Oct 7, 2019, 8:02 PM Lets discuss the term ‘proof’. A mathematician creates a PROOF, not a truth. When we promise a proof is ‘true’ we mean we promise we have DEMONSTRATED a deduction is possible or necessary. The person makes the truth claim since only people can make truth claims: promises. A promise we don’t err. That’s what ‘true’ means because it’s all it can existentially mean. We use the term ideal truth meaning ‘ that most parsimonious testimony we would give if we were omnipotent and omniscient and produced a vocabulary consisting entirely of operational names.” Because only then would we be possibly free of error. But testimonial truth is only that most parsimonious description we can make in present language with present knowledge, having performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, fictionalism, and deceit. In logic when we say a proposition ‘is true’ we mean that the constant relations stated or implied in the premise or premises are not inconstant. That we don’t err. Now in law, we say proof but it means beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it must falsify all other possibilities. We cannot promise we don’t err. We can only promise we have performed due diligence. There are no non-trivial logical proofs. Or as others have said all logic is just tautology. Or stated differently, there is no possibility of closure without appeal to information external to the set. Or stated more clearly, non-tautological logical statements are meaningless without appeal to context. So there are no non-tautological, no-trivial proofs of anything other than the internal consistency of deductions from invariant constant relations (meaning mathematics of the single dimension of positional name). Instead, all epistemology regardless of context consists of the sequence: perception, free association, hypotheses, theory, (and possibly law), with each step in that series consisting of falsification by a process of elimination, by the mind (hypothesis), by actions (theory), by market (‘law’ or ‘settled science’) until sufficient new knowledge evolves to improve it’s precision. And where that falsification is performed by tests of the consistency of identity, internal consistency (logic), external correspondence, operational possibility, and if involving choice, rational choice, and if involving human interaction reciprocity, warrantied or not by due diligence in scope and parsimony. So grow the f–k up and leave your secular version of scriptural interpretation (pilpul) in the dark ages of semitic ignorance where they belong. If you can understand this you know more about truth than the upper tenth of one percent.
Form: Mini Essay
-
An Education in The Terms Proof and Truth
Oct 7, 2019, 8:02 PM Lets discuss the term ‘proof’. A mathematician creates a PROOF, not a truth. When we promise a proof is ‘true’ we mean we promise we have DEMONSTRATED a deduction is possible or necessary. The person makes the truth claim since only people can make truth claims: promises. A promise we don’t err. That’s what ‘true’ means because it’s all it can existentially mean. We use the term ideal truth meaning ‘ that most parsimonious testimony we would give if we were omnipotent and omniscient and produced a vocabulary consisting entirely of operational names.” Because only then would we be possibly free of error. But testimonial truth is only that most parsimonious description we can make in present language with present knowledge, having performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, fictionalism, and deceit. In logic when we say a proposition ‘is true’ we mean that the constant relations stated or implied in the premise or premises are not inconstant. That we don’t err. Now in law, we say proof but it means beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it must falsify all other possibilities. We cannot promise we don’t err. We can only promise we have performed due diligence. There are no non-trivial logical proofs. Or as others have said all logic is just tautology. Or stated differently, there is no possibility of closure without appeal to information external to the set. Or stated more clearly, non-tautological logical statements are meaningless without appeal to context. So there are no non-tautological, no-trivial proofs of anything other than the internal consistency of deductions from invariant constant relations (meaning mathematics of the single dimension of positional name). Instead, all epistemology regardless of context consists of the sequence: perception, free association, hypotheses, theory, (and possibly law), with each step in that series consisting of falsification by a process of elimination, by the mind (hypothesis), by actions (theory), by market (‘law’ or ‘settled science’) until sufficient new knowledge evolves to improve it’s precision. And where that falsification is performed by tests of the consistency of identity, internal consistency (logic), external correspondence, operational possibility, and if involving choice, rational choice, and if involving human interaction reciprocity, warrantied or not by due diligence in scope and parsimony. So grow the f–k up and leave your secular version of scriptural interpretation (pilpul) in the dark ages of semitic ignorance where they belong. If you can understand this you know more about truth than the upper tenth of one percent.
