Oh. I like that framing:
– You empty a 9mm
– You double-tap/mozambique a 45.
– And you fire a 10mm once.
I think I’m going to stick with that one.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Your Warranty Of Due Diligence Is The Test Of Your Ethics
Now, I’ll repeat here that there is a vast difference between telling a story and telling a series of stories. Just as there is a vast difference between a term, and a term from a series of terms. Just as there is a vast difference between a parable and its explanation (you’ll note that the victorians were certain to state the lessons of aesop’s fables in actionable prose). All of these techniques I use and advocate allow us to both narrate and give examples while continuously disambiguating (deflating, deconflating, de-fictionalizing) the narrative. I have my own narrative that is quite difficult to get across and that is just how central truth (testimony and agency ) are to western civ. And I do that by constant triangulation of examples. meaning is first, Justification is second, BUT WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE IS THE RESULT OF DEFLATION. It does not matter what story you tell as long as after having achieved through association that which you now deflate via operation. -
Your Warranty Of Due Diligence Is The Test Of Your Ethics
Now, I’ll repeat here that there is a vast difference between telling a story and telling a series of stories. Just as there is a vast difference between a term, and a term from a series of terms. Just as there is a vast difference between a parable and its explanation (you’ll note that the victorians were certain to state the lessons of aesop’s fables in actionable prose). All of these techniques I use and advocate allow us to both narrate and give examples while continuously disambiguating (deflating, deconflating, de-fictionalizing) the narrative. I have my own narrative that is quite difficult to get across and that is just how central truth (testimony and agency ) are to western civ. And I do that by constant triangulation of examples. meaning is first, Justification is second, BUT WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE IS THE RESULT OF DEFLATION. It does not matter what story you tell as long as after having achieved through association that which you now deflate via operation. -
I say the same thing over and over again: the history, the novel, the myth, the
I say the same thing over and over again: the history, the novel, the myth, the parable. all of these are no more than what they pretend to be. (See Durant). I have a problem with inflation, conflation, and fictionalisms because of the externalities produced. The problem is, that the desire for that feeling we have when listening to the storyteller around the fire, surrender our suspension of disbelief, and transport ourselves into the world of imagination and free association – that externally controlled dream state – is both profound, and worthy of that profound feeling. But why must it include inflations, conflations, and fictionalisms? I must certainly include what we call hyperbole (exaggerations) for the purpose of illustration. It must certainly contain loading for purposes of value attribution and path finding. It must certainly be organized by archetypes and the rise-fall combination of story arcs in order to fit into a grammar of general rules of behavior like all other rules of calculation we make use of. But why can we not maintain the original path of our people by maintaining a separation of narratives, like we have a separation of powers, a separation of disciplines, and a separation of property? Why do we have to fall into the same mistakes as did the eastern into europeans – the ones that are gone? The ones who failed? That something is desirable or useful does not mean it is preferable and good. Many myths parables and stories – if not all of them – convey metaphysical assumptions about the structure of reality. The ‘literature of artificial awe’ is and always has been a cancer. It is a cancer upon our people and upon mankind. It is no different from heroin, cocaine, sugar, carbohydrates, – substitutes for the euphoria of oxygenation produced by exercise and success (dominance expression). Or the opposite (“E”). It is far easier to criticize a near neighbor of marginal indifference than a distant relative of vast differences. SO it is easier to illustrate further improvements by those are more right (hoppe, mises, hayek, popper, kuhn…) than it is that those who are vastly wrong (marx, freud, boaz, cantor). And so it is far easier for me to illustrate and explore increases in precision with a peterson or hoppe than it is a zizek or any of the host of nonsense philosophers that still l live and work today – if only because people of similar mind are not interested, and the work required to correct a vast error rather than improve a fundamental by increase in precision is equal but unequally productive. I have made a business of criticizing near neighbors for the simple reason that they are less wrong, and so the returns on the investment are higher. Peterson is just a good example, because the only difference is externalities (me) and internalities(him). I mean, if I criticize some logician not only will no one understand it, but it doesn’t increase my ability to address the issues of MEANINGFUL BUT CUMULATIVELY DESTRUCTIVE ideas. My job isn’t to teach meaning. it is to create law, so that even well intentioned fools do no harm – not because they have ill incentives, but because like children running with scissors they know not the risk that they impose upon mankind. The kind of moral man (and