—“How is the “killer app” of seeking truth an “accidental discovery?” You just assert that? Lots of this quality of so-called accidents originate in the West. Evolutionary trait? Great read, thank you.”—SmashCulturalMarxism
1 – This is a great question.
A (a) genetic cause, (b) geographic cause (c) competitive cause, (d) technological clause, (e) institutional cause, or (f) consequence of one or more of the above?
2 – There are very clear factors: geography, production, competition, technology.
3 – The open question is genetics. Are we cause or consequence of circumstances? Or are we the product of it? Or both?
4 – I suspect that it’s “all of the above”. But the fact remains, we did.
5 – Just because we invented truth it mean others can’t adopt it? (Maybe.)
All civilizations that survived ‘the great transformation’ from tribes and bands to collections of them (cities and tech or resistance to cities and tech) retained their traditions and norms (strategies) of prior state. And are a bit ‘frozen’ in that model.
River valleys concentrated production, produced surpluses, and could be ruled by a concentrated force because of it. Ranchers and farmers less so. Steppe and desert could not concentrate capital. Jungles could not make it happen because of predators and disease.
If we look at the history of man as attached to bodies of water, and then the means of survival around their body of water, we see that they all developed the necessary traditions to do so. Including social, political, economic, and military.
So ‘whites’ started out as farmers and cattle raiders. Like piracy, this is a very ‘entrepreneurial’ social order. With the advent of bronze, wheel, and horse, families could pool resources and invest in the entrepreneurship of cattle raiding
Concentration of capital occurred at the entrepreneurial level, and wasn’t possible to concentrate at the top. Production was entrepreneurial and distributed. But took metalsmithing, and agrarian production, and organization for competitiveness.
But like raiding, piracy, viking, exploring, this process remained entrepreneurial. And the battle tactics (Ooda Loops) which remain the west’s tactics today, (maneuver, and combined arms), required adherence to contract (loyalty) to the plans, even if that put one at risk.
The long history of ‘reporting’ (speaking empirically in matters of war) spread through the entire social fabric for obvious reasons: access to entrepreneurship opportunities, or participating in them in a division of labor. From there everything follows. Debate, reason, science.
No other people were able to ‘freeze’ their strategy as such. We are in the process, as under christianity, of the second attack on our strategy. (truth)
Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response
-
“It’s almost certain that people who have devoted themselves to self-honesty and
—“It’s almost certain that people who have devoted themselves to self-honesty and self-observation have an above average chance of meeting with incomprehension, irritation, censorship or boredom when they try to share the data from their own minds frankly.”— -
“It’s almost certain that people who have devoted themselves to self-honesty and
—“It’s almost certain that people who have devoted themselves to self-honesty and self-observation have an above average chance of meeting with incomprehension, irritation, censorship or boredom when they try to share the data from their own minds frankly.”—
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-07 21:43:00 UTC
-
(I wish every endorsement would make that single, most important, point. -Thank
(I wish every endorsement would make that single, most important, point. -Thank you. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-07 18:20:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/938835740989018113
Reply addressees: @Daylonism @DataDistribute
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/938667927061929984
IN REPLY TO:
@Hermeus_Amer
@DataDistribute So just more precise language? I recommend @curtdoolittle and his way of speaking about tradition in economic terms.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/938667927061929984
-
Curt Is On 30 Day Ban For His Anti-Racist Anti-Pedophile Post, And The (((Submitter))) Was A Stalker.
From Curt: Here is the argument the post made: – Despite all the attributions of pedophilia to different groups, the truth is that all groups demonstrate it. It’s not group specific. – All asymmetry of power between the sexes is bad no matter what the age. – In general the AGE/2,+7 Rule Tests for Asymmetry. – But that rule applies where economies, knowledge, and institutions have made such limits possible. In other societies age differences are a factor of practical economics, practical retention of lands and assets, and practical survival. – Ergo we must all conduct voluntary trades. The question is always (which is my main message) whether reciprocity has been provided or not. Now, was that same message written in “language the hard right would understand?” Yes. Because you speak to people in their own language if you want to RESPECT THEM. I treat the right with RESPECT. I treat anyone who argues ratio-scientifically with me, with respect, and I treat anyone who doesn’t, with disrespect. Because the only possible means of reciprocity in debate, is RATIO-SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT. Unfortunately, the average FB editor neither has the time nor the ability to understand anything above sixth grade level. -
Curt Is On 30 Day Ban For His Anti-Racist Anti-Pedophile Post, And The (((Submitter))) Was A Stalker.
From Curt: Here is the argument the post made: – Despite all the attributions of pedophilia to different groups, the truth is that all groups demonstrate it. It’s not group specific. – All asymmetry of power between the sexes is bad no matter what the age. – In general the AGE/2,+7 Rule Tests for Asymmetry. – But that rule applies where economies, knowledge, and institutions have made such limits possible. In other societies age differences are a factor of practical economics, practical retention of lands and assets, and practical survival. – Ergo we must all conduct voluntary trades. The question is always (which is my main message) whether reciprocity has been provided or not. Now, was that same message written in “language the hard right would understand?” Yes. Because you speak to people in their own language if you want to RESPECT THEM. I treat the right with RESPECT. I treat anyone who argues ratio-scientifically with me, with respect, and I treat anyone who doesn’t, with disrespect. Because the only possible means of reciprocity in debate, is RATIO-SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT. Unfortunately, the average FB editor neither has the time nor the ability to understand anything above sixth grade level. -
Untitled
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-06 21:38:00 UTC
-
love you man 😉
love you man 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-06 17:38:00 UTC
-
Untitled
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-06 16:20:00 UTC
-
Argumentation Ethics, Dialectic, Piplul (Lying)
Argumentation Ethics = Pilpul > Dialectic > Obscurantism + Suggestion + Redaction + Fiction > Fictionalism (conflation) > abrahamism > marxism-postmodernism. – Argumentation and non-contradiction originate in legal justification post-cooperation, not in constraints prior to cooperation. The first question of cooperation is ‘why don’t I kill you and take your stuff’, and only once we enter into an agreement do we justify our words and deeds within that agreement – thereby relying upon internal consistency (non-contradiction). Prior to that fact, no cooperation and nor moral constraint exists – it is only desired. Moreover, the logic of cooperation is not binary. We live in an amoral world of violence, theft, conspiracy and deception, and while we can construct cooperation, we construct cooperation at will given the costs and returns. And our choices at any time are to: (a) preserve the options of violence, theft, deception and conspiracy until opportunity avails to use it, (b) agree not to aggress but not to cooperate either (c) cooperate when useful preserving future opportunity for cooperation (d) cooperate whenever possible, expecting the same, (e) cease any level of cooperation and retreat to a prior level. So, contradiction is a test for a judge in matters of dispute resolution. It is not a necessary property of cooperation. We can test violations of reciprocity (cooperation) during disputes but no such dependence upon internal consistency exists prior to establishing a agreement (contract) for cooperation.