HOLD THE NOBEL PRIZE COMMITTEE LIABLE FOR THEIR RATING SERVICE? Do you suppose we could make the Nobel Prize committee liable for the certification of pseudoscience? I think we could. Why not? I mean, for all intents and purposes, how is the Nobel Committee any different from the Mortgage Rating Services? Privatizing commons while socializing losses into the commons?
Source: Original Site Post
-
There Is Nothing To Find In The Lies of the Conflationary Prophets
THERE IS NOTHING TO FIND IN THE LIES OF THE CONFLATIONARY PROPHETS BUT INFANTILISM. —“It seems that, in Genesis, God has legs, and doesn’t know the answers to the questions he asks. It confirms my inclination to the Marcionite Heresy.”— There is nothing there to find. We have our fairy tales, and myths. We have our origin story: the Iliad and the odyssey We have books of great literature. Books of great ideas (moral literature). Books of great history. Books of great science. Books of great law. Books of great war.
We have imitation of kin for infants. We have heroic imitation for children. We have virtue ethics for the adolescent. We have rule ethics for the adult. We have outcome ethics for the mature. CONFLATIONARY SIMPLICITY vs DEFLATIONARY COMPLEXITY The attractiveness of religious parable is that it’s conflated (all the disciplines are conflated into a single narrative). And the simple beast in each of us prefers to call upon one ‘unit of measure’ (method of deciding). But what separates man from animal is reason, and human from man, is deflation: the ability to compare multiple dimensions. So while we harbor in us a romantic childish animal that wants to save the burden of learning and cognition by relying on the reductive, conflation of simple ideal types, virtues, and parables, rather than identities, measurements, spectra, equilibria, and models, we merely infantilize ourselves by returning to infantile means of conflationary measurement. THERE ARE NO ANSWERS IN THE LIES OF THE CONFLATIONISTS. End the lies. -
There Is Nothing To Find In The Lies of the Conflationary Prophets
THERE IS NOTHING TO FIND IN THE LIES OF THE CONFLATIONARY PROPHETS BUT INFANTILISM. —“It seems that, in Genesis, God has legs, and doesn’t know the answers to the questions he asks. It confirms my inclination to the Marcionite Heresy.”— There is nothing there to find. We have our fairy tales, and myths. We have our origin story: the Iliad and the odyssey We have books of great literature. Books of great ideas (moral literature). Books of great history. Books of great science. Books of great law. Books of great war.
We have imitation of kin for infants. We have heroic imitation for children. We have virtue ethics for the adolescent. We have rule ethics for the adult. We have outcome ethics for the mature. CONFLATIONARY SIMPLICITY vs DEFLATIONARY COMPLEXITY The attractiveness of religious parable is that it’s conflated (all the disciplines are conflated into a single narrative). And the simple beast in each of us prefers to call upon one ‘unit of measure’ (method of deciding). But what separates man from animal is reason, and human from man, is deflation: the ability to compare multiple dimensions. So while we harbor in us a romantic childish animal that wants to save the burden of learning and cognition by relying on the reductive, conflation of simple ideal types, virtues, and parables, rather than identities, measurements, spectra, equilibria, and models, we merely infantilize ourselves by returning to infantile means of conflationary measurement. THERE ARE NO ANSWERS IN THE LIES OF THE CONFLATIONISTS. End the lies. -
Cultural Differences
CURT AND MURRAY SELL ON CULTURAL DIFFERENCES —“The Chinese [primary method of decidability] is stability – [non-conflict]. Chinese history is tumultuous so everything must be done in the name of maintaining equilibrium and stability in the nation state(which is seen as a collective entity). The American [primary method of decidability] (until very recently) is reason – [negotiation]. Maintaining that people will ultimately do what’s right for themselves in the end and will act in their own self interests.
