Michael Scribe

Men of the Faith, shouldn't live like Barons.

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

how neo-pagans try to rationalize with Christians on why they should unite.

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd There, now you see why alot of people can't wrap their heads around what i say, when i say this.

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd 22 Community posits: I(S,g) constitutes H(S,g)
23 Practical intellect measures its artifacts
24 ∴ institution exists; later judgments measured by it

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd and a measure that’s identical to the act that it measures isn’t actually measuring anything, it can’t be corrected and it can’t correct. What obligates me is a measure that stands over my judgement.

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd You must make a concession, that an institution that posits is a real institution. Denying any of this costs money, the law, bindings like marriage, property, etc., along with denying the claim.

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd lol, the africans, specfically ones near the guinea coast, thought being possessed and contacting spirits as pious or virtuous.

because of this, you have people who come from a long line of people who contacted spirits, who have cursed their bloodline because of what they did.

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd 20 ¬Ext(act(I(S,g)), S), line 2
21 Currency ∈ measures, avowal ∉, 18,20

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd 15 T(this is a $20 bill), granted
16 TM = ens rationis cum fundamento in re
17 Ext(currency-institution, a) for all a, standing acts, not a's act
18 ∴ M(currency, a) — alterity satisfied, 17, P3
19 Falsifiable: counterfeiting possible, mark of genuine measure

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd The counter example can not reach the objection.

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd its a real social construct because the institution of the construct is constituted by acts distinct from any present judgement of the thing (money). Acknowledgment has no distinctness for the person making it and it does not offer any independent access to anyone else.

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd Social constructs are real and they can be true (valid) but they can also be invalid. Money’s truth value is ontologically within the mind and it’s epistemically (how we justify the thing) grounded outside of the mind,

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd 10 ¬O(B_a p2), P6, P7, MT
11 O(assert p2) → K_a(p2), P8
12 ¬K_a(p2)
13 ¬O(assert p2), 11,12, MT
14 O(assert p1) permitted, K_a(p1) hold

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd There’s no obligation to believe, since belief is not voluntary. No obligation to commit to since committing to something requires knowledge of the thing. The only thing that stands is an obligation of courtesy.

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd 5 evidence_a(p1) = report(p2), P4 + a's access
6 nearest ¬p2-worlds are ¬p1-worlds, P4
7 B_a covaries with p1, not p2, 5,6
8 K_a(p2) → K_a(p1), 7, P5
9¬(K_a(p1) → K_a(p2)), p1 ⊬ p2

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd The intellects evidence is then exhausted by the report, its ascension to belief tracks with the report not any truth that’s beyond it. The knowledge reaches p and gets terminated there.

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd (From before) p1 = I(S,g) p2 = H(S,g) 1 TM(x,p2) → x = act(I(S,g)), P4 2 ¬Ext(act(I(S,g)), S), identity: the act is S's own act 3 ¬M(act(I(S,g)), S), 1,2, P3, MT 4¬T(p2) for S, 1,3, P1

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd definitions we'll be using I(S,g) > S identifies as g H(S,g) > S is g M(m,a) > measures intellect a Ext(m,a) > m is constituted by acts not identical to a's act TM(x,p) > x is a truthmaker for p T(p) > p is true (correspondence) K_a(p) > a knows p O(φ) > it is obligatory that φ

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd p1 = the subject (s) identifies as gender (g) p2 = the s is g

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd If you accept this predicate is applied to virtue when ascribed then the measure is the same as the measure-bearer, it collapses into identity when it’s meant to be relational. Nothing gets measured, so nothing is true because there’s no conformity (what we discussed prior)

[Michael Scribe @Mystical_Logicc]

@PortalMasterEdd when it’s ascribed instead of the virtue itself truly describing something makes the identifying act itself the truth maker. Knowledge necessitates it being covary with the truth, no one will believe a fact or anything at will, you assert only what you know.