Theme: Truth

  • subjective experience vs objective results

    subjective experience vs objective results.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-07 12:32:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1258374028345122819

    Reply addressees: @EricLiford @YvesBurri @Nationalist7346

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1258370679717724161

  • You are welcome to debate me on any subject if you can avoid false promise, bait

    You are welcome to debate me on any subject if you can avoid false promise, baiting into hazard, unwarrantable speech, advanced by Pilpul, defended by Critique and GSRRM, and preference or face over truth. But then, that would require masculinity in body, intuition and mind. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-04 20:49:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1257411941544402944

    Reply addressees: @Lasagna4all

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1257411121952296960


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Lasagna4all a) You didn’t make a criticism, you just used empty GSRRM. (Female>Jewish>Marxist Critique) as a substitute for argument. b) The tweet is out of context. In context:”How would we state Dumizel’s Trifunctionalism in trifunctional prose so that it could be embedded in a preamble.”

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1257411121952296960

  • Correct. There are no paradoxes. There are only grammatical errors and incomplet

    Correct. There are no paradoxes. There are only grammatical errors and incomplete sentences producing errors of inference. The origin is our empirical law vs “math” where math in the european mind is geometric (physical) and in the non european mind rational (verbal/astrological)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 22:48:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1257079540523958279

    Reply addressees: @eruditenights @DuchesneRicardo

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1257054091726827525

  • You can name call it all you want but that’s just intellectual dishonesty. Empir

    You can name call it all you want but that’s just intellectual dishonesty. Empirically it is not money. It is not because it isn’t. It isn’t because it can’t be.And it can’t be because there isn’t enough of it to function as money. And no country could compete without fiat money.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 17:32:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1257000005161947143

    Reply addressees: @twaitiblog @pennington_max @MacleodFinance

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256998989481697280

  • THE SIMPLE VERSION OF METAPHYSICS AS ADDICTION —“you don’t believe metaphysics

    THE SIMPLE VERSION OF METAPHYSICS AS ADDICTION

    —“you don’t believe metaphysics is anything other than imagination”—

    So you didn’t understand then. You’re another one of the mouth breathers who say “calculus is hard so it must be false”.

    Here in simple terms for simple folks:

    1. Language consists of measurements organized into transactions and sets of transactions. We cannot speak in anything other than measurements of sense-perception-auto-association.

    2. We refer to each internally consistent system of measurement as “metaphysics” if we are using platonic (imaginary) vocabulary, and “paradigm” if we are using the descriptive (existential) language paradigm.

    3. There is only one most parsimonious system of measurement of physical, natural, and evolutionary laws of action. That language is what we call the formal(logical), physical(non-sentient), and social (sentient, action) sciences.

    4. All other systems of measurement vary from that most parsimonious paradigm. Each variation from that most parsimonious paradigm produces costly consequences for the individual, those who associate with the individual, the society that is affected by them, and the polity that includes them, and under some conditions the world.

    5. People have explicable incentives for a) varying from that most parsimonious paradigm. b) choosing a fictional narrative (parables, stories, networks of parables and stories (mythologies), as means of decision (choice) making. c) habituating the degree of separation of conflation the parsimonious paradigm (real unknown), experienced (real known) from the fictional paradigm (imagined).

    7. Our brains develop our minds in a predictable hierarchy from the sensory to the physical to the interpersonal to the rational, and the impulsive, normative, and considered, at varying rates. The degree of ‘friction’ due to developmental failures in our ability to learn each step in that hierarchy determines the degree of complexity we use for our ‘resting state’. Some of us more sensory, some more physical, some more imaginary, some more social, and some more rational resting states (our normal). And we are more or less able to express agency, or vulnerable to sedation givne our lack of agency dependent upon that resting state.

    6. We are all subject to involuntary defect (psychosis, schizophrenia), voluntary defect (sedatives, psychedelics stimulants) invent and construct addiction to because cognitive agency is costly in the face of uncertainty, amplified by one’s failures to reduce costs of calculating successful actions, amplified by one’s failures of prediction of outcomes, amplified by one’s competitive failures in the familial, social, economic and political marketplaces, and by amplified others rejection and low status in those marketplaces. The solution of course is to lower one’s demands to suit one’s market value (epicureanism), and to learn to insulate one’s self from market pressures (stoicism, buddhism, christianity). The problem being that most of us maintain biological demand for social interaction and membership so that we seek means of sedation by escape, psychological construction, social construction, or changing our social circumstance, or improving our agency and market value so that we are more competitive.

