Yep. Free Speech, rather than Truthful Speech, was the error that let the frankfurt school win.
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-11 07:49:00 UTC
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
THE CHALLENGE OF USING PROPERTARIANISM’S TESTIMONIAL TRUTH: ‘TESTIFIABLE’, ‘TRUT
THE CHALLENGE OF USING PROPERTARIANISM’S TESTIMONIAL TRUTH: ‘TESTIFIABLE’, ‘TRUTHFUL’ AND ‘SCIENTIFIC’ ARE TAUTOLOGICAL TERMS.
I don’t use the criticism ‘unscientific’ because my definition of that term is terribly precise and not close enough to the vernacular to convey the same meaning.
I use the terms ‘truthful’ and ‘untruthful’ – after a great deal of experimentation – to refer to scientific and unscientific at this greater level of precision, where the terms ‘scientific’ and ‘truthful’ are tautological.
Unfortunately, that definition of scientific and truthful presents argumentative hurdle that prevents people from making meaningful (allegorical), pseudo-moral (normative), rational (internally consistent), logical (non operational), macro-economic (pseudoscientific) arguments that are not necessarily false in their entirety, but are necessarily not true in their entirety.
Which is terribly frustrating, because meaning (association) is something we so desperately want and need.
Imagine how christians felt when they were chastised for unscientific argument – when that meant ‘unempirical’. That is how rationalists feel for being chastised for using ‘untruthful’ when that means ‘non-operational’ (non-existential) and ‘unwarrantied’ (warrantied by criticism against imaginary content).
Rationalism – in the Kantian and continental sense – has lost all standing. It was invented as a means of deceit, and remains a means of deceit. Philosophy independent of truthfulness – just as claims of science without truthfulness – is an exceptional means of conducting deception.
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-09 01:32:00 UTC
-
MORE ON KANT Or let me put it another way: Science evolved to require operationa
MORE ON KANT
Or let me put it another way:
Science evolved to require operational definitions in the proposition of evidence and theory. The purpose of empirical argument is to make it extremely difficult to err, bias or deceive.
Philosophy by contrast is an extremely useful means of deception by analogy, loading, framing, overloading, suggestion. Kant invented a new means of conducting the same deception that was possible under babylonian-judeo-christian mysticism, by rational means, and in doing so created the most successful series of rationalists and pseudoscientists the world has ever known.
So, if we are to say, we gained enlightenment, we have to ask, whether Kant’s invention of a new means of deceit – one that persists today – was in fact “enlightening”. Or whether, like the other counter-enlightenment figures, he was merely inventing an alternative means of deceit, even more sophisticated than that of Abraham and Zoroaster.
So by such standards, he was a member of the enlightenment period, he was a liberal in the classical (upper middle class) sense, but not in the modern proletarian sense, and he was not enlightened in any sense other than replacing mysticism with rationalism.
The germans were right about the nature of man, and the anglos were wrong about the nature of man. The British were right that common law and empiricism were critical defenses against deceit and abuse, and the germans were wrong that rational philosophy could replace the church. (Which is why the European right still fails.) The jewish philosophers were both wrong about the nature of man AND wrong about the adoption of german rationalism as justification for the preservation of separatism.
Unfortunately, everyone was insufficiently correct.
And because of Marx and Keynes, we are starting to seriously pay for it.
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-04 10:17:00 UTC
-
“The only reason you spend so much time constructing elaborate moral justificati
–“The only reason you spend so much time constructing elaborate moral justifications is so that you will *feel* justified acting on your preferences. But people with contrary preferences wilI not be swayed by your justifications.”– Eli Harman
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-03 09:43:00 UTC
-
REPEAT AFTER ME: The Hierarchy of Logical Claims 1) In the choice between meanin
REPEAT AFTER ME: The Hierarchy of Logical Claims
1) In the choice between meaningful and logically consistent, meaningful fails.
2) In the choice between logically consistent and externally correspondent, logical consistency errs.
3) In the choice between externally correspondent and operationally possible, external correspondence errs.
