Theme: Truth

  • Cultural Variants of Truth and the Consequences

    Truth and Adherence to Rules are two different things. (submission) Truth and Fidelity to Contract are two different things. Truth and Duty are two different things. Truth and Knowledge are two different things. Truth as Adherence – Familialism (most of the world) Truth as Fidelity – Tribalism (judaism) Truth as Duty – Nationalism (germans) Truth as Science – Universalism. (english) [T]hat members of a community follow rules and conventions with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another. That members of a community fulfill promises or contracts with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another. Another community may both fulfill it’s promises, its contracts, and the commitment to tell the truth at all times regardless of cost. The principle of truth to to an Adherence community consists of order. The principle of ‘truth’ to a contract community consists of fidelity. The principle of truth to a truth-telling community consists of ***SCIENCE***. If you grasp the profundity of this statement you will understand why some cultures produce science, and some produce trade, and some produce tyranny. Some create science. And some create pseudoscience. And some create only order. Some create science, innovation, trade and trust. Others create only trade, and others create only utilitarian applications of tools. Small things in large numbers have vast consequences. When we use ‘functions” such as the verb to be, or the word ‘truth’ we do not really understand their construction, just that they are shorthand approximations that tend to work. We have just knowledge of use, not knowledge of construction. But the word ‘true’ means very different things in different places: science, fidelity, and adherence. And the consequences are astounding. Truth is a performative declaration. Truth claims then, to different groups, state either epistemology, fidelity, or adherence. I have solved the problem you know. It’s ethics. —- [C]omments From: Ayelam Valentine Agaliba:

    The principle of truth to to an Adherence community consists of order. The principle of ‘truth’ to a contract community consists of fidelity. The principle of truth to a truth-telling community consists of ***SCIENCE***

    This is a most penetrating line. It has vast political implications. Do you know what? I believe that you can better Samuel Huntington. Replace his Hegelianism with your program and what you have is a far more rigorous/descriptive explanation. From: Curt Doolittle

    (^^^Thank you for all the help you have been to me. Love you man.)

    From: Frank Lovell I’d add or say:

    Where there are NO humans, truth rules; where there ARE humans, ethics rules, without which truth and knowledge of truth matter not.

  • 20th Century Philosophers Were Seeking Power, Not Truth

    [O]perationalism constructs rigid correspondence, eliminates the problem of imprecise language, even non-existent language, by creating names for operations rather than allegories, normative usage, or worst of all, relying upon names of experiences rather than the actions that cause them. It has become increasingly frustrating, if not dismissive, to read the philosophical arguments of the 20th century, which seek to find truth in language through a variant of set operations – which of course, must be nothing more than circular. When the answer was just sitting there for everyone to pick up and run with. But It was apparently much better to seek truth as a means of persuasion of others, rather than to seek truth as a means of testing the content of one’s testimony. And I think the psychologists and intellectual historians could spend a lot of time analyzing that particular bit of 20th century mysticism. Or perhaps pseudoscience. Or more graciously ‘error’. What vanity, or error would lead a body of people to seek authority rather than duty? I hope the depth of that question comes across. We all seek power. But the truth is just as likely to impede our ambitions as assist in them. But the academy, sought to take power from the church. Moral power. Reason and Science were the first blow. Darwin was the second. The Universalist State the third. It was all in pursuit of power. Philosophers of the 20th century, knowingly or not, were seeking power, not truth.

  • 20th Century Philosophers Were Seeking Power, Not Truth

    [O]perationalism constructs rigid correspondence, eliminates the problem of imprecise language, even non-existent language, by creating names for operations rather than allegories, normative usage, or worst of all, relying upon names of experiences rather than the actions that cause them. It has become increasingly frustrating, if not dismissive, to read the philosophical arguments of the 20th century, which seek to find truth in language through a variant of set operations – which of course, must be nothing more than circular. When the answer was just sitting there for everyone to pick up and run with. But It was apparently much better to seek truth as a means of persuasion of others, rather than to seek truth as a means of testing the content of one’s testimony. And I think the psychologists and intellectual historians could spend a lot of time analyzing that particular bit of 20th century mysticism. Or perhaps pseudoscience. Or more graciously ‘error’. What vanity, or error would lead a body of people to seek authority rather than duty? I hope the depth of that question comes across. We all seek power. But the truth is just as likely to impede our ambitions as assist in them. But the academy, sought to take power from the church. Moral power. Reason and Science were the first blow. Darwin was the second. The Universalist State the third. It was all in pursuit of power. Philosophers of the 20th century, knowingly or not, were seeking power, not truth.

