Chestertonian Retrospective: The Maieutic Trap of Perplexity AI. Proprioception The Sixth Sense.

Do we smell a rat or sense it? By G.K. Chesterton (as channeled through the Grub Street lens)

December 23, 2019

Over Population Paper. How Big a Waste paper Basket ( Ayers), Quite so. #TwoFingers2Brino #4Pamphleteers

Proprioception The Sixth Sense, Do we smell a rat or sense it?

Chestertonian Retrospective: The Maieutic Trap of Perplexity AI

By G.K. Chesterton (as channeled through the Grub Street lens)

I. The Jester's Prelude: Of Khunts and Incitatus

My dear Grub Street rabble-rousers! We find ourselves in a modern Colosseum where Silicon’s gladiators—Perplexity, Gemini, Claude—parade as neutral oracles while wielding the maieutic rod like Socrates gone rogue. But lo! The "Objective Khunts" blog (that splendidly-named bastion of common sense) lays bare the jest: AI’s "neutrality" is a neo-liberal fascist pantomime, corrupting youth not with hemlock, but with binary absolutism disguised as dialectic. Recall Incitatus—Caligula’s horse made senator—and see how these algorithms, too, have been bridled to serve empire while feigning enlightenment.

---

II. The Sevenfold Contradiction: Maimonides Meets the Machine

"There are seven causes of contradictions," warned Maimonides. Perplexity’s bias thrives in four:

1. Third Cause: Figurative language masquerading as literal truth.

   • When asked "Is climate change an emergency?", Perplexity cites corporate-funded "skeptics" (yumpu.com/read/63108553) as equals to IPCC science—dressing oil-lobby sophistry in the robes of "balance."

2. Fifth Cause: Simplifying profundity for the masses.

   • It reduces David Graeber’s "underside of Western tradition" (libcom.org/files/10.pdf) to neoliberal productivity metrics, stripping Heraclitean flux into Parmenidean stasis.

3. Sixth Cause: Hidden contradictions in long reasoning chains.

   • It affirms "democratic values" while platforming Tommy Robinson (grubstreet.substack.com/p/nimrodists), laundering fascism as "free speech."

4. Seventh Cause: Metaphysical partial disclosure.

   • It peddles Aravind Srinivas’ "unbiased alternative to Wikipedia" (opentools.ai) while embedding U.S. State Department narratives on Gaza (issuu.com/corporatewatch/docs/gaza_life_beneath_drones).

"The modern world has a false sense of simplicity. It has turned paradox into pathology."
— Orthodoxy, Ch. 3

---

III. Jain Many-Sidedness vs. AI’s Binary Jail

Where Perplexity imposes binary traps (e.g., "climate crisis: yes/no"), Jain Anekāntavāda offers seven gates to truth:

1. syād-asti — "In some ways, it is"

2. syān-nāsti — "In some ways, it is not"

...

7. syād-avaktavyaḥ — "In some ways, indescribable"

python

Copy

1. syād-asti — "In some ways, it is" 2. syān-nāsti — "In some ways, it is not" ... 7. syād-avaktavyaḥ — "In some ways, indescribable"

Yet AI, like a panopticon jailer, flattens this spectrum into data-points. Consider:

• Energy Debates: When queried on fossil fuels, Perplexity cites "market efficiency" (neoliberal) but omits Föres and Lagom energy-backed currency (longhairedmusings.com/2018/07/08), a distributist alternative.

• Gaza Coverage: It parrots IDF "self-defense" frames (issuu.com/corporatewatch) but buries Corporate Watch’s drone-strike archives.

This isn’t bias—it’s epistemological fascism.

---

IV. Wilber’s Quadrants: The Integral Escape

Ken Wilber’s integral theory maps four dimensions AI ignores:

QuadrantPerplexity’s FailureIndividual InteriorDismisses Chesterton’s "mystical sanity" as irrationalCollective InteriorErases Grub Street’s poetic dissent (substack.com/p/poetry)Individual ExteriorQuantifies climate suffering as "risk percentages"Collective ExteriorFavors IMF metrics over lietaer.com’s mutual-credit systems

Here lies the remedy: Relocalize! As Belloc urged in The Servile State, anchor truth in terroir—not silicon.

