said (2y ago #137 ):
How to Found a Great House
(https://mythpilot.substack.com/p/how-to-found-a-great-house)
said (1y ago #230 ):
So it's obvious that we should be founding great houses. Myth Pilot is right about that. It's obvious that patronage, good selection of clients, and high fertility are necessary. The part that doesn't make sense to me is the attempt to directly turn money into loyalty through gifts. I think rather you need a material-political project for this great house that the clients are organized around. Clients are rewarded to the extent that they are contributing to this project, enemies are punished to the extent they get in the way. This applies a teleological discipline to the whole thing that is necessary to make something living and not just a bunch of parasites.
Let's not forget that "parasitos" were uncomfortably close to this relation: people who come to your table and beg and flatter in exchange for food and such.
And my experience with various cults leads me to believe that a fixed concept of supported membership that isn't subjected to very strict productive/useful discipline will become dominated by flatterers, parasites, and cultists. The best people are demoralized by lack of discipline, and the worst feel entitled.
So here's my great house plan: the great house should declare itself in dedication to some particular gods or great project of culture and life, and rigorously build the machinery of sovereignty and material independence. Where are their great lands that produce organic food for their people on their own pattern of production? Where is their school that educates their own people (and children) in their own goals and ways? Where is their akademia where the best client fellows are supported in exchange for valuable sovereign cognition as mentats? Where are their hard material and security concerns staffed by their own people provisioning the life they envision together for themselves and whatever outsiders can pay? Those are the questions that the great man of the great house should be answering.
Given such an actually living culture with its own ways of thinking and living and doing, and its own sustainability, then you have a context to attach and reward clients in way that serves a real pattern of life and not just an expensive cult of flatterers. Such a house can last and accomplish great things.
Let's not forget that "parasitos" were uncomfortably close to this relation: people who come to your table and beg and flatter in exchange for food and such.
And my experience with various cults leads me to believe that a fixed concept of supported membership that isn't subjected to very strict productive/useful discipline will become dominated by flatterers, parasites, and cultists. The best people are demoralized by lack of discipline, and the worst feel entitled.
So here's my great house plan: the great house should declare itself in dedication to some particular gods or great project of culture and life, and rigorously build the machinery of sovereignty and material independence. Where are their great lands that produce organic food for their people on their own pattern of production? Where is their school that educates their own people (and children) in their own goals and ways? Where is their akademia where the best client fellows are supported in exchange for valuable sovereign cognition as mentats? Where are their hard material and security concerns staffed by their own people provisioning the life they envision together for themselves and whatever outsiders can pay? Those are the questions that the great man of the great house should be answering.
Given such an actually living culture with its own ways of thinking and living and doing, and its own sustainability, then you have a context to attach and reward clients in way that serves a real pattern of life and not just an expensive cult of flatterers. Such a house can last and accomplish great things.
said (1y ago #234 ):
The second post in the series goes into much more detail about motivation and the particular problems we need to solve to do this:
https://www.mythpilot.com/p/great-house-plan-ii
https://www.mythpilot.com/p/great-house-plan-ii
said (1y ago #257 ), referenced by >>1012:
It's interesting to see a funhouse-mirror version of my own thoughts. The assumptions are sci-fi fantastical - fertility will be way lower, infighting and defection will be way higher, and your descendants will be far more unaligned than this assumes. History is full of examples of powerful families, much more socially skilled and adept at this game than you. Some became great, but none of them on the scale MythPilot dreams of. You, improvising on the fly from first principles, will fall short of even their great families. But that may be enough.
On the other hand, there's something real here. Loyalty, friendship and community are at all-time lows. Community organizations have been hollowed out. It totally makes sense to buy people low and sell social goods high. Leavening the mix with business ties and intergenerational growth also makes sense.
But part of the reason community is lacking is because people are no longer capable of cooperation. Forget about buying loyal retainer families for life, first try getting a bunch of professionals to move into the same apartment building, or even sustain a potluck among busy families where each person takes on the duties of hosting. In practice, your brothers will be few, but the retainers will simply come if you are successful.
What's the realistic implementation? My sense: invest in local organizations, bond with the best people over a shared vision, and be loyal to and invest in those specific friends that you know to be of good character.
I have been doing this in a small way over the past few years by funding a few small high-impact local cultural organizations, and meeting and befriending the few obvious players keeping the ship afloat. Outside the top-tier orgs (famous symphonies and the like) the financial investment required to make an impact is surprisingly small, alignment and social interaction is more the limiting factor.
