Curt Doolittle

Theme: Causality

  • Pilpul and Derivatives Are Framed As, but Not Contingent or Causal.

    PILPUL AND DERIVATIVES ARE FRAMED AS, BUT NOT CONTINGENT OR CAUSAL.

    —“A thought on grammars of ambiguation – pilpul and derivative ideologies base on primacy of linguistics would be grammars that are neither contingent nor causal, but are framed to be so?”—Bill Joslin

    Smart. Correct. — REGARDING —

    —“So it’s correct to call apriorism an ideal grammar, but not a formal grammar. Thankfully I finally know how to talk about the grammars of each incremental dimension… sigh. Mathematical grammars are not contingent because of constant relations. That’s their beauty. The problem is they’re non causal.Linguistic (Philosophical) grammars are contingent. That’s their weakness.Operational grammars are not contingent. And they’re causal. That’s their beauty.”—Curt Doolittle

  • Below the Quantum

    (worth repeating) … At present we deduce that a difference in fundamental charges is producing a subsequent difference in fundamental charge distributions that we call quantum fields, and a distribution of temporary density of that quantum field we call a particle. And by repeating this process of a difference in the pattern of charges, particles form combinations we call atoms or elements, elements form chemicals ,chemicals form molecules, molecules that include carbon produce biochemical molecules, biochemical molecules form proteins, proteins produce molecules necessary for cells, cells produce other cells, cells produce organs, organs produce organisms, organisms produce nervous systems, nervous systems produce memories, memories produce predictions, predictions product choices, and there we go. The entirety of the ‘grammar’ of the universe is – similar to binary or ternary logic – a difference in charges, whose change we call entropy: the tendency of all charges to equilibrate from order caused by differences in charges, to the disorder – the minimum difference in charges possible. …

  • Below the Quantum

    (worth repeating) … At present we deduce that a difference in fundamental charges is producing a subsequent difference in fundamental charge distributions that we call quantum fields, and a distribution of temporary density of that quantum field we call a particle. And by repeating this process of a difference in the pattern of charges, particles form combinations we call atoms or elements, elements form chemicals ,chemicals form molecules, molecules that include carbon produce biochemical molecules, biochemical molecules form proteins, proteins produce molecules necessary for cells, cells produce other cells, cells produce organs, organs produce organisms, organisms produce nervous systems, nervous systems produce memories, memories produce predictions, predictions product choices, and there we go. The entirety of the ‘grammar’ of the universe is – similar to binary or ternary logic – a difference in charges, whose change we call entropy: the tendency of all charges to equilibrate from order caused by differences in charges, to the disorder – the minimum difference in charges possible. …

