Correctly Apportions Responsibility for The Failure of The West https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/correctly-apportions-responsibility-for-the-failure-of-the-west/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 15:25:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265665458868555784
Oct 30, 2019, 10:31 PM ONCE YOU “C” IT YOU CAN’T UN”C” IT CULTURE The future is birthed from culture and nature. Culture defined as masculine and nature feminine. The divide IS this deep. It takes the interplay between each domain in positive feedback in order to produce outcomes better suited to cope with each sphere. Not only this; but because children (the future) are malleable {unlike the PAST <stop trying to fix that bit; it’s in the PAST} they will adapt to the environment mediated by the two interwoven parents. BUT (big but), because we are mal-adaptively adaptive [we make excuses for the animal; we justify suffering] we must constrain and control feedback from both culture and nature to be maximally adversarial without dipping into deeply traumatic [and we must be able to tell the difference between the two]. We must have constraint. CONSTRAINTS Boundaries, borders, boxes, branding; by and large allow for form and function to emerge. A world without constraint is maximally entropic. Non-existent. And the bucking of our constraints in the abstract (thought realms) have only made us upset about manifestation constrained by said constraints in the real-world; because pretending something doesn’t exist isn’t the same as it truly not existing. These are limits; moving past them only warps the fabric of reality in way unaccounted for; we eschew comprehensive and correspondent constraint at risk of dire consequence. We are witness to this now in the biological realm [the combination/meshing/blurring of masculine and feminine into something that is neither]. The hard constraints are where human beings ought to exercise some control. CONTROL Neither the left nor the right like control. Hell, animals don’t like to be controlled; they already have plenty of constraint; their limitations innate are infuriating enough on their own. Except they aren’t. We control territory (property), we control animals, we control our children, we control ourselves (emotions); we ought to be in control. Recently a loss of control is being lauded as brave and courageous. The only relation a loss of control has to bravery and courage is the landscape lacking control requires bravery and courage to overturn. Nobody likes telling a child that they must calm down; especially the children! BUT, we (adults)[father; culture] ought to know what’s good for them. Look, I empathize; nature (mother) has abused us and we rebelled by tempering her with culture (father); who in-turn insulated us from the love of our mother (as well as her devouring nature) so much so we crave her reappearance. But, just because we lack love doesn’t mean we ought to annihilate discipline. It’s the alternation between the two extremes; single mother-hood and single father-hood that is leaving children in their infantile state well beyond the years they ought to be. Which bring us to necessary complexity. COMPLEXITY Complexity is emergent via constraint and control through time. Complexity isn’t complicated it’s multi-variant and multi-faceted. A complex being holds the feminine and the masculine in balance. Uses each to the extent necessary in the domain that’s appropriate with expert timing and tact. What it means to be a transcendent human is to eschew (…better integrate) the animal impulses that drive you. That is a truly transcendent complex being; it’s a complexity (paradox) that only humans can hold; and many human animals seemingly can’t. We have an unhelpful crossing of domains; too many men acting like bitches in domains where bitching ought to get you pummeled. And to many women acting as tyrants as if they have the violent ability to enforce their preference on the rest of us; they DON’T. We have a hoard of hypocrites. Hypocrites that believe creativity is to deny the existent and operate as if it doesn’t exist in the very space in which it certainly does {denying reality}. This ISN’T creative {creativity stems and springs from emergent connection WITH nature NOT the denial of its existence} what you’re creating is destruction. CREATIVITY True creativity comes from allowing and synergistically coopting the emergent complexity arising from constraint and control. Why? Simply because you’re not fighting the very things that give you form and function. To rebel against the complexity of life; to revert to animal status and raise those animal instincts above the man is to relegate men back to animal company. Destruction NOT creation. A return to nature NOT a higher culture. Being creatively destructive isn’t exactly creation (production). Being creatively destructive can bring back the necessary landscape for creation (production), but this ought to be a last-ditch effort; one taken up when hope has been lost… and be wary, hope has been lost since before Obama; why do you think “Hope and Change” resonated with so many? Your creativity in a direction away from compatibility (individualism; atomization) is crippling our ability to complement each-other leaving us to converge in temperament and pursuit, eliminating dimorphism and specialization along with the gains that come from cohesion and cooperation. COMPATIBILITY Masculine integrated with the feminine; culture controlling nature; packs tempering the preference of the herds; law lending a landscape of love… Life is birthed of compatible optimally adversarial antagonistic forces; that force one another to improve in their domains yet still be desirable to the other. To become similar or much worse, the same; is to remove all the good we do each-other and relegate competition to the realm of consumption and resources. Compatibility allows for creativity in the complementary space; there are many more modes of success with a partner (family, community) than without; and to the extent we tool this place so this reality increasing becomes NOT the case, we do ourselves and humanity a disservice. We undermine the family unit for individual units and quite frankly kill the future before it is born at all. Which brings