Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Speaking the Truth

    (reposted) [Y]ou can claim you have done sufficient due diligence to warrant your words against retribution. That is all you can claim. Otherwise you can speak to the air (yourself) but not to another. If you have done so you can err, or your information may be insufficient, or more information in the future may be uncovered. But we can never claim a thing is true if there is more information that can ever be presented that could falsify the claim. When we say something ‘is’ true. we CAN only say that we have done due diligence against it’s falsehood to the best or our knowledge and ability. If you say something ‘is’ true, you must also state how it exists, since ‘is’ refers to existence. We use the verb ‘to be’, especially in the form of ‘is’ to avoid describing how something exists – for rather complicated reasons – most of which are saving of effort, others are the high cost of changing between experience, intention, action, and observation – a grammatical cost that is quite high for us humans. What we evolved the verb “to be” to mean, is “I promise that you will come to the came conclusion by making the same observation” So to say ‘the cat is black’ is to say ‘if you observe this cat then it will appear black in color.’ This is the only thing you CAN mean, because it is the only existentially possible thing you could mean. We just habituate language out of experience and effort reduction, rather than follow rules of truthfulness of language, which is expensive to learn and speak. So that is what statements mean: they mean that you have made observations of something or other, translated that experience into analogies to experience, then spoken that to another who upon listening recreates the experience through language. He then fails to understand, or requires additional information until he does understand, and the additional information so that he does not err. So just as we accumulate sounds into words, we accumulate experiences generated by words into reconstructions of the speaker’s experience. You can convey truthfulness (tested), honesty(untested), error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and fantasy. But only you can create a statement so only you are responsible for the truthfulness of your statement. Your statement is not true. You speak truthfully(having tested), honestly(having not), in error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, or deception. That is all that is possible. Someone else finds your statement true when they reconstruct the same experience. So whey I say x=y I am saying that I promise you will also find that x=y if you choose to test this. This is all you CAN mean. Now you can say that you speak impulsively, honestly, or truthfully, or something in between. So that you cannot promise that the audience will also come to the same conclusion that you do. That is the difference between information (impulse), hypothesis(honesty), theory(truthfulness). So you can then only promise that what you’re offering is information, honesty, or truthfulness. But one must tell others which we are offering: information, honesty, or truthfulness. So correspondence exists when you have done due diligence on your observation, and when you consequent speech allows your audience to reconstructs your experience, and when they possess sufficient knowledge to do so. In other words the other person may lack the knowledge to reconstruct the experience of correspondence. This does not mean you cannot know a truth candidate. You can. Since you can reconstruct it. But you cannot test it without others with more knowledge. This is why science is a social construct. it is very hard to know the ‘ultimate’ most ‘parsimonious’ truthful statement because it is increasingly hard to possess sufficient information to know if it could produce greater correspondence. So in practicality, if you establish limits on your truthful statement such as “this works for tis circumstance’ then it is fairly easy. But if you say this works for N circumstances this gets increasingly difficult because there is more and more information that you can’t necessarily account for. You probably note by now that I do not rely upon ideal types, but force construction of both spectra and sequences when making arguments. And this is why I can make these statements. Because i have tested them for truthfulness before speaking them, and you on the other hand are speaking honestly, most likely because you do not yet know how to speak truthfully. Because it’s hard. I hope this was helpful to you. Affections. Curt

