Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Q: Curt, Would You Consider Yourself A Continental Philosopher?

    QUESTION:  “Curt, Would you consider yourself a continental philosopher?”

    ANSWER:  

    [N]o. Propertarianism is an analytic argument based upon empirical evidence independent of and explicitly contrary to, if not hostile to, continental rationalism. 

    Continental philosophers reject natural science as the exclusive means of knowledge, whereas, I argue a sort of synthesis, where the methodology of science is merely what is necessary for us to speak the truth about what we sense, perceive, and reason – not any particular vehicle for obtaining knowledge.

    Then I demonstrate, fairly frequently, that rationalism without these tests of truth-telling, has proved to be a vehicle for lies, deceptions and frauds – Marx, Freud, Cantor, Russell, the Frankfurt School, Mises’ failure at producing praxeology, Rothbard’s immoral libertinism, and dozens more.

    So the struggle to tell the truth, rather than the assumption that there is a superior means of knowledge to merely struggling to tell the truth, is what separates Propertarianism, (which includes operationalism and testimonial truth) from Praxeology.  With Propertarianism we can achieve what Praxeology promised, but we do so not by depending upon rationalism which is an exceptionally good vehicle for error and deception, but by relying upon making observations of phenomenon, attempting to construct them operationally (praxeologically), and speaking truthfully about what we have done.

    I am in the camp of thinkers that suggests Kant was with Zoroaster and Abraham in constructing one of the worst sets of ideas in history – and the continent has absorbed it.  The evolution of complex lies: Zoroaster->Abraham->Kant->Marx->Postmoderns had only physical science, and the strong, as competitors to contain them. I have tried to make it nearly impossible to construct such rational deceptions and errors, and I think succeeded.

    Now, just to flip it around, the Analytic tradition in English speaking countries has spent a century of wasted effort attempting to construct a science of itself. And it was a complete failure. They were trying to use language to determine truth, but this isn’t possible – and some of them know it finally.

    Propertarianism and operationalism and testimonial truth take the opposite approach – we must demonstrate, describe, only what is extant – because that is the only information that can be known to exist – and as such not constitute justification, deception, imagination, projection. The purpose is to make sure we speak the truth – that we DO NO HARM.

    Why? Because it turns out that rationalism can be used as the most successful form of lying and human misery since the invention of scriptural monotheism. IN that sense, Continental rationalism is just christianity 3.0 – mysticism in secular obscurant language.

    Curt Doolittle,
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

  • Q: Curt, Would You Consider Yourself A Continental Philosopher?

    QUESTION:  “Curt, Would you consider yourself a continental philosopher?”

    ANSWER:  

    [N]o. Propertarianism is an analytic argument based upon empirical evidence independent of and explicitly contrary to, if not hostile to, continental rationalism. 

    Continental philosophers reject natural science as the exclusive means of knowledge, whereas, I argue a sort of synthesis, where the methodology of science is merely what is necessary for us to speak the truth about what we sense, perceive, and reason – not any particular vehicle for obtaining knowledge.

    Then I demonstrate, fairly frequently, that rationalism without these tests of truth-telling, has proved to be a vehicle for lies, deceptions and frauds – Marx, Freud, Cantor, Russell, the Frankfurt School, Mises’ failure at producing praxeology, Rothbard’s immoral libertinism, and dozens more.

    So the struggle to tell the truth, rather than the assumption that there is a superior means of knowledge to merely struggling to tell the truth, is what separates Propertarianism, (which includes operationalism and testimonial truth) from Praxeology.  With Propertarianism we can achieve what Praxeology promised, but we do so not by depending upon rationalism which is an exceptionally good vehicle for error and deception, but by relying upon making observations of phenomenon, attempting to construct them operationally (praxeologically), and speaking truthfully about what we have done.

    I am in the camp of thinkers that suggests Kant was with Zoroaster and Abraham in constructing one of the worst sets of ideas in history – and the continent has absorbed it.  The evolution of complex lies: Zoroaster->Abraham->Kant->Marx->Postmoderns had only physical science, and the strong, as competitors to contain them. I have tried to make it nearly impossible to construct such rational deceptions and errors, and I think succeeded.

