Archive for the ‘Truth’ Category

TRUTH IS WHAT WORKS

August 1, 2017

Debating what “Truth” means is not new, and has been a very hot subject not just in the Twelfth Century Paris’ Cathedral School/University (when the great philosopher Abelard fiercely, at the risk of his life, opposed Saint Bernard about launching a Second Crusade).

Some of the greatest names in philosophy and foundations of physics  or logics of the Twentieth Century have thrived in questioning the notion of truth (Karl Popper, Einstein, Heisenberg, Jules Henri Poincaré,  for physics; Alfred Tarski, Carnap, Russell, Robinson, and many others, for logics).

As usual, just as Nietzsche made philosophy with a hammer, I deconstruct it with an H-bomb (melting all these hammers in the process). My conception of truth is simple, I have no time to twist truth is all direction, in the hope of being tolerated by all and ideologies. Why would be clear by the end of the essay (where the venom is located, as in the scorpion’s tail).

I will try to approach the truth about truth, by answering some of the comments of Eugen R, a dedicated commenter on this site, in the hope some would have similar position. I know plenty well enough that postmodernism basically asserted there was no truth (that makes Foucault’s .

***

Eugen: Science is just an instrument, how can be an instrument truth or false?

Answer: Science is what humans do. “Science” comes from the Latin for “to know”. One may then ask what “knowing” is. “Knowing” is what can be checked experimentally. Many animals use tools. Chimps who break hard nuts with stones are practicing science. They know that the stone will enable to extract the delicious innards.

Notice in passing that all advanced animals have culture: they transmit science to fellow creatures: it’s unlikely that chimpanzees,, or gorillas learn their entire pharmacopeia of plants they know (more than 50) by the experimental method (especially as some plants can be deadly). Transmitting science can be viewed as the definition of both culture and “advanced”.

Eugen: “Is science about finding out the truth”. The answer is no. Science is about to try to understand the non-understandable.

Answer: Well, scientific RESEARCH is about to try to understand what’s not understood. An attempt to stand-under. For example, there is NO science of Sub Quantum Reality. Not yet. But there are attempts to elaborate some (String Theory, Supersymmetry, SQPR: Sub Quantum Patrice Reality).

If you told a prehistoric man that Earth is round, like a ball, he would have asked what a ball is. So one would have had first to make him understand what a ball is. To understand the shape of the Earth, one needs to have a modicum of mathematics most two years old have now, but prehistoric man didn’t.

Eugen: Science also limits itself only to the natural phenomena, that can be experimentally observed.

Answer: Ex-per means out (ex) trying (per, a Proto Indo-European root). There are three ways to acquire knowledge: experimentation, culture and… FAITH (here we come!)

Some will be stupefied by the preceding. Faith??? What has faith to do with it? Everything: everybody climbing up into an aeroplane, has faith. Faith in thousands of engineers, mechanics, the laws of physics, and the pilots. Faith is what anchors knowledge into certainty (take that, Jihadists and priests).

Therein a hierarchy: because both culture and faith ultimately depend upon experiments.

Science, as a body of knowledge, not as a method, is a set of logics each unifying bodies of experiments each defining elements of TRUTH(s).

That definition also fits mathematics itself (mathematicians experiment with baby examples, and then write overarching theories unifying those baby examples; an example is that the definition of curvature for sphere, thought of in general enough a fashion, provides with a definition for the curvature for a saddle)

***

Eugen: As science advances with its understanding of the reality, and developing new sophisticated instruments, like the Hadron Collider, which is in a way extension of our limited human senses, it slowly pushes the limits of what is field of scientific research and what is not. For example the phenomena of life and consciousness were taboo for scientific research until recently.

Answer: Entirely true. For example Galileo’s X30 magnification telescope enabled to observe mountains on the moon and four satellites around Jupiter.

CRISPR allows gene editing, and thus for us to control our fate more than ever before. AI and the Quantum Computer, let alone neurology, enable us to become life and consciousness creators. We will have to elucidate what true progress really consists of, before creating with CRISPR all over. Not only we have become gods, but we have to admit it. Hence it’s all the more important that we tighten up the notion of truth, and not leave it for Jihadists and plutocrats to design, and impose truth according to their self-interested whims.

NO TRUTH, NO MORALITY

[I am very critical of the cult of Gandhi, considering what happened after he got control of India: more than ten million dead, and counting. However, I do use the occasional quote, and not just to keep my cynicism in shape…]

Eugen: Science also doesn’t ask if this or that finding about reality, even if thousand times experimentally verified, is truth or not. Science is claiming hypothesis that can be verified or refuted. If refuted, then the hypothesis is not valid, if verified, it means, it still was not refuted.

Answer: You start to sound like Karl Popper, who thought that science was all about refutation. But when a crow uses a spike to extract insects from tree bark, you are not going to tell the crow that it didn’t refute that the spike couldn’t be used to extract insects. The crow would, rightly, think you don’t know how to think.  

Popper thought too much about refutation. Sure, that’s how truth is established, so what? When a massive bell is tuned, metal is carefully removed by a lathe, until the bell sounds the right (“true”) tune.

In general, to find out what’s true, one eliminates what’s (experimentally) false. Initially Galileo looked at Jupiter and noted the “chance” alignment of several tiny stars with Jupiter and the ecliptic plane. The next night, looking at Jupiter on a whim, he noticed the “stars” had moved with Jupiter. So the hypothesis that they were “stars” was erroneous. Truth was established by elimination.

***

Eugen: Truth is a very different phenomenon. Truth, either you believe or you don’t.

Answer: No. In the entire human experience, truth is experimentally determined. Truth is why planes fly. Truth is experimentally determined, even in mathematics (and that’s the difference between mathematics and pure logics, where the notion of truth is much more restricted and still a matter of debate)

***

Eugen: You can’t prove or disprove truth.

Answer: This is the situation, only in pure logic, where “truth” is introduced by axioms (“propositional logic”), and, externally, by the universe within which the logic sits (the “context” in usual human parlance; there true propositions are introduced by hand). Still, it’s less easy than it looks as extremely elaborated debates on the notion of truth, even in this arena of logic and metalogic, was intensely debated around the 1950s (with unclear resolution; my conclusions about truth in logic are mine alone, and tend to simplify, if not oversimplify…)

In mathematics, baby examples are true (inasmuch as their axioms are true; many axioms were long implicit, even in Euclid and Archimedes… Or in today’s math. If you tell that to a research mathematician, s/he will often tend to get very angry…)

***  

Eugen: Patrice spoke about Euclidean geometry as being truth. Yes within its limited frame as a closed system or as Patrice called it, “attached context” it is truth. The same can be said about sentence like, “the water has property of wetness”. It is truth always, after all wetness can’t exist without water, and water can’t be not wet. But exactly as in case of wetness of water, Euclidean geometry, is only a system of words within themselves.

Answer: 1) water is not always “wet”. Ice is slippery as long as it is covered by a thin film of water. Without it, solid water is adherent. Pluto has towering ice mountains.

2) Science has found water is mostly H2O (there is some heavy water too: D2O).

3) Euclidean geometry is NOT just a “system of words”. It’s a system of words and a system of implications (either explicit, or implicit: all logic, except computer programming, contains implicit semantic drift). All together Euclidean Geometry is a logic, a “logos”.

The Christians were crafty enough, in the beginning to make “The Logos” GOD. That seduced the Neo-Platonists who ruled the empire, just below the plutocratic level. That was the bait.

Right now, many US pilots pass out in their jets: a F22 Raptor, the most sophisticated fighter in the US arsenal, crashed in 2010 that way, and the pilot, captain Haynes, was killed. Others followed since. Entire types were grounded at times for weeks. The entire fleet is affected, including F16s, F35s, etc. The cause is unknown. Some guess that the cause has to do with the very complicated software which controls the air given to the pilots and their pressure suits (one needs pressure to breathe at altitude…) This problem is still unsolved. Why? The truth has not yet been found.

***

Fake News, The Passion for Fiction, etc:

The Nobel Prize in literature was not given to non-fiction authors, for half a century (until Belarusian Svetlana Alexievich). You know people such as yours truly, Winston Churchill, Bertrand Russel, Bergson, etc. Why? Because nonfiction is an inconvenient truth. Fiction writing is, by definition, not true, with fake news, fake creatures, and fake reality all around. Alexievich, a Bielorusian, implicitly criticizing the Bielorusian dictatorship, is safely removed from the leading dictating elite of the planet, so she is free to tell all the truths she wants… We may as well encourage her, to distract the Commons…

It’s no coincidence that France has seen its prominent industry collapse in recent decades, the mood turn gloomy, while so many French truths turned to lies. Naturally enough, France is now the most tobacco drugged out advanced country, especially young women. Something not right in France, just there! At the same time, the French writing establishment is obsessed with fiction. And out there roll out another sort of fake news: insipid “novels” which have nothing novel about them.

Lest the denizens of the sister Republic, the USA, start to chuckle, I will point out that the Clinton, Bush and Obama presidencies were fueled on so many lies (“Look at me, I’m brown, thus who cares that inequality is the highest ever, thanks to eight years of my policies??… which were actually mostly those of Clinton-Bush, where it counted most“). Thus the drug epidemics in the USA is now the most lethal ever. Opiates alone kill more than either guns or car. Why? Average people want to forget the lies. That’s also why they voted for Trump (who, at the very least, is more entertaining than the look-at-my-skin type… First orange hair is funnier than bronze skin…)

Most of the establishment has been intoxicated on its fake news, fake pre-occupations, etc. What it takes to sail a sea of lies.

***

Truth Is What Works:

When what was well-known before has been proven false, what is left is the truth. What does “truth” mean? It means that, when making a tool, or following a procedure while avoiding all known errors we end up with a tool, or procedure which works, something which is “true”. Because whatever does not work is an error.

It’s not very difficult to understand. But of course people who are in power are there because of an ideology, a system of thought, and, for them, that is the tool which is true, because it works for them.

It’s precisely because truth is what works that ideologies are true for their practitioners. But they are not THE TRUTH.

THE TRUTH, within, or about, an ideology, any ideology, even one with scientific pretense, is what’s left when an ideology’s lies have been detected and rejected.

Part of the mental intoxication from the elite has been to pretend that truth is all relative, can’t be proven, does not exist, never has, never will, and the “postmoderns” have been their prophets, while eating caviar and drinking champagne, while encouraging hard core Islam, and giving a pass to all things plutocratic. Weapons have been few and far between… Until Trump, a live Molotov cocktail to throw at the establishment.

Truth is what works: a definition of truth which works, a definition which is not supporting faith denying truth, the latter being the sort of faith I have no faith in!

If truth is what works, as I believe, the state of the planet is proof enough that we are collapsing under the weight of lies and errors ruling us into oblivion. Amen.

Patrice Ayme’

All We Need Is Truth

July 30, 2017

People are simple. And love to be simple. That’s why, for most of them, aside from their profession, all they know is “sports”, and it’s a new religion. Being complicated is expensive.

One commenter on my site, Benign, apparently obfuscated by my broadside against the delirious sexism of past and present Catholicism, called me deluded to think that “rationality” even exists. Evolution does not “progress.” The Soviets “rationally” outlawed marriage from ~1918 to the 1940s, before realizing that this “rational” decision didn’t work.”

The USSR outlawed marriage???????? Same source which saw them drinking blood of “capitalists”? Logic is easy, truth is hard.

Modernist, Postmodernist, Metamodernist Jargon Is Jargon, and jargon ain’t truth! “Meta”, though, is a serious operation we all practice. See “Mind From Meta“.

Marriage is a fact of human ethology, the natural behavior of humans. To outlaw it would not have been irrational, because reason can always be found, but futile, as going against marriage goes against human nature. This is exactly why the Soviets didn’t outlaw marriage: they were not that dumb.

By the late 1920s, Soviet adults had been made more responsible for the care of their children, and common-law marriage had been given equal legal status with civil marriage. Is that what Benign alludes to? By 1944, the Soviets went back, and recognized only legal civil marriage, to encourage more steady families.

Rationality exists, but as I have emphasized in the past, as a constant rolling of the drums, a logic can be anything. That evolution “progresses” is a battle from 1800 CE, when Lamarck asserted this thesis. It’s correct: clearly some of today’s lifeforms are the most complex ever.  Some day all biologists will proudly view Lamarck as right, and their predecessors of the 1960s, who were fanatically anti-Lamarck, as deluded bigots.

How do I know Lamarck was right? Tons of knowledge that those who scream Lamarck was a maniac (following the slave master Napoleon) never heard of these tons, they are children.

To see evolution’s progress, don’t look at sharks, or oysters, and other animals in evolutionary stasis. Instead, look at Blue Rorquals, most massive animals ever, & look at us, most clever. The most advanced animals are the most complex, and they are complex in ways beyond what we understand of genetics.

Beatles sang: “All You Need Is Love!”. Silly stuff: we all got love, otherwise we won’t exist. We have all the logics, at our disposal, and all the love we got as children.

To order and discipline our logic, and even our loves, most of what we need is truth

“Postmodernism” was the realization that many ideologies were the fruit of tribalism, not truth (as they malevolently claimed). This is not really new. See  vérité en deçà des Pyrénées, erreur au-delà de Pascal (a thought unpublished in his lifetime: truth before the Pyrénées, error beyond them)..

“Deconstruction” consisted in finding out where things came from. It’s not conceptually different from analysis (a unloosening), a concept found in Aristotle, and obvious centuries before him.

All this is to say that those who have pretended to introduce new ways of thinking about thinking have eschewed the truth: there is no truth, but truth, and, in the human species, it’s as old as dinner . There is no truth, but truth! In the human species, truth is as old as dinner. No truth, no dinner for the human, but one for the lion. The truth was in the dinner. In how to get dinner!

Right, truth is dangerous, because some claim to have it, and they don’t. But they always have, and always will. The Wise can’t go around, claiming they don’t have the truth, as Socrates did, or, worse, as Socrates claimed again and again, and the self-declared “post-modernists” parroted, that there is no truth… Because if they do that, they do exactly what German Jews (among others) did with Hitler and his Nazis: leave a wide open field for infamy to proclaim its own version of truth. And everybody, or, at least, most Germans, believed them. And others, like most Americans, pretended that it was OK with them.

The scientific method does NOT opposes the notion of truth, as those who have only a shallow knowledge of pop science are all too often led to believe. It’s exactly the opposite. Euclid’s theorem or the classical laws of optics are still true… They are actually more true than ever. In their domain of application. They are more true than ever, precisely because now we know where their domain of application came from. In other words, we control their meta-logic. We know where their truth come from, and where it’s located. And how to control it.

There is no logic without a metalogic, establishing therein, a notion of truth. Thinking is, and always was, an experimental process.

All we need is truth. But it’s the hardest thing. Truth never was, nor will ever be, a safe place. But it’s the safest place.

Patrice Ayme’

Advanced Morality: First, Learn To Be Polite With The Truth

May 16, 2017

Another self-glorifying US historian explains in Aeon magazine that “Democracy needs politeness”. And what is the ultimate form of politeness? Political Correctness! Political correctness, or the transformation of reality into insanity. Indeed, the “historian” Steven Bullock claims that: “Autocrats shouted, cursed, and bullied, while American revolutionaries used politeness as a tool of radical politics.”

That’s statement is a piece of towering disinformation.

First, although kings and queens occasionally “bullied”, uppity peers, of the kingdom, they would very rarely stoop to shouting and cursing. That would be to admit weakness, dearth of “majesty”.

Second, the principal “radical” character of US politics after getting rid of British rule was that the frontier which the monarch in London had imposed was shattered, and Indian lands got stolen on an imperial scale.  

Look carefully at the “Proclamation Line” on the west side of the colonies. That was supposed to their frontier under the British Rule. That was the real cause of the war.  The Real Cause Of the War Of Independence Was the “Proclamation Line of 1763”. It prevented the expansion of the English American colony to the West, thus it blocked a very nice land grab. The “Boston Tea Party” is a system of thought designed to disguise the main motivation for what really happened.

Steven Bullock describes British and US plutocracy as if they belong to a universe where all rules are upside down. Says he:

Britons and Americans of the 18th century applied these ideals of sympathy and respect to public as well as personal relationships. Seeking restrained and responsive leadership, the 18th-century ‘politics of politeness’ offered a powerful challenge to angry and overbearing authoritarian rule. For many contemporaries, this critique often seemed broader and more compelling than the discussions of legal and constitutional issues that are better known today.

Politeness developed in Britain, and Europe as a whole, but its political applications became especially important in 18th-century British America…

Why upside down? Because there was nothing polite about the British and American empires. They both conquered large swathes of the planet over record time, and held to those. No morality was held back: to defeat France, Great Britain used Prussia as a weapon. Prussia was a hyper militaristic, extremely racist state. Now people bemoan Nazism: it’s fashionable. However, 1756 Britain made support for (what would become) Nazism a reality. Prussia murderously discriminated against Jews and Poles. That was part of what Mr. History Professor sees as “politeness”. Also, the reason why the french Revolution did not propagate to England was not so much that England was more democratic, as Voltaire affected to believe. Actually, England was more effectively plutocratic, under democratic disguise: French peasant owned their land, not the English peasants (in England, aristocrats held everything).    

