(FB 1547468306 Timestamp) RUSSIANS HAVE A WORD FOR REALITY Bytie (бÑÑие), Russian. This word comes from the Russian byt'(to exist). In Russian-English dictionaries this philosophical concept is translated as “being.” However, bytie (бÑÑие) is not just life or existence, itâs the existence of an objective reality that is independent of human consciousness (cosmos, nature, matter).
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547349746 Timestamp) —“What’s your view on semiotics, Curt?”— it is in the category of marks, pictograms, character symbols, iconography, artistic composition, suggestion, advertising, propaganda: suggestion by free association, and used like numerology and astrology: untestable, and incalculable.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547418990 Timestamp) Knowing the deflation, operationalism, and grammars is a bit like having a superpower. And I just realized that if we teach everyone Testimonialism I won’t be the only person with the superpower…. sigh… 😉
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547339450 Timestamp) WHAT IS METAPHYSICS? —“Why study metaphysics? Metaphysics consist of the study of the (constitution) of reality. It is the (method or process) by which we come to a (paradigm) of (the laws of the universe, laws of cooperation, laws of perception-experience, and laws of reason), and from that (paradigm) make choices about what we want to think, feel, and do to make the most of our own experience of life and the world.”— The study of Metaphysics then serves our will to power (successful action). Or does it? I deflate the big question into a hierarchy : 1 – ‘What can we perceive, experience, cognate, and act upon?’ 2 – ‘How is our experience produced?’ 3 – ‘What are the limits of our perception, experience, cognition and action?” 4 – ‘What may be beyond our perceptions and experience and cognition? 5 – ‘What are the first premises (assumptions, presumptions, rules, laws) by which we test our perceptions, experience, and ideas?’ 6 – And how does our experience differ from those laws? 7 – And how can we act to take advantage of this knowledge? The problem is, that since we must act to survive and prosper, can only act within the limits of our perception, experience, cognition, and action, and can only extend perceptions by action in the universe, and all increases in our understanding of what is beyond our perception, experience, cognition, have followed consistent rules of parsimony all of which relegate our experience to a natural consequence of competitive complexity given a long enough and stable enough period of evolutionary computation. Action (operations) is the only system of measurement that is not a lie – because it is what the entirety of the set of questions depends upon: the grammar and semantics of action, cognition, experience, and perception. So the question is not what is metaphysics. The question is, Why is it men seek using metaphysics to lie? So the issue is whether we are confirming the former to the latter (lying) or the latter to the former (adapting), or whether we inventing the former to serve the latter for the purpose of fraud, rent seeking, free riding, and other forms of parasitism – because so far that seems the primary distinction between philosophers/theologians and scientists. You see, a fraud, a sophist, philosopher, or theologian uses justification to ask ‘what can I get away with?’, while a scientist and a jurist ask ‘what can we insure you’re not getting away with?’ Hence why law (man) and science (nature) account for costs, and philosophy(man) and theology(nature) do not. Because costs allow us to measure frauds, thefts, et al. How many philosophers and theologians would survive prosecution for fraud?
