What is powerful about Stoicism is that forces us to maintain an INTERNAL locus of control along with high agency. At the same time, filtering out emotions by considering what we have rather than what we don’t and aligning with natural law allow us to think, calculate and act in the most efficient, effective manner possible. Conserving energy, creating the smallest emotional wake (for ourselves and others, thus mitigating or eliminating negative 2nd and 3rd order effects) and economizing motion as well as emotion.
What I love about this stuff, is that many of us, me including, stumbled on this, as the only thing that made sense in a Blue-Pilled world- and it is so comforting to say, “omg, this is actually a fully formed philosophy”. BUT we have the added advantage of neuroscience and 2.000 years of accumulated history to take it even further. Love it.
And with microeconomics, and nanoeconomics, and behavioral economics.
We have the Holy Grail.
We can now mathematically model Stoicism and we understand not just ourselves but everyone we interact with, through (as you are wont to say) incentives, we can look at max and min as well as elasticity / inelasticity through microeconomics and with all this granular data, we can look at nanoeconomisc (individual transaction) and then set all this against behavioral economisc / neuroeconomics and see that Stoicism is the way forward and we can improve it Stoicism 2.0 but added a few things and emphasizing a few others.
Rule of Natural Law and Markets in Everything is the optimum set of institutions, for the simple reason that they can continuously adapt and as such continuously suppress rent opportunities, and the accumulation of fragility.
Nationalism is the optimum international order.
The problem is GETTING EVERYONE THERE the way we dragged humanity kicking and screaming into consumer capitalism and rule of law.
Anyone arguing otherwise is simply trying to steal something(s) from someone(s) else(s) somehow(s).
—“… Good propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no reason to fear the truth. It is a mistake to believe that the people cannot take the truth. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand. A propaganda that lies proves that it has a bad cause. It cannot be successful in the long run. A good propaganda will always come along that serves a good cause. But propaganda is still necessary if a good cause is to succeed. A good idea does not win simply because it is good. It must be presented properly if it is to win. The combination makes for the best propaganda. Such propaganda is successful without being obnoxious. It depends on its nature, not its methods. It works without being noticed. Its goals are inherent in its nature. Since it is almost invisible, it is effective and powerful. A good cause will lose to a bad one if it depends only on its rightness, while the other side uses the methods of influencing the masses. We are, for example, firmly convinced that we fought the war for a good cause, but that was not enough. The world should also have known and seen that our cause was good. However, we lacked the effective means of mass propaganda to make that clear to the world. Marxism certainly did not fight for great ideals. Despite that, in November 1918 it overcame Kaiser, Reich, and the army because it was superior in the art of mass propaganda…” – Dr. Joseph Goebbels.
photos_and_videos/your_posts/37003564_10156491807667264_8971145353638182912_n_10156491807662264.jpg TRUTH IS RELATIVE? NO “IT JUST MEANS YER IGNERINT”
There are no paradoxes only grammatical errors.
If people err they do not speak the truth they speak only honestly or truthfully. That they conflate honesty with truthfully is merely another version of conflating preference “i like chocolate ice cream” with consensus “chocolate tastes good (to most of us)”, with truth (chocolate may taste good to many people).
Truth originated with the term testimony. We merely combine the word True with the copula “is” (meaning “i dont know how it exists”) and conflate the various positions on the truth spectrum out of convenience and ignorance. We eliminate these problems through speaking if full sentences in operational language (testable transactions)>
This is why all knowledge in science is forever contingent, and all scientists that have been taught sufficient understanding of their craft, rarely make truth claims, and almost always make contingent truth claims, with prevarications like “as far as we know” or “according to x it appears”, and “it’s hard to imagine otherwise”.
Right now my favorite example is the red shift that is hypothetically measuring that the universe is expanding faster than light, when it is just as likely it is a property of space itself that is causing the shift (distortion). We just don’t know. And we can’t observe directly. So we have to triangulate and deduce by some other series of observations. Even then we must eliminate all alternatives before we can make a truth claim – that’s what ‘truth’ means.
