( home for a while. Daughters, sister, niece, and I, as well as our grandmother to a lesser degree, all have some sort of social anxiety thing -a terrible intolerance for ‘dim people’. A terrible need for ‘logical’ order. But it’s so CALM to be together. Everything makes sense. No stupid things are said. fairly stoic people. I wonder what village life would have been like amongst kin? )
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 13:41:00 UTC
Why? Because I won’t betray my ancestors, their kin, my kin, and the middle and working classes, even my underclasses. That’s why.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 13:38:00 UTC
NATURAL LAW DOESN’T JUSTIFY ARISTOCRACY – IT JUSTIFIES MARKETS – IT IS JUST THAT NATURAL LAW IS ONLY POSSIBLE UNDER ARISTOCRACY
btw: (important)
I advocate natural law because it forces reciprocity, and by reciprocity forces markets in everything. The only thing the underclasses have to trade is self control, and particularly reproductive self control. The outcome of that self control turns out to be eugenic – which is a benefit by externality.
The reason I advocate aristocracy, is because the only thing the strong have to trade is violence, and the only use that violence can be put to under reciprocity is the construction of reciprocity (natural law), markets, and the externality of eugenic transcendence. And because in history, if they do not profit from rule by their violence, they will be consumed parasitically by those who profit from deceit(left), or commerce (middle), I merely state this eugenic transcendence aesthetically to answer my critics that I fail to provide an aesthetic to the aristocratic(father), and only provide the aesthetic to the bourgeoise (brother). the left (mother) lacks agency so their approval is only something to explain and judge, not ask since their aesthetic is not one of reciprocity but parasitism.
As a criticism of those who follow me as far as I know, only Eli, Butch, and TRS’s Mike Enoch were able to understand this without explanation. Why? you and I evolved and have been trained, to think in ideal types and on dimension of difference, not in equilibria producing desirable outcomes by externality of following incentives rather simple one or two dimensional rules. We evolved at human scale, but must now answer questions of large numbers beyond human scale.
Can you evolve to think in equilibrial, external, mutli-causal density? Of course you can. There are only so many dimensions of causes that affect our judgements. And I cannot tell if this is an physical (iq) limitation, a normative limitation(habit), or pedagogical (learning) question, but since I can do it, others must be able to. And I can observe from my own learning and Eli’s that it is not intuitive – like economics it is precisely counter-intuitive, and must become intuitive -like reading , math, and economics – to make use of it. )
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(h/t: Bill Joslin for indirectly telling me I had to state this.) 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 13:19:00 UTC
https://propertarianism.com/2017/03/17/tragedy-allows-us-to-construct-truthful-myths/( James Augustus : I’m still awed by this insight )
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 12:30:00 UTC
WRITING IN PARENTHETICALS, SERIES, AND AXES
(grammar)
I learned the technique of writing with series(sequences) and parenthetic parallels(like this) from Karl Popper (Critical Rationalism). And it was his adoption and use of of series rather than sets that distinguished Popper from the Analytic school. I did not understand originally what was superior about his approach to analytic philosophy, but I understood he had improved upon it. I only understood that he had identified that science was critical not justificationary (like morality and law), and that along with Hayek they were the first to grasp that social science like physical science, must be modeled as a problem of information, not an analogistic model from of prior generations(electricity, steam, water, mechanicals) – just as I understand our problem today is an artifact of industrialization and the attempt to manufacture identical units rather than ‘grow’ a portfolio of the best humans.
Later I came to understand that both parenthetic parallels, series, and relations between axis (think supply demand curves), provided tests of the NECESSITY of meaning, rather than NORMATIVE or COLLOQUIAL meaning. In other words, they limit the reader (and the author) from malattribution of properties that occur in normative and colloquial, and particular, and ‘ignorant’ speech.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 11:48:00 UTC
SERIES: MODELS OF DECIDABILITY
(very important)(advanced)
Note: Michael Andrade teased me the other day for posting so many series, often without resolution. Why?
