Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • TERMINOLOGY: NO SHORTCUT TO UNDERSTANDING worth repeating One does not criticize

    TERMINOLOGY: NO SHORTCUT TO UNDERSTANDING

    worth repeating

    One does not criticize either terminology or deviation from normative definitions, but instead, the precision of the definitions, such that we are free of opportunity for conflation, and subsequent error.

    Each field uses terminology particular to it, and propertarianism (law) uses universals (operational names in series) across all fields. In either case we define terms that eliminate the error and potential for error in colloquial speech (“ordinary language”).

    In other words no field is, can be, reduced to ordinary language without the introduction of the vast ignorance and error that separates ordinary language from scientific language.

    That is because the existence of, and market demands for science and scientific prose evolved precisely to compensate for the ignorance, error, bias, fictionalism, and deceit in ordinary language.

    And moreover, since propertarianism serves as the scientific language of social science – including history, economics, law, sociology, morality, ethics, psychology, and language itself – we are forcing into the political discourse the same adaptation as did the revolution in physical science: and with equally disruptive consequences to normative language, ideas, ideology, religion, and language of those disciplines.

    So the criticism that we should use the colloquial speech in our effort to change social sciences from sophisms and pseudoscience dependent upon intuition and projection, and monopoly and conformity, into a form of calculation as is used in the other sciences, and divisions of cognition and labor, and conditions of cooperation, competition, and war, is rather … ridiculous really.

    All systems of symbolic calculation whether they be the small difference between spoken language and written language, or great differences between spoken language, written language, arithmetic, accounting, geometry, the calculus, relativity, chemistry, biology, ecology, economics, require training.

    The great difference is that we are all more invested in our daily use of the psychological, social, and political, such that we defend those investments no matter how bad they are.

    Unfortunately the average idiot who will readily say he understands neither advanced mathematics, economics, or subatomic physics will not similarly question his understanding of ethics, morality, and politics – thereby demonstrating his lack of agency due to malinvestment and ignorance, and genetic, gender, class, cultural bias.

    Ergo, there is no shortcut to knowledge. Calculation is counter intuitive – particularly in intuitionistic subjects.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 00:18:00 UTC

  • THE ATHENIAN TRADITION DID NOT ACCOUNT FOR COSTS… (worth repeating) The atheni

    THE ATHENIAN TRADITION DID NOT ACCOUNT FOR COSTS…

    (worth repeating)

    The athenian tradition did not account for costs. There are two principle reasons for it:

    (1) the peerage was small and wealthy with common interests – and costs were as rude then as today

    (2) discussion of costs immediately changes from ideals to reals thereby self selecting into class interests

    (3) mathematical idealism influenced greco-roman thought so heavily, giving such sophism an unearned legitimacy.

    (4) historically religion spoke in these ideal terms, philosophy an improvement upon them, and empiricism an improvement upon philosophy, and science an improvement upon empiricism, just as ‘Testimonialism’ is an improvement upon science. (empiricism vs science distinguished by the 20th’s implementation of operational language, and testimonialism by the completion of the scientific method).

    It is time for philosophy to either abandon idealism, sophism, and the ignorance of costs, or to be further demoted into the theology of ideals.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 13:04:00 UTC

  • ARISTOTLE AS OUR LAWGIVER, vs THE PROPHETS AND THEIR LIES. The first reason to r

    ARISTOTLE AS OUR LAWGIVER, vs

    THE PROPHETS AND THEIR LIES.

    The first reason to reform Aristotle by translation of his works into operational language is to lionize him and make him the founder of western thought – the via negativa, to the Nihilism of Socrates and the Idealism of Plato, and the lies of the Abrahamists whether Abraham, Saul, or Mohammed.

    This form of heroic Idolization anthropomorphizes the character (and his military peer alexander) such that we can engage in hero-competition with competing civilizations and their advocates, and our own sophists within, (b) and anchor western civilization as a continuous tradition from our origins in European customary law of sovereignty and tort, to the present anglo common law of tort.

    The second reason is to falsify all the pseudo-philosophy and theology that exists between aristotle and the present.

