Form: Definition

  • How Does P-Law Differ from Philosophy?

    Apr 1, 2020, 2:11 PM (core) You could call P-Law Operational Philosophy in the sequence of syllogistic reason > rationalism > set logic > operational logic > equilibrial logic (economic logic) 0) uses series (supply demand) vs ideals. 1) uses operational vs set logic 2) users ternary logic not binary (undecidable, truthful, false) 3) uses satisfaction of demand for infallibility not ideal truth 4) tests for deceits not just errors 5) tests for irreciprocity not just ‘good’ 6) tests for costs not just internal consistency 7) tests for closure by reality instead of just non-contradiction 8) tests for limits and full accounting. 9) tests for warranty of due diligence, liability, restitutability.

  • How Does P-Law Differ from Philosophy?

    Apr 1, 2020, 2:11 PM (core) You could call P-Law Operational Philosophy in the sequence of syllogistic reason > rationalism > set logic > operational logic > equilibrial logic (economic logic) 0) uses series (supply demand) vs ideals. 1) uses operational vs set logic 2) users ternary logic not binary (undecidable, truthful, false) 3) uses satisfaction of demand for infallibility not ideal truth 4) tests for deceits not just errors 5) tests for irreciprocity not just ‘good’ 6) tests for costs not just internal consistency 7) tests for closure by reality instead of just non-contradiction 8) tests for limits and full accounting. 9) tests for warranty of due diligence, liability, restitutability.

  • Reciprocity (full Version)

    Apr 1, 2020, 2:16 PM RECIPROCITY (FULL VERSION) The natural law is (+)Sovereignty and (-)Reciprocity, in display word and deed, including reciprocity in speech (truthful speech) regardless of cost to the status(dominance, competence hierarch), within the limits of proportionality (in group defection) within the limits of the utility of cooperation (out groups). “Within the limits of the utility of cooperation.” There is no ideal. There are no ideals. There is only what satisfies demand for infallibility. FULL VERSION Limiting our display word and deed to: – Fully informed (truthful and complete); – Regardless of cost to the status, competence, or dominance hierarchy. – Productive and; – Voluntary transfer (or exchange, or imposition of costs upon); – The Demonstrated interests of Others; – Either directly or indirectly (by externality) – Within the limit of incentive for in-group defection; – Within The Limit of the Utility of future out-group Cooperation; – And liable and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability; – Eliminating the incentive of retaliation and retaliation cycles, – And imposition of costs upon the commons of trust by which others cooperate.

  • Reciprocity (full Version)

    Apr 1, 2020, 2:16 PM RECIPROCITY (FULL VERSION) The natural law is (+)Sovereignty and (-)Reciprocity, in display word and deed, including reciprocity in speech (truthful speech) regardless of cost to the status(dominance, competence hierarch), within the limits of proportionality (in group defection) within the limits of the utility of cooperation (out groups). “Within the limits of the utility of cooperation.” There is no ideal. There are no ideals. There is only what satisfies demand for infallibility. FULL VERSION Limiting our display word and deed to: – Fully informed (truthful and complete); – Regardless of cost to the status, competence, or dominance hierarchy. – Productive and; – Voluntary transfer (or exchange, or imposition of costs upon); – The Demonstrated interests of Others; – Either directly or indirectly (by externality) – Within the limit of incentive for in-group defection; – Within The Limit of the Utility of future out-group Cooperation; – And liable and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability; – Eliminating the incentive of retaliation and retaliation cycles, – And imposition of costs upon the commons of trust by which others cooperate.

  • Disambiguation, Operationalization, Serialization,

    May 5, 2020, 9:23 PM “Disambiguation, Operationalization, Serialization,” What the heck does that mean?

    1. serialize: to arrange (something) in a series.
    2. series: a number of things, events, or people of a similar kind or related nature coming one after another.

    3. From “Disambiguation by serialization by constant relation, and operationalization.”

    4. The constant relation (falsehood, epistemology, morality)

    5. The serialization: ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking…

    6. Where operationalization means converting into a series of subjectively testable human actions thereby producing measurements given the marginal indifference in human action.

    So where |falsehood| is a monodirectional series, |epistemology| is monodirectional loop, and |MORAL| is bidirectional from the center ‘amoral’. This process requires we collect all synonyms and antonyms, organize them by some constant relation into a series of less or more of that constant relation. Why? All words (nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs) are constructed of dimensions (scales, series of measurements), open to sense, perception, emotion, or action. In most cases the human sense perception spectrum appears to produce no more than five degrees of difference for any measurement, such as “distant past, past, recent past, now.” And there are a number of reasons for this – which is why you can only visualize so many of the same things, remember so many numbers or terms, or discern so many directions etc. In general terms our universe is triangular bias left, forward, bias right, which is our direction of motion. This is also the minimum and maximum necessary decision criteria. If I go deeper it will get too complicated. So, by disambiguation by inventorying, operationalizing, serializing into sequences we create unambiguous measurements for language that prohibit conflation and ambiguity and therefore errors of inference and deduction, effectively turning language – especially language like english with so many terms – into a system of measurement. By combining this technique of very specific terms (measurements), using operational language that is testable, in promissory form (I Promise that…), absent verb-to-be (meaning “I dunno the condition of existence”) in complete sentences, of complete transactions of changes in state, we convert language to a via-negativa equivalent of a via-positiva programming language with the same test of possibility (compilability) since the ability to compile is a test of disambiguity (yes that’s the secret sauce). By using supply demand tests of statements rather than ideals we end up with the formal economics of human behavior. For example, decidablity = demand for infallibility in the context in question.

