Rather than seek approval or consent, offer support, kindness, affection, love, and education to fellow moral men. Never cede control to the immoral – which is what asking, begging, working for, approval and consent give him. Instead, spend your efforts on the true, good and beautiful. Never compromise or suffer the immoral, unethical, the deceitful, and the fool. Merely defeat, conquer, punish and ostracize the wicked.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 02:07:00 UTC
Rather than seek approval or consent, offer support, kindness, affection, love, and education to fellow victors. Never cede control to the immoral – which is what approval and consent give him. Spend your efforts on the true, good and beautiful. Never compromise or suffer the immoral, unethical, the deceitful, and the fool. Merely conquer, punish and ostracize the wicked.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-27 08:03:00 UTC
–Help The Disciplined. Let Suffer The Impulsive. Punish the Wicked.–
What’s on my mind? I like to help people, sure. An investment in a business that I can understand, that has a track record, the management team is experienced, moral, and smart, and where others of equal or greater experience have already invested? Sure, if I have money available. An investment in a business that I understand, where I know the management personally, without a track record, but where I can add value, exert influence, and rescue it myself if it gets into trouble? Sure, maybe – if my plate isn’t full. A very, very small investment in something I think is very interesting for personal reasons, but I’m willing and likely to lose the entire investment immediately? Maybe. Helping a close friend or family member recover from a personal medical or legal catastrophe? Sometimes – rarely. Helping someone recover from a lapse in judgement (in this case someone who has a problem with gambling, but most often it’s been drunk driving) – never. Paying a high personal or business cost to punish cheaters, liars, and the selfish? Always. (I don’t tell those stories any longer.)
Help the disciplined, let suffer the impulsive, punish the wicked.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-25 03:04:00 UTC
http://slnm.us/99c9qj9False feminist argument.
Men fear loss of value as a provider and therefor loss of access to sex and affection.
Self esteem is a Freudian psychologism – meaning a deception.
All emotional states can be described as economic transitions. And only by describing emotional states as economic transactions are arguments free of deceptive loading and framing.
Men trade production and defense, and to some degree physical manipulation and transformation of the world for sex and affection.
The relative value in exchange, of a man’s productivity declines with any marginal increase in his mate’s productivity.
His brain chemistry punishes him so that he increased his productivity, thereby restoring his value, or he must search for a new mate for whom his productivity is likely to retain his access to sex and affection.
This explanation is born out by the data in all walks of life.
Period.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 19:27:00 UTC
ETHICS: THE RIDER SERVES THE ELEPHANT
—“Nobody is ever going to invent an ethics class that makes people behave ethically after they step out of the classroom. Classes are for riders, and riders are just going to use their new knowledge to serve their elephants more effectively. “— Jonathan Haidt.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 20:35:00 UTC
Steve Pender just PM”d me a few ideas that were very interesting, and tied in with my interest in stoicism (demonstrated action) as a cultural discipline. If you stop creating (transforming), only work in a bureaucracy, only work with information, and listen only to marketing… what happens?
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 14:09:00 UTC
MY OBSESSION WITH ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN LIBERTY IS JUST ANOTHER IN A LONG LINE OF GENE EXPRESSIONS
Liberty is a genetic bias, and in my family it’s not a subtle one.
*edited for clarity*
–“The name occurs nowhere else in the world save among a family of Norman knights. But the roots of the Doolittle’s from the Kidderminster area are lost in
the fog of time.
In 19th century England the census shows clumps in Ireland, Kidderminster and Birmingham, Lancashire and Yorkshire, and London. There was some evidence that the northern group came there from Ireland. The London family is the Dollittle line and traces to Kidderminster – through the census and B/M/D documents. The Y DNA ties the Irish group, the American group (all descended from Abraham of Wallingford) and Maurice’s line together. There was some evidence that they may have all come from Kidderminster, and apparently they all did.
So many of that family died, that there aren’t many branches. But, artsy folk and restaurant waiters in Victorian London – it would almost be a surprise if they were really all sons of their mothers’ husbands.(Eds: Markers say no, believe it or not.)
I did learn by a half dozen different methods that most similar haplotypes are found in the Netherlands and central Europe, including Italy, which suggests that this
DNA could have followed only around 50 migratory paths to southwestern
England. Their town is where the Stour and Severn Rivers joined.
