The four leaves of any oath

The foundation of oaths.  A core oath to care for another party.

“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.” — Matthew 6:24

  1. Care for your mental well being, or you can’t keep the oath.
  2. Care for your physical well being, or you can’t keep the oath.
  3. Care for the parties mental well being, or you can’t keep the oath.
  4. Care for the parties physical well being, or you can’t keep the oath.

Abandon any of these and you abandon any oath to another. It’s too easy to become focused on an oath and ignore the party they are a promise to. Why? Oaths are actually a demonstration of the fluid output of the conscience.  Insight.  Insight is a right, and you can’t give rights away.  They can only be loaned.

It’s a way to express that you have a conscience, that it is healthy, interested, and able to protect another party. If your ability and interest in protecting the other party are compromised, any other details of the oath become irrelevant. If the leaves wilt, the stem rots, the flower dies.

Sometimes contracts accompany oaths, but they different in purpose, scope and how they work. Contracts should (in a fair healthy system) always be about at least justice, a human right. Justice is there not to protect any particular individual, but protect societies health by discouraging defectors. Contracts may also protect any other human right, but honorable contracts should always include justice.

Oaths have no enforcement mechanism other than social pressure, only contracts named after them do. Oaths are simply a promise that not only does your conscience appreciate another party, but you are willing to lend some of your freedom (another core right) to protect and enhance some or all of their other rights. You can’t give away your rights, you can only promise to lend them morally while you are producing a surplus.

The leaves of oath are both simple to understand and simple to miss because they are so pervasive in scope. Often oaths are violated at the leaves first. How? The most visible part of the oath, the flower, becomes the focus of the honorbound, and the leaves and the stem that connect them to the flower are left to rot. Essentially you can both fall in love with an oath to party, and abandon one or more of that parties basic needs. Flaunting an already broken oath.

  • Spouses ignore their partners basic needs, or their own needs, while preening in public.
  • Soldiers employed by tyrants kill the citizens they swore to protect.
  • Parents and their informal unspoken oaths to their children’s needs, sacrifice their happiness and health, for the flower of ‘their future.’

Image, the most visible part of the oath, is served, while the sworn party is to is left only to act as a slave.   An exercise in peacocking for social status.  AKA: The show

Insight is the output of the conscience, and civilization functions best when people are the most free(freedom) to benefit from it’s risk calculations. It is how we live and grow together.
Oaths are sworn to protect human rights, but often become silently invalid when they impinge or neglect the rights of others. Either you or your sworn parties basic needs are met, or those needs, such as human rights, have become abandoned.

Most likely the oath giver has overreached, but carries on like the oath is still honored. Oaths are not a crime for a reason. Errors can happen. Data can change. Strength can wane. The only dishonor is pretending a rot in basic human needs is healthy.

This brings up the question of death oaths. An oath to die is morally equivalent to an oath until you die. Part of an oaths utility is it utilizes positive subconscious calculation, and if that calculation changes for the worse and you can’t act, you have morally scrubbed the utility of the conscience. A conscience ignored can’t provide a human rights based outcome. Blocking all ability to act on insight is inherently the most broadly psychopathic action you can take, since all rights originate in the behaviors unique to the conscience. A person must be able to manage their own rights, so an oath to die can be made to the self, but no one can morally accept a death oath from another. It is a switch from civilization to a master/slave system. It is enslavement.

Don’t fall in love with the archways and baubles of oaths, without caring for foundations they rest on.

  • Be cautious with social pressure on others, unless you are sure you understand their current conditions, and that all parties basic needs can be reasonably met. If you judge, you risk letting an effigy of an unfulfillable promise become your master.
  • Be weary of contracts named after oaths. It’s a branding exercise to enforce a promise that may become immoral.
  • Oaths that swear death to others permanently abdicate all human rights, an immoral act. You can only lend rights, once you have abdicated any rights for good, you are a slave.

MacGuffin Proto-psychopaths

The axis of human rights at the moment, always in motion.

Macguffins have provided a valuable tool forming and perpetuating authoritarianism in all it’s forms, including most recently, both communism and fascism. They are used to move the Overton window away from natural law and naturally forming social norms.  Society and government can then be centrally molded creating a top down master/slave system that psychopaths better understand and prefer. By understanding the tells of a person repeating a narrative you much more easily identify and help block the move away from citizen consensus on society.

