It’s exasperating. Continentals are secular theologians at best. But even analytic philosophers are mostly sophists. Try to explain that the logics are falsificationary not justificationary. Ask them to try to prove something non trivial. Heads explode. Better, try “The liar’s paradox isn’t, it’s just a sophism of grammar using the copula in an incomplete sentence.” In fact, ask them to state any difficult philosophical question without using the verb to be, in a complete sentence, in operational language. Oops. Sophisms all. Very frustrating for philosophers playing cunning word games to realize that (a) almost all supposedly complex questions are merely errors in grammar, and (b) there is no closure available to the logics, (c) the logics are purely falsificationary – just like the sciences.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Sophists, nearly all.
It’s exasperating. Continentals are secular theologians at best. But even analytic philosophers are mostly sophists. Try to explain that the logics are falsificationary not justificationary. Ask them to try to prove something non trivial. Heads explode. Better, try “The liar’s paradox isn’t, it’s just a sophism of grammar using the copula in an incomplete sentence.” In fact, ask them to state any difficult philosophical question without using the verb to be, in a complete sentence, in operational language. Oops. Sophisms all. Very frustrating for philosophers playing cunning word games to realize that (a) almost all supposedly complex questions are merely errors in grammar, and (b) there is no closure available to the logics, (c) the logics are purely falsificationary – just like the sciences.
-
“Invisible Hand of Nature”
by Martin Štěpán I have used the term “invisible hand of nature” in the last post. This is deliberate to create an association between nature and market because that is what nature is, a market. A self-correcting system, constantly trying to approach an equilibrium it can never reach because there’s too many variables involved. I expect anyone with a basic understanding of economics without a belief in evolution to have much firmer grasp of natural laws than some leftist defending evolution just to pawn the religious conservatives because economic laws are natural laws. One only needs to start accounting for exchanges of both positive and negative value on demonstrated interests (property-in-toto). Illustration: A rabbit meets a fox. An exchange is initiated. Fox has the option to avoid the exchange or spend calories for a chance to obtain more calories. This will generally be preferable option for the fox. However, such exchange is highly disadvantageous for a rabbit because he spends his life in exchange for nothing. The option to simply refuse isn’t open to him but he can spend his own calories in exchange for a chance to survive. Neither option is productive for him but that’s just the way it is. The outcome is either that fox gets more calories that it can then spend as it chooses, for instance, to make more foxes, and that the local supply of rabbits goes down and increases their value, or that the fox wastes its calories, is less successful and risk losing its chance at reproduction while the same happens to the rabbit but his chance to increase the supply of rabbits remains positive. On the market of nature, we’re all both entrepreneurs and products at the same time.
-
“Invisible Hand of Nature”
by Martin Štěpán I have used the term “invisible hand of nature” in the last post. This is deliberate to create an association between nature and market because that is what nature is, a market. A self-correcting system, constantly trying to approach an equilibrium it can never reach because there’s too many variables involved. I expect anyone with a basic understanding of economics without a belief in evolution to have much firmer grasp of natural laws than some leftist defending evolution just to pawn the religious conservatives because economic laws are natural laws. One only needs to start accounting for exchanges of both positive and negative value on demonstrated interests (property-in-toto). Illustration: A rabbit meets a fox. An exchange is initiated. Fox has the option to avoid the exchange or spend calories for a chance to obtain more calories. This will generally be preferable option for the fox. However, such exchange is highly disadvantageous for a rabbit because he spends his life in exchange for nothing. The option to simply refuse isn’t open to him but he can spend his own calories in exchange for a chance to survive. Neither option is productive for him but that’s just the way it is. The outcome is either that fox gets more calories that it can then spend as it chooses, for instance, to make more foxes, and that the local supply of rabbits goes down and increases their value, or that the fox wastes its calories, is less successful and risk losing its chance at reproduction while the same happens to the rabbit but his chance to increase the supply of rabbits remains positive. On the market of nature, we’re all both entrepreneurs and products at the same time.
-
Freedom of Speech Under Propertarianism?
