(… more … )
And to train it we must KNOW it. We cannot train what we don’t know. And we didn’t (until now with P-Law) understand the ‘science’ of our group strategy, institutions, traditions, norms, rituals. And now that we know that science we can TRAIN the ‘otherwise unfit’ into it.
And we can do so because there is no religious, philosophical, moral, or scientific argument against P-Law, because P-Law is just the explanation of the universal law of all the sciences: of all existence.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-15 16:31:36 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282032002644133
Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282022650660535
IN REPLY TO:
@curtd
THINKING:”How do I teach others how to think about all existence, life, thought, feeling, and behavior operationally – by construction from first principles – by disambiguation into first principles?” Well, you list the first principles and gradually learn(habituate) the process. I don’t think there is any magic to it. It’s like anything else. People may want a single insight like they get with ideology or philosophy or theology. But P-Law is in the same categorical hierarchy as math, programming, (P-Law,) formal (Verbal) logic. You have to PRACTICE it. It’s the same with my work. Newbs find something I write or say and then jump to some conclusion that’s false. Or they complain that it’s incoherent or complex or word salad. The answer is you learn math, programming, P-law, and formal logic by STUDY not by immediate insight. That said, given the four sciences: Formal(Logics), Physical, Behavioral, and Evolutionary, why would we expect that truth and law, the logic of cooperation and morality, economics and politics, groups and group evolutionary strategy to require less study than the other sciences? Now the fact that P-Law requires work, doesn’t mean that you have to understand the science to use the products of it any more than you have to understand quantum mechanics to use the transistors in your cell phone. You have to understand the OUTPUTS of P-Law Science. The output of P-Law is expressible as the group evolutionary strategy of the european people when written in p-law. Why? Because the reason europeans invented reason, math, science, technology, and medicine so disproportionately vs all other civs, is that strategy=law=science. That translates to individual responsibility, rather than clan, religion, or state responsibility. Responsibility provides mindfulness, and mindfulness tolerance for the tragedy of nature’s laws, and the only means of overcoming that tragedy as mastery of and application of those laws for our benefit, by not seeking to avoid, but to conquer those laws. So of course, Europeans would not only invent mathematical realism, reason, law proper, philosophy, science and epicureanism, but government, technology, and medicine. The only problem? Many can’t bear that responsibility, lacking ability, agency, and training. So we could as the ancients tried, pay the high cost of training mindfulness or we can pay the cost of NOT training mindfulness – which is what allowed our invasive JChristianity and the destruction of the ancient World, like we allowed Judaism-marxism-pomo-pc-woke in the modern. And so, my overall point here is that we cannot have an advanced (aristocratic, responsible, evolutionarily adaptive) civilization without paying the cost of training those who are not naturally fit for it, or in families naturally fit and able to train it. (…more in comments…)
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282022650660535
