—“Are we going to engage in the world we actually live in or just hide behind banal rhetoric comforted in the fact you are right while you enjoy your stasis and inactivity?”— Justin Ptak
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-15 23:48:00 UTC
Theme: Agency
-
CANADIAN PRIVILEGE (reposted) (fun) AN ANSWER THAT YOU WON’T LIKE: PRIVILEGE NOT
CANADIAN PRIVILEGE
(reposted) (fun)
AN ANSWER THAT YOU WON’T LIKE: PRIVILEGE NOT CHOICE
Humans justify. Justification is necessary for adaptation, and we are very good at justification.
Canada is the world’s most privileged country, so Canadians can justify unprecedented luxuries.
Imagine, anywhere else in the world, a country of that size, with so few people, with that many natural resources, that did not have to defend that territory and resources from constant incursion by neighboring powers.
Ukraine and Siberia are two modern examples. Ukraine has roughly the same population, is rich in resources, and has been the victim of perpetual struggle for self determination from Mongols, Poland, Austria, Russia, the USSR, and now Russia again. Siberia is currently being occupied by Chinese intent on doing exactly what Russia did to Ukraine: fill it with people then justify taking it by force.
Canadians have the best of all worlds: a benevolent global empire on their border that cannot tolerate any instability in, or invasion of, Canada; oceans for all other borders; and therefore near immunity from the high cost of self defense, and the necessity of nationalism.
Canada and Australia, like the UK are for all strategic intents and purposes, islands, that like the UK, rely upon island-people-ethics: no fear of outsiders. Little fear of conquest. Little conflict over territory. No conflict over sovereignty.
Having never experienced the divisiveness of slavery, Canadians have never experienced the problem of internal race conflict. Slavery is the defining issue of american history and race and culture conflict remain unresolved and un-resolvable. The immateriality of french divisiveness versus american urban and rural divisiveness, causes less conflict in Canada but is equally as damaging, since it again causes multiculturalism that harms the center and west.
The data says that Canada is more conservative than the states, and that the only thing that forces Canadian policy differences is the french voting block. The french immigrants to Quebec were, unlike the Anglo immigrants to the other provinces, from the lower classes. So those class, religion, culture, family structure, and language differences, of course skew the country a bit as well. Unlike Canada, USA’s demographic blocks are not isolated but intermingled as horizontal bands reflecting the cultures that immigrated at different latitudes of the east coast. (See the “Nine Nations Of North America”.)
Now, Canadians tend to look at this strategic privilege as a product of their high mindedness, but nothing could be further from the truth. Cultural differences and Political policy in all countries reflect that which people are ABLE TO implement as policy, and ABLE adopt as cultural preference. People prefer luxuries that they CAN possess. They CAN possess them for strategic, not cultural or political reasons.
But as soon as Canada reaches the level of cultural competition that is present in the states, North and South Italy, France, Germany, and the UK, west and east Ukraine, West and east Russia, Tibet, Mongolia and china, conflict over cultural competition will increase there as well, and the long run of Canadian privilege to treat multiculturalism as a ‘good’ rather than as a profitable luxury in small doses, will end as it is ending in the rest of the world.
Islands have the highest trust cultures for a reason. They can afford to. They are able to. Because homogeneity allows for political and cultural homogeneity. And homogeneity reduces political, economic, cultural conflict, and turns class differences into virtues because tolerance for redistribution increases with homogeneity of kinship.
Canada is importing to its ‘island’ the promise of low-trust, high conflict, authoritarian polities, and thereby ending its island luxury.
(So that is why we americans tend to see cultural self-congratulation of Canadians as the prancing and preening of spoiled children whose safety and luxury Americans pay for.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-15 06:45:00 UTC
-
THE INTER-TEMPORAL DIVISION OF LABOR IN OUR GENES Conservatives rely on Force (t
THE INTER-TEMPORAL DIVISION OF LABOR IN OUR GENES
Conservatives rely on Force (tolerance/punishment)
Libertarians rely on Trade (reward/deprivation
Progressives rely upon Gossip (inclusion/ostracization)
Conservatives are better at constructing normative capital, and;
Libertarians are better at constructing economic capital, and;
Progressives are just better at consumption and offspring.
