[W]ell, look at each discipline as a set of criticisms than any theory has to survive scrutiny. A unit of measure, or method of comparison, might be informative inside of a particular discipline, but meaningless across disciplines (happiness for example makes no sense in mathematics, yet at least basic mathematics makes sense in experimental psychology). Propertarianism not only survives criticism in each discipline but renders all disciplines commensurable – sort of how money and prices make the value of all goods commensurable. So one might attempt, falsely, to justify propertarianism and testimonialism as true, or one might say, that given it survives application to all these different fields, and unites these fields, survives as a truth candidate until a superior truth candidate comes along. Unifying Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Morality, Law, Economics and Philosophy is no small thing. It’s a very important thing. And yes, it’s a bit hard to learn critical rationalism, testimonialism, propertarianism, propertarian institutions, and propertarian legal construction. But it’s equally hard to learn many other disciplines. But all investments provide returns or not. The fact that propertarianism and testimonialism provide such broad explanatory power, survives application in all fields, provides commensurability across all fields, is enough, hopefully, for some of us to invest in this discipline versus some different discipline. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
I Solved It: The Method of Lying In Both The Religious and Pseudoscientific Eras.
[I] think it was 2013 that I questioned whether I had to solve the problem of Truth or not. And I was pretty stressed about it. But I just felt like I couldn’t put an end to postmodern deceit unless I did so. So reluctantly I started working on it. And it took me a while. It was fairly hard. Easier thanks to the work on critical rationalism and the current state of the foundation of mathematics. Then, once there, I asked myself, if I could end lying. In January of this year (2015) I posted this on my web site: “If You Can Name a Thing, You Can Kill A Thing”. Meaning that things have ‘true names’ (operational names). And if you know its true name you can defeat it. I wasn’t sure I could solve the technique by which the monotheistic and cosmopolitan lies were constructed. But I did. And now I understand why they had to close the Stoic Schools: they make you impervious to the technique of using half truths to conduct pre-shaming, and to invoke altruistic responses as substitutes rather than skepticism.
[pullquote]In a year I will have religion so deconstructed that I will match the precision of my deconstruction of morality. I will unify religion along with every other discipline.[/pullquote]
In other words, liars take advantage of a social cognitive bias. And through repetition convince us that a convenient lie is necessary when it is not. I’ve also begun to understand why western traditionalists think god is the subject of spirituality rather than an excuse to make use of spirituality for totalitarian purposes against the genetic interests of a people. So I know how to kill that too. I thought this would take me longer than a year. In a year I will have religion so deconstructed that I will match the precision of my deconstruction of morality. I will unify religion along with every other discipline. I am confident now. I can do it. Curt.
-
I Solved It: The Method of Lying In Both The Religious and Pseudoscientific Eras.
[I] think it was 2013 that I questioned whether I had to solve the problem of Truth or not. And I was pretty stressed about it. But I just felt like I couldn’t put an end to postmodern deceit unless I did so. So reluctantly I started working on it. And it took me a while. It was fairly hard. Easier thanks to the work on critical rationalism and the current state of the foundation of mathematics. Then, once there, I asked myself, if I could end lying. In January of this year (2015) I posted this on my web site: “If You Can Name a Thing, You Can Kill A Thing”. Meaning that things have ‘true names’ (operational names). And if you know its true name you can defeat it. I wasn’t sure I could solve the technique by which the monotheistic and cosmopolitan lies were constructed. But I did. And now I understand why they had to close the Stoic Schools: they make you impervious to the technique of using half truths to conduct pre-shaming, and to invoke altruistic responses as substitutes rather than skepticism.
[pullquote]In a year I will have religion so deconstructed that I will match the precision of my deconstruction of morality. I will unify religion along with every other discipline.[/pullquote]
In other words, liars take advantage of a social cognitive bias. And through repetition convince us that a convenient lie is necessary when it is not. I’ve also begun to understand why western traditionalists think god is the subject of spirituality rather than an excuse to make use of spirituality for totalitarian purposes against the genetic interests of a people. So I know how to kill that too. I thought this would take me longer than a year. In a year I will have religion so deconstructed that I will match the precision of my deconstruction of morality. I will unify religion along with every other discipline. I am confident now. I can do it. Curt.
-
True.| ………………| …Possible.| ………………| ..Unknown.| …….
………True.|
………………|
…Possible.|
………………|
..Unknown.|
………………|
……..False.|
________________________________________
……………….False -> Unknown -> Possible -> True
VS
……….False…………|………..True
…….Unknown………|……..Possible
Source date (UTC): 2015-11-22 08:39:00 UTC
-
FIGURED IT OUT: THE METHOD OF LYING IN THE RELIGION AND PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC ERAS I
http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/01/04/if-you-can-name-a-thing-you-can-kill-a-thing/I FIGURED IT OUT: THE METHOD OF LYING IN THE RELIGION AND PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC ERAS
I think it was 2013 that I questioned whether I had to solve the problem of Truth or not. And I was pretty stressed about it. But I just felt like I couldn’t put an end to postmodern deceit unless I did so. So reluctantly I started working on it. And it took me a while. It was fairly hard. Easier thanks to the work on critical rationalism and the current state of the foundation of mathematics.
Then, once there, I asked myself, if I could end lying. In January of this year (2015) I posted this on my web site: “If You Can Name a Thing, You Can Kill A Thing”. Meaning that things have ‘true names’ (operational names). And if you know its true name you can defeat it.
I wasn’t sure I could solve the technique by which the monotheistic and cosmopolitan lies were constructed. But I did. And now I understand why they had to close the Stoic Schools: they make you impervious to the technique of using half truths to conduct pre-shaming, and to invoke altruistic responses as substitutes rather than skepticism.
