(1) Buy a gun that ‘points’ naturally with your hand relaxed and finger on the trigger. Buy the weapon with the highest caliber you can hit something with while firing fairly rapidly. For starters thats .380 or 9mm. For those of us with zillions of rounds behind us, .40sw, .45 and 10mm are fine, but for others, they have too much recoil for fast follow-up shots. Rounds-in-the-air when bad things happen, matter. To stop a person from attacking you it will often take more than one round. You shoot until they stop moving. which is about the time it takes for blood to stop getting to the brain. (I can shoot a 45 on target like it was machine gun, and but only because i trained for weeks to do it with a fantastic instructor.) Most people can get there with 9mm without spending a fortune. Make sure you have two magazines. If possible get three or four. The purpose is to help you train, not carry four magazines.
(2) Heavier guns are heavier to carry but absorb more recoil. Lighter guns are lighter to carry but absorb less recoil. Metal guns are heavier than composite guns. Composite guns generally hold more ammunition and ar bigger. Small composite and light, to big metal and heavy. If you want to carry a gun pick one you are willing to lug around with you. Otherwise it’s just a paperweight in a safe somewhere. Carry guns and fighting guns are not the same. Older guns are slimmer with fewer rounds. Newer guns bulkier with more. Buy a weapon for your purpose. Most require at least two: ‘dress gun’ for emergencies, and ‘fight gun’ to protect self, kin, and home. For home, a shotgun is about as simplee and effective as you can get, and you don’t even have to aim very well. (Plus people are disproportionately scared of them, and the sound is unmistakable.) ( I advise people that they will buy two guns. Usually a .380/9mm small, and a 9/40/45 full size. And eventually sell back the one they don’t use. ) Modern (post 1980, and certainly post 2009) composite pistols from the top manufacturers all come with decockers, trigger safeties, manual safeties, hammer-blocks, lock open when empty, and have thumb-press magazine releases. All of these are safety features. I suggest avoiding manual safeties on the slide. They are too difficult to manipulate. 1911’s have only grip and manual safeties. They are for ‘experienced’ and ‘trained’ users. I’ve listed suggested manufacturers below.
BASICS
(3) Learn basic safety. “Always and Nevers”.
a) never point the gun at anything, ever, even for a millisecond, ever unless you intend to kill it and pay the consequences for killing it. Guns are to be treated as permanently-on laser beams that kill everything out into infinity wherever they are pointed.
b) never touch the trigger unless you’re going to use it to kill someone – the minute you touch the trigger you’ve committed to killing someone.
c) the gun is always loaded whenever you think it isn’t. Unless you check it as the very first step in doing everything you do to it, you’ve just forgotten it’s loaded. Guns teach you humility and the frailty of human mind and memory. Guns require ‘agency’. You must be dead certain at all times. (Hence why liberals can’t deal with them. they are impulsive and lack agency.)
d) only hand someone a gun, with the clip removed, round ejected, chamber open and exposed, after checking yourself that it is clear. Never take a gun from someone without the clip removed, round ejected, chamber open and checking that it’s clear.
e) never load a gun in the presence of others who are not armed as well. Never handle a gun in the presence of others who are not armed as well.
f) Never point the gun at anyone, any creature, or anything, unless you are intent on ‘killing’ that person, animal, or thing.
g) if you can’t do all of the above, you are not worthy of owning and operating a weapon. Thankfully we can teach young men to do this around the world with practice.
(4) Learn how to take apart and reassemble the gun ‘gently’. Do it at least 50 times, and do that at least five times. It will be unconscious at that point. That’s what you’re looking for.
(5) Learn how to clear the weapon of jams:failure to seat the magazine, failure to feed from the magazine, failure to battery, failure to eject, stove-piping. Buy cheap ammo and randomly stick it in your magazines, and practice it. Practice it dry. Do ten of each, every three days, for two months. It will be unconscious at that point. That’s what you’re looking for.
(6) Buy fake (plastic, dummy) rounds, and have someone randomly insert them in your clip among your regular rounds. (or do it yourself and then mix up the magazines). This will train you not to flinch. After that, learn double-tap. After than learn the Mozambique drill – two in the chest, one in the head. (Personally that’s all I ever practice. ) Practice once a week, for three months. It will be unconscious at that point. That’s what you’re looking for.
(7) Keep the target at 25 yards or less. Spend half your time shooting with the sights. Half your time point-shooting without them. You will be very happy you did. Initial sight picture takes 1.0-2.5 seconds. Follow-up shots take .25 seconds. Point shooting takes only the time to point and follow ups only the time for you to feel the recoil and trigger reset. practice once a week for three months. Practice a bit less often for a year. It will be unconscious at that point. That’s what you’re looking for.
MASTERY
(8) Martial artists know teach to side step, and move forward and backwards, or at an angle while maintaining ‘stance’ (secure footing). Fencing is probably the best. But old fashioned basic karate and ju jitsu teach it as well. Most police and soldiers do this VERY BADLY. I have seen example after example of people ‘tripping’ because they don’t know how to move. It should only take you a few hours to learn it, but a lot of time to practice it. After you have practiced it, practice point and sight shooting while moving back and forth, and side to side. It will be unconscious at that point. That’s what you’re looking for. At this point you have mastery of the sidearm.
(9) Do not try to quick draw until you have been shooting for at least a year regularly. Never do it alone. And never at a range. Only out in the wild. With someone who can drive you to the hospital. Otherwise you will absolutely positively shoot yourself. it hurts. It hurts like hell. Instead, practice quick draw with an empty gun. Practice point shooting starting with your finger off the trigger, with your arm 15 degrees out from your side. When you have done this a few hundred times over at least three weeks, then do it with fake rounds. When you have don this a few hundred times over at least there weeks, then do it with one round. etc.
10) Learn how to shoot flat against a wall, both directions, then how to drop and shoot on one knee, seated on one knee with leg outstretched, prone (lying down) all four directions. Then inverted (on your back) in four directions.
11) There is a vast difference between ‘concealment’ and ‘cover’. Concealment hides you but can be shot through. Cover hides you but cannot be shot through (easily). With modern weapons there is effectively no ‘cover’ only concealment. In other words, modern weapons shoot through pretty much everything: windows, doors, walls, car doors, concrete walls, brick walls, really thick steel plate. And pretty much everything but three layers of heavy sandbags. For all intents and purposes walls, furniture, cars, refrigerators and appliances, are made of something more than smoke and less than cardboard. Larger slower bullets will stop, but smaller faster bullets will not. Expanding bullets will stop better, solid and cored bullets will not stop. if you have a 9mm pistol the fact that someone is hiding behind a door or wall or in a car is meaningless. Likewise, if you are hiding behind a door or wall or in a car, it’s meaningless. In fact the only wall you can reliably hide behind is the one made of the bullets you are shooting at the other person. If someone has a modern rifle the fact is, that they can effectively shoot through steel, and very likely drill through a wall with multiple shots. So, you can either teach yourself to shoot through concealment, or be the victim of those who have taught themselves to shoot through concealment. Because the only cover is the cover you generate by returning fire.
GROUP MASTERY
12) Learn anticipatory shooting. Often we know the shape of the space we cannot see. We can practice shooting targets before we have sight picture. So that we can shoot from high, low, and center without exposing our bodies to fire. And so that we can only expose ourselves for minimum time to hit an anticipated spot. And so that we can enter an area shooting.
We can practice providing covering fire while others move. Then Learn clearing a room. Anticipatory shooting plus entry into an enclosed space.
13) Learn basic movement (look it up. I don’t have to cover it here. However, note that militaries using combined arms (concentration of forces) have to patrol a lot of territory using human bodies as ‘sensors’. People who are defending their homeland, conducting a revolt, or a revolution do not. They merely have to be able to blend in, move, perform an action, and return home or to safety. Furthermore, there is a great deal of advantage using only sidearms in purely urban or suburban areas.
13) Learn bounding. One person provides cover while the others move past a point of vulnerability. Rotate with the next first in line at the next point of vulnerability. until you are . (The military taught this badly last I knew.) it takes quite a few seconds to observe a hallway, an alley, or street, or courtyard, or any open space.
14) Learn basic medical (wounds). I don’t have to cover that here.
15) Learn basic fitness. Modern militaries carry too much weight. If you can walk for 20 miles with 30 lbs of water bottles and still do 50 pushups and 30 jumping jacks (drinking them along the way) then you are fit. Bulk is your enemy.
SAFETY
(16) a) Never give another person your gun to shoot without doing the same rituals above. I have taught dozens of people to shoot. I can make someone who is serious about it, safe when handling a gun in one day. And confident after three to five half-hour lessons.
(b) Never give a girl a gun to shoot with more than one round in it. EVER, unless you want someone – likely you – to get shot. Same for kids.
(c) Never give a ‘newbie’ a gun over 9mm with or with more than one round unless you want someone to get shot -likely you.
d) Never use or be in the presence of anyone using a machine pistol, an SMG, or Full Auto Carbine or Rifle, until you have, and they have, mastered using it a single shot at a time, as above – unless you want everyone in visual range to get shot. You must lean heavily into, and physically work to hold down, and use both leaning and holding to control these weapons. As far as I know, unless you are providing suppressing fire when you can’t see the enemy, three to five round smg bursts fired to ‘paint’ a space, or to intersect with a movement, are the maximum utility these weapons provide. Shooting fast with a pistol is a lot safer.
11) The safest place for a gun is in your hands, against your chest, pointing wherever you’re looking. iii) The next safest place is in your pocket, in your belt or in a holster in your belt. iv) the next safest place is in a safe with a lock on it. v) the next safest place is in reach of your pillow. vi) everywhere else is NOT SAFE.
12) Avoiding ‘situations’ is always wise. Running away whenever possible is always preferable. The only reason not to run away is to prevent harm to you, your kin, those you love, those under your charge, those under your protection, and in defense of the civic commons from the proliferation of corrupt, criminal, predatory, or evil behavior. Killing is never a question of property. Other than fine art and artifacts, everything except life and limb is replaceable. Stopping a robbery in modernity is for the purpose of stopping the spread of behavior. So know what it is that you are shooting for, and why you must shoot. That said, those most needing arms are those not privileged to be insulated from troublesome characters by birt, wealth, or ability. And we must consider their circumstances as unequal to ours if we have such privileges. What is ‘reasonable’ behavior in an industry with many ex convicts where theft is common, and threat is common, and stress is common, and hardship is common, is very different from what is reasonable behavior among middle class people with education and comfortable consumption due to comfortable employment.
