Apr 3, 2020, 10:46 AM By Daniel Roland Anderson If you ever want to understand Natural Law, this is a critical principle. If you have not performed Due Diligence, and you serve as a conduit for falsehood, you are “lying” under the P definition of lying. So sometimes when we call you liar, we aren’t saying you are wicked. It could be you are simply . . . simple.
Form: Short Note
-
A Critical Principle
Apr 3, 2020, 10:46 AM By Daniel Roland Anderson If you ever want to understand Natural Law, this is a critical principle. If you have not performed Due Diligence, and you serve as a conduit for falsehood, you are “lying” under the P definition of lying. So sometimes when we call you liar, we aren’t saying you are wicked. It could be you are simply . . . simple.
-
P Grammars Tie All the Ways of Knowing Together
Apr 3, 2020, 10:49 AM by Ryan Drummond I think reading Jung without reading Nietzsche can easily bait one into intellectual (and moral) hazard. I’d say, too, that reading Nietzsche without reading the cognitive sciences or the work of yourself, for example, can bait people into empirical hazard. The breadth of such work simply can’t be understood by reading one author, or even two authors. You need to cover the existential, the theological, the moral, the historical, the cultural, the psyche, and the scientific objectivity to get a ‘clearer’ picture of the totality. Even then we can easily fall into traps of bias and error! I admire how P takes all of these things and knits them together into a logical web of truth that can be followed and understood a little more clearly by those with no exposure or those with partial exposure to these things. It also, if you want to take it far enough, opens up avenues of thought and totality for even hardened scholars in such fields of study.
-
No One Should Read Jung without Having First Read His Autobiography
Apr 3, 2020, 1:43 PM —“No one should read Jung without having first read his Autobiography. Jung wrote his Autobiography at the end of his life and reflects upon his life’s work and how he came to have the thoughts and beliefs that he did. He answers and corrects misinformation about his work that is sorely needed when you are taught about his work. For instance the concept of archetypes does not negate the literal existence of deity, but simply explains our minds ability to comprehend and communicate with them.”—AunMarie Grooms
-
Another Difference
Apr 4, 2020, 11:07 PM
Another difference between men and women. For men, you’re in the group unless they throw you out. And it’s relatively hard to get thrown out. And pushing someone out can get you hung for having tried. Conversely, Women, are always afraid of being out without constant confirmation, and it only takes one b-tch to knock you out, and women reward the b-tches. If you don’t try to make men think like women, it’s pretty hard for women to get thrown out of men’s groups.
-
Another Difference
Apr 4, 2020, 11:07 PM
Another difference between men and women. For men, you’re in the group unless they throw you out. And it’s relatively hard to get thrown out. And pushing someone out can get you hung for having tried. Conversely, Women, are always afraid of being out without constant confirmation, and it only takes one b-tch to knock you out, and women reward the b-tches. If you don’t try to make men think like women, it’s pretty hard for women to get thrown out of men’s groups.
-
Reverse Accusations of Gsrrm
Apr 5, 2020, 11:34 AM GSRRM must be used to avoid an argument by substituting disapproval for truth. Shaming is necessary and warranted demand for restitution by suppression of the crime of avoiding an argument by substitution of disapproval.
—“Doolittle: “do as I say not as I do”—Tamzin Millikan @MillikanTamzin
Shaming for disapproval to avoid the argument, falsehood, irreciprocity, and failure of due diligence, is a demand for restitution, under test of reciprocity. The opposite is not. Learn the law. You will be better for it. Me: “Speak to the audience in a compromise grammar.” So: (a) I’m speaking to the audience in a compromise grammar (market). (b) You are disapproving without doing due diligence (assuming you understand and not asking why I’m doing so),(c) counter-signaling my shaming of your for failure of due diligence. Learn the law. End error.
-
Reverse Accusations of Gsrrm
Apr 5, 2020, 11:34 AM GSRRM must be used to avoid an argument by substituting disapproval for truth. Shaming is necessary and warranted demand for restitution by suppression of the crime of avoiding an argument by substitution of disapproval.
—“Doolittle: “do as I say not as I do”—Tamzin Millikan @MillikanTamzin
Shaming for disapproval to avoid the argument, falsehood, irreciprocity, and failure of due diligence, is a demand for restitution, under test of reciprocity. The opposite is not. Learn the law. You will be better for it. Me: “Speak to the audience in a compromise grammar.” So: (a) I’m speaking to the audience in a compromise grammar (market). (b) You are disapproving without doing due diligence (assuming you understand and not asking why I’m doing so),(c) counter-signaling my shaming of your for failure of due diligence. Learn the law. End error.
-
The Problem
Apr 9, 2020, 8:29 PM The problem for Christianity is that it only has one thing to trade -psychological comfort – or what we call mindfulness – and only half or less of the population is buying it. It doesn’t have ENOUGH to trade for the rest of the population to buy it. Yet christians are desperately trying to sell to a saturated market and in doing so losing market share. Instead what Christians, pagans, heathens, traditionalists, constitutionalists and seculars have to trade is unity against the enemy that would destroy our civilization – christian, pagan, heathen, traditional, constitutionalist, and secular. So sell the the only thing the market will buy: Unity in self defense. Unity in Offense. And Unity in Victory. Because selling monopoly is failing everyone. You can’t have control. You can only preserve our trifunctionalism: the equilibrium of military, legal, and religious -each in defense of the other.
-
The Problem
Apr 9, 2020, 8:29 PM The problem for Christianity is that it only has one thing to trade -psychological comfort – or what we call mindfulness – and only half or less of the population is buying it. It doesn’t have ENOUGH to trade for the rest of the population to buy it. Yet christians are desperately trying to sell to a saturated market and in doing so losing market share. Instead what Christians, pagans, heathens, traditionalists, constitutionalists and seculars have to trade is unity against the enemy that would destroy our civilization – christian, pagan, heathen, traditional, constitutionalist, and secular. So sell the the only thing the market will buy: Unity in self defense. Unity in Offense. And Unity in Victory. Because selling monopoly is failing everyone. You can’t have control. You can only preserve our trifunctionalism: the equilibrium of military, legal, and religious -each in defense of the other.