We can conceive of the past only from our present perspective, in terms of concepts and language that we possess now, but the nominally ‘same’ past was conceived of differently by the people of the past, it had different sense. If the objective reality is just a special category of meaning, ‘the world as we know it’, and that meaning changes for consciousness in our dimension of time, then reality itself changes over time in addition to the deterministic changes from cause to effect. The ‘world as we know it’ that was once experienced is different from ‘the world as we know it’ that we now conceive of as the past that was once experienced. The only link between the two is the continuity of consciousness. Here is the long version: https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWTT

What is the essential difference between women and men?

An example of how moral realism could work. An intelligent, talented person posts on social media a beautiful, emotionally touching artwork that addresses some global issue. That person then receives a mention and praise from a famous movie start, a celebrity with millions of followers, and derives immense satisfaction and validation from this praise and social promotion. Thereafter, the smart person becomes more interested in discussing the scientific merits and studies that identify the said global issue, promotes himself as an activist, but in his research he is driven by a strong unconscious bias for taking seriously only those papers that confirm the opinion that caused his social validation, irrespective of the quality of research. In essence, the person got paid in emotional and popularity credits to lie, but because they submitted to this level of dis-integration of self (unconscious bias) they are not aware that they are lying or doing anything wrong. They are trapped in a deterministic process, stuck in a lie, and their behaviour is unconsciously driven by that lie. Moreover, being unconscious of the bias they express every day, they are open to new biases creeping in via the same process. Friends at work all agree on some biases and give social validation to others when the bias is reciprocally expressed, etc.

My new book, which includes a definitive exposition of the theory of reflexive consciousness, is now available on Amazon: “Moral Ontology: a thesis on the interdependence of sense, integrity and agency”.
For Australia see here: https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/1763717216 
For those in the US: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1763717216
Also available in the UK and the EU.

Q: What is the purpose of vaccination against measles?
A: To prevent measles. Studies show that vaccines prevent measles.
Q: What is the purpose of preventing measles?
A: Ha! So that people don’t die from preventable illness!
Q: So the purpose of vaccination against measles is to make people live longer than they would without the vaccine, right?
A: Yes, of course!
Q: Can you show me the randomised studies which show that people who are vaccinated against measles live longer than those who are not vaccinated against measles?
A: —
Q: Yes, I know.

I can’t stress enough how important is the book “Experiences in groups” (1961) by Wilfred R. Bion. This is probably my Nr ONE ‘must read’ for anyone who cares about understanding themselves and the human condition. It is not to be idolised, it is not a “bible”, it is not perfect, but must be carefully reflected upon. https://library.agnescameron.info/psychiatry/Experiences%20in%20Groups,%20W.R.%20Bion%20(1961).pdf

My favourite episode of the Twilight Zone, a brilliant metaphor for the moral hazard of ‘defending your country’. Synopsis: A nation is experiencing existential pressure. Another, more powerful nation (or perhaps the Devil himself) presents them with a gift, which grants the power to defeat the existential pressure on the condition that they would be willing to simultaneously murder some innocent civilians, women and children. The choice is symbolically represented as a red button, under a locked dome of the “button unit”, like a “nuclear option”. The troubled nation decides to press the button, momentarily defeating the existential threat and also killing innocent civilians, only to find out that they have unwittingly chosen the same fate for themselves. youtube.com/watch?v=or-HTv-2Ccg

Why do ‘they’ call it “critical thinking”, and proceed to present some “method” developed by “critical thinking specialists”? Why not call it logical thinking? Is there a difference between logical thinking and critical thinking? If so, then is critical thinking nonsensical or is sense uncritical? In lieu of an argument that unifies the two forms of thinking, it is necessary to conclude that “critical thinking” is a scam, fake news, disinformation, something other than Sense, therefore non-sense.

It seems, on the basis of this account (criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thi…), that the initial focus of “critical thinking” in education is to distinguish between different elements of an argument: premise, evidence, subjective preference, conclusion etc. This nevertheless already involves controversial definitions, such as “reasons” seem to be assigned some special significance that can be distinguished from subjective preferences, without explaining why subjective preferences ought not be regarded on par with reasons. Where do reasons come from, if not from subjective preferences, remains unclear. The criteria and standards of evaluation are also not objective, but are rather imposed by the text itself. The student must determine what criteria are expected and what standard to be applied to accomplish “correct” evaluation. This is normative relativism: you shall think how we say you ought to think, not try to make sense according to the laws of sense, because this would empower you to dispute the logical validity of our criteria and standards (including those of the legal/authority system). You shall not believe in the existence of universal laws of logic, or some universal standard of sense, or we will fail you. Here is the clincher: “Communication, in short, is always a transaction between at least two logics. In reading, as I have said, there is the logic of the thinking of the author and the logic of the thinking of the reader. The critical reader reconstructs (and so translates) the logic of the writer into the logic of the reader's thinking and experience.” The silence on the question of the standard, unifying logic according to which the two could understand one another is no doubt intentional, as it would make the contradiction explicit. In short, critical thinking (on this account) is provable nonsense, full of unsupported and false assertions that the student is required to uncritically accept. This is more sinister than I thought, real brainwashing. It now makes more sense why the education system refuses to teach the fundamental laws of logic.