us to compliments. COMPLEMENTS Compatibility is one thing; complement is another. Because compatibility exists complements emerge. We combine as partners; constrained by biology, controlled by culture, infinitely complex in nature allowing us to be creative (adapt) in our complementary skills. We specialize in completing (complementing) our environments. The human environment mostly made up of human beings. As it is humans we deal with most often. Dimorphism and specialization NOT atomization (individualism) are the ways to prosperity. This “forces” the cohesion of man and women which provides a landscape of children to uphold future generations. COHESION Due to the nature of culture (patriarchy) as human nature (nurture; family) at scale; cohesion is needed to ensure children are loved and disciplined in a fashion so that this system of continual improvement can keep on keeping on. A culture that puts its future (children) ahead of its present (preference, typically “animal”) and doesn’t seek to rectify the past (what is dead) is ideal. Not because you shouldn’t indulge in what it means to be a human animal (because you should it’s part of thee ride) but because that ought not be your ultimate aim. It’s the pursuit NOT the happiness that is the genius behind the words in the American Declaration. And if the founding fathers understood what technology was coming around the bend {you may be thinking Facebook; but I’m thinking weaponized lying and justification of wants} they wouldn’t have worded that bit so ambiguously. Cohesion around the understanding that future flourishing is paramount if we’d like to continue this human experiment into perpetuity. Perpetuity being the ball you ought to keep your eye on. Children being the only thing that allow for its perpetuation. COOPERATION And here we are; at the beginning and the end. The Alpha and Omega. Cooperation; the emergent morality between living beings IS the end all be all of the human experiment. Maintaining a landscape of sovereignty solving for cooperation is optimal. It’s the ideal system of human interaction and it posits no aim but this: cooperation IS the optimum strategy for the living and forgoing cooperation (when able) for predation or parasitism is immoral (bad). The natural law of reciprocity ensures our cohesion expands beyond the realm of mating; that we continue to complement one another in every human realm and that we remain compatible. It posits that we create rather than destroy; that complex agents controlled by simple rules beat out simple agents following complicated rules 10 times out of 10; and that it’s our cultural constraints that allow our (any) culture to form and function… See once you see it you can’t unsee it.
Oct 30, 2019, 10:31 PM ONCE YOU “C” IT YOU CAN’T UN”C” IT CULTURE The future is birthed from culture and nature. Culture defined as masculine and nature feminine. The divide IS this deep. It takes the interplay between each domain in positive feedback in order to produce outcomes better suited to cope with each sphere. Not only this; but because children (the future) are malleable {unlike the PAST <stop trying to fix that bit; it’s in the PAST} they will adapt to the environment mediated by the two interwoven parents. BUT (big but), because we are mal-adaptively adaptive [we make excuses for the animal; we justify suffering] we must constrain and control feedback from both culture and nature to be maximally adversarial without dipping into deeply traumatic [and we must be able to tell the difference between the two]. We must have constraint. CONSTRAINTS Boundaries, borders, boxes, branding; by and large allow for form and function to emerge. A world without constraint is maximally entropic. Non-existent. And the bucking of our constraints in the abstract (thought realms) have only made us upset about manifestation constrained by said constraints in the real-world; because pretending something doesn’t exist isn’t the same as it truly not existing. These are limits; moving past them only warps the fabric of reality in way unaccounted for; we eschew comprehensive and correspondent constraint at risk of dire consequence. We are witness to this now in the biological realm [the combination/meshing/blurring of masculine and feminine into something that is neither]. The hard constraints are where human beings ought to exercise some control. CONTROL Neither the left nor the right like control. Hell, animals don’t like to be controlled; they already have plenty of constraint; their limitations innate are infuriating enough on their own. Except they aren’t. We control territory (property), we control animals, we control our children, we control ourselves (emotions); we ought to be in control. Recently a loss of control is being lauded as brave and courageous. The only relation a loss of control has to bravery and courage is the landscape lacking control requires bravery and courage to overturn. Nobody likes telling a child that they must calm down; especially the children! BUT, we (adults)[father; culture] ought to know what’s good for them. Look, I empathize; nature (mother) has abused us and we rebelled by tempering her with culture (father); who in-turn insulated us from the love of our mother (as well as her devouring nature) so much so we crave her reappearance. But, just because we lack love doesn’t mean we ought to annihilate discipline. It’s the alternation between the two extremes; single mother-hood and single father-hood that is leaving children in their infantile state well beyond the years they ought to be. Which bring us to necessary complexity. COMPLEXITY Complexity is emergent via constraint and control through time. Complexity isn’t complicated it’s multi-variant and multi-faceted. A complex being holds the feminine and the masculine in balance. Uses each to the extent necessary in the domain that’s appropriate with expert timing and tact. What it means to be a transcendent human is to eschew (…better integrate) the animal impulses that drive you. That is a truly transcendent complex being; it’s a complexity (paradox) that only humans can hold; and many human animals seemingly can’t. We have an unhelpful crossing of domains; too many men acting like bitches in domains where bitching ought to get you pummeled. And to many women