Theme: Agency

  • Propertarianism Gives Aspies A Language With Which To Discourse With Normals.

    [W]orking with the intense-world model of autism, what we ‘aspies’ experience is a lot of localized (intense) but un-integrated phenomenon, and then we try to explain these intense phenomenon to others. Conversely, normals tend to explain the (diluted) single aggregate experience without having visibility into the (intense) localized phenomenon. It’s much easier for them to communicate the RESULTING experience that we DON”T have, than it is for us to communicate the SET of experiences we DO have. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for us, and therefore fortunately for all of us, just as we cannot inspect how we move our limbs – they just move, normals cannot inspect how they obtain those aggregates. We can inspect how we obtain those aggregates at the cost of losing the ability to communicate in aggregates. Or put differently, we speak in much higher information density with higher causal relation. They speak in lower information density with higher experiential description. One of the things I feel most proud of is giving us (intense world thinkers) a language that lets us communicate WITHOUT Experiential loading, in a language that while wordy is comprehensible both to us and to normals. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Smartness vs Genius

    There is a big difference between smartness and genius. I consider quite a few people smarter than I am in this dimension or that – and I think it’s related to their ability to master things like chess, chemistry, and mathematics, using axiomatic systems to permute applications of rules within the limits of the game. In other words, those people that live in a world of proofs I consider smart.

    I suppose I COULD work in that field, but axiomatic thought is a very different way of thinking from theoretic. In my world there are no rules, there is only information and order. To some degree I see all rules as errors, or contrivances, the same way I see legislation and norms.

    Unlike the axiomatic mind, the theoretical mind does not work with boundaries at all, but with creating new orders in order to break through the boundaries that limit us.

    This, I think, is the difference between the techniques of deviant and cunning, moral and wise, axiomatic and smart, theoretical and genius. Some of us cunningly circumvent rules, some morally work within them, some us axiomatically think of new ways to apply them, and some of us theoretically think of new organization of rules – all of us using slightly different methods of decidability.

    Intelligence can be applied using cunning (immoral), moral (wise), axiomatic (smart), and theoretical (genius) methods. I think this is the correct framing of a problem where we generally confuse ourselves through conflation, and allows us to consider ethics and methods of thought as separate axis.

  • Smartness vs Genius

    There is a big difference between smartness and genius. I consider quite a few people smarter than I am in this dimension or that – and I think it’s related to their ability to master things like chess, chemistry, and mathematics, using axiomatic systems to permute applications of rules within the limits of the game. In other words, those people that live in a world of proofs I consider smart.

    I suppose I COULD work in that field, but axiomatic thought is a very different way of thinking from theoretic. In my world there are no rules, there is only information and order. To some degree I see all rules as errors, or contrivances, the same way I see legislation and norms.

    Unlike the axiomatic mind, the theoretical mind does not work with boundaries at all, but with creating new orders in order to break through the boundaries that limit us.

    This, I think, is the difference between the techniques of deviant and cunning, moral and wise, axiomatic and smart, theoretical and genius. Some of us cunningly circumvent rules, some morally work within them, some us axiomatically think of new ways to apply them, and some of us theoretically think of new organization of rules – all of us using slightly different methods of decidability.

    Intelligence can be applied using cunning (immoral), moral (wise), axiomatic (smart), and theoretical (genius) methods. I think this is the correct framing of a problem where we generally confuse ourselves through conflation, and allows us to consider ethics and methods of thought as separate axis.

  • REMOVE CHOICES FROM YOUR OPPOSITION IN ANY NEGOTIATION. Unfortunately, I’ve beco

    REMOVE CHOICES FROM YOUR OPPOSITION IN ANY NEGOTIATION.

    Unfortunately, I’ve become too good at this – to the point where it feels to others like entrapment. In my mind I simply think that x is the only logical outcome and I act in favor of x, without the consent of the other party, who feels (incorrectly) that he or she could have influenced the choice.

    This is an example of my (unhealthy) arrogance. I am definitely so paternally arrogant that I treat everyone as children. And that if I didn’t I’d be dishonest with them and myself.

    Interesting self insight.

    I thik it’s subconscious from having so many negotiations, deals, or ambitions ruined by idiots who we must make consent to that which they cannot understand.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 08:48:00 UTC

  • “What’s your best advice for picking up women?”— Lift. Preen. Play a team spor

    —“What’s your best advice for picking up women?”—

    Lift. Preen. Play a team sport no matter how lame. Read a book a month. And make a sound like money.

