Source: Facebook

  • AGENCY AND DEVELOPMENTAL VELOCITY (important) For those of us who were born gene

    AGENCY AND DEVELOPMENTAL VELOCITY

    (important)

    For those of us who were born genetically capable of agency, we take longer to mature because we require so much information in order to render decisions without the context that ‘normals’ have. Meanwhile, normals mature earlier at the expense of agency. And the feminine mature earliest at high cost to agency. I think this is the causal explanation we are looking for. My mother told me I was born an old man who desired to play peter pan. This rather motherly and colloquial observation turns out to have been scientifically correct. info-vores arise because of lack of genetic contextualism. We mature more slowly. But possess greater agency because of it. We could say this another way: that humans are capable of breeding a distribution of rates of maturity to ensure a supply of people who are biased to calculate the full range of short (child rearing) and long (tribal competitiveness) problems.

    ( Aaron Kahland, Caitie Doolittle, Jean Barresi, Elizabeth Doolittle)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 11:01:00 UTC

  • ok. back to software for today

    ok. back to software for today.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 10:48:00 UTC

  • William Butchman re: —“I see sovereignty as the strategy, and the heroic narra

    William Butchman

    re: —“I see sovereignty as the strategy, and the heroic narrative in myth, religion, literature, history… and science, as the western narrative.”— Curt Doolittle

    I posit that the NSDAP did that. But they had a positive value system which failed when validated against the Darwinian test. I think that sovereignty via heroism can be pursued in many ways, but the outcome will vary greatly based on the positive value system… something via negative cannot provide.

    Curt Doolittle

    correct. and something we cannot KNOW. Therefore we require a market for via-positiva value systems, so that we calculate by trial and error the possibility that at least one of them will work.

    Which is saying the same thing EXCEPT I intuit (right or wrong) that you (like most) desire a monopoly narrative, not a market for them.

    Via negativa, sovereignty, and transcendence are enough for those who possess agency, because the need for anything ELSE is an admission of the lack of agency.

    But few men possess agency. Even in this group where we have many smart people that number is in the low single digits.

    The rest of men want only (a) convfirmation that their narrative, the narrative needed for their level of agency, is ‘good’. (b) the method of arguing against competing narratives with lower or higher agency.

    I think that like reproductive value, like class, like intelligence, we must understand that agency is another trait that separates us – and that we seek to deny until we can no longer deny it.

    My advocacy of natural law (truth), and soverignty, is not to advance our people as much as it is to prevent the harm to our people by those who would make the same excuses (arguments) as a means of distributing (selling) another parasitic and predatory narrative as did the jews and teh christians and muslims, and buddhists.

    So the man lacking sovereignty seeks via positiva, and the man possessing sovereignty seeks via negativa – there is nothing else for the sovereign to SEEK.

    The powerful are so becaue of correspondence. They do not need license, they need to eliminate competitors.

    There are many layers of weakness (lack of agency) below sovergithy. we must give them the tools to transcend.

    If they do not want those tools we must force them or exterminate them out of defense. If they cannot use the tools we must manufacture them (narratives) that support them.

    This is the unstated conundrum you and Bill Joslin are struggling with.

    To which the uncomfortable answer is evident, but requires intellectual honesty.

    The answer is sovereignty, natural law, and via negativa. But there are very few capable of it. Even if it is the only means of transcendence and therefore production. All other alternatives are not methods of transcendence and production, but of decline, and consumption.

    Accepting this is probably the one thing you’d both need to do in order to lead those who share your intuitions, rather than require a leader with those intuitions who had made that acceptance.

    Love always.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 10:01:00 UTC

  • RELIGION = FEEL (fully intuit – absence of measure) RATIONALISM = THINK ( partly

    RELIGION = FEEL (fully intuit – absence of measure)

    RATIONALISM = THINK ( partly intuit – measure internally)

    SCIENCE = CALCULATE (minimally intuit-maximally measure externally)

    (feels, thinks, and reals)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 09:42:00 UTC

  • “I’m glad I learnt Latin, I’d never be able to cope with your sentence structure

    —“I’m glad I learnt Latin, I’d never be able to cope with your sentence structure without it Curt LOL”—Claire Rae Randall

    Curt Doolittle

    lol. my sentence structure is also heavily influenced by the grammar of writing software, and the order of operations in mathematics.

    Punctuation evolved to assist us in writing what would later be read aloud, or read as spoken.

    Argument needs better punctuation.

    I have a horrible desire to write with layers of parenthesis. lol

    Claire Rae Randall

    Aha! That software grammar is the added layer that often sticks in my mental comprehension processor and where my mind goes blank! But I do agree the grammar of expression is so important and is widely ignored, especially on the left. Why is that no surprise?!

    Curt

    lol


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 09:39:00 UTC

  • RELIGION = FEEL RATIONALISM = THINK SCIENCE = CALCULATE (feels, thinks, and real

    RELIGION = FEEL

    RATIONALISM = THINK

    SCIENCE = CALCULATE

    (feels, thinks, and reals)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 09:30:00 UTC

  • Now to fuck with this Human Drives diagram I will simplify it dramaticallly to t

    Now to fuck with this Human Drives diagram I will simplify it dramaticallly to the purely selfish methods by which we intuit and learn to acquire.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 09:25:00 UTC

  • “Curt, please explain to me how thinking formally is not using idealism?”—Sira

    —“Curt, please explain to me how thinking formally is not using idealism?”—Siraaj Khandkar

    “Formally” means internally consistently.

    Thinking operationally requires correspondence with reality.

    Thinking operationally is not thinking ideally.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 08:42:00 UTC

  • CTHULU SWIMS LEFT WITHOUT A CURRENT OF NATURAL LAW Any system of decidability th

    CTHULU SWIMS LEFT WITHOUT A CURRENT OF NATURAL LAW

    Any system of decidability that is not explicitly right, meaning meritocratic, non-discretionary, and fully calculable, will, by increment, evolve into explicitly left, meaning corrupt, fully discretionary, and fully incalculable.

    Natural law is explicitly right, meaning, meritocratic, non-discretionary, and fully calculable. It cannot swim left. And as far as I know it is the only institutional means of preventing Cthulu swimming left.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 08:37:00 UTC

  • D

    😀


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 03:21:00 UTC