women) all of you demonstrate that you are on a continual basis is a purely genetic and deterministic result of the provision of greater stimulation from certain categories of information (stimuli). I understand this. And for this reason some of you are more enamored of empathic stories, and some of decidability, while a few can manage to do both. So there is a difficult problem to solve that we all understand: moral men of such masculine dispositions so desirous of political change, desire inspiration to act as a group. Meanwhile the purpose of such action that produces the outcome such men desire, is not myth but law. Not to produce agreement or consent, or understanding, but to prohibit alternatives to it by law. One cannot program others to agree with you. That is only possible with lying. One can however, eliminate the incentives to agree with you by providing counter incentives not to act in discord with it. I might produce eventually a bible of sorts, and it might be as I’ve stated before, composed of excerpts from literature through the ages that DOES inspire. But I have understood as has hayek that all such efforts at monopoly of values will fail, and that the only monopoly of values that exists is the parasitism of the underclasses and those who can profit from enabling their parasitism. Via positiva does not matter except to inspire and confirm that which already exists and is therefore irrelevant. Revolutions occur because of rational incentives merely justified by narratives. The only institution that solves our problem is law. And the only means of imposing the primacy of that institution is to use the only weapon that this institution has available to it: the prohibition of falsehood no matter how attractive or useful thereby forcing all to evolve in accordance with markets. Most men go to their deaths understanding that their intellectual labors were failures. Hayek did not. And I don’t plan to. Fictionalism of today is just religion of yesterday and such defenses are no more than a few century shift in such defense from one set of one era’s norms of comprehension to another eras set of norms of comprehension – but the problem remains. The enlightenment – or rather – the continuous evolution of western man from blacksmith to aristotle, to hume, to darwin et all, is produced by the incremental suppression of comforting falsehoods that imprison us in lack of agency. Not all drugs are physical. Many, and the cheapest, and most effective are verbal. I must do my work. The truth is not comforting. It is disruptive. And I understand its import as we suffer the third conquest of empty verbalisms that we call leftism – the priesthood. Just because I have spent the past ninety days working on technology and limiting myself to idle confirmatory chatter does not mean that I have lost sight of my mission. History is the only justice whose verdict I covet. And I am confident I will win my case. Cheers -
I say the same thing over and over again: the history, the novel, the myth, the
I say the same thing over and over again: the history, the novel, the myth, the parable. all of these are no more than what they pretend to be. (See Durant). I have a problem with inflation, conflation, and fictionalisms because of the externalities produced. The problem is, that the desire for that feeling we have when listening to the storyteller around the fire, surrender our suspension of disbelief, and transport ourselves into the world of imagination and free association – that externally controlled dream state – is both profound, and worthy of that profound feeling. But why must it include inflations, conflations, and fictionalisms? I must certainly include what we call hyperbole (exaggerations) for the purpose of illustration. It must certainly contain loading for purposes of value attribution and path finding. It must certainly be organized by archetypes and the rise-fall combination of story arcs in order to fit into a grammar of general rules of behavior like all other rules of calculation we make use of. But why can we not maintain the original path of our people by maintaining a separation of narratives, like we have a separation of powers, a separation of disciplines, and a separation of property? Why do we have to fall into the same mistakes as did the eastern into europeans – the ones that are gone? The ones who failed? That something is desirable or useful does not mean it is preferable and good. Many myths parables and stories – if not all of them – convey metaphysical assumptions about the structure of reality. The ‘literature of artificial awe’ is and always has been a cancer. It is a cancer upon our people and upon mankind. It is no different from heroin, cocaine, sugar, carbohydrates, – substitutes for the euphoria of oxygenation produced by exercise and success (dominance expression). Or the opposite (“E”). It is far easier to criticize a near neighbor of marginal indifference than a distant relative of vast differences. SO it is easier to illustrate further improvements by those are more right (hoppe, mises, hayek, popper, kuhn…) than it is that those who are vastly wrong (marx, freud, boaz, cantor). And so it is far easier for me to illustrate and explore increases in precision with a peterson or hoppe than it is a zizek or any of the host of nonsense philosophers that still l live and work today – if only because people of similar mind are not interested, and the work required to correct a vast error rather than improve a fundamental by increase in precision is equal but unequally productive. I have made a business of criticizing near neighbors for the simple reason that they are less wrong, and so the returns on the investment are higher. Peterson is just a good example, because the only difference is externalities (me) and internalities(him). I mean, if I criticize some logician not only will no one understand it, but it doesn’t increase my ability to address the issues of MEANINGFUL BUT CUMULATIVELY DESTRUCTIVE ideas. My job isn’t to teach meaning. it is to create law, so that even well intentioned fools do no harm – not because they have ill incentives, but because like children running with scissors they know not the risk that they impose upon mankind. The kind of moral man (and women) all of you demonstrate that you are on a continual basis is a purely genetic and deterministic result of the provision of greater stimulation from certain categories of information (stimuli). I understand this. And for this reason some of you are more enamored of empathic stories, and some of decidability, while a few can manage to do both. So there is a difficult problem to solve that we all understand: moral men of such masculine dispositions so desirous of political change, desire inspiration to act as a group. Meanwhile the purpose of such action that produces the outcome such men desire, is not myth but law. Not to produce agreement or consent, or understanding, but to prohibit alternatives to it by law. One cannot program others to agree with you. That is only possible with lying. One can however, eliminate the incentives to agree with you by providing counter incentives not to act in discord with it. I might produce eventually a bible of sorts, and it might be as I’ve stated before, composed of excerpts from literature through the ages that DOES inspire. But I have understood as has hayek that all such efforts at monopoly of values will fail, and that the only monopoly of values that exists is the parasitism of the underclasses and those who can profit from enabling their parasitism. Via positiva does not matter except to inspire and confirm that which already exists and is therefore irrelevant. Revolutions occur because of rational incentives merely justified by narratives. The only institution that solves our problem is law. And the only means of imposing the primacy of that institution is to use the only weapon that this institution has available to it: the prohibition of falsehood no matter how attractive or useful thereby forcing all to evolve in accordance with markets. Most men go to their deaths understanding that their intellectual labors were failures. Hayek did not. And I don’t plan to. Fictionalism of today is just religion of yesterday and such defenses are no more than a few century shift in such defense from one set of one era’s norms of comprehension to another eras set of norms of comprehension – but the problem remains. The enlightenment – or rather – the continuous evolution of western man from blacksmith to aristotle, to hume, to darwin et all, is produced by the incremental suppression of comforting falsehoods that imprison us in lack of agency. Not all drugs are physical. Many, and the cheapest, and most effective are verbal. I must do my work. The truth is not comforting. It is disruptive. And I understand its import as we suffer the third conquest of empty verbalisms that we call leftism – the priesthood. Just because I have spent the past ninety days working on technology and limiting myself to idle confirmatory chatter does not mean that I have lost sight of my mission. History is the only justice whose verdict I covet. And I am confident I will win my case. Cheers -
(from elsewhere) The parable, the novel, the history, the economic history of th
(from elsewhere) The parable, the novel, the history, the economic history of the world provide better understanding for those with the physical, emotional, and mental agency to act in accordance with the world. But many of us, perhaps all but a few of us, cannot tolerate our relationship with reality for the same reason 80% of people in any organization believe they are in the top 20% of people in that organization – the illusion is necessary to preserve mindfulness (fear of status-diminution). So like religions of old, philosophy provides a form of entertainment in which those lacking agency, because they lack ability, find a means of insulation from the confrontation of the dissonance between their social, sexual, economic, political, and military value. Philosophy is just pseudoscientific entertainment literature, just as was religion. All we have done is refine the language while retaining the underlying value of comforting falsehoods. -
(from elsewhere) The parable, the novel, the history, the economic history of th
(from elsewhere) The parable, the novel, the history, the economic history of the world provide better understanding for those with the physical, emotional, and mental agency to act in accordance with the world. But many of us, perhaps all but a few of us, cannot tolerate our relationship with reality for the same reason 80% of people in any organization believe they are in the top 20% of people in that organization – the illusion is necessary to preserve mindfulness (fear of status-diminution). So like religions of old, philosophy provides a form of entertainment in which those lacking agency, because they lack ability, find a means of insulation from the confrontation of the dissonance between their social, sexual, economic, political, and military value. Philosophy is just pseudoscientific entertainment literature, just as was religion. All we have done is refine the language while retaining the underlying value of comforting falsehoods. -
Why Are People Attracted To Socialism? Infantilism.
It is because you begin with the child’s relationship to the parent (family), not the political relationship between families, clans, tribes, and nations. 1 – The first question of rational choice is “why don’t I commit suicide”. 2 – The first question of ethics, is, and always will be, “Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?” 3 – The first question of politics, is, and always will be “why don’t me and mine, kill you and yours, and take your stuff. 4 – The first question of all relations is “why don’t I/we kill you/you(plural) and take your stuff?” It is only after answering the question, that we decide how we cooperate or not. TRANSFORMATION INTO ADULTHOOD VS INFANTILIZATION A female, a child, (and a beta male) all admit their weakness and irrelevance when they begin with the presumption of the value of cooperation. Cooperation is only valuable until it is not. Hence, as an advocate for the organizational model of the family, all of whom demonstrate kin selection, you are attracted to the extension of that kin selection outside of your kin, and to the socialist’s (child,female) strategy. You seek it as ideal for the underclass family (genetic inferiors) but is not the ideal for the middle and upper class family (genetic superiors). And the markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities, are the means by which the competent evolve and the incompetent are removed from the gene pool – or at least, some equilibrium is maintained. Hence why those of us who exterminated our underclasses (east asians and western europeans) possess higher distributions in the middle and upper middle and the other groups possess lower distributions in the lower middle, and lower classes, and especially the extremely costly underclasses. So some of us are fully mature adults and understand this, and some of us are still infantilized (or coddled) and do not. The strong and able need a reason not to kill, enslave, enserf the weak and less able. And markets and rule of law, are the only means by which it is more profitable to cooperate for all than for the strong and able to enserf, enslave, prey upon, or kill the weak and unable. It takes about .001% of the male population to alter the political order. Socialism provides the incentive for the strong to defeat the weak. The only reason socialism had any footing whatsoever is that the christian peoples have a desperate desire to virtue signal their magnanimity – as a means of imitating their ancestral nobility. Everywhere even the most feeble attempt has been tried, the outcome has been cyclical degeneration of knowledge, craft, economy, norm, and tradition. Just as religions produced a cyclical degeneration of the same. Thus endeth the lesson. -
Why Are People Attracted To Socialism? Infantilism.
It is because you begin with the child’s relationship to the parent (family), not the political relationship between families, clans, tribes, and nations. 1 – The first question of rational choice is “why don’t I commit suicide”. 2 – The first question of ethics, is, and always will be, “Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?” 3 – The first question of politics, is, and always will be “why don’t me and mine, kill you and yours, and take your stuff. 4 – The first question of all relations is “why don’t I/we kill you/you(plural) and take your stuff?” It is only after answering the question, that we decide how we cooperate or not. TRANSFORMATION INTO ADULTHOOD VS INFANTILIZATION A female, a child, (and a beta male) all admit their weakness and irrelevance when they begin with the presumption of the value of cooperation. Cooperation is only valuable until it is not. Hence, as an advocate for the organizational model of the family, all of whom demonstrate kin selection, you are attracted to the extension of that kin selection outside of your kin, and to the socialist’s (child,female) strategy. You seek it as ideal for the underclass family (genetic inferiors) but is not the ideal for the middle and upper class family (genetic superiors). And the markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities, are the means by which the competent evolve and the incompetent are removed from the gene pool – or at least, some equilibrium is maintained. Hence why those of us who exterminated our underclasses (east asians and western europeans) possess higher distributions in the middle and upper middle and the other groups possess lower distributions in the lower middle, and lower classes, and especially the extremely costly underclasses. So some of us are fully mature adults and understand this, and some of us are still infantilized (or coddled) and do not. The strong and able need a reason not to kill, enslave, enserf the weak and less able. And markets and rule of law, are the only means by which it is more profitable to cooperate for all than for the strong and able to enserf, enslave, prey upon, or kill the weak and unable. It takes about .001% of the male population to alter the political order. Socialism provides the incentive for the strong to defeat the weak. The only reason socialism had any footing whatsoever is that the christian peoples have a desperate desire to virtue signal their magnanimity – as a means of imitating their ancestral nobility. Everywhere even the most feeble attempt has been tried, the outcome has been cyclical degeneration of knowledge, craft, economy, norm, and tradition. Just as religions produced a cyclical degeneration of the same. Thus endeth the lesson. -
OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS : The literary mind still struggles to find place in m
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea4mEnsTv6Q OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS : The literary mind still struggles to find place in modernity. As Weber could foresee all life is increasingly reduced from intuition to calculation. Overcoming our cognitive bias: 1 – “Markets” (competition between opportunities and limits) describe the behavior of the hemispheres. 2 – We struggle to overcome justificationism (the narrative of moraliy and religion) instead of competition and markets (survival, and the competition between imagination and falsification). 3 – Justification developed as did grammar: storytelling (describing) 4 – Cost is missing from morality, philosophy, religion. This is why thinkers in those fields remain backward (late medieval), Evolutionary constraints: 0 – lateralization of the nervous system was necessary for cost reasons. 1 – consequential specialization was necessary for cost reasons. 2 – opportunity (right) cost (left) = predators(right) prey (left) 3 – competition between opportunity generation and constraint (costs, limits). “Kuhn etc;” 1 – a paradigm consist of a network of constant relations. All changes in knowledge consist of reorganizing constant relations in memory, to respond to newly identified constant relations, and pruning and growing new relations. It is our failure to speak in constant relations between states, and our reliance on storytelling (literary analogy) … a problem of literary vocabulary. “Unstable Position”: 1 – Market maximization. people prefer and benefit from operating at the maximum of their capacity to obtain successful reinforcement. This is just an example of neural economics at work. THE LITERARY(conflationary) VS THE OPERATIONAL(deflationary) The language of artificial intelligence and cognitive science avoids the ‘pseudoscientific literature’ of psychology. Even if it is more enjoyable to learn through literature (storytelling). Why? Operations (measurements) vs mere verbal associations (conflations). There is far more to be said about why one prefers the literary (philosophical and psychological) rather than the scientific (operational) and economic (equilibrial) than is to be learned by the study of philosophy and psychology. However, the literary conveys to the speaker and the audience greater confidence in these fictions than exists in practice. This is not so important when we are discussing the conversion of philosophy and psychology to science. It is however, more important in preventing the use of loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, that is the vehicle by which old world abrahamism (judaism, christianity, islam) and new world arahamism (neoconservatism, libertarianism, marxism, postmodernism, and feminism) have been successful in undermining the ancient and modern worlds. OMG. The rest of the talk descends into the literary equivalent of gossip. Such drama. THE UNIVERSE IS VERY, VERY SIMPLE. All human life is very very simple. The human mind is very simple. And the current or coming completion of the enlightenment (interrupted by the abrahamic dark ages) will end this pseudoscientific nonsense in the economic, political, social, and psychological, just as it ended it in the physical. Finally. ALthough I have no doubt that we will see another generation of Marx’s Freud’s Baoz’s Cantor’s creating a new literary fantasy – another moral fictional literature under another guise.