Category: Epistemology and Method

IS TRUTH THE RESULT OF “FEELZ”? (NO). The neurology says it’s because of the absence of feels. Given the absence of intuition all that remains is consistency correspondence and possibility. Females need intuition for children. Some of us maintain the feminine. Some of us are free of it. Rule(M) > Govern(MF) > Obey(F) Well, that’s an implication that there is not one most parsimonious, consistent, correspondent, and actionable paradigm for producing decidability. But there is. I’m trying to eliminate the left’s method of lying. The problem is, that eliminates everyone’s method of lying. The fact that it’s cognitively masculine is merely a fact. The fact that alternatives appear to be cognitively feminine is merely a fact. Those are the two directions of cognitive bias the brain can and does evolve. So if we want to say we need narratives that assist the range of human beings across the cognitive spectrum in coordinating their actions then that is fine. As long as they aren’t false. And as long as they don’t persist the Abrahamic method of deception. Which is ‘the problem’. So just as we need heroic ethics(empathy), rule ethics (reason), and outcome ethics(knowledge), we need Mythology(empathy), Philosophy(reason), and Science(Evidence), because we are children, adults, and aged. And all three must be coherent and scale up and down gracefully w/ us. Yes but reality is a costly data and algorithm set, given the distribution of age, and ability. We must provide wisdom lit for the young to old, and dim to wise. So the problem I see is that while I might state the first causes, they are too precise a tool for imprecise minds. Twitter and FB are sketchpads that assist in understanding how to simplify complex ideas so that they are within reach of the better of the common folk. But vocabularies reflect associative paradigms whether physical-actionable-observable, verbal-analogistic-sophistic, or intuitionistic-emotional-occult. There are only so many logics available to the human mind since we are always dependent upon those three human faculties. So it is always possible to disambiguate any claim whether physical, verbal, or intuitionistic because we can only associate those three categories. and falsification is dependent on that sequence : auto-association(memory) > intuition(model) > organization(language) > action It is this possibility of disambiguation which allows commensurability between the three sensory paradigms., Its this commensurability and disambiguation and deflation that the mystic and the sophist hates, because it eliminates loading framing and suggestion (manipulation). On the other hand we cannot take the simple mind of man, and his unorganized instincts and make him a fully human agent without a pedagogical sequence. Of narrative, to general rule, to specific prescription. So this is why we need a spectrum. But we cannot agree on that spectrum without a victor to which the other two factions must find survival by latching onto a competitor’s victory. My hypothesis is that truth is optimum competitive advantage, and philosophy and religion follow.

IS TRUTH THE RESULT OF “FEELZ”? (NO). The neurology says it’s because of the absence of feels. Given the absence of intuition all that remains is consistency correspondence and possibility. Females need intuition for children. Some of us maintain the feminine. Some of us are free of it. Rule(M) > Govern(MF) > Obey(F) Well, that’s an implication that there is not one most parsimonious, consistent, correspondent, and actionable paradigm for producing decidability. But there is. I’m trying to eliminate the left’s method of lying. The problem is, that eliminates everyone’s method of lying. The fact that it’s cognitively masculine is merely a fact. The fact that alternatives appear to be cognitively feminine is merely a fact. Those are the two directions of cognitive bias the brain can and does evolve. So if we want to say we need narratives that assist the range of human beings across the cognitive spectrum in coordinating their actions then that is fine. As long as they aren’t false. And as long as they don’t persist the Abrahamic method of deception. Which is ‘the problem’. So just as we need heroic ethics(empathy), rule ethics (reason), and outcome ethics(knowledge), we need Mythology(empathy), Philosophy(reason), and Science(Evidence), because we are children, adults, and aged. And all three must be coherent and scale up and down gracefully w/ us. Yes but reality is a costly data and algorithm set, given the distribution of age, and ability. We must provide wisdom lit for the young to old, and dim to wise. So the problem I see is that while I might state the first causes, they are too precise a tool for imprecise minds. Twitter and FB are sketchpads that assist in understanding how to simplify complex ideas so that they are within reach of the better of the common folk. But vocabularies reflect associative paradigms whether physical-actionable-observable, verbal-analogistic-sophistic, or intuitionistic-emotional-occult. There are only so many logics available to the human mind since we are always dependent upon those three human faculties. So it is always possible to disambiguate any claim whether physical, verbal, or intuitionistic because we can only associate those three categories. and falsification is dependent on that sequence : auto-association(memory) > intuition(model) > organization(language) > action It is this possibility of disambiguation which allows commensurability between the three sensory paradigms., Its this commensurability and disambiguation and deflation that the mystic and the sophist hates, because it eliminates loading framing and suggestion (manipulation). On the other hand we cannot take the simple mind of man, and his unorganized instincts and make him a fully human agent without a pedagogical sequence. Of narrative, to general rule, to specific prescription. So this is why we need a spectrum. But we cannot agree on that spectrum without a victor to which the other two factions must find survival by latching onto a competitor’s victory. My hypothesis is that truth is optimum competitive advantage, and philosophy and religion follow.