acting as tyrants as if they have the violent ability to enforce their preference on the rest of us; they DON’T. We have a hoard of hypocrites. Hypocrites that believe creativity is to deny the existent and operate as if it doesn’t exist in the very space in which it certainly does {denying reality}. This ISN’T creative {creativity stems and springs from emergent connection WITH nature NOT the denial of its existence} what you’re creating is destruction. CREATIVITY True creativity comes from allowing and synergistically coopting the emergent complexity arising from constraint and control. Why? Simply because you’re not fighting the very things that give you form and function. To rebel against the complexity of life; to revert to animal status and raise those animal instincts above the man is to relegate men back to animal company. Destruction NOT creation. A return to nature NOT a higher culture. Being creatively destructive isn’t exactly creation (production). Being creatively destructive can bring back the necessary landscape for creation (production), but this ought to be a last-ditch effort; one taken up when hope has been lost… and be wary, hope has been lost since before Obama; why do you think “Hope and Change” resonated with so many? Your creativity in a direction away from compatibility (individualism; atomization) is crippling our ability to complement each-other leaving us to converge in temperament and pursuit, eliminating dimorphism and specialization along with the gains that come from cohesion and cooperation. COMPATIBILITY Masculine integrated with the feminine; culture controlling nature; packs tempering the preference of the herds; law lending a landscape of love… Life is birthed of compatible optimally adversarial antagonistic forces; that force one another to improve in their domains yet still be desirable to the other. To become similar or much worse, the same; is to remove all the good we do each-other and relegate competition to the realm of consumption and resources. Compatibility allows for creativity in the complementary space; there are many more modes of success with a partner (family, community) than without; and to the extent we tool this place so this reality increasing becomes NOT the case, we do ourselves and humanity a disservice. We undermine the family unit for individual units and quite frankly kill the future before it is born at all. Which brings us to compliments. COMPLEMENTS Compatibility is one thing; complement is another. Because compatibility exists complements emerge. We combine as partners; constrained by biology, controlled by culture, infinitely complex in nature allowing us to be creative (adapt) in our complementary skills. We specialize in completing (complementing) our environments. The human environment mostly made up of human beings. As it is humans we deal with most often. Dimorphism and specialization NOT atomization (individualism) are the ways to prosperity. This “forces” the cohesion of man and women which provides a landscape of children to uphold future generations. COHESION Due to the nature of culture (patriarchy) as human nature (nurture; family) at scale; cohesion is needed to ensure children are loved and disciplined in a fashion so that this system of continual improvement can keep on keeping on. A culture that puts its future (children) ahead of its present (preference, typically “animal”) and doesn’t seek to rectify the past (what is dead) is ideal. Not because you shouldn’t indulge in what it means to be a human animal (because you should it’s part of thee ride) but because that ought not be your ultimate aim. It’s the pursuit NOT the happiness that is the genius behind the words in the American Declaration. And if the founding fathers understood what technology was coming around the bend {you may be thinking Facebook; but I’m thinking weaponized lying and justification of wants} they wouldn’t have worded that bit so ambiguously. Cohesion around the understanding that future flourishing is paramount if we’d like to continue this human experiment into perpetuity. Perpetuity being the ball you ought to keep your eye on. Children being the only thing that allow for its perpetuation. COOPERATION And here we are; at the beginning and the end. The Alpha and Omega. Cooperation; the emergent morality between living beings IS the end all be all of the human experiment. Maintaining a landscape of sovereignty solving for cooperation is optimal. It’s the ideal system of human interaction and it posits no aim but this: cooperation IS the optimum strategy for the living and forgoing cooperation (when able) for predation or parasitism is immoral (bad). The natural law of reciprocity ensures our cohesion expands beyond the realm of mating; that we continue to complement one another in every human realm and that we remain compatible. It posits that we create rather than destroy; that complex agents controlled by simple rules beat out simple agents following complicated rules 10 times out of 10; and that it’s our cultural constraints that allow our (any) culture to form and function… See once you see it you can’t unsee it.
A summary essay of the book, The Origins of English Individualism: https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/a-summary-essay-of-the-book-the-origins-of-english-individualism/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:50:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265505666648739840
Nov 19, 2019, 2:39 PM A summary essay of the book, The Origins of English Individualism: Family Property and Social Transition, by Alan Macfarlane, professor of social anthropology and historical anthropology at Cambridge university from 1975-2006. —by Lisa Outhwaite “…one of the most thoroughly investigated of all peasantries in history turns out to be not a peasantry at all. The classical example of the transition of a “feudal”, peasant-based society into a new, capitalist, system turns out to be a deviant case”. The general point made is the refutation of previous claims of English life prior to the 16th Century being predominantly that of a peasantry (here defined as land ownership and property rights generally being held by the family and extended kin and not the individual, with a general lack of social mobility or capitalist economy).
