Feb 5, 2020, 11:05 AM
Feb 5, 2020, 11:05 AM
Feb 6, 2020, 9:07 PM
Rights. Rights to self-determination. Rights to bear arms to preserve that right. None may deprive another of the right to self determination, nor the arms necessary to secure it without surrendering that right to self determination him or herself by reciprocity: restitution, punishment, and prevention. We need no other moral license but this.
Feb 6, 2020, 9:07 PM
Rights. Rights to self-determination. Rights to bear arms to preserve that right. None may deprive another of the right to self determination, nor the arms necessary to secure it without surrendering that right to self determination him or herself by reciprocity: restitution, punishment, and prevention. We need no other moral license but this.
Feb 7, 2020, 9:49 AM
—I think it’s better for women to create solidarity with women on ending the program of undermining that women were baited into with the false promise of equality rather than the promise of improving our compatibility under change in the division of labor made possible by the industrial and technological and informational revolutions. I think if you ask women to join to help build this ‘movement’ of getting past GSRRM and ending undermining, thereby restoring compatibility, cooperation, in a division of perceptual, cognitive, and physical labor that this will be a mission women will be attracted to, because it will make women better women with regard to OTHER WOMEN as well as with regard to mates children – and even other men. Men had to learn not to physically retaliate. Law is a vehicle for ending retaliation cycles (feuds). Women have not had the political, economic, or social opportunity to develop female traditions, so that women learn not to SOCIALLY and PSYCHOLOGICALLY retaliate and end women’s retaliation cycles (feuds).—
We aren’t equal. Genders, Maturity, Generations, Classes, Ethnicities, Nations, Civilizations, or Races. Under natural law of reciprocity and division of labor we are compatible despite all those inequalities. End retaliation cycles by sticking to reciprocity.
Feb 7, 2020, 9:49 AM
—I think it’s better for women to create solidarity with women on ending the program of undermining that women were baited into with the false promise of equality rather than the promise of improving our compatibility under change in the division of labor made possible by the industrial and technological and informational revolutions. I think if you ask women to join to help build this ‘movement’ of getting past GSRRM and ending undermining, thereby restoring compatibility, cooperation, in a division of perceptual, cognitive, and physical labor that this will be a mission women will be attracted to, because it will make women better women with regard to OTHER WOMEN as well as with regard to mates children – and even other men. Men had to learn not to physically retaliate. Law is a vehicle for ending retaliation cycles (feuds). Women have not had the political, economic, or social opportunity to develop female traditions, so that women learn not to SOCIALLY and PSYCHOLOGICALLY retaliate and end women’s retaliation cycles (feuds).—
We aren’t equal. Genders, Maturity, Generations, Classes, Ethnicities, Nations, Civilizations, or Races. Under natural law of reciprocity and division of labor we are compatible despite all those inequalities. End retaliation cycles by sticking to reciprocity.
Feb 7, 2020, 10:43 PM Well via-negativa moral rules (prohibitions) are empirical and there is only one: reciprocity within the limits of proportionality. Like rational choice within the limits of rationality. Like truthfulness within the limits of testifiability. That’s just obvious from a study of the history of law across every civilization. What satisfies reciprocity whether in manners, ethics (interpersonal), morals (extra-personal) varies because of differences in geography, economy, family structure, means of production, and stage of development – or more simply, dependent upon the scale of cooperation and the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population in relation to its state of development. General Semantics by Korzybski, while originally an attempt to explain non-aristotelian frames of reference, was a (rather silly) dead end, just as is Eric Ganz’s present Generative Anthropology, and Derrida’s persistent trend in postmodernism, and somewhat less so Chomsky’s generative grammar. In the end Bourland extended the entire program to nothing more than eliminating the copula (verb to be) which, in english, eliminates the pretense of knowledge and clarifies thinking in the process. This effectively ended the GS program as a dead end. In P we use eliminating of the copula to prevent false knowledge claims by the no-operational obscurantism permitted by its use. This is particularly useful in suppressing the abrahamic method of deceit. Now, conversely Hilbert in mathematical physics, Bridgman in physics, Brouwer in mathematics, and (badly) Mises in economics all either criticized the set basis of mathematics, the Einstein-Bohr and Copenhagen consensus, or monetary economics as pseudoscientific – and only Bridgman succeeded in reforming physics. Even though, today, we have software to perform the drudgery of testing proofs. Turing and Godel brought about operational model and programming completed the transition between operational and computable and deductive. Minsky (correctly) stated that programming was a new method of thinking, because it completes the restoration of western thought back to its origins in ‘engineering’ (geometry) in the process begun by Descartes. But It wasn’t until the eighties and early nineties that psychology started to reform under operationism, and until P there was no solution to operationalizing social science. That’s enough for now. (BTW: I don’t take devolution to use of Godwin’s Law as anything other than evidence of my winning the argument.) And yes the only reason I respond is so that I can post these answers on the main feed to educate others
Feb 7, 2020, 10:43 PM Well via-negativa moral rules (prohibitions) are empirical and there is only one: reciprocity within the limits of proportionality. Like rational choice within the limits of rationality. Like truthfulness within the limits of testifiability. That’s just obvious from a study of the history of law across every civilization. What satisfies reciprocity whether in manners, ethics (interpersonal), morals (extra-personal) varies because of differences in geography, economy, family structure, means of production, and stage of development – or more simply, dependent upon the scale of cooperation and the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population in relation to its state of development. General Semantics by Korzybski, while originally an attempt to explain non-aristotelian frames of reference, was a (rather silly) dead end, just as is Eric Ganz’s present Generative Anthropology, and Derrida’s persistent trend in postmodernism, and somewhat less so Chomsky’s generative grammar. In the end Bourland extended the entire program to nothing more than eliminating the copula (verb to be) which, in english, eliminates the pretense of knowledge and clarifies thinking in the process. This effectively ended the GS program as a dead end. In P we use eliminating of the copula to prevent false knowledge claims by the no-operational obscurantism permitted by its use. This is particularly useful in suppressing the abrahamic method of deceit. Now, conversely Hilbert in mathematical physics, Bridgman in physics, Brouwer in mathematics, and (badly) Mises in economics all either criticized the set basis of mathematics, the Einstein-Bohr and Copenhagen consensus, or monetary economics as pseudoscientific – and only Bridgman succeeded in reforming physics. Even though, today, we have software to perform the drudgery of testing proofs. Turing and Godel brought about operational model and programming completed the transition between operational and computable and deductive. Minsky (correctly) stated that programming was a new method of thinking, because it completes the restoration of western thought back to its origins in ‘engineering’ (geometry) in the process begun by Descartes. But It wasn’t until the eighties and early nineties that psychology started to reform under operationism, and until P there was no solution to operationalizing social science. That’s enough for now. (BTW: I don’t take devolution to use of Godwin’s Law as anything other than evidence of my winning the argument.) And yes the only reason I respond is so that I can post these answers on the main feed to educate others
Feb 24, 2020, 11:23 AM Free market capitalism is not what raises people. It’s rule of law that limits irreciprocity and forces people into LIMITED MARKETS, not ‘free’ markets. Those markets are limited to the prohibition on externalities. Free market capitalism was invented by the abrahamists to circumvent those limits and to profit from false promise, baiting into harm, harmful externality, and social undermining.
Feb 24, 2020, 11:23 AM Free market capitalism is not what raises people. It’s rule of law that limits irreciprocity and forces people into LIMITED MARKETS, not ‘free’ markets. Those markets are limited to the prohibition on externalities. Free market capitalism was invented by the abrahamists to circumvent those limits and to profit from false promise, baiting into harm, harmful externality, and social undermining.