Language: a stream of continuous recursive disambiguation resulting in one or more transactions, resulting suggestion at a minimum, a contract for meaning at a on average and due diligence against error, bias, and deceit at a maximum.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-14 13:50:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1096044103228444672
LET ME MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU: LIES VS TRUTH
Metaphysics = Postmodern = Relativism = Undecidability = Lying.
Science = Modernism = Consistency = Decidability = Truth.
Philosophy is just another fictional literature. It uses ideals rather than supernaturals. Postmodernism is simply sophism. Marxism is simply pseudoscience. Western thought baits you into maintaining high trust at the expense of truth. Semitic thought baits you into moral hazard in order to undermine you and your people. It’s not complicated.
It’s not an opinion. If you can’t speak in the language of TESTIMONY (science) then we have to investigate WHY you speak in an language OTHER than Testimony. And when we do so we will discover your fraud – intentional, or as the carrier (victim) of those smarter than you with intent do distribute fraud.
Science (Testimony) consists of the universal language of truthful speech for a good reason: it survived in the market for replication, application, and survival.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-14 12:19:00 UTC
Language: a stream of continuous recursive disambiguation resulting in one or more transactions, resulting suggestion at a minimum, a contract for meaning at a on average and due diligence against error, bias, and deceit at a maximum.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-14 08:50:00 UTC
METAPHYSICS: “FITTING”
You see, you start with the supply side error of ‘fitting’ and tell me what the unicorn of metaphysics ‘is’.
I start with the demand side and ask what problems are you supposedly trying to solve.
The answer is that there exist only the material with potential to know, the experiential, memory of experience, and the products of our actions with the potential to know them.
The rest is just fictionalism.
Why: because the scale of free association is ‘exciting’ just as hallucinogens are exciting, and for the same reasons
So if you mean you want to engage in experiential fictionalism I understand it as a form of entertainment. But that’s all it is.
EPISTEMOLOGY
Experience > Free association > Hypothesis > Theory > Law.
GRAMMARS
Deflationary < descriptive < ordinary > narrative > Inflationary > Conflationary
Don’t confuse ‘Philosophy’ with ‘literature’. Fantasy literature exists in every field. It’s just that we are honest about literary fiction and dishonest about literary fictional-ISM (occult, pseudoscience, idealism, sophism.)
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-14 08:40:00 UTC
THE MARKET FOR DECIDABILITY
When the ordinary person fails he appeals to associates.
When associates fail he appeals to superiors
When superiors fail he appeals to professionals
When professionals fail the appeals to thought leaders.
When instincts fail we appeal to familial ethics.
When familial ethics fail we appeal to virtue ethics.
When virtue ethics fail we appeal to rule ethics
When rule ethics fail we appeal to outcome ethics.
When intuition fails one must appeal to logic.
When logic fails, one must appeal to empiricism.
When empiricism fails one must appeal to operationalism.
When operationalism fails one must appeal to limits scope and parsimony.
When religion fails, one appeals to reason
When reason fails one appeals to philosophy
When philosophy fails, on appeals to science
When science fails, one appeals to testimony.
And the opposite is true.
Why?
We only have so much knowledge, and so much time, to satisfy the market for decidability in time for taking action.
– Curt Doolittle
– The Propertarian Institute.
—-
PS
by Bill Joslin
Incremental Disambiguation in one direction (from low to high investment)- Graceful failure in the other (from high to low cost) which explains why the later presents stronger incentives than the former.z
—-
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-11 13:11:00 UTC
(a) I can’t test vigilance, (a via positiva) I can only test due diligence (a via negativa).
(b) give me link and I’ll look.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-10 19:58:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094687190834126848
Reply addressees: @SPQRIUS @JFGariepy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094676311312920578
IN REPLY TO:
@SPQRIUS
@curtdoolittle @JFGariepy I read quickly through your Constitution – didn’t see the word vigilance there, it’s a good word. Also, have you looked at my project the living pan-European and American Cultural and Heritage Center?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094676311312920578
“PROPERTARIANISM ISN’T AN IDEOLOGY. IT’S THE LOGIC OF RECIPROCITY (Propertarianism) AND THE SCIENCE OF TESTIMONY, COMBINED INTO A FORMAL RATIO-EMPIRICAL SYSTEM OF LAW (Decidability) FOR ETHICS, AND POLITICS.
(repost)
In other words, it’s the solution to social science.
—“This is crucial for people that want to claim they don’t adhere to the “propertarian ideology”. It is not an ideology. It is a methodology and much like science it focuses on empirical evidence and the falsification of proposed truth claims. Most people that say they don’t agree with “propertarian ideology” have an ideology of their own that has been found to be based on lies via propertarian methods and that’s the real objection.”– Curtus Maximus
You cannot defeat it. Sorry. You can however, state that despite your ideology being parasitic, predatory(immoral) and dishonest (fraudulent) that you cannot compete by meritocratic (market, evolutionary, eugenic) means, (meaning you’re inferior) and therefore must resort to parasitism, predation, and deceit (fraud), to survive by parasitism, predation, and fraud.
It’s ok to do that. It’s just the truth. But you can’t make any kind of moral argument to support it.” – Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-10 13:11:00 UTC
1) hypothesis > theory > law vs law > legislation > regulation > command.
2) ideology is a means of inspiring political action. ideologies need not be and rarely are rational nor consistent nor coherent. See Andrew Heywood’s book Ideologies.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-10 06:12:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094479141179715584
Reply addressees: @PoisonAero @frattinicaue @JFGariepy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094462805028139008
IN REPLY TO:
@PoisonAero
@curtdoolittle @frattinicaue @JFGariepy Law is a system of rules that people make up to govern their societies. “Ideology” is a vague term, but I would define it as a system of ideas that gives people a group identity. Ideology is used as the basis of a social movement or organization.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094462805028139008
… And I answered questions according to that law. Not according to whether it’s normative, pleasant, or acceptable. Just whether decidable (true). The law does not appeal for your permission. It just is the law whether you like it or not. And my work on law suppresses untruth.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-10 03:23:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094436623637458945
Reply addressees: @PoisonAero @frattinicaue @JFGariepy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094435122584215552
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@PoisonAero @frattinicaue @JFGariepy I don’t do ideology. I do law. What you folks do with law is up to you. but ask me to decide a question, I can do so using the law. It’s just that some of those decisions are unpleasant. …
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1094435122584215552
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@PoisonAero @frattinicaue @JFGariepy I don’t do ideology. I do law. What you folks do with law is up to you. but ask me to decide a question, I can do so using the law. It’s just that some of those decisions are unpleasant. …
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1094435122584215552
I don’t do ideology. I do law. What you folks do with law is up to you. but ask me to decide a question, I can do so using the law. It’s just that some of those decisions are unpleasant. …
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-10 03:17:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094435122584215552
Reply addressees: @PoisonAero @frattinicaue @JFGariepy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094430615837933568
IN REPLY TO:
@PoisonAero
@curtdoolittle @frattinicaue @JFGariepy Is that an appeal to popularity? It doesn’t make much sense coming from a fringe ideology.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094430615837933568