(to others) I would say that I was able to complete the program – the completion of the scientific enlightenment because I was lucky enough to live in an era of software programming, and lucky enough to understand how the philosophers of the nineteenth and twentieth century failed, because of that ‘odd’ exposure. If I had to say who was most influential it would be popper’s inability to complete his program, mises error in miscasting praxeology, hoppe’s success in using property as a unit of commensurability despite the error in his dependence upon kantian rationalism; and the observation that hayek came very close in his work on the law, but for his reliance ( like so many others) upon is perception of psychology rather than the computability and cognitive science that we have today. But that I was most able to articulate the argument clearly by combining those failures with the near successes of Hilbert,Brouwer, Bridgman in other fields. I think aside from (a) programming, (b) we have sufficient information about the failings of mathematics in modeling (Not describing) economic phenomenon, (c) we have exceptional information on cognitive science and genetics (d) we have enough evidence of voting patterns under democracy, and (e) it is finally possible because of the internet to access information rapidly enough that if one works very hard it is possible to master multiple fields in one human lifetime. So my ability to complete the program and provide the Wilsonian Synthesis ( solve the unification of science, biology, philosophy, ethics, law, economics, and politics,) was due largely to existing at the right point in time, with so many men who ca me so close just one or two or three generations before me. Unfortunately, this is going to be one of those issues just like reason (aristotle) , rationalism (Descartes) and epiricism (Bacon, locke smith hume, darwin, menger, maxwell, spencer etc ) that is going to be as unpleasant to adapt to.
Form: Mini Essay
-
HAPPINESS IN SOCIAL ORDERS Humans in general, are generally happy if they are wo
HAPPINESS IN SOCIAL ORDERS
Humans in general, are generally happy if they are working to produce gains, not to forestall losses. It does not take a great deal of income to do that. Most of what we spend is on status signaling to ourselves and others. Food, clothing, shelter, heat, water, electricity, appliances, air conditioning, children, family, friends.
But we need be insulated from ‘the evil people’ who are unsatisfied with such – so we pay heavily to keep away from them. We pay even more heavily to be with people who are better than us, that we can learn from, and gain from the opportunities of proximity.
If you truncate your lower classes, occupy your mischievous young males with physical labor in support of the commons, occupy your young women with children, and invest heavily in commons, most of us will be able to live very well, and the few that make our living-well possible will live far above us in signals – as they should.
We have economics all wrong. We need multiple economies both martial(slave), public works (underclass), syndicalism(labor), and capitalism( middle, upper middle, and upper) And we do not need this hamster wheel of continuous consumption. We need only eradicate immigration except for the very best of the upper classes, eradicate through constraint on reproduction the lower classes, and eradicate the ability for non-kin to compete with us for control over the production of commons, and the status signals that are the reward for assisting in the production of those commons.
Unfortunately we have not learned to constrain the impulses of women to satisfy the need to give (free endorphins for redistributing the production of others), and we have not learned to constrain the impulses of all (as did the communists) to satisfy the need to feel ‘above’ someone, or that they are not the low rung on the ladder, (free endorphins for false status signals), or the need to demonstrate status through conspicuous consumption (endorphins for possessing that which others do not), or the need to virtue signal (free endorphins for empty talk or gossip).
Other societies, including ours, in much of our history, have suppressed unearned signals as a form of theft.
It seems like this more than anything, combined with democracy that let it loose, has been the reason we are not happy.
The hamster wheel of consumption is merely selling us the curse of Sisyphus by the promise of a utopia, the same way a drug dealer sells drugs, a fast food chain sells sugars and fats, a dietary supplement manufacturer sells ‘vitamins’ an advertiser sells status, a politician sells socialism or communism, or priest and his prophet sells life after death or some number of virgins.
They’re all lies.
Happiness is simple. Working to produce gains, not to forestall losses. And we can only forestall losses if we have the inventory that is sufficient to live off our gains.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-10 12:42:00 UTC
-
ISLAMICIST SOCIAL ORDER VS EUROPEAN SOCIAL ORDER Isis(Islamism) seeks to control
ISLAMICIST SOCIAL ORDER VS EUROPEAN SOCIAL ORDER
Isis(Islamism) seeks to controls mind, word, deed, regardless of property allocation, and they favor (try to enforce) a libertarian-theological-judicial social order over centralized state. In other words, they want to preserve ‘headman’ of the tribe status for as many ‘headmen’ as possible, right down to the father of the family.
