“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
―Philip Freneau
.
And by a prudent flight and cunning save A life which valour could not, from the grave. A better buckler I can soon regain, But who can get another life again?
Archilochus
Tuesday, November 4, 2025
Curtis Yarvin goes to Oxford
71 comments:
Anonymous
said...
-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew If it succeeds in the circumstance, it's wisdom, if it fails, stupidity. Mostly, it's a rationalization for acting... or NOT. October 31, 2025 at 10:56 AM
Apt to brawl against definitions?
Cambridge Dictionary https://dictionary.cambridge.org › dictionary › wisdom — the ability to make good judgments based on what you have learned from your experience, or the knowledge and understanding that gives you this ability. WISDOM Definition & Meaning
Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com › ... — 1. a : ability to discern inner qualities and relationships : insight b : good sense : judgment c : generally accepted belief Synonyms of wisdom Pearl of wisdom Conventional Wisdom Wisdom
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org › ... Wisdom, also known as sapience, is the ability to apply knowledge, experience, and good judgment to navigate life's complexities.
That what you say... that is ordinary smartness(or smartyness ;-p)
You really think that those "definitions" adequately capture 35 Platonic dialogues? Conventional wisdom is the wisdom of the powerless (hysteric or analyst discourse). Wisdom is usually the wisdom of power or informed judgement regarding power (master or academic discourse). Hence Plato distinguishes (Wisdom:Justice) by this power dynamic... to act or not act/ intervene (Courage:Temperance) (success in achieving ends) or Cowardice:Rashness (failure in achieving ends).
What is sovereignty but the right to make exceptions (judge, in the case of power) as to whether justice is merited, or reserved to the benefit of the sovereign.
Hence Hesiod's "wisdom" in "Works and Days"... [25] Perses, lay up these things in your heart, and do not let that Strife who delights in mischief hold your heart back from work, while you peep and peer and listen to the wrangles of the court-house. Little concern has he with quarrels and courts who has not a year's victuals laid up betimes, even that which the earth bears, Demeter's grain. When you have got plenty of that, you can raise disputes and strive to get another's goods. But you shall have no second chance to deal so again: nay, let us settle our dispute here with true judgement divided our inheritance, but you seized the greater share and carried it off, greatly swelling the glory of our bribe-swallowing lords who love to judge such a cause as this. Fools! They know not how much more the half is than the whole, nor what great advantage there is in mallow and asphodel [poor man's fare].
//You really think that those "definitions" adequately capture 35 Platonic dialogues?
Still... wanna brawl against definitions? :-p
Indiana Jones Wiki | Fandom https://indianajones.fandom.com/wiki/Plato_(donkey) Plato was a donkey owned by a farmer called Aristotle. It was Aristotle's wife who named the donkey, so her husband would have somebody to talk to.
//Wisdom is usually the wisdom of power or informed judgement regarding power (master or academic discourse).
BS.
You never was in position of power, aren't ya? And never gave yourself a hassle to observe ones? They are... most powerles creatures (e.g. Damocles Sword)
Yap. That's what that who "have power" preaching. Because? That is SOLE source of their "power".
I was giving to you that text. About MYOB
Looking for a story that possibly started "MYOB"
Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange https://scifi.stackexchange.com › ... 20 черв. 2024 р. — A ship, from the empire, lands, and soldiers get out and try to take over. The residents resist by saying "MYOB" ("mind your own business").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Explosion The Great Explosion is a satirical science fiction novel by English writer Eric Frank Russell, first published in 1962. The story is divided into three sections. The final section is based on Russell's 1951 short story "...And Then There Were None". Twenty-three years after the novel was published, it won a Prometheus Hall of Fame Award.
//wisdom (IQ) ... courage (AQ) AQ=Athletic Quotient) What is one without the other?
