photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/72681023_136763511055144_6102950748666986496_o_136763507721811.jpg (Humor) This means I’m right 4500 times more often than everyone else? lol(Humor) This means I’m right 4500 times more often than everyone else? lol
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 13:02:00 UTC
(higher knowledge meaning the ability to practice free association(knowledge) and sedation(happiness) through pursuit of the ecstasy of surrender-of-the-will-to-running-with-the-pack (spirituality), and to habituate that feeling as one’s ‘normal’ condition is not unscientific nor mystical. It’s that the feeling of occult, and mystery is the feeling of running with the pack which is about the safest feeling we can experience, and it’s why animals run in packs, or flocks, or whatever other order they group into.So whether you story-tell some silly stuff, or simply practice it as a discipline, is only material to the externalities caused by the fiction or the truth.)
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 10:19:00 UTC
https://standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/jonathan-haidt-the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-a4261081.htmlJON HAIDT IS A KINDLY MESSENGER. LEARN FROM HIM OR LEARN FROM US UNKINDLY, OR FROM CONSEQUENCES.
—“Here is my interview in @EveningStandard, with Katie Law. I talk about “moral backsliding” –the way some of the moral progress of the last 70 years is coming undone:
https://standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/jonathan-haidt-the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-a4261081.html “—Jonathan Haidt @JonHaidt
1) NO. We came out of a period of vast economic institutional, cultural, and genetic asymmetry and conspicuous consumption of compromises between genes, gender, class, and interests. We are no longer in conditions making possible conspicuous consumption of signal goods.
2) Under vast asymmetry, like when inheriting a fortune or winning a lottery, we can afford to transgress previous norms and traditions that preserved our common interests. Conversely, having SPENT DOWN all that accumulated capital, we now return to the historical mean: nations.
3) The left is by demonstrated preference cognitively feminine: consumptive, reproductive, maternal, the right masculine: conservative, capital producing, paternal. And women resist tightening the belt more than men do. So you will continue to tighten your belt and resist it all.
4) But cooperative necessity in social orders, like gravity in physical orders, is inescapable – and resistance is expected but ultimately futile. Your mistake is confusing PROGRESS with CONSUMPTION. And confusing OPPRESSION with DOMESTICATION.
5) And we have no choice but to defeat genetic and economic red queens. Why? Demographics is destiny. Your hyperconsumption has expanded the world underclass, reversing thousands of years of human domestication (economic and political eugenics).
6) And in doing so created scarcity of the very goods you seek to hyper-consume. Humans are not insulated from the laws of physics and our productivity, particularly by the consumption of hydrocarbons, not as the liberals presumed – infinite. Welcome to consequences you created.
7) I don’t make errors. Don’t bother trying to refute it. Try to understand it. Belt Tightening will come either by the restoration of nationalism, capital accumulation, and economic and political eugenics or it will come from collapse.
8) We are only equal in poverty. We are only prosperous in inequality. Because inequality is the product of defeating the red queen through genetic, institutional, economic, cultural, and normative capital investment in defeating the red queen in every one of those disciplines.
9) Jon Haidt is a “Kindly Messenger”, delivering a this information in sympathetic terms. You can learn from him. You can learn from those of us who deliver it in unsympathetic terms. Or from the consequences by the conflict you have created with your hyper-consumptive Privilege.Updated Oct 15, 2019, 10:09 AM
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 10:09:00 UTC
https://standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/jonathan-haidt-the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-a4261081.htmlJON HAIDT IS A KINDLY MESSENGER. LEARN FROM HIM OR LEARN FROM US UNKINDLY, OR FROM CONSEQUENCES.
—“Here is my interview in @EveningStandard, with Katie Law. I talk about “moral backsliding” –the way some of the moral progress of the last 70 years is coming undone:
https://standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/jonathan-haidt-the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-a4261081.html “—Jonathan Haidt @JonHaidt
1) NO. We came out of a period of vast economic institutional, cultural, and genetic asymmetry and conspicuous consumption of compromises between genes, gender, class, and interests. We are no longer in conditions making possible conspicuous consumption of signal goods.
2) Under vast asymmetry, like when inheriting a fortune or winning a lottery, we can afford to transgress previous norms and traditions that preserved our common interests. Conversely, having SPENT DOWN all that accumulated capital, we now return to the historical mean: nations.
3) The left is by demonstrated preference cognitively feminine: consumptive, reproductive, maternal, the right masculine: conservative, capital producing, paternal. And women resist tightening the belt more than men do. So you will continue to tighten your belt and resist it all.
4) But cooperative necessity in social orders, like gravity in physical orders, is inescapable – and resistance is expected but ultimately futile. Your mistake is confusing PROGRESS with CONSUMPTION. And confusing OPPRESSION with DOMESTICATION.
