The wares of both authority and debunker are akin to low-value stones, expertly cut to mimic the appearance and perceived value of diamonds, but lacking in genuine substance and scientific integrity.

Throughout my career, I’ve conducted business planning and strategy work for various precious metal and gem mines across three continents. A surprising revelation from this work is the commonality (relative to our perception) of diamonds, both in raw and industrial-grade forms. For example, a project surveying an ancient dry river bed in West Africa yielded nearly 150 diamonds in just one day of excavator work. The uncut stone inventory held by the investors of this particular mine numbered in the tens of thousands. This from just one medium-scale operation.

This abundance extends even to rough gem-quality diamonds, which often overpopulate investor asset vaults – to the extent that this ilk of asset can rarely today be leveraged as collateral for project financing (‘raw stones’ as opposed to fine jewelry per se). The reason behind this? The value of these diamonds seems to be anchored more in perception than in rarity, based on a market value established primarily through the purposely constrained supply of fine jewelry cut diamonds. This market is heavily influenced by human desires and the social drive to impress or influence others, which may not necessarily reflect the true abundance of these precious stones.

Diamonds may be (perceived as) scarce, but they are not actually rare. Diamonds which are skillfully cut bear the actual principle of scarcity.¹

Under the same philosophy, crude information is often worthless, and must be transformed by a skilled craftsman in order to bear actual value. Pretenders rarely grasp this – especially if the crude data accidentally appears to imply what they wanted in the first place.

In my professional experiences, which include work with various consumer goods catalogs, retailers, and my own retail catalog collection, I have gained significant insight into the effectiveness of ‘push’ marketing strategies. This approach involves actively promoting products to customers, in advance of a purposely scarce supply, rather than relying on customer demand to pull the product through an amply-supplied distribution channel.

Pull what they may need, but push what they really want.

In the competitive retail landscape, understanding and skillfully applying a push strategy has proven to be a powerful tool. It allowed us to gain an edge over less strategically informed competitors. We put eight or more of our competitors out of business, and bought their brands at a low price, in order to establish market dominance. Our collection’s success is a testament to the efficacy of leveraging such an understanding of market dynamics.

The Darker Side of Push: ‘Scientific’ Information is Often an Over-Valued Diamond

In line with this philosophy, information too can be seen as a commodity within a market. Much of the Social Narrative and perceived Truth that we believe we understand is, in fact, market ‘pushed’ to us, similar to how fashion trends are promoted. This information is often presented as being valuable, not inherently, but through the controlled restriction of access to alternative or competing information sources. This strategy manipulates perception, making certain information seem more significant or credible by limiting exposure to diverse viewpoints or data.

The current paradigm shift in understanding reveals that superficial linear-confirmation inductive statistical studies can be adeptly abused to support or dismiss almost any argument, depending on one’s desires. These studies are often backed by seemingly complex heuristics – methodologies which are actually simple in nature, yet are abused in terms of nomenclature and application so as to appear far too sophisticated for the unwashed to comprehend. This ilk of researcher often satisficing his effort through preemptive use of complex heuristic, which circumvents the perceived need for rigorous deductive work.


They in essence begin with the linear question: ‘Is my conclusion correct?’ Then proceed to locate the easiest information to find which will result in a confirmatory ‘likely’. The supposed gravitas of even hundreds of such studies can constitute a mere illusion, fomented through constraint in the availability of both qualified research and qualifying information. They do not embody science in its truest form. They are over-valued diamonds or even expertly cut zirconia.

One should understand that it’s not necessarily the information labeled with prefixes like ‘mal-‘, ‘dis-‘, and ‘mis-‘ that is necessarily deceptive. More often, it’s the officially sanctioned information which serves to mislead, churnalism-promoted through appeals to authority and ignorance much like a trend in fashion. This exclusivity is obtained through culling strategies like embargo, censorship, publication constraint, or willful ignorance (Nelsonian knowledge). These tactics serve to elevate certain information while suppressing alternative viewpoints or facts, thereby manipulating public perception and understanding. These same methods of hawking and supply constraint are used to falsely boost the value of cut fine diamonds.

Therefore, within ethical skepticism it is crucial to scrutinize both those in authority (hawking) and those who actively debunk (supply constraint), as a primary approach. Their goal is often not the pursuit of truth, but rather to instruct or guide fashion-opinion. Without recognizing this, one risks remaining perpetually susceptible to their influence.

Their wares can often be akin to low-value stones as well, off-lattice cut to mimic the appearance and perceived value of diamonds, but lacking in genuine substance and scientific integrity.

