Yes, Peterson has a self authoring course, but not the ‘framing’, and I think Massimo puts books out on the framing but not a course. Effectively speaking stocism is a scientific religion. Or rather a religious and philosophical system that does not conflict with science. In my understanding, we are trying to (by accident) recreate the stoic philosophy (religion). It was quite a while before I understood that’s what I was doing. I think Massimo is doing it intentionally. I haven’t got to peterson yet to ask if he’s knowingly doing it. I have reasons to prefer peterson’s method. My only question is whether or not he should use biblical stories or not. And my preference is ‘no’, because I want to kill abrahamism (sophism) while at the same time preserve literary analogy (wisdom literature)
Form: Mini Essay
-
I Don’t Understand Anti-Gay Posturing – or Anyone Else
I studied art and art history. I think, out of the whole college, four of us were hetero. We were the minority. Most of the men were gay. Studying art is great way to catch the best girls. Artsy girls are the best by far ’cause they embrace the feminine rather than fight it, and tend to be more sensual. My first business was in the commercial art supply biz when it was still a manual craft. Straight men still dominated that field and still do but the clerical and middle labor was heavily gay. So maybe it’s my background, but I don’t agree with anti-homosexual bias. While I definitely have a disgust response to non-hetero public displays of affection, and I certainly don’t want to be ‘hit on’ – it makes me furious – I know this is a genetic response on my part to protect the tribe. But my experience is (and I bet the data shows) that at least homosexual males seem to produce fantastic externalities for both male and female hetero society. It has always been a practice of mine to find gay men to help with clothing choices, decorating ideas, understanding the people in the work place, negotiate with women, and in general facilitate relationships. Yes I have had some issues with PDA that customers have made issues out of (making out a stairway at a customer site). I don’t think sex is a public matter, and I don’t think any reference to sex outside of familial reproduction belongs in the commons, but as far as I know, while it’s a birth defect, it is not in fact bad unless – like any sexual behavior (non-imposition of aesthetic differences) – it is evident in the commons. So I view gender issues as a matter of manners in the commons and little else. You now, I loved having hippies, pot heads, the dead heads, metal heads, biker groups, yuppies, artsies, jocks, prissies, and all the other signal groups. But I loved them when we were all the same – families – other than signal groups. The problem is we are now speciating because we can afford to speciate, because we can afford to SORT, and through mobility and sortition specialize. This is a good thing as long as we create governments for each group that is speciating, becasue governments create the commons necessary to support the interests of those who are speciating. The problem is the fallacy of “WE”. There is no longer a ‘WE’, becuase we are not enough the same as we were until 1960 when the left decided to achieve through third world immigration what they could not achieve by their ideas. A libertarian does not want to govern others. He or she only wants to remain ungoverned by others. However, we differ in the commons we demand. And as such we differ in the polities we must produce. SO the only solution is Revolution, Secession, Sortition, Prosperity, and Speciation. You see, it’s pretty obvious given the genetic record that we were in the process of speciating by region. Farming changed that. At present, farming is over, and speciation can continue becasue we can afford to this time, not because it was necessary as in prior eras.
-
I Don’t Understand Anti-Gay Posturing – or Anyone Else
I studied art and art history. I think, out of the whole college, four of us were hetero. We were the minority. Most of the men were gay. Studying art is great way to catch the best girls. Artsy girls are the best by far ’cause they embrace the feminine rather than fight it, and tend to be more sensual. My first business was in the commercial art supply biz when it was still a manual craft. Straight men still dominated that field and still do but the clerical and middle labor was heavily gay. So maybe it’s my background, but I don’t agree with anti-homosexual bias. While I definitely have a disgust response to non-hetero public displays of affection, and I certainly don’t want to be ‘hit on’ – it makes me furious – I know this is a genetic response on my part to protect the tribe. But my experience is (and I bet the data shows) that at least homosexual males seem to produce fantastic externalities for both male and female hetero society. It has always been a practice of mine to find gay men to help with clothing choices, decorating ideas, understanding the people in the work place, negotiate with women, and in general facilitate relationships. Yes I have had some issues with PDA that customers have made issues out of (making out a stairway at a customer site). I don’t think sex is a public matter, and I don’t think any reference to sex outside of familial reproduction belongs in the commons, but as far as I know, while it’s a birth defect, it is not in fact bad unless – like any sexual behavior (non-imposition of aesthetic differences) – it is evident in the commons. So I view gender issues as a matter of manners in the commons and little else. You now, I loved having hippies, pot heads, the dead heads, metal heads, biker groups, yuppies, artsies, jocks, prissies, and all the other signal groups. But I loved them when we were all the same – families – other than signal groups. The problem is we are now speciating because we can afford to speciate, because we can afford to SORT, and through mobility and sortition specialize. This is a good thing as long as we create governments for each group that is speciating, becasue governments create the commons necessary to support the interests of those who are speciating. The problem is the fallacy of “WE”. There is no longer a ‘WE’, becuase we are not enough the same as we were until 1960 when the left decided to achieve through third world immigration what they could not achieve by their ideas. A libertarian does not want to govern others. He or she only wants to remain ungoverned by others. However, we differ in the commons we demand. And as such we differ in the polities we must produce. SO the only solution is Revolution, Secession, Sortition, Prosperity, and Speciation. You see, it’s pretty obvious given the genetic record that we were in the process of speciating by region. Farming changed that. At present, farming is over, and speciation can continue becasue we can afford to this time, not because it was necessary as in prior eras.
-
Let women be women. Let me be men. We are both happier for it
Men develop mindfulness because we are dangerous to ourselves, each other, and others. If men do not have mindfulness they have not engaged in sufficient competitive play with other men. once men have mindfulness they can be taught. Women can be taught as well, but they must be taught mindfulness first, and the only way I know how to do that is stoicism (self authoring). Every other technique only makes them worse. Instead of being angry or frustrated acknowledge that women’s lack of agency is necessary for the raising of children among competing females under the jurisdiction of competing males. I learned in eastern europe that the problem is solved by giving women the permission always and everywhere to ‘be women’, but not giving women permission to tread in the male domain – business, politics, and war. All women must have the right to ‘have and express emotions’. And to let them pass. But they must never treat them seriously when the topic is serious. We are men. Let women be women. Let me be men. We are both happier for it. Reciprocity in everything.
-
Let women be women. Let me be men. We are both happier for it
Men develop mindfulness because we are dangerous to ourselves, each other, and others. If men do not have mindfulness they have not engaged in sufficient competitive play with other men. once men have mindfulness they can be taught. Women can be taught as well, but they must be taught mindfulness first, and the only way I know how to do that is stoicism (self authoring). Every other technique only makes them worse. Instead of being angry or frustrated acknowledge that women’s lack of agency is necessary for the raising of children among competing females under the jurisdiction of competing males. I learned in eastern europe that the problem is solved by giving women the permission always and everywhere to ‘be women’, but not giving women permission to tread in the male domain – business, politics, and war. All women must have the right to ‘have and express emotions’. And to let them pass. But they must never treat them seriously when the topic is serious. We are men. Let women be women. Let me be men. We are both happier for it. Reciprocity in everything.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. MORE ON NON-HETERO BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMONS AS
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
MORE ON NON-HETERO BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMONS AS A MATTER OF LAW
There are a number of reasons that I foster these debates on uncomfortable topics. One is to bait the opposition into a debate. Another is to educate via the audience’s reactions. Another is because I am uncertain of my position. 😉 (Never assume you are right. Just try as hard as you can to determine if you’re wrong.) So far I haven’t determined I”m wrong in this matter.
In my opinion, the slippery slope exists only because the question was insufficiently settled in law. I know how to solve that problem: to settle it as we do other sexual matters other than mate finding, by prohibiting it from the commons.
That still leaves me with the reality that as far as I know the individuals behavior is determined in utero or by trauma. Neither of which (at least in males) are discretionary (unlike body issues, which are co-morbid with other psychological problems.) There is some evidence that female sexuality is extremely plastic as are most female behaviors. So as far as I know the functional test is the body issue not attraction.
