Source: Facebook

  • GENDER(SEX) COMPATIBILISM Yes, I’m and advocate for COMPATIBILISM. Not equality

    GENDER(SEX) COMPATIBILISM

    Yes, I’m and advocate for COMPATIBILISM. Not equality but compatibility in a division of reproductive, productive, cognitive, and temporal labor.

    Which is why I always make sure I have women around me when I run companies. Because I am like most men, blind to some range of the senses, just as most women are blind to some range of the senses.

    P relies on compatibilism with reciprocity in display word and deed (including that reciprocity we call truthfulness). We pair off on opportunities so to speak in a market competition that calculates the best for all if irreciprocity and falsehood are suppressed.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 11:23:00 UTC

  • Again. What do you think I was saying? “Game is cognitive behavioral therapy for

    Again. What do you think I was saying?

    “Game is cognitive behavioral therapy for infantilized males (at the expense of infantilized females, caused by the tendency of women to infantilize, because the infantile are easily manipulated by seduction across the infant-child-female-male spectrum, and this is why we must return to separating boys and girls in education, just as we must return to overlapping ‘one room school’, separated by ability, and even race given our differences in rates of maturity, emphasis on fitness, on competition, and the high cost of doing so.”

    In other words, I was being critical of ‘game’ as compensating for the dominance of feminism in education.

    You didn’t get the irony.

    And then you personalized it.

    And then you retaliated against it.

    Without seeking to understand it.

    To determine whether it was true regardless of whether it was desirable.

    Which is what women tend to do:

    1. NAXALT,

    2. Personalize,

    3. Conflate desirable with truth,

    4. use GSRRM to undermine the truth,

    5. use GSRRM to undermine the truth speaker,

    6. manipulate to circumvent the truth, and;

    7. encourage infantilism to preserve the ability to manipulate, 8. because women’s instincts are dysgenic because of the high cost of her offspring. And the monotheistic religions of the old world, and the pseudoscientific religions of marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism, and HBD Denialism are both means of satisfying women’s (and weak men’s) intuitions to preserve investments regardless of their merit, just as men’s intuitions are to preserve investments by the advancement of merit.

    Now, I don’t believe men and women have any control over these instincts – that is, until we learn to have agency. Men have had thousands of years to learn to develop institutions that force them to have agency, rather than engage in political and physical super-predation.

    But women have had less than a century to develop institutions that force them to have agency rather than engage in social and interpersonal super-predation. And the 20th century collapse of civilization has been made possible by the use of pseudoscience sophistry, denial and deceit to sell the false promise of escape from Darwin, Malthus, and the compromises between Genders and classes ameliorated by our use of the law of tort, truthful testimony, and the jury.

    Women live longer, are coddled by both men and women, Create 70% of college debt, but a minority of ‘real’ degrees, determine elections, consume 70% of government resources, but spend 70% of family income, are the target of 90%+ of advertising, determine what propaganda and media is produced, are privileged in divorce, demand economic privilege at every opportunity, where only white males between 30-50 are net tax contributors, die earlier, get lest medical investment, are more likely to suicide because of it.

    So if women are the vector for despotic political religion in the ancient world and despotic political pseudo-religion in the modern, and are responsible for immigration, taxation, the dismantlement of the constitution, and the civili society because their instincts are dysgenic, then what reforms are necessary to bring women into parity with men with equal suppression of their harmful instincts?

    I mean, talk about hyperconsumption.

    I mean, talk about consumption of civilizational capital.

    It’s not men doing it.

    It’s women.

    Who are totally unconscious of their selfishness.

    P-law eliminates the use of seduction to bait women (and weak men) into hazard by appeal to their intuitions in favor of dysgenia and decline (the instinct of the herd), because that was the primary criminal invention of the 20th century – a repeat of the jewish and christian invention of criminality in the first century – this time by sophism, pseudoscience, and denial, instead of the occult.

    So all of that was underneath the post.

    You just didn’t think it through.

    Because you leapt to your feelings.

    You didn’t demonstrate agency.

    And it is agency that separates human from animal.

    If men did the same we would be back in an era of continuous domestic violence. Instead we are in a period where men largely control their physical violence, and women do not control their social violence.

