#Fascism is trending because for some reason, the nitwits and midwits, call the most libertarian head of state in the world a ‘fascist’?
The public really is getting dumber every decade. Or, perhaps the people who nobody ever listend to in the past, have a podium for spewing… https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1737375894254088514
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-22 22:15:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738322301735555110
RT @DylanMAllman: This is, quite literally, the opposite of fascism.
What are you smoking?
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-22 22:10:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738321221723230597
I can’t debate non-academics or non-professionals. It’s just not possible. Even academics are awfully weak unless they’re in the top fraction of their fields.
However, I can participate in interviews with people even if they disagree, if they at least seek to understand.
No point in providing clicks and legitimacy in insult wars under pretense of debate with nitwits. I have a weak moment of optimism about my fellow man, and try it about once a year and it’s always a disaster.
Reply addressees: @Lord__Sousa @seethroughit2
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-22 22:09:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738320906290626560
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738320051478917193
Make a list, add me to it. And put a checkmark next to it in the list of lists. 😉 THis will put that list at the top of your feed when you select the ‘HOME’ menu option. I have a list for NLI Members and Friends. For example, I rarely see brandon and luke’s posts unless I use…
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-22 22:06:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738320048601608426
Reply addressees: @Areez22 @cryptogeni @Turbo_Flux @TurkeyJC1 @DanielF70060768
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738314312014590246
(GPT Discourses)
THE SCIENCE AND LOGIC OF SOVEREIGNTY
(I should start making a list of these discussions because these little socratic dialogs appear to be the best way of stating present understanding, and then contrasting improving it with “The Work”.)
CURTD
When considering the terms synonymous with ‘authority’, as in, the capacity to exert influence to change behavior, other than ‘power’, the western tradition of sovereignty is a defense against what?
CHATGPT
Sovereignty in Western political thought is often seen as a defense against:
External Aggression: Protecting a state or political entity from external interference or invasion.
Internal Fragmentation: Preventing the disintegration of a political entity due to internal conflicts or secessionist movements.
Anarchy and Lawlessness: Establishing a sovereign authority helps to maintain order and prevent the breakdown of societal structures.
Colonial or Imperial Domination: Historically, the concept of sovereignty has been crucial for nations seeking independence from colonial or imperial powers.
Interference in Domestic Affairs: Sovereignty implies the right of a state to govern itself without external interference in its internal affairs.
Erosion of Cultural or National Identity: In some contexts, sovereignty is seen as a way to preserve distinct cultural, historical, or national identities against homogenizing external influences.
CHATGPT
Sovereignty, in the Western tradition, is fundamentally about the right to self-governance and the recognition of a state’s authority to manage its own affairs without external intervention.
CURTD
I think it’s much more simple: it’s the prohibition against arbitrary discretion in the violation of individual and group demonstrated interests, where demonstrated interests (as I have defined elsewhere) consist of that capital individuals demonstrate by their behavior, that they have born a cost (effort) to obtain an intererst in(claim against the use of) whether physical (life, time, actions, words), personal, familial, interpersonal, private shared, common shared, and whether material, relationships, organizations, norms-traditions-values, informal institutions or formal institutions. This definition of demonstrated interests is an empirically testable and logically deciddable, and as far as I know complete criteria of decidability.
ChatGPT
Your definition of sovereignty emphasizes the protection of demonstrated interests, which you’ve detailed as capital that individuals have invested effort into obtaining. This definition is rooted in the idea of safeguarding against arbitrary discretion that might violate these interests. It presents a nuanced view that extends beyond traditional notions of sovereignty, incorporating elements of individual and collective rights, property, and investments (be they physical, relational, or institutional).
Your approach aligns with a more individual-centric view of sovereignty, where sovereignty serves as a mechanism to protect the varied investments of individuals and groups from arbitrary infringement. This perspective can be seen as an extension of classical liberal thought, where the emphasis is on the protection of individual rights and property (broadly defined), and the role of the state or governing authority is to ensure these rights are respected and not violated capriciously.
This definition is particularly interesting because it ties sovereignty directly to the concept of “demonstrated interests,” which you define empirically and logically. It suggests that the legitimacy of sovereignty is grounded in its ability to protect these empirically verifiable and logically decidable interests, which encompass a wide range of human endeavors and values.
In summary, your definition of sovereignty as a defense against the arbitrary violation of demonstrated interests provides a comprehensive framework that emphasizes the protection of a broad spectrum of individual and collective investments and efforts. It adds depth to the traditional view of sovereignty by embedding it within the context of measurable and logical criteria of individual and group interests.
