(FB 1548789834 Timestamp) WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? 1) I understand your meaning. 2) That statement is meaningful. 3) That statement is true. “…for the purpose of … ” a) conveying an experience (allegorical) b) conveying a causal relation (contingency) c) conveying a premise for the purpose of deduction (consistency) Note how we conflate these. 1 = a, 2 = b, 3 = c. Truthfulness requires the satisfaction of the market demand for meaning(disambiguation), contingency(opportunity), consistency (deduction).
Source: Original Site Post
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548697940 Timestamp) –“WHAT ABOUT NEPOTISM IN THE MONARCHY?”– The evidence is that families guard their status jealously and that fratricide and patricide are the most common origins of regicide. Secondly, a monarchy has only to defend the very longest term interest and its income from the overall performance of the polity. Monarchies have exceptional records for almost all of human history with the fragility not one of nepotism (since a monarchy has management teams selected from across the realm, many of whom are the best shareholders), but monarchies fail because agrarian production was the only means of competition and therefore territorial expansion the only means of competition. And territorial expansion only achievable by the high risk and high cost of european warfare and consequent ransom. The monarchies simply DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO when the landed and military aristocracy was replaced by the commercial aristocracy, and after the french revolution, the church aristocracy replaced by the state bureaucracy. We know what to do: Increase participation to shift, then decrease participation once shifted. Increase participation by expanding the franchise for each additional class, or decrease the franchise for each additional class once the change has been implemented. During that era guns were far more effective at forcing political change than archers. So the state could no longer use professional warriors to deny the franchise. The only solution is to retain the franchise for those who have demonstrated interests in the preservation of rule of law and the discretion of the monarchy, the republic, or the democracy in the determination of the production of commons. THere no longer a force on earth that can occupy territory against men with small arms (battle rifles) and rpg’s (close proximity man-portable artillery). It cannot be done. Ergo the transition is complete and we have restored the symmetry of power between men. WE need only choose to impose our will on those who would deprive us of rule of law, and the reciprocity that rule of law both depends upon and enforces. It is very hard to read Hoppe, Michels, and Burnham (or machiavelli for that matter) and not understand this.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548788029 Timestamp) ( Did’ja ever notice how much Harman looks like Varg? 😉 )
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548818179 Timestamp) —“CURT: QUESTION: THE ECONOMICS OF THE PERCEPTION OF ART?”— Could you recommend any works on Art Theory? I have been looking a bit into Rand’s Romantic Manifesto. (CD: honestly – and this will surprise people – as far as I know (and I know) there aren’t any better. My work is an extension of the RM. And honestly it’s the best most important piece she wrote and in my opinion the only piece with long term value. It influenced me greatly. If you add Gary Becker’s economic analysis of art I think you get the rest of it.) It seems the absence of art (silence, non-action) achieves non-imposition of costs whereas the act of art always imposes costs. (CD: I would say is broken into two statements. 1- Markets require attention seeking – that is how we reduce opportunity costs: density of opportunity and density of attention opportunities. 2- Some commons offer aesthetic attention seeking as an alternative to ‘unordered’, wild or unmaintained, commons. A well manicured park with statues of men of arts and letters is a pretty good place to be. 3- Not all commons are available for attention seeking, or attention-drawing, – and in fact that is what ‘sacred’ means. 4- Not all people possess the ability and training to respect sacred spaces, and they must be protected from such people.) Are all actions of an individual considered art? – No. (CD: I would say that art consists of that which the actor intends to invest in obtaining attention by the expenditure of resources for the provision of aesthetic returns. in other words, we choose to invest in the aesthetics of any given craft (making) for the purpose of attention to the decoration of mind, time and space in all that term’s possible meanings.) Who defines what is art and what is not? – Consumers, viewers, participants. (CD: Um, I would say no, that art is what it is across the spectrum of childish to amateurish, to professional, to iconic, to revolutionary. I would say that craft, design, editorial, and art are very different things. i would say some people engage in fraud that takes advantage of consumer ignorance, and that the value of art is determined by long term market forces (what survives the competition between fashion and ignorance). (CD: many goods are brought to market, those that survive in the market survive, those that don’t do not. What is an attempt at art is defined above. what succeeds at art is determined by a series of markets, the most common of which is REFERENCE BY OTHER ARTIST: by imitation. Art is worthy of perception. – Perception costs are time and energy. (CD: the market determines whether it is worthy of perception, most art is not worthy of perception just like most products are not worthy of consumption. The difference is that it is easier to find a sucker for bad art than it is to find a sucker for a bad car, and far harder to find a sucker for a poorly tailored bit of clothing.) Are all actions of an individual considered art? – No. Who defines what is art and what is not? Consumers, viewers, participants. Art is worthy of perception. Perception costs are time and labor. (CD: We would use a slighting different set of terms I suggest you adopt: Art competes for attention. Attention is a resource, consisting of time and energy. The returns on attention are either there, or they are not. Given that the returns vary from the free association the art causes for the individual, for people who see his possession of it, for public use, and for public ceremonial use, the chances of providing that return are highly dependent upon the craft, design, content, scale, of the piece. What you put in your bathroom, your guest bath, your living room, your office, a court building, and a church hold different standards.) Viewers perceive, recognize and set value on something. Perception and recognition cost time and labor. Similar to how consumers set prices. An act of art doesn’t exist because its up to it is a viewer value judgement. (CD: Hmmmm. Art is a product like any other. Books are a product like any other. tools are products like any other. You must undrestand the language and context of the book to buy and use it for returns. You must understand the possible operations and context of use of a tool to buy and use it for returns. ) (CD: the problem in your reasoning is as usual one of grammar. People create products. Those products serve a function or not (satisfy a market demand). Those products serve sufficient market demands to sell or not (provide marginal value necessary for incentive to exchange). Those exchanges(investments) survive the market for aesthetic competition over time, for the intended market whether individual, group, polity, world). Here is what you might be searching for: Public art of any kind is dependent on shares strategy, values, knowledge, and experience. Lacking those shared properties it is no longer possible to produce art that does not impose a cost instead of provide a return. Everything is open to economic analysis under propertarianism.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548697265 Timestamp) CLOSURE WITH ERIC ORWOLL AND IVANTHEHEATEN You don’t really understand the debate of the war period, postwar period, any more than our debate in the present do you? lol.. I realize you are desperately trying to frame this discourse to suit your present knowledge but let’s point out a few things you’re doing besides that framing, the perpetuation of the error of the era (induction), reliance upon antique thought (set operations, idealisms), using conflation (‘meaning/justification’ vs ‘truth/testimony’) all of which are archaic (and false) methods of investigation of anything other than scripture. 1) When the positivists used the term “meaningful”, (giving us an exceptional demonstration of a failure of grammar), they meant meaningful for what purpose? (Induction). 2) What was the difference between Carnap and company’s position and Popper’s position? (Trying to solve the problem of induction vs Popper’s “Induction does not exist”.) (Not that Taleb isn’t beating this dead horse daily.) 3) What was Popper’s alternative to induction? (Verisimilitude, or more correctly: “market competition”). 4) What has the scientific field adopted as their method of exploration? (market competition). 5) What does a Bayesian network accomplish (accounting of marginal measurements producing market competition between successes and failures – the same as our brains do) 6) Why can’t a formal grammar of science be produced and why has the formal grammar of logic been a dead end except for training people to detect error? (because there is no closure, and because induction does not exist, and because the only unclosed vocabulary and grammar is operational language.) 7) What does an hypothesis, theory, law consist of? (A rule of arbitrary precision used as a search algorithm for opportunities to apply recipes – sequences of operations. Forming a market competition between general rule of opportunity discovery and application-recipe) (this is all the mind is capable of so it is what we do). 8) What is the principle innovation of the post darwinian era: the abandonment of ‘mathiness’ and justification and the universal application of market competition between positive language and demonstrated action. (we call this, dynamic stochastic equilibrium in economics, and various names not limited to fluid dynamics, and quantum mechanics in physics.) 9) What do we do in court to determine who is at greater fault? (conduct a market competition between the offense and the defense by reduction of arguments to the sequence of incentives and operations). In a wonderful case of PAINFUL IRONY you are able to ‘get away’ with your error because you failed to define the term ‘meaning’ in a complete sentence in operational language. “I have a question: are untestable statements meaningful meaningful for the purpose of induction?” Well of course, no, because induction (guessing) only assists us in free association for the purpose of discovering opportunities which must later be subject to falsification (attempts to falsify), and through this continuous competition we discover more information (recipes for action, and opportunities for discovery), and with that information more competitions to run between language (search) and operation (action). So I continue the Poppertian program of “critical rationalism” (under which popper had no empirical evidence, or he would have discovered that decidability in scientific investigation is and can be, and is, determined by cost benefit) by expanding where he failed to ,from physical to social to cognitive sciences as “Critical Naturalism”. And I apply this critical naturalism to the field with the greatest scope of testing claims: law. Because law only comes into account under material disputes, and only admits that which is testifiable, and searches for incentives whether testifiable or not. The positivist debate was not merely ideal or technical but was an attempt to ether further (frankfurt) or constrain (vienna) marxism (theft), and the incentives tell us what the undecidability of their argument failed to: fraud. And this is the purpose of the law: Can we find criteria under which the untestifiable yet asserted to be testifiable is not a cover for a falsehood, fraud, theft or harm? ( Where ‘true’ = testimony(speech) that correspondent with reality(existence) or a possibly-shared experience of existence.) The positivist debate was a ‘victorian’ if not ‘priestly’ discourse in which the means motive and opportunity were unstated. Because we had no evidence of yet what would occur under marxism/socialism (or today’s postmodernism) to counter the rationalizations of the marxists (frankfurt school) who were, in all things, attempting to use the ancient tools of greek platonism/socratic skepticism, and jewish pilpul/critique, as had many previous generations of theologians and philosophers (textualists), to conduct a fraud, when there words were promissory (rational) not testifiable (scientific and warrantable). It is far harder to think in equilibrial terms in all walks of life, and all disciplines in thought, but this is the current model of all phenomenon from math (see Wolfram’s new math of complex operations), computer science (operational logic), sentience (cognition to defeat entropy), to discourse (language to defeat entropy) to economics(cooperation to defeat entropy), to biology (life defeating entropy), to chemistry (limited to entropy) to subatomic through macro physics(producing entropy). And this is why the discipline of philosophy is being unfunded and combined with theological departments, because other than the use of basic logic to train people to detect errors, the program of the 19th-20th by which philosophers sought to convert their discipline into a science, has been replaced by computer science and what used to be called ‘cognitive science’, in order to end the previous generation’s failure to adapt to computer science, and now failure to adapt to the study of the brain. The purpose of the study of philosophy is largely the study of middle class rebellion against the ruling class’s application of law or theology, and aside from the “scientists” aristotle, machiavelli, locke, smith, hume, darwin, maxwell, menger, pareto etc, they are little more than a catalog of human error and deceit, with The Rabbinical Jews, Plato/Socrates, Saul of Tarsus, Augustine, Mohammed, Kant, Marx, and now Derrida et all the most Metaphysics is nothing other than the study of cognitive processes. It is an ancient pseudoscience for the simple reason that Aristotle did the best he could, but knew too little and had no model, by which to discuss the operational construction of cognitive phenomenon from the stimulation of the nervous system, and the continuous recursive interaction between those stimuli and memory, producing a continuous stream of prediction, over which we have some modicum of control – and in particular, given our ability to use language, can calculate using language (names of categories) to perform comparisons that other life forms we are aware of are unable to do. However, in all our language, every bit of it, every name of every category of name (noun, verb, adjective, adverb…) consists of nothing more than an n-dimensional network of constant and contingent and inconstant relations between our senses, in a fascinating and beautiful complexity the scale of which is only matched by the stars themselves. The most parsimonious terms we have to describe these networks are Models (descriptive operational simulations), Networks of largely Compatible Paradigms (current information products), Competing incompatible Paradigms (new market entries), Theories and Hypotheses (new market features), Norms, Presumptions, and intuitions (established markets), and a field of ‘Grammars’ of deflationary to descriptive to inflationary to fictionalisms – and there is every bit of evidence to suggest that we can produce one most parsimonious paradigm in the grammar of constant relations we call operations, and their constant relations to existential reality. So when you say “an alternative metaphysics” this means an alternative physical cognitive ability. When you say “an alternative ontology” the question is one of competitive parsimony, correspondence, consequence, and incentive. No more sophisms. Science is the universal language of truth, even if there are a host of allegorical grammars for the communication of meaning. The question is what is the difference in meaning (information, consequence, and incentive) between the more testifiable, and every other alternative. And for any alternative, what is one’s incentive to produce that alternative? Is it the cost of reformation of one’s networks? Or is it the benefits one obtains through the use of those networks to create fraud?
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548779453 Timestamp) —“I feel like some of the far right want to turn us into being like all the other nations – yes we’ll resist them and survive, but we’ll lose much of what made us great. Propertarianism is the answer.”—Solomon Volodymyr
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548868035 Timestamp) —“The United State can be equated to half of a continent living under occupation by a city state (dc)”—Bill Joslin
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548825871 Timestamp) —“Consider the implications even from 1980, the Apple II era. A single iPhone at 1980 energy-efficiency would require as much power as a Manhattan office building. Similarly, a single data center at circa 1980 efficiency would require as much power as the entire U.S. grid. But because of efficiency gains, the world today has billions of smartphones and thousands of datacenters.”—
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548867709 Timestamp) Life does “suck” for the ugly, stupid, ignorant. And life is much better for the attractive, smart, and knowledgeable. For the simple reason that downward associations are dead weight costs, and upward associations potential opportunities. Now this requires a half to one standard deviation in difference to apply. But it does apply. And it increases in cost and benefit the farther away from your position. Each of us has military, sexual, social, economic, and political value. Some of us just have very little of any of them. The only solution is limiting the reproduction of those that have no value so that they impose fewer costs and therefore frictions with prosperity and happiness.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548825829 Timestamp) The Jevons Paradox is why you do NOT TRY TO SAVE ELECTRICITY. Why? It merely increases the consumption of electricity and demand for increased production of electricity. At your most optimum, you will simply transfer cleaner electrical production domestically to uncleaner electrical production overseas. ECONOMICS IS COUNTER-INTUITIVE. All human behavior is best understood as hydraulic. Something here is always offset by something there.