THANK YOU TO WHOMEVER SENT ME THE “INTENSE WORLD THEORY” OF AUTISM
Ive always said it’s that we’re ‘very everything’. But the author of the stuidies has produced some profoundly interesting insight into how this ‘intense perception’ is constructed during early brainstem development, and how it contributes to intense localization of phenomenon.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 14:44:00 UTC
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2016/07/cognitive-biases-ideology-control.htmlTHE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ANSWER:
Well, if we call upon William of Ockham’s advice to criticize your psychological attribution it’s much more likely that you are engaging in selection bias, as well as rationalization, in order to justify the use of your methodology, and its measures, to produce what it is that you measure, rather than what OTHERS are measuring.
In this case, they’re measuring the full portfolio of needs and you are not.
So let’s look at why:
Because your aggregates do not take into account the full cost of your recommendations: genetic, institutional, cultural capital is the most expensive investment we have made and you’re encouraging spending it in favor of increasing populations and increasing consumption despite the overwhelming empirical evidence that it doesn’t improve happiness.
Because there are a lot of voters who intuit if they cannot fully articulate, that the cost to the family, to the civic order, to the culture, to the civilization, to history and to kin, is far higher than any incremental benefit that you can promise from increases in productivity and consumption.
Because it has become obvious that the externalities produced by your policies have created an increasingly fragile social order that cannot survive shocks in a world in which we no longer have cultural, institutional, and technological advantages that allow our middle and upper classes and our militaries to provide asymmetric economic benefits to our working, clerical, and professional classes.
Because it has become obvious that the business cycle theory is correct, and that each attempt we make to soften the correction merely extends this correction as well as all corrections that follow.
Because it has become obvious that the American and European experiment have produced precisely the failure that the Chinese encountered in their post-warring-states period where the bureaucracy absorbed the professional class to a degree that the civilization increasingly stagnated.
Because a lot of reasons.
Now, you are resorting to what we call the rhetorical fallacy of “psychologism” which is the modern equivalent of the theological prohibition on sin, and nothing more.
People act in their rational self-interest, but their rational self-interest beyond a certain limited scope, is to preserve their status, family, and culture in contrast to other families and cultures.
The right (aristocratic) philosophy of the west is reducible to the Anglo-Saxon Bipartite Manorial mandate to produce great families as the central unit of policy, production, and reproduction.
The left (underclass) philosophy of the counter-empirical-enlightenment, is reducible to the attempt to remove the eugenic advantage of good families and to raise ‘bad’ families to equal footing.
Apparently, left-leaning economists do not study the consequences of Islamic expansion and slave trade on the civilization after 1100, and the decline of the near east and north Africa as a consequence.
So it is that people correctly intuit that their “portfolio of capital” is no longer being benefitted by leftist expansion. It is one thing to provide reciprocal insurance to near kin with shared history, and another to consume genetic, institutional, cultural, and historical capital for the sake of increasing consumption that has no material impact and merely returns our cities into medieval ghettos, and modern favelas.
When we just spent over thirteen hundred years trying to reverse those possibiliites where all other civilizations in human history have failed.
That is why.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 11:48:00 UTC
THE PROCESS OF GROWING MAN, TRIBE, CULTURE, AND CIVILIZATION IS NOT ONE OF MANUFACTURE.
In every era we use the dominant model of complexity as an analogy for that which we cannot directly explain by operational means.
Humanity has gone through the natural provision era, the agrarian era (things are grown), the irrigation era, the horse era(things are disciplined and trained), the hydraulic era(hearts pump), the gear and pulley era(mechanical), the steam era(big,scary,dangerous), and the industrial era (leading to our friend socialism), and now we are in the computational era and transitioning to the information era in both physics and social science.
Unfortunately, our education system remains a product of industrialism. And it is a disaster. Our social science remains in industrialism, and it is likewise a disaster. And our political and legal systems also remain in antique form, and are equally a disaster.
Human minds and bodies grow and genetics tell us how to grow, and we are the product of the PROCESS of growing. As is our knowlege, as are our cultures, as is mankind.
And just as the operations that we use to move our limbs are invisible to us, the operations that nature uses to grow us are at present only in the initial stages of observation.
We do not need to wait for the mechanism of growth to be better understood before we alter our institutions to rely on growth rather than manufacturing, and on growing humans like trees rather than manufacturing parts for factories.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 11:01:00 UTC
MESSIANIC MISSIONS AND HUMAN USURY
(diary)(very personal)
Working on my personal reformation still, and I think I have found the issue, and it’s much more obvious in retrospect than I thought.
