Cultural Variants of Truth and the Consequences
July 11, 2014 (repost)
Truth and Adherence to Rules are two different things. (submission)
Truth and Fidelity to Contract are two different things.
Truth and Duty are two different things.
Truth and Knowledge are two different things.
Truth as Adherence – Familialism (most of the world)
Truth as Fidelity – Tribalism (judaism)
Truth as Duty – Nationalism (germans)
Truth as Science – Universalism. (english)
[T]hat members of a community follow rules and conventions with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another.
That members of a community fulfill promises or contracts with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another.
Another community may both fulfill it’s promises, its contracts, and the commitment to tell the truth at all times regardless of cost.
The principle of truth to to an Adherence community consists of order. The principle of ‘truth’ to a contract community consists of fidelity. The principle of truth to a truth-telling community consists of ***SCIENCE***.
If you grasp the profundity of this statement you will understand why some cultures produce science, and some produce trade, and some produce tyranny. Some create science. And some create pseudoscience. And some create only order. Some create science, innovation, trade and trust. Others create only trade, and others create only utilitarian applications of tools.
Small things in large numbers have vast consequences.
When we use ‘functions” such as the verb to be, or the word ‘truth’ we do not really understand their construction, just that they are shorthand approximations that tend to work. We have just knowledge of use, not knowledge of construction.
But the word ‘true’ means very different things in different places: science, fidelity, and adherence.
And the consequences are astounding.
Truth is a performative declaration. Truth claims then, to different groups, state either epistemology, fidelity, or adherence.
I have solved the problem you know.
It’s ethics.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Definitions Are Recipes
by Bill Joslin The only definitions (identity) which rest in the commons are operational descriptions (recipes). Operational descriptions stand on their own as a set of arguments – thus definitions simply assign a name to a set of operational arguments. We then use names, for sake of brevity, to build new, higher order arguments. The relation of lower order and higher order definitions are two-fold – either a lower order argument has a causal relation to a higher order one (a primary or fundamental ) or the higher order argument provides superordinate to the lower order argument. By categorizing according to arguments versus object-properties we may open up new meta-relations which are not available with an object-property mentality. -
Definitions Are Recipes
by Bill Joslin The only definitions (identity) which rest in the commons are operational descriptions (recipes). Operational descriptions stand on their own as a set of arguments – thus definitions simply assign a name to a set of operational arguments. We then use names, for sake of brevity, to build new, higher order arguments. The relation of lower order and higher order definitions are two-fold – either a lower order argument has a causal relation to a higher order one (a primary or fundamental ) or the higher order argument provides superordinate to the lower order argument. By categorizing according to arguments versus object-properties we may open up new meta-relations which are not available with an object-property mentality. -
Liberals, Libertarians, And Conservatives.
– Just read **The Righteous Mind** by Jonathan Haidt. – Then read **The Essential Difference **by Simon Baron Cohen. – Then read **Thinking Fast and Slow **by Daniel Kahneman. – Then read **Explaining Postmodernism** by Stephen Hicks. (a) liberalism (female-child: parasitism upon capital), libertarianism (marginal male: innovation in capital), conservatism (established male: conservation of capital) differences in moral perception are genetically granted to us and reinforced by a lifetime of experience. (b) Conservatives can understand everyone but disagree. Libertarians can understand themselves and conservatives. Liberals (leftists) can only understand themselves. (c) Liberals argue in psychologists, consensus over truth, and blame (short term consumption). LIbertarians argue in truth, voluntarism, and economics(medium term production, and profits.) Conservatives argue in intertemporal and unfortunately vague terms (“what happens if everyone does this?”) When they should be arguing in the language of capital. (c) we have very little control over altering this process as it’s a reproductive necessity (d) By specializing in the reproductive, productive, and capital time cycles, we divide the labor of sense-perception, work, and advocacy, and by voluntary cooperation we calculate the optimum possible at any given moment, without having to understand ‘everything from everyone’s position in the demand cycle.” In simple terms, the female and underclass reproductive strategy is to control reproduction, production, and evolution by dysgenia, and the male is to control them by eugenia. And until we can look darwin in the face, we will continue to battle between the female/preisthood/underclass, and the male/aristocracy/middle class forever. The history of western civilization’s successin the prehistoric, ancient, and modern worlds is that we have, aside from the chinese, produced the most eugenic civilization. So much so that by the late middle ages, we had dramatically shifted the median of the population more fully into the emiddle classes than any in history (not counting the distribution under slavery)> For most of the 18–19th and up until … max of 1940, there was underutilized human capital in european civilization. But since about 1940, if not 1890, that’s not been true. Most of the remaining undeveloped world is burdened by an excessively left distributed underclass that is not underutilized, and possibly cannot now be utilized. The reason being that we have gone from many multiples of return on investment to a maximum of about ten, and this appears to be a declining trend. So the future, with a huge underclass, leaves only really, Japan and maybe coastal china, safe from the hordes. Liberalism has been a cancer. We had the perfect government: 0 – A Universal Militia (shareholders whose share was purchased by risk) 1 – A judge of last resort (king) 2 – An independent judiciary and rule of law under the law of reciprocity. 3 – A house for each of the natural classes (church, commons, nobility, king) 4 – And a market for polities, commons, production, reproduction, cooperation, and association. And we blew it. Democracy was nothing but a means of bourgeois seizure of power. And the long term transformation from rule of law, to rule by credit. -
Liberals, Libertarians, And Conservatives.
