RUSSIANS HAVE A WORD FOR REALITY
Bytie (бытие), Russian.
This word comes from the Russian byt'(to exist). In Russian-English dictionaries this philosophical concept is translated as “being.” However, bytie (бытие) is not just life or existence, it’s the existence of an objective reality that is independent of human consciousness (cosmos, nature, matter).
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-14 07:18:00 UTC
WHAT IS METAPHYSICS?
—“Why study metaphysics? Metaphysics consist of the study of the (constitution) of reality. It is the (method or process) by which we come to a (paradigm) of (the laws of the universe, laws of cooperation, laws of perception-experience, and laws of reason), and from that (paradigm) make choices about what we want to think, feel, and do to make the most of our own experience of life and the world.”—
The study of Metaphysics then serves our will to power (successful action). Or does it?
I deflate the big question into a hierarchy :
1 – ‘What can we perceive, experience, cognate, and act upon?’
2 – ‘How is our experience produced?’
3 – ‘What are the limits of our perception, experience, cognition and action?”
4 – ‘What may be beyond our perceptions and experience and cognition?
5 – ‘What are the first premises (assumptions, presumptions, rules, laws) by which we test our perceptions, experience, and ideas?’
6 – And how does our experience differ from those laws?
7 – And how can we act to take advantage of this knowledge?
The problem is, that since we must act to survive and prosper, can only act within the limits of our perception, experience, cognition, and action, and can only extend perceptions by action in the universe, and all increases in our understanding of what is beyond our perception, experience, cognition, have followed consistent rules of parsimony all of which relegate our experience to a natural consequence of competitive complexity given a long enough and stable enough period of evolutionary computation.
Action (operations) is the only system of measurement that is not a lie – because it is what the entirety of the set of questions depends upon: the grammar and semantics of action, cognition, experience, and perception.
So the question is not what is metaphysics. The question is, Why is it men seek using metaphysics to lie?
So the issue is whether we are confirming the former to the latter (lying) or the latter to the former (adapting), or whether we inventing the former to serve the latter for the purpose of fraud, rent seeking, free riding, and other forms of parasitism – because so far that seems the primary distinction between philosophers/theologians and scientists.
You see, a fraud, a sophist, philosopher, or theologian uses justification to ask ‘what can I get away with?’, while a scientist and a jurist ask ‘what can we insure you’re not getting away with?’
Hence why law (man) and science (nature) account for costs, and philosophy(man) and theology(nature) do not.
Because costs allow us to measure frauds, thefts, et al.
How many philosophers and theologians would survive prosecution for fraud?
– Curt
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 19:30:00 UTC
by Bill Joslin
Compatiblism – degrees of bounded freedom.
It’s about accounting for the causal chain and if the actor contributes to the causal chain (opposed to a causal chain being proof of no will). We can contribute to our causal chain because we can imagine alternate states of affairs. In that imagining we affect the causal chain.
So the effect of that imagining will be varied. You can imagine via nonsense or reason – post-structuralism or post-positivism, mysticism or naturalism.
You can chose, but you can’t avoid the consequences of that choice, no matter how much you imagine the state of affairs to be different than it actually is.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 09:20:00 UTC
One can have an interests in the criminally obtained, or the reciprocaly obtained, or obtained by homesteading (creating).
Potential Property consists in those interests that have been obtained under the natural law of reciprocity.
Property by norm consists of that which others agree not to impose costs upon.
Property rights consist of that which is not only norm but insured by a third party to whom you may appeal for enforcement.
It is not JUST that one demonstrates property by what he defends – he demonstrates INTEREST by what he defends, but he cannot defend an interest that which was produced by crime or deceit without violating the natural law of reciprocity.
I think what seems circular to you is that you’re not starting with reciprocity first, then evolving property from it, and instead, trying to (impossibly) evolve reciprocity from interest.
Reciprocity > demonstrated interest > agreement on scope (property) > insurance of scope (rights)
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 16:28:00 UTC
As far as I know, the natural law of reciprocity is simply a statement of moral intuition, and moral intuition is nothing but a statement of reciprocity. they should be identical. If they aren’t then someone is lying,cheating, stealing, or preying upon someone else.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 00:53:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083164976607571968
Reply addressees: @MusaVaino @DataDistribute
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083163450178707456
IN REPLY TO:
@MusaVaino
@curtdoolittle @DataDistribute Yes I can respect that. I am 2/3 trough of the propertarian institute videos. Interesting stuff! I think you are addressing a very real and interesting problem. Propertarianism seems to regulate morality through law. Can men still be good at heart if they just follow your law?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083163450178707456
Sacred > Sacrosanct
sac·ro·sanct
[ˈsakrōˌsaNG(k)t]
ADJECTIVE
(especially of a principle, place, or routine) regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.
“the individual’s right to work has been upheld as sacrosanct”
synonyms:
sacred · hallowed · respected · inviolable · inviolate · unimpeachable · unchallengeable · invulnerable · untouchable · inalienable · set apart · protected · defended · secure · safe · unthreatened
APPLY TO COMMONS:
inviolable · inviolate · untouchable · inalienable · set apart · protected · defended · secure
That which is prohibited from ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING: whether Display, Word, Or Deed. Whether thing, space, information, Tradition, Norm, institution …. whether ANY aspect of property in toto.
one has no right of display, of speech, of action in relation to the sacred.
In other words, non, consumption. And punishment for violation of that property is the most severe possible, and so severe that it prevents further encroachements.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-08 13:04:00 UTC
When I use the term Stoicism is a technique like cognitive behavioral therapy that produces mindfulness. The set of goals we seek to achieve with that technique are flexible. My goal is to restore the technique as a discipline of fitness of mind just as the gymnasium of body.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-06 19:55:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1082002683400200193
Reply addressees: @MetrolinxWatch
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1081987945488236544
IN REPLY TO:
@MetrolinxWatch
Contradiction in Stoicism: that we are to live in accord with nature, but the Stoic adopts an arbitrary standard of what is natural for the good man. Why for e.g. is seeking revenge not natural & therefore not good? Why is heightening our sense of power irrelevant? @curtdoolittle
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1081987945488236544
—“Curt: what constitutes fight shooting vs target shooting?”—
Target shooting is a way of keeping the cost down and continuing the tradition of riflemen upon which the USA is founded (as are the marines).
But small arms today are absurdly effective, and the truth is that rifle rounds are the sort of ‘weapon that keeps on giving’ so to speak, in that they just keep going and going and going.
Pistol rounds are, honestly, extremely effective at .380 and over, with all that mattering is the hit location, and rate of immobilization. Current 9mm semi autos are ‘almost’ idiot-proof, and carry 15+ rounds, and 30 if necessary.
Pistols are easily concealed as are lots of extra magazines, and are wonderful indoors.
Learning to ‘fight’ with a pistol like our ancestors did with swords (particularly fencing) is what policemen and swat teams are trained to do. (Not that I”m advocating gun-fu, which while interesting is just amusement.)
See this example, starting on page 32.
http://www.actiontarget.com/…/Advanced_Tactica_Handgun…
ie: moving targets while you are moving, multiple targets, entry into spaces, shooting from wounded, shooting when down. shooting from cover vs concealment. reloading one handed.
Normal everyday cop training.
(PERSONAL: For me, I pretty much don’t do anything other than mozambique drills, double taps, while moving, and point-shooting. In fact, if I ever start teaching again I’m going to teach point shooting first, right after all the ‘don’t hurt yourself’ basics, and before anything else. My next handgun if I ever get the urge for another will be a ‘melted’ 9mm 1911 without sights.)
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-06 15:36:00 UTC
DEFINING QUALITY OF THE WEST’S SUCCESS
Increasing precision, resolution and conciseness results in packed terms which when understood provide decidibility.
Increasing ambiguity, obfuscation and verbosity results in overloaded terms which when unpacked contain little substance.
The former an investment with dividends, the later malinvestment which causes damage.
Western civ = disambiguation across domains, scales and orders of complexity
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-31 14:20:00 UTC
INSURE VS ENSURE
INSURE (“institutional, guarantee of restitution upon loss, negative”)
Insure means to safeguard against loss or damage, typically through the purchase of insurance to do so. If a contract stipulates that the individual must insure something the contract is stipulating that the individual must purchase insurance to safeguard that asset.
ENSURE (“personal, warranty of due diligence, positive”)
Ensure is very similar in that it means to make sure or guarantee something, though the specific emphasis on doing so via insurance is not there. If a contract stipulates that an individual must ensure something is taken care of there is no requirement to purchase insurance, rather the individual is to “do their best” to make sure something is taken care of.
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-29 08:57:00 UTC