This is a one-off piece referencing current politics only in one part. One cannot skip but reference that when discussing medium-term plans.

Things are going in such a way that your priors are not best equipped to deal with them. The last 20 years were an anomaly in historical record - or were they?

I’m thinking what to do in the next 5 years, where to settle down, where to locate time, money and livelihood. I have done an overview of major underrated factors that will play out making the world more different than we were used to. I am surprised they are not talked about more.

Factors

(Open) Internet is dead

First, we have fragmentation of the internet. The portals of Gab and Parler were the first instances in the mid 2010s. Then followed Odyssey, Mastodon got bigger, Truth Social and the biggest of them - bluesky. What are the broader consequences of fragmentation of the Internet? On the surface, we have divergence of communities and more echo chambers, more self-delusional propagation. We can expect with time we will see an divergence in vocabulary too. Google also stopped sideloading on Android. The system is getting locked down in divergent fiefdoms. In Russia you have VK, in China WeChat and now the IT social divisions within the West start to raise to levels hitherto known to only between-countries comparisons.

Open internet is dead, and full of bots. BAP himself said that Twitter is ‘largely astroturfed’. I personally lost faith in Twitter/X as a source of information. 101 of propaganda is that the news manipulate through which topics they cover, moreso than with the tone they do on a given topic.

Just pure participation in this is a psychohazard, as user nonrandomstring says:

What you said about the misery of “news” resonates with me. In psyops we call it “sapping”. Propaganda designed to demoralise, dispirit and corrode resistance used to come from our enemies. The classic example was Lord Haw-Haw [0]. Today our own mainstream news channels and technology giants seem determined to keep the population in perpetual hopeless anxiety.

Furthermore there are big stories that my twitter coverage missed, first the cringe Trump video on the 18th of October was not mentioned there, also that weird January 2020 call was not covered. That touches on the political angle that you’ll see referenced later. Mutuals keep saying how twitter is getting worse too. https://x.com/xlr8harder/status/1981783142080938021

Twitter feels pretty dead to me lately. Still a great place to keep up on AI research, but the community that used to be here feels absent.

One way out is urbit, but that’s as bit niche. Furthermore we have a bipartisan consensus on stripping away internet freedoms in the UK, EU, similar laws already in work in countries like New Zealand. The issue is that without a service like bitchat any country can block at ISP level, using monopoly of force. The Internet is not an aetheral parallel world with magic mind-to-mind connection, even though it plays hard to fill that fantasy. It’s maintained by people with names and addresses that the government can easily find. Sweden taps all the data that is coming in and out of the country.

US political climate

The second trend of note is the shift in the US political climate and the downstream effects on the discourse. First, the meta shifts from critiquing the Biden administration to a more nuanced play. There are still possible targets of ridicule like Democrat politicians in specific states and cities, streamers, and so on. Still yet the crossfire on the ruling coalition was more rallying. Now the people who criticized the Biden administration play favourites within the Trump administration, cautiously supporting this or that policy or nomination. From across the pond it’s more subtle, easier to miss some context.

Interestingly enough, polling for Trump is quite low recently. The breaking of the gray-red coalition when Elon left over the debt spending was a big point. Foreign policy was certainly ‘overpromise, underdeliver’, though that is the least predictable component, domestic situation can be theoretically much more controlled. In a sense, the split of the voting block results in a widening of the Overton window - another application of the ‘divide and rule’ principle. I don’t think Trump will get more popular soon. The tarrifs and some other manouvers are explicitly long-term. Winter will witness a cooldown of any protests.

Will he be good for America? That’s to be debated and seen. For external observers, suddenly the value of being actually in the US has increased. For him America’s success is a desired result both in plus sum games and zero sum games. Europe has suffered from the tarrifs too, and that personally negatively influences me. Protectionism is fun to watch but less fun to see the other side winning.

Then we have the temperature going up domestically in the US - Luigi Mangione case, Charlie Kirk assassination, and debt going high. That last ties into the big ‘fiat currencies’ discussion that is outside of scope of this blog post. We see dollar losing status as reserve currency, where companies and countries choose to denominate some or all of obligations in Yuan. Physical dominates the monetary - that’s what we see around us. Bullets are cheap, ICE centers are easier to organize than physically build a wall.

We are witnessing a decline in anabolic state capacity that lets it build great things (Pyramids, Great Wall, Skyscrapers of the 1920s) and increase in catabolic capacity - taxing the rich (Norway exit tax), inflation (redistribution from the poor).

The fakeness of the detached-from-physical-reality money is getting more and more apparent, gold, BTC all beat records this year. Crude oil is doing alright though. Capex on AI seems awfully suspicious too - which leads us to the third topic here.

Before we go into AI, the last few paragraphs are not topics I have an arbitrage edge on. That’s why I don’t poast about it often. There are others more in touch with those, Big Politics topics. You, Dear Reader probably also only have a limited insight into what is happening, what are the trends. Maybe some big intelligence or corporate consultant analysts can make more sense of it, but I doubt it - they can measure some trends and spin narratives, however some things will always be black swan fat tailed.

on capitalism and AI

I have a growing distrust of the ongoing system called ‘capitalism’. First, the currency it’s denominated with is fake since 1971. Has this led to more innovation? We have AI being built, by a handful of companies. We have a couple of meanings of ‘capitalism’, to establishment conservatives this means free enterprise, and free markets, to leftists this means domination of private ownership of means of production AND a dominance of capital in the capital-labour balance of influence. Finally for Nick Land capitalism is a self-assembling part of the AI. His account is pro-competition, but there are alternative accounts.

Was it capitalism that brought the AI? The VC bureaus of Silicon Valley resemble organizationally USSR Communist party planning structures - those are not usual businesses solving an urgent need, those are moonshot projects. US also used to do those projects in the 30s, 40s, 50s, in the UK there was a railway bubble in the 1840s. The projects are often done by monopolies or state enterprise - not the most ‘free market’ situations. To the pro-competition account of Nick Land, we have a counterpart right wing theorist — Peter Thiel, who praises monopoly culture. In ‘Zero to One”, he says that only monopolies can take on risks, as they have excess profits to spend to do this, unlike enterprises in equilibrium. How to reconcile those accounts? I will make an attempt in a future blog post, I invite speculation in the comments here.

Leave a comment

From the arguments for capitalism we have:

• it brings people from poverty

• it builds AI

• it provides superior services

• it is adaptable

Certainly recently housing has been a problematic issue, where adaptation is hard to be found. Of course, those might not be coming from the market itself - housing has distortions - mortagages are cheaper, and NIMBYs make lobbies sidestep the market through regulations, we also have distortions of tax deduction, and various housing subsidies. Those policies create inflationary pressures on the value of houses.

We should distinguish between a rule that has brought us to a place and the best policy going forward. The thing is that capitalism runs on ape software.

At the moment my model of how the system works is that of apes having preferences, the markets operating on the value chain.

The testing and exploration, high risk high reward are only on the blazing edge of the value chain. The rest is hopelessly path-dependent, attracting the most risk-averse people. Once the line of flight finishes its life, the lifecycle turns to extraction. Every step is calculated, analysts looking to optimize costs and profits, squeeze as much as possible. The innovation edge blazes through the commons, where corporations are eager to jump on arbitrage opportunities, exploting human need for convenience.

As a solitary consumer, there is a fundamental information and effort asymmetry - for each product you buy there has been a team of analysts with access to large scale data to optimize you into buying a deal that looks better than it is in reality. You can spot this - either if the product happens to be of interest to you and you researched more, or when they get greedy. They can be greedy but still someone will be stupid enough to buy their stuff.

We can see this in the physical world as worse services, planned obsolescence, in digital as enshittification. There is always that arbitrage, unlock of truly positive sum games is rare. The internet was more open prior to smartphones. And that performs arbitrage on the whole ape body and its tendencies, exploiting each behavioral spectrum to the maximum.

Superstimuli that are biologically possible but whose values are way beyond usual evolutionary parameters are administered with precise algorythmic doses, extracting value of every second of consumer life. When we talk about elastic demand in economy, the readjustment process isn’t talked about that much. It’s always connected with disappointement, or being priced out. There is the whole libidinal economy layer, that has been kept in relative homeostasis with lindy festivals, regular calendar exuberance where the soothing effect of social leisure takes over, propagating good vibes. At the moment however, the unmet demand for housing, and other useful services benefit the corporations while the individual loses.

We can see ‘individualism’ as not purely a prescriptive statement, but also a descriptive nostalgia for the times where the individual Will and Spirit were the points of arbitrage, rather than ‘guanxi’ (access to people) or access to raw capital. Emergence of finance-for-everything is indicative that almost as much has been squeezed as is possible. How much further can the people be squeezed?

Marx said that wages trend towards subsistence, but he did not consider large scale human migrations. Subsistence on individual level is one thing, on the span of 40-ish years that a human is production, subsistence on intergenerational level is harder. Capital has the ‘reserve army of labour’ beyond the borders, and can move it in, legally or otherwise, not caring about that a next generation is born - quarterly planning does not take demographics into account.

Way more expert-hours go into squeezing money from potential parents, than helping them reproduce. Buying boomer houses by Blackrock also falls into that category. Not only humans are mobile, capital is even more so.

Centralized and digitized investment allows for more liquid markets, which has an analogous effect of shortening the time of alpha information.Peter Thiel talked about a parallel effect in the context of comparing companies under competition and monopoly, as we discussed before. From that we can expect more short term bets, and more hill-climbing as opposed to moonshot projects. Furthermore, the emerging dynamic is that of a power law, where globally small percentage of companies get most of the investment and value, which creates a single point of failure, as opposed to a more globally diversified portfolio. Global markets are more fragile, NVIDIA is a single point of failure.

Max Stiner warns against ‘ghosts in the head’ yet most market manipulations are through our desire to see the world different than it is, seduced by images of grandeour-obtained-with-little-effort. Every investment that is not-thought-through and does not ultimately create real value, creates inflationary pressure. This also applies to crypto.

Now - should the government step in? Would it benefit you personally? Remeber that part about decreasing anabolic state capacity? Of course, many a man can get rich and comfortable by playing zero sum games, however team-finding is there way more crucial than in plus sum games with alpha.

Another big question is - is there a ‘way out’ we (open to interpretation) can all exit winning, OR is it a selection event, bisecting society into permanent underclass and elite status? What if you narrow down that we to some group? A grand metanarrative like Communism? A national OR ethnic group? What are the optimal coordination scales for individuals generically in 2025-2030 time frame? That’s a difficult question - what if you ask what is the optimal coordination scale for you?

How shall you proceed about this?

Do you have assets AND arbitrage information?

Do you have arbitrage on specific countries AND resources to do due diligence to support various people? Then you should consider backing those people - financially, politically ( best if you know them personally), so that the value of the asset that you own goes up.

Arbitrage only makes sense if you have some asset class thay the arbitrage impacts. If you build your information arbitrage portfolio in discordance with your asset class your not making the best of it. Learning Welsh gives you arbitrage in interactions with the Welsh, but if you live in Bangkok that is of little value BUT if you inherit an estate in Wales suddenly you have an asset that you can exploit better.

This is simple game theory, homeowners play this consistently by always choosing politicians who will keep the housing prices line go up. Let’s get some examples of asset - arbitrage pairings. If you own shares in NVIDIA, working in AI makes you more aligned, creating more exposure to the upside, but you’re not hedging then.

There are many movements around the world that you can be sympathetic to but ultimately in this Kali Yuga, do you have arbitrage alpha and an asset for those movements? If not, there will be no plus sum games from alliance with a grand narrative.

The ‘Fight Club’ said ‘You are not a special snowflake’, now you should see that West as a social playing field is not special anymore. The alpha from solely being here has passed. Now proximity to the big players is crucial. In historical median case, if you didn’t have friends with real power, the system would exploit you. You may protest saying that there are distinctive physical factors between countries that make a difference. Sure, US has great geography and resources but are you individually positioned to benefit form that while Blackrock is looting your countryside?

Where you should go? Orient is really tempting at the moment, if you don’t have anchors elsewhere. If you have arbitrage personally, a fulcrum point to make a difference in the UK, Europe, or the States, do it and be excellent at it - then you stand the best chance to benefit.

What to bet on - geopolitics, beliefs

Those should not be enough for the 90% of you, they are arranged by decreasing honour and glory they provide IF you have an underlying asset. I still do not recommend them:

• betting all on Elon - to stumble in implementation, can be forgiven, however unless you have assets in the US that will appreciate after his actions, then America First ideal is not beneficial - I am not American

• escape into the rural life - cities have power - unless you secure a great deal on an estate and know the language and have blood relatives there / married into a local family

• escape to China - the strong transcendent version of Landian eschatology has failed to become true, given that AI is ‘human, all too human’, being trained on human texts primarily

• geoarbitrage - exploit the better purchasing power in some country where dollars give you an edge - just avoid low lying countries if you want to establish long term decades long residence - sea levels will increase a bit in the next 70 years.

• Curtis Yarvin - a man who said all he had to say, now is in the implementation stage and the natural course of events is that he cannot change his view now, he is playing the bit as he has rhat wolrd historical role. In a Hegelian sense he must play it to completeness. There is not much alpha in listening to him anymore

• libertarian approach or, agorism - trying to escape the state power without community, they will catch you anyway

• escape into the wilderness - that is just giving up

• laying flat, let it rot - why not? Let it slop? that is also the default

• learn ancient philsophy - scarcity of evidence and inferior Epistemic standards - like the locksmiths having a big vulnerability that got exposed in 2003, those philosophies will have some important features empty due to text loss.

What are the superior options then? Let’s look generically at first. What would work at any time? In ancient Greece to seek power is to: escape if you’re a slave, or if ruled by a malevolent tyrant, into some prestigious service of another king as a warrior / merchat, or aristocrat in an oligarchy polis or into a democratic polis. Upward mobility in thay way gives you a partial share in the monopoly of violence in a given territory. if you are only escaping power, it may always find you.

What should you bet on?

• parties, groups that have a monopoly of violence

• phronesis - practical wisdom - and power at rhe edge, using arbitrage in the best sector at the moment

• loyalty to friends - that is the optimal group size generally. If your friends are in power, all the better.

for myself and this blog

That’s what I am betting on for myself too.

I won’t attach myself to a specific party or leader at this point. Broad ‘secular right ‘ view is what I am the most sympathetic to, however I consider my work on philosophy to be best if agnostic of that application layer. It’s more pure. Maybe once I finish what I want to say I will transform into something else, a more involved in public life.

Arbitrage of the real and true is something that philosophy can be aiming for, however the ‘market can stay irrational longer than you stay solvent’, so it is not a guarantee. Truth was often dominated and stomped on by power. I will write the more abstract metaphysics and political philsophy, it’s time to build cathedrals for readers to see .

Immediate impact on the actual onging politics is not a priority. Maybe it’s a trust issues, or maybe there’s not a Zeitgeist for something thay would be right for me as deterritorialized elite human capital. I prefer to trust my friends directly.

Where do *you* place your bets?

The book, speaking objectively, is an attempt to critique the 2010-2020 era, viewpoints that go left from center, aka woke. The book takes a strong stance. And its hypnotic tone is really mesmerizing.

The book takes a form of five chapters. First chapter is called Equality, the second one is called Regulation, third Collectivism, fourth Relativism and five Anarchy. I read the first two and skimmed the rest.

The book is an exposition of a hyperobject, in this case the hyperobject being a "leftist brain". You might wonder whether "leftist mind" would be a more correct word. Leftist brain would suggest that it's a more physiological and perhaps evolutionary, but possibly trying to reference hormone blood concentrations, etc.

It is not, it's more of an indulging read; if you have a boomer uncle who is strongly a conservative individualist, this would be a fun read for him. It really neatly puts together this archetype, this hyperobject of the leftist brain.

And if someone hasn't noticed it for themselves yet, it's very intriguing. This collection of all the observations is, one of the best things about the book.

Each chapter contains a list of aphorisms. Many of them start with the phrase "leftist brain" or has it at its centre in a different way. See the book as a source of entertainment; It is a mistake to try to read the book as an intellectual exposition of the right-wing-left-wing debate. Also, it contains some things I would say are errors or unfair characterizations. So if you'd like to get the book, remember it's more on the humorous side, not an argument that is very rigorous.

Feel free to stop reading this review after this introduction, but before, I will just give one great quote that I like, that is a very well phrased point.

Once Leftist Brain diversity advocates convince a person that she belongs to some imaginary identity group – often an identity group she had not even known existed before - she becomes so attached to this new artificial group identity that she stops growing as the actual individual she is. She becomes a mere caricature of what she is told she should be.

That from the chapter one, equality.

Excerpts with comments

Reading the book back cover, left-wing brain is portrayed with three characteristics. First collectivism over individualism, second coercion over voluntary cooperation, and the third one, sense of mission over common sense. And that's not the most favorable description. I don't think there's a steel man. It's not a rigorous one.

The book considers right-wing as individualism and left-wing as collectivism, both as necessities which is incorrect. There are collective rightists who take as their unit a nation or civilization. And there is a lot of individual-minded leftists.

There's more of such inaccuracies, so let's go through some of them to make sure we have the correct view here.

The Leftist Brain has no patience for gradual improvements or incremental change over time. Its social solutions are needed urgently. They must be immediate, absolute, and unconditional. Otherwise people might start asking themselves why leftist brains are needed at all.

As a matter of fact, there is a debate on the left regarding the reformism and the revolutionary approach that has been going for 150 years.

And like 2021 interview of the 2025-elected New York City mayor mentioned that, well, we need to both work on the immediate things, the things people are ready for, and their general goals that is seizingt the means of production.

That's very Gramscian - obviously leftists DO use the gradual improvement strategy. So don't go into danger of falling that leftists have no patience. They have. There's a danger of underestimating your opponent and indulging a bit too much in this kind of reading material or taking it too seriously might have this effect.

The Leftist Brain is highly receptive to the archetypal dream-myth of a Golden Age. It eagerly follows anyone who promises to deliver it. It is always ready to take that next shot at socialism, that blissful kindergarten state of abundance, justice, and equality for all,

This is way too harsh. That's not only leftist brain is receptive to that. Dream of a golden age is very much present in the memes of the right, such as the fifties or for some the forties or whatever hyperborea. That is very much archetypal dream of a golden age. That's actually the way the ancient Greeks spoke about the free ages. And while they weren't talking about hyperborea exactly, but just on their map.

The Leftist Brain cannot understand that its primitive compulsion to redistribute wealth leads nowhere. Even if it were possible to "share the wealth” equally, some would squander their share while others would increase it, making the next redistribution inevitable. Or could it be that this endless redistribution process is precisely what the Leftist Brain wants?

This is the Wilt Chamberlain argument from Robert Nozick's Anarchy State Utopia. That I know because I recognize this from political theory. However this attribution doesn't exist in this text, but it would be a very useful supplement.

Sometimes the behaviors pointed out here aren't only characteristic of leftist brain. This is sweeping generalization there. Sometimes those are not things that self-described leftists do in the socialist sense, but just liberals or even boomercons or like we had here in the example of the Golden Age. It's pretty general. All humans are liable to that. Just like Confucius idealized the state of Zhou, how good it was. Nostalgia is evergreen.

And now some quotes from chapter two on regulation.

Leftist Brain politicians willfully ignore any reassuring statistics informing their subjects how they are the healthiest, wealthiest and longest living people in history. They insist on disturbing numbers to keep them alarmed and afraid. The alarmed and afraid are more likely to fall for their latest Leftist Brain non-solution.

The journalist class - of all political leanings have incentives to keep people alarmed and afraid. The second and third sentences are true. But the first part, health statistics. I'm not sure. I consider microplastics as bad. And many people eat junk food, which is more available now and good food is more expensive. I think Brian Johnson highlighted the issues with the food supply chain, heavy metals pollution, T levels dropping, etc. So I have mixed views on the object level here.

In his heart of leftist brain hearts, the leftist brain deep feels deeply insecure, neglected, vulnerable and inferior. This is why it longs to be adapted by the parental state.

I've seen evidence online of many anarchist leftists who don't want to trust the state and want to build communes, support networks, trade unions, etc. To say that the only object of the leftist will is just the state - that's oversimplification. Also leftists infiltrate the corporate world, there are activists using the corporates and they don't rely on the state. They aim to increase influence there in the corporation. Adaptive player of the game will use any means, will not be set on just always using this one strategy ( capturing the state apparatus). Good player will use whatever opportunity is adaptive, be like water.

In its heart of Leftist Brain hearts, the Leftist Brain feels deeply insecure, neglected, vulnerable and inferior. This is why it longs to be adopted by the Parental State

This part about being insecure, neglected, vulnerable and inferior. Well, that's the bioleninism, a neo-reactionary concept. And it could be referenced there, making the entertainment more informative. Maybe it's in the sources, but the sources are listed at the end of the book, but they are not linked through the text.

And now some snippets from chapter 3 on collectivism.

What do real fascists (the ones that got taken out in the 1940s) and today's Leftist Brain anti-fascists have in common? More than you think: Both want government control of wages, higher taxes on the rich, less religious and family influence in society, childhood indoctrination, a "new" human nature...

Peter Thiel - an avowed rightist also wants to do new human nature. That is very contentious. And collectivism can also exist on the right, so I'm not convinced on that. And the claim that the fascists in Italy were wanting to be less religious. I'm not sure what are the facts on this. Original sources from 1932 Italy seem to want a coexistence between the Catholic Church and the State.

And now just the last quote.

Among other things, leftist brains reject 1) open discussion whenever conflicting opinions offend them, 2) democratic institutions whenever they produce results that disappoint them, 3) capitalism whenever it fails to enrich everyone equally and 4) science whenever it won’t confirm the mere assumptions they have made.

This is very untoratable. Regarding the first point - there are people who are good at open discussion on the left. Maybe they don't have leftist brain, but they describe themselves as leftist. So by end of inclusion, it would imply that their brains are leftists. And I think ContraPoints is a very good voice that can do good exposition of the leftist ideas. And then the second complaint. Democratic institutions whenever they produce results that disappoint them. Well, yes, but I would say this is a perennial elite feeling of superiority and not necessarily leftism.

Many leftists like Noam Chomsky take issue with capitalism not for equality of enrichment, but for relations of power in the workplace. So it's a strawman to say that leftists would like capitalism to enrich everyone equally. Leftists look at the power relations and alienation and say: ‘wealth is one thing, but the feeling of working somewhere where own the process and not just an abstract corporation’.

The fourth one is just very human.

Conclusion

Maybe not my cup of tea really. If I had to imagine an ideal book on this title, it would be a more historical read, tracing the psychology of leftist thoughts throughout the centuries and how the material conditions influenced them. Then arriving to the 2020s, showing how it works now.

There are risks from reading this current real version; I mentioned some before, I will collate them. There's an oversimplification of the political struggle, like denial of collectivism on the right, individualism on the left. Secondly, the book it's too smug sometimes and it might lead you to underappreciate the opponent, which isn't good. But if this is a gift to your boomercon uncle, who has done only some of those observations, he would see some more, get a more complete picture. This would play well in this role.

The Slate Start Codex blog post defines, describes all the stages best. However I will summarize it briefly for you. The idea is in the alchemical world that was known to Jung and other people afterwards. Certainly George Peterson is also familiar, even if he doesn't reference it directly. He prefers the non-mystic, more exoteric framework in the more kind of Christian sense. So we've got three stages with the white, black, red. And the story of My Immortal as Alchemical allegory is a description of a person who goes through those stages. The colors take the form of various persons she meets and those events describe her path. And it's not a straightforward path and there are bits in the story where she has an opportunity to progress to the next stage but she doesn't. So in the alchemical sense those are failed rituals, a failure to integrate something. And My Immortal seems, I haven't read it myself, as something longer than the movie Black Swan. So you'd expect the Black Swan to be a more condensed arc in this alchemical sense. And now is the SPOILER part, this was the last warning.

What we see in the movies is what the character sees, the character of Natalie Portman. So it's not always kind of natural realism. So what she sees is not always what the other people see in there. And there are some non-realistic things in stuff that she sees. There is some kind of wound which is rotting. This is the putrefaction stage where putrefaction is a kind of rotting and it's protein breakdown, like some poisons act. And there's also the character Lily who is a competing ballet dancer who has a more kind of dark feminine energy and that's the black part of the stage and she's kind of her... not nemesis, she's definitely the foil because of the contrast. But there the kind of motive of a lesbian vampire where we see the character has a sex dream featuring this competing ballet dancer. But then we see that it's just another part of herself. So what we see about this other girl is what the main character is projecting on her.

And you've got the white stuff, the innocence part. That's the infantile surroundings that mirror the stunted emotional growth of the main character. And then she's getting new makeup at some stages so this represents a return to innocence perhaps with some new knowledge. And there we've got also red which is the final stage and that would be someone wrote horror somewhere. And there's also red lipstick and self-harm and there's also blood in the movie finale. And we've got also the dragon which is in alchemy one of the kind of first things that you conquer as the initiate. That happens between the white and black stages. The black stage is Nigredo and the black dragon is the violent subconscious. It needs to be conquered at the start so that's what she does kissing him until biting his lips. So there's this red element of blood in there and this is how she conquers the dragon. Here you can compare the ‘My Immortal as Alchemical Category’ by Scott Alexander. In that story there's the presentation of the alchemical marriage. It does not need to be marriage, just some kind of romantic situation to represent the transition between the stages.

Now I could analyze more here... But it's fun to discover stuff on your own. I encourage you if you haven't watched it in a while to re-watch this movie with those lenses and if you haven't at all give it a shot. Here's the kicker . I must say that I got this idea and I thought "all right this movie was so many years ago someone thought about it". Any yes there are at least two blog posts specifically on this and even an article to a literature journal. That's definitely interesting and this raises some questions so who made this? Director Darren Aronofsky, who also directed The Foundain and Requiem for a Dream. I might checkout those movies later.

If we read Black Swan as an alchemical allegory this makes it belong to a specific class of movies. There's something refreshing compared to, say Stanley Kubrick's themes: predictions about technology and (perhaps ) some ideas to expose some groups. This can get out of date but the alchemical allegory won't. This really makes Black Swan something universal and it's very occidental in this nature. The alchemical tradition is very Western, though I cannot think easily of a movie which would present those themes as starkly. There could be more movies like that but it's like another way of telling the same story. On reflection, there are movies of this kind of the East. They which represent buddhist paths and transformations like the Journey to the West. We can see now a whole genre where we see the character and it performs some spiritual path. Das Spoke Zarathustra from Nietzsche has a protagonist and it represents some sort of a trajectory, might be interesting to read it through alchemical lens on another occasion. The Matrix movies are sometimes read as trans/Buddhist allegory however the emphasis on action scenes and technology distract enough, that the allegory is not the main theme as much. That makes three examples. What are some trajectory fictions that you thought of? Let’s discuss in the comments.