– Just read **The Righteous Mind** by Jonathan Haidt. – Then read **The Essential Difference **by Simon Baron Cohen. – Then read **Thinking Fast and Slow **by Daniel Kahneman. – Then read **Explaining Postmodernism** by Stephen Hicks. (a) liberalism (female-child: parasitism upon capital), libertarianism (marginal male: innovation in capital), conservatism (established male: conservation of capital) differences in moral perception are genetically granted to us and reinforced by a lifetime of experience. (b) Conservatives can understand everyone but disagree. Libertarians can understand themselves and conservatives. Liberals (leftists) can only understand themselves. (c) Liberals argue in psychologists, consensus over truth, and blame (short term consumption). LIbertarians argue in truth, voluntarism, and economics(medium term production, and profits.) Conservatives argue in intertemporal and unfortunately vague terms (“what happens if everyone does this?”) When they should be arguing in the language of capital. (c) we have very little control over altering this process as it’s a reproductive necessity (d) By specializing in the reproductive, productive, and capital time cycles, we divide the labor of sense-perception, work, and advocacy, and by voluntary cooperation we calculate the optimum possible at any given moment, without having to understand ‘everything from everyone’s position in the demand cycle.” In simple terms, the female and underclass reproductive strategy is to control reproduction, production, and evolution by dysgenia, and the male is to control them by eugenia. And until we can look darwin in the face, we will continue to battle between the female/preisthood/underclass, and the male/aristocracy/middle class forever. The history of western civilization’s successin the prehistoric, ancient, and modern worlds is that we have, aside from the chinese, produced the most eugenic civilization. So much so that by the late middle ages, we had dramatically shifted the median of the population more fully into the emiddle classes than any in history (not counting the distribution under slavery)> For most of the 18–19th and up until … max of 1940, there was underutilized human capital in european civilization. But since about 1940, if not 1890, that’s not been true. Most of the remaining undeveloped world is burdened by an excessively left distributed underclass that is not underutilized, and possibly cannot now be utilized. The reason being that we have gone from many multiples of return on investment to a maximum of about ten, and this appears to be a declining trend. So the future, with a huge underclass, leaves only really, Japan and maybe coastal china, safe from the hordes. Liberalism has been a cancer. We had the perfect government: 0 – A Universal Militia (shareholders whose share was purchased by risk) 1 – A judge of last resort (king) 2 – An independent judiciary and rule of law under the law of reciprocity. 3 – A house for each of the natural classes (church, commons, nobility, king) 4 – And a market for polities, commons, production, reproduction, cooperation, and association. And we blew it. Democracy was nothing but a means of bourgeois seizure of power. And the long term transformation from rule of law, to rule by credit. -
Ancapism Is Impossible
Anarcho capitalist societies are impossible because it is impossible to create any competitive order without a territorial monopoly, and impossible to create a territorial monopoly without competitive defense, and impossible to create a competitive defense without competitive commons, because it is impossible to create concentrations of wealth without competitive commons. Moreover, all competitive commons in history have included public-private partnerships. There have been no AC societies except the two extremes of jewish ghettos, migratory pastoralists, and gypsy bands. Only unlanded peoples seek a privatization of (parasitism) rather than continuous investment in commons. The west was superior at commons creation because it was superior at high trust production, and it was superior at high trust production, because it held territories that unlike the flood river valleys did not concentrate production that could be centrally administered and taxed, and therefore relied upon a militia, and militia participation for defense. No other civilization could and no other civilization did so. There is no possible liberty except by permission of the sovereign. Only a militia is ever even possibly sovereign. So a person with property, begs for liberty with his property, by permission – the way a slave begs for freedom to sell his labor by permission. The only people who do not beg are those that need not: the sovereign. And the only sovereignty that is possible is the distributed dictatorship of sovereign men for whom no option exists except perfect reciprocity and markets in everything. Anarcho capitalism relies on the ‘ghetto ethics’ of Rothbardian low trust pastoralism: Intersubjectively verifiable property. Whereas western sovereignty relies on high trust, total prohibition, on the imposition of born costs regardless of their form. Thus endeth the lesson. AC will never be. It is the ethics of shepherds, travelling salesmen, gypsies, and thieves. The only sovereignty, is the militia, of all men of property, who provide one another with reciprocal insurance of sovereignty under the natural law of reciprocity. -
Ancapism Is Impossible
Anarcho capitalist societies are impossible because it is impossible to create any competitive order without a territorial monopoly, and impossible to create a territorial monopoly without competitive defense, and impossible to create a competitive defense without competitive commons, because it is impossible to create concentrations of wealth without competitive commons. Moreover, all competitive commons in history have included public-private partnerships. There have been no AC societies except the two extremes of jewish ghettos, migratory pastoralists, and gypsy bands. Only unlanded peoples seek a privatization of (parasitism) rather than continuous investment in commons. The west was superior at commons creation because it was superior at high trust production, and it was superior at high trust production, because it held territories that unlike the flood river valleys did not concentrate production that could be centrally administered and taxed, and therefore relied upon a militia, and militia participation for defense. No other civilization could and no other civilization did so. There is no possible liberty except by permission of the sovereign. Only a militia is ever even possibly sovereign. So a person with property, begs for liberty with his property, by permission – the way a slave begs for freedom to sell his labor by permission. The only people who do not beg are those that need not: the sovereign. And the only sovereignty that is possible is the distributed dictatorship of sovereign men for whom no option exists except perfect reciprocity and markets in everything. Anarcho capitalism relies on the ‘ghetto ethics’ of Rothbardian low trust pastoralism: Intersubjectively verifiable property. Whereas western sovereignty relies on high trust, total prohibition, on the imposition of born costs regardless of their form. Thus endeth the lesson. AC will never be. It is the ethics of shepherds, travelling salesmen, gypsies, and thieves. The only sovereignty, is the militia, of all men of property, who provide one another with reciprocal insurance of sovereignty under the natural law of reciprocity. -
The Rule Of Fives
You’ve probably heard that the average person can only hold about five items in visual space at any time without resorting to groupings or organizing into grids of one sort or the other. You might have heard that the average person sort of maxes out at remembering a phone number. And that phone numbers are only memorable if broken into a series of numbers each of which consists of less than seven digits. WE can, like mnemonic sentences, poetry, lyrics, or melodies, repeat patterns and recall elements in a series within that pattern, but we cannot very often recall strings of words or numbers without iterating the series. If you look at our language, (english), you will find that most of our verbs describe five to seven states: 1) is doing now 2-3) was just doing, will just do 4-5) was doing, will do 6-7) was always done, wll always do And even so, ‘just doing now’ is a construction. Most of our terms only provide for five states. We need about five ‘registers’ (states) in order to compare two possible courses of action. -
The Rule Of Fives
You’ve probably heard that the average person can only hold about five items in visual space at any time without resorting to groupings or organizing into grids of one sort or the other. You might have heard that the average person sort of maxes out at remembering a phone number. And that phone numbers are only memorable if broken into a series of numbers each of which consists of less than seven digits. WE can, like mnemonic sentences, poetry, lyrics, or melodies, repeat patterns and recall elements in a series within that pattern, but we cannot very often recall strings of words or numbers without iterating the series. If you look at our language, (english), you will find that most of our verbs describe five to seven states: 1) is doing now 2-3) was just doing, will just do 4-5) was doing, will do 6-7) was always done, wll always do And even so, ‘just doing now’ is a construction. Most of our terms only provide for five states. We need about five ‘registers’ (states) in order to compare two possible courses of action. -
Identity By Constant Relations In Time. Time And Relations
Without Time, we cannot speak of constant relations, because we cannot perceive either constant relations or changes in state that would falsify those freely associated relations. IDENTITY: Identity consists of some set of marginally indifferent constant relations that persists over some period of time. CATEGORIES Categories: Marginal differences in state of constant relations in Time. STATE State: constant relations in time when those relations might differ. SUBTRACTION OF THE TIME DIMENSION For example, numbers consist of names of positions, which by virtue or order maintain constant relations. We then manipulate accounts (balances, expressions, variables) by maintaining ratios (constant relations) and call that process ‘mathematics’. We generally perform this set of ratio-transformations in a particular sequence, always trying to simplify or rearrange. But what we rarely consider is that most mathematics ignores time – which is its chief benefit to us outside of commensurability. A UNIVERSE OF INFORMATION GIVEN NAMES OF SETS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS The universe as information consisting of a hierarchy of relations rather than objects.