The Taxonomy of Original Sin
The Taxonomy of Original Sin
How to misclassify your way to becoming the thing you oppose
I felt grateful to
and Michael Schellenberger when I saw their ‘Woke Religion: A Taxonomy’ as a downloadable pdf.Unfortunately, as much as wanted it to be otherwise, it does not work and the closer you look the more obvious that becomes.
In its defence it is supplied in it’s v.1 so I will be fair and give my single-pass raw reaction. I wasn’t planning on publishing anything else in 2023 but there you go.
Uncovering Structures (or failing to)
It is good to produce a matrix as an aid to understand the underlying structure of what you are trying to observe. The key to that is consistency and once you have that, you not only see the gaps but you can quickly find what must go into those gaps. The taxonomy you are uncovering gives you the shape of the missing pieces. Conversely, if you are producing a taxonomy and find yourself scraping the barrel for something to put into the grid or else, hammering something into place, consider the possibility that your taxonomy is flawed.
Part of the problem with this effort is that they are trying to encompass ideas from their favourite people without seeing if they really fit. These are just some things they assume to be correct because someone they respect said it. So there is a row that uncritically airlifts the conclusions from the writings of Pielke Jr. (I have a series coming up on that so that is not a flippant remark but the result of having done the work) and I can clearly see the parts that Schellenberger wrote about nuclear power, climate change etc. because I have read his books. The point is not to flex my reading but to make the case that in trying to accommodate the ‘coterie’ they have failed to find the structure of the information they are looking at.
Axis: Bold as Love
To understand that point it is necessary to look at the classifications they have devised. Let’s be conventional and look at the x-dimension first.
X-Axis: Columns
Original Sin - What happened in the past to make things terrible today
For the first column we have the
‘original sin’ concept. This is simultaneously the most accurately defined category and the one that throws all the others off. They have stretched the analogy to destruction in a way that would be difficult to achieve if they had a proper grasp of what it meant. I will take correction on this but my understanding is that Pluckrose analogy for the post-modernist view, is that we are born in sin by virtue of ancestral guilt. The analogy is to the Abrahamic story of original sin. That being the case, where do the ‘guilty devils’ fit in?Guilty Devils - The people who made things so terrible
As with ‘original sin’ the ‘guilty devils’ are also causal factors. The difference is the separation in time, the first is historic and the second is current. To be consistent with the proposed taxonomy this should be ‘sinners’. Those who perpetuate sin.
Why does that matter? Because in the religious allegory, the original sin was committed by Eve but it was instigated by the serpent. Arguably the action of the serpent was the original sin. Already the analogy is breaking down which is a structural flaw in the taxonomy. Similarly the third column can’t be both ‘Myths - Creation story’ and be consistent with the model - presumably chronology matters when you are looking at cause and effect, because the arrow between them is also the arrow of time.
Myths - Creation story
This is meant to characterise the attack on history by ‘woke’ ideology. It is inconsistent that the creation myth would come after the story about original sin for reasons previously given. Specifically this is about the post-modernist interpretation of the history of ‘sin’. It could be called ‘The History of Sin’, the clunkiness of that repaid by the consistency that is otherwise absent. Now it is of course it’s fair to use this category to break down post-modernist beliefs about history. It is unfair to use it to makes statements about what is ‘mythical’, i.e. assumed to be untrue.
So for example, the ‘myth’ that ‘Climate change is making natural disasters deadlier and more expensive’ is a Pielke Jr. conclusion that happened to have completely dismantled in drafts. Regardless of any particular opinion or case to the contrary of mine, it’s certainly not accepted fact just because Shellenberger’s buddy says so.
Sacred victims - People who continue to be harmed by original sin
Fourth column, ‘Sacred Victims - People who continue to be harmed by original sin’ - this has to be wrong. ‘Original Sin’ is the context of the human condition according to the Abrahamic religions. It represents the debt we are supposedly born with and not what we acquire during life. This category is about those who suffer at the hands of those who perpetuate ‘sin’ i.e. ‘sinners’. ‘Structural Victims’ would be an accurate characterisation of what post-modernists believe.
The Elect - Those chosen to make things right
Here we have further confusion. Who chooses them? Are we talking about those anointed as prophets of post-modernism and do we really mean to put all climate scientists, activists and journalists in that bracket? Are Matt Taibbi, Roger Pielke Jr., Michael Shellenberger and Peter Boghossian ‘the elect’ too by that definition. You see that is what happens when you are trying to build a faithful taxonomic relationship but continue to have casual dalliances with categories.
Supernatural Beliefs - Beliefs beyond scientific understanding or known laws of nature
The idea that ‘math is racist’ is clearly bonkers but that does not make it a supernatural belief by any stretch. In fact none of the things listed are ‘supernatural’ in nature. Can you see how the whole taxonomy has been corrupted by trying to shoehorn it into an analogy without realising its limitation or even, how it really works?
Taboo Facts -Things forbidden to say
I do not deny or shy away from calling some of these facts myself, but certainly not all of them, which is mostly beside the point, except to say I differentiate myself by not being ‘anti-opinion’. The reason it’s ‘beside the point’ is because if you are producing a taxonomy about ‘woke religion’ then you have to accept that they do not consider these to be facts. The hubris in this is mind-boggling - it is not a category of ‘anti-facts’ but ‘anti-opinions’. The emphasis here therefore should be on the opinions forbidden by post-modern ideology - because that is a category useful for deconstructing the ‘religion’. A better category in keeping with the analogy would be ‘sacrilegious opinions’.
