(FB 1546190189 Timestamp) —“So laymen adherents to Propertarianism must accept a good deal of the arguments on faith, not fully appreciating their complexity personally? What steps do you have in place for preventing the formation of a personality cult around you?”– Lisa Outhwaite Exceptional question. But. Um. On “faith” is not the question. They can undrestand the benefits. And if they invest in any degree of learning, like an onion, as their level of investment increases, the rigor of it and explanatory power increases. One does not have ‘faith’ in geometry. One knows of it. One uses it. It works. But how many people know why? One has faith in money because everyone else does, not because they have the faintest idea what it means or is constituted of. I mean, do you know how much I write about money, what is money and what is not? I mean, try to find a person in the banking industry (even the finance industry) that can enumerate the spectrum of money and money substitutes like I do. It’s freaking impossible. So, first, if you notice how hard I work to make it NOT about me, that in and of itself is part of my defense against it. Just as when I manage a company I try to distribute ‘management’ as early and as thoroughly as possible and then let the ‘market’ for talent do its work. Although, we have to understand that some personality is inevitable. Every thinker has this problem. Marx, Lenin, and the Prophets in particular, although Saul of Tarsus was the most excellent in making it NOT about him. So the more analytic the less dependent upon personality and the more narrative and requiring of textual interpretation the more dependent upon personality. So for those two reasons both INTENT and CONTENT I have some protection against personality cults. That said it is the core leadership of the first and second generations that tend to be remembered as well. Why? I mean how many people understand ISLM (keynesian econ) or the money supply? or that populations tend to disequilibrium? Or the constitution? They don’t understand them. They do however live by them. They certainly don’t undrestand democracy or they would have none of it. Most people cannot do statistics but they can at least understand what are good statistical arguments and bad. Most people cannot write law, but they can, with some effort both read law, and find legal advisors. Most people can understand the shorter Aphorisms. That is what you see ‘spreads’. This is how I expect most people to undrestand the work. WHile it has taken me a long time to distill these ideas into a ‘cheat sheet’ (much longer than I’d thought) by writing the book I have taught myself how to do so. This ‘specification’ for the language is comprehensible if logic is comprehensible. Most people will be overwhelmed by the constitution but it is something that can be learned. The history is comprehensible for certain. But EVERYONE can understand the de-financialization of the economy, the depoliticization of the polity, the end of propaganda, half truth, and deceit in the informational commons, and the ending of subsidy to the entertainment industry that is our enemy. Because everyone can understand the benefits even if they can’t understand the logic and grammar of it. Lastly, the hurdle for most people is NOT LEARNING the material, it is in making the choice to INVEST in learning the material, and sustaining that investment in competition with his or her frustration, misunderstandings, and disagreements while learning the material. This is why numbers matter. Because it demonstrates by obvious environmental evidence that the material is worth the investment because of the cognitive and argumentative power it provides them. And if they know people who can do so they will find people to help them WITHOUT study. So the more I make this a movement, and the more thought leaders we have, the more i can distribute it, the more analytic I can make it, the less dependent upon me I can, and we can, make it. Thanks for the good question.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546188259 Timestamp) —“Intellectual paradigms must surely require a different system of qualification besides functionality?”— Lisa Outhwaite All these tests are either additive (or not subtractive): 1 – True (not false), 2 – Excellent(not faulty), 3 – Actionable (not inactionable), 4 – Good (not-ir-reciprocal), 5 – Beautiful (not ugly). So yes. And this is yet another EXCELLENT example of why I do not use sets or set logic, but series, supply demand, Limits, and multi-dimensionality. No ideal types, Ideals – single dimensional tests of multi dimensional questions are just a convenient way of using aggregation for the purpose of obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit. I suppose I should harp on the deconflation problem more often and explain why more often, but THREE POINTS TEST A LINE. A line of two points has no test of error. In other words, contrasting by one axis (statement, comparison) is a simple game – and a game too simple for any question of substance. Yet it is the preferred (lowest cost) method of human speech. Which is why we rely on justification (low cost meaning) versus falsification (high cost truth). This is why I consider all speech representable as geometry. And it is how I approach all speech: geometrically.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546188259 Timestamp) —“Intellectual paradigms must surely require a different system of qualification besides functionality?”— Lisa Outhwaite All these tests are either additive (or not subtractive): 1 – True (not false), 2 – Excellent(not faulty), 3 – Actionable (not inactionable), 4 – Good (not-ir-reciprocal), 5 – Beautiful (not ugly). So yes. And this is yet another EXCELLENT example of why I do not use sets or set logic, but series, supply demand, Limits, and multi-dimensionality. No ideal types, Ideals – single dimensional tests of multi dimensional questions are just a convenient way of using aggregation for the purpose of obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit. I suppose I should harp on the deconflation problem more often and explain why more often, but THREE POINTS TEST A LINE. A line of two points has no test of error. In other words, contrasting by one axis (statement, comparison) is a simple game – and a game too simple for any question of substance. Yet it is the preferred (lowest cost) method of human speech. Which is why we rely on justification (low cost meaning) versus falsification (high cost truth). This is why I consider all speech representable as geometry. And it is how I approach all speech: geometrically.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1546179179 Timestamp) https://www.cbinsights.com/research/disrupting-management-consulting/
