Apr 1, 2020, 2:52 PM (important) When I say “the big problem is switching people from idealism (homogenous bias) under which each person seeks whatever bias fits his, to realism (heterogeneous bias) that is aware of the market competition. In other words, monopoly is endemic in western moral thinking bcause we’ve been homogenous since our beginnings. So we have no means of defense against the LIE of the value of diversity. This is yet another example of the f—king stupidity of libertarian tropes (sophistry). If you build high trust high value commons, then diversity increases transaction costs that all ancestors worked to reduce. So the reason we seek SOME diversity is to increase novelty because we seek to hyper-consume cheap novelty (consumption that destroys commons) rather than expensive novelty (innovation, continued capitalization of commons). I don’t know how to explain this more simply. I would appreciate anyone who could. Leftists spend down inheritance to feed herd instinct for numbers.
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
The Difficult Idea to Get Across: From Idealism to Realism
Apr 1, 2020, 2:52 PM (important) When I say “the big problem is switching people from idealism (homogenous bias) under which each person seeks whatever bias fits his, to realism (heterogeneous bias) that is aware of the market competition. In other words, monopoly is endemic in western moral thinking bcause we’ve been homogenous since our beginnings. So we have no means of defense against the LIE of the value of diversity. This is yet another example of the f—king stupidity of libertarian tropes (sophistry). If you build high trust high value commons, then diversity increases transaction costs that all ancestors worked to reduce. So the reason we seek SOME diversity is to increase novelty because we seek to hyper-consume cheap novelty (consumption that destroys commons) rather than expensive novelty (innovation, continued capitalization of commons). I don’t know how to explain this more simply. I would appreciate anyone who could. Leftists spend down inheritance to feed herd instinct for numbers.
-
Intention Is Not Required for One to Lie
Apr 3, 2020, 9:40 AM The difference between testimonial truth and honesty is substantial, but perhaps the most surprising is that that we do not need to intend to lie to lie. We need only speak a lie whether we intend to or not. Most of us are carriers of lies. Because we do not know how to perform due diligence against lying. And worse, because we do not desire to stop using our most precious lies. So in P-law, we are guilty of a failure of due diligence against lying, rather than just intent to lie – just as in our existing law we are responsible for restitution whether we intended harm or not. And we are additionally subject to punishment and prevention if we harm by intent.
-
Intention Is Not Required for One to Lie
Apr 3, 2020, 9:40 AM The difference between testimonial truth and honesty is substantial, but perhaps the most surprising is that that we do not need to intend to lie to lie. We need only speak a lie whether we intend to or not. Most of us are carriers of lies. Because we do not know how to perform due diligence against lying. And worse, because we do not desire to stop using our most precious lies. So in P-law, we are guilty of a failure of due diligence against lying, rather than just intent to lie – just as in our existing law we are responsible for restitution whether we intended harm or not. And we are additionally subject to punishment and prevention if we harm by intent.
-
P Grammars Tie All the Ways of Knowing Together
Apr 3, 2020, 10:49 AM by Ryan Drummond I think reading Jung without reading Nietzsche can easily bait one into intellectual (and moral) hazard. I’d say, too, that reading Nietzsche without reading the cognitive sciences or the work of yourself, for example, can bait people into empirical hazard. The breadth of such work simply can’t be understood by reading one author, or even two authors. You need to cover the existential, the theological, the moral, the historical, the cultural, the psyche, and the scientific objectivity to get a ‘clearer’ picture of the totality. Even then we can easily fall into traps of bias and error! I admire how P takes all of these things and knits them together into a logical web of truth that can be followed and understood a little more clearly by those with no exposure or those with partial exposure to these things. It also, if you want to take it far enough, opens up avenues of thought and totality for even hardened scholars in such fields of study.
