Theme: Truth
-
Why Do You Need To Lie?
You have to falsify the argument that under the real, ideal, and supernatural orders, the ‘real’ has provided our ascent out of ignorance and poverty – and rapidly – while the ideal and the supernatural have provided either stagnation or regression. You have to falsify the argument that western people (which you always conflate to your argumentative advantage without separating the western from the indian, iranian, west-asian) and you can’t seem to identify the very obvious differnce between gods subject to the universe, and gods holding dominion over the universe. THere is NO ORIGIN MYTH per se in the west. There is not a good and evil – only a dysfunctional family of gods and heroes. There is no ideal, only the real. By the time we find rome, there are no ‘priests’ per se, but all aristocracy practices the rituals. We still carry the three traditions: real (roman/european), ideal (greek), and supernatural (semitic/persian). And we still practice all three semantic languages. Just as we have practiced three semantic languages in english (anglo saxon, french, and latin). No other civilization has done what the west has done common law > reason > philosophy > science. And no other civilization has done what the middle eastern has done: abrahamism > marxism > libertarianism > neo conservativsm > postmodernism. Period. So you can again, try another lie, (there are at least three in most of your posts) suggestion that the west is perfect, rather than that the result of the western exceptionalism in military orders was dependent upon voluntary orders, which was dependent upon contractualism, all of which were dependent upon truth, and that western civ, like all other civ’s, Anchored on those basic rules of order, just as ever other civlization anchored on those rules of order in the era of Transformation (See Armstrong). All you do is engage in lie, disapproval, gossip, shaming, and ridicule in order to preserve your bias in favor of lying. The question is – why do you need to lie? The evidence is the evidence. The greatest man to ever live was Aristotle. And the greeks produced socrates, plato and aristotle just as the germans produced mozart, bach, and beethoven, and the english produced locke, smith, and hume: becasue the evidence is that it takes a very long time over multiple generations to produce an innovator of that scale. (See Murray). And the reason Aristotle was the greatest man that ever lived is because he synthesized all fields, and mapped out the future of truth for us to follow, and laid enough of a foundation that we have all built upon it. Why did he, plato, and socrates do that? Because the old habits had been destroyed by the consequences of democracy, and her great days were behind her. Whereas lies enable conflation, truth provides deflation. Where democracy creates lies, law creates truth. -
by Bill Joslin (Bill is there. 😉 ) only an operational epistemology can produce
by Bill Joslin (Bill is there. 😉 ) only an operational epistemology can produce a testimonial ontology. And when it does all dimensions of truthful speach tie together coherently. This is why operational epistemology models or demonstrates what exists (existential consistency) because operational terms glue together the all the demensioms – correspond ence, internal consistency, existential consistency, falsifiability, parsimony. Correspondence = identity. An object’s identity rests on stable constant relations within limits. The “presence” (constant relations) with in boundaries (limits) Internal consistency- no contradictions in logic or evidence …. However operational terms for our identity now allows us to ensure there are no contradictions in the relation between evidence and logic (soundness and validity coupled via operations) Existential consistency-are the constant relations and limits possible (spectra of what allows the relations to be constant and related to those boundaries-where the phenomena starts and ends) Falsifiability – if identity exists we can falsify by exceeding it’s limits to know where the relation ends along with verifying if it exists within (are the limits real-no limits no identity)(efficient flexibility to explanation) Parsimony – only what is related (operations with in its boundaries) and everything that occurs with in the boundary (necessary and sufficient) (no cherry picking, framing or overloading) (full accounting) All of those dimensions revolve around relations and the conditions for those relations to work – ie. operations. -
by Bill Joslin (Bill is there. 😉 ) only an operational epistemology can produce
by Bill Joslin
(Bill is there. 😉 )
only an operational epistemology can produce a testimonial ontology. And when it does all dimensions of truthful speach tie together coherently. This is why operational epistemology models or demonstrates what exists (existential consistency) because operational terms glue together the all the demensioms – correspond ence, internal consistency, existential consistency, falsifiability, parsimony.
Correspondence = identity. An object’s identity rests on stable constant relations within limits. The “presence” (constant relations) with in boundaries (limits)
Internal consistency- no contradictions in logic or evidence …. However operational terms for our identity now allows us to ensure there are no contradictions in the relation between evidence and logic (soundness and validity coupled via operations)
Existential consistency-are the constant relations and limits possible (spectra of what allows the relations to be constant and related to those boundaries-where the phenomena starts and ends)
Falsifiability – if identity exists we can falsify by exceeding it’s limits to know where the relation ends along with verifying if it exists within (are the limits real-no limits no identity)(efficient flexibility to explanation)
Parsimony – only what is related (operations with in its boundaries) and everything that occurs with in the boundary (necessary and sufficient) (no cherry picking, framing or overloading) (full accounting)
All of those dimensions revolve around relations and the conditions for those relations to work – ie. operations.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-08 13:13:00 UTC
-
by Bill Joslin (Bill is there. 😉 ) only an operational epistemology can produce
by Bill Joslin (Bill is there. 😉 ) only an operational epistemology can produce a testimonial ontology. And when it does all dimensions of truthful speach tie together coherently. This is why operational epistemology models or demonstrates what exists (existential consistency) because operational terms glue together the all the demensioms – correspond ence, internal consistency, existential consistency, falsifiability, parsimony. Correspondence = identity. An object’s identity rests on stable constant relations within limits. The “presence” (constant relations) with in boundaries (limits) Internal consistency- no contradictions in logic or evidence …. However operational terms for our identity now allows us to ensure there are no contradictions in the relation between evidence and logic (soundness and validity coupled via operations) Existential consistency-are the constant relations and limits possible (spectra of what allows the relations to be constant and related to those boundaries-where the phenomena starts and ends) Falsifiability – if identity exists we can falsify by exceeding it’s limits to know where the relation ends along with verifying if it exists within (are the limits real-no limits no identity)(efficient flexibility to explanation) Parsimony – only what is related (operations with in its boundaries) and everything that occurs with in the boundary (necessary and sufficient) (no cherry picking, framing or overloading) (full accounting) All of those dimensions revolve around relations and the conditions for those relations to work – ie. operations. -
Well, I would say that the difference between epistemology and ontology as it is
Well, I would say that the difference between epistemology and ontology as it is used, is the difference between truth and meaning. Ontologies are arbitrary, but epistemology is a product of the hierarchy of constant relations of the universe. To state it prosecutorially, I would say that epistemology produces a testimonial ontology, and that all other ontologies are merely fictionalisms. -
Well, I would say that the difference between epistemology and ontology as it is
Well, I would say that the difference between epistemology and ontology as it is used, is the difference between truth and meaning.
Ontologies are arbitrary, but epistemology is a product of the hierarchy of constant relations of the universe.
To state it prosecutorially, I would say that epistemology produces a testimonial ontology, and that all other ontologies are merely fictionalisms.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-08 10:23:00 UTC
-
Well, I would say that the difference between epistemology and ontology as it is
Well, I would say that the difference between epistemology and ontology as it is used, is the difference between truth and meaning. Ontologies are arbitrary, but epistemology is a product of the hierarchy of constant relations of the universe. To state it prosecutorially, I would say that epistemology produces a testimonial ontology, and that all other ontologies are merely fictionalisms. -
So logic has no non-trivial value, since the function of logic outside of mathem
So logic has no non-trivial value, since the function of logic outside of mathematics – which consists of nothing but constant relations sets is merely the falsification of inconstant relations. Instead, semantics, grammar, and syntax serves to limit relations to sets of constant relations the way lie groups limit causal relations. -
So logic has no non-trivial value, since the function of logic outside of mathem
So logic has no non-trivial value, since the function of logic outside of mathematics – which consists of nothing but constant relations sets is merely the falsification of inconstant relations. Instead, semantics, grammar, and syntax serves to limit relations to sets of constant relations the way lie groups limit causal relations.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-08 10:04:00 UTC
-
So logic has no non-trivial value, since the function of logic outside of mathem
So logic has no non-trivial value, since the function of logic outside of mathematics – which consists of nothing but constant relations sets is merely the falsification of inconstant relations. Instead, semantics, grammar, and syntax serves to limit relations to sets of constant relations the way lie groups limit causal relations.