IRONY OF REVERSAL OF TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD
Apparently I’m an extremist for following in the footsteps of Aristotle, Epicurus, Aurelius, Machiavelli, Galileo, Hume, Smith, Locke, Jefferson, Adams, Burke, Frederick II, Darwin, Nietzche, Hayek, Turing, Elizabeth II and Scalia.
Source date (UTC): 2021-02-03 14:57:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356980037464035332
(Metaphysics > Paradigm > Model > Frame )
Source date (UTC): 2021-02-03 04:19:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356819651158802432
Reply addressees: @Imperius__13
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356784278483464199
Thoughts: Language facility(recursion) > Language > Strategy > Paradigm > Story Mode (testimony, description, fiction, fictionalism, deceit) > Influence Mode(declarative, imperative, ostensive) > Vocabulary (phonology, morphology) > Grammar (logic) > Syntax (org of inferences)
Source date (UTC): 2021-02-02 18:46:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356675276252585985
You have me thinking…. (mode is necessary given paradigm and strategy, and therfore mode is a component of grammar dependent on paradigm and strategy. Very interesting.)
Source date (UTC): 2021-02-02 18:33:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356672131946405894
Reply addressees: @Imperius__13
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356671489093861378
And so isn’t the mode you’re talking about just a necessity of the strategy, paradigm, vocabulary and and grammar in any given language? Or that linguistics tends to ignore these variations of strategy, paradigm, vocabulary, grammar (logic) and mode?
Source date (UTC): 2021-02-02 18:27:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356670498541883393
Reply addressees: @Imperius__13
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356669875708657668
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@Imperius__13 Isn’t that just another way of saying that (a) the universe exists (b) we develop different group strategies, (c) we develop different paradigms, (d) we develop different frames within them (e) we develop different priorities in declarative, ostensive,and imperative to suit them?
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1356669875708657668
Isn’t that just another way of saying that (a) the universe exists (b) we develop different group strategies, (c) we develop different paradigms, (d) we develop different frames within them (e) we develop different priorities in declarative, ostensive,and imperative to suit them?
Source date (UTC): 2021-02-02 18:24:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356669875708657668
Reply addressees: @Imperius__13
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356669309943242755
Agreed. Positiva. How to rally people to, is different from how to prevent people from. Any positiva outcome that does not violate the laws of the universe is fine. That’s an aesthetic choice. I’m only making true-false, beneficial-harmful, evolutionary-devolutionary statements.
Source date (UTC): 2021-02-02 18:18:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356668428225048578
Reply addressees: @Imperius__13
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356666641304682497
I follow the second paragraph but I want to be clear on:
—“the modes of language coextensive.”—
Source date (UTC): 2021-02-02 17:47:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356660477863067648
Reply addressees: @Imperius__13
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356650398514348033
The function of science and natural law is continuous innovation and adaptation. The function of Theology, Philosophy, Pseudoscience, and Sophistry is to provide psychological comfort in relieving the stress of innovation, adaptation, productivity, reciprocity. Seeking the truth is always superior to seeking the preferential as a substitute. This is why every other people – every single one – other than European middle and upper classes failed evolution’s test of continuous adaptation and innovation. Non-european thought is almost universally dedicated to escapism. Because the value of cooperation is assumed to be infinite.
Body: Sense > Model(of existence) > Perception > Auto Association > Auto-Prediction > Valuation > Recursion:
Langauge facility (wayfinding): Continuous recursive disambiguation:
Promise: Speech: Existential > Declarative > Ostensive > Imperative > Agree/Not:
Evidence: Actions: Invariant .> True-False .> Correspondent-not > Success-Fail > Agree/Not
Recursion: Free Association > Hypothesis > Theory > Surviving Theory
Because: Relational Possibility > Self test > Demonstrated Test > Market Test That’s a description of how body, language facility, speech, action, and resulting evidence perform the function of the discovery of what’s not false. That’s the science: science is testimony that survives the test of realism, naturalism, consistency, correspondence, coherence, completeness, competitive parsimony, across the spectrum of dimensions perceivable by man. The elimination of opportunity for ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, and deceit.
(a) the universe exists (b) we develop different group strategies, (c) we develop different paradigms, (d) we develop different frames within them (e) we develop different priorities in declarative, ostensive,and imperative to suit them?
Human Language facility(recursion) > A Given Language > Strategy > Paradigm > Story Mode (testimony, description, fiction, fictionalism, deceit) > Influence Mode(declarative, imperative, ostensive) > Vocabulary (phonology, morphology) > Grammar (logic) > Syntax (organization of inferences) My argument is that group strategies vary from highly correspondent, productive, innovative, and adaptive to non-correspondent, parasitic, destructive, and devolutionary. This is what almost every single theologian, philosopher, or scientist fails to include. Because they assume that infinite cooperation and decreasing competition is valuable rather than disastrous. So given that rapid continuous adaptation is the European tradition, I would argue that tradition is something we shouldn’t leave behind because our tradition is trifunctionalism mediated by truth (law). The most action-oriented tradition in history.
As far as I know, beauty in all cases is the availability of resources(fertility), quality (fertility), aesthetics (symmetry in fertility), ease (fertility), awe (new opportunities in fertility). Beauty is no different from any other experience, or any other truth. We have experiences, associations based on them, and personal valuations of them for extremely idiosyncratic reasons. AFAIK There are no exceptions to this. It’s was my first philosophical subject.
So knowing First Causes (what I do) only provides understanding not prescription. And so again we come to declarative (is) vs imperative (can, must, should). And the difference is decidability in matters of conflict (is) vs decidability in matters of agreement (can, must, should). The difference between ‘Conflict’ over the involuntary imposition of costs against demonstrated interests vs ‘Debate’ over voluntary application of investments to create or advance demonstrated interests. And so again we see via negativa law(science) vs via Positiva philosophy(preference), and conflation of both by theology(demand), and simple necessity in war (command)
So: Masculine > Command > Law > Preference < Wisdom < Demand < Feminine How to rally people to, is different from how to prevent people from. Any positiva outcome that does not violate the laws of the universe is not destructive. That choice is an an aesthetic choice. I’m only making true-false, beneficial-harmful, evolutionary-devolutionary statements. And so the inspirational, aspirational, philosophical, literary, mythological, religious, and occult narratives – these are pedagogically necessary – at least for the vast majority. But I want to end the enemy forever – not compete by narratives.
And so the European tradition is the most powerful narrative. Because the truth is the most powerful narrative, and the European tradition is the most truthful. Because the European tradition is most adaptive to the laws of the universe, and the benefits of doing so faster than all others. The problem is, it is also the most personally costly, the most socially costly, demanding we are an army at all times, in all walks of life, united by loyalty, duty, truth, and reciprocity, despite our differences in rank and class, and all benefiting from the commons we produce in that loyalty, duty, truth, and reciprocity – benefits that no other people can produce. And it requires we pay a high price – limiting the reproduction of those who cannot perform their loyalty, duty, truth, and reciprocity, by tests of markets in all aspects of life.
The function of science and natural law is continuous innovation and adaptation. The function of Theology, Philosophy, Pseudoscience, and Sophistry is to provide psychological comfort in relieving the stress of innovation, adaptation, productivity, reciprocity. Seeking the truth is always superior to seeking the preferential as a substitute. This is why every other people – every single one – other than European middle and upper classes failed evolution’s test of continuous adaptation and innovation. Non-european thought is almost universally dedicated to escapism. Because the value of cooperation is assumed to be infinite.
Body: Sense > Model(of existence) > Perception > Auto Association > Auto-Prediction > Valuation > Recursion:
Langauge facility (wayfinding): Continuous recursive disambiguation:
Promise: Speech: Existential > Declarative > Ostensive > Imperative > Agree/Not:
Evidence: Actions: Invariant .> True-False .> Correspondent-not > Success-Fail > Agree/Not
Recursion: Free Association > Hypothesis > Theory > Surviving Theory
Because: Relational Possibility > Self test > Demonstrated Test > Market Test That’s a description of how body, language facility, speech, action, and resulting evidence perform the function of the discovery of what’s not false. That’s the science: science is testimony that survives the test of realism, naturalism, consistency, correspondence, coherence, completeness, competitive parsimony, across the spectrum of dimensions perceivable by man. The elimination of opportunity for ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, and deceit.
(a) the universe exists (b) we develop different group strategies, (c) we develop different paradigms, (d) we develop different frames within them (e) we develop different priorities in declarative, ostensive,and imperative to suit them?
Human Language facility(recursion) > A Given Language > Strategy > Paradigm > Story Mode (testimony, description, fiction, fictionalism, deceit) > Influence Mode(declarative, imperative, ostensive) > Vocabulary (phonology, morphology) > Grammar (logic) > Syntax (organization of inferences) My argument is that group strategies vary from highly correspondent, productive, innovative, and adaptive to non-correspondent, parasitic, destructive, and devolutionary. This is what almost every single theologian, philosopher, or scientist fails to include. Because they assume that infinite cooperation and decreasing competition is valuable rather than disastrous. So given that rapid continuous adaptation is the European tradition, I would argue that tradition is something we shouldn’t leave behind because our tradition is trifunctionalism mediated by truth (law). The most action-oriented tradition in history.
As far as I know, beauty in all cases is the availability of resources(fertility), quality (fertility), aesthetics (symmetry in fertility), ease (fertility), awe (new opportunities in fertility). Beauty is no different from any other experience, or any other truth. We have experiences, associations based on them, and personal valuations of them for extremely idiosyncratic reasons. AFAIK There are no exceptions to this. It’s was my first philosophical subject.
So knowing First Causes (what I do) only provides understanding not prescription. And so again we come to declarative (is) vs imperative (can, must, should). And the difference is decidability in matters of conflict (is) vs decidability in matters of agreement (can, must, should). The difference between ‘Conflict’ over the involuntary imposition of costs against demonstrated interests vs ‘Debate’ over voluntary application of investments to create or advance demonstrated interests. And so again we see via negativa law(science) vs via Positiva philosophy(preference), and conflation of both by theology(demand), and simple necessity in war (command)
So: Masculine > Command > Law > Preference < Wisdom < Demand < Feminine How to rally people to, is different from how to prevent people from. Any positiva outcome that does not violate the laws of the universe is not destructive. That choice is an an aesthetic choice. I’m only making true-false, beneficial-harmful, evolutionary-devolutionary statements. And so the inspirational, aspirational, philosophical, literary, mythological, religious, and occult narratives – these are pedagogically necessary – at least for the vast majority. But I want to end the enemy forever – not compete by narratives.
And so the European tradition is the most powerful narrative. Because the truth is the most powerful narrative, and the European tradition is the most truthful. Because the European tradition is most adaptive to the laws of the universe, and the benefits of doing so faster than all others. The problem is, it is also the most personally costly, the most socially costly, demanding we are an army at all times, in all walks of life, united by loyalty, duty, truth, and reciprocity, despite our differences in rank and class, and all benefiting from the commons we produce in that loyalty, duty, truth, and reciprocity – benefits that no other people can produce. And it requires we pay a high price – limiting the reproduction of those who cannot perform their loyalty, duty, truth, and reciprocity, by tests of markets in all aspects of life.