THE EVOLUTION OF TRUTH
“Reporting” (evidence)
…. Oath of Warriors
…. …. Oath to Tribe (Passage)
…. …. …. Oath before jury and judge
…. …. …. …. Oath before senate and thang
…. …. …. …. …. Records,Accounts, Contracts, Law, Architecture
…. …. …. …. …. …. Greek Math, Reason and philosophy
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. Roman law, engineering, accounting
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. European Science
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. European “Operationalism” (Complete) Science
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 11:08:00 UTC
THE EVIL OF COMFORTING LIES
I have a thing: I like calculations. I like calculative technologies. I like them because they require specialists. And because they require specialists we get fewer idiots claiming they know what they’re talking about.
why isn’t public speech in politics regulated as highly as a series seven license for example? Or a Legal License? Or a medical license?
Are you saying that the construction of commons by political mans, backed by violence, is somehow less dangerous or open to misuse than financial predation, legal predation, or medical predation?
Why is it so hard to imagine a world in which a journalist, in order to publish content for money, would have to be able to write in propertarian language, a propertarian argument, defending his or her position, even if summarizing that argument in an abstract?
Why is it so hard for a politician to do the same?
Why can we ship s—t arguments into the commons?
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 10:48:00 UTC
LETS LOOK AT ARGUMENT VS ARGUMENTATION ETHICS.
Argument:
the use of statement to construct an hypothesis and eliminate error, for the purpose of persuasion in order to choose between interpersonal avoidance, cooperation, parasitism, or violence, or personal inaction, action, or delay.
Argumentation:
the action or process of reasoning systematically in support of an idea, action, or theory. (IOW: Abstraction of Argument)
Argumentation Ethics:
—“Hoppe states that because honest argumentation aimed at resolving a conflict over scarce resources must presuppose various norms including non-violence to be meaningful, then it follows that propositions propounded during such argumentation cannot contradict these norms, from which, he claims, the non aggression principle can be logically derived. So Hoppe claims that to deny the non aggression principle during such argumentation is a performative contradiction between one’s actions and one’s words. For example, to argue that violence should be used to resolve conflicts is an obvious performative contradiction if one is to engage in a meaningful argument to resolve such a conflict.”— Wiki
OK, NOW LET’S BREAK THIS DOWN A BIT (IT’S HARD)
Presuppositions (requirements)
– honest argument
– promise of non violence
in other words, an already existing contract for cooperation eschewing deceit (honest argument, non-coercion-by-fraud) and violence (non-coercion-by-violence), and unstated (non-theft-independent of coercion)
Evidence Instead:
– arguments consist of negotiations in pursuit of wants, not truths independent of wants.
– it is almost impossible for people to construct arguments that are truthful, and instead, people engage in ignorance, bias, suggestion, and deceit.
– Violence is just another input to negotiations, and is always ‘available’ unless a third party insurer demands and warrants restitution(theft), punishment(harm) or death(ostrasization).
So, for Argumentation ETHICS to exist, we must be within a contract for cooperation, insured by a third party. For argument to exist requires only humans. For truthful argument we require a means (skill or technology) for the purpose of testing whether arguments are in fact, honest and truthful – even if we can never know if they are in fact true since we are never possessed of perfect information.
So lets fully expand these sentences:
“Those who are already in an agreement not to engage in parasitism through violence, theft, and fraud, demonstrate that they agree not to engage in parasitism through violence, theft, and fraud, by engaging in truthful argument, and as such the use of truthful argument demonstrates that non aggression against (some scope of) property in and of itself serves as a test of a contract for reciprocity (non aggression).”
