by Bill Joslin
Sovereignty ensures Autonomy – in that autonomy I’m defining as agency free of imposition from another agent – whereby property en toto provides commensurability of measurement and autonomy provides decidability in commons creations and constraints on rule via negativa – restrict commons and rule from anything which inhibits development of agency in the polis – measured by our best empirical methods.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 17:57:00 UTC
Running and sex create the best highs. The psychedelics for trauma recovery (or adolescent ‘correction’). A little alcohol at festivals. cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs are a sedentary substitute for lack of physical activity.
Never did the alcohol thing much. Never did the cigarette thing at all. Did very little of the pot thing. Experimented with the psychedelics a few times. IMHO The fine Arts, the finest art: Women, sex, play, exercise, competition in Sport, Business, or Politics, are all better than drugs.
The thing is, you gotta give up on the selfish thing and confront your self image to get the joy from those things, and with drugs you don’t. I view drugs as lying to yourself as much as harming yourself. But as long as it’s not in the commons – more power to you.
Personally I think the school experience is so traumatic that most people need psychedelic therapy before they can move on into adulthood. I mean, there isn’t a lot of difference between school and prison because there isn’t that much difference between children and inmates. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 09:13:00 UTC
WOMEN NEED TO PUT THEIR CARTAKING SOMEWHERE (CHILDREN) OR EVERYWHERE ELSE THEY PUT IT CREATES BADNESS
This should be obvious. But depression in women is directly proportional to gender equality. Poor women working together with children are always happier and less depressed than professional women without children.
Men have heroism and the dominance hierarchy to direct our violence and competitiveness to hunting, craftsmanship, business, politics and war.
Women have only children. And when that caretaking is put to political ends it destroys meritocracy and creates dysgenia at no cost to the women who cause it.
Just as women say ‘it’s my body’ men need to say ‘it’s my polity’. Because that’s the end of the story right there. Reproductively, that’s the story in a nutshell.
—“Similar results are found in studies of personal values, including values related to altruism and love. In a study of 127 samples in 70 countries (N = 77,528; Schwartz & Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009) women attribute consistently more importance than men do to benevolence and universalism values. National measures of gender egalitarianism predicted sex differences in benevolence and universalism values but, once again, in an unexpected direction. The greater the social, health, and employment equality of women and men in a country…the larger the sex differences (women higher) in benevolence and universalism values. That is, in countries with greater gender equity (e.g., Finland, Sweden), women attribute substantially more importance to benevolence and universalism values than men do. In more patriarchal cultures, sex differences in benevolence and universalism and much smaller. The authors of the values study speculate that increased independence and equality of women in the labor force may encourage women to express their “inherent” values rather than to accommodate their values to those of their husbands. Maybe.”—
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-08 10:08:00 UTC
BAD BEHAVIOR: IS IT RACE, CLASS, CULTURE, SINGLE MOTHERHOOD, WHAT?
(good stuff)
—“Question: What’s the causal link between single parenthood and child dysfunction/criminality? Certainly in America the criminality has risen when single parenthood did also. Now, the right generally seems to argue it’s because of the necessity of the family, the left blames it on racism, and the HBD/Biodiversity folk attributes it to purely genetics. Nobody can give a straight answer and they all contradict each other. What’s your neutral take on it? It’s driving me a little mad”— A Friend
“All happy families are the same. All unhappy families are different. All happy people are the same. All unhappy people are different. All domesticatable animals are the same. All undomesticatable animals are different.”
A lot of things ‘have to go right’ to make a good person, and any of tem that go wrong makes a less good person. There are a LOT OF THINGS that can go wrong.
The more FREEDOM (social agency) you have in a society, the more dependence upon your abilities (genes), training (socialization and norms), and education (marketable skills).
So what you see in the world is that IQ very much reflects what you can do in a society. Because the society must accommodate the majority. So the dumber the majority the less freedom. The smarter the majority the more freedom. This is why westerners work by science, technology, rule of law and the one principle of the golden/silver rule, and why islamists for example simply are trained by the use of religion and repetition like small children or even domesticated animals. that difference is one standard deviation (one intellectual-species deviation) in lower average intelligence. The problem is that unlike the Africans who are more pro-social than we are (for obvious reasons – they kill each other pretty often otherwise), the islamic religion advocates aggression.
Under-domestication of underclasses, poor quality personality (iq/industriousness), low investment parenting, lack of socialization that provides what low investment parenting does not (getting your ass kicked if you’re an asshole) and the difference in the size of the underclasses between the races so that we actually DO discriminate against one another (correctly) unless we act and dress Conformatively.
