James Augustus · Uncategorized

Via Negativa (Evolutionary Argument) in Historial Explanation

by James Augustus

My central argument is that Europe benefited by having an evolutionary environment that allowed for a high frequency of cultural, institutional and intellectual iterations, and that truth, sovereignty and natural law produce an existential advantage, so that what survived is what we call Western Civilization and its peoples.

It is easy to look back at what survived and construct a rational narrative, but by doing so we are being fooled by randomness as Taleb is so succinct at pointing out.

Evolutionary arguments are superior inasmuch as they point to what didn’t survive (via negativa) deterministically due to selection pressures.

Grammar of Natural Law · James Augustus · Uncategorized

Deflationary Language in Ethics

Mar 01, 2017 6:51pm
James Augustus

I suspect one of the factors contributing to deflationary language in ethics, law and science is that we needed a rational, empirical means of decidability in matters concerning rule, organization and extra-familial cooperation.

(Note that legal realism, contractualism and truth telling (science and it’s precursors) coincided with conquest and colonization of non-kin groups. Myth (context driven means of decidability) doesn’t scale past regulating/adjudicating tribal and familia affairs; Natural Law does because it serves as the only universally decidable means of adjudication between heterogeneous peoples.)

On the institutional level, the West was blessed with a geography that produced a high frequency of warfare in a manner that made institutional monopolies evolutionarily disadvantageous. An institution was able to survive if it wasn’t conflated with the current power structure (think of the Church and it’s relation to political power during the Middle Ages). In othewords, the incentive for institutions was to secure their existence by remaining autonomous/separated from the institutions of rule scince there was constant and frequent shifts in political power—the opposite of China.

These are just loose thoughts. I’ve been mulling this over in hopes that I can write a more formal evolutionary argument for Western Dynamism.

Joel Davis · Uncategorized

The Origins of Civilization: Militia, Property, Marriage

by Joel Davis

Civilization emerges from 3 fundamental institutions:

1) Militia (how to compete in the violence market),
2) Property (how to compete in the production market) and
3) Marriage (how to compete in the reproduction market).

The polity fails or succeeds in competition by the functionality of three institutions. Through success in the violence market, the polity may establish and regulate it’s production and reproduction markets (via property and marriage). The polity regulates these institutions by LAW.

Women were given the power to influence law, they weren’t also given the responsibility to defend societies institutions in the violence market, without this responsibility they lack signals of threats in the violence market required to inform their decisions.

As their interests extended most significantly into the production and reproduction markets, they have voted to progressively destroy the institutions of property and marriage to transfer improved competitiveness to themselves (a logical exercise of self-interest, considering the signaling they’re exposed to).

Without allegiance to the polity established through ‘skin’ in the violence market, allegiance to property and marriage (as institutions of group competitive advantage) naturally lacks also.

We have three options:

– Determine a method of signaling to Women which brings them into allegiance with the group in the violence market (stable husbands and children seem to do this to conservative women).

– Remove enfranchisement from female classes due to the inherent risks to the group in the violence market their collective actions cause.

– Or, potentially a third option.. Find a method of limiting female franchise to women who have a form of “skin” in the violence market (wives/mothers/daughters of men with “skin in the game”)

 

Alex Sea · Uncategorized

For Sovereigns, Truth Is the Only Possible Authority

by Alex Sea

Negotiation vs. Imposition

Two sovereigns must appeal to truth as their ultimate authority – a low cost for them, as they are dealers in truth, but an exorbitant one to those who deal in falsehoods.

The further from sovereignty a party is, the more costly the transaction is, as the sovereign must account for all parties between the two, and he ultimately appeals to truth on behalf of those who appeal to him, or suffers retaliation.

In interactions between sovereign and citizen, the citizen must appeal to sovereign, the sovereign to truth. Between sovereign and Freeman, the Freeman to sovereign, the sovereign to citizen and truth. Etc, down to enemy.

The sovereign’s decision must be bearable to all above the party being directly dealt with and is imposed upon all those below that party – within boundaries that balance the cost of the imposition and their agency.

(flawless Alex. -Curt)

Alex Sea · Uncategorized

On Requiring Truth in All Publication

by Alex Sea

We require truth from all things claiming to present it. If a fictional novel must include the stipulation that “all persons, places, and events herein are fictional and any likeness to real people, places, and events are coincidental or accidental” why can this not be expounded to political, academic, or media endeavors? Imagine CNN running a notice along the scrolling marque stating “all commentary contained in this program is the opinion of newscasters and is not intended to be a concrete representation of factual information, unless otherwise stated”. Imagine the current versions of “social science” course materials being marked as “social commentary”. Imagine current “history” textbooks being instead sold as what they really are – propaganda tools.

In this way, truth would be required of ALL – either you only present truthful statements, or you must clearly declare that you are not. Fiction is fine so long as it as known to BE fiction.

Joel Davis

Against Platonic Forms

by Joel Davis and Curt Doolittle

As I understand it, adherents to belief in Platonic Forms believe they literally exist, in some form or another, as if there’s some extra portion of reality beyond verifiable observation in which they exist.

[ Moreover they are unable to articulate their ideas by reference to existential reality, such as when we refer to the invisible forces of the universe, then to the constant relations between them; or when we refer to a unicorn as a mythical character consisting of a conflation of horse, eagle, and antlers; or when we say that the numbers refer to positional names. ]

I see Empiricism as a practical method – it gives us a process of verification and testing to follow which we can demonstrate via its’ success at informing successfully predictive conceptions of the operation of the reality which we mutually observe.

I don’t believe empiricism describes some truth about the universe, I don’t claim our mutually verifiable observations are necessarily objective truth, I merely claim that we seem to have psychological motivations to pursue/avoid specific consequences from our interaction with the sensation of our mutually verifiable observations, and that methods which enable us to conceptualize it with less ignorance, error, and bias improve our capacity for developing successful strategies in pursuing consequences we desire.

So in this sense, when discussing the “reality” of our mutually verifiable observations, empiricism has demonstrated it’s superior capacity to extract useful “truth” from our perception, whereas platonic forms have no verifiable basis in observations, they can have no observable source but imagination, so essentially they’re just people guessing, and even if they are correct, they would be correct by accident.

I don’t find it ridiculous for someone to make a conceptual claim about my experience, then demonstrate the success of the concept in predicting my observations of transformations of states.

But, I do find it ridiculous when people attempt to pass off our imaginary constructs as “truth” without demonstrated evidence. Why?

Because…
0) imaginary constructs may in some senses be testable for internal consistency.
1) And in some cases, one might demonstrate external correspondence.
But…
2) One simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of CAUSALITY.
3) And lacking observability, one cannot testify to CAUSALITY.
4) Ergo we can convey MEANING between constant relations by speaking platonically, just as we convey MEANING between inconstant relations by literature. But we cannot convey causality, and therefore cannot warranty causality, and as we are unable to warranty causality, we are unable to warranty to the truthfulness of our statements.

This is why mathematicians can ‘get away with’ speaking platonically: they test only for internal consistency, not causality. And that lack of understanding of causality – is why there is such confusion and ignorance over the foundations of mathematics.

When one talks about math in platonic terms he demonstrates he does not understand its construction, and cannot testify to it. Therefore he never claims truth full correspondence but proof – mere internal consistency.

Why is this important? Not because mathematicians do not understand the very simple technique that they employ by specializing in tests of internal consistency of constant relations. They don’t. They understand its success in describing the physical world.

The success of mathematics in the physical sciences (and failure in social sciences) is caused by the fact that the universe consists of constant relations, and we do not know yet their first causes. So internal consistency and external correspondence assist us in describing with increasing precision those constant relations until such point as we can guess those first causes.

However in human actions, we do not possess constant relations, only constant patterns (symmetries) of relations. And In human thought, we do not possess many boundaries at all – or rather, we lack the means of testing those boundaries of imagination. So the problem is much harder than mathematics is able to solve by tests of constant relations – math can only assist us in taking measurements whereby we attempt to identify constant intermediary patterns, despite the kaleidic distributions of our outcomes.

What we seek is causality. Because we seek to permit man to act to take advantage of the current state of the universe, and acting such that we outwit the current deterministic path of some part of it and capture the energy for our use.

Moreover, since actions are expensive, and humans engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit, we must conserve our energy as well as evade parasitism by others, and to do so requires we test enough dimensions of reality against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit, to preserve our accumulated interceptions of changes in state of reality.

Joel Davis · Uncategorized

Reproductive Strategies and Markets

by Joel Davis
A polity can only generate the sovereign power necessary to establish and defend itself via competitiveness in the violence market.

Production (Brotherly) and Reproduction (Motherly) Strategies obviously require cultivation to successfully compete fundamentally in intergroup Violence (Fatherly).

Without production you lack weapons technology and food and shelter for your soldiers, without reproduction you lack soldiers.

However, through the institutions of property and marriage, individuals compete individually within the polity with one another for individual success.

In the institution of military, individuals must cooperate for the good of the group, they sacrifice their individual potential cost to accrue benefits to group fitness.

Fundamentally, participation in intergroup violence brings the individual’s interests in allignment with the group’s interests.

Individuals who merely compete in the markets for production and reproduction lack this grounding, they compete with the other members of their polity on behalf of themselves, not each other, hence they require regulation through the institutions of property and marriage to limit negative externalities from their behaviour. If given power, these people will rationally vote in their self-interest to transfer wealth to themselves, not the collective interest to transfer wealth to their group.