    Now re-writing Aristotle in operational prose would be the equivalent of the work undertaken to produce the king james bible, and the basis of a western education – particularly the Ethics.

    When combined with the foundational myth of the Trial of Achilles (taught to children by dividing up the work and memorizing it by chanting – given that vast parts are repeated over and over again – and presented by classes as a holiday play). We would have the Hellenic tradition restored.

    Doing the same for each series of festivals for the old germanic and celtic in fall and winter, and preserving Easter for the christian and mayday would be relatively simple.

    We can re-ritualize our civilization as historical play. Because, as Nietzsche taught us, it is the participation of the chorus, whether in games, play, ritual, church, or prayer that provides the mindfulness of associating the sacred and collective with the mythos that binds them.

    If we have an education system (church limited by the natural law) that teaches mindfulness, history, the tools of calculation (reading, writing, numbers, economics, physics), reduce education to part time as soon as children are able to engage in part time work, and put as great an emphasis on apprenticeship as we do higher education, and limit ‘higher education’ to that which requires advanced calculation (stem+l) we can restore the civic society and eliminate the alienation and signal warfare endemic to consumer modernity.

    If this church, which provides education, also serves the function of consumer banking, savings, and investment, with near-zero interest on durable goods, then we will have restored the ancient order and destroyed the entire network of parasites and rent seekers in academy, finance, and state.

    We do not need to establish this church. We merely need to provide the economic incentives to do so, and the regulatory law that binds them to the construction of that common good.

    The most notable exception would be the use of successful retired people in the administration and teaching of these things rather than those who have been insulated from market forces, market competition, and demonstrated market achievement.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 12:46:00 UTC

  • SHELVING ARCHAIC LANGUAGE: PHILOSOPHY Again, I would simply use the terms existe

    SHELVING ARCHAIC LANGUAGE: PHILOSOPHY

    Again, I would simply use the terms existence, category, theory, and paradigm, rather than trying to keep alive heavily loaded archaic terms that have been used and abused in every possible way, such that they only invite frauds.

    But as usual, the truth provides decidability, where the useful, preferable, and good are not truths (decidable) but choices (utilities, individual and group preferences). Truth provides decidability in matters of conflict between paradigms.

    The higher the correspondence between perception, cognition, memory, speech, negotiation, action, and cooperation and reality the higher the discount at the expense of ignorance, error, bias, deceits, and frauds.

    There is no argument to be had that we can defraud ourselves and others for utilitarian and preferential purposes. However, in matters of conflcit we can decide those difference REGARDLESS OF how badly we have invested in those utilities, wants, and frauds.

    So I take the position that there is only one most parsimonious consistent correspondent and coherent paradigm possible and that this is the object of metaphysics.

    And that we can use this most parsimonious truth to conduct more directly expensive but more collectively and indirectly rewarding methods of achieving individual and cooperative (and conflicting) means and ends.

    If not, then metaphysics is merely the study of means of deceit, just as theology is the study of useful deceits, and the systems of measurement are nothing more than the prevention of useful deciets in those cases where they violate reciprocity.

    As in all things – via negativa and via positiva in competition.

    We may not know what its true but we know what is false.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 12:20:00 UTC

  • THE ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS OVER METAPHYSICS —“Anytime you utter the word “emerge

    THE ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS OVER METAPHYSICS

    —“Anytime you utter the word “emergent phenomenon”, you automatically need another science. In order to count as such, a science needs to satisfy what constraints?”—

    Help me understand this because there is no limit that I can imagine to the scale of a neural (bayesian) network, and no limit to the cognitive ability of a hierarchical and recursive network – other than inputs and outputs. The limits we have today are mechanical – we have built the wrong kind of computers. Even such, at great heat-cost, we are able to replicate those networks.

    So for ‘speech’ to emerge just like for the touch ui to emerge we require hardware (biological ware). So somehow (random selection, intentional manipulation) the real-world interface determines what can be ‘identified, predicted, and judged’ by that recursive, hierarchical, network.