- Curt
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547349746 Timestamp) —“What’s your view on semiotics, Curt?”— it is in the category of marks, pictograms, character symbols, iconography, artistic composition, suggestion, advertising, propaganda: suggestion by free association, and used like numerology and astrology: untestable, and incalculable.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547315158 Timestamp) DEFLATING TERMS BY THE MEANS OF CONSISTENCY IN THE DIMENSIONS THAT THEY MEASURE. (important) DIMENSIONS AND MEANS OF CONSISTENCY-TESTING 1. Axioms = Logic (words) : internal consistency : Declared. 2. Theories (‘laws’) = Science (actions) : external correspondence : Discovered 3. Algorithms (operations) = Testimony : Constructed. 4. Rational Choice (incentives) = Preference or Good : intuited. 5. Law (Reciprocity) = Decidability: Demonstrated. COHERENCE REQUIRES CLOSURE 1. No means of consistency-testing within any dimension provides CLOSURE. (‘incompleteness’). 2. Closure is increased only by appeal to the next higher dimension. 3. Closure is impossible for other than tautologies, but warranty of due diligence is producible by test of COHERENCE, which is CONSISTENCY in all dimensions. PROOFS? 1. A proof is a test of internal consistency. 2. A proof is therefore a test of possibility. 3. All proofs are open to falsification by appeal COHERENCE, meaning the due diligence of testing every dimension for consistency. 4. Ergo the function of logic and axioms is only to falsify the false, not prove the true. This is the ‘difficult’ part of ‘relearning’ that mathematics (positional naming) and the attempt to have logic (language) mirror one another, has led to the near universal fallacy that proof provides truth rather than due diligence against error, bias, and deceit. 5. Egro, logics FALSIFY but they do not convey truth content – except in the minority and reductio set of cases – in logic which are akin to prime numbers in mathematics: rare. (This is what Curtus Maximus is explaining via Godel). In the sense of Rothbard/Mises/Hoppe the (((fraud))) of kantian logic combined with the (((fraud))) of CONFLATION, mises attempted to conflate logic, empiricism, science, morality, and law into one ‘monopoly ‘ akin to jewish law, or kant’s attempt at secular restatement of the church’s faith – and failed. Rothbard attempted to conflate liberty with jewish libertinism. Freedom with libertinism. and thereby to license parasitism upon the commons, which is the group evolutionary strategy of his ancestors as well as women. Whether his ancestral group strategy of parasitism is genetic or cultural or a combination is something we do not know. We do however know that all his kin exhibit this behavior just as all women exhibit this behavior. Ergo, everything rothbard says is a lie. Mises might be rescued from his sophisms and pseudoscience if it were not for Rothbard and Hoppe’s defense of rothbard. But the (((Mises institute))) has done profound harm to our civilization by preserving and promoting Rothbard (rand)’s justification of libertinism, rather than the anglo saxon rights of anglo saxons: sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, charity, and every (enfranchised) man a sheriff. As far as I know, the only epistemological framework is free association > hypothesis > theory > law > Failure > Repeat to revise (refine). All of the vocabulary of ‘logic’ and proof, all of which is justificationary and false, is now reduced to superstitious language. And all attempts to say ‘prove it’ are also justificationary and false. One cannot prove a truth, one can only ask for sufficient information to falsify it. And contrary to the entire history of philosophy, the principle means of falsification is deconfliction, completing scope and limits, accounting for cost, testing the possibility of action, rationality of action, and reciprocity of display word and deed. The people who invented lying are as good at lying as the people who invented truth are good at truth.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547339450 Timestamp) WHAT IS METAPHYSICS? —“Why study metaphysics? Metaphysics consist of the study of the (constitution) of reality. It is the (method or process) by which we come to a (paradigm) of (the laws of the universe, laws of cooperation, laws of perception-experience, and laws of reason), and from that (paradigm) make choices about what we want to think, feel, and do to make the most of our own experience of life and the world.”— The study of Metaphysics then serves our will to power (successful action). Or does it? I deflate the big question into a hierarchy : 1 – ‘What can we perceive, experience, cognate, and act upon?’ 2 – ‘How is our experience produced?’ 3 – ‘What are the limits of our perception, experience, cognition and action?” 4 – ‘What may be beyond our perceptions and experience and cognition? 5 – ‘What are the first premises (assumptions, presumptions, rules, laws) by which we test our perceptions, experience, and ideas?’ 6 – And how does our experience differ from those laws? 7 – And how can we act to take advantage of this knowledge? The problem is, that since we must act to survive and prosper, can only act within the limits of our perception, experience, cognition, and action, and can only extend perceptions by action in the universe, and all increases in our understanding of what is beyond our perception, experience, cognition, have followed consistent rules of parsimony all of which relegate our experience to a natural consequence of competitive complexity given a long enough and stable enough period of evolutionary computation. Action (operations) is the only system of measurement that is not a lie – because it is what the entirety of the set of questions depends upon: the grammar and semantics of action, cognition, experience, and perception. So the question is not what is metaphysics. The question is, Why is it men seek using metaphysics to lie? So the issue is whether we are confirming the former to the latter (lying) or the latter to the former (adapting), or whether we inventing the former to serve the latter for the purpose of fraud, rent seeking, free riding, and other forms of parasitism – because so far that seems the primary distinction between philosophers/theologians and scientists. You see, a fraud, a sophist, philosopher, or theologian uses justification to ask ‘what can I get away with?’, while a scientist and a jurist ask ‘what can we insure you’re not getting away with?’ Hence why law (man) and science (nature) account for costs, and philosophy(man) and theology(nature) do not. Because costs allow us to measure frauds, thefts, et al. How many philosophers and theologians would survive prosecution for fraud?