—“Could you offer a brief explanation of how freedom of speech would be codified under Propertarianism?”—The Last Scout II @last_scout2
Think of it this way. What can you testify to in court? What do you have the knowledge to testify to? We hold people accountable for their testimony, for their commercial speech, but not their political, academic, and scientific speech (matters of the commons). So … When engaged in Public Speech TO the Public (not talking with friends etc), especially for personal, commercial, political gain you can’t make false or irreciprocal statements in matters of the commons (economics, politics, law, science). This law will criminalize political correctness and the pseudosciences the way we have criminalized related kinds of commercial, medical, and legal speech. Politicians, academics, public intellectuals, reporters – the entire gossip profession, would have to warranty the truthfulness (scientific), operationality, and reciprocity of their speech, and could not advocate for ir-reciprocity (theft) using falsehoods (fraud), especially as a group (conspiracy). Only Trades. The reason is that government is violence. You the only non-violent means of cooperation is TRADE. Now, what does this mean in practice? It means that there are three common-sense tests:
- Are you making a truth claim (“is”), advocating for political coercion (“good”), expressing an opinion (should), or venting in frustration(nonsense)?
. - Are you advocating for reciprocity (exchange), an investment (returns), a restitution (proportionality), or a coercion (redistribution), a corruption (rents and rent-seeking), a taking (theft), or a harm (war, injury, or death)?
. - Are you speaking in operational language – a sequence of actions stating the HOW and accounting for the COSTS to all involved – demonstrating you possess the knowledge to make the claim or using GSRRM (shaming, psychologizing moralizing), Sophism, Idealism, Pseudoscience, or Supernaturalism to obscure the fact that you either lack the knowledge and understanding your claim, or are engaging in deceit?
In Scientific terms that means is what you’re saying Logical, Empirical, Possible, Rational, Reciprocal, Fully Accounted, and Transparent? (Operational language provides both possibility and transparency). In legal terms it’s just a tiny bit more precise, and not really necessary for ordinary people to understand: Have you performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit by testes of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity in rational choice, fully accounted for cause and consequence in within stated limits, and reversibility and capacity for restitution if you’re wrong? It didn’t matter when all we could do is write letters and conduct arguments, or when books were costly, but the industrialization of information by mass media has made it possible to conduct organized lying on a massive scale not possible since the invention of the monotheistic religions, distributed by Roman roads. Marxism was pseudoscience sophism and wishful thinking. Feminism is an experiment in irreciprocity, and postmodernism is simply lying on a civilizational scale. it is as disastrous to modernity as Christianity and Islam were to antiquity. In this sense, we have freedom of speech to speak the truth. We do not have freedom of speech to engage in criminal activity under the cover of freedom of speech. This is exactly how the Enemy Left operates: Proportionality without Reciprocity, under the industrialization of lying, using the false promise of the possibility of equality. Equality or life after death. No difference. False promise after death. False promise prior to death. False promise either way. Curt Doolittle
This question was in response to an earlier post:
You don’t understand. If information is a good, and a service, then deplatforming is cartelling. Yep. And that’s where we’re going. Cartels. And that is the legal route we’re going to take. And we’re going to take a LONG time at it. Because longer we take, the more we talk about it, the more of an understanding the public will come to.
- Are you making a truth claim (“is”), advocating for political coercion (“good”), expressing an opinion (should), or venting in frustration(nonsense)?
-
Freedom of Speech Under Propertarianism?
—“Could you offer a brief explanation of how freedom of speech would be codified under Propertarianism?”—The Last Scout II @last_scout2
Think of it this way. What can you testify to in court? What do you have the knowledge to testify to? We hold people accountable for their testimony, for their commercial speech, but not their political, academic, and scientific speech (matters of the commons). So … When engaged in Public Speech TO the Public (not talking with friends etc), especially for personal, commercial, political gain you can’t make false or irreciprocal statements in matters of the commons (economics, politics, law, science). This law will criminalize political correctness and the pseudosciences the way we have criminalized related kinds of commercial, medical, and legal speech. Politicians, academics, public intellectuals, reporters – the entire gossip profession, would have to warranty the truthfulness (scientific), operationality, and reciprocity of their speech, and could not advocate for ir-reciprocity (theft) using falsehoods (fraud), especially as a group (conspiracy). Only Trades. The reason is that government is violence. You the only non-violent means of cooperation is TRADE. Now, what does this mean in practice? It means that there are three common-sense tests:
- Are you making a truth claim (“is”), advocating for political coercion (“good”), expressing an opinion (should), or venting in frustration(nonsense)?
