Author: Curt Doolittle

NOW WHY IS CURT INTERESTED IN THE PROBLEM OF BURDENSOME TRUTHFUL AND OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE RATHER THAN EASIER, MEANINGFUL AND ALLEGORICAL LANGUAGE?

(important piece)

Because the latter 19th, and majority of the 20th century, used allegorical language to load, frame, construct narratives, pseudosciences, and outright lies, to overload, and produce suggestion that evoked pathological altruism and altruistic punishment for the purpose of leftist deception.

Could the postmoderns(mythicists), the socialists(pseudoscientists), the feminists(ralliers), the social ‘scientists’ (liars), the psychologists (shamers), keyensians (innumerists), have been able to destroy western common law, western high trust society, the civic society, the nuclear family, and social science, even truth itself, and create demand for authority had political speech been held to the same standards of truthful speech as we hold scientists to?

My work in Testimonial Truth is designed to rescue western civilization from postmoderns by legally protecting the informational commons from untruthful public speech. That does not mean one cannot err. It means that in matters of the commons one can be held to the same standards of truth as are the sciences. It means reinstatement of libel, slander, defamation, for false statements. It means extension of truth to the defense of the informational commons by the same means we defend all other commons.

It means we saturate the population in truth rather than in lies.

POSITIVISM VS CRITICISM / OBVERSE VS REVERSE

So the most common objection I receive from the literary and the scientific fields is that, like you, they seek to understand truth as a means of exploration, while in law and in politics, I seek to understand truthfulness as a means of preventing the **externalization** of error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception.

Science has largely abandoned justificationism in favor of criticism. But public intellectuals (people who preach, advocate, talk) retain justifiactionism. Largely because it is easily used to create moral signals, moral activism, and moral outrage.

So while expansion of knowledge may be improved by the use of justification in for the purpose of constructing hypotheses, the truth is determined by the survival of those hypotheses from criticism.

Now I understand that it would place a higher cost on individuals to warranty their public speech in matters of the commons (costs to others) but the entire construction of civilization by constraining others from violence, theft, fraud, extortion, conspiracy, free riding, conversion, immigration, and conquest has cost a great deal.

In fact, the high trust society, the fact that we even try to speak truthfully, and hold each other accountable for truthful speech, is perhaps the most expensive commons ever created by man.

That is why no one else does it.

And why no one else approaches our wealth.

CLOSING

It might take a second read to grasp how I constructed my argument from existential, empirical, and necessary rather than allegorical and ‘meaningful’ terminology.

It is extremely burdensome to write in this fashion, but by that burden we test our understanding of the subject matter. If we cannot articulate our ideas under such constraints we cannot warranty the truthfulness of our statements.

And so we take a discount on the effort of warrantying our statements for truthfulness, and place the cost of the externalities cause by our laziness (discounting) on the rest of society.

The problem is, as the postmoderns and socialists and feminists have shown, is that it is much cheaper to produce deceit than it is to refute it.

So liars won the 20th century.

Now, you may be a moral man, and as a moral man you write moral content. As such you are immaterial other than that by such arguments as you’ve presented you give permission to the worlds most sophisticated liars to lie.

So in order to preserve a discount for yourself you preserve the discount for the immoral men and women of this world – who arguably outnumber those of us who are moral men and women.

Instead I would argue that you can write in whatever mode you prefer, as long as the content of your argument is test-ably moral. This is not a problem for you, certainly.

But I want to make it a problem for immoral men by opening them to liability for pollution of the informational commons.

Curt Doolittle

The Philosophy of Aristocracy

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)