–“The basis of construction work in France revolves around the premise that skilled individuals undertake work that they insure for a period of 10 years. “–
What the French do right? Consumer protection.
But at very, high, cost.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-17 01:33:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460783155271680000
Sex differences, sentience, cooperation, and consciousness (across the spectrum), language, recordings (writing etc), instruments(tools) and institutions (organization) provide for even greater evolutionary computation – to varying degrees. Some institutions are regressive.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-15 17:36:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460300683643604997
Reply addressees: @WalterIII
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460291330177863688
( … more … )
Law, constitution, legislation, regulation, policy, and procedure are the operating system for government, and money is the resource it uses as influence.
Do you need to understand the science behind the law that makes all that operation of a complex political organization possible? No you don’t. But I and those like me do. We are the judges that will administer that law. WE have to understand it.
What do you need to understand? You need to understand that this law is a science and that the judges defend against internal political enemies the way ‘every man a sheriff does against internal physical and social enemies, and as the military defends against external enemies.
To do that you need to understand the paragraph that describes the European group strategy, the law of reciprocity and testimony, the list of demonstrated interests we call capital, the list of crimes that can be committed, and the rights, obligations, and inalienations under the law that demand we suppress those crimes in ourselves and others.
Can you do that? Yes you can. It’s possible to write a set of posters you can stick on your wall. It will largely mirror your moral intuitions., Just like magical thinking, selfishness, lying, cheating, and stealing will largely mirror leftist intuitions.
The problem I have is (a) getting you idiots to pay attention long enough to understand that (b) show up to make it happen (c) stay in the field long enough to bring it into fruition (d) not go all fundamentalist, or nazi and screw it up by making the people more afraid of your having any semblance of influence, than they are of a constitutional reformation.
So I’ve done my job. It took seventy of the greatest men of the enlightenment to do it the last time. I’m stuck here doing it almost alone with a few others helping me. And you clowns are a train wreck of fail.
So grow up, man up, and learn how to win. But don’t chastise me because I can’t make grownup thinking into a chocolate milkshake of sophistry and ideology for nitwits.
Nitwits just need to show up and shut up, and if necessary ‘supply’ yourselves by the traditional method militia armies always do.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-15 17:32:23 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282271022124228
Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282267854606654
IN REPLY TO:
@curtd
– “The complaint isn’t that your posts are word salad. The complaint is that you never make a point. A guy like you needs to follow a template, like 1. Briefly state conclusion 2. State context/motivation/problem. 3. Reason. 4. Re-state conclusion.” – Yes it is. Every day. That said… I make the point, I make the point over many posts, not just one. Because people don’t read long posts. (that’s the evidence.) if you can’t follow across the posts then that’s a filter. And you aren’t the audience. There is only one way to save our civilization it’s by showing up in mass. Showing up in mass requires a set of actionable asks that are hard to resist or morally reject by all. The young men (like yourself) are alienated from the upper classes with the skill to do that – you don’t have it. You are also biased to self overconfidence. That overconfidence manifests in simple-stupid-solutions that are impossible, and in leadership that fragments into personality cults – precisely because you lack the competency to do anything else. And this allows the left to pick you off one at a time, and prevent any and all leadership from emerging. And so the left is eating your lunch and drinking your milkshake. As such we are limited in the number of ways we can organize ‘the dumb fucks, the slow kids’ into a political movement. Since we can’t organize these numbskulls into a political movement, we have only the hope of mobilizing them into a rebellion-movement, where we all show up and issue a set of possible demands ‘or else’. Even then, the chances that shit-for-brains, impulsive, ignorant, macho, virtue-signallers will screw it up is almost a certainty. So we have to make everyone dependent upon everyone else, by taking the same risk and ostracizing those from the future who don’t show and take the risk. I’ve produced (a) the moral license (b) the set of demands (c) an actionable and implementable solution that will fix the problem (d) a strategy for a rapid victory, (e) and a devastatingly believable threat of consequences if negotiations on a settlement fail.(this constitution is a settlement that serves everyone left, center, and right) by restoring the constitution to its original designs as a federation of independent states. And this particular strategy is directly licensed by the declaration and constitution. Every other plan is a slow burn to failure. I’ve seen nothing that can survive other than retreat to a region, or retreat into a separate economy, or retreat into religion – meaning we only delay the inevitable. The state will defend itself by happily burning the enemy (finance, academy, education, media, entertainment). The state cannot resist a moral claim without losing very rapidly its geostrategic position. So this plan uses the state’s self-interest against itself. (…more in comments)
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282267854606654
(… more … )
And to train it we must KNOW it. We cannot train what we don’t know. And we didn’t (until now with P-Law) understand the ‘science’ of our group strategy, institutions, traditions, norms, rituals. And now that we know that science we can TRAIN the ‘otherwise unfit’ into it.
And we can do so because there is no religious, philosophical, moral, or scientific argument against P-Law, because P-Law is just the explanation of the universal law of all the sciences: of all existence.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-15 16:31:36 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282032002644133
Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282022650660535
IN REPLY TO:
@curtd
THINKING:”How do I teach others how to think about all existence, life, thought, feeling, and behavior operationally – by construction from first principles – by disambiguation into first principles?” Well, you list the first principles and gradually learn(habituate) the process. I don’t think there is any magic to it. It’s like anything else. People may want a single insight like they get with ideology or philosophy or theology. But P-Law is in the same categorical hierarchy as math, programming, (P-Law,) formal (Verbal) logic. You have to PRACTICE it. It’s the same with my work. Newbs find something I write or say and then jump to some conclusion that’s false. Or they complain that it’s incoherent or complex or word salad. The answer is you learn math, programming, P-law, and formal logic by STUDY not by immediate insight. That said, given the four sciences: Formal(Logics), Physical, Behavioral, and Evolutionary, why would we expect that truth and law, the logic of cooperation and morality, economics and politics, groups and group evolutionary strategy to require less study than the other sciences? Now the fact that P-Law requires work, doesn’t mean that you have to understand the science to use the products of it any more than you have to understand quantum mechanics to use the transistors in your cell phone. You have to understand the OUTPUTS of P-Law Science. The output of P-Law is expressible as the group evolutionary strategy of the european people when written in p-law. Why? Because the reason europeans invented reason, math, science, technology, and medicine so disproportionately vs all other civs, is that strategy=law=science. That translates to individual responsibility, rather than clan, religion, or state responsibility. Responsibility provides mindfulness, and mindfulness tolerance for the tragedy of nature’s laws, and the only means of overcoming that tragedy as mastery of and application of those laws for our benefit, by not seeking to avoid, but to conquer those laws. So of course, Europeans would not only invent mathematical realism, reason, law proper, philosophy, science and epicureanism, but government, technology, and medicine. The only problem? Many can’t bear that responsibility, lacking ability, agency, and training. So we could as the ancients tried, pay the high cost of training mindfulness or we can pay the cost of NOT training mindfulness – which is what allowed our invasive JChristianity and the destruction of the ancient World, like we allowed Judaism-marxism-pomo-pc-woke in the modern. And so, my overall point here is that we cannot have an advanced (aristocratic, responsible, evolutionarily adaptive) civilization without paying the cost of training those who are not naturally fit for it, or in families naturally fit and able to train it. (…more in comments…)
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282022650660535
( … more … )
And to train it we must KNOW it. We cannot train what we don’t know. And we didn’t (until now with P-Law) understand the ‘science’ of our group strategy, institutions, traditions, norms, rituals. And now that we know that science we can TRAIN the ‘otherwise unfit’ into it.
And we can do so because there is no religious, philosophical, moral, or scientific argument against P-Law, because P-Law is just the explanation of the universal law of all the sciences: of all existence.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-15 16:29:25 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282023437449991
Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282000785842669
IN REPLY TO:
@curtd
WHY I KEEP USING THE TERM “P-LAW” P-complete – Wikipedia “In computational complexity theory, a decision problem is P-complete (complete for the complexity class P) if it is in P and every problem in P can be reduced to it by an appropriate reduction.” Ergo: **All existence can be explained by reduction to the first principles of evolutionary computation. In other words, anything that can exist can be reduced to a formal description in P-Law.** I abandoned the term ‘propertarianism’ since it applied only to the original system of measurement in morality. I kept the “P-” for P-Completeness. And because ‘-ism’ implies a p philosophy, and P-Law is a formal logic: a science that unifies the logics and sciences. Ergo P-Law is P-Complete.
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282000785842669
And to train it we must KNOW it. We cannot train what we don’t know. And we didn’t (until now with P-Law) understand the ‘science’ of our group strategy, institutions, traditions, norms, rituals. And now that we know that science we can TRAIN the ‘otherwise unfit’ into it.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-15 16:09:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460278878069477377
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460278283413729280
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
And so, my overall point here is that we cannot have an advanced (aristocratic, responsible, evolutionarily adaptive) civilization without paying the cost of training those who are not naturally fit for it, or in families naturally fit and able to train it.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1460278283413729280
No the protestant reformation was an attempt to escape the pervasive, endemic, inescapable corruption and decadence of the church after a half dozen attempts at reform, including the monastic movements. What resulted was an accident. England did best, vs German fundamentalism.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-13 15:08:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459538781015531525
Reply addressees: @AdamNoEve666
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459535877491802115
Christianity is the optimum religion for the poor, because it is action oriented, and produces a polity capable of maximum rotation into the middle class, with the least tolerance for low trust, scamming, and aggression https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1459241425728679943
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-12 22:35:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459288867706753035
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1459241425728679943
Everything they are trying to do is trivial, other than the attempt to use distributed verification to evade responsibility, liability, and insurability. A responsible, liable, and insurable system is trivial other than the utility of adding the cryptographic key to the ledger.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-12 19:25:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459240864862150669
Reply addressees: @Lord__Sousa
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459238822470950912
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@Lord__Sousa Yes, we have the UI, we are just now trying to determine which backend tech is ready (none) or whether a federated (single insurer, distributed) system is all that’s possible. Hard to tell. Neither Eth2 nor Cardana appear viable. Still investigating Holochain. Very hard to do.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1459238822470950912
Yes, we have the UI, we are just now trying to determine which backend tech is ready (none) or whether a federated (single insurer, distributed) system is all that’s possible. Hard to tell. Neither Eth2 nor Cardana appear viable. Still investigating Holochain. Very hard to do.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-12 19:17:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459238822470950912
Reply addressees: @Lord__Sousa
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459238073296998400