Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-07 07:23:00 UTC
Source: Facebook
-
Eric Danelaw shared a post to your timeline
Eric Danelaw shared a post to your timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-07 07:23:00 UTC
-
The past two posts: 2 – Market Demonstrated Via Positiva 1 – Peterson’s Mission
The past two posts:
2 – Market Demonstrated Via Positiva
1 – Peterson’s Mission vs Doolittle’s
contain very important concepts.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-07 07:22:00 UTC
-
Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline
Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-07 07:21:00 UTC
-
Eric Danelaw shared a post to your timeline
Eric Danelaw shared a post to your timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-07 07:21:00 UTC
-
Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline
Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-07 07:20:00 UTC
-
Eric Danelaw shared a post to your timeline
Eric Danelaw shared a post to your timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-07 07:20:00 UTC
-
THE MARKET DEMONSTRATED VIA POSITIVA FAILED The problem is that people can intui
THE MARKET DEMONSTRATED VIA POSITIVA FAILED
The problem is that people can intuit what is correct about many things that are wrong. You can (because you’re in the same spectrum as peterson and I) easily do that. When I was in college I could easily do that. But the problem we have not so much education in what is right, but preventing education in what is wrong. YOu are, and many libertarian and right’s are, intuiting from peterson what others intuit from postmodernists, marxists, pseudosciences, and conspiracy theories.
It is one thing to provide a means of teaching, but it is quite another to provide a means of preventing false teaching.
The market for false teaching has not been subject to incremental suppression, particularly since the industrial revolution – for the simple reason that they could not find a way to both suppress it and tolerate christianity (had we still been pagan it would have been possible).
I sympathize with via-positiva intuitionistic agreement, but that tells us only that the individual possesses the preconceptions by which to sympathize with it – and not competing preconceptions and intuitions.
That’s the evidence. Period.
Ergo, it really doesn’t matter a shit-bit because the market for narratives has maintained a superior demand for fictionalisms (falsehoods) that justify the dysgenic majority. The FACTS are, the EVIDENCE IS, that we (aristocracy) loses any market in which we cannot incrementally suppress parasitism, for the simple reason that parasitism is preferable, emotionally, intellectually, and actionably to the vast, unproductive, majority.
So while via-positiva storytelling is a cheap means of youth-education (and therefore adult regulation), and will train youth to seek opportunities within the limits of the suppressed parasitisms, the market has demonstrated that truth and law (the west) or fiction(religion) and law (the rest of the world), are the only POSSIBLE means of transformation of a polity.
All that matters is law. The more correspondent the law the lower the friction the higher the velocity.
The rest is amusement for children, women, and priests.
The problem is, children, women, and priests can increase the costs such that aristocracy (soldiers, scientists, and judges) lack the will to impose law by truth.
Why?
Because in the end, only soldiers matter. Because only soldiers choose.
What does that mean?
It all begins with the Militia.
(Thus endeth the lesson)
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-07 07:18:00 UTC
-
PETERSON’S MISSION VS DOOLITTLE’S MISSION In the end Petersen working on self he
PETERSON’S MISSION VS DOOLITTLE’S MISSION
In the end Petersen working on self help – or self correction (direct) at one end of the spectrum and I’m working on systemic help – or systemic correction (indirect) at the other end of the spectrum. He’s teaching and I’m governing. Via positiva, via negativa.
I made this similar argument about Mises vs Hayek, and I could easily make the argument about Spencer vs Nietzsche.
I could make the same argument between Marx and Keynes.
Hayek spent his whole life coming to the same conclusion I have, by almost exactly the same sequence.
individual training is extremely expensive but collective (systemic) training is cheap and most effective. And the single most effective means of training is the continuous evolution of the single law of reciprocity that we call the law.
People will self justify anything and everything at all times.
People cannot self-justify their way out of law. Legislation, and morality yes, but law no. They must act in accordance with it.
The brain gives us reward for the number of free associations generated by any given set of relations. It literally feels good for the neural economy to prune and grow – identifying more possibilities…. more IMAGINATION, and therefore more opportunity. And it is opportunity-generation that is the value of memory.
This is one of the reasons we able to empathize, extend trust, suspend disbelief, and accept new information from storytelling uncritically via suggestion the by the same process we imitate others through observation and imitation. (if you can connect those processes it will help you understand.)
But we are suggestible by observation and by storytelling just as we are suggestible by acting in the environment – hence metaphysical value judgements that we intuit but do not know we know.
Observation and storytelling are much cheaper than action. Literature/experience and philosophy/argument are cheaper than science/engineering, because emotions, thought, and action describe a sequence of costs.
As it must be for any creature that decides action using memory.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-07 06:59:00 UTC
-
Mar 6, 2018, 10:51 PM
https://www.quora.com/In-theory-how-do-innovative-new-companies-get-created-in-a-textbook-socialist-economy/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=9799a8b1&srid=u4QvUpdated Mar 6, 2018, 10:51 PM
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-06 22:51:00 UTC