FOR SALON: A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW As one of the principle philosophers of what liberals refer to as “reactionary fascism”…. … I’d like to add that the problem with both neo-liberalism and movement-conservatism has been the assumption that the other side would eventually ‘catch on’ rather than pursue their own interests. Liberal(socialist) strategy reflects the female reproductive strategy to increase the viability of her offspring regardless of its merit to the tribe, and to increase numbers in an attempt to prevent alphas from controlling the direction of evolution. The conservative(aristocratic) strategy reflects the male reproductive strategy to increase the viability of the tribe in competition with other tribes, regardless of the interests of the uncompetitive individuals within it. What happened instead, was that once the difference between male and female reproductive strategy was no longer constrained to the family, and that policy was no longer developed to advance the family, was that females first, and as a consequence, more recently males, have each pursued their individual reproductive interests in politics and law, instead of compromising them within the family, and voting in the interests of the family. Ergo, just as socialism(non-merit) advances the interests of females and underclasses, aristocracy(merit) – what you call fascism – advances the interests of the male. The institutional solution to this problem of conflict are either (a) restoration of the family as the central purpose of policy – rather than the individual, or (b) the separation of houses in to gender, class and race, so that all must agree to any policy in order for it to ascend into legislative law. The west advanced faster than ‘the rest’ in large part because of successfully instituted eugenic reproduction over a period of many hundreds of years. 1) Late marriage ensuring women were experienced at working and running households. 2) Prohibition on cousin marriage out to as many as 12 generations – ensuring limited genetic damage from inbreeding that is so influential in much of the world. 3) Extension of property rights to women ensuring that cousin marriage could not be used to hold territory in a clan. 4) The use of Bipartite Manorialism to restrict access to farmland to married couples of demonstrated character sufficient to make use of it. 5) Heavy taxation that limited the reproduction of the lower classes. 6) Hanging 1/2 to 1% of the population every single year. 7) The cumulative effect being the upward redistribution of reproduction to the genetic middle class. Liberalism(female reproductive strategy) inverts this aristocracy/fascism(male reproductive strategy), redistributing reproduction downward to the lower classes. WHY DOES THIS DIFFERENCE EXIST? Man has developed two strategies for organizing(governing) societies, with each necessary for the demographics each governs. 1) The Persian/Iranian/Jewish/Egyptian (Managers) In the fertile crescent the climate allows the survival of many offspring and the use of flood plains can make use of genetically lower class labor and slaves. In the Persian/Jewish/Egyptian model, an elite uses verbal mysticism to dominate and ‘farm’ the lower classes, using large slave armies. 2) The Chinese / Russian (conquerors) The Conquering Peoples. The Chinese rapidly advanced beyond flood plains out of defense against raiding neighbors and then converted to authoritarian conquerors. But out of genetic and cultural diversity, had to maintain authoritarian order. The Russians -steppe raiders- learned their governance from the conquering Mongols, and so started as conquerors, and because of genetic and cultural diversity had to maintain authoritarian order – bypassing both the flood pain, and the 3) The Hellenic/Roman/Germanic (enfranchisors) The forest-and-rivers of the european plain allow for if not require, individual family farms, and the survival of harsh winters limits the ability of the genetically lower classes from survival. In the Hellenic/Roman/Germanic model, an elite uses rule of law among many peers to suppress the reproduction and burden of the lower classes, using militia and voluntarily organized warriors. 4) The Hindu/South American Model (Failed Managers) In this model the aristocracy is so overwhelmed by the numbers of the underclasses that it cannot create Pareto-distribution of property, and without the control of the flood plains, the only method of insuring the survivability of the populace is through castes, and constraining the upper classes from down-breeding. We see this socialist strategy today in the Islamic forced indoctrination, in Jewish verbalism – information control by saturation of it, and in Chinese/Russian violence/censorship – information control by limiting it. All three of these methods are constructed of deceit. We see this aristocratic strategy today only in Germanic the west, that still seeks to parent society into a universal genetic middle class – an ‘aristocracy of everyone’ – by the suppression or at least out-casting of the underclasses. THE WEST MUST CHOOSE A FUTURE SUITABLE TO ITS DEMOGRAPHIC, AND A DEMOGRAPHIC SUITABLE TO ITS DESIRED FUTURE The Aristocratic Egalitarian System (that everyone seems to want to belong to) The Caste System (which is evolving in south america) The Authoritarian Disinformation System (Russia and china) The Authoritarian Mystical System (Judaism in all its many forms / Islamism) In the end, we must abandon the pseudosciences of the Jewish Enlightenment: Boaz, Freud, Marx, and the Frankfurt School. As well as the pseudosciences of the continentals: the postmodernists. As well as the pseudosciences of the soviets. Our world is as genetic as that of domesticated animals. We are unequal. And it is more important that we suppress the reproduction of the lower classes than it is that we attempt to improve the upper. There is precious little evidence that more than two and a half standard deviations in intelligence make much difference – instead it introduces dysfunction. Our problem is increasing the domestication and intelligence of the population by one standard deviation (15 points) and we cannot do that, nor possess prosperity, nor redistribution, nor liberty, if we reverse three thousand years of eugenic reproduction. This is the world as it is. Governing the people we possess. With the people we possess to govern with. Neoliberalism is yet another lie. A new mysticism. A secular religion. An evolution of Egyptian, Persian, Jewish, Muslim thought. Nothing more. Yet another set of appealing lies. And those lies are a prison for genes, and therefore for man. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Form: Full Essay
-
Ukraine. An Unpleasant Verdict on Her Future
[I] have been speaking or presenting to Ukrainians a lot of late, and I’ve come to understand that the damage done by Russia to her people and these people, to the Chinese by law, policy, and influence, to the Indians by education and influence, to the west by imitation, and maybe to all mankind by consequence, is as great as the damage done by christianity to our people in the ancient era. Ukrainians had common law, credible judges, a moral population, a middle class, and high culture. It was a very poor country. And the Russians brought schools, roads, and hospitals to the peasantry. But they also brought genocide, secret police, “disappearances”, torture, gulags, slave labor, distrust, rule by fear, a culture of deceit, a culture of corruption, a culture of immorality… and a thousand other ills that are nearly impossible to reverse without generations and strong leadership from western aristocratic peoples. The Russians do not accept their crimes any more than the jews accept theirs, the Chinese theirs, or the ancient christians theirs. The americans and British do recognize their failures. But still they try to drag man into prosperity and out of his natural state of endemic corruption. And they do not know or accept that the reason for their success was their ancestor’s aristocratic paternal parenting of degenerate, corrupt, violent man. And without their rule man cannot be dragged out of ignorance and poverty. But dragging Ukraine out of her poverty is a task the Ukrainian people are no longer fit for. They lack the will, the agency, the courage, the discipline, to systematically crush corruption in all walks of life through persistent universal threats of violence. So I have changed my mind. Ukraine has a Russian-created and maintained, failed state, and the people suffer in poverty for it. Ukrainans are genetically exceptional. They are our Urheimat. Our purest kin. Ukrainians are not genetically broken, but they are culturally (normatively) broken. Having given birth to great thinkers such as Menger and Mises, they are as corrupt now as the Jews and Russians that corrupted them. They merely lack the aggression of Jews and Russians. They lack courage. They lack empirical rather than moral reasoning. They lack the understanding of incentives that comes with a middle class and a middle class bureaucracy. They are no longer superstitious christians but remain moral christians lacking all conviction. Last night, a reporter told me I was a romantic to think that the judiciary could be fixed. I thought that was strange because my solution was to hang a lot of them, increase the salaries of the younger generation, give the judiciary its own sheriff force of ex-military men, create an inspectors branch, and then reorganized bureaucracies one at a time using technology to create transparency. But just as a revolution requires outside financial support, reformation of Ukrainian law and bureaucracy requires outside financial support. And during the 20th century, states could use fiat currency to borrow against future production, and pay for their transformations. In the Russian and Chinese era they turned to slave labor to accomplish what capitalists accomplished with fiat credit. So Ukraine would need to effectively go into a receivership model relationship with a third party – the EU, or America, or Canada – in order to make use of third party funds to pay for her restoration. Loosely speaking, this restoration of the government would cost is in the neighborhood of $5B over 6 years, with a >50% likelihood that an additional $2.5B would be required. Most of this cost would go to increased salaries in the judicial, sheriff, and investigatory branch, and for the software to create transparency in the government, but partly made up by increased fees now captured by corruption (theft), which the citizens will be willing to pay – even if it means they only pay the increased fees for the ‘faster processing’ lines. The primary cost of software in such cases is adapting it to the miscreant processes followed by a bureaucracies. Instead, Ukrainian reform would restructure the bureaucracy to accommodate the software processes. We would need to train and bond people in the bureaucracy and every person would be criminally liable, without exception, for his actions and the actions of all others in his or her chain of processing. There is an argument to be made that bribery here amounts to pay-for-service, with the government employees obtaining only a minimum salary. Very much like commissioned salespeople. And in many bureaucracies this understandable as long as it is still POSSIBLE to spend time (delay) instead of money. However, collecting fees for preferential service given the different value of each of our time, is different from collecting fees for circumventing law, or collecting fees for violating the law, or collecting fees to avoid punishment by the law, or collecting fees to avoid false prosecution under constructed (intentionally exploited) laws. In the past few days I have seen corruption that we westerners cannot imagine: Judges requiring bribes to give a fair sentence instead of an exaggerated sentence: this is extortion plain and simple. I have seen a state media outlet whose director is appointed, so that he can pay kickbacks from ghost jobs to the city council members that appoint him. I have seen parents educate their children in how to find jobs that allow corruption, and how to get away with corruption. I have seen policemen bribed by ‘bums’ to let them sleep on benches. I’ve seen policemen bribed by street vendors so that they can harass passer’s by, and encroach on public streets. The source of liberty is not government. It is that priesthood we westerners take for granted because they do not teach us myths, direct us to specific ends, or interact with us in rituals other than court and jury. This priesthood has served us for thousands of years. Improving during most, regressing during some. it is the priesthood and the militia that govern. The rest is consequence. Liberty is created at the bottom by men who tolerate nothing else. Ukrainians are a bit lazy, a bit cowardly, a bit suspicious, a bit dishonest, a bit ignorant, and a bit dirty, and all too comfortable with taking joy in petty thievery. They are all these things. They think ‘small’. They are just like the southern Italians prior to the european integration. They are examples of Banfield’s “Moral Basis of a Backward Society”. They are (like the Russians who made them) a Backward Society. They need aristocracy or a judicial priesthood, and a militia of common men desirous of prosperity for themselves and their kin. Political processes do not supply moral men. Moral men supply moral political processes, and immoral men supply immoral political processes. We all rule with the men we have. To rule morally requires moral men. To rule immorally requires immoral men. And Ukrainians have no moral men of courage with which to rule. And that is the sum of my four years struggling to understand them. And I am heartbroken by it.
