How do I make clear that one does not argue with the fulfilling (wisdom lit) but with the truth (science)? Well that’s what I try to do. I have had to continuously counter-signal attacks against my work for not providing a lower agency, more accessible version of the natural law. THERE ISN”T ONE. Man can be lifted to it by constructing his agency, but it cannot be lowered for those lacking it. And yes it is lower agency to need literature because it relies on appeal to intuition and does not consist of a continuous stream of constant relations between reality and decision. But that does not mean that when one possesses lower agency one cannot still live a fulfilling life. It means that literary argument is analogy and wisdom helpful in choice of preference and good – and perhaps even understanding. It can in fact function as sedation. Or even inspiration. Inspiration necessary because of a lack of membership in teams granting one agency. I would read the lord of the rings, and dune, and Neuromancer to envision possibilities, and in fact, most history to gain wisdom. I can understand reading the essays of wise men (particularly Montaigne and Chesterton). But these are vehicles for understanding. Not for argument and decision. Any more than religion and rationalism are means of arguing for truth. IT IS QUITE HARD TO LACK AGENCY AS A YOUNG MAN. As such i’m criticizing the lack of organizations for MEN. But I undrestand the struggle of being an individual young male, particularly in modernity. It’s alienating. Literature is a substitute for membership in a group with which one obtains agency. Individualism is the necessary subject of the Law – all else requires guilds, teams, militias, armies, and governments: NUMBERS. Again… esotericism is escapist literature for those with low agency, and I’m absolutely positive if I spent 25k for an academic and his grad students to do the research it would come out as the same. Esotericism is simply another secular religion. And literature is between wisdom literature, secular theology, entertainment, and escapism. So it’s ok to criticize and I understand the market need exists. But I am not trying to fill that market need by DEGREDATION but by transcendence of the male into that which he longs for by EXISTENTIAL rather than fantasy means. And if not, then all that matters is that a small percentage of the population of choose agency, action, and transformation of the real world, as an army, rather than literary sedation, as an individual.
Form: Mini Essay
-
More on The Esoteric, Occult, and Literary and A Request that Men Face Their Lack of Agency as Individuals
How do I make clear that one does not argue with the fulfilling (wisdom lit) but with the truth (science)? Well that’s what I try to do. I have had to continuously counter-signal attacks against my work for not providing a lower agency, more accessible version of the natural law. THERE ISN”T ONE. Man can be lifted to it by constructing his agency, but it cannot be lowered for those lacking it. And yes it is lower agency to need literature because it relies on appeal to intuition and does not consist of a continuous stream of constant relations between reality and decision. But that does not mean that when one possesses lower agency one cannot still live a fulfilling life. It means that literary argument is analogy and wisdom helpful in choice of preference and good – and perhaps even understanding. It can in fact function as sedation. Or even inspiration. Inspiration necessary because of a lack of membership in teams granting one agency. I would read the lord of the rings, and dune, and Neuromancer to envision possibilities, and in fact, most history to gain wisdom. I can understand reading the essays of wise men (particularly Montaigne and Chesterton). But these are vehicles for understanding. Not for argument and decision. Any more than religion and rationalism are means of arguing for truth. IT IS QUITE HARD TO LACK AGENCY AS A YOUNG MAN. As such i’m criticizing the lack of organizations for MEN. But I undrestand the struggle of being an individual young male, particularly in modernity. It’s alienating. Literature is a substitute for membership in a group with which one obtains agency. Individualism is the necessary subject of the Law – all else requires guilds, teams, militias, armies, and governments: NUMBERS. Again… esotericism is escapist literature for those with low agency, and I’m absolutely positive if I spent 25k for an academic and his grad students to do the research it would come out as the same. Esotericism is simply another secular religion. And literature is between wisdom literature, secular theology, entertainment, and escapism. So it’s ok to criticize and I understand the market need exists. But I am not trying to fill that market need by DEGREDATION but by transcendence of the male into that which he longs for by EXISTENTIAL rather than fantasy means. And if not, then all that matters is that a small percentage of the population of choose agency, action, and transformation of the real world, as an army, rather than literary sedation, as an individual.
