(important) (core) 1) Ashkenazis succeeded in reversal of gender bias in cognitive ability, while maintaining pastoral aggression. (We can easily measure this, and all data I’ve seen supports it.) 2) The result has been adoption of the female group social strategy, 3) … and the Female primate’s reproductive strategy for constraining alphas. 4) Female Humans seek systemic free riding and parasitism upon the commons (force the tribe to pay the cost of her offspring), control reproduction and leadership by undermining, and undermine using disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, straw manning, heaping of undue praise, and spreading of undue criticism. They poison(pollute) the informational commons. All female behavior evolved to either control children at the lowest cost, obtain rents from men and the commons at lowest cost, and to increase the cost of her sex, affection, and political support (positive gossiping), by both scarcity of it an constant undermining in the absence of it. ( It’s a very simple algorithm really.) 5) So, Ashkenazi behavior and its damage to all host civilizations is just Instinct, common interest, common strategy, and not conspiracy: Neither women nor Ashkenazim know that they do. They both destroy unless their behaviors are severely limited. And the lesson is that males that cannot constrain their females (or their proxies) from undermining are too weak to rule (defend). Evolution does its work if men do not. 6) In other words: The Culture of Critique is just the Female Group Evolutionary Strategy making use of each innovation in “distribution” writing, traveling and preaching, printing, mass media, the priesthood and the academy, the entertainment industry and the media rallying women and the underclasses against the aristocracy (white males). 8) The Technological History is: Gossip > Monotheism(writing) > Pseudoscience(printing) > Industrialized Lying (major media) 7) This is the answer to @TOOEdit’s mystery. “They are all female” and act accordingly out of intuition to undermine at all opportunities, and to seek parasitic rents on the commons. 8) Our only mistake was ‘free speech’ rather than free warrantied (ie: truthful) speech. And our means of correction is quite simple. Extend the involuntary warranty we impose upon goods and services to that of speech (information); restore Defamation, (Libel, Slander), and physical retaliation for insult (fighting or ‘the judicial duel’); We let loose the industrialization of lying under the premise of false speech under the assumption that our high trust people and our high trust habits were universal to man. But they are not only unique to westerners, but unique to western males who aggressively police their honor (reputations) by the aggressive physical and legal suppression of falsehood, and the universal duty to do so. White males are the human race’s aristocracy and developed aristocratic technological civilization using heroism, truth, sovereignty, reciprocity( empirical law of tort), markets in everything, including a market government between the classes, and markets for information in multiple disciplines. Only the most competitive people can use meritocracy. The weak cannot. They will lose. Hence why no other civilization evolved what the west did. Truth, Testimony, Sovereignty, Natural Law of Reciprocity: Tort, Markets in everything as a consequence, and competition, reason, empiricism, and science to resolve differences between those markets. So excellence and superiority are not a question. They’re measurable. We pay the high cost of truth and duty regardless of the cost to the signal hierarchy (dominance or competence hierarchy). We invented truth reason empiricism science, market civilization because only we could – because only the most competitive can succeed under meritocracy. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
Theme: Measurement
-
by Bill Joslin Operational language couples context to content by how that conte
by Bill Joslin
Operational language couples context to content by how that content can exist in reality.
For example within language – nouns provide identity, and verbs provide action properties to nouns (verbs describe state).
In spoken language we can say “the dog flew off the dock into the ocean”.
But, dogs don’t fly.
We conflate the existential properties of birds (flying animals) with the properties dogs (nonflying animals).
Of course this allows us to color (load) to our speech acts, but this demonstrates conflation from one existential context to another, and then the audience uses culture and norms fill in the gap with “not literally flew – but rather travels very fast” – a substitution of the ‘poetic’ (conflationary) with the ‘descriptive’ (deflationary).
In engineering grammars (in this case mathematical formula and scientific laws) we constrain usage to only that which is possible existentially possible.
For example you could not use formula which maps electrical activity to calculate drag coefficients of an aircraft. It simply wouldn’t make sense. The inputs don’t correspond to the argument’s of that equation.
When we think this through a little bit more, means-of-measurement couple grammars (the language), in for example aircraft design, to reality. The inputs to discover a drag coefficient pertains to the geometry of the air surface, where as the inputs for electrical calculation pertain to voltages and amperes etc.
