Mar 27, 2020, 12:08 PM by Andrew M Gilmour
Jung approached consciousness empirically; like someone attempting to reverse engineer it. He looked at the outputs (myth, religion and art) and worked backwards. Unfortunately his fixation on illnesses limited the scope of his discoveries. There was the potential for him to create a complete model of the psyche. A western equivalent of the Upanishads or Kabbalah.
Mar 27, 2020, 12:08 PM by Andrew M Gilmour
Jung approached consciousness empirically; like someone attempting to reverse engineer it. He looked at the outputs (myth, religion and art) and worked backwards. Unfortunately his fixation on illnesses limited the scope of his discoveries. There was the potential for him to create a complete model of the psyche. A western equivalent of the Upanishads or Kabbalah.
Mar 27, 2020, 4:38 PM
—“UPB It’s built on non-contradiction. Making it’s epistemology rationalism; thereby ignoring: natural law, game theory, prisoner’s dilemma, etc.”—Andrew M Gilmour —“UPB is Kantianism (Hoppeanism) for fever-level IQs. It is the language of an adolescent just learning to venture beyond his mother’s purview. This has been his project from the outset (DEFOOing). He never completed the developmental arc. … Man requires information, not imperative.”—James Krieger —“I can only unite the libertarian, conservative, and religious if I restore responsibility of the militia of every able bodied man to bear the cost of the organized use of violence to enforce our demand for sovereignty and reciprocity, truth and duty, excellence and beauty, jury and law, family and kin, commons and capitalization as the central objects of social organization and political policy. To do that we require an intellectual vanguard. The classical libertarians have always been our intellectual wing, the conservatives decidedly anti-intellectual, and the religious conservatives hostile to the intellectual. I have to deprive the libertarian intellectual class of false promise of freedom from the cost of organized violence in a universal militia of kin, and to together we must bear the cost of depriving the left of freedom from the cost of hyper-consumption and dysgenic reproduction and the hedonism of the individual’s maximization of consumption as the central object of policy and social organization. The left is cancerous growth of man on both this planet, mankind, man’s future, and the possibility of the transcendence of man into the gods we might yet be.”— Curt Doolittle
Sovereignty = Responsibility.
Mar 27, 2020, 4:38 PM
—“UPB It’s built on non-contradiction. Making it’s epistemology rationalism; thereby ignoring: natural law, game theory, prisoner’s dilemma, etc.”—Andrew M Gilmour —“UPB is Kantianism (Hoppeanism) for fever-level IQs. It is the language of an adolescent just learning to venture beyond his mother’s purview. This has been his project from the outset (DEFOOing). He never completed the developmental arc. … Man requires information, not imperative.”—James Krieger —“I can only unite the libertarian, conservative, and religious if I restore responsibility of the militia of every able bodied man to bear the cost of the organized use of violence to enforce our demand for sovereignty and reciprocity, truth and duty, excellence and beauty, jury and law, family and kin, commons and capitalization as the central objects of social organization and political policy. To do that we require an intellectual vanguard. The classical libertarians have always been our intellectual wing, the conservatives decidedly anti-intellectual, and the religious conservatives hostile to the intellectual. I have to deprive the libertarian intellectual class of false promise of freedom from the cost of organized violence in a universal militia of kin, and to together we must bear the cost of depriving the left of freedom from the cost of hyper-consumption and dysgenic reproduction and the hedonism of the individual’s maximization of consumption as the central object of policy and social organization. The left is cancerous growth of man on both this planet, mankind, man’s future, and the possibility of the transcendence of man into the gods we might yet be.”— Curt Doolittle
Sovereignty = Responsibility.
