(FB 1550627670 Timestamp) —“Q: 5 +1 * 10 = ?”— This category of math ‘tests’, is not a test of intelligence but of a weakness in mathematical grammar that makes the reader fall back to the order of operations when the sentence is malformed. The correct form is (1×10)+5. or 5+(1×10), gracefully failing to 5 + 1 * 10 if malformed. Almost seemingly complex questions of philosophy are nothing more than a failure to fully expand idiomatic speech into well formed sentence beginning with “I promise that …”. The lower your patterning the more likely you are to see this trick. The higher your patterning (not discreetly seeing the individual glyphs of the text) the more likely you are to miss it. And that is all. Tricks don’t test intelligence. They insult it.
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550691102 Timestamp) YOUR JOB (THE GOOD) VS MY JOB (THE TRUE) Your job is ‘inspiring, good and preferable’, Mine is ‘False, Un-testifiable, and Ir-reciprocal’. Anything that is not false, testifiable, and reciprocal is by definition not open to interference from the law. Your job is the via positiva market for goods, services, and information, and my job is the via negativa market for prosecution of the imposition of costs against the demonstrated interests of others.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550691102 Timestamp) YOUR JOB (THE GOOD) VS MY JOB (THE TRUE) Your job is ‘inspiring, good and preferable’, Mine is ‘False, Un-testifiable, and Ir-reciprocal’. Anything that is not false, testifiable, and reciprocal is by definition not open to interference from the law. Your job is the via positiva market for goods, services, and information, and my job is the via negativa market for prosecution of the imposition of costs against the demonstrated interests of others.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550930164 Timestamp) CONTINUOUS DEMONSTRATION OF THE LIE. —“You claim to have a monopoly on truth. The only honest position here is to admit there is no monopoly on truth.”—Noel Fritsch I don’t claim to have a monopoly on truth. I claim only that I can identify false speech, and that you’re lying. Period. Like you just did again – by false equivalence. And by doing so you demonstrate my point: christians are the vehicle for the propagation of the abrahamic means of lying. Like you just did. (I mean. you don’t get it. The game is up. The goyim know. and it will take a year but I will popularize this criticism of christians as the enemy of our people just as I have popularized other arguments. And all you can do is provide me with a continuous stream of evidence that I am correct.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550851396 Timestamp) OUTSTANDING ISSUE So far the only outstanding argument is whether metaphysics exist in the plural(languages) or singular (physics), and hopefully I will get to that one in the next week or so. But in general, you’re going to be wrong on ANY criticism of P. You’re going to be wrong on possibility of successful revolution under P. You are probably wrong on the desirability of the policies I’ve recommended under P. You might not be wrong on whether I am pitching the best government under P. You are most likely right that the demographics are such that we need ideology and religion in addition to law. I did my job. But please stop wasting my time. I mean all you (the idiots) are doing is proving my point that public speech should be limited to that under which due diligence has been performed. Because you’re no different than the enemy and their lies. Because you use the same technique as the enemy and their lies. Undermine western civilization because you are addicted to lies.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550841555 Timestamp) —“Curt, I don’t hold an objective view of empiricism as, in my understanding the facts are temporary until the community gains further knowledge, which is a long way of saying subjective by my ken. Who do I need to read to understand the objective viewpoint? Am I even wrong in my understanding?”—- Jarrod Marma I cannot quite be sure I’m answering you correctly, but if your statement means that:
- All premises are forever contingent;
- that all theories serve to search for opportunity fields;
- that the application of the theory to transformative action – tests the precision of the opportunity field, and the search;
- and that survival of that application of actions increases the persuasive power of the theory (search and field),
- Cheers
Then yes. But they that’s just the scientific method right? This is the 20th century’s lesson: “Mathiness is a proofy thing and contingency is a truthy thing, and never the two shall meet.” Which has been the curse of mathiness since the greeks. Empiricism doesn’t PROVE anything it ELIMINATES ERROR by compensating for limitations in our perception and cognition. The question is,how do we do we apply those rules to speech ABOUT those theories? And then we need a system of measurement to test it. That system is P’s testimonialism. And when you say “Objective” I assume you mean ‘Operational’ and so yes you will need the “Point of View” in Operational grammar. What I suspect (from my observations of your argument) is that you already praxeologically (operationally) walk through any given model. As such I suspect that you do not need the ‘training’ that Operational speech provides. Op speech is just a completion of praxeology.