-
Our People Use at Least Three Grammars, Speak in A Compromise Grammar (important)
OUR PEOPLE USE AT LEAST THREE GRAMMARS, SPEAK IN A COMPROMISE GRAMMAR (important) (a grammar = paradigm, vocabulary, operations, logic)
1) Theology (intuition) Feminine 2) Philosophy (reason) Compromise 3) Law-Science (action) Masculine. and otherwise in: 4) Ordinary (normative) language Some of us specialize. Some of us generalize (ordinary language). Some of us combine. I largely speak in law-science I can bridge to philosophy (rationalism) I can bridge to theology (intuition) This bridges mean ‘compromise on common ground’ and avoid uncommon ground. We are common ground on natural law, christian love, and some sort of constitution (usually). We are on uncommon ground on atheism, fundamentalism, sophistry and critique, and pseudoscience. Western civilization has always been trifunctional, with ‘priests’ for law, and faith, and generals for war. We can only succeed as western civilization as trifunctional. Because human beings feel, think, and act by trifunctional differences. Because those differences are biological. And it is the COMPROMISE between those positions by exchange within the market despite our desires for extremes exclusively in our interests that allowed us to out-compete all other peoples until the second semitic destruction of our civilization from within in the 20th century.’ OUR PEOPLE USE AT LEAST THREE GRAMMARS, SPEAK IN A COMPROMISE GRAMMAR (important) (a grammar = paradigm, vocabulary, operations, logic) 1) Theology (intuition) Feminine 2) Philosophy (reason) Compromise 3) Law-Science (action) Masculine. and otherwise in: 4) Ordinary (normative) language Some of us specialize. Some of us generalize (ordinary language). Some of us combine. I largely speak in law-science I can bridge to philosophy (rationalism) I can bridge to theology (intuition) This bridges mean ‘compromise on common ground’ and avoid uncommon ground. We are common ground on natural law, christian love, and some sort of constitution (usually). We are on uncommon ground on atheism, fundamentalism, sophistry and critique, and pseudoscience. Western civilization has always been trifunctional, with ‘priests’ for law, and faith, and generals for war. We can only succeed as western civilization as trifunctional. Because human beings feel, think, and act by trifunctional differences. Because those differences are biological. And it is the COMPROMISE between those positions by exchange within the market despite our desires for extremes exclusively in our interests that allowed us to out-compete all other peoples until the second semitic destruction of our civilization from within in the 20th century.
-
Our People Use at Least Three Grammars, Speak in A Compromise Grammar (important)
OUR PEOPLE USE AT LEAST THREE GRAMMARS, SPEAK IN A COMPROMISE GRAMMAR (important) (a grammar = paradigm, vocabulary, operations, logic)
1) Theology (intuition) Feminine 2) Philosophy (reason) Compromise 3) Law-Science (action) Masculine. and otherwise in: 4) Ordinary (normative) language Some of us specialize. Some of us generalize (ordinary language). Some of us combine. I largely speak in law-science I can bridge to philosophy (rationalism) I can bridge to theology (intuition) This bridges mean ‘compromise on common ground’ and avoid uncommon ground. We are common ground on natural law, christian love, and some sort of constitution (usually). We are on uncommon ground on atheism, fundamentalism, sophistry and critique, and pseudoscience. Western civilization has always been trifunctional, with ‘priests’ for law, and faith, and generals for war. We can only succeed as western civilization as trifunctional. Because human beings feel, think, and act by trifunctional differences. Because those differences are biological. And it is the COMPROMISE between those positions by exchange within the market despite our desires for extremes exclusively in our interests that allowed us to out-compete all other peoples until the second semitic destruction of our civilization from within in the 20th century.’ OUR PEOPLE USE AT LEAST THREE GRAMMARS, SPEAK IN A COMPROMISE GRAMMAR (important) (a grammar = paradigm, vocabulary, operations, logic) 1) Theology (intuition) Feminine 2) Philosophy (reason) Compromise 3) Law-Science (action) Masculine. and otherwise in: 4) Ordinary (normative) language Some of us specialize. Some of us generalize (ordinary language). Some of us combine. I largely speak in law-science I can bridge to philosophy (rationalism) I can bridge to theology (intuition) This bridges mean ‘compromise on common ground’ and avoid uncommon ground. We are common ground on natural law, christian love, and some sort of constitution (usually). We are on uncommon ground on atheism, fundamentalism, sophistry and critique, and pseudoscience. Western civilization has always been trifunctional, with ‘priests’ for law, and faith, and generals for war. We can only succeed as western civilization as trifunctional. Because human beings feel, think, and act by trifunctional differences. Because those differences are biological. And it is the COMPROMISE between those positions by exchange within the market despite our desires for extremes exclusively in our interests that allowed us to out-compete all other peoples until the second semitic destruction of our civilization from within in the 20th century.
