Nice post. As Thomas Ligotti concludes in "The Conspiracy Against the Human Race", “If truth is what you seek, then the examined life will only take you on a long ride to the limits of solitude and leave you by the side of the road with your truth and nothing else.” Some feel a drive to pursue it anyway (given we are human, none of us ever captures the full truth, merely subjective facets of it).
Rolo Slavsky comments sometimes with wonder at his innate desire to pursue truth despite having the capabilities to fool the retarded masses to cash in, which is just giving them what they want, to be told that all will be OK and the world is a good place where Truth and Justice (tm) naturally prevail without their own effort or risk -- but the drive for it, when the truth is generally dark and depressing, leaving a knot in your gut, is a curious thing...
I think we've all probably thought about this a lot. My favored explanation is the need for cognition (NFC) as a psychometric variable is highly predictive of those who choose truth. It is out of necessity. Even with high IQ, if your NFC is low, you won't continue to ponder things after you get an expedient result. High NFC on the other hand... you'll keep thinking. Whether you want to or not, it can't be stopped. It is a need, after all. What kinds of nagging inconvenient truths will run through a mind that can't help but stop? Such people can't afford to profit off of lies unless totally lacking in empathy. I imagine straying too far down the path of sociopathy with high NFC, high IQ, and high empathy all but requires self destruction as the only escape for the unavoidable psychological pain that would accompany such a confluence of factors. I don't know that it has to be lonely though. Especially in the modern age its more feasible than ever to find a like minded spouse and some good like minded friends.
Cognitive decline driven by the pursuit of lies is definitely a thing. First, conscious dissembling places an additional cognitive load which reduces performance in the moment. Second, and more perniciously, over time the lies have a destructive effect on the coherence of one's mind both internally, and with the external environment. People who believe lies become stupid; also for societies that demand belief in lies.
This is why it is so very dangerous for belief to be moralized. People should be encouraged to speak their minds, to say what they think is true, even if (others think) they are wrong. Under such circumstances they will perform at their best. Further, it will encourage true things to proliferate in the social shared mind, increasing coherence with the world and making all participants smarter and more effective.
Of course, rationality is just one aspect of this. Intuition, inspiration, and instinct also speak the truth, albeit without the ability to explain themselves.
I really appreciate the comment. Reading through a lot of thoughts come to mind indicating just how recursive this topic can get to discuss. Yes, it is dangerous for belief to be moralized, but are we not moralizing the prioritization of seeking and speaking truth? We can't help but moralize our self-interest, so what can we do? Along the lines of what I'm arguing in this essay, we can work to align our self-interest with true morality. One that we sense via reason, intuition, inspiration, and instinct aligns with the truth.
I'd also like to point out that ratiocination itself allows you to observe that "Intuition, inspiration, and instinct also speak the truth, albeit without the ability to explain themselves" in the first place. They all work together harmoniously as long as you're not permanently stuck in rationalization mode, which I think we may as well be called LHB dominance (reflexively seeking a narrative to justify the model).
This 'Darkening of Intellect' from Sin is Traditional Catholic Doctrine explained and expanded by Thomas Aquinas. Not only lies Darken and damage our mental faculties, but accepting the insane as normal or good.
Natural Law defines our basic drives - to do good, for example, but to do bad we must accept unTruth and then the action is unJust which disOrders our faculties.
In our and all Western societies and beyond I and anyone my age or older will remember when society and adults were sane and virtue was everywhere, both men and women would help of guide a boy and anyone else if they asked, and it was secure to have people around - strangers, with a trust society. My memories of this is early 1970's.
Then we started to raise children from crib and adults started to get used to the insanity of mothers killing or babies on a whim, and so a Cancer of Chaos stated to grow in us all, and started showing in society in later 1980's - as I recall. And has grown until sexually mutilating mind-body-soul of children is practiced in society and taught in younger age public schools, along with that they can change their sex, killing of elderly and others for expanded reasons, .., and we are watching open Televised Genocide in Gaza, what Insanity is next?
