Natural vs. Social Constraints

Who conflated these? Me? No way.

I’m back at Panorama Point (Boulder, CO.)

I’ve only started to touch the surface of the laws of nature. Surely, there is more groundwork to lay.

I haven’t taken a stance necessarily.

I have, however, been adamant about critiquing American politics, more specifically, modern conceptions of conservatism. If you’re just joining, you may have missed my earlier mentions of conservatism and my thoughts on the limits of its application in modern society.

I figured I would share more about my background here. I also made clear that I was hoping to defer arguments around equity here. The main reason for my deferral is as I’ve interacted with the material of ‘public intellectuals,’ I notice a pattern. I notice that a part of the conversation is missing. A more recent occasion where this became evident to me was when a close friend shared this Jordan Peterson talk.

Furthermore, I’ve been extremely critical of the way Jordan Peterson positioned Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman’s work on intelligence:

The day the 2nd release came out on Scott’s Psychology Podcast, I listened to it. I then reached out to Scott directly and ended up hosting an extended discussion with him on Clubhouse (the social audio app) under my club A rant, Christopher Sweat that closely follows this substack.

Now, to the title, Natural vs. Social Constraints - it is not me that conflates the two. It is not me that uses natural constraints or the laws of nature as a justification for class position, economic outcomes, barbaric forms of capitalism, racism, bigotry, or one of the many other claims.

In fact, I think that an exploration of the laws of nature in more detail could serve to achieve several interests:

1. A deeper understanding of the real constraints to solutions involving social, economic, environmental issues. Mind you; those constraints are baked into the Constitution of the United States.

2. A strong counter-argument against American conservatism and an opportunity to refine or extend conservative thinking to something that is no longer used as a shield for denying reality.

3. It is an opportunity to visit more honestly with liberal thinking as it is limited by the same constraints of natural laws as conservative thinking. To validate this, you wouldn’t have to look much further than that liberals and conservatives work inside the same political system and from the same legal framework.

Now, Jordan Peterson defines postmodernism as:

“essentially the claim that (1) since there are an innumerable number of ways in which the world can be interpreted and perceived (and those are tightly associated) then (2) no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived.”

Is he saying that recent social movements have built political technology that creates a subjective reality? I don’t know? Is that true? If it is, can it be discussed? Can it be merely observed?

….At some point, I should add my own audio to these posts because I have much to say, and this conversation requires nuance…

To wrap this up:

There is side a that says to seek liberty, equality, and justice through the means available to you naturally.

Then, side b says the means are not available to me naturally; therefore, they must be manufactured for the constitution to live up to its promises.

If we continue with this oversimplified logic, side a responds with; I don’t want to support those who cannot provide for themselves naturally.

And so on.

I am not making an argument for the laws of nature, as much as I am acknowledging that they do exist - and that conservatives have a way of interpreting them that I disagree with. Not to say I agree with liberals either. Still, I think there is an opportunity to explore natural laws in greater detail before moving to social constraints, which are equally as important and seem to be embroiled by American political interests in Washington.

Alright, I’ll write more in a few days.