Apr 1, 2020, 2:52 PM (important) When I say “the big problem is switching people from idealism (homogenous bias) under which each person seeks whatever bias fits his, to realism (heterogeneous bias) that is aware of the market competition. In other words, monopoly is endemic in western moral thinking bcause we’ve been homogenous since our beginnings. So we have no means of defense against the LIE of the value of diversity. This is yet another example of the f—king stupidity of libertarian tropes (sophistry). If you build high trust high value commons, then diversity increases transaction costs that all ancestors worked to reduce. So the reason we seek SOME diversity is to increase novelty because we seek to hyper-consume cheap novelty (consumption that destroys commons) rather than expensive novelty (innovation, continued capitalization of commons). I don’t know how to explain this more simply. I would appreciate anyone who could. Leftists spend down inheritance to feed herd instinct for numbers.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Reason for Christian Agitation
Apr 1, 2020, 2:54 PM Over the past few years I have worked very hard on comparative religion, and have come to understand why we desire it and how it fulfills those desires by a spectrum of means from the rational to the emotional. I was trying to solve a number of problems:
- The means by which judaism, christianity, and islam are taught and argued are the same means by which marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism, and the denial of the nature of mankind are taught and argued. So I was searching for a legal means to prevent the use of this method of teaching and arguing while preserving the good of christianity. This resulted in the same answer Thomas Jefferson came to when he compiled The Jefferson Bible. This Jefferson bible presents us with a Jesus who is ‘pure’ and free of dogma. And I discovered that while this is possible it is not tolerable. And because it is not tolerable it is impossible.
I care only about the generations of our european religions. Including prehistoric natural, ancient heroic, and medieval Christian. And I care about preserving all three generations of them because of one of our unspoken secrets: european tripartism and trifunctionalism. When christians use this method of teaching and arguing against me or my work it makes me very angry – because I understand that this method is the means by which our civilization has been destroyed by the postwar jewish movement against western civlization. And I this threat is very real, very serious, and we are almost lost. So between my investigation into how to eliminate the abrahamic method of teaching and arguing, and between my frustration with the frequent use of this method by christians who were agitated by my investigation, I created a great deal of friction between the faithful, philosophical, and empirical Christians.
- I want to outlaw false religions that seek to destroy christianity, our philosophy, our science, our law, our civilization and our people. In particular, neigher Judaism nor Islam are religions – they are means of warfare from within masquerading as a religion. Early Christianity was likewise a means of warfare from within – we merley managed to ‘civilize it’ over the centuries after it was introduced to europe.
I want to restore the religion to its political competition to the state, and restore its responsibility for birth, age of maturity, marriage, family and – at least – early education, and death. The state has proven too fashionable and religion’s value is in defense against the fashions and folly of the age.
These three challenges are the reason for the conflict we have created between those of us who practice empirical christianity in the natural law, and those that practice spiritual and theological christianity. I advocate that we speak faith in matters of faith – the spirit, and law in matters of law – the material. And that if we attempt to cross those lines we must engage in deceit. And deceit is neither moral under the natural law, or moral under christian ethics. So we must continue our prehistoric practice of Tripartism and Trifunctionalism, which is the continuous balance of power between the Military, Law, and Faith. And in short, deliver unto God and Caesar each as his due. There is no place for theology in court. There is no place for court in faith.
-
Reason for Christian Agitation
Apr 1, 2020, 2:54 PM Over the past few years I have worked very hard on comparative religion, and have come to understand why we desire it and how it fulfills those desires by a spectrum of means from the rational to the emotional. I was trying to solve a number of problems:
- The means by which judaism, christianity, and islam are taught and argued are the same means by which marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism, and the denial of the nature of mankind are taught and argued. So I was searching for a legal means to prevent the use of this method of teaching and arguing while preserving the good of christianity. This resulted in the same answer Thomas Jefferson came to when he compiled The Jefferson Bible. This Jefferson bible presents us with a Jesus who is ‘pure’ and free of dogma. And I discovered that while this is possible it is not tolerable. And because it is not tolerable it is impossible.
I care only about the generations of our european religions. Including prehistoric natural, ancient heroic, and medieval Christian. And I care about preserving all three generations of them because of one of our unspoken secrets: european tripartism and trifunctionalism. When christians use this method of teaching and arguing against me or my work it makes me very angry – because I understand that this method is the means by which our civilization has been destroyed by the postwar jewish movement against western civlization. And I this threat is very real, very serious, and we are almost lost. So between my investigation into how to eliminate the abrahamic method of teaching and arguing, and between my frustration with the frequent use of this method by christians who were agitated by my investigation, I created a great deal of friction between the faithful, philosophical, and empirical Christians.
