PATERNAL REBUKE OF THE INFANTILIZED (worth repeating) (rebuke) We are not equal. We can engage in reciprocity. In doing so we can engage in reciprocal loyalty and insurance. But the weak are not equal to the strong, the woman to the man, the child to the adult. That is why we must have reciprocity to cooperate despite our differences. The purpose of what you [theology, philosophy, ideology] and those like you desire is to use saturation in falsehood to socially construct emotional cognitive political and military arrested development. And to drag mankind down to your level of infantile primitivism. Where the aristocracy took the opposite position: can we drag mankind kicking and screaming from easily manipulable female infantilism to maintain her ability to cheaply manipulate, into young adulthood to question her with philosophy, to agency with which we can rule with evidence and action, over the infants, infantile, young, limited, and those of arrested development. And yes I realize that indoctrination, choice, and truth constitute of spectrum of child, young adult, mature adult. And I recognize that there is value in theology for children, reason for young adults, and truth for adults – because mirrors the possible intellectual development of the mind. I also know that I am working in the language of adults, not young adults and women, or child. If you can calculate it’s science, if you can’t it’s philosophy. I do operational law. It’s calculable. Just as mathematics is the formal logic of the physical, operational law is the formal logic of sentient life. The only reason I use the framework of philosophy is, by design, to destroy philosophy with operationalism, as our ancestors destroyed theology empiricism. The only thing for philosophy now is choice within the limits of truth. The only thing left for theology is indoctrination into mindfulness within the group strategy independent of choice or truth. As far as I know philosophy is done. What remains as philosophy is but the history of the development of secular theology. If you understand that paragraph you will understand what I have done. Are these statements arrogant as if between equals, or truth from parent to youth, or teacher to student? One is only arrogant if he both errs and is equal. One is merely disciplining if one is parent and unequal. -Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity
-
The P Program and Our Purposes
Bill Joslin has always been as interested in the application of P to personal philosophy, as I have been interested in religion (mindfulness), politics, and law. This division of labor has helped expand our collective reach – and bill’s role as “the Professor” led to the production of our best people. Likewise, Luke Weinhagen is exploring another avenue, and we have had people spin off into all sorts of other interests -although it’s humorous at how deterministic their attempts to alternative personal and political agendas have been. P is a METHOD. That method completes the spectrum of the sciences because P is to sentient sciences as Math is to Physical sciences: the means of calculation, of constant relations from which we can produce subsequent deduction, inference, abduction, and creativity. Using human logical facility, mathematics, and P we we can articulate the social order that’s least divergent from physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. The least divergent from physical, natural and evolutionary laws, the more advantage we have in maintaining the optimum quality of life as we continue to calculate by market discovery using continuous trial and error, the means of maintaining our advantage, in our race with the red queen and her evolutionary competition in this brief period of geological and astronomical peace. The P-Constitution is constructed by the application of that method, because a universal militia, using sovereignty, reciprocity, rule of law by the common law of tort, and the markets in everything that result, and the production of commons from the surpluses, that was incrementally discovered by accident by our ancestors is the optimum human social order for continuous calculation. Although it comes at a price: increasing demand for mindfulness, increasing demand for intolerance, increasing responsibility for commons, and the suppression of those who cannot maintain cadence with our evolution by success in those markets. We have to know the reasons for western success in the ancient and modern worlds. Knowing them, we have to use them to defeat the second abrahamic attack on our civilization, and renew our resistance to eastern tyranny, as well as our own vulnerability because of our tolerance. And we have to restore our institutions so that we continue our transcendence into the gods we imagine – and be mindful, fit, and prosperous during our ascent.
-
The P Program and Our Purposes
Bill Joslin has always been as interested in the application of P to personal philosophy, as I have been interested in religion (mindfulness), politics, and law. This division of labor has helped expand our collective reach – and bill’s role as “the Professor” led to the production of our best people. Likewise, Luke Weinhagen is exploring another avenue, and we have had people spin off into all sorts of other interests -although it’s humorous at how deterministic their attempts to alternative personal and political agendas have been. P is a METHOD. That method completes the spectrum of the sciences because P is to sentient sciences as Math is to Physical sciences: the means of calculation, of constant relations from which we can produce subsequent deduction, inference, abduction, and creativity. Using human logical facility, mathematics, and P we we can articulate the social order that’s least divergent from physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. The least divergent from physical, natural and evolutionary laws, the more advantage we have in maintaining the optimum quality of life as we continue to calculate by market discovery using continuous trial and error, the means of maintaining our advantage, in our race with the red queen and her evolutionary competition in this brief period of geological and astronomical peace. The P-Constitution is constructed by the application of that method, because a universal militia, using sovereignty, reciprocity, rule of law by the common law of tort, and the markets in everything that result, and the production of commons from the surpluses, that was incrementally discovered by accident by our ancestors is the optimum human social order for continuous calculation. Although it comes at a price: increasing demand for mindfulness, increasing demand for intolerance, increasing responsibility for commons, and the suppression of those who cannot maintain cadence with our evolution by success in those markets. We have to know the reasons for western success in the ancient and modern worlds. Knowing them, we have to use them to defeat the second abrahamic attack on our civilization, and renew our resistance to eastern tyranny, as well as our own vulnerability because of our tolerance. And we have to restore our institutions so that we continue our transcendence into the gods we imagine – and be mindful, fit, and prosperous during our ascent.
-
THE P PROGRAM AND OUR PURPOSES Bill Joslin has always been as interested in the
THE P PROGRAM AND OUR PURPOSES
Bill Joslin has always been as interested in the application of P to personal philosophy, as I have been interested in religion (mindfulness), politics, and law. This division of labor has helped expand our collective reach – and bill’s role as “the Professor” led to the production of our best people.
Likewise, Luke Weinhagen is exploring another avenue, and we have had people spin off into all sorts of other interests -although it’s humorous at how deterministic their attempts to alternative personal and political agendas have been.
P is a METHOD. That method completes the spectrum of the sciences because P is to sentient sciences as Math is to Physical sciences: the means of calculation, of constant relations from which we can produce subsequent deduction, inference, abduction, and creativity.
Using human logical facility, mathematics, and P we we can articulate the social order that’s least divergent from physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. The least divergent from physical, natural and evolutionary laws, the more advantage we have in maintaining the optimum quality of life as we continue to calculate by market discovery using continuous trial and error, the means of maintaining our advantage, in our race with the red queen and her evolutionary competition in this brief period of geological and astronomical peace.
The P-Constitution is constructed by the application of that method, because a universal militia, using sovereignty, reciprocity, rule of law by the common law of tort, and the markets in everything that result, and the production of commons from the surpluses, that was incrementally discovered by accident by our ancestors is the optimum human social order for continuous calculation.
Although it comes at a price: increasing demand for mindfulness, increasing demand for intolerance, increasing responsibility for commons, and the suppression of those who cannot maintain cadence with our evolution by success in those markets.
We have to know the reasons for western success in the ancient and modern worlds. Knowing them, we have to use them to defeat the second abrahamic attack on our civilization, and renew our resistance to eastern tyranny, as well as our own vulnerability because of our tolerance. And we have to restore our institutions so that we continue our transcendence into the gods we imagine – and be mindful, fit, and prosperous during our ascent.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 09:00:00 UTC
-
“There are many ways to fail, this [P] is how we win”—Ross Lampers
—“There are many ways to fail, this [P] is how we win”—Ross Lampers
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 08:04:00 UTC
-
END THE FALSE DICHOTOMY: RULE OF LAW PRODUCES ALL The optimum balance between ma
END THE FALSE DICHOTOMY: RULE OF LAW PRODUCES ALL
The optimum balance between market economy and non-market economy is calculated by tests of reciprocity. In other words, good capitalism is the result of rule of law of reciprocity and bad capitalism is the result of failing at rule of law of reciprocity. Just as good combination of market economy(liberty), mixed economy (freedom), state provision (serfdom), and military service (indentured servitude) is calculated by rule of law of reciprocity. The ((())) lie of the left was another monopoly, another idealism, that one way is somehow superior to tri-functionalism and rule of law producing markets in everything INCLUDING consumption (markets for goods, services, and information) and markets for commons (mixed economy), state production (serfdom) and state military servitude (indentured servitude)
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 12:06:00 UTC
-
^ You’re using GSRRM. The argumentative strategy of the female. Either you can m
^ You’re using GSRRM. The argumentative strategy of the female. Either you can make an argument for reciprocity or you can’t. If you can’t then you’re just another postmodern virtue signaling beta. https://t.co/rnNKRH7wgM

Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 20:15:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251605221387784194
Reply addressees: @buldursgait @DeguTanya @BepDelta @Dark_TossEX @MarfamSilva @paxchristus0 @ReadLinkola
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251604351707156480
-
And reciprocity is measurable. Sorry. it is
And reciprocity is measurable.
