October 27th, 2018 3:34 PM —“Curt: Please Define “wicked”— OK…. wicked
[wik-id]
(funny, i say WIK’-ehd, not wik-ihd, but then I have a proper education. lol ) :evil or morally bad in principle or practice;: ie: sinful; iniquitous: unjustifiable; dreadful; beastly: having a bad disposition; ill-natured; mean: spiteful; malevolent; vicious: extremely troublesome or dangerous: unpleasant; foul:
October 27th, 2018 3:34 PM —“Curt: Please Define “wicked”— OK…. wicked
[wik-id]
(funny, i say WIK’-ehd, not wik-ihd, but then I have a proper education. lol ) :evil or morally bad in principle or practice;: ie: sinful; iniquitous: unjustifiable; dreadful; beastly: having a bad disposition; ill-natured; mean: spiteful; malevolent; vicious: extremely troublesome or dangerous: unpleasant; foul:
FROM ONE CAUSAL DISTRIBUTION, MANY CONSEQUENTIAL DISTRIBUTIONS.
Don’t overcomplicate the very simple.
SPECTRA:
Feels to Reals,
Words to Models,
Imagination to Calculations.
Subjective to Objective
Horizontal Connectivity(Integrated) to Vertical Depth(Separated)
Solipsism to Impersonalism (Analyticalism)
Psychosis to Autism
WHY?
Feminine brain to Masculine brain.
The same construction causes the same distribution in every capacity of our intellects.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 17:32:00 UTC
—“Curt: Please Define “wicked”—
OK….
wicked
[wik-id]
(funny, i say WIK’-ehd, not wik-ihd, but then I have a proper education. lol )
:evil or morally bad in principle or practice;:
ie: sinful; iniquitous: unjustifiable; dreadful; beastly: having a bad disposition; ill-natured; mean: spiteful; malevolent; vicious: extremely troublesome or dangerous: unpleasant; foul:
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 15:34:00 UTC
DEFINE “PHILOSOPHY”?
—“Curt: What exactly is your definition of philosophy?”– Ben Quimby
The study of choice: options, preference and good, by the organization of categories, relations, and values, to produce choice: options, preferences and goods.
IMPORTANT: note that I never define anything in isolation, but always in SERIES. The reason is to prevent all sorts of cherry picking, conflation and consequent fallacies of inference and deduction.
So it is one thing to define philosophy as it stands, and another to define philosophy in DEFLATIONARY series, as a GRAMMAR of MEANING.
|MEANING| Memories > Theology(Mythology/Supernatural) – Literature > Philosophy(reason/Ideal) – Analogy > Pseudoscience > Science (Measurement/Real) – History > Measurement (Description) – operations, logic, mathematics.
All grammars attempt to produce a network of constant relations that we call ‘categories, relations, values, and methods(actions).’
The question is, what are these constant relations coherent with?
Theology -> A Mythos (A Story)
Philosophy -> Internal Consistency (Choice-(meaning, preference, good))
Science -> External Correspondence. (existence)
Law -> Reciprocity (cooperation)
Testimony -> Completeness and Coherence of all of the above.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 11:24:00 UTC
SOMEDAY …
Someday, I have fairly high confidence, nearly everyone will understand my work on the grammars, from measurements to fictionalisms, and what sounds ‘odd’ in my categorization of prose is as normal as enumerating logic, math, physics, chemistry, biology, and ecology.
Once you see it you can’t unsee it.
And that is why the Vitruvianist, Testimonialist and Propertarian revolution will be as impactful in the social and political sciences as the empirical revolution in the physical sciences.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 10:24:00 UTC
HOW TO ARGUE AGAINST MORAL POSTURING UNDER PRETENSE OF VALUE, EQUALITY OR KINSHIP
(from elsewhere)
Did you just make a psychological rather than empirical argument? Oh wait. your first response was a moralism not a scientific one, or one of demonstrated preference. So yes, it’s not surprising that you would make a sentimental distraction rather than a scientific argument yet again.
Or that you would give freudian evidence of your feminine cognition and lack of evidentiary understanding by using the example of ‘great at parties’ rather than ‘great at business, science, and law.” I mean. Talk about a subconscious confession of animal intuition masked by language using the pretense of reason….. lol.
Debtors are debtors. Period.