Mar 28, 2020, 1:46 PM (more nitwit kantians) SCIENCE Science is just the application of law to the market for knowledge. Norms for the limit of normative behavior. Law for the limit of criminal behavior. Tradition for the intergenerational transfer of science, norms, and laws. KNOWING A paradigm of related ideas that permit one to comprehend possibilities, think, and act upon them. Knowing, the utility of that knowledge, the utility of that knowledge across increasing numbers, and the truth or falsehood of that knowledge are four different things: 1-Personal Utility, 2-Cooperative Scope of Utility between people, 3-Utility in Resolving Conflicts Between Paradigms, and 4-Limiting others from spreading harmful ways of knowing. Young men are concerned with the first two, because you have no meaningful responsibilities. Those of us with responsibilities for groups of people care about all four. This is no different from the moral bias of the left specializing in just care and proportionality, while conservatives hold a consistent across the spectrum including reciprocity, loyalty ,and purity. DEMAND FOR METHODS OF KNOWING Yes, we need a series of paradigms across the spectrum from the intuitive to rational to the calculative in order to satisfy the demands for decidability suitable for satisfying the demand for infallibility across the spectrum of abilities of different human beings of different genetics, ages, experiences, and training. That does not mean that the most precise system of measurement (paradigm) will not continuously provide higher resolution and greater falsification over the more intuitive. It will. It is better to say that it is useful for the best of us to learn the empathic (child), rational(young adult), and scientific (mature adult) languages. THE FUNCTION OF SCIENCE IN THE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES OVER UTILITY OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE PROHIBITION OF FALSE AND HARMFUL KNOWLEDGE 1. Yes, we can and do use almost any paradigm or paradigms to imagine possibilities. 2. The means by which we come to an idea (hypothesis) has no bearing on the possibility, good or bad, truth or falsehood of it. 3. The premises that such an idea must depend upon limit the deductions, inductions, abductions, and free associations that one develops from it. 4. It’s that all arguments in all frames CAN be made commensurable by the same system of measurement. 5. That system of measurement consists of what which we can testify to. 6. Science is the discipline in which we test whether these are testifiable and as such whether they are false. 7. There is no more parsimonious commensurable internally consistent externally correspondent and complete paradigm by which to test all human thought. 8. It is this competition for coherence consistency correspondence and completeness that provides the test of whether propositions are comprehensible, undecidable, testifiable, a truth candidate, or false 9. This market has and continues to continuously reorganize the paradigm we call science and the sciences. There is no other method of testifying about reality than science. 10. That is the premise of science: testimony. Not the means of obtaining knowledge. The means of falsifying knowledge across contexts. AFTER GREAT INNOVATIONS IN PARADIGMS, THERE IS GREATER VALUE IN ELIMINATING ERROR THAN IDENTIFYING NEW TRUTHS This is the period we are in now. We are continuing to falsify the anti-Darwinan revolution by Marx, Freud, Boas, Derrida, Friedan, etc. SCIENCE CANT END, BECAUSE KNOWLEDGE CANT END, SO PARADIGMS CANT END 1. Even if we discover the fundamental rules of the universe across the spectrum – even to thoughts, we can develop potentially infinite combinations of paradigms upon them. In other words the utility of science will shift from discovery of fundamental laws to the greater application of those laws. 2. The spectrum of the most parsimonious paradigm shifts as opportunities for action shift. 3. The set of narratives across the spectrum of abilities will gradually adapt to the seizure of those opportunities. 4. We will always have empathic narratives, rational rules, and methods of calculation to satisfy the demands of people with lesser and greater ability, lesser and greater agency, and lesser and greater responsibility. KNOWLEDGE IS LIMITED BY AGENCY At some point we cannot easily learn more without acting. At present we cannot afford to run tests in physics and medicine. And agency is limited by organization of energy. MATHEMATICS Mathematics (the logic of a positional names) is the simplest possible language (paradigm, logic, grammar, vocabulary, syntax) of constant relations. It has only one relation: position. Because it has only one possible constant relation, it is far less subject to error than all other languages.