. - Are you advocating for reciprocity (exchange), an investment (returns), a restitution (proportionality), or a coercion (redistribution), a corruption (rents and rent-seeking), a taking (theft), or a harm (war, injury, or death)?
. - Are you speaking in operational language – a sequence of actions stating the HOW and accounting for the COSTS to all involved – demonstrating you possess the knowledge to make the claim or using GSRRM (shaming, psychologizing moralizing), Sophism, Idealism, Pseudoscience, or Supernaturalism to obscure the fact that you either lack the knowledge and understanding your claim, or are engaging in deceit?
In Scientific terms that means is what you’re saying Logical, Empirical, Possible, Rational, Reciprocal, Fully Accounted, and Transparent? (Operational language provides both possibility and transparency). In legal terms it’s just a tiny bit more precise, and not really necessary for ordinary people to understand: Have you performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit by testes of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity in rational choice, fully accounted for cause and consequence in within stated limits, and reversibility and capacity for restitution if you’re wrong? It didn’t matter when all we could do is write letters and conduct arguments, or when books were costly, but the industrialization of information by mass media has made it possible to conduct organized lying on a massive scale not possible since the invention of the monotheistic religions, distributed by Roman roads. Marxism was pseudoscience sophism and wishful thinking. Feminism is an experiment in irreciprocity, and postmodernism is simply lying on a civilizational scale. it is as disastrous to modernity as Christianity and Islam were to antiquity. In this sense, we have freedom of speech to speak the truth. We do not have freedom of speech to engage in criminal activity under the cover of freedom of speech. This is exactly how the Enemy Left operates: Proportionality without Reciprocity, under the industrialization of lying, using the false promise of the possibility of equality. Equality or life after death. No difference. False promise after death. False promise prior to death. False promise either way. Curt Doolittle
This question was in response to an earlier post:
You don’t understand. If information is a good, and a service, then deplatforming is cartelling. Yep. And that’s where we’re going. Cartels. And that is the legal route we’re going to take. And we’re going to take a LONG time at it. Because longer we take, the more we talk about it, the more of an understanding the public will come to.
- Are you making a truth claim (“is”), advocating for political coercion (“good”), expressing an opinion (should), or venting in frustration(nonsense)?
-
An Agentist Approach to Divinity
by Ferdinand Pizarro I lend a quasi-religious interpretation to information (order), but I tend to have a more agentist approach to my conception of “god” and/or divinity, which has the effect of providing sufficient interface for approximation of godliness. In other words, I don’t see information as god, but the net production of information (dissipation of entropy) as godliness. Thus those of us who can organize man & matter for the production of order (social, material, aesthetic) are “divine” so-to-speak. Tough subject. I always “feel” a sort of energy from within, a youthful spring, when I contemplate it, and I do so often. I found this in my notes from 2017, which you may clear up some of my hazy thinking by example:
“The speakers of lies, subverters of truth, producers of confusion, the underminers of trust, the agents of chaos; the primordial enemies of human agency, excellence, beauty & the order that we, The Truthful Ones, impose on the Cosmos by incremental mastery over self, entropy & the human condition—the enemy for short.”
This is essentially the only way I’ve found to speak about gods without lying.
-
An Agentist Approach to Divinity
by Ferdinand Pizarro I lend a quasi-religious interpretation to information (order), but I tend to have a more agentist approach to my conception of “god” and/or divinity, which has the effect of providing sufficient interface for approximation of godliness. In other words, I don’t see information as god, but the net production of information (dissipation of entropy) as godliness. Thus those of us who can organize man & matter for the production of order (social, material, aesthetic) are “divine” so-to-speak. Tough subject. I always “feel” a sort of energy from within, a youthful spring, when I contemplate it, and I do so often. I found this in my notes from 2017, which you may clear up some of my hazy thinking by example:
“The speakers of lies, subverters of truth, producers of confusion, the underminers of trust, the agents of chaos; the primordial enemies of human agency, excellence, beauty & the order that we, The Truthful Ones, impose on the Cosmos by incremental mastery over self, entropy & the human condition—the enemy for short.”
This is essentially the only way I’ve found to speak about gods without lying.