Yeah. That’s what’s called a very elaborate tautology. A circular definition. Which is OK. Because all he’s saying that non-aggression is a sufficient rule of thumb for simple people, even if he hasn’t deduced from CAUSALITY, because if he did, he would have to admit that the scope of property necessary for non aggression within a polity is pretty much ‘everything’ (what we call ‘property-in-toto’) in order to prohibit enough conflict that we would eliminate the demand for a state to impose cultural, normative institutional laws upon us. In other words, by RATIONALIZATION from internal consistency rather than from construction by operational causality hoppe makes it impossible to determine the scope of property necessary to eliminate demand for the state to impose rules of the commons both physical and normative.
How about this instead:
Use of honest and truthful argument in a court of law under a third party insurer, and under some scope of property, wherein we prohibit the imposition of costs against that property, and provide the court as a means of dispute resolution, restitution, punishment and ostracization, in order to prevent retaliation cycles that will cumulatively destroy the market created by the polity’s insurer’s market for dispute resolution, can be summarized in the general rule of thumb: dont aggress against that scope of property, and the fact that you are arguing in a court over it rather than engaging in violence, theft, or fraud instead, demonstrates the sufficiency of the above methods, which are reducible to: don’t aggress against life, and property.
To which I would argue we must add “don’t aggress against life, property, commons, norm, institution, tradition, and myth’, because all of those aggressions produce the violent retaliation that non aggression as a test of the basis for law demonstrably advocates.
In other words, hoppe is showing that the argument is in fact circular, but only once we have established such a contract in the first place, And therefor he does not include the CAUSAL: People fucking lie, cheat, defraud, bribe, externalize costs, conspire, free ride, socialize losses and privatize gains, engage in propaganda, conversion, asymmetric and therefore parasitic reproduction, immigration, warfare, conquest, and genocide.
I don’t play this game.
I start with:
1) “Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff? (Ethics).
2) And “why don’t we kill you, your sons, and rape and enslave your women?” (Politics)
3) “Why should I invest in a corporation, rather than in my kin?” (Government)
4) And “Why don’t we conquer, enslave and sterilize your people, so that our people can prosper further? (Group Evolutionary Strategy)
The reason being, that the scope of law necessary to eliminate demand for the state is equal to the scope of law necessary to eliminate the incentives to engage in violence against that which I have born a cost.
And why? BEcause people will not pay the high cost of creating a higher trust social order than their neighbours, and therefore one that produces greater prosperity and security if it is possible for invaders to constantly lower that level of trust by claiming that only private physical property is protected, instead of all that individuals and groups invest in.
Thus Endeth The Lesson
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 10:44:00 UTC
LANGUAGES, GRAMMAR, VOCABULARY, MEANING, KNOWLEDGE AND THE TECHNOLOGY OF TESTING MEANING (why our religion fails) It was a very long time ago, and that the levant was a very poor and backward ghetto of the empire, and that while we had roman rule, law, and commerce, and greek philosophy, reason, mathematics, the primitive people had only their primitive language to speak with and they did the best that they could – they spoke in primitive language. Like the few primitive people living today, they had no reason, no philosophy, no science, no mathematics. And so they had to say something was good or ‘true’ because it was commanded by the gods, not because it was reasonably comprehensible, rationally consistent, philosophically sound, scientifically demonstrable, or mathematically consistent. They had only ‘because the boss says so’ to use as ‘this is true’. We can, today, say the same things without primitive language, and by making truth claims using reason, rationalism, philosophy, science and mathematics. But … our words, grammar, and pronunciation, are not the only content of language, but the meaning, values and emotions that we describe with those sounds, to produce those words, using that grammar. So just as we have difficulty losing our accents, and our grammar, we have difficulty losing the ideas that we learned with which to produce those sounds, words, grammar and language. We all have trouble losing our vocalized and intuited ‘accents’ – what we call ‘biases’. They are the foundations upon which all our consequential words, sentences, paragraphs, and stories depend. So just as the chinese sound very differently from region to region, yet use the same character set for writing, we can, in the same culture, do similarly: use the same words and grammar despite very different meanings, and values in our minds that we describe them with. And so, if someone is raised using english, but learns archaic semitic parables; or someone is raised using english but learns historical and biographical parables; or someone is raised using english but learns scientific and mathematical principles “parables”, then these are very