WHAT TO BUY
PISTOLS: Glock, S&W, CZ modern pistols. HK older pistols – although collectors drive up prices. For ‘aesthetes’ the 1911 is the Harley of guns, and can be customized heavily and easily for your needs. Special nod to Walther ppk, HKP4+ and Makarov’s. That’s it. Better used great gun than new cheap gun. Evidence is revolvers are only good for girls afraid of guns. They are dead simple to operate, dead simple, to learn, and good as a last resort.
RIFLES: “Black Rifles” AR-15 or HK416 or AR15 with HK416 plunger systems. Any variation on the AK47. And special nod to the Steyer-Aug variants for those that want weight close to the body or to take up less space. That’s it. There are some superior older models of rifles but the black rifle won the 20th century because the tech is just lighter and more precise. In the very near future the 5.56mm will be replaced by a more powerful cartridge, but nearly anyone can be taught to fire a black rifle without losing sight picture. The AK is a weapon more tolerant of the operator (russian philosophy at work), and of conditions. It hits very hard, goes through everything, and there is steel core ammunition everywhere on the market.
HUNTING RIFLES: Hunting Rifles for men are like women’s purses or shoes: they come in all sorts of variations for all sorts of tasks, and all sorts of tastes. That isn’t my specialty. Although it is pretty hard to argue with S&W .50 pistols, Remington 700’s, and Italian shotguns. 😉
THE PURPOSE OF WEAPONS
The purpose of weapons is to *Preserve Sovereignty for the Great, Liberty for the Talented, Freedom for the Able, and Subsidy for the Weak and those lacking Agency, using the single law of Reciprocity, under the distributed dictatorship of armed men we call ‘western civilization’.*
Sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy cannot be produced by other means than a militia: shareholders in the preservation of reciprocity by the prohibition on rule. Western civilization begins with the militia: all free men capable of bearing arms.
Every man a craftsmen, every man a sheriff, every man a soldier, every man a warrior, every man a judge. A judge of reciprocity. In the end, when all is said and done, we are equal only in our defense of one another’s interests. And that is equal enough for everything else that matters.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
“The Philosophy of Aristocracy”
“The distributed dictatorship of sovereign men.”
Form: Full Essay
-
Everything You Need To Know About Guns (Today) Sidearms
(1) Buy a gun that ‘points’ naturally with your hand relaxed and finger on the trigger. Buy the weapon with the highest caliber you can hit something with while firing fairly rapidly. For starters thats .380 or 9mm. For those of us with zillions of rounds behind us, .40sw, .45 and 10mm are fine, but for others, they have too much recoil for fast follow-up shots. Rounds-in-the-air when bad things happen, matter. To stop a person from attacking you it will often take more than one round. You shoot until they stop moving. which is about the time it takes for blood to stop getting to the brain. (I can shoot a 45 on target like it was machine gun, and but only because i trained for weeks to do it with a fantastic instructor.) Most people can get there with 9mm without spending a fortune. Make sure you have two magazines. If possible get three or four. The purpose is to help you train, not carry four magazines. (2) Heavier guns are heavier to carry but absorb more recoil. Lighter guns are lighter to carry but absorb less recoil. Metal guns are heavier than composite guns. Composite guns generally hold more ammunition and ar bigger. Small composite and light, to big metal and heavy. If you want to carry a gun pick one you are willing to lug around with you. Otherwise it’s just a paperweight in a safe somewhere. Carry guns and fighting guns are not the same. Older guns are slimmer with fewer rounds. Newer guns bulkier with more. Buy a weapon for your purpose. Most require at least two: ‘dress gun’ for emergencies, and ‘fight gun’ to protect self, kin, and home. For home, a shotgun is about as simplee and effective as you can get, and you don’t even have to aim very well. (Plus people are disproportionately scared of them, and the sound is unmistakable.) ( I advise people that they will buy two guns. Usually a .380/9mm small, and a 9/40/45 full size. And eventually sell back the one they don’t use. ) Modern (post 1980, and certainly post 2009) composite pistols from the top manufacturers all come with decockers, trigger safeties, manual safeties, hammer-blocks, lock open when empty, and have thumb-press magazine releases. All of these are safety features. I suggest avoiding manual safeties on the slide. They are too difficult to manipulate. 1911’s have only grip and manual safeties. They are for ‘experienced’ and ‘trained’ users. I’ve listed suggested manufacturers below. BASICS (3) Learn basic safety. “Always and Nevers”. a) never point the gun at anything, ever, even for a millisecond, ever unless you intend to kill it and pay the consequences for killing it. Guns are to be treated as permanently-on laser beams that kill everything out into infinity wherever they are pointed. b) never touch the trigger unless you’re going to use it to kill someone – the minute you touch the trigger you’ve committed to killing someone. c) the gun is always loaded whenever you think it isn’t. Unless you check it as the very first step in doing everything you do to it, you’ve just forgotten it’s loaded. Guns teach you humility and the frailty of human mind and memory. Guns require ‘agency’. You must be dead certain at all times. (Hence why liberals can’t deal with them. they are impulsive and lack agency.) d) only hand someone a gun, with the clip removed, round ejected, chamber open and exposed, after checking yourself that it is clear. Never take a gun from someone without the clip removed, round ejected, chamber open and checking that it’s clear. e) never load a gun in the presence of others who are not armed as well. Never handle a gun in the presence of others who are not armed as well. f) Never point the gun at anyone, any creature, or anything, unless you are intent on ‘killing’ that person, animal, or thing. g) if you can’t do all of the above, you are not worthy of owning and operating a weapon. Thankfully we can teach young men to do this around the world with practice. (4) Learn how to take apart and reassemble the gun ‘gently’. Do it at least 50 times, and do that at least five times. It will be unconscious at that point. That’s what you’re looking for. (5) Learn how to clear the weapon of jams:failure to seat the magazine, failure to feed from the magazine, failure to battery, failure to eject, stove-piping. Buy cheap ammo and randomly stick it in your magazines, and practice it. Practice it dry. Do ten of each, every three days, for two months. It will be unconscious at that point. That’s what you’re looking for. (6) Buy fake (plastic, dummy) rounds, and have someone randomly insert them in your clip among your regular rounds. (or do it yourself and then mix up the magazines). This will train you not to flinch. After that, learn double-tap. After than learn the Mozambique drill – two in the chest, one in the head. (Personally that’s all I ever practice. ) Practice once a week, for three months. It will be unconscious at that point. That’s what you’re looking for. (7) Keep the target at 25 yards or less. Spend half your time shooting with the sights. Half your time point-shooting without them. You will be very happy you did. Initial sight picture takes 1.0-2.5 seconds. Follow-up shots take .25 seconds. Point shooting takes only the time to point and follow ups only the time for you to feel the recoil and trigger reset. practice once a week for three months. Practice a bit less often for a year. It will be unconscious at that point. That’s what you’re looking for. MASTERY (8) Martial artists know teach to side step, and move forward and backwards, or at an angle while maintaining ‘stance’ (secure footing). Fencing is probably the best. But old fashioned basic karate and ju jitsu teach it as well. Most police and soldiers do this VERY BADLY. I have seen example after example of people ‘tripping’ because they don’t know how to move. It should only take you a few hours to learn it, but a lot of time to practice it. After you have practiced it, practice point and sight shooting while moving back and forth, and side to side. It will be unconscious at that point. That’s what you’re looking for. At this point you have mastery of the sidearm. (9) Do not try to quick draw until you have been shooting for at least a year regularly. Never do it alone. And never at a range. Only out in the wild. With someone who can drive you to the hospital. Otherwise you will absolutely positively shoot yourself. it hurts. It hurts like hell. Instead, practice quick draw with an empty gun. Practice point shooting starting with your finger off the trigger, with your arm 15 degrees out from your side. When you have done this a few hundred times over at least three weeks, then do it with fake rounds. When you have don this a few hundred times over at least there weeks, then do it with one round. etc. 10) Learn how to shoot flat against a wall, both directions, then how to drop and shoot on one knee, seated on one knee with leg outstretched, prone (lying down) all four directions. Then inverted (on your back) in four directions. 11) There is a vast difference between ‘concealment’ and ‘cover’. Concealment hides you but can be shot through. Cover hides you but cannot be shot through (easily). With modern weapons there is effectively no ‘cover’ only concealment. In other words, modern weapons shoot through pretty much everything: windows, doors, walls, car doors, concrete walls, brick walls, really thick steel plate. And pretty much everything but three layers of heavy sandbags. For all intents and purposes walls, furniture, cars, refrigerators and appliances, are made of something more than smoke and less than cardboard. Larger slower bullets will stop, but smaller faster bullets will not. Expanding bullets will stop better, solid and cored bullets will not stop. if you have a 9mm pistol the fact that someone is hiding behind a door or wall or in a car is meaningless. Likewise, if you are hiding behind a door or wall or in a car, it’s meaningless. In fact the only wall you can reliably hide behind is the one made of the bullets you are shooting at the other person. If someone has a modern rifle the fact is, that they can effectively shoot through steel, and very likely drill through a wall with multiple shots. So, you can either teach yourself to shoot through concealment, or be the victim of those who have taught themselves to shoot through concealment. Because the only cover is the cover you generate by returning fire. GROUP MASTERY 12) Learn anticipatory shooting. Often we know the shape of the space we cannot see. We can practice shooting targets before we have sight picture. So that we can shoot from high, low, and center without exposing our bodies to fire. And so that we can only expose ourselves for minimum time to hit an anticipated spot. And so that we can enter an area shooting. We can practice providing covering fire while others move. Then Learn clearing a room. Anticipatory shooting plus entry into an enclosed space. 13) Learn basic movement (look it up. I don’t have to cover it here. However, note that militaries using combined arms (concentration of forces) have to patrol a lot of territory using human bodies as ‘sensors’. People who are defending their homeland, conducting a revolt, or a revolution do not. They merely have to be able to blend in, move, perform an action, and return home or to safety. Furthermore, there is a great deal of advantage using only sidearms in purely urban or suburban areas. 