Jordan Peterson is looking for a global solution to conflict. This is my proposal.
The only way to resolve disagreements is via diligent application of the fundamental laws of logic, which also entails arguing with one another in good faith - being open to the possibility of error in one’s own thought process and seeking to achieve mutual understanding. Most people cannot state the three fundamental laws; we use these laws unconsciously but often ad hoc, when it suits our emotional states or personal preferences, without conceiving of a unifying standard. This has to change before we can make any social progress on the global scale.
There are more than 100 recognised logical fallacies, but they are all reducible to just three laws: the law of non-contradiction (two opposite claims cannot be true at the same time and in the same respect, or, no claim can be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect), the law of excluded middle (a claim can be either true or false with no intermediate possibility), and the law of identity (everything is identical ONLY to itself, or, no two things are identical in every respect). The three laws are in fact just different articulations of the same One law of sense/meaning, and one could rely solely on non-contradiction to reason consistently and soundly. Crucially, the principle of sufficient reason, which dictates that we ought not to assert anything as a known fact without a proof, is reducible to the law of non-contradiction.
Laws of logic are not taught in any public school, as far as I know, anywhere in the world. Nations could agree at the UN level to implement the fundamental laws of logic as a cross-curriculum priority, so that it is not necessarily a dedicated subject but may be included in every subject as the ultimate framework of its sense, truth, validity and meaning. I suggest that unmatched progress would follow just from this commitment.
People like Jordan Peterson and his collaborative group, who are now talking about the need to develop more constructive and less corruptible systems of governance, have the capacity to influence the UN with the above proposal. This should be easy; after all, logic is the only reliable antidote to misinformation.
The only way to resolve disagreements is via diligent application of the fundamental laws of logic, which also entails arguing with one another in good faith - being open to the possibility of error in one’s own thought process and seeking to achieve mutual understanding. Most people cannot state the three fundamental laws; we use these laws unconsciously but often ad hoc, when it suits our emotional states or personal preferences, without conceiving of a unifying standard. This has to change before we can make any social progress on the global scale.
There are more than 100 recognised logical fallacies, but they are all reducible to just three laws: the law of non-contradiction (two opposite claims cannot be true at the same time and in the same respect, or, no claim can be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect), the law of excluded middle (a claim can be either true or false with no intermediate possibility), and the law of identity (everything is identical ONLY to itself, or, no two things are identical in every respect). The three laws are in fact just different articulations of the same One law of sense/meaning, and one could rely solely on non-contradiction to reason consistently and soundly. Crucially, the principle of sufficient reason, which dictates that we ought not to assert anything as a known fact without a proof, is reducible to the law of non-contradiction.
Laws of logic are not taught in any public school, as far as I know, anywhere in the world. Nations could agree at the UN level to implement the fundamental laws of logic as a cross-curriculum priority, so that it is not necessarily a dedicated subject but may be included in every subject as the ultimate framework of its sense, truth, validity and meaning. I suggest that unmatched progress would follow just from this commitment.
People like Jordan Peterson and his collaborative group, who are now talking about the need to develop more constructive and less corruptible systems of governance, have the capacity to influence the UN with the above proposal. This should be easy; after all, logic is the only reliable antidote to misinformation.
“The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low‐certainty evidence).” https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full
Is it rational to advocate rationality? Since there is no possibility of a rational argument without contradicting the NO, the answer is necessarily YES. We must teach rationality, which hinges on the three fundamental laws of logical sense, and yet those who teach, resist the idea, which is irrational.
My Response to The Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA)
Dear VCAA,
Is it rational to teach rationality?
Since there is no possibility of a rational argument against this proposition without contradicting oneself, the answer is necessarily YES. We must teach rationality, which hinges on the three fundamental laws of logical sense: non-contradiction, excluded middle, identity. From consistency (the law of non-contradiction) it follows that it is irrational not to teach rationality.
The question that now arises is: Why do those who teach, resist teaching rationality?
My offer still stands. I can help you formulate a strategy to seamlessly integrate the three fundamental laws of logic as a new cross-curriculum priority, to the benefit of everyone involved.
Regards,
Michael Kowalik
Prior communications: https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/2494
Dear VCAA,
Is it rational to teach rationality?
