Oct 30, 2019, 10:36 AM As in all things there is no paradox, just an open question, no paradoxes exist. One can falsify the fermi question. It is falsifiable.We have failed to falsify it. One cannot disprove, only fail to provide a proof of possibility in an axiomatic system like mathematics, and reality is a theoretic system, not axiomatic. At present it is falsifiable, un-falsified, and undecidable, and therefore all we can say is that “we don’t know yet”. The most obvious reasons are: 1 – Technological (EMR is a primitive technology) 2 – Differences are such that we would be of no trading (cooperative) value; interfering would only create a competitor; and it is too early for a colonization effort to have reached us given the recent development of EMR broadcasting. 3 – Time and distance window of opportunity 4 – We are in a calm location between arms, in a calm (dying) galaxy, and have had long enough period of growth to ‘bake’ in necessary conditions 5 – I am concerned that the spinning liquid iron core of our planet that creates its defensive field is rarer than we imagine, and as such it is much harder for life to have time to bake. taken to the extreme, the question may be, now many planets can survive four to five billion years, in a safe rural area of a galaxy, in the habitable (water) zone, while maintaining a spinning liquid iron core?
Form: Mini Essay
-
There Is No Fermi Paradox
Oct 30, 2019, 10:36 AM As in all things there is no paradox, just an open question, no paradoxes exist. One can falsify the fermi question. It is falsifiable.We have failed to falsify it. One cannot disprove, only fail to provide a proof of possibility in an axiomatic system like mathematics, and reality is a theoretic system, not axiomatic. At present it is falsifiable, un-falsified, and undecidable, and therefore all we can say is that “we don’t know yet”. The most obvious reasons are: 1 – Technological (EMR is a primitive technology) 2 – Differences are such that we would be of no trading (cooperative) value; interfering would only create a competitor; and it is too early for a colonization effort to have reached us given the recent development of EMR broadcasting. 3 – Time and distance window of opportunity 4 – We are in a calm location between arms, in a calm (dying) galaxy, and have had long enough period of growth to ‘bake’ in necessary conditions 5 – I am concerned that the spinning liquid iron core of our planet that creates its defensive field is rarer than we imagine, and as such it is much harder for life to have time to bake. taken to the extreme, the question may be, now many planets can survive four to five billion years, in a safe rural area of a galaxy, in the habitable (water) zone, while maintaining a spinning liquid iron core?
-
Belief and Profession of It, Are Almost Always Lies
Nov 1, 2019, 12:58 PM I do not know what you believe. I cannot know. I can only determine judge you by your actions. If you testify to an un-testifiable belief, then you can only lie. If you lie then you have a reason to lie. I can only seek to discover the reason you lie. I cannot distinguish a profession of belief in an un-testifiable lie, from any other lie. Belief is irrelevant. Either you imitate thew works of jesus or you are just another liar, fraud, and thief. Keep a diary of the actions you make in the service of others for no other reason than the love of others, and the cost to you for having done so. If it is not an action, is not in the services of others, is not in the service of other by your personal service to them, then you are a liar and a liar, fraud, and thief, and your claims of Christianity are no different from wearing the uniform of those who did service, when you have not done so, a pretending to equal their honor. No. You are just a free-rider. A parasite on other’s labors. A free rider on those few christians who exist, just as a free rider on those few warriors that exist. A christian ACTS. Profession of belief, and belief are irrelevant.
-
Belief and Profession of It, Are Almost Always Lies
Nov 1, 2019, 12:58 PM I do not know what you believe. I cannot know. I can only determine judge you by your actions. If you testify to an un-testifiable belief, then you can only lie. If you lie then you have a reason to lie. I can only seek to discover the reason you lie. I cannot distinguish a profession of belief in an un-testifiable lie, from any other lie. Belief is irrelevant. Either you imitate thew works of jesus or you are just another liar, fraud, and thief. Keep a diary of the actions you make in the service of others for no other reason than the love of others, and the cost to you for having done so. If it is not an action, is not in the services of others, is not in the service of other by your personal service to them, then you are a liar and a liar, fraud, and thief, and your claims of Christianity are no different from wearing the uniform of those who did service, when you have not done so, a pretending to equal their honor. No. You are just a free-rider. A parasite on other’s labors. A free rider on those few christians who exist, just as a free rider on those few warriors that exist. A christian ACTS. Profession of belief, and belief are irrelevant.
-
So Yeah, It’s Actually True that Europeans Are Genetically Superior. so Now What?
