We practice the sciences in our actions, christian moral argument in public, pagan folk tales for the home.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-12 15:41:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708679410392637440
We practice the sciences in our actions, christian moral argument in public, pagan folk tales for the home.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-12 15:41:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708679410392637440
Which Reality? The pagan that gave us Truth, Testimony,Jury, Reason, Science? Or christian mysticism?
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-12 14:51:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708666616750448642
Reply addressees: @Nick_Louras @AliceTeller @wrathofgnon
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708664238919778305
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708664238919778305
We practice the sciences in our actions, christian moral argument in public, pagan folk tales for the home.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-12 10:41:00 UTC
We tend to use the term “Ethical Intuitionism” today – and it’s close enough. Myself, I tend to rely entirely on the science.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-11 06:41:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708181119024234497
Reply addressees: @DuxHispanii
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708011647412150272
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708011647412150272
Colloquially: “The completion of the scientific method for the purpose of the conduct of law”. Testimonial Truth: Testimony (Speech) that is warrantied by the speaker through the performance of due diligence against imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, deception and fraud. The only truth that can exist is that which is spoken. We can never speak the perfect truth because we can never know if we possess it. The most perfect truth we can speak is that which we have performed due diligence, that we do not speak in falsehood: fraud. Testimonialism: A set of tests of due diligence, the satisfaction of which allows us to warranty that to the best of our ability our speech (testimony) is free of the falsehoods: imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, deceit, and fraud. Truth: That testimony we would give if we possessed perfect (complete) knowledge, perfect language, and an audience possessed of the same. And, at that point we speak a name, not a description. Everything has a true name. We seek that name. In seeking it we seek truth. h/t: Nick Zito
Colloquially: “The completion of the scientific method for the purpose of the conduct of law”. Testimonial Truth: Testimony (Speech) that is warrantied by the speaker through the performance of due diligence against imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, deception and fraud. The only truth that can exist is that which is spoken. We can never speak the perfect truth because we can never know if we possess it. The most perfect truth we can speak is that which we have performed due diligence, that we do not speak in falsehood: fraud. Testimonialism: A set of tests of due diligence, the satisfaction of which allows us to warranty that to the best of our ability our speech (testimony) is free of the falsehoods: imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, deceit, and fraud. Truth: That testimony we would give if we possessed perfect (complete) knowledge, perfect language, and an audience possessed of the same. And, at that point we speak a name, not a description. Everything has a true name. We seek that name. In seeking it we seek truth. h/t: Nick Zito
—“Morris Kline classifies the four elements of the quadrivium as pure (arithmetic), stationary (geometry), moving (astronomy) and applied (music) number.”—
add accounting(balance), calculus(relativity), statistics(,
add property, voluntary transfer, programming, and Contract and you begin to see the pattern developing.
There is a very clear relationship between testimonialism and the quadrivium in that I have merely extended the dimensions from that of self referencing categories to that of exchange categories (morality).
There is an insane method to this madness. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-10 07:32:00 UTC
Q&A: “Curt; Do you have a concise definition for testimonialism?”
Colloquially: “The completion of the scientific method for the purpose of the conduct of law”.
Testimonial Truth: Testimony (Speech) that is warrantied by the speaker through the performance of due diligence against imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, deception and fraud. The only truth that can exist is that which is spoken. We can never speak the perfect truth because we can never know if we possess it. The most perfect truth we can speak is that which we have performed due diligence, that we do not speak in falsehood: fraud.
Testimonialism: A set of tests of due diligence, the satisfaction of which allows us to warranty that to the best of our ability our speech (testimony) is free of the falsehoods: error, bias, wishful thinking, imaginary relations, suggestion, deceit, and fraud.
Truth: that testimony we would give if we possessed perfect (complete) knowledge, perfect language, and an audience possessed of the same – and at that point we speak a name, not a description. Everything has a true name. We seek it. In seeking it we seek truth.
h/t: Nick Zito
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-10 03:28:00 UTC
BTW: Analytic should be reducible to ‘scientific’. I do not make the continental errors of conflation. That’s true.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-08 20:29:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/707302264151678976
Reply addressees: @soapjackal @retroch
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/707295276944330752
IN REPLY TO:
@soapjackal
@retroch @curtdoolittle He was always publicly an analytic philosopher so this isnt a surprising admission by any means.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/707295276944330752
THE GREAT LIES THAT OUR GENERATION MUST DEFEAT
The most significant intellectual lie that we can defeat, is the lie that there is a difference between philosophy, morality, law, science, and biology. There is none. If there is one, then someone is lying. Science is merely the philosophical specialization in truth telling. Philosophy no more than the description of why and how that is so, for the purpose of educating us how to tell the truth. Morality and law are synonyms, other than that the law captures but a subset of known immoralities. Rights must exist within the law and are a subset of law. That is it. There is nothing more to say.
The second most significant lie is that there is a difference between intentional and unintentional lie. One lies whenever one fails to perform due diligence. Intention matters nothing. It merely excuses the young, the foolish, the lazy, and the immoral, from the work of speaking truthfully: by having learned the skill of due diligence in testimony. To say otherwise is to say that man is entirely cognizant of the causes of his intutions. Yet we know that he is not.
The third most significant lie is the necessity for monopoly construction of commons rather than a monopoly of law : monologism. We have only a finite pool of resources to draw from whether we obtain those resources as a fee for participation or voluntarily in pursuit of a good. There is no reason that each of us votes how to use our contributions to the commons, and withdraws those contributions to the commons when they are not longer in our interests. There is no reason for a bureaucracy. We can construct private organizations that will do far better jobs as contractors than do bureaucrats, and at far better prices. There is no reason why we do not possess universal standing in matters of the commons,and why politicians and bureaucrats and judges are free from private prosecution. We Can anyone imagine if there were competing FDA’s? And wherein each employee was insured against malfeasance? Aren’t sheriff’s generally more respected than police?
The fourth most significant lie is that democracy is a good rather than a luxury by which the lower classes could participate in the wins of the colonial and industrial revolutions, and whereby the middle class and finance industries could seize power from the martial (territorial) and judicial( logical) classes.
The fifth is that the benefit of education has not had an equally unbeneficial harm. In that the spreading of lies in order to allow minority and female access to education and clerical employment at the expense of men who would protect truth telling as the tradition that gave them access to those roles.Or that the over-expense of education is no different from the payment of indulgences, since it appears to do not good other than filtering and sorting.
Last is that women are benevolent and equal, or than any of us are so.We all pursue our genetic interestst from the least good of us to the most. WOmen have been pandora yet again. And revisited evil upon the world. Perhaps as they were in the ancient world, as mere vectors for lies, but as wishful thinkers desirous only of consumption, they are perhaps more dangerous than the violent men we have so well suppressed in our genes.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-08 08:15:00 UTC