nhaliday + duality   27

Diving into Chinese philosophy – Gene Expression
Back when I was in college one of my roommates was taking a Chinese philosophy class for a general education requirement. A double major in mathematics and economics (he went on to get an economics Ph.D.) he found the lack of formal rigor in the field rather maddening. I thought this was fair, but I suggested to him that the this-worldy and often non-metaphysical orientation of much of Chinese philosophy made it less amenable to formal and logical analysis.


IMO the much more problematic thing about premodern Chinese political philosophy from the point of view of the West is its lack of interest in constitutionalism and the rule of law, stemming from a generally less rationalist approach than the Classical Westerns, than any sort of inherent anti-individualism or collectivism or whatever. For someone like Aristotle the constitutional rule of law was the highest moral good in itself and the definition of justice, very much not so for Confucius or for Zhu Xi. They still believed in Justice in the sense of people getting what they deserve, but they didn’t really consider the written rule of law an appropriate way to conceptualize it. OG Confucius leaned more towards the unwritten traditions and rituals passed down from the ancestors, and Neoconfucianism leaned more towards a sort of Universal Reason that could be accessed by the individual’s subjective understanding but which again need not be written down necessarily (although unlike Kant/the Enlightenment it basically implies that such subjective reasoning will naturally lead one to reaffirming the ancient traditions). In left-right political spectrum terms IMO this leads to a well-defined right and left and a big old hole in the center where classical republicanism would be in the West. This resonates pretty well with modern East Asian political history IMO
gnxp  scitariat  books  recommendations  discussion  reflection  china  asia  sinosphere  philosophy  logic  rigor  rigidity  flexibility  leviathan  law  individualism-collectivism  analytical-holistic  systematic-ad-hoc  the-classics  canon  morality  ethics  formal-values  justice  reason  tradition  government  polisci  left-wing  right-wing  order-disorder  eden-heaven  analogy  similarity  comparison  thinking  summary  top-n  n-factor  universalism-particularism  duality  rationality  absolute-relative  subjective-objective  the-self  apollonian-dionysian  big-peeps  history  iron-age  antidemos  democracy  institutions  darwinian 
march 2018 by nhaliday
Antinomia Imediata – experiments in a reaction from the left
So, what is the Left Reaction? First of all, it’s reaction: opposition to the modern rationalist establishment, the Cathedral. It opposes the universalist Jacobin program of global government, favoring a fractured geopolitics organized through long-evolved complex systems. It’s profoundly anti-socialist and anti-communist, favoring market economy and individualism. It abhors tribalism and seeks a realistic plan for dismantling it (primarily informed by HBD and HBE). It looks at modernity as a degenerative ratchet, whose only way out is intensification (hence clinging to crypto-marxist market-driven acceleration).

How come can any of this still be in the *Left*? It defends equality of power, i.e. freedom. This radical understanding of liberty is deeply rooted in leftist tradition and has been consistently abhored by the Right. LRx is not democrat, is not socialist, is not progressist and is not even liberal (in its current, American use). But it defends equality of power. It’s utopia is individual sovereignty. It’s method is paleo-agorism. The anti-hierarchy of hunter-gatherer nomads is its understanding of the only realistic objective of equality.


In more cosmic terms, it seeks only to fulfill the Revolution’s side in the left-right intelligence pump: mutation or creation of paths. Proudhon’s antinomy is essentially about this: the collective force of the socius, evinced in moral standards and social organization vs the creative force of the individuals, that constantly revolutionize and disrupt the social body. The interplay of these forces create reality (it’s a metaphysics indeed): the Absolute (socius) builds so that the (individualistic) Revolution can destroy so that the Absolute may adapt, and then repeat. The good old formula of ‘solve et coagula’.

Ultimately, if the Neoreaction promises eternal hell, the LRx sneers “but Satan is with us”.

Liberty is to be understood as the ability and right of all sentient beings to dispose of their persons and the fruits of their labor, and nothing else, as they see fit. This stems from their self-awareness and their ability to control and choose the content of their actions.


Equality is to be understood as the state of no imbalance of power, that is, of no subjection to another sentient being. This stems from their universal ability for empathy, and from their equal ability for reason.


