science – 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.

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…

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.

Writegenstein #2: Philosophy of Psychology 205 (Seeing-As)

November 15, 2017March 15, 2020 Britton William FrostLeave a comment

‘How does one play the game: “It could also be this”?

[…] “I see (a) as (b)” might still mean very different things.

Here is a game played by children: they say of a chest, for example, that it is now a house; and thereupon it is interpreted as a house in every detail. A piece of fancy is woven around it.‘

— aphorism 205 of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s “Philosophy of Psychology” from Philosophical Investigations

It could be this and I see (a) as (b) point to different ways in which one could interpret a material object. That object alone has limited value, if any at all. In a sense, the material aspects of the object are arbitrary compared to the conceptualization of the object on the whole. What is conceptualized of it, i.e. how it is understood, depends on its place in its environment – what use it is to its environment. When children are playing house, they are playing a game. They see a chest as something to use in a game which mimics the game the child sees its parents playing daily and of which they are a part. They do not see it as something with material, mechanical parts as the builder might see it (that is what it would mean simply to see, though the builder may see the bigger picture as well.) They ask “What can we do with this?” and understand the chest to be a house, having already established, and taken for granted, the rules for what constitutes a house.

It does not end there. Playing the game of house is itself a very sophisticated perceptual process. Our ability to formulate and make use of abstraction is perhaps what separates human perception from the perception of other animals – not in terms of form, importantly, but in terms of degree. A cat, for example, will definitely see the chest as something other than a bundle of wood and nails assembled in a particular way. It will almost certainly see it as a scratching post or a place on which or in which to sit or sleep (depending on whether the chest is open or closed and on how tired the cat is), but the cat lacks the ability to conceptualize the chest as anything more than that with which it is afforded these very basic “cativities”, if you will. The reason for this, from an evolutionary standpoint, is that these cativities are all the cat needs to achieve its potential. So, the cat’s abstraction is of the same sort but of a much lower degree than that of the child. The cat’s abstraction is more like that of an infant’s than the young child’s, for an infant, like the cat, only seeks in objects the fulfillment of very basic needs. The only difference between the cat and the infant is the potential of growth and development.

One still might ask “what objective or quantifiable relation is there between a chest and a house?” One should see now, unless one is blinded by a materialist view of reality, that this question now becomes arbitrary because one cannot speak of perception in this example without qualifying the individual subjects’ understanding of it. Perception as we experience it does not seem to be a mere material process. One does not need to understand anything about brain matter to understand something. In fact, it is that understanding that is indeed the goal. One could say that in the cat’s mind there is very little understanding taking place at all, while in the child’s mind there is no limit, especially since the child’s capability for abstract thought will continue to develop. The child understands much more than the cat does. To understand an object, I should say, is to make an abstraction of it – an abstraction that has utility in the greater context of its environment – to allow one to be successful at a game. To see-as, then, is to understand, and vise versa.

Don’t Use Sarahah; Own Your Words!

August 16, 2017August 28, 2022 Britton William FrostLeave a comment

The problem with the new anonymous messaging app Sarahah isn’t that it creates a platform for cyberbullying (just walk away from your computer screen, jackass); it’s that it is playing a role in the leftist movement against free speech by ridding people of the responsibility of owning their words.

I don’t need to have used the app to know this. It’s obvious. In this time when social media is allowing for people to communicate less and less directly, making them more and more thin-skinned, careless with their speech, and, quite frankly, stupid, this app deals with the free speech problem by cleverly working around it. While most leftist social media platforms attempt to censor content or to simply suspend accounts when people say things that don’t conform to their collective beliefs, Sarahah allows the content to flow freely because no one in particular can claim responsibility for it. It is an anonymous free speech safe space, if you will.

Of course, the app knows who said what, so it allows you the option to anonymously block users if you get an undesirable message, so content can still be managed in that way.

Fair enough.

If someone messages you through the app telling you point-blank “you’re a dumb fuck”, you might not want to hear from that person again since they are lacking the tact and constructive criticism that the app would like of its users, and the same would be the case in real life, you can be sure.

The point I’d like to make in this post is that the Sarahah concept can seem all well and good on its own, but when you put it into a real world context, as with any new product, the users will determine its true identity. (this is through no clear fault of the creator; not every app developer knows enough about human nature to think through every scenario in which someone might use the app differently than he intended… this is why user feedback is so crucial). This post is my prophesy about why Sarahah’s identity will turn out more bad than good and why I would generally advise against using it.

Why Sarahah is Bad for Business

A good business provides a valuable service to the community. In order to ensure that the service continues to grow and improve, it is necessary that the employees work in an environment conducive to the free-exchange of ideas. That might make Sarahah seem like the perfect app, right? Actually, the contrary is true because of what the idea leaves out.