Sorry. it is.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 17:12:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251559113303171074
Reply addressees: @buldursgait @DeguTanya @BepDelta @Dark_TossEX @MarfamSilva @paxchristus0 @ReadLinkola
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251558998890946560
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@buldursgait @DeguTanya @BepDelta @Dark_TossEX @MarfamSilva @paxchristus0 @ReadLinkola No I think we are compatible. Men and Women evolved to specialize in the reproductive and temporal division of sense, perception, memory, advocacy, negotiation, and cooperation in a division of cognitive and physical labor.
We are either reciprocal – over time – or not.Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1251558998890946560
-
We don’t hate. We merely test for reciprocity in display word and deed, includin
We don’t hate. We merely test for reciprocity in display word and deed, including that reciprocity of truth, and particularly truth before face, regardless of cost.
Women are less conscious of their instincts and their purpose than men, especially hyperconsumption and dysgenia.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 17:00:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251556138186870786
Reply addressees: @buldursgait @DeguTanya @BepDelta @Dark_TossEX @MarfamSilva @paxchristus0 @ReadLinkola
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251547120995352576
-
PATERNAL REBUKE OF THE INFANTILIZED (worth repeating) (rebuke) We are not equal.
PATERNAL REBUKE OF THE INFANTILIZED
(worth repeating) (rebuke)
We are not equal. We can engage in reciprocity. In doing so we can engage in reciprocal loyalty and insurance. But the weak are not equal to the strong, the woman to the man, the child to the adult. That is why we must have reciprocity to cooperate despite our differences.
The purpose of what you [theology, philosophy, ideology] and those like you desire is to use saturation in falsehood to socially construct emotional cognitive political and military arrested development. And to drag mankind down to your level of infantile primitivism.
Where the aristocracy took the opposite position: can we drag mankind kicking and screaming from easily manipulable female infantilism to maintain her ability to cheaply manipulate, into young adulthood to question her with philosophy, to agency with which we can rule with evidence and action, over the infants, infantile, young, limited, and those of arrested development.
And yes I realize that indoctrination, choice, and truth constitute of spectrum of child, young adult, mature adult. And I recognize that there is value in theology for children, reason for young adults, and truth for adults – because mirrors the possible intellectual development of the mind. I also know that I am working in the language of adults, not young adults and women, or child.
If you can calculate it’s science, if you can’t it’s philosophy. I do operational law. It’s calculable. Just as mathematics is the formal logic of the physical, operational law is the formal logic of sentient life.
The only reason I use the framework of philosophy is, by design, to destroy philosophy with operationalism, as our ancestors destroyed theology empiricism. The only thing for philosophy now is choice within the limits of truth. The only thing left for theology is indoctrination into mindfulness within the group strategy independent of choice or truth. As far as I know philosophy is done. What remains as philosophy is but the history of the development of secular theology. If you understand that paragraph you will understand what I have done.
Are these statements arrogant as if between equals, or truth from parent to youth, or teacher to student? One is only arrogant if he both errs and is equal. One is merely disciplining if one is parent and unequal.
-Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-17 11:01:00 UTC