Source: Facebook

  • THE PARASITISMS THAT COMPETE WITH RECIPROCITY Marxism = parasitism upon private

    THE PARASITISMS THAT COMPETE WITH RECIPROCITY

    Marxism = parasitism upon private property.

    Libertarianism = Parasitism upon commons.

    NeoConservatism = Parasitism upon Genes, Traditions, and Institutions.

    Authoritarianism masks the underlying theft, which is why I talk not about the authority (which each sector justified) but about the thefts (which are very hard to).

    Same with economics. We talk about whether they aer scientific or not but we do not talk about the thefts that occur, versus the trades that would be possible under rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity.

    Theft is not an opinion. “Good” is an opinion.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 12:41:00 UTC

  • “PLEASE DEFINE DEFLATIONARY GRAMAR”— (also: See the various categories of Trut

    —“PLEASE DEFINE DEFLATIONARY GRAMAR”—

    (also: See the various categories of Truth (including deflationary).

    Deflationary <-> Inflationary <-> Conflationary <-> Fictionalism

    DEFLATIONARY: identity(constant relations), Mathematics(positional relations), Logics(sets of relations), Algorithms (States and Transformation of states), Procedures/Recpies(states, transformation of states, by operations), Contracts(exchanges), Survival (from competition)

    INFLATIONARY: the descriptive narrative. the fiction.

    CONFLATIONARY: addition of inconstant relations for purposes of association(transfer) or suggestion (deception)

    FICTIONALISM: supernatural, ideal (especially platonism), pseudoscientific (especially marx, boaz, freud), pseudo-rational (Especially pretense of closure), pseudo historical (especially revisionist history whereupon present knowledge, luxury, and incentive, is attributed to past actors.)

    GRAMMAR: Rules of continuous disambiguation.

    SEMANTICS: sets of constant relations.

    PARADIGM: Networks of sets of constant relations.

    In other words we have developed deflationary, inflationary, conflationary, and fictionalist (fraudulent) grammars, wherein the possible operations(transformations, comparisons,) and therefore possible paradigms and semantics (constant relations) are increased or decreased in scope in order to test and falsify (deflate by disassociation) or communicate (inflate by association) or mislead (inflate, conflate, and fictionalise) for the purpose of self, and other, fraud, deception, pretense.

    In other words, anything that is not false or immoral/unethical(involuntary transfer) is a truth candidate, a preference candidate, and a ‘good’ candidate.

    This exercise is just codifying in scientific terms the 4000 year old empirical law of tort (reciprocity): do whatever you want but don’t display, speak, or perform a fraud no matter how you justify doing so.

    Ergo, via positiva philosophy is limited to the selection of personal preferences and contactual goods, but otherwise, as far as I know, the subject of truth is complete and now science (as it probably always should and could have been had the Stoics not be suppressed by the eastern empire.)

    The problem is, we have regulated action, we have regulated production (commerce and trade) we have regulated contract (Promise of performance) but we have not regulated speech, for the simple reason that it has been heretofore too difficult to limit speech to that which is warrantable.

    Ergo, if it isn’t warrantable, we can’t tell it’s not false or unethical/immoral directly or by externality..

    No man wants laws to bound his ambitions for self delusion as to his social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value. No murderer, theft, or fraud wants constraints on his parasitism and predation. Likewise no social climber, virtue-signaller, priest, public intellectual, wants limits on his speech which constrains his ability to defraud himself and others in pursuit of attention, status, and virtue signals that might increase his perceived social, sexual, economic, political, and military value to others.

    But yet our uniquely aggressive rate of western evolution in all fields has been possible because of our incremental suppression of violence, theft, and fraud in concert with our rapid advancement in technology, economic, social, political, and military order.

    Fraud is fraud no matter what excuse we make for it. And while it is one thing to imagine fraud, it is another to speak, advocate, and publish it.

    😉


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 12:23:00 UTC

  • No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one

    No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one hand and science, cognitive science, natural law (reciprocity), economics on the other. In other words, between that which is free of fictionalism and that which is not.

    The question remains, we can learn from history, biography, science, economics, or we can learn from the narrative, archetypes and plots, or we can learn from religion, philosophy, and the occult.

    There is reason we identify ‘fictionalisms’ in each discipline (and I have worked on this subject for the past ten years), and that is because they are self referential rather than suffering and surviving the test of falsification by demonstration.

    As far as I know, assuming that we separate the study of grammar (continuous disambiguation), logic(formal disambiguation), semantics(constant relations), and paradigms (networks of constant relations), that it is very difficult to find a question asked in any philosophy that is not simply avoidance of science(the sciences), natural law (reciprocity), and economics(results of cooperation) for the purpose of avoiding the falsification of what which which values as either immoral, or deflating of status, and self confidence.

