Pragmatic Philosophy Into Mere Identity

"Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions."

There's a recurring trend I've seen in the degeneration of cultural philosophies (really just ways of living) that begin as pragmatic endeavors with concrete terminuses transforming into bloated and unending outposts staffed by self-identifying members that have clearly missed the boat.

This might be a Shaker problem. For those unacquainted with the Shakers, they were a Quaker sect founded in the mid 18th century, whose core tenets included pacifism, simple living, and celibacy. From a high watermark of 6000 members in the mid 19th century, they have all but disappeared today (indeed, only four members remain in a single community) due to a strict adherence of their ideology that in effect removed memetic propagation through procreation, imperialism, or sheer material advantage. Being a humble subject of God in a collectivist community apparently also lost its cultural cache, leading to the ideology's almost total extinction.

However, I suspect it's more of a ladder problem:

"My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)
  He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright."

What pragmatic philosophies (I.e. those with an achievable method and end goal) lack is the ability to propagate themselves in a true memetic form after those who have used it successfully have abandoned it.

For an example, a person who has sold all extraneous goods, removed all cultural noise, engages in a humble way of living and benefits from a equanimity of mind has no reason to self-identify as a minimalist. This person probably does not read or write for minimalist magazines or participate in minimalist communities; for him the project is done, the ladder climbed and discarded.

Then who's left writing the magazines and joining the meet-ups? Let's move away from the specific example of minimalism and back to the general phenomenon. I'd say that three groups inevitably populate any mid stage pragmatic philosophy; The novitiates, the journeymen, and the fetishists. The meaning of the first two should be relatively transparent, so I'll leave them alone. But what entails a fetishist in this context? The most succinct and closest approximation would look something like "One who holds onto something long after its purpose has been served." Essentially, someone who sees Wittgenstein's Ladder and proceeds to carry it around with them as a totem. This still seems opaque.

A more accurate way of appraising it might be considering what a memetic halting problem would look like. Let's start with a simple group of interlocking self-referencing memes that seem relatively linear and follow it into a pseudo-memeplex:

"People who are thin are more attractive to others."

"I am not thin, therefore I am unattractive to others."

"I desire to be attractive to others."

From this position, there are many paths this meme-group can mutate into; the host of these memes could work out, set a weight loss goal, eat less, change social attitudes towards attraction, resign themselves to not being thin, etc. Some paths have clear terminuses, others don't. Some change the host, some change the surrounding memetic ecology. All of the paths naturally exist from this specific complex of memes in a potential form.

Let's take one hundred hypothetical overweight people hosting this starting meme-group and put them in a community dedicated to solving their memetic contradiction for two years. If the memetic contradiction is solved, the member removes themselves from the community. Groups immediately form around what seems to be the path of least resistance; some join gyms, some diet, some campaign for fat acceptance, some introspect about their self worth. Let's say at the end of the two years, 50% of people have left the community from various solutions to the contradiction:

"If I lose 20 pounds, I will be thin. I lost 20 pounds, therefore..."

"I do not wish to be attractive to others, I wish to be attractive to myself..."

"I am just not a thin person and that's okay."

The people who remain have pathological forms of these memeplexes that lack tangible terminuses;

"The thinner I am, the more attractive I will be to others."

"Other people must find all non-thin people attractive."

Etc.

These latter forms by necessity do not allow an exit from the memetic contradiction. These stem from non-transitional and unbounded memetic conceptions of a non-thin person. At the end of the two years, only these types of people are left in the community without tangible memetic goals that can be reached. Add in positive reinforcement through social capital in an echo chamber or money through professionalization and you end up with nothing but a group of fetishists rehashing endless loops of repeating dialogues.

Of course, you can replace weight-related image issues with pretty much any memetic imperative that can form both pragmatic linear narratives or nonlinear un-checked self-concepts and the point remains true.

Have you heard of an ant mill? Soldier ants perform pathing through pheromone tracking. The colony has one specific point (home) and other shifting points (resources). Ants travel from home to resources and from resources to home by following dominant pheromone tracks back and forth. The more ants on the pheromone track, the stronger it becomes. The less ants, the weaker it becomes. In some situations, the track becomes weak enough that some ants lose it completely. If these lost ants bumble forward and somehow find the path, then all is well. However, if the lost ants get turned around and start following their followers, a crisis occurs. A linear, finite pheromone track becomes nonlinear and infinite, causing all ants trapped within to cycle until they die of exhaustion.

