The economics of consumption has replaced morality in politics, but it is possible to restore consumption-with-tests-of-changes-in-the-state-of-capital possible under commodity money, localized capital, regional markets, and social homogeneity and abandon simple volume of consumption under conditions of paper money, social heterogeneity, world capital, and worldwide markets, thereby ending hyperconsumption, including of genetic, social, institutional, cultural and civilizational capital. In other words we lost the ability to test the changes in civilizational capital, by failing to measure them as trade moved from regional to national to civilizational to world scope – and in doing so our failure to include measurements of, and tools for measuring, human, cultural, institutional, genetic, etc capital was exposed and exploited, just as was our local tolerance for information stated with european law norm, christian values, and aristotelian reason. I keep saying this but the problem of the 20th was a failure of our institutions to produce systems of measurement and incentives to defend capital in parallel with the commercial and monetary expansion. The beauty of the western common law under which the first court finding that resolves a dispute over an innovation in means of irreciprocity, is that it responds the fastest to inventions of irreciprocity forcing us to continually innovate in means of competition under reciprocity. The problem is that our law failed to modernize particularly in two areas (1) measurement of the very capital that provides our civilizational means of competition (human , informal institutional and formal institutional capital), and (2) expanding our law to cover innovations in deception for the purpose of irreciprocity and obscuring that very capital consumption, made possible by the industrialization of false speech, and the reformation of abrahamic supernaturalism, sophism and denial, into abrahamic pseudoscience sophism and denial: marxism, boazianism, freudianism, feminism, postmodernism, and political correctness: denialism. We aren’t unique. It destroyed every empire i know of. Because what is accumulated rent seeking other than a failure to measure all capital transformation, and to create new incentives under the law to suppress newly available forms of parasitism that consume rather than produce human capital. All civilizations collapse because they have exhausted the capital available to use in the reorganization of a pareto distribution of influences, and a nash equilibrium of rewards for preserving that new system of organization, in response to scarcities, shocks, changes in trade routes, conflcit, war (Physical, Ideological, religious, economic), and variations in the environment (drought, climate, water and river changes, continuous quakes, world volcanic activity – which aside from very large asteroids is the most dangerous of all.
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Economics of Consumption Has Replaced Morality in Politics,
The economics of consumption has replaced morality in politics, but it is possible to restore consumption-with-tests-of-changes-in-the-state-of-capital possible under commodity money, localized capital, regional markets, and social homogeneity and abandon simple volume of consumption under conditions of paper money, social heterogeneity, world capital, and worldwide markets, thereby ending hyperconsumption, including of genetic, social, institutional, cultural and civilizational capital. In other words we lost the ability to test the changes in civilizational capital, by failing to measure them as trade moved from regional to national to civilizational to world scope – and in doing so our failure to include measurements of, and tools for measuring, human, cultural, institutional, genetic, etc capital was exposed and exploited, just as was our local tolerance for information stated with european law norm, christian values, and aristotelian reason. I keep saying this but the problem of the 20th was a failure of our institutions to produce systems of measurement and incentives to defend capital in parallel with the commercial and monetary expansion. The beauty of the western common law under which the first court finding that resolves a dispute over an innovation in means of irreciprocity, is that it responds the fastest to inventions of irreciprocity forcing us to continually innovate in means of competition under reciprocity. The problem is that our law failed to modernize particularly in two areas (1) measurement of the very capital that provides our civilizational means of competition (human , informal institutional and formal institutional capital), and (2) expanding our law to cover innovations in deception for the purpose of irreciprocity and obscuring that very capital consumption, made possible by the industrialization of false speech, and the reformation of abrahamic supernaturalism, sophism and denial, into abrahamic pseudoscience sophism and denial: marxism, boazianism, freudianism, feminism, postmodernism, and political correctness: denialism. We aren’t unique. It destroyed every empire i know of. Because what is accumulated rent seeking other than a failure to measure all capital transformation, and to create new incentives under the law to suppress newly available forms of parasitism that consume rather than produce human capital. All civilizations collapse because they have exhausted the capital available to use in the reorganization of a pareto distribution of influences, and a nash equilibrium of rewards for preserving that new system of organization, in response to scarcities, shocks, changes in trade routes, conflcit, war (Physical, Ideological, religious, economic), and variations in the environment (drought, climate, water and river changes, continuous quakes, world volcanic activity – which aside from very large asteroids is the most dangerous of all.