The problem with heroic (messianic) missions, and in general, missions beyond what is comprehensible to others, or programs in which others may play some partial role without understanding that the greater purpose is beyond their grasp, is that it is increasingly easy to ‘use’ people if for no other reason than it is not possible to engage in reciprocal information nor intent.
Now, not only have I been on this messianic mission since my first blushes with self-agency at the age of twelve, but I also lack many social fears, and I lack a great deal of ordinary empathy. Not because I lack feelings – just the opposite. I am overwhelmed by them.
My mission has consumed my life – and framed my thinking so much so that I have lost sight of the alternatives normal people follow.
Prior to my divorce, one of the women I worked with called me a sociopath – which I took as feminist psychologism and shaming. The modern equivalent of calling people sinful if they do not conform to dogma. But when we got divorced – and my cancer had returned – my wife accused me of the same. Which seemed very odd to me, so I started seeing a therapist to discover if it was true – divorces are disoriented for most of us and for me it was especially so. And of course, I have none of the markers of sociopath, just the opposite. Which is possible to see in my philosophical work quite clearly. I love people, and I hate disapproval or suffering.
But it was not until this period of introspection that I understood that for almost all my adult life, and certainly since my first bout of cancer in 2001 increased my sense of urgency so dramatically, I have treated people as little more than resources that are necessary for the fulfillment of what I see as my mission – and a mission that I see as of profound importance for my people.
The second bout with cancer in ’09 dramatically accelerated my feeling of pressure – that I must act – and by October of 2012 when I came to Kiev, after another hospitalization in August, I felt the weight on my subconscious so heavily I am not sure there was much of my identity left beyond it. I remember feeling like an automaton. And it was not long after that I took the ‘early’ strategy of attacking libertarianism in order to accelerate my learning, and raise awareness of my work, so that I could start to build a body of people able to use these ideas in argument in favor of the western tradition.
Now, a good enough psychologist – or me as the Propertarian equivalent – might say that as a young person with mild Asperger’s growing up in a violent and chaotic home, experiencing the tragedy of the 1960s, while at the same time digesting encyclopedias in the western tradition, that I chose this mission as a means of making life tolerable, and under my control, rather than the control of, or opinion of others. And I would agree. But that causal connection doesn’t change the fact my work is pretty revolutionary and that I have succeeded in producing the missing philosophy of the west that so many authors have struggled to codify in the post-mystical era we call the enlightenment.
Now, to some degree, the number of people I can treat as fully informed peers is very limited. I am in a position in life that many prior revolutionary thinkers have been in – feeling somewhat alone. And I have this entirely ingrained paternalism wherein I consider almost everyone childlike, but love them all anyway.
But, just as when you look to your parents and realize that you have outgrown them, and are confronted with the fear of it, or your teachers, or your mentors, or your career peers, or all your friends – one feels the weight of having no one to turn to but books – and thankfully, in our era, the internet. So I cannot hope to treat people as peers.
In my work on ethics, I have described this gray area, wherein I try to illustrate that if there are moral and legal norms, you can adhere to them while still taking advantage of people. This is one of my criticisms of parasitic groups.
But there is also the inverse gray area, wherein a man with greater knowledge may choose not to act according to moral and legal norms, with full belief that he acts morally anyway because the circumstance is sufficiently under his control that the benefit for the group mandates that he act unconventionally. And if he succeeds, then he is a genius of profound character, and if he fails he is a fool and a scoundrel. Whereas, had he obeyed moral norms, even if that meant dramatically increasing the chance of failure, whether he succeeded or failed would have produced the same positive judgment of him either way.
Now to use people doesn’t mean to harm them. It means the external value that they associate with the relationship differs from normative expectations. In reality, if you live entirely for a mission, then what value do most people have other than to the mission? So if the mission changes, or we are no longer in pursuit of it, then the value of people changes as well. Because one can have people who add value to the mission when that mission that is not shared, or we can have a mission that adds value to the people which is shared.
So. I use people. I used people. I have used everyone and everything at my disposal for many years – most of my life. Most of which helped buy me time to work on my mission. I have built companies for no other purpose than to provide me funding to work on my mission, sought work where I had the headspace to work on my mission, associated with people for the sole purpose of advancing my mission. And in practical terms, that seems like all I have done.
