(thinking about an upcoming interview) Well, you know, it’s pretty hard to descr

(thinking about an upcoming interview)

Well, you know, it’s pretty hard to describe empiricism before empiricism, rationalism before rationalism, reason before reason. So it’s pretty hard to describe Testimonialism, a little less so Propertarianism, and a little less so market government.

And just as language had to change in response to every major conceptual evolutionary leap, learning that language each time is pretty hard. But in exchange for that leap, those problems of that were previously not understood, describable, and debatable, become understandable, describable, and debatable – extending our understanding of the universe we live in.

To create internally consistent means of categorizing, comparing, and deciding between increasingly complex questions (problems) we have developed a number of categories of increasing complexity. In mathematics we think in terms of numbers, sets of numbers (arithmetic), ratios of numbers (mathematics), spatial relations (geometry), and relations in time (calculus), and fragmentary information (statistics). Each method increases the number of dimensions we are able to describe as constant relations.

Outside of mathematics, in philosophy (or at least in analytic philosophy) we use similar categories to describe a spectrum of increasingly complex constant relations.

They are science andMetaphysics, psychology and Epistemology, sociology and Ethics, politics and Law, the arts and Aesthetics, group competitive strategy and War( violence, immigration, economic, norms(religion) and information (propaganda).)

Note the use of lower case for the physical and social sciences, and the uppercase for the branches of philosophy.

What I have tried to accomplish, and I think successfully, is to create a common value neutral, scientific language, for the categorization, comparison, decidability of all of these subjects, across all of these fields. Whether you want to call it a science or philosophy at this point is rather meaningless, since the result of my work is that those two terms are now synonyms, and everything else is either pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-moralism, utopian literature, or the supernatural.

The net result of which is that I have, I think, made it much harder to use language at every scale, from the intrapersonal (self), to interpersonal, to an audience, to the media, to the government, to the courts, to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, omission and suggestion; loading framing and overloading; or pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-moralism, and supernaturalism; our outright deceit, and repetition of falsehoods (propagandizing).

And just as empiricism radically reduced falsehood in the informational commons, I am fairly sure that testimonialism will radically reduce falsehood in the commons. And I am entirely certain that Testimonialism(epistemology) and Propertarianism(ethics) will produce as great a change in human existence as did empiricism and darwinism.

So when I tell you that my work consists of a framework:

Acquisitionism (psychology)

Testimonialism (epistemology)

Propertarianism (Sociology)

Strictly Constructed Natural Law (Law)

Market Government (Politics)

Sovereignty, Heroism, Transcenence (Aesthetics)

Group Evolutionary Strategy (War)

And that this framework completes the promise of the Anglo scientific enlightenment by solving the problem of the social sciences.

That’s what my work has accomplished.

And that is why it takes a bit of explaining.

But if you want to know WHY I spent my life on it. It’s because (a) I really dislike conflict, (b) I really dislike deceit, (c) I really love my people, (d) I understand the unique accidents that are i-life, ii-sentient life, iii-cooperative life, and iv-western civilization: the people who discovered “Truth Proper”.

And so when I heard conservatives fail to say anything intelligent in arguments against the pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, outright lying, and propaganda of the de-civilizing left, I wanted to create a rational language to explain their ancient group evolutionary strategy, and the reasons that that strategy had resulted in dragging mankind out of ignorance, disease, and poverty in the pre-historic world of the bronze age, in the ancient greco roman world, and in the modern european world.

But somewhere along teh way I decided that I had to not only provide a positive means of explanation, but a negative means of criticism. In other words, I had to make it much harder than it is today, to engage in very complex lies.

Because just as in the early world we developed domesticationism (paternalism/property/sovergitny), and in the ancient world we developed reason, and in the modern world we developed science, the middle east developed authoritarian religion (zoroaster) in response to domesticationism, authoritarian monotheism (judaism/christianity/islam) in response to reason, and authoritarian pseudoscientific cosmopolitanism (Boaz, Marx/Lenin/Trotsky, Freud, {Frankfurt School}, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard/Rand, and Strauss) using the same utopian fictionalism that had Abraham and his cult, and Zoroaster and his cult.

I have no doubt that they will seek to invent another authoritarian set of lies to counter against testimonialism, but in the interim, we can take at least one step forward in restoring western civilization from the Third Great Utopian Lie of the East.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, ukraine.