It is important to notice that, contrary to usual statements of these two principles, my standpoint is that Liberty and Equality here are not merely compatible, meaning they could coexist in some possible universe, but rather they are two sides of the same coin, complementary and interdependent. There can be NO Liberty where there is no Equality, for the imbalance of power, the state of subjection, will render sentient beings unable to dispose of their persons and the fruits of their labor[1], and it will limit their ability to choose over their rightful jurisdiction. Likewise, there can be NO Equality without Liberty, for restraining sentient beings’ ability to choose and dispose of their persons and fruits of labor will render some more powerful than the rest, and establish a state of subjection.

equality is the founding principle (and ultimately indistinguishable from) freedom. of course, it’s only in one specific sense of “equality” that this sentence is true.

to try and eliminate the bullshit, let’s turn to networks again:

any nodes’ degrees of freedom is the number of nodes they are connected to in a network. freedom is maximum when the network is symmetrically connected, i. e., when all nodes are connected to each other and thus there is no topographical hierarchy (middlemen) – in other words, flatness.

in this understanding, the maximization of freedom is the maximization of entropy production, that is, of intelligence. As Land puts it:

gnon  blog  stream  politics  polisci  ideology  philosophy  land  accelerationism  left-wing  right-wing  paradox  egalitarianism-hierarchy  civil-liberty  power  hmm  revolution  analytical-holistic  mutation  selection  individualism-collectivism  tribalism  us-them  modernity  multi  tradeoffs  network-structure  complex-systems  cybernetics  randy-ayndy  insight  contrarianism  metameta  metabuch  characterization  cooperate-defect  n-factor  altruism  list  coordination  graphs  visual-understanding  cartoons  intelligence  entropy-like  thermo  information-theory  order-disorder  decentralized  distribution  degrees-of-freedom  analogy  graph-theory  extrema  evolution  interdisciplinary  bio  differential  geometry  anglosphere  optimate  nascent-state  deep-materialism  new-religion  cool  mystic  the-classics  self-interest  interests  reason  volo-avolo  flux-stasis  invariance  government  markets  paying-rent  cost-benefit  peace-violence  frontier  exit-voice  nl-and-so-can-you  war  track-record  usa  history  mostly-modern  world-war  military  justice  protestant-cathol 
march 2018 by nhaliday
Gnosticism - Wikipedia

Faith and other Epistemic Categories: https://quaslacrimas.wordpress.com/2017/03/10/faith-and-other-epistemic-categories/
In response to Bonald’s excellent little piece Faith is honesty in doubt, I wanted to offer a parallel thesis (or, if you like, a friendly amendment): faith is a matter of whom, not what.

I can have faith in a man (I believe him). Maybe I have faith in him in a general sense, or maybe I have only heard him recite one particular narrative (in which case when I say I believe him I mean I have faith in that particular narrative). I can also have faith in groups and communities, and in their reports, publications, traditions, in the names they put forward as trustworthy authorities on certain questions, and so on.

Faith (or belief) is a matter of trust; fundamentally it is your confidence in the man that makes you confident his words will ring true. (Indeed, confidence is a Latin word meaning with faith.)

You can trust a man, or a group; you can always trust every word that comes out of his mouth, or just in one incident; you can trust him on account of his honesty, his accuracy, or both; you can trust him absolutely or only casually; but wherever you say you trust, the question whom it is that you trust arises. You can’t trust things, states of affairs, trees…


As Christians, we believe Christ and his Apostles. When Mr. Smith tells us something that conflicts with our Christian creed, we withhold our assent from Mr. Smith’s claims because we have greater faith in Christ than in Mr. Smith. If later on Mr. Thompson tells us something that conflicts with some other rumor we heard from Mr. Smith, this conflict will cause us to experience some uncertainty and confusion; but we will have a much more vivid understanding of what is going on if we have recently had some reason to reflect on Mr. Smith and how much (or how little) we trust him.


Perhaps we could say that this is the difference between faith and conviction. Conviction refers to something that you have been convinced is true (and only implicitly, if at all, to those who convinced you), whereas faith refers to someone you trust (and only implicitly to opinions you hold as a result of this trust). To restate a point using this new conceptual contrast: everyone has convictions, but a Christian has faith as well.

Faith and Gullibility: https://quaslacrimas.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/faith-and-gullibility/
But Chesterton’s point is in a certain sense a petty one to score: which of the trendy superstitions in circulation today is half as trendy as barren, godless materialism?

The vulgar errors of the plebs have actually become part of the metabolism of our godless society. As the Cathedral and its choirboys have gradually improved message-discipline on science and superstition (yes, they “freaking love science”), the contrast between the amusingly rustic ignorance of the commoners and the smug confidence of the overclass has become part of the status-structure that draws ambitious youngsters into the Cathedral’s cold embrace. Abandoning the poor to the torment of demons is now part of the Left’s plan; more room to tut-tut and demonstrate that you are a reasonable bugman, more misery to justify the next stage in the revolution.

But still, this fails to get at the root of the fairies and the séances and the horoscopes, which is neither faith’s relation to superstition, nor to the arrogance of those who lift themselves up above the superstitions they despise in others, but rather faith’s relation to gullibility.

Gullibility is a more general concept than superstition. Let us define superstition as gullibility with respect to opinions and possibilities that are held in contempt by the powerful, while gullibility itself is the epistemic equivalent of pettiness — an inability to dismiss highly improbable hypotheses.


Not because of any special piety or zeal, but simply because it was barely yesterday that I was an atheist, I had a vivid impression of the changes in my thinking process. It was not impossible that supernatural agency was involved, of course, but it was very implausible — because it seemed too trivial and indistinct to be worth the effort of a self-respecting angel. So I set that aside immediately, and stayed focused on thinking about what might actually be going on.

Putting aside the insignificant possibility lightened my mind almost in the way pouring water out of a jug would. I seem to remember that when I was an atheist confronting this type of “superstition”, I would keep the supernatural hypothesis in front of my mind, regulating my thoughts, considering the case from every angle but only from the perspective of what might disprove the superstitious opinion.

But a superstition is the opinion of a crackpot. Why was I worried about what crackpots believe? If Eddington has a hypothesis or Einstein has a hypothesis, then falsifying the hypothesis is science. Falsifying a crackpot’s hypothesis is proof that you place a low value on your time.


Here is another possibility: I don’t know why the appliance turns on when it does. I wasn’t able to figure it out. It would be odd if I could, since I’m not an electrician or an engineer. The world would be a boring place if you could just suss out the answer to arbitrarily unusual questions without making any special study of the topic. Sometimes we don’t know. And often when we don’t know we don’t care. In fact, most of the time we don’t care about what we don’t know precisely because the insignificance of the topic is the very reason we never prepared ourselves to answer that type of question in the first place.
history  iron-age  mediterranean  MENA  religion  christianity  judaism  theos  duality  wiki  reference  article  homo-hetero  ideology  philosophy  gnosis-logos  janus  the-devil  multi  god-man-beast-victim  the-self  gnon  epistemic  thinking  metabuch  intricacy  meta:rhetoric  reason  inference  trust  roots  axioms  truth  anthropology  knowledge  metameta  essay  integrity  honor  the-classics  the-great-west-whale  occident  utopia-dystopia  communism  russia  track-record  prediction  authoritarianism  being-right  debate  subjective-objective  dennett  within-without  absolute-relative  politics  polisci  government  confidence  conceptual-vocab  definition  exegesis-hermeneutics 
july 2017 by nhaliday
Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and Hölder's inequality - Mathematics Stack Exchange
- Cauchy-Schwarz (special case of Holder's inequality where p=q=1/2) implies Holder's inequality
- pith: define potential F(t) = int f^{pt} g^{q(1-t)}, show log F is midpoint-convex hence convex, then apply convexity between F(0) and F(1) for F(1/p) = ||fg||_1
q-n-a  overflow  math  estimate  proofs  ground-up  math.FA  inner-product  tidbits  norms  duality  nibble  integral 
january 2017 by nhaliday
Lecture 16
In which we define a multi-commodity flow problem, and we see that its dual is the relaxation of a useful graph partitioning problem. The relaxation can be rounded to yield an approximate graph partitioning algorithm.
pdf  lecture-notes  exposition  optimization  linear-programming  graphs  graph-theory  algorithms  duality  rounding  stanford  approximation  rand-approx  luca-trevisan  relaxation  nibble  stock-flow  constraint-satisfaction  tcs  tcstariat 
january 2017 by nhaliday

bundles : abstractmath

related tags

absolute-relative  accelerationism  acm  acmtariat  advice  afterlife  ai  algebra  algorithms  alignment  altruism  AMT  analogy  analytical-holistic  anglosphere  ankur-moitra  anthropology  antidemos  antiquity  apollonian-dionysian  applicability-prereqs  approximation  article  asia  atoms  authoritarianism  average-case  axioms  bayesian  being-right  benevolence  big-list  big-peeps  big-picture  bio  blog  boltzmann  books  broad-econ  buddhism  caching  calculation  canon  cartoons  causation  chapman  characterization  chart  cheatsheet  checklists  china  christianity  civil-liberty  clever-rats  coalitions  cocktail  coding-theory  cog-psych  cohesion  commentary  communism  comparison  complex-systems  composition-decomposition  concentration-of-measure  concept  conceptual-vocab  confidence  conquest-empire  constraint-satisfaction  contrarianism  convergence  convexity-curvature  cool  cooperate-defect  coordination  cost-benefit  counter-revolution  counting  course  creative  crux  crypto  cultural-dynamics  culture  culture-war  curiosity  curvature  cybernetics  cycles  cynicism-idealism  darwinian  death  debate  decentralized  decision-theory  deep-materialism  definition  degrees-of-freedom  democracy  dennett  differential  dignity  dimensionality  discipline  discussion  distribution  diversity  duality  dumb-ML  duty  early-modern  earth  ecology  economics  eden-heaven  EEA  egalitarianism-hierarchy  emergent  empirical  ends-means  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  ensembles  entropy-like  epistemic  essay  estimate  ethics  europe  evolution  evopsych  examples  exegesis-hermeneutics  existence  exit-voice  explanans  explanation  exposition  externalities  extra-introversion  extrema  farmers-and-foragers  fiction  film  flexibility  flux-stasis  formal-values  forms-instances  fourier  frontier  futurism  game-theory  gavisti  gender  gender-diff  geometry  gnon  gnosis-logos  gnxp  god-man-beast-victim  good-evil  government  gradient-descent  graph-theory  graphs  ground-up  habit  hanson  harvard  hashing  heterodox  heuristic  hi-order-bits  hidden-motives  high-dimension  history  hmm  homo-hetero  honor  huge-data-the-biggest  identity  identity-politics  ideology  IEEE  individualism-collectivism  inference  information-theory  init  inner-product  insight  institutions  integral  integrity  intel  intelligence  interdisciplinary  interests  intricacy  intuition  invariance  iron-age  islam  iterative-methods  janus  jargon  judaism  justice  knowledge  land  language  latent-variables  law  learning  lecture-notes  lectures  left-wing  lens  lesswrong  letters  levers  leviathan  linear-algebra  linear-programming  linearity  links  list  logic  luca-trevisan  machine-learning  marginal  markets  markov  matching  math  math.AG  math.CA  math.CV  math.FA  math.MG  matrix-factorization  medicine  medieval  mediterranean  MENA  meta:math  meta:medicine  meta:prediction  meta:rhetoric  metabuch  metameta  military  mit  model-class  models  modernity  moments  morality  mostly-modern  multi  mutation  mystic  myth  n-factor  nascent-state  nationalism-globalism  network-structure  neurons  new-religion  nibble  nietzschean  nihil  nitty-gritty  nl-and-so-can-you  norms  objektbuch  occident  ocw  online-learning  open-closed  optimate  optimization  order-disorder  org:bleg  orient  oscillation  overflow  p:**  p:***  p:whenever  paganism  parable  paradox  parallax  paying-rent  pdf  peace-violence  personality  perturbation  philosophy  poast  polarization  polisci  politics  positivity  power  pragmatic  prediction  princeton  priors-posteriors  probability  problem-solving  proofs  properties  protestant-catholic  psych-architecture  psychology  q-n-a  qra  quixotic  quotes  rand-approx  random-matrices  random-networks  randy-ayndy  rat-pack  rationality  ratty  realness  reason  recommendations  reference  reflection  regression-to-mean  reinforcement  relaxation  religion  responsibility  revolution  right-wing  rigidity  rigor  rigorous-crypto  risk  robust  roots  rounding  russia  s:***  sampling  sanjeev-arora  sapiens  science  scitariat  SDP  selection  self-control  self-interest  shift  signaling  signum  similarity  sinosphere  skeleton  sky  slides  social  social-capital  social-norms  social-science  sociality  soft-question  speed  speedometer  ssc  stanford  stats  stock-flow  strategy  stream  stress  structure  study  subculture  subjective-objective  sublinear  submodular  summary  survey  symmetry  synthesis  systematic-ad-hoc  tcs  tcstariat  telos-atelos  tetlock  the-classics  the-devil  the-founding  the-great-west-whale  the-self  theory-of-mind  theory-practice  theos  thermo  thick-thin  things  thinking  tidbits  tim-roughgarden  time  toolkit  top-n  track-record  tradeoffs  tradition  trends  tribalism  tricki  trivia  trust  truth  turchin  tutorial  twitter  uniqueness  unit  universalism-particularism  us-them  usa  utopia-dystopia  values  virtu  visual-understanding  volo-avolo  war  wealth  whole-partial-many  wiki  wire-guided  wisdom  within-without  world-war  wormholes  X-not-about-Y  yoga  yvain  zooming  👳  🤖 

Copy this bookmark: