THE ERROR OF THE ANCIENTS: TALKING BIZ WAS “OH, SO, BOURGEOISE” Aside from the conquest of the west by byzantine mysticism, the central problem of western philosophy was thinking and ruling classes avoidance of the centrality of economics. We get philosophy to circumvent the traditional law. And we get science to circumvent the traditional church. And we finally get jewish pseudoscience and puritan outright deceit as ways of circumventing science, economics, an law. Economics really doesn’t come into being until smith’s combination of it with ethics, morality, and politics, or turn into a science until menger. Then just as the german scientific revolution is about to kick in, we get the wars, and the postwar era keynes replaces pseudoscience with obscurantist immoral mathematics that menger and smith had sought to avoid. Then the americans kick in – so proud they are to have found a way to destroy civilization faster using stocks as money.
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Error Of The Ancients: War is Fine But Economics Beneath Them
Lesson? Get your hands dirty. -
How do you approach learning logic, as a ternary “science”?
–“Hi, Curt! Reading your latest piece on Facebook starting as “DEAR MISEDUCATED WORLD”. Interesting piece. I wanted to learn math on my own to accompany my job in life sciences, but was always taken away from the simplistic nature of perspective. I wonder, how do you approach learning logic, the ternary “science” as you suggest? I know you are right, at least on an intuitive level, but I would like to know more.”—- A Friend. I came to my current understanding primarily because in my work, I’ve studied arguments in literally every field. BUT I have spent most of my time in computer science, which sits as bridge between engineering and mathematics. And so if you think in science, in engineering, in computer science, in mathematics, in logic, and in philosophy, and in law, you just come into contact with all these terms that everyone uses in each discipline that when studied whole simply refer to very different conditions. And by trying to resolve the conflicts between these disciplines you sort of get the insight into what ‘was wrong’.
I don’t think anything i’m saying here is terribly radical, in fact, I think it’s all understood. But no one has put a comprehensive argument together that includes testimony and reciprocity before (that I know of) while at the same time relying upon falsificationism (survival of an idea in the market for criticism). Honestly there isn’t much more to know than: a) what is the difference between an axiomatic and justificationary proof, and a theoretic and critical hypothesis? What is the difference in information in each formulation of argument. I mean really, if you get that, then you just ignore anyone who uses the word ‘true’ until you figure out if they mean: 1) clearly stated (non conflationary) 2) logically possible (at least non contradictory) 3) axiomatically provable(justficationary) OR operationally constructable(critical) 4) theoretically survivable (externally correspondent) 5) morally reciprocal 6) fully accounted (did you consider all the inputs outputs costs of transformation, and externalities, such that you know the limits of your proposition. Then you can go back to the previous article you just mentioned and look at how the word true is used. and you say, “Well they mean they can construct a proof of possibiilty, but that’s just justificationary, we don’t yet know if that survives external correspondence yet” etc. -
How do you approach learning logic, as a ternary “science”?
–“Hi, Curt! Reading your latest piece on Facebook starting as “DEAR MISEDUCATED WORLD”. Interesting piece. I wanted to learn math on my own to accompany my job in life sciences, but was always taken away from the simplistic nature of perspective. I wonder, how do you approach learning logic, the ternary “science” as you suggest? I know you are right, at least on an intuitive level, but I would like to know more.”—- A Friend. I came to my current understanding primarily because in my work, I’ve studied arguments in literally every field. BUT I have spent most of my time in computer science, which sits as bridge between engineering and mathematics. And so if you think in science, in engineering, in computer science, in mathematics, in logic, and in philosophy, and in law, you just come into contact with all these terms that everyone uses in each discipline that when studied whole simply refer to very different conditions. And by trying to resolve the conflicts between these disciplines you sort of get the insight into what ‘was wrong’.
I don’t think anything i’m saying here is terribly radical, in fact, I think it’s all understood. But no one has put a comprehensive argument together that includes testimony and reciprocity before (that I know of) while at the same time relying upon falsificationism (survival of an idea in the market for criticism). Honestly there isn’t much more to know than: a) what is the difference between an axiomatic and justificationary proof, and a theoretic and critical hypothesis? What is the difference in information in each formulation of argument. I mean really, if you get that, then you just ignore anyone who uses the word ‘true’ until you figure out if they mean: 1) clearly stated (non conflationary) 2) logically possible (at least non contradictory) 3) axiomatically provable(justficationary) OR operationally constructable(critical) 4) theoretically survivable (externally correspondent) 5) morally reciprocal 6) fully accounted (did you consider all the inputs outputs costs of transformation, and externalities, such that you know the limits of your proposition. Then you can go back to the previous article you just mentioned and look at how the word true is used. and you say, “Well they mean they can construct a proof of possibiilty, but that’s just justificationary, we don’t yet know if that survives external correspondence yet” etc. -
Where does a Newbie Start?
