(FB 1553441775 Timestamp) IN CASE YOU MISSED IT … FRAMES OF PEOPLES (important) (read this) Continental vs Scandinavian vs Anglo thought, (vs Latin and Orthodox thought for that matter). —“It’s just been a challenge suggesting to [Curt] that declarative constructs are not how morality is actually processed.”–Josh Jeppson It’s not how it’s processed. I agree. Its however how it is CALCULATED. (a) this is forever going to be a debate between occult semitic supernatural, the continental(german) phenomenalistic and the scientific (scandinavian) anglo, and as far as I know tells us nothing other than the amount of time under semitic (church) influence (rule) and the demand for obedience between island (scandinavian/athenian naval security), and territorial (germanic/spartan army vulnerability), or the imperial (Roman Anglo/Germanic-American power confidence) (b) So the demand for Scientific Rules of Dispute resolution (American), Conformity of Values(Scandinavian), and Conformity of Thought value and deed (German), is determined by the environment for certain. By habituation (tradition) over time out of consequence. By genetics over longer time by rates of reproduction and eugenic suppression. (c) And while we EVOLVE a system to satisfy that demand (cheap law of engineering, more expensive law of norms, and very expensive law of thought word and deed), the system of rules one implements need not be limited to the means under which it evolved, any more than reason, measurement (math) and science (testimony) need be limited to those who evolved it. (d) My understanding is that one writes law (science) by calculation, one teaches norms (public experience) by imitation of rules, and one indoctrinates into thoughts (education) by parable. ie: Specific Formulae, General Rules, Loose Parables. (e) we develop ‘values’ in response to internal trust and external security. These are adaptations. A russian, a Pole, an Italian, a Frenchman, a German, a Dane, an Anglo, an Australian, and an American develop values suited to our condition. However, we assumed these are CHOSEN, and we assume their method of communication must be non-rational. Neither is true.
Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553441775 Timestamp) IN CASE YOU MISSED IT … FRAMES OF PEOPLES (important) (read this) Continental vs Scandinavian vs Anglo thought, (vs Latin and Orthodox thought for that matter). —“It’s just been a challenge suggesting to [Curt] that declarative constructs are not how morality is actually processed.”–Josh Jeppson It’s not how it’s processed. I agree. Its however how it is CALCULATED. (a) this is forever going to be a debate between occult semitic supernatural, the continental(german) phenomenalistic and the scientific (scandinavian) anglo, and as far as I know tells us nothing other than the amount of time under semitic (church) influence (rule) and the demand for obedience between island (scandinavian/athenian naval security), and territorial (germanic/spartan army vulnerability), or the imperial (Roman Anglo/Germanic-American power confidence) (b) So the demand for Scientific Rules of Dispute resolution (American), Conformity of Values(Scandinavian), and Conformity of Thought value and deed (German), is determined by the environment for certain. By habituation (tradition) over time out of consequence. By genetics over longer time by rates of reproduction and eugenic suppression. (c) And while we EVOLVE a system to satisfy that demand (cheap law of engineering, more expensive law of norms, and very expensive law of thought word and deed), the system of rules one implements need not be limited to the means under which it evolved, any more than reason, measurement (math) and science (testimony) need be limited to those who evolved it. (d) My understanding is that one writes law (science) by calculation, one teaches norms (public experience) by imitation of rules, and one indoctrinates into thoughts (education) by parable. ie: Specific Formulae, General Rules, Loose Parables. (e) we develop ‘values’ in response to internal trust and external security. These are adaptations. A russian, a Pole, an Italian, a Frenchman, a German, a Dane, an Anglo, an Australian, and an American develop values suited to our condition. However, we assumed these are CHOSEN, and we assume their method of communication must be non-rational. Neither is true.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553454750 Timestamp) Crowns are for the valiant — sceptres for the bold! Throne and power for mighty men who dare to take and hold. Gold is for the mistress — silver for the maid — Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade. Tears are for the craven, prayers are for the clown — Halters for the silly neck that cannot keep a crown. Wounds are for the desperate, blows are for the strong. Balm and oil for weary hearts all cut and bruised with wrong. Good! said the Baron sitting in his hall, For Iron — Cold Iron — is master of them all. by Kipling. (Edited for clarity. 😉 )
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553454750 Timestamp) Crowns are for the valiant — sceptres for the bold! Throne and power for mighty men who dare to take and hold. Gold is for the mistress — silver for the maid — Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade. Tears are for the craven, prayers are for the clown — Halters for the silly neck that cannot keep a crown. Wounds are for the desperate, blows are for the strong. Balm and oil for weary hearts all cut and bruised with wrong. Good! said the Baron sitting in his hall, For Iron — Cold Iron — is master of them all. by Kipling. (Edited for clarity. 😉 )
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553459077 Timestamp) US population density is only an asset as long as there is sufficient food, water, and power to sustain it.