Between:
WEST/NORTH/COLD/SPARSE: The European model (Genetic European), consisting of (Aryan) martial (aristocratic) Sovereignty, and Burgher (middle class) Liberalism(Contractualism), under aristocratic rule of empirical law;
AND
SOUTH/MIDDLE/HOT/DENSE The Semitic model (Jewish, Arab, Muslim), (Genetic Afro-Asiatic) consisting of underclass rule of religious law.
The SIMILARITY is obvious:
Preserve head-man rule (King/Ruler, Judicial Priesthood (tribal and Clan headman), and Strong Father (family Headman) of extended family.
The DIFFERNCES are:
Aristocratic, Evolutionary, Eugenic, Small Numbers, Technological,
Weaponized Professional Warriors, Trust, Economy, and Technology, high consumption living and reproduction.
Tactics: concentration of capital and adaptability – solve problems quickly so that opportunities cannot be seized when we are otherwise weak or occupied.)
-vs-
Priestly, Devolutionary, Dysgenic, mandated ignorance, subsistence living and reproduction.
Weaponized raiding, distrust, deception, and reproduction.
Tactics: concentration of numbers – wear down the opponent over long periods of time)
Curt DOolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-10 10:42:00 UTC
-
(very advanced stuff) —“The former are concerned with impossibility, whilst th
(very advanced stuff)
—“The former are concerned with impossibility, whilst the latter are concerned with impermissibility”—
1) Are they possible? In other words, are you creating a point of demarcation (the error of sets and digital/binary thinking) rather than continuous/analog causes and effect? (yes)
2) physical reality provides decidability (possibility), but does not human behavior provide decidability (possibility), with the distinction that humans can ‘recall’ as well as ‘forecast’ and therefore we can take on debts and make investments in cooperation. But can we in fact, state that humans will tolerate free riding, parasitism, predation and genocide? and if so where is some evidence of that? (there isn’t any, because it isn’t possible, it’s just SLOWer than physical phenomenon because of the ‘capacitance’ and ‘resistance’ provided by our ability to remember and forecast.)
( Tip: you’ve studied enough philosophy to fall into the trap of 20th century thought inherited from mathematics: set theory, and non contradiction. This is rationalism and includes only a subset of information about reality. Once you include the additional – missing – dimensions of reality you will no longer be able to make use of ‘the error of rationalism’: sets. … which is a very long discussion outside of the context of this topic.)
—“Could you unpack this a bit? My statement is directed more towards the limits of empiricism, so I am unclear as to what you mean by unlimited and insufficient.”—
3 – The positivism/empiricism debate, especially those who were unfortunately poisoned by first Kantian, and second Jewish (so called austrian, but not austrian) thought, as well as all cosmopolitan thought (freud, marx, boaz, cantor, frankfurt) is, like all late 19th and 20th century philosophy, a failed program.
So, to deflate this set of fallacies, let’s start over with the dimensions of reality:
a) identity (categorical consistency) ie: point
b) logic (internal consistency) ie: line
c) empiricism (external consistency / external correspondence) ie: space
d) operationalism (existential consistency ) ie: time (change)
f) morality (reciprocal consistency / reciprocity ) ie: cooperation (volition)
g) limits (full-accounting, limits, and parsimony) ie: consequence.
