Form: Full Essay

The Solution to The Great Problem of Philosophy. Yes, Really.

THE SOLUTION TO THE GREAT PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHY. YES, REALLY.

—“I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about this post. It is an unedited

hodgepodge of ideas, with typos, on Facebook, with 10 likes.
And yet, it claims to have solved a great problem spanning as far back as Aristotle.

I would really like to see this explained more. A formal essay, with references would be great. I’d like to see it part of the greater discussion of contemporary thinkers.

Can you share thoughts on more recent approaches to the demarcation problem? Pigliucci? Mahner? Hansson? Haack? Laudan? Etc. I’d love to see some of these people respond to your solution.Curt Doolittle,Eric Danelaw

I heard Haack saying that Bacon was an excellent Chancellor, but “no scientist”.
It looks like you’ve completely shifted the frame from a philosophical question to a legal question. I’d like to try to put it in my own words, but I’m still trying to wrap my head around all the different arguments.

If this is really a breakthrough in our understanding of science (which it looks like to me so far), I would want it to have a more formal presentation than a sloppy Facebook post with 10 likes.
Thanks for your consideration.”— Daniel T Johnson

RESPONSE:

First, why would humans avoid the legal frame? 😉

Why?

Legal > Scientific > Philosophical > Theological > Fictional?
(accountability) (knowledge required) vs (evasion of liability) (pretense of knowledge)

So, yes, I can construct it from first principles – (I have) and it’s quite long, so this ‘sketch’ is an overview to synthesize the subject for (close) followers.

What I think you’re asking for is a bridge between the diversity of conventions (sects) and the grammars, and from the grammars to P-logic and from P-logic to p-law. When, frankly, sects in philosophy are as diverse as the sects of Christianity if not more so. Because they are all not-quite-right paradigms (incommensurable).

If I went through a bridge argument it would only be possible AFTER having taught enough of the grammars, p-logic, and p-law, without ending up in millions of rat-holes of trying to answer objections without common foundations.

Those ‘sects’ would now (in my understanding) be categorized as
pseudosciences or sophistries the same way we have recategorized theology as either mythology or supernatural sophistry.

The same would be said for formal logic, psychology, sociology, a good bit of economics, law, and politics. Just as we purged the sophistry and supernatural from those fields, we will (P does) purge sophistry and pseudoscience from those fields.

Now, if we take Haak, she’s attacking the postmodernists (especially rorty) on their terms. If we state his or her arguments in economics and law they are no longer complicated, but trivial.

Mahner is doing what I think is the job of philosophers, which is taking scientific progress in a field, reorganizing the paradigm (ontology) dependent upon the evolutionary ideas in the discoveries, and integrating and adapting that paradigm into the broader paradigm we call testimony (truth) or science. (What the grammars do is put all paradigms into one commensurable paradigm).

And what we find in all but one or two thinkers per generation, is that philosophy (if you read papers) it has been reduced to commentary on commentary on error. It’s embarrassing to read philosophy. It’s no different from medievalists commenting on comments on nonsense-scripture.

So for example, if I said, that we use mathematical logic (measurements), and set logic (words), but we are missing operational logic (actions in time) between them – the interesting question is ‘why’? Law does it? Why don’t other fields?

So: human logical facility(measures of constant religions in
existence(observations)) > human action facility (human actions
(demonstrations)) > human grammatical facility(human speech
(suggestions)) > human hearing (synthesis of suggestion (imagination))

Same problem throughout all fields. Why does ‘is’ exist in our language and is it only implied in others?

So it’s not an essay. It’s the ‘dummies guide’ that supplies the foundations. From that point one can go tot he book for the full workup. Or we can have ‘bridge’ arguments with other philosophers.But there are things you can’t discuss without the underlying logic.

So, what you will discover at the end of the journey is that humans seek to avoid costs at all costs and most human thought other than math, science, engineering are constructed primarily of lies because the thinkers have no other means of coercing others in order to obtain self-worth, attention, something to trade, and material advantage.

In other words, the pre-requisite is the dummies version. Right now I have so many projects going on and it’s probably the most important one that I SHOULD work on. Which depends on either trump winning and buying me another four years, or me just going back to Europe and ignoring it all from there.

THE FORMAL SCIENCES (LOGICS)
While we are nearly all familiar with:

Mathematics: (Logic of Existence) the logic of ordinal (positional) names (position in an order of names, not in space or time.) The beauty of mathematics is in that there is only one property: position in an order (base number system). It’s the dumbest language that’s possible. Just as binary is the dumbest mathematics we can invent. Mathematics is the dumbest language can invent. We use math to measure (sense and perceive) that which is beyond your natural sense perception retention.) We use it to measure what we don’t (or can’t) know.

And we are at least aware of:

Logic (the logic of sets)
The logic of sets. So while a positional name (say forty-two), (…)

We use language to SUGGEST ( force ourselves, or others to rely on deduction, induction, abduction, guessing, and auto-association) extremely complex sets of relations with (…)

Operations (Operationalism) The logic of Actions in Time

( … )

The Logic of Sentience (language)
( … )

So just as say, when counting can only increase or decrease in position or not, actions can only be executed in a sequence or not. Just as there are only so many operations in arithmetic (really, just adding and removing), but in combinations we can produce all of mathematics, human being sare only able to sense perceive (model by auto association), predict (auto association), imagine (auto association and attention), think (recurse by auto attention, association, and recursion), act (change body state), and speak. So the operations available to people are much more complex. In between mathematics and action is programming, which is a more constrained logic, limited to the sets of operations available to the software, which is limited to the sets of operations limited to the hardware.

RESULTS:

Mathematics
(Geometry constrained by three dimensions and time.)
(and not constrained by space, time, and optionally cost)
… Arithmetic: The Logic of Counting
… Geometry: The Logic of Lines (Constancy)
… Calculus: The Logic of Curves (Change)
… Statistics: The Logic of Variation (Commensurability)
… Probability: The Logic of Prediction (Time or non-time)
… ‘Economics’: The Logic of Equilibration
… Algebra: The logic of deduction with positional names (balance)

Operations:
(Actions constrained by available operations)
(and Constrained by space, time, cost, incentives)
… Programmatic operations (speed)
… Bayesian Operations (volume, precision)
… Sequences of actions in time (actions, procedures, processes)

Set Operations:
(ideals free of operational constraints and time.)
(and not constrained by space, time, cost or incentives)
… Propositional logic – reasoning about sentences and their logical connections (and, or, …).
… First-order predicate logic – reasoning about quantified quantities and domain-specific functions/predicates (like addition in arithmetic) that make up sentences.
… Higher-order predicate logics – extend first-order logic to quantify not just over variables, but also over sets, sets of sets, etc.
… Modal logics – reasoning about “modalities” of sentences. Common meanings are: possibility/necessity, always/eventually, obligation/permission, knowledge/belief.

ORIGINAL POST:
KARL POPPER’S DEMARCATION PROBLEM IS SOLVED, AND THE CRITICAL RATIONALIST PROGRAM OF FALSIFICATION IS COMPLETE: IT WAS LAW ALL ALONG. AND HAYEK WAS RIGHT.

As far as I know, western success in science, technology, medicine, and economics was due to the transfer of our legal tradition (including traditional european law to Aristotle to Bacon to Hume to Hayek) – and the failure of our philosophers to understand that transfer.

That legal tradition includes a Metaphysical Traditional Contract:
1 – A Universal Militia Regardless of Cost
2 – Excellence and Heroism Regardless of Cost
3 – Duty and Commons Regardless of Cost
4 – Truth and Oath Regardless of Cost
5 – Promise and Contract Regardless of Cost
6 – Sovereignty and Reciprocity Regardless of Cost
7 – The Natural Law and Jury Regardless of Cost
8 – Wherein every man a soldier, sheriff, judge, and his own legislator, of his own demonstrated interests.
9 – And as a result – the only possibility for social organization is Voluntary Markets in:
.. – association
.. .. – cooperation
.. .. .. – production
.. .. .. .. – reproduction
.. .. .. .. .. – commons
.. .. .. .. .. .. – polities
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. – war.
10 – Together producing the fastest possible means of human adaptation to circumstances;
11 – Including the continuous evolutionary production of Human Agency (human capital);
12 – By the domestication of man by market eugenics,
13 – And as a result, the direction of surpluses to the production of commons, and the multiples of returns produced therefrom;
14 – Including the unique high trust society;
15 – And the informational, scientific, technological, medical, economic, social, political, and military benefits therefrom.
16 – Yielding a genetic distribution free of the burden of underclass consumption, and the costs of their organization, administration, and care.
These are the organizing principles of western civilization, and what separates the west from the rest, and origin of that separation is in truth before face, cost to self-image, cost to the competence hierarchy, and cost to the dominance hierarchy, where truth refers to martial testimonial truth (what the military calls ‘reporting’, warrantied by the speaker, given the consequences that result from error, bias, and deceit in military contexts.
India is an extended family, china is a family bureaucracy, the west a military hierarchy, and semitia is feminine supernatural dependency: a civilization of and for women.

CRITICAL RATIONALISM
So, the demarcation in law between testifiability and fiction, is legal due diligence (falsification).

DUE DILIGENCE
Man can perform due diligence against every dimension perceivable by man:
1 – categorical consistency (identity),
2 – internal consistency (logical),
3 – operational consistency (existential possibility),
4 – external consistency (empirical),
5 – rational consistency (rational choice),
6 – reciprocal consistency (rational choice between parties in affected by any change in state),
7 – limites and completeness (full accounting within stated limits),
8 – sufficient to meet demand for infallibility of decidability by all parties affected directly or indirectly by the display word ord deed,
9 – and warrantied by possibility of the speaker’s restitution of all parties affected by display word or deed.

In other words, yes, one of the demarcations between science and non-science is falsificationary, and requires not only the test of falsifiability, but due diligence against falsehood in all dimensions perceivable by man, and warranty to falsify the incentive to escape due diligence.

EPISTEMOLOGY
Another is that the individual alone can perform that due diligence, or that the process of due diligence includes only:

… [ Problem -> Theory -> Test -> Repeat ] …

Instead of:

… [ Observation -> Question(problem) -> Free association -> hypothesis -> falsification by one’s reason -> falsification by the full set of dimensions falsifiable by man above -> Propositional Theory -> Falsification by Application in the Market for Solutions to Problems -> Settled (Surviving) Theory -> Presumption -> Metaphysical Presumption ] …

Which is a chain of iterations on:

… [ Problem(Question) -> Hypothesis -> Test(Falsify) -> Repeat ] ..

Under increasing scope of ‘markets’ (competitions) from the mind(imagination) demonstrated actions (due diligence), to the market for applications (applied).

… [ Mental-Imagination -> Physical-Action -> Market-Competition ] …

And this epistemological sequence applies for all knowledge claims regardless of the discipline, paradigms, and logic within that discipline.

CRITICAL PREFERENCE
And this brings us to where else Popper – like all literary (platonic) philosophers failed: costs. Costs of due diligence, costs of internal consistency, costs of operational possibility, Costs of empirical (external) correspondence, costs to others if one errs, implies, or deceives, and costs of liability for one’s displays words and deeds if one errs, suggests, implies, or deceives.

In other words, where philosophers are (like theologians) conventionally forgiven their use of suggestion and deceit, scientists, like testimony in court, are not. And this explains the causal relationship between the horrifying damage done by theology and philosophy while providing and questionable good, and the profound gains done by science and its unquestionable goods: raising mankind out of ignorance, superstition, tyranny, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and the vicissitudes of a nature all but hostile to advanced life.

THE AGE OF VERBALISM AND THE AGE OF OPERATIONS

Philosophers generally work in sets (verbal associations), and ideals, while the law, engineering work in operations (sequences of actions) and the material. And while sets are largely verbal constructs free of cost, action, operations, engineering, science, law and economics include costs.

This is why there is a high correlation between moralizing and philosophy, and a high correlation between science and law. Because moralizing does seeks general rules regardless of cost, and sciences and law seek general rules including costs.

It also explains why the west developed geometry (engineering and technology) and the orient algebra (astrology and theology). And it explains the western restoration by Descartes’s restoration of mathematics from language to geometry. And the development of calculus because of our return to european geometry.
And that, in turn, explains western religion’s development of law, philosophy, epicureanism, and unfortunately stoicism, of the middle classes, and the middle east’s development of monotheistic (totalitarian) religion of the underclasses.

Why does this matter? Popper never performed a study of scientific research, he just used reason to state that choices in scientific investigation was undecidable.
But it’s demonstrably false. The problem in scientific exploration like any form of action (engineering), is that as distance from human scale increases. either smaller or larger, the costs of investigation increases, and as such we pursue the information we can afford to.