The mathematical equations express the operations (verbs), the measurement captures the properties (adverb, adjectives) which the operations depend. The start and end points of calculation express the identity(nouns) and change of state it undergoes.
Operationalism in spoken language provides a consistent “measurement”: Commensurability with reality.
The commensurability (measuring across disparate objects) across contexts, which we must choose and couple to our content, forces us to think about the relationship between properties, actions, identity and the result,. If done well, this provides a means of measurement within that domain.
Reciprocity as a means of measuring morality, property as a means of measuring impositions and gain, agency etc.
This cultivates clarity of thought and provides decidibility for those who can and are willing to invest in it’s habituation
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-18 08:52:00 UTC
-
question. Good answers. Let’s look at how we can ask this question. 😉 Technical
https://www.quora.com/Who-is-the-most-influential-living-philosopher-1/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=b44bec67&srid=u4QvInteresting question. Good answers. Let’s look at how we can ask this question. 😉
Technical Innovation <-> Practical Utility <——> Popular Influence
Successful Technical
Hard to argue that the Russel-Frege-Kripke chain didn’t provide answers but it’s also hard to argue that they weren’t wasting their time. Because Babbage-Cantor-Goedel-Turing produced superior methods and answers.
Failed Technical
The failure of Brouwer(Physics), Bridgman(mathematics), Mises (economics), Hayek(Law), and Popper(Philosophy) to understand that the ‘ideal’ disciplines had failed to include operations as a test of possibility, operational grammar to prevent pretense of knowledge,
Influential and Contributory:
Searle(cognition), Jonathan Haidt(morality), Daniel Kahneman(cognition), Nassim Taleb (probability and cognitive biases). Unfortunately we can’t list Popper(via negativa), Hayek(Social Science = Law), Keynes(Monetary Marxism), Turing, and Rawls who are demonstrably more influential but not living.
Popular Influence But Otherwise Meaningless:
Dennet et all.
Categorical Construction:
Scientific <—————-> Ideal <—————–> Experiential
Descriptive Causality Experiential Causality
Scientific Categories Normative Categories Arbitrary Categories
Operational Analytic Literary Conflationary Continental
Aristotle Plato (many)
Tends to Result In:
Truth Utility Preference
Markets, Regulation Command
Nash Equality Pareto Equality Command Equality
Natural Hierarchy Political Hierarchy Bureaucratic Hierarchy
Classical Liberalism Social Democracy Socialism
Rapid Adaptation Windfall Consumption Redirected Consumption
Hyper Competitive Competitive in Windfalls Competitive when Behind
I would make the following observations:
1) The continental (German) program has been a failed attempt, since the time of Kant (through Heidegger), to produce a secular, rational, version of Christianity. The French program (Rousseau through Derrida) has been a demonstrably successful program but a devastatingly destructive one. The Abrahamic program’s second revision (Marx, Freud, Boaz, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard, Strauss) has been catastrophic. And between the French Literary, Continental Rational, and Abrahamic Pseudoscientific movements, the attempt to restore the Aristotelian(scientific)/ Stoic(Mindfulness) / Roman(Law) / Heroic(Truth, Excellence, Beauty) program responsible for human progress in the ancient and modern world has been nearly defeated.
2) The analytic program was exhausted with Kripke, and in retrospect the analytic attempt to produce both formal logic of language, and a science of language will be considered a failure. For example, there is nothing in analytic philosophy that is not better provided by Turing.
3) The principle function of academic philosophy today appears consist of the self correction of existing errors prior to exhaustion of the philosophical program (termination of the discipline) in the same way that the analytic program exhausted itself. (If you list philosophers and their innovations this is what appears to be occurring. The discipline is exhausting itself as a dead end).
4) The principal influences on intellectual history are being provided by the sciences. In particular they are eliminating the last refuge of philosophy: the mind. And science is doing so via-negativa: through the incremental definition and measurement of cognitive biases (errors).
5) Science, if understood as an organized attempt to produce deflationary truthful (descriptive) speech, and the use of scientific categories (necessary and universal), will continue to displace the discipline of philosophy, and the use of philosophical categories, terminology and concepts. And (assuming I am correct), what remains of the discipline of philosophy will be reducible to the continuous refinements of the scientific method’s production of constant descriptive categories, terminology, and operational grammar. And the cross disciplinary adaptation of local categories into universal categories.
6) Science is less vulnerable to error , bias, suggestion and deceit, in no small part because the common problems of philosophy: suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, overloading, and the Fictionalisms (pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-mythology(theology)) are prohibited by the demand for Operational language, declared limits, and full accounting of consequences. It certainly appears that since the beginning of the 20th century we have been far busier eliminating errors of philosophy than philosophers have been busy discovering innovations.
7) Greek philosophy arose out of the common law of torts. Roman philosophy explicitly functioned on the common law of Torts. The Abrahamic Dark Age (conflating idealism, law, and religion) followed, but we were rescued by the reconstruction of north sea trade and the English common law of Torts (Bacon). And as far as I can determine,
8) As we have seen with continental and political philosophy, just as we saw with theology, and especially Abrahamic theology, the principle purpose of unscientific speech has been deception, propaganda, the propagation of ignorance, and the conduct of rule, and the expansion of warfare. With theologians and philosophers responsible for more deaths than generals and plagues. Between Zoroaster, Muhammed, and Marx, we have more deaths than all but the great diseases including malaria and the black plague. Philosophers and theologians have done more harm than good, largely functioning as a middle class opposition to the current form of rule.
9) Philosophical language then is a dead language, and perhaps an immoral one – and rationalism a dead technology. And they will be incrementally combined institutionally and normatively into theology, with Literary Philosophy(Plato and his heirs), merely representing it’s position on the spectrum of Aristotelian/Stoic/Roman/English Law (science), Confucian Reason, French Literary Idealism, Platonic Rational Idealism, Continental and Augustinian Fictionalism, and Abrahamic and Zoroastrian Fictionalism.
10) The use of non philosophical categories to construct *moral literature* in the French and Italian model will persist forever. Although largely as a means of resistance against the sciences, and the status social, economic, and political status quo.
In this context we have to ask what we mean by Influential, or Great Philosophers, because:
(a) Unless we are talking scientists who function as public intellectuals, philosophers, or Social Critics (practitioners of critique), or Moral Fictionalists (wishful thinkers), it really doesn’t appear that philosophy is a living or useful language or discipline.
(b) it’s hard to argue there are any currently living and working rationalists of any substance. They are largely Moral Fictionalists.
Let’s look at the list:
Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins. The atheists. It’s worth noting that Dawkins was correct and Gould was wrong – about almost everything. (Surprisingly). Harris and Hitches practice critique but nothing else.
Zizek practices Critique and has nothing to offer – and is honest about it. I mean, what solutions does Zizek provide? None. And he says so.
Chomsky practices Critique, has nothing to offer – and is dishonest about it. He is an interesting example of how people with high intelligence and verbal acumen can construct elaborate deceptions. Between Chomsky and Paul Krugman, a half dozen people could spend their entire careers demonstrating their use of cherry picking, loading, framing, overloading with incommensurables, straw men, and heaping of undue praise. His insight into ‘universal grammar’ but categories of increasing complexity is largely correct and we can see that in brain structure today. However, he speaks about world affairs by constantly making the error (intentionally), that rational choice is scalable – just as did Marx. And he has no concept of economics whatsoever, and no political statement can be made any longer independently of economics – especially once we understand that the term economics has nothing to do with money and everything to do with the voluntary organization of individuals through the use of incentives provided by money.
Hofstadter is a good example as any, but again, he is a public intellectual and a literary aesthete. Did he really provide any insight that was not visible in the literature of the time?
So in closing, I would say, that:
1) There are no influential rationalists, because the program is complete and it’s been a dead end. The reasons for this would require I write a tome.
2) That there are many scientists that serve as public intellectuals, and this will continue.
3) There remain and always will be a market for moral literature.
4) That scientific philosophy, if completed, as ‘the discipline of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, and deceit, will replace the discipline of philosophy.
But that won’t stop people over invested in a dead frame of reference from attempting to practice it. Why? It’s cheap and science is expensive.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 22:31:00 UTC
-
Without commensurable categories you can literally make a sensible argument for
Without commensurable categories you can literally make a sensible argument for anything. Thats’ why Pllpul worked, and why it spread to christian theology, then to continental philosophy, and now to marxism-postmodernism.