There is an old unnamed idea, of imbuing an object or event (1) with critical status to a narrative. Macguffins are used in storytelling as an object that must be obtained in order to move the story forward. The more difficult they are to obtain the more they move the story. They are such a powerful literary device that they can forgo nearly all other literary devices. Such as character development, character arcs, exposition, and even death. Entertaining in fiction, and horrifying in real life.

It is widely thought humans have been listening to oral stories or narratives as long as man has had access to fire. Receptiveness to oral tradition likely predates the civilization gene (the birth of villages and cities) for example. Today in the United States people spend 6% of their income on entertainment. A majority of that is story driven. Narratives come to the fore as whole societies, and even single fields of study, complexify further away from a plausible classic renaissance man or comprehensive understanding of all fields. Pop culture permeates all skill levels of conversation. Archetypes cling to their highest bandwidth placeholders, normalizing conceptual fiction in philosophy. Pressing forward, but dulling their sense of normal.

Authoritarians must move public sentiment away from the acceptable center of human behavior, usually characterized by natural law (law based on how most people attempt to ‘act fairly’ without the force of law in place.) Authoritarian MacGuffins typically depict an idealic world of near anarchy. Where human rights are impossibly not trampled by exercise of others rights, and the resources those rights imbue, at the same scope. A fantasy that only exists in fiction and is the practical opposite of the daily mechanics of strangling centralized regulation.

For example ‘Might makes right’ depicts pure natural selection with no civilization as an ideal civilization. “Camelot” is one MacGuffin for dark age feudalism presented as a solution for an impossible level of both financial success through conquest and security and as an answer to the lies of ‘might makes right’ with new lies of ‘success needs might.’

More recently Communism unironicly depicts peaceful, charitable, anarchy as only possible through a top down system. That system pours on centrally managed genocide and has no formal incentive structure other than patriotism and the MacGuffin itself. Meanwhile fascism in a jest directly to communism made patriotism it’s MacGuffin, while it also flattens all reward structures to a single government run system, enforced again through genocide. It’s a strange but instructive MacGuffin since patriotism is achievable in a natural Overton window, but fascists fictionalize it to impossible extents. You can never be patriotic enough. Patriotism must be perused to barbarism (might makes right) Which demonstrates the true purpose of narratives, they are a carrot, on a stick, before the donkey. They are not meant to be reached.

The real damage… Focusing attention on goals that are untested and likely impossible, results in a population perpetually distracted from improving the society around them through realistic and natural means. Removing this distraction by design would result in local, specialized, and therefore different conclusions.

Being aware of this gives free minded humans an advantage in spotting these fictional narratives.

Narcissists think they live in their own grand story, like the Truman show. Since it’s a story, your story, and you are always the lead, you only need to declare someone good or bad and that’s their role in your movie forever. It’s their movie and we’re all just living in it.

A non-psychopath can be exclusively narcissistic, and indistinguishable at a distance. All humans retain the full scope of behaviors of the psychopath, but many display additional behaviors that negate and better their overall performance and contribution to society. Brainwashing (extreme repetition and symbol substitution) can form a protopsychopath from a healthy adult who’s conscience has effectively become their jailer, oblivious to it’s original purpose as a risk engine. This is as plainly true as parents program their children, as a normal and socially acceptable way to keep them from harm until they mature. Plainly, parents brainwash their empathic children as a temporary measure, until their brains absorb their own observations and grow to match the complexity of the world around them. All brainwashing hijacks these potentially beneficial mechanisms, and the narrative keeps them imprisoned in a fantasy.

Narcissism IS the mark of fantasy. Only in fiction is a strangers status, like ‘racist,’ or ‘sexist,’ last for the duration of the narrative (in the real world, their entire life). Fiction defines characters with their first interaction, This is part of the structure of an entertaining fiction. To streamline the story and shorten it. To ONLY present key information and turning points. But people in control of their own faculties, make decisions continuously after a long series of interactions. This is what the conscience, not acting on prejudice, is for. (Anti-prejudice narratives are actually functional prejudice!)

People should be given room to improve as much of emotional growth comes as learning from serious errors. Mistakes regretted, form morality. This is where the unstoppable force(the conscience) meets the immovable object(the narrative.)

MacGuffins are narratives that threaten civilization. Replacing locally sourced interaction with top down psychopathic work alikes with no centralized, structured path to success. If followed long enough, they ruin economies and societies, and inevitably end in collapse.

 

(1) Wikipedea 5/31/2021

Edit 6/10: typos, grammar

Updated Axis of Human rights 3.0

 

Here is the non-political axis version 3.0.  Changes include:

  • Preferred rights are grouped as they typically are by left/right in Hegelian Dialectics.
  • Areas of likely waste are greyed out toward anarchy.  (sources include commons tragedy, foreign states, natural disaster)   Waste (top) and corruption (bottom) are often conflated in political debate.
  • Capitalism’s center is now marked for illustrative purposes.  It is always between liberty and metrics, and freedom and investment.  If it’s somewhere else, it’s something else.

I’ve included simplified chart with some data from the USA in the year 1800.  It illustrates what can and can’t change over time with these charts.   Notice

  • Capitalism’s center has moved.
  • All but one right has been shifted.
  • Left and right have been removed since this was a concept with later origins.

 

Some other observations comparing the two.

  • In both cases justice ends up adjacent to friendship.  They both share the function of curating the conscience of others, but mainly differ in intensity and scope.
  • In both cases freedom and investment are adjacent.  This is interesting because they intersect at capitalism.    Will explore what happens if they become oppositional.
  • Justice, currency and property are easier to define (perhaps not completely) than other rights.  Perhaps that’s why they assume the role of oppositional identity?

Update: 2021-03-14: Updated both graphs to version 3.2.  Classic MacGuffin and clearer URL added.

Origin of human rights

While usually difficult to view, the collective conscience is civilizations shield.

How behavioral pairs work

Both human intelligence, and civilization is in critical part created by behaviors.  Behaviors that are unique to humans who are not psychopaths, and all animals as they are, in the natural world.  These behaviors are not simply very fast rational thought.  “I think therefore I am” is inadequate.

This can be seen by comparing unique human behaviors to their closest animal kingdom counterpart.  This comparison provides another critical service.  A science based foundation for human rights.   Beginning with the most basic building block of society, the sovereign self.

Self Sovereignty – Behaviors unique to humans in nature,  following a path least intrusive to other humans, forms civilization.

CORE RIGHTS

The conscience is comprised of emotional metadata which is a fast risk engine that has emergent behavioral properties. Humans display testable (falsifiable) behaviors, that form a subconscious wisdom of future good, not expressed by other animals (or psychopaths)

Property – Identity of an place, object, or accomplishment belonging to a being or a group. Honored and understood as a provision of autonomy to a distant time.
Territory – Control of a place, object, or role by a being or group. Enforced by violence. Revoked by absence.

Currency – A convenient object or idea, representing and interchangeable with property or caloric expenditure, held with expectation of said returns upon exchange.
Favour – A treaty, a yield of territory to display deference to hierarchy.

Freedom – A cooperative model of non interference. The perpetual expectation of non-interference in exchange for a return of the same.
Treaty – A stalemate, a mutual temporary cessation of conflict to avoid over exertion.

Friendship – The expectation of continued freedom between parties, despite periodic violation of it, for the purpose of communicating risk subconsciously in diminished samples of harm.
Alliance – A temporary teamwork towards and depending on a common goal. Restricted to roles.

Investment – Dedication of time and calories into a being’s or a groups creative development. Requires property and currency to realize return.
Assignment – Dedication of time and calories into another’s territory with the expectation of favour.

Justice – Revocation of the rights of someone who curtails the rights of others, for a time reflecting the loss. A corrective act to shape societies conscience, to lower the risk of loss of rights.
Fairness – Enforcement of equal outcomes for individual by role. Enforced by violence. Revoked by absence.

Insight – Subconscious messaging describing super-sense attributes not previously connected. Instantaneous like instinct, but presenting novel information, so selection pressure or experience can’t program them directly. Emergent.
Instinct – Instantaneous recall of appropriate action to reach/avoid emotional primitives (despair, bliss, and will to action). Based in direct or genetic experience.

.
Civilization – An organization including insight, property, freedom, friendship, investment, currency and justice. Characterized by trust. Allowing investment (manufacture, farming, storage, trade), and subsequently specialization, and it’s side effect, economy of scale.
Pack – An organization based on instinct, territory, treaty, alliance, favour and fairness. Structured by assignment of roles. Role based equality(fairness). Transient.