Taboo Speech -words that trigger anger among the elect
Let’s remind ourselves who the elect are again? By this taxonomy it includes climate scientists, activists and journalists but it really means the ones we disagree with. So does that make us non-post-modernists ‘the elect’ if we presuppose we are superior? So what is the differentiation being made between the previous category of ‘things forbidden to say’ and this one ‘words that trigger anger’? Not clear is it? So this category would have to be ‘blasphemy’ because it is an expression of the sacrilegious.
Purifying Rituals - Acts perceived to make people innocent of guilt and responsibility
This is to do with the notion that we can take compensatory actions to atone for historic sins (not to be confused with original sin in this model). That seems to be the opposite of making ‘people innocent of guilt and responsibility’. Isn’t the flaw in the post modernist argument that we are made guilty and responsible for things we had zero control over? This column should be ‘Atonement Rituals’ - because it is about reparations and ‘equity’ and not forgiveness, even if that is a clear motivation for the over-wrought virtue signalling that I also find nauseating.
Purifying Speech - Words people use to be perceived as virtuous
So purifying speech would be a purifying ritual too? If a purifying ritual is more generally ‘atonement’ then surely the speech would be the ‘hail Marys’, a hymn or a prayer? How does that fit with what this taxonomy is meant to be identifying - which seems to be syntax and compelled speech? Also ‘intersectionality’, ‘renewables’ and ‘organics’ and ‘sustainable’ are concepts not compulsory phrases. It doesn’t clarify anything to merely point out that some people who use those terms do so to be self-righteous. All this category does is lump these concepts into a pejorative category - which ironically is an way to invalidate speech by putting certain concepts out of reach.
I genuinely wish this ‘taxonomy’ was better and not just because I have just spent an hour brain dumping this without getting to the rows yet. I will keep this brief and get to bed.
Y-Axis: Rows
Racism
How could the ‘original sin’ for this be ‘slavery’? Put another way how can racism come after slavery? Moving along, how can the ‘myths’ about slavery be that Asians participate in white supremacy? How is the supposed ‘supernatural belief’ that ‘math is racist’ link to the original sin of slavery etc. It unwinds quickly - if it was ever wound.
Climate Change
Under ‘myths’ we have ‘Climate change is making disasters deadlier and more expensive’. This is held up as being wrong on account of Pielke’s writings - I know that because I recognise the argument, having taken time to dismantle it. The argument is full of holes but check out my series 9 next year to find out why.
Trans
I also write about this in a series to be published next year. I agree with most of the underlying arguments but the categorisations are skew-whiff. Hopefully you can now see why for yourselves. That would save me from feeling repetitive when I publish early in 2024.
Crime
The ‘original sin’ of crime is ‘private property’? It does not really work but this is where we get the popular conflation between post-modernism and Marxism. There are similarities but they are not identical and it’s a mistake to think they are the same problem other than being ideologies. Post modernism is not an economic ideology but its notions of ‘equity’ are analogous to the Marxist focus on distribution. When BP issues a dividend on its shares we don’t think of it as a Marxist act. That is a good datum should you need to calibrate your absurdity meter.
Mental Illness
The ‘original sin’ of ‘mental illness’ includes the ‘Enlightenment’. Is that what we are meant to believe is core to post-modernism from this taxonomic deconstruction? Is this what the analogy tells us? The destruction of western culture and thought is a major threat but it is not because they believe that mental illness is an affectation that arose when we emerged from the so-called dark ages.
Drugs
Let’s skip across left to right until we get to ‘drug users’. Are they victims due to the ‘original sin’? Spoiler: no but remember I said that the analogy doesn’t work. Apparently it is accepted that ‘George Soros’ is one of the elect who have taken it upon themselves to sort it out? Is this part of the ‘woke religion’? At this point I am not quibbling with the subtext but the fact that the taxonomy has collapsed under its own weight and is now ridiculous.
Homelessness
So the if the ‘original sin’ is ‘capitalism’ how can the ‘devils’ be ‘politicians who shut down open drug scenes (“homeless encampments”)’. Here you see the confusion between ‘scenes’ (Really? What is that? Some kind of carboard Ibiza?) and ‘homeless encampments’. Before you roll your eyes, it’s necessary to notice that this conflation comes from Boghossian and Schellenberger and not their post-modernist targets. If you read Orwell’s ‘Down and Out in Paris and London’ there is not any mention of drugs apart from alcohol and nicotine (which I do not trivialise). If anything, alcohol and tobacco were a reason to be away from gatherings where what little they had was liable to be stolen. Orwell spoke of shelters where a person had to take the chance of losing their shoes in order not to freeze to death. Now people take drugs and wake up frost-bitten. The underlying problems have not changed that much since the 1930s - mental illness, debt, escape from abuse. Of course substance abuse can be a causal factor and if there are drugs being taken it is obvious it will be more prevalent amongst greater numbers of people. Yet correlation is not causation. It does not mean the huddled masses are having an impromptu rave. To make sense of this taxonomy the ‘devils’ (or as I would say is more consistent ‘sinners’), would be landlords and property speculators. It is empirically true that in the UK for instance, Air BnB has greatly reduced the long-term rental availability. Don’t ask if that has an impact on homelessness, rather ask, how could it not? Yet according to the taxonomy that is a ‘myth’. I know of someone in Ireland who was made homeless because the landlord doubled the rent. Dublin for example has no capacity left at the moment; criminal gangs have taken over office blocks to fill them with people - frankly if you are made homeless there you are pretty much fucked.
It’s gone midnight and I just burned two hours but I am numb with disappointment. Can this really be our best defence against post-modernism?