- Curt
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547270284 Timestamp) TERMINOLOGY: NO SHORTCUT TO UNDERSTANDING worth repeating One does not criticize either terminology or deviation from normative definitions, but instead, the precision of the definitions, such that we are free of opportunity for conflation, and subsequent error. Each field uses terminology particular to it, and propertarianism (law) uses universals (operational names in series) across all fields. In either case we define terms that eliminate the error and potential for error in colloquial speech (“ordinary language”). In other words no field is, can be, reduced to ordinary language without the introduction of the vast ignorance and error that separates ordinary language from scientific language. That is because the existence of, and market demands for science and scientific prose evolved precisely to compensate for the ignorance, error, bias, fictionalism, and deceit in ordinary language. And moreover, since propertarianism serves as the scientific language of social science – including history, economics, law, sociology, morality, ethics, psychology, and language itself – we are forcing into the political discourse the same adaptation as did the revolution in physical science: and with equally disruptive consequences to normative language, ideas, ideology, religion, and language of those disciplines. So the criticism that we should use the colloquial speech in our effort to change social sciences from sophisms and pseudoscience dependent upon intuition and projection, and monopoly and conformity, into a form of calculation as is used in the other sciences, and divisions of cognition and labor, and conditions of cooperation, competition, and war, is rather … ridiculous really. All systems of symbolic calculation whether they be the small difference between spoken language and written language, or great differences between spoken language, written language, arithmetic, accounting, geometry, the calculus, relativity, chemistry, biology, ecology, economics, require training. The great difference is that we are all more invested in our daily use of the psychological, social, and political, such that we defend those investments no matter how bad they are. Unfortunately the average idiot who will readily say he understands neither advanced mathematics, economics, or subatomic physics will not similarly question his understanding of ethics, morality, and politics – thereby demonstrating his lack of agency due to malinvestment and ignorance, and genetic, gender, class, cultural bias. Ergo, there is no shortcut to knowledge. Calculation is counter intuitive – particularly in intuitionistic subjects.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547315158 Timestamp) DEFLATING TERMS BY THE MEANS OF CONSISTENCY IN THE DIMENSIONS THAT THEY MEASURE. (important) DIMENSIONS AND MEANS OF CONSISTENCY-TESTING 1. Axioms = Logic (words) : internal consistency : Declared. 2. Theories (‘laws’) = Science (actions) : external correspondence : Discovered 3. Algorithms (operations) = Testimony : Constructed. 4. Rational Choice (incentives) = Preference or Good : intuited. 5. Law (Reciprocity) = Decidability: Demonstrated. COHERENCE REQUIRES CLOSURE 1. No means of consistency-testing within any dimension provides CLOSURE. (‘incompleteness’). 2. Closure is increased only by appeal to the next higher dimension. 3. Closure is impossible for other than tautologies, but warranty of due diligence is producible by test of COHERENCE, which is CONSISTENCY in all dimensions. PROOFS? 1. A proof is a test of internal consistency. 2. A proof is therefore a test of possibility. 3. All proofs are open to falsification by appeal COHERENCE, meaning the due diligence of testing every dimension for consistency. 4. Ergo the function of logic and axioms is only to falsify the false, not prove the true. This is the ‘difficult’ part of ‘relearning’ that mathematics (positional naming) and the attempt to have logic (language) mirror one another, has led to the near universal fallacy that proof provides truth rather than due diligence against error, bias, and deceit. 