different internal meanings using very similar words. The difference between the ancient parables, the historical parables, and the scientific parables, is that we can empathize with anthropomorphized parables without much general knowledge, empathize a bit less with historical parables with quite a bit of general knowledge, and empathize with sciences only if we possess very specific knowledge in addition to general knowledge. So that the cost of learning to speak each language increases in time, and effort. And so we tell primitive people and children parables of animals and people and gods and heroes. We tell young adults rules that require reason. We tell adults about law that is internally consistent requiring rationalism. We educate specialists in the sciences where specialized knowledge is necessary. And the old and wise, among us who have studied all of the parables, the histories, the laws, and the sciences, can try to provide answers for all those groups in the languages that they can hopefully one day understand. Once you grasp that we use spoken languages with common, uncommon, and specialized terms, across all people in a political system. But within that system we use multiple languages of MEANING. And that each of these languages of meaning, relies upon that universal spoken language; and that each of these languages of meaning uses a technology of ‘validation’ or ‘truth testing’, that varies from the primitive and experiential, and anthropomorphic, to the historical analogy, to the legal evidence, to the scientifically precise; and that it requires much more knowledge and often, much more intelligence, for each additional level of precision that we add on top of the anthropomorphic. Then you realize that while we use the same basic words and grammar, we do not use the same vocabularies; and that vocabularies tell us which technology of understanding that a person relies upon, the relative inferiority or superiority of that language in solving problems of increasing precision; how much general knowledge is requires for that person to retain that technology of meaning; and the likelihood of the intelligence of that person who employs that technology of meaning. And this is what we do. We form hierarchies and classes and each class uses the same root spoken language and grammar, but uses the language of meaning suited to his upbringing, his degree of ability, and his degree of accumulated knowledge. So we do not only judge people by their dress, and by their body language, and by their manners, but by the spoken language, and language of meaning that they rely upon. Because these are demonstrated rather than reported evidence of the person who acts, speaks, and thinks by those dress, actions, manners, and words.
LANGUAGES, GRAMMAR, VOCABULARY, MEANING, KNOWLEDGE AND THE TECHNOLOGY OF TESTING MEANING (why our religion fails) It was a very long time ago, and that the levant was a very poor and backward ghetto of the empire, and that while we had roman rule, law, and commerce, and greek philosophy, reason, mathematics, the primitive people had only their primitive language to speak with and they did the best that they could – they spoke in primitive language. Like the few primitive people living today, they had no reason, no philosophy, no science, no mathematics. And so they had to say something was good or ‘true’ because it was commanded by the gods, not because it was reasonably comprehensible, rationally consistent, philosophically sound, scientifically demonstrable, or mathematically consistent. They had only ‘because the boss says so’ to use as ‘this is true’. We can, today, say the same things without primitive language, and by making truth claims using reason, rationalism, philosophy, science and mathematics. But … our words, grammar, and pronunciation, are not the only content of language, but the meaning, values and emotions that we describe with those sounds, to produce those words, using that grammar. So just as we have difficulty losing our accents, and our grammar, we have difficulty losing the ideas that we learned with which to produce those sounds, words, grammar and language. We all have trouble losing our vocalized and intuited ‘accents’ – what we call ‘biases’. They are the foundations upon which all our consequential words, sentences, paragraphs, and stories depend. So just as the chinese sound very differently from region to region, yet use the same character set for writing, we can, in the same culture, do similarly: use the same words and grammar despite very different meanings, and values in our minds that we describe them with. And so, if someone is raised using english, but learns archaic semitic parables; or someone is raised using english but learns historical and biographical parables; or someone is raised using english but learns scientific and mathematical principles “parables”, then these are very different internal meanings using very similar words. The difference between the ancient parables, the historical parables, and the scientific parables, is that we can empathize with anthropomorphized parables without much general knowledge, empathize a bit less with historical parables with quite a bit of general knowledge, and empathize with sciences only if we possess very specific knowledge in addition to general knowledge. So that the cost of learning to speak each language increases in time, and effort. And so we tell primitive people and children parables of animals and people and gods and heroes. We tell young adults rules that require reason. We tell adults about law that is internally consistent requiring rationalism. We educate specialists in the sciences where specialized knowledge is necessary. And the old and wise, among us who have studied all of the parables, the histories, the laws, and the sciences, can try to provide answers for all those groups in the languages that they can hopefully one day understand. Once you grasp that we use spoken languages with common, uncommon, and specialized terms, across all people in a political system. But within that system we use multiple languages of MEANING. And that each of these languages of meaning, relies upon that universal spoken language; and that each of these languages of meaning uses a technology of ‘validation’ or ‘truth testing’, that varies from the primitive and experiential, and anthropomorphic, to the historical analogy, to the legal evidence, to the scientifically precise; and that it requires much more knowledge and often, much more intelligence, for each additional level of precision that we add on top of the anthropomorphic. Then you realize that while we use the same basic words and grammar, we do not use the same vocabularies; and that vocabularies tell us which technology of understanding that a person relies upon, the relative inferiority or superiority of that language in solving problems of increasing precision; how much general knowledge is requires for that person to retain that technology of meaning; and the likelihood of the intelligence of that person who employs that technology of meaning. And this is what we do. We form hierarchies and classes and each class uses the same root spoken language and grammar, but uses the language of meaning suited to his upbringing, his degree of ability, and his degree of accumulated knowledge. So we do not only judge people by their dress, and by their body language, and by their manners, but by the spoken language, and language of meaning that they rely upon. Because these are demonstrated rather than reported evidence of the person who acts, speaks, and thinks by those dress, actions, manners, and words.
If you cannot speak in the language of truth how do we know you do not lie, and how do we know you are capable of making a truth claim? To rationalize is to make excuses. To tell children’s stories is to rationalize by imitation rather than reason. To analogize in history is to offer evidence. To argue in physical and natural law is to offer proof. The truth is forever unknown to us even if we speak it. The best we can do is offer proof that we have performed due diligence against all known alternatives. So we see the simple truth: that simpletons talk in Children’s stories, semi-simpletons in rational excuses, those that argue using wisdom stated historical references, and those that have obtained that wisdom in the laws of nature that cause that history to occur without our comprehension of it at the time. To be christian is to be european, is to follow the law of nature and natural law, in correspondence with reality. To argue in Christan verse is to argue in children’s stories. To argue in rationalism is to argue in excuses. To argue in law and history is to argue basted on the evidence of our actions. To argue in science is to argue in the laws of nature, and in natural law, drawn from that evidence, corresponding to that history, in spite of excuses, and children’s stories. A MAN DOES NOT DEBAT A CHILD, HE RULES CHILDREN FOR THEY ARE NOT READY – THEY LACK AGENCY Have we not transcended? Are we still ignorant, illiterate, poor, lacking knonwledge, technology and institutions? Do we still require morality by children’s story, rather than by literature, history, law, science, and mathematics? Are we admitting we are children and that we are not able to speak and think in the language that the gods have written the universe with? if you speak the truth then why must you lie? The judeo christian of the church constitutes a framing: a lie. Why must you have that lie? Can’t you look at history as a greater story than the children’s story of the myths and superstitions? the chidren’s stories for the dim, the ignorant, and the impoverished? Why aren’t your own histories superior to those? They are. I can speak the words of natural law in the words of jesus(myths), of augustine(wisdom), of plato(ideals), and of aristotle(description). WE can obtain meaning from myth, wisdom and ideals, But I will only argue them in the language of truth: Aristotle. To deny Natural Law is to destroy mankind. Islam and Judaism deny natural law. Natural Law of the West > Laws of Men, Sharia of Islam, Talmud of Jews. Natural Law results in man’s transcendence into gods. Abrahamism, Paul, and Muhammed results in landlessness and parasitism (jews) or mindlessness and parasitism (islam). The god of Abraham is the devil. in order to prevent the poverty of every other civilization, we must develop trust. In order to prevent the stagnation of every other civlization we must develop markets. In order to prevent the fall of our markets and trust we must develop market institutions. In order to prevent the failure of our institutions we must develop methods of measurement. A civilization fails when it can no longer measure success and failure. What must we measure? The treasury? In part. Because it is the first capital to expire. But in sum, all capital. What have we done in the 21st century to our measurements and to our capital?
If you cannot speak in the language of truth how do we know you do not lie, and how do we know you are capable of making a truth claim? To rationalize is to make excuses. To tell children’s stories is to rationalize by imitation rather than reason. To analogize in history is to offer evidence. To argue in physical and natural law is to offer proof. The truth is forever unknown to us even if we speak it. The best we can do is offer proof that we have performed due diligence against all known alternatives. So we see the simple truth: that simpletons talk in Children’s stories, semi-simpletons in rational excuses, those that argue using wisdom stated historical references, and those that have obtained that wisdom in the laws of nature that cause that history to occur without our comprehension of it at the time. To be christian is to be european, is to follow the law of nature and natural law, in correspondence with reality. To argue in Christan verse is to argue in children’s stories. To argue in rationalism is to argue in excuses. To argue in law and history is to argue basted on the evidence of our actions. To argue in science is to argue in the laws of nature, and in natural law, drawn from that evidence, corresponding to that history, in spite of excuses, and children’s stories. A MAN DOES NOT DEBAT A CHILD, HE RULES CHILDREN FOR THEY ARE NOT READY – THEY LACK AGENCY Have we not transcended? Are we still ignorant, illiterate, poor, lacking knonwledge, technology and institutions? Do we still require morality by children’s story, rather than by literature, history, law, science, and mathematics? Are we admitting we are children and that we are not able to speak and think in the language that the gods have written the universe with? if you speak the truth then why must you lie? The judeo christian of the church constitutes a framing: a lie. Why must you have that lie? Can’t you look at history as a greater story than the children’s story of the myths and superstitions? the chidren’s stories for the dim, the ignorant, and the impoverished? Why aren’t your own histories superior to those? They are. I can speak the words of natural law in the words of jesus(myths), of augustine(wisdom), of plato(ideals), and of aristotle(description). WE can obtain meaning from myth, wisdom and ideals, But I will only argue them in the language of truth: Aristotle. To deny Natural Law is to destroy mankind. Islam and Judaism deny natural law. Natural Law of the West > Laws of Men, Sharia of Islam, Talmud of Jews. Natural Law results in man’s transcendence into gods. Abrahamism, Paul, and Muhammed results in landlessness and parasitism (jews) or mindlessness and parasitism (islam). The god of Abraham is the devil. in order to prevent the poverty of every other civilization, we must develop trust. In order to prevent the stagnation of every other civlization we must develop markets. In order to prevent the fall of our markets and trust we must develop market institutions. In order to prevent the failure of our institutions we must develop methods of measurement. A civilization fails when it can no longer measure success and failure. What must we measure? The treasury? In part. Because it is the first capital to expire. But in sum, all capital. What have we done in the 21st century to our measurements and to our capital?
Oh, I dont bear truth, I bear methods of deconflation. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-17 13:48:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853968459952263169
Reply addressees: @mcmaz1ng @JayMan471 @primalpoly
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853950076439474178
IN REPLY TO:
@Its_Lynnocent
@curtdoolittle @JayMan471 @gmiller If it was so easy to “deconflate” oh wise truth bearer then explain why do we still live in a world divided and ruled by ideology?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853950076439474178