The economics of consumption has replaced morality in politics, but it is possible to restore consumption-with-tests-of-changes-in-the-state-of-capital possible under commodity money, localized capital, regional markets, and social homogeneity and abandon simple volume of consumption under conditions of paper money, social heterogeneity, world capital, and worldwide markets, thereby ending hyperconsumption, including of genetic, social, institutional, cultural and civilizational capital. In other words we lost the ability to test the changes in civilizational capital, by failing to measure them as trade moved from regional to national to civilizational to world scope – and in doing so our failure to include measurements of, and tools for measuring, human, cultural, institutional, genetic, etc capital was exposed and exploited, just as was our local tolerance for information stated with european law norm, christian values, and aristotelian reason. I keep saying this but the problem of the 20th was a failure of our institutions to produce systems of measurement and incentives to defend capital in parallel with the commercial and monetary expansion. The beauty of the western common law under which the first court finding that resolves a dispute over an innovation in means of irreciprocity, is that it responds the fastest to inventions of irreciprocity forcing us to continually innovate in means of competition under reciprocity. The problem is that our law failed to modernize particularly in two areas (1) measurement of the very capital that provides our civilizational means of competition (human , informal institutional and formal institutional capital), and (2) expanding our law to cover innovations in deception for the purpose of irreciprocity and obscuring that very capital consumption, made possible by the industrialization of false speech, and the reformation of abrahamic supernaturalism, sophism and denial, into abrahamic pseudoscience sophism and denial: marxism, boazianism, freudianism, feminism, postmodernism, and political correctness: denialism. We aren’t unique. It destroyed every empire i know of. Because what is accumulated rent seeking other than a failure to measure all capital transformation, and to create new incentives under the law to suppress newly available forms of parasitism that consume rather than produce human capital. All civilizations collapse because they have exhausted the capital available to use in the reorganization of a pareto distribution of influences, and a nash equilibrium of rewards for preserving that new system of organization, in response to scarcities, shocks, changes in trade routes, conflcit, war (Physical, Ideological, religious, economic), and variations in the environment (drought, climate, water and river changes, continuous quakes, world volcanic activity – which aside from very large asteroids is the most dangerous of all.
Theme: Incentives
-
—“Can I Write a 1000 Page Novel Today?”—
Oct 25, 2019, 9:16 PM
- It’s economically unwise at present to write a 900 page novel. It is much better to break it into three books, and edit to provide rewards for the reader at the end of each.
It is extremely difficult to accumulate sufficient life experience to provide character, plot, and environmental novelty (entertainment) for 900 pages. That’s why people don’t do it – they can’t.
The current trend is simply ‘more’ characters, plots, etc in an effort to move beyond the exhausted 90-min plot lines, that books were written for, in the hope that they would be optioned as scripts.
To answer the question, I would need to understand the plot, theory, or experiment you’re trying in the book, the number of characters, and maybe a few of their story arcs.
