I stole that title from here. I don’t like plagiarizing, but that’s all I want to know. Man Alive! has been online for a baker’s dozen days now, and the silent response is deafening.
Get it? That’s all I want to know. Where is he wrong?
I’m a bad hero-worshipper and I don’t worship Greg Swann. He’s been a good friend, plus he’s a productive businessman, an honest guy and just generally a man of integrity overall. So am I, and this is why I give him the credit he’s due. As I’ve written elsewhere, Crick & Watson discovered the nature of DNA and Greg Swann discovered the nature of the self. That’s all. Yes, it’s extremely important and yes, it can change the world…but to me, it’s just a simple identification and that’s about the size of it.
The function of our minds it to identify things. Our eyes are to sense wavelengths of light, our ears are to hear audible sounds, our noses are to smell various chemicals, and our minds are to abstractly classify that which we sense and that of which we’re aware. How tough is that? Is this not obvious?
Here’s how I really wanted to title this post…
Chicken-Shit Philosophy
Thousands of people have now seen Man Alive!, including a whole host of supposed “thinkers” and “philosophers.” And while there have been some overwhelmingly flattering comments to Greg, mostly in email, there’s been nary a public word from these “philosophers,” formal or otherwise.
Well, why the hell is that? Are there falsehoods in the book? If so, let’s see ’em. Set ’em out. I don’t want to go around believing any falsehoods, especially about stuff this important. There’s a link right up top just for that, but nothing appears.
Does this mean all these thinkers understand that Greg is exactly right? Then why no comments about that? Is it too obvious, too minor? If it’s so obvious, then how come nobody else has ever written or expressed these ideas? Sure, many people have come to similar conclusions…all the way back to Epicurus and as recently as Ayn Rand. But none of them hit the crux of the matter; none of them began with the correct identification of the nature of the self. And without that foundation, all egoist philosophies become little more than another opinion. Maybe they’re a more sensible opinion than the collectivism and altruism that infests our society today, but without that fundamental premise — that fundamental identification — the conclusions themselves aren’t identifications; they’re just some fine opinions. Do you see the difference?
For my money, this is the most important line in the book…
“As a matter of ontology, of being, your life is your self – your own iteratively self-abstracted idea of your life – and your self is your life’s highest value.”
…and the most important part of that is the identification that your self is “your own iteratively self-abstracted idea of your life.” That’s right, isn’t it? That’s what a self is, is it not? And it’s mighty important, isn’t it? Has anyone else so correctly identified the nature of the self? Epicurus came close, but even he got there by the conclusions that derive from this, rather than a straight-out identification of it.
So a discovery like this, with its attendant conclusions, don’t matter enough for philosophers or other “thinkers” to comment? How could this be? I thought philosophy meant “love of wisdom” literally, or “love of truth” practically. So what are these philosophers implying — that Greg is wrong, or that it doesn’t matter? Either one is bullshit, and if philosophy is to mean anything ever again, then this matter should be taken up.
And these “philosophers,” whether academic or not, should be pressed until they do.
Trains to the Camps
This is the real matter for me. I don’t give a hoot what other people believe or how they live their lives. I only care about what they do, and even then I only care insofar as it affects my own life, or the lives of those I care about. I haven’t held a wage-paying job for over three decades and all I know is business — trading values. I trade what I have to offer, for what others have to offer. I think it’s fun and more importantly, I think it’s ultimately moral. I am a man of free will and I enjoy trading with others of free will. But of course, that’s been effectively outlawed in recent years. Sure it’s possible to run a business, if you devote the enormous time involved to licensing, regulation, taxes and so on. And every drop of time — our only real resource as human beings — wasted on all of those, is a resource — a value — taken from the marketplace. Little wonder we’re where we are, eh?
That would be bad enough, but I can get over it. If others don’t want to trade, or have no values to trade, then that’s my problem and I’ll just have to survive some other way. That’s not the problem, not mine and not yours. Our problem is how our production is stifled, and what it portends for the future. The “how” is easy — -the only way to abridge our free will is with physical force. I can resist persuasion and I can resist the beliefs of the mob. I’ve spent a lifetime discovering what’s true and what’s false, and nothing will ever persuade me to accept the false.
But that’s not what’s happening, is it? If you’re reading this, I assume you have some knowledge of what’s going on. You know what the NDAA is, and what it means. Maybe you know about this, or this, or this, or this, or this. I could go on nearly forever, but you know all this. You know where our country is, and you know to where this leads. It’s happened time and time again, throughout the entire record of human history.
That’s what worries me and that’s the threat to my survival. And yours too. We both know it, but only I am willing to scream it out loud. Well, I’m screaming it. You don’t think those trains are going to load? You don’t think you will be taken to the camps? Why the hell not? Do you know what VIPR is? Ride the bus in Houston? Does this mean anything in your life? This? [“Trooper Hernandez, who noted just watching the illegal event is a crime.”] This? This?
What, do you think they’re going to run out of trains or do you think they’ll run out of people to run them?
Let’s stop bullshitting, okay?
Begin at the Beginning
Alright, I’m done with my rant and I’m back to the start. For now, I want to know one thing and one thing only: “Where Is He Wrong?” If there’s a mistake, then let’s see it and move on.
But if there’s not one, then we need to hear that too. There is simply too much at stake. I’m not half as nice as Greg…he says he’s fighting for your mind. But I’m not wholly cruel either, and I want people with whom I can trade values. So me, I want to save your life and maybe we can do some business down the road.
But then, saving your mind and saving your life are the same action, aren’t they?
The world changes one mind at a time. Do the math — if one person convinced another person of the truth of Man Alive! in ten days, and each convinced person managed to convince one other person every ten days, then how long will it take before we can actually change the world and manage to live in accordance with our nature?
You figure it out and then decide what you are going to do about it.
