Apr 3, 2020, 9:40 AM The difference between testimonial truth and honesty is substantial, but perhaps the most surprising is that that we do not need to intend to lie to lie. We need only speak a lie whether we intend to or not. Most of us are carriers of lies. Because we do not know how to perform due diligence against lying. And worse, because we do not desire to stop using our most precious lies. So in P-law, we are guilty of a failure of due diligence against lying, rather than just intent to lie – just as in our existing law we are responsible for restitution whether we intended harm or not. And we are additionally subject to punishment and prevention if we harm by intent.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Intention Is Not Required for One to Lie
Apr 3, 2020, 9:40 AM The difference between testimonial truth and honesty is substantial, but perhaps the most surprising is that that we do not need to intend to lie to lie. We need only speak a lie whether we intend to or not. Most of us are carriers of lies. Because we do not know how to perform due diligence against lying. And worse, because we do not desire to stop using our most precious lies. So in P-law, we are guilty of a failure of due diligence against lying, rather than just intent to lie – just as in our existing law we are responsible for restitution whether we intended harm or not. And we are additionally subject to punishment and prevention if we harm by intent.
-
One Author Isn’t Enough. but That’s Where Many People Stop.
One author isn’t enough. But that’s where many people stop. It’s Nietzsche, THEN Jung, Frazer, Campbell, Dumezil, Vonnegut, THEN cognitive Science, THEN Haidt, Doolittle. Jung is easily misdirected without Nietzsche’s ‘the birth of tragedy’. Campbell is misdirected without dumezil and vonnegut. Both groups without the grammars, reciprocity, and haidt’s moral intuitions. And western civ lost without all four generations of religion.
-
One Author Isn’t Enough. but That’s Where Many People Stop.
One author isn’t enough. But that’s where many people stop. It’s Nietzsche, THEN Jung, Frazer, Campbell, Dumezil, Vonnegut, THEN cognitive Science, THEN Haidt, Doolittle. Jung is easily misdirected without Nietzsche’s ‘the birth of tragedy’. Campbell is misdirected without dumezil and vonnegut. Both groups without the grammars, reciprocity, and haidt’s moral intuitions. And western civ lost without all four generations of religion.
-
Notes on Eric Weinstein’s Theory
He demonstrates why geometry must remain the basis for mathematics, else it becomes ordinary language with all it’s faults – long standing complaint – and primary pre-war concern of mathematicians who were concerned by the restoration of mysticism in mathematics by empty verbalisms like ‘multiple infinities’ vs ‘pairing off at different rates’. This restoration of mysticism (Cantor, Bohr, and to some degree Keynes) reversed the restoration of mathematics to geometry by Descartes. He does a great job of demonstrating anchoring in any academic endeavor. And that some scientific half-solutions are sources of ignorance. And that generations of malinvested academics have to die off before their sources of ignorance can be overcome. His interjection with illustrations are a romantic cultural indulgence that distracts from his argument. He missed the point on Hilbert – that Einstein created an obstacle by half-finishing the theory and hilbert wouldn’t have. His logic is elegant, interesting, and thorough. And easier to follow than I expected. He does not make the transition from point-geometry to shape geometry. He does not make the connection between the problem of protein folding and the problem of particles producing waves. He identifies an avenue for investigation but he does not get to the point where he grasps that the reason his theory is correct but limited is that the information is insufficient to deduce from the top down or competition between formulae because we cannot measure. And so he doesn’t get to the point of working with primitives (operations) to produce wave forms (aggregates). So he doesn’t get to the point where math might be the wrong tool per se, and that simulations are necessary – by trial and error – to produce the underlying geometry. It’s not obvious that the sub-quantum (statistical) would logically operate by the same rules as chemistry and bio chemistry, molecular biology, and genetics etc – by an operational grammar. So, my suspicion is that “You can’t get there from here”. There is no means of anticipating the grammar (referent, logic, operations, transformations). All we are left with is trial and error. (My sympathies since I had to work outside the academy as well – there is no way to put a dissertation committee together for my work either.) — Curt Doolittle
-
Notes on Eric Weinstein’s Theory
He demonstrates why geometry must remain the basis for mathematics, else it becomes ordinary language with all it’s faults – long standing complaint – and primary pre-war concern of mathematicians who were concerned by the restoration of mysticism in mathematics by empty verbalisms like ‘multiple infinities’ vs ‘pairing off at different rates’. This restoration of mysticism (Cantor, Bohr, and to some degree Keynes) reversed the restoration of mathematics to geometry by Descartes. He does a great job of demonstrating anchoring in any academic endeavor. And that some scientific half-solutions are sources of ignorance. And that generations of malinvested academics have to die off before their sources of ignorance can be overcome. His interjection with illustrations are a romantic cultural indulgence that distracts from his argument. He missed the point on Hilbert – that Einstein created an obstacle by half-finishing the theory and hilbert wouldn’t have. His logic is elegant, interesting, and thorough. And easier to follow than I expected. He does not make the transition from point-geometry to shape geometry. He does not make the connection between the problem of protein folding and the problem of particles producing waves. He identifies an avenue for investigation but he does not get to the point where he grasps that the reason his theory is correct but limited is that the information is insufficient to deduce from the top down or competition between formulae because we cannot measure. And so he doesn’t get to the point of working with primitives (operations) to produce wave forms (aggregates). So he doesn’t get to the point where math might be the wrong tool per se, and that simulations are necessary – by trial and error – to produce the underlying geometry. It’s not obvious that the sub-quantum (statistical) would logically operate by the same rules as chemistry and bio chemistry, molecular biology, and genetics etc – by an operational grammar. So, my suspicion is that “You can’t get there from here”. There is no means of anticipating the grammar (referent, logic, operations, transformations). All we are left with is trial and error. (My sympathies since I had to work outside the academy as well – there is no way to put a dissertation committee together for my work either.) — Curt Doolittle
-
A Critical Principle
Apr 3, 2020, 10:46 AM By Daniel Roland Anderson If you ever want to understand Natural Law, this is a critical principle. If you have not performed Due Diligence, and you serve as a conduit for falsehood, you are “lying” under the P definition of lying. So sometimes when we call you liar, we aren’t saying you are wicked. It could be you are simply . . . simple.
-
A Critical Principle
Apr 3, 2020, 10:46 AM By Daniel Roland Anderson If you ever want to understand Natural Law, this is a critical principle. If you have not performed Due Diligence, and you serve as a conduit for falsehood, you are “lying” under the P definition of lying. So sometimes when we call you liar, we aren’t saying you are wicked. It could be you are simply . . . simple.
-
P Grammars Tie All the Ways of Knowing Together
Apr 3, 2020, 10:49 AM by Ryan Drummond I think reading Jung without reading Nietzsche can easily bait one into intellectual (and moral) hazard. I’d say, too, that reading Nietzsche without reading the cognitive sciences or the work of yourself, for example, can bait people into empirical hazard. The breadth of such work simply can’t be understood by reading one author, or even two authors. You need to cover the existential, the theological, the moral, the historical, the cultural, the psyche, and the scientific objectivity to get a ‘clearer’ picture of the totality. Even then we can easily fall into traps of bias and error! I admire how P takes all of these things and knits them together into a logical web of truth that can be followed and understood a little more clearly by those with no exposure or those with partial exposure to these things. It also, if you want to take it far enough, opens up avenues of thought and totality for even hardened scholars in such fields of study.
-
P Grammars Tie All the Ways of Knowing Together
Apr 3, 2020, 10:49 AM by Ryan Drummond I think reading Jung without reading Nietzsche can easily bait one into intellectual (and moral) hazard. I’d say, too, that reading Nietzsche without reading the cognitive sciences or the work of yourself, for example, can bait people into empirical hazard. The breadth of such work simply can’t be understood by reading one author, or even two authors. You need to cover the existential, the theological, the moral, the historical, the cultural, the psyche, and the scientific objectivity to get a ‘clearer’ picture of the totality. Even then we can easily fall into traps of bias and error! I admire how P takes all of these things and knits them together into a logical web of truth that can be followed and understood a little more clearly by those with no exposure or those with partial exposure to these things. It also, if you want to take it far enough, opens up avenues of thought and totality for even hardened scholars in such fields of study.