In other words, liars take advantage of a social cognitive bias. And through repetition convince us that a convenient lie is necessary when it is not.
I’ve also begun to understand why western traditionalists think god is the subject of spirituality rather than an excuse to make use of spirituality for totalitarian purposes against the genetic interests of a people.
So I know how to kill that too.
I thought this would take me longer than a year. In a year I will have religion so deconstructed that I will match the precision of my deconstruction of morality. I will unify religion along with every other discipline.
I am confident now. I can do it.
Source date (UTC): 2015-11-22 06:45:00 UTC
-
I suppose that weaponizing truth and commons is our strategy. From the rest of t
I suppose that weaponizing truth and commons is our strategy. From the rest of the world’s position, weaponizing testimony has produced all our technological advantages.
Source date (UTC): 2015-11-22 03:38:00 UTC
-
WHY IS PROPERTARIANISM’S EXPLANATORY POWER SO IMPORTANT? Well, look at each disc
WHY IS PROPERTARIANISM’S EXPLANATORY POWER SO IMPORTANT?
Well, look at each discipline as a set of criticisms than any theory has to survive scrutiny.
A unit of measure, or method of comparison, might be informative inside of a particular discipline, but meaningless across disciplines (happiness for example makes no sense in mathematics, yet at least basic mathematics makes sense in experimental psychology).
Propertarianism not only survives criticism in each discipline but renders all disciplines commensurable – sort of how money and prices make the value of all goods commensurable.
So one might attempt, falsely, to justify propertarianism and testimonialism as true, or one might say, that given it survives application to all these different fields, and unites these fields, survives as a truth candidate until a superior truth candidate comes along.
Unifying Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Morality, Law, Economics and Philosophy is no small thing. It’s a very important thing.
And yes, it’s a bit hard to learn critical rationalism, testimonialism, propertarianism, propertarian institutions, and propertarian legal construction. But it’s equally hard to learn many other disciplines.
But all investments provide returns or not.
The fact that propertarianism and testimonialism provide such broad explanatory power, survives application in all fields, provides commensurability across all fields, is enough, hopefully, for some of us to invest in this discipline versus some different discipline.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2015-11-21 12:10:00 UTC
-
PROPERTARIAN METHODOLOGY The Secrets of Propertarian (Scientific) Analysis: 1) F
PROPERTARIAN METHODOLOGY
The Secrets of Propertarian (Scientific) Analysis:
1) For any concept you refer to, construct lines of three or more points demonstrating limits not states. This is the most subtle and difficult part of the method since we tend to think in ideal types that invoke a particular experience and not the range of conditions and set of experiences that are invoked. Think in lines not states. Turn any idea into a spectrum. It’s not hard with practice.
2) Analyze information movement – who possesses it, what it consists of, and when. (programming is great for teaching you how your assumptions of the knowledge of others is tragically flawed).
3) Analyze incentives given the information individuals have at their disposal at any moment.
4) Expect people to seek to acquire at all points in time, and to seize rents whenever possible, and wherever possible means whenever they won’t be caught.
5) Expect Culture, Class, Gender, Race, Tribe, Family, and personal reproductive strategies to provide the dominant influence in decidability: whenever discretion is required these factors will influence the decision because the individual has no other means of decidability without propertarian ethics.
6) When you write, do so operationally not analogically, experientially, or observationally: use the vectors, information, incentives, biases, and decisions of individuals. Never use the word ‘is’ since it means you do not understand what you are saying.
7) Test for identity (non-conflationary identification of properties, methods and relations). Test for internal consistency of your argument. Test for external correspondence of your argument. Test for existential possiblity of each step in your argument (which is what propertarianism asks you to do by its nature). Test for Morality (that no involuntary transfers have occurrred, or if they have articulate them). Test for parsimony: that you have defined limits to all your assumptions and terms. Test for explanatory power. Attempt to falsify it: seek contradictory examples and ensure that your analysis (description) holds up.
Propertarian analysis should produce tests of existential possibility: a proof. A proof is not a truth. But it is the most likely means of constructing a truth candidate that we currently know of.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2015-11-21 05:39:00 UTC
-
TRUE ENOUGH? IMAGINE A GRAMMAR THAT REQUIRED PROMISED TRUTH CONTENT (worth repea
TRUE ENOUGH? IMAGINE A GRAMMAR THAT REQUIRED PROMISED TRUTH CONTENT
(worth repeating) (extension of hierarchy of truth) (interesting for language geeks)
***The purpose of science is not to convey the experience but to provide decidability in matters of dispute over existence regardless of experience.***
Lets note the difference between the following points of view.
1 existence,
2 experience of the universe,
3 utility in determining one’s action,
4 observation of an action and consequences
5 justification of the results of one’s action,
6 warranty in recommendation of action*,
7 and decidability in conflict*,
…describes a spectrum of problems we must understand. Our grammar does not readily address these differences, and our problem of the verb to-be exacerbates the problem since ‘is’ evolved specifically to avoid the problem of articulating this spectrum, thereby allowing the audience to infer it.
I work on the last two*. I think humans are pretty good at experience and utility. And some of us are pretty good at justificatoin. Largely, since justification is the language of morality, most people tend to use moral language.
Imagine a language that required you address these seven degrees of truth in one’s grammar. Imagine the kind of self awareness one would need to avoid conflation of each of them.
We have enough problem with people saying “it’s true for me” when they mean that it is sufficiently useful for me to act”.
Source date (UTC): 2015-11-20 14:05:00 UTC
-
2) Meaning @AnnCoulter is using subjective moral language to construct objective
2) Meaning @AnnCoulter is using subjective moral language to construct objectively scientific statements. Art is Everywhere. #altright #nrx
Source date (UTC): 2015-11-20 10:58:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/667658361488457728