by Bill Joslin
(Just want to say that no one else has made it this far, and bill is rocking it.)
Psychology – ostensive (experiential) argumentation to account for behavior.
Incentive: seek a monopoly on perception via ostensive grammars
Alternative: Aquisitionism where by human behaviour can be fully accounted via incentives.
Outcome: a market for coherence via descriptive explanations of behaviour which can be tested with low or no context (declarative).
Any *-ocracy (democracy, oligarchy, Plutarchy, monarchy etc) are systemic moral justifications for control of nomocracy argued through imperatives.
Incentive: to obtain a monopoly on the creation and execution of law – power over others argued via preferences for one “the good”.
Alternative: propertarianism whereby all transactions must meet the criteria of perfect reciprocity.
Outcome: disambiguous execution of law. A market for the creation of many “goods”.
Religio-philosophical are sets of arguments for prefered criteria of measuring truth.
Incentive: obtain a monopoly on truth (justify god like proclamations about reality). Unwarranted declaration.
Alternative: Testimonialism which uses all available criteria to demonstrate due diligence in eliminating error, bias, and deception
Outcome: a market for coherence.
MONOPOLY(DECEPTION) VS MARKET(TRUTH)
In all cases above, the former uses ostensive or imperative grammars to obtain a monopoly.
Each alternative “deframes” arguments, converting ostensive and imperative grammars into declarative statements.
Why? Because only the declarative has the quality of being testable.
This results in the destruction of monopolies over perception, law (violence) and truth allowing reality to dictate decisions and actions.