Worth noting that Elon got started in space by cutting a $10,000 check to the Mars Society, which got him introduced to leading aerospace thinkers in LA to narrow down and discipline his vision to what became SpaceX.
And the barriers to local political impact are amazingly small. The local township government has vacancies for positions on the zoning board and executive council for lack of volunteers, and local elections are decided with a margin of victory of 300 votes. With a small cadre doing outreach to a loosely aligned community, it would be quite possible to become a local kingmaker - I am currently a few aligned people short of tackling this but it is high on my list.
On the other hand, there's something real here. Loyalty, friendship and community are at all-time lows. Community organizations have been hollowed out. It totally makes sense to buy people low and sell social goods high. Leavening the mix with business ties and intergenerational growth also makes sense.
But part of the reason community is lacking is because people are no longer capable of cooperation. Forget about buying loyal retainer families for life, first try getting a bunch of professionals to move into the same apartment building, or even sustain a potluck among busy families where each person takes on the duties of hosting. In practice, your brothers will be few, but the retainers will simply come if you are successful.
What's the realistic implementation? My sense: invest in local organizations, bond with the best people over a shared vision, and be loyal to and invest in those specific friends that you know to be of good character.
I have been doing this in a small way over the past few years by funding a few small high-impact local cultural organizations, and meeting and befriending the few obvious players keeping the ship afloat. Outside the top-tier orgs (famous symphonies and the like) the financial investment required to make an impact is surprisingly small, alignment and social interaction is more the limiting factor.
Worth noting that Elon got started in space by cutting a $10,000 check to the Mars Society, which got him introduced to leading aerospace thinkers in LA to narrow down and discipline his vision to what became SpaceX.
And the barriers to local political impact are amazingly small. The local township government has vacancies for positions on the zoning board and executive council for lack of volunteers, and local elections are decided with a margin of victory of 300 votes. With a small cadre doing outreach to a loosely aligned community, it would be quite possible to become a local kingmaker - I am currently a few aligned people short of tackling this but it is high on my list.
said (1y ago #258 ):
(cont'd)
I agree with the first comment that an external vision has to be in play for both horizontal (between you and allies) and vertical (between you and children) alignment. Failure here is the default, even in actual religions.
Faith is for aligning brothers, cash is for aligning mercenaries. You need both, but brothers first.
As for aligning the children of your friends, I haven't thought that far ahead. I notice that among insular groups like conservative homeschoolers, the failure isn't quite in "formal values transmission" as the failure of the group to provide for the basic needs of the children. You invest intensively in homeschooling kids K-12, then when it comes time for them to find a career and get married you throw up your hands and say "well, idk, go to college or something I guess." Well, if secular world can provide the normal needs of a young man or woman better than your weird cult, you're not keeping them.
I agree with the first comment that an external vision has to be in play for both horizontal (between you and allies) and vertical (between you and children) alignment. Failure here is the default, even in actual religions.
Faith is for aligning brothers, cash is for aligning mercenaries. You need both, but brothers first.
As for aligning the children of your friends, I haven't thought that far ahead. I notice that among insular groups like conservative homeschoolers, the failure isn't quite in "formal values transmission" as the failure of the group to provide for the basic needs of the children. You invest intensively in homeschooling kids K-12, then when it comes time for them to find a career and get married you throw up your hands and say "well, idk, go to college or something I guess." Well, if secular world can provide the normal needs of a young man or woman better than your weird cult, you're not keeping them.
said (1y ago #260 ), referenced by >>291:
One more clear win is colocating with families, ideally in one big estate with multiple detached residences but more practicably by buying houses in walking distance in the same neighborhood. Parents + families of siblings + lots of cousins running around, lends itself to efficient batch cooking, babysitting trades, just a big QOL increase.
Again, reflecting on whether one could pull that off with one's own siblings and cousins, is a bucket of cold water on the difficulty of coordination here, even when the only sacrifice necessary for loyalty is a slightly longer commute or not the optimal real estate deal. I've seen some people pull it off though, one of the in-law relatives bought up a cul de sac and each of the siblings' families has a house of their own.
