#deontic

[emilyryann]

Virtue In Our Lives

A key aspect of the Aretaic idea of virtue is the fact that virtue is on a scale, where too much or too little is a vice. This idea is something that connects very strongly to the world we live in today. There is major polarization on most topics in today's world, especially when you're talking about politics, life is increasingly becoming "black and white". There are extremes everywhere and I think most people would agree that humanity is at its worst when it is at an extreme, whether it is political, social, or even something personal. I think that Aristotle and other more modern philosophers like Anscombe argue that the best way to live is somewhere in the metaphorical "gray area".

In G.E.M Anscombe's article "Modern Moral Philosophy" She picks apart some of the Deontic theories because they don't allow for accounting of circumstance, they are too rigid. She talks a great deal about how instead of "morally right" and "morally wrong" we should think in terms of "just" and "unjust". There needs to be some allowance for what the situation is, for there may be cases where doing something illegal, or "wrong" may be for the best and may be the most just course of action. This is what it means to live in the gray area, in my opinion, to do what is best and not what is defined as "right". I think this "gray area" embodies the idea of virtue being on a scale and being to a degree. I agree with the idea that virtue shouldn't just be reduced to whether an action is good or bad, it's not realistic since the world will always present difficult and ambiguous situations. In an ideal world where everything is perfect and nothing is ever horribly complicated, I think Deontic ideas of virtue would be perfect, but the world is not that way in my experience.

I never realized how much these modern notions of virtue appear all around and I think it is important to recognize virtue and what it means to you as an individual.

G.E.M. Anscombe

[remembering-the-future]

In the early 2040s, breakthroughs in nanotechnology and marine biology converged to create a revolutionary field known as Foraminiferan Nanotechnology (FNT). This innovative domain leveraged the structural and functional properties of foraminifers, tiny marine organisms known for their intricate calcium carbonate shells, to develop advanced nanoscale devices. Scientists discovered that the precise and durable architecture of foraminifer shells could be replicated to create nano-bots capable of performing complex tasks within various environments, from medical applications inside the human body to environmental monitoring in the deep sea.

As FNT matured, researchers introduced the concepts of nodical and deontic frameworks to enhance the functionality and ethical deployment of these nanobots. The nodical framework, inspired by the nodal points in biological networks, enabled the creation of highly interconnected and adaptive nanobot swarms. These swarms could communicate and coordinate with each other in real-time, forming dynamic networks capable of responding to changing conditions with remarkable efficiency. This development was crucial in fields like targeted drug delivery, where precise and adaptive responses were necessary to treat complex diseases such as cancer.

The deontic framework, rooted in ethical philosophy, provided a structured approach to ensure the responsible use of FNT. By embedding deontic logic within the programming of nanobots, developers established ethical guidelines that governed their behavior, preventing misuse and ensuring compliance with societal values. This included protocols for privacy, consent, and environmental impact, which were critical as FNT applications expanded into various sectors. By the late 2050s, Foraminiferan Nanotechnology, enhanced by nodical and deontic principles, had become an integral part of technological advancement, driving progress while maintaining a strong ethical foundation.

[prototumblinguist]

epistemic and deontic readings

It should be night for a month just so we can see who panics who lives and who dies

[socoolinmypajamas]

Rayashki and Zeno: How a harsh environment shapes actions.

Sometimes, a perception is taken as a principle. A "cruel reality" can be described as a negative perception of the material world, used to assert a situation. "Reality is cruel", however consists in using the previously descrived perception as a fundamental truth or a proposition in which to base the foundations of a system of belief, of behaviour or of a chain of reason. Both are heavily present in Farewell Rayashki, a story all about the strenght of the colective, the indomitable human spirit in the face of adversity and what shapes the actions of those who persue a goal. With that in mind, I wanted to write... Not an analysis per se, but rather to build some sort of structure or perspective (whatever you want to call it) through which the story can be analyzed.

