1) —“Are you saying Truth does not exist?”— Well, I claim that without perfect knowledge of the universe it is quite difficult to know if we speak the Truth (the most parsimonious description possible). We may in fact speak truthfully and ‘the truth’ but we can never know so other than under reductio (trivial and irrelevant) criterial. (See Popper: Critical Rationalism, Critical Preference, and the analytic movement’s discovery that closure all but doesn’t exist.) 2) —“Discredited”— You state that something I’ve said is discredited but not what. As far as I know I *cannot* err by asserting this series of statements above: that testimony can only insure that it’s warrantied against ignorance, error, bias, fraud, and deceit. One can testify truthfully because of due diligence, but one can never know he speaks ‘the truth’ (an ideal). Means, motive, opportunity, method of argument. 3) SPEECH: TRANSACTIONS (Phrases, Sentences) PRODUCING CONTRACTS FOR MEANING (Stories). Speech is only consequential in a contract for meaning with others. Speech only evolves as a consequence of the search for contracts of meaning with others. 4) TRUTH (DECIDABILITY) IS A MATTER OF LAW. Truth is a matter of law, and the grammars we call logics, mathematics, science, description, and narrative only assist us in the process of creating associations, followed by the process of disambiguation and deflation so that we can then eliminate ignorance error bias and deceit. Religious ‘truth’ and “philosophical truth’ are not in fact ‘truth’ but methods of either asserting a falsehood by justification (philosophical) or by authority (religious). As such they are universally statements of COMMAND FOR CONFORMITY (obedience). Or stated more pejoratively: Law asks we warranty our words or face restitution and punishment. Religion and Philosophy make excuses (deceits) such that speakers can AVOID warranty of their words (liability for deceits). There are only three means of coercion available to man: force, trade, and speech(deception). 5) TRUTH (DECIDABILITY) SPECTRUM [T]AUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. [A]NALYTIC 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). [I]DEAL 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.) [T]RUTHFULNESS: 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, 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. [H]ONESTY: 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. 6) DEMAND FOR DECIDABILITY True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship True enough for me to feel good about myself. True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results. True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal. 7) WHAT DOES TRUTH MEAN? (AND WHAT IS ITS ADJECTIVE FORM?) Truth can only mean ‘descriptive testimony free of error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit’. In other words, speech, the semantic content of which corresponds with reality. One speaks truthfully, or untruthfully , or honestly or dishonestly. To be precise, one speaks honestly not having done due diligence, nor warrantying one’s speech. One speaks truthfully having done due diligence, and warrantying one’s speech. So you might speak honestly – not having done due diligence on your speech. But that is not the same as speaking truthfully – having done due diligence on your speech. So you might give your honest opinion, but that differs from doing diligence that such an opinion survives criticism – meaning correspondence. Both the physical sciences and law specialize in the art of due diligence. As an extension of law, anglo analytic philosophy attempts to specialize in the art of due diligence. Strangely, continental philosophy does the opposite. But if speaking truthfully requires that we perform due diligence, and warranty our speech, then how does one perform such due diligence? How do we test correspondence? In the most simple of terms, a truth statement must be: – categorically consistent (non conflationary) – internally consistent (logical), – externally correspondent (empirical), – operationally possible (existentially possible), – coherent categorically, internally, externally, and operationally (consistent across all tests) – fully accounted (you haven’t cherry picked cause and/or consequence) And if you want to claim it’s ethical and moral (and objectively legal): – rational: consisting of nothing but a series of fully rational choices – reciprocal: consisting of nothing other than productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges free of imposition upon others by externality. We use the word ‘Truth’ in many, many contexts. Most of them somewhere between a convenience and a dishonesty. True, honest, logical, and good are independent concepts frequently conflated to attribute authority where it is absent. 8) CLOSING And given that I have been doing this for a very long time, I’m more than certain that you would have actually constructed some form of argument by now if you could – because capable people do so. I am a scientist (prosecutor) and philosophers and theologians are nothing more than snake oil salesmen selling harmful products that we have not yet outlawed from the market. Which is easily fixed.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Answering a Critic
