Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • What Is The Adjective Form Of Truth?

    WHAT DOES TRUTH MEAN? (AND WHAT IS ITS ADJECTIVE FORM?)

    Truth can only mean ‘descriptive testimony free of error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit’. In other words, speech, the semantic content of which corresponds with reality.

    One speaks truthfully, or untruthfully , or honestly or dishonestly.

    To be precise, one speaks honestly not having done due diligence, nor warrantying one’s speech. One speaks truthfully having done due diligence, and warrantying one’s speech.

    So you might speak honestly – not having done due diligence on your speech. But that is not the same as speaking truthfully – having done due diligence on your speech. So you might give your honest opinion, but that differs from doing diligence that such an opinion survives criticism – meaning correspondence.

    Both the physical sciences and law specialize in the art of due diligence. As an extension of law, anglo analytic philosophy attempts to specialize in the art of due diligence. Strangely, continental philosophy does the opposite.

    But if speaking truthfully requires that we perform due diligence, and warranty our speech, then how does one perform such due diligence? How do we test correspondence? In the most simple of terms, a truth statement must be:

    1. categorically consistent (non conflationary)
    2. internally consistent (logical),
    3. externally correspondent (empirical),
    4. operationally possible (existentially possible),
    5. coherent categorically, internally, externally, and operationally (consistent across all tests)
    6. fully accounted (you haven’t cherry picked cause and/or consequence)

    And if you want to claim it’s ethical and moral (and objectively legal):

    1. rational: consisting of nothing but a series of fully rational choices
    2. reciprocal: consisting of nothing other than productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges free of imposition upon others by externality.

    We use the word ‘Truth’ in many, many contexts. Most of them somewhere between a convenience and a dishonesty. True, honest, logical, and good are independent concepts frequently conflated to attribute authority where it is absent.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-adjective-form-of-truth

  • The Various Rights And Wrongs And Their Frames

    Um. Saying pain hurts is a tautology (meaningless). But this is an excellent opportunity to discuss an interesting defect in language and concept. And perhaps, it might help to remind us that english grammar (the verb) contains the time dimension of “always happened -> happened -> is happening -> will happen -> always shall happen.” Pain alerts us to damage so that we remember not to repeat the actions that caused that damage again, or avoid further opportunities for damage. Now it’s true that we humans often conflate: 1 – ‘correct and incorrect’ (testing or calculation of a known), 2 – ‘beneficial and harmful’ (human change in state – immediate) 3 – ‘right and wrong’ (operations to produce an intended outcome OR ‘ethical vs unethical’, OR ‘moral and immoral’ – intertemporal), 4 – ‘good and bad’ (moral actions that produce gain or loss upon others – moral being indirect, and ethical being direct – intertemporal.), 5 – ‘positive and negative’ (economic, financial, entrepreneurial change). 5 – ‘true and false’ (testimonial that is consistent, correspondent, operational, and coherent – intertempral), and 6 – ‘true and false’ (analytic – technically ‘testimony of correctness’ – intertemporal – this is the source of the ‘problem’ since ‘true’ in math and logic is equivalent to ‘true’ in carpentry, not true as in testimony. Mathematical and logical statements are either correct or incorrect or unknown, the are not true or false. Because all we are doing is testing deduction and inference between two states.) And it is very common for people to use the MEANS OF CALCULATION most common to them: 1 – those people of a religious frame to rely upon ‘good and bad, 2 – those of a moral frame rely upon right and wrong, 3 – those of a rationalist (philosophical) frame ethical and unethical, moral and immoral 4 – those of a legal frame legal and illegal. 5 – those of a scientific frame rely upon beneficial and harmful’, 6 – those of an entrepreneurial, financial, and economic frame rely upon ‘positive and negative’. And most of us conflate them depending upon the virtue signal we are trying to send. And sometimes we do so deceptively so that we attribute more authority to our assertions than exists: the most common being the pedestrian conflation of moral and legal. When speaking on this subject we are confronted by in a noun-verb challenge. In that we are discussing both cause and effect and must choose a compromise term because of a deficiency in our language. We have no equivalent of ethical and moral with others for the INDIVIDUAL with himself. We have ethical: directly to others, and we have moral: indirectly to others. But no equivalent for the self. And therefore are trying to answer a question is this ‘ethical (not harmful) ‘ between the person you are now, and the person you will be in the future. (Although that may be an unfamiliar means of analysis, it provides commensurability that’s a extremely beneficial addition to our linguistic and conceptual inventories. ) 1 – Doing something wrong. (harmful). 2 – Done something wrong. (harmful). 3 – Cumulatively done something wrong (harmful). 4 – Something is going wrong despite our efforts (harmful failure). 5 – We are indecline and noting we can do but conserve energy. (chronic harm). So, from the relationship between our physical body and our acting minds, I choose to use the word “wrong’ to satisfy that relationship between body and mind, where we should, if we can, do something differently from how we are currently doing it. Because that is the evolutionary origin of pain: to provide information that immediately overloads all other information competing for attention in that network we call the nervous system. To inform you to do something other than what you are doing. In the most severe case, that is, to find an answer to the harm that has befallen you by accident, intent, negligence, or fate. Cheers.

  • THE VARIOUS RIGHTS AND WRONGS AND THEIR FRAMES Um. Saying pain hurts is a tautol

    THE VARIOUS RIGHTS AND WRONGS AND THEIR FRAMES

    Um. Saying pain hurts is a tautology (meaningless).

    But this is an excellent opportunity to discuss an interesting defect in language and concept. And perhaps, it might help to remind us that english grammar (the verb) contains the time dimension of “always happened -> happened -> is happening -> will happen -> always shall happen.”

    Pain alerts us to damage so that we remember not to repeat the actions that caused that damage again, or avoid further opportunities for damage.

    Now it’s true that we humans often conflate:

    1 – ‘correct and incorrect’ (testing or calculation of a known),

    2 – ‘beneficial and harmful’ (human change in state – immediate)

    3 – ‘right and wrong’ (operations to produce an intended outcome OR ‘ethical vs unethical’, OR ‘moral and immoral’ – intertemporal),

    4 – ‘good and bad’ (moral actions that produce gain or loss upon others – moral being indirect, and ethical being direct – intertemporal.),

    5 – ‘positive and negative’ (economic, financial, entrepreneurial change).

    5 – ‘true and false’ (testimonial that is consistent, correspondent, operational, and coherent – intertempral), and

    6 – ‘true and false’ (analytic – technically ‘testimony of correctness’ – intertemporal – this is the source of the ‘problem’ since ‘true’ in math and logic is equivalent to ‘true’ in carpentry, not true as in testimony. Mathematical and logical statements are either correct or incorrect or unknown, the are not true or false. Because all we are doing is testing deduction and inference between two states.)

    And it is very common for people to use the MEANS OF CALCULATION most common to them:

    1 – those people of a religious frame to rely upon ‘good and bad,

    2 – those of a moral frame rely upon right and wrong,

    3 – those of a rationalist (philosophical) frame ethical and unethical, moral and immoral

    4 – those of a legal frame legal and illegal.

    5 – those of a scientific frame rely upon beneficial and harmful’,

    6 – those of an entrepreneurial, financial, and economic frame rely upon ‘positive and negative’.

    And most of us conflate them depending upon the virtue signal we are trying to send. And sometimes we do so deceptively so that we attribute more authority to our assertions than exists: the most common being the pedestrian conflation of moral and legal.

    When speaking on this subject we are confronted by in a noun-verb challenge. In that we are discussing both cause and effect and must choose a compromise term because of a deficiency in our language. We have no equivalent of ethical and moral with others for the INDIVIDUAL with himself. We have ethical: directly to others, and we have moral: indirectly to others. But no equivalent for the self.

    And therefore are trying to answer a question is this ‘ethical (not harmful) ‘ between the person you are now, and the person you will be in the future. (Although that may be an unfamiliar means of analysis, it provides commensurability that’s a extremely beneficial addition to our linguistic and conceptual inventories. )

    1 – Doing something wrong. (harmful).

    2 – Done something wrong. (harmful).

    3 – Cumulatively done something wrong (harmful).

    4 – Something is going wrong despite our efforts (harmful failure).

    5 – We are indecline and noting we can do but conserve energy. (chronic harm).

    So, from the relationship between our physical body and our acting minds, I choose to use the word “wrong’ to satisfy that relationship between body and mind, where we should, if we can, do something differently from how we are currently doing it.

    Because that is the evolutionary origin of pain: to provide information that immediately overloads all other information competing for attention in that network we call the nervous system.

    To inform you to do something other than what you are doing.

    In the most severe case, that is, to find an answer to the harm that has befallen you by accident, intent, negligence, or fate.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-07 11:59:00 UTC

  • The Various Rights And Wrongs And Their Frames

    Um. Saying pain hurts is a tautology (meaningless). But this is an excellent opportunity to discuss an interesting defect in language and concept. And perhaps, it might help to remind us that english grammar (the verb) contains the time dimension of “always happened -> happened -> is happening -> will happen -> always shall happen.” Pain alerts us to damage so that we remember not to repeat the actions that caused that damage again, or avoid further opportunities for damage. Now it’s true that we humans often conflate: 1 – ‘correct and incorrect’ (testing or calculation of a known), 2 – ‘beneficial and harmful’ (human change in state – immediate) 3 – ‘right and wrong’ (operations to produce an intended outcome OR ‘ethical vs unethical’, OR ‘moral and immoral’ – intertemporal), 4 – ‘good and bad’ (moral actions that produce gain or loss upon others – moral being indirect, and ethical being direct – intertemporal.), 5 – ‘positive and negative’ (economic, financial, entrepreneurial change). 5 – ‘true and false’ (testimonial that is consistent, correspondent, operational, and coherent – intertempral), and 6 – ‘true and false’ (analytic – technically ‘testimony of correctness’ – intertemporal – this is the source of the ‘problem’ since ‘true’ in math and logic is equivalent to ‘true’ in carpentry, not true as in testimony. Mathematical and logical statements are either correct or incorrect or unknown, the are not true or false. Because all we are doing is testing deduction and inference between two states.) And it is very common for people to use the MEANS OF CALCULATION most common to them: 1 – those people of a religious frame to rely upon ‘good and bad, 2 – those of a moral frame rely upon right and wrong, 3 – those of a rationalist (philosophical) frame ethical and unethical, moral and immoral 4 – those of a legal frame legal and illegal. 5 – those of a scientific frame rely upon beneficial and harmful’, 6 – those of an entrepreneurial, financial, and economic frame rely upon ‘positive and negative’. And most of us conflate them depending upon the virtue signal we are trying to send. And sometimes we do so deceptively so that we attribute more authority to our assertions than exists: the most common being the pedestrian conflation of moral and legal. When speaking on this subject we are confronted by in a noun-verb challenge. In that we are discussing both cause and effect and must choose a compromise term because of a deficiency in our language. We have no equivalent of ethical and moral with others for the INDIVIDUAL with himself. We have ethical: directly to others, and we have moral: indirectly to others. But no equivalent for the self. And therefore are trying to answer a question is this ‘ethical (not harmful) ‘ between the person you are now, and the person you will be in the future. (Although that may be an unfamiliar means of analysis, it provides commensurability that’s a extremely beneficial addition to our linguistic and conceptual inventories. ) 1 – Doing something wrong. (harmful). 2 – Done something wrong. (harmful). 3 – Cumulatively done something wrong (harmful). 4 – Something is going wrong despite our efforts (harmful failure). 5 – We are indecline and noting we can do but conserve energy. (chronic harm). So, from the relationship between our physical body and our acting minds, I choose to use the word “wrong’ to satisfy that relationship between body and mind, where we should, if we can, do something differently from how we are currently doing it. Because that is the evolutionary origin of pain: to provide information that immediately overloads all other information competing for attention in that network we call the nervous system. To inform you to do something other than what you are doing. In the most severe case, that is, to find an answer to the harm that has befallen you by accident, intent, negligence, or fate. Cheers.

  • That’s A Fuzzy Language Question…. Let’s Fix It.

    —-”Since the ideological core of America is a individualistic democracy, what makes you think that a fascist movement would be more popular with the American populace? (https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Since-the-ideological-core-of-America-is-a-individualistic-democracy-what-makes-you-think-that-a-fascist-movement-would-be-more-popular-with-the-American-populace)”—- America was founded as a ‘third way’ free of both church and state, and instead for the entrepreneurial (meritocratic) individual. The original colonists recruited heavily ‘people of good character’ to create that ‘third way’ The constitution constructed rule by “The natural law of reciprocity”, and individual sovereignty (although they used the world liberty). This meant that all functions of society were organized into markets. You could perform service, with service you could earn property, with property you could earn voice. Meanwhile the court adjudicated differences entirely by property rights. This was ‘the third way’ that they were inventing. A third way not done before. Or at least, the third way that had continued from Anglo Saxon times, and was under attack during the colonial period. So it is that America was founded under rule of law. Not rule of legislation. rule of LAW. With legislation being little more than contract negotiated between the states, just as contracts were negotiated within the state, and within the polity, and between individuals. This is why those of us educated pre-marxism-postmoderism’s takeover of the school, academy, media and state during and the vietnam war, treat the constitution as ‘sacred’. Because for all intents and purposes – it is. It is ‘inviolate’. Unfortunately, beginning with the 14th amendment, then increasingly during the 20th century, the left was able to destroy rule of law, and re-implement rule-by-legislation, and then eventual restore the church, with a secular religion of postmodernism. **FASCISM/NATIONALISM VS COMMUNISM/UNIVERSALISM** Fascism, meaning **economic and cultural nationalism**, was developed to counter the spread of **global communism. ** There is very little difference between **FrankfurtSchool Marxism**, and it’s successor, **Postmodern School Political correctness** – and world communism. Just as there is very little difference between j**udaism, christianity, and islam** and **world communism**. So if you are from a good family, clan, tribe, and nation, you might choose nationalism over globalism. And if you are from a not-so-good family, clan, tribe, and nation you might choose globalism. People tend to follow the elites that promise them a competitive advantage. This is why people in homogenous societies vote by class blocks, and in heterogeneous societies they vote in racial and tribal and religious blocks: to obtain advantage via the force of government, rather than through market competition in the service of others. So Fascism is just a practical means by which KIN GROUPS (Nationalists) protect themselves from MAJORITY TYRANNY (Corporatists) by resisting universalism. Who do you want to get ahead? Well that depends upon what elites you can put into place to get your agenda ahead. Some of us are wired (like females) for the short term and experiential, and some of us are wired (like males) for the long term and capital accumulation. The strange thing is, nationalists are happy to separate and let others do as they will, but universalists are not? Why is that? The only answer CAN BE that one fears facing the reality of one’s inferiority in competition with kin groups.

  • A FUZZY LANGUAGE QUESTION…. LET’S FIX IT. —-”Since the ideological core of Ameri

    https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Since-the-ideological-core-of-America-is-a-individualistic-democracy-what-makes-you-think-that-a-fascist-movement-would-be-more-popular-with-the-American-populaceTHAT’S A FUZZY LANGUAGE QUESTION…. LET’S FIX IT.

    —-”Since the ideological core of America is a individualistic democracy, what makes you think that a fascist movement would be more popular with the American populace? (https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Since-the-ideological-core-of-America-is-a-individualistic-democracy-what-makes-you-think-that-a-fascist-movement-would-be-more-popular-with-the-American-populace)”—-

    America was founded as a ‘third way’ free of both church and state, and instead for the entrepreneurial (meritocratic) individual. The original colonists recruited heavily ‘people of good character’ to create that ‘third way’ The constitution constructed rule by “The natural law of reciprocity”, and individual sovereignty (although they used the world liberty).

    This meant that all functions of society were organized into markets. You could perform service, with service you could earn property, with property you could earn voice.

    Meanwhile the court adjudicated differences entirely by property rights. This was ‘the third way’ that they were inventing. A third way not done before. Or at least, the third way that had continued from Anglo Saxon times, and was under attack during the colonial period.

    So it is that America was founded under rule of law. Not rule of legislation. rule of LAW. With legislation being little more than contract negotiated between the states, just as contracts were negotiated within the state, and within the polity, and between individuals.

    This is why those of us educated pre-marxism-postmoderism’s takeover of the school, academy, media and state during and the vietnam war, treat the constitution as ‘sacred’. Because for all intents and purposes – it is. It is ‘inviolate’. Unfortunately, beginning with the 14th amendment, then increasingly during the 20th century, the left was able to destroy rule of law, and re-implement rule-by-legislation, and then eventual restore the church, with a secular religion of postmodernism.

    **FASCISM/NATIONALISM VS COMMUNISM/UNIVERSALISM**

    Fascism, meaning **economic and cultural nationalism**, was developed to counter the spread of **global communism. **

    There is very little difference between **FrankfurtSchool Marxism**, and it’s successor, **Postmodern School Political correctness** – and world communism. Just as there is very little difference between j**udaism, christianity, and islam** and **world communism**.

    So if you are from a good family, clan, tribe, and nation, you might choose nationalism over globalism. And if you are from a not-so-good family, clan, tribe, and nation you might choose globalism.

    People tend to follow the elites that promise them a competitive advantage. This is why people in homogenous societies vote by class blocks, and in heterogeneous societies they vote in racial and tribal and religious blocks: to obtain advantage via the force of government, rather than through market competition in the service of others.

    So Fascism is just a practical means by which KIN GROUPS (Nationalists) protect themselves from MAJORITY TYRANNY (Corporatists) by resisting universalism.

    Who do you want to get ahead? Well that depends upon what elites you can put into place to get your agenda ahead.

    Some of us are wired (like females) for the short term and experiential, and some of us are wired (like males) for the long term and capital accumulation.

    The strange thing is, nationalists are happy to separate and let others do as they will, but universalists are not?

    Why is that?

    The only answer CAN BE that one fears facing the reality of one’s inferiority in competition with kin groups.Updated Dec 31, 2017, 7:38 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-31 19:38:00 UTC

  • That’s A Fuzzy Language Question…. Let’s Fix It.

    —-”Since the ideological core of America is a individualistic democracy, what makes you think that a fascist movement would be more popular with the American populace? (https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Since-the-ideological-core-of-America-is-a-individualistic-democracy-what-makes-you-think-that-a-fascist-movement-would-be-more-popular-with-the-American-populace)”—- America was founded as a ‘third way’ free of both church and state, and instead for the entrepreneurial (meritocratic) individual. The original colonists recruited heavily ‘people of good character’ to create that ‘third way’ The constitution constructed rule by “The natural law of reciprocity”, and individual sovereignty (although they used the world liberty). This meant that all functions of society were organized into markets. You could perform service, with service you could earn property, with property you could earn voice. Meanwhile the court adjudicated differences entirely by property rights. This was ‘the third way’ that they were inventing. A third way not done before. Or at least, the third way that had continued from Anglo Saxon times, and was under attack during the colonial period. So it is that America was founded under rule of law. Not rule of legislation. rule of LAW. With legislation being little more than contract negotiated between the states, just as contracts were negotiated within the state, and within the polity, and between individuals. This is why those of us educated pre-marxism-postmoderism’s takeover of the school, academy, media and state during and the vietnam war, treat the constitution as ‘sacred’. Because for all intents and purposes – it is. It is ‘inviolate’. Unfortunately, beginning with the 14th amendment, then increasingly during the 20th century, the left was able to destroy rule of law, and re-implement rule-by-legislation, and then eventual restore the church, with a secular religion of postmodernism. **FASCISM/NATIONALISM VS COMMUNISM/UNIVERSALISM** Fascism, meaning **economic and cultural nationalism**, was developed to counter the spread of **global communism. ** There is very little difference between **FrankfurtSchool Marxism**, and it’s successor, **Postmodern School Political correctness** – and world communism. Just as there is very little difference between j**udaism, christianity, and islam** and **world communism**. So if you are from a good family, clan, tribe, and nation, you might choose nationalism over globalism. And if you are from a not-so-good family, clan, tribe, and nation you might choose globalism. People tend to follow the elites that promise them a competitive advantage. This is why people in homogenous societies vote by class blocks, and in heterogeneous societies they vote in racial and tribal and religious blocks: to obtain advantage via the force of government, rather than through market competition in the service of others. So Fascism is just a practical means by which KIN GROUPS (Nationalists) protect themselves from MAJORITY TYRANNY (Corporatists) by resisting universalism. Who do you want to get ahead? Well that depends upon what elites you can put into place to get your agenda ahead. Some of us are wired (like females) for the short term and experiential, and some of us are wired (like males) for the long term and capital accumulation. The strange thing is, nationalists are happy to separate and let others do as they will, but universalists are not? Why is that? The only answer CAN BE that one fears facing the reality of one’s inferiority in competition with kin groups.

  • Since The Ideological Core Of America Is A Individualistic Democracy, What Makes You Think That A Fascist Movement Would Be More Popular With The American Populace?

    THAT’S A FUZZY LANGUGE QUESTION…. LET’S FIX IT.

    —-”Since the ideological core of America is a individualistic democracy, what makes you think that a fascist movement would be more popular with the American populace?”—-

    America was founded as a ‘third way’ free of both church and state, and instead for the entrepreneurial (meritocratic) individual. The original colonists recruited heavily ‘people of good character’ to create that ‘third way’ The constitution constructed rule by “The natural law of reciprocity”, and individual sovereignty (although they used the world liberty). This mean that all functions of society were organized into markets. You could perform service, with service you could earn property, with property you could earn voice. Meanwhile the court adjudicated differences entirely by property rights. This was ‘the third way’ that they were inventing. A third way not done before. Or at least, the third way that had continued from Anglo Saxon times, and was under attack during the colonial period.

    So it is that America was founded under rule of law. Not rule of legislation. rule of LAW. With legislation being little more than contract negotiated between the states, just as contracts were negotiated within the state, and within the polity, and between individuals.

    This is why those of us educated pre-marxism-postmoderism’s takeover of the school, academy, media and state during and the vietnam war, treat the constitution as ‘sacred’. Because for all intents and purposes – it is. It is ‘inviolate’. Unfortunately, beginning with the 14th amendment, then increasingly during the 20th century, the left was able to destroy rule of law, and re-implement rule-by-legislation, and then eventual restore the church, with a secular religion of postmodernism.

    FASCISM/NATIONALISM VS COMMUNISM/UNIVERSALISM

    Fascism, meaning economic and cultural nationalism, was developed to counter the spread of global communism.

    There is very little difference between FrankfurtSchool Marxism, and it’s successor, Postmodern School Political correctness – and world communism. Just as there is very little difference between judaism, christianity, and islam and world communism.

    So if you are from a good family, clan, tribe, and nation, you might choose nationalism over globalism. And if you are from a not-so-good family, clan, tribe, and nation you might choose globalism.

    People tend to follow the elites that promise them a competitive advantage. This is why people in homogenous societies vote by class blocks, and in heterogeneous societies they vote in racial and tribal and religious blocks: to obtain advantage via the force of government, rather than through market competition in the service of others.

    So Fascism is just a practical means by which KIN GROUPS (Nationalists) protect themselves from MAJORITY TYRANNY (Corporatists) by resisting universalism.

    Who do you want to get ahead? Well that depends upon what elites you can put into place to get your agenda ahead.

    Some of us are wired (like females) for the short term and experiential, and some of us are wired (like males) for the long term and capital accumulation.

    The strange thing is, nationalists are happy to separate and let others do as they will, but universalists are not?

    Why is that?

    The only answer CAN BE that one fears facing the reality of one’s inferiority in competition with kin groups.

    https://www.quora.com/Since-the-ideological-core-of-America-is-a-individualistic-democracy-what-makes-you-think-that-a-fascist-movement-would-be-more-popular-with-the-American-populace

  • Since The Ideological Core Of America Is A Individualistic Democracy, What Makes You Think That A Fascist Movement Would Be More Popular With The American Populace?

    THAT’S A FUZZY LANGUGE QUESTION…. LET’S FIX IT.

    —-”Since the ideological core of America is a individualistic democracy, what makes you think that a fascist movement would be more popular with the American populace?”—-

    America was founded as a ‘third way’ free of both church and state, and instead for the entrepreneurial (meritocratic) individual. The original colonists recruited heavily ‘people of good character’ to create that ‘third way’ The constitution constructed rule by “The natural law of reciprocity”, and individual sovereignty (although they used the world liberty). This mean that all functions of society were organized into markets. You could perform service, with service you could earn property, with property you could earn voice. Meanwhile the court adjudicated differences entirely by property rights. This was ‘the third way’ that they were inventing. A third way not done before. Or at least, the third way that had continued from Anglo Saxon times, and was under attack during the colonial period.

    So it is that America was founded under rule of law. Not rule of legislation. rule of LAW. With legislation being little more than contract negotiated between the states, just as contracts were negotiated within the state, and within the polity, and between individuals.

    This is why those of us educated pre-marxism-postmoderism’s takeover of the school, academy, media and state during and the vietnam war, treat the constitution as ‘sacred’. Because for all intents and purposes – it is. It is ‘inviolate’. Unfortunately, beginning with the 14th amendment, then increasingly during the 20th century, the left was able to destroy rule of law, and re-implement rule-by-legislation, and then eventual restore the church, with a secular religion of postmodernism.

    FASCISM/NATIONALISM VS COMMUNISM/UNIVERSALISM

    Fascism, meaning economic and cultural nationalism, was developed to counter the spread of global communism.

    There is very little difference between FrankfurtSchool Marxism, and it’s successor, Postmodern School Political correctness – and world communism. Just as there is very little difference between judaism, christianity, and islam and world communism.

    So if you are from a good family, clan, tribe, and nation, you might choose nationalism over globalism. And if you are from a not-so-good family, clan, tribe, and nation you might choose globalism.

    People tend to follow the elites that promise them a competitive advantage. This is why people in homogenous societies vote by class blocks, and in heterogeneous societies they vote in racial and tribal and religious blocks: to obtain advantage via the force of government, rather than through market competition in the service of others.

    So Fascism is just a practical means by which KIN GROUPS (Nationalists) protect themselves from MAJORITY TYRANNY (Corporatists) by resisting universalism.

    Who do you want to get ahead? Well that depends upon what elites you can put into place to get your agenda ahead.

    Some of us are wired (like females) for the short term and experiential, and some of us are wired (like males) for the long term and capital accumulation.

    The strange thing is, nationalists are happy to separate and let others do as they will, but universalists are not?

    Why is that?

    The only answer CAN BE that one fears facing the reality of one’s inferiority in competition with kin groups.

    https://www.quora.com/Since-the-ideological-core-of-America-is-a-individualistic-democracy-what-makes-you-think-that-a-fascist-movement-would-be-more-popular-with-the-American-populace

  • Math Exists As A Logic, Not A Science.

    As far as I know, mathematics consists not of science but of a logic. A logic meaning a grammar of decidability. And in the case of mathematics, the grammar of decidability consists of reduction of all references to positional names, and therefore all relations to positional relations. And we can do so with an unlimited number of dimensions, A science is necessary when we do not know the first principles (causal relations) of phenomenon and seek to identify them. Science therefore consists of theories and laws. A logic is necessary when we do know the first principles (causal relations). Ergo, logics consist of axioms. You can declare an axiom, but only identify a law. Once a law is known you may model it with axioms. That I know of there are only two assumptions in mathematics, and both are necessary for the simple reason that independent of context (applied mathematics) we have no means of decidability in matters of scale independence. The law of the excluded middle. The need for choice. Mathematics is actually quite simple. Its that because it is so simple, consisting only of positional relations, we can describe any set of constant relations with it.