Now, imagine a matrix diagram where the X-axis goes from "Gemeinschaft" (Community) to "Gesellschaft" (Society), two terms taken from german sociologist, Ferdinand Tönnies, and the Y-axis goes from "Deontic" to "Epistemic" in a mix between a Gretchen McCulloch's linguistic sense and a Józef Maria Bocheński's philosophical sense. If everything I just said made no sense, don't worry. Here's a (very) rough explanation of what I'll mean with these two dichotomies through this post: X-axis: A classification of societal ties. "Gemeinschaft" refers to personal, direct interactions with emotional relationships (such as families or small towns like Rayashki) formed by people who strive to archive the goals of a collective. "Gesellschaft", on the other hand, is about indirect and formal interactions, with more rational relationships (like a company or an institution like Zeno) in which everyone band together to persue personal goals in common. Y-axis: A classification of actions as both modality (McCulloh) and authority (Bochenski). Roughly: "actions based on interpretations and beliefs done by someone with an authority based on their ammount of knowledge and experience" (Epistemic)" vs "actions based on rules and/or desires done by someone with a role or position that gives them the power to enforce them" (Deontic).

Upper-left: Gemeinschaft/Epistemic

Windsong's quest, mostly percieved as a fool's errand, is a classic underdog story. The lone reasercher who, disheartened by the lack of support from all the important academic institutions and societies, finds in the small town of Rayashki a more hospitable enviroment to persue her goals. She creats emotional conections with the community and soon finds more self-fulfilment in helping the townfolk than in other things like taking Zeno's offer or abandoning her studies, which are presented as more beneficial options from a rational point of view.

She confronts the notion of "cruel reality" and rejects "Reality is Cruel" as a principle. This action comes from what she knows (her study of ley lines) and beliefs (the people of Rayashki, the usefullness of her field of research).

Bottom-Left: Gesellschaft/Epistemic

You'll think he should be at the opposite side of Windsong BUT Bertolt, as the classical evil guy in your everyday underdog story, actually rejects the notion of "cruel reality", and accepts "Reality is Cruel" as a principle. His emotional detachment from the people of Rayashki, their values, and even their very same idea of community, comes from his role as a member of Zeno, an institution that exemplfies the impersonal and formal relationships of the Gesellschaft. He doesn't see himself as the evil corporate guy who's there to destroy their dream for a greedy goal, but as the savior who comes to provide the light of rationality to this uncultured rural people who are willing to risk their lives for the sake of primitive traditions and values. He defines himself as a "simple representative of Zeno, bound by their rules and orders, working tirelessly to help people in a world wreaked by The Storm", a description that allows him to minimize his negative perception of the reality of others while justifying operating under the principle of Reality is Cruel.

Bottom-Right: Gesellschaft/Deontic

Evgeni is shown through the story as a leader of Rayashki who deeply cares about his community BUT is willing to destroy it for the sake of a rational goal: protecting the lives of the townfolk.

He embraces the notion of "cruel reality", and accepts "Reality is Cruel" as a principle.

But how is HE in the opposite side of Windsong, instead of Bertolt? In Tönnies dichotomy of Gesellschaft and Gemeinschaft, the relationships that are meant to keep people in communities and societies can also push them out: is all about wether the social ties become too tight or too lose to help us find self-fulfilment in them. Windsong found in a community what she couldn't find in society (validation and encouragment for her study of ley lines), while Evgeni thought he found in a society what he couldn't find in his community (a positive prospective for the people of Rayashki).

Upper-Right: Gemeinschaft/Deontic

While Bertolt is a man of the world, trying to expand the benefits of globalization by placing the needs of bigger groups above those of the little ones, what Vila is persuing isn't just a goal to archive, but a dream to share. She didn't became a part of Rayashki only to build an utopia: everyone living there were already doing that and Vila found meaning in developing strong emotional ties with everyone as they strive together to work hard for Rayashki.

However, unlike Windsong, she accepts the notion of "cruel reality", even if she doesn't agree with "Reality is Cruel" as a principle. This one si a bit tricky to explain.

It all comes down to their experiences while chasing their dreams and how that shaped their understanding of what a dream is.