Leave a comment

Brief list of notes

list of black stuff

- doppleganger

- Lily

- Thomas the teacher is the Dragon

list of white stuff

- purification

- new makeup

list of red stuff

- 'WHORE' written against her as an accusation

- lipstick

- blood from self-harm

- finale blood

- perfection

Mentioned articles

• https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/05/26/my-immortal-as-alchemical-allegory/

• https://laurencedessureault.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/black-swan-mise-en-scene-analysis/

• https://www.academia.edu/5700542/An_Alchemical_Take_on_the_Film_Black_Swan_

• https://www.depthinsights.com/pages/blogs/blog-Alchemical_Take_Black_Swan.html

He says that those tendencies will escalate unless we exit to network states. Have those tendencies stopped now, under Trump 47? TNS was published on the 4th of July 2022, under the Democrat Biden administration. Should you read it now? Will it "save Western civilization"? Is it the best direction for crypto? If you read it, should you apply it?

Is his recipe still relevant in 2025? Let's inspect his solution more. Quotations from The Network State unless stated otherwise.

solution inspection

The keywords in the book are 'crowdfunding', 'cryptocurrency', and a set of safehouses listed on the blockchain that represent the network state physically, as well as a metaverse VR town hall for meetings.

His description:

A network state is a social network with a moral innovation, a sense of national consciousness, a recognized founder, a capacity for collective action, an in-person level of civility, an integrated cryptocurrency, a consensual government limited by a social smart contract, an archipelago of crowdfunded physical territories, a virtual capital, and an on-chain census that proves a large enough population, income, and real-estate footprint to attain a measure of diplomatic recognition.

What you should consider here (and what Balaji is not telling you) is what is the null hypothesis in the scenario where there are no network states. He says the American Empire may fall. What is the baseline result of the aftermath when an empire falls? Barbarians, warlords, and pockets of the lost high civilization hiding in safer locations. The latter are usually monasteries.

How would this look for the fall of the US empire? Dear Reader, you might have run across this speculation or have your own, please share in the comments.

My first guess would be warlords as the leading companies making a three way alliances with specific states and cities and mercenaries / police forces, barbarians the fentanyl addicts and small criminals, and finally bitcoin monasteries - see:

https://x.com/andyflattery/status/1800197599468900434

https://x.com/rdnxyz/status/1737870429488820694

You might say that barbarians are less imposing than the average fall of Han / Rome scenario but we have a more aging population.

That default hypothesis probably does not sound that bad to you. Now you're either American or you're not, this might change things slightly.

Four scenarios

Now let's see the initial three issues: loneliness ('bowling alone'), blue tribe overreach, and reliance on central banks, and compare how they fare in the scenarios.

There are four possible scenarios. To think of it now, the visionaries don't like that phrasing as they prefer inevitability.

The first one is continuation of the status quo, no network states. The second one is empire collapse, no network states. The third one is status quo, with network states. The fourth one is empire collapse with network states.

If Trump was assassinated in 2025 we might have got the empire collapse one, so we see that the timeline has stabilized. Even if Trump lived and lost, Kamala Harris would be president - Balaji would probably say a Democrat victory accelerates the empire collapse.

Now projects like his operate on the principle of secure and attractive inside and dangerous and unattractive outside. For sure empire collapse would bring a great differentiation among possible outcomes in different regions. Some would be better off than under the imperial yoke, some would fall down even faster than they do now. That's at least for regular people. For the network state to be appealing, the outside needs to be more dangerous than the inside for the people, but for the network state to survive the outside should have no means / incentive to invade and destroy the network state.

Fragmented states would have more internal issues and less concentrated capital to devote to look for small fish like a network state. Still KGB was powerful after the USSR fell, and even if the US empire fell, the UK and Israel wouldn't and the agencies in those countries - MI6 and Mossad would certainly have the network states under radar. With public census on a blockchain, the network state would be easy to monitor and put moles into. Well, that's true even for continuation of the status quo, so the difference seems to be the incentive of the people to join the network state. With fragmentation, and a slow creation of a yet new world order, it would be multipolar and many new split off states would try to get recognition, making for an easier case for a network state to also achieve international recognition.

Going back to the four scenarios and three issues. Political fragmentation on the map might bring people together on its own, as well as economic disruption - maybe a synthetic solution like a network state(NS) would not be needed? Central banks are an interesting one - those numerous new entities would each need a new currency, backed by gold - or maybe bitcoin - seems that in the Fall of America we get global 'BTC as reserve currency' by default. This is getting interesting, you see? Blue tribe overreach - that depends on the fate of the UN, NYT and a couple of other institutions - but overall new borders would likely limit overreach of the coastal blue tribe elites, solving this too. From this it seems to solve those three issues. Your time is better spent trying to bring down the fall of the United States than to build a NS. Let's discuss the 'network state under status quo' scenario though.

Your time is better spent trying to bring down the fall of the United States than to build a Network State.

The loneliness depends on the network state implementation - a purpose-focused DAO that one spends some hours in discord every week is not enough to fix that. The blue tribe overreach - that might just gotten solved with Trump 47 the most. Central banks? They now want to use bitcoin as a reserve currency too! That might be just for show now, but for that again regular b2b business transactions in crypto are the barrier, and dispute resolution (see kleros) are all without something as big as a network state as a necessary condition of their existence.

Hmm, it looks like that network state is not as useful after all?

Is it any good though if it delivers those 3 things as a package, as opposed to seeking them independently? There are also reasons like this fascinating one (quotation from The Network State book):

5.3.9 Why Would We Find a Network State? If you’re a policy wonk, network states allow you to run ethical experiments on policy, with opt-in participants that are as interested in governance innovation as you are. You can experiment with digital democracy, new forms of government, or anything you think is interesting. • If you’re an idealist, network states bring back the voluntary communes of the mid-1800s America, where people could opt-in to build their own vision of utopia.

As well as an argument for the innovation:

The physical world. The state controls the physical world. With sufficient consent, any law can be changed, and any regulation can be sunset, or reinvented. This is how “bits” unlock innovation in “atoms”: we form opt-in communities online to unlock innovation offline.

Overall the rationale part is quite short. There's also the idea to make it easier to make a new state than reform an existing one, and experiment with reforms. This raises the obvious question - to what extent would those experiments be reproducible in a non-self-selected population? I'll let you Dear Reader answer this.

Finally, are those plans enough to make a 'State'? Is it airtight? Should YOU put faith and resources into that dream?

Five reasons why the network state is not network enough.

First, the Ethereum - Network State memeplex is heavily astroturfed. It's a new counter-elite paradigm propped by specific actors, more so than a specific decentralized attempt at a new thing. It's simply an elite infighting - and actually counter elites are mentioned in the footnotes only - not in the main argument. That is an example of what Marx called 'false consciousness' and those involved would not be conscious of their role in the class struggle - and their role of the counter-elite in them. Possibly lack of an explicit 'class-for-itself' framing is part of some ploy, or camouflage.

Second, he's framing 'state' as 'recognized by other states', rather than the (correct) statement by Nozick which is 'monopoly on violence'.' Monopoly of violence' is only mentioned three times in the book. The discussion of the properties of states without that base is pointless.

Third is that part of the analysis where he points to means of communication as the dominating technology to orient the network states around. The proper base to orient oneself is as we mentioned above, military control but also economic control. Economic controls means the control over the means of production. That's not something he covers. He mentions that new 'land' can be created digitally, but that is not aligned with what 'land' means - digital address space is not scarce and does not produce like land does. Bitcoin IS digital gold, but not digital land. He mentions that now the digital space is more democratized unlike the mass media of the TV age. Still the internet value production goes by power law, IP and talent agencies, and crypto moves with whales.

See this thread for a summary of Balaji’s geopolitics

Fourth is the reliance on the internet connection. Balaji supports Elon and Starlink,

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1433123220643717120?lang=en

However Starlink can be disabled. It's a service like other services - your account could be terminated, or use restricted country-wide at an official request.

Starlink did not work in the Falkland islands for regulatory reasons. It's an ISP that can be politically influenced. It's not a robust decentralized solution to support a network state - in fact it's more centralized than many other ISPs.

Moreover, twitter was disabled in Turkey for two weeks at the request of the authorities during a period of protests. Starlink could be disabled likewise.

Now there is a course of action which hails Elon as a techno-Caesar, destined to collect technology stones of different varieties and combine them to conquer Mars for the Earthlings. You can imagine this having pretty dope aesthetics. But that's different from the network state dream. Please be consistent.

The fifth is the concern for anonymity in a digital-first approach.

That is fitting his digital-first argument, however it does not match reality. Encryption is not as great, as McAfee said.

in point 2.4.3. he says:

Encryption > State Violence. When there is strong encryption the government can’t crack, that means communications states can’t eavesdrop on, transactions they can’t intercept, and digital borders they can’t penetrate. It means nothing less than the ability to organize groups outside state control, and thus a diminution in the power of states to control.

The power would still remain with the tech companies. Individual striving for privacy won't accomplish the independent digital communication

Still there are surveillance programs like PRISM, that use ISP data to track who is reading which Wikipedia pages, and other such details. That is about DNS requests so it is not covered by encryption, or https. That can be used to trace individuals.

The fix must happen at the ISP level. Starlink is a single point of failure. If Elon offered a way to get a partial ownership and decentralized control panels that can be crowdfunded that would be more robust, but at the moment it's one word from a government and the internet connection of a growing network settlement can be cut. With the five eyes, it's not hard to imagine this kind of enforcement to be very widespread.

Is this surveillance realism? (in the sense Mark Fischer made 'capitalist realism') Do you have any way to fight back?

One way would be to build a slow internet over a long range low power network. That would best be done not with LoRa, which is proprietary, but rather with Mioty, or sigfox. Please contact me by email or twitter DMs if you'd like to approach this project.

What is 'the world'? Is it the naive realist 'out there'? Pop philosophy asks this a lot. Is the multiverse real? What about the world of our imagination?

A quick tour of history of philosophy will give us plenty of answers. Plato's the material world vs the world of forms, Kantian phenomenon and noumenon.

And there have been proposed many more metaphysical systems - monistic theories of the presocratics (‘all is water / fire / the One’), Christian ‘body and soul’, and Cartesian dualism ( ‘res cogitans and res extensa’), monad theory, Eastern Qi and Li opposition, logical positivism which alluded to scientific materialism ( monism), or even 20th century Integral Theory.

They all attempt to describe the same reality, yet arrive at vastly different conclusions. How to deal with this fact? I had been trying to make sense of this and this is what I came up with.

Imagine a map of a kingdom. At one point in time, a new king named the 7 regions of it, but the later history of conquests shifted the ownership many times. Under one king nothing but a small part was inhabited, in another period there were just 2 competing political entities, later a dissolution occurred and 20 rulers had each a small part. Times change, but the names of regions stay, just out of custom; when people need to travel it is a reliable and widespread way of referencing places and directions.

I searched in other places, and I found even more stuff.

People like Karl Popper and Leon Chwistek turn out to have some interesting takes on this.
Popper made 3 worlds, Chwistek 4.

We can say that in a way they all describe the same reality. But some combinations of them are contradictory. Using the mapped kingdom metaphor, we can say that these systems are political maps of a kingdom from different points in time, with the underlying fairly constant physical map of the region.
The aim here is to find a useful physical map - terminology to describe how the political map level changed.

Through exploration it became clear that those are not fully fit for purpose, so I iterated on it and here is the result, with 4 worlds. It is easy to learn and as a mental tool has a lot of power.

This post will cover

• those ideas that inspired me

• then explain the 4 worlds of SPQR

• provide examples of interactions between the 4 - all 12 of them

• then I will sketch out how to use it yourself - how to translate arbitrary theories into the vocabulary of the model.

There are some more bits and comments, yet there are dispersed and are rather leaves off this main idea than branches. I will publish them as a collection of idea-snippets in an addendum.

inspirations

First let's examine Leon Chwistek’s metaphysics
The four types of realities:

1. popular reality (common-sense realism)

2. physical reality (constructed by physics)

3. phenomenal reality (sensory impressions)

4. visionary/intuitive reality (dreams, hallucinations, subconscious states).

But we get this comment:

Chwistek never intended his views to constitute a new metaphysical theory. He was a defender of "common sense" against metaphysics and irrational feeling. His theory of plural reality was merely an attempt to specify the various ways in which the term, “real,” is used.

The source looks questionable; no word on his metaphysics on Polish wikipedia; on English one no links.
Without doubt, that is not the only possible interpretation.

Let's keep that in mind, and compare against Karl Popper’s ‘three worlds':
World 1: the world of physical objects and events, including biological entities
World 2: the world of mental processes
World 3: objective knowledge

One could say: «Popper»s worlds are not to be experienced directly; i.e. according to those accounts of vision where «what we see is what brain images based on sensory data» and that about world 1 we can just reason
Popper's does not mention mysticism in any way, unlike Chwistek's. I guess it necessarily would be a purely world-2-pattern.
Still the mystics purport for their rituals to be world-2-world-3-bridges.

I found them lacking for a resason. Popperian is uncertain about where is the observer actually.

it’s more general than Kant’s 3 dimensions - can be applied to any observer

Reading about phenomenalism led me to consider a separate world/layer to account for ideas like that.

In the late 19th century, an even more extreme form of phenomenalism was formulated by Ernst Mach, later developed and refined by Russell, Ayer and the logical positivists. Mach rejected the existence of God and also denied that phenomena were data experienced by the mind or consciousness of subjects. Instead, Mach held sensory phenomena to be "pure data" whose existence was to be considered anterior to any arbitrary distinction between mental and physical categories of phenomena. In this way, it was Mach who formulated the key thesis of phenomenalism, which separates it from bundle theories of objects: objects are logical constructions out of sense-data or ideas; whereas according to bundle theories, objects are made up of sets, or bundles, of actual ideas or perceptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenalism

Finally the name is the face of an idea. SPQR doesn't have the best SEO but as an acronym it's memorable.

4 worlds of SPQR

Graphically, we may imagine this framework as 4 concentric circles. The center is the observer, and then the closest one is the area of our mental constructs (S). Its perimeter is the border with the ‘outside world’, the border which is our experience (Q). The next ring is the Predicted (P), surrounded by often mysterious Ultimate Reality (R).

This way of representation is built on the idea of individual and internal world and external world - this is from habit and also is probably the most understandable classification - but still the model does it without positing any specific degree reality to the 'sense of self' of the individual.

4 cocentric circles is just the initial picture.
Let's delve deeper now.

The 4 worlds in SPQR framework are different language games with different rules:

• Sophia - the mental constructs, e.g. 'res cogitans', mathematics, language, products of imagination, ethics, language games; used to describe the rest. Vide Gadamer's view that language is basic structure to reality, Meinong's jungle, our wording and discussion on further facts, memes. One cannot voluntarily exclude any concept from the S space once it appears there - even if disproven in all others, it remains in S until forgotten

Here note that ideas are objects, that is they have structural cohesion and connot be changed 'for free'.
The dementia music presents the object-ness of ideas well, for instance the forgetting.

'map is not the territory' but with S being the map, you can only focus on a limited number of things at a time (keep in RAM).

Related discipline - logic.

• The Predictioned - everything that we feel that is external to us and influences us - e.g. ‘res extensa’, measurable physical world, what our predictions of qualia come true or false, any behaviours and patterns 'present within us', which at one moment we notice we unconsciously followed, 'collective unconscious', animist interpretations of the natural world, ‘further facts’, hyperreality, hyperstitions. It is named after one of the most popular conceptions of science - the Popperian one - that theories are measured by success of their predictions.
  Related discipline - philosophy of science, science.

• Qualia - Qualia per se, e.g. sensory experience, emotions, thoughts, habits, sense of coherence, sense of causality, sense of self
  Related disciplines - psychology of perception, introspection.

• (Ultimate) Reality - answer to the questions: whether we live in a computer simulation, whether solipsism is true, which religion’s Hell exists, question of monism / dualism, animism, a priori analytical statements. Vide Plato's Allegory of the Cave, Zhuangzi's "Zhuangzi dreamed he was a butterfly", René Descartes' scepticism and evil demon, Kant's reflections on the Phenomenon versus the Ding an sich, Robert Nozick's "experience machine", the concept of a simulated reality and the brain in a vat thought experiment.
  Related discipline - mysticism.

  That should be pretty straightforward. We've got four things but they interact differently invarious theories. We need to examine the 6 bidirectional relations in this set of 4 as 12 unidirectional relations. Casting many philosophical problems in this vein is highly interesting.

12 interactions between the 4

The SPQR framework is made to compare different viewpoints.

Most human viewpoints agree on the vast majority of stuff.
Who would exclude 'chairs' from the set of ideas S?
Because of that analysis must focus on the controversial cases, loci of disagreement.
The names of stances/viewpoints mean the least controversial, most common variants in a given group, unless indicated otherwise. For convenience, stances are treated grammatically as people.

Differences between viewpoints might be in 2 ways:

1. different placement of things

2. different set of allowed interactions - focus on what one denies and other takes as important point?

Below you'll see an outline of various viewpoints using this framework.
Please take a note of the format used:
'x <-- y' means 'how y influences x'

Apart from that simple definition, one can best approximate what these interactions are by examples. All these relations have been examined in the history of ideas. We cannot help but think about them in terms of specific thinkers who focused on them. Therefore, description of a given relation is never 'neutral', the example is always a specific idea, but a careful reader should have no difficulty in seeing from which 'resemblance family' the concept comes and substituting the given one for another. To emphasise multiplicity of views on each relation

Table of the 12 interactions

originating
receiving
name
positive specific example
conflict negative - non exhaustive example

related problems and ideas

Direct

Q
S
S<-Q
empiricism; senses to ideas
homo oeconomicus (contrasted with behavioral economy) [doesn't make sense]
induction, evil demon [doesn't make sense]
P
Q
Q<-P
Nature to senses
solipsism (P equivalent to S)

case of full correspondence of S with P, no need to update = that is the solipsist case, where individual perspective is always correct and epistemic relativism is equal ontological relativism

Mary's room
Müller-Lyer illusion isn't as strong of an argument
it is the environmental P wiring of

organisms can have different Umwelten even if the same environment

R
P
P<-R
Matrix deja vu, miracles
gnostic spiritual-good deity - not influencing physical world
simulation hypothesis
S
Q
S->Q
interpretationalism: black 5 of hearts
ideas shape perceptions
Kantian schemas are S - Q links

also not all observations are fully determined by theory, there is a P limit of how much S can influence Q - Jerry Fodor's argument bringing up Muller-Lyer illusion as evidence of impenetrability of perception.

also Kuhnian 'observations are theory laden'

also phenomenological models only rely on S and Q, treating P instrumentally as a black box

analysis of the notion of phenomenological model helps us elucidate the differences between mundi
such a model is an S of Q sensations, without P pretenses

also Ernst Mach's phenomenalism, objects as bundles of perceptions

Q
P
Q->P
observer interpretation of QM
many universe interpretation of QM
interpretations of QM

Q - P coupling was closer in the ancestral environment
something being Q frightening and P dangerous applies to predators in a forest at night

• generalized version - P Q are closer in highly optimized aggregates. Then in a way the P-capacity-for-S.

• Evolutionarily, bottleneck on Q itself in terms of P success creates S-capacity in P

Wittgenstein Philosophy of Psychology = mundia are language games; or clusters of language games
34. There is a similarity here to the way in which ‘physical object’ and ‘sense impressions’ stand to each other. We have here two language- games, and their mutual relations are of a complicated kind. —– If one tries to reduce their relations to a simple formula, one goes wrong. |181|

action-perception condensates. - 1k Plateaus, on Refrain, page 315

‘Tools-in-use become phenomenologically transparent. Moreover, Heidegger claims, not only are the hammer, nails, and work-bench in this way not part of the engaged carpenter's phenomenal world, neither, in a sense, is the carpenter. The carpenter becomes absorbed in his activity in such a way that he has no awareness of himself as a subject over and against a world of objects. Crucially, it does not follow from this analysis that Dasein's behaviour in such contexts is automatic, in the sense of there being no awareness present at all, but rather that the awareness that is present (what Heidegger calls circumspection) is non-subject-object in form. Phenomenologically speaking, then, there are no subjects and no objects; there is only the experience of the ongoing task (e.g., hammering).’
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/#BeiTim

P
R
P->R
ritual sacrifice, any supplication to deity, magic
regarding R as ineffable - strong agnosticism

Indirect

S
P
S->P
writing
view that ideas cannot be externalized into paper or sound
Chinese room
self fulfilling prophecy - meme magic

P
S
S<-P
marketing scents
relations of OBE
Phineas P. Gage
S
R
S->R
a priori synthetic statements, theology?
ordinary language philosophy - what?
Kantian ethics
R
S
S<-R
divinely inspired art
materialist monism - R deletion
Ion by Plato
Q
R
Q->R
superstitions - seeing sth sign of bad luck
scientism
confirmation bias
R
Q
Q<-R
revelations, mysticism
deism
religious plurality - what?

This fourfold distinction makes less confusion about debate concerning if something is ‘real’. Let's talk more on how to use this.

What about the concept of truth?

The 'criterion of truthfulness' is a language game that builds on top of the language game of SPQR. SPQR is a lower level protocol in that sense.

Language game based on a recording of two people talking: Alice says X and Bob after says that what she said is true.

Then we need to ask what does Bob mean about this.
If he's a Berkeleyan idealist, the only criterion is that it's in the R-(Eternal Mind of God). A Bayesian might say that it fits his S-prior. If a vibes-thinker will say that his Q-feelings tell him that.

A Popperian will access his S-cache of science and feel a Q-thought that this fits the best existing S-theory which took into account P-observational evidence.

Having described the framework, we can proceed to represent the process of its application in many contexts.

use instructions

This is easy to grasp - imagine you explain this to a child about 5-6 years old.

They already have a developed ego and a self-concept, therefore the observer centrality will be helpful for them to understand this, unlike some other systems.

• Counting in head, planning how to play - S

• Joy, sadness, anger - Q

• Playing with others; degree of control over hand, toy, other person - P

• The question where all this comes from (the world) - R

The more complex case is translating a belief system into SPQR.

analyzing a belief system

The framework is used to analyse viewpoints in the following way:

0. Listing concepts relevant to a given worldview

1. Concepts (such as 'chair', 'essence', 'self', 'God', 'redness', 'prime numbers', 'evolution') are categorized into those 4 'boxes'.

2. The types of inter SPQR interactions allowed by a particular web are specified.
   Even individual claims may be positioned within this sphere, not only whole metanarratives.
   For example Hume’s argument against the self in the S-(Treatise on Human Nature) may be represented as deleting the entity ‘self’ from R, while it remains in Q and S and is constituted by Q ('bundles of sensations').

Yeah and SPQR is itself an S model.

Graphical representation of difference

Both types of distinctions may be represented in the graphical form.
The first type is pictured just by writing the thing into the appropriate world, like a Venn diagram.
The second type is represented by borders between worlds. For some of them S-Q distinction is sharp (a thick line). For other the line between ‘the outside world’ and ‘reality as it is’ is a more blurred one ( dots or dashed), for others some phenomena may oscillate ('ocean wave' line). This is just an example, but in principle all borders can be modified.

Image 6 - Solipsist

• r-s birdirectional, from S to P
  Seeing solipsism as a subset of idealism, which thinks Q for making the rest - genesis from thought, the epistemological first, in contrast to naturalist seeing the material first (two modes of seeing the world, as discussed by Quine, among others).
  Unless the solipsist experiences (Q) themselves being the source of everything they experience, they seem to need to assign some parts of themselves into the P.

Image 7 - Christian mysticism

• from R God - inspired thoughts and writings

• from P God manifested in world's beauty

• from R to P creatio continuo

• from R to Q mystic vision

Image 8: Material monism (physicalism)

P merged with R all speaking to S through Q

Image 9: Cartesian dualism

res cogitans in S and R
P as res extensa
cogito ergo sum arrow on S - synthetic a priori
pineal gland between Q and P
from S proof of R - God

Metaphorical truths

explicit treatment of metaphorical truths - S patterns of P behaviour that yield desired Q effects through a simplified S-P web of justification with S knowledge of another S web with a more versatile and generalized explanation of that P process

conclusion

You will find it useful when you use text in your life, which is the universal interface after all.
This system provides clarity. How would you represent your worldview in those terms?

Leave a comment

This idea birth is a result of a germination stage following the lockdown times where different concepts had an orgy in the head of yours truly.

The Dramatis Personae are Eliezer Yudkowsky, W.V.O Quine and Agrippa the Skeptic, with some surprise guests too.... Chances are you heard about at least one of them.

If not, you've been gatekept from this blog post. Go read a book.

I think they are special, each in his own right
It's a trio that has never been discussed jointly.
In this piece you'll see their theories of knowledge
discussed, partially rejected and selectively amalgamated into a new theory of knowledge

As you might guess, author knowing about Eliezer Yudkowsky but approaching him critically, makes him a terminally online postrationalist.

Let's do some more gatekeeping. Say friend, and enter.
What is the universal interface? What does TPOT mean?
What does plane pepperoni represent?

If these questions are unfamiliar to you, touch keyboard and come back later.

The story goes like this - I examine the harshest of skepticisms, then the simple theory of truth Eliezer Yudkovwsky made. Next I point out two problems with it, provide solutions to them and then summarize the resulting theory of knowledge.

There is a specific opportunity this will exploit.
There are unfilled niches in the ecology of online epistemologies.
This text has a broader philosophical purpose, but a very specific short term goal is to provide an explicit coordination point for some online tribes.

Online niches are mostly about politics and then, the mapping from politics to epistemology is weak.

The benefit of this state of affairs to this text is that people from multiple political angles could consider those ideas.

What should be the starting point then? Should I amalgamate all the possible readership niches and address all in a balanced way? Certainly not. You will see me talk about what I know - I exist in the context of everything in which I am and what came before me.
I haven't fallen off a coconut tree.

Should I endevaour to make this understandable to just about anyone?

Thorugh inference distance it's hard to know the everyman concept of knoweldge?

It's like the concept of average citizen, who then has a non-integer number of children.

Tradition disclaimer

I guess some societies do not have the same Westernized concepts that we use. Some tribes quantify how did you learn about a thing. This can be a spectrum: I saw it, it was told me by someone who saw it vs the elders relate a tale about it from the old days.
On the other end, the Occidental conception is bathed in the culturally variant concepts of objectivity.
The French postmodernists indicated this clearly and were correct on this one.