Conservatives – Long Term production cycles.
Libertarian – Medium Term production cycles.
Progressive – Short Term production cycles.
The Saving of Conservatives
The Investment Of Libertarians.
The Consumption of Progressives.
#libertarian #tcot
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-14 03:48:00 UTC
-
(diary) I had a regret. A very big one. That I had not worked on philosophy when
(diary)
I had a regret. A very big one. That I had not worked on philosophy when I was in college – that I had not joined the literature department when asked by its chair. That I was overly fascinated with career motives in engineering, law, or art, than I was in ‘the recreation of literature and philosophy’.
But now, I question, would I have just fallen into the trap of the academy and perished with academic philosophy during my generation? I can never know the answer to this question – I suspect I might have been much happier person in twenties and thirties if I had. It is just as likely I think, given that it was during the Reagan revolution, that I would have found some equally interesting problem to solve.
On the other hand, I am profoundly proud of what I have chiseled out from inside of this chunk of marble under my daily toil. Propertarianism is something very special and very profound. And now that I can see my way to finishing it – that I *can* finish it – perhaps without too much struggle, I know what it means to me to have made it. It is the greatest thing I have ever done, and everything else in my life is discounted to the pale by its achievement.
I am very fond of and proud of what I have learned about man and myself by my serial entrepreneurship. I am emboldened by the knowledge that I can compete on that stage. And I will never look at material things again and say “I want or wish for that experience”. But, given the illness and anxiety all that entrepreneurship has given me, I wish I had not done it.
Yet here I am, having crafted, despite those decisions – whether good or bad – my single goal in life, from the age of twelve. I had no other.
At the age of twelve, I told my god I would build him a church if he gave me the wealth to do it. I meant a building. But the wealth he gave me was to give me time, and the church we wanted was one built of my words.
And building with those words I have restored my gods – not to an altar, but to a pedestal, where they desire to be. Altars are for the submissive and the weak to obey. Pedestals are for the competent and the strong. Gods are to be admired, imitated, remembered. No god worthy of advice seeks submission. Any god worthy of advice and counsel seeks liberty for his people – or he is not a god but a demon – a devil. Some gods need us to free them from a prison constructed by demons. Liberty frees our gods from theirs.
I know what my next purpose is. I must finish this one and start on it while I have the time left to craft it – thankfully I now have build the words to craft it with.
We need tools to make the tools, to make the things we desire. Propertarianism is but the tool with which to craft the tool, to make the thing, that we desire.
When I write, my gods speak to me in the only way they can. I am never quite sure which words are mine, and which are theirs. I believe they are mine, but then when I look back at them, I cannot imagine how they could be.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-12 04:59:00 UTC
-
INSPIRATIONS AND CAUTIONS –“Life is something you forge by your will, or is for
INSPIRATIONS AND CAUTIONS
–“Life is something you forge by your will, or is forged by accident in the absence of our will.”— (worth repeating)
–“Out of life’s school of war, that which does not kill us only serves to make us stronger”– Nietzsche
–“What is the worst that can happen? Could you tolerate it? So worry about success, not failure. If you worry about failure you have no mind for success. And so, comfort yourself with life as it is, rather than as you pretend you wish it to be. Because you do not desire it enough to worry more about creating it, than you do about the risk of reaching the state that you think is the worst that can happen.”– (worth repeating)
A CAUTION:
–“Do not counsel the well-intentioned and moral youth to attempt what is beyond their abilities – because you then share responsibility for the consequence of their failures. Just because you are able, doe not mean others are equally so. Counsel the young and less-able to make small, evolutionary steps, not take large gambles, lest you create a moral hazard for them, and for you. The distance each of us can leap, from the slight improvement in our lives, the the disciplined restructuring of our lives, to radical reformation of our lives, to the act of innovation and creation, depends greatly upon the natural, limited ability of the individual. As such, first rule of counsel is *do no harm*. Incite others to disciplined self improvement according to their , but never to gambling. The enlightenment fallacy that we call may join the aristocracy is a moral hazard. We can’t. We haven’t. And it’s harmful to incite people to gambling with their lives.”– (a lesson I have learned and carry the burden of.)
