Curt Doolittle

Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology

  • THE THREE PROPERTIES OF ART: 1) NARRATIVE – VALUE JUDGEMENTS (CONCEPTUAL CONTENT

    THE THREE PROPERTIES OF ART:

    1) NARRATIVE – VALUE JUDGEMENTS (CONCEPTUAL CONTENT),

    2) DECORATION – PATTERN AND FERTILITY (AESTHETIC CONTENT),

    3) CRAFT – MASTERY OF MATERIALS (MATERIAL SCIENCE CONTENT)

    Art carries myth, and value judgment. It is a symbolic narrative. Decoration carries patterns. Or it conveys the idea of fertility, plenty, or evidence of human effort or care, which to humans, are the universal symbols for beauty. Craft is an expression of material science: our mastery of the materials themselves.

    These three differences in content demarcate the fine arts from the decorative arts, from craft. “High Art” combines all three dimensions of concept, aesthetic, and craft, for the purpose of creating cultural unity.

    Almost all educated people can use these techniques to evaluate any artistic creation. a) what is the mythical, political, philosophical, narrative content? b) Are patterns (composition) and beauty (presence of resources such as fertility) rendered with sophistication and insight? c) how craftsmanly is the work produced? if you answer these three questions any work can be judged – and the nonsense that you should just ‘feel’ art and fail to understanding it simply a marketing ploy by hucksters.

    Three pressures have devolved our high arts.

    1) The Medium That Is Movies

    Movies are so profitable, seen so widely, distributed so cheaply, naturally narrative, and aesthetically effective that they have absorbed almost the entire artistic production of the nation. All prior arts seem iconic and quaint by comparison.

    But the internationalization of movies has forced the eradication of the western mythological narrative from our scripts. Western heroism is appealing to males everywhere. But western exceptionalism is a curse. This problem is fascinating and threatens the industry because only blockbusters draw large crowds, but the heroic content of movies is limited to either familial sentiments, zombies, or aliens, because we can no longer criticize or demonize the competing heroic symbolism of other cultures given the need to exploit their population as a market.

    2) Economics

    The demand for decorative arts in the home, and craftsmanship (design of household goods) because of the vast numbers of the populace that have joined the consumer (middle) classes, has created demand for inexpensive decorative arts for every social class, each of which has different value judgements. The decrease in prices from industrial production has made it possible for more people to enter the arts, but at the cost of an inability of the market to sufficiently filter out would-be artists incapable of synthesizing art, design, and craft.

    3) The European cultural loss of identity and self confidence.

    The combination of socialism’s pressure for equality rather than excellence, feminism’s pressure to demonize christian white males, and the postwar self hatred of our aristocratic western origins have conspired not only to take power in government but to redefine beauty not as excellence but as rebellion.

    The myths that gave rise to our desire for excellence, greatness, and the high-trust-society, have been driven out of fashion by consumerism, socialism, feminism, and self doubt.

    We have, as a tribe, race, and people, surrendered our myths to the age of skepticism – when all cultures, along with their arts, go to die.

    But that should not prevent the few of us who aspire to excellence from acquiring the skill with which to analyze, interpret, and make judgements about the arts, using the very simple method I have outlined here:

    Narrative and its value judgements.

    Design and it’s aesthetic devices.

    Craft and it’s material devices.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-27 05:47:00 UTC

  • UKRAINE I feel like a cultural anthropologist studying white people in their nat

    UKRAINE

    I feel like a cultural anthropologist studying white people in their natural habitat.

    Most of us understand that this is the cauldron in which the west was cooked.

    As student of mankind, being here with these wonderful people is a spiritual as much as intellectual experience.

    All this talk of corruption is nonsense. The west is at least as corrupt. All the talk of the underground economy is true. But what other choice do they have? The black market and religion are the best means of peaceful rebellion available to a poor people.

