—“If I can’t survive and speak truthfully…. what’s the alternative? What can I do differently?”—
Say nothing when possible.
Say the least possible and obscurant when you can’t say nothing.
Simply agree when you can’t say the least possible.
Remember Them.
Return to Punish them for the use of ir-reciprocity via blackmailing you into stating a falsehood, and causing harm to you, your transcendence, and mankind.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-11 11:30:00 UTC
All our troubles spring from either the ignorance that prevents us from plain clear cut language, or the wilful misuse of language for the purpose of suggestion, deception, and fraud.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-11 11:23:00 UTC
THE SYNTHESIS OF LITERATURE AND TRUTH
(read it and weep)
THE MONOMYTH – Transcendence (Transformation)
THE ARCHETYPES – Characters (Categories)
THE VIRTUES – Comparison Operators (Values)
THE ORDERS – Axioms (Relations: sets of conditions)
THE NARRATIVES – Operations (Methods of change in state)
THE DISCIPLINES – Mindfulness/Stoicism ( Noise Reduction)
THE SCIENCES – Measurement (reduction of ignorance, error, bias, deception reduction)
THE TRUTH – Parsimony (Most Parsimonious Operational Name of a Recipe of Transformation.)
There exists only one objective – transcendence.
There exists only one narrative – transcendence
There exist only a few sub-narratives – methods of transcendence
There exist only so many non-false virtues – variables of transcendence
There exist only so many portfolios of virtues – transcendent characters.
There exist only so many methods of non-false noise reduction – transcendent mind.
There exist only so many methods of non-false elimination of falsehoods – transcendent reason.
There exists only so many sets of primary operations – transcendent truths.
Via-Positiva:
A myth can employ anthropomorphism in an act of transcendence.
A myth can employ hyperbole (super-normalism) in an act of transcendence.
A myth can employ any technique to create an immoral condition against which one employs virtues to transcend.
A myth can employ virtues in an act of transcendence.
Via Negativa:
A myth cannot contradict the virtue of transcendence.
A myth cannot contradict of a virtue of transcendence in an act of transcendence.
A myth cannot employ a falsehood in an act of transcendence
A myth cannot employ luck or miracles in an act of transcendence.
A myth cannot employ fictionalism (idealism, supernaturalism, pseudoscience/pseudo-rationalism) in an act of transcendence.
If a myth can survive these tests then it is true, and good.
If a myth cannot survives these tests then it is false, and evil.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-11 09:06:00 UTC
( damn. I know that first is principal, and decidability is principle, but you know, my fingers always have this terrible desire to type principle rather than principal. sigh.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-10 11:15:00 UTC
THE TRUTH SPECTRUM
(worth repeating)
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-10 08:32:00 UTC
all languge consists of measurements
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-10 07:13:00 UTC
THE THREE SETS OF IDEAS, AND WHY I EXPECT CRITICISM
There is a great difference between 1) the set of Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism – which I am fairly certain solves the unification of the fields of philosophy and science, and 2) the Western group evolutionary strategy of Sovereignty which I’ve explained by USING that set of ideas. And 3) my particular solution to constructing a condition of sovereignty today via constitutionalism as a means of eliminating the second abrahamic defeat of the west.
And I am aware that those that cannot grasp any of those systems cannot also grasp that they are three different things, and that one’s criticism of the second and third says nothing about the first. Or that the first, as far as I know, survives all possible criticism.
Under Testimonialism, no single dimension of a fully accounted truth proposition is closed, and therefore no logical or mathematical, or ethical paradoxes exist. And while I originally, intuited ‘something wrong’ with mathematics ( for which one of my closest friends, a mathematician was frustrated) I was swayed by these kinds of nonsense mathematical arguments myself.
At present I understand that we can only close a dimension of reason (logic and mathematics for example) by appeal to the next dimension. And that in the end even Testimony (a full accounting of all the dimensions) cannot be closed (Critical Rationalism) – for no other reason that any description we can give relies upon incomplete knowledge of a universe with what appears to be non distillable causal density.
