Apr 1, 2020, 9:09 AM The use of morality outgroup is only one of utility. The only moral imperative ingroup is reciprocity The only moral choice ingroup is christian tolerance and charity within the limits of that tolerance. Nothing else need be said.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Morality: There Is Nothing Complex to Understand.
Apr 1, 2020, 9:09 AM The use of morality outgroup is only one of utility. The only moral imperative ingroup is reciprocity The only moral choice ingroup is christian tolerance and charity within the limits of that tolerance. Nothing else need be said.
-
The Difficult Idea to Get Across
Apr 1, 2020, 12:27 PM (important) When I say “the big problem is switching people from idealism (homogenous bias) under which each person seeks whatever bias fits his, to realism (heterogeneous bias) that is aware of the market competition. In other words, monopoly is endemic in western moral thinking bcause we’ve been homogenous since our beginnings. So we have no means of defense against the LIE of the value of diversity. This is yet another example of the f—king stupidity of libertarian tropes (sophistry). If you build high trust high value commons, then diversity increases transaction costs that all ancestors worked to reduce. So the reason we seek SOME diversity is to increase novelty because we seek to hyper-consume cheap novelty (consumption that destroys commons) rather than expensive novelty (innovation, continued capitalization of commons). I don’t know how to explain this more simply. I would appreciate anyone who could. Leftists spend down inheritance to feed herd instinct for numbers.
-
The Difficult Idea to Get Across
Apr 1, 2020, 12:27 PM (important) When I say “the big problem is switching people from idealism (homogenous bias) under which each person seeks whatever bias fits his, to realism (heterogeneous bias) that is aware of the market competition. In other words, monopoly is endemic in western moral thinking bcause we’ve been homogenous since our beginnings. So we have no means of defense against the LIE of the value of diversity. This is yet another example of the f—king stupidity of libertarian tropes (sophistry). If you build high trust high value commons, then diversity increases transaction costs that all ancestors worked to reduce. So the reason we seek SOME diversity is to increase novelty because we seek to hyper-consume cheap novelty (consumption that destroys commons) rather than expensive novelty (innovation, continued capitalization of commons). I don’t know how to explain this more simply. I would appreciate anyone who could. Leftists spend down inheritance to feed herd instinct for numbers.
-
How Does P-Law Differ from Philosophy?
Apr 1, 2020, 2:11 PM (core) You could call P-Law Operational Philosophy in the sequence of syllogistic reason > rationalism > set logic > operational logic > equilibrial logic (economic logic) 0) uses series (supply demand) vs ideals. 1) uses operational vs set logic 2) users ternary logic not binary (undecidable, truthful, false) 3) uses satisfaction of demand for infallibility not ideal truth 4) tests for deceits not just errors 5) tests for irreciprocity not just ‘good’ 6) tests for costs not just internal consistency 7) tests for closure by reality instead of just non-contradiction 8) tests for limits and full accounting. 9) tests for warranty of due diligence, liability, restitutability.
-
How Does P-Law Differ from Philosophy?
Apr 1, 2020, 2:11 PM (core) You could call P-Law Operational Philosophy in the sequence of syllogistic reason > rationalism > set logic > operational logic > equilibrial logic (economic logic) 0) uses series (supply demand) vs ideals. 1) uses operational vs set logic 2) users ternary logic not binary (undecidable, truthful, false) 3) uses satisfaction of demand for infallibility not ideal truth 4) tests for deceits not just errors 5) tests for irreciprocity not just ‘good’ 6) tests for costs not just internal consistency 7) tests for closure by reality instead of just non-contradiction 8) tests for limits and full accounting. 9) tests for warranty of due diligence, liability, restitutability.
-
In no case are ‘moral intuition’ or ‘value’, neutral.
Apr 1, 2020, 2:14 PM The market will always converge on the moral utility that is necessary for the demographic distribution within the market. As such if you want a high trust prosperous polity, you will converge on reciprocity if and only if the population is capable of reciprocity under the given geographic, demographic, military, political, economic, and familial structure. So, no, in no case are ‘moral intuition’ or ‘value’ neutral. A sufficient market demand for evil, criminality, or immorality is a market demand that is non-arbitrary. A market demand for hedonism, libertinism, hyperconsumption must be offset by others market demand for the opposite. Ergo, your preferences may be preferences, but that does not mean they are value neutral. They aren’t. They are consequent non-neutral.
-
In no case are ‘moral intuition’ or ‘value’, neutral.
Apr 1, 2020, 2:14 PM The market will always converge on the moral utility that is necessary for the demographic distribution within the market. As such if you want a high trust prosperous polity, you will converge on reciprocity if and only if the population is capable of reciprocity under the given geographic, demographic, military, political, economic, and familial structure. So, no, in no case are ‘moral intuition’ or ‘value’ neutral. A sufficient market demand for evil, criminality, or immorality is a market demand that is non-arbitrary. A market demand for hedonism, libertinism, hyperconsumption must be offset by others market demand for the opposite. Ergo, your preferences may be preferences, but that does not mean they are value neutral. They aren’t. They are consequent non-neutral.
-
Reciprocity (full Version)
Apr 1, 2020, 2:16 PM RECIPROCITY (FULL VERSION) The natural law is (+)Sovereignty and (-)Reciprocity, in display word and deed, including reciprocity in speech (truthful speech) regardless of cost to the status(dominance, competence hierarch), within the limits of proportionality (in group defection) within the limits of the utility of cooperation (out groups). “Within the limits of the utility of cooperation.” There is no ideal. There are no ideals. There is only what satisfies demand for infallibility. FULL VERSION Limiting our display word and deed to: – Fully informed (truthful and complete); – Regardless of cost to the status, competence, or dominance hierarchy. – Productive and; – Voluntary transfer (or exchange, or imposition of costs upon); – The Demonstrated interests of Others; – Either directly or indirectly (by externality) – Within the limit of incentive for in-group defection; – Within The Limit of the Utility of future out-group Cooperation; – And liable and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability; – Eliminating the incentive of retaliation and retaliation cycles, – And imposition of costs upon the commons of trust by which others cooperate.
-
Reciprocity (full Version)
Apr 1, 2020, 2:16 PM RECIPROCITY (FULL VERSION) The natural law is (+)Sovereignty and (-)Reciprocity, in display word and deed, including reciprocity in speech (truthful speech) regardless of cost to the status(dominance, competence hierarch), within the limits of proportionality (in group defection) within the limits of the utility of cooperation (out groups). “Within the limits of the utility of cooperation.” There is no ideal. There are no ideals. There is only what satisfies demand for infallibility. FULL VERSION Limiting our display word and deed to: – Fully informed (truthful and complete); – Regardless of cost to the status, competence, or dominance hierarchy. – Productive and; – Voluntary transfer (or exchange, or imposition of costs upon); – The Demonstrated interests of Others; – Either directly or indirectly (by externality) – Within the limit of incentive for in-group defection; – Within The Limit of the Utility of future out-group Cooperation; – And liable and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability; – Eliminating the incentive of retaliation and retaliation cycles, – And imposition of costs upon the commons of trust by which others cooperate.