Truth: Time For An Alternative / Part I

The problem with truth is not that there is no truth but that there is too much of it. Forget Pontius Pilate and is Quid Est Veritas; those were simpler times that allowed for doubting truth. Now, not only does every one know and must know the truth, but what each person knows to be true contradicts or at least is different from what every one else knows to be true. As if this is not bad enough, they all insist on telling me what it is plus insisting that I accept it. It is a complicated world that changes in knowledge and creates new knowledge every day, and we must use language and its inherent vagueness and indeterminacy to talk about it and its truth. So, even if one wanted to know and talk only about the truth and nothing but the truth, it is simply not physically possible to do so. For me to know the truth of any subject, I would have to spend a full day studying its truth that would be different from the day before by which point the day would be over so I could not act on the knowledge I have gained during that day anyway, but then the truth for that one day will be a different truth tomorrow. Truth is a full-time job but I already have a full-time job. In reality of the majesty of the law, I accept its truth or go to jail which is worse that Pilate. Pilate just wanted me to work, pay taxes, and tell everyone else to do the same, after which I could do whatever I wanted and accept whatever truth I wanted and he would leave me alone. Pilate and Rome accepted Power as the only god and were honest enough to admit it. If they had to crucify an innocent to get that point across, they did it knowingly and did not cowardly hide behind ethics or some -ism claiming the sacrifice will create a utopia. As government prosecutors and police are well aware, if you talk long enough about anything, you will eventually contradict yourself and thus they will eventually be be able to accuse you and charge you with lying as leverage to be used against you for whatever else they are trying to get out of you.

 
The unfortunate reality is that I and most persons in Technological Society spend most of our days and life acting in ignorance of truth as a matter of necessity and must hide our ignorance by minimizing talk of truth and thus avoid the inevitable contradictions that lead to trouble with the law so as to earn a living, sleep, and have some fun. According to the Dunning-Kruger Effect in statistics, not only is this what most people do but the most ignorant usually are the most confident of their truth and are the most confident of it when they talk about and act upon it. We need an alternative to truth. Let’s start looking for one.

 

The clearest meaning of truth is in the hard or natural sciences including their language of mathematics; can they give me an alternative? They seem to know timeless, all possible worlds, and absolute hard truths. Want to get a rocket to the Moon, Mars, or the outer solar system or accomplish anything physical? The worker bees of the hard sciences are your source of truth. But, that is the problem with their truth. It is a collective truth. It is a massive collection of contradictory mathematical models and mathematical fictions known by a few worker bees in a few hives that are created, divided, and subdivided so as to ignore the contradictions. Of course, the simple stuff is as easy now as it was in Pilate’s day; 2 + 2 = 4 is true anywhere in the real world and in all possible real worlds except perhaps in the imaginary ones of post-modernism that are not real worlds anyway just pretend real worlds created for aesthetics and perhaps for power. However, what about the hard truths of the hard sciences? For example, what is the truth of gauge theory in physics or in mathematical logic? Is it true that the reified formula A[δ] can be treated not as the ordered pair <A, δ>, but as the result A(d1,…, dn/x1,…, xn) of substituting the objects d1 =δ(x1), … , dn = δ(xn) for the variables x1, … , xn that occur free in A? Does E really and truly = (1/2m)p2−(erE)? If relativity physics has to hypothesize the existence of non-detectable dark matter and dark energy that makes up 95% of the universe in order to get its mathematical fictions to work, does that mean it only describes 5% of the universe? If the universe is made up of atoms that cannot be experienced directly in any human sense and are themselves made of numbers consisting of waves of probabilities that are not waves in anything since there is no ether, is not the universe made up of numbers? Hell if I know.

