(FB 1547468306 Timestamp) RUSSIANS HAVE A WORD FOR REALITY Bytie (бÑÑие), Russian. This word comes from the Russian byt'(to exist). In Russian-English dictionaries this philosophical concept is translated as “being.” However, bytie (бÑÑие) is not just life or existence, itâs the existence of an objective reality that is independent of human consciousness (cosmos, nature, matter).
Theme: Truth
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547339450 Timestamp) WHAT IS METAPHYSICS? —“Why study metaphysics? Metaphysics consist of the study of the (constitution) of reality. It is the (method or process) by which we come to a (paradigm) of (the laws of the universe, laws of cooperation, laws of perception-experience, and laws of reason), and from that (paradigm) make choices about what we want to think, feel, and do to make the most of our own experience of life and the world.”— The study of Metaphysics then serves our will to power (successful action). Or does it? I deflate the big question into a hierarchy : 1 – ‘What can we perceive, experience, cognate, and act upon?’ 2 – ‘How is our experience produced?’ 3 – ‘What are the limits of our perception, experience, cognition and action?” 4 – ‘What may be beyond our perceptions and experience and cognition? 5 – ‘What are the first premises (assumptions, presumptions, rules, laws) by which we test our perceptions, experience, and ideas?’ 6 – And how does our experience differ from those laws? 7 – And how can we act to take advantage of this knowledge? The problem is, that since we must act to survive and prosper, can only act within the limits of our perception, experience, cognition, and action, and can only extend perceptions by action in the universe, and all increases in our understanding of what is beyond our perception, experience, cognition, have followed consistent rules of parsimony all of which relegate our experience to a natural consequence of competitive complexity given a long enough and stable enough period of evolutionary computation. Action (operations) is the only system of measurement that is not a lie – because it is what the entirety of the set of questions depends upon: the grammar and semantics of action, cognition, experience, and perception. So the question is not what is metaphysics. The question is, Why is it men seek using metaphysics to lie? So the issue is whether we are confirming the former to the latter (lying) or the latter to the former (adapting), or whether we inventing the former to serve the latter for the purpose of fraud, rent seeking, free riding, and other forms of parasitism – because so far that seems the primary distinction between philosophers/theologians and scientists. You see, a fraud, a sophist, philosopher, or theologian uses justification to ask ‘what can I get away with?’, while a scientist and a jurist ask ‘what can we insure you’re not getting away with?’ Hence why law (man) and science (nature) account for costs, and philosophy(man) and theology(nature) do not. Because costs allow us to measure frauds, thefts, et al. How many philosophers and theologians would survive prosecution for fraud?
- Curt
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547573280 Timestamp) Yes, it is more work to speak truthfully. It is more work to produce that engage in theft, and more work to engage in theft than parasitism. With every increase in the incremental suppression of parasitism by ‘means I can get away with because the exchange is voluntary’ those people who create parasitism object. When you disagree with me all you are saying is that you want to preserve your means of parasitism, or your means of exporting costs to the commons, just like any other thief or fraud.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547572164 Timestamp) IN DEFENSE OF THE DEMAND FOR DUE DILIGENCE IN PUBLIC SPEECH, AND THE PUNISHMENT OF FALSE SPEECH. by John Mark (must read) (central argument) 1 – It is too difficult to teach Bullsh-t detection to masses of people with heavy biases and an avg IQ of 85-105 (depending on the nation). Half or more of the population (below 105-106) cannot tell what is true or not even if they try. The solution is not teaching; it won’t work. The solution is punishment. (Law) 2 – Allowing lying allows left-instinct people to rally using lies and false promises. It’s a Dangerous thing to allow. Too dangerous. 3 – Most people will have to refrain from making public pronouncements about matters which they have not done due diligence. This would be wonderful. 4 – You only have the “rights” you & your friends can defend. If someone wants to defend their “right” to be wrong, they are fighting in favor of lies against truth. (I will not be joining that team.) 5 – “More free speech” has failed. Because lying is faster, cheaper, easier than telling the truth. There is a world of difference between what the Left does (arbitrary, enforcing lies) & what we propose (scientific, enforcing truth). “The way most people want to live”…the left wants to pretend lies are true; the Right benefits from truth and wants the results of truth. The Right is better served by enforcing truth (punishing lies) than by allowing lies or “free speech” (aka lies winning). 6 – There would be more court cases for a while and then as people figure out what the consequences of their actions will be, the # of cases will drop significantly.
