Feb 7, 2020, 10:43 PM
Well via-negativa moral rules (prohibitions) are empirical and there is only one: reciprocity within the limits of proportionality. Like rational choice within the limits of rationality. Like truthfulness within the limits of testifiability. That’s just obvious from a study of the history of law across every civilization. What satisfies reciprocity whether in manners, ethics (interpersonal), morals (extra-personal) varies because of differences in geography, economy, family structure, means of production, and stage of development – or more simply, dependent upon the scale of cooperation and the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population in relation to its state of development.
General Semantics by Korzybski, while originally an attempt to explain non-aristotelian frames of reference, was a (rather silly) dead end, just as is Eric Ganz’s present Generative Anthropology, and Derrida’s persistent trend in postmodernism, and somewhat less so Chomsky’s generative grammar. In the end Bourland extended the entire program to nothing more than eliminating the copula (verb to be) which, in english, eliminates the pretense of knowledge and clarifies thinking in the process. This effectively ended the GS program as a dead end. In P we use eliminating of the copula to prevent false knowledge claims by the no-operational obscurantism permitted by its use.
This is particularly useful in suppressing the abrahamic method of deceit.
Now, conversely Hilbert in mathematical physics, Bridgman in physics, Brouwer in mathematics, and (badly) Mises in economics all either criticized the set basis of mathematics, the Einstein-Bohr and Copenhagen consensus, or monetary economics as pseudoscientific – and only Bridgman succeeded in reforming physics. Even though, today, we have software to perform the drudgery of testing proofs. Turing and Godel brought about operational model and programming completed the transition between operational and computable and deductive. Minsky (correctly) stated that programming was a new method of thinking, because it completes the restoration of western thought back to its origins in ‘engineering’ (geometry) in the process begun by Descartes. But It wasn’t until the eighties and early nineties that psychology started to reform under operationism, and until P there was no solution to operationalizing social science.
That’s enough for now.
(BTW: I don’t take devolution to use of Godwin’s Law as anything other than evidence of my winning the argument.)
And yes the only reason I respond is so that I can post these answers on the main feed to educate others