Even though the coevolution of consciousness and culture cannot be conflated with biological evolution, these distinct evolutionary domains are nevertheless united by a structural sequence of emergence wherein something more keeps coming from something less—a sequence that can be traced all the way back to the beginning of time and space in the primordial emergence of the big bang.
I hope that in what follows the reader may come to see grounds for a view that the world is a seamless, always self-creating, self-individuating, and simultaneously self-uniting, flow that is only truly knowable as it comes to be known.
Once again, the whole illuminates the parts as much as the parts can illuminate the whole. To the left hemisphere, you find the truth about something by building it up from bits. But, as the right hemisphere is aware, to understand it you need to experience it as a whole, since the whole reveals as much about the nature of the parts as the parts do about the nature of the whole.
But in identity politics, equality refers to groups, not individuals. All disparities between groups result from systems of oppression and demand collective action for redress, often amounting to new forms of discrimination—in other words, equity.
The French thinker Bertrand De Jouvenel refreshed for latter-day readers the nineteenth-century complaint that by isolating people from each other and weakening the middle-ground of civil associations, liberalism overempowered the central state. The philosopher-historian R. G. Collingwood pled on conservatism’s behalf the cause of historical knowledge. History was vital, he believed, to understanding politics, which liberalism, in the Utilitarian spirit of cost-benefit calculation, was squashing into economics and social observation.
The fact that the numbers are a purely decorative addition to an older style of argument shows that applying mathematical probability to legal reasoning will not be as straightforward as it appears.
So we must ask if LCHF/ketogenic eating is justifiable if it means increasing your “climate footprint” compared to alternatives. Given what may be a trade-off between humanity’s future and your own health (and that of your children), how do you decide?
N.B. Having investigated this issue, I'm not at all convinced that there is a real trade-off.
It’s also critically important to understand the basis of the faith upholding these arguments. The authorities who make them—whether they are the experts convened for U.S. News & World Report or the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s dietary guidelines or the Katzes and Bittmans of the world or the well-meaning friends (“dude!”) who advise us to ease off the bacon—derive their opinions not from experience but from theoretical concepts about a healthy diet.
Since the beginning of this century, the growth of meaninglessness has been accompanied by loss of common sense.
