I don’t care. Truth at all costs.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-12 16:25:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1249373130876956674
Reply addressees: @The_Petrichory @StevePender
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1249372961489833985
Every man a sheriff: Heroism&Excellence, Truth&Duty, Sovereignty&Reciprocity, Regardless of Cost. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1249365466038112257
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-12 16:11:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1249369549734064129
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1249365466038112257
PSYCHOLOGIZING (FRAUD), PSYCHOLOGY (PSEUDOSCIENCE), AND LAW (TRUTH)
—“Regading criticizing psychologizing. Psychologizing is perhaps too broad a term. If you mean Freud, maybe. Jung, Piaget, Frohm? They don’t all offer the same analysis. The latter of master craftsmen of the psyche and should be studied and utilized.”—Marc Malone
In P-law we talk of acquisitions gains, holds, losses, thefts frauds and conspiracies – these are facts. Psychology talks of experience and values. Why?
P-Law (science) is far better than psychology (pseudoscience) although I would go along with Jung and piaget as long as we burn Freud at the stake for his crime against humanity. P is to metaphysics, psychology, and sociology as science is to physics, chemistry, and biology. Literature is just analogy not description of causality.
Psychologizing is a form of feminine ridicule to force conformity with female cognition. Freud was trying to counter Menger, Nietzsche, Spencer, and Darwin so that he could preserve jewish female social-construction to undermine western civilization by preserving emotional coercion – their group evolutionary strategy. He built a pseudoscience as did Boas in anthropology, and marx in sociology and economics, adoro-fromm in culture and values, derrida in postmodernism, betty friedan in feminism, rand and rothbard in pseudolaw, the neocons in international law, and cantor and bohr in pseudo mathematics.
Instead of using literary pseudoscience, try instead, by explaining rational incentives to acquire, hold, and judiciously spend assets instead. Economics isn’t only the language of social science – it’s the language of social science, psychology, and metaphysics. It has to be. Everything else is self reporting and the reason for the replication crisis in the pseudo-sciencies is decoration in self reporting. People can’t truthfully self report. They can only demonstrate preference. And economics is the study of demonstrated preferences in different contexts despite self reporting of memories and predictions.
Emotions are a reaction to changes in state of assets. (really), So either you can explain all people’s actions as the series of incentives that led them to a thought word or deed, and their emotions as natural reaction to positives and negatives or you can’t.
The valueof the series of literary thinkers from Jung to Vonnegut as we see in Jordan Peterson’s combination of cognitive science, jungian literary archetypes, and ancient myths and parables, is that the mind is resistant to reasoning, but open to suggestion, and so parables and allegories put the individual in a position of observer, by passing his mistrust, the same way that psychedelics put the mind in position of observer, and in this way we adapt by voluntary choice independent of shame or coercion. We own and therefore do not question our new memory (belief), or feel indebted to others, or fealty tothem, or status penalty, when we use it. When we own an idea we use it without external consideration.
There are are at least six methods of cognitive behavioral therapy, all of which perform the same function of creating a rewarding alternate subnetwork network around troubled, traumatized, or depressed (exhausted) subnetworks, and in doing so altering network weights that determine what captures our attention and emotion, and as such alters our cognitive and emotional and autoassociative responses
0. Prevention by teaching stoicism best, buddhism eh, and religion least.
1. Second is explanation – this works for the most rational of us. Understanding is enough.
2. Third is observation – getting the patient to look at him or herself or someone else in the same position as a third person.
3. Fourth is suggestion by analogy or parable using suggestibility under suspension of disbelief.
4. First by stoicism or what we call cbt – exposure works through training.
5. Fifth is chemical freedom from self auditing so that there is no negative emotional relation between experience and understanding.
Only once you understand this spectrum, AND propertarianism’s restatement of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology AND the rather simple structure of the human brain underneath it, do you know which of those techniques is necessary to use for which problem, and WHY.
The world is not complicated when laundered of the errors and fitionalisms that we substitute for knowledge:
1. Intuitionistic: Analogy->Mythology
2. Verbal: Sophistry->idealism,
3. Material: Magic->Pseudoscience,
3. Emotional: Occult->Supernatural
It’s our ignorance, errors, biases, wishful thinking and deceits of self and others that make it seem complicated.
—Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-11 15:28:00 UTC
And your demand for obedience to YOU, to YOUR interpretation of dogmatic text, to YOUR faith in abandoning reason, rather than our faith in tradition of followers of jesus, our imitation of jesus, or in our reason about him, is a violation of jesus’ teaching.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-11 13:48:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1248971071958769669
Reply addressees: @Anne_Fallible @CrusaderSvcs @JohnMarkSays
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1248969497710600194
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@Anne_Fallible @CrusaderSvcs @JohnMarkSays The question is whether one is “anti” Jesus’ teachings, or “anti” dogmatic text that was added to those teachings by others, or anti those who pretend to follow Jesus but don’t. We follow jesus by action, and action alone. Whether by faith, tradition, or reason.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1248969497710600194
“SO THAT THE TRUE CAN BE MADE BEAUTIFUL, BUT THE MERELY BEAUTIFUL CANNOT BE MISTAKEN FOR TRUTH.”
—“Joyce said truth is apprehended by the intellect which is appeased by the most satisfying relations of the intelligible. Beauty is beheld by the imagination which is appeased by the most satisfying relations of the sensible. Think lit has more to do with the latter than the former. It’s philosophical only secondarily.”—Tim Beckley
Damn! See? That’s why we need poetry, literature, philosophy, law and science. So that the true can be made beautiful, but the merely beautiful cannot be mistaken for truth.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-11 12:10:00 UTC
two points define a line, three points TEST a line. So yes.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-10 20:44:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1248713420683325441
Reply addressees: @LLaddon
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1248713196153778179
GRAHAM HANCOCK
—“Curt, What do you think of Graham Hancock?”—
If I’m sympathetic: I think he is honest about what he does. He makes up, or promotes, myths to inspire and entertain people – to restore wonder to their lives. yes some of what he harps about has a grain of truth in it. I’m charitable because it’s good for us to look back into the past with wonder, the same way we teach children fairy tales so that they will eventually mature into reading history.
If I’m charitable, the world needs a few of these people so that we make sure wacky stuff doesn’t get overlooked, and the wrong story entrenched (geology in the past and mathematical physics in the present are the best examples).
If I’m doing my job: he’s using pseudoarchaeology (pseudoscience) to get attention, and it’s been a profitable career for him. and given that his stuff is pretty hard to believe I suspect he’s helping us find suckers, catch them, and reeducate them before they do something harmful to themselves or others. Of all the kind of sucker-magnets in the world he’s the least harmful.
If I want to correct him, and the audience, it is all but certain that Doggerland, isn’t alone, and the black sea the persian gulf, the red sea, the mediterranean, and the lost lakes and marshes of the south of africa, and various other coastal areas, now obscure much of our long, early, glacial and pre-glacial development with flooding. We may be living in a period of extraordinary technology, but the first five thousand years of chasing the glaciers back north, in doggerland, on the shorts of the black sea has to be about as close to paradise as hunter-gatherers can discover.
That said, there is no evidence whatsoever of anything pre-glacial but animals, and nothing obscured by post glacial flooding that gave hints to what is necessary for the evolution of man: fire, metal, and pottery. Yes, people do lose technology (austronesians). Yes people do mature into depth rather than neoteny (equatorial africans). But in general, the long graudal line of history up until the 80-40k, and 40k-10k, and 10k incremental explosions, and the past 400 years of european explosion of knowledge, is so regular in retrospect it looks ordinary.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-10 15:23:00 UTC
WHAT DOES EMPIRICAL MEAN
(core)
Empirical: Reciprocally Observable, and therefore agreeable, or disagreeable.
1. Empirical means observable such that claims can be intersubjectively verifiable or falsifiable: meaning the observation can be “agreed or disagreed upon”;
2. in addition it means a sufficient volume of observations that we falsify the fragility of episodic memories, our tendency to err, our tendency to find patterns that don’t exist, or to bias the results, and to use both to deceive ;
3. in addition it means using physical instruments of measurement to compensate for the limits of our senses, perception, and the resulting limits to intuition, prediction, and memory;
4. in addition it means using logical instruments of measurement (testing) of constant, contingent, inconstant, and non-relations to compensate for the limits of our intuition, imagination, prediction, and reason and as such to prevent claims made in ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.
5. together consisting of tests of reciprocity of information, and the possibility of Agreement or disagreement by reciprocity of information using due diligence in the falsification of sense, perception, intuition, prediction, and claim by RECIPROCAL due diligence using quantity, quality, consistency, causality.
See the value of operational language?
If you have the words for it, most philosophical discourses is rendered nonsense.
See how law (competition) differs from philosophy by reduction to reciprocity not the self (philosophical justification).
Like I said, in almost all cases philosophical questions are sophisms due to idealism rather than realism – operational language.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-10 08:22:00 UTC
TRUTH: “TESTIMONY THAT SATISFIES DEMAND FOR INFALLIBILITY”
(complete definition of truth for newbs)
WHERE TRUTH CONSISTS IN THE SERIES
1. Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.
2. Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).
3. Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)
4. Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
5. Reasonableness: that testimony (description) you give, as justification for your reporting of your belief, justification, preference, coice, or actions with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
6. Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
WHERE TRUTHFUL SPEECH
1. Satisfies the Demand for *Increasing Infallibility of Decidability
GIVEN
The Series:
1. Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
2. Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources.
3. Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources.
4. Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions.
5. Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
6. Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values.
7. Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (True)
8. Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity
9. Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.
WHERE THE SPEECH IS CONSISTS OF:
1. Complete Sentences
2. In promissory form
3. In testimonial form
4. In operational vocabulary (as actions)
5. absent the verb to-be (is, are, was, were…)
6. including all changes in state
7. including all consequences of change in state
8. from an observer’s point of view
9. producing a series of testable transactions.
WHERE THE CRITERIA FOR TRUTHFUL SPEECH IS:
Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, in The Series:
1. Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)
Internally Consistent (Logical)
2. Externally Correspondent (Empirical)
3. Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)
4. Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame)
5.Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)
6. With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation)
7. Warrantied
… (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;
… (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;
… (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.
AS A DEFENSE AGAINST THE SERIES:
1. Ignorance and Willful Ignorance;
2. Error and failure of Due Diligence;
3. Bias and Wishful Thinking;
4. And the many Deceits of:
… (a) Loading and Framing;
… (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda;
… (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism;
… (d) and outright Fabrications (fictions).
IN DEFENSE OR ADVOCACY OF:
Any transfer that is not reciprocal, the tests of:
… (a) productive
… (b) fully informed, fully accounted
… (c) warrantied and within the limits of liability
… (d) voluntary
… (e) free of externality of the same criteria
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
The Series of:
… (a) murder,
… (b) harm, damage, theft,
… (c) fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,baiting into hazard
… (d) free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons,
… (e) rent seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism,
… (f) conversion(religion/pseudoscience),
… (g) displacement(immigration/overbreeding),
… (ah) conquest (war).
===
That I know of that, is the most complete definition of truth available.
You might think there is some way to outwit it… but you’ll be wrong. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-09 22:09:00 UTC
In Truth Victoriousfacebook.comUpdated Apr 9, 2020, 8:37 PM
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-09 20:37:00 UTC