-
Moral Defense of The Informational Commons
Apr 5, 2020, 12:55 PM by Tim Kay (well done)) Making an argument is a service to the intellectual commons (or to put it better, it’s at least not imposing a cost on the commons). Failure to do so imposes a cost of maintaining the intellectual commons onto others. Reciprocity demands mutual norm maintenance, which is violated by GSRRM. The reason GSRRM is permissible in self-defence, and commons-defence, is that it is a) reciprocal, but more importantly b) like violence, no means of achieving one’s ends is off the table, but it must be directed responsibly. You can’t extirpate GSRRM anymore than you can violence (working with nature not against) but you can make a proportional response which returns the favour of costs against reputation. Individuals of this type whose arguments (such that they are) amount to ‘you just want a more technical excuse to use GSRRM yourself’ need to understand the answer is: yes, sort of. I retain all means necessary to defend myself and the commons, whether it be shaming, or violence. In light of the point about violence one may then say ‘you just want a more technical excuse to use violence’ and we can better see the nature of that statement. I say: no, we want a more technical reason NOT to use it. Because using it is the default. Why should I not use all means necessary in self-defence, when you’re effectively stealing from me and others?
-
Moral Defense of The Informational Commons
Apr 5, 2020, 12:55 PM by Tim Kay (well done)) Making an argument is a service to the intellectual commons (or to put it better, it’s at least not imposing a cost on the commons). Failure to do so imposes a cost of maintaining the intellectual commons onto others. Reciprocity demands mutual norm maintenance, which is violated by GSRRM. The reason GSRRM is permissible in self-defence, and commons-defence, is that it is a) reciprocal, but more importantly b) like violence, no means of achieving one’s ends is off the table, but it must be directed responsibly. You can’t extirpate GSRRM anymore than you can violence (working with nature not against) but you can make a proportional response which returns the favour of costs against reputation. Individuals of this type whose arguments (such that they are) amount to ‘you just want a more technical excuse to use GSRRM yourself’ need to understand the answer is: yes, sort of. I retain all means necessary to defend myself and the commons, whether it be shaming, or violence. In light of the point about violence one may then say ‘you just want a more technical excuse to use violence’ and we can better see the nature of that statement. I say: no, we want a more technical reason NOT to use it. Because using it is the default. Why should I not use all means necessary in self-defence, when you’re effectively stealing from me and others?
-
WHAT DOES EMPIRICAL MEAN?
Apr 10, 2020, 8:22 AM (core) Empirical: Reciprocally Observable, and therefore agreeable, or disagreeable.
- Empirical means observable such that claims can be intersubjectively verifiable or falsifiable: meaning the observation can be “agreed or disagreed upon”;
in addition it means a sufficient volume of observations that we falsify the fragility of episodic memories, our tendency to err, our tendency to find patterns that don’t exist, or to bias the results, and to use both to deceive ;
in addition it means using physical instruments of measurement to compensate for the limits of our senses, perception, and the resulting limits to intuition, prediction, and memory;
in addition it means using logical instruments of measurement (testing) of constant, contingent, inconstant, and non-relations to compensate for the limits of our intuition, imagination, prediction, and reason and as such to prevent claims made in ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.
together consisting of tests of reciprocity of information, and the possibility of Agreement or disagreement by reciprocity of information using due diligence in the falsification of sense, perception, intuition, prediction, and claim by RECIPROCAL due diligence using quantity, quality, consistency, causality.
See the value of operational language? If you have the words for it, most philosophical discourses is rendered nonsense. See how law (competition) differs from philosophy by reduction to reciprocity not the self (philosophical justification). Like I said, in almost all cases philosophical questions are sophisms due to idealism rather than realism – operational language.