Religion and Conspiracy Theory Share the Same Error of Feminine Cognition: Imputation of Intent https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/23/religion-and-conspiracy-theory-share-the-same-error-of-feminine-cognition-imputation-of-intent/
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 20:05:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253414775653982215
(possibly important)
—“Pattern recognition isn’t the problem, it’s the “imputing conscious intent” where none exists or cannot be demonstrated.”— (Daniel and others)
[W]hy? Bias of brain and subsequent consciousness to think through an empathic lens rather than a systemic and material lens. The herd bias of empathy when grazing vs the pack bias of systems when hunting. The masculine brain sees systems where the feminine brain sees intentions. There is a place for religion and it is a necessary place for the mammal inside. DEBT: Where worship means demonstration of appreciation for inheritance: debt. – Nature worship (debt) – Kin and Ancestor worship (debt) – Gods, demigods, heroes and saints worship (debt) CAPITALIZATION: And training in mindfulness: – Action: Heroism – achievement (cost) – Reason: stoicism – self authoring (cost) – Experience: epicureanism – community building (cost) REWARD: And the Ritual of the Feast – building community. – The Gathering, The Fire, The Call (reward) – The Parable, The Oath, the Testimony (reward) – The Sacrifice, The Feast, The Thanks (reward) – The Celebration (festival), The Sport(competition), The Dispersal (rest) (reward) RULES: There are three sets of laws evident in the structure of the universe whether those laws were made by structural consequence, the design of divinity, or the hand of god. – The laws of nature. (physical limits) – The natural law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity (personal limits) … – With the christian law of love improving upon natural law – The evolutionary law of transcendence of man into gods. (political limits) Grow up, Man up, Shut up, Show up. And win.
(possibly important)
—“Pattern recognition isn’t the problem, it’s the “imputing conscious intent” where none exists or cannot be demonstrated.”— (Daniel and others)
[W]hy? Bias of brain and subsequent consciousness to think through an empathic lens rather than a systemic and material lens. The herd bias of empathy when grazing vs the pack bias of systems when hunting. The masculine brain sees systems where the feminine brain sees intentions. There is a place for religion and it is a necessary place for the mammal inside. DEBT: Where worship means demonstration of appreciation for inheritance: debt. – Nature worship (debt) – Kin and Ancestor worship (debt) – Gods, demigods, heroes and saints worship (debt) CAPITALIZATION: And training in mindfulness: – Action: Heroism – achievement (cost) – Reason: stoicism – self authoring (cost) – Experience: epicureanism – community building (cost) REWARD: And the Ritual of the Feast – building community. – The Gathering, The Fire, The Call (reward) – The Parable, The Oath, the Testimony (reward) – The Sacrifice, The Feast, The Thanks (reward) – The Celebration (festival), The Sport(competition), The Dispersal (rest) (reward) RULES: There are three sets of laws evident in the structure of the universe whether those laws were made by structural consequence, the design of divinity, or the hand of god. – The laws of nature. (physical limits) – The natural law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity (personal limits) … – With the christian law of love improving upon natural law – The evolutionary law of transcendence of man into gods. (political limits) Grow up, Man up, Shut up, Show up. And win.
The Future of Marriage Will Return to Historical Norm – and That’s Not Monogamy https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/23/the-future-of-marriage-will-return-to-historical-norm-and-thats-not-monogamy/
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 20:00:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253413391114223617
[D]uring most of agrarian age history, when man and woman married they could divide labor of creating common property (household) so that man could have a tribe and woman a nest, and both freedom from parental control over the allocation of resources. Getting married meant freedom and sovereignty. A lot. This was true until the postwar boom. In the present age, unless a woman wants to raise replacement levels of children, children are now an amusement, and men are an unnecessary and more easily sacrificed cost. Without the need for children’s support in old age there is no incentive to have them sufficient to preserve the incentive to invest in marriage and replacement level children. Social Security was suicidal. The pill added a noose. No fault divorce created the hanging tree. We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men. Briffault clarifies by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men are costly for a woman in attention, emotion, time, effort and reproductive opportunity – and her children take priority over him. Their value at present is largely income and status and that is decreasingly immaterial. Women are costly for men in his specialization, lower adaptivity to new groups, his cellular damage, his shorter life span, his shorter working life, and his shorter savings horizon, and his reproductive opportunity. But a woman’s care is extremely valuable to a man. He trades all these things for the care of a woman. Unless both parties stay socialized and fit, sex dissipates quickly. It isn’t clear that agrarian marriage can continue as a majority habit and it’s more likely we will continue to return to human norms of serial monogamy, treating relationships like careers, except for the upper classes that as always gain so much value from shared assets status shared oppporutnity that the economics still make sense. === (Some content in this post is from John Brennan)
[D]uring most of agrarian age history, when man and woman married they could divide labor of creating common property (household) so that man could have a tribe and woman a nest, and both freedom from parental control over the allocation of resources. Getting married meant freedom and sovereignty. A lot. This was true until the postwar boom. In the present age, unless a woman wants to raise replacement levels of children, children are now an amusement, and men are an unnecessary and more easily sacrificed cost. Without the need for children’s support in old age there is no incentive to have them sufficient to preserve the incentive to invest in marriage and replacement level children. Social Security was suicidal. The pill added a noose. No fault divorce created the hanging tree. We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men. Briffault clarifies by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men are costly for a woman in attention, emotion, time, effort and reproductive opportunity – and her children take priority over him. Their value at present is largely income and status and that is decreasingly immaterial. Women are costly for men in his specialization, lower adaptivity to new groups, his cellular damage, his shorter life span, his shorter working life, and his shorter savings horizon, and his reproductive opportunity. But a woman’s care is extremely valuable to a man. He trades all these things for the care of a woman. Unless both parties stay socialized and fit, sex dissipates quickly. It isn’t clear that agrarian marriage can continue as a majority habit and it’s more likely we will continue to return to human norms of serial monogamy, treating relationships like careers, except for the upper classes that as always gain so much value from shared assets status shared oppporutnity that the economics still make sense. === (Some content in this post is from John Brennan)
Define: Cellular Damage https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/23/define-cellular-damage/
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 19:57:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253412695111421954
—“Curt: What do you mean by “cellular damage”?”—Daniel Roland Anderson
XX vs XY. Two chances of cellular correction vs one. This is why men live shorter lives by about ten percent. We accumulate cellular damage and we take on the high risk work in the world. When childbirth was risky the tradeoff existed. Now it doesn’t.
—“Curt: What do you mean by “cellular damage”?”—Daniel Roland Anderson
XX vs XY. Two chances of cellular correction vs one. This is why men live shorter lives by about ten percent. We accumulate cellular damage and we take on the high risk work in the world. When childbirth was risky the tradeoff existed. Now it doesn’t.
THE HIERARCHY OF POSSIBILITIES PREVENTS ERROR By Lucas Cort SOVEREIGNTY – DOMINANT MALE The male strategy creates sovereignty IN FACT – violence and Law – establishment of action, preservation and insurance between insurers. FREEDOM – ALL Those Sovereigns then grant PERMISSION to those of lesser insurance or specializations in the division of labour to act within the limits of that permission(markets) what we call FREEDOM. If FREEDOM is used as the starting point without understanding the necessity for sovereignty that makes freedom possible, then men will not pay the cost of defending the sovereigns who create freedom. LIBERTY – ASCENDANT MALE The ascendant male navigates the permissible freedom with LIBERTY(agency, autonomy). If LIBERTY is used the starting point without understanding the necessity for the larger structures of permission and insurance to uphold that permission, the idea of liberty (autonomy) can undermine the very thing that allows it to survive through entitlement (false priors) and possible negative externalities that undermine group cohesion (think libertarianism – baiting into hazard, etc). REDISTRIBUTION – FEMALE This can be divided further into the female strategy, which has the primarily focus on empathy using social transactions to create redistribution within the group. If REDISTRIBUTION is used as the starting point, first entitlement devoid merit, then hyper consumption, and redistribution undermine the value of the structure that allows it to navigate, just as the ascendant male.