Nov 10, 2019, 4:47 PM
—“Recent research not only confirms the existence of substantial psychological variation around the globe but also highlights the peculiarity of many Western populations. We propose that part of this variation can be traced back to the action and diffusion of the Western Church, the branch of Christianity that evolved into the Roman Catholic Church. Specifically, we propose that the Western Church’s transformation of European kinship, by promoting small, nuclear households, weak family ties, and residential mobility, fostered greater individualism, less conformity, and more impersonal prosociality. By combining data on 24 psychological outcomes with historical measures of both Church exposure and kinship, we find support for these ideas in a comprehensive array of analyses across countries, among European regions, and among individuals from different cultural backgrounds.”—
Correct, which is what Emmanuel Todd has said for three decades and what HBD-Chick specializes in. Now, the reason the church did this was purely evil: so that it could break up the large landholding families and gradually acquire the land, so that by the end of the high middle ages, half the land in europe, and half the capital was dead, and the surpluses were being used to build cathedrals etc (20% of gdp in particular). So the way to look at it is, that he church failed as a political force, and t failed to build ‘corporate europe’ but in doing so in parallel with aristocratic Manorialism, they created a genetic meat grinder for familism, creating our high tolerance and high pro-sociality. Now, the argument is that this is (a) an existing northern european disposition, (b) exacerbated by the church and (c) brought to fruition by manorialism, which (d) eventually reacted against church corruption, producing protestantism, and the conversion of christianity into a folk religion (non-institutional) and therefore ending the Byzantine conquest of roman empire, and subsequent conquest of europe. So, now that we know we’re genetically unique and SUPERIOR, then how do we preserve those millennia of capital inheritance.
-
So Yeah, It’s Actually True that Europeans Are Genetically Superior. so Now What?
Nov 10, 2019, 4:47 PM
—“Recent research not only confirms the existence of substantial psychological variation around the globe but also highlights the peculiarity of many Western populations. We propose that part of this variation can be traced back to the action and diffusion of the Western Church, the branch of Christianity that evolved into the Roman Catholic Church. Specifically, we propose that the Western Church’s transformation of European kinship, by promoting small, nuclear households, weak family ties, and residential mobility, fostered greater individualism, less conformity, and more impersonal prosociality. By combining data on 24 psychological outcomes with historical measures of both Church exposure and kinship, we find support for these ideas in a comprehensive array of analyses across countries, among European regions, and among individuals from different cultural backgrounds.”—
Correct, which is what Emmanuel Todd has said for three decades and what HBD-Chick specializes in. Now, the reason the church did this was purely evil: so that it could break up the large landholding families and gradually acquire the land, so that by the end of the high middle ages, half the land in europe, and half the capital was dead, and the surpluses were being used to build cathedrals etc (20% of gdp in particular). So the way to look at it is, that he church failed as a political force, and t failed to build ‘corporate europe’ but in doing so in parallel with aristocratic Manorialism, they created a genetic meat grinder for familism, creating our high tolerance and high pro-sociality. Now, the argument is that this is (a) an existing northern european disposition, (b) exacerbated by the church and (c) brought to fruition by manorialism, which (d) eventually reacted against church corruption, producing protestantism, and the conversion of christianity into a folk religion (non-institutional) and therefore ending the Byzantine conquest of roman empire, and subsequent conquest of europe. So, now that we know we’re genetically unique and SUPERIOR, then how do we preserve those millennia of capital inheritance.
-
A summary essay of the book, The Origins of English Individualism:
Nov 19, 2019, 2:39 PM A summary essay of the book, The Origins of English Individualism: Family Property and Social Transition, by Alan Macfarlane, professor of social anthropology and historical anthropology at Cambridge university from 1975-2006. —by Lisa Outhwaite “…one of the most thoroughly investigated of all peasantries in history turns out to be not a peasantry at all. The classical example of the transition of a “feudal”, peasant-based society into a new, capitalist, system turns out to be a deviant case”. The general point made is the refutation of previous claims of English life prior to the 16th Century being predominantly that of a peasantry (here defined as land ownership and property rights generally being held by the family and extended kin and not the individual, with a general lack of social mobility or capitalist economy).
- Ample evidence for frequent land ownership transference outside of the family group in the 13th century.
Inheritance was subject to a will and not birth-right laws.
Children did not work as a collective family unit and left home, often marrying late.
Households were predominantly nuclear, with little evidence of multiple married couples sharing the same dwelling (typical for collectivist societies).
Marriage tended to be later.
In 13th Century England, single women, married women and widows all had very considerable property rights as individual persons.
In the period prior to the Black Death up to half the adult population were primarily hired labourers, which is incompatible wth notions of a peasant economy.
The exchange of labour services for cash was widespread by the middle of the 12th Century.
Production was often for exchange rather than personal use.
Strong evidence of individual mobility, in marked distinction to typical peasant societies.
“Evidence for this re-assessment comes primarily from local and legal records. It is based on what happened in particular villages and the nature of the law. It reveals a picture of a social and economic structure greatly at variance even with what we know of most of continental countries in the 19th Century, let alone Asian or other peasantries.” Travel diaries of the time made frequent comment on the peculiar system in England with its absence of communities, family ties etc. Montesquieu observed in 1729 that England “hardly resembles the rest of Europe” Other writers commented on the peculiar independence, individuality and freedom of the English. The primary comparative historians of the 19th Century stress the differences between the legal, economic and social structure of medieval England. Only in England was the concept of indivisible, individually held, private property present by the 13th Century. A difference which made England “wholly exceptional in Europe”.
