Feb 3, 2020, 4:17 PM
GSRRM = Under Natural Law is Witness Intimidation Threatening me with social penalty if I speak the truth (witness) is witness intimidation. We need shorthand for every concept. And those shorthands need to be directly tied to centuries held western male beliefs. —Greg Hamilton
Feb 3, 2020, 4:17 PM
GSRRM = Under Natural Law is Witness Intimidation Threatening me with social penalty if I speak the truth (witness) is witness intimidation. We need shorthand for every concept. And those shorthands need to be directly tied to centuries held western male beliefs. —Greg Hamilton
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 10, 2020, 8:36 PM When you say you hold X values:
(a) What are you not accounting for and not accounting for? (b) How does your opinion hold up against the kantian imperative, ‘if everyone did that then’? (Which is just the same as the conservative intuition). (c) How does your opinion hold up against the kantian imperative in competition with hostile parties within your polity intent on depriving you of your choice or preference? (d) How does your opinion hold up against the kantian imperative in competition with hostile parties external to your polity intent on depriving you of your choice or preference? (e) So again, what are you accounting for, or failing to account for? Values only matter within the limits of the market for tolerance of them in the circumstance – in other words, values are a luxury good produced by reciprocity within the limits of proportionality within the limits of the available geography, ecology, political ecology, economy, location, and time and space. Demands (Necessities) vs Preferences (Values)
Feb 10, 2020, 8:36 PM When you say you hold X values:
(a) What are you not accounting for and not accounting for? (b) How does your opinion hold up against the kantian imperative, ‘if everyone did that then’? (Which is just the same as the conservative intuition). (c) How does your opinion hold up against the kantian imperative in competition with hostile parties within your polity intent on depriving you of your choice or preference? (d) How does your opinion hold up against the kantian imperative in competition with hostile parties external to your polity intent on depriving you of your choice or preference? (e) So again, what are you accounting for, or failing to account for? Values only matter within the limits of the market for tolerance of them in the circumstance – in other words, values are a luxury good produced by reciprocity within the limits of proportionality within the limits of the available geography, ecology, political ecology, economy, location, and time and space. Demands (Necessities) vs Preferences (Values)
Feb 10, 2020, 8:43 PM by Stephen Thomas
–“What’s your position on (hostile political) ‘critics’ that we have seen Israel, the Saudis, and the Russians execute?”–
Define “critic”. 1) Is the critic exposing factual information or behavior showing violations of Natural Law? Or 2) Is the critic simply whining about having failed to have his wants served by others? Or 3) Is the critic engaging in ORRGSM (subversion) and causing damage to the Commons with their lies? The first is necessary to protect the Commons from parasites (EMAS). The second is well… pathetic and sometimes healthy. Venting to avoid potential turmoil. The 3rd is unacceptable and must be stopped. Assassination is usually extreme but sometimes warranted. So, the critic defines the validity of the response. A critic should also provide solutions or their words have no legitimacy.
CD: note how Stephen based his argument on the natural law, and used a series(precision), and then answered with the series rather than a single ideal type (average). This is how you answer questions in natural law.
Feb 10, 2020, 8:43 PM by Stephen Thomas
–“What’s your position on (hostile political) ‘critics’ that we have seen Israel, the Saudis, and the Russians execute?”–
Define “critic”. 1) Is the critic exposing factual information or behavior showing violations of Natural Law? Or 2) Is the critic simply whining about having failed to have his wants served by others? Or 3) Is the critic engaging in ORRGSM (subversion) and causing damage to the Commons with their lies? The first is necessary to protect the Commons from parasites (EMAS). The second is well… pathetic and sometimes healthy. Venting to avoid potential turmoil. The 3rd is unacceptable and must be stopped. Assassination is usually extreme but sometimes warranted. So, the critic defines the validity of the response. A critic should also provide solutions or their words have no legitimacy.
CD: note how Stephen based his argument on the natural law, and used a series(precision), and then answered with the series rather than a single ideal type (average). This is how you answer questions in natural law.
Feb 11, 2020, 9:28 AM
—“One of many duties that man has under P is that he is a warrior. My advice, hit the range and train MMA. Sharpen your eye, harden the body. My take is that a martial art in it of it self is a pure and physical form a reciprocity. Under P, lying is a serious offense. Step into the gym, the mat never lies. Wrestling as you know was a huge part of Greco-Roman culture. It tests a man’s spirit and his resolve. And you get what you give. The more you sweat, the less you bleed. Stay honed. If your always ready, then you never have to get ready again.”—Torey Eric Anderson
Be a man. Get fit ‘enough’. That’s all it takes. The first 20% of the training gives 80% of the value
Feb 11, 2020, 9:28 AM
—“One of many duties that man has under P is that he is a warrior. My advice, hit the range and train MMA. Sharpen your eye, harden the body. My take is that a martial art in it of it self is a pure and physical form a reciprocity. Under P, lying is a serious offense. Step into the gym, the mat never lies. Wrestling as you know was a huge part of Greco-Roman culture. It tests a man’s spirit and his resolve. And you get what you give. The more you sweat, the less you bleed. Stay honed. If your always ready, then you never have to get ready again.”—Torey Eric Anderson
Be a man. Get fit ‘enough’. That’s all it takes. The first 20% of the training gives 80% of the value