4) I the choice between operationally possible and objectively moral, operationally possible errs.
5) In the choice between objectively moral, and competitive necessity, objectively moral fails.
6) In the choice between competitive necessity and kin selection, competitive necessity fails.
Source date (UTC): 2015-02-07 00:34:00 UTC
-
****BELIEF = JUSTIFICATION**** You may not know what you justify. But your mind
****BELIEF = JUSTIFICATION****
You may not know what you justify.
But your mind forces you to justify it.
Source date (UTC): 2015-02-06 12:36:00 UTC
-
REPEAT AFTER ME: The Warranty of Truthfulness 1) Internally Consistent – meaning
REPEAT AFTER ME: The Warranty of Truthfulness
1) Internally Consistent – meaning “logical”
2) Externally Correspondent – meaning “observably predictive”
3) Voluntarily transferred – meaning “ethical and moral”
4) Parsimoniously Stated – meaning “the limits are defined”
5) Operationally Defined – meaning “existentially possible”
6) Thoroughly Falsified – meaning you have tried to demonstrate these statements are false, and failed.
If you cannot demonstrate these, then you cannot warranty your statement is free of imaginary content, error, bias, obscurity, misrepresentation, and deceit.
REPEAT AFTER ME: The Hierarchy of Logical Claims
1) In the choice between meaningful and logically consistent, meaningful fails.
2) In the choice between logically consistent and externally correspondent, logical consistency errs.
3) In the choice between externally correspondent and operationally possible, external correspondence errs.
4) I the choice between operationally possible and objectively moral, operationally possible errs.
Source date (UTC): 2015-02-06 06:36:00 UTC
-
The Purpose of Being Well Read No Matter What Your IQ.
[T]he data is pretty good you know. You don’t have to be a genius. You just have to be well read. Being well read means reading the right books, not just any books – but the right books at your level of experience.
Now, the more causally accurate the argument, the less allegorical and more operationally descriptive it is. The more operationally descriptive it is, the further it is from experience. The further it is from experience the greater the detail needed to construct an analogy to experience. This is why simple narratives are easier to comprehend. They reduce complexity.
However, by reducing complexity, they obscure causality.
So that’s a hard way of stating that for about every 15 points of IQ we have entire literatures saying similar things at higher and lower orders of precision, and therefore greater and lesser degrees of content, that have higher correspondence with reality, or higher correspondence with our levels of perception and cognition.
The more literate you become, the more you grasp that there are a limited number of fundamental ideas. That those fundamental ideas are counter-intuitive. That evolution did not provide us with intrinsic means of grasping or using those fundamental ideas.
But that to cooperate in large numbers and to understand the structure of ourselves, our actions, and the universe in which we act, we must somehow master them. Either at high operational correspondence that few of us can master, or at low operational correspondence but high intuitive correspondence that all of us can master.
LAYERS OF INCREASING COMPLEXITY:
– Intuitive expressions <- pre rational reactions
– Moral arguments <- normative arguments
– Allegorical Arguments <- abstract arguments (most people)
– Historical Arguments <- facts (educated people)
– Scientific (Empirical) Arguments <- specialists in causal relations
– Economic Arguments <- specialists in emergent relations
– Ratio-scientific Arguments <- synthesis of specialized arguments
– Constructivist Explanations <- description of realityIt gets harder as you climb that ladder. Most of us can manage allegorical. But beginning with Historical arguments one enters the realm of empirical rather than intuitive, and that requires a lot more knowledge at each rung on the conceptual ladder.
If you cannot explain something in constructive (operational) language you do not understand it. But if you can at least explain something, then you are at least able to determine possible courses of action.
SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT TO READ?
You read what you can. You climb the ladder as far as you can. At some point you will get good at climbing the ladder. At some point you will realize that you can climb no further. For some of us, we learn how to add rungs to the ladder itself.
But the important thing to remember is that there are a very small number of fundamental concepts, and a very small number of intuitive falsehoods that evolution cursed us with.