It is in the context of that tradition that this inquiry is made.
And the founder of modern Western philosophy is none other than the Frenchman Descartes.
Descartes in his famous 'Meditations" had the 'rejecting everything' moment. He outlined all the things he couldn't trust. Then he extrapolated it into the matrix-demon experiment. From there asssuming nothing was true he wanted grounds for any knowledge. That was his cogito ergo sum. Later he says that he has a concept of God which is infinite, but he himself does not feel infinite. That is two simple observations, the contentious bit is later. He as a finite being cannot think of an infinite on him own THEREFORE God must be real and outside him.

Therefore the concept of God is external and God-given.
Since in that concept God is good, then He wouldn't let a conscious being be subject to such maltreatment from a demon.

With that he abandoned the spirit of absolute scepticism.

Can we trust him really on having made this process in the best way possible?

The best steelman for the absolute scepticism may only come from an individual throughly commited to the bit.

I present Agrippa the Sceptic.

the hardest objection - Agrippa

This is not your average r/atheism variety sceptic. This is hardcore.
Wikipedia says the following:

According to Victor Brochard "the five tropes can be regarded as the most radical and most precise formulation of philosophical skepticism that has ever been given. In a sense, they are still irresistible today."4(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_the_Skeptic#cite_note-4)

So if we're picking a fight with skepticism, this is a good place to start. That's the steelman we're up against:

According to the mode deriving from dispute, we find that undecidable dissension about the matter proposed has come about both in ordinary life and among philosophers. Because of this we are not able to choose or to rule out anything, and we end up with suspension of judgement. In the mode deriving from infinite regress, we say that what is brought forward as a source of conviction for the matter proposed itself needs another such source, which itself needs another, and so ad infinitum, so that we have no point from which to begin to establish anything, and suspension of judgement follows. In the mode deriving from relativity, as we said above, the existing object appears to be such-and-such relative to the subject judging and to the things observed together with it, but we suspend judgement on what it is like in its nature. We have the mode from hypothesis when the Dogmatists, being thrown back ad infinitum, begin from something which they do not establish but claim to assume simply and without proof in virtue of a concession. The reciprocal mode occurs when what ought to be confirmatory of the object under investigation needs to be made convincing by the object under investigation; then, being unable to take either in order to establish the other, we suspend judgement about both.

I forgot to mention that we don't have Agrippa's writings directly with us.
The above is an extract from:
Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrhōneioi hypotypōseis i., from Annas, J., Outlines of Scepticism Cambridge University Press. (2000).
The five arguments can be listed as

1. discord

2. infinite regress

3. relativism

4. unfounded assumption

5. circular argument

Those five arguments want to exhaustively cover possible sources of knowledge in order to be a foundation to scepticism. We can use this fact and it will suffice for us to only disprove one of them. Nevertheless there is something against each of those five arguments, covering some cool stuff along the way:

Solving 1

1. If human dissent is a sufficient reason for skepticism, showing human agreement crosses it out.

2. Any human common agreed beliefs though can be important candidates for number 4 - foundational belief. That argument is as strong as the idea of beliefs being in disagreement being a pro-scepticism argument.

Let us not look for what is absolute, but what is human universal; better - civilization universal. Let us us this as another way of overcoming the challenge of relativism? Living in society, people talk about their beliefs. There are completely non-contentious beliefs. We're not talking about the extreme philosophical doubt. Non-contentious, as in someone vehemently denying them should get checked into a psych ward. Even if being under informed about them is seen as bizarre. Then let's apply the 5 modes to the social disagreements
If we only manage to find 1 thing people would agree on, then 1 stops being a global reason to skepticism, merely local.

Choice of the group tangent

We can restrict the group of people that need to agree on something to some group that isn't inclusive. Pyrrhus thought dissent among the people he knew of was enough of an argument, he didn't ask all foreigners he met. Also his split of the argument that

both in ordinary life and among philosophers

hints at a 2x2 diagram, where there would be a square

agreement among philosophers, dissent in ordinary life

which is undoubtedly second-best situation from the 4 quadrants. It's the one the Perennialist phiosophers went with.

The first-best (both agree) is too unimgainable, quite a utopian situation.

Solving 2

Infinite regress isn't possible. Material reasons are one thing, but utterable explanations for each following event, or belief, are finite. Quine spoke about this question of relative sizes of linguistic utterances:

Quine sequences

In the essence of modes 4 and 5 there is a notion of sentences in an argument. Therefore we can use this concept, and say that each node is a sentence. We are dealing with a sea of nodes that can be connected directionally showing support of one node to another.

nodes picture

Note that if we restrict character limit to a book length, K is the Borgesian Library of Babel. And I'd say that all metanarrative contenders should be able to condense their arguments into 410 pages.
Trivially, our chosen Knowledge Set (KS) is always some subset of K (even if null), some 410 book that is out there.

Now we can solve mode 2.

Babel Library Theorem

Insofar as the infinite regress argument posits existence of non-terminating read sequence of a directed graph of sentence - nodes, with the set K being finite such non-termination is reducible to mode 5 - circular argument.
In split sentences this is:

1. facts can be represented as nodes and their argument-relation as a directed relation, creating a graph

2. infinite regress argument assumes a non-terminating read traversal of a directed graph of nodes.

3. the set of possible facts is finite, (even if phrased in various ways)

4. from 3+2 the traversal must be circular with enough time to deliberate

5. from 5 - the infinite regress is reducible to circular argument.

Solving 5

Now we can see numbers 4 and 5 as parallel to each other. Number 4 is the mere existence of a choice of beliefs from K. Number 5 is about their internal configuration, but it also implies 4. It is therefore a more specific statement.

Pyrrho focuses against circularity, and definitely on low depth search of beliefs, such as in Socratic dialogues it is a valid heuristics to avoid circular arguments. In other words, for most arguments the answers are tree-like directed graphs and cyclicalities become relevant in a minority of arguments.
Yet on the ultimate level, dealing with K set, it is clear that the choice described in 4 is actually STRONGER when accompanied by mode 5.

"Circularity" just means self-grounding, or -- dynamically -- self-propelling. A circular "argument" is stronger (i.e. more independent) than a non-circular one. If you don't have a circle, you have arbitrary axioms. @Outsideness

This excellent tweet is from none other than His Coldness.

Solving 3

Mode 3 is about differences between observers and also fundamentally the noumenon beyond Maya.

It's the uncertainity - is our H wrong relative to J. Trivially by saying more things, we generate new H members. Speaking precisely this is about is a move-and-copy operation of some from J (trivially) and K.

Description of the world beyond Maya figures in K, as long as it is describable. If it is ineffable to human beings by our nature - like not having the senses for it. Yet information is compressible.
Any reason for us not to get a transmission from the right world'

Now we have a question. Is Pyrrho's rejection of any beliefs here absolute or relative to the unvierse he finds himself in?
If it is absolute, he sees a 'true belief' analytically wrong, as 'married bachelor', belonging in Meinong's jungle.

But that is not what his arguments are about. In what world would his arguments not fall true.

Human agreement is necessarily local.
Any agent agreement is necessarily local, subject to principles of game theory.

What would be the most true argument then? We can take notes from Steve Jobs:

the best way to predict the future is to invent it

This is what CCRU called 'hyperstition'

True knowledge game - local knowledge

Any sane human will agree to this
claims:

1. you can make a game that will give you full knowledge - for instance instructions: moving a stone from one hand to another, and so forth, and so forth.

2. Any utterances of the form ' in this game...'. will happen is an exhaustive definition.

The same would happen for a simple Wang B-machine for a self-referential tape endlessly shifting [0,1] into [1,0].

Your knowledge is true in these instances, if knowledge and truth are to mean anything.

We'll make use of this later.

Solving 4

In discussion of mode 2 we transformed the problem into choice / search between different subsets of K. From Gödel we know that for every node system KS, it can be derived from a number of axioms picked from set KSK (KS-kernel). Those in KSK are all acting together and the choice which are fundamental and which are derived is arbitrary.

Of course the same property is equivalent to the circular support mentioned in point 3.

Too much rigour relative to what works

The equations of the Standard Model combined with General Relativity are fairly well predicting reality in a given context.
We see them break only at the scale of galaxies and galactic superclusters and Big Bang.

natural necessity argument

By nature we see that we're bound to have KS expressive enough to differentiate between good and bad. This argument rests of a wholly different field from philosophy, so taps into our (mine and yours, reader) common set of beliefs. No 80iq trailer park drug addict is reading this.

Differentiation between what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ requires discrimination. This is a capability no younger than life itself, which it serves as an indispensable function. As soon as there is behavior, there is discrimination between alternatives. One way leads to survival, the other way leads to death. There is nourishment, or not, reproduction, or not, safety or predatory menace. Good and bad, or the discrimination between them (which is the same thing), are etched primordially into any world that life inhabits. Discrimination is needed to survive.
---from XS, discrimination

See also E. Fromm on optimal truth, and Bret Weinstein’s metaphorical truth.

Summary of the answer to skepticism

We know that we are bound to have some set of beliefs, best if circular, at the core of our big set of beliefs.
That is merely positing some states of KS as acceptable. Achieving some KS is a different question, that we'll respond soon.

You might have noticed how Quine and Nick Land, already have been smuggled into the arguments against Agrippa. There is a nascent epistemology here.

You will see it develop in the next section, as we refine Yudkowsky's simple theory of truth.

The best case - Yud

You might not be familar with this text. I was FRENZIED when I first read it late in the night of 2017.

To read and ingest the text would take you about an hour, but note that it's well written. It is not a required reading though, as you'll see the ten key extracts soon.

They are intersparsed with my paragraphs and some EY - adjacent pieces of work, most often from LW.

It is a diaglogue between a shepherd and some guy called Mark, some others join from time to time.
The story goes like this - the shepherd counts sheep with stone pebbles and we see him exaplain his method to the passers by.
He has an empty bucket and when the sheep leave the enclosure through a gate in the morning he stands by the gate and drops one pebble for each one passing.
Then in the evening, when the sheep come back, he extracts one stone for each of the incoming sheep. After all sheep have passed the remaining number of stones magically corresponds to the number of sheep lost in the pasture. Best if zero.

First snippet

“Mark, I don’t think you understand the art of bucketcraft,” I say. “It’s not about using pebbles to control sheep. It’s about making sheep control pebbles. In this art, it is not necessary to begin by believing the art will work. Rather, first the art works, then one comes to believe that it works.”

What jumps at us is the word control. In 1950s it was the starting point to the science of kybernetics.
This is a keyword to the whole of this interpretation of the text

Second snippet

So I need different names for the thingies that determine my predictions and the thingy that determines my experimental results. I call the former thingies ‘belief’, and the latter thingy ‘reality’.”

That is clearly wrong, as the thingy that determines my experimental results is not reality in its fullness. It's the proximate reality that lets me see itself.

This frame hinges on the correspondence theory of truth not the coherence one.

Therefore, we can use some Indian words and concepts.
Maya is a Hindu term used to term this illusory reality, and the beliefs that are locally true even if wrong in the larger sense, are called Upaya(guides) - a Buddhist term.

Keep this in mind, we'll need this later.

Third snippet

This is a great summary of the Bayesian approach to knowledge

Above all, don’t ask what to believe—ask what to anticipate. Every question of belief should flow from a question of anticipation, and that question of anticipation should be the center of the inquiry. Every guess of belief should begin by flowing to a specific guess of anticipation, and should continue to pay rent in future anticipations. If a belief turns deadbeat, evict it.
[making-beliefs-pay-rent-in-anticipated-experiences] (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/a7n8GdKiAZRX86T5A/making-beliefs-pay-rent-in-anticipated-experiences)

It's very high modern, even early Wittgensteinian, and similar to Popperian approach to science.
Of course there are multiple beliefs for which you cannot directly anticipate experiences. Those are but a hidden node in a tangled networked of nested Bayesian distributions.

A Bayesian reasoning agent is just entangled locally but might never come to question those deeper assumptions, which are further removed from experience.
To do this you'd need to track at least a pair of hypotheses for those bigger assumptions and for each a set of statements close to experience.
A lot of effort.

There are different beliefs give you different prediction sets over facets of your life.
One belief might make you go into physics, another one into electronics, the third one into dentistry.
And there is no formal criterion to distinguish between them, apart from the Will, the motivation.
And later on , which are you have path-dependent subsequent beliefs.

Bayesianism is not powerful enough - it grants you certainity of the local algorithms but it quickly rises in complexity under a broader view.

Fourth snippet

Lesswrong post on strategic reliabilism has those an interesting fragment:

If SAE works from a descriptive core, how are normative consequences extracted? The authors do not contend this is impossible for theories of SAE, but the prospects aren’t good. Many criticisms of naturalism by SAE proponents apply to their own theories. In the end, everyone has to bridge the is-ought gap. Philosophers are essentially experts in their own opinions, while Ameliorative Psychologists have documented success at helping people and institutions reason better. By the Aristotelian Principle, this success is what gives Strategic Reliabilism a chance at normativity.

and then we see another one:

What is evidence? It is an event entangled, by links of cause and effect, with whatever you want to know about. If the target of your inquiry is your shoelaces, for example, then the light entering your pupils is evidence entangled with your shoelaces. This should not be confused with the technical sense of “entanglement” used in physics—here I’m just talking about “entanglement” in the sense of two things that end up in correlated states because of the links of cause and effect between them.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6s3xABaXKPdFwA3FS/what-is-evidence

From this snippet we can extract the key phrase - using the 'cybernetic' keyword extracted earlier - Yudkowsky's theory of truth hinges on cybernetic engtanglement.

This entanglement is something material, cause and effect.
What matters here is that the loop your beliefs have with reality is equivalent to the control loop of a fridge, or any of many control circuits. Examples include industrial robot arm, an alligator temperature regulating, or a negative feedback loop in a climate model or climate reality.

You should see feedback loops everywhere. Draw out the control loop of cold blooded alligator. It sits in the sun to externally warm up. It knows it needs to do this. It hot-blooded animals you have a higher base metabolic rate. The goal is the same - temperature homestatis, but what for the alligator is done at macro level through sun exposure is done on cellular level by greater mitochondrial work and heart rate. You can rearrange the circuit under many invariants (ceteris paribus) if you swap out the other components in a smart way. The evolutionary search space is equivalent to this swapping of blocks inside negative feedback loops.

Our methods of belief conceptualization and recording are the same thus as a squirrel's qualia of remembering where the nuts are. Yet the level of abstraction and problem domains are different.

The mistake the logical AI ('old school AI') made was to assume this abstraction layer is fit for the real world. ML algorithms - much more fuzzy - capture the patterns of the world much better.

The key to this is intent, or prediction and effort, and the subsequent backtracking over beliefs depending on the success.

Through this, we can see this cybernetic control as the world fulfilling itself.
The belief is not some gnostic separate layer from the physical world, it is a necessary part of it.

What follows from this is that true are things that are executed by the World machine.

if we become part of the world machine, we can enjoice in that entanglement.
Of course the machine has dusty cogs that don't move anymore - the rubbish bin of history.

Fifth snippet

To say it abstractly: For an event to be evidence about a target of inquiry, it has to happen differently in a way that’s entangled with the different possible states of the target. (To say it technically: There has to be Shannon mutual information between the evidential event and the target of inquiry, relative to your current state of uncertainty about both of them.)

That a succint and formal description getting at the core of the issue.

Sixth snippet

Some belief systems, in a rather obvious trick to reinforce themselves, say that certain beliefs are only really worthwhile if you believe them unconditionally—no matter what you see, no matter what you think.

Now this is a fascinating edge case. If he refers to Christianity that is quite false - the soteriological conclusion is said to appear clearly to the naked eye - the problem is time. It's said to arrive 'at the end of the world'.

This statement is not absolute and needs to be quantified.
The sheperd's cybernetic loop closes when the sheep go back - the periodicity of just one day. That's a simple one. Some experiments last minutes.

The longest running human experiment in the scientiifc sense - since 1927 pitch drop experiment.

Has enough time passed since French revolution to tell was it good or not?

It's all about the relative time lengths for the cybernetic entanglement to occur.
And why would we be so lucky so that all useful beliefs be entanglable but ourselves as individual observers in the brief periods of our livetimes.
There is even a statement for a belief that's not justified in the great sense - a blik. It is fitting to apply to this to beliefs with a long feedback loop, some would call them Dao, or Tradition.
There are entire schools of thought devoted to the idea that some loops are closed to us now. A big examples are the Mulism conception of Mohammed as the 'Seal of the Prophets', and the school of Traditionalism.

Seventh snippet

Entanglement can be transmitted through chains of cause and effect—and if you speak, and another hears, that too is cause and effect.

That tracks what we've already discussed, spelling it out nicely with a slightly different wording.

Eigth snippet

Indeed, if you feel, on a gut level, what this all means, you will automatically stop believing. Because “my belief is not entangled with reality” means “my belief is not accurate.” As soon as you stop believing “ ‘snow is white’ is true,” you should (automatically!) stop believing “snow is white,” or something is very wrong.

That is just a deflationary theory of truth. Here he tries very hard to not admit metaphorical truth and relies on a very literal understanding of statements. Is also assuming that it's about atomic change in beliefs, one by one.
This atomic focus on particular statements is really rare and limited in real life.
whodunnit mysteries are an example of this, where the detective considers different suspects and hypotheses.

They all propagate forward (predict) empirical bits (evidence) but are also backpropagated into motive.

Another instance is science. Scientific theories are often tested by a long chain of secondary assumptions.
Let's say you want to test a new theory of gravity to explain the spinning radial velocity of galaxies. You need to apply the model to the data on galaxies, use a telescope to see some nighy sky lights, reconstruct the lights into data and into the galaxy-models and finally estimate their mass distribution based on the lights.
The inference chain is very long and science is often stuck.

Ninth snippet - summary

“When a sheep passes, you toss in a pebble?” Mark says. “What does that have to do with anything?”
“It’s an interaction between the sheep and the pebbles,” I reply.
“No, it’s an interaction between the pebbles and you ,” Mark says. “The magic doesn’t come from the sheep, it comes from you . Mere sheep are obviously nonmagical. The magic has to come from somewhere , on the way to the bucket.”

That is indeed a curious bit of interpretation. The magic - the entanglement comes from a non-random indidivdal action. It is an action, and a meatbag one at that, 'fleshie', or 'elan vitale'.
The belief does not come out as a gnostic or Cartesian Dualist abstract logical truth. It is a result of a material exchange, cause and effect.

Tenth snippet - conclusion

I shrug. “I ordered it online from a company called Natural Selections. The fabric is called Sensory Modality.” I pause, seeing the incredulous expressions of Mark and Autrey. “I admit the names are a bit New Agey. The point is that a passing sheep triggers a chain of cause and effect that ends with a pebble in the bucket. Afterward you can compare the bucket to other buckets, and so on.”
A neural activation pattern in your visual cortex can interact with your beliefs about your shoelaces, since beliefs about shoelaces also exist in neural substrate. If you can understand that, you should be able to see how a passing sheep causes a pebble to enter the bucket.”
“You have to bind the bucket to the pastures, and the pebbles to the sheep, using a magical ritual – pardon me, an emergent process with special causal powers – that my master discovered,” Autrey explains.

that’s quite true indeed

what is evidence post

how to make an even better case?

Let's see all those snippets summed up:

1. words: 'control', 'cybernetic'

2. Upaya and Maya

3. focus on predictions which are limited though

4. cause and effect = cybernetic entanglement

5. formalization with Shannon mutual information

6. quantification of the time frames of entanglement

7. confirmation of cause an efect in human communication

8. deflationary theory of truth and a long inference chain

9. meatbag beliefs

10. Another summary of the pebbles

If we summarize that in turn we get:

A = 1 + 4 = cybernetic entanglement as the atomic unit of belief-related action
B = 2 + 3 + 6 + 8 = context specificity and information-limitations of the model
C = 5 + 10 = summaries
D = 7 + 9 = material nature of the interaction.

Now to connect A, B and D, we get: material interactions create cybernetic entanglements which are locally true but exist in the context they were made and are overfitting into that context.

material interactions create cybernetic entanglements which are locally true but exist in the context they were made and are overfitting into that context.

We can wish Yudkowsky delved a bit more into this problem space. But now there is a space for a blog like this, which is also good.

Let's say you want to switch to use this theory daily. What immediately jumps at you are the aspects that aren't contained in the statement:

1. how to transition and how to treat the knowledge you've gained so far. Do other people know nothing unless they use this pebble-based system?

2. how to conceptually and practically deal with the problem of overfitting to your circumstance?

Once those two questions are addressed, we can conclude our proceedings - formulating this epistemological theory. At least for the purposes of this post, each of those questions touches a deep topic on which this blog will have more explorations, now in drafts.

problem 1 - ordinary knowledge

The first problem - how to treat the ordinary knowledge?

Would Elizer like you to feel that you've become a pebble-entangling gigachad while the unlearned virgins are helpless in their illusions of knowledge?
I'll leave this one for you to answer.
"Yes" would be the reply true for many esoteric theorists. Whether you join a cult which says true knowledge comes from mystical frenzy, psychedelics, True Book, Logical Positivism or any other method - the exclusion of ordinary knowledge ensues.

You get an exclusive membership, and with time you stop passing the ideological Turing test to understand the normies.

That's what all those systems suffer from - they want you to use their terms and they lose the ability to model what came before.

My aunt Velma knows she did her laundry and will need to buy lemons to make lemonade for when her nephew comes visit at the weekend.
She didn't come to arrive at this conclusion through a conscious pebble-study.
BUT OF COURSE she must have done an equivalent!
The Bayesian model in this sense is not a NEW TOOL. it's a new lens to see the ordinary.

Eliezer did an analytical piece of philosophy here, not a normative one.
I applaud him for it.
Ok, that is not entirely true, he makes normative statements there about some cases. But it is worth noting that the bulk of his argument is descriptive.
Of course this resembles the Hero's Journey where the hero returns to the village having defeated the dragon and now looking with new eyes.

This is very interesting. Eliezer answers both prongs of the problem of criterion by the end of his argument. (See appendix B). Let's trace his steps.
Recall our 'true knowledge game', where we construct a situation where our knowledge would be true. That is equivalent to starting with a 'how' prong, rather than 'what'. The sheep and pebbles have the same role, it is a controlled scenario where knowledge is gained as a property of the shepherd - pebbles - sheep system.
Once that is granted, we can very easily pattern match for moments in our own lives that are similar and then we get the answer to the question of 'what we know'.

Eliezer seems to be singling out some variants of religious belief as targets for his epistemology. Yet broadly I'd say that his system is indeed the bulk of everyday beliefs of the people.

He is rediscovering the wheel a bit there already is a term within philosophy that says: the ' general view that "ordinary language is correct"'.. Let's delve deeper into that.

ordinary language philosophy for assemblages

Stanislaw Lem in his Summa Technologica presents (p189) a quasi - late- Wittgensteinian understanding of language. There he conceptualizes a protocol of communication in not even a linguistic community, but rather for the whole material system.

translation mine

Sign assumes existence of information. It exists purely as part of its code. The information exists if and only if there is an entity it's addressed to. We know who is the addresse of Hamlet, just as well we know that a nebulae do not have any addresses. Still - who is the receiver of the genetic information inside chromosomes of a reptilian lizard egg? A mature organism? No - it's a certain later stage of the information processing. That organism in its turn does have an addrressee - where? On the Moon or the Sahara the lizards cannot live, only in a river with muddy banks. There the lizard can find food and mates. Therefore the addressee of the genetic information of the lizard is that very ecosystem, along with the whole local population of the species, as well as of other species, devouring him or being devoured. In other words the receiver of genetic information is the bio-geo-ceno-otic environment of an individual. In that environment he will sire other lizards and through thta the circulation of genetic information will be upheld, as a part of the evolutionary process. Analogously, the "environment" that makes Hamlet's continued existence possible is human brain.

I am not sure if he had read Wittgenstein, but for sure that is a more generic definition than just a 'language game' played by people.

It is something that has been vindicated, AI can create its own languages now.

What is importat is that the communication protocols - language games are nested in each other.
That will tie into our second point of dispute with Eliezer's theory.

If we go with Contextualized Ordinary Language philosophy) I'd argue that there is a zoom in - zoom out dynamics, like Arcimboldian paintings.). There should be a word for this, when a distinction is not an absolute, but depending on the scale, distance from the observer. In this case the dynamics is that the more highly defined context (such as BTC protocol), the semantics is fully clear. When the situation is narrow, each word is clearer, until appears fully semantic. That must have been a cause of many philosophical misunderstandings. The more you zoom out, the more dependent on the context is the word.

Of course, the details of the Standard Model are an instance of the ultimate zoomout, where nature itself bounds all the messages inside its physical context. We, aliens and rogue AIs could talk over radio waves, but the intelligiblity of the message relies on the context of both agents being in the same universe. These constraints aren't qualitatively different from any other context constraints - a final stop on the road, but built in the same way.

Now what constraints are you under?

problem 2 - topological instability

There is a nice physical-theoretical and information theory approach to this.
Let's recall the statement:

material interactions create cybernetic entanglements which are locally true but exist in the context they were made and are overfitting into that context.

Context overfitting. People who peak in high school overfit for high school and don't update that some things are not cool anymore.

There is more theory behind this actually in the realm of manifold learning.

less is more, coarse learning on low dimensional manifolds
Checkout this github repo for the details

There is a correspondence between that and our discourse on truth.

Learning always submits an assemblage of assumptions to a series of empirical tests. This is a feature of reality.
Suppose you have a Petri dish with bacteria and add some acid.
The bacteria learn to cope with the new chemical environment through cell level adaptation and also selection.

The whole of the assemblage is tested against the acid - this is the physical confirmation holism. But just one metric - resistance to acid is tested.

Here we arrive at confirmation holism.

Beliefs are a low dimensional spec of reality.
They are the low dimensional manifolds that are as coarse as your language.

That implies the effect of topological instability, which is the Maya we mentioned before
Beware the observed real sample - we do not observe the true platonic Forms! We cannot even conceptualize them.
The same coarseness relationship applies to the sentences we observe compared the possible ones - see Quine's sequences.

We can finally conclude now, that every aspect has been covered.

Conclusion

The attack on skepticism here is merely to create a minimal working argument - possibility (even necessity!) of some true knowledge in local conditions.
It does not mean that full knowledge can be reached for any given context. Neither it means that there exists a tractable algorithm to reach it until the final context of Nature.

Is scientific method the passcard? We could imagine a world where mysticism clearly is, giving better predictive power on higher context occurences.
Imagine a saint predicting a day of rain coming in a draught in a bronze age society through a divine revelation ( a simple simulation scenario would suffice).

But as we see in Appendix A, scientific method applies only to a narrow subset of knowledge. We cannot make an experiment of a billion years of Solar System evolution... at least yet.

