Theme: Decidability

  • Russel’s Teapot And The Existence Of God

    One of the great falsehoods of philosophy: proof. You cannot prove anything, so the question itself is a deception. The questions are unfalsifiable, which is a center position between justifiable and warrantable. Justifiabl(excuse) > falsifiable (possible) > demonstrable(empirical) > warrantable (insured) Proofs exist in and only in mathematics, for the simple reason that positional relations (positional names that we call numbers) are by definition and necessity constant relations and cannot be otherwise. There are very few other constant relations. (time is one, and even that is a question of relative position and velocity). We can create certain set arguments. We can identify certain reductio (trivial) necessities just as we can identify certain prime numbers. But the question is fraudulent (a trick) of grammar. Since one cannot prove anything, one can merely justify (non-promissory), provide terms of falsification(promissory), demonstrate(tempmoral), or insure (intertemporal) As soon as you admit the criteria of … – deception and fraud – incentive – cost – warranty …. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy.
  • Teapots

    This is a trivial problem in grammar with the terms truth and proof and can be debunked pretty easily. a) how can you testify that a teapot orbits the sun? This is a very different question than Russell is asking and is the entire reason why philosophy and theology became closely related after because of augustine. We demand warranty of goods and services, but we have stopped demanding warranty of information (words). So the question is, how can one warranty his statement that a teapot orbits the sun? Then why does he say such a thing? In other words, just as in any other crime, what is one’s incentive?
  • The Nolan Chart is Ideological(emotional) not Operational (scientific). Correct

    The Nolan Chart is Ideological(emotional) not Operational (scientific). Correct dimensions are (a) decidability: rule of law vs discretionary rule, (b) territorialist strategy vs pastoralist strategy. (c) Kin vs Corporate strategy. All else follows. #Trump #Conservative #NewRight
  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/28161834_10156136631687264_43757840

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/28161834_10156136631687264_43757840

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/28161834_10156136631687264_437578402228039721_o_10156136631687264.jpg The Nolan Chart is Ideological(emotional) not Operational (scientific). Correct dimensions are (a) decidability: rule of law vs discretionary rule, (b) territorialist strategy vs pastoralist strategy. (c) Kin vs Corporate strategy. All else follows. #Trump #Conservative #NewRightPaul NunezI like this a lot. I still have a hard time figuring out who originated this scale of hierarchy,though. Almost seems like I’ve heard it from somewhereFeb 17, 2018 9:55pmThe Nolan Chart is Ideological(emotional) not Operational (scientific). Correct dimensions are (a) decidability: rule of law vs discretionary rule, (b) territorialist strategy vs pastoralist strategy. (c) Kin vs Corporate strategy. All else follows. #Trump #Conservative #NewRight


    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-17 21:41:00 UTC

  • The Nolan Chart is Ideological(emotional) not Operational (scientific). Correct

    The Nolan Chart is Ideological(emotional) not Operational (scientific). Correct dimensions are (a) decidability: rule of law vs discretionary rule, (b) territorialist strategy vs pastoralist strategy. (c) Kin vs Corporate strategy. All else follows. #Trump #Conservative #NewRight
  • The Nolan Chart is Ideological(emotional) not Operational (scientific). Correct

    The Nolan Chart is Ideological(emotional) not Operational (scientific). Correct dimensions are (a) decidability: rule of law vs discretionary rule, (b) territorialist strategy vs pastoralist strategy. (c) Kin vs Corporate strategy. All else follows. #Trump #Conservative #NewRight


    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-17 17:42:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/964917943791480832

  • The Nolan Chart is Ideological(emotional) not Operational (scientific). Correct

    The Nolan Chart is Ideological(emotional) not Operational (scientific). Correct dimensions are (a) decidability: rule of law vs discretionary rule, (b) territorialist strategy vs pastoralist strategy. (c) Kin vs Corporate strategy. All else follows. #Trump #Conservative #NewRight


    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-17 12:42:00 UTC

  • The Nolan Chart is Ideological(emotional) not Operational (economic). Correct di

    The Nolan Chart is Ideological(emotional) not Operational (economic). Correct dimensions are (a) decidability: rule of law vs discretionary rule, (b) territorialist strategy vs pastoralist strategy. (c) Kin vs Corporate strategy. All else follows. #Trump #Conservative #NewRight


    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-17 12:20:00 UTC

  • The Struggle Between Science And Myth

    Mythical decidability is more influential at the bottom and scientific more at the top. —“And it is the view, or, at least Curt’s view, because I do not know your views, that Abrahamism has been harmful to Europe. I suppose the palingenetic undercurrent here is that a new history of European greatness must be crafted independently of Ahraminic influences.”— This is what I struggle with. While (a) the propertarian program is quite simple: truth produces trust and prosperity (b) one encounters a cavalcade of JUSTIFICATIONARY historical narratives to make excuses for fictionalisms. So how does one combat a justificationary narrative that claims to be empirical, without an equal empirical narrative. European excellence and east asian excellence are simply facts as far as I can tell. But as I’ve stated repeatedly, they are facts that are the product of geographical advantage and insulation from the competition in the ‘center’. But we cannot choose those things. We can choose between truth and fiction. We can choose the next era’s narrative. But – the age old question – how do you teach people during a time of transition that novel truth is better than traditional fictionalism without a history or mythology to contain it? Unconscious decidability (is necessary the larger the population grows). The grammar of story (analogy, mythology) is the broadest grammar and semantics available to us. Is the tragedy of achilles (the aristocratic warrior masculine hero defending property over the chaos of reality) or the tragedy of jesus (the underclass priestly feminine hero in reaction to the control of property by the aristocracy) a better monopoly myth, or are they faces of the “Janus” of the eternal competition between the strategies of the sexes? And then how does each limit the other? Are these the faces last archetypes, and is competition as calculation (compromise by trade) the ultimate archetype instead? (which is my view). Or is the individual actor (Achilles, Jesus) a problem in itself, and are FAMILIES the superior archetypal narrative that provides us with unconscious decidability? In my view families rather than the individual serve as the instrument of policy, while law serves as the instrument of individual limitation. So I prefer a hierarchical pagan world (saints and kings) for the simple reason that it avoids the problems of monopoly. Now, add to the problem, that every group has an evolutionary strategy, and uses it to work together whether moral or not. Every group has a ‘superiority’ wing. And must for it to survive competition with other group. Science has advanced, and social science not, for the simple reason that juridical (scientific) truth would punish the underclasses, women and the priests, to the benefit of the burgers, engineers, and the warriors. and we are in an era (democracy) where gossip – the weapon of women and priests, is powerful – powerful enough to bring about another dark age. For no other reason than that we have not yet suppressed falsehood in information as we have in goods and services. Anyway. I feel caught between Law and Truth on one hand and Myth and HIstory on the other, and it always seems like transcendence between stages requires both.
  • THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND MYTH Mythical decidability is more influential

    THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND MYTH

    Mythical decidability is more influential at the bottom and scientific more at the top.

    —“And it is the view, or, at least Curt’s view, because I do not know your views, that Abrahamism has been harmful to Europe. I suppose the palingenetic undercurrent here is that a new history of European greatness must be crafted independently of Ahraminic influences.”—

    This is what I struggle with. While (a) the propertarian program is quite simple: truth produces trust and prosperity (b) one encounters a cavalcade of JUSTIFICATIONARY historical narratives to make excuses for fictionalisms. So how does one combat a justificationary narrative that claims to be empirical, without an equal empirical narrative.

    European excellence and east asian excellence are simply facts as far as I can tell. But as I’ve stated repeatedly, they are facts that are the product of geographical advantage and insulation from the competition in the ‘center’.

    But we cannot choose those things. We can choose between truth and fiction. We can choose the next era’s narrative.

    But – the age old question – how do you teach people during a time of transition that novel truth is better than traditional fictionalism without a history or mythology to contain it?

    Unconscious decidability (is necessary the larger the population grows). The grammar of story (analogy, mythology) is the broadest grammar and semantics available to us.

    Is the tragedy of achilles (the aristocratic warrior masculine hero defending property over the chaos of reality) or the tragedy of jesus (the underclass priestly feminine hero in reaction to the control of property by the aristocracy) a better monopoly myth, or are they faces of the “Janus” of the eternal competition between the strategies of the sexes? And then how does each limit the other? Are these the faces last archetypes, and is competition as calculation (compromise by trade) the ultimate archetype instead? (which is my view).

    Or is the individual actor (Achilles, Jesus) a problem in itself, and are FAMILIES the superior archetypal narrative that provides us with unconscious decidability? In my view families rather than the individual serve as the instrument of policy, while law serves as the instrument of individual limitation. So I prefer a hierarchical pagan world (saints and kings) for the simple reason that it avoids the problems of monopoly.

    Now, add to the problem, that every group has an evolutionary strategy, and uses it to work together whether moral or not. Every group has a ‘superiority’ wing. And must for it to survive competition with other group.

    Science has advanced, and social science not, for the simple reason that juridical (scientific) truth would punish the underclasses, women and the priests, to the benefit of the burgers, engineers, and the warriors.

    and we are in an era (democracy) where gossip – the weapon of women and priests, is powerful – powerful enough to bring about another dark age.

    For no other reason than that we have not yet suppressed falsehood in information as we have in goods and services.

    Anyway.

    I feel caught between Law and Truth on one hand and Myth and HIstory on the other, and it always seems like transcendence between stages requires both.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-15 11:54:00 UTC