Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Q&A: PREDICTION OR EXPLANATORY POWER IN TRUTH STATEMENTS? —“Curt, Is it an imp

    Q&A: PREDICTION OR EXPLANATORY POWER IN TRUTH STATEMENTS?

    —“Curt, Is it an important or necessary quality of a scientific theory to be predictive?”—

    Not necessary – and that’s not what empiricist claimed, either. It must provide explanatory power and survive falsification (survive continuously). In other words, prediction is a form of justification. It’s survival from criticism(falsification), not confirmation that determines the truth content of a theory.

    Prediction is just one way. But there is a difference between predicting a trend (aggregates) and predicting an individual actions(identities).

    THE EPISTEMIC SEQUENCE

    Free association -> hypothesis -> TEST (observation -> criticism) -> theory -> extended ‘social’ criticism -> law -> falsehood (increased parsimony)

    Testimonialism is a higher standard of truth candidacy than that of ‘science’. It tells us that we must test our hypotheses for:

    1 – categorical consistency (identity)

    2 – internal consistency (logical)

    3 – external consistency (correspondence)

    4 – existential consistency (existential possibility)

    5 – full accounting (account for externalities)

    6 – parsimony and limits (limits)

    7 – cooperative consistency (morality)

    THE PROBLEM OF PARSIMONY (PRECISION)

    Now lets start with the problem of parsimony and limits: predictive and actionable, and descriptive and non-actionable, are two different criteria.

    In physical sciences, we test the determinism (regularity), limits (scope), and parsimony (precision) of a theory, by its predictive(forward) or descriptive(backward) power (external correspondence).

    THE PROBLEM OF INFORMATION

    Prediction is a test that we have not erred in our description of deterministic systems. And the physical universe is deterministic – because it cannot choose (it cannot predict itself). Moreover, as we scale (the amount of mass we are attempting to develop a theory of), it takes ever greater information (energy) to alter the deterministic course of the universe, even a little bit.

    Just as in human beings, as we scale, individuals require ever greater amounts of information to alter their behavior – hence why prices are so important to us, and laws that create regularity (predictability in our risk taking) so important to us. And hence why macroeconomic manipulation using money and therefore prices causes changes in human behavior.

    We can predict the orbit of large objects in our solar system. We cannot predict events (information) outside of the deterministic behavior of the objects – we cannot know the unknown externalities.

    Every time we cross the galactic plane it seems to invite a great extinction. Can we predict it? Not precisely and therefore not actionably. We can only know that such events tend to happen with regularity. But our precision (parsimony) is very limited.

    Can we predict when an asteroid will come free of the belt and tumble toward earth? We can only state that there is no reason one will not. That’s not very helpful. It is however, predictive. It is just not actionable. But the problem is not the theory, it is our lack of information given the externalities.

    But humans can think, observe, and change their behavior by means of information, or anticipatory information. Human existence – memory, intuition, thought, and reason – evolved precisely to outwit the deterministic course of regular events and to capture some of the difference for our sustenance.

    We can predict that gasses will expand to fill a volume in a vacuum, but not how the individual molecules will be arranged. That would require so much information, that the measurement itself would change the outcome.

    So humans – or any sentient creature – can change the universe by his actions a little bit, using only information. (Just as we suspect the subatomic universe transmits information and reacts to equilibrate – somehow. )

    We can predict by sympathetic testing (“empathy”), with fair accuracy, how an individual will act when subject to certain incentives, when isolated from many externalities. If we couldn’t then cooperation would be impossible. So by definition human behavior is at least marginally predictable.

    But like molecules of gas in a volume in a vacuum, the amount of information necessary to predict the behavior of any molecule is such that measurement sufficient for that determination would affect the outcome. The same applies for humans. Attempts at measurement that the human is aware of change the human’s behavior. So we create institutions that assist us in creating regular behavior: myths, rituals, traditions, norms, rules, laws, governments, and war. Otherwise we ourselves could not predict much outside of our local family.

    Humans are relatively predictable at macro-economic levels. Gas is predictable at macro levels. The local physical universe is predictable at macro-levels. But that’s not very parsimonious. It’s not very precise. It’s not actionable.

    Predictability in the physical universe is a good test because we cannot empathize with the physical universe, and the standard of predictability is fairly low, and variables can often by isolated from random information.

    Humans take very little energy – mere visual information and memory – to change their course. Moving space time using gravity just a little, little bit, takes vast amounts of energy (mass).