-
The Goal of Reading Fiction Is Analysis Itself
THE GOAL OF READING FICTION IS ANALYSIS ITSELF Benjamin Franklin If a person’s goal in reading narrative fiction is only to come to an understanding of the truth, then that is indeed childlike. In my view, the goal is not to come to an understanding of the ideas, but the goal is the analysis itself. It’s the same goal one has when they are solving a puzzle. Of course you eventually solve the puzzle, but the outcome is not that important compared to the act of solving the puzzle. Someone could just give you the solved puzzle, i.e just present the ideas in essay format, but the subjective experience would be qualitatively different from solving it yourself. Those who study fiction in the way one would study science or law are misguided, in my view. The level of seriousness in the two pursuits are incomparable. I find serious commentators who quote fiction to be as annoying as you probably do. The worst authors of fiction are those who put ideas or some notion of truth in the foreground. It comes off as preachy. Ayn Rand is a notorious culprit of this style of writing. For these kinds of authors, the philosophy does indeed transform into the veneer and the narrative slips into the background. Good authors make the narrative the veneer and the ideas become a puzzle to be solved by the observer. Now, you can argue about the time worthiness of analyzing fiction. It is potentially not as worthy of a time investment as doing science. But, if you consider the long term, the potential inevitable extinction of humanity along with all traces of their existence, then all actions are equally worthy of time or equally unworthy of time.
-
The Goal of Reading Fiction Is Analysis Itself
THE GOAL OF READING FICTION IS ANALYSIS ITSELF Benjamin Franklin If a person’s goal in reading narrative fiction is only to come to an understanding of the truth, then that is indeed childlike. In my view, the goal is not to come to an understanding of the ideas, but the goal is the analysis itself. It’s the same goal one has when they are solving a puzzle. Of course you eventually solve the puzzle, but the outcome is not that important compared to the act of solving the puzzle. Someone could just give you the solved puzzle, i.e just present the ideas in essay format, but the subjective experience would be qualitatively different from solving it yourself. Those who study fiction in the way one would study science or law are misguided, in my view. The level of seriousness in the two pursuits are incomparable. I find serious commentators who quote fiction to be as annoying as you probably do. The worst authors of fiction are those who put ideas or some notion of truth in the foreground. It comes off as preachy. Ayn Rand is a notorious culprit of this style of writing. For these kinds of authors, the philosophy does indeed transform into the veneer and the narrative slips into the background. Good authors make the narrative the veneer and the ideas become a puzzle to be solved by the observer. Now, you can argue about the time worthiness of analyzing fiction. It is potentially not as worthy of a time investment as doing science. But, if you consider the long term, the potential inevitable extinction of humanity along with all traces of their existence, then all actions are equally worthy of time or equally unworthy of time.
-
Christianity does in fact produce mindfulness – as does and must, any religion.
Christianity does in fact produce mindfulness – as does and must, any religion. And mindfulness does in fact produce agency. The question is whether we can produce the same mindfulness but far greater agency if we retain the scientific (secular) content of the religion, reform the history, reform the lessons, reform the oath, and sacrifice/feast.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-12 09:50:00 UTC
-
THE GOAL OF READING FICTION IS ANALYSIS ITSELF Benjamin Franklin If a person’s g
THE GOAL OF READING FICTION IS ANALYSIS ITSELF
Benjamin Franklin
If a person’s goal in reading narrative fiction is only to come to an understanding of the truth, then that is indeed childlike. In my view, the goal is not to come to an understanding of the ideas, but the goal is the analysis itself.
It’s the same goal one has when they are solving a puzzle. Of course you eventually solve the puzzle, but the outcome is not that important compared to the act of solving the puzzle. Someone could just give you the solved puzzle, i.e just present the ideas in essay format, but the subjective experience would be qualitatively different from solving it yourself.
Those who study fiction in the way one would study science or law are misguided, in my view. The level of seriousness in the two pursuits are incomparable. I find serious commentators who quote fiction to be as annoying as you probably do.
The worst authors of fiction are those who put ideas or some notion of truth in the foreground. It comes off as preachy. Ayn Rand is a notorious culprit of this style of writing. For these kinds of authors, the philosophy does indeed transform into the veneer and the narrative slips into the background. Good authors make the narrative the veneer and the ideas become a puzzle to be solved by the observer.
Now, you can argue about the time worthiness of analyzing fiction. It is potentially not as worthy of a time investment as doing science. But, if you consider the long term, the potential inevitable extinction of humanity along with all traces of their existence, then all actions are equally worthy of time or equally unworthy of time.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-12 08:55:00 UTC
-
THE ORIGIN OF TRUMP’S NEGOTIATING STRATEGY: COLD WAR HOSTILE NEGOTIATIONS Again,
THE ORIGIN OF TRUMP’S NEGOTIATING STRATEGY: COLD WAR HOSTILE NEGOTIATIONS
Again, Trump takes the WORST POSSIBLE NUMBER and states it, thereby FORCING THE PRESSS TO CORRECT HIM, and as a consequence USING THE PRESS to promote his agenda.
