Reconciling Determinism’s Equality Principle and Alpha(s)

Herein, in title and textual body of this blog post, I allude to the broad concept of alpha, and specifying peoples as alphas (plural).

As covered in my blog post ‘Determinism’s Equality Principle’ there is no material choice in one’s actions, only ‘the chain’ of cause and effect responsible for arisings in nature and the cosmos, of which human relations are a part. The social justice corollary of this (determinism) is that people do not choose their status – it is imposed upon them by a luck-of-the-draw determinism, wherein choice is a thoroughly metaphysical construct imposed upon them by dominant institutions. Thus, a sophisticated social mandate is that we are all equals, no matter what circumstances someone may find themselves in.

However, there is and will always be, knowledge unevenly staggered across, and embodied by, the individuals who make up the population. This is for the conceivable future. Even if people were paid the same per hour for instance, or had equal access to resources, goods and services (in a non-monetary resource based economy (Fresco)), there would be an uneven embodiment of (philosophical and scientific) meta-knowledge across individuals. The idea that the best philosopher or philosophers (not necessarily the wealthiest person/s) should rule the republic may be a synthesis of understanding there is a philosophical alpha or philosophical alphas who have the best philosophical knowledge, as in Plato’s ‘philosopher kings’ (but let us make this gender inclusive in nomenclature!: (philosophical) alphas): e.g. alpha female, alpha male and alpha trans, for some gendered conceptions of (philosophical) alphas.

This is in stark contrast to a capitalist(ic) conception of an alpha or alphas who have the most amount of resources or money. I must concede there is a certain logic to capitalist alpha(s). However, under scrutiny this is a transient conception of alpha(s), wherein the social system becomes ever-more sophisticated: there is, and should be, no final frontiers: no end of (political) history at one rational static state (of social design).

Before proceeding in analysis, I would like to point to my lack of endorsement of a large overly-centralized federal government. Government is only valid as minimalistic subject to the anarchist’s burden of proof (Chomsky) – not as something that is self-justifiable. The anarchist’s burden of proof is that hierarchy and authority are not self-justifying. See and hear Chomsky elucidate this integral concept in this YouTube video:

And in digital print:

https://chomsky.info/20130528/ (‘The Kind of Anarchism I Believe in, and What’s Wrong with Libertarians’)

As much as possible political power must be decentralized in democratic decision-making in workers’ (rank-and-file) and consumers’ councils. I align myself with a technocratic form of quasi-anarcho-communism (communism with a small state to uphold private property), with a series of political steps, graded in fashion, to eventually arrive at this form of social design. This form of ‘resource based economy’ (‘RBE’) (Fresco) is not a final frontier, but simply the current best and most optimal design human organisation that could politically and economically coalesce. Fresco himself acknowledged that the humanely emergent social institutions are more authentic as compared with the established static realm which stifles human progress that is resistant to ongoing humane change. This RBE is in striking difference to Plato’s republic where a few rule the many, which inherently accords a centralization of governmental powers.

How does one decide or evaluate knowledge which would ‘confer’, uncover or excavate a philosophical alpha, or alphas of each gender for instance? I contend that evaluating one’s reconciled meta-knowledge and knowledge it should be measured in its service of the ‘the master morality’. The master morality, I contend, is adherence to the neo-utilitarian imperative which is the ethical compass and mandate to continually maximize the net positive aspects of sentient life (aka happiness, positive meaning, enjoyment, ecstasy, enchantment etcetera), whilst simultaneously continually minimizing the net negative aspect of sentience (suffering) in the world, through the careful enactment and conception(s) of ever-greater rights for (sentient) individuals. Enactment of this philosophy is usually a natural consequence of its intellectual synthesis, as it is the most holistically rewarding philosophy by its very nature. However, we should note that written philosophy which detracts from adherence to the master morality, may be worse than an unwritten philosophical praxis which does less harm! This is a very important point, and nuance as to what constitutes and comprises the master morality. This, I hope, shows a corrective to an otherwise underrepresented gendered virtue – aka the emotional intelligence of women, and the gender pioneering of non-binary gender folk, for instance, counting very significantly to the master morality. The concept of uncovering true gendered virtue allows us to deconstruct and dismantle patriarchal conceptions of an alpha or alphas, and these uncovered maxims, along with others, luckily, annul inter-gendered competition (competition between the genders).

Importantly, the neo-utilitarian imperative can be co-formulated as within, and underpinned by, the holistic self-interest of all individuals: continually unpacking and unlocking the latent immense power of cooperation.

So, in synthesis of determinism’s equality principle (which is a corollary of fairness and justice in the face of the ‘thrownness’ (Heidegger) of circumstance) and ‘philosophical alpha(s)’, there may always be a person or persons with the greatest philosophical knowledge in adherence to the neo-utilitarian imperative, however, this does not mean they are better than other people, since all people are equal, indefeasibly, according to, and absolutely mandated by, determinism’s equality principle!

So, to summarize, all people are equal alphas, according to determinism’s equality principle; but, for the conceivable future, a point is that there are, and will be, – alphas within alphas. Thus, we are inherently an hierarchical species.