The practice of stoicism (the western version of mindfulness) improves one’s chances of achieving agency – by deconflating the experience of reality, without adding error, religion(prayer), mysticism(buddhism), pseudoscience(new age), or disutility(ritualism) all of which produce mindfulness but do not necessarily improve agency.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 19:05:00 UTC
ARISTOCRACY: THE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION OF AGENCY
Aristocracy: the production of Agency (peers) by the incremental suppression of parasitism, by the use of the common law, leaving no option for survival but market production: the civilization-wide industrialization of the domestication of the animal man, for fun and profit.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 18:46:00 UTC
ARISTOCRACY AS AGENCY, AND THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL CLASS STRUCTURES. Eli Harman makes a very important point, that I should, and we all should consider, when we refer to western man: that when constructing a class of Western man that we call ‘aristocracy’, which is a ‘class’ regardless of social and economic class, are we in fact referring to the preference for, necessity of, and selection for ‘Agency’? We use the term time preference; we use the term impulsivity. But these terms refer to the ‘negatives’ without stating a positive that is informative and testable. I use the term truthful. Others rational. But isn’t the central question agency? Isn’t that the question going into battle? Isn’t that the question building a social order? Isn’t that a question building a ruling class? Isn’t that a question building a judiciary class? isn’t that a question building an entrepreneurial class (Field Officers)? Isn’t that a question building a administrative class (lieutenants)? Even building the managerial class (sergeants)? Isn’t it a facsimile of agency that we build in military training? How to ‘report’ (testify), how to hold formation, how to overcome fear, embarrassment, emotion, exhaustion, pain, through training? Isn’t that military training the involuntary construction of stoicism? isn’t stoicism the construction of agency? Isn’t Aristocracy the achievement of agency? Isn’t that what Sovereignty results in? Agency? Isn’t Sovereignty an existential Condition in-fact, but Agency the Resource that makes Sovereignty both cognitively possible, and reciprocally necessary for the condition to exist? This is one of the questions I have been trying to solve for the past few years: Aristocracy consists of a class, like the military consists of a class: Priesthood(gossip), Scientist(craftsman), Aristocracy (force). And that one can join the aristocracy at many levels in society, just as one can join the military at many levels in society. We join aristocracy through the pursuit of sovereignty, through the use of agency(stoicism), and through the use of loyalty (shareholder contract). We construct horizontal classes: genetic class, social class, economic class. And we construct vertical classes: Priestly(gossip), Scientific (innovation and production), and Aristocratic (force). One of my own mistakes has been misconstruing the hierarchy of production, which is scientific, entrepreneurial, financial (administrative), craftsmanly(managerial), and laboring (transforming) classes as science vs craft and this was an error driven by the western tendency for the priesthood to fund ‘writing’ (gossip) intellectuals, and the aristocracy to fund engineers and artists (action) intellectuals. Like everyone else, despite identifying the three methods of coercion as three sets of elites, I gave too much emphasis to horizontal class structures, and not enough to vertical. I’ll continue to work on this analytically. But Eli has been framing this for a while now, and I just gleaned his insight. Curt Doolittle
ARISTOCRACY AS AGENCY, AND THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL CLASS STRUCTURES. Eli Harman makes a very important point, that I should, and we all should consider, when we refer to western man: that when constructing a class of Western man that we call ‘aristocracy’, which is a ‘class’ regardless of social and economic class, are we in fact referring to the preference for, necessity of, and selection for ‘Agency’? We use the term time preference; we use the term impulsivity. But these terms refer to the ‘negatives’ without stating a positive that is informative and testable. I use the term truthful. Others rational. But isn’t the central question agency? Isn’t that the question going into battle? Isn’t that the question building a social order? Isn’t that a question building a ruling class? Isn’t that a question building a judiciary class? isn’t that a question building an entrepreneurial class (Field Officers)? Isn’t that a question building a administrative class (lieutenants)? Even building the managerial class (sergeants)? Isn’t it a facsimile of agency that we build in military training? How to ‘report’ (testify), how to hold formation, how to overcome fear, embarrassment, emotion, exhaustion, pain, through training? Isn’t that military training the involuntary construction of stoicism? isn’t stoicism the construction of agency? Isn’t Aristocracy the achievement of agency? Isn’t that what Sovereignty results in? Agency? Isn’t Sovereignty an existential Condition in-fact, but Agency the Resource that makes Sovereignty both cognitively possible, and reciprocally necessary for the condition to exist? This is one of the questions I have been trying to solve for the past few years: Aristocracy consists of a class, like the military consists of a class: Priesthood(gossip), Scientist(craftsman), Aristocracy (force). And that one can join the aristocracy at many levels in society, just as one can join the military at many levels in society. We join aristocracy through the pursuit of sovereignty, through the use of agency(stoicism), and through the use of loyalty (shareholder contract). We construct horizontal classes: genetic class, social class, economic class. And we construct vertical classes: Priestly(gossip), Scientific (innovation and production), and Aristocratic (force). One of my own mistakes has been misconstruing the hierarchy of production, which is scientific, entrepreneurial, financial (administrative), craftsmanly(managerial), and laboring (transforming) classes as science vs craft and this was an error driven by the western tendency for the priesthood to fund ‘writing’ (gossip) intellectuals, and the aristocracy to fund engineers and artists (action) intellectuals. Like everyone else, despite identifying the three methods of coercion as three sets of elites, I gave too much emphasis to horizontal class structures, and not enough to vertical. I’ll continue to work on this analytically. But Eli has been framing this for a while now, and I just gleaned his insight. Curt Doolittle
MUST-READ: ON SPECTRUM OF AGENCY DEMONSTRATED BY USE OF TESTIMONY BY BILL JOSLIN —-“Thoughts that might be worth exploring ->Qualification to acquire membership in a class based on demonstrated agency affords commensurability in assessing worthiness.
MUST-READ: ON SPECTRUM OF AGENCY DEMONSTRATED BY USE OF TESTIMONY BY BILL JOSLIN —-“Thoughts that might be worth exploring ->Qualification to acquire membership in a class based on demonstrated agency affords commensurability in assessing worthiness.
Dammit Eli the agency thing… dammit. Powerful
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 16:32:00 UTC
If you fail to possess truthful knowledge then how can you claim either free will or agency?
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 16:32:00 UTC
—“Aristocracy defined on the foundation of agency gives me chills (heroic call to action)”— Bill Joslin
Aristocracy: the search for, breeding and rearing of, humans: those post-homo-sapiens, who possess agency, and who therefore may create a condition of sovereignty.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 16:31:00 UTC
( My sister teaches kindergarten. My mother taught middle school. I sort of teach at the other end of the spectrum. Whats the difference? Mostly choice. The little ones can’t choose, the middle ones prefer to choose not to, and the adults choose to. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 16:27:00 UTC