- I want to outlaw false religions that seek to destroy christianity, our philosophy, our science, our law, our civilization and our people. In particular, neigher Judaism nor Islam are religions – they are means of warfare from within masquerading as a religion. Early Christianity was likewise a means of warfare from within – we merley managed to ‘civilize it’ over the centuries after it was introduced to europe.
I want to restore the religion to its political competition to the state, and restore its responsibility for birth, age of maturity, marriage, family and – at least – early education, and death. The state has proven too fashionable and religion’s value is in defense against the fashions and folly of the age.
These three challenges are the reason for the conflict we have created between those of us who practice empirical christianity in the natural law, and those that practice spiritual and theological christianity. I advocate that we speak faith in matters of faith – the spirit, and law in matters of law – the material. And that if we attempt to cross those lines we must engage in deceit. And deceit is neither moral under the natural law, or moral under christian ethics. So we must continue our prehistoric practice of Tripartism and Trifunctionalism, which is the continuous balance of power between the Military, Law, and Faith. And in short, deliver unto God and Caesar each as his due. There is no place for theology in court. There is no place for court in faith.
-
My Work on Christianity
Apr 1, 2020, 2:54 PM I work under the principle that the laws of nature, the natural law of man, and the evolutionary necessity of the law of transcendence are the same whether we state them in Theological, Philosophical, and Scientific language. So whether you intuit, think, and speak in the Christian, Deist, or Naturalist language, and whether you choose to adhere to physical laws, the natural law of man, and the necessity of evolutionary laws out of faith, reason, or science, is irrelevant to the individual or to the polity, or to mankind unless you selfishly demand the rest of the world conform to your way of thinking, speaking. On the other hand, if you do not live in accordance with the physical, natural, and evolutionary then you work against yourself, your polity, your people, and mankind – and when you do so, you work against the Christian God, the deist god, or the condition of our people past present and future. In my work, to defend against the enemies of physical, natural, and evolutionary laws, I must put these laws in a constitution in the language of the law, and science is the language of the law. Because we need people to think across the spectrum of intuitive, rational, and empirical thought so that we can solve intuitive, rational, and empirical questions, for intuitive, rational, and empirical minds. And we cannot demand people intuit, think, and speak in exclusively intuitive, rational, or empirical language. All we can do is demand that people behave according to physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. We cannot force people to have faith, reason, or the burden of the sciences, nor to abandon faith, reason, and the utility of the sciences. We can only write the law such that those who ACT contrary to the laws of nature, of man, and of evolutionary transcendence, can be prosecuted by the law, in the language of the law, if they transgress. Because the law consists only of the means of resolving disputes over action – not of intuition, feeling, or thought.
-
My Work on Christianity
Apr 1, 2020, 2:54 PM I work under the principle that the laws of nature, the natural law of man, and the evolutionary necessity of the law of transcendence are the same whether we state them in Theological, Philosophical, and Scientific language. So whether you intuit, think, and speak in the Christian, Deist, or Naturalist language, and whether you choose to adhere to physical laws, the natural law of man, and the necessity of evolutionary laws out of faith, reason, or science, is irrelevant to the individual or to the polity, or to mankind unless you selfishly demand the rest of the world conform to your way of thinking, speaking. On the other hand, if you do not live in accordance with the physical, natural, and evolutionary then you work against yourself, your polity, your people, and mankind – and when you do so, you work against the Christian God, the deist god, or the condition of our people past present and future. In my work, to defend against the enemies of physical, natural, and evolutionary laws, I must put these laws in a constitution in the language of the law, and science is the language of the law. Because we need people to think across the spectrum of intuitive, rational, and empirical thought so that we can solve intuitive, rational, and empirical questions, for intuitive, rational, and empirical minds. And we cannot demand people intuit, think, and speak in exclusively intuitive, rational, or empirical language. All we can do is demand that people behave according to physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. We cannot force people to have faith, reason, or the burden of the sciences, nor to abandon faith, reason, and the utility of the sciences. We can only write the law such that those who ACT contrary to the laws of nature, of man, and of evolutionary transcendence, can be prosecuted by the law, in the language of the law, if they transgress. Because the law consists only of the means of resolving disputes over action – not of intuition, feeling, or thought.