And to speak of reality we can also use terms that correspond to those dimensions, and thereby avoid errors of the past.
a) Operational Definitions, therefore deflating experience, intention, assumption, and analogy. (identity, point)
b) Operational Definitions in a series, therefore deflating the natural conflation of ideal types, by describing any concept on a scale – usually a scale of quantity (or population) on one axis, and time on the other axis. (identity, logic, line)
c) Supply Demand Curves (competition) (identity, logic, line, space)
d) Multiple Supply Demand Curves (equilibria) (identity, logic, line, space, time )
e) Models consisting of all discernably causal equilibrating forces (identity, logic, line, space, competition)
SUMMARY
So like we cannot predict the location of a molecule of gas released in a vacuum, and we cannot predict subatomic phenomenon, because we cannot measure the states without affecting them; and like we cannot measure certain economic phenomenon at the individual level for the same reason, (we simply lack the information on the one hand, and attempting to obtain it would change the state), and just as we cannot determine the future competition between civilizations, that does not meant that there are not universal and necessary rules to these phenomenon whehther conditionaly invariant (physical), heuristically variant (interpersonal), or exogenously invariant (civilizational). The reason being that there are limits to human perception, cognition, retention, forecast, trust, ethics/morality, and action.
Man is his own measure.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-10 09:50:00 UTC
-
THE SCI-FI TAKE ON PROPERTARIANISM: A REFORMATION OF SCI-FI? —“If we were able
THE SCI-FI TAKE ON PROPERTARIANISM: A REFORMATION OF SCI-FI?
—“If we were able to produce neural networks that were built using the frame and parameters of propertarianism (natural law) to filter information, merged with humans, this, in all of it’s glorified science fiction, could produce meta-agency. Basically having a self-learning program implanted into humans that help filter information in order to produce agency. Sounds pretty cool! This kind of agent based programming is something another follower of yours showed interest in.”— A Friend
Nit – neural networks are exceptional at turning stimuli into symbols. I am not sure that they are a very good solution to any problems once we possess symbols. Nature build on what she had, but once you have symbols the neural network model becomes an inhibitor not useful search function. I suppose I should explain that at some point, but it’s just what it is. Neural networks are very stable at preserving ‘general relations’ amidst fragmentary damage but they are subject to deformation (dilution), and become very expensive when you are trying to store reconstructable and traceable data. symbolic data and search algorithms defeat neural networks because the information density of symbols sort of like the information density of a book vs a memory of reading or writing a book, is much higher and more stable.
But the ideas that you could:
1) create a propertarian ‘conscience’ for any AI.
2) create a propertarian ‘conscience and advisor’ with which to augment a human being.
Are pretty fascinating concepts to work with in science fiction.
In fact, I think this is what a ‘Runcible’ ( individual education computer) should do for you.
REVISIONIST SCIENCE FICTION
Now, instead of what has been written in the past, given that it is possible to create a machine MORE MORAL than man, how would that change science fiction?
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-10 08:48:00 UTC
-
EPISTEMOLOGY AND HUMAN REASON –“the question for me is what role does epistemol
EPISTEMOLOGY AND HUMAN REASON
–“the question for me is what role does epistemology play in the desire for cooperation over reason?”—-
To frame this question a bit better:
Epistemology refers to that discipline in which we attempt to understand the means by which we eliminate ignorance, error, bias and deceit, and therefore produce what we call knowledge: that which improves our agency (ability to act).
There is however only one method of obtaining knowledge:
0) investigation (observation)
1) experience (perception)
2) free association (identity)
3) wayfinding (hypothesis) (or possibility)
4) criticism (theory)
5) survival in the market for its use (law)
6) integration (adoption into ‘metaphysical’ assumptions)
It doesn’t matter whether we are talking about a scientific theory, an engineering problem, a method of production, taking a product to market, the affect of policy on capital at different points in time, or the exploration of various mathematical relations at increasingly complex causal densities.
Most of our work has been in epistemology has been in the identification of methods of criticism (measurement) both instrumental(tools) and mental (logical). Most of my work has been in formalizing this process by completing the program that the philosophers of science in the 20th century failed to.
Humans don’t practice epistemology. Humans simply do the only thing possible: stumble upon an idea through free association, and then incrementally remove their ignorance until it fails, or … is at least sufficient to obtain what it is that they seek.