    Or put another way, it takes great energy (information) to bend space time, and it takes great information to move populations form one behavior to another. Organization is a costly endeavor. And just as the universe will seek to equilibrate the energy transfer (information), so will humans see to seize opportunities generated (information created) by the transition from one state to another.

    So predictability is determined by the number and density of variables, and the information necessary to for the object of our consideration to change state.

    EXPLANATORY POWER

    A theory must provide explanatory power over recorded raw data – utility for the purpose intended. Whether that same theory is actionable or not is a product of the transmission of information within the system, and the energy required to alter its course.

    For humans we must record data that captures demonstrated preferences. Money is a good measure of humans because outside of interference by the state, consumption is a demonstrated preference.

    A theory must provide explanatory power, and survive criticism. Prediction is just a method of criticism, not a confirmation. Hence falsification is superior to prediction. So first we create a confirmatory test in order to construct an observation. But we then criticize our observation to determine it’s truth or falsehood.

    Prediction is low standard of test for the physical universe where lots of information (energy) is required to change state and information (change) is rare.

    And prediction is a high standard of test in the human universe where trivial information is necessary to produce a change in state, and information is ever-present.

    Prediction in highly deterministic systems is fairly easy and important since the variability is low. Prediction in lightly deterministic systems is not easy nor important for testing since the variability is high.

    The question we are always trying to answer is ‘actionability’. Theories must be actionable given the information necessary to maintain or change state, and given the cost of obtaining or imparting that information.

    I should probably write something more thorough on this in order to continue to kill off the rothbardian and Misesian pseudoscientific nonsense. Hoppe persists in using this straw man argument to positivism. But it’s a straw man.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-03 05:14:00 UTC

  • Truth, Law of Information, Natural Law of Cooperation, Physical Law of the Universe

    (religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume, damning of rawls) [O]ur brains are smaller than those of our distant ancestors. With the evolution of language we were able to learn more by shared calculation: in the form of thinking and reasoning than we could by our own observation, memory, and judgement. By communicating using language thereby transferring experience, we extended our perception, could make use of other’s memories. But with greater perception and less individual certainty of that perception, we needed a means of judgement. Or what we call, a method of decidability. With greater numbers, and a greater division of perception, we required even greater tools of judgement, of choice, of decidability. We needed ‘theories’ of the good. And those theories evolve in parallel with the extent of our cooperation: –From:– “What is good for me?” and “What is true enough for me to act?” using the criteria “So that what I gain by the action is preferable to not doing so.” –to:– 1) What is good for me : what is true enough for me to act without retaliation 2) What is good for me and good for us : what is true enough to encourage future cooperation? 3) What is good for me and good for us, and good for all those like us, so that we encourage cooperation of others, and do not encourage retaliation. 4) What is good for me, and good for us, and good for all mankind, so that we TRANSCEND. (Evolve). This problem of decidability is the origin of our myth, religion, and philosophy – and now science. These techniques Just as in ethics we start with mythical inspiration, and evolve into ethical virtues, to ethical rules, to ethical outcomes, we evolve from the actions of the individual, to the ethics of cooperation, to the ethics of cooperation at scale, to the ethics of transcendence of man. So, to confer decidability upon all, from the young child to the old and wise, the method of decision making must be accessible for use by everyone from the young child to the old and wise. A religion comprises a group evolutionary strategy, wherein members are taught metaphysical, mythical, traditional, and normative methods of decidability, by means of analogy. Traditional law codifies this strategy in prohibitions. Why prohibitions? Because we can all equally refrain from the violation of that group evolutionary strategy, but we cannot equally contribute to the furtherance of that group evolutionary strategy. We are equal in ability to not do, but we are not equal in ability to do. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful or unsuccessful in the persistence of the group – such as by being dependent upon local phenomenon that can change: the worship of the sun so logical in the agrarian era, is no longer so logical in an era of trade, or of industry, or of energy, or of information. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful but violate principle three: in that it encourages retaliation: murder, career thievery, Gypsy petty parasitism, Jewish organized and systemic parasitism, muslim invasion and raiding, Russian low trust propaganda and lying, and Chinese and European ‘Asymmetric Colonialism’. A groups evolutionary strategy can violate principle four by inhibiting transcendence – such as islam’s demand for respect and mandated ignorance – or a strategy can construct transcendence: Western Indo European Natural Law. A group’s evolutionary strategy can provide the minimum resistance to transcendence and the maximum possibility of transcendence: Truth telling law (Truth), Natural Law (cooperation), and physical law (correspondence), the incremental, total suppression of parasitism, under the Common Law. And genetic suppression by the incremental culling of the parasitic from the group by separation, sterilization, and hanging. And while we can perhaps tech these concepts to children through repetition, we cannot teach it to them as inspiration, without myth, ritual, tradition, and norm to persist it across generations, and to convey it to all those regardless of age and ability. That we require ‘religion’: myth, ritual and tradition, in narrative, literary form is a product of man’s intellectual evolution from innocent and ignorant child to jaded and experienced sage. But whether stated as religious narrative, reasoned moral argument, rational justification, strictly constructed law, ratio-scientific criticism or testimonial truth, the actions that result from the use of these forms of communication must produce correspondent results. So it is not the method of conveyance that we judge – since the method of argument is a measure of the speaker and the audience – but whether The only transcendent philosophy must be natural law of man and physical law of the universe, stated testimonially – the best that man’s words are able to state. And therefore the only transcendent religion is Testimonial Truth, The Natural Law of Cooperation, The Physical Law of Correspondence. All else is lie to obscure parasitism and predation, or it is error that not must be not tolerated, but corrected. If any mythological, reasonable, rational, ratio-scientific argument is incompatible with natural law, then it is merely an act of predation – an act of war – not a religion. Christianity and Indo European Paganism are compatible with Natural Law in the production of resulting behavior, as long as inbreeding is prohibited, tolerance for violation of natural law is limited, and the culling of the underclasses by expulsion, separation, incarceration, sterilization, and hanging is encouraged as necessary for the preservation of natural law and the achievement of transcendence. The Church may not preserve its dependents at the expense of natural law or at the expense of transcendence. That would be the work of the self interest of the bureaucracy of man, not the work of Truth and Transcendence. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Truth, Law of Information, Natural Law of Cooperation, Physical Law of the Universe