DEDUCTIVE RIGHTS

Faith; Knowing something you can’t prove: Insight, Freedom
Ignorance; Reacting to something you don’t know: Instinct, Treaty

Money; Liquid property: Currency, property
Debt; Mobile territory: Favour, territory

Specialization: Investment, freedom, insight
Compliance: Assignment, treaty, instinct

Markets: Freedom, property, currency
Subsidies: Treaty, territory, favour

Free speech: Friendship, currency, justice
Directives: Alliance, favour, fairness

Sexual preference: Freedom, property(of self)
Provisional autonomy: Treaty, territory

Innocent until proven guilty: Freedom, friendship, justice
Continuity: Treaty, alliance, fairness.

Right to exit; Moving away from oppression: Justice, Investment, Freedom
Banishment; Rejection from hierarchy: Fairness, Assignment, Treaty

Right to fork; Creation of new competing hierarchies: Property, Investment, Freedom
Deposal/Regicide; Temporary ascension to top of existing hierarchy: Territory, Assignment, Treaty

Religion: Faith, investment, property(of self)
Cult: Ignorance, assignment, territory

Beneficence; Serving human rights: Freedom, Justice, Friendship
Utilitarianism; Appearing good: Treaty, Fairness, Alliance

INDUCTIVE RIGHTS

Threats in absence or conflict(waste) of core human rights. Threats include commons tragedy, foreign states, natural disaster.  These threats present a danger to civilization and other rights.

Self defense: Property, currency, freedom, friendship, investment, justice
Fitness; (natural selection): Packs enforce their fairness, territory, favour, assignment, treaty, and alliance, through violence

Economy of scale: Investment, markets, faith
Stagnation: Assignment, subsidies, instinct

Privacy: Property, currency, freedom, investment
Narrative: Territory, favour, treaty, assignment

 

This version 2.  See ‘Behavioral pairs‘ for it’s origin and version 1.

Update v2.1:  Unpacked conflation of ‘The right to fork’ and ‘the right to exit’   More accurate.

The game

 

One night my conscience challenged my rational mind, to a dual. The only way it could, in a dream. I did not realize this was the source of the dream until well into the game.

The game began with simple rules.

‘Empaths'(non-psychopaths) were to be tested. The object of the game was to demonstrate that ‘the conscience’ was too fragile to be a primary force in the real world. That the coherence of society was just momentum. The momentum of complex multi generational knowledge transfer.

It was set in an abandoned building surrounded with clearing and then wilderness.

The rules were as follows.

  1. The empaths had to be, and act like, children. In other word the quality or power of their emotional quotient (EQ) was the only factor for their internal morality. They were under developed and had little or no experience dealing with terror, starvation, and lack of other base needs. Kids were around age eight to ten.
  2. The empaths had no resources. (food, water, rest) All resources had to be taken from other empaths.
  3. I would be the only adult empath. The only fully developed conscience in the entire game.
  4. There were many children, at least eight.
  5. There would be rational actors. Enforcers, and one young adult talker, my counterpart. The talkers role was to explain the rules to the children and myself, and call enforcers if the rules weren’t followed. He clearly wanted to win. He spoke aggressively and struck fear in all.
  6. I could not physically interfere. I had enough talent to fight and beat the enforcers (numerous and robotic in reaction, with some exploitable handicaps), but not with a panicked child in tow. I could only convince the children, I couldn’t drag them.
  7. Two children were ordered to kill each other each night. The winner was then paired up with another child the next night.
  8.  I had once resource. A plant grew that would restore my health for one day but make me hallucinate 10% of the time. Cumulative. It was fatal poison to children.
  9.  I had to save more than one child to win.

I won on the second night.

How many children died?

One. The first two children were selected and threatened by the talker. I used every trick I knew to convince the first child(let’s call him Angel) not to fight, but terror of the unknown convinced Angel he had to kill to survive as directed.

I convinced his first designated victim/opponent (Charles for simplicity) not to fight. Charles did not subconsciously understand the problem, or had exclusively positive experiences with adults, and trusted me. This was done in earshot of Angel. Once Once Charles’s commitment to non-violence and escape was obvious Angel acted. While being egged on by the talker, Angel killed Charles with a provided sword.

I was distraught. I had failed to save the second child. The first had done something terrible. Angel ate and slept, and I wept.

I ate some plant to retain my strength of mind. The hallucinations reinforced my sense of urgency.