    —“real”–

    As far as I know real = existential = persistent = observable = observable directly, by instrumentation, or by deduction from deduction using instrumentation, where that instrumentation can be either physical(external) or logical (internal).

    As far as I know ‘real’ in the colloquial, refers to ACTIONABLE.

    As far as I know the only open question is an empty verbalism: experiences are constructed from a combination of perception with memories of perceptions, limited by the grammar of conception, which is brain structure, which appears to be little more than the neurological homunculus – which the more I understand, the less ‘human’ I feel.

    So do experience (concepts, etc) exist, or do they have the potential be experienced, and do they persist if and only if some number of us share the potential to experience them?

    Once we operationalize these questions they turn out to be quite simple.

    Do unicorns exist?

    Well, No.

    Do does the word unicorn exist?

    Well, a lot of us have memory (knowledge) of that word. So it we have knowledge of it. That knowledge persists in some distributed and fragmentary form. But it only exists as POTENTIAL. Whereas that which we claim exists already does so.

    Does that idea of a unicorn exist?

    Well, a lot of us have memory (knowledge) that can be accessed by that word, and using that index (word) we can recall some combination of fragmentary images of a unicorn (mine are the scenes in Blade Runner and after that, Legend of all things).

    So in Does the referent exist?

    Well, No.

    Does the index of the referent exist?

    Well, Yes.

    Does knowledge of the referent exist?

    Well, Yes.

    Yet again, we see, that a series stated in operational language solves the problem of the sophism of reductive questions.

    Unicorns don’t exist. An index (word) appears to have little or no direct sensation of itself. An index evokes a network of fragments, that recursively reflect additional fragments, and so on until we have exhausted our memories. the cortex (brain) is a continuous prediction system using fragments , and we can apply that prediction system to the real, the linguistic, and the imagined.

    What we call mind, probably an consequence of either cooperation, communication or language, or the sequence in total, consists largely in the direction of that forecasting (attention) and recursion (concentration).

    Is knowing this the same as experience? well no. Knowing this is however, defensive: eliminating the errors, bises, and deceits, that we and others engage in, with ourselves and others.

    WHAT ABOUT “NEED” – HUMAN DEMAND FOR COMFORTING FALSEHOODS

    Demand for Falsehoods today are driven by signal pressure and alienation pressure. In the past they were driven by signal pressure, competitive pressure, alienation pressure, and suffering pressure.

    We cannot fix signal pressure since it is necessary for selection, but we can fix mindfulness. We can’t fix alienation pressure but we can improve mindfulness and the civic society to reduce it. We can limit competitive pressure through the civic society and political ethnocentrism. And we can dramatically (and have) eliminated suffering pressure through mindfulness and medicine.

    Yes, the truth is that comforting lies (sophistry pseudoscience, the occult and denial), cults and groups, and sedation by alcohol, an drugs are CHEAP and DISORGANIZED means of providing mindfulness in the face of signal, alienation, competitive, and suffering pressures.

    However, we can likewise take and ORGANIZED and EXPENSIVE means of serving those market demands by non false and healthy and productive means.

    But like all contemporary problems

    (a) the collection of rent-seekers that will be displaced by the efforts to produce that order will fight desperately against these reforms (improvements) just as they will the legal and financial, because rent seeking that leaves people subject to pressures but gives them false hope is the most profitable industry of all.

    (b) not enough of us (yet) have taken up arms to alter that circumstance.

    NO MORE LIES

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 11:39:00 UTC

  • YES, METAPHYSICS HAS BEEN OVERVALUED FOR 2500 YEARS (very ,very, important conce

    YES, METAPHYSICS HAS BEEN OVERVALUED FOR 2500 YEARS

    (very ,very, important concept)

    —“The athenian tradition did not account for costs.

    (1) the peerage was small and wealthy with common interests – and costs were as rude then as today”

    (2) discussion of costs immediately changes from ideals to reals thereby self selecting into class interests.” — CD

    Adam Voight asks a profound question:

    —“Does this mean that doing metaphysics has been overvalued for 2500 years?”— Adam Voight

    Yes, (which is why I piss on the subject all the time) it’s just a means of trying to find a reason not to account for costs.

