Guide Principia Paranoia

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Principia Paranoia file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Principia Paranoia book. Happy reading Principia Paranoia Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Principia Paranoia at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Principia Paranoia Pocket Guide.
Principia Paranoia: How to Survive Paranoia in a Paranoid World [Christopher J Chambers] on leondumoulin.nl *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. When you.
Table of contents

But the fact remains some behaviors are, if not self-defeating, simply wasted. In other words, if one sought effectiveness in the implementation of their ideology, they should probably study. The way the world works is not easy to figure out. You will probably want to study economics, sociology, philosophy, and history. Consider it the principle of reproducibility. In order to extend the effect of your own personal actions, find actions which have a high likelihood of being reproduced. This requires not only adopting behaviors you think will be copied by others, but behaviors that will be copied in response to their opposition.

There will always be some who support your behavior or idea, and others who oppose it. The opposition itself should be thought of as an essential force, rather than one that could or should be done away with. The lion and the gazelle, by their natures, excel the nature of the other, and unless they did so they should not have existed for as long as they have. The yang incorporates the yin, and so on; there is no yangless yin or yinless yang , each is bound to and interdepends on the other. You should think of your ideas as not being merely designed to overpower the opposition, but capable of harnessing the opposition to transmit and improve the idea.

It is as if the challenge is to preserve and promote your doctrine, but your doctrine would only be recorded by those who thought of it as heresy. You cannot enforce the charity of those contending with your doctrine, but nonetheless you must speak to those capable of separating the received opinion from the analysis of the idea.

This is essential even while intending the idea to dominate the regime. The memeplex it instills should be capable of both asserting and defending itself against rival doctrines. The logos , the doctrine conforming all things to itself, cannot be iterated even while all ideas tend to its expression. Ideas have ends beyond themselves. Even when an idea takes hold, it will always be succeeded by others. Living things require continual regeneration for their existence.

I conceive of history as an eternal golden thread. The world of motion has its inevitable end in some ultimate state of being we call God, and although inevitable it can only be accomplished by work. When we act in history, we are creating the eternal golden thread. Our actions become the basis for change tomorrow, which eventually promotes a new set of circumstances which change themselves, and on and on. Unless we consider how our actions might turn out, with or without our intention, then we cannot say we are addressing our action to the end of history.

The number of people who would like to help the poor is vastly greater than the number of people who have studied the causes of poverty. In fact, the number of people who would like to help the poor but would impose self-defeating or unsustainable policies to that end is also probably greater than the number who have studied. Ignorance stops no one from speaking, which is probably why the wise insist there is wisdom in remaining silent.

As much as we value the participation of the average individual in democracy, the truth is democracy tends to the lowest common denominator. On the one hand, this is probably why the value of education is promoted, in order to increase the value of that participation.

But on the other hand, it also explains the allure of elitist systems. If you knew what you knew, given an expansive largely autodidactic, as any good learner will be education, but you were reduced to using the same base of knowledge as everyone else, you would likely despair. Yet, when promoting your own ends, we are forced to contend with the forces of ignorance more than those of learning and knowledge. So much of our meaning can be easily lost when other people approach our ideas, simply due to their uninformed biases and prejudice.

Like I said, one should consider their ideas as being proposed to a hostile, ignorant audience if one seeks to promote them in their strongest form — a form in which the genuine understanding of the idea is apt to make one amenable to it. When people do not understand, they are as likely to conclude the idea is dangerous and should be suppressed. Sometimes misunderstanding is unavoidable, especially if one is promoting an idea at odds with the mainstream or the status quo. And if one is actually seeking to change the system, then it is incredibly likely one is, in fact, doing such a thing.

If the idea were already popular and widely accepted, either with or without being implemented in some form, then probably it is assimilable to the system and, therefore, not truly a matter of ideology. For example, promoting the minimum wage is popular, thoroughly non-revolutionary, and self-defeating. There are many who can and will only commit what is necessary to demonstrate their personal preferences, and nothing beyond.

Isaac Newton - Knowino

It might even be the majority of people. As such, one ought to be concerned about the company they keep. If you find yourself comfortable with people who particularly enjoy being seen promoting policies , but who are otherwise ignorant as to the practical application of knowledge concerning their approved subject matter, then it suggests something very troubling for your ideas.

Either the company you keep has already been co-opted, will be co-opted, or it is simply throwing energies into a void where it will accomplish nothing. We are social creatures and social reasoners, so it is possible to detect the virtue of our ideas from those around us to some degree.

If you enjoy the human body and wish to promote your ideas about how it should work, but everyone you keep company with is abhorrently ignorant of anatomy and biology, it very well probably does shed some light on how earnest you are about your pursuits, at least in terms of objectivity. I bring this up because it is as important to study and understand ourselves, when promoting a doctrine, as it is to study and seek how to promote that doctrine itself. If we are blind to our motivations, we may be blinding ourselves to the futility or self-defeating character of the doctrine we promote.

An ideology to help everyone may well be a contradiction in terms. Should circumstance benefit equally the productive, who provide the means to live comfortably, equally as the slothful, who consume more than they produce? Such a system, if it benefited both equally, would be quickly outcompeted by a system that gave some preference to the productive over the slothful.

The more resources are allocated to the productive, the more productive those resources are by extension, which in turn provides more for everyone.

Transforming from Paranoia through Metanoia and Hyponoia?

Likewise, the system needs a consistent means of determining between productivity and sloth. Should it only be a matter of human judgment? Or are there better means available? The input of millions — rather than an individual controller — may provide a clearer picture. Fortunately, such a system will tend to promote itself over that of systems benefiting the slothful, meaning the robust and dynamic system tends to rise easily above the others that lend themselves to poverty.

The lion does not mean to benefit the herd of gazelle by picking off the slow and weak. Yet the effect of its efforts is to leave the stronger, more agile gazelle who subsequently reproduce, promoting the greater average strength of the gazelle. There is an intrinsic relationship exerted between the mass and the elite, in which each trades with the other their respective benefits; the elites more to themselves individually, but the mass more to themselves as a collective.


  • Isaac Newton?
  • Oculoplastics and Orbit: Aesthetic and Functional Oculofacial Plastic Problem-Solving in the 21st Century (Essentials in Ophthalmology).
  • First Night (City of Charming Book 1).
  • Memetic Lexicon.
  • ONE?
  • Transforming from Paranoia through Metanoia and Hyponoia?.
  • INTRODUCTION.

The strategies and incentives of each inherent to the system they occupy lend themselves to acting in a manner that always ultimately strengthens the system; if the immediate actions they might take weakened the system, then either those actions would have already been disincentivized, with some attendant penalty e. The result is that we live in a system that affords us very little room for ideological action — and action that truly moves the system is as likely to be destructive in the long run as creative.

If we are committed to some purpose of nature, then we should concern ourselves with whether those ends are creative, although it is just as likely what is creative can only realize itself in competition with destructive pursuits. Nature only cares about what helps its end to manifest the logos , that ultimate form capable of sustaining itself to the end of time.

Indeed, from a certain perspective the whole universe is a machine for creating such a form, a form that must, in the end, become commensurate with the whole. An entity which has incorporated every last antithesis, the final synthesis beyond which no more possible evolution is possible, a system that has been completed.

Account Options

But we are nowhere near the end. We are bound to the eternal golden thread, to see what is creative and destructive all the way to the end of time. It is the universal and natural religion of the mystics, to realize the end of the world. The final apocalypse after which there is no more to be revealed. That is my ideology, and it is what grants me faith that such an end will realize itself — because the world has always been bound to such an end from its beginning, it is inevitable given its essential nature.

We, as individuals and as a collective, are only a step, a single fiber connecting the beginning of time to its end. Civilization is premised upon coordination. In each of our interactions, the possibility is to either cooperate or defect with another. The more cooperation that persists, the easier and more likely it is that cooperation will reign.

However, in the event of defection, those who have been defected on — or others observing others being defected on — realize there is greater risk to cooperation, and so become more likely to defect against another themselves. The more defection reigns, the more difficult it is to coordinate actors, even to ends that are mutually beneficial to themselves.

Defection, in other words, is the entropy of social systems, a feature inherent to any system predicated on the transfer and exchange of energy. Civilization is, in other words, a dyamic equilibrium of sufficiently agreed contracts, formal and informal, to cooperate. The process of socialization humans undergo as part of their maturation is meant to expose them to a sufficient number of examples of cooperation that, as creatures which default to mimesis , we engage in cooperation with others.

Often our learned reflexes to cooperate are so deeply ingrained we cannot even articulate why certain behaviors are important for us to repeat in our interactions, but we can still sense when something is off. Basically, the more cooperation reigns, the nicer civilization is to live in.

When cooperation is less costly, we can form more agreements with more people and coordinate more people to greater collective purposes.

Depending on the nature of the collective and the conditions under which it exists, the process of assimilation may depend on a process of differentiated socialization e. Typically, the more responsibility over the lives of others one possesses, the more stringent this process of assimilation will be, with some candidates being rejected in favor of those demonstrating superior qualities.

A collective imposing strict assimilation standards, albeit informally, is the elite. Often they are responsible for decisions that only have consequential feedback for people like themselves generations down the line, and who are otherwise shielded from the direct feedback of the millions they influence.

Standing on shoulders of giants

An overwhelming number of elites could trash the populations they have authority over, extorting billions by leveraging statecraft or even military power, but this would generally be bad for other elites. In general, regimes of cooperation create better circumstances for everyone , including not only the mass of the people but elites as well.

Even if they otherwise care little for the people they oversee, elites usually have children who are left to inherit their wealth and capital resources, wealth and capital resources that in turn only have their power to confer benefits on the premise of a functional, high-cooperation society.