—“I thought you were Pagan all this time.”—Don Sharp
[I] am a pagan. An aryan (ancient gods), a heathen(old gods) – our natural religion, a christian (most recent gods), an Epicurean, a Stoic, a Jeffersonian, and an Aristotelian (scientist). I am just not an Abrahamist. Jesus is a philosopher. I take him as such. My gods are my ancestors. All religion consists of debt recognition. They are the only gods I owe a debt to – and the only gods with evidence of excellence worthy of my indebtedness.
—“I thought you were Pagan all this time.”—Don Sharp
[I] am a pagan. An aryan (ancient gods), a heathen(old gods) – our natural religion, a christian (most recent gods), an Epicurean, a Stoic, a Jeffersonian, and an Aristotelian (scientist). I am just not an Abrahamist. Jesus is a philosopher. I take him as such. My gods are my ancestors. All religion consists of debt recognition. They are the only gods I owe a debt to – and the only gods with evidence of excellence worthy of my indebtedness.
—“How would holocaust denial be dealt with under P-law?”– A Friend
[H]ow would any public speech be dealt with under P-law? In public, to the public, in matters public, suppression of the truth, or attempts at discovering the truth are prohibited under P-law. Conversely, falsehood is prohibited under P. The difference is that under P-law, speech in public, to the public, in matters public, is involuntarily warrantied. Including the dishonest use of statements masquerading as questions. So, public trial by propaganda, sophistry, and falsehood is illegal and expensive for any party since the cost of correcting public speech is prohibitively expensive. As such one can investigate, and report findings, like we do in any science, but we cannot make claims or imply claims without liability for error, bias, and deceit. Personally I’m far less concerned about this subject than I am the destruction and death by marxism, bolshevism, Leninism, maoism; the current civilizational destruction under postmodernism and denialism; and the ancient world’s destruction by judaism, Christianity and especially the billion dead under islam. So, sure, I tend to think the holocaust industry has gotten out of hand but I don’t know truth from falsehood myself, and I think it would be useful to discover what’s true and what’s false in order to stop both sides from propagandizing. I hate this topic. I try to avoid it at all costs. But I do my job. My job is to answer the tough questions. That’s what y’all pay me for with those donations.
—“How would holocaust denial be dealt with under P-law?”– A Friend
[H]ow would any public speech be dealt with under P-law? In public, to the public, in matters public, suppression of the truth, or attempts at discovering the truth are prohibited under P-law. Conversely, falsehood is prohibited under P. The difference is that under P-law, speech in public, to the public, in matters public, is involuntarily warrantied. Including the dishonest use of statements masquerading as questions. So, public trial by propaganda, sophistry, and falsehood is illegal and expensive for any party since the cost of correcting public speech is prohibitively expensive. As such one can investigate, and report findings, like we do in any science, but we cannot make claims or imply claims without liability for error, bias, and deceit. Personally I’m far less concerned about this subject than I am the destruction and death by marxism, bolshevism, Leninism, maoism; the current civilizational destruction under postmodernism and denialism; and the ancient world’s destruction by judaism, Christianity and especially the billion dead under islam. So, sure, I tend to think the holocaust industry has gotten out of hand but I don’t know truth from falsehood myself, and I think it would be useful to discover what’s true and what’s false in order to stop both sides from propagandizing. I hate this topic. I try to avoid it at all costs. But I do my job. My job is to answer the tough questions. That’s what y’all pay me for with those donations.
