Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • FIRST DAY OF A LOGIC COURSE (from comments I made on a paper) A few suggestions,

    FIRST DAY OF A LOGIC COURSE

    (from comments I made on a paper)

    A few suggestions, that give the students context where that context limits the majority of student errors not only in class but throughout life.

    1) The sciences consist of the formal sciences we call the Logics, the Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences(psychology, and sociology).

    2) Most of us are familiar of the logic of positions we call mathematics and its application to measurements; and the logic of operations, we call algorithms, programming, procedures, or the logic of sequential actions in time, and in addition, we use the general term ‘logic’ of the logic of sets applied more broadly language; So within the formal sciences that we call the logics, we use a least the logic of one property in measurement, the logic of more properties in sequences of operations, and the logic of speech using words that are unlimited, in a spectrum of increasing complexity.

    3) These methodologies in formal science are possible because of the human logical facility. The human logical facility consists of neurological tests of the spectrum of relations that are constant, inconstant, contingent, potential, contradictory, and non-sensical relations that are perceivable by the spectrum of physical sensation, intuitionistic auto-association we call perception, and the sequence of thought we call dreaming, daydreaming thinking, reasoning, rationalism (“logic”), calculation (transformation of inputs into outputs), and computation.

    4) While the human brain operates in massively parallel competition for coherence between past present and future, describing our internal thoughts requires serial communication by signs or speech. When we serially communicate using signs or speech, we depend on rules we call ‘grammars’. Humans evolved not only the logical facility by massive parallel competition, we evolved a grammar facility to organize and communicate all or part of the experience that results. This grammar vacility and what we call rules of grammar, consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. We use serial languag, grammatical rules of continuous recursive disambiguation, to suggest meaning to others, by causing them to continuously recursively predict what we experience (mean). The audience uses those same rules of grammar to predict what the speaker intends to convey. The audience then conveys understanding, and either asks for, or is given, further disambiguation, until both parties satisfy the need (demand) for disambiguity.In logic we refer to this more general term prediction as inference. And the discipline of logic as rules of inference.

    5) Inferences (predictions) are steps in reasoning, beginning with premises and ending with conclusions. We divide inference into the sequence: deduction, induction, and abduction. Deduction is inference that predict logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true. Induction is the inference (prediction) from particular premises to a universal conclusion. Abduction is the inference (prediction) to the best explanation. But that spectrum of deduction, induction, and abduction describes only the sufficiency of information we have to work with, as three points on a continuuum.

    6) In this course, we are largely interested in language and we the logic of sets, with the laws of valid (not false) inference (prediction), under the general label we conventionally refer to as “logic”, using that human faculty of reason we call “rationalism”(limiting our reasoning to rules of logic).

    7) We apply the logic of sets to language to test the truth, falsehood, or undecidability of propositions. When we say a statement or set of statements is false, they are inconsistent or contradictory. When we say a statement or set of statements is true, we mean the set of properties is internally consistent.

    When we say a statement is or set of statements is contingent, it is dependent on information external to the statement. And when we say that a statement is undecidable, the properties are insufficient to determine consistency – which means ambiguous.

    8) When we say a statement or set of statements is true we mean it satisfies both the demand for disambiguity, and the demand for infallibility in the context – meaning it’s coherent with and consistent and sufficient for infallibility within the broader context.

    9) The spectrum of truth claims ranges from tautological – meaningless, to ideal – meaning the testimony we would give if we were omniscient; to testifiable – meaning that one has done due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit; to honest – meaning the promise that one does not deceive, obscure, load, frame, or fictionalize.

    10) And people frequently make truth claims using a spectrum of paradigms using analogies to experience from the most general to the most specific:

    Theological (allegorical, supernatural)

    Fictional-Mythical (Allegorical natural-supernormal)

    Psychological (and Moral)

    Rational (Kantian)

    Historical (analogical)

    Descriptive (ordinary langauge).

    Empirical (observable)

    Ratio-empirical ( scientific )

    Operational (testifiable, testimony)

    11) Despite the efforts of hundreds if not thousands of great thinkers, the result of the 19th and 20th-century research is that set logic applied to human speech is largely a falsification rather than justificationary system of thought. In other words, we tend to prove very little of consequence, but we falsify the infinity of falsehoods by ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. And this is the principle function of study of the logics: to improve our ability to identify ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, and to seek sufficiently unambiguous, sufficiently infallible, sufficiently testifiable knowledge despite the many human failings.

    12) So this is the contetext of logic that we will cover in this course, and the primary benefit to you, in your life, will be the advntage of freedom from falsehoods by ignorance, error, bais and deciet.

    In my understanding, logic as it is taught in university as the logic of sets and inference is as archaic as scriptural interpretation, textual interpretation, and legal interpretation that it evolved from. And that between mathematics and set logic we are better off studying operational logic since it is operational logic that elininates the limits of set logic.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-29 12:40:00 UTC

  • The purpose of the Propertarianism and Christians group is to seek compromise an

    The purpose of the Propertarianism and Christians group is to seek compromise and understanding given that some of us can and need to believe and some of us don’t need, and cannot believe.

    I wanted this group so that I could talk to christians on their terms about this subject.

    We argue that:
    1) What constitutes ‘christianity’ has spawned hundreds of cults and nearly every individual believes he and his or her sect has some monpoly on what is the correct christianity.
    2) That this interpretability is a strength and a weakness – it means there is no law of christianity as there is a law of reciprocity, but conversely it means that groups can form on whatever they imagine the bible conveys. This appeals to cognitive biases and suggestion.

    And that:
    1) christian ethics can be reduced to five statements.
    2) christianity provides tolerance for the physical natural and evolutionary laws, and can be encoded in law.
    3) christian behavior is the optimum solution to the prisonner’s dilemma of social trust –
    4) and is the only substantive via-positiva advancement on the natural law of reciprocity.

    And that:
    1) We can write those five statements into natural law for use in our judicial and political system regardless of whether one has a faith, wisdom, or empirical mind to justify those laws and aderhere to them.

    We ask:
    1) Whether the source of causality as auto-deism (mechanical), deism(originary), or theological (activist) god;

    And;
    2) (scripture) Whether the various wisdom literatures: anglo-empirical, germanic contenental, greco-roman, confucian-taoist, buddhist, hindu, and abrahamic (judaism ,christianity, and islam), are just that: wisdom literatures written in the language available to their local people during the ages of transformation – or whether the abrahamic, and in particular, the christian are (a) superior in experence and outcome, (b) and the work of men or supernatural.

    And;
    3) Whether Jesus was an activist (like Alinsky), a philosopher (like Marx), a prophet that supernatural forces spoke through (like Mohammed), or a supernatural creature as xians(Paulians) claim.

    And;
    4) Whether the globalist catholic church which seeks to rule in competition with or defeat of the state; the nationaist orthodox church which seeks to assist and cooperate with the state; or the institutional protestant which seeks to augment the state; or the evangelical protestant which seeks to avoid modernity entirely, are the superior models, is ‘christianity’ – since they all disagree.

    Or;
    5) Whether, we can write the common rules of the christian ethical system into secular empirical law, and prohibit all COMPETING ethical systems – and yes, religions – from our polity. This would allow Fundamentalists, Traditionalists(Deists), Rationalists(Habituals), and empiricicists (scientists like myself) to cooperate in resisting our many enemies, pursuing our christian behavior regardless of the ‘method’ by which we undersetand it.
    And;

    (more…)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-24 23:56:45 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/104747067266976374

  • THE CURRENT COUNTER-REVOLUTION AGAINST EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION IS A REVOLT AGAINST

    THE CURRENT COUNTER-REVOLUTION AGAINST EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION IS A REVOLT AGAINST THE PHYSICAL, NATURAL, AND EVOLUTIONARY LAWS.

    1) The enlightenment in every country and culture was a counter-revolution against anglo empiricism – other peoples simply couldn’t function as did the English, any more than others could function as did the Greek and Roman.

    2) We are currently going through the Jewish counter-enlightenment against science. The difference is that while the Jewish and Chinese and Russian, and Indian revolutions all occurred at the same time, the Jewish revolution is within and we are paying the cost of it due to their excellence at verbal exposition.

    3) We frame history as the enlightenment and the industrial revolution, but that’s false. We had the Aristotelian restoration in 1200, the printing press and literacy 1450, Constantinople was defeated in 1402, but not occupied until 1453 so the 1453 date describes the last vestige not a dramatic turn.

    Instead, there is a rapid restoration of Europe from the pure of Islam from Spain, the restoration of Aristotle, restoration of trade, restoration of literacy, to the age of sail, the agrarian revolution, the financial and commercial (merchantile) revolution, the expansion of empirical rule of law, the scientific revolution, culminating in the industrial revolution, the technological revolution, the biological revolution.

    What I find terrifying is that if Athens and Sparta had not gone to war with one another as Germany and England went to war with one another, that we very likely would have had the industrial revolution by the 3d century AD. And never had a Semitic dark age.

    (MORE…)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-24 22:34:28 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/104746743739200664

  • WN WS NS Violence Doesn’t Work



    OUR STRATEGY IS POLITICAL

    What is achieved by this petty violence? Nitwits vicariously live thru better men? But the political consequence is putting our side on par with the opposition. (Fail)

    What’s our strategy instead? Stay on message, Stay positive, Show ‘understanding’, Commiserate, Blame the State and Financial Sector, Say the Problem is mutual and solvable. De-escalate. Force the enemy to escalate irrationally.

    “If india had been a french colony, Gandhi would never have been an old man”–Mao.

    But america isn’t a french colony – it’s a british one. The strategy will work over and over again. And yours will fail.

    What you want is what will fail.

    You have to win. And winning means defeating the left’s optics as the moral high ground. NOT satisfying the right’s demand for optics in superior violence.

    The fact that you don’t get that and can’t even grasp it means you’re just an animal, not a rational human.

    A minority can show up, carry arms, and stay on a positive message. That will create political power. A minority cannot show up, carry arms, let the left take the moral high ground, and get their asses beaten by the left.

    Optics are for the enemy. If you need optics of our own you will fail.

    IN WHOSE INTEREST? THE BOTTOM – BUT THE BOTTOM CAN”T LEAD

    Winning only matters to the bottom two thirds. The top third do fine. So all this revolution and reformation is in the interest of the bottom two thirds – not the upper third.

    —“Aurelian Moondog All that talk of violence and national divorce/civil war but I reckon that’s relegated to the plebs who aren’t worthy of sucking the same air that fuels your genius lack of results”— Moron

    That’s a rather stupid statement (as expected) right? Because who benefits other than plebs? Who has the numbers other than plebs? I mean, for the rest of us, especially for the upper 1%, we will prosper just fine no matter what.