Authors you might know: RRMartin (Can I reverse the good vs evil exhausted plot line through continuous character development using epic character arcs over a long period of time, written for teens, and young adult heroes with adult subject matter,). Rowling ( can I reach a young adult or teen audience, with a stereotypical boy’s adventure, written from a girl’s perspective and voice, played by a boy to to maximize my book sales, using one year of schooling at a time, where the character grows with the audience and books are released in parallel to the audience’s growth.) Stephenson (Cryptonomicon: can I write the seminal work of the Cyberpunk era, combining Ludlum’s thriller, King’s Characters, Tom Clancy’s scale, tech entrepreneur life in the dot com boom, And in doing so explain the the history of cryptography across generations, construction of the world banking and economic system, and how it could change in the future, shifting the world power balance. Maybe gibson was more influential, but Stephenson wrote the canon literature of that era.) Eddings (can I merge with wizard of earthsea, pohl’s ‘scientific magic’, and tolkien’s epic wars between civilizations, and do the characters well enough to get a away with it and not be called a hack? Add a hundred other copycats using the formula after him here….) King (It, the Stand – most of his books – Can I weave an entire village , an enormous cast of characters, into an epic of mythic consequence mystery and scale, and succeed with most of the characters by producing an backstory, dialog, and character arc the audience will empathize with despite so many of them you need a score card to keep track. I mean, the stand is a dark sci fi attempt at Tolkein’s epic. We should note that while King does manage to produce some archetypal characters in a novel context he failed in the stand to achieve his goal of maintaining character empathy, and audience interests, for the duration.) Rand (Atlas Shrugged can I write a play that the reader will empathize with, that creates a middle class heroic mythos of creative excellence, where the characters represent political archetypes, instead of writing another work of philosophy that will be ignored? (it worked despite cutout characters. Not as clear as plato’s socrates, but she did it.) ) Tolkien (Can I create the largest most detailed alternate world ever tried by the reconstruction of the tradition of anglo saxon, germanic, proto-germanic european, mythos as a means of exploring ancient tongues. Can I write an anglo saxon world we would be desperate to live in, because we sense it is more moral than the world we live in today? Don’t over analyze Tolkien. ). Michner: (can I learn about and teach history of different areas of the world by weaving long intergenerational family stories over many generations with interesting plots with strong characters instead of writing a history book or set of biographies – and will that sell to readers? Absolutely.) Gone With The Wind … (The experience of the entirety of the civil war in the south?) War And Peace (the experience of the entirety of the napoleonic invasion of russia and leave a lasting memory of it as a monument? Yes.) Don Quixote (Can I write a homeric epic of equal meaning, and greater tragedy because modernity traded knowledge and prosperity yes, but destroyed chivalry, honor, nobility – and his idealism is considered insane and useless in the face of modernity. You get the point. What are you going to deliver in 900 pages of novel that is novel, and novel enough to hold the reader’s attention when his or her attention is competing with every other demand for his or her attention? What do you have to offer? I wish I could get people to write write an overview of their plot (a theory of the book), then some back story. then some character backstories. Then write a few SCENES. So then you can immerse yourself in a world and weave your way through it because you have enough to work with that you won’t just imagine the most recent stereotypical thing you encountered. Try to write the skeleton of the story while inspired, in just one to t three weeks. Even if you just throw it away. Then pick scenes that you feel inspired to work with. You will find that you will create anchors, and then ask “why would my characters get from A to B”. Research. Fill your head with whatever your character’s head would be filled with in the circumstance. then your writing won’t be trite. If you sit down and try to daydream a novel you will create precisely nothing novel.
-
—“Can I Write a 1000 Page Novel Today?”—
Oct 25, 2019, 9:16 PM
- It’s economically unwise at present to write a 900 page novel. It is much better to break it into three books, and edit to provide rewards for the reader at the end of each.
It is extremely difficult to accumulate sufficient life experience to provide character, plot, and environmental novelty (entertainment) for 900 pages. That’s why people don’t do it – they can’t.
The current trend is simply ‘more’ characters, plots, etc in an effort to move beyond the exhausted 90-min plot lines, that books were written for, in the hope that they would be optioned as scripts.
To answer the question, I would need to understand the plot, theory, or experiment you’re trying in the book, the number of characters, and maybe a few of their story arcs.
