Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • I don’t know if you’ve come across this before – and if it links to your thought

    I don’t know if you’ve come across this before – and if it links to your thoughts –

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 11:19:00 UTC

  • EVERY MAN A SHERIFF But to make every man a sheriff, I must give every man a boo

    EVERY MAN A SHERIFF

    But to make every man a sheriff, I must give every man a book of law.

    Do you see?

    🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 05:36:00 UTC

  • CRITICISM IS GOOD (Please don’t be afraid to criticize my work. I really don’t l

    CRITICISM IS GOOD

    (Please don’t be afraid to criticize my work. I really don’t like ad hominems and ridicule and I see it as my moral duty to maintain the informational commons by defeating ridicule – it’s gossip after all. It’s feminine deceit. It’s ‘Critique’ (CoC). It’s the favorite tool of the Marxist after obscurantism and justificationism. It’s cosmopolitan Libertarian. It’s not aristocratic. So when you criticize me I owe you a favor for your care, and I must protect your contribution to the commons. But when you attack me or engage in ridicule you have broken the agreement of parley in which I agree to abandon violence and deceit in order to construct a mutually beneficial statement of truth. And I am therefore no longer engaging in cooperation with you. In fact, I have the moral obligation to defeat and punish you for your immorality. )

    🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 05:36:00 UTC

  • Q&A: WHAT IS THE INFLUENCE OF LANGUAGE ON CIVILIZATION. (worth repeating) [I]n a

    Q&A: WHAT IS THE INFLUENCE OF LANGUAGE ON CIVILIZATION.

    (worth repeating)

    [I]n a word, ‘profound’. But thanks to Paul Ba’s advice, I need to start with a word of caution.

    But my point of view is scientific and critical, rather than meaningful. Linguists care about the positive (or they wouldn’t study linguistics) and I care about the negatives: science and law. I don’t think we can improve on trial and error. I think we can only improve on testimony.

    When we negotiate to come to agreement we seek positive affirmations of meaning. These affirmations signal to one another that our interactions might be fruitful.

    When we seek to prevent error, bias and criminality, then we seek to constrain our utterances to those statements that are free of error, bias and criminality.

    This conversation is another example of the obverse / inverse framing that I’m using. If you want to convey meaning, you have one set of preferences, and if you want to prevent error, imagination, wishful thinking, cognitive bias, and deception from utterances you view the world through different eyes.

    We can use language to load, frame and overload. Languages themselves consist of frames, loadings and overloadings. In fact there are few words in any language that are not loaded, framed and overloaded: our most basic statements of operations (‘run’), existence (“there”) and perception (‘fast’). They constitute our most basic 300 words or so. Grammar itself frames by being more informationally complete (english and german) or less informationally complete (Chinese). Loading and framing in Language has profound impact on man’s minds. When we say the word ‘culture’ we are usually speaking about language, tradition, myth, and ritual. Traditions, myths and rituals contain heavy loading and framing and determine our most basic metaphysical value judgments. These metaphysical value judgements provide decidability where we assume pre-cognitively, by subconscious association, necessity or morality, where in actuality, we are merely providing some decidability that suited, at one time, some communication strategy, reproductive strategy, normative strategy, or other. (gender in french, romance in Italian – both of which we know the origins of: virgin worship in pre-christian times in France, and the effect of the troubadour movement in Italy.) So just as our genes get stuck at certain states because they cannot eliminate just ignore content, our languages get stuck at certain states and we just work past content we no longer find meaningful (french feminine references to nature). Some of these evolutionary records in language are helpful (martial germanic languages are truthful) and some evolutionary records are harmful (anything and everything in Chinese language is a burden). But worse, some framings are good (correspondence) and some are not (arabic respect without earning it, and fantasy of an extant complete truth).

    So language is a bit like wetware-programming. There are things in the grammar(organization) and functions (meaning of terms) and sometimes in the structure of words (alphabets or pictograms) that help or hinder us.

    German is perhaps the best language. I have to work on this a bit more. But others have said it in the past. German is loaded pretty heavily at this point with some bad things also: psychologizing of a sort. English is the language of science and it’s being progressively destroyed by progressives. Which is why I want to fix it.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 03:52:00 UTC

  • “This monotheistic passion for reduction to operations seems to lead to cul-de-s

    —“This monotheistic passion for reduction to operations seems to lead to cul-de-sacs.”— Bruce Caithness

    Bruce,

    1) Operationalism is an attempt at falsification. Just as in math, if we can construct a statement through operations then it is existentially possible. Just as in economics, if we can reduce an economic statement to a sequence of rationally executable decisions. Just as in science, if we can reduce a test to a repeatable sequence of operations, and if we can reduce our measures to those that are possible then the test is existentially possible, assuming determinism in the universe and therefore the constancy of that which we measure (without which no science ,and no theory, can be possible).

    If i conduct tests of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, repeatability, full accounting, parsimony (limits), existential possibility, objective morality (voluntary transfer), then I have laundered imaginary content from my statements. This is what science consists in: identifying existential information and eliminating imaginary information.

    If I have performed the due diligence to launder by speech of imaginary information, then I speak as truthfully as is possible. I may indeed speak the most parsimonious testimony possible (the truth) or I may not – a matter of error at one end of the possibilities, or of imprecision at the other end.

    I can warranty that I have performed that due diligence by stating that I speak truthfully: I give testimony in public, as to the truthfulness of my speech.

    2) One can speak truthfully, and warranty that one speaks truthfully. If one speaks in e-prime (specifying means of existence), and in operational definitions (rather than experiences), it is extremely difficult to articulate an idea that still contains imaginary content.

    3) Rather than “leading to cul-de-sac’s” I suspect that this is the completion (or repair) of the critical rationalist research program and the most important invention in philosophy since the failure of that program.

    Just is what it is. I just did a good yeoman’s labor. But between explanatory power, and parsimony it’s a pretty powerful theoretical structure, and it’s pretty hard to defeat it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 03:45:00 UTC

  • MAN CREATES TRUTH. TRUTH MUST BE SPOKEN. ALL ELSE IS JUST EXISTENCE. You see, th

    MAN CREATES TRUTH. TRUTH MUST BE SPOKEN. ALL ELSE IS JUST EXISTENCE.

    You see, the statement ‘full of truth’ is an existentially impossible statement. The universe exists. Truth must be stated. Error imagination, wishful thinking, bias and deception can be removed from our utterances. But our utterances can never ‘be full of truth’. Truth is constructed. It does not exist prior to its construction. Truth is a product of man’s action. Everything else is just existence.

    (Why did that take 2500 years?)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 03:06:00 UTC

  • Dear brain. I do not want to work on indeterminism vs determinism (free will) to

    Dear brain. I do not want to work on indeterminism vs determinism (free will) today. As much as you want me to write about it, the argument is quite simple: when we hypothesize, or intuit a response, the information is incomplete and as evidence shows, highly susceptible to error. So you can say that we exist in the universe, and that there are limits to our constructible concepts. But I would argue that those limits are produced by the limits of our ability to act, and as such any expansion of those limits is not meaningful for us. So the universe may be roughly deterministic at a macro level, and there may be a limited domain of cognition and action for man within that universe, but inside of those limits we have the free will necessary to act at the scale we are capable of acting within. And no other limit would be logical for an organism to evolve.

    But no matter how much you nag me, I am not in the mood to write about that subject. (yes, I know, you are stuck on it and want to get it out.) But I am much more interested in limits to perception and calculation. And even if you make me forget what I was going to write, I will remember it later, and write about it then. 🙂 So today, I am going to wrestle with explaining that to people. (If you will please just let me remember the example I was going to use… dammit…).

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 00:30:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “Is The Soul Property?”

    Q&A: “Curt, What do you say about soul? And its relation to property?” – Mahmoud B. [Y]our indisputable Property is that which you act to obtain without forcing involuntary transfers upon others. Meaning: without {violence,theft, fraud, suggestion, obscurantism, omission, indirection (externality), free riding, socializing losses and privatizing commons, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, war, conquest, and genocide.}

    • You may act to construct your life.
    • You may act to construct your kin.
    • You may act to construct cooperative relations.
    • You may act to construct your reputation.
    • You may act to construct private property
    • You may act to construct common physical property.
    • You may act to construct normative property (by forging opportunity)
    • You may act to construct institutional property (by bearing costs of such things as military service, jury duty, emergency services, and ‘policing’ the preservation of life and property.)

    Your soul, if you believe in such things, and act as if you believe in such things, is, like reputation, something you must constantly bear costs to maintain. As such since you have born costs for both physical and normative constructs, and have done so morally – without the imposition of costs upon others – they are by definition your property. EXISTENCE Now, the manner in which your soul may or may not exist is somewhat challenging, because it can only knowingly exist as an analogy: a form of anthropomorphization of the record of one’s actions recorded in memories of people, physical marks on reality, and the long term consequences of events in the physical world. In this sense your ‘soul’ good or ill, does persist, just as the interaction of molecule of water affects all those around it. (the theory that water has memory is a useful analogy.) So for those who wish to preserve the traditional behavior and traditional anthropomorphism in a manner that we can say may or may not be scientific, we can suggest that primitive man intuits his soul as his thoughts and actions, just as we intuit the persistence of our genes through reproduction. To take it further, we can (and we will very likely never disprove this so it’s useful for religious folk), we can work with what is called quantum mysticism. That is, that your thoughts take place in physical space and time and affect the universe around you. So even your thoughts affect the universe. The thing is, the concept of a soul (an accounting of your life) is a useful one. It seems to produce good outcomes. [Y]ou should not take this argument as terribly firm support for monotheism, but as a purely normative exercise in the economically beneficial results of providing an intuitive means of behavioral accounting in which individuals can resist cooperating with others on matters of ill intent under the correct presumption that the consequences of thought and action are kaleidic and infinite, and that one cannot be forced for any reason into immoral actions (those that impose costs upon others property.) Not all of us are above 125 in intelligence, and we require such analogies for both pedagogical purposes and for use by those who cannot grasp either rational or scientific arguments. The same is true for ethics. We need virtue (imitative), rule, and outcome based ethics, because we have young and simple, adult but not wise, and wise and experienced people in the world. We are unequal. As unequals we need unequal tools. I hope this helps you. As far as I know this argument will survive all current criticism. Existentially, your soul does exist as a record of your actions in the universe, and primitive man could not articulate such ideas. If you want to get into reincarnation then I cna’t help you. Neither can the Dali Lama. He knows it’s a great argument because it is untestable. As you may see, I am trying to provide a means of reformation to the main religions while at the same time undermining those parts of religion that are false, lies, or harmful. But I am not hostile to religion: myth and ritual. Personal religion is a good thing (having been near death at least three times myself). I hope that this answered your question. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Q&A: “Is The Soul Property?”

    Q&A: “Curt, What do you say about soul? And its relation to property?” – Mahmoud B. [Y]our indisputable Property is that which you act to obtain without forcing involuntary transfers upon others. Meaning: without {violence,theft, fraud, suggestion, obscurantism, omission, indirection (externality), free riding, socializing losses and privatizing commons, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, war, conquest, and genocide.}

    • You may act to construct your life.
    • You may act to construct your kin.
    • You may act to construct cooperative relations.
    • You may act to construct your reputation.
    • You may act to construct private property
    • You may act to construct common physical property.
    • You may act to construct normative property (by forging opportunity)
    • You may act to construct institutional property (by bearing costs of such things as military service, jury duty, emergency services, and ‘policing’ the preservation of life and property.)

    Your soul, if you believe in such things, and act as if you believe in such things, is, like reputation, something you must constantly bear costs to maintain. As such since you have born costs for both physical and normative constructs, and have done so morally – without the imposition of costs upon others – they are by definition your property. EXISTENCE Now, the manner in which your soul may or may not exist is somewhat challenging, because it can only knowingly exist as an analogy: a form of anthropomorphization of the record of one’s actions recorded in memories of people, physical marks on reality, and the long term consequences of events in the physical world. In this sense your ‘soul’ good or ill, does persist, just as the interaction of molecule of water affects all those around it. (the theory that water has memory is a useful analogy.) So for those who wish to preserve the traditional behavior and traditional anthropomorphism in a manner that we can say may or may not be scientific, we can suggest that primitive man intuits his soul as his thoughts and actions, just as we intuit the persistence of our genes through reproduction. To take it further, we can (and we will very likely never disprove this so it’s useful for religious folk), we can work with what is called quantum mysticism. That is, that your thoughts take place in physical space and time and affect the universe around you. So even your thoughts affect the universe. The thing is, the concept of a soul (an accounting of your life) is a useful one. It seems to produce good outcomes. [Y]ou should not take this argument as terribly firm support for monotheism, but as a purely normative exercise in the economically beneficial results of providing an intuitive means of behavioral accounting in which individuals can resist cooperating with others on matters of ill intent under the correct presumption that the consequences of thought and action are kaleidic and infinite, and that one cannot be forced for any reason into immoral actions (those that impose costs upon others property.) Not all of us are above 125 in intelligence, and we require such analogies for both pedagogical purposes and for use by those who cannot grasp either rational or scientific arguments. The same is true for ethics. We need virtue (imitative), rule, and outcome based ethics, because we have young and simple, adult but not wise, and wise and experienced people in the world. We are unequal. As unequals we need unequal tools. I hope this helps you. As far as I know this argument will survive all current criticism. Existentially, your soul does exist as a record of your actions in the universe, and primitive man could not articulate such ideas. If you want to get into reincarnation then I cna’t help you. Neither can the Dali Lama. He knows it’s a great argument because it is untestable. As you may see, I am trying to provide a means of reformation to the main religions while at the same time undermining those parts of religion that are false, lies, or harmful. But I am not hostile to religion: myth and ritual. Personal religion is a good thing (having been near death at least three times myself). I hope that this answered your question. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Fear of Outsiders: Against Psychologism

    1) Fear of outsiders is not ‘a thing’ but a universal human reaction. Or at least it is outside of northern europeans. It is not an irrational fear. It is a rational fear. That is why humans bear the intuition. It is an instance of the disgust response. 2) The Fear of Catholics and Jews was warranted. Any student of intellectual and legal history will have trouble arguing otherwise. Prohibition was an example of the reaction to catholic immigration. Jews have had an equally negative effect in a number of areas. YOu can say in both cases that we have endured those negatives. But it is very hard to say that between the catholics and jews that rule of law persists. (you may not like it, but it is what it is.)

    3) High trust society resists lower trust cultures. And we pay the price for integrating lower trust cultures with traditional families into high trust culture with absolute nuclear families. It is what it is. Trust decreases, civic participation decreases, economic velocity decreases. (and yes that’s the case, although it’s very contentious, I am pretty sure I can hold that argument against any economist living). So it is a rational instinct (we evolved it for a reason) and a rational fear (empirically the consequences have been catastrophic since 1963). And we require both empirical and operational means of testing such statements to the contrary. (Human perception being one of frog-boiling intertemporal incompetence.)