X-Git-Url: http://unremediatedgender.space/source?p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=notes%2Fa-hill-of-validity-sections.md;h=18a646e8fb7d9dc99c73c342a924f8c30104121c;hp=0a6e5cef37948a0230f1f428b9fa9674ccb20ca8;hb=4781c49054acce158daf8ba56d479ddc02f665c0;hpb=fd128b67a56d097516f75583777ab372d6aed692

diff --git a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md
index 0a6e5ce..18a646e 100644
--- a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md
+++ b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md
@@ -1,16 +1,18 @@
 noncontiguous on deck—
-_ reluctance to write a memoir
+X reluctance to write a memoir during 2019
 _ 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
+_ more 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 +1010,7 @@ 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 +1064,11 @@ 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_