“We limit ourselves to Property(Permission) and Range(Duty,Responsibility)”
“Fictions or Narratives create a paradigm (system of measurement) of property(permission) and range(duty), creating a system of cooperative rules”
“Human rights are a fiction” … that’s not really true. Those Human rights that are Natural Rights are an extension of life and phenotype. They are in fact a universal paradigm and measure. We can separate out natural rights (true) from fantasies (false).
“everybody believes in money” not really true. everyoe believes in acquisition and money is the most frictionless resource for use in acqusition.
“Money has no objective value”. That’s not really true. Money has no resource (commodity) value that can be directly consumed without exchange for a resoucre(commodity) that can be consumed or transformed.
What does Liberalism mean: “Individualsm”… No. its self determination. the philosophy and strategy of aristoracy, and the west promised everyone the opporutnity to join it – because the west has been eugenic for its entire history. So no, it’s not individualistic. It’s rapid evolution by rapid meritocratic adaptation – and equal suppression of reproduction. It’s not liberty (permission) but self determination (reciprocity0. We believed our own promise of an aristocracy of everyone was made possible by the industrial ervolution. It wasn’t. We opened the franchise without completing the project of an aristocracy of everyone. No he doesn’t understand liberal politics. Instead if forces continuous empirical adaptation for forcing thepeople to make choices, and gain the benefits or consequences.
OMG this guy is a liar or an idiot. No the highest authority is’t the customer, it’s that making erros forces changethroughut the polity. It’s continuing natural selection. Note how he keeps making use of the word authority – showing he does not understand it.
OMG he talks about duchamp. But duchamp was forcing the jewish marxist revolt against western aesthetic. that’s not liberlism. That’s jewish marxists attack on western aesthetics.
Ethics: the priest determines ethics – as an authority. No that individualism judgement of aesthetics was jewish marxist introduction, not a ueropean one.
“Edcaton”… the student is the highest authority. No. we are forcng them to adapt to the laws of the universe.
“Human rights a religion” No. human rights were invented to constrain postwar states to self improvement in order to prevent another world war.
“China has little to offer the world” – no only jews try to offer the world with idoelogy and religion. The europeans try to EVOLVE the world materially. There are only two elites and jews are only elites because of european tolerance.
“Islam has no alternative to liberalism.” No. There is no evidence that islam cannot go through a protestant reformation as they develop a middle class. I could do it. THey can do it. they have to have the NEED to do it.
1 – All stimulation begins with sequences of pulses. That’s all nerves and neurons do – measurements of relations. – predicting fragments (of potential referents)
2 – All sequences of pulses produce relations – measurements of relations. = predicting components of objects (potential referents)
3 – All sequences of relations produce spaces, objects, and boundaries – measurements of relations. – predicting the objects (referents)
4 – All bodily actions on spaces, objects, or boundaries require measurements – of relations (possible actions)
5 – All language consists of sets of measurements of constant, contingent, and non-relations between measurements. (it must)
6 – The language of Mathematics consists of the language of commensurability between measurements of constant relations.
7 – The mathematical disciplines consist of systems of measurement for increasingly complex relations (Dimensions)
8 – Statistics is the beginning of the recursive loop the cycle of commensurability of references.
9 – This is why n-body particles (waves) in physics are calculated probabilistically (by quanta).
10 – The limit of mathematics is smaller than the limit of computability (permutation) (some descriptions are constructible, but not predictable, nor deducible.)
11 – Mathematics is the scale-independent, referent independent, language of commensurability between inter-dependent referents in constant relation.
12 – Unfortunately the intuitionistic program failed to reform mathematics into a science (operationalized).
13 – Unfortunately Babbage’s revolution failed, and Cantor, Bohr, and less so Einstien re=platonized mathematics, and math was built on sets (platonic) not operations (scientific).
The structure of all language, and of the sub-language of mathematics can be put on a poster just like the periodic table. The archaic terminology replaced with operational terminology and children would find it much easier to learn.
Math ‘works’ for constant relations (the physical world) less so for the economic world, and less so for the sentient world, because it’s dead simple. It has one property. “Order in the Sequence”, and every name in the sequence has a unique positional name, so the language of mathematics is closed to conflation, making it an ideal language for measurement. And because it is reference independent, it provides commensurability between referents, and because it is scale-independent it provides scale-independent, arbitrary precision.
Math is a very simple thing. A stupid simple thing. it’s not the language of math itself that’s complicated. It’s that deducing increasingly complex measurements with that language is increasingly difficult unless you can learn to imagine mathematical structures in your mind by repetition.
1 – All stimulation begins with sequences of pulses. That’s all nerves and neurons do – measurements of relations. – predicting fragments (of potential referents)
2 – All sequences of pulses produce relations – measurements of relations. = predicting components of objects (potential referents)
3 – All sequences of relations produce spaces, objects, and boundaries – measurements of relations. – predicting the objects (referents)
4 – All bodily actions on spaces, objects, or boundaries require measurements – of relations (possible actions)
5 – All language consists of sets of measurements of constant, contingent, and non-relations between measurements. (it must)
6 – The language of Mathematics consists of the language of commensurability between measurements of constant relations.
7 – The mathematical disciplines consist of systems of measurement for increasingly complex relations (Dimensions)
8 – Statistics is the beginning of the recursive loop the cycle of commensurability of references.
9 – This is why n-body particles (waves) in physics are calculated probabilistically (by quanta).
10 – The limit of mathematics is smaller than the limit of computability (permutation) (some descriptions are constructible, but not predictable, nor deducible.)
11 – Mathematics is the scale-independent, referent independent, language of commensurability between inter-dependent referents in constant relation.
12 – Unfortunately the intuitionistic program failed to reform mathematics into a science (operationalized).
13 – Unfortunately Babbage’s revolution failed, and Cantor, Bohr, and less so Einstien re=platonized mathematics, and math was built on sets (platonic) not operations (scientific).
The structure of all language, and of the sub-language of mathematics can be put on a poster just like the periodic table. The archaic terminology replaced with operational terminology and children would find it much easier to learn.
Math ‘works’ for constant relations (the physical world) less so for the economic world, and less so for the sentient world, because it’s dead simple. It has one property. “Order in the Sequence”, and every name in the sequence has a unique positional name, so the language of mathematics is closed to conflation, making it an ideal language for measurement. And because it is reference independent, it provides commensurability between referents, and because it is scale-independent it provides scale-independent, arbitrary precision.
Math is a very simple thing. A stupid simple thing. it’s not the language of math itself that’s complicated. It’s that deducing increasingly complex measurements with that language is increasingly difficult unless you can learn to imagine mathematical structures in your mind by repetition.
Reality: There are tens of thousands of women more beautiful than ‘beautiful’ actresses, which is obvious from looking around at any college football game. Browse through the top twenty modeling agencies, and there are dozens of women (for example, Ford’s Johanna Schapfeld) and more in the Direct set that tend to be less ‘severe’. When sitting outside a restaurant in St Petersburg or Moscow – not so much Kiev any longer – on any summer evening, and packs of flawless women walk by together. (And there are cities in certain countries where the very opposite is true.)
Modeling takes a little work, and acting more so, and capturing the audience’s attention harder than those outside the field. So beauty isn’t enough so to speak for modeling or acting.
There was a definite German-Scandinavian preference earlier last century for stronger squarer faces (ie: Rita Hayworth), instead of the slightly softer ‘perfect’ shape we see below. (Scandinavian women looked more masculine in the early middle ages, we don’t know why the shift has occurred.) The present trend is more androgenous and tilted to women less fit for repeated childbirth.
Add that we used more stoic and subtle facial expressions in the past, and were ‘less desperate’ for attention. So facial muscles have changed, and so has diet. And women are not aging well for reasons we don’t understand.
Also, the post 1950’s ‘slumming’ of the movie industry favors oddities rather than qualities. Worse, there is a long-standing war by our ‘local enemies’ that seeks to trash classical beauty (genetic perfection) just as they have trashed our arts, literature, history, values, institutions, religion, and laws. Also, genetic beauty ages well. Oddity doesn’t.
The current fashion trend remains excessively thin women, with wide eyes, and long faces. So that trend ‘obscures’ women that are genetically perfect.
That said, a study of beauty is easier with well-known characters. But trying to find a picture of a woman as we can see on the top left as Florence Colgate, with natural lighting, and limited or no makeup is almost impossible.
Example of Golden Ratio Conformity
Florence Colgate
UK
Mathematically Perfect
Grace Kelly
Irish-German American
Gold Standard
Charlize Theron
Dutch South African
Gold Standard
Sienna Miller
UK
Valentina Zelyaeva
Russia
Naiomi Watts
UK
Nina Loseth
Norway, Skier
Perfect
Johanna Schapfeld
Ford Models
Candace Bergen
Swedish American
Catherine Deneuve
French
Anita Ekberg
Swedish
(Questionable inclusion)
Jean Seabring
Swedish American
Another that’s perfect but
it’s impossible to find a photo.
Vivian Leigh (Hartley)
UK
Another difficult one to find a good photo.
Audrey Hepburn
Emily De Ravin
More Gracile
Can’t Find This Woman’s Name: Jacksonville Jaguars Cheerleader “Jessica K.” first half of 20 teens. She’s from Phoenix AZ, and went to Arizona State University.
Reality: There are tens of thousands of women more beautiful than ‘beautiful’ actresses, which is obvious from looking around at any college football game. Browse through the top twenty modeling agencies, and there are dozens of women (for example, Ford’s Johanna Schapfeld) and more in the Direct set that tend to be less ‘severe’. When sitting outside a restaurant in St Petersburg or Moscow – not so much Kiev any longer – on any summer evening, and packs of flawless women walk by together. (And there are cities in certain countries where the very opposite is true.)
Modeling takes a little work, and acting more so, and capturing the audience’s attention harder than those outside the field. So beauty isn’t enough so to speak for modeling or acting.
There was a definite German-Scandinavian preference earlier last century for stronger squarer faces (ie: Rita Hayworth), instead of the slightly softer ‘perfect’ shape we see below. (Scandinavian women looked more masculine in the early middle ages, we don’t know why the shift has occurred.) The present trend is more androgenous and tilted to women less fit for repeated childbirth.
Add that we used more stoic and subtle facial expressions in the past, and were ‘less desperate’ for attention. So facial muscles have changed, and so has diet. And women are not aging well for reasons we don’t understand.
Also, the post 1950’s ‘slumming’ of the movie industry favors oddities rather than qualities. Worse, there is a long-standing war by our ‘local enemies’ that seeks to trash classical beauty (genetic perfection) just as they have trashed our arts, literature, history, values, institutions, religion, and laws. Also, genetic beauty ages well. Oddity doesn’t.
The current fashion trend remains excessively thin women, with wide eyes, and long faces. So that trend ‘obscures’ women that are genetically perfect.
That said, a study of beauty is easier with well-known characters. But trying to find a picture of a woman as we can see on the top left as Florence Colgate, with natural lighting, and limited or no makeup is almost impossible.
Example of Golden Ratio Conformity
Florence Colgate
UK
Mathematically Perfect
Grace Kelly
Irish-German American
Gold Standard
Charlize Theron
Dutch South African
Gold Standard
Sienna Miller
UK
Valentina Zelyaeva
Russia
Naiomi Watts
UK
Nina Loseth
Norway, Skier
Perfect
Johanna Schapfeld
Ford Models
Candace Bergen
Swedish American
Catherine Deneuve
French
Anita Ekberg
Swedish
(Questionable inclusion)
Jean Seabring
Swedish American
Another that’s perfect but
it’s impossible to find a photo.
Vivian Leigh (Hartley)
UK
Another difficult one to find a good photo.
Audrey Hepburn
Emily De Ravin
More Gracile
Can’t Find This Woman’s Name: Jacksonville Jaguars Cheerleader “Jessica K.” first half of 20 teens. She’s from Phoenix AZ, and went to Arizona State University.
The grammars illustrate that all speech (thought) follows the same pattern of transaction making. The operational language unifies them. Together disambiguating langauge
My understanding of language is that it consists of measurements – an has to. The question is what is one measuring in what paradigm? And what metaphysical constraints are on this paradigm?
@Imperius__13 @LukeWeinhagen Because you seem to ahve a difficulty explaing our shared purpose by unshared means. I’m writing law (what cannot be done). Because law is how scale governments HAVE TO be operated.
Because you seem to ahve a difficulty explaing our shared purpose by unshared means. I’m writing law (what cannot be done). Because law is how scale governments HAVE TO be operated.
Not quite true – only by analogy. The Cistercian numerals are a PAGE numbering system, not a scale independent numbering system. It can’t expand beyond it’s limit.
5. It is possible to measure the distance and time of racial proto-speciation in the historical record. 6. Africa > East Africa > Coastal Route > Dry Persian Gulf: South Eurasian > FORK: Tibetan Plateu?: East Asian West Eurasians North Eurasians … Amerindians … Europeans
1.Most human differences are regulatory expressions of alleles, not mutations (changes) in alleles.
2.A variation must survive local genetic competition.
3.Isolation is necessary for the survival of changes in regulation or alleles.
4. So races evolved by distance+isolation+time.