13) Learn bounding. One person provides cover while the others move past a point of vulnerability. Rotate with the next first in line at the next point of vulnerability. until you are . (The military taught this badly last I knew.) it takes quite a few seconds to observe a hallway, an alley, or street, or courtyard, or any open space. 14) Learn basic medical (wounds). I don’t have to cover that here. 15) Learn basic fitness. Modern militaries carry too much weight. If you can walk for 20 miles with 30 lbs of water bottles and still do 50 pushups and 30 jumping jacks (drinking them along the way) then you are fit. Bulk is your enemy. SAFETY (16) a) Never give another person your gun to shoot without doing the same rituals above. I have taught dozens of people to shoot. I can make someone who is serious about it, safe when handling a gun in one day. And confident after three to five half-hour lessons. (b) Never give a girl a gun to shoot with more than one round in it. EVER, unless you want someone – likely you – to get shot. Same for kids. (c) Never give a ‘newbie’ a gun over 9mm with or with more than one round unless you want someone to get shot -likely you. d) Never use or be in the presence of anyone using a machine pistol, an SMG, or Full Auto Carbine or Rifle, until you have, and they have, mastered using it a single shot at a time, as above – unless you want everyone in visual range to get shot. You must lean heavily into, and physically work to hold down, and use both leaning and holding to control these weapons. As far as I know, unless you are providing suppressing fire when you can’t see the enemy, three to five round smg bursts fired to ‘paint’ a space, or to intersect with a movement, are the maximum utility these weapons provide. Shooting fast with a pistol is a lot safer. 11) The safest place for a gun is in your hands, against your chest, pointing wherever you’re looking. iii) The next safest place is in your pocket, in your belt or in a holster in your belt. iv) the next safest place is in a safe with a lock on it. v) the next safest place is in reach of your pillow. vi) everywhere else is NOT SAFE. 12) Avoiding ‘situations’ is always wise. Running away whenever possible is always preferable. The only reason not to run away is to prevent harm to you, your kin, those you love, those under your charge, those under your protection, and in defense of the civic commons from the proliferation of corrupt, criminal, predatory, or evil behavior. Killing is never a question of property. Other than fine art and artifacts, everything except life and limb is replaceable. Stopping a robbery in modernity is for the purpose of stopping the spread of behavior. So know what it is that you are shooting for, and why you must shoot. That said, those most needing arms are those not privileged to be insulated from troublesome characters by birt, wealth, or ability. And we must consider their circumstances as unequal to ours if we have such privileges. What is ‘reasonable’ behavior in an industry with many ex convicts where theft is common, and threat is common, and stress is common, and hardship is common, is very different from what is reasonable behavior among middle class people with education and comfortable consumption due to comfortable employment. WHAT TO BUY PISTOLS: Glock, S&W, CZ modern pistols. HK older pistols – although collectors drive up prices. For ‘aesthetes’ the 1911 is the Harley of guns, and can be customized heavily and easily for your needs. Special nod to Walther ppk, HKP4+ and Makarov’s. That’s it. Better used great gun than new cheap gun. Evidence is revolvers are only good for girls afraid of guns. They are dead simple to operate, dead simple, to learn, and good as a last resort. RIFLES: “Black Rifles” AR-15 or HK416 or AR15 with HK416 plunger systems. Any variation on the AK47. And special nod to the Steyer-Aug variants for those that want weight close to the body or to take up less space. That’s it. There are some superior older models of rifles but the black rifle won the 20th century because the tech is just lighter and more precise. In the very near future the 5.56mm will be replaced by a more powerful cartridge, but nearly anyone can be taught to fire a black rifle without losing sight picture. The AK is a weapon more tolerant of the operator (russian philosophy at work), and of conditions. It hits very hard, goes through everything, and there is steel core ammunition everywhere on the market. HUNTING RIFLES: Hunting Rifles for men are like women’s purses or shoes: they come in all sorts of variations for all sorts of tasks, and all sorts of tastes. That isn’t my specialty. Although it is pretty hard to argue with S&W .50 pistols, Remington 700’s, and Italian shotguns. 😉 THE PURPOSE OF WEAPONS The purpose of weapons is to *Preserve Sovereignty for the Great, Liberty for the Talented, Freedom for the Able, and Subsidy for the Weak and those lacking Agency, using the single law of Reciprocity, under the distributed dictatorship of armed men we call ‘western civilization’.* Sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy cannot be produced by other means than a militia: shareholders in the preservation of reciprocity by the prohibition on rule. Western civilization begins with the militia: all free men capable of bearing arms. Every man a craftsmen, every man a sheriff, every man a soldier, every man a warrior, every man a judge. A judge of reciprocity. In the end, when all is said and done, we are equal only in our defense of one another’s interests. And that is equal enough for everything else that matters. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute “The Philosophy of Aristocracy” “The distributed dictatorship of sovereign men.” -
ADVICE FOR YOUNG MEN (AND WOMEN) TLDR: “Never marry if there is any chance of di
ADVICE FOR YOUNG MEN (AND WOMEN)
TLDR: “Never marry if there is any chance of divorce. You are not special. Either you are socially, emotionally, morally, familially, economically, , compatible or you are not.”
Someone asked me for advice on finding a successful relationship that will endure. In propertarian tradition, here is the via negativa advice I would give. Hopefully I’ll add to this list over the coming weeks.
This is the evidence of how people act over time.
LIST:
1) Men are more sentimental than women. That’s the data. Sorry.
2) For women, men are disposable resources. Children are permanent assets. For men, women and her brood are our asset – until we have adult sons. We and our sons are our resources.
3) We emotionally, intellectually, and physically mature at different rates, and some men peak later than others. This tends to correspond fairly obviously to your body type. Some men peak at 17, some at 25, some at 35, and some at 45. It is easier to peak early, but much better to peak later.
4) Most men are insufficiently adult and independent in their 20’s – too dependent upon women for social circles, and too dependent upon women for entertainment, and too dependent upon them for emotional input. This is to women, the same as a spendthrift woman is to a man. It means you aren’t ready for a mate.
5) – As I understand the data, men of the past two if not three generation are infantilized and this is delaying their maturity significantly – at a time when their marketability is declining due to female economic utility.
6) You do not ‘find’ women directly, but as a byproduct of achievement in physical, social, business, craft, or monetary performance. Build a network of friends, a career, assets, and an inventory of experiences. In other words, accumulate skills and responsibilities on the one hand, or social circles on the other, or assets otherwise. There is no substitute for demonstrated success *no matter how small*. Men are very simple, and have much more agency, but that simplicity is confusing for women. Friends, assets, achievements, and physical fitness are evidence for her to work with. Being fit doesn’t hurt either. Women have a higher sexual market value, but have less control over altering their market value. Men have lower sexual market value but have nearly endless control over altering that value.
7) Women who sense eagerness are put off by (a) you are not a scarcity if you are eager and therefore not valuable, and (b) it is harder to ‘see and feel you’. You are always better off being physical, being interesting, providing, expanding the circle of friends, and most importantly funny. Anticipating her wants and needs and demonstrating it now and then generally wins most points. (this is the hardest for us to do. I focus on satisfying her long term wants, and letting her tell me her short term wants.) The same is true for women as well. A woman who puts out too soon or hang’s-on repels the desirable man. The best female strategy is to use biomimicry + proximity. Act like a flower and place yourself in proximity to desired male target so he may “discover”, “find” or “hunt” you.
8) Men must provide limits. There must be things you will not do. This keeps you from failing the sh-t test. Tell her you can and can’t do things, that the two of you will succeed or fail at doing things. Never tell her that her wants are false – she lacks the agency to do anything about them. Women have no agency. We provide agency. That’s what it means to ‘be a man’. We provide agency beyond the Nest.
9) Increase in Male and Female choices increase the viability of a long term marriage. Choices are the result of genetics, upbringing, wealth, education, and social, political, and economic circumstances. Such marriages have fewer opportunities for ‘defecting up’ and fewer stress incentives to do so. Conversely, lack of choices decrease the viability of a long term marriage because of stresses, stresses of compromise because of stresses, and opportunity for defection to relieve those stresses, or obtain better opportunities.
10) NEVER MARRY EARLY OUT OF FEAR OF SINGLENESS, EMOTIONAL, SEXUAL OR FINANCIAL CONVENIENCE. Women under 35 are by and large insane unless they have had brothers, very strong and capable fathers, or three or more children. Marrying early accumulates debt and a divorce wastes a decade, or about 1/3 of your lifetime ‘easy’ performance. Ditch her. Move in with other men who are ambitious. Save money. And trade up to a better less crazy woman when you are ready. Otherwise she will marry you, bear one or more children, ditch you for an upgrade because her children take all her attention and you were just a means of demonstrating to her friends and self that she is marketable, and not left behind, and she will make the next 20 years impossible for you financially, and you will be poor in old age because of her.
11 – MARRIAGE IS A FAIRLY SIMPLE CONTRACT – Marriage isn’t complicated legally – especially under natural law – it’s replaceable by:
… (a) formation of a partnership or llc, where the partnership agreement lays out all terms of construction and dissolution.
… (b) grant of full reciprocal power of attorney.
Marriage is in fact a partnership agreement with normal exit conditions. Either make a contract, or assume the contract the state has made for you.
And then fight to ensure that the state enforces your explicit contract rather than the normative one.
12) I suppose I didn’t address the ‘fit’ side of the argument and I probably should do that. However, anyone asking me for advice is probably on the IQ/Openness, and Accommodating side of the bias spectrum.
13) I suppose I didn’t address the “we no longer marry for economic demands but for friend and entertainment demands”. Of emotional fulfillment, access to sex and reproduction, economic value, and old age security, the data says that marriage tends to be one of friendship, sex, and economic cost sharing. The rest of the previous dependencies are gone. (this is far more true in the states than in europe. Europe is still more provincial than the states in familial relations.)
