Cultural Variants of Truth and the Consequences
July 11, 2014 (repost)
Truth and Adherence to Rules are two different things. (submission)
Truth and Fidelity to Contract are two different things.
Truth and Duty are two different things.
Truth and Knowledge are two different things.
Truth as Adherence – Familialism (most of the world)
Truth as Fidelity – Tribalism (judaism)
Truth as Duty – Nationalism (germans)
Truth as Science – Universalism. (english)
[T]hat members of a community follow rules and conventions with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another.
That members of a community fulfill promises or contracts with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another.
Another community may both fulfill it’s promises, its contracts, and the commitment to tell the truth at all times regardless of cost.
The principle of truth to to an Adherence community consists of order. The principle of ‘truth’ to a contract community consists of fidelity. The principle of truth to a truth-telling community consists of ***SCIENCE***.
If you grasp the profundity of this statement you will understand why some cultures produce science, and some produce trade, and some produce tyranny. Some create science. And some create pseudoscience. And some create only order. Some create science, innovation, trade and trust. Others create only trade, and others create only utilitarian applications of tools.
Small things in large numbers have vast consequences.
When we use ‘functions” such as the verb to be, or the word ‘truth’ we do not really understand their construction, just that they are shorthand approximations that tend to work. We have just knowledge of use, not knowledge of construction.
But the word ‘true’ means very different things in different places: science, fidelity, and adherence.
And the consequences are astounding.
Truth is a performative declaration. Truth claims then, to different groups, state either epistemology, fidelity, or adherence.
I have solved the problem you know.
It’s ethics.
Theme: Institution
-
White america speaks english, and uses english institutions, but for all intents
White america speaks english, and uses english institutions, but for all intents and purposes, it is culturally german. For the simple reason that most of white america has german origins. England is celtic, german, and scandinavian with french decoration. Germany is the heart of europe. It has no choice. Unlike scandinavia it has enemies at her borders. Scandinavians only have the sea. Hence the rather ridiculous egalitarianism of scandinavians. Scandinavian ‘privilege’ is like women’s privilege: unearned, only consumed.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-28 10:59:00 UTC
-
White america speaks english, and uses english institutions, but for all intents
White america speaks english, and uses english institutions, but for all intents and purposes, it is culturally german. For the simple reason that most of white america has german origins. England is celtic, german, and scandinavian with french decoration. Germany is the heart of europe. It has no choice. Unlike scandinavia it has enemies at her borders. Scandinavians only have the sea. Hence the rather ridiculous egalitarianism of scandinavians. Scandinavian ‘privilege’ is like women’s privilege: unearned, only consumed. -
White america speaks english, and uses english institutions, but for all intents
White america speaks english, and uses english institutions, but for all intents and purposes, it is culturally german. For the simple reason that most of white america has german origins. England is celtic, german, and scandinavian with french decoration. Germany is the heart of europe. It has no choice. Unlike scandinavia it has enemies at her borders. Scandinavians only have the sea. Hence the rather ridiculous egalitarianism of scandinavians. Scandinavian ‘privilege’ is like women’s privilege: unearned, only consumed. -
SOCIAL STRATIFICATION BY DEMONSTRATED MERIT. by Bill Joslin This undergirds my i
SOCIAL STRATIFICATION BY DEMONSTRATED MERIT.
by Bill Joslin
This undergirds my issue with intergenerational transfer of title status, as well status by recognition.
I’ll deal with the later fist. A corporate body which grants status by recognition – for instance induction into peerage provides a means corrupting market information via gatekeeping.
An alternative, which you can find in brehon law, stems from demonstration alone. You demonstrate position.
For instance in brehon law a Freeman was defined by the holder of two lots of a set size. If a Freeman extended his landholding to a particular size he would rise in status to an interim landholder. If these lands were held over two generations the family would be considered official nobility.
What dictates membership to elite status stems from demonstration not recognition. If you demonstrate ability, it can not be denied or ignored.
Intergenerational transfer should be combined with demonstration of ability at the coming of age. The “shrrt sleeves” are not always passed on or received across generations. If offspring do not demonstrate worthiness they lose the social-political standing.
The combination of the above prevents spoiled children of great people from “gaming” the system to protect their status (gatekeeping) and incentivizes those who have risen to ensure their offspring are capable or risk losing their legacy.
I could go into more reasons but this covers the gist of it.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-27 15:17:00 UTC
-
Social Stratification By Demonstrated Merit.
by Bill Joslin This undergirds my issue with intergenerational transfer of title status, as well status by recognition. I’ll deal with the later fist. A corporate body which grants status by recognition – for instance induction into peerage provides a means corrupting market information via gatekeeping. An alternative, which you can find in brehon law, stems from demonstration alone. You demonstrate position. For instance in brehon law a Freeman was defined by the holder of two lots of a set size. If a Freeman extended his landholding to a particular size he would rise in status to an interim landholder. If these lands were held over two generations the family would be considered official nobility. What dictates membership to elite status stems from demonstration not recognition. If you demonstrate ability, it can not be denied or ignored. Intergenerational transfer should be combined with demonstration of ability at the coming of age. The “shrrt sleeves” are not always passed on or received across generations. If offspring do not demonstrate worthiness they lose the social-political standing. The combination of the above prevents spoiled children of great people from “gaming” the system to protect their status (gatekeeping) and incentivizes those who have risen to ensure their offspring are capable or risk losing their legacy. I could go into more reasons but this covers the gist of it. -
Social Stratification By Demonstrated Merit.
by Bill Joslin This undergirds my issue with intergenerational transfer of title status, as well status by recognition. I’ll deal with the later fist. A corporate body which grants status by recognition – for instance induction into peerage provides a means corrupting market information via gatekeeping. An alternative, which you can find in brehon law, stems from demonstration alone. You demonstrate position. For instance in brehon law a Freeman was defined by the holder of two lots of a set size. If a Freeman extended his landholding to a particular size he would rise in status to an interim landholder. If these lands were held over two generations the family would be considered official nobility. What dictates membership to elite status stems from demonstration not recognition. If you demonstrate ability, it can not be denied or ignored. Intergenerational transfer should be combined with demonstration of ability at the coming of age. The “shrrt sleeves” are not always passed on or received across generations. If offspring do not demonstrate worthiness they lose the social-political standing. The combination of the above prevents spoiled children of great people from “gaming” the system to protect their status (gatekeeping) and incentivizes those who have risen to ensure their offspring are capable or risk losing their legacy. I could go into more reasons but this covers the gist of it. -
Yes I am very cautious of non-market (non competitive) solutions. I prefer to es
Yes I am very cautious of non-market (non competitive) solutions. I prefer to establish limits in law that violate reciprocity, and organize people by ability and interest into markets, rather than outright declare a general rule that insulates general rules of decidability from market information. -
Men In Prison And Women In Asylums
There is a reason prisons are dominated by men, and asylums were dominated by women: that distribution reflects how men and women express anti-social behavior. (Institutionalizing female insanity as a norm.) -
There are certain groups of followers who are passionate and provide criticism,
There are certain groups of followers who are passionate and provide criticism, that outlive their usefulness, and evolve into a drag on any intellectual enterprise. The principle test of any such enterprise is the sequential shedding of the sentimental, and replacement with the rational. Appeal to intuition means only that one already agrees with a premise. Appeal to reason and science occur despite agreement with the premises.