    (religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume, damning of rawls) [O]ur brains are smaller than those of our distant ancestors. With the evolution of language we were able to learn more by shared calculation: in the form of thinking and reasoning than we could by our own observation, memory, and judgement. By communicating using language thereby transferring experience, we extended our perception, could make use of other’s memories. But with greater perception and less individual certainty of that perception, we needed a means of judgement. Or what we call, a method of decidability. With greater numbers, and a greater division of perception, we required even greater tools of judgement, of choice, of decidability. We needed ‘theories’ of the good. And those theories evolve in parallel with the extent of our cooperation: –From:– “What is good for me?” and “What is true enough for me to act?” using the criteria “So that what I gain by the action is preferable to not doing so.” –to:– 1) What is good for me : what is true enough for me to act without retaliation 2) What is good for me and good for us : what is true enough to encourage future cooperation? 3) What is good for me and good for us, and good for all those like us, so that we encourage cooperation of others, and do not encourage retaliation. 4) What is good for me, and good for us, and good for all mankind, so that we TRANSCEND. (Evolve). This problem of decidability is the origin of our myth, religion, and philosophy – and now science. These techniques Just as in ethics we start with mythical inspiration, and evolve into ethical virtues, to ethical rules, to ethical outcomes, we evolve from the actions of the individual, to the ethics of cooperation, to the ethics of cooperation at scale, to the ethics of transcendence of man. So, to confer decidability upon all, from the young child to the old and wise, the method of decision making must be accessible for use by everyone from the young child to the old and wise. A religion comprises a group evolutionary strategy, wherein members are taught metaphysical, mythical, traditional, and normative methods of decidability, by means of analogy. Traditional law codifies this strategy in prohibitions. Why prohibitions? Because we can all equally refrain from the violation of that group evolutionary strategy, but we cannot equally contribute to the furtherance of that group evolutionary strategy. We are equal in ability to not do, but we are not equal in ability to do. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful or unsuccessful in the persistence of the group – such as by being dependent upon local phenomenon that can change: the worship of the sun so logical in the agrarian era, is no longer so logical in an era of trade, or of industry, or of energy, or of information. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful but violate principle three: in that it encourages retaliation: murder, career thievery, Gypsy petty parasitism, Jewish organized and systemic parasitism, muslim invasion and raiding, Russian low trust propaganda and lying, and Chinese and European ‘Asymmetric Colonialism’. A groups evolutionary strategy can violate principle four by inhibiting transcendence – such as islam’s demand for respect and mandated ignorance – or a strategy can construct transcendence: Western Indo European Natural Law. A group’s evolutionary strategy can provide the minimum resistance to transcendence and the maximum possibility of transcendence: Truth telling law (Truth), Natural Law (cooperation), and physical law (correspondence), the incremental, total suppression of parasitism, under the Common Law. And genetic suppression by the incremental culling of the parasitic from the group by separation, sterilization, and hanging. And while we can perhaps tech these concepts to children through repetition, we cannot teach it to them as inspiration, without myth, ritual, tradition, and norm to persist it across generations, and to convey it to all those regardless of age and ability. That we require ‘religion’: myth, ritual and tradition, in narrative, literary form is a product of man’s intellectual evolution from innocent and ignorant child to jaded and experienced sage. But whether stated as religious narrative, reasoned moral argument, rational justification, strictly constructed law, ratio-scientific criticism or testimonial truth, the actions that result from the use of these forms of communication must produce correspondent results. So it is not the method of conveyance that we judge – since the method of argument is a measure of the speaker and the audience – but whether The only transcendent philosophy must be natural law of man and physical law of the universe, stated testimonially – the best that man’s words are able to state. And therefore the only transcendent religion is Testimonial Truth, The Natural Law of Cooperation, The Physical Law of Correspondence. All else is lie to obscure parasitism and predation, or it is error that not must be not tolerated, but corrected. If any mythological, reasonable, rational, ratio-scientific argument is incompatible with natural law, then it is merely an act of predation – an act of war – not a religion. Christianity and Indo European Paganism are compatible with Natural Law in the production of resulting behavior, as long as inbreeding is prohibited, tolerance for violation of natural law is limited, and the culling of the underclasses by expulsion, separation, incarceration, sterilization, and hanging is encouraged as necessary for the preservation of natural law and the achievement of transcendence. The Church may not preserve its dependents at the expense of natural law or at the expense of transcendence. That would be the work of the self interest of the bureaucracy of man, not the work of Truth and Transcendence. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • You want to name a true God. I want to kill false gods so that only true God rem