14) I don’t think people have any values different from those that I’m stating here. I think they are just unable to introspectively address and articulate them.
15) Any man asking someone like me for advice is going to be advanced in intellectual maturity (the benefit of delayed emotional maturity). And my advice is fairly constant: to catch a mouse make a noise like cheese – and deliver on the promise. Be a man. Man first, lover second, friend third, and an emotional asset not an emotional burden. The problem is, that some of us are not emotionally ready to be men until we have achieved emotional maturity, and asset maturity, to match our early intellectual maturity.
–Edit: Added the following–
Propertarianism has taught me that the more synthetic the mind the less introspection is available, and the more intuition is relied upon. In other words, I have never found a case where I cannot reduce the couple’s attraction into propertarian terms.
There is much more than I can write on this subject, but I am not trying to via-positiva tell what to do (which is infinitely variable) but via-positiva tell what NOT to do, which is rather consistent.
If I wanted to be a popular author I would write about relationships, marriage, sex, business, fashion and art in propertarian langauge. Because that’s what’s most interesting to people.
Unfortunately I write about truth, law, institutions, and group evolutionary strategy, which, while very interesting to me, is not so interesting to other people. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-04 10:09:00 UTC
-
Advice For Young Men (And Women)
TLDR: “Never marry if there is any chance of divorce. You are not special. Either you are socially, emotionally, morally, familially, economically, , compatible or you are not.” Someone asked me for advice on finding a successful relationship that will endure. In propertarian tradition, here is the via negativa advice I would give. Hopefully I’ll add to this list over the coming weeks. This is the evidence of how people act over time. LIST: 1) Men are more sentimental than women. That’s the data. Sorry. 2) For women, men are disposable resources. Children are permanent assets. For men, women and her brood are our asset – until we have adult sons. We and our sons are our resources. 3) We emotionally, intellectually, and physically mature at different rates, and some men peak later than others. This tends to correspond fairly obviously to your body type. Some men peak at 17, some at 25, some at 35, and some at 45. It is easier to peak early, but much better to peak later. 4) Most men are insufficiently adult and independent in their 20’s – too dependent upon women for social circles, and too dependent upon women for entertainment, and too dependent upon them for emotional input. This is to women, the same as a spendthrift woman is to a man. It means you aren’t ready for a mate. 5) – As I understand the data, men of the past two if not three generation are infantilized and this is delaying their maturity significantly – at a time when their marketability is declining due to female economic utility. 6) You do not ‘find’ women directly, but as a byproduct of achievement in physical, social, business, craft, or monetary performance. Build a network of friends, a career, assets, and an inventory of experiences. In other words, accumulate skills and responsibilities on the one hand, or social circles on the other, or assets otherwise. There is no substitute for demonstrated success *no matter how small*. Men are very simple, and have much more agency, but that simplicity is confusing for women. Friends, assets, achievements, and physical fitness are evidence for her to work with. Being fit doesn’t hurt either. Women have a higher sexual market value, but have less control over altering their market value. Men have lower sexual market value but have nearly endless control over altering that value. 7) Women who sense eagerness are put off by (a) you are not a scarcity if you are eager and therefore not valuable, and (b) it is harder to ‘see and feel you’. You are always better off being physical, being interesting, providing, expanding the circle of friends, and most importantly funny. Anticipating her wants and needs and demonstrating it now and then generally wins most points. (this is the hardest for us to do. I focus on satisfying her long term wants, and letting her tell me her short term wants.) The same is true for women as well. A woman who puts out too soon or hang’s-on repels the desirable man. The best female strategy is to use biomimicry + proximity. Act like a flower and place yourself in proximity to desired male target so he may “discover”, “find” or “hunt” you. 8) Men must provide limits. There must be things you will not do. This keeps you from failing the sh-t test. Tell her you can and can’t do things, that the two of you will succeed or fail at doing things. Never tell her that her wants are false – she lacks the agency to do anything about them. Women have no agency. We provide agency. That’s what it means to ‘be a man’. We provide agency beyond the Nest. 9) Increase in Male and Female choices increase the viability of a long term marriage. Choices are the result of genetics, upbringing, wealth, education, and social, political, and economic circumstances. Such marriages have fewer opportunities for ‘defecting up’ and fewer stress incentives to do so. Conversely, lack of choices decrease the viability of a long term marriage because of stresses, stresses of compromise because of stresses, and opportunity for defection to relieve those stresses, or obtain better opportunities. 10) NEVER MARRY EARLY OUT OF FEAR OF SINGLENESS, EMOTIONAL, SEXUAL OR FINANCIAL CONVENIENCE. Women under 35 are by and large insane unless they have had brothers, very strong and capable fathers, or three or more children. Marrying early accumulates debt and a divorce wastes a decade, or about 1/3 of your lifetime ‘easy’ performance. Ditch her. Move in with other men who are ambitious. Save money. And trade up to a better less crazy woman when you are ready. Otherwise she will marry you, bear one or more children, ditch you for an upgrade because her children take all her attention and you were just a means of demonstrating to her friends and self that she is marketable, and not left behind, and she will make the next 20 years impossible for you financially, and you will be poor in old age because of her. 11 – MARRIAGE IS A FAIRLY SIMPLE CONTRACT – Marriage isn’t complicated legally – especially under natural law – it’s replaceable by: … (a) formation of a partnership or llc, where the partnership agreement lays out all terms of construction and dissolution. … (b) grant of full reciprocal power of attorney. Marriage is in fact a partnership agreement with normal exit conditions. Either make a contract, or assume the contract the state has made for you. And then fight to ensure that the state enforces your explicit contract rather than the normative one. 12) I suppose I didn’t address the ‘fit’ side of the argument and I probably should do that. However, anyone asking me for advice is probably on the IQ/Openness, and Accommodating side of the bias spectrum. 13) I suppose I didn’t address the “we no longer marry for economic demands but for friend and entertainment demands”. Of emotional fulfillment, access to sex and reproduction, economic value, and old age security, the data says that marriage tends to be one of friendship, sex, and economic cost sharing. The rest of the previous dependencies are gone. (this is far more true in the states than in europe. Europe is still more provincial than the states in familial relations.) 14) I don’t think people have any values different from those that I’m stating here. I think they are just unable to introspectively address and articulate them. 15) Any man asking someone like me for advice is going to be advanced in intellectual maturity (the benefit of delayed emotional maturity). And my advice is fairly constant: to catch a mouse make a noise like cheese – and deliver on the promise. Be a man. Man first, lover second, friend third, and an emotional asset not an emotional burden. The problem is, that some of us are not emotionally ready to be men until we have achieved emotional maturity, and asset maturity, to match our early intellectual maturity. –Edit: Added the following– Propertarianism has taught me that the more synthetic the mind the less introspection is available, and the more intuition is relied upon. In other words, I have never found a case where I cannot reduce the couple’s attraction into propertarian terms. There is much more than I can write on this subject, but I am not trying to via-positiva tell what to do (which is infinitely variable) but via-positiva tell what NOT to do, which is rather consistent. If I wanted to be a popular author I would write about relationships, marriage, sex, business, fashion and art in propertarian langauge. Because that’s what’s most interesting to people. Unfortunately I write about truth, law, institutions, and group evolutionary strategy, which, while very interesting to me, is not so interesting to other people. 😉 -
Advice For Young Men (And Women)
TLDR: “Never marry if there is any chance of divorce. You are not special. Either you are socially, emotionally, morally, familially, economically, , compatible or you are not.” Someone asked me for advice on finding a successful relationship that will endure. In propertarian tradition, here is the via negativa advice I would give. Hopefully I’ll add to this list over the coming weeks. This is the evidence of how people act over time. LIST: 1) Men are more sentimental than women. That’s the data. Sorry. 2) For women, men are disposable resources. Children are permanent assets. For men, women and her brood are our asset – until we have adult sons. We and our sons are our resources. 3) We emotionally, intellectually, and physically mature at different rates, and some men peak later than others. This tends to correspond fairly obviously to your body type. Some men peak at 17, some at 25, some at 35, and some at 45. It is easier to peak early, but much better to peak later. 4) Most men are insufficiently adult and independent in their 20’s – too dependent upon women for social circles, and too dependent upon women for entertainment, and too dependent upon them for emotional input. This is to women, the same as a spendthrift woman is to a man. It means you aren’t ready for a mate. 5) – As I understand the data, men of the past two if not three generation are infantilized and this is delaying their maturity significantly – at a time when their marketability is declining due to female economic utility. 6) You do not ‘find’ women directly, but as a byproduct of achievement in physical, social, business, craft, or monetary performance. Build a network of friends, a career, assets, and an inventory of experiences. In other words, accumulate skills and responsibilities on the one hand, or social circles on the other, or assets otherwise. There is no substitute for demonstrated success *no matter how small*. Men are very simple, and have much more agency, but that simplicity is confusing for women. Friends, assets, achievements, and physical fitness are evidence for her to work with. Being fit doesn’t hurt either. Women have a higher sexual market value, but have less control over altering their market value. Men have lower sexual market value but have nearly endless control over altering that value. 7) Women who sense eagerness are put off by (a) you are not a scarcity if you are eager and therefore not valuable, and (b) it is harder to ‘see and feel you’. You are always better off being physical, being interesting, providing, expanding the circle of friends, and most importantly funny. Anticipating her wants and needs and demonstrating it now and then generally wins most points. (this is the hardest for us to do. I focus on satisfying her long term wants, and letting her tell me her short term wants.) The same is true for women as well. A woman who puts out too soon or hang’s-on repels the desirable man. The best female strategy is to use biomimicry + proximity. Act like a flower and place yourself in proximity to desired male target so he may “discover”, “find” or “hunt” you. 8) Men must provide limits. There must be things you will not do. This keeps you from failing the sh-t test. Tell her you can and can’t do things, that the two of you will succeed or fail at doing things. Never tell her that her wants are false – she lacks the agency to do anything about them. Women have no agency. We provide agency. That’s what it means to ‘be a man’. We provide agency beyond the Nest. 9) Increase in Male and Female choices increase the viability of a long term marriage. Choices are the result of genetics, upbringing, wealth, education, and social, political, and economic circumstances. Such marriages have fewer opportunities for ‘defecting up’ and fewer stress incentives to do so. Conversely, lack of choices decrease the viability of a long term marriage because of stresses, stresses of compromise because of stresses, and opportunity for defection to relieve those stresses, or obtain better opportunities. 