What is just as important as the idea itself is the employee’s taking credit for it. Sarahah doesn’t allow for this, neutralizing the dominance hierarchy within the company. The employer can reap the benefits of having the idea, but he does not have to give credit where it is due. This is convenient for the individuals at the top whose jobs won’t be threatened, and for the human resources department because they will have fewer cases to deal with, but it could hurt the company in the long run when their employees’ intellects are suppressed and promotions are given to the wrong people. This is bad news for female employees who, if they thought they were disadvantaged in the workplace before, will be even more so now, perhaps without their even realizing it. It is also bad for male employees who will inevitably lack the motivation to give any criticism at all.

Here are the differences between how women and men will be affected by Sarahah in the workplace.

Sarahah sneekily caters to the female temperament.

From a personality perspective, women tend on average to be higher than men in Big5 trait agreeableness. This means they are more compassionate, less assertive, tend to underestimate their abilities, and they don’t as often take credit for their achievements. They are also higher in trait neuroticism, which is sensitivity to negative emotion. This makes Sarahah the perfect place for women to speak their minds. They don’t have to give criticism directly, and they don’t have to claim fault if that criticism hurts someone’s feelings.

This might sound appealing to women, but I see it as taking advantage of the woman’s common workplace weaknesses. Though (probably) not intended, the inevitable consequence of this will be that even fewer women will stand out among their coworkers and be considered for promotions. They’ll be comforted now more than ever that simply sitting there and doing their jobs is enough, instead of taking the risks necessary to advance. (Of course, personality studies show that this is a good thing if they want to maximize their mate options, as women prefer mates who are at least as smart and successful as they are) All of this is true for some men as well, but I suspect men in general will encounter a different set of problems.

Sarahah Suppresses the Male Intellect

Since men are more assertive and aggressive, they will still be more likely than women to give criticism face-to-face, and there’s bad news for men who do. If a company begins to rely on Sarahah as the primary means by which to take criticism, then direct dialogue between people will be constricted, not enforced. Any man who does not use the app to speak his mind is taking a dangerous and unnecessary risk. He may get into trouble and risk losing his job if his speech is in violation of company policy. He won’t be able to play the traditional, competitive, risk-reward game that is crucial to his potential to climb the company ladder.

Challenging the status quo is an important way in which men typically show their ability to think critically, articulate, and negotiate – skills that are necessary for managing a good business at all levels. Sarahah suppresses these skills. This will allow HR to keep the hiring process neutralized, so they do not have to promote people within the company based on merit, but rather by whichever absurd and counterproductive standards they choose (e.g. to meet notoriously anglophobic ethnic diversity quotas).

Why Sarahah is Bad for Personal Relations (to point out the obvious)

It might sound appealing to find out what your friends and acquaintances really think of you, but I suspect that the anxiety that will result from not knowing who exactly said those things will far outweigh any positive effect that the criticism may have on you. Imagine walking around at a party where all of your closest friends are present, knowing that half, maybe even all of them have only been able to honestly open up to you anonymously.

A good friendship or relationship should not only be conducive to, but founded on open, honest communication. I know it sounds cliché, but this cannot be overstated given that Sarahah exists to deny that. In fact, we identify who our friends are based on how open our communication is with them, do we not?

Consider this… your primary or best friends are those few who you can be absolutely open with. You know who they are. Your secondary friends encompass a wider circle. They are people you may call on regularly, but the subject matter of your communication with them is limited, whether to specific topics or to a level of depth in general. Your acquaintances are everyone else you know – people you could (and often should) do without.

Which friend group do you suspect is the most likely to send you overly-critical messages on Sarahah? Acquaintances? The people who know you the least?

Hmm, maybe not.

Acquaintances might be the most likely to send you the occasional “you’re a dumb fuck” sort of message. But, since they know you the least, they think of you the least. They care for you the least. They’re the least likely to try to help you. So, I’d guess not.

What about those best friends who use the app? They very well may use it to give you some much-needed advice, but who are they? Though the advice is sound, are they really your friends if they can’t sit you down and talk to you?

You might be disappointed (or even relieved, if you’re a particularly strong person) to find out that some people who you thought were your best friends are really secondary friends, or mere acquaintances, or just snakes and not your friends at all. In fact, any “best friend” who might use the app out of fear of being honest with you, no matter the content of their message, is doing you a huge disservice. They’re simply acting cowardly.

Conclusion: Don’t Be a Pussy

Don’t use Sarahah. Own your words. Be an open, honest, and responsible human, for your sake and the sake of your friends and coworkers. If your company tries to adopt Sarahah in order to take criticism, explain to them the problems that would cause for you and for them. If they insist, then give criticism directly anyway. Get into a fight with those dumb cunts in HR. Get fired. Chances are that it’s not your dream job anyway.

If your friends announce on social media that they just started a Sarahah account, they’re reaching out for help. Take them out for a drink and ask them what’s up. It may require a bit of persistence, but if they’re really your friend, then it will be worth it.

Despite the difficulties in the short-term, the long-term benefits of having straightforward, critical discussions with people will be worth it. You’ll show them that you are worth it, and they will reward you for it. But, of course, don’t do it for the reward; as with anything, do it simply because it’s right.