In the case of the shapes above, what are the observers testifying to? Their observation? Their shape of the shadow? The shape of the object casting the shadow? People conflate observation, effect, and cause.
|| Observation <- Effect <- Causes
One cannot testify to the shape of the object only to the observation of the shape of the shadow being cast (fact). One can hypothesize a shape of the object (hypothesis). One can speak honestly about that shape (honesty). One can perform due diligence that one does not err (theory) but in science all claims are contingent. One cannot testify to the unobservable, until he has eliminated all possible alternatives (due diligence). Since perfect knowledge is almost never possible outside of the reductio, once on has performed tests eliminating all alternatives (due diligence) one can testify he speaks truthfully of his theory. But in general we make only truth claims of an observation of change in state.
That people do such a thing regularly is simply a matter of ignorance, and the bad habits accumulated in ordinary language grammer – which any time in court will rapidly correct.
The fact that people say “aint” instead of ‘isn’t’, and ‘different than’ rather than ‘different from’, is no different from saying “It’s a shape X” rather than “The shadow I can observe is the shape X”.
It’s just ignorance, error, poor education, colloquial speech, or being verbally lazy.
SPECTRUM:
[T]AUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.
[A]NALYTIC TRUTH: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).
[I]DEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)
[T]RUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
[H]ONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.TRUTH IS RELATIVE? NO “IT JUST MEANS YER IGNERINT”
There are no paradoxes only grammatical errors.
If people err they do not speak the truth they speak only honestly or truthfully. That they conflate honesty with truthfully is merely another version of conflating preference “i like chocolate ice cream” with consensus “chocolate tastes good (to most of us)”, with truth (chocolate may taste good to many people).
Truth originated with the term testimony. We merely combine the word True with the copula “is” (meaning “i dont know how it exists”) and conflate the various positions on the truth spectrum out of convenience and ignorance. We eliminate these problems through speaking if full sentences in operational language (testable transactions)>
This is why all knowledge in science is forever contingent, and all scientists that have been taught sufficient understanding of their craft, rarely make truth claims, and almost always make contingent truth claims, with prevarications like “as far as we know” or “according to x it appears”, and “it’s hard to imagine otherwise”.
Right now my favorite example is the red shift that is hypothetically measuring that the universe is expanding faster than light, when it is just as likely it is a property of space itself that is causing the shift (distortion). We just don’t know. And we can’t observe directly. So we have to triangulate and deduce by some other series of observations. Even then we must eliminate all alternatives before we can make a truth claim – that’s what ‘truth’ means.
In the case of the shapes above, what are the observers testifying to? Their observation? Their shape of the shadow? The shape of the object casting the shadow? People conflate observation, effect, and cause.
|| Observation <- Effect <- Causes
One cannot testify to the shape of the object only to the observation of the shape of the shadow being cast (fact). One can hypothesize a shape of the object (hypothesis). One can speak honestly about that shape (honesty). One can perform due diligence that one does not err (theory) but in science all claims are contingent. One cannot testify to the unobservable, until he has eliminated all possible alternatives (due diligence). Since perfect knowledge is almost never possible outside of the reductio, once on has performed tests eliminating all alternatives (due diligence) one can testify he speaks truthfully of his theory. But in general we make only truth claims of an observation of change in state.
That people do such a thing regularly is simply a matter of ignorance, and the bad habits accumulated in ordinary language grammer – which any time in court will rapidly correct.
The fact that people say “aint” instead of ‘isn’t’, and ‘different than’ rather than ‘different from’, is no different from saying “It’s a shape X” rather than “The shadow I can observe is the shape X”.
It’s just ignorance, error, poor education, colloquial speech, or being verbally lazy.
SPECTRUM:
[T]AUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.
[A]NALYTIC TRUTH: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).
[I]DEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)
[T]RUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
[H]ONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/37003564_10156491807667264_8971145353638182912_n_10156491807662264.jpg TRUTH IS RELATIVE? NO “IT JUST MEANS YER IGNERINT”
There are no paradoxes only grammatical errors.
If people err they do not speak the truth they speak only honestly or truthfully. That they conflate honesty with truthfully is merely another version of conflating preference “i like chocolate ice cream” with consensus “chocolate tastes good (to most of us)”, with truth (chocolate may taste good to many people).
Truth originated with the term testimony. We merely combine the word True with the copula “is” (meaning “i dont know how it exists”) and conflate the various positions on the truth spectrum out of convenience and ignorance. We eliminate these problems through speaking if full sentences in operational language (testable transactions)>
This is why all knowledge in science is forever contingent, and all scientists that have been taught sufficient understanding of their craft, rarely make truth claims, and almost always make contingent truth claims, with prevarications like “as far as we know” or “according to x it appears”, and “it’s hard to imagine otherwise”.
