I Know This Line Of Inquiry Is Frustrating for Friends

I want to also chime in that I am thankful for the  friends who support, follow, resist, challenge me on my journey every day. I have made and lost both. And I know that my current line of inquiry is really exasperating for some – if not offensive. (It would have been offensive to me at some point in my learning curve.) But I am pretty confident I will solve the rest of the problem of preventing deception in politics within the next six months to a year. I can sense it. I just cannot say it quite yet. But even then, I am quite sure, that my articulation of ancient indo-European truth, testimony, operationalism and instrumentalist, will make it possible to construct a line of thinking that if enough of us practice will make deception nearly impossible by verbalist means. And if that is true, then we can construct the common law such that we that treat truth as the same commons of forgone opportunity as as property, and prohibit the involuntary transfer of property of all types not just by fraud or omission, or by indirection, but by obscurantism, loading, framing and overloading. This may seem terribly alien, and of course, one could run with this idea as others have recently, but they are merely confused about when property is transferred. We are certainly able to conduct whatever private exchanges we want. But to attempt to use the commons as a vehicle for theft is something we can prevent. And we can now look at both the third to fifth century and the mid nineteenth through twenty-first century as eras by which an aristocratic commons was used for the purpose of theft and corruption on brutal scales. And we must understand the meaning of that statement. An aristocratically constructed TRUST commons, as well as its formal institutions of academia, and its commercial institutions in the media, was used to distribute deceptions by obscurantist analogy. Lies that are only possible under aristocratic, testimonial, truth.

Falsehoods, Assumptions and Justifications

Marxists assume people will voluntarily work (if they are honest).

Libertines (Libertarians) assume people will voluntarily be honest (if they are honest).

Neocons assume people desire democracy (if they are honest).

And each of those assumptions is clearly false.

Why is it that we accept falsehoods?

Is it nothing more than our genes causing words to come out of our mouths?

We Can *Suggest* Liberty Is Better for All…

Yes, we can suggest that liberty is better for all, but that doesn’t stand scrutiny. Yes, liberty,for at least some of us, is a better social order for all. And probably, Liberty for those who desire it, and socialism for those that don’t, is better for all, than liberty for all.

But we do not do what is better for us. We smoke, eat fattening carbs, fail to get exercise, waste time on vapid entertainment, spend money we don’t have, marry bad mates out of fear and desperation, have too many children, practice unsafe sex, operate dangerous machines when intoxicated – including the dangerous machines of our bodies and mouths. And that is just the little stuff.

Liberty is a minority philosophy favored by the natural aristocracy at all levels of society. It cannot ever exist as a majority system outside of a large extended family (tribe). It can exist for that aristocracy, if, as in the past, that aristocracy fights to preserve liberty, and allows all others to join the contract of liberty at will.

But liberty cannot be outsourced any more than can thinking.

Free riding on that level of risk isn’t possible.

Consequences: The Unloaded Language of Autistics

It is interesting, as an autistic, who thinks in almost entirely spatial terms, and who, for many, many years, as struggled to find a language for communicating those ideas in as unloaded form as I visualize them (and found it), to watch one’s own skill improve with constant practice, to the point where one sees all humans making similar mistakes using loaded language of convention that they do not understand except as loose associations. Whereas as an autistic a loose association is extremely uncomfortable, if not disturbing – something to be avoided at all costs. We lacked (prior to the work I’m doing) a language for communicating ‘loaded’ social concepts in unloaded form, and had to rely on the closest analogies available (physics and science) as proxies. But those analogies are only that – not descriptions, but analogies, and human behavior is not, like the physical universe, insulated from heuristic and constant changes in relations, methods, and properties.

I have always been able to identify autistic speech, but it wasn’t until recently that I understood that we all do exactly the same thing – sense a reality that we have no words for, and cannot quite complete, and frustratingly use analogies unsuited to the application to express those ideas. These analogies are useful because they lack the loading that rather ‘poetic’ human discourse develops with use, like the marks in an old an still functioning machine part – still useful for the original purpose but no longer suitable for the fine work it was originally designed to produce.