Again, reflecting on whether one could pull that off with one's own siblings and cousins, is a bucket of cold water on the difficulty of coordination here, even when the only sacrifice necessary for loyalty is a slightly longer commute or not the optimal real estate deal. I've seen some people pull it off though, one of the in-law relatives bought up a cul de sac and each of the siblings' families has a house of their own.
said (1y ago #291 ), referenced by >>320:
>>260
> One more clear win is colocating with families, ideally in one big estate with multiple detached residences
If anyone would like to tie themselves to the soil of a manor in this way, and feels an affinity for the Midwest, figure out a way to contact me, we have a few building plots left.
> One more clear win is colocating with families, ideally in one big estate with multiple detached residences
If anyone would like to tie themselves to the soil of a manor in this way, and feels an affinity for the Midwest, figure out a way to contact me, we have a few building plots left.
said (1y ago #619 ), referenced by >>620 >>1004:
Interestingly enough, Mr. Beast is a great example of an individual being able to localize a tribe around himself for the purposes of realizing his unique vision (make crazy and engaging youtube content). Apparently he lives at the end of a cul-de-sac in Greenville, NC. He's bought several houses on the same block and he's put his close friends and channel colleagues in them.
In this environment of rising housing costs, I often think how sustenance was provided directly through "chairs" in monasteries or universities when specie was scarce. A position of this kind implied "room" and "board." That is: the right to live in a fine stone building and eat meals that were directly provided. You often see monks complaining in primary sources that their customary dinner board was being reduced from 7 courses or 3 or likewise. The same arrangements persisted until modern times: UVA maintains "Lawn Rooms" that were the center of Jefferson's original designs as housing for students and faculty; these rooms are in use and maintain prestige to this this day.
When labor was cheap, corporate bodies like monasteries or sovereign states were able to organize the construction of these campuses at relatively low cost. Versailles was built by Louis XIV's corps of engineers; the actual structure of the palace comprised only about half of the building costs, the other half being the lavish furnishings. What could be accomplished today with a team of craftsmen and a fleet of stone-carving robots? Could a campus dedicated to some specific pursuit be built up out of no monetary cost on some parcel of land containing access to a quarry? If the structures were sufficiently beautiful the community would accumulate status as a point of visitation and study. What would these "secular monasteries" look like, each dedicated to the particular vision of its founder?
Despite the risks of parasites, I think material sustenance is extremely important, because we are material beings and the exchange of necessities is opportunity for fruitful mutuality. It will be best if these exchanges are ritually loaded so they have a different character than impersonal economic exchanges. An exchange of obligations which could only be accomplished by the specific individuals enmeshed in the community. IE renewal of right to room and board can only be made by the Founder or his successor, while fealty to the founding ideals could only be made by a loyal client and no one else. These loaded transactions (which modernity worked so hard to erase) would have the function of filtering out any who were seeking merely economic benefit.
In this environment of rising housing costs, I often think how sustenance was provided directly through "chairs" in monasteries or universities when specie was scarce. A position of this kind implied "room" and "board." That is: the right to live in a fine stone building and eat meals that were directly provided. You often see monks complaining in primary sources that their customary dinner board was being reduced from 7 courses or 3 or likewise. The same arrangements persisted until modern times: UVA maintains "Lawn Rooms" that were the center of Jefferson's original designs as housing for students and faculty; these rooms are in use and maintain prestige to this this day.
When labor was cheap, corporate bodies like monasteries or sovereign states were able to organize the construction of these campuses at relatively low cost. Versailles was built by Louis XIV's corps of engineers; the actual structure of the palace comprised only about half of the building costs, the other half being the lavish furnishings. What could be accomplished today with a team of craftsmen and a fleet of stone-carving robots? Could a campus dedicated to some specific pursuit be built up out of no monetary cost on some parcel of land containing access to a quarry? If the structures were sufficiently beautiful the community would accumulate status as a point of visitation and study. What would these "secular monasteries" look like, each dedicated to the particular vision of its founder?
