Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • ON PROPERTARIANISM AS A CURE FOR AUTISTIC SPEECH

    ON PROPERTARIANISM AS A CURE FOR AUTISTIC SPEECH

    I use autistic speech myself. I have to work, not to. If I am ill or tired, then forget it. I don’t have a choice. It is a technical description of the relationship between meaning, analogy and grammar just as poetic is. In autistic speech we intuit systematic and often valid relations between concepts, but lack the means to verbally express those relations in normative vocabulary and grammar – and a such we leave these verbal fragments open for deductive association for others; just as we leave them open for deductive association for ourselves, because deductive association is sufficient for us even if we lack vocabulary and grammar. (in other words there is a pretty vast delta between what we consider spatial reasoning or perhaps better said, non-verbal reasoning, and verbal facility or what we call verbal intelligence.)

    Idea generation for me is a trivial exercise. It’s purely intuitive – I fill my mind with information and just let my mind’s obsession with order do its work. In this sense, I don’t really ‘work’ at solving problems. (In fact I have to insulate myself a bit to make sure I am only exposed to so many at a time.)

    But the act of transforming those ideas into normal, rational, and scientific speech is a brutally challenging act of discipline. I can articulate ideas not because it is natural to me, but because I have spent my adult life, actively attempting to retain my autistic intuition while learning how to express that intuition in rational terms.

    Propertarianism solved the problem of autistic speech for me because it is unloaded. ( non normative, descriptive ethics). Propertarianism may be nothing more than the deterministic result of the need for developing a system of speech for articulating highly correspondent phenomenon i causal rather than normative, experiential and allegorical terms.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 03:31:00 UTC

  • PRAXEOLOGY CAN BE REPAIRED — AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COSMOPOLITAN PROJECT (worth

    PRAXEOLOGY CAN BE REPAIRED — AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COSMOPOLITAN PROJECT

    (worth repeating)

    Praxeology can be repaired: by restating it as operationalism and testimonial truth. Mises merely failed in his attempt. Because he relied upon rationalism rather than science. And very likely, as did popper, and the rest of the cosmopolitans, because it allowed him to justify preconceptions rather than to discover uncomfortable truths: that the cosmopolitan way of life was systemically immoral, and that western universalism cannot be use as an attempt to preserve separatism.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-31 12:26:00 UTC

  • QUESTION: How can you lie if you don’t know the truth? In order to stop lies, sh

    QUESTION: How can you lie if you don’t know the truth? In order to stop lies, shouldn’t you first learn what they are?

    ANSWER: You can speak truthfully, even if you cannot speak the most parsimonious and therefore ‘ultimate’ truth. It is very hard to load, frame and obscure operational language. So you can warranty your truthful speech but you cannot warranty any theory or deduction is true.

    ht https://www.facebook.com/MartensBenjamin

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-30 20:11:00 UTC

  • The problem scientists solved with the so called scientific method, was to train

    The problem scientists solved with the so called scientific method, was to train the mind to eliminate imaginary content, so that they could morally testify to the truth of their statements.

    So, scientists needed to compensate … they need ed to tell the truth… As such, what we call the scientific method is not particular to science but to all human utterances. It is either just ‘the method’, or it’s the MORAL METHOD.

    Now, scientists merely make use of a SUBSET of the Moral Method, given that they are both largely unaccountable, and pay no opportunity costs. Mathematicians likewise are unaccountable, and pay no opportunity costs.

    But anyone engaging in the social rather than physical sciences, or in production, or in law, is likewise bound to not engage in adding imaginary content.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 03:35:00 UTC

  • ACCOUNTABLE AND UNACCOUNTABLE TRUTH (worth repeating) The analytic and cosmopoli

    ACCOUNTABLE AND UNACCOUNTABLE TRUTH

    (worth repeating)

    The analytic and cosmopolitan concept of truth (including Popper’s truth), like the levantine pseudo-truth it arose from, is an UNACCOUNTABLE concept of truth.

    Whereas the Indo-European truth, refers to testimony given between warriors whose life or death depends upon the veracity of that testimony. Etymologically, “Tréw” means testimony ‘like an oak”: and therefore, ACCOUNTABLE and WARRANTIED truth given via the spoken word.

