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.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Um. Lets get this clear for the sophists, ok? I use the outline of aristotelian
Um. Lets get this clear for the sophists, ok? I use the outline of aristotelian philosophy, but as far as I know I write science. The science of testimony, cooperation, and law. The fact that I frame it as a philosophy (means of decidability in pursuit of a preference) rather than a science (means of decidability independent of preference) is precisely so that I can undermine the independence of philosophy, and correctly position it as MORAL FICTIONALISM. -
Um. Lets get this clear for the sophists, ok? I use the outline of aristotelian
Um. Lets get this clear for the sophists, ok? I use the outline of aristotelian philosophy, but as far as I know I write science. The science of testimony, cooperation, and law. The fact that I frame it as a philosophy (means of decidability in pursuit of a preference) rather than a science (means of decidability independent of preference) is precisely so that I can undermine the independence of philosophy, and correctly position it as MORAL FICTIONALISM. -
Just Use The Word: Infantilization
I really don’t understand why we don’t just state the obvious, that the female mind of reproductive necessity biases heavily to that which she can control: infatilism. And this is why women take such great fascination with babies, and prefer their children are born with properties that make them pliable and their ‘friends’ rather successful competitors. Because women must be strong and possess agency to raise those who are strong and with agency. And women who are weak an lack agency wish children who they can control despite their weakness and agency. Abrahamism, Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism: they advocate infantilism. Because their followers have infantile minds. And I suspect that like everything else, that’s because in 80% of cases they have infantile brains. And that during the great transformation, buddha came close, but only Epicurious, Zeno and Aristotle got it right. Meaning, living in correspondence with reality without submitting to it, by making the mind as strong as the body, ether by Achilles/Alexander(aristocracy), Zeno/Aurelius (Middle class), or Epicurious (Working Class), but never by abandoning reality to a fictionalism (underclass). These are adulthoods. Agency. Whether for the powerful, the influential (middle class), or the valuable (Working Class). And just as we can train people in reading, writing, math, accounting, and physics – we can train people in stoicism, epicureanism, and heroism. But that is counter to the infantile: because all of them require agency, and the infantile is still an undomesticated animal, neither genetically able, nor sufficiently trained, to be included in that label of sentience and agency we call ‘Human’. The infantile, is equal to, the animal. -
Just Use The Word: Infantilization
I really don’t understand why we don’t just state the obvious, that the female mind of reproductive necessity biases heavily to that which she can control: infatilism. And this is why women take such great fascination with babies, and prefer their children are born with properties that make them pliable and their ‘friends’ rather successful competitors. Because women must be strong and possess agency to raise those who are strong and with agency. And women who are weak an lack agency wish children who they can control despite their weakness and agency. Abrahamism, Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism: they advocate infantilism. Because their followers have infantile minds. And I suspect that like everything else, that’s because in 80% of cases they have infantile brains. And that during the great transformation, buddha came close, but only Epicurious, Zeno and Aristotle got it right. Meaning, living in correspondence with reality without submitting to it, by making the mind as strong as the body, ether by Achilles/Alexander(aristocracy), Zeno/Aurelius (Middle class), or Epicurious (Working Class), but never by abandoning reality to a fictionalism (underclass). These are adulthoods. Agency. Whether for the powerful, the influential (middle class), or the valuable (Working Class). And just as we can train people in reading, writing, math, accounting, and physics – we can train people in stoicism, epicureanism, and heroism. But that is counter to the infantile: because all of them require agency, and the infantile is still an undomesticated animal, neither genetically able, nor sufficiently trained, to be included in that label of sentience and agency we call ‘Human’. The infantile, is equal to, the animal. -
Why Do White Australians Own Australia?
Ownership always and everywhere is determined by those who possess the capacity of violence sufficient to make such determination. Adults make economic statements. Children make moral statements. Children make moral statements because they lack the knowledge and resources to make economic statements. And that is what separates adults, infantilized non-adults, and children. -
Why Do White Australians Own Australia?
Ownership always and everywhere is determined by those who possess the capacity of violence sufficient to make such determination. Adults make economic statements. Children make moral statements. Children make moral statements because they lack the knowledge and resources to make economic statements. And that is what separates adults, infantilized non-adults, and children. -
On Whether Propertarianism Contains An Aesthetic
–“What’s your definition of aesthetics? I read recently that someone complained about your arguments not having an aesthetic framing. Does that mean that they want you to essentially sugarcoat the truth with a layer of fanciful words to accommodate right-brain oriented “artists” who don’t want to see the truth at face value? If that’s the way “aesthetics” are meant to be understood, then it sounds like nothing more than a synonym of conflation. That’s horrible. This means that aesthetics is a big lie. You’ve got the plain truth in front of you, explained in the most simple, straightforward and accurate terms imaginable – and for some reason people want to sugarcoat it? Frame it like a damn Tolkien story? This is the epitome of corruption.”— A Friend You are correct. “Aesthetics: the branch of philosophy which deals with questions of beauty and artistic taste.” I am not sure how any system of measurement, whether it be truth or law be ‘aesthetic’. In that sense people want something between a philosophy and a religion, from a thing that is nothing more than a science of that spectrum we call Law. I have had to apply that law to every subject in the human spectrum to clean them of various falsehoods even if those falsehoods are largely platonisms. And for some people, pursuit of Transcendence of Man through Truth in the Commons, Rule of Law, Monarchy, Nation, and Family, is an insufficient inspiration. And that’s OK. I am happy if they try to make a philosophy, an ideology, a religion, or cult around a science. But that is not a criticism of the science itself. Because then it would not be a science. It is a criticism of those who are too … lacking in agency … that they require fairy stories for inspiration to prefer a science over the abrahamic falsehoods. I have studied every revolution in history that has any meaningful documentation, and a revolution consists of nothing but incentives regardless of emotional wants, and a narrative justification for it that gives moral license for violence. And therefore a revolution with any durability will be one made from adult incentives, not the emotions of the infantilized. Personally I just see these people as weak. And desperately in need of bonding with others on some emotional basis. Now, Assuming my health doesn’t degrade further (I am currently working on the product because I’ve recovered enough to do that instead of research and write), I will release something close to a bible of law as my ‘work of my senior years’. Because it will be largely a work of narrative and opinion rather than a work of the sciences. But the reframing of Aristotle’s categories from ideal to operational in Constant Relations(metaphysics), Acquisitionism(psychology), Propertarianism(sociology), Testimonialism(epistemology, Natural Law of Reciprocity(ethics), Rule of Law Juridical Monarchy (Politics: nomocracy), Profiting from the Domestication of the Animal Man(“Aryanism”), And Group Evolutionary Strategies (War), and yes ‘Aesthetics'(Transcendence) – as a science of aesthetics, is all via negativa arguments rather than via positiva justifications. For the simple reason that I am certain that the method by which we transcend our individual selves, our family, tribe, nation and man, once we have reached the point of command of energy, is nothing more than via negativa: removal of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, fraud, theft, violence, free riding, the socialization of losses, the privatization of gains , corruption, conspiracy, statism (monopoly), propagandism, conversion (fictionalism, including false religions), parasitic reproduction (externalization of costs of reproduction), miscegenation (dysgenia), immigration, conquest, and genocide – all of which together produce evolution in mind and body (eugenic evolution). None of which prohibit the use of violence to enforce those incremental suppressions of parasitism that produce frictions between our actions and our transcendence from man to gods. Or let me put it another way: An artificial intelligence could operate by Propertarian reasoning and do no harm (impose costs), in the pursuit of doing good (productivity in the absence of the imposition of costs). And it is impossible to lead men by words and conviction with truth. It is on the other hand possible to create a world in which men lead themselves to transcence *because they have no other choice available to them.* But what we do with Truth, Reciprocity, Nomocracy, Domestication of man, and War in the pursuit of Transcendence, is a matter of choice of paths from the individual to the collective, to get there – not truth. The more closely they are followed the cheaper will be that transition, because the lower the drag. Truth is a weapon gainst falsehood, and falsehood is just a friction (entropic loss) in the pursuit of transcendence. I don’t want to create LEADERS of cults. I don’t need to. I want to create law so that we dont ever need them again. Only children need be led by parents. Parents need not be led, only prohibited from parasitism. If that is the case, then that is the maximum computational velocity by which we can cooperation to transcend man, from the beast who learned to work metal, to the gods who owned the stars. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
On Whether Propertarianism Contains An Aesthetic
