‘Epistemic uncertainty’ is an incoherent idea, implying that there is some definitive ‘reality’ beyond ideas that determines the validity of ideas and can be ‘known’ as an idea or otherwise conceived of as an idea and invalidate ‘knowledge’ without being identical with that idea. Once this absurd notion is dispensed with, the only possible standard of judgment, the only universal, necessary idea, is coherence itself, which is not ‘knowledge’ or ‘truth’ in the naive sense but an art of creative organisation of ideas in the pursuit of systemic perfection. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-thoughts-happen

Hate Speech

People do not get offended by the content of speech that they claim to be offended by, but by the possibility of thought behind the speech, even if unspoken. Hate speech laws are intended to punish thought, not speech, because they hate that others have the freedom to think badly of some idol instead of submitting to it. They lie about it because revealing their true motive would be an admission of hatred and idolatry.

Communism is the final stage of capitalism: one company or cartel owns everything. Absolute Monopoly.

Hypothesis: There is no ‘conflict’ in Ukraine, but a collaborative effort between NATO and Russia to de-nationalise and re-engineer the food-basket of Europe.

When the Government says:

“We must keep a strong banking sector”,

they mean:

“We must allow the banks to steal your savings by means of inflation so that we don’t have to print the same money in public interest because it would cause the same inflation, less the interest for which you are liable too, suckers!”

The meaning of number 1 may be defined as ‘irreducible representation of conceptual unity, where any attempt to further reduce it breaks the unity of the concept, its oneness, into a multiplicity’. Number 1 is the conceptual limit of reducibility.

I don’t know why people fuss about “shortage of housing”. It’s all just bricks and mud really, and bricks are made of mud. Plenty of mud everywhere.

There are only two modes in politics: bullshit and terror. The bullshit mode is possible only after seizing power, which is accomplished only though terror. The voting part is the bullshit mode.

Biometric or Digital ID is liability-evasion, not identity-verification.

When a company introduces a biometric ID protocol, it cannot verify the initial scan of biometric information as matching the correct person because it has no prior record of biometric information that matches the person. The entire process of biometric ID hinges on the unverified assumption that the initial scan is of the right person, and therefore has zero evidential value. The assertion that the purpose of this procedure is ‘identity verification’ does not make sense; the apparent purpose is to relieve the company of their liability for incorrect identification, which is the opposite of what is claimed.

Technological innovation does not (and never has) free up time for leisure. The only thing that changes for the average worker is the expected level of productivity. AI will keep you working just as hard or harder, just as long or longer, but you will be expected to produce 20 times the pre-AI output.

Before agriculture was the norm, we are told that Stone Age tribes spent most of the day sitting around chewing roots. The indigenous lifestyle is still glorified for its leisure content.

Before the widespread ownership of automobiles, a cart driver was expected to spend the whole day transporting bulk goods 50km away by horse. Now, the same distance is covered in less than an hour, with 50 times the cargo, and the pressure to be on time, to the minute, and performance monitoring is greater than ever.

Now consider an average worker in software development. The new AI agent the company introduces allows an average software engineer (or any engineer) to produce 20x as much code per hour as before. Every company introduces a similar agent, so competition forces productivity expectation across the entire industry. Do you think a company will now pay their workers the same wage for 1/20th of their time, or pay them 20 times the old wage? Cannot happen, or they would be out of business in one month.

But they will surely use AI agent to tighten the screw on work-focus and project-enthusiasm monitoring. Technology disruption is not for you, it never was; it was always for them. The rest is marketing and public relations.

Orwell’s 1984 was not a portrayal of a hypothetical future, but of the present. It was intended for the brainwashed captives of the existing system who believed themselves to be free, and where every public institution, every moral and political authority, was the opposite of what it claimed to be.

Many people will kill one another, each convinced of being right, while others watch.

“AI will do your work and free up your time” 😂 (because They care about you)

The war is not meant to be won. The aim of war is to balance the destructive forces of human nature, to the extent and for as long as humanity does not transcend its destructive nature.

EDIT: transcendence of nature is not transhumanism, it is not about augmenting or even replacing your body with some other object, but resolving the inconsistent, deterministic patterns of behaviour.

There is no such thing as the law of Australia, or of the USA, or Russia, or China. There is The Law, the same for every conscious being, and everything else that purports to be ‘the law of the land’ is contrary to it: monkey law.

If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to be offended about. Being offended is a defensive reaction of a guilty mind.

Society expects us to be offended on account of false accusations. Society gets offended if we are not offended by false accusations. I do not feel that way, nor do I expect justice from the system. Society has a guilty mind. I would not plead for justice by acting offended in any case.

A thought-exercise for those who believe the Bible (or any other scripture) is literally the word of God. How would it affect your faith if one day someone proved that the Bible is a forgery. For example, by discovering that every seventh letter of every seventh paragraph, assembled into a sequence, produces a confession of this forgery, with a further, more complex key given to decode a secondary confirmation, so it would be something that could not happen without intentional design. Would you reject your faith, or would it make no difference, and why?

This is possibly the key to understanding religion.

Authenticity of religious scripture no longer matters, insofar as the question of authenticity does not have the capacity to affect the experience of the believer. The reality structured on the basis of belief is capable of sustaining itself, via the community of believers, and this reality is authentically experienced, which makes the belief necessarily authentic in that reality, insofar as it supports reality.

I recall this segment from Mircea Eliade:

“In general it can be said that myth, as experienced by archaic societies, (1) constitutes the History of the acts of the Supernaturals; (2) that this History is considered to be absolutely true (because it is concerned with realities) and sacred (because it is the work of the Supernaturals; (3) that myth is always related to a ‘creation,’ it tells how something came into existence, or how a pattern of behaviour, an institution, a manner of working were established; this is why myths constitute the paradigms for all significant human acts; (4) that by knowing the myth one knows the ‘origin’ of thing and hence can control and manipulate them at will; this is not an ‘external,’ ‘abstract’ knowledge but a knowledge that one ‘experiences’ ritually, either by ceremonially recounting the myth or by performing the ritual for which it is the justification; (5) that in one way or another one ‘lives’ the myth, in the sense that one is seized by the sacred, exalting power of the events recollected or re-enacted.” (Eliade, Mircea. Myth and Reality. Harper & Row, 1963, 18-19)

Common beliefs define reality, and there can only be one consistent reality. All religions, cultures and ideologies want total conceptual domination, without realising that this would destroy them; if reality were cemented, definitive, no longer creatively challenged and negotiated, consciousness could not sustain itself.