Grammars matter.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 21:26:00 UTC
-
Commensurability Evolves Grammatical Specialization
Now, in order for each of us to create commensurability between ideas we tend to specialize in one of the grammars, and pull from other grammars as necessary. Myself I learned history first, physics and math second, algorithms third, and economics fourth. My understanding of psychology was produced by indoctrination into the “Predictive Index” which is somewhere above MBTI and below Big Five and the Minnesota Multiphasic (MMPI). So I have been thinking in ‘incentives’ (not types) for the entirety of my adult life. Economics is just an extension of thinking in incentives. Praxeological thinking an operationalization of incentives. And operationalism the use of human scale commensurability. And when combined with algorithms and the study of artificial intelligence – not neural networks, but probabilistic decision trees (similar to Taleb’s work in finance), this continued the process by which I was able to insulate my thought (deflate) emotions and incentives. Most people fall into one of the grammars and we think of this as a ‘way of thinking’. So you find people that choose frameworks from the occult, to the supernatural (theological), literary-rational (think continental philosophy), to the literary, to the moral, to the historical, to the empirical (think skeptical), to the legal to the scientific. And to different pionts in between. Some people have less organized minds and pick and choose from each as alnalogies or facts, but cannot make arguments except by contrasting such randome picks. These people rely upon “ordinary language grammar” Other people develop frameworks of argument and understanding and at this point they then do specilize in one of the grammars because otherwise they cannot find commensurability. Others hyper-specialize and reframe everything into one of the grammars. So you find scientists(aristotelians), rationalists(socratics), literary-ists(Platonists), and theologians (Saulists and Augustinians and muslims), and every variation thereof. What I have done is hyperspecialize operational grammar, because it produces commensurability across ALL THE GRAMMARS. And this is the whole point: commensurability.
-
Commensurability Evolves Grammatical Specialization
Now, in order for each of us to create commensurability between ideas we tend to specialize in one of the grammars, and pull from other grammars as necessary. Myself I learned history first, physics and math second, algorithms third, and economics fourth. My understanding of psychology was produced by indoctrination into the “Predictive Index” which is somewhere above MBTI and below Big Five and the Minnesota Multiphasic (MMPI). So I have been thinking in ‘incentives’ (not types) for the entirety of my adult life. Economics is just an extension of thinking in incentives. Praxeological thinking an operationalization of incentives. And operationalism the use of human scale commensurability. And when combined with algorithms and the study of artificial intelligence – not neural networks, but probabilistic decision trees (similar to Taleb’s work in finance), this continued the process by which I was able to insulate my thought (deflate) emotions and incentives. Most people fall into one of the grammars and we think of this as a ‘way of thinking’. So you find people that choose frameworks from the occult, to the supernatural (theological), literary-rational (think continental philosophy), to the literary, to the moral, to the historical, to the empirical (think skeptical), to the legal to the scientific. And to different pionts in between. Some people have less organized minds and pick and choose from each as alnalogies or facts, but cannot make arguments except by contrasting such randome picks. These people rely upon “ordinary language grammar” Other people develop frameworks of argument and understanding and at this point they then do specilize in one of the grammars because otherwise they cannot find commensurability. Others hyper-specialize and reframe everything into one of the grammars. So you find scientists(aristotelians), rationalists(socratics), literary-ists(Platonists), and theologians (Saulists and Augustinians and muslims), and every variation thereof. What I have done is hyperspecialize operational grammar, because it produces commensurability across ALL THE GRAMMARS. And this is the whole point: commensurability.
-
Who Is the Most Influential Living Philosopher?
