photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/50472870_10156919448967264_5369230975706333184_o_10156919448952264.jpg RETREADING MONUMENTS – NOT COOLJanderson RexHopefully someday you can have your own Doolittle RaidJan 15, 2019, 7:33 PMCurt Doolittleomg, you know, I never thought of that before… lolzJan 15, 2019, 7:34 PMRETREADING MONUMENTS – NOT COOL
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 17:48:00 UTC
Um. Yes, the Institute’s phone number works…. You don’t have to call and test it. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 17:35:00 UTC
—“Curt when you say ‘productive’ what do you mean?”— Eric Orwoll.
Anything that is not unproductive. For example, blackmail does not increase any form of capital – it is voluntary but parasitic.
In economics if the returns on an opportunity cost of a transaction is greater than the returns on the next most preferable opportunity cost (holding the good, service, or information), then it is unproductive.
This is a bit difficult for most people to deal with because it consists almost entirely of via-negativa logic.
So we just measure changes to property in toto and ask if it is negative or positive.
If it is positive it doesn’t matter if it’s voluntary.
If it’s negative it’s very hard to imagine that it was voluntary.
And it’s just as hard to demonstrate the counter to that statement as it is to counter the premise of rational action.
When all else false demonstrated behavior is what it is: evidence of involuntary transfer.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 17:28:00 UTC
—“The information stream is one of our commons, as is a water source. It should be treated the same. Once you see that, everything falls into place. You don’t dump toxic wastes in it (lies). You don’t dump unknown products in it (speech lacking due diligence). Doesn’t matter if the polluter intended to cause damage, we simply don’t tolerate it.”—Vengefül Bobmoran
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 17:05:00 UTC
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 14:31:00 UTC
(where have you been?) lol
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 13:54:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 13:50:00 UTC
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/49730867_10156918955547264_5961805221238669312_o_10156918955542264.jpg photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/49257776_10156918955582264_4103268169546727424_o_10156918955572264.jpg photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/50063377_10156918955567264_1744997963429576704_o_10156918955557264.jpg photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/49339083_10156918955917264_4499852985664274432_o_10156918955907264.jpg photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/49938596_10156918955897264_1455433136644030464_o_10156918955887264.jpg SITE UPDATE (INSTITUTE, BLOG)
The Social Media (Collaboration) features are all working now.
1) The Feed = FB’s Home.
2) My Page = FB’s Profile Page
3) My Education = Classes I’m involved in.
4) Everyone(Forum) = FB Group (feed) with attached forum(topics).
5) Course Catalog.
You can:
1) Sign up for the mailing list
2) Register to participate in the chit chat (when there IS some)
3) Fill out your profile a bit.
Almost There….
4) (soon) Apply for Membership (taking classes).
(Application is just a way of making sure you know that this is real university level courses and that it’s real work, and that you aren’t an antagonist or some such thing…. etc).
TO DO:
1) Just a little more marketing blurbs, terms, and other nonsense to add.
2) Then the ‘how to use the site’ videos.
3) Then The Core and Art classes.
So we are moving pretty fast now.
Hugs all.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 13:43:00 UTC
HOW CAN PEOPLE USING THE SAME METHOD MAKE DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS?
—“I’ve noticed some followers have slight disagreements. Is this because they are getting it wrong? Or what? Example, I’ve heard Eli explain that he disagrees that Christianity is the optimum cooperative strategy. I mean, either it is or isn’t, right? How can different people using the method ever disagree or contradict?”– by Curtus Maximus
Short answer: First, People who should know better, still get Darwin and Einstein wrong – every day. And second, we are all arguing a field of possibilities rather than just the central proposition – that field is a means of providing due diligence against your misunderstanding by deduction, inference, and free association. In other words we differ largely in which error we are trying to stop you from making (many), not in the central thesis (one).
Long answer: we are in that phase where we are applying the method to everything, but have not yet covered all the cases nor examined the consequence of the application of our judgements. At this point we will naturally have some ‘calculating’ to do.
In the example you gave, I say that christianity teaches (_contains_, not _is_) the optimum cooperative strategy WITHIN a group. This is just a general rule and it’s not possible to debate it.
We can say that (a) it is a very bad way of teaching that rule, (b) teaching it that bad way produces terrible consequences, (c) teaching that rule without limiting to kin is suicidal.
Eli is the most sophisticated person we have at the economic analysis of cooperative behaviors. There just isn’t anyone better at it. And he has such a head start that it will be hard for anyone to catch up with him.
But, when he’s making those statements I don’t know the context so I don’t know which of the points (a,b,c) he’s making.
Eli’s method is extremely pejorative. He uses that method to render extremely intolerant (weasel-proof) judgements because he’s not letting you come to your own ‘weasel-word’ conclusion. I tend to want you to come to your own conclusion so that you ‘own it’. So I will leave the doorway for weasel-words open in order to iteratively trap you so that you come to the conclusion on your own. (it’s socratic – and as you can see over the past few days, it’s what I’m doing with you.)
Usually, when reading Eli, I can simply look at the context (argument he’s refuting) and define what he’s saying. But I don’t know if I’ve ever disagreed with him. It’s pretty hard to.
So in the sense of judgement, Eli will give the LIMIT test of the argument. Where I will tend to describe the general rule. I suspect that any difference we have is in this difference between medians and limits.
Bill will use a more sensitive approach. and if you watch john mark he’s probably becoming the best of us so far in completely answering the question.
So you know, in ‘manly terms’ eli=well done, curt=medium, bill-medium rare, and John Mark = Rare.
😉
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 13:31:00 UTC
I don’t think you understand.
The existing common law consists of that which the judiciary will decide, and the state will enforce under the presumption we are equals.
The existing continental law consists of the presumption of a feudal difference between the state and the citizenry, and that the citizens are permitted that which is not prohibited or commanded.
The existing and past soviet and islamic law, consists of the presumption of enslavement by the state or the priesthood’s false god, and the the limiting of one’s actions to that which is permitted.
“The White Law” consists of that law of cooperation, the abridgement of which demands adjudication, and restitution, for us to refrain from extermination, enslavement, or enserfment.
it is a via-negativa law. It is a law of those who are equal in sufficient agency to be granted agency by one another – with the rest of man, beast, plant, and matter to be defended against in the interests of our continued production of agency, and continued transcendence.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 13:05:00 UTC