BELIEF? I DON’T BELIEVE ANYTHING.
I don’t believe in anything. I simply can’t find a reason for it to be false yet. If you do that with discipline, the number of things that are left remaining that may possibly be true turns out to be quite small.
Grow up. Man up. Agency is impossible under falsehoods.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 18:31:00 UTC
If you are weak enough to need woo, you are just weak. That isn’t transcendence. That’s abandonment of reason.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 16:24:00 UTC
JORDAN PETERSON, LET ME PLAYFULLY TAUNT YOU A BIT AND ASK A PROFOUNDLY IMPORTANT QUESTION
What is the difference between (a)deflationary truth, (b)pragmatic truth, and the (c) social construction of truth?
I mean. You rely on pragmatic conflationary ‘truth’ and therefore diminish all deflationary truth claims by equating the possible, useful, and good, with the true, right?
I mean. That’s postmodern. That’s not modern, or western for that matter.
Westerners invented deflationary truth.
Our martial epistemology, its deflationary truth, and our intolerance for fictionalism in militia, thang, court, jury, and senate are what separates the west from the rest.
So why do you need to act contrary to our western tradition, and contrary to the single reason for the success of the west, and contrary to the sciences, and contrary to law, by stating a falsehood? That the possible, personally preferable, and reciprocally good equate to ‘true’?
How is that any different from the arbitrary truth of the Postmodernists?
(It’s not).
You are enraptured by the diagnostic utility of literature: literary psychology, literature of analogy, literature of myth (hyperbole), literature of idealism (platonism), and literature of religion (supernaturalism), and from what it appears, literature of the ‘occult’ or ‘spiritual’ (post-rational).
But at what point does literature of myth relying for pedagogy on some spectrum from focus to hyperbole free of externality (falsehood), demarcate from the literature of the ideal, supernatural, and occult, loaded with externality (falsehood)? At what point does the utility of therapy produce externalities more damaging than the cure?
Why, if east and west, who avoided idealism, supernaturalism, and the occult, advanced, and those who embraced abrahamism declined in one way or another (judaism, christianity, islam), is there any ‘good’ in the myths of the iranians, zoroastrians, abrahamists and others that could not constrain themselves to the truth?
Thanks
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 13:40:00 UTC
COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY: ACTUALLY ITS EASY
(from elsewhere)
ALL HUMAN PHENOMENON IS COMMENSURABLE, and ALL HUMAN DIFFERENCES ARE DECIDABLE.
METHODOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL
Chinese: create ‘woo’ with humbling riddles about the world.(inaction) Westerners: create ‘woo’ with power over the world (action)
–“Daoism and Confucianism, at least after a certain stage in the development of these schools, exemplify the way that a set of interests intertwine with beliefs about the world. Both schools exemplify in different ways a conception of understanding the world that is inseparable from the interest in coming into “attunement” with it, to use a felicitous word from Charles Taylor (1982). To become attuned to the world is to see its goodness and to know one’s place in the order of the world. “—
The west: transform the world for the better for having lived in it (evolve). The east: live in harmony with it (stagnate). Or worse, islam there is no new knowledge (devolve).
Extremely poor civilizations adopt a mono-philosophy. The east and west adopted class philosophies. The west even developed methods and languages for those philosophies. We tolerate nearly infinite challenges to the dominance hierarchy and lionize creativity that increases group competition.
IMO: the present problem remains monopoly: that people are not only unequal but vastly unequal. People are not only not equal in worth to one another, but a large number force others to pay a painful cost for their existence. Not only are capitalism and socialism both failures, but so is the median: social democracy. Why? Because just as we need different philosophies we need different economies. And so far, we have tried ‘all aristocracy’ in the west and failed, ‘all middle class’ in europe and failed, ‘all family in china and failed’, all commoners under the communists, and failed. When the more obvious solution is military (slavery), ‘WPA’, (serfdom/labor), guilds(unions/craftsmen), managers(small business/inventors), professionals(calculators/investors), and jurists (deciders).
So far, the attempt to create monopolies instead of the church, state, burgher, laborer, serf/slave/prisoner system has been a temporary luxury good made possible by a rare technological leap primarily the result of the harnessing of fossil fuels.
EPISTEMIC
chinese language is quite primitive, relying on high context, and low precision. their wisdom literature is likewise, high context, low precision. they insert ‘woo’ into their wisdom literature through contradiction. the monotheists inserts ‘woo’ through supernaturalism. The west inserts ‘woo’ through extension of perception – power over nature. Explanatory power.
The difference in our virtues is limited. however the difference in truthfulness, disruption of the dominance hierarchy, and dominating the universe couldn’t be any more opposite. In other words, ‘all high trust cultures are the same, all other cultures are different. All happy families are the same, all dysfunctional families are different. All domesticable animals are the same, all un-domesticable animals are different. All intelligent people are similar, all unintelligent people are different. All desirable people are the same, all undesirable people are different. The reason being that any number of criteria must coincide to produce excellence, but if any one fails, not so. The chinese insularism was smart in retrospect. the western threat to the dominance hierarchy was smart in retrospect. had each of us chosen that one property from the other we would both have been safer. the west from conquest, the east from stagnation.
