It's not about logic. It's the language. (show feedback)

[Armitage]

This is a post-call feedback. The call helped me to determine where's the problem. 

 

I have noticed that Stefan insists on logic very much. Nothing wrong with that. But what if two different people use logic correctly, but come to different results? How's that possible?

 

I think Stefan does not realize that logic is not the same as input and output of the logic.  And whatever is the logic, we can manipulate the output by manipulating input. 

 

The input of logic is the real world, which we share. So how can we manipulate input? By creating concepts and categories of things, about which we think and which we leave undefined and unthinkable. We can create a category which connects together concepts into one, and this mix will give us any output we want, even if our logic is flawless. 

 

The way we define and combine our concepts is very subjective and very,very tricky. Stef for example defined a category of a "child" for me, as "someone who has no rights and no duties". An existence of such a combination of concepts is very problematic. (doubly problematic from someone who talked about how children in 8 years are totally independent in some societies)

 

The concept of rights is in itself problematic, because they do not exist objectively, they exist only within a given society. And if I propose a different society, then all the rights, duties, sins and virtues will change - some will cease to exist, some will change beyond recognition. 

 

And there's no point in enumerating them, because they are just outer signs of a society which produced them. It is more useful to understand the input, than trying to divine input from the output.

You can not understand someone else's output if you keep using your own input, even if you both use the same logic. 

 

We may have all the same logical engine, but if we feed it a different mix of concepts, we end up with totally different results. And what is that mix of concepts? Each is a word, which together comprise a LANGUAGE. If you know more languages than one, you know that some words contain a mix of meanings that in other language they don't. 

 

In my language most vocational nouns have a male gender. Like in French, some things have a male gender (even if non-living), some have female gender and some neutral. French does not have the neutral, it is even more sexist. English is comparatively neutral. So an English speaksperson may think Czechs are sexists and the French are even worse. And Czechs think that it is inconvenient, because you don't know what gender that person has, if someone is a babysitter or a babysitteress, which is a useful information. 

 

So the first thing we need to know, that we use a different language. The sounds are the same, but each has multiple meanings and they are differently mixed. So however impeccable our logic is, we will come to different results. This is a serious problem.

 

I realized that we can't just talk to each other. We have a different language, so whatever we say will be misunderstood. We have to realize that there are different languages even if the sounds are the same and even if the logic is the same. That is a serious problem, almost like realizing there are aliens living alongside us. 

That is a problem for anyone who think that just being logical is enough. Logic is a great achievement today - look at all these Christians. But logical people with different language are almost as useless as illogical people with the same language.

If the sounds are different, you'll just realize, "I don't understand the guy, he's got a different laguage."

But if the sounds are the same, but concepts aren't, you will think the guy is "illogical, bad at grammar, childish..."

 

Do we ever choose the language? No, we don't. Vast majority of people do not think about languages or underlying concepts. What multitude of meanings can be hidden under one concept - "the heathen"? 

We do not shop for languages, because we can't know what good is it until we learn it. It's a take it or leave it. Logic is useless here, because you don't have the input info about how good a language it is. People mostly learn languages because of relationships. You need to have a relationship with a person in order to want to learn his or her language, because that helps you to have a better relationship.

 

Imagine, I tell you about a language which is beautiful - a simple, logical, yet rich and colourful, very easy to combine, very intuitive yet logical, has only few grammar rules, does not marginalize people... And you tell me, so if this language is so great, then go talking it and you will out-compete those who talk in the old language! 

 

Obviously, this is nonsense. This is not how languages spread. A language is only as good as its access to people, to information, new books, films, science... If you talk a perfect language but few people around the world talk that way, you're as good as mute. And you're even worse off, if you use the same sounds, people will think you're crazy or illogical. 

 

So trying to out-compete another language is a Catch 22 situation. Stefan's suggestion "go try it if it's good and you will out-compete everyone" is as good as "fuck off". Language does not make people richer or more successful. That's the question of resources, energy, technology... We can only compare languages and their success if their content is equal. Not if one has all the content and the other has little content. That is not a fair comparison. 

 

I think I nailed the problem. Comment, please.

[Christoph Dollis]

"I think Stefan does not realize that logic is not the same as input and output of the logic.  And whatever is the logic, we can manipulate the output by manipulating input."For goodness sakes, he realises this; he's not an imbecile.The problem was you were going on about his alleged blind spot (and, in other areas, I'll acknowledge I think he has a couple) while asking him ridiculous questions like has he heard of a black hole (who hasn't) and not making any good arguments for your position.It's one thing to say someone has a blind spot, but you actually then have to show that. Even if they can't see it, the audience might. You spectacularly failed at that and I'm about as truth-seeking person as you will ever find.

[Nezumi]

If you want to promote an argument for an RBE, just put it forward. That whole wall of text you posted is completely unnecessary. You're correct that logic is only as good as the inputs, so logic isn't a sufficient condition for a good argument; however, logic IS a necessary condition.

[_LiveFree_]

So what you're saying is, my choice to skip the first part of the show was a good one.

 

Cool.

 

What I want to know is why people on the board would think that Armitage arguing with Stef would produce different results from the last month of back and forth.

