Cybernethics / Cybernéthique

A critic of Moldbug's views contested that Universalism fails to actually denote anything coherent, because there is no well-defined set of beliefs that can be unequivocally associated to said Universalism. But that's missing the point.

Universalism, despite its claims to the contrary, is not a rational philosophy; it is an emotional religion. And so, its basics tenets are not concepts that can be rationally articulated; they are anchors that are emotionally expressed. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Democracy, Universal Rights, Peace, Love, Everyone, People, etc. -- all these are the Good Things, but not in any rational concept, always as emotional anchors, as Sacred things beyond discussion.

First Law of Sincerity: I am right.

Second Law of Sincerity: My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.

First Law of Dissent: I am right, therefore those who disagree with me are wrong.

Second Law of Dissent: Those who disagree with me are wrong, therefore they are evil, stupid and/or crazy.

These are universal laws. They are valid for all values of me, including you.

• SJ people, the vast majority, are "Guardians": they ensure the preservation of an order made of concrete actions. The argument they are most sensitive to is appeal to authority, if only the authority of history: does your proposal have an established track record?
• NF people, the next most frequent (on the Internet at least), are "Idealists": they move the world according to abstract associations-dissociations. The argument they are most sensitive to is appeal to emotion: does your proposal promote good and repel evil?
• SP people, the next most frequent, are "Artisans": they craft things together according to experience. The argument they are most sensitive to is demonstration by example: show me how your proposal works in practice.
• NT people, the least frequent, are "Rationals": they try to understand the world in terms of abstract causes and consequences. The argument they are most sensitive to is a articulate reasoning: explain why your proposal works.

That doesn't mean that no SJ is sensitive to emotion, example or reason, or that no NT can see virtue in authority, example or emotion, etc. It means that each one has a strong gut feeling that ultimately boils down to the kind of argument one feels most empathy with, and will distrust other kinds of arguments when they conflict with one's gut feeling.

That also means that if you want to spread ideas on the large of a whole population, you need to combine all four kinds of arguments into a common discourse.

... would smell as bad. And here, the name for black magic is the propensity to resort to Type M arguments, as opposed to Type C arguments: Type C arguments explore consequences, Type M arguments question Motives. Another great piece by Arnold Kling. (Cám ơn Patri)

Last month, I was thinking a lot about polyphasic sleep schedules. I didn't manage to discipline myself in such a schedule yet, and my feeble attempts only combined with procrastination into reducing my sleep time, to my ultimate psychological downfall. A more reasonable target will be to shoot for simple biphasic sleep, with a regular nap in the afternoon after a regular lunch: when at ENS, I met someone who did quite well this way, which is also the way it was done for all children in my kindergarten. When I manage that, it will be time to add more naps and do less sleep.

However, short sleep schedules have the power to bring more lucid dreaming. And with my reading about lucid dreaming, and my recurring disappointment since I was a kid at not being able to take notes in my dreams that I could leave to my waking self, I had this most interesting meta lucid dream.

In a previous post, I told you of a door hack one of my colleagues did, and what social concepts it illustrated. Mind you, when I was younger, I also did my own door hacks. My former clubmates from the Club Informatique of Lycée Louis-le-Grand may remember one that I did long ago, back in High-School. In retrospect, I realize this anecdote too may illustrate a number of interesting social concepts.

My officemate, a very fine hacker if there ever were one, did a nice door hack last week. The RFID reader pad that controls the electronic door lock for the suit we're in was too high by a few inches (centimeters? wazzat?), so he removed it from the wall and put it back a few inches below; the result isn't quite as nice and clean as it used to be, but it is much more functional: if you carry your electronic key in your pocket, as every one does, a proper twist of your hip (depending on said pocket being front or back, left or right), and there the door opens -- just like it is with other doors in the company. Everyone involved is happy, and no administrative sanction is taken, sought or even considered. Correction: Everyone involved is happy, thus no administrative sanction is taken, sought or even considered. Incidentally, what the competent administrator did decide when he became aware of the change, and after seeking explanations, was to set straight the pad that had been left slightly crooked, acknowledging the enhancement, rather than putting things back with sanctions as could have been his reflex, into which a bureaucrat would have gleefully indulged. That's the power of capitalism: all consensual transactions are legitimate.

On se souvient rarement d'un rêve, et rarement des détails, sauf à la rigueur de vagues détails, juste après s'être réveillé. Celui-là m'a donné envie de vous le raconter en brodant un peu pour recréer tous les détails et supposés implicites, qui semblent évidents durant le rêve, et indicibles après. C'est l'histoire d'un jeune couple glamour qui a tout pour être heureux mais ne l'est pas.