Now to answer this question … –“the question for me is what role does epistemology play in the desire for cooperation over reason?”—-
I am not sure what you are asking. My understanding is that people act rationally with the information available given their agency (abilities), the demand, risk and reward before them. GIven that it is very hard to circumvent punishment by other humans for free riding, parasitism, predation, and extermination – and given the extraordinary returns on cooperation at least over time, what we see is that unless there is a windfall available (you gain enough that no future cooperation can do better than the act of immorality) people tend to favor cooperation in almost all circumstances. This does not apply for people who have been subject to trauma , the victims of genetic defect, developmental disorders, or brain damage. And this looks like ‘the evil 3%’ of the ‘white’ population. But as a general rule, excepting outliers, then yes.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-09 17:59:00 UTC
-
THE BASICS OF THOUGHT AT POST-HUMAN SCALE Ideal types, and idealism (which I cri
THE BASICS OF THOUGHT AT POST-HUMAN SCALE
Ideal types, and idealism (which I criticize almost as frequently as fictionalism), are products of the problems at human scale: antiquity and pre-modernity.
We can see the enlightenment as an attempt to successfully transition from measurements at human scale, within the realm of human perception, to the measurements beyond human scale, and therefore beyond our perception.
It is not surprising that our conventional (normative) thinking and language lag our instruments of measurement both physical (mechanical) and mental (conceptual). Darwin is quite old technology by now but much of the world does not understand that evolution is directionless except in favor of complexity for both the exploitation of niches and the retention of prior techniques (genes) so that they can re-emerge if needed.
So this is why I insist on operational definitions on a spectrum so that people cannot fall into the trap of comparing concepts that rely on different production cycles (durations) involving different numbers of people (complexity and scale).
Unfortunately Hayekian Triangles are a bit much for ordinary man to cope with, and IS/LM(Keynesian) and classical supply and demand curves only a bit less so.
But we can start with the simple illustration that no concept in isolation informs us to its limits. Ergo, the golden rule is useless without the silver rule.
This principle of ,via-positiva vs via-negative (western progressive version of the eastern static idea of ying vs yang) provides us with convergence: that which survives both meaning (possibility) and criticism (limits). Without limits, we cannot test our meaning.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-09 13:13:00 UTC
-
INTUITION, BIAS, PREJUDICE —“Is intuition synonymous with prejudice?”—Skye S
INTUITION, BIAS, PREJUDICE
—“Is intuition synonymous with prejudice?”—Skye Stewart
We have genetics that cause us to possess intuitions and biases — – both of which are pre-cognitive.
A prejudice consists of a pre-judgement, and therefore a judgement we have made by some degree of free association, reason or contemplation.
One may develop a prejudice because we also possess a bias, and we may possess a bias because of an intuition, and we may possess an intuition out of genetic necessity or accident, but they are different things, and …
… oh… shall I say it? Yes?
Therefore they are not to be CONFLATED.
lol Sigh. That felt good.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-08 22:52:00 UTC
-
THE SCHOOLS OF ECON, AND THE SCHOOL OF JEWISH ECONOMICS (can you say BAM!) (must
THE SCHOOLS OF ECON, AND THE SCHOOL OF JEWISH ECONOMICS
(can you say BAM!) (must read for austrian econ ppl)
RE: http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/bannon-is-right-about-austrian-economics
Dain.
Let me give you a little argumentative weaponry to use to further this idea:
1) I teach people this set of categories:
a) Austrian School: (Institutions: Political Economy) the application of the calculus to economics, and the use of that innovation to understand Social Science. The study of human relations so that we may improve institutions and reduce those frictions that impede cooperation. Assumption: we are ignorant.
