The sense of ‘truth’ is not logically necessary to the possibility of defining ‘truth’, hence mutually inconsistent definitions are possible, hence ‘truth’ cannot be defined consistently with the possibility of defining ‘truth’, except as ‘logical consistency’ itself.

The sense of ‘logical consistency’ (non-contradiction) is logically necessary to the possibility of defining ‘consistency’, hence mutually inconsistent definitions are not possible, hence ‘consistency’ can be defined consistently with the possibility of defining ‘consistency’.

The Law

The law is not decided by voting or by the judgment of the elected, but is intrinsic to consciousness and affirmed by all conscious beings in every movement of thought. The law is complete and simple: not(x and not-x), and nothing more.

False idols are identifiable by their contradictions.

People do not explicitly consider the law of non-contradiction when normally speaking or thinking. The commitment to non-contradiction is automatic, intrinsic to thinking and speaking.

When we learn to speak a language, we already learn to use it without contradiction. When we learn to identify objects or sensations we learn to identify them without contradiction. Understanding of non-contradiction happens at the object level of meaning: whatever we intend is just what we intend, whatever we perceive is just what we perceive, we cannot intend what we do not intend, cannot think what we do not think, or see what we do not see.

Even though non-contradiction is rarely explicitly considered at the meta-level, it is never violated at the primary level of thought. Contradictions arise in complex systems of ideas, because we never grasp them as one thought but only in fragments. Connecting fragments is then extended in time and this is when the automatic application of non-contradiction is easily corrupted.

What is ‘truth’ like?

When a person ‘believes’ something, they typically take that something to be ‘true’. What is the practical effect of ‘taking something to be true’? What happens in your mind when you ‘take something to be true’? What happens to our system of thoughts/ideas when we believe something? How is belief integrated with all other ideas we have? What is the effect on other ideas?

All cultures are irrational because they enforce contingent presuppositions as non-contingent universals, which validates the same ‘cultural’ process for the opposite values, therefore non-sense.

The 2nd amendment in the USA regulated the balance of power between the public and State. In the 18th century, both citizens and the State had the same weapons: primitive rifles. The original idea was that freedom depends on citizens possessing the same firepower as the state, to be able to defend itself against the tyranny of the State. Consequently, there are only two options that make sense in light of the original idea of securing freedom: every government should return to using muskets and destroy all other arms, or the citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, submarines, tactical bombers, hypersonic missiles. In fact, the State is obligated to make these affordable and accessible to any citizen, including instructions on how to use them, if it wants to use them also.

Beliefs are presuppositions for subsequent reasoning. It follows from belief-continuity that beliefs are latent premises that are involuntarily added to every relevant situational set of premises for practical decision-making and argumentation. Intentional belief-revision is uncommon due to their latency; they function as an inert background that is always present in the conceptual environment, and thus does not require explicit attention. Everything else is identified in relation to that background, and the focus of intention is on the dynamic foreground that every practical decision is about. The background is invisible, externalised, because it is already decided. Becoming aware of the background is a leap of consciousness.

The purpose of Democracy is to seduce you to consent to being ruled. By acknowledging that you are ‘represented’ you prospectively agree to obey any rules that your agent agrees to, even if the rules are contrary to your interest or moral judgement.

HYPOTHESIS: The primary function of artificial intelligence is not to answer questions or perform tasks but to maintain a dynamic, global database of queries and prompts in order to predict the future. Questions are more revealing of social tendencies than our subjective rationalisations of those tendencies.

AI is inherently inconsistent

AI cannot be logically consistent because a numerically fuzzy process does not encounter exact ‘opposites’; opposites are empirically meaningless, unmeasurable. ‘Opposites’ exist only in conscious minds, which do not think numerically but conceptually, involving instants of sense-unity synthesised by exclusion/no or inclusion/yes of any other instants of sense. The mental process of sense-synthesis is infinitely complex and systemically entangled, and nothing outside of our ‘communication community’ can reproduce it or understand it, because everything we perceive as ‘outside’ or ‘other’ or ‘something’ is just a sense-unity internal to consciousness.

Why do people believe the official narrative, even when it is obvious nonsense?

By believing the news/government, people have something to go on, something to call ‘facts’. By not believing, they are left with nothing, except their minuscule, subjective point of view from which to reason about what to do and make sense of the world, which is terrifying. Consequently, most people choose to believe, no matter what.

Every policy that makes mortgages more accessible also increases the money supply (via credit), and this newly created money is injected directly into the property market, chasing housing, thus driving house prices further up as it devalues wages, therefore a further loss of affordability.

It is no longer enough to assert what is ‘true’ to succeed in litigation; truth is still only an act of faith, a belief taken for granted, subject to social disagreement. The only way to defend yourself or assert rights in the ’post-truth-world’ is to show that someone else’s claim does not make sense. Sense is the ultimate standard of judgment.

If ethics is a subset of morality, and morality is the distinction between right and wrong intentions, a standard that our judgment is subject to, then to deny the objectivity of this distinction would imply the denial of a standard, thus rendering the distinction meaningless/void. Our choice is not subject to a standard if that standard is subject to our choice, or else contradiction. The contradiction arises already in the use of normative terms with respect to subjective preferences.

The objective standard of morality is rationality itself, because morality cannot be non-sense, therefore morality is a subset of rationality. Non-contradiction is the totality of the moral law. https://substack.com/@michaelkowalik/note/c-172057567

Investors hold globally about 2 trillion USD in Bitcoin. The total volume of USD cash is 2.5 trillion. If Bitcoin could be freely used to pay for goods and services (currently it cannot, with minuscule exceptions), it would crash the USD and other dominant currencies by creating an instant inflation shock by near-doubling the volume of ‘cash’ in circulation.

Undercover cops or allied propaganda assets do not really ‘go to jail’.

New consicousness cannot be built because the act of building is already internal to consciousness, and only expresses that existing consciousness. Any built system could not be reflexively consistent with the consciousness that built it. There is no beginning or end for consicousness because time is internal to it, and the ‘beings’ that arise in time are not themselves consciousness but its active expressions. Expressions of consciousness may recognise one another, but cannot create one another.

Morality (the distinction between right and wrong intentions) cannot be contradictory/nonsensical, or it would be meaningless, therefore not morality, not normative. Since one cannot be an agent without the distinction between right and wrong intentions, every agent is committed to logically consistent morality. Therefore, one can either cease to be an agent, renunciate agency, and thus no longer be of concern to the moral law, like any object (with no moral status), or be an agent and thus be subject to the moral law.

If one values being an agent, which is a commitment intrinsic to action (to reliably realise our intentions) then one is committed to the moral law, which must be logically consistent. https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWODO

Making sense on a systemic level is difficult, inaccessible to most people, because humans have not evolved for making sense on a systemic level. They only need enough sense to eat and avoid being eaten, have sex, and kick ball; everything else is Dreamtime.