Thou shalt make no statistical claim about mankind that does not survive construction from a sequence of rational actions within each quintile.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-31 17:02:00 UTC
Thou shalt make no statistical claim about mankind that does not survive construction from a sequence of rational actions within each quintile.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-31 17:02:00 UTC
YOUR ‘OPERATIONAL’ DEFINITION IS ‘PERSONAL’.
(meaning, subjective nonsense) (oh the irony)
Necessary definitions are what we call ‘truth’ statements. It is what it is. They are what they are. And yes I do need to do it. It’s my job: Sanitizing the informational commons. And exposing those who make excuses for people who conflate personal experiential emotions in the ignorance of possibility, cost, and consequence, possibility with aggregate possibility, cost, and consequence in order to promote and conduct thefts via the violence of government is one of the most moral services a man can provide to his people.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 14:54:00 UTC
HOW TO ASK CURT TO EXPLAIN ‘GIBBERISH’ (DENSE) ARGUMENTS – AND WHY THEY ARE DENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE
—“Regarding: “I will venture you do not understand the necessary meaning of politics rather than the conventional,” You are babbling gibberish as always. What does this sentence mean?”— Joseph Nerevar
It’s not gibberish, its very dense, but thank you for asking.
In the future, the ‘gentlemanly’ way to ask a question is:
“Curt can you *unpack* that sentence or paragraph for me?”
Necessary, vs academic, vs traditional, vs normative, vs colloquial language. By necessary I refer to ‘what it can mean’ versus what we mean academically, traditionally, normatively, or colloqually.
The principle function of Testimonialism (the funny way I talk) is to speak in very precise language so that you can’t fool yourself (or others) into thinking you know what you’re talking about (or lying).
We use a particular technique when defining terms, that is a bit complicated for me to repeat here. But just as I listed Necessary, academic, traditional, normative and colloquial above as a *series* of terms, when we use any term we create a series (list) that includes it, and then we define each term as a series of human actions (and decisions) using a particularly rigid grammar (sentence structure, and vocabulary), where we list what states of property people are trying to change, and whether they are doing so honestly and truthfully or not, and what degree of precision they are using (scientific to literary to supernatural for example). The end product is a very clear set of definitions that cannot be used to ‘hide’ attempted thefts (or frauds or whatever).
In the case of ‘politics’, we use this word in an ancient sense, but conflate it (mix it up in colloquial language) as if it’s a catch-all for ‘stuff related to government. What politics means of necessity (scientifically), is a means by which groups organize to construct commons (territory, capital, organizations, goods, services, information and institutions).
But what groups? Groups that have the choice to organize a MARKET for the production of commons, or a deciding body that does so, or a dictator that does so?
The west made use of markets for the production of commons at different scales – almost always locally, and as often as possible in government. We made markets in everything: association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of the resolution of disputes (law), production of polities, and war.
How many other civilizations used politics (markets?) in everything? And why is it that we developed reason, a science of politics, common law, republicanism and democracy, and why are those methods almost unique to the west?
Politics: the operations of a market for construction of commons.
Rule is something else altogether.
Ergo, where we use the word Politics, other civilizations use Rule. And we do not ourselves even understand the necessary meaning of the word that we use.
Hence why democracy has been conducted as a war on rule of law, in order to end the market for the construction of commons, and replace it, like all other civilizations have, with discretionary rule.
CLOSING
So you see, what you ‘hear’ as gibberish is a scientific language, but because you are used to speaking morally (intuitively) about these subjects, you hear this very technical method of argument and react to it, where if we were talking about chemistry or physics, or mathematics, or epistemology, you would simply accept that they are terms that you don’t know.
I speak, and those who follow me learn to speak, in truthful (scientific) language, where meanings are precise, just like any other professional discipline.
Now …. do you expect me to write this kind of detail in every argument that I make, or do I have your permission to speak in dense language for those who grasp it, and leave open the opportunity for explanation for those who are curious but lack the knowledge to comprehend it on their own?
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 12:35:00 UTC
Simplicity is necessary in mathematics since mathematical symbols and operations itself (state and operators) are necessary to allow us to remember state with sufficient precision that we can conduct comparisons between states.
However, if we restated the foundations of mathematics operationally (constructively – analogous to gears), and we stated the foundations of mathematical deduction negatively, as geometry, we would be able to show that it is convergence between the via-positiva construction, and the via-negative deduction that leads us to truth.