The entire family group are the sort of ferociously emotional people that
one would really like to have its story better pinned down than that. They appear in medieval Kidderminster as “husbandmen” on a baronial farm, and as weavers and then clothiers in a town that in late medieval times specialized in textile manufacture.
Multiple lines of them became particularly over the edge Puritans, and they were intimately involved in the Puritan revival there in about the mid 17th century. Abraham was in Connecticut by 1641, and why is quite a mystery, even given that Rev. Davenport could have selectively appealed to this particular man right
across the ESP waves from hundreds of miles away.
I’m not aware of Puritans from the Kidderminster and Birmingham areas participating in the New England migration, despite the appearance in Massachusetts of a town called Worcester. Birmingham may have been a Puritan stronghold, but people there preferred to stay put, organize locally, and fight it out, and soon after Abraham left they actually took over Kidderminster, and it seems that those who left were more likely to go to Ireland.”–
Troublemakers. In Normandy, In Surrey, In the English Revolution, in the Puritans. In the American Revolution.
Liberty is a genetic bias, and in my family it’s not a subtle one.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 02:14:00 UTC
WHY MUST STOICISM BE A CHOICE?
Question: If one chooses a stoicism as personal philosophy, or if one is pedagogically indoctrinated into stoic behaviors, why does it matter?
If what remains of stoic thought is largely personal, ethical, and tangentially political, versus metaphysical, pseudoscientific, or particularly rational, then why does it matter if it is the deliberate choice of a minority, or a formal institution imposed upon the majority?
Is it not the behaviors that produce beneficial ends? Is not much of any philosophical framework, mere justification for choosing it? Whereas the product of practicing the necessary disciplines, and adopting the suggested frames of reference, is that we produce beneficial ends whether we make a deliberate choice, or whether we are simply trained like we are trained in all systems of pedagogy: myth, tradition, norm, habit, and justification for them.
All cultures ‘train’ in one civic and personal philosophy or another – because all humans need a framework for decision making given their fragmentary knowledge and diverse abilities. Why should a stoic philosophy be imposed versus a secular humanist, or a buddhists, or a jewish, or a muslim, or even one of ‘scientism’?
Isn’t it a refutation of the value of any framework to claim that it must be chosen deliberately? In other words, are advocates lacking confidence or evidence that that practice of stoic behaviors will in fact produce a good life, a good society, and a good mankind?
(I have touched on this before but I am trying to ask the question a bit better this time.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-20 03:23:00 UTC
ON MALES AND POSITIVES STRESS
(from elsewhere)
A conversation with a female friend and ballet dancer. Who like many women recommend Yoga or some variation.
–“hmmm….. You know, it’s sort of like Yoga.
I’m a man. I can’t ‘hear’ my body – much at all. Not like a woman can. So I don’t get the ‘feelings’ that you would get from these kind of female-enjoyable activities unless there is a lot of motion involved.
Dancing works, fencing works, running fast works, sports work, and lifting really ‘heavy’ weights with full body motion works.
But honestly, if you can imagine the lack of stimuli in a sensory deprivation chamber, then that’s what it’s like for me to do any ‘subtle’ form of exercise. It’s literally emotionally painful.
I have to experience ‘stress’ to feel that ‘calm’ that most women (and beta males) get out of yoga or tai-chee or anything similar. Physical and mental “Stress” without “threat” is my version of physical ‘peace’.
I wish I could have learned how to express that earlier in my life. I should probably write something on the subject so that other men have the words to express how they feel in rational terms. Because this is the problem for a lot of men.
Our bodies love stress. We even love threats. We just don’t want threats with meaningful consequences. That is why men like to play ports. And video games. Physical and mental stress without the danger of physical consequences.
When we can have 3d video games that require full body motion, and where we can run around and safely play ‘war’ from within the safety of our homes, then men will be rescued from the physical and mental harm of post industrial society.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-17 04:21:00 UTC
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-rise-of-all-purpose-antidepressants/FAILURE TO DEVELOP
As far as I know, the reasons we desire anti-depressants in so many people, are
(a)a lack of physical exercise (which teaches brain regions to work together), and (b) the use of sugars as a substitute for oxygenation (oxygen causes mild euphoria), and (c) decline in meaningful interpersonal contact (interpersonal relations that require only intuition rather than judgement).
The problem is in testing this theory. You have to wait for the data because it’s impossible to construct it intentionally. (BTW: this is one of the fallacies of positivism that people attach to empiricism: a human-generated test is MORE suspect than a naturally occurring test.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-17 02:47:00 UTC