(FB 1542560560 Timestamp) USING SERIES TO TEST A LINE OF CONSTANT RELATIONS ACROSS SCALES —“Always love this structure of Aphorism”— A Twitter Friend danqueseq (referring to use of series to illustrate a concept) One point – an ideal, or ideal type – tells you nothing. Three points to test a line. More points falsify the line such that it is increasingly free of ignorance, error, bias and deceit. Hence, demand for definitions in series as a defense against conflation, inflation, and fictionalism. -hugs brother.
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542558043 Timestamp) IDEALS VS LIMITS by Bill Joslin The notion of “ideal and unlimited” pertains to moral foundations asserted as universal and well… An ideal…. Opposed to the notion that all concepts exist with in limits (boundaries and context). By doing so, following a moral foundation which doesn’t acknowledge proper conditions which allows that action to exist has said action producing different and often opposite effects (ideal morals often result in immoral outcomes )
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542556527 Timestamp) The only measure is zero tolerance.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542556527 Timestamp) The only measure is zero tolerance.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542552724 Timestamp) THE OUTSTANDING QUESTION: CAN IT BE DONE? —“I do not think German philosophy was a reaction to empiricism.”—Aaron Kahland —“Thinking Kant’s love affair with Rousseau being a German reaction to Anglo liberalism – secular Christian apologetics”—Bill Joslin I mean, british empiricism begins back in the 1090’s and within two hundred years becomes explicit under roger bacon. and by the 1600’s under Francis bacon all but complete. leading to hobbes, lock, hume, smith, et al. The bacons were jurists applying law to modern thought. Instead, Germans less so with leibnitz but certainly with wolff and kant continued the scholastic tradition of apriorism independent of empiricism, and when that failed moved to experientialism, and finally to the nonsense of marx and heidegger. These people were theologians applying theology to modern thought. The great questions, which dogs my work, are: (a) is this internal world of the germans and external world of the anglos genetic or cultural (linguistic, traditional, normative, literary, institution) or a mixture of both? (b) Given the difference between british (shallow), american (constitutional) and the german (metaphysical) moral depth be TAUGHT by design, and by what methods can it be taught. Because it appears to require both an institutional method of teaching AND sufficient immersion in the culture to produce the general disposition, and; (c) how can we teach as such while also training the opposite (sun tzu, machiavelli, grand strategy) that this “piety” or ‘moralism’ is a utility and a choice not a truth? Because it is the LATTER PROBLEM that seems to be the issue, not the former. In other words, today you talk to germans and they are convinced of this ‘nonsense’ that they have a special history rather than did the logical thing as all other peoples in history have done. (and arguably were in the right in both wars). Brits are in a virtue spiral of death for the same reason. Americans are incrementally defeated by their women for the same reason. And as far as I can tell it is christianity underneath that causes these failures – because it is ideal and unlimited, rather than limited and real (limits of tolerance and forgiveness)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542678665 Timestamp) I am almost at the point where listening to economists sounds like listening to marxists, sounds like listening to theologians. All the same. Testimonialism is a necessity for human evolution.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542678665 Timestamp) I am almost at the point where listening to economists sounds like listening to marxists, sounds like listening to theologians. All the same. Testimonialism is a necessity for human evolution.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542637994 Timestamp) By claiming one is doing good, one can justify bads. But while bads are decidable and universal, goods are only preferable and particular. As such one claims he does good only as an excuse to do bad. When, one only does good if he does NO bad. Ergo, all that is not bad is good.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542637994 Timestamp) By claiming one is doing good, one can justify bads. But while bads are decidable and universal, goods are only preferable and particular. As such one claims he does good only as an excuse to do bad. When, one only does good if he does NO bad. Ergo, all that is not bad is good.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542847972 Timestamp) A metaphor is (exists as) that category of fiction called ‘analogy’, that serves as a method of suggestion, that like all analogies functions as a substitute for description when the audience lacks the direct experience (memories) to reconstruct the intended experience (meaning). We generally use the spectrum of analogies to transfer properties between cases. And therein lies the problem. The question is whether one is engaging the transfer of truths or falsehoods, and whether those falsehoods produce externalities that are positive or negative, either directly or cumulatively. The central problem arises because as suggestion increases vulnerability increases. The economics of meaning (neural economy) are such that reinforcement of false paradigms decreases future cost of paradigmatic expansion. Conversely, those same economics mean that reformation of or replacement of those paradigms is a huge cost. And must be (at least for volition to be rational) offset by some reward. For the professional liar or snake oil salesman or marketer, or politician, or philosopher, or priest, this threatens not only his cognitive malinvestment, but his means of obtaining attention, status, opportunity – and often, income.