–“The people who do great things do not need inspiration, they need facts, methods, capital, relationships, and opportunities. Disciplined daily pursuit of ends comes naturally to them. Entrepreneurs, Artists, Philosophers and Generals are born and assisted, not made through inspiration.”– (worth repeating)
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-12 03:54:00 UTC
-
FORGE LIFE BY YOUR WILL. I just figured out that I’m a year older than I thought
FORGE LIFE BY YOUR WILL.
I just figured out that I’m a year older than I thought, and that I’m eligible for senior citizen benefits. 🙂
Given that I live like the average 25 year old – that is an absurdly ironic statement about the nature of our assumptions of our working lives.
As far as I know, I’m just on chapter four of my life. I am *just getting started*.
Life is something you forge by your will, or is forged by accident in the absence of our will.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 06:42:00 UTC
-
ART, INNOVATION, AND WORK. I had a professor of film: Gary, who was then, about
ART, INNOVATION, AND WORK.
I had a professor of film: Gary, who was then, about my age now, when I was say, 19. And at 19 my spatial dominance was still so high that it was very difficult for me to express myself – or understand how anyone could ‘be so dumb’ that the same observations were not obvious. (nerd). IT wasn’t until five or six years later that I understood the depth of difference in human abilities was not in test-taking but in what was even possible for each of us to conceive of – that we are all concept-blind, just as we can be tone-deaf, color-blind, inarticulate, or fumbling and accident prone. And late in life I have come to understand that we are also morally blind – that our genes determine the weights of our moral biases so significantly, that we cannot imagine the moral biases of those who cooperate-compete with us.
Anyway, Gary was giving me a lecture on my thoughts as an artist : “why do you want to make art?” Which I understand now, was not a question but a criticism of my treatment of art as a craft, rather than a sacred institution as it was to him.
I said I think something very close to “Because it is fun, it is interesting, and it seems to be endlessly interesting.” Which of course, was not obedient and sacred enough of an answer to give him. So he replied “Please come back and tell me when it becomes work’. By which he meant – you will only be making art when it is work. The rest is just playing.
Well, I have a few thoughts about that now that I have reached his age – I think that it’s work if you operate on the edge of our abilities. And if you operate on the edge of your abilities you will be both happy, and perceive the experience we call ‘work’ (struggle). But this is another equalitarian trap. The fact is that if you can provide an innovation for friends and family, local consumption, your nation, your civilization or man. innovate for all mankind. And your ability to work at the limit of your ability on and serve each of those markets is determined by your innate abilities – much more so than your experience of ‘work’.
For athletes, even amateur athletes – say, runners for example – perform at their limits because it makes them feel good. Some of us perform at our intellectual limits because we feel good doing so. Others of us perform at our intellectual limits because if we don’t, then WE SUFFER.
And for those of us who feel good at our limits, or suffer if we do not – the act of creating – of innovation – IS NEVER WORK. It is just exercise we must perform in order to feel good.
I sold out of my business because it was work and was harming my health. I practice my art because it is exercise that makes me feel good.
So, Gary, my question is – now that I know the answer (that it is never work to create art if one is able to create art for a market within his talents) – I also know the source of your question: that you were unable to create art of the scale you desired, and had to ‘work’ because you lacked the talent to reach the market you desired.
To ‘stretch’ or ‘reach’ is to work at the limits of your capacity, instead of working at the limits of your confidence. To work at the limit of your ability in the service of a market that you can serve – innovate for – is merely a matter of trial and error. But if you presume a market that you cannot serve, then you will never, and can never, be happy.
Work the ladder. Serve the greatest market you feel you can, and serve it well. Everything beyond that is seeking to lie to yourself: to serve yourself without adequately serving others in exchange. Once you serve a market well, then exceed that market by all means.