Actually, there was nothing new about politeness: it was already expected in Republican Rome. What was new in the Middle Ages were the “Courts of Love” which made explicit what were polite relations between men and women. That surely did not exist in Rome: Rome was very sexist. The Republic was very sexist, and the empire, a little bit less so. Not as sexist as present-day Islam, but still one had to wait the extreme Late Roman Empire to see one “Augusta” meaning one supreme Roman leader who was a woman. The Franks and later the French and “Renovated Roman Empire” they created had many supreme leaders who were women, well before Eleanor of Aquitaine (queen of France and England).

In truth, what was “compelling” in Britain, is that, if an admiral lost a battle to the French he was shot and that was it. Idiots with a smattering of knowledge of perverted history will call that polite! Britain was actually a horrendous dictatorship relative to France in  more ways than one, and proved it by attacking France with its utmost in 1792, in at least two ways: by financing and exciting Prussia, once again; unfortunately for the cowardly British plutocracy, Prussia was defeated next to Paris at Valmy, September 1792; the other way was by directly invading Provence.

Bullock hints that we are not polite enough, that compromises democracy, when we call libidinous greedsters for what they are, leeches upon civilization, horses of the apocalypse of the biosphere, he disingenuously bemoans.

However, first there is no democracy as it is. About 2,000 people take all the important decisions in the West or the USA, and set the important moods. They are themselves puppets of the worldwide wealthy class of the.01%, or so.

Democracy in Athens meant a quorum of 6,000. That would mean a direct vote by around 20 million people for any decision, in a country such as the USA. Not just a few hundred baboons mostly selected by their ability to seduce the rich enough to run for elections.

Secondly, politeness is all too often a way to disguise viciousness: by affecting to treat others one speaks to kindly, surely, one could not be treating anybody shabbily. Surely, by talking falsely now, with exaggerated deference, one invites others to do the same.

And surely enough, most of the US Founding Fathers founded a pseudo-democracy which was the most successful holocaust machine devised in the last 6,000 years of known civilization. The American Natives were mostly exterminated and certainly evacuated, from an entire very nice, temperate continent. Hey, such polite people! Who could suspect the polite Jefferson to have sex with children, enslave, and grab Indian lands as vast as Western Europe, so that his tribe could colonize them after murdering the original owners?

When the Ancient Regime’s police in Paris told Jefferson that he could now keep slaves in France, and politely asked him to let them go, and, if they decided to stay, pay them wages, Jefferson politely agreed. But he lied, politely, because the best lying is very polite, and most productive that way.

Then, when asked politely by the children he had enslaved whether he would free them once they had returned to America, Jefferson politely said he would do so. Not because Jefferson was genuinely truthful, but because his disingenuous politeness made it so that the children he was abusing and enslaving would not run away in Paris, and ask for help from the French authorities.

Just as Christianism as founded by the so-called “Church Founding Fathers” around 400 CE, was the most polite, greatest anti-civilizational ideology in the history of known civilization. Thereupon, the Dark Ages. It is surely not polite to point this out.

Instead, one should set-up a “Muslim Appreciation Month” as California did it in 2016.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/california-recognizes-august-muslim-appreciation-awareness-month-n621851

Surely, if we appreciate Islamism, we appreciate Christianism, thus the Dark Ages! All very polite, with obscurantism! Appreciation as a principle is a manipulation, just as encouragement and punishment as principle are abusive manipulations. Especially when applied to non-handicapped children.  Encouragement, punishment are not ingredients in a recipe, to be kept in balance to taste just right (contrarily to what traditional Chinese pedagogy has it, which keeps a balance of 5:1 between encouragement, the wén 文, and punishment, the wǔ 武!). Verily, encouragement and punishment should be the fruits of reason.

To be frank is to be polite with the truth.

Appreciation for truth is what we need now. It’s the antidote for Political Correctness. Political Correctness is that, if it feels right, it’s right. Political Correctness, replacing truth by hedonism, is the exact annihilation of the essence of humanity. OK, it’s not polite to point that out. But it’s the truth, and it’s because of it that the greatest, most brutal life extinction in at least 65 million years is proceeding now (and it could get worse).

A small example: Yes the Bush government and the Bush family lied about why they invaded Iraq, and then lied about why they let Iraq be devastated. That was a violation of Geneva convention, and people who deliberately violate the Geneva Convention on a massive scale surely are criminals against humanity. Being “polite” in this matter would amount to become an accomplice of these grave violations.

Conclusion: One has to learn to be polite with the truth, not higher-ups, who are little more than thieving baboons who ran away with democracy.

Patrice Ayme’

TRUTH, SCIENCE: CONSTRUCT, Only Then Try To Falsify

December 24, 2016

The notion of truth is central to the human condition. “Belief”, “Faith” claim to solve it. But there is a better way: dynamics.

BUILD, THEN VERIFY: HOW SCIENCE & TRUTH PROGRESS. TRUTH IS AN ECOLOGY.

Popper’s Error: Science Is Not Just About Falsification. Science Is Construction First, Falsification Later:

Abstract: ‘Falsification’ ruled 20th-century science. However, falsification was always second to construction. First construct, only then falsify. Why? As simple as it gets: One cannot falsify something that one has not constructed.

So what is truth? For a hint: look at biological evolution: in a way evolution is a truth, any species solves a number of problems it is confronted to. (It could be the Ebola virus: the virus solves the problem of its own survival.) I will show truths are also denizens of an evolutionary process. (Leaving the Bible’s Logos in the dust…)i

***

Detailed Examples Show That Falsification Is Always Second To Construction: the heliocentric theory jumps to mind.

Heliocentrism (Earth rotates around the Sun) was first proposed by the astronomer Aristarchus (320 BCE). At least so said Archimedes. The arguments were lost. However, Aristotelian physics was in the way. PPP Carefully Looking At The Phases Of Venus Falsified The Ptolemaic Model of the Solar System

Buridan (~ 1345 CE) demolished Aristotelian physics (no, islamophiles, Buridan was indeed first). Armed with his correct inertial theory, Buridan proposed that Earth turned around the sun. But he could not prove it. Copernicus said more of the same two centuries later: yet it could not be proven.

The philosophical argument had been known for 18 centuries: the Sun was the bigger thing, so the smaller thing, Earth, should rotate around the bigger thing. (Maybe some Ancient Greeks thought about another argument, relative to speed: if the Sun turned around, in just a day, its speed had got to be enormous; enormous speeds were unfriendly; if Earth rotated around, it needed to rotate on itself: would the clouds fly away? Aristotle’s erroneous physics said so, but Buridan explained  that Aristotle’s arrow experiment was false, by introducing rotary inertia.

Kepler came out with his laws, a stupendous achievement. Still one could not prove heliocentrism definitively. It had become the simpler description, though, by a long shot. 

Falsification Of The Egocentric Ptolemaic System Was Only Provided By The Goddess Venus

Falsification Of The Egocentric Ptolemaic System Was Only Provided By The Goddess Venus; By The Way, I Protest Against The Adjective “Copernican”. Aristarchus, and Even More, Buridan, Were The Main Architects of Building The Truth About The Heliocentric System. Buridan threw Down Aristotelian Physics, Something Even Archimedes Did Not Do (that we know of!)

[In the Ptolemaic System, Venus Was Always Between Earth And Sol, Thus, Venus Always Appeared As A Crescent. Seeing Venus fully lighted by Sol showed Ptolemaic astronomers were full of it. Now, OK, they had to wait for the progress of European optics in the middle Middle Ages… Reading glasses and all that…]

And then Galileo found that the little things, the four satellites of Jupiter, were rotating around the big thing (Jupiter). Another indice.

At this point, there were several independent lines of arguments each pointing at heliocentrism as the most economical, most likely explanation (size, speed, lesser overall rotational inertia (rotational “impetus”, to speak as Buridan did), Kepler’s Laws, Jupiter’s satellites).

It was a “beast in the forest approach”: it sounded like a lion, it smelled like a lion, it had the color of a lion, it looked as if it had the ears of a lion. So what of Popper’s “falsification” approach in this? Suppose that it did not have the color of a lion. Does that prove it’s not a lion? No. It could be bright red, because it’s covered with blood, and it’s still a lion. Or all black, because it’s in the shade, yet, still a lion.

By 1613, though, Galileo’s telescope had enough power to resolve the phases of Venus (and dare to publish the result). Only then was the heliocentric theory definitively proven, and the Ptolemaic system ruled out. If the way the phases behaved had not come out right, heliocentrism would have been wrong. PPP Venus provided with the Popper Falsification. However, even before that, all astronomers had come to the conclusion that it was certain that the Earth turned around the Sun.

***

Of The Bad Influence Of Popper & The Primacy Of Falsification:

Falsification is not fun and cuts down the impulse of imagination. Putting falsification from cognition first kills imagination. Imagination is more important than cognition. Imagination is the definition of the human condition.

To realize that only the phases of Venus were an incontrovertible proof, one had to have derived the heliocentric theory far enough to come to that conclusion. By the time it became clear that the Venus phases were the incontrovertible proof could be, 99% of the theory of heliocentrism was established. 

It was a question of mental chicken and egg: neither came first, the theory had to evolve. Actually, the phases of Venus can be resolved by exceptional observers with fantastic eyes, and special atmospheric conditions (the human eye can resolve a minute of arc, Venus apparent size is around two-third of that).

If one had been guided by only finding a definitive proof of heliocentrism, one would have invented no science. For example Buridan and his students invented graphs. They also demonstrated early calculus theorems, but without any of the sophisticated formalism, equation, analytic geometry, which those theorems would push to discover…

By considering that only the last step of an inquiry makes that inquiry scientific, Popper and his falsification obsession make science impossible. (Down with Popper; make no mistake, I like Popper, but then I also “like” Ivanka Trump’s mien in the coach cabin of a Jetblue sardine can, when she kept calm in the middle seat, while being “harassed” by two PC college professor idiots… They were thrown out of the plane, came to regret their actions, and then deleted their Tweeter accounts where they wrote about the deedd they planned. Both the martyrized Ivanka and one of the cruel college professors of barbarity were with small children, including two infants…)

As Buridan pointed out, one could not tell the difference, experimentally , between the heliocentrism he proposed and Scripture (so one may as well believe scripture, he added insolently). But that impossibility to falsify did not prevent him to think about it, and to think about it as a science.

***

Evolution theory is even more constructivist: 

The Greek philosopher Anaximander of Miletus, before the Persian fascist annihilated Miletus, proposed that people descended from fishes. Later, Aristotle, baffled by fossils, ordered his students to go out, observe and establish a registry of living forms.

By then evolution theory by mixed artificial and natural means was well-known in Greece, as related methods produced superlative cattle sold around the Mediterranean. Nobody can know how much was explicitly in writing about evolution (out of 700 Greco-Roman classics we know of, only 150 survived… through the Frankish controlled monasteries).

Evolutionary ideas were revived in the Eighteenth Century, until Lamarck proposed the theory of evolution in 1800 CE. Lamarck became quickly an object of hatred from the dictator Napoleon and the Christian Church. A bedrock of his conclusions were microscopic studies of fossils of mollusks (decades behind the microscope destroyed his eyesight). Lamarck was a research professor, not a falsification professor: he invented ideas, and even words: he used neologisms such as biology, mollusk, invertebrate, etc.

Lamarck also proposed a non-selective mechanism to explain evolution (as I said above, the Greeks were thoroughly familiar with natural and artificial selection). That obviously could not be disproven, and the mechanism was completely unfathomable. It is only now that epigenetics has been demonstrated to exist, and some mechanisms explaining it have been made explicit.

Methinks there is much more to come (because DNA is a Quantum machine in a Quantum environment, and all interactions are non-local…

***

Those Who Don’t Want To Build, Don’t Want to Know:

We build theories, first. Then we test them, always. First build.

Those who don’t want to build, don’t want to falsify.

***

Finding Truth By GOING BEYOND The BIBLICAL GOD:

To assuage and pacify the Neoplatonist leadership of the Roman empire, the evangel of John proclaims in its first few sentences that the “logos” was God, and God was the “logos”. In other words, logic, the discourse, ruled the universe.

Now the “logos” itself is its own truth: any logic defines a propositional truth from its axioms: well-formed propositions are “true” in a sense. HOWEVER, propositional truth is not ALL the truth in a logical system. That observation is the key to the problem of truth.   

Moreover, there is the problem of meta-truth. Meta-truth evolves out of truth (Godel famously proved that meta-truth existed). Logicians have been struggling with both non-propositional truth and metatruth (Godel’s proofs were proofs of existence, and did not provide with an explicit mechanism to build metatruths; later Godel and Cohen rolled out axioms which were independent of others, and thus could be considered true or not).

The preceding shows that building a scientific theory is a built-up of truth: Popper’s work was naive, removed from reality.

A scientific theory’s formation is an evolution of truth: it defines truth as it goes. Science is the best state of formal knowledge we have: thus truth is an evolution

Still, although truth evolves, that does not mean there is no absolute formal truth. There is: planes fly, don’t they? For a plane to fly one million formal truths need indeed to be true, at the same time, or the plane would crash.

Thus one can see that truth does not evolve like a species: metatruth evolves like an ecology does, generating on its way perfect species, local truths. An ecology evolves perfect species, such as sharks and oysters, which barreled, same as they always were, through massive extinction waves in the last few hundreds of millions of years. Evolution also produced species whose main business is to evolve, such as hominins (ourselves and all those cousins of us we used for dinner, in the past).

So, in the evolution of logic and metalogic, perfect truths are produced, so perfect they become part of the logos themselves (truths such as realizing that love is the engine of all things human!).

God is truth, and we make it up, as we debate reality with our imagination.

Patrice Ayme’

P/S: The essay is better appreciated if one is familiar with 20th century philosophy of science (and it penetrated the exercise of science itself, especially physics). Karl Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific. However, if I say, tomorrow the sky is blue, that’s falsifiable, but not necessarily scientific. The Popperian criterion excludes from the domain of science not unfalsifiable statements but only whole theories that contain no falsifiable statements. That’s silly, because Popper wanted to ‘prove’ that Marxism was not scientific… Yet clearly the work of Marx contains falsifiable statements. Moreover, Pauperism leaves one with the Duhemian problem of what constitutes a ‘whole theory’ as well as the problem of what makes a proposition ‘meaningful’.

My approach above pretty much throws the whole thing through the window. Science has to do with truth, and metatruth, which have architectures of truth, just as a building or a plane have them.

 

Should Truth Be Moderated?

December 18, 2016

I Think, Therefore I Attack:

The first problem is that the importance of the relationship between seeking the truth and needing some aggression to do this, is underestimated.

We think, therefore we attack. Not just your brain, but mine too. Seeking the truth involves destroying yesterday’s false, fake, naive, ill-informed certainties. (This is why a land of faith in the irrationalhas a problem producing truth.)

Truth is what is. At some point, brains which learn are informed by what is. Brains are formed into what is. Formation requires energy. Learning the truth is about brain construction. So it is energy hungry, it is a baby which needs to be fed. Or it will devour you.

Truth is why philosophers in good standing are hated by the commons: the philosophers ask the commons to spend energy, in-form their brains, spend energy, get out of their comfort zone, burn what they adored. Not only do philosophers and other deep thinkers have different brains, the ones of philosophers and thinkers being much superior, they assuredly have different epigenetics. Well, as president Franklin Roosevelt said about bankers, I welcome their hatred: I devour it, it makes me strong (even Nietzsche did not dare to say that).

In Greeks politics, as explained by Aristotle, there were “tyrants” (turannus, actually). Aristotle explained these were individuals who whipped the People (“Demos”) into a frenzy against the oligarchy in power. (Oligarchy means rule of a few.) Donald Trump is filling this role a bit, panicking the oligarchy in power and all its sycophants and servants. 

Aggression is intimately tied to deep thinking. Both require strong motivation to destroy what was, to build a better self.

Refusing To Understand Aggression Is Refusing To Understand Not Just Why & How Mammals Killed Dinosaurs, But Refusing To Understand The Primate Condition Itself

Refusing To Understand Aggression Is Refusing To Understand Not Just Why & How Mammals Killed Dinosaurs, But Refusing To Understand The Primate Condition Itself

***

US Oligarchic Plutocracy’s Religion: Moderating Truth Itself:

The US oligarchs and their own brainless mobs have argued that “fake news”, “post-truth”, the FBI and the KGB (Putin) have conspired with those who set-up the electoral college, to make them lose their privileges (soon).

Facebook, the Washington Post and the New York Times (all of them controlled by some of the richest and most oligarchically connected individuals in the world) have argued they need to moderate”, and “be moderate”. It is not just particularly ironical with the New York Times. Paul Krugman from the NYT has written, for years, that comments needed to be moderated. Or the likes of me would pervert their innocent readers by exposing them to truth. So all of my comments were excluded, because I am apparently viewed as an immoderate partisan of truth (in earlier, more pleasant times, the Times’ editors would call me, to listen to my wise opinions).

Thus the call to moderation of the New York Times pertains to the same sort of general perverse psychological strategy which brought Adolf Hitler to pretend all day long that he was all for peace and a “calm” savior of minorities.

I have come to believe that most of the economic “science” of Nobel Laureates such as Paul Krugman is just oligarchic propaganda. Actually most of what someone like Milton Friedman said about social organization, science, the state, or lack thereof viewed as an asset, arguably led to the disastrous state of affairs we are in now. Milton Friedman got the Nobel in economics, but it’s easy to show important parts of this work, with tremendous policy consequences, which were enacted (mostly by Nixon, Reagan and Clinton), are sheer counter-factual nonsense.

(For example Milton Friedman argued that the state never helped to invent anything, whereas the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming: 99% of the greatest discoveries of humanity had state support in some sense; actually the roots of the university system comes from a mood the Frankish leadership had in the Sixth Century, practices they had in the Seventh Century, and passing mandatory secular educational laws in the Eighth Century.)

That such an ignorant person as Milton Friedman spewing outrageous lies was able to steer society, not just the economy, starting with Richard Nixon, goes a long way to explain why all presidents ever since, were bad for the USA (and the world), whereas all the preceding presidents, after Hoover, were certainly good for the USA.

So the New York Times banned all my comments about “Quantitative Easing” after the first few. Why? Because I pointed out that the richest people in the world profited from it, the way QE was done, and that it was disastrous for the 99%.

***

Facebook Will Determine Truth According To The Most Hateful, And Will Check It With Servants Of Those Which Made It Rich:

Now Facebook has announced it would use its own users to detect non-truth. My own personal experience shows that, since the confrontation between Trump and the present oligarchy, I have been insulted to an unreal level. I have been condemned in public for being things I am absolutely not. In truth, I have Jewish  friends, very close Muslim friends (they host my seven-year old daughter everyday), and I am a certified alien, and condemned as such (wherever I go). I was also anti-Trump decades ago, because I did not like the way US banks helped him, and right now I am not going to be anti-Trump, just because Trump tells the truth.

So Facebook is going to empower the individuals most hateful, most ignorant, hence most belligerent, to weed out… truth. To reinforce this, Facebook will use professional “truth” determing for profit services which have been fanatically devoted to Hillary Clinton, candidate of the oligarchs and plutocrats of the present establishment. 

***

Hence a question: Should We Moderate Truth?

Of course not. That would be inhuman. Thus, if we are human for the better (plutocrats are not), we should not moderate truth. Humanity is strong, dominant, because humanity is a truth machine.

An oligarchy is always in place because the People assent to it: Aristotle, Rousseau pointed this out. That means that the minds of We The People broadly accept that the oligarchic rule is wise enough. And it is, in general, a lie.

Why? Because the oligarchy, being from a few, is not as smart as if all thoughts from all of We The People had been processed, that is exposed, considered, and debated: the Roman empire collapsed, from society-wide Alzheimer. And most civilization collapse from civilizational Alzheimer (be they the Qin, Yuan, Ming, or Kaiser Wilhelm empires, or Easter island).

***

What To Do? Learn To DEBATE Ideas.

That means insults should not be viewed as rational arguments.

For example calling Donald Trump “anti-semitic”, meaning anti-Jewish, as Paul Krugman did, 48 hours before the presidential election. In truth, Trump’s son-in-law is an “observant Jew”, and his beloved, trusted daughter Ivanka converted to “observant” Judaism, when she was 27… Examples like this show that the “Democratic” pundits were deliberate promoters of lies.  

Viewed from afar, the entire organization of US society is a lie. The Democratic Party was a Demoncratic (= plutocratic) Party. And this is the truth. Yes, that’s also an insult, but insults which abstract truth are alright, and sometimes necessary. The problem is when the “truth” turns out to be lies (as the rock group the Jefferson Airplane put it 48 years ago in a famous song, “Somebody to Love“).

There should be no moderation in the art of thinking the truth.  Especially in these times, when civilization is destroying its home.

Those who claim that truth should be moderated are not just enemies of humanity and all its values, but enemies of the biosphere itself.

Patrice Ayme’

 

.

 

 

 

Between Friends: Donald, Hillary, & Angry Plutocrats

October 23, 2016

Trump Hatred Originates With The Average Plutocrat, Not The Clintons:

The Clintons and Trumps have long been friends, their children are great friends, especially Chelsea and Ivanka, and it shows. So why all the hatred? Well, it’s manufactured, It is part of a distraction show, kabuki theater. And a genuine worry, among most plutocrats, that Trump is a traitor who plays apprentice sorcerer. The figure of the rogue plutocrat turning treacherously against plutocracy, his alma mater, his nourishing mother, is a familiar one in history

Roughly all Main Stream Media, worldwide, are owned, held, or otherwise controlled by plutocrats (yes, including the public NPR and PBS in the USA). Those plutocrats hate Trump, because Trump has dared to say, and has been saying as loudly as possible, since at least 1987 (when he attacked Reagan in writing) that globalization, as practiced, does not work for We The People. That has been proven aplenty, and now angry voters are discovering that Trump was right all along.

Amusingly, Sanders’ final success in 2016 was forged by Donald’s iconoclastic work, from way back when he fought Reagan with the exact same idea he rolls out today again (whereas the ever more popular Obama lauds Reagan; that, and not racism, is the source of the antipathy between Trump and Obama: Obama was born half white and educated by 100% whites). When crafty Bill Clinton called Obamacare the “craziest thing in the world“, he was craftily following Donald Trump too (and thus neutralizing the Donald: no need to vote for Trump to put Obamacare out of its misery, Bill will do it for you…)

***

The Ill Informed Sing The Praises Of The Clintons, but the Clintons are followers of Goldman Sachs, establishers of  the financial plutocracy. One, of course, has to be educated enough, and curious enough, to understand the following graph. As rabidly pro-Clinton minorities are in general not graced with as much discernment, they are rather obdurate: they suffer you know. Thus it is that the victim elect their torturers, a generalization of the Stockholm Syndrome (the feelings of trust or affection felt in certain cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim towards captors). It is a case of capture-bonding. 

The Clinton Destroyed FDR’s Banking Act and Re-established The Vicious Financial System Of 1929, On Steroids

The Clinton System Destroyed FDR’s Banking Act of 1933 and Re-established The Vicious Financial System Of 1929, On Steroids

 Since the Clinton economy affected income, median GDP per capita has lost 40% relative to the GDP of the USA. How come? The 40% went to the top, and mostly the .1%. 

***

We Are Friends, And Long Have Been:

Trump and Clinton roasted  each other in a funny way at the annual roast and Catholic fundraiser. Trump said he was delighted that Hillary was nominating him ambassador to Iraq or Afghanistan, and he got to choose which one. Hillary said Donald said she did not have stamina, but she had spent 4.5 hours with him, debating, and that was longer than any of his campaign managers ever did (an allusion to the fact Donald’s managers keep on resigning, or being resigned).

The host, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, said the candidates had “nice things” to say offstage.

“I was very moved by the obvious attempt on behalf of both Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump to kind of be courteous, to get along, to say nice things privately to one another,” Dolan said on NBC’s “Today.” “I was very moved by that. That was pleasant.”

Dolan, who sat between Trump and Clinton at the dinner, acknowledged the two were, like President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012, “kind of awkward together.”

“But the purpose of the evening is to break some of that ice, and thanks be to God, it works. The Al Smith Dinner by its nature literally tries to — I’m sitting there between the two — and literally,I’m supposed to be kind of a bridge to bring these two people together. And I try my best, and there were some very touching moments.”

The three of them prayed together. “And after the little prayer, Mr. Trump turned to Secretary Clinton and said, ‘You know, you are one tough and talented woman…This has been a good experience in this whole campaign, as tough as it’s been” She replied “And Donald, whatever happens, we need to work together afterwards.”  

Trump: Sometimes Vulgar In Below The Belt Considerations. Clinton: All Too Often An Awfully Vulgar Laughter Which Looks Like Something A Donkey Would Do. Made For Each Other

Trump: Sometimes Vulgar Below The Belt. Clinton: All Too Often An Awfully Vulgar Laughter Which Looks Like Something A Donkey Would Do. Made For Each Other

So much love! Not like the “arrogant” Dylan who, members of the Nobel committee loudly whine, has refused to acknowledge their glorious, yet most generous existence. Well, what do they think? It is embarrassing, that Nobel is embarrassing and Dylan knows it. (At least he did not get it just because he received power and brown skin!) If I were me, i would accept the Nobel, if i were Dylan, I would refuse it. The Nobel should be used to reward what, and, or, whom, deserves to be discovered, not one of the planet super stars. (Salman Rushdie was supposed to be a runner-up for the literature Nobel, Rushdie is a martyr of the struggle against fanatical, lethal theology, yet how come I get bored to death reading a few pages of his books? At least Dylan, I appreciate, and not just the music.)

So who hates Trump, if not the Clintons? Well, in the last presidential debate, Hillary accused Donald to be a “puppet” and he angrily retorted:”No, you are the puppet“. She meant he was a caricature, he meant she was something whose strings were pulled by multi billionaires (Soros, Buffet, the Gates, etc…) They both knew that they were right, and in which different ways. (Clinton may have enough of a temper to break a few strings, though…)

***

Hatred Against Trump Is Self Interested Among the Mighty:

Typical is the hatred of the (light weight, yet courageous) billionaire-intellectual-charming corruptocrat,  Bernard-Henri Lévy who nebulously accuses Trump of “possible infidelity to America itself. The party of Eisenhower and Reagan has been commandeered by a corrupt demagogue…”

To put Eisenhower and Reagan in the same category is embarrassingly ignorant: Eisenhower launched FDR New Deal style massive programs (for example the construction of a continental size FREE freeway system, all the way to Hawaii! Or several massive defense programs reminiscent of FDR again). To pay for them, Eisenhower brought up the tax on the wealthiest up to 93%. Free, highest quality public university system went up in the USA, for example the University of California. In shocking contrast, Reagan, an enemy of cognition, established a tuition at the PUBLIC University of California, starting the great movement of making it so that only the wealthiest are fully human (Thatcher would pursue it much later) 

By comparison, in 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.

The result was pandemonium (see the second graph in https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/trump-a-traitor/: that’s when the rich started to get ever richer, and the poor, poorer). Reagan was the anti-Eisenhower (but Reagan’s followers were even worse! All those who laud Reagan in any way are just ignorant, Neoconservatives, or worse, clueless clowns. And most probably, all the preceding. Logically enough, as Trump blasted Reagan during his presidency, Trump hatred and Reagan loving are two sides of the same coin (many of Trump partisans, or their parents actually believed in Reagan, before realizing later that they had been had… hence their indignation).

***

Plutocracy strikes aging societies. Just like metastatic cancer strikes older individuals, and for similar reasons: the corruption of entrenched nefarious mutations. When a society is struck by plutocracy, it needs a revolution. That is why France, the core of the European civilization, went through so many revolutions: precisely to rejuvenate itself, from revolution to revolution (and France implemented a revolution machine in England, which worked for many centuries; even Brexit is a form of revolution, however flawed and misguided…)

Trump, by lashing back against plutocratic globalization, is refreshing. He is also sincere: his mood against some aspect of globalization can be found in a campaign he made against Reagan. Trump’s campaign against the “Politically Correct”dates from the early 1970s. It is not clear what Hillary will do against corrupting globalization, as she did a 180 degrees on the Trans Pacific Partnership (she said the details changed, she didn’t). The Democratic platform adopted several of Sanders’ propositions.

In any case, the differences between Hillary and the Donald are less great than feared by the young and naive. The difference of either of them with Obama, will be more marked: the impulsive Donald and the Hilarious One have lots of experience with the system, and do not really need said system, to become somebody: they are already superstars, and they think highly of themselves. But progressives have to understand they have to exert continual pressure if they want progress, be it Donald, or Hillary. Just making a blind Hillary cult after 8 years of blind Obama worship will mean ever more plutocratization, same as what we have been going through.

And keep in mind that the grotesque racist campaign against Trump is an example of how much manipulation is going out there. After a visit with John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, the Ecuadorean president, Correa, cut Wikileaks’ Assange his Internet access. Assange had been revealing various Clinton manipulations all over. The strident accusations of the US administration against Russia in the US electoral process, mean, precisely, that it takes one to known one. 

Hillary is a monster: a good sign. Devils know best how to fight evil. Maybe she will gobble Bill and his financial puppet masters too.

Patrice Ayme’

Golden Rule Reassessed

August 14, 2016

The so-called “Golden Rule” is never to do to others what one would not like others to do to oneself. Or variation thereof. It implicitly assume people don’t like to suffer, or to inflict pain and extermination. It also assumes that right and wrong are like night and day (that is literally the root of the religion known as Manichaeism) Thus the Golden Rule is inapplicable: history, Christianism, Islamism are full of people, or even a god loving pain, punishment, suffering, even as applied to oneself, not just others.

Buddhism is different that way. It naively assumes that people want to avoid suffering at all cost. But if we did this, it’s not clear we could exist. Actually the best way would be to absorb a deadly dose of barbiturates, and be done, Marilyn Monroe style.

Thus, fundamentally, Buddhism is so irrelevant, as to be inhuman (whereas Christianism and Islamism are all too human!) Pain and suffering are intrinsically human. Pain and suffering are regulators of the human species. It is not a question of the animal condition. Pain and suffering do not necessarily regulate all species. They do not regulate marmots. When marmots come out of hibernation, the head marmot considers her folk, and how many have died over winter. She wants a group of between 15 and 21 individuals. Say three have died: she asks her consort to make her three little ones. Then she turns on a pheromone to turn him off. 

Humans Are Not Marmots. Agent Of Evolution Such as Human Beings Are Made For Deception, And Destruction, Not Contraception

Humans Are Not Marmots. Agent Of Evolution Such as Human Beings Are Made For Deception, And Destruction, Not Contraception

The dominant female cannot bear more than two to four babies. If she is unable to replenish the colony, all by herself, she makes it so that her consort impregnates another female. Thus marmots are made for the Golden Rule: they regulate their population in a very gentle, specific way. Humans do not regulate their population through fancy birth control, but through mayhem, pain, suffering, deprivation, famine.

Reciprocal perversity, not just reciprocal altruism, is then intrinsic to the human species: this . Higher wisdom consists not in denying reality,  but in circumnavigating it, for the best. We have so much technology, nowadays, the fanciest moral principles can be brought to bear.     

Take an example. The cases of Mr. Assange (an Australian citizen) and Mr. Snowden (an US citizen). Assange and Snowden are the two most prominent whistle-blowers in the world (lanceurs d’alerte, alarm launchers, literally, in French).

Julian Assange revealed that US military forces, using an attack helicopter, had killed journalists, and then fired again and again, on would-be rescuers. One would think that US authorities, were they compatible with the Golden Rule as traditionally interpreted, and the Jesus god Obama talks about all the time, would have tanked Assange for this revelation. After all, a democracy should have armed forces beyond any suspicion. (The military forces of the UK, the US and France went through the Second World War without extremely blatant, shocking war crimes committed, although the Americans were ruthless, the French somewhat vengeful, and both the French and British suffered striking war crimes from Nazi forces in May-June 1940). 

Instead of lauding Assange, the Washington government has gone all out to capture Assange, and had an ex-CIA agent accusing him of unclear activities. The same violent treatment was extended to Edward Snowden, who had the presence of mind to escape to Russia (making Putin a force for the good!) Snowden’s crime was to reveal that the so-called “social networks” and “search engines” of the USA were actually spy networks searching for miscreants. That, in turn, brought many questions, including how much of world public opinion is fabricated deliberately by the US “Deep State”.

Philosophically, it means the Obama administration had it all wrong. At least all wrong, if, and only if, democracy is what it wants to preserve. In democracy, or justice, and democracy is about justice for all, as all, information is the prime ingredient. A really democratic state will never, ever pursue information providers. Whistle-blowers are among the saints of democracy. 

Assange and Snowden made precious gifts to US democracy. In answer, Obama offered We The People a poisoned dish: serving rabid nationalism the frantic fever of blind vengeance, forgetting that revealing crimes against democracy should be rewarded, not punished.

None of this is an accident, it’s a system, white as the driven snow, same as a polar bear on a rampage, and for the same reason. Ask the average democratic voters: they will telly you Hillary Clinton is more “Golden Rule” than her friend and rival, Donald Trump. As Bill Moyers put it, in his essay, “Anatomy of the Deep State“:

“Despite this apparent impotence, President Obama can liquidate American citizens without due processes, detain prisoners indefinitely without charge, conduct dragnet surveillance on the American people without judicial warrant and engage in unprecedented — at least since the McCarthy era — witch hunts against federal employees (the so-called “Insider Threat Program”). Within the United States, this power is characterized by massive displays of intimidating force by militarized federal, state and local law enforcement. Abroad, President Obama can start wars at will and engage in virtually any other activity whatsoever without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress, such as arranging the forced landing of a plane carrying a sovereign head of state over foreign territory.”

