There is a reason the operational name of mythology is “Wisdom Literature”. Because it contains wisdom that has survived market competition for centuries if no millennia. I have a rather defensive posture with regard to the term ‘truth’. So in order to defend the word ‘truth’ from abuses, the correct term is not ‘truth’ (most parsimonious description in operational terms) but ‘wisdom’ (analogy or general rule). It is the survival of this wisdom from market competition over time that provides the empirical evidence of the wisdom therein.
Form: Mini Essay
-
General Ideas: A “field” in Mathematics
GENERAL IDEAS: A “FIELD” IN MATHEMATICS (repost by request) Given a six sided die, and the single operation “roll the die”, we can produce a noisy distribution of : 1(x1), 2(x1), 3(x1), 4(x1), 5(x1), 6(x1). Given two six sided dice, and the single operation “roll the dice and sum the results”, we can produce a noisy distribution of: 2(x1), 3(x2), 4(x3), 5(x4), 6(x5), 7(x6), 8(x5), 9(x4), 10(x3), 11(x2), 12(x1). The difference between the one-die and two-die distributions is that while the results of rolling one die are equidistributed between 1 and 6, with two dice the results of rolling can produce more combinations that sum to 7 than there are that sum to 2 and 12, and therefor the results are normally distributed: in a bell curve. We can produce the same results with logic instead of numbers: For example, we can take the two words “Even” and “Odd”, and define two operations: “addition” and “multiplication”. Then apply the operations to all pairs: Even + Even = Even, Even + Odd = Odd + Even = Odd, Odd + Odd = Even, Even x Even = Even x Odd = Odd x Even = Even, Odd x Odd = Odd. And we can produce the same set of results with *any grammatically correct operations on a set, given the operations possible on the set*; including the set of Ordinary Language using Ordinary Language grammar. Although, unlike our simple examples using dice, the set of combinations of ordinary language is not closed, and so the number of combinations is infinite. So any grammar allows us to produce a distribution of results, and a density (frequency) of result. In mathematics this result set is called a ‘field’. A field consists of all the possible results of a set of operations on a set’s members, that are selected from the range of possible operations on those set members. So in any set of results there will be a range of very dense, less dense, sparse, and empty spaces in the set’s distribution.
-
General Ideas: A “field” in Mathematics
GENERAL IDEAS: A “FIELD” IN MATHEMATICS (repost by request) Given a six sided die, and the single operation “roll the die”, we can produce a noisy distribution of : 1(x1), 2(x1), 3(x1), 4(x1), 5(x1), 6(x1). Given two six sided dice, and the single operation “roll the dice and sum the results”, we can produce a noisy distribution of: 2(x1), 3(x2), 4(x3), 5(x4), 6(x5), 7(x6), 8(x5), 9(x4), 10(x3), 11(x2), 12(x1). The difference between the one-die and two-die distributions is that while the results of rolling one die are equidistributed between 1 and 6, with two dice the results of rolling can produce more combinations that sum to 7 than there are that sum to 2 and 12, and therefor the results are normally distributed: in a bell curve. We can produce the same results with logic instead of numbers: For example, we can take the two words “Even” and “Odd”, and define two operations: “addition” and “multiplication”. Then apply the operations to all pairs: Even + Even = Even, Even + Odd = Odd + Even = Odd, Odd + Odd = Even, Even x Even = Even x Odd = Odd x Even = Even, Odd x Odd = Odd. And we can produce the same set of results with *any grammatically correct operations on a set, given the operations possible on the set*; including the set of Ordinary Language using Ordinary Language grammar. Although, unlike our simple examples using dice, the set of combinations of ordinary language is not closed, and so the number of combinations is infinite. So any grammar allows us to produce a distribution of results, and a density (frequency) of result. In mathematics this result set is called a ‘field’. A field consists of all the possible results of a set of operations on a set’s members, that are selected from the range of possible operations on those set members. So in any set of results there will be a range of very dense, less dense, sparse, and empty spaces in the set’s distribution.
-
Money and Monetary Aggregates: Malincentives All Around
Yes, I work from the Misesian premise of full accounting when referring to money and its substitutes, and the totality of monetary aggregates. However, the problem with the Austrian model is (as has always been stated) it’s overly respectful of lenders (asset holders) without accounting for the moral hazard most money lenders profit from. This is ‘unsaid’ in the literature of both sides. It’s this competition between the moral premises of consumer vs lenders vs the judiciary (state) that over the priority to which we must grant the malincientives of either party and therefore the rewards of either party. I tend to err on the side of lender beware almost always, and the lender and borrower beware of the state at all possible times. All parties: state, lender, and borrower have malincentives. -
Money and Monetary Aggregates: Malincentives All Around
Yes, I work from the Misesian premise of full accounting when referring to money and its substitutes, and the totality of monetary aggregates. However, the problem with the Austrian model is (as has always been stated) it’s overly respectful of lenders (asset holders) without accounting for the moral hazard most money lenders profit from. This is ‘unsaid’ in the literature of both sides. It’s this competition between the moral premises of consumer vs lenders vs the judiciary (state) that over the priority to which we must grant the malincientives of either party and therefore the rewards of either party. I tend to err on the side of lender beware almost always, and the lender and borrower beware of the state at all possible times. All parties: state, lender, and borrower have malincentives. -
Originalism and Textualism
Originalism requires that the legislature alter the law and that the court not alter the law, only reject bad law. The constitution was an attempt to codify natural law (reciprocity). Our law is natural law and has been for 3500 years. The weakness in our system of government is: 1) There is no requirement that a law pass the court before it’s enacted. 2) There is no way for the court to compel the state to repair a law other than to invalidate a provision or all of it. 3) Statement of natural law of reciprocity, Originalism, Textualism, and Strict Construction from natural law of reciprocity were not stated as part of the document. Law can and must be algorithmic
