Cooperation: the study of voluntary, inconstant, and reciprocal relations
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 10:13:00 UTC
Form: Definition
-
Mathematics: the study of constant relations
Mathematics: the study of constant relations.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 10:11:00 UTC
-
Definition: Aristocracy
“Define aristocracy. As far as i know it means rule by meritocracy. So one is a member of the aristocracy as long as one joins the franchise and demonstrates his merit. Now, that is different from saying ‘nobility‘. Aristocracy is not synonymous with nobility. Although some abuse the terms and confuse ‘aristocrat’ with ‘nobility’ this is merely an error. Although In some of the literature the nobility(priesthood) and the aristocracy(martial) are two different classes. That said, there are two forms of nobility: awarded and earned. One can join the nobility by creating a persistent family with persistent managerial position. This is a natural aristocracy of natural nobility. One can also be ennobled formally, in order to increase your chances of persisting your family into natural nobility.
Now, my family history is quite old, and from the literate, protestant preacher, commercial managerial, military officer, and lesser political classes. So I consider myself in the ‘natural’ middle class (organizers) rather than mere middle ‘consumer’ class. But in the ‘history books’ my family is referred to as ‘lesser aristocracy’. Which I translate to ‘managerial class’ that performs military service. Now, there is also the “Romantic” and aesthetic fantasy either from the selfish-dominance or public-heroic that aristocracy refers to a spiritual belief, rather than empirically demonstrated reality. And I am fine with this wet dream as long as it does not interfere with reality. We need to fabricate these fantasies to inspire the soldiery to risk and achievement. But it is just anotehr form of romanticism. And my function is to teach how to rule, not write songs, poetry, and propaganda.” – Curt Doolittle. -
Definition: Aristocracy
“Define aristocracy. As far as i know it means rule by meritocracy. So one is a member of the aristocracy as long as one joins the franchise and demonstrates his merit. Now, that is different from saying ‘nobility‘. Aristocracy is not synonymous with nobility. Although some abuse the terms and confuse ‘aristocrat’ with ‘nobility’ this is merely an error. Although In some of the literature the nobility(priesthood) and the aristocracy(martial) are two different classes. That said, there are two forms of nobility: awarded and earned. One can join the nobility by creating a persistent family with persistent managerial position. This is a natural aristocracy of natural nobility. One can also be ennobled formally, in order to increase your chances of persisting your family into natural nobility.
Now, my family history is quite old, and from the literate, protestant preacher, commercial managerial, military officer, and lesser political classes. So I consider myself in the ‘natural’ middle class (organizers) rather than mere middle ‘consumer’ class. But in the ‘history books’ my family is referred to as ‘lesser aristocracy’. Which I translate to ‘managerial class’ that performs military service. Now, there is also the “Romantic” and aesthetic fantasy either from the selfish-dominance or public-heroic that aristocracy refers to a spiritual belief, rather than empirically demonstrated reality. And I am fine with this wet dream as long as it does not interfere with reality. We need to fabricate these fantasies to inspire the soldiery to risk and achievement. But it is just anotehr form of romanticism. And my function is to teach how to rule, not write songs, poetry, and propaganda.” – Curt Doolittle. -
Defining Philosophy
WORKING ON DEFINING PHILOSOPHY I have been working on defining philosophy (because like truth, it wasn’t defined before). And you know, there are a few ways to approach it: western philosophy (argumentative methodology) or philosophy in all cultures (multiple argumentative methodologies). And whether the philosophy is literary and imaginative (possibilities), escapist (most), a form of assistance(sinic), or problem solving (western). And what constitutes truth in each methodology – which differs dramatically from civilization to civilization. Now, I’m going to say that philosophy is to reason what apperception is to consciousness: the re-measuring of all related relations in response to the new measure provided by the new information. In other words: recursive recalculation in response to new measurements. The difference being that while cognition and apperception are continuous autonomic processes, reason and philosophy are guided processes, in which we devote (concentrate) resources (mental) to achieve desired ends. This is, I think, the correct description of the processes of reason and philosophy. Reason measures. Philosophy seeks commensurability of new ideas to old Ideas and refactors old ideas recursively as a consequence. At this point we should see the general union of neurology, computer science, and information: commensurability that makes judgment (comparison) possible. Western philosophy differs in its analytic (deconflated) versus synthetic (conflated) method of reasoning. The categories of philosophy form an expanding hierarchy: – existence (actionability) – epistemology (knowledge) – truth (testimony) – ethics and morality (cooperation in production ) – politics (cooperation in production of commons ) – group evolutionary strategy (competition against other groups) – aesthetics (means of associating emotions with principles that advance all of the above) And we make use of a hierarchy of argument types: – reason – rationalism (non-contradiction) – logic (internal consistency) – empiricism (external correspondence) – operationalism (existential possibility) – voluntarism (moral possibility) And we make use of a hierarchy of measurements – identity (category) – counting (measurement) – arithmetic (operations) – mathematics (sets) – geometry (space) – calculus (change) – post-euclidian calculus (logical rather than physical relations) And we practice different fields: – physical science(s) – cooperative science(s) – informational science(s) – aesthetic science(s). (and we conflate these fields as needed to produce goods, services, and information) And we conduct these arguments using different languages and methods appropriate to each of the classes. And each language places greater demand on the individual’s ability to reason. So my view of philosophy proper is an analytic deconflated process by which we recursively render commensurable the full range of stimuli from the most primitive to the most complex. Everything else I would tend to describe as moral literature, or literary law. I don’t see philosophy proper anywhere other than in the west and a touch of it in the east. What I see is analogies to philosophy proper, that we have no names for, but can be decomposed into the forms of conflation that they use, across fields, measurements, and argument types.
