JUDGMENT: THE PURPOSE OF THE POSTMODERN REVOLUTION
The purpose of the postmodern revolution was to relieve the infantilized mind of the pressures of competition in modernity when freed of the excuse that they were just poor. Unfortunately, the poor were poor deservedly, and the postmodern underclasses are still underclasses that can just spend money because their betters have made all consumer goods and services infinitely cheaper.
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-20 15:12:00 UTC
Every civilization produces a strategy: European: everyone in the polity is a potential customer, family member, commons producer, or formation-holder in the field. How does judaic, islamic, hindustani, chinese or japanese view others?
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-20 14:56:00 UTC
Never occurs to anyone that european high investment parenting is in the production of COMMONS goods, services, and information, rather than PRIVATE alone. And that THAT is the secret to our civilization – and what all others fail to accomplish.
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-20 14:53:00 UTC
—“I have faith in a higher purpose that I refer to as God but we also must contend with the material realm. Curt is a prophet of said realm.”–Leif Erickson
(shared vision)
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-20 13:03:00 UTC
—“Every nation is a propositional nation. The proposition is written in the DNA.”—Martin Štěpán
(brilliant)
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-20 12:15:00 UTC
—“Nature always seeks the cheapest solution. Morality is costly.”—Martin Štěpán
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-20 12:14:00 UTC
by Don Miguel
A major part of Darwin’s book is this:
1) Any trait that does not vary in a current population will also not vary among its past ancestors nor its close relations.
2) Conversely, any trait by which an existing creature differs from a near relative or its recent ancestors must also vary among the currently-existing population.
Morality clearly falls into the latter category. We differ in our moral intuitions from chimps, and we thus differ in our moral intuitions from other extant relatives
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-20 11:50:00 UTC
ECONOMICS OF INTER-GROUP AND INTRA-GROUP MORALITY
by Micah Pezdirtz
(flawless, brilliant)
—“Morality describes good in-group behavior. The in-group defines the limit of moral utility. Outside of the in-group, “moral” actions cease congruence with moral actions within it (betraying outsiders does not carry the same cost as betraying your kin).
Westerners have a proclivity to universalize the in-group in part due to the particular pro-social behavior selected for by ice age survival conditions. Easterners have evolved differently, where in-group members demand morality towards each other and demand immorality towards outsiders.
Reciprocity completes the moral system. A Hegelian synthesis, if you will, of the universalist hypothesis and dualist antithesis. A problem we face switching over to Reciprocity comes from the counter selection factors from both groups: to the universalist, reciprocal behavior violates the silver rule (do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you); to the polymoralist, reciprocal behavior accepts costs to the in-group instead of transference to out-groups.
Monomoralists bear costs rightfully owed by out-groups and polymoralists impose costs rightfully due by in-group. So how does this relate to scale? Scale does not only present an explosively high quantity of group members, in and out, but an explosively high quantity of groups. Calculation costs of identifying groups individuals belong to as well as identifying a spectrum of group allegiance to hostility becomes completely heuristically impossible for any practical effectiveness. which may explain why Polymoralism has gained an upper hand (focus on in-group identity, plunder all others) but it destabilizes itself over time as all other out-groups eventually unify against them.” –
(via Brandon Cheshire )Updated Nov 20, 2019, 10:56 AM
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-20 10:56:00 UTC
War is the most profitable enterprise – but like socialism, you eventually run out of other people’s wealth. And under both conquest and socialism, you eventually lack the resources and incentives to govern and tax the conquered, which is much harder than conquest and looting whether by military or political means.
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-20 10:49:00 UTC
—The lost virtue of “I don’t know”—Steve Pender
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-20 10:45:00 UTC