    Which I think i’ve tried to state repeatedly, is that the universe operates on least cost principles because it has no choice.

    Humans do also because they have no choice. We are more complicated than the universe because we have memory, can use that memory to predict, and therefore select delayed actions or early actions an capture that difference in calories as reward.

    Measurement(math), Science (measurement), engineering (measurement), accounting/finance (measurement), economics(measurement), and Law (measurement) all account for costs.

    Philosophy and theology and the Occult do not account for costs. IMO Popper and Kuhn did not account for costs. Hayek half-succeeded and half failed, in that law is the only ‘science’ and that all else is merely some fewer number of dimensions we consider under the law. Science and philosophy and religion evolved out of law, with economics and physics the only two to account for costs, and keynesian economics an attempt like philosophy and religion to NOT account for costs.

    So here is the simple psychology of it:

    Those of us and our disciplines who account for costs.

    Those of us and our disciplines who avoid accounting for costs.

    The issue: you can rally people politically very easily by not accounting for costs.

    That is the secret to religion and philosophy versus science and law.

    Hence my work at ‘fixing’ the law such that it is a cult in and of itself, that is extremely intolerant of not accounting for costs.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 10:06:00 UTC

  • “PHILOSOPHY MUST BE DRAGGED OUT OF THE IVORY TOWER AND INTO THE MARKETPLACE OF I

    –“PHILOSOPHY MUST BE DRAGGED OUT OF THE IVORY TOWER AND INTO THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS”–

    Um. I don’t think so. Unless it has a dramatic reformation.

    via negativa, measurement, science, economics, and law, versus via positiva, philosophy, theology, occult, daydreaming.

    While I find no difference between theorizing and philosophizing that is because I do not engage in empty verbalisms or sophisms, pseudosciences, nor the magic of ignoring costs.

    Philosophy can be laundered such that philosophizing(imaginary and verbal) and theorizing (existential and actionable) are essentially identical by the use of operational language, the full accounting of costs, and a preface of the choice of goods as those of the equalitarian herd, or the hierarchical pack.

    But as practiced, and as the demotion of the discipline to a peer to theology has evidenced, measuring, theorizing, philosophizing, and theologizing are simply analogous to description, deduction, induction, abduction, and guessing, using increasingly specious excuses for one’s guesswork.

    The athenian tradition did not account for costs. There are two principle reasons for it:

    (1) the peerage was small and wealthy with common interests – and costs were as rude then as today

    (2) discussion of costs immediately changes from ideals to reals thereby self selecting into class interests

    (3) mathematical idealism influenced greco-roman thought so heavily, giving such sophism an unearned legitimacy.

    (4) historically religion spoke in these ideal terms, philosophy an improvement upon them, and empiricism an improvement upon philosophy, and science an improvement upon empiricism, just as ‘Testimonialism’ is an improvement upon science. (empiricism vs science distinguished by the 20th’s implementation of operational language, and testimonialism by the completion of the scientific method).

    It is time for philosophy to either abandon idealism, sophism, and the ignorance of costs, or to be further demoted into the theology of ideals.

    Otherwise, like theology, it cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas.

    That is what the evidence shows us.

    People ask me every single day what philosophy to read and I tell them ‘none of it’ other than perhaps the bookends of Aristotle and Nietzsche. The rest is all measurement, science, economics, Law, and history.

    There are no crimes equal to those of abraham, saul, and mohammed in the ancient world, and marx, freud, boas, in the 19th, and adorno, derrida and foucault in the 20th. We can complain about Augustine and Aquinas as apologists, but by them the damage was done.

    It is very hard to criticize archimedes, democritus, aristotle, epicurus, zeno in the ancient world, and bacon, newton, hobbes, lock, smith, hume in the modern, or poincare, maxwell, darwin, menger, pareto, spencer, nietzsche and many others in the 19th, and einstein, watson-crick, and the many others in the 20th.

    Precision of our knowledge increases thereby justifying the pack, offset by counter-revolutions in denial, sophism, pseudoscience, and supernaturalism expanding the herd. And the war between neolithic feminine dysgenic herd strategy of the levant, and the bronze age masculine eugenic pack strategy of indo europeans.