Authors you might know: RRMartin (Can I reverse the good vs evil exhausted plot line through continuous character development using epic character arcs over a long period of time, written for teens, and young adult heroes with adult subject matter,). Rowling ( can I reach a young adult or teen audience, with a stereotypical boy’s adventure, written from a girl’s perspective and voice, played by a boy to to maximize my book sales, using one year of schooling at a time, where the character grows with the audience and books are released in parallel to the audience’s growth.) Stephenson (Cryptonomicon: can I write the seminal work of the Cyberpunk era, combining Ludlum’s thriller, King’s Characters, Tom Clancy’s scale, tech entrepreneur life in the dot com boom, And in doing so explain the the history of cryptography across generations, construction of the world banking and economic system, and how it could change in the future, shifting the world power balance. Maybe gibson was more influential, but Stephenson wrote the canon literature of that era.) Eddings (can I merge with wizard of earthsea, pohl’s ‘scientific magic’, and tolkien’s epic wars between civilizations, and do the characters well enough to get a away with it and not be called a hack? Add a hundred other copycats using the formula after him here….) King (It, the Stand – most of his books – Can I weave an entire village , an enormous cast of characters, into an epic of mythic consequence mystery and scale, and succeed with most of the characters by producing an backstory, dialog, and character arc the audience will empathize with despite so many of them you need a score card to keep track. I mean, the stand is a dark sci fi attempt at Tolkein’s epic. We should note that while King does manage to produce some archetypal characters in a novel context he failed in the stand to achieve his goal of maintaining character empathy, and audience interests, for the duration.) Rand (Atlas Shrugged can I write a play that the reader will empathize with, that creates a middle class heroic mythos of creative excellence, where the characters represent political archetypes, instead of writing another work of philosophy that will be ignored? (it worked despite cutout characters. Not as clear as plato’s socrates, but she did it.) ) Tolkien (Can I create the largest most detailed alternate world ever tried by the reconstruction of the tradition of anglo saxon, germanic, proto-germanic european, mythos as a means of exploring ancient tongues. Can I write an anglo saxon world we would be desperate to live in, because we sense it is more moral than the world we live in today? Don’t over analyze Tolkien. ). Michner: (can I learn about and teach history of different areas of the world by weaving long intergenerational family stories over many generations with interesting plots with strong characters instead of writing a history book or set of biographies – and will that sell to readers? Absolutely.) Gone With The Wind … (The experience of the entirety of the civil war in the south?) War And Peace (the experience of the entirety of the napoleonic invasion of russia and leave a lasting memory of it as a monument? Yes.) Don Quixote (Can I write a homeric epic of equal meaning, and greater tragedy because modernity traded knowledge and prosperity yes, but destroyed chivalry, honor, nobility – and his idealism is considered insane and useless in the face of modernity. You get the point. What are you going to deliver in 900 pages of novel that is novel, and novel enough to hold the reader’s attention when his or her attention is competing with every other demand for his or her attention? What do you have to offer? I wish I could get people to write write an overview of their plot (a theory of the book), then some back story. then some character backstories. Then write a few SCENES. So then you can immerse yourself in a world and weave your way through it because you have enough to work with that you won’t just imagine the most recent stereotypical thing you encountered. Try to write the skeleton of the story while inspired, in just one to t three weeks. Even if you just throw it away. Then pick scenes that you feel inspired to work with. You will find that you will create anchors, and then ask “why would my characters get from A to B”. Research. Fill your head with whatever your character’s head would be filled with in the circumstance. then your writing won’t be trite. If you sit down and try to daydream a novel you will create precisely nothing novel.
-
“The most obvious sophism in the above post, is : ‘Marxism advocates nothing lik
—“The most obvious sophism in the above post, is : ‘Marxism advocates nothing like uniform income’.”— Tutu
Not directly, but he presumes (a) people are relatively equal in value, or worse, that many people are not harmful to others by their mere existence; When it is the excess of harmful people that are more influential to the current condition than the beneficial people; (b) western success was as much a product of our thousands of years of eugenics, as it was our truth telling, traditional law of sovereigns, and preference for technology and magic we controlled, over supernaturalism and the occult that controlled us. (c) labor is other than yet another fungible resource, and organization of production takes all the risk and creates all the value – automation has made this painfully obvious over the past fifty years – and it’s escalating. Marx was recommending a repeat of the semitic dark ages, this time in pseudoscience instead of supernaturalism, that would expand the underclasses we sought so hard to gracefully reduce, and restore the communalism of the herd, which is the feminine cognitive bias, that appears to separate semitic from european thought, in metaphysical, preferable, intuitionistic, and argumentative methods, including the use of feminine means of conflcit: false promise, baiting into hazard, profiting from the hazard, plausible deniability as pretense of moral cover, using pilpul (sophism) critique(undermining), in a continuous effort to prevent dominant males from organizing a hierarchy, which would cause loyalty gains, asymmetrically more influential than feminine demands for consumption in exchange for sex, affection, and ingroup advocacy.
