Um. You know. If i asked you “How would you go about creating a value-neutral, cross-disciplinary, fully commensurable language that could survive in court under testimony in all matters of conflict.”, I’ll bet you can’t even begin to imagine where to start and how to go about it. So yeah, that’s Propertarianism (or that’s the spectrum within Propertarianism, including vitruvianism->metaphysics, acquisitionism->psychology, compatibilism->sociology, propertarianism->ethics, testimonialism->epistemology, and algorithmic natural law->politics). And it includes reformation of every one of the grammars (disciplines). So of COURSE you aren’t going to understand THAT LANGUAGE off the bat. You aren’t going to understand how to convert from IDEAL language (pretense of knowledge) we use today to REAL language (demonstrating knowledge). Worse you are not going to understand how to convert your thinking from simple human scale justification, to post human scale via negativa falsification, and finally into well formed statements in operational language. So please don’t waste my time until you catch up to the people who HAVE done so. Ok. Yeah. Thanks. sigh…
Form: Argument
-
Why is this Complicated? Seirously?
Why is this complicated? Seriously. Disapproval, Shaming, Ridiculing in response to an attempted theft or fraud vs. Disapproval Shaming, Ridiculing in response to covering an attempted theft or fraud. Now, for some reason, it’s floating around, as DSR is a universal vs a particular: in other words, shaming people for a crime rather than for not letting them commit a crime.
-
POSTMODERNISM IS JUST LYING. HERE IS WHY. Well, we differ in tolerance for lying
POSTMODERNISM IS JUST LYING. HERE IS WHY.
Well, we differ in tolerance for lying. I have none. You not only tolerate it, but seek to employ it at every opportunity you can get away with.
So, I solve for truth. You solve for reasonableness. I use the word ‘true’ meaning decidable independent of preference. You use the word true meaning ‘preferable’ because you conflate the true with the ‘reasonable’ (preferable) – and you can get away with it.
You do this because you can’t help yourself. You can’t help yourself for a combination of genetic and cultural reasons. Your ethic is ‘what can I get away with’, the aristocratic (and my) ethic is ‘what is true regardless of the consequences’.
Postmodernism holds “what can I get away with normatively and therefore escape stratification and punishment for it, and what can I get away with claiming is ‘true’ and still escape ostracization and punishment for it.
So yes, it says get rid of European (‘aryan’) morals, get rid of christian morals (germanized christian), and let loose female, french, and jewish non-morality (whatever I can get away with)..
Why? Because Nietzsche was looking for a positive morality when in fact, as the aryans, europeans, romans, and germanics understood, there is no such thing. Morality is a negative (prohibition), and as such we have negative LAW, rather than positive philosophy and positive religion, and positive cults.
You can see this in the major works of the civilizations, where the primitive civilizations of the semitic region imposed authoritarian positivism, the indian positive rulership, the chinese collective duty, and the europeans negative law – leaving a LOT of philosophers to propose CHOICES within that law. Rather than ONE SOLUTION CONFLATED with RULE.
The Europeans/Romans/Germanics (Aryans) stated there was no positive morality, only a negative morality of reciprocity, leaving the MARKET for positive moralities to adapt to the needs of niches (classes).
The only people to grasp this are the english and the americans – and even they failed to maintain indoctrination into it because they did not fully understand it (which is my job – to make it fully understood).
But the jews, the french, and white anglo women, have all adopted the female strategy, of ‘what can I get away with’ rather than ‘what can i do without getting away with anything’.
All positivas are choice. The only TRUTH AND MORALITY IS NEGATIVE. Everything else is just choice.
Like I said. You only have to open your mouth for us to identify whether you are a positivist and parasite, or a negativist and producer.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-07 09:15:00 UTC
-
Postmodernism Is Just Lying. Here Is Why
POSTMODERNISM IS JUST LYING. HERE IS WHY. Well, we differ in tolerance for lying. I have none. You not only tolerate it, but seek to employ it at every opportunity you can get away with. So, I solve for truth. You solve for reasonableness. I use the word ‘true’ meaning decidable independent of preference. You use the word true meaning ‘preferable’ because you conflate the true with the ‘reasonable’ (preferable) – and you can get away with it. You do this because you can’t help yourself. You can’t help yourself for a combination of genetic and cultural reasons. Your ethic is ‘what can I get away with’, the aristocratic (and my) ethic is ‘what is true regardless of the consequences’. Postmodernism holds “what can I get away with normatively and therefore escape stratification and punishment for it, and what can I get away with claiming is ‘true’ and still escape ostracization and punishment for it. So yes, it says get rid of European (‘aryan’) morals, get rid of christian morals (germanized christian), and let loose female, french, and jewish non-morality (whatever I can get away with).. Why? Because Nietzsche was looking for a positive morality when in fact, as the aryans, europeans, romans, and germanics understood, there is no such thing. Morality is a negative (prohibition), and as such we have negative LAW, rather than positive philosophy and positive religion, and positive cults. You can see this in the major works of the civilizations, where the primitive civilizations of the semitic region imposed authoritarian positivism, the indian positive rulership, the chinese collective duty, and the europeans negative law – leaving a LOT of philosophers to propose CHOICES within that law. Rather than ONE SOLUTION CONFLATED with RULE. The Europeans/Romans/Germanics (Aryans) stated there was no positive morality, only a negative morality of reciprocity, leaving the MARKET for positive moralities to adapt to the needs of niches (classes). The only people to grasp this are the english and the americans – and even they failed to maintain indoctrination into it because they did not fully understand it (which is my job – to make it fully understood). But the jews, the french, and white anglo women, have all adopted the female strategy, of ‘what can I get away with’ rather than ‘what can i do without getting away with anything’. All positivas are choice. The only TRUTH AND MORALITY IS NEGATIVE. Everything else is just choice. Like I said. You only have to open your mouth for us to identify whether you are a positivist and parasite, or a negativist and producer.