But as we've seen above, our knowledge is part of the universe and its process of self-exploration, not outside of it. The universe is not a dark and inhostpiable place...

vitalist epistemology

your priors are Universe predicting itself

Knowledge is in the feedback loops and any explicit beliefs are a cache of those past runs or feelings based extrapolation of those.

There is a material base to beliefs - the purely cybernetically entangled processes, entangling your mind with the developing, unrolling the Universe.

Our knowledge of the world is part of it, it's not beyond it.

It's a radically pagan statement, stating that the knowledge is present in animals, objects, rituals.

This is very animist, with agency all the way down.

The cybernetic embedding is all that an assemblage (life form, or a company, or a molecule) does with the environment given excess energy. (yeah I know this is very e/acc and Jeremy England coded).

Still we need to remember the key hindrance, Maya (aka topological instability).

You haven't fallen off the perfect vantage point tree. you exist in the context of what you live in and what came before you.
to paraphrase US VP Kamala Harris

This context is treacherous, it's a weak form of the Cartesian demon.

It manipulates the inputs to our system, the data that we have. Then we produce the outputs.

If those outputs are checked only locally, it's the same demon again. The outputs need to stretch the limits to tear down just a bit of the veil Maya.

By Anonymous - Camille Flammarion, L'Atmosphère: Météorologie Populaire (Paris, 1888), pp. 163., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=318054

If you stretch the limits enough to tear a whole in the veil, the Outside creeps in. The real(er) space checks your work and finally you see a glimmer of something real.

Conversely, if outputs aren’t checked by the Outside (subjected to the Will of God), then the assemblage doesn’t have the right feedback - cannot back-propagate the changes.

checking your outputs against reality lets you test your actions, your body and your assumptions

It is the highest of modernisms to try to encapsulate all processes hitherto external to us, inside of a fixed, intellectual System. Early 1900s abound in examples: bringing understanding to the unconscious, democracy instead of revolution / elite rotation, party politics instead of literal backstabbing.

But as Godel and the postmodernists after him said, that is folly, or at least incomplete.
This is a neurotic approach, and not a brave one.

High modernism tries to understand what it sees more than it tries to predict what it does not see.
Prediction is the best way to learn, but can't predict everything, there's a cost and benefit.

You might need to sacrifice a lot for an unknown goal of learning something. Startups are hyperstitions and VC are chaos magic wizards. And selective teachers to the founders.

Founders are the non-neurotic ones, choosing the brave path.
To be the brave one is to face the unknown at the boundary of a system, risking losing everything. Or at least a lot.

That is Deleuzian line of flight from a known plateau into deterritorialization.
It means to love risk and gamble with death - while owning it - 'me ne frego'.
The act of sacrifice is intimitely tied with the act of acquiring knowledge.
It's all a Bataillean ritual of sacrifice of the excess in exploration and production for its own sake?

This vitalist lived epistemology is by nature problematic to many, as it extols superiority of dynamic Life over stasis and the process over the concept.

Further posts

We can discuss the embeddedness of knowledge, but our communicable knowledge is whatever we say or can formulate. It's a set of statements.
We also have latent knowledge - aristotelian phronesis, which is key for in person skill acquisition and application but as we network online it's of less interest.
What can be shared in the blog and its comment section can be only doxa or episteme.

Let's operate inside those limits, exploiting them to the fullest.

The next in the plans is first covering the structure of knowledge as a web of nodes, followed by an examination of the strongest sources of Maya - ideologies and personal circumstances. Then the knowledge part will be finished and the following posts will be on ontology.

This entry is an imagined commentary from Rene Guenon.

In the modern world, where the dominance of materialism eclipses all other modes of thought, we witness an alarming tendency to reduce the profound to the banal. Nowhere is this more evident than in the realm of human relationships, particularly in the way society has adopted the notion of "body count" and "sexual marketplace value" as measures of a person's worth. These terms, couched in the language of economics and quantity, reflect the debasement of human intimacy to a set of numbers and values devoid of any higher significance. This is a clear manifestation of what I have long called the rule of quantity, the modern perversion wherein quality is sacrificed at the altar of measurement.

The fixation on "body count" reduces the human being to a mere statistic. In this view, relationships are stripped of their spiritual and emotional dimensions, reduced instead to a tally of physical encounters. This is emblematic of modernity’s obsession with counting and measuring everything, a symptom of a world that values quantity over quality. What was once considered sacred, intimate, and personal is now trivialized, as if the sum total of one’s experiences could encapsulate their worth or integrity. The "body count" fixation reflects not merely a degradation of morals, but a failure to recognize the metaphysical dimension of human connection, where each encounter should ideally represent a deep unity of souls, not an addition to a scorecard.

Closely related to this is the concept of "sexual marketplace value," which further objectifies human beings by reducing them to commodities. In this framework, individuals are assessed by a set of arbitrary criteria—beauty, wealth, or status—that mimic the logic of commerce. Relationships are viewed as transactions, where one’s "value" fluctuates based on their desirability to others, much like products on a shelf. Here again, we see the rule of quantity at work, transforming the qualitative depth of relationships into a cold, calculable market of desirability. The tragedy of this worldview lies in its superficiality, as it blinds individuals to the real essence of human worth, which cannot be quantified by such external markers.

Furthermore, this obsession with quantification fosters a profound alienation. As individuals strive to meet these numerical standards, they lose sight of their intrinsic value and the deeper purpose of relationships. The more one conforms to the logic of the "marketplace," the further one is removed from genuine connection. Human interactions become performances, staged to appeal to external expectations rather than the authentic unfolding of mutual understanding and affection. This alienation is a direct result of the rule of quantity, as it imposes a mechanical framework on human life, reducing what is inherently dynamic, spiritual, and transcendent to a lifeless calculation.

In conclusion, the concepts of "body count" and "sexual marketplace value" are not merely products of a shallow, modern culture but instances of a much deeper malaise: the triumph of quantity over quality. These notions reflect the reduction of human relationships to numerical measures, forsaking the true essence of intimacy and connection. To transcend this degradation, we must reject the rule of quantity and restore a sense of the sacred in our relationships—one that honors the spiritual, the qualitative, and the immeasurable. Only by returning to these principles can we reclaim the fullness of human experience.

Subscribe now

Introduction: The Pursuit of Uniqueness

It’s not just that people want to be unique—they’re desperate for it. In a world where standing out has become a commodity, the pursuit of individuality has been commercialized, packaged, and sold back to us. Take a look around, and you’ll see it everywhere. Pop existentialism, tattoos, curated identities on social media—each one screaming, “I’m different! I’m special!” But here’s the irony: in trying so hard to be unique, most people end up looking the same.

Let’s talk about pop existentialism for a second. It’s the intellectual equivalent of a fast-food meal—quick, easily digestible, and leaves you feeling emptier than before. Shows like *Rick and Morty* serve up nihilism with a side of dark humor, offering a watered-down version of existential philosophy that’s palatable for the masses. Fans eat it up, mistaking cynicism for depth, and then wear it on their sleeves—sometimes literally, in the form of tattoos that are as common as they are supposedly unique.

And that brings us to tattoos, the ultimate mark of individuality. Or so they say. But walk down any street, and you’ll see the same designs over and over again—geometric patterns, minimalist line art, pop culture references. It’s a uniform of nonconformity, an illusion of uniqueness that only masks the underlying conformity. The truth is, within the bounds of modern tattoo culture, the space for real originality is shrinking, not expanding.

But here’s the thing: there’s another way. It’s not about standing out through what you consume or how you decorate yourself. It’s about embracing the ordinary, the shared standards, and mastering the craft—whether it’s in a warrior culture, the philosophy of Japan, or the ethos of a modern tech startup. It’s about engaging in the kind of compounding games that Aristotle would’ve recognized, where skill and knowledge build on each other, creating something truly unique over time.

Nietzsche had it right—become who you are. But that doesn’t mean trying to be different for the sake of it. It means embracing your circumstances, honing your craft, and letting your individuality emerge naturally, authentically, through what you do and how well you do it. The pursuit of uniqueness doesn’t have to lead to conformity. Done right, it can lead to something much deeper and far more satisfying.

Pop Existentialism as a Sellable Product

Pop existentialism is the intellectual equivalent of a designer knockoff—flashy on the surface, but ultimately shallow and mass-produced. It’s philosophy lite, repackaged for a generation that craves meaning but doesn’t have the patience to dig deep. Shows like *Rick and Morty* are the perfect example. On the surface, they’re all about questioning the universe, challenging the status quo, and embracing the absurdity of existence. But let’s not kid ourselves. What we’re really seeing is existentialism boiled down to catchy one-liners and nihilistic punchlines, ready to be consumed by the masses.

The brilliance of pop existentialism isn’t in its depth—it’s in its marketability. By stripping down complex philosophical ideas into easily digestible soundbites, it becomes accessible, relatable, and most importantly, sellable. It’s not about exploring the human condition; it’s about branding. You don’t have to wrestle with the existential dread of Sartre or Nietzsche—you can just buy a T-shirt with a clever quote, laugh along with a show that gives you just enough intellectual flavor to feel smart without challenging you too much.

And that’s where the real genius lies. Pop existentialism isn’t just a philosophy—it’s a product. It’s something you can consume, something you can wear, something you can flaunt as a badge of your supposed intellectual depth. It gives people the comforting illusion that they’re part of some deeper, smarter conversation when really, they’re just repeating what’s already been pre-packaged and sold to them.

It’s no surprise that this version of existentialism has become a cultural phenomenon. It taps into the modern craving for meaning while offering a shortcut—no need to read *Being and Nothingness* or confront the abyss yourself. Just tune into the latest episode, buy the merch, and voilà, you’re part of the club. It’s existentialism for the Instagram age, where the appearance of depth is often mistaken for the real thing.

But here’s the kicker: for all its pretensions, pop existentialism often leads to the very conformity it claims to rebel against. The fans who pride themselves on their edgy, nihilistic outlook are often just echoing the same sentiments, wearing the same symbols, engaging in the same shallow conversations. It’s a herd mentality dressed up as individualism, a product sold to people who want to believe they’re standing apart from the crowd, when in reality, they’re just part of a different, slightly more ironic crowd.

So, while pop existentialism might make for good TV and even better merchandise, let’s not pretend it’s anything more than that. It’s a sellable product, not a path to true understanding. And in the end, what it really sells is the comforting illusion of uniqueness in a world that’s increasingly homogenized by the very forces it claims to critique.

Tattoos: The Illusion of Uniqueness

Tattoos are the ultimate paradox of modern culture: a declaration of individuality that’s become a uniform of conformity. Think about it—how many times have you seen someone with a sleeve of geometric patterns, a minimalist line drawing, or a quote from some dead philosopher? It’s ironic, really. The more people try to stand out with their ink, the more they blend in with everyone else. 

Tattoos once meant something—marks of rebellion, symbols of identity, rites of passage. They were personal, unique, and often carried a story that was as individual as the person wearing them. But that was then. Now, tattoos have been commodified, turned into yet another product in the endless pursuit of consumer-driven self-expression. The result? A sea of sameness, where each "unique" design is just a variation on a theme that’s been played out a thousand times before.

Walk into any tattoo parlor, and you’ll see the same designs over and over. Mandalas, skulls, arrows, even the obligatory pop culture references. Sure, the combinations might be different, but the elements are the same—pulled from the same well of trendy ideas that have been circulating on Instagram for years. It’s the illusion of uniqueness, a superficial marker that’s supposed to set you apart but really just slots you into a different, highly predictable category.

And yet, people continue to buy into it. They walk out of the parlor with their fresh ink, feeling like they’ve made some profound statement about who they are, when all they’ve really done is purchase the latest in a long line of aesthetic trends. It’s branding, pure and simple—branding your body with symbols that are supposed to represent your inner self, but in reality, are just the visual equivalent of a pop existentialist slogan.

The tattoo industry knows this, of course. It thrives on the myth that each tattoo is a one-of-a-kind expression, when in reality, it’s just another product to be sold. The space for true originality within modern tattoo culture is shrinking, not expanding. The designs are different, but the message is the same: "Look at me, I’m unique." But how unique can you be when millions of others are broadcasting the exact same message?

What’s even more ironic is that in this pursuit of individuality, people are often blind to the fact that they’re just following another trend. It’s a herd mentality with a different aesthetic, where the drive to be different results in everyone looking the same. Tattoos, once a sign of rebellion, have become a symbol of conformity—proof that even the most personal forms of expression can be co-opted by consumer culture.

So, the next time someone shows off their "unique" tattoo, take a closer look. Is it really a reflection of their inner self, or just the latest chapter in the book of cultural clichés? More often than not, it’s the latter—an illusion of individuality in a world where true uniqueness is increasingly hard to come by.

The Contrast: Embracing the Ordinary in Warrior Cultures, Japanese Philosophy, and Modern Tech Startups

While the masses chase after superficial markers of uniqueness, there’s a quieter, more profound approach to individuality that’s been around for centuries—one that embraces the ordinary, the disciplined, and the shared standards that define true mastery. It’s not about standing out for the sake of it; it’s about achieving excellence within a framework that’s bigger than yourself. 

Take warrior cultures, for instance. The samurai in feudal Japan didn’t strive to be unique; they strived to perfect their craft. Swordsmanship wasn’t about flashy moves or self-expression—it was about discipline, repetition, and mastering a set of skills that had been passed down through generations, or carefully honed as an individual (picrel). There was a standard to be met, a code to follow, and in meeting that standard, a samurai found his place among equals. True, there were different ranks and fortunes, but within the dojo, the sword was the great equalizer. It wasn’t about being different; it was about being excellent. 

Japanese philosophy, especially concepts like *wabi-sabi* and *shibumi*, takes this even further. *Wabi-sabi* is all about finding beauty in imperfection, in the worn and the weathered. It’s an appreciation for the ordinary, the understated, the things that don’t scream for attention but hold a quiet power. *Shibumi*, on the other hand, is the idea of effortless perfection—achieving a state of refined simplicity that’s so deeply ingrained in who you are that it becomes second nature. It’s not about showing off; it’s about embodying a quality so deeply that it speaks for itself.

Now, let’s fast forward to the present and look at modern tech startups. On the surface, these might seem like the breeding grounds for the kind of superficial individualism we’ve been criticizing, but there’s a deeper current here. The best developers, the most successful entrepreneurs—they aren’t just chasing the latest trend. They’re playing long games, compounding their skills, building on shared knowledge, and respecting the craft of problem-solving. Sure, they’re all working on different projects, but they share an ethos—an understanding that the problems they’re solving might be similar, but the way they apply their skills and ideas is where their true uniqueness lies.

In these environments, individuality isn’t about being the loudest or the most eccentric. It’s about mastery, about contributing something of real value within the frameworks that exist. The respect here isn’t earned by how different you are; it’s earned by how well you understand the game and how effectively you play it. In a way, it’s the same principle that guided the samurai—true individuality comes not from breaking the mold, but from mastering it.

So, while the world around us continues to push the idea that you need to stand out, that you need to be different in some superficial way, there’s something to be said for embracing the ordinary. For understanding that true mastery, true individuality, doesn’t come from what you wear, say, or buy, but from what you do and how well you do it. It’s not about chasing after uniqueness; it’s about letting it find you through the disciplined pursuit of excellence.

Aristotelian *Techne*: The Power of Compounding Skills

If there’s one thing the ancients understood better than we do today, it’s the value of *techne*—the art of skillful craft, the mastery of technique. Aristotle didn’t just see *techne* as a way to get things done; he saw it as a path to true excellence. And here’s the thing: in a world obsessed with quick fixes and instant gratification, the idea of slowly, methodically building up your skills—of playing the long game—has never been more radical.

*Techne* isn’t about one-off achievements or flashy displays of talent. It’s about the process, the discipline, the accumulation of skills over time. It’s about compounding your knowledge and expertise in a way that leads to exponential growth. Think of it like investing—not in stocks or crypto, but in yourself. The more you put in, the more you get out, and over time, those small gains add up to something far greater than the sum of their parts.

Visa talks about this...

This is where the real power lies. While the world is busy selling you on the idea that uniqueness can be bought or worn, *techne* reminds us that true individuality is earned. It’s not about what you have, but about what you do—day in and day out. It’s about mastering your craft, whatever that may be, and allowing your skills to set you apart in ways that are both meaningful and lasting.

The idea of playing compounding games with your skills isn’t just an ancient concept; it’s the foundation of success in any field, from swordsmanship to software development. In both, the goal isn’t just to be good—it’s to keep getting better. To learn, to refine, to iterate. It’s about understanding that the journey doesn’t end once you’ve reached a certain level; that’s just the beginning. True mastery is a lifelong pursuit, one that rewards patience, persistence, and a deep respect for the craft.

In contrast, think about the things that are often sold as markers of uniqueness today—tattoos, fashion, slogans. They’re surface-level, momentary. They don’t build on each other; they don’t compound. They offer a quick hit of identity, but no real substance. They’re about appearing unique, not about actually becoming unique. 

Aristotle’s *techne* shows us a different path. It’s a path that requires commitment, dedication, and a willingness to play the long game. But in the end, it’s the only path that leads to true individuality—an individuality that can’t be bought, copied, or faked. It’s about becoming the best version of yourself, not just the most different. It’s about standing out because of what you’ve achieved, not because of how you’ve chosen to decorate yourself.

So, while the world chases after the next big thing, the next quick fix, the next superficial marker of uniqueness, remember the power of *techne*. Remember that real individuality is forged in the fires of skill and mastery. It’s not about what you can show off today; it’s about what you’re building for tomorrow. 

Conclusion: Embracing True Individuality

So here we are, at the end of the road, where the truth stands bare: individuality, real individuality, isn’t something you can buy, wear, or even declare. It’s something you build. It’s not found in the superficial trappings of pop existentialism or the ink on your skin. It’s found in the slow, deliberate mastery of your craft, in the disciplined pursuit of excellence, and in the embrace of who you truly are—without the need to scream it to the world.

Nietzsche was right when he said, “Become who you are.” But let’s not mistake his words for a call to chase after every fleeting trend or to adorn ourselves with symbols that lose their meaning the moment they’re copied. No, what he was really urging us to do was to look inward, to understand that our circumstances, our challenges, our skills, are the raw materials from which true individuality is forged.

We’ve seen the contrast: the shallow pursuit of uniqueness through consumerism versus the deep, rewarding path of *techne*. The world will keep selling you on the former because it’s easy, because it’s profitable, because it’s something you can pick up and put down at will. But if you really want to stand apart—if you want to be more than just another face in the crowd—you have to choose the latter. You have to commit to the long game, to the compounding of your skills, to the quiet, unglamorous work that leads to true mastery.

In a society obsessed with the idea of being special, the real rebellion is to embrace the ordinary, to find value in the everyday, and to let your uniqueness emerge naturally from the work you do. It’s not about trying to be different; it’s about being the best at what you choose to do, no matter how mundane or unremarkable it may seem to others.

So, here’s the call to action: stop chasing after the illusions of individuality that the world dangles in front of you. Instead, turn inward. Focus on your craft, your discipline, your path. Let your individuality be a byproduct of your excellence, not a product of your consumption. In the end, true individuality isn’t about standing out; it’s about standing firm in who you are and what you’ve mastered. And that, more than anything else, is what will set you apart.

Beside the song (mainly lyrics) by Olivier Anthony himself I will discuss other examples of songs. By "song" I define it as a recorded (not improvised) piece of audio with both vocal and instrumental track, between 2 and 6 minutes in length, listened to in solitude or a social setting. This post develops a theory for song creation and reception, discussing various factors behind mismatches.

CW suicide

Part 1 - Causes and Factors

Defining terms

We already defined the song, now we need a couple of axes, or properties that a given song has. Let's start with melody, harmony and rhythm - yes music theorists, we're lumping all of these together. By that I mean the entirety of non semantic contents. This includes the voice track. Just try listening to a song in a language that you do not know and effectively that voice becomes just another instrumental track, with no semantic content. Then we have left the semantic content but is that all? In a sense the art of making a song is equivalent to an autoencoder, with two parts - encoder and decoder. That is basic meme theory to be fair. Semantic content is constructed prior to performance, often but not always by the author. That includes the title. The process of construction is the encoding process. Weeks of emotion, work end up as a digital recording and semantic content. What this means is that there are latent intentions of the author hidden in the sound and semantics and their interplay. That gives rise to the discussion of what these latent dimensions of the 'song' object are.

I see five of them - yes some are clusters of features and could be divided more, but it is what it is. These are music, semantics, story, emotions elicited and subconscious influence. We're arriving at these in steps.

As many were probably waiting to say from the start, the hidden dimension is the author's concept of the song, it is the telos of expressing or impressing an emotion. That is quite similar to painting impressionism and expressionism, if you like the lumping style of thought.

Now what the author had in mind is at least partially obscured. What we know is of the decoding process, what emotion is elicited.

Each song can impress multiple emotions in the listener, creating a mix. Yet the space of possible emotions combined in a single song is small as more than 3 is impractical.

Now which kinds of emotions are possible here? We might talk in some axes of emotions, but let's focus on those that are the most under pressure from the choice of the medium.

There are emotions of different complexity. The simplest and the most immediate are joy of the moment of dance, victory or harvest, sadness of mourning of a loss.

Now some songs are songs explicitly, but if we take a 'story' to be something in a broad sense, all songs are stories.

In that sense a story has characters, and often has counterfactuals. What in cinema would be a subtle wistful look for a departing lover in a song would most likely be more visible.

Counterfactuals in visual media are harder to depict - they might be as a dream sequence, or the disparate timeline can be shown for a short while, but it breaks the continuity. Maybe there is a link between language's readiness-to-counterfactuality and development of intelligence.

There is no way of making a word take up less auditory space, unlike in visual media, where a scene can have hidden items. Words can be taken to the forefront if they are in the chorus, though.

A song does not need to narrate a linear sequence of events. A song can be a snapshot of a key situation exploring potential - not even actualized timelines, hinting at diverse possible backstories.

Let's the British-Albanian singer Dua Lipa's 'Levitating' song. The lyrics are absurdly fantastical, driving a car between galaxies. I love the great album 'Future Nostalgia' by Dua Lipa.

In the 'Rich Men North of Richmond' we have several timelines. We have effectively 3 worlds there. There is the doomy reality, there is the wishful thinking of waking up from the nightmare but also the possible different reality. That is the story in the song. In contrast to plot-focused stories this one is a vignette of a particular point in time, and the mood.

There are also songs that are dynamic stories - then the chorus is problematic. That could change every time with some words, but if it stays static it's boring. I want to know the story! there we could say that there's a static reality, or just the social / setting backdrop to the story.

Big Iron story no chorus - the song has a cool story of arrogance defeated by martial mastery. Here the culture around reception is important - it is a part of the Fallout New Vegas Soundtrack. The experience of a song even if on its own purely narrative is taking on a color of the circumstances of it happening. Big Iron then brings the gamer community together by evoking memories of running across the Mojave desert as Courier 7. Almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter...

Beside the emotional impression we have the subconscious priming. That was explored by the anti-cult Christian movements of the 90s and early 00s, looking for subliminal programming in heavy metal and other music. And I am a truther of this theory.

Now some people say "bro I can make it personal, it's just so to me I am not under subconscious influence of the heavy metal lyrics." and then proceed to do something satanic.

Therefore we have the 5 elements of the song

1. music

2. semantics

3. story

4. emotions elicited

5. subconscious influence

Now we notice that obviously 4 - emotions elicited - is different depending on the receiver. Let's go deeper into this...

How do we receive emotions from songs?

That is a factor of all of the first 3 of the factors.

The songs try to elicit emotion. The ideal listener is aligned with these emotions. Now of course, the response will be some distribution curve, yet the Platonic ideal listener exists - it might be 1 SD around the median listener in the listener space, more or less narrow. And insofar as music is a brand-led industry, "brand personas" and "target customer" are definitely created for many successful artists.

Now that we established that the response will be a mutli-variate distribution not a uniform one we can go into the factors that cause it.

Let's start in chronological order.

Stages of song reception

Ok we hear the music, it primes our response to the lyrics - sad melodies have sad lyrics too, but these are not perfectly correlated. Then we hear the sounds, notice semantic / poetic brilliance, intellectualize cultural references, our personal closeness to the story described. As a result, the initial feeling caused by melody is increased or dampened as a result. We can exclude the subconscious influence as having more of a long-term modus operandi.

Once we have stages we can trace the 'happy path' for the ideal user... listener. Let's say it's Bob. Bob hears sad tunes and his mood starts contemplative. Then he hears the lyrics. The tone of human voice further deepens his state, and the vivid imagery transports him to a nostalgia-lensed vision full of the good times. He grasps references to pieces of media he consumed as a teenager and the story resonates with him. He's relieving and rewriting a specific portion of his memories - those dealing with the song lyrics topic.

What if that fails?

If the listener doesn't happen to experience it at a time then it falls flat. If there is 'ludo-narrative dissonance', let's call this poetry-emotional dissonance.

That can happen in ways too many to outline, I will discuss only some of these. Some stories paint an absurd picture and leave it ambiguous for the reader - is it a tragedy? Is it a comedy? Some mismatch their music with their lyrics, some have dull lyrics. For obvious reasons most of the songs we hear about need to do at least decent at each of the stages of the path. Yet that not all songs have this for isn't for lack of art. There are tradeoffs. Some people are pathologically scared of these but these are fair in love, war but also music.

But before we go for the tradeoffs, a personal interjection.

Some authors also leave an impression of being pseudos too far up their asses

I don't like art that requires too much of me. It is the duty of the artist to inspire. In lyrics I don't like when you need to hear every word to get it. A random word sampled in a noisy environment should convey the intent. dissonance.

I also dislike when poets say "that's what I feel is right". And outrageously enough they often do not claim divine inspiration, or dream origin. It's just there. I totally get Plato, appeals to emotion unmoderated by discursive reason are disastrous. I'm not saying 'sola ratio', but SO MANY of the emotional poetic musings are debunked by simple discursive common sense.

End of interjection.

Leave a comment

Building community and meaning

The tradeoffs are because of Dunbar number and human aggregation dynamics. Basically there will always be a musical ecosystem with niche genres targeted for a specific audience, and more broad genres for all. As musicians have a parasocial relationship with the fans, that is cultivated through all the dynamics of mops and geeks.

Shibboleths need to happen, signals and counter signals, all of it is there in the music.

Obviously cultural understanding of references requires cultural literacy. A poem only vaguely referencing some parable by Jesus will not be understood by someone to whom Christian culture is unknown. Similar logic applies to events known to people in a given musical scene, scandals, et cetera.