    Now, just to flip it around, the Analytic tradition in English speaking countries has spent a century of wasted effort attempting to construct a science of itself. And it was a complete failure. They were trying to use language to determine truth, but this isn’t possible – and some of them know it finally.

    Propertarianism and operationalism and testimonial truth take the opposite approach – we must demonstrate, describe, only what is extant – because that is the only information that can be known to exist – and as such not constitute justification, deception, imagination, projection. The purpose is to make sure we speak the truth – that we DO NO HARM.

    Why? Because it turns out that rationalism can be used as the most successful form of lying and human misery since the invention of scriptural monotheism. IN that sense, Continental rationalism is just christianity 3.0 – mysticism in secular obscurant language.

    Curt Doolittle,
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

  • Methodological Ternary-ism: Physical Instrumentation, Logical Instrumentation, Social Instrumentation

    [T]ruth. This word can be translated as the “mind of God”. Because this word is used as if referring to the mind of God. But, this use is a deception in and of itself. There exists no mind to discover, and no truth to discover: it isn’t hidden. The universe lies bare for us all to see.

    So it’s not that anything is hidden from us to uncover. Instead, we lack the senses to see it, and we lack the mind to comprehend without some means of reducing it to analogy to experience that we can sense and perceive. So, the problem we face, is not one of knowing the Truth – the mind of God – as if we seek to know the mind of one another. The problem we face is in compensating for the frailty of our senses, perception, reason by the construction of instruments. We construct three forms of instruments. 1- Physical Instrumentation (the instruments) 2- Logical Instrumentation (the logics and methods) 3- Social Instrumentation (institutional) And of three, the third is most important, since it is the hardest to develop and control, because the incentives of individuals are contrary to the production of instrumental measurements. We – all of us – constitute the third form of instrument – the division of calculation across individuals. And our only means of producing accurate measures and calculations upon them is to require truthful testimony from one another. But your take away from this short bit of prose, is that westerners engaged in methodological ternary-ism*, not methodological dualism. And we didn’t even know that was our art. I think this problem is now one I can consider solved. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev Ukraine — *Note: I mean ‘consisting of three’ and nothing more. I wanted to use the extant term “trinitarianism”, but it’s too loaded for practical use.
  • Methodological Ternary-ism: Physical Instrumentation, Logical Instrumentation, Social Instrumentation

    [T]ruth. This word can be translated as the “mind of God”. Because this word is used as if referring to the mind of God. But, this use is a deception in and of itself. There exists no mind to discover, and no truth to discover: it isn’t hidden. The universe lies bare for us all to see.

    So it’s not that anything is hidden from us to uncover. Instead, we lack the senses to see it, and we lack the mind to comprehend without some means of reducing it to analogy to experience that we can sense and perceive. So, the problem we face, is not one of knowing the Truth – the mind of God – as if we seek to know the mind of one another. The problem we face is in compensating for the frailty of our senses, perception, reason by the construction of instruments. We construct three forms of instruments. 1- Physical Instrumentation (the instruments) 2- Logical Instrumentation (the logics and methods) 3- Social Instrumentation (institutional) And of three, the third is most important, since it is the hardest to develop and control, because the incentives of individuals are contrary to the production of instrumental measurements. We – all of us – constitute the third form of instrument – the division of calculation across individuals. And our only means of producing accurate measures and calculations upon them is to require truthful testimony from one another. But your take away from this short bit of prose, is that westerners engaged in methodological ternary-ism*, not methodological dualism. And we didn’t even know that was our art. I think this problem is now one I can consider solved. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev Ukraine — *Note: I mean ‘consisting of three’ and nothing more. I wanted to use the extant term “trinitarianism”, but it’s too loaded for practical use.
  • ANALYTIC TRUTH Truth. This word can be translated as the mind of God. Because th

    ANALYTIC TRUTH

    Truth.

    This word can be translated as the mind of God. Because this word is used as if referring to the mind of God.

    But, this is a deception in and of itself. There exists no truth to discover: it isn’t hidden. The universe lies bare for us all to see.

    We lack the senses to see it, and we lack the mind to comprehend it.

    The problem the is not one of knowing the truth – the mind of God – as if we seek to know the mind of one another.

    The problem we face is in compensating for the frailty of our senses perception and reason by the construction of instruments:

    1- mechanical

    2- logical

    3- social (institutional)

    And of the tree, the third is most important since it is the hardest to develop and control, because the incentives of individuals are contrary to the production of instrumental measurements.