10) NEVER MARRY EARLY OUT OF FEAR OF SINGLENESS, EMOTIONAL, SEXUAL OR FINANCIAL CONVENIENCE. Women under 35 are by and large insane unless they have had brothers, very strong and capable fathers, or three or more children. Marrying early accumulates debt and a divorce wastes a decade, or about 1/3 of your lifetime ‘easy’ performance. Ditch her. Move in with other men who are ambitious. Save money. And trade up to a better less crazy woman when you are ready. Otherwise she will marry you, bear one or more children, ditch you for an upgrade because her children take all her attention and you were just a means of demonstrating to her friends and self that she is marketable, and not left behind, and she will make the next 20 years impossible for you financially, and you will be poor in old age because of her. 11 – MARRIAGE IS A FAIRLY SIMPLE CONTRACT – Marriage isn’t complicated legally – especially under natural law – it’s replaceable by: … (a) formation of a partnership or llc, where the partnership agreement lays out all terms of construction and dissolution. … (b) grant of full reciprocal power of attorney. Marriage is in fact a partnership agreement with normal exit conditions. Either make a contract, or assume the contract the state has made for you. And then fight to ensure that the state enforces your explicit contract rather than the normative one. 12) I suppose I didn’t address the ‘fit’ side of the argument and I probably should do that. However, anyone asking me for advice is probably on the IQ/Openness, and Accommodating side of the bias spectrum. 13) I suppose I didn’t address the “we no longer marry for economic demands but for friend and entertainment demands”. Of emotional fulfillment, access to sex and reproduction, economic value, and old age security, the data says that marriage tends to be one of friendship, sex, and economic cost sharing. The rest of the previous dependencies are gone. (this is far more true in the states than in europe. Europe is still more provincial than the states in familial relations.) 14) I don’t think people have any values different from those that I’m stating here. I think they are just unable to introspectively address and articulate them. 15) Any man asking someone like me for advice is going to be advanced in intellectual maturity (the benefit of delayed emotional maturity). And my advice is fairly constant: to catch a mouse make a noise like cheese – and deliver on the promise. Be a man. Man first, lover second, friend third, and an emotional asset not an emotional burden. The problem is, that some of us are not emotionally ready to be men until we have achieved emotional maturity, and asset maturity, to match our early intellectual maturity. –Edit: Added the following– Propertarianism has taught me that the more synthetic the mind the less introspection is available, and the more intuition is relied upon. In other words, I have never found a case where I cannot reduce the couple’s attraction into propertarian terms. There is much more than I can write on this subject, but I am not trying to via-positiva tell what to do (which is infinitely variable) but via-positiva tell what NOT to do, which is rather consistent. If I wanted to be a popular author I would write about relationships, marriage, sex, business, fashion and art in propertarian langauge. Because that’s what’s most interesting to people. Unfortunately I write about truth, law, institutions, and group evolutionary strategy, which, while very interesting to me, is not so interesting to other people. 😉 -
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “TRUE”? A commensurable common language consists of constant
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “TRUE”?
A commensurable common language consists of constant relations. In response to any substantive innovation, we falsify some relations, redefine others, and create others. Which in turn requires falsification of some existing terms, redefinition of others, and the creation of yet still others.
Yet, what is the minimum reformation of categories, relations and values, and reformation of accompanying language, and illustrative narratives that demonstrate those relations, before that new organization of categories, relations and values is shared?
It’s non trivial. It’s less work when that reformation is desirable, and it’s more work when it is undesirable.
[D]ECIDABLE: In the REVERSE: In logic we state that 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). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present within the system (ie: is decidable). 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 unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm).
|| TAUTOLOGY < ANALYTIC TRUTH < (IDEAL) TRUTH < TRUTHFULNESS < HONESTY < IMPULSE
TAUTOLOGY: Marginally indifferent means of expressing constant relations.
ANALYTIC TRUTH: Internally consistent, independent of external correspondence. In the construction of proofs, open to substitution and independent of context, we produce tests of internal consistency (generally speaking, the preservation of ratios). Or more simply, the preservation of constant relations.
[T]RUTH: 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.
[T]RUTHFULNESS: 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.
[H]ONESTY: 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.
[D]emand for Truth (Decidability):
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.
[D]ue Diligence necessary for Warranty that our Testimony is Truthful.
1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent?
2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency?
3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence.
4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility? And is it free of imaginary content when we articulate it as such?
6) Is it a rational choice (praxeological)?
7) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?)
8) Is it limited? Do you know it’s boundaries (falsification)
9) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting? (Is information lost or artificially gained?)
[F]alsehood Techniques.
1) Ignorance
2) Error
3) Bias, and Wishful thinking
4) Loading, Framing, Suggestion Obscurantism,
5) Fiction, Inflation, Conflation
6) Fictionalism (idealism, pseudoscience, supernaturalism, (primary means of overloading)
7) Deceit. (full fiction)
8) (Conspiracy – Scale 2)
9) (Propagandism – Scale 3)
10) (Institutionalization – Scale 4)
If you cannot answer these questions or do not understand them you cannot know if you speak the truth, or if you are polluting the commons with fantasy, bias, error, or deception.
EVIL < IMMORAL < UNETHICAL < |AMORAL| > ETHICAL > MORAL > GOOD.
MORAL (USAGE)
The term “Moral” can be used in a specific sense or a general sense. Either as behavior that imposes costs anonymously and indirectly, or as a general term to refer to all moral, ethical, and criminal behavior.
Specific:
0) In the series criminal, ethical, and moral, criminal refers to overt crimes, ethical to crimes of interpersonal informational asymmetry (crimes against a person you deal with), and moral to indirect crimes of informational asymmetry (crimes against the social order).
General:
1) Objective (decidable) morality: non imposition / reciprocity (Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against demonstrated investments by externality.)
2) Normative morality: that portfolio of norms that in the aggregate produce a group evolutionary strategy, and therefore immoral and moral actions may be judged objectively or normatively.
3) Subjective moral intuitions: that moral intuition we possess because of the combination of genetics, environment and training, and our attempt to survive genetic , social, and economic competition. These may be judged normatively and objectively.
4) Fictional Morality: those wishful arguments we make.. etc. These may be judged subjectively, normatively, and objectively.
CLOSING
The question is, how can we speak in a manner that limits the semantics, grammar, and syntax to constant relations that are invulnerable to, resistant to, or which expose, the various falsehoods that skew, eliminate, or replace, existing constant relations?
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-24 13:40:00 UTC
-
What Do You Mean By “True”?
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “TRUE”? A commensurable common language consists of constant relations. In response to any substantive innovation, we falsify some relations, redefine others, and create others. Which in turn requires falsification of some existing terms, redefinition of others, and the creation of yet still others. Yet, what is the minimum reformation of categories, relations and values, and reformation of accompanying language, and illustrative narratives that demonstrate those relations, before that new organization of categories, relations and values is shared? It’s non trivial. It’s less work when that reformation is desirable, and it’s more work when it is undesirable. [D]ECIDABLE: In the REVERSE: In logic we state that 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). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present within the system (ie: is decidable). 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 unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm). || TAUTOLOGY < ANALYTIC TRUTH < (IDEAL) TRUTH < TRUTHFULNESS < HONESTY < IMPULSE TAUTOLOGY: Marginally indifferent means of expressing constant relations. ANALYTIC TRUTH: Internally consistent, independent of external correspondence. In the construction of proofs, open to substitution and independent of context, we produce tests of internal consistency (generally speaking, the preservation of ratios). Or more simply, the preservation of constant relations. [T]RUTH: 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. [T]RUTHFULNESS: 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. [H]ONESTY: 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. [D]emand for Truth (Decidability): 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. [D]ue Diligence necessary for Warranty that our Testimony is Truthful. 1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent? 2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency? 3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence. 4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility? And is it free of imaginary content when we articulate it as such? 6) Is it a rational choice (praxeological)? 7) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?) 8) Is it limited? Do you know it’s boundaries (falsification) 9) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting? (Is information lost or artificially gained?) [F]alsehood Techniques. 1) Ignorance 2) Error 3) Bias, and Wishful thinking 4) Loading, Framing, Suggestion Obscurantism, 5) Fiction, Inflation, Conflation 6) Fictionalism (idealism, pseudoscience, supernaturalism, (primary means of overloading) 7) Deceit. (full fiction) 8) (Conspiracy – Scale 2) 9) (Propagandism – Scale 3) 10) (Institutionalization – Scale 4) If you cannot answer these questions or do not understand them you cannot know if you speak the truth, or if you are polluting the commons with fantasy, bias, error, or deception. EVIL < IMMORAL < UNETHICAL < |AMORAL| > ETHICAL > MORAL > GOOD. MORAL (USAGE) The term “Moral” can be used in a specific sense or a general sense. Either as behavior that imposes costs anonymously and indirectly, or as a general term to refer to all moral, ethical, and criminal behavior. Specific: 0) In the series criminal, ethical, and moral, criminal refers to overt crimes, ethical to crimes of interpersonal informational asymmetry (crimes against a person you deal with), and moral to indirect crimes of informational asymmetry (crimes against the social order). General: 1) Objective (decidable) morality: non imposition / reciprocity (Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against demonstrated investments by externality.) 2) Normative morality: that portfolio of norms that in the aggregate produce a group evolutionary strategy, and therefore immoral and moral actions may be judged objectively or normatively. 3) Subjective moral intuitions: that moral intuition we possess because of the combination of genetics, environment and training, and our attempt to survive genetic , social, and economic competition. These may be judged normatively and objectively. 4) Fictional Morality: those wishful arguments we make.. etc. These may be judged subjectively, normatively, and objectively. CLOSING The question is, how can we speak in a manner that limits the semantics, grammar, and syntax to constant relations that are invulnerable to, resistant to, or which expose, the various falsehoods that skew, eliminate, or replace, existing constant relations? -
What Do You Mean By “True”?