 
Which one of my examples above is pure mathematical logic inquiry and which is pure physics gauge theory inquiry? Only the few are given the gift of knowing the true answers to these sample questions and pretty much all the other questions and answers of the modern hard sciences. The average person has to accept what these few say on faith not on knowledge and everyone knows it but only a few admit it. The propagation of this faith depends on full-time preachers varying from incompetent scientists such as Richard Dawkins to ignorant publicists such as Bill Maher. What about the worker bees of science? Ultimately, if you are able to get an knowledgeable, intelligent, and competent worker bee individual scientist alone in a room and ask them what the f–k they are doing, the honest ones will admit: “[s]ince all models are wrong the scientist cannot obtain a ‘correct’ one by excessive elaboration. On the contrary following William of Occam he should seek an economical description of natural phenomena. Just as the ability to devise simple but evocative models is the signature of the great scientist so overelaboration and overparameterization is often the mark of mediocrity” — Box, G.E.P. (1976) in “Science and Statistics” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 71 (No. 356), pp. 791-799. Or, simpler yet, such worker bee scientists will admit “the goals of science [are] to be met by construction of theories that correctly describe all observable matters, whether or not they are right about what lies behind them … [which] is a metaphysical question best avoided by philosophy as well as science.” — Richard Healey in Gauging What’s Real: the conceptual foundations of contemporary gauge theories, Oxford University Press (2007) at p. XV. Great, they admit their truth that I must accept on faith as a basis to run Technological Society is really based on an avoidance of truth so as to be economical in their descriptions. So, they already have alternative to truth; an alternative that is just as confounding and confusing as the omnipresent and convoluted cloud of truth that surrounds me behind my ability to grasp it and deal with it in anyway but blind faith. So the hard sciences alternative so is not an alternative to truth but only a further reason to look for one.

 

What about the math? Forget words, just deal in numbers as an alternative to the word “truth”. Forget truth, all answers to problems and questions must be expressed in the form of a correct answer to a mathematical equation. If the problem and question cannot be formed mathematically, than, hey, it must not be worth asking? According to some books I have read, as many as 70% of mathematicians are Platonist — they believe they discover numbers in the same way we discover and trip over rocks. Others, such as the great Bertrand Russell concluded, “I fear that, to a mind of sufficient intellectual power, the whole of mathematics would appear trivial, as trivial as the statement that a four-footed animal is an animal” — Holt, J. (2013) in Why does the world exist?: an existential detective story, N.Y., N.Y.: Liveright Publishing Corporation, at p. 183. Given that great physicists from Aristotle to Newton, Fourier, Heisenberg, Gell-Mann, and others have had to make up new math to get their physics to work leads me to go Russell’s tautology route but maybe not; maybe they discovered their math in the same way they discovered their physics. The problem with tautologies is that they can never be proven false and thus are not science: a scientific hypothesis is one that can be falsified by parameter controlled, repeatable, experiments. So math does not seem to be a viable alternative; not only can only a few do the math and thus only a few know the math as an alternative to truth, in the end math may be a worthless and trivial alternative no better than the word “truth”. I would be replacing faith in scientists with faith in mathematicians. If numbers are Platonic, this may not be so bad. If not, the cure is as bad as the illness. I cannot even answer this basic question and must leave it to mathematicians and philosophers of math to tell me what math is — I am back to relying on faith. Numbers thus cannot be an alternative to any problems with the word “truth”.

 
There is a popular expression among trial attorneys: “There are three types of lies. There are lies, dam lies, and statistics”. Frankly, an alternative to truth dependent on one’s ability to do math with the remainder based on ignorance of math (again, does E = (1/2m)p2−(erE) and how would I know any proof you give me for this equality is actually true?) or dependent on blind faith in mathematicians and their math that may or may not be just aesthetic fictions is not much of an alternative — post-modernists can give me aesthetic fictions in which to have blind faith. I was hoping and am looking for something better than just numeric beauty and faith based aesthetics.

