Now, imagine you come up with an idea with explanatory power. You can get all excited about it and invest in it (justificationism), or you can apply it all over the place, and see if the idea survives. Each time it doesn’t survive you can try to refine or replace it.
It seems to take three months to a year to work through an idea.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-28 10:11:00 UTC
Try it. Go into a forum, page, or room with people who might be invested in a particular belief, theory, or narrative. Then propose a rational alternative that they won’t like because it is contradictory to their narrative. Then simply try to make your argument survive their criticisms. Don’t be an ass, just try to see if you can. People will defend their cherished investments. Most of it will be nonsense. but the best people will eventually chime in and tell you something intelligent. and you can learn from it.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-27 18:33:00 UTC
THE POSTMODERN STRATEGY
by Bill Joslin
If we approach a theory, not as a report on the state of the world, but as an effort to report honestly, then those who argue for a reduced criteria for reporting are attempting to avoid due diligence.
Pomo (and platonists, idealists, solopsists etc) strike at the root of a criteria for honesty – that truth itself is not attainable, or can not be verified externally (and thus there are no commons to access), or is relative… its all an effort to avoid accountability.
Argumentation is then rendered irrelevant with them, as is evidence, observation, operation etc unless it adopts their presuppositions – this allows them to reframe the values or their opponents so that the sentiment behind those values works in their favor.
Equality before the law becomes egalitarian.
Wealth becomes exploitation.
Organizational structures needed for cooperation becomes oppression.
Democracy changes from a stop-check to rebellion into egalatarian arguments agaisnt “linguistic oppression of fomination cultures” (i.e. NVC)
So if you hold values of the enlightenment- those values gets twisted into advocacy to destroy enlightenment values.
I see everyday arguments of the right which support pomo goals . Pomo’s have their staunchest, most dedicated adversaries fighting their battles for them. Its clever as fuck.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-27 11:25:00 UTC
CHOOSE: VIRTUES, IDEALS, OR COMMANDS?
I mean, it’s as simple as choosing deflation and virtues, vs choosing conflation and ideals, vs conflation and supernaturalism.
I don’t understand why it’s important to have supernaturalism (commands), ideas (frauds), rather than virtues (empirical goods) other than you LACK THE CULTURAL AND INSTITUTIONAL MEANS OF INDOCTRINATING VIRTUES HONESTLY.
WHY LIE????????????
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 17:30:00 UTC
OF COURSE WE CAN PUNISH ILES
When did we STOP punishing lies in public? (libel, slander, duel, fights between men?)
How much debate was there over the freedom of speech and press? A great deal. Because the lies of the church did good in the eyes of the founders. Because the press allowed the propagation of the lies upon which the american revolution was founded as well as the rational and moral arguments. But mostly because they couldn’t figure out how to manage it in court. And they felt it less necessary to manage in court because of the physical punishments men laid out upon each other such that it was not NECESSARY to lay out in court.
Now lets look at recent evolutions in knowledge: like empiricism (measurement), and darwinianism (evolution) despite the fact that we had been domesticating animals over 12000 years ago? I mean, its not a very complicated idea. Why did it take so long?
(a) when did we begin to understand the scientific method, and how long did it take us?
(b) when did we solve the major problems of the foundations of mathematics and logic?
(c) when did we discover both econometrics (economics) and statistics?
(d) when and why did we switch from justifiation to criticism in order to advance science?
(e) when and why did the operational revolutoin fail in the early 20th century, despite being ‘discovered’ in every major theoretical discipline? I mean, the entirety of the philosophy of language could have been settled, and a century of nonsense saved, and god knows what else?
I mean, the history of mankind consists of the gradual domestication of the beast man.
ANd while in history education was the primary objective…. ONCE EDUCATION HAS BEEN ACHIEVED, THEN THE PRIMARY IMPROVEMENT IS TO ELIMINATE ERROR BIAS, AND DECEIT.
We live in an era where nearly all information is free for the simple cost of investing the time to learn it. The only thing we can do to improve the lot of man, and to prevent regression tot he mean, is to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit.
We live in an era where we have suppressed parasitism (violence, theft, commercial fraud) such that financialization and politics are the two primary means of improving our lot, and preventing regression toward the mean.
If we have the methods of testing truthful speech (we do), then there is no reason we cannot do as every generation in history has done: outlaw through law, new methods of crime, that man has discovered.