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “TRUE”? A commensurable common language consists of constant relations. In response to any substantive innovation, we falsify some relations, redefine others, and create others. Which in turn requires falsification of some existing terms, redefinition of others, and the creation of yet still others. Yet, what is the minimum reformation of categories, relations and values, and reformation of accompanying language, and illustrative narratives that demonstrate those relations, before that new organization of categories, relations and values is shared? It’s non trivial. It’s less work when that reformation is desirable, and it’s more work when it is undesirable. [D]ECIDABLE: In the REVERSE: In logic we state that 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). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present within the system (ie: is decidable). 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 unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm). || TAUTOLOGY < ANALYTIC TRUTH < (IDEAL) TRUTH < TRUTHFULNESS < HONESTY < IMPULSE TAUTOLOGY: Marginally indifferent means of expressing constant relations. ANALYTIC TRUTH: Internally consistent, independent of external correspondence. In the construction of proofs, open to substitution and independent of context, we produce tests of internal consistency (generally speaking, the preservation of ratios). Or more simply, the preservation of constant relations. [T]RUTH: 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. [T]RUTHFULNESS: 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. [H]ONESTY: 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. [D]emand for Truth (Decidability): 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. [D]ue Diligence necessary for Warranty that our Testimony is Truthful. 1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent? 2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency? 3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence. 4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility? And is it free of imaginary content when we articulate it as such? 6) Is it a rational choice (praxeological)? 7) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?) 8) Is it limited? Do you know it’s boundaries (falsification) 9) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting? (Is information lost or artificially gained?) [F]alsehood Techniques. 1) Ignorance 2) Error 3) Bias, and Wishful thinking 4) Loading, Framing, Suggestion Obscurantism, 5) Fiction, Inflation, Conflation 6) Fictionalism (idealism, pseudoscience, supernaturalism, (primary means of overloading) 7) Deceit. (full fiction) 8) (Conspiracy – Scale 2) 9) (Propagandism – Scale 3) 10) (Institutionalization – Scale 4) If you cannot answer these questions or do not understand them you cannot know if you speak the truth, or if you are polluting the commons with fantasy, bias, error, or deception. EVIL < IMMORAL < UNETHICAL < |AMORAL| > ETHICAL > MORAL > GOOD. MORAL (USAGE) The term “Moral” can be used in a specific sense or a general sense. Either as behavior that imposes costs anonymously and indirectly, or as a general term to refer to all moral, ethical, and criminal behavior. Specific: 0) In the series criminal, ethical, and moral, criminal refers to overt crimes, ethical to crimes of interpersonal informational asymmetry (crimes against a person you deal with), and moral to indirect crimes of informational asymmetry (crimes against the social order). General: 1) Objective (decidable) morality: non imposition / reciprocity (Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against demonstrated investments by externality.) 2) Normative morality: that portfolio of norms that in the aggregate produce a group evolutionary strategy, and therefore immoral and moral actions may be judged objectively or normatively. 3) Subjective moral intuitions: that moral intuition we possess because of the combination of genetics, environment and training, and our attempt to survive genetic , social, and economic competition. These may be judged normatively and objectively. 4) Fictional Morality: those wishful arguments we make.. etc. These may be judged subjectively, normatively, and objectively. CLOSING The question is, how can we speak in a manner that limits the semantics, grammar, and syntax to constant relations that are invulnerable to, resistant to, or which expose, the various falsehoods that skew, eliminate, or replace, existing constant relations? -
THE PROBLEM IS LYING AND OVERLOADING – NOT LOGIC. WE ARE HELLA GOOD AT LOGIC. WE
THE PROBLEM IS LYING AND OVERLOADING – NOT LOGIC. WE ARE HELLA GOOD AT LOGIC. WE ARE NOT HELLA GOOD AT OVERLOADING. HOW DO WE FIX THAT? GRAMMAR.
—“+Curt Doolittle I’m always worried about these revisionist solutions since it seems so strange to tell someone, when you say “is”, you think that you mean one thing, but actually you mean several different things. But that aside, it seems that your solution just bites the bullet and admits that there is no such thing as identity since the only way that we can actually talk about identity is to talk about some component of identity: ownership, differentiation etc. It seems that this solution gives up the game since it just acknoledges that there is no real relation we are talking about when we are talking about identity. When someone asks you on the witness stand, “is this the same gun that you saw the defendant shoot your wife with?” Your only response can be in some ways yes and in other ways no, but identity is always a deception. If you think this, that’s fine, it is jsut a big bullet to bite. Or perhaps I have misrepresented your position?”— Carneades.org http://Carneades.org
Apologies in advance that this is a bit heavy, but I have been thru your (wonderful) set of videos and you are clearly sophisticated enough for substantive discourse.
THE CURSE OF INSTITUTIONALIZED PARADIGMS
😉 It seems strange to tell someone that the earth is round, or that the stars are not pricks in the fabric of the sky, or most of all that velocity through space significantly alters the rate of change we call time. The fact that we continually correct ourselves is the purpose of reason. The strangeness of an increase in parsimony is evidence of the substantiality of error given its absence.
Why? because by the combination of memory, action, and reason, we can continually increase our agency (physical, emotional, intellectual, social, political, evolutionary) and continually increase the capture of differences in state of the universe through our actions.
OBSCURANTISM
When we use the verb “to-be”, we use it to obscure one of the following (including my intentional use of the verb to be to refer to “currently acting” (doing) as illustration).
1 – to overcome limits of less able minds to bear the cost in short term memory of
2 – to save time and effort of grammatical construction among those who share sufficient context that they will not misconstrue our intent.
3 – to avoid accountability for our testimony (promise).
4 – to inflate a promise (conduct a pretense of knowledge) by habitual repetition of a convention we do not understand
5 – to obscure our ignorance of the relations we testify to (promise).
6 – to suggest relations that are present but insufficient for fulfillment of our promise.
7 – to suggest relations that are not present because of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, for the purpose of coercion.
8 – to suggest relations that are not present for the purpose of deception or fraud.
In other words, we use it because of Convenience, Ignorance, Error, Coercion, and Deceit..
THE FICTION OF CONFLATION OF LAW(SCRIPTURE) WITH SPEECH.
And so, while we can interpret scripture, the written word, and the recorded law, when we are dependent upon appeals to the authority of scripture, written word, and recorded law, in any circumstance where recursive discourse is possible, we produce statements that are undeniable (false), decidable(true), informative but undecidable, undecidable, and incomprehensible. And we can determine intentions are scientific and logical (false), testimonial and constructive (moral/true ), honest(moral), considerate(polite), immoral (coercive), and criminal (fraudulent).
TRANSACTIONS RATHER THAN CREATIVE INTERPRETATIONS AND DECEPTIONS
And to determine degree of decidability, and intentionality requires little more than complete sentences(full accounting) in operational grammar and semantics (complete transactions). And exercises in the ‘interpretation’ of incomplete transactions is … well, something close to a victorian parlor game.
For example:
“The cat is black” vs “I promise I see a cat, and I promise that its body appears black.”
Is very similar to:
“It’s a rational number” vs “That number consists of a fractional ratio of two or more positional names converted to decimal notation, that produces a equi-divisible, and therefore terminating, positional name” (where fraction is defined elsewhere).
is very similar to:
“The square root of two” and “infinity”, neither of which can exist, for precisely the same reasons: limits.
And in the Ship of Theseus “of” serves that same function as ‘is’: to mislead.
Stating the question as “That ship we contractually refer to as the ship owned by, paid for by, designed by, crafted by, constructed of….” each asks a different question.” (Our nouns contain these general properties of ownership, probability etc).
While nouns, ( or referrers ) may be constructed by many means, from the arbitrary, to the fictional, to the allegorical, to the analogical, to the normative and traditional, to the descriptive to a set of measurements, to a set of relative measurements of a set of constant relations.
So the ship of theseus consists which category of referrers? A contractual (normative) one.
THE OPERATIONAL NAME OF “LOGIC”.
The word “logic”, operationally refers to ‘the preservation of constant relations’ between states (statements) by one or more dimensions of constant relations.
1 – So far as we know, the universe consists entirely of a hierarchical network of constant relations. (Soft Determinism)
2 – While that universe appears to consist of a small number of constant relations (state) and possible operations (changes in state), through layers of permutations of possible operations great complexity can emerge.
3 – Statements Definitions, tautologies, deductions, inductions, abductions and guesses (even free associations) require some set of constant relations between states (statements), by one or more dimensions of constant relations.
4 – We are able to promise descriptions through guesses
5 – We are able to state Tautologies through Guesses (even free associations) as a means of suggesting relations.
6 – And we are able to state sets of tautologies through guesses to cumulatively (repeatedly) suggest relations.
7 – And we are able at times (special cases) to construct proofs of possibility that survive competition with proofs of impossibility. (Where a proof consists of demonstration and survival of the preservation of constant relations between states (Statements).
STRONG LANGUAGE WITH WEAK GRAMMAR
Lucky as we are that english provides as a low context high precision language, and luckier that we are that english grammar generates an analytic rather than synthetic language, and lucky as we are that english contains semantics dialects such as working class germanic, aristocratic french, and intellectual latin and greek. And lucky as we are that english preserves methodological dialects, each of which varies in the preservation of one or more constant relations, including but not limited to the categorical (differences), arithmetic (positional), mathematical, financial, (formal) logical, algorithmic, scientific, legal, experiential(ordinary), fictional, mythic, supernatural, and occult. We remain somewhere between unlucky and primitive, because our grammar remains tainted by the 20th century failure of brewer, bridgman, mises, hayek, popper and dozens of others to complete the transition through probabilistic to operational semantics and grammar.
But as lucky as we are and as unlucky as we have been, it is quite possible to produce a semantics, grammar and syntax of universal commensurability across all methodological dialects, using each to falsify the other. And that is the continued evolution of inventions of science, (inherited quite honestly from engineering), of the limit of testimony (descriptions) to operational language.
