What you notice is that we spin off people who explore their own niches, and meanwhile a core of us keep going deeper and deeper.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 17:03:00 UTC
What you notice is that we spin off people who explore their own niches, and meanwhile a core of us keep going deeper and deeper.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 17:03:00 UTC
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/45567018_10156760640957264_96232384399147008_o_10156760640947264.jpg OPERATIONALIZE MEANS ANTI-IDEALIZEOPERATIONALIZE MEANS ANTI-IDEALIZE

Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 16:59:00 UTC
THE CURRENT ORDER UNDERSTOOD
by Daniel Gurpide
(must read, important concepts)
Man’s taming of the living world occurred in parallel to the taming of the mass—by the elite. This historical phase—initiated with the Neolithic Revolution and concluding today with the passage into the so-called ‘Biopolitical Revolution’—is extremely important. It is not difficult to recognise in it what was called by Karl Marx ‘the end of primitive communist society,’ by Sigmund Freud ‘the killing of the primal father,’ and by Claude Lévi-Strauss ‘the separation between Nature and Culture.’
Significant testimony to this period has been preserved in Indo-European mythology, thanks to the story of the formation of the society of the gods—as related, for example, through the Aesir-Vanir War.
The Aesir and the Vanir represent two different ways of life. During the founding war—which set at odds, in symbolic form, the lifestyles of the great hunters and the farmers that emerged out of the Neolithic era—Odin-Wotan, as the pre-eminent god of magic, ‘domesticated’ the Vanir with his magic and assigned to them an harmonious position in the organic tri-functional society, where the ‘domestication of nature’ was completed. This myth signifies the transition from a generic instinctive human subject to a specific conscious human subject who exercises magic power over other men, thereby engendering the conditions for social stratification that are the distinguishing feature of every post-Neolithic society.
Society is now organised into two castes, two social groups. One, which is the dominant class, assumes sovereign and warrior functions; the other assumes the economic function. This structure is reflected in the society of gods, whose genesis the myth, in its own way, reveals. The new society is constituted by the superimposition and domination of ‘magic’ above religious man, of predator above producer. The myth of the Aesir and the Vanir, like that of the Romans and the Sabines, highlights the respective characters of both social groups or families of gods. The former—‘preying’ gods who continue the activities of the First Man as self-domesticating man—assert themselves by virtue of the binding magic of their chief, Odin/Wotan; the latter, ‘producing’ gods, carry on the activities of the First Man as ‘self-domesticated’ man. They must and do submit to the former, despite the power deriving from their ‘wealth’ (symbolised by Gullweig’s gold).
This social-divine dichotomy derives from a particular world perception that may be found again, remarkably, in the structure of the Indo-European languages, with the sharp separation between subject and object. ‘Man-subject,’ who continues to exercise ‘magic’ on himself (self-control), begins to exercise it now on the other type: ‘man-object.’ The domesticating ‘magic’ is exercised on man-object from without—and the canons are fixed by other-than-him. Liberated by this ‘religious’ bond from the need to domesticate man in himself, he can now dedicate himself fully to ‘domesticating’ nature: that is, to the production of goods.
