Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Just for what it’s worth, I argue aristocracy is best for all races, nations, tr

    Just for what it’s worth, I argue aristocracy is best for all races, nations, tribes, and families. I don’t do the racism thing

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-08 21:39:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663470871898669056

    Reply addressees: @WhittierPal

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663450956739178496

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663450956739178496

  • Where on earth are you getting that nonsense from?

    Where on earth are you getting that nonsense from?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-08 21:37:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663470515781304325

    Reply addressees: @AllooCharas @SpiritSplice

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663467831414153216

    IN REPLY TO:

    @AllooCharas

    @SpiritSplice @curtdoolittle I see you are into anti semite fascism so i wouldnt talk of fantasy if i was you.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663467831414153216

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-08 15:29:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “Are There Higher Psychologies Than Truth?” (whatever that means)

    —“It sounds like you’re recognizing there are higher psychologies than that of the mere scientist.”—

    [W]ell, I disagree that for the purposes of LAW and TRUTH claims, that there are ‘higher’ psychologies, but for the purpose of CREATIVITY yes, I agree. My position is that matters of creativity are the subject of aesthetics, not metaphysics, truth, epistemology, ethics, politics or war.

    I have observed the same reaction from scientists who think that they’re work is the most ‘spiritually advanced’: the critical rationalists are determined that they not be constrained, and are not responsible for the externalities produced by their failure to warranty that their work has been laundered. Why would I expect artists, authors, theists, philosophers, scientists or whatever other group that claims spiritual superiority to accept both that their desire for creativity in their frame of reference is not special in the least, that their work is not special in the least – only subject to less empirical tests of failure; or to accept accountability for their speech and action, since they themselves would say that they need no such limits, given their moral character, and desire to create not decide, not police, not punish. Except the evidence is otherwise. People want to pretend their smarter than they are, to utter nonsense, to obtain status with nonsense utterances, and not to be held accountable for that which they failed to foresee. People are ridiculous really, in all walks of life. But without such nonsensical pretenses we would not be motivated enough to get out of bed and struggle against the dark forces of time and ignorance. Given that more damage has been done by priests, philosophers, politicians, and pseudoscientists than has been done by warriors, the great plagues, and only matched by volcanic disruption of the ecosystem, it is merely prudent that the most irresponsible people warranty that they do no harm instead of escape liability for that harm they have observably done. Liars all. Particularly to ourselves. So as one who is learning, I understand the desire for creativity and experience. As one who defends civilization I also understand that we can, and must, limit the damage that can be done by those who would seek status and affirmation, and excitement, through falsehood. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Q&A: “Are There Higher Psychologies Than Truth?” (whatever that means)

    —“It sounds like you’re recognizing there are higher psychologies than that of the mere scientist.”—

    [W]ell, I disagree that for the purposes of LAW and TRUTH claims, that there are ‘higher’ psychologies, but for the purpose of CREATIVITY yes, I agree. My position is that matters of creativity are the subject of aesthetics, not metaphysics, truth, epistemology, ethics, politics or war.

    I have observed the same reaction from scientists who think that they’re work is the most ‘spiritually advanced’: the critical rationalists are determined that they not be constrained, and are not responsible for the externalities produced by their failure to warranty that their work has been laundered. Why would I expect artists, authors, theists, philosophers, scientists or whatever other group that claims spiritual superiority to accept both that their desire for creativity in their frame of reference is not special in the least, that their work is not special in the least – only subject to less empirical tests of failure; or to accept accountability for their speech and action, since they themselves would say that they need no such limits, given their moral character, and desire to create not decide, not police, not punish. Except the evidence is otherwise. People want to pretend their smarter than they are, to utter nonsense, to obtain status with nonsense utterances, and not to be held accountable for that which they failed to foresee. People are ridiculous really, in all walks of life. But without such nonsensical pretenses we would not be motivated enough to get out of bed and struggle against the dark forces of time and ignorance. Given that more damage has been done by priests, philosophers, politicians, and pseudoscientists than has been done by warriors, the great plagues, and only matched by volcanic disruption of the ecosystem, it is merely prudent that the most irresponsible people warranty that they do no harm instead of escape liability for that harm they have observably done. Liars all. Particularly to ourselves. So as one who is learning, I understand the desire for creativity and experience. As one who defends civilization I also understand that we can, and must, limit the damage that can be done by those who would seek status and affirmation, and excitement, through falsehood. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Monopoly Thinking is Endemic in Democracy and Monotheism, but Not Polytheism and Propertarianism

      [I] see class theory as a set of elites in each of four disciplines of only three of which produce political coercion: 1) Violence(male conservative)/Law, 2) Gossip(female progressive)/Speech 3) Remuneration (male)/Trade, 4) Transformation(male and female)/Production-Craftsmanship. With Transformation not producing elites other than scientists (who are weak influencers). And with some groups succeeding in combining more than one means of coercion in the same group of elites. (Priest/Kings for example).