-
Ukraine. An Unpleasant Verdict on Her Future
[I] have been speaking or presenting to Ukrainians a lot of late, and I’ve come to understand that the damage done by Russia to her people and these people, to the Chinese by law, policy, and influence, to the Indians by education and influence, to the west by imitation, and maybe to all mankind by consequence, is as great as the damage done by christianity to our people in the ancient era. Ukrainians had common law, credible judges, a moral population, a middle class, and high culture. It was a very poor country. And the Russians brought schools, roads, and hospitals to the peasantry. But they also brought genocide, secret police, “disappearances”, torture, gulags, slave labor, distrust, rule by fear, a culture of deceit, a culture of corruption, a culture of immorality… and a thousand other ills that are nearly impossible to reverse without generations and strong leadership from western aristocratic peoples. The Russians do not accept their crimes any more than the jews accept theirs, the Chinese theirs, or the ancient christians theirs. The americans and British do recognize their failures. But still they try to drag man into prosperity and out of his natural state of endemic corruption. And they do not know or accept that the reason for their success was their ancestor’s aristocratic paternal parenting of degenerate, corrupt, violent man. And without their rule man cannot be dragged out of ignorance and poverty. But dragging Ukraine out of her poverty is a task the Ukrainian people are no longer fit for. They lack the will, the agency, the courage, the discipline, to systematically crush corruption in all walks of life through persistent universal threats of violence. So I have changed my mind. Ukraine has a Russian-created and maintained, failed state, and the people suffer in poverty for it. Ukrainans are genetically exceptional. They are our Urheimat. Our purest kin. Ukrainians are not genetically broken, but they are culturally (normatively) broken. Having given birth to great thinkers such as Menger and Mises, they are as corrupt now as the Jews and Russians that corrupted them. They merely lack the aggression of Jews and Russians. They lack courage. They lack empirical rather than moral reasoning. They lack the understanding of incentives that comes with a middle class and a middle class bureaucracy. They are no longer superstitious christians but remain moral christians lacking all conviction. Last night, a reporter told me I was a romantic to think that the judiciary could be fixed. I thought that was strange because my solution was to hang a lot of them, increase the salaries of the younger generation, give the judiciary its own sheriff force of ex-military men, create an inspectors branch, and then reorganized bureaucracies one at a time using technology to create transparency. But just as a revolution requires outside financial support, reformation of Ukrainian law and bureaucracy requires outside financial support. And during the 20th century, states could use fiat currency to borrow against future production, and pay for their transformations. In the Russian and Chinese era they turned to slave labor to accomplish what capitalists accomplished with fiat credit. So Ukraine would need to effectively go into a receivership model relationship with a third party – the EU, or America, or Canada – in order to make use of third party funds to pay for her restoration. Loosely speaking, this restoration of the government would cost is in the neighborhood of $5B over 6 years, with a >50% likelihood that an additional $2.5B would be required. Most of this cost would go to increased salaries in the judicial, sheriff, and investigatory branch, and for the software to create transparency in the government, but partly made up by increased fees now captured by corruption (theft), which the citizens will be willing to pay – even if it means they only pay the increased fees for the ‘faster processing’ lines. The primary cost of software in such cases is adapting it to the miscreant processes followed by a bureaucracies. Instead, Ukrainian reform would restructure the bureaucracy to accommodate the software processes. We would need to train and bond people in the bureaucracy and every person would be criminally liable, without exception, for his actions and the actions of all others in his or her chain of processing. There is an argument to be made that bribery here amounts to pay-for-service, with the government employees obtaining only a minimum salary. Very much like commissioned salespeople. And in many bureaucracies this understandable as long as it is still POSSIBLE to spend time (delay) instead of money. However, collecting fees for preferential service given the different value of each of our time, is different from collecting fees for circumventing law, or collecting fees for violating the law, or collecting fees to avoid punishment by the law, or collecting fees to avoid false prosecution under constructed (intentionally exploited) laws. In the past few days I have seen corruption that we westerners cannot imagine: Judges requiring bribes to give a fair sentence instead of an exaggerated sentence: this is extortion plain and simple. I have seen a state media outlet whose director is appointed, so that he can pay kickbacks from ghost jobs to the city council members that appoint him. I have seen parents educate their children in how to find jobs that allow corruption, and how to get away with corruption. I have seen policemen bribed by ‘bums’ to let them sleep on benches. I’ve seen policemen bribed by street vendors so that they can harass passer’s by, and encroach on public streets. The source of liberty is not government. It is that priesthood we westerners take for granted because they do not teach us myths, direct us to specific ends, or interact with us in rituals other than court and jury. This priesthood has served us for thousands of years. Improving during most, regressing during some. it is the priesthood and the militia that govern. The rest is consequence. Liberty is created at the bottom by men who tolerate nothing else. Ukrainians are a bit lazy, a bit cowardly, a bit suspicious, a bit dishonest, a bit ignorant, and a bit dirty, and all too comfortable with taking joy in petty thievery. They are all these things. They think ‘small’. They are just like the southern Italians prior to the european integration. They are examples of Banfield’s “Moral Basis of a Backward Society”. They are (like the Russians who made them) a Backward Society. They need aristocracy or a judicial priesthood, and a militia of common men desirous of prosperity for themselves and their kin. Political processes do not supply moral men. Moral men supply moral political processes, and immoral men supply immoral political processes. We all rule with the men we have. To rule morally requires moral men. To rule immorally requires immoral men. And Ukrainians have no moral men of courage with which to rule. And that is the sum of my four years struggling to understand them. And I am heartbroken by it.
-
DEAR PATRIARCHY I hope it’s OK to ask to work through this with you. We have bee
DEAR PATRIARCHY
I hope it’s OK to ask to work through this with you.
We have been conquered by lies (pseudoscience mostly) distributed to our women and underclasses just as the greeks and roman were conquered by lies (christian authoritarian mysticism) distributed to our women and underclasses. We have lost control of our media, academy, and school due to the perverse incentive of hyper-consumption.
The best political religion I know of is Roman law. The best common religion is nature and hero worship. The best personal religion is stoicism. And our competitive advantage in the ancient and modern worlds has been truth, trust, commons, technology and war. While in the middle period we were terribly weakened by Christianity. So weak that without the conquest of the viking pagans we would not have survived the ongoing muslim conquest.
I understand the importance of pulpit and doctrine. But I can find nothing of value in Christianity other than its continuation of natural law, and its institutional emphasis on the family as the unit of production, reproduction, and government.
Yes, the church introduced (for selfish purposes): The forcible prohibition on inbreeding. The forcible extension of property (legal) rights to women. The persuasive educational introduction of chivalry as a means of absorbing males into the commons. B
But the creation of northern Europe was the result of manorialism -small business that limited the reproduction of the lower classes and redistributed wealth and reproduction to the middle and upper classes. Combined with the aggressive use of hanging to gradually domesticate the recalcitrant lower classes. The wars and plagues, winters and famines that kept their numbers under control. The rise of the Hansa society and it’s extension of middle class wealth. Our rediscovery of greek and roman thought that brought us advanced science and technology. And the printing press that gave us an advantage over the rest of the world in using this knowledge.
If anything those countries last to be converted survived far better than those countries first to be converted to christianity. The earlier that they were converted the worse they are today.
The church like the present state claimed responsibility for virtues while distributing harms. But there is little evidence that the church contributed rather than held back our civilization.
Today’s pulpit is academy and press. This is a profoundly destructive combination since they distribute hyperconsumption largely to women and the underclasses instead of suppressing the underclasses. In effect, we are **re-wilding** the world, and reversing thousands of years of our ancestor’s domestication of man.
So when we say ‘return to tradition’, I see the importance of a return to the suppression of the underclasses, a continuation of domestication of the world, a return to the family rather than the individual as the central unit of production and reproduction. An end to the downward redistribution of productivity. An ongoing suppression of impulsivity in the commons. We must render the commons sacred once again and therefore prohibit it from consumption by the hordes.
The church provided the underclass population with love, care, and insurance. And a modicum of useful information. It was always a tool of the aristocracy in the north. But where the church gained power in the south, the catholic countries, all was worse, and remains so.
Even venice was just an outpost for the byzantines, and provided their navy. Christianity was just a way of controlling the underclasses. It was decoration not substance.
The most important institution that developed in Europe was the finance system of the templars, yet the church killed them off in order to relieve its debt. The revolutions against the monarchy were more so against the church ownership of land, and its parasitism than it was against the emergent private state.
What upset the order was the rifle as much as the industrial revolution. What destroyed our order was grant of equal status to women in the government. It took women 100 years to make use of the work of jewish thinkers once again to destroy our order once again, and bring about another ‘christian’ dark age. Yet this was the result of christian incentives not aristocratic or paternal incentives.
All religions bind. The value in binding is universal. That is separate from the content and result of teachings. The good in christianity comes from the ritual and the shared teaching that binds us together as a society under an authoritarian, domesticating, paternal order of the family, rather than an egalitarian, dysgenic, feminine order of hyper consumption of all that we have accumulated over the centuries since our ancestors first combined horse, wheel, and bronze into chariot and created the Aristocratic, Paternal Order and began domesticating man.
So why must we restore that which by the evidence, if not by our Intuition, is part and parcel of our conquest?
Why not use the church, and alter the experience to teach that which must be learned, to continue our traditional domestication of man? Why not return to the unstated religion of raising man to the transcendent gods we imagine in our myths and legends?
Why reintroduce the babylonian mysticism that has been so detrimental and that we have worked so hard to escape?
The germans have at least twice tried to overcome christianity and failed. And it is our anglo CHRISTIANITY that caused them to fail.
We have been wrong in the english speaking world many times.
And each time we have been wrong it has been our christianity driving us. And each time we have hurt western civilization it has been in an attempt to constrain our reemergent indo-european pagan intuitions.
Christianity and Judaism are the reasons we suffer not our salvation. There has been one secret to the success of the west in the ancient and modern worlds, and that is truth, reason, science, a love of nature, and our desire to transcend into the gods we worship.
We require pulpit, church and canon. But not the destructive one of the byzantines, babylonians, Egyptians and Jews. We have our own gods, heroes, history, and our accomplishments with our own outshine those of all others combined.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute,
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-12 07:52:00 UTC
-
The Athenian Art of Truth vs Jerusalem’s Art of Lying
(VERY IMPORTANT PIECE) (h/t: eli harman) [P]ilpul is a craft. It is ‘the art of lying’. It is one of the oldest written arts. The art of justifying anything. The art of loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion. The art of constructing loaded relations in the mind so that a justification for for a desired action can be found. It’s the art of overwhelming the human mind with the stimulation of language so that the stimulations of experience cannot compete. Because while searching to understand one is open to suggestion – to inception – to deceit. It is the source of the last century’s transformation of western law from a descriptive science that prohibits involuntary transfers, and preserves the peace, to a system of moral justification by which people can be brought into political conflict so that political power can be obtained by force of government. Marx’s “Dialectical Materialism” is just an application of Pilpul. The vast expansion of pseudoscience during the 19th and 20th has been achieved through the use of the technique whereby it is possible to justify anything if you seek justification of it through ‘meaning’ rather than seek correspondence to existence using internally consistent and externally correspondent language. In the west we use the opposite technique: existential operations. We did so because of the the Roman conversion of greek platonism to empirical law. Because if you want to justify something using ‘meaning’ rather than existential operations, you can find or create that justification. This is the meaning of hermeneutic interpretation. The study of texts and language in order to assist you in free association by which you can justify anything is in accord with that text. And this is why strict construction and operational language, identity and non conflation, external correspondence and internal consistency, full accounting, parsimony and limits, and objective morality are required of us if we are to speak truthfully and cause no harm to others by untruthful speech. Westerners invented truth and we speak the truth. We are so indoctrinated into seeking to understand one another, and so habituated trust in one another, that we have forgotten how how to detect lies. Our empathy, our trust, are exactly what is needed for the naive training of – deceit of – our minds through suggestion. We have stopped teaching logic and rhetoric so that the left could spread lies. But even in teaching logic and rhetoric we taught rhetorical fallacies of construction. We did not teach how to counter lies of loading, framing, overloading and suggestion. Nor did we teach (or know) our cognitive biases – which are now the central canon of psychological study, or our genetic biases – which must become part of that canon. Even in our rhetoric we assume the others merely err, not that they intentionally lie, seek justification, and deceive. We have been trusting for so many thousands of years that we do not know the art of lying. We hare become naive in our trust. Pilpul is the training that educated the great deceits of Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, [even some of Popper], Rothbard, and the Frankfurt School: (Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Pollock, Fromm, Kirchheimer, Löwenthal, Neumann ,Grossman). Christianity and Kantian rationalism are the training that was provided to the great continental liars that still persist in both the german rationalist, and american postmodern traditions. The originators and the propagators do not really know they lie any more than women who engage in ever-present never-escapable, but often unimaginable female wishful thinking know they lie. But if enough people go along with the lie, it is as good enough for them as it is if we discover some fundamental truth and spread it. It is the technique by which academics, jews, and women have used their weakness to create a new religion as mystical and deadly as the last that sent us into a dark age for a thousand years, from which we emerged over the next thousand through the the use of truth under the name we surreptitiously called ‘science’ in order to not accuse the church and academy and state of lying. Science is the discipline by which we practice the art of speaking truthfully. That we had to call it something other than truthful speech is an indictment of all the rest of society by the few who practice truthful speech. Reason, reasonableness and science (and not philosophical rationalism) have been attempts to create a specialization in truth telling without threatening the religious moral and legal leaders. Our law was converted from an empirical science to a religo-moral form of jewish mysticism over the course of the twentieth century by constant use of the PilPul tradition. Law identifies and lists the methods by which we humans prey upon one another, and prohibits them going forward. Law is a purely empirical study. But the talmud is not a vehicle for science of truth telling. The indo european anglo saxon law is such a vehicle. The talmud is not empirical it is justificationary. It is an instruction manual for lying. And pilpul is the technique by which one learns to lie. The ancient battle between Athens and Jerusalem is one between science and truth, and justification and deceit. And governments are pragmatic. They will use truth or lie as it suits them. Notice how rationalism in philosophy and legal relativism have evolved in tandem. Philosophy has been used to lie as much as it has ben used to tell the truth. Legislation is not law, unless it is also legal. Legislation consists of some combination of law(science of prohibition of parasitism), contract (exchange between parties), and Command (export of costs), and predation (bureaucratic parasitism). But law is a very simple thing: an empirically accumulated record of the methods of parasitic action, and the methods of restitution for having committed them. The only western philosophy needed is and has ever been our common law. The rest of it is an attempt to gain power, or an attempt to justify the separation of truth seeking in the form of science, from the discipline of lying in its many forms – particularly religio-moral forms. We are in this position because only Darwin and Einstein fully succeeded in their disciplines. Spencer failed in philosophy because he was not co-temporal with Popper’s falsification. Popper failed in epistemology – an irony for the ages. Mises, Hayek failed in economics. Brouwer failed in math. Bridgman in Science. All our sages failed in law – first because western law is practiced as a cult of the law, rather than as a science of the prohibitions of involuntary transfer. And Tesla and Turing and programming came to late to instruct all of the above in the solution of strict construction and operational language by limit of discourse to existential terminology. It has fallen to my generation to stand on the shoulders of great men and look back at their failings and to understand why it is that they failed, and how to restore truth to our discourse. When we encountered the enlightenment era we had to solve the problem of cooperating at scale – with different people from different nations. But all our moral discourse for intertribal and international cooperation was constructed out of myth and mysticism. We had to invent economics. Not as ‘truth’ but as a separate discipline in order not to offend our elites. Just as we had to invent science and reason as separate disciplines as not to offend our elites. We have spend millennia trying not to offend our elites – who rule by lie. To solve this problem forever, we have to punish our elites for their use of anything other than truth. We humans can organize around truth, morality, and correspondence, or we can organize around falsehood, immorality, and non-correspondence. By constructing these great deceits, the jewish enlightenment caused tremendous damage to western civilization. Although ALL the enlightenments did so. Look at what France has become? Look at what england is becoming. Look at all of europe. The lie of Rousseuaian France. The lie of Kantian rationalism. The lie of british aristocracy of everyone. The lie of the free ride of Keynesian Economics – that we can increase employment without consuming all other forms of national capital in the process. That between keynesian pseudoscience and jewish pseudoscience, our civilization had been destroyed, and we have been brought to near extinction. What is the difference between the immediacy of a gas chamber and the slow process of extermination by a new process of conversion and gradual suicide? What is the difference between gradual suicide and immediate displacement through immigration of non-kin and competitors? If we give the Chinese heroin and ruin their civilization and they kick us out forever, they are right. If we give teh lie of the good of democracy instead of the truth of the common law and science to others, they are right to reject us. If the jews and germans, and french and anglo enlightenment thinkers give us intellectual heroin and we like it very much – hyper-consumption is a naturally occurring heroin for humans – and it produces the exact same effect as heroin over longer periods. It overwhelms our reason. Hyper consumption of our genetic, territorial, physical, traditional, cultural, normative, capital, has been stimulating just as heroin is stimulating. But neither is an objective good. I think we forget that jewish verbalism and female verbalism have the same cause. That jewish argument and female argument have the same cause. That jewish group evolutionary strategy and female group evolutionary strategy are identical: to gossip, rally, shame and frame through repetition, to in order to survive no matter which group of males are in charge of them. Women act as such. Jews act as such. Jewish women are more masculine, and jewish men more feminine than competing orders. Conversely, western people absolutely LOVE to protect the weak as a sign of status. We love to demonstrate our masculine superiority by hosting more of the weak. Yet we merely invite those who conspire against us. The female encourages consumption to increase her rate of reproduction. That is her strategy. It has no mind or reason. Man herds. He manages his herd. He manages his territory. He manages the balance of each. He fights competitors. He expands his territory. In doing so he captures the genes that let him do so. END THE LIES. NOT JUST OF THE JEWS BUT OF ALL ENLIGHTENMENT THINKERS. Return the west by returning us to our martial foundations: Truth, Reason, Science, Testimony, Jury, Common Law, Rule of law, Universal standing, Natural Law necessary for rational voluntary cooperation. TRUTH IS ENOUGH. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilpul
-
The Athenian Art of Truth vs Jerusalem’s Art of Lying
(VERY IMPORTANT PIECE) (h/t: eli harman) [P]ilpul is a craft. It is ‘the art of lying’. It is one of the oldest written arts. The art of justifying anything. The art of loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion. The art of constructing loaded relations in the mind so that a justification for for a desired action can be found. It’s the art of overwhelming the human mind with the stimulation of language so that the stimulations of experience cannot compete. Because while searching to understand one is open to suggestion – to inception – to deceit. It is the source of the last century’s transformation of western law from a descriptive science that prohibits involuntary transfers, and preserves the peace, to a system of moral justification by which people can be brought into political conflict so that political power can be obtained by force of government. Marx’s “Dialectical Materialism” is just an application of Pilpul. The vast expansion of pseudoscience during the 19th and 20th has been achieved through the use of the technique whereby it is possible to justify anything if you seek justification of it through ‘meaning’ rather than seek correspondence to existence using internally consistent and externally correspondent language. In the west we use the opposite technique: existential operations. We did so because of the the Roman conversion of greek platonism to empirical law. Because if you want to justify something using ‘meaning’ rather than existential operations, you can find or create that justification. This is the meaning of hermeneutic interpretation. The study of texts and language in order to assist you in free association by which you can justify anything is in accord with that text. And this is why strict construction and operational language, identity and non conflation, external correspondence and internal consistency, full accounting, parsimony and limits, and objective morality are required of us if we are to speak truthfully and cause no harm to others by untruthful speech. Westerners invented truth and we speak the truth. We are so indoctrinated into seeking to understand one another, and so habituated trust in one another, that we have forgotten how how to detect lies. Our empathy, our trust, are exactly what is needed for the naive training of – deceit of – our minds through suggestion. We have stopped teaching logic and rhetoric so that the left could spread lies. But even in teaching logic and rhetoric we taught rhetorical fallacies of construction. We did not teach how to counter lies of loading, framing, overloading and suggestion. Nor did we teach (or know) our cognitive biases – which are now the central canon of psychological study, or our genetic biases – which must become part of that canon. Even in our rhetoric we assume the others merely err, not that they intentionally lie, seek justification, and deceive. We have been trusting for so many thousands of years that we do not know the art of lying. We hare become naive in our trust. Pilpul is the training that educated the great deceits of Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, [even some of Popper], Rothbard, and the Frankfurt School: (Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Pollock, Fromm, Kirchheimer, Löwenthal, Neumann ,Grossman). Christianity and Kantian rationalism are the training that was provided to the great continental liars that still persist in both the german rationalist, and american postmodern traditions. The originators and the propagators do not really know they lie any more than women who engage in ever-present never-escapable, but often unimaginable female wishful thinking know they lie. But if enough people go along with the lie, it is as good enough for them as it is if we discover some fundamental truth and spread it. It is the technique by which academics, jews, and women have used their weakness to create a new religion as mystical and deadly as the last that sent us into a dark age for a thousand years, from which we emerged over the next thousand through the the use of truth under the name we surreptitiously called ‘science’ in order to not accuse the church and academy and state of lying. Science is the discipline by which we practice the art of speaking truthfully. That we had to call it something other than truthful speech is an indictment of all the rest of society by the few who practice truthful speech. Reason, reasonableness and science (and not philosophical rationalism) have been attempts to create a specialization in truth telling without threatening the religious moral and legal leaders. Our law was converted from an empirical science to a religo-moral form of jewish mysticism over the course of the twentieth century by constant use of the PilPul tradition. Law identifies and lists the methods by which we humans prey upon one another, and prohibits them going forward. Law is a purely empirical study. But the talmud is not a vehicle for science of truth telling. The indo european anglo saxon law is such a vehicle. The talmud is not empirical it is justificationary. It is an instruction manual for lying. And pilpul is the technique by which one learns to lie. The ancient battle between Athens and Jerusalem is one between science and truth, and justification and deceit. And governments are pragmatic. They will use truth or lie as it suits them. Notice how rationalism in philosophy and legal relativism have evolved in tandem. Philosophy has been used to lie as much as it has ben used to tell the truth. Legislation is not law, unless it is also legal. Legislation consists of some combination of law(science of prohibition of parasitism), contract (exchange between parties), and Command (export of costs), and predation (bureaucratic parasitism). But law is a very simple thing: an empirically accumulated record of the methods of parasitic action, and the methods of restitution for having committed them. The only western philosophy needed is and has ever been our common law. The rest of it is an attempt to gain power, or an attempt to justify the separation of truth seeking in the form of science, from the discipline of lying in its many forms – particularly religio-moral forms. We are in this position because only Darwin and Einstein fully succeeded in their disciplines. Spencer failed in philosophy because he was not co-temporal with Popper’s falsification. Popper failed in epistemology – an irony for the ages. Mises, Hayek failed in economics. Brouwer failed in math. Bridgman in Science. All our sages failed in law – first because western law is practiced as a cult of the law, rather than as a science of the prohibitions of involuntary transfer. And Tesla and Turing and programming came to late to instruct all of the above in the solution of strict construction and operational language by limit of discourse to existential terminology. It has fallen to my generation to stand on the shoulders of great men and look back at their failings and to understand why it is that they failed, and how to restore truth to our discourse. When we encountered the enlightenment era we had to solve the problem of cooperating at scale – with different people from different nations. But all our moral discourse for intertribal and international cooperation was constructed out of myth and mysticism. We had to invent economics. Not as ‘truth’ but as a separate discipline in order not to offend our elites. Just as we had to invent science and reason as separate disciplines as not to offend our elites. We have spend millennia trying not to offend our elites – who rule by lie. To solve this problem forever, we have to punish our elites for their use of anything other than truth. We humans can organize around truth, morality, and correspondence, or we can organize around falsehood, immorality, and non-correspondence. By constructing these great deceits, the jewish enlightenment caused tremendous damage to western civilization. Although ALL the enlightenments did so. Look at what France has become? Look at what england is becoming. Look at all of europe. The lie of Rousseuaian France. The lie of Kantian rationalism. The lie of british aristocracy of everyone. The lie of the free ride of Keynesian Economics – that we can increase employment without consuming all other forms of national capital in the process. That between keynesian pseudoscience and jewish pseudoscience, our civilization had been destroyed, and we have been brought to near extinction. What is the difference between the immediacy of a gas chamber and the slow process of extermination by a new process of conversion and gradual suicide? What is the difference between gradual suicide and immediate displacement through immigration of non-kin and competitors? If we give the Chinese heroin and ruin their civilization and they kick us out forever, they are right. If we give teh lie of the good of democracy instead of the truth of the common law and science to others, they are right to reject us. If the jews and germans, and french and anglo enlightenment thinkers give us intellectual heroin and we like it very much – hyper-consumption is a naturally occurring heroin for humans – and it produces the exact same effect as heroin over longer periods. It overwhelms our reason. Hyper consumption of our genetic, territorial, physical, traditional, cultural, normative, capital, has been stimulating just as heroin is stimulating. But neither is an objective good. I think we forget that jewish verbalism and female verbalism have the same cause. That jewish argument and female argument have the same cause. That jewish group evolutionary strategy and female group evolutionary strategy are identical: to gossip, rally, shame and frame through repetition, to in order to survive no matter which group of males are in charge of them. Women act as such. Jews act as such. Jewish women are more masculine, and jewish men more feminine than competing orders. Conversely, western people absolutely LOVE to protect the weak as a sign of status. We love to demonstrate our masculine superiority by hosting more of the weak. Yet we merely invite those who conspire against us. The female encourages consumption to increase her rate of reproduction. That is her strategy. It has no mind or reason. Man herds. He manages his herd. He manages his territory. He manages the balance of each. He fights competitors. He expands his territory. In doing so he captures the genes that let him do so. END THE LIES. NOT JUST OF THE JEWS BUT OF ALL ENLIGHTENMENT THINKERS. Return the west by returning us to our martial foundations: Truth, Reason, Science, Testimony, Jury, Common Law, Rule of law, Universal standing, Natural Law necessary for rational voluntary cooperation. TRUTH IS ENOUGH. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilpul
-
ART OF TRUTH VS JERUSALEM’S ART OF LYING (h/t: eli harman) Pilpul is a craft. It
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PilpulATHENIAN ART OF TRUTH VS JERUSALEM’S ART OF LYING
(h/t: eli harman)
Pilpul is a craft. It is ‘the art of lying’. It is one of the oldest written arts. The art of justifying anything. The art of loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion. The art of constructing loaded relations in the mind so that a justification for for a desired action can be found. It’s the art of overwhelming the human mind with the stimulation of language so that the stimulations of experience cannot compete. Because while searching to understand one is open to suggestion – to inception – to deceit. It is the source of the last century’s transformation of western law from a descriptive science that prohibits involuntary transfers, and preserves the peace, to a system of moral justification by which people can be brought into political conflict so that political power can be obtained by force of government.
Marx’s “Dialectical Materialism” is just an application of Pilpul. The vast expansion of pseudoscience during the 19th and 20th has been achieved through the use of the technique whereby it is possible to justify anything if you seek justification of it through ‘meaning’ rather than seek correspondence to existence using internally consistent and externally correspondent language.
In the west we use the opposite technique: existential operations. We did so because of the the Roman conversion of greek platonism to empirical law. Because if you want to justify something using ‘meaning’ rather than existential operations, you can find or create that justification. This is the meaning of hermeneutic interpretation. The study of texts and language in order to assist you in free association by which you can justify anything is in accord with that text.
And this is why strict construction and operational language, identity and non conflation, external correspondence and internal consistency, full accounting, parsimony and limits, and objective morality are required of us if we are to speak truthfully and cause no harm to others by untruthful speech. Westerners invented truth and we speak the truth. We are so indoctrinated into seeking to understand one another, and so habituated trust in one another, that we have forgotten how how to detect lies. Our empathy, our trust, are exactly what is needed for the naive training of – deceit of – our minds through suggestion.
We have stopped teaching logic and rhetoric so that the left could spread lies. But even in teaching logic and rhetoric we taught rhetorical fallacies of construction. We did not teach how to counter lies of loading, framing, overloading and suggestion. Nor did we teach (or know) our cognitive biases – which are now the central canon of psychological study, or our genetic biases – which must become part of that canon. Even in our rhetoric we assume the others merely err, not that they intentionally lie, seek justification, and deceive. We have been trusting for so many thousands of years that we do not know the art of lying. We hare become naive in our trust.
Pilpul is the training that educated the great deceits of Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, [even some of Popper], Rothbard, and the Frankfurt School: (Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Pollock, Fromm, Kirchheimer, Löwenthal, Neumann ,Grossman). Christianity and Kantian rationalism are the training that was provided to the great continental liars that still persist in both the german rationalist, and american postmodern traditions. The originators and the propagators do not really know they lie any more than women who engage in ever-present never-escapable, but often unimaginable female wishful thinking know they lie. But if enough people go along with the lie, it is as good enough for them as it is if we discover some fundamental truth and spread it.
It is the technique by which academics, jews, and women have used their weakness to create a new religion as mystical and deadly as the last that sent us into a dark age for a thousand years, from which we emerged over the next thousand through the the use of truth under the name we surreptitiously called ‘science’ in order to not accuse the church and academy and state of lying. Science is the discipline by which we practice the art of speaking truthfully. That we had to call it something other than truthful speech is an indictment of all the rest of society by the few who practice truthful speech. Reason, reasonableness and science (and not philosophical rationalism) have been attempts to create a specialization in truth telling without threatening the religious moral and legal leaders.
Our law was converted from an empirical science to a religo-moral form of jewish mysticism over the course of the twentieth century by constant use of the PilPul tradition. Law identifies and lists the methods by which we humans prey upon one another, and prohibits them going forward. Law is a purely empirical study. But the talmud is not a vehicle for science of truth telling. The indo european anglo saxon law is such a vehicle. The talmud is not empirical it is justificationary. It is an instruction manual for lying. And pilpul is the technique by which one learns to lie. The ancient battle between Athens and Jerusalem is one between science and truth, and justification and deceit. And governments are pragmatic. They will use truth or lie as it suits them.
Notice how rationalism in philosophy and legal relativism have evolved in tandem. Philosophy has been used to lie as much as it has ben used to tell the truth. Legislation is not law, unless it is also legal. Legislation consists of some combination of law(science of prohibition of parasitism), contract (exchange between parties), and Command (export of costs), and predation (bureaucratic parasitism). But law is a very simple thing: an empirically accumulated record of the methods of parasitic action, and the methods of restitution for having committed them. The only western philosophy needed is and has ever been our common law. The rest of it is an attempt to gain power, or an attempt to justify the separation of truth seeking in the form of science, from the discipline of lying in its many forms – particularly religio-moral forms.
We are in this position because only Darwin and Einstein fully succeeded in their disciplines. Spencer failed in philosophy because he was not co-temporal with Popper’s falsification. Popper failed in epistemology – an irony for the ages. Mises, Hayek failed in economics. Brouwer failed in math. Bridgman in Science. All our sages failed in law – first because western law is practiced as a cult of the law, rather than as a science of the prohibitions of involuntary transfer. And Tesla and Turing and programming came to late to instruct all of the above in the solution of strict construction and operational language by limit of discourse to existential terminology. It has fallen to my generation to stand on the shoulders of great men and look back at their failings and to understand why it is that they failed, and how to restore truth to our discourse.
When we encountered the enlightenment era we had to solve the problem of cooperating at scale – with different people from different nations. But all our moral discourse for intertribal and international cooperation was constructed out of myth and mysticism. We had to invent economics. Not as ‘truth’ but as a separate discipline in order not to offend our elites. Just as we had to invent science and reason as separate disciplines as not to offend our elites.
We have spend millennia trying not to offend our elites – who rule by lie. To solve this problem forever, we have to punish our elites for their use of anything other than truth.
We humans can organize around truth, morality, and correspondence, or we can organize around falsehood, immorality, and non-correspondence. By constructing these great deceits, the jewish enlightenment caused tremendous damage to western civilization. Although ALL the enlightenments did so. Look at what France has become? Look at what england is becoming. Look at all of europe. The lie of Rousseuaian France. The lie of Kantian rationalism. The lie of british aristocracy of everyone. The lie of the free ride of Keynesian Economics – that we can increase employment without consuming all other forms of national capital in the process. That between keynesian pseudoscience and jewish pseudoscience, our civilization had been destroyed, and we have been brought to near extinction.
What is the difference between the immediacy of a gas chamber and the slow process of extermination by a new process of conversion and gradual suicide? What is the difference between gradual suicide and immediate displacement through immigration of non-kin and competitors? If we give the Chinese heroin and ruin their civilization and they kick us out forever, they are right. If we give teh lie of the good of democracy instead of the truth of the common law and science to others, they are right to reject us. If the jews and germans, and french and anglo enlightenment thinkers give us intellectual heroin and we like it very much – hyper-consumption is a naturally occurring heroin for humans – and it produces the exact same effect as heroin over longer periods. It overwhelms our reason. Hyper consumption of our genetic, territorial, physical, traditional, cultural, normative, capital, has been stimulating just as heroin is stimulating. But neither is an objective good.
I think we forget that jewish verbalism and female verbalism have the same cause. That jewish argument and female argument have the same cause. That jewish group evolutionary strategy and female group evolutionary strategy are identical: to gossip, rally, shame and frame through repetition, to in order to survive no matter which group of males are in charge of them. Women act as such. Jews act as such. Jewish women are more masculine, and jewish men more feminine than competing orders. Conversely, western people absolutely LOVE to protect the weak as a sign of status. We love to demonstrate our masculine superiority by hosting more of the weak. Yet we merely invite those who conspire against us. The female encourages consumption to increase her rate of reproduction. That is her strategy. It has no mind or reason. Man herds. He manages his herd. He manages his territory. He manages the balance of each. He fights competitors. He expands his territory. In doing so he captures the genes that let him do so.
END THE LIES. NOT JUST OF THE JEWS BUT OF ALL ENLIGHTENMENT THINKERS.
Return the west by returning us to our martial foundations: Truth, Reason, Science, Testimony, Jury, Common Law, Rule of law, Universal standing, Natural Law necessary for rational voluntary cooperation.
TRUTH IS ENOUGH.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-08 04:28:00 UTC
-
La diferencia entre lo cognitivamente significativo y lo existencialmente verdadero
Texto original de Curt Doolittle
Traducido al castellano por Alberto R. Zambrano U.
Disponible en: http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/02/05/30211/-o visto de otra forma: “una cosa es el pensamiento, otra es la obra, y otra es la idea de la obra. La rueda de la causalidad no gira entre ellas”
[L]aurence, (Danny),
Exactamente, Yo tiendo a describir este problema como el punto de vista en la gramática del testimonio. ( Mi énfasis en que tiene que permanecer constante- a menos que no logremos escapar de la prueba del conocimiento de la causalidad por parte del interlocutor).
Experiencia: “Una cosa es el pensamiento”
Acción: “Otra cosa es la obra”
Observación: “otra cos es la idea de la obra”Porque somos humanos, porque podemos empatizar con otros humanos (de lo contrario la cooperación sería imposible), nosotros podemos como observadores sugerir tanto la acción como la experiencia.
Pero porque somos humanos y todavía no sabemos los primeros principios del universo, sólo podemos manejar la observación. Y si podemos construir un experimento entonces podemos actuar y grabar nuestras acciones. Pero el universo meramente reacciona ante nosotros. Nosotros somos meros observadores hasta que podamos construir un modelo suficientemente completo del universo para que podamos empalizar como lo hacemos con otros hombres . También es posible (aunque difícil de imaginar) que no podemos hacerlo.
Esta diferencia entre la empatía probable y la empatía no probable, es la razón por la cual las ciencias sociales necesitan explicación praxeológica y descripción operativa de las ciencias físicas para poder probar si imaginamos una secuencia de relaciones imaginarias o si podemos describir una secuencia de relaciones causales existentes.
Si estamos por siempre frustrados por el hecho de que el universo físico luce determinista incluso si no podemos empatizar con él, por la sencilla razón de que mientras los humanos son marginalmente indiferentes a escala, y pueden actuar consistentemente en sus intereses, que los humanos puedan reaccionar a combinaciones de memoria e información más que a estar aislados de observar a un mundo subatómico al cual actualmente no podemos contemplar.
Por ende el problema de las “teorías significativas” que nos asisten en la asociación creativa libre, y en las “recetas verdaderas” para la acción que nos ayudan en la transformación predecible.
Yo puedo testificar que existen una secuencia de operaciones. Y no puedo hacer lo mismo con su significado. Y sólo puedo ser honesto al respecto.
Y por ello aquí está la diferencia entre:
1.lo judicial y el juez: lo crítico y ,
2.el productor y producción: lo productivo y,
3.lo artístico y lo científico: lo creativo
4.el nutriente y lo maternal: lo reproductivo.
