SERIES: “COHERENCE, JUDGEMENT, TRUTH” Bill, (All), I had to think about this overnight, but I think you’ve given me a way to speak about the difference between: – internal coherence (decidability in pursuit of preferences) – and judgement (decidability in resolution of conflict). And I am going to have to incorporate the three factors somehow: 1) competitive utility of personal and cooperative rallying to social opportunity (coherence) 2) competitive utility of decidability in cross preference conflict (judgement) 3) competitive utility of physical transformation (truth) Even if by ‘competitive utility’ i’m referring to the anything between the red queen (evolution-nature outside of present), Time(scarcity in the present), survival, reproductive success, social success, and economic success, and personal fulfillment. I have had a very hard time finding a way of expressing this and I think between your statement and my understanding of peterson’s ‘literary and platonic’ I think I’m getting closer. And I think these are the three categories in the series of decidability. THREE SERIES OF INCREASING PRECISION Coherence > Judgement > Truth Literature > Law > Science Ideation > Decision > Action Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Series: Coherence, Judgement, Truth
SERIES: “COHERENCE, JUDGEMENT, TRUTH” Bill, (All), I had to think about this overnight, but I think you’ve given me a way to speak about the difference between: – internal coherence (decidability in pursuit of preferences) – and judgement (decidability in resolution of conflict). And I am going to have to incorporate the three factors somehow: 1) competitive utility of personal and cooperative rallying to social opportunity (coherence) 2) competitive utility of decidability in cross preference conflict (judgement) 3) competitive utility of physical transformation (truth) Even if by ‘competitive utility’ i’m referring to the anything between the red queen (evolution-nature outside of present), Time(scarcity in the present), survival, reproductive success, social success, and economic success, and personal fulfillment. I have had a very hard time finding a way of expressing this and I think between your statement and my understanding of peterson’s ‘literary and platonic’ I think I’m getting closer. And I think these are the three categories in the series of decidability. THREE SERIES OF INCREASING PRECISION Coherence > Judgement > Truth Literature > Law > Science Ideation > Decision > Action Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Series: Instrumental Extensions of our Memories
Symbols provide an improvement upon memory. Writing symbols evolved to create lists of inventory. A journal is an improvement upon lists. An accounting system is an improvement over a journal. A hierarchical database is just the automation of an accounting system. A relational database is just an advancement over an accounting system. A document store with a searchable full text index is an extension of a relational database. A non-referentially-integral document store with full text index that can calculate results from the properties of indices is an improvement upon the relational database. A semantic store of relations between meanings (networks of properties reducible to human experience) is an improvement over a document store. An inferential store of candidate relations (stored as non-euclidian geometric relations) between meanings of properties reducible to human experience is an improvement over a semantic store. An automated explorer of stimuli(inputs) that attempts to use streams of inputs to test inferred candidate relations between meanings of properties reducible to human experience is an improvement over an inferential store. An an automated seeker of inferred streams of inputs necessary to test inferred candidate relations between meanings of properties reducible to human experience is an improvement over an automated explorer. An automated choice of the value of the results of automated seeking of inferred streams of inputs necessary to test inferred candidate relations between meanings of properties reducible to human experience is an improvement over an automated seeker. An automated judge of the consequences of the choice of values is an improvement over an automatic decision maker. An automated regulator (policeman) of the judgements of the consequences of … However, that hierarchy gracefully upgrades and degrades. We need symbols, lists, journals, accounting systems, hierarchical databases, relational databases, and so on… But if we work hard enough we come round full circle as the only difference in each of these conditions is the cost of retaining and locating memories. Where, in that series, we evolved to store the minimum amount of information, searchable at the minimum cost, to do precisely the same thing – but at much smaller scale than the machines that we ask to perform the same task at ever increasing scales.
-
Series: Instrumental Extensions of our Memories
Symbols provide an improvement upon memory. Writing symbols evolved to create lists of inventory. A journal is an improvement upon lists. An accounting system is an improvement over a journal. A hierarchical database is just the automation of an accounting system. A relational database is just an advancement over an accounting system. A document store with a searchable full text index is an extension of a relational database. A non-referentially-integral document store with full text index that can calculate results from the properties of indices is an improvement upon the relational database. A semantic store of relations between meanings (networks of properties reducible to human experience) is an improvement over a document store. An inferential store of candidate relations (stored as non-euclidian geometric relations) between meanings of properties reducible to human experience is an improvement over a semantic store. An automated explorer of stimuli(inputs) that attempts to use streams of inputs to test inferred candidate relations between meanings of properties reducible to human experience is an improvement over an inferential store. An an automated seeker of inferred streams of inputs necessary to test inferred candidate relations between meanings of properties reducible to human experience is an improvement over an automated explorer. An automated choice of the value of the results of automated seeking of inferred streams of inputs necessary to test inferred candidate relations between meanings of properties reducible to human experience is an improvement over an automated seeker. An automated judge of the consequences of the choice of values is an improvement over an automatic decision maker. An automated regulator (policeman) of the judgements of the consequences of … However, that hierarchy gracefully upgrades and degrades. We need symbols, lists, journals, accounting systems, hierarchical databases, relational databases, and so on… But if we work hard enough we come round full circle as the only difference in each of these conditions is the cost of retaining and locating memories. Where, in that series, we evolved to store the minimum amount of information, searchable at the minimum cost, to do precisely the same thing – but at much smaller scale than the machines that we ask to perform the same task at ever increasing scales.