THE SHIP OF THESEUS AS AN EXERCISE IN THE STUDY OF DECEPTION.
Rational (kantian) Philosophy, mathematical platonism, pseudoscientific ficationalsms, hermeneutics, the interpretation of scripture, and the interpretation of law, all are
So the proper answer to the Ship of Theseus, is that names consist of some combination of promises, and the contract for the name of the ship of theseus is by definition provided by the question, one of ownership, and our underlying cause of this undecidability begs the questions:
1) why are we ignorant of grammar and semantics of the language we use, and
2) why does sophomoric philosophy consist largely of questions employing this weakness in our semantics, grammar and its understanding,
3) why is it, that we do not ask the question why most paradoxes of this nature are not in fact paradoxes, but deceptions. And
4) why do we not learn that our world is full of deceptions because of the persistence of ideal, supernatural, and occult semantics and grammar? And
5) why do we not punish people who perpetuate such deceptions by use of ideal, supernatural, and occult semantics and grammar? 😉 (The last a bit tongue in cheek.)
So this particular ‘deception’ (by means of suggestion) is interesting because it provides a vehicle for exploring the techniques of deception and the techniques we use to construct names, and the REASON we use those names rather than other names. So we could say the ship built for theseus, using money he’d made from trading olive oil, by tom, dick, and harry, and designed by eric, during a certain date range, at a certain port, out of materials obtained from here there and everywhere.
So the question is, which constant relations are we discussing? If the ship is dismantled and rebuilt by the same design I would say that one does not testify falsely by using the same short-name (theseus’s ship Mathilda).
(more…)
TRANSACTIONS: (CLOSING SUGGESTION): LOGIC WITHOUT GRAMMAR IDENTICAL TO ADDITION WITHOUT EQUALS SIGN, OR ACCOUNTING WITHOUT BALANCES, OR THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE WITHOUT EQUILIBRATION.
Now, one last idea for you to mull over: We have been fussing over ‘logic’ for a very long time, and by and large it turns out to have done nothing at all beyond the trivial documentation of the various dimensions of constant relations in our language (nouns and verbs). Like game theory, logic does not scale. Our method of scaling logic has resulted in grammar just as the means of scaling physical interactions results in chemistry.
The foundations of mathematics consist of a trivial necessity of the consequences of constant relations made possible to measure by use of positional names. The foundations of Language (a sequence of transactions describing change in state of relations using semantics(referents), grammar/rules, syntax) consist of three ranges of experience(measurements): physical(voluntary), experiential(involuntary), and imaginary(voluntary). And the actionable universe ends at four dimensions. And the semantic universe is constructed by changes in state within them, given the three ranges of experiences available to us, just as the physical, chemical, biological, and semantic evolve from the underlying forces of the universe.
We have been trying to deflate our semantics, grammar, and syntax without grasping the rather obvious: that language consist of a fairly exhaustive inventory of thought at any given point in time, consisting of three sets of dimensions, four dimensions of reality, and n-dimensions of experience in an (as yet) endless set of hierarchical permutations. We must use language with some dependence upon logic or the relatively low bandwidth of serial phonetic communication using referential symbols would be useless.
So humans are good at scaling logic. The problem we face consists of the conflation of various semantic sets (sets of in-commensurable constant relations), and the ease at which people’s abilities are overloaded by that process, forcing us to return to intuition because of the un-testability of incommensurable suggestions.
in other words, logic merely amplifies the problem of overloading (which is why formal logic is not used outside of the discipline), and all other disciplines require demanding grammar, just as philosophy DOES NOT (heidegger etc).
The problem we face is not the study of logic which is a necessary property of comprehension using referents (symbols) but constraining the grammar to complete transactions and the semantics to correspondence with a universal standard, and the only universal standard available to man – is actions.
Curt Doolittle
35 minutes ago (edited)
TRANSACTIONS: (CLOSING SUGGESTION): LOGIC WITHOUT GRAMMAR IDENTICAL TO ADDITION WITHOUT EQUALS SIGN, OR ACCOUNTING WITHOUT BALANCES, OR THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE WITHOUT EQUILIBRATION.
Now, one last idea for you to mull over: We have been fussing over ‘logic’ for a very long time, and by and large it turns out to have done nothing at all beyond the trivial documentation of the various dimensions of constant relations in our language (nouns and verbs). Like game theory, logic does not scale. Our method of scaling logic has resulted in grammar just as the means of scaling physical interactions results in chemistry.
The foundations of mathematics consist of a trivial necessity of the consequences of constant relations made possible to measure by use of positional names. The foundations of Language (a sequence of transactions describing change in state of relations using semantics(referents), grammar/rules, syntax) consist of three ranges of experience(measurements): physical(voluntary), experiential(involuntary), and imaginary(voluntary). And the actionable universe ends at four dimensions. And the semantic universe is constructed by changes in state within them, given the three ranges of experiences available to us, just as the physical, chemical, biological, and semantic evolve from the underlying forces of the universe.
We have been trying to deflate our semantics, grammar, and syntax without grasping the rather obvious: that language consist of a fairly exhaustive inventory of thought at any given point in time, consisting of three sets of dimensions, four dimensions of reality, and n-dimensions of experience in an (as yet) endless set of hierarchical permutations. We must use language with some dependence upon logic or the relatively low bandwidth of serial phonetic communication using referential symbols would be useless.
So humans are good at scaling logic. The problem we face consists of the conflation of various semantic sets (sets of in-commensurable constant relations), and the ease at which people’s abilities are overloaded by that process, forcing us to return to intuition because of the un-testability of incommensurable suggestions.
in other words, logic merely amplifies the problem of overloading (which is why formal logic is not used outside of the discipline), and all other disciplines require demanding grammar, just as philosophy DOES NOT (heidegger etc).
The problem we face is not the study of logic which is a necessary property of comprehension using referents (symbols) but constraining the grammar to complete transactions and the semantics to correspondence with a universal standard, and the only universal standard available to man – is actions.
NOW, IN THIS CONTEXT, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION.
Does any ideal exist? No.
Identity requires a contract for constant relations.
The question is, who is that contract with? And what are the terms?
Because while a positional name cannot vary except in scale and referent, nearly all other names refer to some contractual necessity, norm, or habit.
Can I use a better name than another to refer to the same entity under the same terms? Of course.
The most parsimonious operational description possible constitutes the least erroneous name. Unfortunately, the terms of semantic contract vary substantially over time.
Yet if all are expressed in a universally commensurable language of operational descriptions, then it is very difficult for the contractual terms of that contract to vary over time.
Attempts to conflate the identity of positional names of scale independence with contractual references is rather foolish when we give it even the most tepid bit of thought.
Either we speak in measurements of we speak in fantasies, and the most important question is not whether we speak the optimum: the most parsimonious description possible at the current level of understanding (truth), but whether we testify falsely as to the state of our knowledge.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-18 14:38:00 UTC
-
THE PROBLEM IS LYING AND OVERLOADING – NOT LOGIC. WE ARE HELLA GOOD AT LOGIC. WE
THE PROBLEM IS LYING AND OVERLOADING – NOT LOGIC. WE ARE HELLA GOOD AT LOGIC. WE ARE NOT HELLA GOOD AT OVERLOADING. HOW DO WE FIX THAT? GRAMMAR.
—“+Curt Doolittle I’m always worried about these revisionist solutions since it seems so strange to tell someone, when you say “is”, you think that you mean one thing, but actually you mean several different things. But that aside, it seems that your solution just bites the bullet and admits that there is no such thing as identity since the only way that we can actually talk about identity is to talk about some component of identity: ownership, differentiation etc. It seems that this solution gives up the game since it just acknoledges that there is no real relation we are talking about when we are talking about identity. When someone asks you on the witness stand, “is this the same gun that you saw the defendant shoot your wife with?” Your only response can be in some ways yes and in other ways no, but identity is always a deception. If you think this, that’s fine, it is jsut a big bullet to bite. Or perhaps I have misrepresented your position?”— Carneades.org
Apologies in advance that this is a bit heavy, but I have been thru your (wonderful) set of videos and you are clearly sophisticated enough for substantive discourse.
THE CURSE OF INSTITUTIONALIZED PARADIGMS
😉 It seems strange to tell someone that the earth is round, or that the stars are not pricks in the fabric of the sky, or most of all that velocity through space significantly alters the rate of change we call time. The fact that we continually correct ourselves is the purpose of reason. The strangeness of an increase in parsimony is evidence of the substantiality of error given its absence.
Why? because by the combination of memory, action, and reason, we can continually increase our agency (physical, emotional, intellectual, social, political, evolutionary) and continually increase the capture of differences in state of the universe through our actions.
OBSCURANTISM
When we use the verb “to-be”, we use it to obscure one of the following (including my intentional use of the verb to be to refer to “currently acting” (doing) as illustration).
1 – to overcome limits of less able minds to bear the cost in short term memory of
2 – to save time and effort of grammatical construction among those who share sufficient context that they will not misconstrue our intent.
3 – to avoid accountability for our testimony (promise).
4 – to inflate a promise (conduct a pretense of knowledge) by habitual repetition of a convention we do not understand
5 – to obscure our ignorance of the relations we testify to (promise).
6 – to suggest relations that are present but insufficient for fulfillment of our promise.
7 – to suggest relations that are not present because of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, for the purpose of coercion.
8 – to suggest relations that are not present for the purpose of deception or fraud.
In other words, we use it because of Convenience, Ignorance, Error, Coercion, and Deceit..
THE FICTION OF CONFLATION OF LAW(SCRIPTURE) WITH SPEECH.
And so, while we can interpret scripture, the written word, and the recorded law, when we are dependent upon appeals to the authority of scripture, written word, and recorded law, in any circumstance where recursive discourse is possible, we produce statements that are undeniable (false), decidable(true), informative but undecidable, undecidable, and incomprehensible. And we can determine intentions are scientific and logical (false), testimonial and constructive (moral/true ), honest(moral), considerate(polite), immoral (coercive), and criminal (fraudulent).