    Truth is undesirable to the many.

    —

    https://www.newstatesman.com/2019/01/philosophy-must-be-dragged-out-ivory-tower-and-marketplace-ideas?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 09:42:00 UTC

  • THE LANGUAGE OF MATHEMATICS AND MAN Mathematics is just the most SIMPLE possible

    THE LANGUAGE OF MATHEMATICS AND MAN

    Mathematics is just the most SIMPLE possible language since it has only one property: positional name. And positional names are unique and perfectly deflationary (non-conflationary) and as such very difficult to subject to our principal category of error: conflation.

    LET’S TAKE A JOURNEY:

    A CHANGE IN STATE (TIME) consists of entropy at the local rate of entropy.

    An INTERVAL (CHANGE) of time consists of a change in state.

    EXPERIENCE(PERCEPTION) consists of the conflation of sense-perception, memory, and neural prediction with that memory, over some interval of time.

    A set of CONSTANT RELATIONS (CATEGORY) consists of a set of properties reducible to analogy to experience, and commensurable (differentiable) by human experience.

    A REFERENCE (ASSOCIATION) consists of a set of constant relations.

    CORRESPONDENCE (NAMES) consists of a name (INDEX) of a comparison of indifference between a name (referrer) and a reference.

    NUMBERS (NOUNS) consists of positional names, and the correspondence of positional names with some referent.

    ARITHMETIC (VERBS) consists in the study of the grammar of numbers, and the properties possible operations upon and between them (addition, subtraction, and their iterations in multiplication, and division).

    ALGEBRA (GRAMMAR) consists in the study of the grammar of mathematical language: the production of well form statements in mathematical language, and the manipulation of symbols (words, phrases, sentences) in that mathematical language, allowing for the deduction, induction, abduction, and guessing of the missing content of those statements, or range of possible content of those statements.

    A DIMENSION (PHRASES) consist of a set of constant internal relations, and each additional dimension consists of a shared dependency between dimensions the accumulation of which produces a chain, hierarchy, or network of dependencies.

    A dimension can refer to any difference reducible to analogy to perception by the human mind, and therefore capable of commensurability, comparison, and decidability.

    GEOMETRY (SENTENCES) consists in the study of dimensions of STATEFUL shapes described by positional relations we call numbers, in n-number of dimensions (although most commonly in four), and the use of triangles to measure area and volume.

    CALCULUS (MEANING) (from Latin calculus, literally ‘small pebble’, used for counting and calculations, as on an abacus) is the mathematical study of continuous change.

    It has two major branches:

    a) Curves: differential calculus (concerning instantaneous rates of change and slopes of curves), and;

    b) Curved Areas: integral calculus (concerning accumulation of quantities and the areas under and between curves).

    –“These two branches are related to each other by the fundamental theorem of calculus. Both branches make use of the fundamental notions of convergence of infinite sequences and infinite series to a well-defined limit. (marginal indifference).”–

    This paragraph consists of nonsense-speech.

    Calculus, like geometry, uses a very large number of approximations of the area under a curve, where we choose some arbitrary degree of precision to determine the smallness of each approximation. This means that all measurements must specify some point of marginal indifference, (scale dependence, ‘limit’).

    HIGHER MATHEMATICS (DEDUCTION, INDUCTION, ABDUCTION, GUESSING), (most analysis) consists in using the available set of constant relations, and some combination of negative (deduction) and positive (construction) to engage in trial and error, to narrow the range of possible solutions.

    EMERGENT PATTERNS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS

    Any and all networks produce patterns of constant relations (‘symmetries’) of that which is frequent and possible and that which is infrequent or impossible. We then can name these symmetries, assign them positional names, and repeat the descriptive language we call the process all over again.

    This is how the universe functions from its yet unknown time-space substance, to the quantum level of behavior upon it, to the atomic level of behavior upon that, to the carbon level beyond that, to the life, the complex life, to the sentience beyond that. One level of operations produces some maximum set of operations which is then results in some maximum set of operations until we have reason, and mathematics, and sufficient knowledge to forecast (imagine, predict) potential alternative ‘sentences’ and act upon them to change state ourselves, and to capture the energy from having done so, so that we ourselves continue to defeat entropy.