    (“Be the flame, not the moth.”)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 08:36:00 UTC

  • (5).. To alleviate the pain of alienation, loneliness, uncertainty. So our effor

    … (5).. To alleviate the pain of alienation, loneliness, uncertainty. So our effort at reducing people per household failed.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 08:12:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781768739859595264

    Reply addressees: @JoshZumbrun

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781157309145686016


    IN REPLY TO:

    @JoshZumbrun

    This is one of the most horrifying graphics I’ve ever seen:
    https://t.co/wM0VJZn0Wg https://t.co/qaUaNFtRPl

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781157309145686016

  • 5) people are turning to chemical drugs, consumption as a drug, entertainment as

    5) people are turning to chemical drugs, consumption as a drug, entertainment as a drug, information as a drug, …


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 08:11:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781768457587220480

    Reply addressees: @JoshZumbrun

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781157309145686016


    IN REPLY TO:

    @JoshZumbrun

    This is one of the most horrifying graphics I’ve ever seen:
    https://t.co/wM0VJZn0Wg https://t.co/qaUaNFtRPl

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781157309145686016

  • 1) mobile workforce destroys inter generational families and reduces rates of re

    1) mobile workforce destroys inter generational families and reduces rates of reproduction.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 08:05:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781766870361837568

    Reply addressees: @JoshZumbrun

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781157309145686016


    IN REPLY TO:

    @JoshZumbrun

    This is one of the most horrifying graphics I’ve ever seen:
    https://t.co/wM0VJZn0Wg https://t.co/qaUaNFtRPl

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781157309145686016

  • Someone asked me yesterday why I was faithful to my wife for two decades, and it

    Someone asked me yesterday why I was faithful to my wife for two decades, and it’s very simple: (a) no desire otherwise when you think you have the best there is (b) total adoration of everything about her, (c) the thought of losing her friendship too horrible to bear. (d) mutual value as life partner very hard to replace – (and it isn’t replaceable). (e) Just “You don’t do that where i come from.” After you separate that’s one thing. Before you separate that’s another.

    When you are in your twenties and from similar backgrounds that ‘moment in time’ can never exist again. So it is almost impossible to find a shared-mind after that set of moments.

    I meet a lot of women I feel like I can love easily. It’s my nature to love easily and to stay loyal. It’s probably similar to my autism in that I like intensity but I hate change.

    And I have only met one woman since I was divorced who rocked my socks off in the first five minutes so much that I would do anything for her. And she knows it. And she’s unfortunately married. And that’s something I have a hard time messing with. But I seem to be in the minority on these matters. Especially in this part of the world.

    But in general, love is a good thing. And while I am a men’s rights activist, I absolutely love women.

    They’re like flowers. Endless variety. Endless Beauty.

    As I have gotten older I appreciate mothers and their children as much as I appreciate attractive women.

    Fertility is an intertemporal aesthetic.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 05:22:00 UTC

  • THE FIRST QUESTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY, ETHICS, AND GOVERNMENT (important piece) (man

    THE FIRST QUESTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY, ETHICS, AND GOVERNMENT

    (important piece) (man is a rational actor)

    – The first question of Philosophy: As asked by Camus: “Why do we not commit suicide?”

    – The first question of Ethics: As I find it: “Why do I not kill you and take your things?”

    – The first question of Government: As I find it: “Why do we not plunder, enslave, or kill you?”

    THE ANSWER TO EACH QUESTION IS THE SAME

    – We do not commit suicide because the greater future opportunities we buy by not doing so.

    – We do not kill one another, because of the greater future opportunities we buy by not doing so.

    – We do not plunder and enslave one another, because of the greater future opportunities we buy by not doing so.

    BUT EACH DECISION IS REVERSIBLE

    – We commit suicide when we buy no greater future opportunities by not doing so.

    – We kill one another when we buy no greater future opportunities by not doing so.

    – We plunder, enslave or kill one another, when we buy no greater future opportunities by not doing so.

    SO MAN IS MERELY RATIONAL OR IRRATIONAL IN HIS CHOICES

    Now, I am a rational man. I choose rationally. If I were a less rational man, perhaps I would choose irrationally instead. A rational man might choose suicide, murder, and war. But In this context (sense), reason is not always the best choice compared to irrationality, because we cannot reason the future given the information in the present.

    SO WE CHOOSE TO MAKE THE RATIONAL CHOICE TO FAVOR THE UNKNOWN UNLESS THE KNOWS ARE INTOLERABLE

    So it is always better to choose life, cooperation, and rule than it is to choose death, conflict, and war. That is, unless the certainty of suffering in the meantime is unbearable.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-26 03:41:00 UTC