-
Summary of JFG/Doolittle on The Molyneux Debate
Apr 1, 2020, 2:57 PM SUMMARY OF JFG/DOOLITTLE ON THE MOLYNEUX DEBATE That was fun. I always enjoy JF. The public isn’t used to seeing how philosophy, law, science and math are done between practitioners – tediously precisely. I realize this kind of thing is difficult for the audience. And JF has to keep the audience engaged. Between my long expositions and jf’s audience representation it required a little cat herding on my part. That said, I think we got there. SUMMARY: (a) we are born with a distribution of moral preferences (Demand for treatment from others, and resistance to demands from other)s, (b) we exercise our moral preferences in a market competition for cooperation wherein we discover cooperation (sexual, social, economic, political, military) with people that satisfy our moral preferences, (c) groups of people increase in a division of labor and as they do so converge on moral norms (requirements for cooperation) that allow them to cooperatively succeed in their geographic, demographic, economic, institutional, and military conditions – and some of these they institute as laws (punishments for violations) (d) across human groups we converge on the same underlying rule within each of those different markets (e) that rule is reciprocity that preserves cooperation and prevents retaliation, within the limits of proportionality that cause members to defect. (e) but moral rules are only useful in creating and preserving cooperation and the outsized returns on cooperation, (f) and cooperation must be more beneficial than parasitism(free riding, black markets, rent seeking, corruption etc), and predation (conquest). (g) all human organizations of all kinds seek the minimum morality, maximum free riding, rent seeking, and corruption until there is insufficient free capital to incentivize adjustment to shocks, and the civilization collapses (h) so there is no moral rule outside of the utility of cooperation because ‘moral’ can only mean ‘within the limits of reciprocity and proportionality among those of us cooperating’. There is no morality in war. (i) the only universal moral rule is reciprocity – do not impose costs, including risks, directly or indirectly upon the demonstrated interests of others in your group. (j) there are no possible via positiva universal moral statements. Anything that is not immoral (reciprocal) is moral. People who claim otherwise are engaging in an act of fraud by claiming their preference must be paid for by others irreciprocally. They claim debts or injustice when there is none. CLOSING As such, JF was correct at the personal level in that all individuals demonstrate variation in moral demand of others;; And SM was half right at the socio-political level, and half right at the universal level, but stated the via positiva preference for a good instead of via negativa prohibition on the bad. In this sense both parties, adopting ideal types, rather than the use of series, talked past each other. P-law makes use of disambiguation through “operationalism, competition, and serialization’, and relies on the logic of incentives, supply and demand. We convert psychological , social, legal and political concepts into economic terms to take advantage of the minimization of error that results, at the expense of more reasoning and less intuiting. -Cheers LEARN SOMETHING: DOOLITTLE on the JFG/MOLYNEUX Debate
from 0:00 to 1:12:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GRzHdA3lio & ( Stefan Molyneux ) NOTES PRIOR TO SHOW: WHY IS CURT DOOLITTLE SO HOSTILE IN REFORMING LIBERTARIANISM INTO SOVEREIGNTARIANISM? https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle.personal/posts/ NOTES FOR GOING ON JFG’S SHOW https://www.facebook.com/242127430518751 curt.doolittle.personal/posts/ (against gariepy) 1 – STEFAN MOLYNEUX AND AND J F GARIEPY DEBATE WAS FKING EMBARASSING https://www.facebook.com/241938667204294 permalink.php?story_fbid=594803234449904& 2 – JFG CLEARLY DOESN’T UNDERSTAND SUPERPOSITION https://www.facebook.com/id=100017606988153 permalink.php?story_fbid=594829684447259& (against molyneux) 3 – MORE MOLYNEUX VS JFG AND A SHORT CRITICISM OF UPB https://www.facebook.com/id=100017606988153 permalink.php?story_fbid=594894601107434& (against libertarian and right in general) 4 – THE REST OF THE RIGHT IS INTELLECTUALLY EMBARASSING https://www.facebook.com/id=100017606988153 permalink.php?story_fbid=594817174448510& id=100017606988153 -
Summary of JFG/Doolittle on The Molyneux Debate
Apr 1, 2020, 2:57 PM SUMMARY OF JFG/DOOLITTLE ON THE MOLYNEUX DEBATE That was fun. I always enjoy JF. The public isn’t used to seeing how philosophy, law, science and math are done between practitioners – tediously precisely. I realize this kind of thing is difficult for the audience. And JF has to keep the audience engaged. Between my long expositions and jf’s audience representation it required a little cat herding on my part. That said, I think we got there. SUMMARY: (a) we are born with a distribution of moral preferences (Demand for treatment from others, and resistance to demands from other)s, (b) we exercise our moral preferences in a market competition for cooperation wherein we discover cooperation (sexual, social, economic, political, military) with people that satisfy our moral preferences, (c) groups of people increase in a division