Lo cual podemos llevar a algo más profundo:
1.lo conservador y lo judicial (mayoría sustancial)
2.el conservador libertario productor (minoría)
3.el investigador progresista libertario (minoría más pequeña)
4.el consumidor progresista (la mayoría dominante)
Todos buscamos justificar nuestros sesgos genéticos, estrategias reproductivas e intereses superiores.
Todos toleramos, aceptamos o abogamos que las exteriorizadas producidas por nuestros sesgos deben ser consideradas pérdidas aceptables por otros.
Cuando limitados que la tolerancia por la pérdida sólo puede ser determinada por el intercambio: ningún otro método puede capturar “valor” y el precio del conocimiento más que por medio del intercambio que puede captar valor y precio.
Por ello
1. Popper no rinde cuenta por costos ni por exterioridad, lo cual es racional ya que el no fue sofisticado en esta materia.
2. Popper no pudo definir la tolerancia de la exterioridad del mercado. Esto es perdonable ya que fue una víctima de su herencia y su era.
3. Popper está preocupado por el hecho de que la creatividad no puede ser impuesta, que la creatividad no puede ser usada para ser impuesta a otros, ya que su verdad es incierta. Y está claro que él (al igual que Von Mises) estaba feliz con simplemente “inventar cosas” para pelearle ideas a los socialistas. El está mostrando su sesgo cognitiva al defender su sesgo cognitiva, reproductivo y genético.
4. Los argumentos de Karl Popper no son verdaderos en el sentido de que satisfacen siete u ocho pruebas de garantía de debida diligencia contra la falsedad. Sus argumentos son, en vez de ello, una advertencia moral. No es lógica, no es empírica, sino una advertencia moral.
5. Bajo la demanda de lo que se decide, nosotros tendemos a refinar nuestras teorías más abstractas, no falsearlas.
6. Cuando refinamos teorías, pareciera que falseáramos el verbo “significar”, que se usa en libre asociación (creatividad), no la verdad operativa instrumental, en la aplicación del método.
7. lo creativo, significativo es profundamente importante, la operatividad existencial de ello es menos importante, y resiste las exigencias externas de su libre asociación y las imposiciones inmorales de su búsqueda de gratificación
8. ¿Por que el productor de ideas nuevas no ha de rendir cuentas de sus productos de la misma manera que los proveedores de bienes y servicios? ¿Por que defendemos los bienes físicos, las normativas comunes, las normativas institucionales comunes, las tradiciones comunes, e incluso la mitología común, pero no hacemos eso con la información común?
9. Los términos no operativos, no existenciales como “libertades positivas y libertades negativas” son quizá significativos, pero tienen poco o ningún contenido verdadero. Uno puede experimentar la condición de libertad. El que lo puede hacer lo hace porque era (libertad por permisología no es libertad) o puede hacerlo porque desea experimentar una condición experimental de libertad. ¿Que libertad existe entonces? ¿Cuál libertad puede existir?
La libertad que puede existir es la acción moral por cualquier organización monopólica con poder para actuar inmoralmente, aunque sus miembros no lo hagan. ¿Que moralidad puede existir entonces cuando otros imponen ningún tipo de costo sobre ti, toda vez que al mismo tiempo tu no impones costos sobre ellos. Sobre todo el costo del parasitismo.
Yo no estoy interesado en mejorar la creatividad, Yo estoy convencido que por ensayo y error, usando el método menos cotoso de la investigación se pueden alcanzar mejorías.
A nosotros nos va bien con el avance las ciencias físicas. Pero hemos sido trágicamente incompetentes al avanzar en mejorar las ciencias sociales ¿por que?
¿Por que como Hayek, Poincare, Brouwe, Bidgman y docenas de otros autores-incluso Von Mises en su propia y cruda forma- los siglos XIX y XX resultaron ser permisivos en la expansión de las seudociencias – si no mentiras?
¿Cual fue el costo de esas “mentiras?
========
-Boaz (antropología), Marx (economía y sociología), Freud (psicología) y Cantor (platonismo matemático), Mises (economía y filosofía), el siglo XX vio la ola subsiguiente de mentirosos filosóficos como Michel Foucault, el antropólogo Claude Lévi-Strauss, el psicoanalista Jacques Lacan, el psicoanalista del desarrollo infantil Jean Piaget, los lingüistas Noam Chomsky Roman Jakobson, el crítico literario Roland Barthes
…y los teóricos marxistas Louis Althusser y Nicos Poulantzas, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herber Marcuse, Friedrich Pollock, Erich Fromm, Otto Kirchheimer, Leo Löwental, Franz Leopold Neuman, Henryk Grossman, Siegfried Krakauer, Alfred Sohn-Rethek, Walter Benjamin, Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offen, Axel Honett, Oskar Nett, Alfred Schmidt, Albrecht Wellmer
…Y los posmodernistas Martin Heiddeger, Jean-François Lyotard, Richard Rory, Jean Baudrillard, Frederic Jameson, Douglas Kellner…
Aunque debemos tomar nota de que los posmodernistas franceses, alemanas,es americanos y británicos hacen uso del método germánico de la pseudo-moral, y del pseudo-racionalismo: no la ley seudo científica.
…Y Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard también, el hecho de que la obra de Hoppe sobre los incentivos es olida no tiene ningún peso sobre sus argumentos carentes de sentido que buscan llevar adelante la seudociencia Misesiana y Rothbardiana. (Sobre la cual he escrito de forma extensa).
======
¿Cómo mejoramos la ciencia la prevenir otra época oscurantismo creada por seudocientíficos, seudoracionalistas, versalitas, místicos y platónicos matemáticos?
Nosotros requerimos garantizar la debida diligencia en la producción de sus informaciones de la misma manera que garantizamos con debida diligencia la producción de de bienes y servicios contra la falseada y los hacemos responsables por ello.
Si uno cumple todas las garantías de la debida diligencia, entonces es difícil ser responsable. Si uno cumple con las garantías de la diligencia entonces es difícil publicar falsedades.
Este método ha sido probado que funciona de forma efectiva en las ciencias duras, meramente porque requiere de un lenguaje operativo.
No hay razón por la cual no podamos extender esto a las ciencias sociales, al requerir lenguaje operativo como una prueba de posibilidad existencial en cada paso de lo que es subjetivamente probable.
Completando la obra de Popper
Así yo veo a Popper como un ser cognitiva y culturalmente sesgado, y habiendo correctamente deducido que debemos separar la piedra del mármol para exponer adecuadamente de esta forma la gran estatua de mármol que es la verdad.Y que en el avance cel conocimiento – científico, lo cual significa conocimiento verdadero- en todos los campos requiere no que mejoremos el método de la libre asociación (que no es lógico) sino que mejoremos nuestras pruebas para limitar nuestros errores.
Respondiéndole a Danny:
Mi preocupación con el escrito fue que este uso no articulado de una verdad no operativa ni racional, y quizá “significativa”, pero no “verdadera” se intenta defender lo anterior en vez de un análisis cr´tico del método de crear una condición de libertad y que es costoso asumir esto, y que la garantía que debemos poner para nuestras afirmaciones también es costosa. No limitar nuestra creatividad sino mejorarla por un lado y limitar nuestra violación de libertad por medio de la imposición del daño por la exterioridad.
Simplemente, si persiste el uso libertario mainstream de los verbalizamos, persiste por ende el argumento seudocientífico del pensamiento libertario.
Aunque yo no dudo que los autores del argumento racionalista se den cuenta de que están haciendo, porque no saben cómo argumentar honestamente, sólo significativamente.
Epistemológicamente: lo que funciona es lo que es cierto
“Sólo sabemos lo que funciona”. Porque las acciones son probables en la realidad. Nuestros significados, “etiquetas, justificaciones”, son sólo eso y nada más. Si no podemos describir algo existencialmente entonces no sabemos de hecho lo que hacemos al decirlo.
El significado es análogo a una parábola. La receta de una fórmula que “sirve” es verdadera.
Objetivo
Yo estoy seguro de que si requerimos la garantía de la debida diligencia en los productos intelectuales antes de cualquier tipo de publicación, esas publicaciones se irían a pique y el contenido verdadero publicado se habría de expandir.
Aun más: estoy seguro de que esto produciría un gran cambio en el conocimiento humano igual que la ilustración científica lo hizo en las ciencias físicas.
Advertencia
Te tengo gran respeto (danny) ya que eres prácticamente la única persona que produce algo en el movimiento libertario que sea más útil que para ponérselo a los pájaros en una jaula para que lo caguen.
Habiendo dicho esto, no fui capaz de determinar cual argumento fue el que tu, Danny estabas haciendo ya que la terminología es metafórica, y no existencial, científica, real o “posible”, que yo sepa. La libertad positiva y negativa no pueden existir. La libertad puede ser llevada a existir. Si tenemos más o menos de ella.
Eso es todo.
Curt Doolittle
-
La diferencia entre lo cognitivamente significativo y lo existencialmente verdadero
Texto original de Curt Doolittle
Traducido al castellano por Alberto R. Zambrano U.
Disponible en: http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/02/05/30211/-o visto de otra forma: “una cosa es el pensamiento, otra es la obra, y otra es la idea de la obra. La rueda de la causalidad no gira entre ellas”
[L]aurence, (Danny),
Exactamente, Yo tiendo a describir este problema como el punto de vista en la gramática del testimonio. ( Mi énfasis en que tiene que permanecer constante- a menos que no logremos escapar de la prueba del conocimiento de la causalidad por parte del interlocutor).
Experiencia: “Una cosa es el pensamiento”
Acción: “Otra cosa es la obra”
Observación: “otra cos es la idea de la obra”Porque somos humanos, porque podemos empatizar con otros humanos (de lo contrario la cooperación sería imposible), nosotros podemos como observadores sugerir tanto la acción como la experiencia.
