(Massive doses of vitamin D, followed by allergy pills seem to do the trick for me.)
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-07 05:52:00 UTC
(Massive doses of vitamin D, followed by allergy pills seem to do the trick for me.)
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-07 05:52:00 UTC
A THEORY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUSTIFICATION, CRITICISM AND MORALITY
If empiricists are correct, and that all memories are the product of observations (both internal and external), and that intuition serves as a search engine(which cognitive scientists seem to agree at present), and imagination a hypothetical engine(again a search engine), then all mental content originates with reality, all knowledge as theory, and the function of thinking, reasoning, and science are to criticize imaginary intuitions, hypotheses to see if they can take the standing of theories (which is analogous to belief), and law (which is analogous to norm, ritual, or sacred tenet).
The difference between justificationary and critical points of view buried unconsciously in our language, is that feeling, belief, knowledge and truth describe a justificationary epistemology, and intuition, hypothesis, theory and law describe a critical epistemology.
I would add that I believe (hypothesize) justificationary epistemology is necessary in highly interdependent small polities where most reproduction and production functions as a commons in which all members are shareholders; and therefore the use of most property, is as common property, and so even normative rules (the normative commons) must be justified to others. Whereas under an advanced economy, we are individual actors, and need not justify to others how we make use of resources – only that we do no harm to them. Under both Justification and Criticism we must warranty our words and deeds. Just as we do in all of life.
This is probably the correct interpretation of why we evolved from systems of beliefs (justifications within a commons) to systems of theories (criticisms under individual property rights) – we must claim knowledge is ethically and morally obtained and practiced. But what constitutes moral action changes as property is increasingly privatized. We move from needing permission to use property, to not. But in the process, we increasingly privatize responsibility for our actions as well.
It appears that all justification and criticism are merely the conditions of warranty under different structures of property. And that we have increasingly applied our cooperative methodology to those areas of the world where cooperation is no longer involved.
In other words, it was necessary to privatize property to gain the normative permission to seek the truth. Having privatized it, we have now obtained a condition where we see that the only truth possible is critical. And having abandoned morality from the pursuit of truth, it appears I am unconsciously, unknowingly, and unwittingly, reinserting it into the search for truth as a constraint upon the externalities produced by our search, in an effort to constrain people who would take advantage of the justificationary system for criminal, unethical, and immoral purposes to which it has been put for the past century and a half.
More to come as I drill into this further.
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-07 03:29:00 UTC
Ok. I give up. I can’t work today. I’m useless. (Sigh.)
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-06 11:16:00 UTC
Nothing better than phone calls telling you an investment that you thought had tanked was going to pay you back entirely. 🙂 Yummy. Not a LOT of money, but enough to put a smile on my face. lol
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-06 10:12:00 UTC
ARE WE DUE REPARATIONS FROM SOCIALISTS?
So now that we know that the cosmopolitan socialists and neo-puritans have caused this much damage to western civilization, are we due reparations? How will they provide us with restitution for their crimes?
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-06 09:11:00 UTC
MORAL SUPERIORITY BY REJECTION OR ACTION?
Well, you can claim moral superiority and reject the rest of society – accomplishing nothing other than a dramatic disapproval: the equivalent of a raspberry. Or you can make a plan, rally fellow warriors, and change society to suit your will. The moral question is simple: if you seek to impose greater suppression of free riding, and increase the requirement for voluntary exchange you are in fact, increasing the moral content of society. If you are increasing predation, parasitism and free riding, then you are acting immorally. But whether you use violence to achieve either end is immaterial. Violence can be put to good (suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation) or ill (increasing free riding, parasitism and predation.) So contrary to feminine sentiment, violence not only solves most conflict, it is necessary for the solution of conflict. Violence is a virtue, if put to virtuous ends. And the suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation is a virtuous end.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
L’viv Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-06 09:09:00 UTC
(fk. I am tryin’ to work here. lol)
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-06 09:03:00 UTC
WHATEVER TRUTH WE CHASE IS ACCIDENTAL – WE NEGOTIATE.
I am increasingly convinced that all thought, all conversation, all discourse, and all debate is not truth seeking but negotiation – whether we believe or desire to pursue the truth or not. And that those few of us who do seek truth only happen to do so because it coincidentally reflects our negotiating strategy.
I am fairly sure that this is correct. And that alternative explanations are remnants of the search for tribally homogeneous means of persuasion under the presumption of equality of interest and relative ability.
When in our present condition, in the absence of economic dependence upon the family and tribe, it appears that we participate in a division of knowledge and labor at individualistic atomicity, and that our different interests cannot be rationally accommodated – nor need they be. And attempts to do so are always and forever attempts at privatization.
And as such voluntary exchange (operational truth testing) and prices (amplitude of value) act as our only operationally possible forms of reason. So` the question is not what is best, but how to enable us to make use of one another’s information and demand, with the least distortion (dishonesty).
I just can’t decide whether it’s beautiful or horrible….
Michael Philip:
“Social negotiation”
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-06 08:47:00 UTC
What would I do without all my ‘managers’ in this movement to keep me in line? Seriously? It’s awesome. (thank you all)
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-06 06:50:00 UTC
Talking to Johannes. And am reminded that the Muslims have successfully weaponized the family, just as much as the west has weaponized truth and commons, just as much as germans have weaponized duty, just as much as jews have weaponized language.
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-06 06:41:00 UTC