Form: Full Essay

IDIOCRACY CONTINUED by Eric Orwoll and another individual that goes by the IvanTheHeathen pseudonym

For newbies, this is the most reductive argument that I can put together for the core.

Now, if you’re going to criticize me on the technicalities this is the introduction to what you have to deal with and I promise you the effort will be futile. I have tried everything from every angle and while some arguments are undecidable (abortion), there are none that are not open to analysis.

You can criticize me on the possibility that we should be trying to create a ‘religion’ rather than a body of law (despite the left’s success with sophism and pseudoscience and denial, and the emptying of churches other than islamic utility for the underclasses.)

You can criticize me on the possibility of getting such a constitution implemented by available means whether democratic or revolutionary.

You can criticize me on the chances of success at a revolution if one is necessary. My goal is to make it so probable that it isn’t necessary.

You can criticize whether the population would not willingly accept the vast majority of the constitutional reformations – other than voluntary disassociation – which is the only one that appears controversial whatsoever.

You can try to criticize me on the use of intolerance and demands for truth to defeat abrahamic religious, marxist, postmodernist, feminist attacks on our civilization – repeating the christian attack on Rome.

You can suggest that the political models I recommend (I recommend a spectrum) should favor the authoritarian, the managerial, the representative, the participatory, or the supernatural.

You can argue that we should seek monopoly rather than secession or extirpation rather than separation.

Or even whether truth and trust and commons and eugenic superiority are the west’s only remaining competitive advantage.

But whether or not we can create algorithmic law that tests the reciprocity of display word and deed at all scales of human cooperation, and can be argued in court, decided by jury and adjudicated by the court, then I can assure you that you will fail.

I set out to create a value neutral universal language of ethics and politics. This is the result and it is a far greater in scope than I had intended. And it’s pretty solid.

PART I

1) WHEREAS: All human behavior can be reduced to statements of acquisition of the full spectrum of interests and the defense of that full spectrum of interests, and cooperation to acquire or defend those interests.

2) WHEREAS: All human disputes can be decided by tests of reciprocity or ir-reciprocity in the gain, loss, and transfer of those demonstrated interests.

3) WHEREAS: All human behavior in acquisition, defense, and cooperation of interests can be sympathetically and empathically (subjectively) testable.

4) WHEREAS; We can enumerate those interests in categories we call ‘property’. (See Property In Toto).

PART II

0) WHEREAS; language consists of a series of symbols (constant relations), usually produced in phonemes or actions, or substitutes, in a stream of continuous recursive disambiguation, following rules of continuous recursive disambiguation (grammars) resulting in a transaction (contract-agreement) for meaning, and further resulting in a contract (contract-warranty) for truthfulness (limits to those associations we call ‘meaning’). (This is how neurons do their work of producing experience and there is no alternative.)

1) WHEREAS; All epistemic processes at every scale follow this same sequence of using free association to produce a stream of continuous recursive disambiguation, from the sound, to the term, to the phrase, to the sentence, to the story of state or story of change in state. And from free association to hypothesis, to theory, to law, to pre-cognitive presumption by habituation.

2) WHEREAS; Terms and phrases consisting entirely of Descriptive operations, whether physical, rational, calculable, or computable are open to subjective testing in all dimensions open to human perception. (try it)

3) WHEREAS; By constraining ourselves to operational vocabulary and grammar (ePrime in particular) it is nearly impossible to create a well formed phrase, statement, sentence, argument, set of arguments, without exposing one’s presumption of knowledge he does not possess. (try it)

4) WHEREAS; By surveying terms from every major field, stating them operationally, and disambiguating them by ordering them in series along a single constant relation (equally operational), we can falsify terms entirely, modify some terms, and force ourselves to create new terms, such that all terms in all fields are deflated, disambiguated, and operationalized. When these terms are used in well formed statements in operational grammar we eliminate opportunity to obscure ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit. (try it)

5) WHEREAS; By subjecting names, phrases, sentences, stories, arguments, whether freely associated, hypothetical, theoretical, applied (law), and habituated (presumed) to tests of categorical, internal, external, operational, rational, reciprocal consistency, scope consistency (limits and full accounting) we can determine whether any claimant possesses the knowledge to make such a claim, and whether or not ethical, moral, (and criminal) violations would be caused by this claim.

