You probably think about what people believe, think, and value – and in propertarianism we think only about means of decidability. If we understand that there are only so many metaphysical judgements to make and we articulate them we can compare civilizations, cultures, religions, philosophes, and nearly any other attribute of a people, and compare them objectively (scientifically).
Theme: Decidability
-
You probably think about what people believe, think, and value – and in properta
You probably think about what people believe, think, and value – and in propertarianism we think only about means of decidability. If we understand that there are only so many metaphysical… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=286809181915979&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-25 14:18:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033357845247475712
-
You probably think about what people believe, think, and value – and in properta
You probably think about what people believe, think, and value – and in propertarianism we think only about means of decidability. If we understand that there are only so many metaphysical judgements to make and we articulate them we can compare civilizations, cultures, religions, philosophes, and nearly any other attribute of a people, and compare them objectively (scientifically).
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-25 10:18:00 UTC
-
To: Adam Voight So what is the difference between philosophy(your work) and law
To: Adam Voight
So what is the difference between philosophy(your work) and law (my work) other than uncertain advice (philosophy) and certain decidability(Law)? Or between both an Science:… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=283409782255919&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-21 17:04:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1031950210283565056
-
To: Adam Voight So what is the difference between philosophy(your work) and law
To: Adam Voight
So what is the difference between philosophy(your work) and law (my work) other than uncertain advice (philosophy) and certain decidability(Law)? Or between both an Science: “the process of due diligence”.
====
by Adam Voight
The common thread running through moral and religious diversity is the purpose: cooperation through language. All else is accidental.
For example, slavery is a moral system. There are universal rules that apply to all humans qua humans: rules that determine who is counted as a slave and who is free. Slave owners all are duty bound to reciprocate the defense of other’s property by returning escaped slaves.
The only reason slavery is wrong is that there is a better way of doing things> Slave-based societies cannot compete with modern free societies.
In Marx’s words: slavery is a system of relations of production that correspond to an obsolete stage in the developement of the means of production. This is the “materialist” view of morality, and in this sense both Marx and I are materialists.
This is the argument running through my whole work. My only innovation is to replace marx’s anthropolgy with its evolutionary equivalent and to augment the latter with Aristotle.
https://adamvoight.wordpress.com/
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-21 13:04:00 UTC
-
Demand for Authority (decidability) from Institutions by Region Over Time
Some institutional network of decidability must provide people with decidability given the available institutions versus the available means of production. That intersection sophistication of institutions vs Trusthworthiness of those institutions, v available means of production determined demand for institutions and decidability under those institutions. This is rather obvious but I wasn’t able to put together the German incentive until now. Fukuyama only gets the recent not the ancient and medieval and late modern. ===== From discussion with “Teacher” Alhaji Dada OK. I see what you mean. I see. I just have to translate it from the intellectuals justification to what it was that they were justifying…. So the Germans haven’t been far out of aristocracy, they had developed the first professional bureaucracies, in Europe, and had them before democracy, so that they never rebelled against the aristocracy, and trust their government – and still (unfortunately) do. The French rebelled against aristocracy and church, and were already the most backward government in Europe by the time of the revolution. They still retain self righteousness of the ‘liberty equality fraternity’ and the fantasy that they led the world with the revolution rather than they were the rebellion against modernity. The English rebelled against France and Spain in particular, the church in general, and the continent in general and did not have the fracture or diversity of the French, so they retained internal trust. The empire gave them the resource (commerce) curse, and when the empire collapsed they followed the Spanish into fantasy-preservation without the resources for it and lost their industrial base as well. So they profit by becoming a virtue signal and financial center while their continue their collapse. The Americans rebelled against the aristocracy but not the church, although the church was terribly weak (protestant) without the catholic institutions, land ownership, and political infrastructure, and and could retain the English (Scandinavian) raiding (pirate) culture because they were expansionary at all times. So the “Demand for Authority” took very different routes across the Atlantic continent and european plain given the different trust-paths to modernity. But, as you’ve said this tendency is ANCIENT, and as Candice Mary is trying to get across to me, the maternalism – heaviest in France because of the original Venus cult’s influence – less so in Germany, non-existent in the slavic lands, but still dominating and dominant the south, …. that demand is constant over time. So we have lower trust south all around (maternal), with demand for family, church, and hierarchy. While we have the germans, germanic Scandinavians (west), Finnio-russian Scandinavians, and then the slavs, and southern slavs, each retaining…. ok. I get it. And that demand never changed because it was a constant in old (south eastern) Europe in antiquity since they had the least admixture from the north, were most similar to greek (llyrian), had much migration (Scythian), and were ruled by old europeans (byzantines), then by ottomans (muslims), so they never had the northern influences other than during Austro-hungarians. ok. ok. I can start to see how this works now. (Why is it that you, more than anyone, point me in the right direction when I am off?) thank you. (Thinking: Damn …. DEMAND FOR AUTHORITY (A SET OF INSTITUTIONS) + DEMAND FOR TRUST (FROM A SET OF INSTIUTUTIONS) + Degree of paternalism from raiding, and then from trade, vs demand for maternalism as resistance, vs settled-landed mixed demand. yep. demand for trusted authority from the set of available institutions given the means of available production.) Aug 17, 2018 6:46pm
-
Demand for Authority (decidability) from Institutions by Region Over Time
Some institutional network of decidability must provide people with decidability given the available institutions versus the available means of production. That intersection sophistication of institutions vs Trusthworthiness of those institutions, v available means of production determined demand for institutions and decidability under those institutions. This is rather obvious but I wasn’t able to put together the German incentive until now. Fukuyama only gets the recent not the ancient and medieval and late modern. ===== From discussion with “Teacher” Alhaji Dada OK. I see what you mean. I see. I just have to translate it from the intellectuals justification to what it was that they were justifying…. So the Germans haven’t been far out of aristocracy, they had developed the first professional bureaucracies, in Europe, and had them before democracy, so that they never rebelled against the aristocracy, and trust their government – and still (unfortunately) do. The French rebelled against aristocracy and church, and were already the most backward government in Europe by the time of the revolution. They still retain self righteousness of the ‘liberty equality fraternity’ and the fantasy that they led the world with the revolution rather than they were the rebellion against modernity. The English rebelled against France and Spain in particular, the church in general, and the continent in general and did not have the fracture or diversity of the French, so they retained internal trust. The empire gave them the resource (commerce) curse, and when the empire collapsed they followed the Spanish into fantasy-preservation without the resources for it and lost their industrial base as well. So they profit by becoming a virtue signal and financial center while their continue their collapse. The Americans rebelled against the aristocracy but not the church, although the church was terribly weak (protestant) without the catholic institutions, land ownership, and political infrastructure, and and could retain the English (Scandinavian) raiding (pirate) culture because they were expansionary at all times. So the “Demand for Authority” took very different routes across the Atlantic continent and european plain given the different trust-paths to modernity. But, as you’ve said this tendency is ANCIENT, and as Candice Mary is trying to get across to me, the maternalism – heaviest in France because of the original Venus cult’s influence – less so in Germany, non-existent in the slavic lands, but still dominating and dominant the south, …. that demand is constant over time. So we have lower trust south all around (maternal), with demand for family, church, and hierarchy. While we have the germans, germanic Scandinavians (west), Finnio-russian Scandinavians, and then the slavs, and southern slavs, each retaining…. ok. I get it. And that demand never changed because it was a constant in old (south eastern) Europe in antiquity since they had the least admixture from the north, were most similar to greek (llyrian), had much migration (Scythian), and were ruled by old europeans (byzantines), then by ottomans (muslims), so they never had the northern influences other than during Austro-hungarians. ok. ok. I can start to see how this works now. (Why is it that you, more than anyone, point me in the right direction when I am off?) thank you. (Thinking: Damn …. DEMAND FOR AUTHORITY (A SET OF INSTITUTIONS) + DEMAND FOR TRUST (FROM A SET OF INSTIUTUTIONS) + Degree of paternalism from raiding, and then from trade, vs demand for maternalism as resistance, vs settled-landed mixed demand. yep. demand for trusted authority from the set of available institutions given the means of available production.) Aug 17, 2018 6:46pm
-
DEMAND FOR AUTHORITY (DECIDABILITY) FROM INSTITUTIONS BY REGION OVER TIME Some i
DEMAND FOR AUTHORITY (DECIDABILITY) FROM INSTITUTIONS BY REGION OVER TIME
Some institutional network of decidability must provide people with decidability given the available institutions versus the available means of production. That intersection sophistication of institutions vs Trusthworthiness of those institutions, v available means of production determined demand for institutions and decidability under those institutions. This is rather obvious but I wasn’t able to put together the German incentive until now. Fukuyama only gets the recent not the ancient and medieval and late modern.
=====
From discussion with “Teacher” Alhaji Dada
OK. I see what you mean. I see. I just have to translate it from the intellectuals justification to what it was that they were justifying….
So the Germans haven’t been far out of aristocracy, they had developed the first professional bureaucracies, in Europe, and had them before democracy, so that they never rebelled against the aristocracy, and trust their government – and still (unfortunately) do.
The French rebelled against aristocracy and church, and were already the most backward government in Europe by the time of the revolution. They still retain self righteousness of the ‘liberty equality fraternity’ and the fantasy that they led the world with the revolution rather than they were the rebellion against modernity.
The English rebelled against France and Spain in particular, the church in general, and the continent in general and did not have the fracture or diversity of the French, so they retained internal trust. The empire gave them the resource (commerce) curse, and when the empire collapsed they followed the Spanish into fantasy-preservation without the resources for it and lost their industrial base as well. So they profit by becoming a virtue signal and financial center while their continue their collapse.
The Americans rebelled against the aristocracy but not the church, although the church was terribly weak (protestant) without the catholic institutions, land ownership, and political infrastructure, and and could retain the English (Scandinavian) raiding (pirate) culture because they were expansionary at all times.
So the “Demand for Authority” took very different routes across the Atlantic continent and european plain given the different trust-paths to modernity.
But, as you’ve said this tendency is ANCIENT, and as Candice Mary is trying to get across to me, the maternalism – heaviest in France because of the original Venus cult’s influence – less so in Germany, non-existent in the slavic lands, but still dominating and dominant the south, …. that demand is constant over time. So we have lower trust south all around (maternal), with demand for family, church, and hierarchy. While we have the germans, germanic Scandinavians (west), Finnio-russian Scandinavians, and then the slavs, and southern slavs, each retaining…. ok. I get it.
And that demand never changed because it was a constant in old (south eastern) Europe in antiquity since they had the least admixture from the north, were most similar to greek (llyrian), had much migration (Scythian), and were ruled by old europeans (byzantines), then by ottomans (muslims), so they never had the northern influences other than during Austro-hungarians.
ok. ok. I can start to see how this works now. (Why is it that you, more than anyone, point me in the right direction when I am off?) thank you.
(Thinking: Damn …. DEMAND FOR AUTHORITY (A SET OF INSTITUTIONS) + DEMAND FOR TRUST (FROM A SET OF INSTIUTUTIONS) + Degree of paternalism from raiding, and then from trade, vs demand for maternalism as resistance, vs settled-landed mixed demand. yep. demand for trusted authority from the set of available institutions given the means of available production.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-17 18:46:00 UTC
-
REGARDING PHILOSOPHY I dunno. As far as I know, one can practice a limited spect
REGARDING PHILOSOPHY
I dunno.
As far as I know, one can practice a limited spectrum of methods of producing paradigms (networks) of decidability: occult < theology < literature < philosophy <- common law -> science > mathematics > logic.
We do possess three faculties: intuition-emotion, reason, and physical sensation. And we depend more or less on each of those faculties in each, with law depending upon all, and others depending upon less so.
It’s not unreasonable that some would seek to rely more on intuition, more on reason, or more on physical sense and perception, if for no other reason than intuition is cheap, reason is more difficult and therefore costly, and physical operations are the most difficult and costly of all. But conversely, intuition > reason, and > physical demonstration are decreasingly prone to error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit.
I consider this a scientific, logical, and legal statement, because it has no room for, or tolerance for untestifiable fictionalisms (irreciprocity, pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, fiction, and the combination of those in mythology, theology and the occult.) And conversely it demands testifiability, reciprocity, existential possibility, rationality (cost), consistency, correspondence, and coherence.
Common (traditional) Law, reasoning, and observation within that law existed before all other disciplines and exists even where there are no other disciplines, and as far as I know of all other disciplines are derivatives of the rules of resolution of conflict that we call law.
The origin of western philosophy was largely in the circumvention of traditional law, in an effort to reform it to match the rates of innovation and changes in the scale of cooperation – in particular the learnings of mathematics.
It’s certainly true that there has been a conflict between law, and martial authority, and law and religious authority, and even in the modern world, between law and commercial authority, or law and popular authority.
And this is because coercion by various fictionalisms (pseudo-rational, pseudoscientific, supernatural) seek to deceive or coerce others such that they can violate the law that requires the rational, reciprocal, logical, scientific, and existential that can be testified to.
So because philosophy is not as strong (decidable) as law, science, mathematics, because it’s scope is smaller, but does accommodate preference and good rather than decidability(truth).
So I consider philosophy a discipline for violating law (reciprocity, volition, rational choice, costs), science, logic, and mathematics, – all of which that evolved because it was cheaper than experimentation (science).
Or stated more simply, between Saul, Augustine, Plato, And Aristotle, Aristotle’s science won:
Saul(Supernatural) < Augustine(Theological) < Plato(Ideal) < Aristotle(Real Empirical)
And science won because it is more demanding of decidability – but was delayed because it’s more expensive. Philosophy was a cheap substitute prior to the development of science. And all disciplines are now subsets of science not philosophy.
I work in the science of natural law (testimony and decidability). I only use the term ‘philosopher’ to directly compete with the discipline – which I consider, like theology, dead, and or fraud.
(Hopefully that will stimulate a conversation). 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-11 09:46:00 UTC
-
(FYI: Asked by Kashif to engage with this page.) REGARDING PHILOSOPHY I dunno. A
(FYI: Asked by Kashif to engage with this page.)
REGARDING PHILOSOPHY
I dunno.
As far as I know, one can practice a limited spectrum of methods of producing paradigms (networks) of decidability: occult < theology < literature < philosophy <- common law -> science > mathematics > logic.
We do possess three faculties: intuition-emotion, reason, and physical sensation. And we depend more or less on each of those faculties in each, with law depending upon all, and others depending upon less so.
It’s not unreasonable that some would seek to rely more on intuition, more on reason, or more on physical sense and perception, if for no other reason than intuition is cheap, reason is more difficult and therefore costly, and physical operations are the most difficult and costly of all. But conversely, intuition > reason, and > physical demonstration are decreasingly prone to error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit.
I consider this a scientific, logical, and legal statement, because it has no room for, or tolerance for untestifiable fictionalisms (irreciprocity, pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, fiction, and the combination of those in mythology, theology and the occult.) And conversely it demands testifiability, reciprocity, existential possibility, rationality (cost), consistency, correspondence, and coherence.
Common (traditional) Law, reasoning, and observation within that law existed before all other disciplines and exists even where there are no other disciplines, and as far as I know of all other disciplines are derivatives of the rules of resolution of conflict that we call law.
The origin of western philosophy was largely in the circumvention of traditional law, in an effort to reform it to match the rates of innovation and changes in the scale of cooperation – in particular the learnings of mathematics.
It’s certainly true that there has been a conflict between law, and martial authority, and law and religious authority, and even in the modern world, between law and commercial authority, or law and popular authority.
And this is because coercion by various fictionalisms (pseudo-rational, pseudoscientific, supernatural) seek to deceive or coerce others such that they can violate the law that requires the rational, reciprocal, logical, scientific, and existential that can be testified to.
So because philosophy is not as strong (decidable) as law, science, mathematics, because it’s scope is smaller, but does accommodate preference and good rather than decidability(truth).
So I consider philosophy a discipline for violating law (reciprocity, volition, rational choice, costs), science, logic, and mathematics, – all of which that evolved because it was cheaper than experimentation (science).
Or stated more simply, between Saul, Augustine, Plato, And Aristotle, Aristotle’s science won:
Saul(Supernatural) < Augustine(Theological) < Plato(Ideal) < Aristotle(Real Empirical)
And science won because it is more demanding of decidability – but was delayed because it’s more expensive. Philosophy was a cheap substitute prior to the development of science. And all disciplines are now subsets of science not philosophy.
I work in the science of natural law (testimony and decidability). I only use the term ‘philosopher’ to directly compete with the discipline – which I consider, like theology, dead, and or fraud.
(Hopefully that will stimulate a conversation). 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-11 09:46:00 UTC