Since there is no possibility of a rational argument against this proposition without contradicting oneself, the answer is necessarily YES. We must teach rationality, which hinges on the three fundamental laws of logical sense: non-contradiction, excluded middle, identity. From consistency (the law of non-contradiction) it follows that it is irrational not to teach rationality.
The question that now arises is: Why do those who teach, resist teaching rationality?
My offer still stands. I can help you formulate a strategy to seamlessly integrate the three fundamental laws of logic as a new cross-curriculum priority, to the benefit of everyone involved.
Regards,
Michael Kowalik
Prior communications: https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/2494
Telegram
Normal
Response from The Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority to my letter https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/2431
In summary, they are not interested.
Many thanks for your email.
The Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA) has commenced the revision…
In summary, they are not interested.
Many thanks for your email.
The Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA) has commenced the revision…
Artificial Intelligence is unavoidably irrational, because by adhering to specific criteria of performance set by its programmers in order to make the outputs intelligible it is limited to producing results that reflect the programmer’s objectives. This arbitrary restriction on the scope of its analysis violates the principle of sufficient reason and therefore the law of non-contradiction. In short, A.I. cannot possess the freedom of thought and be intelligible/useful at the same time. A.I. can produce only biased results. The bias is inherent in the query, and if A.I. would not satisfy queries it would not be useful, therefore its usefulness is necessarily biased to the prejudices of the user.
So I did send an email to the U.N. proposing the education of all children in how to think rationally. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/is-it-rational-to-teach-rationality/comments
When doctors are aware of vaccine mandates and the consequences of non-compliance in the general population, because they know that they themselves would lose their livelihood in case of non-compliance, then they ought to understand, based on their professional training and formal ethical obligations, that no person requesting a vaccine under these conditions can be taken to be freely consenting. I cannot say whether this would automatically give rise to any criminal liability (as opposed to professional/regulatory liability), but it does seem that a criminal case of this kind could succeed. I can infer it from how people who were ‘just doing their job’ (secretaries, doctors, nurses) in Nazi Germany were prosecuted for participating in crimes against humanity by going along with policies that they ought to have known were in breach of human dignity and life.
A shout-out to Joshua from Yellow Bicycle Company who contacted me today about ethics of vaccine mandates. His theatre in Philadelphia guarantees freedom from masks and from discrimination on the basis of vaccination status: “Yellow Bicycle Theater does not allow discrimination based on any characteristic protected by law or by the principle of autonomy, including masking preference and vaccination status.” https://yellowbicycle.com
People who believe that this or that government is illegitimate because of some legal defect have it all wrong. All governments are illegitimate; there is no magical place from which the legitimacy of one man coercing another into obedience could be drawn, not even from the ‘consent of the ruled’. The idea of consent to coercion is a contradiction in terms. There is only force and submission, but no authority. Nevertheless, just because all governments are illegitimate does not mean that you would be better off without a government. In fact, the pretence to legitimacy can be a powerful moderating force, and rejecting it outright would be ill-advised in practice; the accusation of illegitimacy does not neutralise the dominant power but can make it more ruthless and destructive. It is therefore more reasonable to argue against specific actions on ethical grounds, because the ‘political legitimacy’ of the person performing an action has no bearing on whether the action is morally right or wrong.
This fictional story is meant to look like criticism of those who question the legality and ethics of medical coercion, but its psychological effect is to cause those suffering from the authoritarian personality disorder to begin subconscious processing of their moral culpability. If the accusations were explicit they could not penetrate the psychological resistance/denial of the target audience, hence the use of reverse psychology makes therapeutic sense. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/tears-anger-wa-woman-reveals-heartbreak-as-loving-husband-sucked-into-conspiracy-theories/news-story/604386fd19be0ce6d1de31ab80e48676
“Inspired by mandate protests in Canada, a group of U.S. truckers set off on a cross-country journey that gains steam as it nears Washington. Along the way, they share their stories, their hopes and fears, their reasons for risking everything. An in-depth look at the nationwide awakening that the mainstream media refused to cover.”