We aren’t equal, we aren’t allies, we aren’t family, we aren’t friends. Your value to me and mine is only what is our interests, evolution’s interests, and as a consequence, and the future of mankind’s interest.
All your attempts to create the pretense of equality, value to one another, or social political military obligation due to reciprocity or advantage is just a fraud to create the peacock-tail of value. My only question is whether you are a cost, not a cost, or a contributor to me and mine, evolutionary excellence, and the transcendence of mankind.”
Your method of ‘argument’ (non-argument, fraudulent positioning) only works if (a) you are kin, and (b) you are a woman and can create future kin. Otherwise you are just an opportunity or a cost.
A man in rhetorical petticoats has nothing to trade.
You have no intrinsic value.
None.
You are dead weight on humanity’s Transcendence into the gods we imagine – and gods we must be – or be chained to the lifecycle of this rock.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 10:07:00 UTC
—“CURT: PLEASE DEFINE ‘POST-MORAL’?”–
—“Can you explain POST-MORAL to a newb?”— Scott Claremont
So just like we changed from theological(authoritarian) discourse on morals, to philosophical (rational) discourse on morals during the enlightenment, that we have changed from philosophical (rational) discourse on morals, to scientific (measurements) discourse on morals.
|Explanation(Model)| traditional(norm) > religious (theology) > rational (moral) > scientific (reciprocity).
It means (a) our language consists of reasoning by morality( intuition, habit, norm, tradition) rather than reasoning by reciprocity(measurement),(b) and where morality(intuition, habit, norm, tradition) vary not only between groups, but between individuals, reciprocity does not. (c) as such we can use the language of law (decidability), accounting (directly measurable), and economics ( indirectly measurable) to measure that which removes ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our discussion of ‘morality’, and describe human actions scientifically (universally) rather than normatively (colloquially).
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 08:42:00 UTC
(FB 1540566639 Timestamp) REMINDER: [H]onestly. I deal with history, law, economics, science, logic, mathematics and scientists. I don’t have any respect for ‘philosophers’ in general, and none at all for continentals, who I see as idealist versions of abrahamic/islamist supernaturalists employing sentimental sophisms rather than sentimental supernatural fictionalisms. Sophist, Pseudoscientific, and Supernatural Wisdom literature exists as a competitor to law and science by creating resistance movements against adaptation by enforced ignorance and conformity. I write in what I undrestand is the LAW, which means testimony (measurements) in metaphysics, psychology, social science, which means the end of philosophy as anything other than choice of preference and good FROM the findings of LAW (Science and Testimony). In other words, it is my intention to exterminate philosophy (from the public sphere) as a discipline with LAW just as we exterminated religious theology (from the public sphere) with Physical Science. So I write in law, science, and logic in the structure (outline) of aristotelian philosophy for the purpose of destroying the (continental) cancer of ‘philosophy’ that is nothing but a set of sophomoric and pseudoscientific and in some cases (Evola) occult, drivel preventing us from taking action to impose LAW upon those who would use the same techniques as philosophers and theologians and pseudoscientists, to return us to the Abrahamic Dark Ages of delusionary ignorance.
(FB 1540566639 Timestamp) REMINDER: [H]onestly. I deal with history, law, economics, science, logic, mathematics and scientists. I don’t have any respect for ‘philosophers’ in general, and none at all for continentals, who I see as idealist versions of abrahamic/islamist supernaturalists employing sentimental sophisms rather than sentimental supernatural fictionalisms. Sophist, Pseudoscientific, and Supernatural Wisdom literature exists as a competitor to law and science by creating resistance movements against adaptation by enforced ignorance and conformity. I write in what I undrestand is the LAW, which means testimony (measurements) in metaphysics, psychology, social science, which means the end of philosophy as anything other than choice of preference and good FROM the findings of LAW (Science and Testimony). In other words, it is my intention to exterminate philosophy (from the public sphere) as a discipline with LAW just as we exterminated religious theology (from the public sphere) with Physical Science. So I write in law, science, and logic in the structure (outline) of aristotelian philosophy for the purpose of destroying the (continental) cancer of ‘philosophy’ that is nothing but a set of sophomoric and pseudoscientific and in some cases (Evola) occult, drivel preventing us from taking action to impose LAW upon those who would use the same techniques as philosophers and theologians and pseudoscientists, to return us to the Abrahamic Dark Ages of delusionary ignorance.