Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Summary

    Summary

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 05:29:00 UTC

  • PROOFS AND TRUTHS (important summary) When we write a proof, we demonstrate that

    PROOFS AND TRUTHS

    (important summary)

    When 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

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 05:23:00 UTC

  • IS HOTNESS A SKILL? (humor) Just out of curiosity…. Oversing has a pretty elab

    IS HOTNESS A SKILL?

    (humor)

    Just out of curiosity….

    Oversing has a pretty elaborate skill system, including hard skills and soft skills, skill levels, and weights (how important they are to your organization).

    I was wondering if we could add ‘Hotness’ to the soft skills. And a list of say, five levels of hotness.

    Kirill says that our product is industry independent, and in strip clubs it’s a legitimate job qualification. Tati says it’s not legal. And that she was ‘recruited’ for an interesting marketing position – until they asked for a full body photo. So while it may be a qualification, it’s still not legal to put it in the application.

    I just think it’s a really good ‘easter egg’. But I kind of suspect that I will lose this debate here in the office.

    So what is your opinion?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 11:45:00 UTC

  • (worth repeating) Islam vs Christianity (via Curt) 1) hatred is required / hatre

    (worth repeating)

    Islam vs Christianity (via Curt)

    1) hatred is required / hatred is prohibited

    2) punishment is required / punishment is prohibited

    3) lies are permissible / lies are not permissible

    4) dual ethics (us and them) / universal ethics (misguided children)

    5) respect a given / respect earned by actions.

    6) knowledge is fixed / knowledge evolves

    7) intolerance is required / intolerance is prohibited

    8) inbreeding is promoted / inbreeding is prohibited

    9) produces low trust societies / produces high trust societies

    10) produces ignorance and poverty / produces knowledge and prosperity

    A religion is what is practiced not what is preached.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 11:31:00 UTC

  • MONOPOLY THINKING IS ENDEMIC IN DEMOCRACY AND MONOTHEISM, BUT NOT IN POLYTHEISM

    MONOPOLY THINKING IS ENDEMIC IN DEMOCRACY AND MONOTHEISM, BUT NOT IN POLYTHEISM AND PROPERTARIANISM

    OMG you made me ‘get it’. Thank you. Awesome.

    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

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 11:22:00 UTC

  • Sanguine, can you point me to it please.. Not sure I understand

    Sanguine, can you point me to it please.. Not sure I understand…

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 11:05:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/659687563221934085

    Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric @ne0colonial @wargfranklin

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/659663014438637568

    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/659663014438637568

  • Q&A: “ARE THEIR ‘HIGHER’ PSYCHOLOGIES THAN TRUTH? —“It sounds like you’re reco

    Q&A: “ARE THEIR ‘HIGHER’ PSYCHOLOGIES THAN TRUTH?

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

    Well, 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

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 10:59:00 UTC

  • Cart

    [woocommerce_cart]

  • Shop Checkout

    [woocommerce_checkout]

  • My Account

    [woocommerce_my_account]