(read for some good useful arguments) Women were ineffective at leaving ‘extraordinary’ marks on history for a number of obvious reasons: 1 – Strength, athleticism, bravery, loyalty, and cunning provided marginal differences in groups that made possible disruptions in society. Consensus does not produce change, but regularity. 2 – All progress is achieved through either conquest, competition, or innovation (change in state); and innovation appears to be an almost exclusively masculine achievement – so much so that despite a century of seeking even a single woman we find none equal in theoretical innovation to men, and those women we do find produce empirical insights instead(ie:Ostrom). All innovation is produced at the limits of human abilities. Women dominate the middle and men dominate the extremes. 3 – Rearing five or six children in the pre-modern era is a full time 365 day a year occupation that has occupied them. Unfortunately, women desire attention, and feminists desire political power, so while the soldier and the craftsman grasp that they are as important to the whole as a group as the great man is as an individual; this does not suit the political interests of feminists to assist in overthrowing the aristocratic sovereign meritocratic social order, and restoring the primitivism of the rest of the world. We spent thousands of years producing the compromise of the nuclear family, and one-vote for one-family. This is the optimum compromise position under which neither gets what they most prefer, but most all get the best they can get. The sacrifice we pay for marriage and family is a sacrifice just as taxes, obeying norms and laws, and fighting war are sacrifices we pay for getting the best we can not the best we desire. 4 – The impolitic truth: women are demonstrably far less loyal to the group (willing to bear costs) than men even if they are far more concerned with harmony (social safety for themselves and their offspring). Throughout history women have been considered shallow, petty, duplicitous, traitorous, and impulsive. It was just as hard to domesticate women as it has been to domesticate men. And that domestication was achieved in large part through controlling reproduction (just as we do with animals) using the institution of monogamous marriage first, and the prohibition on cousin marriage later, and aggressively hanging malcontents last. Men evolved to capture and herd women. It was through cooperation and the development of property and family that we came to a compromise between the male ability and desire to herd women, and the female ability and desire to choose mates. Women have a smaller number of closer friends, men a larger number of looser friends. Women never stop trying to gain status among other women. Men seek only to maintain a ‘natural’ status so that they maintain value to the tribe. We have little value for ‘care, affection, and sex’. We have great value for changing the state of the physical world to that which we prefer. Women will cheat on the tribe just as men will cheat on a woman. THis behavior is not at all conscious. WOMEN IN THE FUTURE The current era is coming to a close, and will very likely be remembered in history as the second attempt at hyperconsumption. And that women in leadership positions is evidence of the failure of the men in that civilization, just as it was in the ancient world, just as it is in the modern, and just as it is in board rooms in the largest companies: the fact that women are in charge is merely evidence of the failure of men to create a consensus among men who create a competitive difference. Just as we cannot all be leaders, women do not bear quality children in large numbers, a civilization will die – from having no ‘host’ for its ideas. Men work at the extremes, and we dominate the extremes. Women work at regularities and dominate the regularities. We must teach extremes and incentivize extremes through narratives. We must teach regularities and incentivize regularities by demonstrations. Father extremes, mother regularities. The fact that our genes inspire us to do these things is not surprising. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Source: Original Site Post
-
Mythical Extremes, Demonstrated Regularities
Let me repeat that so that it doesn’t get lost: we tell stories of great achievement because it is the only possible way of conveying heroism: desirable action at the extremes. We teach the valuable exceptions that produce the valuable rewards for high risk. We do not tell people stories of regularities that are in evidence around us every day. This is why history consists of irregularities (innovations), and why existence consists of regularities (productions). Men innovate(disrupt) through extremes and women operate (produce generations) through regularities. And we have evolved such that our gender’s abilities serve the needs.