6) WHEREAS; By accounting for all changes in state to the demonstrated interests of others, whether intended and not, direct or external, we can determine if costs are imposed upon others involuntarily. (This subject requires understanding of the demarcation between opportunity external to the commons, common opportunity open to seizure by competition, and private seizure of common opportunity via competition.)

7) THEREFORE; It is possible to exclusively rely on operational grammar and syntax, and deflated, disambiguated, serialized, and operationalized cross disciplinary (universal) vocabulary (which we refer to simply as ‘operational grammar’ and all inflated and deflated alternative vocabulary-grammar combinations as ‘the grammars’ ) in any and all truth claims or advocacy claims that could impose costs upon others in commerce, finance, economics, law, politics, and pedagogy.

8) THEREFORE; it is possible to construct a strictly constructed body of law from the first principle of reciprocity, for the entirety of the human experience, that because of this vocabulary and grammar is both open to failure to ascend due to failure of well formed statements in this ‘grammar’.

9) AND; within that body of law it is possible to construct both law and process to test all involuntary transfers whether by display, word, or deed, by individuals or groups, directly or indirectly, against the private, semi-private, semi-common, and common across the entirety of the spectrum of human demonstrated interests.

9) AND; it is possible for individuals and groups to bring suit against individuals and groups in defense of not only physical commons, normative commons, and traditional commons, but informational commons.

10) AND; it is also possible to construct a constitution for any form of government desired in truthful form with this grammar at the cost of directly exposing all transfers.

(etc…)

—— RESPONSE—-

lol. Ok munchkin. I’ll keep playing tennis with you. We’ll play the amaturist game of ‘what I meant was’ and ‘you don’t understand what I meant’ if you want, when the entire argument is whether or not you have ANY FREAKING IDEA what you are criticizing other than “huh… I…. um…. don’t see stuff familiar to me here…. so I’m gonna man up and piss on the fire hydrant and pretend I do.”

—“You don’t understand what I mean by “positivism.” “—

Of course I do. Which is why I spent so much time on Hoppe’s criticism of Popper and Critical rationalism – the debate between the Frankfurt School and Popper’s crowd.

You are trying to draw a parallel, but not stating the context, not stating how both sides failed to resolve the underlying practical and theoretical problems, and worse, not stating whether in the end the claims of the positivists were wrong given the context of the argument.

If you understood my work you would also understand why some people call it ‘Critical Naturalism’ since it is functional an extension of critical rationalism. (Which is why I’ve written so much about the failures of Mises, Rand/Rothbard, Hoppe, despite their slow progress. Not really sure you could say you know anything about my work (or that movement) if you don’t know this.

In that movement the frankfurt school called popperians positivists, and the popperians countered that they were anything but. Note that it’s kind of difficult to sit thru class after class at mises institute, lecture after lecture by hoppe there, and to participate in the Property and Freedom Society without hearing the godfather of “property as test of commensurability” not beat the drum against popper (wrongly it turns out) – because he was and remains, a victim of marxist rationalist education. Worse, hoppe’s justification of … well, the answers are here: https://propertarianism.com/2015/07/31/a-list-of-hans-hermann-hoppes-errors/

You see, you’re conflating terms. You keep using this term ‘meaningful’ where I use the higher standard ‘testifiable’. The positivists were, as am I, trying to prevent fictionalisms in public speech and like popper they were doing so because marxism and socialism were pseudoscientific and sophist, but they couldn’t figure out how to defeat them. (categorization of the ashkenazi counter-enlightenment as jewish lower class marxism, and jewish middle class austrianism provides a better understanding of the conflict.) The reason is that they failed to reach to the law rather than logic. Law accepts the subjectively testable but not the fictional. That’s why I write Law (reals) not ‘philosophy’ (ideals). And why the law has greater reach than empiricism (observable). And why I rely on falsification, and not justificationism (and why I largely ignore philosophers just like most scientists do.)

So if you draw an analogy between the positivist demand that we can know nothing that is not observable (measurable) – which was their attempt to defraud marxist/socialist sophistry, the way that the enlightenment used it to defraud christian dogma, fictionalism, and sophistry, and the Frankfurt school’s attempt (as we see in Hoppe) to preserve the use of sophistry (pilpul, critique, false promise) I’ll agree with you that you could leap to that conclusion. The question isn not whether you can say something meaningful, it’s whether you can get away with saying something false and irreciprocal. The answer is that you can say many things false under sophistry (apriorism) that you cannot say under testimonialism. You can say many things under empiricism that you cannot say under testimonialism. So it’s a bit of deceptive sophistry to make the comparison between “I can say something meaningful (but still get away with deceit” instead of “I can say something meaningful In public as long as I’m not trying to get away with deceit that imposes a cost against others”.