 
What about the soft or social sciences, do they provide an alternative for truth? They are what the philosopher of science Karl Popper called pseudo-sciences and the physicist Richard Feynman called cargo cult science in which generalization without predictive value is taken as truth. In the post-modern world preaching creativity, these sciences have lost all creativity regarding alternatives to truth with their only alternative for truth now being just one word or generalization: evolution. Whatever the problem or question, evolution is the answer and the explanation. Evolution is the new god that explains everything, makes all explanations true, and empowers everything no matter how contradictory the explanation. Whatever. I am not looking for an alternative god; I am looking for an alternative to truth. There are already too many gods in the world just as there is too much truth in the world. The overabundance of gods and of truth my be related. Evolution is a worthless alternative because even I know enough math and logic and have sufficient reasoning skill to use them to know that the concept of evolution in the social sciences is a tautology and thus is no more truth or knowledge than saying “a four-footed animal is an animal”. Again, if you get a competent, intelligent, knowledgeable worker bee scientist — even a social scientist — alone in a room safe from the condemning religious eyes of their preachers, they will admit to this.

 
Genetics and its conceptualization of evolution is science. However, genetics is a mathematical model and thus we are right back to the problems of getting alternatives for truth from science and mathematics. For example, in biology, because of its dependence on computers and their software to do the correlations required for the vast amount of data necessary to establish DNA probabilities, many biologists are complaining that the exalted DNA “explanation” is quickly “becoming epistemologically vacuous” with genes defined or equated by some biologists as no more than the mathematical algorithms or computer subroutines used to correlate the massive amount of data for physical traits with the equally massive amount of data that makes up DNA. — Buchanan, Anne V.; Sholtis, Samuel; et al. “What are genes “for” or where are traits “from”? What is the question?” Bioessays (February 2009), p. 3. doi: 10.1002/bies.200800133); Gerstein, Mark B.; Bruce, Can; Rozowsky, Joel S.; et al. “What is a gene, post-ENCODE? History and updated definition”. Genome Res. (2007) Vol. 17, p. 671. doi: 10.1101/gr.6339607. It is clear the social sciences cannot give me an alternative for truth; they are one of the main reasons I and we need an alternative for truth. Faith in them is a religious faith.

 

Finally, we have the humanities. Once the furnace for The Renaissance and The Enlightenment, in our post-modern world they are a dead end and as much a reason for needing an alternative to truth as are the social sciences. In our post-modern world, they simply make shit up. For the humanities this is not really a problem. They have a long tradition going all the way back to the great Socrates stating the alternative to truth is admitting that you do not know truth and then to accept a search for knowledge and truth as an end in itself — you may never know whether you ever find truth; it is the search for truth not the truth that is important. Yeah, right. Every time a boss asks me for the true answer to a problem, I will tell them I am in search of it and it will be a life-time search that may never end. This alternative will get me to the truth of being poor, homeless, and alone. I already know that truth; not interested in re-learning it. If one has academic tenure in the humanities at some university or other academia or even as a life tenure judge with complete immunity for failure, this alternative will work fine. However, just as the alternatives used by science and mathematics, this is a limited option only available to a select few and is not an alternative for hoi polloi.

 

I am stuck here. I need to find a new way of looking at truth. Reasoning is my usual tool for creativity. This problem is similar to the logic game of the prisoners. Its reasoning may help in my search for a truth alternative. This game goes by many names but its facts essentially are as follows:

You are in a prison. There are only two ways out. One way leads to freedom, the other to death. One way is guarded by someone who always lies, the other by someone who always tells the truth. You can leave if you pick the right exit. You are allowed to ask one guard one question. Instead of a random and arbitrary guess to choose an exist, is there one question you can ask either guard to learn the true exit to freedom?

There are actually at least two questions that will work. You could ask either guard, “what would the other guard tell me is the exit to freedom” and then take the other exit. Or, ask either guard, “what would the other guard tell me is the door to death” and then take that exit.