    You want to name a true God.

    I want to kill false gods so that only true God remains.

    That is the difference between devout Christianity and the Christianity of Testimonial Truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-02 08:34:00 UTC

  • TRUTH, NATURAL LAW, PHYSICAL LAW (religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume

    TRUTH, NATURAL LAW, PHYSICAL LAW

    (religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume, damning of rawls)

    Our brains are smaller than those of our distant ancestors.

    With the evolution of language we were able to learn more by shared calculation: in the form of thinking and reasoning than we could by our own observation, memory, and judgement.

    By communicating using language thereby transferring experience, we extended our perception, could make use of other’s memories.

    But with greater perception and less individual certainty of that perception, we needed a means of judgement. Or what we call, a method of decidability.

    With greater numbers, and a greater division of perception, we required even greater tools of judgement, of choice, of decidability.

    We needed ‘theories’ of the good. And those theories evolve in parallel with the extent of our cooperation:

    –From:–

    “What is good for me?” and “What is true enough for me to act?” using the criteria “So that what I gain by the action is preferable to not doing so.”

    –to:–

    1) What is good for me : what is true enough for me to act without retaliation

    2) What is good for me and good for us : what is true enough to encourage future cooperation?

    3) What is good for me and good for us, and good for all those like us, so that we encourage cooperation of others, and do not encourage retaliation.

    4) What is good for me, and good for us, and good for all mankind, so that we TRANSCEND. (Evolve).

    This problem of decidability is the origin of our myth, religion, and philosophy – and now science. These techniques

    Just as in ethics we start with mythical inspiration, and evolve into ethical virtues, to ethical rules, to ethical outcomes, we evolve from the actions of the individual, to the ethics of cooperation, to the ethics of cooperation at scale, to the ethics of transcendence of man.

    So, to confer decidability upon all, from the young child to the old and wise, the method of decision making must be accessible for use by everyone from the young child to the old and wise.

    A religion comprises a group evolutionary strategy, wherein members are taught metaphysical, mythical, traditional, and normative methods of decidability, by means of analogy.

    Traditional law codifies this strategy in prohibitions. Why prohibitions? Because we can all equally refrain from the violation of that group evolutionary strategy, but we cannot equally contribute to the furtherance of that group evolutionary strategy. We are equal in ability to not do, but we are not equal in ability to do.

    A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful or unsuccessful in the persistence of the group – such as by being dependent upon local phenomenon that can change: the worship of the sun so logical in the agrarian era, is no longer so logical in an era of trade, or of industry, or of energy, or of information.

    A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful but violate principle three: in that it encourages retaliation: murder, career thievery, Gypsy petty parasitism, Jewish organized and systemic parasitism, muslim invasion and raiding, Russian low trust propaganda and lying, and Chinese and European ‘Asymmetric Colonialism’.

    A groups evolutionary strategy can violate principle four by inhibiting transcendence – such as islam’s demand for respect and mandated ignorance – or a strategy can construct transcendence: Western Indo European Natural Law.

    A group’s evolutionary strategy can provide the minimum resistance to transcendence and the maximum possibility of transcendence:

    Truth telling law (Truth), Natural Law (cooperation), and physical law (correspondence), the incremental, total suppression of parasitism, under the Common Law. And genetic suppression by the incremental culling of the parasitic from the group by separation, sterilization, and hanging.

    And while we can perhaps tech these concepts to children through repetition, we cannot teach it to them as inspiration, without myth, ritual, tradition, and norm to persist it across generations, and to convey it to all those regardless of age and ability.

    That we require ‘religion’: myth, ritual and tradition, in narrative, literary form is a product of man’s intellectual evolution from innocent and ignorant child to jaded and experienced sage.

    But whether stated as religious narrative, reasoned moral argument, rational justification, strictly constructed law, ratio-scientific criticism or testimonial truth, the actions that result from the use of these forms of communication must produce correspondent results.

    So it is not the method of conveyance that we judge – since the method of argument is a measure of the speaker and the audience – but whether

    The only transcendent philosophy must be natural law of man and physical law of the universe, stated testimonially – the best that man’s words are able to state.

    And therefore the only transcendent religion is Testimonial Truth, The Natural Law of Cooperation, The Physical Law of Correspondence,

    All else is lie to obscure parasitism and predation, or it is error that not must be not tolerated, but corrected.

    If any mythological, reasonable, rational, ratio-scientific argument is incompatible with natural law, then it is merely an act of predation – an act of war – not a religion.

    Christianity and Indo European Paganism are compatible with Natural Law in the production of resulting behavior, as long as inbreeding is prohibited, tolerance for violation of natural law is limited, and the culling of the underclasses by expulsion, separation, incarceration, sterilization, and hanging is encouraged as necessary for the preservation of natural law and the achievement of transcendence.

    The Church may not preserve its dependents at the expense of natural law or at the expense of transcendence. That would be the work of the self interest of the bureaucracy of man, not the work of Truth and Transcendence.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-02 04:48:00 UTC

  • THE RECIPES OF MAN’S EXISTENCE A Recipe for Transforming (‘recipe’) A Recipe for

    THE RECIPES OF MAN’S EXISTENCE

    A Recipe for Transforming (‘recipe’)

    A Recipe for Acting (plan)

    A Recipe for Thinking (theory)

    A Recipe for Testimony (truth)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-02 04:00:00 UTC

  • THE CATALOG OF ERRORS AND LIARS – INSTEAD, TRUTH IS ENOUGH. I tend to treat argu

    THE CATALOG OF ERRORS AND LIARS – INSTEAD, TRUTH IS ENOUGH.

    I tend to treat argumentative methods as sets of technologies differentiated by their methods of decidability (testing): whether they produce truth or falsehood.

    Mythology (explanatory)

    Reasonableness (The Pre-Socratics: justifiable)

    Reason (The Greeks: Critical)

    Religious Reasoning (The Monotheists: Mythically Correspondent)

    Rationalism (Kant: Internally Consistent)

    Ratio-Empiricism (Hume, Smith, Locke: Empirically Consistent)

    Scientific (Darwin, Einstein, Spencer: Deterministically consistent)

    Pseudoscientific (Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Keynes)

    Pseudo-logical (the analytic philosophers of language)

    Pseudo Rationalism (Postmodernists)

    Testimonialism (what I do:

    – categorically consistent

    – internally consistent

    – externally correspondent (empirically consistent)

    – existentially possible (operationally stated)

    – Limited and Parsimonious (falsified limits)

    – Fully Accounted (against selection bias)

    – Objectively Moral (consisting only of fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer consisting only of externalities of the same.)

    German philosophers tend to treat argumentative methods as methods of teaching: whether they are successful at conveyance or not.

    As far as I Know Kant was trying to restate germanic christianity by justificationary means. He was remarkably successful. But it’s not ‘true’ in the sense that it’s correspondent. It’s just very well structured wisdom.

    As far as I know the entire continental, cosmopolitan, and anglo-liberal programs were dead ends for different reasons. The german possessed the correct vision of man, but an unscientific method of argument insufficiently divorced from religion. The cosmopolitans merely creates series of elaborate lies with which to justify predation on the west. The anglos were so enamored of their wealth and power they assumed all men desired and were capable of

    Man was not ‘kept down and oppressed’. He was not peaceful in the state of nature. He was a rapidly reproducing super predator happily competing with and killing off his own kind. Man was forcibly civilized against his will and against his desire for combating other sets of genes using malthusian reproduction. The entire enlightenment project was predicated on this fallacy. And the Germans, French, Cosmopolitan Jews, Anglo Liberals, and Anglo European neo-liberals were all wrong either in their method of argument, or their group evolutionary strategy, or their fantasy of the nature of man.

    Man is trivially simple: he does what is in his interests at all times. We civilize man by prohibiting parasitism in all forms so that the only method of survival left to him is productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange, limited externality of the same in the market for goods and services.

    Man was not oppressed. He was forcibly domesticated. And the enlightenment errors of the europeans set free the barbarians. The most serious of which was pandora. Who, once she could open the ballot box, let loose all the ills in the world, that man through his incremental evolution of property rights as a means of suppressing parasitism, unwound within decades.

    So that said, the OP’s question is a matter of angels on the heads of pins. The entire germanic corpus, like the french and the cosmopolitan jewish, and all but the scientific of the anglo, is nothing but a second attempt at imposing christian mysticism upon us with a new argumentative technology that is a mere minor improvement upon the last.

    Truth is enough. If you cannot manage truth, then the question is why you fear it? Is it because one lacks the courage? Is it because the universe is hostile to man? Is it because it would eliminate our ability to act parasitically upon others? Or is it all of the above?

    Truth is enough.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-01 05:08:00 UTC

  • IF MY WORK IS OFFENSIVE TO YOU, THEN YOU ARE A THIEF. I mean. It’s that simple r

    IF MY WORK IS OFFENSIVE TO YOU, THEN YOU ARE A THIEF.

    I mean. It’s that simple right? Truth hurts sometimes.

    Being called out as a thief is definitely unpleasant. Propertarianism and Testimonialism make your thievery visible. You’ve been caught. I understand that you don’t like being caught. I understand that thieves blame everyone else other than themselves.

    If my work is offensive then you’re just a thief. Sorry. Just how it is.

    If you don’t understand it, then you just don’t understand it. Your understanding is no more a measure of my work than your understanding of any other logical specialization. Incomprehension is not a criticism. Nor is complexity a criticism. There are many counter-intuitive complexities in human experience.

    If you think it’s incomplete, or could be better, well then, I agree with you. Its incomplete and it could be better.

    If you think my ambitions are unwise, well, then I acknowledge that possibility.

    But in my experience finding the work offensive is an attempt to preserve deceit and theft.

    The Transcendence of man requires that we clean our intellectual house, incrementally increase suppression of parasitism, and create great monuments to our success.

    We have likely passed peak human. Smaller brains, lower intelligence, higher aggression, and higher reproduction, can destroy mankind’s promise.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-30 06:13:00 UTC

  • “For a successful technology…reality must take precedence over public relation

    —“For a successful technology…reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”—Feynman

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-29 14:57:00 UTC

  • FEELINGS (worth repeating) (quotable) —“as far as feelings go, the truth of th

    FEELINGS

    (worth repeating) (quotable)

    —“as far as feelings go, the truth of them are perceived only over time and never in the moment. At a time of clarity, that is when an emotional response ‘runs clear’ because it has already been through several wave cycles, then truth can be perceived. The body senses truth, the conscious mind observes that process. The observed universe is male. The system is binary as far as I can tell. A 0 and 1. The 1 or male cannot be perceived without the female.”— Lesley Drabble

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-26 06:23:00 UTC