(getting close to most reductive and complete form)SOVEREIGNTY REQUIRES RECIPROCITYReciprocity in Nature: ( …cooperation and consciousness … ) Reciprocity in Deed(Actions): Due Diligence in tests of productive, fully informed[6], voluntary transfer[7] of demonstrated interests[2] within the limits of proportionality[4], free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality[8]; and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability[5]. Reciprocity in Word(Speech): Due Diligence in categorical and internal consistency within the limits of human faculties; operationally possible within the limits of human abilities, empirically correspondent within the limits of realism, naturalism and operationalism, rational within the limits of bounded rationality[1], reciprocal in rational choice, and fully accounted within stated limits. If you cannot pass those tests you cannot claim to engage in reciprocity in display, word, or deed. If you cannot engage in reciprocity you are either ignorant or ir-reciprocal. Even if you are ignorant, once informed, and continue you are ir-reciprocal. DECIDABILITY We may boycott(separate) if not a threat, cooperate(cohabitate) if we can, or prey(war) upon one another if we must. Since all irreciprocity constitutes free riding, parasitism, or predation, the only reason to let another individual or group exist, is reciprocity – all others are not only enemies, but devolutionary, and prohibiting the transcendence of man into the gods we imagined. This is the Natural Law. EUROPEAN GROUP STRATEGY: An Entrepreneurial Militia, Using Technology, Adaptability, Maneuver, and Speed Under Contractual Warfare, Oath, Duty, Loyalty Status in exchange for Heroism, Wealth, Excellence, Beauty With Differences adjudicated by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Under Natural Law of Reciprocity, Jury, Thang or Senate, King as judge of last resort. Leaving only survival in markets for everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polity, defense, and war. Causing suppression of the reproduction of the less able, and the devotion of the savings in surplus to the production of commons, and the disproportionate returns on the commons. And devoting high investment to the raising of our offspring to produce and defend the commons. (…) Transcendence of man into gods the gods we imagined. THE LAW OF OPTIMUM POLITIES A Power distribution of the Natural law(Suppression of Parasitism); A Pareto Distribution of Assets (organize voluntary production); A Nash Distribution of Rewards (Market Income); An Egalitarian Distribution of Commons (Earnings); At the cost of A Suppression of Reproduction of the Demonstrated Underclasses (Eugenics); Equal Distribution of Defense of all of the above. And Zero Tolerance for Violation of any of the above (Intolerance). EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION The history of western civilization consists of the incremental suppression of parasitism from all walks of life by use of the west’s unique, empirical, common, judge discovered natural law. Western Man domesticated himself just as he had plants and animals before. And both our aristocracy our people profited from the process. But, man was not exploited — he was domesticated from a animal to a human through generations of cultural selection pressure and aggressive culling of malcontents and free riders. OPTIMUM HUMAN ORDER There is no more coherent or successful nor possibly superior means for humans to evolve into the gods we imagine, with each generation living in the optimum conditions while doing so. ENFORCEMENT “So perhaps you don’t understand. This isn’t a negotiation. This isn’t a compromise. These are demands. We will restore our sovereignty, and leave you in peace, or we will conquer, enslave, or kill you – and all like you – until your consent is no longer required.” === Definitions:
Bounded Rationality: man is not omniscient, omnipotent, or free or error, and seeks practical action in satisfaction of wants within his limits rather than optimums.
Demonstrated Interest: man demonstrates continuous consumption, acquisition, preservation. Anything man demonstrates an interest in consuming, acquiring, preserving, whether by action or refraining from action, constitutes a demonstrated interest. In P law we categories demonstrated interest as Property-in-toto when referring to individuals or Capital-in-toto when referring to commons and we enumerate all categories of both under the definition of property-in-toto.
Operational, Operationalism: possible to perform and speak of performing, a sequence of subjectively testable human actions. where subjectively testable means by imitating (physical), sympathizing (thinking), empathizing (feeling).
Limits of Proportionality: incentive to defect given predictable future given accumulated results of reciprocal display word and deed. (Defense against systemic undermining).
Restitutability: the possibility of restitution, and sufficient resources to perform restitution.
Fully Informed: Reciprocal in Speech (testimony).
Voluntary Transfer: loss, consumption, transfer of possession, right, or title
Negative Externality: involuntary transfer against the demonstrated intersets of those not involved in the action or exchange.
(getting close to most reductive and complete form)SOVEREIGNTY REQUIRES RECIPROCITYReciprocity in Nature: ( …cooperation and consciousness … ) Reciprocity in Deed(Actions): Due Diligence in tests of productive, fully informed[6], voluntary transfer[7] of demonstrated interests[2] within the limits of proportionality[4], free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality[8]; and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability[5]. Reciprocity in Word(Speech): Due Diligence in categorical and internal consistency within the limits of human faculties; operationally possible within the limits of human abilities, empirically correspondent within the limits of realism, naturalism and operationalism, rational within the limits of bounded rationality[1], reciprocal in rational choice, and fully accounted within stated limits. If you cannot pass those tests you cannot claim to engage in reciprocity in display, word, or deed. If you cannot engage in reciprocity you are either ignorant or ir-reciprocal. Even if you are ignorant, once informed, and continue you are ir-reciprocal. DECIDABILITY We may boycott(separate) if not