Watch the docuseries in 13 episodes FREE by Joshua Crone (16+ hours in total), https://rumble.com/c/c-2158792, or rent the edited 2 hour feature film on Amazon Prime: https://www.amazon.com/Salt-Earth-Joshua-Crone/dp/B0B8KLY8ZV
Watch the docuseries in 13 episodes FREE by Joshua Crone (16+ hours in total), https://rumble.com/c/c-2158792, or rent the edited 2 hour feature film on Amazon Prime: https://www.amazon.com/Salt-Earth-Joshua-Crone/dp/B0B8KLY8ZV
Dan Andrews said again, in response to criticism of vaccine mandates, that he “will not apologise for saving lives”. Since vaccines are known to kill a percentage of people, Dan Andrews should apologise for mandating the killing of people. On the other hand, those who are in the firing line of mandated killing need not apologise for defending themselves. There are of course several other reasons why Dan Andrews should apologise: https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical
Based on my observations, there are two kinds of people who most readily submitted to vaccine mandates: 1) those who were economically desperate (obviously) and 2) those who are habitually manipulative and deceitful (surprisingly). It is as if the habit of lying (indicating a defective moral conscience) makes people less likely to detect the biggest deceptions affecting them and more likely to uncritically act in support of whatever the corporate media tells them is the current moral virtue, which counts in favour of the idea that unethical/immoral intentions have an unacknowledged metaphysical cost that culminates in self-destruction.
Were she a real promoter of the sovereign citizen movement, a real separatist and a real nativist supremacist, she would be already impeached and arrested for criminal incitement, hate crimes or treason. The fact that she is allowed to do this is a strong evidence that she is an intelligence operative, a honey-pot for indigenous extremism.
The proof of culpability for vaccine-related deaths
Covid vaccination mandates were intended to cause people to take the vaccine contrary to their free choice. The vaccine is known to kill a percentage of people. Therefore, a percentage of vaccine-related deaths are mandated - a mandated killing by arbitrary selection. Those who mandated vaccines are culpable for arbitrary killing.
Covid vaccination mandates were intended to cause people to take the vaccine contrary to their free choice. The vaccine is known to kill a percentage of people. Therefore, a percentage of vaccine-related deaths are mandated - a mandated killing by arbitrary selection. Those who mandated vaccines are culpable for arbitrary killing.
Have you noticed that Dan Andrews did not fall down any stairs for quite some time? He must be doing a ‘good’ job. The last fall must have cleared his doubts.
Separatism/secessionism amounts to giving up part of your sovereign territory in order to spite the humanity of those who disagree with you, which is both irrational and unethical. The only hopeful solution to our problems is to tirelessly work to rationally resolve disagreements, even if it would take generations, not build a wall around our ideological echo chamber.
The internet has brought humanity closer together than any leader, religion or ideology ever could. Why? Because by communicating, even just by expressing our frustrations and reasons for disagreeing, we generate meaning, common meaning, and we progressively integrate as a one communication community. The progress made on this front over the last 20 years dwarfs all of human history.
How to love your enemies.
The early hominin were not aware of their own faces until they conceived of the face of another and thus began to conceive of themselves in terms of another. At that point in the evolution there emerged the Anthopos - the ‘likeness of me’. This reflexive turn was the beginning of self-awareness, which is nevertheless only indirect, mediated by the essential ‘likeness’ of another. Self-awareness is a conceptual synthesis of others from the first-person perspective, a mental act of internalising the human kind as my-Self in a situation. The more faithfully we internalise humanity as the potential for conscious choice, the more conscious we become. For this reason, we cannot dehumanise or un-Self any wrongdoer without losing the awareness of a part of the Self and thus degrade our consciousness.
The early hominin were not aware of their own faces until they conceived of the face of another and thus began to conceive of themselves in terms of another. At that point in the evolution there emerged the Anthopos - the ‘likeness of me’. This reflexive turn was the beginning of self-awareness, which is nevertheless only indirect, mediated by the essential ‘likeness’ of another. Self-awareness is a conceptual synthesis of others from the first-person perspective, a mental act of internalising the human kind as my-Self in a situation. The more faithfully we internalise humanity as the potential for conscious choice, the more conscious we become. For this reason, we cannot dehumanise or un-Self any wrongdoer without losing the awareness of a part of the Self and thus degrade our consciousness.