A Conversation With Joseph Pierce

(probably a distant relative)

A well intended, reasonably intelligent fellow, who does have a grasp of what he speaks. I didn’t quite catch his meaning the first time through or I would have addressed it sooner and more directly. And that is, that CREATIVITY(free association for the purpose of opportunity discovery) and DECIDABILITY(truth for the purpose of dispute resolution in matters of harm) represent two ends of the epistemological spectrum.

So the individual wants to identify opportunities, and the polity wants to prevent harm from the opportunities seized by individuals.

The epistemological process follows from free association (imagination), to hypothesis (untested but articulated), to theory (survives testing by the speaker), to law (survives testing by application in a multitude of circumstances, to the point where we cannot find a reason it is false.)

We can certainly engage in all the free association and hypothesizing we desire to, as long as we do not make truth claims about it, thereby testifying that our free associations have been tested and therefor warrantied to be free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit.

Now, Ive written extensively about how to perform this testing – due diligence – so I wont’ go into it here other than to list the tests. And the point being not that we must always satisfy all tests, because sometimes we lack teh information to. But if we do testify (make a truth claim) then we must in turn, state those due diligences that we have performed and those that we have not.

– categorical consistency (identity)
– internal consistency (logically consistent)
– external consistency (empirically correspndent)
– existentially possible (operationally consistent)
– morally consistent (consisting of voluntary exchanges)
– parsimonious, limited, and fully accounted. (the proposed limits of the claim.)

If one can survive those tasks, (and i know for certain that most cannot), then one can make a truth claim, stating that his testimoy does no harm.

If not, he can’t.








—-“The original post is just a rehash of empiricism. It has been pointed out consistently by myself (and I’m sure others as well) that prosecuting (via empirical observation) is yet another pernicious myth. Truth is not observable and quantifiable in the temporal, impermanent world of persistent motion.

The discursive intellect (which Curt utilizes) is nothing more than a survival heuristic conflated with the suprarational.

Amendment: Certain ‘truths’ can be observable and quantifiable. But the discursive intellect can only handle certain phenomena within human scale. Humanity cannot control much, but what he can control, he utilises for survival.”—Joseph Pierce

Please Define ‘True’ and ‘Truth’.

—“‘Define?’ “Definitions” require boundaries, and thus you’re already framing your inquiry around an a priori, objectified, categorized, tautological assumption on the nature of ‘thinking’ of truth in temporal space and time. Language is limited, and even I on this point fail to communicate the pleroma of Truth. The best I can say is that “Truth” is beyond existence (existence presupposing boundaries, definitions, measurement), and is non-relatable, yet can accommodate into temporality and causal personhood. Reminds me of the philosophy of the Tao, or the Western Via Negativa. Nothing and Everything simultaneously.”—Joseph Pierce

INTERJECTION: I should have gone directly to the difference between true(decidable and moral) and useful(preferable and amoral). What I translate this paragraph to is: “why can’t I create free associations? Why should my inquiry into life and the universe be limited to the true?” Well it shouldn’t. But if you conflate the imaginary with the true that’s causing damage to the commons. So it’s your ARGUMENT that is immoral, not your intent.

Of course, if you can’t define something you can’t make a deduction from it only a free association. And that is precisely how you achieve your nonsense argument.

It’s very different to say “I can get away with finding a relationship between A and B” and “If A, then of necessity, therefore B”. The second is a deduction, the first is an excuse.

Like I said you folk are in the excuse-making business.

There are many kinds of fraud. You are specializing in one of them.

The strange thing is you don’t even really know it.

—“By what standard do you make these claims? Why must an object be reducible to perpetual deduction? Who says this is the standard? Does Curt Doolittle, or empiricism or both?

Argumentum ad verecundiam. Appeal to authority. Empiricism is to be questioned here as a questionable authority of deductive reasoning.

Appealing to this authority, this illusory human heuristic is risible. It’s okay to use cautiously within human scale, but when you apply this model to the metaphysical real (religion) you run the risk of category error.”— Joseph Pierce

The way adults make the same statement is this:
– In a tautology, (or name) the information is identical.
– In a truth statement, the information is perfectly parsimonious without being identical.if identical it is a tautology. the absence of information yet the retention of correspondence is what separates a truth statement from a tautology or ‘name’.
– In a theory, or law, the statement is tested but is not perfectly parsimonious – and if it is we cannot not know it is.
– In a hypothesis the statement is untested, and we have no idea whether it is parsimonious or even a truth candidate. It is the result of free association only not causal dependence.

The standard by which I make this claim is three-fold:

(law)(economics)(science) I suppose I don’t need to cover this – it’s ovbvious that the common law evolved for the purpose of resolving disputes. I suppose that it’s obvious that science relies upon the scientific method: the systematic attempt to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit from words and deeds. (that’s all the scientific method does).

The reasons that we demand truthfulness are the following:
a) your personal choice in word and deed.
b) the effect upon those whom you speak and act with.
c) externalities produced by your words and deeds
d) decidability in matters of conflict over your words and deeds.

In other words, the reason we demand truthfulness from one another is the damage you cause to others, and the costs that your error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit places upon others. And the resolution of disputes caused by your words and deeds. And the restitution you must pay for the damage caused by your words and deeds.

Now in theory, just as whatever you do in your bedroom is no one’s business as long as it is voluntary. And just as whatever you do in the rest of your home is no one’s business as long as they are unaware of it. Whatever it is that goes in in your crazy little head is no one’s business, as long as it causes no harm to others.

The problem is, when you do cause harm, we need a method of conflict resolution, and we USE a method of conflict resolution, and natural law and physical law, both of which are empirical systems, is how we can and do resolve conflicts.

So the purpose of truth is to resolve conflict: provide decidability. And the reason we provide decidabily is to prevent violence in retaliation for your words and deeds, which increases the cost exported upon others by your words and deeds.

What you and your ‘kind’ refer to as “truth” consists in the conflation of that which is preferable to you, and the words and deeds that you use to attempt to obtain it. (Even though it appears that the only benefit you get from this deceit is a psychological falsehood that gives you confidence or justification for doing what you wish, or believing what you wish. In both cases denying reality.)

So it is MORALITY that is the authority we appeal to when we seek decidability.

And if you wish to speak and act immorally, in an effort to provide yourself with emotional confidence and security, then you will of course bear the consequences of doing so – one of which is to be shamed for.

In a better world we could sue you for harmful public speech, and force you to keep your self-deceits to yourself. In this world we must just argue with and shame you for the harm you do by spreading lies. But hedonistic self-expression and damage to the informational and normative and institutional commons is the fashion of our age. A luxury good we have tolerated – and perhaps tolerated too long.

So you see, we have historical empirical UNCONSTRUCTED evidece (meaning naturaly occuring evidence) of what constitutes the ethical, the moral, and the true. It’s called the common or natural law.

But at this point if I try to educate you it will burn a lot of my time and be of questionable value to me.


Leave a Reply