Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • THE WISE, THE WELL MEANING, AND THE FOOLS Wise people discuss ideas Well meaning

    THE WISE, THE WELL MEANING, AND THE FOOLS

    Wise people discuss ideas

    Well meaning people discuss events.

    Fools discuss people.

    Wise people debate incentives

    Well meaning people debate morals

    Fools debate aspirations

    Wise people solve in terms of operations.

    Well meaning solve in terms of logic.

    Fools solve in terms of experiences.

    Wise people consider consequences over decades or centuries.

    Well meaning people consider consequences over months or years.

    Fools consider consequences over moments – if at all.

    Wise people think in terms of distributions.

    Well meaning people think in terms of groups.

    Fools think in terms of ideal types.

    Wise people argue economically.

    Well meaning people argue with historically.

    Fools argue with analogies.

    Wise people contemplate the necessary.

    Well meaning people contemplate the preferential.

    Fools contemplate luxuries.

    Wise people philosophize empirically.

    Well meaning people philosophize rationally.

    Fools philosophize idealistically.

    Wise people judge in terms of scarcity.

    Well meaning people judge in terms of utility.

    Fools judge in terms of envy.

    Wise people desire art

    Well meaning people desire design.

    Fools desire novelty.

    Wise people solve competitively.

    Well meaning people solve consensually.

    Fools solve decisively.

    Wise people trade.

    Well meaning people persuade

    Fools command.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    July 2014

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-14 06:46:00 UTC

  • WORK IN PROGRESS Operationalism (Action – or whatever I must end up calling it).

    WORK IN PROGRESS

    Operationalism (Action – or whatever I must end up calling it).

    Testimony (Truth) (“I can demonstrate the ethical right to make this claim”)

    – Proof (causality) Testimony to proof of operation (existence and observability).

    – Proof (internal consistency ) Testimony to consistency

    – Proof (external correspondence) Testimony to correspondence and falsification.

    – Proof (perfect parsimony) Testimony to perfect parsimony at given precision.

    Propertarianism (Moral Realism)

    — man, cooperation, morality, property

    Applications to Common Problems (Propertarianism)

    Sociology (the behavior of individuals in groups)

    Post Monopoly (Democratic) Political Institutions.

    – Voluntary membership, Reciprocal Insurance, Right of Secession

    – Militia, Regiments, Elected Generals, Private Weapons Production, Nuclear Arms

    – Constitution, Property, Common Law, Judges, Courts, (Academy/Association), Insurers. (Anarchic Government)

    – Contractual Production of Necessary Commons.

    —- Infrastructure

    – Contractual Production of Preferential Commons.

    —- Insurance

    – Contractual Production of Luxury Commons

    —- Arts and Monuments

    Aristocratic Egalitarianism (reciprocal insurance of property rights)

    🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-14 05:39:00 UTC

  • “How do we take a measure of something?” vs “How do we observe something” THese

    “How do we take a measure of something?” vs “How do we observe something”

    THese are synonymous statements, since our observations are narrowly constrained to human scale, and that any observation beyond human scale (perception) requires some form of instrumentation, and some form of scale by which to describe changes in state. There is no difference between instrumentation captured by the eye or that captured by complex scientific machinery other than, while both are often equally fallible, we are born with the first, and must construct the second. But in both cases, external changes in state must be reduced to stimuli that we can contrast and compare.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-13 07:47:00 UTC

  • My Glossary alone is over 100 pages. So I will have to label necessary terms. An

    My Glossary alone is over 100 pages. So I will have to label necessary terms. And see what can be cut. But not much can be. Why? Because of you cleanse terms of the various fallacies endemic to democracy and the legitimacy of the state, as well as various philosophical fallacies, then the set of terms that does not need restatement is small.

    Our language is polluted.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-12 08:00:00 UTC

  • 20th Century Philosophers Were Seeking Power, Not Truth

    [O]perationalism constructs rigid correspondence, eliminates the problem of imprecise language, even non-existent language, by creating names for operations rather than allegories, normative usage, or worst of all, relying upon names of experiences rather than the actions that cause them. It has become increasingly frustrating, if not dismissive, to read the philosophical arguments of the 20th century, which seek to find truth in language through a variant of set operations – which of course, must be nothing more than circular. When the answer was just sitting there for everyone to pick up and run with. But It was apparently much better to seek truth as a means of persuasion of others, rather than to seek truth as a means of testing the content of one’s testimony. And I think the psychologists and intellectual historians could spend a lot of time analyzing that particular bit of 20th century mysticism. Or perhaps pseudoscience. Or more graciously ‘error’. What vanity, or error would lead a body of people to seek authority rather than duty? I hope the depth of that question comes across. We all seek power. But the truth is just as likely to impede our ambitions as assist in them. But the academy, sought to take power from the church. Moral power. Reason and Science were the first blow. Darwin was the second. The Universalist State the third. It was all in pursuit of power. Philosophers of the 20th century, knowingly or not, were seeking power, not truth.