Mar 28, 2020, 1:46 PM (more nitwit kantians) SCIENCE Science is just the application of law to the market for knowledge. Norms for the limit of normative behavior. Law for the limit of criminal behavior. Tradition for the intergenerational transfer of science, norms, and laws. KNOWING A paradigm of related ideas that permit one to comprehend possibilities, think, and act upon them. Knowing, the utility of that knowledge, the utility of that knowledge across increasing numbers, and the truth or falsehood of that knowledge are four different things: 1-Personal Utility, 2-Cooperative Scope of Utility between people, 3-Utility in Resolving Conflicts Between Paradigms, and 4-Limiting others from spreading harmful ways of knowing. Young men are concerned with the first two, because you have no meaningful responsibilities. Those of us with responsibilities for groups of people care about all four. This is no different from the moral bias of the left specializing in just care and proportionality, while conservatives hold a consistent across the spectrum including reciprocity, loyalty ,and purity. DEMAND FOR METHODS OF KNOWING Yes, we need a series of paradigms across the spectrum from the intuitive to rational to the calculative in order to satisfy the demands for decidability suitable for satisfying the demand for infallibility across the spectrum of abilities of different human beings of different genetics, ages, experiences, and training. That does not mean that the most precise system of measurement (paradigm) will not continuously provide higher resolution and greater falsification over the more intuitive. It will. It is better to say that it is useful for the best of us to learn the empathic (child), rational(young adult), and scientific (mature adult) languages. THE FUNCTION OF SCIENCE IN THE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES OVER UTILITY OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE PROHIBITION OF FALSE AND HARMFUL KNOWLEDGE 1. Yes, we can and do use almost any paradigm or paradigms to imagine possibilities. 2. The means by which we come to an idea (hypothesis) has no bearing on the possibility, good or bad, truth or falsehood of it. 3. The premises that such an idea must depend upon limit the deductions, inductions, abductions, and free associations that one develops from it. 4. It’s that all arguments in all frames CAN be made commensurable by the same system of measurement. 5. That system of measurement consists of what which we can testify to. 6. Science is the discipline in which we test whether these are testifiable and as such whether they are false. 7. There is no more parsimonious commensurable internally consistent externally correspondent and complete paradigm by which to test all human thought. 8. It is this competition for coherence consistency correspondence and completeness that provides the test of whether propositions are comprehensible, undecidable, testifiable, a truth candidate, or false 9. This market has and continues to continuously reorganize the paradigm we call science and the sciences. There is no other method of testifying about reality than science. 10. That is the premise of science: testimony. Not the means of obtaining knowledge. The means of falsifying knowledge across contexts. AFTER GREAT INNOVATIONS IN PARADIGMS, THERE IS GREATER VALUE IN ELIMINATING ERROR THAN IDENTIFYING NEW TRUTHS This is the period we are in now. We are continuing to falsify the anti-Darwinan revolution by Marx, Freud, Boas, Derrida, Friedan, etc. SCIENCE CANT END, BECAUSE KNOWLEDGE CANT END, SO PARADIGMS CANT END 1. Even if we discover the fundamental rules of the universe across the spectrum – even to thoughts, we can develop potentially infinite combinations of paradigms upon them. In other words the utility of science will shift from discovery of fundamental laws to the greater application of those laws. 2. The spectrum of the most parsimonious paradigm shifts as opportunities for action shift. 3. The set of narratives across the spectrum of abilities will gradually adapt to the seizure of those opportunities. 4. We will always have empathic narratives, rational rules, and methods of calculation to satisfy the demands of people with lesser and greater ability, lesser and greater agency, and lesser and greater responsibility. KNOWLEDGE IS LIMITED BY AGENCY At some point we cannot easily learn more without acting. At present we cannot afford to run tests in physics and medicine. And agency is limited by organization of energy. MATHEMATICS Mathematics (the logic of a positional names) is the simplest possible language (paradigm, logic, grammar, vocabulary, syntax) of constant relations. It has only one relation: position. Because it has only one possible constant relation, it is far less subject to error than all other languages.
Mar 28, 2020, 2:32 PM (in response to hate from a universalist libertarian)
—“Doolittle needs to come up with his own descriptor. By his own admission, Propertarianism no longer fits. He long ago abandoned any propertarian roots he may have had, denying any propositional aspects of human culture in favor of racial collectivism. A ludicrous course down a blind alley, easily exposed by observing the changes in European behavior effected by the Frankfurt School’s “long march through the institutions”.— Karl Brooks
If you mean I attack every sacred cow, and address every taboo in my search for the truth as a means of ending the current attack on western civilization – then that’s true. If you mean I am no longer a universalist – I never was. If you mean I ever denied the reality of human differences given the vast disparity in the size of the underclasses, and the vast evidence of racial competition in heterogeneous societies, or the failure of every heterogeneous society in history – I never did. If you mean by “propertarian” a system of measurement created by reducing all questions of social science to tests of property – I still am. If you mean I am a universal nationalist – I am. If you mean I have come to the conclusion that western civlization is demonstrably superior and articulated why in great detail -I have. If you mean I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the genetic differences between groups are insurmountable in a heterogeneous polity – then I have. I If you mean separatism is the only method of preserving that civlization because of demographic disparities – yes it does.If you mean I want other than the best for all other people – no it doesn’t. If you mean to suggest that there is any better way of life for all people without imposing costs upon others, than low power distance of many small nation states is the optimum human order – then you err. PREMISE: our differences in demand for commons can only be ameliorated by political separation, and our satisfaction for goods services and information can be satisfied by international trade. This is a purely empirical statement. I can find no evidence in history to counter it. “All People Demonstrate Kin Selection and Kin Preference. All heterogeneous groups self sort, and in proximity come into conflict. So separate and Carry Your Own Weight”
Mar 28, 2020, 2:32 PM (in response to hate from a universalist libertarian)
—“Doolittle needs to come up with his own descriptor. By his own admission, Propertarianism no longer fits. He long ago abandoned any propertarian roots he may have had, denying any propositional aspects of human culture in favor of racial collectivism. A ludicrous course down a blind alley, easily exposed by observing the changes in European behavior effected by the Frankfurt School’s “long march through the institutions”.— Karl Brooks
If you mean I attack every sacred cow, and address every taboo in my search for the truth as a means of ending the current attack on western civilization – then that’s true. If you mean I am no longer a universalist – I never was. If you mean I ever denied the reality of human differences given the vast disparity in the size of the underclasses, and the vast evidence of racial competition in heterogeneous societies, or the failure of every heterogeneous society in history – I never did. If you mean by “propertarian” a system of measurement created by reducing all questions of social science to tests of property – I still am. If you mean I am a universal nationalist – I am. If you mean I have come to the conclusion that western civlization is demonstrably superior and articulated why in great detail -I have. If you mean I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the genetic differences between groups are insurmountable in a heterogeneous polity – then I have. I If you mean separatism is the only method of preserving that civlization because of demographic disparities – yes it does.If you mean I want other than the best for all other people – no it doesn’t. If you mean to suggest that there is any better way of life for all people without imposing costs upon others, than low power distance of many small nation states is the optimum human order – then you err. PREMISE: our differences in demand for commons can only be ameliorated by political separation, and our satisfaction for goods services and information can be satisfied by international trade. This is a purely empirical statement. I can find no evidence in history to counter it. “All People Demonstrate Kin Selection and Kin Preference. All heterogeneous groups self sort, and in proximity come into conflict. So separate and Carry Your Own Weight”
Mar 29, 2020, 11:08 AM
—“It’s amazing how few people have really internalised what is coming in the next month. Especially in the US. Not the human damage or the economic damage that is coming.”– Iron Economist — “I’m pretty terrified but I think people many people are in a state of hopeful denial”-JayMan @JayMan471
I’m not in hopeful denial. I’m just hopeful that the false promise of the 20th is over. The century of utopian pseudoscience, sophistry, and darwinian-denial is done. It may be an ‘expensive correction’. But it’s better than the alternatives.
Mar 29, 2020, 11:08 AM
—“It’s amazing how few people have really internalised what is coming in the next month. Especially in the US. Not the human damage or the economic damage that is coming.”– Iron Economist — “I’m pretty terrified but I think people many people are in a state of hopeful denial”-JayMan @JayMan471
I’m not in hopeful denial. I’m just hopeful that the false promise of the 20th is over. The century of utopian pseudoscience, sophistry, and darwinian-denial is done. It may be an ‘expensive correction’. But it’s better than the alternatives.