And after my spate of illnesses, I developed a sense of urgency that took me to near total disregard of others, outside of normal human friendship.
And that appears to be why I am here and now in this here and now.
So that was a much harder discovery process than I expected, and I am not sure that I understand what it means fully yet, but at least, by focusing on getting rest, I understand my actions in retrospect.
Minds are interesting things.
I feel much more a rider on the elephant the older I get, and the more I udnerstand that our agency is much more limited than our egos can admit.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 10:50:00 UTC
RECIPROCAL INSURANCE
—“The Salic Law outlines a unique way of securing the payment of money owed. It is called the Chrenecruda (or crenecruda, chren ceude, crinnecruda).[21] In cases where the debtor could not pay back a loan in full they were forced to clear out everything from their home. If the debt still could not be paid off the owner could collect dust from all four corners of the house and cross the threshold. The debtor then turned and face the house with their next of kin gathered behind them. The debtor threw the dust over their shoulder. The person (or persons) that the dust fell upon was then responsible for the payment of the debt. The process continued through the family until the debt was paid. Chrenecruda helped secure loans within the Frankish society. It intertwined the loosely gathered tribes and helped to establish government authority. The process made a single person part of a whole group.”—
Hence we make people responsible for the actions of their group.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 09:45:00 UTC
I love in old english that we used “right” and “unright”, just like we used “clean” and “unclean”.
Now we use right and wrong, clean and dirty.
Why?
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 09:30:00 UTC
In near the Polish border, in suburbia, sitting on the porch of a home, on a two-acre plot, using my iphone as an internet connection, and the air pressure is changing and the clouds are moving and it will rain soon because the wind is slowly picking up. And I think what I find both peaceful and striking is the quiet, the wind through the leaves, the freshness of the air, and sound of the birds – sounds I miss from my childhood in western new york and rural Connecticut.
There is only one problem we face.
There are too many of us.
Thankfully that problem is solvable.
And if we don’t solve it, I suspect nature will do so.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 07:06:00 UTC
(Is there so2me s2pecial techrniqu45r for keeping a cat off your keyboard? And why is she so good at finding the ‘play’ button?)
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 06:56:00 UTC
HE WAS WRONG: WAR IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF POLITICS
Clausewitz was pretty much wrong about everything. War is not an extension of politics. Politics is a means by which we limit war. It is not politics that is the basis of human interaction, but the ever present rational choice between war, conflict, boycott, cooperation, insurance, and kin-sacrifice. Political organizations exist to defend the interests of the group from competitors, and if possible convert the group to the most successful competitor, and therefore the competitor with the greatest discounts on negotiations with other groups. Politics is the extension of cooperation, and when politics fails, we return to the prior state – whatever is in our rational self-interest. But, as we are strong when organized gainst competitors, and weak when disorganized in the fact of competitors, when political solutions fail, we merely choose politically organized conflict of large numbers rather than otherwise organized conflict of smaller numbers – thus allowing us to concentrate our full resources on the conflict in question.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 06:32:00 UTC
THREE PARABLES
(by William L. Benge)
THE ADULT AND THE FAMILY PURSE
If a mother, given food money, comes home with a new red dress instead of the family’s groceries, the youngest children may not sense the significance of it. Probably the older children would understand, and feel some angst. And certainly, the husband understands. And is concerned. With the conversations that ensue between the parents, all but the very young children will initially grasp the mother’s impropriety and consequences.
Remedy? The father must pay a visit to the merchant, use his powers of persuasion to return the dress, and then proceed to spend those funds on needed groceries.
This is an anecdote, a metaphor for our own times.
THE TODDLERS
Westerners steeped in the lunacy of progressivism (pseudoscience/marxism) are blind to harm created by their child-like overly simplistic outlook: only when faced with immediate hunger or similar dire consequences will the truth about irresponsible actions register and matter.
Conservatives will have to use core arguments to make any headway with this ideological demographic. Except that regards such core arguments, sadly; conservatives do not yet possess or are not broadly aware of them.
That’s a problem.
THE PERSUADER
Determined to achieve the single desired outcome, the father may have to pull out all stops and place all options on the table in his negotiations with the merchant; which — who knows? — might have to include legal or physical warfare.
One thing is clear in his mind. He will do all within his power to watch after, care for and feed his children. Even if it means protecting them against a deviant mother.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 05:44:00 UTC