It is not that the left is not learned, it’s that so much of what they learned is false. It’s not that the right is unlearned, it’s that what can be learned that is true is quite simple: rule of law – meaning truth, duty, sovereignty, reciprocity, markets in everything produce meritocracy, eugenics, and prosperity – and every alternative does not.
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Right Is Simple Because Truth Is Simple
It is not that the left is not learned, it’s that so much of what they learned is false. It’s not that the right is unlearned, it’s that what can be learned that is true is quite simple: rule of law – meaning truth, duty, sovereignty, reciprocity, markets in everything produce meritocracy, eugenics, and prosperity – and every alternative does not.
-
More on Sophistry of Conflating Axioms and Theories
Axioms can exist only in formal logic (and mathematics), laws between men – and conversely theories provide explanatory power about the universe. An axiom in formal logic is declared the equivalent of true, and therefore we assume it’s no longer contingent or externally correspondent for our purposes of further (subsequent) construction and deduction. So in that sense we can use axioms for ‘what if’ scenarios in logic, and the interpretation of moral norms, and legislation and law, and textual analysis including scripture – which is where all this form of verbal reasoning comes from: non correspondence with reality, only internal consistency. Whereas we can only use hypotheses theories and laws when we are making a contingent truth claim about the existential rather than the verbal and ideal. Hypotheses theories and laws originated in the description of correspondence with reality. As such the use of axioms helps us test logical internal consistency, and the use of theories helps us test external correspondence – since nature is always internally consistent: it can’t help it. That’s what determinism *means*. As such Axioms and Theories are polar opposites. And using one in the place of the other is generally either a matter of ignorance or attributing the correspondence and consistency of that which is deterministic under logical declaration to that which is underdeterministic under physical description. I don’t find this very difficult because in math we use axioms, in science we use laws, and only sophists in philosophy seem to attempt to either conflate the two, or to attribute the properties of axioms to that of theories and laws – and that means there are a lot of sophists (like Mises and Rothbard, not to mention Hoppe and every marxist that ever lived). And as I’ve said, as far as I know math survives, but formal logic was a dead end, the grammars replace them, and philosophy is reduced to the preferable and good not the true. And what we call science (due diligence) and law (testimony) determine truth. So, at present, In my understanding – which I have serious doubts that I’ll ever be refuted – the word axiom is archaic and has no use outside of mathematics and symbolic logic that seeks to imitate mathematics through conversion of reality (operations) to ideals (sets). Axiom = Arbitrary, and Theory = Existential.
WTH is wrong with you? An axiom is a declaration – an ideal. A theory is a contingent explanation – a real. Logical and ideal axioms. Descriptive and real theories. They are not synonyms.
-
More on Sophistry of Conflating Axioms and Theories
Axioms can exist only in formal logic (and mathematics), laws between men – and conversely theories provide explanatory power about the universe. An axiom in formal logic is declared the equivalent of true, and therefore we assume it’s no longer contingent or externally correspondent for our purposes of further (subsequent) construction and deduction. So in that sense we can use axioms for ‘what if’ scenarios in logic, and the interpretation of moral norms, and legislation and law, and textual analysis including scripture – which is where all this form of verbal reasoning comes from: non correspondence with reality, only internal consistency. Whereas we can only use hypotheses theories and laws when we are making a contingent truth claim about the existential rather than the verbal and ideal. Hypotheses theories and laws originated in the description of correspondence with reality. As such the use of axioms helps us test logical internal consistency, and the use of theories helps us test external correspondence – since nature is always internally consistent: it can’t help it. That’s what determinism *means*. As such Axioms and Theories are polar opposites. And using one in the place of the other is generally either a matter of ignorance or attributing the correspondence and consistency of that which is deterministic under logical declaration to that which is underdeterministic under physical description. I don’t find this very difficult because in math we use axioms, in science we use laws, and only sophists in philosophy seem to attempt to either conflate the two, or to attribute the properties of axioms to that of theories and laws – and that means there are a lot of sophists (like Mises and Rothbard, not to mention Hoppe and every marxist that ever lived). And as I’ve said, as far as I know math survives, but formal logic was a dead end, the grammars replace them, and philosophy is reduced to the preferable and good not the true. And what we call science (due diligence) and law (testimony) determine truth. So, at present, In my understanding – which I have serious doubts that I’ll ever be refuted – the word axiom is archaic and has no use outside of mathematics and symbolic logic that seeks to imitate mathematics through conversion of reality (operations) to ideals (sets). Axiom = Arbitrary, and Theory = Existential.
WTH is wrong with you? An axiom is a declaration – an ideal. A theory is a contingent explanation – a real. Logical and ideal axioms. Descriptive and real theories. They are not synonyms.
-
Religiosity and Computational Discounting
(the economics of spirituality) I think where I stand today, is that I have almost fully converted to where i see the computational needs of the brain and the need to acquire certain resources (of all kinds), as causing emotional responses and wants. So when I study world religions it’s this computational savings I look for, and I try to understand what computational discount they’re ‘buying’ with it and what their ‘paying for it’ with external consequences of a large number of people doing so. So I don’t any longer hold (believe) that we are trying to serve emotions, but that emotions inform us as to the demands of our computational necessities. And so this allows me to extract my intuitions from the process of religions, because those religions were developed to ‘fool’ those intuitions by cheap means of training. So just as using propertarian language has helped me disassemble social science, and acquisitionism has helped me disassemble psychology, computational demands have helped me disassemble what we call spirituality. The ceremony of religion is just satisfying our need for computational discounts by running with the pack for a while, in some kind of ritual. The dogma of religion is discounting our reason. The homogeneity of religious provides discounting on cooperation. To some degree these computational efficiencies serve the same purpose as do money and prices: they create discounts from the production of commensurability, and incentive to pursue it.
-
Religiosity and Computational Discounting
(the economics of spirituality) I think where I stand today, is that I have almost fully converted to where i see the computational needs of the brain and the need to acquire certain resources (of all kinds), as causing emotional responses and wants. So when I study world religions it’s this computational savings I look for, and I try to understand what computational discount they’re ‘buying’ with it and what their ‘paying for it’ with external consequences of a large number of people doing so. So I don’t any longer hold (believe) that we are trying to serve emotions, but that emotions inform us as to the demands of our computational necessities. And so this allows me to extract my intuitions from the process of religions, because those religions were developed to ‘fool’ those intuitions by cheap means of training. So just as using propertarian language has helped me disassemble social science, and acquisitionism has helped me disassemble psychology, computational demands have helped me disassemble what we call spirituality. The ceremony of religion is just satisfying our need for computational discounts by running with the pack for a while, in some kind of ritual. The dogma of religion is discounting our reason. The homogeneity of religious provides discounting on cooperation. To some degree these computational efficiencies serve the same purpose as do money and prices: they create discounts from the production of commensurability, and incentive to pursue it.
-
(cultural observations) I really love my people. Although we are far too easily
(cultural observations) I really love my people. Although we are far too easily the victims of carbs and sugar – and apparently alcohol combined with a desire to work and produce as a means of not only status and utility, but entertainment. I’m in a place right now where there are a lot of germanic looking short folks with blond, dirty blonde, and light brown hair (clearly kin), who are all short, barrel chested, and decidedly middle class. I love these people. Really. But damnit if weight is not the curse of my people.
-
(cultural observations) I really love my people. Although we are far too easily
(cultural observations) I really love my people. Although we are far too easily the victims of carbs and sugar – and apparently alcohol combined with a desire to work and produce as a means of not only status and utility, but entertainment. I’m in a place right now where there are a lot of germanic looking short folks with blond, dirty blonde, and light brown hair (clearly kin), who are all short, barrel chested, and decidedly middle class. I love these people. Really. But damnit if weight is not the curse of my people.
-
Revolution: “the Plan”
(repost from september 2015) Western Man is moral man, and moral men need: 1 – A Moral Justification for the application of Violence to institute change. (They are being lied to, and stolen from, and conquered systematically, and I explain how, why, and how to stop it.) (Ideologies require promise of actionable results within the current lifetime.) 2 – A Solution to Demand: a set of institutional changes (concentration of effort) (an expansion of the classical liberal legal order to suppress lying, wishful thinking, bias and error in matters of the political commons; and a reconstruction of the houses of government as a market for the voluntary construction of commons.) 3 – A means of transition from one order to another. (An ordered means of rapid transformation within the status quo.) 4 – A set of tactics for raising the cost of the status quo: insurrection via: nullification (gradual disempowerment and transition to new government), secession(construction of a new government retaining the previous competitor), revolution (replacement of the people in government and modification of institutions eliminating the previous competitor) and civil war (destruction of the government and replacement with an entirely new one, eliminating the previous competitors). 5 – A set of leaders (speakers) to rally action. (We need 100 people. That’s all. I need only twelve who are very good.) Propertarianism and Testimonialism will be a more complete framework than has been produced before, even if we take into account all of Locke,Hume,Smith and Jefferson as a set. And if I fail, then the work sits in books and records until someone decides to use it or create something better. But I will have my good service. One leads a horse to water, but cannot make it drink. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Revolution: “the Plan”
(repost from september 2015) Western Man is moral man, and moral men need: 1 – A Moral Justification for the application of Violence to institute change. (They are being lied to, and stolen from, and conquered systematically, and I explain how, why, and how to stop it.) (Ideologies require promise of actionable results within the current lifetime.) 2 – A Solution to Demand: a set of institutional changes (concentration of effort) (an expansion of the classical liberal legal order to suppress lying, wishful thinking, bias and error in matters of the political commons; and a reconstruction of the houses of government as a market for the voluntary construction of commons.) 3 – A means of transition from one order to another. (An ordered means of rapid transformation within the status quo.) 4 – A set of tactics for raising the cost of the status quo: insurrection via: nullification (gradual disempowerment and transition to new government), secession(construction of a new government retaining the previous competitor), revolution (replacement of the people in government and modification of institutions eliminating the previous competitor) and civil war (destruction of the government and replacement with an entirely new one, eliminating the previous competitors). 5 – A set of leaders (speakers) to rally action. (We need 100 people. That’s all. I need only twelve who are very good.) Propertarianism and Testimonialism will be a more complete framework than has been produced before, even if we take into account all of Locke,Hume,Smith and Jefferson as a set. And if I fail, then the work sits in books and records until someone decides to use it or create something better. But I will have my good service. One leads a horse to water, but cannot make it drink. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine