Source: Original Site Post

  • The Intertemporal Division of Moral Perception

    THE INTERTEMPORAL DIVISION OF MORAL INTUITIONS REFLECTING THE INTERTEMPORAL DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, LABOR, AND ADVOCACY.

    13502810_10154282764882264_3756408374900549639_o.jpg
  • The Intertemporal Division of Moral Perception

    THE INTERTEMPORAL DIVISION OF MORAL INTUITIONS REFLECTING THE INTERTEMPORAL DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, LABOR, AND ADVOCACY.

    13502810_10154282764882264_3756408374900549639_o.jpg
  • The Great Compromises

    All religions, by the act of repetition of metaphysical value judgments, stated as mythic, supernatural, or pseudoscientific analogies, set the terms by which the state may govern, by limiting the laws that may be imposed without the revolt of the people – who claiming a ‘higher authority’ demands that they revolt against these transgressions. This is the purpose of religion. To establish a higher authority beyond which the intentions of man may not transgress. Or more simply, to limit the powerful. Westerners since the time of the Yamnaya (Aryans) have practiced natural law: rational cooperation. This Arianism: Universal natural law, was merely the empirical tradition of a warrior elite, derived from the intolerance of warfare by voluntary warrioes – the wealthy heads of families and clans – for who oath and trust on and off the battlefield determined their ability to fight enemies in the absence of wealthy authority that commanded them. Warrior epistemology is unforgiving. It is religion and commerce that tolerate and benefit from lies. Roman law, and Church Law, evolved as reflections of Natural Law. And Natural law, like the Aryanism it evolved from, is universalist. Meaning that it sets the rational terms for cooperation between the meritocratic: strong, productive, truthful(empirical). And that rational cooperation between the powerful is impossible in the absence of natrual law. Stated perhaps more clearly: it is only under truthful testimony, and non-imposition of costs: the oath of warriors, warrantied by the punishment of death, that rational cooperation is possible. Otherwise, rational prediation is only logical. Ergo, to join the franchise (elite) one must be truthful in word and deed – lest he not come home from the next raid. Natural law, like Physics is efficient, and like Evolution, is meritocratic, and by meritocratic we mean eugenic. But even though it’s meritocratic we enforce only the principles of non-parasitism: truth, contribution to the commons, and self sustenance. Meaning that reproduction is limited to those who can produce in the current era. But that we still provide insurance for those who encounter harms is provided. Natural law is predicated on this first principle: why should we cooperate rather than kill, rob, or enslave you? The only reason for cooperation is that it is more beneficial than predation. Predation by the underclass through exploitation of consumption through over reproduction(downward redistribution), and predation by the upper classes through exploitation of productivity (upward redistribution) to increase consumption. THE CLASS COMPROMISE The compromise of cooperation under natural law is that the upper classes agree not to prey, not to exploit, and not to kill or enslave, in exchange for the lower classes not exploiting the increased productivity that the suppression of parasitism (the creation of order) by the upper classes makes possible. This is a trade. This is natural law. A voluntary exchange. And out of this exchange arises all that the west has made for this world: reason, science, technology, and medicine: the products of truth telling. The empirical people, are the result of empirical metaphysics: natural law of cooperation. We domesticate the lower classes with this trade. It is a compromise like all trades. But it is a powerfully benefical trade becaue the externalities produced by this compromise are an extraordinary rate of evolution of knowlege and production without the constant increase in parasitic consumption that comes from lower class reproduction. MARRIAGE COMPROMISE Marriage provides the same exchange between the violence and productivity of the male in favor of the long-term success of his tribe, versus the reproductivity and consumption of the female in the short term favor of her offspring. Man’s violence was domesticated and woman’s reproduction was domesticated. The method by which we domesticated man and woman equally was the marriage. This limited reproduction and consumption to the productivity of the parents. This controlled the woman’s reproduction and consumption in exchange for the man getting access to sex, thereby controlling his desire for violence and predation. Our laws and religions evolved with the same ‘scientific’ (empirical) principles that were in concert with physical laws: Trust all as kin. Accuse and Testify truthfully. Carry your own weight in order to exist and reproduce (or at least cause no harm, and contribute to the best of your ability). Your sustenance can only be provided by fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchange limited to externally of the same. And in exchange for participation in that franchise (market) all men are required to police all other men at all times without exception (ever man a sheriff). CHURCH STATE COMPROMISE The church takes responsibility for the family, and education between kin. The state for the natural conflicts that arise between members inside (justice) and those outside (war) the nation and its territory. This is a compromise. A trade. A division of labor. The nuturing female and the limiting male. You see, individualism is an effort to destroy our great compromises. The great compromises – exchanges – that made our success possible in the ancient and modern worlds.