In other words, early stage pragmatic philosophies get you from point A to point B. Mid stage pragmatic philosophies begin to lose the path to point B because the pool of the successful travelers begins to diminish while the pool of would-be ant-millers grows. Eventually, there's a total break and the travelers' path is lost, while the ant-millers' grows in strength and reinforces itself. These ant-millers fetishize the infinite cycle to the extent that even evidence that the travelers' path existed is lost.

The advent of supposedly "novel" paradigms in pragmatic philosophy is generally just the rediscovery of the path-that-was given a new map-key to arriving at it. However, the same cycle inevitably occurs. The travelers who use it to linearly escape the memetic contradiction have no stake and must remain silent, but the ant-millers/fetishists that cannot escape the contradiction are more prolific, more contentious, and in sole control of the discourse as a result. This has the effect of propagating a memetic variant of the original cultural philosophy that is more virulent by the nature of it being both louder and unsolvable.

What's the solution? How does one realize that they are within the event horizon of a memetic ant mill?

Do the same trends seem to recur perennially? Are there no tangible end goals? Are the stated goals and ends nebulous or contradictory? Do you identify with the meme/group and not with the method? Does the meme/group exist not to solve problems but create new ones? Does the meme/group rely upon constant arrivals of novel problems to continue existing?

If you answered yes to any of these, you may be in an endless memetic cycle.

On the Pulse of the World

Here is something to stop for a minute and consider sincerely.

We are living in an era when adults will refuse to eat lentils in lieu of machined formed chicken nuggets made of corn, chicken skin, and mechanically separated meat.

How chicken nuggets are made.

I repeat, we are living in an era when people will choose an amalgamation of refuse over one of the earliest crops ever domesticated by man. I have never read a sacred text that featured a chicken nugget so tasty a man would sell his birthright for it. Yet the humble lentil has had that accolade.

Esau was a hunter of game. Jacob was a farmer. One day Esau returned from the hunt, both unsuccessful and hungry. Jacob had prepared a "mess of pottage" that apparently was incredibly appetizing. Esau asked his brother for a bowl of it and Jacob asked for his birthright in exchange. Esau was the older child and Jacob desired the benefits that came with it. Esau, being quite hungry, acquiesced to his request and exchanged his inheritance for a bowl of stewed lentils.


Scholars debate on whether Esau was tricked or if it was instead a morality tale concerning the dangers of valuing immediate satisfaction more than long-term gain. Either way, Esau wanted a bowl of lentils.

So why is it that people today have largely abandoned this pulse that has fed the world for eight thousand years in favor of foods that have existed for less than eighty?

Cost is certainly no issue. Dried lentils can be purchased for $2 per 1lb bag. They can be purchased in 50lb bags for $35. Even with an extremely conservative estimate of 1000 calories per pound, that is approximately 14.7 calories per cent. That is less expensive than cornmeal or uncooked pasta. As a protein source it can't be beat in cost or nutrition. Peanut butter is more expensive ($0.03 per calorie more, to be fair) and is filled with hydrogenated oils.

Preparation and taste are also no issue. The simplest preparation is to put lentils in a pot with enough water to cover to the first knuckle of your finger and boil. Add salt if you wish. Bam. You have a food that has nourished people who lived in huts. I omit the salt and make it in a $20 rice cooker almost daily and it never ceases to be delicious. As an additional benefit, it is a minimalistic way to sensitize your palate to more subtle flavors than simple sweetness or saltiness.

But this is really the simplest way to make them. A foodstuff that has been around this long tends to have a lot of recipes. That doesn't mean the recipes are any more complex, though. In fact, you can make a delicious lentil soup using only four ingredients. There are also recipes for lentil burgers, lentil chilis, soups, mashes, and a plethora of other ways to prepare this versatile lens. Instead of paying two dollars for a pound of hamburger that will shrink by half after cooking, why not buy a bag of lentils that will double in volume after cooking?

So the question bears repeating, why are people shying away from a food that is healthy, easy to prepare, tasty, and cheap as dirt?

Let's reclaim this humble pulse from the shelves of history and live lives with more health, more wealth, a better palate, and made using ingredients your great grandparents would recognize.

Update: A couple readers wanted some recommended recipes. This red lentil curry is delicious and for those wanting a more complex flavor in your soup, here is an amazing recipe for it. It's a little more work, but totally worth it.