Dec 2, 2019, 3:41 PM
—Our brain works sort of the opposite of how you’d think: it’s always running, always forecasts everything, in a vast competition for attention, what’s most coherent and rewarding gets attention. The brain never stops, ever. We disconnect from it to daydream, relax, rest, or sleep. It never, ever, ever, stops.—
(from elsewhere)
Dec 2, 2019, 3:41 PM
—Our brain works sort of the opposite of how you’d think: it’s always running, always forecasts everything, in a vast competition for attention, what’s most coherent and rewarding gets attention. The brain never stops, ever. We disconnect from it to daydream, relax, rest, or sleep. It never, ever, ever, stops.—
(from elsewhere)
Dec 2, 2019, 4:34 PM (Again: Libertine, Anarchist, Libertarian Thought Fails) By: Alain Dwight (via Brandon Hayes) Rules without rulers is impossible. Asserting an active noun or verb (rule) without an actor putting it in play (rulers) is a form of deception. For a sentence to be operationally complete it has to include the actor, the incentive they follow, the change in state and a few other points (P epistemology is the first place I saw this standard detailed). Human flourishing was never created by anarchists, anarchists were always subversive as far as I know, countersignalling our ancestors that created flourishing through rule of law. Between sovereign entities, there can be no authority but reciprocity can be calculated hence rule of law measured by reciprocity is the only actual alternative to authority. Anarchism can be an appealing narrative when seeing the abuse of power but in part, it I think it appeals more ot the juvenile part of us that desires freedom than the part that desires the discipline required to create freedom. If you operationalize the narrative then Propertarianism is what you’re left with. I don’t want to rebel against power I want to have power and to have other good men have power. When good men fall into the vice of not seeking power then it calls into question how good they really are. Edit
Dec 2, 2019, 4:34 PM (Again: Libertine, Anarchist, Libertarian Thought Fails) By: Alain Dwight (via Brandon Hayes) Rules without rulers is impossible. Asserting an active noun or verb (rule) without an actor putting it in play (rulers) is a form of deception. For a sentence to be operationally complete it has to include the actor, the incentive they follow, the change in state and a few other points (P epistemology is the first place I saw this standard detailed). Human flourishing was never created by anarchists, anarchists were always subversive as far as I know, countersignalling our ancestors that created flourishing through rule of law. Between sovereign entities, there can be no authority but reciprocity can be calculated hence rule of law measured by reciprocity is the only actual alternative to authority. Anarchism can be an appealing narrative when seeing the abuse of power but in part, it I think it appeals more ot the juvenile part of us that desires freedom than the part that desires the discipline required to create freedom. If you operationalize the narrative then Propertarianism is what you’re left with. I don’t want to rebel against power I want to have power and to have other good men have power. When good men fall into the vice of not seeking power then it calls into question how good they really are. Edit
Dec 2, 2019, 4:39 PM Philosophers are born I think. But they still must find a team to play on. Look at the Damned P-leadershp now. These guys are scaring me. It’s glorious. Luke is innovating and increasingly quickly. Brendon is increasingly judicial in his rulings. Martin … well, martin is that elegant balance of considerate, and correct. Alain is likewise, friendly and explicative. We see our Anonymous James back around here and there – and he is very likely, if he chooses, to run away with yet another level of sophistication. And I’m staring to see others come up now that are clearly trying. Some days I just want to say fk it. Other days I wanna cry with joy that this kind of thing is even possible. I hope we have time. If we have time we will have our school that reverses the second abrahamic dark age of ignorance and deceit. Edit
Dec 2, 2019, 4:39 PM Philosophers are born I think. But they still must find a team to play on. Look at the Damned P-leadershp now. These guys are scaring me. It’s glorious. Luke is innovating and increasingly quickly. Brendon is increasingly judicial in his rulings. Martin … well, martin is that elegant balance of considerate, and correct. Alain is likewise, friendly and explicative. We see our Anonymous James back around here and there – and he is very likely, if he chooses, to run away with yet another level of sophistication. And I’m staring to see others come up now that are clearly trying. Some days I just want to say fk it. Other days I wanna cry with joy that this kind of thing is even possible. I hope we have time. If we have time we will have our school that reverses the second abrahamic dark age of ignorance and deceit. Edit
Dec 7, 2019, 9:06 AM The only reason I didn’t sue the Clinton Foundation for the $2M they stole from my company, was because Microsoft wouldn’t let me. Why? They asked us to rescue a project for the Clinton Foundation from an Indian (major) software company, and they didn’t want the bad press of being associated with a suit against the Clintons. The Clintons never intended to pay. You want to know the name of the project? Project Two Degrees. The purpose of the project? the measurement of ‘global warming” for the purpose of regulation. I lost 2M on the Clinton Foundation, then spent another quarter million financing it for the organization that started the global warming movement. So I know the data and processes, I know the incentives, I know these people, I understand how the money moves through the network, and I know the political parties involved, and who the key players are. Do you want to know how the Clinton foundation operates? They bait companies into assistance with offers to pay, then guilt them into paying the entire bill, or getting the bad press. In other words, they use the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton technique of fundraising. They are ‘true believers’. And there is nothing more evil in this world than a true believer in anything that they can’t themselves WARRANTY.
Dec 7, 2019, 9:06 AM The only reason I didn’t sue the Clinton Foundation for the $2M they stole from my company, was because Microsoft wouldn’t let me. Why? They asked us to rescue a project for the Clinton Foundation from an Indian (major) software company, and they didn’t want the bad press of being associated with a suit against the Clintons. The Clintons never intended to pay. You want to know the name of the project? Project Two Degrees. The purpose of the project? the measurement of ‘global warming” for the purpose of regulation. I lost 2M on the Clinton Foundation, then spent another quarter million financing it for the organization that started the global warming movement. So I know the data and processes, I know the incentives, I know these people, I understand how the money moves through the network, and I know the political parties involved, and who the key players are. Do you want to know how the Clinton foundation operates? They bait companies into assistance with offers to pay, then guilt them into paying the entire bill, or getting the bad press. In other words, they use the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton technique of fundraising. They are ‘true believers’. And there is nothing more evil in this world than a true believer in anything that they can’t themselves WARRANTY.
Dec 7, 2019, 9:27 AM
—“Does William James belong to the “anglo science” team?”—
anglo = british, scottish, american etc. and ‘radical’ empiricism. Technically I would say yes. But you just gave me an idea, which is to chart the development of psychology by pseudoscientific(jewish), literary/continental(german-jung), and scientific (anglo-james et all) That might be a fun thing to draw up. So to understand James, think about his time frame. We had theological idealism, then philosophical idealism, then Darwin, and then we had empiricism and pragmatism. So he was part of the transition from Freud(pseudoscience), to Jung (continental literature), and to James (anglo empiricism) and Pareto As in all things.
Dec 7, 2019, 9:27 AM
—“Does William James belong to the “anglo science” team?”—
anglo = british, scottish, american etc. and ‘radical’ empiricism. Technically I would say yes. But you just gave me an idea, which is to chart the development of psychology by pseudoscientific(jewish), literary/continental(german-jung), and scientific (anglo-james et all) That might be a fun thing to draw up. So to understand James, think about his time frame. We had theological idealism, then philosophical idealism, then Darwin, and then we had empiricism and pragmatism. So he was part of the transition from Freud(pseudoscience), to Jung (continental literature), and to James (anglo empiricism) and Pareto As in all things.