Theme: Truth

  • DEFINE ‘MEANINGFUL LIFE’ IN OPERATIONAL TERMS. I bet you can’t. Because it requi

    DEFINE ‘MEANINGFUL LIFE’ IN OPERATIONAL TERMS.

    I bet you can’t. Because it requires too much honesty.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 06:36:00 UTC

  • HISTORICIZE, vs FICTIONALIZE vs FICTIONALISM a) HISTORICIZE: deflate myth into h

    HISTORICIZE, vs FICTIONALIZE vs FICTIONALISM

    a) HISTORICIZE: deflate myth into history and literature for the purpose of decidability in matters of dispute.

    b) FICTIONALIZE: convert into monomyth, plot, archetype, virtues for the purpose of meaning for the self.

    c) FICTIONALISM: conflate myth, history, literature, law, science, real and ideal for the purpose of deception for political ends.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 06:11:00 UTC

  • PHILOSOPHY(GOOD), EPISTEMOLOGY, TESTIMONY(TRUE) I categorize philosophy(preferen

    PHILOSOPHY(GOOD), EPISTEMOLOGY, TESTIMONY(TRUE)

    I categorize philosophy(preference or good) as the search for means of decidability within a domain, and epistemology(ideal) or what I instead call Testimony(real) as search for decidability (truth) regardless of domain.

    There is no reason that testimony can’t be constructed as a science like any other. The fact that it’s fairly hard to guard against our ignorances, biases, wishful thinking (and deceptions) is just the reason that it took until the 20th century to solve.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-21 18:11:00 UTC

  • PETERSON’S POSTMODERNISM Peterson is in part a postmodernist because he relies u

    PETERSON’S POSTMODERNISM

    Peterson is in part a postmodernist because he relies upon a postmodern (utilitarian) definition of truth – as if the purpose of truth was choice of good or preference when we are cooperating, rather than decidability in matters of conflict when cooperation fails.

    The more complex the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy, the greater requirement for decidability.

    Peterson (I assume) preserves this postmodernism, in order to preserve his fondness for literature, idealism, and supernaturalism, and especially conflationary idealism and supernaturalism (Fictionalism).

    I can understand why he needs this ‘crutch’ because the monomyth, the list of plots, the archetypes, and the virtues provide our best historical (empirically devolved) and most enduring analysis of psychology.

    However, there is a very great difference between the teaching of meaning so that we may discover and seize opportunities in reality, and the teaching of law so that we may decide conflicts without provoking retaliation cycles.

    So while Peterson COULD say “truth is truth” and “wisdom is wisdom”, and while we can CHOOSE with wisdom, we can only DECIDE with Truth – he doesn’t. Instead, he conflates the personally preferable the common good and the necessarily true.

    Otherwise, Peterson is on the way to restoring our ancient literary ‘Religion’, but he seems bent on preserving the ‘fictionalism’ (lies) of Abrahamism.

    My question is, why preserve the lies of Abrahamism, if is is the use of the techniques of Abrahamism – fictionalism as a means of deception by suggestion – that the marxists (pseudo-science) and postmodernists (pseudorationalism) used to defeat the west in both the ancient (Forcible christianization) and modern (forcible marxism and postmodernism) eras.

    Once Peterson resolves this one question I think he’s not just telling the conservatives what they want to hear. Until then, that’s all he is doing.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-21 18:00:00 UTC

  • PETERSON’S POSTMODERNISM Peterson is in part a postmodernist because he relies u

    PETERSON’S POSTMODERNISM

    Peterson is in part a postmodernist because he relies upon a postmodern (utilitarian) definition of truth – as if the purpose of truth was choice of good or preference when we are cooperating, rather than decidability in matters of conflict when cooperation fails.

    The more complex the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy, the greater requirement for decidability.

    Peterson (I assume) preserves this postmodernism, in order to preserve his fondness for literature, idealism, and supernaturalism, and especially conflationary idealism and supernaturalism (Fictionalism).

    I can understand why he needs this ‘crutch’ because the monomyth, the list of plots, the archetypes, and the virtues provide our best historical (empirically devolved) and most enduring analysis of psychology, and method of pedagogy.

    However, there is a very great difference between the teaching of meaning so that we may discover and seize opportunities in reality, and the teaching of law so that we may decide conflicts without provoking retaliation cycles.

    So while Peterson COULD say “truth is truth” and “wisdom is wisdom”, and while we can CHOOSE with wisdom, we can only DECIDE with Truth – he doesn’t. Instead, he conflates the personally preferable the common good and the necessarily true.

    Otherwise, Peterson is on the way to restoring our ancient literary ‘Religion’, but he seems bent on preserving the ‘fictionalism’ (lies) of Abrahamism.

    My question is, why preserve the lies of Abrahamism, if is is the use of the techniques of Abrahamism – fictionalism as a means of deception by suggestion – that the marxists (pseudo-science) and postmodernists (pseudorationalism) used to defeat the west in both the ancient (Forcible christianization) and modern (forcible marxism and postmodernism) eras.

    Once Peterson resolves this one question I think he’s not just telling the conservatives what they want to hear. Until then, that’s all he is doing.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    ===RESPONSE TO CRITICISM===

    —“You seem to equate fictionalism, i.e. system that deals in fictitious, imaginary semi-abstract universe and the lies….”—

    No. FIction vs Fictionalism. Fictionalism is a technical term. It means misrepresenting a fiction as existential or true.

    a) Historicize: deflate myth into history and literature for the purpose of decidability in matters of dispute.

    b) Fictionalize: convert into monomyth, plot, archetype, virtues for the purpose of meaning for the self.

    c) Fictionalism: conflate myth, history, literature, law, science, real and ideal for the purpose of deception for political ends.

    Compare 1) Science(measurements that remove error,bias,deceit), Common Law: empirical evidence of disputes. Economics: empirical record of demonstrated preferences. History (narrative of cause and effect), Literature(Fiction), Myth (hyperbole), under anthropomorphic gods, demigods, heroes all subject to the laws of the universe, who represent portfolios of virtues and sins for personal ends with 2) idealism supernaturalism, and conflation: supernatural authoritarianism, for the purpose of communicating POLITICAL ends, in which history, myth, laws, archetypes, ideals, utopias, and false promises of paradise in the present or after death are conflated. The most common examples are monotheistic religion (pseudo-myth) and mathematical platonism, marxist pseudoscience, and postmodern pseudo-rationalism.

    There is a difference between use of deflation by monomyth, plot, archetype and virtue, and use of conflation in matters of wisdom of the self, and the use of deceit in politics. Virtues assist us in maximizing opportunities while limiting negative consequences to ourselves and the polity. The individual can enact his own compromises and exchanges, but politics is not but a proxy for violence and is not a matter of wisdom but DECIDABILITY. If not, then it is not a matter for politics which can only be decidable if it is empirical.

    THis is how the left works: to circumvent the compromises of exchange necessary for the political to consist of moral actions (non parasitism).

    —“The fairy tale – is it a lie to be exterminated? It seems to be an idea so grotesque, that only the complete anti-humanist would dwell on it.”—

    A fairy tale consists of fiction (myth) not fictionalism (virgin birth of a savior).

    —“Well, it does. Because decidability in real world situation has nothing to do in general with verifiable truth in Popperian sense nor with falsifiability of the hypothetical proposition.”–

    Personal decidability does not, But POLITICAL decidability DOES. Because personal choice requires non-imposition, and political decidability requires imposition..

    There is a very good reason why the west, using common law, deflationary truth, deflated institutions, maintained the separation of religion(wisdom) and state(law). And that reason is largely responsible for western rates of development versus their nearest competitor the chinese who also avoided conflation.

    —“Now, I totally open to the idea that the scientific truth one day may tell me a good answer to that dilemma, but I am dealing with not a fictional proposal of a complete ULTIMATE science, but with a real and extremely limited science that does not know much about how an individual functions, nor how the society functions in a sense relevant to a question at hand.”—

    The fact that you cannot imagine that it is possible to create tests of dimensions in natural language the same way we create tests of dimensions in mathematical language is simply due to the very recent solutions to questions of language in philosophy, the development of algorithmic language in computer science, and the scientific method’s inversion of justificationism (intent) with criticism (darwinian survival of ideas in the market for application), and the very recent confirmation of stoic acquisitionism, which I’ve expressed as propertarianism. In other words, locke was close to the stoics: we can in fact reduce not only all moral action to statements of property, but all of psychology and sociology as statements of property – thus, providing the social sciences with the final unit of commensurability: property.

    So the fact that you don’t know those things is simply because it’s taken us from 300AD to the present to vacate enough of Abrahamic Fictionalism to restore our thought to it’s deflationary state 1700 years ago.

    Now if that loss of 1700 years, and the rather obvious fact that by Archimedes greece had started the industrial revolution, is not enough of a criticism of immigration of non-european underclasses, and the cancer of abrahamic fictionalism, I don’t know what is.

    We lost four great civilizations to Abrahamism in the form of judaism, christianity, and islam, and we are currently in the process of being forced into another migratory dark age by the fact that Abrahamic deceptions are so appealing to women and the underclasses.

    Is there a greater moral crime in all of history than Abrahamic Fictionalism? I don’t think anything comes close. Abrahamic fictionalism has no equivalent. It destroyed the ancient world, and it is in the process of destroying the modern.

    1) Zoroastrianism > Judaism > Christianity > Islamism defeated Greek and Roman Reason and destroyed north african, levantine, persian, byzantine and roman civilizations, and brought about the dark age through continuous raiding of the west.

    2) German Rationalism > Jewish Marxism > French Postmodernism > Puritan Feminism are defeating the anglo germanic enlightenment. The same process is being repeated. The only people to resist the abrahamic deceits were the north sea peoples who ‘saved themselves’ from Christianity, and the Chinese who built a wall to keep out the barbarians and preserved their kinship purity even at economic cost to them.

    So there is a very great difference between decidable literature of history, law, and science, and wisdom literature in the form of fiction, and fictionalism, in the form of abrahamic conflation and deception by suggestion.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-21 15:51:00 UTC

  • PETERSON’S POSTMODERNISM Peterson is in part a postmodernist because he relies u

    PETERSON’S POSTMODERNISM

    Peterson is in part a postmodernist because he relies upon a postmodern (utilitarian) definition of truth – as if the purpose of truth was choice of good or preference when we are cooperating, rather than decidability in matters of conflict when cooperation fails.

    The more complex the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy, the greater requirement for decidability.

    Peterson (I assume) preserves this postmodernism, in order to preserve his fondness for literature, idealism, and supernaturalism, and especially conflationary idealism and supernaturalism (Fictionalism).

    I can understand why he needs this ‘crutch’ because the monomyth, the list of plots, the archetypes, and the virtues provide our best historical (empirically devolved) and most enduring analysis of psychology, and method of pedagogy.

    However, there is a very great difference between the teaching of meaning so that we may discover and seize opportunities in reality, and the teaching of law so that we may decide conflicts without provoking retaliation cycles.

    So while Peterson COULD say “truth is truth” and “wisdom is wisdom”, and while we can CHOOSE with wisdom, we can only DECIDE with Truth.

    Otherwise, Peterson is on the way to restoring our ancient literary ‘Religion’, but he seems bent on preserving the ‘fictionalism’ (lies) of Abrahamism.

    My question is, why preserve the lies of Abrahamism, if is is the use of the techniques of Abrahamism – fictionalism as a means of deception by suggestion – that the marxists (pseudo-science) and postmodernists (pseudo-rationalism) used to defeat the west in both the ancient (Forcible christianization) and modern (forcible marxism and postmodernism) eras.

    Once Peterson resolves this one question I think he’s not just telling the conservatives what they want to hear. Until then, that’s all he is doing.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    ===RESPONSE TO CRITICISM===

    —“You seem to equate fictionalism, i.e. system that deals in fictitious, imaginary semi-abstract universe and the lies….”—

    No. FIction vs Fictionalism. Fictionalism is a technical term. It means misrepresenting a fiction as existential or true.

    a) Historicize: deflate myth into history and literature for the purpose of decidability in matters of dispute.

    b) Fictionalize: convert into monomyth, plot, archetype, virtues for the purpose of meaning for the self.

    c) Fictionalism: conflate myth, history, literature, law, science, real and ideal for the purpose of deception for political ends.

    Compare 1) Science(measurements that remove error,bias,deceit), Common Law: empirical evidence of disputes. Economics: empirical record of demonstrated preferences. History (narrative of cause and effect), Literature(Fiction), Myth (hyperbole), under anthropomorphic gods, demigods, heroes all subject to the laws of the universe, who represent portfolios of virtues and sins for personal ends with 2) idealism supernaturalism, and conflation: supernatural authoritarianism, for the purpose of communicating POLITICAL ends, in which history, myth, laws, archetypes, ideals, utopias, and false promises of paradise in the present or after death are conflated. The most common examples are monotheistic religion (pseudo-myth) and mathematical platonism, marxist pseudoscience, and postmodern pseudo-rationalism.

    There is a difference between use of deflation by monomyth, plot, archetype and virtue, and use of conflation in matters of wisdom of the self, and the use of deceit in politics. Virtues assist us in maximizing opportunities while limiting negative consequences to ourselves and the polity. The individual can enact his own compromises and exchanges, but politics is not but a proxy for violence and is not a matter of wisdom but DECIDABILITY. If not, then it is not a matter for politics which can only be decidable if it is empirical.

    THis is how the left works: to circumvent the compromises of exchange necessary for the political to consist of moral actions (non parasitism).

    —“The fairy tale – is it a lie to be exterminated? It seems to be an idea so grotesque, that only the complete anti-humanist would dwell on it.”—

    A fairy tale consists of fiction (myth) not fictionalism (virgin birth of a savior).

    —“Well, it does. Because decidability in real world situation has nothing to do in general with verifiable truth in Popperian sense nor with falsifiability of the hypothetical proposition.”–

    Personal decidability does not, But POLITICAL decidability DOES. Because personal choice requires non-imposition, and political decidability requires imposition..

    There is a very good reason why the west, using common law, deflationary truth, deflated institutions, maintained the separation of religion(wisdom) and state(law). And that reason is largely responsible for western rates of development versus their nearest competitor the chinese who also avoided conflation.

    —“Now, I totally open to the idea that the scientific truth one day may tell me a good answer to that dilemma, but I am dealing with not a fictional proposal of a complete ULTIMATE science, but with a real and extremely limited science that does not know much about how an individual functions, nor how the society functions in a sense relevant to a question at hand.”—

    The fact that you cannot imagine that it is possible to create tests of dimensions in natural language the same way we create tests of dimensions in mathematical language is simply due to the very recent solutions to questions of language in philosophy, the development of algorithmic language in computer science, and the scientific method’s inversion of justificationism (intent) with criticism (darwinian survival of ideas in the market for application), and the very recent confirmation of stoic acquisitionism, which I’ve expressed as propertarianism. In other words, locke was close to the stoics: we can in fact reduce not only all moral action to statements of property, but all of psychology and sociology as statements of property – thus, providing the social sciences with the final unit of commensurability: property.

    So the fact that you don’t know those things is simply because it’s taken us from 300AD to the present to vacate enough of Abrahamic Fictionalism to restore our thought to it’s deflationary state 1700 years ago.

    Now if that loss of 1700 years, and the rather obvious fact that by Archimedes greece had started the industrial revolution, is not enough of a criticism of immigration of non-european underclasses, and the cancer of abrahamic fictionalism, I don’t know what is.

    We lost four great civilizations to Abrahamism in the form of judaism, christianity, and islam, and we are currently in the process of being forced into another migratory dark age by the fact that Abrahamic deceptions are so appealing to women and the underclasses.

    Is there a greater moral crime in all of history than Abrahamic Fictionalism? I don’t think anything comes close. Abrahamic fictionalism has no equivalent. It destroyed the ancient world, and it is in the process of destroying the modern.

    1) Zoroastrianism > Judaism > Christianity > Islamism defeated Greek and Roman Reason and destroyed north african, levantine, persian, byzantine and roman civilizations, and brought about the dark age through continuous raiding of the west.

    2) German Rationalism > Jewish Marxism > French Postmodernism > Puritan Feminism are defeating the anglo germanic enlightenment. The same process is being repeated. The only people to resist the abrahamic deceits were the north sea peoples who ‘saved themselves’ from Christianity, and the Chinese who built a wall to keep out the barbarians and preserved their kinship purity even at economic cost to them.

    So there is a very great difference between decidable literature of history, law, and science, and wisdom literature in the form of fiction, and fictionalism, in the form of abrahamic conflation and deception by suggestion.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-21 15:51:00 UTC

  • WHY DOES THE RIGHT NOT TELL THE TRUTH, AND THE LEFT LIE? Well, you know, neither

    WHY DOES THE RIGHT NOT TELL THE TRUTH, AND THE LEFT LIE?

    Well, you know, neither the left nor the right tell the truth – because it’s incompatible with democracy.

    The right is a scientific(empirical), meritocratic, eugenic, group evolutionary strategy evolved to build quality not quantity. The male reproductive strategy: perpetuate the tribe at the expense of those without merit.

    The left is a utopian (ideal), equalitarian, dysgenic, group evolutionary strategy evolved to build quantity not quality. The female reproductive strategy: perpetuate the individual regardless of merit.

    The classical liberal (anglo-germanic libertarian), is a utilitarian (‘teenage male’) position, under the assumption that if we limit parasitisms then the market alone will achieve non-regressive ends. (evidence of the 20th century is that this is empirically false).

    The right prevents all thefts. The left advocates thefts. The Center seeks the equilibrium of production and theft.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 07:32:00 UTC

  • Feelings *are* facts in a negotiation (via positiva). Feelings are *not* facts i

    Feelings *are* facts in a negotiation (via positiva). Feelings are *not* facts in a dispute resolution (via-negativa).


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 07:27:00 UTC

  • ( Watching an Asian guy fail because he doesn’t grasp that western investors don

    ( Watching an Asian guy fail because he doesn’t grasp that western investors don’t haggle. Absolute transparency is required. Every word is a contract. You propose the deal you need. That proposal of ‘reasonableness’ is their test of you. If they see something they like they will respond with something. If you can tolerate the deal and can leverage investor, you take it. )


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-19 21:02:00 UTC

  • ON TRUTH: WORKING WITH SCIENCE, NOT PLATONISM (closing in on the final words on

    ON TRUTH: WORKING WITH SCIENCE, NOT PLATONISM

    (closing in on the final words on truth)

    You are making the error of set comparisons that is so common in rationalist ‘pseudoscience’, by which you use framing to create false dichotomies.

    DEFINITIONS

    —“Thus, if you try to define the concept of “truth” by appeal to the concept of “knowledge”,”—

    I don’t. I define the concept of TRUTH by the spectrum of survival from due diligence.

    I define KNOWLEDGE as anything from awareness to perfectly informed.

    INFORMATION CONTENT UNDER CONSIDERATION

    We work, I work, not with ideal types, but with series (a spectrum).

    We work, I work, not with sets but with supply demand curves.

    We work, I work, not with set operations, but with algorithmic (existential) operations.

    We work, I work, with the information content of reality, not a subset of reality.

    Ergo We work, I work, with actions(reality) not just language(ideals).

    In other words, I work with science, not platonism.

    SPECTRUM OF KNOWLEDGE

    1) True (decidable) in the given context of a given question. (truth candidate)(law)

    2) Truthful (actionable) in the given context of a given question. (truth candidate)(theory)

    3) Undecidable (inactionable) in the given context of a given question. (non-truth)(hypothesis)

    4) Suspect (undecidable) in the given context of a given question.(non-truth)(theory)

    5) False (decidable) in the given context of the given question.(non-truth)(law)

    WHAT DOES THIS RESULT IN?

    Truth by Triangulation

    One can only estimate by triangulation.

    Truth is a process of incremental improvement of estimations.

    And in fact. If you were to study all facets of man (I have) this is how truth is determined in all disciplines wherein men act upon their statements (‘Skin in the Game’), and those disciplines that are ‘just talk’ do not.

    Hence the similarity in nonsense between rationalism and religious law (Hermenutics) that it evolved from.

    Hence the similarity in not-nonsense between sciences, and the common empirical law that they evolved from.

    CLOSING

    If you understand the past two long posts I have made you will understand the entire history of philosophy in those few words.

    The Iranian laws evolved to prevent retaliation cycles.

    Abrahamic religion was invented to lie.

    Greek philosophy to reform greek law – more reason.

    Stoic philosophy evolved out off greek law to speak the truth.

    Roman law evolved out of stoic philosophy.

    Western law evolved out of roman law and germanic pagan law.

    English law evolved more out of anglo saxon pagan law.

    Empiricism evolved out of germanic and anglo saxon law.

    Nothing else to be understood.

    In other words, if you’re practicing ‘cherry-picking’ using set operations on language, you’re engaging in pseudoscience.

    No dimension of reason’s subsets of reality is capable of proving itself without appeal to the next dimension of reality.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-19 13:43:00 UTC