@rasterman
They are, like the amish, a reminder of what we were like, more so than a contributor. And worth studying for that reason.
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-14 12:58:36 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/103136383244257087
Source: Original Site Post
-
@rasterman They are, like the amish, a reminder of what we were like, more so th
-
“Propertarianism for Dummies”
(writing is in progress …)
What is Propertarianism?
The Most Frequent Complaint
The most frequent complaint from both readers and viewers is that they want to quickly understand this thing we call Propertarianism – and I’ve repeatedly failed to answer the question in a way that people who are not advanced degree holders in the philosophy of science, economics, law, or politics can understand. And everyone says ‘get to the point’. So if I get to the point I’ll say: It’s the completion of the scientific method – which almost certainly means nothing to most of you – and even if you think it does, I promise you that you don’t understand – because your understanding of the scientific method is almost certainly incomplete. I didn’t understand the scope of consequences that would result from completing it either. And that’s why Propertarianism is complicated: because the consequences of completing that method affect every discipline. And one of the other consequences is that it explains includes our present social and political conflict, and how to solve it. So the minimum reason you want to understand my work is to understand and perhaps solve the present conflict. And, hopefully, that’s enough to tempt you into following along with me. If it doesn’t then our current conflict is in even more desperate condition. So, It’s the completion of the scientific method, and its extension from the physical sciences to the human sciences – or what we call the soft sciences of language, psychology, sociology, politics, group strategy, including ethics, law, and economics. The result is a vocabulary and grammar – meaning a vocabulary and sentence structure – that serves as a system of measurement across all human disciplines. And you’ll discover pretty quickly how close that grammar is to mathematics – especially to geometry. And if you have experience with logic, in the sense of how we study the logics in philosophy, you might discover how it solves problems logics couldn’t. And if you have experience with programming you’ll understand just why that’s so. And if you also understood a bit of law and a bit of economics it will all fit together quickly. But for most of you, think about it as a programming language for describing the world, rather than for programming a computer to simulate an artificial world. Because really – that’s what it is. It’s a bridge between a programming language and ordinary language like logic is a bridge between mathematics and language. And just like mathematics, logic, formal logic, programming, P is a methodology. And just as math uses numbers, operators, and an equals sign to balance them in a well-formed grammar that lets you test them; and just as programming uses primitive types, complex types, variables, expressions ( phrases), classes, and functions(sentences), including operators (verbs), and programs (stories) that you, a compiler, or a computer can test, P (short for Propertarianism) uses a set of constant terms, variable terms, complete sentences, operational vocabulary (meaning actions), that you – or anyone – can test the same way a programmer or lawyer tests a program or contract today – except it’s far closer to the rigor of a program and far less easy to play games like you can in contract and law. So, more precisely, it’s the completion of the scientific method, producing a universally commensurable logic of all sciences and all disciplines ( metaphysics, language, psychology, sociology, politics, ethics, law, and economics). And with that logic, we can make statements about the formerly soft sciences just as concretely as we have about the formerly physical, or what we call hard sciences. Understanding Ourselves And we can use this methodto describe the west’s disproportionate success in both the ancient and modern worlds, at dragging mankind kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and his abuse by a nature all but hostile to human life. Understanding Our Enemy And with that knowledge, determine how and why the west decline in the present world. And with that knowledge, and our law, restore our civilization, and continue dragging mankind to godhood – kicking and screaming against us all the while.
Primary Innovation
( … ) Precision in truthful speech
Primary Problem Solved
( … ) lying, baiting into hazard… list of problems of the day
Primary Application
( … law)
Lex Europae: “The White Law”
( … ) non-religious law A Template Constitution for States in Western Civilization ( … ) A Constitution for the United States … and Canada, and Australia, and .. ( … ) And this complete’s Aristotle’s project. And solves our current crisis. So there. That’s Propertariaism (Testimony).
As an aside, I probably should call it Testimonialism, or the Science of Testimony, or The Law. Because it’s the science of truthful, reciprocal, operational speech. Because ‘Propertarianism’ confuses people. Propertarianism refers only to the use of Property as a system of measurement for testing reciprocity within Ethics and Law. And I started with ethics. So I called it Propertarianism. And now, I am sort of stuck with the name “Propertarianism” at the moment, unless I publish a book under something else. Propertarianism is the science of testimony: truthful speech.
Why Does It Matter?
So Then What? The Problem of Our Age. You probably understand that we are in a period of social and political conflict. It’s hard not to know that. You might also know of this thing called the replication crisis, in psychology, sociology, political science, and even the relatively recent failures of economics. And you may or may not know that while the last century has been full of technical innovations, that in general, it appears that certain parts of mathematics, physics, and economics are ‘stuck’ – and that anthropology, psychology, sociology, politics, law, and economics, are being overturned by genetics, cognitive science, and archeology, as consisting of largely of pseudoscience – meaning they’re wrong, lies, harmful, or worse. We don’t think of it this way, but Socrates Plato, Aristotle, and the other great greeks you may or may not have heard of; the British scientific enlightenment thinkers; also wrote their ideas during and after a great time of conflict or failure. And it’s during these periods of stress we are most likely to force ourselves to seek solutions to problems we may have thought we understood. Because, now, imagine not that long ago, a world without computers. Then, imagine how people thought about the world before Einstein, or before Darwin. Well, what did people think like before Aristotle – who invented what became a science. And there are a lot of people in between them. ( … )
…
…
What Does It Consist Of?
Now, let’s take it a step farther. Let’s say you want to learn this methodology. Most people who have learned it, say there are a few basic ideas that provide most of it. At that point, you’d start understanding what we’re talking about. Now, let’s take it a step farther – Grammar (logics); What if you want to use it? You will want to know:
1. The Arguments – The spectrum of means of argument we’re familiar with 2. Grammar: Human Facilities, Grammar facility, Paradigms/Dimensions, Grammars. 3. The Grammars – and Deceits. (Which should give you an aha! moment) 4. The Deceits – How lies, deciets, frauds, and baitings into hazard are constructedNow, let’s take it a step farther – Grammar (logics); What if you want to use it? You will want to know:
5. Disambiguation: Deflation, Operationalization, Serialization – and the Glossary 6. Operational Prose …. Complete Sentences, …. Operational vocabulary(actions), and in …. ePrime – without the verb to-be. (is, are, was, were) 7. Promissory Prose … 8. Full Accounting Prose … – Using Property-in-toto, accounting, financial, economic terms. 9. Parenthetic Prose …. – Parallels between paradigms 10. Enumerative Prose … – Enumerating Series 11. Algorithmic Prose … – Programmatic construction of arguments. At that point, you’d start ‘talking funny’ like the rest of us. Next – Psychology:
15. Acquisition: Acquisition of anything and everything. 16. Man: how the brain works and produces consciousness. 17. Distributions: Genders, Classes, Nations, RacesNext – Sociology (Compatibilism)
18. Compatibilism, Cooperation and we are compatible thru marketsNext – Ethics – Via Positiva (Cooperation)
1. Demonstrated Interests 2. Property-In-Toto (as a system of measurement of reciprocity.) 1. Reciprocity (instead of ‘morality’)Next – Epistemology:
14. Metaphysics of Action: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Empiricism, Logicism, Rational Choice – Action. 14. Falsification vs Justification 15. The Epistemic Cycle: 14. Testimony: TestifiabilityNext – Law – Via Negativa (Conflict)
20. Jurisprudence 21. Natural Law Strict construction of law and findings of the court 22. Constitutions in Strict ConstructionNext – Economics – Via Positiva (Production of goods, services, information, incentive)
19. Time, Division of Labor, 20. Money Accounting. 19. Micro Economics , Organizations, through The Civilizational Distribution of Labor 20. Behavioral Economics: Metaphysics, Psychology, Sociology, Politics in Economic Terms.Next – Politics – Production of Commons
19. Perfect Government, Through Ethnonationalism.Next – Group Competitive Strategy:
1. The Western Group Evolutionary Strategy: The reason for the disproportionate success of West vs the Rest.
Sovereignty Markets in everything Tripartism Trifunctionalism
2. The Semitic Group Anti-Evolutionary Strategy: The history of the Conflict between Civilizations, and in particular western eugenic, productive truthful, and Semitic dysgenic, parasitic and deceitful.
3. Other Cultures‘ Group Strategies.
4. Incompatibilism: … Differences between groupsAnd so;
A Constitution, in P-Law, staring our strategy, restores both our via-Positiva markets for productive cooperation and our via-negativa court-market for the rapid suppression of irreciprocity and fraud.
Including the suppression of (… public speech … )
Thereby preventing the second Semitic destruction of civilization.The Result.
1. A System of Thought that completes the Aristotelian, Anglo Empirical, American Legal, and European Scientific Program.
2. The Completion of the Scientific Method, and with it, the Empirical Revolution. By Completing the Empirical Revolution, We complete the Social Sciences. By Completing the Social Sciences we Produce The Logic Of Social Sciences
3. The Logic of the Social Sciences is a A Universal, Value-Neutral, Formal, Operational, Logic and Method, of Metaphysics, Psychology, Ethics, Morality, Politics, Group Evolutionary Strategy
4. The result is our ability to construct The Natural Law, in Ratio-Scientific Form, its Methodology, and its Application
- We use that natural natural law, to construct a constitution of natural law, and Perfect Government, Institutions, Commons, Norms, and Conditions under Natural Law,
5. This natural law, and perfect government is The Group Evolutionary Strategy of the European Peoples
6. And we can use this law and that government to suppress the second Semitic destruction of the advanced world.
7. …. ( recreating the market for the suppression … ) … ugh
( … )
…
…
How Do You Do It?
Turning Ordinary Language Into A System of Measurement
…
1. Units of Measure
1. Disambiguation: Deflation, Operationalization, Serialization – and the Glossary
1. Disambiguation: Deflation, Operationalization, Serialization,
For example, in mathematics, we take a series of words, put them in order – meaning in a position – on in a line, and call that a number line. And when we do that, we can use the number line as a system of measurement. And it’s very hard to confuse by accident or pretend so that we deceive ourselves of others, that two positions on that line are the same.
So in Testimony do the same thing. We take an idea. We collect a number of words that are synonyms and antonyms for that idea, then put them in some kind of order on a line, then define each of them as actions, then define each on differently from the others, and we have created a system of measurement that’s very precise. And so it is very hard to confuse (or conflate) by accident or to confuse (or conflate) for the purpose of deception of ourselves or of others Disambiguation by Serialization
So let’s use ‘moral‘ because that’s a word that we all use but conflate (confuse) often.
Good, Moral, Ethical, Right, Amoral, Wrong, Unethical, Immoral, Evil,
Which we usually write with arrows so that we can help the reader understand the direction of the idea, and we put bars around the starting point.
Good < Moral < Ethical < Right < |Amoral| > Wrong > Unethical > Immoral, > Evil
Disambiguation by Redefinition
( … ) moral and ethical overlap
Disambiguation and Deflation by Operationalization. ( … )
And then define them as actions:
Good: When you do something that benefits others, at neutral or some cost to you. Moral: When you do something where you could cheat others indirectly and anonymously but you don’t. Ethical: when you do something where you could cheat the other person directly but you don’t. Right: when you do something that could affect others but you ensure it doesn’t. Amoral: when you do something that doesn’t affect others because it can’t. Wrong: when you do something that affects others but don’t you ensure and it does. Unethical: when you do something where you can cheat the other person directly and you do. Immoral: when you do something where you could cheat others indirectly and anonymously and you don’t. Evil: when you do something that harms others, just to harm them even if it costs you.
Where the “constant-relation” between the terms is the spectrum of means of imposing – or avoiding imposing – the consequences of your actions upon others.
So now we have a unit of measurement of the morality of human actions. So whether we want to speak truthfully, or determine whether someone else is speaking truthfully, we have a simple means of testing their speech.
When we use these terms we won’t confuse them, and everyone else writing in Testimony can use them the same way. And, you might think that this would be a lot of work and be confusing, but it turns out that there aren’t very many of them, after a while, you’ll memorize all of them, and this is one of the most common series we use.
We call this technique “Disambiguation, Serialization, and Operationalization” because we de-conflate terms, by writing them in operational language, meaning definitions that start with ‘when you do something that causes something that you experience as.’ And then we sort them by trial and error into order, and adjust their definitions until they don’t overlap (conflate), so that they are disambiguated.
Universal Commensurability
Writing in actions – operational language – causes us to write from the same point of view, so that no matter what we are discussing, no matter what subject we discuss by reducing all of our terms to actions in operational language, they will all be measurable by the same standard: actions. This technique creates “commensurability” regardless of the subject matter.
Not so that we must speak in that system of measurement – it would be burdensome, but so like mathematics in the determinism (constant relations) of the physical science, we would have a language of measurement for all sciences, including the human sciences.
…
2. Measurements (Commensurability)
2. Operational Prose …. ePrime – without the verb to-be. (is, are, was, were) …. Operational Vocabulary (actions), and in …. Promissory Prose … …. Complete Sentences … …. Full Accounting Prose – Using Property-in-toto, accounting, financial, economic terms. …. Parenthetic Prose – Parallels between paradigms …. Enumerative Prose – Enumerating Series …. Algorithmic Prose – Programmatic construction of arguments.
1. Operational Prose
Operational Prose requires we use the following techniques to limit pretense of means of existence, pretense of knowledge, pretense of unaccountability, and possibility ambiguity whether by elimination (leaving out), inflation (adding), conflation(mixing) instead of just stating a description. …. 1. ePrime – eliminate the verb to-be. (am is, are, was, were) …. 2. Operational vocabulary(actions), …. 3. Promissory Form …. 4. Complete Sentences, …. 5. Parenthetical Prose …. 6. Eumeratitve Prose …. 7. Algorithmic Prose This set of examples provides a basic understanding of the series of techniques.
- From Ordinary Language Question: What is that?
… Ordinary to Eprime and Operational Answer: It’s a cat -> I see a cat. - From Ordinary Language Question: What does it look like?
… Ordinary to ePrime and Operational to Promissory: The cat is black -> I see a black cat -> I promise I see a black cat. - From Ordinary to Operational to Promissory to Fully Accounted:
… The cat is black -> I see a black cat -> I promise I see a black cat -> I promise I see a black cat, and if you look at the same cat you will agree you also see a black cat.
