(FB 1548087791 Timestamp) THE VIA NEGATIVA COST OF THE RELIGION OF THE LAW —“Law by Natural Law of Reciprocity consists as a set of ideas of falsification which do not require belief in, testimony to, or action according to, one or more falsehoods as a cost of inclusion and use, but rather demands that you cannot do this, no matter what, and this requirement acts as the cost for inclusion and use.”—Curtus Maximus (perfect argument)
Theme: Truth
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1548143428 Timestamp) DATA DOESN”T LIE
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548104523 Timestamp) SEE HOW THEY RUN. SECOND TODAY. Look at how they construct arguments in an attempt to preserve their comforts. —-“You still have to assume a framework for falsifying. If you don’t leave room for questioning said framework, it’s dogma. Is that not clear?”— Ben Quimby No it is not clear. logic is not dogma. justificationism is false and falsificationism is not. these are not open questions unless you find a means of opening them by falsifying falsificationism. An authority must command a dogma. Logic cannot be otherwise. Falsification cannot be otherwise. You can claim this is false somehow but defensive skepticism is just admission of failure to do so. —“To be fair, questioning doesn’t necessarily imply falsifying. Nobody wants to falsify logic, AFAIK; what they want is to “hint”, let’s say (b/c you can’t do this logically), that some truths, like logic itself, are meta-logical.”—Ben Quimby —“It’s not admissable, that’s true. And then, if they can’t testify to it, we have to resort to deciding on intent. That’s true. What a weird puzzle. I see both sides. Assuming there are such things as meta-logical truths, this would appear to throw a bit of a wrench in the whole prosecution of non-logical information thing. And you’re naturally worried about being consistent with what gets prosecuted. You can’t even argue that it’s worth sacrificing meta-logical truths, b/c your framework won’t even allow you to acknowledge them as such. And if it did, you might not make that argument. But as someone who can see these “truths”, at least provisionally, the answer here (cost-benefit analysis) is not at all clear to me.”—Ben Quimby “Define meta-logical truths” (There aren’t any) —-“[One can’t coherently define meta-coherence; that comes with the territory.] Take ‘change’ (process) for example. It’s not definable, it’s not falsifiable, and yet we don’t subordinate it to something lesser, like fiction. We acknowledge change as some kind of fact or truth, as something that “just is”, something that “can’t be otherwise”, and yet it hasn’t passed our formalized tests of truth.”— Ben Quimby :Meta-coherence” means intuitionistic, free-associations, not open to analysis. (There is nothing not open to analysis, only not open to testing.) To define change is very easy. Time=rate of entropy. Change is any perceivable difference in constant relations over time. That is what it means, and that is what it must mean, and that is what we are capable of percieving, because that is the only capacity of our neurons. —“Yeah, perception, difference, constancy, relations, time; more meta-analytical terms. They’re meaningful, no doubt; just not in a way we can reference concretely. As for neuronal capacities, I question whether we really know what we mean by that. At any rate, the point isn’t to debate this. The point is to test for the ability to step into a separate lens: Can you see what they see without interpreting via your current frame? Hence the “hard problem” question: Do you UNDERSTAND the hard problem as it is seen through the eyes of those who think it’s a valid problem? If you could show something like that, I think it would be extremely powerful. I look at things like this: If I can demonstrate comprehension of both my perspective and the other guy’s (on their terms), and they can only demonstrate comprehension of their own, then it’s more likely I hold the superior (more comprehensive) position. Anyways, I’m trying to get away from internet stuff these days. Yesterday was a spur of the moment type thing–a relapse, if you will. It shant happen again. Cheers.”— If i can demonstrate both but also the degree of falsity of both it is moel likely that the least false least fictional most parsimonious holds te superior more comprehensive position, The hardest part of each major revolution: reason, empiricism, science, darwinianism, and operationalism has been the recalcitrance of those invested in the comforting fictions that they hold dear. Testimonialism is a revolutionary as the revolutions in reason, empiricism, science, darwinianism, and operationalism. And like those who have malinvested in moralism, malinvested in scripturalism, malinvested in rationalism, the malinvestment is driven out of the market by superior investment. -Cheers 😉