In our day it enough to have just ONE finger and ONE hand... to demonstrate act of courage -- to kill your enemy.(but still TOO MUCH for american pussies, yawn)
Shakespeare, "Hamlet" Now, whether it be Bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple Of thinking too precisely on the event, A thought which, quarter'd, hath but one part wisdom And ever three parts coward, I do not know Why yet I live to say 'This thing's to do;' Sith I have cause and will and strength and means To do't.
And by a prudent flight and cunning save A life which valour could not, from the grave. A better buckler I can soon regain, But who can get another life again? - Archilochus
Altruism benefits family members (w/ shared genes)(kin selection) Sexual Reproduction only benefits the Sex gene (at expense of the rest) Some genes aren't influenced by natural selection (can't affect meaningful traits)... so it's a random process (genetic drift) Genes have no agency. They can only affect one or many traits/ combined traits Think of evolution at the level of the gene, not of the individual or group of individuals
Agamemnon wasn't a king known for forbearing insults.
Witness this army of such mass and charge, Led by a delicate and tender prince, Whose spirit with divine ambition puffed Makes mouths at the invisible event, Exposing what is mortal and unsure To all that fortune, death, and danger dare, Even for an eggshell. Rightly to be great Is not to stir without great argument, But greatly to find quarrel in a straw When honor’s at the stake. How stand I, then, That have a father killed, a mother stained, Excitements of my reason and my blood, And let all sleep, while to my shame I see The imminent death of twenty thousand men That for a fantasy and trick of fame Go to their graves like beds, fight for a plot Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause, Which is not tomb enough and continent To hide the slain? O, from this time forth My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth!
I gave pretty detailed ref of what MYOB mean. And I vividly remember your ref. But, hit me, I dunno how they relate. And what can mean sitting in one sentence. My foreigner's inaptness to blame... probably.
Oh. Yet one good for copy-pasting. See... that is not just mind/word games... as in pure philosophical talks. That is words that DO CREATE things. And even can create death.
Note that in the second sentence, the word "permissible" was changed to the word "possible".
This has resulted in two schools of thought in the C and C++ community.
The first group, largely made of C programmers, argues that the second sentence in the C89 standard was normative: it described the set of permissible behaviours. So "undefined behaviour" is only "undefined" in the sense that the standard does not require which of the permissible behaviours an implementation may do.
The second group, largely made of "standards lawyers" and open source C compiler implementors, point out that, under ISO rules, moving the second sentence to an explanatory note and changing the word "permissible" to "possible" means that it is not normative. These are merely possible behaviours, but because the standard imposes no requirements, any behaviour is possible.
This is also known as a "nasal demon", because the compiler making demons fly out of your nose is also a possible behaviour.
This is a problem for many C programmers, since it meant that WG14 declared a lot of customary C usage to be undefined behaviour. Chris Lattner of LLVM put it this way: "huge bodies of C code are land mines just waiting to explode."
So, for example, if you ever write this:
i << 32 If i is a 32-bit integer, shifting it left by 32 is undefined behaviour. According to the second interpretation, any instance of this anywhere on an execution path renders the whole program semantically meaningless. And specifically, a compiler may assume that undefined behaviour can never happen and optimise your code accordingly.
This brings us to SPECint, the standard suite of integer benchmarks maintained by the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. This set of benchmarks is how C compiler vendors evaluate and market their code-generation and optimisation performance.
Oh. Yet one good for copy-pasting. See... that is not just mind/word games... as in pure philosophical talks. That is words that DO CREATE things. And even can create death.
Note that in the second sentence, the word "permissible" was changed to the word "possible".
This has resulted in two schools of thought in the C and C++ community.
The first group, largely made of C programmers, argues that the second sentence in the C89 standard was normative: it described the set of permissible behaviours. So "undefined behaviour" is only "undefined" in the sense that the standard does not require which of the permissible behaviours an implementation may do.
The second group, largely made of "standards lawyers" and open source C compiler implementors, point out that, under ISO rules, moving the second sentence to an explanatory note and changing the word "permissible" to "possible" means that it is not normative. These are merely possible behaviours, but because the standard imposes no requirements, any behaviour is possible.
This is also known as a "nasal demon", because the compiler making demons fly out of your nose is also a possible behaviour.
This is a problem for many C programmers, since it meant that WG14 declared a lot of customary C usage to be undefined behaviour. Chris Lattner of LLVM put it this way: "huge bodies of C code are land mines just waiting to explode."
So, for example, if you ever write this:
i << 32 If i is a 32-bit integer, shifting it left by 32 is undefined behaviour. According to the second interpretation, any instance of this anywhere on an execution path renders the whole program semantically meaningless. And specifically, a compiler may assume that undefined behaviour can never happen and optimise your code accordingly.
This brings us to SPECint, the standard suite of integer benchmarks maintained by the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. This set of benchmarks is how C compiler vendors evaluate and market their code-generation and optimisation performance.
I quoted it because of this phrase "@MatthieuM. Don't discount philosophical differences: " So, if it gave that gist... I achieved exactly what I wanted -- demonstrate that philosophy... IT IS NOT in dusty old books. It's are in flesh and bones of modern techs. ;-p
...not consciousness... more like a "will" (as in will to power). the more "freedom" in the algorithm, the more "self-will" gained in the machine/substrate
//...Consciousness emergent from the freedom within the algorithms?
When we'd master complexity techs (that, that can create interstellar seeds), and would model that consciousness... THEN, we'd have definite answers you so desire... NOT.)))
71 comments:
-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew
If it succeeds in the circumstance, it's wisdom, if it fails, stupidity. Mostly, it's a rationalization for acting... or NOT.
October 31, 2025 at 10:56 AM
Apt to brawl against definitions?
Cambridge Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org › dictionary › wisdom
— the ability to make good judgments based on what you have learned from your experience, or the knowledge and understanding that gives you this ability.
WISDOM Definition & Meaning
Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com › ...
— 1. a : ability to discern inner qualities and relationships : insight b : good sense : judgment c : generally accepted belief
Synonyms of wisdom
Pearl of wisdom
Conventional Wisdom
Wisdom
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › ...
Wisdom, also known as sapience, is the ability to apply knowledge, experience, and good judgment to navigate life's complexities.
That what you say... that is ordinary smartness(or smartyness ;-p)
You really think that those "definitions" adequately capture 35 Platonic dialogues? Conventional wisdom is the wisdom of the powerless (hysteric or analyst discourse). Wisdom is usually the wisdom of power or informed judgement regarding power (master or academic discourse). Hence Plato distinguishes (Wisdom:Justice) by this power dynamic... to act or not act/ intervene (Courage:Temperance) (success in achieving ends) or Cowardice:Rashness (failure in achieving ends).
What is sovereignty but the right to make exceptions (judge, in the case of power) as to whether justice is merited, or reserved to the benefit of the sovereign.
Hence Hesiod's "wisdom" in "Works and Days"...
[25] Perses, lay up these things in your heart, and do not let that Strife who delights in mischief hold your heart back from work, while you peep and peer and listen to the wrangles of the court-house. Little concern has he with quarrels and courts who has not a year's victuals laid up betimes, even that which the earth bears, Demeter's grain. When you have got plenty of that, you can raise disputes and strive to get another's goods. But you shall have no second chance to deal so again: nay, let us settle our dispute here with true judgement divided our inheritance, but you seized the greater share and carried it off, greatly swelling the glory of our bribe-swallowing lords who love to judge such a cause as this. Fools! They know not how much more the half is than the whole, nor what great advantage there is in mallow and asphodel [poor man's fare].
Wisdom (much as power) is "subjective"
wisdom (IQ) ... courage (AQ) AQ=Athletic Quotient) What is one without the other?
What is the likely result, one w/o the other? Success? Or Failure?
Like Judah Ben Hur, you must learn to drive the quadriga... Plato's chariot (Phaedrus).
Courage:Temperance::Wisdom:Justice
Apollo is not as good a dancer as Dionysus. Sometimes the wine needs less water.
The "habits" of muscle memory without the interference of thought/ mind.
Virtue is a habit, and not a faculty or a passion.
-George Boole, "An Investigation of the Laws of Thought"
The time for thought in Achilles is before and after the battle, not during.
...When should I break the pattern? The leaves at the Oracle of Dodona begin to shake. Look, here comes Kairos! Now!
:P
//You really think that those "definitions" adequately capture 35 Platonic dialogues?
Still... wanna brawl against definitions? :-p
Indiana Jones Wiki | Fandom
https://indianajones.fandom.com/wiki/Plato_(donkey)
Plato was a donkey owned by a farmer called Aristotle. It was Aristotle's wife who named the donkey, so her husband would have somebody to talk to.
//Wisdom is usually the wisdom of power or informed judgement regarding power (master or academic discourse).
BS.
You never was in position of power, aren't ya?
And never gave yourself a hassle to observe ones?
They are... most powerles creatures (e.g. Damocles Sword)
// to act or not act/ intervene (Courage:Temperance) (success in achieving ends) or Cowardice:Rashness (failure in achieving ends).
Yap. Because he did not know about Law of Unpredictable Consequences.
Poor Plato
//Wisdom (much as power) is "subjective"
Yap. That's what that who "have power" preaching.
Because?
That is SOLE source of their "power".
I was giving to you that text.
About MYOB
Looking for a story that possibly started "MYOB"
Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange
https://scifi.stackexchange.com › ...
20 черв. 2024 р. — A ship, from the empire, lands, and soldiers get out and try to take over. The residents resist by saying "MYOB" ("mind your own business").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Explosion
The Great Explosion is a satirical science fiction novel by English writer Eric Frank Russell, first published in 1962. The story is divided into three sections. The final section is based on Russell's 1951 short story "...And Then There Were None". Twenty-three years after the novel was published, it won a Prometheus Hall of Fame Award.
//wisdom (IQ) ... courage (AQ) AQ=Athletic Quotient) What is one without the other?
In our day it enough to have just ONE finger and ONE hand... to demonstrate act of courage -- to kill your enemy.(but still TOO MUCH for american pussies, yawn)
//What is the likely result, one w/o the other? Success? Or Failure?
Brainless. Yawn.
Both -- brainless.
//Like Judah Ben Hur, you must learn to drive the quadriga...
Yawn. Outdated.
In times of robots and self-driving cars.
MYOB - "I would prefer not to" (Bartleby)
outdated? I don't think so.
A king who would fight his own battles, THAT would be something!
Melville (American) published Bartleby in December of 1853. Outdated?
btw - After Pokrovsk... Kairos? He may have passed by....
Shakespeare, "Hamlet" Now, whether it be Bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple Of thinking too precisely on the event, A thought which, quarter'd, hath but one part wisdom And ever three parts coward, I do not know Why yet I live to say 'This thing's to do;' Sith I have cause and will and strength and means To do't.
Cause/will? Maybe. Stregnth/means? Doubtful.
And by a prudent flight and cunning save A life which valour could not, from the grave. A better buckler I can soon regain, But who can get another life again? - Archilochus
...or ἢ τὰν ἢ ἐπὶ τᾶς - A Spartan mother
Wisdoms are always subjective rationalizations... one leading to success, another to failure. Opposed in dialectic.
One 'epic", the other "lyrical". One benefits the group, the other, an individual.
Altruism benefits family members (w/ shared genes)(kin selection)
Sexual Reproduction only benefits the Sex gene (at expense of the rest)
Some genes aren't influenced by natural selection (can't affect meaningful traits)... so it's a random process (genetic drift)
Genes have no agency. They can only affect one or many traits/ combined traits
Think of evolution at the level of the gene, not of the individual or group of individuals
...and even wounded in em? Like into his ear? ;-)
It's = or ≠?
//Melville (American) published Bartleby in December of 1853. Outdated?
As everything that are traditional culture. Yawn.
//btw - After Pokrovsk... Kairos? He may have passed by...
???
//Wisdoms are always subjective rationalizations... one leading to success, another to failure. Opposed in dialectic.
Again. "If there many wisdoms -- there is none". Yawn.
//One benefits the group, the other, an individual.
Individual... is nothing.
Literally, even in our everyday life we start to noticing someone... only when they disappear.
Yawn.
Power of Nothingness!
//Think of evolution at the level of the gene, not of the individual or group of individuals
Too shallow. Yawn.
Agamemnon wasn't a king known for forbearing insults.
Witness this army of such mass and charge,
Led by a delicate and tender prince,
Whose spirit with divine ambition puffed
Makes mouths at the invisible event,
Exposing what is mortal and unsure
To all that fortune, death, and danger dare,
Even for an eggshell. Rightly to be great
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw
When honor’s at the stake. How stand I, then,
That have a father killed, a mother stained,
Excitements of my reason and my blood,
And let all sleep, while to my shame I see
The imminent death of twenty thousand men
That for a fantasy and trick of fame
Go to their graves like beds, fight for a plot
Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause,
Which is not tomb enough and continent
To hide the slain? O, from this time forth
My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth!
=?
I had heard that Putin had offered a ceasefire, which Zelinsky declined...
Welcome to Heraclitus' river.
If you say so, Titus Andronicus. Where go your four and twenty sons?
Power of Nothingness... that then turns into Something.
Like here.
And in true C++ fashion, rather than first introduce a way for enum to express value conversion relationships, then introduce strong_ordering as a enum, they just worked around the issue :/ –
Matthieu M.
Commentedyesterday
1
@MatthieuM. Don't discount philosophical differences: e.g. "enums are basically syntactic sugar around ints, whereas is-a relationships (strong_ordering is-a partial_ordering) are best expressed in C++ as class hierarchies". –
R.M.
Commented3 hours ago
2
@R.M.: Except that strong_ordering does not inherit from partial_ordering, instead it defines a conversion operator towards it. –
Matthieu M.
Commented1 hour ago
@MatthieuM. alternately, they haven't expanded switch to class types (that don't implicitly convert to integral types) yet –
Caleth
Commented23 mins ago
Just a mere hours ago, it did not existed.
And as such -- it would be impossible for me to copy-paste it here. ;-)
Heard? %)))
...that makes the whole (individual) greater than the sum of its' parts (cells/ genes). A new function/ intelligence to be conquered, emergent.
I gave pretty detailed ref of what MYOB mean.
And I vividly remember your ref.
But, hit me, I dunno how they relate.
And what can mean sitting in one sentence.
My foreigner's inaptness to blame... probably.
BS.
Stemming from our inability to consider that sum.
Yawn.
Ignoring my ref? As not too apparent?
About "king" shot into his ear... this summer.
Oh times, oh mores. Forget such seminal event. ;-p
I get the gist, but the rest goes over my head.
Trancends/ Overflows into a new "space" (Hilbert/ tensor)
Saw news piece
Oh.
Yet one good for copy-pasting.
See... that is not just mind/word games... as in pure philosophical talks.
That is words that DO CREATE things.
And even can create death.
Note that in the second sentence, the word "permissible" was changed to the word "possible".
This has resulted in two schools of thought in the C and C++ community.
The first group, largely made of C programmers, argues that the second sentence in the C89 standard was normative: it described the set of permissible behaviours. So "undefined behaviour" is only "undefined" in the sense that the standard does not require which of the permissible behaviours an implementation may do.
The second group, largely made of "standards lawyers" and open source C compiler implementors, point out that, under ISO rules, moving the second sentence to an explanatory note and changing the word "permissible" to "possible" means that it is not normative. These are merely possible behaviours, but because the standard imposes no requirements, any behaviour is possible.
This is also known as a "nasal demon", because the compiler making demons fly out of your nose is also a possible behaviour.
This is a problem for many C programmers, since it meant that WG14 declared a lot of customary C usage to be undefined behaviour. Chris Lattner of LLVM put it this way: "huge bodies of C code are land mines just waiting to explode."