-
Philosophy (Moral Literature) Is Not Much Help
I AM NOT SURE PHILOSOPHY (LITERATURE) IS MUCH HELP (from elsewhere) It’s one thing to suspect, another thing to do. Reading is hard. Arithmetic is harder is harder than reading. Accounting is harder than arithmetic. Programming is harder than accounting Natural Law is harder than programming. If you look at the people who have been with us for a long time everyone has gotten better at argument. Some can use the basic arguments. Some people can use the various series. But how many of us can write natural law in operational grammar? The beauty of Propertarainism is that it contains each of those levels: the historical argument, the causality of Acquisitionism (incentives), The epistemology of Testimonialism, the Ethics (and definitions of unethical) of Propertarianinism, the politics of Market Government, the competition of group evolutionary strategies, the aesthetics of transcendence …. and the logic, grammar, and rhetoric of natural law. There is something for everyone no matter their level of ability. But just as some people can do arithmetic, some accounting, some mathematics, some programming … only some will be able to write natural law (for example, like James Augustus does intuitively or John Dow approaches). Myself I think it is more important for most people to recognize and READ it (just as reading can be taught to most people) than it is to WRITE it (which requires far less effort and ability). The vast majority of people will learn propertarianism (natural law) from Eli, not me, and can be introduced by William Butchman or others. Those who can construct grammatical arguments, I think, will be those who come by it intuitively, or who have financial, legal, and programming experience, or who simply work hard at it like any other of the ‘logics’. The problem for those who study philosophy (literature), is that it is in fact just ‘literature’, and not a STEM discipline (science). And to some degree it anchors you just as religion anchors the theological. Natural Law, like programming, logic, and math, is a STEM discipline. The difference between programming and natural law is merely that the comparison tests (incentives) of man, and the operations (actions) of man, are mere ‘calculations’, and as such broader, and less limited than the ‘computations’ of machines. And while the machine checks our cognitive biases due to it’s rigid grammar, we must check ourselves in our arguments by checking our own grammar. And that is the very hardest part.
-
Philosophy (Moral Literature) Is Not Much Help
I AM NOT SURE PHILOSOPHY (LITERATURE) IS MUCH HELP (from elsewhere) It’s one thing to suspect, another thing to do. Reading is hard. Arithmetic is harder is harder than reading. Accounting is harder than arithmetic. Programming is harder than accounting Natural Law is harder than programming. If you look at the people who have been with us for a long time everyone has gotten better at argument. Some can use the basic arguments. Some people can use the various series. But how many of us can write natural law in operational grammar? The beauty of Propertarainism is that it contains each of those levels: the historical argument, the causality of Acquisitionism (incentives), The epistemology of Testimonialism, the Ethics (and definitions of unethical) of Propertarianinism, the politics of Market Government, the competition of group evolutionary strategies, the aesthetics of transcendence …. and the logic, grammar, and rhetoric of natural law. There is something for everyone no matter their level of ability. But just as some people can do arithmetic, some accounting, some mathematics, some programming … only some will be able to write natural law (for example, like James Augustus does intuitively or John Dow approaches). Myself I think it is more important for most people to recognize and READ it (just as reading can be taught to most people) than it is to WRITE it (which requires far less effort and ability). The vast majority of people will learn propertarianism (natural law) from Eli, not me, and can be introduced by William Butchman or others. Those who can construct grammatical arguments, I think, will be those who come by it intuitively, or who have financial, legal, and programming experience, or who simply work hard at it like any other of the ‘logics’. The problem for those who study philosophy (literature), is that it is in fact just ‘literature’, and not a STEM discipline (science). And to some degree it anchors you just as religion anchors the theological. Natural Law, like programming, logic, and math, is a STEM discipline. The difference between programming and natural law is merely that the comparison tests (incentives) of man, and the operations (actions) of man, are mere ‘calculations’, and as such broader, and less limited than the ‘computations’ of machines. And while the machine checks our cognitive biases due to it’s rigid grammar, we must check ourselves in our arguments by checking our own grammar. And that is the very hardest part.