-
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/45461930_10156760583642264_131125817
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/45461930_10156760583642264_1311258179803283456_n_10156760583637264.jpg NO. ANIMALS AND AI’S DON”T HAVE AND CAN’T HAVE RIGHTS. WE ENACT NEGATIVE RIGHTS TO PROTECT THEM.Martin ŠtěpánAnimals are welcome to create rights for themselves, provided they can create a militia to protect them. I’m not too eager to say the same about AI, still a bit worried about phenotypical replacement.Nov 6, 2018, 4:33 PMWilliam J MullenThat “you can’t hurt them or kill them unless…” implies that they possess negative rights. Because they have no such rights, we can kill them with impunity, except to the extent that they are property and protected by the property rights of their owners.Nov 6, 2018, 4:34 PMCurt DoolittleThey can’t possess anything. we constrain each other, not them.Nov 6, 2018, 4:49 PMCurt Doolittlehence the importance of operational language and avoiding the verb to be, since it is literally impossible for a child, ai, pet, or domesticated animal to enter into a voluntary contract.Nov 6, 2018, 4:49 PMDaniel PerazaDoes this applies to females too,curt?Nov 6, 2018, 5:21 PMAnne SummersDoes anyone have rights outside of what the observer fails to or chooses not to challenge?Nov 6, 2018, 5:49 PMCurt Doolittleoh stop… lolzNov 6, 2018, 6:10 PMMarra McKinneyShouldn’t we protect endangered animals such as elephants and tigers from being killed by kneegroes and street shitting Indians? Tigers have killed plenty of Indians which I encourage.
I would rather have less subhumans and more animal diversity ie large mammals on land and ocean.
Diversity in wildlife is the only diversity I’d like to keep.Nov 6, 2018, 7:58 PMMatt TempleNature recognizes no rights. Rights are a purely human concept. Therefor animals have no rights.Nov 7, 2018, 4:32 AMNO. ANIMALS AND AI’S DON”T HAVE AND CAN’T HAVE RIGHTS. WE ENACT NEGATIVE RIGHTS TO PROTECT THEM.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 16:25:00 UTC
-
“Q: WHY DO OUR BRAINS CONSTRUCT TWO OPPOSING EXPLANATIONS?”— Question: “Why ha
—“Q: WHY DO OUR BRAINS CONSTRUCT TWO OPPOSING EXPLANATIONS?”—
Question: “Why have our marvelous brains formulated two diametrically opposite explanations?”
Answer: Cognitive Division of Labor: Predator (action, dominance, science) — vs.– Prey (mindfulness, submission, religion).
Problem: Demand for mindfulness increases with uncertainty. Post tribal life removes resource uncertainty at the cost of social uncertainty (female herd equality, male pack hierarchy). Scale increases uncertainty. Production cycles decrease availability of positive reinforcement (status signals, fitness signals). Consumerism buys signals, at cost of increase in isolation. Diversity (market polity) increases isolation.
Choices:
(a) Personal Rituals: Stoicism (Self Authoring) > Sophism (Philosophy) > Pseudoscience (“Church of TED, Marxist Economics”) > Religion (Old Age) > Magic (New Age) > Occult (literature – post-reason).
(b) Social Rituals: Hunting > Sport > Commerce > Civic Groups and Clubs > Politics > Religion (academy, media, cult) > Fringe Movements (outcasts) > Occult (‘escapists’).
What’s the Underlying Problem? Neural Economy. (Physical Economy(Stress), Emotional Economy (Stress), Neural Economy(stress)).
Regularity provides certainty and decreased neural cost.
Plenty provides personal decrease in neural cost but increase in cost of collective coherence, consistency, correspondence, and (frame) decidability.
