MESOPOTAMIA Which class rule evolved first mesopotamia: Warriors or Priests? (we know the answer) Which class emerged in control of rule? Did that class adopt the role of the other (conflate)? Did that ruling class conflate roles of religion and law? Now, the little rhetorical problem here is that I made the original statements about the tendencies of CIVILIZATIONS to make use of different TECHNOLOGIES of organization, and the unintended consequences of those rules. I make this argument in order to expand upon the differnces between western, fertile crescent, hrappan/indian, and chinese civilizations, and how our earliest assumptions about the world, man, the good, and the true, originated in the ancient past and still govern us today – with unintended consequences. And I make this argument so that westerners understand why, as poor people, small in number, lacking concentrate capital of the river valleys, developed FASTER (not first, just faster) than other civilizations in the pre-historic, ancient, and modern eras. Why is that? Well, I think I know, and I think it’s something we CAN know. Here is another example. If we read the inscriptions from the Palace Stele from Ur, the Cuneiform of Cyrus and Darius and his Son Darius (starting with the 27th or Persian Dynasty), with the inscriptions of similar periods of the Egyptians (just prior to persian conquest), with the writings of Homer and shortly after of the ‘Athenians’, or any of the greeks, with the writing of the romans, of the german law and myth, of the english law and myth, then what is the difference in the method of narration, explanation and argument? All civilizations produce some level of occult(experiential), religion, myth, literature, history, law, mathematics, and ‘science'(existential). But we can actually MEASURE that distribution. And we can easily determine the level of conflation or deflation (from occult down to science) that governance relies upon, and we can measure changes in the economies that result from those (a) distributions of use and (b) use in government. So we can MEASURE the consequences of say, how chinese rule changed when the migrated from empirical to moral rule. We can measure the consequences of the use of islam by the aristocracy and it’s use as a method of general rule. (btw: the fellow in the original thread does not know just how much knowledge I have of the ancient middle east, but I’m pretty sure it’s comparatively non trivial. and it would turn into a pissing match if I took that avenue with him. ) THE WAY WE SPEAK, THE METHODS OF NARRATION, EXPLANATION, ARGUMENT, AND DECIDABILITY profoundly influence us. And if we conduct rule by those different methods they profoundly affect us more. The problem is the means of rule by scientific law is expensive and requires a high trust low context society, and the means of mythological rule is inexpensive but only requires indoctrination in a high context but produces a low trust society. These are profound questions that explain our evolutionary differences. Curt
Theme: Institution
-
The New Law
THE NEW LAW? You may not demonstrate by gathering, association, ritual observance, physical gesture or movement, cognitive dependence, linguistic use, dress, or grooming, any membership, tradition, religion, pseudoscience, philosophy, law, norm, method of narration, explanation, argument, method of decidability, description, definition, or reference, that is incompatible with Natural Law of Perfect Reciprocity and Perfect Testimony, and yet physically remain, physically enter, speak into, publish into, that civilization we call European on the continents of Europe, America, And Australia, without exception, under immediate penalty of voluntary departure, forcible eviction and deportation, enslavement, imprisonment, or death. (say it like judge dredd) (scary enough?)
-
The New Law
THE NEW LAW? You may not demonstrate by gathering, association, ritual observance, physical gesture or movement, cognitive dependence, linguistic use, dress, or grooming, any membership, tradition, religion, pseudoscience, philosophy, law, norm, method of narration, explanation, argument, method of decidability, description, definition, or reference, that is incompatible with Natural Law of Perfect Reciprocity and Perfect Testimony, and yet physically remain, physically enter, speak into, publish into, that civilization we call European on the continents of Europe, America, And Australia, without exception, under immediate penalty of voluntary departure, forcible eviction and deportation, enslavement, imprisonment, or death. (say it like judge dredd) (scary enough?)
-
The Idea of a Static Model of Government is Simply ‘Bad’
Government models solve current problems by organizing society’s institutions to organize people to respond to changes in the conditions in which the polity competes. Just as the Romans toggled between dictatorship in war, and republicanism in peace, I would advocate Fascism in war, and natural law classical liberalism in peace. And extend the privilege of enfranchisement in periods of extreme prosperity. The only constant is natural law of cooperation.
-
The Idea of a Static Model of Government is Simply ‘Bad’
Government models solve current problems by organizing society’s institutions to organize people to respond to changes in the conditions in which the polity competes. Just as the Romans toggled between dictatorship in war, and republicanism in peace, I would advocate Fascism in war, and natural law classical liberalism in peace. And extend the privilege of enfranchisement in periods of extreme prosperity. The only constant is natural law of cooperation.
-
YOUR IDEA OF STATIC FORMS OF GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM. Government models solve
YOUR IDEA OF STATIC FORMS OF GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM.
Government models solve current problems by organizing society’s institutions to organize people to respond to changes in the conditions in which the polity operates.
Just as the Romans toggled between dictatorship in war, and republicanism in peace, I would advocate Fascism in war, and natural law classical liberalism in peace. And extend the privilege of enfranchisement in periods of extreme prosperity.
The only constant is natural law of cooperation.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-23 10:37:00 UTC
-
MESOPOTAMIA Which class rule evolved first mesopotamia: Warriors or Priests? (we
MESOPOTAMIA
Which class rule evolved first mesopotamia: Warriors or Priests? (we know the answer)
Which class emerged in control of rule?
Did that class adopt the role of the other (conflate)?
Did that ruling class conflate roles of religion and law?
Now, the little rhetorical problem here is that I made the original statements about the tendencies of CIVILIZATIONS to make use of different TECHNOLOGIES of organization, and the unintended consequences of those rules. I make this argument in order to expand upon the differnces between western, fertile crescent, hrappan/indian, and chinese civilizations, and how our earliest assumptions about the world, man, the good, and the true, originated in the ancient past and still govern us today – with unintended consequences. And I make this argument so that westerners understand why, as poor people, small in number, lacking concentrate capital of the river valleys, developed FASTER (not first, just faster) than other civilizations in the pre-historic, ancient, and modern eras.
Why is that? Well, I think I know, and I think it’s something we CAN know.
Here is another example.
If we read the inscriptions from the Palace Stele from Ur, the Cuneiform of Cyrus and Darius and his Son Darius (starting with the 27th or Persian Dynasty), with the inscriptions of similar periods of the Egyptians (just prior to persian conquest), with the writings of Homer and shortly after of the ‘Athenians’, or any of the greeks, with the writing of the romans, of the german law and myth, of the english law and myth, then what is the difference in the method of narration, explanation and argument?
All civilizations produce some level of occult(experiential), religion, myth, literature, history, law, mathematics, and ‘science'(existential). But we can actually MEASURE that distribution. And we can easily determine the level of conflation or deflation (from occult down to science) that governance relies upon, and we can measure changes in the economies that result from those (a) distributions of use and (b) use in government. So we can MEASURE the consequences of say, how chinese rule changed when the migrated from empirical to moral rule. We can measure the consequences of the use of islam by the aristocracy and it’s use as a method of general rule.
(btw: the fellow in the original thread does not know just how much knowledge I have of the ancient middle east, but I’m pretty sure it’s comparatively non trivial. and it would turn into a pissing match if I took that avenue with him. )
THE WAY WE SPEAK, THE METHODS OF NARRATION, EXPLANATION, ARGUMENT, AND DECIDABILITY profoundly influence us. And if we conduct rule by those different methods they profoundly affect us more. The problem is the means of rule by scientific law is expensive and requires a high trust low context society, and the means of mythological rule is inexpensive but only requires indoctrination in a high context but produces a low trust society.
These are profound questions that explain our evolutionary differences.
Curt
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 11:08:00 UTC
-
THE ORIGINS OF CIVILIZATION: MILITIA, PROPERTY, MARRIAGE by Joel Davis Civilizat
THE ORIGINS OF CIVILIZATION: MILITIA, PROPERTY, MARRIAGE
by Joel Davis
Civilization emerges from 3 fundamental institutions:
1) Militia (how to compete in the violence market),
2) Property (how to compete in the production market) and
3) Marriage (how to compete in the reproduction market).
The polity fails or succeeds in competition by the functionality of three institutions. Through success in the violence market, the polity may establish and regulate it’s production and reproduction markets (via property and marriage). The polity regulates these institutions by LAW.
Women were given the power to influence law, they weren’t also given the responsibility to defend societies institutions in the violence market, without this responsibility they lack signals of threats in the violence market required to inform their decisions.
As their interests extended most significantly into the production and reproduction markets, they have voted to progressively destroy the institutions of property and marriage to transfer improved competitiveness to themselves (a logical exercise of self-interest, considering the signaling they’re exposed to).
Without allegiance to the polity established through ‘skin’ in the violence market, allegiance to property and marriage (as institutions of group competitive advantage) naturally lacks also.
We have two options:
– Determine a method of signaling to Women which brings them into allegiance with the group in the violence market (stable husbands and children seem to do this to conservative women).
– Remove enfranchisement from female classes due to the inherent risks to the group in the violence market their collective actions cause.
Or, potentially a third option.. Find a method of limiting female franchise to women who have a form of “skin” in the violence market (wives/mothers/daughters of men with “skin in the game”)
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 21:20:00 UTC
-
KNOWING WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. We use law (common law of torts) to decide ma
KNOWING WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.
We use law (common law of torts) to decide matters of conflict. That is the total function of the law. (Yes, that’s just the fact of it)
The practice of law evolved to standardize punishments in order to reduce retaliation cycles between groups that had evolved different punishments (yes, that’s just a fact of it)z
The reason for the standardization was to prevent conflict was to preserve the income from taxation, and the cost of policing the territory and economy, including market for productive populations.
Law exists as a set of records. Those records consist of decisions. Those decisions include reasons for those decisions. Those decisions are necessary to resolve conflicts between individuals.
While we use the term ‘law’ for many purposes, the term can only mean common law – (post action). Command of dictators (direction to act or not to), command of legislatures(legislation) – direction to act or not to, and command of regulators (administration of insurance by the state) – (prior constraint), do not constitute law. They merely are enforced as if they are law.
Whenever someone says something is like something else, it means he does not know what constitutes the thing in the first place.
WHile it is possible to use analogies for the purpose of establishing definitions, one cannot treat an analogy as a premise for the purpose of deductions from the analogy.
Instead, one can use analogies to establish understanding (definitions) then to clarify that understanding (definition) through operational construction (proof of possibility, test of parsimony).
From that parsimonious definition it may be possible to continue to produce constructions that define operations that change state between that which we have defined.
But analogies are the primary reason that people overestimate their understanding, and it is the primary means of deceit.
The word ‘is’ and all variations of it (the verb to-be) can only mean ‘exists as’. Otherwise it is equivalent to using the word ‘thing’: meaning ‘i dont know or understand this reference.’
So, no. If you understand what you speak, then you can speak it and argue with it. If you cannot understand it you may speak it, but you cannot argue it.
It’s not complicated.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-18 14:48:00 UTC
-
Common Shareholders Are Not Demonstrably Owners
COMMON SHAREHOLDERS ARE NOT OWNERS OF ORGANIZATIONS Ownership: control. Ownership (control) of WHAT? Ownership denies others use, consumption, transfer, and fruits. So what ownership do shares actually convey? RESIDUAL FRUITS. Shareholdership in practice provides a limited ownership to residual capital.