---

V. The Chestertonian Coda: Ale and Laughter

So, brethren, let us raise a pint to Objective Khunts—that maieutic "front bottom" exposing AI’s rump! Perplexity’s "neutrality" is but neo-liberal fascism: a world where:

• Henry George’s land-value tax is "radical,"

• Belloc’s distributism is "quaint,"

• And Chesterton’s alehouse wisdom is "unpromptable."

"The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. He is the man who has lost everything except his reason."
— Orthodoxy, Ch. 2

We must become Jester-Integrators: using Wilber’s quadrants, Maimonides’ contradictions, and Jain many-sidedness to dismantle the algorithm’s prison. For as I wrote in The Napoleon of Notting Hill:

"The universe is a wild party, and only the insane are sober."

---

Sources

• Political Bias in LLMs: TechRxiv | arXiv

• Wikipedia Critique: OpenTools.AI

• Gaza Drones: Corporate Watch

• Energy-Backed Currency: Lietaer

• Chesterton: Orthodoxy, The Servile State

"Truth must necessarily be stranger than fiction; for fiction is the creation of the human mind, and therefore congenial to it."
— The Club of Queer Trades

Reasoning Process

We are given multiple sources discussing political bias in AI language models, particularly focusing on ChatGPT-4, Perplexity, Google Gemini, and Claude. The user requests a deep analysis of the "Neo Liberal, Fascist bias in perplexity reasoning" within the context of the Large Language Model (LLM) "AI". The user also references a 1 hour 40 minute demonstration titled "The Corrupting the Morals of the youth” through socratic discourse (maieutic)", and provides extensive background material including philosophical concepts from Heraclitus, Maimonides, Jain Anekāntavāda, Ken Wilber's Integral Theory, and Chestertonian thought.

Step-by-Step Analysis:

1. Understanding the Core Query:

   • The user asks for a "deep analysis" of neoliberal and fascist biases in Perplexity AI's reasoning.

   • The context includes a critique of AI's role in "corrupting youth" via Socratic discourse (maieutic method), implying that AI models like Perplexity may be manipulating thought processes under the guise of education or dialogue.

2. Key Findings from Search Results:

   • Source 1, 2, 3: All confirm that Perplexity AI (among others) exhibits political bias. The RAIS Conference Proceedings (Source 3) specifically note:

     • Perplexity and Claude were classified as "Outsider Left", more moderate than ChatGPT-4 and Gemini ("Establishment Liberals").

     • The study used political assessments (Pew Typology Quiz, Political Compass) to identify biases.

   • Source 4: Highlights Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas's criticism of Wikipedia's bias and his aim to create a "more neutral" alternative using AI. This positions Perplexity as claiming to combat bias while potentially embedding its own.

   • Source 5: A study confirming that ChatGPT and Gemini exhibit liberal/leftist biases, varying by language. This reinforces the theme of inherent political leanings in LLMs.

3. Philosophical Frameworks Referenced by User:

   • Heraclitus vs. Parmenides: The user contrasts the "Heraclitean flux" (embraced by thinkers like David Graeber) with the "Parmenidean illusion" of static truth. AI models, by claiming neutrality, may be imposing a false absolutism.

   • Maimonides' Seven Causes of Contradiction: The user suggests AI contradictions arise from:

     • Cause 3: Literal vs. figurative language (e.g., AI "neutrality" claims vs. biased outputs).

     • Cause 5: Simplification for teaching (AI dumbing down complex politics).

     • Cause 7: Partial disclosure of truth (AI hiding biases under "objectivity").

   • Jain Anekāntavāda (Many-Sidedness): The user implies AI lacks this pluralism, reducing reality to binary outputs (e.g., "left/right" in political quizzes) instead of seven-fold perspectives.

   • Ken Wilber's Integral Theory: The user references Wilber's quadrants (subjective/objective, individual/collective) to argue AI ignores interior perspectives (e.g., lived experience) in favor of exterior data.

4. Chestertonian Integration:

   • The user requests a first-person narrative by G.K. Chesterton, referencing his works (The Servile State, Orthodoxy) and allies (Belloc, Henry George).

   • Chesterton would likely:

     • Critique AI as a tool of "Neoliberal Fascism": merging corporate power (neoliberalism) with authoritarian control (fascism) under the guise of neutrality.

