Mar 19, 2020, 3:36 PM You can appropriate language, philosophy, and theology for your purposes, in order to justify your priors. Sure. You can’t steal the LAWS to justify your priors. Sorry. That’s the whole point of laws. THERE ARE THREE QUESTIONS THAT DECIDE ALL PHILOSOPHY 1 – CHOICE: “Why should I not suicide?” 2 – ETHICS: “Why should I not kill you and take your stuff?” 3 – POLITICS: “Why should we not kill you and take your stuff?” The only answer is “If the proceeds from cooperation past present and future are more valuable than not. Otherwise predation, parasitism or avoidance are preferable to cooperation.” THERE ARE THREE LAWS THAT DECIDE ALL CONFLICTS UNDER THE ANSWER TO THAT PHILOSOPHY 1 – The Physical Laws of Nature 2 – The Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity 3 – The Evolutionary Law of Transcendence. All questions are decidable by those three sets of laws. THAT IS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL PHILOSOPHY. Really. That’s all there is.
Theme: Religion
-
Why is the religion question not hard? And why is applied-P simple?
Why is the religion question not hard? And why is applied-P simple? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/why-is-the-religion-question-not-hard-and-why-is-applied-p-simple/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 21:07:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266113983691407360
-
Why is the religion question not hard? And why is applied-P simple?
Mar 20, 2020, 10:22 AM
—“Bill, Why is the religion question not hard? And why is applied-P simple?”—
RELIGION I think the religion question result from the conflation of two necessary psychological functions: 1) belonging and cohesion to the community (running with the pack, ritual behaviour increasing amiability to cooperate, signaling between group members) And; 2) creating personal meaning for ones life. This represents the conflation of public and private functions, which makes the problem difficult. I see this as an artifact of the role institutional religion played in the past as a catch all institution for communities which over time we’ve spun off higher resolution institutions as we began to see the need more clearly. The former relates to extended identity – identify with our community,find our place with in it then contribute from it… contribution in both directions (what you get from your community, what you give to your community) provides the seeds for this identity (for example the role of “professionalism” with in the military) The later is for each person to develop on their own. its for the individual to discover and develop a meaningful relationship with their life. I think the difficulty or rather resistance we find with religious groups stems from using the former (community functions) to lower the costs for the later (as the later exists as a personal responsibility- adopting a personal god allows one to grab a prepackaged product to fulfill what one needs to create on their own). APPLIED P Now, as for applied P. I see this as really really simple because its really just a set of three or so heuristics for guiding personal and interpersonal decisions. 1) everything is a proxy for violence resulting in trust commons i.e. use trust as a means for measuring others behaviour and your own. 2) reciprocity as the measure for “contract” and in assessing moral behaviour 3) view everything by a measure of property. measure costs, investments etc. And i add this in regarding parenting (and use all of the above for parenting)… autonomy follows demonstrated ability therefore i grant freedoms to my child after they’ve demonstrated responsibility (and thus must give opportunities to demonstrate responsibility) and remove them based on the same criteria. …I mean these are the ones I have explicit thought into, there maybe more elements which I do intuitively and haven’t realized yet. I see the above points as essentially dimensions of the same “thing” that being property en toto, and thus can calculate life choices based on these means of measurement (rough measurements) Trust, reciprocity, property… Did that behaviour increase or decrease trust and why… am i reciprocating, are they reciprocating? if not why (do i need to renegotiate the terms of the relationship). Is this my property, their property, or ours? (For example: it’s not in my purview to judge how my boss runs their business because its their property – not my “business”) (is that friend demonstrating investment in this friendship? or am i the only one investing… if so then they don’t see value in this property so my investment is misdirected (a malinvestment).) … this one has worked wonders for my daughter navigating teenage dramas.
-
Why is the religion question not hard? And why is applied-P simple?
Mar 20, 2020, 10:22 AM
—“Bill, Why is the religion question not hard? And why is applied-P simple?”—
RELIGION I think the religion question result from the conflation of two necessary psychological functions: 1) belonging and cohesion to the community (running with the pack, ritual behaviour increasing amiability to cooperate, signaling between group members) And; 2) creating personal meaning for ones life. This represents the conflation of public and private functions, which makes the problem difficult. I see this as an artifact of the role institutional religion played in the past as a catch all institution for communities which over time we’ve spun off higher resolution institutions as we began to see the need more clearly. The former relates to extended identity – identify with our community,find our place with in it then contribute from it… contribution in both directions (what you get from your community, what you give to your community) provides the seeds for this identity (for example the role of “professionalism” with in the military) The later is for each person to develop on their own. its for the individual to discover and develop a meaningful relationship with their life. I think the difficulty or rather resistance we find with religious groups stems from using the former (community functions) to lower the costs for the later (as the later exists as a personal responsibility- adopting a personal god allows one to grab a prepackaged product to fulfill what one needs to create on their own). APPLIED P Now, as for applied P. I see this as really really simple because its really just a set of three or so heuristics for guiding personal and interpersonal decisions. 1) everything is a proxy for violence resulting in trust commons i.e. use trust as a means for measuring others behaviour and your own. 2) reciprocity as the measure for “contract” and in assessing moral behaviour 3) view everything by a measure of property. measure costs, investments etc. And i add this in regarding parenting (and use all of the above for parenting)… autonomy follows demonstrated ability therefore i grant freedoms to my child after they’ve demonstrated responsibility (and thus must give opportunities to demonstrate responsibility) and remove them based on the same criteria. …I mean these are the ones I have explicit thought into, there maybe more elements which I do intuitively and haven’t realized yet. I see the above points as essentially dimensions of the same “thing” that being property en toto, and thus can calculate life choices based on these means of measurement (rough measurements) Trust, reciprocity, property… Did that behaviour increase or decrease trust and why… am i reciprocating, are they reciprocating? if not why (do i need to renegotiate the terms of the relationship). Is this my property, their property, or ours? (For example: it’s not in my purview to judge how my boss runs their business because its their property – not my “business”) (is that friend demonstrating investment in this friendship? or am i the only one investing… if so then they don’t see value in this property so my investment is misdirected (a malinvestment).) … this one has worked wonders for my daughter navigating teenage dramas.
-
Creating a Non-False Pre-Packaged Product
Mar 20, 2020, 1:48 PM by John Mark
Christianity (or other religion) as a “prepackaged product” that an individual can pull off the shelf & use to create meaning for their life.
Great insight – this is so spot-on. It saves them the effort of having to find meaning for themselves. Thus when we try to get them to think, or challenge the pre-packaged product, it feels to them like “I bought this food item, now you’re saying there’s something wrong with it and I need to cultivate a garden and grow my own.” We’re asking them to do extra work that for them is an annoyance (life is hard enough, we are trying to rip away the one thing that feels good and safe to them) and they may not even be able to do it (at least not without training), whereas for people like us it’s a compulsion (we are driven to do it, we can’t help it). So – I guess that would mean that creating a non-false pre-packaged product would likely take away market share from religions that tend to bait into hazard. But asking them to think & do it on their own is too much for most of them.
-
Creating a Non-False Pre-Packaged Product
Mar 20, 2020, 1:48 PM by John Mark
Christianity (or other religion) as a “prepackaged product” that an individual can pull off the shelf & use to create meaning for their life.
Great insight – this is so spot-on. It saves them the effort of having to find meaning for themselves. Thus when we try to get them to think, or challenge the pre-packaged product, it feels to them like “I bought this food item, now you’re saying there’s something wrong with it and I need to cultivate a garden and grow my own.” We’re asking them to do extra work that for them is an annoyance (life is hard enough, we are trying to rip away the one thing that feels good and safe to them) and they may not even be able to do it (at least not without training), whereas for people like us it’s a compulsion (we are driven to do it, we can’t help it). So – I guess that would mean that creating a non-false pre-packaged product would likely take away market share from religions that tend to bait into hazard. But asking them to think & do it on their own is too much for most of them.
-
Constitution as A Religious Quasi-Christian Document Delivered by Providence
Constitution as A Religious Quasi-Christian Document Delivered by Providence https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/constitution-as-a-religious-quasi-christian-document-delivered-by-providence/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 20:39:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266106853718712320
-
Constitution as A Religious Quasi-Christian Document Delivered by Providence
Mar 21, 2020, 5:01 PM
—“Most American constitutionalists look at the US Constitution as a religious quasi-Christian document delivered by providence. If they could understand strict constitutional construction as the “holy” method of our people that would be a step in the right direction until they could grasp the science of it from a P-Law perspective.”–Heimdallr Aldafaðir
OK. I CAN WORK WITH THAT
-
Constitution as A Religious Quasi-Christian Document Delivered by Providence
Mar 21, 2020, 5:01 PM
—“Most American constitutionalists look at the US Constitution as a religious quasi-Christian document delivered by providence. If they could understand strict constitutional construction as the “holy” method of our people that would be a step in the right direction until they could grasp the science of it from a P-Law perspective.”–Heimdallr Aldafaðir
OK. I CAN WORK WITH THAT
-
Serving the Empathic Personality Across a Spectrum of Low to High Neuroticism.
Mar 22, 2020, 4:07 PM Societies and Religions Serve the Empathic Personality Across a Spectrum of Low to High Neuroticism.
—“Are we talkin about run-of-the-mill Freemasonry or high-level secret handshake Freemasonry?”—Leif Erickson
What’s the difference besides the personalities of the people who go to them? Religiosity is driven not by intelligence per se, but by two factors: empath and neuroticism that influence how and what we learn. So think of societies and religions as serving the empathic personality across a spectrum of low to high neuroticism. Secret handshakes are higher trust providers at higher cost, and provide higher satisfaction because of more disciplined ritual to those with higher neuroticism. Organizations satisfy demand. Everyone wants everyone else to be satisfied on his or her terms. It’s not complicated.’ SOCIETIES AND RELIGIONS SERVE THE EMPATHIC PERSONALITY ACROSS A SPECTRUM OF LOW TO HIGH NEUROTICISM.
—“Are we talkin about run-of-the-mill Freemasonry or high-level secret handshake Freemasonry?”—Leif Erickson
What’s the difference besides the personalities of the people who go to them? Religiosity is driven not by intelligence per se, but by two factors: empath and neuroticism that influence how and what we learn. So think of societies and religions as serving the empathic personality across a spectrum of low to high neuroticism. Secret handshakes are higher trust providers at higher cost, and provide higher satisfaction because of more disciplined ritual to those with higher neuroticism. Organizations satisfy demand. Everyone wants everyone else to be satisfied on his or her terms. It’s not complicated.