Great post. I think Aristotle is very helpful here. In Book I, chapter 5 of Nicomachean Ethics, he discusses those who make honor their highest good. What happens to these people is that their reason becomes enslaved to the validation of other people. I think this captures well the drives to fit in and get ahead that you mention in this essay. Psychology, not logic, takes over.
Thanks! Absolutely. Truth is hard enough to ascertain as it is, all we can do is to seek it as best we can. If any other good is elevates, this logically entails that you are making a tradeoff. You are no longer applying your reason towards understanding truth to your fullest capacity. In a society that values honor that probably isn't the worst trade off. In one that perpetually rewards service to globohomo we can expect the results to be horrifying.
I spent every summer from age 12 - 22ish working in crews of mostly men, with sometimes a woman or two. We all have boundaries as men & women, and we all knew each others' boundary , and rarely someone would cross it and threat of fighting, and then fighting.
No one called police and likely laughed at if we did.
When I was full-time at University towards my BS degree the social interactions were male and female peers, and professors.
In first 2-years at university - at full-time - and took a work-study job in a basic medical research lab, and so much enjoyed the work, and people around the floor and building all were pleasant at the shallow interactions. When the position was made into a staff position, after HR dept. through-away my first application - white men genocide that still policies or male-killing women's HR practices today. Under DEI instead of Affirmative-Action, but genocide of White men is the goal.
There were many times I would have punched for overt disrespecting from both men and women. Women were more vicious and with their Vag-Card if I got physical or reported them would get me fired and record of 'has trouble working with women' which for anyone in professional career.
My threshold has to do with the question; would I ever say and-or do that to anyone? Was the repeated over time made me anxious that it would happen anytime at work? Was it in public - how many witnesses? and perhaps others.
The issue is if a man I could get by with shoving and offer to go outside, but how to respond to women abuse? If I shove them - that would likely be a firing event. This is where it gets bad, without reacting as they want to get me fire, the abuse continues and may get more aggressive. A women acting worse than farm-workers would. If I reacted, then it would be bad.
Nice post. As Thomas Ligotti concludes in "The Conspiracy Against the Human Race", “If truth is what you seek, then the examined life will only take you on a long ride to the limits of solitude and leave you by the side of the road with your truth and nothing else.” Some feel a drive to pursue it anyway (given we are human, none of us ever captures the full truth, merely subjective facets of it).
Rolo Slavsky comments sometimes with wonder at his innate desire to pursue truth despite having the capabilities to fool the retarded masses to cash in, which is just giving them what they want, to be told that all will be OK and the world is a good place where Truth and Justice (tm) naturally prevail without their own effort or risk -- but the drive for it, when the truth is generally dark and depressing, leaving a knot in your gut, is a curious thing...
I think we've all probably thought about this a lot. My favored explanation is the need for cognition (NFC) as a psychometric variable is highly predictive of those who choose truth. It is out of necessity. Even with high IQ, if your NFC is low, you won't continue to ponder things after you get an expedient result. High NFC on the other hand... you'll keep thinking. Whether you want to or not, it can't be stopped. It is a need, after all. What kinds of nagging inconvenient truths will run through a mind that can't help but stop? Such people can't afford to profit off of lies unless totally lacking in empathy. I imagine straying too far down the path of sociopathy with high NFC, high IQ, and high empathy all but requires self destruction as the only escape for the unavoidable psychological pain that would accompany such a confluence of factors. I don't know that it has to be lonely though. Especially in the modern age its more feasible than ever to find a like minded spouse and some good like minded friends.
Cognitive decline driven by the pursuit of lies is definitely a thing. First, conscious dissembling places an additional cognitive load which reduces performance in the moment. Second, and more perniciously, over time the lies have a destructive effect on the coherence of one's mind both internally, and with the external environment. People who believe lies become stupid; also for societies that demand belief in lies.
This is why it is so very dangerous for belief to be moralized. People should be encouraged to speak their minds, to say what they think is true, even if (others think) they are wrong. Under such circumstances they will perform at their best. Further, it will encourage true things to proliferate in the social shared mind, increasing coherence with the world and making all participants smarter and more effective.
