Amerika

Can we admit now that the Twentieth Century ideas that guide our modern lives have stalled, and with them have slowed the perception of legitimacy behind the direction of this civilization since The Enlightenment™? Caught in the grip of old and dead theories, we need something new.

On this site you will read descriptions of ideas that you will not see anywhere else, particularly the ideas of Crowdism and parallelism. These address a more comprehensive view of history and politics, and a method of understanding the human species, respectively.

Crowdism says that all politics is surface and what we see underneath consists of individuals reversing cause and effect in their minds because they now answer indirectly to a paternalistic civilization rather than directly to nature, causing them to rebel and pursue individualism with social subsidies instead.

In this view, all politics consists of justifications and rationalizations to the core principle that everyone is so important that they must be allowed to pursue individual agenda while facilitated by society. This individualism reflects a fatalism, or lack of hope that constructive, creative, and productive activities will be recognized.

Within the Crowdist analysis, civilizations begin to fail once they lose their initial objective of becoming established. This happens at the moment they succeed, when human logic turns toward eliminating negatives rather than achieving positives. That in turn leads to bureaucracy, whose imprecise reward of the good creates resentment.

On top of that, Crowdism acknowledges that most people will revolt against good leadership no matter what their fate. People seek recognition more than power itself, and for most of them, little recognition will be coming because they offer nothing uniquely or particularly valuable.

Social hierarchy provides the solution here, but unlike past societies, the society must be religious about rewarding only good contributions and slightly less fanatical but consistent about exiling human waste (career criminals, the insane, the retarded, and those in the promiscuous-perverse band of activity).

Parallelism states that instead of causation being linear, it is formed of fact patterns that create the linear trigger that sets off events, and that what is “true” can be determined by what is real because the pattern arc will be similar in energy, matter, and idea, showing a parallel across time itself.

A pattern-based reality can be understood as the recognition that every event occurs in multiple potential options, one of which is selected because it has the most relevance to its context. Thousands of people will invent chairs, but only one design will have everything that is needed and no more, and it will predominate.

This balance of relevance stretches across time. The early chair designs, which are like rocks, will eventually mature into the final design, so we can see how like a Platonic form it was always waiting to be discovered. No one causes the discovery of a chair; a chair exists because of the need for a platform to sit on.

That fact pattern includes not just a human hammering wood, but the interaction between gravity, muscles, and inertia. A chair works because it supports itself from four angles below and has a back to keep the human upright. All these things are in parallel, therefore the design is more workable than other options.

It also exhibits the quality of minimization. That is, a tree stump with a back nailed to it functions as a chair, but is heavier and bulkier. The chair design that we all know minimizes the amount of materials and bulk required, therefore over time becomes more competitive.

Even more, parallels can be seen in other areas, showing us that the condition of being balanced across different media determines causality more than a linear event. Whichever option harmonizes most to its context is chosen because it is logical (idea), efficient (energy), and effective (material).

We can see how the past parallels the future, a type of continuity that undergirds the cyclic theory of history. Monism suggests that the metaphysical and physical are in parallel. Many species compete for the same niche, but one wins out over the others.

This provides a theory of the universe as being logical or thought-like: it thinks like we do, creating many options, eliminating the weak, and then using tradeoff/balance to find the right choice. Our own thoughts consist of impulses balanced against all that we know, choosing the one that hits the most parallels as the best.

That in turn tells us that the universe, like our minds, often keeps multiple competing streams of thoughts around to borrow from each one. There is no one truth, and we are not all one as peoples; instead, we are different approaches to similar problems.

Further, our thoughts like our universe are relative. That is, we only know things by their opposites, including that a whole of existence surrounds us only because we can discern objects. There is no one truth for people who see different parts of the elephant, have different abilities, and make different choices.

In parallelism, the notion of “sin” is replaced by the question of accuracy. Reality above all else is consistent; with some work, we can figure out which of our actions will produce which results, and we call this study “history” and “science.” Intention does not matter; consequences and achievements do.

Unlike most philosophies these two aim for a realist view of the human situation. We are animals, albeit perhaps having a unique intelligence, attempting to adapt to our environment. When we demand the environment adapt to us instead, we become solipsistic and our individualism makes us bigots against reality itself.

Crowdism describes to us how human groups fail: when objectives no longer unite us, people settle for peer pressure and individualistic pursuits, resulting in a disunified society blighted by neurosis. People then think backward, and use socially-acceptable “goods” to rationalize or justify the pursuits of individuals at the expense of the group.

It debunks ideology entirely. Any conjectural or Utopian plan, especially if cloaked in altruism or pretense (what most call “elitism”), suggests manipulation and exists primarily to conceal a selfish pursuit. In groups, people are easily seduced by backward logic because it requires the least amount of inner thought and change.

They choose a fortress of equality, which is simply collectivized individualism disguised as goodwill, which allows them to get away with their little sins while forcing everyone else to clean up the mess and subsidize it. Any ideology they invent serves to conceal this goal.

Parallelism shows us how to choose sensible paths. The pattern we seek will appear in multiple places with multiple options of varying degrees of quality; we choose the best that we can achieve, a tradeoff between our current position and where we want to be.

Suggested patterns that do not occur in multiple parts of thought, matter, and energy can be seen as mere human mental phantoms. For example, bad distribution of energy, no matter how well-explained as socially popular, makes no sense, nor do religious theories which emphasize a world entirely different from this one.

You will not see these on other sites, but the most conservative thing one can do is to be realist. We do not oppose the new; we oppose the unreal, which means that which is not tested by reality and found to work over time. We realize that most humans will do their best to take all they can and foist the cleanup and bill on someone else.

Consequently, these philosophies show us humanity maturing past the Age of Symbolism into a more realistic and forward-thinking time. Our goal is like that of any other creature, to adapt to our environment, but part of that means that we need clear heads and a sense of pleasure in life, which begins with liberation from illusion.

Tags: age of symbolism, crowdism, parallelism