The Via- Positiva Small, homogenous, low power distance, polities under rule of law, and their naturally limited capacity for fiat currency inflation demonstrate the optimum mixed economies for both trade and redistribution. The optimum organization of such a polity is by Sovereignty, Rule of law of Reciprocity, an independent cult of the judiciary, a universal militia, a standing professional army of warriors, a monarchy as a judge of last resort, houses for the classes demonstrating contribution to the commons for the production of commons. And markets in everything. Ethnocentrism is the optimum group strategy because kin selection favors – or at least doesn’t resist – loyalty, high trust, commons, and redistribution. Ethno-supremacism is a necessary property of ethnocentrism. Europeans are demonstrably superior genetically, culturally, scientifically, medically, technologically, institutionally, civilizationally to all other civilizations in the ancient and modern worlds. And we are so for one reason: sovereignty. Everything in our civilization descends from it.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Ethnocentrism, Sovereignty: Rule of Law – Its Enough.
The Via- Positiva Small, homogenous, low power distance, polities under rule of law, and their naturally limited capacity for fiat currency inflation demonstrate the optimum mixed economies for both trade and redistribution. The optimum organization of such a polity is by Sovereignty, Rule of law of Reciprocity, an independent cult of the judiciary, a universal militia, a standing professional army of warriors, a monarchy as a judge of last resort, houses for the classes demonstrating contribution to the commons for the production of commons. And markets in everything. Ethnocentrism is the optimum group strategy because kin selection favors – or at least doesn’t resist – loyalty, high trust, commons, and redistribution. Ethno-supremacism is a necessary property of ethnocentrism. Europeans are demonstrably superior genetically, culturally, scientifically, medically, technologically, institutionally, civilizationally to all other civilizations in the ancient and modern worlds. And we are so for one reason: sovereignty. Everything in our civilization descends from it.
-
This Conflict that Undermines Our Civilization from Within.
[H]umans evolved at least three sets of faculties: the physical-sensory, the intuitinistic-emotional, and the rational-intellectual. And we evolved ‘grammars’ (paradigms and logics) to express the experience of those faculties. Because those different experiences require different metrics(systems of measurement) and descriptions (analogies) of expression. Scientific experience in scientific testimony, in expressions of empirical natural law (intellectual). Ordinary language for discourse for conduct of daily life (physical). And Mystical experience expressed in poetry, the development of mythical and religious structures that send one down a destination-less path into the ephemeral (intuitionistic-emotional). The question is, must they be coherent compatible and commensurable even if they are expressed in different grammars: deflationary-scientific vs inflationary-poetic. And my answer is yes. There is no reason for conflict. And it is this conflict that undermines our civlization from within.
-
This Conflict that Undermines Our Civilization from Within.
[H]umans evolved at least three sets of faculties: the physical-sensory, the intuitinistic-emotional, and the rational-intellectual. And we evolved ‘grammars’ (paradigms and logics) to express the experience of those faculties. Because those different experiences require different metrics(systems of measurement) and descriptions (analogies) of expression. Scientific experience in scientific testimony, in expressions of empirical natural law (intellectual). Ordinary language for discourse for conduct of daily life (physical). And Mystical experience expressed in poetry, the development of mythical and religious structures that send one down a destination-less path into the ephemeral (intuitionistic-emotional). The question is, must they be coherent compatible and commensurable even if they are expressed in different grammars: deflationary-scientific vs inflationary-poetic. And my answer is yes. There is no reason for conflict. And it is this conflict that undermines our civlization from within.
-
Getting to Your Personal Epiphany
—“I feel you are missing the archetypal experience description. I get that that could be included in testimonial but feel empirical science/lawful testimony and mystical testimony are two different functions.”—Bill Smith
Try again. I can sense something there and I probably know how to answer it but I’m not sure.
—“Scientific experience is summarized in scientific testimonial which leads in the direction of expressions of empirical natural law. … Mystical experience is expressed in poetry, the development of religious structures that send one down a destination-less path and manifestations of the ephemeral like the Runes. … I believe they are different things requiring different metrics and modes of expression and experience.”—Bill Smith
Correct. The question is, must they be coherent compatible and commensurable even if they are expressed in different grammars: deflationary-scientific vs inflationary-poetic. And my answer is yes. There is no reason for conflict. And it is this conflict that undermines our civlization from within.
—“If you’re saying what I think you’re saying I’m about to tear up due to the truth you’re conveying… as I’ve never known anyone else who did or even could communicate that fundamental lack intrinsic to our culture. That was a powerful experience. Actually I think you might have broken me. At least … I hope you did.”—Bill Smith
Broken means bad? lol. What does that mean? I’m scared.
—“Broken as in the change in conscious experience of reality due to a distinguishable event or experience but is dependent on previous works or studies.”— Bill Smith
Ok. “a moment of sudden revelation or insight.” Revelation, Epiphany, Paradigm Shift. (Good. I don’t have to feel guilty all day now. lol -hugs.)
-
Getting to Your Personal Epiphany
—“I feel you are missing the archetypal experience description. I get that that could be included in testimonial but feel empirical science/lawful testimony and mystical testimony are two different functions.”—Bill Smith
Try again. I can sense something there and I probably know how to answer it but I’m not sure.
—“Scientific experience is summarized in scientific testimonial which leads in the direction of expressions of empirical natural law. … Mystical experience is expressed in poetry, the development of religious structures that send one down a destination-less path and manifestations of the ephemeral like the Runes. … I believe they are different things requiring different metrics and modes of expression and experience.”—Bill Smith
Correct. The question is, must they be coherent compatible and commensurable even if they are expressed in different grammars: deflationary-scientific vs inflationary-poetic. And my answer is yes. There is no reason for conflict. And it is this conflict that undermines our civlization from within.
—“If you’re saying what I think you’re saying I’m about to tear up due to the truth you’re conveying… as I’ve never known anyone else who did or even could communicate that fundamental lack intrinsic to our culture. That was a powerful experience. Actually I think you might have broken me. At least … I hope you did.”—Bill Smith
Broken means bad? lol. What does that mean? I’m scared.
—“Broken as in the change in conscious experience of reality due to a distinguishable event or experience but is dependent on previous works or studies.”— Bill Smith
Ok. “a moment of sudden revelation or insight.” Revelation, Epiphany, Paradigm Shift. (Good. I don’t have to feel guilty all day now. lol -hugs.)
-
It’s Not Free Markets – Its Rule of Law
IT’S NOT FREE MARKETS – ITS RULE OF LAW [F]ree market capitalism is not what raises people. It’s rule of law that limits irreciprocity and forces people into LIMITED MARKETS, not ‘free’ markets. Those markets are limited to the prohibition on externalities. Free market capitalism was invented by the abrahamists to circumvent those limits and to profit from false promise, baiting into harm, harmful externality, and social undermining.
-
It’s Not Free Markets – Its Rule of Law
IT’S NOT FREE MARKETS – ITS RULE OF LAW [F]ree market capitalism is not what raises people. It’s rule of law that limits irreciprocity and forces people into LIMITED MARKETS, not ‘free’ markets. Those markets are limited to the prohibition on externalities. Free market capitalism was invented by the abrahamists to circumvent those limits and to profit from false promise, baiting into harm, harmful externality, and social undermining.
-
The only Two Search Criteria Available for Scientific Statements.
“[A]ny evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification).” These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements. Here is what we do in P: Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations. We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization. Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law. Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions. This is the propertarian methodology. And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.
-
The only Two Search Criteria Available for Scientific Statements.
“[A]ny evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification).” These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements. Here is what we do in P: Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations. We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization. Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law. Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions. This is the propertarian methodology. And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.