And this turns out to be the optimum means of investigation. And this corresponds to the physical and human world’s behavior: nature must take the least cost action possible, and humans do as well – as long as we make a full accounting of causes (incentives).

DEMARCATION IS SOLVED

So the demarcation problem is solved. The word for science is due diligence under the law of reciprocity, in pursuit of giving warrantable testimony about the world regardless of our ignorance, error, bias, wishful-thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, fictionalisms, and deceits.

BUT ALSO, PHILOSOPHY IS SOLVED

Philosophy now, like the logics, is complete for truth and limited only to preference within the limits provided by physical laws of Nature, and the Natural law of cooperation: Reciprocity within the Limits of Proportionality.
Truth is, and always has been, a subject of testimony under the law of reciprocity, and that discipline we call science, is merely our means of due diligence in pursuit of falsifying our testimony so that we may warranty and accept liability for our truth claims.

WHERE WERE WE FIND:

DEFLATIONARY GRAMMARS (LOGICS)
1 – Mathematics for the measurement of constant relations.
.. 2 – Operations for the measurement of existential possibility.
.. .. 3 – Reciprocity for the measurement of ethics.
.. .. .. 4 – Science (falsification) for the measurement of due diligence against error, bias, and deceit.

AND DESCRIPTIVE GRAMMARS (LOGICS)
.. .. .. .. 5 – Testimony for the truth claims under the promise of due diligence.
.. .. .. .. .. 6 – Philosophy for choice within the testifiable.
.. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – History for what we have done, and literature for what we might do.

AND INFLATIONARY GRAMMARS (LOGICS)
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Myths, Legends, Fairy Tales, Parables, and Rhymes for pedagogy of the young, and the most error-free preservation of the consistency of accumulated wisdom over time.

AND GRAMMARS OF DECEIT (LOGICS)
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 – Suggestions: Loading, Framing, Overloading, Obscurantism, Propaganda, Social Construction, Religion.
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 – Fictionalisms: idealism-surrealism, magic-pseudoscience, occult-supernaturalism(theology)
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 – Deceits (Fictions)
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12 – Denial

All else is ignorance, error, bias, wishful-thinking, fictionalism, propaganda, and deceit. And baiting into hazard, using the fictionalisms of denialism, social-construction, idealism, pseudoscience, and the supernatural, is most advanced technology of deceiving other humans.

And philosophers have a long history of making false claims that bait our peoples into hazard, because they have failed to perform due diligence against the consequences of the harms that are the direct or indirect consequences of the falsehoods that they have advocated.

DEMARCATION IS SOLVED

Not only have we demarcated science from non-science, but we have demarcated math, operations, reciprocity, science, testimony, philosophy, history, literature, and myth.

Popper’s program is complete. We just don’t want to be accountable for paying the cost of due diligence, so we preserve philosophy like we preserve theology – to escape responsibility for our thoughts words and deeds.

GIVEN THESE DIMENSIONS POSSIBILITY
1 – Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable).
.. 2 – Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable )
.. .. 3 – Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable)
.. .. .. 4 – Population (Self, Others, All, Universal)

AND THESE DIMENSIONS OF DECIDABILITY
Indistinguishable(perception) >
.. Distinguishable(cognition) >
.. .. Memorable(categorical-referrable) >
.. .. .. Possible(material) >
.. .. .. .. Actionable(physical) >
.. .. .. .. .. Choosable(for use) >
.. .. .. .. .. .. Preferable(Personal) >
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. Good(interpersonal) >
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Decidable(juridical, political) >
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) >
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Analytic >
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Tautological.

WHERE THE DEMAND FOR INCREASING INFALLIBILITY OF DECIDABILITY YIELDS THE SERIES:
1 – Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
.. 2 – Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources.
.. .. 3 – Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources.
.. .. .. 4 – Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions.
.. .. .. .. 5 – Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
.. .. .. .. .. 6 – Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values.
.. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives “True”)
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 – Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow one of the many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.

AND WHERE WE CAN WARRANTY THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROMISE OF INFALLIBILITY OF DECIDABILITY:
1 – True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
.. 2 – True enough for me to feel good about myself.
.. .. 3 – True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
.. .. .. 4 – True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.
.. .. .. .. 5 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
.. .. .. .. .. 6 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
.. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

WHERE DECIDABILITY CONSISTS IN

a) In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice) absent discretion. In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the system�(ie: grammar).

b) In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary).

Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm).

WHERE GRAMMAR refers to the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation given the dimensions included in the paradigm(network of constant relations), and consequent limits on vocabulary and logic within those dimensions.

AND WHERE TRUTH CONSISTS IN THE SERIES

1 – Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.
2 – Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).
3 – Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)
4 – Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
5 – Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

AND WHERE THE CRITERIA FOR TRUTHFUL SPEECH IS COHERENCE ACROSS THE DIMENSIONS TESTIFIABLE BY MAN, IN THE SERIES:
1 – Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)
2 – Internally Consistent (Logical)
3 – Externally Consistent (Empirical)
4 – Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)
5 – Rationally Consistent (Consisting of Bounded Rational choice, in available time frame)
6 – Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)
7 – With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry-picking and inflation)
8 – Warrantied
… (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;
… (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;
… (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.

AS A DEFENSE AGAINST THE SERIES:
1 – Ignorance and Willful Ignorance;
2 – Error and failure of Due Diligence;
3 – Bias and Wishful Thinking;
4 – And the many Deceits of:
… (a) Loading and Framing;
… (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda;
… (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism;
… (d) and outright Fabrications.

IN DEFENSE OR ADVOCACY OF:
1 – Any transfer of demonstrated interest that is not:
… (a) productive
… (b) fully informed
… (c) warrantied
… (d) voluntary transfer(harm, imposition of costs) upon demonstrated interests internal to the display word or deed;
… (e) and free of imposition upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality.

AND INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE SERIES OF THOSE CATEGORIES OF:
1 – Murder,
2 – Harm, Damage, Theft,
3 – Fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,
4 – Freeriding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons,
5 – Baiting into Hazard (The cause of 20th C pseudoscience)
6 – Rent-seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism,
7 – conversion(religion/sophism/pseudoscience),
8 – displacement(immigration/overbreeding),
9 – conquest (war).

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute

September 19, 2020
The Solution to The Great Problem of Philosophy. Yes, Really.

THE SOLUTION TO THE GREAT PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHY. YES, REALLY.

—“I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about this post. It is an unedited

hodgepodge of ideas, with typos, on Facebook, with 10 likes.
And yet, it claims to have solved a great problem spanning as far back as Aristotle.

I would really like to see this explained more. A formal essay, with references would be great. I’d like to see it part of the greater discussion of contemporary thinkers.

Can you share thoughts on more recent approaches to the demarcation problem? Pigliucci? Mahner? Hansson? Haack? Laudan? Etc. I’d love to see some of these people respond to your solution.Curt Doolittle,Eric Danelaw

I heard Haack saying that Bacon was an excellent Chancellor, but “no scientist”.
It looks like you’ve completely shifted the frame from a philosophical question to a legal question. I’d like to try to put it in my own words, but I’m still trying to wrap my head around all the different arguments.

If this is really a breakthrough in our understanding of science (which it looks like to me so far), I would want it to have a more formal presentation than a sloppy Facebook post with 10 likes.
Thanks for your consideration.”— Daniel T Johnson

RESPONSE:

First, why would humans avoid the legal frame? 😉

Why?

Legal > Scientific > Philosophical > Theological > Fictional?
(accountability) (knowledge required) vs (evasion of liability) (pretense of knowledge)

So, yes, I can construct it from first principles – (I have) and it’s quite long, so this ‘sketch’ is an overview to synthesize the subject for (close) followers.

What I think you’re asking for is a bridge between the diversity of conventions (sects) and the grammars, and from the grammars to P-logic and from P-logic to p-law. When, frankly, sects in philosophy are as diverse as the sects of Christianity if not more so. Because they are all not-quite-right paradigms (incommensurable).

If I went through a bridge argument it would only be possible AFTER having taught enough of the grammars, p-logic, and p-law, without ending up in millions of rat-holes of trying to answer objections without common foundations.

Those ‘sects’ would now (in my understanding) be categorized as
pseudosciences or sophistries the same way we have recategorized theology as either mythology or supernatural sophistry.

The same would be said for formal logic, psychology, sociology, a good bit of economics, law, and politics. Just as we purged the sophistry and supernatural from those fields, we will (P does) purge sophistry and pseudoscience from those fields.

Now, if we take Haak, she’s attacking the postmodernists (especially rorty) on their terms. If we state his or her arguments in economics and law they are no longer complicated, but trivial.

Mahner is doing what I think is the job of philosophers, which is taking scientific progress in a field, reorganizing the paradigm (ontology) dependent upon the evolutionary ideas in the discoveries, and integrating and adapting that paradigm into the broader paradigm we call testimony (truth) or science. (What the grammars do is put all paradigms into one commensurable paradigm).

And what we find in all but one or two thinkers per generation, is that philosophy (if you read papers) it has been reduced to commentary on commentary on error. It’s embarrassing to read philosophy. It’s no different from medievalists commenting on comments on nonsense-scripture.

So for example, if I said, that we use mathematical logic (measurements), and set logic (words), but we are missing operational logic (actions in time) between them – the interesting question is ‘why’? Law does it? Why don’t other fields?

So: human logical facility(measures of constant religions in
existence(observations)) > human action facility (human actions
(demonstrations)) > human grammatical facility(human speech
(suggestions)) > human hearing (synthesis of suggestion (imagination))

Same problem throughout all fields. Why does ‘is’ exist in our language and is it only implied in others?

So it’s not an essay. It’s the ‘dummies guide’ that supplies the foundations. From that point one can go tot he book for the full workup. Or we can have ‘bridge’ arguments with other philosophers.But there are things you can’t discuss without the underlying logic.

So, what you will discover at the end of the journey is that humans seek to avoid costs at all costs and most human thought other than math, science, engineering are constructed primarily of lies because the thinkers have no other means of coercing others in order to obtain self-worth, attention, something to trade, and material advantage.

In other words, the pre-requisite is the dummies version. Right now I have so many projects going on and it’s probably the most important one that I SHOULD work on. Which depends on either trump winning and buying me another four years, or me just going back to Europe and ignoring it all from there.

THE FORMAL SCIENCES (LOGICS)
While we are nearly all familiar with:

Mathematics: (Logic of Existence) the logic of ordinal (positional) names (position in an order of names, not in space or time.) The beauty of mathematics is in that there is only one property: position in an order (base number system). It’s the dumbest language that’s possible. Just as binary is the dumbest mathematics we can invent. Mathematics is the dumbest language can invent. We use math to measure (sense and perceive) that which is beyond your natural sense perception retention.) We use it to measure what we don’t (or can’t) know.

And we are at least aware of:

Logic (the logic of sets)
The logic of sets. So while a positional name (say forty-two), (…)

We use language to SUGGEST ( force ourselves, or others to rely on deduction, induction, abduction, guessing, and auto-association) extremely complex sets of relations with (…)

Operations (Operationalism) The logic of Actions in Time

( … )

The Logic of Sentience (language)
( … )

So just as say, when counting can only increase or decrease in position or not, actions can only be executed in a sequence or not. Just as there are only so many operations in arithmetic (really, just adding and removing), but in combinations we can produce all of mathematics, human being sare only able to sense perceive (model by auto association), predict (auto association), imagine (auto association and attention), think (recurse by auto attention, association, and recursion), act (change body state), and speak. So the operations available to people are much more complex. In between mathematics and action is programming, which is a more constrained logic, limited to the sets of operations available to the software, which is limited to the sets of operations limited to the hardware.

RESULTS:

Mathematics
(Geometry constrained by three dimensions and time.)
(and not constrained by space, time, and optionally cost)
… Arithmetic: The Logic of Counting
… Geometry: The Logic of Lines (Constancy)
… Calculus: The Logic of Curves (Change)
… Statistics: The Logic of Variation (Commensurability)
… Probability: The Logic of Prediction (Time or non-time)
… ‘Economics’: The Logic of Equilibration
… Algebra: The logic of deduction with positional names (balance)

Operations:
(Actions constrained by available operations)
(and Constrained by space, time, cost, incentives)
… Programmatic operations (speed)
… Bayesian Operations (volume, precision)
… Sequences of actions in time (actions, procedures, processes)

Set Operations:
(ideals free of operational constraints and time.)
(and not constrained by space, time, cost or incentives)
… Propositional logic – reasoning about sentences and their logical connections (and, or, …).
… First-order predicate logic – reasoning about quantified quantities and domain-specific functions/predicates (like addition in arithmetic) that make up sentences.
… Higher-order predicate logics – extend first-order logic to quantify not just over variables, but also over sets, sets of sets, etc.
… Modal logics – reasoning about “modalities” of sentences. Common meanings are: possibility/necessity, always/eventually, obligation/permission, knowledge/belief.