    We – all of us – constitute the third form of instrument – the division of calculation across individuals.

    And our only means of producing accurate measures and calculations upon them is to require truthful testimony from one another.

    But your take away from this short bit of prose, is that westerners engaged in methodological ternary-ism not methodological dualism.

    And we didn’t even know that was our art.

    I think this problem is now one I can consider solved.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    Kiev Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 10:45:00 UTC

  • China failed when it converted from empirical arguments to moral arguments. We d

    China failed when it converted from empirical arguments to moral arguments.

    We did too.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 03:15:00 UTC

  • At least in matters or argument, it is much easier to defeat your enemies when y

    At least in matters or argument, it is much easier to defeat your enemies when you are right.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 02:43:00 UTC

  • ON THE METHODS OF CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND STOICISM COMBINED You know, I lucked

    ON THE METHODS OF CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND STOICISM COMBINED

    You know, I lucked out sort of. I solved a set of very complicated problems. I solved those problems only because my cognitive bias favored solution of them. As a mild aspie I cannot stand disorder, and raised in high conflict household I cannot stand conflict. There are always compromises (exchanges) to be made. It is these exchanges, when they are not obstructions or rent, that eliminate conflict. We must always understand that we cannot have perfection, only what we can have without costing the interests of others.

    I remember telling something like this to Walter Block many years ago “Sometimes I think I am just a child observing a machine inside me that god created for the sole purpose of solving a problem I am not even sure I can name or describe.”

    I look back at my work now, and I understand the import of it in the context of human history, and I understand how powerful an argument it is against the catastrophe let loose by the combination of the enlightenment, and the rapid expansion of scientific knowledge that we rationalize but is still, for us, very close to magic, and our reason cannot quite compensate for it yet.

    BACK TO CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND STOICISM

    A man will build character if he focuses on his works. He plans his day. He performs his day. He analyzes his success and failure for that day. And he repeats this process perpetually, without regard for confusing, competing nonsense that pervades human society – all of which is little more than an attempt to rally support for the purpose of persuading one group to prey upon another, or compete with another. All of which works by rallying framing and guilt. When in fact, if all of us merely focus on what it is that is in front of us, we would organize as we need to without attempts to circumvent those efforts with mere verbal deceptions and promises.

    WORKING IN THE COAL MINDS OF PHILOSOPHY

    I approach work very simply. I want to provide a language for conservatives, so that they can argue their ancient group evolutionary strategy in rational terms. I want to give them an argumentative means of resisting the tragedies that have been visited upon our people by all three of the enlightenment cultures – even though I consider the german of little more than a distraction, anglo universalism as a mere error, and cosmopolitan pseudoscience, obscurantism, overloading, lying, parasitism a second act of genocide against the western people as damaging as christianity: it takes advantage of our strength: trust and altruism – because we have extend the in-group kinship ethic to all – and turns it into a liability, by preserving the altruism but destroying the structure of our myths and language that require us tot ell the truth.

    Altruism is not a mindless general rule to be obeyed as an act of faith – it is a craft to be mastered and put to wise use – it is a local activity, limited to personal experience, that must be personally judged, and can never be centralized in the state, or church. It must always be limited to the individual and his voluntary decisions. The only thing that we can centralize is war, and the only certainty we can depend upon is truth-telling and a jury’s judgement of that truth, and the ruthless punishment of liars, obscurers and deceivers, and the careful cautious demand for restitution from those who merely err.

    So the cosmopolitan attack on the west – on made entirely out of unconscious perpetuation of pre-modern evolutionary strategy – is a specifically crafted, genocidal attack on western commons as a means of preserving ‘separateness’ which by its nature, without exception, is a violation of the very principle that drives western altruism – togetherness: the extension of in-group trust to all members of the polity and the demand for universal integration in extension for that trust.

    There is no such thing possible as liberty or freedom that is compatible with a state of separatism, because liberty requires equal contribution to the commons even if we do not provide equal contribution to production.

    We are either able to construct a uniform and unified, homogenous, and high trust polity, without exception or we must construct walls between us to prevent precisely this form of degenerate attack – this second genocide against the west. Either we are kin or we are not. If we are not kin, then we are competitors, for whom cooperation is merely a more productive means of conducting war.

