Once you look at his notes, and understand Keynes converted Marx’s ‘dialectic’ (sophism) into Keynesian ‘innumeracy’ (ludic fallacy), you suspect his malincentives. But once you learn Rule of Law(Classical) vs Arbitrary Rule (Keynes), you realize that pseudoscience (Marx) and innumeracy (Keynes) are the only two methods by which to distract you from the underlying conflict: Rule of Law and Arbitrary Rule. Just as the marxists and the postmoderns have distracted us with Capitalism (Rule of Law) versus Socialism (Arbitrary Rule). The success of the Keynesian method is predicated on dialectic (loading, framing, and obscuring) rather than measurement. Why? What capital (that which we forgo opportunities or expend the results of opportunities to) invest in. So what Keynesianism achieves by innumeracy (fraud) is what Marx achieves by dialectic (sophism): the intentional distraction from the measurement of changes in capital to the measurement of the results of the consumption of it: including genetic, normative, traditional, knowledge, and institutional capital. And why did we (Hayek and others) fail? Because under democracy one cannot stop the mob from raiding the accumulated capital of millennia, nor the pseudo-intellectual class, and the political class from profiting from the sale. The Chicago school attempted to preserve rule of law and markets but the left has been too successful, the economists too well rewarded, and the financial industry, academy, and the state too well rewarded for doing so. Hence why Athens spent all the silver from the mine they discovered; and why Spain spent all the gold it took from the new world in failed wars against the Netherlands; and why Americans spent all the income from conquest of a continent and selling it off to genetic middle classes from Europe. … Until they ran out of middle classes. SOPHISM IS EVERYWHERE.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Keynes, Marx vs Classical: The Art of Lying
Once you look at his notes, and understand Keynes converted Marx’s ‘dialectic’ (sophism) into Keynesian ‘innumeracy’ (ludic fallacy), you suspect his malincentives. But once you learn Rule of Law(Classical) vs Arbitrary Rule (Keynes), you realize that pseudoscience (Marx) and innumeracy (Keynes) are the only two methods by which to distract you from the underlying conflict: Rule of Law and Arbitrary Rule. Just as the marxists and the postmoderns have distracted us with Capitalism (Rule of Law) versus Socialism (Arbitrary Rule). The success of the Keynesian method is predicated on dialectic (loading, framing, and obscuring) rather than measurement. Why? What capital (that which we forgo opportunities or expend the results of opportunities to) invest in. So what Keynesianism achieves by innumeracy (fraud) is what Marx achieves by dialectic (sophism): the intentional distraction from the measurement of changes in capital to the measurement of the results of the consumption of it: including genetic, normative, traditional, knowledge, and institutional capital. And why did we (Hayek and others) fail? Because under democracy one cannot stop the mob from raiding the accumulated capital of millennia, nor the pseudo-intellectual class, and the political class from profiting from the sale. The Chicago school attempted to preserve rule of law and markets but the left has been too successful, the economists too well rewarded, and the financial industry, academy, and the state too well rewarded for doing so. Hence why Athens spent all the silver from the mine they discovered; and why Spain spent all the gold it took from the new world in failed wars against the Netherlands; and why Americans spent all the income from conquest of a continent and selling it off to genetic middle classes from Europe. … Until they ran out of middle classes. SOPHISM IS EVERYWHERE.
-
Define Philosophy?
—People define the word philosophy differently: My first year of college my philosophy professor defined it as “the rational appropriation of conscious subjectivity.” Would you comment on this definition?”—Joe Cooley 1) Philosophy consists of the act of REASONING by attempting to produce paradigms (sets of constant relations) of understanding (decidability) in the absence of sufficient measurements (observations) to do so, because of logical(cognitive) and physical(human scale) and technological(mechanical and logical), and economic (cost) limitations. For this reason, all disciplines started as branches of philosophy until they evolved into sciences (measurements) consisting of constant relations in paradigms(networks). 2) We create WISDOM LITERATURES using Mythology(supernormal), Literature (fiction), History, Science, Mathematics, and produce at least the following by conflation: ( a ) Religion: (Emotional) false history, fictional literature, pseudoscience, occult, and fictional law (fictions) ( b ) Philosophy: (Verbal) Sophisms (arguments) ( c ) Pseudoscience and Practical Knowledge (utilities): Note the Physical>Emotional>Intellectual(verbal) scope of those literatures, and the fictional means we have created to claim pretense of knowledge using them. 3) While Aristotle began with a hierarchy of categories by which to divide knowledge – the categories of philosophy we still used – he lacked knowledge of how to do better than he did. Today we can include metaphysics(grammars), psychology(aesthetics), sociology(ethics), the sciences(epistemology), testimony(speech), law(cooperation), economics(production), politics(commons), group strategy(competition/evolution). Note that Socrates practiced Criticism(Critique), Plato practiced Justification(Pilpul), only Aristotle Practiced Testimony (due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit). 4) As far as I know I’ve completed Testimony (epistemology) by converting it to a science (truth) – although we must wait a few decades to see if I’m correct (its very very unlikely that I err). That means that all measurement (“Truth”) is now a question of the sciences. That means that philosophy now consists of the study of CHOICE. Not the true, but the MEANINGFUL, PREFERABLE and the GOOD. 5) Until we solved the problem of epistemology, we lack a most parsimonious paradigm (truth) – meaning a set of constant relations across the entire spectrum of knowledge from the physical, to the emotional to the intellectual, and could not separate philosophy into truth, good, preference, and meaning. There is only one most parsimonious paradigm (truth) but there are an infinite number of paradigms that provide us understanding(meaning), preference(choice), and good (collective). So the domain of philosophy is at present – if not always – the use of fragmentary information in kaleidic (unpredictable) time, to reason out paradigms (networks of constant relations) that help us understand (Meaningful), how to choose how to achieve the Preferable and the Good. As such philosophy, as meaning, preference, and good, like creativity, will never end.
-
Define Philosophy?
—People define the word philosophy differently: My first year of college my philosophy professor defined it as “the rational appropriation of conscious subjectivity.” Would you comment on this definition?”—Joe Cooley 1) Philosophy consists of the act of REASONING by attempting to produce paradigms (sets of constant relations) of understanding (decidability) in the absence of sufficient measurements (observations) to do so, because of logical(cognitive) and physical(human scale) and technological(mechanical and logical), and economic (cost) limitations. For this reason, all disciplines started as branches of philosophy until they evolved into sciences (measurements) consisting of constant relations in paradigms(networks). 2) We create WISDOM LITERATURES using Mythology(supernormal), Literature (fiction), History, Science, Mathematics, and produce at least the following by conflation: ( a ) Religion: (Emotional) false history, fictional literature, pseudoscience, occult, and fictional law (fictions) ( b ) Philosophy: (Verbal) Sophisms (arguments) ( c ) Pseudoscience and Practical Knowledge (utilities): Note the Physical>Emotional>Intellectual(verbal) scope of those literatures, and the fictional means we have created to claim pretense of knowledge using them. 3) While Aristotle began with a hierarchy of categories by which to divide knowledge – the categories of philosophy we still used – he lacked knowledge of how to do better than he did. Today we can include metaphysics(grammars), psychology(aesthetics), sociology(ethics), the sciences(epistemology), testimony(speech), law(cooperation), economics(production), politics(commons), group strategy(competition/evolution). Note that Socrates practiced Criticism(Critique), Plato practiced Justification(Pilpul), only Aristotle Practiced Testimony (due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit). 4) As far as I know I’ve completed Testimony (epistemology) by converting it to a science (truth) – although we must wait a few decades to see if I’m correct (its very very unlikely that I err). That means that all measurement (“Truth”) is now a question of the sciences. That means that philosophy now consists of the study of CHOICE. Not the true, but the MEANINGFUL, PREFERABLE and the GOOD. 5) Until we solved the problem of epistemology, we lack a most parsimonious paradigm (truth) – meaning a set of constant relations across the entire spectrum of knowledge from the physical, to the emotional to the intellectual, and could not separate philosophy into truth, good, preference, and meaning. There is only one most parsimonious paradigm (truth) but there are an infinite number of paradigms that provide us understanding(meaning), preference(choice), and good (collective). So the domain of philosophy is at present – if not always – the use of fragmentary information in kaleidic (unpredictable) time, to reason out paradigms (networks of constant relations) that help us understand (Meaningful), how to choose how to achieve the Preferable and the Good. As such philosophy, as meaning, preference, and good, like creativity, will never end.
-
Too Dense but Any Mathematician Will Grok It
As far as I know all truth refers to testimony (correspondence) and we use the term ‘loosely’ for many purposes. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0). We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations). We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false. As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify. In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass). Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination. Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality. This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics).
-
Too Dense but Any Mathematician Will Grok It
As far as I know all truth refers to testimony (correspondence) and we use the term ‘loosely’ for many purposes. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0). We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations). We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false. As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify. In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass). Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination. Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality. This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics).
-
South Africa – Separatism
People have conquered one another since time immemorial. Intertemporal restitution is rather ridiculous concept. When white people conquered in the pre-historic world they killed most everyone they met. when white people conquered in the modern world they attempted to ‘civilize’ the people they met, for fun and profit – mostly profit. Cause domesticated humans are extremely profitable. Although at least in the americas, because of disease they killed almost everyone. I am not making excuses for my (white) people. I seek happiness for us all. and I want all people to prosper. However, when there are great differences between us this always creates conflict. In other words (a) it’s not clear that separation is not better, (b) it’s not clear that south africa will be better without separation, (c) it’s not clear that south africa will be better without the white settlers.(d) and murdering each other is not a good answer to anything – it’s not the colonial era. We know all people can develop market civilizations if they have time to develop a middle class. My personal view is that the Boers should relocate to America, Australia (best), or Russia (who wants them). And moreover that Africans in Europe and America Return. (and middle easterners return) And that we pay people even if we must use debt to do the returns. I don’t want your people harmed or mine. But I don’t believe given the very big differences, that it is easy to do anything other than separate. And I am not sure it is a good thing to stay together.
-
South Africa – Separatism
People have conquered one another since time immemorial. Intertemporal restitution is rather ridiculous concept. When white people conquered in the pre-historic world they killed most everyone they met. when white people conquered in the modern world they attempted to ‘civilize’ the people they met, for fun and profit – mostly profit. Cause domesticated humans are extremely profitable. Although at least in the americas, because of disease they killed almost everyone. I am not making excuses for my (white) people. I seek happiness for us all. and I want all people to prosper. However, when there are great differences between us this always creates conflict. In other words (a) it’s not clear that separation is not better, (b) it’s not clear that south africa will be better without separation, (c) it’s not clear that south africa will be better without the white settlers.(d) and murdering each other is not a good answer to anything – it’s not the colonial era. We know all people can develop market civilizations if they have time to develop a middle class. My personal view is that the Boers should relocate to America, Australia (best), or Russia (who wants them). And moreover that Africans in Europe and America Return. (and middle easterners return) And that we pay people even if we must use debt to do the returns. I don’t want your people harmed or mine. But I don’t believe given the very big differences, that it is easy to do anything other than separate. And I am not sure it is a good thing to stay together.
-
Russia’s Field Test of Chinese Treasury Liquidation
(ie: imho it’s paper tiger) —“In other words, in just two months, Russia sold a whopping $81BN in treasurys, a liquidation flow that was likely responsible for much if not all the blow out in rates over the period. Because what else happened as Russia was liquidating 85% of its Treasury holdings in 2 months? 10Y yields soared from 2.7% at the start of April to the 7 year high of 3.11% in late May. … So … we can’t help but wonder – as the Yuan-denominated oil futures were launched, trade wars were threatened, and as more sanctions were unleashed on Russia – if this wasn’t a dress-rehearsal, carefully coordinated with Beijing to field test what would happen if/when China also starts to liquidate its own Treasury holdings.”—
-
Russia’s Field Test of Chinese Treasury Liquidation
(ie: imho it’s paper tiger) —“In other words, in just two months, Russia sold a whopping $81BN in treasurys, a liquidation flow that was likely responsible for much if not all the blow out in rates over the period. Because what else happened as Russia was liquidating 85% of its Treasury holdings in 2 months? 10Y yields soared from 2.7% at the start of April to the 7 year high of 3.11% in late May. … So … we can’t help but wonder – as the Yuan-denominated oil futures were launched, trade wars were threatened, and as more sanctions were unleashed on Russia – if this wasn’t a dress-rehearsal, carefully coordinated with Beijing to field test what would happen if/when China also starts to liquidate its own Treasury holdings.”—