Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • LEFT VS RIGHT WING ECONOMICS? NOPE. There are no ‘wings’ to economics. We can ar

    LEFT VS RIGHT WING ECONOMICS? NOPE.

    There are no ‘wings’ to economics.

    We can argue good economics or bad economics. Using economics, one can advocate left, redistributive, dysgenic policies, or right concentrating, and eugenic policies.

    But economics is just a science. It is a science of inconstant relations. But it is still a science.

    Left and right are preferences. Economists demonstrate that they advocate a pretty normal distribution of policy biases.

    Science doesn’t have preferences.

    People do.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-19 13:55:00 UTC

  • Justificationary arguments simply serve to direct your opponent to your greatest

    Justificationary arguments simply serve to direct your opponent to your greatest point of weakness.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-19 12:25:00 UTC

  • THE LIES OF THE IRRATIONALS Conflating fact, value and preference : Marx and Mar

    THE LIES OF THE IRRATIONALS

    Conflating fact, value and preference : Marx and Marxists

    Conflating action and perception : Heidegger and Postmoderns

    Lies, lies, lies. All lies.

    If someone cannot state something to you in operational language they are either lying to you, or they don’t know what they’re talking about.

    LIFE CYLCE OF OF THEORIES

    0) PROBLEM: I may understand a problem.

    1) THEORY: I may have a theory of how to solve the problem.

    2) TEST OF INTERNAL CONSISTENCY: I man be able to construct a ‘tool’ for the solution of a problem.

    3) TEST OF EXTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE: I may be able to use a tool, and understand how it came to be.

    4) PRODUCTION (HABITUATION): I may use a tool but not understand how it came to be to either solve the problem or avoid the problem.

    5) DISTRIBUTION (SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION): I may may unknowingly rely on a tool to avoid a problem, AND NOT know how that tool came to be, or the problem.

    6) COMMODITIZATION (METAPHYSICAL ASSUMPTION): I may be ignorant of a tool, not how to use it, or how it came to be, but exist in a world where all of us avoid the problem for which the tool was intended and designed.

    The problem is that by the time we get to COMMODITIZATION, I’m know sure we can call what we’re doing ‘knowledge’. It’s just a habit. An informational instinct, rather than biological instinct.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-19 11:12:00 UTC

  • NONSENSE —“We would have to start with a clarification of the terms. Capitalis

    NONSENSE

    —“We would have to start with a clarification of the terms. Capitalism is an economic system that exists in various forms over time & in different places but it has certain core essential features”—

    THE UNIVERSAL REFUTATION OF SOCIALISM

    The vague term ‘economic system’ is a form of deception. Capitalism is a MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

    The capitalist means of production is possible because both the incentives to do what we do not wish to do, and the means of calculating how to do so, are available to us; such that by doing what we may not wish to do, we do what we are capable of doing, and by doing so satisfy the wants of others, such that we may finally satisfy our own wants.

    The socialist means of production is not possible. It is impossible. It is impossible because neither the means of calculation, nor the incentive to do what we do not desire to, exists in that method of production.

    Marxism is the biggest organized systemic set of lies since the invention of scriptural monotheism. It is the most murderous religion ever created by man – by replacing mystical allegory with verbal obscurantism and pseudoscience.

    If you cannot explain an economic argument in operational language you are either engaged in ignorance or deception or perpetuating deception out of ignorance.

    —“libertarian socialism”–

    Like socialist economy, ‘libertarian socialism’ is a contradiction in terms. One cannot create an economy under the socialist method of production. One cannot create socialism from libertarianism. The reason being that libertarian is defined by the necessity of private property, and socialism is defined by the necessity of community property.

    PERIOD.

    I am surprised that anyone still can get away with writing the irrational mystical obscurant deceptive lies of socialist dogma but given the durability of mystical scriptural religion I should not be.

    Socialism is pseudoscience. It is a religion dependent, like postmodernism, on the abuse of language in order to deceive mediocre and ignorant minds.

    My opinion is that it is only immoral. But I could easily make the argument that obscurant arguments for the purpose of conducting theft by conspiracy (socialism) are CRIMINAL acts.

    The fact that we tolerate free speech is because we feel we may err. However, we do not tolerate shouting fire in a theater, nor should we tolerate advocacy of suicide.

    Which is what socialism is: suicide.

    If you advocate socialism you are, ignorant or not, at the very least an immoral person. And arguably a criminal who deserves punishment.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-19 10:26:00 UTC

  • Over the past five or six years I’ve wondered how to measure the ability of huma

    Over the past five or six years I’ve wondered how to measure the ability of human beings to identify relations. We know that it’s hard work and there is a limit. We know that we must be able to construct those relations in a fairly short period of time. But, how do we measure it?

