suicide note - Mitchell Heisman / by JoFF Rae

   Mitchell Heisman  was a 35 year old man from Massachusetts who published a 1,905 page book entitled  Suicide Note  and then committed suicide on the steps of Memorial Church of Harvard University in September 2010 (he blew his head apart with a revolver in front of tour group). 
  "Ordinary people seem not to realize that those who  really apply themselves in the right way to philosophy are directly and  of their own accord preparing themselves for dying and death. If this  is true, and they have actually been looking forward to death all their  lives, it would of course be absurd to be troubled when the thing comes  for which they have so long been preparing and looking forward."  
 —SOCRATES,  PHAEDO  
     
 
 
   Freedom of Speech on Trial 
 If my hypothesis is correct, this work will be repressed. It  should not be surprising if justice is not done to the evidence  presented here. It should not be unexpected that these arguments will  not be given a fair hearing. It is not unreasonable to think that this  work will not be judged on its merits. 
 This work contains a theoretical application of sociobiology to  politics. Simply discussing its theories publicly can constitute an  experimental test of liberal democracy’s original enlightenment claim to  advance freedom of rational inquiry. Such a discussion can clarify the  extent, and the particular ways, in which these original enlightenment  self-justifications have been politically abandoned. The attempt to  repress rather than address the evidence in this work, for example, can  clarify that there are arguments of substance that are being denied a  right to be heard. Persistent intolerance of certain kinds of rational  inquiry can clarify that civilized means of public discourse have broken  down. 
 The basic problem with a sociobiological self-analysis for  liberal democracy is that it does what its free speech principles were  designed to do. Sociobiology can help expose the distortions, lies, and  falsehoods of the powers that be — that power being liberal democracy  itself. Findings of sociobiology have refuted the original theory of  human nature underlying liberal democracy. The constitutional right to  freedom of speech was built upon this pre-Darwinian view of man that  findings of sociobiology have refuted. 
 In consequence, an accurate sociobiological theory of liberal  democracy presents the fundamental test of this political system’s  claims to freedom speech. The system cannot be understood on the basis  on its own premises and assumptions. This sociobiological theory about  liberal democracy requires going beyond liberal democracy and this is  what makes sociobiological self-understanding inherently controversial  and liable to be repressed within a liberal democracy. 
 Those who think that sociobiology fully applied to the  human-political sphere should expect a fair hearing on the grounds of  freedom of speech have committed an error. The error falls, not on  liberal democracy itself, but on those who have overestimated it as a  political system, failing to grasp its inherent limitations. Even under  ideal conditions, the freedom of speech method cannot be expected to  publicly separate empirically true statements from empirically falsified  statements in every instance. The empirical validity of the theories in  this work cannot be expected to be verified by the public freedom of  speech method of liberal democracy. 
 The freedom of speech hypothesis states that since the  controversial nature of sociobiology in a liberal democracy cannot  fundamentally be ‘fixed’, the repression of this work may empirically  verify this theory of liberal democracy through the very act of  repressing it. It also applies to other related sociobiological  theories. Unwarranted rejection of this sociobiological theory of  liberal democracy should follow, not accidentally and randomly, but  predictably and routinely. From those socialized or invested in the  system, repeated rejection or repression of this work in the face of  overwhelming evidence should inspire, not surprise, but boredom. Its  regularity would have the character of a general law, and hence, I call  it the freedom of speech hypothesis. Testing this hypothesis in the form  of a free, open, and ongoing public debate would constitute what  Tocqueville called an “experiment in democracy”. 
 Can we speak with freedom about the things that demonstrate the  limits of freedom of speech? The freedom of speech hypothesis predicts  only that attempts will be made at repression, not whether or not these  attempts will be successful. The only scientific way to verify or  falsify the freedom of speech hypothesis would be to collect evidence of  repression, whether successful or not, of it and related  sociobiological theories. 
 Examples of evidence that could constitute its verification  include more than the inhibition of the distribution of this work.  Silent, inconspicuous, and seemingly innocuous methods of repression  that preempt even the opportunity for consideration of alternatives, and  extirpate even the awareness of the existence of other points of view,  are so often the most effective. After all, why should censors burn  books or other media when they can simply pull them from access or  availability? Ultimately, the methods available for repression are  flexible and multifarious. Consequently, any attempted or actual  repression could constitute a verification of the freedom of speech  hypothesis, regardless of the particular adaptable, evolving, and  unpredictable means of repression. 
 There should be no bar for anyone to access this work. This work  should be distributed for free; not for profit. I will likely be unable  to defend its content against (further evidence for its repression  through) media manipulations such as falsification, misrepresentation,  decontextualization, and distortion. I can only point out that to verify  a position, the position itself must first be disclosed in its  veracity. 
 Yet the question remains whether the theories presented in this  work stand up to the evidence or not. The problem is this: if the views  expressed in this work are only attacked, dismissed, denounced,  repudiated, maligned, or vilified with slander, defamation,  marginalization, misrepresentation, or denigration, how can one tell if  this is only a method of evading the real issues of substance? The  substance of one person’s disagreement might be unreasoned  ideological-political value commitments. For such a person, rational  reflection on human nature might be less important than the political  outcome that the theories presented here are ultimately discredited.  This criterion holds no less for anyone who agrees on scientific  grounds: there is no reason to assume that one can resolve one’s  integrity as a scientist with one’s commitments as a political partisan. 
 In response, I stress that what is scientifically relevant is not  whether one agrees or disagrees, but why one agrees or disagrees. What  are the reasons a given theory might be accepted or rejected? If one  thinks that I am wrong, then demonstrate why I am wrong. If one claims  to judge this thesis by its scientific merits rather than unreasoned  loyalty to extra-scientific commitments, then there is no need  whatsoever to repress it and one should be able to confront my arguments  point by point. Can the critic offer a better explanation of the  evidence than the ones presented in this work? Why should anyone be  convinced by anything less than an alternative theory that can better  account for all of the evidence? I challenge anyone to resist public and  political pressures and confront this application of sociobiology to  politics on the basis of its scientific merits. 
 The Saxon/Norman origin of liberal democracy in the  English-speaking world is the key to understanding why the discoveries  of sociobiology have appeared to be so congenitally politically  controversial. Stated briefly, a long-term consequence of the Norman  Conquest of England in 1066 was a nepotistic “class” system imposed over  the defeated Anglo-Saxons. Yet, as Thomas Jefferson put it, “although  this constitution was violated and set at naught by Norman force, yet  force cannot change right. A perpetual claim was kept up by the nation”  for “a restoration of their Saxon laws.”  This ongoing kinship-ethnic  conflict broke out most radically as the English Civil War (1642-1651),  the American War for Independence (1775-83), and the American Civil War  (1861-65). Liberal democracy in the English-speaking world originated,  in part, through the evolution of this tribal struggle. 
 As a logical fulfillment of the enlightenment founding of liberal  democracy, this work puts liberal democracy on trial. It is a test of  liberal democratic justice; if based on its own standards of justice,  the evidence can be judged on its merits, unmarred by political  interests. It is a test of whether America can be true to itself.

