May 2, 2020, 7:01 PM Things I know how to do that seem to work. – Be funny. – Be affectionate. – Be supportive constantly – Listen when necessary – Be a gentleman when necessary. – Make her look good to her friends. – Be tasteful. – Make money. – Fix things. – Lift heavy things. – Be scary when necessary. – Make her coffee. – Rub her feet. – Wash her hair. – Feed her chocolate – Bring flowers. – Buy her clothes. – Cook (a lot) – Do Laundry. Dust. Vacuum. Sew buttons etc now and then. Things I know I do that don’t seem to work. – Avoid shopping without threats of bodily harm. – Forget everything it’s possible to forget. (Everything) – Leave my clothes next to the bed. – Pile papers and books on my desk. – Forget to turn off CEO-Me – Forget to turn off Philosopher-Me – Pretend I don’t know the answer or how to do it. – Ignore all attempts to ‘alter my priorities’ – Express more frustration at being interrupted. – Fail to ignore stupidity – Appreciate beautiful women now and then.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Relationship Wisdom
May 2, 2020, 7:01 PM Things I know how to do that seem to work. – Be funny. – Be affectionate. – Be supportive constantly – Listen when necessary – Be a gentleman when necessary. – Make her look good to her friends. – Be tasteful. – Make money. – Fix things. – Lift heavy things. – Be scary when necessary. – Make her coffee. – Rub her feet. – Wash her hair. – Feed her chocolate – Bring flowers. – Buy her clothes. – Cook (a lot) – Do Laundry. Dust. Vacuum. Sew buttons etc now and then. Things I know I do that don’t seem to work. – Avoid shopping without threats of bodily harm. – Forget everything it’s possible to forget. (Everything) – Leave my clothes next to the bed. – Pile papers and books on my desk. – Forget to turn off CEO-Me – Forget to turn off Philosopher-Me – Pretend I don’t know the answer or how to do it. – Ignore all attempts to ‘alter my priorities’ – Express more frustration at being interrupted. – Fail to ignore stupidity – Appreciate beautiful women now and then.
-
Relationship Wisdom
May 2, 2020, 7:01 PM Things I know how to do that seem to work. – Be funny. – Be affectionate. – Be supportive constantly – Listen when necessary – Be a gentleman when necessary. – Make her look good to her friends. – Be tasteful. – Make money. – Fix things. – Lift heavy things. – Be scary when necessary. – Make her coffee. – Rub her feet. – Wash her hair. – Feed her chocolate – Bring flowers. – Buy her clothes. – Cook (a lot) – Do Laundry. Dust. Vacuum. Sew buttons etc now and then. Things I know I do that don’t seem to work. – Avoid shopping without threats of bodily harm. – Forget everything it’s possible to forget. (Everything) – Leave my clothes next to the bed. – Pile papers and books on my desk. – Forget to turn off CEO-Me – Forget to turn off Philosopher-Me – Pretend I don’t know the answer or how to do it. – Ignore all attempts to ‘alter my priorities’ – Express more frustration at being interrupted. – Fail to ignore stupidity – Appreciate beautiful women now and then.
-
The Social Utility of Sh-t Talking and Sh-T Testing
May 3, 2020, 9:18 AM TRUTH: Sh-t talking provides mindfulness. It provides safe competitive dominance play while showing respect at the same time. It requires self regulation. It requires cunning. It allows public accusation and admission of truths. It is desensitizing. It builds trust. I can’t say enough good about it. Whereas GSRRM does the opposite. The techniques of GSRRM and Sh-t_Testing as the via-negativa undermining vs Sh-t Talking and Bragging as the via-positiva advocating explain the social utility of each.
-
The Social Utility of Sh-t Talking and Sh-T Testing
May 3, 2020, 9:18 AM TRUTH: Sh-t talking provides mindfulness. It provides safe competitive dominance play while showing respect at the same time. It requires self regulation. It requires cunning. It allows public accusation and admission of truths. It is desensitizing. It builds trust. I can’t say enough good about it. Whereas GSRRM does the opposite. The techniques of GSRRM and Sh-t_Testing as the via-negativa undermining vs Sh-t Talking and Bragging as the via-positiva advocating explain the social utility of each.
-
You Won”t Be Able to Criticize or Falsify P-Logic and Law
May 3, 2020, 9:40 AM Every professional discipline uses a methodology. P creates a single professional discipline of the metaphysical, psychological, social, political, and group strategy. It is to sentient sciences what physics is to non-sentient physical sciences. P is a methodology that produces a formal grammar (or logic). As such it is what we refer to as a formal science (formal logic of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology). We use that science to explain western civlization. We use the explanation of western civilization to explain why it’s the optimum civilization. We explain and advocate our preference for that optimum civilization. We use that understanding and preference of optimum civilization to correct past and present errors in that civilization, and to restore, reform, and, innovate on that optimum civilization. It is impossible to criticize the methodology (science). It is very difficult to criticize what we do with it. At best one can argue for preference of different organizations of our or other civilizations given the tactical advantage of circumstances, within that strategic optimum. You must be able to criticize P on it’s foundations and it’s propositions. (You won’t be able to). The difference between counting, accounting, mathematics, programming, and P is simply the increasing number of causal dimensions in the domains they describe). You certainly can criticize the choice of continuing the strategy of western civlization or the policy implementations we suggest to do so. But you aren’t going to be able to criticize the logic or science whatsoever. It won’t happen. You don’t know that yet. But I do. Hostility to criticism of any of the sciences (logical facility, logic, mathematics, accounting, mathematics, programming, P (P-logic, P-Law) is simply hostility to laziness and ignorance rather than informed debate. P is not a theology, philosophy, ideology, or analogy. It’s a (the) formal grammar (logic, vocabulary, paradigm) of sentient life if not all life.