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548262166 Timestamp) Let us try this again: —“So in the distribution between intent, failure of due diligence, carrier of lies, and a cognitive tradition of lying by sophism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience, and the biological drive of the female-biased mind to use gossip and undermining to undermine the hierarchy, … what is the distribution of rothbard’s guilt? With him, his culture, or his genome?”— What is difficult about this question? Spectrum of Lying: 1. Intent to lie. 2. Intent to deceive. 3. Failure of due diligence against lying 4. Carrier of lies. 5. Carrier of tradition and culture of lies. 6. A genetic predisposition to lie. Where truthful speech consists of: 1. categorically consistent (identity) 2. internally consistent (logic) 3. externally correspondent (empirical) 4. operationally consistent (existentially possible) 5. rationally consistent (rational choice) 6. reciprocally consistent (reciprocal rational choice) 7. consistent within scope, limits, and fully accounting (complete) 8. consistent across all those seven dimensions (coherent) And where: 9. limited to actions for which restitution(restoration) is possible. 10. warrantied by sufficient resources to perform restitution. That is the list of conceivable dimensions available to man, the means of due diligence by which we test them, and constitutes a ‘complete, deflated, dimensional’ definition of truthful speech – a speech that will survive in a court of law. Rothbard’s ethic uses the first premise of volition – the ethics of the ghetto, the pale, and the low trust middle east. This ethic is consistent across afro-asiatic peoples: can I get away with it? Just as face ethic is consistent across asiatic peoples, and just as truth over face is consistent over northern european peoples (not russian). Western ethics uses the first premise of reciprocity – the ethics of the high trust homogeneous europeans (exclusively). It says ‘will their be repercussions over time?’ The west competes by its commons, the middle east by predation upon them. So, what are Mises and Rothbard NOT accounting for (Cherrypicking) in their arguments? Mises didn’t practice ‘austrian’ economics. He was from L’viv (near where I live). He practiced the economics of the ghetto, pale, and middle east, and restated it with Menger’s subjectivity. He found another application of pilpul with which to justify his priors. Hence why there is ‘austrian economics’ of menger and hayek fully incorporated into the mainstream, and ‘ukrainian ghetto economics’ of mises and rothbard (and eastern ashkenazim in general) that have not been incorporated into the mainstream. All peoples (states, civilizations) so far have attempted to take the british scientific revolution and exit the medieval world of supernatural sophisms while retaining (a) their traditional method of argument, and (b) the traditional underlying ethics, in order to (c) persist their group competitive strategy. No people has done otherwise: the french, germans, italians, russians and ashkenazi, the chinese, and now the muslims. We have just about ended the jewish century of resistance to truth and science (marx, boas, freud, cantor, mises, rand/rothbard, strauss) and are entering into the muslim century of resistance to truth and science. It is the last civilization we have yet to drag out of ignorance, and the most primitive, most resistant, with the worst demographics. Our ancestral attempt in the roman era resulted in a dark age. I understand this subject better than anyone else living. Mostly because I have spent the better part of a decade understanding the differences between anglo, continental, jewish/arab(Semitic), Hindu, and asian methods of law, argument, philosophy, religion, economics, and family structure, and produced a value independent, fully commensurable, logic of law, ethics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy for these purposes. Of the existing grammars we call math, logic, science, algorithms, law-testimony, descriptive speech, ordinary speech, narrative speech, fiction, fictionalisms(sophisms-idealism/philosophy, supernaturalisms-theology, and pseudoscience/magic), and deceit, I practice Law. Why? Because of those grammars, it is the only one that is both both complete, complete, and free of fictions, and the means of suggestion by which to circumvent our reason. So the question is, why would anyone not write about social science in law – the language of reciprocity – unless to circumvent that law of reciprocity? …..Which answers a question of the ages. Cheers.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548260937 Timestamp) “PROPERTARIANISM” –> “CRITICAL NATURALISM”? —-“Would you consider renaming Propertarianism to “Critical Naturalism”?”— Kash That’s Very Smart. I Never thought of that. Hmm…. That would change it from a legal category of name to a philosophical category of name. Hmm… Well it’s true right? In philosophical terms it would be categorized as “critical naturalism”. Although, what is the difference between the law and critical naturalism? I ‘m not sure there is any. So why are critical naturalism and the law of tort not identical? I mean, that’s my underlying argument: that the west differs from the rest because across the ages of political-philosophical-religious propaganda, the law of “sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, and duty” remained constant. So I would call the Law a discipline that relies on critical naturalism. I would call propertarianism the natural law that relies on critical naturalism. So yes. I think the brand name has stuck, but yes I’d (a) accept that as a truthful description of the philosophical category (b) use the term myself as a philosophical category, (c) maintain the position that the law is the only complete and parsimonious category, and that the attempt to produce science is a long term attempt to unify western law (our civilizational cult) with western philosophy (middle class propaganda).
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548195658 Timestamp) THE TRADE-OFF TRIANGLE OF CIVILIZATIONAL DIFFERENCES “Truth, Vs Face, Vs Gain.” …………………..(Europe)…………………. ……………………TRUTH…………………… ……………………/…………………………… …………………../……….. …………………. …………….FACE —— GAIN…………… (asia-west asia)………(afro-south west asia.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548262166 Timestamp) Let us try this again: —“So in the distribution between intent, failure of due diligence, carrier of lies, and a cognitive tradition of lying by sophism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience, and the biological drive of the female-biased mind to use gossip and undermining to undermine the hierarchy, … what is the distribution of rothbard’s guilt? With him, his culture, or his genome?”— What is difficult about this question? Spectrum of Lying: 1. Intent to lie. 2. Intent to deceive. 3. Failure of due diligence against lying 4. Carrier of lies. 5. Carrier of tradition and culture of lies. 6. A genetic predisposition to lie. Where truthful speech consists of: 1. categorically consistent (identity) 2. internally consistent (logic) 3. externally correspondent (empirical) 4. operationally consistent (existentially possible) 5. rationally consistent (rational choice) 6. reciprocally consistent (reciprocal rational choice) 7. consistent within scope, limits, and fully accounting (complete) 8. consistent across all those seven dimensions (coherent) And where: 9. limited to actions for which restitution(restoration) is possible. 10. warrantied by sufficient resources to perform restitution. That is the list of conceivable dimensions available to man, the means of due diligence by which we test them, and constitutes a ‘complete, deflated, dimensional’ definition of truthful speech – a speech that will survive in a court of law. Rothbard’s ethic uses the first premise of volition – the ethics of the ghetto, the pale, and the low trust middle east. This ethic is consistent across afro-asiatic peoples: can I get away with it? Just as face ethic is consistent across asiatic peoples, and just as truth over face is consistent over northern european peoples (not russian). Western ethics uses the first premise of reciprocity – the ethics of the high trust homogeneous europeans (exclusively). It says ‘will their be repercussions over time?’ The west competes by its commons, the middle east by predation upon them. So, what are Mises and Rothbard NOT accounting for (Cherrypicking) in their arguments? Mises didn’t practice ‘austrian’ economics. He was from L’viv (near where I live). He practiced the economics of the ghetto, pale, and middle east, and restated it with Menger’s subjectivity. He found another application of pilpul with which to justify his priors. Hence why there is ‘austrian economics’ of menger and hayek fully incorporated into the mainstream, and ‘ukrainian ghetto economics’ of mises and rothbard (and eastern ashkenazim in general) that have not been incorporated into the mainstream. All peoples (states, civilizations) so far have attempted to take the british scientific revolution and exit the medieval world of supernatural sophisms while retaining (a) their traditional method of argument, and (b) the traditional underlying ethics, in order to (c) persist their group competitive strategy. No people has done otherwise: the french, germans, italians, russians and ashkenazi, the chinese, and now the muslims. We have just about ended the jewish century of resistance to truth and science (marx, boas, freud, cantor, mises, rand/rothbard, strauss) and are entering into the muslim century of resistance to truth and science. It is the last civilization we have yet to drag out of ignorance, and the most primitive, most resistant, with the worst demographics. Our ancestral attempt in the roman era resulted in a dark age. I understand this subject better than anyone else living. Mostly because I have spent the better part of a decade understanding the differences between anglo, continental, jewish/arab(Semitic), Hindu, and asian methods of law, argument, philosophy, religion, economics, and family structure, and produced a value independent, fully commensurable, logic of law, ethics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy for these purposes. Of the existing grammars we call math, logic, science, algorithms, law-testimony, descriptive speech, ordinary speech, narrative speech, fiction, fictionalisms(sophisms-idealism/philosophy, supernaturalisms-theology, and pseudoscience/magic), and deceit, I practice Law. Why? Because of those grammars, it is the only one that is both both complete, complete, and free of fictions, and the means of suggestion by which to circumvent our reason. So the question is, why would anyone not write about social science in law – the language of reciprocity – unless to circumvent that law of reciprocity? …..Which answers a question of the ages. Cheers.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548260937 Timestamp) “PROPERTARIANISM” –> “CRITICAL NATURALISM”? —-“Would you consider renaming Propertarianism to “Critical Naturalism”?”— Kash That’s Very Smart. I Never thought of that. Hmm…. That would change it from a legal category of name to a philosophical category of name. Hmm… Well it’s true right? In philosophical terms it would be categorized as “critical naturalism”. Although, what is the difference between the law and critical naturalism? I ‘m not sure there is any. So why are critical naturalism and the law of tort not identical? I mean, that’s my underlying argument: that the west differs from the rest because across the ages of political-philosophical-religious propaganda, the law of “sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, and duty” remained constant. So I would call the Law a discipline that relies on critical naturalism. I would call propertarianism the natural law that relies on critical naturalism. So yes. I think the brand name has stuck, but yes I’d (a) accept that as a truthful description of the philosophical category (b) use the term myself as a philosophical category, (c) maintain the position that the law is the only complete and parsimonious category, and that the attempt to produce science is a long term attempt to unify western law (our civilizational cult) with western philosophy (middle class propaganda).
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548213602 Timestamp) —“You’ve been repeating that Rothbard is a liar recently though in the past you said he couldn’t have been a liar, just mistaken. What’s the lie?”— This is one of those deceptively simple questions on its face that once deflated and operationalized makes you question the frame in which we ask the original question. It depends on point of demarcation of agency vs tradition, intuition vs biology. … I(we) use a higher standard of intent: failure of due diligence. Do women know what they do when they sh-t test or is it biology? Did Rothbard and mises? What about those men that invented the tradition of lying (pilpul) both operated under? Is a carrier of a lie responsible? In law, one causes harm or not and is responsible for failure of due diligence, not intent, and must pay restitution for the failure of due diligence. If intentional an additional punishment is levied on top of the restitution. However the entire marx/rothbard/trotsky-strauss … set of anti-white movements, consist of a continuation of undermining the host civilization (‘revolutionary spirit’), the use of sophism(pilpul) and critique (straw manning an undermining) and authoritarianism (monopoly class interests) in opposition to western tripartism. So in the distribution between intent, failure of due diligence, carrier of lies, and a cognitive tradition of lying by sophism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience, and the biological drive of the female-biased mind to use gossip and undermining to undermine the hierarchy, … what is the distribution of rothbard’s guilt? With him, his culture, or his genome? So which standard of lie, or set of standards of lying, are we to use? The question is harder than at first appears. How could a man of that learning err so widely? Is he a fool or a liar, or a fraud? Women engage in conspiracies of common interest when they undermine, to the detriment of the host males. What does this say about rothbard mises, hoppe et al?
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548195658 Timestamp) THE TRADE-OFF TRIANGLE OF CIVILIZATIONAL DIFFERENCES “Truth, Vs Face, Vs Gain.” …………………..(Europe)…………………. ……………………TRUTH…………………… ……………………/…………………………… …………………../……….. …………………. …………….FACE —— GAIN…………… (asia-west asia)………(afro-south west asia.)