 
As Orwell so beautifully brought out in his writings, the Powers-that-be only care about power; power is an end-in-itself. Whatever they say, its only use and usefulness and thus its meaning is to maintain or to raise there power — neither truth nor falsehood matters; it is all bullshit. In relation to my need to survive in life as a free person, are they not equivalent to the guard who always lies? However, I am always honest with myself. Even when I am lying, I am honest to myself that I am lying. This may not always be true nor true of all persons. Some people live their whole lives or a good part of their lives in a lie. However, during the time we are living a lie, it is our truth and thus we are still being true to ourselves. So, we are always the guard that tells the truth. This is getting somewhere and neads to be developed — there may be an alternative to truth here.

Is Ethics Subjective or Objective?

Neither and both.

Morality means the individual’s leap to meaning in life, it is an ideology that in theory can be non-violent if the individual decides martyrdom for that meaning is part of the meaning of their life. Ethics is essentially a group’s morality, it is the social construct by which a social group arbitrates morality conflicts among members of its group so that the conflicts do not disrupt and destroy the group’s ability to exist and maintain its social construct meaning and power. By necessity, ethics must involve an element of violence though this is not obvious since usually most members are not involved in the enforcement aspect of the ethics. Even an ethics of non-violence will be enforced by violence. If an ethics has no violence element, it is simply a social construct ideology that makes nice parlor conversation but is meaningless in the struggles of life and eventually will achieve social suicide by disappearing from history. All social groups have a code of ethics including such as the mafia, the Russian mob, and the lowest street gang on the West Side of Chicago. In my experience, these latter are more honest, consistent, and loyal to their ethics than the vast majority of moral busy bodies that enforce “legal” codes of ethics that are in denial of their violence. However, complying with the code of ethics of the mafia for example does not make you a moral person.

Morality and ethics are not the same.

Law is simply an ethics with a monopoly on violence.

Language is “objective” when it describes by means of hypotheses subject to Ockham’s Razor and makes quantifiable predictions that can be tested and falsified in repeatable parameter controlled experiments. Objective truth is pragmatic: its truth is ontologically real as long as the words of its truth work to solve the described problem. “To be is to be the value of a bound variable”. Willard Van Orman Quine. “Subjective” misses one or all of these attributes.

Thus, an ethics that works or is successful in having a social group survive its struggles with the universe and other social groups is objectively good; one that does not work but leads to the group’s destruction or loss of power is objectively bad. However, for any given individual in the group who disagrees with the ethics but is forced either by violence or threat of violence to comply with it, it is subjective and a basis to struggle against it regardless of whether or not the ethics is objectively good in terms of survival for the group. Existentially, social history is the struggle between these two objective and subjective meanings.

 

No Respect but Fear

One big difference between working class and non-working class and between old school blue collar working class and the modern white collar working class is the present respect and expectation of law and police as being a good. This difference is also one reason I know cosmic justice organizations that are blaming racial problems on institutional racism and white privilege are really a technique by upper class privileged and their intelligentsia to strengthen their power and classism.  Only the non-working class looks at the police and the law as a good to be respected and from which good is expected. As far back as I can remember in detail, I never respected the law nor the police just as no working class person should respect it. I feared it as any working class kid should but never respected it as no working class kid did or should — even in the present white collar working class. This is one major difference between the old school blue collar working class and the new white collar working class. If I ever had any hope for justice, it was for justice in the next life not in this one. Usually, I had no hope for justice just for peace. This is not because the working class is a bunch of dump hillbillies who did not know any better as falsely marketed by a new friend of the upper class J.D. Vance in his book Hillbilly Elegies telling the upper class and its intelligentsia what they want to hear (that the working class is dysfunctional). Our conclusions on law and the police were and are very rational and based on the reality of working class life. I write here as a summary of my life experience.  For a working class person’s analysis of Hillbilly Elegies that is not intended to say only what rich people want to hear, there are critiques such as The Self-Serving Hustle of “Hillbilly Elegy”.