-
You Won”t Be Able to Criticize or Falsify P-Logic and Law
May 3, 2020, 9:40 AM Every professional discipline uses a methodology. P creates a single professional discipline of the metaphysical, psychological, social, political, and group strategy. It is to sentient sciences what physics is to non-sentient physical sciences. P is a methodology that produces a formal grammar (or logic). As such it is what we refer to as a formal science (formal logic of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology). We use that science to explain western civlization. We use the explanation of western civilization to explain why it’s the optimum civilization. We explain and advocate our preference for that optimum civilization. We use that understanding and preference of optimum civilization to correct past and present errors in that civilization, and to restore, reform, and, innovate on that optimum civilization. It is impossible to criticize the methodology (science). It is very difficult to criticize what we do with it. At best one can argue for preference of different organizations of our or other civilizations given the tactical advantage of circumstances, within that strategic optimum. You must be able to criticize P on it’s foundations and it’s propositions. (You won’t be able to). The difference between counting, accounting, mathematics, programming, and P is simply the increasing number of causal dimensions in the domains they describe). You certainly can criticize the choice of continuing the strategy of western civlization or the policy implementations we suggest to do so. But you aren’t going to be able to criticize the logic or science whatsoever. It won’t happen. You don’t know that yet. But I do. Hostility to criticism of any of the sciences (logical facility, logic, mathematics, accounting, mathematics, programming, P (P-logic, P-Law) is simply hostility to laziness and ignorance rather than informed debate. P is not a theology, philosophy, ideology, or analogy. It’s a (the) formal grammar (logic, vocabulary, paradigm) of sentient life if not all life.
-
The Current Transformation of Formal Sciences in The Context of History
May 3, 2020, 10:09 AM [T]he Four Color Problem is an example of the limits of mathematics. A proof is just a test of internal consistency within the limits of mathematics. The point of mandelbrot’s work, and now wolframs, is that we are past the point of linguistic mathematics (‘statistics and sets’) and we are in the domain of computable mathematics(‘operations’). Or put differently – we have finally discovered the foundations of mathematics, and are in the process of falsifying the flawed project of the set foundations of mathematics and restoring operational foundations of mathematics. Human logical facility > … Operations > … … Counting -> Arithmetic -> Accounting …………………..-> Computations -> Symmetries(equilibria) …………………..-> Sets -> Mathematics -> Symmetries Or in historical terms we have restored the aristotelian-achimedian basis of mathematics and science that was lost and overtaken by greek platonism and middle eastern verbalism and pseudoscience in mathematics, that was restored to geometry by Descartes and Empiricism by the British, and undermined by the Jewish logicians and mathematicians and german and jewish philosophers, but is in the process of being restored by the present generation which is jewish-german-british-american. I’m kind of … sad, wolfram beat me to it. Because I would have loved to work on the problem if I had another lifetime. But I’m happy to stick with the social sciences and explain why he’s right. And to provide perhaps a better explanation of why he’s right. We are seeing the end of the ‘jewish century of pseudoscience’ and my argument that we have paid the cost of jewish integration into aristotelianism like we have paid the french, german, russian ,and chinese costs. But that the problem is the jews were among us rather than in their own country, so their undermining was more successful than the french, german, russian, and chinese. The question is whether we can correct course in the social sciences before immigration destroys our civilization and it’s ability to restore course in aristotelian-archimedian european realism, naturalism, operationalism, consistency, correspondence, sovereignty, rational choice, reciprocity, and markets in everything as the spectrum of near perfect correspondence with the universe in its physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Edit
-
The Current Transformation of Formal Sciences in The Context of History
May 3, 2020, 10:09 AM [T]he Four Color Problem is an example of the limits of mathematics. A proof is just a test of internal consistency within the limits of mathematics. The point of mandelbrot’s work, and now wolframs, is that we are past the point of linguistic mathematics (‘statistics and sets’) and we are in the domain of computable mathematics(‘operations’). Or put differently – we have finally discovered the foundations of mathematics, and are in the process of falsifying the flawed project of the set foundations of mathematics and restoring operational foundations of mathematics. Human logical facility > … Operations > … … Counting -> Arithmetic -> Accounting …………………..-> Computations -> Symmetries(equilibria) …………………..-> Sets -> Mathematics -> Symmetries Or in historical terms we have restored the aristotelian-achimedian basis of mathematics and science that was lost and overtaken by greek platonism and middle eastern verbalism and pseudoscience in mathematics, that was restored to geometry by Descartes and Empiricism by the British, and undermined by the Jewish logicians and mathematicians and german and jewish philosophers, but is in the process of being restored by the present generation which is jewish-german-british-american. I’m kind of … sad, wolfram beat me to it. Because I would have loved to work on the problem if I had another lifetime. But I’m happy to stick with the social sciences and explain why he’s right. And to provide perhaps a better explanation of why he’s right. We are seeing the end of the ‘jewish century of pseudoscience’ and my argument that we have paid the cost of jewish integration into aristotelianism like we have paid the french, german, russian ,and chinese costs. But that the problem is the jews were among us rather than in their own country, so their undermining was more successful than the french, german, russian, and chinese. The question is whether we can correct course in the social sciences before immigration destroys our civilization and it’s ability to restore course in aristotelian-archimedian european realism, naturalism, operationalism, consistency, correspondence, sovereignty, rational choice, reciprocity, and markets in everything as the spectrum of near perfect correspondence with the universe in its physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Edit
-
Civilizations express a class strategy.
May 3, 2020, 10:33 AM [C]ivilizations express a class strategy. The anglo european is the masculine aristocratic. The french european the feminine aristocratic. The german confused. The middle eastern the underclass priestly. The jewish the female elite priesthood.