Source: Facebook

  • YES. IN THAT SENSE, WITTGENSTEIN IS CORRECT —“Do you recommend a Wittgenstein

    YES. IN THAT SENSE, WITTGENSTEIN IS CORRECT

    —“Do you recommend a Wittgenstein approach, a la philosophy just being a misunderstanding of language?”—Caleb Stevenson

    Correct. I didnt understand until I’d finished the grammars, and come to the same conclusion, but yes. he’s correct.

    Philosophy is either an error, a pseudoscience, or a deceit.

    If we instead say that we have a problem of continuously reorganizing our paradigms to accommodate new knowledge, and from that to develop new choices (tactics) of transcendence (evolution) then that is the place I see for philosophical inquiry.

    But truth is still a matter of law and its systems of measurement science and mathematics.

    All language consists of measurements.

    We can measure poorly or well.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 20:44:00 UTC

  • THE TECHNIQUES: USING SOPHISTRY FOR DECEPTION Our Logical Facility … Reason: .

    THE TECHNIQUES: USING SOPHISTRY FOR DECEPTION

    Our Logical Facility

    … Reason:

    … … 1. theology: wisdom: mythology, literary wisdom literature.

    … … … theo-sophistry: supernatural sophistry, abrahamism

    … … 2. philosophy: choice: realism, naturalism, operationalism, rational choice, reciprocity, completeness

    … … … philo-sophistry: Idealism (platonism), textual interpretation, …. philosophical rationalism.

    … … 3. Law: testimony: by realism, naturalism, operationalism

    … … … legal-sophistry: ( … )

    … … 4. science: testimony: by realism, naturalism, operationalism

    … … … pseudo-science: material sophistry (…)

    … … 5. mathematics:

    … … … pseudo-mathematics: (…)

    TOOLS OF DECEIT

    |Falsehood -> Deceit|:

    … Ignorance -> Error >

    … … Bias->wishful_thiking >

    … … … Loading->framing >

    … … … … Suggestion->Obscurantism >

    … … … … … Sophistry->Idealism (verbal) >

    … … … … … … Magic ->Pseudoscience (physical) >

    … … … … … … … Occult-> Supernaturalism (imaginary) >

    … … … … … … … … Fiction (fabrication) >

    … … … … … … … … … Denial


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 19:19:00 UTC

  • ON THE LIABILITY FOR DISLOYALTY by Scott De Warren When we won the revolutionary

    ON THE LIABILITY FOR DISLOYALTY

    by Scott De Warren

    When we won the revolutionary war the losers were required by and large to vacate the territory. Exceptions were made for honorable Tory members that had not taken up arms against the patriots or support to the loyalists. Everyone else had to pack up and go.

    Why shouldn’t this be the precedent we follow. If we kick out our own kinsmen how much more should be not kick out an enemy group after the conflict?

    (CD: this is one of the propositions that has to be stated)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 19:07:00 UTC

  • ON JURY NULLIFICATION —“Could you please offer your thoughts on Jury Nullifica

    ON JURY NULLIFICATION

    —“Could you please offer your thoughts on Jury Nullification, and how that might play out under P law?”—

    Nullifications in England, USA and Canada have a long history, and are dependent upon the character of the jury, and the character of the jury largely a matter of being a responsible middle class citizen, ad a middle class citizen on responsibility for property.

    —“Jury nullification, jury equity, or a perverse verdict occurs when members of a criminal or civil trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor or plaintiff, or judge has misapplied the law in the defendant’s case, or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh.”—

    So let’s list them again:

    … 1 – The Law itself is unjust,

    … 2 – The prosecutor(Plaintiff, Judge) has misapplied the law,

    … 3 – The punishment is too harsh for the crime.

    Nullification is at present a consequence of two rules of procedure within the law rather than a because it is explicitly encoded in the law:

    … a) Jurors cannot be punished for reaching a “wrong” decision.

    … b) A defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried again for the same alleged crime in front of another jury.

    In practical terms to prevent jury nullification,

    … a) prosecutors choose not to prosecute,

    … b) jurors are given a set of options and multiple ‘counts’ (crimes),

    … c) jurors are given instruction by the judge.

    The most effective is (b) since this is usually the source of concern.

