Philosophical Dualism

The mind’s understanding is limited to categorical models which are both coexisting and conflicting.

Readership: All
Theme: Problems with The Red Pill / A Failure of Imagination
Length: 1,500 words
Reading Time: 8 minutes

Overview

In the Exposition of this month’s theme, A Failure of Imagination was identified as one type of problem with The Red Pill.

Foundational reading includes the basics of modelling and 9 Types of Red Pill Models.

Since last week’s flag post, A Failure of Imagination (2024/5/20), commenters left a number of insights related to this topic.  I’ve gathered together a few of the most noteworthy, edited them for clarity and ease of reading, and added my commentary and some scripture references where applicable.  Links to the original comments are embedded in the initial words.

After studying the contents of these comments, I noticed a pattern of philosophical dualism, for lack of a better term.  (See notes appended.)  I’m NOT referring to the heretical doctrine of dualism, although there may be some overlap.  For brevity, I will not examine this here.

Dualistic Humanity

Rollo’s emphasis on evo psyche / naturalist materialism and neglect of humanity, metaphysics, and longitudinal outcome highlights a kind of inherent schizophrenia you see in some psychology (as an academic discipline). Assumption one is we are all evolutionary meat robots, and assumption two is we can use our free will to better ourselves. Obviously, trying to believe in total determinism and free will at the same time is going to do funny things to your mind.

We have discussed this before in different contexts, subjects, and words, and with less clarity of the differences.

• Creationism vs. Evolution?  (or both?)
• Is man an animal, or is he made in the image of God?  (or both?)
• Are women purely emotion-driven, opportunistic, and situationally pseudo-ethical, or are they capable of great devotion and loving a man selflessly for who he is?  (NAWALT?)

Concerning individualized archetypes, we have categorized this difference by describing women as either being agentic or hypoagentic, slores / proto-slores or chaste and submissive.  We have described this in men too: Rollo’s ’Average Frustrated Chump’, Vox Day’s ‘Gamma male’, and Σ Frame’s ‘Autopilot’ (or the more generous ‘Young Man with Problems’).  We have well-defined, caricatured archetypes for faux-masculinity, but a less well-understood concept of mature masculinity — a man of indefatigability, integrity, purpose, self-control, and perhaps a little Rizz.

We may refer to these stereotypes for ease of communicative reference, but we should always remember that, in reality, there are gradations.  In these times, it’s hard to draw a line between sinful / soulless / depraved and mature / regenerated / righteous.  But what matters is how men address women in the “power” position they currently occupy in the SMP/MMP, and how men deal with facts on the ground / boots on the ground. The fact is that most men will be going without while most women share the top 10% of men. That’s just how it is and how it will be going forward.

There is a lot of exploitation for the 60-80 % men going on, based on the delusion that by some Tradcon / W0ke magic they will become attractive to women.  Once they blow past this delusion and are ready to face reality, their lives will improve, while the lives of those deluding and exploiting them won’t.

Dualistic Soteriology

Malcolm Reynolds often comments about how mating behavior affects progeneration and population growth.  Although I cannot agree with all of his perspectives, his larger point is an important one that is oft overlooked, especially within Protestantism — that obedience to God tends to offer the best conditions possible for a flourishing family life and culture.  Of course, this is not always true, especially when the surrounding culture is corrupt and godless, and sometimes it boils down to self-immolation, but there is a significantly strong correlation that suggests the reasons why God told us to do or not do certain things is not just for our own personal spiritual relationship with Him now and in the afterlife, but also to enhance our own mortal well-being and that of our progeny.

Christian Nationalists and Civilizationists have picked up on the value of this concept, yet much of Christian soteriology, including some voices in the Christian Manosphere, still cling to a dualistic view of thinking that the fruits of obedience are strictly spiritual and cannot be expected to bring carnal / material / social benefits, and even that it is heretical to assume so (cue the Joel Osteen straw man).