(MONARCHY/ARISTOCRACY/CONSERVATISM)
b) Chicago (freshwater) School:(Rule of Law, with Monetary Economics) The search for formulae under which we can make use of fiat currency to prevent currency shortages that artificially raise interest rates, but do so within the limits of natural law (non-discretion) so that we interfere as little as possible in planning and organizing production distribution and trade while doing so. Assumption: we are ignorant but can insure against shocks. (MIDDLE CLASS/CLASSICAL LIBERALISM)
c) NewYork (Saltwater) School: (Discretionary Rule for the purpose of maximizing consumption). The search for the means of maximizing consumption by discretionary (non-rule-of-law) means. Assumptions: our ignorance is irrelevant since any interference in planning and damage in the medium and long term are offset by the good of increased consumption in the short term. (UNDERCLASS/GOSSIP-CLASS/LEFTISM)
2) Myth and Tradition, moral and norm, historical analogy, reason, rationalism, empirical science, and ‘complete’ science (a term which won’t make sense to you at present), describe a sequence of decidability of increasing precision that requires increasing information. When we possess less information than needed to say, make a scientific proposition, we can rely upon those less precise tools that precede it. Not doing so is called pseudoscience – a pretense. Conversely, relying upon rationalism when sufficient information to use science is available, doing so is called pseudo-rationalism. We must match the tool to the information available – or we are engaged in either fallacy, fraud, or deceit. An austrian (practitioner of social science) will suggest that if we lack the empirical means of decidability, then we must retreat to the rational means of decidability. And this is the honest, and truthful, and scientific thing to do. Attempting to make science fit insufficient information is just fraud. Nothing more.
AND ONE ARGUMENT YOU WON”T LIKE
3) You won’t like this, but so called austrian economics consists of two branches. Polish Austrian (christian), and Austrian-Occupied Ukrainian(jewish). Rothbard and Mises appropriated the term “Austrian” due to anti-semitic biases. Mises was from Ukraine (L’viv), and a jewish city (my current residence). Perhaps the most Jewish city before Israel. But Marginalism (Austrianism), is from Poland (Menger) and Vienna, and “Constructive Economics” (Jewish Economics), has nothing to do with Austrianism other than incorporating marginalism. Even so, Misesian and Rothbardian’s version of marginalism consists of ordered series, not networks (weighted sets). This difference (constructivism) and error (ordered lists) eradicates most of the importance of marginalism from Jewish Economics.
Third, and most damningly, Jewish Economics ignores the commons as well whereas the very purpose of Austrian economics is the improvement of the commons (institutions). So Austrian Economics proper and Jewish Economics proper, are fundamentally different systems of thought – and fourth, as a reflection of that, Mises’ Human Action, through at least chapter 5, is some of the most absurd pseudoscience ever penned by man.
Fifth, austrianism, except for the question of the business cycle, has been fully integrated into mainstream economics.
So the Mises institute continues this ‘terminological appropriation’ by rothbard and mises. It’s Jewish Economics, not Austrian economics, just as Liberalism was appropriated by the left from Classical Liberalism.
THEREFORE
So Economic School (“d”) is Jewish Economics: the search for justification of separatism by which we use pseudoscience, conflation, rational obscurantism, loading, and framing, and overloading, to attempt to construct a justification for parasitic subsistence of a separatist class upon a landed polity that pays the high cost of territorial, capital, cultural, institutional, and genetic monopoly.
What does all that mean: it means almost no one who works in the field economic philosophy (the search for methods of decidability in political economy), whether German Scientific, Anglo Rule of Law, Anglo-Jewish-Mainstream, or Jewish Economics has any idea what he or she is doing – or talking about – other than screwing around with how much lying we can get away with.
Hopefully this serves you.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-08 11:28:00 UTC
-
All literature (and movies) seeks to innovate. There are a limited (small) numbe
All literature (and movies) seeks to innovate. There are a limited (small) number of possible narratives – a well studied subject. Arguably only one. categorically only a handful. Reasonably under 20. Stretching it into the 30’s.
We generally retell these stories in terms of current events, over and over again over the centuries. But that is all that changes.
Because of the volume of the stories we tell, and movies we make, they vary subtle features, vary characters, situations, (d) and use new technology to awe. DUring the fist age of film we usually saw either the underclasses in slapstick or the middle classes pretending to be uppper middle or upper. During the second age, the working class as middle class. During the current era, we are seeing the lower middle and uppper proletarian classes in all sorts of roles.
One of the principle reasons for the moovement away from movie theatres is that serials (beginning with Saving Private Ryan i believe) are able to create richer combinations but require more running time.
SO this trend is what we should expect to continue to see until there is yet another model. My view is that computer games and movies will converge at some point to the degree that they are inseparable (simulations) where the only difference is whether the viewers campfire-watch, or engage. and that this ist heonly possible direction for the arts.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 19:23:00 UTC