by Luke Weinhagen . Communism, as it has been practiced, has functioned to keep full-accounting out of community interactions. Capitalism, as it has been practiced, has functioned to keep full-accounting out of capital interactions. Parasites use both to extract value from our common interests at the discount available due to their suppression of full-accounting. The solution… full-accounting.
Theme: Cooperation
-
ENLIGHTENMENT by Bill Joslin 1. Christian enlightenment (transcending the cloud
ENLIGHTENMENT
by Bill Joslin
1. Christian enlightenment (transcending the cloud of unknowing) results in extending kinship love to anyone and everyone.
2. Buddhist enlightenment results in breaking the boundary of self and world also known as disassociation.
3. Paternal enlightenment results in agency
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 08:08:00 UTC
-
AN OATH FOR ALL OF US —“The revelation: As a man I have a duty to and necessar
AN OATH FOR ALL OF US
—“The revelation: As a man I have a duty to and necessarily a loyalty to men. The world needs men, and it takes men to make men. And I will not dodge that responsibility again.”— A Friend
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 18:35:00 UTC
-
TRY TO UNDERSTAND MY STRATEGY…. I really don’t want to be more popular. I want
TRY TO UNDERSTAND MY STRATEGY….
I really don’t want to be more popular. I want P to be popular. I want US to be popular as a movement. John is doing a great job. the first generation of guys is now frighteningly competent. We have new a new guys that are doing a good job. The more it’s about ‘me’ the less it’s about ‘us’ and I want P to be about US not me. They can Alinsky-me. They can’t alinsky all of us.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-23 15:13:00 UTC
-
DEFINITION OF MORALITY Morality = Reciprocity Reciprocity = limiting our display
DEFINITION OF MORALITY
Morality = Reciprocity
Reciprocity = limiting our display word and deed to productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality to the action, and warrantied within the limits of the actors’ capacity for restitution, between those who demonstrate, promise, imply, or expect exchange of reciprocity.
As far as I know, that is the logical, empirical, biologically necessary, genetically necessary and complete definition of morality, for conscious beings, and there are no cases under which the definition fails.
Some people will try to conflate the moral and the good, where good consists of an additional investment in addition to not violating reciprocity – but this demands involuntary transfer from others, and violates reciprocity.
Some people will try to demand involuntary exchange of a promise of reciprocity from those who do not offer it – but an enemy is nothing more than an enemy who will not engage in reciprocity.
Some people will argue this is a binary condition rather than an agreement, under which we match their level of reciprocity and irreciprocity. But while we seek perfect reciprocity, we rarely obtain it. In international trade and in politics we all but never obtain reciprocity, instead we exchange selective reciprocities and irreciprocities within our tolerance for continued cooperation, boycott, or war.
Some people will try to demand reciprocity in war between groups, between whom the exchange of reciprocity has been withdrawn, but this demand violates reciprocity.
Humans demonstrate the minimum morality that they can get away with without provoking altruistic punishment from others.
Humans possess extraordinary abilities of accounting for debts and credits with others, our relative status, status differences, and the tendency of people to engage in moral or immoral behavior.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-23 07:02:00 UTC
-
MONOGAMY AS COMPETITIVE NORMATIVE COMMONS by Alain Dwight Sex transactions outsi
MONOGAMY AS COMPETITIVE NORMATIVE COMMONS
by Alain Dwight
Sex transactions outside of monogamous, familial structures can constitute a damage against monogamy, stable families, and investment in children as social norms, which is the optimum strategy for some groups.
Arguably, it’s the best overall strategy since the groups who have done this, have become the dominant force on the planet – and to the degree that status is challenged, we are slipping into a dark age.
It’s still possible other strategies could work. In any case, imposing a cost on normative commons will be met with retaliation, our choice is if that retaliation is at a disorganized street level or in an organized institutional level. I suggest both, as I prefer to have people bear their own costs as opposed to free riding on commons that they choose to undermine.
These normative commons provide such a competitive advantage that it’s questionable if any groups that fail to offer sufficient defense/retaliation will even continue to exist or forward any of their values they claim to champion.
It might be worth it to allow some elite members to operate outside monogamy but without maintaining monogamy as a norm, competitive advantage is often or always compromised.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 11:35:00 UTC
-
THINKING THINGS THRU IS SCARY —“Faith without works is dead.”—John Brennan –
THINKING THINGS THRU IS SCARY
—“Faith without works is dead.”—John Brennan
—“Faith without works is free riding. It’s a crime. ;)”—Curt Doolittle
—“Faith without works is:
1 – Baiting into hazard for oneself in both religious and logical terms,
2 – Making an unfalsifiable promise to the commons (i.e believe in Jesus and be saved in afterlife),
3 – Parasitism on others within the higher-trust group of other faithful
All of which are violations of reciprocity.
Even though faith attempts to define reciprocity as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” it lacks the grammar to break it down to what it really means and how to apply it.
P. solves that problem.”—James Dmitro Makienko
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-21 09:24:00 UTC
-
QUICK TRANSLATION BEWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND PROPERTARIANISM (NATURAL LAW) Metaphysic
QUICK TRANSLATION BEWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND PROPERTARIANISM (NATURAL LAW)
Metaphysics: Realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, survival, compatibilism, cooperation, propertarianism, acquisitionism, action.
Ontology: realism/naturalism, soft determinism, three faculties: physical, intuitionistic, and mind as motion(no name for it in philosophical terms: experience consists of continuous recursive hierarchical temporal memory – memory of memory continuously constructed by continuous prediction from sequences of sense perception.) the problem is getting people from the observer to perception consisting of change (action) not state.
Grammars: As far as I can tell The Grammars (which you don’t know yet) produce the most parsimonious paradigm. Philosophy considers ideals, rarely if ever costs, means of production(models), possibilities(consequences and externalities).
Operationalism: testimony in operational terms (one continuous consistent commensurable system of falsifiable measurement)
Science: testimony in empirical terms (observation of demonstrated evidence) expressed in a commensurable terms (operational).
Epistemology: Competition between justification(hypothesis), operation(theory) and empiricism(evidence) at increasing scales (self-reason via positiva-justification, via-negativa and via-positiva-tests, via-negativa market survival)
Truthfulness: Due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, deceit, in performative, promissory testimony in complete sentences that are consistent, correspondent, operational, limited, complete, and coherent.
Axiology: value: acquisitionism: acquisition of property in toto defined by demonstrated interest (IOW self reported values never reflect demonstrated preference, and demonstrated preference can always be expressed as acquisition of property in toto -a gain yielding a fully commensurable system of measurement),
Ethics: Reciprocity – via negativa, all ethnical and moral questions are decidable by tests of fully accounted reciprocity.
Sociology: Compatibilism, Tripartism, Trifunctionalism.
Cooperationism(Economics): Returns on Time in a division of labor.
In other words: I’m describing economics. Which, as others have stated before me, appears to function as the union of the disciplines.
PHILOSOPHY SUPERCEDED BY SCIENCE
Philosophy: Do we think philosophy produces Truth, Meaning, or Choice? As far as I can tell Law, Economics, Science, Mathematics, and the human logical facility (differences in constant relations) produce testimony.
So what is the remaining function of philosophy? Reorganization of preferences and means of achieving them given the truth we have identified with “science in toto”: (law, economics, science, math, logical facility).
In other words, discovery of truth (science) selection of preference (philosophy), sedation or abandonment (theology).
Which makes sense to me since Math(measurement) Science(matter) and Economics(people) produce evidence, law produces testimony and decidability independent of preference, and philosophy produces preference, and as far as I can tell theology allows people to escape the work of philosophy, law, and science – leading to graceful failure as our knowledge and ability decreases from science to norm or law, to philosophy, to theology.
Philosophy served as the stage between unorganized thinking and science, and that anything that still in philosophy that had any value in decidability has been replaced by science and scientific epistemology.
Metaphysics: Replaced by Paradigms and grammars
Paradigms consisting of market for parsimony. Parsimony consisting of Action. Action consisting of Actionable, Testifiable, Warrantable, Free of Incentive to Deceive. Consisting of: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Rational Choice, Reciprocity, full accounting.
Humans have developed a series of paradigms that deflate inflate, or fictionalize the most parsimonious but complete paradigm (above). In P we call these the ‘grammars’. (You can search our site for the grammars).
Humans possess the ability to determine constant and inconstant relations (differences). And to control the use of their detection of differences. We call this ability reason when used informally. We call comparisons of sets as means of testing constant relations ‘logic’. We have produced many logics. Mathematics is the most basic – consisting of one constant relation: position. In the discipline of logic we test rules of inference. However, logic isn’t closed and so all logic al assertions are contingent.As such all non-trivial logic is falsificationary. ALL of the grammars are logics of increasing tests of constant relations within different limits.
Epistemology: Replaced by Theory.
Free association(falsify by reason) > hypothesis(falsify by action) > theory (falsify by market) > law (falsify by limits- or ‘exhaustion’ if you prefer)
Truth: Replaced by Testimony (categorically, internally, operationally, externally, rational, reciprocal
Ethics: replaced by Reciprocity ((productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of …)
Politics: Rule of law, professional judiciary, monarchy as judge of last resort, houses for classes for markets of commons, mixed economy, soft demonstrated (market) eugenics, direction of savings to the production of commons.
Strategy: most rapid adaptability (rate of evolution)
Aesthetics: Transcendence (Evolution)
Those are are all decidable propositions (Truths). That does not mean that one cannot express or a group cannot express different preferences.
It’s hard to accept but philosophy in the pursuit of truth has ended. All philosophy can tell us is choice (preference) because preferences are not true. Philosophy as a method of moral fictionalism survives in Europe. Philosophy as propaganda sophistry and deceit exists everywhere.
But truth and decidability have been usurped entirely by science: testimony.
This is why philosophy departments are now included with religion in libraries and in academic budgets.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 09:23:00 UTC
-
QUICK TRANSLATION BEWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND PROPERTARIANISM (NATURAL LAW) Metaphysic
QUICK TRANSLATION BEWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND PROPERTARIANISM (NATURAL LAW)
Metaphysics: Realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, survival, compatibilism, cooperation, propertarianism, acquisitionism, action.
Operationalism: testimony in operational terms (one continuous consistent commensurable system of falsifiable measurement)
Science: testimony in empirical terms (observation of demonstrated evidence) expressed in a commensurable terms (operational).
Ontology: realism/naturalism, soft determinism, three faculties: physical, intuitionistic, and mind as motion(no name for it in philosophical terms: experience consists of continuous recursive hierarchical temporal memory – memory of memory continuously constructed by continuous prediction from sequences of sense perception.) the problem is getting people from the observer to perception consisting of change (action) not state.
Epistemology: Competition between justification(hypothesis), operation(theory) and empiricism(evidence) at increasing scales (self-reason via positiva-justification, via-negativa and via-positiva-tests, via-negativa market survival)
Truthfulness: Due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, deceit, in performative, promissory testimony in complete sentences that are consistent, correspondent, operational, limited, complete, and coherent.
Axiology: value: acquisitionism: acquisition of property in toto defined by demonstrated interest (IOW self reported values never reflect demonstrated preference, and demonstrated preference can always be expressed as acquisition of property in toto -a gain yielding a fully commensurable system of measurement),
Ethics: Reciprocity – via negativa, all ethnical and moral questions are decidable by tests of fully accounted reciprocity.
In other words: I’m describing economics. Which, as others have stated before me, appears to function as the union of the disciplines.
Philosophy: Do we think philosophy produces Truth, Meaning, or Choice? As far as I can tell Law, Economics, Science, Mathematics, and the human logical facility (differences in constant relations) produce testimony. As far as I can tell The Grammars (which you don’t know yet) produce the most parsimonious paradigm. Philosophy considers ideals, rarely if ever costs, means of production(models), possibilities(consequences and externalities). So what is the remaining function of philosophy? Reorganization of preferences and means of achieving them given the truth we have identified with “science in toto”: (law, economics, science, math, logical facility).
In other words, discovery of truth (science) selection of preference (philosophy), sedation or abandonment (theology).
Which makes sense to me since Math(measurement) Science(matter) and Economics(people) produce evidence, law produces testimony and decidability independent of preference, and philosophy produces preference, and as far as I can tell theology allows people to escape the work of philosophy, law, and science – leading to graceful failure as our knowledge and ability decreases from science to norm or law, to philosophy, to theology.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 08:51:00 UTC
-
ON FARMERS IN THE DIVISION OF LABOR (The flip side of “I, Pencil”.) (probably an
ON FARMERS IN THE DIVISION OF LABOR
(The flip side of “I, Pencil”.) (probably an important lesson)
Military(organization of territory) <> Judiciary (organization of cooperation-contract) <> Finance (organization of money(stored time)) <> Entrepreneurship (Organization of opportunity, capital, people) <> Professionals (organization of production(calculation)) <> Managers (Organization of people) <> Producers (Organization of resources) <> Distributors (organization of distribution) <> Trade (organization of transactions) <> Consumers (organization of consumption) <> Parents (organization of reproduction) <> teachers, priests, public intellectuals politicians ( sedation, facilitation, and amelioration of stress arising from scarcity, individual and familial irrelevance, and alienation in the division of labor upon which they depend.)
Given the problem of “I,Pencil” (distribution of knowledge), an individual farmer has to input a lot of diverse knowledge and effort for low return on investment, in no small part because petroleum products, industrialization, fertilizer, feed were fully commoditized.
A farmer organizes primary resources (animals, food stuffs) and as such must be a skilled craftsman (organizers of specialized resources) at the very limit of craftsman’s capital (tools – no other craftsman requires so many tools).
But the returns on the organization of resources are small – there are few multipliers. As you move up the production hierarchy you are responsible for organizing more and more and more people – where there are multipliers.
This is why Marx is wrong. In order to organize people by rational incentives, one must produce marginal competitive differences by which to influence their choices.
As such the entire difficulty in organizing production is organizing the human beings in a vast network to engage in it with nothing other than the bribe of doing the work (payment).
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 08:41:00 UTC