And the second way appears to be better.
William Butchman (et all),
Peterson’s claim is where he’s going wrong: trying to justify his priors.
- Yes, we can imagine and experience the world consisting of various combinations of objects, properties, relations, transformations, and values.
- Yes we can develop our own mental models out of those arrangements (philosophies). Yes we can seek or create an existence in which we comfortably role play with others. Yes we can seek to produce social environments that achieve these ends.
- Yes we can attempt to accomplish this “private construction of personal reality”, “interpersonal construction of interpersonal reality”, and “Social Construction of social reality”, and even political and institutional construction of political reality.
- Yes we can construct these sets of objects, properties, relations, transformations, and values out of dream state experiences, supernatural, mythical, literary, extra-rational (pseudorational, pseudoscientific), historical(existential analogical), and various minimalist (scientific) narratives by which we construct explanations of causal relations making use of our objects, properties, relations, transformations (actions), and values.
- Yes we can perform ideation (envision possibilities for additional desirable experiences) using each of these methods, and navigate through life by these different narratives.
- Yes, the ‘cost’ of more parsimonious (minimalist, and deflationary) is higher in rational (autistic) terms and provides lower experiential (solipsistic) returns.
- Yes, the most able can choose ANY of these methods by which to obtain satisfaction, and yes, the less able require increasingly experiential means, and yes the better able are more able to obtain by less experiential means. And yes, while the most expensive, the most demanding, and perhaps the most rewarding is a portfolio : a combination of solipsistic (rich) experiences, along with autistic (parsimonious) understanding of them.
- And Yes the negative consequences of those narratives consisting of the Dream state, occult, supernatural, mythic, literary, pseudorational, pseudoscientific, socially constructed, can be mitigated by sufficient historical (scientific), narratives (explanations).
- 1) the material opportunities that arise from them empirically demonstrate that increasing precision, increasing correspondence, therefore increasingly deflationary and minimalist, and therefore more historical narratives, are far higher than all other methods combined.
- 2) that in matters of conflict people will grant priority to physical safety, opportunity, and comfort; kin safety, opportunity, and comfort; material safety, opportunity and comfort; psychological safety, opportunity, and comfort, normative safety, opportunity and comfort, and institutional safety, opportunity, and comfort in precisely that order. And therefore they demonstrate the superiority of the material in fact as far as they can, then demonstrate status and reputation and self worth, then demonstrate the psychological as far as they can. And all seeming exceptions, under scrutiny will eventually fall to this explanation: costs to them.
- 3) the function of the darwinian (historical, scientific, minimalist) model is to provide decidability ACROSS those narratives when we need them, and WITHIN those narratives if we choose to need them. In other words, darwinian (scientific) world-views, just like religion in the past, allow us to cooperate at larger scales across those narratives, making use of the range of people and range of experiences that those narratives can provide us with, while at the same time providing decidability across and between people making use of such narratives.
Group Strategy > Religion > Literature > Philosophy > Science > Law.
It is in the resolution of our disputes in law and war, and the preservation of non-retaliatory peace post-conflict that we define what is true. It is in the resolution of our disputes in all narrative structures that funnels down, over time, into every greater precision, leaving science (the most parsimonious, deflationary truth) that we ever-drive ourselves toward correspondence with reality no matter how undesirable. Because while we may seek cheap comforts of the mind, we will always fight expensively for material reality that allows us to preserve those fantasies.
- 4) since those narratives are profoundly easy to use to conduct frauds, deceits, manipulations, defeats, and conquests, we can use the parsimonious, minimalist, scientific, historical to analyze (criticize) propositions within and across these models.
And since the great challenges of our ancient world (monotheistic deceit), and the great challenges of the present world ( cosmopolitan pseudoscience, and pseudorationalism, and puritan pseudo moralism, and outright lying ) stem from our failure to develop both the methods of providing decidability (truth) across those new more advanced deceits (pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and propaganda), and the institutional means of preventing such deceits (law), then we are in greater demand for deflationary, minmalist, historical (evidentiary, existential) means of decidability – that which Peterson calls “Darwinian”.
Ergo as the diversity of narrative, diversity of developmental range, role in group, class, trades, and specialization increases, the demand for decidability across them increases.
- 5) Darwinian judgement in particular tells us of the long term, unintended consequences of accumulated short term actions. It does not tell us our limitations. It explains why we engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudosicence, literary loading, framing, and overloading; propaganda, and outright deceit – for darwinian ends.
We generate opportunities with richly conflated narration, and we generate decidability with minimalist, deflationary truth.
That is the difference between the good (desirable) within any context and the true (decidable) across any and all contexts.
The Propertarian Institute
CRITICISM: PETERSON: FIGHTING THE LAST WAR, WITH A WEAPON THAT HARMS US AS MUCH AS IT HELPS.
