Theme: Cooperation

MAINTAINING DECORUM ON SOCIAL MEDIA
The Insitute deals with decidability (think scientific testimony and epistemology), and we have constructed a formal operational logic of cooperation, and applied that to law, constitution, policy, and jurisprudence.

So this means, in this age of conflict, that we must answer the hard and always emotionally heated, and almost always offensive, conflict-generating topics that divide us, and state them in ‘universally commensurable value neutral language’ – meaning it loooks like we’re writing english, but it’s closer to a verbal description of the ordinal mathematics of behavioral supply demand curves … (“Ah… What, are you saying?”)

And that’s a sentence that I have no idea if you’ll understand. And to explain it such that you do, I’d have to explain the meaning of logic and the sequence of logics from sets, math, computation, operations, protocols, testimony, and formal language, ordinary language, and ideomatic langauge – which would make your head explode more that it probably has reading the past few sentences. 😉

But all that nuance aside, we combine two tactics to stay above the fray:

1 – Via-Negativa(“Don’t Do”): Maintain Institute Decorum (which we publish), using the three categories of (a) avoiding violations of manners, (b) avoiding illegal content (in the USA), (c) explaining and judging moral differences (positions) using the logic of first principles whether physical, behavioral, or evolutionary (the four sciences).

2 – Via-Positiva (“Strive To Do”): Write as close to the formulae using the methodology of operational construction from first principles (behavioral laws) to explain supply and demand equilibrium as possible while maintaining judicial decidability and neutrality: speak the truth and demonstrate it whether anyone likes it or not – because only by starting from the truth and reciprocity (morality) can we discover a mutually beneficial means of cooperation on mutual mans despite often mutually exclusive ends by aceptance of one another’s differences.

This is far harder on social media when everyone is seeking attention on one hand and catharsis on the other by baiting the opposition into hazardous conflict provoking emotionally loaded altruistic punishment that we humans are quite obviously genetically predisposed to commit ourselves to by instinct.

WHAT’S DIFFERENT IN PHILOSOPHY/IDEOLOGY VS LAW?
Well, in philosophy you search for right and wrong and presume the other party errs. This is a very gentlemanly presumption.

In law we use a far higher standard by discovering if you’re testifying truthfully, whether you’re seeking reciprocity, and if either isn’t the case, then what irreciprocity (CRIME) are you trying to commit, by either testifying untruthfully or irreciprocally. And, well, we’re sort of the go-to people for the study of the science of human lying and denying. And, well, (OMG) humans are extraordinary liars and deniers and free riders, cheaters, scammers, fruadsters, conspirators, seditionists, treasonists and in such astounding richness and complexity it’s frankly terrifying. 😉

So we aren’t just telling one or both parties who’s doing the fasehood and irreciprocity to justify their wants and excuses and habits and such, but we’re telling them they’re *bad people*, and often criminals against society, economy, polity, and mankind, which is far worse than disagreements over right and wrong.

Anyway.
That’s how we ‘dance carefully’ in this age of suppression of free speech, and the antisocial behavior that results in attempts at undermining, cancelling, and the continued destruction of our civilization from within. 😉

Our Policy Link:
https://t.co/ZZIa0ADzfK

Cheers