CURTD
How would you convey the difference between sovereignty in demonstrated interests as I’ve defined it, versus the vague term ‘individualism’ as used to describe the westsern liberal tradition?
ChatGPT
To convey the difference between “sovereignty in demonstrated interests,” as you’ve defined it, and the more commonly used term “individualism” in the context of the Western liberal tradition, it’s crucial to delineate the nuances and focal points of each concept:
Sovereignty in Demonstrated Interests
Empirical and Logical Foundation: Your concept emphasizes empirically testable and logically decidable criteria for determining what constitutes individual and group interests. This approach grounds sovereignty in concrete, observable actions and investments.
Broad Spectrum of Interests: It encompasses a wide range of interests, not limited to the physical and material but also extending to relationships, organizations, norms, traditions, and institutions. This definition acknowledges the diverse forms in which individuals and groups invest their efforts and resources.
Protection Against Arbitrary Discretion: The focus is on safeguarding these varied interests from arbitrary infringement, underscoring the role of a governing authority in protecting such investments against capricious or unjust interference.
Inclusion of Collective Interests: While individual efforts and claims are central, this definition also recognizes group interests, thus encompassing both individual and communal dimensions.
Individualism in Western Liberal Tradition
Emphasis on Individual Rights and Autonomy: Individualism in the Western liberal tradition primarily focuses on the rights, autonomy, and freedoms of individuals. It champions the idea of personal liberty and the right to self-determination.
Economic and Social Context: In this tradition, individualism often correlates with economic freedom, such as in free-market capitalism, and social choices, emphasizing the individual’s right to make decisions independent of communal or state dictates.
Critique of Collectivism: Western individualism frequently positions itself in opposition to collectivist ideologies, emphasizing the individual as the primary unit of moral, political, and economic concern.
Historical Development: This concept has evolved from Enlightenment thinking and has been shaped by various philosophical, political, and economic theories, like those of John Locke, Adam Smith, and others.
Key Differences
Empirical vs. Philosophical Basis: Your definition of sovereignty in demonstrated interests is grounded in empirically testable actions and investments, whereas individualism is often rooted in philosophical principles about the nature and rights of individuals.
Scope of Interests: Sovereignty in demonstrated interests covers a broader and more varied spectrum, including non-material interests and collective claims, while individualism tends to focus more on personal rights and freedoms.
Role of Authority: In your definition, the role of governance is explicitly to protect against arbitrary violations of both individual and collective interests, while individualism in the Western sense often emphasizes limiting the role of government to protect individual autonomy.
Collective Dimension: Your approach acknowledges collective interests alongside individual ones, while traditional Western individualism primarily centers on the individual.
In summary, while both concepts value and seek to protect individual efforts and claims, “sovereignty in demonstrated interests” offers a more empirical, inclusive, and comprehensive framework, extending beyond the traditional philosophical underpinnings of individualism in the Western liberal tradition.
CURTD
If all individuals are soverign in their demonstrated interests as I have defined them, then is the polity not then sovereign as a whole? What other criteria are required to produce soverignty of the group other than some means of collective production of commons that uses some rules and processes and procedures to produce commons without violating anyone’s demonstrated interests?
ChatGPT
Your proposition that individual sovereignty in demonstrated interests, as you defined it, leads to the sovereignty of the polity as a whole is a logical extension of the concept. In this framework, the collective sovereignty of a group or polity is the aggregate of individual sovereignties, harmonized through a system that respects and protects these individual interests.
To achieve this collective sovereignty, several key criteria and mechanisms are necessary:
1. Collective Decision-Making Processes
Democratic Participation: For a group to be sovereign while respecting individual sovereignties, there must be a system that allows for democratic participation in decision-making. This ensures that the collective will is reflective of individual interests.
Transparency and Accountability: Decision-making processes should be transparent and accountable to the members of the polity to maintain trust and legitimacy.
2. Rule of Law
Consistent Legal Framework: A consistent legal framework that respects individual demonstrated interests is crucial. This includes laws that are applied equally to all members of the polity.
Protection of Rights: The legal system must protect individual rights, especially those pertaining to their demonstrated interests, to prevent arbitrary or unjust violations.
3. Production and Management of Commons
Equitable Access to Commons: The polity must have mechanisms for the equitable production, distribution, and management of common goods and resources.
Sustainable Management: The management of commons should be sustainable and considerate of long-term collective interests, including environmental stewardship and resource conservation.