-
Disgust
Just Tell the Truth – They’re Disgusting
—“The Leftist tendency is to conflate the Rightist Disgust response to various things as phobias. In other words, the Left confuses Disgust for Fear.”—
[T]he right is just too well mannered to say: “Actually it’s because we find your/their ____________ behavior disgusting and revolting because it is a genetic defect, and harmful to the tribe.” I mean. Why can’t we just say that? “You know, We don’t like dogs dragging their anuses on the carpet, or ___________ doing ________.” Genetic defects are disgusting to us. And you’re advocating for genetic defects that are disgusting. (We have a purity instinct. They don’t. Hence women’s fascination with the discussion of children’s bodily fluids and excrements.)
Higher Disgust Sensitivity
Conservatives(empiricists) have a higher level of disgust sensitivity. Conservatives are the population’s means of detecting and purging harm – the white blood cells of the social order and polity. Progressives (consumptivists) have low sensitivity to disgust, but high demand for consumption, novelty, experience, and fear of being ‘left behind’. That does not mean that our disgust sensitivity is always right. It means that we must test whether than harm actually exists by tests of reciprocity.
—”There is a distinction between endocrinological & neurological conservatives, driven mostly by disgust, which tend to be within a SD left of the mean, and market driven (agency) conservatives who recognize cost on longer time-horizons & are able to organize a body law which facilitates the cooperation & trust, necessary for the functioning of enterprise. The former group are right for the wrong reasons & the latter group are right as a matter of agency & incentive.”—Ferdinand Pizarro
We Can’t We Just Tell the Left the Truth?
1) Our civilization has succeeded because it’s been eugenic in every era – right up until the industrial revolution. 2) We find you disgusting. 3) and it’s because you’re unfit. 4) and you are unfit because you lack agency. 5) and you lack agency because you’re still undomesticated. 6) and as undomesticated still an animal. 7) and it isn’t any more complicated than that. 8) We cannot cooperate with you on equal terms any more than we can cooperate with any other animal – you lack the agency. 9) We don’t grant barn animals equality which is why we don’t grant you equality. And we don’t want barn animals in our homes, business, or our commons. 10) This is what we mean when we want to separate from you. Because you’re disgusting.
-
Disgust
Just Tell the Truth – They’re Disgusting
—“The Leftist tendency is to conflate the Rightist Disgust response to various things as phobias. In other words, the Left confuses Disgust for Fear.”—
[T]he right is just too well mannered to say: “Actually it’s because we find your/their ____________ behavior disgusting and revolting because it is a genetic defect, and harmful to the tribe.” I mean. Why can’t we just say that? “You know, We don’t like dogs dragging their anuses on the carpet, or ___________ doing ________.” Genetic defects are disgusting to us. And you’re advocating for genetic defects that are disgusting. (We have a purity instinct. They don’t. Hence women’s fascination with the discussion of children’s bodily fluids and excrements.)
Higher Disgust Sensitivity
Conservatives(empiricists) have a higher level of disgust sensitivity. Conservatives are the population’s means of detecting and purging harm – the white blood cells of the social order and polity. Progressives (consumptivists) have low sensitivity to disgust, but high demand for consumption, novelty, experience, and fear of being ‘left behind’. That does not mean that our disgust sensitivity is always right. It means that we must test whether than harm actually exists by tests of reciprocity.
—”There is a distinction between endocrinological & neurological conservatives, driven mostly by disgust, which tend to be within a SD left of the mean, and market driven (agency) conservatives who recognize cost on longer time-horizons & are able to organize a body law which facilitates the cooperation & trust, necessary for the functioning of enterprise. The former group are right for the wrong reasons & the latter group are right as a matter of agency & incentive.”—Ferdinand Pizarro
We Can’t We Just Tell the Left the Truth?
1) Our civilization has succeeded because it’s been eugenic in every era – right up until the industrial revolution. 2) We find you disgusting. 3) and it’s because you’re unfit. 4) and you are unfit because you lack agency. 5) and you lack agency because you’re still undomesticated. 6) and as undomesticated still an animal. 7) and it isn’t any more complicated than that. 8) We cannot cooperate with you on equal terms any more than we can cooperate with any other animal – you lack the agency. 9) We don’t grant barn animals equality which is why we don’t grant you equality. And we don’t want barn animals in our homes, business, or our commons. 10) This is what we mean when we want to separate from you. Because you’re disgusting.