As such if the display does not make it out of the bedroom, then I do not consider it a matter of law. Since assortative mating is necessary for survival, I consider hetero reproductive signaling as necessary in the commons, up until the point of demonstration.
As I have said elsewhere, as a matter of law it is a solved question. As a matter of aesthetics it is a choice. As such it is of course as sensible to create polities that ban individuals based upon traits, just as it is to accept or celebrate individuals upon traits. But that is a preference, not a good or a truth. And should be solved by the market.
Thanks as always, for your thoughts and participation. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 21:04:36 UTC
-
MORE ON NON-HETERO BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMONS AS A MATTER OF LAW There are a number
MORE ON NON-HETERO BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMONS AS A MATTER OF LAW
There are a number of reasons that I foster these debates on uncomfortable topics. One is to bait the opposition into a debate. Another is to educate via the audience’s reactions. Another is because I am uncertain of my position. 😉 (Never assume you are right. Just try as hard as you can to determine if you’re wrong.) So far I haven’t determined I”m wrong in this matter.
In my opinion, the slippery slope exists only because the question was insufficiently settled in law. I know how to solve that problem: to settle it as we do other sexual matters other than mate finding, by prohibiting it from the commons.
That still leaves me with the reality that as far as I know the individuals behavior is determined in utero or by trauma. Neither of which (at least in males) are discretionary (unlike body issues, which are co-morbid with other psychological problems.) There is some evidence that female sexuality is extremely plastic as are most female behaviors. So as far as I know the functional test is the body issue not attraction.
As such if the display does not make it out of the bedroom, then I do not consider it a matter of law. Since assortative mating is necessary for survival, I consider hetero reproductive signaling as necessary in the commons, up until the point of demonstration.
As I have said elsewhere, as a matter of law it is a solved question. As a matter of aesthetics it is a choice. As such it is of course as sensible to create polities that ban individuals based upon traits, just as it is to accept or celebrate individuals upon traits. But that is a preference, not a good or a truth. And should be solved by the market.
Thanks as always, for your thoughts and participation. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 17:04:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. HUMANITY FILLS EVERY NICHE OF OPPORTUNITY – I
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
HUMANITY FILLS EVERY NICHE OF OPPORTUNITY – INCLUDING THE CRIMINAL
The Roma at one end of the spectrum, using begging and theft, and the They fill middle of the spectrum using rent seeking, and the end of the spectrum (predation) is occupied by last of the pastoralists to adopt monotheism using outright predation. I mean HUMANITY FILLS EVERY AVAILABLE NICHE of opportunity for exploiting the existing world, and only the westerners persist by preventing exploitation of all those niches.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 16:46:17 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. WE CAN AFFORD TO SPECIATE – SO LET’S DO IT Th
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
WE CAN AFFORD TO SPECIATE – SO LET’S DO IT
The problem is we are now speciating because we can afford to speciate, because we can afford to SORT, and through mobility and sortition specialize.
This is a good thing as long as we create governments for each group that is speciating, becasue governments create the commons necessary to support the interests of those who are speciating.
The problem is the fallacy of “WE”. There is no longer a ‘WE’, becuase we are not enough the same as we were until 1960 when the left decided to achieve through third world immigration what they could not achieve by their ideas.
A libertarian does not want to govern others. He or she only wants to remain ungoverned by others. However, we differ in the commons we demand. And as such we differ in the polities we must produce.
SO the only solution is Revolution, Secession, Sortition, Prosperity, and Speciation.
You see, it’s pretty obvious given the genetic record that we were in the process of speciating by region. Farming changed that. At present, farming is over, and speciation can continue becasue we can afford to this time, not because it was necessary as in prior eras.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 15:28:23 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. Men divide cognitive labor more so than women
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
Men divide cognitive labor more so than women. We have many tribes. Each tribe specializes in the conceptual tools that they best understand. This specialization as in all things reflects the class structure. That is what men have been doing for the past ten years: building tools. Not one – but many. Each ‘faction’ of the New (Scientific) Right is developing the tools that they know how to use. And when we are ready we will form an army with very special tools, for each tribe, and because of that variety of weapons we will win.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 15:26:04 UTC