ORIGINAL POST:
KARL POPPER’S DEMARCATION PROBLEM IS SOLVED, AND THE CRITICAL RATIONALIST PROGRAM OF FALSIFICATION IS COMPLETE: IT WAS LAW ALL ALONG. AND HAYEK WAS RIGHT.

As far as I know, western success in science, technology, medicine, and economics was due to the transfer of our legal tradition (including traditional european law to Aristotle to Bacon to Hume to Hayek) – and the failure of our philosophers to understand that transfer.

That legal tradition includes a Metaphysical Traditional Contract:
1 – A Universal Militia Regardless of Cost
2 – Excellence and Heroism Regardless of Cost
3 – Duty and Commons Regardless of Cost
4 – Truth and Oath Regardless of Cost
5 – Promise and Contract Regardless of Cost
6 – Sovereignty and Reciprocity Regardless of Cost
7 – The Natural Law and Jury Regardless of Cost
8 – Wherein every man a soldier, sheriff, judge, and his own legislator, of his own demonstrated interests.
9 – And as a result – the only possibility for social organization is Voluntary Markets in:
.. – association
.. .. – cooperation
.. .. .. – production
.. .. .. .. – reproduction
.. .. .. .. .. – commons
.. .. .. .. .. .. – polities
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. – war.
10 – Together producing the fastest possible means of human adaptation to circumstances;
11 – Including the continuous evolutionary production of Human Agency (human capital);
12 – By the domestication of man by market eugenics,
13 – And as a result, the direction of surpluses to the production of commons, and the multiples of returns produced therefrom;
14 – Including the unique high trust society;
15 – And the informational, scientific, technological, medical, economic, social, political, and military benefits therefrom.
16 – Yielding a genetic distribution free of the burden of underclass consumption, and the costs of their organization, administration, and care.
These are the organizing principles of western civilization, and what separates the west from the rest, and origin of that separation is in truth before face, cost to self-image, cost to the competence hierarchy, and cost to the dominance hierarchy, where truth refers to martial testimonial truth (what the military calls ‘reporting’, warrantied by the speaker, given the consequences that result from error, bias, and deceit in military contexts.
India is an extended family, china is a family bureaucracy, the west a military hierarchy, and semitia is feminine supernatural dependency: a civilization of and for women.

CRITICAL RATIONALISM
So, the demarcation in law between testifiability and fiction, is legal due diligence (falsification).

DUE DILIGENCE
Man can perform due diligence against every dimension perceivable by man:
1 – categorical consistency (identity),
2 – internal consistency (logical),
3 – operational consistency (existential possibility),
4 – external consistency (empirical),
5 – rational consistency (rational choice),
6 – reciprocal consistency (rational choice between parties in affected by any change in state),
7 – limites and completeness (full accounting within stated limits),
8 – sufficient to meet demand for infallibility of decidability by all parties affected directly or indirectly by the display word ord deed,
9 – and warrantied by possibility of the speaker’s restitution of all parties affected by display word or deed.

In other words, yes, one of the demarcations between science and non-science is falsificationary, and requires not only the test of falsifiability, but due diligence against falsehood in all dimensions perceivable by man, and warranty to falsify the incentive to escape due diligence.

EPISTEMOLOGY
Another is that the individual alone can perform that due diligence, or that the process of due diligence includes only:

… [ Problem -> Theory -> Test -> Repeat ] …

Instead of:

… [ Observation -> Question(problem) -> Free association -> hypothesis -> falsification by one’s reason -> falsification by the full set of dimensions falsifiable by man above -> Propositional Theory -> Falsification by Application in the Market for Solutions to Problems -> Settled (Surviving) Theory -> Presumption -> Metaphysical Presumption ] …

Which is a chain of iterations on:

… [ Problem(Question) -> Hypothesis -> Test(Falsify) -> Repeat ] ..

Under increasing scope of ‘markets’ (competitions) from the mind(imagination) demonstrated actions (due diligence), to the market for applications (applied).

… [ Mental-Imagination -> Physical-Action -> Market-Competition ] …

And this epistemological sequence applies for all knowledge claims regardless of the discipline, paradigms, and logic within that discipline.

CRITICAL PREFERENCE
And this brings us to where else Popper – like all literary (platonic) philosophers failed: costs. Costs of due diligence, costs of internal consistency, costs of operational possibility, Costs of empirical (external) correspondence, costs to others if one errs, implies, or deceives, and costs of liability for one’s displays words and deeds if one errs, suggests, implies, or deceives.

In other words, where philosophers are (like theologians) conventionally forgiven their use of suggestion and deceit, scientists, like testimony in court, are not. And this explains the causal relationship between the horrifying damage done by theology and philosophy while providing and questionable good, and the profound gains done by science and its unquestionable goods: raising mankind out of ignorance, superstition, tyranny, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and the vicissitudes of a nature all but hostile to advanced life.

THE AGE OF VERBALISM AND THE AGE OF OPERATIONS

Philosophers generally work in sets (verbal associations), and ideals, while the law, engineering work in operations (sequences of actions) and the material. And while sets are largely verbal constructs free of cost, action, operations, engineering, science, law and economics include costs.

This is why there is a high correlation between moralizing and philosophy, and a high correlation between science and law. Because moralizing does seeks general rules regardless of cost, and sciences and law seek general rules including costs.

It also explains why the west developed geometry (engineering and technology) and the orient algebra (astrology and theology). And it explains the western restoration by Descartes’s restoration of mathematics from language to geometry. And the development of calculus because of our return to european geometry.
And that, in turn, explains western religion’s development of law, philosophy, epicureanism, and unfortunately stoicism, of the middle classes, and the middle east’s development of monotheistic (totalitarian) religion of the underclasses.

Why does this matter? Popper never performed a study of scientific research, he just used reason to state that choices in scientific investigation was undecidable.
But it’s demonstrably false. The problem in scientific exploration like any form of action (engineering), is that as distance from human scale increases. either smaller or larger, the costs of investigation increases, and as such we pursue the information we can afford to.

And this turns out to be the optimum means of investigation. And this corresponds to the physical and human world’s behavior: nature must take the least cost action possible, and humans do as well – as long as we make a full accounting of causes (incentives).

DEMARCATION IS SOLVED

So the demarcation problem is solved. The word for science is due diligence under the law of reciprocity, in pursuit of giving warrantable testimony about the world regardless of our ignorance, error, bias, wishful-thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, fictionalisms, and deceits.

BUT ALSO, PHILOSOPHY IS SOLVED

Philosophy now, like the logics, is complete for truth and limited only to preference within the limits provided by physical laws of Nature, and the Natural law of cooperation: Reciprocity within the Limits of Proportionality.
Truth is, and always has been, a subject of testimony under the law of reciprocity, and that discipline we call science, is merely our means of due diligence in pursuit of falsifying our testimony so that we may warranty and accept liability for our truth claims.

WHERE WERE WE FIND:

DEFLATIONARY GRAMMARS (LOGICS)
1 – Mathematics for the measurement of constant relations.
.. 2 – Operations for the measurement of existential possibility.
.. .. 3 – Reciprocity for the measurement of ethics.
.. .. .. 4 – Science (falsification) for the measurement of due diligence against error, bias, and deceit.

AND DESCRIPTIVE GRAMMARS (LOGICS)
.. .. .. .. 5 – Testimony for the truth claims under the promise of due diligence.
.. .. .. .. .. 6 – Philosophy for choice within the testifiable.
.. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – History for what we have done, and literature for what we might do.

AND INFLATIONARY GRAMMARS (LOGICS)
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Myths, Legends, Fairy Tales, Parables, and Rhymes for pedagogy of the young, and the most error-free preservation of the consistency of accumulated wisdom over time.

AND GRAMMARS OF DECEIT (LOGICS)
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 – Suggestions: Loading, Framing, Overloading, Obscurantism, Propaganda, Social Construction, Religion.
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 – Fictionalisms: idealism-surrealism, magic-pseudoscience, occult-supernaturalism(theology)
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 – Deceits (Fictions)
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12 – Denial

All else is ignorance, error, bias, wishful-thinking, fictionalism, propaganda, and deceit. And baiting into hazard, using the fictionalisms of denialism, social-construction, idealism, pseudoscience, and the supernatural, is most advanced technology of deceiving other humans.

And philosophers have a long history of making false claims that bait our peoples into hazard, because they have failed to perform due diligence against the consequences of the harms that are the direct or indirect consequences of the falsehoods that they have advocated.

DEMARCATION IS SOLVED

Not only have we demarcated science from non-science, but we have demarcated math, operations, reciprocity, science, testimony, philosophy, history, literature, and myth.

Popper’s program is complete. We just don’t want to be accountable for paying the cost of due diligence, so we preserve philosophy like we preserve theology – to escape responsibility for our thoughts words and deeds.

GIVEN THESE DIMENSIONS POSSIBILITY
1 – Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable).
.. 2 – Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable )
.. .. 3 – Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable)
.. .. .. 4 – Population (Self, Others, All, Universal)

AND THESE DIMENSIONS OF DECIDABILITY
Indistinguishable(perception) >
.. Distinguishable(cognition) >
.. .. Memorable(categorical-referrable) >
.. .. .. Possible(material) >
.. .. .. .. Actionable(physical) >
.. .. .. .. .. Choosable(for use) >
.. .. .. .. .. .. Preferable(Personal) >
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. Good(interpersonal) >
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Decidable(juridical, political) >
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) >
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Analytic >
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Tautological.

WHERE THE DEMAND FOR INCREASING INFALLIBILITY OF DECIDABILITY YIELDS THE SERIES:
1 – Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
.. 2 – Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources.
.. .. 3 – Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources.
.. .. .. 4 – Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions.
.. .. .. .. 5 – Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
.. .. .. .. .. 6 – Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values.
.. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives “True”)
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 – Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow one of the many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.

AND WHERE WE CAN WARRANTY THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROMISE OF INFALLIBILITY OF DECIDABILITY:
1 – True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
.. 2 – True enough for me to feel good about myself.
.. .. 3 – True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
.. .. .. 4 – True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.
.. .. .. .. 5 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
.. .. .. .. .. 6 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
.. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

WHERE DECIDABILITY CONSISTS IN

a) In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice) absent discretion. In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the system�(ie: grammar).

b) In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary).

Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm).

WHERE GRAMMAR refers to the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation given the dimensions included in the paradigm(network of constant relations), and consequent limits on vocabulary and logic within those dimensions.

AND WHERE TRUTH CONSISTS IN THE SERIES

1 – Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.
2 – Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).
3 – Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)
4 – Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
5 – Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

AND WHERE THE CRITERIA FOR TRUTHFUL SPEECH IS COHERENCE ACROSS THE DIMENSIONS TESTIFIABLE BY MAN, IN THE SERIES:
1 – Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)
2 – Internally Consistent (Logical)
3 – Externally Consistent (Empirical)
4 – Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)
5 – Rationally Consistent (Consisting of Bounded Rational choice, in available time frame)
6 – Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)
7 – With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry-picking and inflation)
8 – Warrantied
… (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;
… (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;
… (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.

AS A DEFENSE AGAINST THE SERIES:
1 – Ignorance and Willful Ignorance;
2 – Error and failure of Due Diligence;
3 – Bias and Wishful Thinking;
4 – And the many Deceits of:
… (a) Loading and Framing;
… (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda;
… (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism;
… (d) and outright Fabrications.

IN DEFENSE OR ADVOCACY OF:
1 – Any transfer of demonstrated interest that is not:
… (a) productive
… (b) fully informed
… (c) warrantied
… (d) voluntary transfer(harm, imposition of costs) upon demonstrated interests internal to the display word or deed;
… (e) and free of imposition upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality.

AND INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE SERIES OF THOSE CATEGORIES OF:
1 – Murder,
2 – Harm, Damage, Theft,
3 – Fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,
4 – Freeriding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons,
5 – Baiting into Hazard (The cause of 20th C pseudoscience)
6 – Rent-seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism,
7 – conversion(religion/sophism/pseudoscience),
8 – displacement(immigration/overbreeding),
9 – conquest (war).

