhaps revealing something about the origins of autonomous decision-making that evaded us in the beginning of this article.

The False Dichotomy of Sex & Go-karts

June 9, 2021June 9, 2021 Britton William FrostLeave a comment

I recently conducted a poll which turned out to be the largest in Instagram history with 26 million participants. The results, astonishingly, were split in dead-ass half at 13 million a piece!

The question? Only the deepest and longest-standing debate among the most serious philosophers since the beginning of speculative thought…

“Which is the funnest activity of human beings: sex or go-karts?”

They are, indeed, two sides of the same coin, for “pole position” is crucial in both activities. However, they serve reverse roles of what convention would have us believe. They also represent two different and crucial ways of thinking about how we connect to our vulnerable, inner-child selves. Before I get into that, however, I need to define these terms.

By ‘go-kart’, I don’t mean your two-seat, 10mph, Celebration Station woo-woo garbage karts. I mean real race karts at a real race track – the kind that make you shit the seat when you lose control. I mean the kind with no seat belts because if you get in an accident, it’s actually safer to be ejected. I mean the kind that, if you get it wrong, you’re fucking dead.

By ‘sex’, I don’t mean your mindless, drunken, incompetent college hookup that has you ending the night in the ER because a condom got stuck in the wrong hole. I mean the kind in which vulnerability is required and desired. I mean an intimate connection between two conscious and spiritual, sober adults who know what they want and know what they’re doing. I mean the kind where you can hold eye contact, feel things, and actually like it. I mean the kind that, if you get it wrong, you’re fucking dead.

Now, I’ll ask you again. What’s the funnest thing ever? Sex or go-karts?

No, not sex IN a go-kart. That doesn’t work. I’ve actually tried it.

I’m not favoring one over the other here (although go-karts is usually better), but they’re both crucial to our development as social individuals. Allow me to explain.

On one hand, there is go-karting. This is a child’s game, one might think, but it requires an adult’s disposition to do right. Any childish idiot can go out and play bumper cars, but the most successful professional racing drivers all got their start in karting and still do it for fun and conditioning throughout their career. It pushes the limits of the connection between their mind and machine more and more with every lap, even more so than their race cars do. Go-karting represents the solitary nature of man at his best, “running his own race” without concern for how others are running theirs, improving by milliseconds at a time, corner by corner, so that it adds up to victory in the end.

Go-karting reminds us that healthy competition is not overt – it is not the goal in itself, but rather the consequence of doing one’s best and achieving individual potential over time. Improvement happens incrementally such as in braking a bit later and accelerating a bit earlier through each corner over the course of a session. A good kart racer sees the others on track not as competitors, but as obstacles.

One’s ability to maintain control of a go-kart indicates good masculine qualities like patience, precision, and consistency. A man who steps into a go-kart and proceeds to play bumper cars and cause carnage is – make no mistake – a toxic human being. The connection between man and go-kart represents the masculine in us to focus on one thing while maintaining awareness of everything else, and to make that craft an art form which we express with our own unique style.

Go-karting is the ultimate test of solitary focus, spatial awareness, and consistency of mind-body connection. It is no wonder that Finland, one of the most introverted and happy countries in the world, has produced the most world champions per capita in all top-tier autosport categories. Their culture centers around a unique concept called “Sisu”. Sisu has no direct translation in English, but it has to do with stoic determination, cool-headedness, courage, and resilience. This concept is present in their personal mindsets and enhances individual and collective performance in any task. The Finns are hot because they’re so cool. They have those traits that make and keep panties soaking wet.

On the other hand, appropriately, there is sex. This is an adult’s game, but it requires a child’s disposition. It calls us to leave behind all responsibility just as children effortlessly do when they’re at play. Like go-karting, it does require some degree of technical skill, but it takes (at least) two, and improvement, also incremental, happens more deeply through connecting with your partner over time. To do sex well, one must let go of the ego and expectation that often traps us in a masturbatory frame of mind. Letting go of control during sex, regardless of the role, marks more feminine qualities like submission, sensuality, and presence.