We changed from it’s (it is) to I see: from proclamation to testimony. This is an operational transformation. Or in philosophical terms, from an ‘ideal’ to a ‘real’. In Our english language, we use the grammatical order of subject verb object, and out of habit we create the context using the subject. Jon threw the ball (to Jane). Some other languages, like latin, use say, Subject, Object Verb: Jon (to jane) the ball threw. And still others use The ball, Jon (to Jane) threw, or The ball, (to Jane), Jon threw. Each of these orders requires slightly different habit and changing this habit is work – like learning a foreign language. Now, langauges differ in the amount of inference required. So we call some languages high context if they requires a lot of inference, and low context if they don’t require much inference. English is a low context high precision language, with a greedy vocabulary that loves new words, that places more burden on the speaker and on the listener. In exchange for this complexity we find english is very good for legal, technical, and scientific prose – and good for poetic prose dependent on vocabulary, even if it’s not terribly good for emotional or aesthetic prose dependent upon inference and association, and mutliple meanings. We changed I see a black cat from implied or inferred, to testimony and added implied warranty.
We changed from inferred consequences to stated consequences. This produces a sentence that serves as a complete transaction with nothing else implied or assumed. We have eliminated most possible ambiguity, unaccountability, and pretense of knowlege and understanding. From here on we’re further disambiguating and preventing further errores of inference suggestion or deceit.
- From Fully accounted to Parenthetic:
… I promise(testify) I see a black cat (domesticated cat), and if you look(observe with your vision) at the same cat (the one I currently point toward) you will agree(consent) you also see a black(fur) cat(domesticated).
The purpose of parentheticals is to use multiple paradigms (networks of related concepts) to eliminate ambiguity while preserving the consistency of the paradigm, and as such the readability of the underlying sentence. So we have now further reduced
- From Fully accounted and Parenthetic to Enumerative:
… I promise that I see a black (fur) domesticated cat, and if you glance, look, observe, stare at the same cat that I currently point toward with your eyes, vision, attention, that you will agree, consent, that you also see a black( fur) domesticated cat.
The purpose of enumerative, like parenthetical, is to prevent the reader from engaging in mis-interpreteation by making it difficult or impossible to misinterpret your meaning, as is easy when we use a single term. In P-law we use a small number of repetitious enumerations to prevent errors and deceits of inference. The most common examples are:
|True| False < Truth Candidate(True) < Undecidable < Non-Logical < Nonsensical (Where falsehood(certainty) is always prescedent over truth (Contingency) This is ternary logic of science, vs the binary logic, or truth table logic you are familiar with in the logic of inference – which is how logic is taught: set inference rather than scientific and contingent. ALmost everything in P requires at least three states Miniumum, medium, maximum in order to falsify the series. “It takes at least Three points test a line”. In most definitions we will use five and some as many as twelve or more.
|Truth| Tautological < Analytic Truth < Truthful (True) < Honest < Impulsive (unconsidered)
|Falsehoods| ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion (loading, framing) obscurantism, fitionalism (pseudoscience, sophism, occult), fiction (deceit), and denial.
|Epistemology|Observation > Free Association > Hypothesis > Theory > Surviving Theory > “Law”
|Testimonial Due Diligence| categorial, logical, operational, empirical, rational, reciprocal, limited, fully accounted, coherent and warrantied within the limits of restitutability.
|Demonstrated Interests| Self, Mate, Children, Kin, Kith, Capital Property, Several Property, Shared (Shareholder Property), Common(Citizen) Property, institutional property (norms, laws, institutions), intergenerational property (traditions).
|Harms| Murder, Harm, Damage, Theft, Fraud, Baiting into hazard, free riding, privatizing commons, socializing losses, corruption, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, war, conquest.
|Reciprocal| Productive, Fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of cost supon the demonstrated interests of others by externality.
|Moral| Evil < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good
- From Fully accounted, Parenthetic, Enumerated to Algorithmic:
Given; … The Definitions; … … Commitment { Unsure, Confident, Sure, Promise, Warranty} … … Look { |Duration|: glance, look, observe, stare } … … Color(Reflected Color) {|Visible Spectrum|: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet} … … … Where; … … … … The sum of Color(Reflected Color) {White} … … … … The Absence of Color(Reflected Color)} {Black} … … Fur { |Volume|: Fuzz, Hair, Fur, Coat, Mane} … … Domesticated Cat: Those “Felids” of Subclass “Domesticated”, including African, Black Footed, Chinese Mountain, Domestic, European Wildcat, Jungle and Sand.
Whereas; … [name] promises, without warranty, that he currently [location, date and time] observes, and indicates by pointing with his hand, a domesticated cat, with black fur.
Therefore; … Any observer of this same domesticated cat that [name]points toward, at this location, date and time, shall also observe and agree to the correspondence of [name’s] description of the cat bearing fur of the color black. That’s a very simple version but that’s how it’s done. And it explains why contract law and propertarian prose sound similar. In this sense propertarianism’s methodology completes the transition of the natural law of tort and contract into the universal language (grammar, paradigm, vocabular and logic) and of social science.
…
2. Systems of Measurement
4. The Arguments – The spectrum of means of argument we’re familiar with 5. Grammar: Human Facilities, Grammar facility, Paradigms/Dimensions, Grammars. 5. The Grammars – and Deceits. (Which should give you an aha! moment) 6. The Deceits – How lies, deciets, frauds, and baitings into hazard are constructed
1. The Arguments
Table: Name Number Math Discipline
2. The Meaning of Grammar
THE HUMAN GRAMMATICAL CAPACITY
A GRAMMAR (reorganizing the grammatical capacity)
3. The Grammars. – and Deceits. (Which should give you an aha! moment)
DIMENSIONS
Human Perception
Observer, Name, Verb, Phrase, Phrases, Complete Sentence, Story. Observer, Point, Line, Plane, Object, Change(time), N-dimensional Change Observer, Numbers, Arith., Math/Alg, Geometry, Calculus, Algebraic Geometry
THE GRAMMARS
Now you probably know the difference between: { math: arithmetic, accounting, algebra, geometry, calculus, and algebraic geometry.}
And you might also know the difference between: { logic: … }
And you might also know the difference between: { physical science: physics, chemistry, biochemistry, and biology. }
And you might also know the difference between: { human science: psychology, sociology, politics and comparative civilizations (anthropology). }
And maybe you thought about the difference between: { Storytelling: an essay, a biography, history, a story, literature, and mythology. }
And maybe you thought about the difference between: { Logic: The human logical facility(ability), reason, logic, algorithm, procedure (recipe, protocol), calculation, computation }
And maybe you thought about the difference between: { Language: The human language facility(ability), human grammar(rules of continuous disambiguation), consent-approval/rejection-disapproval, name, name-modifier, verb(state-operator), verb (state-operator) modifier, phrase, sentence, story. }
You might not know that those differences also exist in the disciplines of truthful speech, and that unspoken discipline of lying. { Lying: Loading-Framing, Suggesting-Obscuring, Inflating-Conflating, fictionalisms(Pseudoscience->Magic, Ideal->Surreal, Supernatural-Occult), fiction-lies. }
You might or might not have identified a pattern between all those sets of disciplines
{ … }
But it’s unlikely that you thought about language as a system of measurement using the only system of measurement we have: { Senses(Nerves), Associations(Memory), Predictions(Imaginations), Valuations(emotions-predictions), Experiences, Comparisons, Choices, Actions(Motor) }
…
Psychology (Acquisitionism)
1. Acquisition: Acquisition of anything and everything. 2. Man: how the brain works and produces consciousness. 3. Distributions: Genders, Classes, Nations, Races
…
Sociology (Compatibilism)
1. Compatibilism, Cooperation and we are compatible thru markets 2. Micro Economics Time, Division of Labor, Organizations, through The Civilizational Distribution of Labor 3. Behavioral Economics: Metaphysics, Psychology, Sociology, Politics in Economic Terms.
…
Ethics (Cooperation)
1. Demonstrated Interests 2. Property-In-Toto (as a system of measurement of reciprocity.) 3. Reciprocity (instead of ‘morality’)
1. Demonstrated Interest (instead of ‘morality’)
( … )
2. Reciprocity (instead of ‘morality’)
Given the Choices of …. (i) Avoidance (ii) Cooperation and (iii) Conflict; And Given the Choices of ; …. (iv) The returns on Cooperation, …. (v) The returns on future Cooperation, …. (vi) The cost of provoking retaliation; Thou shalt not; …. by display, word, or deed, …. or …. absence of display, word or deed, …. impose costs upon the demonstrated Interests of others (property-in-toto), …. …. either directly or indirectly, where; …. those Interests were obtained by …. …. Settlement (homesteading, conversion, or first use) …. …. or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange in the absence of; …. such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others.
3. Property-In-Toto (Demonstrated Interest as a system of measurement of reciprocity.)
…
3. Epistemology
14. Metaphysics of Action: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Empiricism, Logicism, Rational Choice – Action. 14. Falsification vs Justification 15. The Epistemic Cycle: 14. Testimony: Testifiability
1. Metaphysics
Action: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Empiricism, Logicism, Rational Choice – Action.
2. Falsification vs Justification
(…)
3. The Epistemic Cycle
|Universal Epistemology| : Free Association**(survived minimum relations for cognizance) -> **Hypothesis** (survived rational falsification) -> **Theory** (survived empirical falsification) -> **Law** (survived applied falsification).
A FACT consists of a promise of a theory of an observation.
A THEORY consists of (i) A method of producing decidability in a context, and (ii) A story for searching for possibilities to apply the method of decidability.
A TRUTH Proposition consists of a promise of a theory of an observable, *Including the reciprocally subjectively testable*.
4. Testimony (instead of ‘truth’)
( … )
Epistemology (Knowledge)
|Testimonial Truth| : A promise that the correspondence between the experience invoked in the audience by the statement and something observable: open to senses(physical), emotions(Intuitionistic), or mind(intellectual) – satisfies the demand for decidability (correspondence), given the consequences and demand for restitution upon ignorance, error, bias, or deceit.
In practice, we use Fact for measurements or records of existentially observable reality, and objective Truth is a ‘fuzzier term’ that attempts to include statements about language (verbalisms) and to attribute to them the freedom from error, bias, and deceit of facts.
In other words, these terms are specific (fact) and loose (Objective) assertions of the absence of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. We use the via positiva assertion “True”, meaning rather than the via negativa assertion “free of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit” for brevity and habit, despite the fact that the term true can and only can mean ‘free of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit given the scope of externalities of the question (harm)”. Because that is all it is possible to know. The completion of Aristotle’s Project, by the solution to the Human Sciences, the way that the people in the 1800’s found the solution to the physical sciences, the way that the British enlightenment found the solution Supply and Demand vs SetsFalsification: Is it Possible For You To Make A Truth Claim?
Testimonial prose allows us to determine whether a person who is claiming something is reciprocal (truthful and right, ethical, moral, or good) can make the claim by demonstrating sufficient knowledge to make the claim, and has made the claim.
And that is the purpose of Testimony: to create A System of Measurement: A Value Neutral Language for the discussion of Reality (what we call metaphysics), physical sciences and the human sciences of psychology, sociology, economics, ethics, law politics, and group strategy.
A Value-Neutral Language for use as a fully commensurable, System of Measurement, for the non-physical sciences.
…
…
4. Result in:
We search for truthful statements. Because that is all we can know. A Demand for Ideal Truth, in the form of Truthful Speech, consists of a Demand for Decidability in Display, Word, and Deed, in Answer To a Given Question.
Decidability: A Demand For Decidability in Display Word and Deed:
a) In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the âsystemâ(ie: grammar).
b) In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary).
Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm).Given These Dimensions of Actionable Reality:
- Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable).
- Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable )
- Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable)
- Preference (dislike, nutral, beneficial, rational preference, reciprocal good)
- Population (Self, Others, All, Universal)
Therefore These dimensions of actionable reality yield the Series:
- Indistinguishable(perception) >
- Distinguishable(cognition) >
- Memorable(categorical-referrable) >
- Possible(material) >
- Actionable(physical) >
- Choosable(for use) >
- Preferable(Personal) >
- Good(interpersonal) >
- Decidable(political) >
- True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) >
- Analytic >
- Tautological.
Yields Demand for the Infallibility of Decidability in The Series:
- Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
- Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources.
- Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources.
- Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions.
- Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
- Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values.
- Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (âTrueâ)
- Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity
- Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.
Where Truth Consists in The Series
- Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.
- Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).
- Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)
- Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
- Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
Where the Criteria for Truthful Speech Is Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, in The Series:
- Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)
- Internally Consistent (Reasonable, Rational, Logical)
- Externally Consistent (Correspondent) (Empirical)
- Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)
- Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame)
- Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)
- And Fully Accounted within Stated Limits (Defense against cherry picking and inflation)
- And Warrantied;
… (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions; … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility; … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.As a Defense Against the Series (ignorance, error, bias deceit fraud and baiting into hazard):
- Ignorance and Willful Ignorance;
- Error and failure of Due Diligence;
- Bias and Wishful Thinking;
- And the many Deceits of:
… (a) Loading and Framing;
… (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda;
… (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism;
… (d) and outright Fabrications.
… (e) denial. - Baiting into Hazard
- Or any combination thereof – in particular the Abrahamic method.
In Defense or Advocacy Of:
1. Any transfer that is not: … (a) productive … (b) fully informed … (c) warrantied … (d) voluntary … (e) free of externality of the same criteriaIncluding but Not Limited to The Series of Those Categories Of Irreciprocity:
1. murder, 2. harm, damage, theft, 3. fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection, baiting into hazard 4. free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, 5. rent-seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism, 6. conversion(religion/pseudoscience), 7. displacement(immigration/overbreeding), 8. conquest (war).
…
Law – Via Negativa (Conflict)
20. Jurisprudence 21. Natural Law Strict construction of law and findings of the court 22. Constitutions in Strict Construction
…
Economics – Via Positiva (Production of goods, services, information, incentive)
10. Time
…
Politics – Production of Commons
19. Perfect Government, Through Ethnonationalism.
…
Then …. (…)
Before Propertarianism, very different disciplines.
Sciences....Soft Sciences...Philosophy...Law......Logic....Math Micro-Subatomic Macro-Astronomy Human-Physics Chemistry Bio-Chemistry Biology Cog Sci.....Psychology......Metaphysics. ............Language........Epistemology..........Grammars.Math ............................Ethics ............Sociology ........................................Law ........................................Economics ............Politics........Politics
After Propertarianism: They’re all Commensurable Grammars
Physics ... Micro-Subatomic ... Macro-Astronomy ... Human-Scale-Physics ... Chemistry Biology ... Bio-Chemistry ... Genetics ... Biology ... ... Life Forms ... ... Ecology (life systems) Sentience ... Cog Sci (Disambiguation) ... Acqusition (Psychology) ... Language (continuous recursive disambiguation) ... ... Metaphysics (Paradigms). ... ... Grammars ... Epistemology Cooperation ... Ethics ... Law ... Economics ... Politics ... Group Strategy
It’s easier to say how to do it.