    All Reason consists of this using this series, all of which are simply statements of available information:

    1. Identity

    2. Equality

    3. Deduction

    4. Induction

    5. Abduction

    6. Guessing

    7. Free Association

    8. Intuition.

    9. Unobservable.

    In reasoning we can either:

    1. construct (justify),

    2. test (falsify)

    3. continuously recursively disambiguate.(analyze with language)

    4. eliminate by trial and error in construction, falsification, and analysis.

    5. eliminate by trial and error in the market for application.

    We can deceive by:

    1. Failure of due diligence

    2. Denial

    3. Obscurantism, loading, framing

    4. Conflation

    5. Inflation

    6. fictionalization

    7. Deceit

    8. Environmental deceit (saturation, popaganda)

    EVERYTHING WE DO FOLLOWS THE SAME EPISTEMIC PROCESS

    The competition between:

    1. construction by continuous recursive disambiguation (free association), and;

    2. continuous prediction (anticipation), and;

    3. continuous falsification (elimination).

    In this order:

    1. Experience (market for association in memory) >

    2. Free Association (prediction/falsification in reason) >

    3. Hypothesis (criticism/falsification in testing) >

    4. Theory (criticism/falsification in application ) >

    5. Law(survival) >

    6. Habituation (presumption) >

    7. Revision (iterate)

    Philosophizing only tells us if something is false. Nothing more

    The only means of due diligence is falsifying each dimension of possible human perception:

    1. survival from falsification of identity

    2. survival from falsification of internal consistency (logic)

    3. survival from falsification by external correspondence (empiricism).

    4. survival from falsification by operationalization and operational description.

    5. survival from falsification by subjective test of rational choice

    7. survival from falsification by reciprocal test of rational choice.

    8. survival from falsification by tests of limits and full accounting (scope).

    9. survival from falsification by of internal consistency across all of these methods of due diligence (coherence).

    In summary, operational grammar is the same as mathematical grammar: extremely difficult to circumvent tests of deflation and disambiguation in that hierarchy of real world dimensions.

    The human body, intuition, and mind, is a standard of measurement because of the marginal indifference of perception cognition and action, and the ‘grammar’ of operations, provides continuous consistency from the subatomic universe to the experiential.

    Once you understand this, the demand for ePrime (operational language), in complete sentences will be rather obvious.

    – Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-09 13:37:00 UTC

  • TACTICS – LIBERATING SPAIN by Noah J Revoy ( see ) Gerald the Fearless was very

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_the_FearlessREVOLUTIONARY TACTICS – LIBERATING SPAIN

    by Noah J Revoy

    ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_the_Fearless )

    Gerald the Fearless was very successful in suppressing the muslim occupation of Portugal with just a handful of men. They would dress as simple travelers armed only with fighting knives, sneak into forts using grappling hooks, kill all the guards with sneaky attacks and start a fire to cover their escape.

    They even snuck into the house of the guy in change of Evora, killing him and his whole family.

    They would do this until no one wanted to guard the walls or run the city because it was too risky. Eventually the muslims abandoned entire cities because less than 20 guys were causing such havoc and destroying their moral.

    Hit and run tactics are very effective.

    The outnumbered Christians could never take the heavily fortified city by force. There is still a massive wall around the whole old city.

    Sometimes 10 men can do the job 10,000 cant.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-08 07:21:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/49347972_10156899555122264_752533501

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/49347972_10156899555122264_752533501

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/49347972_10156899555122264_7525335018206396416_o_10156899555112264.jpg GOALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR AGENCY AS WELL AS NATURE.

