The Origin of The Present Problem of Philosophical Discourse https://t.co/aRo6nb8WZ6
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Origin of The Present Problem of Philosophical Discourse
Few people ever bring up say Dworkin, Hart, Rawls, and the Natural Law (Rule of Law) vs Positive Law (Rule by Man) debate, or even Hayek and Epstein, or Milsom (or Black) or how many know the constitution, the Magna Carta, germanic law, roman law, and instead, they all fuss with philosophers and essayists who are mostly the people too ridiculous and absent responsibility to practice law and government. And so, instead, all of this history was so obvious to me, because I’ve been so deep in programming, law, cognitive science, and economics, for so long, that it’s sort of unimaginable to me that no one goes anywhere near the law at all. But no one does. Instead we learn shallow moralizing, opinion, sophistry: philosophy. AND THAT’S THE PROBLEM. Why is that? Well, that’s because the Natural Law (bottom up) and Political Law (top down) are spoken in even WORSE sophistry than philosophy. Seriously. I mean, the law is argued as rules, general rules (principles) and sets of cases. And law is taught and practiced as an apprenticeship trade over generations, where procedure and these rules like social norms and traditions, don’t require a comprehension of the underlying logic of the law (jurisprudence, legal philosophy, juridical science), just imitation of those legal norms. If you study the great legal debates from our present position of knowledge, the great thinkers are worse excuse makers and fantasists than the philosophers and theologians. Why? They’re trying to make excuses for political law (rule by man) to circumvent the high cost of moral law (natural law, rule of law), and it’s gotten far, far worse in the democratic age, and even worse in the postmodern age. And that’s what P-Law solves. It produces the formal logic of natural law, and says ‘well, you can do whatever you want, but this is the law, and if you want to do something pragmatic or expedient, then you’re violating that law, regardless of your political or judicial function. The purpose of natural law is to force you (individuals, social groups, business, political groups, governments) to find solutions that aren’t irreciprocal regardless of how hard it may be to do that. And what’s the problem? There is only one problem. We’re all trying to circumvent selection pressure: evolutionary law. And the left is additionally trying to circumvent physical law (scarcity) as well as natural law (human incentives and resulting behavior). I am too stressed by the rate of acceleration of the revolution so hopefully I make it through it to reform our civilization so that the law is taught as just another tool next to reading, and math, and physics, and we restore our ‘european sense making’ by restoring our fairy tales, myths, legends, of aryan heroism and achievement, and teach Aurelius’ philosophy as our secular personal philosophy (religion), and teach Aristotle restated in p-prose as our method of reason.
-
The Origin of The Present Problem of Philosophical Discourse
Few people ever bring up say Dworkin, Hart, Rawls, and the Natural Law (Rule of Law) vs Positive Law (Rule by Man) debate, or even Hayek and Epstein, or Milsom (or Black) or how many know the constitution, the Magna Carta, germanic law, roman law, and instead, they all fuss with philosophers and essayists who are mostly the people too ridiculous and absent responsibility to practice law and government. And so, instead, all of this history was so obvious to me, because I’ve been so deep in programming, law, cognitive science, and economics, for so long, that it’s sort of unimaginable to me that no one goes anywhere near the law at all. But no one does. Instead we learn shallow moralizing, opinion, sophistry: philosophy. AND THAT’S THE PROBLEM. Why is that? Well, that’s because the Natural Law (bottom up) and Political Law (top down) are spoken in even WORSE sophistry than philosophy. Seriously. I mean, the law is argued as rules, general rules (principles) and sets of cases. And law is taught and practiced as an apprenticeship trade over generations, where procedure and these rules like social norms and traditions, don’t require a comprehension of the underlying logic of the law (jurisprudence, legal philosophy, juridical science), just imitation of those legal norms. If you study the great legal debates from our present position of knowledge, the great thinkers are worse excuse makers and fantasists than the philosophers and theologians. Why? They’re trying to make excuses for political law (rule by man) to circumvent the high cost of moral law (natural law, rule of law), and it’s gotten far, far worse in the democratic age, and even worse in the postmodern age. And that’s what P-Law solves. It produces the formal logic of natural law, and says ‘well, you can do whatever you want, but this is the law, and if you want to do something pragmatic or expedient, then you’re violating that law, regardless of your political or judicial function. The purpose of natural law is to force you (individuals, social groups, business, political groups, governments) to find solutions that aren’t irreciprocal regardless of how hard it may be to do that. And what’s the problem? There is only one problem. We’re all trying to circumvent selection pressure: evolutionary law. And the left is additionally trying to circumvent physical law (scarcity) as well as natural law (human incentives and resulting behavior). I am too stressed by the rate of acceleration of the revolution so hopefully I make it through it to reform our civilization so that the law is taught as just another tool next to reading, and math, and physics, and we restore our ‘european sense making’ by restoring our fairy tales, myths, legends, of aryan heroism and achievement, and teach Aurelius’ philosophy as our secular personal philosophy (religion), and teach Aristotle restated in p-prose as our method of reason.
-
The European Group Strategy
The European Group Strategy https://t.co/knuFZIxt32
-
The European Group Strategy
1 – All civilizations produce a group strategy, a mythology, a method of argument to advance them, and institutions of intergenerational transfer to persist them. Classes and sexes produce variations on them. All civilizations appear to have produced them in the Axial Age (recovering from the bronze age collapse), and anchored at that point, and cannot evolve without crisis, or change without conquest. 2 – Europeans for accidental geographic reasons developed truthful testimony (military reporting) as a norm, sovereignty and reciprocity, heroism and duty, excellence and beauty, as a group strategy – and metalworking and martial conquest as the high ranking positions. The Smith and the Demon. The Faust Myth. These are our founding mythos. With cunning and technology we can outwit the dark forces of man, gods, demons, and nature. This is the male group strategy. I call this strategy Aristotelianism (elitism) but it is far older, and the property term, Aryanism, meaning European branch of the Indo Europeans, is unfashionable. … this strategy produces the optimum adaptation of man because of the highest correspondence to physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. … With this strategy, in a few centuries in the bronze age (indo european expansion) a few centuries in the iron age (mediterranean expansion) and a few centuries in the modern steel age ( north sea expansion), europeans dragged mankind kicking and screaming out of ignorance, hard labor, poverty. starvation, disease, suffering, early mortality, endemic warfare, and victimization by nature. … We do not need to be first but fastest. The question is, why all other civilizations failed to discover continuous adaptation, and instead, stagnated, or collapsed. The answer is rather obvious: the human want of stability and his hatred of adversarial markets, and the inability to shrink the underclass so that a majority genetic middle can form, or as in the case of the Hindus and Chinese, and less so the Europeans, an elite caste can form. 3 – The Full Explanation of that European Strategy is:
1 – A Universal Militia Regardless of Cost 2 – Excellence and Heroism Regardless of Cost 3 – Duty and Commons Regardless of Cost 4 – Truth and Oath Regardless of Cost 5 – Promise and Contract Regardless of Cost 6 – Sovereignty and Reciprocity Regardless of Cost 7 – The Natural Law and Jury Regardless of Cost 8 – Wherein every man a soldier, sheriff, judge, and his own legislator, of his own demonstrated interests. 9 – And as a result – the only possibility for social organization is Voluntary Markets in: .. – association .. .. – cooperation .. .. .. – production .. .. .. .. – reproduction .. .. .. .. .. – commons .. .. .. .. .. .. – polities .. .. .. .. .. .. .. – war. 10 – Together producing the fastest possible means of human adaptation to circumstances; 11 – Including the continuous evolutionary production of Human Agency (human capital); 12 – By the domestication of man by market eugenics, 13 – And as a result, the direction of surpluses to the production of commons, and the multiples of returns produced therefrom; 14 – Including the unique high trust society; 15 – And the informational, scientific, technological, medical, economic, social, political, and military benefits therefrom. 16 – Yielding a genetic distribution free of the burden of underclass consumption, and the costs of their organization, administration, and care.
-
The European Group Strategy
1 – All civilizations produce a group strategy, a mythology, a method of argument to advance them, and institutions of intergenerational transfer to persist them. Classes and sexes produce variations on them. All civilizations appear to have produced them in the Axial Age (recovering from the bronze age collapse), and anchored at that point, and cannot evolve without crisis, or change without conquest. 2 – Europeans for accidental geographic reasons developed truthful testimony (military reporting) as a norm, sovereignty and reciprocity, heroism and duty, excellence and beauty, as a group strategy – and metalworking and martial conquest as the high ranking positions. The Smith and the Demon. The Faust Myth. These are our founding mythos. With cunning and technology we can outwit the dark forces of man, gods, demons, and nature. This is the male group strategy. I call this strategy Aristotelianism (elitism) but it is far older, and the property term, Aryanism, meaning European branch of the Indo Europeans, is unfashionable. … this strategy produces the optimum adaptation of man because of the highest correspondence to physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. … With this strategy, in a few centuries in the bronze age (indo european expansion) a few centuries in the iron age (mediterranean expansion) and a few centuries in the modern steel age ( north sea expansion), europeans dragged mankind kicking and screaming out of ignorance, hard labor, poverty. starvation, disease, suffering, early mortality, endemic warfare, and victimization by nature. … We do not need to be first but fastest. The question is, why all other civilizations failed to discover continuous adaptation, and instead, stagnated, or collapsed. The answer is rather obvious: the human want of stability and his hatred of adversarial markets, and the inability to shrink the underclass so that a majority genetic middle can form, or as in the case of the Hindus and Chinese, and less so the Europeans, an elite caste can form. 3 – The Full Explanation of that European Strategy is:
1 – A Universal Militia Regardless of Cost 2 – Excellence and Heroism Regardless of Cost 3 – Duty and Commons Regardless of Cost 4 – Truth and Oath Regardless of Cost 5 – Promise and Contract Regardless of Cost 6 – Sovereignty and Reciprocity Regardless of Cost 7 – The Natural Law and Jury Regardless of Cost 8 – Wherein every man a soldier, sheriff, judge, and his own legislator, of his own demonstrated interests. 9 – And as a result – the only possibility for social organization is Voluntary Markets in: .. – association .. .. – cooperation .. .. .. – production .. .. .. .. – reproduction .. .. .. .. .. – commons .. .. .. .. .. .. – polities .. .. .. .. .. .. .. – war. 10 – Together producing the fastest possible means of human adaptation to circumstances; 11 – Including the continuous evolutionary production of Human Agency (human capital); 12 – By the domestication of man by market eugenics, 13 – And as a result, the direction of surpluses to the production of commons, and the multiples of returns produced therefrom; 14 – Including the unique high trust society; 15 – And the informational, scientific, technological, medical, economic, social, political, and military benefits therefrom. 16 – Yielding a genetic distribution free of the burden of underclass consumption, and the costs of their organization, administration, and care.
-
They aren’t revolutionary they’re UNDERMINING
They aren’t revolutionary they’re UNDERMINING.
Reply addressees: @judicialist -
Everyone. The Romans wrote about it. Profusely. Gibbon, Sure Ward-Perkins, Sure
Everyone. The Romans wrote about it. Profusely. Gibbon, Sure Ward-Perkins, Sure Nixey, but mostly from the Romans.
It was a farily hard problem – to dismantle the abrahamic technique but they’re just repeating it
Reply addressees: @judicialist -
The Enemy’s Strategy
The Enemy’s Strategy https://t.co/jDsVFnrwRi