of labor and as they do so converge on moral norms (requirements for cooperation) that allow them to cooperatively succeed in their geographic, demographic, economic, institutional, and military conditions – and some of these they institute as laws (punishments for violations) (d) across human groups we converge on the same underlying rule within each of those different markets (e) that rule is reciprocity that preserves cooperation and prevents retaliation, within the limits of proportionality that cause members to defect. (e) but moral rules are only useful in creating and preserving cooperation and the outsized returns on cooperation, (f) and cooperation must be more beneficial than parasitism(free riding, black markets, rent seeking, corruption etc), and predation (conquest). (g) all human organizations of all kinds seek the minimum morality, maximum free riding, rent seeking, and corruption until there is insufficient free capital to incentivize adjustment to shocks, and the civilization collapses (h) so there is no moral rule outside of the utility of cooperation because ‘moral’ can only mean ‘within the limits of reciprocity and proportionality among those of us cooperating’. There is no morality in war. (i) the only universal moral rule is reciprocity – do not impose costs, including risks, directly or indirectly upon the demonstrated interests of others in your group. (j) there are no possible via positiva universal moral statements. Anything that is not immoral (reciprocal) is moral. People who claim otherwise are engaging in an act of fraud by claiming their preference must be paid for by others irreciprocally. They claim debts or injustice when there is none. CLOSING As such, JF was correct at the personal level in that all individuals demonstrate variation in moral demand of others;; And SM was half right at the socio-political level, and half right at the universal level, but stated the via positiva preference for a good instead of via negativa prohibition on the bad. In this sense both parties, adopting ideal types, rather than the use of series, talked past each other. P-law makes use of disambiguation through “operationalism, competition, and serialization’, and relies on the logic of incentives, supply and demand. We convert psychological , social, legal and political concepts into economic terms to take advantage of the minimization of error that results, at the expense of more reasoning and less intuiting. -Cheers LEARN SOMETHING: DOOLITTLE on the JFG/MOLYNEUX Debate
from 0:00 to 1:12:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GRzHdA3lio & ( Stefan Molyneux ) NOTES PRIOR TO SHOW: WHY IS CURT DOOLITTLE SO HOSTILE IN REFORMING LIBERTARIANISM INTO SOVEREIGNTARIANISM? https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle.personal/posts/ NOTES FOR GOING ON JFG’S SHOW https://www.facebook.com/242127430518751 curt.doolittle.personal/posts/ (against gariepy) 1 – STEFAN MOLYNEUX AND AND J F GARIEPY DEBATE WAS FKING EMBARASSING https://www.facebook.com/241938667204294 permalink.php?story_fbid=594803234449904& 2 – JFG CLEARLY DOESN’T UNDERSTAND SUPERPOSITION https://www.facebook.com/id=100017606988153 permalink.php?story_fbid=594829684447259& (against molyneux) 3 – MORE MOLYNEUX VS JFG AND A SHORT CRITICISM OF UPB https://www.facebook.com/id=100017606988153 permalink.php?story_fbid=594894601107434& (against libertarian and right in general) 4 – THE REST OF THE RIGHT IS INTELLECTUALLY EMBARASSING https://www.facebook.com/id=100017606988153 permalink.php?story_fbid=594817174448510& id=100017606988153 -
We only Need Enough Knowledge and Skill to Serve One Another -And Enough Courage to Defend One Another.
Apr 1, 2020, 3:00 PM
The Great Trade
“Whether we understand, by reason, trust, or feeling doesn’t matter. We must only trade loyalty, duty, truth, and reciprocity – and that is enough.”
THE THREE DEGREES OF AGREEMENT: THINK, TRUST, FEEL – AND THE VIRTUES, VICES, AND COMMANDMENTS
We all satisfy our need for understanding differently:
1. Autists need to think it, (Rational) 2. Normies need to trust it, (Reasonable) and 3. Empaths need to feel it. (Empathic)
We Satisfy Our Limits of Agency given the status quo, differently:
1. Achievement (Excellence) Or; 2. Action (Competitive Engagement) 3. Accomodation (Neutral Engagement) Or; 4. Withdrawal 5. Escape Or; 6. Resistance 7. Undermining
All that matters is we do not deny:
1. the physical law of the universe, 2. the evolutionary law of evolution and transcendence, 3. the natural law of man, the extension of natural law to the love of man, 4. the debt we owe to nature and our ancestors.
After that we only need enough knowledge and skill to serve one another -and enough courage to defend one another.
Whether we understand it, trust it, or feel it doesn’t matter. We must trade loyalty, duty, truth, and reciprocity – and that is enough
The Via-Positiva
FOR CHILDREN:
DO UNTO OTHERS
It’s not complicated.
“do not unto others as they would not have done unto them. do only unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
For Women:
THE FOUR AGREEMENTS
For women, neither are the four agreements difficult.
Agreement 1: Be Impeccable With Your Word Agreement 2: Don’t Take Anything Personally Agreement 3: Don’t Make Assumptions Agreement 4: Always Do Your Best
THE CHRISTIAN VIRTUES
For women, the Christian virtues are not difficult.