Unfortunately, man discovered (logically so) geometry prior to gears, and as such, we retain the ‘superstitious’ language of geometry (and algebra) of the superstitious era in which both were invented.
Reality has only so many dimensions. By adding and removing dimensions from consideration we simplify the problem of describing the constant relations within it.
Mathematics specializes in the removal of (a) scale, and (b) time, and (c) operations (and arguable (d) morality) from consideration, leaving only identity, quantity, and ratio, to which we add positional naming (numbers). We then construct general rules of arbitrary precision (scale independence) and apply those to reality wherein we must ‘hydrate’ (reconstitute) scale, time, and operations(actions).
So just as philosophy is ‘stuck’ in non contradiction instead of increasing dimensions in order to test theories, mathematics is ‘stuck’ in non-contradiction instead of re-hydrating (restoring dimensions) to justify propositions.
In other words, fancy words like ‘limits’ or ‘non-contradictory’ or ‘axiom of choice’ and various other terms in the field are just nonsense words that prevent the conversion of mathematics from a fictionalism into a science.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-28 07:10:00 UTC
Now, I can train people to solve for true rather than for good. But like anything else it takes a hell of a lot of repetition to develop intuitions that favor the true rather than the (false) good.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 18:36:00 UTC
EXERCISE: Fiction vs Fictionalism
What separates fiction from fictionalism?
Fictionalism is constructed with at least these techniques:
1 – pseudo-science,
2 – pseudo-rationalism,
3 – pseudo-history, and
4 – pseudo-mythology(Religion).
And each technique includes three tools:
a) a lie
b) an obscurantism
c) a conflation
Can you give an example of each technique, and the tools used to construct it?
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 12:04:00 UTC
EXAMPLE: THE IMPORTANCE OF SERIES
‘hate on’ (v. slang)
To express hatred toward.
‘hate’ v.
The feeling we experience towards those who betray us, steal from us, threaten us, harm us, and whom we desire to harm more so, even to the point of paying the high cost of altruistic punishment. (Hate evolved as the extreme retaliation against violations of reciprocity.)
‘anger’ v.
( … )
‘dislike’ v.
That feeling we experience toward others who betray us ethically or morally, by violating reciprocity, such that we seek to boycott all offers or opportunities to cooperate with them.
‘disapprove’ v.
The feeling we experience towards others who take unethical, immoral, actions by violating reciprocity by imposing costs upon others directly, ethically by informational asymmetry, or morally, by externality.
‘reject’ / ‘rejection’ v.
That feeling we experience toward others whose offers of cooperation are undesirable either directly, ethically by asymmetry, or morally by externality.
‘tolerate’ v.
( … )
‘negotiate’ v.
( … )
‘accomodate’ v.
( … )
‘cooperate’ v.
( … )
‘give preference’ v.
( … )
‘advocate’ v.
( … )
…
‘love’ v.
( … )
From bearing costs to punish(hate), to bear costs to advance(love).
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 11:32:00 UTC
HOW DO WE COMMUNICATE IDEAS WITH FICTION BUT NOT FALSELY? William Butchman—“We have a universe of potentiality available to us. Is potential which has not yet been called into being ‘fiction’, is it ‘false’?”— Curt Doolittle No. We can state it falsely, but we cannot state that which we can envision is yet false. no. To respect natural law we must merely not make false claims. This is the beauty of fiction (literature) vs fictionalism (religion, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience – the discourse of conflation) Fiction makes no truth claims, it merely spreads ideas. If it makes truth claims, (particularly ‘smear campaigns against past idols) then that is not fiction but fictionalization – conflation)
HOW DO WE COMMUNICATE IDEAS WITH FICTION BUT NOT FALSELY? William Butchman—“We have a universe of potentiality available to us. Is potential which has not yet been called into being ‘fiction’, is it ‘false’?”— Curt Doolittle No. We can state it falsely, but we cannot state that which we can envision is yet false. no. To respect natural law we must merely not make false claims. This is the beauty of fiction (literature) vs fictionalism (religion, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience – the discourse of conflation) Fiction makes no truth claims, it merely spreads ideas. If it makes truth claims, (particularly ‘smear campaigns against past idols) then that is not fiction but fictionalization – conflation)
—“I’m generally right – only because I know more ways to be wrong.” — Eli Harman
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 16:31:00 UTC