House of Fools. The greater madness takes place outside the walls. Made me laugh. Made me cry. What a movie.

While in the States, I had an argument with, of all persons, a French man. He argued for relativism, that true and false do not matter, and might not exist at all, that every situation is unique, etc. Yeah sure! His example went that everytime he heard that same Opera was unique. And my reply was that everytime he'd have to listen to the noise of a jackhammer for two uninterrupted hours would be just as unique. He was an extreme example of what Ayn Rand called the anti-conceptual mentality.

Les couloirs du métro annoncent Pharaon à l'institut du monde arabe, à grand renforts de sponsors étatiques et para-étatiques. Pourquoi pas Dalai Lama à l'institut du monde chinois? Chef Hutu, à l'institut du monde tutsi? Inca à l'institut du monde ibérique? Roi Champa à l'institut du monde vietnamien? Hannibal à l'institut du monde romain? Néanderthal à l'institut du monde Cro-Magnon? Et d'abord pourquoi un institut du monde arabe plutôt que d'aucun autre? Attention, si on laisse faire la vermine qui instigue une telle mascarade, dans quelques années, à l'institut du monde arabe, ce sera Premier ministre israëlien bientôt suivi de Président français. La collection a vocation à s'étendre autant qu'on la laissera faire.

The Graphing Calculator Story, that is making rounds in computist blogs, reminds me of the .sig by Alan Schmitt:

The hacker: someone who figured things out and made something cool happen.

The world needs more hackers and fewer witch doctors. Now, I wonder how much of the difference in psycho-epistemology is in-born, and how much is acquired... and I admit I am rather pessimistic as to the answer and its consequences.

Another important way in which americans are free and french are not: in public messages, whether in ads or in public venue regulations, the main way that people are enticed to do things, in the States, is you can do it, you can help preserve the environment, you can achieve something for yourself, etc. In France, it's you must, whether you like it or not, you cannot, because someone who knows better than you has decided it this way. Of course, this is more visible in public regulations than in private advertisements, since the latter always rely on the good will of the consumer. Still, even french ads more often than not resort to bad conscience and other forms of self-loathing. This is not something to be found in the States.

Flow with the Tao, and the Tao will flow with you.

My Creed

I do not choose to be a common man.
It is my right to be uncommon -- if I can.
I seek opportunity -- not security.
I do not wish to be a kept citizen,
humbled and dulled by having the state look after me.
I want to take the calculated risk;
to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed.
I refuse to barter incentive for a dole.
I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence;
the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia.
I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout.
I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat.
It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid;
to think and act for myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations
and to face the world boldly saying, this I have done.
All this is what it means to be an American.

Dean Alfange

This poem was the basis for Douglas Rasmussen's speech in Aix. I thought I should not only share it with friends, but cast it in gold into my blog. Yes, I am an American, just born in the wrong country. Actually, America is an idea, not a country. Someday, the whole world will be America: land of the free, home of the brave. In the meantime, America experiences a relative shortage of Americans.

Dear Robot,

I dreamt of our duel last night. There was this combat venue, and whoever would kill all volunteer opponents got to be king of an acclaiming mob, always cheering the strongest -- until a better fighter would step forward, slay him, and be cheered instead. You were the king -- a big brute, unvanquished for a long time.

Dear Robot,

It's happening NOW! Of course it is. Really. Indeed, nothing ever happens at any other time but NOW (for a varying value of NOW, of course).

It's a kind of obvious duh! joke, once you get it, --- and that's a generic you because I know you are utterly unable to get it since you can't bind time --- yet it seems to me to be a joke that Mike would agree is the sort that goes on being funny forever. Especially everytime I use it to win against you.

By way of DF on an evopsy mailing-list, this review by Matt Nuenke of The Robot's Rebellion. While I feel totally in synch with the author of the review, I particularly like the part about The four interrelated biases I have discussed in detail elsewhere. Makes me want to read more. Now, my reading list is quite long already, and reading is not on top of my todo list either. Sigh.

Of course, while the image of a "rebellion" is meant as a way to indicate that we go against (some) innate or induced tendencies, let it be reminded that at a deeper level, "our" genes and memes "want" us to rebel against counter-productive remnants of our ontogeny/phylogeny, so as to more efficiently spread them -- we have been selected for our capacity of overcoming the limitations of mere animality.

PS: Matt's NeoEugenics site prominently links to prometheism.net, which reminds me of extropians, except that it's focused on rationally surveyed evolution rather than a technological revolution to enhance the human race.