–“What’s your definition of aesthetics? I read recently that someone complained about your arguments not having an aesthetic framing. Does that mean that they want you to essentially sugarcoat the truth with a layer of fanciful words to accommodate right-brain oriented “artists” who don’t want to see the truth at face value? If that’s the way “aesthetics” are meant to be understood, then it sounds like nothing more than a synonym of conflation. That’s horrible. This means that aesthetics is a big lie. You’ve got the plain truth in front of you, explained in the most simple, straightforward and accurate terms imaginable – and for some reason people want to sugarcoat it? Frame it like a damn Tolkien story? This is the epitome of corruption.”— A Friend You are correct. “Aesthetics: the branch of philosophy which deals with questions of beauty and artistic taste.” I am not sure how any system of measurement, whether it be truth or law be ‘aesthetic’. In that sense people want something between a philosophy and a religion, from a thing that is nothing more than a science of that spectrum we call Law. I have had to apply that law to every subject in the human spectrum to clean them of various falsehoods even if those falsehoods are largely platonisms. And for some people, pursuit of Transcendence of Man through Truth in the Commons, Rule of Law, Monarchy, Nation, and Family, is an insufficient inspiration. And that’s OK. I am happy if they try to make a philosophy, an ideology, a religion, or cult around a science. But that is not a criticism of the science itself. Because then it would not be a science. It is a criticism of those who are too … lacking in agency … that they require fairy stories for inspiration to prefer a science over the abrahamic falsehoods. I have studied every revolution in history that has any meaningful documentation, and a revolution consists of nothing but incentives regardless of emotional wants, and a narrative justification for it that gives moral license for violence. And therefore a revolution with any durability will be one made from adult incentives, not the emotions of the infantilized. Personally I just see these people as weak. And desperately in need of bonding with others on some emotional basis. Now, Assuming my health doesn’t degrade further (I am currently working on the product because I’ve recovered enough to do that instead of research and write), I will release something close to a bible of law as my ‘work of my senior years’. Because it will be largely a work of narrative and opinion rather than a work of the sciences. But the reframing of Aristotle’s categories from ideal to operational in Constant Relations(metaphysics), Acquisitionism(psychology), Propertarianism(sociology), Testimonialism(epistemology, Natural Law of Reciprocity(ethics), Rule of Law Juridical Monarchy (Politics: nomocracy), Profiting from the Domestication of the Animal Man(“Aryanism”), And Group Evolutionary Strategies (War), and yes ‘Aesthetics'(Transcendence) – as a science of aesthetics, is all via negativa arguments rather than via positiva justifications. For the simple reason that I am certain that the method by which we transcend our individual selves, our family, tribe, nation and man, once we have reached the point of command of energy, is nothing more than via negativa: removal of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, fraud, theft, violence, free riding, the socialization of losses, the privatization of gains , corruption, conspiracy, statism (monopoly), propagandism, conversion (fictionalism, including false religions), parasitic reproduction (externalization of costs of reproduction), miscegenation (dysgenia), immigration, conquest, and genocide – all of which together produce evolution in mind and body (eugenic evolution). None of which prohibit the use of violence to enforce those incremental suppressions of parasitism that produce frictions between our actions and our transcendence from man to gods. Or let me put it another way: An artificial intelligence could operate by Propertarian reasoning and do no harm (impose costs), in the pursuit of doing good (productivity in the absence of the imposition of costs). And it is impossible to lead men by words and conviction with truth. It is on the other hand possible to create a world in which men lead themselves to transcence *because they have no other choice available to them.* But what we do with Truth, Reciprocity, Nomocracy, Domestication of man, and War in the pursuit of Transcendence, is a matter of choice of paths from the individual to the collective, to get there – not truth. The more closely they are followed the cheaper will be that transition, because the lower the drag. Truth is a weapon gainst falsehood, and falsehood is just a friction (entropic loss) in the pursuit of transcendence. I don’t want to create LEADERS of cults. I don’t need to. I want to create law so that we dont ever need them again. Only children need be led by parents. Parents need not be led, only prohibited from parasitism. If that is the case, then that is the maximum computational velocity by which we can cooperation to transcend man, from the beast who learned to work metal, to the gods who owned the stars. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Polls And The People Who Answer Them
Replying to @Adsthoughts @pelosimedia and 2 others Um. And what have we learned about polls over the past 18 years? And what have we learned about reported belief, vs demonstrated action? So what has been the consequence of political correctness? Divergence between statement and action. People still act in their interests. Always –“His point is that he suspects there is a difference between how a person tells you they will vote vs how they actually vote. This discrepancy being a key driver of poll inaccuracy; certainly could be a key factor.”– 1 – (The others being (a) cost of access phone calls, in an era where decreasing numbers of us have them, more of us screen calls, or just hand up on polling. and (b) that there is a high correlation between the category of people who respond to polls and those that don’t. … 2 – … (c) the kind of people who respond to polls have time to do so which is a charitable way of saying people who have agency don’t waste their time. … 3 – … The price of political correctness (institutionalizing lying) is that people don’t tell the truth. As expected. And so just as people began to systematically lie under soviet imposed falsehoods, Americans have begun to lie about postmodernist’s imposed falsehoods.