it’s very bad form to use the word ‘is’ because it’s evidence you don’t know what you’re talking about. So I’ll restate it this way: if you choose natural law as your organizing principle you will produce a condition of sovereignty in fact (strong), liberty by permission (wealthy), freedom out of utility (talented), and supported out of charity (the old, women and children).
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 11:30:00 UTC
—“Curt, You should talk to X!!!”— Anon
Translated: Curt, I have this frame of reference. Can you talk in my frame of reference?
I get this all the time because some writer somewhere said something that made sense to somebody.
In other words, “Can you do the work for me?”. So instead, say “so and so says this, and I felt this, can you tell me what you think about it?”
Well you know I provided a universal frame of reference right? That’s what acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism do right?
Why is it that I should talk to people who do NOT talk in a universal frame of reference?
I don’t need to find a way to make excuses or lie in some other frame of reference in order to justify my objectives.
It’s up to others to justify their frames of reference and objectives if they violate acquisitionism, propertarianism, testimonialism: the natural law of reciprocity.
Ya see? Its like asking a mathematician using measurements to talk in nonsense like ‘Oh, it’s about a country mile as the crow flies…”
(Excuse my frustration.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-23 09:58:00 UTC
WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN POLYTHEISTS
Polytheism in myth, language of argument, and aesthetic preference is necessary in a division of personality, intelligence, knowledge, and labor. Only sovereignty and the militia need bind us.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 11:23:00 UTC
HISTORICIZE, vs FICTIONALIZE vs FICTIONALISM
a) HISTORICIZE: deflate myth into history and literature for the purpose of decidability in matters of dispute.
b) FICTIONALIZE: convert into monomyth, plot, archetype, virtues for the purpose of meaning for the self.
c) FICTIONALISM: conflate myth, history, literature, law, science, real and ideal for the purpose of deception for political ends.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 06:11:00 UTC
THE DIMENSIONS OF TRUTHFUL SPEECH
Existentially Possible Truth in Speech:
TRUTH
That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
TRUTHFULNESS:
that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
HONESTY:
That testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
DEMAND FOR TRUTH
Categories of Demand for Truth:
1 – True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship.
2 – True enough for me to feel good about myself.
3 – True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
4 – True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.
5 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
6 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
7 – True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.
8 – Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.
FALSEHOOD
Categories of Falsehood:
1 – ignorance,
2 – error,
3 – bias,
4 – wishful thinking,
5 – suggestion,
6 – obscurantism,
7 – fictionalism, and
8 – deceit:
DUE DILIGENCE
Dimensions of Due Diligence by which we eliminate falsehoods:
1 – categorical consistency (identity)
2 – logical consistency (internal correspondence)
3 – empirical consistency (external correspondence)
4 – existential consistency (operational correspondence)
5 – rational consistency ( correspondence to incentives )
6 – moral consistency ( reciprocity – reciprocal correspondence)
7 – scope consistency (limits, parsimony, and full accounting – scope correspondence)
CRITICISM
Categories of Incremental Demand for Criticism (Survival):
1 – hypothesis,
2 – theory(falsification), and;
3 – law (market application).
KNOWLEDGE
Because Justificationism is false – a misapplication of mathematical proof, moral observation, and legal observation – and only survival from criticism can produce a truth candidate, the knowledge cannot consist of justified belief, but of survival from the incremental markets for criticism: hypothesis, theory(falsification), and law (market application).
TRUTH, TRUTHFUL, HONEST
1 – because our demand for Truth varies greatly. (1-8 above), and;
2 – because our efforts at due diligence in different dimensions (1-7 above) varies greatly;
3 – because our efforts at due diligence in the markets (hypothesis, theory, and law, above), varies greatly (1-3 above), and;
The best we can do is speak truthfully. To speak truthfully we must:
1) Test our speech against the degree of Demand for Truth.
2) Test our speech against the applicable dimensions for that form of truth.
3) Test our speech against the scope of markets sufficient for the Demand for Truth.
(Everyone tries to escape due diligence, and warranty of their speech)
WORKING WITH SCIENCE, NOT PLATONISM
You are making the error of set comparisons that is so common in rationalist ‘pseudoscience’, by which you use framing to create false dichotomies.
DEFINITIONS
—“Thus, if you try to define the concept of “truth” by appeal to the concept of “knowledge”,”—
I don’t. I define the concept of TRUTH by the spectrum of survival from due diligence.
I define KNOWLEDGE as anything from awareness to perfectly informed.
INFORMATION CONTENT UNDER CONSIDERATION
We work, I work, not with ideal types, but with series (a spectrum).
We work, I work, not with sets but with supply demand curves.
We work, I work, not with set operations, but with algorithmic (existential) operations.
We work, I work, with the information content of reality, not a subset of reality.
Ergo We work, I work, with actions(reality) not just language(ideals).
In other words, I work with science, not platonism.
SPECTRUM OF KNOWLEDGE
1) True (decidable) in the given context of a given question. (truth candidate)(law)
2) Truthful (actionable) in the given context of a given question. (truth candidate)(theory)
3) Undecidable (inactionable) in the given context of a given question. (non-truth)(hypothesis)
4) Suspect (undecidable) in the given context of a given question.(non-truth)(theory)
5) False (decidable) in the given context of the given question.(non-truth)(law)
WHAT DOES THIS RESULT IN?
Truth by Triangulation
One can only estimate by triangulation.
Truth is a process of incremental improvement of estimations.
And in fact. If you were to study all facets of man (I have) this is how truth is determined in all disciplines wherein men act upon their statements (‘Skin in the Game’), and those disciplines that are ‘just talk’ do not.
Hence the similarity in nonsense between rationalism and religious law (Hermenutics) that it evolved from.
Hence the similarity in not-nonsense between sciences, and the common empirical law that they evolved from.
CLOSING
If you understand the past two long posts I have made you will understand the entire history of philosophy in those few words.
The Iranian laws evolved to prevent retaliation cycles.
Abrahamic religion was invented to lie.
Greek philosophy to reform greek law – more reason.
Stoic philosophy evolved out off greek law to speak the truth.
Roman law evolved out of stoic philosophy.
Western law evolved out of roman law and germanic pagan law.
English law evolved more out of anglo saxon pagan law.
Empiricism evolved out of germanic and anglo saxon law.
Nothing else to be understood.
In other words, if you’re practicing ‘cherry-picking’ using set operations on language, you’re engaging in pseudoscience.
No dimension of reason’s subsets of reality is capable of proving itself without appeal to the next dimension of reality.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 20:23:00 UTC
THE UNIVERSE OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION IN SIMPLE TERMS
—“All of logic and reason is inherently unfalsifiable. You can take any purely physical theory and I can tell you how just changing one of the primary assumptions of it would give exactly the same results but say something totally different about how reality works.” – What do you say to this statement?”— A Friend
Reasonable arguments are falsifiable, that’s what logic assists us in achieving.
Logical argument is falsifiable, that’s what empirical arguments are for. That’s what Kripke, Frege, and Godel help us understand.
Reasoned, Logical and empirical arguments are falsifiable, that’s what operational arguments are for.
Reasoned, logical, empirical,and operational arguments are falsifiable, that’s what full accounting is for.
Reasoned, logical, empirical, operational, and fully accounted arguments are falsifiable. That’s what reciprocity is for.
It is extremely difficult to make a false statement that is reasoned, logical, empirical, operationally, fully accounted, and reciprocal, since to do so requires we reduce all such statements to a series of subjectively decidable statements.
The fact that we do NOT state these things by our evolutionary nature, is simply a matter of brevity, life’s tolerance for error, and the division of perception, cognition, and knowledge in combination with communication that allows us each to operate with fragmentary and largely false information and still survive.
The fact that we can understand all this and therefore speak truthfully, means that we can reduce the ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit both individually and interpersonally, and therefore increase our successes primarily by decreasing our failures.
The fact that we rely on our falsehoods, is a matter of the cost of retraining ourselves. And this is the principle problem we face. We all want everyone else to pay the cost of retraining, but not us.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 16:02:00 UTC
APPARENTLY I NEED TO DO A QUICK OVERVIEW OF POSSIBLE PLOTS IN FICTION WRITING – AND THE NARRATIVE AS PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE.
So, I guess I just took it for granted that you can’t get out of university without knowing that there is only one type of story (Transcendence) and only so many plots (>6,<30), only so many character types (>6,<12), so many archetypes/heroes (~12), so many virtues (>4, <20), so many emotions (~8), so many senses (5 or 6), so many gender strategies (female, young male, mature male), and only one on purpose (acquisition).
I thought it was fairly common knowledge that the Thesaurus is organized by sense perception (grammar) and that human language consists of a very small set of analogies to experience and is very simple – it’s just possible to load and frame with increasing ‘color’.,
I suppose it’s obvious that the use of increasingly loaded language causes more associations between more senses and more memories and invokes greater free association (ideas) that we call thinking, imagination, or waking dream, or dream state depending upon the amount of focus we exercise over it.
This is pretty well worn territory.
On the other hand…
I didn’t assume it was obvious that what we could acquire – Property In Toto – was understood by anyone.
I didn’t assume it was obvious that this set of variables constitutes (literally) a complete programming language for the human mind.
I myself didn’t understand then, that all language consists of the communication of ‘measurements’ which do not differ substantially between humans other than perhaps in intelligence and experience. And consequently that ‘man’s abilities constitute a consistent set of weights and measures, and that all language consists of the trading of measurements that are testable by our senses.
I didn’t assume people understood that there is only one method of communication: suggestion using partial information (measurements). And that the method of suggestion can be used to convey honesty or deception. Or that the only way to convert honesty to truth is through subsequent establishment of limits by examples of falsification.
I didn’t assume people understood that the difference between ‘good’ myth and literature, and ‘evil’ myth and literature was the use of suggestion in combination with idealism or supernaturalism, or omniscience, or omnipotence to claim knowledge of causality they did not possess (idealism), and claims to authority they did not possess (supernaturalism, omniscience, and omnipotence.)
I have come to understand that there are sources of knowledge and sources of ignorance, and some ‘theories’ or ‘ideas’ actually create ignorance, and very few theories or ideas convey knowledge.
I have come to understand that the training of a people for higher and higher trust and greater and greater agency is only so good as the elimination of people of low trust and low agency from the population.
Like a lighter and lighter wheel, spinning faster and faster, trust creates increasing and increasing fragility without equal increases in intolerance for error (evil).
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 11:33:00 UTC
The difference between Chinese and European myths, both of which are deflationary, is the same as with our languages: Sinic High-Context Low-Precision, and European Low-Context High-Precision.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 09:22:00 UTC
OPERATIONAL PROPERTARIAN TESTIMONIAL GRAMMAR
There is a basic logic of all communication that is reducible to a set of ‘measurements’ that allows us to construct a language (terms) and grammar that make it very difficult to state falsehoods. (this is primarily what Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism provide)
And given that we understand this grammar, we can also show how suggestion can be created by a series of related statements through unstated but intermediary consequences (suggestive deductions).
It is very hard to construct lies via that intermediary means of suggestion. I suspect people will try to invent some method, but I think it’s going to be as easy to defeat as religious arguments are today.
There is a limit to human cognitive ability which is why game theory is of such limited value beyond the second or third order. Just as there is a limit to the number of chess moves a human seems to be able to rationally consider in advance of play.
So to translate that, it means it is extremely difficult to construct a lie that ordinary people can be fooled by if we make it difficult to do so beyond the third order.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 01:39:00 UTC
A WHOLE LOT OF WHAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT PHILOSOPHY IN ONE SERIES OF DEFINITIONS
Definitions:
Reasoning: the method comparing categories, relations, and values within the limits of our perception and cognition.
Identity: the production of categories, relations and values that eliminate conflation producing the possibility of comparison and choice.
Mathematics: the use of one to one correspondence between a unit of measure and a category as a measure of constant relations at scale independence, otherwise beyond the limits of perception and cognition. (units)
Logic: the use of categories, relations and values to test the internal consistency of verbal propositions. (sets)
Operationalism: (Recipes/Algorithms/Functions): The use of physically possible operations in order to produce names of categories, relations, and values that are externally correspondent, existentially possible, and sequentially possible. (existence)
Rational Choice: given a sequence of existentially possible operations, wherein each change in state caused by each operation provides an opportunity for choice, it is in the rational interest of the actor to make such a choice.
Morality (reciprocity): the test of reciprocity. given an opportunity to make a choice, one chooses that which does not violate the demand for reciprocity that preserves the incentive to cooperate and avoids providing an incentive to retaliate.
Full Accounting (scope): the test of full accounting and limits such that cherry picking and suggestion (full accounting), and overloading and fictionalism (limits) cannot be used for the purpose of deception.
Science: the production of instrumentation by which we can measure categories, relations and values beyond the limits of our perception and cognition, thereby reducing that which is beyond perception to that which is within perception, and comparable via reason.
Philosophy: an internally consistent set of categories, relations and values for the purpose of decidability within a domain, incorporating science, mathematics, logic, operations, rational choice, reciprocity, and full accounting.
Truth: an internally consistent set of categories, relations, and values, for the purpose of decidability independent of domain, incorporating science, mathematics, logic, operations, rational choice, reciprocity, and full accounting.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 13:57:00 UTC