Human nature invests minimum to gain maximum and is quite lazy when it comes to unnecessary precision, but then attempts to use imprecise terms (and ideas) to solve precise problems.
Human experties in sciences (deflationary grammars) serves to deflate any given level of abstraction. I have a chart you need to see.
I understand the unification of the sciences and I think plenty of other people do – but it’s just very different from what we’d expected.
—“the inference would be that a corresponding language of specificity would be a part of that.”—
Well, exactly.
–“However, that is not why we have failed at achieving”—
The reason we failed is that there is a market for agency via deception (non-correspondence, inconsistency, and in-coherence), just as much as there is a market for agency via truthfulness(correspondence, consistency, and coherence).
Ergo, just as we have eliminated the markets for violence, theft, fraud, free riding, etc, we can eliminate the market for falsehoods: by law. The problem was (and is no longer) a criteria for warranty of due diligence against falsehood of information entered intot he informational commons.
In other words, I’m not ‘selling’. I’m not interested in convincing people that crime is crime, only in producing law that states what crime is, and therefore outlaws it.
People will then respond accordingly – as they always have done – to incremental suppression of parasitism.
And that is the means by which we have produced civilization: the incremental suppression of parasitism through the incremental expansion of the law, by the discovery and cataloging the means by which man engages in parasitism.
So I am not really writing philosophy (choice and preference), but law (necessity and truth).
Hence my lack of concern for what ‘people think’. People have ‘thought’ that outlawing each form of parasitism was bad in every generation because it forces them into survival in the service of others in the market – and non-survival if they do not.
Theme: Truth
-
by Kage Keller Pardon me for restating in language less exacting. We use Truth t
by Kage Keller
Pardon me for restating in language less exacting. We use Truth to create models that corresponde with reality. We use that model for heuristics.
—“definition: a heuristic, is any approach to problem solving, learning, or discovery that employs a practical method not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect, but sufficient for the immediate goals”—
We need these models for prediction so that we can make choices, and take actions, to survive.
We seek novelty to improve our models.
Novelty-seeking saves time and energy – where we use pattern recognition and our predictive power of neurons to identify where others have done the processing for us.
When we consider what someone else has said (running it through our pattern recognition and predictive “wiring”, and then integrate it into a new model) we save time/processing power that we can use for other endeavors (survival reinforcement for our genetics).
This is an efficient use of social information processing…
But, if and only if you know enough about the problem to predict someone else’s processing result has a high probability of being right.
But, it is disastrous if you have a very weak model on the subject. Because then you can be INDOCTRINATED – where a biased model can be learned (installed) and then be extraordinarily difficult to overcome with future information (novelty).
This is where we rely on experts who have processed answers for us. It is dangerous however to take answers on faith.
Without digging into their model and having done some processing on your own, you leave yourself open to have your foundations supplanted by some entities’ agenda.
You become a pawn, or sheep, or cuck…etc. e.g. you surrender your agency for a modicum of processing savings.
Being well read is an insurance policy against indoctrination (which disenfranchises your agency(freedom to make decisions for survival))
(Curt: well done!)
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-25 12:27:00 UTC
-
by Kage Keller Pardon me for restating in language less exacting. We use Truth t
by Kage Keller Pardon me for restating in language less exacting. We use Truth to create models that corresponde with reality. We use that model for heuristics. —“definition: a heuristic, is any approach to problem solving, learning, or discovery that employs a practical method not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect, but sufficient for the immediate goals”— We need these models for prediction so that we can make choices, and take actions, to survive. We seek novelty to improve our models. Novelty-seeking saves time and energy – where we use pattern recognition and our predictive power of neurons to identify where others have done the processing for us. When we consider what someone else has said (running it through our pattern recognition and predictive “wiring”, and then integrate it into a new model) we save time/processing power that we can use for other endeavors (survival reinforcement for our genetics). This is an efficient use of social information processing… But, if and only if you know enough about the problem to predict someone else’s processing result has a high probability of being right. But, it is disastrous if you have a very weak model on the subject. Because then you can be INDOCTRINATED – where a biased model can be learned (installed) and then be extraordinarily difficult to overcome with future information (novelty). This is where we rely on experts who have processed answers for us. It is dangerous however to take answers on faith. Without digging into their model and having done some processing on your own, you leave yourself open to have your foundations supplanted by some entities’ agenda. You become a pawn, or sheep, or cuck…etc. e.g. you surrender your agency for a modicum of processing savings. Being well read is an insurance policy against indoctrination (which disenfranchises your agency(freedom to make decisions for survival)) (Curt: well done!) -
by Kage Keller Pardon me for restating in language less exacting. We use Truth t
by Kage Keller Pardon me for restating in language less exacting. We use Truth to create models that corresponde with reality. We use that model for heuristics. —“definition: a heuristic, is any approach to problem solving, learning, or discovery that employs a practical method not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect, but sufficient for the immediate goals”— We need these models for prediction so that we can make choices, and take actions, to survive. We seek novelty to improve our models. Novelty-seeking saves time and energy – where we use pattern recognition and our predictive power of neurons to identify where others have done the processing for us. When we consider what someone else has said (running it through our pattern recognition and predictive “wiring”, and then integrate it into a new model) we save time/processing power that we can use for other endeavors (survival reinforcement for our genetics). This is an efficient use of social information processing… But, if and only if you know enough about the problem to predict someone else’s processing result has a high probability of being right. But, it is disastrous if you have a very weak model on the subject. Because then you can be INDOCTRINATED – where a biased model can be learned (installed) and then be extraordinarily difficult to overcome with future information (novelty). This is where we rely on experts who have processed answers for us. It is dangerous however to take answers on faith. Without digging into their model and having done some processing on your own, you leave yourself open to have your foundations supplanted by some entities’ agenda. You become a pawn, or sheep, or cuck…etc. e.g. you surrender your agency for a modicum of processing savings. Being well read is an insurance policy against indoctrination (which disenfranchises your agency(freedom to make decisions for survival)) (Curt: well done!) -
“Truth is temporal, not absolute”— Try to say that without appealing to platon
—“Truth is temporal, not absolute”—
Try to say that without appealing to platonism. You wont be able to. Why?
If you can’t state the means of a things existence without the verb to be, then you do not know of what you speak. Reliance on the verb to-be (is, are, was, were etc) violates strict grammatical construction in our high precision, low context language.
When you say that rules of logic include a litany of fallacies, again, you refer to violations in the compatibility of semantic content and the deflationary grammars (logics) with which we test commensurability of states (statements).
In other words: word games.
Let me state it better for you (as I did in the opening sentence)
The information (semantics: consisting of networks of constant relations) we rely upon, must of necessity include symbols (referrers, terms, words), that serve as categories (general rules of arbitrary precision), that as such categorical aggregates, exclude (disambiguate) our experience of the universe. Ergo: our knowledge remains incomplete. And our language remains imprecise – including ignorance, error bias, and deceit. So in any attempt at testing one’s testimony, we must test the constant relations in each perceivable dimension of reality, and across all dimensions of perceivable reality. And to do so we require multiple grammars (rules of continuous disambiguation).
So when you speak of logic(words) and science(actions) and sympathetic tests of rationality (rewards), you speak of the three (and only three) categories of grammatical tests we can employ in order to speak without ignorance error, bias, and deceit: truthfully.
We speak (testify) truthfully or we do not.
WORDS(LOGIC)
1.1- Categorical: We may testify to tautology and in that case must speak THE truth. We have no alternative.
1.2 – Logical: We may testify to internal consistency within a given grammar. As such we speak truthfully if and only if argument (formula, proof) is (exists as) internally consistent (consisting of constant relations between states).
ACTIONS(SCIENCE)
2.1 – Empirical: We may testify to external correspondence if and only if we find external correspondence, sufficiency and parsimony.
2.2 – Operational: we may testify to the existential possibility of sequence of operations only if we can describe changes in state of constant relations due to a sequence of operations.
RATIONAL (INCENTIVES)
3.1- Rational: We may testify to the rationality of choice if and only if we sympathetically test the incentives under sufficiency and parsimony.
3.2 – Moral: we may testify to the morality (Crime, ethics, morality) of any action or its consequences by tests of the productive, fully informed, voluntary, (and warrantied) transfer of that which individuals have acted to obtain an interest.
We cannot know the Truth (the most parsimonious speech possible)
We can know Truthfulness (survival of due diligence in the dimensions of perceivable reality.
And we do that by the production of grammars that force us to continuously disambiguate our categories of perception into those categories that disambiguous describe reality.
Slowly we get there….
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-25 10:30:00 UTC
-
“Truth is temporal, not absolute”— Try to say that without appealing to platon
—“Truth is temporal, not absolute”— Try to say that without appealing to platonism. You wont be able to. Why? If you can’t state the means of a things existence without the verb to be, then you do not know of what you speak. Reliance on the verb to-be (is, are, was, were etc) violates strict grammatical construction in our high precision, low context language. When you say that rules of logic include a litany of fallacies, again, you refer to violations in the compatibility of semantic content and the deflationary grammars (logics) with which we test commensurability of states (statements). In other words: word games. Let me state it better for you (as I did in the opening sentence) The information (semantics: consisting of networks of constant relations) we rely upon, must of necessity include symbols (referrers, terms, words), that serve as categories (general rules of arbitrary precision), that as such categorical aggregates, exclude (disambiguate) our experience of the universe. Ergo: our knowledge remains incomplete. And our language remains imprecise – including ignorance, error bias, and deceit. So in any attempt at testing one’s testimony, we must test the constant relations in each perceivable dimension of reality, and across all dimensions of perceivable reality. And to do so we require multiple grammars (rules of continuous disambiguation). So when you speak of logic(words) and science(actions) and sympathetic tests of rationality (rewards), you speak of the three (and only three) categories of grammatical tests we can employ in order to speak without ignorance error, bias, and deceit: truthfully. We speak (testify) truthfully or we do not. WORDS(LOGIC) 1.1- Categorical: We may testify to tautology and in that case must speak THE truth. We have no alternative. 1.2 – Logical: We may testify to internal consistency within a given grammar. As such we speak truthfully if and only if argument (formula, proof) is (exists as) internally consistent (consisting of constant relations between states). ACTIONS(SCIENCE) 2.1 – Empirical: We may testify to external correspondence if and only if we find external correspondence, sufficiency and parsimony. 2.2 – Operational: we may testify to the existential possibility of sequence of operations only if we can describe changes in state of constant relations due to a sequence of operations. RATIONAL (INCENTIVES) 3.1- Rational: We may testify to the rationality of choice if and only if we sympathetically test the incentives under sufficiency and parsimony. 3.2 – Moral: we may testify to the morality (Crime, ethics, morality) of any action or its consequences by tests of the productive, fully informed, voluntary, (and warrantied) transfer of that which individuals have acted to obtain an interest. We cannot know the Truth (the most parsimonious speech possible) We can know Truthfulness (survival of due diligence in the dimensions of perceivable reality. And we do that by the production of grammars that force us to continuously disambiguate our categories of perception into those categories that disambiguous describe reality. Slowly we get there…. -
“Truth is temporal, not absolute”— Try to say that without appealing to platon
—“Truth is temporal, not absolute”— Try to say that without appealing to platonism. You wont be able to. Why? If you can’t state the means of a things existence without the verb to be, then you do not know of what you speak. Reliance on the verb to-be (is, are, was, were etc) violates strict grammatical construction in our high precision, low context language. When you say that rules of logic include a litany of fallacies, again, you refer to violations in the compatibility of semantic content and the deflationary grammars (logics) with which we test commensurability of states (statements). In other words: word games. Let me state it better for you (as I did in the opening sentence) The information (semantics: consisting of networks of constant relations) we rely upon, must of necessity include symbols (referrers, terms, words), that serve as categories (general rules of arbitrary precision), that as such categorical aggregates, exclude (disambiguate) our experience of the universe. Ergo: our knowledge remains incomplete. And our language remains imprecise – including ignorance, error bias, and deceit. So in any attempt at testing one’s testimony, we must test the constant relations in each perceivable dimension of reality, and across all dimensions of perceivable reality. And to do so we require multiple grammars (rules of continuous disambiguation). So when you speak of logic(words) and science(actions) and sympathetic tests of rationality (rewards), you speak of the three (and only three) categories of grammatical tests we can employ in order to speak without ignorance error, bias, and deceit: truthfully. We speak (testify) truthfully or we do not. WORDS(LOGIC) 1.1- Categorical: We may testify to tautology and in that case must speak THE truth. We have no alternative. 1.2 – Logical: We may testify to internal consistency within a given grammar. As such we speak truthfully if and only if argument (formula, proof) is (exists as) internally consistent (consisting of constant relations between states). ACTIONS(SCIENCE) 2.1 – Empirical: We may testify to external correspondence if and only if we find external correspondence, sufficiency and parsimony. 2.2 – Operational: we may testify to the existential possibility of sequence of operations only if we can describe changes in state of constant relations due to a sequence of operations. RATIONAL (INCENTIVES) 3.1- Rational: We may testify to the rationality of choice if and only if we sympathetically test the incentives under sufficiency and parsimony. 3.2 – Moral: we may testify to the morality (Crime, ethics, morality) of any action or its consequences by tests of the productive, fully informed, voluntary, (and warrantied) transfer of that which individuals have acted to obtain an interest. We cannot know the Truth (the most parsimonious speech possible) We can know Truthfulness (survival of due diligence in the dimensions of perceivable reality. And we do that by the production of grammars that force us to continuously disambiguate our categories of perception into those categories that disambiguous describe reality. Slowly we get there…. -
Do You Think That Postmodernism Has Had A Negative Or Positive Effect On Education, Especially In Literature Classes?
Postmodernism can be best understood in the context of a revolt against science and reason, that is a repetition of the enlightenment revolt against empiricism, and the ancient world’s revolt against reason.
THE GENERATIONAL REVOLTS AGAINST SCIENCE, REASON, AND TRUTH
4 – The Revolt Against Science – Using Publishing and Major Media (19th-20th)
Marxism/Freudianism/Boazianism(Pseudoscience) > Cultural Marxism(Propaganda) > Postmodernism (Pseudo-rationalism: denial of reality, logic, science and truth.)3 – The Revolt Against Empiricism – Using the Printing Press (17th-18th)
Rousseau(Literary) > Kant(Rationalism) > Continental Philosophy(“Moral Fictionalism”) – the attempt to recreate Germanicized Christianity in secular prose.2 -The Revolt Against Reason – Using Writing and Pulpit (1st-7th)
The reaction to greek idealism and adoption by Rabbinical Judaism (Revolt against the rationality and aristocracy) > Christianity(undermine from within) > Islam (conquer). The revolt of the pastoralists against the Agrarians.1- The Revolt Against The Invention of Aristocracy – Using “Writings of the Gods” (~1500bc)
The European vs Indo-Iranian divide and the invention of scriptural religion.So, we see the same process of destruction of Western Civilization, by the same means the the great civilizations of the ancient world were destroyed by Christianity (western roman empire), and Islam (Byzantium, North Africa, Persia, and Levantine – creating the Abrahamic Dark Age.
POSTMODERNISM IS A REVOLT AGAINST SCIENCE, REASON, AND TRUTH. SO, HOW CAN IT BE ANYTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE ANOTHER DARK AGE?
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-that-postmodernism-has-had-a-negative-or-positive-effect-on-education-especially-in-literature-classes
-
Do You Think That Postmodernism Has Had A Negative Or Positive Effect On Education, Especially In Literature Classes?
Postmodernism can be best understood in the context of a revolt against science and reason, that is a repetition of the enlightenment revolt against empiricism, and the ancient world’s revolt against reason.
THE GENERATIONAL REVOLTS AGAINST SCIENCE, REASON, AND TRUTH
4 – The Revolt Against Science – Using Publishing and Major Media (19th-20th)
Marxism/Freudianism/Boazianism(Pseudoscience) > Cultural Marxism(Propaganda) > Postmodernism (Pseudo-rationalism: denial of reality, logic, science and truth.)3 – The Revolt Against Empiricism – Using the Printing Press (17th-18th)
Rousseau(Literary) > Kant(Rationalism) > Continental Philosophy(“Moral Fictionalism”) – the attempt to recreate Germanicized Christianity in secular prose.2 -The Revolt Against Reason – Using Writing and Pulpit (1st-7th)
The reaction to greek idealism and adoption by Rabbinical Judaism (Revolt against the rationality and aristocracy) > Christianity(undermine from within) > Islam (conquer). The revolt of the pastoralists against the Agrarians.1- The Revolt Against The Invention of Aristocracy – Using “Writings of the Gods” (~1500bc)
The European vs Indo-Iranian divide and the invention of scriptural religion.So, we see the same process of destruction of Western Civilization, by the same means the the great civilizations of the ancient world were destroyed by Christianity (western roman empire), and Islam (Byzantium, North Africa, Persia, and Levantine – creating the Abrahamic Dark Age.
POSTMODERNISM IS A REVOLT AGAINST SCIENCE, REASON, AND TRUTH. SO, HOW CAN IT BE ANYTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE ANOTHER DARK AGE?
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-that-postmodernism-has-had-a-negative-or-positive-effect-on-education-especially-in-literature-classes
-
Currently, Who Are The Best Right Wing Philosophers/thinkers? I’m A Leftist, And I Believe That It’s Important To Challenge The Beliefs You Hold, So I’m Mostly Looking For Authors/public Speakers That’ll Give Me Something Worthwhile To Engage With.
I’ll bite anytime, any place, anywhere – as long as you’re intellectually honest, and have more than trivial grasp of economics. (The problem is finding a leftist that’s intellectually honest, and has any understanding whatsoever of economics.)
CONSERVATISM UNDERSTOOD
1. A conservative questions the overestimation of reason, and above all questions consensus. Conservatism is familial, stoic, pragmatic, and empirical. In other words risk averse to capital.
2. As a means of questioning, a conservative requires reciprocity (tort): american < british < anglo saxon < germanic < european < norther indo european in law. That law evolved from the oath (tell the truth, never steal, never flee, in combat).
3. A Conservative requires ‘empirical’ results – and where empirical fails, the ‘traditional’ is adequate, since traditional survived empirical tests in competition in reality.
4. A Conservative accumulates genetic, cultural, normative, institutional, physical, and territorial capital – attempting to pass on to future generations of his family, more than he himself inherited.
5. Conservatism is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy that increases accumulated capital through intergenerational transfer, using intergeneration lending, in order to produce increasingly ‘noble’ families.
6. Ergo successful individuals in the market for craftsmanship, successful purchase of the franchise through military service, successful individuals in the market for marriage and child rearing, successful individuals in the market for industry, successful families in the market for noble (intergenerational) families.
7. In other words, conservatism(aristocracy) is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy. And while bipartite manorialism was practiced from 700, and aggressive hanging of up to 1% of the population every year after 1000, and an attempt to escape church-state nobility, and create an entrepreneurial nobility (meritocracy), succeeded by 1600, there was a great reaction to the english revolution, and a greater reaction to the french revolution. Thus while Locke,smith,hume,adams, and jefferson promised an aristocracy available to everyone, Burke, after the french revolution, and germans after that, recognized that the peasantry was even worse at rule (see russia) than the nobility.
The problem with today’s conservatism is that darwin and spencer were famous before the war, after the second world war, conservatism and eugenics were effectively banned from discourse, academy, and science.
As such conservatives never (until perhaps 2000) restored empirical discourse to conservatism, because eugenics are antithetical to the experiment with democracy. This changed incrementally beginning in 76, through the 80s, and aggressively since 2000, and more aggressively since 2008.
1 – Soveriengty requires reciprocity
2 – Reciprocity requires rule of law (tort), jury(thang, senate, house of lords, supreme court), and an independent judiciary.
3 – Rule of law forces markets, since it incrementally suppresses each innovation in parasitism.
4 – Markets cause hierarchies, because they are necessary to voluntarily organize production.
5 – Markets are eugenic, because they are empirical means of testing industry and impulse.
6 – But they make possible liberty for those with property, freedom for those who labor, and subsidy for those who impose no costs on sovereignty, liberty, freedom, or property.**
DOMESTICATION
Man domesticated the human animal after he had learned to domesticate the non-human animal. And he did so by the same means. And the result in both domestication of the human and non human animal is the same: eugenics.CONSERVATIVES
Most conservatives do not write philosophy, they run businesses, or write history, economics, science, and law. (I write because I was successful enough in multiple businesses to spend my time writing full time.) Conservatives also are actively suppressed in academy and media.This has been true since the end of the war and teh rise of the Frankfurt School, and the Postmodern school, both of which were necessary after the failure of marxist pseudoscience. (a pseudoscience marx died knowing, since he stopped writing as soon as he read the Mengerians, and kept silent only to keep the checks coming in from Engels.)
AUTHORS TO READ
Burke, Hayek, Burnham, Sowell, Buchanan, Murray, and maybe Nietzsche. Veblen.
(The essayists are nonsense)
Anyone in Hoover or Heritage institutions.READING LIST
Propertarianism’s Reading List (https://propertarianinstitute.com/reading-list/).My reading list (above) contains most of the science we’ve been looking for, while the pseudosciences dominated the mid to late 20th century under the marxist-postmodernists.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.https://www.quora.com/Currently-who-are-the-best-right-wing-philosophers-thinkers-I’m-a-leftist-and-I-believe-that-it’s-important-to-challenge-the-beliefs-you-hold-so-I’m-mostly-looking-for-authors-public-speakers-that’ll-give-me-something-worthwhile-to-engage-with