Sex is supposed to be fun – and funny! A woman who is in her head during sex has a lot of baggage to work through, and that’s no fun. When she has worked through all of that, develops confidence, and gets sex right, she brings an abundance of supportive love and curious energy to a connection with another. This also requires the right man. When a man is tuned in with his partner, knows how to touch her, is technically competent, and has a soy-free diet, he can allow his dominant sexual energy to flow in a natural way that is sure to please because he has put in the work to earn her submission.

Sexual chemistry means that the participants are accommodating of and enthusiastic about satisfying each other’s needs. An abundance of trauma that prevented one from experiencing their childhood in a free and open way will affect one in mature years and prevent them from being as curious and emotionally vulnerable as one must be in order to properly enjoy sex. It will also affect one’s ability to communicate respectfully and effectively, which is the only responsibility that we should carry into the bedroom. Having worked on themselves individually while staying open to more collectively is essential.

A child can look you in the eyes without fear, ask genuine questions, and connect. When it comes to sex, we adults are terrible at this. In seeking another we are often overcompensating for abandoning our own needs, desires, and potential. The thought of improving this is terrifying, but it is equally crucial for our social and psychological development. Sex calls us to communicate in ways that a 5-year-old would understand – e.g. “I like this/don’t like that!” This is a strength. Talk more outside of the bedroom about what you like and want, and more inside it to spice it up!

Whether you prefer sex or go-karting, that may tell you something about what you need to work on or are consciously working on, depending on where you are in your journey of self-discovery. A large part of that journey involves integrating one’s optimal masculine and feminine potential. Likewise, our attitude toward children in general can reveal our attitudes about ourselves. The progressive, feminist social philosophy fashionable today lacks value for childbearing and/or for nurturing children in a healthy way that integrates the masculine and draws firm boundaries around the feminine (drawing boundaries is a masculine activity, by the way). This delusion is based on, and intended to spread, mass fear surrounding the deep spiritual value of raising children. Without facing that fear, a parent is certain to inflict their own damage onto their child, especially if single.

Remember, it is our inner-child that is triggered when we mirror each other. We are mostly turned off by others who mirror our own weaknesses and insecurities. This is exaggerated when we are mirrored by children, for they question our deepest assumptions with the utmost innocence. That simple word ‘why’ is not to be shrugged off, but should rather be taken as an opportunity to look inward as much as to inform. Regardless of what you have to work on, sex and go-karts are clearly the two funnest activities known to man when done right, so why not enjoy both? They are also deeply meditative and therapeutic, for they reveal some of our deepest weaknesses in real time.

It’s not about what you want, but about what you need. Are you slow on track? Get out there, work on your focus and discipline, and improve your craft little by little. Do you suck in bed (in a bad way)? Work on tuning in and connecting with people better, and deal with those things that their presence triggers in you. Mastering sex and go-karting is beautifully impossible, but together, they afford us unlimited opportunity for balance between our masculine and feminine and to improve giving our full attention to what is truly important, namely sex and go-karts.

Writegenstein #7: Disagreement as Misunderstanding

May 12, 2021May 12, 2021 Britton William FrostLeave a comment

“611. Where two principles really do meet which cannot be reconciled with one another, then each man declares the other a fool and heretic.”

-Ludwig Wittgenstein (On Certainty)

Disagreements don’t exist — only misunderstandings do — if we take truth to exist. For a relativist, there is no difference between the two.

Furthermore for the relativist, definitions don’t exist at all.

Nor does anything exist for the relativist. To follow relativism through to its conclusion, one must be nihilistic and solipsistic, which are also unsustainable because it would follow that identity itself is impossible.

For one who accepts truth (in conscious thought, that is — for we all do in action), however, understanding is a prerequisite to opinion. An opinion is a sort of judgement. To understand is to have thought critically, and to think critically is to have observed impartially. Few who practice this method would consider their views to be mere opinions, worth just as much consideration as that of one who has no conscious basis.

Have well-reasoned perspectives, not opinions. Some “opinions” have a basis, and some do not, so we should not consider them to be of the same category. When they do, it is by coincidence. What serves as the intentional value determines which is which.

An opinion is never put forth with the intention of being true. It is either a nonsensical impulse or an attempt to be right. It will be fought for by way of rhetoric rather than reasoning. Any tools of reasoning that it employs will be inverted. For example, one might commit the appeal-to-pity fallacy in order to win the argument rather than avoid it as to not be fallacious in one’s reasoning. All well-reasoned perspectives have, at the very least, the intention of truth. Otherwise, the end is chosen at random by man, all means are justified, and logic is inverted to serve that end if it is used at all.