-
A Woman’s Observation of Propertarianism
A Woman’s Observation of Propertarianism https://t.co/jgiS8fA6Oj
-
A Woman’s Observation of Propertarianism
—“Well, as a woman that’s been observing Propertarianism over the last few years I can say that holding my interest was never really the issue. For me it was a question of being too drawn in, to the point of distrusting my own judgement, leading to withdrawal. I mostly just found it all too overwhelming…like being caught in an intellectual flash-flood that was hell bent on carving out a new course for humanity. My presence felt inappropriate somehow. There is a degree of masculinity within the group that’s certainly suffocating – you’re clearly aware of this and acknowledge that it is a necessary part of building up the organisation, however. I don’t think Propertarianism really needs a female presence and any attempts and making it more accommodating will likely weaken the organisation’s capacity to attract young, enterprising males.”— Lisa Outhwaite
Smart woman. A rare intellectually honest one.
-
A Woman’s Observation of Propertarianism
—“Well, as a woman that’s been observing Propertarianism over the last few years I can say that holding my interest was never really the issue. For me it was a question of being too drawn in, to the point of distrusting my own judgement, leading to withdrawal. I mostly just found it all too overwhelming…like being caught in an intellectual flash-flood that was hell bent on carving out a new course for humanity. My presence felt inappropriate somehow. There is a degree of masculinity within the group that’s certainly suffocating – you’re clearly aware of this and acknowledge that it is a necessary part of building up the organisation, however. I don’t think Propertarianism really needs a female presence and any attempts and making it more accommodating will likely weaken the organisation’s capacity to attract young, enterprising males.”— Lisa Outhwaite
Smart woman. A rare intellectually honest one.
-
P-Decidabilty Is a Dangerous Idea!
P-Decidabilty Is a Dangerous Idea! https://t.co/2Lk0AFhgkn
-
P-Decidabilty Is a Dangerous Idea!
P-DECIDABILTY IS A DANGEROUS IDEA! by Duke Newcomb This decidability is a dangerous idea. If the you-know-whos were to figure out the stuff we talk about and what we really mean, they’d SHUT IT DOWN! Decidability may be more of an antipode to parasitism than reciprocity. A decidable institution could hit such an escape velocity that it would shake off or burn off parasites along the way. It could not just counter the small hats’ group strategy as enforced reciprocity does, it could foreclose on its use. Perhaps that’s wishful thinking on my part, but mein Gott, this idea seems highly radioactive and long half-lived.
-
P-Decidabilty Is a Dangerous Idea!
P-DECIDABILTY IS A DANGEROUS IDEA! by Duke Newcomb This decidability is a dangerous idea. If the you-know-whos were to figure out the stuff we talk about and what we really mean, they’d SHUT IT DOWN! Decidability may be more of an antipode to parasitism than reciprocity. A decidable institution could hit such an escape velocity that it would shake off or burn off parasites along the way. It could not just counter the small hats’ group strategy as enforced reciprocity does, it could foreclose on its use. Perhaps that’s wishful thinking on my part, but mein Gott, this idea seems highly radioactive and long half-lived.
-
—“Can I Write a 1000 Page Novel Today?”—
—“Can I Write a 1000 Page Novel Today?”— https://t.co/AkrPAusods
-
—“Can I Write a 1000 Page Novel Today?”—
Oct 25, 2019, 9:16 PM
- It’s economically unwise at present to write a 900 page novel. It is much better to break it into three books, and edit to provide rewards for the reader at the end of each.
