by Alex Sea Negotiation vs. Imposition Two sovereigns must appeal to truth as their ultimate authority – a low cost for them, as they are dealers in truth, but an exorbitant one to those who deal in falsehoods. The further from sovereignty a party is, the more costly the transaction is, as the sovereign must account for all parties between the two, and he ultimately appeals to truth on behalf of those who appeal to him, or suffers retaliation. In interactions between sovereign and citizen, the citizen must appeal to sovereign, the sovereign to truth. Between sovereign and Freeman, the Freeman to sovereign, the sovereign to citizen and truth. Etc, down to enemy. The sovereign’s decision must be bearable to all above the party being directly dealt with and is imposed upon all those below that party – within boundaries that balance the cost of the imposition and their agency. (flawless Alex. -Curt)
Source: Original Site Post
-
On Requiring Truth in All Publication
by Alex Sea We require truth from all things claiming to present it. If a fictional novel must include the stipulation that “all persons, places, and events herein are fictional and any likeness to real people, places, and events are coincidental or accidental” why can this not be expounded to political, academic, or media endeavors? Imagine CNN running a notice along the scrolling marque stating “all commentary contained in this program is the opinion of newscasters and is not intended to be a concrete representation of factual information, unless otherwise stated”. Imagine the current versions of “social science” course materials being marked as “social commentary”. Imagine current “history” textbooks being instead sold as what they really are – propaganda tools. In this way, truth would be required of ALL – either you only present truthful statements, or you must clearly declare that you are not. Fiction is fine so long as it as known to BE fiction.
-
On Requiring Truth in All Publication
by Alex Sea We require truth from all things claiming to present it. If a fictional novel must include the stipulation that “all persons, places, and events herein are fictional and any likeness to real people, places, and events are coincidental or accidental” why can this not be expounded to political, academic, or media endeavors? Imagine CNN running a notice along the scrolling marque stating “all commentary contained in this program is the opinion of newscasters and is not intended to be a concrete representation of factual information, unless otherwise stated”. Imagine the current versions of “social science” course materials being marked as “social commentary”. Imagine current “history” textbooks being instead sold as what they really are – propaganda tools. In this way, truth would be required of ALL – either you only present truthful statements, or you must clearly declare that you are not. Fiction is fine so long as it as known to BE fiction.
-
Against Platonic Forms
by John Dow and Curt Doolittle As I understand it, adherents to belief in Platonic Forms believe they literally exist, in some form or another, as if there’s some extra portion of reality beyond verifiable observation in which they exist. [ Moreover they are unable to articulate their ideas by reference to existential reality, such as when we refer to the invisible forces of the universe, then to the constant relations between them; or when we refer to a unicorn as a mythical character consisting of a conflation of horse, eagle, and antlers; or when we say that the numbers refer to positional names. ] I see Empiricism as a practical method – it gives us a process of verification and testing to follow which we can demonstrate via its’ success at informing successfully predictive conceptions of the operation of the reality which we mutually observe. I don’t believe empiricism describes some truth about the universe, I don’t claim our mutually verifiable observations are necessarily objective truth, I merely claim that we seem to have psychological motivations to pursue/avoid specific consequences from our interaction with the sensation of our mutually verifiable observations, and that methods which enable us to conceptualize it with less ignorance, error, and bias improve our capacity for developing successful strategies in pursuing consequences we desire. So in this sense, when discussing the “reality” of our mutually verifiable observations, empiricism has demonstrated it’s superior capacity to extract useful “truth” from our perception, whereas platonic forms have no verifiable basis in observations, they can have no observable source but imagination, so essentially they’re just people guessing, and even if they are correct, they would be correct by accident. I don’t find it ridiculous for someone to make a conceptual claim about my experience, then demonstrate the success of the concept in predicting my observations of transformations of states. But, I do find it ridiculous when people attempt to pass off our imaginary constructs as “truth” without demonstrated evidence. Why? Because… 0) imaginary constructs may in some senses be testable for internal consistency. 1) And in some cases, one might demonstrate external correspondence. But… 2) One simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of CAUSALITY. 3) And lacking observability, one cannot testify to CAUSALITY. 4) Ergo we can convey MEANING between constant relations by speaking platonically, just as we convey MEANING between inconstant relations by literature. But we cannot convey causality, and therefore cannot warranty causality, and as we are unable to warranty causality, we are unable to warranty to the truthfulness of our statements. This is why mathematicians can ‘get away with’ speaking platonically: they test only for internal consistency, not causality. And that lack of understanding of causality – is why there is such confusion and ignorance over the foundations of mathematics. When one talks about math in platonic terms he demonstrates he does not understand its construction, and cannot testify to it. Therefore he never claims truth full correspondence but proof – mere internal consistency. Why is this important? Not because mathematicians do not understand the very simple technique that they employ by specializing in tests of internal consistency of constant relations. They don’t. They understand its success in describing the physical world. The success of mathematics in the physical sciences (and failure in social sciences) is caused by the fact that the universe consists of constant relations, and we do not know yet their first causes. So internal consistency and external correspondence assist us in describing with increasing precision those constant relations until such point as we can guess those first causes. However in human actions, we do not possess constant relations, only constant patterns (symmetries) of relations. And In human thought, we do not possess many boundaries at all – or rather, we lack the means of testing those boundaries of imagination. So the problem is much harder than mathematics is able to solve by tests of constant relations – math can only assist us in taking measurements whereby we attempt to identify constant intermediary patterns, despite the kaleidic distributions of our outcomes. What we seek is causality. Because we seek to permit man to act to take advantage of the current state of the universe, and acting such that we outwit the current deterministic path of some part of it and capture the energy for our use. Moreover, since actions are expensive, and humans engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit, we must conserve our energy as well as evade parasitism by others, and to do so requires we test enough dimensions of reality against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit, to preserve our accumulated interceptions of changes in state of reality.
-
Against Platonic Forms
by John Dow and Curt Doolittle As I understand it, adherents to belief in Platonic Forms believe they literally exist, in some form or another, as if there’s some extra portion of reality beyond verifiable observation in which they exist. [ Moreover they are unable to articulate their ideas by reference to existential reality, such as when we refer to the invisible forces of the universe, then to the constant relations between them; or when we refer to a unicorn as a mythical character consisting of a conflation of horse, eagle, and antlers; or when we say that the numbers refer to positional names. ] I see Empiricism as a practical method – it gives us a process of verification and testing to follow which we can demonstrate via its’ success at informing successfully predictive conceptions of the operation of the reality which we mutually observe. I don’t believe empiricism describes some truth about the universe, I don’t claim our mutually verifiable observations are necessarily objective truth, I merely claim that we seem to have psychological motivations to pursue/avoid specific consequences from our interaction with the sensation of our mutually verifiable observations, and that methods which enable us to conceptualize it with less ignorance, error, and bias improve our capacity for developing successful strategies in pursuing consequences we desire. So in this sense, when discussing the “reality” of our mutually verifiable observations, empiricism has demonstrated it’s superior capacity to extract useful “truth” from our perception, whereas platonic forms have no verifiable basis in observations, they can have no observable source but imagination, so essentially they’re just people guessing, and even if they are correct, they would be correct by accident. I don’t find it ridiculous for someone to make a conceptual claim about my experience, then demonstrate the success of the concept in predicting my observations of transformations of states. But, I do find it ridiculous when people attempt to pass off our imaginary constructs as “truth” without demonstrated evidence. Why? Because… 0) imaginary constructs may in some senses be testable for internal consistency. 1) And in some cases, one might demonstrate external correspondence. But… 2) One simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of CAUSALITY. 3) And lacking observability, one cannot testify to CAUSALITY. 4) Ergo we can convey MEANING between constant relations by speaking platonically, just as we convey MEANING between inconstant relations by literature. But we cannot convey causality, and therefore cannot warranty causality, and as we are unable to warranty causality, we are unable to warranty to the truthfulness of our statements. This is why mathematicians can ‘get away with’ speaking platonically: they test only for internal consistency, not causality. And that lack of understanding of causality – is why there is such confusion and ignorance over the foundations of mathematics. When one talks about math in platonic terms he demonstrates he does not understand its construction, and cannot testify to it. Therefore he never claims truth full correspondence but proof – mere internal consistency. Why is this important? Not because mathematicians do not understand the very simple technique that they employ by specializing in tests of internal consistency of constant relations. They don’t. They understand its success in describing the physical world. The success of mathematics in the physical sciences (and failure in social sciences) is caused by the fact that the universe consists of constant relations, and we do not know yet their first causes. So internal consistency and external correspondence assist us in describing with increasing precision those constant relations until such point as we can guess those first causes. However in human actions, we do not possess constant relations, only constant patterns (symmetries) of relations. And In human thought, we do not possess many boundaries at all – or rather, we lack the means of testing those boundaries of imagination. So the problem is much harder than mathematics is able to solve by tests of constant relations – math can only assist us in taking measurements whereby we attempt to identify constant intermediary patterns, despite the kaleidic distributions of our outcomes. What we seek is causality. Because we seek to permit man to act to take advantage of the current state of the universe, and acting such that we outwit the current deterministic path of some part of it and capture the energy for our use. Moreover, since actions are expensive, and humans engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit, we must conserve our energy as well as evade parasitism by others, and to do so requires we test enough dimensions of reality against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit, to preserve our accumulated interceptions of changes in state of reality.
-
Regarding Nietzsche’s Positive Statements About Persians
um. well, I think we have to keep in mind, that Nietzsche is a literary and aesthetic philosopher, not a mathematical, legal, or political one. He is trying to restore our civilization’s aesthetic from its debasement by christianity. But he holds no appreciation for (or from what I gather, understanding of) math, law, economics, and politics – all of which are forms of measurement. And so, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And he seems to think that it’s the literature that causes the culture, rather than the group evolutionary strategy, and the institutions the group puts in place, and that literature JUSTIFIES that strategy and institution – it does not CREATE it unless we forcibly indoctrinate people into it. The Persians were WEALTHIER than the greeks. Of course there will be aspects of the wealthier people to admire. But the evidence is that the greeks were militarily, economically, and institutionally, and culturally,and intellectual superior to the Persians. The question we have to ask is why were the greeks superior to the Persians, and the romans superior to the greeks and to the carthaginians? If one views the supernatural writings of the Persians and semites, the platonic writings of the greeks, and the legal, political, and stoic writings of the romans, we obtain a clue. If we view the economy of the Persians, the greeks, and the romans we obtain another clue. If we view the political order of the Persians, the greeks, the carthaginians, and the romans, we get another clue. Now, christianity was successful in most part because (a) the plagues, (b) the slave economy, (c) the barbarian invasions, (d) the comparative wealth of the fertile crescent vs the european territories, (e) the dependence of rome upon maintaining control of trade routes and food supplies in remote areas (f) the conquest of decimated western rome by the greek romans (byzantines), (g) and the conquest of the byzantines by the muslims just as the barbarians had defeated rome. Lying is cheap and christianity is lying. The only way that small poorer numbers in the west can compete is the way Aryans always competed: using advanced technology, professional warriors, and agility ( ooda-loops) to out-maneuver (decide FASTER) to defeat enemies dependent upon slave soldiers, large numbers, and central rule. The only people to develop truth, reason, and pre-science were the greeks. And the only people to develop natural law were the romans. The only people to create the scientific revolution were the europeans. And the only thing that seems to have been an impediment is the lies created by zoroaster, spread by the persians to the semites then to the europeans. So unlike Nietzche, I see the greeks as rebels against persian mysticism, I see the romans rebels against greek platonism, and I see the church as existing only because it was a government imposed by conquest on a people exhausted from immigration of barbarians, invasion by barbarians, and decimated by plague. THere are indeed people who are moved by the occult, by the divine/supernatural, by myth, by literature, by history. But they can choose what they are moved by. Law is not a choice, it is required, and it doesn’t require belief in anything. Economics do not require belief, or agreement. They merely exist by force of law. And law by force of violence. Nietzche, good christian, and good german, as he was – informed by literature, trying to escape its prison, saw only literature as cause – not as justification for incentives. Not as justification of priors. Not as the heroism of institutions whose origins and strategy are long forgotten.
-
Regarding Nietzsche’s Positive Statements About Persians
um. well, I think we have to keep in mind, that Nietzsche is a literary and aesthetic philosopher, not a mathematical, legal, or political one. He is trying to restore our civilization’s aesthetic from its debasement by christianity. But he holds no appreciation for (or from what I gather, understanding of) math, law, economics, and politics – all of which are forms of measurement. And so, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And he seems to think that it’s the literature that causes the culture, rather than the group evolutionary strategy, and the institutions the group puts in place, and that literature JUSTIFIES that strategy and institution – it does not CREATE it unless we forcibly indoctrinate people into it. The Persians were WEALTHIER than the greeks. Of course there will be aspects of the wealthier people to admire. But the evidence is that the greeks were militarily, economically, and institutionally, and culturally,and intellectual superior to the Persians. The question we have to ask is why were the greeks superior to the Persians, and the romans superior to the greeks and to the carthaginians? If one views the supernatural writings of the Persians and semites, the platonic writings of the greeks, and the legal, political, and stoic writings of the romans, we obtain a clue. If we view the economy of the Persians, the greeks, and the romans we obtain another clue. If we view the political order of the Persians, the greeks, the carthaginians, and the romans, we get another clue. Now, christianity was successful in most part because (a) the plagues, (b) the slave economy, (c) the barbarian invasions, (d) the comparative wealth of the fertile crescent vs the european territories, (e) the dependence of rome upon maintaining control of trade routes and food supplies in remote areas (f) the conquest of decimated western rome by the greek romans (byzantines), (g) and the conquest of the byzantines by the muslims just as the barbarians had defeated rome. Lying is cheap and christianity is lying. The only way that small poorer numbers in the west can compete is the way Aryans always competed: using advanced technology, professional warriors, and agility ( ooda-loops) to out-maneuver (decide FASTER) to defeat enemies dependent upon slave soldiers, large numbers, and central rule. The only people to develop truth, reason, and pre-science were the greeks. And the only people to develop natural law were the romans. The only people to create the scientific revolution were the europeans. And the only thing that seems to have been an impediment is the lies created by zoroaster, spread by the persians to the semites then to the europeans. So unlike Nietzche, I see the greeks as rebels against persian mysticism, I see the romans rebels against greek platonism, and I see the church as existing only because it was a government imposed by conquest on a people exhausted from immigration of barbarians, invasion by barbarians, and decimated by plague. THere are indeed people who are moved by the occult, by the divine/supernatural, by myth, by literature, by history. But they can choose what they are moved by. Law is not a choice, it is required, and it doesn’t require belief in anything. Economics do not require belief, or agreement. They merely exist by force of law. And law by force of violence. Nietzche, good christian, and good german, as he was – informed by literature, trying to escape its prison, saw only literature as cause – not as justification for incentives. Not as justification of priors. Not as the heroism of institutions whose origins and strategy are long forgotten.
-
Reproductive Strategies and Markets
by John Dow A polity can only generate the sovereign power necessary to establish and defend itself via competitiveness in the violence market. Production (Brotherly) and Reproduction (Motherly) Strategies obviously require cultivation to successfully compete fundamentally in intergroup Violence (Fatherly). Without production you lack weapons technology and food and shelter for your soldiers, without reproduction you lack soldiers. However, through the institutions of property and marriage, individuals compete individually within the polity with one another for individual success. In the institution of military, individuals must cooperate for the good of the group, they sacrifice their individual potential cost to accrue benefits to group fitness. Fundamentally, participation in intergroup violence brings the individual’s interests in allignment with the group’s interests.
Individuals who merely compete in the markets for production and reproduction lack this grounding, they compete with the other members of their polity on behalf of themselves, not each other, hence they require regulation through the institutions of property and marriage to limit negative externalities from their behaviour. If given power, these people will rationally vote in their self-interest to transfer wealth to themselves, not the collective interest to transfer wealth to their group.
-
Reproductive Strategies and Markets
by John Dow A polity can only generate the sovereign power necessary to establish and defend itself via competitiveness in the violence market. Production (Brotherly) and Reproduction (Motherly) Strategies obviously require cultivation to successfully compete fundamentally in intergroup Violence (Fatherly). Without production you lack weapons technology and food and shelter for your soldiers, without reproduction you lack soldiers. However, through the institutions of property and marriage, individuals compete individually within the polity with one another for individual success. In the institution of military, individuals must cooperate for the good of the group, they sacrifice their individual potential cost to accrue benefits to group fitness. Fundamentally, participation in intergroup violence brings the individual’s interests in allignment with the group’s interests.
Individuals who merely compete in the markets for production and reproduction lack this grounding, they compete with the other members of their polity on behalf of themselves, not each other, hence they require regulation through the institutions of property and marriage to limit negative externalities from their behaviour. If given power, these people will rationally vote in their self-interest to transfer wealth to themselves, not the collective interest to transfer wealth to their group.
-
Civilizations Developed Technologies for Clear Reasons.
MESOPOTAMIA Which class rule evolved first mesopotamia: Warriors or Priests? (we know the answer) Which class emerged in control of rule? Did that class adopt the role of the other (conflate)? Did that ruling class conflate roles of religion and law? Now, the little rhetorical problem here is that I made the original statements about the tendencies of CIVILIZATIONS to make use of different TECHNOLOGIES of organization, and the unintended consequences of those rules. I make this argument in order to expand upon the differnces between western, fertile crescent, hrappan/indian, and chinese civilizations, and how our earliest assumptions about the world, man, the good, and the true, originated in the ancient past and still govern us today – with unintended consequences. And I make this argument so that westerners understand why, as poor people, small in number, lacking concentrate capital of the river valleys, developed FASTER (not first, just faster) than other civilizations in the pre-historic, ancient, and modern eras. Why is that? Well, I think I know, and I think it’s something we CAN know. Here is another example. If we read the inscriptions from the Palace Stele from Ur, the Cuneiform of Cyrus and Darius and his Son Darius (starting with the 27th or Persian Dynasty), with the inscriptions of similar periods of the Egyptians (just prior to persian conquest), with the writings of Homer and shortly after of the ‘Athenians’, or any of the greeks, with the writing of the romans, of the german law and myth, of the english law and myth, then what is the difference in the method of narration, explanation and argument? All civilizations produce some level of occult(experiential), religion, myth, literature, history, law, mathematics, and ‘science'(existential). But we can actually MEASURE that distribution. And we can easily determine the level of conflation or deflation (from occult down to science) that governance relies upon, and we can measure changes in the economies that result from those (a) distributions of use and (b) use in government. So we can MEASURE the consequences of say, how chinese rule changed when the migrated from empirical to moral rule. We can measure the consequences of the use of islam by the aristocracy and it’s use as a method of general rule. (btw: the fellow in the original thread does not know just how much knowledge I have of the ancient middle east, but I’m pretty sure it’s comparatively non trivial. and it would turn into a pissing match if I took that avenue with him. ) THE WAY WE SPEAK, THE METHODS OF NARRATION, EXPLANATION, ARGUMENT, AND DECIDABILITY profoundly influence us. And if we conduct rule by those different methods they profoundly affect us more. The problem is the means of rule by scientific law is expensive and requires a high trust low context society, and the means of mythological rule is inexpensive but only requires indoctrination in a high context but produces a low trust society. These are profound questions that explain our evolutionary differences. Curt