If you look at the 20th century. By all possible measures, women are failing at their duties. At present, it might also be that men are – if we let ourselves be conquered in order to please the folly of our women. We are not equal. Like an army we must all do our jobs if we are to survive. -
Mythical Extremes, Demonstrated Regularities
Let me repeat that so that it doesn’t get lost: we tell stories of great achievement because it is the only possible way of conveying heroism: desirable action at the extremes. We teach the valuable exceptions that produce the valuable rewards for high risk. We do not tell people stories of regularities that are in evidence around us every day. This is why history consists of irregularities (innovations), and why existence consists of regularities (productions). Men innovate(disrupt) through extremes and women operate (produce generations) through regularities. And we have evolved such that our gender’s abilities serve the needs.
If you look at the 20th century. By all possible measures, women are failing at their duties. At present, it might also be that men are – if we let ourselves be conquered in order to please the folly of our women. We are not equal. Like an army we must all do our jobs if we are to survive. -
WTH Do You Think I’m Doing (Thesis of the Book)
(worth repeating)
—“Curt! Write a book on this!.”—
lol…. WTF do you think I am doing? 🙂 I don’t write this *** for my own entertainment. 🙂 Anyway, this is the general thesis of the book: The Law of Nature. We invented sovereignty, and from that we developed western civilization as an extension. As we did so we learned to profit from ‘moral’ rule as a further demonstration of heroism (excellence). This sovereign network of industries vs totalitarian manufacturing plant just ‘calculates’ faster than all other possible human orders, because it produces the fewest friction, and the greatest opportunity to take risks. So we evolved faster than the rest every time we restore our sovereignty, and we slow when we remove it – just like everyone else. Time to restore our sovereignty. Cheers. -
WTH Do You Think I’m Doing (Thesis of the Book)
(worth repeating)
—“Curt! Write a book on this!.”—
lol…. WTF do you think I am doing? 🙂 I don’t write this *** for my own entertainment. 🙂 Anyway, this is the general thesis of the book: The Law of Nature. We invented sovereignty, and from that we developed western civilization as an extension. As we did so we learned to profit from ‘moral’ rule as a further demonstration of heroism (excellence). This sovereign network of industries vs totalitarian manufacturing plant just ‘calculates’ faster than all other possible human orders, because it produces the fewest friction, and the greatest opportunity to take risks. So we evolved faster than the rest every time we restore our sovereignty, and we slow when we remove it – just like everyone else. Time to restore our sovereignty. Cheers. -
Programming Teaches Operational Thought
Programming is as important an innovation in thought as is empiricism. Because while empiricism is but correspondent and logic is a but question of sets, programming is operational (existential). I think the act of creating databases is about as close to philosophizing as you can come, but it involves the same problem as logic: as practiced by the discipline its logical but non-operational, and often non-correspondent. When you combine user interfaces(human-reality), programming (operations), and databases (sets/logic), where the data structures must correspond to real world entities (empiricism), then you have covered the entire conceptual spectrum. If we combine the correspondent, logical, and operational, we have everything but the moral. If we were to add full accounting of all transactions (full capital accounting that is: under property in toto) we would essentially create the entire spectrum of dimensions necessary for cognition. My view is that while the blockchain method is currently too weak for this purpose, that the general theory of duplicated recursive competing ledgers provides the full accounting of TITLES (changes in ownership), and that local databases can take care of local accounting (local measures of local capital), then we would have sufficient dimensional information to produce meaningful artificial intelligences bound by the same limits as we are. But regardless of what we do with programming itself, my objective is to teach people that the sensation of teaching a computer but having the reaction “well it should know that’s what I meant!” vs what you told it to do are two different things. And that this ‘gap’ is solved by training the mind to think operationally – existentially? Why? Because just as empiricism taught us that the information we wished to be contained in our words was not in fact there, programming or in broader terms ‘operationalism’ teaches us how little we actually know. In other words, it teaches us humility and skepticism in our own thoughts. Or conversely, it teaches us how to test for error and deceit in others. Is this an additional burden? Of course it is. So was scientific knowledge. So was literacy. So was numeracy. So was law and order. These are all costs. But they are not sunk costs. They are investments we make. And the investments in truth telling are always the BEST investments man has EVER made. (Good luck trying to argue otherwise) My strategy is to require law be written programmatically (operationally) even more so than today. Strictly constructed by the same means. This will produce an even more readable body of law, and one that can be accumulated technologically in future systems other than the human mind. Law is very close to programming now. But we do not have all the requirements in law that are necessary for the defense of the informational commons. If we do that, then law will be dimensionally complete (as far as I can tell). And we will be able to hold the liars at bay.
