@jordanbpeterson I would love it if you would answer this question on your use of Fictionalism in Myth. https://propertarianism.com/2017/06/13/open-letter-to-jordan-peterson/ Troubles me.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-13 17:36:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/874681916410261505
Research Neoteny. Some peoples have succeeded at self domestication more than others.
https://www.quora.com/Human-Evolutionary-Genetics-Why-do-some-white-people-have-flat-butts-Or-why-does-it-seem-some-people-of-African-ancestry-have-larger-butts-What-is-the-physical-difference-in-the-bodies-that-determines-the-body-shape
Research Neoteny. Some peoples have succeeded at self domestication more than others.
https://www.quora.com/Human-Evolutionary-Genetics-Why-do-some-white-people-have-flat-butts-Or-why-does-it-seem-some-people-of-African-ancestry-have-larger-butts-What-is-the-physical-difference-in-the-bodies-that-determines-the-body-shape
BUDDHISM(MIND) VS STOICISM(ACTION)
—“Hey Curt, a friend and I were just discussing Stoicism and Buddhism. I remember you talked about Yin-Yang being a prison, could you elaborate?”— A Friend.
What is the evolutionary difference between harmony(balance) and competition?
What is the difference between buddhism and stoicism?
–“Buddhism seeks Harmony (which is stagnant), while Stoicism seeks competition (which is innovative)?”—
There you go. And what happened to stoic (western) versus buddhist (eastern) societies?
Harmony is another word for tolerance of one another, non-disruption of the status quo, and Submission to authority.
Competition is another word for tolerance of one another, disruption of the status quo, and non-submission to authority.
By Nick Zeto:
—“The way in which I differentiated the two is through different means of describing transcendence. One can transcend the mind beyond the material and come to tolerate their environment, or one can transcend the material beyond the mind and come to dominate their environment. Tolerate or dominate.Do you accept that the environment is harsh and tolerate it, or do you find means of overcoming the harshness? Toleration and submission involve no calculation or calls to action.”—
Which model will calculate innovation and therefore produce a condition of prosperity faster? Which will preserve a status quo that is ‘adequate’ for a longer period of time?
The problem is that while we need to be able to, and we can, switch governments under rule of law between fascism, liberalism, and progressivism as our competitors (conditions) allow us, we cannot change ritualistic disciplines habituated in the people.
For this reason, it is optimum to teach people stoicism and to organize by rule of law, the merely switching the means by which we produce and distribute commons (government) rather than to rely on buddhism and entrench a people in a condition.
NOTE: my opinion on this matter is gender specific. Women have much harder problem with mindfulness than do men and learning to quiet rather than direct that mind is to their advantage. Women are more problematic in gossip. Men are more problematic in action. Women do not as much need a mind directed as much as quieted. Men do not need a mind so much quieted as directed. My central problem with buddhism is that it needs to be restated and possibly incorporated into Stoicism and then individuals can ‘swing’ mental quietude vs mental discipline as suits their genetic predispositions.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-12 09:08:00 UTC
FWIW I would love to ‘fix’ his remaining NAP infection. But he’d have to ask me on to talk with him.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-12 00:48:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/874065842018951168
Reply addressees: @AnarchyEnsues @StefanMolyneux
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/874062976868691968
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/874062976868691968
I have no idea. I was an early mover. Stefan a ‘late mover’ – for reasons I can only guess. But as a populist he must follow the market.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-12 00:47:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/874065461813673984
Reply addressees: @AnarchyEnsues @StefanMolyneux
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/874062976868691968
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/874062976868691968
Eli Harman:
—“What’s the basis for prosecuting the purveyors of perverse and pernicious entertainment fiction, such as that which has proliferated lately? They use it for the purposes of ideological warfare, so there must be one…”—
I don’t think we get into true/false with fiction with any more difficulty than we get into true/false with biographies, and fiction as false history. The court is pretty good at this process.
So:
1 – We have the easy problem of whether it’s stated as fiction or not.
2 – We have the the easy problem of whether someone’s making an argument or not.
3 – We have the medium problem that someone is engaged in fraudulent representation of the narrative or not.
