(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
Theme: Agency
-
Male Expendability?
I may not like the fact that being male makes me expendable. But I must live with the reality of the division of reproductive labor. On the other hand, I am perfectly happy, if not thrilled, to set the terms by which my expendability may be exercised.
I am willing to kill and die for liberty. I am not willing to suffer the genocide of my people to humor women and the underclasses whose succor is the result of me and my ancestors. So I pray you take heed of your assumptions. Lest my brothers and I decide that the method of expending ourselves is your extermination. -
Male Expendability?
I may not like the fact that being male makes me expendable. But I must live with the reality of the division of reproductive labor. On the other hand, I am perfectly happy, if not thrilled, to set the terms by which my expendability may be exercised.
I am willing to kill and die for liberty. I am not willing to suffer the genocide of my people to humor women and the underclasses whose succor is the result of me and my ancestors. So I pray you take heed of your assumptions. Lest my brothers and I decide that the method of expending ourselves is your extermination. -
“Imagination is more important than knowledge.”— -Albert Einstein This isn’t q
—“Imagination is more important than knowledge.”—
-Albert Einstein
This isn’t quite right. It’s that knowledge is a form of consumption while imagination is a form of production.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-15 10:35:00 UTC
-
Many a philosopher has died when his first child is born
Many a philosopher has died when his first child is born.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-15 01:07:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle men mature more slowly Jeannine DiPerna Totally got that… 😉 lo
Curt Doolittle
men mature more slowly
Jeannine DiPerna
Totally got that… 😉 lolol
Curt Doolittle
We are expendable. Mothers are not.
We can take risks. Mothers cannot.
We can invest in innovation. Mothers cannot.
We can take longer to mature. Mothers cannot.
We can specialize. Mothers cannot.
Ergo, women must mature earlier, and men can mature at different rates to produce different classes of male ‘soldiers’/
Jeannine DiPerna
though, is it a threat to how smart a man thinks he is or to his ability/capacity to provide. Provide, protect, procreate…
Curt Doolittle
It’s not a THREAT. it’s disutility.
It’s like being an unattractive woman.
Which is why the alt-right(men) sounds a lot like social justice warriors (women).
Men want sex. And they want to be part of a tribe. whether they want to procreate is an open question. As far as I know, procreation creates kin membership and is more valuable the less desirable you are.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-14 02:12:00 UTC
-
Being very good at what you do, and having the resources to do what you want to
Being very good at what you do, and having the resources to do what you want to do, are two different things. To succeed you must choose things you are good at and choose things you have the resources to complete. But what I find most obvious among the engineers, entrepreneurs, and artists is that they want to compromise with as few people as possible. And in some cases people choose what they may not be able to do, may not have the resources to do, and may not be able to finish, becuase they seek to avoid compromise with anyone else. And thusly grasp a fantasy destined to fail. When I succeed it is because I surround myself with good enough people that I can remain an artist, and when I fail it is because I don’t surround myself with those people. And I know too well that when I do not surround myself with those people it is because I am tired of compromising. And when I do that I should not do business, I should lay on a beach until I feel like compromising again.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 09:40:00 UTC
-
( It seemed that I had a very hard time overcoming the urge to rage when being d
( It seemed that I had a very hard time overcoming the urge to rage when being distracted from something I was concentrating on. As I have gotten older, and have learned to ‘live pretty much in the zone at all times’, this is less of a problem. But now if I am tired – and if I haven’t had my prescriptions especially – I find that I don’t rage but I am easily …. I feel disrespected instead. )
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 08:06:00 UTC
-
DEAR FUTURE MOTHERS 1) you have more energy when you are young. 2) your body wil
DEAR FUTURE MOTHERS
1) you have more energy when you are young.
2) your body will recover faster and better when you are young.
3) you will accumulate less debt when you’re young.
4) yes you are wiser when you are older.
5) evidence is that you’re more likely to be wrong for that reason
6) you don’t have to teach kids anything, you need to have energy to pay attention to them.
Don’t confuse your own selfishness with doing better for your kids. You can’t. The data is in. No matter what you do, you cannot make your child ‘better’ than if you just pay attention to them, and spend time with them.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 04:56:00 UTC
-
ARE EMOTIONS RATIONAL? AND WHY PHILOSOPHY IS SO SUCCESSFUL IN DECEIT. AND WHY I
ARE EMOTIONS RATIONAL? AND WHY PHILOSOPHY IS SO SUCCESSFUL IN DECEIT. AND WHY I AM AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHER
(read this: very very very important synthesis)
(A) as far as I know all emotions reflect a reaction to a change in state of some form of inventory ( property ).
( b) as far as I know all moral intuitions reflect cooperative changes in state to personal or common property ( property in toto ).
(C) as far as I know all human cognition is limited to that which can be acquired.
(D) as far as I know, that which can be acquired is limited to our ability to act in existential reality.
(E) as far as I know we can use reason to inspect memory searches. And that memory searches restimulate emotions.
(F) and that the value of our memories is ( amplitude ) is determined by these weights.
Emotions are measurements.
We may or may not measure optimally.
Emotions are not produced by reason even if they can be evoked by reason.
So I tend to position emotions as empirical measurements by our sensory system.
Trained by experience.
Open to retraining by experience.
Reason can be used to produce experiences that train or retrain us.
Imagining and modeling can be used to produce experiences that train or retrain us.
But while emotions can be said to be a logical need for an acting life form. And we can rationally and empirically test that hypothesis with consistent success.
Yet we cannot say emotions are produced rationally. We can only say in retrospect that we rationally comprehend the function of those emotions as logically necessary for acting creatures.
ALSO
this question provides yet another example of 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 are suggestive shortcuts. But when this shortcut us 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 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.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 03:34:00 UTC