Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Writing: Use of Proper Case

    [L]ook. If Popper can use Italics, then I can use Case. (Yet another thing Germans do right.). Proper casing of names of terms cues the reader. Using headlines, callouts, paragraph headlines and then bold on keywords has become common in print because it assists in helping the user scan the text, and to skip what he knows, and find what he doesn’t. The purpose of punctuation is to assist in reading aloud or in the equivalent inner voice. And good type handling is just good indexing. So if you still think in antique terms you are just stuck in an obsolete technology. Sorry. That’s how it is.

  • Writing: Use of Proper Case

    [L]ook. If Popper can use Italics, then I can use Case. (Yet another thing Germans do right.). Proper casing of names of terms cues the reader. Using headlines, callouts, paragraph headlines and then bold on keywords has become common in print because it assists in helping the user scan the text, and to skip what he knows, and find what he doesn’t. The purpose of punctuation is to assist in reading aloud or in the equivalent inner voice. And good type handling is just good indexing. So if you still think in antique terms you are just stuck in an obsolete technology. Sorry. That’s how it is.

  • Propertarian Arguments are Categorically Proofs.  (And a note on painful births 🙂 )

    [A] proof is a test of internal consistency. A proof is not a truth proposition. It is merely a statement of existential possibility: that by (a)the given axioms, or (b)the possible operations, and (c) the tests of subjective incentive at each opportunity for choice, that the given argument is possible. Testimonialism and Propertarianism extend Critical Rationalism fully to all known areas of thought. Testimonialism completes critical rationalism. [M]oreover, the profundity of the first paragraph is something that you probably cannot find in university philosophy departments. As far as I know, Testimonialism is a completely novel invention. And you and I are participating in the growth of something very new. Something that failed in the early 20th century, and by that failure nearly wiped out western civilization. If you learn propertarianism and testimonialism you will learn to construct proofs. And you will win arguments against the liars. The fact that I am constructing proofs, rather than asking you to accept authority or wisdom or moral appeal, is why I have such an absurdly off-kilter behavior when doing philosophy. Because I’m just taking an argument and seeing if I can construct a proof for it – just like a mathematician tries to construct a proof, and just like a computer programmers is trying to figure out if something is computable. I don’t have to act like a member of the Academy (Cathedral) because I am not lying or asking you to believe I hold moral authority. I’m a just constructing proofs. And at least proofs are truthful (warrantied testimony) even if they may not be true (complete). So Propertarianism is how we are going to win. We are going to win because when I am done it will be possible to construct moral proofs. Once we can construct moral proofs, we can create strict construction in law.  And we can convert all commons to property.  And under universal standing, protect that property. And we will eliminate lying the same way we created property and eliminated violence and theft. And the same way we created contracts and law, and eliminated fraud.  And the same way we created science and eliminated mysticism.  We will create testimonialism and eliminate rationalism, justification, equivocation, obscurantism, pseudoscience, lying, and propaganda. Fukuyama was wrong. The end of history is the truthful civilization. And we are going to birth it. And I hope that birth is painful.  🙂

  • Propertarian Arguments are Categorically Proofs.  (And a note on painful births 🙂 )