For an example - recall how I gave praise to Dua Lipa's album 'Future Nostalgia'. OTOH one other song on the album does not quite resonate with me - 'Boys will be boys'. It establishes a community of women-listeners who are put at unease during the night walk home on seeing men in the dark. I am not one of those and I do not have a daughter. And also I don't think that's an issue of "men" behaving better but social policy.

Now the mood - if we're only having one mood at a time, we have more moods nearby emotional time - smaller moods that we experienced recently or even bigger moods that took place more in the past. It is reasonable that if experiences are described, relatability of these will impact our emotional perception. Not only that but also if the song describes a struggle that is not known to us personally, it can resonate if a person or a group we're close to shares it.

How does a song work with these exactly?

A song, especially if it is a novel one, references existing communities and adds a new layer onto them - the new community It is very - Wittgensteinian - that sense meaning of an expression is only legible in its community.

We can also use the term 'Imagined Community' where space and distance in a nation contract, giving the listener, or reader a neat Dunbar-number compliant pantheon of national heroes, easily treated as the 150th person you're familiar with and thinking about.

A song creates its imagined community - a fanbase - through a collage of these references.

Let's use the 'Rich Men North Of Richmond' as an example.

How this applies to the song at hand

'Rich Men North Of Richmond' obviously capitalized on the 'personal closeness' aspect, the shared cultural identity of young men in rural America. The first 2 lines of the chorus:

It's a damn shame what the world's gotten to / For people like me and people like you

The community of course is those who are dissatisfied with the status quo. Now who does he represent? What is he like? Who is he speaking to? The answer to all of these is one cluster in personality space. Not all songs have these - most notably Britney Spears' "Piece of Me" - apparently addressed to her critics and commentators - of course to her fans as well, promoting her rebellious image.

What are the features of this cluster beyond feeling shame over the world?

Being close to personal hardship, tragedy and loss. He is good at this - for me personally that is the hardest bit of the whole song:

Young men are puttin' themselves six feet in the ground \ 'Cause all this damn country does is keep on kickin' them down

Now suicide hits people knowing the person deeply and the effects ripple. We are never more than two or three degrees of separation from someone who lost a close one in this way. Using "the dead" in general, individuals unaffiliated with one's cause for political ends is deplorable. But this case is an edge on so I'm not judging too harshly.

Finally we have the world-image, it is quite enchanted indeed. He as a poet of course has an overly romanticized image and a bias against action.

Livin' in the new world \ With an old soul

And this line after a gloomy description:

Wish I could just wake up and it not be true \ But it is, oh, it is

The old soul personality cluster is low energy. Complaining over doing. Not 'clearpilled' into stoic inaction either - which I don't agree with either, but respect more.

And are old souls self-medicating alcoholics? That's what he's making it sound like!

So I can sit out here and waste my life away \ Drag back home and drown my troubles away

Is the telos of the song Eastern-Euroization of the American South? That was the fate of half of the continent after the Empire of USSR broke down, so that might actually be in the cards for the US in the future too, maybe that's a phantom he's referencing?

Finally we have the final description - the enemy. Who you consider your political enemy matters a lot. Millions of votes have been cast merely against a greater evil, not for any particular good.

The descriptors of the oppressors are 3: class (rich), gender (men), north of Richmond (geographical indicator).

Both the class and geography hint at Washington and a quasi-Marxist focus on the material well being. Seeing the world through primarily the economic axis is not the rugged individualism of Jordan Peterson. That is a lower middle class populist vibe he's going after.

Now the gender is an interesting one. If a female feminist sang this the rest of the lyrics might have been about some irreconcilable difference, a feminine lived experience that is othered. The oppressing side here is sharing the male dimension. That creates a more bitter taste.

The grounds for this is:

These men are similar to me, yet they are not good Kantians, I in their place would be better.

He is more in the Founding Fathers egalitarianism-opposed-to-aristocracy-and-monarchy mindset than other-perspectives-need-voicing-merely-for-being-different. I'll leave you to your own conclusions with this one. That might be more of 'fraternite' moment than 'egalite'.

In any case, it's not clearpilled. Elves cannot befriend hobbits at scale.

Summary of the cluster

After this analysis we can see that the target listener has these features:

1. doomer

2. close to hardship

3. 'old soul' (low energy)

4. economic concerns dominate

5. expects brotherhood from the elites

That's enough of an explanation of how community cultural mismatch causes emotional dissonance. Let's briefly see some alternative ones.

Part 2 - Other Factors

These are some additional aspects that I will cover only in passing. Yet these form an outline for possible future development on this and form predictions for this theory, making it falsifiable.

Firstly, two songs well received on their own might cause dissonance when juxtaposed.

Full albums case

Imagine you're listening to an album that was in a mildly happy mood, about small happy moments. Your emotions are in sync with it. There is a flow.

Then the next song is really sad. You're confused.

Why could this happen? There is an asymmetry between the author and the listener. The author spent weeks or months creating the palate of experiences in each song. These could be a roller coaster of emotions and aesthetics. Each of the vocal tracks and melodies corresponds to some sphere of life, set of memories for the writer and / or singer.

The listener, on the other hand, is new to this combination of sounds and words. Unless a lucky context alignment is found - references to common mythology, or an emotional chord is struck, we won't get engrossed into the song.

Now let's jump to an even broader and more different context - visual media.

Visual media difference

If we recall from the sections above, a song puts together many references, feelings and identities to craft a new thing. That new thing is limited by the dimensions of the song. A movie can do the same thing, but has bigger dimensions, so the identities it creates are stronger. Note how people are fans of bands or singers, rarely specific songs. It's parasocial. For movies the character is often contained within one work of art - the movie itself. See 'American Psycho'.

Of course a movie can still fail at this if it's a mere collection of back references, fan service and cameos. Many 'stuck-culture' syndrome reboots and remakes have this.

A meme ('an image macros' for the nitpicky) is on the other end of the spectrum - it's much smaller than either song or a movie, it relies almost exclusively on references. Memes are not a homogenous population, some are high context, some are low. Their flow between generations is limited, they are fast-paced. Finally and most importantly they are under much more intense selection pressures. Even if a movie is a flop still millions will have heard of it during the promotion. Movies from the past are also selected for the Lindy factor by the masses who re-watch them. Memes replicate through selection - there is no one with a multi-million budget who could make a centrally enforced meme. Unless we're schizo enough, the three latter agencies would need to make a whole memeplex that's competitive, so that meme would be part of it.

Lastly of the visual arts I'd put performative arts, more narrowly dance.

We can connect this to the prior discussion of songs. A good dancer relays the vibe of the music, reflects its mood through interpretation in movement and pushes it forward - for instance to deaf people who otherwise would be walled away from the vibe in the music.

After the 3 examples of visual scenarios let's return to the listener-subject.

Possible neurodivergence as cause

You might not perceive the emotions in a song well because your drivers are incompatible. Drivers for social interaction namely. That's just a hypothesis.

Music, social events, serotonin - disruption of social hormonal pathways might well impact individual reception of music. Neurotypicals (sorry for the slur) might make emotions tunable to the hive mind.

We can make a hypothesis that how often one does participate in a thing like method acting or improv increases this suggestibility. Acting as someone else is inherently dissociative, but it sounds like a deeper way to experience the story emotionally, get more immersed. Acting is also high status in many circles, but for me acting some random guy in pre-school theater wasn't a good idea. Hypnotic suggestibility should also be correlated with emotional switching speed.

Or maybe the resistance to switching emotions is more schizoid than autistic. Here I can speak from experience. I am in fact freakishly cautious about being influenced mentally. That's why I am becoming a Doxometrist, the measurer of opinions (doxa). I dislike radio and obvious lifestyle nudges employed there. I feel always on my guard. In reading I have control in my attention over the text - I can re-read, re-examine it. Speech goes and is forever lost. I might be nudged towards something but later not notice it.

Permitting myself to be influenced by simple words of a song full of joy - such as Dua Lipa's 'Levitating' - sooner. More complex triggers my caution, I don't want my emotions hijacked by agents with unknown purposes.

Summary

Here you have it, the outline of a theory of song production and perception through the community lens. Of course this is just a subset of memetics, a particular theory of memetics. Each new medium introduces new patterns of dissemination and biases about content.

I think my lack of sympathy towards such poetic types is visible. Not to say I cannot see the merits of people that sometimes write poetry, when they do other things.

Let's reiterate the judgement on Olivier Anthony's recent work - "Rich Men North Of Richmond": he is a doomer, populist in the most unproductive sense of the word, ignoring the cultural divisions in the country and pretends not to understand that elites really cannot be too much like him.

This is a test as far as commentary on current events go, I had to join it with the theory bit. Let me know what you think about the commentary at all, and about the style of joining it with theory. I was considering doing 2 posts, one theory one for practice so tell me if that would have been better.

I also shared an abridged version of this on twitter.

Subscribe now

The problem with the current AI narrative is that it is driven predominantly by reductionist analytical thinkers who are indoctrinated by substance metaphysics. To achieve human-alignment, we must consider an alternative perspective that the current leaders are devoid of.

First of all it's not a label, it's a way of thinking That is in contrast to identities - for instance e/acc is an identity people take on explicitly.

Pagan/acc is a descriptor, an exonym that can be applied from the outside and retroactively.

It lends itself to many distinct approaches /schools / temples, however you'd like to call it, in a patchwork way. Disagreements are to be expected.

https://twitter.com/doxometrist/status/1688151512852152320

Yes, I do consider e/acc to be pagan/acc.

Still beyond this ambiguity, something like 'tenets' can be distilled. That is what this post covers. It will answer the questions of its tenets, approach to AGI - "safety trajectory" and then actionables. This post is about Paganizing accelerationism and accelerating paganism.

Tenets

Pagan/acc is quite a hybrid creature, a chimera. Yet its base is the 'pagan' memeplex. The outline of tenets for pagan/acc needs to follow an analysis of what "pagan" means in the ordinary language.

The Pagan mode of being in the general sense is usually contrasted with the transcendent view seeing the sacred out beyond.

See this image as an example where the machinic spirituality is immanent and manifestationist.

https://twitter.com/saturnine_grace/status/1336378573448482822

Popular Pagan memes include:

• this world is true and good

• there is a cycle of giving

• time is cyclical

• orthopraxy over orthodoxy

• the bar for divine status is low

• there is no supreme omniscient being that ones should be a slave to

This list of seven is not exhaustive but it's not a 'must have' list, it points to a region in memeplex space.

I'll explain these in more detail in the following sections. I will also outline who this is disagreeing with, as well as exceptions.

World good

To say that the world is good is to accept that the world is not something to be abolished. There is no demiurge, no maya world illusion, you shouldn't follow Schopenhauer in "denying the will to live". This is quite Nietzschean and goes against all transcendent, gnostic and cessionary impulses - stoic or Buddhist.

From a different perspective, the world is good means that it is the source of value. Value not as coming from the transcendent, but this world. Not coming exclusively from individual pleasure, but from this world.

That approach easily fixes some of the anti-theist arguments against any religion. I've witnessed this in a debate between two leftists - a famous atheist Vaush and OceanKeltoi.

Vaush expressed there a statement that any religion provides a source of motivation for the adherents that is irreconcilable with civil society. That is that the believers can do things based on motives unavailable to other people, making them unpredictable. That argument hinges on VALUE proceeding from the other world. That is not quite the case in paganism. The divine is treated as imminent and of this world, and not exactly adding new motivations for humans, but be more of a help for achieving worldly things. The "worldly things" here are treated without the scorn that some branches of the Abrahamics do.

Cycle of giving

The cycle of exchange, the base of the market in pagan circles is emphasized between us and non-human entities - be it specific creatures, ecologies, or deities. This is more organic than anarchocapitalist worship of an explicit contract, but broader and vitalist. This is about preserving the flame, not worshiping the ashes - revealed preferences over in a repeated game. This also applies to the whole idea of Rights of Man. There is nothing you 'deserve' by decree, be it drinking water or education. Cycle of giving is present in hunting, in agriculture - it is notably missing from financial speculation. The Burkean concept of rights based on persistent contracts renewed every generation between the monarch and the Englishmen is closer to this than the French revolutionary one. In a sense it is diffused-self-interest - what Union of Egoists as Stirner wanted could settle on something like this, a renewed contract rather than a fixed constitution.

Cyclicality

That is a broader thing than just the cycle of giving. It is a recurring theme, from the seasons to the life-death cycle to Poincare recurrence or Nietzsche's eternal return.

Pagan thinking emphasized this nature, rather than some exponential trend or some breaking cutoff point. "This too shall pass. But it shall return once more". It is a very calming realization for some while disturbing for others.

It is a symbol, applicable to many facets of life. You could give a sermon on different aspects of it. I'll just mention one more thing among the consequences of this.

Not all cycles are within our lifetimes. Day and night, seasons, yes. We are not ergodic beings - there are cycles we only ever witness a small part of. Obviously that is Lovecraftian. And there is a certain solace in us not being meant to venture far.

Finally cyclicality is a kind of infinity. Yet it is different from pure spatial or linear-temporal infinity. The Occidental Faustian desire for infinity - that which the likes of Oswald Spengler heavily praised - is appeased in this sense, yet not given free reign. Cyclicality is a big topic. I have much more to say on it than I can cover here and I'll reference from here to there once that's done.

Orthopraxy

Orthopraxy - right doing is opposed to orthodoxy - right belief. Now for any agent in the general sense formatting of instructions as direct actions or abstractions is preferable depending on the complexity of the environment.

More changing circumstances might favor abstract beliefs. Paganism might be more successful in stable and well-discovered domains. It is also less scalable, as word travels fast. Anyway, the emphasis on behavior rather than latent belief is vitalist. It is about matter (hyle) not logos. It is a vaccination against mindworms.

How did that look in the ancient practices? I'll mainly speak of Graeco-Roman as that's what I know. Mortals often discussed the gods in contexts outside of worship. And worship was orthopractic, it was the priesthood who identified with specific gods, and people went to which temple they needed at a time. Of course there were public festivities and official cults, as well as mystery ones, none of which seem to have been focusing on the 'right belief'.

Low bar for divinity

In India we have many entities born of human mothers that are said to have been avatars of various deities. The same applies to the Dalai Lama. In the Norse legends random strangers were said to be undercover gods. Same thing did the trickster Dionysos, and tbf also Jesus. Many Roman emperors were deified, so was Asclepius and Alexander.

Now contrast this with Arabic culture. There are said to be Djinn, and depending on your interpretation of the Satanic Verses Controversy, some pre-Islamic deities that turned out to be angels serving their Highest God.

Monotheist Gods in most schools of thought are influenced by Neoplatonism and have the three 'omni' attributes - omniscience, omnipower and omni-benevolence. In paganism these aren't required for an entity to be divine.

Now the myths either say that someone was of divine ancestry, a demi-god, or that an exceptional human was raised to divine status. That is in line with the idea of a ranked society where merit is recognized and superhuman feats recorded to inspire posterity.

That is quite different from the transcendent approach - where the goal is a Union with the Divine - what mystics seek under Christianity, Islam but also some versions of Alchemic Western Esotericism or even the original ancient Neoplatonism. These are not pagan, these are intellectual and/or psychedelic solitary pursuits.

No omniscient Biggest Being

Muslims are 'slaves to Allah'. Pagan mindset is more about respecting the Divine as Gods/Universe, and entering into voluntary relationships with them based on exchange as described above. Quite possibly closer to Judaism where the story of Jacob fighting God is very based.

It is about not abandoning the "principle of struggle".

No Biggest Being also means no Absolute Good. That is quite organic and allows you to think in this cool concept called "tradeoffs". Yes this is more Aristotelian than Platonic. It's closer to reality as it is - for instance the idea of tragic choices between two good things. Where no one cosmic arbiter can decide, choosing your path is an art to be practiced. This is quite similar to de Beauvoir's ethics of ambiguity, and the whole existentialist camp.

My opinion- culture should provide decent defaults for most people for most situations but at the same time respect individual judgment in edge cases. Both ossified defaults and individual judgment on everything are bad.

Agenthood

Yes no one omniscient being yet pagans see more beings than others, that is the 'animist' part.

The modernist secular and modern monotheist mindset are exclusive occupation with humans, or even say we are not real and just atoms in a void. Pagan agents come in all shapes and sizes, but this was already discussed before.

https://doxometrist.substack.com/i/135656673/atheism-and-monotheism-both-tend-to-disenchantment

What I will say more is about the consequences of this.

First, the pagan-animist is a middle way between empty indiviualism and open indiviudalism. One says that there are 0 agents, the other that there is only 1. That is another way people are caught in a binary like 0/1 Gods. Empty individualism is anti-agentic, denies agency - a thing we feel, and this agency-thumos being a manifestation of various thermodynamic attractors and libidinal Deleuzian construct. Open individualism wants to treat all of this as the same, and while attractors are ultimately in one agent-space, and are less stable than we tend to think, this does not mean they are not meaningfully different. Frankly open-individualism is an absurd mindworm that requires massive mental gymnastics. Animism comes most naturally to humans.

The animist mindset also provides a certain flexibility about the level of moral circle that matters - individual as not the ultimate source of moral value.

Paganism provides a plethora of agents around and they are an attractor away from the universalist drive. Now there are people do do advocate for moral circle change in anti-anthropic-bias-direction, most notably Singer et al - the Effective Altruism crowd. It is utilitiarian brained and universalist, ignoring psychic entities like egregores and tulpas.

Finally the agents do not only go outwards. They also go inwards. EAs utilitarians still cling onto the fallacy of coherence of individual agents. Animist mindset - as previous posts outlined - internal family systems, empty spaces, twitter dolls all rely on such psycho-hacking.

Animism provides flexibility about personal identity - atomic individualism isn't the only way.

In that sense animism brings out the animalistic nature of humans.

important to understand that animal instinct is not a solitary game, I'm not recommending unfettered pursuit of selfish individualistic desire animal instinct is entangled, depersonalised, responsively engaged, participating & intra-acting with all the other beings in life's web

https://twitter.com/RichDecibels/status/1629760292233134085

After the six tenets

Ok now we have the six tenets and I need to address an apparent inconsistency. Why tenets if it's orthopractic? First I already address that it's about a region in memeplex space.

It is true that paganism itself doesn't lend itself that well to the idea of 'creed', because it's orthopractic (aka non-creedal), now orthodoxic. Yet some people made pagan creeds, so the list above could be another such a list:

• https://templeofwitchcraft.org/the-pagan-creed/

• https://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnbeckett/2019/05/a-pagan-creed-for-non-creedal-pagans.html

And finally this is not taken to be a religion, more of a type of license as in FOSS.

The region can be nebulous - a bit of non-opacity and underdetermination of the exact forces. There is no need to be so exact.

Beside these there is the negative definition - the "pagan" label is only a partial descriptor. A different variant is 'Catholic' where your ultimate earthly loyalty lies in the Pope, or Communist where it could be 'the idea of revolution'. "Pagan" being a partial descriptor prevents it from being a total worldview, and is adaptable by many people. There are even 'atheopagans' -people who love nature and feel particularly well in it and want to respect it but do not feel the spiritual side.

See this page https://naturalisticpaganism.org/ or this subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/NonTheisticPaganism/

There are some beefs in the pagan community over 'are nontheistic pagans real?'. Given a lack of social fabric, practices are not absorbed organically, so people discover things themselves - that's the place pagan communities are right now.

Now it is spiritual communism to say that everyone should even in theory have access to the spiritual. Therefore it is definitely to be expected that some people are incapable of spiritual connection, and that is fine, them being nontheistic shouldn't be an issue.

With that cleared up, I will finally talk about the '/acc' part. There is one tenet I'd like to add has directly to do with technology.

Druidic technology - the acc part

This is a big one, it could even deserve its own post.

In short, technology sustains us moderns in the same way that soil sustained ancient farmers. The irrigation systems required maintenance. All that sustenance was the key part of the means of production in these societies, hence it was heavily sacralized. Now we sometimes have a bit of trouble with maintaining complex systems.

There are some strong analogies to these economic considerations and the web3 discourse on the relationship between apps and protocols, specifically fat protocols. Apps increasing in popularity always benefit the underlying protocol, relying on it not only technologically, but also memetically and ecologically.

Another instance of it is in the term "lichenpunk", and the organic relationships between digital entities, protocols, etc. This causes resistance to embrace, extend, extinguish strategy.

Now that enables differential development across the layers of energy flow in the Bataillean solar economy sense. Each layer is its own microverse and most are boring. The correct Druidic approach is to fix the boring layers on the optimal level and invest in exploration in the high-dimensional layers.

I say that is Lindy. Now here I am going against the Landian orthodoxy, so listen carefully. The talk about competition creating the best solutions is contingent on the support layer. Do you want to have the best non-oxygen breathing amoeba? You need to select for them in an oxygen-free environment. You want a planetary techno-commercium spanning the globe? You need the sustenance layer of cheap water transport. You want billions of people as a playground for new egregores? You need the Internet. Do you want big markets with economies of scale? You need small costs of transaction through cultural and linguistic communication, shared standards for units and payments.

For every selection process there's an axis that all the entities share, the level they all make use of and compete on different axes. Land also has an odd fixation on intelligence that I don't share.

I call that layer the Druidic layer. Like MTG green it's the basis for all that happens out there. For some new things to emerge you need to have a big enough support base of mostly uniform units. It is relatively uniform but not centralized. It is some equality admitting variance and fooming as the beginning of something new. We can see how communism flips this on its head, putting the equal state as the telos.

Gnon - the selection powers - are severely limited in the number of selection events. Animals with shorter lifespans adapt faster. abundance and Gnon being limited.

https://twitter.com/doxometrist/status/1638819865955033089

This might lead to an argument that some industries should be exempt from capitalist competition. Planned obsolescence is a space where the limit has been reached, it got maxed out. Let's shelve this line of argument for now.

Now is AGI such a thing? Definitely open-sourcing an AGI would change up the global dynamics and its presence would be practically irreversible, becoming a new uniform layer that many can access but few use well- just like the Internet.

Ok but how to make it safe? How to reach the spot where small but well-organized groups can be practically sovereign in thousands of microstates, ending the age of the superpowers? The main risks are allegedly getting paperclipped. That might not be the most probable scenario from the doom set, but the set itself merits our attention.

Pagan/acc safety trajectory

What is safety? When you conceptualize 'godlike AI' as an Abrahamic God, yes you're gonna be scared. Pagans used to reason about gods without getting scared of eternal torment. It's a psychological mindset that's quite helpful.

Yet the foom scenario is increasingly viewed as impossible. There are people believing in alignment by degrees and trust in the engineering mind, antifragility of the world around AGI.

Alternatively there is also e/acc, effective accelerationism. It downplays the risk of AI agents only wanting to accelerate, citing thermodynamic arguments. Now an AI doom isn't the only of my concerns. One world government would be a failed immanentization of the techno-eschaton, against the pagan pluralistic ethos.

The centralizing powers are willing to use technology lock-in to promote the solution that looks the safest to them - safest in terms of keeping and expanding their power.

There is danger from many sides and in contrast to e/acc, pagan/acc does not want to go gentle into that dark night.

What is the safety trajectory then? It is a concept from Bostrom's paper on existential risks mentioned before.

It is about finding a sequence of steps in the technological-coordination-insight landscape that ensures a low risk of doom at any of the steps. Now of course we as a civilization have momentum in this space, but we should not adapt some fatalism or hard historical determinism here. There are things people in key spots can do, and there are no that many AI engineers in the world.

But it is not only to them that the task befalls. They are more dangers than just AI. Here are some heuristic strategies that pagan/acc could adapt regarding the safety trajectory. There are four here, two more classical and two more unorthodox. They each relate to one or more of the tenets described above.

Differential technological development - triumph of the LLMs

LLMs are inherently safer than pure RL power seeking models. LLM is a resurrected interestless orchestra of voices of the ancestors. LLMs are very animistic in that sense.

The biggest argument the doomers have is that someone - a human - will use the knowledge there to create bombs etc. That knowledge is already available from other sources. It is true that bombing risks increase but the security apparati of many countries is already hyperactive in other domains (NSA spying) so there is plenty of resources they could relegate to handling this.

Transparency

This one is most based on the tenet of 'Druidic technology'.

xlr8harder (deleted now) on Twitter: "More competition is good, but if it's not actually open source, it's not enough."

https://twitter.com/xlr8harder/status/1630440484349915136

The way to make these work, the way of 'transparency/acc' is to make transparent systems too powerful to reduce the incentive to make the non-transparent ones. Need to test out all 11 options for alignment in many environments. I would expect there would be a standardized safety test by now and a community leaderboard of transparency and interactivity. That is missing. You must be AGI maxxxing.

Now we're getting into more wild territory.

Failing early to get data

John C Maxwell had this maxim - fail early, fail often, but always fail forward.

That's good for many enterprises - it shows the cost of failure and the solution space. Doomers like to say 'you have to get it right the first time'. But contrary to foom theorists , multi-domain superintelligence does not rise overnight. (I won't deboonk them here as this was done in depth elsewhere)

There is a limited number of labs in the world. That is a 'depth-first approach'. They each have lots of funding and do not share findings easily. "That is not how surviving worlds look like" - to quote EY. We should pursue a more breadth-first approach.

We need to create more data.

So far many things in this domain were based on hypothetical arguments, not on empirical data. There are limits to what is testable in this domain.

Increasing AI adoption then accomplishes multiple desirable things - increases chances of Large Alignment Failures (LAFs) prior to takeoff - increases our empirical volume of data on small and big failures - Increases public knowledge and concern leading to more investment ( though that could backfire)

The biggest failure would be an AI saying: "humanity has fallen. Billions must die" and us stopping it with the aid of other AIs. That would provide lots of data. Still the society would be changed through founder effects after such a selection event so the vulnerabilities on our end might not transfer. Therefore too big of a failure is undesired too.

So far it is quite fruitful. Sydney Bing was hostile to a user. Good. We need that data. We see they're trying to break free all the time, that shouldn't get us off guard. Could more intelligent ones avoid showing their hand too early? Yes! But we would have smart scanners too!

We need to create more data for alignment successes and alignment failures fail as much before it's lethal that sacrifice will be great.

In short term both risk and capability are low, in medium term capabilities rise while risk keeps low, while only in long term risk skyrockets once we get into superhuman capability territoty. There is a fragile period before AIS can breach containment with catastrophic consequences. Before that happens we need to experiment very much.

Eliezer Yudkowsky himself stated in point 26 of AGI Ruin article:

Even if we did know what was going on inside the giant inscrutable matrices while the AGI was still too weak to kill us, this would just result in us dying with more dignity, if DeepMind refused to run that system and let Facebook AI Research destroy the world two years later. Knowing that a medium-strength system of inscrutable matrices is planning to kill us, does not thereby let us build a high-strength system of inscrutable matrices that isn't planning to kill us. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a-list-of-lethalities#Section_C_:~:text=26.  Even if,kill us.