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute

September 19, 2020
How We Ended up Here: Mindfulness as Algorithmic Computation

COMPARATIVE CIVILIZATIONS AND HOW WE ENDED UP HERE: MINDFULNESS AS ALGORITHMIC COMPUTATION
(context: human groups and computation)

You don’t learn about religion – particularly your own – by studying it. You learn by studying all religions past and present, and the consequences of their practice.
Likewise, you don’t learn about economic, law, or state without comparative study. And most of all you don’t learn about civilizational differences without studying civilizational strategies.

Let’s do a few comparisons:

The division of labor produces a commensurability of prejudices (“pre-judgments”), a commensurability of norms, a commensurability of paradigms, that result in a concentration of efforts producing common beneficial ends.

So, just as the change from particular knowledge (many different incompatible processes) to scientific knowledge (general rules of general application) created a convergence in understanding and convergence in all formal knowledge to a universal paradigm, the same is true for informal knowledge – not just science. And this convergence to general rules accounts for a substantial difference in the increase in demonstrated intelligence (crystalized intelligence) across all peoples (if not fluid or biological intelligence). So via negativa, we remove frictions of not only ignorance but incommensurability concentrate our thinking (efficiency) on producing greater returns as a result.

We emphasize the most obvious benefit of the division of labor: the increase in productivity from the division of labor. But not the more influential increase in productivity, and a decrease in incommensurability.

If we understand the (virtuous) self-reinforcing cycle between the division of labor and optimal norms: it produces commensurability interest, norm, and paradigm. It produces the same returns in normative thought in informal knowledge as it science does in formal knowledge.

And then we see how economic reality, together with the law that prohibits resistance to it, also explain the evolution of religion in primitive societies with primitive production: in those societies, their adaptation is slow and innovation all but suppressed, but the production of norm and paradigm are heavily reinforced, in return for the continuous expansion of those who could not compete otherwise.

And with trade and law, the evolution of tort (property), and the continuous suppression of irreciprocity(parasitism), increases at the expense of the reproduction of the uncompetitive.

So we are faced with a problem of misapplication of childhood indoctrination to group strategy, and adult adaptation of the economy within that strategy. And we can also understand as a consequence why religiosity creates ignorance, dysgenia, poverty, and resists innovation, adaptation and change.

As such we can judge not only group strategies, but religions that reinforce them, by tests of dysgenia, poverty, ignorance, superstition(Recitationism), and maladaptation, versus eugenic, wealth, knowledge, empiricism (Testimonialism), and adaptation.

From this, we can understand the benefit of truthful religions and false religions: Universe (perhaps anthropomorphized as a god or gods), Nature (the world we are part of), Ancestors (whose investments made us possible), Archetypal Heroes(whose investments made successful adaptation possible), Kin (those who mutually invest in our shared genetic interests, and State (the corporealization of our people as an organization acting in our interests.)

And so it is not that religion (indoctrination -long term) is less necessary than law, or law less so than science, or science, less than military prowess, less so than strategy. It is that this hierarchy provides a developmental hierarchy from the child to the adult, to the intellectual, to the strategic and political. And likewise, this hierarchy provides graceful failure in the absence of sufficient knowledge to make a judgment.

However, this hierarchy can only fulfill its function under certain conditions: and that is when the religious have no economic and political power, the economic have no political and strategic power, and the political and strategic have no economic power.

But under universal democracy we have granted equal power to unequal knowledge, and unequal cognitive development, thus replicating the dysgenics of religious civilizations within our legal and martial civilization. When throughout our history we had separate ‘houses’ for the monarchy (the military), the senate (the economic elites), and the commoners (the house in pre-Semitic, or the church in Semitic eras)

So by the victorian period, we had restored the losses of the fall of the roman empire and largely recovered from the semiticism (Judaic Christianity) that prevented its restoration, and we’d produced rule of law by natural law, a monarchy for its function, a senate(upper house) for the macro-nobility having demonstrated interests in the preservation of the polity, the lower house, having demonstrated interests in the economy and productivity, and the church representing the demonstrated interests of families, women, children, the poor and the incompetent. And in doing so created houses for all classes rather than just the upper middle and upper classes.

And upon the dissolution of the church by the combination of darwin, industrialization, literacy, and the evolution of Semitic religion from superstition to pseudoscientific) yes – anti-civilizational marxism, socialism, boazianism, Freudianism etc), we failed to rename the house of commons (lower house) as the house of common market participants, and create a new house as the house of labor, family, children, and the poor. Or even two houses: one for Labor, and one for women children, and the poor.

So we are stuck as a consequence with the American system of two parties, the european system of multiple parties, and insufficient number of houses, and the tendencies of parties to replace houses, producing ideological rather than empirical judgments.

Had we maintained our market for the production of commons, had we made this innovation instead of universal democracy, we would have preserved the market for competition between (a) the stages of development including the emotional, cognitive, knowledge, and responsibility, (b) demonstrated responsibility for self, productivity, family, business, industry, knowledge (science), polity. (c) our ability to use houses of government as yet another expansion of the jury (as we had for 5000 years), where in each class issued verdict on policy.

The Jews and Muslims never solved the problem of politics, and christianity failed to repeat the egyptian and byzantine ambitions – religion is antithetical to it.

The Hindus are relatively opaque but solved the problem of religion, state and law through an odd combination of mythology and philosophy – and the only reason they survived is a vast territory, a vast population, a vast underclass, and a peninsula that provided no strategic value.

The Chinese solved the problem of ethno-state as culture and professional bureaucracy, but not politics or law.

The Russians incrementally defeated the steppe warriors (Mongols), and decolonized Russia, then almost all of north Eurasia, producing a fully re-militarized society. Had the Jewish Bolsheviks not been successful in destroying Russian civilization (as they destroyed german, and now American) from within, Russia might have emerged as the Sparta of great powers, as Britain the Athens of great powers, and America the Rome.

The French killed the middle class, then the aristocracy, then set out to destroy the heart of europe: the holy roman empire -then secularized the church, and achieved by secular means the church’s ambition of a conquest of europe by authoritarian socialist rule. This is the correct undrestanding of french ambitions: a feminist rule of Europe in opposition of a prussian masculinist rule of europe. In opposition to a russian mongolian or chinese rule of eurasia.

The germans solved the problem of professional bureaucracy, but only afterward democracy, and abandoned european law in favor of Continental rule. The secret to german success however, is german culture which like hindu culture appears not a matter of state but of perpetuation of ancient tradition of “we must be best because we are surrounded”.

The British solved law first by never abandoning it, then politics by multiple houses, then a professional bureaucracy that evolved out of the military. And it it is british civilization, least bound by historical geographic constraints in europe that restored the european tradition of germanic, roman, and greek civilizations. The British were more ‘free to evolve’ by experimentation than other nations of Europe – yet another virtue of island culture.

The Americans solved law most thoroughly, unfortunately, took the advice of the french (the french are always wrong on everything), in an attempt to take the best of european civilization: european traditional law of individual sovereignty, British empirical rule of law, contract, and process; the political order of the holy roman empire (which was still intact at the time) as an alliance of states this time under a political rather than monarchical bureaucracy, and but utterly failed to create a professional bureaucracy and instead developed clientelism.

Had we also completed Babbage’s innovation, and developed operationalism and computationalism before the postwar period, we might have defeated the pseudoscientific movement, and in particular, the evolution of pseudoscientific law we call positive law. We certainly would have avoided the total waste of a century in philosophy, and perhaps closed philosophy as we had closed theology – limiting it to the adaptation of current paradigms to new discoveries of truth (sciences) which is the only function it can provide.

So in retrospect the industrial revolution came early; gave the false promise of escape from physical(scarcity), natural (amorality, reciprocity), and evolutionary (regression to the mean,dysgenia), governments adapted too slowly; the law failed to understand itself, and failed to increase its precision as a formal logic, and human cooperation as formal computation by trial and error, and the church collapsed, leaving the academy, which was taken over by a new pseudoscientific religion that continued to violate those physical, natural and evolutionary laws, under the false promise of freedom from scarcity, the inescapable amorality of human nature, the inescapable spectrum of adaptability in humans.

There is no reason today that a complete understanding of man, history, economics, law, politics, and groups strategy is not taught every child – except that it would forever end the dysgenic and semitic religions and the false promise of this second religion: the pseudosciences that would bring about another dark age.

September 19, 2020
How We Ended up Here: Mindfulness as Algorithmic Computation

COMPARATIVE CIVILIZATIONS AND HOW WE ENDED UP HERE: MINDFULNESS AS ALGORITHMIC COMPUTATION
(context: human groups and computation)

You don’t learn about religion – particularly your own – by studying it. You learn by studying all religions past and present, and the consequences of their practice.
Likewise, you don’t learn about economic, law, or state without comparative study. And most of all you don’t learn about civilizational differences without studying civilizational strategies.

Let’s do a few comparisons:

The division of labor produces a commensurability of prejudices (“pre-judgments”), a commensurability of norms, a commensurability of paradigms, that result in a concentration of efforts producing common beneficial ends.

So, just as the change from particular knowledge (many different incompatible processes) to scientific knowledge (general rules of general application) created a convergence in understanding and convergence in all formal knowledge to a universal paradigm, the same is true for informal knowledge – not just science. And this convergence to general rules accounts for a substantial difference in the increase in demonstrated intelligence (crystalized intelligence) across all peoples (if not fluid or biological intelligence). So via negativa, we remove frictions of not only ignorance but incommensurability concentrate our thinking (efficiency) on producing greater returns as a result.

We emphasize the most obvious benefit of the division of labor: the increase in productivity from the division of labor. But not the more influential increase in productivity, and a decrease in incommensurability.

If we understand the (virtuous) self-reinforcing cycle between the division of labor and optimal norms: it produces commensurability interest, norm, and paradigm. It produces the same returns in normative thought in informal knowledge as it science does in formal knowledge.

And then we see how economic reality, together with the law that prohibits resistance to it, also explain the evolution of religion in primitive societies with primitive production: in those societies, their adaptation is slow and innovation all but suppressed, but the production of norm and paradigm are heavily reinforced, in return for the continuous expansion of those who could not compete otherwise.

And with trade and law, the evolution of tort (property), and the continuous suppression of irreciprocity(parasitism), increases at the expense of the reproduction of the uncompetitive.

So we are faced with a problem of misapplication of childhood indoctrination to group strategy, and adult adaptation of the economy within that strategy. And we can also understand as a consequence why religiosity creates ignorance, dysgenia, poverty, and resists innovation, adaptation and change.

As such we can judge not only group strategies, but religions that reinforce them, by tests of dysgenia, poverty, ignorance, superstition(Recitationism), and maladaptation, versus eugenic, wealth, knowledge, empiricism (Testimonialism), and adaptation.

From this, we can understand the benefit of truthful religions and false religions: Universe (perhaps anthropomorphized as a god or gods), Nature (the world we are part of), Ancestors (whose investments made us possible), Archetypal Heroes(whose investments made successful adaptation possible), Kin (those who mutually invest in our shared genetic interests, and State (the corporealization of our people as an organization acting in our interests.)

And so it is not that religion (indoctrination -long term) is less necessary than law, or law less so than science, or science, less than military prowess, less so than strategy. It is that this hierarchy provides a developmental hierarchy from the child to the adult, to the intellectual, to the strategic and political. And likewise, this hierarchy provides graceful failure in the absence of sufficient knowledge to make a judgment.

However, this hierarchy can only fulfill its function under certain conditions: and that is when the religious have no economic and political power, the economic have no political and strategic power, and the political and strategic have no economic power.

But under universal democracy we have granted equal power to unequal knowledge, and unequal cognitive development, thus replicating the dysgenics of religious civilizations within our legal and martial civilization. When throughout our history we had separate ‘houses’ for the monarchy (the military), the senate (the economic elites), and the commoners (the house in pre-Semitic, or the church in Semitic eras)

So by the victorian period, we had restored the losses of the fall of the roman empire and largely recovered from the semiticism (Judaic Christianity) that prevented its restoration, and we’d produced rule of law by natural law, a monarchy for its function, a senate(upper house) for the macro-nobility having demonstrated interests in the preservation of the polity, the lower house, having demonstrated interests in the economy and productivity, and the church representing the demonstrated interests of families, women, children, the poor and the incompetent. And in doing so created houses for all classes rather than just the upper middle and upper classes.

And upon the dissolution of the church by the combination of darwin, industrialization, literacy, and the evolution of Semitic religion from superstition to pseudoscientific) yes – anti-civilizational marxism, socialism, boazianism, Freudianism etc), we failed to rename the house of commons (lower house) as the house of common market participants, and create a new house as the house of labor, family, children, and the poor. Or even two houses: one for Labor, and one for women children, and the poor.