Pero porque somos humanos y todavía no sabemos los primeros principios del universo, sólo podemos manejar la observación. Y si podemos construir un experimento entonces podemos actuar y grabar nuestras acciones. Pero el universo meramente reacciona ante nosotros. Nosotros somos meros observadores hasta que podamos construir un modelo suficientemente completo del universo para que podamos empalizar como lo hacemos con otros hombres . También es posible (aunque difícil de imaginar) que no podemos hacerlo.
Esta diferencia entre la empatía probable y la empatía no probable, es la razón por la cual las ciencias sociales necesitan explicación praxeológica y descripción operativa de las ciencias físicas para poder probar si imaginamos una secuencia de relaciones imaginarias o si podemos describir una secuencia de relaciones causales existentes.
Si estamos por siempre frustrados por el hecho de que el universo físico luce determinista incluso si no podemos empatizar con él, por la sencilla razón de que mientras los humanos son marginalmente indiferentes a escala, y pueden actuar consistentemente en sus intereses, que los humanos puedan reaccionar a combinaciones de memoria e información más que a estar aislados de observar a un mundo subatómico al cual actualmente no podemos contemplar.
Por ende el problema de las “teorías significativas” que nos asisten en la asociación creativa libre, y en las “recetas verdaderas” para la acción que nos ayudan en la transformación predecible.
Yo puedo testificar que existen una secuencia de operaciones. Y no puedo hacer lo mismo con su significado. Y sólo puedo ser honesto al respecto.
Y por ello aquí está la diferencia entre:
1.lo judicial y el juez: lo crítico y ,
2.el productor y producción: lo productivo y,
3.lo artístico y lo científico: lo creativo
4.el nutriente y lo maternal: lo reproductivo.
Lo cual podemos llevar a algo más profundo:
1.lo conservador y lo judicial (mayoría sustancial)
2.el conservador libertario productor (minoría)
3.el investigador progresista libertario (minoría más pequeña)
4.el consumidor progresista (la mayoría dominante)
Todos buscamos justificar nuestros sesgos genéticos, estrategias reproductivas e intereses superiores.
Todos toleramos, aceptamos o abogamos que las exteriorizadas producidas por nuestros sesgos deben ser consideradas pérdidas aceptables por otros.
Cuando limitados que la tolerancia por la pérdida sólo puede ser determinada por el intercambio: ningún otro método puede capturar “valor” y el precio del conocimiento más que por medio del intercambio que puede captar valor y precio.
Por ello
1. Popper no rinde cuenta por costos ni por exterioridad, lo cual es racional ya que el no fue sofisticado en esta materia.
2. Popper no pudo definir la tolerancia de la exterioridad del mercado. Esto es perdonable ya que fue una víctima de su herencia y su era.
3. Popper está preocupado por el hecho de que la creatividad no puede ser impuesta, que la creatividad no puede ser usada para ser impuesta a otros, ya que su verdad es incierta. Y está claro que él (al igual que Von Mises) estaba feliz con simplemente “inventar cosas” para pelearle ideas a los socialistas. El está mostrando su sesgo cognitiva al defender su sesgo cognitiva, reproductivo y genético.
4. Los argumentos de Karl Popper no son verdaderos en el sentido de que satisfacen siete u ocho pruebas de garantía de debida diligencia contra la falsedad. Sus argumentos son, en vez de ello, una advertencia moral. No es lógica, no es empírica, sino una advertencia moral.
5. Bajo la demanda de lo que se decide, nosotros tendemos a refinar nuestras teorías más abstractas, no falsearlas.
6. Cuando refinamos teorías, pareciera que falseáramos el verbo “significar”, que se usa en libre asociación (creatividad), no la verdad operativa instrumental, en la aplicación del método.
7. lo creativo, significativo es profundamente importante, la operatividad existencial de ello es menos importante, y resiste las exigencias externas de su libre asociación y las imposiciones inmorales de su búsqueda de gratificación
8. ¿Por que el productor de ideas nuevas no ha de rendir cuentas de sus productos de la misma manera que los proveedores de bienes y servicios? ¿Por que defendemos los bienes físicos, las normativas comunes, las normativas institucionales comunes, las tradiciones comunes, e incluso la mitología común, pero no hacemos eso con la información común?
9. Los términos no operativos, no existenciales como “libertades positivas y libertades negativas” son quizá significativos, pero tienen poco o ningún contenido verdadero. Uno puede experimentar la condición de libertad. El que lo puede hacer lo hace porque era (libertad por permisología no es libertad) o puede hacerlo porque desea experimentar una condición experimental de libertad. ¿Que libertad existe entonces? ¿Cuál libertad puede existir?
La libertad que puede existir es la acción moral por cualquier organización monopólica con poder para actuar inmoralmente, aunque sus miembros no lo hagan. ¿Que moralidad puede existir entonces cuando otros imponen ningún tipo de costo sobre ti, toda vez que al mismo tiempo tu no impones costos sobre ellos. Sobre todo el costo del parasitismo.
Yo no estoy interesado en mejorar la creatividad, Yo estoy convencido que por ensayo y error, usando el método menos cotoso de la investigación se pueden alcanzar mejorías.
A nosotros nos va bien con el avance las ciencias físicas. Pero hemos sido trágicamente incompetentes al avanzar en mejorar las ciencias sociales ¿por que?
¿Por que como Hayek, Poincare, Brouwe, Bidgman y docenas de otros autores-incluso Von Mises en su propia y cruda forma- los siglos XIX y XX resultaron ser permisivos en la expansión de las seudociencias – si no mentiras?
¿Cual fue el costo de esas “mentiras?
========
-Boaz (antropología), Marx (economía y sociología), Freud (psicología) y Cantor (platonismo matemático), Mises (economía y filosofía), el siglo XX vio la ola subsiguiente de mentirosos filosóficos como Michel Foucault, el antropólogo Claude Lévi-Strauss, el psicoanalista Jacques Lacan, el psicoanalista del desarrollo infantil Jean Piaget, los lingüistas Noam Chomsky Roman Jakobson, el crítico literario Roland Barthes
…y los teóricos marxistas Louis Althusser y Nicos Poulantzas, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herber Marcuse, Friedrich Pollock, Erich Fromm, Otto Kirchheimer, Leo Löwental, Franz Leopold Neuman, Henryk Grossman, Siegfried Krakauer, Alfred Sohn-Rethek, Walter Benjamin, Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offen, Axel Honett, Oskar Nett, Alfred Schmidt, Albrecht Wellmer
…Y los posmodernistas Martin Heiddeger, Jean-François Lyotard, Richard Rory, Jean Baudrillard, Frederic Jameson, Douglas Kellner…
Aunque debemos tomar nota de que los posmodernistas franceses, alemanas,es americanos y británicos hacen uso del método germánico de la pseudo-moral, y del pseudo-racionalismo: no la ley seudo científica.
…Y Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard también, el hecho de que la obra de Hoppe sobre los incentivos es olida no tiene ningún peso sobre sus argumentos carentes de sentido que buscan llevar adelante la seudociencia Misesiana y Rothbardiana. (Sobre la cual he escrito de forma extensa).
======
¿Cómo mejoramos la ciencia la prevenir otra época oscurantismo creada por seudocientíficos, seudoracionalistas, versalitas, místicos y platónicos matemáticos?
Nosotros requerimos garantizar la debida diligencia en la producción de sus informaciones de la misma manera que garantizamos con debida diligencia la producción de de bienes y servicios contra la falseada y los hacemos responsables por ello.
Si uno cumple todas las garantías de la debida diligencia, entonces es difícil ser responsable. Si uno cumple con las garantías de la diligencia entonces es difícil publicar falsedades.
Este método ha sido probado que funciona de forma efectiva en las ciencias duras, meramente porque requiere de un lenguaje operativo.
No hay razón por la cual no podamos extender esto a las ciencias sociales, al requerir lenguaje operativo como una prueba de posibilidad existencial en cada paso de lo que es subjetivamente probable.
Completando la obra de Popper
Así yo veo a Popper como un ser cognitiva y culturalmente sesgado, y habiendo correctamente deducido que debemos separar la piedra del mármol para exponer adecuadamente de esta forma la gran estatua de mármol que es la verdad.Y que en el avance cel conocimiento – científico, lo cual significa conocimiento verdadero- en todos los campos requiere no que mejoremos el método de la libre asociación (que no es lógico) sino que mejoremos nuestras pruebas para limitar nuestros errores.
Respondiéndole a Danny:
Mi preocupación con el escrito fue que este uso no articulado de una verdad no operativa ni racional, y quizá “significativa”, pero no “verdadera” se intenta defender lo anterior en vez de un análisis cr´tico del método de crear una condición de libertad y que es costoso asumir esto, y que la garantía que debemos poner para nuestras afirmaciones también es costosa. No limitar nuestra creatividad sino mejorarla por un lado y limitar nuestra violación de libertad por medio de la imposición del daño por la exterioridad.
Simplemente, si persiste el uso libertario mainstream de los verbalizamos, persiste por ende el argumento seudocientífico del pensamiento libertario.
Aunque yo no dudo que los autores del argumento racionalista se den cuenta de que están haciendo, porque no saben cómo argumentar honestamente, sólo significativamente.
Epistemológicamente: lo que funciona es lo que es cierto
“Sólo sabemos lo que funciona”. Porque las acciones son probables en la realidad. Nuestros significados, “etiquetas, justificaciones”, son sólo eso y nada más. Si no podemos describir algo existencialmente entonces no sabemos de hecho lo que hacemos al decirlo.
El significado es análogo a una parábola. La receta de una fórmula que “sirve” es verdadera.
