Some men want prophets, some poets, some law givers, and some scientists. the question is why one would want one or the other. why does the individual and the market demand each?
prophets (false promise),
poets (possibilities),
law givers (prohibitions),
scientists (opportunities and limits).
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-18 11:24:00 UTC
—“Well jewish novelty seeking and female novelty seeking are the same, right? I think men are heroism seeking.”—
These two directions exploit different opportunities.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-17 03:40:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085743651559489536
—“Well jewish novelty seeking and female novelty seeking are the same, right? I think european men are heroism seeking.”—
These two directions exploit different opportunities.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-16 22:40:00 UTC
A Short Video Course in Human Self Domestication
Or, “It’s Just Neoteny, Stupid.” The principle difference between the macro, major, and minor races, is the degree of neoteny due to the rate and depth of maturity. Otherwise it is the developmental difference in the female (herd) or male (pack) brain structure. Videos
A Short Video Course in Human Self Domestication
Or, “It’s Just Neoteny, Stupid.” The principle difference between the macro, major, and minor races, is the degree of neoteny due to the rate and depth of maturity. Otherwise it is the developmental difference in the female (herd) or male (pack) brain structure. Videos
THE DEEPEST INSIGHT
–“Seeing the world without the need for a moralistic overlay, since the morality is indelibly in my heart already (and for those who lack it, it can’t be taught), and the truth is enough.”–
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-16 12:37:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085516389899821057
THE DEEPEST INSIGHT
–“Seeing the world without the need for a moralistic overlay, since the morality is indelibly in my heart already (and for those who lack it, it can’t be taught), and the truth is enough.”–
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-16 07:37:00 UTC
Yes, conservatives(empiricists) have a higher level of disgust sensitivity. Conservatives are the population’s means of detecting and purging harm – the white blood cells of the social order and polity. Progressives (consumptivists) have low sensitivity to disgust, but high demand for consumption, novelty, experience, and fear of being ‘left behind’.
That does not mean that our disgust sensitivity is always right. It means that we must test whether than harm actually exists by propertarian means.
Obviously in pedophilia it does. In homosexuality, other than keeping it out of the commons, I don’t see how it does.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 12:34:00 UTC
AGENCY AND INTENTIONALITY
by Bill Joslin
(important concept)(core) (comments by CurtD)
Test of Agency does not require intention (i.e. it’s not a synonym for free-will).
Agency, in the context of biological and chemistry does not imply or require intentionality. i.e. “The active agent in soap is lye”
This might clarify why the sociological definition of Agency, that being an actor’s ability to act outside of influences of Structure, is flawed (it presumes intentionality exists as a necessary component of agency i.e. acts of free will unfettered by structure)
My stance regarding agency is simply this:
***…the ability to cause an effect….***
(CurtD: Traditional definition of power, is “the ability to alter the probability of outcomes.”)
In this context, structural influences can be the very means by which agency emerges and increases (rather then being distinguished apart from it)
From here: the issue we are discussing when discussing limitations to agency within a sociology context relates to other actors (individual or institutional) which act in opposition to other agents.
Thus my definition of AUTONOMY as being free from imposition upon one’s agency BY OTHER ACTORS. (Rather then natural or structural limitations to agency).
Intentionality remains a subset of agency in this regards. Not a necessary component.
(CurtD: Via Positiva Agency and Via Negativa Autonomy produce market competition for action. Intention (subjective value) is not relevant to the facts of ones agency and one’s autonomy)
For example: in law intention is not the primary means by which guilt is established. There are circumstances where intention is not relevant i.e. manslaughter, criminal neglect etc.
(CurtD: In law we test for due diligence and liability and intent to commit a crime only tangentially. In other words we separate the TRUTH (due diligence and liability), from what is MORAL (intent).)
So for instance, the impact on society from a low IQ cohort is not a matter of lacking agency, but rather that their aggregate agency constitutes a net negative – their combined effect being a result of their agency, regardless of intentionality or deliberateness of their actions- no agency, no effect – no intentionality yet the effect remains.
(CurtD: people do not need to intend harm to cause harm. When they cause harm by lack of due diligence, or intent, then THEY are to blame. But if they lack the AGENCY then WE are to blame for not constraining the harm that they can do.)
It’s is precisely because of their agency that we seek constraints. Why? Because their agency imposes upon other actors resulting in a net drain on the agency of the group as a whole…. Thus autonomy being the measure of decidability.
Why is this important?
Because for laws, social norms etc, we are constructing structural limitations upon agents, to constrain their effects from being damaging (regardless of whether they intend it or not).
In other words we are addressing their agency, their ability to cause an effect – regardless of their intentional choice.
So how do these structural constraints NOT constitute an imposition upon their agency? 1) via negativa 2) not compelled.
You are free to break the law (act outside the constraint) but not free from the consequences. The potential to act remains un-imposed upon. This is very different than imposing upon agency to prevent the acts from taking place. I.e. compelled behaviour. Compelled behavior being a defining quality of dystopian nightmares.