- John Mark
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547570431 Timestamp) WE HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD OF TRUTH —“I think this is the fatal flaw of propertarianism. It’s an unnecessary step to go this far if you already have parasite proof governance.”–Daniel It is not a bug or a flaw but a feature and it is by design. No, we have a higher standard of ‘lying’ – higher standard in that in matters of the commons you lie for having not done due diligence, not by intention. We are testing whether you performed due diligence, against harm, not whether you intended to harm. The purpose is to prevent both the originator of the lie and the propagators of the lie, just as we prevent the thief, and those who profit from the works of the thief. We are extending the defense of property from goods and services to information. This is necessary because desirable lies and harmful information spreads faster and more cheaply under industrialized distribution of information than true and beneficial information. And it is by desirable lies that the first abrahamic dark age of the abrahamic religions, and the Jewish, Muslim, Marxist, postmodernist, feminist, attempt to create the second abrahamic dark age, have been created, and spread – lies.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547483001 Timestamp) NORMIE VERSION OF “WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM?” (via Bill and Curt) Propertarianism is a method – it’s the completion of the scientific method, and that scientific method applied to EVERYTHING – including language, psychology, social science, economics, politics and group competitive strategies. So while propertarianism consists of the completion of the scientific method, what results from that scientific method, is scientific law, and scientific government, which makes it possible for us to cooperate in the post industrial era. And the benefit of scientific law and scientific government is that it ends parasitism and deceit in politics economics and law, and provides scientific solutions to the conflicts of politics economics and law. In the broader historical sense, propertarianism completes the greco-anglo empirical program to complete the sciences, and to eliminate bias, wishful thinking, deception, superstition, idealism, and pseudoscience from the the public discourse that we call ‘the informational commons”.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547573280 Timestamp) Yes, it is more work to speak truthfully. It is more work to produce that engage in theft, and more work to engage in theft than parasitism. With every increase in the incremental suppression of parasitism by ‘means I can get away with because the exchange is voluntary’ those people who create parasitism object. When you disagree with me all you are saying is that you want to preserve your means of parasitism, or your means of exporting costs to the commons, just like any other thief or fraud.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547572164 Timestamp) IN DEFENSE OF THE DEMAND FOR DUE DILIGENCE IN PUBLIC SPEECH, AND THE PUNISHMENT OF FALSE SPEECH. by John Mark (must read) (central argument) 1 – It is too difficult to teach Bullsh-t detection to masses of people with heavy biases and an avg IQ of 85-105 (depending on the nation). Half or more of the population (below 105-106) cannot tell what is true or not even if they try. The solution is not teaching; it won’t work. The solution is punishment. (Law) 2 – Allowing lying allows left-instinct people to rally using lies and false promises. It’s a Dangerous thing to allow. Too dangerous. 3 – Most people will have to refrain from making public pronouncements about matters which they have not done due diligence. This would be wonderful. 4 – You only have the “rights” you & your friends can defend. If someone wants to defend their “right” to be wrong, they are fighting in favor of lies against truth. (I will not be joining that team.) 5 – “More free speech” has failed. Because lying is faster, cheaper, easier than telling the truth. There is a world of difference between what the Left does (arbitrary, enforcing lies) & what we propose (scientific, enforcing truth). “The way most people want to live”…the left wants to pretend lies are true; the Right benefits from truth and wants the results of truth. The Right is better served by enforcing truth (punishing lies) than by allowing lies or “free speech” (aka lies winning). 6 – There would be more court cases for a while and then as people figure out what the consequences of their actions will be, the # of cases will drop significantly.
- John Mark
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547570431 Timestamp) WE HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD OF TRUTH —“I think this is the fatal flaw of propertarianism. It’s an unnecessary step to go this far if you already have parasite proof governance.”–Daniel It is not a bug or a flaw but a feature and it is by design. No, we have a higher standard of ‘lying’ – higher standard in that in matters of the commons you lie for having not done due diligence, not by intention. We are testing whether you performed due diligence, against harm, not whether you intended to harm. The purpose is to prevent both the originator of the lie and the propagators of the lie, just as we prevent the thief, and those who profit from the works of the thief. We are extending the defense of property from goods and services to information. This is necessary because desirable lies and harmful information spreads faster and more cheaply under industrialized distribution of information than true and beneficial information. And it is by desirable lies that the first abrahamic dark age of the abrahamic religions, and the Jewish, Muslim, Marxist, postmodernist, feminist, attempt to create the second abrahamic dark age, have been created, and spread – lies.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547483001 Timestamp) NORMIE VERSION OF “WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM?” (via Bill and Curt) Propertarianism is a method – it’s the completion of the scientific method, and that scientific method applied to EVERYTHING – including language, psychology, social science, economics, politics and group competitive strategies. So while propertarianism consists of the completion of the scientific method, what results from that scientific method, is scientific law, and scientific government, which makes it possible for us to cooperate in the post industrial era. And the benefit of scientific law and scientific government is that it ends parasitism and deceit in politics economics and law, and provides scientific solutions to the conflicts of politics economics and law. In the broader historical sense, propertarianism completes the greco-anglo empirical program to complete the sciences, and to eliminate bias, wishful thinking, deception, superstition, idealism, and pseudoscience from the the public discourse that we call ‘the informational commons”.