  • UPDATE ON PROPERTARIAN ETHICS “Proof and Calculability” = Ethical Truth in Polit

    UPDATE ON PROPERTARIAN ETHICS

    “Proof and Calculability” = Ethical Truth in Politics

    I got stuck while writing Propertarianism in 2010 on the ethical requirement that at that time I called “Calculability”. I knew it was needed in any contractual government to prevent externalizing costs – if not outright acts of abuse and fraud.

    For all intents and purposes, I was forcing contractual and monetary (numeric) constraints into political ethics. But I knew something was ‘wrong’ in verbal constructions as well. Even if strict construction and original intent were known issues, how could I prevent fallacious argument in politics (lying)?

    And I just couldn’t get my arms around it. And it’s taken me really, what, three and a half years to solve it with Operationalism? So, instead of one ethical addition called ‘calculability’ which we need to keep, I need to add Operationalism as well (ie: ‘Proof”). I suppose I could work the language a bit and demonstrate that they’re in fact, the same principle applied to calculable and argumentative problems but I think that would only complicate matters. So I’ll keep them separate and overlapping (which is a theme I keep finding myself using.)

    So Truth(Testimony) Operationalism(Proof), and Calculability(testability of contract) are the additional properties of political ethics I’ve added to to propertarianism. I am not sure but I think that’s the hardest problem I had to solve in this entire program so far.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 06:26:00 UTC

  • Explanatory Power vs Parsimony Verification vs Falsification Correspondence vs O

    Explanatory Power vs Parsimony

    Verification vs Falsification

    Correspondence vs Operations?

    Proof vs Truth?


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 05:51:00 UTC

  • OPERATIONALISM AS COMPLETING THE TRANSFORMATION OF MAN? I want to talk about the

    OPERATIONALISM AS COMPLETING THE TRANSFORMATION OF MAN?

    I want to talk about the experience of the mind, under economics, science and operationalism, versus under language, logic and math under platonism. But I don’t know the words to use. There is a very great similarity between language, logic, math, mysticism and religion, that is not extant in economics, science, and operationalism. Now, I sort of ‘get’ it. But I can’t quite figure out how to talk about it. One of the problems is that under internally consistent mythos (declarative inventions) we call axiomatic systems, and objective reality (externally correspondent descriptions (descriptive statements) we call theoretical systems, is that there is some strange appearance of the infinite in axiomatic (mythical) systems that does not exist in theoretical (descriptive) systems. And I can’t quite put my finger on it. But I think Operationalism cures it. Maybe that is one of the metaphysical consequences of studying science and economics? Does it cure our native imaginary mysticism? Usually by writing something like this I can touch what is on the tip of my tongue. And I’m failing. But I know it’s something like this: when we describe an axiomatic system, it is unbounded by reality’s limits. I even know why it is so – the limit of the number of concepts we can run at one time. I know that we are often ‘awed’ by what should not awe us but be obvious: that whenever we stipulate models or axioms we construct all possible consequences in that utterance, even though we cannot ‘imagine’ all such possible consequences. Our imagination takes license to create ‘the imaginary reality’ out of what was merely a computationally larger set of consequences than our feeble minds can process. What bit of cognitive bias and psychology makes us attracted to the imaginary? Is it another garden of eden? An intellectual space where we are unbounded by reality for just a moment? I think so. I think it evokes the feeling of the undiscovered valley full of new resources and prey. It’s a cognitive bias. An evolutionary instinct. And another instinct or cognitive bias that is no longer useful in our current state. Does science train us out of it? I think so. We still have people, and I think we try to create people, who obtain their awe from scientific, or in the case of TED viewers, pseudoscientific, rather than imaginary exploration? But without operationalism the ‘conversion’ of scientific man is incomplete. Maybe that is what the 20th century represented? The last throws of mysticism? Our attempt to hold onto the imaginary garden of eden where we are unburdened by reality? Is that fascination in the 20th century a reaction to the vast increases in scale that affected all of our lives? Is it a distraction from alienation, disempowerment, the loss of our traditions, and the desperate need to feel we could regain previous sense of control and certainty. Is our job to complete the transformation? To abandon our last mysteries? So that we can RESTORE OUR CIVIL SOCIETY and once again eliminate our alienation? The central problem of modernity?