4 – And we have the hard problem that someone is promoting immorality or not (indirect ir-reciprocity).
5 – And we have the easy problem that someone is promoting crime or not (direct ir-reciprocity).
6 – And we have the very easy problem of someone SPEAKING OR TEACHING literature as science or truth.
I am not sure this is all that difficult.
We do most of it today. The only difference is that we don’t punish advocacy of parasitism and the teaching of it.
I mean, if you write a novel where a murderer, or a terrorist or communist is a hero I think we might get there but I think that is very hard to take seriously. That’s the only question.
I think the issue is one of authority:
Pretense of truth.
Academy, church, or state.
Eli Harman:
—“What about if you’re using fiction to teach lies, like equality. It could be that an exceptional female or minority character is just an extreme outlier. But when the DISTRIBUTION of female and minority characters is systematically shifted toward “extreme outlier” territory across ALL popular fiction, how do you prosecute any one content creator for lying?”—
I think that the only reason this is even a question is because we haven’t had our revolution yet and put the law into place, and I”m very certain that the world will change radically because it will be economically too dangerous to tread those waters.
I think that just as there are things you are careful about doing today – promoting terrorism and thievery in the classroom. And I think that there are things that we don’t do in the classroom – making arguments to supernaturalism. And I think it will be just as uncommon to make pseudo-rational, pseudo-moral, pseudoscientific, arguments in the future as it will be to make supernatural arguments in school and university today
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-11 18:30:00 UTC
—-yeah, well, the application of calculus to financial transactions does tell us a lot about people but that whole “economic imperialism’ thing is dead in the water. It died in 2008.—
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-11 18:18:00 UTC
—“If I can’t survive and speak truthfully…. what’s the alternative? What can I do differently?”—
Say nothing when possible.
Say the least possible and obscurant when you can’t say nothing.
Simply agree when you can’t say the least possible.
Remember Them.
Return to Punish them for the use of ir-reciprocity via blackmailing you into stating a falsehood, and causing harm to you, your transcendence, and mankind.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-11 11:30:00 UTC
THE WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE ORTHODOX PEOPLES?
—“Curt: What are your thoughts on the Orthodox church?”—
Well, I have good and bad to say about the churches themselves, but that does not say much about the orthodox peoples. The catholic and orthodox churches differ trivially. Far less so than the protestant and catholic churches.
THE ORTHODOX PEOPLES
The orthodox peoples compensate for low trust, with strong family, friendship, high ritual, sacredness, and smaller organizations, lower experimentation, entrepreneurship, and innovation.
The orthodox people never formed a militia,and never developed a middle class, never developed contractualism, and never went through the enlightenment, and are descendent almost entirely from farmers and serfs. Hence strong family, strong friends, weak commerce, and low trust.
THE ORTHODOX LATE ADOPTER BENEFITS
That said, the late adopter of a technology may filter the observed undesirable effects, retain the desirable effects, and not abandon the more desirable effects of the prior order.
So, once modernity has spread through the rest of the world (islam, india, china, and africa), and the excesses of the west are no longer possible due to extreme differences in wealth, it would be logical, and appears to evolve, that the orthodox may have benefitted from her delay.
If you can have all the benefits of the west, and not destroy your civlization in the process is not that the best alternative?
I think so.
THE FUTURE OF OUR PEOPLE IN CONTEXT
So I would prefer to live amongst the Traditional Orthodox and Catholic peoples over that of the Cosmopolitan Protestant/Jewish peoples, if I cannot save my own protestant peoples from Cosmopolitanism by the forcible elimination of the lies and deceptions that make Protestant Suicide possible.
All I need to is convince enough of my extended kin to eliminate fraud from the public discourse, and defund the production of the industrialization of lying, and I can save my people.
To do that I need only produce a reformed constitution, a set of demands to implement it, a reason for the majority of my kin to demand it as well over the interests of their cosmopolitan elites, and destroy the fragile economy long enough that the state cannot survive the combination of demands, disorder, destruction, and loss of support of the people.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-10 10:24:00 UTC