5) And we have no choice but to defeat genetic and economic red queens. Why? Demographics is destiny. Your hyperconsumption has expanded the world underclass, reversing thousands of years of human domestication (economic and political eugenics).
6) And in doing so created scarcity of the very goods you seek to hyper-consume. Humans are not insulated from the laws of physics and our productivity, particularly by the consumption of hydrocarbons, not as the liberals presumed – infinite. Welcome to consequences you created.
7) I don’t make errors. Don’t bother trying to refute it. Try to understand it. Belt Tightening will come either by the restoration of nationalism, capital accumulation, and economic and political eugenics or it will come from collapse.
8) We are only equal in poverty. We are only prosperous in inequality. Because inequality is the product of defeating the red queen through genetic, institutional, economic, cultural, and normative capital investment in defeating the red queen in every one of those disciplines.
9) Jon Haidt is a “Kindly Messenger”, delivering a this information in sympathetic terms. You can learn from him. You can learn from those of us who deliver it in unsympathetic terms. Or from the consequences by the conflict you have created with your hyper-consumptive Privilege.Updated Oct 15, 2019, 10:08 AM
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 10:08:00 UTC
CORPORATISM AS A VEHICLE FOR UNDERSTANDING ALL POLITICAL HISTORY
I want to disambiguate corporatism into a spectrum so that the criticisms are decidable by definition rather than by free-association. In other words, corporatism vs what?
1. Corporatism. Bottom up: control of the state by economic common-interest groups vs Top down: the state’s organization of and control of the polity into economic common-interest groups.
Corporatism arose from indo-european economic tripartism in the cooperative division of labor between military, administrative(educated), and laboring classes. The reason why it evolved in a militial order is obvious.
The current “neo-corporatist” condition consists of negotiations between state(homogenous) labour (homogenous), and business (heterogeneous) to establish policy.
This is the origin of social democracy. However, social democracy with forcible redistribution violates the ancestral paternalism, by putting control of common sproduction in the hands of the majority, and thereby taking away business’ necessity of care taking of labor as extension of family, and treating labor as resource rather than family members. (See pre-unification german industry, esp. Krupp).
Heterogeneity of polity increases incentive to defect from this model, thereby producing the problems of the middle east and steppe, and the low trust of the far east (china) – all of which practice clan(kinship)-corporatism instead of economic interest corporatism.
So I’ll cast social corporatism as rule of law, paternalism, and kinship, vs kinship by clan interests – vertical and hostile – rather than economic interests (esp class) – horizontal and interdependent. ie: economic produces economic trust, kinship produces clan trust. And the results are rather obvious.
And so once again I’ll cast communism as monopoly underclass rule, libertarianism as monopoly middle class rule, and neoconservativsm as monopoly upper class rule, and cast tripartism as a division of labor between the classes for collective good.
Socialism was a french invention largely a continuation of the extermination of the protestants (middle class) and the aristocracy (upper class). With new leadership merely rotating in to those positions and forcing out the economic middle that emerged in the anglo civilization (and which increased insecurity while increasing opportunity.)
Fascism in Spain, Italy, and Germany was an attempt to Resist both communism (underclass monopoly) and french socialism (constraint of the middle class by the upper class for labor’s benefit), but not russian-jewish socialism (eradication of the middle class, and the upper class).
And I’ll cast the term corporatism as an obscurant that relies upon suggestion by free association conveying no information other than “something bad”.
So we have at least the pair of traditional axis: (a) rule for profit by individual or oligarchy(dictatorship, kinship, oligarchy), rule by collective classes(market), rule by monopoly classes (communism, russian-socialism, chinese socialism) and (b) clan corporatism (nationalism) vs economic corporatism (state), vs military corporatism (empire).
So rule of law will result in market (economic corporatism) and nationalism (clan corporatism) or statism (state corporatism), with the possibility of paternalism (voluntary caretaking between the classes requiring nationalism.
That is probably a distillation of everything meaningful that can be debated in the question of the organization of polities by criteria of decidability.
And everything else is some form of bias coercion or deceit.
I don’t think the above can be falsified. And it prevents our interpretation of history by eliminating contrary proposition (and definitions).
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 09:43:00 UTC
CONSIOUSNESS
Consciousness: awareness of change in state of self (non-body), of spatial model of self (body), of space around self, of objects in the space around self, of place and location, of others, as the spatial movement of others, and the model in the mind of others. This is the sixth sense (biologically it is, this is how the mind constructs experience – just like a 3d video game.).
We can imitate (act masculine bias), sympathize (incentives), empathize (feelings – feminine bias).
We divide the the world into locations, boundaries, objects, places within the location (space), direction of movement, head direction, speed, and distance.