IS COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY HARD?
Not at all. You just have to stop denying (a) costs, (b) darwinian consequences over time (c) vast inequality of people, and (d) the fact that every person at the bottom is six times as costly as your most productive person. (e) we cannot create social economic and political orders for people we wish we had, but those for whom we do have.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 13:03:00 UTC
People start with the assumption that the principle method of inquiry is mathematics. But mathematics isn’t causal. Algorithms are. Mathematics describes constant relations. That’s all. The value in mathematics is in narrowing the search for that first set of operations, and all the operations that result from that first set, and generation after generation from atoms to sentience.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 10:36:00 UTC
—“Is analytic philosophy superior to the continental philosophies – such as existentialism, phenomenology, Thomism?”– A Friend
Um. I think deflationary analysis (science) is superior to conflationary analysis (continental philosophy).
Continental philosophy bridges religion and science.
Analytic philosophy isolates religion from the sciences and joins the sciences.
(or more historically, analytic philosophy arose out of the enlightenment and law, and continental philosophy rose out of the enlightenment and religion. )
Continental philosophy conflates just as monotheistic religions conflated. Analytic philosophy deflates.
Analytic philosophy relies on literature for the experience
and then we analyze the literature using different fields.
So put in those terms, the ‘scientific tradition’ asks that we know more different tools of measurement, while the continental school tries to use our experiences as the standard of measurement.
As far as I know, the continental method has been a waste of time. As far as I know the analytic method has been overly distracted by the use of logic (sets and language) for answers (That were not found by the way).
WHereas science is in the process of discovering OPERATIONS rather than sets.
The basis of all ‘truth’ is the possibility of what operations allow change in state given any set of conditions.
Hence all true names are operational descriptions.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 12:07:00 UTC
PETERSON’S IRONICALLY POSTMODERN VERSION OF TRUTH: PRAGMATIC
—“Peterson’s notions of truth and falsity are very “pragmatic” – an ends justifies the means sort of conception – “lies” within his world view have very little to do with scientific or empirical accuracy. Peterson is brilliant but has significant blind spots as it relates to metaphorical or allegorical truisms which necessitate an aspect of “falsehood” and the contrast therein.”— Rob Ellerman
Well said. I didn’t think of that positioning. )
Peterson sees the frustrated mind of the human less valuable to others than than it can manage, struggling to make sense of, and succeed in, the universe given its lack of internal and external agency.
Peterson is acting as a Priest. (I’m acting a judge). And it’s the competition between the need to teach meaning in order to act, and the need to resolve conflict in order to prevent (empirical) ill actions.
The common ground between Priest and Judge is near perfection – if and only if he succeeds in constructing a new ‘religion’ out of literary analysis of myth, BUT if the battle for good and evil among those myths, is between the eastern fictionalist, and the western supernormal.
I think this is the origin of his problem. What you call ‘pragmatism’.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 08:22:00 UTC
OPERATIONAL PROPERTARIAN TESTIMONIAL GRAMMAR
There is a basic logic of all communication that is reducible to a set of ‘measurements’ that allows us to construct a language (terms) and grammar that make it very difficult to state falsehoods. (this is primarily what Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism provide)
And given that we understand this grammar, we can also show how suggestion can be created by a series of related statements through unstated but intermediary consequences (suggestive deductions).
It is very hard to construct lies via that intermediary means of suggestion. I suspect people will try to invent some method, but I think it’s going to be as easy to defeat as religious arguments are today.
There is a limit to human cognitive ability which is why game theory is of such limited value beyond the second or third order. Just as there is a limit to the number of chess moves a human seems to be able to rationally consider in advance of play.
So to translate that, it means it is extremely difficult to construct a lie that ordinary people can be fooled by if we make it difficult to do so beyond the third order.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 01:39:00 UTC
Superstition for the very weak. Myth for the less weak, Literature for the less weak. And measurement for the not-weak.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 23:41:00 UTC
GROW UP. MEASURE. CALCULATE. DECIDE
You know, i dont’ work with introspection. I work with science. as far as I know ascquisitionism is correct.
As I have come to understand, the stoics discovered acquisitionism and it was lost.
As far as I know, the virtues are methods of providing training in the use of acquisitionism.
I don’t use literature. I didn’t read freud. I read neitzche as a scientist reads a blueprint. And I found him … tiresome at best.
Hayek started with the brain. He almost did it. I started with artificial intelligence and I did it.
Why? I removed more nonsense than hayek did. hayek removed more nonsense than freud. freud removed more nonsense than nietzsche. And nietzsche removed almost 2000 years of nonsense.
The whole german program is nonsense. the whole french program is nonsense on stilts. the whole jewish program is nonsense on … really, really, big stills using a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Nonsense, more nonsense, nonsense on stilts, and nonsense on stilts with smoke and mirrors.
Grow up. Measure. The point of measuring is to eliminate all that nonsense.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 23:40:00 UTC