(FB 1548003536 Timestamp) CRITICISMS OF THOSE UNABLE TO MANAGE FALSIFICATIONISM (MARKETS) —-“AFAIK, right now, you need more than motive (“incentive to deceive or defraud”) to prosecute.”—B Quimby You need harm and motive (incentive). You need an involuntary imposition of costs against a demonstrated investment of another(others) – harm. You need means, motive, opportunity. The current argument in legal reform, is that you also need intent or failure of due diligence in order to prevent the police, prosecutors, and judges from driving you to self incrimination. —“Your position would sound a lot stronger to me if you demonstrated awareness that your epistemological standard might be incomplete, and in spite of this, that you are willing to sacrifice truths that don’t fit said standard.”—B Quimby As far as I know propertarianism (in total) is epistemologically complete. That is in no small part because it is falsificationary (via negativa) not (false) justificationary (via positiva), and as such all via positiva (possibilities) are the result of free association and all ‘truth’s survival from competition. In other words, you dont need to excuse your possible worlds (imaginings) just warranty that you have performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, and deceit. —“Or, just demonstrate awareness that dogma can be harmful too, but that you are making a conscious choice to be dogmatic, b/c anything less will breed more harm.”— B Quimby Dogma requires a via positiva. Science and law are only via-negativas. Like many people, y’all want a religion or a philosophy instead of a science, logic, and law. I don’t do via-positivas like philosophy and religion. I just do via negativa: what is false and immoral. That leaves universes of non-false, non-immoral possibilities. The question is, why do you want false and immoral possibilities? Science(actions), logic(words), and mathematics (measurements) are not dogmas. THEY FALSIFY THEM. Propertarianism (vitruvianism, acquisitionism, propertarianism, testimonialism, and the algorithmic natural law) is not a religion, a philosophy, or an ideology or a but a science, logic, system of measurement, and body of law – and not a dogma. IT FALSIFIES THEM.
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547979567 Timestamp) DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? RELIGION VS IDEOLOGY VS PHILOSOPHY VS LOGIC VS MATHEMATICS VS SCIENCE (worth repeating) â A RELIGION consists of any set of ideas of justification which require belief in, testimony to, or action according to, one or more falsehoods as a cost of inclusion and use. â AN IDEOLOGY consist of any set of ideas that agitate, motivate, or inspire achievement of political ends under majoritarian (monopoly) democracy. An ideology need not be internally consistent externally correspondent, or existentially possible. It need only motivate individuals to act in furtherance of policy. â A PHILOSOPHY consists of any set of internally consistent ideas of decidability which justify pursuit of personal preferences or group goods. â A LOGIC consists of any deflationary grammar of decidability that assists in the falsification by competition of one or more constant relations between states. (Note that one proves nothing logically other than internal consistency, because all premises of external correspondence are forever contingent.) â MATHEMATICS consists of a deflationary grammar of decidability consisting purely of competition between positional names under the preservation of ratios providing a single axis of decidability: position, but in N dimensions, providing commensurability between any set of positional relations of any number of dimensions. â A SCIENCE consists of any set of ideas that provide decidability independent of personal preference or group goods, by the systematic elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, by the use of measurement and record of actions â demonstrations versus words. â NATURAL LAW of RECIPROCITY (Tort), was produced scientifically (empirically) by trial and error, through the resolution of disputes across personal preferences, group goods, norms, traditions, and intuitions, cumulating always and everywhere that decidability is provided by property, and property consists in the demonstrated investment of human action or inaction anything whether genetic, material, behavioral, or informational.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1548143428 Timestamp) DATA DOESN”T LIE
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548128754 Timestamp) Just realized that many of you are out there applying the method while I’m working on it, and that’s why you’re accelerating so quickly. Very cool.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548089782 Timestamp) PRACTICE TRAINS THE MIND —“I actually like forcing myself to write operationally. Over time, when practicing it, you come to understand what you attempt to say before you say it and then translate it to make it more accurate to what you originally wanted to say. The practice provides people with a great clarity of intention and thought while writing, through close examination of what they want to say, they work to eliminate the obscurity out of their thought and communication, and this demonstrates evidence of the methods power.”— Curtus Maximus