  • Net Net on Homosexuality

    NET NET 1. Homosexuality is caused by an immune response, by the mother, in utero (we have known this for ages). 2. The immune response or insufficient immune response, fails to induce miscarriage. 3. The child is born under-developed and underweight. (Left handedness is caused by a similar underdevelopment.) 4. Prior presumption was immune response to y-chromosome proteins. Present presumption it is in response to defect in the child being interpreted as infection, and therefore miscarriage. Data is very, very, hard to argue with. 5. There is every reason to believe this is a preventable birth defect. 6. Individuals have no choice, however, trauma or insufficient socialization can exacerbate developmental problems causing expression (similar to body image mental illness issues). Humans are grown. We can grow them poorly. I have seen nothing in almost two decades that would provide a superior theory. FROM PSYCHOLOGY TODAY https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pop-psych/201608/more-evidence-regarding-the-causes-homosexuality The logic underlying a Lady Gaga song, “Born This Way,” commits it firmly to the naturalistic fallacy. Specifically, many aspects of the development of homosexuality (both the male and female varieties) are not as well understood as they should be to make some of the claims that many people felt confident in expressing. Today, however, there is new—and very interesting—research that might pave the way for furthering that understanding. Many important questions still remain regarding how to interpret the results of this research, but researchers are certainly looking in the right places for useful leads. There’s a lot to discuss regarding the results of the paper (Skorska et al, 2016): The researchers were examining the possibility that a maternal immune response might play a key role in the developmental of a homosexual orientation in males. This effect is said to be the result of the mother’s immune system having a maladaptive reaction to the male-specific proteins associated with the Y-chromosome during pregnancy. Effectively, then, the mother’s immune system would (sometimes) treat certain male proteins produced by the fetus as a foreign pathogen and attempt to attack it, resulting in outcomes that could include a homosexual orientation, but also fetal loss if the reaction was strong enough (i.e., a miscarriage). Already there is a lot to like about this hypothesis on a theoretical level, as it doesn’t posit any hidden adaptive benefits for a homosexual orientation (as such proposed benefits have not received sound empirical support historically). The question remains as to how to test for this kind of an effect, however. The method that the authors use is a rather simple one: examining maternal reports of fetal loss and birth weights. The logic here is that higher rates of fetal loss and lower birth weights both index perturbations in development. As such, they could provide indirect evidence for some kind of maternal immune response doing the causing. The researchers recruited approximately 130 mothers and classified them on the basis of what kind of children they had: those who had at least 1 gay son (n = 54), and those who only had heterosexual sons (n = 72). These mothers were asked about their age, pregnancy history (numbers of miscarriages, stillbirths, and live births), the duration of their pregnancies, and the sex and sexual orientation of their offspring. These mothers were then classified further into one of five groups: those with gay male only-children (n = 8), those with gay male offspring that had no older brothers (n = 23), those with gay male offspring with older brothers (n = 23), those with heterosexual male only-children (n = 11), and those with heterosexual male offspring with siblings (n = 61). First, the authors compared the history of fetal loss between these groups of mothers. In total, 62 instances of fetal loss were reported (60 miscarriages, 1 still birth, and 1 unreported). As predicted, the average number of fetal losses were higher in the first group (mothers of gay male only-children; M = 1.25), relative to all the other groups (d = 0.76), which did not significantly differ from each other (respective Ms = 0.43, 0.74, 0.09, and 0.39). When considered in terms of the ratio of miscarriages to live to births, a similar picture emerged: mothers of gay male only-children reported more miscarriages to live births (M = 1.25) than the other groups (d = 1.55), which did not differ from each other (respective Ms = 0.14, 0.24, 0.09, and 0.17). Next, the authors sought to compare birth weight between the former groups. As birth weight tends to increase over successive pregnancies, the comparisons were limited to first live-born sons only (n = 63); this left 4 gay male only-children, 7 gay males with no older brothers, 14 heterosexual males with gay younger brothers, 10 heterosexual male only-children, and 28 heterosexual males with siblings. The results mirrored those of the fetal-loss data: mothers of gay male only-children tended to give birth to infants that weighed significantly less (M = 2970 grams), than all other groups (d = 1.21), which did not differ (respective Ms = 3713, 3489, 3506, and 3633). This was the case despite the duration of pregnancies