Apr 1, 2020, 2:52 PM
The only moral imperative in-group is reciprocity within the limits of proportionality. The only moral decision in-group is Christian Tolerance, and Charity within the limits of that Tolerance. There is no-out group morality – none. The application of morality to an out-group is only one of utility. Only application of in-group morality to an out-group you seek to convert to an in-group. Nothing else need be said.
Apr 1, 2020, 2:53 PM Very simple logic. Why should the strong not conquer, rape, pillage, and murder the weak? Because cooperation and numbers can be more rewarding over the long term. When are cooperation and numbers more rewarding than conquest, rape, pillage, and murder? When behavior is reciprocal. What does reciprocal mean? Do nothing that imposes costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly – and conquer, rape, pillage, and murder anyone who does. And how do I do nothing that imposes costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly, or indirectly? Limit your display word and deed to productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality, The consequence: the most moral condition humanity can possibly create. Such men are the gods among men.
Apr 1, 2020, 2:53 PM Very simple logic. Why should the strong not conquer, rape, pillage, and murder the weak? Because cooperation and numbers can be more rewarding over the long term. When are cooperation and numbers more rewarding than conquest, rape, pillage, and murder? When behavior is reciprocal. What does reciprocal mean? Do nothing that imposes costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly – and conquer, rape, pillage, and murder anyone who does. And how do I do nothing that imposes costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly, or indirectly? Limit your display word and deed to productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality, The consequence: the most moral condition humanity can possibly create. Such men are the gods among men.
Yes I know of the seven laws of Noah. 😉 They are too primitive. They start with god (submission) rather than sovereignty ( responsibility). They don’t include truthful speech regardless of cost. They don’t prevent the great crimes of history (sophistry, false promise, baiting into hazard, fraud) Instead they are the origin of the license for the great crimes of history. They aren’t the source of good. They are the source of evil. Why? Because any half truth spreads ignorance.
Yes I know of the seven laws of Noah. 😉 They are too primitive. They start with god (submission) rather than sovereignty ( responsibility). They don’t include truthful speech regardless of cost. They don’t prevent the great crimes of history (sophistry, false promise, baiting into hazard, fraud) Instead they are the origin of the license for the great crimes of history. They aren’t the source of good. They are the source of evil. Why? Because any half truth spreads ignorance.
Apr 1, 2020, 2:54 PM Over the past few years I have worked very hard on comparative religion, and have come to understand why we desire it and how it fulfills those desires by a spectrum of means from the rational to the emotional. I was trying to solve a number of problems:
I care only about the generations of our european religions. Including prehistoric natural, ancient heroic, and medieval Christian. And I care about preserving all three generations of them because of one of our unspoken secrets: european tripartism and trifunctionalism. When christians use this method of teaching and arguing against me or my work it makes me very angry – because I understand that this method is the means by which our civilization has been destroyed by the postwar jewish movement against western civlization. And I this threat is very real, very serious, and we are almost lost. So between my investigation into how to eliminate the abrahamic method of teaching and arguing, and between my frustration with the frequent use of this method by christians who were agitated by my investigation, I created a great deal of friction between the faithful, philosophical, and empirical Christians.
I want to restore the religion to its political competition to the state, and restore its responsibility for birth, age of maturity, marriage, family and – at least – early education, and death. The state has proven too fashionable and religion’s value is in defense against the fashions and folly of the age.
These three challenges are the reason for the conflict we have created between those of us who practice empirical christianity in the natural law, and those that practice spiritual and theological christianity. I advocate that we speak faith in matters of faith – the spirit, and law in matters of law – the material. And that if we attempt to cross those lines we must engage in deceit. And deceit is neither moral under the natural law, or moral under christian ethics. So we must continue our prehistoric practice of Tripartism and Trifunctionalism, which is the continuous balance of power between the Military, Law, and Faith. And in short, deliver unto God and Caesar each as his due. There is no place for theology in court. There is no place for court in faith.
Apr 1, 2020, 2:54 PM Over the past few years I have worked very hard on comparative religion, and have come to understand why we desire it and how it fulfills those desires by a spectrum of means from the rational to the emotional. I was trying to solve a number of problems:
I care only about the generations of our european religions. Including prehistoric natural, ancient heroic, and medieval Christian. And I care about preserving all three generations of them because of one of our unspoken secrets: european tripartism and trifunctionalism. When christians use this method of teaching and arguing against me or my work it makes me very angry – because I understand that this method is the means by which our civilization has been destroyed by the postwar jewish movement against western civlization. And I this threat is very real, very serious, and we are almost lost. So between my investigation into how to eliminate the abrahamic method of teaching and arguing, and between my frustration with the frequent use of this method by christians who were agitated by my investigation, I created a great deal of friction between the faithful, philosophical, and empirical Christians.