I’ve told my daughters that being obedient to the Word maximizes one’s chances of getting the most out of life, given one’s circumstances, family heritage, personality, values, and maybe a few other factors.  However, there are no guarantees.  One might be completely obedient and still experience catastrophe, like Job, while another might be rebellious, but yet learn something about one’s self from the experience and go on to find forgiveness, grace, and blessings.  Real failure is not only found in screwing up time and again and never learning anything or improving, but also in being happy, obedient to the letter of the law, and successful, all the while thinking it is all your own doing.  Real success is finding inner peace and contentment with the Lord, being obedient (e.g. drawing appropriate boundaries) as an expression of love for Him, staying faithful and humble during the rough patches, and learning from one’s mistakes.

Dualistic Spiritual Truth

The Truth is Life to the Living, and Death to the Dying.

¹⁴ But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place.  ¹⁵ For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; ¹⁶ to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life.  And who is adequate for these things?  ¹⁷ For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.

2 Corinthians 2:14-17 (NASB1995)

The commonly accepted definition of “Red Pill” within the Manosphere is very simply “the truth” of reality. This, in contrast to the half-truths or outright lies spread by what society recognizes as custom and sources of knowledge and authority.

• The truth about women’s true nature.
• The truth about how intersexual relations really function.
• The truth about how men are REALLY treated by society compared to how society likes to imagine it treats them.
• The truth about how the modern church really views male and female roles and expectations compared to what the Bible prescribes.

While it is true that “the truth shall set you free” (John 8:31-32), the truth is also very unpopular. It is often impolitic. It does not care about human feelings. It bursts delusional bubbles that insulate (to a point) people from the world’s unpleasantness. It humbles people who, while often needing to be humbled, cannot bear to be humbled because of loss of face, status, etc.

Simply stated, truth, as symbolized by the Red Pill, is the enemy of the fallen world. People (especially women) do not like this because it makes women look bad and justifies the restraints that used to be on single women’s sexuality. This is why so many people and institutions are working so hard to deny, discredit, and distort it.

The Red Pill is NOT a philosophy or ideology or “worldview”. It’s simply a set of facts and tools about male and female nature, the way sexual attraction works, and the way intersexual dynamics works. What men do with this information is up to them.

This is why the PUA’s who shared their knowledge of women, attraction, desire, and relationship dynamics offer more to men than most pastors ever do or will from the pulpit. This is also why it is a mistake to discard that knowledge because of how men like Heartiste and Roosh immorally purposed it and came to learn it.

Notes

On what I have termed ‘dualism’ in this essay: Chinese philosophical traditions would call this “speculative learning” or ‘metaphysics’ [ 玄學 / xuánxué ].  The word ‘dualism’ is adopted here because of the Western penchant for dichotomous, black-and-white thinking in philosophy, as seen in the comments.  Other Chinese philosophical traditions include “classical learning” [ 經學 / jīngxué ], the learning of principles [ 理學 / lǐxué ], the learning of the ancient masters (e.g. Confucius, Sun Tzu, et al.) [ 諸子學 / zhūzǐ xué ], and spiritual learning (i.e. Buddhism, Daoism) [ 佛學 / fóxué ].

Chinese philosophy predates Greek philosophy as a form of thought, and is considered a path towards truth and wisdom. It addresses ethics, morals, metaphysics, and the supernatural, and is both transcendental and immanent. In comparison, Western philosophy is a continuation of one branch of Greek philosophy in which disciplines originate from universals extracted from studies of individual phenomena and then condensed into systems of knowledge using a strict, regulated mode of thinking based on logic.  The metaphysical / transcendental nature of Chinese philosophy has attracted sharp criticism from Western philosophers and sinologists who liken it to a religion and who prefer to reduce it to a system of ethics, historical narratives, incomplete and nonsensical syllogisms, and superstitions.

Related

• Spawny’s Space: The worrisome rebellion of a timely procreation. (2021/5/10)
• Σ Frame: Red Pill Modelling 101 (2024/3/22)
• Σ Frame: Misunderstood Models (2024/4/3)