link

Man, some funny stuff afoot!

link
digg it

rain goes “splat”
crickets chirp
cicadas buzz

candle on the head flickers

all snug in
can’t fall asleep
not tired
not tired

thinking about tomorrow
as if it were the past

playing today over and over again

who locked my mind away
who holds the key

who set up those barriers
before me

why must i now struggle
against myself

when all i wanted to do
was live

why must i fight
a thousand battles
just to gain an inch
of ground?

who shut the door
and why?

and as the rain falls
my tears collect

but drop they do not
as the sky weeps for me

it gets dark so early
we’re losing light so fast
it’s this time that’s
always been most dangerous

it is now and no time before that
my test comes in full

but i will pass it.

Nominate Freedomain Radio for “People’s Choice” and “Education” if you have not already!

Thanks

In listening to the very beginning of FDR podcast 70 in my second (or is it third? two-and-a-half?) run-through of Real-Time Relationships, I’m struck by just how important epistemology is.

It’s not that I didn’t think it was important before, but I didn’t really get just how important it was.

The thing about epistemology is that everybody you meet has an epistemology. That is, everybody has a belief about how we come to know what it is we know.

My gut tells me that epistemologies rarely, if ever, change. I’m not sure if I can square that with the fact that I used to believe in gods and devils (but I will try! ), except to say that I never really believed in those things at all despite trying my absolute hardest to do so for years and years… until I finally gave up.

It was absolute torture for me to continue believing in things I couldn’t see, especially when all my conceptions of Invisible Things were always cruel, harsh, sadistic, punitive, terrifying, invasive…

But there are billions of people around the world–nearly the whole world, in effect–that do believe in these things, these ghosts, these holdovers from a brutal history. Their epistemology centers around a fundamental rejection of reality. I don’t think that but a handful of those people can challenge their epistemology which, when taken collectively, is centered around a fundamental rejection of reality.

Of course, these billions of people eat, sleep, procreate, use language, intuitively understand physical laws, etc. It’s a rare individual that believes he can fly by leaping off of a cliff–that would be a very short flight indeed!

So where does this anti-reality epistemology come into play?

It would be impossible to live for very long if you did not believe that air, water, or food was necessary for survival, and most people have this down to the best of their ability.

Most people, though somewhat fewer, also accept abstracted forms of reality–scientific laws and theories which have given rise to an unparalleled quality of life compared to all of human history. It is difficult to reject these abstractions since they are so useful and predict reality so accurately that even if you believed reality was a dream, the physical law within the “dream” is accurate as far as you know.

It is the area between the lowest basics and the highest abstractions that this anti-reality epistemology rears its ugly head. This is the space where laws of reality and causality and just about everything else we observe about the world gets turned completely on its head.

As discussed in Universally Preferable Behavior, this area is called “The Null Zone.”

This Null Zone is used to justify all kinds of evils and atrocities, labeling what we would consider “evil” in any other context as “good.” Parents can beat their children but would severely punish their children for beating them. Government officials can point a gun at you and demand half of your income and nobody says “boo”, but if you did the same thing to your neighbor, you would be roundly castigated as immoral–as well you should be.

There are all kinds of justifications put forward as to why these reversals of morality are valid, but they do not withstand scrutiny. As an example, take a look at this 5-minute refutation of the social contract.

The Critic’s Criticisms

Download MP3
53.5M 1:29:12

Thanks both to Stef and to my Inner Critic for such a wonderful and helpful conversation.

I locked-down the blog when I was feeling quite low and self-attacking.

Now that the critic is quieter, I was able to ask myself: how do I feel about opening the blog back up?

I thought about how I’d feel if a family member came to my blog and read the post, Hiding Feelings. I did feel a little anxious. I’m not sure exactly why this was, but I think it has something to do with the fact that I have made it very clear, through my actions, that I do not wish to engage with them, but they’re cyber-stalking me. To open myself up to that, even in a small way, does cause some anxiety.

But then I thought about how I’d feel if somebody came to my blog through a link to one of my very heartfelt and personal posts. I felt sad, and I think the sadness came from them not being able to access the treasure that I have to offer. I mean, when most people come to a site and they have to log in to do anything, even if it’s a completely free account, they skip it unless they’re very motivated to sign up. Heck, that’s what I do all the time.

So if I have something valuable to offer people, and I hold it back because of a handful of people will feel bad… well, isn’t that being unfair to the people who will appreciate what I have to offer? Isn’t that being unfair to myself and living in reaction to my history?

So… I’ve unlocked my blog. Enjoy!

A bit of a chat between me and new user at FDR… it felt effortless!

Can’t wait to do more.