https://www.quora.com/Who-is-the-most-influential-living-philosopher-1/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=b44bec67&srid=u4QvInteresting question. Good answers. Let’s look at how we can ask this question. 😉 Technical Innovation <-> Practical Utility <——> Popular Influence Successful Technical Hard to argue that the Russel-Frege-Kripke chain didn’t provide answers but it’s also hard to argue that they weren’t wasting their time. Because Babbage-Cantor-Goedel-Turing produced superior methods and answers. Failed Technical The failure of Brouwer(Physics), Bridgman(mathematics), Mises (economics), Hayek(Law), and Popper(Philosophy) to understand that the ‘ideal’ disciplines had failed to include operations as a test of possibility, operational grammar to prevent pretense of knowledge, Influential and Contributory: Searle(cognition), Jonathan Haidt(morality), Daniel Kahneman(cognition), Nassim Taleb (probability and cognitive biases). Unfortunately we can’t list Popper(via negativa), Hayek(Social Science = Law), Keynes(Monetary Marxism), Turing, and Rawls who are demonstrably more influential but not living. Popular Influence But Otherwise Meaningless: Dennet et all. Categorical Construction: Scientific <—————-> Ideal <—————–> Experiential Descriptive Causality Experiential Causality Scientific Categories Normative Categories Arbitrary Categories Operational Analytic Literary Conflationary Continental Aristotle Plato (many) Tends to Result In: Truth Utility Preference Markets, Regulation Command Nash Equality Pareto Equality Command Equality Natural Hierarchy Political Hierarchy Bureaucratic Hierarchy Classical Liberalism Social Democracy Socialism Rapid Adaptation Windfall Consumption Redirected Consumption Hyper Competitive Competitive in Windfalls Competitive when Behind I would make the following observations: 1) The continental (German) program has been a failed attempt, since the time of Kant (through Heidegger), to produce a secular, rational, version of Christianity. The French program (Rousseau through Derrida) has been a demonstrably successful program but a devastatingly destructive one. The Abrahamic program’s second revision (Marx, Freud, Boaz, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard, Strauss) has been catastrophic. And between the French Literary, Continental Rational, and Abrahamic Pseudoscientific movements, the attempt to restore the Aristotelian(scientific)/ Stoic(Mindfulness) / Roman(Law) / Heroic(Truth, Excellence, Beauty) program responsible for human progress in the ancient and modern world has been nearly defeated. 2) The analytic program was exhausted with Kripke, and in retrospect the analytic attempt to produce both formal logic of language, and a science of language will be considered a failure. For example, there is nothing in analytic philosophy that is not better provided by Turing. 3) The principle function of academic philosophy today appears consist of the self correction of existing errors prior to exhaustion of the philosophical program (termination of the discipline) in the same way that the analytic program exhausted itself. (If you list philosophers and their innovations this is what appears to be occurring. The discipline is exhausting itself as a dead end). 4) The principal influences on intellectual history are being provided by the sciences. In particular they are eliminating the last refuge of philosophy: the mind. And science is doing so via-negativa: through the incremental definition and measurement of cognitive biases (errors). 5) Science, if understood as an organized attempt to produce deflationary truthful (descriptive) speech, and the use of scientific categories (necessary and universal), will continue to displace the discipline of philosophy, and the use of philosophical categories, terminology and concepts. And (assuming I am correct), what remains of the discipline of philosophy will be reducible to the continuous refinements of the scientific method’s production of constant descriptive categories, terminology, and operational grammar. And the cross disciplinary adaptation of local categories into universal categories. 6) Science is less vulnerable to error , bias, suggestion and deceit, in no small part because the common problems of philosophy: suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, overloading, and the Fictionalisms (pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-mythology(theology)) are prohibited by the demand for Operational language, declared limits, and full accounting of consequences. It certainly appears that since the beginning of the 20th century we have been far busier eliminating errors of philosophy than philosophers have been busy discovering innovations. 7) Greek philosophy arose out of the common law of torts. Roman philosophy explicitly functioned on the common law of Torts. The Abrahamic Dark Age (conflating idealism, law, and religion) followed, but we were rescued by the reconstruction of north sea trade and the English common law of Torts (Bacon). And as far as I can determine, 8) As we have seen with continental and political philosophy, just as we saw with theology, and especially Abrahamic theology, the principle purpose of unscientific speech has been deception, propaganda, the propagation of ignorance, and the conduct of rule, and the expansion of warfare. With theologians and philosophers responsible for more deaths than generals and plagues. Between Zoroaster, Muhammed, and Marx, we have more deaths than all but the great diseases including malaria and the black plague. Philosophers and theologians have done more harm than good, largely functioning as a middle class opposition to the current form of rule. 9) Philosophical language then is a dead language, and perhaps an immoral one – and rationalism a dead technology. And they will be incrementally combined institutionally and normatively into theology, with Literary Philosophy(Plato and his heirs), merely representing it’s position on the spectrum of Aristotelian/Stoic/Roman/English Law (science), Confucian Reason, French Literary Idealism, Platonic Rational Idealism, Continental and Augustinian Fictionalism, and Abrahamic and Zoroastrian Fictionalism. 10) The use of non philosophical categories to construct *moral literature* in the French and Italian model will persist forever. Although largely as a means of resistance against the sciences, and the status social, economic, and political status quo. In this context we have to ask what we mean by Influential, or Great Philosophers, because: (a) Unless we are talking scientists who function as public intellectuals, philosophers, or Social Critics (practitioners of critique), or Moral Fictionalists (wishful thinkers), it really doesn’t appear that philosophy is a living or useful language or discipline. (b) it’s hard to argue there are any currently living and working rationalists of any substance. They are largely Moral Fictionalists. Let’s look at the list: Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins. The atheists. It’s worth noting that Dawkins was correct and Gould was wrong – about almost everything. (Surprisingly). Harris and Hitches practice critique but nothing else. Zizek practices Critique and has nothing to offer – and is honest about it. I mean, what solutions does Zizek provide? None. And he says so. Chomsky practices Critique, has nothing to offer – and is dishonest about it. He is an interesting example of how people with high intelligence and verbal acumen can construct elaborate deceptions. Between Chomsky and Paul Krugman, a half dozen people could spend their entire careers demonstrating their use of cherry picking, loading, framing, overloading with incommensurables, straw men, and heaping of undue praise. His insight into ‘universal grammar’ but categories of increasing complexity is largely correct and we can see that in brain structure today. However, he speaks about world affairs by constantly making the error (intentionally), that rational choice is scalable – just as did Marx. And he has no concept of economics whatsoever, and no political statement can be made any longer independently of economics – especially once we understand that the term economics has nothing to do with money and everything to do with the voluntary organization of individuals through the use of incentives provided by money. Hofstadter is a good example as any, but again, he is a public intellectual and a literary aesthete. Did he really provide any insight that was not visible in the literature of the time? So in closing, I would say, that: 1) There are no influential rationalists, because the program is complete and it’s been a dead end. The reasons for this would require I write a tome. 2) That there are many scientists that serve as public intellectuals, and this will continue. 3) There remain and always will be a market for moral literature. 4) That scientific philosophy, if completed, as ‘the discipline of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, and deceit, will replace the discipline of philosophy. But that won’t stop people over invested in a dead frame of reference from attempting to practice it. Why? It’s cheap and science is expensive.May 17, 2018 10:31pm -
Who Is the Most Influential Living Philosopher?
https://www.quora.com/Who-is-the-most-influential-living-philosopher-1/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=b44bec67&srid=u4QvInteresting question. Good answers. Let’s look at how we can ask this question. 😉 Technical Innovation <-> Practical Utility <——> Popular Influence Successful Technical Hard to argue that the Russel-Frege-Kripke chain didn’t provide answers but it’s also hard to argue that they weren’t wasting their time. Because Babbage-Cantor-Goedel-Turing produced superior methods and answers. Failed Technical The failure of Brouwer(Physics), Bridgman(mathematics), Mises (economics), Hayek(Law), and Popper(Philosophy) to understand that the ‘ideal’ disciplines had failed to include operations as a test of possibility, operational grammar to prevent pretense of knowledge, Influential and Contributory: Searle(cognition), Jonathan Haidt(morality), Daniel Kahneman(cognition), Nassim Taleb (probability and cognitive biases). Unfortunately we can’t list Popper(via negativa), Hayek(Social Science = Law), Keynes(Monetary Marxism), Turing, and Rawls who are demonstrably more influential but not living. Popular Influence But Otherwise Meaningless: Dennet et all. Categorical Construction: Scientific <—————-> Ideal <—————–> Experiential Descriptive Causality Experiential Causality Scientific Categories Normative Categories Arbitrary Categories Operational Analytic Literary Conflationary Continental Aristotle Plato (many) Tends to Result In: Truth Utility Preference Markets, Regulation Command Nash Equality Pareto Equality Command Equality Natural Hierarchy Political Hierarchy Bureaucratic Hierarchy Classical Liberalism Social Democracy Socialism Rapid Adaptation Windfall Consumption Redirected Consumption Hyper Competitive Competitive in Windfalls Competitive when Behind I would make the following observations: 1) The continental (German) program has been a failed attempt, since the time of Kant (through Heidegger), to produce a secular, rational, version of Christianity. The French program (Rousseau through Derrida) has been a demonstrably successful program but a devastatingly destructive one. The Abrahamic program’s second revision (Marx, Freud, Boaz, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard, Strauss) has been catastrophic. And between the French Literary, Continental Rational, and Abrahamic Pseudoscientific movements, the attempt to restore the Aristotelian(scientific)/ Stoic(Mindfulness) / Roman(Law) / Heroic(Truth, Excellence, Beauty) program responsible for human progress in the ancient and modern world has been nearly defeated. 2) The analytic program was exhausted with Kripke, and in retrospect the analytic attempt to produce both formal logic of language, and a science of language will be considered a failure. For example, there is nothing in analytic philosophy that is not better provided by Turing. 3) The principle function of academic philosophy today appears consist of the self correction of existing errors prior to exhaustion of the philosophical program (termination of the discipline) in the same way that the analytic program exhausted itself. (If you list philosophers and their innovations this is what appears to be occurring. The discipline is exhausting itself as a dead end). 4) The principal influences on intellectual history are being provided by the sciences. In particular they are eliminating the last refuge of philosophy: the mind. And science is doing so via-negativa: through the incremental definition and measurement of cognitive biases (errors). 5) Science, if understood as an organized attempt to produce deflationary truthful (descriptive) speech, and the use of scientific categories (necessary and universal), will continue to displace the discipline of philosophy, and the use of philosophical categories, terminology and concepts. And (assuming I am correct), what remains of the discipline of philosophy will be reducible to the continuous refinements of the scientific method’s production of constant descriptive categories, terminology, and operational grammar. And the cross disciplinary adaptation of local categories into universal categories. 6) Science is less vulnerable to error , bias, suggestion and deceit, in no small part because the common problems of philosophy: suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, overloading, and the Fictionalisms (pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-mythology(theology)) are prohibited by the demand for Operational language, declared limits, and full accounting of consequences. It certainly appears that since the beginning of the 20th century we have been far busier eliminating errors of philosophy than philosophers have been busy discovering innovations. 7) Greek philosophy arose out of the common law of torts. Roman philosophy explicitly functioned on the common law of Torts. The Abrahamic Dark Age (conflating idealism, law, and religion) followed, but we were rescued by the reconstruction of north sea trade and the English common law of Torts (Bacon). And as far as I can determine, 8) As we have seen with continental and political philosophy, just as we saw with theology, and especially Abrahamic theology, the principle purpose of unscientific speech has been deception, propaganda, the propagation of ignorance, and the conduct of rule, and the expansion of warfare. With theologians and philosophers responsible for more deaths than generals and plagues. Between Zoroaster, Muhammed, and Marx, we have more deaths than all but the great diseases including malaria and the black plague. Philosophers and theologians have done more harm than good, largely functioning as a middle class opposition to the current form of rule. 9) Philosophical language then is a dead language, and perhaps an immoral one – and rationalism a dead technology. And they will be incrementally combined institutionally and normatively into theology, with Literary Philosophy(Plato and his heirs), merely representing it’s position on the spectrum of Aristotelian/Stoic/Roman/English Law (science), Confucian Reason, French Literary Idealism, Platonic Rational Idealism, Continental and Augustinian Fictionalism, and Abrahamic and Zoroastrian Fictionalism. 10) The use of non philosophical categories to construct *moral literature* in the French and Italian model will persist forever. Although largely as a means of resistance against the sciences, and the status social, economic, and political status quo. In this context we have to ask what we mean by Influential, or Great Philosophers, because: (a) Unless we are talking scientists who function as public intellectuals, philosophers, or Social Critics (practitioners of critique), or Moral Fictionalists (wishful thinkers), it really doesn’t appear that philosophy is a living or useful language or discipline. (b) it’s hard to argue there are any currently living and working rationalists of any substance. They are largely Moral Fictionalists. Let’s look at the list: Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins. The atheists. It’s worth noting that Dawkins was correct and Gould was wrong – about almost everything. (Surprisingly). Harris and Hitches practice critique but nothing else. Zizek practices Critique and has nothing to offer – and is honest about it. I mean, what solutions does Zizek provide? None. And he says so. Chomsky practices Critique, has nothing