We use law (common law of torts) to decide matters of conflict. That is the total function of the law. (Yes, that’s just the fact of it) The practice of law evolved to standardize punishments in order to reduce retaliation cycles between groups that had evolved different punishments (yes, that’s just a fact of it)z The reason for the standardization was to prevent conflict was to preserve the income from taxation, and the cost of policing the territory and economy, including market for productive populations. Law exists as a set of records. Those records consist of decisions. Those decisions include reasons for those decisions. Those decisions are necessary to resolve conflicts between individuals. While we use the term ‘law’ for many purposes, the term can only mean common law – (post action). Command of dictators (direction to act or not to), command of legislatures(legislation) – direction to act or not to, and command of regulators (administration of insurance by the state) – (prior constraint), do not constitute law. They merely are enforced as if they are law. Whenever someone says something is like something else, it means he does not know what constitutes the thing in the first place. WHile it is possible to use analogies for the purpose of establishing definitions, one cannot treat an analogy as a premise for the purpose of deductions from the analogy. Instead, one can use analogies to establish understanding (definitions) then to clarify that understanding (definition) through operational construction (proof of possibility, test of parsimony). From that parsimonious definition it may be possible to continue to produce constructions that define operations that change state between that which we have defined. But analogies are the primary reason that people overestimate their understanding, and it is the primary means of deceit. The word ‘is’ and all variations of it (the verb to-be) can only mean ‘exists as’. Otherwise it is equivalent to using the word ‘thing’: meaning ‘i dont know or understand this reference.’ So, no. If you understand what you speak, then you can speak it and argue with it. If you cannot understand it you may speak it, but you cannot argue it. It’s not complicated.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Knowing What You’re Talking About.
We use law (common law of torts) to decide matters of conflict. That is the total function of the law. (Yes, that’s just the fact of it) The practice of law evolved to standardize punishments in order to reduce retaliation cycles between groups that had evolved different punishments (yes, that’s just a fact of it)z The reason for the standardization was to prevent conflict was to preserve the income from taxation, and the cost of policing the territory and economy, including market for productive populations. Law exists as a set of records. Those records consist of decisions. Those decisions include reasons for those decisions. Those decisions are necessary to resolve conflicts between individuals. While we use the term ‘law’ for many purposes, the term can only mean common law – (post action). Command of dictators (direction to act or not to), command of legislatures(legislation) – direction to act or not to, and command of regulators (administration of insurance by the state) – (prior constraint), do not constitute law. They merely are enforced as if they are law. Whenever someone says something is like something else, it means he does not know what constitutes the thing in the first place. WHile it is possible to use analogies for the purpose of establishing definitions, one cannot treat an analogy as a premise for the purpose of deductions from the analogy. Instead, one can use analogies to establish understanding (definitions) then to clarify that understanding (definition) through operational construction (proof of possibility, test of parsimony). From that parsimonious definition it may be possible to continue to produce constructions that define operations that change state between that which we have defined. But analogies are the primary reason that people overestimate their understanding, and it is the primary means of deceit. The word ‘is’ and all variations of it (the verb to-be) can only mean ‘exists as’. Otherwise it is equivalent to using the word ‘thing’: meaning ‘i dont know or understand this reference.’ So, no. If you understand what you speak, then you can speak it and argue with it. If you cannot understand it you may speak it, but you cannot argue it. It’s not complicated.
-
Whose Side Are You On?
I am on my side. I am on my kin’s side I am on my extended kin’s side I am on my civilization’s side. Truth happens to be the weapon of choice in this battle, because it lets us build commons and compete via commons against those that cannot compete via commons. And because it is by cunning deceits sold to women and the underclass that we have been defeated in the ancient and modern worlds. I considered myself a classical liberal. I had the constitution and declaration and a map of the world on my bedroom walls, and a set of encyclopedias under that map. I stared at them a lot. Not romantically, and not ideologically, but in the context of what I learned from those and other encyclopedias. I considered my self a libertarian (a hayekian classical liberal) when I believed in the potential of mankind.. And current events have made me understand that such a fantasy was the product of european eugenics, and that the rest of humanity except for perhaps the Japanese and koreans is are still but animals, and we we must protect ourselves and our generations from them. I love sovereignty and will pay for it with my life. I love liberty for those who can pay for it. I love freedom for those who can wield it. For the rest, the best we can do is prevent them from harming us, our people, our civilization, and this planet.
