X-Git-Url: http://unremediatedgender.space/source?a=blobdiff_plain;f=notes%2Fa-hill-of-validity-sections.md;h=62cb06c999fb374634a008354418815cb52ca679;hb=c1b25af686a0e80e63c10a8144edb99cb0c3e98f;hp=0a6e5cef37948a0230f1f428b9fa9674ccb20ca8;hpb=fd128b67a56d097516f75583777ab372d6aed692;p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git diff --git a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md index 0a6e5ce..62cb06c 100644 --- a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md +++ b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md @@ -1,16 +1,21 @@ noncontiguous on deck— -_ reluctance to write a memoir +X reluctance to write a memoir during 2019 +_ pinging Ben about memoir reluctance +_ coping with the consequentialist argument _ let's recap / being put in a box _ if he's reading this -_ tie off reply to Xu +_ tie off reply to Xu +_ "duly appreciated" _ bridge to "Challenges" -_ Christmas party 2019 -_ Anna vs. Michael +_ Christmas party 2019 and state of Church leadership +_ Anna vs. Michael factional conflict with internet available— +_ "praise Ba'al" language from "Rationalist Blogging" _ link simulacrum posts: Zvi (he has a category), Elizabeth, at least one more from Ben +_ examples of snarky comments about "the rationalists" _ Discord logs before Austin retreat _ screenshot Rob's Facebook comment which I link _ 13th century word meanings @@ -1008,6 +1013,7 @@ further post timeline— "Maybe Lying Doesn't Exist" Oct 2019 "Algorithms of Deception!" Oct 2019 "Firming Up ..." Dec 2019 + "Darkest Timeline" June 2020 "Maybe Lying Can't Exist?!" Aug 2020 "Unnatural Categories" Jan 2021 @@ -1061,3 +1067,11 @@ iceman— https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1853001#reply-1853001 > Another reason people go to Hell? Malediction! An Asmodean priest was using that spell on children too! Pharasma apparently doesn't give a shit! At best, it might be a negative weight in Her utility function that She traded to the ancient gods of Evil for something else that She wanted. A tradeable medium-sized negative utility is not the same as Her _really giving a shit_. + + +I furthermore claim that the following disjunction is true: + +> Either the quoted excerpt is a blatant lie on Scott's part because there are rules of rationality governing conceptual boundaries and Scott absolutely knows it, or +> You have no grounds to criticize me for calling it a blatant lie, because there's no rule of rationality that says I shouldn't draw the category boundaries of "blatant lie" that way. + +there needs to be _some_ way for _someone_ to invest a _finite_ amount of effort to _correct the mistake_