(read this)
by Bill Joslin
Ideological and religious frames reduce the intellectual cost of framing the world. Consequence (accountability) forces higher investment out of interpretive, justificationary, of explanatory frames into operational frames.
The later reorder the contingencies properly, meaning utility proceeds or grounds aesthetics (a trade elevating to a craft elevating again to an art – the progression of mastery) opposed to floating aesthetics (borrowing from rands floating concepts) which can be pleasant and inspiring but devoid of any substantive value.
The initial critism attempt to invert that relationship , isolating aesthetics from more fundemental forms of value and then assert it’s function as what drives reasoning.
In this later case the only value aesthics obtains remains as a means to acquire power through motivation (inspiration) of others. Then claims this outcome as the causal agent.
We must value first in order to reason (valuation drives motivation) and therefore reason is contingent on aesthetics – aesthetics drives human action…
Yet I fail to see the tiler, convenience store owner or floor sweeper to be driven by aesthetics. But find the carpenter, mason, and machinist elevate their skills to obtain aesthetics quality.
And what drives their progression to mastery is the combination of the grammar, logic, rhetoric and ethics (desire for pride in work, desire for good standing and reputation) which leads to the aesthetic.
Source: Original Site Post
-
by Bill Joslin Change or influence a person’s aesthetic and their valuation will
by Bill Joslin Change or influence a person’s aesthetic and their valuation will shift (their ethics). And conversely, clarifying one’s valuation will shift his aesthetics. I say this because as far as I can see, what is considered by many as the downside of reason – i.e. emotion, intuition, bias, – are really “fast-thinking” (stimulus response-reactive) processes which operate concurrent to “slow-thinking” (reason, logic, analysis) processes. And these influence each other (i.e. bias confirmation etc)…. but that also means the “fast-thinking processes” (our intuition) can be trained just like our reason. As slow-thinking clarifies and de-contextualizes common operations; fast thinking processes update in response. As you see the detriment of (anything really) – but, say emotional or moral reasoning – your preference for operational reasoning increases. And as one pursues operational reasoning, the fast-thinking process adapts – and we “feel” (disgust, tensions, suspicion whatever) when confronted with moral or emotional reasoning. Our biases and intuitions have “updated” – and the reverse is also true: our new biases and intuitions assist our ongoing reason. Since I’ve begun “training my mind” (really looking at, and attempting to, understand topics like philosophy etc) – I can no longer (no exaggeration) tolerate American TV and 99% of popular music. Specifically – as the time-horizon of my valuations increased, the foundation of those valuations changed, as those valuations changed, my tastes changed. -Bill Joslin -
by Bill Joslin Change or influence a person’s aesthetic and their valuation will
by Bill Joslin Change or influence a person’s aesthetic and their valuation will shift (their ethics). And conversely, clarifying one’s valuation will shift his aesthetics. I say this because as far as I can see, what is considered by many as the downside of reason – i.e. emotion, intuition, bias, – are really “fast-thinking” (stimulus response-reactive) processes which operate concurrent to “slow-thinking” (reason, logic, analysis) processes. And these influence each other (i.e. bias confirmation etc)…. but that also means the “fast-thinking processes” (our intuition) can be trained just like our reason. As slow-thinking clarifies and de-contextualizes common operations; fast thinking processes update in response. As you see the detriment of (anything really) – but, say emotional or moral reasoning – your preference for operational reasoning increases. And as one pursues operational reasoning, the fast-thinking process adapts – and we “feel” (disgust, tensions, suspicion whatever) when confronted with moral or emotional reasoning. Our biases and intuitions have “updated” – and the reverse is also true: our new biases and intuitions assist our ongoing reason. Since I’ve begun “training my mind” (really looking at, and attempting to, understand topics like philosophy etc) – I can no longer (no exaggeration) tolerate American TV and 99% of popular music. Specifically – as the time-horizon of my valuations increased, the foundation of those valuations changed, as those valuations changed, my tastes changed. -Bill Joslin -
Our Kin Are Only As Old As The Enlightenment
Please think about this very seriously and try to understand what it means to be ‘european’. We are so closely related it’s actually ‘odd’ that we don’t look even more alike. Everything that comes out only serves to confirm that europe has undergone a series of genetic miracles because of our upwardly redistributive social order. –“The most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past—only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang’s model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today.”– THE GREAT PURGE WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL -
Our Kin Are Only As Old As The Enlightenment
Please think about this very seriously and try to understand what it means to be ‘european’. We are so closely related it’s actually ‘odd’ that we don’t look even more alike. Everything that comes out only serves to confirm that europe has undergone a series of genetic miracles because of our upwardly redistributive social order. –“The most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past—only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang’s model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today.”– THE GREAT PURGE WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL -
The Us Has Very Few Listed Firms. Why?