5. Egro, logics FALSIFY but they do not convey truth content – except in the minority and reductio set of cases – in logic which are akin to prime numbers in mathematics: rare. (This is what Curtus Maximus is explaining via Godel). In the sense of Rothbard/Mises/Hoppe the (((fraud))) of kantian logic combined with the (((fraud))) of CONFLATION, mises attempted to conflate logic, empiricism, science, morality, and law into one ‘monopoly ‘ akin to jewish law, or kant’s attempt at secular restatement of the church’s faith – and failed. Rothbard attempted to conflate liberty with jewish libertinism. Freedom with libertinism. and thereby to license parasitism upon the commons, which is the group evolutionary strategy of his ancestors as well as women. Whether his ancestral group strategy of parasitism is genetic or cultural or a combination is something we do not know. We do however know that all his kin exhibit this behavior just as all women exhibit this behavior. Ergo, everything rothbard says is a lie. Mises might be rescued from his sophisms and pseudoscience if it were not for Rothbard and Hoppe’s defense of rothbard. But the (((Mises institute))) has done profound harm to our civilization by preserving and promoting Rothbard (rand)’s justification of libertinism, rather than the anglo saxon rights of anglo saxons: sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, charity, and every (enfranchised) man a sheriff. As far as I know, the only epistemological framework is free association > hypothesis > theory > law > Failure > Repeat to revise (refine). All of the vocabulary of ‘logic’ and proof, all of which is justificationary and false, is now reduced to superstitious language. And all attempts to say ‘prove it’ are also justificationary and false. One cannot prove a truth, one can only ask for sufficient information to falsify it. And contrary to the entire history of philosophy, the principle means of falsification is deconfliction, completing scope and limits, accounting for cost, testing the possibility of action, rationality of action, and reciprocity of display word and deed. The people who invented lying are as good at lying as the people who invented truth are good at truth.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547270284 Timestamp) TERMINOLOGY: NO SHORTCUT TO UNDERSTANDING worth repeating One does not criticize either terminology or deviation from normative definitions, but instead, the precision of the definitions, such that we are free of opportunity for conflation, and subsequent error. Each field uses terminology particular to it, and propertarianism (law) uses universals (operational names in series) across all fields. In either case we define terms that eliminate the error and potential for error in colloquial speech (“ordinary language”). In other words no field is, can be, reduced to ordinary language without the introduction of the vast ignorance and error that separates ordinary language from scientific language. That is because the existence of, and market demands for science and scientific prose evolved precisely to compensate for the ignorance, error, bias, fictionalism, and deceit in ordinary language. And moreover, since propertarianism serves as the scientific language of social science – including history, economics, law, sociology, morality, ethics, psychology, and language itself – we are forcing into the political discourse the same adaptation as did the revolution in physical science: and with equally disruptive consequences to normative language, ideas, ideology, religion, and language of those disciplines. So the criticism that we should use the colloquial speech in our effort to change social sciences from sophisms and pseudoscience dependent upon intuition and projection, and monopoly and conformity, into a form of calculation as is used in the other sciences, and divisions of cognition and labor, and conditions of cooperation, competition, and war, is rather … ridiculous really. All systems of symbolic calculation whether they be the small difference between spoken language and written language, or great differences between spoken language, written language, arithmetic, accounting, geometry, the calculus, relativity, chemistry, biology, ecology, economics, require training. The great difference is that we are all more invested in our daily use of the psychological, social, and political, such that we defend those investments no matter how bad they are. Unfortunately the average idiot who will readily say he understands neither advanced mathematics, economics, or subatomic physics will not similarly question his understanding of ethics, morality, and politics – thereby demonstrating his lack of agency due to malinvestment and ignorance, and genetic, gender, class, cultural bias. Ergo, there is no shortcut to knowledge. Calculation is counter intuitive – particularly in intuitionistic subjects.