not differing between any of the groups. In sum, then, mothers of gay male only-children tended to have a greater number of miscarriages and give birth to significantly lighter offspring than mothers of other kinds. While it’s important to not get carried away with this finding given the relatively small sample size (I wouldn’t put too much stock in an N of 8), there is some suggestive evidence here worth pursuing further that something is atypical in fetal development in the case of gay male offspring. That said, I’m going to assume for a moment that these results are indicative of more general patterns in order to speculate about what they could mean. In general, these results present us with more questions than answers concerning both what might be going on, as well as why it is happening. The first question that comes to mind is why this effect seemed to be specific to gay male only-children, rather than gay male children with siblings? Skorska et al (2016) posit that this might have something to do with some mothers showing a greater immune response against male offspring, resulting in more fetal loss, the net result being that such mothers are both less likely to have any children at all and more likely to have gay male children in particular. While that might have some degree of plausibility to it, it seems that such an effect should be male-specific, and not expected to impact the number of live female births a mother has. In other words, mothers with gay male offspring should be expected to have proportionately more female children owing to a greater male fetal loss. I don’t know of any data bearing on that point, but it seems easy enough to obtain. If mothers of gay men do not tend to have a greater ratio of female-to-male offspring, this would cast some doubt on the explanation (and, since the only data I’ve heard reports that gay men tend to have more older brothers, it seems they would have noticed the sister point by now if it existed). On the other hand, if this is a more general immune reaction against fetal bodies, regardless of their sex, we would not expect such a pattern (it might also predict that mothers taking immunosuppressants would be less likely to have gay offspring/miscarry, but things are unlikely to be that simple owing to the fact that other effects would result too). Another piece worth considering is the twin data on homosexuality. Identical male twins—those who share both their genetics and maternal fetal environment—only show a concordance rate of homosexuality of approximately 30%. The extent to which this complicates the maternal immune hypothesis is hard to say: it could be possible that one twin tends to get exposed to the brunt of these maternal antibodies despite both being approximately as vulnerable to them, but that remains to be seen. On a broader, theoretical level, however, the maternal immune response hypothesis raises an important question. As far as I’m aware, homosexual preferences (not the occasional behavior) do not appear to be well documented in nonhuman species; the only exception I’m aware of is Rams. If it is truly the case that maternal immune responses are the drivers of homosexual development in humans, it would be very curious that similar outcomes don’t appear to obtain across at least other mammalian species. I suppose it’s possible that these outcomes do occur in other species and it’s just the case that no one has really noticed it yet, but I doubt that’s very likely. So the matter of why humans seem rather unique in that regard is a question that needs answering. This brings me to the final idea; one that I’ve discussed before. It is indeed possible that looking for something immune-related is in the right ballpark, but maybe in the wrong area. Perhaps what we’re seeing isn’t necessarily the result of a maternal immune response against male fetuses, but rather the result of an immune response against an actual infectious agent (or the result of that agent’s behavior itself). Admittedly, I’m no expert in the realm of immune system functioning or infectious agents, but two possibilities come to mind: first, perhaps mothers infected with a particular pathogen during fetal development might ramp up their immune response temporarily, a byproduct of which being that fetal bodies get fewer resources from the mother or caught up in the immune response themselves, both of which could plausibly affect development. Mothers more-chronically affected might have fewer children in general and more gay male children in particular, potentially explaining the current pattern of results. Alternatively, it is possible that some infectious agent itself affects the development of the fetus (such as how pathogens can render people blind or deaf). As a byproduct of that infection, if acquired during a particular critical developmental window, the child comes to develop a homosexual orientation (or is miscarried by the mother). At present, I am not aware of any evidence that speaks to this possibility, but it certainly accords with the known data. References Skorska, M., Blanchard, R., VanderLaan, D., Zucker, K., & Bogaert, A. (2016). Gay male only-children: Evidence for low birth weight and high maternal miscarriage rates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, DOI: 10.1007/s10508-016-0829-9

  • Net Net on Homosexuality

    NET NET 1. Homosexuality is caused by an immune response, by the mother, in utero (we have known this for ages). 2. The immune response or insufficient immune response, fails to induce miscarriage. 3. The child is born under-developed and underweight. (Left handedness is caused by a similar underdevelopment.) 4. Prior presumption was immune response to y-chromosome proteins. Present presumption it is in response to defect in the child being interpreted as infection, and therefore miscarriage. Data is very, very, hard to argue with. 5. There is every reason to believe this is a preventable birth defect. 6. Individuals have no choice, however, trauma or insufficient socialization can exacerbate developmental problems causing expression (similar to body image mental illness issues). Humans are grown. We can grow them poorly. I have seen nothing in almost two decades that would provide a superior theory. FROM PSYCHOLOGY TODAY https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pop-psych/201608/more-evidence-regarding-the-causes-homosexuality The logic underlying a Lady Gaga song, “Born This Way,” commits it firmly to the naturalistic fallacy. Specifically, many aspects of the development of homosexuality (both the male and female varieties) are not as well understood as they should be to make some of the claims that many people felt confident in expressing. Today, however, there is new—and very interesting—research that might pave the way for furthering that understanding. Many important questions still remain regarding how to interpret the results of this research, but researchers are certainly looking in the right places for useful leads. There’s a lot to discuss regarding the results of the paper (Skorska et al, 2016): The researchers were examining the possibility that a maternal immune response might play a key role in the developmental of a homosexual orientation in males. This effect is said to be the result of the mother’s immune system having a maladaptive reaction to the male-specific proteins associated with the Y-chromosome during pregnancy. Effectively, then, the mother’s immune system would (sometimes) treat certain male proteins produced by the fetus as a foreign pathogen and attempt to attack it, resulting in outcomes that could include a homosexual orientation, but also fetal loss if the reaction was strong enough (i.e., a miscarriage). Already there is a lot to like about this hypothesis on a theoretical level, as it doesn’t posit any hidden adaptive benefits for a homosexual orientation (as such proposed benefits have not received sound empirical support historically). The question remains as to how to test for this kind of an effect, however. The method that the authors use is a rather simple one: examining maternal reports of fetal loss and birth weights. The logic here is that higher rates of fetal loss and lower birth weights both index perturbations in development. As such, they could provide indirect evidence for some kind of maternal immune response doing the causing. The researchers recruited approximately 130 mothers and classified them on the basis of what kind of children they had: those who had at least 1 gay son (n = 54), and those who only had heterosexual sons (n = 72). These mothers were asked about their age, pregnancy history (numbers of miscarriages, stillbirths, and live births), the duration of their pregnancies, and the sex and sexual orientation of their offspring. These mothers were then classified further into one of five groups: those with gay male only-children (n = 8), those with gay male offspring that had no older brothers (n = 23), those with gay male offspring with older brothers (n = 23), those with heterosexual male only-children (n = 11), and those with heterosexual male offspring with siblings (n = 61). First, the authors compared the history of fetal loss between these groups of mothers. In total, 62 instances of fetal loss were reported (60 miscarriages, 1 still birth, and 1 unreported). As predicted, the average number of fetal losses were higher in the first group (mothers of gay male only-children; M = 1.25), relative to all the other groups (d = 0.76), which did not significantly differ from each other (respective Ms = 0.43, 0.74, 0.09, and 0.39). When considered in terms of the ratio of miscarriages to live to births, a similar picture emerged: mothers of gay male only-children reported more miscarriages to live births (M = 1.25) than the other groups (d = 1.55), which did not differ from each other (respective Ms = 0.14, 0.24, 0.09, and 0.17). Next, the authors sought to compare birth weight between the former groups. As birth weight tends to increase over successive pregnancies, the comparisons were limited to first live-born sons only (n = 63); this left 4 gay male only-children, 7 gay males with no older brothers, 14 heterosexual males with gay younger brothers, 10 heterosexual male only-children, and 28 heterosexual males with siblings. The results mirrored those of the fetal-loss data: mothers of gay male only-children tended to give birth to infants that weighed significantly less (M = 2970 grams), than all other groups (d = 1.21), which did not differ (respective Ms = 3713, 3489, 3506, and 3633). This was the case despite the duration of pregnancies not differing between any of the groups. In sum, then, mothers of gay male only-children tended to have a greater number of miscarriages and give birth to significantly lighter offspring than mothers of other kinds. While it’s important to not get carried away with this finding given the relatively small sample size (I wouldn’t put too much stock in an N of 8), there is some suggestive evidence here worth pursuing further that something is atypical in fetal development in the case of gay male offspring. That said, I’m going to assume for a moment that these results are indicative of more general patterns in order to speculate about what they could mean. In general, these results present us with more questions than answers concerning both what might be going on, as well as why it is happening. The first question that comes to mind is why this effect seemed to be specific to gay male only-children, rather than gay male children with siblings? Skorska et al (2016) posit that this might have something to do with some mothers showing a greater immune response against male offspring, resulting in more fetal loss, the net result being that such mothers are both less likely to have any children at all and more likely to have gay male children in particular. While that might have some degree of plausibility to it, it seems that such an effect should be male-specific, and not expected to impact the number of live female births a mother has. In other words, mothers with gay male offspring should be expected to have proportionately more female children owing to a greater male fetal loss. I don’t know of any data bearing on that point, but it seems easy enough to obtain. If mothers of gay men do not tend to have a greater ratio of female-to-male offspring, this would cast some doubt on the explanation (and, since the only data I’ve heard reports that gay men tend to have more older brothers, it seems they would have noticed the sister point by now if it existed). On the other hand, if this is a more general immune reaction against fetal bodies, regardless of their sex, we would not expect such a pattern (it might also predict that mothers taking immunosuppressants would be less likely to have gay offspring/miscarry, but things are unlikely to be that simple owing to the fact that other effects would result too). Another piece worth considering is the twin data on homosexuality. Identical male twins—those who share both their genetics and maternal fetal environment—only show a concordance rate of homosexuality of approximately 30%. The extent to which this complicates the maternal immune hypothesis is hard to say: it could be possible that one twin tends to get exposed to the brunt of these maternal antibodies despite both being approximately as vulnerable to them, but that remains to be seen. On a broader, theoretical level, however, the maternal immune response hypothesis raises an important question. As far as I’m aware, homosexual preferences (not the occasional behavior) do not appear to be well documented in nonhuman species; the only exception I’m aware of is Rams. If it is truly the case that maternal immune responses are the drivers of homosexual development in humans, it would be very curious that similar outcomes don’t appear to obtain across at least other mammalian species. I suppose it’s possible that these outcomes do occur in other species and it’s just the case that no one has really noticed it yet, but I doubt that’s very likely. So the matter of why humans seem rather unique in that regard is a question that needs answering. This brings me to the final idea; one that I’ve discussed before. It is indeed possible that looking for something immune-related is in the right ballpark, but maybe in the wrong area. Perhaps what we’re seeing isn’t necessarily the result of a maternal immune response against male fetuses, but rather the result of an immune response against an actual infectious agent (or the result of that agent’s behavior itself). Admittedly, I’m no expert in the realm of immune system functioning or infectious agents, but two possibilities come to mind: first, perhaps mothers infected with a particular pathogen during fetal development might ramp up their immune response temporarily, a byproduct of which being that fetal bodies get fewer resources from the mother or caught up in the immune response themselves, both of which could plausibly affect development. Mothers more-chronically affected might have fewer children in general and more gay male children in particular, potentially explaining the current pattern of results. Alternatively, it is possible that some infectious agent itself affects the development of the fetus (such as how pathogens can render people blind or deaf). As a byproduct of that infection, if acquired during a particular critical developmental window, the child comes to develop a homosexual orientation (or is miscarried by the mother). At present, I am not aware of any evidence that speaks to this possibility, but it certainly accords with the known data. References Skorska, M., Blanchard, R., VanderLaan, D., Zucker, K., & Bogaert, A. (2016). Gay male only-children: Evidence for low birth weight and high maternal miscarriage rates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, DOI: 10.1007/s10508-016-0829-9

  • In other words the world wars cut the second scientific revolution and we are st

    In other words the world wars cut the second scientific revolution and we are still paying for it. Yes, the initial gains were more dramatic.

    IMO scientific returns are evolving upward (toward complexity) just as are violence, predation, and war. (lower gains)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-31 14:14:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267097093384085510

    Reply addressees: @MarcusDirusso @jollyheretic

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267092055689269248

  • In other words the world wars cut the second scientific revolution and we are st

    In other words the world wars cut the second scientific revolution and we are still paying for it. Yes, the initial gains were more dramatic.

    IMO scientific returns are evolving upward (toward complexity) just as are violence, predation, and war. (lower gains)

    Reply addressees: @MarcusDirusso @jollyheretic

  • P-Logic

    1) Everyone acts to acquire. Life is an expensive means of defeating entropy. Acting improves acquisition – at additional cost. Memory improves acquisition – at additional cost. reason improves acquisition – at additional cost. cooperation improves acquisition – at additional cost. 2) We all act in furtherance of our reproductive strategy. Female (Consume), Neutral(Exchange), and Male (Capitalize) 3) Male and Female reproductive strategies are in conflict. The female seeks to breed impulsively where it benefits her lineage, and then force the cost of her offspring on the tribe, and to further her offspring regardless of merit. The male seeks to breed impulsively wherever it does not harm his lineage, and to create a tribe capable of resisting conquest by other males – and as such males act meritocratic-ally. Men are political and divided into kin and non-kin – the universe is male. For women, men are marginally indifferent herdsmen of women. Women live in a world of women, and both men and the universe are alien. 4) Humans compete for status because status provides discounts on opportunities to acquire – especially mates and allies in cooperation. We can identify at least three horizontal axes of class division: biological (reproductive desirability), social (status desirability), economic (wealth desirability) – as well as their undesirable opposites. 5) There exist only three means of coercing other humans to cooperate with on one means or end vs cooperate with others on different means or ends. These three means of coercion can be used to construct three vertical axes of class specialization: coercion by force(conservatism/masculine), coercion by gossip(progressivism/feminine), coercion by remuneration (libertarianism / neutral masculine). Human elites are formed by those who specialize in one or more of these means of coercion. (gossip: public intellectuals and priests. force: military and political. exchange: voluntary organizations, including the voluntary organization of production. 6) Language is purely justification negotiation in furtherance of our acquisition by these three means. ergo: All ‘belief’ is justification to the self and others in furtherance of acquisition. It is meaningless. Statements of justification only provide us with information necessary to deduce what it is that we wish to acquire. 7) Cooperation is a disproportionately more productive means of acquisition than individual production. 8) We seek discounts on our acquisitions. Some of these discounts are productive and moral and encourage cooperation, and some of them are unproductive and immoral, discourage cooperation, and invite retaliation. 9) The only moral acquisition is one in which one either homesteads something new or obtains it by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, where external transfers are limited to the same criteria. 10) Aristotle’s ‘golden mean’ is an inarticulate primitive expression of the supply-demand curve. All human acquisition takes place within the pressures of supply and demand. As such all explanations of human action must be produced using supply and demand curves: the golden mean. 11) All human considerations and consequent actions take place in high causal density, choices determined by means of opportunity costs, and any analysis requires we show the choices that an individual or group is considering. (Full Accounting). 12) We cooperate and coerce in large numbers, as classes with common reproductive interests to using narratives at every scale. Science and moral law are the only means of resolving conflicts between these narratives. Propertarian analysis provides means of amoral analysis, argument and decidability between these loaded, framed, and obscured arguments. 13) Groups evolve evolutionary strategies and supporting narratives. While none of these strategies by any given group is fully moral, it is still true that we can compare strategies as more and less objectively moral. We can measure the differences in objective morality by the degree of suppression of free riding in that given society. 14) In all political matters, ultimate decidability is provided by a bias to suicidal, proletarian and dysgenic, or competitive, aristocratic and eugenic reproduction. The myth of equality (the Christian mythos) was let loose by the middle-class takeover of the aristocratic governments, and the eventual enfranchisement of women whose reproductive strategy under industrial production is dysgenic – reversing 7,000 years of indo european genetic pacification (eugenic evolution). This is a very unpleasant and impolitic topic. But it is where we find decidability. THE SIMPLE METHOD: INCENTIVES AS ACQUISITION 1) take any circumstance in which someone is attempting to persuade someone else. 2) identify the reproductive strategy of the speaker (largely by gender, class, and coercive technique.) 3) identify the property-in-toto that the speaker is attempting to acquire. 4) determine if his or her method is advocating a moral transfer(productive) or an immoral transfer (parasitism). 5) Determine which discounts (thefts) he or she is attempting to engage in, or which premiums (payments) he or she is offering in exchange. 6) State the user’s request in amoral propertarian terms free of loading, framing, or overloading. In other words, make a purely logical argument free of sentimental loading.

  • P-Logic

    1) Everyone acts to acquire. Life is an expensive means of defeating entropy. Acting improves acquisition – at additional cost. Memory improves acquisition – at additional cost. reason improves acquisition – at additional cost. cooperation improves acquisition – at additional cost. 2) We all act in furtherance of our reproductive strategy. Female (Consume), Neutral(Exchange), and Male (Capitalize) 3) Male and Female reproductive strategies are in conflict. The female seeks to breed impulsively where it benefits her lineage, and then force the cost of her offspring on the tribe, and to further her offspring regardless of merit. The male seeks to breed impulsively wherever it does not harm his lineage, and to create a tribe capable of resisting conquest by other males – and as such males act meritocratic-ally. Men are political and divided into kin and non-kin – the universe is male. For women, men are marginally indifferent herdsmen of women. Women live in a world of women, and both men and the universe are alien. 4) Humans compete for status because status provides discounts on opportunities to acquire – especially mates and allies in cooperation. We can identify at least three horizontal axes of class division: biological (reproductive desirability), social (status desirability), economic (wealth desirability) – as well as their undesirable opposites. 5) There exist only three means of coercing other humans to cooperate with on one means or end vs cooperate with others on different means or ends. These three means of coercion can be used to construct three vertical axes of class specialization: coercion by force(conservatism/masculine), coercion by gossip(progressivism/feminine), coercion by remuneration (libertarianism / neutral masculine). Human elites are formed by those who specialize in one or more of these means of coercion. (gossip: public intellectuals and priests. force: military and political. exchange: voluntary organizations, including the voluntary organization of production. 6) Language is purely justification negotiation in furtherance of our acquisition by these three means. ergo: All ‘belief’ is justification to the self and others in furtherance of acquisition. It is meaningless. Statements of justification only provide us with information necessary to deduce what it is that we wish to acquire. 7) Cooperation is a disproportionately more productive means of acquisition than individual production. 8) We seek discounts on our acquisitions. Some of these discounts are productive and moral and encourage cooperation, and some of them are unproductive and immoral, discourage cooperation, and invite retaliation. 9) The only moral acquisition is one in which one either homesteads something new or obtains it by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, where external transfers are limited to the same criteria. 10) Aristotle’s ‘golden mean’ is an inarticulate primitive expression of the supply-demand curve. All human acquisition takes place within the pressures of supply and demand. As such all explanations of human action must be produced using supply and demand curves: the golden mean. 11) All human considerations and consequent actions take place in high causal density, choices determined by means of opportunity costs, and any analysis requires we show the choices that an individual or group is considering. (Full Accounting). 12) We cooperate and coerce in large numbers, as classes with common reproductive interests to using narratives at every scale. Science and moral law are the only means of resolving conflicts between these narratives. Propertarian analysis provides means of amoral analysis, argument and decidability between these loaded, framed, and obscured arguments. 13) Groups evolve evolutionary strategies and supporting narratives. While none of these strategies by any given group is fully moral, it is still true that we can compare strategies as more and less objectively moral. We can measure the differences in objective morality by the degree of suppression of free riding in that given society. 14) In all political matters, ultimate decidability is provided by a bias to suicidal, proletarian and dysgenic, or competitive, aristocratic and eugenic reproduction. The myth of equality (the Christian mythos) was let loose by the middle-class takeover of the aristocratic governments, and the eventual enfranchisement of women whose reproductive strategy under industrial production is dysgenic – reversing 7,000 years of indo european genetic pacification (eugenic evolution). This is a very unpleasant and impolitic topic. But it is where we find decidability. THE SIMPLE METHOD: INCENTIVES AS ACQUISITION 1) take any circumstance in which someone is attempting to persuade someone else. 2) identify the reproductive strategy of the speaker (largely by gender, class, and coercive technique.) 3) identify the property-in-toto that the speaker is attempting to acquire. 4) determine if his or her method is advocating a moral transfer(productive) or an immoral transfer (parasitism). 5) Determine which discounts (thefts) he or she is attempting to engage in, or which premiums (payments) he or she is offering in exchange. 6) State the user’s request in amoral propertarian terms free of loading, framing, or overloading. In other words, make a purely logical argument free of sentimental loading.

  • Via Aristotle’s Metaphysical Model

    Nov 30, 2019, 3:26 PM by Andrew M Gilmour I’m not sure this will be of any use to you but I expanded Aristotle’s metaphysical model to help myself understand them. In keeping with truth equals that which exists, and each layer being predicated on the previous one; I came up with this model: Empirical and Analytical: 1. Ontic (4 categories of existence) 2. Epistemic (perceiving, awareness of) 3. Semiotic(?) (methodology, language is the first method, but includes everything in standard epistemology not included in the epistemic category) 4. Semantic 5. Ethic (CD: “Supply”, Masculine ) Leftists uses the mirror opposite model. Social and verbal (social constructivism): 1. Ethic (X is good, I like X) 2. Semantic (all definitions are defined how I value them) 3. Semiotic (all methods are arbitrary) 4. Epistemic (perception and awareness come after: feelings, definitions, and methods) They are not aware of anything that hasn’t passed through the first 3 levels. 5. Ontic (only after this completely backward process can a thing be said to exist) (CD: “Demand”, Feminine ) This seems to be the operational structure behind these two modes of being. Unfailingly when I read a leftist argument, I find the methodology procedes from the ethic or (false) definition. They’ve always used this model, only now it has a name.