Despite the risks of parasites, I think material sustenance is extremely important, because we are material beings and the exchange of necessities is opportunity for fruitful mutuality. It will be best if these exchanges are ritually loaded so they have a different character than impersonal economic exchanges. An exchange of obligations which could only be accomplished by the specific individuals enmeshed in the community. IE renewal of right to room and board can only be made by the Founder or his successor, while fealty to the founding ideals could only be made by a loyal client and no one else. These loaded transactions (which modernity worked so hard to erase) would have the function of filtering out any who were seeking merely economic benefit.
said (1y ago #620 ), referenced by >>1004:
>>619
We should definitely be building monastic campuses where people have room and board. The trouble is now more perhaps than in previous times land and labor are of high expense. Land actually isn't too bad. For several million dollars, which is not out of range of any well-exited tech worker, one can get a hundred acres of undeveloped land even in california. The scarce thing will be labor. Maybe if you're mr beast you can just recruit fans to build your grand stone palace. This will be a great filtering function. The people willing to do work will separate themselves from those only willing to parasite.
We should definitely be building monastic campuses where people have room and board. The trouble is now more perhaps than in previous times land and labor are of high expense. Land actually isn't too bad. For several million dollars, which is not out of range of any well-exited tech worker, one can get a hundred acres of undeveloped land even in california. The scarce thing will be labor. Maybe if you're mr beast you can just recruit fans to build your grand stone palace. This will be a great filtering function. The people willing to do work will separate themselves from those only willing to parasite.
said (1y ago #623 ), referenced by >>626:
I mean, people worked in monasteries. If your friends are not willing to do serious labor for you at below market comp, are they really are allies?
said (1y ago #626 ):
>>623
Well, you and your friends in your internal economy are hopefully getting a *better* deal than the open market, not a worse deal. So it's not so much about "below market" as "better total compensation but potentially less money". Don't forget quality of life factors being extremely inflated on-market, but provisionable for vastly less off-market.
Well, you and your friends in your internal economy are hopefully getting a *better* deal than the open market, not a worse deal. So it's not so much about "below market" as "better total compensation but potentially less money". Don't forget quality of life factors being extremely inflated on-market, but provisionable for vastly less off-market.
said (12mo ago #978 ):
> Versailles was built by Louis XIV's corps of engineers; the actual structure of the palace comprised only about half of the building costs, the other half being the lavish furnishings.
The lavish furnishings are a visual representation of the study of Ancient Greek myth that had been in vogue during the French Renaissance, I wonder if the budget was consciously planned to be balanced between material and social technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_appartement_du_roi
I find the hierarchy of the gods to be interesting: Diana, Mars, Mercury, Apollo, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus.
With reference to Dr. Alamariu's hypothesis, the oracle itself does not necessarily reveal a mythology directly. Can we define interpretatio sofichama? Which meme gods would you venerate?
The lavish furnishings are a visual representation of the study of Ancient Greek myth that had been in vogue during the French Renaissance, I wonder if the budget was consciously planned to be balanced between material and social technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_appartement_du_roi
I find the hierarchy of the gods to be interesting: Diana, Mars, Mercury, Apollo, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus.
With reference to Dr. Alamariu's hypothesis, the oracle itself does not necessarily reveal a mythology directly. Can we define interpretatio sofichama? Which meme gods would you venerate?
said (12mo ago #1004 ):
> Versailles was built by Louis XIV's corps of engineers; the actual structure of the palace comprised only about half of the building costs, the other half being the lavish furnishings.
This 50/50 split has been stuck in my head lately. It's a great way to show how even a small perspective change on a societal scale has huge effects.
I can easily imagine an alternate universe where me and all my friends live in 50% smaller houses/lots but they are decked out with lavish furnishings. I think it would be much better for everyone — omnipresent aesthetic contemplation of beautiful works, denser 'Wrath of Gnon' style towns and cities, and some of us would be able to create those beautiful works for our 'jobs'. No wonder people like Andre-Charles Boulle show up in the Grand Siecle.
The 50/50 split is downstream from a lot of other things, but even larping this baroque asset allocation scheme seems like it'd lead to a way more well-tempered life.
>>619
>>620
I'm surprised no one has posted the Carmelite Monks of Wyoming yet, they're doing the CNC-stone-carving-monastery playbook: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxiwEEhcZX0
I'm also reminded of a few artist-capitalist types who operate(d) similarly, namely Ettore Bugatti, Brunello Cucinelli, Horacio Pagani, and Hayao Miyazaki. All of them have some variation on an idyllic compound where they live, make their stuff, and host clients. Americans seem to be historically averse to this lifestyle, but I think it's about perfect if you archetype-identify with any of the above names.
This 50/50 split has been stuck in my head lately. It's a great way to show how even a small perspective change on a societal scale has huge effects.