And what was discovered in the late 1700’s was to advance scripturalism to pseudorationalsim (Rousseau/Kant), and then in the later 1800’s how to advance pseudorationalism to pseudoscience (Marx, boaz, freud), and then in the early 1900’s to distribute the task to many disinformation specialists (the frankfurt school), and then to use mass media to distribute it (socialists), and then to use it to take over the academy, and from there indoctrinate the political system, and the buy offf the polity with debt, producing the upcoming crash to end all crashes.
We have, for most of human history regulated lying and insult (non-truthful criticism) by interpersonal violence and duel. The press was regulated to prevent its abuse. But then the press was ‘de-regulated’ by the american revolution, and the ending of libel, slander, duel, and ‘fighting’. The cheap printing, newspapers, pamphlets, paperback books, movies, telephone, radio, television, and mass media, and now the internet have put distance between liar and victim and allowed the industralization of deception that we call ‘propaganda’ to bathe our people in information which they lack the means of rationally testing if able, and which seduce those whose wants it satisfies.
It is as evil as the invention of abrahamism and ‘the book’ – the similarity of ‘the book’/’the pulpit’, and ‘pseudoscience’ /’the media’ should not be lost on the most dim of us. Where the ancient world involved the saturation of the schools with liars, the present involves the saturation of schools, academy, and the informational environment with liars. Our people are saturated with lies they cannot defend themselves from, and saturated witha liens that they cannot defend themselves from. Meanwhile their families shrink, their civilization dies – and a few simpletons criticize me for putting for a rational means of rather simply making use of our existing legal system to apply the same standards to political speech that we do to commercial: reciprocity.
What the hell makes you think that (a) people won’t cooperate for both good and bad at massive scale, and that people won’t conduct war by disinformation and the suppression of disinformation?
I mean. You can spout an OPINION but what examples in history can you give, of any scale, that have any substance, that mirror even this one sketch that I’ve just written?
I mean, it’s one thing to remain skeptical, and it’s another to hold an opinion that is contrary to all accumulated evidence in all of history for all of mankind…. Jeez….
Color me frustrated with simpletons.
THE PROBLEM IS NOT COMPLICATED. PEOPLE ARE JUST IGNORANT AND STUPID
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 11:16:00 UTC
SUGGESTED CONVERSATION WITH DR. PETERSON
It would be interesting to discuss or debate this rather big question with Peterson:
Whether lying by supernaturalism (Abrahamism) or supernatural analogy (our ancient supernormal religions), or idealism (platonism/existential overloading, philosophy/reason overloading), or parables (hyperbolic reality), or description (selected stories from history) produces the least bad externalities, and the most good general rules of human behavior.
Because I have no way of knowing whether one who finds the authoritarian supernatural and Ideal attractive is simply familiar with this kind of content like someone who grows up with country music, or whether it’s an informational difference, or a difference in cognitive ability. There does appear to be some relation between that which is closer to dream state (free association) and that which is closer to acting state (description) in each culture. But this difference can almost universally be explained by the median ability of the population relying upon the mythos.
I understand that stories are good. But the method, the content, and the consequence of those stories are different things. And my job is to end the problem of *externalities* produced by many small errors made many times, culminating in vast influences – many of which are catastrophic.
We ended the era of human scale over 150 years ago, and we are today, in our works, unlike the past, not limited in ideas, or opportunities, but principally involved in the elimination of error, and saturated with methods of communicating meaning so that we can reduce our costs. And in each culture and even each class, we wish to communicate meaning using different ‘methods’ for purely habitual reasons. Yet the method we convey meaning with, functions itself, as a means of educating people in how meaning is conveyed and constructed.
We can communicate meaning by various devices, but then once we have achieved conveyance of meaning, we must reduce error that is a byproduct of the use of analogy to experience that we use to create meaning. Meaning followed by criticism leaving leaving what we intended to convey behind.
The problem is, we can leave artifacts of the method, behind. Leaving artifacts of history and science behind is one thing. Leaving artifacts of literature is another thing. Leaving the example of hyperbole that is so endemic to conservative thought is yet another thing. But leaving platonism and authoritarian supernaturalism is, as far as I can see, in all walks of life, disastrous for a people precisely because it it is, like alcohol, drugs, and gossip, so damaging to people and their societies.