a threat, cooperate(cohabitate) if we can, or prey(war) upon one another if we must. Since all irreciprocity constitutes free riding, parasitism, or predation, the only reason to let another individual or group exist, is reciprocity – all others are not only enemies, but devolutionary, and prohibiting the transcendence of man into the gods we imagined. This is the Natural Law. EUROPEAN GROUP STRATEGY: An Entrepreneurial Militia, Using Technology, Adaptability, Maneuver, and Speed Under Contractual Warfare, Oath, Duty, Loyalty Status in exchange for Heroism, Wealth, Excellence, Beauty With Differences adjudicated by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Under Natural Law of Reciprocity, Jury, Thang or Senate, King as judge of last resort. Leaving only survival in markets for everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polity, defense, and war. Causing suppression of the reproduction of the less able, and the devotion of the savings in surplus to the production of commons, and the disproportionate returns on the commons. And devoting high investment to the raising of our offspring to produce and defend the commons. (…) Transcendence of man into gods the gods we imagined. THE LAW OF OPTIMUM POLITIES A Power distribution of the Natural law(Suppression of Parasitism); A Pareto Distribution of Assets (organize voluntary production); A Nash Distribution of Rewards (Market Income); An Egalitarian Distribution of Commons (Earnings); At the cost of A Suppression of Reproduction of the Demonstrated Underclasses (Eugenics); Equal Distribution of Defense of all of the above. And Zero Tolerance for Violation of any of the above (Intolerance). EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION The history of western civilization consists of the incremental suppression of parasitism from all walks of life by use of the west’s unique, empirical, common, judge discovered natural law. Western Man domesticated himself just as he had plants and animals before. And both our aristocracy our people profited from the process. But, man was not exploited — he was domesticated from a animal to a human through generations of cultural selection pressure and aggressive culling of malcontents and free riders. OPTIMUM HUMAN ORDER There is no more coherent or successful nor possibly superior means for humans to evolve into the gods we imagine, with each generation living in the optimum conditions while doing so. ENFORCEMENT “So perhaps you don’t understand. This isn’t a negotiation. This isn’t a compromise. These are demands. We will restore our sovereignty, and leave you in peace, or we will conquer, enslave, or kill you – and all like you – until your consent is no longer required.” === Definitions:
Bounded Rationality: man is not omniscient, omnipotent, or free or error, and seeks practical action in satisfaction of wants within his limits rather than optimums.
Demonstrated Interest: man demonstrates continuous consumption, acquisition, preservation. Anything man demonstrates an interest in consuming, acquiring, preserving, whether by action or refraining from action, constitutes a demonstrated interest. In P law we categories demonstrated interest as Property-in-toto when referring to individuals or Capital-in-toto when referring to commons and we enumerate all categories of both under the definition of property-in-toto.
Operational, Operationalism: possible to perform and speak of performing, a sequence of subjectively testable human actions. where subjectively testable means by imitating (physical), sympathizing (thinking), empathizing (feeling).
Limits of Proportionality: incentive to defect given predictable future given accumulated results of reciprocal display word and deed. (Defense against systemic undermining).
Restitutability: the possibility of restitution, and sufficient resources to perform restitution.
Fully Informed: Reciprocal in Speech (testimony).
Voluntary Transfer: loss, consumption, transfer of possession, right, or title
Negative Externality: involuntary transfer against the demonstrated intersets of those not involved in the action or exchange.
—“so yes, science can tell us what is but not what we ought to do.”—
[T]his is a justificationary position (sophism). |Decidability| = That which is not irreciprocal or false (negatively consequential) -> Value (personal strategy -> Positively Consequential) -> Preference (Inconsequential) [S]cience (law) tells us what we may not do (irreciprocity) – that which is unethical, and immoral. Anything that is not unethical and immoral is merely a PREFERENCE to be settled in the market competition for means and ends. What we ‘ought’ to do is anything we CAN organize voluntarily TO DO that which is not false or irreciprocal. Even so, we can just as equally test positive moral claims by the investments that you make, the externalities caused, and desired outcomes produced. All truth propositions are falsificationary. All moral claims are merely claims that one acts not immorally. All moral propositions, means, and outcomes are testable by reciprocity. All moral propositions are open to triangulation of the returns on investments (compare by ordinality if not cardinality). All moral propositions are decidable by adversarial competition in markets for voluntary production of moral outcomes, given scarcity and competition for means and outcomes. All markets produce empirical results, and as such are scientific. All epistemological questions are the result of falsification by adversarial competition. All moral questions are epistemological questions. All not-evil-immoral-unethical propositions are amoral, ethical, or good, depending upon the means of organizing their production, the structure of their production, and the returns on that production. We can make a claim to means, externalities, or ends, or all three. We can measure the claim, the means, the ends – all three, and do so scientifically. There is nothing in metaphysics, language, psychology, or sociology that cannot be expressed scientifically in these terms. That is a purely scientific statement. Conversely you cannot deny or falsify this statement. Period. If you don’t use these terms one can claim ignorance, on can claim expediency(cost), but one cannot claim anything else. As far as I know, the question of Morality is closed. You can try to create test after test but you will find no test that fails this test.