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1546179179 Timestamp) https://www.cbinsights.com/research/disrupting-management-consulting/
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546178059 Timestamp) by Gary Knight Thinking on JBP and sovereign individualism. Itâs interesting that he often cites ancient genetic causes for hierarchy as a defence against SJW complaints regarding patriarchy and capitalism. He correctly identifies the depth of hierarchy and inequality in ancient biological programming that goes right back to our most remote ancestors. E.g. Dominance hierarchies in lobsters. Whatâs frustrating is he doesnât apply the same analogy to Western Dominance. He attributes the Christian ethic as the source of the classical liberal / enlightenment values that birthed individualism as the source of Western Success (although he doesnât say âWestern successâ explicitly. It seems apparent in my readings about indo-Europeans that the West developed sovereignty mostly as a bi-product of distributive power which was an accident of geography – sufficient rivers, fertile land, hills, crags and natural barriers to break up the European landscape into defensible City states which led cultural development away from centralised monopoly governments that formed in the Middle East, Egypt etc. I think Peterson flaw is he gives to much credit to Christianity in his arguments for promoting the sovereign individual and fails to see the ancient source code for this cultural feature. In a sense he feels the words of Abrahamism gifted us new programming for regarding the individual as sacred when it seems we had in us from our martial ethic and domestication allowed the extension of sovereignty down the classes as we had more people capable of the agency to hold the idea. Which is why Christian Africa doesnât have individualism and market success – software canât take root in hardware that canât process it. ââ- If I was to use a loose metaphor I feel like Western Sovereignty is like a European plant species that was kept tame my the conditions in which it rooted. But once conditions changed and it had its shot it just spread across the earth and dominated – but first it had to be hardened by time and circumstance. Eg The plant species Lantana species is a potted flower in the UK. Once it was exported to Australia it thrived in the sunlight and grew rampant, choking out competitors. I see Western Sovereignty the same. Shaped my marital conflict over distributive geography and then once the conditions changes it became hyper-fertile and encompassed the world.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546178059 Timestamp) by Gary Knight Thinking on JBP and sovereign individualism. Itâs interesting that he often cites ancient genetic causes for hierarchy as a defence against SJW complaints regarding patriarchy and capitalism. He correctly identifies the depth of hierarchy and inequality in ancient biological programming that goes right back to our most remote ancestors. E.g. Dominance hierarchies in lobsters. Whatâs frustrating is he doesnât apply the same analogy to Western Dominance. He attributes the Christian ethic as the source of the classical liberal / enlightenment values that birthed individualism as the source of Western Success (although he doesnât say âWestern successâ explicitly. It seems apparent in my readings about indo-Europeans that the West developed sovereignty mostly as a bi-product of distributive power which was an accident of geography – sufficient rivers, fertile land, hills, crags and natural barriers to break up the European landscape into defensible City states which led cultural development away from centralised monopoly governments that formed in the Middle East, Egypt etc. I think Peterson flaw is he gives to much credit to Christianity in his arguments for promoting the sovereign individual and fails to see the ancient source code for this cultural feature. In a sense he feels the words of Abrahamism gifted us new programming for regarding the individual as sacred when it seems we had in us from our martial ethic and domestication allowed the extension of sovereignty down the classes as we had more people capable of the agency to hold the idea. Which is why Christian Africa doesnât have individualism and market success – software canât take root in hardware that canât process it. ââ- If I was to use a loose metaphor I feel like Western Sovereignty is like a European plant species that was kept tame my the conditions in which it rooted. But once conditions changed and it had its shot it just spread across the earth and dominated – but first it had to be hardened by time and circumstance. Eg The plant species Lantana species is a potted flower in the UK. Once it was exported to Australia it thrived in the sunlight and grew rampant, choking out competitors. I see Western Sovereignty the same. Shaped my marital conflict over distributive geography and then once the conditions changes it became hyper-fertile and encompassed the world.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1546264291 Timestamp) WALTER RUSSELL MEAD ON 2018’S ENDING OF THE LIBERAL ORDER Now we need to replace it with something much better.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1546264291 Timestamp) WALTER RUSSELL MEAD ON 2018’S ENDING OF THE LIBERAL ORDER Now we need to replace it with something much better.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546222172 Timestamp) —“Do you know how I can tell you’re almost done with Propertarianism? Because now I can undrestand it.”—- A Friend Down Under. made me laugh….