    Conversely, “true” for cosmopolitans, Jews and Muslims means ‘the mind of god’. Not ‘that which I am accountable for speaking truthfully’.

    This was the mistake of the analytic movement’s distraction as well. They tried to improve on truth and found all they could achieve was tautology, rather than spending a century on SPEAKING TRUTHFULLY. Popper sensed this, mises sensed it, but they failed. Just as the christian europeans failed, because they assumed truth and assumed that the problem was logical instead of truthful.

    This is why the 20th century was such a failure: the operationalist, intuitionists, and praxeologists all FAILED.

    So, now, that is my job. That’s our job. That’s the purpose of Propertarianism, Operationalism, and Testimonial Truth: to restore the purpose of philosophy to the SPEAKING of truth – not how to merely investigate the phenomenon of the physical word. Or not how to persuade people without unaccountable for it.

    Discovering the truth is just labor, and doing it morally. Speaking the truth is a skill that must be mastered: Speaking operationally. Giving truthful testimony.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-27 11:45:00 UTC

  • FROM ELI HARMAN —“People demonstrate that they are willing, sometimes, to go s

    FROM ELI HARMAN

    —“People demonstrate that they are willing, sometimes, to go so far as to kill to prevent the disclosure of certain information.

    ***In so doing, they demonstrate that information to be their property, that which they consider to be their own and that they will fight to defend.***

    The matter then becomes merely a contest as to who shall prevail, those who wish to prohibit blackmail or those who wish to perpetrate it.

    But there is no reason to suppose the latter will win. Blackmail is not a productive behavior but a parasitic one, engaged in by parasitic people. And what someone stands to lose from blackmail generally increases in proportion as they produce.

    I’ll take their side both for principled as well as pragmatic reasons.

    “—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-27 09:34:00 UTC

  • Imagine if the 20th century in philosophy had been spent trying to prevent peopl

    Imagine if the 20th century in philosophy had been spent trying to prevent people from lying rather than on the absurd quest to find a way to tell the truth….that we can never know….

    Tragic.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-26 11:52:00 UTC

  • Operational – Empirical Ratio – Empirical Economically empirical. Experimentally

    Operational – Empirical

    Ratio – Empirical

    Economically empirical.

    Experimentally Empirical

    Ratio – Historical

    Ratio – Moral

    Moral / Religio-moral

    A-rational Sentimental.

    Expressive

    … Ok I can write the operational method now, showing that the scientific method consists of a subset of that method.

    Took me almost a year an a half to figure this out. 🙁 and in retrospect it should have been obvious.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-26 07:50:00 UTC

  • is an excellent example of low cost progressive lying and the high cost to refut

    http://slnm.us/LmMp0pwThis is an excellent example of low cost progressive lying and the high cost to refute it.

    I can refute it but the cost is too high.

    This is why the commons must be defensible in court so that we raise the cost of lying.

    Conservative are largely right and progressives are largely wrong. And libertarians are partly wrong.

    But our languages are opposite to our beliefs.

    It’s humorously ironic if you can get past that it’s tragic.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-26 07:06:00 UTC

  • Speaking Honestly vs Truthfully (vs Dishonestly)

    [I]’m really happy with having captured the difference between speaking honestly, speaking truthfully, and the mere concept of .

    • Platonic (Analytic) Truth: the most parsimonious description that is not a tautology.
    • Speaking Truthfully: promising an epistemic warranty, that you possess the knowledge of construction(causation) and of use(correlation), necessary to make a truth claim, consisting of the minimum error, bias, imaginary content, deception that is possible for you to render with current technology.
    • Speaking Honestly: that you testify only to experiential knowledge (correlation) but not to causation, and that your testimony is free of deception, because you cannot have warrantied that your testimony is free of error, bias, and imaginary content.

    This is relatively important because, as I said yesterday, apriorism cannot be true, unless all all properties and contexts under such a general rule remain constant. This is very, very close to being limited to a tautologies – something I will have to work on further.