    I’d much rather write and generate wealth than work in the intersts of you ungrateful losers of the genetic lottery.

    On the other hand there are good (and silent) people that are worthy of sacrifice.

    The problem is that the bottom can’t lead. Brawls are random. Formations are not. Formations require talent and leaders and bullhorns or at least strong voices.

    WN WS VIOLENCE IN SMALL NUMBERS DOESN’T WORK

    You see what happened in Stone Mountain? Watch the video. Proud boys got owned. Why? (a) body weight, (c) control rather than maneuver (b) defensive rather than offensive (d) failure to dedicate some men to video to capture and control optics. (e) failure to bait the enemy into error (f) failure to promote a positive and constructive message.

    What is the standard strategy? Just what revolutionaries, police, and military do around the world: act like predators not prey.
    1 – Defensive: Stay in motion. Hold a line, part, pull one inside, ‘finish him off’, repeat. Keep tempo.
    2 – Offensive: Stay in motion, press the line. Lead with Mace. Snatch anyone vulnerable, fall back and pull with you. Close the line. Keep Tempo. Pick them off. Bring lots of mace.
    3 – Aggressive: Use lots of smoke, target press, video, camera first. Retreat quickly in formation to cause the enemy to separate, or Flank and divide a small number the enemy, or Molotov behind the enemy. Rush the exposed or distracted. Grab some, finish them off, and continue to divide and conquer. Keep tempo. Win incrementally.

    Use escalation of mace, brass knuckles, punch knives in both hands, bayonets if possible, and be willing to pull the trigger to hold onto your weapon. And, if anyone pulls the trigger, then EVERYONE pulls the trigger – and don’t stop.

    The left is motivated, is passionate, isn’t moral, isn’t scared, and thinks they can win.

    EVIDENCE

    Headline: “BLM, Antifa Overwhelm Armed White Racists in Stone Mountain, GA.”

    So 3% got owned and once again, were forced into the moral low ground.

    Look at the right getting owned:

    https://realconservativesunite.com/2020/08/16/chaos-and-violence-as-confederates-and-antifa-go-to-war-at-stone-mountain/

  • WN WS NS Violence Doesn’t Work



    OUR STRATEGY IS POLITICAL

    What is achieved by this petty violence? Nitwits vicariously live thru better men? But the political consequence is putting our side on par with the opposition. (Fail)

    What’s our strategy instead? Stay on message, Stay positive, Show ‘understanding’, Commiserate, Blame the State and Financial Sector, Say the Problem is mutual and solvable. De-escalate. Force the enemy to escalate irrationally.

    “If india had been a french colony, Gandhi would never have been an old man”–Mao.

    But america isn’t a french colony – it’s a british one. The strategy will work over and over again. And yours will fail.

    What you want is what will fail.

    You have to win. And winning means defeating the left’s optics as the moral high ground. NOT satisfying the right’s demand for optics in superior violence.

    The fact that you don’t get that and can’t even grasp it means you’re just an animal, not a rational human.

    A minority can show up, carry arms, and stay on a positive message. That will create political power. A minority cannot show up, carry arms, let the left take the moral high ground, and get their asses beaten by the left.

    Optics are for the enemy. If you need optics of our own you will fail.

    IN WHOSE INTEREST? THE BOTTOM – BUT THE BOTTOM CAN”T LEAD

    Winning only matters to the bottom two thirds. The top third do fine. So all this revolution and reformation is in the interest of the bottom two thirds – not the upper third.

    —“Aurelian Moondog All that talk of violence and national divorce/civil war but I reckon that’s relegated to the plebs who aren’t worthy of sucking the same air that fuels your genius lack of results”— Moron

    That’s a rather stupid statement (as expected) right? Because who benefits other than plebs? Who has the numbers other than plebs? I mean, for the rest of us, especially for the upper 1%, we will prosper just fine no matter what.

    I’d much rather write and generate wealth than work in the intersts of you ungrateful losers of the genetic lottery.

    On the other hand there are good (and silent) people that are worthy of sacrifice.

    The problem is that the bottom can’t lead. Brawls are random. Formations are not. Formations require talent and leaders and bullhorns or at least strong voices.

    WN WS VIOLENCE IN SMALL NUMBERS DOESN’T WORK

    You see what happened in Stone Mountain? Watch the video. Proud boys got owned. Why? (a) body weight, (c) control rather than maneuver (b) defensive rather than offensive (d) failure to dedicate some men to video to capture and control optics. (e) failure to bait the enemy into error (f) failure to promote a positive and constructive message.

    What is the standard strategy? Just what revolutionaries, police, and military do around the world: act like predators not prey.
    1 – Defensive: Stay in motion. Hold a line, part, pull one inside, ‘finish him off’, repeat. Keep tempo.
    2 – Offensive: Stay in motion, press the line. Lead with Mace. Snatch anyone vulnerable, fall back and pull with you. Close the line. Keep Tempo. Pick them off. Bring lots of mace.
    3 – Aggressive: Use lots of smoke, target press, video, camera first. Retreat quickly in formation to cause the enemy to separate, or Flank and divide a small number the enemy, or Molotov behind the enemy. Rush the exposed or distracted. Grab some, finish them off, and continue to divide and conquer. Keep tempo. Win incrementally.

    Use escalation of mace, brass knuckles, punch knives in both hands, bayonets if possible, and be willing to pull the trigger to hold onto your weapon. And, if anyone pulls the trigger, then EVERYONE pulls the trigger – and don’t stop.

    The left is motivated, is passionate, isn’t moral, isn’t scared, and thinks they can win.

    EVIDENCE

    Headline: “BLM, Antifa Overwhelm Armed White Racists in Stone Mountain, GA.”

    So 3% got owned and once again, were forced into the moral low ground.

    Look at the right getting owned:

    https://realconservativesunite.com/2020/08/16/chaos-and-violence-as-confederates-and-antifa-go-to-war-at-stone-mountain/

  • Spiral Dynamics is Instead Rainbow Dynamics

    Spiral Dynamics is Instead Rainbow Dynamics

    SPIRAL DYNAMICS FAILS FULL ACCOUNTING AND LIMITS
    It’s fundamentally a leftist pseudoscience, but we can fix that.

    I’m Blue. Red<-Blue->Orange (conservative libertarian)

    If you add the extremes of female end of the spectrum like the chart begins of the extremes of male end of the spectrum then this ‘color spectrum’ just reflects the male to female brain structure and resulting bias. In other words, he’s cherry-picking the negative male (authoritarianism) an ignoring the negative female (communism).

    By representing it as a hierarchy he reinforces the left’s message. By representing it as a male-female spectrum we find ‘choice’ (rule of law) as the top of a triangle (orange).

    So as usual “stick with consistency between physics, biology, and sentience” and avoid these arbitrary organizations of information.

    <– self-female-internal-prey — psychotic – solipsistic – || empathic <- balanced -> analytic || – aspie – psychopathic — self-male-external-predator –>

    <-- Female ------------Ascendant Male - Established Male -->
...Socialist ..........Libertarian .....Conservative.......
...Global Empathic.....Local Pragmatic..Tribal Analytic......
...Plenty-Consumption..Trade ...........Scarcity Capitalization

    P-LAW LESSON
    Spiral Dynamics is an excample of a failure of “Limits” and “Full accounting”, and it violates the laws of (a) extrapolating a line instead of discovering a curve, (b) equlibria (c) between three axis that are necessary in all evolutionary systems.

    THE CRAYON LESSON
    There isn’t any truth that can be written in crayon (non-equlibrating, mono-dimensional systems). Humans evolved to throw things. Our consciousness tends to think in the most trivial ‘linearly predictable’ terms. We fail to educate people out of linear and into equilibrial patterns of thought. In other words, most humans are still medieval in mind.

    CAUSALITY
    What causes instinctual differences in preference for these conditions?

    So try the Testimonial checklist:

    1 – realism, naturalism, operationalism? (unanswered)
    2 – internally consistent? (yes)
    3 – operationally possible (unanswered)
    4 – externally correspondent (sure)
    5 – rational (yes)
    6 – reciprocal (unanswered)
    … … fully informed (no)
    … … free of negative externality (fails)
    7 – limited (no) and complete (no)
    8 – warrantable and liable (no)

    So? Internally consistent, externally correspondent, rational but noncausal and incomplete.

    It’s incomplete because it doesn’t take communal to the point of failure(limits) while it takes individual to the point of failure (limits). This creates the impression that one is looking at a hierarchy rather than an equilibrium.

    (All systems require three points, not two, in order to produce an equilibrium. Or rather an equilibrium compromise(center) evolves between two or more limits. The entirety of the physical universe consists of equilibrium (states) between extremes. ) For example, personalities may include many dimensions but they bias male or female and they cluster in three archetypes: female, ascendent male, and dominant male.

    Equilibrium in this case is the same as all other human instinctual, ethical, moral, political, conceptual: Dominant Male Force (red), Ascendant Male Empirical Trade (orange), and (Undermining) Female Empathy (Off the chart).

    So it should be “Rainbow Dynamics” not Spiral Dynamics.

    Authoritarian Hierarchy (?-genic)
... Beige (Totalitarianism)
... ... Purple 
... ... ... Red 
----------
... ... ... ... Blue 
... ... ... ... ... Orange (Markets) (Meritocracy) (Eugenic)
... ... ... ... Green 
----------
... ... ... Yellow 
... ... Turquoise 
... [Pink?] 
(Communism)Authoritarian Equality (Dysgenic)

    1 – How do you make SD consistent with the rest of the explanation of causality? (biology)
    2 – What is the operational means of describing it? Cause? I just changed it to causal. (Reproductive strategy.)
    3 – How can our interests AFFORD to swing from individual to communal? (because of market wealth)
    4 – What happens if we reach communal or global? (Failure)
    5 – Is anything communal calculable or global? (No)
    6 – To whose disadvantage is this global-harmony communal communist condition? (The Best short-term, evolution medium-term, human survival long-term.)
    7 – Why do authoritarian France, China, Russia, Turkey, Iran, North Korea exist? (The pursuit of Power to Stay in power).
    8 – Why do only religions practice globalism? (underclass expansion of dysgenia)
    9 – Isn’t that what separates a religion (imaginary) from a government (material)? (the Material reality)

    The spiral is instead a description of ‘population’ we’re calculating on behalf of, and population we can afford to calculate on behalf of is a description of wealth to do so.

    ADDING SPIRAL DYNAMICS TO BIG 5 AND MEYERS BRIGGS.
    So, just as I’ve explained the causality and difference between big 5 vs the Meyers Briggs, we can add spiral dynamics to the list. All of these ‘ways of thinking’ are incomplete because they discontiguous with causality.



    The underlying causality is the structure of the brain and the structure of the brain that gives rise to differences begins almost entirely by sex differences, the quality of the brain. The ‘quality’ of development of the brain, and the sequence of human development in the brain of a given quality.

    So it’s not that any of these three systems of thought is ‘false’ it’s that they are incomplete, and as incomplete they serve two undesirable ends: (a) they prevent knowledge of causality (they cause ignorance), (b) they encourage inductive and deductive falsehoods. And so half-truths pollute the informational commons just as much as lies do.

    In the case of Big 5 it obscures male-female (the undesirable truth); MB doesn’t obscure male-female, but obscures neuroticism (the negative); Spiral Dynamics obscures the negative consequences of ‘global’ (unaccountable, and unmeasurable) thought (the negative), and that the equilibrium point is markets.

    All these systems obscure the undesirable truth. They put forth a FALSE PROMISE THAT BAITS INTO HAZARD.

    Karl Popper’s short, wonderful essay, on The Sources of Knowledge and Ignorance, teaches a very important lesson: that useful but incomplete, or useful but false knowledge, causes ignorance. (Hence my stance on Abrahamism). Likewise, Hayek’s Use of Knowledge in Society examines the problem at scale and explains why market trial and error are the unintuitive but optimum means of human organization.

    Cheers

  • Spiral Dynamics is Instead Rainbow Dynamics

    Spiral Dynamics is Instead Rainbow Dynamics

    SPIRAL DYNAMICS FAILS FULL ACCOUNTING AND LIMITS
    It’s fundamentally a leftist pseudoscience, but we can fix that.

    I’m Blue. Red<-Blue->Orange (conservative libertarian)

    If you add the extremes of female end of the spectrum like the chart begins of the extremes of male end of the spectrum then this ‘color spectrum’ just reflects the male to female brain structure and resulting bias. In other words, he’s cherry-picking the negative male (authoritarianism) an ignoring the negative female (communism).

    By representing it as a hierarchy he reinforces the left’s message. By representing it as a male-female spectrum we find ‘choice’ (rule of law) as the top of a triangle (orange).

    So as usual “stick with consistency between physics, biology, and sentience” and avoid these arbitrary organizations of information.

    <– self-female-internal-prey — psychotic – solipsistic – || empathic <- balanced -> analytic || – aspie – psychopathic — self-male-external-predator –>

    <-- Female ------------Ascendant Male - Established Male -->
...Socialist ..........Libertarian .....Conservative.......
...Global Empathic.....Local Pragmatic..Tribal Analytic......
...Plenty-Consumption..Trade ...........Scarcity Capitalization

    P-LAW LESSON
    Spiral Dynamics is an excample of a failure of “Limits” and “Full accounting”, and it violates the laws of (a) extrapolating a line instead of discovering a curve, (b) equlibria (c) between three axis that are necessary in all evolutionary systems.

    THE CRAYON LESSON
    There isn’t any truth that can be written in crayon (non-equlibrating, mono-dimensional systems). Humans evolved to throw things. Our consciousness tends to think in the most trivial ‘linearly predictable’ terms. We fail to educate people out of linear and into equilibrial patterns of thought. In other words, most humans are still medieval in mind.

    CAUSALITY
    What causes instinctual differences in preference for these conditions?

    So try the Testimonial checklist:

    1 – realism, naturalism, operationalism? (unanswered)
    2 – internally consistent? (yes)
    3 – operationally possible (unanswered)
    4 – externally correspondent (sure)
    5 – rational (yes)
    6 – reciprocal (unanswered)
    … … fully informed (no)
    … … free of negative externality (fails)
    7 – limited (no) and complete (no)
    8 – warrantable and liable (no)

    So? Internally consistent, externally correspondent, rational but noncausal and incomplete.

    It’s incomplete because it doesn’t take communal to the point of failure(limits) while it takes individual to the point of failure (limits). This creates the impression that one is looking at a hierarchy rather than an equilibrium.

    (All systems require three points, not two, in order to produce an equilibrium. Or rather an equilibrium compromise(center) evolves between two or more limits. The entirety of the physical universe consists of equilibrium (states) between extremes. ) For example, personalities may include many dimensions but they bias male or female and they cluster in three archetypes: female, ascendent male, and dominant male.

    Equilibrium in this case is the same as all other human instinctual, ethical, moral, political, conceptual: Dominant Male Force (red), Ascendant Male Empirical Trade (orange), and (Undermining) Female Empathy (Off the chart).

    So it should be “Rainbow Dynamics” not Spiral Dynamics.

    Authoritarian Hierarchy (?-genic)
... Beige (Totalitarianism)
... ... Purple 
... ... ... Red 
----------
... ... ... ... Blue 
... ... ... ... ... Orange (Markets) (Meritocracy) (Eugenic)
... ... ... ... Green 
----------
... ... ... Yellow 
... ... Turquoise 
... [Pink?] 
(Communism)Authoritarian Equality (Dysgenic)

    1 – How do you make SD consistent with the rest of the explanation of causality? (biology)
    2 – What is the operational means of describing it? Cause? I just changed it to causal. (Reproductive strategy.)
    3 – How can our interests AFFORD to swing from individual to communal? (because of market wealth)
    4 – What happens if we reach communal or global? (Failure)
    5 – Is anything communal calculable or global? (No)
    6 – To whose disadvantage is this global-harmony communal communist condition? (The Best short-term, evolution medium-term, human survival long-term.)
    7 – Why do authoritarian France, China, Russia, Turkey, Iran, North Korea exist? (The pursuit of Power to Stay in power).
    8 – Why do only religions practice globalism? (underclass expansion of dysgenia)
    9 – Isn’t that what separates a religion (imaginary) from a government (material)? (the Material reality)

    The spiral is instead a description of ‘population’ we’re calculating on behalf of, and population we can afford to calculate on behalf of is a description of wealth to do so.

    ADDING SPIRAL DYNAMICS TO BIG 5 AND MEYERS BRIGGS.
    So, just as I’ve explained the causality and difference between big 5 vs the Meyers Briggs, we can add spiral dynamics to the list. All of these ‘ways of thinking’ are incomplete because they discontiguous with causality.



    The underlying causality is the structure of the brain and the structure of the brain that gives rise to differences begins almost entirely by sex differences, the quality of the brain. The ‘quality’ of development of the brain, and the sequence of human development in the brain of a given quality.

    So it’s not that any of these three systems of thought is ‘false’ it’s that they are incomplete, and as incomplete they serve two undesirable ends: (a) they prevent knowledge of causality (they cause ignorance), (b) they encourage inductive and deductive falsehoods. And so half-truths pollute the informational commons just as much as lies do.

    In the case of Big 5 it obscures male-female (the undesirable truth); MB doesn’t obscure male-female, but obscures neuroticism (the negative); Spiral Dynamics obscures the negative consequences of ‘global’ (unaccountable, and unmeasurable) thought (the negative), and that the equilibrium point is markets.

    All these systems obscure the undesirable truth. They put forth a FALSE PROMISE THAT BAITS INTO HAZARD.

    Karl Popper’s short, wonderful essay, on The Sources of Knowledge and Ignorance, teaches a very important lesson: that useful but incomplete, or useful but false knowledge, causes ignorance. (Hence my stance on Abrahamism). Likewise, Hayek’s Use of Knowledge in Society examines the problem at scale and explains why market trial and error are the unintuitive but optimum means of human organization.

    Cheers

  • The First Step in The P-Methodology: “Types”

    [T]he first step in P-Logic is creating Types. Not Ideal Types. Not ideals. Not an archetypes, not an average, not a set, but a scale: an ORDERED list, hierarchy, or map to use as a system of measurement.

    A type is a category whose members varies by one or more of the same properties – one ore more ‘constant relations’.

    We do this by a process called “Disambiguation by serialization and operationalization“. Our goal is to create a system of measurement for any concept.

    The process is relatively simple.

    1) Pick a term. In this example I’l use moral.

    2) Collect all related terms, synonyms and antonyms (3 minimum, 5 better)

    … Habits, manners ethics morals, traditions, laws, good, bad, right, wrong.

    3) Organized them in a sequence (x) from less to more, more to less, or neutral to more and less. Add a second dimension on an orthogonal scale for opposing dimensions ( y ) and another orthogonal (z) after which you’re no longer simplifying anyone’s understanding, so convert, or hierarchy or map or however you want to organize them. Most of the time we keep to simple lists, or sets of simple lists for different degrees of abstraction, or to illustrate different constant relations.

    Right / Wrong is a true or false. We use it as an analogy for moral.
    Good / Bad is a judgment or preference. We use it as an analogy for moral.
    We confuse ethical and moral. Ethical has a more precise meaning, which is an interpersonal action where we abuse the asymmetry of information. Moral is a looser term. It means actions that indirectly and anonymously force others to pay a cost. Manners are something we demonstrate immediately and are testable on the evidence alone.

    So I’m gointo choose to organize them by :
    … Norms: Habits > Manners > Ethics > Morals
    and
    … Cultural Regulations: Traditions > Norms > Findngs of Court > Regulations > Legislations(Laws) > Constitutions
    Or
    I could organize all of them by severity of violation:
    … Rules: habits > traditions > manners > morals > ethics > laws
    Or
    I could organize them by moral spectrum:
    … Evil< Immoral< unethical< bad < amoral > good > ethical >moral >Virtuous

    And I could stack them so that the moral spectrum was in the middle, the leal spectrum above, and the normative spectrum below and show how all of these terms are related.

    4) Next Define, Modify Definitions, Redefine, or create New Definitions so that each term in the sequence is unambiguous with every other term. In this case it’s only necessary to disambiguate moral an ethical which we did above.

    5) Convert those definitions to Operational Langauge in complete sentences absent the Verb To Be. We’ll study this a bit later. It’s ‘work’ that like mathematics or programming, you only internalize by practice.

    6) Use the Precise Term. When you use a term from the sequence, use the most precise one.

    7) Enumerate and Repeat the Series. When you are educating people, don’t pick an ideal term, but enumerate the series like this “Well that’s avoiding the externalization of an indirect cost, so that would be Moral (as in manners(direct demonstrated) > ethics(direct asymmetric) > morals(indirect anonymous) > laws(institutional)) and that’s a good thing.”

    Results: You will have converted from a colloquial associative vocabulary to a formal vocabulary of measurement. If you do this with a few dozen terms (it’s not that many) you’ll be surprised how precise you’re able to communicate your meaning . And the more you do it the more you’ll think in types (sequences).

    But caution: Now we don’t need to speak in formal operational langauge but just as we can diagram sentences, we can ‘explode’ (or expand) anything anyone says into promissory, complete, formal operational sentences that are the equivalent of testable transactions. And we can break stories into sets of transactions, or accmulate transactions into stories.

    So use the right too for the right purpose:

    … ideomatic speech > colloqual speech > articulate speech > testimonial speech

    Propertarianism teachus ustestionial speech.

    SOME BASIC TYPES:

    … |RULES| habits > traditions > manners > morals > ethics > laws

    …|FACULTIES| Physical > Emotional > Mental

    …|COGNITION| Sense > Auto-Association > Model > Perception > Prediction > Imagination > Emotion > Attention > Focus > Daydream > Think > Reason > Calculation > Computation

    SEX DIFFERENCES IN EXTREMES
    Female <———– Ascendant Male ——-> Established Male
    Socialist…………………….Libertarian…………………Conservative
    Empathic ………………….Pragmatic…………………….Analytic
    Promiscuity, Shrlling .. Non-Conforming……….Violent, Criminal
    Social Predator ………… Intellectual …………….Physical Predator

    COMPARE:
    ========

    Data Domain (Computer Science – Databases)
    In data management and database analysis, a data domain is the collection of values that a data element may contain. The rule for determining the domain boundary may be as simple as a data type with an enumerated list of values. For example, a database table that has information about people, with one record per person, might have a “gender” column.

    Type (Computer Science)
    The specification of a set of operations that may be performed on a variable (“name”). Types formalize and enforce the otherwise implicit properties of classes.

    Type System (Mathematics)
    a type system is a formal system in which every term has a “type” which defines its meaning and the operations that may be performed on it.

    Ideal Type (Social Science)
    An Ideal Type is a concept constructed by a social scientist on the basis of his interests and theoretical orientation, to capture the essential features of some social phenomenon. The Ideal type, one of the most important concepts of Weber represents the logical conclusion of several tendencies of Weberian thought.

    Category vs Type
    A Type is a N to 1 relationship (a thing can be of only one Type) and Category is a M to N relationship (a thing can fit into many categories at the same time). Category fits to a family of different things, while type refers to the actual fact that something exists as being of this type.

    Type
    a person or thing symbolizing or exemplifying the ideal or defining characteristics of something.
    synonyms:
    (What we DON”T use) epitome · quintessence · essence · perfect example · archetype · exemplar · embodiment · personification · avatar · · prototype

    (What we DO use): model · pattern · paradigm

    Category
    a class or division of people or things regarded as having particular shared characteristics.

    The Techniques

    The Operational Model of the Brain: brain, mind, consiiousness, agency.

    The Grammars. Language, Logics, Paradigms, Periodic Table of Speech

    Disambiguation by Serialization and Operationalization

    Opertionalization by Expanding sentences into Operatioal language

    Acquisitionism, Property in Toto, and the Economics of Human Behavior

    Ethics: Decidability, Reciprocity, and Testimony

    Crime: Crimes, Frauds, and Deciets,

    Prosecution (falsification, or ‘Testing’)

    Algorithmic Natural Law (construction) and Applications

    Law and Constitutions (Programmatic Natural law), and Incremntal Suppression

    Institutions, Comparative Rule, Government, Economics, Education, Religion, Family, Demographics, and

    Compartive Group Strategies

  • The First Step in The P-Methodology: “Types”

    [T]he first step in P-Logic is creating Types. Not Ideal Types. Not ideals. Not an archetypes, not an average, not a set, but a scale: an ORDERED list, hierarchy, or map to use as a system of measurement.

    A type is a category whose members varies by one or more of the same properties – one ore more ‘constant relations’.

    We do this by a process called “Disambiguation by serialization and operationalization“. Our goal is to create a system of measurement for any concept.

    The process is relatively simple.

    1) Pick a term. In this example I’l use moral.

    2) Collect all related terms, synonyms and antonyms (3 minimum, 5 better)

    … Habits, manners ethics morals, traditions, laws, good, bad, right, wrong.

    3) Organized them in a sequence (x) from less to more, more to less, or neutral to more and less. Add a second dimension on an orthogonal scale for opposing dimensions ( y ) and another orthogonal (z) after which you’re no longer simplifying anyone’s understanding, so convert, or hierarchy or map or however you want to organize them. Most of the time we keep to simple lists, or sets of simple lists for different degrees of abstraction, or to illustrate different constant relations.

    Right / Wrong is a true or false. We use it as an analogy for moral.
    Good / Bad is a judgment or preference. We use it as an analogy for moral.
    We confuse ethical and moral. Ethical has a more precise meaning, which is an interpersonal action where we abuse the asymmetry of information. Moral is a looser term. It means actions that indirectly and anonymously force others to pay a cost. Manners are something we demonstrate immediately and are testable on the evidence alone.

    So I’m gointo choose to organize them by :
    … Norms: Habits > Manners > Ethics > Morals
    and
    … Cultural Regulations: Traditions > Norms > Findngs of Court > Regulations > Legislations(Laws) > Constitutions
    Or
    I could organize all of them by severity of violation:
    … Rules: habits > traditions > manners > morals > ethics > laws
    Or
    I could organize them by moral spectrum:
    … Evil< Immoral< unethical< bad < amoral > good > ethical >moral >Virtuous

    And I could stack them so that the moral spectrum was in the middle, the leal spectrum above, and the normative spectrum below and show how all of these terms are related.

    4) Next Define, Modify Definitions, Redefine, or create New Definitions so that each term in the sequence is unambiguous with every other term. In this case it’s only necessary to disambiguate moral an ethical which we did above.

    5) Convert those definitions to Operational Langauge in complete sentences absent the Verb To Be. We’ll study this a bit later. It’s ‘work’ that like mathematics or programming, you only internalize by practice.

    6) Use the Precise Term. When you use a term from the sequence, use the most precise one.

    7) Enumerate and Repeat the Series. When you are educating people, don’t pick an ideal term, but enumerate the series like this “Well that’s avoiding the externalization of an indirect cost, so that would be Moral (as in manners(direct demonstrated) > ethics(direct asymmetric) > morals(indirect anonymous) > laws(institutional)) and that’s a good thing.”

    Results: You will have converted from a colloquial associative vocabulary to a formal vocabulary of measurement. If you do this with a few dozen terms (it’s not that many) you’ll be surprised how precise you’re able to communicate your meaning . And the more you do it the more you’ll think in types (sequences).

    But caution: Now we don’t need to speak in formal operational langauge but just as we can diagram sentences, we can ‘explode’ (or expand) anything anyone says into promissory, complete, formal operational sentences that are the equivalent of testable transactions. And we can break stories into sets of transactions, or accmulate transactions into stories.

    So use the right too for the right purpose:

    … ideomatic speech > colloqual speech > articulate speech > testimonial speech

    Propertarianism teachus ustestionial speech.

    SOME BASIC TYPES:

    … |RULES| habits > traditions > manners > morals > ethics > laws

    …|FACULTIES| Physical > Emotional > Mental

    …|COGNITION| Sense > Auto-Association > Model > Perception > Prediction > Imagination > Emotion > Attention > Focus > Daydream > Think > Reason > Calculation > Computation

    SEX DIFFERENCES IN EXTREMES
    Female <———– Ascendant Male ——-> Established Male
    Socialist…………………….Libertarian…………………Conservative
    Empathic ………………….Pragmatic…………………….Analytic
    Promiscuity, Shrlling .. Non-Conforming……….Violent, Criminal
    Social Predator ………… Intellectual …………….Physical Predator

    COMPARE:
    ========

    Data Domain (Computer Science – Databases)
    In data management and database analysis, a data domain is the collection of values that a data element may contain. The rule for determining the domain boundary may be as simple as a data type with an enumerated list of values. For example, a database table that has information about people, with one record per person, might have a “gender” column.

    Type (Computer Science)
    The specification of a set of operations that may be performed on a variable (“name”). Types formalize and enforce the otherwise implicit properties of classes.

    Type System (Mathematics)
    a type system is a formal system in which every term has a “type” which defines its meaning and the operations that may be performed on it.

    Ideal Type (Social Science)
    An Ideal Type is a concept constructed by a social scientist on the basis of his interests and theoretical orientation, to capture the essential features of some social phenomenon. The Ideal type, one of the most important concepts of Weber represents the logical conclusion of several tendencies of Weberian thought.

    Category vs Type
    A Type is a N to 1 relationship (a thing can be of only one Type) and Category is a M to N relationship (a thing can fit into many categories at the same time). Category fits to a family of different things, while type refers to the actual fact that something exists as being of this type.

    Type
    a person or thing symbolizing or exemplifying the ideal or defining characteristics of something.
    synonyms:
    (What we DON”T use) epitome · quintessence · essence · perfect example · archetype · exemplar · embodiment · personification · avatar · · prototype

    (What we DO use): model · pattern · paradigm

    Category
    a class or division of people or things regarded as having particular shared characteristics.

    The Techniques

    The Operational Model of the Brain: brain, mind, consiiousness, agency.

    The Grammars. Language, Logics, Paradigms, Periodic Table of Speech

    Disambiguation by Serialization and Operationalization

    Opertionalization by Expanding sentences into Operatioal language

    Acquisitionism, Property in Toto, and the Economics of Human Behavior

    Ethics: Decidability, Reciprocity, and Testimony

    Crime: Crimes, Frauds, and Deciets,

    Prosecution (falsification, or ‘Testing’)

    Algorithmic Natural Law (construction) and Applications

    Law and Constitutions (Programmatic Natural law), and Incremntal Suppression

    Institutions, Comparative Rule, Government, Economics, Education, Religion, Family, Demographics, and

    Compartive Group Strategies

  • Follow the Money: The Catholic Church

    Follow the Money: The Catholic Church

    FOLLOW THE MONEY: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

    A majority non-European church, non-european god, non-europan prophet, of non-European mythology, in non-european language, of non-European people, with non-European metaphysics, non-European organizations, morals, and ethics, specializing in recruiting mentally, sexually and socially dysfunctional, will undoubtedly answer your prayers for ‘whiteness’ salvation. Um. No.

    Follow the money. The Catholic Church died by a thousand cuts, was dismembered by Darwin, didn’t survive the wars, and the plastic surgery of Vatican II ensured the corpse would decay before another century passed, with the pedophila scandals just naming the pall bearers.

    We need a religion of the Primacy of MAN, and the transcendence of man into gods we imagined.

    (Attached, Pew Research. 2010 data. it’s worse now.)