—“In all systems of theology the devil figures as a male person. Yes, it is women who keep the church going.”— Don Marquis
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-17 01:11:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184637975495430144
Source: Twitter X
-
Anyway. I’ll follow and see if I can learn anything. Thanks for the ping pong
Anyway. I’ll follow and see if I can learn anything.
Thanks for the ping pong.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-16 21:08:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184576772970561536
Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184576665139253248
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@MattPirkowski Well, just testing the waters. There is an elegant structure to your thought worth investigating. I think I understand your personal ethics and we all justify that which we are most comfortable with. Choice of Law, Philosophy, and Theology mirror our Choice of Responsibility.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184576665139253248
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@MattPirkowski Well, just testing the waters. There is an elegant structure to your thought worth investigating. I think I understand your personal ethics and we all justify that which we are most comfortable with. Choice of Law, Philosophy, and Theology mirror our Choice of Responsibility.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184576665139253248
-
Well, just testing the waters. There is an elegant structure to your thought wor
Well, just testing the waters. There is an elegant structure to your thought worth investigating. I think I understand your personal ethics and we all justify that which we are most comfortable with. Choice of Law, Philosophy, and Theology mirror our Choice of Responsibility.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-16 21:07:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184576665139253248
Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184574542733176832
IN REPLY TO:
@MattPirkowski
@curtdoolittle Yeah, after perusing some of your work I don’t think we’re going to see eye to eye on much.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184574542733176832
-
So when you say ‘adaptive’ independent of costs, that licenses Genghis Khan. I c
So when you say ‘adaptive’ independent of costs, that licenses Genghis Khan. I can’t determine whether you mean survival from stresses, competition within mutually beneficial limits, or adaptation to ordinary change.
IOW: is your claim of undecidability true?
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-16 21:03:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184575536221315072
Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184575137074548741
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@MattPirkowski … but rarely if ever for a group. Just the opposite. At least, I can’t find any evidence of it in history. At some point reciprocity within limits of proportionality are necessary to prevent defection or limit one’s replacement (assassination).
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184575137074548741
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@MattPirkowski … but rarely if ever for a group. Just the opposite. At least, I can’t find any evidence of it in history. At some point reciprocity within limits of proportionality are necessary to prevent defection or limit one’s replacement (assassination).
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184575137074548741
-
but rarely if ever for a group. Just the opposite. At least, I can’t find any ev
… but rarely if ever for a group. Just the opposite. At least, I can’t find any evidence of it in history. At some point reciprocity within limits of proportionality are necessary to prevent defection or limit one’s replacement (assassination).
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-16 21:01:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184575137074548741
Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184574304366845952
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@MattPirkowski Economic (productive) is not a necessity (‘square’) however unproductive (false, irreciprocal, parasitic, predatory) does (‘square’) in-group, while such questions as ethics and morality are then meaningless out-group. In other words, predation is always adaptive for some…
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184574304366845952
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@MattPirkowski Economic (productive) is not a necessity (‘square’) however unproductive (false, irreciprocal, parasitic, predatory) does (‘square’) in-group, while such questions as ethics and morality are then meaningless out-group. In other words, predation is always adaptive for some…
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184574304366845952
-
Economic (productive) is not a necessity (‘square’) however unproductive (false,
Economic (productive) is not a necessity (‘square’) however unproductive (false, irreciprocal, parasitic, predatory) does (‘square’) in-group, while such questions as ethics and morality are then meaningless out-group. In other words, predation is always adaptive for some…
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-16 20:58:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184574304366845952
Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184568198940618752
IN REPLY TO:
@MattPirkowski
@curtdoolittle Whereas ethical integrity, in this context, represents the capacity to recognize that what is economically expedient does not always square with what is adaptive. Money, especially in its current form, cares nothing of humanity’s sustainable time preference.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184568198940618752
-
So while we might convey meaning by fictionalism, fiction, and idealism, we can
So while we might convey meaning by fictionalism, fiction, and idealism, we can only testify to the actionable material, costs, and reciprocity. Ergo, establish meaning by fiction, or ideal, then warranty against error, bias, deceit, and fraud by operational (real).
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-16 20:54:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184573355044810754
Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184572810007588864
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@MattPirkowski And the principle fraud insidious: pretension of knowledge and decidability one does not possess.
In practice, Legal requires both costs and reciprocity; Aristotelian requires the material; ideal and supernatural none. Why? To Testify with responsibility or to Lie without it.Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184572810007588864
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@MattPirkowski And the principle fraud insidious: pretension of knowledge and decidability one does not possess.
In practice, Legal requires both costs and reciprocity; Aristotelian requires the material; ideal and supernatural none. Why? To Testify with responsibility or to Lie without it.Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184572810007588864
-
And the principle fraud insidious: pretension of knowledge and decidability one
And the principle fraud insidious: pretension of knowledge and decidability one does not possess.
In practice, Legal requires both costs and reciprocity; Aristotelian requires the material; ideal and supernatural none. Why? To Testify with responsibility or to Lie without it.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-16 20:52:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184572810007588864
Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184571621970980868
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@MattPirkowski The presumption of ignorance and error is a polite manifestation of western ethics of discourse, but it is not however evidenced in history. We err far less than we deceive, and the vast majority of thought is but elaborate deception to perpetuate one fraud, another, or many.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184571621970980868
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@MattPirkowski The presumption of ignorance and error is a polite manifestation of western ethics of discourse, but it is not however evidenced in history. We err far less than we deceive, and the vast majority of thought is but elaborate deception to perpetuate one fraud, another, or many.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184571621970980868
-
The presumption of ignorance and error is a polite manifestation of western ethi
The presumption of ignorance and error is a polite manifestation of western ethics of discourse, but it is not however evidenced in history. We err far less than we deceive, and the vast majority of thought is but elaborate deception to perpetuate one fraud, another, or many.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-16 20:47:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184571621970980868
Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184571257846747137
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@MattPirkowski Hmm… I had to work on the eradication of deceit, and came to the opposite conclusion: that conceptual development is discernibly either reciprocal or irreciprocal(fraud), and thus the judgement is possible and necessary: one dark age of ignorance and deceit is enough.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184571257846747137
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@MattPirkowski Hmm… I had to work on the eradication of deceit, and came to the opposite conclusion: that conceptual development is discernibly either reciprocal or irreciprocal(fraud), and thus the judgement is possible and necessary: one dark age of ignorance and deceit is enough.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184571257846747137
-
Hmm… I had to work on the eradication of deceit, and came to the opposite conc
Hmm… I had to work on the eradication of deceit, and came to the opposite conclusion: that conceptual development is discernibly either reciprocal or irreciprocal(fraud), and thus the judgement is possible and necessary: one dark age of ignorance and deceit is enough.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-16 20:46:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184571257846747137
Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184566418475405312
IN REPLY TO:
@MattPirkowski
@curtdoolittle This scope appears quite limited, as I do not presume to place conceptual evolution itself on trial, and side with those pragmatists who take the side of that which appears necessary in service of adaptive continuity.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184566418475405312