For Vila, is something that kept her going. A cherished wish that inspired her to leave the rusalki and search for a new home. A goal she could share with the people of Rayashki. A hope to cling unto while she nourishes the sprouts of Rayashki while they are passengers of the ship called "St Pavlov's Foundation" while adrift in the vast sea of the outside world, so they can carry on the spirit of Rayashki. She accepts the "cruel reality" as something that could hinder her dreams, force her to adapt them, but never crush them.

For Windsong, the dream was but a promise turned into a burden. It was not something that comforted her if held tight, but rather something it pained her to let go. Accepting the "cruel reality" meant letting something die, and for someone who was struggling in all fronts, it meant taking a toll way to big for her to handle.

As the last ley line hunter, the dream is but a gamble turned into an investment. The chance of failure is there no matter what. Only thing she can do, is to work hard to reduce it as much as possible. To her, a "cruel reality" is something that crushes dreams. Is not enough to reject the use of this perception as a principle: her own experiences taught her that the perception itself can be a cancer. She might have a tendency to put herself down, to have doubts on what she does and to even be "realistic" in any situation she encounters. But there's ALWAYS a part of her fighting her perception of reality from turning into a negative one even if she lacks the proper arguments or mental state to do it effectively. Vila noticed that from day one, and began to slowly share with her the tools Windsong lacked, helping her become a more confident and capable person, while inadvertibly gaining a trusty partner to rely on.

Their experiences shaped them into people who complement each other incredibly well. Leaning into each other, they'll plant their seeds of hope into a new generation. For the study of ley lines; for Rayashki; for those who live in a world affected by The Storm; for those who'll survive it. *** To anyone who'll read this... whatever the hell it was till the end, thank you for time! Feel free ask me anything, correct me, chew this to bits with your bare teeth, whatever you like. I just haphazardly wrote it because I love this game so much.

[loving-n0t-heyting]

Deontic aristotelian quantifier mai 68 political compass

[spades4cards]

••´º´•𝐁𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭•´º´••

×｡. Physicist's List ｡.× * General Relativity * Quantum Gravity

☯ Philosphy ☯ ൠ Branches of Philosophy ൠ * Metaphysics * Axiology * Epistemology * Logic * Ethics * Ethical Egoism * Relativism * Deontic Logic * Existentialism * Idealism * Philosophy of Mind * Materialism * Contemporary Philosophy * Monism * Philosophy of Religion * Stoicism ඏ Pillars of Philosophy ඏ * Knowledge * Truth * Critical Thinking * Culture

✎ Philosophers ✎ * Socrates * Descartes * Spinoza * Berkely * Hume * Marx * Russel * Heidegger * Wittgenstein * Popper * Turing * Fyodor Dostoevsky * Albert Camus * Friedrich Nietzsche * Osamu Dazai * Franz Kafka * Lev Tolstoy * Dante Alighieri * George Orwell

[onecornerface]

Drug use & drug harms - long version

I'm interested in feedback or sources from anyone who knows relevant stuff in economics, policy analysis, or whatever.

