Form: Mini Essay

  • Creating New Understanding Is Very Hard, Disciplined, Time Consuming Work.

    It takes an extraordinary long time to simplify a very complex set of ideas into a language consisting of a sufficiently small set of general rules, that they can be taught within the ability, patience, and incentives available to the audience. (this shit I do is f’king hard, which is why it takes so long. I have become much much better at communicating these ideas over time, and that’s because I work, much, much, harder with more discipline with lower tolerance for error, than anyone else I have know, and the only other person I really can commiserate with is Kant – and he was wrong – even if I identify with Hayek [information] in nearly everything. Hume and Smith were innovative and insightful but they lacked legal rigour. As far as I know it takes nine to ten years of research on an innovation to develop marginally indifferent ability in any discipline. I knew that going in. And I knew I was slower that most. But sometimes I wake up from my work and look back and realize that no sane person would do this kind of thing without a cognitive bias to work endlessly [hyper orderliness], and in pursuit of a solution to a problem [threat] that’s pervasive [cultural or civilizational]. )

  • Creating New Understanding Is Very Hard, Disciplined, Time Consuming Work.

    It takes an extraordinary long time to simplify a very complex set of ideas into a language consisting of a sufficiently small set of general rules, that they can be taught within the ability, patience, and incentives available to the audience. (this shit I do is f’king hard, which is why it takes so long. I have become much much better at communicating these ideas over time, and that’s because I work, much, much, harder with more discipline with lower tolerance for error, than anyone else I have know, and the only other person I really can commiserate with is Kant – and he was wrong – even if I identify with Hayek [information] in nearly everything. Hume and Smith were innovative and insightful but they lacked legal rigour. As far as I know it takes nine to ten years of research on an innovation to develop marginally indifferent ability in any discipline. I knew that going in. And I knew I was slower that most. But sometimes I wake up from my work and look back and realize that no sane person would do this kind of thing without a cognitive bias to work endlessly [hyper orderliness], and in pursuit of a solution to a problem [threat] that’s pervasive [cultural or civilizational]. )

  • —“Curt Can You Discuss English vs German?”—

    English vs German When we make contrasts between variations of the same language family, we are of necessity making hay of very minor advantages or disadvantages of each. English consists of ‘common german’, augmented by ‘political class french terms’, and ‘intellectual class latin terms’. We choose words from each ‘class’ and this choice infers a great deal about both the speaker and his audience. Many of these terms have very precise meanings and are not open to interpretation because of it. So it’s a low context, high precision, terminological language. German is a compound language, which is naturally descriptive and often operational. English is a selective and appropriative language. Germans have a penchant much like french, to load poetic meaning and double entendres in these descriptions, where in english this is harder, and we usually use more literal or full sentence structures for the same reason. Where germans have certain experiential words, english tend to have descriptive sentences. English uses more precision in time, and more precision in blame (action and accountability). In other words, english is a legal, financial, and political language, and german is a social and craftsmanly (engineering) language. And that is because english is a SLIGHTLY more High Precision, Low Context language, and german is a SLIGHTLY less high precision low context language. And even so, that difference tends to be limited to Scandinavian Contractualism (Anglo Saxonism) versus central german moralism. In other words, germans are evolved more from farmers and armies and scandinavians more so from sailor(pirates) and navies. Hence Prussia = Sparta, and London = Athens. In most cases, if we could fix the german time grammar, a compound language is preferable to a terminological language. And german is superior for social discourse. And the ability of germans to retain ‘the oath’ by the very structure of their language and semantics, without having to adopt american (anglo) legalism to enforce it is an asset. And the more I study this problem the more I want to combine the two. (What americans think of constitutionalism is what germans think of morality, but both are just referring to the prehistoric germanic ‘oath’.) FWIW: there is a bit of myth that americans considered choosing German as the national language. This is incorrect. It’s that so many of the people spoke german, that they considered issuing the declaration and constitution in german as well as english. But since translation is an iffy thing, and how to do it was undecided, they simply failed to do so – by one vote. However, again, I want to stick with the point that the english adopted french(class) and jewish(financialism) sentiments after 1830, and that america outside of new england, remained german in culture while speaking west germanic english. And this is what separates the rather ‘peasant’ culture of white english lower classes, and the rather ‘french’upper classes, from the american’s who are, at present, still decidedly PRUSSIAN. And if I have my way we will study frederick rather than jefferson.

  • —“Curt Can You Discuss English vs German?”—

    English vs German When we make contrasts between variations of the same language family, we are of necessity making hay of very minor advantages or disadvantages of each. English consists of ‘common german’, augmented by ‘political class french terms’, and ‘intellectual class latin terms’. We choose words from each ‘class’ and this choice infers a great deal about both the speaker and his audience. Many of these terms have very precise meanings and are not open to interpretation because of it. So it’s a low context, high precision, terminological language. German is a compound language, which is naturally descriptive and often operational. English is a selective and appropriative language. Germans have a penchant much like french, to load poetic meaning and double entendres in these descriptions, where in english this is harder, and we usually use more literal or full sentence structures for the same reason. Where germans have certain experiential words, english tend to have descriptive sentences. English uses more precision in time, and more precision in blame (action and accountability). In other words, english is a legal, financial, and political language, and german is a social and craftsmanly (engineering) language. And that is because english is a SLIGHTLY more High Precision, Low Context language, and german is a SLIGHTLY less high precision low context language. And even so, that difference tends to be limited to Scandinavian Contractualism (Anglo Saxonism) versus central german moralism. In other words, germans are evolved more from farmers and armies and scandinavians more so from sailor(pirates) and navies. Hence Prussia = Sparta, and London = Athens. In most cases, if we could fix the german time grammar, a compound language is preferable to a terminological language. And german is superior for social discourse. And the ability of germans to retain ‘the oath’ by the very structure of their language and semantics, without having to adopt american (anglo) legalism to enforce it is an asset. And the more I study this problem the more I want to combine the two. (What americans think of constitutionalism is what germans think of morality, but both are just referring to the prehistoric germanic ‘oath’.) FWIW: there is a bit of myth that americans considered choosing German as the national language. This is incorrect. It’s that so many of the people spoke german, that they considered issuing the declaration and constitution in german as well as english. But since translation is an iffy thing, and how to do it was undecided, they simply failed to do so – by one vote. However, again, I want to stick with the point that the english adopted french(class) and jewish(financialism) sentiments after 1830, and that america outside of new england, remained german in culture while speaking west germanic english. And this is what separates the rather ‘peasant’ culture of white english lower classes, and the rather ‘french’upper classes, from the american’s who are, at present, still decidedly PRUSSIAN. And if I have my way we will study frederick rather than jefferson.

  • ASYMMETRY IN OUR CONFIDENCE OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY The principle success in the

    ASYMMETRY IN OUR CONFIDENCE OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY

    The principle success in the physical sciences is the publication of many findings that eventually converge (possibility) or diverge (falsehood).

    We know we cannot intuit the first principles of the universe – although IMHO we are getting close to returning to ‘ether’ lol.

    But when in matters of biology, sentience, and cooperation, we cannot STOP ourselves from intuiting answers, and as such we attempt to propose conclusions too early.

    Worse, we cannot even compose tests that do not in and of themselves produce desired answers. We simply do not know how to.

    So in both the imperceptible physical world, the imperceptible sentient world, and the imperceptible cooperative (social/political/economic) worlds, we are equally blind.

    The problem is we think we are unequally blind.

    Anything you intuit that conflicts with the least-cost algorithm of nature is wrong.

    Nature can’t choose. She does what is cheapest, and what is cheapest is the first available transformation.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 13:02:00 UTC

  • ALL PEOPLES CAN ADOPT THE BEST OF THE EUROPEAN CIVILIZATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES Only

    ALL PEOPLES CAN ADOPT THE BEST OF THE EUROPEAN CIVILIZATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

    Only europeans could invent sovereignty, rule of law, reason, low context, high precision language, and markets in everything. And as such only europeans dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, disease, and the vicissitudes of nature in a universe hostile to life. But that said, *Any people willing to adopt the Government of the Universal Militia of Sovereign Men, and constrain the base impulses of the under classes can make use of that european civilizations technology.* Any group willing to do so can adopt it. It’s difficult. But it will work.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 12:23:00 UTC

  • “CURT CAN YOU DISCUSS ENGLISH VS GERMAN?”— English vs German When we make cont

    —“CURT CAN YOU DISCUSS ENGLISH VS GERMAN?”—

    English vs German

    When we make contrasts between variations of the same language family, we are of necessity making hay of very minor advantages or disadvantages of each.

    English consists of ‘common german’, augmented by ‘political class french terms’, and ‘intellectual class latin terms’.

    We choose words from each ‘class’ and this choice infers a great deal about both the speaker and his audience.

    Many of these terms have very precise meanings and are not open to interpretation because of it.

    So it’s a low context, high precision, terminological language.

    German is a compound language, which is naturally descriptive and often operational. English is a selective and appropriative language.

    Germans have a penchant much like french, to load poetic meaning and double entendres in these descriptions, where in english this is harder, and we usually use more literal or full sentence structures for the same reason. Where germans have certain experiential words, english tend to have descriptive sentences.

    English uses more precision in time, and more precision in blame (action and accountability).

    In other words, english is a legal, financial, and political language, and german is a social and craftsmanly (engineering) language.

    And that is because english is a SLIGHTLY more High Precision, Low Context language, and german is a SLIGHTLY less high precision low context language. And even so, that difference tends to be limited to Scandinavian Contractualism (Anglo Saxonism) versus central german moralism.