1. chastity 2. temperance 3. charity 4. diligence 5. patience 6. kindness 7. humilityFor Men
THE FOUR GREEK VIRTUES
For Men, the Greek Virtues are not difficult.
The term “virtue” itself is derived from the Latin “virtus” (the personification of which was the deity Virtus), and had connotations of “manliness”, “honour”, worthiness of deferential respect, and civic duty as both citizen and soldier.
1. Wisdom (vs cunning) 2. Courage (vs victimhood) 3. Moderation (epicureanism vs hedonism or asceticism) 4. Justice (vs compassion)
DOOLITTLE’S NECESSITIES
Every man: 1. A craftsman (so he is not a scoundrel), 2. A soldier (so he does his duty to his people), 3. A warrior (so he is not a coward), 4. A Sheriff (so he defends the commons), 5. A Judge (so he metes justice when he must), legislature (so he chooses his own path), and; 6. A Sovereign (so he takes responsibility for his actions).
The Via-Reciprocity
RECIPROCITY (SCIENTIFIC, LEGAL, OR NECESSARY ETHICS)
“The only moral actions are those that consist exclusively of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs by externality upon the demonstrated investments of others.”
The via Negativa
THE VICES
1. Pride 2. Envy 3. Gluttony 4. Lust 5. Wrath 6. Greed 7. Sloth
THE CRIMES: TEN COMMANDMENTS IN P-LAW TERMS (In response to James Dmitro Makienko and John Mark.)
1 – God/Nature has given us the many laws of nature, the one natural law of man: reciprocity, and the one choice: transcendence into gods ourselves by those laws, or the end of our existence for failing. 2 – You shall not use reciprocity falsely, or criticize reciprocity, and spread irreciprocity – this is to criticize god, god’s law, and doom mankind to failure of transcendence. 4 – You shall return your parent’s investment in you with reciprocity of obedience, respect, and care. 5 – You shalt not commit murder – reciprocity of life cannot be restored, reciprocity of revenge cannot be unmade, and reciprocity in trust forever lost. 6 – You shalt not commit adultery – reciprocity of the marriage promise cannot be restored. 7 – You shalt not steal – reciprocity of goods may be restored, but reciprocity of trust cannot be restored. 8 – You shalt not lie – reciprocity of deceit may be restored, reciprocity of harm may not be, and reciprocity of trust cannot be restored. 9 – You shalt not contemplate lust of another’s wife or husband – lest in anger, weakness or folly you violate the reciprocity of a marriage. 10 – You shalt not contemplate lust of another’s property, lest in anger, weakness or folly you violate the reciprocity of property. 3 – One day a week you shall spend contemplating your reciprocity irreciprocity, to past, present and future kin and kith, and seek means of restitution.
The Competition
The competitors in antiquity were: Excellence
(0) Aryanism: Excellence (Dominance) ( … )Action
(1) Stoicism: ( … )Accomodation
Confucianism: ( … )
Hinduism: ( … )Withdrawal
(2) Epicureanism, with its doctrine of a life of withdrawal in contemplation and escape from worldly affairs and its belief that pleasure, as the absence of pain, is the goal of humans;
(3) Buddhism ( … )Escape
(3) Skepticism, which rejected certain knowledge in favour of local beliefs and customs, in the expectation that those guides would provide the quietude and serenity that the dogmatic philosopher (e.g., the Stoic) could not hope to achieve; and
(4) Christianity, with its hope of personal salvation provided by an appeal to faith as an immanent aid to human understanding and by the beneficent intervention of a merciful God.Resistance
(5) Rebellion: Jewish Rebellion, Undermining, and Devolution ( … )
(6) Rebellion: Islamic Rebellion, Undermining, and Destruction ( … )ARISTOTLE’S ETHICS As Aristotle says in the Nicomachean Ethics
“The golden mean between the extremes, at the right times (when), about the right things (what), towards the right people (who), for the right end (why), and in the right way (how).”STOIC ETHICS (DUTY)
In urging participation in human affairs, Stoics have always believed that the goal of all inquiry is to provide a mode of conduct characterized by tranquillity of mind and certainty of moral worth.
If, as with Socrates, to know is to know oneself, rationality as the sole means by which something outside of the self might be achieved may be said to be the hallmark of Stoic belief. As a Hellenistic philosophy, Stoicism presented an ars vitae, a way of accommodation for people to whom the human condition no longer appeared as the mirror of a uniform, calm, and ordered cosmos. Reason alone could reveal the constancy of cosmic order and the originative source of unyielding value; thus, reason became the true model for human existence. To the Stoic, virtue is an inherent feature of the world, no less inexorable in relation to humans than are the laws of nature.
