(no subject)

When principles 
                which are 
                           really regulative 
are regarded 
                  as 
                            constitutive, 
and employed 
                  as 
                           objective principles,
contradictions 
                 must 
                           arise; 


but if they are 
                  considered as 
                                 mere maxims,  
there is no room 
                  for contradictions 
                                      of any kind, 

as they then merely 
                  indicate the different 
                                      interests of reason, 
which occasion 
                   differences 
                                in the mode of thought. 


In effect, 
             Reason has only one 
                                   single interest, 
and the 
           seeming 
                   contradiction 
                                  existing between
her maxims 
              merely indicates 
                                 a difference in, 
and a reciprocal 
                limitation of, 
                                   the methods 
by which 
            this 
                   interest 
                                 is satisfied.”

This reasoner has at heart the interest of diversity — in accordance with the principle of specification; another, the interest of unity — in accordance with the principle of aggregation. Each believes**** that his judgement rests upon a thorough insight into the subject he is examining, and yet it has been influenced solely by a greater or less degree of adherence to some one of the two principles, neither of which are objective, but originate solely from the interest of reason, and on this account to be termed maxims rather than principles.

---Immanuel Kant, “The Critique of Pure Reason.”

**** The two thinkers use different methods of aggregation; therefore, they come up with different classes of equivalence, and as the result their logics are necessarily different.

Fucking Moron (tm) and the direction of the country

Overall, Republicans are opposite of Independents, not Democrats. Healthcare is #1 issue for the voters.

TIL: Neurodiversity

as in,

Baron-Cohen presents the issue as one of opposing sides: the medical model, which sees autism as a set of symptoms and deficits to be cured or treated, and the neurodiversity model, which he believes ignores any disabling aspects of autism. Unfortunately, this confuses the neurodiversity movement with the social model of disability, and it is an incomplete understanding of the social model at that.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/clearing-up-some-misconceptions-about-neurodiversity/

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-concept-of-neurodiversity-is-dividing-the-autism-community/

I guess, the more we learn about human biology at the individual level, the greater number of bio-vs-social conflicts is going to arise. In a world dominated by religion, social and biological constructs used to have almost isomorphic equivalence classes. All of that changed in the 20th century and the clash of logics caused millions of deaths.

Трамповата хавает

The complete text (one and a half pages) of the US-Mexico border declaration reads like an attempt to fight bullshit with bullshit ("Mexico will take unprecedented steps"; "Mexico will offer jobs, healthcare and education [to migrants]). Basically, it's the same stuff they agreed to six months ago.

Also, the Bullshitter-in-Chief couldn't resist lying publicly about the agreement:

President Donald Trump boasted of “large” agricultural sales to Mexico as part of a deal reached Friday on border security and illegal immigration that averted the threat of U.S. tariffs, but the deal as released had none, and three Mexican officials say they’re not aware of any side accord.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-08/mexico-never-agreed-to-farm-deal-with-u-s-contradicting-trump

Time for our nightly Kant meditation

...the idea of God. 

We have not 
          the slightest ground 
                             absolutely 
                                     to admit the existence 
of an object 
          corresponding to 
                           this idea; 
for what can empower 
                  or authorize us 
                               to affirm 
                                        the existence 
of a being 
           of the highest 
                          perfection — 
a being 
         whose existence 
                         is absolutely necessary — 
merely because 
               we possess 
                         the conception of 
such a being? 

The answer is: 
                It is the existence 
of the world 
              which renders 
                          this hypothesis 
                                     necessary. 

But this answer 
                makes it perfectly 
                                     evident that 
                                                   the idea of 
this being, 
           like all other speculative ideas, is 
                                                essentially 
nothing more 
              than a demand upon 
                                  reason 
that it shall regulate 
                       the connection which it 
                                          and its subordinate 
faculties introduce into 
                          the phenomena of 
the world 
             by principles of 
                              systematic unity 
and, consequently, 
                  that it shall regard 
                                      all phenomena as 
originating from 
                   one 
                         all-embracing 
being, 
        as the supreme 
                            and 
                                  all-sufficient 
                                                   cause.

Immanuel Kant, “The Critique of Pure Reason.”