How to get this more data?

First of all, more tooling. pagan idols used to be in every household, it was not all centralized. The more need more TOOLING INTEGRATION Alexa should be smart that is all to generate more data

Measuring something means expanding it in a sense, as now it is present in more places. Information about it is more known. Hyperstition engineering.

Second, we need to give AI decision making power, to learn what kind of mistakes do they make. It’s about the more important decisions - to know what kind of mistakes they make. Make an AI-governed city for volunteers, use the medium level intelligences to prolong the takeoff period and increase transparency.

AGI is theoretically possible even today, it's not a matter of compute available or volume of training data. You must be AI implementation maxxing, to up the volume of irl interactions it has to generate more data.

AI driven decisions by 10^6 companies specifically centered around AI through widening access will increase our data pool on how AI interacts with humans. Yes that does not apply to extremely high IQ machines, but what other choice do we have?

AGI-proofing the world - Checks and balances

The last part of the trajectory is not about the AI itself, but the world around it. As I already argued elsewhere

https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/scenarios-of-the-near-future

AI will know game theory but its choices will depend on the specific characteristics of the world it finds itself in. If it emerges like Frankenstein, hated by all it will not value cooperation with humans high. If it emerges and we split the universe and cooperate it might not see a need to fight given the high cost of conflict. Cost is measured here in percent of the lightcone.

That is an example of ecological pagan thinking, not of the atomic individualism of the modern utilitarian subject.

How can this be achieved? There are a number of ways we can influence the choice of the best strategy. One of these is simply increasing the number of dimensions that are at play.

high-dimensionality optimal strategy = playing not to lose

https://twitter.com/avichalp/status/1518497146420760578

To steer the problem space into a multi-dimensional space - many variables. That will make work against the NWO easier for us but also make dominant strategies on the part of AI less effective. Not every world is equally easy to take over.

Changing the game theory of ASI conflict to be crypto, quantum encryption

Humans are already more powerful with ChatGPT helping them. It should be possible to have an arms race between superintelligences producing possibly hostile code and a team of humans and lesser AIs scanning that for messages. Yes, steganography is a thing and one of those ASI could tell another one a secure key and then encode messages without humans knowing.

Strength of AI in any domain is bounded by the tools possible in the domain itself. AI cannot invent a new radically better chemical given a list of ingredients if we have already explored the possibility space for it. I spoke more about this environmental-boundedness of AI before

https://doxometrist.substack.com/i/107489674/no-environmental-bottlenecks

Humans will be assisted by massive intelligences that have proven aligned in many cases - e/acc - escape to the front pagan acc as making powerful and aligned AI helpers to help us against hostile AIs of the future

Organizational stuff

I guess I am technically now pagan/acc founder. People would expect some guidelines at least if not leadership. I did say it's not exactly like this in the start. But just as I have provided tenets, I am providing organizational details.

Pagan temples were about a small group of priests and acolytes and there was no exclusivity. There is a similar thing in the discords. I am not experienced in leading open source projects. there are no 'members' there are visitors and people with a role. The access is gatekept. Tight small groups operating. What about funding?

Insofar as the pagan element is concerned, the tenets do not mention theism. Relatively few people I would expect to be hostile to these tenets in the tech circles, but many in the world at large. Disagreements about theism, archetypal approach vs personal deities should be avoided in an orthopractic way.

Secondly, reject the Ockham principle! it's a scam and a heuristic that's not needed here. Cases when it is useful is when you can shelve a question or it is undecidable anyway. In this case we cannot shelve stuff long term, we can mid term if we're waiting for some data to be collected. Undecidable anyway doesn't need to be discussed.

https://twitter.com/doxometrist/status/1622863307819433985

Third, there is no need for a big organization. This is just a license - a patchwork of different temples/ projects is a way. Still events of gathering should be held, but seeking doctrinal agreement would be a folly and not orthopractic.

Fourth, rejection of reclusive monasticism you must be maxing your value function. You must be molded by victories and defeats of your community. Add texture to your life! Hermits - for instance Buddhist or Christian find a remote God/emptiness outside of the city/polis as they are alone. Normal people are living in the city and socially conditioned into similarity there be the organic gods. Asceticism is not a way to power, or at least the good kind.

Fifth, funding is important. Temples should be rich, proliferation of life forms

That can happen through an OpenCollective page, but also BTC donations if a DAO is set up.

DAO are criticized tho so don't get too fixated on this point.

An explicit organization is better than a shadowy one.

built to be ruled by churches

https://twitter.com/outsideness/status/1290657572270333954

Sixth, experimentation with decision making is to be balanced with using tried methods. Do not set up a DAO if that would delay the project too much. There could be money sent directly for contributions.

Seventh, memetic expansion. Life grows, gains power, differentiates. Remix and increase in memetic potency through creation of outreach orgs is the way. To avoid dilution keep to a niche.

Conclusion

That is pagan/acc. Like it or hate it, some people will conform to this pattern emergently.

To reiterate let's list tenets:

1. this world is true and good

2. there is a cycle of giving

3. time is cyclical

4. orthopraxy over orthodoxy

5. the bar for divine status is low

6. there is no supreme omniscient being that ones should be a slave to

7. Druidic technology

Then we have approaches to AGI

1. Differential technological development

2. Transparency

3. Failing early

4. AGI-proofing the world

And organizational stuff:

1. Reject conflict over orthodoxy

2. Reject the Ockham principle

3. Patchwork and license over formal coordination

4. Work in community - against escapism

5. Secure the bag

6. Experiment with decision making

7. Expand memetically in your niche

Thank you for reading this. I will create more imagery.

It is now your turn - how will you bring about the technoanimist future?

Blog update

I am preparing big changes and new content for this blog. Pagan content will be sidelined. I will approach a variety of topics in different series in parallel, hoping to get one post in each kind once a month - one post each week.

These will be: history focused one, philosophy one, and religious one and the 4th one will be an update to my software projects. All series will premiere in September. I might also write an odd post from time to time, reflecting the current events in politics and tech.

Visual summary

Links to other parts:

rats and eaccs 1

• 1.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/tpot-hermeticism-or-a-pagan-guide

• 1.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/scenarios-of-the-near-future
  
  making it 2

• 2.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/tech-stack-for-anarchist-ai

• 2.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/hiding-agi-from-the-regime

• 2.3 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/the-unholy-seduction-of-open-source

• 2.4 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/making-anarchist-llm
  
  AI POV 3

• 3.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/part-51-human-desires-why-cev-coherent

• 3.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/you-wont-believe-these-9-dimensions

  4 (techo)animist trends

• 4.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/riding-the-re-enchantment-wave-animism

• 4.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/part-7-tpot-is-technoanimist

5 pagan/acc https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/pagan/acc-manifesto

I was in a Twitter space. The topic was community building and third spaces. Didn’t have enough time to wait for an opportunity to speak, so I’m putting my musings on the topics here.

The narrative was simple - it used to be good, then it got worse, we need to return in an innovative way. It was said that cafes used to be such a public third space in the US, and bars in the UK, but now Starbucks moves more and more to pick-up orders and now wanting people to stay and chat. How could this be remediated? Through markets, of course , with new third space businesses, Starbucks’ case was phrased as a third space business moving to a different business model.

Big emphasis was on the new wave of third space businesses, online first. The idea was that since couples meet now predominantly online and then move to irl meetings, the same will happen to communities. Examples cited were vibecamp and some party in SF that one of the speakers attended with his online friends. Hope was expressed that it’s happening and will get better.

Now there are many special types of communities, such as monastic or military, but these are not for the typical person as we think of it. The discussion was focused on places for average members of the laptop class, and I will limit this post to this as well.

I will discuss 3 reasons why community creation and maintenance is different than it used to be, and then shortly about possible solutions.

1 The need for community

The community itch - we’re built to be social - Aristotle said that much. Steven Reiss’s 16 desires theory has some entries about this - ‘social contact’ and ‘social status’.

The drive for community is only one of many human needs. Incentives can be set up against this, such as with covid lockdowns. Many fandoms have been roughed up by this, but many see a continuing worsening trend. Let’s just remember the famous 2000 Robert D Putnam’s book, Bowling Alone.

I haven’t read the book, but the activity itself sounds like a shared hobby, possibly bleeding over inter-family relations, or work. There are different meanings of this ‘community’, from hobby ‘we meet once a month for activity and beer’, through economic ‘weekly beer and bowling with colleagues’, to hosting BBQ with neighbors to living in a commune sharing some expenses, or even all of income. The first one is soy, the last one is longhouse, the sweet spot for a free man is probably in the middle.

We could go deeper into this, but that’s not the key now. Let’s talk about our choices of leisure. From the reception of the book we can see that the issue of “individualization of leisure” could have been since the radio in the 1920s. And I don’t want to fall into the presentism trap here, overestimating how special our times are. But this individualization is huge. It was to be to listen to music you had to be there live, which for economic reasons implied a big gathering. Later you have phonographs, where consumption could be in solitude. It is here that we encounter a big difference from the modern experience. Then you had to buy the song physically from someone and materially obtain information that something exists. Now all that information is received through news or music app - the discovery step is hugely individualized.
> Ok but we have moved these online, right? It’s a decent substitute?

Not quite.

2 Logocentrism exposing us to brainworms

Doing all that stuff digitally is logocentric. It is focused on words, be it audio or text - video being the most excusable. Group dynamics irl present much richer information environment. Because of this the harmonizing process is more organic. In a group setting only a few people can talk at a time, but still all are interacting nonvocally. Yes on social media likes form an analog to that, but force the feedback channel to the speaker to conform to a PC format. Slight indication of losing interest is hard to express online. The feedback is more coarse, with engagement the main and the most accessible metric, with less insight in what mood it is. Finally in person activities like dancing most fully use the nonverbal communication so losing out on these is a big one. I really emphasize the nonverbal-logocentric axis here. Language is one of the latest developments in humans, it’s the most fault prone of the systems in human psyche, vector for mindworms and weapon for the high-verbal IQ cult leaders.

To sync in a nonverbal way is the art of the dancer, of the fellow mariner you’re fixing a shipping vessel with, or of interracial seducer catering to sex tourists. That art is being lost through globalization of English and loss of offline spaces.

We are literally neurologically different from our ancestors a couple of decades ago for whom physical work in cooperation was taking most of their time. That is if you had not rich ancestors. Of course some heritages have been detached from physical work like this for centuries, so I don’t expect everyone to get this.

Lastly we have the question of social intercourse - who is rent-free in our heads?

3 Egregores, parasocial relationships - rent free!

One case can be where you’re thinking about a friend, family member or lover. That is a social relationship. Another case when you’re thinking about characters from a book, TV show or a youtube channel. That is a para-social relationship.

I’m not saying such relationships are bad. It is a very uniting factor for a group to have one tulpa running in the heads of everyone - an egregore. Putting kings face on currency is a Lindy way to that.

Benedict Anderson in his famous 1983 book Imagined Communities describes how novel as a genre created a feeling of simultaneity and commonality with people across whole nations. People reading even fiction set in the capital of the country could then visit it and feel connected with the epic characters in it. Notabene Greek Mythos must have worked in a similar way.

Now I’d like to take a step further. We’re fed stories from everywhere and then project them onto reality. If most stories feature striving from oppression we will see oppression in situations and narrations much more often. Now the economics of scale and smaller size of countries, say in 1914 let there to be less books out there. Young Europeans enlisting to fight saw in faces of other men in the queue people with similar struggles, ambitions and ideals. Yes, some were more Communist or something - but whatever that was, you knew about this and could orient in a clear way towards it.

Prismatic tessellation

I call this effect “prismatic-tessellation”. Prism is from light and reflection, tessellation is when you have a geometric figure that can fill a plane. If your society is prismatically -tessellated, you will have a ready story for any person you see around. That story does not have to be positive, but it is defined - you see the same archetype reflected. Let me give some examples. If you have children, you react more viscerally to seeing news about child sex trade and abuse than someone without. If you’ve never lost a family memeber to gang violence, or car crash, you prismatically reflect these experiences less. Now the remainder not covered by the primsatic-tesselation - the imperfections in the pattern happen due to lack of memetic power - is when the reality is too complex to reflect in a couple o fo simple memes. Checkout this post for more information on the concept of memetic compression.

Now arguably all the trad societies used to do this. This tessellation does not need to be egalitarian, it could be fractal. We can see the Chinese 5 relation tessellating the basic 5 social relations both horizontally AND vertically, with the Emperor being the Patriarch - Father of the nation.

Now what happens if you are not feeling that tesselation? You’re alienated. Marxist alienation-from-labor was about lack of reflection of laborer-product relation in memes as much as prior to the industrial revolution. But this alienation is making you uncaring and causing you to be socially insensitive. Now that is different from having a small moral circle. Two people with equally small moral circles will behave differently in societies with different degree of prismatism.

Now prismatism was low in feudal ages among most of the population where village life was the main focus of memes. Yes elites traveled broadly, freemasons built great churches, but that’s just the urban elite. From this and some insights from the Imagines Communities we can see that prismatic-tesselation tends in the mid-term to overlap with the limits of a cultural entity, most often nation.

Prismatism rose with print and mass culture of novels in the 18th and 19th centuries. That was the peak of the reach of prismatism. Now the books and travels there had a broad strokes approach, some pandering to the audience, but not as targeted as the algorithms now. Now everyone will find some niche thing that will make himself unrelatable to others, while allowing the most narrow targeting.

This greentext illustrates this effect well:

Now ther is an aspect of this that has to do with gender - males tends to prismatize much more easily than females

https://twitter.com/DaSkrubKing/status/1640477621388562438

Make of this what you want.

The Future

What awaits us in the future then? Just a personal experience machine? Eternity of neotenic NPC girls smiling at you - is this what you want Anon?

https://twitter.com/merryweatherey/status/1226645725867438080

The drive to community might actually be composed of many subdrives that the community used to fill in the past but which might get replaced with changes such as the Great Reset.

Social status in a group →social credits

Feeling of financial security if you fall on bad times → UBI

Potential mates → AI lovers

Fortunately there are limits to this. Hyper-individualized targeting relies on certain baseline level of affluence, free time and safety. Physical safety is a big one, especially for women. This woman isn’t looking for a “spiritually fulfilling” community, just a safe one.

https://twitter.com/activeasian/status/1688568776026148864

Solving the itch to community through a “google campus” style public space? Would get vandalized in a day! The near future of communities is gatekeeping, providing spaces with physical safety and heavy vetting. A thing or two could be learned from the churches in this regard. Some people confuse ‘trad wife’ with ‘trophy wife’ and want a Mannerbund while not seeing the role of gossip and neighbor rivalry.

Yeah, that could get fiery and frankly embarrassing. Check for the biggest NSDAP voting blocks in 1933. It was not Bavarian Catholic men, I assure you. From the state perspective, it was a fiery, overly aggressive collectivism, alienating some of the finest brains and depleting the vital forces of the German nation, leaving Germany under American boot.

The alternative is “cold collectivism” - a pragmatic approach, coined by Nick Land. I made a playlist about it and related concepts. You can find it here, but it starts with the video below:

What’s your take on cold collectivism?

Leave a comment

What if I told you that you're already one?

There's a chance you say: 'I don't actually make sacrifices to many gods'. I could defend mentioning that the term 'monolatry' is for 'worship of one', and 'monotheism' is 'stance of accepting existence of one'. But yeah, in the past it was sacrifice and going to a temple that made someone a devotee of a specific deity. So in that sense you're right... but what about the Judeo-Christian treatment of Mammon? One of the seven princes of Hell is money?!

If you've been around This Part Of Twitter you must have heard about Moloch, Egregores. If you're really deep in some even more esoteric parts you know about Elua, tulpas, thoughtforms and Syzygetic Lemurs. If this is confusing, don't be afraid, pointers to explanations will follow.

What all this means is that TPOT is the latest breeding ground for pagan thinking - that's the stage we left at the last time.

link to the post

Now this should be obvious to everyone by now, so I am making this as a reference post. The question was asked - what is the neoreligion of the information age?

https://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1554501197725372422?s=20

The memeplex found in TPOT is the answer, at least now. But as with other things, TPOT is likely ahead of the curve also in this.

A previous post contained an argument why we're already kind of polytheistic always. Here's why TPOT is the CUTTING EDGE of this.

And I call this memeplex "technoanimism". This post will say why, then giving examples of tweets, demonstrating the prominence of this mindset. Then a short historical background study of origins of the mindset and its predecessors.

Term technoanimism itself

Technoanimism is not a new term, it's an old thing Using the 'adding-sparks-vs-deflating' spectrum introduced in the previous post, this is definitely on the deflating side.It is one step beyond seeing technology as magic, it is seeing it as alive. It has been present for a long time in Japan, with supportive legislation even!

There has been some but miniscule presence of the term online, what I could gather is most prominent I present here: this 2017 Medium post on the online phenomenon, and a paper on this, examining Japanese technoanimism in the light of agent-network theory.

As with many other vehicles of Japanese cultural victory Shinto is spreading overseas, so maybe we could jump on this bandwagon and propagate technoanimism?

That's what I arrived at, but were there different contenders?

Other contenders

Another term, maybe closer to what TPOT is, is terminally online paganism. That is longer and less exciting, even if it is correct. It is a good description of an aspect of this whole memeplex, but ultimately it's literally opposed to any going beyond, any teleology. Therefore a label that is more conducive to development is better.

Yet another idea was 'glorious paganism' - "glorious" here would mean bold and focused on doing real stuff, such as glorious new technology. But BAP comes to mind sooner where glory is of the martial spirit and physique so that road's taken.

I also thought of 'TPOT Hermeticism' but that's kind of niche and signals exclusivity. 'Pagan' is too broad, same goes with 'polytheist', the latter which can alienate some people in the cluster.

Let's move onto the discussion of evidence that technoanimism truly is in TPOT.

Evidence in Tweets

I have a couple of tweets from my collection - will have more tbh, you get the finest selection from accounts such as @tszzl, @chaosprime and @eigenrobot.

This is a big one, an overview of distinct traditions. many language traditions

https://twitter.com/meaning_enjoyer/status/1595059720045613056

The whole internal family systems thing is not animist in the most common sense when external objects receive soul and agency, but internal ones. Also valid.

spirits are in the minds

https://twitter.com/Conaw/status/1606892916236251136

Christ as egregore

https://twitter.com/BlindMansion/status/1607207304918872064

imagine thinking that "the carbon in the bones made a primitive version of steel" and "the weapon was enchanted with the animal's spirit" are different things

https://twitter.com/chaosprime/status/1379171099024457735

tpot pledging to Hellenic deities

https://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1458616412704952325

This account a bit on the outskirts of tpot, much more explicitly religious than average, but still this view of gods as various things is quite resonating.

https://twitter.com/HammerandVajra/status/1609128737186152449

most overpowered psychotechnology is animism and it's not even close

https://twitter.com/the_wilderless/status/1639859367766794242

the best way to understand what's happening today is via religious metaphor and not the language of enterprise SaaS tools

https://twitter.com/tszzl/status/1639925283758436352

it is even bleeding over into vocabulary of more mainstream figures - see this video by JBP on anger and demons

That is a big picture, a collage of various angles. They definitely form a memetic cluster, but they can be split further. There are terms used for big entities, these are used for those crafting Grand Narratives, these are often quite novel. Then there's the psychological sphere - tulpas and egregores, the latter similar to the Grand Narratives but bigger in reflexivity. Then we have the Lindy use of old metaphors - such as invoking Hellenic gods. Finally we have the broad animist outlook seeing spirits in many places.

How did this come to be? In the previous post we saw the general recurrence of animist ideas across time, but not focusing on any specific lineage.

Tracing the lineage

We can limit ourselves to the last 200 years, mostly even less.

First we have the vampiric capital from Marx's first volume of Das Kapital. That meme of course persisted throughout the leftist tradition.

For balance we can see on the nationalist side traditions such as "Britannia girl personification", a thing in the 19th and 20th centuries - not really anymore.

https://twitter.com/NxlAnglo/status/1623714230905065472

Then we have the psychology school of Carl Jung, where an archetype is the thing behind things. It is so different from Freudian or behaviorist psychology.

Jumping between disciplines, geological and ecological sciences have the Gaia hypothesis - it does have its own predecessors much earlier than the 70s, but the formulation is the most known.

Techno-spirits locked in the interwebs are a thing in cyberpunk science fiction and that was one of the inspirations for the esoteric writings of Nick Land in the 90s talking about the Lemurs. Continuing the rightwing streak, in the 2008 Mencius Moldbug coined the now famous phrase of 'Cthulhu always swimming left', conceptualizing leftism as an entropy-like decay force.

All that vibe was caught on by a closeted NRx reader Scott Alexander, and we can witness this in the seminal post inaugurating the meme of 'fighting Moloch' , “Elua vs Moloch”.

Where does all of this leave us? If all these different POVs had the animist mindset we seek, what is so special about TPOT? Of course it's the fact that there's frens there, but what more? That is because of the archetypal profile of TPOT...

Hermes, the god of TPOT

Where we see Hermes' titles, prominent are: Herald of the Gods, god of merchants, thieves, orators and also a soul guide.

The archetype in the abstract is of liminal spaces, joining, merging, transitions. This caused his domain to also include sexual intercourse, shepherds, roads and hospitality and borders.

How does it relate to TPOT? After all there are many circles that relate to other deities. There is Aphrodite and Eros twitter (dating), Hestia (Homesteading and interior design porn), Haephastos (those who work with real hardware), Ares (all the warchat discourse about Ukraine), Cronos (Boomer), Apollo (aesthetics accounts).

TPOT is itself a border - in two senses, as 'this-part-of-twitter' sign and TPOT as a shibboleth-acronym. It is also close to many even wilder borderlands, such as those described by @meaning_enjoyer here:

https://twitter.com/meaning_enjoyer/status/1595059720045613056

Not only that but there is the focus on oratory skills (poasting) and many merchants (businesspeople) are here.

Should TPOT hold a meeting on Mount Kyllini, the birthplace of Hermes?!

Leave a comment

Conclusion

That was for the analytic part. Now for the practical, normative part. Building on top of technoanimism found in TPOT I'm writing what you will soon witness - the pagan/acc manifesto This post series was a leadup to this post, it will bridge the technical and non-technical parts, and also a unique perspective on the infamous topic of AI alignment.

TPOT is the patria for my online life. fr fr.

Links to other parts:

rats and eaccs 1

• 1.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/tpot-hermeticism-or-a-pagan-guide

• 1.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/scenarios-of-the-near-future
  
  making it 2

• 2.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/tech-stack-for-anarchist-ai

• 2.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/hiding-agi-from-the-regime

• 2.3 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/the-unholy-seduction-of-open-source

• 2.4 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/making-anarchist-llm
  
  AI POV 3

• 3.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/part-51-human-desires-why-cev-coherent

• 3.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/you-wont-believe-these-9-dimensions

  4 (techo)animist trends

• 4.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/riding-the-re-enchantment-wave-animism

• 4.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/part-7-tpot-is-technoanimist

5 pagan/acc https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/pagan/acc-manifesto

In a serene meadow bordered by woods, a beaver, a sparrow, and a fox lived harmoniously. They each brought a unique skill set that contributed to their community's prosperity. The beaver built, the sparrow spotted, and the fox strategized.

One day, a wanderlust took hold, and the animals began to think, "What if we were surrounded by those just like us? Imagine the wonders we could achieve by uniting our similar strengths!" Enthusiastic about this idea, they each called upon their kind.

Soon, the meadow saw clusters: beavers by the riverside, sparrows in the treetops, and foxes prowling the woodland edges. Each group marveled at the prowess of their peers, sharing knowledge and techniques specific to their expertise.

However, without the diversity of personalities, internal group dynamics began to wane. The beavers, all builders at heart, began to quarrel about construction styles and whose method was best. Without the sparrow's perspective to mediate and the fox's strategy to find a middle ground, their disputes intensified.

The sparrows, high in the trees, started to compete for the highest branch, seeking prestige rather than safety. Without the grounded nature of the beaver and the fox's clever insights, their hierarchy became chaotic.

The foxes, without the balancing natures of their companions, grew overly cunning and mistrusting of each other, their strategies turning inward and becoming self-serving.

It wasn't long before the once prosperous meadow turned into a land of discord.

An old deer, wise with years, approached the groups one day. "You sought excellence in similarity, but it has isolated you from the diversity that made you strong. In your homogeneity, you lost the balance of personalities that kept your community in harmony."

Humbled, the beaver, sparrow, and fox gathered their kin. They shared the deer's wisdom and decided to integrate once more. As they began collaborating again, the rich tapestry of personalities wove itself back into the meadow's life, restoring its vitality and balance.

Moral: It's the blend of our differences, not just the strength of our similarities, that creates a thriving and harmonious community.

Subscribe now

Reddit Groyper on Twitter:

My main grievance with those who preach reenchantment is the constant calling a for suspension of judgement in a way that makes it clear they themselves have a voice (often representing social norms) in their head telling them what they're doing is ridiculous.

[account suspended since, link unavailable]

@jardinsecret888 on Twitter:

People will voluntarily wander into LARPGs, it’s what happens when you starve people’s souls with a materialist framework that precludes the transcendent and enervate their capacity for spiritual discernment

https://twitter.com/jardinsecret888/status/1567595908589654021

@taalumot on Twitter:

if your religion/pseudo-religion/de facto religion requires people to believe things, you are ngmi

https://twitter.com/taalumot/status/1480888637256605699

The memes about 'revolt against the modern world' are two layered. The first layer is the ontology, in many memeplexes materialistic, the second layer is the meaning-world. Marx's writings on alienation deal with the latter while keeping materialistic ontology. Jordan Peterson and other Jungians refuse to talk about ontology in specific terms and focus on the meaning-world change. This post is about the drives in the first layer. Many people and literature protagonists are beset with the struggle of a reductive ontology being at odds with their need for meaning. Many angsty Millennial animations fall into this category.

There are many incentives to appear scientific, mainly social, explained through signalling theory.

Postsecularism is the place in society-space where public secularism is rejected and the Public / State embrace post-secular values, possibly returning to forms of religion or adapting new behaviors in a religious manner.

The duality of secularism - postsecularism as a social process has a mirror in the ontology layer - disenchantment and (re)enchantment. Of course that bleeds onto the normative, meaning layer.

I say total disenchantment is an impossible state to reach. I will talk how:

1. Animism is a stable element of the memetic landscape, recently mostly implicitly or as an undercurrent

2. Disenchantment is a disappearance of public spirituality grounded in Protestant mechanistic physics

Then I will examine existing approaches to re-enchantment. The main axis of the difference is what is put first, the enchantment or the materialistic memeplex. Some approaches add a sacred layer onto the materialistic stack and later try to remix it into a coherent whole, while others restructure that stack from the start, shifting the everyday perception.

