Epoché vanguards gnosis does not imply ‘riding the fence’ nor ‘being in the middle’; as often in a bifurcated dialectic there is no fence nor middle to begin with. Atheist, Theist, Agnostic – be none of these. Rather, epoché is a separate condition of suspension which allows one to contemplate what is really at play.
Exploit stakes seldom go uncaptured. It is the duty of the ethical skeptic to watch for the Party which serves to benefit in a conflict – even if they ‘don’t exist’.
One of the conditions we would watch for in Intelligence, and which is taught in counter-intelligence graduate schools, is a familiar play called the Machiavelli Solution. The Machiavelli Solution is a manipulation of a Hegelian Dialectic in social or scientific discourse; the condition where two opposing parties are locked in heated and diametrically opposed disagreement on a topic. Beyond such commonplace discourse it is often paramount to watch for manipulation of the dialectic under a special condition called self-sublation; a condition which allows a third, and more importantly a Fourth, critical party to enable gain or power through means of the conflict. Yes we watch for the third party in a fight between two equals, but the astute intelligence researcher also both divorces himself from the bifurcation, and watches like a spider, for The Fourth Party stakes, and more importantly, stakeholder. The one who stands to capture gains from this exploit. They are almost always there, whether anyone observes them or not.
Such knowledge of the nature of deception is the reason behind the ethical skeptic’s discipline of epoché vanguards gnosis. This principle is not trivial, as its objective insistence upon separation from the conflict stands as a critical aspect of discipline on the part of the ethical skeptic. Even a middle-position will not suffice as the perspective for such objectivity. I will elicit the critical nature of this principle by means of the Machiavelli Solution (Hegelian Dialectic) and The Fourth Party, below. Finally I will offer some brief bullet-pointed examples as to why this tenet of ethical skepticism is important in addressing both bias and agency. They serve to exemplify why opposing agency is The First Duty of ethical skepticism. This does not serve to make one a conspiracy theorist – instead, such an ethic renders one a scientist of mankind.
/philosophy : agency : deception/ : a three stage ‘solution’, implemented through an often unseen or unappreciated agency’s manipulation of a population. This is what fake and celebrity skeptics are doing to us today – they work to foment conflict between the public and science/scientists – in order to exploit the self-sublation into their own power and enforcement of their own religion, sol-nihilism. There are three steps to this:
1. Hegelian Dialectic – three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction; an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis; and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. In more simplistic terms, one can consider it thus: proposition → anti-proposition → solution.
However, the proposition and anti-proposition become stuck in a thing called self-sublation. A state in which both extremes have been falsified, however no one can give either extreme up, because of the perceived risk of a victory by the other side:
2. Self-Sublation (autoaufheben) – Hegelian principle of a dialectic which is stuck in stasis through an idea both canceling and sustaining itself at the same time. A doubled meaning: it means both to cancel (or negate) and to preserve at the same time.
The proposition/anti-proposition tension now stuck as its own perpetual argument, this gives rise to the surreptitiously played:
3. Machiavelli Solution – a third party creates and/or exploits the self-sublation condition of a Hegelian dialectic bifurcation at play, in order to sustain a conflict between two opposing ideas or groups, and eventually exploit those two groups’ losses into its own gain in power.
Catalyseur (Third Party)
/philosophy : sophistry : conflict : agent/ : a conflict exploitation specialist, or any entity which stands to gain under the outcome of a lose-lose conflict scenario which they have served to create, abet or foment. Someone who acts as a third party to two sides in an argument or conflict, who advises about the ‘truth’ of the other party involved, respectively and urges an escalation of factors which drove the conflict to begin with.
However, the Machiavellian Solution catalyseur is not necessarily the one who benefits most inside this charade. Push social movements will not occur unless someone benefits. It is amazing how the inchoate can be inspired to enrich the Crony, without the Crony having to benefit them back at all – save for the notion that they represent something virtuous. A Fourth Party exploiting for gain, people’s desire to no longer regard themselves as unapproved. Sound familiar?
The Fourth Party
The Fourth Party is the one who surreptitiously functions behind the catalyseur or third party promoting the Machiavelli Solution. While the catalyseur is often underappreciated in their existence or role in fomenting the conflict to begin with, The Fourth Party is the unseen agency behind all this. In order to determine the presence or role of The Fourth Party, one must observe for a significant period inside a state of neutrality – be an ally as well as a critic to both sides in the argument – and then begin to gauge the stakes which are at play inside it as well. Is there a benefit to be had? Who would derive such a benefit? – regardless of whether or not that ‘who’ is deemed to exist. If there is a benefit to be had, then my experience is that exploit stakes seldom are left uncaptured. That ‘who’ will exist, no matter what anyone says about the matter. This Party is denoted in the graphic to the right by the symbol set which denotes that entity which benefits from the upward consolidation of power and profit, commensurate with the downward displacement of risk and accountability.
