Form: Diary

i did beautiful work in philosophy today. it felt spiritually uplifting to see it all come together. So simply. So elegantly. So completely. I was exhausted. the answer is so trivially simple that it is hard to understand how it isn’t obvious. The truth is enough. But when we say that, it I mean truthful speech is enough.

I can pretend speak the truth, but that is not possible.

I can speak as a vector for the pretense of the truth.

speak truthfully, which is possible

speak incompetently and with error,

speak as a vector for error and deception,

And, lastly,

speak as a deceiver.

And the problem is, that speaking truthfully is unnatural to man – it is a skill. it’s difficult. And without the assistance of skills, norms and normative langue of truth, that assists us in speaking truthfully, it is nearly impossible for moral man, even if he tries.

And the incentive for cunning man is so great to display his cunning he rarely grasps that he is himself an immoral man, creator of deception and obscurantism. He fools himself, fools others, and they become vectors for folly.

Speaking truthfully is an art. Grammar, Rhetoric, and Propertarianism – including operationalism – make it extremely difficult to both speak sensibly and untruthfully at the same time.

Our problem in government — which after FIVE HARD YEARS OF WORK I have finally got my arms around well enough to write down in simple terms — is that it was originated as a jury that approved or denied proposals submitted as theories. In construction of government, we combined theorist, jury and management, then theorist, jury, management, and staff; and lastly theorists, jury, management, staff, academy and church – all into the same body. And we expect this vast bureaucracy to function in our interests. Worse, we apply the jury system to representation – which must be the worst idea in human history.

THE PROBLEM IS ACTUALLY EASY TO FIX.

more later…

(i love my friends. fk. I am so lucky.)

WINTER. VICTORIES.

It’s winter in Kiev. It’s 27F. It’s noticeably dark early again. I’ve hung up the leather jacket, switched to the wool coat and layers. The shops have heavily discounted what remains of fall, and those without winter stock are empty. They’ve skipped the ‘autumn’ coat season here and gone right to winter-wear. The music playlists have returned to normal – more synth and rock suitable for clubs, less pop suitable for cafes. Slavic men look GOOD in continental urban winter men’s wear – rather than our american faux-outdoorsman-look that hides our bulging american bellies. Winter wear is elegant here and varied. You can’t find mens’ shoes that aren’t insulated.

On my part, my body must have known, because I gained 3.5 kilos in the past two months, and it’s time to stop storing up fat for the winter already. 🙂 I also realized that I am subconsciously afraid of another winter here, because last winter, between the US government trying to kill me, the financial catastrophe it put me into, the hostile takeover of my previous company, the revolution putting my new business at risk, Putin’s invasion of these beautiful people, and being sick for 12 weeks in the late winter and spring, that there is a left over bit of trauma in there I haven’t been able to expunge.

Meanwhile I still managed to fight off the government, settle the take-over amicably, get the men out of the country, nearly complete the product, open the intellectual attack on libertine Rothbardians, drop the winter weight, write some pretty solid philosophy.

Liberty just requires truth telling. Never surrender. Give no quarter. Show no mercy. If necessary, kill them all and let god sort it out. 😉

Cheers.

(Dog in the house. I love dogs. But I am dying. Every time. Allergies. yack. Guess I am going out today.)

So weird. Some weeks I just squirrel away on some problem and other weeks I can’t stop the tidal wave – I have to sprint just to capture what I can. No control over it at all. Just happens.

One thing that has become so obvious of late, is that hypotheses seem to be purely intuitive in origin, and mere accidents of whatever else you were thinking before hand. And the only possible solution is to place no confidence in them at all, other than to just attack them from every possible angle: what explanatory power does this idea provide? And how can I refute it?

The second thing that’s even more clear to me now, is that writers must carefully limit their stimulation to the subject at hand so that free association is not polluted by conflicting subjects: allow yourself to have pure ‘dreams’ (waking free associations).

The third is that intellectual productivity is largely constituted in the sheer number of hours you focus on a problem to the exclusion of all others: specialization.

I mean, intelligence does buy you velocity, but only in initial free association. Just working at free association on a singular subject trains your neural network so that the previous associations are conducted without cost, and the next association is now available to you for the prior cost.