Normals do not shy from loaded speech – they revel in it. They use it to attempt to persuade or lie to one another that the world is, or should be one way or another. Truth is undesirable unless it advances that world view. And our world views are but representations that suit our reproductive strategies. Truth is for aristocracy.

Is propertarianism but the logical consequence of attempting to solve autistic speech in the social sciences? Its Propertarianism – the formal logic of cooperation – merely the natural result of an autistic mind’s frustration at the inability to express ideas in unladen form? Am I just a genetic machine, probabilistically, if not deterministically, producing an available output given that the patterns developed in multiple fields of inquiry made such a leap possible given human ability to form parallels between patterns of limited difference?

I don’t really like to think about life in those terms, because it’s dehumanizing. But I suspect that is closer to the truth than not.

I wonder if propertarianism can help all autistics, as it can help normals. But I suspect that the truth it provides us with is further alienating.

He who breeds wins, and the locusts breed better than the lions.

Looking From The Shoulders of Giants

No one in history has made it this far. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that, sure. But it’s a more humbling recognition of the human condition than I want to really accept. And it feels a bit like standing on the edge of a canyon looking into the abyss. “What lies beyond here?”

Why is the answer, in retrospect, so obvious, but the the near universal human desire to rail against such an answer, and resort to comforting imagination so passionate?

I am getting my arms around it and I do understand how, I think, but I don’t understand WHY yet. And I think that while I can reason it out from the evidence, that scientists will need to determine whether or not its genetic.

I always assume the HBD folks are overstating things. But I am beginning to think there is some truth to the ***tendency*** to bias very sophisticated ideas in certain directions just as strongly as we bias our behavior in justifying outright reproductive, and reproductively moral (reproductive strategy) directions.

If so, we are far more automatons than I really would like us to be.

I do not want all of our history of thought scientific, secular and mythical to be little more than a dance of justification to reach the nash equilibrium.


Popper’s Cosmopolitanism

(worth repeating)

I increasingly position Popper as trying to defend against the authoritarian use of science promoted by the (pseudo)scientific socialists. And his moral propositions are true, albeit not much of an advance on Socrates’ less elaborate one: that wisdom is knowing our ignorance, and being none-to certain of anything, that we are willing to coerce others to common ends.

And like all cosmopolitans he is ALSO, at every moment resisting anglo empiricism, political truth, and the requirement that we contribute to the commons. Like the rest, he seems to want to preserve ethical dualism, central to the cosmopolitan mission. Whereas objective truth is a political construct, cosmopolitan truth is not – it is either authoritarian on one hand, or dualistic, preserving choice independent of objective truth, but never political. (This is a really complicated and really fascinating line of thought I’m working on, and I haven’t reduced it to something tolerably digestible yet. But as someone else said, I think it’s a superior to the Hegelian hypothesis of cultural differences.)

But like all the cosmopolitans, Popper seems to have resorted to their strange fascination with getting it only half right, and fudging the rest with elaborate conflation of existence, experience, and objective experience through the mere use of experiential language. This is very consistent with jewish literature, which is the most sophisticated justificationary philosophy humans have ever invented. Muhammed couldn’t rely on the same intellect so he just reduced the same ideas to authoritarian commands. The Chinese wrote in hedged moralisms justified by harmony (balance) – but they honestly could not solve the problem of politics, because the very idea was an anathema. The europeans celebrate aspirational falsehoods (democracy) in part because politics is an aristocratic status signal – and in most of the west, participation and contribution mandatory.

I see what the cosmopolitans are doing now, but I am not sure how it’s possible. I mean, in Heidegger you can see it and in Kant you can see it, but in both cases it’s in the aristotelian sense: objective. These are products brought to market. Cosmopolitan ideas are authoritarian prognostications positioned as truths. While all of the cosmopolitans retain subjectivity by verbal conflation.

I want to ask Agassi about this because he dances all around the subject in his recent book, which I’ve read, twice now, but I think I might piss him off. (Honestly I got more out of his analysis of popper’s context than all other writers combined. It’s literally delicious to read. I dont think I really understood Feyerabend’s motives until I read Agassi.)