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548128754 Timestamp) Just realized that many of you are out there applying the method while I’m working on it, and that’s why you’re accelerating so quickly. Very cool.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548089782 Timestamp) PRACTICE TRAINS THE MIND —“I actually like forcing myself to write operationally. Over time, when practicing it, you come to understand what you attempt to say before you say it and then translate it to make it more accurate to what you originally wanted to say. The practice provides people with a great clarity of intention and thought while writing, through close examination of what they want to say, they work to eliminate the obscurity out of their thought and communication, and this demonstrates evidence of the methods power.”— Curtus Maximus
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548262166 Timestamp) Let us try this again: —“So in the distribution between intent, failure of due diligence, carrier of lies, and a cognitive tradition of lying by sophism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience, and the biological drive of the female-biased mind to use gossip and undermining to undermine the hierarchy, … what is the distribution of rothbard’s guilt? With him, his culture, or his genome?”— What is difficult about this question? Spectrum of Lying: 1. Intent to lie. 2. Intent to deceive. 3. Failure of due diligence against lying 4. Carrier of lies. 5. Carrier of tradition and culture of lies. 6. A genetic predisposition to lie. Where truthful speech consists of: 1. categorically consistent (identity) 2. internally consistent (logic) 3. externally correspondent (empirical) 4. operationally consistent (existentially possible) 5. rationally consistent (rational choice) 6. reciprocally consistent (reciprocal rational choice) 7. consistent within scope, limits, and fully accounting (complete) 8. consistent across all those seven dimensions (coherent) And where: 9. limited to actions for which restitution(restoration) is possible. 10. warrantied by sufficient resources to perform restitution. That is the list of conceivable dimensions available to man, the means of due diligence by which we test them, and constitutes a ‘complete, deflated, dimensional’ definition of truthful speech – a speech that will survive in a court of law. Rothbard’s ethic uses the first premise of volition – the ethics of the ghetto, the pale, and the low trust middle east. This ethic is consistent across afro-asiatic peoples: can I get away with it? Just as face ethic is consistent across asiatic peoples, and just as truth over face is consistent over northern european peoples (not russian). Western ethics uses the first premise of reciprocity – the ethics of the high trust homogeneous europeans (exclusively). It says ‘will their be repercussions over time?’ The west competes by its commons, the middle east by predation upon them. So, what are Mises and Rothbard NOT accounting for (Cherrypicking) in their arguments? Mises didn’t practice ‘austrian’ economics. He was from L’viv (near where I live). He practiced the economics of the ghetto, pale, and middle east, and restated it with Menger’s subjectivity. He found another application of pilpul with which to justify his priors. Hence why there is ‘austrian economics’ of menger and hayek fully incorporated into the mainstream, and ‘ukrainian ghetto economics’ of mises and rothbard (and eastern ashkenazim in general) that have not been incorporated into the mainstream. All peoples (states, civilizations) so far have attempted to take the british scientific revolution and exit the medieval world of supernatural sophisms while retaining (a) their traditional method of argument, and (b) the traditional underlying ethics, in order to (c) persist their group competitive strategy. No people has done otherwise: the french, germans, italians, russians and ashkenazi, the chinese, and now the muslims. We have just about ended the jewish century of resistance to truth and science (marx, boas, freud, cantor, mises, rand/rothbard, strauss) and are entering into the muslim century of resistance to truth and science. It is the last civilization we have yet to drag out of ignorance, and the most primitive, most resistant, with the worst demographics. Our ancestral attempt in the roman era resulted in a dark age. I understand this subject better than anyone else living. Mostly because I have spent the better part of a decade understanding the differences between anglo, continental, jewish/arab(Semitic), Hindu, and asian methods of law, argument, philosophy, religion, economics, and family structure, and produced a value independent, fully commensurable, logic of law, ethics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy for these purposes. Of the existing grammars we call math, logic, science, algorithms, law-testimony, descriptive speech, ordinary speech, narrative speech, fiction, fictionalisms(sophisms-idealism/philosophy, supernaturalisms-theology, and pseudoscience/magic), and deceit, I practice Law. Why? Because of those grammars, it is the only one that is both both complete, complete, and free of fictions, and the means of suggestion by which to circumvent our reason. So the question is, why would anyone not write about social science in law – the language of reciprocity – unless to circumvent that law of reciprocity? …..Which answers a question of the ages. Cheers.