Origins, Yali’s Question
( … ) Yali’s Question
- (Begin with a goal.) narrative of yali’s question….
- What happened to our cargo?
So, What Went Wrong?
- So, the real question is, what went wrong?
- And first we must understand what went right.
- And we must understand that what circumstances changed such that what we did in the past is no longer valuable, useful, possible today and it may be harmful.
- And this cuases us to deeply reform almost everything in our presumptions, thinking, culture and institutions as much or more than we reformed our thinking, culture, and institutions in the reformation, industrial, and scientific revolutions
CD: add, exhaustion of opportunity…
What Went Right?
( … )
Historical Context – The Revolutions
( … )
What Did Go Wrong?
The Failure of Philosophy
There are at least six dramatic changes to human thought over the past century or more that have not propagated into the discipline and history of philosophy. There are more, but these six are the foundation of most if not all
First, the change of the primacy of mathematics(deduction) to the primacy of computation (construction), as computation is causal and mathematics is only descriptive, and as mathematical reducibility is limited, and computational is unlimited.
Second, the change from non-causal set logic to causal supply-demand logic. And subsequently the change of terms for concepts from sets (ideals) to spectra: measurements (reals).
Third, the first rule of grammar consists in the requirement for “Continuous recursive disambiguation to the limit of ambiguity called identity”. This constitutes the law of formality in any logic, from common idiomatic to colloquial to formal writing, to formal logic.
(Goodbye to philosophical word games. There are no more paradoxes, only bad grammar, constructed for purposes of deception by suggestion. So goodbye to all pretense of profundity in Philosophy. 😉 )
Fourth, we’ve discovered the first rule of the universe, and while it can be described using multiple expressions, like the third rule above, it consists of evolutionary computation of continuous recursive disambiguation of energy into persistent relations resisting entropy.
From every set of stable relations computed by random to deliberate association, the universe calculates a limit of stable relations, and the resulting set of transformations (states, nouns) exposes a set of possible operations (actions, verbs).
And from that new limited set of stable relations made possible by the previous set of operations, new recombinations (computations of stable relations) are discovered. And likewise upon discovery of their limited recombinations, exposes a new set of operations.
We refer to each stage of the sequence of stable relations and operations as a ‘discipline’ of the sciences – or at least have tended to, can, and following the law of disambiguation, should, at least for our own subsequent good.
As such, b/c the law of grammar, and the law of the universe are identical, then by market competition for disambiguation, (verisimilitude), we gradually discover the most parsimonious formal (operational), paradigm, grammar, logic, vocabulary, and syntax: language of truth.
And that formal language must consist of subjectively testable vocabulary and logic that are reducible to analogy to possibilities of human experience: physical, logical, and yes, even emotional. Because our faculties are our only system of measuring consistency: logic.
And that formal logic in that formal language now assist us in disambiguating the efficiency of informal language as a means of transferring meaning by suggestion, into truthful and erroneous, biased, untruthful, deceptive, fraudulent, and criminal speech.
Ergo the permissiveness of philosophy and theology that are open to use for deception is eliminated via grammatical closure (more elsewhere if this is too much of a leap for you.)
Fifth (ethics, morality) Likewise, (and this will be difficult) there’s no aspect of human existence that isn’t gated (limited) and subject to the same laws of continuous recursive disambiguation into persistent stable relations (life, survival, reproduction).
Memory, prediction, and cooperation allow us to engage in debt and credit with one another. But the calculation of stable relations (survival) is determined by voluntary reciprocal cooperation and exchange – and all others are losses. There’s no vacation from entropy.
As such as evil< immoral< unethical< amoral >ethical >moral >virtuous are decidable independent of opinion. We may all negotiate from different conditions and voluntary reciprocity may vary in cultural context. But ethical to moral questions are as decidable as any other.
This decidability of cooperative, ethical, moral questions, is the reason for convergence by adversarial competition (or verisimilitude) of international law, the common law, and natural law, and the formal natural law as I’ve reduced it to a formal logic in my work.
Sixth, the universe begins calculation with pressure that produces what we refer to as polarity because it has nowhere to release the pressure except outward in expansion and inward to stable relations that resist entropy.
As such the universe only has available a logic of +(more negative entropy) ,-(more entropy),= (stable relation), and collapse (neutral, null, nothing). Continuously calculating expansion (entropy) or persistence (negative entropy, mass ).