-
Prediction: What Will Happen to The Commercial Drone Revolution?
They are extremely vulnerable, and the culmination of “Cargo Cult” opportunism. It will take a while for their density to be such that it’s worth making a living off investment with capturing their cargo, but you know, I sure as heck know how to make a living at it, and a gang that gets organized enough will make a great living at it. I mean, you know that video from south africa where the locals cut up a beached whale while it’s still living, and run off with hunks of meat? A distribution channel of drones carrying ‘Cargo’ is simply a an opportunity for many generations of the division of labor more evolved than whale meat. Drones fly at 120 meters (130 yards) according to FAA regulations. Now if you’ve shot skeet, you can shoot down a done with 3 1/2” 12 gauge OOO Buckshot, with a drop of 18″. If you lead, and fire three shots in sequence assuming 18″ drop it’s shooting fish in a barrel. (and yes the gang bangers will develop ‘talent’ that will do it, and vehicles to do it from, and spend all f’king day doing it. You can use a rifled shotgun and slug pretty easily at 130 yards. Even with a .22 semi auto – because it’s so quiet and can put a lot of rounds up there. Or with another drone you can just tie nails to a bit of fishing net and drop it on the drone, or just smack into it with your landing gear. Now that’s before we get to the fact that they are even more vulnerable during delivery of the goods. And that even if their reasonably autonomous they aren’t endlessly autonomous. And that capturing, modifying, and using them for ‘other purposes’ is profitable in and of itself. So now, you get your own and deliver drugs anonymously and don’t need runners. I mean, the disintermediation from the human being is awesome. And you know, load it up with explosives and now people won’t interfere with it. I mean.. it’s a whole new criminal industry just waiting to happen! 😉 Sorry. Just had to rain on the parade. Edit
-
Prediction: What Will Happen to The Commercial Drone Revolution?
They are extremely vulnerable, and the culmination of “Cargo Cult” opportunism. It will take a while for their density to be such that it’s worth making a living off investment with capturing their cargo, but you know, I sure as heck know how to make a living at it, and a gang that gets organized enough will make a great living at it. I mean, you know that video from south africa where the locals cut up a beached whale while it’s still living, and run off with hunks of meat? A distribution channel of drones carrying ‘Cargo’ is simply a an opportunity for many generations of the division of labor more evolved than whale meat. Drones fly at 120 meters (130 yards) according to FAA regulations. Now if you’ve shot skeet, you can shoot down a done with 3 1/2” 12 gauge OOO Buckshot, with a drop of 18″. If you lead, and fire three shots in sequence assuming 18″ drop it’s shooting fish in a barrel. (and yes the gang bangers will develop ‘talent’ that will do it, and vehicles to do it from, and spend all f’king day doing it. You can use a rifled shotgun and slug pretty easily at 130 yards. Even with a .22 semi auto – because it’s so quiet and can put a lot of rounds up there. Or with another drone you can just tie nails to a bit of fishing net and drop it on the drone, or just smack into it with your landing gear. Now that’s before we get to the fact that they are even more vulnerable during delivery of the goods. And that even if their reasonably autonomous they aren’t endlessly autonomous. And that capturing, modifying, and using them for ‘other purposes’ is profitable in and of itself. So now, you get your own and deliver drugs anonymously and don’t need runners. I mean, the disintermediation from the human being is awesome. And you know, load it up with explosives and now people won’t interfere with it. I mean.. it’s a whole new criminal industry just waiting to happen! 😉 Sorry. Just had to rain on the parade. Edit
-
Usury
USURY (repost) Interest vs Usury. Interest is necessary for the organization of complex production. it is beneficial for production of generations. It is risky for the purpose of consumption. It is harmful for the production of entertainment. It is very harmful for the production of anti-social behaviors. What demarcates Interest from Usury? (a) credit for consumption rather than production. (b) borrower beware rather than lender beware. (c) collateral If lending is limited to production, lender risk, and un-recoverability for anything other than fraud, then it’s shared risk. And it increases use of stock markets where access to liquidity is possible instead of collateral recovery. The enemy’s technique consists of false promise, baiting in to moral hazard, pilpul, critique, and profiting from capture of hazards, and capitalizing those captures as systems of rents. Usury is the most common example of baiting into hazard, by the extension of credit for the purpose of consumption, the use of collateral, and the use of the court to transfer assets to the lender. The enemy’s technique uses every possible means of baiting into hazard, defending this bait by pilpul and