The Stoics believed that perception is the basis of true knowledge. In logic, their comprehensive presentation of the topic is derived from perception, yielding not only the judgment that knowledge is possible but also that certainty is possible, on the analogy of the incorrigibility of perceptual experience. To them, the world is composed of material things, with some few exceptions (e.g., meaning), and the irreducible element in all things is right reason, which pervades the world as divine fire. Things, such as material, or corporeal, bodies, are governed by this reason or fate, in which virtue is inherent. The world in its awesome entirety is so ruled as to exhibit a grandeur of orderly arrangement that can only serve as a standard for humankind in the regulation and ordering of life. Thus, the goal of humans is to live according to nature, in agreement with the world design.
Stoic moral theory is also based on the view that the world, as one great city, is a unity. Humans, as world citizens, have an obligation and loyalty to all things in that city. They must play an active role in world affairs, remembering that the world exemplifies virtue and right action. Thus, moral worth, duty, and justice are singularly Stoic emphases, together with a certain sternness of mind. For the moral person neither is merciful nor shows pity, because each suggests a deviation from duty and from the fated necessity that rules the world. Nonetheless—with its loftiness of spirit and its emphasis on the individual’s essential worth—the themes of universal brotherhood and the benevolence of divine nature make Stoicism one of the most appealing of philosophies.-Source: Britannica
EPICURIAN ETHICS (LIVING WITHIN ONE’S MEANS)
(Mindfulness) The greatest good is to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquillity, freedom from fear (“ataraxia”) and absence from bodily pain (“aponia”).
In physics, these are atomism, a mechanical conception of causality, limited, however, by the idea of a spontaneous motion, or “swerve,” of the atoms, which interrupts the necessary effect of a cause; the infinity of the universe and the equilibrium of all forces that circularly enclose its phenomena; and the existence of gods conceived as beatified and immortal natures completely extraneous to happenings in the world.
In ethics, the basic concepts are the identification of good with pleasure and of the supreme good and ultimate end with the absence of pain from the body and the soul—a limit beyond which pleasure does not grow but changes; the reduction of every human relation to the principle of utility, which finds its highest expression in friendship, in which it is at the same time surmounted; and, in accordance with this end, the limitation of all desire and the practice of the virtues, from which pleasure is inseparable, and a withdrawn and quiet life.
In principle, Epicurus’s ethic of pleasure is the exact opposite of the Stoic’s ethic of duty. The consequences, however, are the same: in the end, the Epicurean is forced to live with the same temperance and justice as the Stoic. Of utmost importance, however, is one point of divergence: the walls of the Stoic’s city are those of the world, and its law is that of reason; the limits of the Epicurean’s city are those of a garden, and the law is that of friendship. Though this garden can also reach the boundaries of earth, its centre is always an individual.
— “The Garden”-Source: Britannica
( … ) stoicism’s pseudoscience and universalism versus and epicureanism’s science and particularism.
-
We only Need Enough Knowledge and Skill to Serve One Another -And Enough Courage to Defend One Another.
Apr 1, 2020, 3:00 PM
The Great Trade
“Whether we understand, by reason, trust, or feeling doesn’t matter. We must only trade loyalty, duty, truth, and reciprocity – and that is enough.”
THE THREE DEGREES OF AGREEMENT: THINK, TRUST, FEEL – AND THE VIRTUES, VICES, AND COMMANDMENTS
We all satisfy our need for understanding differently:
1. Autists need to think it, (Rational) 2. Normies need to trust it, (Reasonable) and 3. Empaths need to feel it. (Empathic)
We Satisfy Our Limits of Agency given the status quo, differently:
1. Achievement (Excellence) Or; 2. Action (Competitive Engagement) 3. Accomodation (Neutral Engagement) Or; 4. Withdrawal 5. Escape Or; 6. Resistance 7. Undermining
All that matters is we do not deny:
1. the physical law of the universe, 2. the evolutionary law of evolution and transcendence, 3. the natural law of man, the extension of natural law to the love of man, 4. the debt we owe to nature and our ancestors.
After that we only need enough knowledge and skill to serve one another -and enough courage to defend one another.
Whether we understand it, trust it, or feel it doesn’t matter. We must trade loyalty, duty, truth, and reciprocity – and that is enough
The Via-Positiva
FOR CHILDREN:
DO UNTO OTHERS
It’s not complicated.
“do not unto others as they would not have done unto them. do only unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
For Women:
THE FOUR AGREEMENTS
For women, neither are the four agreements difficult.
Agreement 1: Be Impeccable With Your Word Agreement 2: Don’t Take Anything Personally Agreement 3: Don’t Make Assumptions Agreement 4: Always Do Your Best
THE CHRISTIAN VIRTUES
For women, the Christian virtues are not difficult.