In other words, manageable neural cost provides anti-fragility (mindfulness) and suppressed neural cost (infantilization) increases fragility.
The problem we face satisfaction of demand for predatory ( consumption, acquisition, opportunity, signals/status) vs prey ( consumption, insurance, certainty, not-sticking-out/equality).
Markets (Economy) in everything: Unfortunately we have constructed a cognitive model of monopoly under both universalist abrahamic religion, justificationary philosophy, universal democracy, legislation (rather than tort law), and constructivist mathematics (and positivist logic).
Despite the fact that the uniqueness of western civilization’s ‘salvation’ of mankind from superstition, ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, endemic violence, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature – was the product of anti-monopoly “Markets in All Walks of Life” under individual sovereignty, tort law of reciprocity, evidentiary (testifiable) truth regardless of cost to face, status, dominance, or competence hierarchy, duty of the commons regardless of station, decision jury, judge and rule of law, leaving the only remaining method of cooperation “as markets in all aspects of life” that resulted in our innovations of reason, empiricism, and science.
Ergo, between religion, philosophy, (and that counter-empiricism we call the ‘enlightenment’ and it’s capture of power) democracy, followed by the revision of monopoly Abrahamic Monotheism( judaism, christianity, and islamism), that we call Marxism(Pseudoscience), Socialism(Monopoly Property), Postmodernism (monopoly sophism), and Feminism (monopoly female control vs compromise familial control) – we repeated the same process as the ancient era (resulting in the destruction of every civlization of the ancient world) and attempted in the current era to undermine (destroy) that social order that made our salvation from natural condition possible: non-monopoly markets of competition (calculation) using discovery by trial and error at the cost of soft eugenics (suppression of the reproduction of those who force burden by moral hazard onto others).
The questions are one of knowledge and one of choice. Lacking knowledge one cannot make a choice. Possessing knowledge what choice does one (or all) make?
The answer is divided between the predator and pack’s preservation, or the prey and herd’s submission. 😉
Maybe that will add to the discourse. 😉
-Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-05 10:25:00 UTC
-
I mean, it’s not complicated: without our constant attempt to preserve heroism b
I mean, it’s not complicated: without our constant attempt to preserve heroism by either christian morality, civilization by colonization, or postwar heroism, our only incentive then is to adopt *their* strategy of self interest above all, and return to a war of all against all.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 17:20:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059133227494002688
-
They have taken away our claim to the moral high ground despite having dragged t
They have taken away our claim to the moral high ground despite having dragged them all kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, sharvation, hard labor, disease, child mortality, early early death – for profit. So we shall simply return to pragmatism: rule.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 17:17:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059132489204154368
-
READ WHAT IS CLEARLY THE SUPERIOR CANON —“read the book of …. “— No. Read
READ WHAT IS CLEARLY THE SUPERIOR CANON
—“read the book of …. “—
No. Read Aesop’s Fables, Grimm’s Tales, The Carolingian and Arthurian Legends, and Nibelungenlied, the Völsunga saga, and the Poetic Edda, the Greek Myths, The Iliad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, The Life of Alexander, The Republic of Plato, The Works of Aristotle, The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, The Prince by Machiavelli, ….
There is no comparison on earth.
Silly children’s stories of the world’s underclass carry no lessons for men.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-02 19:46:00 UTC
-
Elections – Well, Time to End Them.
1) A rotating system of individual elections is far easier to manipulate since forces (coercion) can be concentrated on one election at a time, where under simultaneous voting, it is extremely difficult to coerce every race without nearly infinite funds. 2) With the advent of communication there is no reason for representatives any longer, whatsoever, nor for the houses of congress. There is every reason for either devolution of all power to the states, or direct democracy (equidistribution) or direct proportional democracy (by contribution). [There isn’t any reason for one single currency for all purposes any longer either. Nor is there any reason for distribution of liquidity through the financial sector and the credit system. In fact, that’s the source of the economic problem we face today.] 3) Because it it is far too easy to influence politicians whether they are elected incrementally, through rotation en mass (as now), or all at once (in the athenian method). 4) The purpose of scale whether at the jury, state representative, or federal representative level, is to increase the cost of bribery. Ergo it is time, given our wealth, to increase scale from representatives to the entire populace, since that bribery is impossible for OTHER than the state. (As for ‘comparison of legislatures to juries, the evolution of the legislature being Thang 12, 20, 100, or more, depending on the severity of the matter) > The Jury > Senate > Multiple Houses > Direct Democracy, is … well you’d have to be relatively ignorant of the origin of the western tradition and its roots in the sovereignty of individual men, leaving the Thang (Jury) as the ONLY POSSIBLE means of choice, and the Headman, Chieftain, King, Monarch, as a Judge of Last Resort.) Cheers