    I didn’t think it was possible. But now I think it might be.

    Sure, IQ is still a loose proxy. But it describes our relative differences, it does not tell us enough (that I am aware of) about how to weigh the different types of content other than verbal and mathematical. While I don’t discount empathic intelligence, I dont think it tells us much of value, about our minds, even if it’s utilitarian in practice.

    The question I’m struggling with is, that given our sort of fascination with ideal types, and given the clear necessity for logics (instrumentation) and our clear inability to think in increasingly complex numbers of dimensions without the help of cartesian or three dimensional models, and given our need to name functions (sets of operations) there is some sort of limit that I cannot put my arms quite around. But I am fairly certain if I struggle with that I will be able to eventually answer.

    We have IQ, and response time. We know that it only takes about 300 words to articulate all human experiences. We know that we can load terms, phrases, sentences, explanations and narratives, almost infinitely. But we also know that at some point we lose the ability to reconstruct or deconstruct those terms. So how do we measure that?

    What is the objective, experiential difference between concepts?

    I know that figuring out that property was the sort of unit of commensurability helps get to a solution. But what is that solution?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-19 09:44:00 UTC

  • ON MORALITY AND IDEAL WORLDS : IDEAL MEANS, NOT IDEAL ENDS 1) I think it is a ph

    ON MORALITY AND IDEAL WORLDS : IDEAL MEANS, NOT IDEAL ENDS

    1) I think it is a philosophical error (or at least naivety, and possibly profound arrogance) to think in terms of ideal worlds. I tend to think in terms of improving the world we live in, without causing externalities that negate the improvement. It is the latter part of that statement that changes philosophy from an interesting parlor game to one of consequence.

    2) I think the purpose of philosophy is to integrate expansions in scientific understanding into our current understanding of the world, such that we improve our ability to reason and act in such a way as to take superior advantage of the difference between our rate of change and the universe’s suite of constant relations.

    3) I think value claims are normative. In my work, I have found that if one looks at a) the structure of production

    b) the structure of reproduction (family)

    c) the class and status of the extended family

    d) the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the polity.

    e) the gender and generation of the individuals.

    That moral biases are predictable portfolios that reflect our reproductives strategies.

    4) I think we can agree on means but not ends. And if we could agree upon ends, we increase fragility and risk. But that said, it is non-rational to expect one group to sacrifice its reproduction for another group’s reproduction. And people demonstrate this universally in all polities (at least over time.)

    As such I see the only ‘good’ as creating sufficient prosperity, and maintaining it, so that we are all wealthy enough to obtain what we desire individually or in small groups, but certainly not en masse.

    And neither equality nor diversity assist us in this objective. And that is demonstrably empirical, and very difficult to refute without selective reasoning.

    If it stands that women are at maximum density in one sector or other the economy, then that is the optimum best for all, because any other arrangement, whether prohibited from their potential, or prohibiting some male from his potential, is detrimental to the fulfillment of all potentials.

    That is, unless, you feel one of the luxuries that we can afford, is false status signals. An that is a valid preference. It may be that we prefer to create certain false signals because we are wealthy enough to do so. The problem is in anticipating the externalizes (consequences) of such false signals. And whether one or many have the right to involuntarily cause others sacrifice for self benefit.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-19 08:59:00 UTC

  • LUXURY VERSUS NECESSITY IN ETHICS : PARLOR GAMES VS POLITICS The difference betw

    LUXURY VERSUS NECESSITY IN ETHICS : PARLOR GAMES VS POLITICS

    The difference between the structure of my arguments, and the more common of those in moral philosophy, is one that is common in western philosophy. Because western philosophy was created and developed by its aristocratic classes, and those classes that performed sufficiently to afford the luxury of philosophy, and sought enfranchisement.

    Namely: necessity.

    Marx, for all his error, does not make this mistake, nor does perhaps our most influential moral philosopher: Adam Smith against whom Marx, like Freud against Nietzsche, Marx is a reactionary.

    So, the difference in our approaches to philosophy, is that I start with necessity, and then choose preference from the available options.

    From that position I take the mutually moral and scientific requirements that (a) it is only moral to compel necessities not preferences. (b) the only moral preferential political action is one that others voluntarily comply with. (c) the evidence is that most of our attempts to interfere with social orders, other than increasing participation in them, has proven to be a failure when we attempt to achieve ends, rather than provide means.

    There are many preferences that we could seek to pursue, the externalities of which are counter productive to the prosperity that decreases the possibility of choices.

    As such, philosophical discourse on luxuries is interesting. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that what we are discussing is the luxuries that our implementation of necessities has made possible.

    Discussing luxuries is a nice parlor game. It is like young men fantasizing about which supercar they can buy if they save for the next ten years. But I do not work on philosophy for entertainment. I work on it for the purpose of identifying possible solutions to looming problems: what is necessary for continued expansion of our ability to cooperate in a division of knowledge and labor so vast that we can exist with such wealth?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-19 08:54:00 UTC

  • LABOR IS MEANINGLESS – CONSUMERS ARE NOT Obvious but interesting, is that marxis

    LABOR IS MEANINGLESS – CONSUMERS ARE NOT

    Obvious but interesting, is that marxist labor theory of value, and even their supposed social value of ‘labor’ are both in fact valueless and non-logical. But the presence of a ‘consumer’ is not.

    It’s not that business value labor. It’s that business and capitalists need CUSTOMERS in order to organize production.

    The challenge in expanding any economy, and in the satisfaction of consumer wants, is not production – it is voluntarily organization production for the satisfaction of demonstrated consumer wants.

    Money supplies us with information that represents the accumulated savings of time, created by the division of knowledge and labor.

    I know this is pretty obvious (and incomplete as an argument) but I still am amazed at how the marxist zombie simply continues to walk the face of the earth.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-19 08:49:00 UTC

  • METAPHYSICS VS SCIENCE (worth reading) –“Curt, loved your brief defense of prax

    METAPHYSICS VS SCIENCE

    (worth reading)

    –“Curt, loved your brief defense of praxeology earlier on (below). This is off subject but like Katherine, I too am curious in what way metaphysics failed and science is now close to triumph. An example or two please? We can go off line if you like.”– Pat

    Pat,

    This is the largest and most controversial topic in philosophy. And I find that I lose pretty much everyone when I try to address it. So I don’t think I can do it in a couple of examples. I can given an analogy between the problems of constructive/intuitional­ mathematics, the requirements for scientific argument (which are moral constraints actually), the problem of inconstant relations in economics, and the difference between truth and proof. And that forms a basic language for discussion.

    Since that conversation requires a pretty exhaustive knowledge of multiple disciplines It seems that the argument is quite hard to make even if done in long form.

    BUT TRYING ANYWAY

    The best I can do is state that imagination can only be tested by action – external correspondence. And our understanding of of our actions tested by internal consistency. And the veracity of our internal consistency by our understanding of construction. As such, our logical methods allow us to construct instruments which assist us in testing correspondence, internal consistency, and construction. Albeit, while internal consistency can be expressed in complete terms, neither external correspondence nor construction can be.

    Without such instruments to extend our perception, memory, and calculability, we lack the ability of sufficient introspection, and the ability of sufficient external perception, to perceive the internal and external world, at the SCALE of those action that we require for cooperating in large numbers, in a vast division of knowledge and labor – the sum of which constantly reduces the cost in calories and time of the production of goods and services which serve our reproductive interests and perpetuation as a species.

    This is why ratio-scientific societies outperform magian and allegorical societies: because the constancy of their efforts in correspondence with physical and social reality allows them to take better advantage of physical reality and to cooperate at scale for the production of goods and services.

    So, since the above statements effectively reflect the scientific method, then the scientific method is not constrained to ‘science’ per say, but it is the only method by which we can improve our actions. ergo: the scientific method is ‘the method’ of philosophy.

    Now, this does not mean that allegorical language (mysticism, religion, mythology, the narrative) have no pedagogical value. They do because we cannot teach the young any other way. It does not mean that Obscurant language (deception) such as is used by the continentals as a means of maintaining loading and framing, and therefore simply preserving christianity and authoritarianism in new form, is impossible or will not succeed in achieving those desires.

    It does mean that achieving those desires through obscurantism, deception, framing other than by means of correspondence, will produce negative economic, social and political consequences, because of their failure to correspond to reality.

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-19 07:57:00 UTC

  • AND DISCIPLINES – EXCEPT AT THE MARGINS IT’S PREFERENCE Let us assume that the h

    http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/05/the-low-percentage-of-women-earning-phds-in-philosophy.htmlGENDERS AND DISCIPLINES – EXCEPT AT THE MARGINS IT’S PREFERENCE

    Let us assume that the human brain requires N amount of positive stimulation to remain in a state of calm, or rather, constant reward from exposure to stimuli. (it does).

    Lets assume that humans have M{} possible forms of stimulation. (we do).

    Lets assume that males have M{}-Mx{} fewer forms of stimulation available to them. (They do.)

    Lets assume that x{} forms of stimulation consist of empathic experiences. (they do)

    That would, alone, without any further requirement, produce greater specialization in abstractions in males, than females.

    We all start out female. THE MALE BRAIN IS DAMAGED IN UTERO TO PRODUCE THIS OUTCOME: SPECIALIZATION.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-18 11:59:00 UTC