Why do we love myth, religion, literature, philosophy, so dearly and pursue history, science, and the various grammars (logics) of caclulation with such reluctance?
The method of communication is experiential in the first and not so in the second.
Our mythology promises opportunities to free ride.
The truth does not.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-24 02:20:00 UTC
METHODS OF COMMUNICATION
Law(cooperation), Laws
Aesthetics(pleasure), Experiences
Literature(conflation), Analogies
Science (deflation). Names.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-24 02:03:00 UTC
PHILOSOPHY: THE LITERATURE OF DECEIT?
When you switch from the conduct of pedagogy to science, justification to criticism, opportunity searching to error reduction, you see that philosophy has unjustifiably self congratulated itself quite a bit throughout history.
And when you find the central problem of epistemology is not improvement of your own meagre ability to produce ideas, but the detection of deception in the extraordinary ability of the collective to produce a market of ideas, then you treat the philosophical discourse very differently.
I have taken to assuming all philosophical statements are attempts at free riding, and that I must discover how they seek free riding.
This has become my current view of philosophy.
On the other hand it requires a catalog of human errors just as it requires a catalog of crimes, to practice the craft of prosecuting thought in the advancement of fraud.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-24 02:00:00 UTC
PHILOSOPHY: UNLOADED SCIENCE VS LOADED LITERATURE
(important piece on the form and content of philosophy)
Testimony vs Literature
Truth vs Experience
Criticism vs Free Association
Survival vs Creativity
Deflationary vs Conflationary
Clarify vs Obscure
Persuasion vs Suggestion
Decidability vs Opportunity
Decrease Cost vs Increase Cost
Save vs Spend
Action vs Consumption
Production vs Entertainment
Science vs Art
What is the difference between an action novel and a philosophical treatise? You are carried into the plot, vs the plot is carried into you.
But they are both literature.
That is all.
A recipe is different from a work of literature.
Science(Testimony) consists of the methods by which we create recipes and name them. Literature the methods by which we create experiences.
Communication, like violence, is a resource put to good or ill.
Whether we create fully informed, productive, warrantied voluntary exchanges free of externalities – meaning moral communication – or whether we create suggestion, unproductive or harmful, unwarranted, involuntary transfers full of externalities – meaning immoral communication.
And the fact remains that it is very difficult to communicate immorally with recipes, it is very easy to communicate immorally with literature.
Yet given that experience is our native language – one which evolved prior to reason – pedagogy is often best performed with loaded, framed, and repeated (overloaded) analogy.
There is a place for truth.
There is a place for pedagogy.
There is a place for creativity
The question we must ask of some philosophers is whether there is a place for immoral suggestion rather than moral communication.
And whether they transfer by moral or immoral means, immoral or moral ends.
The philosophy of the west is natural law, common law, testimony, jury, universal standing and rule of law (universal applicability). Science is the art of improving one’s testimony.
Everything else is merely literature.
The question is whether that literature conveys moral or immoral content, and does so morally or immorally.
And from that perspective, philosophers have a very checkered past.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-24 01:31:00 UTC
Testimony vs Literature
Truth vs Experience
Criticism vs Free Association
Survival vs Creativity
Deflationary vs Conflationary
Clarify vs Obscure
Persuasion vs Suggestion
Decidability vs Opportunity
Decrease Cost vs Increase Cost
Save vs Spend
Action vs Consumption
Production vs Entertainment
Science vs Art
What is the difference between an action novel and a philosophical treatise? You are carried into the plot, vs the plot is carried into you.
But they are both literature.
That is all.
A recipe is different from a work of literature.
Science(Testimony) consists of the methods by which we create recipes and name them. Literature the methods by which we create experiences.
Communication, like violence, is a resource put to good or ill.
Whether we create fully informed, productive, warrantied voluntary exchanges free of externalities – meaning moral communication – or whether we create suggestion, unproductive or harmful, unwarranted, involuntary transfers full of externalities – meaning immoral communication.
And the fact remains that it is very difficult to communicate immorally with recipes, it is very easy to communicate immorally with literature.
Yet given that experience is our native language – one which evolved prior to reason – pedagogy is often best performed with loaded, framed, and repeated (overloaded) analogy.