-
Defining Philosophy
WORKING ON DEFINING PHILOSOPHY I have been working on defining philosophy (because like truth, it wasn’t defined before). And you know, there are a few ways to approach it: western philosophy (argumentative methodology) or philosophy in all cultures (multiple argumentative methodologies). And whether the philosophy is literary and imaginative (possibilities), escapist (most), a form of assistance(sinic), or problem solving (western). And what constitutes truth in each methodology – which differs dramatically from civilization to civilization. Now, I’m going to say that philosophy is to reason what apperception is to consciousness: the re-measuring of all related relations in response to the new measure provided by the new information. In other words: recursive recalculation in response to new measurements. The difference being that while cognition and apperception are continuous autonomic processes, reason and philosophy are guided processes, in which we devote (concentrate) resources (mental) to achieve desired ends. This is, I think, the correct description of the processes of reason and philosophy. Reason measures. Philosophy seeks commensurability of new ideas to old Ideas and refactors old ideas recursively as a consequence. At this point we should see the general union of neurology, computer science, and information: commensurability that makes judgment (comparison) possible. Western philosophy differs in its analytic (deconflated) versus synthetic (conflated) method of reasoning. The categories of philosophy form an expanding hierarchy: – existence (actionability) – epistemology (knowledge) – truth (testimony) – ethics and morality (cooperation in production ) – politics (cooperation in production of commons ) – group evolutionary strategy (competition against other groups) – aesthetics (means of associating emotions with principles that advance all of the above) And we make use of a hierarchy of argument types: – reason – rationalism (non-contradiction) – logic (internal consistency) – empiricism (external correspondence) – operationalism (existential possibility) – voluntarism (moral possibility) And we make use of a hierarchy of measurements – identity (category) – counting (measurement) – arithmetic (operations) – mathematics (sets) – geometry (space) – calculus (change) – post-euclidian calculus (logical rather than physical relations) And we practice different fields: – physical science(s) – cooperative science(s) – informational science(s) – aesthetic science(s). (and we conflate these fields as needed to produce goods, services, and information) And we conduct these arguments using different languages and methods appropriate to each of the classes. And each language places greater demand on the individual’s ability to reason. So my view of philosophy proper is an analytic deconflated process by which we recursively render commensurable the full range of stimuli from the most primitive to the most complex. Everything else I would tend to describe as moral literature, or literary law. I don’t see philosophy proper anywhere other than in the west and a touch of it in the east. What I see is analogies to philosophy proper, that we have no names for, but can be decomposed into the forms of conflation that they use, across fields, measurements, and argument types.
-
Physical Laws, Natural Laws, Information Laws.
LAWS OF NATURE, NATURAL LAW, AND LAWS OF INFORMATION 1) Laws of nature (physical laws) and 2) Natural laws (laws of cooperation), and 3) Truth (laws of information) consist of a spectrum dependent upon each other.
-
Physical Laws, Natural Laws, Information Laws.
LAWS OF NATURE, NATURAL LAW, AND LAWS OF INFORMATION 1) Laws of nature (physical laws) and 2) Natural laws (laws of cooperation), and 3) Truth (laws of information) consist of a spectrum dependent upon each other.
-
Definitions of Techniques of Deception
DEFINITIONS: LOADING, FRAMING, OVERLOADING. Loading = Moral Loading (a form of biasing a suggestion, causing the person to be more heavily influenced by intuition – social effects.) Framing = a form of informational cherrypicking where one eliminates some information and overloads with other information, in order to bias the conclusions of others.
Overloading = Cognitive Overloading ( The use of information, language, detail, to cause the failure of the individual to analytically tests the statement and resort to intuition – cognitive effects) Pseudoscience and pseudorationalism, religion, and narrative are methods of Overloading. (Marxism is at present the second best form of overloading after monotheism – both of which make false utopian promises). I sometimes separate out Environmental Overloading (Propaganda) to demonstrate overloading at scale, by industrialized means. I sometimes refer to religion as using overloading and submission to overloading as a price of ritual entry into an identity. Most deception occurs by the use of incomplete information to cause reliance on introspection (substitution). this kind of deception is open to denial, and therefore not open to retaliation. Whereas supplying false information rather than incomplete and suggested information is not open to denial, and therefore is open to retaliation. -
Definitions of Techniques of Deception
DEFINITIONS: LOADING, FRAMING, OVERLOADING. Loading = Moral Loading (a form of biasing a suggestion, causing the person to be more heavily influenced by intuition – social effects.) Framing = a form of informational cherrypicking where one eliminates some information and overloads with other information, in order to bias the conclusions of others.
Overloading = Cognitive Overloading ( The use of information, language, detail, to cause the failure of the individual to analytically tests the statement and resort to intuition – cognitive effects) Pseudoscience and pseudorationalism, religion, and narrative are methods of Overloading. (Marxism is at present the second best form of overloading after monotheism – both of which make false utopian promises). I sometimes separate out Environmental Overloading (Propaganda) to demonstrate overloading at scale, by industrialized means. I sometimes refer to religion as using overloading and submission to overloading as a price of ritual entry into an identity. Most deception occurs by the use of incomplete information to cause reliance on introspection (substitution). this kind of deception is open to denial, and therefore not open to retaliation. Whereas supplying false information rather than incomplete and suggested information is not open to denial, and therefore is open to retaliation.