—“The goal of any creature can be described as avoiding disorder production.” — Kirill Latish
Like I said.
Wilsonian synthesis.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-24 06:07:00 UTC
—“The goal of any creature can be described as avoiding disorder production.” — Kirill Latish
Like I said.
Wilsonian synthesis.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-24 06:07:00 UTC
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20463040/
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-21 10:13:00 UTC
http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/07/04/central-arguments-defeating-three-red-queens/(worth repeating)
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-19 13:22:00 UTC
TECHNIQUE: JUSTIFICATION (MORAL) AND CRITICISM (AMORAL)
You can Justify your statements (as moral) if I trust you, and Criticize your statements (as scientific) if I don’t – or more importantly, if I cannot. Or worse, if it is not a matter of honesty but a matter of error and bias.
A jury cannot tell the truth of things, it can only determine if you acted rationally given the information at your disposal (operational test of believability of testimony given one’s of incentives), and whether your testimony corresponds with the testimony of others.
The intellectual disciplines, whether hard science or lacking hard science, all operate by the same process: testimony (publishing).
Justification (positive tests) evolved out of moral justification: adherence to norms and rules and assumptions.
Criticism (negative tests) evolved out of scientific criticism: tests of the limits of norms, rules and assumptions.
Justification is understandable for those things at human scale that we can sympathetically test by experience, and Criticism is necessary for those things we cannot sympathetically test, are not at human scale, and we cannot sympathetically test by experience.
This is because in matters of morals and norms we are chiefly looking for malfeasance: deceit.
And in matters of science we are chiefly looking for error and cognitive bias.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 02:02:00 UTC
[A]ll progress in truth, like all progress in law, is a reaction to progress in imagination, error, bias, deception and propaganda. The reason we could not suppress the left, is because we did not yet understand Truth. Now that we understand Truth, we can criticize, suppress and punish the left as the liars and thieves that they are.
CONSERVATISM -> REACTION -> PROPERTARIANISM (TESTIMONIALISM)
—“Reaction is foremost about embracing reality. An objective reality exists apart whatever stories men may tell themselves. This reality is harsh and bitter as we live in a fallen world. Reality can be denied temporarily, but will always win in the end.”—
[I] thought it was a good opportunity to talk about the relationship between Reaction and Science. (a) Reaction is an articulate criticism not a solution, and what solutions Curtis provided are afterthoughts – which is why we never talk about them seriously. (b) Reaction provides a language – a terminology of criticism. Which is good. Not just for signaling one another, but because the terminology provides a consistent argumentative structure for ongoing development of ideas – and leaves behind a cannon of ideas easier to learn and whose meaning is easier to maintain over time. Terms frame arguments. And members of reaction have succeeded in framing the argument. To defeat an idea, we must be able to name it and discuss it. That effort was successful. (c) But Reaction is stated in Continental (moral) and rational philosophical language. Just as the opposition relies upon Continental (moral) and rational philosophical language. It is NOT stated in scientific language free of moral loading and framing, nor is it stated in the Anglo Analytic (scientific) language. It is an argumentatively moral and rational criticism, not a legal, analytic, and scientific alternative. Criticisms are necessary because they motivate us as all good ideology should, but solutions are necessary also, because they can be stated operationally, and put into place operationally, and the rule of law can institutionalize them over long periods of, because they are ‘calculable’ statements rather than ‘interpretable’ statements. (d) The opposition uses pseudoscience. And reaction uses science to counter their pseudoscience – thanks to the revolution started by Pinker. And that corresponds to our history: The Aristocratic Egalitarianism of our European and indo-european ancestors, manorialism as an economic and political system, conservatism as a political philosophy, are each objectively scientific processes (observation, trial, error, and reaction), using the scientific method of cooperation (rule of law, common law, property rights, independent judiciary), (e) Conservatism as an intellectual movement failed, in no small part, because our scientific civilization was still reliant upon the rational moral language of our religious ancestors. Reaction is the first meaningful improvement in conservative (aristocratic) argument in decades. But, ’embracing reality’ is done in the language of correspondence with reality: science and the philosophy of science: analytic philosophy. Science has evolved to become the universal language of truthfulness. In no small part because it is laundered of moral loading, framing, and justification. Morality and Rationalism are