So we are stuck as a consequence with the American system of two parties, the european system of multiple parties, and insufficient number of houses, and the tendencies of parties to replace houses, producing ideological rather than empirical judgments.

Had we maintained our market for the production of commons, had we made this innovation instead of universal democracy, we would have preserved the market for competition between (a) the stages of development including the emotional, cognitive, knowledge, and responsibility, (b) demonstrated responsibility for self, productivity, family, business, industry, knowledge (science), polity. (c) our ability to use houses of government as yet another expansion of the jury (as we had for 5000 years), where in each class issued verdict on policy.

The Jews and Muslims never solved the problem of politics, and christianity failed to repeat the egyptian and byzantine ambitions – religion is antithetical to it.

The Hindus are relatively opaque but solved the problem of religion, state and law through an odd combination of mythology and philosophy – and the only reason they survived is a vast territory, a vast population, a vast underclass, and a peninsula that provided no strategic value.

The Chinese solved the problem of ethno-state as culture and professional bureaucracy, but not politics or law.

The Russians incrementally defeated the steppe warriors (Mongols), and decolonized Russia, then almost all of north Eurasia, producing a fully re-militarized society. Had the Jewish Bolsheviks not been successful in destroying Russian civilization (as they destroyed german, and now American) from within, Russia might have emerged as the Sparta of great powers, as Britain the Athens of great powers, and America the Rome.

The French killed the middle class, then the aristocracy, then set out to destroy the heart of europe: the holy roman empire -then secularized the church, and achieved by secular means the church’s ambition of a conquest of europe by authoritarian socialist rule. This is the correct undrestanding of french ambitions: a feminist rule of Europe in opposition of a prussian masculinist rule of europe. In opposition to a russian mongolian or chinese rule of eurasia.

The germans solved the problem of professional bureaucracy, but only afterward democracy, and abandoned european law in favor of Continental rule. The secret to german success however, is german culture which like hindu culture appears not a matter of state but of perpetuation of ancient tradition of “we must be best because we are surrounded”.

The British solved law first by never abandoning it, then politics by multiple houses, then a professional bureaucracy that evolved out of the military. And it it is british civilization, least bound by historical geographic constraints in europe that restored the european tradition of germanic, roman, and greek civilizations. The British were more ‘free to evolve’ by experimentation than other nations of Europe – yet another virtue of island culture.

The Americans solved law most thoroughly, unfortunately, took the advice of the french (the french are always wrong on everything), in an attempt to take the best of european civilization: european traditional law of individual sovereignty, British empirical rule of law, contract, and process; the political order of the holy roman empire (which was still intact at the time) as an alliance of states this time under a political rather than monarchical bureaucracy, and but utterly failed to create a professional bureaucracy and instead developed clientelism.

Had we also completed Babbage’s innovation, and developed operationalism and computationalism before the postwar period, we might have defeated the pseudoscientific movement, and in particular, the evolution of pseudoscientific law we call positive law. We certainly would have avoided the total waste of a century in philosophy, and perhaps closed philosophy as we had closed theology – limiting it to the adaptation of current paradigms to new discoveries of truth (sciences) which is the only function it can provide.

So in retrospect the industrial revolution came early; gave the false promise of escape from physical(scarcity), natural (amorality, reciprocity), and evolutionary (regression to the mean,dysgenia), governments adapted too slowly; the law failed to understand itself, and failed to increase its precision as a formal logic, and human cooperation as formal computation by trial and error, and the church collapsed, leaving the academy, which was taken over by a new pseudoscientific religion that continued to violate those physical, natural and evolutionary laws, under the false promise of freedom from scarcity, the inescapable amorality of human nature, the inescapable spectrum of adaptability in humans.

There is no reason today that a complete understanding of man, history, economics, law, politics, and groups strategy is not taught every child – except that it would forever end the dysgenic and semitic religions and the false promise of this second religion: the pseudosciences that would bring about another dark age.

September 19, 2020
The Legal Debate of The 20th Century (soon to Be Ashes)

PILPUL(SOPHISTRY) VS TESTIMONY (SCIENCE): THE LEGAL DEBATE OF THE 20th CENTURY (SOON TO BE ASHES)
LAW MUST BE …

1 – Existent, not ad-hoc (not made up at the moment)
2 – Prospective (non-retroactive)
3 – Applicable to all, identically to all. (CD)
4 – Clearly Stated and Comprehensible (in and of itself and in the broader context – internally consistent)
5 – The aspects of the law must be consistent with each other -(externally consistent)
6 – Possible to be obeyed
7 – Possible to enforce (CD)
8 – Constant and Long Lasting.
9 – Promulgated (widely known)
10 – Applied and administered as stated. (rules must be consistent with the acts)(Externally Demonstrated)
Hart, Kelsen, Fuller, Dworkin

HART: AUTHORITARIAN LEGAL POSITIVISM (Pilpul)
His father was a Jewish tailor of German and Polish origin; his mother, of Polish origin, daughter of successful retailers in the clothing trade, handled customer relations and the finances of their firm. Hart was, by his own account, a ‘suppressed homosexual’ Hart married Jenifer Fischer Williams, a civil servant, later a senior civil servant, in the Home Office and, still later, Oxford historian at St Anne’s College (specializing in the history of the police).[8] Jenifer Hart was, for some years in the mid-1930s and fading out totally by decade’s end, a ‘sleeper’ member of the Communist Party of Great Britain.. Jenifer Hart was believed by her contemporaries to have had an affair of long duration with Isaiah Berlin, a close friend of Hart’s. Hart strongly influenced the application of methods in his version of Anglo-American positive law to jurisprudence and the philosophy of law in the English-speaking world. Influenced by John Austin, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Hans Kelsen, Hart brought the tools of analytic, and especially linguistic, philosophy to bear on the central problems of legal theory.Hart’s method combined the careful analysis of twentieth-century analytic philosophy with the jurisprudential tradition of Jeremy Bentham, the great English legal, political, and moral philosopher. Hart’s conception of law had parallels to the Pure Theory of Law formulated by Austrian legal philosopher Hans Kelsen, though Hart rejected several distinctive features of Kelsen’s theory.

KELSEN (Pilpul)
Hans Kelsen was an Austrian jurist, legal philosopher and political philosopher. He was the author of the 1920 Austrian Constitution, which to a very large degree is still valid today. Due to the rise of totalitarianism in Austria (and a 1929 constitutional change), Kelsen left for Germany in 1930 but was forced to leave this university post after Hitler’s seizure of power in 1933 because of his Jewish ancestry. While in Vienna, Kelsen met Sigmund Freud and his circle, and wrote on the subject of social psychology and sociology. Kelsen’s contributions to legal theory of the Nuremberg trials was supported and contested by various authors including Dinstein at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Kelsen’s neo-Kantian defense of continental legal positivism was supported by H. L. A. Hart in its contrasting form of Anglo-American legal positivism, which was debated in its Anglo-American form by scholars such as Ronald Dworkin and Jeremy Waldron.

DWORKIN (Pilpul)
Ronald Dworkin was born in 1931 in Providence, Rhode Island, United States, the son of Madeline (Talamo) and David Dworkin. His family was Jewish. Ronald Dworkin as a leading defender of the “compatibility of judicial review with the very principles of democracy.” Baume identified John Hart Ely alongside Dworkin as the foremost defenders of this principle in recent years, while the opposition to this principle of “compatibility” was identified as Bruce Ackerman and Jeremy Waldron. Dworkin has been a long-time advocate of the principle of the moral reading of the Constitution whose lines of support he sees as strongly associated with enhanced versions of judicial review in the federal government. This theory combines two key ideas. Broadly speaking, the first is that human beings are responsible for the life choices they make. The second is that natural endowments of intelligence and talent are morally arbitrary and ought not to affect the distribution of resources in society. Like the rest of Dworkin’s work, his theory of equality is underpinned by the core principle that every person is entitled to equal concern and respect in the design of the structure of society. Dworkin’s theory of equality is said to be one variety of so-called luck egalitarianism, but he rejects this statement. Dworkin, as positivism’s most significant critic, rejects the positivist theory on every conceivable level. Dworkin denies that there can be any general theory of the existence and content of law; he denies that local theories of particular legal systems can identify law without recourse to its moral merits, and he rejects the whole institutional focus of positivism. A theory of law is for Dworkin a theory of how cases ought to be decided and it begins, not with an account of the political organization of a legal system, but with an abstract ideal regulating the conditions under which governments may use coercive force over their subjects. Dworkin’s metaphor of judge Hercules bears some resemblance to Rawls’ veil of ignorance and Habermas’ ideal speech situation, in that they all suggest idealized methods of arriving at somehow valid normative propositions. The key difference with respect to the former is that Rawls’ veil of ignorance translates almost seamlessly from the purely ideal to the practical. In relation to politics in a democratic society, for example, it is a way of saying that those in power should treat the political opposition consistently with how they would like to be treated when in opposition, because their present position offers no guarantee as to what their position will be in the political landscape of the future (i.e. they will inevitably form the opposition at some point). Dworkin’s Judge Hercules, on the other hand, is a purely idealized construct, that is if such a figure existed, he would arrive at a right answer in every moral dilemma. For a critique along these lines see Lorenzo Zucca’s Constitutional Dilemmas.

Dworkin’s right answer thesis turns on the success of his attack on the skeptical argument that right answers in legal-moral dilemmas cannot be determined. Dworkin’s anti-skeptical argument is essentially that the properties of the skeptic’s claim are analogous to those of substantive moral claims, that is, in asserting that the truth or falsity of “legal-moral” dilemmas cannot be determined, the skeptic makes not a metaphysical claim about the way things are, but a moral claim to the effect that it is, in the face of epistemic uncertainty, unjust to determine legal-moral issues to the detriment of any given individua

FULLER (Operational):
Notice the rules this post begins with a list of Fuller’s eight testable rules (i”ve added two to make it ten).

Lon Luvois Fuller was an American legal philosopher, who criticized legal positivism and defended a secular and procedural form of natural law theory. In his widely discussed 1964 book, The Morality of Law, Fuller argues that all systems of law contain an “internal morality” that imposes on individuals a presumptive obligation of obedience. “Fuller was one of the four most important American legal theorists of the last hundred years”.

Fuller denied the core claim of legal positivism that there is no necessary connection between law and morality. According to Fuller, certain moral standards, which he calls “principles of legality,” are built into the very concept of law, so that nothing counts as genuine law that fails to meet these standards. In virtue of these principles of legality, there is an inner morality to the law that imposes a minimal morality of fairness. Some laws, he admits, may be so wicked or unjust that they should not be obeyed. But even in these cases, he argues, there are positive features of the law that impose a defensible moral duty to obey them.

Now the key part:

In a review of The Morality of Law, Hart criticizes Fuller’s work, saying that these principles are merely ones of means-ends efficiency; it is inappropriate, he says, to call them a morality. Employing Fuller’s eight principles of legality, one could just as well have an inner morality of poisoning as an inner morality of law, which Hart claims is absurd. Other critics have challenged Fuller’s claim that there is a prima facie obligation to obey all laws. Some laws, it is claimed, are so unjust and oppressive that there is not even a presumptive moral duty to obey them. In this phase of the argument, the positions of the combatants are transposed. Fuller proposes principles that would easily fit into a positivistic account of law and Hart points out that Fuller’s principles could easily accommodate an immoral morality.
In other words, Hart acknowledges internal amorality and denies self-determination and individual sovereignty.

September 19, 2020
The Legal Debate of The 20th Century (soon to Be Ashes)

PILPUL(SOPHISTRY) VS TESTIMONY (SCIENCE): THE LEGAL DEBATE OF THE 20th CENTURY (SOON TO BE ASHES)
LAW MUST BE …

1 – Existent, not ad-hoc (not made up at the moment)
2 – Prospective (non-retroactive)
3 – Applicable to all, identically to all. (CD)
4 – Clearly Stated and Comprehensible (in and of itself and in the broader context – internally consistent)
5 – The aspects of the law must be consistent with each other -(externally consistent)
6 – Possible to be obeyed
7 – Possible to enforce (CD)
8 – Constant and Long Lasting.
9 – Promulgated (widely known)
10 – Applied and administered as stated. (rules must be consistent with the acts)(Externally Demonstrated)
Hart, Kelsen, Fuller, Dworkin

HART: AUTHORITARIAN LEGAL POSITIVISM (Pilpul)
His father was a Jewish tailor of German and Polish origin; his mother, of Polish origin, daughter of successful retailers in the clothing trade, handled customer relations and the finances of their firm. Hart was, by his own account, a ‘suppressed homosexual’ Hart married Jenifer Fischer Williams, a civil servant, later a senior civil servant, in the Home Office and, still later, Oxford historian at St Anne’s College (specializing in the history of the police).[8] Jenifer Hart was, for some years in the mid-1930s and fading out totally by decade’s end, a ‘sleeper’ member of the Communist Party of Great Britain.. Jenifer Hart was believed by her contemporaries to have had an affair of long duration with Isaiah Berlin, a close friend of Hart’s. Hart strongly influenced the application of methods in his version of Anglo-American positive law to jurisprudence and the philosophy of law in the English-speaking world. Influenced by John Austin, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Hans Kelsen, Hart brought the tools of analytic, and especially linguistic, philosophy to bear on the central problems of legal theory.Hart’s method combined the careful analysis of twentieth-century analytic philosophy with the jurisprudential tradition of Jeremy Bentham, the great English legal, political, and moral philosopher. Hart’s conception of law had parallels to the Pure Theory of Law formulated by Austrian legal philosopher Hans Kelsen, though Hart rejected several distinctive features of Kelsen’s theory.

