A Debate with Vox Day – The Why of the Why

Preamble – How it came about and the corollaries

Vox can probably skip this section, but our readers will probably benefit from it.

The debate came about as a result of Vox generally saying (particularly in relation to his Socio-Sexual Hierarchy) that one should never concern themselves with the WHY of how something is, but rather only with the WHAT one can in fact reliably observe and therefore predict.

In other words, with respect to why (using his terminology) a Gamma is a Gamma, a Sigma is a Sigma, an Alpha an Alpha, and so on, the why and the how of it are irrelevant to the observation that Alphas will tend to behave in certain predictable patterns, as well as the particular, that Bob, will also specifically tend to react in certain ways, Bob being an Alpha. And thus one can predict quite accurately how men of different types will behave in a given situation. But Vox has repeatedly stated that the WHY and the HOW are irrelevant, and only the WHAT is what we should concern ourselves with.

My own position is that the WHY and the HOW absolutely matter. And we definitely SHOULD try and figure them out. That said, let me also state unambiguously certain corollaries:

1. I agree that the average person is a moron, and their trying to figure out the Why or the How will generally only confuse things, retard any actual scientific progress, as other retards pick it up and run with it and so on. But I am NOT talking about the average person. Yes, yes, how arrogant of me and Vox to place ourselves above the average mass of people. But the FACT is that we both scored IQs in the 150+ range at I think about the same age (26-27 for me) so the point is moot, because there is, on average, more of a gap between us and the average IQ person of 100 IQ than there is between the average IQ person and Koko the gorilla, which was variously IQ tested and apparently scored about 75. So, when I say we SHOULD look at the Why and the How, I primarily mean that the people with a proven capacity to do so as objectively as possible should do so. Not every Tom, Dick and Harry.
2. I also fully agree that, again, for the vast majority of cases, Vox’s statement that:

   the probabilities are that you will not get it exactly right, you will get attached to your theory, and then you will spend all your time defending your false theory and failing to pay attention to better understandings of the what.

   And eventually the what is better understood, your theoretical why is proven wrong, and you realize that you’ve just wasted your entire career on it.

   That’s not necessarily what will always happen, but it’s usually what happens.

   A few disciplined forays into the HOW and WHY don’t hurt, but they should be limited forays and one should never get excessively attached to the theories developed.

   Is 100% correct. So no argument there. But AGAIN, I am not referencing the average person or even the midwit “scientist”. I am referencing Vox himself, and, dare I say, myself too, and others of similar attitude to truth. What Vox says is absolutely true, but is also intimately tied to ego, and pride. As it so happens, both Vox and I can and do present as generally arrogant probably, but that is mostly a filter to keep the stupidest elements of society from disturbing us too much. You can literally scour my blog here for the word “Kurganing” when I periodically take some absolute specimen, and demonstrate his or her idiocy for the world to enjoy. It can be entertaining, but it’s not how anyone, including me, wants to spend his every waking moment. The reality, however, certainly as far as concerns me, is that THE TRUTH matters to me far, far, far, more than my need or even wish to be “right” or well-liked, or pretty much anything else. I stated in a comment to Vox that I also believe his own nature is similar in that regard, but I will let him explain his view of that.
3. Despite 2. above, it is also a fact that, certainly in my Catholic1 world view, but also before it, that all humans are flawed, and as such, we are all, to various degrees NOT immune to ego, fear, pride, etcetera, so it is certainly possible that we can fool ourselves that we are being very objective, when in fact we are not. HOWEVER, I do think that over decades of life one can get a pretty decent sense of both themselves and others. Personally I grew up within a culture, background and general life in which the concept of truth, honour, and justice reigned above all. A Venetian version of things that was then impregnated with Japanese budo culture from martial arts from pretty much birth. And that upbringing continued throughout my life as an adult too, but I am fairly sure my personal pride is low compared to most, because despite objectively being in the very top exponent of karate-do, the minute I found people who could beat the shit out of me at will, I dropped what had been a staple form of regular training for about three decades in a day, and started to train in the Russian system. And this sort of thing has happened to me in many areas of life. I tend to be fairly firm in my ideas, beliefs, and so on, but generally it’s because I have spent more time confirming them than most. Nevertheless, if proven wrong, I can pivot on lifelong beliefs in an instant. I have demonstrated this ability in everything from long-held principles (including my belief that Catholicism was absurd for about 42 of my 57 years on Earth) to intense arguments with a woman I was with, that at the height of the argument said something or did something that proved me wrong. When whatever I believe is demonstrably shown to be wrong, I have zero issue in admitting it and doing so immediately. I can’t speak for Vox, and my impression is he may have a bit more pride than I do in how he might go about admitting the error, but that could just be a matter of style or impression. He certainly owned up to some (relatively unimportant) error in his first edition of Probability Zero. All this point 3 is here to say, is that while neither I nor Vox is perfect, and while we are both flawed in no doubt a number of ways, overall, I think people like me and him figuring out the why and the how is a net positive, rather than a net negative.
4. I also base this on the fact that both Vox and I have a rather long history of proving the so-called “experts” not only wrong, but also show them up as the midwits they are. Vox is a more publicly recognised person than I am, so his accomplishments are far better known than mine, but mine are certainly demonstrable if someone bothers to dig a bit into the things I published, wrote about or pointed out in my books or the OG blog (link at the top of this blog) over the last 30 years. Vox has demonstrated being ahead of the curve in economic theory, in his ability to prove historically that religion has very little to do with being a cause of wars, that atheists are intellectually retarded compared to certainly him, as well as basic observations using logic and facts. More recently has single-handedly destroyed the theory of Darwinian Evolution, fixed a few philosophical dilemmas by proving them nonsensical (with all the required detail that I personally cannot be bothered with, as I tend to ignore things that I can see are obviously flawed unless there is a specific aspect that interests me, in which case I can become as much of a weaponised autist as the next guy), and I have probably left out several other accomplishments. Personally I have come up with a theory of how the mind/brain works that explains how to deal with certain levels of Autism/Aspergers on the lower end of the curve, discovered that Mars was destroyed by intelligent action (based on the physical evidence, not some weird opinion), that it was inhabited, and had all the conditions to support life, that the Great Pyramid and nearby ones were NOT built by the Egyptians, or even what we may consider normal humans. I mean this was obvious to me 31 years ago, but Dr. Filippo Biondi has now proven it beyond a shadow of any remote doubt). And consequently, that antigravity technology not only must exist, but already did exist millennia ago, and it is very reasonable to assume it exists now too, since. there is overwhelming evidence of it. And I also demonstrated that telepathy can and does work and is repeatable within certain parameters (Systema book and videos). You can see Vox’s books on Amazon here to verify things for yourself by reading them, and mine here though the digital titles are here.
5. Oh, and fifth point, mostly irrelevant to both Vox and I, but being an eternal optimist I hope it will be understood by our readers, and thus lower the level of partisan idiocy we may see in the comments, no, I am not “attacking” Vox, nor trying to “prove him wrong” and this is not the usual internet equivalent of two drunk homeless people fighting for the entertainment of the masses. This is what used to be considered in polite society, since the time of the Greeks, a proper argument between two men. Which does not have the combative overtones the word argument has today for the most part, and involved the discussing an aspect of life, philosophy, their world view and so on, with the intent of finding out more about reality, how it works and on doing so intellectually honestly. Whenever people do this, it has certainly been my experience that, regardless of who may be closer to the truth, both men benefit, and, I believe, so do the spectators, i.e. you, dear readers. Ergo the debate happening, and in writing so that everyone can see the working out, errors, etcetera.

So: to summarise:

1. Yes most people should not bother with the why
2. If they do, most people will make things worse and retard progress (see Evolution, Physics, pretty much all of psychology, a bunch of things on neurology and genetics, etc. etc. etc.)
3. Despite 1 and 2 I judge neither Vox nor I are especially prone to the typical pitfalls of trying to find out the why and the how, even allowing for our own flawed natures.
4. We both have a track history of proving rather important things most people ignored or did not know anything about as being true or different from the accepted “scientific consensus”.
5. It is a more refined version of a “spectacle” insofar as it is a spectacle at all, than the usual internet bum-fight.

My argument:

Now we got that out of the way, here is my argument:

1. The WHAT is fairly easy to do by anyone interested and sufficiently objective, intelligent, and disciplined to simply observe and note any pattern that may be present. Usually the only thing required is enough of a data set to have confirmation of the pattern the observations may demonstrate.
2. Once a pattern is observed, one can use it to predict outcomes to whatever the degree of error the observations show.
3. In doing this one can certainly develop systems to predict all sorts of things, from human behaviour (the SSH for example) even without knowing the why or the how of the process involved. The SSH itself is really the pivotal case. One can see a pattern perhaps that single mothers may raise male children who tend to have a statistically higher chance of being a Gamma. I am not sure anyone has done this, firstly because the definitions are necessarily fuzzy, and secondly because the measurement is difficult. But anecdotally, and certainly from my own observations, the pattern has merit. But even if this was proven as statistically significant, this is still a pattern observation, and not a real explanation of the WHY it happens. One could imagine it is because a child learns by observed behaviour, and a mother can only exhibit female coded behaviour. So a son may learn female coded behaviour, and as such then present and behave very much as Gammas do. It’s a reasonable enough theory and may “work” to create a model of the causative effects of the SSH rank a man has, BUT… it could be completely wrong too. Maybe it has to do with some specific gene that gets activated by the type of potty training a kid receives (just to throw out a curveball as an example). So I agree that the model is not necessarily the truth, but as long as it works, use it, at least until you find a better model that has better predictive power.
4. Given the above, investigating the Why and the How is usually far more difficult than most people realise. And in many cases when people think they are investigating the why and the how, they are in fact, merely adding another layer of observation, even if in finer detail than the observation that first showed the pattern.
5. NEVERTHELESS, there are instances where the WHY and the HOW make an absolute world of difference. For example, Vox’s own Probability Zero book does NOT explain the why or the how of how things are, regarding the state of “evolution”, but it absolutely explained the why of why Darwinian Evolution is NOT how it works. And that absolutely makes a difference. On a personal level it was what gave me the impetus to write Martians from scratch, because though I already had “Alien Genetic Manipulation” baked into my own theory of Human History more than 30 years ago, Vox demonstrated that it was a far more tenable proposition than the theory of evolution according to Darwin, and quite a bit beside it too, that wrongly gets lumped in with it. Now, it does NOT prove aliens screwed a bunch of monkey or messed with Petri dishes of monkey DNA enough to make us, but it certainly makes that possibility a LOT more likely than the theory of evolution, which he has single-handedly nuked from orbit.
6. The WHY in Vox’s own case of Probability Zero matters to an extreme degree NOT because of how clever or famous or right it makes him personally, but because it literally will change how humanity sees itself down the line. And my own Martians matters for the same reason, though I suspect the timeline for acceptance of my own work will be much longer than acceptance of his. If humanity realises once and for all that we absolutely have already got undeniable evidence of our entire origin being extra-terrestrial, that antigravity permits us to travel to other stars, not just other planets in our solar system, and that the same technology already has destroyed at least one planet in our own solar system, and quite possibly two, then, the NEXT realisation is that: Aliens already exist and already had this technology millennia ago. And given what this technology can do, it makes absolute sense that ANY civilisation that finds it, discover it, or re-discover it, as we did, etc. will at minimum be WATCHED. And almost certainly DIRECTED, with regard to how it’s used. Because it’s a bigger version of Nukes. Once a country has nukes, guess what, it gets to play with the big boys. And once a civilisation has antigravity, guess what, it gets to do the same. Because any ONE IDIOT with an antigravity machine the size of a car can do to Earth what happened on Mars. So… if everyone can do that, no one better actually do it, because if they do, everyone else with the tech will wipe that civilisation out. Something that may have already happened in our Solar system at least once. And there is quite a lot more beside that. But for the moment, just play-pretend for a second and accept that this is all true, can you see how the ENTIRE view humanity has of itself would shift? Paul Anderson’s SF novel The High Crusade suddenly becomes possibility instead of wild fantasy. And who on Earth doesn’t think THAT reality2 blows the current dystopia of pedophiles running the planet out of the water?!? I mean, they do run it, but knowing we could be amongst the other civilisations that have antigravity tech, is certainly more of an impetus to dethrone them, and drown them in a bog somewhere. And if need be deal with the subterfugeous aliens trying to keep us from full antigravity participation too (for all we know they may be just as bad as the pedovores, but even if so, then all the more of an obligation to get our own place in the Galaxy as independent actors, instead of prison-planet puppets that get used for anal probe entertainment by the Greys).

In short, the WHY and the HOW matter. They matter in developing technology, from rockets to antigravity ships (if you have not seen it watch the documentary on Bob Lazar called S4 on prime ), in understanding how reality, the Universe, the human brain, body, mind and spirit work. And in understanding ANY of that that better, WE can be better, we can ACTUALLY evolve. Spiritually, intellectually, emotionally, if not necessarily genetically. And we can also make things better not just for ourselves individually, but for everyone around us.

Imagine if instead of one of the turns of history a different road was taken. Imagine if Heaviside had not truncated the Maxwell equations and the work of people like Harold Aspden had gone mainstream. Yes, perhaps we would have wiped ourselves out or been wiped out by the aliens that are already equipped with antigravity, but perhaps we would actually be colonising remote planets in our Galaxy, or even other Galaxies entirely.

The only way mankind has evolved to the point you are all reading this on a computer at home, or on your phone while you commute, is because some people along the way figured out the why and the how. And no, I don’t think all (or even most) technological progress is necessarily good, because it depends how you use it, but it COULD be good. And knowing the truth DOES matter, as, I hope is obvious after all the lies that got exposed in the last six years.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

[ X ]

This entry was posted in SubStack. RSS 2.0 feed.