[Armitage]

"I think Stefan does not realize that logic is not the same as input and output of the logic.  And whatever is the logic, we can manipulate the output by manipulating input."For goodness sakes, he realises this; he's not an imbecile.

The problem is, when we are in our blind spot, for a moment we become imbeciles without noticing. 

The problem was you were going on about his alleged blind spot (and, in other areas, I'll acknowledge I think he has a couple) while asking him ridiculous questions like has he heard of a black hole (who hasn't) and not making any good arguments for your position.It's one thing to say someone has a blind spot, but you actually then have to show that. Even if they can't see it, the audience might. You spectacularly failed at that and I'm about as truth-seeking person as you will ever find.

Yeah, I failed spectacularly. I was also nervous as hell and my hands were shaking and I think my reptile brain was taking over. That's the deal, you get one chance to talk with a person, to bridge the fundamental differences in worldview, you get one shot, that's it.By definition, one can not show a blind spot. If audience uses the same language as Stefan, then they can't see the blind spot either. So my goal was to find out things by direct interaction with Stefan. And I think I did - we use a different language! And we don't notice, because the sounds are the same! I think that's a good enough result for the first try.But what about you? You said you know that Stefan has some blind spots. So you noticed. And you surely noticed Stefan's conviction, "if it's logical, it's the truth!" I could swear this is what he was saying at one point. Crazy, huh? Stefan is closed-minded, because he is too much satisfied with his internal logic, he thinks it is the end of argument. "I am logical within the language I invented myself, therefore I am objectively correct!"

How do you respond to that?    

If you want to promote an argument for an RBE, just put it forward. That whole wall of text you posted is completely unnecessary. You're correct that logic is only as good as the inputs, so logic isn't a sufficient condition for a good argument; however, logic IS a necessary condition.

Yes, logic IS a necessary condition, that hopefully goes without saying. But it's not the only condition. Another condition is the shared meanings - shared language. My language can allow some possibilities that your language can't. I can't prove that to you, unless you learn the language first. So right now you are not really motivated to learn the language. And learning the language does not magically give you more resources - like energy, technology and so on, which you could use to prove that the language is better.  The problem we have is, we use the same sounds, but their meaning is different and that creates the illusion we use the same language, while we really don't. I believe to be a philosopher means to be able to distill the meanings from words. See that a word is not an essence, it is combined of meanings that can be combined in a very different way under the same or different sound. And a different combination may open us many more possibilities of thinking and doing which we did not have under a different language. Provided that we have the resources, which I don't. I think this point was way too subtle and I totally failed in putting it across to Stefan.

So what you're saying is, my choice to skip the first part of the show was a good one.

 

Cool.

 

What I want to know is why people on the board would think that Armitage arguing with Stef would produce different results from the last month of back and forth.

I don't know either! I'm still at the stage of finding out where the problem is. The purpose is to fail and find out where's the failure. Experimental attitude, man! I'm learning so much. I half-expected expected Stefan to be his usual understanding, patient and compassionate self, as he was later in the show, but looks like he doesn't turn that engine on when market is the topic.

 

Now that I see that language is the problem, I can direct my efforts to the hows and whys of language. How languages spread and compete in a population. How to tell people the best that we're using another language. I admit I've been neglecting this topic a lot, until now I did not understand how much is the language limiting. I thought languages are only when the sound is different. But if we use different networks of meaning without noticing, woah, I didn't see that one coming. 

So overall, I hope this failure was as productive for you as it was for me. What further experimental applications of this knowledge do you suggest?

[_LiveFree_]

Armitage,

 

I didn't listen to you on the show, but if Stef wasn't his "usual understanding, patient and compassionate self", that means he was being lied to. That means the person talking to him was not interested in truth. I've heard him like this before. 

 

See, eventually, after you've gone round and round for who knows how long, and have dragged who knows how many people through your mud, you're going to realize that there is one common denominator; you. Until you realize that there is a MASSIVE BLIND SPOT for you called "childhood", you'll never figure this out. 

 

This is why I stopped engaging with you and have encouraged others to do so. You're not interested in truth. You want to win; likely because with your parents you always lost. 

 

If you want to talk about your parents and your childhood, I'll be first in line to engage you. Not because it's "the right thing to do" or some stupid shit like that, but because I think you're pretty cool. I think you have a hell of a lot to offer. I think you're crazy smart. And I think none of that will matter if you don't address your past.

 

It doesn't matter how much logic and empirical evidence there is, if you have emotional blocks on something, game over. The only thing you are proving here is that intellectual learning is secondary to self-knowledge. 

 

Armitage, get out of the on-deck circle and step up into the batter's box. 

[PoopMeat]

@Armitage

 

I know you have me on the blacklist because I was able to point out how much you do not even know your own RBE ideology that you got upset at me for pointing out you were wrong but still I'll respond to you even if you don't see it as it's more so FDR and outside audience than for yourself.

