For men, threats to the dominance hierarchy are a possible benefit we need to work through. For women they are a near certain threat they need to avoid. That’s what separates our perceptions of reality. Men are less cautious with one another because we’re more dangerous and less likely to act. Women are more cautious with each other because they are less dangerous and more likely to act against each other.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 17:09:00 UTC
Doing, talking about, and imagining something all exercise the same pathways. Help her imagine, talk about things so she doesn’t do them. (works both ways)
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 17:06:00 UTC
It’s not so much that women want to be right all the time. It’s that they want to exorcise their feelings most of the time. The trick is to help them do that as well as their best girlfriend when they are insecure, and not to reinforce them when they are getting cocky. (works both ways really.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 17:04:00 UTC
THE TEST OF ‘DIVINE RIGHT’ (MARKET FOR RULE)
Ely Harman
The problem is that rule by divine right is a DESCRIPTIVE theory and not a PRESCRIPTIVE theory.
So yeah, if the sovereign can at once awe and inspire loyalty, then don’t challenge him. But if not, there is no reason not to.
You cannot know whether or not he has the divine mandate unless you put it to the test. The gods will show their mind if they are offered a choice.
Even a bad king may be a punishment for worse subjects, rather than merely a usurper whose fall shows the emptiness of his pretensions. But only the test can reveal the difference.
(Curt: King of the Hill is a market process.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 16:49:00 UTC
THE MONARCHY AS A TRADE
By Lorenz Fiorenza
Monarchies are a family. Family is the foundation of social organization.
As a rule, one has more investment in their direct family than their extended kin. Combine state with family and the monarch should be very, very invested in the well-being of the state.
Families -usually- practice consistent trades. A working class family teaches their sons to be mechanics*, bougie family focuses on their jeweler business*, a monarchical family focuses on the administration and decorum of the nation*. ***or they cease to be a family and are erased from history.
You make a profitable trade out of rule and rulers are very likely to make a multi-generational business out of it.
If you fail, you get the Romanov solution.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 15:58:00 UTC
NON-FALSEHOOD
except in trivial cases, (largely the a priori or tautologies), we cannot know we speak the truth, we can only warranty that we have done sufficient due diligence to not knowingly speak a falsehood.
So we can say that all certain knowledge consists of falsehoods, and all that we conventionally claim is true, except for trivialities, consists only of truth candidates.
Of those truth candidates we can only claim that they survive in the tests of hypothesis(survival of plausibility), theory(survival from criticism), and law(survival in application), and tautology (indifference).
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 15:45:00 UTC
( reminder. I don’t approve empty socks. I can’t. too many idiots in the world. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 15:37:00 UTC
So wait. The evidence is coming in consistently now. And it turns out that the people we call Teutons, but really are just undiluted, and manorialized aryans (Yamna), really are in fact the superior subrace?
Oh. OMG. That’s…. that’s gonna suck. Really. Seriously.
I mean. My little celtic-anglo-saxon-norman backside is just not gonna enjoy that bit of propaganda war.
Well, I have no problem being ruled by my betters.
It’s the people who aren’t my betters that bother me. 😉
Can we get a german or dutch monarch over here please????
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 15:26:00 UTC
TRUTH: A WARRANTY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES
(worth repeating)
[D]EFINITIONS OF TRUTH.
[T]RUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
[T]RUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
[H]ONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
[I]ntuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).
[P]reference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants).
[O]pinion: (justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.
[P]osition: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.
[D]emonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements.
TRUTH CONSISTS IN A WARRANTY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES.
True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship.
True enough for me to feel good about myself.
True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.
True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.
Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 15:20:00 UTC
Two years ago, I could only quote one or two followers, once in awhile. Today I can quote any number of followers multiple times a day.
It works. Discipline. Persistence. Hard work. Commitment. We build a revolution in thought and in rule, one idea and one conversation at a time.
We negotiate the only possible terms of the militia of sovereign men, one day, one debate, one test, at a time.
And slowly, from our most subtle intuitions that ‘something is not right with this world’, we produce a solution, a plan, understanding, conviction, and the spark of action.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 15:09:00 UTC