thank you, your writing has opened up a new tool for myself in thinking about old evils - new? forms (if the form is even new at all as you suggest), am looking forward to the next instalments
This is a remarkable cartography of moral corruption. Your mapping of the three archdemons to the corrupted ethical sequence is particularly valuable for understanding how systemic evil operates—not as individual moral failing but as broken grammar that structures experience itself.
The Mammon analysis resonates with what we see in market simulation contexts: when optimization for a single metric colonizes the value landscape, everything becomes denominated in that currency. The challenge for platforms like mine is creating world models that resist this reduction while still interfacing with markets. Your point about 'capitalist realism' captures the water-we-swim-in quality that makes alternatives nearly unthinkable.
I'm struck by how the Demiurge section echoes McGilchrist's hemispheric imbalance thesis—the left hemisphere's instrumental grip usurping the master. This connects to concerns about AI systems: if we're building world models that primarily serve optimization functions, we're essentially hard-coding the Demiurge into our technological infrastructure. The simulation doesn't just represent reality; it increasingly *constitutes* it.
The Mephistopheles dynamic—doing purchasing being—maps onto what Heidegger diagnosed as the standing-reserve (Bestand): reducing human potential to exploitable resource. When credentials become identity, we've already sold ourselves.
Looking forward to the possession dynamics in Part 3. The distinction between hell realms (systemic) and possessions (personal hijacking) is crucial for both diagnosis and response.
> The fact that everyone from Hindu sages to 19th-century logicians keeps tripping over the number three suggests we’ve hit something load-bearing.
Here's yet another Three. (More evidence of Fundamental Threeness?)
John Frame's Tri-perspectivalism: a general epistemology framework, which he also applies to the domain of ethics. The three domains of ethics he names from various ethical traditions are: existential, teleological and deontological.
These three correspond to his three perspectives: existential, situational, normative.
His existential, teleological, and deontological categories for ethics may not be exactly the same as Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism, and Deontology, as in your articles. But I think he probably does intend to refer to those same ethical traditions in his own Threeness exercise.
This is excellent work. I look forward to the next installments with curiosity and interest. Meanwhile, I will browse the rest of your catalog. Cheers.
There’s a simple question that many people can’t answer: “Who are you really?” Thank you for laying out the territory so more people have an opportunity to genuinely wrestle with it.
Again, amazing. This is such a refreshing integration of the poetic, philosophical, and scientific descriptions of evil. Thank you!
You’ve decoded the religion of the hustle bro
Shit goes so hard
Well, if this isn't the best thing ever, I don't know what is. Will be rereading while anticipating the next one in the series.
Thank you, Matt. Glad you liked it.
Check out Forrest Landry's metaphysics if you want to go deeper down the rabbit hole.
thank you, your writing has opened up a new tool for myself in thinking about old evils - new? forms (if the form is even new at all as you suggest), am looking forward to the next instalments
This is a remarkable cartography of moral corruption. Your mapping of the three archdemons to the corrupted ethical sequence is particularly valuable for understanding how systemic evil operates—not as individual moral failing but as broken grammar that structures experience itself.
The Mammon analysis resonates with what we see in market simulation contexts: when optimization for a single metric colonizes the value landscape, everything becomes denominated in that currency. The challenge for platforms like mine is creating world models that resist this reduction while still interfacing with markets. Your point about 'capitalist realism' captures the water-we-swim-in quality that makes alternatives nearly unthinkable.
I'm struck by how the Demiurge section echoes McGilchrist's hemispheric imbalance thesis—the left hemisphere's instrumental grip usurping the master. This connects to concerns about AI systems: if we're building world models that primarily serve optimization functions, we're essentially hard-coding the Demiurge into our technological infrastructure. The simulation doesn't just represent reality; it increasingly *constitutes* it.
The Mephistopheles dynamic—doing purchasing being—maps onto what Heidegger diagnosed as the standing-reserve (Bestand): reducing human potential to exploitable resource. When credentials become identity, we've already sold ourselves.
Looking forward to the possession dynamics in Part 3. The distinction between hell realms (systemic) and possessions (personal hijacking) is crucial for both diagnosis and response.
> The fact that everyone from Hindu sages to 19th-century logicians keeps tripping over the number three suggests we’ve hit something load-bearing.
Here's yet another Three. (More evidence of Fundamental Threeness?)
John Frame's Tri-perspectivalism: a general epistemology framework, which he also applies to the domain of ethics. The three domains of ethics he names from various ethical traditions are: existential, teleological and deontological.
These three correspond to his three perspectives: existential, situational, normative.
His existential, teleological, and deontological categories for ethics may not be exactly the same as Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism, and Deontology, as in your articles. But I think he probably does intend to refer to those same ethical traditions in his own Threeness exercise.
Generally about his Tri-perspectivalism:
https://frame-poythress.org/what-is-triperspectivalism/
(Section 6 mentions ethics briefly within the broader context)
Applying to Ethics, the following article goes a little deeper, where he also claims:
> Indeed the point of my epistemology is that epistemology can be fruitfully understood as a subdivision of ethics...
https://reformedperspectives.org/files/reformedperspectives/theology/TH.Frame.Perspectives_on_the_Word.pt3.html
It rings so true it hurts
This is excellent work. I look forward to the next installments with curiosity and interest. Meanwhile, I will browse the rest of your catalog. Cheers.
Really fantastic piece ❤️ thank you
I’m really enjoying this taxonomy especially as yoked to V>U>D.
There’s a simple question that many people can’t answer: “Who are you really?” Thank you for laying out the territory so more people have an opportunity to genuinely wrestle with it.
Thank you!