The coexistence of these two social types in a harmonious society takes place by synoecism—contractual arrangement—following a ‘war of foundation.’ The sovereign god among Indo-Europeans is always both a terrible god—exercising a ‘magic’ constriction—and a beneficent guarantor of ‘contracts.’ From the Indo-European origins there was always a clear conception of this social contract, which found its most accomplished expression among the Romans.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 16:51:00 UTC
( Diary: Class View: When we were young, I think, to afford to pay for the business, my parents bought a downmarket (smaller) home, so that they could make payments on both home and business at the same time. My father ‘needed’ to be an entrepreneur just as I did, just as his father, and his fathers before .. ad infinitum. That choice made us the equivalent of what today is house + business poor for quite a while. I have done the same multiple times. Its how you fund a biz. Anyway, You do notice these economic things as a kid but I didn’t give it much weight. I don’t remember wanting for anything except during the oil crisis. But it’s possible that’s the reason I was in so many fking fights all the time with these kids, and that I’m aware of these differences between classes when I wouldn’t have been otherwise. So it’s possible my upbringing influenced me a bit since in my worldview pretty much everyone was ‘an idiot’ (zombie) that shouldn’t be allowed to run with scissors (or get too near me). I would have reacted differently to life if we had moved somewhere around the lake with people whom we shared more similar values. I mean, my father was a spoiled brat with full time nanny, a 40-50s prep school upbringing, and a small liberal arts college, and that returned from europe with a sports car to be a show off. (My mother a very attractive but very naive farm girl). My grandparents were very well off, had multiple homes, and were well educated and my great grandparents also. Everyone had plenty of inheritance money so to speak. So I mean, dad was not happy about the circumstance, but I don’t think in the early 60’s anyone expected the late 60’s and early 70’s to be the utter fking chaos it was. So he sort of ‘bought at the wrong time’ I think. So yeah, I mean, I assume it did frame my thinking for a bit. But entrepreneurial class is what it is. And thats my frame of reference. Difference is that my family is also historically (a) military, and (b) puritanical. And from what I can tell it’s freaking genetic all the way through. I mean, I can read Doolittle’s Epistles from london in 1700 and that man’s mind and mine are wired identically.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 16:46:00 UTC
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/45461930_10156760583642264_1311258179803283456_n_10156760583637264.jpg NO. ANIMALS AND AI’S DON”T HAVE AND CAN’T HAVE RIGHTS. WE ENACT NEGATIVE RIGHTS TO PROTECT THEM.Martin ŠtěpánAnimals are welcome to create rights for themselves, provided they can create a militia to protect them. I’m not too eager to say the same about AI, still a bit worried about phenotypical replacement.Nov 6, 2018, 4:33 PMWilliam J MullenThat “you can’t hurt them or kill them unless…” implies that they possess negative rights. Because they have no such rights, we can kill them with impunity, except to the extent that they are property and protected by the property rights of their owners.Nov 6, 2018, 4:34 PMCurt DoolittleThey can’t possess anything. we constrain each other, not them.Nov 6, 2018, 4:49 PMCurt Doolittlehence the importance of operational language and avoiding the verb to be, since it is literally impossible for a child, ai, pet, or domesticated animal to enter into a voluntary contract.Nov 6, 2018, 4:49 PMDaniel PerazaDoes this applies to females too,curt?Nov 6, 2018, 5:21 PMAnne SummersDoes anyone have rights outside of what the observer fails to or chooses not to challenge?Nov 6, 2018, 5:49 PMCurt Doolittleoh stop… lolzNov 6, 2018, 6:10 PMMarra McKinneyShouldn’t we protect endangered animals such as elephants and tigers from being killed by kneegroes and street shitting Indians? Tigers have killed plenty of Indians which I encourage.
I would rather have less subhumans and more animal diversity ie large mammals on land and ocean.
Diversity in wildlife is the only diversity I’d like to keep.Nov 6, 2018, 7:58 PMMatt TempleNature recognizes no rights. Rights are a purely human concept. Therefor animals have no rights.Nov 7, 2018, 4:32 AMNO. ANIMALS AND AI’S DON”T HAVE AND CAN’T HAVE RIGHTS. WE ENACT NEGATIVE RIGHTS TO PROTECT THEM.

Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 16:25:00 UTC
—“You don’t understand. We’re not alleging you’re unified or cohesive. We’re alleging you lie. Thanks for not proving us wrong.”—Ely Harman
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 16:15:00 UTC
True story. Seattle area. 90’s. Lotsa chatter because MSFT used strange questions to test applicants. Friend was inventing similar questions for our company.
Asked me two:
1) “2000 years from now what would aliens notice?”
Easy answer: Highways.
2) “What is the greatest achievement of western civilization?”
Easy answer: “a united states marine”.
The first one made him think but agreed. The second one floored him.
I mean it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 15:55:00 UTC
—“They Evolved Linguistic Camouflage. If the animal has no claws, no horns, no sharp teeth, what does it do? Either it runs fast or it blends in. So too with humans and tribes. Evolution applies to us in real time, like every other animal. All that the wolves must do…is gain an eye for seeing through the camouflage.”— Zach Matto
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 15:46:00 UTC
—“Uncompetitive organisms pursue parasitism – if they can. As any organism would. One doesn’t simply accept his reproductive strategy is suboptimal.”—Martin Štěpán
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 15:43:00 UTC
THEY AREN’T PROGRESSIVE BUT CONSUMPTIVE
I mean if you call the right conservative and the left consumptive, then you have the correct terminology.
Conservatives are in fact – CONSERVATIVE.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 15:41:00 UTC