    I see humans a negotiators for their part of the spectrum of the reproductive division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy. 1) Female consumption, short term (progressive) 2) Male biased production, medium term (libertarian) 3) Male accumulation, long term (conservative) And that through voluntary exchange we ‘calculate’ the optimum for the group, despite the fact that none of us senses the entire spectrum sufficiently to make a general judgement. I see the creative, productive, and ‘true’ processes as merely different points on the timeline of knowledge development: Knowledge Evolution | Production | Norm Evolution 0) Inspiring (sensing and perceiving) | (feeling) 1) Hypothesis |(free association) | (idea) 2) Theorizing | (experimentation) | (trial and error) 3) Law | (production) | (habit) 4) “True” | (truth statement) | (norm) So I don’t interpret a hierarchy of these different perspectives, but excellences in all three, each of which advocates for his temporal constituency. So my understanding is not one of ‘one-ness’, ‘or penultimate man’, or ‘hierarchy’, but that each of us supplies specialization in some domain. And that as needs emerge and opportunities emerge, we make use of the elites in that period with the ability to best lead us into exploiting it. In other words, I merely describe what is, not what I think should be. I don’t try to say that we should do X, only that if we want to evolve that we must NOT do things that prevent us from doing so. There is no recipe for free association (creativity). There are recipes for testing your hypotheses, such that we warranty that they are free of externality. Thanks

  • Monopoly Thinking is Endemic in Democracy and Monotheism, but Not Polytheism and Propertarianism

      [I] see class theory as a set of elites in each of four disciplines of only three of which produce political coercion: 1) Violence(male conservative)/Law, 2) Gossip(female progressive)/Speech 3) Remuneration (male)/Trade, 4) Transformation(male and female)/Production-Craftsmanship. With Transformation not producing elites other than scientists (who are weak influencers). And with some groups succeeding in combining more than one means of coercion in the same group of elites. (Priest/Kings for example).

    I see humans a negotiators for their part of the spectrum of the reproductive division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy. 1) Female consumption, short term (progressive) 2) Male biased production, medium term (libertarian) 3) Male accumulation, long term (conservative) And that through voluntary exchange we ‘calculate’ the optimum for the group, despite the fact that none of us senses the entire spectrum sufficiently to make a general judgement. I see the creative, productive, and ‘true’ processes as merely different points on the timeline of knowledge development: Knowledge Evolution | Production | Norm Evolution 0) Inspiring (sensing and perceiving) | (feeling) 1) Hypothesis |(free association) | (idea) 2) Theorizing | (experimentation) | (trial and error) 3) Law | (production) | (habit) 4) “True” | (truth statement) | (norm) So I don’t interpret a hierarchy of these different perspectives, but excellences in all three, each of which advocates for his temporal constituency. So my understanding is not one of ‘one-ness’, ‘or penultimate man’, or ‘hierarchy’, but that each of us supplies specialization in some domain. And that as needs emerge and opportunities emerge, we make use of the elites in that period with the ability to best lead us into exploiting it. In other words, I merely describe what is, not what I think should be. I don’t try to say that we should do X, only that if we want to evolve that we must NOT do things that prevent us from doing so. There is no recipe for free association (creativity). There are recipes for testing your hypotheses, such that we warranty that they are free of externality. Thanks

  • Proofs and Truths

    (important summary) [W]hen we write a proof, we demonstrate that our testimony is existentially possible. Proofs demonstrate existential possibility. But they do not necessarily demonstrate uniqueness. So a proof does not say that this particular road led one to Rome. It merely says that it is indeed possible to arrive in Rome via this road. A truth claim would have to demonstrate that the only possible way to Rome is by this road, or to demonstrate that you had indeed taken this road using incontestable evidence that you had not taken others. This is the difference between subjective and rational and objective and empirical testimony. And when we construct proofs in Propertarian language, we do not make claims of uniqueness: truth; we make claims of possibility: proofs. We prove that our testimony is possible, but not unique. That proof requires that each step in the sequence of our proof is also subjectively testable as a rational operation by a human mind, given the incentives at his disposal. Propertarianism provides the fulfillment of hte promise of praxeology, without the error that such statements are true, only that they are not false. This corrects the Misesian half-success of praxeology by merging it with the Popperian half-success of critical rationalism: the evolution of knowledge by survival of criticism, to achieve the Hayekian half-success that liberty is only obtainable through rule of law; and merging them together with the expensive commons of high trust and truth telling into Testimonialism: the epistemology of Propertarianism. Liberty results only from truth in mind, utterance, and trial by jury, under the total prohibition of parasitism, forcing all men into production of goods, services and commons. The most precious, expensive, and scarce of commons being objective truth and truth telling itself.
    Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Proofs and Truths

    (important summary) [W]hen we write a proof, we demonstrate that our testimony is existentially possible. Proofs demonstrate existential possibility. But they do not necessarily demonstrate uniqueness. So a proof does not say that this particular road led one to Rome. It merely says that it is indeed possible to arrive in Rome via this road. A truth claim would have to demonstrate that the only possible way to Rome is by this road, or to demonstrate that you had indeed taken this road using incontestable evidence that you had not taken others. This is the difference between subjective and rational and objective and empirical testimony. And when we construct proofs in Propertarian language, we do not make claims of uniqueness: truth; we make claims of possibility: proofs. We prove that our testimony is possible, but not unique. That proof requires that each step in the sequence of our proof is also subjectively testable as a rational operation by a human mind, given the incentives at his disposal. Propertarianism provides the fulfillment of hte promise of praxeology, without the error that such statements are true, only that they are not false. This corrects the Misesian half-success of praxeology by merging it with the Popperian half-success of critical rationalism: the evolution of knowledge by survival of criticism, to achieve the Hayekian half-success that liberty is only obtainable through rule of law; and merging them together with the expensive commons of high trust and truth telling into Testimonialism: the epistemology of Propertarianism. Liberty results only from truth in mind, utterance, and trial by jury, under the total prohibition of parasitism, forcing all men into production of goods, services and commons. The most precious, expensive, and scarce of commons being objective truth and truth telling itself.
    Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Communication, Argument, and Proof

    —“Communication, Argument, and Proof are different things unfortunately. I don’t really communicate. I construct arguments and proofs. My “managers” tell me to do that, and leave communication of it for others. And that seems to work best. There are already a few people that are better at communicating these ideas than I am.”—Curt