—” If I were a total newb what book/books should I start with?”—Ziggy Propertarianism (Natural Law) is a painfully precise language for the amoral comparison between the various categories, values, methods of ‘knowing’, methods of communicating, and means of decidability social orders, as well as making inferior superior, moral and immoral, and true and false decisions within and across them. While the grammar of Natural Law is demanding, and the number of principles you need to understand not much more difficult than say, geometry, it is much easier to learn Natural Law (Propertarianism) if you understand the context that we’re coming from. So, if you asked me how to learn any subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means. You do not need to know the history of warfare, of the common law, of the differences in truth content between argumentative and communicative structures, or the depths of epistemology. You need to know a little about mankind, and then a very little about western civlization’s “luck of the draw”: Sovereignty is possible under certain geographic conditions: when no resource can be centralized and exploited for the purpose of concentrating the proceeds of production in a minor class, and where a self- funded militia is necessary for the defense of territory. So to get you started, I’ll leave you with that one idea, and these four books. After that see the Reading List at the top of the website for more. And honestly, the best way to learn is to follow me. I basically teach class every day, in a vast one-room schoolhouse with students of all grades: Facebook on the internet. THE INDIVIDUAL Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind THE COMMUNITY Francis Fukuyama: Trust
THE NATION Garett Jones: Hive Mind: How Your Nations IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own MANKIND Peter Turchin: Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth -
Where does a Newbie Start?
—” If I were a total newb what book/books should I start with?”—Ziggy Propertarianism (Natural Law) is a painfully precise language for the amoral comparison between the various categories, values, methods of ‘knowing’, methods of communicating, and means of decidability social orders, as well as making inferior superior, moral and immoral, and true and false decisions within and across them. While the grammar of Natural Law is demanding, and the number of principles you need to understand not much more difficult than say, geometry, it is much easier to learn Natural Law (Propertarianism) if you understand the context that we’re coming from. So, if you asked me how to learn any subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means. You do not need to know the history of warfare, of the common law, of the differences in truth content between argumentative and communicative structures, or the depths of epistemology. You need to know a little about mankind, and then a very little about western civlization’s “luck of the draw”: Sovereignty is possible under certain geographic conditions: when no resource can be centralized and exploited for the purpose of concentrating the proceeds of production in a minor class, and where a self- funded militia is necessary for the defense of territory. So to get you started, I’ll leave you with that one idea, and these four books. After that see the Reading List at the top of the website for more. And honestly, the best way to learn is to follow me. I basically teach class every day, in a vast one-room schoolhouse with students of all grades: Facebook on the internet. THE INDIVIDUAL Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind THE COMMUNITY Francis Fukuyama: Trust
THE NATION Garett Jones: Hive Mind: How Your Nations IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own MANKIND Peter Turchin: Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth -
Aristocracy as Agency: and The Vertical And Horizontal Class Structures
ARISTOCRACY AS AGENCY, AND THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL CLASS STRUCTURES. Eli Harman makes a very important point, that I should, and we all should consider, when we refer to western man: that when constructing a class of Western man that we call ‘aristocracy’, which is a ‘class’ regardless of social and economic class, are we in fact referring to the preference for, necessity of, and selection for ‘Agency’? We use the term time preference; we use the term impulsivity. But these terms refer to the ‘negatives’ without stating a positive that is informative and testable. I use the term truthful. Others rational. But isn’t the central question agency? Isn’t that the question going into battle? Isn’t that the question building a social order? Isn’t that a question building a ruling class? Isn’t that a question building a judiciary class? isn’t that a question building an entrepreneurial class (Field Officers)? Isn’t that a question building a administrative class (lieutenants)? Even building the managerial class (sergeants)? Isn’t it a facsimile of agency that we build in military training? How to ‘report’ (testify), how to hold formation, how to overcome fear, embarrassment, emotion, exhaustion, pain, through training? Isn’t that military training the involuntary construction of stoicism? isn’t stoicism the construction of agency? Isn’t Aristocracy the achievement of agency? Isn’t that what Sovereignty results in? Agency? Isn’t Sovereignty an existential Condition in-fact, but Agency the Resource that makes Sovereignty both cognitively possible, and reciprocally necessary for the condition to exist? This is one of the questions I have been trying to solve for the past few years: Aristocracy consists of a class, like the military consists of a class: Priesthood(gossip), Scientist(craftsman), Aristocracy (force). And that one can join the aristocracy at many levels in society, just as one can join the military at many levels in society. We join aristocracy through the pursuit of sovereignty, through the use of agency(stoicism), and through the use of loyalty (shareholder contract). We construct horizontal classes: genetic class, social class, economic class. And we construct vertical classes: Priestly(gossip), Scientific (innovation and production), and Aristocratic (force). One of my own mistakes has been misconstruing the hierarchy of production, which is scientific, entrepreneurial, financial (administrative), craftsmanly(managerial), and laboring (transforming) classes as science vs craft and this was an error driven by the western tendency for the priesthood to fund ‘writing’ (gossip) intellectuals, and the aristocracy to fund engineers and artists (action) intellectuals. Like everyone else, despite identifying the three methods of coercion as three sets of elites, I gave too much emphasis to horizontal class structures, and not enough to vertical. I’ll continue to work on this analytically. But Eli has been framing this for a while now, and I just gleaned his insight. Curt Doolittle
-
Aristocracy as Agency: and The Vertical And Horizontal Class Structures
ARISTOCRACY AS AGENCY, AND THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL CLASS STRUCTURES. Eli Harman makes a very important point, that I should, and we all should consider, when we refer to western man: that when constructing a class of Western man that we call ‘aristocracy’, which is a ‘class’ regardless of social and economic class, are we in fact referring to the preference for, necessity of, and selection for ‘Agency’? We use the term time preference; we use the term impulsivity. But these terms refer to the ‘negatives’ without stating a positive that is informative and testable. I use the term truthful. Others rational. But isn’t the central question agency? Isn’t that the question going into battle? Isn’t that the question building a social order? Isn’t that a question building a ruling class? Isn’t that a question building a judiciary class? isn’t that a question building an entrepreneurial class (Field Officers)? Isn’t that a question building a administrative class (lieutenants)? Even building the managerial class (sergeants)? Isn’t it a facsimile of agency that we build in military training? How to ‘report’ (testify), how to hold formation, how to overcome fear, embarrassment, emotion, exhaustion, pain, through training? Isn’t that military training the involuntary construction of stoicism? isn’t stoicism the construction of agency? Isn’t Aristocracy the achievement of agency? Isn’t that what Sovereignty results in? Agency? Isn’t Sovereignty an existential Condition in-fact, but Agency the Resource that makes Sovereignty both cognitively possible, and reciprocally necessary for the condition to exist? This is one of the questions I have been trying to solve for the past few years: Aristocracy consists of a class, like the military consists of a class: Priesthood(gossip), Scientist(craftsman), Aristocracy (force). And that one can join the aristocracy at many levels in society, just as one can join the military at many levels in society. We join aristocracy through the pursuit of sovereignty, through the use of agency(stoicism), and through the use of loyalty (shareholder contract). We construct horizontal classes: genetic class, social class, economic class. And we construct vertical classes: Priestly(gossip), Scientific (innovation and production), and Aristocratic (force). One of my own mistakes has been misconstruing the hierarchy of production, which is scientific, entrepreneurial, financial (administrative), craftsmanly(managerial), and laboring (transforming) classes as science vs craft and this was an error driven by the western tendency for the priesthood to fund ‘writing’ (gossip) intellectuals, and the aristocracy to fund engineers and artists (action) intellectuals. Like everyone else, despite identifying the three methods of coercion as three sets of elites, I gave too much emphasis to horizontal class structures, and not enough to vertical. I’ll continue to work on this analytically. But Eli has been framing this for a while now, and I just gleaned his insight. Curt Doolittle
-
The Definition and Use of ‘-ISMs’
IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM” What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”? ism ˈizəm/ noun informal
“a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain of preferences: typically a political ideology, philosophy, institutional framework, economic model, or an artistic movement. isms separate the categories that are defined by the constant relations of the physical world from the inconstant categories of the preferential world that we call the sciences. A science does not account for preferences in inputs or outputs, but an ‘ism, as a means of decidability between preferences must.” So one must know the ism’s to debate them. To know the isms requires one know the categories, values, methods of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. So in systems of preferences, ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species. When referring to ‘isms’ we can use other ‘isms’ to reinterpret them – using a different set of categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. if we are confused by one another’s arguments we can clarify our arguments by increasing the precision of our arguments, by referring directly to categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. When one criticizes the use of ism’s one is criticizing a taxonomic reference to a set of particulars: categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability, one does little more than (a) demonstrate one’s ignorance of the topic, (b) demonstrate one’s arrogance from a position of ignorance, (c) attempt to steal from others by demanding that they pay the cost of educating you, or tolerate the existence of your theft, and the consequences it might have if your attempted theft is interpreted by others as an inability to construct a counter argument. In other words, arguments from ignorance are a form of blackmail. And those who conduct blackmail are those we wish to punish for their crimes. The ethical, moral, and non-criminal means of requesting information is this: “I don’t understand, would you mind answering this question: what do you mean when you say….” To which the other will respond either with reciprocal ethical and moral and non-criminal means, by saying “Ok.(attempted clarification)”, or some variation on “I can’t afford to make that investment now, but here is where you may look do it yourself”, or “I just don’t have the time or inclination to invest in that question at the moment”. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine -
The Definition and Use of ‘-ISMs’
IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM” What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”? ism ˈizəm/ noun informal
“a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain of preferences: typically a political ideology, philosophy, institutional framework, economic model, or an artistic movement. isms separate the categories that are defined by the constant relations of the physical world from the inconstant categories of the preferential world that we call the sciences. A science does not account for preferences in inputs or outputs, but an ‘ism, as a means of decidability between preferences must.” So one must know the ism’s to debate them. To know the isms requires one know the categories, values, methods of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. So in systems of preferences, ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species. When referring to ‘isms’ we can use other ‘isms’ to reinterpret them – using a different set of categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. if we are confused by one another’s arguments we can clarify our arguments by increasing the precision of our arguments, by referring directly to categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. When one criticizes the use of ism’s one is criticizing a taxonomic reference to a set of particulars: categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability, one does little more than (a) demonstrate one’s ignorance of the topic, (b) demonstrate one’s arrogance from a position of ignorance, (c) attempt to steal from others by demanding that they pay the cost of educating you, or tolerate the existence of your theft, and the consequences it might have if your attempted theft is interpreted by others as an inability to construct a counter argument. In other words, arguments from ignorance are a form of blackmail. And those who conduct blackmail are those we wish to punish for their crimes. The ethical, moral, and non-criminal means of requesting information is this: “I don’t understand, would you mind answering this question: what do you mean when you say….” To which the other will respond either with reciprocal ethical and moral and non-criminal means, by saying “Ok.(attempted clarification)”, or some variation on “I can’t afford to make that investment now, but here is where you may look do it yourself”, or “I just don’t have the time or inclination to invest in that question at the moment”. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine -
The Spectrum of Agency
MUST-READ: ON SPECTRUM OF AGENCY DEMONSTRATED BY USE OF TESTIMONY BY BILL JOSLIN —-“Thoughts that might be worth exploring ->Qualification to acquire membership in a class based on demonstrated agency affords commensurability in assessing worthiness.
Demonstrate the degree one lives by their own agency dictates which class they belong (vertically) regardless of horizontal class (much talk with Joel on this in January) Testimonialism forces one to “demonstrate due diligence in speaking truthfully”. But this can also be stated as “demonstrating the degree of agency (due diligence) one has invested in the speech act (truthfulness). This adds a new “moral” level to testimonialism – in that one can communicate a testimonial truth which they have invested only the time it took to memorize it without any personal agency in developing it(low agency)…. one can speak a testimonial truth another developed but has invested their agency into understanding it (mid agency)… or one can speak a testimonial proof which one has developed on their own (the proof stands as a demonstration of their agency).(posts on cognitive self ownership)”—– Bill Joslin Now lets look at that last paragraph again: This adds a new “moral” level to testimonialism – LOW AGENCY One can communicate a testimonial truth which they have invested only the time it took to memorize it without any personal agency in developing it…. or MIDDLE AGENCY One can speak a testimonial truth another developed but has invested their agency into understanding it… or AGENCY One can speak a testimonial proof which one has developed on their own (the proof stands as a demonstration of their agency).(posts on cognitive self ownership) Agency of the youth, the adult, and the wise. -Curt