So I take it as ‘a cost of doing business’ when people criticize me, or criticize my work, because I understand how very few people grasp Acquisitionism+Propertariainsm+Testimonialism. (What I call Propertarianism, but which I should probably call Testimonialism). And I accept that my use of Propertarianism to express western civilization’s group evolutionary strategy (and the strategy of all other groups and civilizations) is offensive. And I understand that people may not like or desire to live in a nation-state where truthful speech in the commons is a legal obligation.
So I understand when people both conflate the three different projects, and construct criticisms, or express skepticism, or disapproval or ridicule: they are simple people. But as simple people they assist me in improving my argument until those who are a bit less simple may grasp it with effort, and those who are not simple are attracted to what they intuit are answers to problems that I have solved.
I conduct my work in public specifically so that I can attract (worthwhile) criticism, and therefore produce a work more thoroughly tested than i could by merely talking to myself about it so to speak.
So it’s quite alright. I know the difference between myself and all but a few as we struggle on the edge of human understanding.
That said, I am extraordinarily cognizant that i’ve completed and explained the success of the scientific method and unified philosophy and science. And if only a handful of people understand that, then that’s fine with me.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-10 05:10:00 UTC
IDEOLOGY VS PHILOSOPHY VS TRUTH
Ideology: internally inconsistent and incomplete narrative for the purpose of inspiring action necessary to seize power in order to alter the status quo.
Philosophy: internally consistent if incomplete method of producing decidability for the purpose of obtaining an end by reason and argument.
Truth: internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally articulated system of decidability REGARDLESS of philosophy, ideology, or preference.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 10:25:00 UTC
CAN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD (TESTIMONIALISM) PRODUCE TRUTH?
The scientific method CAN produce the truth. (The most parsimonious statement of correspondence by reduction to experientially decidable measurements that is possible.) The problem is, that we can very rarely KNOW it’s the truth in other than non-trivial terms for the simple reason that it is very hard to identify when information is missing. (For example, it is hard to imagine that there is much left to understand in the function of chemistry’s periodic table, only its application. But we could change the meaning of ‘Chemistry’ in the future. That would not mean that our existing statements were false, only that we had changed the context of the promise.
That’s why I use the term “Truthful” to deflate the traditional conflation ( under the form of idealism you favor speaking in ) of Truth (idealism) into:
1 – Truth (the most parsimonious statement possible in the context of the question),
2 – “Truthful” Truth (warranty of due diligence under testimonialism’s full set of dimensions),
3 – Truth (Warranty of due diligence in one’s Testimony to the best of one’s rational ability),
4 – Truth (honesty in the absence of due diligence).
Now, I probably should deflate the term ‘concept’ as well, into its constituent parts… but I think names, properties, categories, relations, recipes, actions, transformations, and narratives, are all well understood, whereas truth is more frequently used in ideal and conflated variations.
Curt
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 08:37:00 UTC
THE ARGUMENT FOR NORMATIVE DECIDABILITY IN NON-OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE
(CD: for those that cannot make the leap to operationalism, joel does a wonderful job of using traditional language to make the point.)
—
by Joel Davis
A social structure emerges from the conceptual structures held by the participants which have relevance to interpersonal interaction.
These conceptual structures emerge from conceptual valuation, and conceptual valuation functions via relative conceptual hierarchies of valuation.
These hierarchies of values then become the criteria from which a social structure formulates its interpersonal hierarchies.
To peacefully preserve a particular social structure, a society must have at least a significant convergence (or ideally, a consensus) between its participants in regard to conceptual valuation relevant to interpersonal interaction.
Without this convergence, participants in the social structure who hold competing conceptual hierarchies will support competing interpersonal hierarchies, rendering conceptual divergence doomed to social chaos and violence only resolvable via the tyrannical imposition of a victorious conceptual structure.
In the West, we addressed this problem with markets via the superordinate metavaluation of the twin concepts of rationality and honor during antiquity and reason and liberty during modernity.
However, rationalism and honor were defeated by Catholic (and Islamic) conceptual tyranny, and now reason and liberty are on the brink of complete disintegration via a regression to chaotic conceptual divergence as a result of the counter-enlightenment.
The only wall that can truly protect our society is the revived convergent, superordinate metavaluations of reason and liberty. Physical walls to keep out those who challenge their superordinance would then be merely a natural consequence.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 08:17:00 UTC