Il faudra qu'un jour j'écrive un long billet sur la différence entre Droit et Fait. L'absence de conceptualisation de la distinction catégorique nette entre Droit et Fait semble être une caractéristique commune à de nombreux esprits intelligents qui rejettent le libéralisme. Le Fait est de l'ordre du Métaphysique, de ce qui est donné, de cette Réalité "qui reste quand on cesse d'y croire". Le Droit est de l'ordre de l'Éthique, de ce qui doit être, de cette Action Humaine qui est le fait de l'homme parce qu'il y croit. (Notons qu'à défaut de lui connaître un meilleur nom, j'appelle ici Éthique ce continuum qui contient entre autres la morale individuelle autant que l'espace juridique du Droit, qui se distinguent en ce que le premier fonde ses évaluations sur les opinions individuelles, tandis que le suivant fonde les siennes sur les connaissances communes, sans parler de tous les variantes imaginables.)

Là où la confusion catégorique entre Fait et Droit devient la plus grotesque est quand un bienpensant de quelque bord en vient à rejeter avec véhémence un point de vue sous prétexte qu'il mène à des conclusions odieuses. Exemple récent, un communiste rejetait le point de vue Darwiniste, sous prétexte qu'il promouvrait l'exploitation du faible par le fort. Dans cette démarche comme partout dans le reste de notre échange épistolaire, il était incapable de distinguer métaphysique et juridique, incapable de faire la différence entre discours normatif et discours descriptif. Or, interpréter normativement en "cela DOIT être" ce qui se veut le descriptif "cela EST" relève de l'erreur de catégorie; et cette erreur est invisible à qui est innocent de la distinction entre Fait et Droit. D'où la psychopathologie qui consiste à redouter et vouloir censurer un point de vue descriptif sous prétexte qu'avec ladite erreur de catégorie on obtiendrait une conclusion gênante. Encore une phobie basée sur une croyance irrationnelle de l'ordre de l'erreur catégorique -- où Albert Ellis et Alfred Korzybski se complètent. (Pour un esprit rationnel, tous les points de vue rationnels sur la réalité sont valables, et de par l'existence de la réalité, ils se recoupent forcément de façon cohérente moyennant réinterprétation adéquate, tout contradiction étant dans l'observation ou l'interprétation et non pas dans la structure objective sous-jacente. Pour resortir un vocabulaire de matheux, ces points de vue sont des homéomorphismes locaux dressant des cartes d'une variété et localement identiques à isomorphisme près sur les domaines où ils se recouvrent.)

In his practice, Albert Ellis, inventor of the Rational-Emotional Behavioral Therapy, traced down most psychological trouble to irrational demands of 100% guarantees of success -- or at least of non-failure -- that people make out of themselves, out of other people, out of future natural events: thinking in turns of MUSTs and SHOULDs instead of CANs and MAYs. Teleological normative discourse versus purposeful descriptive discourse. Well, once again, and quite unsurprisingly, this is perfectly in concordance with my claim that belief in the State is a mental pathology.

I know the point of view I am going to give will seem oh so hackneyed. I suppose it must already have been applied to the very same particular case that I will be considering; and many times so, even, but all of these times have remained as obscure as they rightly deserve -- uh, I mean, dark forces conspired to keep the truth from being revealed to the unsuspecting public. Still, at the cost of my mental sanity, I will reveal you how you too can see the great Cthulhu the way H.P. Lovecraft first discovered it. Not that I could refrain from telling you, anyway.

You are an Anarchist. You think that capitalism is evil, that the "market" is a subtle dictatorship, that wage labor is but hidden (or softened) slavery, that consumership is an illusion to manipulate minds, that the State is the institution of this system of exploitation. You want to promote human life, natural beauty, liberty, and things well and good. That's why you oppose all the above evil things. OK.

Now you face wierd people who say they are anarchists, yet who promote those evil things you associate to the State you hate. How can that be? Are they hypocrites? Spies paid by big corporations to instill confusion? Are they crazy people incapable of coherent thinking? No, we're people just as sincere as you are; we also despise the current state of affairs and hate dictatorship, slavery and mind manipulation; and we're also motivated by our love of human life, natural beauty, liberty, and all things well and good. But we just have a different interpretation of what is evil.

How slight or how big is this difference? How much of it is a matter of a cultural gap in terminology and how much of it is actual irreconcilable ideas? Can we find a common pattern by which both of our groups may legitimately claim to be anarchist? Can we identify and circumscribe the root of our disagreements? Is it possible to find a peaceful way to resolve our disagreements, or will we have to kill each other before either or us may have his way? Well, if you'll allow me to argue my case, we can enter a sincere debate. And maybe we can find a resolution to settle our conflict in the anarchist way: through peaceful discussion.