-
(FB 1553520688 Timestamp) By Michael D Abbott (crossing the line into literature
(FB 1553520688 Timestamp) By Michael D Abbott (crossing the line into literature an archetypes)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553626495 Timestamp) —“I follow American renaissance and they canât figure why we do not demonstrate in group preference to the degree other so. — Philip Clark Philip, this is a good question. Because it is not a single cause, but a group of environmental causes that produced greater ‘evolution’ in our race (subspecies) than others. I can narrow down to these three groups of causes: Genetic Population Scarcity Bias (Possible?) Neoteny Bias (Certain) Homogeneity bias. (certain) Time under Eugenic Pressure (certain) Socio Political Time under Cold Weather bias (certain) Time under Agrarianism bias (certain) Time under Tripartism Time under Sovereignty (Aristocratic Egalitarianism) (likely) Time under micro-corporatism/manorialism (certain) Strategic The Rise and Fall of the Empire, and resulting expansion. The Plague(s) Commercial bias (certain) Time under own and in “Power” Bias (likely) Christianity Bias (approaching certain) ((())) Alien Bias in the 20th+ Century. A small homogenous population that survives the ice age is dependent upon one another for self defense, that must work together to divide labor to weather winters, that practices eugenics in every direction.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553543874 Timestamp) David Carr —“Curt, I would like to draw your attention to a historical curiosity. Some time between 600 and 800 AD all the nations that comprised Western Civilization at the time gave up their unique writing systems and accepted an “innovation” from Holy Rome that replaced the traditional legends of symbols with a phonetic reaction ethic. This appears to have given us an edge in the realm of creative daring, at the expense of societal cohesion and discipline as a social standard.”— Um. This is an false narrative. The Futhark was an invention in response to other writing systems, sometime after 300. We do not know where it originated. There are stories of migration of leaders from the caucuses. But trade was common and it come from general contact. It is most similar to Linear B, early Greek, and Etruscan – though simplified for carving. It’s less similar to Roman, Phoenician, or Cuneiform, which were for writing (roman, phoenician), or stamping in clay (cuneiform) more so than carving. Latin and Greek were the written language of literate peoples. And remained so until printing, with german literature dating back to the Carolingian period (700). The vocabulary and ideas in greek and latin, vocabulary and ideas in french, and vocabularies and ideas in german were as tehy are today, vocabulary and ideas of the classes. I disagree with your position. The reason they remain ‘cohesive’ is because they have not been invaded, and are too far behind the curve of adoption of modernity. —Societies that retain their legends of symbols (Hebrew, Arabic, every Asian language, etc) do not have our modern problems. They remain fairly cohesive, avoid suicidal ideologies, generally operate as societies. Might it be time to return to our roots, and establish a Legend of symbols within the Anglophone paradigm?”— you call chinese and arabic peoples cohesive? indian? No, they are just backward. We are in the lead, we experiment. we adapt, and sometimes we adapt poorly. This time, it’s because of semitic influence just like it was in the imperial period.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553626495 Timestamp) —“I follow American renaissance and they canât figure why we do not demonstrate in group preference to the degree other so. — Philip Clark Philip, this is a good question. Because it is not a single cause, but a group of environmental causes that produced greater ‘evolution’ in our race (subspecies) than others. I can narrow down to these three groups of causes: Genetic Population Scarcity Bias (Possible?) Neoteny Bias (Certain) Homogeneity bias. (certain) Time under Eugenic Pressure (certain) Socio Political Time under Cold Weather bias (certain) Time under Agrarianism bias (certain) Time under Tripartism Time under Sovereignty (Aristocratic Egalitarianism) (likely) Time under micro-corporatism/manorialism (certain) Strategic The Rise and Fall of the Empire, and resulting expansion. The Plague(s) Commercial bias (certain) Time under own and in “Power” Bias (likely) Christianity Bias (approaching certain) ((())) Alien Bias in the 20th+ Century. A small homogenous population that survives the ice age is dependent upon one another for self defense, that must work together to divide labor to weather winters, that practices eugenics in every direction.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553543874 Timestamp) David Carr —“Curt, I would like to draw your attention to a historical curiosity. Some time between 600 and 800 AD all the nations that comprised Western Civilization at the time gave up their unique writing systems and accepted an “innovation” from Holy Rome that replaced the traditional legends of symbols with a phonetic reaction ethic. This appears to have given us an edge in the realm of creative daring, at the expense of societal cohesion and discipline as a social standard.”— Um. This is an false narrative. The Futhark was an invention in response to other writing systems, sometime after 300. We do not know where it originated. There are stories of migration of leaders from the caucuses. But trade was common and it come from general contact. It is most similar to Linear B, early Greek, and Etruscan – though simplified for carving. It’s less similar to Roman, Phoenician, or Cuneiform, which were for writing (roman, phoenician), or stamping in clay (cuneiform) more so than carving. Latin and Greek were the written language of literate peoples. And remained so until printing, with german literature dating back to the Carolingian period (700). The vocabulary and ideas in greek and latin, vocabulary and ideas in french, and vocabularies and ideas in german were as tehy are today, vocabulary and ideas of the classes. I disagree with your position. The reason they remain ‘cohesive’ is because they have not been invaded, and are too far behind the curve of adoption of modernity. —Societies that retain their legends of symbols (Hebrew, Arabic, every Asian language, etc) do not have our modern problems. They remain fairly cohesive, avoid suicidal ideologies, generally operate as societies. Might it be time to return to our roots, and establish a Legend of symbols within the Anglophone paradigm?”— you call chinese and arabic peoples cohesive? indian? No, they are just backward. We are in the lead, we experiment. we adapt, and sometimes we adapt poorly. This time, it’s because of semitic influence just like it was in the imperial period.