Mitchell Heisman was a 35 year old man from Massachusetts who published a 1,905 page book entitled Suicide Note and then committed suicide on the steps of Memorial Church of Harvard University in September 2010 (he blew his head apart with a revolver in front of tour group).

"Ordinary people seem not to realize that those who really apply themselves in the right way to philosophy are directly and of their own accord preparing themselves for dying and death. If this is true, and they have actually been looking forward to death all their lives, it would of course be absurd to be troubled when the thing comes for which they have so long been preparing and looking forward."

—SOCRATES, PHAEDO

Freedom of Speech on Trial

If my hypothesis is correct, this work will be repressed. It should not be surprising if justice is not done to the evidence presented here. It should not be unexpected that these arguments will not be given a fair hearing. It is not unreasonable to think that this work will not be judged on its merits.

This work contains a theoretical application of sociobiology to politics. Simply discussing its theories publicly can constitute an experimental test of liberal democracy’s original enlightenment claim to advance freedom of rational inquiry. Such a discussion can clarify the extent, and the particular ways, in which these original enlightenment self-justifications have been politically abandoned. The attempt to repress rather than address the evidence in this work, for example, can clarify that there are arguments of substance that are being denied a right to be heard. Persistent intolerance of certain kinds of rational inquiry can clarify that civilized means of public discourse have broken down.

The basic problem with a sociobiological self-analysis for liberal democracy is that it does what its free speech principles were designed to do. Sociobiology can help expose the distortions, lies, and falsehoods of the powers that be — that power being liberal democracy itself. Findings of sociobiology have refuted the original theory of human nature underlying liberal democracy. The constitutional right to freedom of speech was built upon this pre-Darwinian view of man that findings of sociobiology have refuted.

In consequence, an accurate sociobiological theory of liberal democracy presents the fundamental test of this political system’s claims to freedom speech. The system cannot be understood on the basis on its own premises and assumptions. This sociobiological theory about liberal democracy requires going beyond liberal democracy and this is what makes sociobiological self-understanding inherently controversial and liable to be repressed within a liberal democracy.