-
Whose Side Are You On?
I am on my side. I am on my kin’s side I am on my extended kin’s side I am on my civilization’s side. Truth happens to be the weapon of choice in this battle, because it lets us build commons and compete via commons against those that cannot compete via commons. And because it is by cunning deceits sold to women and the underclass that we have been defeated in the ancient and modern worlds. I considered myself a classical liberal. I had the constitution and declaration and a map of the world on my bedroom walls, and a set of encyclopedias under that map. I stared at them a lot. Not romantically, and not ideologically, but in the context of what I learned from those and other encyclopedias. I considered my self a libertarian (a hayekian classical liberal) when I believed in the potential of mankind.. And current events have made me understand that such a fantasy was the product of european eugenics, and that the rest of humanity except for perhaps the Japanese and koreans is are still but animals, and we we must protect ourselves and our generations from them. I love sovereignty and will pay for it with my life. I love liberty for those who can pay for it. I love freedom for those who can wield it. For the rest, the best we can do is prevent them from harming us, our people, our civilization, and this planet.
-
The Operational Name of Infinity Is “Limit Supplied by Contextual Application” Because of Scale Independence.
Defenders of infinity are simply saying that mathematical platonism is a useful mental shortcut to provide decidability for you in the absence of understanding, the way religion is a useful mental shortcut for decidability for others in the absence of understanding. Authority (decidability) in platonic mathematics and authority (decidability) in religion are provided by the same error: empty verbalisms. If mathematical decidability is constrained to correspondence with reality, we do not need the concept of limits because limits are determined by that which we measure. Yet as we use mathematics to create general theories of scale independence, we intentionally abandon scale dependence substituting arbitrarily definable *limits*. By applying mathematics of general rules under scale independence to some real world phenomenon, we merely substitute limit for precision necessary to achieve our ends (marginal indifference). As we add the dimension of movement to our measurements we add time to our general rules, which like distance we define as a constant. (though it is not, per relativity). As the universe consists entirely of curves, yet our deduction from measurements requires lines, and angles (geometry) with which we perform measurements of curves by the measurement of very small lines, we must define limits at which the marginal difference in the application of mathematics to a real world problem is below the margin of error in the prediction of any movement. (where we have reached the *limit* of the measurement necessary for correspondence. While measurement requires both time, and a sequence of operations, and while mathematical deduction requires time and a sequence of operations, cantor removed time and a sequence of operations. So instead of operationally creating *positional names* (numbers) at different RATES, as do gears, and therefore creating sets larger or smaller than one another at different rates, he said, platonically that they created different ‘infinities’. Despite the fact that no infinity is existentially possible, just that at scale independence we use infinity to mean *limited only by context of correspondence: quantity, operations, and time. This is just like using superman as an analogy for scale independence in the measurement of man. Literally, that’s all it is: supernaturalism. All mathematical statements must be constructable (operationally possible), just as all mathematical assertions must be logically deducible. (and you can see this in proof tools being developed in mathematics). Mathematics always was, and always will be, and only can be, the science of creating general rules of MEASUREMENT at scale independence. And the fact that math still, like logic was in the late 19th and all of the 20th century, lost in platonism is equivalent to government still being lost in religion. The only reason math is challenging is that it is not taught to people *truthfully*, but platonically. Otherwise the basis of math is very simple: this pebble corresponds to any constant category we can imagine, and each positional name we give to each additional pebble represents a ratio of the initial unit of measure: a pebble, and as such corresponds to reality. Hence why I consider mathematical platonism, philosophical platonism, and supernatural religion crimes against humanity: the manufacture of ignorance in the masses in order to create privileged priesthoods of the few through mere obscurantist language. Another authoritarian lie. Another priesthood. Yet I understand. I understand that heavy investment in comforting shortcuts is indeed an investment and that the cost of relearning to speak truthfully is just as painful for mathematicians, as it is for philosophers, and theologists. Curt Doolittle (Ps: oddly, my sister is sitting next to me working on common core standards designed to improve math skills) === Addendum by Frank === by Propertarian Frank The exact same argument we use to stop believing in ghosts should have prevented Cantor’s infinities. But it didn’t. (1) People familiar with Diagonal Argument and understand it is epistemic cancer. (2) People