***When someone accuses you of moral relativism, what they mean is not relative but meritocratic. So respond with DYSGENIC absolute equality, and EUGENIC absolute meritocracy.***
There is nothing relative about it. Both eugenic and dysgenic moral rules are absolutes. It’s whether we lie about the value of the underclasses or not.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-11 16:46:00 UTC
—“Would you classify your views on human beings and cooperation as pessimistic?”— Roy Van de Weteringh
That would require me to believe in a fallacy that humans had a bias other than rational. So I view humans as rational machines that can be configured by experience to act optimistically or pessimistically.
🙂
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-11 13:27:00 UTC
School, Academy, State, Business, and Media give people false hopes, encourage them to accumulate debt, and then enslave and reduce them to suffering if they were entrapped by the bait.
Look at all these optimistic young people on the road to nowhere.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-11 13:13:00 UTC
THE REASON I ENUMERATE SPECTRA (SERIES) ALL THE TIME: TO SELECT THE MODEL OF DECIDABILITY GIVEN THE INFORMATION AT HAND. TO BE TRUTHFUL WE MUST ALWAYS USE THE MODEL THAT MAKES USE OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION.
EPISTEMOLOGY
Free association (possibility) > Hypothesis (survival wayfinding) > Theory (survival criticism) > Law (survival in market)
ETHICS
Imitation (ignorance) > Virtue (self-crafting) > Rule (cooperation) > Outcome (judges)
ARGUMENT
impluse > moral > historical > rational(logical) > empirical > operational > demonstrated.
COGNITION
imaginable > reasonable > rational > empirical > operational > testimonial.
THE BINARY (TRUE FALSE) FALLACY
The fallacy in any form of epistemology, including ethical epistemology, is in seeking a binary solution rather than identifying how much information you have to work with and therefore the methodology you need to ‘resort to’ given that amount of information.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-11 11:41:00 UTC
I THINK THIS WORKS
doolittle – negativa
haidt – practica
peterson – positiva
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-11 11:31:00 UTC
ONLY HUMANS CAN MAKE TRUTH CLAIMS.
We cannot know the truth proper (the most parsimonious statement possible by humans if possessed of perfect information) even if we speak it. We can only know that we do not speak in error, bias, wishful thinking, or deceit.
If we perform due diligences (proofs of survival) in an attempt to falsify our statements, then we demonstrate that 1) we speak as truthfully as humanly possible in the moment, 2) we speak morally, and if we err will not be judged harshly by our peers, 3) and we progress toward the truth even if we later discover that we err.
The verb to-be is a pleasant shortcut, but our primary source of overconfidence in our speech. And if we eliminate the verb to-be then we cannot say ‘this phrase is true’. We can only say “I promise I speak truthfully when I say this phrase.”
We are often confused by conflating honesty, proof, analytic truth, truthfulness, and ‘truth’ proper.
But only humans can make truth claims. We speak truthfully or not. we testify to the truthfulness of symbols and measures. Symbols and measures cannot promise so they cannot speak truthfully. Only their authors can.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-11 11:12:00 UTC
WHAT DOES THAT WORD ‘TRUE’ MEAN?
Look. You dont understand the word ‘true’.
We construct mathematical, logical, empirical, operational proofs of consistency, and by doing so demonstrate possibility.
You claim to testify truthfully, that your statements are possible.
In other words, an expression isn’t ‘true’. It’s a proof and you claim to speak truthfully because of that proof.
You can’t depersonalize truth. Because only you can make the promise of speaking truthfully.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-11 10:46:00 UTC
The alt-right consider being called Nazis a badge of honor.
1) You cannot shame them. If you resort to rallying and shaming they consider you to have demonstrated their point: for the ‘new right’ world view, the left speaks nothing but error, bias, pseudoscience and lies and rallies and shames, to cover error, bias, pseudoscience and lies, in order to obtain by force of government that which cannot be obtained by voluntary cooperation.
2) They counter rallying and shaming with ridicule. (Green frogs, Memes, Trolling, etc). And in some cases they have adopted the left’s exploitation of and use of falsehoods.
3) They are adopting the digital age’s equivalent of the left’s community organizing. And it is working.
4) So, just as the islamic fundamentalists have adopted the techniques of the Marxists, the new right has adopted the techniques of the Marxists. In other words, they are seeking to use the techniques invented by the left to create a revolution where the left failed, and instead, achieved through incrementalism in law, incrementalism in education, and incrementalism in immigration.
My expectation is that they will continue this cycle, since the status quo always presents an easy target of criticism.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-11 10:28:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-10 20:21:00 UTC
—“Fallacies do not curtail considerable plutocratic tendencies just because fascistic aristocracies fail to maintain religious hegemony. Hierarchies are only plausible when there is a presence of theocratic organic infrastructure to support the underlying anti-dialogist systems.”—
—“Take everything Curt says with a grain of salt. Better yet, an entire saltlick.”—Eugene Ix
You will need the salt – for eating your straw man.
I don’t say a mythology wasn’t necessary.
I didn’t say religion wasn’t necessary.
I said, one consisting of falsehoods isn’t.
🙂
Hierarchies always exist always and everywhere. The question is which means of rule are used to achieve them. Force is the most expensive but most truthful method of rule. Religion of lies is cheaper than force, but more expensive than markets. So whether we are ruled by some narrative, some law, some market is a matter of demographics, productivity, cost, institutions of cooperation.
Just as people evolved to negotiate not to tell the truth, and we require the scientific method to assist us, Religions evolved to excuse or explain, but it is law that causes behavior.
One can conflate religion and law. One can deconflate them as the west has always done. I recommend we maintain deconflation, and create religion our of founding myths, and our long history of heroes.
In other words: YOU CREATE LIES IF YOU ARE WEAK. AND TRUTH IF YOU ARE STRONG. And you use truth (history, trade, law) if you want wealth. Lies are cheaper if you have ignorant people at the cost of impoverishing them. Small numbers that wish to rule, require advanced technology and professional warriors.
Hierarchies always exist everywhere and every-‘when’. All that differs is the manner in which we excuse them so that the classes can operate cooperatively. But the lesson of history is simple: truth out-competes lies. Everyone who adopted reason (truth) benefitted from it. greeks->romans->muslims->northern europeans -> much of the world today.
But each civilization fails to preserve truth because (a) they don’t know how to do otherwise, and (b)they have no institutional method of preserving it sufficiently to prevent re-institution of lies for the purpose of parasitism.
Ergo, Natural Law Fundamentalism. Heroic Literary myths.
Or to put it in terms of the western group evolutionary strategy;
Sovereignty(negative or limit). Heroism(positive or opportunity).
-Curt Doolittle
-The Philosophy of Aristocracy
-The Propertarian Institute
-Kiev, Ukraine
BTW: It’s always better to know what the f–k you’re talking about. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-10 19:46:00 UTC