    As such philosophy is currently used for the purpose of self help, which is to provide pseudoscientific or pseudo rational justification of intuitions and priors so that individuals develop the courage to act or tolerate their status: social, sexual, economic, political, and military value. Or it is used to avoid the high cost of learning rationalism over religion, or science over rationalism.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 08:34:00 UTC

  • NEGOTIATES FROM THE PRESUMPTION OF IGNORANCE AND PRESUMPTION OF THE OPPONENT’S M

    https://www.quora.com/How-did-President-Trump-choke-North-Koreas-economy-that-forced-a-meeting-between-him-and-Kim-Jong-Un-to-denuclearize/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=f7c9d48b&srid=u4QvTRUMP NEGOTIATES FROM THE PRESUMPTION OF IGNORANCE AND PRESUMPTION OF THE OPPONENT’S MALFEASANCE. HE MANUFACTURES OPPORTUNITY TO SUCCEED RATHER THAN PLANS A SPECIFIC SUCCESS.

    (I know, because I do the same thing)

    Kim wants legitimacy before his people. Trump wants an excuse to take severe action. The military can use that action to counter china. There are hundreds of issues at play here.

    I have been in the business of negotiating business deals for most of my life – usually M&A in the low range. And trump’s method of negotiation is very transparent to me.

    You just let everyone play their hand, and say anything that encourages people to take further exposure, then wait for opportunity to make use of that information, while suggesting that you’ll accept possibilities different from your central objective.

    This makes it extremely hard for the opposition to rally and counter you, and ensures you have the maximum information at your disposal. This works when many people are fighting for your business, money, or approval.

    And it means you do not have to pay them off or make a lot of puts in order to get the best deal. Moreover by giving them hope, and then drawing it out or letting them fail, they are weakened with their constituencies.

    Most presidents and politicians do this under pretense. He just does it openly. Because the worst that happens is he gets to leave the white house which is a bit like slumming for him.

    Meanwhile his base is more dedicated than any president in modern history.

    He governs as does a king rather than the postmodern priesthood that’s been common since Johnson. And I am still not sure it’s a bad thing.Updated Mar 15, 2018, 12:59 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-15 12:59:00 UTC

  • “Really, when you think about it, movie theaters are basically concession stands

    —“Really, when you think about it, movie theaters are basically concession stands that rely on movies to bring people in the door.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-15 12:43:00 UTC

  • I love watching the movie business fail into producing nothing but spectacle for

    I love watching the movie business fail into producing nothing but spectacle for children and teens.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-15 12:41:00 UTC

  • united states is not ONE democracy, but a COLLECTION OF STATES all of whom agree

    https://www.quora.com/The-results-of-the-2016-General-Election-is-proof-the-United-States-isnt-a-democracy-its-a-plutocractic-oligarchy-why-doesnt-it-end-its-hypocritical-crusade-for-democracy-and-focus-on-improving-international/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=b581fd1c&srid=u4QvThe united states is not ONE democracy, but a COLLECTION OF STATES all of whom agree to operate democratically and resolve conflicts in commerce and war via the federal government, similarly to how the Church formed a weak government over the various states of Europe.

    The states, regions, and ‘nine’ super-regions, are genetically(yes), demographically, culturally, and legally different.

    They are also of vastly different sizes, just as the states of europe(germanic), and eastern europe(slavic) are different sizes.

    And while each state gains proportional representation in the house, equal representation in the senate, it is the majority of the STATES that determine the presidency – not one’s vote.

    This was designed so that big (immigrant) states could not virtually enslave the smaller and more homogenous states.

    When you vote, you vote for your state, not for the country, because you are just as much an enemy as a friend of people in other parts of the country. And this is how it was set.

    If there is any question whatsoever of as SINGLE democracy, then we do not live in separate states each satisfying the want and needs of the groups that inhabit them, then we are a tyrannical empire that oppresses those states.

    The underlying problem is why we joined vastly different civilizations in 1789 did not separate after the war of 1812 when the north wanted to secede, did not separate in 1865, when the south wanted to secede, and do not separate today when it appears that at least five, but ast many as ten different nations, consisting of subsets of our states, want to seceded.

    The only problem heretofore has been external military pressure. Without the european aggression of the pre-war period, or the opportunity to ‘steal’ the western 3/4 of the continent after the Louisiana Purchase, or defend ourselves from postwar communism, (and it looks like communism’s follow-on: islamism is coming to an end) then there is no reason to remain united whatsoever, when the consequence is constant internecine warfare slowly turning into open civil war.

    Our government is an empire that has outlived its usefulness as holding the world system of finance and trade together after the collapse of european colonialism.

    It’s time to return to the norm of western civilization: small states that cater to the wants and needs of their people – not to the will of the majority who, by all measures, will always be those least able, least productive, least knowledgeable, and demonstrably least moral.Updated Mar 15, 2018, 12:10 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-15 12:10:00 UTC

  • TAKE FRAUD BIG TIME TOOUpdated Mar 14, 2018, 10:25 PM

    https://nypost.com/2018/03/14/sec-accuses-theranos-ceo-elizabeth-holmes-of-massive-fraud/CHICKS TAKE FRAUD BIG TIME TOOUpdated Mar 14, 2018, 10:25 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 22:25:00 UTC

  • With Annihilation, the market change is complete. The cinemas are now for specta

    With Annihilation, the market change is complete. The cinemas are now for spectacle, and all good movies will be produced by Netflix and Major Cable. They are already canceling distribution of future releases – even those currently in production.

    If we end copyright via creative commons we end them all.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 18:54:00 UTC

  • Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline

    Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 18:54:00 UTC