X = drug use (e.g. total volume of substances consumed) Y = drug-related harms (e.g. physical & mental harms to the user + harmful acts & omissions by users against nonusers) There is a phenomenon in drug policy where policymakers see “X causes Y”, then they aim to reduce X (in order to instrumentally reduce Y, in direct proportion); but the result is “the remaining X causes *more* Y (per average token instance of X)”-- to such a severe degree that the total Y increases (despite the reduction in X). Is there a name for this? This seems similar to Goodhart’s Law? I'm not sure if it is strictly an instance of it? I could also subdivide it into a few parts, like (1) "use-reduction sometimes increases average harm-per-use" and (2) "sometimes #1 happens to such a degree that it increases total harm (not only average harm)." I claim that #1 is clearly true, and that #2 is often true as well (at least in countries where many people use drugs). However, here I'm not so much concerned to defend these claims, but mainly to better *specify* them. I'm just mainly looking for terminology, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual tools to clarify the basic ideas. Pls halp. To illustrate the idea more: In theory, it makes sense to try to reduce (the total amount of) drug harms *by* reducing (the total amount of) drug use. Ceteris paribus, "less drug use" DOES mean "less drug harms." Obviously. Halving the drug use should halve the drug harms. If legalization would increase drug use, then legalization should increase the drug harms. Hence why so much of the debate is over what does or doesn't increase drug use, without even bothering to carve "use" from "harm." (Not to mention non-drug harms, and deontic considerations like rights & autonomy, which complicate the picture further. I will set these aside here.) Hence why drug prohibitionists (like the ONDCP, led by the "drug czar") often cite use-reduction as their main proxy target for success in drug policy. (Some people also consider use-reduction an *intrinsic* value. I think this view is morally indefensible, for reasons I won't go into here. I'll be treating use-reduction as only *instrumentally* valuable. Also, some people slide between treating "use-reduction" as intrinsically valuable vs. treating it as instrumentally valuable-- I think this may involve a motte-and-bailey, or pandering to multiple audiences at once {e.g. keeping both moralists and pragmatists on board with prohibition] or suchlike.) However, there is a big problem: The "ceteris paribus" clause does NOT obtain-- and this is precisely because the *methods* of drug-use-reduction *increase* the harm-per-use. Prohibition may reduce total drug use, but prohibition *also* ensures that the average token instance of drug use is more harmful (compared to the average token instance of drug use under legalization). (For simplicity, I'm focused mainly on simple prohibition and simple legalization-- leaving out the many variants of each, and the many in-between positions.) Sometimes this harm-increase is a *byproduct* of the methods of use-reduction (e.g. cutting down the drug sales, leading to more dangerous volatility in the remaining drug market). And sometimes this harm-increase is an *intended* method of use-reduction (e.g. via direct and indirect punishments of users, like arrests and housing-evictions). In any case, this entails that use-reduction is a very flawed metric of drug policy success-- because the methods of prohibition will complicate the relationship between drug use and drug harm. (For "Goodhart’s Law"-esque reasons?) This is a problem worth analyzing even if one disagrees with my claim that prohibition increases total harm.

[horsesource]

“The possibility of freedom exists because, in ‘the social’, deontic powers aren’t necessarily a prerequisite for sociality. What ‘the social’ demonstrates is that complex sociability can take place without the aid of status functions or deontic powers, and that rather than living in the world [the world that we have made, and cannot entirely help ourselves from making, and the strange power that it exercises over us, its makers] we can at least partially live in the Background [grounding conditions, instinct, our species] instead, without any loss of functionality.”

[partnerindestiny]

i'm extremely mad that shez's sword is somehow unnamed and not a prf (i know that's due to hopes being a warriors game, but still) so i went down a rabbit hole naming it.

Naming the Unnamed 

(AKA what I choose to name Shez's sword and why) (because why isn't it named!)

Naming

The name I choose to use for Shez's sword - until (if, LOL) IntSys gives us a real name - is Zeno. 

Zeno is a Greek philosopher - one of the Eleatics. The Eleatics are the philosophers that succeeded the Ionian philosophers - the earliest of the Ionian philosophers being Thales. Epimenides, as well, is a Greek philosopher. I’m sure if you’re reading this document, you knew  about these name references, but I felt it was worthwhile to mention them here.

Themes / Reasoning

Zeno is most known for the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise. This paradox effectively boils down to the idea that in order to move from one place to the next, one must first move half the distance between their start and their destination. However, if one continues moving in halves, they will never reach that destination - and yet, clearly, we do. 

Even at the time, Zeno’s paradoxes were all viewed as ridiculous, but in modern literature specifically that of Achilles and the tortoise is often used thematically. I believe this theme of never reaching a destination can be applied to Shez - the cycle cannot end here. 

In metaphor, this paradox has also been used to describe the concept that two people can never truly touch (i.e Stay from the musical Amelie). Points at Shez and Arval. Cries. 

Rejected names

Kenosis - κένωσις; the “self emptying” of Jesus.

Déontos - δέοντος; in reference to deontic logic, which I am under qualified to properly explain in a footnote of a Fire Emblem tumblr post.

[futuristicstarfishcollection]

"Shue develops an analogy between greenhouse gas emissions and a person who, as a hobby, likes to construct land mines that will detonate in several decades. Suppose that this person also endows an annuity, which matures around the same time that the land mine detonates, and provides financial compensation to the victims of the explosion. This does not make the hobby permissible, Shue observes, because the right to physical security serves as a strict deontic constraint, and so no amount of compensation could justify its infringement."

I think this should be considered morally permissible on the basis of "If it's funny enough it should be allowed"

[tomdeckard]

3.27.24 thoroughbred

overhand toss not too much for

making the soft skills feel enchanting

like the broad webs woven into foreplay

like the dolls we hand the crushing debt to

in a moment when the dust begins to settle

or athletics wane to simply set the table

we are what the ghosts have been demanding

it is time to gauge the caliber of deontic sport

[benefits1986]

YE 2023 Countdown: Deontic Logic and The Fallacies of Love

When nature and nurture alter your utilitarian and hedonistic selves, what's left of you?

My social muscles are shaking and so am I. Still in awe of how December 2023 is panning out. I remember my Cubao X visit ages ago when I got The Beatles vinyl in excellent condition. Of course, haggle to the max and the store owner actually said yes. That December was gloomy in spite being my innate love for rainy days and nights. It's also my first physical attempt to get something that reminds me of mother dragon's sound in 4D.

I am decluttering the past weeks bit by bit, but I am still holding back. I stumbled upon handwritten notes from my deontic logic and philosophy classes. I think I've downed 15 or more units because all my subjects in UN-Kalaw didn't hold up in Taft Likod. Not complaining because these sessions are not boring to some extent. Actually, the subjects I enjoyed apart from these are: law, psych, socio, anthropology, econ, chem, art app, film, Rizal, comm arts and immersion classes via NSTP. Quite weird because most of these subjects are not directly related to my major and my graduate school, too. To be clear, my grades in general are not top tier since I max out my allowable cuts and I really don't mind the grades that much as long as my GWA falls under the grant program ng Taft Likod.

Sabi ng nanay ko 'wag daw akong papasilo sa Arts/Humanities kasi pang-alta raw 'yun. Saka 'pag 'yun daw course ko, pakawala na ako tapos 'di naman ako agad-agad makakapag-abroad for immersion, case studies, thesis and the works so hilaw din ang labas ko. Sabi ko naman, rich ang historicity ng Pinas kahit sa Manila lang. Tigilan ko raw kasi wala raw siyang pake. HAHAHAHA. Kahit alam niyang pasok ako sa UA&P nung 'di na ubra 'yung UPDi plea ko, magiging kawawa lang ako pati doon. Saka again, mapapariwara lang daw ako lalo since most likely babarkada ako sa mga legit bad influence. Lagi na lang. LOL. Sabi niya perfect storm sa akin 'yung marketing kasi fit sa personality ko saka sure daw I'd go places kahit saan pa 'yun. Delulu talaga ng nanay kong magaling. Doon daw ako sa institution advocating social responsibility and feminism i-cloister, with matching tawang malala. UGH. Since, siya mismo nag-hard stop sa akin sa nursing, tawang-tawa ako kasi mas alam niya pa 'yung gusto ko sa akin, nag-second try pa siya e. Ako naman e OK lang kahit ano kahit syempre, suwail ako. Ganun talaga. Lambing namin ang malalang debates kahit anong oras. LOL. Ang love language namin: Sinong unang susuko at magta-tap out. LOL.

I won't deep dive on the theories of deontic logic and The Fallacies of Love since I'm super clunky na on those. Kwento ko na lang 'yung experience ko about these two dog show sessions.