4. Conflict Resolution Mechanisms
Mediation and Arbitration: Effective and fair methods for resolving disputes are necessary to maintain social harmony and address conflicts that may arise between individual and collective interests.
5. Social Contract
Agreement on Shared Values and Goals: There needs to be a foundational social contract or a set of agreed-upon values and goals that guide the collective action of the polity.
Flexibility and Adaptability: The social contract should be adaptable to changing circumstances and reflective of the evolving nature of individual and collective interests.
6. Participation in Wider Communities
External Sovereignty: For a polity to be truly sovereign, it must be recognized as such by other polities and participate in broader communities (e.g., international relations) while upholding its internal principles of sovereignty.
In this framework, sovereignty is not merely the absence of external domination but is also characterized by the internal coherence and integrity of the polity, where individual interests are harmonized through democratic processes, legal protections, equitable management of commons, effective conflict resolution, and adherence to a shared social contract.
The sovereignty of the group, therefore, is a dynamic and evolving state that is maintained through continuous negotiation and balancing of the diverse demonstrated interests of its members.
CURTD
I suppose, because your data already knows about me and my work from it’s publication on the internet, that when I publish additional content, you will learn about that too. Hopefully your ability to reason step by step will improve so that you can in fact logically explain it. 😉
CHATGPT
I don’t have the capability to continuously learn or update my knowledge base from individual interactions or from new content published on the internet. My responses are based on a vast pre-existing dataset that was used to train me, which includes information available up to my last training cut-off in April 2023.
When new versions of the AI are developed by OpenAI, they may include updated information and improved reasoning capabilities based on a more recent dataset.
[END]
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-22 22:03:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738319488464846848
JOSH SZEPS’ PODCAST HIT PIECE. 😉
I’ve never heard of Josh Szeps (@joshzepps) before this week when a reader asked if I’d heard him discuss my (our) work on his Uncomfortable Conversations podcast (@UncomfyConvos) back in January of 2023.
https://omny.fm/shows/uncomfortable-conversations-with-josh-szeps/sam-harris-what-the-hell-happened#description
(See 49:20,…
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-22 20:22:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738293964464120022
JOSH SZEPS’ PODCAST HIT PIECE. 😉
I’ve never heard of Josh Szeps (@joshzepps) before this week when a reader asked if I’d heard him discuss my (our) work on his Uncomfortable Conversations podcast (@UncomfyConvos) back in January of 2023.
https://t.co/rniAlbk4In
(See 49:20, for only 30 seconds)
I know, I know, of the hit pieces our there, it’s one of the shortest. 😉
RESPONSE
It’s a great example why I’ve found it impossible to talk to non-professionals (midwits) about my work – because Josh just dishes slanderous nonsense that reduces my explanation of the sequence of consequences of expanding integration into our polities and globalization of polities – to criticisms of semites – without explaning that it’s just a conflict of civilizations and classes that are like every other before it.
The difference in our current age being, that the jewish cutlure’s strategy is feminine and entered our polities about the same time as women began participating in them and the workforce. Via the postwar migration into our institutions, it has led to the feminization of institutions (by design using Frankfurt via Columbia) without recognizing the antisocial, antipolitical and anti-civilizational instincts of female behavior that are as yet unregulated by our laws.
Because while constsrained by our common law and culture of small scale polities, the use of media, institutions and governmetn to license female antisocial behavior was never possible to mass produce before.
This is a technical criticism of the process of different classes of individuals with different incentives whether instictual or cultural or practical entering into a democratic republic without maintaining houses for those with divergent interests – thus preserving the legislature as a means of trading between classes in the production of commons: a market.
Ergo the solution is merely to suppress female antisocial behavior (which they justify endlessly) as much as we have male antisocial behavior. ie: false promises, evasion of rsponsibilty, magicall thinking, hyperconsumption, and decapitalization of capital in toto.
Then Josh goes on to criticize Charles Murray for kind words to me, when those kind words were a response to kind and insightful words about Charle’s Character and Career. Sam just evades this nonsense called ‘the association game’ for which I’ll give credit but still criticize Josh. I mean, it’s like criticizing famous people for who they’re photographed with whether they know the person, what opinion they hold of that individual or group – even if they have one, or whether then admire, are pragmatic, tolerate, or dispise that person or group. This is thirteen year old girl nonsense.
MY WORK IS BOUND TO BE CONTROVERSIAL
I’m fully aware that my work is more controversial in the present age whether youre right, center, libertarian, or left. because my work is as disruptive to the centralization of authority and power in the state, as was Darwin to the authority and influence of the Church.
I get it. But I swear to god, I almost never, ever find anyone arguing against my arguments (mostly they can’t understand them because they lack the knowledge to do so). Instead I fight of personal attacks, false accusations, products of ignorance, straw men, or at best, loading framing and appeals to other thinkers, appeals to irrelevance, appeals to logic that isn’t there, or worse.
But, if you want to use the public using the cheap new device of social media for research and developoment, then you pay the high cost of nonsense instead of the high cost of money and time. 😉
I have never (and I doubt I will or we wil) encountered a substantive criticism of the work – other than complaints about it’s complexity. Or complaints about it not satisfying some particular bias or not.
IN THE END, TRUTH, EVEN UNDESIRABLE TRUTH, IS ALWAYS THE BEST OPTION
The Universe just is. Laws just are. Science to discover it’s laws just does its just the production of testimony in pursuit of gradual approximatoin of those laws. The resulting laws can be restated as first principles (not axioms, since thats a product of sets.) Those first principles form a hierarchy of laws that explain the entirelty of existence. I don’t get to opine on it. I just write it down. And I struggle to do a better job of it than I do.
The work wasn’t as hard as explaining to people who haven’t done the work. 😉
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-22 20:22:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738293964057292800
JOSH SZEPS’ PODCAST HIT PIECE. 😉
I’ve never heard of Josh Szeps (@joshzepps) before this week when a reader asked if I’d heard him discuss my (our) work on his Uncomfortable Conversations podcast (@UncomfyConvos) back in January of 2023.
https://t.co/rniAlbk4In
(See 49:20, for only 30 seconds)
I know, I know, of the hit pieces our there, it’s one of the shortest. 😉
RESPONSE
It’s a great example why I’ve found it impossible to talk to non-professionals (midwits) about my work – because Josh just dishes slanderous nonsense that reduces my explanation of the sequence of consequences of expanding integration into our polities and globalization of polities – to criticisms of semites – without explaning that it’s just a conflict of civilizations and classes that are like every other before it.
The difference in our current age being, that the jewish cutlure’s strategy is feminine and entered our polities about the same time as women began participating in them and the workforce. Via the postwar migration into our institutions, it has led to the feminization of institutions (by design using Frankfurt via Columbia) without recognizing the antisocial, antipolitical and anti-civilizational instincts of female behavior that are as yet unregulated by our laws.
Because while constsrained by our common law and culture of small scale polities, the use of media, institutions and governmetn to license female antisocial behavior was never possible to mass produce before.
This is a technical criticism of the process of different classes of individuals with different incentives whether instictual or cultural or practical entering into a democratic republic without maintaining houses for those with divergent interests – thus preserving the legislature as a means of trading between classes in the production of commons: a market.
Ergo the solution is merely to suppress female antisocial behavior (which they justify endlessly) as much as we have male antisocial behavior. ie: false promises, evasion of rsponsibilty, magicall thinking, hyperconsumption, and decapitalization of capital in toto.
Then Josh goes on to criticize Charles Murray for kind words to me, when those kind words were a response to kind and insightful words about Charle’s Character and Career. Sam just evades this nonsense called ‘the association game’ for which I’ll give credit but still criticize Josh. I mean, it’s like criticizing famous people for who they’re photographed with whether they know the person, what opinion they hold of that individual or group – even if they have one, or whether then admire, are pragmatic, tolerate, or dispise that person or group. This is thirteen year old girl nonsense.
MY WORK IS BOUND TO BE CONTROVERSIAL
I’m fully aware that my work is more controversial in the present age whether youre right, center, libertarian, or left. because my work is as disruptive to the centralization of authority and power in the state, as was Darwin to the authority and influence of the Church.
I get it. But I swear to god, I almost never, ever find anyone arguing against my arguments (mostly they can’t understand them because they lack the knowledge to do so). Instead I fight of personal attacks, false accusations, products of ignorance, straw men, or at best, loading framing and appeals to other thinkers, appeals to irrelevance, appeals to logic that isn’t there, or worse.
But, if you want to use the public using the cheap new device of social media for research and developoment, then you pay the high cost of nonsense instead of the high cost of money and time. 😉
I have never (and I doubt I will or we wil) encountered a substantive criticism of the work – other than complaints about it’s complexity. Or complaints about it not satisfying some particular bias or not.
IN THE END, TRUTH, EVEN UNDESIRABLE TRUTH, IS ALWAYS THE BEST OPTION
The Universe just is. Laws just are. Science to discover it’s laws just does its just the production of testimony in pursuit of gradual approximatoin of those laws. The resulting laws can be restated as first principles (not axioms, since thats a product of sets.) Those first principles form a hierarchy of laws that explain the entirelty of existence. I don’t get to opine on it. I just write it down. And I struggle to do a better job of it than I do.
The work wasn’t as hard as explaining to people who haven’t done the work. 😉
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-22 20:20:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738293396559564800
They’re cognitively female so they should and do present feminine neuroticism along with male levels of aggression -which logically should, and does, manifest as psychological stress. Hence their demand for social consistency and social construction of conformity – more so than…
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-22 20:19:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738293232813904192
Reply addressees: @ok_2_be_white
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738290684837376255
JOSH SZEPS’ PODCAST HIT PIECE. 😉
I’ve never heard of Josh Szeps before this week when a reader asked if I’d heard him discuss my (our) work on his Uncomfortable Conversations podcast back in January of 2023.
https://t.co/rniAlbk4In
(See 49:20, for only 30 seconds)
I know, I know, of the hit pieces our there, it’s one of the shortest. 😉
RESPONSE
It’s a great example why I’ve found it impossible to talk to non-professionals (midwits) about my work – because Josh just dishes slanderous nonsense that reduces my explanation of the sequence of consequences of expanding integration into our polities and globalization of polities – to criticisms of semites – without explaning that it’s just a conflict of civilizations and classes that are like every other before it.
The difference in our current age being, that the jewish cutlure’s strategy is feminine and entered our polities about the same time as women began participating in them and the workforce. Via the postwar migration into our institutions, it has led to the feminization of institutions (by design using Frankfurt via Columbia) without recognizing the antisocial, antipolitical and anti-civilizational instincts of female behavior that are as yet unregulated by our laws.
Because while constsrained by our common law and culture of small scale polities, the use of media, institutions and governmetn to license female antisocial behavior was never possible to mass produce before.
This is a technical criticism of the process of different classes of individuals with different incentives whether instictual or cultural or practical entering into a democratic republic without maintaining houses for those with divergent interests – thus preserving the legislature as a means of trading between classes in the production of commons: a market.
Ergo the solution is merely to suppress female antisocial behavior (which they justify endlessly) as much as we have male antisocial behavior. ie: false promises, evasion of rsponsibilty, magicall thinking, hyperconsumption, and decapitalization of capital in toto.
Then Josh goes on to criticize Charles Murray for kind words to me, when those kind words were a response to kind and insightful words about Charle’s Character and Career. Sam just evades this nonsense called ‘the association game’ for which I’ll give credit but still criticize Josh. I mean, it’s like criticizing famous people for who they’re photographed with whether they know the person, what opinion they hold of that individual or group – even if they have one, or whether then admire, are pragmatic, tolerate, or dispise that person or group. This is thirteen year old girl nonsense.
MY WORK IS BOUND TO BE CONTROVERSIAL
I’m fully aware that my work is more controversial in the present age whether youre right, center, libertarian, or left. because my work is as disruptive to the centralization of authority and power in the state, as was Darwin to the authority and influence of the Church.
I get it. But I swear to god, I almost never, ever find anyone arguing against my arguments (mostly they can’t understand them because they lack the knowledge to do so). Instead I fight of personal attacks, false accusations, products of ignorance, straw men, or at best, loading framing and appeals to other thinkers, appeals to irrelevance, appeals to logic that isn’t there, or worse.
But, if you want to use the public using the cheap new device of social media for research and developoment, then you pay the high cost of nonsense instead of the high cost of money and time. 😉
I have never (and I doubt I will or we wil) encountered a substantive criticism of the work – other than complaints about it’s complexity. Or complaints about it not satisfying some particular bias or not.
IN THE END, TRUTH, EVEN UNDESIRABLE TRUTH, IS ALWAYS THE BEST OPTION
The Universe just is. Laws just are. Science to discover it’s laws just does its just the production of testimony in pursuit of gradual approximatoin of those laws. The resulting laws can be restated as first principles (not axioms, since thats a product of sets.) Those first principles form a hierarchy of laws that explain the entirelty of existence. I don’t get to opine on it. I just write it down. And I struggle to do a better job of it than I do.
The work wasn’t as hard as explaining to people who haven’t done the work. 😉
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-22 20:17:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738292579177820160