  • Speaking the Truth

    (reposted) [Y]ou can claim you have done sufficient due diligence to warrant your words against retribution. That is all you can claim. Otherwise you can speak to the air (yourself) but not to another. If you have done so you can err, or your information may be insufficient, or more information in the future may be uncovered. But we can never claim a thing is true if there is more information that can ever be presented that could falsify the claim. When we say something ‘is’ true. we CAN only say that we have done due diligence against it’s falsehood to the best or our knowledge and ability. If you say something ‘is’ true, you must also state how it exists, since ‘is’ refers to existence. We use the verb ‘to be’, especially in the form of ‘is’ to avoid describing how something exists – for rather complicated reasons – most of which are saving of effort, others are the high cost of changing between experience, intention, action, and observation – a grammatical cost that is quite high for us humans. What we evolved the verb “to be” to mean, is “I promise that you will come to the came conclusion by making the same observation” So to say ‘the cat is black’ is to say ‘if you observe this cat then it will appear black in color.’ This is the only thing you CAN mean, because it is the only existentially possible thing you could mean. We just habituate language out of experience and effort reduction, rather than follow rules of truthfulness of language, which is expensive to learn and speak. So that is what statements mean: they mean that you have made observations of something or other, translated that experience into analogies to experience, then spoken that to another who upon listening recreates the experience through language. He then fails to understand, or requires additional information until he does understand, and the additional information so that he does not err. So just as we accumulate sounds into words, we accumulate experiences generated by words into reconstructions of the speaker’s experience. You can convey truthfulness (tested), honesty(untested), error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and fantasy. But only you can create a statement so only you are responsible for the truthfulness of your statement. Your statement is not true. You speak truthfully(having tested), honestly(having not), in error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, or deception. That is all that is possible. Someone else finds your statement true when they reconstruct the same experience. So whey I say x=y I am saying that I promise you will also find that x=y if you choose to test this. This is all you CAN mean. Now you can say that you speak impulsively, honestly, or truthfully, or something in between. So that you cannot promise that the audience will also come to the same conclusion that you do. That is the difference between information (impulse), hypothesis(honesty), theory(truthfulness). So you can then only promise that what you’re offering is information, honesty, or truthfulness. But one must tell others which we are offering: information, honesty, or truthfulness. So correspondence exists when you have done due diligence on your observation, and when you consequent speech allows your audience to reconstructs your experience, and when they possess sufficient knowledge to do so. In other words the other person may lack the knowledge to reconstruct the experience of correspondence. This does not mean you cannot know a truth candidate. You can. Since you can reconstruct it. But you cannot test it without others with more knowledge. This is why science is a social construct. it is very hard to know the ‘ultimate’ most ‘parsimonious’ truthful statement because it is increasingly hard to possess sufficient information to know if it could produce greater correspondence. So in practicality, if you establish limits on your truthful statement such as “this works for tis circumstance’ then it is fairly easy. But if you say this works for N circumstances this gets increasingly difficult because there is more and more information that you can’t necessarily account for. You probably note by now that I do not rely upon ideal types, but force construction of both spectra and sequences when making arguments. And this is why I can make these statements. Because i have tested them for truthfulness before speaking them, and you on the other hand are speaking honestly, most likely because you do not yet know how to speak truthfully. Because it’s hard. I hope this was helpful to you. Affections. Curt

  • WHAT CONSTITUTES A FACT? OUTING AMATEURS AS FREE RIDERS

    —-“As if Jim could answer that without first RECOGNIZING the FACT of your question.”—-

    [T]his is an interesting example, so lets use it. You observe the text, determine the question, can make sense of it, and therefore determine it exists. This is a very simple statement. But the reason it is a fact is that you cannot find evidence that it does not exist, or is not comprehensible as a question. Observation -> “recognition” -> free association -> hypothesis -> test -> theory -> test -> Law This sequence (popper’s problem->theory->test cycle) is what our brains do. It’s inescapable. So you can indeed recognize what you believe is a fact. Yes. We construct facts by testing the results of our observations against the possibility of falsehood. You use the term ‘recognizing’ which means ‘correspondence’. But correspondence must survive criticism. Ergo a fact is the result of survival from criticism. Now, this is what scientists do, and this is the meaning of fact in philosophy and science. If you want to use analogies and non operational arguments to justify your usage, then as long as I an translate your colloquialism into truthful statements I can attest that you MEAN the truth mean and intend to convey the truth even if you lack the ability (skill) to speak truthfully (scientifically). Now if you move from reductio examples to the court of disputes how often are people’s observations and subsequent testimony true? Well, we know from both a vast body of experiments, and the change in testimony after the invention of photography, and then video, that our ‘recognition’ is plagued with falsehood. So there is a big difference between recognition (an hypothesis), and a fact (a theory) because that difference There is a minor difference between a fact (theory of a description of an observation) and a theory (a description of a general rule that explains many observations). But the epistemological process is identical. We observe, identify (recognize and therefore hypothesize), test (criticize and produce theory), and repeat this process over and over again. (See “On Intelligence” by Jeff Hawkins for accessible research, and explanatory model of synthesis in layers of the cortex). This distinction is important because it is not the identity(recognition) that converts an observation to a fact, but the criticism (survival) of the observation that converts it to a fact. This is why we engage in a distribution of labor in research because we are so bad at testing observations and constructing theories that we need our own judgements tested – IF WE SEEK TRUTH. Now, the crux of YOUR argument is that one only needs sufficient confidence in correspondence with reality in order to act, and that is because one (often) bears the cost of one’s (frequent) error. It is when our actions affect any polity or group that the externalities of our errors ask us to judge not our own confidence in our observations and testing, but wether others will retaliate (at worst), ignore (as usual), or reward with opportunities of cooperation (at best) the externalities caused by our actions. So the sufficiency of our judgements in what we determine action is dependent upon the externalities produced by those judgements. What most libertines attempt to do is tell others that they do not wish to account for externalities produced by our actions, and that others ‘should tolerate’ the externalities produced by our actions. When people demonstrably do not do that. They retaliate against any and all imposition of costs on their potentials (inventory of property en toto), and if one is not contributing to them by compensatory means they will not tolerate it. So this is why the NAP/IVP is insufficient for rational action. It is insufficient for the prevention of retaliation, and the boycott of opportunity from others. And in fact it is not only insufficient but it is an attempt to justify parasitic actions caused by the externalization of costs, and justify the non contribution to the commons despite the fact that any general rule of behavior must be adopted as a common contract by consent and therefore exists as a commons. One does not choose the incentives of others. They merely exist as surely as the earth itself. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • WHAT CONSTITUTES A FACT? OUTING AMATEURS AS FREE RIDERS

    —-“As if Jim could answer that without first RECOGNIZING the FACT of your question.”—-

    [T]his is an interesting example, so lets use it. You observe the text, determine the question, can make sense of it, and therefore determine it exists. This is a very simple statement. But the reason it is a fact is that you cannot find evidence that it does not exist, or is not comprehensible as a question. Observation -> “recognition” -> free association -> hypothesis -> test -> theory -> test -> Law This sequence (popper’s problem->theory->test cycle) is what our brains do. It’s inescapable. So you can indeed recognize what you believe is a fact. Yes. We construct facts by testing the results of our observations against the possibility of falsehood. You use the term ‘recognizing’ which means ‘correspondence’. But correspondence must survive criticism. Ergo a fact is the result of survival from criticism. Now, this is what scientists do, and this is the meaning of fact in philosophy and science. If you want to use analogies and non operational arguments to justify your usage, then as long as I an translate your colloquialism into truthful statements I can attest that you MEAN the truth mean and intend to convey the truth even if you lack the ability (skill) to speak truthfully (scientifically). Now if you move from reductio examples to the court of disputes how often are people’s observations and subsequent testimony true? Well, we know from both a vast body of experiments, and the change in testimony after the invention of photography, and then video, that our ‘recognition’ is plagued with falsehood. So there is a big difference between recognition (an hypothesis), and a fact (a theory) because that difference There is a minor difference between a fact (theory of a description of an observation) and a theory (a description of a general rule that explains many observations). But the epistemological process is identical. We observe, identify (recognize and therefore hypothesize), test (criticize and produce theory), and repeat this process over and over again. (See “On Intelligence” by Jeff Hawkins for accessible research, and explanatory model of synthesis in layers of the cortex). This distinction is important because it is not the identity(recognition) that converts an observation to a fact, but the criticism (survival) of the observation that converts it to a fact. This is why we engage in a distribution of labor in research because we are so bad at testing observations and constructing theories that we need our own judgements tested – IF WE SEEK TRUTH. Now, the crux of YOUR argument is that one only needs sufficient confidence in correspondence with reality in order to act, and that is because one (often) bears the cost of one’s (frequent) error. It is when our actions affect any polity or group that the externalities of our errors ask us to judge not our own confidence in our observations and testing, but wether others will retaliate (at worst), ignore (as usual), or reward with opportunities of cooperation (at best) the externalities caused by our actions. So the sufficiency of our judgements in what we determine action is dependent upon the externalities produced by those judgements. What most libertines attempt to do is tell others that they do not wish to account for externalities produced by our actions, and that others ‘should tolerate’ the externalities produced by our actions. When people demonstrably do not do that. They retaliate against any and all imposition of costs on their potentials (inventory of property en toto), and if one is not contributing to them by compensatory means they will not tolerate it. So this is why the NAP/IVP is insufficient for rational action. It is insufficient for the prevention of retaliation, and the boycott of opportunity from others. And in fact it is not only insufficient but it is an attempt to justify parasitic actions caused by the externalization of costs, and justify the non contribution to the commons despite the fact that any general rule of behavior must be adopted as a common contract by consent and therefore exists as a commons. One does not choose the incentives of others. They merely exist as surely as the earth itself. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Is it me, or is it truth that libertines are more dishonest in debate than conse

