Form: Definition
-
—“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. 😉 -
Reported trust, vs demonstrated trust. Do they act like they trust one another b
Reported trust, vs demonstrated trust.
Do they act like they trust one another by sharing risk?
Do they act like they trust other businesses
Do they act like they trust the police and the courts?
Do they act like they trust the government?
Measure corruption (friction) in each.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 18:07:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973984004419530758
Reply addressees: @sonshi_com @rockyandmayur
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973976891949494273
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/973976891949494273
-
Define ‘you’ “i”. There are a very finite number of properties of ‘you’ that dif
Define ‘you’ “i”. There are a very finite number of properties of ‘you’ that differ from the properties of others. As far as I know, you can only consist of a physical body living (surviving) in time, a set of memories that when stimulated by inputs produce consequence (changes) unique in time and space, and a set of others’ memories of your body and your behavior; and lastly the legal ‘you’ which refers to the set of records, obligations, and liabilities others cannot transfer to their exclusive control. This is the full spectrum of ‘you’ that has any meaning. -
Define ‘you’ “i”. There are a very finite number of properties of ‘you’ that dif
Define ‘you’ “i”. There are a very finite number of properties of ‘you’ that differ from the properties of others.
As far as I know, you can only consist of a physical body living (surviving) in time, a set of memories that when stimulated by inputs produce consequence (changes) unique in time and space, and a set of others’ memories of your body and your behavior; and lastly the legal ‘you’ which refers to the set of records, obligations, and liabilities others cannot transfer to their exclusive control. This is the full spectrum of ‘you’ that has any meaning.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 13:39:00 UTC
-
Define ‘you’ “i”. There are a very finite number of properties of ‘you’ that dif
Define ‘you’ “i”. There are a very finite number of properties of ‘you’ that differ from the properties of others. As far as I know, you can only consist of a physical body living (surviving) in time, a set of memories that when stimulated by inputs produce consequence (changes) unique in time and space, and a set of others’ memories of your body and your behavior; and lastly the legal ‘you’ which refers to the set of records, obligations, and liabilities others cannot transfer to their exclusive control. This is the full spectrum of ‘you’ that has any meaning. -
18 – Pseudoscience, Pseudo-rationalism, and Pseudo-historicism (the debunking of
18 – Pseudoscience, Pseudo-rationalism, and Pseudo-historicism (the debunking of which is my occupation) are called ‘Fictionalisms’. Pseudoscience requires that one claim he relies on the scientific method, while not employing its constraints. He does not do that.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-12 12:31:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973174593258246150
Reply addressees: @nathancofnas
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972432694675058688
IN REPLY TO:
@nathancofnas
My analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s pseudoscience: https://t.co/eRfp6B8g0e
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972432694675058688
-
Truth Has Only One Possible Meaning
There is only one possible meaning of truth: the spectrum honesty(unwarranted) > testimony(warranted) > most parsimonious operational name(unwarrantable). Conflating the preferable, the good, the decidable, the true, is just a means of lying – it is merely a sophisticated method by which to employ an appeal to authority by platonic means. It’s an excuse for self congratulatory fraud. People will make excuses. They favor their excuses. They disfavor the excuses of others. That’s why we have courts, science, and measurement – to decide independent of excuses. We need only incrementally improve the courts so that we suppress excuses just as we have every other form of violence, theft, and fraud. NO MORE LIES, NO MORE FRAUD, NO MORE PRETENSE. -
TRUTH HAS ONLY ONE POSSIBLE MEANING There is only one possible meaning of truth:
TRUTH HAS ONLY ONE POSSIBLE MEANING
There is only one possible meaning of truth: the spectrum honesty(unwarranted) > testimony(warranted) > most parsimonious operational name(unwarrantable). Conflating the preferable, the good, the decidable, the true, is just a means of lying – it is merely a sophisticated method by which to employ an appeal to authority by platonic means. It’s an excuse for self congratulatory fraud.
People will make excuses.
They favor their excuses.
They disfavor the excuses of others.
That’s why we have courts, science, and measurement – to decide independent of excuses.
We need only incrementally improve the courts so that we suppress excuses just as we have every other form of violence, theft, and fraud.
NO MORE LIES, NO MORE FRAUD, NO MORE PRETENSE.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-12 08:57:00 UTC
-
Truth Has Only One Possible Meaning
There is only one possible meaning of truth: the spectrum honesty(unwarranted) > testimony(warranted) > most parsimonious operational name(unwarrantable). Conflating the preferable, the good, the decidable, the true, is just a means of lying – it is merely a sophisticated method by which to employ an appeal to authority by platonic means. It’s an excuse for self congratulatory fraud. People will make excuses. They favor their excuses. They disfavor the excuses of others. That’s why we have courts, science, and measurement – to decide independent of excuses. We need only incrementally improve the courts so that we suppress excuses just as we have every other form of violence, theft, and fraud. NO MORE LIES, NO MORE FRAUD, NO MORE PRETENSE. -
Define “Know”?
DEFINE “KNOW”? As far as I know (as far as I am aware) it can only mean ‘aware of’. One’s assessment of the truth or falsehood is quite different. The test of that truth or falsehood is something else. The truth or falsehood should we possess perfect knowledge is something else entirely. So we can know something. We can know something is false. We can know something is not false. We can know something is difficult to be other than true. Knowing of WHAT. Most philosophical questions are actually just grammatical sophisms.