    I suspect that they are our future more than we are theirs.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-12 09:17:00 UTC

  • “Women Do Everything Here” : The Absence of Chivalry In The Byzantines

    “Women Do Everything Here” : The Absence of Chivalry In The Byzantines http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/10/11/women-do-everything-here-the-absence-of-chivalry-in-byzantines/

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-11 18:31:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/256461975796715520

  • “Women Do Everything Here” : The Absence of Chivalry In The Byzantines

    “I cook, I clean, I work, and my husband sits on the couch demanding beer. Women do everything here. We want to be soft. But we can’t be.” – Nikka.

    [C]hivalry is yet another positive western value constructed by the church. I often write how the church granted women property rights, and forbid cousin-marriage out to six or eight degrees, in order to make it more difficult for the clans to maintain consolidated property holdings and associated financial and political power, while at the same time making it easier for the church itself to acquire lands. But the forcible introduction of the myth and philosophy of Chivalry is as important to the development of the unique western character, in suppressing paternalism and tribalism, as the forcible implementation of property rights by the church. Humans have existed in excess since the advent of domestication of plants and animals. The germanic princes and their retinues were not as barbaric and predatory as secular fantasies argue. However, the militarism of the Carolingians and Vikings, and the power of the states that they constructed in western Europe were impossible for the trading states of the south, and the church to resist. So, just as the church had used its power of literacy and legitimacy to manage the Christian monarchs, they used the crusades and the myth of chivalry, to direct the energies of these professional warriors to productive ends. This ethic of chivalry conveyed status upon those who served christendom. It codified service of others as masculine. It could be obtained through demonstrated action, and spiritual reflection, as well as daily posturing, rather than the more expensive requirement of land holding, and was therefore more widely available to retinues. It also provided a code of conduct that the aspring classes could imitate, making the ethics pervasive. The need for commoners to rent land from land holders, participate as infantry, and to demonstrate their capacity for honorable hard work, before marriage and reproduction were possible, reinforced this set of chivalrous values – allowing laborers and craftsmen to also adopt the chivalrous ethic, and to demonstrate their status signals through conformity to it. THe corresponding delay of childbirth and consequential inclusion of women into the work force, as well as their possession of rudimentary property rights, worked along with suppression of the breeding of the lower classes to create the european universalist and commercial character. This code of chivalric conduct does not exist here in the east among the men. Service is immasculine. It violates the primary principle of manliness which is independence from external direction. Whether that external direction come from service to an employer or service to the commons – society. Manliness, and masculinity have not been hybridized. It is not even as mature here as it is among the peacock strutters of the mediterranean — even if it is less ignorant, brutal and barbaric than that of the Arabs, and less familial and hierarchical than that of the Asians. And while we will certainly argue that masculinity has been overly feminized in much of the west, so much so that lower class males are returning to their individualistic migratory roots, the ethic of masculinity through service remains — for now. There are a few lessons to be learned from this that westerners might want to remember: 1) The church made what is unique about the west, and did so without monopoly powers of violence that are possessed by the current secular west. 2) The west is unique for artificial reasons. it is not a natural social order. It was forcibly constructed by wit and wisdom due to the weakness of the church. Whereas the paternalistic orders in the rest of the world were forcibly constructed by violence. 3) The west is unique because we were a small, weak, poor minority in the world who relied upon technology to compensate for our numbers, and property rights and the denial of centralized power to any and all. WE were lucky to inherit from the greeks the tool of reason which allows warriors to debate and science to develop. But it seems we are reversing our trend and denying our history. As for the Byzantines: without the church, I see no means of introducing chivalry into the civilization quickly, and we must hope that the commercial society eventually provides men with the incentives to build a high trust society of service like that of the west. Affections to all. Curt Doolittle

  • “Women Do Everything Here” : The Absence of Chivalry In The Byzantines

    “I cook, I clean, I work, and my husband sits on the couch demanding beer. Women do everything here. We want to be soft. But we can’t be.” – Nikka.