    [A] proof is a test of internal consistency. A proof is not a truth proposition. It is merely a statement of existential possibility: that by (a)the given axioms, or (b)the possible operations, and (c) the tests of subjective incentive at each opportunity for choice, that the given argument is possible. Testimonialism and Propertarianism extend Critical Rationalism fully to all known areas of thought. Testimonialism completes critical rationalism. [M]oreover, the profundity of the first paragraph is something that you probably cannot find in university philosophy departments. As far as I know, Testimonialism is a completely novel invention. And you and I are participating in the growth of something very new. Something that failed in the early 20th century, and by that failure nearly wiped out western civilization. If you learn propertarianism and testimonialism you will learn to construct proofs. And you will win arguments against the liars. The fact that I am constructing proofs, rather than asking you to accept authority or wisdom or moral appeal, is why I have such an absurdly off-kilter behavior when doing philosophy. Because I’m just taking an argument and seeing if I can construct a proof for it – just like a mathematician tries to construct a proof, and just like a computer programmers is trying to figure out if something is computable. I don’t have to act like a member of the Academy (Cathedral) because I am not lying or asking you to believe I hold moral authority. I’m a just constructing proofs. And at least proofs are truthful (warrantied testimony) even if they may not be true (complete). So Propertarianism is how we are going to win. We are going to win because when I am done it will be possible to construct moral proofs. Once we can construct moral proofs, we can create strict construction in law.  And we can convert all commons to property.  And under universal standing, protect that property. And we will eliminate lying the same way we created property and eliminated violence and theft. And the same way we created contracts and law, and eliminated fraud.  And the same way we created science and eliminated mysticism.  We will create testimonialism and eliminate rationalism, justification, equivocation, obscurantism, pseudoscience, lying, and propaganda. Fukuyama was wrong. The end of history is the truthful civilization. And we are going to birth it. And I hope that birth is painful.  🙂

  • “Why are you wearing that stupid man-suit?”

    —“Why are you wearing that stupid man-suit?”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 12:31:00 UTC

  • @NRx #tcot Privatizing Public Spaces defends them from consumption

    @NRx #tcot Privatizing Public Spaces defends them from consumption. https://twitter.com/xmjEE/status/615085818957430784

  • I worked on the product pretty much full-time from January through about April.

    I worked on the product pretty much full-time from January through about April. Since April I’ve had some time to get my head back into philosophy. In may and June I’ve tried to make sure I make time for it. So it sure seems like it takes 90 days to get into some pretty deep thought. … Now, I have a couple of nits I have to figure out. Mostly around the writing of law. I think I can do it. So if I happen to seem pedantic this summer when writing about the law, I apologize in advance.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 09:06:00 UTC

  • There is one advantage to living in the states over Ukraine. Just one. Amazon wi

    There is one advantage to living in the states over Ukraine. Just one.

    Amazon will ship stuff to you. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 09:03:00 UTC

  • THE END OF HISTORY NEEDS A PAINFUL BIRTH —” Fukuyama was wrong. The end of his

    THE END OF HISTORY NEEDS A PAINFUL BIRTH

    —“

    Fukuyama was wrong.

    The end of history is the truthful civilization.

    And we are going to birth it.

    And I hope that birth is painful.

    “—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 08:54:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS ARE CATEGORICALLY PROOFS A proof is a test of internal co

    PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS ARE CATEGORICALLY PROOFS

    A proof is a test of internal consistency. A proof is not a truth proposition. It is merely a statement of existential possibility: that by (a)the given axioms, or (b)the possible operations, and(c) the tests of subjective incentive at each opportunity for choice, that the given argument is possible.

    This extends Critical Rationalism fully to all areas of thought. Testimonialism completes critical rationalism.

    The profundity of the first paragraph is something that you probably cannot find in university philosophy departments. As far as I know, Testimonialism is a completely novel invention. And you and I are watching the growth of something very new. Something that failed in the early 20th century, and by that failure nearly wiped out western civilization.

    If you learn propertarianism and testimonialism you will construct proofs.

    The fact that I am constructing proofs, rather than asking you to accept authority or wisdom or moral appeal, is why I have such an absurdly off kilter behavior when doing philosophy.

    Because I’m just taking an argument and seeing if I can construct a proof for it – just like a mathematician tries to construct a proof, and just like a computer programmers is trying to figure out if something is computable.

    I don’t have to act like a member of the Academy (Cathedral) because I am not lying or asking you to believe nonsense. I’m a just constructing proofs. Proofs are truthful even if they may not be true (complete).

    So this is how we are going to win. We are going to win because when I am done it will be possible to construct moral proofs.

    And we will eliminate lying the same way we created property and eliminated violence and theft. And the same way we created contracts and law, and eliminated fraud.

    Fukuyama was wrong. The end of history is the truthful civilization.

    And we are going to birth it.

    And I hope that birth is painful. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 08:45:00 UTC