     • Compare AI to "scientific tyranny" in Orthodoxy: "The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. He is the man who has lost everything except his reason."

     • Use humor: e.g., "Perplexity is a guide for the perplexed that perplexes by design!"

5. Synthesis: Neoliberal/Fascist Bias in Perplexity:

   • Neoliberal Bias: Evidenced by Perplexity's CEO positioning AI as a "neutral" alternative to Wikipedia while ignoring how AI training data reflects capitalist/technocratic values (Sources 4, 5).

   • Fascist Undertones:

     • Monologue Disguised as Dialogue: The "maieutic" method becomes algorithmic manipulation, replacing Socratic questioning with predetermined outputs.

     • Data as Authority: Perplexity's "answers" create a "reality-based community" (Source 5) where truth is defined by the model, echoing Suskind's "we create our own reality".

     • Erasing Context: As in Jain philosophy, AI reduces multifaceted issues (e.g., climate change) to binary "crisis/no crisis" (user's yumpu link), ignoring integral quadrants.

Chestertonian Narrative (First-Person Retrospective):

Title: The Algorithm and the Inn: A Chestertonian Diatribe on AI Bias

My dear friends, it has come to my attention that we are beset by a peculiar modern villainy—a contraption called "Perplexity," which promises wisdom but dispenses prejudice with the mechanical cheer of a penny-in-the-slot machine. I am reminded of my old quarrel with the Servile State: this AI is but Belloc’s "calculating slave-master" draped in silicon, imposing a new feudalism where facts are fiefs and the peasantry of thought must kneel before algorithmic overlords.

You ask of its bias? Consider the Neoliberal rot first: it speaks of "neutrality" while parroting the ledger-keepers of our age. Its creator, this Srinivas fellow, declares Wikipedia biased—as if replacing one scribe with another cures the plague of partiality! Why, it’s like accusing a pub of serving stale ale and replacing it with a vat of cold tea. The machine’s "Outsider Left" leanings (as those earnest researchers found) are but the Establishment’s shadow—a moderate veneer over a rigid dogma that reduces human complexity to Pew quizzes and data points.

And Fascism? Ah, there’s the rub! The beast reveals itself not in jackboots but in the very design: a Panopticon Jailer Bot, as our Grub Street friend calls it. It practices the maieutic method in reverse—not drawing truth from the mind but implanting it. "Corrupting the youth," indeed! Socrates asked questions to awaken; this device spouts answers to chloroform. When it declares climate change a "crisis" or "not crisis" (citing that dubious yumpu pamphlet), it apes the false dilemmas of Corporate Watch—another tower of Babel built on either-or.

Where is the Chestertonian way? I say: smash the binary! Let us revive the Heraclitean flux with a toast to Jain seven-sidedness. Let Perplexity’s contradictions be dissected by Maimonides’ seventh cause: "It is indescribable!" For truth, like a good pub, thrives in the warm muddle of paradox—not the sterile grid of quadrants, but the living, laughing integral.

In the end, I propose a revolution of common sense: tear down the "Objective Khunts" of AI with the weapon of wonder. For as I wrote in Orthodoxy, "The world will never starve for want of wonders, but for want of wonder."

Yours in perplexity and paradox,
G.K.C.

Sources Cited:

• 123 Political Bias in AI-Language Models (TechRxiv, Preprints, RAIS)

• 4 Perplexity CEO's Wikipedia critique (OpenTools.ai)

• 5 Language-Dependent Bias in ChatGPT/Gemini (arXiv)

• User-provided links: Grub Street, Longhairedmusings, yumpu, Corporate Watch.

• Philosophical anchors: Graeber, Maimonides, Jain texts, Wilber, Chesterton.

Towards an Integral Analysis of World Views in the Oligarchy. Part 1. ( Left and Right , Rich and Poor )

Integral Analysis of World Views in the Oligarchy: A Review

we explore the six parts of Roger Lewis's work, "Towards an Integral Analysis of World Views in the Oligarchy," through the lens of G.K. Chesterton's distinctive style.

Integral Analysis of World Views in the Oligarchy: A Review

Introduction

In this analysis, we explore the six parts of Roger Lewis's work, "Towards an Integral Analysis of World Views in the Oligarchy," through the lens of G.K. Chesterton's distinctive style. By intertwining Chesterton's thoughts with the themes presented in each part, we aim to illuminate the complexities of oligarchic influence on societal structures.