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550796209 Timestamp) A BLACK PILL Here is the harder question. What if all knowledge that begins with the scientific revolution – a term which means ‘that which is beyond human scales of ordinary perception’ – is past the means of comprehension of average people, … And (a) it is no longer possible for people to comprehend any of the sciences – and now, with P, even the social sciences. And that (b) the reason for the postwar conquest of our people by Abrahamism version 2 (marxism/postmodernism) is because they cannot tolerate tolerate a world beyond their comprehension and therefore are susceptible to the pseudosciences of marxism, the sophisms of postmodernism, and the pseudoscience and sophism of feminism and outright denialism. In other words, what If, by completing the sciences, including language(metaphysics), psychology, and social science, and by providing a single commensurable language of all sciences, means that without education (training) it is no longer possible for ordinary people to understand ANY OF THE SCIENCES, not just the physical sciences. And so it is not possible to obtain their consent on a constitution of those sciences, only on the policy that results from them – and one’s (my,our, ruling class’s) warranty of those sciences…. So what if we are just recovering to the level of civic development of Roman civilization today and we are repeating the peak. And without harnessing hydrocarbons we would not have surpassed them. And that without rapid and extensive eugenics, humans can never evolved past the limits of those unable to reason beyond human scale of perception. And so devolution is necessary in the present world as it was in the past, and dark ages are going to continue not end. And with each cycle we lose more and more of our hunter-gatherer reserves, until the genome is exhausted and we devolve like the middle east in to ever decreasing genetic ability.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550930164 Timestamp) CONTINUOUS DEMONSTRATION OF THE LIE. —“You claim to have a monopoly on truth. The only honest position here is to admit there is no monopoly on truth.”—Noel Fritsch I don’t claim to have a monopoly on truth. I claim only that I can identify false speech, and that you’re lying. Period. Like you just did again – by false equivalence. And by doing so you demonstrate my point: christians are the vehicle for the propagation of the abrahamic means of lying. Like you just did. (I mean. you don’t get it. The game is up. The goyim know. and it will take a year but I will popularize this criticism of christians as the enemy of our people just as I have popularized other arguments. And all you can do is provide me with a continuous stream of evidence that I am correct.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550851396 Timestamp) OUTSTANDING ISSUE So far the only outstanding argument is whether metaphysics exist in the plural(languages) or singular (physics), and hopefully I will get to that one in the next week or so. But in general, you’re going to be wrong on ANY criticism of P. You’re going to be wrong on possibility of successful revolution under P. You are probably wrong on the desirability of the policies I’ve recommended under P. You might not be wrong on whether I am pitching the best government under P. You are most likely right that the demographics are such that we need ideology and religion in addition to law. I did my job. But please stop wasting my time. I mean all you (the idiots) are doing is proving my point that public speech should be limited to that under which due diligence has been performed. Because you’re no different than the enemy and their lies. Because you use the same technique as the enemy and their lies. Undermine western civilization because you are addicted to lies.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550841555 Timestamp) —“Curt, I don’t hold an objective view of empiricism as, in my understanding the facts are temporary until the community gains further knowledge, which is a long way of saying subjective by my ken. Who do I need to read to understand the objective viewpoint? Am I even wrong in my understanding?”—- Jarrod Marma I cannot quite be sure I’m answering you correctly, but if your statement means that:
- All premises are forever contingent;
- that all theories serve to search for opportunity fields;
- that the application of the theory to transformative action – tests the precision of the opportunity field, and the search;
- and that survival of that application of actions increases the persuasive power of the theory (search and field),
- Cheers
Then yes. But they that’s just the scientific method right? This is the 20th century’s lesson: “Mathiness is a proofy thing and contingency is a truthy thing, and never the two shall meet.” Which has been the curse of mathiness since the greeks. Empiricism doesn’t PROVE anything it ELIMINATES ERROR by compensating for limitations in our perception and cognition. The question is,how do we do we apply those rules to speech ABOUT those theories? And then we need a system of measurement to test it. That system is P’s testimonialism. And when you say “Objective” I assume you mean ‘Operational’ and so yes you will need the “Point of View” in Operational grammar. What I suspect (from my observations of your argument) is that you already praxeologically (operationally) walk through any given model. As such I suspect that you do not need the ‘training’ that Operational speech provides. Op speech is just a completion of praxeology.