Of course, rationality is just one aspect of this. Intuition, inspiration, and instinct also speak the truth, albeit without the ability to explain themselves.
I really appreciate the comment. Reading through a lot of thoughts come to mind indicating just how recursive this topic can get to discuss. Yes, it is dangerous for belief to be moralized, but are we not moralizing the prioritization of seeking and speaking truth? We can't help but moralize our self-interest, so what can we do? Along the lines of what I'm arguing in this essay, we can work to align our self-interest with true morality. One that we sense via reason, intuition, inspiration, and instinct aligns with the truth.
I'd also like to point out that ratiocination itself allows you to observe that "Intuition, inspiration, and instinct also speak the truth, albeit without the ability to explain themselves" in the first place. They all work together harmoniously as long as you're not permanently stuck in rationalization mode, which I think we may as well be called LHB dominance (reflexively seeking a narrative to justify the model).
This 'Darkening of Intellect' from Sin is Traditional Catholic Doctrine explained and expanded by Thomas Aquinas. Not only lies Darken and damage our mental faculties, but accepting the insane as normal or good.
Natural Law defines our basic drives - to do good, for example, but to do bad we must accept unTruth and then the action is unJust which disOrders our faculties.
In our and all Western societies and beyond I and anyone my age or older will remember when society and adults were sane and virtue was everywhere, both men and women would help of guide a boy and anyone else if they asked, and it was secure to have people around - strangers, with a trust society. My memories of this is early 1970's.
Then we started to raise children from crib and adults started to get used to the insanity of mothers killing or babies on a whim, and so a Cancer of Chaos stated to grow in us all, and started showing in society in later 1980's - as I recall. And has grown until sexually mutilating mind-body-soul of children is practiced in society and taught in younger age public schools, along with that they can change their sex, killing of elderly and others for expanded reasons, .., and we are watching open Televised Genocide in Gaza, what Insanity is next?
God Bless., Steve
Great post. I think Aristotle is very helpful here. In Book I, chapter 5 of Nicomachean Ethics, he discusses those who make honor their highest good. What happens to these people is that their reason becomes enslaved to the validation of other people. I think this captures well the drives to fit in and get ahead that you mention in this essay. Psychology, not logic, takes over.
Thanks! Absolutely. Truth is hard enough to ascertain as it is, all we can do is to seek it as best we can. If any other good is elevates, this logically entails that you are making a tradeoff. You are no longer applying your reason towards understanding truth to your fullest capacity. In a society that values honor that probably isn't the worst trade off. In one that perpetually rewards service to globohomo we can expect the results to be horrifying.
'Current Environment'
I spent every summer from age 12 - 22ish working in crews of mostly men, with sometimes a woman or two. We all have boundaries as men & women, and we all knew each others' boundary , and rarely someone would cross it and threat of fighting, and then fighting.
No one called police and likely laughed at if we did.
When I was full-time at University towards my BS degree the social interactions were male and female peers, and professors.
In first 2-years at university - at full-time - and took a work-study job in a basic medical research lab, and so much enjoyed the work, and people around the floor and building all were pleasant at the shallow interactions. When the position was made into a staff position, after HR dept. through-away my first application - white men genocide that still policies or male-killing women's HR practices today. Under DEI instead of Affirmative-Action, but genocide of White men is the goal.
There were many times I would have punched for overt disrespecting from both men and women. Women were more vicious and with their Vag-Card if I got physical or reported them would get me fired and record of 'has trouble working with women' which for anyone in professional career.
My threshold has to do with the question; would I ever say and-or do that to anyone? Was the repeated over time made me anxious that it would happen anytime at work? Was it in public - how many witnesses? and perhaps others.
The issue is if a man I could get by with shoving and offer to go outside, but how to respond to women abuse? If I shove them - that would likely be a firing event. This is where it gets bad, without reacting as they want to get me fire, the abuse continues and may get more aggressive. A women acting worse than farm-workers would. If I reacted, then it would be bad.
God Bless., Steve