P-DECIDABILTY IS A DANGEROUS IDEA! by Duke Newcomb This decidability is a dangerous idea. If the you-know-whos were to figure out the stuff we talk about and what we really mean, they’d SHUT IT DOWN! Decidability may be more of an antipode to parasitism than reciprocity. A decidable institution could hit such an escape velocity that it would shake off or burn off parasites along the way. It could not just counter the small hats’ group strategy as enforced reciprocity does, it could foreclose on its use. Perhaps that’s wishful thinking on my part, but mein Gott, this idea seems highly radioactive and long half-lived.
Form: Mini Essay
-
—“Can I Write a 1000 Page Novel Today?”—
Oct 25, 2019, 9:16 PM
- It’s economically unwise at present to write a 900 page novel. It is much better to break it into three books, and edit to provide rewards for the reader at the end of each.
It is extremely difficult to accumulate sufficient life experience to provide character, plot, and environmental novelty (entertainment) for 900 pages. That’s why people don’t do it – they can’t.
The current trend is simply ‘more’ characters, plots, etc in an effort to move beyond the exhausted 90-min plot lines, that books were written for, in the hope that they would be optioned as scripts.
To answer the question, I would need to understand the plot, theory, or experiment you’re trying in the book, the number of characters, and maybe a few of their story arcs.
Authors you might know: RRMartin (Can I reverse the good vs evil exhausted plot line through continuous character development using epic character arcs over a long period of time, written for teens, and young adult heroes with adult subject matter,). Rowling ( can I reach a young adult or teen audience, with a stereotypical boy’s adventure, written from a girl’s perspective and voice, played by a boy to to maximize my book sales, using one year of schooling at a time, where the character grows with the audience and books are released in parallel to the audience’s growth.) Stephenson (Cryptonomicon: can I write the seminal work of the Cyberpunk era, combining Ludlum’s thriller, King’s Characters, Tom Clancy’s scale, tech entrepreneur life in the dot com boom, And in doing so explain the the history of cryptography across generations, construction of the world banking and economic system, and how it could change in the future, shifting the world power balance. Maybe gibson was more influential, but Stephenson wrote the canon literature of that era.) Eddings (can I merge with wizard of earthsea, pohl’s ‘scientific magic’, and tolkien’s epic wars between civilizations, and do the characters well enough to get a away with it and not be called a hack? Add a hundred other copycats using the formula after him here….) King (It, the Stand – most of his books – Can I weave an entire village , an enormous cast of characters, into an epic of mythic consequence mystery and scale, and succeed with most of the characters by producing an backstory, dialog, and character arc the audience will empathize with despite so many of them you need a score card to keep track. I mean, the stand is a dark sci fi attempt at Tolkein’s epic. We should note that while King does manage to produce some archetypal characters in a novel context he failed in the stand to achieve his goal of maintaining character empathy, and audience interests, for the duration.) Rand (Atlas Shrugged can I write a play that the reader will empathize with, that creates a middle class heroic mythos of creative excellence, where the characters represent political archetypes, instead of writing another work of philosophy that will be ignored? (it worked despite cutout characters. Not as clear as plato’s socrates, but she did it.) ) Tolkien (Can I create the largest most detailed alternate world ever tried by the reconstruction of the tradition of anglo saxon, germanic, proto-germanic european, mythos as a means of exploring ancient tongues. Can I write an anglo saxon world we would be desperate to live in, because we sense it is more moral than the world we live in today? Don’t over analyze Tolkien. ). Michner: (can I learn about and teach history of different areas of the world by weaving long intergenerational family stories over many generations with interesting plots with strong characters instead of writing a history book or set of biographies – and will that sell to readers? Absolutely.) Gone With The Wind … (The experience of the entirety of the civil war in the south?) War And Peace (the experience of the entirety of the napoleonic invasion of russia and leave a lasting memory of it as a monument? Yes.) Don Quixote (Can I write a homeric epic of equal meaning, and greater tragedy because modernity traded knowledge and prosperity yes, but destroyed chivalry, honor, nobility – and his idealism is considered insane and useless in the face of modernity. You get the point. What are you going to deliver in 900 pages of novel that is novel, and novel enough to hold the reader’s attention when his or her attention is competing with every other demand for his or her attention? What do you have to offer? I wish I could get people to write write an overview of their plot (a theory of the book), then some back story. then some character backstories. Then write a few SCENES. So then you can immerse yourself in a world and weave your way through it because you have enough to work with that you won’t just imagine the most recent stereotypical thing you encountered. Try to write the skeleton of the story while inspired, in just one to t three weeks. Even if you just throw it away. Then pick scenes that you feel inspired to work with. You will find that you will create anchors, and then ask “why would my characters get from A to B”. Research. Fill your head with whatever your character’s head would be filled with in the circumstance. then your writing won’t be trite. If you sit down and try to daydream a novel you will create precisely nothing novel.
-
—“Can I Write a 1000 Page Novel Today?”—
Oct 25, 2019, 9:16 PM
- It’s economically unwise at present to write a 900 page novel. It is much better to break it into three books, and edit to provide rewards for the reader at the end of each.
It is extremely difficult to accumulate sufficient life experience to provide character, plot, and environmental novelty (entertainment) for 900 pages. That’s why people don’t do it – they can’t.
The current trend is simply ‘more’ characters, plots, etc in an effort to move beyond the exhausted 90-min plot lines, that books were written for, in the hope that they would be optioned as scripts.
To answer the question, I would need to understand the plot, theory, or experiment you’re trying in the book, the number of characters, and maybe a few of their story arcs.
Authors you might know: RRMartin (Can I reverse the good vs evil exhausted plot line through continuous character development using epic character arcs over a long period of time, written for teens, and young adult heroes with adult subject matter,). Rowling ( can I reach a young adult or teen audience, with a stereotypical boy’s adventure, written from a girl’s perspective and voice, played by a boy to to maximize my book sales, using one year of schooling at a time, where the character grows with the audience and books are released in parallel to the audience’s growth.) Stephenson (Cryptonomicon: can I write the seminal work of the Cyberpunk era, combining Ludlum’s thriller, King’s Characters, Tom Clancy’s scale, tech entrepreneur life in the dot com boom, And in doing so explain the the history of cryptography across generations, construction of the world banking and economic system, and how it could change in the future, shifting the world power balance. Maybe gibson was more influential, but Stephenson wrote the canon literature of that era.) Eddings (can I merge with wizard of earthsea, pohl’s ‘scientific magic’, and tolkien’s epic wars between civilizations, and do the characters well enough to get a away with it and not be called a hack? Add a hundred other copycats using the formula after him here….) King (It, the Stand – most of his books – Can I weave an entire village , an enormous cast of characters, into an epic of mythic consequence mystery and scale, and succeed with most of the characters by producing an backstory, dialog, and character arc the audience will empathize with despite so many of them you need a score card to keep track. I mean, the stand is a dark sci fi attempt at Tolkein’s epic. We should note that while King does manage to produce some archetypal characters in a novel context he failed in the stand to achieve his goal of maintaining character empathy, and audience interests, for the duration.) Rand (Atlas Shrugged can I write a play that the reader will empathize with, that creates a middle class heroic mythos of creative excellence, where the characters represent political archetypes, instead of writing another work of philosophy that will be ignored? (it worked despite cutout characters. Not as clear as plato’s socrates, but she did it.) ) Tolkien (Can I create the largest most detailed alternate world ever tried by the reconstruction of the tradition of anglo saxon, germanic, proto-germanic european, mythos as a means of exploring ancient tongues. Can I write an anglo saxon world we would be desperate to live in, because we sense it is more moral than the world we live in today? Don’t over analyze Tolkien. ). Michner: (can I learn about and teach history of different areas of the world by weaving long intergenerational family stories over many generations with interesting plots with strong characters instead of writing a history book or set of biographies – and will that sell to readers? Absolutely.) Gone With The Wind … (The experience of the entirety of the civil war in the south?) War And Peace (the experience of the entirety of the napoleonic invasion of russia and leave a lasting memory of it as a monument? Yes.) Don Quixote (Can I write a homeric epic of equal meaning, and greater tragedy because modernity traded knowledge and prosperity yes, but destroyed chivalry, honor, nobility – and his idealism is considered insane and useless in the face of modernity. You get the point. What are you going to deliver in 900 pages of novel that is novel, and novel enough to hold the reader’s attention when his or her attention is competing with every other demand for his or her attention? What do you have to offer? I wish I could get people to write write an overview of their plot (a theory of the book), then some back story. then some character backstories. Then write a few SCENES. So then you can immerse yourself in a world and weave your way through it because you have enough to work with that you won’t just imagine the most recent stereotypical thing you encountered. Try to write the skeleton of the story while inspired, in just one to t three weeks. Even if you just throw it away. Then pick scenes that you feel inspired to work with. You will find that you will create anchors, and then ask “why would my characters get from A to B”. Research. Fill your head with whatever your character’s head would be filled with in the circumstance. then your writing won’t be trite. If you sit down and try to daydream a novel you will create precisely nothing novel.
-
I Know What Bothers You About My Work.