The law was not and is never there when workers need it and when it was there it usually did and does make things worse. Some of this was a technology problem. We did not have 911 growing up. To my memory 911 was not added in Chicago until the early 80’s. So even if you had a burglar breaking through your window in the middle of the night with a gun, your first option was not to call the police. Even if you had memorized the number, which I never did nor knew anyone that did, picking up the rotary phone and dialing seven numbers with the clicking of the dial being heard all through house including the burglar was a fairly stupid option. Unless you had a gun yourself and were willing to use it and risk getting shot yourself or killing someone, the options involved running away, staying quiet hoping they take what they wanted and leave, or yelling to wake up the neighbors hoping one of them would call the police — at which point a rational burglar would leave. If someone jumped you in an alley, you could not pull out your cellphone and call the police. You either avoided the alley, fought back, or gave in. Now the law and police are everywhere and the average person commits three felonies a day without even knowing it. Worse, everyone is accustomed to having this Sword of Damocles the police everywhere and anywhere anything social is occurring.

More important, socially, the police were just another working class group fighting for the same resources we were. They had their turf just as the greasers (gangsters) had their turf. Smart thing to do was just to leave both of them alone as much as possible. If a cop with a gun told you to do something, you did it in the same way you followed the orders of a gangster with a gun. We did not expect reasonableness from either. Many police were former greasers; for many greasers as they got older, it was a choice between being a criminal and being a cop. The smart ones mostly became cops and the dumb ones criminals. That is pretty much how they investigated matters. The cops knew who the bad guys were, it was just a matter of waiting until they screwed up and they eventually always did. Being a cop was much safer though it did not always pay better in those days but the smarter ones found a way to make it pay better as I wrote in my previous blog essay on ethics. We did not have anything to steal and since we did not take vacations there was always someone at home and we did not have to worry about burglary. The big problem was violence inside the home and street violence. The police could not help with the family violence and still cannot except by destroying the family. As far as street violence goes, as long as you did not go out looking for trouble at night (as Ta-Nehisi Coates clearly did in his desire to be a big man in the neighborhood by beating up others and his teachers), you were not completely but fairly safe in terms of criminal violence. The smart and disciplined knew where the trouble was and worked around it or with it. The police and the law were the last not first option if one did need help.

Luckily, I grew up before the upper class introduced illegal drugs into working class communities, so I did not have to watch entire families being torn apart and generations of men jailed for something that should be legal and taxed with medical aid going to the addicted and their families.

Also, by the time I got to high school, I knew enough history to know that most of the good things we and the working class had in life consisting of the eventual union job for my Dad with its better pay and benefits and even basic concepts such as a 40-hour week, weekends, and over-time, double-time, and golden-time pay plus health insurance and a union pension were not the result of the law but of hard-fought physical fighting against the law — almost all of it involved illegal fighting, some of it done with the help of organized crime that was organized enough to take on the law. In fact, most of the successful union organizing and strikes were considered organized crime in their fruition and were prosecuted as a criminal conspiracy by the majesty of the law in the early days of union organizing. This is true throughout history. Capitalism maintains that humans are naturally greedy and compete and thus through this competition in a free market that wealth is created. The problem is that in practice what this means is that it is good for the rich to be naturally greedy. Just like the immigrants who are supposed to come to this country for truth, justice, and the American way not just for material wealth, workers are expected to be simple altruists: being a greedy materialist worker is simply being a greedy materialist worker not a good. Capitalism without doubt does create wealth, but the wealth is not and was never voluntarily distributed in any significant amount to the working class: they took it by violence. I wrote about this history in a previous blog essay dealing with the Haymarket Square riots and the resulting worldwide May Day celebration ignored in the United States.

