My answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://t.co/X0C0GANSPg Is the statement an axiom? No. It’s a Law. The difference between an axiom and a law, is that an axiom is declared (created and therefore arbitrary), and a law is discovered (existential, and therefore unavoidable). Is the law self evident? Self evident means ‘obvious’. Yes, that man acts and must act, is obvious. What does the law that man must act tell us? Absolutely nothing. It is meaningless. To react we must only biologically respond. To act we must decide. To decide we must reason. Like all Libertarian Tropes (nonsense-arguments) both “Man Acts” and “Non Aggression” are incomplete statements. Abrahamic sophisms (Pilpul and Critique) rely heavily upon suggestion. Suggestion refers to providing only partial information, such that the individual consciously or unconsciously provides the rest of the information – but provides his judgement or value of it. As such, when we make moral suggestions (half truths), we force the recipient to substitute his value judgements in order to complete the sentence (transaction for, or contract for, meaning). This is why non-aggression is nonsense and libertarianism is a dead end: because everyone intuits his moral standard of property. Thus agreeing with NAP yet in truth, agreeing only with himself. So we have millions of idiots running around claiming NAP is a standard of something other than one’s reflection. (Quite stupid really.) The complete sentences are (a) man acts to acquire all that is necessary for survival, discounts on acquisitions, and opportunities for reproduction. And (b) reciprocity requires non imposition upon (aggression against) the demonstrated investments of others regardless of whether they are physical, kinship, interpersonal, organizational, the commons, institutional, or informational. In other words, anything people have born any cost to obtain an interest, and which they demonstrate defense of.
Theme: Science
-
Is Mises’s Action Axiom Self Evident?
My answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://t.co/X0C0GANSPg Is the statement an axiom? No. It’s a Law. The difference between an axiom and a law, is that an axiom is declared (created and therefore arbitrary), and a law is discovered (existential, and therefore unavoidable). Is the law self evident? Self evident means ‘obvious’. Yes, that man acts and must act, is obvious. What does the law that man must act tell us? Absolutely nothing. It is meaningless. To react we must only biologically respond. To act we must decide. To decide we must reason. Like all Libertarian Tropes (nonsense-arguments) both “Man Acts” and “Non Aggression” are incomplete statements. Abrahamic sophisms (Pilpul and Critique) rely heavily upon suggestion. Suggestion refers to providing only partial information, such that the individual consciously or unconsciously provides the rest of the information – but provides his judgement or value of it. As such, when we make moral suggestions (half truths), we force the recipient to substitute his value judgements in order to complete the sentence (transaction for, or contract for, meaning). This is why non-aggression is nonsense and libertarianism is a dead end: because everyone intuits his moral standard of property. Thus agreeing with NAP yet in truth, agreeing only with himself. So we have millions of idiots running around claiming NAP is a standard of something other than one’s reflection. (Quite stupid really.) The complete sentences are (a) man acts to acquire all that is necessary for survival, discounts on acquisitions, and opportunities for reproduction. And (b) reciprocity requires non imposition upon (aggression against) the demonstrated investments of others regardless of whether they are physical, kinship, interpersonal, organizational, the commons, institutional, or informational. In other words, anything people have born any cost to obtain an interest, and which they demonstrate defense of.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. I ONLY WORK WITH AND I ONLY CONSTRUCT PARADIG
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
I ONLY WORK WITH AND I ONLY CONSTRUCT PARADIGMS CONSISTING OF CONSTANT RELATIONS THE REMAIN CONTIGUOUS ACROSS DISCIPLINES
In other words, Logic > Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biochemistry > Biology > Sentience > Consciousness > Reason > Calculation > Computation.
So when you ask me “Hey have you hear of X nonsense?” I hear “Hey have you heard of this set of fictional paradigms that are discontiguous with existential, observable, testifiable, reality?”
No. Fairy stories. I like fairy stories. But only when they are in fact fairy stories, not fairy stories claiming to be something else.
There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. And that most parsimonious paradigm is that which consists of constant relations contiguous across the disciplines.
CONTIGUOUS
1 : being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point – the 48 contiguous states
2 : touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence – contiguous row houses contiguous vineyards
3 : next or near in time or sequence -The fires were contiguous with the earthquake.
DISCONTIGUOUS
1 : not contiguous – intermittent · sporadic · broken · fitful · interrupted · on and off · disrupted · erratic · disconnected
CONSTANT RELATIONS
1 : properties shared between two or more referents.
2 : properties remaining constant between two or more states.
INCONSTANT RELATIONS
1 : properties not shared between two or more referents.
2 : properties not constant between two or more states.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 23:20:57 UTC
-
Paradigms Consisting of Constant Relations
I ONLY WORK WITH AND I ONLY CONSTRUCT PARADIGMS CONSISTING OF CONSTANT RELATIONS THAT REMAIN CONTIGUOUS ACROSS DISCIPLINES In other words, Logic > Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biochemistry > Biology > Sentience > Consciousness > Reason > Calculation > Computation. So when you ask me “Hey have you hear of X nonsense?” I hear “Hey have you heard of this set of fictional paradigms that are discontiguous with existential, observable, testifiable, reality?” No. Fairy stories. I like fairy stories. But only when they are in fact fairy stories, not fairy stories claiming to be something else. There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. And that most parsimonious paradigm is that which consists of constant relations contiguous across the disciplines. CONTIGUOUS 1 : being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point – the 48 contiguous states 2 : touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence – contiguous row houses contiguous vineyards 3 : next or near in time or sequence -The fires were contiguous with the earthquake. DISCONTIGUOUS 1 : not contiguous – intermittent · sporadic · broken · fitful · interrupted · on and off · disrupted · erratic · disconnected CONSTANT RELATIONS 1 : properties shared between two or more referents. 2 : properties remaining constant between two or more states. INCONSTANT RELATIONS 1 : properties not shared between two or more referents. 2 : properties not constant between two or more states.Jul 02, 2018 7:20pm -
Paradigms Consisting of Constant Relations
I ONLY WORK WITH AND I ONLY CONSTRUCT PARADIGMS CONSISTING OF CONSTANT RELATIONS THAT REMAIN CONTIGUOUS ACROSS DISCIPLINES In other words, Logic > Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biochemistry > Biology > Sentience > Consciousness > Reason > Calculation > Computation. So when you ask me “Hey have you hear of X nonsense?” I hear “Hey have you heard of this set of fictional paradigms that are discontiguous with existential, observable, testifiable, reality?” No. Fairy stories. I like fairy stories. But only when they are in fact fairy stories, not fairy stories claiming to be something else. There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. And that most parsimonious paradigm is that which consists of constant relations contiguous across the disciplines. CONTIGUOUS 1 : being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point – the 48 contiguous states 2 : touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence – contiguous row houses contiguous vineyards 3 : next or near in time or sequence -The fires were contiguous with the earthquake. DISCONTIGUOUS 1 : not contiguous – intermittent · sporadic · broken · fitful · interrupted · on and off · disrupted · erratic · disconnected CONSTANT RELATIONS 1 : properties shared between two or more referents. 2 : properties remaining constant between two or more states. INCONSTANT RELATIONS 1 : properties not shared between two or more referents. 2 : properties not constant between two or more states.Jul 02, 2018 7:20pm -
I ONLY WORK WITH AND I ONLY CONSTRUCT PARADIGMS CONSISTING OF CONSTANT RELATIONS
I ONLY WORK WITH AND I ONLY CONSTRUCT PARADIGMS CONSISTING OF CONSTANT RELATIONS THE REMAIN CONTIGUOUS ACROSS DISCIPLINES
In other words, Logic > Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biochemistry > Biology > Sentience > Consciousness > Reason > Calculation > Computation.
So when you ask me “Hey have you hear of X nonsense?” I hear “Hey have you heard of this set of fictional paradigms that are discontiguous with existential, observable, testifiable, reality?”
No. Fairy stories. I like fairy stories. But only when they are in fact fairy stories, not fairy stories claiming to be something else.
There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. And that most parsimonious paradigm is that which consists of constant relations contiguous across the disciplines.
CONTIGUOUS
1 : being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point – the 48 contiguous states
2 : touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence – contiguous row houses contiguous vineyards
3 : next or near in time or sequence -The fires were contiguous with the earthquake.
DISCONTIGUOUS
1 : not contiguous – intermittent · sporadic · broken · fitful · interrupted · on and off · disrupted · erratic · disconnected
CONSTANT RELATIONS
1 : properties shared between two or more referents.
2 : properties remaining constant between two or more states.
INCONSTANT RELATIONS
1 : properties not shared between two or more referents.
2 : properties not constant between two or more states.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 19:20:00 UTC
-
Truth is a merciless, zero-tolerance, weapon. Truth is merciless. Truth is the s
Truth is a merciless, zero-tolerance, weapon.
Truth is merciless. Truth is the scientific, legal, political, educational, and religious means of defeating the abrahamisms. But Truth is not a selective weapon. It is indescriminate – a weapon of zero tolerance. It will destroy your Christianity along with the first generation abrahamic religions: judaism, christianity, and islam, and second generation abrahamic religions: marxism (Judaism), feminism, and postmodernism (Christianity), and fundamentalist islam.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 18:09:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. WHY DO YOU CONSTRAIN ARGUMENT TO THE MATERIAL
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
WHY DO YOU CONSTRAIN ARGUMENT TO THE MATERIAL AND COMPUTATIONAL?
The reason I stick so rigidly with the computational model and existential (material) model is to close the door completely to abrahamism(jewish), rationalization(french) and phenomenalism(german) as means of self deception.
The computational and material model explains the phenomenological. With it we can discuss the phenomenological without attributing CAUSATION TO IT.
Our experiential world is the result of the physical and computational.
Most philosophical and argumentative systems measure the experiential rather than merely observe that the experiential is a measurement (consequence) of the material and computational.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 14:12:14 UTC
-
Yes, Peterson has a self authoring course, but not the ‘framing’, and I think Ma
Yes, Peterson has a self authoring course, but not the ‘framing’, and I think Massimo puts books out on the framing but not a course.
Effectively speaking stocism is a scientific religion. Or rather a religious and philosophical system that does not conflict with science.
In my understanding, we are trying to (by accident) recreate the stoic philosophy (religion).
It was quite a while before I understood that’s what I was doing. I think Massimo is doing it intentionally. I haven’t got to peterson yet to ask if he’s knowingly doing it.
I have reasons to prefer peterson’s method. My only question is whether or not he should use biblical stories or not. And my preference is ‘no’, because I want to kill abrahamism (sophism) while at the same time preserve literary analogy (wisdom literature)
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 10:14:00 UTC
-
Stocism is a scientific religion
Yes, Peterson has a self authoring course, but not the ‘framing’, and I think Massimo puts books out on the framing but not a course. Effectively speaking stocism is a scientific religion. Or rather a religious and philosophical system that does not conflict with science. In my understanding, we are trying to (by accident) recreate the stoic philosophy (religion). It was quite a while before I understood that’s what I was doing. I think Massimo is doing it intentionally. I haven’t got to peterson yet to ask if he’s knowingly doing it. I have reasons to prefer peterson’s method. My only question is whether or not he should use biblical stories or not. And my preference is ‘no’, because I want to kill abrahamism (sophism) while at the same time preserve literary analogy (wisdom literature)