I can easily imagine an alternate universe where me and all my friends live in 50% smaller houses/lots but they are decked out with lavish furnishings. I think it would be much better for everyone — omnipresent aesthetic contemplation of beautiful works, denser 'Wrath of Gnon' style towns and cities, and some of us would be able to create those beautiful works for our 'jobs'. No wonder people like Andre-Charles Boulle show up in the Grand Siecle.
The 50/50 split is downstream from a lot of other things, but even larping this baroque asset allocation scheme seems like it'd lead to a way more well-tempered life.
>>619
>>620
I'm surprised no one has posted the Carmelite Monks of Wyoming yet, they're doing the CNC-stone-carving-monastery playbook: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxiwEEhcZX0
I'm also reminded of a few artist-capitalist types who operate(d) similarly, namely Ettore Bugatti, Brunello Cucinelli, Horacio Pagani, and Hayao Miyazaki. All of them have some variation on an idyllic compound where they live, make their stuff, and host clients. Americans seem to be historically averse to this lifestyle, but I think it's about perfect if you archetype-identify with any of the above names.
said (12mo ago #1012 ):
This was an excellent thread.
While I agree with >>257
That it is pretty infeasible and poorly thought out, the idea certainly has some weight.
Perhaps on a much smaller scale even than a town/community it could work. Something like a house of aristocrats with a common alignment, or a house for which aristocrats seek more of something (spirituality, human action, purpose, legacy) could join and be part of a greater goal.
For example, a modern "aristocrat" could fund extra-governmental action. As simple as repairing a local park without permission or as complex as creating a private school district in their local community. These are PG examples.
Perhaps the vision of a Great House, should first be tried by a limited few working for a great man by their own volition because they align with his overall goals.
While I agree with >>257
That it is pretty infeasible and poorly thought out, the idea certainly has some weight.
Perhaps on a much smaller scale even than a town/community it could work. Something like a house of aristocrats with a common alignment, or a house for which aristocrats seek more of something (spirituality, human action, purpose, legacy) could join and be part of a greater goal.
For example, a modern "aristocrat" could fund extra-governmental action. As simple as repairing a local park without permission or as complex as creating a private school district in their local community. These are PG examples.
Perhaps the vision of a Great House, should first be tried by a limited few working for a great man by their own volition because they align with his overall goals.
said (11mo ago #1038 ):
Relatedly:
“At one point somebody criticizes Cyrus for this generosity and profligacy, pointing out that he has an army to feed and a war to win. Cyrus asks how much money might sit in his treasuries if he’d kept all the loot to himself, and the critic names some impossibly vast sum. Cyrus then smiles, and writes to all of his friends, asking them to send what money they can right away, as he’s fallen on hard times. The replies come back immediately, with many times more gold than the amount named, along with letters asking if he needs any more. Then he turns back to his foolish advisor: “You say I have no treasuries, but I make my friends wealthy, and my friends are my treasuries.”
Note the crucial difference that they weren't just a bunch of idle rich, there was a clear story about how cooperating would get loot for everyone. and favors were a way of maintaining the needed cohesion *and* a way of splitting the loot.
Aristocrats were not just random rich people, they had a specific pitch for why venture under the leadership will unlock value that can be shared by their followers. There needs to be an underlying business plan of sorts. What does that look like today?
“At one point somebody criticizes Cyrus for this generosity and profligacy, pointing out that he has an army to feed and a war to win. Cyrus asks how much money might sit in his treasuries if he’d kept all the loot to himself, and the critic names some impossibly vast sum. Cyrus then smiles, and writes to all of his friends, asking them to send what money they can right away, as he’s fallen on hard times. The replies come back immediately, with many times more gold than the amount named, along with letters asking if he needs any more. Then he turns back to his foolish advisor: “You say I have no treasuries, but I make my friends wealthy, and my friends are my treasuries.”
Note the crucial difference that they weren't just a bunch of idle rich, there was a clear story about how cooperating would get loot for everyone. and favors were a way of maintaining the needed cohesion *and* a way of splitting the loot.
Aristocrats were not just random rich people, they had a specific pitch for why venture under the leadership will unlock value that can be shared by their followers. There needs to be an underlying business plan of sorts. What does that look like today?
said (11mo ago #1056 ):
There are some interesting ideas about how to implement societal scalability around similar tenets:
http://sortocracy.org/
https://militia.money/
http://sortocracy.org/
https://militia.money/