Deficit spending on infrastructure that produces returns, and is somehow quantifiable, doesn’t seem to be a problem. I don’t see a problem borrowing against the future for the purposes of production (capital increases). In fact, history is very optimistic about both research investment, infrastructure investment, export market investment, and trade route investment (including conquest). It’s just very pessimistic about funding rents, subsidies, and vote-bribes. OTOH, Destruction of intergenerational lending, is informationally destructive. Distortion of the interest rate is informationally destructive. Flooding the economy with money is informationally destructive. And cumulatively that destruction appears to be more than even the combination of innovation and productivity can compensate for, even in a period of gold rush created by the technology booms. I mean, if it isn’t working from 1990 to the present, it’s not going to work in more common periods. Interest is necessary for the purposes of measurement, and to make use of information by those with demonstrated ability to make judgements. I don’t understand why we pay interest on borrowing from ourselves (the treasury). I don’t understand why we care about our status as a reserve currency except as a means of financing the military empire. And I no longer see much advantage to the preservation of the empire (power projection), only our defense of territory and trade. In fact, the empire has dominated our domestic policy for a century now. Lets take it further: I would see no problem in distributing liquidity (dilution of the money supply) if distributed annually or quarterly to consumers on debit cards – other than the moral hazard it would create. This causes industry to fight for consumer dollars, and gives consumers the option to consume or reduce debt. Right now the distortion by financialization (gambling) rather than capitalization is so …. vast … no one has any idea how to measure it. Other than we can see that ‘something isn’t right here’ and we cant find a target that will correct whatever is wrong. (productivity). Targets are pretty simple really: how many hours to the 66% of people on either side of the median have to work to pay for all non-signal private goods? As far as I know, all interest on consumption of non-signal private goods is money lost from the treasury and capital-producing industry. And that looks like trillions to me.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Are You An Idiot?
If you talk about ‘beliefs’ you’re an idiot. If you talk about convincing others, you’re only slightly less of an idiot. If you talk about power and institutions then at least you’re not an idiot. It’s all well and good to desire conditions under which we have the luxury to choose beliefs and we have the luxury to convince, but one must produce that conditional luxury. The only means of organizing a polity is by the application of power. There is only one means by which a minority can exercise power, and that is violence. With violence you can choose what beliefs people choose from, what choices are and are not available. The left does nothing but lie and propagandize and seize power incrementally and opportunistically. The right does nothing but hope and pray, and let others seize power incrementally and opportunistically. Why? Because the right will not lie, but is afraid to tell the truth. Why? Because the entire fantasy that the right has constructed since the enlightenment is complete nonsense. Man was not oppressed he was domesticated using violence, for the profit of those who domesticated him. Just like every other animal. And that our entire civilization is built upon the accumulated domestication of man for fun and profit over at least three and a half thousand years. That is the answer. So we will either continue to drag mankind out of his animal nature, violence, ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, and disease, or we will revert to the animals we see in the muslims. Our primary industry is rule. Rule or be ruled. Rule and transcend man. Or rule and be reduced once again to semitic barbarism. VIOLENCE IS A VIRTUE WHEN USED TO TRANSCEND MAN.
-
Are You An Idiot?
If you talk about ‘beliefs’ you’re an idiot. If you talk about convincing others, you’re only slightly less of an idiot. If you talk about power and institutions then at least you’re not an idiot. It’s all well and good to desire conditions under which we have the luxury to choose beliefs and we have the luxury to convince, but one must produce that conditional luxury. The only means of organizing a polity is by the application of power. There is only one means by which a minority can exercise power, and that is violence. With violence you can choose what beliefs people choose from, what choices are and are not available. The left does nothing but lie and propagandize and seize power incrementally and opportunistically. The right does nothing but hope and pray, and let others seize power incrementally and opportunistically. Why? Because the right will not lie, but is afraid to tell the truth. Why? Because the entire fantasy that the right has constructed since the enlightenment is complete nonsense. Man was not oppressed he was domesticated using violence, for the profit of those who domesticated him. Just like every other animal. And that our entire civilization is built upon the accumulated domestication of man for fun and profit over at least three and a half thousand years. That is the answer. So we will either continue to drag mankind out of his animal nature, violence, ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, and disease, or we will revert to the animals we see in the muslims. Our primary industry is rule. Rule or be ruled. Rule and transcend man. Or rule and be reduced once again to semitic barbarism. VIOLENCE IS A VIRTUE WHEN USED TO TRANSCEND MAN.