I KNOW WHAT BOTHERS YOU ABOUT MY WORK. —” I don’t propose a good, or a preference. I state a truth, and I state it prosecutorially, as natural law, that is not open to choice or dispute. Why? The Victorians civilized greek prose in continuation of their virtue signalling by overextension of christianity to justify their conquest. The marxists, feminist, postmodernists, and denialists took advantage of our kindness. They took advantage of our virtue signaling. Conservatives failed to resist them, Libertarians only resisted them in the economy, and science has only now falsified them. And they have sought to achieve by immigration and conflict I don’t make the same mistake. I don’t write appealing theology you want. I don’t write appeals empathically in moral philosophy to suggest. I don’t write empathic and rational appeals in secular philosophy to persuade. I write the law. The natural law. The only terms under which cooperation and compromise are preferable to conquest. I’m stating the only terms under which it is rational for us NOT to conquer, rule, tax, enserf, or enslave you, or worse. Europeans are done asking. They’re done tolerating. They’re done hoping. Science is proving us correct in human differences, just as it proved us correct in economics; just as it has proved us correct in politics. These are the terms of non conflict. And honestly, we are hoping you don’t accept them. You owe us 100M lives. I hope you are are ready to pay the debt. “—
-
I Know What Bothers You About My Work.
I KNOW WHAT BOTHERS YOU ABOUT MY WORK. —” I don’t propose a good, or a preference. I state a truth, and I state it prosecutorially, as natural law, that is not open to choice or dispute. Why? The Victorians civilized greek prose in continuation of their virtue signalling by overextension of christianity to justify their conquest. The marxists, feminist, postmodernists, and denialists took advantage of our kindness. They took advantage of our virtue signaling. Conservatives failed to resist them, Libertarians only resisted them in the economy, and science has only now falsified them. And they have sought to achieve by immigration and conflict I don’t make the same mistake. I don’t write appealing theology you want. I don’t write appeals empathically in moral philosophy to suggest. I don’t write empathic and rational appeals in secular philosophy to persuade. I write the law. The natural law. The only terms under which cooperation and compromise are preferable to conquest. I’m stating the only terms under which it is rational for us NOT to conquer, rule, tax, enserf, or enslave you, or worse. Europeans are done asking. They’re done tolerating. They’re done hoping. Science is proving us correct in human differences, just as it proved us correct in economics; just as it has proved us correct in politics. These are the terms of non conflict. And honestly, we are hoping you don’t accept them. You owe us 100M lives. I hope you are are ready to pay the debt. “—
-
Consciousness Does Not Demarcate Man from Animal – Agency Does
CONSCIOUSNESS DOES NOT DEMARCATE MAN FROM ANIMAL – AGENCY DOES
—“We seem to have this intuition that we are more than mere animals. What’s your take on this, Curt?”–Josh Gonzalez
Can you ask that a little more precisely? My point is that consciousness and agency are different things, and the point of demarcation between human and animal appears to be agency not consciousness. There are many humans that are still largely animal, and without domestic training are no better than any other farm animal. There are others that with very little training continuously develop agency. Western civlization is organized to recursively produce agency, in order to increase the numbers of the aristocratic noble, and middle classes (those with agency). Western civilization is not organized to preserve lack of agency – That’s judaism, christianity and islam. The failure of the jews to accomplish anything other than parasitism before conversion to aristotelianism, the christians to accomplish anything other than dark agees, and cathedrals that drained the economy, and the muslims the destruction of five great civilizations of the ancient world like cancer in human form. The Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese are right to insulate. The Europeans are right to domesticate. The europeans should also insulate. The africans have done nothing we can blame them for, except being outside of trade routes. THe persians may or may not be lost. The christians have converted christianity into a germanic folk religion(finally). The world faces only one remaining cancer, and that is abrahamism in jewish undermining, and islamic destruction. Otherwise Eurasian and African People are united in working for a better world for all.
-
Consciousness Does Not Demarcate Man from Animal – Agency Does
CONSCIOUSNESS DOES NOT DEMARCATE MAN FROM ANIMAL – AGENCY DOES
—“We seem to have this intuition that we are more than mere animals. What’s your take on this, Curt?”–Josh Gonzalez
Can you ask that a little more precisely? My point is that consciousness and agency are different things, and the point of demarcation between human and animal appears to be agency not consciousness. There are many humans that are still largely animal, and without domestic training are no better than any other farm animal. There are others that with very little training continuously develop agency. Western civlization is organized to recursively produce agency, in order to increase the numbers of the aristocratic noble, and middle classes (those with agency). Western civilization is not organized to preserve lack of agency – That’s judaism, christianity and islam. The failure of the jews to accomplish anything other than parasitism before conversion to aristotelianism, the christians to accomplish anything other than dark agees, and cathedrals that drained the economy, and the muslims the destruction of five great civilizations of the ancient world like cancer in human form. The Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese are right to insulate. The Europeans are right to domesticate. The europeans should also insulate. The africans have done nothing we can blame them for, except being outside of trade routes. THe persians may or may not be lost. The christians have converted christianity into a germanic folk religion(finally). The world faces only one remaining cancer, and that is abrahamism in jewish undermining, and islamic destruction. Otherwise Eurasian and African People are united in working for a better world for all.
-
Reproduction: History is unkindly truthful.
History is unkindly truthful. About 30% of women are undesirable and fit only for labor. About 70% of men are undesirable and fit only for labor. What’s not obvious is that by the continuous production of eugenics in europe, we drastically reduced undesirable men and women, producing a majority genetic middle class, such that monogamy, the nuclear family, and property, were possible – even if some of us remained poor due to limited agrarian opportunity – making possible the colonial expansion using reserves of the genetic middle class. Y’all take this miracle of western civlization for granted. Now if we apply eugenics to the lower classes, filter out the intolerable, problematic, costly, and unproductive and keep pace with automation, and if we return to an emphasis on physical fitness, manners, and norms, we can hopefully restore the ‘desirability’ of enough men and women to restore demand for the family as the compromise between the genders. But if not we’re gonna return to the poverty of the rest of the world – a world that within one or two generations might just return to starvation.
-
Reproduction: History is unkindly truthful.
History is unkindly truthful. About 30% of women are undesirable and fit only for labor. About 70% of men are undesirable and fit only for labor. What’s not obvious is that by the continuous production of eugenics in europe, we drastically reduced undesirable men and women, producing a majority genetic middle class, such that monogamy, the nuclear family, and property, were possible – even if some of us remained poor due to limited agrarian opportunity – making possible the colonial expansion using reserves of the genetic middle class. Y’all take this miracle of western civlization for granted. Now if we apply eugenics to the lower classes, filter out the intolerable, problematic, costly, and unproductive and keep pace with automation, and if we return to an emphasis on physical fitness, manners, and norms, we can hopefully restore the ‘desirability’ of enough men and women to restore demand for the family as the compromise between the genders. But if not we’re gonna return to the poverty of the rest of the world – a world that within one or two generations might just return to starvation.
-
No, What Threatens Islam Is Low Status, Truth, Reciprocity, Markets, Meritocracy, and Eugenics that Result
NO, WHAT THREATENS ISLAM IS LOW STATUS, TRUTH, RECIPROCITY, MARKETS, MERITOCRACY, AND EUGENICS THAT RESULT
—“Nothing threatens Islamic extremists in the West more than a Christian identity that revolves around family, authentic values and principles. They love what the Left promotes: no genders, no identity, and total confusion. They use that as a vehicle to take over and gain power.”—Imam of Peace @Imamofpeace
What threatens islam is low status, b/c the terms by which one finds value in the self(obedience), and pretense of value to others(conformity), and means of advocacy (lying) is destructive, vs the value of western rule of law, truth before face, real productivity for reputation. Islam tried to solve the problem of pervasive corrupt tribal paternity with an equality in ignorance, respect, obedience, and poverty regardless of productivity. This meant success by stealing (conquest) and taxing (trade), but a failure to develop food, law, truth, tech, trade. The result was an exhaustion of the accumulated genetic, resource, intellectual, cultural, artistic capital of every great civilization of the ancient world, as each successive gene pool collapsed under the weight of a massive, ignorant, illiterate, unproductive, underclass. When the European Age of Sail eliminated the ability to ‘free ride’ on world trade, keeping the rest of the world as backward as islam, the world circumvented the islamic world and let it fall into natural productivity without european agrarian (balkan) food, or world trade. The greatest casualty for the west was Iran, and the loss of the Persian people into the catastrophe of islam, instead of following the indian and european peoples into modernity, and prosperity. Unfortunately, islam was attracted to the false promise of Jewish marxism (again). And western attempts to prevent the expansion of marxism – as economically destructive to people as islam was genetically, intellectually, and culturally – into the islamic world have failed, and islamic fundamentalism has returned as the alternative to marxism – …. … with the same tactics: sell false comfort to the underclass, who will then recruit neighboring underclasses, and destroy western and indian civilization as islam has destroyed north african, egyptian, byzantine, levantine, persian, civilizations. But genetic decline within. The chinese, japanes, and koreans are fully aware of the cancer of the abrahamic religions of judaism to undermine, christianity to weaken, and islam to destroy. The west has converted christianity into a germanic folk religion and destroyed the political church. All that remains: copy the Chinese, buy putting a wall around islam and letting muslims either reform or starve, rather than, like cancer, consume the other peoples by continuing the process of destruction of heroism and excellence, truth and duty, law, and merit in production.