allegorical and sentimental technologies. Science and Analytic philosophy are procedural, operational, existential, and unloaded technologies. Morality may be inspiring but science is actionable. I can make a legal contract – a constitution – that is hard to break. But I cannot make a moral analogy that survives the same attacks. (f) The next evolution of reaction must be not one of improving our loading and framing – although that is necessary for moral antagonism that encourages people to take up arms – but one of articulating the revocation of the errors of the enlightenment in actionable, scientific, analytic, and legal terms. These scientific, analytic, LEGAL and therefore AMORAL terms, are not as inspiring as the pervasive moral indignation we can load in continental rationalism. They are not as easy to understand, either. And we will require even more new terms. But they are much more precise tools for the construction of a set of demands for a set of institutions that will restore our ancient scientific civilization to its original direction as the guiding language of mankind. Finish the transformation of the scientific civilization to the language of science. Liberty in our lifetimes. Curt Doolittle, The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
CONSERVATISM -> REACTION -> PROPERTARIANISM (TESTIMONIALISM)
—“Reaction is foremost about embracing reality. An objective reality exists apart whatever stories men may tell themselves. This reality is harsh and bitter as we live in a fallen world. Reality can be denied temporarily, but will always win in the end.”—
[I] thought it was a good opportunity to talk about the relationship between Reaction and Science. (a) Reaction is an articulate criticism not a solution, and what solutions Curtis provided are afterthoughts – which is why we never talk about them seriously. (b) Reaction provides a language – a terminology of criticism. Which is good. Not just for signaling one another, but because the terminology provides a consistent argumentative structure for ongoing development of ideas – and leaves behind a cannon of ideas easier to learn and whose meaning is easier to maintain over time. Terms frame arguments. And members of reaction have succeeded in framing the argument. To defeat an idea, we must be able to name it and discuss it. That effort was successful. (c) But Reaction is stated in Continental (moral) and rational philosophical language. Just as the opposition relies upon Continental (moral) and rational philosophical language. It is NOT stated in scientific language free of moral loading and framing, nor is it stated in the Anglo Analytic (scientific) language. It is an argumentatively moral and rational criticism, not a legal, analytic, and scientific alternative. Criticisms are necessary because they motivate us as all good ideology should, but solutions are necessary also, because they can be stated operationally, and put into place operationally, and the rule of law can institutionalize them over long periods of, because they are ‘calculable’ statements rather than ‘interpretable’ statements. (d) The opposition uses pseudoscience. And reaction uses science to counter their pseudoscience – thanks to the revolution started by Pinker. And that corresponds to our history: The Aristocratic Egalitarianism of our European and indo-european ancestors, manorialism as an economic and political system, conservatism as a political philosophy, are each objectively scientific processes (observation, trial, error, and reaction), using the scientific method of cooperation (rule of law, common law, property rights, independent judiciary), (e) Conservatism as an intellectual movement failed, in no small part, because our scientific civilization was still reliant upon the rational moral language of our religious ancestors. Reaction is the first meaningful improvement in conservative (aristocratic) argument in decades. But, ’embracing reality’ is done in the language of correspondence with reality: science and the philosophy of science: analytic philosophy. Science has evolved to become the universal language of truthfulness. In no small part because it is laundered of moral loading, framing, and justification. Morality and Rationalism are allegorical and sentimental technologies. Science and Analytic philosophy are procedural, operational, existential, and unloaded technologies. Morality may be inspiring but science is actionable. I can make a legal contract – a constitution – that is hard to break. But I cannot make a moral analogy that survives the same attacks. (f) The next evolution of reaction must be not one of improving our loading and framing – although that is necessary for moral antagonism that encourages people to take up arms – but one of articulating the revocation of the errors of the enlightenment in actionable, scientific, analytic, and legal terms. These scientific, analytic, LEGAL and therefore AMORAL terms, are not as inspiring as the pervasive moral indignation we can load in continental rationalism. They are not as easy to understand, either. And we will require even more new terms. But they are much more precise tools for the construction of a set of demands for a set of institutions that will restore our ancient scientific civilization to its original direction as the guiding language of mankind. Finish the transformation of the scientific civilization to the language of science. Liberty in our lifetimes. Curt Doolittle, The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
(religious trigger warning) [K]ant understood the central value of the west was truth speaking. But Kant was still a Christian – arguing in unscientific language of morality. He was not able to make the leap from truth to jury, law, science and economics. We face the same problem with Today’s Christians. Traditionalists often hold proper sensibilities and express them in the language of belief, rather than the language of institutions, incentives, law, and economics – the art of cooperation rather than totalitarianism that requires submission in all the monotheistic religions, and which demands we abandon truth in favor of useful analogy. What traditionalism requires is submission – and in exchange one gains freedom from the burden of perpetual calculation of events. The value of religion – still measurable today – is that it is increasingly valuable as intelligence decreases. And decreasingly valuable as intelligence increases. Religious authority obviates need for reason. Truth, science and reason obviate the need for authority. So we really have two choices: we can have two systems of thought: scientific and mythical, while insisting that the mythical contain moral content only, with full knowledge that the scientific method is aristocratic and libertarian in construction and the mythical narrative is proletarian and authoritarian in construction. Or, we can suppress the reproduction of the lower classes and merely pay them off until there are so few left that their cost is below noise level. (Spoken as a Catholic myself.) Source: Curt Doolittle
(religious trigger warning) [K]ant understood the central value of the west was truth speaking. But Kant was still a Christian – arguing in unscientific language of morality. He was not able to make the leap from truth to jury, law, science and economics. We face the same problem with Today’s Christians. Traditionalists often hold proper sensibilities and express them in the language of belief, rather than the language of institutions, incentives, law, and economics – the art of cooperation rather than totalitarianism that requires submission in all the monotheistic religions, and which demands we abandon truth in favor of useful analogy. What traditionalism requires is submission – and in exchange one gains freedom from the burden of perpetual calculation of events. The value of religion – still measurable today – is that it is increasingly valuable as intelligence decreases. And decreasingly valuable as intelligence increases. Religious authority obviates need for reason. Truth, science and reason obviate the need for authority. So we really have two choices: we can have two systems of thought: scientific and mythical, while insisting that the mythical contain moral content only, with full knowledge that the scientific method is aristocratic and libertarian in construction and the mythical narrative is proletarian and authoritarian in construction. Or, we can suppress the reproduction of the lower classes and merely pay them off until there are so few left that their cost is below noise level. (Spoken as a Catholic myself.) Source: Curt Doolittle
THE END OF HISTORY: THE SCIENTIFIC (TRUTHFUL) CIVILIZATION: THE WEST.
(profundity of the day)(read it)(propertarianism provides the wilsonian synthesis)
If I am correct, and that the reason for western rapidity of innovation, economic velocity, and intellectual progress, is the prevalence of truth telling in all walks of life; and that truth telling begets truth-thinking; and that truth-thinking leads to multitudinous goods – faster than all other institutional solutions; then why are not truth-speaking and truth-thinking as radical an innovation as literacy and reading?
(I am pretty sure it is.)
Oath-giving was expensive. Juries were expensive. A senate is expensive. Rule of law was very expensive. Literacy was terribly expensive. Science was expensive. High trust was very expensive. Yet these investments in our commons are the very reasons that westerners produce every good faster than all competing civilizations in both the greco-roman and re-enlightened eras.
We succeeded in incremental suppression of all free riding, and incremental increase in normative taxation – bearing costs for the production of norms.
If we require the payment of truth telling, no other innovation in institutions can compete with it.
Once we have implemented truth telling as common property with universal standing, then we can eliminate the centralization of parasitism in the state: monopoly bureaucracy. We will have successfully suppressed local parasitism and eliminated transaction costs by centralizing parasitism as a means of paying for the transition. Then eliminated the central bureaucracy as a means of parasitism. We can then – and only then – finally live in a nomocracy: under rule of law.
This simple act will result in the ‘scientific civilization’. It will complete the enlightenment attempt to restore our western civilization to its hellenic and indo european origins – rescuing it from babylonian mysticism forever. Not because people ‘believe’ one thing or another. But because we have eliminate all opportunity to, and utility in, doing otherwise.
(And if that isn’t the most profound argument you’ve run into this year I’ll be surprised.)
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-05 07:34:00 UTC