(CURT INTERJECTS: Chinese prevent conflict through denial, delay, and deceit. westerners attempt to expose conflicts and resolve them quickly. europeans regulate heavily to prevent legal conflicts later. Americans provide very precise legal rules so that limited regulation is necessary except in those cases where the exceptions have failed. These are three methods of insurance against conflict. The Chinese delay and deceive and deny until ‘matters solve themselves’. The continental method of regulate in order to limit conflicts. And the anglo method: provide clear rule of law so that those conflicts that do arise are decidable.) It’s probably why our greatest weapon has been unleashing chaos into societies (weaponized culture)in order to drive events in a way that serve America’s greater interests. (CURT INTERJECTS: Americans have followed the anglo enlightenment, peace of Westphalia(States are responsible for all agents within), and Postwar Consensus (human rights and fixed borders), that the world will remain peaceful through economic cooperation rather than territorial expansion. So americans seek to raise in to ‘adulthood’ every nation, so that it can participate in a meritocratic international market. This is ok, except that every nation may not have the human capital to compete successfully, and may try to circumvent that meritocratic competition by other means (islam).) I feel like this idea failed with the Middle Eastern destabilization program of the obama administration. The realization that people are literally wired differently from the western mind I feel is a revelatory moment of catharsis for western neoliberal thinkers. Universalism is a generic lazy way of seeing collective groups of people on earth. I have watched lectures on YouTube from the army war college stating that it doesn’t really matter if we technically “lose” wars with other nation states (fail to hold territory). As long as we utterly destroy your nation and knock it back a century in its progress we have technically won against our opponent because they can’t develop a civilization strong enough to challenge us on our own territory. The third world is aware of this and some folks theorize that we are in a multigenerational asymmetric conflict with the devolving world using our own principles and mass migration (another form of warfare) against us…”— Murray Sell (CURT INTERJECTS: agreed) -
Cultural Differences
CURT AND MURRAY SELL ON CULTURAL DIFFERENCES —“The Chinese [primary method of decidability] is stability – [non-conflict]. Chinese history is tumultuous so everything must be done in the name of maintaining equilibrium and stability in the nation state(which is seen as a collective entity). The American [primary method of decidability] (until very recently) is reason – [negotiation]. Maintaining that people will ultimately do what’s right for themselves in the end and will act in their own self interests.
(CURT INTERJECTS: Chinese prevent conflict through denial, delay, and deceit. westerners attempt to expose conflicts and resolve them quickly. europeans regulate heavily to prevent legal conflicts later. Americans provide very precise legal rules so that limited regulation is necessary except in those cases where the exceptions have failed. These are three methods of insurance against conflict. The Chinese delay and deceive and deny until ‘matters solve themselves’. The continental method of regulate in order to limit conflicts. And the anglo method: provide clear rule of law so that those conflicts that do arise are decidable.) It’s probably why our greatest weapon has been unleashing chaos into societies (weaponized culture)in order to drive events in a way that serve America’s greater interests. (CURT INTERJECTS: Americans have followed the anglo enlightenment, peace of Westphalia(States are responsible for all agents within), and Postwar Consensus (human rights and fixed borders), that the world will remain peaceful through economic cooperation rather than territorial expansion. So americans seek to raise in to ‘adulthood’ every nation, so that it can participate in a meritocratic international market. This is ok, except that every nation may not have the human capital to compete successfully, and may try to circumvent that meritocratic competition by other means (islam).) I feel like this idea failed with the Middle Eastern destabilization program of the obama administration. The realization that people are literally wired differently from the western mind I feel is a revelatory moment of catharsis for western neoliberal thinkers. Universalism is a generic lazy way of seeing collective groups of people on earth. I have watched lectures on YouTube from the army war college stating that it doesn’t really matter if we technically “lose” wars with other nation states (fail to hold territory). As long as we utterly destroy your nation and knock it back a century in its progress we have technically won against our opponent because they can’t develop a civilization strong enough to challenge us on our own territory. The third world is aware of this and some folks theorize that we are in a multigenerational asymmetric conflict with the devolving world using our own principles and mass migration (another form of warfare) against us…”— Murray Sell (CURT INTERJECTS: agreed) -
Defining Philosophy
WORKING ON DEFINING PHILOSOPHY I have been working on defining philosophy (because like truth, it wasn’t defined before). And you know, there are a few ways to approach it: western philosophy (argumentative methodology) or philosophy in all cultures (multiple argumentative methodologies). And whether the philosophy is literary and imaginative (possibilities), escapist (most), a form of assistance(sinic), or problem solving (western). And what constitutes truth in each methodology – which differs dramatically from civilization to civilization. Now, I’m going to say that philosophy is to reason what apperception is to consciousness: the re-measuring of all related relations in response to the new measure provided by the new information. In other words: recursive recalculation in response to new measurements. The difference being that while cognition and apperception are continuous autonomic processes, reason and philosophy are guided processes, in which we devote (concentrate) resources (mental) to achieve desired ends. This is, I think, the correct description of the processes of reason and philosophy. Reason measures. Philosophy seeks commensurability of new ideas to old Ideas and refactors old ideas recursively as a consequence. At this point we should see the general union of neurology, computer science, and information: commensurability that makes judgment (comparison) possible. Western philosophy differs in its analytic (deconflated) versus synthetic (conflated) method of reasoning. The categories of philosophy form an expanding hierarchy: – existence (actionability) – epistemology (knowledge) – truth (testimony) – ethics and morality (cooperation in production ) – politics (cooperation in production of commons ) – group evolutionary strategy (competition against other groups) – aesthetics (means of associating emotions with principles that advance all of the above) And we make use of a hierarchy of argument types: – reason – rationalism (non-contradiction) – logic (internal consistency) – empiricism (external correspondence) – operationalism (existential possibility) – voluntarism (moral possibility) And we make use of a hierarchy of measurements – identity (category) – counting (measurement) – arithmetic (operations) – mathematics (sets) – geometry (space) – calculus (change) – post-euclidian calculus (logical rather than physical relations) And we practice different fields: – physical science(s) – cooperative science(s) – informational science(s) – aesthetic science(s). (and we conflate these fields as needed to produce goods, services, and information) And we conduct these arguments using different languages and methods appropriate to each of the classes. And each language places greater demand on the individual’s ability to reason. So my view of philosophy proper is an analytic deconflated process by which we recursively render commensurable the full range of stimuli from the most primitive to the most complex. Everything else I would tend to describe as moral literature, or literary law. I don’t see philosophy proper anywhere other than in the west and a touch of it in the east. What I see is analogies to philosophy proper, that we have no names for, but can be decomposed into the forms of conflation that they use, across fields, measurements, and argument types.
-
Defining Philosophy
WORKING ON DEFINING PHILOSOPHY I have been working on defining philosophy (because like truth, it wasn’t defined before). And you know, there are a few ways to approach it: western philosophy (argumentative methodology) or philosophy in all cultures (multiple argumentative methodologies). And whether the philosophy is literary and imaginative (possibilities), escapist (most), a form of assistance(sinic), or problem solving (western). And what constitutes truth in each methodology – which differs dramatically from civilization to civilization. Now, I’m going to say that philosophy is to reason what apperception is to consciousness: the re-measuring of all related relations in response to the new measure provided by the new information. In other words: recursive recalculation in response to new measurements. The difference being that while cognition and apperception are continuous autonomic processes, reason and philosophy are guided processes, in which we devote (concentrate) resources (mental) to achieve desired ends. This is, I think, the correct description of the processes of reason and philosophy. Reason measures. Philosophy seeks commensurability of new ideas to old Ideas and refactors old ideas recursively as a consequence. At this point we should see the general union of neurology, computer science, and information: commensurability that makes judgment (comparison) possible. Western philosophy differs in its analytic (deconflated) versus synthetic (conflated) method of reasoning. The categories of philosophy form an expanding hierarchy: – existence (actionability) – epistemology (knowledge) – truth (testimony) – ethics and morality (cooperation in production ) – politics (cooperation in production of commons ) – group evolutionary strategy (competition against other groups) – aesthetics (means of associating emotions with principles that advance all of the above) And we make use of a hierarchy of argument types: – reason – rationalism (non-contradiction) – logic (internal consistency) – empiricism (external correspondence) – operationalism (existential possibility) – voluntarism (moral possibility) And we make use of a hierarchy of measurements – identity (category) – counting (measurement) – arithmetic (operations) – mathematics (sets) – geometry (space) – calculus (change) – post-euclidian calculus (logical rather than physical relations) And we practice different fields: – physical science(s) – cooperative science(s) – informational science(s) – aesthetic science(s). (and we conflate these fields as needed to produce goods, services, and information) And we conduct these arguments using different languages and methods appropriate to each of the classes. And each language places greater demand on the individual’s ability to reason. So my view of philosophy proper is an analytic deconflated process by which we recursively render commensurable the full range of stimuli from the most primitive to the most complex. Everything else I would tend to describe as moral literature, or literary law. I don’t see philosophy proper anywhere other than in the west and a touch of it in the east. What I see is analogies to philosophy proper, that we have no names for, but can be decomposed into the forms of conflation that they use, across fields, measurements, and argument types.
-
Teach Children Spectra, not nouns or verbs.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY Just as we teach our children nouns, and asians teach their children verbs, what if we all taught our children spectra? In Propertarianism I have guarded against conflation and substitution and enforced causal relations by reliance upon iterating (over and over again) spectra.
three points test a line. a spectrum tests each point. Defense against the gravity of ignorance: our desire for reduction by a process of conflation and substitution.