This limit creates a ternary logic undecidable >possibly true >false. The equivalent logic of cooperation at the end of long chain of disciplines(logics) culminating in cooperation is consumptionproduction, with irreciprocity (parasitism, predation) as collapse.
(another jump) This ternary logic of cooperation results in three means of influence: seduction, trade, force. This leads to specialization in each. This leads to elites. This leads to institutions. The order of institutions leads to differences in civilizational strategies.
In closing, it may not be clear that this means that just as there is applied chemistry to be discovered but the periodic table of states and operations is all but complete, that the formal logic of all states and operations at all scales is complete. Decidability exists.
Now, do I expect many people to follow this chain of reasoning, condensed to a handful of tweets? Hmmm not really. But it is a framework for discussion that will always and everywhere result in confirming each of those six points. And via that evidence, my argument.
If you want to understand more, then follow me (us). It appears to take about the same amount of time as a STEM degree to understand all of the above. And because like many scientific discoveries, it slaughters our most sacred individual and cultural cows without mercy.
But for those with the will, and the intellectual honesty, you will discover that philosophy, which previously consisted of developing paradigms of decidability and choice in a domain, has now been disambiguated fully from science, logic, and law.
And so closure is visible on the horizon. And when that happens -and it’s in the process of happening – what will man do without mystery that provides relief from the limits of reality -and instead is limited to overcoming the limits of reality,with all the effort entailed?
As such, that is the great, singular, open question of Philosophy. It’s one that science and logic cannot answer. 😉
The Naive Presumption of Western Metaphysics, Strategy, Religion, Philosophy, Law, and Science
(victorian nonsense etc)
The Failure of Religion
( … )
The Failure of History to Capture Western Civilizational Strategy
The Failure of the Academy – Assisting in rule to jobs, and merit to credentialism
The Failure of the Court
The Failure of the Constitution (AND LAW)
The Failure of the State
The Failure of the Monarchies
The Failure of the Military
The Problem of Blame
causality, responsibility, vs blame
True and False vs Desirable and Undesirable
( … )
The Problem of Cost of Bias, Anchoring, and Change
( … bias … )
The Problem of Metaphysics, Anchoring, and Change
( … )
The Innovation of Western Civilizational Strategy
The Naive Presumption of Mathiness
( … )
The Failure of the Computational Revolution
The Failure to Complete the Scientific Revolution
The Failure of The Equality Hypothesis
The equality problem: The Male Female Cognitive Differences Here? (I THINK SO) attempt to justify equality. And it was false. and this why…. coming to the exhaustion of that. We have already exahuste the opportunity of the introduction of women into economy academy and polity, and it’s producing negative returns.
THE FAILURE OF THE NEW MAGICAL THINKING
The Counter-Revolution Against The Scientific Revolution
The Industrialization of Lying
The Big Lies
The Method of Lying
The Cycles of History
( … )
“The center is the only moving part, so we address the center”
( POSE THE BIG QUESTION… lead into the risks … of delay, inaction, ect (do the series) ). (prevent the near left from the “coffee klatch” into the wee hours)
(Brad wants me to address: Want to make it understood that talking to the philosophers is near akin to talking to the fundamentalists – a waste of time that we don’t have – so we don’t have time to engage in idle banter with the trolls. not lulled into a trap of dialectics that are emotionallyl but not logically or empirically consistent.)
ADD: Why can’t we fix this? Why the division, fragmentation? Understanding permits overcoming.
Why can’t we coalesce? Come to compromise? why can’t we even undrestand each other? (left-> right <> male female <> frames vs subframes
( … )
- War by other means.
- war (n.): late Old English wyrre, werre “large-scale military conflict,” from Old North French werre “war” (Old French guerre “difficulty, dispute; hostility; fight, combat, war;” Modern French guerre), from Frankish *werra, from Proto-Germanic *werz-a- (source also of Old Saxon werran, Old High German werran, German verwirren “to confuse, perplex”), from PIE *wers– (1) “to confuse, mix up”. Cognates suggest the original sense was “to bring into confusion.” … the opposite of order: Chaos. – physical disorder, vs. social and informational disorder.
- NOTE: The nature of an enemy (answer Brad’s want of clarity on the intentionality of an enemy) –They think they’re right (they’re wrong)
- NOTE: (The solution…defeat an enemy on its terms.)