Tinder Fun With a Feminist

May 22, 2017May 22, 2017 Britton William FrostLeave a comment

I’m Britton, as you should know, and below you’ll find the bio I wrote for my Tinder profile. If you don’t know what Tinder is, then get your head out of the sand, and read about it here.

I was in New Orleans the other day, getting my swipe on, and then I came across this fine, older lady.

The first things, ‘politically progressive’ and “the f-word”, I admit, probably should have raised red flags before even her shitty taste in music did. Those terms on their own hint at far-left political views, but the two of them together scream ‘SJW‘. However, she was hot, and that’s very rare of feminists, so I read into her words and saw deeper possibilities. I was hoping that maybe we could talk some philosophy, giving her the benefit of the doubt that her knowledge on that subject wasn’t confined to new-wave feminist crap. Hey, maybe she was even a feminist of the second-wave, non-radical kind, and ‘progressive’ just meant that she was kind of liberal and open to reasonable and necessary change. Maybe she’d even have a cat named Elvira. With this optimistic attitude, I swiped right and immediately tested her humor to see how “open” she really was.

BOOM! No fun or games with this one. Did I “proudly proclaim” that I am politically incorrect? Reread my bio, and let me know. I think I’m just straightforward about what I want out of my Tinder experience. She could have easily swiped me left if my intentions didn’t line up with hers. Looking back, though, maybe I should have ended my first message with a winky face. 😉

Do you value truth, Jessica? DO YOU? We’ll find out. Also, Jessica, I’ll be addressing you directly from here on. Wait, is it ok that I call you by your name, or would you prefer something else? I don’t want to be too incorrect and risk “invalidating your existence“.

Yeah, let’s define a term together! That sounds like a fun philosophical exercise. Maybe you’ll even return the favor by asking me how I would define the term, and then we’ll find some common ground, bettering both of our conceptions of the world. Learning stuff is fun! You read philosophy, so you agree, right?

Annnnnd there it is. You pretty much nailed it, Jessica. I’m guilty of whiteness, so there’s no need to ask me what I think ‘political correctness’ means. Your understanding of how language works, on the other hand, seems a bit strange, and the philosophy you read may be of questionable quality. My validity on that topic comes from my education in linguistics and philosophy of language. But, you’re attempting to “invalidate” me because I’m… white? Hmmm.

I don’t think that speech is an activity so consciously aimed toward respect, nor do I think it’s a good idea to blindly respect people at all. In fact, it’s dangerous. I’ll spare you the technical linguistic part of the argument because I’m starting to sense that you have a screw or two loose, but I still must address the respect-issue.

Also, how are you so sure that I’m not black or transgender? If you respected me, then you would have asked about my preferred identity because race and gender are determined whimsically and have no biological basis, correct? No, you should have simply requested a dick pic, Jessica. Truth requires evidence, and I have plenty of it.

So, maybe there’s more to political correctness than your definition, Jessica, and maybe I know some stuff that you don’t. Maybe you’d be interested in hearing it. Maybe if you weren’t so keen on blindly respecting others, then you wouldn’t be so liable to get mugged and raped in a dark alley in New Orleans. Or, maybe you’d like that because you’d become a martyr for your ideology. At this point, you’re not giving me any reason at all to respect you, but I do fear for your safety. After all, you’re right that the world isn’t a very kind place.

I figured I’d play the “patriarchy” card since you already accused me of being part of it by virtue of my straightness, whiteness, and maleness. What did you expect? Why did you swipe me right if you hate me by default, unless you wanted to hate-fuck me (shit, I may have missed my shot)? I mean, you’ve seen my pictures. Chances are that I’m not black under my clothes. In fact, I’m even WHITER there. Well, actually, there is a very small part of me that is kind of tan.

*ignores grammatical errors and moves on*

I know I’m an asshole, Jessica. There is no need to repeat yourself. But, does being an asshole make me wrong? No, Jessica, you’re the meanie who committed ad hominem. I also didn’t appeal to emotion to argue my point. You just took it that way. Taking offense and giving it are NOT the same thing. That’s Philosophy 101.

But…do save me! Please save me from my problematic ways so I can be more compassionate like you and make the world a more progressive place! Or, do I need a degree in women’s studies to be infected with your profound wisdom? If it’s LSU that infected you, then you’re right that there is no hope for me because I dropped out of that poor excuse for a higher-education institution after just one semester of grad school.

On the other hand, I could help you by revealing your greatest contradiction, and maybe even give you one more chance to get laid by me, knowing well that so few men would have gotten even this far with you. I mean, this is Tinder. Why else would you be here? Yeah, that’s what I’ll do because I want some too. I’ve learned to accept that liking sex makes women delicate flowers and men oppressive misogynists. It’s cool, really, I don’t need to be reeducated. I’ll even let you play the role of misogynist, and I’ll be the victim, and you can oppress deez nuts all you want.

