(profound) (complete decidability) (objective morality) [S]ocial class refers a rough division of humans into a distribution by their reproductive value. There is a competition between the classes, as there is a competition between all living organisms – and there must be for evolution continue and the species to persist. The competition between the classes is dysgenic at the bottom and eugenic at the top. In other words, classes are the result of evolution in action. And the question of whether an action is eugenic or dysgenic provides us with complete moral decidability in the broadest possible ethical and moral questions facing mankind. There are no moral dilemmas. There are no morally undecidable questions. It’s just anti-monotheistic, anti-democratic, anti-dysgenic to say so.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Definition of Class: Reproductive Value
But then, I don’t get to say nice things. My job is true things. Or isn’t that the function of philosophy? -
Blood For The Tree Of Liberty
[I]f you don’t feed the tree of liberty frequently, then you must infrequently feed it a lot. Thus endeth the lesson.
(Aristocratic Egalitarianism.) -
Blood For The Tree Of Liberty
[I]f you don’t feed the tree of liberty frequently, then you must infrequently feed it a lot. Thus endeth the lesson.
(Aristocratic Egalitarianism.) -
Mankind, Civilization, Culture, Society, Family, Individual
[B]een trying to work on constructing Propertarian definitions for these terms. Ran across this gem, that is very, very close. —“Civilization is fundamentally a cultural infrastructure of information and knowledge that serves survival and continuity. What distinguishes a civilization from a culture is that this infrastructure, having reached a critical level of complexity, becomes autonomous from constituent cities, nations, and empires. In ordinary cultures, the passing of information and knowledge may depend upon imitation or oral communication; in civilizations, this cultural memory, etched into clay or drawn into papyrus, takes on a life of its own”— (Andrew Bosworth, “The Genetics of Civilization: An Empirical Classification of Civilizations Based on Writing Systems, Comparative Civilizations Review, 2003, 49:9).
-
Mankind, Civilization, Culture, Society, Family, Individual
[B]een trying to work on constructing Propertarian definitions for these terms. Ran across this gem, that is very, very close. —“Civilization is fundamentally a cultural infrastructure of information and knowledge that serves survival and continuity. What distinguishes a civilization from a culture is that this infrastructure, having reached a critical level of complexity, becomes autonomous from constituent cities, nations, and empires. In ordinary cultures, the passing of information and knowledge may depend upon imitation or oral communication; in civilizations, this cultural memory, etched into clay or drawn into papyrus, takes on a life of its own”— (Andrew Bosworth, “The Genetics of Civilization: An Empirical Classification of Civilizations Based on Writing Systems, Comparative Civilizations Review, 2003, 49:9).
-
What You Do With “Smart” Matters A Lot
[Y]ou can invest your neuronal development in increasing the explanatory power of very narrow concepts, or invest your neuronal development in increasing the explanatory power of very broad concepts. There are THREE reasons why we produce many very smart people in narrow niches, and very few very smart people in broad concepts.
1) First, the return on narrow specializations is cheaper and quicker, and the return on broad specializations is very expensive and takes much, much, longer – if any returns exist at all. It’s very difficult to produce a Toynbee or a Durant. 2) Second, our education and our economies are organized to produce craftsmen for the industrial era – specialists, made possible and necessary by the entry of proles into the labor force, made possible by the harnessing of hydrocarbons. 3) Third, our education system no longer produces aristocratic learning for aristocrats who must govern. Even our aristocratic universities (religious schools) teach the religion of the proles (equality, democracy, pseudoscience, and deception). Instead of teaching politics, ethics, morality, finance and law, so that we may rationally organize our production and rationally adjudicate our differences, with the least risk, loss, and friction in both production and adjudication. So I am daily saddened by the tragedy of the many very smart people I meet who fail to produce their potential, and the many proles who fail by attempting to exceed their capabilities and capacities – due to the false promises of their priesthood. The only choice one has is independent study: to read. By reading ‘know thyself’. By knowing thyself (relative to the abilities of others) to find a niche to profit from, and to gain wisdom to understand the broader arena of human affairs. It is very easy to choose between that which is good to read, and that which is not: read the works of aristocracy. They are scientific in that they were empirical. They are the only equals man has made. See “The Importance of Being Well Read No Matter What Your IQ”. http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-purpose-of-being-well…/ BECAUSE YOUR PRIESTHOOD: YOU ACADEMICS, PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS AND TEACHERS FAILED YOU – and they failed you in pursuit of selfish money and power. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
What You Do With “Smart” Matters A Lot
[Y]ou can invest your neuronal development in increasing the explanatory power of very narrow concepts, or invest your neuronal development in increasing the explanatory power of very broad concepts. There are THREE reasons why we produce many very smart people in narrow niches, and very few very smart people in broad concepts.