-
A summary essay of the book, The Origins of English Individualism:
Nov 19, 2019, 2:39 PM A summary essay of the book, The Origins of English Individualism: Family Property and Social Transition, by Alan Macfarlane, professor of social anthropology and historical anthropology at Cambridge university from 1975-2006. —by Lisa Outhwaite “…one of the most thoroughly investigated of all peasantries in history turns out to be not a peasantry at all. The classical example of the transition of a “feudal”, peasant-based society into a new, capitalist, system turns out to be a deviant case”. The general point made is the refutation of previous claims of English life prior to the 16th Century being predominantly that of a peasantry (here defined as land ownership and property rights generally being held by the family and extended kin and not the individual, with a general lack of social mobility or capitalist economy).
- Ample evidence for frequent land ownership transference outside of the family group in the 13th century.
Inheritance was subject to a will and not birth-right laws.
Children did not work as a collective family unit and left home, often marrying late.
Households were predominantly nuclear, with little evidence of multiple married couples sharing the same dwelling (typical for collectivist societies).
Marriage tended to be later.
In 13th Century England, single women, married women and widows all had very considerable property rights as individual persons.
In the period prior to the Black Death up to half the adult population were primarily hired labourers, which is incompatible wth notions of a peasant economy.
The exchange of labour services for cash was widespread by the middle of the 12th Century.
Production was often for exchange rather than personal use.
Strong evidence of individual mobility, in marked distinction to typical peasant societies.
“Evidence for this re-assessment comes primarily from local and legal records. It is based on what happened in particular villages and the nature of the law. It reveals a picture of a social and economic structure greatly at variance even with what we know of most of continental countries in the 19th Century, let alone Asian or other peasantries.” Travel diaries of the time made frequent comment on the peculiar system in England with its absence of communities, family ties etc. Montesquieu observed in 1729 that England “hardly resembles the rest of Europe” Other writers commented on the peculiar independence, individuality and freedom of the English. The primary comparative historians of the 19th Century stress the differences between the legal, economic and social structure of medieval England. Only in England was the concept of indivisible, individually held, private property present by the 13th Century. A difference which made England “wholly exceptional in Europe”.
-
The Series of Grammars of Psychology
Nov 24, 2019, 11:41 AM (important) (read this)
—”is there any smaller sphere in which you think psychoanalysis is an appropriate method or inquiry? (ie, hopefully the one it is intended for – personal therapy rather than public argumentation).”— Gerard
I think that it is always better to use this series:
- Means: Personality traits and reward systems. (anglo/physical)
- Cause: Acquisitionism and Propertarianism.(masculine/objective)
- Training: Stoicism (Acquisition of virtues by CBT)
- Affect(Heroic): Jungian ( Archetypes as proxies for traits) (german, sympathetic)
Defect:(Victim)Freudian Analysis (feminine conformity) (Jewish feminine)
This series begins with the most precise but least experiential and moves to the least precise but must experiential. Personally I would prefer, that we use the above series just like the series math, physics, chemistry, biology, cooperation (sentience/economics), speech (negotiation), that we all knew the hierarchy of those from the most physical to the most experiential, and as such that we understood how each expresses a more fictional but more experiential grammar as we proceed down that list. This series is as important as: 1. The hierarchy of Measurements (mathematics) 2. The hierarchy of States of Matter (physical science) 3. The hierarchy of Grammars (language) 4. The hierarchy of Knowledge (aristotelian categories) (repost) Edit
-
The Series of Grammars of Psychology
Nov 24, 2019, 11:41 AM (important) (read this)
—”is there any smaller sphere in which you think psychoanalysis is an appropriate method or inquiry? (ie, hopefully the one it is intended for – personal therapy rather than public argumentation).”— Gerard
I think that it is always better to use this series:
- Means: Personality traits and reward systems. (anglo/physical)
- Cause: Acquisitionism and Propertarianism.(masculine/objective)
- Training: Stoicism (Acquisition of virtues by CBT)
- Affect(Heroic): Jungian ( Archetypes as proxies for traits) (german, sympathetic)
Defect:(Victim)Freudian Analysis (feminine conformity) (Jewish feminine)
This series begins with the most precise but least experiential and moves to the least precise but must experiential. Personally I would prefer, that we use the above series just like the series math, physics, chemistry, biology, cooperation (sentience/economics), speech (negotiation), that we all knew the hierarchy of those from the most physical to the most experiential, and as such that we understood how each expresses a more fictional but more experiential grammar as we proceed down that list. This series is as important as: 1. The hierarchy of Measurements (mathematics) 2. The hierarchy of States of Matter (physical science) 3. The hierarchy of Grammars (language) 4. The hierarchy of Knowledge (aristotelian categories) (repost) Edit