That’s where it ended. So…

What the hell is going on here?

I don’t think that I need to go into detail about what is going on here. There are plenty people who have done that very well already. For example, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson in this brilliant snippet from the most popular podcast in the world. The general point I want to make is that we are in a strange place where people like Jessica are multiplying exponentially by the semester, thanks to politically correct ideology infecting universities, business administrations, legislature, and now even Tinder (as if Tinder doesn’t already have enough spam)! This is the time for talented and capable people, mostly men, to stop ceding power to the people who live in those boxes; they’re wrong, and they’ve snuck their way into power without truly earning it. To stand up for truth is to stand up for yourself. However painful that may be now, it is absolutely necessary for the survival of our species. After all, if we were all angry, 35-year-old feminist virgins, of course humanity would end.

Since we aren’t all like Jessica, one day we will be without these people completely. Let’s give them what they want: spare their feelings, thus depriving them of the open, truth-seeking dialogue that would mold them into stronger moral beings and free them from the narrow and suffocating constraints of the feminist ideology. Since they aren’t open to that sort of thing, they will eventually self-extinguish under their childless philosophy and rot in the miserable hell that they’ve created for themselves.

The Personality-Character Distinction

May 17, 2017May 18, 2017 Britton William FrostLeave a comment

As you may know, I am a big fan of personality studies. The system that has been researched the most by academics in psychology is the Big 5, and that’s where one who is interested in the most cutting-edge, fact-based research should look, but there are others that have taken off in popularity. Myers-Briggs, Enneagram, and HBDI are just a few that are used by individuals to improve their lives, and consulting groups all over North America to revamp businesses. Despite what little formal, scientific research has been done to confirm the cogency of these systems, the results generally speak for themselves. They have all had reasonable success in boosting employee satisfaction and productivity, and they have increased profit for those businesses too. Regardless of whether or not you “believe in” personality, there is something to it, and to explain these systems away because they may not “have all of their facts straight” is to overlook the utility they provide in personal development.

It’s not that the facts don’t matter, but what constitutes ‘fact’ isn’t easy to determine. The average half-life of a scientific fact is only seven years, and that is an average across all scientific fields. As we know, facts in physics tend to hold out longer than those in the social sciences, but when a fact in physics turns out to be wrong, it is often much more broadly and profoundly wrong and thus more difficult to accept because so much has been built on that foundation.

There is nothing that people hate more than an idea which compromises the integrity of their foundation, but when truth happens, we must be willing to change accordingly. This is where science can become its own worst enemy, because after all, it takes humans with subjective goals and motivations to interpret numbers and to make something useful out of those findings. Remember, science is a tool, not a belief system. But, that’s a discussion for another time. This is especially important today for social issues in the universities. I think that moving forward, personality research will play a crucial role in creating a stronger foundation for the humanities and social sciences (which are currently corrupt by neo-Marxism) and for better understanding how to sort out this massive mess which was made very real to me just the other night in the pub.

I was out for some beers, having an argument with a couple of old grad school friends. They were debating each other why women are underrepresented in philosophy departments when they are overrepresented in the other humanities. Their disagreements seemed to be between narrow social issues, as one might expect from two young, impressionable minds who’s opinions haven’t yet been optimized to think outside the social constructionist box of academia. One (the female) argued that direct oppression of women was the cause, and the other (the male) argued that systematic corruption was the problem, which, unbeknownst to them, is more or less the same thing, so their disagreements were fundamentally semantic. When I brought up differences in male and female personalities as a solution, leaving open for discussion what those differences might be (even though I already knew), they seemed to reject it without giving it any serious consideration. Shocker. They didn’t want to accept that people might actually be innately different (as a philosopher type, why wouldn’t you want to be different, I thought?). That is not to say, as I tried to explain, that nurture doesn’t play some crucial role, but they insisted on sticking to the nurture side of the debate while rejecting altogether the nature side. I was even being more centrist about the issue than I should have been because I wanted to facilitate good discussion, but that didn’t work as it was two versus one.

There were a couple of ironies in their rejection of my ideas. The first is that they were clearly embodying their natural male-female differences in the specific positions they originally took. Generally speaking, women are more agreeable and are more interested in people, while men are more interested in ideas and systems, so it’s no wonder my female friend was defending the group-identity-based female oppression position, and my male friend was defending the politico-systematic corruption position. I dared not point that out but they became more aggressive once they began to realize that their positions were more or less the same and only founded on semantic disagreement. From that point, their team approach in attempting to defeat me brought up the second irony — that in agreeing with each other in the fashion that they did, they were acting out the group identity role that is so characteristic of people who take the far-left position on social issues, which is something that they had admitted to. They oriented their arguments onto a foundation of equality, kindness, and compassion rather than on a desire to get to the truth, or to let truth present itself through three-way discussion. When I explained what a Pareto distribution is, the phenomenon where, if given equal opportunity, people’s natural differences will manifest thereby causing a necessary unequal distribution of success, they simply got mad (to make a short story shorter). In my male friend’s defense, he unknowingly proved that his constructionist position was at least somewhat justified by virtue of the simple fact that he is from Seattle. He is a slave of his own cunty-liberal reasoning, after all. My female friend, on the other hand, comes from a conservative family in Georgia, and she carries a gun in her purse, so, what the hell is her excuse?