We do this all predictively with about two seconds to compose a context, and updated about every tenth of a second.
So we are continually predicting everything including the actions (imitation), thoughts (sympathy) and feelings (empathy) of others.
The male brain is specialized from back to front (speed) indepdendent of empathy, and the female brain is specialized laterally (context) independent of speed. All of us vary from masculine to feminine brain structures. This difference is large, and I think it’s on the scale of 1.5SD. Empathizing is time consuming. And it biases you to consensus, just as systematizing is consuming but biases you to truth. This is why women are better at telling you what an individual thinks or feels, and men are better at predicting the behavior of groups. (about .2-.6SD) averaged, with wide variation in individuals.
So the female mind process vastly more information and communicates vastly more information between individuals and the male mind is far more concerned with groups and urgencies.
In otther words, ancient stereotypes are correct. Like all stereotypes – they are the most accurate measure in the social sciences.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 21:35:00 UTC
FAITH
Faith is a fairly easy thing to explain. In other words we know what causes the feeling we call ‘spirituality’ and why it’s so influential to some and not at all to others. But we can’t introspect into it. So you can’t introspect into how you raise your arm. And you can’t introspect into the feeling you get from faith, but that doesn’t mean we cant explain how you raise your arm (I certainly can) or that we can’t explain the feeling of faith (I certainly can). It’s that the ‘magic’ is due to our inability to introspectively analyze it. There are some tricks we can use (visual illusions) to experiment with vision. There are similar tricks for spirituality. The feeling is not complicated. The free association we can conduct in that state is not complicated. And mastering the ability to freely associate emotionally by repetitive practice is not complicated. So whether you specialize in pre-rational emotion, pre-rational intuition, physical performance, or rational thought, or rational calculation, is just a matter of your ability and interest. And your developmental arc since that series is simply the developmental hierarchy. And just as there are many fragile points in your sexual development there are many fragile points in your social development there are also many fragile points in your cognitive development, and some of us are biased to the sensory, to the motor, to the social, to the verbal rational, and some to the calculative spatial.
It’s not that faith isn’t an excellent way of developing mindfulness by supplying your own sedation. It’s not that the buddhist meditation and philosophy isn’t. Or the stoic. It’s that there are consequences (costs) for each of those methods and only the stoic produces your adaptation rather than avoidance.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 21:29:00 UTC
EXCERPTS FOR EMPHASIS BY LUCAS CORT
by @[100008389721909:2048:Lucas Cort]
Important parts I’d like to emphasize:
“We just were suckered yet again by the marxists into the false dichotomy of unfettered capitalism – monopoly of the middle class, or unfettered socialism – the monopoly of the underclass, rather than the successful european invention of rule of law, an unfettered monopoly of the upper, aristocratic, or martial class that derives its income from suppression of parasitism resulting in commission we call taxation.”
“So in the twentieth century we destroyed (a) rule of law of tort, destroyed (b) the limits on reproduction of the underclasses, (c) destroyed the monetary and accounting system, (d) destroyed homogeneity of the population, and (e eliminated the monarchy and created a conflict for access to power to circumvent the market and obtain privileges and rents by the state, and (f) ended the prohibition on libel, slander, duel, hanging, fighting, civic defense and policing – all in order to accommodate those peoples not majority middle class (g) ended the family as a system of measurement by which resource consumption was measured.”
“At the highest level we can disambiguate government into Rule (decisions), Government (production and administration of commons), Treasury (revenue and expenses), and insurer of last resort (both negative like military and positive like care taking).”
“So there is no one static form of government producing the commons necessary for the current conditions, but one rule of law under which the production of commons varies according to the demand for commons.
With P-law. we can produce any system of rule, production of commons, treasurer, and insurer of last resort.”
“So I proposed a strictly constructed rule of law, with a monarchy as judge of last resort, a cabinet of professionals, subcontracted bureaucracies, houses for the classes and genders randomly selected like juries, requiring property and service, that have right of veto over taxes, fees. In this system no one is insulated from the law, and we create a market for the suppression of parasitism.
There is more to it but that’s most of it. “This system scales up and down from authoritarian to redistributive as circumstances permit. “Updated Oct 14, 2019, 8:47 PM
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 20:47:00 UTC
COUNTER -SIGNALING ANTI-BRITISH SENTIMENT
(reciprocity)(hostile countersignal on twitter)
—“The British dragged you out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, disease, and the vicissitudes of nature – and you kicked and screamed all the way – and still do. We could have, instead of Christian ethics, emptied the world of all of you – easily. And you are giving us incentive to stop dragging you, and instead correct our error.”—
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 18:48:00 UTC
—“If one is profiting from the commons one must reciprocate by being responsible to maintain the commons.”—Christopher Kilgore
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 15:08:00 UTC