Form: Definition

  • TRUTH: “TESTIMONY THAT SATISFIES DEMAND FOR INFALLIBILITY” (complete definition

    TRUTH: “TESTIMONY THAT SATISFIES DEMAND FOR INFALLIBILITY”

    (complete definition of truth for newbs)

    WHERE TRUTH CONSISTS IN THE SERIES

    1. Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.

    2. Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).

    3. Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)

    4. Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    5. Reasonableness: that testimony (description) you give, as justification for your reporting of your belief, justification, preference, coice, or actions with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    6. Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    WHERE TRUTHFUL SPEECH

    1. Satisfies the Demand for *Increasing Infallibility of Decidability

    GIVEN

    The Series:

    1. Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    2. Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources.

    3. Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources.

    4. Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions.

    5. Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6. Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values.

    7. Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (True)

    8. Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity

    9. Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.

    WHERE THE SPEECH IS CONSISTS OF:

    1. Complete Sentences

    2. In promissory form

    3. In testimonial form

    4. In operational vocabulary (as actions)

    5. absent the verb to-be (is, are, was, were…)

    6. including all changes in state

    7. including all consequences of change in state

    8. from an observer’s point of view

    9. producing a series of testable transactions.

    WHERE THE CRITERIA FOR TRUTHFUL SPEECH IS:

    Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, in The Series:

    1. Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)

    Internally Consistent (Logical)

    2. Externally Correspondent (Empirical)

    3. Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)

    4. Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame)

    5.Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)

    6. With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation)

    7. Warrantied

    … (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;

    … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;

    … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.

    AS A DEFENSE AGAINST THE SERIES:

    1. Ignorance and Willful Ignorance;

    2. Error and failure of Due Diligence;

    3. Bias and Wishful Thinking;

    4. And the many Deceits of:

    … (a) Loading and Framing;

    … (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda;

    … (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism;

    … (d) and outright Fabrications (fictions).

    IN DEFENSE OR ADVOCACY OF:

    Any transfer that is not reciprocal, the tests of:

    … (a) productive

    … (b) fully informed, fully accounted

    … (c) warrantied and within the limits of liability

    … (d) voluntary

    … (e) free of externality of the same criteria

    INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO

    The Series of:

    … (a) murder,

    … (b) harm, damage, theft,

    … (c) fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,baiting into hazard

    … (d) free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons,

    … (e) rent seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism,

    … (f) conversion(religion/pseudoscience),

    … (g) displacement(immigration/overbreeding),

    … (ah) conquest (war).

    ===

    That I know of that, is the most complete definition of truth available.

    You might think there is some way to outwit it… but you’ll be wrong. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-09 22:09:00 UTC

  • CASTE VS CLASS Caste != Class Caste (static) vs Class(adaptable) EUROPEAN HIERAR

    CASTE VS CLASS Caste != Class Caste (static) vs Class(adaptable) EUROPEAN HIERARCHY: |Responsibility| Barbarian (animal) > Slave > Serf > Freeman > Citizen > Sovereign. EUROPEAN TRIFUNCIONALISM Military(M) < – Legal – > Religious(F)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 17:37:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246854588273250304

  • WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM: “THE LAW” “The Natural Law of European Peoples”: A full

    WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM: “THE LAW”

    “The Natural Law of European Peoples”: A fully commensurable system of measurement across all disciplines that tests for reciprocity in display, word (truth) and deed (action); the extension of the logic of the physical sciences (realism, naturalism, equilibration) to the psychological(individual) and social(group) sciences using economic terms (acquisition, cooperation, reciprocity); thereby completing the scientific method (falsification of all dimensions possible human cognition); and thereby completing the Aristotelian program; and thereby providing the explanation for the success of western civilization under that program: sovereignty, reciprocity, and truth – and the markets that result from their universal enforcement, and the evolutionary velocity (adaptation, innovation) that results from those markets.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 14:30:00 UTC

  • REVERSE ACCUSATIONS OF GSRRM GSRRM must be used to avoid an argument by substitu

    REVERSE ACCUSATIONS OF GSRRM

    GSRRM must be used to avoid an argument by substituting disapproval for truth. Shaming is necessary and warranted demand for restitution by suppression of the crime of avoiding an argument by substitution of disapproval.