When he woke, I continued to try and convince Angel he was was wrong after the first death and failed. The other children, who were in earshot, became convinced that he couldn’t be swayed. His commitment to death was now an unstoppable force. Without speaking, they signaled to me as a group. Intuitively, I knew they had decided to flee.

I distracted Angel as the children gathered by an exit. Then we fled as one, without angel. They followed me to safety as I fought the enforcers off of them successfully. They couldn’t explain why they made this choice. I didn’t expect them to make it. It was not discussed. It was made by their conscience without my direct programming (as parents do).

The contest ended so Angel was released and survived, with terrible emotional damage.

The challenge had ended. What was demonstrated. Emapthy is superior against risk to the rational mind. But only with negative examples.

What can this dream, turned thought experiment, teach us? Protect freedom of speech. Neither force, nor experience could save even one child, but they could save themselves. If their consciences were exposed to the whole brutal truth, they knew the path to safety. Only the truth can protect us from those who would pit us against each other.

Video intro to Civgene

CIvgene can be complex and confusing, but if you’ve got an hour, I lay out the basics in a simple way.   Good way to get started.

 

Corruption of the invisible hand

Recently I shared an older animated graphic on social media, demonstrating how animal kingdom psychopathic work alike behaviors which seem similar to empathy based behaviors will crush economic growth.  Link to article follows.

Got a great response roughly saying, ‘This invalidates Adam Smith’s invisible hand.  It can’t be valid.’  Simple but substantive retort, and an awesome opportunity.  My response as follows.

 

Countries and economies collapse! Even the United States founders knew this, hence the second amendment. They just didn’t know why. They only had symptoms.

Smith formulated the invisible hand on the idea that errors(mistakes) were the primary negative effect on markets, not defectors (aka:sabotage). Hence it only applies to non-defectors.

Defectors, driven by growing populations of differently behaved psychopaths, use variations on moral hazard to game people’s consciences against them to set up rewards for bad behavior as pointless consumption gigs for themselves. Bounties(we call them subsidies) for ghosts. People invest in garbage because their market data is intentionally garbage. Calls to authorities to gatekeep information (to control quality and distribution) are erected with graft in mind. The intent to fund a loss leader with an artificially boosted outcome to enslave the consumer to a fabricated risk model, be it capital, information, or any behavior that does not comply with the top down authority that must pervade a psychopaths life.

For example Smith is naive on foreign actors interfering in other countries public schooling (an important topic for him), a regular practice even among allies, for at least 100 years. No fault, but no accommodation. Contrast that with moral sentiments. Describing empathy and it’s human specific behaviors. Like most (all?) great thinkers before 1970 psychopathic defectors are just not on his mind.

Again he does describe grift, but as an error.   Not a way to reorganize, game, intentionally topple or otherwise distort a capitalist system.  It is not discussed as a tactical or strategic way to wage war.  Most importantly for my understanding of the cause of collapse, intelligent actors without any empathy are never considered.  Much less breeding more quickly than those with empathy, or being magnetically attracted to the centers of power and public trust.

Few people understand inflation as taxation or the potential logarithmic supernation sized gains from economy of scale on a planet with billions of consumers. These ideas and others are used against them. Further psychopaths as science are only 50 years old. Smith could not have known these things without seeing his creation in action.  His massive enhancement to economic science was observation based, but in whole he described a largely new system with it’s own new properties.

Psychopaths operating in growing quantities, in Smith’s system, are externatlities to his time, age and data set.

 

If this interests you you may enjoy my critique of Marx from the same time period.  Smith is discussed as well.

 

 

Collectivism isn’t a thing.

(Collectivism is the ENTIRE chart)

Collectivism isn’t a thing.  Not how people talk about it anyway.  Mises and Nietzsche both saw collectivism as a weak euphemism for the authoritarian tar pit that it is.  They didn’t know about psychopaths, and therefore they couldn’t know about core human rights, which lays bare the false dilemma.  But they strongly hinted collectivism was a null type (at the discussed scale) from the start.

The reality is individualism vs collectivism is a false dilemma.  Conflation of an archetype and one of it’s sub-types.   Human organizational conflicts over how much of which human rights play out largely as individualism vs authoritarianism.  Collectivism just means human interaction.   It’s the terrain in which authoritarianism and individualism influence human decisions and their outcomes.   Which is at best, trying to compare climate with a specific snowstorm.   Of course the snowstorm is part of climate, everything touching air on earth is.