Anyway, it seemed that the further we went down the rabbit hole, the more we started to talk past one another, for we were operating at different levels of analysis. They thought I was flat out wrong, and I thought they were missing the point, so we were going nowhere fast. They first disagreed with each other about which of the narrow social issues was the cause of the lack of women in philosophy, but they both agreed on the broader presupposition that social constructionism was correct. When I questioned that point, they got angry. This is what we’re supposed to do in philosophy, though – broaden an issue as much as we possibly can in order to find the most reasonable general perspective on which we can ground the known facts. If you can’t think that broadly, or at least keep your emotions in check while others are doing so, then philosophy is not for you. As we are all graduate-level philosophizers, I thought that would have been fun. Well, it was, but it was just a bit dirtier than any of us would have liked!

Looking back, a crucial distinction arose that I now see should have been dealt with from the beginning. That is the distinction between personality and character. Personality is what I consider to be one’s innate, baseline temperament. This is obviously difficult to control for scientifically because there are so many layers of environmental, social, and cultural influence accrued over a lifetime and stacked on top. But, there is still the personality which is your default mode of temperament that goes largely unchanged throughout your life. This is why two or more siblings raised under identical conditions will turn out so different – it’s because they are different. They require different sorts and degrees of attention. How that personality is cultivated, though, encompasses one’s character (which is more or less the same concept as Aristotle’s “State of Character” that he describes in his Nicomachean Ethics). This is where free moral will comes in. One habituates himself into making the right moral decisions to cultivate his virtues, and that forms the character. Perhaps I should call personality temperament, and character personality. Perhaps this semantic point is where my friends didn’t get it. Whatever. Semantics. I’ll be clear from here on.

What the social constructionist has more right than the radical materialist personality advocate (Eric Braverman, for example) is that, at the end of the day one’s character is what is important, and that we can habituate ourselves into projecting a certain image that can lead us to a successful and fulfilling life. What they get wrong is that we are a slave to societal norms, that we’re all the same, and to push back against the patriarchy is the only thing we can do about that. Funny, this view can be explained from a personality perspective. Social constructionists are liberal in their political views, which implies that they are generally low in Big 5 trait conscientiousness which deals with orderliness, industriousness, organization, etc., so they wouldn’t want to put in the necessary work to make positive changes in their lives to begin with. By this logic, they’re simply not allowed to deny the existence of personality. What the materialists correctly presuppose, probably without knowing, is that we should come to understand our baseline temperament, and when cultivating our personality into character, we should not stray from that default mode of being, or else we will live a dishonest and unfulfilling life. What they get wrong, ironically, is that life has no purpose and that we are nothing more than our biology. Pragmatically speaking, this can’t work either. I challenge a materialist to go out into the world and actually attempt to live as though his life has no purpose – as though his thoughts and actions are predetermined by brain functions because he has no free will. One will necessarily fall into a nihilistic, self-deprecating philosophy which would lead to a quick and painful demise, not only for him, but for everyone around him for whom he is a purpose.

Our personality/temperament is our default mode that we should strip from our societal influence to properly understand our potential, that is, if we are individual enough to manage that. Allow Terence McKenna to give you some advice: psychedelic drugs can help. Our character is what we have made of that potential, and it is only a good character if we have taken the time to understand what lies beneath it. Those are both good and evil things. Our character — our being — is the ever-evolving vessel we use to navigate the world that only we have the power to control. We cannot wholly exist apart from our environment. Our being is not our nature or our nurture, but it is precisely the abstract interplay between the two, and how we choose to act accordingly, without regret.

The False-Dilemma of the Nature vs. Nurture Debate

June 16, 2016June 14, 2017 Britton William FrostLeave a comment

Before I begin, allow me to explain what I mean by false dilemma. A false dilemma is an error in reasoning whereby one falsely assumes that the truth of a matter is limited to one of two (or a select few) explanations. For example, the American presidential election. For another example, have you ever been stumped by a question on multiple choice test because you saw more than one possible correct answer (or no correct answers all)? — perhaps you got frustrated because you felt that the test was unfairly trying to trick you? Well, you were probably right. This may have been an instance of your ability to recognize the false dilemma fallacy. Sometimes there are indeed any number of correct answers given any number of circumstances. There is often simply not enough information provided in the question for one choice to clearly stick out as correct. This might lead you to question the test in a broader sense. What is the purpose of this (presidential election, or) test? What is it trying to measure or prove? Without getting into that answer in too much detail (as this is not a post about the philosophical state of academic testing), I can say such tests aren’t really concerned with truth and meaning as they are about the specific program they support. That program may or may not have the best interests of the people in mind, and it may or may not be directly governed by the amount of money it can produce in a relatively short period of time. Anyway, that’s another discussion.

