THE TERM PATRIARCHY IS A NONSENSE WORD
I doubt anyone who uses the term ‘patriarchy’ can:
(a) define it- precisely.
(b) operationalize it – how to institutionalize it: precisely.
(c) or explain how it means anything more than men must take responsibiilty for the private and… https://twitter.com/SerenaJB3/status/1711332843090051507
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-23 00:25:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738355156662587788
(Trying to think of how to explain this both sufficiently and parsimoniously…)
(a) human demonstrated interests are empirically observable and logically explicable.
(b) demonstrated interests always and everywhere constitute capital where capital serves as a reserve of time and energy.
(c) human display, word and deed, either has no impact on, contributes to, or decreases that capital.
(e) Ergo a full accounting of capital, and a full accounting of consequences, then determine, objectively, operationally, and scientifically whether ‘degeneracy’ is an act of harm against the capital of the commons.
(f) The individual must be the subject of law because only individuals act. Even if they act collectively by the same incentives. However, the family must be the subject of policy, children the subject of society, and reciprocal cooperation the subject of governance, and prohibition of against irreciprocity the subject of the state (military).
This is a brief set of statements but the end result is we have fully scienced the economics (measurement) of human behavior, and all human behavior, at least within context is decidable – meaning the neutral, good, and bad, are ascertainable regardless of individual opinion.
The problem of course is the sex differences in moral intuition (they are polar opposites) and the fact that there are minorities of feminine men and masculine women. And there are majorities of those who seek to evade responsibility for the spectrum capital whether private or common, and those that are unable to evade it. So training (intuition) and education (reason) and productivity(skills) are necessary disciplines that must be institutionalized wiether religiously socially educationally or legally.
ie: morality and immorality are not subjective. Individual moral wish for the world to suit themselves rather than the polity as a whole, and especially over time, is expresssed in variations of demand for moral conditions of cooperation. However, demdns are not truths, only preferences. All truth is determined by the resolution of those disputes by the test of changes in capital.
That’s the simple version.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @justinmchase @entelechhhy
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-13 17:06:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734983067398189056
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734978811219824645
(Lesson of the Day)
Most folks if not all folks outside of our organization are unable to disambiguate terms into their constituent parts and therefore tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This means that some ‘philosophical frames or biases’ are cumulatively good or bad in outcome. But it does not mean that all concepts within them are good or bad. The same is for people. Idiots my speak wisdom, genius may speak folly, good folk may act unethically and immorally and bad folk may act ethically and morally.
In other words, while ‘averages’ are true at scale so to speak, that does not mean that averages tell the whole story – and there is a tendency of the less able and less sophisticated (and most disagreeable and overconfident) to categorically dismiss a system of thought or at least system of values without learning what is harmful in it, and defending against what is harmful in it instead of defending against a thing that is comprised of both goods and bads.
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-11 17:00:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734256824524685312
Good take, false framing. Confuses utility with decidability and testifiability (truth). In other words in tort (conflic resolution) one’s intent is irrelevant. Whether instinct, intuition, experience, ignorance, error, bias, or victim of deciet, one has failed due diligence…
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-09 17:59:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1733546875196694796
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1733526350542119187
Because the connection between the statements (sentences) is logical deduction not written exposition.
Like I said, it’s like math or programming.
It only looks like ordinary langauge. 😉
BTW: sometimes I have to think about what I wrote too… lol
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-08 01:53:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1722069858735579528
Reply addressees: @ToddNQuick1
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1722067538987630672
Not an argument.
I do R&D on decidability and deception for a living.
Try to make an argument.
So far you can’t.
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-03 19:36:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720525392618950814
Reply addressees: @MorctheOrc
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720519785421701620
PERFORMATIVE TRUTH VS IDEAL TRUTH
Performative (Real) Truth can and must only mean testimony that as been subject to due diligence and is unambiguous, consistent, correspondent, and coherent under the constraints of naturalism – meaning it is sufficient for the provision of decidabilty within the limits of tolerable fallibility (infallibility) and therefore liabilty, in the context in question – acknowledging that we are possessed of imperfect knowledge and imperfect ability.
Ideal truth is that same testimony we would give if we were possessed of perfect knowledge and perfect ability – which we may strive for but only over long periods achieve.
While he understood the problem, understood how the greeks solved it, Nietzche failed in his mission at either restoration or innovation. Ih this example, a cockroach is a threat and a butterfly is an opportunity. There is nothing aesthetic (relative) about it other than our knowledge of understanding of risk and reward.
Reply addressees: @Alexanderistalt @seracoate @MillionMustMeme
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-03 17:01:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720486445104652288
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720477941539213629
I am correct. You are trying to preserve the opportunity for false testimony and false claims as a means of resistance against testifiable truth despite the evidence that all incdreases in knowledge eliminate ignorane error bias and deceit, yet all religions spread ignorance, eror, bias and deceit. The abrahamic religions most of all, because they make the most false claims, with the must fundamentalist foundations.
I do not have ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ which would require I hold a prior and justify it. Instead I have a lack of confidence, confidence, or certainty that I can testify to within the limits of the demand for infallibility in the context in question.
This level of thinking is very difficult for those who are indoctrinated into the falsehood of justificationism which all of religion and most of philosophy is dependent upon. But which, we have learned, is simply false. All logic is falsificationary. Therefore all we can testify to is that which survives adversarial competition.
I have no reason to hold confidencde in anything other than the explicability of the entirety of the universe, becuase every time humans invent an attempt to claim so we have been wrong. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
As such, you are lying. Because you are not, and cannot testify to either confidence, or certainty, in the probability of an alternative to explicability given the simplicity of the laws of the universe: “Evolutionary computation of persistence by Continuous recursive disambiguation of entropy (disorder) in to negative entropy (order) we call mass.
Reply addressees: @HakunaMateria
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-02 17:04:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720124844442882048
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720052649188565185
But my claims are TESTIFIABLE and yours are not.
If it’s untestifiable that means any truth claim is falsified.
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-01 20:07:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719808279436488911
Reply addressees: @HakunaMateria
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719806882620338497
RT @curtdoolittle: @JarrodBlack19 @MaxiMEDiocrity @GadSaad @gadsadd No man is unbiased, because all decisions require criteria for decidabi…
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-28 13:30:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1718258887130829151