-
Originalism and Textualism
Originalism requires that the legislature alter the law and that the court not alter the law, only reject bad law. The constitution was an attempt to codify natural law (reciprocity). Our law is natural law and has been for 3500 years. The weakness in our system of government is: 1) There is no requirement that a law pass the court before it’s enacted. 2) There is no way for the court to compel the state to repair a law other than to invalidate a provision or all of it. 3) Statement of natural law of reciprocity, Originalism, Textualism, and Strict Construction from natural law of reciprocity were not stated as part of the document. Law can and must be algorithmic
-
Going Full Fash
GOING FULL FASH So yeah, as the day of revolution draws nearer, and the hate for my people has increased, and the threat to my people has increased, the genocide against my people has been openly promoted, I’ve gone “Full Fash” so to speak – just that it’s Natural Law Fascism. And in my understanding it’s prosecutorial, zero-tolerance, militaristic, expansionist, Natural Law Fascism – White sharia all the way. Why? (a) Cooperation is only valuable until non-cooperation is preferable, and non-cooperation is only valuable until conflict is more valuable – and conflict is at present more valuable. (b) Ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy. (c) Ethnocentrism under Natural Law is the optimum economic and technical strategy, and; (d) Natural Law Fascism is the optimum political strategy, and; (e) Ethnocentric Natural Law Fascism cannot be practiced by any of our competitors due to genetic distribution and rates of neoteny. (f) And lastly, we have, over the past 3500 years or more, dragged mankind out of superstition, ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature – kicking and screaming against their genetic, cultural, and personal wills. We are not heroes to our debtors. We are gods in the making. Truth, Duty, Reciprocity, Markets in Everything, and Continuous Transcendence into the Gods we imagine. I will not betray my forefathers, my people, and all those of my people who might yet come to be, nor the future of mankind, the Gods we might be, and the universe’s need for our gardening of it, because weak men and women fear the sound of our marching feet, our works, our voices, and the truth of our words.
-
Going Full Fash
GOING FULL FASH So yeah, as the day of revolution draws nearer, and the hate for my people has increased, and the threat to my people has increased, the genocide against my people has been openly promoted, I’ve gone “Full Fash” so to speak – just that it’s Natural Law Fascism. And in my understanding it’s prosecutorial, zero-tolerance, militaristic, expansionist, Natural Law Fascism – White sharia all the way. Why? (a) Cooperation is only valuable until non-cooperation is preferable, and non-cooperation is only valuable until conflict is more valuable – and conflict is at present more valuable. (b) Ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy. (c) Ethnocentrism under Natural Law is the optimum economic and technical strategy, and; (d) Natural Law Fascism is the optimum political strategy, and; (e) Ethnocentric Natural Law Fascism cannot be practiced by any of our competitors due to genetic distribution and rates of neoteny. (f) And lastly, we have, over the past 3500 years or more, dragged mankind out of superstition, ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature – kicking and screaming against their genetic, cultural, and personal wills. We are not heroes to our debtors. We are gods in the making. Truth, Duty, Reciprocity, Markets in Everything, and Continuous Transcendence into the Gods we imagine. I will not betray my forefathers, my people, and all those of my people who might yet come to be, nor the future of mankind, the Gods we might be, and the universe’s need for our gardening of it, because weak men and women fear the sound of our marching feet, our works, our voices, and the truth of our words.
-
There Is No First Mover
All existence is a consequence of randomness generated at the moment of recreation, and the very small number of laws that arise from whatever the universe is actually made of in… https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156482471517264 … –“The issue with the “monkeys on typewriters” is that we know that Shakespeare’s works were created and not random. So what this whole thing tells me is that people like you are not actually equiped to understand reality or that your metaphysics are incredibly poor (they are).”— —“There isn’t even an attempt to grapple with Aristotle in his comment. Strange.”—- —“Modern atheists love to prattle on about Aristotle but love to forget that his main work was on METAPHYSICS and that he basically came up with monotheism. They also hold a bunch of pre-socratic beliefs without realizing.”— Anything you cannot testify to is indistinguishable from a lie. Aristotle could not understand the concept of self organizing forces,and so proposed a ‘first mover’.Aristotle was primitive by modern comparisons. He did not propose ‘monotheism’ as much as fail to solve the problem. —How would self-organizing forces apply to things like physics? Would the principle of self-organization inevitably exclude a first mover? Hispano if you are correct I don’t think that would negate the intelligence of Curts proposal, I haven’t heard many exploring these issues.—- —-“Curt is a very smart guy with smart things to say on many subjects. He’s just really bad at metaphysics.”— You haven’t demonstrated an argument only gossip. My argument stands and always will. But that is ok. You are not fully human, and perhaps cannot be. It takes agency, and agency takes courage. The sterility of the universe is hostile to life and we are but an accident. —“And you respond with this, a classic Doolittle ad hominem, poorly imitating Taleb’s style, not realizing you don’t have his rank. This is why you and whatever ideas that aren’t just regurgitations of someone else’s will never move beyond Twitter and Facebook ramblings.”—- Falsify my argument or give up. The universe is self organizing because that’s all it can be, and that’s all it need be. Don’t make excuses by trying to frame the argument as Aristotelian (justificationary) rather than scientific. You’re a clown. Make an argument or crawl away. —“Self-organization has nothing to do (is not an answer) to its origin. It also falls into the regressus problem. Engage with your metaphysical problems. Don’t make excuses by trying to frame the argument as “empiric” or “scientific”. Understand the category of the problem 1st.”—