    CRITICAL RATIONALSM

    I just work as a scientist does: I sort of stumble onto a theory, and the try to construct arguments. If I cannot construct an argument (a propertarian, operational argument – which would equate to a praxeological argument that also corresponds to the evidence) then I have to abandon it. Once I can construct an argument of any kind, then I must try to break it. If it survives breaking, then try to find its limits.

    The secret in this technique is to assume you know nothing, and just prosecute the idea endlessly. If it survives all that then it is a candidate.

    If it is a candidate and it seems not to conflict with all other candidates in the same degree of contextual precision, then it seems to survive every test I can put it to.

    This does not make the same assumptions as do critical rationalists (as I understand them) in that they do not require operational construction or testimonial truth and they think that platonic abstract truth matters rather than that we construct many puzzle pieces that fit together as a set of (sort of) interlocking gears or wrenches or levers, and put them to use to solve real world problems, rather than we even pay any attention to the fact that this particular set of pieces is the most parsimonious possible.

    Because economically that is nonsensical -and possibly one of the reasons why jewish civilization, despite its early literacy, accomplished nothing despite it’s centuries of advantage, while, every time westerners managed to circumvent levantine authoritarian verbalism and mysticism, within a few hundred years we developed science and reason, and technological revolutions.

    They had their own problems. I don’t criticize people for survival, I criticize our people for our stupidity – our humility. It’s unwarranted. It lets parasites claim that hey have high status. And it has led to our genocidal failure in this century.

    MORE

    More later since my headache is just getting out of hand… lol


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 10:43:00 UTC

  • The difference between Propertarianism/Operationalism/Testimonial truth, versus

    The difference between Propertarianism/Operationalism/Testimonial truth, versus say, even critical rationalism, is that your opinion on any particular matter doesn’t really matter much. Its just whether you can actually do it: construct a propertarian argument operationally. I mean, **its really freaking hard***. If you can even construct the argument itself you’re probably pretty close to right. It’s not so much whether you can test the argument – like most logical constructions. Its whether you can even put one together. The hell with justifying it – what passes for testing an argument. The question is whether you can even construct one.

    (Same with reverse Russian mathematics.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 15:19:00 UTC

  • CONVERTING THE EXPERIENTIAL TO THE OPERATIONAL TO THE CAUSAL (deep)(example of w

    CONVERTING THE EXPERIENTIAL TO THE OPERATIONAL TO THE CAUSAL

    (deep)(example of why we need operationalism and propertarianism)

    What is the definition of a ‘market’?

    Peeling away layers of human intellectual crutches to find the truth.

    My point is to question whether:

    1) Norm (reduction of transaction costs),

    2) Location (actually: density necessary to decrease opportunity costs), and;

    3) Exchange (actually the transfer of control according to normative rules sufficient to decrease transaction costs);

    In which exchange assumes:

    4) property, and property assumes family structure, and family structure assumes inheritance, and all of which assume division of labor, which in turn assumes a population, and structure of production available to it.

    So, just as an example, why isn’t the definition of a market a set of normative habits, that are the results of the structure of production, and the structure of the family, in relation to the nearby competitors, that encourage people to act and engage in distributed production and consumption, by reducing production costs through division of labor, opportunity costs through proximity and transaction costs through consensus rituals, such that production is rational to engage in, despite the ever decreasing knowledge of particulars, and increasing dependence upon prices alone?

    Something of that nature.

    I think what has been troubling me is the state-fulness ( not as in corporeal but as in fixed properties at a position in time) rather than the conditions that must be overcome in order for us to participate in rational action when we possess so little information.

    And I am trying to figure out how to capture the causal properties rather than the mere names of observations. We humans are fascinated by experiences, but we possess those experiential stimuli because it is necessary for us to acquire, and helpful for us to acquire through cooperation. So any experiential definition is circular. What then, is the cause prior to our experience?

    Reduction of production costs, reduction of opportunity costs, reduction of transaction costs, and through reduction of those costs we act according to the least effort to us.

    Our experiences merely reward us for the exploitation of, and construction of the means, of such cost reductions.

    WE JUST FOLLOW GRAVITY.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 09:46:00 UTC