Contrasting Sanities

Permit me to dumb this down a little.

1. Biological variation within humanity (human bio-diversity aka HBD) and correlating cultural diversity may include diversity of psychological baseline health.
2. If this is true, then there may be psychological conditions that are healthy for an individual depending on that individual’s environment.
3. Such psychology would be adaptive for some conditions, and therefore sane, but mal-adapted for other conditions, and therefore insane.
4. Pre-modern human civilization would entail very limited variation in cultural environments, so sanity may be reasonably expected to be universal in our ancient and recents past, certain anomalies and idiosyncracies not withstanding, however; modern civilization entails such a degree of economic specialization, that a civilization norm for sanity may not be possible due to diversity of environments.
5. Taken to a futurist extreme, it is plausible that interdependent economic sub-cultures may develop within a civilization, each with various psychological norms for sanity.
6. The social movement in modern society generally called “progressive” appears blind to the apparent dichotomy required to promote a diverse society that simultaneously maintains a unified psychological norm.
7. It may be worthwhile for us – modern civilization – to explore what makes any particular psychology more or less adaptive, and shift focus awat from “correcting” psychologies that diverge from established norm.

Advertisements

3 responses to “Contrasting Sanities

  1. I do like the intellectual side of things here. I have a question now but it may not be related to the original post; and since it’s the first time I have read Anarcho Papist’s blog, I assume you know the blogger better than I. So, before reading your dumbed down view, I went rebel and read it on my own to see if you needed to dumb it down for me or not.
    So – omg, after reading the blog and then reading your concise 7 points, ( I wouldn’t say dumbed down but rather “concise”. ) Doesn’t it all boil down to your #7? I believe so.

    “7. It may be worthwhile for us – modern civilization – to explore what makes any particular psychology more or less adaptive, and shift focus awat from “correcting” psychologies that diverge from established norm.”

    My question is, what is he saying this for or against? It’s a good argument or conclusion on our perspectives but it seemed like it needed a reason to be stated for or against. Is my question revealing that I’m good to work in the fields for long hours? Jayne

    • Jayne,

      I would say it all leads to #7; I think it’s hard to arrive at #7 without the preable, or that #7 has another nuance if you get there by another route.

      To your question, “…what is he saying this for or against?” simply, he isn’t. It’s pure obesrvation, coupled with perhaps a pressing hypothesis.

      Anarcho-Papist, or Bryce, is a blogger among what is generally called the “Dark Enlightenment,” although perhaps he might prefer to be called a Neoreactionary. If you want to go down the rabbit hole into Wonderland, here are a few links that provide a reasonably painless introduction to the circle of characters and to answers to your specific question, “Why?”

      To begin, the “main cast” is identified here: http://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/heroes-of-the-dark-enlightenment/
      [The Radish also does a fair job defining terms and ideas]

      and the supporting cast may be found here:
      http://habitableworlds.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/visualizing-neoreaction/

      from those waymarkers, one may explore areas of interest and “guest stars” such as Anarcho-Papist.

      Regarding question, “Why?” others also ask it.
      http://runsonmagic.com/2014/02/people/

      And there are proposed answers such as
      http://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/noli-me-tangere-entryists/

      The relevant quote from the previous link that addresses your question follows.

      “None of this matters to neoreaction because neoreaction is not a government agency. It’s a research center. We’re here to see what reality is and what it [teaches, which] is, in short, that humans are evolved apes, with mammal brains, with innate biases and tendencies, all of them inheritable and variable between individuals, groups and races. That everything that the powers that be teach us is false, and that they lie to each other too. Well we don’t lie to each other. That’s all we have in common, and all we can have in common. And it’s enough. When the entryists come in, we’ll know who they are, because they’re the ones lying. We have the best shibboleth there can be.” -Spandrell [He’s one of the guys on the “Heroes of the Dark Enlightenment” list]

      • Thank you so much for all of this info. I did read the post on bloodyshovel…it started with the fact/opinion that civilization started by warfare and people needed band together. All I could think of after that was something I heard about why the government keeps UFO’s a secret. It is kept a secret because if people on earth learned of an alien race, they would no longer fight, but rather join together against the aliens. I’m paraphrasing but that’s basically it. I always thought it was a very plausible theory. Well – this Dark Enlightenment / Neoreactionary movement or existence?? is very interesting. It lost me a bit when the commentary on bloodyshovel went into jew centered thoughts but the topic itself is very intriguing. Underground intellectuals….underground because I’ve never heard of this but that means nothing. Thanks for taking the time and giving me those links. I do appreciate it. Jayne

Don't bother.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s