    6. We differ in cognitive ability, meaning we differ in the dependence upon a) physical sense-perception and auto association b) intuitionistic auto-associative valuation and subsequent emotional response c) prediction of social (empathic/short/interpersonal) and physical (physical/long/political) permutations, d) regulation of those predictions by direction of attention to differing predicted experiences and states, e) agency in selecting which of those regulated predictions we will permute upon in order to produce a desired outcome, f) skill in calculating (imputing, calculating and computing) the means of achieving those ends. Ergo we differ in demand for mindfulness (relief from competitive pressures), and our means of obtaining mindfulness.

    7. The difference in individual family, class, and group ability is not superiority but accumulated defects due to genetic load due to survival of defects under monogamy, familism, pastoralism, agrarianism, industrialism, and lack of selection pressures, combined competing with those who continuously suppress genetic load by continuous selection pressure, which produces evolution of neotonic maturity, rational agency, and calculative ability as a consequence.

    8. We have however discovered the genes for improving heart, muscle, lungs, and remove defects from liver, kidney, and stomach. So it is possible in the future to both add innovations and remove defects. Even if man’s continues dysgenic reproduction means we cannot control negative selection pressures (increasing genetic load) we can still speciate with elites by selective breeding (classes) and by selective genetic manipulation (positive eugenics).

    That’s the simple version in bullet points for simple folks.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 12:22:00 UTC

  • YOU WON”T BE ABLE TO CRITICIZE OR FALSIFY P-LOGIC AND LAW Every professional dis

    YOU WON”T BE ABLE TO CRITICIZE OR FALSIFY P-LOGIC AND LAW

    Every professional discipline uses a methodology. P creates a single professional discipline of the metaphysical, psychological, social, political, and group strategy. It is to sentient sciences what physics is to non-sentient physical sciences. P is a methodology that produces a formal grammar (or logic). As such it is what we refer to as a formal science (formal logic of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology).

    We use that science to explain western civlization. We use the explanation of western civilization to explain why it’s the optimum civilization. We explain and advocate our preference for that optimum civilization. We use that understanding and preference of optimum civilization to correct past and present errors in that civilization, and to restore, reform, and, innovate on that optimum civilization.

    It is impossible to criticize the methodology (science). It is very difficult to criticize what we do with it. At best one can argue for preference of different organizations of our or other civilizations given the tactical advantage of circumstances, within that strategic optimum.

    You must be able to criticize P on it’s foundations and it’s propositions. (You won’t be able to). The difference between counting, accounting, mathematics, programming, and P is simply the increasing number of causal dimensions in the domains they describe). You certainly can criticize the choice of continuing the strategy of western civlization or the policy implementations we suggest to do so. But you aren’t going to be able to criticize the logic or science whatsoever. It won’t happen. You don’t know that yet. But I do.

    Hostility to criticism of any of the sciences (logical facility, logic, mathematics, accounting, mathematics, programming, P (P-logic, P-Law) is simply hostility to laziness and ignorance rather than informed debate.

    P is not a theology, philosophy, ideology, or analogy. It’s a (the) formal grammar (logic, vocabulary, paradigm) of sentient life if not all life.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 09:40:00 UTC

  • THE SOCIAL UTILITY OF SH-T TALKING AND SH-T TESTING TRUTH: Sh-t talking provides

    THE SOCIAL UTILITY OF SH-T TALKING AND SH-T TESTING

    TRUTH: Sh-t talking provides mindfulness. It provides safe competitive dominance play while showing respect at the same time. It requires self regulation. It requires cunning. It allows public accusation and admission of truths. It is desensitizing. It builds trust. I can’t say enough good about it. Whereas GSRRM does the opposite. The techniques of GSRRM and Sh-t_Testing as the via-negativa undermining vs Sh-t Talking and Bragging as the via-positiva advocating explain the social utility of each.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 09:18:00 UTC

  • I”m not against anyone. But you’re either integrating into the militia, the natu

    I”m not against anyone. But you’re either integrating into the militia, the natural law, duty reciprocity and truth, markets in everything, trifunctionalism, optimum government, and evolutionary necessity or you’re not only undermining western civlization, but mankind, and you’re not only depriving those of us who inherited all those institutions from self determination but leaving us no choice but war.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-02 14:14:00 UTC

  • WHEN WE PERCEIVE SOMETHING WRONG – WE’RE RIGHT (The Economics of Communication)

    WHEN WE PERCEIVE SOMETHING WRONG – WE’RE RIGHT

    (The Economics of Communication)

    To profit we must exchange.

    To trade (communication) requires we discover a medium of exchange.

    To exchange we must discover coincidences of wants using the available medium of exchange.

    All language consists of measurements. Measurements within paradigms. Paradigms that serve interests. Interests that are achievable with abilities. And values that measure the degree of interests.

    So we are trying to achieve commensurability so that we can measure the value of the exchange.

    When we are frustrated it means we are seeking cooperation (exchange, trade, returns) where the transaction costs are higher than the rewards.

    When we are not frustrated it means we have divided the labor of discovering coincidences of wants, commensurable mediums of exchanges, given abilities, values, and paradigms.

    Are we frustrated that they don’t think like us or that the cost of thinking like them, or reducing our thoughts to their level of precision is too costly?

    Are we frustrated by those cost or are we frustrated that that we no longer function in an aristocratic hierarchy because under democracy our words despite our differences in ability are mispriced?

    If we were still ruled by Nindsors, Nevilles, Fitzroys, Marlboroughs, Curzons rather than the parliament of fools would we have this problem? If the anglo-dutch aristocracy and the german labor majority were not undermined by underclass immigration? If our society was organized multi dimensionally so that the martial hierarchy, the commercial hierarchy, and the informational hierarchy were mediated by the law preventing ‘putting fingers on the scale’, would this be the case?

    So my view is the over-commercialization of society, and the over-politicization of society that were the result of the windfalls of the industrial revolution, and the (((world wars))) we tolerated by not nationalizing banking, and redistributing the windfalls of interests on state credit, as we all sought to seek commercial success where the balance of military-aristocratic, comercial-noble, and intellectual-arts and knowledge, and priestly-service could compete on their own terms rather than unviersal commercialization (privatization).

    We are at the end of the windfall. And we must learn, that like the athenian discovery of the silver mine, the roman conquest of the celts, the spanish conquest of the mezzo americas, that the industrial revolution created the ability to devote our energies increasingly away from food production to innovation. And that we followed the folly of the athenians, romans, the spanish, into the false promise of endless growth and the abandonment of aristocratic martial discipline, in favor of commercial overconsumption.

    If something is’t computing without substantial friction than the computation system is ‘programmed’ with the incorrect incentives and resulting division of labor.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-02 11:07:00 UTC

  • THE ERRORS OF OUR THINKING AT BOTH BOTTOM AND TOP Dunning-Kruger overconfidence

    THE ERRORS OF OUR THINKING AT BOTH BOTTOM AND TOP

    Dunning-Kruger overconfidence expresses a lack of ability. However, educational overconfidence expresses a lack of skepticism. Half truths whether theological, philosophical, historical, scientific, or formal, are sources of ignorance by providing us with overconfidence.

    Mathiness has been the source of formal, philosophical, and scientific (physical and social) ignorance. Philosophical sophistry has been the source of most of the rest of pseudo intellectual ignorance. And of course theological – a monopoly conflating all the falsehoods plus false promise – is the most ignorance inducing of all.

    It appears that there are a very small number of fundamental laws that can be taught to everyone at the cost of suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses, and the suppression of the parasitism of the elite classes.

    ===

    edit:

    Paragraph one – low end of the spectrum

    Paragraph two – high end of the spectrum

    Paragraph three – curing the problems of the high AND low ends of the spectrum


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-02 10:19:00 UTC