So the answer to what goes wrong with single motherhood? ALL OF THE ABOVE. A single mother, working, living alone, with low IQ cannot distribute the tasks of feeding, *training*, educating, a child, unless his genetics and peers are so favorable that he can be insulated from competition and hardship. In other words, ALL CHILDREN ARE INFANTILIZED by our current educational system because of de-socialization of the right kind (survival) and socialization of the wrong kind (the industrial school system that lacks social competition). And that’s just the beginning of the problem.
The single-parent problem is only a problem because we have just enough money to live in our own apartments with a mother and child without (a) depending upon one another for survival and therefore socializing properly, or (b) providing in-family socialization and discipline, and (c) providing sufficient social skills and productive skills to find work in a modern economy.
Markets in everything matter. The market for socialization in a distribution of ages is more important than accelerating the rate of reading mathematics and sciences. There is no evidence that it makes any difference whatsoever.
Sports, socialization, big extended families for everyone below the professional +120 class.
I have run out of interest in this topic for the moment but it warrants about double this length.
We have to abandon ‘all kids are equal’ and ‘all people are equal’ and realize that we have mixes of good and bad traits and saturation in the markets for survival familial/intergenerational, social/inter-class+gender, and economic/inter-skill requires training. And to make a person achieve that in modernity requires training in a particular skill we have abandoned: mindfulness.
My problem with abrahamic religion is that it seeks to produce mindfulness through deceit. My preference for stoicism, even over buddhism, is that it is both literary and scientific, and requires no falsehood even if myths, literature, and histories are all exaggerations for the purpose of illustrating what might otherwise be invisible in a sea of tedious normalcy.
The difference is that it is CHEAP to lie (abrahamic religion) and perform nonsense rituals, and it is EXPENSIVE to tell the truth (stoic virtue disciplines).
And it is possible that some percentage of people (although I doubt it) are below the intelligence spectrum for Stoicism, and that we must achieve through repetitive imitative training (by doing) what stoicism asks us to achieve by repetitive discipline (by doing) ourselves.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-07 12:03:00 UTC
DIFFERENCES IN MORAL INTUITION ARE VERY SIMPLE
The difference between alphas (the tribe), and betas (myself and my offspring). Or the difference between K-selection (us) and r-selection (you). The fact that the left strategy is r-dysgenic, and the right K-eugenic is not a mystery. The fact that the primary difference between races, nations, and tribes, is their time under manorialism (feudal farming) and the success at reducing the size of the underclass such that the median intelligence rises above what we consider 100 today. Your ancestors might have been peasants. And that might be why you hold your ‘feelings’. But many of ours have been farmers, and craftsmen, and scholars or soldiers or both. And that is what separates the K-alpha-eugenic classes from the r-beta-dysgenic classes. Its not complicated. We don’t choose moral codes. We are born with them.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 12:32:00 UTC
Slept very well, and so I’m having one of those ‘very good’ days. Working on teaching ‘the method’. Feeling awe. Feeling ‘confident’ and a bit excited where I have generally felt ‘overwhelmed’ and depressed by the impossible task I set myself to – or the task I asked the gods for, or the task the gods set me to. I am not really sure of my own agency in this matter.
0. “I cannot try to understand until I know I do not understand”.
1. “I cannot understand until I am ready to understand.”
2. “The gods reveal to me the answer when I am ready.”
3. “I am most successful in understanding when I do what my gods advise me.”
4. “I am happiest when I am successful in transcendence through understanding – when I have achieved an increase in agency.”
5. “I feel ever closer to the gods through each success at transcendence.”
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 10:30:00 UTC
THAT THING WE CALL CONSCIOUSNESS
(important)
The conscious mind (system 2: directed search[reasoning] ) rides on the elephant of intuition (system 1: intuitionistic search), which is informed by our desire to acquire, inventory, and defend, for which we obtain rewards and punishments (emotions), which are biased by our reproductive strategy(gender distributions), which is biased by our genes(variations we call personality).
Consciousness is the consequence of layers of very short term memory interacting with the results produced by continuous iterative searches of longer term memory, producing a continuous short term memory of change in state on the order of half of a second (sampling rate) to three seconds (persistence[echo]).
At least in theory, it appears that increases in brain volume (and cortical layers) could continue to expand but we are limited by the ability of females to carry and birth us while still preserving the ability to run, and limited by the rate of information transfer. Ergo we could evolve far larger brains at the cost of higher energy consumption (brains are expensive organs).
While social populations distribute SENSORY labor, instead of getting larger and larger brains evolution *suggests* that we developed language and thereby distributed COGNITIVE labor allowing for smaller less expensive brains.
Genders specialize in certain biases, and it is through cooperation and non cooperation (that is far more valuable in productivity than non-cooperation) we ‘calculate’ the evolutionary (survival) value of our biased perceptions and ‘program’ one another to perform for (mostly) common good.
So we divide perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy, in a network which we call ‘social order’ of different scales: friends, families, clans, tribes, nations.
And we develop formal institutions and methods of recording and measurement to assist us.
But in the end, we act on behalf of our genes. I often reduce us to acquisition-machines. All the ’emotions’ and ‘phenomenon’ are just consequences (byproducts) of the necessity to train a memory to acquire using a limited number of chemical rewards and punishments, in a network of individuals using similar information.
It’s actually all rather simple. The only complicated bit is that amazing thing we call the cortex, and its seven layers of cells that combine stimuli into categories which due to the necessity of planning actions, and then necessity of serializing the extraordinary volume of information we process into a sequence of symbols for the purpose of communication.
So between parallelization (searching) on one hand, and planning, and having to communicate on the other hand we produce ‘order’ from a continuous stream of memory of changes in state, into continuous streams of plans and language.
It’s quite elegant really.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 05:42:00 UTC
ON “THOUGHT”
by Propertarian Frank
Thought is a tricky name to use because it’s too entangled with Platonic assumptions. Tentatively I operationalize it as ordered stimulation (activation of those neural circuitries that normally get stimulated by specific external stimulants, or that are on the activation path of externally observable behavior (thinking a clause is the activation of the circuitry that is antecedent on the path to (1) vocalizing of (2) visualizing associations of, (3) associational perception of , or (4) a combination of other preset modes of action involving the clause in question)). I don’t know if this is correspondent with our current understanding of cognitive science, but I’m confident the end result will look like a variant of this.
So some of the things (I think) you would call ‘thought’, I classify as action. For instance mentally calculating 567*93 is an action. By vocalizing the correct result, you demonstrate that you can compute it (carry out the operations constituting the action). The idealization of language is due to an artificial separation of mental transformations from demonstrated action. The latter is just a special case of the former.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 19:01:00 UTC
CONSCIOUSNESS
—“How far back down the complexity spectrum do you think the function/structure of consciousness goes?”— A friend
I think the variation in ‘how far back down’ is in (a) the scale of memory accessed, (b) the sample time between memory accesses.
And I think consciousness is simply the experience of continuous change in state across the layers (old, middle, new brain).
My experience with regaining consciousness is extensive and consistent: as each bit of recall is restored, more ‘you’ is restored, and so is the ‘time horizon’ of change in state that you experience that you and I call ‘consciousness’.
I mean. from that perspective it’s actually pretty simple.
I am fairly certain this reductio explanation is so close that further refinement will be in the form of precision not falsification.
At the very deepest level, the first level of awareness, is simply responds to feelings good and bad, but that is all. I like this I don’t like this. Then layer after layer awakens and that basic feeling simply has access to richer and richer content over longer and longer periods.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 15:31:00 UTC
CURT: WHAT’S YOUR OPINION ON CANNABIS AND SHROOMS?
—“I greatly enjoy reading your opinions on things and if you ever have the time I’d like to know yours on Cannabis and psilocybin mushrooms.”— A Friend
Thanks to intolerance for MSG and other preservatives, I have a tenuous enough grip on reality at any given moment that I don’t really need artificial influences to assist me. 😉 I can have a store bought coffee cake and basically have a 3 day mental vacation.
That said I take ‘vacations’ with scotch, with ‘happy brownies’, and have had a few ‘vacations’ on shrooms (which I enjoyed very much), and a few other joyrides.. My opinion on such things is that they are for holiday vacations not regular use – a justification which I won’t go into.
But I’ll give you the best advice: I can achieve through through writing what most people achieve through knitting, ritual, meditation, or prayer, or the use of drugs. That is: perfect mindfulness.
And I would prefer that we educated each other in the achievement of mindfulness by means OTHER than artificial, and that we relied upon hallucinogens for the treatment of traumas – which is their optimum use.
The reason being that like excesses in meditation or prayer, drugs can become a method of escape from achievement rather than a means of restoring reserves in the process of achievement.
Prevaricating further, I understand that the effort of disciplining our impulses is far harder for some than others. And that some of us may need greater ‘assistance’ in coping with modernity than others.
So as long as it is not visible in the commons, what is necessary and sufficient but not unecessary and more than sufficient is a good thing.
Moderation in all things.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 14:06:00 UTC