    —“Doolittle: “do as I say not as I do”—Tamzin Millikan @MillikanTamzin

    Shaming for disapproval to avoid the argument, falsehood, irreciprocity, and failure of due diligence, is a demand for restitution, under test of reciprocity. The opposite is not.

    Learn the law. You will be better for it.

    Me: “Speak to the audience in a compromise grammar.”

    So:

    (a) I’m speaking to the audience in a compromise grammar (market).

    (b) You are disapproving without doing due diligence (assuming you understand and not asking why I’m doing so),(c) counter-signaling my shaming of your for failure of due diligence.

    Learn the law. End error. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 11:34:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism = Western civlization in scientific terms. A universal militia,

    Propertarianism = Western civlization in scientific terms.

    A universal militia, Rule of Law by Sovereignty and Reciprocity, Adjudicated by Jury, Producing markets in every aspect of life, producing the most adaptive and innovative civilization in human history.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-04 18:44:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246509075522863110

    Reply addressees: @af_clips @realThomBieler @NickJFuentes @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246457859161886720

  • INTENTION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ONE TO LIE The difference between testimonial trut

    INTENTION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ONE TO LIE

    The difference between testimonial truth and honesty is substantial, but perhaps the most surprising is that that we do not need to intend to lie to lie. We need only speak a lie whether we intend to or not. Most of us are carriers of lies. Because we do not know how to perform due diligence against lying. And worse, because we do not desire to stop using our most precious lies. So in P-law, we are guilty of a failure of due diligence against lying, rather than just intent to lie – just as in our existing law we are responsible for restitution whether we intended harm or not. And we are additionally subject to punishment and prevention if we harm by intent.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 09:40:00 UTC

  • “PROPERTARIANISM” IS JUST A BRAND NAME Propertarianism is just a brand name for

    “PROPERTARIANISM” IS JUST A BRAND NAME

    Propertarianism is just a brand name for strictly constructed traditional anglo american constitutional law, that is an evolution of our law, that prevents the (((crimes))) invented during the twentieth century, that were used to undermine western civlization. “Propertarian” was an ‘insult’ that was levied against libertarians who reduced all questions of social science to measurement by property. Fortunately, all questions of social science, ethics and law, really are reducible to measurement by demonstrated interest that we call property. But, property, at least under our definition, is complete where under libertarianism it was insufficient. I chose the name “propertarianism” because it maintained this system of measurement, and “strictly constructed natural law of reciprocity” was too difficult a brand name. At this point I would change it to Sovereignty, or “European Traditional Natural Law.” or something else. But the ‘term’ has stuck as a brand name so it’s hard to change it.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 15:40:00 UTC

  • HOW DOES P-LAW DIFFER FROM PHILOSOPHY? (core) You could call P-Law Operational P

    HOW DOES P-LAW DIFFER FROM PHILOSOPHY?

    (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.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 14:52:00 UTC

  • RECIPROCITY (FULL VERSION) The natural law is (+)Sovereignty and (-)Reciprocity,

    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.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 14:36:00 UTC

  • Grammar = “Rules of continuous recursive disambiguation.” Ergo, the liars parado

    Grammar = “Rules of continuous recursive disambiguation.”
    Ergo, the liars paradox in all forms consists of nothing more than an intentional use ambiguity in making a promise. In other words: a lie.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 01:15:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243708252036136960

    Reply addressees: @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243702933964849152


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K So again, this is a sophism. There is no paradox to in the liars box. People say things, and mean what they say. The liar’s paradox (as kripke, godel et all addressed), is not a paradox – it is a deception that takes advantage of grammatical fragility in ordinary speech.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1243702933964849152