There is a place for truth.
There is a place for pedagogy.
There is a place for creativity
The question we must ask of some philosophers is whether there is a place for immoral suggestion rather than moral communication.
And whether they transfer by moral or immoral means, immoral or moral ends.
The philosophy of the west is natural law, common law, testimony, jury, universal standing and rule of law (universal applicability). Science is the art of improving one’s testimony.
Everything else is merely literature.
The question is whether that literature conveys moral or immoral content, and does so morally or immorally.
And from that perspective, philosophers have a very checkered past.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-24 01:13:00 UTC
People follow incentives given the information at their disposal.
The problem for all people when faced with sensory instrumentation insufficient to provide them with decidability in maters of complexity at hand, they rely purely on incentives.
In the case of politicians they follow the incentives we have given them.
Monopoly (majoritarian) democracy is a fine means of choosing the commons to purchase given the scarcity of resources for people with homogenous interests.
When people have heterogeneous interests, or when they are outright competitors, and especially if they have become enemies, then monopoly (majority) rule is merely a proxy for warfare, rather than a means of choosing commons.
The solution for people with dissimilar interests (classes and genders) who are competitors (Religions and races), or who are outright enemies (urban low opportunity cost, vs rural high opportunity cost), and who NEED customized social orders in order to compete (different median IQ/impulsivity/aggression), is to create a market for commons for the exchange of commons – OR – to secede so that they can conduct these exchanges using politicians between states as ‘trade policy’. (How Europe did).
The enlightenment visions of man were wrong. The Anglo experiment of an aristocracy of everyone has been a demonstrated failure – because meritocracy is against the interests of the majority.
People (empirically) do not vote for policy, they vote for the ‘generals’ that reflect their reproductive strategy: gender, creed, race, clan. (sorry, that’s just how it is.)
We are not seeing a conflict. We are seeing the results and end of a century of experimentation with the wealth effect of selling off the Louisiana purchase and the westward expansion to immigrants during a period of european civil war. That temporary luxury was assumed to result in an infinite growth – linear intergenerational expansion. We replaced a benevolent god with the theory of infinite productivity expansion.
Meanwhile, in 1963, the left, understanding that they could not achieve conquest through persuasion, adopted the Russian method of conquering territories by exporting Russians to eastern Europe, and instead immigrated third worlders to the united states in an attempt to destabilize the high trust society and create demand for the socialist state.
These experiments have ended along with western economic and military superiority.
So no. This isn’t a difference of opinion any longer.
Welcome to the start of civil war.
But unlike other nations who lack our traditions, anglos have a long history of settling civil wars through return of rights to the middle class.
It’s common to say that america has the oldest government in the west. But this is not really true. We simply have this thing called the english common law, a majority germanic people, and a tradition of using that law to come to compromise.
I am no longer confident this is a solvable problem.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-22 14:17:00 UTC
Because we show charity to error in pursuit of truth. but no longer to enemies in pursuit of deceit hiding fraud.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-22 11:32:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/712240602461642752
Reply addressees: @HuffPostRelig @MaxLucado
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/712239156676730880
IN REPLY TO:
@HuffPostRelig
Decency matters. So why isn’t it doing better in the presidential race? @MaxLucado https://t.co/24Ggaut0yW https://t.co/5D9pyNM9BX
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/712239156676730880
There is only one ultimate parsimony available to man. That ultimate parsimony consists of the true names of all that exists in the universe.
Truth is the name we use to refer to true names.
True names are the ultimately most parsimonious descriptions of whatever phenomenon we wish to convey.
Now, others might say that there are more experiential ways of observing existence. And I might agree that there are many stories we can envision. And that from these visions we might gather new ideas. But those ideas can be used for entertainment, for assuaging suffering, or for deceit. But they cannot convey true names.
This is not to say that there is no place for the arts in the communication of the human experience. It is however, to say that the communication of the human experience can be tested for aesthetic, true, false, good and bad content.
Art can be judged as is any other statement.
Art does not get license to hazard, lie cheat, steal and harm.
Just the Opposite.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-22 10:59:00 UTC