Source: Facebook

  • I have no problem with killing. It is simply necessary at times. Because we cann

    I have no problem with killing. It is simply necessary at times.

    Because we cannot kill ideas without the killing the host that has invested in them.

    But Suffering is not acceptable, and revelry in suffering is contemptible.

    This is the difference between ‘us’ and ‘them’.

    There is no place for evil in the human heart.

    Reason is not compatible with passion.

    Truth not compatible with hatred.

    Kill them all if needed.

    But take no joy in it.

    It is a necessary action.

    But not one to take joy in.

    For each life lost is one that could have been beautiful if not infected by evil.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 17:12:00 UTC

  • Beautiful, and objectively “good” women. Friends, or at least men you enjoy, res

    Beautiful, and objectively “good” women.

    Friends, or at least men you enjoy, respect, and care about.

    Good food. Good Atmosphere.

    Enough alcohol to make us stop fearing for our status signals.

    A constant effort by all to obtain greater intimacy with each other.

    Laughter.

    Joy.

    I wish I had more of you to share it with.

    Hugs.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 17:09:00 UTC

  • Will someone explain to me why alcohol eliminates my asthma?

    Will someone explain to me why alcohol eliminates my asthma?


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 16:52:00 UTC

  • I am a christian and a catholic, a cultural american and an ethnic Englishman. U

    I am a christian and a catholic, a cultural american and an ethnic Englishman.

    Unlike some (lesser) peoples, I am not conflicted whatsoever by the separation between my faith and science. I don’t need to apply reason to my faith, i need to intuit it. And I am not sure that I can do more than that. (and I can understand a lot of things). I need to understand my universe, so that can act in it. I cannot intuit it. So I must not rely upon my intuition. Instead I must rely upon my reason.

    For simple minds this may be a contradiction.

    But Faith is faith. Science is Science. If they contradict, then my understanding of my faith is incorrect.

    I have no problem banning people who cannot do the same.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 12:24:00 UTC

  • ***To God his due, to Caesar his due, to Science its due.***

    ***To God his due, to Caesar his due, to Science its due.***


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 12:13:00 UTC

  • Q&A: GREAT QUESTION! —“CURT: Can you explain your disdain for “rationalism”? A

    Q&A: GREAT QUESTION!

    —“CURT: Can you explain your disdain for “rationalism”? And how differentiate it with critical-rationalism?”—

    SIMPLE ANSWER ON DIFFERENCES : SCOPE OF YOUR WARRANTY

    1) Rationalism requires we test for internal consistency(logical) and non contradiction(not false), but not that we test for external correspondence (empirically consistent) in order to attempt to falsify our ideas (hypotheses). In other words we don’t have to warranty that our ideas are externallly correspondent. We can claim that we have been forthright (rational) and free of blame for having made rational choices.

    2) Critical rationalism requires that we test for internal consistency, and external correspondence, and that we attempt to falsify them because confirming them is meaningless..

    3) Testimonialism asks us to test by rationalism, critical rationalism, and moral objectivity.

    SIMPLE ANSWER ON RATIONALISM IN ETHICS

    In the sequence: pedagogical ethics, virtue ethics, rule ethics, outcome ethics, and testimonial ethics, each describes the ethical model one must rely upon given one’s knowledge and understanding.

    Now if one uses an ethical model lower than one’s understanding, then one can intentionally use that lower ethical criteria to justify unethical behavior.

    This is what libertines (libertarians) do, when they refer to the NAP and self determination of morality. They are claiming non-responsibiity for externalities caused by their actions.

    So you sort of have to warranty your actions by using an ethical system someone will believe you are not using for theft.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 12:07:00 UTC

  • THE SYNTHESIS I am not going to finish this today but I want to get it out for t

    THE SYNTHESIS

    I am not going to finish this today but I want to get it out for the wow factor in case I get hit by a bus or something.

