Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • Man – Cooperation – Trust

    (Trust)

  • Man – Cooperation

    (cooperation) COOPERATION PRODUCES CALCULATION BETWEEN THE DIVISIONS OF PERCEPTION The way we ‘calculate’ what is ‘good’ is through voluntary exchanges: cooperation. So the fact that we have different biases provides necessary and advantageous specializations, and our principal problem then is providing ‘markets’ by which we can cooperate and ‘calculate’ group needs through constant exchanges.

  • Man – Cooperation

    (cooperation) COOPERATION PRODUCES CALCULATION BETWEEN THE DIVISIONS OF PERCEPTION The way we ‘calculate’ what is ‘good’ is through voluntary exchanges: cooperation. So the fact that we have different biases provides necessary and advantageous specializations, and our principal problem then is providing ‘markets’ by which we can cooperate and ‘calculate’ group needs through constant exchanges.

  • Man – Organization – Group Strategy

    Group Strategies

    ( … ) Well-Sitting – Resource Curse ( … ) Production (hinduism, christendom, japan, china) ( … ) Parasitism (organized crime, gypsies, everywhere) ( … ) Raiding (steppe, desert, russia) ( … ) Human Domestication and Farming ( europeanism, han-ism) ( … ) Conquest and Consumption  (islam, globalism, semitism) ( … ) Undermining and destruction (judaism, communism) ( … )

  • Man – Organization – Group Strategy

    Group Strategies

    ( … ) Well-Sitting – Resource Curse ( … ) Production (hinduism, christendom, japan, china) ( … ) Parasitism (organized crime, gypsies, everywhere) ( … ) Raiding (steppe, desert, russia) ( … ) Human Domestication and Farming ( europeanism, han-ism) ( … ) Conquest and Consumption  (islam, globalism, semitism) ( … ) Undermining and destruction (judaism, communism) ( … )

  • Man – Cooperation – Morality

    Morality

    Define MoralityDisambiguate Morality Morality = Rules of cooperation Positive morality ( … ) Negative morality ( … )

    Reciprocity

    There exists only one universal moral law of sentient beings: Reciprocity. And it has been recorded since the dawn of writing in both via-positiva form as the golden rule, and in via-negativa form as the silver rule. What Is Reciprocity? 

    The Silver Rule (Presumption of Inequality)

     Via-Negativa: Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you. In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in. And;

    The Golden Rule (Presumption of Equality)

    Via-Positiva: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means. As determined by;

    Either any change, or the total change, in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality.

    The One Moral Law

    The one law of Reciprocity that we call Natural Law, is this:

    “The only moral actions are those that consist exclusively of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs by externality upon the demonstrated investments of others.” So all displays, words, and deeds that are not immoral, are either amoral (not immoral) or moral (productive).  This doesn’t answer the question, what is a good life rather than one that is not immoral.  That answer is either Aryan (acheviment, excellence), Pagan (to die a good death), Heathen (to live in harmony with nature) or christian (to do good works of charity).

    Reciprocity (Full Version)

    The natural law is (+)Sovereignty and (-)Reciprocity, in display word and deed, including reciprocity in speech (truthful speech) regardless of cost to the status(dominance, competence hierarch), within the limits of proportionality (in group defection) within the limits of the utility of cooperation (out groups). “Within the limits of the utility of cooperation.” There is no ideal. There are no ideals. There is only what satisfies demand for infallibility.

    Full Version of Reciprocity

    Limiting our display word and deed to: – Fully informed (truthful and complete); … – Regardless of cost to the status, competence, or dominance hierarchy. – Productive and; – Voluntary transfer (or exchange, or imposition of costs upon); – The Demonstrated interests of Others ; – Either directly or indirectly (by externality) – And liable and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability; … – Within the limit of incentive for in-group defection; … – Within The Limit of the Utility of future out-group Cooperation; – Eliminating the incentive of retaliation and retaliation cycles, – And imposition of costs upon the commons of trust by which others cooperate.

    Let’s Explain Each of Those Criteria

    ( … )

    Test of Reciprocity As Morality

    Try To Falsify:

    (a) Goods and bads refer to caloric income or loss, existential or projected. (b) Morality refers to reciprocity. (c) Reciprocity a necessity of the physical universe. (d) The human biological reward system reacts like all others to gains(reduction of costs) and losses (costs). (e) Complete Reciprocity requires: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. However we maintain fairly accurate assessments of one another’s cost benefit to us. (f) philosophical sophistry leads to undecidability on this subject is due largely to attempts to produce a via-positiva definition of morality – which is only possible for norms – instead of a via negativa definition: we can only know what is universally immoral (negative), what is moral(positive) is whatever is not immoral (negative). This is true for all knowledge, and why science defeated philosophy even in ethics and morality: because we can only know what is false, and trivially true, but anything that is not false and substantive is open to continuous revision. (g) given the cost of calculation (reason), and given the cost of collecting information (evidence), the human mind wants to reduce costs by reliance on imitation and intuition (repetition of imitation). And therefore we want via-positiva means of determining good choices. So the market demand for via positiva morality exists, but the supply of imitative moral rules is produced by via negativa: what is not immoral. (h) it is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral(reciprocal). We conflate. It’s natural. But a question is only moral if it relates to others. It is only preferential if you prefer it, it is only good if others prefer it. For a moral condition to exist requires influence upon others by externality. All those statements are falsifiable, You will not be able to succeed in falsifying them.

    The Three Moral Biases

    Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory: 1) Disgust:Sanctity/Degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions). 2) Opportunity:Liberty/Oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor. 3) Empathy: Care/Harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance. 2) Morality:Fairness/Cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives] 4) Loyalty:Loyalty/Betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.” 5) Hierarchy:Authority/Subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions. As Rights to Demonstrated Interests Of Haidt’s evolutionary origins of moral intuitions, three can be expressed as demonstrated individual interests:

    1. Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm. (The asset of life and body.) 2. Proportionality/Cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions. (The asset of goods.) 3. Liberty/Oppression characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized. (The asset of time, opportunity.) And three others can be expressed as demonstrated community interests covering social capital. Which obviously enough, have been, and continue to be, mirrored in corporate shareholder agreements.

    4. In-Group Loyalty/In-Group Betrayal to/of your group, family, nation, polity. 5. Respect/Authority/Subversion for tradition and legitimate authority. 6. Purity/Sanctity/Degradation/Disgust, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions. Note that the male reproductive strategy among chimpanzees as well as humans evolved to kill off males in opposing groups and collect females. And that females evolved to place greater emphasis on children and females than the (fungible) tribe. As such the distribution of moral intuitions varies in intensity between the feminine (1-3) and the masculine (4-6). This difference in moral intuitions roughly reflects the voting pattern we have seen since the enfranchisement of women into the electorate: an increase in the use of political violence to produce an increase in the female reproductive strategy (individual dysgenic reproduction) and a decrease in the male reproductive strategy (tribal eugenic reproduction). Which Will Also Show up In Political BiasesFeminine Consumptive  (left, consumptive), Ascendant Male Productive (libertarian), and Dominant or Established Male Capitalizing (right, conservative) But We Are Frequently Immoral Unfortunately, while the via-negativa version is more accurate and less open to misinterpretation, the via-Positiva is more popular for the simple reason that it is more open to intentional misinterpretation – as a POSITIVE demand for behavior rather than a NEGATIVE demand that we eschew behavior. And men and women are natural deceivers in pursuit of discounts on their acquisitions. So we see people claim that it is moral to impose costs upon others. We see this false claim in (a) demand for sacrifice rather than limiting demand to non-imposition upon others. (b) demand for positive freedoms that impose costs upon others, rather than negative freedoms that prevent us from imposing costs upon others. (c) demand for ‘human rights’ the last few of which impose costs upon others, rather than Natural Rights, which demand we impose no costs upon others. And via negativa prohibition on the imposition of costs, is something all can do, while demand for the imposition of costs upon others is not something we can all do, nor can we pay such demands, nor is it clear that by paying such demand we do other than increase the immorality of such demands. So the one universal moral law of sentient beings is the via-Negativa form of do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you, and the via-Positiva form is open to use by fraudulent pretense. The Seen and Unseen Now, enter the seen and unseen: It turns out that the optimum group strategy for any and every polity, is to exhaust opportunity for cooperation as a cost of converting immoral people into moral people – but only on an interpersonal, not political basis. So if we use government charity or professional charities we simply increase immoral behavior in the government, in the charity, and in the polity – because subsidy of immorality always serves to increase immorality (the chief means of immorality is reproduction of children one cannot afford, and entrapping others in the moral hazard of supporting your children, rather than additional children of their own.) Christian Forgiveness and The Natural Law of Torts This is the economic strategy of via-positiva Christian forgiveness, and via-negativa of Aristocratic (Militia) Law of Tort. The vast crimes of the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and especially Islam) in creating the Abrahamic Dark Age and the destruction of the great ancient civilizations, aside, the economic reality is that interpersonal responsibility for the conversion of others from immoral to moral actors, and resorting to legal (communal) prosecution when it fails, is the reason for Christianity’s spread of wealth wherever it goes. While western man evolved individual Sovereignty, the Jury, Thang, and Senate, the independent Empirical Judiciary, the independent common law of torts, using the natural law of reciprocity, that strategy is maximized, by the same personal responsibility for one’s behavior, the domestication of one’s children, domesticating the underclasses, and domesticating the foreigners lacking long traditions in individual Sovereignty, Individual responsibility, Natural Law by Exhaustive Forgiveness but not exhaustive tolerance. And then resorting to the commons to punish those who cannot adapt to that moral standard.   Morals Are Not Relative but Reflect Genetic Distance We can and do certainly possess different moral biases, and we can and do certainly possess normative moral biases. This is true. But that does not mean that moral differences are not decidable in matters of conflict. We can use moral biases to seek allies. We can trade across moral biases when we have common interests. And we can decide moral between moral biases when we are in conflict. that means that there exist an objectively decidable morality, but that each of us requires reproductive moral allies, uses moral competitors when necessary, and resorts to objective morality in matters of conflict resolution. There is no such thing as moral relativism. We possess moral biases, both genetic, familial, and normative. We seek allies, trading partners, and judges in matters of conflict. It is entirely possible to judge within families, within norms, within trading partners, and within competitors, by objective, scientific, rational means: natural law of non-imposition. We may not like this but then knowing that such decidability exists at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor ‘distances’ requires us only to understand the criteria at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor distances. We sacrifice for kin and competitors will not bear sacrifice. We need not benefit from kin but we must benefit from trading partners. And so on. The greater the genetic and moral distance the more objective the criteria of decidability. But those differences remain decidable. Why? Because the only by which we can escape retaliation and preserve cooperation is that of the non-imposition of costs upon one another.   Why Does Reciprocity Serve as Natural Law? Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions.  That’s what the words moral and ethical mean: “Reciprocity”. Economics of Life in a Physical Universe Because We are biased for pro-sociality and morality because it is always and everywhere in our interest to both (a) reduce conflict and enemies, (b) cooperate on production, (c) generate incentives for future cooperation. There is no caloric efficiency available to life forms like cooperation in a division of labor under reciprocity (non-parasitism) and proportionality (preservation of incentive not to defect)

  • Man – Cooperation – Morality

    Morality

    Define MoralityDisambiguate Morality Morality = Rules of cooperation Positive morality ( … ) Negative morality ( … )

    Reciprocity

    There exists only one universal moral law of sentient beings: Reciprocity. And it has been recorded since the dawn of writing in both via-positiva form as the golden rule, and in via-negativa form as the silver rule. What Is Reciprocity? 

    The Silver Rule (Presumption of Inequality)

     Via-Negativa: Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you. In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in. And;

    The Golden Rule (Presumption of Equality)

    Via-Positiva: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means. As determined by;

    Either any change, or the total change, in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality.

    The One Moral Law

    The one law of Reciprocity that we call Natural Law, is this:

    “The only moral actions are those that consist exclusively of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs by externality upon the demonstrated investments of others.” So all displays, words, and deeds that are not immoral, are either amoral (not immoral) or moral (productive).  This doesn’t answer the question, what is a good life rather than one that is not immoral.  That answer is either Aryan (acheviment, excellence), Pagan (to die a good death), Heathen (to live in harmony with nature) or christian (to do good works of charity).

    Reciprocity (Full Version)

    The natural law is (+)Sovereignty and (-)Reciprocity, in display word and deed, including reciprocity in speech (truthful speech) regardless of cost to the status(dominance, competence hierarch), within the limits of proportionality (in group defection) within the limits of the utility of cooperation (out groups). “Within the limits of the utility of cooperation.” There is no ideal. There are no ideals. There is only what satisfies demand for infallibility.

    Full Version of Reciprocity

    Limiting our display word and deed to: – Fully informed (truthful and complete); … – Regardless of cost to the status, competence, or dominance hierarchy. – Productive and; – Voluntary transfer (or exchange, or imposition of costs upon); – The Demonstrated interests of Others ; – Either directly or indirectly (by externality) – And liable and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability; … – Within the limit of incentive for in-group defection; … – Within The Limit of the Utility of future out-group Cooperation; – Eliminating the incentive of retaliation and retaliation cycles, – And imposition of costs upon the commons of trust by which others cooperate.

    Let’s Explain Each of Those Criteria

    ( … )

    Test of Reciprocity As Morality

    Try To Falsify:

    (a) Goods and bads refer to caloric income or loss, existential or projected. (b) Morality refers to reciprocity. (c) Reciprocity a necessity of the physical universe. (d) The human biological reward system reacts like all others to gains(reduction of costs) and losses (costs). (e) Complete Reciprocity requires: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. However we maintain fairly accurate assessments of one another’s cost benefit to us. (f) philosophical sophistry leads to undecidability on this subject is due largely to attempts to produce a via-positiva definition of morality – which is only possible for norms – instead of a via negativa definition: we can only know what is universally immoral (negative), what is moral(positive) is whatever is not immoral (negative). This is true for all knowledge, and why science defeated philosophy even in ethics and morality: because we can only know what is false, and trivially true, but anything that is not false and substantive is open to continuous revision. (g) given the cost of calculation (reason), and given the cost of collecting information (evidence), the human mind wants to reduce costs by reliance on imitation and intuition (repetition of imitation). And therefore we want via-positiva means of determining good choices. So the market demand for via positiva morality exists, but the supply of imitative moral rules is produced by via negativa: what is not immoral. (h) it is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral(reciprocal). We conflate. It’s natural. But a question is only moral if it relates to others. It is only preferential if you prefer it, it is only good if others prefer it. For a moral condition to exist requires influence upon others by externality. All those statements are falsifiable, You will not be able to succeed in falsifying them.

    The Three Moral Biases

    Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory: 1) Disgust:Sanctity/Degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions). 2) Opportunity:Liberty/Oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor. 3) Empathy: Care/Harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance. 2) Morality:Fairness/Cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives] 4) Loyalty:Loyalty/Betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.” 5) Hierarchy:Authority/Subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions. As Rights to Demonstrated Interests Of Haidt’s evolutionary origins of moral intuitions, three can be expressed as demonstrated individual interests:

    1. Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm. (The asset of life and body.) 2. Proportionality/Cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions. (The asset of goods.) 3. Liberty/Oppression characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized. (The asset of time, opportunity.) And three others can be expressed as demonstrated community interests covering social capital. Which obviously enough, have been, and continue to be, mirrored in corporate shareholder agreements.

    4. In-Group Loyalty/In-Group Betrayal to/of your group, family, nation, polity. 5. Respect/Authority/Subversion for tradition and legitimate authority. 6. Purity/Sanctity/Degradation/Disgust, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions. Note that the male reproductive strategy among chimpanzees as well as humans evolved to kill off males in opposing groups and collect females. And that females evolved to place greater emphasis on children and females than the (fungible) tribe. As such the distribution of moral intuitions varies in intensity between the feminine (1-3) and the masculine (4-6). This difference in moral intuitions roughly reflects the voting pattern we have seen since the enfranchisement of women into the electorate: an increase in the use of political violence to produce an increase in the female reproductive strategy (individual dysgenic reproduction) and a decrease in the male reproductive strategy (tribal eugenic reproduction). Which Will Also Show up In Political BiasesFeminine Consumptive  (left, consumptive), Ascendant Male Productive (libertarian), and Dominant or Established Male Capitalizing (right, conservative) But We Are Frequently Immoral Unfortunately, while the via-negativa version is more accurate and less open to misinterpretation, the via-Positiva is more popular for the simple reason that it is more open to intentional misinterpretation – as a POSITIVE demand for behavior rather than a NEGATIVE demand that we eschew behavior. And men and women are natural deceivers in pursuit of discounts on their acquisitions. So we see people claim that it is moral to impose costs upon others. We see this false claim in (a) demand for sacrifice rather than limiting demand to non-imposition upon others. (b) demand for positive freedoms that impose costs upon others, rather than negative freedoms that prevent us from imposing costs upon others. (c) demand for ‘human rights’ the last few of which impose costs upon others, rather than Natural Rights, which demand we impose no costs upon others. And via negativa prohibition on the imposition of costs, is something all can do, while demand for the imposition of costs upon others is not something we can all do, nor can we pay such demands, nor is it clear that by paying such demand we do other than increase the immorality of such demands. So the one universal moral law of sentient beings is the via-Negativa form of do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you, and the via-Positiva form is open to use by fraudulent pretense. The Seen and Unseen Now, enter the seen and unseen: It turns out that the optimum group strategy for any and every polity, is to exhaust opportunity for cooperation as a cost of converting immoral people into moral people – but only on an interpersonal, not political basis. So if we use government charity or professional charities we simply increase immoral behavior in the government, in the charity, and in the polity – because subsidy of immorality always serves to increase immorality (the chief means of immorality is reproduction of children one cannot afford, and entrapping others in the moral hazard of supporting your children, rather than additional children of their own.) Christian Forgiveness and The Natural Law of Torts This is the economic strategy of via-positiva Christian forgiveness, and via-negativa of Aristocratic (Militia) Law of Tort. The vast crimes of the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and especially Islam) in creating the Abrahamic Dark Age and the destruction of the great ancient civilizations, aside, the economic reality is that interpersonal responsibility for the conversion of others from immoral to moral actors, and resorting to legal (communal) prosecution when it fails, is the reason for Christianity’s spread of wealth wherever it goes. While western man evolved individual Sovereignty, the Jury, Thang, and Senate, the independent Empirical Judiciary, the independent common law of torts, using the natural law of reciprocity, that strategy is maximized, by the same personal responsibility for one’s behavior, the domestication of one’s children, domesticating the underclasses, and domesticating the foreigners lacking long traditions in individual Sovereignty, Individual responsibility, Natural Law by Exhaustive Forgiveness but not exhaustive tolerance. And then resorting to the commons to punish those who cannot adapt to that moral standard.   Morals Are Not Relative but Reflect Genetic Distance We can and do certainly possess different moral biases, and we can and do certainly possess normative moral biases. This is true. But that does not mean that moral differences are not decidable in matters of conflict. We can use moral biases to seek allies. We can trade across moral biases when we have common interests. And we can decide moral between moral biases when we are in conflict. that means that there exist an objectively decidable morality, but that each of us requires reproductive moral allies, uses moral competitors when necessary, and resorts to objective morality in matters of conflict resolution. There is no such thing as moral relativism. We possess moral biases, both genetic, familial, and normative. We seek allies, trading partners, and judges in matters of conflict. It is entirely possible to judge within families, within norms, within trading partners, and within competitors, by objective, scientific, rational means: natural law of non-imposition. We may not like this but then knowing that such decidability exists at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor ‘distances’ requires us only to understand the criteria at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor distances. We sacrifice for kin and competitors will not bear sacrifice. We need not benefit from kin but we must benefit from trading partners. And so on. The greater the genetic and moral distance the more objective the criteria of decidability. But those differences remain decidable. Why? Because the only by which we can escape retaliation and preserve cooperation is that of the non-imposition of costs upon one another.   Why Does Reciprocity Serve as Natural Law? Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions.  That’s what the words moral and ethical mean: “Reciprocity”. Economics of Life in a Physical Universe Because We are biased for pro-sociality and morality because it is always and everywhere in our interest to both (a) reduce conflict and enemies, (b) cooperate on production, (c) generate incentives for future cooperation. There is no caloric efficiency available to life forms like cooperation in a division of labor under reciprocity (non-parasitism) and proportionality (preservation of incentive not to defect)

  • Man – Cooperation – Virtues

    Virtues

    Capitalization: Virtues

    Signaling: Manners

    Negative manners, ethics, morals, and law are universal. Positive manners, ethics, and morals are agency and therefore class dependent. We had it right until Christianity imposed a universalist slave monopoly. Just as the Ashkenazi have tried through marxism, libertarianism, and neo-conservatism to impose a universalist monopoly of the working, trading, and ruling classes.     1) Reciprocity is demonstrably universal by rationally, logically, and empirically. This is a via-negativa prohibition. 2) The criteria for reciprocity in any given condition varies given the portfolio of existing traditional, cultural, normative, ethical, moral, legal and institutional changes. 3) Within these portfolios all actions are decidable (and are decided) by reciprocity. 4) As such as with laws, a set of norms, matters, ethics, morals evolve as rules of thumb covering the majority of cases and questions. 5) Individuals and groups can be educated in the method of determining reciprocity within these local portfolios as well as any other portfolio they can gain sufficient general knowledge of to explain. 6) Because we begin in ignorance, and grow and learn more about the world we first imitate simple rules, come to understand general rules, and eventually in later age, come to undrestand outcomes and handle exceptions. 7) And we increasingly rely on adversarial competition in markets to test our ideas, and adversarial competition before more knowledgable ‘judges and juries’ for resolution of differences (errors, biases, deceits). 8) Some portfolios evolve to diverge from reciprocity. This does not alter the demand for reciprocity. It generates demand for the rebalancing of the portfolio so that it consist of a collection of interdependent demands for reciprocity rather than irreciprocity. Some portfolios are temporally disadvantageous but cumulatively advantageous, (western) some are temporally advantageous but cumulatively stagnating (east asian) and some are temporally advantageous but cumulatively disastrous and (jewish), some are temporally advantageous and cumulatively catastrophic (muslim). Some create capital rapidly and expand capital externally (european). Some create limited capital slowly and expand capital externally (chinese). Some create capital at the expense of others (jewish). Some consume capital at the expense of others (muslim). Justificationism was false. Falsificationism was only half of the story. It’s western Adversarialism that discovered and maintained truth in all walks of life. There is a universal via negativa. Anything that is not irreciprocal within the local portfolio of manners, ethics morals, norms, laws, traditions is ethical and moral. When conflicts occur across portfolios they are easily decided by reciprocity independent of the local portfolios of manners, ethics morals norms laws traditions. Virtues consist of cultivating knowledge and habits that (a) suppress impulse the exports costs in favor of excellence (bearing costs), (a) minimize chances of irreciprocity, (b) bias our cost neutral decisions to the benefit the commons rather than the self. As such, just as some virtues are true and false to their pretense, some are true and false in combination with others. And we can only test whether virtues are true by adversarialism: competition. Worse, virtue signaling in and over itself is the most hyper consumptive of false virtues.    

  • Man – Cooperation – Virtues

    Virtues

    Capitalization: Virtues

    Signaling: Manners

    Negative manners, ethics, morals, and law are universal. Positive manners, ethics, and morals are agency and therefore class dependent. We had it right until Christianity imposed a universalist slave monopoly. Just as the Ashkenazi have tried through marxism, libertarianism, and neo-conservatism to impose a universalist monopoly of the working, trading, and ruling classes.     1) Reciprocity is demonstrably universal by rationally, logically, and empirically. This is a via-negativa prohibition. 2) The criteria for reciprocity in any given condition varies given the portfolio of existing traditional, cultural, normative, ethical, moral, legal and institutional changes. 3) Within these portfolios all actions are decidable (and are decided) by reciprocity. 4) As such as with laws, a set of norms, matters, ethics, morals evolve as rules of thumb covering the majority of cases and questions. 5) Individuals and groups can be educated in the method of determining reciprocity within these local portfolios as well as any other portfolio they can gain sufficient general knowledge of to explain. 6) Because we begin in ignorance, and grow and learn more about the world we first imitate simple rules, come to understand general rules, and eventually in later age, come to undrestand outcomes and handle exceptions. 7) And we increasingly rely on adversarial competition in markets to test our ideas, and adversarial competition before more knowledgable ‘judges and juries’ for resolution of differences (errors, biases, deceits). 8) Some portfolios evolve to diverge from reciprocity. This does not alter the demand for reciprocity. It generates demand for the rebalancing of the portfolio so that it consist of a collection of interdependent demands for reciprocity rather than irreciprocity. Some portfolios are temporally disadvantageous but cumulatively advantageous, (western) some are temporally advantageous but cumulatively stagnating (east asian) and some are temporally advantageous but cumulatively disastrous and (jewish), some are temporally advantageous and cumulatively catastrophic (muslim). Some create capital rapidly and expand capital externally (european). Some create limited capital slowly and expand capital externally (chinese). Some create capital at the expense of others (jewish). Some consume capital at the expense of others (muslim). Justificationism was false. Falsificationism was only half of the story. It’s western Adversarialism that discovered and maintained truth in all walks of life. There is a universal via negativa. Anything that is not irreciprocal within the local portfolio of manners, ethics morals, norms, laws, traditions is ethical and moral. When conflicts occur across portfolios they are easily decided by reciprocity independent of the local portfolios of manners, ethics morals norms laws traditions. Virtues consist of cultivating knowledge and habits that (a) suppress impulse the exports costs in favor of excellence (bearing costs), (a) minimize chances of irreciprocity, (b) bias our cost neutral decisions to the benefit the commons rather than the self. As such, just as some virtues are true and false to their pretense, some are true and false in combination with others. And we can only test whether virtues are true by adversarialism: competition. Worse, virtue signaling in and over itself is the most hyper consumptive of false virtues.    

  • Man – Mind

    Man – Mind

    Action

    “Man Must Act” (dark forces of  need, time, and ignorance) 

    |BEHAVIOR| property(acquisition/defense) > prey drive > gender drive >
 cooperation drive > personality > intuition > reason > calculation >
 computation > markets > symmetries.

    Minds

    ( … )

    Brain

    HUMAN FACULTIES 1. sense (neurons-nerves) 2. disambiguation (constant relations – cortex), 3. perception(integration-prediction – cortex), 4. intuition (auto-association-prediction) (hippocampus-cortex + valuation(emotion)) 5. attention (attention-prediction) (thalamus-hippoampus-cortex), 6. will (recursion-prediction) (prefrontal, thalamus, hippocampus, cortex) 7. and release of actions;

    Consciousness

    THE RULES OF CONSCIOUSNESS WHEREAS 1. Our attention rotates in a competition between sensation(observation and construction by prediction and reward identification), imagination (possibility by association), holding attention on a goal (possibility by continuous opportunity seizure), and releasing predicted actions (in pursuit of the goal). WHEREAS 2. We rotate between sensation (observation and construction by prediction), anticipating (goal prediction), and storing (remembering by stimulating and rehearsing), on a 1/10th of a second rotation (Theta) creating competition and choice. AND WHEREAS 3. There is no observer, other than the memory of an observation. 4. There are no observations other than sequences. 5. There is no comparison of observations other than to previous sequences. 6. There is no order in sequences other than that created by sequences. 7. There are no sequences other than those of sensations. 8. There is no existence sensed, other than those changes in time. 9. Without change we cannot sense time. THEREFORE Existence is a verb Experience is a verb Imagination is a verb Consciousness is a verb. Because Acting is a verb – and we can only act in time. AND THEREFORE Without action, we produce no existence, no experience, no sequence, no memory, no consciousness. AND THEREFORE There is no observer other than the observations (hierarchy of increasing of sequences of memories in time. AND THEREFORE We see what the camera sees. We do not record images, but sequences of related stimuli. “I AM, MEANING, I EXIST AS, THE HIERARCHY OF MY MEMORY IN MOTION”

    Arousal is not Consciousness

    Confusing Arousal with Consciousness is like confusing the light switch with the light. Just ’cause we can turn off the switch doesn’t tell us how the light is created. We can interfere with any number of parts (Colostrum) and shut down experience. That doesn’t tell us anything. The question is, how does that mushy wetware synthesize past memory present experience, and future prediction, from millions of nerves (measurements) into our rather amazing conflated experiences of past, present, and future? (cortical hierarchy, parahippocampal, perirhinal, entorhinal cortices, and subiculum.) How do we shift between narrow focus, near perception, environmental perception, self-perception, and deep introspection and imagination? (thalamus) Why is it we can react so quickly that we can hit a curveball with a bat? (basal ganglia, cerebellum, and cortical prediction) How do we Assemble memories and experience them? (Hippocampus) What is that feeling of me? (mostly, hippocampus) Why can’t we pin it down. “Cause it’s a verb not a noun”. The continuous change in state in a hierarchy of ever smaller cycles of time….

    Attention

    Neural Economy

    ( … ) Hayek’s knowledge, tradition, habits…. limiting burden of reason.

    The Will To Act

    (necessary  … preservation of the will to act … dunning kruger confidence )