    Is it me, or is it truth that libertines are more dishonest in debate than conservatives, but less dishonest than progressives?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-13 12:39:00 UTC

  • Western Philosophical Hierarchy

    ===METAPHYSICAL=== ........Heroism (demonstrated excellence) ........Science (truth) ...... ........Naturalism (reality) ....... Natural Law (sovereignty) ===POLITICAL=== ........Consent, Contract, Republican(Meritocratic) Commons ........Testimony, Common Law, Judge, Jury ===MORAL==== ........Christianity (love/trust bias) ===SPIRITUAL/AESTHETIC=== .......Love of nature (animism/paganism) ===PERSONAL=== Buddhism..........Stoicism Yoga..............sport Nurturing.........Craftsmanship. Spiritual ........Political (mental?) Experiential......Actionable Feminine ........ Masculine I haven’t got the metaphysical right because they overlap and it is how they overlap that makes the west unique.

  • Western Philosophical Hierarchy

    ===METAPHYSICAL=== ........Heroism (demonstrated excellence) ........Science (truth) ...... ........Naturalism (reality) ....... Natural Law (sovereignty) ===POLITICAL=== ........Consent, Contract, Republican(Meritocratic) Commons ........Testimony, Common Law, Judge, Jury ===MORAL==== ........Christianity (love/trust bias) ===SPIRITUAL/AESTHETIC=== .......Love of nature (animism/paganism) ===PERSONAL=== Buddhism..........Stoicism Yoga..............sport Nurturing.........Craftsmanship. Spiritual ........Political (mental?) Experiential......Actionable Feminine ........ Masculine I haven’t got the metaphysical right because they overlap and it is how they overlap that makes the west unique.

  • WHAT CONSTITUTES A FACT? OUTING AMATEURS AS FREE RIDERS —-“As if Jim could ans

    WHAT CONSTITUTES A FACT? OUTING AMATEURS AS FREE RIDERS

    —-“As if Jim could answer that without first RECOGNIZING the FACT of your question.”—-

    This is an interesting example, so lets use it.

    You observe the text, determine the question, can make sense of it, and therefore determine it exists. This is a very simple statement. But the reason it is a fact is that you cannot find evidence that it does not exist, or is not comprehensible as a question.

    Observation -> “recognition” -> free association -> hypothesis -> test -> theory -> test -> Law

    This sequence (popper’s problem->theory->test cycle) is what our brains do. It’s inescapable.

    So you can indeed recognize what you believe is a fact. Yes.

    We construct facts by testing the results of our observations against the possibility of falsehood. You use the term ‘recognizing’ which means ‘correspondence’. But correspondence must survive criticism. Ergo a fact is the result of survival from criticism.

    Now, this is what scientists do, and this is the meaning of fact in philosophy and science. If you want to use analogies and non operational arguments to justify your usage, then as long as I an translate your colloquialism into truthful statements I can attest that you MEAN the truth mean and intend to convey the truth even if you lack the ability (skill) to speak truthfully (scientifically).

    Now if you move from reductio examples to the court of disputes how often are people’s observations and subsequent testimony true? Well, we know from both a vast body of experiments, and the change in testimony after the invention of photography, and then video, that our ‘recognition’ is plagued with falsehood.

    So there is a big difference between recognition (an hypothesis), and a fact (a theory) because that difference

    There is a minor difference between a fact (theory of a description of an observation) and a theory (a description of a general rule that explains many observations).

    But the epistemological process is identical. We observe, identify (recognize and therefore hypothesize), test (criticize and produce theory), and repeat this process over and over again. (See “On Intelligence” by Jeff Hawkins for accessible research, and explanatory model of synthesis in layers of the cortex).

    This distinction is important because it is not the identity(recognition) that converts an observation to a fact, but the criticism (survival) of the observation that converts it to a fact. This is why we engage in a distribution of labor in research because we are so bad at testing observations and constructing theories that we need our own judgements tested – IF WE SEEK TRUTH.

    Now, the crux of YOUR argument is that one only needs sufficient confidence in correspondence with reality in order to act, and that is because one (often) bears the cost of one’s (frequent) error.

    It is when our actions affect any polity or group that the externalities of our errors ask us to judge not our own confidence in our observations and testing, but wether others will retaliate (at worst), ignore (as usual), or reward with opportunities of cooperation (at best) the externalities caused by our actions.

    So the sufficiency of our judgements in what we determine action is dependent upon the externalities produced by those judgements.

    What most libertines attempt to do is tell others that they do not wish to account for externalities produced by our actions, and that others ‘should tolerate’ the externalities produced by our actions.

    When people demonstrably do not do that. They retaliate against any and all imposition of costs on their potentials (inventory of property en toto), and if one is not contributing to them by compestatory means they will not tolerate it.

    So this is why the NAP/IVP is insufficient for rational action. It is insufficient for the prevention of retaliation, and the boycott of opportunity from others. And in fact it is not only insufficient but it is an attempt to justify parasitic actions caused by the externalization of costs, and justify the non contribution to the commons despite the fact that any general rule of behavior must be adopted as a common contract by consent and therefore exists as a commons.

    One does not choose the incentives of others. They merely exist as surely as the earth itself.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-13 07:56:00 UTC

  • RESPONSE TO GREG SWAN’S CRITICISM PART 2. 😉 (ouch) –another five words– Altho

    RESPONSE TO GREG SWAN’S CRITICISM PART 2. 😉 (ouch)

    –another five words–

    Although I read the entire post, it is not necessary to to respond to the criticism made in only five words. So your statement is illogical. Correct?

    —” Philosophy is a critical survival tool for every human being that has been temporarily and catastrophically hijacked by post-literate Cautious personalities.’—-

    This cannot be true – correct?

    Reason is indeed a critical survival tool only because we evolved the utility of and consequent dependence upon reason.

    Wisdom is extremely useful. One must have a set of prejudices (rules) to reason deeply (we call this philosophizing by analogy). But it is merely reasoning.

    But however you define ‘philosophy’ it cannot have been critical for survival, tool, since we did not evolve with it. And we can approximately date its invention.

    As far as I know there are three existing categories of thought that we commonly label ‘philosophy’.

    1 – Accumulated historical wisdom organized into frameworks. (mythology, religion, history) Without demand for internal consistency or external correspondence, mere utility.

    2 – Hypothesis and justification – by myth, analogy, and example – of theories of personal action within a political context.

    (continental philosophy, confucian philosophy.) without demand for external correspondence but with demand for internal consistency.

    3 – The discipline in which we search for truth propositions, or conversely, the discipline in which we seek to eliminate error from our propositions. This is under the assumption that truth is the most useful and most correspondent framework of determining actions.

    (science, analytic philosophy) demand for internal consistency and external correspondence.

    Note the clarity of this argumentative structure. This is why it is wordy, because analytic philosophy requires testable statements, and science requires existential and therefore operational language – all of which requires precision because precision is necessary for testability.

    So you may criticize my wordiness, but this is how professionals in the discipline of philosophy conduct their craft. Not as merely ‘meaningful’, not as merely ‘useful’, but to provide some assurance that said statements are in fact ‘truthful’ by the standards of scientific investigation, even if by natural human frailty they may may not be ultimately true.

    SO MY ACCUSATION: You are philosophizing by analogy, using colloquial language, to justify your priors. You are not searching for truth whether your priors stand criticism or not.

    —I have read almost none of you, because you writing is so obtuse, —

    I write as professional philosophers write, which is far closer to software programming than to literature. And my writing requires a great deal of prior scientific knowledge, and even more knowledge of economics and law.

    So again, technical disciplines with great deal of precision generally require a great deal of knowledge, and the Dunning Krueger (a little knowledge is dangerous) effect may convince us we know more than we do. Economics is the most common discipline since each sub-discipline appears counter-intuitive to the other.

    I am very conscious of this fact, and I am very conscious that I am also the most innovative and possibly one of the most important philosophers working today. Not because I am impressed with myself, but because as you say, the field of philosophy was much distracted in the 20th century. But if you knew my work you would understand with painful clarity why it was.

    But just as it is somewhat difficult to explain why non-euclidian geometry demonstrates the fallacy of apriorism, and just as general relativity demonstrates the fallacy of human common sense, much of what I write requires equally deep knowledge of the subject matter to comprehend it.

    A fact that I am open about and often apologize for.

    —-aggressive—

    I don’t take it as aggressive. I take it as defensive. You do not grasp what I do, you have no idea if you should make the investment in the rather extensive work necessary to grasp it. And from what you can gather it would falsify some of what you believe.

    Now, I actually agree with you on much of what I can quickly find on your site, but that is because I can translate your amateurism into professional language and therefore test it for truthfulness or not.

    But you lack the ability to do the same to my work. Nothing more complicated is occurring here.

    It is perfectly fine if some of us are vastly more sophisticated at philosophizing, and vastly more technical at philosophizing – whether colloquial, informed, professional, or talented. Every 15 points of IQ (one standard deviation) humans need increasingly simplified frameworks with greater analogy to intuitionistic experience. Therefore you have an audience and I have one. The world needs this, since we humans are so vastly unequal in knowledge and ability.

    I can read Heidegger, and a realize he is attempting to lie, using the same technique that religious leaders are constructed lies. Both of them for the same purpose – to attempt to do by lie that they did posses, that which they could not achieve by truth they did not yet possess. But I criticize him for his deceit, for the simple purpose that it is a deceit, not because it is impenetrable. But because it is impenetrable because of its method of deceit (reframing existence as experience.)

    FWIW: I do not say your work is false. I say only that your criticism of mine is made in ignorance, rather than in honesty: Because the only honest answer you can render is “I don’t understand.”

    So it’s not that you’re wrong, it’s that you’re dishonest in your criticism, you practice wishful thinking, practice wishful thinking out of arrogance in the face of demonstrated and admitted ignorance, commit rudimentary logical errors in your reasoning, and rely on common inarticulate language by analogy in order to justify your priors, under the pretense that your abilities, judgement and knowledge are better than they demonstrably and admittedly are.

    I own being difficult to comprehend. As do most technical specialists. You might make the same honest admission about your abilities.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    =====OP========

    I can’t imagine how much more you’ll have to say when you’ve read another five words.

    Meanwhile: tl;dr stopped here:

    > Philosophy is a technical specialty like any niche technical discipline.

    False. Philosophy is a critical survival tool for every human being that has been temporarily and catastrophically hijacked by post-literate Cautious personalities. I have read almost none of you, because you writing is so obtuse, but what I’ve seen seems to be the needless remastication of obvious error. I agree that this is what technical ‘philosophers’ do.

    When you’ve read more than five words of me, you’ll have more interesting things to say. My apologies if this seems aggressive. It’s plausible to me you can learn, but this outsized display argues against it.

    And just like that: Ci, like so many libertarians. Prove me wrong.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-13 06:48:00 UTC

  • WESTERN PHILOSOPHICAL HIERARCHY ===METAPHYSICAL=== ……..Heroism (demonstrated

    WESTERN PHILOSOPHICAL HIERARCHY

    ===METAPHYSICAL===

    ……..Heroism (demonstrated excellence)

    ……..Science (truth) ……

    ……..Naturalism (reality)

    ……. Natural Law (sovereignty)

    ===POLITICAL===

    ……..Consent, Contract, Republican(Meritocratic) Commons

    ……..Testimony, Common Law, Judge, Jury

    ===MORAL====

    ……..Christianity (love/trust bias)

    ===SPIRITUAL/AESTHETIC===

    …….Love of nature (animism/paganism)

    ===PERSONAL===

    Buddhism………Stoicism

    Yoga……………..Sport

    Nurturing……….Craftsmanship.

    Spiritual ………..Political

    Experiential……Actionable

    Feminine …….. Masculine

    I haven’t got the metaphysical right because they overlap and it is how they overlap that makes the west unique.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-13 01:34:00 UTC