Objetivo
Yo estoy seguro de que si requerimos la garantía de la debida diligencia en los productos intelectuales antes de cualquier tipo de publicación, esas publicaciones se irían a pique y el contenido verdadero publicado se habría de expandir.
Aun más: estoy seguro de que esto produciría un gran cambio en el conocimiento humano igual que la ilustración científica lo hizo en las ciencias físicas.
Advertencia
Te tengo gran respeto (danny) ya que eres prácticamente la única persona que produce algo en el movimiento libertario que sea más útil que para ponérselo a los pájaros en una jaula para que lo caguen.
Habiendo dicho esto, no fui capaz de determinar cual argumento fue el que tu, Danny estabas haciendo ya que la terminología es metafórica, y no existencial, científica, real o “posible”, que yo sepa. La libertad positiva y negativa no pueden existir. La libertad puede ser llevada a existir. Si tenemos más o menos de ella.
Eso es todo.
Curt Doolittle
-
The Difference Between Cognitively Meaningful, and Existentially True
–“or put another way “But one thing is the thought, another thing is the deed, and another thing is the idea of the deed. The wheel of causality doth not roll between them”.—
[L]aurence, (Danny), Exactly. I tend to describe this problem as the Point of View in the grammar of testimony. (my emphasis being that it remain constant – meaning non-conflationary – lest we not engage in escaping the test of knowledge of causality by the speaker).
- Experience: “But one thing is the thought,”
Action: “another thing is the deed,”
Observation: “and another thing is the idea of the deed.”
Because we are human, because we can empathize with other humans (or cooperation would be impossible), we can as observer suggest both action and experience. But because we are human, and we do not yet know the first principles of the universe, we can manage only observation. And if we can construct an experiment then we can act, and record our actions – but the universe merely reacts to us. We are mere observers until we can construct a sufficiently thorough model of the universe that we can empathize with it as we do other men. It is also possible (though difficult to imagine) that we cannot do so. This difference between the empathically testable and the empathically untestable, is the reason for the necessity of praxeological explanation of social science, and operational description of physical science in order to test whether we imagine a sequence of imaginary relations, or whether we can describe a sequence of extant causal relations. We are forever in frustrated by the fact that the physical universe appears deterministic even if we cannot empathize with it, while the human universe is less deterministic despite that we’re able to empathize with it, for the simple reason that while humans are marginally indifferent at scale, and can act consistently in their interests, that humans can react to combinations of memory and information that we are as insulated from observing as we are the subatomic world that we currently cannot peer into. Hence the problem of “meaningful theories” that assist us in creative free association, and “true recipes” for action that assist us in predictable transformation. I can testify to a sequence of operations. I cannot testify to meaning. I can only be honest about it. And herein lies the difference between: 1) the judicial and the judge (decidable): the critical, and; 2) the producer and production (actionable): the productive, and; 3) the artistic and the scientist (exploratory): the creative. 4) the nurturer and the mother (consumptive): the reproductive. Which we can take further into: 1 – the conservative and judicial (substantial majority) 2 – the conservative libertarian producer (minority) 3 – the progressive libertarian investigator (smaller minority) 4 – the progressive progressive consumer (dominant majority) We all seek to justify our genetic biases, reproductive strategies, and greatest interests. We all tolerate, accept, or advocate that the externalities produced by our biases should be considered acceptable losses by others. When the limit of that tolerance for loss can only be determined by exchange: no other method can capture ‘value’ and price of knowledge, any more than any method other than exchange can capture value and price. ERGO 1) Popper does not account for costs, nor externalizations, which is rational since he was unsophisticated in these matters. 2) Popper fails to define the market as the tolerance for externalities. This is forgivable. He was a victim of his heritage and his era. 3) Popper is concerned that creativity not be imposed upon, that creativity not be used to impose upon others, since the truth of it is uncertain. And it is clear he was (like Mises) happy to just ‘make stuff up’ to fight the socialists. He is showing his cognitive bias by defending his cognitive, reproductive, and genetic bias. 4) But popper’s arguments are not true in the sense that they satisfy the seven or eight tests of warranty of due diligence against falsehood. His arguments are instead a moral warning. Not a logical, not an empirical, but a moral warning. 5) Under the demands of decidability, we tend to refine our most abstract theories, not falsify them. 6) When we refine theories we seem to falsify the verbal ‘Meaning’ used in free association (creativity), not the instrumental (operational), “truth” in the application of the recipe (method). 7) for the creative, the meaningful is profoundly important, the existential operationalization of it less so, and he resists external demands on his free association (stimuli pursuit), and immoral impositions on his pursuit of gratification. 8) Why should the producer of ideas be less accountable for externalities of his product than are the providers of goods and services? Why is fixed and organizational capital more valuable than informational capital? Why do we defend the physical commons, the normative commons, the institutional commons, the traditional commons, and even the mythological commons, but we do not defend the informational commons? 8) Non operational, non-existential terms like “positive and negative liberty” are perhaps meaningful, but they have little to no truth content. One can experience a condition of liberty. He can do so either because he errs (liberty by permission is not liberty) or he can do so because he experience an existental condition of liberty. What liberty can exist? The liberty that can exist is moral action by any monopoly organization with power to act immoraly, yet its members do not. What morality can exist? when others impose no cost upon you while at the same time you impose no cost upon them – especially the cost of free ridership. I am not interested in improving creativity. I am unconvinced that trial and error, using least cost method of investigation. can be improved upon. We seem to do fairly well with the advancement of the physical sciences. But we have been tragically incompetent at advancing the social sciences. Why? Why, as Hayek, Poincare, Brouwer, Bridgman and dozens of others – even Mises in his crude way – did the late 19th and the 20th century result in the pervasive expansion of pseudosciences – if not outright lies? What was the cost of those ‘lies?’ ==== —Boaz (anthropology), Marx (economics and sociology), Freud (psychology), and Cantor(mathematical platonism), Mises (economics and philosophy) the 20th century saw the subsequent wave of philosophical liars, Michel Foucault, the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, the developmental psychologist Jean Piaget, the linguists Roman Jakobson and Noam Chomsky, the literary critic Roland Barthes …. and the Marxist theorists Louis Althusser and Nicos Poulantzas, Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Friedrich Pollock, Erich Fromm, Otto Kirchheimer, Leo Löwenthal,, Franz Leopold Neumann, Henryk Grossman, Siegfried Kracauer, Alfred Sohn-Rethel, Walter Benjamin, Jürgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Axel, Honneth, Oskar Negt, Alfred Schmidt, Albrecht Wellmer …. and the postmodernists Martin Heidegger, Jean-François Lyotard, Richard Rorty, Jean Baudrillard, Fredric Jameson, Douglas Kellner… Although we must take notice that the french, german, american, and British postmodernists are making use of the german method of pseudo-moral, pseudo-rationalism: ADVICE – not the pseudoscientific: LAW. … and Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard as well. The fact that Hoppe’s work on incentives is solid has no bearing on his nonsense-arguments advancing Misesian and Rothbardian pseudoscience (which I’ve written extensively about elsewhere). ==== How do we improve science by preventing another dark age created by the pseudoscientists, pseudo-rationalists, verbalists, mystics, mathematical platonists? We require them to warranty due diligence in the production of their informational products just as we warranty goods and services against falsehood, and we hold them liable for them. If one fulfills all the warranties of due diligence, then it is hard for one to be liable. If one fulfills the warranties of due diligence then it is hard to publish falsehoods. This method has been working fairly effectively in the hard sciences, merely by requiring operational language. There is no reason we cannot extend this to the social sciences, by requiring operational language as a test of existential possibility each step of which is subjectively testable. COMPLETING POPPER So I view popper as cognitively and culturally biased, and having correctly deduced that we must remove the rock from the marble to expose the statue of truth. And that the advancement of knowledge – scientific, meaning truthful knowledge – in all fields requires not that we improve the method of free association (that’s non logical) but that we improve our tests that limit our errors. RESPONDING TO Danny My concern with the paper was that this is an inarticulate use of non-operational, non-existential and perhaps ‘meaningful’ but not ‘truthful’ attempt to defend priors, rather than a critical analysis of the method of constructing a condition of liberty, and the costs we bear to do so, and the warranty we must place upon our utterances – not to limit our creativity, but TO IMPROVE OUR CREATIVITY on the one hand, and LIMIT OUR VIOLATION OF LIBERTY by the imposition of harm by externality. Simply, it persists in the mainstream libertarian use of verbalisms and therefore persists the persistence of pseudoscientific argument in libertarian thought. Although I doubt authors of rationalist argument realize what they are doing, because they do not know how to argue truthfully, only meaningfully. EPISTEMELOGICALLY: WHAT WORKS IS WHAT IS TRUE “We only know what works”. Because actions are testable in reality. Our meanings “labels, justifications” are just that and nothing more. If we cannot describe something existentially then we do not in fact know that of which we claim by our speech. Meaning is analogous to a parable. A recipe or formula that ‘works’ is true. OBJECTIVE I am fairly certain that if we were to require warranty of due diligence of intellectual products prior to any kind of publication, that publications would plummet, falsehoods would plummet, and truth content would expand. Moreover, I am fairly certain that this would produce as great a change in human knowledge as the scientific enlightenment did in the physical sciences. CAVEAT I have a lot of respect for Danny (you) since he’s about the only person who produces anything in the liberty movement worth more than use for birdcage lining. That said, I was unable to determine which argument he was (you were danny) making since the terminology is metaphorical, and not existential, scientific, real or ‘possible’ that I know of. Postive and negative liberty cannot exist. Liberty can be brought into existence. We can have more or less of it. That’s it.
- Experience: “But one thing is the thought,”