(NET/NET (TL;DR): The narrative requires intention, authority, and indoctrination in an effort to create behavioral goods, but natural law, like the good of markets, requires only dispute resolution, caused by self interests, from which all ‘goods’ emerge – even the unimagined. Narratives explain values. Laws create them. )
THE ENLIGHTENMENT, THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, AND THE PROBLEMS OF CHOICE UNDER POST-HUMAN-SCALE
I’m still going to criticize Dr Peterson’s conflation of the true(decidable), the good(preferable), and the beautiful(best/excellent) the similarity between men’s judgements provides us with a ‘unit of measure’: man’s abilities. It is this unit of measure that assists us in determining candidate opportunity, objective judgement, and successful action. When we encountered the industrial age, we changed from group norms as the unit of measure (test), to the limits of man’s perception(test) as the unit of measure in methods of decidability. Everything grew in scale:, information, markets, awareness of differences, necessity of understanding that which was beyond personal limits to perception, individual limits to ability and action, and group limits to organization and understanding.
It was this intellectual transition from small, homogenous, and local to large, heterogeneous and remote, that both created great opportunity for mankind, and created all our personal, cultural, institutional, and international conflict. We changed from ‘markets’ where we interacted with and cooperated with, and disputed with people in familiar and consensus context, to markets of all kinds where we interacted with, cooperated with, and disputed with peoples and groups, and nations on unfamiliar and very different consensual contexts. And our normative means of decision failed to scale. So we required methods of decidability not born then of consensus within a context, but of decidability regardless of context (and preference).
This is the story of the anglo scientific enlightenment, the failed social scientific and political enlightenment that followed (French, German, Russian, Jewish, in europe), and the consequential and failed german scientific, social, and political enligthenment of the 19th and 20th centuries – cut short by the (Immoral and Destructive ) world wars.
And it was the failure of 20th century philosophy and 20th century social science, only recently rescued by late 20th and early 21st century physical sciences, that has allowed an opportunity for the second conquest of the west by a ‘Second Great Deceit” – this time by pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, and propaganda, mass media, and the academy selling utopia to women and the underclasses, just as the the first conquest of the West by the First Great Deceit was achieved by Supernaturalism, pseudo-reasonableness, writing, the pulpit and the state sponsorship of monotheistic religion as a cheap means by which the wealthy east, could rule the independent but poorer west.
The only central claim to ‘Darwinian’ thought is that it provides us with knowledge of long term consequence (outside of experience, outside of perception, outside of human scale), and that as such we possess decidability between what were previously either only preferential goods, or what were both preferential, normative, and institutionalized assumed goods that are in fact ‘bads’ (Islam’s (a) unearned respect, and (b) fixed scope of knowledge, or Judaism’s dual ethics and its parasitism upon the host’s commons, or Christianity’s superstition and submission to authoritarian falsehood as a means of creating docile agrarian labor forces and limiting the conflict of families, tribes, clans, chieftains, and states). With this long term tool we can understand the unintended consequences of comforting falsehoods. That is what ‘Darwinian’ thought provides us with: an understanding of consequences of scale.
THE WANT OF DISCOUNTS – TO PRESERVE HUMAN SCALE
I’m sympathetic. I’m human as well. Humans want an intuitionistic means of decidability to save them the labor of investigation and calculation. And the economics of time, energy, and ignorance prevent us from investigation and calculation. So our multitude of decisions must be reduced to simple general rules in the context of each era. We all want the Elephant to DRIVE, and for our minds to merely RIDE upon his labors, and enjoy the view. But that is to be animal – not human – to lack agency not possess it. Of course we would all love to ride easily on a river of normative conditions that suited our interests. But that is not the fate of our struggle against the dark forces of time and ignorance – only possible in the pursuit of the cooperation with others at sufficient scale to win the struggle.
So, while I agree with Jordan’s criticisms (as many of us do), his prescription is wrong. He’s wrong because he is playing to the reasons that religions fail modernity via conflation and deceit (his coherent truth) but literature, history, the common law of torts, and science achieve by non deceitful, non false, ends. He is against the current pseudoscientific religion of the state, but he’s regressing into fighting the last war, instead of continuing modernity by deflating the beautiful, the good, and the true, which is the source of western competitive success, and the reason the west dragged the rest out of poverty.
We have struggled for millennia to tame the Elephant of evolutionary intuition with the Rider of reason, and we have obtained extraordinary benefits from doing so.
THE SOLUTION TO THE PRESENT IS THE SAME AS THE SOLUTION TO THE PAST – RETURN TO TRUTH
The solution to the present second attempt to ‘christianize the west’ – this time through cosmopolitan pseudoscience of Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, and Adorno – is not to regress to the past, in order to admit failure to defeat the pseudoscientific cosmopolitan religion of the present, but to defeat the pseudoscientific cosmopolitan religion of the present, with literature(ideation of and decision between possible contexts), history(judgement within each extant context), and decidability (truth – decidability REGARDLESS of context: judgement regardless of preference or opinion. ).
Literary analogy can assist us in the free association that is necessary to identify candidate opportunities (ideation), but once possessed of an idea, we cannot, without deceit, choose other than to rely upon the record of man’s actions in matters of conflict (including law, norm, culture, religion, immigration, invasion, war, conquest, and genocide), and deflationary truth (science). Where by ‘science’ we mean not the via-positiva of investigation, but the via-negativa discipline by which we perform due diligence against ignorance, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, supernaturalism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, propaganda, and deceit.
We may only be able to SHARE literary(and platonic) means of general rules in pursuit of remote common goods, but we must at least possess the knowledge of, and a caste of people who, specialize in Judgement in matters of conflict, tat relies upon deflationary truth(science) for the purpose of those judgements.
