We really need to ignore selective and subjective criticisms and limit ourselves to objective criticisms. OF POLICY AND CONSEQUENCE
Stupid people talk about people (and experiences )
Informed people talk about events. ( and morality )
Enlightened people talk about ideas. (and incentives )
How about limiting discussion to the consequences produced by the incentives produced by policy?
Why? Because then no one would be able to comment.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 20:46:00 UTC
THE GOOD OF GODS AND MYTHOLOGY IN DECIDABILITY
If truth is the language of the gods, as it must be, then why is not bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit blasphemy?
—“There might be a god archetype, in some pantheon, for almost every significant human behavioral pattern. I think that’s a helpful learning utility.”—Alex Houchens
Exactly. But that is Myth and literature, for purpose of teaching by analogy. And it is not only important but necessary. Why? Because the western man uses HYPERBOLE to exaggerate, in order to show the consequence of ‘if everyone did this then..’. Kant restates this as the categorical imperative. But it is just the western method of using exaggeration of traits of individuals in order to force every living soul to ask “what if everyone did this” or “what are the consequences of this behavior over time”.
Gods help us create general rules of decidability within a context by means of hyperbole (isolation of causal properties.)
This is why we need myths, stated hyperbolically, and literature stated analogically: to create general rules, easily employed in a wide variety of circumstances, so that we may, through the thousands of little decisions every day, guide our civilization into that which we seek: parity with the gods.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 19:44:00 UTC
I am on my side.
I am on my kin’s side
I am on my extended kin’s side
I am on my civilization’s side.
Truth happens to be the weapon of choice in this battle, because it lets us build commons and compete via commons against those that cannot compete via commons. And because it is by cunning deceits sold to women and the underclass that we have been defeated in the ancient and modern worlds.
I considered myself a classical liberal. I had the constitution and declaration and a map of the world on my bedroom walls, and a set of encyclopedias under that map. I stared at them a lot. Not romantically, and not ideologically, but in the context of what I learned from those and other encyclopedias.
I considered my self a libertarian (a hayekian classical liberal) when I believed in the potential of mankind..
And current events have made me understand that such a fantasy was the product of european eugenics, and that the rest of humanity except for perhaps the Japanese and koreans is are still but animals, and we we must protect ourselves and our generations from them.
I love sovereignty and will pay for it with my life.
I love liberty for those who can pay for it.
I love freedom for those who can wield it.
For the rest, the best we can do is prevent them from harming us, our people, our civilization, and this planet.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-18 15:39:00 UTC
SUBJECTIVITY VS OBJECTIVITY I’ll try to answer this question as correctly and completely as I can. **Subjectivity** refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that we can experience directly with our senses and faculties if we possess necessary experience. Subjectively experienced: – yes, I like vanilla more than chocolate. (demonstrable, not testable) – yes, I can see/feel/hear that change. (testable) – yes, I can feel it is cold in here. (reportable not testable) – yes, I can agree that statement is true. (reportable) – yes, that seems reasonable if I were in that circumstance. (reportable) – no, that’s not believable. (reportable). **Objectivity** refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that can be directly perceived or instrumentally perceived, and whether those instruments are physical or logical. Objectively experienced: – that volume will hold more or less water than this volume, (despite our perceptions) – I took longer for this than for that (despite our perceptions) – this is moving at the same velocity as that (despite our perceptions) – the car caused the accident (despite our perceptions) – the world is less violent today (despite our perceptions) – that seems what a reasonable person would think (false, despite our perceptions). **Neither** Subjectively or Objectively Experienceable – or knowable: – Just about everything at very great or very small scales of time, space, velocity, size, and number. – Another person’s (or creature’s) experiences and intuitions. – ‘the Good’ (despite everyone’s intuition to the contrary). **SCIENCE AND THE WEST** The purpose of the scientific method is to demand that we perform due diligence against our natural limitations, whether they are biological, emotional, social, or intellectual. And it is the competition between the free association that our minds evolved to do so well, the clarity of our thoughts that we evolved through language and then reason, and the scientific method that we use to constrain our thoughts and observations, and measurements such that they are as free of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit as they possibly can be. The west never engaged in totalitarianism or conflation of other societies and we retained competition in all walks of life including the epistemological, such that only that which survives the best from competition might remain a truth, or a good. This competition is what made the west evolve faster than the rest in the bronze, iron, and steel ages. But we still wish we could escape that competition in all walks of life – despite it being the reason that we and the rest of the world, have been dragged out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, violence, and disease because of it. What we intuit is often not a good thing. Cheers
SUBJECTIVITY VS OBJECTIVITY I’ll try to answer this question as correctly and completely as I can. **Subjectivity** refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that we can experience directly with our senses and faculties if we possess necessary experience. Subjectively experienced: – yes, I like vanilla more than chocolate. (demonstrable, not testable) – yes, I can see/feel/hear that change. (testable) – yes, I can feel it is cold in here. (reportable not testable) – yes, I can agree that statement is true. (reportable) – yes, that seems reasonable if I were in that circumstance. (reportable) – no, that’s not believable. (reportable). **Objectivity** refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that can be directly perceived or instrumentally perceived, and whether those instruments are physical or logical. Objectively experienced: – that volume will hold more or less water than this volume, (despite our perceptions) – I took longer for this than for that (despite our perceptions) – this is moving at the same velocity as that (despite our perceptions) – the car caused the accident (despite our perceptions) – the world is less violent today (despite our perceptions) – that seems what a reasonable person would think (false, despite our perceptions). **Neither** Subjectively or Objectively Experienceable – or knowable: – Just about everything at very great or very small scales of time, space, velocity, size, and number. – Another person’s (or creature’s) experiences and intuitions. – ‘the Good’ (despite everyone’s intuition to the contrary). **SCIENCE AND THE WEST** The purpose of the scientific method is to demand that we perform due diligence against our natural limitations, whether they are biological, emotional, social, or intellectual. And it is the competition between the free association that our minds evolved to do so well, the clarity of our thoughts that we evolved through language and then reason, and the scientific method that we use to constrain our thoughts and observations, and measurements such that they are as free of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit as they possibly can be. The west never engaged in totalitarianism or conflation of other societies and we retained competition in all walks of life including the epistemological, such that only that which survives the best from competition might remain a truth, or a good. This competition is what made the west evolve faster than the rest in the bronze, iron, and steel ages. But we still wish we could escape that competition in all walks of life – despite it being the reason that we and the rest of the world, have been dragged out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, violence, and disease because of it. What we intuit is often not a good thing. Cheers
( We end copyright, we require truthful speech, we extend liability to sponsors of speech, and we end cultural marxism and the industrialization of lying. In just one generation. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-18 10:25:00 UTC
–“BAD IDEAS, HOWEVER SACRED, CANNOT SURVIVE THE COMPANY OF GOOD ONES FOREVER.”— Sam Harris This statement is demonstrably false, primarily because the market for comforting falsehoods, is greater than the market for uncomfortable truths; and because the market for gossip that justifies one’s priors is greater than the market for uncomfortable truths that contradict one’s priors. Those are two empirically demonstrable statements that have been the subject of not insignificant study and debate. We could, instead say, that in the market for weapons of argument, usable on those subjects of argument – rather than gossip and propaganda – that more truthful (and therefore scientific) arguments defeat the less truthful (rational, reasonable, pseudo-rational, pseudoscientific, and supernatural). The problem we face is the difference in the scale and distribution of gossip, propaganda, justification and critical argument. Falsehood is a cheaper product than truth. In other words, as intellectuals we cannot for a moment cast ourselves as ‘average persons’. A third of the electorate (market for political choice) is fully committed to the dysgenic and feminine reproductive strategy (the left) and a third fully committed to the eugenic and masculine reproductive strategy (the right), and the third in the middle is not only uncommitted, but unconcerned, and largely uninformed, and demonstrably persuaded by what they empathize with, obtain information from friends (gossip), are exposed to the media (propaganda), and lack the general knowledge to engage in argument. (See The Myth of the Rational Voter). Imagining that the way you think is somehow average rather than one of a host of possible outliers, is merely demonstration of the various cognitive social biases wherein we attribute to others in general what applies to us in particular. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
–“BAD IDEAS, HOWEVER SACRED, CANNOT SURVIVE THE COMPANY OF GOOD ONES FOREVER.”— Sam Harris This statement is demonstrably false, primarily because the market for comforting falsehoods, is greater than the market for uncomfortable truths; and because the market for gossip that justifies one’s priors is greater than the market for uncomfortable truths that contradict one’s priors. Those are two empirically demonstrable statements that have been the subject of not insignificant study and debate. We could, instead say, that in the market for weapons of argument, usable on those subjects of argument – rather than gossip and propaganda – that more truthful (and therefore scientific) arguments defeat the less truthful (rational, reasonable, pseudo-rational, pseudoscientific, and supernatural). The problem we face is the difference in the scale and distribution of gossip, propaganda, justification and critical argument. Falsehood is a cheaper product than truth. In other words, as intellectuals we cannot for a moment cast ourselves as ‘average persons’. A third of the electorate (market for political choice) is fully committed to the dysgenic and feminine reproductive strategy (the left) and a third fully committed to the eugenic and masculine reproductive strategy (the right), and the third in the middle is not only uncommitted, but unconcerned, and largely uninformed, and demonstrably persuaded by what they empathize with, obtain information from friends (gossip), are exposed to the media (propaganda), and lack the general knowledge to engage in argument. (See The Myth of the Rational Voter). Imagining that the way you think is somehow average rather than one of a host of possible outliers, is merely demonstration of the various cognitive social biases wherein we attribute to others in general what applies to us in particular. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
http://www.unz.com/proberts/from-nuisance-to-threat-the-high-cost-of-truth/PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS ON THE HIGH COST OF TRUTH
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 20:26:00 UTC
by James Augustus HERE. BE AWED. AN IMPROVEMENT ON NIETZSCHE —“If we hold that the function of mythic art’s (story, play, movie, etc) is to provide commensurable decidability across the spectrum of classes, then I think that tragedy is the only theme that represents the full spectrum of human experience.Information can be transferred to slave, citizen, master and hero in a manner congruent with their class and the profile of experiences they have with the world.That goes without saying that myth seeks to provide information that is meaningful—tragedy might be our only way to construct myth that is also truthful.”— James Augustus