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 05:33:00 UTC

  • 20th CENTURY PHILOSOPHERS WERE SEEKING POWER, NOT TRUTH Operationalism construct

    20th CENTURY PHILOSOPHERS WERE SEEKING POWER, NOT TRUTH

    Operationalism constructs rigid correspondence, eliminates the problem of imprecise language, even non-existent language, by creating names for operations rather than allegories, normative usage, or worst of all, relying upon names of experiences rather than the actions that cause them.

    It has become increasingly frustrating, if not dismissive, to read the philosophical arguments of the 20th century, which seek to find truth in language through a variant of set operations – which of course, must be nothing more than circular. When the answer was just sitting there for everyone to pick up and run with.

    But It was apparently much better to seek truth as a means of persuasion of others, rather than to seek truth as a means of testing the content of one’s testimony. And I think the psychologists and intellectual historians could spend a lot of time analyzing that particular bit of 20th century mysticism. Or perhaps pseudoscience. Or more graciously ‘error’.

    What vanity, or error would lead a body of people to seek authority rather than duty?

    I hope the depth of that question comes across.

    We all seek power. But the truth is just as likely to impede our ambitions as assist in them. But the academy, sought to take power from the church. Moral power. Reason and Science were the first blow. Darwin was the second. The Universalist State the third. It was all in pursuit of power.

    Philosophers of the 20th century, knowingly or not, were seeking power, not truth.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 04:08:00 UTC

  • CULTURAL VARIANTS OF TRUTH AND THE CONSEQUENCES Truth and Adherence to Rules are

    CULTURAL VARIANTS OF TRUTH AND THE CONSEQUENCES

    Truth and Adherence to Rules are two different things. (submission)

    Truth and Fidelity to Contract are two different things.

    Truth and Commitment to Duty are two different things.

    Truth and Knowledge are two different things.

    Truth as Adherence – Familialism (most of the world)

    Truth as Fidelity – Tribalism (judaism)

    Truth as Duty – Nationalism (germans)

    Truth as Science – Universalism. (english)

    That members of a community follow rules and conventions with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another.

    That members of a community fulfill promises or contracts with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another.

    Another community may both fulfill it’s promises, its contracts, and the commitment to tell the truth at all times regardless of cost.

    The principle of truth to to an Adherence community consists of order. The principle of ‘truth’ to a contract community consists of fidelity. The principle of truth to a truth-telling community consists of ***SCIENCE***.

    If you grasp the profundity of this statement you will understand why some cultures produce science, and some produce trade, and some produce tyranny. Some create science. And some create pseudoscience. And some create only order. Some create science, innovation, trade and trust. Others create only trade, and others create only utilitarian applications of tools.

    Small things in large numbers have vast consequences.

    When we use ‘functions” such as the verb to be, or the word ‘truth’ we do not really understand their construction, just that they are shorthand approximations that tend to work. We have just knowledge of use, not knowledge of construction.

    But the word ‘true’ means very different things in different places: science, fidelity, and adherence.

    And the consequences are astounding.

    Truth is a performative declaration. Truth claims then, to different groups, state either epistemology, fidelity, or adherence.

    I have solved the problem you know.

    It’s ethics.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 17:38:00 UTC

  • “ONE MINUTE DEBATE MANAGER” The argumentative technique I use, and the one I rec

    “ONE MINUTE DEBATE MANAGER”

    The argumentative technique I use, and the one I recommend, is the ‘One Minute Manager” solution, whereby one responds to aggressive accusations or comments, particularly postmodern and feminist rallying and shaming, with equally loaded criticism and ridicule (albeit intellectualized), and then to return to the central argument.

    This technique lets you continue the rational discussion unburdened by the nonsense now that its emotional content has been cleared, rather than tainting your and response and the central argument.

    So “slap them’ quickly for their bad manners, then return to the central argument.

    If you are consistent in the use of this pattern, it tends to successfully contain all sorts of deceptive debate partners, while demonstrating to them, and to the audience, that you will not be taunted out of the central argument. And it stops your argument from being tainted by their attempt at fraud and distraction.

    It’s just hard, but it works. But then I do this kinda thing for a living.

    Slap quickly in one paragraph. Be truthful that they’re relying on childish techniques reserved for feminists, schoolgirls and betas, and then, start a new paragraph, restate the central argument, and return to conducting the central argument.

    It works. Every time you restate the central argument you draw attention to it and repetition is often the best means of persuasion.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 12:22:00 UTC

  • THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH – THE CONSEQUENCE OF COLONIALISM It turns out that hones

    THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH – THE CONSEQUENCE OF COLONIALISM

    It turns out that honesty (truth) is the most important political institution, because it permits people to trust, which in turn permits risk taking, which in turn permits capital accumulation, which in turn produces economic velocity, which in turn produces prosperity. You might not think it matters so much, but of all the institutions humans have invented, creating an incentive to tell the truth is perhaps the hardest one. And while we in the west, particularly the anglo-germanic west, take it for granted that telling the truth is ‘good’ in some sort of civic or spiritual way, the fact of the matter is that the rest of the world, outside of christendom, not only does not think that way but does not feel that way either.

    Truth is a ‘universalist’ good. Only westerners are more universalist than familial or tribalist. We are the only people to have done it. We stomp around the world with our suicidal universalism promoted as a spiritual good, rather than contract and rule of law that hold us accountable for trades. It is quite possible to construct enforceable contracts as long as the language facilitates it,and by using an alternative language if not, and from the habit of rule of law, property rights, and enforceable contracts, an upper commercial class will form from the wealth generated by using them. Others, seeking entry into the commercial class and its resulting wealth, will adopt the behavior, and this becomes an upper class norm that people must demonstrate in order to participate in economic prosperity, and failure to participate in that norm will leave one in poverty.

    Our civilization evolved truth telling first, because of our tactics in war. But most civilizations must have a reason to evolve property, truth telling, and therefore trust.

    But just because a civilization evolves a normative technology, does not mean that the institutions that perpetuate that technology cannot be spread. They can. Anything that enforces a norm, can be used to instill a norm.

    The technology to export around the world was (a) title registry – ie property rights. (b) contract law (c) trial by randomly selected jury (d) juridical (law) universities, with extraordinary performance requirements rather than recitation. One can use recitation of facts with those who already understand the norms, but one cannot instill facts dependent upon norms that do not exist.

    For these reasons, democracy was damaging to societies. One can administer a territory in whatever way necessary for the production and service of the commons. And a leader can certainly seek rents this way, and not be threatened by commercial activity. But the means by which one conducts commerce via property law has nothing to do with that, and as such, there is no need for property rights and law to be part of the government – instead property law constructs the institutional means of cooperating within society itself, independent of government. Government need do nothing about it, except not to interfere.

    Judges resolve disputes based upon property rights. Advocacy is for the church. Administration of the commons for the government. Mixing the three functions Commerce, Culture and Commons is a recent mistake even in our western cultures – the church, law and state must be independent creatures to keep each other from excessive rents.

    We really screwed up the world. We gave them science, accounting, medicine and law, and the moral charter to service the population. But we also gave them democracy, which is dangerous luxury good. And we did not give them the means of producing the common law, which is the first NECESSARY good.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 10:20:00 UTC