It is this restoration of violence, and of presumption of malfeasance that I’ve put back into the rather victorian optimism and presumption of innocence in the court dance between middle class ‘intellectuals’. Iv’e restored ternary logic to the discourse. I abandoned the enlightenment project: “I start with why should I and mine not kill you and yours, and take your stuff?” I start with the continuous prisoners dilemma of choice of predator, cooperator, prey, rather than cooperation or non cooperation. This eliminates the … amateurish nature … of most philosophical discourse which presumes possibility of gentlemanly exit.

So, the law says you can know things any way you want, but the way you know things has no bearing upon whether it can be testified to, and whether such statements (information) will produce harm. The law does not care how you claim you know things. It only cares that you failed to do due diligence against harm, and that we can determine that by whether or not you can testify to it. In other words “real” vs “ideal”.

—“If there are any statements which are neither (a) nor (b) which you think would pass your tests for truthful speech, then please provide me with some examples. However, it seems clear that any statement which is not (b) would immediately fail your test 3 (external correspondence) for truthful speech. Therefore, no statement which is neither (a) nor (b) could possibly pass your tests for truth.”——

Well, aside from your … odd… conflation of tests, instead of the logical for logical, and empirical for empirical, how about we test both that model and mine against the statements “Money is neutral’. Or “Raising the Minimum Wage will produce Inflation”, Or “Inflating the money supply is ethical”. Or ‘the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light”. Or “there are multiple infinities”, or “There is mathematical reality”, or “White people have privilege”. Or the second amendment guarantees private ownership of weapons”, or “Human Rights Exist”, or that “Property exists prior to rights”.

So in answer to your question I would say in a few words like ‘the impossibility of closure’, or ‘inescapable contingency’, and ‘the problem of conflation’, but failing that rather simple clue:

1) that tautology would pass the test of internal consistency rather obviously, but if and only if the premises of the definition were testable either by non-contradiction or external correspondence with direct or associative experience.

2) anything observable to by the senses, by instrumentation reducing to sensation, could pass the test of external correspondence if stated in operational terms, and;

3) that if that instrumentation or observation required a series of tests, stated in operational language, it would pass the test, and;

4) if the statement was a function of rational choice then it would be sympathetically testable, and;

5) if it were reciprocally sympathetically testiable as rational choice it would pass, and;

6) if it were not directly or by implication a use of conflation (“household income”), cherry picking (gross domestic product), or arbitrary selection of scope and limits (“neutrality of money” and “minimum wage” being the best examples), then the statement would pass.

And conversely that logic is taught in reductio form as is philosophical rationalism, and questions unanswered only because almost every open question is a problem of grammar (well formed statements). There is no Liar’s Paradox operationally, only in sophistry. Because it has no ideal meaning, it has only the meaning the author intended: an illustration of the problem of malformed statements (poor grammar), and in particular the problem of the verb ‘to be’ (exists as) which roughly translates as “i dunno’.

There are no paradoxes. Language consists of using phonetic (or substitute) symbols of continuous recursive disambiguation, and ambiguity is a failure of satisfaction of grammar and nothing else. (Or victorian parlor games) Hence the reformation of set logic(verbalisms and sophisms) to operationalism (existentially possible). Thus ending conflation inflation, loading(biasing), framing(biasing), suggestion (causing appeal to intuition), overloading (causing appeal to intuition), and grammatical sophism.

–“and thus inadmissible in rational discourse – and you consider such statements to be “untruthful” – and thus inadmissible in public discourse and subject to the penalty of law “

Of course that’s a straw man. Inadmissible refers to: Inadmissible in cases of the imposition of costs upon the informational commons in matters of commerce, finance, economics, politics, law, and the academy (pedagogy) whereby costs of falsehood weather by intent or not are imposed upon others, and is judged so by a jury of peers before a court, where one or more individuals has deigned to bring this suit to court. Also, “Rational discourse” is only MEANINGFUL. Truth claims constitute a higher standard than meaning. Meaning = transfer, Truthful = Warranty of due diligence against falsehood.

(.continued…)

The Propertarian Institute

2 hours ago (edited)

–“You are not familiar with the standard philosophical terminology, and so you have invented your own terms to describe views for which standard terms already exist. This is why so many people often complain that they can’t understand what the hell you’re talking about.”—

It is not that I am unfamiliar, but that I avoid philosophical terms at all costs except to undermine philosophy as a discipline. In particular, since the libertarians are fans of the Kantian sophisms, and continentals fans of empty words. The kantian invention was an attempt to preserve Pipul and Critique of the jews and Socratic Skepticism and Platonic Idealism of the greeks by restating christianity, preserving authority, without the church. And i’ve put forth a reformation the unifies vocabulary and grammar (operational grammar) across all disciplines. Yielding commensurability across all disciplines. And the end of idealism and sophisms in all disciplines.

So I use terms from math, science, economics, finance, and law, and I limit my use of philosophical terms whenever possible to movements, technical criticisms, and aristotelian categories. When I first drafted the ideas I divorced from philosophy entirely. It was after hoppe said something to me that I reframed the arguments in aristotelian categories – in order to undermine all else. My original draft was far closer to a programming language than a mirror of aristotelian categories. However, by merging ALL categories (disciplines) and creating a universal vocabulary and grammar, it was possible to largely end the philosophical program in everything other than choice of preference and good.

ATTACK THE ARGUMENT IF YOU CAN

You can attempt to criticize my work’s (reformation’s) use of deflation, disambiguation, and operationalization (converting from verbal logic of sets [the ideal] – to the operational logic of computability [the real]). You an attempt to criticize the test of whether one possesses the knowledge claimed by operational vocabulary and grammar. And you can attack my restoration of violence and non-cooperation (ternary logic of cooperation). And you can attack the use of via negative law that defends the commons at cost to those who would flippantly speak for attention by the promise of discounts or falsehoods.

But at present all you are saying is that you don’t understand that work (revolution) or why it solves the problem of the sophism, law, pseudoscience, and innumeracy in the 20th century. “Words mean what I define them to mean, and in every reformation, some words must be abandoned, some redefined, and some neologisms invented.”

Here is my claim: I can construct algorithmic law that is no longer open to interpretation and therefore circumvention of the constitution and the people, by activists and activist judges. With that law we can restore our sovereignty by ending the disintermediation of the state between the people and the commons. With that restoration we can suppress abrahamism whether supernatural or pseudoscientific, or sophist, and drastically reduce the abuse of our people in commerce, finance, economic, politics, law, and education.

It will be very hard to defeat that.

I mean, criticize me or criticize kant, hegel, and heidegger – all of whom are far more difficult to undrestand. You can compare the difficulty in my work with Bohm-Bawerk’s and it’s crystal clear. You can compare my work to Ostrom’s which it integrates and extends from physical to informational commons. I am not as readable as ostrom. It was very difficult to select terms from multiple disciplines, to disambiguate them into series, and to deflate them into operational language, leaving behind a vocabular that was not open to abuse.

——“EXAMPLE: REFORMING KANT: DEFINITIONS AND SERIES”—

1) Empirical:

Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. “From Observation”.

2) A Priori:

“independent of observation.”

There are three dimensions to claims of a priori truth claim:

i) Aprioricity vs A posteriori,

ii) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, and

iii) Necessity vs Contingency

Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims.

(a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: 2+2=4 and all deductions thereof.

(b) Synthetic A Priori : Increasing money increases inflation.

(c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: Childless women will have no grandchildren.

(d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.”

This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision:

(a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori

(b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori

(c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori

(d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori

Which corresponds to the testable dimensions of numbers.

(a) identity (numbers)

(b) logical (sets)

(c) empirical (ratios)

(d) existential (constructible)

(e) time is unaccounted for in the a priori model.

Which corresponds to dimensions of physical reality

(a) point

(b) line

(c) shape

(d) object

(e) time (change)

Which corresponds to a subset of the dimensions of actionable reality , the full set of which we express in fully express in Testimonialism as:

(a) Identity(categorical consistency)(point)

(b) Logical:(internal consistency)(line)

(c) Empirical: (external consistency)(shape)

(d) Existential: (operational consistency)(object)

(e) Volitional: (rational choice of rational actor)(change)

(f) Reciprocal: ( rational exchange between rational actors)(changes)

(g) Limited: (Limits: At what points does the description fail?)

