IMO: Programming will help you think linguistically better than all other forms of reasoning combined, other than physics. Once you have physics and programming you have a formal logic of thinking about the real world and the verbal world. Once you have a BASIC understanding of economics as just ‘delayed’ physics (equilibrium), then you have the world at your feet. Programming, as Minsky said, was A NEW WAY OF THINKING for mankind. It is not mathematical thinking or language thinking as much as scientific thinking. 1 – Reasoning (unconstrained) -Associations 2 – Logical Thinking (constrained, non operationally constrained) – Sets – Consistency, Non Contradiction 3 – Operational Thinking (constrained, operationally constrained) – Operations – Operational Possibility. Operationalism: The absence of inference, and all the negative consequences of it.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Programming is a New Way of Thinking – and you need it.
IMO: Programming will help you think linguistically better than all other forms of reasoning combined, other than physics. Once you have physics and programming you have a formal logic of thinking about the real world and the verbal world. Once you have a BASIC understanding of economics as just ‘delayed’ physics (equilibrium), then you have the world at your feet. Programming, as Minsky said, was A NEW WAY OF THINKING for mankind. It is not mathematical thinking or language thinking as much as scientific thinking. 1 – Reasoning (unconstrained) -Associations 2 – Logical Thinking (constrained, non operationally constrained) – Sets – Consistency, Non Contradiction 3 – Operational Thinking (constrained, operationally constrained) – Operations – Operational Possibility. Operationalism: The absence of inference, and all the negative consequences of it.
-
The Error of Extending the Franchise
(NOTE: Banned on Facebook for this post) Women are wonderful, and superior at the same things men are not. The problem was extending the franchise without producing a market for differences between the genders in the production of commons. We created houses for the aristocracy(monarchy), nobility(lords), middle class (commons). But when we added labor (labor), and then added women(women), we did not add houses for them, and thereby failed to grasp what we had done: created a market for the production of commons between the classes that prohibited the abuse by any in gaining majority. The problem was, that people become increasingly incompetent in matters of the day as their responsibilities decline. So without requirements for children and property it is almost impossible to create a civil discourse and market between the classes – since the people in the market for commons must demonstrate prior ability to succeed in markets of voluntary cooperation.
-
The Error of Extending the Franchise
(NOTE: Banned on Facebook for this post) Women are wonderful, and superior at the same things men are not. The problem was extending the franchise without producing a market for differences between the genders in the production of commons. We created houses for the aristocracy(monarchy), nobility(lords), middle class (commons). But when we added labor (labor), and then added women(women), we did not add houses for them, and thereby failed to grasp what we had done: created a market for the production of commons between the classes that prohibited the abuse by any in gaining majority. The problem was, that people become increasingly incompetent in matters of the day as their responsibilities decline. So without requirements for children and property it is almost impossible to create a civil discourse and market between the classes – since the people in the market for commons must demonstrate prior ability to succeed in markets of voluntary cooperation.
-
by Ely Harman It’s not a matter of “don’t have spiritual values.” We ALL have th
by Ely Harman
It’s not a matter of “don’t have spiritual values.” We ALL have them. Trying to eradicate spiritual values is most likely a vain and pointless ambition.
The issues are:
1) It’s not always possible to meaningfully communicate spiritual values that aren’t already shared. And even when it is, it’s usually not possible to reach any sort of agreement.
2) It’s very hard to check, correct, adjust, or update spiritual values that are wrong, bad, unsuitable, or out of date.
Which is why maybe you might WANT a few autists around profaning the sacred with unnaturally precise and complete language.
Otherwise your faulty spiritual values have no way to die, when they inevitably must, but to die with you…
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-30 23:31:00 UTC
-
British vs American Legal Systems
I think the open question is between the british model of professional litigators of the court, and professional advocates for the individual, and the american model without the intermediary position. It is much harder to ‘pull bullshit’ in court in the british model. It is much easier to ‘pull bullshit’ in legislation in the british model. I am not yet sure if the house of lords is superior to the supreme court or not, but there is good reason to think it might be. Or, that the lords AND a supreme court would be superior to either condition. American constitution is better given the fact that our founding documents (declaration, constitution, bill of rights) are written, and consistent, if not as consistent as we could make them today – and aside from the fact that one requires all three documents to make sense of the constitution or the bill of rights because the natural law of reciprocity is not stated, and instead states men are equal rather than must be equal for the law of reciprocity (natural law) to fulfill its purpose of harmony. Conversely, the american model is far more common law (meaning permissive – less regulation) than the british model (meaning impermissive – more regulation). So this means that while americans have a superior juridical presumption (optimistic leading to more innovation, but more court disputes to resolve) while the british have less litigation to resolve because of higher regulation. I think the impact on the cultures is vast and the regulation culture in the uk has led to the feminization of the british male in less than eighty years. The optimum is probably the mixture of the two systems, with near zero regulation in america, and adding the intermediary between the lawyer and the court so that less nonsense occurs in court. It can be embarrassing to listen to young lawyers speak for their clients in court, rather than tell them “there is no fking way this is gonna fly so I won’t take your money”.