At every 15 points of IQ someone is writing a book in your language. IN the level of abstraction that you can grasp.
Read the best book you can. Try the next book up the ladder. stop when you cant climb. And the truth is, that if you want to live a full life, you do not need to add to the ladder, only to climb beyond the intuitive limits that evolution left us with. At that point you will be close enough to the truth (correspondence with reality independent of human cognitive limitations) that you are no longer hindered by your mortal coil.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev -
The Purpose of Being Well Read No Matter What Your IQ.
[T]he data is pretty good you know. You don’t have to be a genius. You just have to be well read. Being well read means reading the right books, not just any books – but the right books at your level of experience.
Now, the more causally accurate the argument, the less allegorical and more operationally descriptive it is. The more operationally descriptive it is, the further it is from experience. The further it is from experience the greater the detail needed to construct an analogy to experience. This is why simple narratives are easier to comprehend. They reduce complexity.
However, by reducing complexity, they obscure causality.
So that’s a hard way of stating that for about every 15 points of IQ we have entire literatures saying similar things at higher and lower orders of precision, and therefore greater and lesser degrees of content, that have higher correspondence with reality, or higher correspondence with our levels of perception and cognition.
The more literate you become, the more you grasp that there are a limited number of fundamental ideas. That those fundamental ideas are counter-intuitive. That evolution did not provide us with intrinsic means of grasping or using those fundamental ideas.
But that to cooperate in large numbers and to understand the structure of ourselves, our actions, and the universe in which we act, we must somehow master them. Either at high operational correspondence that few of us can master, or at low operational correspondence but high intuitive correspondence that all of us can master.
LAYERS OF INCREASING COMPLEXITY:
– Intuitive expressions <- pre rational reactions
– Moral arguments <- normative arguments
– Allegorical Arguments <- abstract arguments (most people)
– Historical Arguments <- facts (educated people)
– Scientific (Empirical) Arguments <- specialists in causal relations
– Economic Arguments <- specialists in emergent relations
– Ratio-scientific Arguments <- synthesis of specialized arguments
– Constructivist Explanations <- description of realityIt gets harder as you climb that ladder. Most of us can manage allegorical. But beginning with Historical arguments one enters the realm of empirical rather than intuitive, and that requires a lot more knowledge at each rung on the conceptual ladder.
If you cannot explain something in constructive (operational) language you do not understand it. But if you can at least explain something, then you are at least able to determine possible courses of action.
SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT TO READ?
You read what you can. You climb the ladder as far as you can. At some point you will get good at climbing the ladder. At some point you will realize that you can climb no further. For some of us, we learn how to add rungs to the ladder itself.
But the important thing to remember is that there are a very small number of fundamental concepts, and a very small number of intuitive falsehoods that evolution cursed us with.
At every 15 points of IQ someone is writing a book in your language. IN the level of abstraction that you can grasp.
Read the best book you can. Try the next book up the ladder. stop when you cant climb. And the truth is, that if you want to live a full life, you do not need to add to the ladder, only to climb beyond the intuitive limits that evolution left us with. At that point you will be close enough to the truth (correspondence with reality independent of human cognitive limitations) that you are no longer hindered by your mortal coil.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev -
TRUE NAMES OF THINGS VERSUS NAMES OF OUR EXPERIENCES OF THEM If you can name a t
TRUE NAMES OF THINGS VERSUS NAMES OF OUR EXPERIENCES OF THEM
If you can name a thing. You can be free of, control, or kill a thing. Because to know the true name of a thing, is to know the cause and consequence of its existence, cleansed of imaginary information. We use many names. But most of our names are analogies to our own subjective experiences, rather than operational descriptions of the means by which things exist, change, and cease to exist. Meaning is cheap. Names of experiences are descriptions of how we feel, not the nature of the thing itself. Names of the actions needed to create, change, and uncreate something, tell us not what we imagine, not what we experience, but what exists.
The liars seduce us with meaning – cheapness.
Source date (UTC): 2015-02-03 04:00:00 UTC