Now extrapolated this to our current situations of sin taxes, compelled speech laws, deplatforming etc. These are all forms of prescriptive application of structural constraints i.e. impositions upon agency…
(CurtD: this is the difference between moral blame and criminal blame, and humans being what we are, conflate ‘wrongness’ of different sorts, and blame of different persons when we sense ‘wrongness’. Then as we are perpetual victims of our tendency for conflation we use terms with specific meaning (moral, lawful, truthful, logical, reasonable etc to load and frame rather than to deflate and test.)
-Bill Joslin
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 11:57:00 UTC
WORDS IN RUSSIAN BUT NOT IN ENGLISH TELL US A LOT ABOUT RUSSIAN EMOTIONAL NORMATIVITY
1. Poshlost
Russian-American writer Vladimir Nabokov, who lectured on Slavic Studies to students in America, admitted that he couldn’t translate this word, which every Russian easily understands.
What is poshlost (пошлость)? Nabokov gives the following example: “Open any magazine and you’ll certainly find something like this – a family just bought a radio (a car, a refrigerator, silverware, it doesn’t matter), and the mother is clapping her hands, mad with joy, the children gathered around her with their mouths agape; the baby and the dog are leaning towards the table on which the `idol’ has been hoisted… a bit to the side victoriously stands the father, the proud breadwinner. The intense “poshlosity” of such a scene comes not from the false exaggeration of the dignity of a particular useful object, but from the assumption that the greatest joy can be bought and that such a purchase ennobles the buyer.”
“This word includes triviality, vulgarity, sexual promiscuity and soullessness,” added the late Professor Svetlana Boym from Harvard University.
2. Nadryv
German Wikipedia has an entire article dedicated to the word nadryv (надрыв). This is a key concept in the writings of Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky. The word describes an uncontrollable emotional outburst, when a person releases intimate, deeply hidden feelings.
Moreover, Dostoevsky’s nadryv implies a situation in which the protagonist indulges in the thought that he can find in his soul something that may not even exist. That’s why the nadryv often expressed imaginary, excessively exaggerated and distorted feelings. One part of the novel, Brothers Karamazov, is called “Nadryvs.”
3. Khamstvo
Soviet émigré writer Sergei Dovlatov wrote about this phenomenon in the article “This Untranslatable Khamstvo,” commenting that “Khamstvo is nothing other than rudeness, arrogance and insolence multiplied by impunity.”
In Dovlatov’s view, it’s with impunity that khamstvo (хамство) outright kills us. It’s impossible to fight it; you can only resign yourself to it. “I’ve lived in this mad, wonderful, horrifying New York for ten years and am amazed by the absence of khamstvo. Anything can happen to you here, but there’s no khamstvo. You can be robbed but no one will shut the door in your face,” added the writer.
4. Stushevatsya
Some linguists believe stushevatsya (стушеваться) was introduced by Fyodor Dostoevsky, who used it for the first time in a figurative sense in his novella, The Double. This word means to be less noticeable, go to the background, lose an important role, noticeably leave the scene, become confused in an awkward or unexpected situation, become meek.
5. Toska
This Russian word can be translated as “emotional pain,” or “melancholy,” but this does not transmit all of its depth. Vladimir Nabokov wrote that, “Not one word in English can transmit all the nuances of toska (тоска). This is a feeling of spiritual suffering without any particular reason. On a less dolorous level, it’s the indistinct pain of the soul…vague anxiety, nostalgia, amorous longing.”
6. Bytie
This word comes from the Russian byt'(to exist). In Russian-English dictionaries this philosophical concept is translated as “being.” However, bytie (бытие) is not just life or existence, it’s the existence of an objective reality that is independent of human consciousness (cosmos, nature, matter).
7. Bespredel
Eliot Borenstein, professor of Slavic Studies at New York University, explains that bespredel (беспредел) literally means “without restrictions or limits.” Translators often use “lawlessness” (bezzakonie). In Russian, however, the meaning of bespredel is much broader, and refers to the behavior of a person who violates not only the law, but also moral and social norms.
8. Avos’
It’s rather difficult to explain to people of other nationalities what this means. Interestingly, many people believe that avos’ (авось) is the main Russian national trait. Hoping for the avos’ means doing something without planning, without putting in much effort, counting on success.
9. Yurodivy
Yurodivy: Russian ‘Umberto Eco’ demystifies the Holy Fool
Yurodivys (юродивые) in ancient Rus’ were people who voluntarily renounced earthly pleasures in the name of Christ. Such people looked like madmen, and led a wandering lifestyle with the aim of obtaining inner peace and defeating the root of all sin – pride. They were valued and were considered close to God. Their opinions and prophecies were taken into consideration and they were even feared.
10. Podvig
This word is often translated into English as “feat” or “achievement,” but it has other meanings. Podvig (подвиг) is not just a result, or the achievement of an objective; it’s a brave and heroic act, an action performed in difficult circumstances. Russian literature often mentions military, civilian podvigs and even scientific podvigs. Moreover, this word is a synonym for selfless acts, for example, a podvig in the name of love.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-14 07:26:00 UTC