    In other words, germans are evolved more from farmers and armies and scandinavians more so from sailor(pirates) and navies.

    Hence Prussia = Sparta, and London = Athens.

    In most cases, if we could fix the german time grammar, a compound language is preferable to a terminological language. And german is superior for social discourse.

    And the ability of germans to retain ‘the oath’ by the very structure of their language and semantics, without having to adopt american (anglo) legalism to enforce it is an asset. And the more I study this problem the more I want to combine the two. (What americans think of constitutionalism is what germans think of morality, but both are just referring to the prehistoric germanic ‘oath’.)

    FWIW: there is a bit of myth that americans considered choosing German as the national language. This is incorrect. It’s that so many of the people spoke german, that they considered issuing the declaration and constitution in german as well as english. But since translation is an iffy thing, and how to do it was undecided, they simply failed to do so – by one vote.

    However, again, I want to stick with the point that the english adopted french(class) and jewish(financialism) sentiments after 1830, and that america outside of new england, remained german in culture while speaking west germanic english. And this is what separates the rather ‘peasant’ culture of white english lower classes, and the rather ‘french’upper classes, from the american’s who are, at present, still decidedly PRUSSIAN.

    And if I have my way we will study frederick rather than jefferson.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 12:14:00 UTC

  • INCENTIVES OF INDIVIDUALISTS —“My collectivism and ethnocentrism is ultimately

    INCENTIVES OF INDIVIDUALISTS

    —“My collectivism and ethnocentrism is ultimately founded upon individualism. Individual incentives and self interests lead individuals into groups, because they can obtain more in groups than they can on their own. Kinship just happens to be a sensible criterion around which to organize a group, for a variety of evolutionary reasons. Individual incentives also lead people to group others into groups and consider them in terms of statistical, rather than individual, criteria. People will consider each other as individuals when they have individual information at hand. But sometimes, in light of statistical data, the cost of obtaining the individual information, or the risk of getting it wrong, do not outweigh the expected benefit from doing so.”— Ely Harman


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 11:05:00 UTC

  • CREATING NEW UNDERSTANDING IS VERY HARD, DISCIPLINED, TIME CONSUMING WORK. It ta

    CREATING NEW UNDERSTANDING IS VERY HARD, DISCIPLINED, TIME CONSUMING WORK.

    It takes an extraordinary long time to simplify a very complex set of ideas into a language consisting of a sufficiently small set of general rules, that they can be taught within the ability, patience, and incentives available to the audience.

    (this shit I do is f’king hard, which is why it takes so long. I have become much much better at communicating these ideas over time, and that’s because I work, much, much, harder with more discipline with lower tolerance for error, than anyone else I have know, and the only other person I really can commiserate with is Kant – and he was wrong – even if I identify with Hayek [information] in nearly everything. Hume and Smith were innovative and insightful but they lacked legal rigour. As far as I know it takes nine to ten years of research on an innovation to develop marginally indifferent ability in any discipline. I knew that going in. And I knew I was slower that most. But sometimes I wake up from my work and look back and realize that no sane person would do this kind of thing without a cognitive bias to work endlessly [hyper orderliness], and in pursuit of a solution to a problem [threat] that’s pervasive [cultural or civilizational]. )


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 10:09:00 UTC

  • The Mirror and Reciprocity

    (important post) (propertarian core) —“So any criticism leveled at another group only serves to illuminate our own failure to perform successfully in intra-group competition.”— Bill Joslin ( CD: Or as I have been saying “The problem is in the mirror.”) by Bill Joslin Group Identity, being a common-property shared by group members, when redefined by another group (for example: whiteness, or inferior races) commits a vandalous act – damages that property. (correct) To maintain a condition of boycott, those under attack must abandon the property to the vandals (thieves) – if not, then the only alternative is to double-down to defend it – which then devolves into retaliatory vandalism… (at least unless escalated to political, economic, or military conflict.) So the stance I’ve heard you take on racism, which has a short list of justifications [we have crap people in our group also; any group can advance; etc.] I think has a deeper operational and moral footing” i.e. reciprocity between groups, as it pertains to identity, isn’t possible – to go there violates our own law of reciprocity. And near-group breeding and cooperation might present the limit at which intra-group reciprocity can occur within domains of identity – some common ground- some exchange which doesn’t result in erosion of damages to identity. So any criticism leveled at another group only illuminates our own failure to perform within intra-group competition. Focussing on fixing our failures preserves integrity to natural law which is the basis of out identity… And prevents retaliation spirals and intertemporal transfer of costs for breaking our law) Was that coherent? – Bill Joslin (CD: Yes, bill that was about as coherent as it can be stated. 😉 ) Apr 17, 2018 11:06am