This book corresponds with a number of your concept’s Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-23 14:56:00 UTC
This book corresponds with a number of your concept’s Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-23 14:56:00 UTC
—“Curt, have you considered writing your own material on violence, incremental suppression and domestication in to a book?”—
Long time followers know that I made my first draft in 06, another in 09/10, another in ’13, another last year 15/16, and that each time I draft it, I learn ‘what’s missing’. Last fall I couldn’t put my arms around it, but it was Agency. Right now, given Transcendence /Agency, I can’t find anything ‘that’s missing’.
Also, every six months I get better at communicating the ideas and at present I feel pretty good, as long as I don’t have to cross too many sigma of iq. If I had launched the work before now I would have failed.
Next, there are sort of three formats to publish in. One is a skeleton of the innovations. The second is the skeleton plus readings leaving interpretation of ‘voice’ up to the reader. The third is more ‘traditional’ educational form, where you walk the reader through it, with your own voice.
The skeleton is easily published now as a set of definitions, series, and explanations, culminating in a constitution of natural law.
I can augment this skeleton with selected short readings of my own on the application of that law; and with selected writings from history; and with selected historical literature. Producing a more traditional ‘law’. One that is absent my ‘voice’. But can take the place of wisdom literature that is durable over time.
And then to produce a class online that performs the teaching function, and that includes my voice. This will be less durable over time, since we must speak in different language to the audience in every generation.
Anyone with a little effort can grasp the skeleton from the Overview readings. I know becuase others have. And I don’t think those ideas are terribly difficult – what is difficult is replacing everyone’s existing ‘framing’, that includes justificationism, majoritarianism, and persuasion, rather than criticism, reciprocity, and rule. Retraining your mind, if you are not naturally ‘neutral’ (aspie) is pretty difficult.
I mean, ratio-empirical-reciprocal-operational-and-fully-accounted, is not difficult to separate ratio-empiricism-correlative is not difficult to separate from rational-and-reasonable, which is not difficult to separate from mythical-supernormal, whch is not difficult to separate from religous-supernatural.
What is hard is transitioning people from a lower method of truth testing requiring less information, to a higher method of truth testing requiring more information.
Every time we do it, we encounter vast resistance.
Western civilization needs a small number of us to form the counter revolution against the frankfurt school and restore the western ‘scientific’ civilization.
So that’s what I’m looking for. Yet, as a group, we need this book. We need Natural Law of Sovereign Men: the Cult, Philosophy, Law, and Science, of Western Civilization. The basis from which all our sub-disciplines evolved.
It’s a very simple set of rules that ask us to live in correspondence with reality, since by acting in correspondence with reality we obtain an advantage over all those others who do not so much conform to reality.
And simply because we will evolve all aspects of our society faster than all other societies if we do.
Which is what we have done.
IN CLOSING
So I am again trying to produce another draft that is this time, shortest of all, and is closest to the literary model put forth in the 48 Laws of Power, and which is sufficiently structured as wisdom literature that it does not ‘decay’ with the generation that it was first written for.
I have a very hard time with this. And it makes me appreciate spinoza, who worked by the same principle, toward different ends.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-22 09:11:00 UTC
—” Does “why shouldn’t I kill myself?” Qualifies as political question? Or polarity is internal here?”—Mea Culba 1) PERSONAL Q: First question of philosophy why do I not commit suicide? A: possibility for acquisition and influence (power) 2) ETHICAL Q: First question of ethics: why do I not kill you and take your things? A: Because cooperation is lower cost and higher return 3) POLITICAL Q: First question of politics: why do we not kill you and enslave your wives and daughters? A: Because it is much lower cost and much higher return. 4) TO WHAT DEGREE DO WE COOPERATE? 1) Why don’t I fight with you? 2) Why don’t I steal from you? 3) Why don’t I trade with you? 4) Why don’t I finance with you? 5) Why don’t I (exchange-or-create norms) with you? 6) Why don’t I create laws (government) with you? 7) Why don’t I cohabitate with you? 8) Why don’t I reproduce with you? BECAUSE I DON”T TRUST YOU ENOUGH TO COOPERATE THAT *MUCH* WITH YOU.
—” Does “why shouldn’t I kill myself?” Qualifies as political question? Or polarity is internal here?”—Mea Culba 1) PERSONAL Q: First question of philosophy why do I not commit suicide? A: possibility for acquisition and influence (power) 2) ETHICAL Q: First question of ethics: why do I not kill you and take your things? A: Because cooperation is lower cost and higher return 3) POLITICAL Q: First question of politics: why do we not kill you and enslave your wives and daughters? A: Because it is much lower cost and much higher return. 4) TO WHAT DEGREE DO WE COOPERATE? 1) Why don’t I fight with you? 2) Why don’t I steal from you? 3) Why don’t I trade with you? 4) Why don’t I finance with you? 5) Why don’t I (exchange-or-create norms) with you? 6) Why don’t I create laws (government) with you? 7) Why don’t I cohabitate with you? 8) Why don’t I reproduce with you? BECAUSE I DON”T TRUST YOU ENOUGH TO COOPERATE THAT *MUCH* WITH YOU.
