If we define Moral Intuitions as the reactions we feel in response to our thoughts and actions and those of others. If we define Normative Morality as the reactions we feel given for methods of decidability given some set of assumptions. If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference. Then: We find that personal moral intuition is the product of our genes, and our experiential development. And it varies greatly from individual to individual. We find that existing normative morality is the product of evolutionary accident and we learn it through experience and observation – although it does vary a little from individual to individual within groups, and varies widely between groups. We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups. We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups. We find that juridical philosophy attempts to explain the common law, without necessarily succeeding at doing so. But that the transformation of juridical philosophy to juridical science is eminently possible – we just may not like what we learn, any more than we learned in each previous reformation of our thinking. Natural Law (propertarianism), is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature. It is not a rational philosophy limited to internal correspondence. Its not a moral norm. Nor is it necessarily a moral intuition that all would agree to. It is the record of the arguments by which we decide conflicts over investments we have made, and protect. And from these records we can identify a very simple single law – non imposition of costs upon anything whatsoever that others have invested in producing whether informational, behavioral, material, or institutional. And from those observations we may discover general rules. Just as in any other science. And there is only one of them.
Form: Definition
-
Natural Law
If we define Moral Intuitions as the reactions we feel in response to our thoughts and actions and those of others. If we define Normative Morality as the reactions we feel given for methods of decidability given some set of assumptions. If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference. Then: We find that personal moral intuition is the product of our genes, and our experiential development. And it varies greatly from individual to individual. We find that existing normative morality is the product of evolutionary accident and we learn it through experience and observation – although it does vary a little from individual to individual within groups, and varies widely between groups. We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups. We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups. We find that juridical philosophy attempts to explain the common law, without necessarily succeeding at doing so. But that the transformation of juridical philosophy to juridical science is eminently possible – we just may not like what we learn, any more than we learned in each previous reformation of our thinking. Natural Law (propertarianism), is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature. It is not a rational philosophy limited to internal correspondence. Its not a moral norm. Nor is it necessarily a moral intuition that all would agree to. It is the record of the arguments by which we decide conflicts over investments we have made, and protect. And from these records we can identify a very simple single law – non imposition of costs upon anything whatsoever that others have invested in producing whether informational, behavioral, material, or institutional. And from those observations we may discover general rules. Just as in any other science. And there is only one of them.
-
YOUR ‘OPERATIONAL’ DEFINITION IS ‘PERSONAL’. (meaning, subjective nonsense) (oh
YOUR ‘OPERATIONAL’ DEFINITION IS ‘PERSONAL’.
(meaning, subjective nonsense) (oh the irony)
Necessary definitions are what we call ‘truth’ statements. It is what it is. They are what they are. And yes I do need to do it. It’s my job: Sanitizing the informational commons. And exposing those who make excuses for people who conflate personal experiential emotions in the ignorance of possibility, cost, and consequence, possibility with aggregate possibility, cost, and consequence in order to promote and conduct thefts via the violence of government is one of the most moral services a man can provide to his people.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 14:54:00 UTC
-
EXAMPLE: THE IMPORTANCE OF SERIES ‘hate on’ (v. slang) To express hatred toward.
EXAMPLE: THE IMPORTANCE OF SERIES
‘hate on’ (v. slang)
To express hatred toward.
‘hate’ v.
The feeling we experience towards those who betray us, steal from us, threaten us, harm us, and whom we desire to harm more so, even to the point of paying the high cost of altruistic punishment. (Hate evolved as the extreme retaliation against violations of reciprocity.)
‘anger’ v.
( … )
‘dislike’ v.
That feeling we experience toward others who betray us ethically or morally, by violating reciprocity, such that we seek to boycott all offers or opportunities to cooperate with them.
‘disapprove’ v.
The feeling we experience towards others who take unethical, immoral, actions by violating reciprocity by imposing costs upon others directly, ethically by informational asymmetry, or morally, by externality.
‘reject’ / ‘rejection’ v.
That feeling we experience toward others whose offers of cooperation are undesirable either directly, ethically by asymmetry, or morally by externality.
‘tolerate’ v.
( … )
‘negotiate’ v.
( … )
‘accomodate’ v.
( … )
‘cooperate’ v.
( … )
‘give preference’ v.
( … )
‘advocate’ v.
( … )
…
‘love’ v.
( … )
From bearing costs to punish(hate), to bear costs to advance(love).
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 11:32:00 UTC
-
FICTION VERSUS LAW (profoundly important) FICTION ( possibility – opportunity –
FICTION VERSUS LAW
(profoundly important)
FICTION ( possibility – opportunity – productivity )
VS
LAW ( decidability – limits – parasitism )
Of the following, which is fiction, which is law?
A) Golden Rule : Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
B) Silver Rule: Do not unto others as you would not have done unto you.
Fiction and Law serve as the western equivalent of Ying and Yang.
But our western model innovates, and Ying and Yang stagnates.
PETERSON: FICTIONALISM (SELLING), DOOLITTLE: LAW (TELLING)
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 12:50:00 UTC
-
Definitions: Post Euclidian Geometry
I think that the scientific rather than platonic explanations are more truthful and less “magical” (and less ridiculous honestly). So try this: We can act in four dimensions of the physical universe, measure in four dimensions of the physical universe, and model four dimensions of the physical universe with mathematics. However, we can use the same techniques to model purely logical relationships, as we do to model physical relationships. It requires quite a bit of skill to keep track of what you’re doing, but when we are modeling very complex things, like waves, magnetism, forces, economic phenomenon, we can perform very complex calculations – not because these spaces exist, but because we can use the techniques we developed in the more simple physical spaces consisting of a small number of dimensions of change, to solve problems with many many, dimensions of change. It’s not that complicated really. It just sounds complicated because of the old fashioned (archaic) language we use to describe what we’re doing.