    [C]hivalry is yet another positive western value constructed by the church. I often write how the church granted women property rights, and forbid cousin-marriage out to six or eight degrees, in order to make it more difficult for the clans to maintain consolidated property holdings and associated financial and political power, while at the same time making it easier for the church itself to acquire lands. But the forcible introduction of the myth and philosophy of Chivalry is as important to the development of the unique western character, in suppressing paternalism and tribalism, as the forcible implementation of property rights by the church. Humans have existed in excess since the advent of domestication of plants and animals. The germanic princes and their retinues were not as barbaric and predatory as secular fantasies argue. However, the militarism of the Carolingians and Vikings, and the power of the states that they constructed in western Europe were impossible for the trading states of the south, and the church to resist. So, just as the church had used its power of literacy and legitimacy to manage the Christian monarchs, they used the crusades and the myth of chivalry, to direct the energies of these professional warriors to productive ends. This ethic of chivalry conveyed status upon those who served christendom. It codified service of others as masculine. It could be obtained through demonstrated action, and spiritual reflection, as well as daily posturing, rather than the more expensive requirement of land holding, and was therefore more widely available to retinues. It also provided a code of conduct that the aspring classes could imitate, making the ethics pervasive. The need for commoners to rent land from land holders, participate as infantry, and to demonstrate their capacity for honorable hard work, before marriage and reproduction were possible, reinforced this set of chivalrous values – allowing laborers and craftsmen to also adopt the chivalrous ethic, and to demonstrate their status signals through conformity to it. THe corresponding delay of childbirth and consequential inclusion of women into the work force, as well as their possession of rudimentary property rights, worked along with suppression of the breeding of the lower classes to create the european universalist and commercial character. This code of chivalric conduct does not exist here in the east among the men. Service is immasculine. It violates the primary principle of manliness which is independence from external direction. Whether that external direction come from service to an employer or service to the commons – society. Manliness, and masculinity have not been hybridized. It is not even as mature here as it is among the peacock strutters of the mediterranean — even if it is less ignorant, brutal and barbaric than that of the Arabs, and less familial and hierarchical than that of the Asians. And while we will certainly argue that masculinity has been overly feminized in much of the west, so much so that lower class males are returning to their individualistic migratory roots, the ethic of masculinity through service remains — for now. There are a few lessons to be learned from this that westerners might want to remember: 1) The church made what is unique about the west, and did so without monopoly powers of violence that are possessed by the current secular west. 2) The west is unique for artificial reasons. it is not a natural social order. It was forcibly constructed by wit and wisdom due to the weakness of the church. Whereas the paternalistic orders in the rest of the world were forcibly constructed by violence. 3) The west is unique because we were a small, weak, poor minority in the world who relied upon technology to compensate for our numbers, and property rights and the denial of centralized power to any and all. WE were lucky to inherit from the greeks the tool of reason which allows warriors to debate and science to develop. But it seems we are reversing our trend and denying our history. As for the Byzantines: without the church, I see no means of introducing chivalry into the civilization quickly, and we must hope that the commercial society eventually provides men with the incentives to build a high trust society of service like that of the west. Affections to all. Curt Doolittle

  • “WOMEN DO EVERYTHING HERE” : THE ABSENCE OF CHIVALRY IN BYZANTINES “I cook, I cl

    “WOMEN DO EVERYTHING HERE” : THE ABSENCE OF CHIVALRY IN BYZANTINES

    “I cook, I clean, I work, and my husband sits on the couch demanding beer.” – Nikka.

    Chivalry is yet another positive western value constructed by the church. I often write how the church granted women property rights, and forbid cousin-marriage out to six or eight degrees, in order to make it more difficult for the clans to maintain consolidated property holdings and associated financial and political power, while at the same time making it easier for the church itself to acquire lands.

    But the forcible introduction of the myth and philosophy of Chivalry is as important to the development of the unique western character, in suppressing paternalism and tribalism, as the forcible implementation of property rights by the church.