    The open issue is the corrupt juror or jurors which originally was a common problem.

    In the P-Constitution jury nullification is embedded in the law.

    However,

    … 1) The unjustness of a law is easy to explain, demonstrate, and difficult to construct, and it is possible to prosecute those who attempt unjust laws before they can be acted upon.

    … 2) Misapplication of the law is easy to explain, and demonstrate.

    … 3) Excessive Punishment is open to debate, and in general should be a misapplication of the *degree* of the crime.

    So this means it is fairly easy for a juror or jurors to either (a) explain and defend their position on nullification (b) judge, juror or jurors to claim the resistant juror is engaged in contempt. (c) And it should be extremely difficult to make a fraudulent claim of nullification, (d) and extremely difficult for an unjust law to survive. What remains is (e) that the juror or jurors disagree on the interpretation of the facts of the case. (Good examples in the literature are common).

    In addition, police, plaintiffs, prosecutors, the judge, and members of the court are not free from prosecution for misrepresentation including overcharging including overcharging for the purpose of coercing the accused.

    THE PROBLEM

    The problem is preserving the high trust society that makes the jury system possible. it’s almost impossible to create. it’s extremely easy to destroy. And that is the reason for P-law. To defend it.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 19:04:00 UTC

  • Definitions: Capitalism, Mixed Economy, and Socialism: A Eugenic vs Dysgenic Gam

    Definitions: Capitalism, Mixed Economy, and Socialism: A Eugenic vs Dysgenic Game

    RIGHT: Rule of Law, Markets in Everything (j:Capitalism): the voluntary organization of production as a the result of the incentives that result from the anarchic evolution of money, prices, exchanges and contracts under the single principle, norm, regulation or law of the voluntary exchange of private property. This process is naturally meritocratic and eugenic and therefore scientific, which is the reason why the marxists despise it.

    CENTER: Mixed economy: the voluntary organization of production of capitalism, combined with the involuntary confiscation and redistribution of the proceeds of production. It can be dysgenic or eugenic, meritocratic or not, depending upon the amount of confiscation and the use of confiscated proceeds. This is the least worst option in which neither lower nor upper classes can obtain better conditions. (Like marriage).

    LEFT: Arbitrary Rule, Absence of Markets: Socialism (j:Communism): the involuntary organization of production and the distribution of proceeds independent of the contribution to production. It is dysgenic and non meritocratic, and provides insufficient incentives to produce enough to meet demands. But this prevents the lower classes from being ‘left behind’ which is their central intuitionistic fear.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 12:33:00 UTC

  • HOW HUMANS ADAPT MORE THAN EVOLVE In my work, I assume that very little genetic

    HOW HUMANS ADAPT MORE THAN EVOLVE

    In my work, I assume that very little genetic ‘evolution’ occurs at all. And that instead, humans possess an extraordinary ability to express multiple evolutionary strategies in response to changes, pressures, and shocks.

    We can call upon an amazing wealth of genetic expression of ability if we need to. And it can occur rapidly by institutional and status shifts, or slowly over centuries.

    So I see our genes as an inventory of expressible biases that in combinations produce very different divisions of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor. From the effeminate Ashkenazi gender reversal, to the physical immaturity of Asians, to the masculine African and Muslim, and to everything in between.

    It’s not clear that we haven’t already passed ‘peak human’ and that once we stopped speciation with the development of large populations, long range trade, and cities. In other words, it’s adaptively preferable to have a large dumb aggressive, highly reproductive, consumptive, expansionary society rather than the benevolent and advanced worlds of star trek we imagine. If anything history shows that civilizations grow to the point where they have funded the evolution of competitors who then conquer them.

    But we have this wonderful adaptive hierarchy available to us.

    1) LEVEL ONE (gender bias)

    {Paternal, Sovereign, Meritocratic, Eugenic, Packs (K)}

    +

    {Maternal, Collective, Equalitarian, Dysgenic, Herds (R)}

    =

    Adaptive flexibility.

    2) LEVEL TWO (dimorphism)

    {Increased sexual dimorphism, Decreased sexual Dimorphism}

    +

    {Increased sexual maturity, Decreased Sexual Maturity}

    = Adaptive Flexibility

    3) LEVEL THREE (redistribution)

    Normative and Institutional Redistribution of reproduction (shift)

    +

    Normative and Institutional Suppression of class reproduction (shift)

    = Adaptive Flexibility

    4) LEVEL FOUR (mating)

    Assortative mating and Late Marriage vs Arranged Mating and early marriage.