  • The Great Compromises

    All religions, by the act of repetition of metaphysical value judgments, stated as mythic, supernatural, or pseudoscientific analogies, set the terms by which the state may govern, by limiting the laws that may be imposed without the revolt of the people – who claiming a ‘higher authority’ demands that they revolt against these transgressions. This is the purpose of religion. To establish a higher authority beyond which the intentions of man may not transgress. Or more simply, to limit the powerful. Westerners since the time of the Yamnaya (Aryans) have practiced natural law: rational cooperation. This Arianism: Universal natural law, was merely the empirical tradition of a warrior elite, derived from the intolerance of warfare by voluntary warrioes – the wealthy heads of families and clans – for who oath and trust on and off the battlefield determined their ability to fight enemies in the absence of wealthy authority that commanded them. Warrior epistemology is unforgiving. It is religion and commerce that tolerate and benefit from lies. Roman law, and Church Law, evolved as reflections of Natural Law. And Natural law, like the Aryanism it evolved from, is universalist. Meaning that it sets the rational terms for cooperation between the meritocratic: strong, productive, truthful(empirical). And that rational cooperation between the powerful is impossible in the absence of natrual law. Stated perhaps more clearly: it is only under truthful testimony, and non-imposition of costs: the oath of warriors, warrantied by the punishment of death, that rational cooperation is possible. Otherwise, rational prediation is only logical. Ergo, to join the franchise (elite) one must be truthful in word and deed – lest he not come home from the next raid. Natural law, like Physics is efficient, and like Evolution, is meritocratic, and by meritocratic we mean eugenic. But even though it’s meritocratic we enforce only the principles of non-parasitism: truth, contribution to the commons, and self sustenance. Meaning that reproduction is limited to those who can produce in the current era. But that we still provide insurance for those who encounter harms is provided. Natural law is predicated on this first principle: why should we cooperate rather than kill, rob, or enslave you? The only reason for cooperation is that it is more beneficial than predation. Predation by the underclass through exploitation of consumption through over reproduction(downward redistribution), and predation by the upper classes through exploitation of productivity (upward redistribution) to increase consumption. THE CLASS COMPROMISE The compromise of cooperation under natural law is that the upper classes agree not to prey, not to exploit, and not to kill or enslave, in exchange for the lower classes not exploiting the increased productivity that the suppression of parasitism (the creation of order) by the upper classes makes possible. This is a trade. This is natural law. A voluntary exchange. And out of this exchange arises all that the west has made for this world: reason, science, technology, and medicine: the products of truth telling. The empirical people, are the result of empirical metaphysics: natural law of cooperation. We domesticate the lower classes with this trade. It is a compromise like all trades. But it is a powerfully benefical trade becaue the externalities produced by this compromise are an extraordinary rate of evolution of knowlege and production without the constant increase in parasitic consumption that comes from lower class reproduction. MARRIAGE COMPROMISE Marriage provides the same exchange between the violence and productivity of the male in favor of the long-term success of his tribe, versus the reproductivity and consumption of the female in the short term favor of her offspring. Man’s violence was domesticated and woman’s reproduction was domesticated. The method by which we domesticated man and woman equally was the marriage. This limited reproduction and consumption to the productivity of the parents. This controlled the woman’s reproduction and consumption in exchange for the man getting access to sex, thereby controlling his desire for violence and predation. Our laws and religions evolved with the same ‘scientific’ (empirical) principles that were in concert with physical laws: Trust all as kin. Accuse and Testify truthfully. Carry your own weight in order to exist and reproduce (or at least cause no harm, and contribute to the best of your ability). Your sustenance can only be provided by fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchange limited to externally of the same. And in exchange for participation in that franchise (market) all men are required to police all other men at all times without exception (ever man a sheriff). CHURCH STATE COMPROMISE The church takes responsibility for the family, and education between kin. The state for the natural conflicts that arise between members inside (justice) and those outside (war) the nation and its territory. This is a compromise. A trade. A division of labor. The nuturing female and the limiting male. You see, individualism is an effort to destroy our great compromises. The great compromises – exchanges – that made our success possible in the ancient and modern worlds.

  • Tech Progression

    We started with Babbage’s gears, and arithmetic. We moved to switches and numeric codes and formulae. We moved to vacuum tubes and assembly language and programs.

    We moved to transistors and short code language and operating systems, and hierarchical databases. We moved to chips of transistors and human readable language, and networks, and binary communication, and relational databases. We moved to networks of systems, human-readable documents, distributed networks and string communication. We move to browser-as-operating system, and virtualization, and the storage of documents as databases. Then to the browser-as-operating system on both client and server, using documents to transfer information. And we have begun experimenting with human language commands. We have slowly replaced the mechanical, with the binary, with the string, and finally the document. And we have taken the browser’s string-operating system, And we have transferred the browser’s string operating system to the server. We are slowly approaching where a command consists of the evolution of a ‘document’ (context), iteratively constructed from human language, then submitted as a query to a network of documents, in search of an answer stored as similar documents and indexed as relations. The original authors of Lisp should be proud because while more expensive, it was they who were on the right track. But like many competitors, a superior technology (lisp/betamax) could not compete with a less costly one(c/vhs). And when that happens a generational leap of significant value is required to correct the prior ‘error’ made by ‘rational’ market choice. You see, google is actually inhibiting the evolution of artificial intelligence. Honestly. Why? Because their monetary incentive is to provide you with inaccurate results that you must humanly parse – or they would have no opportunity to advertise, except by interrupting you. So google will be put out of business by document-context searches the same way that view-ad-to-access video has failed. What we need is to construct a document (query) with enough context to return the question that we’re asking. When that happens there will no longer be an opportunity to advertise. Why? Because someone will come along and offer access to ad-free searches for a few dollars a year, leaving google as the search engine of those without money. (And yes we were working on this back in 2007) Cheers
  • Tech Progression

    We started with Babbage’s gears, and arithmetic. We moved to switches and numeric codes and formulae. We moved to vacuum tubes and assembly language and programs.

    We moved to transistors and short code language and operating systems, and hierarchical databases. We moved to chips of transistors and human readable language, and networks, and binary communication, and relational databases. We moved to networks of systems, human-readable documents, distributed networks and string communication. We move to browser-as-operating system, and virtualization, and the storage of documents as databases. Then to the browser-as-operating system on both client and server, using documents to transfer information. And we have begun experimenting with human language commands. We have slowly replaced the mechanical, with the binary, with the string, and finally the document. And we have taken the browser’s string-operating system, And we have transferred the browser’s string operating system to the server. We are slowly approaching where a command consists of the evolution of a ‘document’ (context), iteratively constructed from human language, then submitted as a query to a network of documents, in search of an answer stored as similar documents and indexed as relations. The original authors of Lisp should be proud because while more expensive, it was they who were on the right track. But like many competitors, a superior technology (lisp/betamax) could not compete with a less costly one(c/vhs). And when that happens a generational leap of significant value is required to correct the prior ‘error’ made by ‘rational’ market choice. You see, google is actually inhibiting the evolution of artificial intelligence. Honestly. Why? Because their monetary incentive is to provide you with inaccurate results that you must humanly parse – or they would have no opportunity to advertise, except by interrupting you. So google will be put out of business by document-context searches the same way that view-ad-to-access video has failed. What we need is to construct a document (query) with enough context to return the question that we’re asking. When that happens there will no longer be an opportunity to advertise. Why? Because someone will come along and offer access to ad-free searches for a few dollars a year, leaving google as the search engine of those without money. (And yes we were working on this back in 2007) Cheers
  • Islands and Ghettos

    (Important piece) The British on their isle and colonies, and the Jews in their ghettos and borderlands had the same incentives: protected from the east by the Teutons they could embrace the commercial and universal as ultimately decideable good rather than territory and nation as ultimately decideable good, and abandon inter temporality that is necessary for the retention of independence. Disraeli transformed the emergent empire from Aryan territorial to Jewish commercial.

    But the British made this change out of ignorance and greed – not knowing what consequence would arise from their overconfidence. We see Spencer as his era’s Burke. And the attempted restoration of the west and rescue from the commercial curse in the German rise. Had not Germanic Americans misunderstood this conflict, Europa would have been saved. We are always wrong you know. The Anglos like the Jews are always wrong. Always.
  • Islands and Ghettos

    (Important piece) The British on their isle and colonies, and the Jews in their ghettos and borderlands had the same incentives: protected from the east by the Teutons they could embrace the commercial and universal as ultimately decideable good rather than territory and nation as ultimately decideable good, and abandon inter temporality that is necessary for the retention of independence. Disraeli transformed the emergent empire from Aryan territorial to Jewish commercial.

    But the British made this change out of ignorance and greed – not knowing what consequence would arise from their overconfidence. We see Spencer as his era’s Burke. And the attempted restoration of the west and rescue from the commercial curse in the German rise. Had not Germanic Americans misunderstood this conflict, Europa would have been saved. We are always wrong you know. The Anglos like the Jews are always wrong. Always.
  • Words Define, Money Incents, Violence Prevents

    —“Words define the problem. Money creates positive incentives to solve the problem. Violence removes parasitic alternatives to solving the problem.”—Con Eli Khan   Words can sometimes solve the problem. Money will often solve what words cannot. When money won’t solve the problem, only violence will.