Theme: Agency

  • NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGN MEN: DOMESTICATING ANIMAL MAN FOR PEERS AND PROFIT. An

    NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGN MEN: DOMESTICATING ANIMAL MAN FOR PEERS AND PROFIT.

    An animal has no agency, only impulse; can enter no contracts, only seize conveniences; can resolve no disputes truthfully, only imagine excuses. It cannot be reasoned with, only bribed or punished. But with bribes and punishments it can be trained. And if training fails, abandoned to the wild, enslaved, imprisoned, or killed.

    We train the animal with property in toto, manners, ethics, morals, and law. We use peers, parents, teachers, sheriffs, police, judges, juries, soldiers, generals and kings.

    The animal can be trained from beast to slave, to serf, to dependent, to freeman, to civilian, to soldier, to aristocracy: human.

    The training requires sentience, awareness, consciousness, reason, knowledge, and agency.

    But each degree of training demands more of the animal, and many – most – cannot complete it, and transcend the animal.

    As such the world is full of a few humans and many domesticated animals of varying degree, and many, many beasts.

    Thankfully, like many domesticatable animals, these animals, once domesticated, can often be put to good use.

    And as such, the beast man, like all other domesticatable beasts, can be domesticated for profit.

    The domestication of man – that occupation we call rule – is the most profitable occupation of all, except for one:

    The success in breeding, and training humans.

    Because while animals are a commodity, producing the rare human is the most profitable industry of all.

    And if it fails, hunting the beast man that remain, is the greatest joy of all.

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-30 22:32:00 UTC

  • You see what happens when your approval is no longer sought? You’re powerless. D

    You see what happens when your approval is no longer sought? You’re powerless. Don’t confuse charity with necessity. Thank you Pres. #Trump


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-29 20:52:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/825808942781624320

  • “I need to learn how you think.”— I don’t feel when I think. I think with time

    —“I need to learn how you think.”—

    I don’t feel when I think. I think with time, property, costs, and reserve sympathetic judgement until the end. It’s just like math in that regard.

    Whenever I hear ‘feel good’ in an argument, I basically know someone is lying/making an err. So I solve the logic of incentives from A to B on that basis.

    When there are no ‘feelings’ involved I know I have found the waypoints. Then I stand back and ask myself how I feel about it. Most people simply cannot develop the mental discipline to think inversely like that.

    People are acquisition machines. Our feelings evolved encourage us to acquire. They evolved to reward us for thoughts of acquisition, acts of acquisition, acquisitions, and they evolved to punish us for losses and thoughts of losses. We merely make excuses along the way, because we need to negotiate with our ‘moral selves’ and negotiate with others.

    And that is perhaps the best way to look at “The Systems”

    System 0 – “acquire evaluation” (brainstem evaluation)

    System 1 – “moral evaluation”

    System 2 – “search” (memory of experiences)

    System 3 – “negotiation” (what we call reason)

    We just happen to be able to use our negotiation to reason – with enough practice to circumvent our moral evaluation.

    reasoning evolved from negotiation I assume.

    This explains (probably) the difference from male and female agency.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 14:41:00 UTC

  • the left self selects by fear of limited agency

    the left self selects by fear of limited agency.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 09:52:00 UTC

  • We talk to much about SENTIENCE (awareness), and CONSCIOUSNESS (self awareness)

    We talk to much about SENTIENCE (awareness), and CONSCIOUSNESS (self awareness) and not enough about AGENCY (self determination).

    It’s not clear where the line of demarcation is between human an beast. And it appears that the answer is uncomfortable. we can cooperate with those who possess consciousness. But lacking agency are they still fully human?

    (very important)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 09:43:00 UTC

  • EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF NON-SENTIENCE —“I was thinking about the development of

    EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF NON-SENTIENCE

    —“I was thinking about the development of AI and when they would start being considered sentient. I realized there was going to be a very interesting time when no matter how you defined the parameters it would be obvious that most people aren’t really sentient.”—Ben B. Rodríguez

    That has got to be the scariest fucking idea I have heard in years and I’m so damned jealous that I didn’t think of it myself!!!


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 09:21:00 UTC

  • A GENTLEMAN APPLIES STOICISM TO MANNERS The art of being a gentleman is merely t

    A GENTLEMAN APPLIES STOICISM TO MANNERS

    The art of being a gentleman is merely to apply stoicism to one’s manners and grooming. An entertaining gentleman learns a bit of humor. A gentleman of good company reads a few good books. A gentleman of merit accumulates accomplishments.

    Unfortunately, hollywood has taught generations to seek attention like fourteen year old girls with no chance of a finishing school.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-25 17:55:00 UTC

  • @jordanbpeterson The competition between positiva and negativa, not the justific

    @jordanbpeterson The competition between positiva and negativa, not the justification provided by either provides with candidate actions.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-24 17:48:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823950530468835331

  • “Give birth to at least 3 copies of the change you wish to see in the world.”—

    —“Give birth to at least 3 copies of the change you wish to see in the world.”—Adam Voight

    (i’m gonna use that quote a dozen times a year, no question)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-24 14:12:00 UTC

  • WHAT’S YOUR IQ? I don’t find it constructive to go there. as far as I know incre

    WHAT’S YOUR IQ?

    I don’t find it constructive to go there. as far as I know increases over 140 make little substantive difference, and decreases below 60 make no substantive difference. Above 140 and below 60 other personality factors (I consider IQ a personality factor) determine demonstrated intelligence.

    For example, I can tell that, say, Chomsky (and many highly intelligent jews for that matter) can express ideas – which is a trait that starts at 105 and seems to flower at about 130 – and do it far better than I can. But this only lets him (like Wittgenstein and Marx) ‘get it wrong’ elegantly. However, those people can do that because their empathy for frames of reference is higher than mine. Whereas I don’t ‘pay that cost or gain that return’ because I can’t. Yet, conversely, I don’t make the errors that others that empathize with frames of reference do. But what I notice is that they matured emotionally earlier than I did (or I much later than they did). And I think that’s where their advantage played out over mine.

    If you have a lot of general knowledge, an IQ over 105, and a no disruptive personality traits, and an interest in learning, you can pretty much learn the important concepts in this world. You may need to have 115 to learn them more easily, and 125 to learn them on your own, 135 to explain them, and 145 to discover them. Sure. But the ideas are available to you across the spectrum. It’s below 105 that we incrementally develop limitations, and below 95 where functional utility starts to rapidly decline.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-24 05:05:00 UTC