-
Once You Grasp the Term Propertarian, You Will Eventually Find Propertarianism.
YOU GET AN A+. (from elsewhere) Propertarian = the reduction of social science, group evolutionary strategy, morality, politics, law, ethics, and cognition, to statements of the voluntary or involuntary transfer of property between consenting individuals. Next you will grasp that the scope of property Rothbard claims (physical intersubjective) lacking rule of law, and Hoppe’s use of rule of law, limited to the intersubjectively verifiable), cannot provide the incentives necessary to produce a sustainable voluntary polity capable of surviving competition against other polities. Once you have made that distinction you can come join Propertarianism: 1) Acquisitionism (psychology) 2) Testimonialism (epistemology) 3) Propertarianism (ethics and morality) 4) Evolutionary Strategy (Sociology) 5) Market Government (Politics) (“Market Fascism for the insiders – meaning only markets”) 6) Group Evolutionary Strategy (avoidance, competition, conflict, war) 7) Aesthetics of Transcendence (obtaining Sovereignty through Agency) 8) Natural Law: the logic, grammar, and rhetoric of all of the above. The normal path of maturity appears to be Libertarian > Anarcho Capitalist > Dark Enlightenment > Propertarianism. This spectrum describes hope (Libertarianisn), separatism (anarcho capitalism), hopelessness (dark enlightenment), taking responsibility (Sovereignty: Propertarianism : Natural Law of Sovereign Men.) Its a lot harder than memorizing a few simple phrases common in libertarianism, or mastering a few arguments as in Anarcho Capitalism. But if it was easy it wouldn’t have taken us so long to write a formal grammar of Natural Law. We’re waiting for you. Or at least, those who can make the journey. -Cheers
-
Once You Grasp the Term Propertarian, You Will Eventually Find Propertarianism.
YOU GET AN A+. (from elsewhere) Propertarian = the reduction of social science, group evolutionary strategy, morality, politics, law, ethics, and cognition, to statements of the voluntary or involuntary transfer of property between consenting individuals. Next you will grasp that the scope of property Rothbard claims (physical intersubjective) lacking rule of law, and Hoppe’s use of rule of law, limited to the intersubjectively verifiable), cannot provide the incentives necessary to produce a sustainable voluntary polity capable of surviving competition against other polities. Once you have made that distinction you can come join Propertarianism: 1) Acquisitionism (psychology) 2) Testimonialism (epistemology) 3) Propertarianism (ethics and morality) 4) Evolutionary Strategy (Sociology) 5) Market Government (Politics) (“Market Fascism for the insiders – meaning only markets”) 6) Group Evolutionary Strategy (avoidance, competition, conflict, war) 7) Aesthetics of Transcendence (obtaining Sovereignty through Agency) 8) Natural Law: the logic, grammar, and rhetoric of all of the above. The normal path of maturity appears to be Libertarian > Anarcho Capitalist > Dark Enlightenment > Propertarianism. This spectrum describes hope (Libertarianisn), separatism (anarcho capitalism), hopelessness (dark enlightenment), taking responsibility (Sovereignty: Propertarianism : Natural Law of Sovereign Men.) Its a lot harder than memorizing a few simple phrases common in libertarianism, or mastering a few arguments as in Anarcho Capitalism. But if it was easy it wouldn’t have taken us so long to write a formal grammar of Natural Law. We’re waiting for you. Or at least, those who can make the journey. -Cheers
-
Speaking in Operational Grammar is a Test of Agency
SPEAKING IN OPERATIONAL GRAMMAR IS A TEST OF AGENCY It is very hard to migrate from thinking in terms of: 1 – meaning or experience to your self 2 – empathy for or meaning to others 3 – empathy with others intentions INTO 4 – nothing but objective statements of incentives, actors, actions, and consequences. NOTE: The degree with which you can do this kind of speech is a DIRECT MEASURE OF YOUR OWN AGENCY.
-
Speaking in Operational Grammar is a Test of Agency
SPEAKING IN OPERATIONAL GRAMMAR IS A TEST OF AGENCY It is very hard to migrate from thinking in terms of: 1 – meaning or experience to your self 2 – empathy for or meaning to others 3 – empathy with others intentions INTO 4 – nothing but objective statements of incentives, actors, actions, and consequences. NOTE: The degree with which you can do this kind of speech is a DIRECT MEASURE OF YOUR OWN AGENCY.