    I think things through.

    If you ever think I am wrong.

    Then either you don’t understand.

    Or the animal inside is talking so you can’t

    Not the human we seek to build on top of it.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 11:23:00 UTC

  • P GRAMMARS TIE ALL THE WAYS OF KNOWING TOGETHER by Ryan Drummond I think reading

    P GRAMMARS TIE ALL THE WAYS OF KNOWING TOGETHER

    by Ryan Drummond

    I think reading Jung without reading Nietzsche can easily bait one into intellectual (and moral) hazard.

    I’d say, too, that reading Nietzsche without reading the cognitive sciences or the work of yourself, for example, can bait people into empirical hazard.

    The breadth of such work simply can’t be understood by reading one author, or even two authors.

    You need to cover the existential, the theological, the moral, the historical, the cultural, the psyche, and the scientific objectivity to get a ‘clearer’ picture of the totality.

    Even then we can easily fall into traps of bias and error!

    I admire how P takes all of these things and knits them together into a logical web of truth that can be followed and understood a little more clearly by those with no exposure or those with partial exposure to these things.

    It also, if you want to take it far enough, opens up avenues of thought and totality for even hardened scholars in such fields of study.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 10:49:00 UTC

  • A CRITICAL PRINCIPLE By @[572499615:2048:Daniel Roland Anderson] If you ever wan

    A CRITICAL PRINCIPLE

    By @[572499615:2048:Daniel Roland Anderson]

    If you ever want to understand Natural Law, this is a critical principle.

    If you have not performed Due Diligence, and you serve as a conduit for falsehood, you are “lying” under the P definition of lying.

    So sometimes when we call you liar, we aren’t saying you are wicked. It could be you are simply . . . simple.Updated Apr 3, 2020, 10:46 AM


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 10:46:00 UTC

  • “The lost virtue of “I don’t know” and “I’m not qualified to answer”— Steve Pe

    —“The lost virtue of “I don’t know” and “I’m not qualified to answer”— Steve Pender


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 10:45:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/92587113_247850863279741_32738477420

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/92587113_247850863279741_32738477420

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/92587113_247850863279741_3273847742023073792_o_247850856613075.jpg NOTES ON ERIC WEINSTEIN’S THEORY

    He demonstrates why geometry must remain the basis for mathematics, else it becomes ordinary language with all it’s faults – long standing complaint – and primary pre-war concern of mathematicians who were concerned by the restoration of mysticism in mathematics by empty verbalisms like ‘multiple infinities’ vs ‘pairing off at different rates’. This restoration of mysticism (Cantor, Bohr, and to some degree Keynes) reversed the restoration of mathematics to geometry by Descartes.

    He does a great job of demonstrating anchoring in any academic endeavor. And that some scientific half-solutions are sources of ignorance. And that generations of malinvested academics have to die off before their sources of ignorance can be overcome.

    His interjection with illustrations are a romantic cultural indulgence that distracts from his argument.

    He missed the point on Hilbert – that Einstein created an obstacle by half-finishing the theory and hilbert wouldn’t have.

    His logic is elegant, interesting, and thorough. And easier to follow than I expected.

    He does not make the transition from point-geometry to shape geometry.

    He does not make the connection between the problem of protein folding and the problem of particles producing waves.

    He identifies an avenue for investigation but he does not get to the point where he grasps that the reason his theory is correct but limited is that the information is insufficient to deduce from the top down or competition between formulae because we cannot measure.

    And so he doesn’t get to the point of working with primitives (operations) to produce wave forms (aggregates).

    So he doesn’t get to the point where math might be the wrong tool per se, and that simulations are necessary – by trial and error – to produce the underlying geometry.

    It’s not obvious that the sub-quantum (statistical) would logically operate by the same rules as chemistry and bio chemistry, molecular biology, and genetics etc – by an operational grammar.

    So, my suspicion is that “You can’t get there from here”. There is no means of anticipating the grammar (referent, logic, operations, transformations). All we are left with is trial and error.

    (My sympathies since I had to work outside the academy as well – there is no way to put a dissertation committee together for my work either.)

