—“Co-operation is a powerful strategy, but even co-operation has limits.”–Alain Dwight
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-27 12:38:00 UTC
—“Co-operation is a powerful strategy, but even co-operation has limits.”–Alain Dwight
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-27 12:38:00 UTC
Bill Joslin you know, I’m saying this in public to generate peer pressure that is kind of unfair, but at least moral in objective. I can do the R&D, and your SN guys are clearly the teachers, and they are clearly passing both of us in at least the moral arguments. But it is clearly you who facilitates the development of teachers. Just as it is John who is now facilitating the development of marketers. It is very clear to me that one needs the ‘community of teachers’. I am in much better condition now, and more productive, but it really is gonna require all of us to scale up because demand is scaling. Even better, I’m not engaging in ‘research’ so much any more so I will be ‘antagonizing’ the market (audience) less with my experiments. I mean if you look at the SN team you’ve produced it’s clearly the new secular priesthood of the natural law. But we have to run this movement, and it’s sorta gotta have you I think. Sorry man. Just … your place in history is calling your name.
hugs brother.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-27 12:38:00 UTC
We must forgive ourselves, our friends, and our allies, our temporary human frailties – or we will have no friends or allies.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-27 12:13:00 UTC
P is falsificationary, not justificationary. We don’t say “This is the best way to cooperate”. We say, “these are the minimum terms of cooperation, and otherwise we prefer conquest, taxation, enserfdom, slavery, or extermination.”
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-27 12:11:00 UTC
WHY IS NATURAL LAW A LAW OF NATURE?
(A well intentioned person conducts a conventional argument giving us an opportunity to educate common people)
—“”[what] inescapable law of the natural law[?’” You have a penchant for manufacturing spooks. Where is this so called “natural law”? I have looked everywhere, I have observed my surroundings and I have not located it.”— Gyeff Strife
Then, unfortunately, you observe poorly. 😉
—“Imagine the following: I have a friend. I ask him to turn around. I have deceptively acquired his trust, therefore he turns around. At this opportunity, I stab my friend in the back. We are only friends in the mind of the now deceased, who was a dullard. In my mind he was a competitor. Now tell me, will a divine bolt of lightning come and strike me where I stand? If no such lightning occurs then your “natural law” is an illusion. … You may say I’ve broken your natural law in spite of no lightning, yet I am walking about a free man (now with one fewer competitor), of what consequence is breaking or not breaking the natural law? … You may say that your collection of dogmatists will come and duel me and they will win due to a numbers advantage. But, I ask, what logic was used to convince the first dogmatist of the existence of “natural law”, in the absence of a dogmatist collective? … There is circular logic: The law exists because there are enforcers of the law; there are enforcers of the law because the law exists.”— Gyeff Strife
Great example.
If you try to violate the physical law of gravity by wishing you can fly, and jumping from a height, you will pay the price for it. If you violate the natural law of reciprocity within an in-group by earning trust, and harming one with whom you have engaged in a reciprocal exchange of non-imposition of costs we call ‘trust’, then if you violate that natural law of reciprocity (a) if the person whom you stab lives, he will retaliate, and likely retaliate using altruistic punishment meaning he will escalate to even greater punishment (retaliation) in order to preserve the group value of reciprocity; and certain the group with whom you have exchanged the promise of reciprocity for membership, will also punish you. In fact if you try, you will have a very hard time trying to discover (a) any violation of rational (reasonable) choice (bounded rationality), and (b) any violation of reciprocity. this is because it is a violation of the laws of nature: parasitism is intolerable for a life form, just as cooperation if possible, is an intolerable loss for a life form.
The DIfference: The physical universe is deterministic and doesn’t have memory, potential to multi-forecast, and choice among forecasts. Humans have memory and choice, so that there is a time delay to human reaction in the natural law of man, that there is not in physical laws of nature. That does not mean that man is any different from nature. It means only that the same forces are delayed such that we can chose to capture the highest returns on energy we can imagine, rather than the first available that we cannot avoid capturing – wich is nature’s limitation we have overcome.
—” … you have a penchant for manufacturing spooks.”— Gyeff Strife
I have a penchant for avoiding ‘making words up’ in the continental model, and for prohibiting abrahamic sophism, pseudo-moralism, pseudoscience and supernaturalism by using disambiguation, serialization, and operationalization of existing terms instead. In this case the long history of Aristotle’s, the Church’s, and the Scientific Enlightenment term ‘Natural Law” – meaning necessary law whose violation is harmful (via-negativa) and whose observation is beneficial (via positiva) “living in harmony with nature” just like, in reductio, if we try to violate the law of gravity it will be harmful.
This natural law is in evidence by every test available to man including the history of legal dispute resolution throughout all of recorded human history; the evolutionary necessity the natural law due to the laws of nature (physics), and due to the evidence of recorded human moral intuitions, recorded human retaliations, and our inability to circumvent it in subjective testing regardless of example.
So just as all human action is rational (reasonable) within the limits of bounded rationality, and physical demands, so is the natural law of reciprocity is universal, and we can find NO examples otherwise – including any pretense of the existence of altruism. Reciprocity: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, demonstrated by action or inaction, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests, demonstrated by action or inaction, of others of one’s group also engaged in reciprocity with the actor.
Ergo, as in this example, I have a penchant for testimonial truth in which I have used disambiguation, serialization, and operationalization, to disambiguate and define terms such that they function as systems of *measurement* at maximum humanly possible precision given our current knowledge, and no ‘analogies’ enable ‘putting one’s finger on the scale’ to lie (as did Boas, Marx, freud, cantor, adorno et all, derrida et al, rothbard et all, feminists et all, neocons et al – the second attempt at destruction of the cooperation between the classes by the use of abrahamic deceit to generate envy, using the false promise that any other political and economic organization is possible or superior in results for all.
—“You say that there is no “we”, however, this sentiment appears to me to be inauthentic because simultaneously you mention “crimes against humanity”, “human life”, and “human civilization”. Of what consequence is the plight of humanity to “me”. If all of humanity becomes extinct a single moment after my death, am I impacted in any way? Furthermore, you suggest that the spreading of ignorance is a negative, however, if my competitor wallows in ignorance, is he not easier to exploit by me?”— Gyeff Strife
It is hard to teach people disambiguation serialization operationalization and competitive falsification, leaving only the best truth candidates surviving, because it’s more expensive than justification, which is the easiest and most primitive means of human reasoning – wayfinding. Because wayfinding is a pre-rational process of the lower cortical religions. And so we do it by intuition.
DISCIPLINE
The fact that you are ignorant of the long history of the natural law, ignorant of the long history of the law, apparently ignorant of mathematics, and logic; ignorant of the techniques by which lies are created; and likely ignorant of the continuous pattern of transformations between the fundamental, the quantum, the particle, the element, the molecule, the organic molecule, the protein all the way up to sentience, consciousness, reason, and calculation is rather obvious – because you read literature (fantasy) rather than science.
You don’t know my place in intellectual history, nor do you yet have a sense of the movement I and others have created, but I am, and we are, the reformation of the natural law, upon which western law depends, that has evolved to prosecute the crimes of the marxists, feminists, and postmodernists, in their attempt to violate the natural law of reciprocity, by the second attempt at the destruction of western civilization, the first time with judaism to undermine, christianity to weaken, and islam to conquer, using false promise, baitingin into moral hazard, profiting from hazard, and hiding under the cover of moral pretense, in order to reverse evolution and restore us to dysgenic, egalitarian, maternal, poverty of the herd, prior to the indo european invention of eugenic, hierarchical, meritocratic, pathernal, wealth.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-27 10:35:00 UTC
WE HAVE NO CHOICE. EQUALITY IN RECIPROCITY OR IN POVERTY
Our only possibilities are equality in reciprocity or equality in ignorance, superstition, and absolute poverty. There is no choice. It’s just physics. Humans have memories, predictions from memories, and ability to choose to act on those predictions, so that we can outwit time in ways physical processes lacking memory, prediction, choice, and action cannot. However that only allows us to benefit from physical processes not deny or circumvent them. We are as physically constrained as is the rest of the universe. And our only substantial advantage is that the ability to imitate, empathize, sympathize, predict futures from them, and choose to cooperate on those possible futures, is so much more efficient and provides so many greater returns, that we can do a bit better than the rest of life forms – at least with our limits – to convert more calories, and continuously increase our consumption through continuous expansion of cooperation. But in doing so we form Pareto distributions of influence, in order to obtain Nash equilibriums of rewards. And that is a physical necessity of physical reality. We don’t have any choice. We are not wealthier than cave men, our only asset is time. Through cooperation we have made the purchasing power of time increase over and over again throughout history, although disproportionately so with the invention of aristotielainsim, and even more so with the mastery of heat, steam, electricity, chemistry, and now information.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 11:51:00 UTC
AA CHRISTIANITY?
—“Hey on the religion topic. I might’ve mentioned it before, but the AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) version of Christianity might be useful to consider:
• They don’t preach or advertise, they share their experience, strength, and hope to people that express interest in getting help—but the person has to want to change.
• They offer sponsorship for someone to work their own program. But they don’t push it. You must go up to someone and ask for their support.
• It’s not reciprocity between two people per se—it’s more like pay-it-forward. My sponsor doesn’t get much from me, but he figures I’ll offer my unique perspective and possible sponsorship to someone that approaches me to help them.
So we all share our personal ways we’ve recovered from our defects in character/makeup. By doing that it grows the system based on attraction.”— A friend
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 11:53:00 UTC
Like anything else, proportional taxation and proportional insurance – as long as costs and returns are shared we continue to support each other. We just must eliminate free riding on top as well as bottom.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-23 19:09:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187083563910516736
Reply addressees: @fryskefilosoof
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187082326926352387
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@fryskefilosoof Great question. (a) yes the family, otherwise we have the rapid expansion of bad families like we have in the 20th. (b) That does not mean that if a family’s means of provision of care are exhausted we cannot insure the family from destitution – that’s irreciprocal (moral hazard)
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1187082326926352387
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@fryskefilosoof Great question. (a) yes the family, otherwise we have the rapid expansion of bad families like we have in the 20th. (b) That does not mean that if a family’s means of provision of care are exhausted we cannot insure the family from destitution – that’s irreciprocal (moral hazard)
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1187082326926352387
There are no pre-existing fundamental rights. Only a natural demand for certain necessary rights. We can and do work together to produce those rights. What you mean is that it is beneficial…. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=490592681537627&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 22:30:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186771842582876160
What’s the difference between a Community and a Polity?
Kin: People of common genetic interest.
Community: Market between Kin of Common Interests.
Polity: Market Between Communities of… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=490478968215665&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 18:49:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186716200752910336