    Humans have existed in excess since the advent of domestication of plants and animals. The germanic princes and their retinues were not as barbaric and predatory as secular fantasies argue. However, the militarism of the Carolingians and Vikings, and the power of the states that they constructed in western Europe were impossible for the trading states of the south, and the church to resist. So, just as the church had used its power of literacy and legitimacy to manage the Christian monarchs, they used the crusades and the myth of chivalry, to direct the energies of these professional warriors to productive ends.

    This ethic of chivalry conveyed status upon those who served christendom. It codified service of others as masculine. It could be obtained through demonstrated action, and spiritual reflection, as well as daily posturing, rather than the more expensive requirement of land holding, and was therefore more widely available to retinues. It also provided a code of conduct that the aspring classes could imitate, making the ethics pervasive.

    The need for commoners to rent land from land holders, participate as infantry, and to demonstrate their capacity for honorable hard work, before marriage and reproduction were possible, reinforced this set of chivalrous values – allowing laborers and craftsmen to also adopt the chivalrous ethic, and to demonstrate their status signals through conformity to it. THe corresponding delay of childbirth and consequential inclusion of women into the work force, as well as their possession of rudimentary property rights, worked along with suppression of the breeding of the lower classes to create the european universalist and commercial character.

    This code of chivalric conduct does not exist here in the east among the men. Service is immasculine. It violates the primary principle of manliness which is independence from external direction. Whether that external direction come from service to an employer or service to the commons – society.

    Manliness, and masculinity have not been hybridized. It is not even as mature here as it is among the peacock strutters of the mediterranean — even if it is less ignorant, brutal and barbaric than that of the Arabs, and less familial and hierarchical than that of the Asians. And while we will certainly argue that masculinity has been overly feminized in much of the west, so much so that lower class males are returning to their individualistic migratory roots, the ethic of masculinity through service remains — for now.

    There are a few lessons to be learned from this that westerners might want to remember:

    1) The church made what is unique about the west, and did so without monopoly powers of violence that are possessed by the current secular west.

    2) The west is unique for artificial reasons. it is not a natural social order. It was forcibly constructed by wit and wisdom due to the weakness of the church. Whereas the paternalistic orders in the rest of the world were forcibly constructed by violence.

    3) The west is unique because we were a small, weak, poor minority in the world who relied upon technology to compensate for our numbers, and property rights and the denial of centralized power to any and all. WE were lucky to inherit from the greeks the tool of reason which allows warriors to debate and science to develop. But it seems we are reversing our trend and denying our history.

    As for the Byzantines: without the church, I see no means of introducing chivalry into the civilization quickly, and we must hope that the commercial society eventually provides men with the incentives to build a high trust society of service like that of the west.

    Affections to all.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-11 13:55:00 UTC

  • TURKS I had forgotten how pleasant, intelligent and entrepreneurial these people

    TURKS

    I had forgotten how pleasant, intelligent and entrepreneurial these people are. Perhaps it is just this segment of the population, but they have honor. It’s beautiful.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-29 06:23:00 UTC