1) First, the return on narrow specializations is cheaper and quicker, and the return on broad specializations is very expensive and takes much, much, longer – if any returns exist at all. It’s very difficult to produce a Toynbee or a Durant. 2) Second, our education and our economies are organized to produce craftsmen for the industrial era – specialists, made possible and necessary by the entry of proles into the labor force, made possible by the harnessing of hydrocarbons. 3) Third, our education system no longer produces aristocratic learning for aristocrats who must govern. Even our aristocratic universities (religious schools) teach the religion of the proles (equality, democracy, pseudoscience, and deception). Instead of teaching politics, ethics, morality, finance and law, so that we may rationally organize our production and rationally adjudicate our differences, with the least risk, loss, and friction in both production and adjudication. So I am daily saddened by the tragedy of the many very smart people I meet who fail to produce their potential, and the many proles who fail by attempting to exceed their capabilities and capacities – due to the false promises of their priesthood. The only choice one has is independent study: to read. By reading ‘know thyself’. By knowing thyself (relative to the abilities of others) to find a niche to profit from, and to gain wisdom to understand the broader arena of human affairs. It is very easy to choose between that which is good to read, and that which is not: read the works of aristocracy. They are scientific in that they were empirical. They are the only equals man has made. See “The Importance of Being Well Read No Matter What Your IQ”. http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-purpose-of-being-well…/ BECAUSE YOUR PRIESTHOOD: YOU ACADEMICS, PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS AND TEACHERS FAILED YOU – and they failed you in pursuit of selfish money and power. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Testimonialism (Completed Critical Rationalism)
(second draft) (full cycle) (still needs third section) [W]e both perceive, and remember stimuli, and construct and remember relations from that stimuli, and construct and remember layers upon layers of those relations.
The acts of planning, calculating, hypothesizing, searching, freely-associating, daydreaming, dreaming, and subconscious association attempt to imagine relations between the entire spectrum of memories we can store. Once some (useful?) association is made (found) we must criticize it: determine if it withstands the scrutiny of other relations. We determine if our imaginary relations survive (are truth candidates) by the act of testing those imagined relations to see if they fail or not – and therefore are worthy of our investment or not. We constantly compare the usefulness of the imagined relation with the cost of that imagined relation. The return on those relations determines how excited we ‘feel’ about those relations and the energy expenditure we can risk in pursuit of those relations. Returns can be both subjective and objective. Return can vary from mere satisfaction of curiosity, to personal gain, to a novel invention, to the total transformation of the world of man. As the complexity of relations increases, the means by which we test our imagined relations increases. While we are sometimes able to test our imagined relations by means of introspection, at some point we lack sufficient information to perform such tests, and must resort to both more structured methods of testing, and restore to gaining additional information to see if the imagined relation survives criticism. We perform this expansion of criticism until our estimation of the combination of risk,cost and reward favors conducting the final experiment of acting, rather than conducting either further criticism, or abandoning it as providing insufficient return. [T]he discipline we call philosophy and the discipline we call science consist of a set of methods (processes) which (a)philosophical science, (b)the social sciences, and (c)the physical sciences, use to launder existential impossibility, limitlessness, error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, deception, and (objective) immorality (in the domain of the social sciences) from our testimony (speech). This laundering is achieved by a set of methodological criticisms addressing increasing levels of complexity of which philosophical science consists of the full set of criticisms, social science a subset of those criticisms, and physical science yet another a subset of those criticisms. Those criticisms consist of tests of: Identity, Internal Consistency, External Correspondence, Existential Possibility (Operationalism), Full Accounting (against selection bias), Parsimony (limits), and voluntary transfer (objective morality).” -
Testimonialism (Completed Critical Rationalism)
(second draft) (full cycle) (still needs third section) [W]e both perceive, and remember stimuli, and construct and remember relations from that stimuli, and construct and remember layers upon layers of those relations.
