Knowing the deflation, operationalism, and grammars is a bit like having a superpower. And I just realized that if we teach everyone Testimonialism I won’t be the only person with the superpower…. sigh… 😉
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-13 22:36:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084580018037116931
True to principles = nonsense statement. Absolutism = nonsense statement. relativism nonsense statement. I work work operationally, logically, and empirically. Rothbard was a common property marxist just as marx was private property marxist. They Both Hate The Superior Classes.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-13 16:19:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084484981114703882
Reply addressees: @rohansharan @MurraySuggests @TrueDilTom
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084456845891186688
IN REPLY TO:
@rohansharan
@MurraySuggests @curtdoolittle Rothbard was true to his principles building it on absolutism, not relativism. Your criticism of him like in your recent fb posts is unwarranted. @TrueDilTom
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084456845891186688
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
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 19:30:00 UTC
TERMINOLOGY: NO SHORTCUT TO UNDERSTANDING
worth repeating
One does not criticize either terminology or deviation from normative definitions, but instead, the precision of the definitions, such that we are free of opportunity for conflation, and subsequent error.
Each field uses terminology particular to it, and propertarianism (law) uses universals (operational names in series) across all fields. In either case we define terms that eliminate the error and potential for error in colloquial speech (“ordinary language”).
In other words no field is, can be, reduced to ordinary language without the introduction of the vast ignorance and error that separates ordinary language from scientific language.
That is because the existence of, and market demands for science and scientific prose evolved precisely to compensate for the ignorance, error, bias, fictionalism, and deceit in ordinary language.
And moreover, since propertarianism serves as the scientific language of social science – including history, economics, law, sociology, morality, ethics, psychology, and language itself – we are forcing into the political discourse the same adaptation as did the revolution in physical science: and with equally disruptive consequences to normative language, ideas, ideology, religion, and language of those disciplines.
So the criticism that we should use the colloquial speech in our effort to change social sciences from sophisms and pseudoscience dependent upon intuition and projection, and monopoly and conformity, into a form of calculation as is used in the other sciences, and divisions of cognition and labor, and conditions of cooperation, competition, and war, is rather … ridiculous really.
All systems of symbolic calculation whether they be the small difference between spoken language and written language, or great differences between spoken language, written language, arithmetic, accounting, geometry, the calculus, relativity, chemistry, biology, ecology, economics, require training.
The great difference is that we are all more invested in our daily use of the psychological, social, and political, such that we defend those investments no matter how bad they are.
Unfortunately the average idiot who will readily say he understands neither advanced mathematics, economics, or subatomic physics will not similarly question his understanding of ethics, morality, and politics – thereby demonstrating his lack of agency due to malinvestment and ignorance, and genetic, gender, class, cultural bias.
Ergo, there is no shortcut to knowledge. Calculation is counter intuitive – particularly in intuitionistic subjects.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 00:18:00 UTC
There is no wisdom literature that is not false, that cannot be broken in to operational, fully accounted language.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 22:44:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083857083131408384
So what? That means we can tell truth and lie. It means that competitive ability highly reflects linguistic precision. It means that competitive ability provides competitive advantage. Because otherwise physical marginal indifference provides too little competitive advantage.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 22:38:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083855625480744960
Reply addressees: @MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083854416552308738
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996 All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide a pseudoscientific defense of Derrida, in that ‘well’ everything evolved from language therefore we can evolve anything with language. In other words, postmodernism.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1083854416552308738
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996 All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide a pseudoscientific defense of Derrida, in that ‘well’ everything evolved from language therefore we can evolve anything with language. In other words, postmodernism.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1083854416552308738
Termination of lies and liars regardless of herd or pack is in the interest of both herd and pack.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 22:02:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083846714551922694
Reply addressees: @MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083838163171168257
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083838163171168257
There is no wisdom literature that is not false, that cannot be broken in to operational, fully accounted language.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 17:43:00 UTC
LIES OF RIGHT ABSOLUTISTS AND LEFT ABSOLUTISTS ARE STILL JUST LIES – AN ADMISSION OF FAILURE.
The difference between this article and some bit of occult nonsense by Evola is simply the flavor of sophism. No one disputes that language makes possible a multitude of paradigmatic lies of coercion, but it makes only one most parsimonious paradigmatic truth of decidability.
The Pretense of Wisdom in the Tempo of Syllables, and the power of suggestion by loading and framing inarticulate and untestable prose. “Woo Woo” for the post-theological era. Science requires knowledge. “Woo” takes advantage of ignorance. Leftist or right lies are indifferent.
No one disputes the relationship between consciousness and language – only the degree. It still does not justify that the history of man is a long filter of anthropocentric perception and intuition as we gradually eliminate ignorance, error, bias and deceit – despite the priests.
Termination of lies and liars regardless of herd or pack is in the interest of both herd and pack.
https://thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/the-anthropoetics-of-power/
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 17:05:00 UTC
So that is your criteria for truth? I mean, is that the worst criticism you can levy at them?
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 18:14:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083426886980698112
Reply addressees: @pirateblade86
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083426014301245441
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083426014301245441