Form: Definition

  • THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW As far as i know we have discovered only one law and that

    THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW

    As far as i know we have discovered only one law and that is reciprocity. in addition we produce findings of law, legislation with the power of law, and regulation with the power of law in cases of prior restraint. law persists while findings, regulation, legislation, and command, do not.

    Ergo, people want the right to form their own governments so that they can create their own findings, regulation, legislation, and command to suit their group competitive abilities.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 09:04:00 UTC

  • There Is Only One Law

    As far as i know we have discovered only one law and that is reciprocity. in addition we produce findings of law, legislation with the power of law, and regulation with the power of law in cases of prior restraint. law persists while findings, regulation, legislation, and command, do not. Ergo, people want the right to form their own governments so that they can create their own findings, regulation, legislation, and command to suit their group competitive abilities.
  • Impositions of Cost: voluntary exchange(good) > involuntary transfer > free ridi

    Impositions of Cost: voluntary exchange(good) > involuntary transfer > free riding(parasitism) > extortion(direct and indirect) > crime(violence, theft, harm) > unethical(interpersonal) > immoral(indirect) > evil (for the externalities produced – ie: the domino effect of harm. )


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 00:58:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975174548332138496

    Reply addressees: @_enlacarraca

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975172182547542016


    IN REPLY TO:

    @_enlacarraca

    @curtdoolittle What’s evil? Is it objetive or subjective?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975172182547542016

  • We use scientific, legal, moral, literary, mythical, and supernatural prose to s

    We use scientific, legal, moral, literary, mythical, and supernatural prose to say the same things. Scientifically: evil is the INTENTIONAL imposition of costs upon others for the purpose of suffering, as much or more so than the purpose of profiting.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 00:55:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975173883178442753

    Reply addressees: @_enlacarraca

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975172182547542016


    IN REPLY TO:

    @_enlacarraca

    @curtdoolittle What’s evil? Is it objetive or subjective?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975172182547542016

  • Do Americans Refer To A “charity” As A “cause”?

    No. A cause generally refers to a particular strategy. It may be charitable, political, social, inspirational, or aesthetic. Many charities have a cause, charity itself is an action, or category.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-Americans-refer-to-a-charity-as-a-cause

  • Do Americans Refer To A “charity” As A “cause”?

    No. A cause generally refers to a particular strategy. It may be charitable, political, social, inspirational, or aesthetic. Many charities have a cause, charity itself is an action, or category.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-Americans-refer-to-a-charity-as-a-cause

  • In the literature we call this ‘Altruistic Punishment;. Or, in operational (scie

    In the literature we call this ‘Altruistic Punishment;. Or, in operational (scientific) language: “We intuitively bear the high costs of preserving the incentive to cooperate in the group, in order to suppress free riding, cheating, parasitism, and predation.”


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 21:47:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974764202257780736

  • In the literature we call this ‘Altruistic Punishment;. Or, in operational (scie

    In the literature we call this ‘Altruistic Punishment;. Or, in operational (scientific) language: “We intuitively bear the high costs of preserving the incentive to cooperate in the group, in order to suppress free riding, cheating, parasitism, and predation.” #JordaPeterson


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 21:47:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974764108854759426

    Reply addressees: @InvisibleNGO

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974233687125610502


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974233687125610502

  • —“Please Define Deflationary Grammar”—

    —“PLEASE DEFINE DEFLATIONARY GRAMAR”— (also: See the various categories of Truth (including deflationary). Deflationary <-> Inflationary <-> Conflationary <-> Fictionalism DEFLATIONARY: identity(constant relations), Mathematics(positional relations), Logics(sets of relations), Algorithms (States and Transformation of states), Procedures/Recpies(states, transformation of states, by operations), Contracts(exchanges), Survival (from competition) INFLATIONARY: the descriptive narrative. the fiction. CONFLATIONARY: addition of inconstant relations for purposes of association(transfer) or suggestion (deception) FICTIONALISM: supernatural, ideal (especially platonism), pseudoscientific (especially marx, boaz, freud), pseudo-rational (Especially pretense of closure), pseudo historical (especially revisionist history whereupon present knowledge, luxury, and incentive, is attributed to past actors.) GRAMMAR: Rules of continuous disambiguation. SEMANTICS: sets of constant relations. PARADIGM: Networks of sets of constant relations. In other words we have developed deflationary, inflationary, conflationary, and fictionalist (fraudulent) grammars, wherein the possible operations(transformations, comparisons,) and therefore possible paradigms and semantics (constant relations) are increased or decreased in scope in order to test and falsify (deflate by disassociation) or communicate (inflate by association) or mislead (inflate, conflate, and fictionalise) for the purpose of self, and other, fraud, deception, pretense. In other words, anything that is not false or immoral/unethical(involuntary transfer) is a truth candidate, a preference candidate, and a ‘good’ candidate. This exercise is just codifying in scientific terms the 4000 year old empirical law of tort (reciprocity): do whatever you want but don’t display, speak, or perform a fraud no matter how you justify doing so. Ergo, via positiva philosophy is limited to the selection of personal preferences and contactual goods, but otherwise, as far as I know, the subject of truth is complete and now science (as it probably always should and could have been had the Stoics not be suppressed by the eastern empire.) The problem is, we have regulated action, we have regulated production (commerce and trade) we have regulated contract (Promise of performance) but we have not regulated speech, for the simple reason that it has been heretofore too difficult to limit speech to that which is warrantable. Ergo, if it isn’t warrantable, we can’t tell it’s not false or unethical/immoral directly or by externality.. No man wants laws to bound his ambitions for self delusion as to his social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value. No murderer, theft, or fraud wants constraints on his parasitism and predation. Likewise no social climber, virtue-signaller, priest, public intellectual, wants limits on his speech which constrains his ability to defraud himself and others in pursuit of attention, status, and virtue signals that might increase his perceived social, sexual, economic, political, and military value to others. But yet our uniquely aggressive rate of western evolution in all fields has been possible because of our incremental suppression of violence, theft, and fraud in concert with our rapid advancement in technology, economic, social, political, and military order. Fraud is fraud no matter what excuse we make for it. And while it is one thing to imagine fraud, it is another to speak, advocate, and publish it. 😉
  • “PLEASE DEFINE DEFLATIONARY GRAMAR”— (also: See the various categories of Trut

    —“PLEASE DEFINE DEFLATIONARY GRAMAR”—

    (also: See the various categories of Truth (including deflationary).

    Deflationary <-> Inflationary <-> Conflationary <-> Fictionalism

    DEFLATIONARY: identity(constant relations), Mathematics(positional relations), Logics(sets of relations), Algorithms (States and Transformation of states), Procedures/Recpies(states, transformation of states, by operations), Contracts(exchanges), Survival (from competition)

    INFLATIONARY: the descriptive narrative. the fiction.

    CONFLATIONARY: addition of inconstant relations for purposes of association(transfer) or suggestion (deception)

    FICTIONALISM: supernatural, ideal (especially platonism), pseudoscientific (especially marx, boaz, freud), pseudo-rational (Especially pretense of closure), pseudo historical (especially revisionist history whereupon present knowledge, luxury, and incentive, is attributed to past actors.)

    GRAMMAR: Rules of continuous disambiguation.

    SEMANTICS: sets of constant relations.

    PARADIGM: Networks of sets of constant relations.

    In other words we have developed deflationary, inflationary, conflationary, and fictionalist (fraudulent) grammars, wherein the possible operations(transformations, comparisons,) and therefore possible paradigms and semantics (constant relations) are increased or decreased in scope in order to test and falsify (deflate by disassociation) or communicate (inflate by association) or mislead (inflate, conflate, and fictionalise) for the purpose of self, and other, fraud, deception, pretense.

    In other words, anything that is not false or immoral/unethical(involuntary transfer) is a truth candidate, a preference candidate, and a ‘good’ candidate.

    This exercise is just codifying in scientific terms the 4000 year old empirical law of tort (reciprocity): do whatever you want but don’t display, speak, or perform a fraud no matter how you justify doing so.

    Ergo, via positiva philosophy is limited to the selection of personal preferences and contactual goods, but otherwise, as far as I know, the subject of truth is complete and now science (as it probably always should and could have been had the Stoics not be suppressed by the eastern empire.)

    The problem is, we have regulated action, we have regulated production (commerce and trade) we have regulated contract (Promise of performance) but we have not regulated speech, for the simple reason that it has been heretofore too difficult to limit speech to that which is warrantable.

    Ergo, if it isn’t warrantable, we can’t tell it’s not false or unethical/immoral directly or by externality..

    No man wants laws to bound his ambitions for self delusion as to his social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value. No murderer, theft, or fraud wants constraints on his parasitism and predation. Likewise no social climber, virtue-signaller, priest, public intellectual, wants limits on his speech which constrains his ability to defraud himself and others in pursuit of attention, status, and virtue signals that might increase his perceived social, sexual, economic, political, and military value to others.

    But yet our uniquely aggressive rate of western evolution in all fields has been possible because of our incremental suppression of violence, theft, and fraud in concert with our rapid advancement in technology, economic, social, political, and military order.

    Fraud is fraud no matter what excuse we make for it. And while it is one thing to imagine fraud, it is another to speak, advocate, and publish it.

    😉


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 12:23:00 UTC