Trump plays the press like a fiddle.
He did this same strategy all through the campaign and has continued it all through his presidency, and he owns the dialog because of it.
He knows exactly what he is doing which is why he is such an amazing hostile negotiator. He always forces the other side to own the facts, and in doing so explain their position.
I mean, you can actually study these techniques (I have) but he’s a master of them.
If you study how cold war intelligence organizations conducted hostile negotiations, that’s where trump took his lessons.
Read how Arafat negotiated. Hostile. Brilliant.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-11 22:20:00 UTC
-
MORE ON THE ESOTERIC, OCCULT, AND LITERARY AND A REQUEST THAT MEN FACE THEIR LAC
MORE ON THE ESOTERIC, OCCULT, AND LITERARY AND A REQUEST THAT MEN FACE THEIR LACK OF AGENCY AS INDIVIDUALS
How do I make clear that one does not argue with the fulfilling (wisdom lit) but with the truth (science)? Well that’s what I try to do.
I have had to continuously counter-signal attacks against my work for not providing a lower agency, more accessible version of the natural law. THERE ISN”T ONE. Man can be lifted to it by constructing his agency, but it cannot be lowered for those lacking it.
And yes it is lower agency to need literature because it relies on appeal to intuition and does not consist of a continuous stream of constant relations between reality and decision.
But that does not mean that when one possesses lower agency one cannot still live a fulfilling life. It means that literary argument is analogy and wisdom helpful in choice of preference and good – and perhaps even understanding. It can in fact function as sedation. Or even inspiration. Inspiration necessary because of a lack of membership in teams granting one agency.
I would read the lord of the rings, and dune, and Neuromancer to envision possibilities, and in fact, most history to gain wisdom. I can understand reading the essays of wise men (particularly Montaigne and Chesterton). But these are vehicles for understanding. Not for argument and decision. Any more than religion and rationalism are means of arguing for truth.
IT IS QUITE HARD TO LACK AGENCY AS A YOUNG MAN. As such i’m criticizing the lack of organizations for MEN. But I undrestand the struggle of being an individual young male, particularly in modernity. It’s alienating.
Literature is a substitute for membership in a group with which one obtains agency. Individualism is the necessary subject of the Law – all else requires guilds, teams, militias, armies, and governments: NUMBERS.
Again… esotericism is escapist literature for those with low agency, and I’m absolutely positive if I spent 25k for an academic and his grad students to do the research it would come out as the same. Esotericism is simply another secular religion. And literature is between wisdom literature, secular theology, entertainment, and escapism.
So it’s ok to criticize and I understand the market need exists. But I am not trying to fill that market need by DEGREDATION but by transcendence of the male into that which he longs for by EXISTENTIAL rather than fantasy means.
And if not, then all that matters is that a small percentage of the population of choose agency, action, and transformation of the real world, as an army, rather than literary sedation, as an individual.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-11 22:00:00 UTC
-
IS NATURAL LAW A CULT? (Literally, the one ‘true’ religion?) —“Propertarianism
IS NATURAL LAW A CULT?
(Literally, the one ‘true’ religion?)
—“Propertarianism and Testimonialism are made up religions.”— Joseph Kane
Um…. Testiness aside… You might argue that putting the Natural Law of reciprocity of Sovereign Men above all other considerations is just science, or you might say that choosing that science is equivalent to a religion. I wouldn’t disagree with you too much if you cast it as a religion.
– It provides an ultimate goal (transcendence),
– It provides a group evolutionary strategy (rapid adaptations through markets),
– It provides a moral ethical, and legal code (reciprocity),
– It puts limits on the actions of government,
– it requires a continuously born cost of truth telling, an oath, and the ritual of oath taking, the practice of military rituals and feasts.
– And for the western people, our history provides a non-false mythos of continuous success at the transformation of self and man into gods.
So as such *it would be one one true religion* for the simple reason that it would be the one religion without falsehood.
The Cult of The Law is the Religion of Men As Gods.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-11 21:34:00 UTC
-
The Rational Veneer of Literary Philosophy
The problem with those who favor literary thought is that they mistake the suspension of disbelief necessary to empathize, sympathize, and comprehend an author’s work, with the truth, goodness, and possibility of it. They rationally justify the quality and desirability of whatever arguments, no matter how sophomoric, but they are only making excuses for the fact that they as suggestible as children, and entirely dependent upon intuition: their reason is just a veneer. Science and Law are not seductive. Just the opposite. They are commercial transactions of commodities that allow you to act in the real world, with real costs, and real consequences. Fairy tales are for children. Even children of adult and later ages.