So, I think, probably within a year or at the outside two, I will figure out they how, what and why, of the technique they are using, and I can put an end to that form of obscurantism too. Not that I care about Popper, but because of all the less noble applications of that technique.


Existential, Experiential, and Objective

(worth repeating)

Humans are usually, when not defective, capable of reasoning – meaning comparing and contrasting properties, methods and relations, then forecasting, then ranking and choosing – usually without much introspective requirement – although our abilities to do so differ vastly. Very often we use language to organize these thoughts, which then frames the thoughts themselves by the language available to the speaker.

One can be sentient (aware of changes in state of memory) and willing, but not able to make rational judgements. (see Sacks). One’s rational judgements can be internally consistent, and therefore self-justifiable as rational, but externally non-correspondent (false) and therefore objectively non-rational. (or more easily stated, an individual may be too incompetent or ignorant to make an objectively rational assessment.)

So while we use the term ‘rational’ categorically, we cannot ‘cheat’ and because of that verbalism, conflate the existence, the experience, and the measure. This is also the technique used by the postmoderns, of whom Heidegger is the most advanced, in their attempt to restate truth as experiential rather than objective. For him, Being is experiencing, not acting. This is an elaborate defense of hedonic ignorance. The most anti-rational set of ideas yet made.

It is possibly not obvious that advocating both Popper’s Platonic Truth, and your above statement that we “ARE” rational (which is also an obscurant use of the verb to-be) with as Experiential Truth, is itself a contradictory definition of Truth. We may use language to mask the point of view, but points of view are different: existential, experiential, and objective are three different points of view.

(I suspect this might be brain-frying, because I have to actually pay attention when I’m writing it myself this morning) lol Operational language, constant awareness of the ‘fungibility’ of empty verbalisms, has helped me avoid these mistakes.

No. More. Guilt.

I wish I could bottle the experience of the transformation of life in the early 80’s after the tragedy of the 60-77 period. Star wars started the new positive mythos. Reagan restored confidence, discourse and hope. Gibson and Scott gave us visions of a technological rather than warfare future. Technology promised economic opportunity. Studios produced moral movies with white characters, a hint of pagan magic and christian justice, after a decade of degeneracy.

That brilliance lasted through the 2001 collapse, and the 2002-2008 period that followed was but a temporary interwar peace funded by transfer of excesses into the housing market – America’s most important and nearly exclusive industry.

I knew the end was nigh because our advantages were consumed.

We have made moral and yet self destructive and world harming policies since the first world war.

We are not the worlds parent. We cannot defend Brittania – something she herself would not do. We cannot defend europa. Had the world degenerated into the poverty of communism and had we crushed the communists and socialists at home with the ruthless violence they deserved, then we would still be the wealthiest people on earth, and the rest still wallowing in socialist poverty.

But we killed europa to constrian germany against the moral corruption of england, and we sacrificed ourselves to constrain communism.

All so that we would not feel guilty crushing local socialists, most of whom we had only recently allowed to immigrate.

No. More. Guilt. It drives us to actions we are indeed guilty for.

How Do Family Structures Vary?

INTERESTING QUESTION: How do family structures vary?

The family structure determines:

the amount of inbreeding
the inheritance system
the private property rights that originate with the inheritance system
the degree of trust extended to non-family members, with inbreeding producing lower overall trust, and outbreeding higher trust.
the degree degree of authority necessary to maintain order (prevent violence in retaliation for unethical and immoral actions.)
the level of corruption demonstrated by members of the government, since they are merely members of society in a position to abuse authority.
the mobility of labor, since the larger the family structure the harder it is to move it to capital.
the economic velocity of the polity (wealth).

Conversely increase in family size determines:

the degree of alienation and loneliness, since family members treat you almost always better than others will.
the stress of raising children, since sharing child rearing across generations is so much easier.
The redistribution family members provide each other with.
the insurance from the vagaries of the economy and life
the demand for the state to provide all of the above in the absence of the family that the state has destroyed in pursuit of economic velocity.


STATE FINANCED SINGLE PARENT FAMILY – Medium term and short term pairings with or without a marriage ceremony that produces offspring, whereupon the parents cease cohabitation, and state redistribution finances directly or indirectly the support of the mother’s household.


ABSOLUTE NUCLEAR FAMILY – The “absolute nuclear” family is liberal and non-egalitarian (that is, indifferent to equality). Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is freely distributed by will.
NUCLEAR FAMILY, EGALITARIAN NUCLEAR – The “egalitarian nuclear” family is liberal and egalitarian. Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is equally distributed, implying at least a vestigial necessary link between parents and children throughout their lives.


EXTENDED FAMILY, STEM FAMILY, AUTHORITARIAN FAMILY – The “stem” family is authoritarian and inegalitarian. Several generations may live under one roof, notably the first-born, who will inherit the entirety of property and family headship (and thus perpetuate the family line). Other children typically leave the home to get married or become priests/soldiers.

A family that extends beyond the immediate family, consisting of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins all living nearby or in the same household. The stem family is sometimes associated with inegalitarian inheritance practices, as in Japan and Korea, but the term has also been used in some contexts to describe a family type where parents live with a married child and his or her spouse and children, but the transfer of land and moveable property is more or less egalitarian. In these cases, the child who cares for the parents usually receives the house in addition to his or her own share of land and moveable property.


TRADITIONAL FAMILY, COMMUNITARIAN FAMILY – The “communitarian” family is authoritarian and equal. Several generations live under the same roof until the eldest die and the inheritance is divided equally.
HETAERISTIC MONOGAMY – Monogamy with frequent extra marriage sexual relations.
PAIRING FAMILY, SERIAL MARRIAGE – Medium term pairing of individuals either in patrilineal or matrilineal property systems.
CONSANGUINE FAMILY – three generations of interrelated individuals live together (pre-polynesian) without any prohibition on relations. Property is irrelevant in this system.

For Aspies: Understanding Normals

(Normals talk about meaningless nonsense all the time. we can learn to talk about meaningless nonsense too. it’s kind of hard at first to imagine meaningless nonsense, or even why you’d care about it. but it’s a product that the market wants, and if you want to obtain attention in the market, you have to use the currency of choice, and the currency of attention is meaningless nonsense: signals that do not require much of the recipient. once you try to talk about nonsense enough, it’s really just returning served pingpong ball with a little spin, not adding much to it at all. You sort of pick five topics that normals know something about, and keep informed about those in some niche, so you can always add niche info to a conversation. Most aspies specialize. But specializing in nonsense is unprofitable. So it is good to spread your specialization to something popular like fashion, music, politics, news, and spend the rest of your time on your specialization. This will let you talk to normals about meaningless stuff and enjoy it, as long as you simply understand that the entire purpose is NOT to share meaning, but pleasant images, and positive associations. we really like to talk about things that require thinking. normals have to work at thinking. we just think at the same volume that they feel. so they want to free associate with feelings, not with facts. when we free associate with facts, we look for contradictions. when they free associate with experiences they look for confirmations. when we look for dominance in our facts, they look for submissions in their experiences, so that they signal ‘I’m safe’ to one another. We find safety in knowledge and understanding, they find safety in shared experiences. They find pleasure in experiential novelty, and we find pleasure in informational novelty. Conversely, they find discomfort in the unknown information, and we in the unknown experience. It is far easier for us to work at contributing to the experiential association of normals, than it is for normals to work at contributing to the informational association of autistics. don’t be hard on normals for being dim. but don’t be easy on yourself for being dim either. Imagine that each of us sees a slightly different section of the spectrum of radiation, and that normals see most of the visual spectrum, and some of them are a little color blind. We on the other hand see in the equivalent of infrared. It is a much simpler view of the universe with clearer lines of delineation between entities that are meaningful (heat) and hose that are not (cold). But that is our only difference. Our world must be constructed of perceptions and analogies to perception. But with instrumentation and practice we can observe each other’s worlds. It just has to be cost effective. It isn’t really cost effective for them to perceive our world. But it is usually very cost effective for us to learn to perceive their world. It was very hard for me, and I am very bright and I worked very hard, but it is possible.