In a previous post entitled The Slate, the Chalk, and the Eraser, I compared a child’s mind to a slate, and I argued that as long as we write on it with chalk by teaching him how to think (rather than a permanent marker/what to think), then he will be able to erase those markings to make way for better and more situation-relevant ones in the future, once he develops the ability to make conscious judgments. This is an example that you may have heard before, and it can be useful, but by some interpretations, it may seem to rest on a false presupposition. Such an interpretation may raise the “nature-nurture” question that is so common in circles of science and philosophy. One might argue that if a child’s mind is truly analogous to a slate in the way I have put forth, then I should commit myself to the “nurture” side of that debate. That was not my intention. In fact, that debate, in its most common form, presents a false dilemma, so I can only commit to both or neither side depending on what is meant by ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’. The conventional definitions of these terms are limited in that they create a spectrum on which to make truth-value judgments about objects, experiences, phenomena, etc. We commit to one end of the spectrum or the other, and we take that position as true and the other as illusory. This is similar to the subject-object distinction I described in an earlier post. Perhaps comically, even the most radical (and supposedly-yet-not-so-contrary) ends of scientific and religious belief systems sometimes agree one which side to commit to, albeit for different reasons. That particular conflict, however, is usually caused by a semantic problem. The terms ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ obviously mean very different things for radical mechanistic scientists and evangelical Christians.

Please keep in mind throughout that I am not criticizing science or religion in general, so I am not out to offend anyone. I am merely criticizing radical misinterpretations of each. Consequently, if you’re an idiot, you will probably misinterpret and get offended by this post as well.

Taking this description a step further, false dilemma can be committed to any number of degrees. The degree to which it is committed is determined by at least two factors: the number of possible options one is considering and the level of complexity at which one is analyzing the problem. Any matter we might deal with can be organized conceptually into a pyramid hierarchy where the theoretical categorical ideal is at the top, and the further one goes down the pyramid, the more manageable but trivial the matters become. As a rule of thumb, the fewest options (one or two) and the lowest level of analysis (bottom of the pyramid) should give rise to the highest probability of a logical error because the bottom level of analysis has the highest number of factors to consider, and those factors culminate up the pyramid toward the categorical ideal. Fortunately, committing an error at the lowest levels of analysis usually involves a harmless and easily-correctable confusion of facts. Committing the error at higher levels of analysis are more ontological in nature (as the categorical ideals are per se) and can have catastrophic consequences. All sciences and religions structure their methods and beliefs into such pyramid hierarchies, as do we individually. They start with a categorical ideal as their assumption (e.g. materialism for some science; the existence of God for some religion), and they work down from there. However, neither religion nor science are meant to be top-down processes like philosophy (which is likely the only top-down discipline that exists). They’re meant to be bottom-up processes. For science, everything starts with the data, and the more data that is compiled and organized, the more likely we are able to draw conclusions and make those conclusions useful (in order to help people, one would hope). For religion, everything starts with the individual. Live a moral and just life, act kindly toward others, and you will be rewarded through fulfillment (heaven for western religions, self-actualization for eastern religions). These can both be good things (and even reconcilable) if we go about them in the right way. What are the consequences, however, if we go about them radically (which is to say blindly)? In short, for radical belief in a self-righteous God, it is war, and therefore the loss of potentially millions of lives. In short, for radical materialism, it is corruption in politics, education, and the pharmaceutical industry, the elimination of health and economic equality, and the potential downfall of western civilization as we know it. That’s another discussion, though.

For the nature-nurture debate, the false dilemma is the consequence of (but is not limited to) confusion about what constitutes nature and nurture to begin with, and even most people who subscribe to the very same schools of thought have very different definitions of each. First, in the conventional form of this debate, what do people mean by ‘nature’? Biology, as far as I can tell, and nothing more. We each inherit an innate “code” of programmed genetic traits passed down from our parents, and they from theirs, and so on. This code determines our physiology and governs our behavior and interaction with the outside world. Our actions are reactive and governed by our brain-computer, and free will is consequently an illusion. What is meant by ‘nurture’ on the other hand? Our experienced environment, and nothing more. Regardless of our chemical makeup, how we are raised will determine our future. There is no variation in genetics that could make once person significantly different from another if raised in identical fashion by the same parents, in the same time and place. We have no control over the objective environment we experience, so free will still seems to be illusory.