  • Disambiguation, Operationalization, Serialization,

    May 5, 2020, 9:23 PM “Disambiguation, Operationalization, Serialization,” What the heck does that mean?

    1. serialize: to arrange (something) in a series.
    2. series: a number of things, events, or people of a similar kind or related nature coming one after another.

    3. From “Disambiguation by serialization by constant relation, and operationalization.”

    4. The constant relation (falsehood, epistemology, morality)

    5. The serialization: ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking…

    6. Where operationalization means converting into a series of subjectively testable human actions thereby producing measurements given the marginal indifference in human action.

    So where |falsehood| is a monodirectional series, |epistemology| is monodirectional loop, and |MORAL| is bidirectional from the center ‘amoral’. This process requires we collect all synonyms and antonyms, organize them by some constant relation into a series of less or more of that constant relation. Why? All words (nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs) are constructed of dimensions (scales, series of measurements), open to sense, perception, emotion, or action. In most cases the human sense perception spectrum appears to produce no more than five degrees of difference for any measurement, such as “distant past, past, recent past, now.” And there are a number of reasons for this – which is why you can only visualize so many of the same things, remember so many numbers or terms, or discern so many directions etc. In general terms our universe is triangular bias left, forward, bias right, which is our direction of motion. This is also the minimum and maximum necessary decision criteria. If I go deeper it will get too complicated. So, by disambiguation by inventorying, operationalizing, serializing into sequences we create unambiguous measurements for language that prohibit conflation and ambiguity and therefore errors of inference and deduction, effectively turning language – especially language like english with so many terms – into a system of measurement. By combining this technique of very specific terms (measurements), using operational language that is testable, in promissory form (I Promise that…), absent verb-to-be (meaning “I dunno the condition of existence”) in complete sentences, of complete transactions of changes in state, we convert language to a via-negativa equivalent of a via-positiva programming language with the same test of possibility (compilability) since the ability to compile is a test of disambiguity (yes that’s the secret sauce). By using supply demand tests of statements rather than ideals we end up with the formal economics of human behavior. For example, decidablity = demand for infallibility in the context in question.

  • The Three Methods of Coercion

    Oct 10, 2019, 9:06 AM 1 – Force (masculine) – By Law or Military 2 – Payment (libertarian) – By Trade – or Payment 3 – Undermining (feminine) – By Gossip or Religion That’s what you’ve got to work with. That’s it.

    1. The Russians and Chinese use force: Command
    2. The West uses Libertarian: sovereignty and reciprocity
    3. The Semites use undermining: Priesthoods
  • The Three Methods of Coercion

    Oct 10, 2019, 9:06 AM 1 – Force (masculine) – By Law or Military 2 – Payment (libertarian) – By Trade – or Payment 3 – Undermining (feminine) – By Gossip or Religion That’s what you’ve got to work with. That’s it.

    1. The Russians and Chinese use force: Command
    2. The West uses Libertarian: sovereignty and reciprocity
    3. The Semites use undermining: Priesthoods
  • Math was made mysterious so that the people could treat it like a mystery cult

    Oct 10, 2019, 11:26 AM

    Math was made mysterious so that the people could treat it like a mystery cult, when it’s just another language. It’s just the simplest least ambiguous (most disambiguous) language that is possible that we know of. This lack of ambiguity decreases opportunity for free association. This is why it is costly for the brain.

  • Disambiguating Equality

    Oct 12, 2019, 5:25 PM by Bill Joslin “Equality” is a term that’s been repeatedly … gang-r@ped. CONTEXT ONE: BOOLEAN ASSESSMENT OF CATEGORICAL MEMBERSHIP. All players on the ice exist equally as “HOCKEY PLAYERS” bound by the same rules (membership). However, not all hockey players play hockey equally (qualitative assessment). CONTEXT TWO: ISONOMY State application of power will be applied to all by the same criteria (equality before the law) CONNECTION BETWEEN THESE TWO CONTEXTS: isonomy presumes that all who fall under the law exist, at the very minimum, as agents and thus, as agents, fall under the law. “Created Equally” was a notion by Americans adopted from their French influencers… the French ruin everything.


    Definitions: … Isonomy: “equality before the law” … nomocracy: “rule of law”