Contrary to the author’s argument, what’s happened is that high quality investment firms have ‘stolen’ the market from pump and dump take-em-public firms. And that was exactly what they set out to do. What I really like about this article is the emphasis on (a) how the stock market and the tax system evolved for capital intensive companies, and (b) we live in a world of research and development companies. —“The US now has “abnormally few listed firms,” according to a new working paper (registration required) from the National Bureau of Economics. (The paper hasn’t been peer-reviewed.) In 1997, more than 7,500 American firms were listed publicly in the US. Nearly two decades later, in 2016, the number had dropped more than half, slipping to 3,618 firms. The crux of the issue is that US startups are increasingly shunning stock market boards. That could have worrying implications for America’s long-term economic prospects. In fact, going public can hurt them. The problem is, two features of public listings—disclosure and accounting standards—make things tough on companies with more intangible assets. US securities law requires companies to disclose their activities in detail. But startups are wary of sharing information that might benefit their competitors A similar problem stems from US accounting standards for public listing. Known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, these typically treat spending on tangible things like new equipment as assets, which doesn’t affect the firm’s profitability. However, GAAP regards intangible assets—research staff, employee training, and brand-building, for instance—as costs that eat into the firm’s profitability. So spending that could yield wildly profitable new products looks wasteful on paper. That makes it much harder for public investors to assess a firm’s value. Luckily for small companies with promising ideas, there’s plenty of private money sloshing around in the form of venture capital and private equity. And it’s often easier and less risky to convince a VC fund’s in-house experts of the value of your idea than to persuade many hundreds of thousands of prospective shareholders and the financial media.”— -
The Us Has Very Few Listed Firms. Why?
Contrary to the author’s argument, what’s happened is that high quality investment firms have ‘stolen’ the market from pump and dump take-em-public firms. And that was exactly what they set out to do. What I really like about this article is the emphasis on (a) how the stock market and the tax system evolved for capital intensive companies, and (b) we live in a world of research and development companies. —“The US now has “abnormally few listed firms,” according to a new working paper (registration required) from the National Bureau of Economics. (The paper hasn’t been peer-reviewed.) In 1997, more than 7,500 American firms were listed publicly in the US. Nearly two decades later, in 2016, the number had dropped more than half, slipping to 3,618 firms. The crux of the issue is that US startups are increasingly shunning stock market boards. That could have worrying implications for America’s long-term economic prospects. In fact, going public can hurt them. The problem is, two features of public listings—disclosure and accounting standards—make things tough on companies with more intangible assets. US securities law requires companies to disclose their activities in detail. But startups are wary of sharing information that might benefit their competitors A similar problem stems from US accounting standards for public listing. Known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, these typically treat spending on tangible things like new equipment as assets, which doesn’t affect the firm’s profitability. However, GAAP regards intangible assets—research staff, employee training, and brand-building, for instance—as costs that eat into the firm’s profitability. So spending that could yield wildly profitable new products looks wasteful on paper. That makes it much harder for public investors to assess a firm’s value. Luckily for small companies with promising ideas, there’s plenty of private money sloshing around in the form of venture capital and private equity. And it’s often easier and less risky to convince a VC fund’s in-house experts of the value of your idea than to persuade many hundreds of thousands of prospective shareholders and the financial media.”— -
Postmodern Criticism From The Losers On The Hard Right
–“Existential aesthetics provide us with a means of orientation from which we may construct a system of values.”– A Young Male Can you explain that? Because “existential aesthetics” sounds like a pretense. You can say that producing high arts the combine craftsmanship, design(aesthetic representation of ‘bounty’), and reference (history or myth), can assist in the constant reinforcement of the means of decision making contained in the mythos. You can say that creating myths and fictions allow the immature mind to fantasize rather than achieve. And the fool to participate in the throng. Sure. But ‘existential aesthetics’ needs to refer to SOMETHING existential in order to exist as ‘existential’. Because “means of orientation” sounds like a pretense. I think you mean, “means of preferring, choosing, deciding” in a kaleidic universe beyond your perception cognition and reason. Because “construct a system of values” can only mean a repetition of ‘means of orientation’. So I can only translate the phrase as “I need a mythology that bypasses reason, so that I can find a means of preferences, choices, goods, and decidability, so that I can have a means of preferences, choices, goods, and decidability.” I don’t begrudge the female for her lack of agency, because of her inability to exit the influence of her hormones. I don’t begrudge the young male for his lack of agency, because of his inability to exit the influence of his hormones. I don’t begrudge the poor for their lack of agency due to genetic, familial, class and class inferiorities – I seek to create institutions that assist them. I don’t begrudge the inferior because of their cultural, economic, and political limitations – I seek to help them form institutions that assist them. I don’t begrudge the socially inadequate because they are undesirable friends, undesirable mates, undesirable employees, and unprofitable members of the polity – I seek to prevent them from doing harm – and pursue satisfaction despite their inadequacies. However, I begrudge the genetically, personally, socially, economically, and politically inadequate from any pretense of superiority in false criticism of me, my achievements, or my work in progress as a means of generating pretense of criticism, pretense of superiority – when the very argument they use to do so is because they are by definition demonstrating inferiority by their demands. It is not a criticism to claim that Transcendence is insufficient for the inadequate. Itis an aristocratic value system, precisely because it needs no comforting lies. Weak, unaccomplished, undesirable males are not interesting if they, like women and children need fairy stories. Men act to transform the world by their will, for no other reason than reward for themselves, for their kin, and for their allies in doing so. And storytelling is the organizational model for liars, frauds, and priests. Business is organized by knowledge and wealth. Man is organized by law and power. Everyone else, is just sheep. (Or in this case LARPERS). (The right is full of losers.) -
Postmodern Criticism From The Losers On The Hard Right
–“Existential aesthetics provide us with a means of orientation from which we may construct a system of values.”– A Young Male Can you explain that? Because “existential aesthetics” sounds like a pretense. You can say that producing high arts the combine craftsmanship, design(aesthetic representation of ‘bounty’), and reference (history or myth), can assist in the constant reinforcement of the means of decision making contained in the mythos. You can say that creating myths and fictions allow the immature mind to fantasize rather than achieve. And the fool to participate in the throng. Sure. But ‘existential aesthetics’ needs to refer to SOMETHING existential in order to exist as ‘existential’. Because “means of orientation” sounds like a pretense. I think you mean, “means of preferring, choosing, deciding” in a kaleidic universe beyond your perception cognition and reason. Because “construct a system of values” can only mean a repetition of ‘means of orientation’. So I can only translate the phrase as “I need a mythology that bypasses reason, so that I can find a means of preferences, choices, goods, and decidability, so that I can have a means of preferences, choices, goods, and decidability.” I don’t begrudge the female for her lack of agency, because of her inability to exit the influence of her hormones. I don’t begrudge the young male for his lack of agency, because of his inability to exit the influence of his hormones. I don’t begrudge the poor for their lack of agency due to genetic, familial, class and class inferiorities – I seek to create institutions that assist them. I don’t begrudge the inferior because of their cultural, economic, and political limitations – I seek to help them form institutions that assist them. I don’t begrudge the socially inadequate because they are undesirable friends, undesirable mates, undesirable employees, and unprofitable members of the polity – I seek to prevent them from doing harm – and pursue satisfaction despite their inadequacies. However, I begrudge the genetically, personally, socially, economically, and politically inadequate from any pretense of superiority in false criticism of me, my achievements, or my work in progress as a means of generating pretense of criticism, pretense of superiority – when the very argument they use to do so is because they are by definition demonstrating inferiority by their demands. It is not a criticism to claim that Transcendence is insufficient for the inadequate. Itis an aristocratic value system, precisely because it needs no comforting lies. Weak, unaccomplished, undesirable males are not interesting if they, like women and children need fairy stories. Men act to transform the world by their will, for no other reason than reward for themselves, for their kin, and for their allies in doing so. And storytelling is the organizational model for liars, frauds, and priests. Business is organized by knowledge and wealth. Man is organized by law and power. Everyone else, is just sheep. (Or in this case LARPERS). (The right is full of losers.) -
Aesthetics is a Science of Beauty. Moral Fictionalism Is Just Secular Religion f
Aesthetics is a Science of Beauty. Moral Fictionalism Is Just Secular Religion for the Weak. By Bill Joslin –“the ‘ m’uh aesthetic thus your philo sucks’ is a variation of the Nirvana Fallacy. we’ve hammered out the first main branches of philos (metaphysics, epistemology, rhetoric and three of the four subbranches (politics, ethics, law). IMO the privileging of aesthetics is an age thing – a young man’s complaint. After a few years of running a crew, business, or family (engaging with real consequences which extend beyond the personal domain) rectifies such notions… the flavour of the wine remains secondary to its ability to sustain the body”— Brilliant.