Intentional actions are morally right or wrong irrespective of the causes or circumstances that persuaded us to do them. This is why history does not matter to moral discernment.

“Critical thinking” educates the cannon-fodder how to write useful reports and follow machinery instructions, without endowing the thinking skills that could challenge the logic of systemic authority.

There is an inconsistency between the concepts of ‘greater good’ and ‘common good’, and the common good prevails on logical merits. The qualifier ‘common’ is nevertheless superfluous; the sense of “good” as a principle already entails that it is good for all.

Internal consistency does not guarantee logical validity; the premises must be logical too in order to have a logically valid conclusion. Any assertion of fact or any conviction assumed without a sufficient reason (something ‘unsound’) violates the law of non contradiction.
Moreover, it is impossible to prove the validity or even the likelihood of validity of the conviction that an assertion is “garbage”, false or wrong, without demonstrating how it violates the laws of logic, and this is precisely the standard that “critical thinking” does not care to satisfy (which makes it as dogmatic and wrong as any internally consistent cult). If you cannot demonstrate a violation of the laws but form the conviction that an argument or claim is false, it is you (a critical thinker) who violates that laws of logic and draws absurd/false conclusions.

There is a simple economic reason why people do not see it viable to rent out their investment properties on permanent basis. The cost of renovations, the associated red tape, cost of permits, is too high for the rents, risks and security deposits associated with letting strangers into your house, and possibly be unable to evict them. The costs of property maintenance, compliance and construction costs were all inflated in line with the property bubble, created intentionally by the low cost of credit (near zero interest rates) and by favourable tax treatment (which incentivised property investment, causing redistribution of funds towards real estate). Politicians are happy to sit on their empty investment properties simply as a passive asset.

It can be show a priori that all conscious agents value their conscious agency above any other contingent values; to value agency is intrinsic to being an agent.

One possible experiment that could demonstrate that immoral actions diminish our conscious agency and are therefore contrary to self-interest is to ask a sample of persons considered reliably moral to start behaving immorally just for the sake of the experiment, and another sample of persons considered reliably immoral (tyrants, dictators, gangsters, recidivist abusers) to stop being immoral for the sake of the experiment. If one group has a lower capacity to choose otherwise implies that they are more deterministic, therefore possessing a lower degree of agency.

Alternatively, one may simply act immorally, “Do what thou wilt, that is the whole of the law", and see what happens. If you are right, there is no downside. If you are wrong, there is a downside.

Found in the wild

Jospeh Campbell and friends, the authors of this excellent book (excellent for reasons other than the central argument), thought that wise men can change humanity by changing the symbols that guide the masses. I consider this premise easily disproven: the cultural, unconscious forces that drive societies can be expressed under any symbol. Give a murderer the power of the Cross and he will use the cross to exterminate the unbelievers, doubters and dissenters of the dogma; give a terrorist the powerful slogans of anti-fascism, and he will terrorise you like a true fascist, under the guise of being a victim of fascism. Symbols mean nothing if they violate the rules of meaning, which are the ultimate law.

That civilians are intentionally killed for the alleged reason of destroying a “legitimate military target” does not negate the fact that civilians are intentionally killed for that reason, which implies that the “legitimate military target” is used as a reason for intentionally targeting civilians. Any instrumental explanation for the intentional killing of civilians is self-incriminating: an admission of guilt.

The claim that immigration drives up property prices “because more people competing for the same number of houses causes prices to rise” is based on a false premise; the supply of housing is not fixed. When the stock of houses available for sale exceeds the demand, new houses are built, which attracts investment because it is good business to build houses when there is demand. The primary factor in the price level of housing is the supply of money, which is created by commercial banks in the form of credit, mostly via mortgages, hence the lending policies for housing and the associated interest rates determine house prices. In addition, the cost of compliance adds to the cost of housing and can delay adjustments to their supply, which is also a matter of policy.