Now some communication struggles to leave no artifacts behind: testimony, and science. Some seeks to leave good behind: parable. But western civilization was defeated in the ancient world and in the recent modern world, by the use of wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, and overloading, the ordinary mind with information it cannot test. And in the past 150 years we have seen the use of media to use suggestion, loading, framing,and overloading to leave behind that which is not directly said. We have spent a century allowing ‘freedom of speech’ during the era of the industrialization and institutionalization of lying on a scope that neither Constantine nor Justinian could have dreamed of. They had to force the closure of the stoic schools. Other than the Italians and the Germans, Western governments put up very little resistance to the industrialization of lying.
I remember distinctly hearing church dogma on sunday mass, and saturday catechism, and reiterated by my mother – while at the same time and being saturated with anglo fairy tales, german fables, aesop’s fables, greek myths, arthurian legends, and my favorite story Pinocchio. (All before dr seuss brought jewish children’s stories into popular culture. And then as a young boy reading science fiction, and as I got older reading history.
I’m not against literature, I’m for it. I’m just against lying: platonism and abrahamism, because they are not obviously ‘stories’, and the stories that they tell you are stories for slaves.
I mean, why would you listen to supernatural lies, rather than hyperbolic parables? Or great events and heroes of history?
I mean… why would you do that? Why would you need lies when the truth is sitting there?
Why leave debilitating intellectual poisons behind – the literature of the enslaved, when we seek to create a free society?
Why not instead, prohibit such things in pedagogy, just as we prohibit all other forms of fraud in all aspects of life: commercial, judicial, and political?
Why do we need lies? Are we so incompetent that we cannot convey ideas through ordinary literature of extraordinary people? I don’t think so. Any number of tomes have been produced to do just that.
I am against carrying on the damaging myths of equality and the good of democracy, rather than the goods of truth, duty, and meritocracy. But that is a whole different topic.
The question remains, why pollute the informational commons and leave waste behind in the minds of our people, when every single sense of meaning can be conveyed by a literary device other than the platonic ideal and the authoritarian supernatural?
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 19:46:00 UTC
The Koran was Canonized in 1924. The Koran they use today is less than 100 years old. My grandmother would be older than the Koran. There isn’t much of a Koran before the 9th century. There is no ‘verse’ in these early Korans.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 16:21:00 UTC
If our ancestors could outlaw idols or depictions then why can’t we outlaw lies?
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 15:47:00 UTC
CAN WE SUPPRESS FALSEHOODS IN RELIGION?
It may be true that our women and our underclasses do not like aristocracy unless it is visible to them that their kin-aristocracy carries them better than the alternatives.
Our women and our underclasses cannot really be seduced by hinduism without vast importing of their numbers.
Our women and our underclasses have little reason and little interest be seduction of confucianism or the rituals of japan – although it would be good if they did. It’s not seductive. It’s merely true. But it is rational and political, leaving open sinic society’s underclasses and women for the personal comforts of buddhism.
Our women and our underclasses can be seduced by Buddhism without much harm as long our aristocracy is not. Buddhism is androgynous in its emphasis on the self, and abandonment of the political.
Our women and our underclasses however have profound reason to be seduced by Abrahamism: the feminine surrender to un-reason in jewish, christian, islamic, marxist, and postmodern versions.
Why? Because unlike judaism, christianity, and islam, (anglo) egalitarian liberalism, (jewish) marxism, and (french) postmodernism, all tell comforting lies that have adapted to modernity by wishful thinking and pseudoscience, the same way that judaism, christianity, and islam, adapted to the ancient empires by wishful thinking using pseudo-reason of literary mysticism.
So the question is, if we can prevent fraud in goods, service, and court, then why not in the commons?
There is no reason, except for the same anger of criminals who we suppressed fraud in goods, services, and court. And the same criminals we suppressed in the church with their lies. And the same criminals we suppressed in our governments because of their lies – particularly ‘divine right’.
No more lies.
It’s not complicated.
No lies. No excuses. The commons must be protected.
Those that cannot tolerate full reciprocity must be denied full liberty.
Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, Serfdom, Slavery, and the caging or killing of beasts.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 13:54:00 UTC
NEWS, GOSSIP, OPINION, ANALYSIS,
Facts, Loading, Framing, Measuring.
Can you tell the difference?
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 10:34:00 UTC