These positions seem equally shortsighted, and therefore, this problem transcends semantics. Neither accounts for the gray in the matter — that reality, whatever that is, does not follow rules such as definitions and mathematical principles. These are conceptions of our own collectively-subjective realities which make it easier for us to explain phenomena which are otherwise unfathomable. On this note, we could potentially consider both nature and nurture phenomenal. That is an objective point on the matter. The first subjective problem is that both positions imply that we don’t have free will. Sure, there are unconscious habits of ancient origins that drive our conscious behavior (e.g. consumption, survival, and reproduction), but there other more complex structures that these positions don’t account for (e.g. hierarchical structures of dominance, beliefs, and abstract behavior such as artistic production), and those are infinitely variable from person to person and from group to group. This comes back to the point I just made about phenomenal reality and the conceptions we follow in order to explain them as if they are somehow out there in the objective world that we are not part of.

Not to mention, we all take differently to the idea that free will might not exist. Religious people are often deeply offended by this idea whereas many scientists (theoretical physicists in particular) claim to be humbled by it. Both reactions, I would argue, are disgustingly self-righteous and are the direct consequence, not of truly understanding the concept of free will per se, but of whether or not free will simply fits into his or her preconstructed hierarchical structure of beliefs. One should see clearly, on that note, why a materialist must reject free will on principle alone, and a radical christian must accept it on principle alone. Regardless of the prospect that the religious person has a right to be offended in this case, and that it is contradictory of the scientist to commit to a subjective ontological opinion when that very opinion does not permit one to have an opinion to begin with (nor can it be supported with any sufficient amount of “scientific” evidence whatsoever), the point here transcends the matter of free will itself: that rejecting or accepting anything on principle alone is absurd. This calls into question matters of collective ideological influence. There is power in numbers, and that power is used for evil every bit as often as it is used for good. When individuals, however, break free from those ideologies, they realize how foolish it is to be sheep and to believe in anything to the extent that it harms anyone in any way (physiologically, financially, emotionally, etc.). The scary part about this is that literally any program might trap us in this way (ideologically), and blind us from the potentially-innate moral principles that underlie many of our actions. On that note, we are all collectively very much the same when we subscribe to a program, and we are all part of some program. We are individually very different, however, because we each have the potential to arrive at this realization through unique means. We each have a psychological structure that makes up our personality. It is undeniably innate to an extent, yet only partially biological. This reveals the immeasurable value in developing the one’s intrapersonal intelligence through introspection and careful evaluation of one’s own thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and desires.

Furthermore, conventional nature-nurture positions are polarities on a spectrum that doesn’t really exist. If we had clearer definitions of each, perhaps the debate would not present a false dilemma. We should reconstruct those definitions to be inclusive of phenomena — think of these terms as categories for ranges of processes rather than singular processes themselves. If we think of these terms as being on a spectrum, we are led to ask the impossible question of where the boundary is between them. If we think of them as categories, we are forced to embrace the reality that most, if not all, processes can fall into either category given a certain set of circumstances, and thus, those categories become virtually indistinguishable. E.g. in the case of inherited skills: practice makes perfect, yet natural talent seems so strongly to exist. If the truth-value-based spectrum between nature and nurture were a real thing, then neither position would be able to account for both nurtured ability and natural talent; it would simply be either/or. This is a consequence of the false dilemma. It leads us to believe that this gray matter is black and white. If we one is decent at learning anything, he/she knows that there is only gray in everything.

But is there? I hope I have explained to some conceivable extent why scientific and metaphysical matters should not be structured into a polar truth-spectrum, and why any attempt to do so would likely present a false dilemma. However, it seems more reasonable to apply spectrum structures to value theory matters such as aesthetics, ethics, and even other personal motivators such as love. This, I will explain further in a later post.

Collective Subjectivity = Reality :: The Utility of Phenomenological Thought

April 12, 2016April 15, 2016 Britton William FrostLeave a comment

In my last post, I explained the differences between and the proper uses of the terms ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’. To recap, these terms do not describe the positions from which one perceives. Of course, everyone perceives subjectively, and objects don’t perceive at all. Therefore, the subject/object spectrum is not a spectrum on which one may judge a matter’s truth-value. The spectrum simply describes the nature of the matter at hand — subjective means “of a subject” and objective means “of an object”. Having said that, how can we define truth more broadly? What determines it?

I think that we can, in many conceivable instances, equate truth with reality. This is based on one of two popular definitions of reality. The first, more popular definition in which we cannot equate truth and reality, and the one I reject, is that of objective, Newtonian-scientific reality. This holds that there are mathematical laws and principles out there in the universe, already discovered or waiting to be discovered, which the forces of nature can be reduced to. Proponents of this view hold “rationality”, in all of its vagueness, as the singular Platonic ideal which dictates what is true, real, and meaningful. It follows from this that mechanistic science holds the key to all knowledge. The problem here is that mechanistic science (not all science) is founded in the metaphysical belief in materialism. Materialism suggests that all reality is comprised of quantifiable matter and energy. Humans, and all living things, are “lumbering robots”, as Richard Dawkins claims. Consciousness, ethics, morality, spirituality, and anything else without a known material basis is subjective in nature and thus superstitious, irrational, and not real. As I have already explained, this worldview rests on a straw-man distinction between what constitutes subjective and objective, for it assumes that this distinction creates a spectrum on which to judge a matter’s truth-value (the more objective, the more true).

Remaining consistent with how I have distinguished subjective and objective is the second, less popular, and in my view, much more useful way of defining truth and reality: what is real is what affords us action and drives us toward a goal. The definition is as simple as that, but its implications have a tremendous amount of depth rooted in the unknown. Instead of holding one Platonic ideal (like rationality) as the key to all truth, there are an infinite number of ideals that humans conceptualize, both individually and collectively, in order to achieve their ends. Therefore, this view affords relevance to a wide range of perspectives even if the nature of the objects being perceived is unknown. The rationalist view, by contrast, is limited to the assumption that the nature of everything has already been determined to fit into one of two metaphysical categories: objective reality or subjective delusion. (This Newtonian theory of reality I have just explained, by the way, is a long-winded way of defining ‘scientism’, a term I often use in my posts.)

Nature doesn’t obey laws; humans do, so we tend to compartmentalize everything else in that way because that makes it easier for us to explain what we want to know and explain-away anything we don’t want to know. What we don’t want to know is what we are afraid of, and as it turns out, what we are afraid of is the unknown. So, when anomalies, whether personal or scientific, that don’t fit the already-established laws arise, a Newtonian thinker will categorize it as illusory in order to explain it away. This doesn’t work because even we humans have a propensity to break the laws that we create for ourselves, and this can be a very productive thing. The degrees to which this is the case depends on our individual psychological makeups. People who are high in the Big-5 personality trait conscientiousness, for example, tend to obey rules because of their innate need for outward structure and order. Those who are low in that trait are more likely to break rules, especially if they are also low in agreeableness which measures one’s tendency to compromise and achieve harmony in social situations. Openness, on the other hand, the trait correlated with intellect and creativity, allows one to see beyond the rules and break them for the right reasons — when they are holding one back from progress, for example. These are just three of five broad personality traits that have an abundance of scientific research to potentially confirm their realness and usefulness, even as a rationalist/Newtonian might perceive them. However, the tendency of someone to break rules as a result of their psychological makeup does not only apply to political laws. We also create collective social rules among groups of friends and unconscious conceptual rules for ourselves in order to more easily understand our environment, and those systems satisfy the same basic human needs and take the same hierarchical forms as political order does, and they serve purposes that contrast only in terms of their widespread-ness.

Regardless of our individual psychologies, there are commonalities that all humans share in terms of which types of goals we have and which types of things drive us toward or away from action. Those things are, therefore, collectively subjective across humanity and are what I would like to propose the most universally real and true things (insofar as anything can be universally real or true at all). This leads me to elaborate further on this goal-oriented view of reality.

Since I used Newton as a scientific lens through which to understand the rationalist theory of reality, I will do the same thing to explain the goal-based theory that I am proposing, but this time using Darwin. Philosophically speaking, Darwin did not commit himself to his theories in the same law-sense that Newton did his. In fact, many of Darwin’s ideas have recently been found to be rooted in psychology rather than in hard mechanistic biology. His main principle can be summed up with this: nature selects, and we make choices, based on what we judge to be most likely to allow us to survive and reproduce. That is all. Everything else is just detailed justification which may or may not be true or relevant. In fact, Darwin left open the possibility that the details of his evolutionary theory not only could be wrong, but that they probably were, and he was very serious about that. To take all of those details literally leads one into the same logical trap that the “skeptics/ new atheists” fall into when they obsess over the details of the Bible — they oversimplify and misrepresent its meaning, and therefore overlook the broader, most important points that exist. These are straw-man arguments, and they demonstrate a persistent, juvenile lack and rejection of intellect.

The reason Darwin’s main evolutionary principle is psychological is because it is consistent with Carl Jung’s idea of the archetype. An archetype is any ancient, unconscious pattern of behavior common among groups or the entirety of the human population and their ancestors. The need for all living beings, not only humans, to survive and reproduce, is undoubtedly real. It is something we understand so little, yet it drives an inconceivably wide range of behaviors, most of which are taken for granted to the extent that they are unconscious (e.g. sex-drive is causally related to the desire to reproduce). It is not only in the natural world that humans would have to desperately fight for their life against other species, but even among ourselves in the civilized world have there been instances of radical attempts to wipe out masses of people because one group saw another group’s ideologies as threatening to their own survival and prosperity (e.g. both Hitler and Stalin led such endeavors in the 20th century).

Perhaps, instead, if we equate truth with this archetypal, goal-oriented conception of reality, then we can come to a reasonable conclusion about what constitutes truth: that which affords and drives us to action. That is to say that (capital-T) Truth, in the idealistic, rationalist sense, probably does not exist, and if it does, our five senses will never have the capacity to understand it. The best we can achieve and conceive is that which is true-enough. For what? For us to achieve our goals: survive, reproduce, and make ends meet, and if we are very sophisticated and open, to also introspect, to be honest with ourselves and others, and to live a moral and just life.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: