Reality can't lie. A thing either is, or it is not. And whatever it is, unless it is sentient and deceptive, cannot be hidden from observation. Reality does not bend, nor does it (or can it) use symbolic manipulation to deceive.
Perceptions, however, can deceive. The nature of human perceptual frameworks and mechanisms are limited, flawed, and undefined. By their very nature, they are subjective and subject to incorrect and invalid conclusion, not to mention revision by even more subjective and invalid opinions.
Let's skip the math and the obvious but dry nomenclature of logic. Let us take the example of a person making a statement. The truth value of the statement is presently undefined (we don't know if he's lying or telling the truth).
Subjective perceptions are an insufficient filter through which to evaluate the truth of a symbolic assertion (a statement). In order to make a valid evaluation of a statement, perception must itself be filtered through a statistical filter. For example, does the individual have a statistically valid history of statements backed up by actions which can be objectively analyzed as truthful?
All assertions are falsifiable. True assertions are provable. False assertions typically appeal to incorrect or irrelevant faculties (emotions or category error framing attempts) and fail the test of objective, statistical validation.
It takes a liar to lie. Reality speaks for itself.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Valid Vigilantes
A vigilante (from the root "vigilant") is one who asserts his sovereign authority to enforce justice.
Nothing more, nothing less. Note that justice is a separate concept from legality. Legality is defined and enforced by a legal system. Justice is a moral concept and is defined and enforced by individuals. Although individuals enact the collective body of legal authority through law enforcement officials, the illusion of vigilantes acting "outside the law" is, in fact, a perceptional flaw.
Vigilantes act within the confines of a higher and stronger "law" than that of the legal system. They are compelled by their very nature to enforce justice, though the heavens may fall.
Nothing more, nothing less. Note that justice is a separate concept from legality. Legality is defined and enforced by a legal system. Justice is a moral concept and is defined and enforced by individuals. Although individuals enact the collective body of legal authority through law enforcement officials, the illusion of vigilantes acting "outside the law" is, in fact, a perceptional flaw.
Vigilantes act within the confines of a higher and stronger "law" than that of the legal system. They are compelled by their very nature to enforce justice, though the heavens may fall.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Internal vs. External control
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there is without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." --- Sir Edmund Burke.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Moral vs. Legal
There are two sets of behavior. The first set is the "Moral" set, those actions which are in accordance with a defined morality. The second is the "Legal" set, those actions which are allowed within a particular legal system. These two sets intersect in many areas, but in many areas, they do not.
For example, in Nazi Germany, it was illegal to hide Jews, but it was the moral action to take.
Conversely, it is currently legal in America to steal a large percentage of an individual's wealth without that individual's consent or any guarantee of delivery of service. This is called taxation. This is not moral.
Typically, a society maintains a military or police force to maintain general adherence to its law, and a set of religious beliefs to act as guarantor of its morality.
When presented with a conflict between satisfying a moral vs. a legal code, the ethical person will always choose in favor of morality.
For example, in Nazi Germany, it was illegal to hide Jews, but it was the moral action to take.
Conversely, it is currently legal in America to steal a large percentage of an individual's wealth without that individual's consent or any guarantee of delivery of service. This is called taxation. This is not moral.
Typically, a society maintains a military or police force to maintain general adherence to its law, and a set of religious beliefs to act as guarantor of its morality.
When presented with a conflict between satisfying a moral vs. a legal code, the ethical person will always choose in favor of morality.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Identifying the green-eyed monster
Envy is the source of every instance of human cruelty and failure in history.
The love of money is in vanishingly distant second place .
Desire, envy's beautiful cousin, is a drive to acquire or achieve beyond one's current situation.
Envy, in contrast to desire, is the drive to reduce another's possessions or achievements below their natural levels, even if that reduction lowers one's own situation.
Desire motivates one to ascend. Envy lowers and reduces.
The simplest metric for determining whether a proposition is motivated by envy or desire is to identify the target of the proposed action, and whether the target of the action will be increased, or decreased. If the target is one's self and the action is additive, the motivation is desire. If the target is another person and the action is reductive, it is envy.
If you want to be rich, and wish to do so by learning how rich people got rich and apply those methods to your own life, you desire wealth.
If you want to be rich, but want to take money from rich people in order to get rich yourself, you are envious of wealth. You may not even care if you get rich. What is important to you is that wealth is taken from the wealthy to make things "fair" or "even". You are envious.
Desire will built towers to the stars. Envy will murder hundreds of millions and grind castles into dust.
I won't fire unless I see the greens of your eyes.
The love of money is in vanishingly distant second place .
Desire, envy's beautiful cousin, is a drive to acquire or achieve beyond one's current situation.
Envy, in contrast to desire, is the drive to reduce another's possessions or achievements below their natural levels, even if that reduction lowers one's own situation.
Desire motivates one to ascend. Envy lowers and reduces.
The simplest metric for determining whether a proposition is motivated by envy or desire is to identify the target of the proposed action, and whether the target of the action will be increased, or decreased. If the target is one's self and the action is additive, the motivation is desire. If the target is another person and the action is reductive, it is envy.
If you want to be rich, and wish to do so by learning how rich people got rich and apply those methods to your own life, you desire wealth.
If you want to be rich, but want to take money from rich people in order to get rich yourself, you are envious of wealth. You may not even care if you get rich. What is important to you is that wealth is taken from the wealthy to make things "fair" or "even". You are envious.
Desire will built towers to the stars. Envy will murder hundreds of millions and grind castles into dust.
I won't fire unless I see the greens of your eyes.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Violence always solves everything
Whoever said "Violence never solved anything" was either a liar or a coward, or a lying coward.
A more astute observer would say "Violence never solved anything such that both conflicting parties were equally satisfied with the outcome". Violence creates two entities: A winner, and a loser. Losers don't like to engage in violence because it will make their plight both obvious and inescapable. Winners may avoid violence if there are less expensive ways to win, ie trade or psychological manipulation.
Violence has solved every conflict on every scale. From the virus violently hijacking a host's DNA to the hundreds of millions killed by governments in both war and domestic pacification attempts, violence has decidedly ended every conflict in which it has been employed.
The only conflicts that violence doesn't solve are those in which it is insufficiently applied.
A more astute observer would say "Violence never solved anything such that both conflicting parties were equally satisfied with the outcome". Violence creates two entities: A winner, and a loser. Losers don't like to engage in violence because it will make their plight both obvious and inescapable. Winners may avoid violence if there are less expensive ways to win, ie trade or psychological manipulation.
Violence has solved every conflict on every scale. From the virus violently hijacking a host's DNA to the hundreds of millions killed by governments in both war and domestic pacification attempts, violence has decidedly ended every conflict in which it has been employed.
The only conflicts that violence doesn't solve are those in which it is insufficiently applied.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Nobody owes me anything, everyone owes me nothing
I don't need you.
Even if I did, my need would not place any valid legal, ethical, or moral burden on you.
You never made a contract with me to give me anything.
There is no implied contract between us, because there can't be any such thing as an "implied contract". The concept is a non-sequitur. A contract is either explicit, or it is an assumption, and assumptions have no basis in morality or fact.
Just because one person assumes that another owes him something is no reason to take that assumption as anything more serious than it is: A fantasy. A dream. A wish.
If any party (individual or group) ever says to you "I need you to help me", that may be true, but it does not oblige you to do any such thing. It certainly doesn't give the other party any moral right to press you into service, or otherwise force you to contribute to its cause.
Even if I did, my need would not place any valid legal, ethical, or moral burden on you.
You never made a contract with me to give me anything.
There is no implied contract between us, because there can't be any such thing as an "implied contract". The concept is a non-sequitur. A contract is either explicit, or it is an assumption, and assumptions have no basis in morality or fact.
Just because one person assumes that another owes him something is no reason to take that assumption as anything more serious than it is: A fantasy. A dream. A wish.
If any party (individual or group) ever says to you "I need you to help me", that may be true, but it does not oblige you to do any such thing. It certainly doesn't give the other party any moral right to press you into service, or otherwise force you to contribute to its cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