Deontic logic is an attempt of MaDocs to up the ante of their students. This means guinea pigs kami since trial run lang talaga siya. Syempre, ayoko kasi mas comfortable ako sa logic na as is, where is. Para siyang naging algebra sa paningin ko na unnecessary. Hahahahahaha. When you mix numbers with letters and symbols, mhie, tigilan mo na ako kasi para lang siyang sobrang lalang attempt to be cerebral masyado. Gets ko naman 'yung attempt to sharpen your critical thinking. Sabi nung prof, 'di siya magiging madali pero if the bell curve would be decent, this subject will be officially part of the curriculum. LOL. Ending: balik sila sa basic logic class after nung sem namin. I think 'di naman ako bagsak dito pero shemay. Para akong mamatay every time I am in this class kasi nga, grade-conscious pa ako sa MaDocs ng medyo malala.

'Yung Fallacies of Love, I think logic class ko na 'to. Chauvinist male prof 'to kaya G na G na G na G ako. Natatawa ako na parang 1/2 or 1/3 ng class e puro about his paganaps e 'di naman maganda LS niya. HAHAHAHHA. Saka 'di siya profound, feeling profound lang. Apaka yabang na puro hangin na signal number 4 ang vibe. 'Di rin siya visually appealing at all. Tapos, tawang-tawa ako nung pumasok siya sa class na na-hold up daw siya pati shoes niya ni-hold up. Gusto ko na lang mag-walk out kasi, bakit pa magsasayang ng oras sa monologues niya na wala namang kinalaman sa logic class. Napaka ill and illogical niyang tao. Hahahahahaha. Pero, nung fallacies of love na, kahit cringe 'yung explanations niya, I think active ako sa recits dito. Baril at karne szn mode to be exact. Siguro, dito ako unang nag-step up sa pagtatanong to the point na red-faced na siya kasi medyo sumisibat mga tanong and follow through ko. Sabi nung soul sis kong "logic girl" ang nickname sa class, medyo hinayan ko lang kasi choked na 'yung prof namin. Sabi ko, kahit ibagsak niya pa grades ko, wala akong pake. HAHAHAHAHAHA. After all, nagtatanong lang naman ako e, so sagutin niya kung kaya niya. I think decent din grade ko sa kanya. 'Di ako sure if DL ako sa sem with him or baka 'di na kasi nga, I quickly realized na 'di grades ang batayan ng college life.

'Di ako streetsmart noon. Kasi nanay kong magaling, laging kasama sa lahat: enrollment, entrance exam, interview, fitting ng uniform, pick up ng uniform, merienda, lunch, first day, random day, hindi random day. Sabi ko nga, bakit ba kahit super busy siya, may time pa talaga siyang mag-hang out sa Manila. Sabi naman niya, naninigurado lang siyang nasa klase ako dahil alam niyang tumatakas din ako with inom, landian at iba pa. HAHAHAHAHA. Sabi ko naman, part of life 'yun and alam ko namang alagaan sarili ko. Alam din daw naman niya kaso, bahala na lang daw ako sa buhay ko kasi andyan lang siya sa tabi-tabi lagi.

Nung sick si mom, ayan na. My first tabula rasa came marching in. LOL. Natuto akong i-apply ang mga fundamentals and derivatives ng lessons ko inside and outside my classes. Paano mag-commute. Paano mag-commute na hindi hulas masyado. Paano gumising ng maaga kahit maaga rin ako nakakatulog. Paano maging kalmado kahit 'di talaga ako kalmado. Paano maging "decent" performer kahit 'yung nanay ko bed-ridden na naman. Paano mag-show up kahit ayoko talaga ng A-line skirt white white button down top na naka-high heels and pearl earrings. UGH. Paano maging focused kahit alam ko namang walang bearing masyado ang college life sa real life ko as a caregiver ng nanay ko. Paano mag-fake it 'til you make it kahit alam ko namang mas maganda magiging career path ng mga alta classmates ko. Paano maging unbothered kahit sobrang lala ng anxiety ko dahil KPI ko ma-beat 10-year life expectancy ng nanay kong case study ng GBS. Paano mapagkasya meager baon ko kahit sobrang dami kong org-related activities para naman mas may laban folio kong alam kong ugh na agad kasi nag-shift ako from nursing to business course. :D Actually, 'yun pa lang demerit na blatant na sa paningin at kaibuturan ko noon.

Looking back, let me stand corrected. Sorry na ulit. Sorry na.

UN-Kalaw x Leon Guinto x Diliman is my path, through it all. I won't have it any other way because at this age, I may not have the cookie cutter definition of achievements or success; however, my life is rich with crazy adventures and misadventures. Since I'm breaking my favorite poison --ego over heartbreak, eto na tayo sa pag-face ng utilitarian and hedonistic selves within the self ko. :p I'm no longer apologetic about my version of demerits and detentions. I'm no longer apologetic about therapy sessions that started in Prep without me knowing. I'm no longer holding back in as far as this thought fart spot is going. Medyo TMI na TMI na tayo pero not super pa.

I'm slowly growing into an ultra femme pero barda pa rin body, a mind, a hypothalamus na mala-Shirakawago canal kasi ganun talaga ako. The voices in my head are still in chaos, however, I name them now. I talk to them. I negotiate with each voice na. While adrenaline, addiction and anhedonia are not joking, naming and embracing them allow me to address them kahit sobrang layo pa, may LAYO na tayong natatahak, unti-unti.

Sabi nga, you receive the love and hate you think and feel you deserve. I am still working on my most pressing and grandiose battle with "iiwan din naman ako kahit anong gawin ko" in line with not grieving for mother dragon since 2011. However, andito na ako sa point na OK OK OK, let's try giving it a good try no matter how badly I'll be, for sure. Naka-angkla na lang muna ako sa "moral obligation" kasi mas madali ko siyang ma-gets at hindi ma-negate agad-agad kasi nga I'm a walking "fallacies of love" like the rest of the universe. By this I mean well ha. 'Di na super graphically horrific. 'Yung 'di na super utopian pero syempre, may indulgence pa rin. Sarap maging feeling deep e. Sarap makipag-debate kahit wala namang dapat kagalitan. Sarap mang-asar at maging asar-talo ng todo.

But this time around, let me allow myself to feel more, breathe deeper, and live more intentionally in this realm for now. Unti-unti. I sincerely hope that this dalisay era attempt will make me curate stories that are worthwhile and worth sharing, too. May I choose peace even when I'm thriving in chaos. May I choose to embrace vulnerability instead of masking it with my RBF vibe. May I choose to say yes because my default is NO, NO, NO. Hahahahaha. May I care a bit more even when I really don't care about a lot of things except those that matter most to me --connections I can call home. May I allow myself to grow into a body that thinks, feels and does things for the greater good, unti-unti, tuloy-tuloy lang. May I fight a good fight with grace and grit; and while at it, may I allow purple people to break my silos, my CTRL + ALT + DEL fortress. UGH. NKKLK. And so, ora et labora. :)

Dahil we love Venn Diagram, lapag ko na rin 'to as follow through. Mala-gospel na daig ang El Dopa and Bossing Mo e. Ang tinde ng tagos. Indulge! Intentional Paradoxical Adult Love, pasok! LUH. "We repeat the stories we don't understand." LAGOT.

"...a lot of the stuff that are crazy now, once made a lot of sense..." WALANG SALAG. BLAGAG.

"Sometimes, you need these little levers to shine a light...it's like a petri dish..." OPAK. WALANG PALAG.

"How are you mad?" HAHAHAHAHAHA. OK. OK. OK. "Everybody has a folly inside them... so, total sanity is not a possibility of any human being..." HOHOHOHOHOHO. As a baliw girly, this is more than liquid gold. <3

"...for ancient Greeks, Plato saw love as a classroom in which two people in the spirit of kindness and generosity... endeavor to help each other to become the best version of themselves..." MY MATIC FAVE NA AGAD because the Greeks are euphoric and tragic.

Huy, aga-aga na naman!

Good day from non-Manila spot, universe!

[bogosbinted]

Epistemic versus deontic modality

[rw7771]

Modal Logic is any system of formal logic that attempts to deal with modalities (expressions associated with notions of possibility, probability and necessity). Modal Logic, therefore, deals with terms such as "eventually", "formerly", "possibly", "can", "could", "might", "may", "must", etc.

Modalities are ways in which propositions can be true or false. Types of modality include:

Alethic Modalities: Includes possibility and necessity, as well as impossibility and contingency. Some propositions are impossible (necessarily false), whereas others are contingent (both possibly true and possibly false).

Temporal Modalities: Historical and future truth or falsity. Some propositions were true/false in the past and others will be true/false in the future.

Deontic Modalities: Obligation and permissibility. Some propositions ought to be true/false, while others are permissible.

Epistemic Modalities: Knowledge and belief. Some propositions are known to be true/false, and others are believed to be true/false.

Although Aristotle's logic is almost entirely concerned with categorical syllogisms, he did anticipate modal logic to some extent, and its connection with potentiality and time. Modern modal logic was founded by Gottlob Frege, although he initially doubted its viability, and it was only later developed by Rudolph Carnap (1891 - 1970), Kurt Gödel (1906 - 1978), C.I. Lewis (1883 - 1964) and then Saul Kripke (1940 - ) who established System K, the form of Modal Logic that most scholars use today).

[linguistlist-blog]

TOC: Journal of Japanese Linguistics Vol. 39, No. 1 (2023)

ICYMI: Formulaicity and formulaic expressions in Japanese: an introduction Reijirou Shibasaki pp. 5-14 Formulaicity and contexts: a multimodal analysis of the Japanese utterance-final tteyuu Michiko Kaneyasu pp. 15-36 Sequential positions and interactional functions of negative epistemic constructions in Japanese conversation Tomoko Endo pp. 37-57 Kedo-ending turn format as a formula for a problem statement with a deontic implication Daisuke Yokomori pp. 59-79 The utterance-final tari site construc http://dlvr.it/SyNMGM

[onecornerface]

drug reform & extremism - some notes

People complain about the drug reform movement becoming "radicalized" & supporting "extreme" views.

But "extreme" often just means "very different from the status quo." And the status quo (the drug war) is disastrous. So we can reasonably infer that the correct views will probably be extreme views. So in at least this sense, the fact that a drug policy reform view is extreme does not, in itself, necessarily count against it.

I also think there are different definitions of "extreme." I think by various definitions of "extreme," the charge either will (1) apply to drug reform, but not be bad, or (2) not apply to drug reform in the first place, and/or (3) apply to drug prohibition or aspects thereof, in part in bad ways.

I wrote a lot about the idea of "extremism" in my notes when I was developing my philosophical views of polarization a couple of years ago. I'll try to gather some of these together sometime. I distinguish several types of "extremism" and try to figure out which ones are bad vs. neutral.

I recently(-ish) learned Spencer Case wrote a paper on (moral) extremism. I have given what I call a (comparative) “content-based” definition of extremism here. But independently, there are also what we might call “attitude-based” definitions of extremism, on which extremism is roughly a way of orienting toward moral views or advocacy. Case’s account looks like such an account. I’ve skimmed some of it. I'll return to this whenever I get back to working on my polarization notes.

On his view, extremism is a vice since it tends to lead to various problems, such as violating deontic constraints against some methods of the pursuit of worthy goals. But it sounds like he may allow that extremism can also be the lesser of two evils under some circumstances, e.g. maybe when apathy is the more pressing problem.

Interestingly, he has a brief section on American alcohol prohibitionism as embodying extremism, albeit sensitive to the serious moral concerns underlying it (e.g. domestic abuse).

From skimming Case, it looks like Quassim Cassam has also independently made a similar move as myself (probably doing better than I did)—defining three types of extremism: position extremism (content extremism), methods extremism, and “modal” extremism (which seems to be what I call attitude-based extremism).