Hegelian Deception – a form of employment of the Hegelian Dialectic where a fourth party deceiver manipulates the dialectic process to guide external witnesses to synthesize a false truth that excludes an actual hidden tertiary element. In Hegelian philosophy, the dialectical process involves the interaction of opposing ideas (thesis and antithesis) leading to a higher level of understanding or resolution (synthesis). In this scenario, the deceiver sets up a primary event (thesis) and a secondary event (antithesis) to create a false narrative or synthesis that relates the false perception that a higher level of understanding has been achieved, and more importantly diverts attentions from the actual truth (a tertiary event).
In the Hegelian Deception, the synthesized ‘truth’, while appearing to be hidden, is often situated in a way so as to make it far too easy to find.
If this ‘truth’ is mildly embarrassing to the orchestrating party, then the tertiary (actual) truth is even more devastating in its implications.
In the broader Machiavelli Solution, a kind of synergy therefore exists between that Fourth Party and the anti-proposition. The anti-proposition is the punching bag, the symbolic icon of disdain and evil. It is the lever of manipulation of a person’s desire to regard them self as approved. Approval by means of mechanism: ‘I am a skeptic’, ‘I am saved’, I am an evolutionist’, ‘I doubt’. The ease by which the mechanism may be selected is a key flag as to this formula being in play.
Because a vision softly creeping, left its vision while I was sleeping.
And in the naked light I saw ten thousand people, maybe more.
People talking without speaking. People hearing without listening.
And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.
The anti-proposition is that idea/activity on the part of the disdained unapproved enemy – the infidel. We believe the devil to exist in the anti-proposition; but it is often the case that in reality the devil exists in The Fourth Party.
For example, this is what fake and celebrity skeptics are enacting upon us today. They work to foment conflict between the public and science/scientists – in order to exploit the resulting self-sublation into their own power and enforcement of their own religion, sol-nihilism.
Through ‘science enthusiasm’, ‘science communication’ and ‘representing skepticism’, etc. they become the ironic hero in the very play of conflict which they principally fomented to begin with. One can detect them through their use of weapon words, which seek conflict, rather than understanding. If your science communicator employs words such as ‘woo’, ‘denier’, ‘anti-science’, ‘bubba’, etc. Do not trust them with anything, especially that which you regard as scientific truth.
However, in the case of fake skepticism – it is the question of ‘who benefits from the ignorance of sol-nihilism?’, that concerns the party for which the ethical skeptic must watch. The benefit derived from the ignorance of sol-nihilism is extraordinarily large; non-commensurate with gain in terms of mere celebrity and blog accuracy for the masses. Someone other than the pawn skeptic is deriving the substantial benefit from that ignorance – and that somebody is who we watch for – The Fourth Party.
Exploit stakes seldom-to-never go uncaptured.
It is the duty of the ethical skeptic to watch for the Party which serves to benefit in a conflict – even if they ‘don’t exist’.
The key is to not get caught up in the self-sublation of two opposing Hegelian ideals, but rather watch for the third party (actually often The Fourth Party behind them) who stands to gain from the sustained conflict. You will observe the ethical skeptic to avoid the self-sublation stasis inside ideas which stand exemplary of this principle. Conflicts such as
∙ conservative – moderate – liberal
∙ anthropogenic global warming – climate change – denier
∙ capitalism – collectivism – socialism
∙ atheist – agnostic – theist
∙ evolution – intelligent design – creation.
The ethical skeptic instead chooses to point out that, not only are both parties in the bifurcation wrong, but the middle is wrong as well – simply serving to lend credence to the false bifurcation in the first place, and just not selecting (or appearing to select) a side. This stasis of self-sublation is a key sign that the issue is being manipulated by a third (and Fourth) party who stands to gain from the conflict. The ethical skeptic, by not participating in this play, is not ‘riding the fence’ nor ‘being in the middle’; as there is no fence nor middle to begin with – that is part of the whole deception. Rather it is a separate condition of suspension called epoché.
Hence my website’s tag line epoché vanguards gnosis. Most of self-sublated dialects are posed in order to deceive and exploit the participants therein. With Theism and Atheism in particular, this is why I choose the path of ignosticism and not agnosticism for instance. There is no middle ground. Instead I watch for the hidden Machiavelli behind the curtain.
This Fourth Party is the truly brilliant party in the whole play. Exceptionally brilliant.
The Ethical Skeptic, “Epoché Vanguards Gnosis”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 17 Nov 2019; Web, https://wp.me/p17q0e-aN5