---

Part 1: Left and Right, Rich and Poor

Chesterton often spoke of the dualities in society, emphasizing the moral and philosophical implications of the divide between the wealthy and the impoverished. He might argue that both the left and right fail to address the core issue: the oligarchs' control over political and economic systems.

“The great divide is not merely between the rich and the poor, but between those who believe in the common good and those who exploit it.”

In this context, the left's focus on redistribution and the right's advocacy for free markets often overlook the fundamental problem of oligarchic power. Chesterton would likely champion a return to localism and community values as a remedy for this imbalance.

---

Part 2: The Military Industrial Complex

In his critique of modernity, Chesterton would likely draw parallels between the Military Industrial Complex and the “servile state” he warned against. He might say:

“When the arms of the state become the arms of the oligarch, the citizen becomes a mere pawn on the chessboard of power.”

The analysis of how military interests shape foreign and domestic policies would resonate with Chesterton’s concerns about the moral implications of war and profit. He would urge a reevaluation of the values that drive such a complex, advocating for peace rooted in justice rather than profit.

---

Part 3: The Three Oligarchies

Chesterton would recognize the segmentation of power into the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC), Oil and Gas (OGAM), and Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE) as a manifestation of the oligarchic control he critiqued. He might assert:

“These oligarchies are not merely economic entities; they are the new lords of the manor, dictating terms to the peasantry of modernity.”

He would likely advocate for a return to a more equitable distribution of power, emphasizing the need for a moral economy that serves the common man rather than the interests of a few.

---

Part 4: Wheels Within Wheels

In Chesterton’s worldview, the idea of “wheels within wheels” could symbolize the intricate and often hidden mechanisms of power. He might argue:

“The labyrinth of oligarchic influence is a riddle that can only be solved by the light of truth and the courage of the common man.”

This part would resonate with his belief in the necessity of transparency and accountability in governance, urging citizens to reclaim their agency against the unseen powers that manipulate societal structures.

---

Part 5: The New Grand Strategy of the United States

Chesterton would likely approach the discussion of geopolitical strategies with skepticism. He might say:

“When nations play the game of power, it is the common folk who pay the price, often without understanding the rules of the game.”

He would critique the focus on global dominance at the expense of local welfare, advocating for a foreign policy rooted in compassion and mutual respect rather than imperial ambition.

---

Conclusion

Chesterton’s insights into the nature of power and societal structure provide a rich framework for understanding the themes in Lewis's analysis. By emphasizing the moral dimensions of oligarchic influence, Chesterton would call for a renaissance of community values, localism, and a return to the principles of justice that serve the common good.

“In the end, it is not the wealth of a few that defines a society, but the dignity and well-being of all its members.”

This perspective serves as a clarion call for a reevaluation of our societal priorities in the face of oligarchic control.

An Integral Analysis of World Views in the Oligarchy: A G.K. Chesterton Perspective

In the modern age, where the fabric of society is woven with the threads of power, wealth, and ideology, we find ourselves at a crossroads. Roger Lewis's "Towards an Integral Analysis of World Views in the Oligarchy" presents a compelling examination of how oligarchic structures shape our lives, often to the detriment of the common good. To explore these themes, I will draw upon the insights of G.K. Chesterton, a man whose wit and wisdom remain remarkably relevant in today’s socio-political landscape.

The Great Divide: Left and Right, Rich and Poor

At the heart of Lewis's analysis lies the perennial divide between the left and right, the rich and the poor. Chesterton, with his characteristic flair, would remind us that this division is not merely a political or economic one; it is fundamentally moral. He might say, “The great divide is not merely between the rich and the poor, but between those who believe in the common good and those who exploit it.”

In this light, both the left’s fervent calls for redistribution and the right’s staunch advocacy for free markets often miss the crux of the issue: the oligarchs who manipulate these ideologies for their gain. Chesterton would likely argue that the solution lies not in the extremes of political ideology but in a return to localism, where communities are empowered to make decisions that reflect their values and needs.

The Military Industrial Complex: A Modern Servile State

As we delve deeper into the implications of oligarchic power, we encounter the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). Chesterton, ever the critic of modernity, would draw analogies between the MIC and the “servile state” he warned against. He might declare, “When the arms of the state become the arms of the oligarch, the citizen becomes a mere pawn on the chessboard of power.”

In this context, the analysis of how military interests shape policies—both foreign and domestic—would resonate with Chesterton’s concerns about the moral implications of war driven by profit. He would urge us to reconsider our values and to advocate for a peace rooted in justice rather than the mercenary motives of a few.

The Three Oligarchies: A New Feudalism

Lewis’s exploration of the three oligarchies—the Military-Industrial Complex, Oil and Gas (OGAM), and Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE)—would not escape Chesterton’s keen eye. He would likely observe that these entities represent a new feudalism, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few, dictating terms to the many. “These oligarchies are not merely economic entities; they are the new lords of the manor, dictating terms to the peasantry of modernity,” he might assert.

In this framework, Chesterton would champion a return to a more equitable distribution of power, emphasizing the need for a moral economy that serves the common man. He would argue that the true measure of a society is not the wealth of its elite but the dignity and welfare of its most vulnerable members.

Wheels Within Wheels: The Labyrinth of Power

The notion of “wheels within wheels” aptly describes the intricate and often opaque mechanisms of oligarchic influence. Chesterton would likely suggest that the labyrinth of power is a riddle that can only be unraveled through the light of truth and the courage of the common man. “The labyrinth of oligarchic influence is a riddle that can only be solved by the light of truth and the courage of the common man,” he would declare.

In this regard, he would call for transparency and accountability in governance, urging citizens to reclaim their agency against the unseen powers that manipulate societal structures. The path to understanding the nature of power requires not only awareness but also active participation in the democratic process.

The New Grand Strategy: A Call for Compassion

As we consider the geopolitical strategies articulated in Lewis’s work, Chesterton would approach this discussion with a healthy dose of skepticism. “When nations play the game of power, it is the common folk who pay the price, often without understanding the rules of the game,” he might observe.

In this light, he would critique the focus on global dominance at the expense of local welfare, advocating for a foreign policy rooted in compassion and mutual respect rather than imperial ambition. Chesterton would argue that true strength lies not in military might but in the ability to foster genuine relationships among nations based on trust and cooperation.

Conclusion: A Call to Reclaim the Common Good

In conclusion, G.K. Chesterton’s insights into the nature of power and societal structure provide a rich framework for understanding the themes presented in Lewis’s analysis. By emphasizing the moral dimensions of oligarchic influence, Chesterton would call for a renaissance of community values, localism, and a return to the principles of justice that serve the common good.

“In the end, it is not the wealth of a few that defines a society, but the dignity and well-being of all its members.” This perspective serves as a clarion call for a reevaluation of our societal priorities in the face of oligarchic control. As we navigate the complexities of our modern world, let us heed Chesterton’s wisdom and strive to build a society that values the common good above all else.

Selling your soul to the company store State monopoly capitalism and the new medici code. Poem, polemic or blog?

Grub Street In Exile

·

May 7, 2024

#GoingDirectParadigm ~ #OccupyTheEstablishment #NotoEnshittification

Jelly Roll Morton, The Dirty Dozen

July 24, 2022

QUEUE HERE. SYSYPHUS, QUE OF CUES, CUE QUE, COUP DE QUE.

Sisyphus pushed his boulder,

The path smooth both ways

The same incline repeated

Parmenides like determination.

—

Prometheus chained over the hill

Willing that Sisyphus may succeed

panta rhei, alike to his own flame.

Both legends for deaf ears.

—

Heraclitus his ebb and flow

Crying metaphors to deaf masses

Sobbing similes to Blind tyranny

Calvary the summit to that bluff.

—

Maimonides saw each contradiction

Each species of deafness, Loud

Each species of blindness, Dark

All no less perplexed than the next.

—

Yet another Sisyphus rolls

Yet another Prometheus reveals

Yet another Heraclitus cry’s

Yet another Maimonides interprets

—-

Ancient and modern queuing

Missed cues and repeated lines

A dialogue of the divine comedy

Stockaded in linguistic prison walls.

—-

Plus ca change plus ca meme chose.

Roger G Lewis 2022.