—“CURT: DO YOU BELIEVE IN/SUPPORT RACIALISM?— (choice quotes here) (I view this, and all racial questions, as stupid but here is my answer.) I don’t know what that means. I advocate truth is more competitively advantageous than falsehood. In the case of race, people everywhere at all times demonstrate kin selection (except at the margins). In polities, under monarchy, this was not a problem, since one group possessed political power and the state could not be used as a proxy for warfare. Democracy and diversity restored levantine and semitic tribal conflict to european high trust homogenous societies. In creating a high trust competitive polity with a high standard of living, it appears that constructing a kinship order rather than a corporate order, is superior during the majority of history. It appears that corporate orders are means of merely extracting accumulated capital from homogenous peoples, and the emergence of a corporate order is evidence of predation or parasitism within or from without. So as far as I know, it is not possible to survive a test of full accounting under a corporate order, and it is only possible to survive at test of full accounting under a kinship order. Now as far as differences between the Races, Subraces, Tribes, Clans, Families. And As to differences between the Classes, and between the Generations, and as to differences between the Genders, all of these differences exist, and they exist because we demonstrate both attempts to cooperate and attempts to complete or engage in conflict. at every level from gender, to generation, to class, to tribe, to subrace, to race. And while at small interpersonal scale we can reconcile these differnces in the absence of political orders, when we act as groups in family, clan, tribe, nation, subrace, and race, in norms, laws, institutions, traditions, and myths, we ally with our kin – our group. Those who do not (Antifa) are those who are outcast by their own group, and seek other groups. So what we see is two axis of organization and resistance: the classes vs the races, and corporatism vs tribalism. And we see the middle classes and working and laboring classes seeking homogeneity, the underclasses seeking whatever is to their advantage at the time, and the upper classes siezing power by whichever faction is able to exert the most pressure in the political model at hand. The disenfranchised seek the opposite of whatever order is in play.
—“CURT: DO YOU BELIEVE IN/SUPPORT RACIALISM?— (choice quotes here) (I view this, and all racial questions, as stupid but here is my answer.) I don’t know what that means. I advocate truth is more competitively advantageous than falsehood. In the case of race, people everywhere at all times demonstrate kin selection (except at the margins). In polities, under monarchy, this was not a problem, since one group possessed political power and the state could not be used as a proxy for warfare. Democracy and diversity restored levantine and semitic tribal conflict to european high trust homogenous societies. In creating a high trust competitive polity with a high standard of living, it appears that constructing a kinship order rather than a corporate order, is superior during the majority of history. It appears that corporate orders are means of merely extracting accumulated capital from homogenous peoples, and the emergence of a corporate order is evidence of predation or parasitism within or from without. So as far as I know, it is not possible to survive a test of full accounting under a corporate order, and it is only possible to survive at test of full accounting under a kinship order. Now as far as differences between the Races, Subraces, Tribes, Clans, Families. And As to differences between the Classes, and between the Generations, and as to differences between the Genders, all of these differences exist, and they exist because we demonstrate both attempts to cooperate and attempts to complete or engage in conflict. at every level from gender, to generation, to class, to tribe, to subrace, to race. And while at small interpersonal scale we can reconcile these differnces in the absence of political orders, when we act as groups in family, clan, tribe, nation, subrace, and race, in norms, laws, institutions, traditions, and myths, we ally with our kin – our group. Those who do not (Antifa) are those who are outcast by their own group, and seek other groups. So what we see is two axis of organization and resistance: the classes vs the races, and corporatism vs tribalism. And we see the middle classes and working and laboring classes seeking homogeneity, the underclasses seeking whatever is to their advantage at the time, and the upper classes siezing power by whichever faction is able to exert the most pressure in the political model at hand. The disenfranchised seek the opposite of whatever order is in play.
non arguments so far
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 19:20:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854776643122061313
Reply addressees: @FormerlyFormer @primalpoly @JayMan471
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854775696694161408
IN REPLY TO:
@FormerlyFormer
@curtdoolittle @gmiller @JayMan471 Irrelevant. The govts may be relatively old, but what is considered bad speech has changed often just in my own lifetime.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854775696694161408
yuo mean in the oldest extant governments in the world?
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 19:14:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854775227020177408
Reply addressees: @FormerlyFormer @primalpoly @JayMan471
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854772844932325376
IN REPLY TO:
@FormerlyFormer
@curtdoolittle @gmiller @JayMan471 Short term thinking. There is no guarantee that the sorts of judges you prefer will always be in place.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854772844932325376
we solve it every day in courts everywhere with extraordinary predictability
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 17:55:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854755299625926657
Reply addressees: @FormerlyFormer @primalpoly @JayMan471
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854675179200536576
IN REPLY TO:
@FormerlyFormer
@curtdoolittle @gmiller @JayMan471 You can’t solve the “who decides” problem, though. You get to limit false speech, but I get to decide what’s false. Deal? If not, why not?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854675179200536576
It’s because you shot from the script not from storyboards, so your transitions suck. Script -> storyboards -> locations -> production -> shoots.
Want to improve your skills as a director? spend three years learning how to draw, and learn from the comic books. During that time build a library of clips so you see how to make various shots.
This is your inventory. locations, production, and actors are what cost you money.
Now. You might think you’re creative. Or talented. But you’re wrong. It’s all just details. And the best directors are better at using the inventory, planning all the details, so that when you want to shoot, you care mostly about what you can’t do ahead of time: coach the actors.
In the editing room, your goal is to manage the viewer’s emotions the entire time. If you got enough shots you can do that. If you didn’t you cant.
Yes and tat is why your low budget flick sucks. You didn’t get it to storyboard, or map story boards to shoots, and plan out all your production costs ahead oftime. And if you did, you couldn’t coach your actors.
And so you shot your script and your movie sucks. You have a set of two second to four second stills of your script. and it’s dead. emotionally dead.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 15:40:00 UTC