Take another example: tolerance. Many feel, rightly, that the Golden Rule should include tolerance. Tolerance is necessary to be nice to others. Tolerance goes beyond just being nice to others. It’s about being nice to oneself, be it only by becoming smarter.

Tolerance is, fundamentally, a neurobiological problem. Any brain is a set of neuroglial networks. Any seriously new idea, or new emotion, is a threat against one, or several elements of that set. To welcome the threat requires a deliberate effort. One needs to train oneself to such mental gymnastics, deconstructing, fusioning and rebuilding. Mind. Tolerance is necessary for adopting superior ideas, and feelings, discarding inferior ones.

How does one train for tolerance? One should not be proud of being a citizen of some predigested, mass mental system. Instead one should be ashamed. Instead of following the herd, bleating altogether, one should shout from rooftops: “I am a citizen of the mind“.

The Golden Rule is thus, in part, necessarily, just from the inclusion of tolerance, about building a better mind. And tolerance is not easy to foster (as shown by the local interdiction of “burkini” on some beaches in France. See #tolerance). Tolerance for intolerance is not tolerance, but, potentially, its exact opposite:collaborating with mental fascism. We can see that the traditional Golden Rule is not easy to apply.

The real Golden Rule of humanity is that deeper thinking always works best, in the long run. For all that is the most worth it.  

Patrice Ayme’

Good Faith, Moods, And Truth

February 3, 2016

Little miseries, and even big ones, are all part of what is needed to present wisdom with occasions for progression, by changing the mood. It’s also a good time to re-read Montaigne’s Essays. Not to say that pluripotent, well balanced minds are superior in all ways. We know the opposite to be true: all sorts of unbalanced brains can perform superbly, even irreplaceably, in the restricted dimensions they are obsessed by. (This is particularly true in mathematics, and with many a sublime artist: consider van Gogh.)

No obsession, no progression, where (what’s still mostly) illusion is (much of) the motivation. Obsessiveness is the point which pierces obscurantism. with dedicated will

Thus civilization depends upon mental specialization for progression in the establishment of mental connections ( a piece of really new art creates new mental connections). And so it is inside every mind. Thus, how do minds specialize? By changing moods. For example, by changing to an… obsessive mood (for the aforementioned reason). Authenticity is also a mood. It generates truth progress, true progress, the progress of truth.

The fuel of mental progress is authenticity. There have been significantly different versions of what it is to be truthful, or authentic, in the last 24 centuries. Here are a few (I found only a panel in French, but French seems to be misspelled English, or vice versa).

Is Truth True? What Truth Is, Is Still A Matter Of Debate, Even In Pure Logic, Mathematical, Or Not.

Is Truth True? What Truth Is, Is Still A Matter Of Debate, Even In Pure Logic, Mathematical, Or Not.

Being stuffed with antibiotics, hobbled by pneumonia, puts one in a meditative mood quite different from other meditative moods. To be stuck in bed, forces the brain into a completely different mode from, say, running down a mountain. The general wisdom emanating is drastically different. New perspectives, among other things, are generated.

To the left, tall trees are gently swinging in the breeze, on the right, above other tall trees, in the clear blue sky, extremely high white clouds are streaming across the sky, well above a hundred miles per hour, illustrating vividly the power of the Pacific polar jet stream. Such a spectacle of our atmosphere alive, is as astounding as as the Northern Lights: from massive storm to clear blue sky in about an hour, now with the occasional high white cloud streaking across. Our planet, our gigantic spaceship, is truly amazing.

I am occasionally accused to be an anti-American French philosopher. This is true, yet unfair: it gives only an incomplete picture of my fiendishness. I am also an American anti-French philosopher. As an African philosopher, I have also: Africans have seen a lot. Very recently.

Does the concept of “Mood” translate in (modern) French? (The question was asked to me by Dominique Deux, a faithful commenter on this site.) Africans can learn perfect French in Africa, and I can really tell you, “Mood” does not translate much into modern French… usage (I intent to correct that). It is all the more curious in that the French are… full of moods. It’s important to strike a mood in France. Especially for philosophers.

Montaigne’s essays start with Montaigne striking a mood: “This book was written in good faith (“bonne foi”), reader. It warns you from the outset that I have set no goal but a domestic and private one. I have set no goal of serving you or my own glory. My powers are inadequate for such a purpose. I have set it up for the convenience of my relatives and friends so that when they have lost (as they soon must), they have recovered here some features of my habits and temperament, and by this means keep some of the knowledge they had of me more complete and alive. ”

The fundamental mood Montaigne is brimming with? He says it himself: “BONNE FOI”. (It is exactly the opposite mood from that of the electable politician, ever since we caught that plague, “representative” democracy, which seems to have everything to do with lying… In contrast to what the system the Swiss selected, seven centuries ago, when they declared their independence from those well-known plutocrats, the Habsburg…)

Why is “Bonne Foi” so important in philosophy? For the exact same reason as it is fundamental in science: it embraces truth.

The point of view I will propose on this site for what “truth” and good faith” mean could be useful in pure logic, by switching from language to metalanguage. Too tech to explain right now, but I will later.

Montaigne starts his essays with a flurry of examples from… war. This is why Montaigne is deep, and Gandhi (say) shallow. Montaigne, a soldier (he viewed himself as a soldier), knew all too well that men show their true nature when existence, in particular their own existence, is at stake. One’s existence, plus those of others, giving and taking, everything: this potent cocktail is that of war.

(And if war is presently obsolete, or, let’s say more precisely, subdued, it is because bellicose forces, led by the USA, and France, keep it that way. War is keeping war in check. Each smart bomb exploding with high precision in Syria is a vaccination against a worse, much more violent disease… Not to say Russian bombs are precise: they often are not. But the West bombs precisely, after exquisite intelligence).

By considering examples from war, Montaigne is considering what focuses minds the best: the prospect of death, receiving it, or giving it. It is virtually certain that the most frequent cause of death of male human beings over the last few million years was combat, or some other violence, such as fighting a wild beast. Thus the human brain is best equipped to keep record of combat, and, indeed, we know better why and how the Aztecs or the Romans fought, rather than what they ate.

Hence  military records present with a wealth of human experiences, a rich mine Montaigne prospects. Daring to be Politically Incorrect (PI), rather than Christian Correct, Montaigne naturally used this vast record of exploits, some admirable, some repulsive. And indeed, in his first essay, Montaigne roils out some famous examples of both. Montaigne points out, implicitly,  that Alexander (so-called the Great) was repugnant: he gives two examples why (Thebes and Gaza; I know a third one: Tyr.).

Interestingly, Aristotle is the one who proposed the notion that omission was a lie. Montaigne was more cautious. However, after promising to depict himself all naked if need be, the first thing personal he admits to, is that he does not like to be seen peeing in public (which, he admits, considering his profession, soldier, was a bit of a problem…)

I will propose something even more demanding for what Good Faith consists of: a full exploration of what one should know about the subject at hand. And that includes the truth of moods. Kant, there, who apparently wanted to tell the entire truth (see the green panel above), would have come short: his real mood was racism. And he obviously did not want to flaunt that, but be discrete about it.

So when the Nazis got inspired by Kant, they got inspired by the same attitude: tell their truths, all their truths, but don’t reveal what their real moods were. Quite the opposite: Hitler went all around. claiming to be in the mood of defending “peace” and “minorities”, whereas he wanted to kill both. Same with Kant: he wanted to enslave other “races”, but, knowing how ugly that was, he kept his real mood.

Patrice Ayme’

8 May 1945 Versus 8 May 2015

May 8, 2015

That was the second day when the Nazis surrendered. The true capitulation, without conditions, had been made May 7, in Reims, France. (The Soviets insisted to conduct another ceremony in Berlin, the next day… and they celebrate it the 9th…)

As the French Republic had declared the Second World War, the surrender in Reims was appropriate. At the time when France declared war to Nazism, the USSR was allied to Hitler (and it as also, de facto allied to the USA, as the president and congress of the USA took sanctions against France and its belated ally, Great Britain… on the ground that those two parents, direct genitors of the USA were “belligerents“).

The rendition of Nazism was celebrated with extreme seriousness, and the same spirit, in France and Germany, on May 8, 2015.

France, Joined By USA Sec. Of State John Jerry, Celebrate V Day, May 8, 2015

France, Joined By USA Sec. Of State John Jerry, Celebrate V Day, May 8, 2015

[Republican Guards Horsemen.]

May 8, 1945, is also the same exact day the Franco-Algerian war started, with a wound that was pretty much fatal. Both facts are related. French civilization (and lack thereof) was central to both facts. While racial fascism was smashed in Germany, for all to see, it exploded on French soil (in an atrocious contradiction).

Let’s recapitulate.

1) The leaders of the French Republic knew, as early as 1919, that there would be another war with Germany. That was mostly caused by the hyper-nationalism, racism and fascism mindset which reigned in Germany. Also Germany had been immensely successful industrially, technologically, economically, leaving both Britain and France behind.

That very successes of German fascism (under Bismarck and then the Kaiser Wilhelm II) seemed to prove that fascism was a system superior to the degenerating democracies of Britain and France.

2) France, all along, prepared for the third round with German racist fascism. However, Great Britain and the USA had opted for the opposite approach. It is of course insufferable for contemporary citizens of the UK and the USA to read that their countries aided and abetted the Nazis (some come to scream about that periodically on this site).

However there is a deep lesson there, a warning for tomorrow: British and American plutocrats drove the collaboration of the UK and the USA with the racist and fascist mindset. So doing, they set-up the conditions for the violent death of more than 70 million people, among other inconveniences. Indeed, if the USA and the UK had made a block with the French Republic, in the 1920s, and especially in the 1930s, the fascists in Italy, Japan and Germany would not have had the possibility to dream that they had a chance in the land grabs they envisioned.

Actually the plutocrats which helped the fascists so much were nearly as culprit as the crazy, murderous tribal nuts they encouraged.

Lessons? Plutocracy can manipulate not just the minds, but history itself.

When democracy stand divided, tanks can roll all over it. Something to remember with Putin. Those who cannot stand firmly for democracy, encourage fascism.

3) War can turn badly, unexpectedly. The Nazis use insane, desperate, strategies which turned around the mightier French army and its slow poke little British bulldog. This military disaster of May 1940 is nearly impossible to reproduce in war games.

Lesson? Don’t underestimate the ability of fate, incredible stupidity, really very bad luck, to surprise even those who felt the best prepared.

This is valid now more than ever. A few nuclear bombs could bring losses comparable to all of World War Two, within hours. North Korea is arming itself to the hilt, and threatened to use its nuclear devices, even against the USA. This should not be taken lightly.

The Franco-Algerian Massacre in Setif:

As in places all over France, there was a massive demonstration of joy in Setif, Algeria. A young demonstrator carried an Algerian flag. He was killed by a gendarme. A first wave of retaliation led to the death of a few dozen colons (or more). The later, in further retaliation, supported by the French army, tanks, even planes, killed in turn tens of thousands of Algerians.

Philosophically, this was a tribal reaction not substantially different from Nazism and the like.

This event is not commemorated enough (neither the French state, nor the FNL, which became the Algerian state, but got started in a different mindset in 1954 are anxious to remember it).

It exhibits a lot of warnings about human nature. It needs to be analyzed more. How could the French forget 15 centuries of tribal tolerance? Because they just finally defeated the Nazis, they could act like them? Inhibitions were lifted for a day? Well, whereas France and Germany are now (re)united, and now share a common fraternity, much work remains to be done in the case of France and Algeria.

A work of truth. Thorough truth.

And that’s not just about Europe and Africa, and the USA. Establishing, and imposing the methods to elucidate, uncover, and make everybody admire truth, is the general first order strategy to deal with the world’s ills.

Patrice Ayme’

Wisdom, Most Devouring Beast of Them All

March 17, 2015

New Philosophy Mostly Blossoms Multi, and Meta, Culturally:

Any culture is wise, and loved. Thus, it is a philosophy. To use philosophy for diplomacy among cultures mandates, and thus needs, a greater wisdom to adjudicate among smaller wisdoms.

To any logic is associated not just one, but many, metalogics. Any of the latter is bigger than the former.

This is a direct application of the proofs of the Incompleteness Theorems in metamathematics.

Thus wisdoms, or cultures, by themselves, are the germs for bigger, greater wisdoms, or meta-cultures (thus, germs for their own enlargements). They contain their own spontaneous generation for greater transmutations.

Pine Island Glacier Crack Philosophically Transmutating

Pine Island Glacier Crack Philosophically Transmutating

The easiest way to enlarge a culture is to entangle it with another. The resulting union is automatically meta. Thus the greater wisdom of travelers.

However, what comes out after a while, is not harmony, but battle. Indeed a simple union of logos, and intricately entangled emotional systems is not possible, as some elements will generally come to contradict each other.

This is what those who confuse multiculturalism with tolerance, overlook. In their colossal naivety.

Paradoxically, true multiculturalism is not tolerant, at least not tolerant of lies and ossified thinking. Instead, it learns to pick, chose, abandon, adopt, and decide. It does not tolerate everything: it selects the best, rejects the bad.

Any wisdom is a system of logos, entangled with systems of moods associated to it. Local wisdom is often weird: associate a picture of Buddha to a party in Burma, and you will be condemned to years in prison.

The entanglement of cultures results into, not just synergies, but, before that, competition, conflict, even extermination, between different ideas and emotions.

The situation is similar to, but even more frazzled than in the biological survival of the fittest.

Any new wisdom comes from forcefully introducing at least one new idea, fact, or emotion to an old wisdom. The resulting entanglement brings a dynamic conflict between the old wisdom, and the union of it with the new element.

So one can say that any new, better, and improved wisdom is intrinsically multicultural.

This happens in the clearest way when new science arises: Relativity as defined by Poincaré (1904) arose from the earlier realization (Lorentz, Poincaré) that time and space (contribution of Fiztgerald) were local.

Einstein’s name got associated to Relativity (although he had invented none of it), just because had written down a neat abstract of the new wisdom in just one paper (“hiding sources”, as he admitted, helped!)

Why did Einstein become so famous, if he invented nothing (aside from the obvious nationalist and tribal aspects of the discrimination)? Because he presented a neat synthesis of the ideas and concepts of the new culture, Relativity. By the time Einstein wrote his paper, the new culture exposed by Poincaré the year before in the USA, had to be recognized as a coherent whole in the German language, the language of very serious and obviously superior people.

By 1905, Relativity had thoroughly digested the idea of Poincaré that the constancy of the speed of light, as measured in all frames, was a new law of nature. And also the proof of Poincaré, from 1900, that the emission of energy by a body decreased its mass, according to E = mcc. One just had to wrap it in one text.

How is a philosophical wisdom found to be superior to another? Because it is closer to the truth in matters pertaining to survival.

Picture this; in Western Antarctica, the Pine Glacier rests on the bottom of the ocean, two thousands meters down. It is bathed in increasingly warmer waters. Its catchment basin, under sea level, is larger than Texas. If Pine, and some of its colleagues, melted, and they could, very fast, billions of refugees would be on the march.

Clearly, something impacting survival, but not envisioned by philosophical systems in the past. This is the sort of possible truth that philosophy has to envision. Add increasing ocean acidity (from conversion of CO2 into carbonic acid), and one has new facts that require clearly drastically new philosophies.

So the most drastic transculturalism comes from mixing philosophical obsolescence, let alone bigotry, with exotic cultures, brand new science.

If we want to survive, we need to be right, and that involves firing lethal torpedoes to sink the biggest lies, and turn attention towards the real problems, whatever is left, an approximation to truth.

Philosophy, some suggested, is a way of life. Yes, the one that maximizes survival, and that means, now more than ever, the pursuit of veracity, is the most superior philosophy.

Maximal culture shock can only help constructing that superiority. Even the worst culture has some mental elements that can be integrated somewhere into superior wisdom.

Some may object that the preceding was all too theoretical: it may be true that new systems  of entangled thoughts and emotions arise according the (metalogical) mechanic that is explicitly described in the proofs of the Incompleteness Theorems in logic. However, they will complain, what does that bring?

As I said, transculturalism, well done does not mean falling asleep, it means conflict, or replacement. Therefore when, as in Europe, conflict is avoided cost, and replacement is not instigated (as in the USA), transculturalism does not arise, only apartheid (to use the notion of Manuel Valls, the French PM used, to depict the situation in France).

Conflict and replacement can be effected by rising the cult of the republic above others.

In the USA, Americanization is both fine art and massive enterprise. It involves sports and high rewards. (This is one reason why some financial compensation, in sports or ‘equal opportunity’ “leadership” jobs are so high in the USA: to make the attraction of absorption in American culture irresistible, for the befuddled masses out there).

The best and highest philosophy swallows, integrates and transmutate accordingly to whatever it can swallow. That mood is already in Rabelais. What is new now, what is better now, is that never before have so many new fats come to light, so many cultures, so much history, and so much new shattering devastation.

This disastrously destructive, and all too global situation out there, is excellent, for the birth of vastly superior wisdom. Bring it on.

Patrice Ayme’