(FB 1542122872 Timestamp) THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT 1) We lack agency. Our genes provide intuitionistic decidability. That intuitionistic decidability in matters of cooperation can be expressed on a spectrum from psychotic and solipsistic to ‘normie’ to analytic and autistic. This spectrum describes the differences in male and female brain structures (see Baron Cohen.). We assume we are making choices but we are not. We are merely following instinct. In this distribution the male and female brains produce biases that reflect their caloric and reproductive demands, with female the herd,r,offspring, and male,k,pack and this measurement shows up in all aspects of life from METHOD OF SPEECH, content of gossip, chatter, and banter, selection of terms, means of argument, value judgements, personality profile differences, job selection, time allocation, consumer product purchases, voting records. However, given the industrial technological era, and the independence of females from demand for male income we are seeing demand for ‘fulfillment’ (divergence) in not only gender preferences (toward the extremes) but in class and reproductive preferences (insurance from risk, vs achievement liberty). The more equal the more we diverge in demand for fulfillment of our reproductive strategies. At present we have those of us who prefer to separate from those of you. We experience you as ‘disgusting’ whereas you see fear we see disgust. This is because you are setting off our ‘harm to the tribe’ response. This is also genetic on our end. Truth, Loyalty, Purity are all anti-disgust demands. So in our perception of the world, you are not fully human, but simply semi-domesticated animals that can speak. We do not say this but it is how we perceive you. So we prefer to satisfy our disgust response they way you want to satisfy your fear of being left behind response, and separate from you. The alternative is warfare. Which is frankly more desirable but less profitable. 2) Ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy, nationalism the optimum means of protecting it, nomocracy and markets in everything, the optimum means of political order to achieving it, and soft eugenics (regulating underclass rates of reproduction) a necessity of defeating regression to the mean, such that demographics correspond to states of development rather than regress the standards of living, because together they produce rates of adaptation faster than all possible alternatives. The mediocre seek safety in the herd and speech and defense from the pack. The exceptional seek achievement and action – and to leave its dead weight behind. We can afford to speciate by reproductive strategy. You and yours are welcome to speciate by your preferred means, if me and mine are by our preferred means. That is reciprocity. If we cannot agree to reciprocity, then defeat, conquest, enserfment, enslavement, and extermination are preferable to loss. The Herd seeks equality, proportionality, and the Pack hierarchy and reciprocity. These are genetic and therefore intuitionistic and pre-cognitive expressions of fitness for social orders. So we can Revolt, Separate, Prosper (or not), and Speciate or we can war. The coming civil war is not over race – it is over our new found wealth sufficient to speciate. Or in historical terms, we continue the conflict between masculine indo-european-asian and feminine anatolian-semitic-afro-asiatic. This means that we have the opportunity to exit the unfit from our order, and the undesirable from yours. Or we have the opportunity to have the bloodiest conflict in human history – and one that it is very hard to imagine the ‘right’ will not win. The people who talk, teach, and preach, vs the people who act, produce, and invent. If this isn’t acceptable to your and yours, then enemies you choose to be. So, this is why we must separate. We don’t need to agree. It’s just going to happen. So the question is only how unpleasant it will be.
Theme: Decidability
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542122872 Timestamp) THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT 1) We lack agency. Our genes provide intuitionistic decidability. That intuitionistic decidability in matters of cooperation can be expressed on a spectrum from psychotic and solipsistic to ‘normie’ to analytic and autistic. This spectrum describes the differences in male and female brain structures (see Baron Cohen.). We assume we are making choices but we are not. We are merely following instinct. In this distribution the male and female brains produce biases that reflect their caloric and reproductive demands, with female the herd,r,offspring, and male,k,pack and this measurement shows up in all aspects of life from METHOD OF SPEECH, content of gossip, chatter, and banter, selection of terms, means of argument, value judgements, personality profile differences, job selection, time allocation, consumer product purchases, voting records. However, given the industrial technological era, and the independence of females from demand for male income we are seeing demand for ‘fulfillment’ (divergence) in not only gender preferences (toward the extremes) but in class and reproductive preferences (insurance from risk, vs achievement liberty). The more equal the more we diverge in demand for fulfillment of our reproductive strategies. At present we have those of us who prefer to separate from those of you. We experience you as ‘disgusting’ whereas you see fear we see disgust. This is because you are setting off our ‘harm to the tribe’ response. This is also genetic on our end. Truth, Loyalty, Purity are all anti-disgust demands. So in our perception of the world, you are not fully human, but simply semi-domesticated animals that can speak. We do not say this but it is how we perceive you. So we prefer to satisfy our disgust response they way you want to satisfy your fear of being left behind response, and separate from you. The alternative is warfare. Which is frankly more desirable but less profitable. 2) Ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy, nationalism the optimum means of protecting it, nomocracy and markets in everything, the optimum means of political order to achieving it, and soft eugenics (regulating underclass rates of reproduction) a necessity of defeating regression to the mean, such that demographics correspond to states of development rather than regress the standards of living, because together they produce rates of adaptation faster than all possible alternatives. The mediocre seek safety in the herd and speech and defense from the pack. The exceptional seek achievement and action – and to leave its dead weight behind. We can afford to speciate by reproductive strategy. You and yours are welcome to speciate by your preferred means, if me and mine are by our preferred means. That is reciprocity. If we cannot agree to reciprocity, then defeat, conquest, enserfment, enslavement, and extermination are preferable to loss. The Herd seeks equality, proportionality, and the Pack hierarchy and reciprocity. These are genetic and therefore intuitionistic and pre-cognitive expressions of fitness for social orders. So we can Revolt, Separate, Prosper (or not), and Speciate or we can war. The coming civil war is not over race – it is over our new found wealth sufficient to speciate. Or in historical terms, we continue the conflict between masculine indo-european-asian and feminine anatolian-semitic-afro-asiatic. This means that we have the opportunity to exit the unfit from our order, and the undesirable from yours. Or we have the opportunity to have the bloodiest conflict in human history – and one that it is very hard to imagine the ‘right’ will not win. The people who talk, teach, and preach, vs the people who act, produce, and invent. If this isn’t acceptable to your and yours, then enemies you choose to be. So, this is why we must separate. We don’t need to agree. It’s just going to happen. So the question is only how unpleasant it will be.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542637994 Timestamp) By claiming one is doing good, one can justify bads. But while bads are decidable and universal, goods are only preferable and particular. As such one claims he does good only as an excuse to do bad. When, one only does good if he does NO bad. Ergo, all that is not bad is good.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542637994 Timestamp) By claiming one is doing good, one can justify bads. But while bads are decidable and universal, goods are only preferable and particular. As such one claims he does good only as an excuse to do bad. When, one only does good if he does NO bad. Ergo, all that is not bad is good.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543082573 Timestamp) Seriously. I mean. You don’t really ‘get it’ until you practice it a bit. But most of the problem with argument is lacking definitions. And only definitions in series eliminate conflation and therefore the misrepresentation of meaning.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543510782 Timestamp) —“Disambiguation provides the path to godhood”— Bill Joslin
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543510782 Timestamp) —“Disambiguation provides the path to godhood”— Bill Joslin
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545088319 Timestamp) A GEM BY BILL —“That’s what “Law” means “Decidable” in scientific language, and which means “Absolute” in archaic moral language. … That’s what Laws of Nature (unconscious, deterministic) and Natural Law (conscious, volitionary) mean: they are DESCRIPTIVE. You cannot violate the laws of nature but you can manipulate them. You can violate the natural laws, and pay the consequences. The natural world already calculates its optimum, and we ‘cheat’ it. The natural law is something else men cheat. However, the optimum method of human evolution is the elimination of cheating (parasitism). If you eliminate all parasitism you end up with natural law. If you do not then you don’t.”—Curt Doolittle —“Don’t you still need a justification that’s more than “it’s natural” to avoid justifying your law on a naturalistic fallacy? The justification for propertarianism seems to be a utilitarian argument.”—Hue Whitman Answer by Bill Joslin: The Naturalistic fallacy relates to equating a positive moral standing for an action due to it being natural (“if it happens in nature it’s therefore good”) not a utilitarian stance which provides an operational description of how the action results in immoral consequences (“under these conditions and incentives, human conflict rises”). Two different domains of argumentation, the former justificatory, the later warranty.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545088319 Timestamp) A GEM BY BILL —“That’s what “Law” means “Decidable” in scientific language, and which means “Absolute” in archaic moral language. … That’s what Laws of Nature (unconscious, deterministic) and Natural Law (conscious, volitionary) mean: they are DESCRIPTIVE. You cannot violate the laws of nature but you can manipulate them. You can violate the natural laws, and pay the consequences. The natural world already calculates its optimum, and we ‘cheat’ it. The natural law is something else men cheat. However, the optimum method of human evolution is the elimination of cheating (parasitism). If you eliminate all parasitism you end up with natural law. If you do not then you don’t.”—Curt Doolittle —“Don’t you still need a justification that’s more than “it’s natural” to avoid justifying your law on a naturalistic fallacy? The justification for propertarianism seems to be a utilitarian argument.”—Hue Whitman Answer by Bill Joslin: The Naturalistic fallacy relates to equating a positive moral standing for an action due to it being natural (“if it happens in nature it’s therefore good”) not a utilitarian stance which provides an operational description of how the action results in immoral consequences (“under these conditions and incentives, human conflict rises”). Two different domains of argumentation, the former justificatory, the later warranty.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545578821 Timestamp) Grammar: Rules of continuous disambiguation producing a well formed statement functioning as a series of transactions in a contract for meaning.