    IN ORDER TO ACT IN REALITY WE MUST WARRANTY OUR JUDGEMENTS

    ***I warranty to myself and to others that I performed due diligence prior to my actions – including speech – such that my actions imposed no net cost upon myself, or upon others, and by doing so, harmed both my survivability and the incentive to voluntarily cooperate while being free of the imposition of cost by others.***

    THEREFORE

    ***as the complexity of CONSEQUENCES of ERROR increase, the degree of due diligence I must perform in order to provide myself and others a warranty that my reasoning and actions perform no harm to myself or others***

    THE POWER OF THE HUMAN MIND IS ITS SEARCH ENGINE (INTUITION) NOT NECESSARILY ITS REASON.

    ***Our reason provides us both with search improvement and warranty***

    ABILITY BIASES

    – Gender

    – Intelligence

    – Impulsively

    – Aggression

    – Reproductive Fitness

    – Cooperative Fitness

    MORAL BIASES

    Individual Property Rights:

    1. Care/harm (The asset of life and body.)

    2. Proportionality/cheating, (The asset of goods.)

    3. Liberty/Oppression, (The asset of time, opportunity.)

    Community Property Rights

    4. In-Group Loyalty/In-Group Betrayal to/of your group, family, nation, polity.

    5. Respect/Authority/Subversion for tradition and legitimate authority.

    6. Purity/Sanctity/Degradation/Disgust, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.

    DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY

    I. SELF-PROPERTY

    Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”

    a) Physical Body

    b) Actions and Time

    c) Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands.

    d) Status and Class (mate and relation selection, and reputation.)

    II. PERSONAL PROPERTY

    a) Several Property: Those things external to our bodies that we claim a monopoly of control over.

    III. KINSHIP PROPERTY

    a) Mates (access to sex/reproduction)

    b) Children (genetics)

    c) Familial Relations (security)

    d) Non-Familial Relations (utility)

    e) Consanguineous property (tribal and family ties)

    IV. COOPERATIVE PROPERTY

    a) Organizational ties (work)

    b) Knowledge ties (skills, crafts)

    V. SHAREHOLDER PROPERTY

    a) Shares: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (physical shares in a tradable asset)

    b) Commons: Unrecorded and Unquantified Shareholder Property (shares in commons)

    c) Artificial Property: (property created by fiat agreement) Intellectual Property.

    VI. INFORMAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY:

    a) Informal (Normative) Property: Our norms: manners, ethics, morals, myths, and rituals that consist of our social portfolio and which make our social order possible.

    VII. FORMAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY

    a) Formal Institutional Property: Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws.

    SYSTEMS

    – System -1 = Acquisition (objective)

    – System 0 = Property (biased)

    – System 1 = Intuition (search)

    – System 2 = Reason (comparison)

    CONCEPTUAL SEQUENCE

    1 – Perception

    2 – Experience

    3 – Comprehension (identity)

    4 – Association (imagination) (search)

    5 – Criticism (testing) (reason)

    6 – Valuation (judgement) (reason)

    7 – Decision (reason)

    8 – Action (test)

    HIERARCHY OF TRUTHS

    1 – Understandable: True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    2 – Rationalizable: True enough for me to feel good about myself.

    3 – Rational: True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

    4 – Moral: True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

    5 – Decidable (Justice): True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6 – Decidable (justice): True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    7 – True: True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

    8 – Tatuology: Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    METHODS OF POSSIBLE WARRANTY

    1 – Understandable/Recognizable (imaginable, possible to imagine)

    2 – Reason (Reasonable, Reason)

    3 – Rationalism (internally Consistent, non contradictory)

    4 – Critical Rationalism (falsified for physical science)

    5 – Testimonialism (falsified for social science)

    ETHICAL AND MORAL WARRANTIES

    1 – Productive

    2 – Fully Informed

    3 – Warrantied

    4 – Voluntary

    5 – Transfer

    6 – Free of externalities to the contrary.