It is extremely difficult to accumulate sufficient life experience to provide character, plot, and environmental novelty (entertainment) for 900 pages. That’s why people don’t do it – they can’t.
The current trend is simply ‘more’ characters, plots, etc in an effort to move beyond the exhausted 90-min plot lines, that books were written for, in the hope that they would be optioned as scripts.
To answer the question, I would need to understand the plot, theory, or experiment you’re trying in the book, the number of characters, and maybe a few of their story arcs.
Authors you might know: RRMartin (Can I reverse the good vs evil exhausted plot line through continuous character development using epic character arcs over a long period of time, written for teens, and young adult heroes with adult subject matter,). Rowling ( can I reach a young adult or teen audience, with a stereotypical boy’s adventure, written from a girl’s perspective and voice, played by a boy to to maximize my book sales, using one year of schooling at a time, where the character grows with the audience and books are released in parallel to the audience’s growth.) Stephenson (Cryptonomicon: can I write the seminal work of the Cyberpunk era, combining Ludlum’s thriller, King’s Characters, Tom Clancy’s scale, tech entrepreneur life in the dot com boom, And in doing so explain the the history of cryptography across generations, construction of the world banking and economic system, and how it could change in the future, shifting the world power balance. Maybe gibson was more influential, but Stephenson wrote the canon literature of that era.) Eddings (can I merge with wizard of earthsea, pohl’s ‘scientific magic’, and tolkien’s epic wars between civilizations, and do the characters well enough to get a away with it and not be called a hack? Add a hundred other copycats using the formula after him here….) King (It, the Stand – most of his books – Can I weave an entire village , an enormous cast of characters, into an epic of mythic consequence mystery and scale, and succeed with most of the characters by producing an backstory, dialog, and character arc the audience will empathize with despite so many of them you need a score card to keep track. I mean, the stand is a dark sci fi attempt at Tolkein’s epic. We should note that while King does manage to produce some archetypal characters in a novel context he failed in the stand to achieve his goal of maintaining character empathy, and audience interests, for the duration.) Rand (Atlas Shrugged can I write a play that the reader will empathize with, that creates a middle class heroic mythos of creative excellence, where the characters represent political archetypes, instead of writing another work of philosophy that will be ignored? (it worked despite cutout characters. Not as clear as plato’s socrates, but she did it.) ) Tolkien (Can I create the largest most detailed alternate world ever tried by the reconstruction of the tradition of anglo saxon, germanic, proto-germanic european, mythos as a means of exploring ancient tongues. Can I write an anglo saxon world we would be desperate to live in, because we sense it is more moral than the world we live in today? Don’t over analyze Tolkien. ). Michner: (can I learn about and teach history of different areas of the world by weaving long intergenerational family stories over many generations with interesting plots with strong characters instead of writing a history book or set of biographies – and will that sell to readers? Absolutely.) Gone With The Wind … (The experience of the entirety of the civil war in the south?) War And Peace (the experience of the entirety of the napoleonic invasion of russia and leave a lasting memory of it as a monument? Yes.) Don Quixote (Can I write a homeric epic of equal meaning, and greater tragedy because modernity traded knowledge and prosperity yes, but destroyed chivalry, honor, nobility – and his idealism is considered insane and useless in the face of modernity. You get the point. What are you going to deliver in 900 pages of novel that is novel, and novel enough to hold the reader’s attention when his or her attention is competing with every other demand for his or her attention? What do you have to offer? I wish I could get people to write write an overview of their plot (a theory of the book), then some back story. then some character backstories. Then write a few SCENES. So then you can immerse yourself in a world and weave your way through it because you have enough to work with that you won’t just imagine the most recent stereotypical thing you encountered. Try to write the skeleton of the story while inspired, in just one to t three weeks. Even if you just throw it away. Then pick scenes that you feel inspired to work with. You will find that you will create anchors, and then ask “why would my characters get from A to B”. Research. Fill your head with whatever your character’s head would be filled with in the circumstance. then your writing won’t be trite. If you sit down and try to daydream a novel you will create precisely nothing novel.