-
Programming Teaches Operational Thought
Programming is as important an innovation in thought as is empiricism. Because while empiricism is but correspondent and logic is a but question of sets, programming is operational (existential). I think the act of creating databases is about as close to philosophizing as you can come, but it involves the same problem as logic: as practiced by the discipline its logical but non-operational, and often non-correspondent. When you combine user interfaces(human-reality), programming (operations), and databases (sets/logic), where the data structures must correspond to real world entities (empiricism), then you have covered the entire conceptual spectrum. If we combine the correspondent, logical, and operational, we have everything but the moral. If we were to add full accounting of all transactions (full capital accounting that is: under property in toto) we would essentially create the entire spectrum of dimensions necessary for cognition. My view is that while the blockchain method is currently too weak for this purpose, that the general theory of duplicated recursive competing ledgers provides the full accounting of TITLES (changes in ownership), and that local databases can take care of local accounting (local measures of local capital), then we would have sufficient dimensional information to produce meaningful artificial intelligences bound by the same limits as we are. But regardless of what we do with programming itself, my objective is to teach people that the sensation of teaching a computer but having the reaction “well it should know that’s what I meant!” vs what you told it to do are two different things. And that this ‘gap’ is solved by training the mind to think operationally – existentially? Why? Because just as empiricism taught us that the information we wished to be contained in our words was not in fact there, programming or in broader terms ‘operationalism’ teaches us how little we actually know. In other words, it teaches us humility and skepticism in our own thoughts. Or conversely, it teaches us how to test for error and deceit in others. Is this an additional burden? Of course it is. So was scientific knowledge. So was literacy. So was numeracy. So was law and order. These are all costs. But they are not sunk costs. They are investments we make. And the investments in truth telling are always the BEST investments man has EVER made. (Good luck trying to argue otherwise) My strategy is to require law be written programmatically (operationally) even more so than today. Strictly constructed by the same means. This will produce an even more readable body of law, and one that can be accumulated technologically in future systems other than the human mind. Law is very close to programming now. But we do not have all the requirements in law that are necessary for the defense of the informational commons. If we do that, then law will be dimensionally complete (as far as I can tell). And we will be able to hold the liars at bay.
-
What are Verbal Illusions (Deceptions)?
ENDING THE POLLUTION OF PHILOSOPHY WITH THE EQUIVALENT OF OPTICAL ILLUSIONS (important) (I figured out how to talk about suggestion)
The pollution of philosophy with the verb “to be”: creating nonsense problems because our minds do not seem able to avoid the confusion created between experience and existence when we say “is” or “are”. So the vast number of sophistries we falsely categorize as philosophical problems are merely confusions created by the misuse of grammar ( effort discounts ) just as a magician misleads with gestures. The only difference is that the magician knows he deceived others. But the sophist does not know he deceives himself. We evolved to substitute information not existing in speech of others through inference. We also evolved to save effort in thought and speech through suggestion ( shortcuts ). The words is and are suggestive shortcuts. But when this shortcut is combined in certain permutations it forces the circumvention of reason and the evocation of pre-rational substitution. In other words, it forces us out of reason and reality into intuition and imagination. This is the same trick that occurs with optical illusions. Both optical illusions and verbal illusions are created by the same means of suggestion: disinformation or partial information constructed to force intuitionistic substitution. This is the same technique used by storytellers to invoke suspension of disbelief, priests to convince the foolish of the existence of imaginary worlds, and politicians and public intellectuals to lie, and dishonest philosophers to overload, and sophists to confuse. Ergo: any question of philosophy that contains the words is or are and is not stated in operational language is at best sophistry, at worst, the most insidious evils that have ever been let loose on man. It is this understanding that has made me an anti philosophy philosopher and forced me to unite science and philosophy. Because whether religious, political or philosophical, the abuse if these cognitive biases to harm mankind must end. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. -
What are Verbal Illusions (Deceptions)?