No more lies. The west defeated the rest and dragged man kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, labor, starvation, disease, deceit and tyranny, by the the construction of one commons above all other: deflationary, testimonial, correspondent truth. Despite internal and external resistance at all times. We did it.
And no retreat into eastern mysticism, jewish superstition, greek platonism, continental rationalism, or retention any of the enlightenment fallacies of the nature of man, will resurrect our civilization.
THE TRUTH OF THE FOUNDING INDUSTRIES OF THE WEST: DOMESTICATION OF MAN FOR NECESSITY AND PROFIT
The unwritten, unstated, impolitic history of the west is quite simple: a small number of independent, voluntary, warriors using advanced technology and advanced tactics of maneuver, where tactics were highly dependent upon adherence to oath (contract), sought to preserve their sovereignty( their independence and spoils of war) through continuing a contract of peerage. This retention of sovereignty, and their demonstrated, existential, superiority in action (conflict), leaves only one method of dispute resolution available: markets in everything. War constitutes the most intolerant market we know of, and martial epistemology is the most scientific. And the martial ‘reporting’ that we incorporated into our society as ‘testimony’, has permeated our civilization so much so that we cannot (unfortunately) understand that it is our uniqueness. That the bond of warriors – the oath – is of higher import than the bond of blood in matters of the commons. And it is the multitude of consequences of this bond of testimony – oath- using the epistemology of war (minimalist, deflationary, correspondence), that the aristocracy by practice, the middle class by aspiration, the craftsman class by necessity, and the working class by utility have created The Truthful Civilization and the most expensive commons that man has produced. Meanwhile, the outcast underclasses, the practitioners of gossip: politicians, priests, academics, and public intellectuals have fought against at every opportunity.
The western aristocracy, having domesticated plants, animals, (and in large part, women), ever needing to increase the numbers of fellows possessing AGENCY IN FACT (both intellectual, physical, and existential), created a profitable industry: the domestication of the beast man from dysgenic, ignorant, superstitious, violent, parasitic, predatory, opponent, to eugenically produced human: rational, knowledgable, productive, competitive, through the process of slave, serf, freeman, citizen, and peerage. Humans were not oppressed. The beast man was domesticated through the organized use of violence to prevent his survival except through productivity in a market, and contribution to the informational, normative, institutional, and material commons.
Just as the West evolved by the use of advanced technology, contractualism, truth, and markets in everything to evolve not first, but FASTER than the rest (and earlier) civilizations, the Cosmopolitans have used the advanced technology of mass communication, and the specialization in mass communication by politicians priests, academics, and public intellectuals, and their ‘soldiers’ in the school system, the media, and the underclasses, to rally against, and fight the people who use TRUTH, by the INDUSTRIALIZATION OF LYING. The product they sell is the hope of salvation in the present from Socialism ( discretionary rule over discretionary production, and discretionary allocation of production to individuals, families, and commons) that is the organizing model of the totalitarian flood-plain civilizations of antiquity that profit from the retention and expansion of the underclasses using religion (lying). And the cosmopolitan strategy is nothing other than a reformation of the promise of salvation (utopia) after death that is the source of Egyptian, abrahamic, judaic, christian, and muslim religions of the underclasses and the tellers of comforting lies that organize them.
OUR CHOICES: THE POVERTY OF COMFORT OR THE PROSPERITY OF EFFORT
We can choose between the imperial, dysgenic caste system of large scale underclasses taught by supernatural literature, and conflationary argument, that doctor Peterson seems enamored of, OR we can choose the eugenic production of sovereignty, agency, and equality of norther european warriors and universal militia taught by adherence to the oath, the common law, the decidability of the science (due diligence in testimony), testimonial (deflationary) truth, and producing a smaller and objectively superior majority middle class society in which we are all possessed of agency in institutions, and agency in mind, and agency in the face of a universe yet waiting to be domesticated by our will.
The balanced argument (the market solution that is the product of western civilization) is that we need multiple forms of argument, education, economy, and a market (government) for exchanges of commons between the classes, to suit the needs of people who possess a range of abilities, from those who can but imitate to those who can most radically innovate.
But we can only achieve that diversity (market) of available models for our people, if the means of decidability between them is parsimonious, deflationary, correspondent, Truth that is produced by the due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit that we call ‘science’.
RETURNING TO HUMAN SCALE
Its quite simple. Let a thousand nations bloom. End the empires and let loose the creativity of mankind. Its between empires that we make our rapid evolutions from one condition to another. we can all live in a diverse set of Denmarks (small homogenous egalitarian kin groups with commonality of interest and redistribution) or we can live in large empires (Brazil, India, China, Islam, and the United States) where we evolve once again into castes with high concentrations of wealth, vast underclasses, and stagnation – and the myths, superstitions, and comforting lies we tell ourselves to justify our condition.
What has to change? Bring knowledge, capital, institutions, and norms to people – and expand ‘the good’, not people to knowledge, capital, institutions and norms – and degrade and consume ‘the good’.
There is nothing in western civilization that cannot be copied by moral peoples.. There is nothing in western civlization that cannot be destroyed by large numbers of immoral peoples.
The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
The Philosophy of Western Civilization
The Propertarian Institute
I AM NOT SURE PHILOSOPHY (LITERATURE) IS MUCH HELP
It’s one thing to suspect, another thing to do.
Reading is hard.
Arithmetic is harder is harder than reading.
Accounting is harder than arithmetic.
Programming is harder than accounting
Natural Law is harder than programming.
If you look at the people who have been with us for a long time everyone has gotten better at argument. Some can use the basic arguments. Some people can use the various series. But how many of us can write natural law in operational grammar?
The beauty of Propertarainism is that it contains each of those levels: the historical argument, the causality of Acquisitionism (incentives), The epistemology of Testimonialism, the Ethics (and definitions of unethical) of Propertarianinism, the politics of Market Government, the competition of group evolutionary strategies, the aesthetics of transcendence …. and the logic, grammar, and rhetoric of natural law.
There is something for everyone no matter their level of ability. But just as some people can do arithmetic, some accounting, some mathematics, some programming … only some will be able to write natural law (for example, like James Augustus does intuitively or Joel Davis approaches). Myself I think it is more important for most people to recognize and READ it (just as reading can be taught to most people) than it is to WRITE it (which requires far less effort and ability).
The vast majority of people will learn propertarianism (natural law) from Eli, not me, and can be introduced by William Butchman or others.
Those who can construct grammatical arguments, I think, will be those who come by it intuitively, or who have financial, legal, and programming experience, or who simply work hard at it like any other of the ‘logics’.
The problem for those who study philosophy (literature), is that it is in fact just ‘literature’, and not a STEM discipline (science). And to some degree it anchors you just as religion anchors the theological. Natural Law, like programming, logic, and math, is a STEM discipline.
The difference between programming and natural law is merely that the comparison tests (incentives) of man, and the operations (actions) of man, are mere ‘calculations’, and as such broader, and less limited than the ‘computations’ of machines.
And while the machine checks our cognitive biases due to it’s rigid grammar, we must check ourselves in our arguments by checking our own grammar.
And that is the very hardest part.
THE ERROR OF THE ANCIENTS: TALKING BIZ WAS “OH, SO, BOURGEOISE”
Aside from the conquest of the west by byzantine mysticism, the central problem of western philosophy was thinking and ruling classes avoidance of the centrality of economics. We get philosophy to circumvent the traditional law. And we get science to circumvent the traditional church. And we finally get jewish pseudoscience and puritan outright deceit as ways of circumventing science, economics, an law.
Economics really doesn’t come into being until smith’s combination of it with ethics, morality, and politics, or turn into a science until menger. Then just as the german scientific revolution is about to kick in, we get the wars, and the postwar era keynes replaces pseudoscience with obscurantist immoral mathematics that menger and smith had sought to avoid. Then the americans kick in – so proud they are to have found a way to destroy civilization faster using stocks as money.
Lesson? Get your hands dirty.
1) if we CAN fully expand a sentence, before we test it for internal consistency, and we do not do so, then why? In other words, what is the informational content between an unexpanded sentence, and an expanded sentence? And why would we fail to expand a sentence that can be expanded?
What is the difference between the order of terms in mathematics, the order of terms in set statements, and the order of terms in operational language, and the order of terms in fully expanded natural language, and the order of terms in colloquial natural language?
So if we start with a statement in colloquial language then fully expand it in natural language, then fully expand it in operational language, then it is almost impossible to construct the vast majority of sophomoric pseudo-philosophical questions.
2) The necessity of the prohibition on the verb to-be, (another category of expansion) evolved to prevent stating authoritatively that which is merely subjective opinion. But in addition, it also prevents conflating intention, experience, interpretations, and actions. Of which we can only test actions.
3) Promissory expansion of statements (sentences) evolved to prevent forms of suggestion and conflation. (Instead of Strawson’s light version of performative truth, use promissory – strict -construction that precedes each statement ” I promise that….”
4) In the sequence:
1 – identity (categorically consistent)
2 – logical (internally consistent)
3 – empirical (externally consistent)
4 – operational (existentially consistent)
5 – moral (reciprocally consistent)
6 – fully accounted (scope consistent)
7 – limits and parsimony (limit consistent);
each dimension of which increases the informational content we are testing …. we have the choice of choosing to increase the dimensions that we test, using the methodology capable of testing that dimension, or limiting ourselves to the current dimension’s means of testing.
Now, when we increase the dimensions, we gain new knowledge which we can then use to recursively test each prior dimension by its method.
So why would one choose to test a question by internal consistency rather than external correspondence followed by another test of internal consistency?
5) When testing for internal consistency, we eventually run into the problem of completeness. And while we can construct relatively complete statements axiomatically we cannot do so theoretically (against reality) because of causal density, except in the special cases (reductio).
The Law of Nature “Correcting Aristotle on Categories of Philosophy”
Physical Laws (Transformation) – THE NECESSARY
Physics: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Sentience, Engineering, Mathematics
Law of Man (properties of man) (Action) – THE POSSIBLE
Acquisition, perception, memory, psychology, sociology
Natural Law – Cooperation – THE GOOD
Ethics, morality, law, economics
Law of Testimony – THE TRUE
Testimony, epistemology, grammar, logics, rhetoric
Law of Aesthetics – THE BEAUTIFUL
Sense, beauty, design, craft, content. manners. Fitness
–Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine
Outside of the top 5% in all disciplines:
– Physicists are often ridiculous because either they don’t understand their own subject, or because they lack the philosophical training to know the difference between general rules of the discipline (dogma) and the epistemological necessity that these general rules provide a shortcut for.