  • SACRED – “SACREDNESS” AS A COMMONS

    SACRED – “SACREDNESS” It is very hard to build the concept of ‘sacred’ into the values of a population. External threat, common strife, shared ambition, education, and indoctrination all can achieve it. Sacred concepts are a form of The Commons. They are a community property. And a community property, whether real land, built capital, formal institution, or cherished narrative, may be used by all, but not consumed by any. Conservatives invest in a large portfolio of such commons, and as such treat them as sacred. Conservatism is, by and large, a government of norms. It is intrinsically anarchic, but not intrinsically libertarian. And as such, ‘Sacredness’ is pervasive in conservative culture. Rothbardian Libertarians disavow the existence of a commons, other than the institution of property itself – a seeming contradiction. But the purpose of that denial is to forbid the existence of a state which must arbitrate the use of such commons. Hoppeian Libertarians restored the commons into libertarianism, while prohibiting any commons that consists of an organizations of human beings- thereby forbidding the existence of a state, while allowing for the existence of contractual, private government. Social democrats treat all property as a commons, and the means of distributing it as a commons. But they treat nothing as sacred other than the emotional predisposition to prevent harm and express care-taking. Sacredness is an act of self denial, and progressives avoid deprivation at all costs. As such, all forms of property other than the current-consensus for the purpose of reducing conflict, are absent. With that absence must also go the sacred. Under this analysis, Sacredness is not exclusive to conservatism. It is only that conservatism treats moral capital – forgoing opportunities, and building moral capital in the population – as of high value, Rothbardian libertarianism of little to none, and to progressives, an antithesis of their world view. This is somewhat confusing unless we take into account that those with predispositions toward libertarianism and progressivism are searching for experience and stimulation. While conservatives are searching for improving the excellence of established themes. This is why conservative art tends to be illustrative and progressive art tends to be experiential. Contrary to popular, studied, and academic belief, the debate as to whether the enormous power of fiat money eliminates the need for sacredness – forms of property we call norms which require self denial – is not over. Fiat money can be used Conservatism is not so much about the seen as unseen. Its pretense is a form of respect of the sacred. And the sacred consists of common property that they pay for with constant acts of self denial. Having paid this high price for the commons, it is no wonder why they object to the consumption of it by progressives, or the destruction of its institutions by Rothbardians.

  • SACRED – “SACREDNESS” It is very hard to build the concept of ‘sacred’ into the

    SACRED – “SACREDNESS”

    It is very hard to build the concept of ‘sacred’ into the values of a population. External threat, common strife, shared ambition, education, and indoctrination all can achieve it.

    Sacred concepts are a form of The Commons. They are a community property. And a community property, whether real land, built capital, formal institution, or cherished narrative, may be used by all, but not consumed by any.

    Conservatives invest in a large portfolio of such commons, and as such treat them as sacred. Conservatism is, by and large, a government of norms. It is intrinsically anarchic, but not intrinsically libertarian. And as such, ‘Sacredness’ is pervasive in conservative culture.

    Rothbardian Libertarians disavow the existence of a commons, other than the institution of property itself – a seeming contradiction. But the purpose of that denial is to forbid the existence of a state which must arbitrate the use of such commons.

    Hoppeian Libertarians restored the commons into libertarianism, while prohibiting any commons that consists of an organizations of human beings- thereby forbidding the existence of a state, while allowing for the existence of contractual, private government.

    Social democrats treat all property as a commons, and the means of distributing it as a commons. But they treat nothing as sacred other than the emotional predisposition to prevent harm and express care-taking. Sacredness is an act of self denial, and progressives avoid deprivation at all costs. As such, all forms of property other than the current-consensus for the purpose of reducing conflict, are absent. With that absence must also go the sacred.

    Under this analysis, Sacredness is not exclusive to conservatism. It is only that conservatism treats moral capital – forgoing opportunities, and building moral capital in the population – as

    Contrary to popular, studied, and academic belief, the debate as to whether the enormous power of fiat money eliminates the need for sacredness – forms of property we call norms which require self denial – is not over. Fiat money can be used

    Conservatism is not so much about the seen as unseen. Its pretense is a form of respect of the sacred. And the sacred consists of common property that they pay for with constant acts of self denial.

    Having paid this high price for the commons, it is no wonder why they object to the consumption of it by progressives, or the destruction of its institutions by Rothbardians.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-16 11:55:00 UTC

  • GREAT DIVERGENCE: CHINA “These immensely rich individuals not only failed to dev

    http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/clannish-dysgenics/THE GREAT DIVERGENCE: CHINA

    “These immensely rich individuals not only failed to develop a capitalistic system; they seldom if ever acquire that acquistive and competitive spirit which is the very soul of the capitalistic system.”

    I’m a big fan of HBD_chick’s effort to explore the relationship between mating patterns, culture, political economy, and economics.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-12 21:05:00 UTC