Right now my favorite example is the red shift that is hypothetically measuring that the universe is expanding faster than light, when it is just as likely it is a property of space itself that is causing the shift (distortion). We just don’t know. And we can’t observe directly. So we have to triangulate and deduce by some other series of observations. Even then we must eliminate all alternatives before we can make a truth claim – that’s what ‘truth’ means.
In the case of the shapes above, what are the observers testifying to? Their observation? Their shape of the shadow? The shape of the object casting the shadow? People conflate observation, effect, and cause.
|| Observation <- Effect <- Causes
One cannot testify to the shape of the object only to the observation of the shape of the shadow being cast (fact). One can hypothesize a shape of the object (hypothesis). One can speak honestly about that shape (honesty). One can perform due diligence that one does not err (theory) but in science all claims are contingent. One cannot testify to the unobservable, until he has eliminated all possible alternatives (due diligence). Since perfect knowledge is almost never possible outside of the reductio, once on has performed tests eliminating all alternatives (due diligence) one can testify he speaks truthfully of his theory. But in general we make only truth claims of an observation of change in state.
That people do such a thing regularly is simply a matter of ignorance, and the bad habits accumulated in ordinary language grammer – which any time in court will rapidly correct.
The fact that people say “aint” instead of ‘isn’t’, and ‘different than’ rather than ‘different from’, is no different from saying “It’s a shape X” rather than “The shadow I can observe is the shape X”.
It’s just ignorance, error, poor education, colloquial speech, or being verbally lazy.
SPECTRUM:
[T]AUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.
[A]NALYTIC TRUTH: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).
[I]DEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)
[T]RUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
[H]ONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.TRUTH IS RELATIVE? NO “IT JUST MEANS YER IGNERINT”
There are no paradoxes only grammatical errors.
If people err they do not speak the truth they speak only honestly or truthfully. That they conflate honesty with truthfully is merely another version of conflating preference “i like chocolate ice cream” with consensus “chocolate tastes good (to most of us)”, with truth (chocolate may taste good to many people).
Truth originated with the term testimony. We merely combine the word True with the copula “is” (meaning “i dont know how it exists”) and conflate the various positions on the truth spectrum out of convenience and ignorance. We eliminate these problems through speaking if full sentences in operational language (testable transactions)>
This is why all knowledge in science is forever contingent, and all scientists that have been taught sufficient understanding of their craft, rarely make truth claims, and almost always make contingent truth claims, with prevarications like “as far as we know” or “according to x it appears”, and “it’s hard to imagine otherwise”.
Right now my favorite example is the red shift that is hypothetically measuring that the universe is expanding faster than light, when it is just as likely it is a property of space itself that is causing the shift (distortion). We just don’t know. And we can’t observe directly. So we have to triangulate and deduce by some other series of observations. Even then we must eliminate all alternatives before we can make a truth claim – that’s what ‘truth’ means.
In the case of the shapes above, what are the observers testifying to? Their observation? Their shape of the shadow? The shape of the object casting the shadow? People conflate observation, effect, and cause.
|| Observation <- Effect <- Causes
One cannot testify to the shape of the object only to the observation of the shape of the shadow being cast (fact). One can hypothesize a shape of the object (hypothesis). One can speak honestly about that shape (honesty). One can perform due diligence that one does not err (theory) but in science all claims are contingent. One cannot testify to the unobservable, until he has eliminated all possible alternatives (due diligence). Since perfect knowledge is almost never possible outside of the reductio, once on has performed tests eliminating all alternatives (due diligence) one can testify he speaks truthfully of his theory. But in general we make only truth claims of an observation of change in state.
That people do such a thing regularly is simply a matter of ignorance, and the bad habits accumulated in ordinary language grammer – which any time in court will rapidly correct.
The fact that people say “aint” instead of ‘isn’t’, and ‘different than’ rather than ‘different from’, is no different from saying “It’s a shape X” rather than “The shadow I can observe is the shape X”.
It’s just ignorance, error, poor education, colloquial speech, or being verbally lazy.
SPECTRUM:
[T]AUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.
[A]NALYTIC TRUTH: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).
[I]DEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)
[T]RUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
[H]ONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
—“If you worship your enemy, you are defeated. If you adopt your enemyâs religion, you are enslaved. If you breed with your enemy, you are destroyed.” — Polydoros of Sparta