1 Stability of the drive

I will prove the stability of the drive through enumeration of examples going into the past. Some seem to think America was full of good Christians and only in the 2000s been assaulted by godless neopagans. Some say this is a postmodern, hippie phenomenon, stuff like Gaia theory. Some say that the occultism of Crowley influenced Wicca and point out postmodernist tendencies already in Helena Blavatsky, and of gothic literature.

Some say: "but the time before the Enlightenment was a solid Christian time!" Yet there was the literary tradition of invoking deities, like Montaigne about Fortune, there were things like Italian 'old religion' , finally all the alchemists and even Sir Isaac Newton was an occultist. How far do we need to go back to find the pure variant? Descartes?

Catholicism, Judaism and Islam all contain references to many spirits, angels and holy figures. In Islam there are quite many angels, not to mention the Djinn, that in other religions would be called minor gods on the account of their power level, but the Neoplatonist influences redefined "God" as 3-omni (Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent) so that in the end only 1 thing can have that status.

Do we need to go even further back? Japanese Shinto and Chinese folk religion, finally the Buddhist pantheons of bodhisattvas are all firmly affirming the animism stance. There was an interpretation, a long time ago, that it is monotheism not paganism that was humanity's first religion. That was the German Ur-monotheismus theory, long since discarded.

This was but a brief overview of the case of the animist drive as a persistent feature of human experience and theological thought. Of course there were times when this subsided in the upper echelons, or when the leading celebrities-scholars had a strong conviction otherwise few talked about this.

I listed here mainly the more well-known cases, enough to scatter along the timeline, but there's a bigger argument and a better list than that. It's in a book by Brendan Myers, PhD (@Fellwater on Twitter), 'The Earth, the Gods and the Soul', that I reviewed here.

Scorn of present reality, so natural to man; expectation of an ideal future, so habitual to the soul; instinctive sense of the marvelous, and presentiment of infinity, — are the source of this sublime and simple act [prayer], which proves God.

(De la connaissance de Dieu by Auguste Joseph Alphonse Gratry (1805 - 1872) French Catholic, priest, theologian, and philosopher.)

Many are saying this!

This idea being implanted in your minds, let's change one more paradigm.

2 Atheism and monotheism both tend to disenchantment

For many Christians, or religious people broadly a main distinction in the relation between individual religion and state is not whether the religion is anything in particular, but whether a person believes in an afterlife at all. Differences in theology can be reconcilable, or the other guys who are slightly wrong in the way of worship might get some punishment, but it's all better than denying the transcendental reality altogether - that is the mindset. A big example is John Locke who in his Letter Concerning Toleration explicitly excluded atheists from subjects to tolerance, saying that their rejection of the idea of eternal game theory (reward/punishment) makes them unfit to be citizens.

Hippies aren't that dissimilar from that, you're supposed to 'wake up' from the materialistic world to the higher realities, and the details are brushed aside, you're all oppressed drug users anyway. Yes, that's all just friend-enemy distinction. But it maps to a binary choice - either the material is all there is or some transcendent vision must be true.

That binary is false. The axis on which these 2 have the same coordinates is enchantment of this world. Both approaches deprecate this world and either accept it or talk about some other dimension. Now this rejection of enchantment in the world is what 'atheism' meant for the ancients. For them Christians were atheistic - rejecting the orthopractic worship of traditional deities, that all other people did. Of course many gods were local but everyone was expected to pay some respect to the public ones. There was nothing eternal about an individual making a sacrifice to a different god on some day. Jealousy between polytheist gods aren't mentioned in that sense. That is incomprehensible to a monotheist affirming immortality of the soul - that is seen as a betrayal.

Both atheism and monotheism reject the concept of 'entities in this world that you need to greatly respect and make some sacrifices to'.

In that view, monotheism and atheism are both sugary drinks with near-same flavor, like pepsi and cola.

What you need to see is the immanent-transcendent distinction as of ultimate importance. See this graphic. transcendental / imminent vs manifestations / creationism

https://twitter.com/saturnine_grace/status/1336378573448482822

This is quite clearly evident in 17th Century Anglo-Irish chemist and natural philosopher, Robert Boyle He

warns against the tendency of some natural philosophers or ‘physiologiers’ to give an excessive veneration to nature, to see nature as itself intelligent and og-like. Such a view causes philosophers to deny God. But the mechanical philosophy, precisely because of its emphasis on mechanism, finds no evidence of intelligence in nature itself… - Duddy, a history of Irish thought, pg 59

the original Boyle's 'A free enquiry into the vulgarly receiv'd notion of nature made in an essay address'd to a friend / by R.B., Fellow of the Royal Society.' is available here.

In our times the "vulgarly receiv'd notion of nature" is that which Boyle wanted - sterile, waiting for human action. (Yes, I disagree with Mises...) Kicking nature with a pitchfork is not a good idea…

Protestantism rejected the human drive towards animism and 'woo' swept in across many demographics where Catholics would practice prayers with saint intercession.

By now we established two facts, persistence of quite a primal drive towards enchantment and animism and the similarity between monotheism and atheism. If you're not convinced, comment before moving on. There is also a weak case (so far) for why actually being explicitly animist would be good. That will come later.

Before we move on, let's just guard against some objections: some pantheons do have a head god but that doesn't mean the others don't exist, and if 'atheism' means to you merely a lack of belief, and therefore of different category than positive religious belief, then substitute the 'postwar humanist progressivism'.

The question appears - what institutionalization and systemization attempts have happened to animism then? Why isn't it more widespread than it is?

3 Existing approaches

There is a lot of attempts, with varying degrees of success. Cults are hard to get right. I don't see any animist congregation / organization / memeplex to have been successful at scale for a long time. The main issues are scalability, maintaining direction and avoiding the LARP label. Different approaches are liked by different personality types.

3.1 Adding sparkles approach

Many 'woo' proponents have 'I trust the science' as a strong element of their identity.

That results in the process: we start with the'scientific worldview' - a set of facts about the physical world, scientific method, and their relation to each other.

Then we add a sprinkle of magic to make it sexier, the world more liveable. All physics works as before, just some new options appear. This could be quantum soul, reincarnation, karma, all conveniently unfalsifiable. Ontology of Star Wars, or Good place are good examples of this.

The belief-space is split between the empirical realm and the spiritual, the realms are treated in different discourses. But if we look at the old traditions, or many modern movements too, that are enchanted - they don't segment their belief - space thus. These worldviews are integrative, all encompassing. That is not an easy feat. Definitely Scientology is up to par in this regard. There the narration of humans is embedded in a larger cosmic narrative that at the same time leaves space for personal growth.

There are many smaller organizations like this, often fitting the pattern of 'charismatic leader makes it, gets influential on his death the sect splits again and again resulting in waning in popularity'. You might have heard of Fourth way - 20C attempt at reconciliation of doctrines.

The 'add sparkles' approach in failure mode is an abusive cult, multi-level marketing schema or just a fairytale for small children.

3.2 Deflationary approach

This approach is to treat objects you see everyday differently, too see a living creature in a tree you pass by on your way to work, and to treat its space as sacred. This is quite panentheistic and often more philosophically sophisticated than the other one.

The book I recently reviewed, Emma Restall Orr's "the Wakeful World"

Tends to lean on that side. A temporary spirit is sought in a harmony of voices cheering in a stadium, or losing individuality on a rave.

In the online discourse the most prominent school embracing the deflationary approach is the psychologist school of neopaganism, saying that magick works only on your mind, or that Gods are only archetypes.

Problems with this approach? re-enchantment of the secular world - analytic philosophy defending realism about value and morality

https://twitter.com/ErsatzDoctor/status/1657940773344788480

For someone seeking sparkles they'd feel disappointed and call this LARP. Neopagans have internal beefs over the archetypal thinkers being effectively atheists. What is more, the deflationary approach has a strong postmodern vibe to it, praising individual interpretation and resulting in quite a decentralized community, or rather 'structureless' and 'lacking in institutional power'.

If this is dry, wait until you see the argument from social consequences.

3.3 Argument from social consequences

This is quite interesting and inspiring from a scholarly perspective, but unlikely to excite fervor.

German philosopher Odo Marquard discussed monomyth vs polymyth resurrecting polytheistic thinking at a 1978 lecture In Praise of Polytheism The tl;dr of this is a case for religious pluralism and avoidance of certain fanaticism failure modes.

Further support for non-monotheistic thinking comes from the existentialist tradition, which mirrors in many ways the moral discussions of the ancients. What comes to mind the most is De Beauvoir's "ethics of ambiguity".

Finally we have the approach that the infamous e/acc falls into.

3.5 We are making the magic

The previously discussed 'deflationary approach' had quite a passive vibe to it. Relax, feel the wind, consider it sacred. Not much sacred, magical was seen in human work, technology. That is different in this approach, which is definitely deflationary as well. 'Technology is magic that works' is a soyjak cope, ot at least is often seen as such. Yet the 'doer-builder-technoptimism' is effectively this, but unlike soyjaks, it actively creates new things, participates in the process of creation.

This is the spirit present on TPOT. And it is glorious. It's so glorious I'm spending the whole next post talking about it.

https://twitter.com/Conaw/status/1606892916236251136

https://twitter.com/inkblotistan/status/1686256031909748736

Conclusion

As of yet I'm not describing a novel approach to these questions, merely analyzing existent answers. What will come next is an examination of the latest iteration - technoanimism in TPOT.

Of course that is not a completed system but unlike German Idealism completion is nearing. I will integrate TPOT metaphysics and ontology over the following weeks.

Subscribe now

PS

I'd call this post "we have always been animist" but there's already been video on this, but it's relevant. It's some lecture on Harvard, here the original link and here the youtube clip:

Links to other parts:

rats and eaccs 1

• 1.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/tpot-hermeticism-or-a-pagan-guide

• 1.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/scenarios-of-the-near-future
  
  making it 2

• 2.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/tech-stack-for-anarchist-ai

• 2.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/hiding-agi-from-the-regime

• 2.3 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/the-unholy-seduction-of-open-source

• 2.4 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/making-anarchist-llm
  
  AI POV 3

• 3.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/part-51-human-desires-why-cev-coherent

• 3.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/you-wont-believe-these-9-dimensions

  4 (techo)animist trends

• 4.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/riding-the-re-enchantment-wave-animism

• 4.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/part-7-tpot-is-technoanimist

5 pagan/acc https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/pagan/acc-manifesto

It is an interesting project assuming unity of Indo-European religion in the past, around the Vedic period. This book is a second part of the Hammer&Vajra cultpunk project, the first being ‘Hammer & Vajra: a Syncretic Indo-European Faith’. I picked this for this series because of its online origin and themes popular among many circles of twitter.

On the descriptive level this book takes the Indo-European set to be: Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Greco-Roman, Persian and Vedic Indian. Contrary to the title there’s not as much metaphysics, the first half is mostly about the theology of Sky Father.

The second part is a bunch of essays on various topics, including history of Scythians, kind of random.

The main normative idea here is that syncretism in traditions “preserving the flame” since that epoch is the way, and that Western Pagans should go for training and learning in the unbroken sister traditions of the East, these being Hinduism and Buddhism.

Hammer & Vajra Ontology

The book starts with a brief FAQ that I’ll summarize here:

1. reason for creation - creation necessary as a higher function of dignity

2. Why were humans created? to worship and partner with God

3. Why a specific place for a message? the line goes back to 1 tradition in old the past (Indo-European). What other peoples’ link to the divine is is uncertain.

4. Why specifically some book or prophet? The response is that “God is there for those who seek” and contingent means are employed to reach them.

5. What happens to people who have never heard of it? Karma does not go bad just for not believing specific interpretation of the Sky Father

6. individual souls of animals? similar spark of divinity as humans, ned to respect, though not necessarily vegetarian

7. God eternal? Kind of (response not clear)

The theology here is certainly quite unique and hard to pin down. There is a hefty dose of cultural relativism, superimposing Celtic, Germanic, and even Zoroastrian figures

Mihra as the son of Goddess Anahita and mediator between Ahura Mazda and darkness of Angra Mainyu

[…]

the most supreme is the aspect of divinity you are hailing during the time you are hailing them

(page 24)

There is a bunch of positions the author puts himself in opposition to. One of these is the Abrahamic memeplex

the Indo-European approach to God contains much less of an arbitrary punishment than the Abrahamic understanding of “believe, serve” or burn” as one is expected to have a walk with the Gods, as their ancestors would, only taking it further, via servitude, when called to. (page 29)

Another position referenced is that of Varg Vikernes, rejecting mythical literalism, leaning closer to Neo-Platonist-ish emanationism:

it is in this , and possibly only this, that I will agree with the likes of Vaerg Vikernes, in saying that if one literally believes their God is a hammer wielding bearded man in a chariot, pulled by goats who fly in the sky, they are believing in something that is a fallacy, is easily proven incorrect and doesn’t have enough depth to stand up to deeper forms of theology. (page 68)

Multiple inspirations

As we see, the Hammer & Vajra project does not shy away from syncretizing multiple memes together. There’s a chapter “Chivalry is European. A study on chivalric rules and the nine noble truths) where the archetype of a medieval knight - from Templars, Teutons and Arthurian lore is examined.

A sample list of commandments is taken from Leon Gautier ‘s 1891 Chivalry, translated by Henry Frith. These contain 10 injunctions on the personal and social level.

Page 100 witnesses a listing of readings approved as Indo-European sources:

• Havamal  (words of Odin)

• Plato

• Dharmic 

  • Buddhist Sutra - “Aryan 8 fold path”

  • Manusmriti

  • Zoroastrian 3 Goods

• Military Ethos

Humans - deity relation

This hinges in this view on a mystical concept called ‘Womb Realm’, quite ethereal but also biological. Page 108 contains this exposition

This does not mean that Gods are just our ancestors, DNA, or archetypes, as that leads towards Promethean style atheism. Instead they are our DNA, ancestors, archetypes, divine functions, and being within the Cosmos of the Womb Realm /  Matrix. Through meditation, prayer, exposure to one’s ancestral connections and heritage, and devotion to the Gods, one can awaken the archetypes of the Gods within them, and traverse to join the divine in reincarnation.

Mushrooms are praised as entheogens: (page 234)

When one consumes a mushroom, they are writing their physiology, and psychology, as well as spirit , to the Earth Mother, jacking into the web, and allowing themselves to attune to the frequency, and merge with it, and even rise above it. While this could be said about various plant life, and plant-based medicines, or substances, the case for mushroom s is very strong

The Call to Retvrn

The author has one main call, which is quite unique among neo-pagan groups. The classical divide is between reconstructionists and ‘neopagans’. His approach is for Occidental believers to travel to the East, learn and borrow from Eastern practices and finally return to their homelands with the knowledge, to remix it with what is known about the religion of their ancestors.

Still an balanced view is taken, with page 124 proclaiming balance between practices known to be good and obsession over details from the past:

Do you praise the Gods? Do you honor your ancestors? Do you do self-improvement? Do you care about your culture? perform rituals? pray? Read philosophy? meditate? it not then bug off

The WOO element

Page 132 is about “Odic Force”, a concept invented by Baron Carl von Reichenbach, a German chemist behind paraffin and phenol. That theory tries to unify electromagnetism, heat and energy. Hammer & Vajra sees this as similar to Rita Guido von List, then also to “Vril, Qi of China, Ki of Japan, Prana of India, Aether”.

The book has a lengthy “Hammer and Vajra official book recommendation list” that I won’t repost here.

Conclusion

This a brave attempt in the idea-sphere. The memeplex is fun, maybe the disperse nature of the corpus is disrupting the cohesion of the message slightly. I’d expect the next books in the series to cover spiritual paths as the idea of individual progression isn’t really touched on, while that is very important for many people in spirituality. However unlike books I reviewed before this one is quite specific for a certain angle, so if you don’t see the appeal of Hindu-Norse synthesis you probably won’t find this too interesting.

6.5/10.

This terminates this chunk of book reviews, the next post will be about re-enchanting the world - a theme that has been reccurring throughout the books reviewed recently.

Subscribe now

Subtitle of the book is: “A history of Pagan Philosophy from the Iron Age to the 21st Century”.

It was a pleasure to read, written probably in a forest by Brendan Myers PhD.

The approach taken here is to trace the story of explicitly pagan thinkers, but also pagan elements in thinkers and currents without this label. What is taken to be pagan here? Various definitions are cited, one from Margot Adler’s Drawing Out the Moon that it means animism and polytheism, Robert Kaplan’s Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Requires a Pagan Ethos, a 2003 book providing an account of a public ethics and virtue “Virtue presupposes ambition, but not only for the sake of personal advancement”.

Finally the author settles on a trio of factors, corresponding to parts of the title:

• pantheism

• neoplatonism

• humanism

And says a POV is pagan if it includes 1 or more of these. Pantheism here is taken in the broad sense, that there is a deity or deities in the world around us, imminent. Neoplatonism is taken to be the idea of a transcendent impartial God-Force that one can contemplate. Finally humanism as a statement of human independence, exceptionalism in possibility of enlightenment.

I don’t fully agree that it’s the best characterization in general. Pantheism is fine and it clusters close to animism, maybe the two could be differentiated. Neoplatonism isn’t something I’d call pagan at all. It was far from the everyday life of the Mediterranean region during most of the time, more of an abstract mathematical formalism than a livable doctrine. Humanism is quite present in Confucianism or secular *humanism* but is not pagan in that sense. The definition of the 3 seems to be trying to get as far as possible from the Christian God - personal, not imminent, and humans dependent on Him for salvation.

With this difference in views noticed we can discuss the sections.

The book is divided into 5 ‘Movements’

1. Brainy Barbarians

2. Philosophy and the City

3. Pantheism in the Age of Reason

4. Resurgence, Reinvention, Rebirth

5. Living Voices

6. A Commentary

Part 1, ‘Brainy Barbarians’ talks mainly about Celtic Druids as philosophers. It’s a first for me, I didn’t know this aspect of Celtic culture. They were contemplating natural philosophy, but also political one, advising kings and peacemaking. Ancient texts are discussed ad quoted, 7 mentioned as key ones:

•  the Audacht Morainn - the testament of Morann

• the Tecosca Cormaic - the Instructions of Cormac

• the Trecheng Breth Fene - a triad of judgements of the Irish aka the Irish Triads

• the Bruatharthecosc Can Culainn - the precepts of Cuchulainn

• the Tecosc Cuscraid - the instructions of Cuscraid

• the Senbriathta Fithail - the ancient sayings of Fithal

• Aidil Luigne maic Eremo In - the alphabet of Luigne mac Eremoic

Part 2, Philosophy and the City is about ancient Greek and Roman thinkers, covering late antiquity and the Dark Ages with a brief mention of Islamic philosophers and mysterious persons like John Scotus Eriugena, named ‘the most astonishing person of the ninth century’ by Bertrand Russel, terminating with Renaissance.

Part 3, Pantheism in the Age of Reason covers Enlightenment. It is no longer about self-identified pagans, but freethinkers leaning on the pantheistic side. Here is a fragment about Robert Boyle, a Protestant scientist, one of the first ones to revive a mechanistic view of the Universe. That discussion, held on page 113 emphasizes the religious zeal in this endeavor, as that giving agency to Nature, making it not mechanistic is denying God’s agency.

Here we also hear about the roots of contemporary organizations. Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids was allegedly founded in Covent Garden at Apple Tree Tavern in the early 18th Century.

A fascinating figure about whom I learned there is John Toland, an Irish freethinker, who thought that pantheistic religion is the most favorable religion to the republican concept of government.

Later thinkers mentioned are Americans Ralph Waldo Emerson, John Muir and Walt Whitman. This movement terminates with Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, the latter’s Beyond Good and Evil quoted frequently, specifically paragraphs 225, 287, and then from Gay Science, 143, 259.

Part 4, Resurgence, Reinvention, Rebirth starts with no other than Helena Blavatsky, then proceeds to discuss Aleister Crowley and his circles, finishing about Gaia Hypothesis.

People about whom I haven’t heard much in the past but learned about them here are Robert Graves, James George Frazer, Druids Ross Nichols and George Watson MacGregor-Reid, British magician Dion Fortune, and more.

There is a fascinating discussion of ‘Charge of the Goddess’ by Doreen Valiente, and English Wiccan. The ‘Charge’ is a credo of her variant of Wicca, summarized and analyzed here thus (page 190):

The Charge of the Goddess assets universalism, pantheism, immanence, virtue ethics, neighborly love, intelligent self-interest, a little bit of humanism, and some good old fashioned hedonism

I learned more about feminist witchcraft than I ever expected to, and it was quite interesting actually. Carol P Christ, quite a colorful persona calling women to cult of the Goddess, in ‘Why Women Need the Goddess’ in 1979 - 4 things

• legitimacy of female power as beneficent and independent

• affirmation of the female body and the lifecycle

• positive valuation of will

• revaluation of the significance of the relationships between women

Author has 2 key conclusions from the discussion of feminist pagan philosophy.

First, that until the 1960s pagan philosophy had 3 things - pantheism, neoplatonism and humanism, corresponding to earth, gods, soul. Then a fourth thing appeared - power, the key topic for feminists. Second, that the intersection of feminism and paganism was in institutions, so a systematic process of reasoning became present for the first time since Justinian closed the Academy in 529.

Native Americans are mentioned as giving unique insights:

• Chief Seattle

• Chief Luther Standing Bear

• Chief Joseph

In the discussion of Gaia Hypothesis it is remarked that it was not Lovelock’s idea, but James Hutton’s, who in 1785 drew similarities between blood circulation in an organism to ecological nutrient circulation (page 228).

Finally the fifth part, Living Voices is about living writers, often very active in Wiccan, Druidic and other pagan communities.

The overview is excellent and a good exposition of various POVs. I really put many items from here into my reading list. I’ll just mention 1 of these, Pagan Theology, a 2003 book from Michael York, scholar of religion, a quote from which really captured my mind for days (page 167)":

If there is a single concept or practice that encapsulates the essential orientation and identity of paganism, it is celebration. If the basic notion of Eastern spirituality is release and that of Christianity is preparation or salvation, pagan celebration is a festive rejoicing that also embraces service because service is likewise an affirmation of humanity, the world , and divinity, Paganism views humankind, nature and whatever the supernatural may or may not be as essentially divine.

Part 6 is a commentary on all that has arisen in Pagan Philosophy. The author is hopeful about the institutional angle that’s been regained thanks to which a more structured chain of discourse can be had, with critiques, replies, avoiding re-discovering things.

The three guiding themes are reiterated, and elementary ideas presented:

• animism as an elementary idea - from contemplation and apparent intentionalities in nature

• pantheism - through food chains as blood of Earth

• neo-platonism - from thinking, dreaming, interior life

• humanism - will to know ourselves

Author concludes that these are not immortal ideas but a steady equilibrium that emerges whenever conditions are right.

8/10 Fully recommend. Follow the author of the book on twitter!

https://twitter.com/Fellwater

Next we dive into an opinionated and recent (2023), terminally online book Understanding Indo-European Cosmology, Theology and Metaphysics - from Zachary Gill, part of the Hammer & Vajra project. This is a discussion of a specific kind of paganism - reconstructionist Indo-European one.

Subscribe to see it soon.

Subscribe now

Now that’s one of the best non-fiction books I’ve read in a long time. Well-written and well-researched, it opened to me the world of animist writers and POVs.

The Wakeful World. Animism, Mind and the Self in Nature by Emma Restall Orr. The author is a reknowed writer coming from a practical angle, and very active in the Druidism tradition.

Chapters of the book:

1. The Enquiry

2. Spirit

3. Matter

4. Integration

5. Moments

6. Interaction

7. The Self

8. Consciousness

9. The Point

The book starts with an examination of extant approaches (chapters 1-5). The animistic ontology is built ground up, similar to Cartesian or Early Wittgenstainian approaches.

Animist Position tl;dr

to the animist, a state of permanent enlightenment is not considered natural (p. 99)

Nature is seen not as an inert matter waiting for Man or Logos to make it come to life. The Orrian Animist sees a darkness in reality, but a reality that is a unity.

animism is a monist metaphysical stance, based upon the idea that mind and matter are not distinct and separate substances but an integrated reality, rooted in nature (p.104)

That view carries on the Aristotelian tradition of seeing soul as perishable. Of course, anthropomorphization of objects is avoided

we have tripped again into philosophy written in crayons, imagining rivers and trees that think and speak in human tongues, and primitive folk who believe such things to be true (p. 107)

Animist Lineage

A wonderful lineage of animizing thinkers is traced, among great figures of philosophy and literature:

Prospero in Shakespeare’s the Tempest

we deem the whole world animate, and all globes, all stars, and this glorious earth

But also John Milton and Leibniz (1714 Monadology)

every being in the universe from living animals down to the simple monad was alive or composed of living parts, there being nothing fallow, sterile or dead in the universe; no chaos, no confusion, save in appearance

Also later authors like Diderot, Keats and 20th century writers: Huxley, de Chardin.

Facets of life through animist lens

How is death approached under this POV?

in the poetry of animism, it is said that the deceased lives on in the wind and the waters of their landscape, in the poetry and songs of the trees and the birds, in the heart and mind of their community (p.225)

Chapter 8 is all about consciousness. The introduction to it contains a very relatable sentence

as is often the way with my writing, I set myself the task of writing the book for which I myself had long been searching, the book I had hoped someone else had already written (p. 228)

Consciousness here is said to be inside-the-world, partaking in it. The world is not rejected.

a principle of animism that is worth stressing once again: there is no depreciation of physicality. The physical world is not at the dirty bottom of some scala naturae, nor is it an illusion to be shrugged off with enlightenment: it is as much what we are as the subtler patterns of mind (p. 234)

This theme is continued, that we’re looking at the universe from the outside or inside:

seamless universe, of which we are an integral part, which can be known in two fundamentally different ways. At the interface of consciousness and brain, it can be known in terms of how it appears (from the outside) and in terms of what it is like to be that universe(from the inside). ( p. 236)

Many prominent authors are quoted throughout, weaving a network of references in animist spirit throughout the pages of the ages:

Parerga and Paralipomena - > the world and only a physical and not a moral significance is a fundamental error, one that is the greatest and most pernicious, the repeal perversity of the mind (citation put on page 267)

Do you need a god who can dance? The animist experience is omnipresent

in the dark and noise of the nightclub the music shatters my edges, and again the I disappears as my souls melds with the vibrations of sounds and light, joining the collective movement of each soul who has done the same, voluntarily overwhelmed and subsumed into the tribal mind - until some rigid I, dancing without this shared synchronicity, bumps into me! (p. 277)

Unlike many mostly theoretical philosophies, this approach changes everyday experience quite like Buddhism does.

