The practice of stoicism (the western version of mindfulness) improves one’s chances of achieving agency – by deconflating the experience of reality, without adding error, religion(prayer), mysticism(buddhism), pseudoscience(new age), or disutility(ritualism) all of which produce mindfulness but do not necessarily improve agency.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 19:05:00 UTC
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 18:48:00 UTC
MUST-READ: ON SPECTRUM OF AGENCY DEMONSTRATED BY USE OF TESTIMONY BY BILL JOSLIN —-“Thoughts that might be worth exploring ->Qualification to acquire membership in a class based on demonstrated agency affords commensurability in assessing worthiness.
MUST-READ: ON SPECTRUM OF AGENCY DEMONSTRATED BY USE OF TESTIMONY BY BILL JOSLIN —-“Thoughts that might be worth exploring ->Qualification to acquire membership in a class based on demonstrated agency affords commensurability in assessing worthiness.
—“Aristocracy defined on the foundation of agency gives me chills (heroic call to action)”— Bill Joslin
Aristocracy: the search for, breeding and rearing of, humans: those post-homo-sapiens, who possess agency, and who therefore may create a condition of sovereignty.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 16:31:00 UTC
WHAT DOES ‘AGENCY’ MEAN?
“In social science, agency is the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices.”
in practical terms it is an attempt by social scientists to find another name for the (heavily tainted, if not entirely polluted, and therefore unusable) term ‘free will’.
Wiki is your friend:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(sociology)
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 15:55:00 UTC
YES, WOMEN ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY FROM MEN
(because they behave differently from men)
Kimberley O’Brien: —“Men are treated differently than women. I named the areas within which equality need happen. You’re triggered, angry, for no reason related to me.”—-
Yes women are treated with material privilege at all times but treated with suspicion of loyalty and agency at all times. Which again, you demonstrate.
Women are demonstrably less loyal, destroy each other in the workplace, hen peck for advancement, readily make use of manipulation in the work place, are less empirical, less theoretical, and less neutral in decision making, and are widely unwanted as managers by both sexes.
The evidence is that women are relatively poor empirical executives but can be successful relationship executives (customer relations). At the limits of ability almost without exception, worldwide, in every single theatre and discipline, men outperform women dramatically, simply because at the higher end, the ratio of competent men, who area also loyal, neutral, and empirical is so high as to make women by and large statistically insignificant. By the data on intelligence alone, we should never see women raise above the single digits in the most demanding of roles in society.
in fact, when women are placed in executive roles it is because it is easier to find a woman who will manage a company through failure, or when in board roles what we see is women as a luxury good who adds value only in consumer products where women are the majority customer base.
All of this occurs even before the recognition that women prefer a wider array of ‘goods’ in their lives, and are less likely to specialize, and demonstrate behavioral side effects, choose the cushiest and lowest risk jobs leaving the high risk to males, thereby pushing males out of the middle ‘cushy’ workplace, into the higher competitive top, more stressful and strenuous lower, and most risky lowest jobs – which of course, no feminist ever accounts for. Because women are creatures of selfishness that never extends beyond their children. And men are creatures of the tribe whose selfishness extends at least to that distance.
These are just facts. I have not only followed the research and findings for decades, but run my own companies, and consulted for hundreds more, and the data is the same: women gather information from people better, and men interpret empirical information better, and decide better neutrally, and manage better neutrally. Why? we have infinitely less emotional baggage in our decision making.
A baggage which you demonstrate.
And willfully ignore.
And then lie about.
This is the LOYAL, NEUTRAL, EMPIRICAL, TRUTH.
WHich is why you fear it.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 15:11:00 UTC
https://propertarianism.com/2014/09/28/the-evolution-of-cooperation/SCARCITY AND THE CURRENCY OF AFFECTION FOR THE OTHER
..
Ultimately it is our mortality that gives us a meaningful sense of time. The fact that life will end for all of us, and its reality is ever present as a probability percentage, no matter how low or high.
..
(Affection and some of its forms: Compassion, Empathy, Nurture, Respect, etc.)
..
Given this inescapable biological truth, and without entertaining transhumanism, we must acknowledge that while our time is limited so too is our capacity to extend affection to the Other. At first glance this may appear to be radically insignificant, but its implications are vast and stand in stark contrast to the dangerous ideas of our day. I put emphasis on the word “dangerous” because when an ideological framework insists that any human emotion, burdened by the very real constraints of biology, are somehow infinitely unrestricted, it necessarily creates expectations that will forever be unrealized and guide human behavior irresponsibly. In the same way, I may plant 50 carrot seeds and expect an infinite number of carrots to yield, without respect to how long carrots take to grow, or conditions which carrots require, then I have failed to construct expectations which conform to biological reality and simultaneously succeeded in deluding myself about the nature of carrots.
..
When we acknowledge that our affection exists in limited supply, or at least our capacity to express it, we can begin to ask more implicative questions.
..
Who deserves or is entitled to my affection? How many people can I afford to give affection to at any one time? Is my affection given freely without respect to the actions of the Other? Can one be more or less deserving of my affection? Can unconditional affection have a sensible context? Do we give affection in degrees based on the values of the Other?
..
An examination of those questions gives rise to the reality that if we value the Other, our affection must have a value of its own, and its value must be inextricably linked to who we bother giving affection to in the first place.
..
We must never forget that the context of affection has always been cooperation, and that cooperation has been the only successful means at organizing civilization. Affection is a critical mechanism of cooperation, and like any valuable currency, should be budgeted wisely. How are you spending your affection? Your empathy? Your compassion? Your respect? Are you going broke? Are you investing for the future?
..
To learn more about cooperation:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=382099852163689&id=100010910319967
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 15:00:00 UTC
American culture is reducible to ‘other people you consume with’ in order to continue to build an artificial self image through acquisition.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 14:54:00 UTC
MUST-READ: ON SPECTRUM OF AGENCY DEMONSTRATED BY USE OF TESTIMONY BY BILL JOSLIN
—-“Thoughts that might be worth exploring ->
Qualification to acquire membership in a class based on demonstrated agency affords commensurability in assessing worthiness.
Demonstrate the degree one lives by their own agency dictates which class they belong (vertically) regardless of horizontal class (much talk with Joel on this in January)
Testimonialism forces one to “demonstrate due diligence in speaking truthfully”. But this can also be stated as “demonstrating the degree of agency (due diligence) one has invested in the speech act (truthfulness).
This adds a new “moral” level to testimonialism – in that one can communicate a testimonial truth which they have invested only the time it took to memorize it without any personal agency in developing it(low agency)…. one can speak a testimonial truth another developed but has invested their agency into understanding it (mid agency)… or one can speak a testimonial proof which one has developed on their own (the proof stands as a demonstration of their agency).(posts on cognitive self ownership)”—– Bill Joslin
Now lets look at that last paragraph again:
This adds a new “moral” level to testimonialism –
LOW AGENCY
One can communicate a testimonial truth which they have invested only the time it took to memorize it without any personal agency in developing it….
or
MIDDLE AGENCY
One can speak a testimonial truth another developed but has invested their agency into understanding it…
or
AGENCY
One can speak a testimonial proof which one has developed on their own (the proof stands as a demonstration of their agency).(posts on cognitive self ownership)
Agency of the youth, the adult, and the wise.
-Curt
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 11:05:00 UTC