AFAIK the religion question is solved. We can know the general method of how all the services can be provided without falsehoods. What anyone wants to construct out of that, well, thats like editing a collection of stories for different audiences. So I don’t have to say what religion must be, only what it must not be: ergo, via negativa rules.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 10:46:00 UTC
ARE YOU A MORAL PERSON OR NOT?
I am trying to separate jesus’ material teaching (which was an innovation) from the dogma (lying) for a simple reason that if I want to end ideological, pseudo-rational, and pseudoscientific deception of the people, I must end all lying. I know how to end all lying. The problem is I want to preserve the good that is not lying. But that’s just a legal and technical problem.
The real question is, would you be willing to force the church to historicize its teachings if you could end all lying by advertisers, marketers, businesses, public intellectuals, teachers and academics, lawyers, media, journalists, and most of all politicians?
Ending lying in public speech isn’t hard at all (really) once you know how to do it. The question is. We have to eliminate all lying, not just some of it, for it to work.
If I told you it would very likely DOUBLE your standard of living, rebuild your families, and drastically reduce political frictions, how about that?
If you say no you are simply a profoundly immoral person.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 19:31:00 UTC
BELIEF? I DON’T BELIEVE ANYTHING.
I don’t believe in anything. I simply can’t find a reason for it to be false yet. If you do that with discipline, the number of things that are left remaining that may possibly be true turns out to be quite small.
Grow up. Man up. Agency is impossible under falsehoods.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 18:31:00 UTC
If you are weak enough to need woo, you are just weak. That isn’t transcendence. That’s abandonment of reason.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 16:24:00 UTC
THE GOOD MYTHS AND THE EVIL MYTHS
Myths, Legends, Parables, Fairy Tales, Nursery Rhymes.
They claim no pretense of truth, only evidence of wisdom by the fact of their survival for centuries, and in some cases millennia (the flood, the green man).
The west relies upon MARKETS and DEFLATION.
The evil myths rely on monopoly and conflation.
The abrahamists rely on monopoly and conflation.
In addition they rely on outright lying.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 16:21:00 UTC
JORDAN PETERSON, LET ME PLAYFULLY TAUNT YOU A BIT AND ASK A PROFOUNDLY IMPORTANT QUESTION
What is the difference between (a)deflationary truth, (b)pragmatic truth, and the (c) social construction of truth?
I mean. You rely on pragmatic conflationary ‘truth’ and therefore diminish all deflationary truth claims by equating the possible, useful, and good, with the true, right?
I mean. That’s postmodern. That’s not modern, or western for that matter.
Westerners invented deflationary truth.
Our martial epistemology, its deflationary truth, and our intolerance for fictionalism in militia, thang, court, jury, and senate are what separates the west from the rest.
So why do you need to act contrary to our western tradition, and contrary to the single reason for the success of the west, and contrary to the sciences, and contrary to law, by stating a falsehood? That the possible, personally preferable, and reciprocally good equate to ‘true’?
How is that any different from the arbitrary truth of the Postmodernists?
(It’s not).
You are enraptured by the diagnostic utility of literature: literary psychology, literature of analogy, literature of myth (hyperbole), literature of idealism (platonism), and literature of religion (supernaturalism), and from what it appears, literature of the ‘occult’ or ‘spiritual’ (post-rational).
But at what point does literature of myth relying for pedagogy on some spectrum from focus to hyperbole free of externality (falsehood), demarcate from the literature of the ideal, supernatural, and occult, loaded with externality (falsehood)? At what point does the utility of therapy produce externalities more damaging than the cure?
Why, if east and west, who avoided idealism, supernaturalism, and the occult, advanced, and those who embraced abrahamism declined in one way or another (judaism, christianity, islam), is there any ‘good’ in the myths of the iranians, zoroastrians, abrahamists and others that could not constrain themselves to the truth?
Thanks
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 13:40:00 UTC
—“Is analytic philosophy superior to the continental philosophies – such as existentialism, phenomenology, Thomism?”– A Friend
Um. I think deflationary analysis (science) is superior to conflationary analysis (continental philosophy).
Continental philosophy bridges religion and science.
Analytic philosophy isolates religion from the sciences and joins the sciences.
(or more historically, analytic philosophy arose out of the enlightenment and law, and continental philosophy rose out of the enlightenment and religion. )
Continental philosophy conflates just as monotheistic religions conflated. Analytic philosophy deflates.
Analytic philosophy relies on literature for the experience
and then we analyze the literature using different fields.
So put in those terms, the ‘scientific tradition’ asks that we know more different tools of measurement, while the continental school tries to use our experiences as the standard of measurement.
As far as I know, the continental method has been a waste of time. As far as I know the analytic method has been overly distracted by the use of logic (sets and language) for answers (That were not found by the way).
WHereas science is in the process of discovering OPERATIONS rather than sets.
The basis of all ‘truth’ is the possibility of what operations allow change in state given any set of conditions.
Hence all true names are operational descriptions.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 12:07:00 UTC
WHY A UNIVERSAL RELIGION?
Well, if you (a) ban falsehood, and (b) provide a non-false ‘religion’, what will occur? Do you need a universal religion?
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 11:45:00 UTC
PUT A FORK IN IT. RELIGION IS BAKED.
I’m gonna call religion ‘baked’ and put a fork in it. It’s fully decidable now. So, that means, it took, from the early spring of 2015 to the late spring of 2017 for me to solve it. And that makes religion the most difficult subject I’ve had to solve among the disciplines and institutions. Truth was nowhere near as hard because mathematicians and computer scientists had done so much work, even if logicians really ended up in nonsense land. Of the three disciplines, only computer science refrained from idealism (platonism). But I was able to combine the work of a century of ‘thinkers’ to make testimonial truth possible.
OK. So the remaining work is just to finish the constitution (application of propertarianism, testimonialism, … etc) and then the really, really …. unpleasant work, is producing the examples of the more subtle concepts in testimonialism into an algorithm (set of steps) that are sufficient for the courts.
I don’t think I need to do that to publish. I think getting the ideas together is one job. putting the ‘courses’ together another job. And surrounding it with literary history in the Robert Greene model is last.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 10:19:00 UTC
PETERSON’S IRONICALLY POSTMODERN VERSION OF TRUTH: PRAGMATIC
—“Peterson’s notions of truth and falsity are very “pragmatic” – an ends justifies the means sort of conception – “lies” within his world view have very little to do with scientific or empirical accuracy. Peterson is brilliant but has significant blind spots as it relates to metaphorical or allegorical truisms which necessitate an aspect of “falsehood” and the contrast therein.”— Rob Ellerman
Well said. I didn’t think of that positioning. )
Peterson sees the frustrated mind of the human less valuable to others than than it can manage, struggling to make sense of, and succeed in, the universe given its lack of internal and external agency.
Peterson is acting as a Priest. (I’m acting a judge). And it’s the competition between the need to teach meaning in order to act, and the need to resolve conflict in order to prevent (empirical) ill actions.
The common ground between Priest and Judge is near perfection – if and only if he succeeds in constructing a new ‘religion’ out of literary analysis of myth, BUT if the battle for good and evil among those myths, is between the eastern fictionalist, and the western supernormal.
I think this is the origin of his problem. What you call ‘pragmatism’.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 08:22:00 UTC