Each series is an attempt at creating a proof. An attempt to create a set, series, sequence, spectrum, that increases the precision of every definition by its membership in that spectrum. I try to include as many terms as I can, and when something doesn’t fit, I add more dimensions. I record each ‘failed proof’, and some of them I’ve tried dozens of times – each time trying to take it to further clarity and precision. Eventually I end up with all terms defined on different spectra, and each spectra represents a causal axis – a universal law of man. It is from the identification of these axis that I test each other axis, and together develop an internally consistent and externally correspondent logical description of the laws that govern men’s impulses, thoughts, and actions.
And while definitions are important for clear argument, and definitions in series (linear or otherwise) are the best we can achieve, that is not my end objective.
Just as reality consists of dimensions and eventually pure relations, mathematics consists of dimensions and eventually pure relations, our methods of argument consist of dimensions and eventually result in pure relations. Just as mathematics consists of very simple operations, programming consists of very simple operations, chemistry consists of a very simple set of operations, the ‘theory of everything’ must eventually consist of very simple (deterministic) operations, also… in practice, the law of perfect reciprocity must also consist of a simple set of operations (we know that already from experience), and most importantly *argument* must consist of a very simple set of operations (it does), and a limited number of *dimensions* (it does). Moreover, just as languages vary from the primitive and high context (Chinese), to the advanced and low context (English/German), Arguments vary from universal context (human experiences), to high context (normative), to low context(natural law), to minimum-context’ (science, or ‘truthful’). And so just as we have sought the ‘law of chemistry’, and the law of nature (cooperation), we can seek the ‘law of sentience’. The law or argument. The law of communication. And with that law we can create arguments ever closer, and ideas ever closer, to correspondence with reality. And it is from correspondence with reality that we gain knowledge of reality – and from that knowledge, dominion over reality.
SERIES: ARGUMENTS (COMMUNICATION)
==========================
IMAGINARY (we should do )
Occult Literature (Separatist Theology)(separate)(intuition – justify)
Supernatural Literature (Theology)(organize organize by authority)(reason)
Moral Literature (Philosophy)(organize by ideal)(rationalism)
Literature (Allegory)(envision)
DESCRIPTIVE (we have done)
History (Analogy)(advise) (note: non-econ history is literature)
Economics (Record) (evidence of cooperation)(advise)
Law (Record)(evidence of conflict)
Natural Law (Logic)(decide)
Science (Truth )(learn)
JUSTIFICATIONARY (we justify )
Ratio-empirical-operational
Ratio-Empirical
Rational
Reasonable
Moral Normative
EXPERIENTIAL (we feel)
Sentimental
Expressive
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 11:33:00 UTC
THE 2010 MACBOOK PRO 17″ BEST LAPTOP EVER
It will go down in history as the Duesenberg of laptops. Very few purchased. But the best laptop ever designed and built.
I will get this think repaired for the rest of my life. Or until someone makes another one.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 09:19:00 UTC
IF YOU ARE NEWBIES, PLS FOLLOW Eli Harman AS WELL
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 09:14:00 UTC
SERIES: MEANS OF RULE: DEFINITIONS
MAJORITY RULE (DEVOLUTION)
Majority Rule (Democracy, Republican Democracy) is the means by which the majority of women and the underclass can use the violence of the state to extract rents from the productive classes who would otherwise invest them in long term monumental, institutional, genetic, and normative returns.
RULE OF LAW (RECIPROCITY-PEAK)
Rule of law is the means by which we use the promise of violence of the state to force trades between the classes so that everyone achieves the best available without violating reciprocity (cooperation).
MINORITY RULE ( EVOLUTION )
Oligarchy is the means by which we use the violence of the state to domesticate the unruly for profit, until they are no longer sufficiently unruly that they can obtain rule of law.
AUTHORITARIAN RULE (WAR – EVOLUTION )
Fascism (Authoritarianism) is the means by which we use the violence of the state to organize the entire society to solve a small, urgent, problem, of war, economic war, religious war, demographic war, or rapid economic transformation.
THE ACCUMULATION AND CONSUMPTION OF CAPITAL CREATED THROUGH INCREASING AND DECREASING ORGANIZATION
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 09:12:00 UTC
—“Again, women don’t have political agency. They’re simply not culpable and I don’t see what that sort of arguing leads to.”—Simon Ström
(and men don’t have child-rearing instincts (empathy) as a cost of obtaining our agency)
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 09:01:00 UTC