(h) Fully Accounted: (Have all costs and consequences been accounted for – defense against cherry picking and special pleading.)

Which together account for the totality of actionable reality (by man) that we currently know of (and its quite hard to imagine anything else is possible).

This innovation allows us to create a geometry of constant relations (meaning) that is BOTH computable (via positiva) and deducible (via negativa) within the bounds (limits) of any given rule of arbitrary precision. (Although I’m quite sure that’s over your head.)

(Continued….)

The Propertarian Institute

The Propertarian Institute

1 hour ago (edited)

— NEXT- TESTIMONIAL TRUTH’S EXTENSION OF PERFORMATIVE TRUTH —

|| Ordinary Language Grammar > Deflationary Truth > Performative Truth > *Testimonial Truth*.

Deflationary Theories of Truth

—“That assertions of predicate truth of a statement do not attribute a property called “truth” to such a statement.”—

In other words, “I smell the scent of violets” has the same content as “it is true that I smell the scent of violets”.

Performative Theory of Truth

—“Peter Strawson formulated a performative theory of truth in the 1950s. Like Ramsey, Strawson believed that there was no separate problem of truth apart from determining the semantic contents (or facts of the world) which give the words and sentences of language the meanings that they have. Once the questions of meaning and reference are resolved, there is no further question of truth. Strawson’s view differs from Ramsey’s, however, in that Strawson maintains that there is an important role for the expression “is true” : specifically, it has a performative role similar to “I promise to clean the house”. In asserting that p is true, we not only assert that p but also perform the “speech act” of confirming the truth of a statement in a context. We signal our agreement or approbation of a previously uttered assertion or confirm some commonly held belief or imply that what we are asserting is likely to be accepted by others in the same context.”—

Testimonial Truth

(Natural Law > Testimonialism) (Doolittle)

“I promise [statement], is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.”

With Testimonial Truth assuming ‘warranty’, just as promissory truth assumes ‘I promise’, just as deflationary truths assume “is true”.

So instead of “I promise [statement] is true, and warranty that I have performed due diligence necessary to make that promise of truth.” On simply states “[statement]”.

It means that all speech must be interpreted as Testimony:

So when we say “I smell the scent of violets”;

…. in testimony that means:

“I promise that I smell the scent of violets and that what I say is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.”

And what’s not obvious is this:

It is very hard to state a falsehood in this form of prose, and not be visibly accountable (to blame) for your words.

And conversely, if you cannot state something in this form of prose, the question is why?

And the answer can only be ‘fraud’ or ‘free riding’.

Testimonialism provides the criteria (list of methods of due diligence) that enable us to claim we have performed that due diligence and can warranty our words.

Next we need to understand Ordinary Language, Conflation, Inflation, and Deflation….

— NEXT THE OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF TRUTH —

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF TRUTH.

TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.

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).

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.)

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, 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.

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.

Intuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).

Preference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants).

Opinion: (justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.

Position: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.

Demonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements.

— MARKET DEMAND FOR TRUTHFULNESS —-

“TRUTH IS A WARRANTY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES.”

– True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

– True enough for me to feel good about myself.

– True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

– True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

– True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

– True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

– True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

– Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

(Notice how this eliminates the ability to walk away from responsibility for your speech.)

— TRUTH IS A MERCILESS, ZERO-TOLERANCE, WEAPON. —

The Most Intolerant Wins. We have been subject to form of intolerance – intolerance for the truth. But Truth is merciless. Truth is the scientific, legal, political, educational, and religious means of defeating the abrahamisms. But Truth is not a selective weapon. It is indiscriminate – a weapon of zero tolerance. It will destroy your Christianity along with the first generation abrahamic religions: judaism, christianity, and islam, and second generation abrahamic religions: marxism (Judaism), feminism (denialism), and postmodernism (Christianity), and fundamentalist islam, and their dependence upon false promises justified by the sophisms of pilpul(via positiva) and critique(via negativa).

HERE IS WHAT YOU DON”T GET:

It’s not that I don’t understand. It’s that what you think is an image in the rear view mirror is that you’ve been lapped so many times that you didn’t only fail to notice, but you can’t imagine it’s possible.

Welcome to the revolution.