critique, profiting from the hazard – both private and public – then taking the accumulated capital and seeking rents against the population until they revolt and prosecute their revenge. … There is a reason this technique works with high trust europeans but not elsewhere. There is a reason it works with women and underclasses but not established men. Because our democracy makes us vulnerable to false promise, and the underclasses are easily baited by false promise, we are tolerant of meritocracy until too late. Worse, it is easiest to exploit our social order of MARKETS and LAGGING legal codes in defense of those markets and our people. And lagging technology for replacing each of the means of parasitism: financial, commercial, educational, informational, political, social, normative, and traditional
-
Usury
USURY (repost) Interest vs Usury. Interest is necessary for the organization of complex production. it is beneficial for production of generations. It is risky for the purpose of consumption. It is harmful for the production of entertainment. It is very harmful for the production of anti-social behaviors. What demarcates Interest from Usury? (a) credit for consumption rather than production. (b) borrower beware rather than lender beware. (c) collateral If lending is limited to production, lender risk, and un-recoverability for anything other than fraud, then it’s shared risk. And it increases use of stock markets where access to liquidity is possible instead of collateral recovery. The enemy’s technique consists of false promise, baiting in to moral hazard, pilpul, critique, and profiting from capture of hazards, and capitalizing those captures as systems of rents. Usury is the most common example of baiting into hazard, by the extension of credit for the purpose of consumption, the use of collateral, and the use of the court to transfer assets to the lender. The enemy’s technique uses every possible means of baiting into hazard, defending this bait by pilpul and critique, profiting from the hazard – both private and public – then taking the accumulated capital and seeking rents against the population until they revolt and prosecute their revenge. … There is a reason this technique works with high trust europeans but not elsewhere. There is a reason it works with women and underclasses but not established men. Because our democracy makes us vulnerable to false promise, and the underclasses are easily baited by false promise, we are tolerant of meritocracy until too late. Worse, it is easiest to exploit our social order of MARKETS and LAGGING legal codes in defense of those markets and our people. And lagging technology for replacing each of the means of parasitism: financial, commercial, educational, informational, political, social, normative, and traditional
-
Argumentum Ad Theologicum
(yes it’s possible. it’s just almost impossible) We all defend our investments. it’s irrational to think we won’t defend our investments. As long as that’s what we’re doing, it’s not ir-reciprocal. In my understanding, theology is just one of the grammars. it’s both conflationary, and fictionalist, using the supernatural fictionalism, but that doesn’t mean statements within it can’t be disambiguated, de-fictionalized, operationalized, and converted to statements of physical and natural law. We only come into conflcit when the disambiguated, defictionalized, operationalized, and tested for reciprocity exposes an involuntary transfer. When disambiguating, defictionalizing, nd operationalizing we take for granted we can test for: (a) identity (b) internal consistency, (c) rational choice, (d) and reciprocal rational choice, and possibly (e) full accounting … … Even if we cannot test for (f) external correspondence, (g) operational possibility, and (h) parsimony. … And within reciprocity we may test for (j) productivity, (k) voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, and (l) involuntary transfer by externality, (m) and whether one has performed that due diligence, and (n ) whether one can perform restitution. So it’s not like we can’t largely test theological words. It’s mostly whether any argument demanding deduction that is dependent upon theological terms is possible. In other words, it may be possible to make ethical statements in theology it is however, extremely difficult to make arguments from them. It’s not impossible. It just appears very uncommon. There are many true and reciprocal statements in theology. There are very few if any true and reciprocal arguments. That’s the nature of the problem of fictional premises. Not much to do about it. Edit
-
The Market Demand for Services Provided by Religion
Oct 30, 2019, 12:26 PM
- The market demand for personal mindfulness (Spiritualism) whether empathic-femining (theological), moral-masculine(rational), or analytic-masculine(scientific) exists, and all three demands exist for most of us. The question is, given how the various religions solved mindfulness (Stoicism-epicureanism, buddhism, hinduism, abrahamism) which produces agency (stoicism), which produces optimism (hinduism), which produces withdrawal from reality (buddhism) and which denies and escapes reality (abrahamism).
