Curt Doolittle

Form: Quote Commentary

  • “Is modern art masculine or feminine?”—Erik Lukovsky It is not so much masculi

    —“Is modern art masculine or feminine?”—Erik Lukovsky It is not so much masculine versus feminine, but decoration, criticism and ridicule versus art, heroism, and sacredness. In the sense that modern art is gossip, and traditional art is sacred then yes, modern art is feminine and traditional art is masculine. Furthermore, modern art is, like gossip and criticism, cheap, whereas traditional heroic art is expensive, like truth and sacredness. So one of the factors driving modern art is the same as that driving all other forms of fashion: producing consumable status signals for ever lower classes. And while aristocracy of necessity shall demonstrate masculine values, peasantry of necessity shall demonstrate feminine values. DIfferences in all forms of capital concentration: individual male, collective female.

  • “Is modern art masculine or feminine?”—Erik Lukovsky It is not so much masculi

    —“Is modern art masculine or feminine?”—Erik Lukovsky

    It is not so much masculine versus feminine, but decoration, criticism and ridicule versus art, heroism, and sacredness.

    In the sense that modern art is gossip, and traditional art is sacred then yes, modern art is feminine and traditional art is masculine.

    Furthermore, modern art is, like gossip and criticism, cheap, whereas traditional heroic art is expensive, like truth and sacredness.

    So one of the factors driving modern art is the same as that driving all other forms of fashion: producing consumable status signals for ever lower classes.

    And while aristocracy of necessity shall demonstrate masculine values, peasantry of necessity shall demonstrate feminine values.

    DIfferences in all forms of capital concentration: individual male, collective female.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-08 10:30:00 UTC

  • “How much use would propertarianism be to a futurist?”– A Friend Well, I would

    —“How much use would propertarianism be to a futurist?”– A Friend Well, I would say it explains the cause of emergent technologies and each of the layers of artificial intelligence. I would say that (as Wolfram’s been harping) that he next science is one of emergent operations. And that we have been all to interested in mathematics (averages of operations) rather than the operations themselves.

  • “How much use would propertarianism be to a futurist?”– A Friend Well, I would

    —“How much use would propertarianism be to a futurist?”– A Friend Well, I would say it explains the cause of emergent technologies and each of the layers of artificial intelligence. I would say that (as Wolfram’s been harping) that he next science is one of emergent operations. And that we have been all to interested in mathematics (averages of operations) rather than the operations themselves.

  • “How much use would propertarianism be to a futurist?”– A Friend Well, I would

    —“How much use would propertarianism be to a futurist?”– A Friend

    Well, I would say it explains the cause of emergent technologies and each of the layers of artificial intelligence.

    I would say that (as Wolfram’s been harping) that he next science is one of emergent operations.

    And that we have been all to interested in mathematics (averages of operations) rather than the operations themselves.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-08 10:21:00 UTC

  • “Some people will never learn anything, for this reason, because they understand

    —“Some people will never learn anything, for this reason, because they understand everything too soon.”— Pope

  • “Some people will never learn anything, for this reason, because they understand

    —“Some people will never learn anything, for this reason, because they understand everything too soon.”— Pope

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-07 12:55:00 UTC

  • “Some people will never learn anything, for this reason, because they understand

    —“Some people will never learn anything, for this reason, because they understand everything too soon.”— Pope

  • by Eli Harman “I will offer that it is not “white knighting” to simply call out

    by Eli Harman “I will offer that it is not “white knighting” to simply call out bad ideas; just as it is not “white knighting” to interfere in an act of domestic abuse. When one individual seeks to dominate another individual, regardless of the specific characteristics of these individuals, it is incumbent upon those who actually believe in liberty to speak out. Believe it or not some people are more concerned with what is right and good than with what others think of them.” ———- Most people demonstrably prefer dominance hierarchies, even dominance hierarchies they aren’t at the top of. You would have to coerce them, violating your own principles, in order to override that preference. You’re unlikely to persuade them. A stable dominance hierarchy passes along enough benefits, even to those near the bottom, to secure their willing support. What do you offer people? Freedom and responsibility most of them can’t handle, don’t want, and wouldn’t know what to do with? Good luck selling that. What is right: imaginary. What is good: subjective. What others think of you: not the be all end all, but of more consequence than your autistic brain weights it. Of course, some people just like to kick sh_t over or burn it down. And there is no problem with suppressing such troublemakers, if what they are trying to upset is of value to most. Then it just becomes a question of who will prevail. Every so often, the status quo really is rotten and corrupt, and won’t survive that clash. Now is probably one of those times. But you don’t have the medicine we need.

  • by Eli Harman “I will offer that it is not “white knighting” to simply call out

    by Eli Harman

    “I will offer that it is not “white knighting” to simply call out bad ideas; just as it is not “white knighting” to interfere in an act of domestic abuse. When one individual seeks to dominate another individual, regardless of the specific characteristics of these individuals, it is incumbent upon those who actually believe in liberty to speak out. Believe it or not some people are more concerned with what is right and good than with what others think of them.”

    ———-

    Most people demonstrably prefer dominance hierarchies, even dominance hierarchies they aren’t at the top of. You would have to coerce them, violating your own principles, in order to override that preference. You’re unlikely to persuade them.

    A stable dominance hierarchy passes along enough benefits, even to those near the bottom, to secure their willing support.

    What do you offer people? Freedom and responsibility most of them can’t handle, don’t want, and wouldn’t know what to do with? Good luck selling that.

    What is right: imaginary.

    What is good: subjective.

    What others think of you: not the be all end all, but of more consequence than your autistic brain weights it.

    Of course, some people just like to kick sh_t over or burn it down. And there is no problem with suppressing such troublemakers, if what they are trying to upset is of value to most. Then it just becomes a question of who will prevail.

    Every so often, the status quo really is rotten and corrupt, and won’t survive that clash. Now is probably one of those times. But you don’t have the medicine we need.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-07 10:20:00 UTC