    — Curt DoolittleNOTES ON ERIC WEINSTEIN’S THEORY

    He demonstrates why geometry must remain the basis for mathematics, else it becomes ordinary language with all it’s faults – long standing complaint – and primary pre-war concern of mathematicians who were concerned by the restoration of mysticism in mathematics by empty verbalisms like ‘multiple infinities’ vs ‘pairing off at different rates’. This restoration of mysticism (Cantor, Bohr, and to some degree Keynes) reversed the restoration of mathematics to geometry by Descartes.

    He does a great job of demonstrating anchoring in any academic endeavor. And that some scientific half-solutions are sources of ignorance. And that generations of malinvested academics have to die off before their sources of ignorance can be overcome.

    His interjection with illustrations are a romantic cultural indulgence that distracts from his argument.

    He missed the point on Hilbert – that Einstein created an obstacle by half-finishing the theory and hilbert wouldn’t have.

    His logic is elegant, interesting, and thorough. And easier to follow than I expected.

    He does not make the transition from point-geometry to shape geometry.

    He does not make the connection between the problem of protein folding and the problem of particles producing waves.

    He identifies an avenue for investigation but he does not get to the point where he grasps that the reason his theory is correct but limited is that the information is insufficient to deduce from the top down or competition between formulae because we cannot measure.

    And so he doesn’t get to the point of working with primitives (operations) to produce wave forms (aggregates).

    So he doesn’t get to the point where math might be the wrong tool per se, and that simulations are necessary – by trial and error – to produce the underlying geometry.

    It’s not obvious that the sub-quantum (statistical) would logically operate by the same rules as chemistry and bio chemistry, molecular biology, and genetics etc – by an operational grammar.

    So, my suspicion is that “You can’t get there from here”. There is no means of anticipating the grammar (referent, logic, operations, transformations). All we are left with is trial and error.

    (My sympathies since I had to work outside the academy as well – there is no way to put a dissertation committee together for my work either.)

    — Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 10:44:00 UTC

  • ONE AUTHOR ISN’T ENOUGH. BUT THAT’S WHERE MANY PEOPLE STOP. It’s Nietzche, THEN

    ONE AUTHOR ISN’T ENOUGH. BUT THAT’S WHERE MANY PEOPLE STOP.

    It’s Nietzche, THEN Jung, Frazer, Campbell, Dumezil, Vonnegut, THEN cognitive Science, THEN Haidt, Doolittle.

    Jung is easily misdirected without nietzche’s ‘the birth of tragedy’. campbell midirected without dumezil and vonnegut.

    Both groups without the grammars, reciprocity, and haidt’s moral intuitions.

    And western civ lost without all four generations of religion.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 10:04:00 UTC

  • INTENTION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ONE TO LIE The difference between testimonial trut

    INTENTION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ONE TO LIE

    The difference between testimonial truth and honesty is substantial, but perhaps the most surprising is that that we do not need to intend to lie to lie. We need only speak a lie whether we intend to or not. Most of us are carriers of lies. Because we do not know how to perform due diligence against lying. And worse, because we do not desire to stop using our most precious lies. So in P-law, we are guilty of a failure of due diligence against lying, rather than just intent to lie – just as in our existing law we are responsible for restitution whether we intended harm or not. And we are additionally subject to punishment and prevention if we harm by intent.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 09:40:00 UTC

  • There is a value in ancient things – that is why they persisted. The question is

    There is a value in ancient things – that is why they persisted. The question is understanding the value that exists rather than the value claimed exists, and a full accounting of externalities good and bad.

    re: magic, occult, religion, myths.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 09:25:00 UTC

  • Astrology, Numerology, Fortune Telling, Divination, and the Bible all depend on

    Astrology, Numerology, Fortune Telling, Divination, and the Bible all depend on the same process: you can find anything there that you want to.

    There is a value to these tricks however, in that they free you from responsibility for free association. And they bypass cognitive bias and error the same way that a praying to god bypasses our ability to lie to ourselves.

    In other words, you find what you want to, and astrology, numerology, fortune telling, divination, and religious scripture serve to bypass our ability to lie to ourselves and bypasses our reason, so that we rely entirely on intuition. And in some things, intuition defeats reason.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 09:03:00 UTC