 

I thought your call in to FDR was not good rather than discussing you were talking at someone than too them. When you suggest Stefans mentality has shrunk because of his particular belief he subscribes to and that in fact because of your ideology you have a better intellect is not just a logically fallacy that is completely unfounded but insulting and baseless. Often RBE's will deflect when talking about their own ideology and talk about the current system and how bad it is yet shouldn't you be describing what your RBE is? The reason RBE people don't talk about RBE and would rather attack others ideologies and the current system is because it's easier to do and draws focus away from their unrealistic veiwpoint this is a common tactic in politics where one politicians draws attention away from their faults and instead builds up a wall of negativity towards their opponent. For people who preach against politics and government you certainly do use such tactics at a drop of a hat.
 

ok go start your RBE no one is stopping you. Just amazed how you have over 100 posts already and continue to say the same thing over and over and over again. I suspect you blacklisted me because i was making sense how incoherent rbe ideology is that in fact because of cognitive dissonance you couldn't allow me to continue to use logic and reason towards a ideologue that you in fact believe not because it's based on science but entirely based on faith.

[PatrickC]

The only comment I have, is actually a preference... Go and create this marvelous RBE world, after which if you are successful, I will gladly eat my hat.

[Armitage]

Armitage,

 

I didn't listen to you on the show, but if Stef wasn't his "usual understanding, patient and compassionate self", that means he was being lied to. That means the person talking to him was not interested in truth. I've heard him like this before. 

 

See, eventually, after you've gone round and round for who knows how long, and have dragged who knows how many people through your mud, you're going to realize that there is one common denominator; you. Until you realize that there is a MASSIVE BLIND SPOT for you called "childhood", you'll never figure this out. 

 

This is why I stopped engaging with you and have encouraged others to do so. You're not interested in truth. You want to win; likely because with your parents you always lost. 

 

If you want to talk about your parents and your childhood, I'll be first in line to engage you. Not because it's "the right thing to do" or some stupid shit like that, but because I think you're pretty cool. I think you have a hell of a lot to offer. I think you're crazy smart. And I think none of that will matter if you don't address your past.

 

It doesn't matter how much logic and empirical evidence there is, if you have emotional blocks on something, game over. The only thing you are proving here is that intellectual learning is secondary to self-knowledge. 

 

Armitage, get out of the on-deck circle and step up into the batter's box. 

Oh, I'm interested in the truth. But what I discovered is, first we have to make sure our language is the same. Then we can talk about truth, not before. Truth deserves some precautions. With Stefan, we had different languages. Nobody said a lie, we just didn't work out a communication protocol. 

 

As for you, please tell me very literally and in detail what you think my problem is and I'll tell you how much you've got right. I have admitted and repented many sins over the years, so I have to ask which ones do you mean. Also, what do you want to accomplish by that, what behavior would you like to see from me.

 

Would it work even if you tell me that in advance? Right now what I see can not be distinguished from Christians claiming I had a bad childhood, therefore I hate God. Because God is obviously a parental figure. But even if I loved God, that has nothing to do with my economic thinking.

 

I thought your call in to FDR was not good rather than discussing you were talking at someone than too them. When you suggest Stefans mentality has shrunk because of his particular belief he subscribes to and that in fact because of your ideology you have a better intellect is not just a logically fallacy that is completely unfounded but insulting and baseless. Often RBE's will deflect when talking about their own ideology and talk about the current system and how bad it is yet shouldn't you be describing what your RBE is? The reason RBE people don't talk about RBE and would rather attack others ideologies and the current system is because it's easier to do and draws focus away from their unrealistic veiwpoint this is a common tactic in politics where one politicians draws attention away from their faults and instead builds up a wall of negativity towards their opponent. For people who preach against politics and government you certainly do use such tactics at a drop of a hat. 

ok go start your RBE no one is stopping you. Just amazed how you have over 100 posts already and continue to say the same thing over and over and over again. I suspect you blacklisted me because i was making sense how incoherent rbe ideology is that in fact because of cognitive dissonance you couldn't allow me to continue to use logic and reason towards a ideologue that you in fact believe not because it's based on science but entirely based on faith.

I blacklisted you, because I doubt your ability to communicate and think objectively. I'd say you are too wrapped up in your own definitions to even imagine other people might have different definitions and that it might be a problem. Yes, I was talking at Stefan, because I knew I was going to be nervous that I wrote down a text. 

 

Please, read the OP. Ideology is language. There are phenomena, which languages can not describe or describe differently, yet they are logical within the language itself. So mere internal logic is never enough. Stefan made up a language in which he makes a perfect sense to himself. Does that make him right about everything? Does that prevent other people from having different languages?

There is the objective reality, but different languages show us different logical problems to figure out.

 

What I have is a different language. Language does not translate to physical resources. It is only as good as the resources we have. So what is stopping me, is the lack of resources. "Nobody is stopping me" is bullshit. If I owned NASA or half of Silicon Valley, then you'd have a point. 

The only comment I have, is actually a preference... Go and create this marvelous RBE world, after which if you are successful, I will gladly eat my hat.

Last time I heard, worlds were made of resources and there were people in these worlds. And I don't know how to make worlds or resources. That's like God saying to scientists, "It's nice you figured out how to create a man of dirt, but go find your own dirt!" As I said, If I owned NASA or half of Silicon Valley, then you'd have a point. 

 

But seriously, this is what we agreed on with Stefan. If someone told Stefan, go and create this magical ancap world, he'd say, I already created it! In my family, there's no coercion, no government, we treat each other as customers and it works so well. 

This is exactly what I would say. On the family level, ancap and RBE are exactly the same! Does that mean that Stefan's family will extend over all other families in the world and everyone will be as happy as him? 

If ancap is a one-family system, why can't they coexist, ancap inside family, government outside family? Why change the world?

[PatrickC]

Last time I heard, worlds were made of resources and there were people in these worlds. And I don't know how to make worlds or resources. That's like God saying to scientists, "It's nice you figured out how to create a man of dirt, but go find your own dirt!" As I said, If I owned NASA or half of Silicon Valley, then you'd have a point. 

 

But seriously, this is what we agreed on with Stefan. If someone told Stefan, go and create this magical ancap world, he'd say, I already created it! In my family, there's no coercion, no government, we treat each other as customers and it works so well. 

This is exactly what I would say. On the family level, ancap and RBE are exactly the same! Does that mean that Stefan's family will extend over all other families in the world and everyone will be as happy as him? 

If ancap is a one-family system, why can't they coexist, ancap inside family, government outside family? Why change the world?

 

My hat is still waiting to be munched!

[PoopMeat]

@Armitage

 

 

I blacklisted you, because I doubt your ability to communicate and think objectively. I'd say you are too wrapped up in your own definitions to even imagine other people might have different definitions and that it might be a problem. Yes, I was talking at Stefan, because I knew I was going to be nervous that I wrote down a text. 

 

Please, read the OP. Ideology is language. There are phenomena, which languages can not describe or describe differently, yet they are logical within the language itself. So mere internal logic is never enough. Stefan made up a language in which he makes a perfect sense to himself. Does that make him right about everything? Does that prevent other people from having different languages?

There is the objective reality, but different languages show us different logical problems to figure out.

 

What I have is a different language. Language does not translate to physical resources. It is only as good as the resources we have. So what is stopping me, is the lack of resources. "Nobody is stopping me" is bullshit. If I owned NASA or half of Silicon Valley, then you'd have a point.

 

 

 

It's funny that you blacklisted me to not answer me yet still respond to me in this topic, therefore to me it kind of proves my point. You make a public statement that you blacklisted me not because I was wrong or right but because I was able to back up my claims and references and correct you multiple times on your own RBE ideology. It was making you upset how incoherent your RBE ideology is in many many many ways. You made the public statement of blacklisting me because I suspect it wasn't because I was committing logically fallacies but because I was making sense and backing up my claims through references on RBE, claims you did not want to address. Hence why you probably still read through the stuff I write about TVP even when you have blacklisted me because I'm right and didn't want to deal with me. Well until you broke your silence with me when I hit another nerve with you using logic and reason.

 

Hey it's ok to be upset at such incoherent RBE logic, I know way more about a RBE than the majority of TVP and TZMers member base. I'm probably one of the few that actually know the ideology inside (I still keep up to date on it) and are able to argue why it's flawed while staying in line with TVP RBEM or TZM RBEM ideology. You clearly do not understand TVP's RBE so I do not understand why you think you can promote something you clearly do not understand.

[Armitage]

My hat is still waiting to be munched!

When I found my family, it's going to be a RBE. Me and my spouse will communicate and allocate resources by talking, not by putting price tags on items at home. I'll call that a RBE and you will eat your hat 

[Mike Fleming]

My sense of the conversation, particularly towards the end was that you were trying to bully Stefan into accepting your point of view.  You were attempting to denigrate him and make him doubt himself rather than put forward an actual argument.  I'm familiar with this technique because I've had it done to me and also done it myself to others in the past.  It's not uncommon in society and seems to be almost regarded in our sick culture as a legitimate means of resolving disputes.  But in reality, it is just might makes right.  It is one person attempting to dominate another and I'm not surprised that Stef hung up on you.  It's the only way to respond to that behaviour.

 

Like a previous poster mentioned, you probably had an insecure parent or parents who always had to be right in order to make themselves not feel so bad.  If they had to be always right, then you had to be always wrong and that means the above technique would have been used on you consistently.  It wasn't any more valid when they did it you , than when you do it to others.  It's something that needs to be unlearned otherwise you just fall into the same cycle that they did and will lead a similar life.  Is that what you want?  To be like your parents?

[Armitage]

My sense of the conversation, particularly towards the end was that you were trying to bully Stefan into accepting your point of view.  You were attempting to denigrate him and make him doubt himself rather than put forward an actual argument.  I'm familiar with this technique because I've had it done to me and also done it myself to others in the past.  It's not uncommon in society and seems to be almost regarded in our sick culture as a legitimate means of resolving disputes.  But in reality, it is just might makes right.  It is one person attempting to dominate another and I'm not surprised that Stef hung up on you.  It's the only way to respond to that behaviour.

 

Like a previous poster mentioned, you probably had an insecure parent or parents who always had to be right in order to make themselves not feel so bad.  If they had to be always right, then you had to be always wrong and that means the above technique would have been used on you consistently.  It wasn't any more valid when they did it you , than when you do it to others.  It's something that needs to be unlearned otherwise you just fall into the same cycle that they did and will lead a similar life.  Is that what you want?  To be like your parents?

I was feeling like my time is running out and there is so much to explain, so much to make him understand... so yeah. I just felt I don't have time to put it nicely, wrap the bad news in a nice package.

And, what is the difference between what Stefan does, digging deep in people's subconscious? He makes people doubt themselves, he's just better at it  People cry at his show. Nothing wrong with that, these people need it and ask for it. need it, only I'm ha hard case, been there, done that, but I have the impertinence to say, Stefan needs something like that as well. 

 

What surprised me, was how personally he took everything. I mean, I'd be happy to go online and have someone tell me what they think of me, that would give me lots of useful information about me and themselves. Especially after they study my material for several months. I'd pay for that kind of attention, if I had any money to spare. This is what you do now, I suppose.

 

But Stef felt... insulted? I mean, I listened to Stefan for months and that gives me a solid idea of what's wrong with him. He's one of these people who have so little wrong with them, who are so useful that one feels if the last vestige of imperfection would be at least made visible to them...Just one little nudge in the right direction...

That's how God must feel 

 

I didn't put forward an actual argument, because that was not the thing to do. Stefan has everything figured out. His worldview is completely self-contained sphere of perfect logic. Whatever he thinks of is logical within the concepts he uses and whatever I think of will not be logical within these concepts. He designed his own language to do that, to make himself always right and other people always potentially wrong. Nothing wrong with that, because Stef is mostly right and other people are mostly wrong. The problem is, he's not aware of that and so he won't be able to update his language. He will have problems moving on and communicating with other, different people who are also mostly right, just like him. 

His worldview has no failsafe, no escape route. It is not falsifiable and what is not falsifiable, is not self-correcting. Without any built-in self-correcting mechanism, people feel more and more right and more out of touch with reality, whatever it is. It is not a big flaw now, but maybe in several years. What the heck, I'd need to be locked with Stef in one prison cell for a month to get my point across.

 

As for my parents, I don't think I have a good idea of how insecure parents look like. I was too insecure to question them. After all, my livelihood depended on them. All I know that my mom was a bad case of "job parenting", apparently. My parents told me how great parents they are and how other parents are bad and how lucky I am, and I believed them. I knew kids who had a cat o' nine tails hanging in the kitchen. Christian families all around us, we were the only non-Christian family, so I thought we're the island of civilization 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

You gotta tell me what the black hole thing was about. I'm going to take a guess that it was something about sucking.

[Armitage]

You gotta tell me what the black hole thing was about. I'm going to take a guess that it was something about sucking.

Not really. A black hole does not suck, no more than the original stellar body that spawned it. Gravity remains the same, only perhaps the gradient gets steeper when something gets near, but this is felt as tidal / shearing forces.

But when I watched a document on black holes, it was mainly about gravitational lensing. Massive objects like black hole warp space around it so much, that the light never touches it directly, it goes perpendicularly around it. (also, it never gets away from the inside) So if I should imagine how a black hole looks like, imagine a bedsheet with stars and galaxies and put a ball under the bedsheet. What you'll see is a normal stellar background. At one point the galaxies might appear a bit stretched, but you don't actually see the warping thing. They may be just some weird galaxies.

 

A lone black hole is perfectly self-contained (save for quantum evaporation). If you stood at the surface of event horizon and looked around, you might see the back of your head. It's a self-contained, seamless, very inconspicuous object. The best masked elephant in the room you can possibly imagine. 

 

That is something that struck me as a perfect visual metaphor for a psychological blind spot. I often think visually and pattern-wise and I often use patterns from nature, physics, technology and so on. It helps me to compress the idea so it's easy to remember and easy to combine with other ideas already stored, thus easy to get new ideas and inspiration. The problem is, I have to translate it to people. 

 

From my experience, a psychological blind spot is absolutely invisible to the person who has it. The blind spot is so massive, that it wraps around seamlessly all the light of consciousness we throw in its way, yet its center of mass controls everything. When we are near it, its gravitas takes over all other matters, it takes over our worldview. Yet the light still travels in a "straight" line and we do not notice the curvature. 

 

Not unless some real and very great problems with relationships and other people turn us to the most terrifying doubt of all - the doubt of ourselves. We never really doubt ourselves, because the blind spot is self-contained, in that area we do not have any concepts or mental instruments to prove ourselves wrong. We have an answer or category for everything and so nothing can ever surprise us. So we are totally fine, who is not fine, is the crowd of other people around who are getting still greater and greater assholes, the more OK we are. The blind spot is our ego and the ego is a master of disguise and it's totally self-centered, like a black hole. 

 

Seeing through the blind spot can be one of the most difficult experiences in our life. It can cause a serious depression - but not dealing with it can cause a depression without meaning. I think knowing why is better, but it's still rough. Big blind spots are usually found in people with great potential. But great men have great flaws. Only they have a hard time seeing the flaws, if something is so big that you can't imagine it, you can't see it. As I said, it bends all thought and attention around itself. 

I'd say less focused and overall more balanced personalities with attention distributed into many various areas do not have this problem. 

 

I'd say Stefan's problem is the usual problem of rightists vs. leftists, only on greater scale. Ideology, or language, or paradigm is an instrument. But it is an instrument that is a part of us. And we just don't have enough capacity, brain power or attention or whatever to do two things at once. We usually can't be both good at inventing, creating paradigms and at using them. Even if we are good at these, we typically can't do these things at the same time.

 

Some people seem to me more inclined to invent new ideas and some rather prefer to use them in practice. I'd say Stefan is the latter person, because he is very conservative. I mean, he still believes in money! He believes in wood pulp or metal tokens with numbers on them for doing primitive computations. That is as if the city of Liverpool would believe in doing accounting by strategically allocating shovelfuls of coal below the deck of Titanic. Digital money make the shoveling around a bit faster, but then it's a simulated virtual reality coal in a 3D modelled ship, but it's even more silly because of that. 

I mean, I listened to Stefan as he described the mechanics of crime insurance in the future. All these contracts, payments, policies, agencies, probabilities, negotiations and ratings, I mean, that was ridiculous. I would not wish to inflict bureaucracy and money on people and I'd oppose this plan on many grounds, including aesthetic. If we want to get rid of governments, we need to do it intelligently. Seeing Libertarians praise bitcoin is like seeing a gypsy from Ukraine make a campfire  on a kitchen stove. This is not an intelligent use of science and technology. It is only efficient in using it as least as possible, to change the society and our way of life as least as possible.

 

Stefan is focusing all his attention on how to use this system in practice and while he's doing that, he is neurologically unable to examine it. He identifies with it, the ideology is using him, wears him like a mask. The thing that we identify with is looking through our eyes and we can not look into our eyes, we are our eyes. So it is with language, with paradigm, with ideology. I think that ultimately any ideology is a degradation of a human being and that human beings are above all ideologies. A philosopher should be above all ideologes. Any ideology is just a partial and temporarily useful thus dangerous reflection of reality. A philosopher should be a herder and if necessary, a butcher of ideologies. To be a subject of ideology is degrading for human beings who reach Stefan's potential and I do not like to see Stefan so degraded at these particular moments, when market is the topic.

 

I have my problems, but I took an enormous effort to get to know them. So I know very well how do problems look like. How do I know my vision is true? Because the jerks and idiots around vanished. I can understand why people are what they are, why do they think as they think. There are some people who are genuinely lacking insight into some areas, and lack insight into their lacking insight, and I understand that too, been there, done that.

[Rob_Ilir]

How long will this guy get away with constant ad homes, and degradations, with zero reason to back it up?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Not really. A black hole does not suck, no more than the original stellar body that spawned it. Gravity remains the same, only perhaps the gradient gets steeper when something gets near, but this is felt as tidal / shearing forces.

But when I watched a document on black holes, it was mainly about gravitational lensing. Massive objects like black hole warp space around it so much, that the light never touches it directly, it goes perpendicularly around it. (also, it never gets away from the inside) So if I should imagine how a black hole looks like, imagine a bedsheet with stars and galaxies and put a ball under the bedsheet. What you'll see is a normal stellar background. At one point the galaxies might appear a bit stretched, but you don't actually see the warping thing. They may be just some weird galaxies.

 

A lone black hole is perfectly self-contained (save for quantum evaporation). If you stood at the surface of event horizon and looked around, you might see the back of your head. It's a self-contained, seamless, very inconspicuous object. The best masked elephant in the room you can possibly imagine. 

 

That is something that struck me as a perfect visual metaphor for a psychological blind spot. I often think visually and pattern-wise and I often use patterns from nature, physics, technology and so on. It helps me to compress the idea so it's easy to remember and easy to combine with other ideas already stored, thus easy to get new ideas and inspiration. The problem is, I have to translate it to people. 

 

From my experience, a psychological blind spot is absolutely invisible to the person who has it. The blind spot is so massive, that it wraps around seamlessly all the light of consciousness we throw in its way, yet its center of mass controls everything. When we are near it, its gravitas takes over all other matters, it takes over our worldview. Yet the light still travels in a "straight" line and we do not notice the curvature. 

 

Not unless some real and very great problems with relationships and other people turn us to the most terrifying doubt of all - the doubt of ourselves. We never really doubt ourselves, because the blind spot is self-contained, in that area we do not have any concepts or mental instruments to prove ourselves wrong. We have an answer or category for everything and so nothing can ever surprise us. So we are totally fine, who is not fine, is the crowd of other people around who are getting still greater and greater assholes, the more OK we are. The blind spot is our ego and the ego is a master of disguise and it's totally self-centered, like a black hole. 

 

Seeing through the blind spot can be one of the most difficult experiences in our life. It can cause a serious depression - but not dealing with it can cause a depression without meaning. I think knowing why is better, but it's still rough. Big blind spots are usually found in people with great potential. But great men have great flaws. Only they have a hard time seeing the flaws, if something is so big that you can't imagine it, you can't see it. As I said, it bends all thought and attention around itself. 

I'd say less focused and overall more balanced personalities with attention distributed into many various areas do not have this problem. 

 

I'd say Stefan's problem is the usual problem of rightists vs. leftists, only on greater scale. Ideology, or language, or paradigm is an instrument. But it is an instrument that is a part of us. And we just don't have enough capacity, brain power or attention or whatever to do two things at once. We usually can't be both good at inventing, creating paradigms and at using them. Even if we are good at these, we typically can't do these things at the same time.

 

Some people seem to me more inclined to invent new ideas and some rather prefer to use them in practice. I'd say Stefan is the latter person, because he is very conservative. I mean, he still believes in money! He believes in wood pulp or metal tokens with numbers on them for doing primitive computations. That is as if the city of Liverpool would believe in doing accounting by strategically allocating shovelfuls of coal below the deck of Titanic. Digital money make the shoveling around a bit faster, but then it's a simulated virtual reality coal in a 3D modelled ship, but it's even more silly because of that. 

I mean, I listened to Stefan as he described the mechanics of crime insurance in the future. All these contracts, payments, policies, agencies, probabilities, negotiations and ratings, I mean, that was ridiculous. I would not wish to inflict bureaucracy and money on people and I'd oppose this plan on many grounds, including aesthetic. If we want to get rid of governments, we need to do it intelligently. Seeing Libertarians praise bitcoin is like seeing a gypsy from Ukraine make a campfire  on a kitchen stove. This is not an intelligent use of science and technology. It is only efficient in using it as least as possible, to change the society and our way of life as least as possible.

 

Stefan is focusing all his attention on how to use this system in practice and while he's doing that, he is neurologically unable to examine it. He identifies with it, the ideology is using him, wears him like a mask. The thing that we identify with is looking through our eyes and we can not look into our eyes, we are our eyes. So it is with language, with paradigm, with ideology. I think that ultimately any ideology is a degradation of a human being and that human beings are above all ideologies. A philosopher should be above all ideologes. Any ideology is just a partial and temporarily useful thus dangerous reflection of reality. A philosopher should be a herder and if necessary, a butcher of ideologies. To be a subject of ideology is degrading for human beings who reach Stefan's potential and I do not like to see Stefan so degraded at these particular moments, when market is the topic.

 

I have my problems, but I took an enormous effort to get to know them. So I know very well how do problems look like. How do I know my vision is true? Because the jerks and idiots around vanished. I can understand why people are what they are, why do they think as they think. There are some people who are genuinely lacking insight into some areas, and lack insight into their lacking insight, and I understand that too, been there, done that.

Very concise.

[Armitage]

How long will this guy get away with constant ad homes, and degradations, with zero reason to back it up?

Criticism is not ad hominem nor degradation. Criticism is a feedback, a gift, as managers and marketing people say. If someone feels degraded, then there is probably something right about it. I personally have no problem with criticism, the thing that gets my goat is a sloppy criticism based on underestimation.

I mean, people let Stefan criticize their upbringing. Stefan asks his daughter to provide feedback and this feedback may be negative. So what dafuq have you problem with? Don't you find disagreement more fun than agreement?

 

I have not yet figured out how to back it up. Most people here share Stefan's language and in this language there are no words for what I need to tell you. The words you use don't have the right combination of meanings. They're compatible with the rest of your language, but not with mine. The sounds may be the same, but the meanings are different.

For example, Stefan used the word "child" with a legal definition, a couple of highly problematic meanings under one concept. I can not see such a thing in RBE, because laws and rights do not empirically exist. Each individual is capable in each area according to his or her capability, whatever it turns out to be empirically regardless of age. Nobody is an universal adult, universal professor or universal expert. Rights are just special instructions we give ourselves to compensate for a badly designed environment, so are laws. 

Very concise.

So was the Rosetta stone. What you could do is to learn my "language", learn how I think. My thinking isn't wrong, it's just different. It's just as internally logical as Stefan's, but it is way more flexible. I'm not fixated at money, I see money as an instrument that combines the element of information and built-in limitation, both of which can be implemented in a better way that will not enslave humanity. 

[cynicist]

When I found my family, it's going to be a RBE. Me and my spouse will communicate and allocate resources by talking, not by putting price tags on items at home. I'll call that a RBE and you will eat your hat 

 

Wouldn't you have to program a computer to decide the most efficient way to do it? (only partly kidding)

 

I missed this call so I'll have to come back to this thread once the show is up on youtube to get what is going on here.

[Armitage]

Wouldn't you have to program a computer to decide the most efficient way to do it? (only partly kidding)

 

I missed this call so I'll have to come back to this thread once the show is up on youtube to get what is going on here.

A computer doesn't decide anything. It just can process incoming clicks of demand faster and more efficiently than the market economy processes incoming pieces of green paper, but principle is the same. Of course, clicks are unlimited, but TVP has other ways of making sure Earth does not turn into a today's All you can eat restaurant.

 

The show is of the 1st December and I don't know yet when it comes out.

[Armitage]

I got an idea. It might be good to clarify the term "economy" or "economics".

 

There are economics that I consider economics and Stefan and everybody else apparently doesn't. Systems are subject to the laws of economy and there are many systems all around, non-monetary systems. Processes in these systems are their inner economy, but it is obviously not a market economy. They might be the oxygen/CO2 cycle in an organism, trash recycling in a home, supply chain in an army, life support in a NASA space shuttle and so on. Such systems have some kind of circulation, even several kinds of circulation.

 

 

There is no currency in these systems, no prices, no competition and yet they work most efficiently. Therefore, I consider them real, working examples of resource-based economy. RBE is proven, the evidence is all around and within us. So much for the "show me evidence" argument.

 

Of course, there is no clear distinction in RBE between a circulation of resources and actual technical processes of applying these resources, whatever the particular technology turns out to be. There is no market, because there's no point in it. Resources are released where available and assimilated where needed, in a needed amount. Allocating information is transmitted via nerve impulses, hormones, computer signals, or just by our memories, when managing the household.

 

However, I think Stefan calls economy economy only when it uses money, prices and competition. This is why he was unable to recognize my argument.

[Armitage]

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2545_Sunday_Show_1_Dec_2013.mp3

I think you can hear me around 40 minutes. But it's just painful to hear, my English pronunciation is really very rusty and it always takes a few days of English practice to speak as smoothly as I write. And I was extremely nervous, of course.

 

 

Here I deal with two Stefan's misconceptions, one that RBE is just another market scheme that can be just implemented on top of current economy (it's not market! Just as anarchism is not a government!), and secondly, that there are children and adults and adults absolutely must have rights and duties and children don't have rights and duties. As I said, that is not a necessary combination. We are all children in some aspects. Even a professor of something may be absolutely incompetent in most other things, while a child may be more competent in them. And there is no reason why basic rights (which system is meant to provide) should be dependent on one's seniority or competence. And there is no reason why any system should provide elaborate market of rights and privileges for sale while not guaranteeing the basic ones.

 

 

And here I deal with Stefan's misunderstanding on a role of internal economy of a company or family, that is in fact resource-based, not monetary. RBE sees no distinction between mechanics and economy. Mechanics needs an information what goes where. Outside of the company this coordinating information is provided by prices, but this is a very inefficient system. This is why no company actually uses it inside. Here I show how would it look like if a company used the market system internally. Market system does not resolve a simple mechanical question of warehouse logistics, what to put where. We use other modes of communication for that. The basic irony of this comic strip is, that a price tag on a shelf helps you with deciding which shelf to buy, so that resolves the question of where to put the stuff, but once you own them, the price tags do not concern you anymore, so there is no market way to allocate things. You have to use warehouse logistics, which you could use to begin with and don't bother with this nonsense.

 

The price system is still there, but only because that a company is connected and dependent on the market system and price information in it. But nobody is so silly as to have a market in their own warehouse. Except Korean companies in Europe, they get tax breaks and they find it profitable to outsource everything on 3 or 4 levels.

[Armitage]

By the way, I have gone past the point where I see the negative rep points as something negative, they're more of an evidence that someone bothered to read something that doesn't validate their worldview as all believers do since the beginning of history.

[Armitage]

I listened to the show again, to get to the final part, there's some good stuff on family, parenting and parents which I think I'll need soon    Thanks Stef, that's gonna be useful. Very, very useful. I think my dad wants to play some power games and I'll see what some honesty and responsibility will do with him.

 

 

That being said, when the lady which mentioned RBE called, I facepalmed much again, but nonetheless I got some insights out of it. Stef said, that Zeitgeisters are shifting the goal posts. I think that is a very important point. Language is a set of goal posts, so is ideology... All that Stef is doing is putting the goal posts in such places that will help people see some things that they couldn't see before, because they didn't see them as legitimate or possible questions. That's what he does with his philosophy, he names things by their true names and thus makes them impossible to avoid. Great job, Stef! I wonder if I can borrow that ability like that Sylar guy from heroes, I think that will involve a minute with me and you and your brain...

Well, nevermind, I meant, Zeitgeisters don't do anything different. They just have a whole different set of goalposts which they use to capture an aspect of reality which they're not happy about, so that they can do something about it. Only it feels bad when you try to talk to them and discover just how many words do they mean differently and then you think they're shifting goalposts. 

 

 

OK, another thing, Stef commented on me and apparently, he thought that I was attacking him or trying to make him insecure. I mean, WTF? Stef was most definitely making the shit insecure out of me and I didn't accuse him of anything. I'm no Christian, but the biblical passage about having a plank in one's eye, how do you pull it out? The Bible doesn't say how. But if I try to tell that to Stefan, he thinks I'm attacking him? I mean, does that sound secure to you? Does that resemble someone who has his inner game figured out? Why didn't he say, "Well, what makes you think that? Is there something I missed?"

I mean, I care about Stef, I really do, as much as you can care for someone who you do allow to talk, yammer and rant into your ears for hours and hours and hours and who you agree with on almost everything. If it was your mom on the phone, you'd hung up on her long ago.

 

And that talk about algorithm, I mean, if someone's still reading this, what algorithm does market use? Write it for me, be that kind. Because if a market can have an algorithm, then so can RBE. If a market does not have an algorithm, then why do you assume that RBE has to have one? 

 

And please, those who have claimed that not you all here are Stefan's obedient followers are free to come and answer some of these questions. Because from where I stand, I see quite a well-connected hive mind, everyone so disciplined to avoid the questions or leave a negative rep at most.