    = Adaptive Flexibility

    5) LEVEL FIVE (signals)

    Status Signals => Behavioral Expression of Gene Expression

    = Adaptive Flexibility

    6) LEVEL SIX (design)

    Education, Training, and Genetic Manipulation.

    = Adaptive Flexibility

    With these various methods we can produce a population for almost any purpose within a generation or two.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 12:25:00 UTC

  • OATH (n.) Old English að “oath, judicial swearing, solemn appeal to deity in wit

    OATH (n.)

    Old English að “oath, judicial swearing, solemn appeal to deity in witness of truth or a promise,” from Proto-Germanic *aithaz (source also of Old Norse eiðr, Swedish ed, Old Saxon, Old Frisian eth, Middle Dutch eet, Dutch eed, German eid, Gothic aiþs “oath”), from PIE *oi-to- “an oath” (source also of Old Irish oeth “oath”). Common to Celtic and Germanic, possibly a loan-word from one to the other, but the history is obscure.

    SALIC LAW (/ˈsælᵻk/ or /ˈseɪlᵻk/; Latin: Lex Salica), or Salian Law, was the ancient Salian Frankish civil law code compiled around AD 500 by the first Frankish King, Clovis. Recorded in Latin and in what Dutch linguists describe as one of the earliest known records of Old Dutch. it would remain the basis of Frankish law throughout the early Medieval period, influencing future European legal syste… See More

    COMMON LAW (n.)

    mid-14c., “the customary and unwritten laws of England as embodied in commentaries and old cases” (see common (adj.)), as opposed to statute law. Phrase common law marriage is attested from 1909.

    TESTIFY (v.)

    late 14c., “give legal testimony, affirm the truth of, bear witness to;” of things, c. 1400, “serve as evidence of,” from Anglo-French testifier, from Latin testificari “bear witness, show, demonstrate,” also “call to witness,” from testis “a witness” (see testament) + root of facere “to make” (see factitious). Biblical sense of “openly profess one’s faith and devotion” is attested from 1520s. Related: Testified; testifying; testification.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 12:22:00 UTC

  • What is Necessary for an optimum Government 0) A militia consisting of sharehold

    What is Necessary for an optimum Government

    0) A militia consisting of shareholders who reciprocally and unconditionally, insure one another’s property-in-toto from the involuntary imposition of costs by both members and non.

    1) A contract (constitution) between those shareholders for that reciprocal insurance, consisting of Rule of law, natural law, universal standing, universal applicability, absence of discretion through strict construction, with a monarchy as a judge (veto) of last resort. And providing for:

    2) A market for polities in which many small polities compete by the production of different commons. (btw: what polities will attract not only the most, but the best women?)

    3) A market for the production of commons within any given polity, by exchange between the classes (those with different reproductive strategies, capabilities, and capital interests)

    4) A Market for the production of goods and services within any given polity by exchanges between individuals and organizations OTHER than those that exclusively produce commons.

    5) A market for the production of generations (marriage) within any given polity, within any given market for commons, within any given market for production of goods, services, and information.

    6) A market for association and cooperation, within the market for polities, the market for commons, the market for private goods, the market for reproduction.

    7) A market for the resolution of disputes over property in toto by application and strict construction of the natural law of cooperation: reciprocity. (Judiciary)

    8) A market for the production of contracts (agreements) in all markets (lawyers)

    9) An insurer of last resort consisting of: A military of last resort, A treasury of last resort (shares in the nation), An insurer against acts of nature, age, and incompetence of last resort.

    Share this:


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 12:20:00 UTC

  • THE FIRST COMPLETE STATEMENT OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION The Heroi

    THE FIRST COMPLETE STATEMENT OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION

    The Heroic Civilization.

    For reasons we are unsure of, the west combined bronze horse and wheel, and in doing so transformed from egalitarian earth worshippers to hierarchical sun worshippers. From submissive to heroic.

    Sovereignty.