Egregore and Tulpa

This is indeed a spiritual battle as well. Setting aside the reality that most ‘I follow the science’ types will deny the existence of the spiritual to begin with (and falsely pass that off as ‘atheism’), the principal components of how we perceive reality – are indeed mistaken – they are but mere fashion push, leveraged against a wilful constraint in supply. One cannot exit this hell – being relegated to endlessly cycling according to its paradigms – until you comprehend this.

Both theist and nihilist Atheist alike worship an all powerful egregore of their cult’s crafting. One egregore bears an old man with a beard stenciled upon it, the other has a ‘no’ symbol stenciled on it. They are indeed the same religion, with the same function and set of definitions – they just choose different decorations.

Whether mere useful placeholder or objective reality, René Descartes’ dissent touches upon an aspect of this in his “Meditations on First Philosophy”, first published in 1641.

I shall then suppose, not that God who is supremely good and the fountain of truth, but some evil genius not less powerful than deceitful, has employed his whole energies in deceiving me; I shall consider that the heavens, the earth, colours, figures, sound, and all other external things are nought but the illusions and dreams of which this genius has availed himself in order to lay traps for my credulity; I shall consider myself as having no hands, no eyes, no flesh, no blood, nor any senses, yet falsely believing myself to possess all these things; I shall remain obstinately attached to this idea, and if by this means it is not in my power to arrive at the knowledge of any truth, I may at least do what is in my power [i.e. suspend my judgment], and with firm purpose avoid giving credence to any false thing, or being imposed upon by this arch deceiver, however powerful and deceptive he may be. But this task is a laborious one, and insensibly a certain lassitude leads me into the course of my ordinary life. And just as a captive who in sleep enjoys an imaginary liberty, when he begins to suspect that his liberty is but a dream, fears to awaken, and conspires with these agreeable illusions that the deception may be prolonged, so insensibly of my own accord I fall back into my former opinions, and I dread awakening from this slumber, lest the laborious wakefulness which would follow the tranquillity of this repose should have to be spent not in daylight, but in the excessive darkness of the difficulties which have just been discussed.²

~ René Descartes, “Meditations on First Philosophy”

Epoché Vanguards Gnosis

This is why it is of supreme importance as a skeptic to withhold one’s assent, both to the affirmative and denial, before going and looking. This as well is why methodical doubt, is the ware of the diamond huckster. The essence of this approach to philosophy can be captured in The Conflict Between Egregore and Tulpa. We leave you now, with the ChatGPT-4 definition of both.

Egregore: This concept originates in occult and hermetic traditions and refers to a collective group mind, an autonomous psychic entity or group spirit, an emergent consciousness that arises from and influences a group of people. An egregore is thought to be created by the collective thoughts, beliefs, and energies of a group of individuals, especially when focused on a common goal or purpose. It is believed to exert influence on the thoughts, emotions, and actions of individuals within the group, often reinforcing the collective beliefs and goals that created it.

Tulpa: Originating from Tibetan Buddhism, a tulpa is understood as a thoughtform or a being created through intense concentration, meditation, and visualization. Unlike an egregore, which is a collective phenomenon, a tulpa is typically the creation of an individual – a form of individual dissent if you will. It is believed that through sustained focus and mental effort, an individual can manifest a tulpa into a form that can be sensed or interacted with, often possessing its own personality, thoughts, and emotions.

The key difference lies in their origins and the nature of their creation: egregores are collective constructs born from group dynamics and energies, while tulpas are individual constructs resulting from focused mental discipline and imagination. Both concepts, however, emphasize the power of the mind and belief in shaping reality or creating sentient experiences or entities.

The mystery to take away and ponder resides in this: tulpa is just as powerful as is egregore. This stands as a key hint concerning our existential self. You possess the power to exit this hell, and you just don’t know it.

LLL

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Conflict of Egregore and Tulpa”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 15 Mar 2024; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/?p=82628

1. I use diamonds here because they present a fascinating example that illustrates the difference between scarcity and rarity.

   Naturally, diamonds are not as rare as many people believe. They are composed of carbon and are formed under high-pressure, high-temperature conditions deep within the Earth. There are numerous diamond deposits around the world, and they can be mined in significant quantities. This abundance means that, in a purely geological sense, diamonds are not extremely rare.

   However, the perceived scarcity of diamonds is largely a result of controlled supply and marketing strategies. The diamond industry has historically been dominated by a few major players who have managed the supply of diamonds to maintain high prices. By releasing diamonds into the market in controlled quantities, they create an impression of scarcity, which increases the perceived value of diamonds.

2. René Descartes, “Meditations on First Philosophy,” in Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies, translated by John Cottingham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 14-15.