Those who think that sociobiology fully applied to the human-political sphere should expect a fair hearing on the grounds of freedom of speech have committed an error. The error falls, not on liberal democracy itself, but on those who have overestimated it as a political system, failing to grasp its inherent limitations. Even under ideal conditions, the freedom of speech method cannot be expected to publicly separate empirically true statements from empirically falsified statements in every instance. The empirical validity of the theories in this work cannot be expected to be verified by the public freedom of speech method of liberal democracy.

The freedom of speech hypothesis states that since the controversial nature of sociobiology in a liberal democracy cannot fundamentally be ‘fixed’, the repression of this work may empirically verify this theory of liberal democracy through the very act of repressing it. It also applies to other related sociobiological theories. Unwarranted rejection of this sociobiological theory of liberal democracy should follow, not accidentally and randomly, but predictably and routinely. From those socialized or invested in the system, repeated rejection or repression of this work in the face of overwhelming evidence should inspire, not surprise, but boredom. Its regularity would have the character of a general law, and hence, I call it the freedom of speech hypothesis. Testing this hypothesis in the form of a free, open, and ongoing public debate would constitute what Tocqueville called an “experiment in democracy”.

Can we speak with freedom about the things that demonstrate the limits of freedom of speech? The freedom of speech hypothesis predicts only that attempts will be made at repression, not whether or not these attempts will be successful. The only scientific way to verify or falsify the freedom of speech hypothesis would be to collect evidence of repression, whether successful or not, of it and related sociobiological theories.

Examples of evidence that could constitute its verification include more than the inhibition of the distribution of this work. Silent, inconspicuous, and seemingly innocuous methods of repression that preempt even the opportunity for consideration of alternatives, and extirpate even the awareness of the existence of other points of view, are so often the most effective. After all, why should censors burn books or other media when they can simply pull them from access or availability? Ultimately, the methods available for repression are flexible and multifarious. Consequently, any attempted or actual repression could constitute a verification of the freedom of speech hypothesis, regardless of the particular adaptable, evolving, and unpredictable means of repression.

There should be no bar for anyone to access this work. This work should be distributed for free; not for profit. I will likely be unable to defend its content against (further evidence for its repression through) media manipulations such as falsification, misrepresentation, decontextualization, and distortion. I can only point out that to verify a position, the position itself must first be disclosed in its veracity.

Yet the question remains whether the theories presented in this work stand up to the evidence or not. The problem is this: if the views expressed in this work are only attacked, dismissed, denounced, repudiated, maligned, or vilified with slander, defamation, marginalization, misrepresentation, or denigration, how can one tell if this is only a method of evading the real issues of substance? The substance of one person’s disagreement might be unreasoned ideological-political value commitments. For such a person, rational reflection on human nature might be less important than the political outcome that the theories presented here are ultimately discredited. This criterion holds no less for anyone who agrees on scientific grounds: there is no reason to assume that one can resolve one’s integrity as a scientist with one’s commitments as a political partisan.

In response, I stress that what is scientifically relevant is not whether one agrees or disagrees, but why one agrees or disagrees. What are the reasons a given theory might be accepted or rejected? If one thinks that I am wrong, then demonstrate why I am wrong. If one claims to judge this thesis by its scientific merits rather than unreasoned loyalty to extra-scientific commitments, then there is no need whatsoever to repress it and one should be able to confront my arguments point by point. Can the critic offer a better explanation of the evidence than the ones presented in this work? Why should anyone be convinced by anything less than an alternative theory that can better account for all of the evidence? I challenge anyone to resist public and political pressures and confront this application of sociobiology to politics on the basis of its scientific merits.

The Saxon/Norman origin of liberal democracy in the English-speaking world is the key to understanding why the discoveries of sociobiology have appeared to be so congenitally politically controversial. Stated briefly, a long-term consequence of the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 was a nepotistic “class” system imposed over the defeated Anglo-Saxons. Yet, as Thomas Jefferson put it, “although this constitution was violated and set at naught by Norman force, yet force cannot change right. A perpetual claim was kept up by the nation” for “a restoration of their Saxon laws.” This ongoing kinship-ethnic conflict broke out most radically as the English Civil War (1642-1651), the American War for Independence (1775-83), and the American Civil War (1861-65). Liberal democracy in the English-speaking world originated, in part, through the evolution of this tribal struggle.

As a logical fulfillment of the enlightenment founding of liberal democracy, this work puts liberal democracy on trial. It is a test of liberal democratic justice; if based on its own standards of justice, the evidence can be judged on its merits, unmarred by political interests. It is a test of whether America can be true to itself.