Principles of Applied Epistemology (APPLIED EPISTEMOLOGY)

[Ishmael]

[Hatty]

Germany's previous annexations didn't start a war. After all, why would anyone care more about Polacks than, say, Czechs?

Conversely, if the intention was to provoke a declaration of war, presumably it was considered a necessary step to carve out Germany's empire and very much in Germany's interest.

[Ishmael]

Many Germans perceived the invasion to be in their interest. Outcomes proved otherwise.

[nemesis8]

[Mick Harper]

Principles of Applied Epistemology No 11

So, the element of choice is at the heart of Applied Epistemology. This is why your brain must always be considered your mortal enemy -- it works on the principle of non-choice. In order to hold that amount of knowledge and to work at that speed, any computer has to operate on a non-choice basis, that is everything has to speed through one-way connections.

Every time you have a left-wing thought you get a burst of happiness (if you are a left-winger) which is pretty good in itself, but more than that a pathway has been etched that much deeper, ready to deliver yet more happiness even easier and quicker next time. Practice makes perfect. And of course evey time a new fact is entered it has to be a left-wing fact, it has to facilitate left-wing thoughts and deliver left-wing solutions.

All this is reasonably familiar to us sophisticated souls who live in a society replete with knowledge about brain-washing and imprinting and stereotyping and the rest. It is part of our mental map that many of our beliefs truly are rote-delivered by the brain, as opposed to being the end product of examining the real world for oneself. But only Applied Epistemologists make a fetish about it. Put it to good use even.

To do this it is necessary to re-train the brain. Even we cannot do without the dear little thing. Basically this means performing one simple, devastating and apparently impossible trick: whenever we have a familiar thought, a little burst of pain is delivered.

Fortunately for our overall happiness (indeed our overall sanity) it is sufficient to carry out some fairly basic drills so that our thoughts are now AE-compatible and then we can go back to thinking familiar things Because now every thought is AE-approved and brings a burst of happiness once again. This is how the miracle is wrought.

[Mick Harper]

Principles of Applied Epistemology No 12

Ever wondered why curmudgeons are curmudgeons? It doesn't seem a paying proposition since they don't get their way and people tend to shun them. Generally it is assumed 'they can't help it', they have some personality flaw which makes them the way they are. Well, yes and no.

They have a slightly deviant trait which means that they actually enjoy being at odds with people. To disagree with people. To spoil the prevailing atmosphere. That kind of thing. Now it turns out that this strategy is not as disastrous as one might think. The curmudgeon seems not exactly to be shunned but to acquire some degree of tolerance, even granted certain 'leadership roles' in certain circumstances. They seem to get their way rather more often than they ought. And indeed rather more than you do.

It's all terribly odd and not a little unfair. Curmudgeons do not seem, otherwise, overly talented. But that is the point. Curmudgeons are otherwise perfectly normal. That is they have all the ordinary desires for social success but the one thing they lack (or the one thing they have extra) is the need to be liked. And even this is slightly overstating the case since this should perhaps be stated as 'the need to receive approbation on an ongoing basis'.

Why is this important? Because, as social animals, we learn from day one and every day thereafter that people tend to like us if we agree with them, and tend to dislike us if we disagree with them. Hence our brains operate overwhelmingly on the basis that it is always worthwhile 'learning what fits'. This trait is exploited by the educational system which uses a) an authority figure with a set of known data and b) a group of people systematically encouraged to imbibe that data.

We are, at the end of the educational process, launched into a society that has carefully been programmed along the same lines and across the board. Zowie! A whole society with a common set of norms, values, the works! That is the compulsory element. Meanwhile, in sophisticated societies, in societies that require individual human beings with the capacity for individual thought, we are given a 'voluntary data sector' -- in this case politics -- where we are expected to imbibe (firstly from parents but increasingly from other sources of our own choosing) our own apparently voluntary set-of-data.

After that we can choose our spouses and friends (and inculcate our children) with that voluntary dataset and hence once more live in a social world in which all have brains trained to think the same way. Though in this case different from other groups in the same society. However, in order to have these spouses and friends (and to be able to train our children) this 'voluntary data' cannot truly be our own since that would mean it is unique and therefore we would not be able to find spouses, friends (and pliable children) that would agree with us.

The best we can manage is some off-the-shelf set of data which guarantees we'll be able to find enough like-minded people who have chosen the same off-the-shelf set of data. From an AE point of view there is very little gained by holding an orthodoxy that is shared by a proportion of the population as opposed to the whole population. The twenty-first century leftist is only marginally better off than the thirteenth century Christian. Better off because he is aware of an opposition point-of-view but the beliefs are still not, cannot be, his own.

Hence the AE-ist has to become a curmudgeon socially and societally.

[Grant]

[Grant]

[Mick Harper]

It is preposterous to argue that the leftist does not know of the existence of right-wing views. You are free to argue that there is in practice no difference but that is not the point I am making. The medieval Christian is not reasonably aware of, say, atheism. He may know about Judaism and Islam by repute but he does not have a realistic choice about whether to be a Christian or not.

[Ishmael]

For the record; the essay is improving.

[Grant]

[Mick Harper]

The drills are to start doubting everything, Grant, so I suggest you seek assistance elsewhere. I should point out that it is definitely not part of Applied Epistemology to doubt everything since that would be a fixed strategy and is therefore forbidden. To know when it is profitable to doubt that is the essence.

Perhaps you could assist by showing us what not to do ie how you have fallen into the abyss of doubting everything.

[Grant]

[Mick Harper]

Yes, it is believing what makes us happy rather than what is true that is the root of the problem. You have to become a curmudgeon to yourself, ie not merely disagree with everyone else but find your own views ridiculous, and so they make you unhappy, in order to move on. But I see you have been doing that rather successfully all your life.

The only thought that is relatively a joy for ever is the one that is unique to you. So keep moving on until you find everybody else has dropped away. You are permitted to adopt my views (for instance) temporarily since they were originally unique and are still in a teensy minority but obviously they can only be a stepping stone to something beyond me, or anti-me or supra-me. Or occasionally me (rejecting me all the time would be a fixed strategy).

But beware, Ishmael does this quite successfully and just look at him!

[Ishmael]