But dreams of glory instead of acts of market satisfaction are just fantasies to avoid reality – to avoid work at finding where one no longer must work – but experience joy. It is certainly a crime to lie. But it is equally a crime to lie to yourself.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-10 05:15:00 UTC
-
Owen Flanagan’s Test of A Philosophical Psychology
[A] philosophical psychology ought to answer questions such as these:• What, if anything, are humans like deep down inside beneath the clothes of culture?
• What, if any, features of mind-world interaction, and thus of the human predicament, are universal?
• Is there any end state or goal(s) that all humans seek because they are wired to seek it (or them), or what is different, ought to seek because it is—or, they are—worthy?
• If there is a common natural orientation toward some end state(s), for example, pleasure, friendship, community, truth, beauty, goodness, intellectual contemplation, are these ends mutually consistent? If not, must one choose a single dominant end? Does our nature not only provide the end(s), but also a way of ordering and prioritizing them, as well as a preferred ratio among them that produces some sort of equilibrium?
• How conducive is following our nature to actually producing what we naturally seek, or what is different, sensibly ought to seek? Could it be that not everything we seek—not even pleasant experiences or truth—is good for us?
• What is the relation between our first nature, our given human nature, and our second nature, our cultured nature?
• Does first nature continue in contemporary worlds, in new ecologies, to achieve its original ends? If so, is first nature also well suited to achieving new, culturally discovered, or what is different, created ends
• Is second nature constructed precisely for the achievement of variable, culturally discovered or created ends that first nature is ill-equipped to achieve?
• Do different societies construct/develop second nature in order to enhance first nature and/or to moderate and modify, possibly to eliminate, certain seeds in our first nature that can work against that very (first) nature and/or against our second nature and our cultured ends, which our second nature is intended to help us achieve?
Errors in these questions of the city state or class:
• The Problem Of Universalism: One Ness vs Individual, Family, tribe, race and corporation.(Doolittle) Which is reducible to a hierarchy of desires (needs). And they cannot be equally met.
Eudemonia (Aristotle)
-
Owen Flanagan’s Test of A Philosophical Psychology
[A] philosophical psychology ought to answer questions such as these:• What, if anything, are humans like deep down inside beneath the clothes of culture?
• What, if any, features of mind-world interaction, and thus of the human predicament, are universal?
• Is there any end state or goal(s) that all humans seek because they are wired to seek it (or them), or what is different, ought to seek because it is—or, they are—worthy?
• If there is a common natural orientation toward some end state(s), for example, pleasure, friendship, community, truth, beauty, goodness, intellectual contemplation, are these ends mutually consistent? If not, must one choose a single dominant end? Does our nature not only provide the end(s), but also a way of ordering and prioritizing them, as well as a preferred ratio among them that produces some sort of equilibrium?
• How conducive is following our nature to actually producing what we naturally seek, or what is different, sensibly ought to seek? Could it be that not everything we seek—not even pleasant experiences or truth—is good for us?
• What is the relation between our first nature, our given human nature, and our second nature, our cultured nature?
• Does first nature continue in contemporary worlds, in new ecologies, to achieve its original ends? If so, is first nature also well suited to achieving new, culturally discovered, or what is different, created ends
• Is second nature constructed precisely for the achievement of variable, culturally discovered or created ends that first nature is ill-equipped to achieve?
• Do different societies construct/develop second nature in order to enhance first nature and/or to moderate and modify, possibly to eliminate, certain seeds in our first nature that can work against that very (first) nature and/or against our second nature and our cultured ends, which our second nature is intended to help us achieve?
Errors in these questions of the city state or class:
• The Problem Of Universalism: One Ness vs Individual, Family, tribe, race and corporation.(Doolittle) Which is reducible to a hierarchy of desires (needs). And they cannot be equally met.
Eudemonia (Aristotle)
-
Argument, persuasion and advice, are far less powerful at changing people than l
Argument, persuasion and advice, are far less powerful at changing people than loving them is.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-09 07:42:00 UTC