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548262166 Timestamp) Let us try this again: —“So in the distribution between intent, failure of due diligence, carrier of lies, and a cognitive tradition of lying by sophism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience, and the biological drive of the female-biased mind to use gossip and undermining to undermine the hierarchy, … what is the distribution of rothbard’s guilt? With him, his culture, or his genome?”— What is difficult about this question? Spectrum of Lying: 1. Intent to lie. 2. Intent to deceive. 3. Failure of due diligence against lying 4. Carrier of lies. 5. Carrier of tradition and culture of lies. 6. A genetic predisposition to lie. Where truthful speech consists of: 1. categorically consistent (identity) 2. internally consistent (logic) 3. externally correspondent (empirical) 4. operationally consistent (existentially possible) 5. rationally consistent (rational choice) 6. reciprocally consistent (reciprocal rational choice) 7. consistent within scope, limits, and fully accounting (complete) 8. consistent across all those seven dimensions (coherent) And where: 9. limited to actions for which restitution(restoration) is possible. 10. warrantied by sufficient resources to perform restitution. That is the list of conceivable dimensions available to man, the means of due diligence by which we test them, and constitutes a ‘complete, deflated, dimensional’ definition of truthful speech – a speech that will survive in a court of law. Rothbard’s ethic uses the first premise of volition – the ethics of the ghetto, the pale, and the low trust middle east. This ethic is consistent across afro-asiatic peoples: can I get away with it? Just as face ethic is consistent across asiatic peoples, and just as truth over face is consistent over northern european peoples (not russian). Western ethics uses the first premise of reciprocity – the ethics of the high trust homogeneous europeans (exclusively). It says ‘will their be repercussions over time?’ The west competes by its commons, the middle east by predation upon them. So, what are Mises and Rothbard NOT accounting for (Cherrypicking) in their arguments? Mises didn’t practice ‘austrian’ economics. He was from L’viv (near where I live). He practiced the economics of the ghetto, pale, and middle east, and restated it with Menger’s subjectivity. He found another application of pilpul with which to justify his priors. Hence why there is ‘austrian economics’ of menger and hayek fully incorporated into the mainstream, and ‘ukrainian ghetto economics’ of mises and rothbard (and eastern ashkenazim in general) that have not been incorporated into the mainstream. All peoples (states, civilizations) so far have attempted to take the british scientific revolution and exit the medieval world of supernatural sophisms while retaining (a) their traditional method of argument, and (b) the traditional underlying ethics, in order to (c) persist their group competitive strategy. No people has done otherwise: the french, germans, italians, russians and ashkenazi, the chinese, and now the muslims. We have just about ended the jewish century of resistance to truth and science (marx, boas, freud, cantor, mises, rand/rothbard, strauss) and are entering into the muslim century of resistance to truth and science. It is the last civilization we have yet to drag out of ignorance, and the most primitive, most resistant, with the worst demographics. Our ancestral attempt in the roman era resulted in a dark age. I understand this subject better than anyone else living. Mostly because I have spent the better part of a decade understanding the differences between anglo, continental, jewish/arab(Semitic), Hindu, and asian methods of law, argument, philosophy, religion, economics, and family structure, and produced a value independent, fully commensurable, logic of law, ethics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy for these purposes. Of the existing grammars we call math, logic, science, algorithms, law-testimony, descriptive speech, ordinary speech, narrative speech, fiction, fictionalisms(sophisms-idealism/philosophy, supernaturalisms-theology, and pseudoscience/magic), and deceit, I practice Law. Why? Because of those grammars, it is the only one that is both both complete, complete, and free of fictions, and the means of suggestion by which to circumvent our reason. So the question is, why would anyone not write about social science in law – the language of reciprocity – unless to circumvent that law of reciprocity? …..Which answers a question of the ages. Cheers.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548349724 Timestamp) TERMINOLOGICAL SUBTLETY I use the spectra: Display (visible signals) … Word (sound/speech) … … Deed (action) Sense (stimuli) … Perception (stimuli with memory) … … Prediction (imagine) … … … Experience … … … … Memory (result) … … … … … Recursion … … … … … … Intuition … … … … … … … Free Association … … … … … … … … Thinking … … … … … … … … … Reasoning … … … … … … … … … … Calculating … … … … … … … … … … … Computing Imitation (physical) > … Empathy (emotional) > … … Sympathy (thought) >