to offer – and is dishonest about it. He is an interesting example of how people with high intelligence and verbal acumen can construct elaborate deceptions. Between Chomsky and Paul Krugman, a half dozen people could spend their entire careers demonstrating their use of cherry picking, loading, framing, overloading with incommensurables, straw men, and heaping of undue praise. His insight into ‘universal grammar’ but categories of increasing complexity is largely correct and we can see that in brain structure today. However, he speaks about world affairs by constantly making the error (intentionally), that rational choice is scalable – just as did Marx. And he has no concept of economics whatsoever, and no political statement can be made any longer independently of economics – especially once we understand that the term economics has nothing to do with money and everything to do with the voluntary organization of individuals through the use of incentives provided by money. Hofstadter is a good example as any, but again, he is a public intellectual and a literary aesthete. Did he really provide any insight that was not visible in the literature of the time? So in closing, I would say, that: 1) There are no influential rationalists, because the program is complete and it’s been a dead end. The reasons for this would require I write a tome. 2) That there are many scientists that serve as public intellectuals, and this will continue. 3) There remain and always will be a market for moral literature. 4) That scientific philosophy, if completed, as ‘the discipline of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, and deceit, will replace the discipline of philosophy. But that won’t stop people over invested in a dead frame of reference from attempting to practice it. Why? It’s cheap and science is expensive.May 17, 2018 10:31pm -
COMMENSURABILITY EVOLVES GRAMMATICAL SPECIALIZATION Now, in order for each of us
COMMENSURABILITY EVOLVES GRAMMATICAL SPECIALIZATION
Now, in order for each of us to create commensurability between ideas we tend to specialize in one of the grammars, and pull from other grammars as necessary.
Myself I learned history first, physics and math second, algorithms third, and economics fourth. My understanding of psychology was produced by indoctrination into the “Predictive Index” which is somewhere above MBTI and below Big Five and the Minnesota Multiphasic (MMPI). So I have been thinking in ‘incentives’ (not types) for the entirety of my adult life. Economics is just an extension of thinking in incentives. Praxeological thinking an operationalization of incentives. And operationalism the use of human scale commensurability. And when combined with algorithms and the study of artificial intelligence – not neural networks, but probabilistic decision trees (similar to Taleb’s work in finance), this continued the process by which I was able to insulate my thought (deflate) emotions and incentives.
Most people fall into one of the grammars and we think of this as a ‘way of thinking’. So you find people that choose frameworks from the occult, to the supernatural (theological), literary-rational (think continental philosophy), to the literary, to the moral, to the historical, to the empirical (think skeptical), to the legal to the scientific. And to different pionts in between. Some people have less organized minds and pick and choose from each as alnalogies or facts, but cannot make arguments except by contrasting such randome picks. These people rely upon “ordinary language grammar”
Other people develop frameworks of argument and understanding and at this point they then do specilize in one of the grammars because otherwise they cannot find commensurability.
Others hyper-specialize and reframe everything into one of the grammars. So you find scientists(aristotelians), rationalists(socratics), literary-ists(Platonists), and theologians (Saulists and Augustinians and muslims), and every variation thereof.
What I have done is hyperspecialize operational grammar, because it produces commensurability across ALL THE GRAMMARS.
And this is the whole point: commensurability.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-16 11:43:00 UTC
-
Social interactions must be ‘calculable’ and the greater the variation in predic
Social interactions must be ‘calculable’ and the greater the variation in predicability the higher the cost of discovering a protocol (shared sentiments) and the higher the cost of seeking subtlety (innovation).
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-15 16:45:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996431460084191232
Reply addressees: @charlesmurray
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996410686271115264
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@charlesmurray Charles: While we have increased interpersonal tolerance, we have decreased interpersonal interaction. In other words, heterogeneity and tolerance decrease sociability, and homogeneity increases sociability. The fact that this is a necessary consequence of cognition is lost.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/996410686271115264
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@charlesmurray Charles: While we have increased interpersonal tolerance, we have decreased interpersonal interaction. In other words, heterogeneity and tolerance decrease sociability, and homogeneity increases sociability. The fact that this is a necessary consequence of cognition is lost.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/996410686271115264