My Dad’s Local in the Labors’ International Union was well known to have mafia connections and I do not doubt it did. As I stated before, I think the mafia is a bunch of scum. Admitting their involvement in union organizing is not meant to be praise. Their involvement in union organizing was not based on any altruism but purely on economic opportunity. It is not a coincident that union membership, strikes, wages, the 40-hour work week, job security, and the imposition of what is essentially a 24/7 on-call workweek for many white collar workers is occurring at the same time as the disappearance of unions and criminal enterprises strong enough to aid unions to take on the law. I am not saying it is directly associated but it is part of the same process. At the height of labor organizing in the late 19th and 20th Century there were thousands of strikes each year. There were 11 in 2014. There was a time when 30% of the labor force was unionized; it is down to 6% now with most of that government employees such as the police. The anti-union marketing and outright brainwashing have gotten so bad that white collar workers think worse of unions than they do of the law that is creating wage slavery to replace its chattel slavery.

Think about what would have to be accomplished if Millennials, Generation X, and others got tired of burning to death living in old warehouses (as is occurring in Oakland CA) making minimum wage because they could not afford decent apartments and decide to start a union. So, how do you organize one? Where do you get the money to do that? Private equity or venture capital? Unless you have a trust fund that you are willing to risk, there are no legal options for getting financing. Then what? No one cares. You move on anyway. Instead of putting on a mask and going to Berkeley to beat up on each other over gender identity, you go on strike and block the entrance gates of your employers’ place of business and prevent the hiring of new employees. How long do you think that will last? A few hours, a few minutes? You are now terminated from employment; cannot pay your rent and have no money. You do not even qualify for unemployment because you were terminated for cause. Your union and the strike are essentially over a few minutes after it started. Labor organizing is a risky business even in the best of times; there were hundreds of annual strikes during the Depression. Not only were the union organizers facing financial ruin but also facing the police and the army if necessary as strike breakers putting union members in jail not the employers. Both for money, personal protection, and for leverage, many times the only option those union organizers had for help with these necessities was organized crime. In theory, any private contractor in the Chicago area could have hired non-union construction laborers any time they wanted instead of hiring them from the Laborers’ Union. Some did. It was usual for that contractor to shortly thereafter suffer an office fire, the construction equipment stolen or destroyed, and the construction sites suffer fires and other vandalism. Predictably, when the contractor hired union labor, the problem stopped never to occur again. Lesson learned.

The working class is not made up of idiots. As with everyone else, 90% of them would probably have done nothing and taken whatever crumbs were given to them by the upper classes. Ten percent would not. When that 10% by luck were able to get the other 90% united with a will to fight, they all fought hard for what they got as they have throughout history.

Without doubt as everyone is quick to point out many of these unions were divided along ethnic, racial, trade, locality, and many other differences that caused them to fight each other as much as they fought their employers. At least they fought. As my life and the lives of many other in the working class establish, a solitary individual cannot fight the law and is simply a criminal. It takes social support: an extended supporting family, a group identity, an ethnicity, or anything to create a social unity and force strong enough to take on the law — legal or not. The first strike in America was by Polish workers: Jamestown Polish Craftsmen’s Strike of 1619. The strength of the first successful black union consisting of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters was successful because it could count on 100,000 black members to act in unison in an economic fight against the Powers. Do you think anyone could get 100,000 of anyone these days to act in unison against the law on anything? Or even suggest it without being arrested and jailed? If the new generation of white collar workers now wanted to take up the fight against the Powers, what social support would you have? Family? Maybe, if you have more than a single mother as family, but that is it. Fellow Polish, Italians, whites, blacks, the village, the neighborhood? Who? As far as I can see, the future that the new school working class wants and will get consists of unisex, homogeneous, culturally stagnant, one color, paper-cutouts of each other living solitary lives of temporary jobs without family, community, or other social support except for the handouts they get from Big Brother. Well, good luck with it. At least you will find the peace I always hoped for in this life.

Existential Philosophy of Law

A slave begins by demanding justice and ends by wanting to wear a crown. He must dominate in his turn. — Albert Camus, The Rebel

This essay is a continuation of my closing thoughts in Why Tolerate Law available on the attached Blogroll. Blind loyalty to patrician Hegelian reason and state worship in the form of law as meaning in life is different in degree but not in substance to the theocratic state worship of the East and is a surrender to cowardice not an existential leap from it.

This is a contemplation of the meaning of the universal “law” in its modern sense of nonscientific law: in the universe of language discourse that results in decisions of legality and illegality. There seems to be more to the meaning of “law” than simply a set of rules. For one, calling something a rule instead of a law requires knowing the difference between rules and laws. Second, unlike most sets of rules such as games, one can leave the game to make other games. This option does not exist with law; if one leaves the law or legality, one is either in lawlessness or illegal. I will further contemplate whether this universal can be naturalized to scientific law and seek to determine whether such meaning and naturalization are or can be an existential philosophy of law. This contemplation will require contemplating the attributes of existentialism as they exist in plebeian lives that includes nihilism and not solely from the more popular academic patrician existentialism that excludes nihilism. I do not want this contemplation and any existential philosophy of law to be just another academic -ism, it was have pragmatic value for the plebeian portion of the class struggle that is history.

Existentially, life will always be meaningless and whatever social meaning it has will be forced upon the many by a few. For those few with the power to make their meaning in life the meaning of the group’s life, existentialism gives their will to power freedom to act and makes their struggle existential and aesthetically beautiful. However, for the many upon whom the few force their meaning, existentialism not only fails to give their will to power this same freedom but instead binds it and leaves their struggle to be existential and ugly. Patricians have the luxury to pine for meaning through their aesthetics and then violently either through law or directly to force that meaning on the remainder of humanity, but the plebeian existential absurd hero must not only fight and survive the absurdity of the universe but also this patrician will to power that forces the meaning of their lives upon the universe and all outside their class. For all known history and at present, both struggles eventually involve use of violence, but at least for the moment, the violence aspect is hidden in the behavior modifying techniques of Technological Society. As the plebeian existential absurd hero Don “Wardaddy” Collierand through Brad Pitt ad-libbed: “ideals are peaceful, history is violent”. Empirically, given that class struggle is an unavoidable inherent attribute of all social constructs, plebeians must ask whether it is better to suffer an existential struggle with the universe while governed by the few while living in material poverty in pre-Technological Society or while living comfortably in Technological Society with free time for contemplation of philosophy.

If an existential leap to morality is made, eventually that morality will run into the status of law as an unopposed normative power in the West as the present reality that must be confronted and then accepted or opposed as a good or an evil.

I do not intend to promote or criticize any particular social construct of Technological Society, either political (so-called conservative or liberal versions) nor any of the countless academic myopic constructs pretending to be history varying from feminism to classism to libertarian to post-structuralism to race studies and so forth nor its economic constructs such as capitalism, socialism, and so forth. My contemplation is only to describe the social construct called law that is a universal in all social constructs as a final arbiter of their normative statements. From the plebeian perspective, criticism would be stupid. Modern plebes irrespective of their status as wage slaves or not, of all sexes, kinds, and lives in Western Technological Society, live the finest material and least violent lives in known history. Money may not buy happiness but it buys everything else. At the same time, however, it would be stupid to promote Technological Society because it still maintains the same class distinctions and unequal will to power that all social constructs throughout known history have maintained. Patricians will promote it on their own without our help — despite their pretending to despise it. However, patricians despite complaints to the contrary, will promote it as static condition to remain forever as the ultimate social construct meaning for life in the same way they promoted chattel slavery, feudalism, bullionism, mercantilism, and all the other -ism’s that came before capitalism and socialism and any other social constructs they presently promote. If there is a next progression for Technological Society, it must come through plebeian existential struggles with patricians and not from any patrician existential struggle among themselves. Regardless of whining about despair, patricians are just fine as they are, were, and will be.