– Economists are often ridiculous because either they don’t understand the limits of mathematics, the limits of statistics, and the limits of human cognitive bias, but most importantly, the epistemology that places that their models, methods, explanatory and predictive power that seems to evade them – and is now being supplied by experimental psychology and cognitive science.
– Philosophers are almost universally ridiculous becasue either they ignore what we have learned about epistemology from physics, economics, and cognitive science, or they do not understand the difference between meaning(map) and existence(territory), or because they are subject of dogmas (sets, internal consistency without external correspondence), but most importantly because they do not account for costs on the one hand and rely on a false intuitionistic definition of the good on the other.
– Mathematicians are only slightly ridiculous since their field is the easiest to test, but they seem to ignore the fact that mathematics functions by removing properties from reality, but that all mathematics in application is bound by reality that it ignores. As such we see them confuse the reductio logic of mathematics with mathematical platonism. They confuse the determinism of all axiomatic declarations with mystery rather than the limits of human comprehension that mathematics assists us in extending through symbols and constant relations. They confuse the rate at which operations will produce members of a collection in any period of time, or over so many operations, with the size of the set itself which must always be bound by some limit. They confuse the name of a positional number with the name of a function upon positional numbers that produces a ratio. They seem to have lost sight of the fact that their discipline can either be treated as a science of measurement, or a logic disconnected from reality, or ideal fantasy no different from philosophical and literary adventurism. I could go on at length here with ease.
THERE IS ONLY ONE FIELD: TRUTH (TESTIMONY)
What differs is the instruments we require to inspect. We have invented both methods of inspection (and they’re reductio in almost all cases), and methods of measurement, and methods of decidability.
1 – Reason, Logic, Mathematics, (Reason)
2 – Physics, Chemistry, Biology, (Existence)
3 – Psychology, Sociology, Politics, History, Economy, Law (Cooperation)
1 – Categories, properties, and relations
2 – Logic of comparisons and transformations
3 – Empirical measurements of existential reality
4 – Moral measurements of cooperation
– WITH –
5 – Operational language to articulate all of the above free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit.
– AND –
6 – Full Accounting, Limits, and Parsimony To protect Against Our cherry picking by error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit.
THIS IS HOW WE MUST TEACH HUMANS IN MODERNITY
1 – Strength, Fitness, Sport, Defense, War, Strategy
2 – Mythology, Story, Biography, History, Essay, Diary, Criticism
3 – Self, Friendship, Employment, Partnership, Marriage, Parenting, Managing, Commanding, Ruling
4 – Property, Manners, Ethics, Morals, Natural Law, Evolutionary Strategies
5 – Psychology, Sociology, Economics, Politics, Conflict(War/Crime)
6 – Vocabulary, Grammar, Logic,Testimony(Truth), Rhetoric, Judgement
7 – Reading, Writing, Programming, Strictly Constructed Law
8 – Arithmetic, Accounting, Algebra, Geometry, Statistics, Calculus, (Mathematics of Mind/Cognition <–Note!)
9 – Empiricism(observation and measurement), Physics, Chemistry, Biology, (Sentience <–Note!)
10 – Monuments, Architecture, Arts, Decoration, Music, Plays, (the discipline of creativity: knowledge and free association.)
This curriculum produces skills in all areas of life. If a student can make it through the first half of each, he or she will be adequately prepared for life in modernity.
Rolling three years in each class
Boys and Girls In separate classes
Children start by maturity level, not age, with delay preferable to early entry.
Emphasis should be given to rate of maturity and individual needs so that boys with high testosterone and rapid maturity are given more exercise and those with less and lower more drills.
IMHO Pass Fail, or % is all that is needed, since they will be exposed to the same information repeatedly. I don’t like ‘grades’. As far as I can tell most grades are a reflection of the relationship between the intelligence and maturity of an individual and the artificial standard of the industrial classroom.
(very important for anyone interested in philosophy)
*(How should we teach Philosophy? Let me tell you.)*
One can teach philosophy as historical LITERATURE(Errors, Lies and Failures). Or one can teach philosophy as the evolution of TRUTH TELLING (science).
If you want to teach the history of TRUTH then you teach western philosophy – at least you teach a small subset of it. (A very small one).
If you do teach truth then philosophy is equivalent to a STEM course
1 – Philosophy (science of truthful speech)
2 – Law (social/cooperative science)
3 – Economics (organizational science)
4 – Mathematics ( science of measurement )
5 – Physical Science (physical sciences of the universe)
6 – Technology (physical sciences in materials)
7 – Engineering, (physical sciences in construction)
If you want to teach literature, then teach moral literature.
1 – Mythology, (Non-Conflationary Analogy)
2 – Theology, (Authoritarian/Conflationary Analogy)
3 – Moral Literature, <<—- Almost All ‘Philosophy’
4 – The Novel and Short Story, <<— Incl., Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Mystery, Etc.
5 – History, (description)
6 – Biography,(description)
7 – Argument (coercion)
7 – Essay (opinion)
8 – Poetry and Verse. (expression)
WE MAY DIVERSIFY LITERATURE BY CULTURE LIKE DIET, AND FESTIVALS.
But truth bears no competition. Polylogism cannot exist. All such attempts are merely ignorance, error, bias and lies.
THE WEST EXCEEDED THE REST THREE TIMES.
In the Steppe.(horse, wheel, bronze, heroism (and technology))
In the Ancient World (heroism, truth, reason, jury, natural law, commerce, and technology)
In the Modern World. (heroism, truth, trust, reason, jury, natural law, commerce, accounting, common law, and technology )
For these simple reasons: Truth not compromise, Analytic(non-conflationary), not conflationary, Competition(sovereignty), not Decision(rule).
OTHERS MUST LEARN TRUTH. WE DO NOT NEED TO STUDY ERROR.
LIMITS: SPEAKING IN SEQUENCES (SPECTRA)
I follow a general rule that if I speak in ideal types (concepts) and I cannot position an argument or idea on a spectrum (define its limits) then I do not know what I am talking about, and will unknowingly engage in conflation and imprecision from which no deduction is possible, since each attempt merely amplifies errors of conflation. Yet this is precisely what men do, because most men do not seek to discover uncomfortable (expensive) truth (requiring adaptation) but to justify a utilitarian falsehood (limit costs of adaptation).
PHILOSOPHY = CHOICE/PREFERENCE + DECIDABILITY/NECESSITY
Any Philosophical Framework, no matter which argumentative method is used to construct it (myth, parable, rationalism, pseudoscience, law, or science) must supply the following in order to produce a change in state of the human mind:
1 – Metaphysical value judgment as to man’s relation with reality (usually if not always unstated).
2 – A set of Concepts, Properties, and Relations,
3 – Values for those Concepts and Relations,
4 – Decidability from those concepts, properties, relations, and values.
And in that metaphysical value judgment, and by the means of arguing in favor of it, do we find the differences between civilizations, religions, and philosophies.
– The world is uncontrollable(or evil) and I must escape from it. (Mysticism/Judaism/Christianity/Islam = ‘Critique/gossip’ or ‘fantasy worlds’ or ‘utopias’)
– The world is hostile and I can only control how I respond to it (Buddhism = Disengagement)
– The world of man is chaos but we can create harmony, and I must learn to live in harmony with it (Confucianism = Historicism)
– The world is vast and I can only control and be responsible for what I have the ability to control and be responsible for. (Stoicism = Natural Law)
– The purpose of my existence is to alter the world for the better having existed in it. (Heroism = Technology)
ASSUMPTIONS ARE EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGIES
We are (genetically, behaviorally, materially) more or less desirable to others in our capacity as children, kin, mates, friends, allies, leaders, rulers. We call this our ‘class’: Genetic, Occupational, Economic, Social. All of which overlap except for the outliers.
STRATEGIES ARE GOOD(LIBERATING) AND BAD(IMPRISONING), NOT MERELY DIFFERENCES IN PREFERENCES
So some strategies will lead you into dysgenia, ignorance, decline, poverty and illness (ISLAM). And some strategies will lead you into slow evolution (Confucius), and some strategies will provide you with eugenics and rapid evolution (Western Aristocratic Egalitarianism “Aryanism”, Middle-Class Rule of Law, Working Class Stoicism, Underclass Christianity.)
WESTERN PHILOSOPHY (HEROISM, LAW[natural empirical], TECHNOLOGY[science], REFLECTS CLASSES
(just as Confucius vs Lao Tzu, just as Brahmins vs the Underclasses) Westerners do not engage in institutional conflation. We separate mythic literature(heroism), religion(sanctity), festival/celebration/sport, education, law, science. And we either produce a subset of each for each class, or we emphasize one or another in each class. In other words, we produce conceptual products for various markets (upper, professional, middle, working, lower, under). And because none has any real power via conflation of argument or institution, this market remains: a competition between philosophies (methods of decidability).
WESTERNERS USE DECONFLATED INSTITUTIONS AND ARGUMENTS: SPECIALIZATION NOT UNIFORMITY
This ‘deconflated market’ model is profoundly important when comparing the west to other ‘conflationary monopoly’ civilizations and cultures.
THIS PROVIDES SPECIALIZATION IN EACH TYPE OF ARGUMENT, INSTITUTION
It allows us to specialize in each without sacrificing each out of pragmatic necessity given the diverse abilities of each class (or rather lack of abilities of each class).
THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE NOT (UNTIL NOW) HAD A UNIVERSAL COMMENSURABLE LANGUAGE ACROSS INSTITUTIONS AND ARGUMENT TYPES.
While we have had MONEY to make commensurable good and services across all specializations
While we have had NATURAL LAW to make conflict commensurable across all specializations.
While we have had MATHEMATICS to make everything we measure commensurable across all specializations.
While we have had NATURAL SCIENCE to
We have NOT had a MORAL LANGUAGE OF COOPERATION across all those specializations.
PHILOSOPHY IS LARGELY PRACTICED AS A MIDDLE CLASS AND UPPER MIDDLE-CLASS METHOD OF INFLUENCING THE RULING CLASS (STATUS QUO).
Religion is largely practiced as a lower class means of resisting the ruling class (status quo). Religion coerces man by resistance.
Credit and Trade are practiced as a means of rule by the economic class within the limits fo the religious and legal classes. Finance, Industry, Entrepreneurship, Calculative, Managerial, administrative specialize in organization of production
Law is largely practiced as a means of administrative rule by the ruling class, by employing the professional class, just as war is practiced as a means of territorial rule by the ruling class by employing the working, and underclasses. Law coerces man by force.
Science, technology, engineering, craftsmanship, and labor specialize in transformation (coercing the universe rather than coercing man).
Women specialize in the organization of reproduction, care, and caretaking. They need no ‘religion’ except to confirm the intuitions that they are born with. Festivals, Philosophy, Soldiery are for men. And Religion, Feasts, and caretaking are for women. Not that we cannot preclude one or the other. But this explains the kind of information system (philosophy) we are attracted to: one that justifies our genetic predispositions.
SO PHILOSOPHERS FAILED IN THE 20TH CENTURY
1 – Philosophers tried to make the discipline a SPECIALTY rather than a language of commensurability. (The continued investigation into Truth, since all the other specializations had broken off into sciences,)
2 – Philosophers tried to create a second set of lies, this time with pseudorationalism, and pseudoscience (the cosmopolitans:Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Adorno; Rand/Rothbard; and the Puritans: French, and American literary Postmodernists; And the secular Christians Rawls-and-too-many-others-to-list. )
3 – Philosophers failed to solve the problem of the social sciences (cooperation) and instead used a multitude of deceptions and obscurantisms in order to justify authoritarianism(non-cooperation). This exposes most philosophers as theologians in secular rhetorical garb.
PHILOSOPHERS EITHER ENGAGE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF TRUTH, THE ARTICULATION OF POSSIBILITY, OR THE CREATION OF A FICTION, OR THE CREATION OF DECEIT.
Philosophers have a very poor record in history. Despite so many, it is largely those who struggle to discover empiricism and its offspring ‘testimony’ that have contributed to man. The rationalists are almost universally reducible to excuse makers, and those who attempt to create a rational literature with which to replace biblical literature of mysticism.
Many people who enjoy philosophy are far closer to recreational readers of science fiction and fantasy with which to escape the effort of truth seeking in reality, than inquisitors into truth from which we may construct solutions. We can discover which of these a person is: recreational literature, seeker of a particular solution, or investigator of truth with very few questions and very little difficulty.
Whenever we do not argue in favor of truth we merely deprive Man of the knowledge he needs to invent institutions of cooperation that assist us in cooperating in the real world.
We can use the truth to identify possibilities, or we can deny the truth and create possibilities that require lies (religions) incompatible with reality.
We can create deceptions with which to destroy truth or obscure it.
It is quite easy in retrospect to determine which philosophers have done so.
PHILOSOPHERS AS PROFITEERS ON THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
In other words, philosophers sought a market into which to sell their ideas for profit or coercion, not truth, regardless of profit or coercion.
ROLE OF PHILOSOPHY?
1) Investigate and Prosecute Falsehoods And Their Advocates
2) Incorporate the findings of the sciences such that discover superior truths to those we use today.
3) Discover new possibilities having incorporated the findings of the sciences.
4) Articulate metaphysical representations, Reorganize Concepts, Properties, and Relations, Re-weight Values, and provide new criteria of Decidability.
IS THERE A SPACE FOR LIARS?
No. There is a space for parables. But liars, particularly philosophical liars, should be prosecuted like any other liar that creates a hazard in the commons. Most philosophers function akin to tiger traps baited with words and are completely unaccountable for the tragedy and death that they have caused.
I am a philosopher. As such, a prosecutor. Anything that survives prosecution, and which I am willing to warranty with my life, is worthy of publication into the commons. If either of those conditions fails, then I should be punished for it.
Why should philosophers have greater permissiveness than the manufacturers of ladders, and the brewers of coffee, or the makers of drugs?
They shouldn’t. Because arguably, philosophers and theologians ship the worst product that causes the most harm of any product man has made.
(I know. Everyone wants to play philosopher at everyone else’s expense just like they want to free-ride on everyone else in every other capacity in life. But speech produces consequences. And while we may always say truthful speech produces consequences that we must bear the cost of, there is no reason we must bear the cost of false speech. Especially given how much of it there is, and how expensive it has been for western civilization.)
THE MOST IMPORTANT SEQUENCE
– Testimony(what can I see not infer)
– Logic(reason) and Measurement(math)
– Natural Law
– Micro Economics (incentives)
– Strict Construction
– Rhetoric (argument)
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
THE END OF APRIORISM VS EMPIRICISM
(read it and weep) 😉
1) All domesticatable animals are domesticatable for five reasons. All undomesticatable animals are undomesticatable for any one of them.
2) All human personalities are highly functional for five or six reasons. All dysfunctional families are dysfunctional for any one of those six reasons.
3) All happy families are happy for the same five or six reasons. All unhappy families are unhappy any one of those five or six reasons.
4) All TRUE statements are true because of consistency in six dimensions. All FALSE statements are false because of inconsistency in any ONE of those six dimensions.
5) All analytically true (mathematically true) statements correspondingly model reality because of consistency of correspondence of six dimensions. All analytically false statements are false because they fail to correspond to reality in any one of those six dimensions.
6) Existential(actionable) reality is composed of only so many ACTIONABLE dimensions, followed by only so many CAUSALLY RELATABLE dimensions.
7) The ‘True Name’ (Most Parsimonious Truth) of any phenomenon (set of consistent relations at some scale of actionable utility), can be described by the number, scope, limits, relations, relative change, and ACTIONABLE change, of those dimensions.
1) There exist fundamental laws of existentially possible action and comprehension in the existing universe as it is constructed (and likely must be constructed).
2) These laws can be described theoretically until known, and by analogy, axiomatically once they ARE known. By convention (by honesty and truthfulness) we distinguish between declarative axiomatic systems (analytic), and existential theoretic (existing) systems in order to NOT claim that axiomatic and declarative, and theoretical(laws), are equal in empirical content. They are not. To do so is to conduct either an analogy for the purpose of communication, or an error of understanding, or a fraud for the purpose of deception. We can determine whether ignorance, error, or deception by analysis of the speaker’s argument(error or ignorance) and incentives (fraud), including unconscious fraud (justification).
3) We can theorize from observation and imagination, to understanding (top down) or from understanding to imagination and observation (bottom up). But unless we can both construct (operationally and therefore existentially) as well as observe (empirically, and therefore existential) then we cannot say we possess the knowledge to make a truth claim about a theoretic system or an axiomatic system – although we must keep in mind that axiomatic systems are ‘complete and tautological’ and theoretic statements ‘incomplete and descriptive’.
4) To warranty against falsehood of any Statement, we must perform due diligence upon our free associations, ensuring that we have established consistent limits(invariant descriptions) for each of the dimensions:
i) categorical consistency (identity consistency)
ii) logical consistency (internal consistency)
iii) empirical consistency (external correspondence)
iv) existential consistency (operational correspondence)
v) moral consistency (voluntarily reciprocal)
vi) Scope, Limits and Parsimony (scope consistency)
5) The empirical measurement that Taleb, artificial intelligence researchers, and myself are seeking is how to quantify the information necessary for the human mind to form a free association (a pattern). This unit, if discovered, will be analogous to calories of heat, as the basic unit of state change in information. My theory is that this number, as Taleb has suggested is extremely large (logarithmically so) which accounts for the rarity of intelligence: the amount of memory, and the evolutionary and biological cost of memory, necessary to form even basic relations (free associations) appears to be extraordinarily high.
1) Mises epistemology is false. MIses, Popper, Hayek, Bridgman, Brouwer all had a piece of the problem but they all failed to synthesize their findings into a complete reformation of the scientific method (the method of stating truthful propositions.
– economics is a scientific, not logical discipline.
– the categories mises uses to determine human action are insufficient (and constructed in my opinion as a justificationary fraud just as is Jewish law – which is my interpretation – only causal axis I can find – of why he failed.)
WHAT DID MISES ERR REGARDING?
1) Apriorism is but a special case of Empiricism, just as Prime Numbers are a special case in mathematics, and just as is any set of operations that returns a natural number; and again, is a special case, just as contradiction is a special case in logic.The laws of triangles form a particularly useful set of special cases. (But we must understand that it is because they possess the minimum dimensions necessary for spatial descriptions,)
Note: The human mind evolved to prey upon other creatures. Unlike frogs and cockroaches that just seek the closest dark spot, humans must prey. To prey we must anticipate velocity in time. This is why we can chase something, and we can throw rocks, spears, and arrows at moving things. And why we and canines can model the destination of a thrown or fallen object. But we also evolved the ability to choose. To model one set of conditions and compare it to another set of conditions. And to model the conditions of OTHERS (intentions), and to compare it to other conditions. So this is why we can hold about five things in mind at once before resorting to breaking a ‘vision’ into patterns. (I have elaborated on each of the dimensions elsewhere).
2) Few (possibly no non-tautological, or at least non-reductio) aprioristic statements survive scope consistency (I can find none in economics that are actionable).
3) We can establish free associations(hypotheses) empirically (top down) or constructively (bottom up). But the method of discovery places no truth constraint on the statement. All must survive the full test of dimensions.
4) This does NOT mean that we cannot use a ‘partial truth’ (an hypothesis that does not survive all six dimensions) to search for further associations (partial search criteria). It is this UTILITY IN SEARCHING that we have converted first into reason, second into rationalism, third into empiricism, fourth in to operationalism, and fifth into scope consistency, and sixth into ‘natural law’ or morality or ‘voluntary cooperation’ – volition which is necessary to ensure the information quality in small groups, just as norms and laws are necessary methods of establishing limits in larger groups, just as money is necessary for producing actionable information in very large groups.
5) there is but one epistemological method: accumulate information, identify pattern, search for hypothesis, criticize hypothesis to produce a theory, distribute the theory (speak), let others criticize the theory until it fails, or we create a conceptual norm of it (law), and finally until we habituate it entirely (metaphysical judgment).
6) There is nothing special about physical science other than philosophy was free of COST constraints but held by moral constraints, and science was free of MORAL constraints as well as cost constraints, and judicial law was bound by both.
So by these three disciplines: the imaginary and mental, the cooperative and existential, and the physical – we managed to slowly assemble a sufficient understanding of truth in each of those disciplines, that together we can establish tests for ANY PROPOSITION in ANY DISCIPLINE: Mental, Cooperative, and PHYSICAL by the due diligence of consistency in the dimensions that apply to that instance.
i) Categorical and Logical (mental)
ii) Operational and Existential (physical)
iii) Morality and Scope (cooperative)
The Propertarian Institute