familiar with advanced Platonist trickery like the Diagonal Argument and buy it even though they avoid falling for Platonism in other domains. (3) People that are unfamiliar with advanced Platonist trickery, but intuitively understand truth is ultimately about actionable reality. (4) People that are unfamiliar with advanced Platonist trickery, and believe in primitive forms of Platonism (theism, dualism). Type (1) people will get testimonialism immediately. Type (2) people could be persuaded. Trick is to prompt them to explain what differentiates the type of reasoning Cantor uses from the type of reasoning that tries to determine how many angels can dance simultaneously on the head of a pin. Induce cognitive dissonance by making explicit that wishful thinking is only possible when you use non-constructed names. Type (3) people lack the information necessary to judge constructionism in philosophy of mathematics. Understanding Testimonialism requires a bare minimum of familiarity with philosophy of science. Absolute key concept is ‘decidability’. How does a type (3) person ascertain that he ‘gets’ operationalism? Through demonstration in something like the ‘line exercise’ from the other day. So, unfortunately, this type of person will miss the profundity and importance of operationalism. (Seeing the importance of operationalism was the reason I kept reading your corpus). We need to see concrete instances of a method failing so that we can eventually incorporate the solution to that failure into our epistemological method. Without the concretes, it’s impossible. Unfortunately, adding lessons on the Diagonal Argument, operationalism in psychology, instrumentalism and measurement in physics etc, would not be feasible methods for familiarizing the uninitiated. In other words, if you haven’t spent considerable time thinking about philosophy of science already, courses in Propertarianism will not convince you, because you lack the means of judging them. Type (4) people are the hardest to persuade. You have to show them a domain in which Idealism fails, and prompt them to think about why they think it doesn’t fail in this other domain. If you can’t crush their Platonist belief in a certain domain (due to emotional blocks for instance), they can’t consistently apply operationalism. The fact that they haven’t already given up on simpler forms of Platonism indicates that they may have psychological blocks. Ergo, I think this type of person is the least amenable to learn Testimonialism through video lectures.
-
The Operational Name of Infinity Is “Limit Supplied by Contextual Application” Because of Scale Independence.
Defenders of infinity are simply saying that mathematical platonism is a useful mental shortcut to provide decidability for you in the absence of understanding, the way religion is a useful mental shortcut for decidability for others in the absence of understanding. Authority (decidability) in platonic mathematics and authority (decidability) in religion are provided by the same error: empty verbalisms. If mathematical decidability is constrained to correspondence with reality, we do not need the concept of limits because limits are determined by that which we measure. Yet as we use mathematics to create general theories of scale independence, we intentionally abandon scale dependence substituting arbitrarily definable *limits*. By applying mathematics of general rules under scale independence to some real world phenomenon, we merely substitute limit for precision necessary to achieve our ends (marginal indifference). As we add the dimension of movement to our measurements we add time to our general rules, which like distance we define as a constant. (though it is not, per relativity). As the universe consists entirely of curves, yet our deduction from measurements requires lines, and angles (geometry) with which we perform measurements of curves by the measurement of very small lines, we must define limits at which the marginal difference in the application of mathematics to a real world problem is below the margin of error in the prediction of any movement. (where we have reached the *limit* of the measurement necessary for correspondence. While measurement requires both time, and a sequence of operations, and while mathematical deduction requires time and a sequence of operations, cantor removed time and a sequence of operations. So instead of operationally creating *positional names* (numbers) at different RATES, as do gears, and therefore creating sets larger or smaller than one another at different rates, he said, platonically that they created different ‘infinities’. Despite the fact that no infinity is existentially possible, just that at scale independence we use infinity to mean *limited only by context of correspondence: quantity, operations, and time. This is just like using superman as an analogy for scale independence in the measurement of man. Literally, that’s all it is: supernaturalism. All mathematical statements must be constructable (operationally possible), just as all mathematical assertions must be logically deducible. (and you can see this in proof tools being developed in mathematics). Mathematics always was, and always will be, and only can be, the science of creating general rules of MEASUREMENT at scale independence. And the fact that math still, like logic was in the late 19th and all of the 20th century, lost in platonism is equivalent to government still being lost in religion. The only reason math is challenging is that it is not taught to people *truthfully*, but platonically. Otherwise the basis of math is very simple: this pebble corresponds to any constant category we can imagine, and each positional name we give to each additional pebble represents a ratio of the initial unit of measure: a pebble, and as such corresponds to reality. Hence why I consider mathematical platonism, philosophical platonism, and supernatural religion crimes against humanity: the manufacture of ignorance in the masses in order to create privileged priesthoods of the few through mere obscurantist language. Another authoritarian lie. Another priesthood. Yet I understand. I understand that heavy investment in comforting shortcuts is indeed an investment and that the cost of relearning to speak truthfully is just as painful for mathematicians, as it is for philosophers, and theologists. Curt Doolittle (Ps: oddly, my sister is sitting next to me working on common core standards designed to improve math skills) === Addendum by Frank === by Propertarian Frank The exact same argument we use to stop believing in ghosts should have prevented Cantor’s infinities. But it didn’t. (1) People familiar with Diagonal Argument and understand it is epistemic cancer. (2) People familiar with advanced Platonist trickery like the Diagonal Argument and buy it even though they avoid falling for Platonism in other domains. (3) People that are unfamiliar with advanced Platonist trickery, but intuitively understand truth is ultimately about actionable reality. (4) People that are unfamiliar with advanced Platonist trickery, and believe in primitive forms of Platonism (theism, dualism). Type (1) people will get testimonialism immediately. Type (2) people could be persuaded. Trick is to prompt them to explain what differentiates the type of reasoning Cantor uses from the type of reasoning that tries to determine how many angels can dance simultaneously on the head of a pin. Induce cognitive dissonance by making explicit that wishful thinking is only possible when you use non-constructed names. Type (3) people lack the information necessary to judge constructionism in philosophy of mathematics. Understanding Testimonialism requires a bare minimum of familiarity with philosophy of science. Absolute key concept is ‘decidability’. How does a type (3) person ascertain that he ‘gets’ operationalism? Through demonstration in something like the ‘line exercise’ from the other day. So, unfortunately, this type of person will miss the profundity and importance of operationalism. (Seeing the importance of operationalism was the reason I kept reading your corpus). We need to see concrete instances of a method failing so that we can eventually incorporate the solution to that failure into our epistemological method. Without the concretes, it’s impossible. Unfortunately, adding lessons on the Diagonal Argument, operationalism in psychology, instrumentalism and measurement in physics etc, would not be feasible methods for familiarizing the uninitiated. In other words, if you haven’t spent considerable time thinking about philosophy of science already, courses in Propertarianism will not convince you, because you lack the means of judging them. Type (4) people are the hardest to persuade. You have to show them a domain in which Idealism fails, and prompt them to think about why they think it doesn’t fail in this other domain. If you can’t crush their Platonist belief in a certain domain (due to emotional blocks for instance), they can’t consistently apply operationalism. The fact that they haven’t already given up on simpler forms of Platonism indicates that they may have psychological blocks. Ergo, I think this type of person is the least amenable to learn Testimonialism through video lectures.
-
On (My) Writing Style
(on writing style)(via pm)(with a friend) As the guys tell me, I tend to write for a cognitive elite, and it seems that it takes about a 130 IQ to understand it. Our strategy group for the past five years has been for me to work out all the fine details then hope the guys like you translate it for the masses. I try but I just don’t think I can talk tot he masses. I think in very … granular(?) terms. In my mind I’m talking about identity, math, logic, programming, and operational law. And that is just … alien to the mass of humanity that was raised upon myth, literature, and history. (the narrative.) I feel my job is to create the equivalent of the Frankfurt School, or the Jesuits, the Inquisition, and create a hundred and then a thousand people who can argue natural law. I would rather enjoy starting a revolution and getting that job done. But I think others will do that job better than I will. I would love it if I could reach the masses through speech. I would love it if I could write novels and stories as the literature of natural law – even though the Iliad and the Odyssey, the greek and roman myths, the rings of the Nibelungelied, the tales of Arthur and the Carolingians, or the story of Colonialism, and now the great heroic task that is before us, are probably sufficient and tested narrative. I’m just one guy. I’m in my 50s. I’ve been seriously ill multiple times, and had a possibly lethal amount of radiation. I have a product in development for many years which I must work on at the same time as the philosophy. Both are taxing. The purpose of the product is to fund me (and others) in taking it to its conclusion: the ‘bible’ of western civilization beyond which no man or government may tread: the cult of non-submission: the philosophy of aristocracy: sovereignty, and its ‘scripture’: natural law.
-
On (My) Writing Style
(on writing style)(via pm)(with a friend) As the guys tell me, I tend to write for a cognitive elite, and it seems that it takes about a 130 IQ to understand it. Our strategy group for the past five years has been for me to work out all the fine details then hope the guys like you translate it for the masses. I try but I just don’t think I can talk tot he masses. I think in very … granular(?) terms. In my mind I’m talking about identity, math, logic, programming, and operational law. And that is just … alien to the mass of humanity that was raised upon myth, literature, and history. (the narrative.) I feel my job is to create the equivalent of the Frankfurt School, or the Jesuits, the Inquisition, and create a hundred and then a thousand people who can argue natural law. I would rather enjoy starting a revolution and getting that job done. But I think others will do that job better than I will. I would love it if I could reach the masses through speech. I would love it if I could write novels and stories as the literature of natural law – even though the Iliad and the Odyssey, the greek and roman myths, the rings of the Nibelungelied, the tales of Arthur and the Carolingians, or the story of Colonialism, and now the great heroic task that is before us, are probably sufficient and tested narrative. I’m just one guy. I’m in my 50s. I’ve been seriously ill multiple times, and had a possibly lethal amount of radiation. I have a product in development for many years which I must work on at the same time as the philosophy. Both are taxing. The purpose of the product is to fund me (and others) in taking it to its conclusion: the ‘bible’ of western civilization beyond which no man or government may tread: the cult of non-submission: the philosophy of aristocracy: sovereignty, and its ‘scripture’: natural law.
-
Our Era in the Context of the Enlightenments: the Restoration of Europa From Semitic and Iranian Influence (deceits).
The enlightenment succeeded in the physical sciences, but not in the social sciences, and we can see the german, french, russian, jewish, chinese reactions as social counter-enlightenments. What seems to have been under development in the 1800’s in Germany was the second scientific enlightenment (which benefitted the USA mostly), and the second attempt at social scientific revolution. Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Weber/Pareto/Durkheim, Menger, Spencer, Nietzche, Popper(science), Hayek (law) all came very close, and Weber, Mises, Popper, Brouwer, and Bridgman actually independently came to about the same conclusion, but they could not succeed against the pseudoscientific marxists and keynesians, just as the enlightenment philosophers could not succeed against the church and state. We can succeed. Because we have cognitive science, the record of the failure of keynesian economics, the record of the failure of communism, socialism, social democracy and the record of failure of rousseauian and lockeian man. The world merely needs the answer that the first scientific enlightenment, the second failed enlightenment (german) and the american post-german attempt failed to produce. Social science = natural law = reciprocity and the unit of measure = property.
-
Our Era in the Context of the Enlightenments: the Restoration of Europa From Semitic and Iranian Influence (deceits).
The enlightenment succeeded in the physical sciences, but not in the social sciences, and we can see the german, french, russian, jewish, chinese reactions as social counter-enlightenments. What seems to have been under development in the 1800’s in Germany was the second scientific enlightenment (which benefitted the USA mostly), and the second attempt at social scientific revolution. Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Weber/Pareto/Durkheim, Menger, Spencer, Nietzche, Popper(science), Hayek (law) all came very close, and Weber, Mises, Popper, Brouwer, and Bridgman actually independently came to about the same conclusion, but they could not succeed against the pseudoscientific marxists and keynesians, just as the enlightenment philosophers could not succeed against the church and state. We can succeed. Because we have cognitive science, the record of the failure of keynesian economics, the record of the failure of communism, socialism, social democracy and the record of failure of rousseauian and lockeian man. The world merely needs the answer that the first scientific enlightenment, the second failed enlightenment (german) and the american post-german attempt failed to produce. Social science = natural law = reciprocity and the unit of measure = property.