    SCIENTIFIC METHOD

    -fact-

    1 – Observation

    2 – Identification

    3 – Hypothesis

    4 – Criticism

    5 – Fact

    -theory-

    1 – Observation

    2 – Free Association (internal observation)

    3 – Identification

    4 – Hypothesis

    5 – Criticism

    6 – Theory

    -law-

    1 – Publication

    2 – Observation

    3 – Free Association

    4 – Hypothesis

    5 – Criticism

    6 – Law (survival)

    FULL SET OF WARRANTIES OF TRUTHFULNESS

    1 – Categorically consistent (non-conflationary)

    2 – Internally Consistent (logical and non-contradictory) “justifiable”

    3 – Externally correspondent (observably consistent) “demonstrable”

    4 – Existentially-Possible (operationally demonstrable and subjectively testable) “possible”

    5 – Moral (consisting of productive, fully informed, warr., vol. exch)

    6 – Fully Accounted (have we included all externalities?) “free of externalities”

    7 – Limited (what are the limits of the statement?) “Falsified”

    8 – Parsimonious (where is information lacking?) “internal limits”

    ETHICAL SPECTRUM

    1 – Pedagogical Ethics – youth

    2 – Virtue Ethics – young

    3 – Rule Ethics – adult

    4 – Outcome Ethics – mature adult

    5 – Testimonial Ethics – the wise adult

    ORGANIZATIONS OF PRODUCTION

    1 – Persistence of Existence (life)

    2 – Organization of Reproduction (family)

    3 – Organization of Production of Consumption

    4 – Organization of Production of Commons (investment)

    WEAPONS OF INFLUENCE, ORGANIZATION, COERCION

    1 – Violence ( Deprivation of Inventory )

    2 – Exchange ( Deprivation of opportunity )

    3 – Gossip ( Deprivation of cooperation )

    APPLICATION OF WEAPONS OF INFLUENCE

    The Demand for Production – Using Gossip (shaming)

    The Involuntary Organization of Production – Using Force

    The Voluntary Organization of Production – Exchange

    PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS

    Metaphysical

    ……..Heroism (demonstrated excellence)

    ……..Science (truth) ……

    ……..Naturalism (reality)

    ……. Natural Law (sovereignty)

    Political

    ……..Consent, Contract, Republican(Meritocratic) Commons

    ……..Testimony, Common Law, Judge, Jury

    Moral

    ……..Christianity (love/trust bias)

    Spiritual (Aesthetic)

    …….Love of nature (animism/paganism)

    Personal

    …….Buddhism……….Stoicism

    …….Yoga…………..sport

    …….Nurturing………Craftsmanship.

    …….Spiritual ……..Political (mental?)

    …….Experiential……Actionable

    …….Feminine …….. Masculine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 11:26:00 UTC

  • Q&A: —“CURT: When I have attempted to actually debate formally or write a crit

    Q&A: —“CURT: When I have attempted to actually debate formally or write a critical essay i can apply deductive logic – but I can’t do it on a whim. [I wish I could]”—-

    You know, I read my first book on logic in 7th grade and realized that I had an entirely subconscious talent for it.

    But, it’s counter-intuitive, and it’s expensive, and it takes a lot of practice. You’ll notice is that the more you do it the better you get. And as long as you don’t try to cut corners, and you stick with it, and argue daily for at least an hour, after about two or three years you get very, very good at it.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 07:34:00 UTC

  • 1 – We have evolved instincts that inform is about the demands of reality. 2 – W

    1 – We have evolved instincts that inform is about the demands of reality.

    2 – We vary in those instincts because of our class and gender demands of reality.

    3 – Like the physics of the natural world, all of our instincts are reducible to problems of existence, information, and ability.

    4 – Our instincts have an evolutionary purpose.

    5 – We do not have instincts for arbitrary reasons.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 07:29:00 UTC

  • HOW WILL THE CURRENT ERA BE REMEMBERED? I am almost positive that the current er

    HOW WILL THE CURRENT ERA BE REMEMBERED?

    I am almost positive that the current era will be interpreted as a century long failed experiment, and that cognitive scientists and legal philosophers and anthropologists will obtain the credit for repairing it.

    Not that Austrians are wrong, but that their program was incomplete, cut off by the wars, and the need for reconstruction.

    And that Mises fundamental insight was misunderstood – not only by others but himself: moral criticism.

    Hayek was likely right in that the twentieth century will be considered an era of mysticism in the future. Mysticism meaning ‘pseudoscience’ today, for having relied upon aggregates alone rather than testing them with actions.

    But explaining why this is true is difficult.

    What we have been exploring is not so much economics but the addition of credit to the inventory of weapons of influence that can be used to govern a people.

    I am almost certain now that this is correct.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 07:15:00 UTC