—“so yes, science can tell us what is but not what we ought to do.”—
[T]his is a justificationary position (sophism). |Decidability| = That which is not irreciprocal or false (negatively consequential) -> Value (personal strategy -> Positively Consequential) -> Preference (Inconsequential) [S]cience (law) tells us what we may not do (irreciprocity) – that which is unethical, and immoral. Anything that is not unethical and immoral is merely a PREFERENCE to be settled in the market competition for means and ends. What we ‘ought’ to do is anything we CAN organize voluntarily TO DO that which is not false or irreciprocal. Even so, we can just as equally test positive moral claims by the investments that you make, the externalities caused, and desired outcomes produced. All truth propositions are falsificationary. All moral claims are merely claims that one acts not immorally. All moral propositions, means, and outcomes are testable by reciprocity. All moral propositions are open to triangulation of the returns on investments (compare by ordinality if not cardinality). All moral propositions are decidable by adversarial competition in markets for voluntary production of moral outcomes, given scarcity and competition for means and outcomes. All markets produce empirical results, and as such are scientific. All epistemological questions are the result of falsification by adversarial competition. All moral questions are epistemological questions. All not-evil-immoral-unethical propositions are amoral, ethical, or good, depending upon the means of organizing their production, the structure of their production, and the returns on that production. We can make a claim to means, externalities, or ends, or all three. We can measure the claim, the means, the ends – all three, and do so scientifically. There is nothing in metaphysics, language, psychology, or sociology that cannot be expressed scientifically in these terms. That is a purely scientific statement. Conversely you cannot deny or falsify this statement. Period. If you don’t use these terms one can claim ignorance, on can claim expediency(cost), but one cannot claim anything else. As far as I know, the question of Morality is closed. You can try to create test after test but you will find no test that fails this test.
[R]ussell’s Paradox (a version of the liar’s paradox), is not a paradox, it’s an ill formed statement (Grammatical error) because it failed the test of continuously recursive ambiguity – which is what ‘grammar’ means: rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. Nearly all seemingly challenging philosophical questions play on some variation of the verb to be. In the case of the liar’s paradox in all its forms, it’s not a paradox it’s constructed ambiguity. Words don’t mean things. People mean things. They use language well or not well to state their meaning – or their deceit. A number is the name of a position, and beyond the base (glyphs) we use ‘Positional Naming’. We can name anything we choose with a position in an order just like we can name anything else. All that matters is that we all rely on the same names in the same order. Numbers exist as names. That’s it. Nothing else. Mathematics is ill-grounded (vulnerable to grammatical errors) because of sets (platonic, ideal, verbal) rather than operations (gears and geometry). If you explain all mathematics using positional names, gears, and geometry (as it was invented) you do not expose yourself to grammatical errors. The same is true of philosophical (verbal) statements. If you state all statements as promises, in operational prose, in complete sentences, without the ‘cheat’ (or lie) of the verb to be, you will have a very difficult time make grammatical errors. So the entire analytic program (sets) was a failure. So was the attempt to discover a via-positiva scientific method. This is because all epistemology is falsificationary and adversarial, with surviving truth propositions competing in networks of paradigms themselves in falsificationary and adversarial competition. Most of philosophy is little more than sophistry. (really) Everything that isn’t sophistry is in the domain of science including that science we call ‘grammar’. === COMMENTS ===
—“Not quite, as Godel presented a mathematical model of this phenomenon. You cannot reduce this to mere positivistic linguistics. On which point, are you not assuming Chomsky’s universal grammar with your definition of grammar? If so, this has been shown to be unempirical.”—Rik Storey
I didn’t say anything like that. I’m saying that he’s correct. I haven’t met anyone other than the author of the best book on the subject that understands the limit of Godel’s argument: (a) we identify new constant relations (experiences) (b) we invent new references (c) we invent new paradigms (d) we require grammars to talk about them (e) we can make ungrammatical statements. Godel said it. Turing said it. Kripke said it. So there is no closure to logic without appeal to the operational, empirical, limits and completeness, and even then there is only closure on falsification not justification. There is nothing positivistic in P. It’s purely falsificationary. Either it survives adverstarial competition by the terms stated in testimonialism or it doesn’t. If more than one does, then we just don’t know and nothing else can be said.