Chat Log 9/12/2008 1:31:12 PM
	OTGman joined the room.
	LibtopMan joined the room.
JC Hewitt:	Hi LibtopMan, welcome.
JC Hewitt:	What brings you to FDR?
LibtopMan:	Hello
JP:	are there no roads in libertopia
JP:	oh sorry
JP:
JP:	hi LibtopMan
LibtopMan:	No private roads , unfortunately , not yet at least
LibtopMan:	lol
JP:
LibtopMan:	I listened to a few podcasts and found the host rather englightening
LibtopMan:	enlightening
JP:	ooh, which ones in particular?
LibtopMan:	How about you guys? How long have you been members of FDR?
JP:	oh, i've been around over a year now
OTGman:	couple days
LibtopMan:	I listened to the first 20 or so .
JC Hewitt:	I'm alright… I've been around here since Jan.
JC Hewitt:	In one sitting? :O
LibtopMan:	Stefan's unique way at tackling morality is very interesting to me
JP to JC Hewitt:	the podcasts can do that to a body!
LibtopMan:	No, lol , over the last week
LibtopMan:	I downloaded some on my Ipod and listened to them
LibtopMan:	I work out of home so I have some time on my hands
JP:	ahhh sweet
JP:	how did you hear about FDR?
LibtopMan:	I ran across Stefan's articles on Lew Rockwell
JP:	*nod*
LibtopMan:	I browse around various anarcho-capitalist websites
JP:	ahh, OK
JP:	is this your first visit to the FDR site, pretty much?
OTGman:	do you consider yourself an A-C?
LibtopMan:	Yes , I've been an ancap for about 5 years now
	mattb joined the room.
JP:	well hey, you got me beat
JP:
LibtopMan:	lol
JP:	how did you become an ancap?
LibtopMan:	I think like most people , I started with Ayn Rand as my big push
LibtopMan:	I was even a member of the Libertarian Party a while back
LibtopMan:	until I got disenchanted with government *cough* 'solutions'
JP:
LibtopMan:	To make the state smaller is a pipe dream
JP:	they are solutions! just not to the problems you think….
JP:	brb
OTGman:	No it's not
LibtopMan:	Oh, OTGman?
	david kopp joined the room.
OTGman:	It may be a pipe dream to live in an anarchic state, but the size and effects of the state can be reduced
LibtopMan:	hmm, what do you mean by 'anarchic state.'
OTGman:	-anarchic society
LibtopMan:	So actually reducing the state to a minarchist optimum is *more* obtainable than a stateless society?
JP:	OTGman, that's great news, can you tell us how that would work?
OTGman:	I think so
JP:	how do we do that?
LibtopMan:	I honestly find the minarchist solution harder to achieve and less realistic
LibtopMan:	Since govts have a track record of consistently getting larger until collapse
OTGman:	That does seem to be an intrinsic feature of governments
JP:	for sure, LibtopMan…
LibtopMan:	And the Libertarian Party has been very active in the last 30 years and hasn't really done anything to stop the growth of the state , let alone shrink it.
JP:	*nod*
LibtopMan:	Trust me , I used to be part of it
JP:	i was wondering what OTGman's ideas were, though
OTGman:	As was I
JP:	i mean
JP:	waiting for a stateless society, that's not going to happen for us, right?
OTGman:	No way!
LibtopMan:	I sort of think the state is going down regardless, simply crunch the numbers and apply basic math
OTGman:	Just the current iteration is going to collapse.
JP:	OTGman, did you have some sort of plan for reducing the government?
JP:	something actionable?
david kopp:	don't vote
LibtopMan:	@JP, I for one have attempted to use the system to… well, fight the system
JP:	or, OK, keeping the next iteration to a smaller size, maybe?
LibtopMan:	I've written to my congressman , I've even gone to DC
LibtopMan:	To no avail
JP to LibtopMan:	i understand… but since OTGman said he believes that the size and effects of the state can be reduced
JP to LibtopMan:	so maybe he's thought of something we haven't
LibtopMan:	Well, it might be that or a fear of anarchism
LibtopMan:	I would call it a misunderstanding
JP to LibtopMan:	well… you don't know that, right?
LibtopMan:	No
LibtopMan:	Mr OTGman?
OTGman to JP:	I think that there is an actionable strategy. Talking about personal freedom is fine, it is time for me to take some action.
JP to OTGman:	OK, what actions?
JP to OTGman:	What will you do?
OTGman to JP:	I can't claim this idea as mine, but I read a pamphlet many years ago: Invulnerability to Coercion.
JP to OTGman:	ahhh, OK
JP to OTGman:	so what's the basic idea?
	LibtopMan left this room.
OTGman to JP:	It's not all or nothing. But freedom is a skill that you develop.
JP to OTGman:	I definitely agree with that.
JP to OTGman:	But what does "invulnerability to coercion" mean in that context?
OTGman to JP:	Vonu means arranging your life or lifestyle so that you are invulnerable to the predation of the state. There are many strategies that may work. But the more invulnerable you are the less the state can feed off of you, thereby reducing its size and scope.
JP:	OK, so "living off the grid" would be a strategy within that framework, right?
JP:	using cash
OTGman:	LOL, love the term OTG. It means more than being a hippie with a windmill.
	david kopp left this room.
JP:	well sure
OTGman:	-not participating in politics
JP:	Right.
OTGman:	By withdrawing your interaction with the state you diminish its legitamacy
JP:	well, that may be true
JP:	and that's one way to reduce the influence of the state in your personal life, for sure…
JP:	I confess that I'm feeling a little stuck
JP:	Are you doing any of those strategies in your life?
OTGman to JP:	sorry, I have to go pick up my daughter. To be continued?
JP:	Oh! OK
	OTGman left this room.
Colleen to JP:	Nice technique there
JP:	thanks
JP:	goodness
JP:	it just flowed
Colleen to JP:
Colleen to JP:	Socratic method pwns
JP:	yeah, no kidding!
JP:	raise da parthenon
JP:	woop woop

Older Posts »