TRANSACTIONS RATHER THAN CREATIVE INTERPRETATIONS AND DECEPTIONS
And to determine degree of decidability, and intentionality requires little more than complete sentences(full accounting) in operational grammar and semantics (complete transactions). And exercises in the ‘interpretation’ of incomplete transactions is … well, something close to a victorian parlor game.
For example:
“The cat is black” vs “I promise I see a cat, and I promise that its body appears black.”
Is very similar to:
“It’s a rational number” vs “That number consists of a fractional ratio of two or more positional names converted to decimal notation, that produces a equi-divisible, and therefore terminating, positional name” (where fraction is defined elsewhere).
is very similar to:
“The square root of two” and “infinity”, neither of which can exist, for precisely the same reasons: limits.
And in the Ship of Theseus “of” serves that same function as ‘is’: to mislead.
Stating the question as “That ship we contractually refer to as the ship owned by, paid for by, designed by, crafted by, constructed of….” each asks a different question.” (Our nouns contain these general properties of ownership, probability etc).
While nouns, ( or referrers ) may be constructed by many means, from the arbitrary, to the fictional, to the allegorical, to the analogical, to the normative and traditional, to the descriptive to a set of measurements, to a set of relative measurements of a set of constant relations.
So the ship of theseus consists which category of referrers? A contractual (normative) one.
THE OPERATIONAL NAME OF “LOGIC”.
The word “logic”, operationally refers to ‘the preservation of constant relations’ between states (statements) by one or more dimensions of constant relations.
1 – So far as we know, the universe consists entirely of a hierarchical network of constant relations. (Soft Determinism)
2 – While that universe appears to consist of a small number of constant relations (state) and possible operations (changes in state), through layers of permutations of possible operations great complexity can emerge.
3 – Statements Definitions, tautologies, deductions, inductions, abductions and guesses (even free associations) require some set of constant relations between states (statements), by one or more dimensions of constant relations.
4 – We are able to promise descriptions through guesses
5 – We are able to state Tautologies through Guesses (even free associations) as a means of suggesting relations.
6 – And we are able to state sets of tautologies through guesses to cumulatively (repeatedly) suggest relations.
7 – And we are able at times (special cases) to construct proofs of possibility that survive competition with proofs of impossibility. (Where a proof consists of demonstration and survival of the preservation of constant relations between states (Statements).
STRONG LANGUAGE WITH WEAK GRAMMAR
Lucky as we are that english provides as a low context high precision language, and luckier that we are that english grammar generates an analytic rather than synthetic language, and lucky as we are that english contains semantics dialects such as working class germanic, aristocratic french, and intellectual latin and greek. And lucky as we are that english preserves methodological dialects, each of which varies in the preservation of one or more constant relations, including but not limited to the categorical (differences), arithmetic (positional), mathematical, financial, (formal) logical, algorithmic, scientific, legal, experiential(ordinary), fictional, mythic, supernatural, and occult. We remain somewhere between unlucky and primitive, because our grammar remains tainted by the 20th century failure of brewer, bridgman, mises, hayek, popper and dozens of others to complete the transition through probabilistic to operational semantics and grammar.
But as lucky as we are and as unlucky as we have been, it is quite possible to produce a semantics, grammar and syntax of universal commensurability across all methodological dialects, using each to falsify the other. And that is the continued evolution of inventions of science, (inherited quite honestly from engineering), of the limit of testimony (descriptions) to operational language.
THE SHIP OF THESEUS AS AN EXERCISE IN THE STUDY OF DECEPTION.
Rational (kantian) Philosophy, mathematical platonism, pseudoscientific ficationalsms, hermeneutics, the interpretation of scripture, and the interpretation of law, all are
So the proper answer to the Ship of Theseus, is that names consist of some combination of promises, and the contract for the name of the ship of theseus is by definition provided by the question, one of ownership, and our underlying cause of this undecidability begs the questions:
1) why are we ignorant of grammar and semantics of the language we use, and
2) why does sophomoric philosophy consist largely of questions employing this weakness in our semantics, grammar and its understanding,
3) why is it, that we do not ask the question why most paradoxes of this nature are not in fact paradoxes, but deceptions. And
4) why do we not learn that our world is full of deceptions because of the persistence of ideal, supernatural, and occult semantics and grammar? And
5) why do we not punish people who perpetuate such deceptions by use of ideal, supernatural, and occult semantics and grammar? 😉 (The last a bit tongue in cheek.)
So this particular ‘deception’ (by means of suggestion) is interesting because it provides a vehicle for exploring the techniques of deception and the techniques we use to construct names, and the REASON we use those names rather than other names. So we could say the ship built for theseus, using money he’d made from trading olive oil, by tom, dick, and harry, and designed by eric, during a certain date range, at a certain port, out of materials obtained from here there and everywhere.
So the question is, which constant relations are we discussing? If the ship is dismantled and rebuilt by the same design I would say that one does not testify falsely by using the same short-name (theseus’s ship Mathilda).
(more…)
TRANSACTIONS: (CLOSING SUGGESTION): LOGIC WITHOUT GRAMMAR IDENTICAL TO ADDITION WITHOUT EQUALS SIGN, OR ACCOUNTING WITHOUT BALANCES, OR THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE WITHOUT EQUILIBRATION.
Now, one last idea for you to mull over: We have been fussing over ‘logic’ for a very long time, and by and large it turns out to have done nothing at all beyond the trivial documentation of the various dimensions of constant relations in our language (nouns and verbs). Like game theory, logic does not scale. Our method of scaling logic has resulted in grammar just as the means of scaling physical interactions results in chemistry.
The foundations of mathematics consist of a trivial necessity of the consequences of constant relations made possible to measure by use of positional names. The foundations of Language (a sequence of transactions describing change in state of relations using semantics(referents), grammar/rules, syntax) consist of three ranges of experience(measurements): physical(voluntary), experiential(involuntary), and imaginary(voluntary). And the actionable universe ends at four dimensions. And the semantic universe is constructed by changes in state within them, given the three ranges of experiences available to us, just as the physical, chemical, biological, and semantic evolve from the underlying forces of the universe.
We have been trying to deflate our semantics, grammar, and syntax without grasping the rather obvious: that language consist of a fairly exhaustive inventory of thought at any given point in time, consisting of three sets of dimensions, four dimensions of reality, and n-dimensions of experience in an (as yet) endless set of hierarchical permutations. We must use language with some dependence upon logic or the relatively low bandwidth of serial phonetic communication using referential symbols would be useless.
So humans are good at scaling logic. The problem we face consists of the conflation of various semantic sets (sets of in-commensurable constant relations), and the ease at which people’s abilities are overloaded by that process, forcing us to return to intuition because of the un-testability of incommensurable suggestions.
in other words, logic merely amplifies the problem of overloading (which is why formal logic is not used outside of the discipline), and all other disciplines require demanding grammar, just as philosophy DOES NOT (heidegger etc).
The problem we face is not the study of logic which is a necessary property of comprehension using referents (symbols) but constraining the grammar to complete transactions and the semantics to correspondence with a universal standard, and the only universal standard available to man – is actions.
Curt Doolittle
35 minutes ago (edited)
TRANSACTIONS: (CLOSING SUGGESTION): LOGIC WITHOUT GRAMMAR IDENTICAL TO ADDITION WITHOUT EQUALS SIGN, OR ACCOUNTING WITHOUT BALANCES, OR THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE WITHOUT EQUILIBRATION.
Now, one last idea for you to mull over: We have been fussing over ‘logic’ for a very long time, and by and large it turns out to have done nothing at all beyond the trivial documentation of the various dimensions of constant relations in our language (nouns and verbs). Like game theory, logic does not scale. Our method of scaling logic has resulted in grammar just as the means of scaling physical interactions results in chemistry.
The foundations of mathematics consist of a trivial necessity of the consequences of constant relations made possible to measure by use of positional names. The foundations of Language (a sequence of transactions describing change in state of relations using semantics(referents), grammar/rules, syntax) consist of three ranges of experience(measurements): physical(voluntary), experiential(involuntary), and imaginary(voluntary). And the actionable universe ends at four dimensions. And the semantic universe is constructed by changes in state within them, given the three ranges of experiences available to us, just as the physical, chemical, biological, and semantic evolve from the underlying forces of the universe.
We have been trying to deflate our semantics, grammar, and syntax without grasping the rather obvious: that language consist of a fairly exhaustive inventory of thought at any given point in time, consisting of three sets of dimensions, four dimensions of reality, and n-dimensions of experience in an (as yet) endless set of hierarchical permutations. We must use language with some dependence upon logic or the relatively low bandwidth of serial phonetic communication using referential symbols would be useless.
So humans are good at scaling logic. The problem we face consists of the conflation of various semantic sets (sets of in-commensurable constant relations), and the ease at which people’s abilities are overloaded by that process, forcing us to return to intuition because of the un-testability of incommensurable suggestions.
in other words, logic merely amplifies the problem of overloading (which is why formal logic is not used outside of the discipline), and all other disciplines require demanding grammar, just as philosophy DOES NOT (heidegger etc).
The problem we face is not the study of logic which is a necessary property of comprehension using referents (symbols) but constraining the grammar to complete transactions and the semantics to correspondence with a universal standard, and the only universal standard available to man – is actions.
NOW, IN THIS CONTEXT, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION.
Does any ideal exist? No.
Identity requires a contract for constant relations.
The question is, who is that contract with? And what are the terms?
Because while a positional name cannot vary except in scale and referent, nearly all other names refer to some contractual necessity, norm, or habit.
Can I use a better name than another to refer to the same entity under the same terms? Of course.
The most parsimonious operational description possible constitutes the least erroneous name. Unfortunately, the terms of semantic contract vary substantially over time.
Yet if all are expressed in a universally commensurable language of operational descriptions, then it is very difficult for the contractual terms of that contract to vary over time.
Attempts to conflate the identity of positional names of scale independence with contractual references is rather foolish when we give it even the most tepid bit of thought.
Either we speak in measurements of we speak in fantasies, and the most important question is not whether we speak the optimum: the most parsimonious description possible at the current level of understanding (truth), but whether we testify falsely as to the state of our knowledge.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-18 14:38:00 UTC