1) —“Are you saying Truth does not exist?”— Well, I claim that without perfect knowledge of the universe it is quite difficult to know if we speak the Truth (the most parsimonious description possible). We may in fact speak truthfully and ‘the truth’ but we can never know so other than under reductio (trivial and irrelevant) criterial. (See Popper: Critical Rationalism, Critical Preference, and the analytic movement’s discovery that closure all but doesn’t exist.) 2) —“Discredited”— You state that something I’ve said is discredited but not what. As far as I know I *cannot* err by asserting this series of statements above: that testimony can only insure that it’s warrantied against ignorance, error, bias, fraud, and deceit. One can testify truthfully because of due diligence, but one can never know he speaks ‘the truth’ (an ideal). Means, motive, opportunity, method of argument. 3) SPEECH: TRANSACTIONS (Phrases, Sentences) PRODUCING CONTRACTS FOR MEANING (Stories). Speech is only consequential in a contract for meaning with others. Speech only evolves as a consequence of the search for contracts of meaning with others. 4) TRUTH (DECIDABILITY) IS A MATTER OF LAW. Truth is a matter of law, and the grammars we call logics, mathematics, science, description, and narrative only assist us in the process of creating associations, followed by the process of disambiguation and deflation so that we can then eliminate ignorance error bias and deceit. Religious ‘truth’ and “philosophical truth’ are not in fact ‘truth’ but methods of either asserting a falsehood by justification (philosophical) or by authority (religious). As such they are universally statements of COMMAND FOR CONFORMITY (obedience). Or stated more pejoratively: Law asks we warranty our words or face restitution and punishment. Religion and Philosophy make excuses (deceits) such that speakers can AVOID warranty of their words (liability for deceits). There are only three means of coercion available to man: force, trade, and speech(deception). 5) TRUTH (DECIDABILITY) SPECTRUM [T]AUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. [A]NALYTIC 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). [I]DEAL 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.) [T]RUTHFULNESS: 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, 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. [H]ONESTY: 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. 6) DEMAND FOR DECIDABILITY True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship True enough for me to feel good about myself. True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results. True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal. 7) WHAT DOES TRUTH MEAN? (AND WHAT IS ITS ADJECTIVE FORM?) Truth can only mean ‘descriptive testimony free of error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit’. In other words, speech, the semantic content of which corresponds with reality. One speaks truthfully, or untruthfully , or honestly or dishonestly. To be precise, one speaks honestly not having done due diligence, nor warrantying one’s speech. One speaks truthfully having done due diligence, and warrantying one’s speech. So you might speak honestly – not having done due diligence on your speech. But that is not the same as speaking truthfully – having done due diligence on your speech. So you might give your honest opinion, but that differs from doing diligence that such an opinion survives criticism – meaning correspondence. Both the physical sciences and law specialize in the art of due diligence. As an extension of law, anglo analytic philosophy attempts to specialize in the art of due diligence. Strangely, continental philosophy does the opposite. But if speaking truthfully requires that we perform due diligence, and warranty our speech, then how does one perform such due diligence? How do we test correspondence? In the most simple of terms, a truth statement must be: – categorically consistent (non conflationary) – internally consistent (logical), – externally correspondent (empirical), – operationally possible (existentially possible), – coherent categorically, internally, externally, and operationally (consistent across all tests) – fully accounted (you haven’t cherry picked cause and/or consequence) And if you want to claim it’s ethical and moral (and objectively legal): – rational: consisting of nothing but a series of fully rational choices – reciprocal: consisting of nothing other than productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges free of imposition upon others by externality. We use the word ‘Truth’ in many, many contexts. Most of them somewhere between a convenience and a dishonesty. True, honest, logical, and good are independent concepts frequently conflated to attribute authority where it is absent. 8) CLOSING And given that I have been doing this for a very long time, I’m more than certain that you would have actually constructed some form of argument by now if you could – because capable people do so. I am a scientist (prosecutor) and philosophers and theologians are nothing more than snake oil salesmen selling harmful products that we have not yet outlawed from the market. Which is easily fixed.
-
Rule of The Sovereign
If the Truth is not enough, and therefore law is not enough, then you are weak, and lack the agency necessary for demands of reciprocity between sovereigns. As such you may not rule, or govern, and may have only liberty(capital), freedom(property), and subsidy(insurance), by permission, as the sovereign see fit. And you may purchase liberty, freedom, subsidy, and defense under the natural law of sovereigns, by acts of and military and civic defense of the commons, civil contribution by payment of fees, and the reciprocal defense of the subsidy, property, and liberty of peers.
-
Rule of The Sovereign
If the Truth is not enough, and therefore law is not enough, then you are weak, and lack the agency necessary for demands of reciprocity between sovereigns. As such you may not rule, or govern, and may have only liberty(capital), freedom(property), and subsidy(insurance), by permission, as the sovereign see fit. And you may purchase liberty, freedom, subsidy, and defense under the natural law of sovereigns, by acts of and military and civic defense of the commons, civil contribution by payment of fees, and the reciprocal defense of the subsidy, property, and liberty of peers.
-
Joslin Hits It out Of the Park.
by Bill Joslin (Just want to say that no one else has made it this far, and bill is rocking it.) 1 ———- PSYCHOLOGY Psychology – ostensive (experiential) argumentation to account for behavior. Incentive: seek a monopoly on perception via ostensive grammars Alternative: Aquisitionism where by human behaviour can be fully accounted via incentives. Outcome: a market for coherence via descriptive explanations of behaviour which can be tested with low or no context (declarative). 2 ———— POLITICAL *-OCRACY Any *-ocracy (democracy, oligarchy, Plutarchy, monarchy etc) are systemic moral justifications for control of nomocracy argued through imperatives. Incentive: to obtain a monopoly on the creation and execution of law – power over others argued via preferences for one “the good”. Alternative: propertarianism whereby all transactions must meet the criteria of perfect reciprocity. Outcome: disambiguous execution of law. A market for the creation of many “goods”. 3 ———- RELIGIOUS THEOLOGY Religio-philosophical are sets of arguments for prefered criteria of measuring truth. Incentive: obtain a monopoly on truth (justify god like proclamations about reality). Unwarranted declaration. Alternative: Testimonialism which uses all available criteria to demonstrate due diligence in eliminating error, bias, and deception Outcome: a market for coherence. 4 ——— MONOPOLY(DECEPTION) VS MARKET(TRUTH) In all cases above, the former uses ostensive or imperative grammars to obtain a monopoly. Each alternative “deframes” arguments, converting ostensive and imperative grammars into declarative statements. Why? Because only the declarative has the quality of being testable. This results in the destruction of monopolies over perception, law (violence) and truth allowing reality to dictate decisions and actions.
-
Joslin Hits It out Of the Park.
by Bill Joslin (Just want to say that no one else has made it this far, and bill is rocking it.) 1 ———- PSYCHOLOGY Psychology – ostensive (experiential) argumentation to account for behavior. Incentive: seek a monopoly on perception via ostensive grammars Alternative: Aquisitionism where by human behaviour can be fully accounted via incentives. Outcome: a market for coherence via descriptive explanations of behaviour which can be tested with low or no context (declarative). 2 ———— POLITICAL *-OCRACY Any *-ocracy (democracy, oligarchy, Plutarchy, monarchy etc) are systemic moral justifications for control of nomocracy argued through imperatives. Incentive: to obtain a monopoly on the creation and execution of law – power over others argued via preferences for one “the good”. Alternative: propertarianism whereby all transactions must meet the criteria of perfect reciprocity. Outcome: disambiguous execution of law. A market for the creation of many “goods”. 3 ———- RELIGIOUS THEOLOGY Religio-philosophical are sets of arguments for prefered criteria of measuring truth. Incentive: obtain a monopoly on truth (justify god like proclamations about reality). Unwarranted declaration. Alternative: Testimonialism which uses all available criteria to demonstrate due diligence in eliminating error, bias, and deception Outcome: a market for coherence. 4 ——— MONOPOLY(DECEPTION) VS MARKET(TRUTH) In all cases above, the former uses ostensive or imperative grammars to obtain a monopoly. Each alternative “deframes” arguments, converting ostensive and imperative grammars into declarative statements. Why? Because only the declarative has the quality of being testable. This results in the destruction of monopolies over perception, law (violence) and truth allowing reality to dictate decisions and actions.
-
Frames….
by Bill Joslin So to distill this down a bit more. As far as I can tell, cognition has three broad frames, experiential (perceptual), imperative (action-reaction), and consequential (perceptual feedback of action-reaction). The progress of disambiguation of grammars has been the incremental movement toward accounting for all three frames. The ambiguous grammars have been a reduction in accounting to all three frames (ussually preferences one frame over others). The accounting and interplay between each frame (a market) decontextualizes the information to the consequential frame (the only frame which encompasses the other two). What we are doing with testimonialism is translating experiential and imperative data into a consequential frame where it can be tested (falsified)
-
Frames….
by Bill Joslin So to distill this down a bit more. As far as I can tell, cognition has three broad frames, experiential (perceptual), imperative (action-reaction), and consequential (perceptual feedback of action-reaction). The progress of disambiguation of grammars has been the incremental movement toward accounting for all three frames. The ambiguous grammars have been a reduction in accounting to all three frames (ussually preferences one frame over others). The accounting and interplay between each frame (a market) decontextualizes the information to the consequential frame (the only frame which encompasses the other two). What we are doing with testimonialism is translating experiential and imperative data into a consequential frame where it can be tested (falsified)
-
Morality Is an Exclusively Present Question
there need be no justification for war, conquest, colonization, exploitation, decimation and genocide since moral questions are only relevant between cooperators. The past happened and we cannot alter history, only cooperate in the present or war in the present. i have no debt to the past. you have no credit from it. build a civil society today or admit you cant and need to be ruled. there are plenty of peoples more advanced that can rule if you cant. time moves. the weak are conquered. evolution continues. excuses are meaningless because the universe is deaf. the past is irrelevant. cooperate, conquer or be conquered. morality is an exclusively present question. — edit — This post is in response to intertemporal claims of debts between peoples who have been in conflict and particularly asymmetrical conflict. In the west, we do not regularly tell the Turks that they are occupying white lands. Yet we tell the arabs they are occupying jewish lands. We tell the Boers that they are occupying African lands. And texans they are occupying mexican (Amerindian) lands. And the russians are occupying Siberian and caucasian lands. And the north and south Americans occupying amerindian lands. And the amerindians occupying the previous generations of Siberians who discovered and hunted the americas first. I’ve answered this question before, but in my understanding, you establish ownership of territory by infrastructure and monuments (contribution) not use (extraction). otherwise you are making poor use of territory at others’ expense, and therefore harm by your very existence. Just as if you cannot rule without imposing costs upon your neighbors, that you are making poor use of territory at other’s expense. So if you cannot produce capital (physical, and institutional) then the market for territories demonstrates your unfitness to hold it. Not by arbitrary reasons but by EVOLUTIONARY means. Debts end when restitution is no longer possible between creditor and debtor. And when no insurer exists to enforce them. That’s just a statement of possibility. All else is just means, motive, and opportunity. Given: Criminal(for physical gains) > ethical (for interpersonal gains) > moral (for extrapersonal gains) > evil ( for psychic reward from interpersonal and interpersonal losses) Moral questions are those where our actions are unobservable and not directly calculable – say, when you bear a child you cannot afford and impose the cost of its upkeep on the community through the creation of moral hazard. It seems most people who are commenting confuse the practical and calculable with the moral (invisible and incalculable). You might say that it’s practical to avoid offending competing groups. And that the reason for practicality is incentive for retaliation against the imposition of costs upon others. And in that sense the practical and the moral are both questions imposition, but they are not equal questions of cooperation. Whether you are immature (stupid) enough to allow your training in jewish, christian, muslim universalism and superstition, and conflate the criminal, ethical, moral, and practical, you’re doing the same things as women do by expanding the communalism of family to the market that is the polity, by extending the market of the polity, to that of the international market of competitors. Conquest, Decimation, Genocide, are extremely effective. And the products of our arts and sciences are the products of groups that expand, conquer, and put territories and resources to superior use in the production of temporal and intertemporal capital. Always expand. Always Create. Always Innovate. Always Conquer and put to better use – assuming you can put to better use in ten accumulation of genetic, cultural, knowledge, and institutional capital. Evolution is the end point decision of all conflicts. Experience is only useful in getting there. Evolve or die. Eat the Weak.
-
Morality Is an Exclusively Present Question
there need be no justification for war, conquest, colonization, exploitation, decimation and genocide since moral questions are only relevant between cooperators. The past happened and we cannot alter history, only cooperate in the present or war in the present. i have no debt to the past. you have no credit from it. build a civil society today or admit you cant and need to be ruled. there are plenty of peoples more advanced that can rule if you cant. time moves. the weak are conquered. evolution continues. excuses are meaningless because the universe is deaf. the past is irrelevant. cooperate, conquer or be conquered. morality is an exclusively present question. — edit — This post is in response to intertemporal claims of debts between peoples who have been in conflict and particularly asymmetrical conflict. In the west, we do not regularly tell the Turks that they are occupying white lands. Yet we tell the arabs they are occupying jewish lands. We tell the Boers that they are occupying African lands. And texans they are occupying mexican (Amerindian) lands. And the russians are occupying Siberian and caucasian lands. And the north and south Americans occupying amerindian lands. And the amerindians occupying the previous generations of Siberians who discovered and hunted the americas first. I’ve answered this question before, but in my understanding, you establish ownership of territory by infrastructure and monuments (contribution) not use (extraction). otherwise you are making poor use of territory at others’ expense, and therefore harm by your very existence. Just as if you cannot rule without imposing costs upon your neighbors, that you are making poor use of territory at other’s expense. So if you cannot produce capital (physical, and institutional) then the market for territories demonstrates your unfitness to hold it. Not by arbitrary reasons but by EVOLUTIONARY means. Debts end when restitution is no longer possible between creditor and debtor. And when no insurer exists to enforce them. That’s just a statement of possibility. All else is just means, motive, and opportunity. Given: Criminal(for physical gains) > ethical (for interpersonal gains) > moral (for extrapersonal gains) > evil ( for psychic reward from interpersonal and interpersonal losses) Moral questions are those where our actions are unobservable and not directly calculable – say, when you bear a child you cannot afford and impose the cost of its upkeep on the community through the creation of moral hazard. It seems most people who are commenting confuse the practical and calculable with the moral (invisible and incalculable). You might say that it’s practical to avoid offending competing groups. And that the reason for practicality is incentive for retaliation against the imposition of costs upon others. And in that sense the practical and the moral are both questions imposition, but they are not equal questions of cooperation. Whether you are immature (stupid) enough to allow your training in jewish, christian, muslim universalism and superstition, and conflate the criminal, ethical, moral, and practical, you’re doing the same things as women do by expanding the communalism of family to the market that is the polity, by extending the market of the polity, to that of the international market of competitors. Conquest, Decimation, Genocide, are extremely effective. And the products of our arts and sciences are the products of groups that expand, conquer, and put territories and resources to superior use in the production of temporal and intertemporal capital. Always expand. Always Create. Always Innovate. Always Conquer and put to better use – assuming you can put to better use in ten accumulation of genetic, cultural, knowledge, and institutional capital. Evolution is the end point decision of all conflicts. Experience is only useful in getting there. Evolve or die. Eat the Weak.