So, for example, if you ever write this:
i << 32
If i is a 32-bit integer, shifting it left by 32 is undefined behaviour. According to the second interpretation, any instance of this anywhere on an execution path renders the whole program semantically meaningless. And specifically, a compiler may assume that undefined behaviour can never happen and optimise your code accordingly.
This brings us to SPECint, the standard suite of integer benchmarks maintained by the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. This set of benchmarks is how C compiler vendors evaluate and market their code-generation and optimisation performance.
Oh.
Yet one good for copy-pasting.
See... that is not just mind/word games... as in pure philosophical talks.
That is words that DO CREATE things.
And even can create death.
Note that in the second sentence, the word "permissible" was changed to the word "possible".
This has resulted in two schools of thought in the C and C++ community.
The first group, largely made of C programmers, argues that the second sentence in the C89 standard was normative: it described the set of permissible behaviours. So "undefined behaviour" is only "undefined" in the sense that the standard does not require which of the permissible behaviours an implementation may do.
The second group, largely made of "standards lawyers" and open source C compiler implementors, point out that, under ISO rules, moving the second sentence to an explanatory note and changing the word "permissible" to "possible" means that it is not normative. These are merely possible behaviours, but because the standard imposes no requirements, any behaviour is possible.
This is also known as a "nasal demon", because the compiler making demons fly out of your nose is also a possible behaviour.
This is a problem for many C programmers, since it meant that WG14 declared a lot of customary C usage to be undefined behaviour. Chris Lattner of LLVM put it this way: "huge bodies of C code are land mines just waiting to explode."
So, for example, if you ever write this:
i << 32
If i is a 32-bit integer, shifting it left by 32 is undefined behaviour. According to the second interpretation, any instance of this anywhere on an execution path renders the whole program semantically meaningless. And specifically, a compiler may assume that undefined behaviour can never happen and optimise your code accordingly.
This brings us to SPECint, the standard suite of integer benchmarks maintained by the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. This set of benchmarks is how C compiler vendors evaluate and market their code-generation and optimisation performance.
I quoted it because of this phrase "@MatthieuM. Don't discount philosophical differences: "
So, if it gave that gist... I achieved exactly what I wanted -- demonstrate that philosophy... IT IS NOT in dusty old books. It's are in flesh and bones of modern techs. ;-p
BS.
That is our INABILITY to count even... that things.
Yawn.
So we come to that dastardly, hands-down, mind-numbing simplifications.
Whatever.
Why you care, even?
Yawn.
Kairos doesn't like to run in circles.
You Mind your own business vs I'll Mind my Own Business?
You know how I love Lindy...
I missed it, but Trump and Agamemnon are much the same "type". They want "wise" deals that benefit themselves (not "justice")
Cui bono!
Yes, we used replace all the "mays/ cans" with "shalls"... @@
btw- What did you think of that emergent intelligence example in the Bubble sort example?
Computational functionalism.
...Consciousness emergent from the freedom within the algorithms?
...or in your case, the compilers (but running on a fixed, not variable, substrate)(so not a Turing machine).
...not consciousness... more like a "will" (as in will to power). the more "freedom" in the algorithm, the more "self-will" gained in the machine/substrate
//What did you think of that emergent intelligence example in the Bubble sort example?
Answered there... that that is totally not any news... for.
That's what Lem was talking about. That what I *independently* from him have had experienced as programmer.
That's what I was fuckingly was talking about here... for THREE years already.%)))
But. No hurry, no hussle... continue-continue. ;-)
//...Consciousness emergent from the freedom within the algorithms?
When we'd master complexity techs (that, that can create interstellar seeds), and would model that consciousness... THEN, we'd have definite answers you so desire... NOT.)))
I see... you didn't studied refs...
Digestion is not a rapid process. I have but one stomach, not seven. And I am but a very motley cow.
Exactly. What could Cassandra do with them? Abandon Troy?
How??? It??? Relates???
As I said... no hurry. :-p
Post a Comment