    I prefer we target the virtue spectrum from stoicism (little agency), to epicureanism (personal agency, to aristocracy (political agency) rather than a universal. The technique serves the mind no matter what virtues we seek to give it, but that does not mean ‘monotheism’ so to speak in that we must all seek the same. We each have different agency. We require goals that provide mindfulness in accordance with our agency.Scott ClaremontDo you apply agency as a god/Demi god/hero in the sense as the Romans did? How does one grasp the spectrum of agency?Jan 7, 2019, 4:25 AMCurt Doolittlecan you reprase the question because I can interpret that far too many ways to provide an answer….Jan 7, 2019, 8:48 AMScott Claremontwhat bearings can one use to gauge his agency along the way? Is there a living example of god ? *the guy who has nothing but agency/no animal nature so to speak. A guy who has great agency but is still evolving his agency. Then a guy who has less than him, then all the way down to females and then the animalJan 7, 2019, 3:58 PMCurt Doolittlewe are gods. if we sat before aristotle and alexander today they would believe our claim – that at least we were demigods. They did not believe in the gods as we imagine, the simple people did just as the simple people do today. the demand for gods is iversely proportional to one’s agencyJan 7, 2019, 4:08 PMScott ClaremontCurt Doolittle who do we look to to model agency ? Our groupJan 7, 2019, 4:44 PMCurt DoolittleWhy would you ‘look’ to anyone?Jan 7, 2019, 4:45 PMScott ClaremontCurt Doolittle to know what agency looks like. How does one know if he’s doing it right or where he needs to growJan 7, 2019, 4:51 PMCurt DoolittleBill Joslin ^Jan 7, 2019, 6:37 PMBill JoslinWhat might clear up some confusion would be thinking of agency as the substrate which can’t be negotiated independent of structure (nature, social, institutional influences etc) and instead swap out the terms agency for autonomy. Where agency/structure are a pair within a constant relation (like supply/demand are a pair which have a constant relation) and autonomy is one phase or location along to curve.

    By doing so agency in the way you are using it, or autonomy in the way I’m suggesting as an alternative, starts to become synonymous with soveriegnty.

    We can obtain autonomy via institutional protection (law, individual rights) and social circumstances (enriched environment, opportunity, education etc) – or via our own industriousness, influence and power. (And combinations of each)

    The former would be liberty, the later soveriegnty. The former demigods, the later gods.

    Then on the other end of the spectrum from Soveriegnty would be those whose use of agency forces others to constrain and restrict their behaviour – they wouldn’t obtain much autonomy by way of consequences of their use of agency.Jan 7, 2019, 7:13 PMScott ClaremontIt is easier using the word autonomy. I have struggled with my own as I tend to look outside myself for intuitive feelings I know the answer, but cannot absorb the feelings so I look for an elder to talk about them.

    Do you elders have elders to talk to or have you reached complete autonomy ?Jan 7, 2019, 9:13 PMBill JoslinScott Claremont me? I’m a flipp’n meathead. Hahahaha

    I’m inhabited by Curt’s ideas, with the occasional meager innovation of my own. So no, I’m not autonomous, but with help of other have had a taste. Like soveriegnty via a network of allied men skilled in violence, together we can generate autonomy with each other via a network of minds which are skilled in disambiguation: Force multipliers together.Jan 7, 2019, 9:27 PMScott ClaremontBill Joslin who does Curt turn to ? Megan I bet..Jan 7, 2019, 10:04 PMScott ClaremontMegan K. Usui thanks babe. I appreciate your feedbackJan 9, 2019, 12:47 AMBill JoslinWhat? The palace whisperer deleted her tracks?Jan 9, 2019, 1:37 AMScott ClaremontBill Joslin yeah don’t get it. Maybe she thought she was a little too harshJan 9, 2019, 2:13 AMBill Joslin(you are too kind in your assessments- more.like managing the appearances of her affiliations)Jan 9, 2019, 2:15 AMGOALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR AGENCY AS WELL AS NATURE.

    I prefer we target the virtue spectrum from stoicism (little agency), to epicureanism (personal agency, to aristocracy (political agency) rather than a universal. The technique serves the mind no matter what virtues we seek to give it, but that does not mean ‘monotheism’ so to speak in that we must all seek the same. We each have different agency. We require goals that provide mindfulness in accordance with our agency.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-06 14:58:00 UTC