-
British vs American Legal Systems
I think the open question is between the british model of professional litigators of the court, and professional advocates for the individual, and the american model without the intermediary position. It is much harder to ‘pull bullshit’ in court in the british model. It is much easier to ‘pull bullshit’ in legislation in the british model. I am not yet sure if the house of lords is superior to the supreme court or not, but there is good reason to think it might be. Or, that the lords AND a supreme court would be superior to either condition. American constitution is better given the fact that our founding documents (declaration, constitution, bill of rights) are written, and consistent, if not as consistent as we could make them today – and aside from the fact that one requires all three documents to make sense of the constitution or the bill of rights because the natural law of reciprocity is not stated, and instead states men are equal rather than must be equal for the law of reciprocity (natural law) to fulfill its purpose of harmony. Conversely, the american model is far more common law (meaning permissive – less regulation) than the british model (meaning impermissive – more regulation). So this means that while americans have a superior juridical presumption (optimistic leading to more innovation, but more court disputes to resolve) while the british have less litigation to resolve because of higher regulation. I think the impact on the cultures is vast and the regulation culture in the uk has led to the feminization of the british male in less than eighty years. The optimum is probably the mixture of the two systems, with near zero regulation in america, and adding the intermediary between the lawyer and the court so that less nonsense occurs in court. It can be embarrassing to listen to young lawyers speak for their clients in court, rather than tell them “there is no fking way this is gonna fly so I won’t take your money”.
-
PART 7 – A Reformation: The Introduction
Reformation
—“Revolt, Separate, Specialize, Prosper, Speciate, and Transcend Animal Man.”—
How Do We Create a Reformation?
[S]tarting a revolution as an expression of frustration doesn’t necessarily bring change for the better. And some revolutions have far worse results than their original states: France and Russia in particular.
To implement change one has to have something to demand. And what one demands has to satisfy a lot of people‘s interests. Those demands have to be possible to put into operational processes that we call ‘institutions‘. They have to be possible to persist regardless of the beliefs of the participants. To persist they have to create the right incentives.
- So to create a revolution you need moral authority – something that people will willingly use violence to bring about. And as a moral imperative, and moral justification, TRUTH IS ENOUGH. We are tired of lies, pseudoscience, and obscurant rational justifications. We are tired of our elites burning our civilization. The truth is enough. Unlike gossip, guilting and shaming. And unlike pseudo-science and propaganda, the truth is expensive. Truth is the most powerful argumentative weapon ever developed. And Propertarianism teaches us how to demand truth and speak the truth.
- After moral authority, you need a political solution – a set of demands, and in sufficient detail that it is possible to discuss rationally and implement as formal institutions.
- Then you need a sufficient plan of transition that a revolution isn’t necessary, and people don‘t die by the millions to do it.
- Then you need a method of altering the status quo – not a plan – for nullification, secession, revolution, and civil war – and hope you can accomplish it with incremental nullification and secession … but willing to conduct a revolution or civil war if need be. And you pursue all of them at once.
- Then you need an ‘organization‘ – a group of people who act as the general staff that answers questions and propose ideas on how to implement, how to transition and how to raise the cost of the status quo so that the transition is preferable to the uncertainty and instability.
- Then you need a small number of people willing to die for their people, culture, and civilization, but who have a reasonable belief that their sacrifice is not in vain.
We live in the most fragile time in history. It no longer takes masses in the streets to bring about revolution. It takes a small number of people to increase the friction of daily life. It has never been easier to create a revolution. Our people just need a plan, moral authority, and something to demand.
To bring about a reformation or revolution one must provide it to them.
A Moral License. A Set of Demands. A Plan of Transition. A Means of altering the status quo.
Therefore, we provide them all.
-
PART 7 – A Reformation: The Introduction
Reformation
—“Revolt, Separate, Specialize, Prosper, Speciate, and Transcend Animal Man.”—
How Do We Create a Reformation?
[S]tarting a revolution as an expression of frustration doesn’t necessarily bring change for the better. And some revolutions have far worse results than their original states: France and Russia in particular.