In summary: rhetoric is the art of debate — i.e. inverting logic to persuade someone to your side, for your ends.

Rhetoric, indeed, has a solipsistic aura to it. It is not motivated by what is good for one and for all, but rather for oneself alone. The gain can be of finances, power, status, or the appearance of virtue, all of which are superficial and, in the end, not good for oneself either. It leaves one alone, imprisoned, on one’s own island.

To reason well, by contrast, one’s only concern should be that which is true is revealed. One must be indifferent to the specifics of the outcome. To be virtuous in one’s faith is to believe that what is true is also good — to not allow one’s own motivations to intervene with that inquiry. To be naive in one’s faith is to put one’s trust in the motivations of man.

One should not even trust one’s own motivations if one cannot first observe them.

To be made in the image and likeness of God means that we have all the power we need within us — to discern deception and to speak and act in favor of what is good for good’s sake. To have the power of God within us is to have the power of Truth within us.

God, goodness, and Truth are the same concepts, dressed differently.

Logic itself is not good or true. It is a tool that we have been given with which we can choose good or evil, true or false. The human will is the only entity that possesses the power of good and evil. We have the conscious ability to use our tools for either at any point. To lack this ability is to be imprisoned.

It should be regarded as good that logic does allow us to follow a perspective or opinion through to its conclusion. In a disagreement between two people, no more than one participant is doing this. Disagreement happens when one person has a more tightly knitted sifter for information than the other, so he can see what is relevant and irrelevant more clearly, thus formulating a more solid basis for a perspective. The one who has not tightened the knitting of his filter jumps to conclusions, perhaps not from sifting at all, but from constructing a viewpoint on the basis of his data. This is the composition fallacy.

As we know, a philosophical argument has three parts: assumption, evidence, conclusion. For a reasonable discussion to occur, it treats the assumption(s) as a foundation for the evidence, and so all participants agree on that foundation. If this is not the case, then the discussion should be about that basis itself before moving forward with evidence. Otherwise, the participants will have different ideas about what constitutes evidence to begin with. This will leave the discussion at a stalemate.

It is that which is not being questioned in the argument that should first be understood.

A spiritual being is a truth-centered being. To be spiritual is to value truth and goodness above all and to have intended it even if one falls short of it in action.

To mull over a disagreement is to expect that the other understands what you understand. This is a mistake.

Even if you have put forth your position in clear, logical terms, it may not be the case that your message has been received as you intended. Do not expect anyone to understand. Speak simply and authentically, as if to allow your message to flow through you.

If your message is true, then it is not yours to begin with. You are merely the vessel for truth, so take no offense to how it is received. Anticipate that it will be met with great resistance. Surprise about this will cause you much unnecessary anguish, as will anything that you seek to control but cannot.

Understanding human perception more broadly will afford you forgiveness in particular cases.

Understanding that what is true is good will afford you the willingness to investigate assumptions before the evidence.

It is not your job to convert someone’s assumptive basis, for that might entail a deeper spiritual journey that they are yet to embark upon. One can only pursue that journey from their own will. They may have to experience hell before they enter into that darkness.

To disagree with someone may spark a volatile response. He will, as Wittgenstein implies in the quotation above, commit argumentum ad hominem. This is proof enough that there is something deeper that they misunderstand. They are frustrated neither with you nor your argument, but with themselves. If you engage them, you are showing the same incompetency in your own way, whether it be regarding your assumptions, evidence, or the reasons for their disagreeing and an inability to forgive them for that.

To show indifference toward what they say but concern for why they say it is to love them.

Similarly, to lack the ability to release yourself of their struggle reveals a struggle of your own that you must address. To simply present what you have concluded as true, and step away, is to love yourself.

The paths to both heaven and hell are dark. The latter is guided by one’s own senses, which is to say that one abandons oneself and others in an attempt to serve oneself. The former is guided by intuition — i.e. faith that the light at the end is already self-contained, is also something greater of which one is a part, and is therefore also best for all others involved.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: