(important) [T]he signature property (the ‘tell’) of continental argument is conflation, in which the purpose of argument is an attempt to construct authority. (German and French) Signature property (the ‘tell’) of cosmopolitan thought is ‘the prestige’ (distraction), in which the purpose of an argument is to distract from the central, more obvious one by means of cunning. (Jewish). The signature property (the ‘tell’) of anglo enlightenment thought is the assumption of universalism. These three ‘tells’ are all means of deception and error in order to justify the metaphysical assumption about what is ‘good’.
Theme: Grammar
-
Constructive Logic: A Sequence Of Human Actions : The Only Moral Logic
[T]his is where I’ve ended up thanks to Constructive Mathematics (Intuitionism, Intuitional Mathematics, Neointuitionism). Logic: I apply the same requirement of operational language (strict construction) to logic – the logic of language. Of all the logics, the logic of language is the most misleading. I have the most work to do here. Much to the disappointment of practitioners of formal logic. Most of the mistakes I have come across (particularly in critical rationalism) are caused by erroneous elimination of action from that which depends upon action. Math: In mathematics – the logic of names, numbers and relations. This work has been done by the generations before me. They just have not had the moral criticism I have given them as an argumentative weapon before in their attack on ‘magical’ mathematics. Physics: It’s already present in the canons of science, and is already universally applied in physics – the logic of causality. There is very little work to be done here other than to cast some branches of physics as non-logical as currently stated. Cooperation: I apply the same argument to the logic of cooperation (ethics). Ethics was the easiest problem to solve by the requirement for operational language (strict constructionism).
Knowledge of use is not equal to knowledge of construction. MOTIVATIONS: ELIMINATION OF LOADING, FRAMING, DECEPTION, OBSCURANTISM, AND PSEUDOSCIENCE FROM POLITICAL DISCOURSE. [L]aw is but another logic. Politics is discourse on law. There is no logical specialization to citizenship save the logic of cooperation and even that specialization will forever be above the masses. If we are to eliminate deception from political discourse, we must eliminate it in all the logics. I was not correct that immorality in language originated with mathematics. Only that mathematical legitimacy was used as a means for expanding pseudoscience. Just because something is convenient, if it is immoral, it remains immoral. Obscurantism, platonism, and use without comprehension of construction, are all forms of deception that insert magic and religion into the world. Most of these conveniences are easy means of compensating for the problem of reducing any ‘computation’ into the two or three second window of human cognitive ability. However, as long as we can construct from operations, any entity, we can forever use the name of that construction as a function – giving us a shorthand for it that fits within our cognitive window. I am sorry for labeling conveniences and contrivances as immoral, despite the cherished mythos that philosophers, logicians and mathematicians have warmed themselves in against the cold of realism. But no one else has yet attacked platonism as immoral. And I’ve done it I think pretty conclusively. If you can purvey platonism, then others can equally claim to purvey mysticism, obscurantism, pseudoscience, loading and framing. Because if utility is the only tests, then religion is clearly superior to rational politics, and pseudoscience an effective means of governing (keynesianism), and the mind finds greater comfort in loading, framing, conflation and justifying, than it does in grasping objective reality. Sorry, but if you can’t construct it, you don’t understand it. And the reason you don’t understand it is probably a cover for a lie. Certainly that’s what’s happened in math and logic. Most of philosophy, continental in particular is deception. Justification. Lie. The only moral statements are those under strict construction.
-
Constructive Logic: A Sequence Of Human Actions : The Only Moral Logic
[T]his is where I’ve ended up thanks to Constructive Mathematics (Intuitionism, Intuitional Mathematics, Neointuitionism). Logic: I apply the same requirement of operational language (strict construction) to logic – the logic of language. Of all the logics, the logic of language is the most misleading. I have the most work to do here. Much to the disappointment of practitioners of formal logic. Most of the mistakes I have come across (particularly in critical rationalism) are caused by erroneous elimination of action from that which depends upon action. Math: In mathematics – the logic of names, numbers and relations. This work has been done by the generations before me. They just have not had the moral criticism I have given them as an argumentative weapon before in their attack on ‘magical’ mathematics. Physics: It’s already present in the canons of science, and is already universally applied in physics – the logic of causality. There is very little work to be done here other than to cast some branches of physics as non-logical as currently stated. Cooperation: I apply the same argument to the logic of cooperation (ethics). Ethics was the easiest problem to solve by the requirement for operational language (strict constructionism).
Knowledge of use is not equal to knowledge of construction. MOTIVATIONS: ELIMINATION OF LOADING, FRAMING, DECEPTION, OBSCURANTISM, AND PSEUDOSCIENCE FROM POLITICAL DISCOURSE. [L]aw is but another logic. Politics is discourse on law. There is no logical specialization to citizenship save the logic of cooperation and even that specialization will forever be above the masses. If we are to eliminate deception from political discourse, we must eliminate it in all the logics. I was not correct that immorality in language originated with mathematics. Only that mathematical legitimacy was used as a means for expanding pseudoscience. Just because something is convenient, if it is immoral, it remains immoral. Obscurantism, platonism, and use without comprehension of construction, are all forms of deception that insert magic and religion into the world. Most of these conveniences are easy means of compensating for the problem of reducing any ‘computation’ into the two or three second window of human cognitive ability. However, as long as we can construct from operations, any entity, we can forever use the name of that construction as a function – giving us a shorthand for it that fits within our cognitive window. I am sorry for labeling conveniences and contrivances as immoral, despite the cherished mythos that philosophers, logicians and mathematicians have warmed themselves in against the cold of realism. But no one else has yet attacked platonism as immoral. And I’ve done it I think pretty conclusively. If you can purvey platonism, then others can equally claim to purvey mysticism, obscurantism, pseudoscience, loading and framing. Because if utility is the only tests, then religion is clearly superior to rational politics, and pseudoscience an effective means of governing (keynesianism), and the mind finds greater comfort in loading, framing, conflation and justifying, than it does in grasping objective reality. Sorry, but if you can’t construct it, you don’t understand it. And the reason you don’t understand it is probably a cover for a lie. Certainly that’s what’s happened in math and logic. Most of philosophy, continental in particular is deception. Justification. Lie. The only moral statements are those under strict construction.
-
PISSING ON THE TERMINOLOGICAL FIRE-HYDRANT If Lou wants to claim ‘libertarian’ a
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/lew-rockwell/what-libertarianism-is-and-isnt/LOU’S PISSING ON THE TERMINOLOGICAL FIRE-HYDRANT
If Lou wants to claim ‘libertarian’ as the name for a political movement that advocates lying, deception, and general scumbaggery, then why should we morally allow the term liberty and libertarian to be associated with lying, deception, and immoral scumbaggery?
Sorry. The origin of liberty is aristocracy, not parasitic low trust, lying, cheating, dishonest scumbaggery.
Liberty isn’t your fire-hydrant Lou. You had your chance. you picked an immoral ethical code and failed. You picked a pseudoscience and failed.
It’s time for the next generation to try to do better.
Sorry man, but Rothbardianism is a dead cat bounce.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-01 11:16:00 UTC
-
THE ‘TELLS’ OF CONTINENTAL, COSMOPOLITAN AND ENLIGHTENMENT ARGUMENTS (important)
THE ‘TELLS’ OF CONTINENTAL, COSMOPOLITAN AND ENLIGHTENMENT ARGUMENTS
(important)
The signature property (the ‘tell’) of continental argument is conflation, in which the purpose of argument is an attempt to construct authority. (German and French)
Signature property (the ‘tell’) of cosmopolitan thought is ‘the prestige’ (distraction), in which the purpose of an argument is to distract from the central, more obvious one by means of cunning. (Jewish).
The signature property (the ‘tell’) of anglo enlightenment thought is the assumption of universalism.
These three ‘tells’ are all means of deception and error in order to justify the metaphysical assumption about what is ‘good’.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-30 13:20:00 UTC
-
GEEK ERA *STUDY* OF A WORK – HUNTING FOR NECESSARY ARGUMENTS. Reading is differe
GEEK ERA *STUDY* OF A WORK – HUNTING FOR NECESSARY ARGUMENTS.
Reading is different from studying. Studying means to me, not understanding the author’s arguments so much as understanding what his various arguments could imply.
0) I read the TOC and random paragraphs in the interesting chapters.
1) If it’s worth reading in depth, I read it once – really, just to understand the author’s theory.
2) I convert it to text – usually from pdf to text file. A couple chapters at a time. I can almost always find it on line. If I can’t then I literally scan it a chapter at a time by hand.
3) I edit the text file so that it’s suitable for spoken works.
4) I convert it to computer generated speech.
5) I listen to it, usually three or four times. Sometimes more.
I ‘study’ the work until I can’t find a single idea in there left to benefit from.
The truth is, that most authors’ theories can be deduced from the TOC and the book jacket. Just as most books are really better stated as a ‘paper’ than a book. They’re simple.
A lot of work is predicated upon theories that are nonsensical. And I simply can’t put up with reading them. Others are biased (Fukuyama’s) but I can see through the bias. Some are simply wrong, or failed attempts as pseudoscience (Mises praxeology and Rothbard’s ethics), some are obscurantist pseudo-scientific masks for ignorance (Freud), some obscurantist and fraudulent (Heidegger), some mystical (religion), and as such, I consider most of them ‘evil’ and I just ignore them.
History tends to be a little less victim of stupidity than philosophy. And as Durant said, the answers to questions of man are in history, not in philosophy. There are no answers there.
Very few works are substantial enough (like Hayek’s) to actually STUDY. Some works are just so large (histories) that I find I have to listen to them a few times before I’ve exhausted the possibilities that the author has made possible.
I guess one of the things that helps us study others is that, we write to understand and communicate to others our understanding. Books are experiments. I know some people seem to have much higher reading comprehension to me, because they’re trying to understand the author’s point of view. And I sort of don’t work that way. Instead, I simply am looking for theories. For arguments. Not justifications. But NECESSARY arguments.
NECESSARY is very different from JUSTIFICATIONARY.
And if you HUNT for NECESSARY arguments you will find very few of them. And when you do, it’s like finding buried treasure.
There are very few necessary arguments.
And fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange is one of them.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-01 12:47:00 UTC
-
Yes We Need A New Mathematical Revolution On The Scale Of Calculus : The Unit Of Commensurability In That Mathematics, Is Property, And Its Grammar Is Morality
The mathematical order of big data? Property. 1) Humans (life) is acquisitive. 2) Humans seek to acquire a limited number of categories of things. from experiences (feelings), to information, affection, mates, associates, and all manner of material things. 3) Human seek to avoid losses – more so than to acquire. especially life, children, kin, and mates, but also anything else that they have acted to acquire. 4) Humans must cooperate, and seek to cooperate, in the pursuit of their acquisitions. 5) The problem of cooperation for humans(all life) outside of kin, is the prevention of, and suppression of, free riding (involuntary transfer) 6) Humans develop layers of complex rules (myths, traditions, habits, manners, ethics, morals, and common laws) to assist in cooperating in whatever structure of production they exist under. 6) All human language can be expressed in a grammar. Even the most complex and abstract ideas can be expressed in the grammar of acquisition and cooperation we commonly call ‘property’: “That in which we have acted to acquire, and the moral (legal) constraints under which we have done it. (I kind of wonder if this allows us to get past the comprehension limits of juries. At present, the trick is to have enough money, to afford to overwhelm the cognitive processing ability of the jury. It may be possible to analyze for example, a large trial, and produce a mathematical reduction of it, into terms that the jury can comprehend. The trial is still required, but we can reduce its complexity to an analogy to experience.) http://shar.es/QBhQ0
-
Yes We Need A New Mathematical Revolution On The Scale Of Calculus : The Unit Of Commensurability In That Mathematics, Is Property, And Its Grammar Is Morality
The mathematical order of big data? Property. 1) Humans (life) is acquisitive. 2) Humans seek to acquire a limited number of categories of things. from experiences (feelings), to information, affection, mates, associates, and all manner of material things. 3) Human seek to avoid losses – more so than to acquire. especially life, children, kin, and mates, but also anything else that they have acted to acquire. 4) Humans must cooperate, and seek to cooperate, in the pursuit of their acquisitions. 5) The problem of cooperation for humans(all life) outside of kin, is the prevention of, and suppression of, free riding (involuntary transfer) 6) Humans develop layers of complex rules (myths, traditions, habits, manners, ethics, morals, and common laws) to assist in cooperating in whatever structure of production they exist under. 6) All human language can be expressed in a grammar. Even the most complex and abstract ideas can be expressed in the grammar of acquisition and cooperation we commonly call ‘property’: “That in which we have acted to acquire, and the moral (legal) constraints under which we have done it. (I kind of wonder if this allows us to get past the comprehension limits of juries. At present, the trick is to have enough money, to afford to overwhelm the cognitive processing ability of the jury. It may be possible to analyze for example, a large trial, and produce a mathematical reduction of it, into terms that the jury can comprehend. The trial is still required, but we can reduce its complexity to an analogy to experience.) http://shar.es/QBhQ0
-
WE NEED A NEW MATHEMATICAL REVOLUTION ON THE SCALE OF CALCULUS : THE UNIT OF COM
http://shar.es/QBhQ0YES WE NEED A NEW MATHEMATICAL REVOLUTION ON THE SCALE OF CALCULUS : THE UNIT OF COMMENSURABILITY IN THAT MATHEMATICS, IS PROPERTY, AND ITS GRAMMAR IS MORAL
The mathematical order of big data? Property.
1) Humans (life) is acquisitive.
2) Humans seek to acquire a limited number of categories of things. from experiences (feelings), to information, affection, mates, associates, and all manner of material things.
3) Human seek to avoid losses – more so than to acquire. especially life, children, kin, and mates, but also anything else that they have acted to acquire.
4) Humans must cooperate, and seek to cooperate, in the pursuit of their acquisitions.
5) The problem of cooperation for humans(all life) outside of kin, is the prevention of, and suppression of, free riding (involuntary transfer)
6) Humans develop layers of complex rules (myths, traditions, habits, manners, ethics, morals, and common laws) to assist in cooperating in whatever structure of production they exist under.
6) All human language can be expressed in a grammar. Even the most complex and abstract ideas can be expressed in the grammar of acquisition and cooperation we commonly call ‘property’: “That in which we have acted to acquire, and the moral (legal) constraints under which we have done it.
(I kind of wonder if this allows us to get past the comprehension limits of juries. At present, the trick is to have enough money, to afford to overwhelm the cognitive processing ability of the jury. It may be possible to analyze for example, a large trial, and produce a mathematical reduction of it, into terms that the jury can comprehend. The trial is still required, but we can reduce its complexity to an analogy to experience.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-14 03:48:00 UTC
-
VOICES IN IN YOUR FINGERTIPS To write strategically, you have to find a voice. I
VOICES IN IN YOUR FINGERTIPS
To write strategically, you have to find a voice.
I tried the conciliatory voice (which in politics is foolhardy). The romantic voice. (Which I adore but is very hard to do in analytic language, and sometimes ruins the argument.) The antagonistic voice (which I’m good at but depresses me). The contrarian voice (which I still use now and then because it captures attention.) The ridicule voice (which doesn’t really suit me because ridicule requires lateral thinking that is really unavailable to me as an aspie – and I see ridicule, correctly, as dishonest). And finally settled on the scientific voice with a mix of tactically romantic, heroic and critical positioning.
I’ve been writing long form since I was six years old. I still don’t think I’m a very good writer. Mixing the communicative, the romantic and the analytic is terribly hard, and I haven’t figured out how to do it. Hayek does it best of any modern thinker.
So the trick is that I couldn’t have figured this all out in advance. The point of writing is to write. You can get better at it. But it takes more writing that’s just one word better than the last, than it does trying to write to an abstract model.
One last thing that I can’t emphasize enough. Americans tend to believe in the nonsense of talent. Yes, smarter people are better at most everything, and less so people less good at nearly everything. But extraordinary practice narrows that gap significantly even if cannot narrow it completely. You may possess talent but anything worthwhile to others is obtained by marginally different skill and marginally different skill is obtained through practice and lots of it.
To develop that level of skill, you must love what you do. I would rather write than do almost anything else except maybe drive roadsters on backroads in summer, sing Nirvana or something similar, make an aesthetically interesting dinner for ten, and enjoy good sex. And I”m not sure about the last three. 🙂 But writing used to give me headaches, and I used to struggle so hard with it. Until I understood that the typewriter was my enemy – I was afraid of mistakes. And my handwriting is all but unreadable even to me. Computers changed that for me.
The point being that you have to find the tools that help you master your craft. I”m still amazed at the people who write books by hand -there are plenty of them really. But the old saw that an artist is only as good as his tools, applies to every single discipline.
And the illusion that you’re looking for ways to express your talent is a dangerous idea.
Instead:
1) Work on something that is both rare and fascinates you. Pop nonsense just means you’re too ignorant to find something uncommon but still interesting.
2) Master the subject matter through repetition and investigation and collection of every possible example and detail. Keep a database. I keep an enormous glossary of terms that I try to restate in propertarian language.
3) Play by reorganizing those details into multiple types of organization. This is where you’ll come up with something creative.
4) Find tools that help you overcome your weaknesses, not ‘express your talents’.
5) Then go through and just try test yourself. Now if you’re a nuclear physicist then it’s expensive to run tests. The reason I like philosophy is that my only cost is food, water, and an internet connection. It’s cheap to run tests consisting of arguments.
What I’ve found is that I am not so much a good writer: because good writing requires a lot of empathy for the reader. But I am good at figuring stuff out.
And in politics, the problem we face is figuring stuff out so that we can win arguments and defeat the opposition.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-12 03:34:00 UTC