1. chastity 2. temperance 3. charity 4. diligence 5. patience 6. kindness 7. humilityFor Men
THE FOUR GREEK VIRTUES
For Men, the Greek Virtues are not difficult.
The term “virtue” itself is derived from the Latin “virtus” (the personification of which was the deity Virtus), and had connotations of “manliness”, “honour”, worthiness of deferential respect, and civic duty as both citizen and soldier.
1. Wisdom (vs cunning) 2. Courage (vs victimhood) 3. Moderation (epicureanism vs hedonism or asceticism) 4. Justice (vs compassion)
DOOLITTLE’S NECESSITIES
Every man: 1. A craftsman (so he is not a scoundrel), 2. A soldier (so he does his duty to his people), 3. A warrior (so he is not a coward), 4. A Sheriff (so he defends the commons), 5. A Judge (so he metes justice when he must), legislature (so he chooses his own path), and; 6. A Sovereign (so he takes responsibility for his actions).
The Via-Reciprocity
RECIPROCITY (SCIENTIFIC, LEGAL, OR NECESSARY ETHICS)
“The only moral actions are those that consist exclusively of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs by externality upon the demonstrated investments of others.”
The via Negativa
THE VICES
1. Pride 2. Envy 3. Gluttony 4. Lust 5. Wrath 6. Greed 7. Sloth
THE CRIMES: TEN COMMANDMENTS IN P-LAW TERMS (In response to James Dmitro Makienko and John Mark.)
1 – God/Nature has given us the many laws of nature, the one natural law of man: reciprocity, and the one choice: transcendence into gods ourselves by those laws, or the end of our existence for failing. 2 – You shall not use reciprocity falsely, or criticize reciprocity, and spread irreciprocity – this is to criticize god, god’s law, and doom mankind to failure of transcendence. 4 – You shall return your parent’s investment in you with reciprocity of obedience, respect, and care. 5 – You shalt not commit murder – reciprocity of life cannot be restored, reciprocity of revenge cannot be unmade, and reciprocity in trust forever lost. 6 – You shalt not commit adultery – reciprocity of the marriage promise cannot be restored. 7 – You shalt not steal – reciprocity of goods may be restored, but reciprocity of trust cannot be restored. 8 – You shalt not lie – reciprocity of deceit may be restored, reciprocity of harm may not be, and reciprocity of trust cannot be restored. 9 – You shalt not contemplate lust of another’s wife or husband – lest in anger, weakness or folly you violate the reciprocity of a marriage. 10 – You shalt not contemplate lust of another’s property, lest in anger, weakness or folly you violate the reciprocity of property. 3 – One day a week you shall spend contemplating your reciprocity irreciprocity, to past, present and future kin and kith, and seek means of restitution.
The Competition
The competitors in antiquity were: Excellence
(0) Aryanism: Excellence (Dominance) ( … )Action
(1) Stoicism: ( … )Accomodation
Confucianism: ( … )
Hinduism: ( … )Withdrawal
(2) Epicureanism, with its doctrine of a life of withdrawal in contemplation and escape from worldly affairs and its belief that pleasure, as the absence of pain, is the goal of humans;
(3) Buddhism ( … )Escape
(3) Skepticism, which rejected certain knowledge in favour of local beliefs and customs, in the expectation that those guides would provide the quietude and serenity that the dogmatic philosopher (e.g., the Stoic) could not hope to achieve; and
(4) Christianity, with its hope of personal salvation provided by an appeal to faith as an immanent aid to human understanding and by the beneficent intervention of a merciful God.Resistance
(5) Rebellion: Jewish Rebellion, Undermining, and Devolution ( … )
(6) Rebellion: Islamic Rebellion, Undermining, and Destruction ( … )ARISTOTLE’S ETHICS As Aristotle says in the Nicomachean Ethics
“The golden mean between the extremes, at the right times (when), about the right things (what), towards the right people (who), for the right end (why), and in the right way (how).”STOIC ETHICS (DUTY)
In urging participation in human affairs, Stoics have always believed that the goal of all inquiry is to provide a mode of conduct characterized by tranquillity of mind and certainty of moral worth.
If, as with Socrates, to know is to know oneself, rationality as the sole means by which something outside of the self might be achieved may be said to be the hallmark of Stoic belief. As a Hellenistic philosophy, Stoicism presented an ars vitae, a way of accommodation for people to whom the human condition no longer appeared as the mirror of a uniform, calm, and ordered cosmos. Reason alone could reveal the constancy of cosmic order and the originative source of unyielding value; thus, reason became the true model for human existence. To the Stoic, virtue is an inherent feature of the world, no less inexorable in relation to humans than are the laws of nature.
The Stoics believed that perception is the basis of true knowledge. In logic, their comprehensive presentation of the topic is derived from perception, yielding not only the judgment that knowledge is possible but also that certainty is possible, on the analogy of the incorrigibility of perceptual experience. To them, the world is composed of material things, with some few exceptions (e.g., meaning), and the irreducible element in all things is right reason, which pervades the world as divine fire. Things, such as material, or corporeal, bodies, are governed by this reason or fate, in which virtue is inherent. The world in its awesome entirety is so ruled as to exhibit a grandeur of orderly arrangement that can only serve as a standard for humankind in the regulation and ordering of life. Thus, the goal of humans is to live according to nature, in agreement with the world design.
Stoic moral theory is also based on the view that the world, as one great city, is a unity. Humans, as world citizens, have an obligation and loyalty to all things in that city. They must play an active role in world affairs, remembering that the world exemplifies virtue and right action. Thus, moral worth, duty, and justice are singularly Stoic emphases, together with a certain sternness of mind. For the moral person neither is merciful nor shows pity, because each suggests a deviation from duty and from the fated necessity that rules the world. Nonetheless—with its loftiness of spirit and its emphasis on the individual’s essential worth—the themes of universal brotherhood and the benevolence of divine nature make Stoicism one of the most appealing of philosophies.-Source: Britannica
EPICURIAN ETHICS (LIVING WITHIN ONE’S MEANS)
(Mindfulness) The greatest good is to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquillity, freedom from fear (“ataraxia”) and absence from bodily pain (“aponia”).
In physics, these are atomism, a mechanical conception of causality, limited, however, by the idea of a spontaneous motion, or “swerve,” of the atoms, which interrupts the necessary effect of a cause; the infinity of the universe and the equilibrium of all forces that circularly enclose its phenomena; and the existence of gods conceived as beatified and immortal natures completely extraneous to happenings in the world.
In ethics, the basic concepts are the identification of good with pleasure and of the supreme good and ultimate end with the absence of pain from the body and the soul—a limit beyond which pleasure does not grow but changes; the reduction of every human relation to the principle of utility, which finds its highest expression in friendship, in which it is at the same time surmounted; and, in accordance with this end, the limitation of all desire and the practice of the virtues, from which pleasure is inseparable, and a withdrawn and quiet life.
In principle, Epicurus’s ethic of pleasure is the exact opposite of the Stoic’s ethic of duty. The consequences, however, are the same: in the end, the Epicurean is forced to live with the same temperance and justice as the Stoic. Of utmost importance, however, is one point of divergence: the walls of the Stoic’s city are those of the world, and its law is that of reason; the limits of the Epicurean’s city are those of a garden, and the law is that of friendship. Though this garden can also reach the boundaries of earth, its centre is always an individual.
— “The Garden”-Source: Britannica
( … ) stoicism’s pseudoscience and universalism versus and epicureanism’s science and particularism.
-
Notes on Eric Weinstein’s Theory
He demonstrates why geometry must remain the basis for mathematics, else it becomes ordinary language with all it’s faults – long standing complaint – and primary pre-war concern of mathematicians who were concerned by the restoration of mysticism in mathematics by empty verbalisms like ‘multiple infinities’ vs ‘pairing off at different rates’. This restoration of mysticism (Cantor, Bohr, and to some degree Keynes) reversed the restoration of mathematics to geometry by Descartes. He does a great job of demonstrating anchoring in any academic endeavor. And that some scientific half-solutions are sources of ignorance. And that generations of malinvested academics have to die off before their sources of ignorance can be overcome. His interjection with illustrations are a romantic cultural indulgence that distracts from his argument. He missed the point on Hilbert – that Einstein created an obstacle by half-finishing the theory and hilbert wouldn’t have. His logic is elegant, interesting, and thorough. And easier to follow than I expected. He does not make the transition from point-geometry to shape geometry. He does not make the connection between the problem of protein folding and the problem of particles producing waves. He identifies an avenue for investigation but he does not get to the point where he grasps that the reason his theory is correct but limited is that the information is insufficient to deduce from the top down or competition between formulae because we cannot measure. And so he doesn’t get to the point of working with primitives (operations) to produce wave forms (aggregates). So he doesn’t get to the point where math might be the wrong tool per se, and that simulations are necessary – by trial and error – to produce the underlying geometry. It’s not obvious that the sub-quantum (statistical) would logically operate by the same rules as chemistry and bio chemistry, molecular biology, and genetics etc – by an operational grammar. So, my suspicion is that “You can’t get there from here”. There is no means of anticipating the grammar (referent, logic, operations, transformations). All we are left with is trial and error. (My sympathies since I had to work outside the academy as well – there is no way to put a dissertation committee together for my work either.) — Curt Doolittle