-
No, We Sense All The World That Is Actionable
Apr 26, 2017 2:21pm I would say that our senses cover a wide range of the energy spectrum, and other than temperature or sensitivity we are not lacking in available senses nor information processing power. I would say that it certainly appears that we can sense everything that we can act upon or react to. Which is all evolution can do for us. Our achievements have been in extending our ability to perceive and act at increasing scales, through the use of cooperation and instrumentation I would say that we evolved our reason in concert with our language, and that the limitation of serial utterance of language, and the relatively high cost of speech determines the utility of using stories (think ‘parallelization’) that make use of context (high free association ), and that precision (low context high precision) is the result of our general need to increase sense perception cognition decidability, and retention in concert with our increase in scales of cooperation and instrumentation. ergo: our minds evolved to be limited by our speech. As far as I know the demonstrated difference in intellectual performance over the past few centuries has been the conversion of recipe-thinking to general-rule-thinking. And that this has demonstrated that changes in the method of thought dramatically improve the structure of the brain and therefore mind, and the mind’s ability to process information by association. Ergo, seemingly burdensome training of the mind can dramatically increase processing power through the application of new general rules more correspondent with the scale of concepts we utilize. Storytelling, symbols, measures, writing and literacy, reason, rationalism, empiricism, and now testimonialism, all rewire the brain and the mind to use the tools at their disposal – admittedly at some cost of acquisition. We observe differences (changes). The limit is information given reaction time, and limit in causal relations. We evolved when we could make lots of use of time. We can process absurd informational density. I am not even sure if we know how to measure it. We can REASON with limited ability. So given that some portion of people can master higher precision and greater scale, and some lower precision and lower scale, the question is merely how to construct cooperation among people with different abilities, and we encounter one solution: voluntary exchange, and one problem: dispute resolution. While voluntary cooperation scales indefinitely, dispute resolution is limited to a maximum difference between individuals ability to judge (ergo, dunning kruger). Now, the universe cannot ‘lie’. Our imaginations and our brains are filled with folly we increasingly succeed in purging through the development of rules, operations, objects, relations, and values, and saturating the common folk in context and therefore eliminating their need for calculative(rational) equivalency. (environment, information, norms, institutions. Ergo some of us can create institutions, norms, information, and environment that the less cognitively able can depend upon as means of obviating their limited ability to calculate, and decreasing the cost of their acquisition of those patterns. But an individual regardless of his abilities CAN perform due diligence to the BEST of his abilities. And in fact, that is what we do. And we provide prior restraint in the form of institutions, procedures, laws, norms and traditions to both limit his ability to cause harm to others out of ignorance, and provide contextual, procedural and educational means of enabling him to act within those limits. We do this and always have done it whether it be baby, child, youth, adult, mature adult, or barbarian, slave, serf, freeman, citizen, sovereign. Of course, we always seek discounts, and particularly discounts that suit our biases and wishful thinking, and facilitate our use of suggestion, obscurantism and deceit within the limits we can get away with. To leap ahead, and seize your concern, The question might be instead, “why does one have the right to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit if cooperation and non conflict increasingly requires we eliminate them? I appreciate your concern for the common man. But in each era, the defenders of the anchors of the prior order of ideas and therefore man, attempt to preserve it – always wrongly. The test is simple: are we adding to the information processing of man or we constraining or reducing it?