    But because of their military strategy – a strategy that required large personal investments and large personal risk – they chose sovereignty: the right of the individual to act as his own legislature in his family’s affairs, as the first ‘law, rule or principle’ of their society upon which all others were to depend.

    Markets in Everything.

    The only institutional solution to choosing the strategy of sovereignty is to resort to markets in everything: relationships, marriage, production, commons, adjudication of differences, and rule. And the only means of resolving conflicts between them is the natural, judge discovered common law. In other words the only solution to sovereignty is : the absence of discretion (choice). And the only solution to the absence of choice, is rule of natural, judge-discovered law.

    The Rapidity of Suppression of Parasitism.

    The by-product of this choice of sovereignty is the rapidity with which new methods of free riding, parasitism, predation, can be suppressed – by the first case adjudicated and recorded. And secondly, the ease of expanding risk taking when such rapidity and lack of discretion is visible. And third, the trust that evolves from the consistent suppression of corruption in the state, and free riding in the commons, and parasitism and fraud in commerce, and predation by any criminal means.

    Not First but Fastest.

    In summary, the choice of sovereignty allowed the west to advance FASTER than the rest by process of DISCOVERY faster than the rest. So the West was not first, it was fastest, except in the medieval world when (like now) we were defeated by the first great lie: mysticism.

    Class Structure.

    The west has always practiced tri-partism: the estates of the realm – in one way or another. Since our origins on the steppes of Ukraine and Russia. Priests, Warriors, Laborers. We have always used the class structure ‘honestly’.

    Testimonial Truth and Deflationism.

    The west has (uniquely) practiced deconflationism (specialization) in various forms – never mixing Law, religion, and festival – and resisting the church’s usurpation of our nature worship and related festivals. We have even had in some cases, different languages for our estates of the realm: Latin, French, and German.

    Polytheistic (And PolyArgumentative).

    And so the west has always practiced polytheism of sorts: martial sovereignty, commercial rule of law, craftsman’s technology, intellectual philosophy, commoner religion, and the mythology of nature and the hearth. And each has used different forms of communication and different methods of argument.

    No Single ‘Book’.

    Because of this tripartism, this unconflated set of competing yet compatible ideas produced a very complex unwritten social order never captured in a single book in a single language using a single argument. Possibly because it could not have been until now. We simply didn’t know how. It took us hundreds of years in the ancient world, and hundreds of years in the modern to discover how to complete our single language of truthful speech: that language we call ‘science’ – a language that evolved not from our priesthood, not from our intellectuals, but from our empirical, natural, common law.

    The Great Lies of the 19th and 20th Centuries.

    Our current century and the last, and part of the previous, were victims of the same strategy that Zoroaster, Jerusalem and Mecca used against us in the ancient world: the first great lie of supernatural mysticism. We have been fighting the second great lie of pseudoscience for over a century. We are now fighting the second version of the first lie: Islam, and Islam has replaced the pseudoscience of marxists: world communism with the fundamentalist, absolutist, mysticism of religion.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 12:14:00 UTC

  • WHY DO YOU NEED IT? What makes you think your theology, philosophy, or ideology

    WHY DO YOU NEED IT?

    What makes you think your theology, philosophy, or ideology is any different than putting cheese in a maze to bait a rat to work his way through it? It’s not.

    Why do we need these things? Because otherwise, in a division of labor larger than the tribe, the universe is un navigable, because it’s incalculable by the human brain.

    Why do we need units of measure, money, counting and accounting – and now banking and economics?

    Because otherwise the world we live in is not only incalculable but its impossible to sense and perceive.

    There are only three sets of laws: Physical, Natural, and Evolutionary.

    There is only one goal: Transcendence.

    There is only one purpose: Persistence (reproduction).

    There is only one choice: What you do with the time you were born with.

    To do so we need physical fitness, mindfulness, training(norms), knowledge (education), and skills (in production).

    To obtain them we need each other in a vast division of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor.

    And there is no better combination than sport (fitness), stoicism (mindfulness(negativa)), epicureanism (choice(positiva)), natural law (training), the sciences (education), and a craft (skills), and a family, friends, allies, market, polity, and nation to do it with.

    Because you have no choice until you have agency.

    And what you’ve just read is the recipe for agency.

    After that its just choice.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 11:12:00 UTC