—“Oh very well. In that case, we must still follow Godel’s Platonism because of the assumptions we make in a purely sceptical and empirical worldview. That or nihilism are our two consistent options.”—Rik Storey
I can’t translate that into operational language. I don’t know what you mean. “…we must still follow Godel’s Platonism…” (Godel’s argument was operational, by applying the technique of pairing off (the foundation of mathematics in positional names) producing unique names for operations. Not all statements available in all grammar and vocabulary will be decidable within that grammar and vocabulary. And he did this for the special case of addition as an example, under the presumption the model would hold. But all he is saying is that no language is closed (other than first order logics maybe. Same is true even for math. We can write formulae that are descriptive but not deducible (we can’t write a proof)). and how does that relate to: “purely skeptical and empirical” (Permanently contingent, uncertain, cannot abandon continuous learning and adaptation?) and what do you mean by: “worldview” (means of understanding, predicting, decision making? paradigm?)
—“I made a similar argument on a Philosophy page. Russell’s paradox is just a domain error. A barber in a set of barbers or a tree in a forest. In the objective empirical world, it’s just a grammatical error. In the abstract world of numbers, a set of all sets must contain itself. “All” being transcendent can break the normal rules.”—Andrew M Gilmour
yep
[R]ussell’s Paradox (a version of the liar’s paradox), is not a paradox, it’s an ill formed statement (Grammatical error) because it failed the test of continuously recursive ambiguity – which is what ‘grammar’ means: rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. Nearly all seemingly challenging philosophical questions play on some variation of the verb to be. In the case of the liar’s paradox in all its forms, it’s not a paradox it’s constructed ambiguity. Words don’t mean things. People mean things. They use language well or not well to state their meaning – or their deceit. A number is the name of a position, and beyond the base (glyphs) we use ‘Positional Naming’. We can name anything we choose with a position in an order just like we can name anything else. All that matters is that we all rely on the same names in the same order. Numbers exist as names. That’s it. Nothing else. Mathematics is ill-grounded (vulnerable to grammatical errors) because of sets (platonic, ideal, verbal) rather than operations (gears and geometry). If you explain all mathematics using positional names, gears, and geometry (as it was invented) you do not expose yourself to grammatical errors. The same is true of philosophical (verbal) statements. If you state all statements as promises, in operational prose, in complete sentences, without the ‘cheat’ (or lie) of the verb to be, you will have a very difficult time make grammatical errors. So the entire analytic program (sets) was a failure. So was the attempt to discover a via-positiva scientific method. This is because all epistemology is falsificationary and adversarial, with surviving truth propositions competing in networks of paradigms themselves in falsificationary and adversarial competition. Most of philosophy is little more than sophistry. (really) Everything that isn’t sophistry is in the domain of science including that science we call ‘grammar’. === COMMENTS ===
—“Not quite, as Godel presented a mathematical model of this phenomenon. You cannot reduce this to mere positivistic linguistics. On which point, are you not assuming Chomsky’s universal grammar with your definition of grammar? If so, this has been shown to be unempirical.”—Rik Storey
I didn’t say anything like that. I’m saying that he’s correct. I haven’t met anyone other than the author of the best book on the subject that understands the limit of Godel’s argument: (a) we identify new constant relations (experiences) (b) we invent new references (c) we invent new paradigms (d) we require grammars to talk about them (e) we can make ungrammatical statements. Godel said it. Turing said it. Kripke said it. So there is no closure to logic without appeal to the operational, empirical, limits and completeness, and even then there is only closure on falsification not justification. There is nothing positivistic in P. It’s purely falsificationary. Either it survives adverstarial competition by the terms stated in testimonialism or it doesn’t. If more than one does, then we just don’t know and nothing else can be said.
—“Oh very well. In that case, we must still follow Godel’s Platonism because of the assumptions we make in a purely sceptical and empirical worldview. That or nihilism are our two consistent options.”—Rik Storey
I can’t translate that into operational language. I don’t know what you mean. “…we must still follow Godel’s Platonism…” (Godel’s argument was operational, by applying the technique of pairing off (the foundation of mathematics in positional names) producing unique names for operations. Not all statements available in all grammar and vocabulary will be decidable within that grammar and vocabulary. And he did this for the special case of addition as an example, under the presumption the model would hold. But all he is saying is that no language is closed (other than first order logics maybe. Same is true even for math. We can write formulae that are descriptive but not deducible (we can’t write a proof)). and how does that relate to: “purely skeptical and empirical” (Permanently contingent, uncertain, cannot abandon continuous learning and adaptation?) and what do you mean by: “worldview” (means of understanding, predicting, decision making? paradigm?)
—“I made a similar argument on a Philosophy page. Russell’s paradox is just a domain error. A barber in a set of barbers or a tree in a forest. In the objective empirical world, it’s just a grammatical error. In the abstract world of numbers, a set of all sets must contain itself. “All” being transcendent can break the normal rules.”—Andrew M Gilmour
yep