-
Definitions: Post Euclidian Geometry
I think that the scientific rather than platonic explanations are more truthful and less “magical” (and less ridiculous honestly). So try this: We can act in four dimensions of the physical universe, measure in four dimensions of the physical universe, and model four dimensions of the physical universe with mathematics. However, we can use the same techniques to model purely logical relationships, as we do to model physical relationships. It requires quite a bit of skill to keep track of what you’re doing, but when we are modeling very complex things, like waves, magnetism, forces, economic phenomenon, we can perform very complex calculations – not because these spaces exist, but because we can use the techniques we developed in the more simple physical spaces consisting of a small number of dimensions of change, to solve problems with many many, dimensions of change. It’s not that complicated really. It just sounds complicated because of the old fashioned (archaic) language we use to describe what we’re doing.
-
Definition: Fictionalism
Mar 24, 2017 11:43am DEFINITION: FICTIONALISM (important for propertarian core) Fictionalism is the name of the judgement within philosophy, as to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of “make believe”, of pretending to treat something as literally true (a “useful fiction”). Fictionalism consists in at least the following three theses: 1) Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false. 2) The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else:
- conversation(bonding or entertainment),
- discourse (discovery),
- argument(persuasion), and
- testimony(reporting),
Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of
- description vs fiction,
- honesty vs deceit, and
- truth or falsehood,
Of our statements. (We white and grey lie all time time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.) 3) The purpose of *discourse(discovery)* in any given domain is not truth, but communication. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false. Four common occurrences of fictionalism are:1) mathematical fictionalism advocated by Hartry Field, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement) 2) modal fictionalism developed by Gideon Rosen, which states that possible worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse, and; 3) moral fictionalism in meta-ethics, advocated by Richard Joyce, suggests that fictions (Falsehoods) are too useful to throw out. 4) religious fiction in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of fictionalism. 5) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult) We must note that all three of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past. Of these groups: 0 – Religious Language in toto (supernaturalism) 1 – Literary Philosophers (positive, or advocates ), 2 – Supernormal Physicists, and 3 – Mathematical Platonists; All attempt to preserve the use of fictions for one of the following possible reasons: 1) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgements are truths. 2) Obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or 3) Preserve the cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or 4) Avoid the costs of investigating the method of decidability within their domains. 5) Avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered. And so: If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference. Then: We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups. We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups. Natural Law (propertarianism), is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Definition: Fictionalism
Mar 24, 2017 11:43am DEFINITION: FICTIONALISM (important for propertarian core) Fictionalism is the name of the judgement within philosophy, as to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of “make believe”, of pretending to treat something as literally true (a “useful fiction”). Fictionalism consists in at least the following three theses: 1) Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false. 2) The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else:
- conversation(bonding or entertainment),
- discourse (discovery),
- argument(persuasion), and
- testimony(reporting),
Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of
- description vs fiction,
- honesty vs deceit, and
- truth or falsehood,
Of our statements. (We white and grey lie all time time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.) 3) The purpose of *discourse(discovery)* in any given domain is not truth, but communication. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false. Four common occurrences of fictionalism are:1) mathematical fictionalism advocated by Hartry Field, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement) 2) modal fictionalism developed by Gideon Rosen, which states that possible worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse, and; 3) moral fictionalism in meta-ethics, advocated by Richard Joyce, suggests that fictions (Falsehoods) are too useful to throw out. 4) religious fiction in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of fictionalism. 5) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult) We must note that all three of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past. Of these groups: 0 – Religious Language in toto (supernaturalism) 1 – Literary Philosophers (positive, or advocates ), 2 – Supernormal Physicists, and 3 – Mathematical Platonists; All attempt to preserve the use of fictions for one of the following possible reasons: 1) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgements are truths. 2) Obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or 3) Preserve the cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or 4) Avoid the costs of investigating the method of decidability within their domains. 5) Avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered. And so: If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference. Then: We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups. We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups. Natural Law (propertarianism), is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
DEFINITION: FICTIONALISM (important for propertarian core) Fictionalism is the n
DEFINITION: FICTIONALISM
(important for propertarian core)
Fictionalism is the name of the judgement within philosophy, as to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of “make believe”, of pretending to treat something as literally true (a “useful fiction”).
Fictionalism consists in at least the following three theses:
1) Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false.
2) The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else: conversation(bonding or entertainment), discourse (discovery), argument(persuasion), and testimony(reporting), differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of description vs fiction, honesty vs deceit, and truth or falsehood, of our statements. (We white and grey lie all time time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.)
3) The purpose of *discourse(discovery)* in any given domain is not truth, but communication. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.
Four common occurrences of fictionalism are:
1) mathematical fictionalism advocated by Hartry Field, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement)
2) modal fictionalism developed by Gideon Rosen, which states that possible worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse, and;
3) moral fictionalism in meta-ethics, advocated by Richard Joyce, suggests that fictions (Falsehoods) are too useful to throw out.
4) religious fiction in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of fictionalism.
5) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult)
We must note that all three of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past.
Of these groups:
0 – Religious Language in toto (supernaturalism)
1 – Literary Philosophers (positive, or advocates ),
2 – Supernormal Physicists, and
3 – Mathematical Platonists;
All attempt to preserve the use of fictions for one of the following possible reasons:
1) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgements are truths.
2) Obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or
3) Preserve the cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or
4) Avoid the costs of investigating the method of decidability within their domains.
5) Avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered.
If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and
if we define truth as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference.
Then:
We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups.
We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups.
Natural Law (propertarianism), is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a .fictional literature.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-24 11:43:00 UTC