Inheritance was subject to a will and not birth-right laws.
Children did not work as a collective family unit and left home, often marrying late.
Households were predominantly nuclear, with little evidence of multiple married couples sharing the same dwelling (typical for collectivist societies).
Marriage tended to be later.
In 13th Century England, single women, married women and widows all had very considerable property rights as individual persons.
In the period prior to the Black Death up to half the adult population were primarily hired labourers, which is incompatible wth notions of a peasant economy.
The exchange of labour services for cash was widespread by the middle of the 12th Century.
Production was often for exchange rather than personal use.
Strong evidence of individual mobility, in marked distinction to typical peasant societies.
“Evidence for this re-assessment comes primarily from local and legal records. It is based on what happened in particular villages and the nature of the law. It reveals a picture of a social and economic structure greatly at variance even with what we know of most of continental countries in the 19th Century, let alone Asian or other peasantries.” Travel diaries of the time made frequent comment on the peculiar system in England with its absence of communities, family ties etc. Montesquieu observed in 1729 that England “hardly resembles the rest of Europe” Other writers commented on the peculiar independence, individuality and freedom of the English. The primary comparative historians of the 19th Century stress the differences between the legal, economic and social structure of medieval England. Only in England was the concept of indivisible, individually held, private property present by the 13th Century. A difference which made England “wholly exceptional in Europe”.
Nov 19, 2019, 2:39 PM A summary essay of the book, The Origins of English Individualism: Family Property and Social Transition, by Alan Macfarlane, professor of social anthropology and historical anthropology at Cambridge university from 1975-2006. —by Lisa Outhwaite “…one of the most thoroughly investigated of all peasantries in history turns out to be not a peasantry at all. The classical example of the transition of a “feudal”, peasant-based society into a new, capitalist, system turns out to be a deviant case”. The general point made is the refutation of previous claims of English life prior to the 16th Century being predominantly that of a peasantry (here defined as land ownership and property rights generally being held by the family and extended kin and not the individual, with a general lack of social mobility or capitalist economy).
Inheritance was subject to a will and not birth-right laws.
Children did not work as a collective family unit and left home, often marrying late.
Households were predominantly nuclear, with little evidence of multiple married couples sharing the same dwelling (typical for collectivist societies).
Marriage tended to be later.
In 13th Century England, single women, married women and widows all had very considerable property rights as individual persons.
In the period prior to the Black Death up to half the adult population were primarily hired labourers, which is incompatible wth notions of a peasant economy.
The exchange of labour services for cash was widespread by the middle of the 12th Century.
Production was often for exchange rather than personal use.
Strong evidence of individual mobility, in marked distinction to typical peasant societies.
“Evidence for this re-assessment comes primarily from local and legal records. It is based on what happened in particular villages and the nature of the law. It reveals a picture of a social and economic structure greatly at variance even with what we know of most of continental countries in the 19th Century, let alone Asian or other peasantries.” Travel diaries of the time made frequent comment on the peculiar system in England with its absence of communities, family ties etc. Montesquieu observed in 1729 that England “hardly resembles the rest of Europe” Other writers commented on the peculiar independence, individuality and freedom of the English. The primary comparative historians of the 19th Century stress the differences between the legal, economic and social structure of medieval England. Only in England was the concept of indivisible, individually held, private property present by the 13th Century. A difference which made England “wholly exceptional in Europe”.
Nov 19, 2019, 7:32 PM by Greg Hamilton Westerners project when we think about others and religion. We are basically the only people with guilt. (Internal pre-policing of behavior based on it being “wrong”) Everyone else is only concerned with the shame of being discovered. Any study of religion or morals that only studies the west or only sees or through a western lens is seriously flawed
CD: This one is so true it scared me.
Nov 19, 2019, 7:32 PM by Greg Hamilton Westerners project when we think about others and religion. We are basically the only people with guilt. (Internal pre-policing of behavior based on it being “wrong”) Everyone else is only concerned with the shame of being discovered. Any study of religion or morals that only studies the west or only sees or through a western lens is seriously flawed
CD: This one is so true it scared me.
Nov 30, 2019, 2:56 PM
—“In the west it’s ” it’s not whether you win or lose it’s how you play the game”. In the East ” it’s not how you play the game it’s whether you win or lose”.”—George McJule
Nov 30, 2019, 2:56 PM
—“In the west it’s ” it’s not whether you win or lose it’s how you play the game”. In the East ” it’s not how you play the game it’s whether you win or lose”.”—George McJule