ENDING THE POLLUTION OF PHILOSOPHY WITH THE EQUIVALENT OF OPTICAL ILLUSIONS (important) (I figured out how to talk about suggestion)
The pollution of philosophy with the verb “to be”: creating nonsense problems because our minds do not seem able to avoid the confusion created between experience and existence when we say “is” or “are”. So the vast number of sophistries we falsely categorize as philosophical problems are merely confusions created by the misuse of grammar ( effort discounts ) just as a magician misleads with gestures. The only difference is that the magician knows he deceived others. But the sophist does not know he deceives himself. We evolved to substitute information not existing in speech of others through inference. We also evolved to save effort in thought and speech through suggestion ( shortcuts ). The words is and are suggestive shortcuts. But when this shortcut is combined in certain permutations it forces the circumvention of reason and the evocation of pre-rational substitution. In other words, it forces us out of reason and reality into intuition and imagination. This is the same trick that occurs with optical illusions. Both optical illusions and verbal illusions are created by the same means of suggestion: disinformation or partial information constructed to force intuitionistic substitution. This is the same technique used by storytellers to invoke suspension of disbelief, priests to convince the foolish of the existence of imaginary worlds, and politicians and public intellectuals to lie, and dishonest philosophers to overload, and sophists to confuse. Ergo: any question of philosophy that contains the words is or are and is not stated in operational language is at best sophistry, at worst, the most insidious evils that have ever been let loose on man. It is this understanding that has made me an anti philosophy philosopher and forced me to unite science and philosophy. Because whether religious, political or philosophical, the abuse if these cognitive biases to harm mankind must end. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. -
What are Verbal Illusions (Deceptions)?
ENDING THE POLLUTION OF PHILOSOPHY WITH THE EQUIVALENT OF OPTICAL ILLUSIONS (important) (I figured out how to talk about suggestion)
The pollution of philosophy with the verb “to be”: creating nonsense problems because our minds do not seem able to avoid the confusion created between experience and existence when we say “is” or “are”. So the vast number of sophistries we falsely categorize as philosophical problems are merely confusions created by the misuse of grammar ( effort discounts ) just as a magician misleads with gestures. The only difference is that the magician knows he deceived others. But the sophist does not know he deceives himself. We evolved to substitute information not existing in speech of others through inference. We also evolved to save effort in thought and speech through suggestion ( shortcuts ). The words is and are suggestive shortcuts. But when this shortcut is combined in certain permutations it forces the circumvention of reason and the evocation of pre-rational substitution. In other words, it forces us out of reason and reality into intuition and imagination. This is the same trick that occurs with optical illusions. Both optical illusions and verbal illusions are created by the same means of suggestion: disinformation or partial information constructed to force intuitionistic substitution. This is the same technique used by storytellers to invoke suspension of disbelief, priests to convince the foolish of the existence of imaginary worlds, and politicians and public intellectuals to lie, and dishonest philosophers to overload, and sophists to confuse. Ergo: any question of philosophy that contains the words is or are and is not stated in operational language is at best sophistry, at worst, the most insidious evils that have ever been let loose on man. It is this understanding that has made me an anti philosophy philosopher and forced me to unite science and philosophy. Because whether religious, political or philosophical, the abuse if these cognitive biases to harm mankind must end. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.