Religions must provide interpersonal mindfulness by creating a standard dialog, set of signals, and manners that are costly to learn and practice, but that by practicing display to others you are worthy of honest cooperation on the same terms.
Religions must also provide social mindfulness (limitation of fear and comfort in the ethical, and moral. These are moral rules that serve the group’s competitive strategy – and all reflect the environmental challenges of the age of transformation in which men invented religions.,
Religions must also provide political mindfulness (limits on political action and on rulers actions). I won’t cover each of them here.
Religions must also provide a group strategy – gypsy parasitism, jewish parasitism, muslim parasitism, predation and conquest, christian undermining of the truth, knowledge, reason, law, property, aristocracy by rallying the peasantry and women and slaves against all and being as expansionary as islam – to counter islam. Buddhist submission and obedience Hindu class duty and function in the ‘harmony’. Chinese hierarchical family (bureaucracy). Anglo aristocratic egalitarianism (entrepreneurship and corporation).
1. personal mindfulness (peace of mind), … 2. interpersonal, … … 3. social, … … … 4. political, … … … … 5. strategic. All of these demands are served by training in stoicism and epicureanism(realism, naturalism, reciprocity, living within your means, surrounding yourself with family and friends, and insulation from competitive status signaling), training interpersonal reciprocity, social reciprocity, training in political reciprocity, and training in group strategic reciprocity. The fact that we train people in reading, writing, arithmetic, mathematics, and the sciences, and indoctrinate them into falsehoods of marxism (class undermining), feminism(male undermining), and postmodernism (group undermining), but DON”T train them in stoic mindfulness, epicurean happiness, basic money, household finance, and accounting, basic law of contract and reciprocity, the testimony, the grammars, logics, rhetoric, and produce holidays that celebrate our seasons and heroes, thinkers, and saints is just a choice. The only addiction christianity adds is the transformation of western paternalism of masculine aristocracy, to the feminine submission to a false god, the pretense of equality of all, and the one good thing: the feminine emulation of jesus in the extension of forgiveness instead of semitic hypersensitivity to insult and slight – we call this christian love. It’s just self virtue signaling in exchange for immunity from offense by petty people endemic among the desperate, poor and ignorant. The real reason people rely on abrahamic religion is to disintermediate themselves from others status signals so that they can preserve mindfulness and self image despite continuous rejection. The reason we want to live in the christian world is because we are not subject to continuous rejection but continuous tolerance and forgiveness (love). The program of the marxists, feminists, and postmodernists, is to UNDERMINE christian love from within. Undermine the faith. Undermine the ethics Generate envy and hatred between genders, classes, and identity groups, in order to sew discord that creates demand for an authoritarian state which can extract almost unlimited income from the population to resolve the conflicts that the government created. This is all you need to understand about (a) religion, (b) christianity in politics (c) how we can state christianity in legal terms, (d) how we can teach stoicism and epicureanism and history and truth rather than semitic lies, and (e) how we are undermined because christians will not fight the enemy.