I want to restore the religion to its political competition to the state, and restore its responsibility for birth, age of maturity, marriage, family and – at least – early education, and death. The state has proven too fashionable and religion’s value is in defense against the fashions and folly of the age.
These three challenges are the reason for the conflict we have created between those of us who practice empirical christianity in the natural law, and those that practice spiritual and theological christianity. I advocate that we speak faith in matters of faith – the spirit, and law in matters of law – the material. And that if we attempt to cross those lines we must engage in deceit. And deceit is neither moral under the natural law, or moral under christian ethics. So we must continue our prehistoric practice of Tripartism and Trifunctionalism, which is the continuous balance of power between the Military, Law, and Faith. And in short, deliver unto God and Caesar each as his due. There is no place for theology in court. There is no place for court in faith.
Apr 1, 2020, 2:54 PM I work under the principle that the laws of nature, the natural law of man, and the evolutionary necessity of the law of transcendence are the same whether we state them in Theological, Philosophical, and Scientific language. So whether you intuit, think, and speak in the Christian, Deist, or Naturalist language, and whether you choose to adhere to physical laws, the natural law of man, and the necessity of evolutionary laws out of faith, reason, or science, is irrelevant to the individual or to the polity, or to mankind unless you selfishly demand the rest of the world conform to your way of thinking, speaking. On the other hand, if you do not live in accordance with the physical, natural, and evolutionary then you work against yourself, your polity, your people, and mankind – and when you do so, you work against the Christian God, the deist god, or the condition of our people past present and future. In my work, to defend against the enemies of physical, natural, and evolutionary laws, I must put these laws in a constitution in the language of the law, and science is the language of the law. Because we need people to think across the spectrum of intuitive, rational, and empirical thought so that we can solve intuitive, rational, and empirical questions, for intuitive, rational, and empirical minds. And we cannot demand people intuit, think, and speak in exclusively intuitive, rational, or empirical language. All we can do is demand that people behave according to physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. We cannot force people to have faith, reason, or the burden of the sciences, nor to abandon faith, reason, and the utility of the sciences. We can only write the law such that those who ACT contrary to the laws of nature, of man, and of evolutionary transcendence, can be prosecuted by the law, in the language of the law, if they transgress. Because the law consists only of the means of resolving disputes over action – not of intuition, feeling, or thought.
Apr 1, 2020, 2:54 PM I work under the principle that the laws of nature, the natural law of man, and the evolutionary necessity of the law of transcendence are the same whether we state them in Theological, Philosophical, and Scientific language. So whether you intuit, think, and speak in the Christian, Deist, or Naturalist language, and whether you choose to adhere to physical laws, the natural law of man, and the necessity of evolutionary laws out of faith, reason, or science, is irrelevant to the individual or to the polity, or to mankind unless you selfishly demand the rest of the world conform to your way of thinking, speaking. On the other hand, if you do not live in accordance with the physical, natural, and evolutionary then you work against yourself, your polity, your people, and mankind – and when you do so, you work against the Christian God, the deist god, or the condition of our people past present and future. In my work, to defend against the enemies of physical, natural, and evolutionary laws, I must put these laws in a constitution in the language of the law, and science is the language of the law. Because we need people to think across the spectrum of intuitive, rational, and empirical thought so that we can solve intuitive, rational, and empirical questions, for intuitive, rational, and empirical minds. And we cannot demand people intuit, think, and speak in exclusively intuitive, rational, or empirical language. All we can do is demand that people behave according to physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. We cannot force people to have faith, reason, or the burden of the sciences, nor to abandon faith, reason, and the utility of the sciences. We can only write the law such that those who ACT contrary to the laws of nature, of man, and of evolutionary transcendence, can be prosecuted by the law, in the language of the law, if they transgress. Because the law consists only of the means of resolving disputes over action – not of intuition, feeling, or thought.
Apr 1, 2020, 2:55 PM
—Curt, can you clarify on what you mean by making logical computers instead of numerical? what would that look like vs a numerical one?”—Caesar Nguyen
Undecidable, true, false – not 0,1. Logical operations – not arithmetic operations. Build arithmetic from logical. HIERARCHY OF NEEDS FOR ART. GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. Analog (world) … Logical (circuits) … … Arithmetic (current computers) … … … Geometric (current video cards) … … … … N-Dimensional Manifolds (future computers) … … … … … Competitive Recursive iterations of N-dimensional Manifolds (intelligence) … … … … … … Symbolic-Grammatic Competitive Recursive Iterations of References to N-Dimensional Manifolds (General Intelligence) … … … … … … … Cooperative symbolic Symbolic-Grammatic Competitive Recursive Iterations of References to marginal indifferences in N-Dimensional Manifolds. The weak point in our architecture is the central processing unit.