- Collect an inventory:
Take the philosophical categories: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics;
Take the scientific method and what we learned about it in the last century
Take the human sciences: cog sci, psychology, sociology, economics, law, politics;
Take language.. including grammar etc…
- For each of those categories, disambiguate serialize and operationalize all terms across them.
For every concept in every discipline:
i) inventory the synonyms and antonyms. three is minimum, five better, seven or more best. ii) Order them into a series or spectrum either from more to less, less to more, or middle to less on one side and middle to more on the other. (there are more options but this is the simplest) iii) define them in operational language: as a series of actions. iv) if necessary modify the definitions so that they don’t overlap. v) Define this ‘series’ by whatever property or properties it shares, again, in operational language. Now, just as when, in arithmetic, every number has a unique name, every name is ordered on a line, and while two points make a line, three points test a line, and more points test the consistency of line even better. And while a number is the name of a position, and that’s all it is: the name of a position in an order – our names are …. In most cases, when say ‘moral’ and you hear ‘moral’, we might both associate that word with a vague notion of ‘good somehow’. Do you understand the difference between mathematics, physical science, the logics, programming, economics, legal testimony, ordinary speech, narration, fiction, the fictionalisms of pseudoscience, idealism, and theology? Do you understand the difference between Aristotelianism including Empiricism and Mathematics is vs say Platonism, Confucianism, Abrahamic Monotheism, Buddhism, Confucianism? That’s how to think about Testimony (propertarianism) The Completion of the scientific method; Producing a formal methodology, vocabulary, grammar of both truthful and moral (reciprocal) speech; restating all disciplines in that truthful and reciprocal speech. including producing a law of truthful and reciprocal speech. Producing a formal methodology, vocabulary, grammar of both truthful and moral (reciprocal) speech; restating all disciplines in that truthful and reciprocal speech. including producing a law of truthful and reciprocal speech. Testimony (Propertarianism) consists of … the use of procedural falsification; … in all dimensions of human perception; … resulting in the completion of the Scientific Method ; … its application to the totality of human knowledge; … resulting in a universally commensurable language of all thought; … its embodiment in the common law of tort; … its use in the construction of a template for constitutions; … and as a consequence creating a market for the prosecution of; … … superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit … and the eradication of: … … … superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit … from the commercial, financial, economic, political, and informational commons; … reversing the second Semitic attempt at the destruction of Western Civilization as it has destroyed every other by systematic undermining from within; … and restoring the quality of life we have expected from Western Civilization; … for those that live today, and those that will yet live in the future;” But what does that mean? It means a body of inviolable law, a constitution built from it, a law that encourages the prosecution of enemies rather than protecting them, and a system of government that restores and preserves that constitution and our way of life, and the uniqueness of Western Civilization for eternity. HISTORY European Mythology +European Evidentiary Customary Law + European Geometry > Socratic Argument > Aristotelian Reason and Naturalism > Roman Law and Administration > Anglo Empiricism and Realism > 20th Century Operationalism > Doolittle’s Testimonialism (we unfortunately call propertarianism).
-
“Propertarianism for Dummies”
(writing is in progress …)
What is Propertarianism?
The Most Frequent Complaint
The most frequent complaint from both readers and viewers is that they want to quickly understand this thing we call Propertarianism – and I’ve repeatedly failed to answer the question in a way that people who are not advanced degree holders in the philosophy of science, economics, law, or politics can understand. And everyone says ‘get to the point’. So if I get to the point I’ll say: It’s the completion of the scientific method – which almost certainly means nothing to most of you – and even if you think it does, I promise you that you don’t understand – because your understanding of the scientific method is almost certainly incomplete. I didn’t understand the scope of consequences that would result from completing it either. And that’s why Propertarianism is complicated: because the consequences of completing that method affect every discipline. And one of the other consequences is that it explains includes our present social and political conflict, and how to solve it. So the minimum reason you want to understand my work is to understand and perhaps solve the present conflict. And, hopefully, that’s enough to tempt you into following along with me. If it doesn’t then our current conflict is in even more desperate condition. So, It’s the completion of the scientific method, and its extension from the physical sciences to the human sciences – or what we call the soft sciences of language, psychology, sociology, politics, group strategy, including ethics, law, and economics. The result is a vocabulary and grammar – meaning a vocabulary and sentence structure – that serves as a system of measurement across all human disciplines. And you’ll discover pretty quickly how close that grammar is to mathematics – especially to geometry. And if you have experience with logic, in the sense of how we study the logics in philosophy, you might discover how it solves problems logics couldn’t. And if you have experience with programming you’ll understand just why that’s so. And if you also understood a bit of law and a bit of economics it will all fit together quickly. But for most of you, think about it as a programming language for describing the world, rather than for programming a computer to simulate an artificial world. Because really – that’s what it is. It’s a bridge between a programming language and ordinary language like logic is a bridge between mathematics and language. And just like mathematics, logic, formal logic, programming, P is a methodology. And just as math uses numbers, operators, and an equals sign to balance them in a well-formed grammar that lets you test them; and just as programming uses primitive types, complex types, variables, expressions ( phrases), classes, and functions(sentences), including operators (verbs), and programs (stories) that you, a compiler, or a computer can test, P (short for Propertarianism) uses a set of constant terms, variable terms, complete sentences, operational vocabulary (meaning actions), that you – or anyone – can test the same way a programmer or lawyer tests a program or contract today – except it’s far closer to the rigor of a program and far less easy to play games like you can in contract and law. So, more precisely, it’s the completion of the scientific method, producing a universally commensurable logic of all sciences and all disciplines ( metaphysics, language, psychology, sociology, politics, ethics, law, and economics). And with that logic, we can make statements about the formerly soft sciences just as concretely as we have about the formerly physical, or what we call hard sciences. Understanding Ourselves And we can use this methodto describe the west’s disproportionate success in both the ancient and modern worlds, at dragging mankind kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and his abuse by a nature all but hostile to human life. Understanding Our Enemy And with that knowledge, determine how and why the west decline in the present world. And with that knowledge, and our law, restore our civilization, and continue dragging mankind to godhood – kicking and screaming against us all the while.
Primary Innovation
( … ) Precision in truthful speech
Primary Problem Solved
( … ) lying, baiting into hazard… list of problems of the day
Primary Application
( … law)
Lex Europae: “The White Law”
( … ) non-religious law A Template Constitution for States in Western Civilization ( … ) A Constitution for the United States … and Canada, and Australia, and .. ( … ) And this complete’s Aristotle’s project. And solves our current crisis. So there. That’s Propertariaism (Testimony).
As an aside, I probably should call it Testimonialism, or the Science of Testimony, or The Law. Because it’s the science of truthful, reciprocal, operational speech. Because ‘Propertarianism’ confuses people. Propertarianism refers only to the use of Property as a system of measurement for testing reciprocity within Ethics and Law. And I started with ethics. So I called it Propertarianism. And now, I am sort of stuck with the name “Propertarianism” at the moment, unless I publish a book under something else. Propertarianism is the science of testimony: truthful speech.
Why Does It Matter?
So Then What? The Problem of Our Age. You probably understand that we are in a period of social and political conflict. It’s hard not to know that. You might also know of this thing called the replication crisis, in psychology, sociology, political science, and even the relatively recent failures of economics. And you may or may not know that while the last century has been full of technical innovations, that in general, it appears that certain parts of mathematics, physics, and economics are ‘stuck’ – and that anthropology, psychology, sociology, politics, law, and economics, are being overturned by genetics, cognitive science, and archeology, as consisting of largely of pseudoscience – meaning they’re wrong, lies, harmful, or worse. We don’t think of it this way, but Socrates Plato, Aristotle, and the other great greeks you may or may not have heard of; the British scientific enlightenment thinkers; also wrote their ideas during and after a great time of conflict or failure. And it’s during these periods of stress we are most likely to force ourselves to seek solutions to problems we may have thought we understood. Because, now, imagine not that long ago, a world without computers. Then, imagine how people thought about the world before Einstein, or before Darwin. Well, what did people think like before Aristotle – who invented what became a science. And there are a lot of people in between them. ( … )
…
…
What Does It Consist Of?
Now, let’s take it a step farther. Let’s say you want to learn this methodology. Most people who have learned it, say there are a few basic ideas that provide most of it. At that point, you’d start understanding what we’re talking about. Now, let’s take it a step farther – Grammar (logics); What if you want to use it? You will want to know:
1. The Arguments – The spectrum of means of argument we’re familiar with 2. Grammar: Human Facilities, Grammar facility, Paradigms/Dimensions, Grammars. 3. The Grammars – and Deceits. (Which should give you an aha! moment) 4. The Deceits – How lies, deciets, frauds, and baitings into hazard are constructedNow, let’s take it a step farther – Grammar (logics); What if you want to use it? You will want to know:
5. Disambiguation: Deflation, Operationalization, Serialization – and the Glossary 6. Operational Prose …. Complete Sentences, …. Operational vocabulary(actions), and in …. ePrime – without the verb to-be. (is, are, was, were) 7. Promissory Prose … 8. Full Accounting Prose … – Using Property-in-toto, accounting, financial, economic terms. 9. Parenthetic Prose …. – Parallels between paradigms 10. Enumerative Prose … – Enumerating Series 11. Algorithmic Prose … – Programmatic construction of arguments. At that point, you’d start ‘talking funny’ like the rest of us. Next – Psychology:
15. Acquisition: Acquisition of anything and everything. 16. Man: how the brain works and produces consciousness. 17. Distributions: Genders, Classes, Nations, RacesNext – Sociology (Compatibilism)
18. Compatibilism, Cooperation and we are compatible thru marketsNext – Ethics – Via Positiva (Cooperation)
1. Demonstrated Interests 2. Property-In-Toto (as a system of measurement of reciprocity.) 1. Reciprocity (instead of ‘morality’)Next – Epistemology:
14. Metaphysics of Action: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Empiricism, Logicism, Rational Choice – Action. 14. Falsification vs Justification 15. The Epistemic Cycle: 14. Testimony: TestifiabilityNext – Law – Via Negativa (Conflict)
20. Jurisprudence 21. Natural Law Strict construction of law and findings of the court 22. Constitutions in Strict ConstructionNext – Economics – Via Positiva (Production of goods, services, information, incentive)
19. Time, Division of Labor, 20. Money Accounting. 19. Micro Economics , Organizations, through The Civilizational Distribution of Labor 20. Behavioral Economics: Metaphysics, Psychology, Sociology, Politics in Economic Terms.Next – Politics – Production of Commons
19. Perfect Government, Through Ethnonationalism.Next – Group Competitive Strategy:
1. The Western Group Evolutionary Strategy: The reason for the disproportionate success of West vs the Rest.
Sovereignty Markets in everything Tripartism Trifunctionalism
2. The Semitic Group Anti-Evolutionary Strategy: The history of the Conflict between Civilizations, and in particular western eugenic, productive truthful, and Semitic dysgenic, parasitic and deceitful.
3. Other Cultures‘ Group Strategies.
4. Incompatibilism: … Differences between groupsAnd so;
A Constitution, in P-Law, staring our strategy, restores both our via-Positiva markets for productive cooperation and our via-negativa court-market for the rapid suppression of irreciprocity and fraud.
Including the suppression of (… public speech … )
Thereby preventing the second Semitic destruction of civilization.The Result.
1. A System of Thought that completes the Aristotelian, Anglo Empirical, American Legal, and European Scientific Program.
2. The Completion of the Scientific Method, and with it, the Empirical Revolution. By Completing the Empirical Revolution, We complete the Social Sciences. By Completing the Social Sciences we Produce The Logic Of Social Sciences
3. The Logic of the Social Sciences is a A Universal, Value-Neutral, Formal, Operational, Logic and Method, of Metaphysics, Psychology, Ethics, Morality, Politics, Group Evolutionary Strategy
4. The result is our ability to construct The Natural Law, in Ratio-Scientific Form, its Methodology, and its Application
- We use that natural natural law, to construct a constitution of natural law, and Perfect Government, Institutions, Commons, Norms, and Conditions under Natural Law,
5. This natural law, and perfect government is The Group Evolutionary Strategy of the European Peoples
6. And we can use this law and that government to suppress the second Semitic destruction of the advanced world.
7. …. ( recreating the market for the suppression … ) … ugh
( … )
…
…
How Do You Do It?
Turning Ordinary Language Into A System of Measurement
…
1. Units of Measure
1. Disambiguation: Deflation, Operationalization, Serialization – and the Glossary
1. Disambiguation: Deflation, Operationalization, Serialization,
For example, in mathematics, we take a series of words, put them in order – meaning in a position – on in a line, and call that a number line. And when we do that, we can use the number line as a system of measurement. And it’s very hard to confuse by accident or pretend so that we deceive ourselves of others, that two positions on that line are the same.
So in Testimony do the same thing. We take an idea. We collect a number of words that are synonyms and antonyms for that idea, then put them in some kind of order on a line, then define each of them as actions, then define each on differently from the others, and we have created a system of measurement that’s very precise. And so it is very hard to confuse (or conflate) by accident or to confuse (or conflate) for the purpose of deception of ourselves or of others Disambiguation by Serialization
So let’s use ‘moral‘ because that’s a word that we all use but conflate (confuse) often.
Good, Moral, Ethical, Right, Amoral, Wrong, Unethical, Immoral, Evil,
Which we usually write with arrows so that we can help the reader understand the direction of the idea, and we put bars around the starting point.
Good < Moral < Ethical < Right < |Amoral| > Wrong > Unethical > Immoral, > Evil
Disambiguation by Redefinition
( … ) moral and ethical overlap
Disambiguation and Deflation by Operationalization. ( … )
And then define them as actions:
Good: When you do something that benefits others, at neutral or some cost to you. Moral: When you do something where you could cheat others indirectly and anonymously but you don’t. Ethical: when you do something where you could cheat the other person directly but you don’t. Right: when you do something that could affect others but you ensure it doesn’t. Amoral: when you do something that doesn’t affect others because it can’t. Wrong: when you do something that affects others but don’t you ensure and it does. Unethical: when you do something where you can cheat the other person directly and you do. Immoral: when you do something where you could cheat others indirectly and anonymously and you don’t. Evil: when you do something that harms others, just to harm them even if it costs you.
Where the “constant-relation” between the terms is the spectrum of means of imposing – or avoiding imposing – the consequences of your actions upon others.
So now we have a unit of measurement of the morality of human actions. So whether we want to speak truthfully, or determine whether someone else is speaking truthfully, we have a simple means of testing their speech.
When we use these terms we won’t confuse them, and everyone else writing in Testimony can use them the same way. And, you might think that this would be a lot of work and be confusing, but it turns out that there aren’t very many of them, after a while, you’ll memorize all of them, and this is one of the most common series we use.
We call this technique “Disambiguation, Serialization, and Operationalization” because we de-conflate terms, by writing them in operational language, meaning definitions that start with ‘when you do something that causes something that you experience as.’ And then we sort them by trial and error into order, and adjust their definitions until they don’t overlap (conflate), so that they are disambiguated.
Universal Commensurability
Writing in actions – operational language – causes us to write from the same point of view, so that no matter what we are discussing, no matter what subject we discuss by reducing all of our terms to actions in operational language, they will all be measurable by the same standard: actions. This technique creates “commensurability” regardless of the subject matter.
Not so that we must speak in that system of measurement – it would be burdensome, but so like mathematics in the determinism (constant relations) of the physical science, we would have a language of measurement for all sciences, including the human sciences.
…
2. Measurements (Commensurability)
2. Operational Prose …. ePrime – without the verb to-be. (is, are, was, were) …. Operational Vocabulary (actions), and in …. Promissory Prose … …. Complete Sentences … …. Full Accounting Prose – Using Property-in-toto, accounting, financial, economic terms. …. Parenthetic Prose – Parallels between paradigms …. Enumerative Prose – Enumerating Series …. Algorithmic Prose – Programmatic construction of arguments.
1. Operational Prose
Operational Prose requires we use the following techniques to limit pretense of means of existence, pretense of knowledge, pretense of unaccountability, and possibility ambiguity whether by elimination (leaving out), inflation (adding), conflation(mixing) instead of just stating a description. …. 1. ePrime – eliminate the verb to-be. (am is, are, was, were) …. 2. Operational vocabulary(actions), …. 3. Promissory Form …. 4. Complete Sentences, …. 5. Parenthetical Prose …. 6. Eumeratitve Prose …. 7. Algorithmic Prose This set of examples provides a basic understanding of the series of techniques.
- From Ordinary Language Question: What is that?
… Ordinary to Eprime and Operational Answer: It’s a cat -> I see a cat. - From Ordinary Language Question: What does it look like?
… Ordinary to ePrime and Operational to Promissory: The cat is black -> I see a black cat -> I promise I see a black cat. - From Ordinary to Operational to Promissory to Fully Accounted:
… The cat is black -> I see a black cat -> I promise I see a black cat -> I promise I see a black cat, and if you look at the same cat you will agree you also see a black cat.
We changed from it’s (it is) to I see: from proclamation to testimony. This is an operational transformation. Or in philosophical terms, from an ‘ideal’ to a ‘real’. In Our english language, we use the grammatical order of subject verb object, and out of habit we create the context using the subject. Jon threw the ball (to Jane). Some other languages, like latin, use say, Subject, Object Verb: Jon (to jane) the ball threw. And still others use The ball, Jon (to Jane) threw, or The ball, (to Jane), Jon threw. Each of these orders requires slightly different habit and changing this habit is work – like learning a foreign language. Now, langauges differ in the amount of inference required. So we call some languages high context if they requires a lot of inference, and low context if they don’t require much inference. English is a low context high precision language, with a greedy vocabulary that loves new words, that places more burden on the speaker and on the listener. In exchange for this complexity we find english is very good for legal, technical, and scientific prose – and good for poetic prose dependent on vocabulary, even if it’s not terribly good for emotional or aesthetic prose dependent upon inference and association, and mutliple meanings. We changed I see a black cat from implied or inferred, to testimony and added implied warranty.
We changed from inferred consequences to stated consequences. This produces a sentence that serves as a complete transaction with nothing else implied or assumed. We have eliminated most possible ambiguity, unaccountability, and pretense of knowlege and understanding. From here on we’re further disambiguating and preventing further errores of inference suggestion or deceit.
- From Fully accounted to Parenthetic:
… I promise(testify) I see a black cat (domesticated cat), and if you look(observe with your vision) at the same cat (the one I currently point toward) you will agree(consent) you also see a black(fur) cat(domesticated).
The purpose of parentheticals is to use multiple paradigms (networks of related concepts) to eliminate ambiguity while preserving the consistency of the paradigm, and as such the readability of the underlying sentence. So we have now further reduced
- From Fully accounted and Parenthetic to Enumerative:
… I promise that I see a black (fur) domesticated cat, and if you glance, look, observe, stare at the same cat that I currently point toward with your eyes, vision, attention, that you will agree, consent, that you also see a black( fur) domesticated cat.
The purpose of enumerative, like parenthetical, is to prevent the reader from engaging in mis-interpreteation by making it difficult or impossible to misinterpret your meaning, as is easy when we use a single term. In P-law we use a small number of repetitious enumerations to prevent errors and deceits of inference. The most common examples are:
|True| False < Truth Candidate(True) < Undecidable < Non-Logical < Nonsensical (Where falsehood(certainty) is always prescedent over truth (Contingency) This is ternary logic of science, vs the binary logic, or truth table logic you are familiar with in the logic of inference – which is how logic is taught: set inference rather than scientific and contingent. ALmost everything in P requires at least three states Miniumum, medium, maximum in order to falsify the series. “It takes at least Three points test a line”. In most definitions we will use five and some as many as twelve or more.
|Truth| Tautological < Analytic Truth < Truthful (True) < Honest < Impulsive (unconsidered)
|Falsehoods| ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion (loading, framing) obscurantism, fitionalism (pseudoscience, sophism, occult), fiction (deceit), and denial.
|Epistemology|Observation > Free Association > Hypothesis > Theory > Surviving Theory > “Law”
|Testimonial Due Diligence| categorial, logical, operational, empirical, rational, reciprocal, limited, fully accounted, coherent and warrantied within the limits of restitutability.
|Demonstrated Interests| Self, Mate, Children, Kin, Kith, Capital Property, Several Property, Shared (Shareholder Property), Common(Citizen) Property, institutional property (norms, laws, institutions), intergenerational property (traditions).
|Harms| Murder, Harm, Damage, Theft, Fraud, Baiting into hazard, free riding, privatizing commons, socializing losses, corruption, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, war, conquest.
|Reciprocal| Productive, Fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of cost supon the demonstrated interests of others by externality.
|Moral| Evil < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good
- From Fully accounted, Parenthetic, Enumerated to Algorithmic:
Given; … The Definitions; … … Commitment { Unsure, Confident, Sure, Promise, Warranty} … … Look { |Duration|: glance, look, observe, stare } … … Color(Reflected Color) {|Visible Spectrum|: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet} … … … Where; … … … … The sum of Color(Reflected Color) {White} … … … … The Absence of Color(Reflected Color)} {Black} … … Fur { |Volume|: Fuzz, Hair, Fur, Coat, Mane} … … Domesticated Cat: Those “Felids” of Subclass “Domesticated”, including African, Black Footed, Chinese Mountain, Domestic, European Wildcat, Jungle and Sand.
Whereas; … [name] promises, without warranty, that he currently [location, date and time] observes, and indicates by pointing with his hand, a domesticated cat, with black fur.
Therefore; … Any observer of this same domesticated cat that [name]points toward, at this location, date and time, shall also observe and agree to the correspondence of [name’s] description of the cat bearing fur of the color black. That’s a very simple version but that’s how it’s done. And it explains why contract law and propertarian prose sound similar. In this sense propertarianism’s methodology completes the transition of the natural law of tort and contract into the universal language (grammar, paradigm, vocabular and logic) and of social science.
…
2. Systems of Measurement
4. The Arguments – The spectrum of means of argument we’re familiar with 5. Grammar: Human Facilities, Grammar facility, Paradigms/Dimensions, Grammars. 5. The Grammars – and Deceits. (Which should give you an aha! moment) 6. The Deceits – How lies, deciets, frauds, and baitings into hazard are constructed
1. The Arguments
Table: Name Number Math Discipline
2. The Meaning of Grammar
THE HUMAN GRAMMATICAL CAPACITY
A GRAMMAR (reorganizing the grammatical capacity)
3. The Grammars. – and Deceits. (Which should give you an aha! moment)
DIMENSIONS
Human Perception
Observer, Name, Verb, Phrase, Phrases, Complete Sentence, Story. Observer, Point, Line, Plane, Object, Change(time), N-dimensional Change Observer, Numbers, Arith., Math/Alg, Geometry, Calculus, Algebraic Geometry
THE GRAMMARS
Now you probably know the difference between: { math: arithmetic, accounting, algebra, geometry, calculus, and algebraic geometry.}
And you might also know the difference between: { logic: … }
And you might also know the difference between: { physical science: physics, chemistry, biochemistry, and biology. }
And you might also know the difference between: { human science: psychology, sociology, politics and comparative civilizations (anthropology). }
And maybe you thought about the difference between: { Storytelling: an essay, a biography, history, a story, literature, and mythology. }
And maybe you thought about the difference between: { Logic: The human logical facility(ability), reason, logic, algorithm, procedure (recipe, protocol), calculation, computation }
And maybe you thought about the difference between: { Language: The human language facility(ability), human grammar(rules of continuous disambiguation), consent-approval/rejection-disapproval, name, name-modifier, verb(state-operator), verb (state-operator) modifier, phrase, sentence, story. }
You might not know that those differences also exist in the disciplines of truthful speech, and that unspoken discipline of lying. { Lying: Loading-Framing, Suggesting-Obscuring, Inflating-Conflating, fictionalisms(Pseudoscience->Magic, Ideal->Surreal, Supernatural-Occult), fiction-lies. }
You might or might not have identified a pattern between all those sets of disciplines
{ … }
But it’s unlikely that you thought about language as a system of measurement using the only system of measurement we have: { Senses(Nerves), Associations(Memory), Predictions(Imaginations), Valuations(emotions-predictions), Experiences, Comparisons, Choices, Actions(Motor) }
…
Psychology (Acquisitionism)
1. Acquisition: Acquisition of anything and everything. 2. Man: how the brain works and produces consciousness. 3. Distributions: Genders, Classes, Nations, Races
…
Sociology (Compatibilism)
1. Compatibilism, Cooperation and we are compatible thru markets 2. Micro Economics Time, Division of Labor, Organizations, through The Civilizational Distribution of Labor 3. Behavioral Economics: Metaphysics, Psychology, Sociology, Politics in Economic Terms.
…
Ethics (Cooperation)
1. Demonstrated Interests 2. Property-In-Toto (as a system of measurement of reciprocity.) 3. Reciprocity (instead of ‘morality’)
1. Demonstrated Interest (instead of ‘morality’)
( … )
2. Reciprocity (instead of ‘morality’)
Given the Choices of …. (i) Avoidance (ii) Cooperation and (iii) Conflict; And Given the Choices of ; …. (iv) The returns on Cooperation, …. (v) The returns on future Cooperation, …. (vi) The cost of provoking retaliation; Thou shalt not; …. by display, word, or deed, …. or …. absence of display, word or deed, …. impose costs upon the demonstrated Interests of others (property-in-toto), …. …. either directly or indirectly, where; …. those Interests were obtained by …. …. Settlement (homesteading, conversion, or first use) …. …. or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange in the absence of; …. such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others.
3. Property-In-Toto (Demonstrated Interest as a system of measurement of reciprocity.)
…
3. Epistemology
14. Metaphysics of Action: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Empiricism, Logicism, Rational Choice – Action. 14. Falsification vs Justification 15. The Epistemic Cycle: 14. Testimony: Testifiability
1. Metaphysics
Action: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Empiricism, Logicism, Rational Choice – Action.
2. Falsification vs Justification
(…)
3. The Epistemic Cycle
|Universal Epistemology| : Free Association**(survived minimum relations for cognizance) -> **Hypothesis** (survived rational falsification) -> **Theory** (survived empirical falsification) -> **Law** (survived applied falsification).
A FACT consists of a promise of a theory of an observation.
A THEORY consists of (i) A method of producing decidability in a context, and (ii) A story for searching for possibilities to apply the method of decidability.
A TRUTH Proposition consists of a promise of a theory of an observable, *Including the reciprocally subjectively testable*.
4. Testimony (instead of ‘truth’)
( … )
Epistemology (Knowledge)
|Testimonial Truth| : A promise that the correspondence between the experience invoked in the audience by the statement and something observable: open to senses(physical), emotions(Intuitionistic), or mind(intellectual) – satisfies the demand for decidability (correspondence), given the consequences and demand for restitution upon ignorance, error, bias, or deceit.
In practice, we use Fact for measurements or records of existentially observable reality, and objective Truth is a ‘fuzzier term’ that attempts to include statements about language (verbalisms) and to attribute to them the freedom from error, bias, and deceit of facts.
In other words, these terms are specific (fact) and loose (Objective) assertions of the absence of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. We use the via positiva assertion “True”, meaning rather than the via negativa assertion “free of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit” for brevity and habit, despite the fact that the term true can and only can mean ‘free of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit given the scope of externalities of the question (harm)”. Because that is all it is possible to know. The completion of Aristotle’s Project, by the solution to the Human Sciences, the way that the people in the 1800’s found the solution to the physical sciences, the way that the British enlightenment found the solution Supply and Demand vs SetsFalsification: Is it Possible For You To Make A Truth Claim?
Testimonial prose allows us to determine whether a person who is claiming something is reciprocal (truthful and right, ethical, moral, or good) can make the claim by demonstrating sufficient knowledge to make the claim, and has made the claim.
And that is the purpose of Testimony: to create A System of Measurement: A Value Neutral Language for the discussion of Reality (what we call metaphysics), physical sciences and the human sciences of psychology, sociology, economics, ethics, law politics, and group strategy.
A Value-Neutral Language for use as a fully commensurable, System of Measurement, for the non-physical sciences.
…
…
4. Result in:
We search for truthful statements. Because that is all we can know. A Demand for Ideal Truth, in the form of Truthful Speech, consists of a Demand for Decidability in Display, Word, and Deed, in Answer To a Given Question.
Decidability: A Demand For Decidability in Display Word and Deed:
a) In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the âsystemâ(ie: grammar).
b) In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary).
Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm).Given These Dimensions of Actionable Reality:
- Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable).
- Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable )
- Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable)
- Preference (dislike, nutral, beneficial, rational preference, reciprocal good)
- Population (Self, Others, All, Universal)
Therefore These dimensions of actionable reality yield the Series:
- Indistinguishable(perception) >
- Distinguishable(cognition) >
- Memorable(categorical-referrable) >
- Possible(material) >
- Actionable(physical) >
- Choosable(for use) >
- Preferable(Personal) >
- Good(interpersonal) >
- Decidable(political) >
- True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) >
- Analytic >
- Tautological.
Yields Demand for the Infallibility of Decidability in The Series:
- Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
- Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources.
- Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources.
- Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions.
- Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
- Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values.
- Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (âTrueâ)
- Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity
- Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.
Where Truth Consists in The Series
- Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.
- Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).
- Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)
- Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
- Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
Where the Criteria for Truthful Speech Is Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, in The Series:
- Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)
- Internally Consistent (Reasonable, Rational, Logical)
- Externally Consistent (Correspondent) (Empirical)
- Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)
- Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame)
- Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)
- And Fully Accounted within Stated Limits (Defense against cherry picking and inflation)
- And Warrantied;
… (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions; … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility; … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.As a Defense Against the Series (ignorance, error, bias deceit fraud and baiting into hazard):
- Ignorance and Willful Ignorance;
- Error and failure of Due Diligence;
- Bias and Wishful Thinking;
- And the many Deceits of:
… (a) Loading and Framing;
… (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda;
… (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism;
… (d) and outright Fabrications.
… (e) denial. - Baiting into Hazard
- Or any combination thereof – in particular the Abrahamic method.
In Defense or Advocacy Of:
1. Any transfer that is not: … (a) productive … (b) fully informed … (c) warrantied … (d) voluntary … (e) free of externality of the same criteriaIncluding but Not Limited to The Series of Those Categories Of Irreciprocity:
1. murder, 2. harm, damage, theft, 3. fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection, baiting into hazard 4. free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, 5. rent-seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism, 6. conversion(religion/pseudoscience), 7. displacement(immigration/overbreeding), 8. conquest (war).
…
Law – Via Negativa (Conflict)
20. Jurisprudence 21. Natural Law Strict construction of law and findings of the court 22. Constitutions in Strict Construction
…
Economics – Via Positiva (Production of goods, services, information, incentive)
10. Time
…
Politics – Production of Commons
19. Perfect Government, Through Ethnonationalism.
…
Then …. (…)
Before Propertarianism, very different disciplines.
Sciences....Soft Sciences...Philosophy...Law......Logic....Math Micro-Subatomic Macro-Astronomy Human-Physics Chemistry Bio-Chemistry Biology Cog Sci.....Psychology......Metaphysics. ............Language........Epistemology..........Grammars.Math ............................Ethics ............Sociology ........................................Law ........................................Economics ............Politics........Politics
After Propertarianism: They’re all Commensurable Grammars
Physics ... Micro-Subatomic ... Macro-Astronomy ... Human-Scale-Physics ... Chemistry Biology ... Bio-Chemistry ... Genetics ... Biology ... ... Life Forms ... ... Ecology (life systems) Sentience ... Cog Sci (Disambiguation) ... Acqusition (Psychology) ... Language (continuous recursive disambiguation) ... ... Metaphysics (Paradigms). ... ... Grammars ... Epistemology Cooperation ... Ethics ... Law ... Economics ... Politics ... Group Strategy
It’s easier to say how to do it.
- Collect an inventory:
Take the philosophical categories: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics;
Take the scientific method and what we learned about it in the last century
Take the human sciences: cog sci, psychology, sociology, economics, law, politics;
Take language.. including grammar etc…
- For each of those categories, disambiguate serialize and operationalize all terms across them.
For every concept in every discipline:
i) inventory the synonyms and antonyms. three is minimum, five better, seven or more best. ii) Order them into a series or spectrum either from more to less, less to more, or middle to less on one side and middle to more on the other. (there are more options but this is the simplest) iii) define them in operational language: as a series of actions. iv) if necessary modify the definitions so that they don’t overlap. v) Define this ‘series’ by whatever property or properties it shares, again, in operational language. Now, just as when, in arithmetic, every number has a unique name, every name is ordered on a line, and while two points make a line, three points test a line, and more points test the consistency of line even better. And while a number is the name of a position, and that’s all it is: the name of a position in an order – our names are …. In most cases, when say ‘moral’ and you hear ‘moral’, we might both associate that word with a vague notion of ‘good somehow’. Do you understand the difference between mathematics, physical science, the logics, programming, economics, legal testimony, ordinary speech, narration, fiction, the fictionalisms of pseudoscience, idealism, and theology? Do you understand the difference between Aristotelianism including Empiricism and Mathematics is vs say Platonism, Confucianism, Abrahamic Monotheism, Buddhism, Confucianism? That’s how to think about Testimony (propertarianism) The Completion of the scientific method; Producing a formal methodology, vocabulary, grammar of both truthful and moral (reciprocal) speech; restating all disciplines in that truthful and reciprocal speech. including producing a law of truthful and reciprocal speech. Producing a formal methodology, vocabulary, grammar of both truthful and moral (reciprocal) speech; restating all disciplines in that truthful and reciprocal speech. including producing a law of truthful and reciprocal speech. Testimony (Propertarianism) consists of … the use of procedural falsification; … in all dimensions of human perception; … resulting in the completion of the Scientific Method ; … its application to the totality of human knowledge; … resulting in a universally commensurable language of all thought; … its embodiment in the common law of tort; … its use in the construction of a template for constitutions; … and as a consequence creating a market for the prosecution of; … … superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit … and the eradication of: … … … superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit … from the commercial, financial, economic, political, and informational commons; … reversing the second Semitic attempt at the destruction of Western Civilization as it has destroyed every other by systematic undermining from within; … and restoring the quality of life we have expected from Western Civilization; … for those that live today, and those that will yet live in the future;” But what does that mean? It means a body of inviolable law, a constitution built from it, a law that encourages the prosecution of enemies rather than protecting them, and a system of government that restores and preserves that constitution and our way of life, and the uniqueness of Western Civilization for eternity. HISTORY European Mythology +European Evidentiary Customary Law + European Geometry > Socratic Argument > Aristotelian Reason and Naturalism > Roman Law and Administration > Anglo Empiricism and Realism > 20th Century Operationalism > Doolittle’s Testimonialism (we unfortunately call propertarianism).
-
Why Kristalnacht?
Why Kristalnacht is only the most recent? And another is coming? UNDERMINING: Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism, Political Correctness to generate conflict by spreading by false-promise of equality by Gossip, Shaming, Rallying: Not Revolutionary but DEVOLUTIONARY. You cannot specialize in UNDERMINING the Meritocratic Eugenic Market between classes by fomenting class conflict by baiting with false-promise of World Monopoly Equality as Cure for Darwin-Newton, while profiting from Usury, Gossip, Fraud w/o paying for it. Pay up. You can fool most people in our High Trust Society with False Claims of Plausible Deniability because of voluntary exchange, but you cannot fool them once the consequences of your specialization in the generation of undermining them for profit has been exposed. For every crime, there is eventually a prosecution, restitution, punishment, and punishment severe enough to prevent future recidivism. The problem is, why do you keep engaging in recidivism: The undermining of peoples and civilizations for status and profit?
-
Why Kristalnacht?
Why Kristalnacht is only the most recent? And another is coming? UNDERMINING: Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism, Political Correctness to generate conflict by spreading by false-promise of equality by Gossip, Shaming, Rallying: Not Revolutionary but DEVOLUTIONARY. You cannot specialize in UNDERMINING the Meritocratic Eugenic Market between classes by fomenting class conflict by baiting with false-promise of World Monopoly Equality as Cure for Darwin-Newton, while profiting from Usury, Gossip, Fraud w/o paying for it. Pay up. You can fool most people in our High Trust Society with False Claims of Plausible Deniability because of voluntary exchange, but you cannot fool them once the consequences of your specialization in the generation of undermining them for profit has been exposed. For every crime, there is eventually a prosecution, restitution, punishment, and punishment severe enough to prevent future recidivism. The problem is, why do you keep engaging in recidivism: The undermining of peoples and civilizations for status and profit?
-
A Letter to Africans on “Whiteness” and Choice
[T]here is nothing wrong with Africa or “Africanism”, or White people or “Whiteness”. As in all things the problem is one of facing uncomfortable truths.
—“Still on WHITENESS: Whiteness questions African epistemology simply because there’s no room in their normative framework to process this! I bet there’s a non-African you know who is an “expert” on African matters. …. [So,] Understand “whiteness” devoid of race. Whiteness is an ideology of domination. It’s diabolical. It’s anti- spiritual. Its anti-human. The more need to have it understood, deconstructed and demystified.”— Mudacci @FreePeterBiarM, Africa
You’re lying – but largely to yourself and your people. The science has been suppressed since the second world war, but it’s finally emerged out of genetic research: (a) Europeans are genetically, informationally, institutionally, legally, economically, normatively, culturally, civilizational far superior to every other people. (b) Europeans dragged the rest out of ignorance and poverty. (c) And european failed to complete the project of evolving other peoples out of ignorance and poverty and into the rule of law during the colonial period, because of their civil war (world wars one and two). The “Dirty Secret of Western Civilization” is that because we evolved an entrepreneurial military aristocracy first, rule of law the only possible means of rule between entrepreneurial warriors, then markets for them to profit from by taxation, and of “government of conquered peoples” last, we produced “markets in everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polities”; including manorialism (you may not marry until you can provide for a family by earning access to land to rent from the aristocracy; you may not bear children until you marry); harsh winters; frequent starvations; taxation; the use of taxation for middle and upper class reproduction, and aggressive hanging (culling) of up to 1% of the population per year, until by the late middle ages, Europe was genetically middle class, instead, as are poorer peoples, genetically underclass. So european aristocracy “dragged everyone up” into the middle class, by (a) suppression of reproduction of the underclasses (b) redistribution from the underclasses to the middle classes – what they considered a necessity of survival given the economics of farming on the Eurasian plain. European Christianity creates commercial ethics, preparing people for prosperity. Islam does the opposite, and expands the underclasses, and prohibits intellectual, scientific, technological, legal, and economic classes, resulting in the destruction, consumption, and eradication of every great civilization of the ancient world: African (caucasian), Egyptian, Levantine, Anatolian, Caucuses, Persian, Turkic (Kazakhs,Turks), and Old Indian (Indus Valley), with only Spain and the Balkans reversing the Islamic catastrophe -although Spain still pays a price for the occupation, and the Balkans, unless forcibly de-Islamized will never recover. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH AFRICA There is nothing wrong with Christian Africa (non-muslim) that six generations of the one-child policy, and insulation from the corruption of the west, Judaism, and Islam will not solve. There is nothing wrong with African peoples. The underclass is only too large for the upper. The historical problem for Africa is the distance from trade and information because of the desert and the combination of climate and diseases without winters to give good people time to rest from nature and each other, and force them to work together to survive. This is the only problem. WE KNOW BETTER NOW THAN IN THE PAST White people and Muslim people are responsible for interfering with the development of southern-west Africa into an empire, the same way we were responsible for interfering in Mezzo-American empires. Had Whites not interfered, has the Muslims not interfered, then one of the empires would have evolved (we think) and power could have consolidated sufficiently despite the productivity of the land, to produce rule, bureaucracy, and institutions that would lead west Africa first and the rest of Africa later, into the long evolution into a hierarchical, political, and economically sustainable society. But Muslims considered thought even less of Africans – given that Muslim Slavers had been selling uncountable numbers of Africans for over a thousand years. And Whites considered such people ‘barbarians’, because we did not know better, Now we know better.All peoples can rise if they reduce their underclasses so that (technical terms) “A power distribution of law, a Pareto distribution of resources, a Nash equilibrium of rewards while limiting the underclasses so that surpluses can be directed to commons. That sentence is the “Physical Law of Man” and there are no exceptions. So, Africans, like Indians who also blame Whites (who failed to complete the rise of colonies) but not Muslims (who made all colonies decline), or Nature (for climate and geography), Must Know Better also. Suppression of expression, discipline in mind, emotion, body, reproduction (sex), and soul; truthful speech no matter the cost; defense of life, property, contract, and commons no matter the cost; heroism, excellence, and beauty regardless of cost; extension of Christian love are not ‘white’, any more than physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, cognitive science, economics, and natural law of reciprocity are ‘white’. They are laws of the physical universe and the natural laws of mankind – neither of which we can disobey without suffering. It is true that only White people can create truth (science) – because of an accident of our history – but the truth is just a technology like any other. And ALL peoples can adopt the technology of truth – while retaining local festivals, food, dress, heroes. But the price for truth is not always one all people can bear. WHITENESS IS JUST TECHNOLOGY – YOU CAN USE IT OR NOT “Whiteness” is “These are the thoughts, displays, words, and deeds you must demonstrate if you wish to possess equal qualities of life.” In other words: You must demonstrate middle-class majority behavior if you wish these things. Otherwise (empirically and logically) you cannot have these things. AND… because you will not pay those costs in thought, display, words, and deeds we cannot coexist with you in the same neighborhoods, jobs, markets, polities, nations, or civilizations until you do. AND… even then, our genetic (species) differences are such that for MANY of us, you (less developed peoples) invoke our disgust response. So even if tolerable, you are not desirable, and as undesirable we would prefer to be free of contact with you. Fences make good neighbors. Integration has NEVER been successful ANYWHERE, never will be – because it cannot be. All that results from European integration with less developed peoples is genetic devolution by regression to the mean – and the civilizational decline from doing so. And this is the PURPOSE of european man’s ancient enemy: to undermine and reduce Europe to middle eastern dysgenia, superstition, ignorance, incompetence, and … obedience. So stop being a useful idiot for our shared enemies. YOU MUST CHOOSE – FOR NOW, FOR THE NEAR FUTURE, AND FOR ETERNITY We do not want your love. We do not want your respect. We do not want to rule you. We want to be PROTECTED from bearing the costs of your lack of development unless we are compensated for developing you (as we were by colonialism). And your immigration is just an invasion that forces us to pay the costs – not you. It is reverse-colonialization, that causes devolution. Now, if instead of LEARNING, ADAPTING, EVOLVING, and limiting the growth of your unproductive underclasses, and paying those costs yourselves you want to LIE, to hide your genetic, informational, cultural, institutional, civilizational, underdevelopment (inferiority) you harm only yourselves. Or, you give the cancers of mankind: Judaism to undermine, Islam to consume, devolve, and destroy by the rapid growth of underclasses, you will continue to suffer. You cannot argue against this unless your argument is ‘yes, but we are the underclasses and we need this way of life to be happy, and we prefer a majority underclass people even if it means poverty”. Then this is acceptable as long as you remain among your own, on your continent – a continent we will not touch now that “We Know Better“. But if you are, like weak people of low mind, lower character, will prefer to ‘claim victim’ rather than work, or not accept the price for majority underclass life. And if you make this choice to steal from your past and future, then this is your choice – it’s a bad one, but it is a choice we need not deny you. BUT YOU MUST PAY FOR THE CHOICE YOU MAKE – YOU MAY NOT MAKE US PAY IT But you may not bring this choice into our lands, among our people, among our civilization, and cause us to pay the price of your inability to change your inferiority. Darwin showed us the true face of the gods. There is only one universe, and a limited amount of time, and in that universe only one supreme god, and his name evolution: and transcendence of the animal man into omniscience and omnipotence, and if you fail him, you and your people fail for eternity. You may not also cause us to fail with you. If so we have no choice but to end you. –Curt Doolittle
-
A Letter to Africans on “Whiteness” and Choice
[T]here is nothing wrong with Africa or “Africanism”, or White people or “Whiteness”. As in all things the problem is one of facing uncomfortable truths.
—“Still on WHITENESS: Whiteness questions African epistemology simply because there’s no room in their normative framework to process this! I bet there’s a non-African you know who is an “expert” on African matters. …. [So,] Understand “whiteness” devoid of race. Whiteness is an ideology of domination. It’s diabolical. It’s anti- spiritual. Its anti-human. The more need to have it understood, deconstructed and demystified.”— Mudacci @FreePeterBiarM, Africa
You’re lying – but largely to yourself and your people. The science has been suppressed since the second world war, but it’s finally emerged out of genetic research: (a) Europeans are genetically, informationally, institutionally, legally, economically, normatively, culturally, civilizational far superior to every other people. (b) Europeans dragged the rest out of ignorance and poverty. (c) And european failed to complete the project of evolving other peoples out of ignorance and poverty and into the rule of law during the colonial period, because of their civil war (world wars one and two). The “Dirty Secret of Western Civilization” is that because we evolved an entrepreneurial military aristocracy first, rule of law the only possible means of rule between entrepreneurial warriors, then markets for them to profit from by taxation, and of “government of conquered peoples” last, we produced “markets in everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polities”; including manorialism (you may not marry until you can provide for a family by earning access to land to rent from the aristocracy; you may not bear children until you marry); harsh winters; frequent starvations; taxation; the use of taxation for middle and upper class reproduction, and aggressive hanging (culling) of up to 1% of the population per year, until by the late middle ages, Europe was genetically middle class, instead, as are poorer peoples, genetically underclass. So european aristocracy “dragged everyone up” into the middle class, by (a) suppression of reproduction of the underclasses (b) redistribution from the underclasses to the middle classes – what they considered a necessity of survival given the economics of farming on the Eurasian plain. European Christianity creates commercial ethics, preparing people for prosperity. Islam does the opposite, and expands the underclasses, and prohibits intellectual, scientific, technological, legal, and economic classes, resulting in the destruction, consumption, and eradication of every great civilization of the ancient world: African (caucasian), Egyptian, Levantine, Anatolian, Caucuses, Persian, Turkic (Kazakhs,Turks), and Old Indian (Indus Valley), with only Spain and the Balkans reversing the Islamic catastrophe -although Spain still pays a price for the occupation, and the Balkans, unless forcibly de-Islamized will never recover. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH AFRICA There is nothing wrong with Christian Africa (non-muslim) that six generations of the one-child policy, and insulation from the corruption of the west, Judaism, and Islam will not solve. There is nothing wrong with African peoples. The underclass is only too large for the upper. The historical problem for Africa is the distance from trade and information because of the desert and the combination of climate and diseases without winters to give good people time to rest from nature and each other, and force them to work together to survive. This is the only problem. WE KNOW BETTER NOW THAN IN THE PAST White people and Muslim people are responsible for interfering with the development of southern-west Africa into an empire, the same way we were responsible for interfering in Mezzo-American empires. Had Whites not interfered, has the Muslims not interfered, then one of the empires would have evolved (we think) and power could have consolidated sufficiently despite the productivity of the land, to produce rule, bureaucracy, and institutions that would lead west Africa first and the rest of Africa later, into the long evolution into a hierarchical, political, and economically sustainable society. But Muslims considered thought even less of Africans – given that Muslim Slavers had been selling uncountable numbers of Africans for over a thousand years. And Whites considered such people ‘barbarians’, because we did not know better, Now we know better.All peoples can rise if they reduce their underclasses so that (technical terms) “A power distribution of law, a Pareto distribution of resources, a Nash equilibrium of rewards while limiting the underclasses so that surpluses can be directed to commons. That sentence is the “Physical Law of Man” and there are no exceptions. So, Africans, like Indians who also blame Whites (who failed to complete the rise of colonies) but not Muslims (who made all colonies decline), or Nature (for climate and geography), Must Know Better also. Suppression of expression, discipline in mind, emotion, body, reproduction (sex), and soul; truthful speech no matter the cost; defense of life, property, contract, and commons no matter the cost; heroism, excellence, and beauty regardless of cost; extension of Christian love are not ‘white’, any more than physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, cognitive science, economics, and natural law of reciprocity are ‘white’. They are laws of the physical universe and the natural laws of mankind – neither of which we can disobey without suffering. It is true that only White people can create truth (science) – because of an accident of our history – but the truth is just a technology like any other. And ALL peoples can adopt the technology of truth – while retaining local festivals, food, dress, heroes. But the price for truth is not always one all people can bear. WHITENESS IS JUST TECHNOLOGY – YOU CAN USE IT OR NOT “Whiteness” is “These are the thoughts, displays, words, and deeds you must demonstrate if you wish to possess equal qualities of life.” In other words: You must demonstrate middle-class majority behavior if you wish these things. Otherwise (empirically and logically) you cannot have these things. AND… because you will not pay those costs in thought, display, words, and deeds we cannot coexist with you in the same neighborhoods, jobs, markets, polities, nations, or civilizations until you do. AND… even then, our genetic (species) differences are such that for MANY of us, you (less developed peoples) invoke our disgust response. So even if tolerable, you are not desirable, and as undesirable we would prefer to be free of contact with you. Fences make good neighbors. Integration has NEVER been successful ANYWHERE, never will be – because it cannot be. All that results from European integration with less developed peoples is genetic devolution by regression to the mean – and the civilizational decline from doing so. And this is the PURPOSE of european man’s ancient enemy: to undermine and reduce Europe to middle eastern dysgenia, superstition, ignorance, incompetence, and … obedience. So stop being a useful idiot for our shared enemies. YOU MUST CHOOSE – FOR NOW, FOR THE NEAR FUTURE, AND FOR ETERNITY We do not want your love. We do not want your respect. We do not want to rule you. We want to be PROTECTED from bearing the costs of your lack of development unless we are compensated for developing you (as we were by colonialism). And your immigration is just an invasion that forces us to pay the costs – not you. It is reverse-colonialization, that causes devolution. Now, if instead of LEARNING, ADAPTING, EVOLVING, and limiting the growth of your unproductive underclasses, and paying those costs yourselves you want to LIE, to hide your genetic, informational, cultural, institutional, civilizational, underdevelopment (inferiority) you harm only yourselves. Or, you give the cancers of mankind: Judaism to undermine, Islam to consume, devolve, and destroy by the rapid growth of underclasses, you will continue to suffer. You cannot argue against this unless your argument is ‘yes, but we are the underclasses and we need this way of life to be happy, and we prefer a majority underclass people even if it means poverty”. Then this is acceptable as long as you remain among your own, on your continent – a continent we will not touch now that “We Know Better“. But if you are, like weak people of low mind, lower character, will prefer to ‘claim victim’ rather than work, or not accept the price for majority underclass life. And if you make this choice to steal from your past and future, then this is your choice – it’s a bad one, but it is a choice we need not deny you. BUT YOU MUST PAY FOR THE CHOICE YOU MAKE – YOU MAY NOT MAKE US PAY IT But you may not bring this choice into our lands, among our people, among our civilization, and cause us to pay the price of your inability to change your inferiority. Darwin showed us the true face of the gods. There is only one universe, and a limited amount of time, and in that universe only one supreme god, and his name evolution: and transcendence of the animal man into omniscience and omnipotence, and if you fail him, you and your people fail for eternity. You may not also cause us to fail with you. If so we have no choice but to end you. –Curt Doolittle
-
PART 3 – The Method
Part 999 – The Method
The Methodology:
Via-Negativa: In The Negative
( … )
Disambiguation by Enumeration, Serialization and Operationalization.
Serialization provides empirical evidence of the spectrum in a given language, even if some terms must be disambiguated. We operationalize the constant relations expressed in the SERIES, not the elements. So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous). Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement. The question is only the precision of the measures. P is the most precise n-dimensional language we have. COUNSEL: PHILOSOPHY VS SOPHISM Given any term, always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. I prefer 8 to 12 whenever I can get them, and english because it has so vast a vocabulary of working, governing, intellectual, logical, and scientific origins is extremely useful for creating constellations of constant relations whether in one series, or a competition between series we call ‘supply and demand curves’. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Example: Good < Moral < Ethical < Amoral > Unethical > Immoral > Evil constant relations: 1… change in capital whether positive, neutral, or negative 2… degree of intent, accidental, self interest, other interest 3… degree of informational distance between actors and victims (ethical interpersonal, moral inter social, evil both.) Most sophistry in philosophy consists of: 1… using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; 2… using the verb to be (is are was were, be, being) rather than the means of existence; 3… conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; 4… and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between pseudoscience, theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more. ORIGINS Mathematics has only one constant relation (position) consisting of a single ratio, which provides scale independence, and cost independence which produces fully deterministic and testable descriptions. Yet philosophers since the time of the greeks have be trying to imitate it’s utility to no avail, and instead, have created textual and verbal interpretation under the premise the triviality of one-dimensional positional logic can provide the same utility in deduction and prediction (induction) as the constant relations of mathematics. Animism > Readings (Divination) > Astrology > Scriptural interpretation > Textual interpretation > legal interpretation > numerology > postmodern linguistic divination all constitute the same: finding what is not there as an appeal to an non-existent authority. The only peer to mathematics in language is serialization: lines that test the constant relations between points (terms), and supply-demand curves that test the relationship between lines ( propositions.). Dimensions Perceivable By Humans
- Logic = Constant relations of sense perceptions.
- Identity =(NAMES)
- Sets = (LANGUAGE)
- Science = (OBSERVATIONS)
- Operational = (ACTIONS)
– Internally consistent, not inconsistent, sets of properties – Constant Relations between collections of properties. – Internally consistent (constant, consistent relations), Relations, , .) – Constant relations between collections of references – Empirical, externally correspondent, correlative – Constant Relations between collections of references and reality – Operationally consistent or operationally possible Causation – Constant Relations between collections of references, actions, and reality in time.
- Rational (reasonable) = (RATIONAL INCENTIVE)
(choice) - Reciprocity = (RECIPROCAL INCENTIVES)
(cooperation)
This is the full set of dimensions of causality that humans can perceive and compare in order to decide. Each depends upon the one before it.
The Grammars
LANGUAGE IS CALCULATING WITH INCREASING DIMENSIONSWe tend to think of mathematics as calculation (it is) but language is also a form of calculation, and we have just (or I have just) begun to understand that language is a means of calculating (transforming inputs and outputs) in a market (competition) for signaling and influence, that produces continuous improvements in knowledge IF not impeded by error (supernatural, magical, ideal) all of which prohibit precision and increase error counter to the natural, scientific, and operational descriptions.
The Grammars of Truth and Deceit
Grammar (rules) or A Grammar (book) consists of:
- Rules of continuous recursive disambiguation (speech transactions)
- governing the composition(organization) of words, phases, and clauses,
- traditionally divided into:
- Phonology (systems sounds),
- Morphology (structure of words, parts of words, relations between words, and intonation, stress, influence of context),
- Syntax ( the structure – especially meaning word order – of sentences),
- Punctuation using Symbols to separate and clarify the meaning of a text, or, to speak with the Annunciation, Inflection, Tone, Volume, and Pause to separate and clarify the meaning of speech.
- Semantics (meaning) and
- Pragmatics (context),
- often complemented by linguistics:
- Phonetics (the human production of sounds),
“Grammar” In Testimony
However, “Grammar” in Testimony, also includes the transformation of different Speech Paradigms into a set of Operational Logics. Formal Operational Logic vs Formal Set Logics So we refer to Formal Logic or Formal Set Logic from the interpretation of algebra, text, and scripture (and tea leaves, astrology, and entrails), versus Formal Operational Logic of a sequence of objectively testable human operations, either physical (body), rational(incentive), or logical (cognitive). That Formal Operational Logic includes:
- The Scope (Dimensions) of Pragmatics.
- The Scope (Dimensions) of Semantics.
- The scope of Syntax (demands requirements for a sentence – meaning transaction) within the scope of those Pragmatics and Semantics
- The Scope (set) of the Operators possible within those Pragmatic and Semantic limitations.
- The Necessary Function of that set of Pragmatics, Semantics, Syntax, and Operators as:
- disambiguation (eliminate ambiguity to falsify and warranty)
–vs–
ambiguation ( increase opportunity for meaning to assist in communication )
- disambiguation (eliminate ambiguity to falsify and warranty)
- The relationship between:
- The Necessary Function in the given Pragmatics, Semantics and Operators APPLIED,
–vs–
The Pragmatics, Semantics and Operators sufficient for due diligence against error, bias, and deceit that those subject DEMANDS.
- The Necessary Function in the given Pragmatics, Semantics and Operators APPLIED,
So a Traditional Grammar is a ‘Weak’ or “Loose” logic of speech across all Paradigms of Speech, and a Propertarian Grammar is a ‘Strong’ logic of speech for each of those Paradigms of Speech. We provide a Periodic Table of Speech (Poster really) listing all of the Grammars.
NOTE: Find our Periodic Table of Speech Here <— (Add Link)
… Deceits … … … Fictionalism … … … …. Pseudoscience -> Magic… … … …. Idealism-> Surrealism, and… … … …. Supernaturalism->Occult
METHODS OF ARGUMENT
1) Expressive (emotional): a type of argument where a person expresses a positive or negative opinion based upon his emotional response to the subject. 2) Sentimental (biological): a type of argument that relies upon one of the five (or six) human sentiments, and their artifacts as captured in human traditions, morals, or other unarticulated, but nevertheless consistently and universally demonstrated preferences and behaviors. 3) Moral (normative) : a type of argument that relies upon a set of assumedly normative rules of whose origin is either (a)socially contractual, (b)biologically natural, (c) economically necessary, or even (d)divine. (Also: RELIGIOUS) 4) Reasonable (informal) 5) Rational (logical and formal) – Most philosophical arguments rely upon contradiction and internal consistency rather than external correspondence. 10) Analogical (HISTORICAL) A spectrum of analogical arguments – from Historical to Anecdotal — that rely upon a relationship between a historical sequence of events, and a present sequence events, in order to suggest that the current events will come to the same conclusion as did the past events, or can be used to invalidate or validate assumptions about the current period. 6) Scientific (directly empirical): The use of a set of measurements that produce data that can be used to prove or disprove an hypothesis, but which are subject to human cognitive biases and preferences. ie: ‘Bottom up analysis” 7) Economic: (indirectly empirical): The use of a set of measures consisting of uncontrolled variables, for the purpose of circumventing the problems of direct human inquiry into human preferences, by the process of capturing demonstrated preferences, as expressed by human exchanges, usually in the form of money. ie: “Top Down Analysis”. The weakness of economic arguments is caused by the elimination of properties and causes that are necessary for the process of aggregation. 8) Ratio-Empirical (Comprehensive: Using all above): A rationally articulated argument that makes use of economic, scientific, historical, normative and sentimental information to comprehensively prove that a position is defensible under all objections. NOTE: See “Styles of Argument” below. 9) Testimonial: (OPERATIONAL) categorically consistent, Internally consistent (logical), Externally Correspondent (Instrumentally observable), Operationally articulated (Possible), Fully Accounted, Moral (free of imposed costs). 10 – Idea – Surreal 11 – Pseudoscicnce-magic 12 – Fictional-Parable 13 – Theology-occult 14 – Lying
Part 999 – Testimony: Truth and Lying
“Truth is the hard problem of both philosophy and science. And Religion is the hard problem of social science. Both were hare to solve largely because we so desperately want to find what isn’t there, and so habituated that preoccupation, that we did not know how to look at the questions without it presuming it was there.”
Truth, Truthful SpeechDemand for Infallibility in Decidability enough for? Where Given These Dimensions:
- Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable).
- Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable)
- Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable)
- Population (Self, Others, All, Universal)
Yields the Series:
- Indistinguishable(perception) >
- Distinguishable(cognition) >
- Memorable(categorical-referrable) >
- Possible(material) >
- Actionable(physical) >
- Choosable(for use) >
- Preferable(Personal) >
- Good(interpersonal) >
- Decidable(political) >
- True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) >
- Analytically True >
- Tautologically True.
Where Truthful Speech that Satisfies the Demand for Increasing Infallibility of Decidability Yields the Series:
- Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
- Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources.
- Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources.
- Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions.
- Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
- Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension, and values.
- Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (âTrueâ)
- Logical: Decidable out of physical (Theoretical) or logical (Axiomatic) or rational (Bounded Rationality) necessity
- Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) the market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.
Where Truth Consists in The Series of Definitions
- Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.
- Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).
- Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)
- Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
- Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
- Demonstrated Preference:
(…)
Where the Criteria for Truthful Speech Is Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, in The Series:
- Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)
- Internally Consistent (Logical)
- Externally Correspondent (Empirical)
- Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)
- Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame)
- Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)
- With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry-picking and inflation)
- Warrantied
… (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;
… (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;
… (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.
As a Defense Against the Series:
- Ignorance and Willful Ignorance;
- Error and failure of Due Diligence;
- Bias and Wishful Thinking;
- And the many Deceits of:
… (a) Loading and Framing;
… (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading(direct) and Propaganda (environmental);
… (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism;
… (d) and outright Fabrications (Deceits)
In Defense or Advocacy Of:
- Any transfer that is not:
… (a) productive
… (b) fully informed
… (c) warrantied
… (d) voluntary
… (e) free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by any externality.
Including but Not Limited to The Series of Those Categories Of:
- murder,
- harm, damage, theft,
- fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,
- free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons,
- rent-seeking, corruption, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism,
- conversion(Religion, Ideology, Sophism,Pseudoscience),
- displacement(immigration/overbreeding),
- conquest (war).
Lying and Deceit
And Whereas People lie:
- To advance an interest
- To obtain an interest
- To preserve an interest
And where the Spectrum of Lying consists of:
- Intent to deceive.
- Failure of due diligence against lying
- Carrier of and distributor of lies
- Carrier of tradition and culture of lies.
- A genetic predisposition to lie.
Where
- White Lie: Preservation or construction of an emotional (status, relationship) debt or credit.
- Grey Lie: Protecting interests from liability due to accidental harm to others’ interests.
- Black Lie: Gaining an interest by intentional destruction or transfer of another’s interests.
- Evil Lie: Causing harm to others’ interest for the purpose of causing harm rather than gaining interest for one’s self.
Where; Lying consists in the Failure of due diligence against:
- ignorance, error, bias, and wishful thinking,
And making use of:
- Loading, Framing, Obscuring, Suggestion;
- Ridiculing, Shaming, Moralizing, Psychologizing, Gossiping, Propagandizing Reputation Destruction;
- Sophisms (Overloading), (Appealing to cognitive biases);
- Straw Manning via Negativa, and Heaping of Undue Praise via Positiva;
- Fictionalisms of Idealism, Innumeracy, Pseudoscience, Supernaturalism;
- Fictions (Deceit)
- Denialism
- Truthful Speech
Instead of:
Free and Truthful Speech
Where Free and Truthful Speech consists in (a) what you can testify to in court. And (b) What you can defend or claim as reciprocal in court. What do you have the knowledge to testify to? We hold people accountable for their testimony, for their commercial speech, but not their political, academic, and scientific speech (matters of the commons). So when engaged in Public Speech TO the Public (not talking with friends or family where signaling is a necessary contribution to the internal trust economy ), especially for personal, commercial, political gain you can’t make false or ir-reciprocal statements in matters of the commons (economics, politics, law, science). This law will criminalize political correctness and the pseudosciences the way we have criminalized related kinds of commercial, medical, and legal speech. Politicians, academics, public intellectuals, reporters – the entire gossip profession, would have to warranty the truthfulness (scientific), operationality, and reciprocity of their speech, and could not advocate for ir-reciprocity (theft) using falsehoods (fraud), especially as a group (conspiracy). Only Trades. The reason is that the government can only apply violence. The only non-violent means of cooperation is TRADE. Now, what does this mean in practice? It means that there are three common-sense tests:
- Are you making a truth claim (“is”), advocating for political coercion (“good”), expressing an opinion (should), or venting in frustration(nonsense)?
. - Are you advocating for reciprocity (exchange), an investment (returns), a restitution (proportionality), or a coercion (redistribution), a corruption (rents and rent-seeking), a taking (theft), or a harm (war, injury, or death)?
. - Are you speaking in operational language – a sequence of actions stating the HOW and accounting for the COSTS to all involved – demonstrating you possess the knowledge to make the claim, or using GSRRM (shaming, psychologizing moralizing), Sophism, Idealism, Pseudoscience, or Supernaturalism to obscure the fact that you either lack the knowledge and understanding you claim or are engaging in deceit?
In scientific terms that means is what you’re saying Logical, Empirical, Possible, Rational, Reciprocal, Fully Accounted, and Transparent? (Operational language provides both possibility and transparency). In legal terms it’s just a tiny bit more precise, and not really necessary for ordinary people to understand: Have you performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit by testes of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity in rational choice, fully accounted for cause and consequence in within stated limits, and reversibility and capacity for restitution if you’re wrong? It didn’t matter when all we could do is write letters and conduct arguments, or when books were costly, but the industrialization of information by mass media has made it possible to conduct organized lying on a massive scale not possible since the invention of the monotheistic religions, distributed by Roman roads. Marxism was pseudoscience sophism and wishful thinking. Feminism is an experiment in irreciprocity, and postmodernism is simply lying on a civilizational scale. it is as disastrous to modernity as Christianity and Islam were to antiquity. In this sense, we have freedom of speech to speak the truth. We do not have freedom of speech to engage in criminal activity under the cover of freedom of speech. And that is exactly how the Enemy operates as organized crime: Proportionality without Reciprocity, under the industrialization of lying, using the false promise of the possibility of equality. Equality or life after death. No difference. False promise after death. False promise prior to death. False promise either way.
PHILOSOPHY IS CLOSED / HIERARCHY
The demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete. Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice. The top of the pyramid is not philosophy but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice. In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability. The Continuation of The European Civilizational Arc The Western Indo Europeans were fighting submission to nature in every aspect of the social order: nature(technology), family, polity, and religion. They invented the Agency of Man. The application of mastery of metallurgy, the horse, the wheel and war to all aspects of human experience. Aristotle was fighting ignorance in all the disciplines – including religion, custom, and politics. He invented Empiricism: the transfer of testimony in a court of peers to all aspects of human experience. Galileo was fighting supernaturalism and denial in the physical sciences: physics, chemistry, biology. He was the principle advocate of Science: The restoration of testimony using mathematics in court a court of peers to all aspects of life. Darwin was fighting supernaturalism in the biological sciences. He was the principle advocate of realism and naturalism in biology: the restoration of naturalism in biological and social sciences. We are fighting pseudoscience and sophism and denial in the human sciences: language, psychology, sociology, politics, and group strategy: The completion of social science: The application of testimony using the measurement of reciprocity.
-
PART 3 – The Method
Part 999 – The Method
The Methodology:
Via-Negativa: In The Negative
( … )
Disambiguation by Enumeration, Serialization and Operationalization.
Serialization provides empirical evidence of the spectrum in a given language, even if some terms must be disambiguated. We operationalize the constant relations expressed in the SERIES, not the elements. So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous). Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement. The question is only the precision of the measures. P is the most precise n-dimensional language we have. COUNSEL: PHILOSOPHY VS SOPHISM Given any term, always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. I prefer 8 to 12 whenever I can get them, and english because it has so vast a vocabulary of working, governing, intellectual, logical, and scientific origins is extremely useful for creating constellations of constant relations whether in one series, or a competition between series we call ‘supply and demand curves’. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Example: Good < Moral < Ethical < Amoral > Unethical > Immoral > Evil constant relations: 1… change in capital whether positive, neutral, or negative 2… degree of intent, accidental, self interest, other interest 3… degree of informational distance between actors and victims (ethical interpersonal, moral inter social, evil both.) Most sophistry in philosophy consists of: 1… using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; 2… using the verb to be (is are was were, be, being) rather than the means of existence; 3… conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; 4… and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between pseudoscience, theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more. ORIGINS Mathematics has only one constant relation (position) consisting of a single ratio, which provides scale independence, and cost independence which produces fully deterministic and testable descriptions. Yet philosophers since the time of the greeks have be trying to imitate it’s utility to no avail, and instead, have created textual and verbal interpretation under the premise the triviality of one-dimensional positional logic can provide the same utility in deduction and prediction (induction) as the constant relations of mathematics. Animism > Readings (Divination) > Astrology > Scriptural interpretation > Textual interpretation > legal interpretation > numerology > postmodern linguistic divination all constitute the same: finding what is not there as an appeal to an non-existent authority. The only peer to mathematics in language is serialization: lines that test the constant relations between points (terms), and supply-demand curves that test the relationship between lines ( propositions.). Dimensions Perceivable By Humans
- Logic = Constant relations of sense perceptions.
- Identity =(NAMES)
- Sets = (LANGUAGE)
- Science = (OBSERVATIONS)
- Operational = (ACTIONS)
– Internally consistent, not inconsistent, sets of properties – Constant Relations between collections of properties. – Internally consistent (constant, consistent relations), Relations, , .) – Constant relations between collections of references – Empirical, externally correspondent, correlative – Constant Relations between collections of references and reality – Operationally consistent or operationally possible Causation – Constant Relations between collections of references, actions, and reality in time.
- Rational (reasonable) = (RATIONAL INCENTIVE)
(choice) - Reciprocity = (RECIPROCAL INCENTIVES)
(cooperation)
This is the full set of dimensions of causality that humans can perceive and compare in order to decide. Each depends upon the one before it.
The Grammars
LANGUAGE IS CALCULATING WITH INCREASING DIMENSIONSWe tend to think of mathematics as calculation (it is) but language is also a form of calculation, and we have just (or I have just) begun to understand that language is a means of calculating (transforming inputs and outputs) in a market (competition) for signaling and influence, that produces continuous improvements in knowledge IF not impeded by error (supernatural, magical, ideal) all of which prohibit precision and increase error counter to the natural, scientific, and operational descriptions.
The Grammars of Truth and Deceit
Grammar (rules) or A Grammar (book) consists of:
- Rules of continuous recursive disambiguation (speech transactions)
- governing the composition(organization) of words, phases, and clauses,
- traditionally divided into:
- Phonology (systems sounds),
- Morphology (structure of words, parts of words, relations between words, and intonation, stress, influence of context),
- Syntax ( the structure – especially meaning word order – of sentences),
- Punctuation using Symbols to separate and clarify the meaning of a text, or, to speak with the Annunciation, Inflection, Tone, Volume, and Pause to separate and clarify the meaning of speech.
- Semantics (meaning) and
- Pragmatics (context),
- often complemented by linguistics:
- Phonetics (the human production of sounds),
“Grammar” In Testimony
However, “Grammar” in Testimony, also includes the transformation of different Speech Paradigms into a set of Operational Logics. Formal Operational Logic vs Formal Set Logics So we refer to Formal Logic or Formal Set Logic from the interpretation of algebra, text, and scripture (and tea leaves, astrology, and entrails), versus Formal Operational Logic of a sequence of objectively testable human operations, either physical (body), rational(incentive), or logical (cognitive). That Formal Operational Logic includes:
- The Scope (Dimensions) of Pragmatics.
- The Scope (Dimensions) of Semantics.
- The scope of Syntax (demands requirements for a sentence – meaning transaction) within the scope of those Pragmatics and Semantics
- The Scope (set) of the Operators possible within those Pragmatic and Semantic limitations.
- The Necessary Function of that set of Pragmatics, Semantics, Syntax, and Operators as:
- disambiguation (eliminate ambiguity to falsify and warranty)
–vs–
ambiguation ( increase opportunity for meaning to assist in communication )
- disambiguation (eliminate ambiguity to falsify and warranty)
- The relationship between:
- The Necessary Function in the given Pragmatics, Semantics and Operators APPLIED,
–vs–
The Pragmatics, Semantics and Operators sufficient for due diligence against error, bias, and deceit that those subject DEMANDS.
- The Necessary Function in the given Pragmatics, Semantics and Operators APPLIED,
So a Traditional Grammar is a ‘Weak’ or “Loose” logic of speech across all Paradigms of Speech, and a Propertarian Grammar is a ‘Strong’ logic of speech for each of those Paradigms of Speech. We provide a Periodic Table of Speech (Poster really) listing all of the Grammars.
NOTE: Find our Periodic Table of Speech Here <— (Add Link)
… Deceits … … … Fictionalism … … … …. Pseudoscience -> Magic… … … …. Idealism-> Surrealism, and… … … …. Supernaturalism->Occult
METHODS OF ARGUMENT
1) Expressive (emotional): a type of argument where a person expresses a positive or negative opinion based upon his emotional response to the subject. 2) Sentimental (biological): a type of argument that relies upon one of the five (or six) human sentiments, and their artifacts as captured in human traditions, morals, or other unarticulated, but nevertheless consistently and universally demonstrated preferences and behaviors. 3) Moral (normative) : a type of argument that relies upon a set of assumedly normative rules of whose origin is either (a)socially contractual, (b)biologically natural, (c) economically necessary, or even (d)divine. (Also: RELIGIOUS) 4) Reasonable (informal) 5) Rational (logical and formal) – Most philosophical arguments rely upon contradiction and internal consistency rather than external correspondence. 10) Analogical (HISTORICAL) A spectrum of analogical arguments – from Historical to Anecdotal — that rely upon a relationship between a historical sequence of events, and a present sequence events, in order to suggest that the current events will come to the same conclusion as did the past events, or can be used to invalidate or validate assumptions about the current period. 6) Scientific (directly empirical): The use of a set of measurements that produce data that can be used to prove or disprove an hypothesis, but which are subject to human cognitive biases and preferences. ie: ‘Bottom up analysis” 7) Economic: (indirectly empirical): The use of a set of measures consisting of uncontrolled variables, for the purpose of circumventing the problems of direct human inquiry into human preferences, by the process of capturing demonstrated preferences, as expressed by human exchanges, usually in the form of money. ie: “Top Down Analysis”. The weakness of economic arguments is caused by the elimination of properties and causes that are necessary for the process of aggregation. 8) Ratio-Empirical (Comprehensive: Using all above): A rationally articulated argument that makes use of economic, scientific, historical, normative and sentimental information to comprehensively prove that a position is defensible under all objections. NOTE: See “Styles of Argument” below. 9) Testimonial: (OPERATIONAL) categorically consistent, Internally consistent (logical), Externally Correspondent (Instrumentally observable), Operationally articulated (Possible), Fully Accounted, Moral (free of imposed costs). 10 – Idea – Surreal 11 – Pseudoscicnce-magic 12 – Fictional-Parable 13 – Theology-occult 14 – Lying
Part 999 – Testimony: Truth and Lying
“Truth is the hard problem of both philosophy and science. And Religion is the hard problem of social science. Both were hare to solve largely because we so desperately want to find what isn’t there, and so habituated that preoccupation, that we did not know how to look at the questions without it presuming it was there.”
Truth, Truthful SpeechDemand for Infallibility in Decidability enough for? Where Given These Dimensions:
- Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable).
- Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable)
- Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable)
- Population (Self, Others, All, Universal)
Yields the Series:
- Indistinguishable(perception) >
- Distinguishable(cognition) >
- Memorable(categorical-referrable) >
- Possible(material) >
- Actionable(physical) >
- Choosable(for use) >
- Preferable(Personal) >
- Good(interpersonal) >
- Decidable(political) >
- True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) >
- Analytically True >
- Tautologically True.
Where Truthful Speech that Satisfies the Demand for Increasing Infallibility of Decidability Yields the Series:
- Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
- Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources.
- Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources.
- Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions.
- Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
- Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension, and values.
- Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (âTrueâ)
- Logical: Decidable out of physical (Theoretical) or logical (Axiomatic) or rational (Bounded Rationality) necessity
- Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) the market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.
Where Truth Consists in The Series of Definitions
- Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.
- Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).
- Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)
- Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
- Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
- Demonstrated Preference:
(…)
Where the Criteria for Truthful Speech Is Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, in The Series:
- Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)
- Internally Consistent (Logical)
- Externally Correspondent (Empirical)
- Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)
- Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame)
- Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)
- With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry-picking and inflation)
- Warrantied
… (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;
… (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;
… (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.
As a Defense Against the Series:
- Ignorance and Willful Ignorance;
- Error and failure of Due Diligence;
- Bias and Wishful Thinking;
- And the many Deceits of:
… (a) Loading and Framing;
… (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading(direct) and Propaganda (environmental);
… (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism;
… (d) and outright Fabrications (Deceits)
In Defense or Advocacy Of:
- Any transfer that is not:
… (a) productive
… (b) fully informed
… (c) warrantied
… (d) voluntary
… (e) free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by any externality.
Including but Not Limited to The Series of Those Categories Of:
- murder,
- harm, damage, theft,
- fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,
- free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons,
- rent-seeking, corruption, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism,
- conversion(Religion, Ideology, Sophism,Pseudoscience),
- displacement(immigration/overbreeding),
- conquest (war).
Lying and Deceit
And Whereas People lie:
- To advance an interest
- To obtain an interest
- To preserve an interest
And where the Spectrum of Lying consists of:
- Intent to deceive.
- Failure of due diligence against lying
- Carrier of and distributor of lies
- Carrier of tradition and culture of lies.
- A genetic predisposition to lie.
Where
- White Lie: Preservation or construction of an emotional (status, relationship) debt or credit.
- Grey Lie: Protecting interests from liability due to accidental harm to others’ interests.
- Black Lie: Gaining an interest by intentional destruction or transfer of another’s interests.
- Evil Lie: Causing harm to others’ interest for the purpose of causing harm rather than gaining interest for one’s self.
Where; Lying consists in the Failure of due diligence against:
- ignorance, error, bias, and wishful thinking,
And making use of:
- Loading, Framing, Obscuring, Suggestion;
- Ridiculing, Shaming, Moralizing, Psychologizing, Gossiping, Propagandizing Reputation Destruction;
- Sophisms (Overloading), (Appealing to cognitive biases);
- Straw Manning via Negativa, and Heaping of Undue Praise via Positiva;
- Fictionalisms of Idealism, Innumeracy, Pseudoscience, Supernaturalism;
- Fictions (Deceit)
- Denialism
- Truthful Speech
Instead of:
Free and Truthful Speech
Where Free and Truthful Speech consists in (a) what you can testify to in court. And (b) What you can defend or claim as reciprocal in court. What do you have the knowledge to testify to? We hold people accountable for their testimony, for their commercial speech, but not their political, academic, and scientific speech (matters of the commons). So when engaged in Public Speech TO the Public (not talking with friends or family where signaling is a necessary contribution to the internal trust economy ), especially for personal, commercial, political gain you can’t make false or ir-reciprocal statements in matters of the commons (economics, politics, law, science). This law will criminalize political correctness and the pseudosciences the way we have criminalized related kinds of commercial, medical, and legal speech. Politicians, academics, public intellectuals, reporters – the entire gossip profession, would have to warranty the truthfulness (scientific), operationality, and reciprocity of their speech, and could not advocate for ir-reciprocity (theft) using falsehoods (fraud), especially as a group (conspiracy). Only Trades. The reason is that the government can only apply violence. The only non-violent means of cooperation is TRADE. Now, what does this mean in practice? It means that there are three common-sense tests:
- Are you making a truth claim (“is”), advocating for political coercion (“good”), expressing an opinion (should), or venting in frustration(nonsense)?
. - Are you advocating for reciprocity (exchange), an investment (returns), a restitution (proportionality), or a coercion (redistribution), a corruption (rents and rent-seeking), a taking (theft), or a harm (war, injury, or death)?
. - Are you speaking in operational language – a sequence of actions stating the HOW and accounting for the COSTS to all involved – demonstrating you possess the knowledge to make the claim, or using GSRRM (shaming, psychologizing moralizing), Sophism, Idealism, Pseudoscience, or Supernaturalism to obscure the fact that you either lack the knowledge and understanding you claim or are engaging in deceit?
In scientific terms that means is what you’re saying Logical, Empirical, Possible, Rational, Reciprocal, Fully Accounted, and Transparent? (Operational language provides both possibility and transparency). In legal terms it’s just a tiny bit more precise, and not really necessary for ordinary people to understand: Have you performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit by testes of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity in rational choice, fully accounted for cause and consequence in within stated limits, and reversibility and capacity for restitution if you’re wrong? It didn’t matter when all we could do is write letters and conduct arguments, or when books were costly, but the industrialization of information by mass media has made it possible to conduct organized lying on a massive scale not possible since the invention of the monotheistic religions, distributed by Roman roads. Marxism was pseudoscience sophism and wishful thinking. Feminism is an experiment in irreciprocity, and postmodernism is simply lying on a civilizational scale. it is as disastrous to modernity as Christianity and Islam were to antiquity. In this sense, we have freedom of speech to speak the truth. We do not have freedom of speech to engage in criminal activity under the cover of freedom of speech. And that is exactly how the Enemy operates as organized crime: Proportionality without Reciprocity, under the industrialization of lying, using the false promise of the possibility of equality. Equality or life after death. No difference. False promise after death. False promise prior to death. False promise either way.
PHILOSOPHY IS CLOSED / HIERARCHY
The demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete. Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice. The top of the pyramid is not philosophy but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice. In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability. The Continuation of The European Civilizational Arc The Western Indo Europeans were fighting submission to nature in every aspect of the social order: nature(technology), family, polity, and religion. They invented the Agency of Man. The application of mastery of metallurgy, the horse, the wheel and war to all aspects of human experience. Aristotle was fighting ignorance in all the disciplines – including religion, custom, and politics. He invented Empiricism: the transfer of testimony in a court of peers to all aspects of human experience. Galileo was fighting supernaturalism and denial in the physical sciences: physics, chemistry, biology. He was the principle advocate of Science: The restoration of testimony using mathematics in court a court of peers to all aspects of life. Darwin was fighting supernaturalism in the biological sciences. He was the principle advocate of realism and naturalism in biology: the restoration of naturalism in biological and social sciences. We are fighting pseudoscience and sophism and denial in the human sciences: language, psychology, sociology, politics, and group strategy: The completion of social science: The application of testimony using the measurement of reciprocity.
-
Part 2 – Man
Man
Human Beings in A Few Paragraphs
The human brain grows in utero, biased in organization, either for the female Synthetic(conflationary) by hemispheric integration (side to side), short term (temporal), experiential(emotional), personal (empathic), preferable(experience) and dysgenic(quantity); or the male Analytic(disambiguating), by hemispheric isolation (back-to front) long term (intertemporal), analytical(intellectual), political (empirical), truth(action), and eugenic(quality) – with each of us resulting by genetic bias, to demonstrate some point on that distribution, between the Female Solipsistic-to-Psychotic and the Male Aspie-to-Autistic Extremes. And because the brain is organized as it must be, to give attention to that which provides the most information, and because that which receives attention (novelty identification, rehearsal to integrate for recall, and reinforcement through recall), provides the associative-foundation for subsequent learning (framing), and as a consequence, the associative bias for subsequent learning. As such we think, display, speak and act, within our genetic biases, including the preference for the most easily understood frame (Feminine empathic to Masculine analytic), the most easily understood means of expression (speech), the most easily understood means of advocacy(approval/disapproval-empathic/personal vs truth/falsehood-analytic/political), including our means of argument (approval/disapproval independent of truth/falsehood, vs truth/falsehood independent of approval/disapproval). And while we currently (poorly) articulate intelligence plus five factors of personal (personality) bias: openness/novelty-consistency/familiarity, Extraversion-Introversion, Agreeableness-Disagreeablness, Conscientiousness(Organized)-Impulsivity(Disorganized), Neuroticism/Worry-Calm/Mindfulness, we all cluster around three common (stereotypical, archetypal) combinations: mother, ascendent male, and established male. Evidence in argumentative methods, educational degrees, occupational interests, and voting patterns. And while we currently (rather well) articulate six factors of interpersonal(moral) biases, Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression, we all cluster around three common (stereotypical, archetypal) combinations: liberal(mother), libertarian(ascendant male), and conservative(established male). Evidence in consumer and voting patterns. And our Success or Failure is dependent upon (a) our genetic conscientiousness, (b) our genetic intelligence, (c) our learned mindfulness, (b) the ability of our family to teach any or all of manners, ethics, morals, craftsmanship and artisanship, management of others, professionalism, entrepreneurship, finance, and politics, finance a career or business, (e) our masculine disagreeableness for discovering of truth regardless of consensus, our feminine agreeableness for discovery of consensus, and (e) the demographic distribution of the polity in relation to the available means of economic competition. And our conflict strategies vary accordingly between feminine undermining and reputation destruction (‘ostracize/kill’), and male argument and hierarchy construction(‘discipline, correct’). And our anti-social behavior varies accordingly between feminine social hostility by promiscuity, emotional terrorizing, social undermining, and male physical hostility by substance abuse, violence, crime. While each of us appears impenetrable as an individual given the abilities and biases we possess, the memories we possess, and the context we live in, in the aggregate, all populations adhere to these evolutionary tendencies, with the principle variation between groups very few factors: (a) the degree of neoteny achieved, (b) the bias in gender dimorphism achieved, (c) the verbal acuity achieved, (d) the demographic distribution of ability (class) and therefore (e) the strategy institutions,, traditions, norms, that are necessary for that degree of neoteny, verbal acuity, demographic distribution. This is a summary of mankind, and there is very little if anything about mankind that cannot be understood by and explained by this knowledge.
. . .