GOOD CRITICS HELP YOU PRODUCE GREAT WORK
(more on heroism and the west)
A good critic is a precious thing. I love good criticism. I make most of my progress on tough issues because I’m challenged by good critics. And unfortunately, good critics are rare. Frank Lovell, Ayelam Valentine Agaliba, Josh Jeppson, Adam Voight, Bruce (I forget his name), and a few others have been particularly influential in providing criticism that was deep enough that I was able to make progress using it.
Josh has been pushing me very hard for over a year on Aryanism and has clearly sensed it from an individual rather than social point of view (conceptual grammar so to speak).
I have an ‘impersonal’ view of Aryanism – or all social orders for that matter. I think more in production, costs, logistics, and strategy like general, or a governor, than in the tactics, and rewards, and experiences of a warrior. So I tend to think of the resources necessary to conduct war using training and technology, rather than the inspiration of the individuals who do the fighting. I would rather give them material confidence in weapons, and strategy, than inspiration on the field. I am not a fan of poetic speech. A soldier who has material confidence does not need inspiration if he thinks he will win. And it is the abilty to win without inspiration that I seek to provide.
But that doesn’t mean that don’t recognize truth in criticisms.
And it wasn’t until last night that Josh voiced his criticism in a way that I could sleep on it a bit, and convert it to ‘scientific’ language.
And while Axial-Age epistemology (the social order of power at the time), and the various concepts of truth therein are probably the first differentiators between the intellectual traditions of cultures and civilizations, I think the normative channeling of dominance that results from that social order in the axial age, is an insight that can help explain far more about various civilizations than can truth alone.
Heroism is interesting in that it trains us from birth, not to suppress dominance but to channel it toward commons-producing ends. This individual competition for dominance by positive means is what produces over time the high trust society, in the same way it produced a high trust warrior ruling-class that we call ‘Aryanism’.
i suspect that if I do the research (which might be expensive or time-consuming) that testimonial martial truth(bearing a cost) and heroism(bearing a cost), and dominance (demonstrating superiority empirically) produce a market for excellence in all walks of life. And that this market ‘calculates’ excellence, and is the CAUSE of our interest in economic markets that ‘calculate’ excellences as well.
i will continue to work with this for a while. But the central insight that Truth, Heroism, and Dominance Markets calculate faster than the alternative social orders, fits well with my prior arguments that common law calculates suppression of parasitism faster, and that markets calculate innovations faster, and that frequent small wars calculate innovations faster, and that many small nations calculate innovations faster.
And that the reason for the rapid advancement of the west in the ancient and modern worlds has been that we simply ‘calculate'(adapt and innovate) faster. And so it is not impressive if “china got there first’ so to speak, simply because they started first. The question is rather, what model will continually outpace all other models in innovation regardless of wealth and regardless of population size.
And I think that is the answer to western civilization.
We are not first we are fastest.
Dominance, Sovereignty, Heroism, Truth, Voluntary Militia: The only possible institutions under that set of values are markets. And markets like cavalry that makes choices, are faster than footsoldiers that follow orders.
it’s that simple.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 09:21:00 UTC
Leave a Reply