KELSEN (Pilpul)
Hans Kelsen was an Austrian jurist, legal philosopher and political philosopher. He was the author of the 1920 Austrian Constitution, which to a very large degree is still valid today. Due to the rise of totalitarianism in Austria (and a 1929 constitutional change), Kelsen left for Germany in 1930 but was forced to leave this university post after Hitler’s seizure of power in 1933 because of his Jewish ancestry. While in Vienna, Kelsen met Sigmund Freud and his circle, and wrote on the subject of social psychology and sociology. Kelsen’s contributions to legal theory of the Nuremberg trials was supported and contested by various authors including Dinstein at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Kelsen’s neo-Kantian defense of continental legal positivism was supported by H. L. A. Hart in its contrasting form of Anglo-American legal positivism, which was debated in its Anglo-American form by scholars such as Ronald Dworkin and Jeremy Waldron.

DWORKIN (Pilpul)
Ronald Dworkin was born in 1931 in Providence, Rhode Island, United States, the son of Madeline (Talamo) and David Dworkin. His family was Jewish. Ronald Dworkin as a leading defender of the “compatibility of judicial review with the very principles of democracy.” Baume identified John Hart Ely alongside Dworkin as the foremost defenders of this principle in recent years, while the opposition to this principle of “compatibility” was identified as Bruce Ackerman and Jeremy Waldron. Dworkin has been a long-time advocate of the principle of the moral reading of the Constitution whose lines of support he sees as strongly associated with enhanced versions of judicial review in the federal government. This theory combines two key ideas. Broadly speaking, the first is that human beings are responsible for the life choices they make. The second is that natural endowments of intelligence and talent are morally arbitrary and ought not to affect the distribution of resources in society. Like the rest of Dworkin’s work, his theory of equality is underpinned by the core principle that every person is entitled to equal concern and respect in the design of the structure of society. Dworkin’s theory of equality is said to be one variety of so-called luck egalitarianism, but he rejects this statement. Dworkin, as positivism’s most significant critic, rejects the positivist theory on every conceivable level. Dworkin denies that there can be any general theory of the existence and content of law; he denies that local theories of particular legal systems can identify law without recourse to its moral merits, and he rejects the whole institutional focus of positivism. A theory of law is for Dworkin a theory of how cases ought to be decided and it begins, not with an account of the political organization of a legal system, but with an abstract ideal regulating the conditions under which governments may use coercive force over their subjects. Dworkin’s metaphor of judge Hercules bears some resemblance to Rawls’ veil of ignorance and Habermas’ ideal speech situation, in that they all suggest idealized methods of arriving at somehow valid normative propositions. The key difference with respect to the former is that Rawls’ veil of ignorance translates almost seamlessly from the purely ideal to the practical. In relation to politics in a democratic society, for example, it is a way of saying that those in power should treat the political opposition consistently with how they would like to be treated when in opposition, because their present position offers no guarantee as to what their position will be in the political landscape of the future (i.e. they will inevitably form the opposition at some point). Dworkin’s Judge Hercules, on the other hand, is a purely idealized construct, that is if such a figure existed, he would arrive at a right answer in every moral dilemma. For a critique along these lines see Lorenzo Zucca’s Constitutional Dilemmas.

Dworkin’s right answer thesis turns on the success of his attack on the skeptical argument that right answers in legal-moral dilemmas cannot be determined. Dworkin’s anti-skeptical argument is essentially that the properties of the skeptic’s claim are analogous to those of substantive moral claims, that is, in asserting that the truth or falsity of “legal-moral” dilemmas cannot be determined, the skeptic makes not a metaphysical claim about the way things are, but a moral claim to the effect that it is, in the face of epistemic uncertainty, unjust to determine legal-moral issues to the detriment of any given individua

FULLER (Operational):
Notice the rules this post begins with a list of Fuller’s eight testable rules (i”ve added two to make it ten).

Lon Luvois Fuller was an American legal philosopher, who criticized legal positivism and defended a secular and procedural form of natural law theory. In his widely discussed 1964 book, The Morality of Law, Fuller argues that all systems of law contain an “internal morality” that imposes on individuals a presumptive obligation of obedience. “Fuller was one of the four most important American legal theorists of the last hundred years”.

Fuller denied the core claim of legal positivism that there is no necessary connection between law and morality. According to Fuller, certain moral standards, which he calls “principles of legality,” are built into the very concept of law, so that nothing counts as genuine law that fails to meet these standards. In virtue of these principles of legality, there is an inner morality to the law that imposes a minimal morality of fairness. Some laws, he admits, may be so wicked or unjust that they should not be obeyed. But even in these cases, he argues, there are positive features of the law that impose a defensible moral duty to obey them.

Now the key part:

In a review of The Morality of Law, Hart criticizes Fuller’s work, saying that these principles are merely ones of means-ends efficiency; it is inappropriate, he says, to call them a morality. Employing Fuller’s eight principles of legality, one could just as well have an inner morality of poisoning as an inner morality of law, which Hart claims is absurd. Other critics have challenged Fuller’s claim that there is a prima facie obligation to obey all laws. Some laws, it is claimed, are so unjust and oppressive that there is not even a presumptive moral duty to obey them. In this phase of the argument, the positions of the combatants are transposed. Fuller proposes principles that would easily fit into a positivistic account of law and Hart points out that Fuller’s principles could easily accommodate an immoral morality.
In other words, Hart acknowledges internal amorality and denies self-determination and individual sovereignty.

September 19, 2020
The Left Does Not Cognitively Grasp Argumentation

THE EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION IS JUST PHYSICS WITH MEMORY OF DEBTS – AND CONSEQUENCES FOR PRESENT AND FUTURE CRISES

The left does not cognitively grasp argumentation because they cannot cognitively distinguish between desirability vs undesirability and truth vs alsehood, where truth (Decidability) refers to independence from opinion, desirability, preference (Choice).

This inversion of truth and desirability is the instinctual female cognitive weighting of value. This instinct evolved to incentivize males(Asset Obtainers and Controllers) to satisfy female wants and needs (Asset Consumers and Reproducers).

In fact, it’s more helpful to treat the left as pubescent females lacking offspring to absorb the expansion of their empathy and misapplying that evolutionary instinct evolved to satisfy caloric demands on their immediate behalf to broader political contexts outside their locus of control and accountability.

Females do not demonstrate this hypersensitivity to stress until puberty when their nervous system is amplified to extend its awareness (sensitivity) to their offspring, just as the male nervous system is oppositely suppressed forcing the expansion of their political (worldly) sensitivity preparing them for political life among males.

While we see male and female behavioral tendencies in healthy children from birth, maturity exacerbates these differences, away from the ‘self’ and into empathy in females and analysis in males. Our sense of becoming worldly is not artificial – our nervous systems are altered by nature specifically for this purpose. At which point we focus less on learning (submissive and self-directed) and more on acting (dominance to externally directed).

We think largely of less subtle urges like hunger, thirst, attention, association, cooperation, and sex: capacities that must be fulfilled. And while we acknowledge boredom as a cognitive capacity that seeks fulfillment, and we infrequently admit that females seek fulfillment of cognitive want for attention and males seek fulfillment of cognitive want for tool use, we overlook that Empathy is a cognitive capacity that seeks cognitive load, just as male analysis is a cognitive capacity seeking load. This is why women with children, especially five or more (the historical norm) demonstrate conservative(hypercapitalizing) behaviors, and men without children demonstrate libertine(hyper consuming) behaviors. It’s why females seek chatter and gossip and men various material crafts (hobbies). And since most of us are some mixture of the two sets of influences (variations in cognitive dimorphism) we can demonstrate the spectrum.

In other words, we should not take women without children seriously in sociology, economics, politics, strategy, and war, any more than we should take the left without equal accountability seriously in those fields. In other words, in colloquial terms, leftism is the female expression of ‘sh-t testing’: generating demand from dominant(conservative) males to produce more desirable outcomes (hyperconsumption) or to be threatened with uncooperativeness, GSRRM (undermining), deprivation of attention, care, affection and sex. The difference being that we have no need for the left nor want for them and they have nothing to trade (and we nothing to trade with them).

The left is cognitively female (heightened sensitivity to fear, fear of lower priority, of inequality, of being left behind) and lacking cognitively male cognitive bias for political decisions (scarcity of resources infinity of demands), the necessity of capitalization (saving) and CONSTRAINING population within the polity (‘that equilibrium of population vs resource, vs competitors that is calculable’).

This is because:

(a) males cannot directly reproduce, and must capture territory, resources, and females from competitors, and constrain reproduction to their kin group in order to persist. This reproduction can be forcible as we see in most animals. It can be prolific and indiscriminate like we see in bonobos. It can include pairing off as we see in some species. Or it can be cooperative (calculating) as it evolved in humans (serial mating).

(b) The female reproductive strategy is to capture the best genes she can while false-promising (seducing but not delivering, baiting into hazard) the maximum rents on the male population.

This is the origin of the Abrahamic method of deceit:

(a) presumption of the value of cooperation (false).
(b) avoidance of physical threats of violence (fast) and reliance on undermining(slow) as a proxy for violence (informational and social threats),
(c) social construction of narrative of undermining as a means of organizing competition vs military and resource pursuit against competitors as a means of organizing competition,
(d) plausible deniability of undermining (slow) vs violence (fast),
(e) unaccountability by submission to evidentiary violence vs inescapability from plausibly deniable false accusation to undermine.
(f) the use of pervasive lying in order to control children at low cost, by the construction of mythological narratives (sophistry, mysticism, pseudoscience).
(g) and perhaps the most devastating: the desire to maintain this emotional coercive ability by infantilization of and perpetuation of ignorance in the population, vs male need for adult males with objective (truthful empirical) agency in order to resist competitors.

TESTS OF SEX DIFFERENCES IN COGNITION
We’ve identified simple tests of female cognitive bias and absence of cognitive agency (possibility of truth):

(a) Denial of scarcity
(b) Denial of meritocracy
(c) NAXALT(inability to distinguish a curve,
(d) desirability conflated with truth,
(e) denial of evidence
(f) Evasion by GSRRM,
(g) posturing false value of cooperation (sex proxy).

Like many things, once you identify the incentives, the evolutionary necessity, and the extension of that evolutionary necessity from physics, you find that all human behavior is just the need for acquisition, means of savings, vs reproductive strategy. and reproductive strategy is just female hyperconsumption vs male hyper capitalization.

And once you make it to that conclusion, you realize that males developed civilization in order to compete for females, but it was only possible upon the evolution of the ability to capitalize with property.

Ergo, civilization wasn’t possible until the domestication of plants, animals, and yes, man. And the control of territory to do so. And the production of commons (capital improvements) to territories that provided discounts (returns) of compound (repeating) value.

And here we find the crux of the political problem we face today:

(a)incalculability because of digital fiat money,
(b) incalculability of scale (democracy),
(c) incommensurability of left and right political demands under these conditions.
(d) the natural dysgenic collapse of equalitarian societies,
(e) the natural eugenic evolution of meritocratic societies.

The hunter agrarian age is past. Agrarian group strategies, traditions< norms, morals<ethics, institutions<laws, paradigms<ideas are no longer the utility that they once were.

The agrarian age limited our evolution – froze us in time – in exchange for increasing our numbers and SLOWING what had been hyper rapid evolution over the past ten thousands of years.

The European age that re-united the world, let us discover our races and differences, again, stopped our speciation, slowed evolution, but accelerated technological adaptation, which in turn accelerated reproduction of genetic load- reversing the evolution that only East Asians and Western Europeans had created during the agrarian age.