To implement change one has to have something to demand. And what one demands has to satisfy a lot of people‘s interests. Those demands have to be possible to put into operational processes that we call ‘institutions‘. They have to be possible to persist regardless of the beliefs of the participants. To persist they have to create the right incentives.
- So to create a revolution you need moral authority – something that people will willingly use violence to bring about. And as a moral imperative, and moral justification, TRUTH IS ENOUGH. We are tired of lies, pseudoscience, and obscurant rational justifications. We are tired of our elites burning our civilization. The truth is enough. Unlike gossip, guilting and shaming. And unlike pseudo-science and propaganda, the truth is expensive. Truth is the most powerful argumentative weapon ever developed. And Propertarianism teaches us how to demand truth and speak the truth.
- After moral authority, you need a political solution – a set of demands, and in sufficient detail that it is possible to discuss rationally and implement as formal institutions.
- Then you need a sufficient plan of transition that a revolution isn’t necessary, and people don‘t die by the millions to do it.
- Then you need a method of altering the status quo – not a plan – for nullification, secession, revolution, and civil war – and hope you can accomplish it with incremental nullification and secession … but willing to conduct a revolution or civil war if need be. And you pursue all of them at once.
- Then you need an ‘organization‘ – a group of people who act as the general staff that answers questions and propose ideas on how to implement, how to transition and how to raise the cost of the status quo so that the transition is preferable to the uncertainty and instability.
- Then you need a small number of people willing to die for their people, culture, and civilization, but who have a reasonable belief that their sacrifice is not in vain.
We live in the most fragile time in history. It no longer takes masses in the streets to bring about revolution. It takes a small number of people to increase the friction of daily life. It has never been easier to create a revolution. Our people just need a plan, moral authority, and something to demand.
To bring about a reformation or revolution one must provide it to them.
A Moral License. A Set of Demands. A Plan of Transition. A Means of altering the status quo.
Therefore, we provide them all.
-
There Is No Reason to Complicate Things; Emergence Is Complicated Enough
by Brandon Hayes Everybody knows Occam’s Razor; when you take that razor to human behavior and cut it in half, this is what emerges: Packs and Herds. Packs [masculine, thinking bias, eugenic (selects for specialty)] “Acceptance to a pack requires contribution; you’re good only for your value.” Herds [feminine, feeling bias, dysgenic (selects for conformity)] “Acceptance to a herd requires only blending in; you’re good only for camouflage.” No more NAXALT arguments; we all know, not all X are like that! But, you don’t get to boil-down a trend to a single data point and use that datum to disprove said trend; that’s called lying. This means stereotypes are accurate, as they with-stand the market of ideas, and behavioral evidence (data) to counter the stereotypical outcomes isn’t mounting. This shouldn’t upset anyone. Having a bare-bones (a skeleton) framework like this is incredible. The insights that can come from proper frameworks can’t be overstated. *h/t Curt Doolittle as there aren’t any others (that I know of AND I look, hard [link educators below if you have suggestions]) that produce as much intellectual output publicly; and I see no others fostering as much intelligent debate or facilitating as much actual learning as he. [Arguably Jordan Peterson, but Peterson has been slow to move his ideas forward; Maps of Meaning still being his under-rated masterwork and still being explained {This Pack/Herd split can be gleaned from that work as well as Erich Neumann’s:The Origins and History of Consciousness} but it’s not made explicit; the work meshes nicely together.] Curt has also closed holes in personality by concretizing the mapping onto brain structure/function: https://propertarianinstitute.com/…/human-brain-regions-functions/ “We ought not destroy competing packs to benefit the herds. Herds can’t respond efficiently to rapidly changing environments; what you get instead of problem solving is panic. Panic among animals shortens their time horizons (they make quicker decisions less thought through) for shorter term gains. This mistake accumulates until the day of reckoning comes about. The day all of your “not planning for the future” comes back to haunt you. Strong feelings are not the equivalent to being correct. There isn’t a feel good substitute for truth; no matter how much we’d like there to be!” I abhor virtue signaling; scoring cheap points offends my being; life isn’t a game (although easier if framed as such). The best version of everyone else makes a better world for ME! I am acting in my self-interest. I have been PM’d many times (warning of my offences) and blocked many more; this is good, I prefer to know where people stand; because many are standing on intellectual IEDs (emotional explosion is right under the surface). I intentionally use Facebook to incite (there’s an insight joke in there I’m sure). Invite ALL people to the table [humans do some of there deepest bonding over food {and information is meta-food}] and share with them. https://www.facebook.com/brandon.hayes.5851/posts/10103452526650821