  • 20th Century Philosophers Were Seeking Power, Not Truth

    [O]perationalism constructs rigid correspondence, eliminates the problem of imprecise language, even non-existent language, by creating names for operations rather than allegories, normative usage, or worst of all, relying upon names of experiences rather than the actions that cause them. It has become increasingly frustrating, if not dismissive, to read the philosophical arguments of the 20th century, which seek to find truth in language through a variant of set operations – which of course, must be nothing more than circular. When the answer was just sitting there for everyone to pick up and run with. But It was apparently much better to seek truth as a means of persuasion of others, rather than to seek truth as a means of testing the content of one’s testimony. And I think the psychologists and intellectual historians could spend a lot of time analyzing that particular bit of 20th century mysticism. Or perhaps pseudoscience. Or more graciously ‘error’. What vanity, or error would lead a body of people to seek authority rather than duty? I hope the depth of that question comes across. We all seek power. But the truth is just as likely to impede our ambitions as assist in them. But the academy, sought to take power from the church. Moral power. Reason and Science were the first blow. Darwin was the second. The Universalist State the third. It was all in pursuit of power. Philosophers of the 20th century, knowingly or not, were seeking power, not truth.

  • Completing the Transformation of Man?

    [I] want to talk about the experience of the mind, under economics, science and operationalism, versus under language, logic and math under platonism. But I don’t know the words to use. There is a very great similarity between language, logic, math, mysticism and religion, that is not extant in economics, science, and operationalism. Now, I sort of ‘get’ it. But I can’t quite figure out how to talk about it. One of the problems is that under internally consistent mythos (declarative inventions) we call axiomatic systems, and objective reality (externally correspondent descriptions (descriptive statements) we call theoretical systems, is that there is some strange appearance of the infinite in axiomatic (mythical) systems that does not exist in theoretical (descriptive) systems. And I can’t quite put my finger on it. But I think Operationalism cures it. Maybe that is one of the metaphysical consequences of studying science and economics? Does it cure our native imaginary mysticism? Usually by writing something like this I can touch what is on the tip of my tongue. And I’m failing. But I know it’s something like this: when we describe an axiomatic system, it is unbounded by reality’s limits. I even know why it is so – the limit of the number of concepts we can run at one time. I know that we are often ‘awed’ by what should not awe us but be obvious: that whenever we stipulate models or axioms we construct all possible consequences in that utterance, even though we cannot ‘imagine’ all such possible consequences. Our imagination takes license to create ‘the imaginary reality’ out of what was merely a computationally larger set of consequences than our feeble minds can process. What bit of cognitive bias and psychology makes us attracted to the imaginary? Is it another garden of eden? An intellectual space where we are unbounded by reality for just a moment? I think so. I think it evokes the feeling of the undiscovered valley full of new resources and prey. It’s a cognitive bias. An evolutionary instinct. And another instinct or cognitive bias that is no longer useful in our current state. Does science train us out of it? I think so. We still have people, and I think we try to create people, who obtain their awe from scientific, or in the case of TED viewers, pseudoscientific, rather than imaginary exploration? But without operationalism the ‘conversion’ of scientific man is incomplete. Maybe that is what the 20th century represented? The last throws of mysticism? Our attempt to hold onto the imaginary garden of eden where we are unburdened by reality? Is that fascination in the 20th century a reaction to the vast increases in scale that affected all of our lives? Is it a distraction from alienation, disempowerment, the loss of our traditions, and the desperate need to feel we could regain previous sense of control and certainty. Is our job to complete the transformation? To abandon our last mysteries? So that we can RESTORE OUR CIVIL SOCIETY and once again eliminate our alienation? The central problem of modernity?

  • Completing the Transformation of Man?

    [I] want to talk about the experience of the mind, under economics, science and operationalism, versus under language, logic and math under platonism. But I don’t know the words to use. There is a very great similarity between language, logic, math, mysticism and religion, that is not extant in economics, science, and operationalism. Now, I sort of ‘get’ it. But I can’t quite figure out how to talk about it. One of the problems is that under internally consistent mythos (declarative inventions) we call axiomatic systems, and objective reality (externally correspondent descriptions (descriptive statements) we call theoretical systems, is that there is some strange appearance of the infinite in axiomatic (mythical) systems that does not exist in theoretical (descriptive) systems. And I can’t quite put my finger on it. But I think Operationalism cures it. Maybe that is one of the metaphysical consequences of studying science and economics? Does it cure our native imaginary mysticism? Usually by writing something like this I can touch what is on the tip of my tongue. And I’m failing. But I know it’s something like this: when we describe an axiomatic system, it is unbounded by reality’s limits. I even know why it is so – the limit of the number of concepts we can run at one time. I know that we are often ‘awed’ by what should not awe us but be obvious: that whenever we stipulate models or axioms we construct all possible consequences in that utterance, even though we cannot ‘imagine’ all such possible consequences. Our imagination takes license to create ‘the imaginary reality’ out of what was merely a computationally larger set of consequences than our feeble minds can process. What bit of cognitive bias and psychology makes us attracted to the imaginary? Is it another garden of eden? An intellectual space where we are unbounded by reality for just a moment? I think so. I think it evokes the feeling of the undiscovered valley full of new resources and prey. It’s a cognitive bias. An evolutionary instinct. And another instinct or cognitive bias that is no longer useful in our current state. Does science train us out of it? I think so. We still have people, and I think we try to create people, who obtain their awe from scientific, or in the case of TED viewers, pseudoscientific, rather than imaginary exploration? But without operationalism the ‘conversion’ of scientific man is incomplete. Maybe that is what the 20th century represented? The last throws of mysticism? Our attempt to hold onto the imaginary garden of eden where we are unburdened by reality? Is that fascination in the 20th century a reaction to the vast increases in scale that affected all of our lives? Is it a distraction from alienation, disempowerment, the loss of our traditions, and the desperate need to feel we could regain previous sense of control and certainty. Is our job to complete the transformation? To abandon our last mysteries? So that we can RESTORE OUR CIVIL SOCIETY and once again eliminate our alienation? The central problem of modernity?

  • Explanatory Power vs Parsimony Verification vs Falsification Correspondence vs O

    Explanatory Power vs Parsimony

    Verification vs Falsification

    Correspondence vs Operations?

    Proof vs Truth?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 05:51:00 UTC

  • OPERATIONALISM AS COMPLETING THE TRANSFORMATION OF MAN? I want to talk about the

    OPERATIONALISM AS COMPLETING THE TRANSFORMATION OF MAN?

    I want to talk about the experience of the mind, under economics, science and operationalism, versus under language, logic and math under platonism. But I don’t know the words to use. There is a very great similarity between language, logic, math, mysticism and religion, that is not extant in economics, science, and operationalism. Now, I sort of ‘get’ it. But I can’t quite figure out how to talk about it. One of the problems is that under internally consistent mythos (declarative inventions) we call axiomatic systems, and objective reality (externally correspondent descriptions (descriptive statements) we call theoretical systems, is that there is some strange appearance of the infinite in axiomatic (mythical) systems that does not exist in theoretical (descriptive) systems. And I can’t quite put my finger on it. But I think Operationalism cures it. Maybe that is one of the metaphysical consequences of studying science and economics? Does it cure our native imaginary mysticism? Usually by writing something like this I can touch what is on the tip of my tongue. And I’m failing. But I know it’s something like this: when we describe an axiomatic system, it is unbounded by reality’s limits. I even know why it is so – the limit of the number of concepts we can run at one time. I know that we are often ‘awed’ by what should not awe us but be obvious: that whenever we stipulate models or axioms we construct all possible consequences in that utterance, even though we cannot ‘imagine’ all such possible consequences. Our imagination takes license to create ‘the imaginary reality’ out of what was merely a computationally larger set of consequences than our feeble minds can process. What bit of cognitive bias and psychology makes us attracted to the imaginary? Is it another garden of eden? An intellectual space where we are unbounded by reality for just a moment? I think so. I think it evokes the feeling of the undiscovered valley full of new resources and prey. It’s a cognitive bias. An evolutionary instinct. And another instinct or cognitive bias that is no longer useful in our current state. Does science train us out of it? I think so. We still have people, and I think we try to create people, who obtain their awe from scientific, or in the case of TED viewers, pseudoscientific, rather than imaginary exploration? But without operationalism the ‘conversion’ of scientific man is incomplete. Maybe that is what the 20th century represented? The last throws of mysticism? Our attempt to hold onto the imaginary garden of eden where we are unburdened by reality? Is that fascination in the 20th century a reaction to the vast increases in scale that affected all of our lives? Is it a distraction from alienation, disempowerment, the loss of our traditions, and the desperate need to feel we could regain previous sense of control and certainty. Is our job to complete the transformation? To abandon our last mysteries? So that we can RESTORE OUR CIVIL SOCIETY and once again eliminate our alienation? The central problem of modernity?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 05:33:00 UTC