The acts of planning, calculating, hypothesizing, searching, freely-associating, daydreaming, dreaming, and subconscious association attempt to imagine relations between the entire spectrum of memories we can store. Once some (useful?) association is made (found) we must criticize it: determine if it withstands the scrutiny of other relations. We determine if our imaginary relations survive (are truth candidates) by the act of testing those imagined relations to see if they fail or not – and therefore are worthy of our investment or not. We constantly compare the usefulness of the imagined relation with the cost of that imagined relation. The return on those relations determines how excited we ‘feel’ about those relations and the energy expenditure we can risk in pursuit of those relations. Returns can be both subjective and objective. Return can vary from mere satisfaction of curiosity, to personal gain, to a novel invention, to the total transformation of the world of man. As the complexity of relations increases, the means by which we test our imagined relations increases. While we are sometimes able to test our imagined relations by means of introspection, at some point we lack sufficient information to perform such tests, and must resort to both more structured methods of testing, and restore to gaining additional information to see if the imagined relation survives criticism. We perform this expansion of criticism until our estimation of the combination of risk,cost and reward favors conducting the final experiment of acting, rather than conducting either further criticism, or abandoning it as providing insufficient return. [T]he discipline we call philosophy and the discipline we call science consist of a set of methods (processes) which (a)philosophical science, (b)the social sciences, and (c)the physical sciences, use to launder existential impossibility, limitlessness, error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, deception, and (objective) immorality (in the domain of the social sciences) from our testimony (speech). This laundering is achieved by a set of methodological criticisms addressing increasing levels of complexity of which philosophical science consists of the full set of criticisms, social science a subset of those criticisms, and physical science yet another a subset of those criticisms. Those criticisms consist of tests of: Identity, Internal Consistency, External Correspondence, Existential Possibility (Operationalism), Full Accounting (against selection bias), Parsimony (limits), and voluntary transfer (objective morality).” -
Information Systems for the Persistence of Man
SYSTEMS G-GENES, 0-PROPERTY, 1-INTUITION, 2-REASON, 3-COOPERATION(REPRODUCTIVE DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, COGNITION, KNOWLEDGE, LABOR)
(profound) (worth repeating)
[O]ur logical capacity extends to the limits defined by the flight of an arrow. For more complex multi-dimensional relations we resort to the cartesian representations. And if the problem is more complicated than that, then our reason, and ability to envision causal relations, is terribly frail.
And if I am correct (and it appears at present that I am), then “System 0″ is little more than a producer of reward and punishment endorphins in response to increases or decreases in an individual’s inventory of “property”. Property that is necessary for his life, cooperation and reproduction.
Emotions are reactions to changes in state. Changes in state are determined by changes in property. Humans act to acquire that which improves their condition. Humans resent and punish, at great personal expense, appropriations of that which they have acted to acquire.
Reason (Stanovich’s System “2”) rides on the elephant of intuition (Stanovich’s System “1”), whose objects of consideration ( Doolittle’s System “0”) are what we call ‘property’. Our brains are difference engines. And we calculate differences in property: that which we have acted to obtain.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev.