I know this is how I’m going to die if I am not very careful, since asthma leads to copd, and such. I hope I go in a revolution instead.
I was in the UK in the mid 90’s when people died from the flu there. I lost almost 30 lbs. Terrible stuff.
No more airports for me except in summer. lol
Source: Original Site Post
-
Science Won. Philosophy Is Done.
I don’t really know anyone who writes philosophy outside of science and logic that is anything but moral fictionalist. There are scientists, and logicians, and fictionalists. We have moral fiction, religious fiction, science fiction, we and fiction proper, as well as pseudoscience, pseudo religion, and pseudo-philosophy(pseudo-rationalism). We all daydream in our favorite method of daydreaming. Unfortunately some people conflate the fictional, with the achievable, with the true. Each is obvious from the grammar and semantics they make use of. It’s not an opinion, it’s simply fact. —“Your statement is philosophy.”— Cat Tibath My statement is one of science. That science is testimony. In this case, the grammar and semantics of truths, fictions and falsehoods. As far as I know, traditional grammar and semantics of philosophy is done as other than fictionalism (pseudoscience). Either we are seeking testimonial (true) speech or we are seeking something not testimonial (true). And instead seeking the preferable and the good. And as far as I know, that is all that is left for philosophy: choice of individual preference, and group preference (good). For that which is true, moral, ethical is just science. And that which is good or preferable is merely choosable by aesthetics, not decidable by truth. The vast majority of philosophy, and in particular all conteinental philosophy, is, as far as I know, moral fictionalism by people too lacking in interpersonal insight to write a great novel. Science won. -
Science Won. Philosophy Is Done.
I don’t really know anyone who writes philosophy outside of science and logic that is anything but moral fictionalist. There are scientists, and logicians, and fictionalists. We have moral fiction, religious fiction, science fiction, we and fiction proper, as well as pseudoscience, pseudo religion, and pseudo-philosophy(pseudo-rationalism). We all daydream in our favorite method of daydreaming. Unfortunately some people conflate the fictional, with the achievable, with the true. Each is obvious from the grammar and semantics they make use of. It’s not an opinion, it’s simply fact. —“Your statement is philosophy.”— Cat Tibath My statement is one of science. That science is testimony. In this case, the grammar and semantics of truths, fictions and falsehoods. As far as I know, traditional grammar and semantics of philosophy is done as other than fictionalism (pseudoscience). Either we are seeking testimonial (true) speech or we are seeking something not testimonial (true). And instead seeking the preferable and the good. And as far as I know, that is all that is left for philosophy: choice of individual preference, and group preference (good). For that which is true, moral, ethical is just science. And that which is good or preferable is merely choosable by aesthetics, not decidable by truth. The vast majority of philosophy, and in particular all conteinental philosophy, is, as far as I know, moral fictionalism by people too lacking in interpersonal insight to write a great novel. Science won. -
Eric Weinstein On The Failure Of The Gated Institutional Narrative
Including: – The “Adjective-Profession-Name” Formula. – The Disagreeables, – And The “No-Living-Heroes” Theory. 1) Consider these adjectives: Embattled Controversial Divisive Reclusive Provocative Struggling Right-Wing Eccentric Self-styled Far-Left Recovering Disgraced Self-Promoting Free-thinking Volatile etc. 2) These adjectives are really reserved terms and the ‘tells’ of mainstream media letting you know who is off-narrative and who they have marked for reputation neutralization through FUD (Fear-Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns. 3) So what’s wrong with calling a professor who is controversial, a “controversial professor” you may fairly ask? The problem is that MSM builds client side architecture in your own mind that you don’t notice. Proof? Check the graphic attached. 4) Apparently in the entire history of the internet, this tweet is the first to ever use the phrase “controversial professor Paul Krugman” to describe @paulkrugman even though he is famous for being a controversial professor. So…how can that be? 5) Let’s first dig a bit to look for positive framings of my colleague “controversial professor” @jordanbpeterson. Consider these attachments for a man whose fame is largely due to being a noble inspirational heroic maverick. The point is that real humans don’t talk like this. 6) My point here is that our minds are programmed to recognize the “Gated Institutional Narrative” or GIN and to take our emotional instructions from it. This is Orwell’s 1984 Newspeak: Adjective-Profession-Target. Or so asserts self-styled Internet personality 7) So who are the targets? Men and women who are off the charts on the Big-5 psychometric for disagreeability. These people are the pool from which our greatest Nobel Laureates & even heroes were once drawn. And right now the internet is having a bull market in disagreeability. 8) This brings us to one of my most controversial theories: Ever since Lindbergh’s attempt to keep the US out of WWII, our institutions have fought against us having ANY living heroes with self-minted credibility. This leaves a vacuum filled by acceptable institutional figures. 9) The lesson learned from Lindbergh appears to be that Mavericks are too dangerous to institutions…and in the case of Lindbergh that made some sense. But what about a John Lennon? Frances Kelsey? Charlie Chaplin? Paul Robeson? Frank Wilkinson? Katharine Hepburn? 10) Here’s the punchline: There are suddenly way way too many disagreeable individual voices to be found for people trying to escape from the constant cognitive abuse of our institutions, which want our co-dependence on them. So something new *has* to happen. Here goes… Either: A) The spell of the GIN breaks and we have lots of real self-minted heroes again. B) Disagreeables like Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, Nassim Taleb, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehman, etc… all get taken out. C) The institutions seat some of the disagreeables. CLOSING My prediction is that the Gated Institutional Narrative will fail. Exotic measures will be tried to get rid of the strong voices as was done to Jean Seberg. And then, at long bloody last, the institutions will seat the disagreeables. Here’s to Harvard Professor Nassim Taleb. –Eric Weinstein -
Eric Weinstein On The Failure Of The Gated Institutional Narrative
Including: – The “Adjective-Profession-Name” Formula. – The Disagreeables, – And The “No-Living-Heroes” Theory. 1) Consider these adjectives: Embattled Controversial Divisive Reclusive Provocative Struggling Right-Wing Eccentric Self-styled Far-Left Recovering Disgraced Self-Promoting Free-thinking Volatile etc. 2) These adjectives are really reserved terms and the ‘tells’ of mainstream media letting you know who is off-narrative and who they have marked for reputation neutralization through FUD (Fear-Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns. 3) So what’s wrong with calling a professor who is controversial, a “controversial professor” you may fairly ask? The problem is that MSM builds client side architecture in your own mind that you don’t notice. Proof? Check the graphic attached. 4) Apparently in the entire history of the internet, this tweet is the first to ever use the phrase “controversial professor Paul Krugman” to describe @paulkrugman even though he is famous for being a controversial professor. So…how can that be? 5) Let’s first dig a bit to look for positive framings of my colleague “controversial professor” @jordanbpeterson. Consider these attachments for a man whose fame is largely due to being a noble inspirational heroic maverick. The point is that real humans don’t talk like this. 6) My point here is that our minds are programmed to recognize the “Gated Institutional Narrative” or GIN and to take our emotional instructions from it. This is Orwell’s 1984 Newspeak: Adjective-Profession-Target. Or so asserts self-styled Internet personality 7) So who are the targets? Men and women who are off the charts on the Big-5 psychometric for disagreeability. These people are the pool from which our greatest Nobel Laureates & even heroes were once drawn. And right now the internet is having a bull market in disagreeability. 8) This brings us to one of my most controversial theories: Ever since Lindbergh’s attempt to keep the US out of WWII, our institutions have fought against us having ANY living heroes with self-minted credibility. This leaves a vacuum filled by acceptable institutional figures. 9) The lesson learned from Lindbergh appears to be that Mavericks are too dangerous to institutions…and in the case of Lindbergh that made some sense. But what about a John Lennon? Frances Kelsey? Charlie Chaplin? Paul Robeson? Frank Wilkinson? Katharine Hepburn? 10) Here’s the punchline: There are suddenly way way too many disagreeable individual voices to be found for people trying to escape from the constant cognitive abuse of our institutions, which want our co-dependence on them. So something new *has* to happen. Here goes… Either: A) The spell of the GIN breaks and we have lots of real self-minted heroes again. B) Disagreeables like Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, Nassim Taleb, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehman, etc… all get taken out. C) The institutions seat some of the disagreeables. CLOSING My prediction is that the Gated Institutional Narrative will fail. Exotic measures will be tried to get rid of the strong voices as was done to Jean Seberg. And then, at long bloody last, the institutions will seat the disagreeables. Here’s to Harvard Professor Nassim Taleb. –Eric Weinstein -
Programming. Football on mute. Steak and Egg Brunch. A bottle of San Pellegrino.
Programming. Football on mute. Steak and Egg Brunch. A bottle of San Pellegrino. Coffee. -
Programming. Football on mute. Steak and Egg Brunch. A bottle of San Pellegrino.
Programming. Football on mute. Steak and Egg Brunch. A bottle of San Pellegrino. Coffee. -
–“Curt: Why Do Libertarians Eat Each Other?”—
–“CURT: WHY DO LIBERTARIANS EAT EACH OTHER?”— Very smart question. 1) Men seek status internally and externally by demonstration of superiority in competitions. So geeks fight verbal battles, from positions of relative safety, in an arena where there are enough of them that such competitions are possible (it’s hard to find other smart people in the real world) 2) men seek to learn by competition rather than by submission which is why women do better in universities and men do better in competitive forums where they do not have to please but WIN. 3) Men operate in tribes the way women operate with close friends. They seek hierarchies of peers where they can test their positions. Women seek common ground and then hen peck, while men fight for status and accommodate competitors. These tribes form along class and kin boundaries. Most friends are but three degrees of genetic distance from you. Language is commensurable across these differences so we tend to attribute more similarity to our thinking than exists. Our thinking exists to justify (make excuses for) our impulses and our impulses are genetically determined. The differences between male brains and female brains is now fairly well understood, and all of these things are understandable just like they are in other animals. We just use a lot of words to deny it. -
–“Curt: Why Do Libertarians Eat Each Other?”—
–“CURT: WHY DO LIBERTARIANS EAT EACH OTHER?”— Very smart question. 1) Men seek status internally and externally by demonstration of superiority in competitions. So geeks fight verbal battles, from positions of relative safety, in an arena where there are enough of them that such competitions are possible (it’s hard to find other smart people in the real world) 2) men seek to learn by competition rather than by submission which is why women do better in universities and men do better in competitive forums where they do not have to please but WIN. 3) Men operate in tribes the way women operate with close friends. They seek hierarchies of peers where they can test their positions. Women seek common ground and then hen peck, while men fight for status and accommodate competitors. These tribes form along class and kin boundaries. Most friends are but three degrees of genetic distance from you. Language is commensurable across these differences so we tend to attribute more similarity to our thinking than exists. Our thinking exists to justify (make excuses for) our impulses and our impulses are genetically determined. The differences between male brains and female brains is now fairly well understood, and all of these things are understandable just like they are in other animals. We just use a lot of words to deny it. -
We Are Small In Number, The Only Possibility Is Separation
—“Then, as a libertarian, I have a Question for you – where does someone such as myself actually fit in order to help affect the most positive change(s) ???”— We are small in number. We always will be small in number. The world is built for the median. The world MUST be built for the median. The only way to improve our lot is to shift the median. We can shift the median by eliminating falsehoods, eliminating ignorance (educating), and shift the median through demographic change. We can change demographics only by separating. That’s just how it is. If we separate many will follow who want the benefits that such a polity provides. But the alternative is brazil, india, the levant, arabia….