THE ‘SH-T TEST’ theory of female behavior has legs. In fact, it might be the most important theory of female behavior – ever.
Seriously. As a search algorithm for a life form with a valuable commodity (vagina), it’s fantastic. Women Sh-t Test each other too you know. Constantly. And that’s why women have so few close friends compared to men.
It’s just cheaper to Sh-t Test than any other available strategy.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 08:30:00 UTC
WHICH IS MOST POWERFUL: A GUN, A PENCIL, OR A STACK OF MONEY:
It’s not a question of the power of the instrument but the talent that is required to use the instrument to achieve change at scale.
ARMS: You can assassinate a key political figure, or start a word war, vs rob a liquor store or kill someone you are in a dispute with.
WRITING: You can write the an inquiry into human understanding, critique of pure reason, paine’s common sense, the communist manifesto, or the works of lenin and trotsky – or you can write profusely and achieve nothing because no one reads it, because it has no *solution* value to them.
MONEY: You can use money to destroy a country (financialism), fund a revolution (soros), and initiate warfare (buy votes to obtain political ends), or you can achieve nothing because what you are attempting to do *is not of interest to people*.
The question is not the tool but the talent to use it.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-30 07:49:00 UTC
IT’S JUST ‘CAUSE YOU’RE WELL INTENTIONED BUT IGNORANT (REALLY)
I’m saying that (a) you don’t need to be taught morality because it’s both in your genes and necessary for survival in existential reality – we have tested it. It’s just true. (b) What you have been taught as a means of obtaining mindfulness can be obtained by many ways, and of those ways you have been taught is one of the worst of them (c) one of the means of teaching such is by conflating the obvious and necessary and unavoidable with superstitious falsehood.
Every religion teaches the same thing using different arguments. These arguments JUSTIFY what exists, by providing a FALSE explanation of what exists in lieu of UNDERSTANDING why it exists.
They do not CAUSE it to exist whatsoever.
What they CAN do, whether by Law (understanding of precise measurements), education (knowledge of general rules), or religion (empathy by storytelling) is increase the precision of those measures, rules, and analogies.
The fact that you have been trained in one religion not ten, and that you understand one moral code not twenty, and understand one legal code, not one hundred, just means you’re ignorant of the alternatives.
That’s all it means. That’s what the evidence shows.
The value of christianity in the west was that it mirrored existing low clannishness because of higher pedomorphism (science) and higher verbal acumen (science) and reduction of friction from the lower clasesses (science). The germanicization of christianity resulted in individual protestantism and action vs replacing community catholicism and submission. And even today protestant countries are far higher trust and less backward and corrupt than catholic countries.
The value of anglo legalism (viking-thinking, anglo-saxon thinking) is that it’s simply personally, commercially, and civically beneficial to demonstrate high trust to others.
The problem with european and american atheism is that it’s NOT atheism but faith in 19th and 20th century pseudoscience. And the evidence is clear that the church (pseudorationalism, supernaturalism) cannot defeat pseudoscience.
So if we are going to defeat pseudoscience, the only method of doing so is truth.
Sorry. That’s all there is.
Either you are defeated by the marxist/postmodernist/democratic secular socialist / universal human rights pseudosciences that were invented (psudo-scientific abrahamism) to exterminate the aristocratic civilizations, or you will use truth (law, eduction, science) to defeat them AND the supernaturalism of ancient abrahamism (judaism, christianity, islamism)
You cannot use a more primitive form of lie (religion) to defeat a more advanced form of lie (pseudoscience).
THat’s what the evidence is.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 10:31:00 UTC
DEFLATION AND RECONSTRUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSCENDENCE
(esp: Joel Davis Herbert Vogelsang John Derbyshire Nick Heywood Russell Moore )
(this is the first meaningful and helpful conversation I have had in months and thank you very much for it. I hope you will stick with me for a bit as I work through it.)
1) Again, to repeat, so that we understand what I *need* to do, by choosing a series of concepts I am trying to deflate *and scientifically reconstruct* cooperation: our moral intuitions and the *value* of morality.
In other words I am converting from storry and intuition to algorithm and measurement. Just like all sciences have done. The difference is, that this one science has more impact on us than any other.
Which is why everyone fears it.
2) assumptions:
(a) prior to consciousness we needed only to acquire resources, stay alive, stay with our ‘kind’ for protection, ‘alerts’, and reproduction, and feel dominance or submission in order to obtain access to resources and reproduction.
(the reptilian brain phase) We developed the ability we call ‘sentience’.
(b) the consequence of consciousness (modeling and self reflection) is a need for mindfulness. mindfulness was provided in our developmental eras by band(pack) and tribal(herd) life, where problems were relatively simple and all persons well known, and our status and position well understood, and the relationship between cause and consequence within our perception. This mindfulness was possible within the ‘tipping point’ of 150 people, or the approximate maximum product of two people over four possible generations.
(the mammalian brain phase) We developed the ability to ‘wonder’. But we could perceive by observance and familiarity sufficiently to largely defend against ‘folly and deceit’.
(c) As cooperation, language, the scale of cooperation, differentiation, specialization, and causality increased we developed a need to direct our minds that evolved for the purpose of tribal mindfulness to something within our ability to calculate and reason. We created various techniques by which to provide ‘mindfulness’ in the absence of constant empirical feedback.
(The human-mammal brain phase) We developed the ability to tell stories. These stories provide ‘rough measures’ in modern terms so that group calculation was possible, and that fear of uncertainty was diminished, and that (worse) we could defend against ‘folly and deceit’.
(d) just as there was a higher method of reason than literary analogy in aristotelian reason, and just as aristotelian reason was ‘incomplete’, there is a possible higher method of *mindfulness* than Stoicism because stoicism was incomplete.
(the ‘complete’ human brain phase) We developed the ability to ‘magnify’, measure, and record, and thereby reduce the imperceptible to the perceptible and to create analogy to experience.
We are not yet fully human. Or at least, few of us are. But we have the potential to complete the transition from beast to human – and it is within our grasp.
While the mastery of fire and metal began our journey into transcendence, Aryans were the first peoples who attempted to fully transcend the beast and evolve into fully humans. And they did so by accidentally discovering deflationary truth. And then profiting from the transcendence (domestication) of the remaining human animals.
We profited from transforming rocks, then animals, then plants, then the human animal. And the evidence is clear, that it is the most profitable industry every invented by man.
3) So while I understand the need to hold onto animal spirits, it is clearly not true that we must, and the evidence is quite the opposite, that our function over the past six thousand years has been largely the eradication of animal spirits evolved during the mammalian and and the incremental replacement of them with measurement and calculation so that we provide extensions to our senses and reason sufficient to train our intuition, so that we are no longer dependent upon comforting falsehoods, and no longer vulnerable to ‘folly and deceit’.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 09:56:00 UTC
UM. NO. I THINK LIKE A KING OR A GENERAL AND YOU LIKE A SOLDIER, OR CITIZEN, THAT’S THE DIFFERENCE.
Many criticisms for my lack of ‘spirituality’ one way or another:
—“your material values”—, or —“your bourgeoise values”—
Um. My interest in material values lies in the fact that one must have wealth to afford to invent the technology, with which to arm your people, so that you may defeat enemies both biological, animal, human, conceptual, and the universe itself.
I don’t like the church because I know it is (((a church))) not a sacred grove. I and I know it relies on conflationary (((abrahamic))) fictionalism (lies), rather than
The greeks innovated – particularly with aristotle, zeno, and epicurus, but the athenians (unlike the spartans) were weak. It was the spartans and the Romans that invented modernity, and the greeks ‘moved eastward’ more closely to the persians, semites, and anatolians. What the Spartans and the Athenians held separately the romans combined and eliminated the weaknesses: spartan ‘pragmatism’ and athenian navy and commerce, and aristotelian/stoic(zeno) law. But they abandoned sparta’s economics, abandoned greek idealism, and abandoned stoic ‘individualism’. We are the remains of greek ‘technology’ but roman civilization, which more generally reflects germanic civilization. and I have only come recently to understand how much influence the vikings had. We tend to remember what is written, not what changed state. The vikings ‘resurrected’ europe from defeat by byzantium by the church by giving rise to the Hansa and the north sea trade route and it’s overlands to byzantium and venice.
The romans had it right. More right than the chinese. More right than anyone else ever: (a) aristocracy performed rituals (submission) as a civic obligation, so that people could abandon their hierarchies, for which they obtained status so that others wished to do so as well. (b) the calendar was built to serve the seasons and festivals (celebration) so that the people could abandon their ‘hierarchies’. (c) the polytheistic temple system so that there were ‘gods and demigods and heroes’ for all men of all stations in that hierarchical division of labor. And so that all men could retain gods for their profession, their tribe and their nations, giving only fealty to the polity (empire) through its anthropomorphic representative in the emperor.
They just overextended. We didn’t over extend in the prewar era of colonialism as so much as commit fratricide in our great civil war by the alliance of britain and france and russia against germany. Britain and france with their overseas colonies, russia with her asian colonies, and germany seeking to take the eastern european and some african colonies. This was the mistake: not forcing russia south and assisting germany in expanding east as she had been (and was good for the people).
As far as I can tell, the difference between roman civilization and chinese civilization, is that china’s coastal farming was productive enough and concentrated enough, that they could unite and wall off their empire from the steppe, desert, and jungle peoples. When china over extended she stopped. When she tried to expand (prior to the european expansion) she withdrew to defend her walls from the Mongols. And she discovered enough about the world that she found nothing valuable in it enough to risk her home and her people and her civilization. The chinese are not heroic, risk-embracing and ambitious as much as defensively proud and ambitious.
So I think as a general, not as a soldier or citizen, and this is why you see my materialism: generals worry about technology, strategy, supply lines, and training and equipping men. The truth is that men in battle are marginally indifferent in war. It is the wealth that purchases the equipment, training, supply lines, and the wealth that makes continuous research and development of technology possible that makes the difference in war.
A soldier should defend his people with zeal perhaps – but pursue war to defend his life and kin, and for the spoils and booty that advance him as ordinary commerce cannot.
The peace of westphalia has ended. War is a for profit industry.
I understand the common man.
***But one panders to the common man. One speaks truth to power. And, one does not pander to himself if he wishes to be powerful. And saving and advancing ones people requires power.***
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 07:08:00 UTC
YES YOU ARE A TEST SUBJECT 😉
The question is whether you are a voluntary one or not. The second question is whether you are also a fellow researcher or not. And if not, if you are either intellectually honest or self deceptive or not.
Again, this is what I do here:
—“Facebook is quite literally my sketch pad. If I am thinking about a certain problem I do my research, then I look for opportunities to debate someone about it. Then I propose a ‘controversial’ or ‘provocative’ *prosecution* of whatever assumptions underlie the assumptions in the idea. The idea is to ‘taunt’ people into arguing with me, so that I can work through whatever I don’t see and feel that others do see and feel. I continue this process until I have deflated the topic into nothing but operational understanding of incentives and methods of argument. Then I try to make the argument iteratively – often dozens of times – until I can say it somewhat poetically: as close to an aphorism or ‘series’ as possible. That’s my work process. Really. That’s all there is to it.”—
IN OTHER WORDS I USE FB TO CONDUCT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT THROUGH DEFLATION BY ARGUMENTATION
People cannot report truthfully.
The way to get at what they ‘think’ and ‘understand’ and ‘value’ is to attack their sacred cows.
People will defend them and I learn (a) what their real incentives are (what property in toto they defend), (b) how they make their arguments, (c) how to answer and explain those arguments.
Now some people find this process ‘fun’ or ‘interesting’. Because they can play both researcher and test subject.
Others find it insulting or aggravating.
And the reason is generally one’s degree of intellectual honesty and openness. versus the opposite.
But what some people object to is that they realize that they are ‘test subjects’, or that they are unable to play both researcher and test subject. Or that they discover that their pretense of intellectual honesty and intelligence is a fraud, and that they are just searching for excuses.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 21:20:00 UTC
WE AND OUR LIES OF SELF PROTECTION
We all collect identities (“I feel, think, and act like a person who thinks feels and acts by these criteria”) both as tools, as goals in pursuit of self image, as standards of measurement, and as self deceptions in lieu of achievement – in order to lie to ourselves about our status.
We all use identities for nothing other than the usually literary model of Transcendence > Monomyth > Archetype > Plot > Virtues > Assets (property-in-toto) > Status. In other words, role playing a character. When we know that the archetypes map to personality types.
We can deflate all identities into attempts at acquisition both real and illusory. (acquisitionism)
There is nothing that one can experience that we cannot communicate without deceit (pretence, fictionalism, lying).
And attempts to say otherwise are attempts to preserve self deceptions.
In other words, I have not yet found anything that cannot be converted into scientific language. I have only found people making attempts to preserve deceptions.
This is what psychologist get paid for: what lie do we tell ourselves and how can we correct it by eliminating the trauma or feeling that prevents us from avoiding it.
SO TO THOSE WHO CLAIM THEY PURSUE TRUTH AND WISDOM:
Why is it you need to preserve the lies?
Because the only answer is, that you are weak or cowardly.
“In other words, LARPING”
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 20:54:00 UTC
Leave men no psychological safety but sovereignty, agency, and mindfulness.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 20:51:00 UTC
Well, that’s just it, isn’t it?
1 – The individual only needs to understand his choice is preferable.(person)
2 – Those cooperating only need to understand their choices are good.(group)
3 – Those deciding conflicts only need to understand whether the conflict is decidable. (judge)
Now people conflate the possible, the preferable, the good, and the true, as if they’re synonyms, without considering the implied grammar.
A preference isn’t true. It’s just a preference and possible or not.
A good isn’t true, it’s just preferable, and good, and possible or not.
A truth isn’t preferable or good, it’s just true.
Yet another example of the problem of conflation rather than operational grammar and definitions.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 15:00:00 UTC
COMPETITION VS STUDY
—“Because intense disagreement and subsequent argumentation generally results in me learning faster.”— Joel Davis
(The secret to basically everything. Competition in creases velocity and produces more accurate result than study.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 09:03:00 UTC