Humans, like all other animals, and apparently more so given our rate of adaptation, accumulate defects (“genetic load”). We sort into classes: a hierarchy of sexual, social, economic, politicla, military value. And in most societies, we sort not by individuals but into clans by that social sexual economic, political, and military value. While through most of history about a third of females and as much as two-thirds of males failed to reproduce. And while in northern europe, under manorialism, most married much later, producing fewer offspring, and twenty percent or more failed to reproduce, the rest of the world continued reproduction at the bottom with warmer climates providing higher disease gradients but higher rates of reproductive survival at the bottom, and colder climates the opposite.

At present, after half a millennia of european conceptual, scientific, technological, economic, and political innovation, and after almost two centuries of the industrial revolution, we have equilibrated geographic and developmental differences. And we are wealthy enough for having done so to desire to, and demand, to fulfill our political preferences at the scale of states that we had fulfilled under villages and city-states.

We ended the eugenics program postwar, that was aboriginal a liberal program, even though the Germans – no matter how politically incorrect it is to say – were right. We ended limiting immigration to equally genetically pacified (evolved) peoples. And we have allowed anti-evolutionary religions of Judaism and Islam in particular into Europe despite Islam’s long-standing attempt to destroy European civilization, and Judaism’s continuous hostility to it. Because both of these religions are evolutionary for the masses which is why Judaism is the origin of Marxism, postmodernism, and HBD-denialism. (Socialism in the continental tradition rather than the Marxist is just a continuation of the policies of the Catholic Church – which again, was a devolutionary submissive religion only escaped by Protestantism and the eugenic consequences of Northern European manorialism.

There is only one solution: the solution the Europeans have practiced throughout our history: the restoration of political competition between states, each of which satisfies slightly different needs for the more eugenically evolved (northern Europe, less eugenically evolved, eastern Europe, and less eugenically evolved neolithic Europe of the south. And far less evolved rest of the world other than Han, Korean, and Japanese east who alone, like northern Europe, spent the past millennia in eugenic evolution. While the rest of the world expanded dysgenia.

So we can die off and fall to south American, Indian, middle eastern, or African dysgenia, ignorance, incompetence, and poverty, or we can separate as we have throughout our european history into a thousand nations, and let peoples make their own choices and pay the cost of their choices, and let evidence accomplish what opinion and argument cannot.

September 19, 2020
The Left Does Not Cognitively Grasp Argumentation

THE EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION IS JUST PHYSICS WITH MEMORY OF DEBTS – AND CONSEQUENCES FOR PRESENT AND FUTURE CRISES

The left does not cognitively grasp argumentation because they cannot cognitively distinguish between desirability vs undesirability and truth vs alsehood, where truth (Decidability) refers to independence from opinion, desirability, preference (Choice).

This inversion of truth and desirability is the instinctual female cognitive weighting of value. This instinct evolved to incentivize males(Asset Obtainers and Controllers) to satisfy female wants and needs (Asset Consumers and Reproducers).

In fact, it’s more helpful to treat the left as pubescent females lacking offspring to absorb the expansion of their empathy and misapplying that evolutionary instinct evolved to satisfy caloric demands on their immediate behalf to broader political contexts outside their locus of control and accountability.

Females do not demonstrate this hypersensitivity to stress until puberty when their nervous system is amplified to extend its awareness (sensitivity) to their offspring, just as the male nervous system is oppositely suppressed forcing the expansion of their political (worldly) sensitivity preparing them for political life among males.

While we see male and female behavioral tendencies in healthy children from birth, maturity exacerbates these differences, away from the ‘self’ and into empathy in females and analysis in males. Our sense of becoming worldly is not artificial – our nervous systems are altered by nature specifically for this purpose. At which point we focus less on learning (submissive and self-directed) and more on acting (dominance to externally directed).

We think largely of less subtle urges like hunger, thirst, attention, association, cooperation, and sex: capacities that must be fulfilled. And while we acknowledge boredom as a cognitive capacity that seeks fulfillment, and we infrequently admit that females seek fulfillment of cognitive want for attention and males seek fulfillment of cognitive want for tool use, we overlook that Empathy is a cognitive capacity that seeks cognitive load, just as male analysis is a cognitive capacity seeking load. This is why women with children, especially five or more (the historical norm) demonstrate conservative(hypercapitalizing) behaviors, and men without children demonstrate libertine(hyper consuming) behaviors. It’s why females seek chatter and gossip and men various material crafts (hobbies). And since most of us are some mixture of the two sets of influences (variations in cognitive dimorphism) we can demonstrate the spectrum.

In other words, we should not take women without children seriously in sociology, economics, politics, strategy, and war, any more than we should take the left without equal accountability seriously in those fields. In other words, in colloquial terms, leftism is the female expression of ‘sh-t testing’: generating demand from dominant(conservative) males to produce more desirable outcomes (hyperconsumption) or to be threatened with uncooperativeness, GSRRM (undermining), deprivation of attention, care, affection and sex. The difference being that we have no need for the left nor want for them and they have nothing to trade (and we nothing to trade with them).

The left is cognitively female (heightened sensitivity to fear, fear of lower priority, of inequality, of being left behind) and lacking cognitively male cognitive bias for political decisions (scarcity of resources infinity of demands), the necessity of capitalization (saving) and CONSTRAINING population within the polity (‘that equilibrium of population vs resource, vs competitors that is calculable’).

This is because:

(a) males cannot directly reproduce, and must capture territory, resources, and females from competitors, and constrain reproduction to their kin group in order to persist. This reproduction can be forcible as we see in most animals. It can be prolific and indiscriminate like we see in bonobos. It can include pairing off as we see in some species. Or it can be cooperative (calculating) as it evolved in humans (serial mating).

(b) The female reproductive strategy is to capture the best genes she can while false-promising (seducing but not delivering, baiting into hazard) the maximum rents on the male population.

This is the origin of the Abrahamic method of deceit:

(a) presumption of the value of cooperation (false).
(b) avoidance of physical threats of violence (fast) and reliance on undermining(slow) as a proxy for violence (informational and social threats),
(c) social construction of narrative of undermining as a means of organizing competition vs military and resource pursuit against competitors as a means of organizing competition,
(d) plausible deniability of undermining (slow) vs violence (fast),
(e) unaccountability by submission to evidentiary violence vs inescapability from plausibly deniable false accusation to undermine.
(f) the use of pervasive lying in order to control children at low cost, by the construction of mythological narratives (sophistry, mysticism, pseudoscience).
(g) and perhaps the most devastating: the desire to maintain this emotional coercive ability by infantilization of and perpetuation of ignorance in the population, vs male need for adult males with objective (truthful empirical) agency in order to resist competitors.

TESTS OF SEX DIFFERENCES IN COGNITION
We’ve identified simple tests of female cognitive bias and absence of cognitive agency (possibility of truth):

(a) Denial of scarcity
(b) Denial of meritocracy
(c) NAXALT(inability to distinguish a curve,
(d) desirability conflated with truth,
(e) denial of evidence
(f) Evasion by GSRRM,
(g) posturing false value of cooperation (sex proxy).

Like many things, once you identify the incentives, the evolutionary necessity, and the extension of that evolutionary necessity from physics, you find that all human behavior is just the need for acquisition, means of savings, vs reproductive strategy. and reproductive strategy is just female hyperconsumption vs male hyper capitalization.

And once you make it to that conclusion, you realize that males developed civilization in order to compete for females, but it was only possible upon the evolution of the ability to capitalize with property.

Ergo, civilization wasn’t possible until the domestication of plants, animals, and yes, man. And the control of territory to do so. And the production of commons (capital improvements) to territories that provided discounts (returns) of compound (repeating) value.

And here we find the crux of the political problem we face today:

(a)incalculability because of digital fiat money,
(b) incalculability of scale (democracy),
(c) incommensurability of left and right political demands under these conditions.
(d) the natural dysgenic collapse of equalitarian societies,
(e) the natural eugenic evolution of meritocratic societies.

The hunter agrarian age is past. Agrarian group strategies, traditions< norms, morals<ethics, institutions<laws, paradigms<ideas are no longer the utility that they once were.

The agrarian age limited our evolution – froze us in time – in exchange for increasing our numbers and SLOWING what had been hyper rapid evolution over the past ten thousands of years.

The European age that re-united the world, let us discover our races and differences, again, stopped our speciation, slowed evolution, but accelerated technological adaptation, which in turn accelerated reproduction of genetic load- reversing the evolution that only East Asians and Western Europeans had created during the agrarian age.

Humans, like all other animals, and apparently more so given our rate of adaptation, accumulate defects (“genetic load”). We sort into classes: a hierarchy of sexual, social, economic, politicla, military value. And in most societies, we sort not by individuals but into clans by that social sexual economic, political, and military value. While through most of history about a third of females and as much as two-thirds of males failed to reproduce. And while in northern europe, under manorialism, most married much later, producing fewer offspring, and twenty percent or more failed to reproduce, the rest of the world continued reproduction at the bottom with warmer climates providing higher disease gradients but higher rates of reproductive survival at the bottom, and colder climates the opposite.

At present, after half a millennia of european conceptual, scientific, technological, economic, and political innovation, and after almost two centuries of the industrial revolution, we have equilibrated geographic and developmental differences. And we are wealthy enough for having done so to desire to, and demand, to fulfill our political preferences at the scale of states that we had fulfilled under villages and city-states.

We ended the eugenics program postwar, that was aboriginal a liberal program, even though the Germans – no matter how politically incorrect it is to say – were right. We ended limiting immigration to equally genetically pacified (evolved) peoples. And we have allowed anti-evolutionary religions of Judaism and Islam in particular into Europe despite Islam’s long-standing attempt to destroy European civilization, and Judaism’s continuous hostility to it. Because both of these religions are evolutionary for the masses which is why Judaism is the origin of Marxism, postmodernism, and HBD-denialism. (Socialism in the continental tradition rather than the Marxist is just a continuation of the policies of the Catholic Church – which again, was a devolutionary submissive religion only escaped by Protestantism and the eugenic consequences of Northern European manorialism.

There is only one solution: the solution the Europeans have practiced throughout our history: the restoration of political competition between states, each of which satisfies slightly different needs for the more eugenically evolved (northern Europe, less eugenically evolved, eastern Europe, and less eugenically evolved neolithic Europe of the south. And far less evolved rest of the world other than Han, Korean, and Japanese east who alone, like northern Europe, spent the past millennia in eugenic evolution. While the rest of the world expanded dysgenia.

So we can die off and fall to south American, Indian, middle eastern, or African dysgenia, ignorance, incompetence, and poverty, or we can separate as we have throughout our european history into a thousand nations, and let peoples make their own choices and pay the cost of their choices, and let evidence accomplish what opinion and argument cannot.

September 19, 2020
“CURT: Why is Donald Trump criticized so mercilessly? Is he really that bad?”—

—“CURT: Why is Donald Trump criticized so mercilessly? Is he really that bad?”—

THE FULL ANSWER

Because he sees the academy, media, state, and deep state alliance (“The Cathedral Complex”) as a vast conspiracy of common interest, working against the interests of the middle, working, and laboring classes. Because he runs a vast hospitality business that employs middle, working and laboring classes. Because he correctly diagnosed (almost alone) the destruction of the American economy and American strategic influence (and the benefits to American consumers).

Because he understood that the constitution that protected those middle, working, and laboring classes had been systematically undermined. Although it appears, he views this conspiracy of common interest one of incompetence (which we saw with the failure of WHO and the CDC to be prepared, the export of all our strategic healthcare production, the export of even our military production – where conservatives view it as an intentional program by the left to destroy western civilization. Because of the obvious failure to reform the financial sector after 2008. Because of the obvious failure to reform the military given our failures in combat, and our relative decline in power, and the impossibility of bringing rule of law and democracy to tribal peoples below the threshold of economic viability.

Because he threatens the livelihood of all those generations in “The Cathedral” with loss of their ‘privilege’ (meaning rent-seeking, or ’parasitism’) upon the middle, working, and laboring, classes.

Because he kept his promises to the extent he was able. He exposed the press as the enemy of the people and the country. The appointed judges that preserve rule of law. He forced europe to carry their own weight. He demanded accountabilty from the global institutions we pay for. He didn’t start any wars, and despite military demands, he pulled us out of them. He radically restored employment. He started the repatriation of industry. He reduced taxes that caused companies to flee overseas. He trie everything he could to stop immigration and the left resisted him at every opportunity. and he has survived a continous onslaught from within the state and without.

Becuase he understood that the state had not, as wilson had hoped, developed into a professional bureaucracy in the german model, that would execute policy empirically and without corruption, but instead, traded american clientellism (politically run bureaucracies) for bureaucratic sovereignty and self determiniation regardless of executive direction, including selectinve and arbitrary enforcement of the law.

Because he is evidence of the end of the Globalist (Marxist-Postmodernist-Feminist) program that sought to use the vulnerability of American democracy, American constitutional law, and American court process, and the high trust of ethnic protestant Europeans (the eugenic produce of the Hajnal line) in combination with the use of a weakness in our financialization to capture the education, entertainment, media, and advertising sectors, to use the media like they used Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the ancient world, to capture American economic, military, and political influence in the modern world.

This is why Soros, Davos, the leftwing tech sector (that is comprised of 2/3 immigrants), the leftwing media that is dominated by the Jewish lobby, and the world financial sector are terrified by the combination of the decline of American military and economic power, the Election of Trump to restore American Rule of Law, industrial Capacity, and the working and middle classes, the miracle of Brexit, the end of the European Union Project, the rather surprising Chinese demonstration that “Fascism Won The Political Debate”: ethnocentric, nationlist, self interest, and total war was the future, and worldwide, we were ending the uropean era, and returnin to the historical norm of Ethno Nationalism, Nation States, Small homogenous (high trust) States with low power distance, organized by core states of civilizations, and continuing the conflict of civilizations (Subraces).

The left saw success on the horizon. The famous chart in the Southern Poverty Law Center tracking the replacement of Whites, and the tipping point where leftists could obtain power. Because the postwar program to move the center of the globalist movement from the failure in the soviet union to the united states, succeeded ONLY because of immigration, just as it temporarily succeeded in the soviet union only by mass murder, mass relocation, and just as it temporarily succeeded in china only by mass casualties, mass relocation.

The left, whether Jewish, Christian, and Muslim in the ancient world, or Marxist-Feminist, Postmodernist-HBD-Denialist, and Islamist in the modern world, depended on a ‘pitch’: false promise (fraud) of freedom from physical (scarcity), natural (reciprocity, markets), and evolutionary (genetic classes, regression to the mean, market eugenics), by the supernatural promise of equality in ignorance and poverty in the real world in exchange for luxury in an unwarrantable afterlife – or pseudoscientific promise of economic equality and freedom from sex, class, and race differences in the modern world, in exchange for undermining truth, reciprocity, rule of law, the markets of merit in all aspects of life, and the natural eugenics that result from those markets as a continuation of natural selection.

In other words, Europeans and european middle and upper classes alone, discovered, adapted to, and applied – despite the extraordinary cost to self – the physical natural and evolutionary laws of the universe, and dragged mankind kicking and screaming out of superstition, ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, child mortality, early death, and the vicissitudes of a nature hostile to human life, in a brief period of global, solar, galactic peace in just a few centuries in the early bronze age, a few centuries in the ancient world, and a few centuries in the modern world. With only the bronze age collapse and the Semitic dark ages of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam stopping their elevation of man from a victim of nature to the administrator of it.

But the masses are want of false promises of discounts on reality and will use avoidance of responsibility, petty self stimuli or sex, drugs and alcohol, cults, mysticism, religions, philosophy, ideology, to demand the universe provide for them like their parents did (or they wish they did) rather than struggle against the dark forces of time, ignorance, competitors, and the red queen of evolutionary pressures.

And membership in, and the benefits of, European civilization come at a cost that democratic mythology can’t bear: Europeans have been practicing eugenics for 5000 years. And most aggressively between 700 and 1880 under bipartite manorialism, monogamy, and aggressive prosecution of criminals, and aggressive suppression of immigrants and heretics.

As such, the ‘Conservative’ (meaning traditional Europeans practicing the high cost civilization) have ‘nothing to sell’ other than the evidence of the consequences of paying the high costs of western civilization. And ‘conservative’ (Europeans) can’t even touch the subject of eugenics – which is why the left suppressed all eugenic research and even mention of it postwar: because western civilization’s excellence is predicated on it: because reducing the size of your dependent classes, so that you can direct proceeds to quality over quantity, and thereby produce physical, normative, informational, and institutional commons instead. And to obtain the repeated returns on those investments generation after generation.

Where paying that high cost is entirely antithetical and counter-intuitive to human experience – and is not practiced elsewhere in the world for that reason: truth before face regardless of cost, individual property (meritocracy), normative property ( Protecting the commons as a shareholder regardless of cost) and collective commons(forgoing all opportunities that are not merit). When the rest of humanity does the opposite. European civilization produces the highest genetic, material, informational, cultural, institutional returns (choices), because it is the most expensive civilization to produce and to live in. For this reason: other than our only near neighbor the east Asians, who while escaping mysticism, and discovering ‘reasonable’ philosophy, themselves did not discover the truth before face, rule of law, reason (as in rationalism) or the sciences (as we understand them).

But while the traditional Europeans sought to wait out the left’s failure as we did the communists, the Jewish Postwar Immigrant Movement to force through the Hart Cellar immigration act, that reversed the institutionalized eugenic limitations on immigration, achieved what past failures, and bad ideas, could not: demographic replacement by those peoples who had NOT undergone five thousand years of eugenic evolution (self-domestication), or developed a normative tradition of paying the extraordinarily high costs of producing that civilization, and its returns.

So what is Donald Trump? He is evidence of what is happening around the world, with the Chinese suppression of Islam, the Hindu reversal and suppression of Islam, and the european civilizational suppression of secular Judaism (marxism, socialism, postmodernism, anti-western, anti-male feminism, human biodiversity science denial, economic pseudoscience, financial pseudoscience, and the industrialization of lying using the media, just like the industrialization of lying using roman roads, greek writing, and the openness and tolerance of the Roman empire.)

Trump is evidence of history returning to normal after the failure of the european civilization, and in particular the British empire, due to the conflicting attempts of the Europeans to contain Jewish marxism which was able to seize the Russian empire by its bolshevism (today’s BLM and Antifa, and full-time protest movements), and since migrating to new york (Columbia University) from Germany, has repeated the process they used in Europe, in the Russian empire, in the roman empire, of undermining a people from within by the false promise of freedom from physical natural and evolutionary laws.

Source date (UTC): 2020-09-18 21:31:00 UTC

September 18, 2020
THE CORRECT ANSWER – AND A COMPLETE ONE —”Why do many people still believe in co

THE CORRECT ANSWER – AND A COMPLETE ONE

—”Why do many people still believe in communism even though it has been proven throughout history that it does not work?”—

Short answer? Why do people believe in judaism, christianity, islam, hinduism, buddhism, new age occultism, rather than practice philosophy, stoicism, and epicureanism all of which are true?

Cheap, easy, false promises, that use empathic communities as a means of sedation.

Why do people believe in communism, socialism, democracy, libertarianism, or anarchism?

False promise of freedom from whatever scarcity that they face, where that scarcity is self-determination (power), by the eradication of competitors.

The only successful method of eliminating competitors is Islam and it comes at the cost of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, dysgenia, disease, suffering, and victimization by the vicissitudes of nature. We are only equal in poverty and powerlessness (slavery).

The Complete Answer

Cooperation is more productive than any and all alternatives, and the greater the division of labor the more so. Any life form that cooperates (using volition) must maintain consistency with physical laws if it will not go extinct, or lose the incentive to cooperate:

(a) Acquisitiveness (all life forms). We evolved to acquire. The greatest returns in the shortest time, at the least cost, with the lowest risk, and greatest certainty. All human behavior can be restated as acquisition. This is why economics has evolved into the language of social science as well as psychology – and why the left avoids it at all costs.

(b) Judgements choices of returns on cooperation (judging opportunity costs)

(c) Reciprocity: whether we both benefit or lose, or whether benefits and losses are asymmetrical – according to each individual’s measure.

(d) Accounting of Debts (what we owe others) and Credits (what others owe us).

(e) Punishment by Killing of, Ostracization of, Punishment of, and even costly altruistic punishment of predators, parasites, deceivers, cheaters, discounters (laziness), free riders, frauds, those who privatize commons or socialize losses, those who engage in conspiracy, sedition, or treason.

(f) Within the limits of Proportionality – Incentive to Defect. This maintains the equilibrium of the cooperative and physical worlds.

(g) Mediated by the value of Kin Selection (Tolerance for cost-bearing decreases with genetic distance).

All our moral intuitions are governed by those rules of cooperation. They have to be because **those rules are necessary for evolutionary survival of any cooperative species in competition with others -** especially one with a large brain that is eleven times as costly as muscle of the same weight.

And likewise, just as those natural laws of cooperation are dependent upon the physical (material) laws of the universe, they are also dependent upon the evolutionary laws of the universe: accumulation of **genetic load, regression to the mean, the red queen of superior competitors, and the window of time** available for a costly species to evolve. Those factors lead to what we consider the classes, which constitute a range of sexually, socially, productively, politically, and militarily low to high market (evolutionary) values, in which some are born with every advantage and some with every disadvantage and everyone in between. As the division of labor increases along with the population,

The Abrahamic Method of Deceit, whether:

… (a) in **Supernatural** form (Judaism, Christianity, or Islam), or

… (b) in a **pseudoscientific** form (Marxism, Boasianism, Freudianism ), or

… (c) as Social construction of **Undermining** (the Frankfurt neo-Marxist school), or

… (d) as **Sophistry** (Postmodernism), or

… (e) as Science **Denial** (HBD denial, Genetic Determinism Denial, Sex Difference Denial, IQ **Denial**, Personality Trait Denial, or, and yes, class, subrace, and race difference denial)

All rely on three **false promises**:

(a) the false promise of freedom from **scarcity** (violation of physical law),

(b) the false promise of freedom from **reciprocity** (the natural law of cooperation),

(c) the false promise of freedom from **evolution** (dysgenia, genetic load, regression to the mean, and and therefore class (sexual, social, economic, political, military, and strategic market value);

… using one or more of the possible methods of human deception:

(a) the fictionalism of **magic**->pseudoscience->pseudomathmatics

(b) the fictionalism of **sophistry**->idealism->supernormalism

(c) the fictionalism of **occult**->supernatural->theological

(d) the fiction **loading**, framing, suggestin, obscuring -> fictionalizing -> lying.

(e) critique(undermining) -> Avoidance (GSRRM) -> **Denial**

In order to achieve **POWER**. In order to reverse the Darwinian Revolution and the 4500 years of european and Chinese (Han, Korean, Japanese) Eugenics as the explanation for vast differences in civilizational progress. Where priests, politicians, financiers, and others can parasitically depend upon revenue of a permanent ignorant, subservient underclass (think medieval and ancient world peasants).

So people want what they want, in particular what they want is freedom from the reality of the genetic status and the consequences of it. And they hope or want the false promise that it is possible to defeat scarcity (physical laws), incentives (natural laws), and reproductive competition (evolutionary pressure) in this world rather than an afterlife.

And why is it possible for them to hold these false beliefs when we control the education system and we are capable of teaching basic contract law (ethics of cooperation), basic micro economics (ethics of cooperation), basic macro economics (world equilibration of prices and trade), and eugenics (why europeans alone discovered the sciences, and why europeans and east asians alone discovered reason, and even if the east asians fell behind after 1000ad. (not 1400)

THREE GENERATIONS OF LIES, IN TWO GREAT EPISODES OF CIVILIZATIONAL DESTRUCTION

In other words, the left thought leadership used three generations of lies in the ancient world, and three generations of lies in the modern world, to destroy civilizations that practiced eugenics, by selling the promise of freedom from being ‘left behind’ in the ancient world with the promise of life after death, and promise of freedom from being ‘left behind’ in the modern world with the promise of equality after the revolution.

All leftism is predicated on three false promises (lies), which cannot deliver such freedom but whose purpose it is to destroy advanced civilizations.

This is how Islam has reduced everything it touches to ignorance, poverty, disease, suffering, and dysgenia, while destroying the arts, letters, culture, knowledge, of each great civilization it reduces to ashes.

Marxism, Neomarxism, Postmodernism, and “Denialism” are just revolts against the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws of the universe and leftists cast Europeans (and Chinese if they can) as oppressors who invented these rules, rather than liberators who discover them, adapt to them, and apply them, thereby dragging mankind out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, disease, and early mortality at the cost of suppression of the reproduction of the bottom third.

The fact that both Europeans and Chinese practiced manorialism (systemic, institutionalized eugenics) accounts for the vast difference in european and east Asian neoteny, lower violence, lower impulsivity, superior distribution of primary personality traits (IQ, Consietiousness), and Agency(self-regulation).

Any people can copy this group strategy. The Marxists do the opposite. They applaud and encourage decivilzation and dysgenia with the myth of oppression rather than continuous human domestication.

Source date (UTC): 2020-09-17 19:11:00 UTC

September 17, 2020