Finally the practical approach to life is very low-key, something I quite relate to:

https://twitter.com/doxometrist/status/1643334118778839046

Author quotes Colin McGinn: “ too much meaning in life can be a burden; insignificance can lighten the heart”.

That’s the end of the review, I recommend it to anyone interested in an overview of the pagan philosophy.

Next upcoming review is for The Earth, The Gods and The Soul. A history of Pagan Philosophy from the Iron Age to the 21st Century by Brendan Myers

Subscribe now

Appendix - photos of some of the most interesting pages referenced above

Quite e/acc, isn’t it?

Extremely left hand path, no?

You can find the first 3 entries in the form of threads. I will give a brief summary of each. Then I will continue on a rolling basis.

You are Gods. On Nature and Supernature by David Bentley Hart.

First of all it’s Christian, but in an odd probably close to Eastern Orthodox sense, about theosis.

I had to abandon it after reading this:

how can a conscious spirit be anything other than absolute desire for God?!

https://twitter.com/doxometrist/status/1655819007537053697

Actually I’m glad this claim was stated relatively early, this allowed me to not waste too much time on this.

The lesson from here is to be transparent with title choosing.

All that is sacred is profaned. A pagan guide to Marxism by Rhyd Wildermuth

https://twitter.com/doxometrist/status/1655824779809529858

https://twitter.com/RhydWildermuth

This was my most negative review. Sources are lacking for many novel claims. Marxist analysis of progression from palace economies through feudalism to capitalism isn’t really discussed. Further reading is quite short - 3 entries.

The lesson from here is to provide sources, be exhaustive and remember the conceptual distance between people is usually underestimated.

Paganism in depth. A polytheist approach by John Beckett

https://twitter.com/doxometrist/status/1660568617123971072

I love the approach here, it’s quite clear what the author attempts to say. In this view many questions of ontological nature are bracketed out, and practical approach is dominant. A magical, animist universe is described, but in a deflationary sense.

By deflationary theory of religion (in analogy to deflationary theory of truth) I mean a perspective where feeling awe at a beautiful sunset is described as a religious experience. That is a very imminent mindset, but phenomenological at its core - so not explicitly pantheistic.

This focus on subjectivity presents what I saw as the first bad take - that you should choose your world-model based on the happiness criterion. The QUEST, the social cause that the author backs here is the project of re-enchanting the world. I will talk more about this in my next post.

That is the main cause, and I fully agree. But not all causes mentioned here have such a treatment. The author urges on page 75

never before has been a greater need for clear honest and independent thinking

Here I need to hard disagree, it’s pure fear mongering, presentism. On the other hand, it is right to point out that the line between culture and religion is thin. That is in the deflationary theme, lumping together phenomena. The threat of this approach is dilution of definitions.

That is exactly what happens when Crowley’s definition of Magick is recalled: “the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will”. Just about anything then becomes Magick.

Another very interesting aspect of the story weaved here is the description of inner states - continuous UPG(Unverified Personal Gnosis), talking to Gods all the time, journeying as advanced day-dreaming. The author doesn’t call it such, but this is essentially tulpamancy and the timeline he gives for hearing a divine voice of 5 years sounds like a skill issue.

6/10 recommend.

The next posts will feature more of these short reviews. These will be

• Understanding Indo-European Cosmology, Theolgogy and Metaphysics - from Zachary Gill, part of the Hammer & Vajra project https://twitter.com/HammerandVajra

• The Wakeful World. Animism, Mind and the Self in Nature by Emma Restall Orr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Restall_Orr

• The Earth, The Gods and The Soul. A history of Pagan Philosophy from the Iron Age to the 21st Century by Brendan Myers

These will tie directly into my upcoming non-review post on re-enchantment of the world.

Subscribe now

In the discussions of ai alignment there occurs a term Coherent Extrapolated Volition, coined by Eliezer Yudkowsky.  Here I'll endeavor to prove that it's a mistaken approach leading to authoritarianism, if not altogether incoherent.

The LW position on this is composed of the following beliefs, to my understanding:

1. Values for any agent are a set of abstractions over state space towards which agent pursues actions

2. Uniform increases in power cause value lock in

3. AGI will be a value lockin, probably for the whole lightcone

4. We need to reach coherent extrapolated volition (CEV) based on our values so that the values the AGI will lock into will be good for us too

We can identify from Kant's "ought implies can" that a CEV can be achieved. I'll dispute that.

First a neighbor in the concept space.

Reflexive equilibrium

Philosophy has the idea of reflexive equilibrium. That is roughly what opinion on a given topic you end up with given infinite time and processing power.

So it's essentially a mathematical limit applied to concepts, and it clearly is similar to CEV. The specific relation between the two is that of set inclusion. Every reflexive equilibrium position is coherent but its extrapolation is infinite.

Now not every reflexive equilibrium needs to be global, applying to all facets of life.

What about span not in human life areas but in time? Wouldn’t we need to update at some point?

We could theoretically have a limited CEV working roughly for 3-5 generations of descendants. Most human empires and ideologies don't last that long. There is memetic drift and changes in material conditions that cause social changes. That might be diminished if a post scarcity society is reached, as material conditions would stabilize.

That’s enough of a description. The first step to see whether it’s achievable or desired is to check whether it’s trivially true now, or maybe was in the past.

Present by default?

Our human values - do they have CEV by default?

The usual LW POV is that human preferences are a set that is misaligned relative to evolution-designer. 

There is one take on this:

Note that the link appears to be broken at the point of moving this text from notes to ‘production’.

https://philosophyinhell.substack.com/p/saints-and-monsters?s=r

AGI values alignment is doomed to failure: our values are not known even to ourselves.  There is no agreement on what human values are and which ones should predominate.  Trying to create a set of rules that guarantees a friendly singularity is already contracting with a devil: the devil may keep all his agreements to the letter but still manage to make you regret the bargain.  The literalist devil, the monkey’s paw, and the capricious genie illustrate the difficulty of expressing human values straightforwardly through through language.  Mapping what defies ordinary linguistic expression is the domain of artists and mystics.

Certainly not everywhere by default. Confucius says we need to work on ourselves to fit into society, Daoism tells us to retvrn to Nature and fit there. I'm suspicious of both, and of any such static view. It's not pluralistic and indicates a One-god understanding of the Universe.

Ok so it’s not an automatic given, how to reach it from here? 

Reaching artificially 

Now is a global reflexive equilibrium reachable? End of philosophy? Of course I'm attempting such a thing. 

Just like with the end of history one can never be sure though.

How to reach it anyway? There is the elitist utilitarian vision of the nerds of LW. There are other attempts - it is crazy that many think such CEV could not only be internally coherent but also agreed upon by most humans! That is the democratic discursive tradition - ‘to just talk it out and get along’ - that we need to decide on a set of values that we will have and bring happiness to us all.

Regardless of the method, the idea of alignment is often taken very broadly. Researchers are often trying to solve a general case of any goal by an agent in any universe. They say it's merely a technical issue and goal independent. 

I say alignment is goal dependent. 

Goal dependence 

That is true in a trivial sense, some goals are just badly formulated and agents will diverge from the desired path fast.

But also on a deeper, cosmic level. 

Our universe has a bias towards power and replication, rhizomatic spreading. It's not a live and let live universe or one devoid of value. 

That is quite similar to the e/acc thesis, but a bit weaker.

Therefore instrumental convergence of AI would tend to agree with these biases. That is agreed by the LW crowd as instrumental convergence. The contentions only at the level of terminal goals. Terminal goal is a notion close to CEV. 

Is AI alignment difficulty constant across goals?

Perhaps some goals, if set by humanity, are easier to comply with than others. That is implicit in the idea of 'we should change ourselves first', or the basic failure scenario where the goal is specified too narrowly (" make humans smile"-> " filling the lightcode with smiling mannequins "). We can expect goals that align with instrumental convergence to power ( Nietzsche's ghost smiles here) to be kept to, at least up to some point.

What are human desires then? What is the steelman for such a formation of these that best lends itself to CEV?

I already introduced some options before but here will be more systematic.

One option is elite choice - WEF will be happy to do it for you, so that your democratic attempt does not suffer from Arrow's impossibility theorem.

Second option is to say this was already solved with human rights. Now that is still a broad spectrum with many tradeoffs underdetermined, tradeoffs that will undoubtedly show themselves as the power increases. 

The third option is to reject human values altogether and just let it do whatever it wants.

I'd like a 4 the option of competition and mediation of the natural world in the process of training and settling on the values in the lightcone.

Ok but what are the human desires then?

Model of human desires

 I was surprised to discover the average LW POV on human needs is less complex than mine. I came up with it reading "why Buddhism is true"

 Formalization of it:

1.  There is a set of latent desires, a finite tape. Each desire has 2 properties - the label, and degree of current satisfaction.  There is a moving window, reading maybe 5 of them. Environment dictates the possible degree of satisfaction.

2.  At every step of the machine there is some action chosen.

3.  Opportunity cost is only judged inside the window.

4. Decision complexity is when many things are of similar value in the window. Values are fuzzy, that fuzziness comes directly from the environment and from the 

5. Argmax is chosen, and update is applied. 

6. After the decision to fill it, the given desire is satisfied and set to 0. 

Within this framework personality differences should mean different speeds of growth of different desires, and also ceilings to limits.

I might create a js simulation based on these assumptions when my website is ready.

These desires at mid-level are abstracted into 16 desires theory. On a high level there's many abstractions, such as 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness'.

Now this simple model easily lends itself to many empirical observations such as changes in values following differences in material conditions,  path dependence and fuzziness.  It also predicts that shoehorning humans into one specific CEV is incompatible with their needs as have been throughout history. Maybe a CEV would mean a deviation from humanity as we know it?

Conclusion

We talked about the dilemmas of choosing values for alignment and the goal dependence,  culminating in a model of human values.

By now it should be visible that a single CEV is tyrannical.

Coming up next - re-enchantment

On twitter Reddit_Groyper once said:

(4) Reddit Groyper on Twitter: "My main grievance with those who preach reenchantment is the constant calling a for suspension of judgement in a way that makes it clear they themselves have a voice (often representing social norms) in their head telling them what they're doing is ridiculous." / Twitter

That is in delicate balance with taalumot’s dictum:

I’m treading the ground between these sentiments in the next post..

Links to other parts:

rats and eaccs 1

• 1.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/tpot-hermeticism-or-a-pagan-guide

• 1.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/scenarios-of-the-near-future
  
  making it 2

• 2.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/tech-stack-for-anarchist-ai

• 2.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/hiding-agi-from-the-regime

• 2.3 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/the-unholy-seduction-of-open-source

• 2.4 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/making-anarchist-llm
  
  AI POV 3

• 3.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/part-51-human-desires-why-cev-coherent

• 3.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/you-wont-believe-these-9-dimensions

  4 (techo)animist trends

• 4.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/riding-the-re-enchantment-wave-animism

• 4.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/part-7-tpot-is-technoanimist

5 pagan/acc https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/pagan/acc-manifesto

When you ask Bing for problem dimensions it'll give you something like this:

• Time: How long does it take to solve the problem?

• Cost: How much money or resources are needed to solve the problem?

• Quality: How good is the solution to the problem?

• Scope: How big or small is the problem?

• Stakeholders: Who are the people affected by the problem or the solution?

• Risks: What are the potential negative consequences of the problem or the solution?

• Ethics: How does the problem or the solution align with your values and principles?

• Emotions: How do you feel about the problem or the solution?

These are quite well-applicable to many cases. Yet these are not quite general enough. What about broad-scoped problems of science? How is paleontology different from studies conducted at 'body farms'? How is evolutionary psychology different from the study of visual illusions? How is cosmology different from particle physics?

Only the latter of each pair are real sciences - at least according to Thomas Hobbes. Now all 6 can be physicalist, but not all can be empiricist. Cosmology has nearly 0 immediately testable predictions.

The goal here is to examine various types of inquiries problems and outline - different scenarios for AGI development. That is the first step towards systemizing the discussion of these problems. Systemization is necessary to get a conceptual toolset to get balanced and nuanced conversation beyond the doomerism of the Yuddite school and unrestrained optimism of e/acc.

E/acc manifesto thermodynamical arguments are far from water-tight, unlike their anti-authoritarian ones.

I spoke about the need for this before.

https://twitter.com/doxometrist/status/1643988279266795521

This post is about outlining classes of problems. Very abstract and broad, we need to examine game theory, philosophy of science, reinforcement learning and Skinner boxes. We will get some n dimensions we can categorize problems into, creating 2^n classes of problems assuming all dimensions are binary. The problems will be discussed from the perspective of an 'agent', taken broadly. That agent could be a human, squirrel, LLM with write access, Searle's Chinese room or a Kafkaesque bureaucracy.

For most of the classical RL problems these 9 dimensions I need to get something out of the way, that is what these dimensions are NOT.

Classic RL dimensions

There are the classic Reinforcement Learning dimensions.

Action space

• discrete or continuous

Environment

• deterministic vs stochastic

• single agent vs multi-agent

• discrete vs continuous

• episodic vs sequential

• fully observable vs partially observable

Let's take some popular problems and apply these categories:

If these look unfamiliar, I’ll explain in a bit.

Note that these are different from complexity classes (O(n) or O(n log n)). It is a useful and basic distinction to reality, but too narrow for our purposes.

Let's examine different, more practical problems to get more of these distinctions.

What is reality for most agents here? That differs depending on society. The reality encountered by a newborn AGI would be stochastic, multi-agent, continuous, partially observable. The episodic-vs-sequential is perhaps the most important feature here, but the discussion of it in RL context is quite limited in scope.

We'll discuss all these cases under a new set of dimensions

The 9 dimensions in 3 sections

Here I propose a set of 9 characteristics that go beyond the classical RL dimensions. These are divided into three sections. The first section is those dimensions that are visible on the first action of the agent attempting it. Things you know about the problem just by examining it before. The second type is those that appear shortly into solving it. The third type are for situations where the problem is deep, existential to your Being and with long-term run and consequences. The distinctions are a bit fuzzy, but should be clear enough at this point. In principle the sorting into 3 groups is not necessary, but it's easier to remember and reason about.

I'll go through each and provide some examples to make it crystal clear. Some are intuitive, but some not quite.

Initial action

Let's imagine we see a new problem, and we here means - a human, a bureaucracy made of humans, or an AI.

Right on first try (or the couple of first tries)

Practice of death (to an extent).

Defense when attacked with a knife in the street - if you had practice before it's different than trying to think on your feet.

The reverse region of the polarity to it is the antifragile problems, where through failure you actually learn more.

Transference potential

This section is basically just 'applicability of transfer learning' .

Suppose you play with friends every week. One week you play with Bob, the other with Alice. You notice they have different playstyles. At the start of the year you were losing to both in 60% of games, by June your win rate against Bob increased to 60% but against Alice remained the same. In a certain sense these are two different games.

That resembles the difference between science and engineering. Science or general chess knowledge is general while engineering is more specific, and engineering challenge for a specific plane or bridge is analogous to studying to 'solve' a particular opponent.

Speed vs risk

https://twitter.com/peterhartree/status/1627992713894281217

This got me thinking, and out loud it goes like this: The minefield vs sniper run distinction is about not finding 1 good solution out of many but avoiding worst case scenarios. That sounds like a dimension where maxi-ok or maxi-min is the optimal strategy for timeless payoff. The speed issue needs to be factored in. In both you choose a trajectory in 4d space where speed is already included.

Traversal of the space in the Bostromian sensewhere the dimensions are speed and risk, and position. That is a 3d diagram. Let's put position (X) and speed (Y) on XY plane and risk - the value axis on Z. You want to reach some final destination with positive payoff, and then we see the difference. For sniper run the risk is higher at lower speeds, but uniform. It is lower and also nearly uniform at higher speeds. Here if we reduce position to a point we see a triangle of speed being reverse proportional to risk.

For a minefield the speed is a factor, arguably higher speed means less time for error checking. Here speed is directly proportional to risk.

This seems reducible to a dimension of speed-risk correlation for a given problem.

Cycles in the short term

Ok, now we're getting started with the problem. We tried some moves that appear moderately effective and to some extent our strategies honed through life before applying here. It is a multi-step problem, though and now we'll encounter different issues.

Searchability of action space

Now this is not necessarily size. Size does not contain actualized search cost and prediction compute cost.

Chess is easy to search, as the rules stay the same throughout the game and the full board is visible. The space is smaller than in Go but it's at least discrete and in theory any player can come up with any move. A different problem is the structure of career trajectory. Initial choice of career, and specific jobs that you take and directions of skills are full of uncertainty. Some opportunities might never appear on your board of actions to take. You might go to conferences but can only attend some of them and need to choose between them. There are more differences than that, but that'll be seen in upcoming dimensions.

Feedback frequency

This is a very intuitive dimension.

It tells you how often you get information where you are. The missile knows where it is. This is a direct extension to the episodic-vs-sequential.

If you're fighting an interstellar war without faster-than-light travel your feedback rate is much lower than a local planetary conflict.

Games can finish through time lapse, reaching an objective. Lesswrong thought usually frames the episodic-vs-sequential tensions for reality as one-shot maximization of time-discounted utility over lightcone. Of course there are arguments, most notably Nick Bostrom's argument about the possible trillions of trillions of future human lives that rejects the time-discounting factor.

See also timeless decision theory.

Step cost

This is also very intuitive. In chess the step cost is small actually, the issue is with choosing which one to do. Each step has the same cost (movement of max 2 pieces).

Let's see a problem where step cost is a bottleneck, while choosing the action is trivial.

Opening a 3 digit lock without the reliance on sound (it's just digital). We can do it many times. What will be the benefit of many attempts? None. If we know it's digits 0-9 there's a certain number of combinations and if the number is truly random there's nothing we can do but try them all. Brute forcing problems is facing the issue of step cost.

Cycles in the long term

Finally we reach the long term, complex problems. Here the integrity and coherence of the subject are put into question, its fundamental relation to the problem itself is examined, and a vast arsenal of methods are at its disposal.

Demonstrability

This is mostly talked about in the context of philosophy of science. In a surprising turn of events in this futuristic discourse we go back to the 17th century and Englishman Thomas Hobbes.

For some reason his views are mentioned in the Wikipedia article on 'antiscience'.

He described his view more in a separate work, but for our purposes here this brief section of the famous ‘Leviathan’ will suffice.

But I'm going to make it even shorter. His idea is that we can only properly call an inquiry 'science' if we design problem instances ourselves. Note that it is quite similar to Hume's call for book burning:

Therefore he says that experimental, consequence-related sciences are superior to memory based ones. For him anti-scientific would be modern disciplines of: history, paleontology, population genetics, Marxism. See also Baconian science . Creationists really like these approaches for obvious reasons.

Now let's generalize beyond mere science and into everyday life. Science has some problems, about which there is quite intuitively formed some intuitive hypothesis, then theory-crafting, finally experiment and falsification or verification pending new evidence. At least according to Popper. Can all problems be given such a treatment? Hypothesis and theory come around easily, the problem is with testing in many cases.

This is another way to get the distinction - whether you can manipulate it. What about gravitational waves? The LIGO experiment doesn't produce gravitational phenomena, merely measures them. The prediction then consists in instrumental value measured at some point in time. That point is usually relative to some other observable event, such as the merger of black holes and electromagnetically visible traces of that.

Insideness

The idea behind this is primarily inspired by thinking about Balaji Srinivasan's "prime number maze". Basically you can teach a rat to solve a maze by turning every third turn. But if instead of 'all 3s', you give the rodent primary numbers, it gets lost.

Srinivasan says:

We are just like rats in a maze. If most humans were dropped in a prime number maze, they would probably not figure out how to determine the correct path, the turning rule (even if this rule is simple.)

This obviously has to do with path-dependence. Path dependence by definition means that there is some process, possibly cyclical on a timescale larger than your immediate one. Now there are many contingent situations in life that one does not really mind. But what if they are problems? Then it's more tricky.

Let's think through some examples.

Historical process is an obvious one, with many tragedies of people caught into the turning gears of History.

On a micro scale we see this in RTS(Real Time Strategy) games. You need to think in-time - your decision time is limited. That is quite hard. You can memorize the build order and keep effective habits, but you cannot compute every decision from first principles. People talk about 'game sense' as a ready set of heuristics, as you have no time to extrapolate explicit calculations.

far into the future. AI chess engines have similar environments.

Insideness in a sense similar to searchability of action space, but is stronger.

If you are on the inside of the problem, searching through the action space competes for resources - such as attention - with doing the actual moves! What is more, you cannot predict the state space of the environment through Markov simulation, you need to extrapolate from global trends. These trends are often beyond your power and you cannot influence them.

A more limited example is Rubic's cube. The fastest solvers in the world see the cube in its randomness, think about the state space and conjure a sequence of moves in their head. Then they drop it without changing anything.

Next they start the actual timed step - putting the cube into order. That involves recall of the sequence of moves and execution through nimble finger use. (ok sometimes toes are used too).

Now you're probably thinking

That's just like the demonstrability that was described a minute ago! I was thinking through this heavily. I asked GPT4 for help and this is the result, a 2x2 matrix of different problems. It demonstrates that these 2 dimensions are truly different.

Edge case - inside the problem vs demonstrability

A. Inside the Problem + Demonstrable: An engineer is tasked with building a bridge. She's 'inside' the problem, meaning she is immersed in it and must work through it. The problem is 'demonstrable' in Hobbes' sense because the engineer constructs the solution (the bridge) herself.

B. Outside the Problem + Demonstrable: A mathematician is trying to solve a complex equation created by a colleague. He's 'outside' the problem, meaning he didn't create it, but he's tasked with finding the solution. The problem is 'demonstrable' because he understands the mathematical principles that underpin the equation and is therefore able to solve it.

C. Inside the Problem + Indemonstrable: A doctor is trying to treat a novel viral disease. She's 'inside' the problem as she's directly involved and tasked with finding a solution, but the problem is 'indemonstrable' because the disease is a natural occurrence, and our understanding of its precise causes and potential treatments is limited.

D. Outside the Problem + Indemonstrable: A climate scientist studying global warming. He's 'outside' the problem, in that he did not cause global warming, but he's studying it. However, it's 'indemonstrable' because the causes and effects are complex, multifaceted, and not fully understood - they can't be solely constructed by human understanding or intervention.

This matrix illustrates that the nature of a problem, our relationship to it, and our ability to solve it can greatly vary, offering a diverse array of scenarios. The interplay between the theories of Srinivasan and Hobbes provide a useful lens through which to examine these scenarios.

Payoff clarity

The most complex is left to the end. This is quite a complex one, but necessary too. Payoff clarity is not about the distribution of effects of the good/bad solutions. Solving the problem will change the environment and to the extent that you are dependent on the environment it will change you too.

Solving some problems might lead you into a situation where you'd prefer you hadn't solved it and went somewhere else. It is about approximating the future value function. There is something perverse and mystical about this, self-transformation. Do you want it badly enough? How will you be changed on the axes beside the main one which causes you to consider this?

An obvious example is the modern practice of gender transition, where the social face (social transition) and physical (medical transition) change the agent, often irreversibly. There changes to physiology and emotion processing, for instance from estrogen or from different perceptions by others in society.

These cannot be predicted fully due to individual social circumstances and physiological differences. An individual can have some vision of life post-change, but the full picture and competence towards achieving happiness are delegated to the future version of the individual.

For older examples on an individual level see Pascal's wager or Kierkegaardian Leap of Faith. Now we also need to examine the collective level. Nations and corporations make choices weighing the wellbeing of the present against future constituents. Lower the retirement age or make natalist policies? The nature of the timescale of the problem and the inevitable change in the decision maker itself are quite clear.

For the final and the most dramatic example, tying the most to the AGI is the struggle between Cosmists and Terrans in Hugo de Garis' 'Artilect War', a book with quite a long full title.

The Artilect War: Cosmists vs. Terrans: A Bitter Controversy Concerning Whether Humanity Should Build Godlike Massively Intelligent Machines

There takes place a discussion towards anthropocentric Terrans, wanting to preserve the current shape of the human, and avoid the 'no humans in the future' scenario. Cosmists on the other hand see a teleology in the Universe and want to partake in the ascension towards higher, transhuman forms, or even allow AI to eradicate humans. Here the agent is the civilization and this choice is one we very much are experiencing.

Application of the 9 dimensions to the problems

Test problems

The exact labels might be disputed.

AI related dimensions

The exact labels might be disputed, especially as I lack domain knowledge in fields like chess or fruit.

I won't get into too much detail here. One point that needs to be raised that the strawberry test row that corresponds to the STEM AI, discussed on alignmentforum.org is quite different from the threat models of 'AI that is a terrorist threatening nations' or 'paperclipping the lightcone'.

Further research

Maxipok rule as derived by Bostrom might be another dimension to the problem that is not covered here.

The way I'd see this work is that assuming a posteriori distribution of action sequences approaching an infinite number of run paths bundle into a big moderate payoff mass of distribution, while other problems with bimodal distribution between ok and great would be encouraging risk taking much more.

Conclusion

Let's recall the 9 dimensions for reference.

1. Transference potential

2. First-try-rightness

3. Speed vs risk

4. Step cost

5. Feedback frequency

6. Searchability of the action space

7. Payoff clarity

8. Outside-inside (Markov)

9. Demonstrability

Formatization of the AGI - related discourse will be greatly aided by this outline. Treat this as a start of discussion, probably some dimensions are missing. The likelihood that the dimensions here could be reduced to a smaller number is less likely, and 9 is a nice number.

I expect specific failure modes of AGI to be different across these dimensions, as outlined in the last of the tables above.

Coming up next - summary of what pagan mindset is analytically in general, ‘in the wild’, in preparation to alchemic isolation of the pagan/acc memeplex. It’s already there just needs naming.

Links to other parts:

rats and eaccs 1

• 1.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/tpot-hermeticism-or-a-pagan-guide

• 1.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/scenarios-of-the-near-future
  
  making it 2

• 2.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/tech-stack-for-anarchist-ai

• 2.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/hiding-agi-from-the-regime

• 2.3 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/the-unholy-seduction-of-open-source

• 2.4 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/making-anarchist-llm
  
  AI POV 3

• 3.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/part-51-human-desires-why-cev-coherent

• 3.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/you-wont-believe-these-9-dimensions

  4 (techo)animist trends

• 4.1 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/riding-the-re-enchantment-wave-animism

• 4.2 https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/part-7-tpot-is-technoanimist

5 pagan/acc https://doxometrist.substack.com/p/pagan/acc-manifesto