-
Ending the Legacy of Pilpul and Sophism
Oct 7, 2019, 8:07 PM
—“Logic without evidence may very well leave you with uncogent/unsound arguments. It is quite possible to create uncogent/unsound arguments that are technically correct in their formulation. Logical arguments with premises that are unproven are no better than bad logical arguments.”—Clifton Knox
Lots of things may leave you with unsound arguments. That tells us nothing. In fact, i bet you can’t define a ‘sound argument’ just like you can’t define ’empirical’ vs ‘logical’ vs ‘operational’, vs ‘rational’. Here is a sound argument: one that survives falsification by tests of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility in operational language, and if involving humans rational choice, and if involving human interaction, requires tests of reciprocity (morality). If an argument survives such a series of criticisms it is a truth candidate. But other than the tautological and trivial any statement must survive every dimension of those criticisms in order to make a truth claim of it. There is no living philosopher of merit that will be able to defeat this other than by debate over the term ‘trivial’. Hoppe poses the false dichotomy between justificationism and empiricism (which he calls positivism) whereas we can test propositions (theories, promises) by every single dimension that is included in the statement. (identity, logic, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal). Now, You still havent’ answered how a logic requires evidence, and that no a priori exists, yet hoppe bases his edifice on the a priori. So how can you then advocate hoppe? You state that hoppe engages in evidence but he doesn’t, his entire work effort from argumentation upward relies on the a priori. And I’m not sure he knows (i think he doesn’t) undrestand how to convert the a priorism into scientific terms, or falsification, or that its’ the competition between the methods: logical, empirical, operational, rational that falsifies (testes the survival of) our theories. I mean, you are awfully far out of your league munchkin. You need at least mathematical philosophy, formal logic, and the philosophy of science before you can stop making so many sophomoric arguments. So you know, you haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about other than throwing around a few big words and phrases you think you understand but do not whatsoever understand.
-
Ending the Legacy of Pilpul and Sophism
Oct 7, 2019, 8:07 PM
—“Logic without evidence may very well leave you with uncogent/unsound arguments. It is quite possible to create uncogent/unsound arguments that are technically correct in their formulation. Logical arguments with premises that are unproven are no better than bad logical arguments.”—Clifton Knox
Lots of things may leave you with unsound arguments. That tells us nothing. In fact, i bet you can’t define a ‘sound argument’ just like you can’t define ’empirical’ vs ‘logical’ vs ‘operational’, vs ‘rational’. Here is a sound argument: one that survives falsification by tests of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility in operational language, and if involving humans rational choice, and if involving human interaction, requires tests of reciprocity (morality). If an argument survives such a series of criticisms it is a truth candidate. But other than the tautological and trivial any statement must survive every dimension of those criticisms in order to make a truth claim of it. There is no living philosopher of merit that will be able to defeat this other than by debate over the term ‘trivial’. Hoppe poses the false dichotomy between justificationism and empiricism (which he calls positivism) whereas we can test propositions (theories, promises) by every single dimension that is included in the statement. (identity, logic, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal). Now, You still havent’ answered how a logic requires evidence, and that no a priori exists, yet hoppe bases his edifice on the a priori. So how can you then advocate hoppe? You state that hoppe engages in evidence but he doesn’t, his entire work effort from argumentation upward relies on the a priori. And I’m not sure he knows (i think he doesn’t) undrestand how to convert the a priorism into scientific terms, or falsification, or that its’ the competition between the methods: logical, empirical, operational, rational that falsifies (testes the survival of) our theories. I mean, you are awfully far out of your league munchkin. You need at least mathematical philosophy, formal logic, and the philosophy of science before you can stop making so many sophomoric arguments. So you know, you haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about other than throwing around a few big words and phrases you think you understand but do not whatsoever understand.
-
No Spengler Is Wrong. Too Much Middle East, Not Enough China and India
Oct 8, 2019, 1:26 PM
—“Somebody like Spengler would say that there is no way around the decline and eventual fall of the Faustian West, no matter what we do politically. What if like an individual human life, and indeed the universe itself, an expiration date is just destiny?”—
He’s demonstrably wrong. China and india are the examples, The problem for most western intellectuals is that fertile crescent begins both the agrarian and bronze ages, and that we were behind them because we didn’t have that climate with those rivers, and so agrarian production had to be distributed over broader colder territories. I can envision history now without semitic influences and the semitic dark ages of ignorance. The problem is we let our civilizations partly merge when rome was conquered by byzantium (se europeans, anatolians and syrians and levantines) and so almost all out intellectuals are infected by the european semitic competition rather than studying europe, semitia, india, and china as different models. The Chinese have always been right. Homogeneity. gradual genetic colonization. Isolation. and eradication of any and all competition. We failed because when we moved from land trade through the Bosporus, to the age of sail, we didn’t put a wall at gibraltar, the Bosporus, the caucuses, and between the caspian, the aral sea, and the himalayas. We didn’t wall ourselves off like the chinese. Civilizations and territories, and SPECIES: china, India, europa (to the urals), semitia, africa, austronesia, north and south america, and australia.
-
No Spengler Is Wrong. Too Much Middle East, Not Enough China and India
Oct 8, 2019, 1:26 PM
—“Somebody like Spengler would say that there is no way around the decline and eventual fall of the Faustian West, no matter what we do politically. What if like an individual human life, and indeed the universe itself, an expiration date is just destiny?”—
He’s demonstrably wrong. China and india are the examples, The problem for most western intellectuals is that fertile crescent begins both the agrarian and bronze ages, and that we were behind them because we didn’t have that climate with those rivers, and so agrarian production had to be distributed over broader colder territories. I can envision history now without semitic influences and the semitic dark ages of ignorance. The problem is we let our civilizations partly merge when rome was conquered by byzantium (se europeans, anatolians and syrians and levantines) and so almost all out intellectuals are infected by the european semitic competition rather than studying europe, semitia, india, and china as different models. The Chinese have always been right. Homogeneity. gradual genetic colonization. Isolation. and eradication of any and all competition. We failed because when we moved from land trade through the Bosporus, to the age of sail, we didn’t put a wall at gibraltar, the Bosporus, the caucuses, and between the caspian, the aral sea, and the himalayas. We didn’t wall ourselves off like the chinese. Civilizations and territories, and SPECIES: china, India, europa (to the urals), semitia, africa, austronesia, north and south america, and australia.
-
Science Philosophy and Religion – the Production of Mindfulness Given Our Agency
Oct 8, 2019, 2:43 PM (core), (uncomfortable truth)
—“Do not try to seem wise to others. If you want to live a wise life, live it on your own terms and in your own eyes. “—Epictetus.
This advice is helpful but obscures the underlying strategy of every single religion: do not fight for status signals unless you have the mental, emotional, physical ability, allies, and resources to obtain victory in the fight for upper middle, or upper class status. Never fight the war of all-against-all we call status competition unless you have little chance of failure. It generates few winners and everyone else loses. The same for rule of law vs the false dichotomy of capitalism and socialism both of which create wars of all against all. Every religion attempts to achieve mindfulness – escape from signal competition differently, and all do so destructively. Some philosophies seek to provide mindfulness with Agency: Truth in the form of math, science, economics, and rule of law. But Agency again is for those with mental, emotional, physical, familial, social, economic, political or military ability and resources. Some Philosophies seek to achieve mindfulness by limiting agency to one’s abilities: The stoic method of self authoring, and epicurean thought. Some pseudoscientific philosophies like Buddhism seek to achieve mindfulness by forgoing agency in the world, and instead developing it in yourself – to tolerate the status competition and all other difficulties in the world. Most supernatural philosophies – those we rightly call religion – seek to achieve mindfulness by denying status competition, producing an imaginary equality instead of an existential status competition, pretense of oppression rather than incompetence, or promising a future world. So whether High Agency Truth, Limited Agency Self Improvement, Lower Agency Self Discipline, or lowest Agency Self Sedation with falsehood, we seek the means of mindfulness that suits our agency – ability and resources in the soft competition between superpredators: cooperation. There is only one ‘bad’ method of mindfulness, and that is supernatural religion – that while cheap to indoctrinate, produces the horrors upon the world of judaism, christianity and islam – the enemies of mankind. While Science (Masculine), Epicuriean (neutral) and Buddhist (feminine), Chinese and Japanese and Pre-Christian Ritual and Ancestor Worship, are all constructive. While only europeans could invent truth, and arguably only the the pre-communist Chinese produced wisdom, the indians have produced harmony by means I have barely come to understand – largely because their massive continent, like australia or england is effectively an island. We can teach mindfulness in the stoic method, with epicurean goals as the majority means of training the human mind to focus on the actionable. We can teach science in the european (english) method, with transcendence of man by the production of agency as a goal, and leave open the possibility for all to use it as they see fit. We can teach intertemporal debt transfer between the generations by ancestor worship, nature worship, and hero worship, and we can celebrate nature, ancestors, and heroes together as polities, tribes, nations, races (Species) and Mankind. But we must end the semitic dark age of sedation by ignorance and deceit, that has not only brought us the current conflict, but the semitic dark ages, and the 1B premodern deaths, and the 100M current deaths. This cannot be achieved without institutional means of gradually reforming christianity as we have gradually reformed it for over a thousand years, and by outlawing all other supernatural religions, and confining semitic religion to Semitia until it has exhausted itself because of lack of prey to consume by deceit, ignorance, dysgenia and destruction. This is antithetical to the christians who are still under the addiction of the falsehoods of semitic abrahamic deceit. My job is law. And truth under the law. And these are statement so truth. And truth s only necessary because we desire what is false, despite the vast returns on truth. The truth like perfection cannot always be achieved. But the truth can reverse harms and prevent further harms. I am a man of agency. I seek mindfulness in Truth. Truth regardless of cost to me. And that is the secret to western civilization – and our dragging mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, suffering, disease, heat, cold, and the chaos of a nature void of gods, and all but hostile to life.
-
Science Philosophy and Religion – the Production of Mindfulness Given Our Agency
Oct 8, 2019, 2:43 PM (core), (uncomfortable truth)
—“Do not try to seem wise to others. If you want to live a wise life, live it on your own terms and in your own eyes. “—Epictetus.
This advice is helpful but obscures the underlying strategy of every single religion: do not fight for status signals unless you have the mental, emotional, physical ability, allies, and resources to obtain victory in the fight for upper middle, or upper class status. Never fight the war of all-against-all we call status competition unless you have little chance of failure. It generates few winners and everyone else loses. The same for rule of law vs the false dichotomy of capitalism and socialism both of which create wars of all against all. Every religion attempts to achieve mindfulness – escape from signal competition differently, and all do so destructively. Some philosophies seek to provide mindfulness with Agency: Truth in the form of math, science, economics, and rule of law. But Agency again is for those with mental, emotional, physical, familial, social, economic, political or military ability and resources. Some Philosophies seek to achieve mindfulness by limiting agency to one’s abilities: The stoic method of self authoring, and epicurean thought. Some pseudoscientific philosophies like Buddhism seek to achieve mindfulness by forgoing agency in the world, and instead developing it in yourself – to tolerate the status competition and all other difficulties in the world. Most supernatural philosophies – those we rightly call religion – seek to achieve mindfulness by denying status competition, producing an imaginary equality instead of an existential status competition, pretense of oppression rather than incompetence, or promising a future world. So whether High Agency Truth, Limited Agency Self Improvement, Lower Agency Self Discipline, or lowest Agency Self Sedation with falsehood, we seek the means of mindfulness that suits our agency – ability and resources in the soft competition between superpredators: cooperation. There is only one ‘bad’ method of mindfulness, and that is supernatural religion – that while cheap to indoctrinate, produces the horrors upon the world of judaism, christianity and islam – the enemies of mankind. While Science (Masculine), Epicuriean (neutral) and Buddhist (feminine), Chinese and Japanese and Pre-Christian Ritual and Ancestor Worship, are all constructive. While only europeans could invent truth, and arguably only the the pre-communist Chinese produced wisdom, the indians have produced harmony by means I have barely come to understand – largely because their massive continent, like australia or england is effectively an island. We can teach mindfulness in the stoic method, with epicurean goals as the majority means of training the human mind to focus on the actionable. We can teach science in the european (english) method, with transcendence of man by the production of agency as a goal, and leave open the possibility for all to use it as they see fit. We can teach intertemporal debt transfer between the generations by ancestor worship, nature worship, and hero worship, and we can celebrate nature, ancestors, and heroes together as polities, tribes, nations, races (Species) and Mankind. But we must end the semitic dark age of sedation by ignorance and deceit, that has not only brought us the current conflict, but the semitic dark ages, and the 1B premodern deaths, and the 100M current deaths. This cannot be achieved without institutional means of gradually reforming christianity as we have gradually reformed it for over a thousand years, and by outlawing all other supernatural religions, and confining semitic religion to Semitia until it has exhausted itself because of lack of prey to consume by deceit, ignorance, dysgenia and destruction. This is antithetical to the christians who are still under the addiction of the falsehoods of semitic abrahamic deceit. My job is law. And truth under the law. And these are statement so truth. And truth s only necessary because we desire what is false, despite the vast returns on truth. The truth like perfection cannot always be achieved. But the truth can reverse harms and prevent further harms. I am a man of agency. I seek mindfulness in Truth. Truth regardless of cost to me. And that is the secret to western civilization – and our dragging mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, suffering, disease, heat, cold, and the chaos of a nature void of gods, and all but hostile to life.
-
The Postwar Narrative in Historical Context
Oct 9, 2019, 9:29 AM
Prussia was the completion of the restoration of western civilization to its origins after the roman collapse, Carolingian failure, Church failure, The French Failure b/c of church influence. The British failure b/c of french influence.
French Socialism and Jewish Marxism were a reformation from supernatural religion to pseudoscientific religion to compete with Prussia, Darwin, and finally Nietzsche.
Nazi Germany was an attempt to convert monarchical Prussianism to political prussianism to resist marxism.
The German upper classes, at least in prussia, and then in broader germany, had been trying to restore western civilization, to its foundations.The postwar french, jewish, and less so english attempt to end prussianization was successful, largely through thought leadership in pseudoscience by marxists feminists and postmodernists.
I see the current conflict between those of us who are ahead of the curve (again) restoring the prussian aristocratic ethic, the english who are trying to restore the british empire, and the protestants who are trying to restore the church, and the catholics who are in sympathy with the marxists, the underclasses who are the new postmodernists as well as marxists, and the jews and muslims who are seeking to undermine all of the above.
We must restore our aristocracy, our rule of law, our military, our militia, and our family, and we can easily do so by depoliticization, definancialization, and re-familializtion.
-
The Postwar Narrative in Historical Context
Oct 9, 2019, 9:29 AM
Prussia was the completion of the restoration of western civilization to its origins after the roman collapse, Carolingian failure, Church failure, The French Failure b/c of church influence. The British failure b/c of french influence.
French Socialism and Jewish Marxism were a reformation from supernatural religion to pseudoscientific religion to compete with Prussia, Darwin, and finally Nietzsche.
Nazi Germany was an attempt to convert monarchical Prussianism to political prussianism to resist marxism.
The German upper classes, at least in prussia, and then in broader germany, had been trying to restore western civilization, to its foundations.The postwar french, jewish, and less so english attempt to end prussianization was successful, largely through thought leadership in pseudoscience by marxists feminists and postmodernists.
I see the current conflict between those of us who are ahead of the curve (again) restoring the prussian aristocratic ethic, the english who are trying to restore the british empire, and the protestants who are trying to restore the church, and the catholics who are in sympathy with the marxists, the underclasses who are the new postmodernists as well as marxists, and the jews and muslims who are seeking to undermine all of the above.
We must restore our aristocracy, our rule of law, our military, our militia, and our family, and we can easily do so by depoliticization, definancialization, and re-familializtion.