-
No, We Sense All The World That Is Actionable
Apr 26, 2017 2:21pm I would say that our senses cover a wide range of the energy spectrum, and other than temperature or sensitivity we are not lacking in available senses nor information processing power. I would say that it certainly appears that we can sense everything that we can act upon or react to. Which is all evolution can do for us. Our achievements have been in extending our ability to perceive and act at increasing scales, through the use of cooperation and instrumentation I would say that we evolved our reason in concert with our language, and that the limitation of serial utterance of language, and the relatively high cost of speech determines the utility of using stories (think ‘parallelization’) that make use of context (high free association ), and that precision (low context high precision) is the result of our general need to increase sense perception cognition decidability, and retention in concert with our increase in scales of cooperation and instrumentation. ergo: our minds evolved to be limited by our speech. As far as I know the demonstrated difference in intellectual performance over the past few centuries has been the conversion of recipe-thinking to general-rule-thinking. And that this has demonstrated that changes in the method of thought dramatically improve the structure of the brain and therefore mind, and the mind’s ability to process information by association. Ergo, seemingly burdensome training of the mind can dramatically increase processing power through the application of new general rules more correspondent with the scale of concepts we utilize. Storytelling, symbols, measures, writing and literacy, reason, rationalism, empiricism, and now testimonialism, all rewire the brain and the mind to use the tools at their disposal – admittedly at some cost of acquisition. We observe differences (changes). The limit is information given reaction time, and limit in causal relations. We evolved when we could make lots of use of time. We can process absurd informational density. I am not even sure if we know how to measure it. We can REASON with limited ability. So given that some portion of people can master higher precision and greater scale, and some lower precision and lower scale, the question is merely how to construct cooperation among people with different abilities, and we encounter one solution: voluntary exchange, and one problem: dispute resolution. While voluntary cooperation scales indefinitely, dispute resolution is limited to a maximum difference between individuals ability to judge (ergo, dunning kruger). Now, the universe cannot ‘lie’. Our imaginations and our brains are filled with folly we increasingly succeed in purging through the development of rules, operations, objects, relations, and values, and saturating the common folk in context and therefore eliminating their need for calculative(rational) equivalency. (environment, information, norms, institutions. Ergo some of us can create institutions, norms, information, and environment that the less cognitively able can depend upon as means of obviating their limited ability to calculate, and decreasing the cost of their acquisition of those patterns. But an individual regardless of his abilities CAN perform due diligence to the BEST of his abilities. And in fact, that is what we do. And we provide prior restraint in the form of institutions, procedures, laws, norms and traditions to both limit his ability to cause harm to others out of ignorance, and provide contextual, procedural and educational means of enabling him to act within those limits. We do this and always have done it whether it be baby, child, youth, adult, mature adult, or barbarian, slave, serf, freeman, citizen, sovereign. Of course, we always seek discounts, and particularly discounts that suit our biases and wishful thinking, and facilitate our use of suggestion, obscurantism and deceit within the limits we can get away with. To leap ahead, and seize your concern, The question might be instead, “why does one have the right to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit if cooperation and non conflict increasingly requires we eliminate them? I appreciate your concern for the common man. But in each era, the defenders of the anchors of the prior order of ideas and therefore man, attempt to preserve it – always wrongly. The test is simple: are we adding to the information processing of man or we constraining or reducing it?
-
Deflating Science
DEFLATING “SCIENCE” (personal)(sketch) The Discipline of Science Consists of: 1) An aesthetic discipline – the search for status, power(influence), and profit through the acquisition of decidability (truth) and recipe (knowledge) and ‘stories’ (narratives), by observation, free association, and the elimination of ignorance thru deceit. 2) A technical discipline – the application and inventions of measures both physical, logical, and social(market) that reduce our possibility of engaging in ignorance thru deceit, leaving only truthful candidates for decidability, recipe and story. 3) A moral discipline – the means of describing and publishing our measurements, decidability, recipe, and stories by performing due diligence against: ignorance thru deceit, and publishing (speaking) the measurements, decidability, recipes, and ‘stories’ for testing by the market for measurements, decidability, recipes, and stories, consisting of others who share the aesthetic discipline of searching for status, power(influence) and profit through the acquisition of decidability(truth) reciepe(knowledge) and stories(narratives.) MAN IS THE MEASURE – THE UNIT OF COMMENSURABILITY ( … ) THE EPISTEMIC METHOD There exists only one epistemological method for the discovery of recipes and theories: – Observation->perception, – Free association-> wayfinding, – Hypothesis->construction, – Theory->survival from criticism, – Law->survival in the market for criticism, – Habituation -> survival, – Metaphysical inclusion -> replication. Within this method we find special cases of the epistemological method: non-contradiction, apriorisms, simplicity – in the same way we discover special cases of prime numbers – and for the same reason: coincidence of simplicities amidst the chaos of possibilities. But we eventually run low on simplicities at any given level of precision, and must develop new logical and physical and moral instrumentation in order to obtain sufficient information to discover more simplicities at greater precision. All the while defending against our tendencies to engage in error, bias,wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, pseudo-moralism, and deceit. THE DIMENSIONS OF TESTING To warranty our speech against the dark forces of error, bias, and deceit, we can test each existentially possible dimension – in which humans can act – against error, bias, and deceit. – Categorical Consistency – identity – Logical Consistency – internal correspondence – Empirical Consistency – external correspondence – Existential Consistency – operational correspondence – Moral Consistency – reciprocal correspondence – Scope Consistency – full accounting – dimensional correspondence. PARTIAL TESTING : THE SPECIAL CASE: APRIORISM 1) Apriorism is but a special case of Empiricism, just as Prime Numbers are a special case in mathematics, and just as is any set of operations that returns a natural number; and again, is a special case, just as contradiction is a special case in logic.The laws of triangles form a particularly useful set of special cases. 2) Few (possibly no non-tautological, or at least non-reductio) aprioristic statements survive scope consistency (I can find none in economics that are actionable). 3) We can establish free associations(hypotheses) empirically (top down) or constructively (bottom up). But the method of discovery places no truth constraint on the statement. All must survive the full test of dimensions. 4) This does NOT mean that we cannot use a ‘partial truth’ (an hypothesis that does not survive all six dimensions) to search for further associations (partial search criteria). It is this UTILITY IN SEARCHING that we have converted first into reason, second into rationalism, third into empiricism, fourth in to operationalism, and fifth into scope consistency, and sixth into ‘natural law’ or morality or ‘voluntary cooperation’ – volition which is necessary to ensure the information quality in small groups, just as norms and laws are necessary methods of establishing limits in larger groups, just as money is necessary for producing actionable information in very large groups. 5) there is but one epistemological method: accumulate information, identify pattern, search for hypothesis, criticize hypothesis to produce a theory, distribute the theory (speak), let others criticize the theory until it fails, or we create a conceptual norm of it (law), and finally until we habituate it entirely (metaphysical judgment). THE OUTPUTS OF THE DISCIPLINE OF SCIENCE 1) Stories (Theories): Theories describe an Opportunity Field. 2) Decidability (Instruments): Decidability describes objects, relations, values, and comparison operators. 3) Recipes (Operations or ‘transformations’): Recipes describe actionable knowledge that we can use to transform state. 4) Measurements (‘Facts’): Measurements describe (obviously) the operations and resulting measurements of objects, relations, and values. THIS COMPLETES THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD This process constitutes the completion of the scientific method for the warranty of due diligence of one’s testimony in every domain of human inquiry without exception. Now, lets look at its uses… THE MEASURE 1) Meaning (Awareness) ….True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship 2) Preference ….True enough for me to feel good about. 3) Actionability ….True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results. 4) Morality ….True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. 5) Rationality ….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. 6) Decidability ….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. 7) Truth ….True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. 8) Tautology ….Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal. THE MARKETS There is nothing special about physical science other than philosophy was free of COST constraints but held by moral constraints, and science was free of MORAL constraints as well as cost constraints, and judicial law was bound by both. Personal Associative Cooperative Reproductive Productive Commons Polities DISCIPLINES: 0 – Sentience (cognitive science – limits of cognition) 1 – Philosophy (science of truthful speech) 2 – Law (social/cooperative science) 3 – Economics (organizational science) 4 – Mathematics ( science of measurement ) 5 – Physical Science (physical sciences of the universe) 6 – Technology (physical sciences in materials) 7 – Engineering, (physical sciences in construction) 8 – Commerce, THE VALUE OF OUTPUTS OF THE DISCIPLINE OF SCIENCE Stories (Opportunities [search]) : Decidabilty (Choice / Persuade / Decide:) Recipies (Transformations): Measurements (facts): THE DEFLATION OF “THEORY/THEORIES” The Story of a theory can fail. The Decidability can fail. The Recipe can fail The Measurements can fail. Newton’s Story failed, but his Decidability, and Recipe, and Measurements survive. So while hypotheses fail, it is not necessarily true that theories fail, so much as we continuously improve the precision of those narratives, decidability, recipe and measurements. Why? Because the question itself frames the theory. In other words, if we are asking about gravity, newtons question, his decidability, his recipes, all survive and constitute the majority of calculations we perform to this day. Measurement provides a means of warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. And in fact, we can state that all logical methods constitute some means of measurement. Anything that is testable constitutes a measure. The question is only what dimensions of relations that we wish to measure, and the constancy of those relations.
-
Deflating Science
DEFLATING “SCIENCE” (personal)(sketch) The Discipline of Science Consists of: 1) An aesthetic discipline – the search for status, power(influence), and profit through the acquisition of decidability (truth) and recipe (knowledge) and ‘stories’ (narratives), by observation, free association, and the elimination of ignorance thru deceit. 2) A technical discipline – the application and inventions of measures both physical, logical, and social(market) that reduce our possibility of engaging in ignorance thru deceit, leaving only truthful candidates for decidability, recipe and story. 3) A moral discipline – the means of describing and publishing our measurements, decidability, recipe, and stories by performing due diligence against: ignorance thru deceit, and publishing (speaking) the measurements, decidability, recipes, and ‘stories’ for testing by the market for measurements, decidability, recipes, and stories, consisting of others who share the aesthetic discipline of searching for status, power(influence) and profit through the acquisition of decidability(truth) reciepe(knowledge) and stories(narratives.) MAN IS THE MEASURE – THE UNIT OF COMMENSURABILITY ( … ) THE EPISTEMIC METHOD There exists only one epistemological method for the discovery of recipes and theories: – Observation->perception, – Free association-> wayfinding, – Hypothesis->construction, – Theory->survival from criticism, – Law->survival in the market for criticism, – Habituation -> survival, – Metaphysical inclusion -> replication. Within this method we find special cases of the epistemological method: non-contradiction, apriorisms, simplicity – in the same way we discover special cases of prime numbers – and for the same reason: coincidence of simplicities amidst the chaos of possibilities. But we eventually run low on simplicities at any given level of precision, and must develop new logical and physical and moral instrumentation in order to obtain sufficient information to discover more simplicities at greater precision. All the while defending against our tendencies to engage in error, bias,wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, pseudo-moralism, and deceit. THE DIMENSIONS OF TESTING To warranty our speech against the dark forces of error, bias, and deceit, we can test each existentially possible dimension – in which humans can act – against error, bias, and deceit. – Categorical Consistency – identity – Logical Consistency – internal correspondence – Empirical Consistency – external correspondence – Existential Consistency – operational correspondence – Moral Consistency – reciprocal correspondence – Scope Consistency – full accounting – dimensional correspondence. PARTIAL TESTING : THE SPECIAL CASE: APRIORISM 1) Apriorism is but a special case of Empiricism, just as Prime Numbers are a special case in mathematics, and just as is any set of operations that returns a natural number; and again, is a special case, just as contradiction is a special case in logic.The laws of triangles form a particularly useful set of special cases. 2) Few (possibly no non-tautological, or at least non-reductio) aprioristic statements survive scope consistency (I can find none in economics that are actionable). 3) We can establish free associations(hypotheses) empirically (top down) or constructively (bottom up). But the method of discovery places no truth constraint on the statement. All must survive the full test of dimensions. 4) This does NOT mean that we cannot use a ‘partial truth’ (an hypothesis that does not survive all six dimensions) to search for further associations (partial search criteria). It is this UTILITY IN SEARCHING that we have converted first into reason, second into rationalism, third into empiricism, fourth in to operationalism, and fifth into scope consistency, and sixth into ‘natural law’ or morality or ‘voluntary cooperation’ – volition which is necessary to ensure the information quality in small groups, just as norms and laws are necessary methods of establishing limits in larger groups, just as money is necessary for producing actionable information in very large groups. 5) there is but one epistemological method: accumulate information, identify pattern, search for hypothesis, criticize hypothesis to produce a theory, distribute the theory (speak), let others criticize the theory until it fails, or we create a conceptual norm of it (law), and finally until we habituate it entirely (metaphysical judgment). THE OUTPUTS OF THE DISCIPLINE OF SCIENCE 1) Stories (Theories): Theories describe an Opportunity Field. 2) Decidability (Instruments): Decidability describes objects, relations, values, and comparison operators. 3) Recipes (Operations or ‘transformations’): Recipes describe actionable knowledge that we can use to transform state. 4) Measurements (‘Facts’): Measurements describe (obviously) the operations and resulting measurements of objects, relations, and values. THIS COMPLETES THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD This process constitutes the completion of the scientific method for the warranty of due diligence of one’s testimony in every domain of human inquiry without exception. Now, lets look at its uses… THE MEASURE 1) Meaning (Awareness) ….True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship 2) Preference ….True enough for me to feel good about. 3) Actionability ….True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results. 4) Morality ….True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. 5) Rationality ….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. 6) Decidability ….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. 7) Truth ….True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. 8) Tautology ….Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal. THE MARKETS There is nothing special about physical science other than philosophy was free of COST constraints but held by moral constraints, and science was free of MORAL constraints as well as cost constraints, and judicial law was bound by both. Personal Associative Cooperative Reproductive Productive Commons Polities DISCIPLINES: 0 – Sentience (cognitive science – limits of cognition) 1 – Philosophy (science of truthful speech) 2 – Law (social/cooperative science) 3 – Economics (organizational science) 4 – Mathematics ( science of measurement ) 5 – Physical Science (physical sciences of the universe) 6 – Technology (physical sciences in materials) 7 – Engineering, (physical sciences in construction) 8 – Commerce, THE VALUE OF OUTPUTS OF THE DISCIPLINE OF SCIENCE Stories (Opportunities [search]) : Decidabilty (Choice / Persuade / Decide:) Recipies (Transformations): Measurements (facts): THE DEFLATION OF “THEORY/THEORIES” The Story of a theory can fail. The Decidability can fail. The Recipe can fail The Measurements can fail. Newton’s Story failed, but his Decidability, and Recipe, and Measurements survive. So while hypotheses fail, it is not necessarily true that theories fail, so much as we continuously improve the precision of those narratives, decidability, recipe and measurements. Why? Because the question itself frames the theory. In other words, if we are asking about gravity, newtons question, his decidability, his recipes, all survive and constitute the majority of calculations we perform to this day. Measurement provides a means of warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. And in fact, we can state that all logical methods constitute some means of measurement. Anything that is testable constitutes a measure. The question is only what dimensions of relations that we wish to measure, and the constancy of those relations.
-
We Can Improve Our Individual Senses and Not Improve Actionability or We Can Improve Our Environmental Information and Improve Actionability
We process what we can act upon nearly all of the texture, tasted, smell, temperature, physical vibration, sound vibration, electromagnetic ‘vibration’ we can act upon. Like most animals we evolved a distributed ability to ‘sense’ through our physical distribution, communication and territorial monitoring. Evolution was ‘smart’ in the sense that we cannot sense information we cannot act upon. There was little value to us in increased precision of any of our senses, because it would interfere with decidability, and decidability is limited to to that which is actionable. Conversely, we can augment our senses mechanically and we are able to generalize almost infinitely, and so with sound, smell, vibration, taste, sight, and speed enhancements there is no evidence that we could not process the information. All it would do is reduce our need for numbers to distribute the acts of perception over distance. So I’m hinting here at the error of individualism when judging our senses, perceptions, calculations, and decisions. And that ones judgement of our senses is determined by ones preference for social and political order. And ones preference of social and political order, is a reflection of one’s experiential, reproductive, cooperative, strategy. So if one is hopeful for liberty in a heterogeneous order one sees the limits of senses being the individual. If one sees homogenous kinship order at scale, one sees the limit of the senses being the band, tribe, polity, or nation. If one desires to circumvent an order, or to dominate an order, he may desire additional senses beyond that which he can act upon, and which others can act upon. But if one desires to operate within that order, he desires only to ensure the quality of information within that order. Ergo, I would seek to improve the quality of information within that order. Now, as to ‘illusion’ we can find very little evidence of this. What we find instead is that because of heterogeneous strategies, heterogeneous interests, heterogeneous values, heterogenous information, and outright disinformation, and lack of ability to deflate this heterogeneity, we IMAGINE that we sense and perceive falsely, and we IMAGINE many relations between events, and this CONFUSION may convince us that see very little. But this problem can be solved either by expanding the quality of the information available to an individual despite its in-actionabilty, or we can expand quality of information available to members of the group for both individual and group actionability. Since liberty is only existential when actionable, and actionable only possible in a polity, then the answer is rather obvious… So I want to improve the quality of information in an increasing division of perception, cognition, action knowledge, and advocacy; And given that we cannot know what is true, only what is false; And as far as I know, given the wide variation of cognitive ability, Then, this can only be achieved through providing in environmental context (Institution, tradition, norm, environment and information) that which prohibits DISINFORMATION. Ergo. Natural law in all things. If one has the power to change the narrative (contextual information) and and the metaphysics(assumptions) within it, and the general rules within it, one can choose the degree of truthfulness (deflation) existential in the method of narrative. The only question then is whether one possesses the knowledge to do so, and is willing to pay the higher cost of imposing truthful and deflationary rather than untruthful and conflationary models. -
We Can Improve Our Individual Senses and Not Improve Actionability or We Can Improve Our Environmental Information and Improve Actionability
We process what we can act upon nearly all of the texture, tasted, smell, temperature, physical vibration, sound vibration, electromagnetic ‘vibration’ we can act upon. Like most animals we evolved a distributed ability to ‘sense’ through our physical distribution, communication and territorial monitoring. Evolution was ‘smart’ in the sense that we cannot sense information we cannot act upon. There was little value to us in increased precision of any of our senses, because it would interfere with decidability, and decidability is limited to to that which is actionable. Conversely, we can augment our senses mechanically and we are able to generalize almost infinitely, and so with sound, smell, vibration, taste, sight, and speed enhancements there is no evidence that we could not process the information. All it would do is reduce our need for numbers to distribute the acts of perception over distance. So I’m hinting here at the error of individualism when judging our senses, perceptions, calculations, and decisions. And that ones judgement of our senses is determined by ones preference for social and political order. And ones preference of social and political order, is a reflection of one’s experiential, reproductive, cooperative, strategy. So if one is hopeful for liberty in a heterogeneous order one sees the limits of senses being the individual. If one sees homogenous kinship order at scale, one sees the limit of the senses being the band, tribe, polity, or nation. If one desires to circumvent an order, or to dominate an order, he may desire additional senses beyond that which he can act upon, and which others can act upon. But if one desires to operate within that order, he desires only to ensure the quality of information within that order. Ergo, I would seek to improve the quality of information within that order. Now, as to ‘illusion’ we can find very little evidence of this. What we find instead is that because of heterogeneous strategies, heterogeneous interests, heterogeneous values, heterogenous information, and outright disinformation, and lack of ability to deflate this heterogeneity, we IMAGINE that we sense and perceive falsely, and we IMAGINE many relations between events, and this CONFUSION may convince us that see very little. But this problem can be solved either by expanding the quality of the information available to an individual despite its in-actionabilty, or we can expand quality of information available to members of the group for both individual and group actionability. Since liberty is only existential when actionable, and actionable only possible in a polity, then the answer is rather obvious… So I want to improve the quality of information in an increasing division of perception, cognition, action knowledge, and advocacy; And given that we cannot know what is true, only what is false; And as far as I know, given the wide variation of cognitive ability, Then, this can only be achieved through providing in environmental context (Institution, tradition, norm, environment and information) that which prohibits DISINFORMATION. Ergo. Natural law in all things. If one has the power to change the narrative (contextual information) and and the metaphysics(assumptions) within it, and the general rules within it, one can choose the degree of truthfulness (deflation) existential in the method of narrative. The only question then is whether one possesses the knowledge to do so, and is willing to pay the higher cost of imposing truthful and deflationary rather than untruthful and conflationary models. -
Capitalism vs Communism? Here Is Why You’re An Idiot. Natural Law vs Discretion
Apr 27, 2017 7:57am HERE IS WHY YOU’RE AN IDIOT: CAPITALISM VS SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM? Morons fall into the trap of capitalism vs communism, neither of which are possible, and both of which constitute means of parasitism, rather than advocating Rule of Natural Law. One can rule by command, one can rule by Religion, one can rule by Credit, and one can rule by Natural Law. Command does not require information, just obedience. Religion is a deception with which anything can be justified. Credit and financialization are a deception by which to abstractly steal from you. And only RULE OF NATURAL LAW requires productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer free of imposition of costs by externality. So markets in everything – public and private – MUST result from Natural Law. But natural law DOES NOT RESULT FROM CAPITALISM. (If you read this, I assume you’re not a moron. lol)