Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53708748_10157047939917264_259080033

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53708748_10157047939917264_259080033681801216_o_10157047939912264.jpg THE PERIODIC TABLE OF SPEECH

    There are a few fundamental innovations in Propertarianism

    1 – The Dimensional warranty of due diligence

    2 – The Periodic Table of speech (Grammars)

    3 – The Operational language and grammar in ePrime

    4 – The Method of producing serialized Definitions (Disambiguation)

    5 – Property in toto and the completion of the anarchic program in a reduction of social science to statements of changes in the state of ‘property’ (interests).

    -update-

    (correct link to pdf version:

    https://propertarianism.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/periodic-table-of-speech-draft2.pdf )Jared NeavesNiceMar 14, 2019, 11:18 AMCurt DoolittleLINK AT THE BOTTOM.Mar 14, 2019, 11:21 AMJared NeavesCurt Doolittle 😂 🙊Mar 14, 2019, 11:21 AMVengefül BobmoranUm… can’t read it on the website.Mar 14, 2019, 11:31 AMJWarren Prescottcould you do it in pdf – png is not showing up. 🙂Mar 14, 2019, 11:33 AMScott SchroederThe portion of Propertarianism dealing with punishment for lies sounds a lot like my concept of political fraud. Political fraud is akin to economic fraud. In economic fraud, you lie for material gain. In political fraud, you lie for political gain. We can define political fraud as “Deliberate material misstatement of fact for political gain” and make it punishable both criminally and civilly.Mar 14, 2019, 11:37 AMMartin Štěpánhttps://i0.wp.com/propertarianism.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Screen-Shot-2019-03-14-at-10.57.27-AM.pngMar 14, 2019, 11:44 AMMartin Štěpánhttps://i0.wp.com/propertarianism.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Screen-Shot-2019-03-14-at-10.57.27-AM.pngMar 14, 2019, 11:45 AMBryan Nova BreyMassive undertaking and achievement! Is this why you were talking about “normalization of tables” a few days ago?

    Would help if you could make a higher resolution screenshot. I zoom in and can read the headings only.Mar 14, 2019, 12:40 PMBryan Nova BreyI can zoom just a bit more than this.Mar 14, 2019, 12:41 PMCurt Doolittlelink at bottom of post to full size pdf – poster

    yes as to why teach normalization.Mar 14, 2019, 12:50 PMBryan Nova BreyMartin Štěpán This one is higher resolution. Thanks!Mar 14, 2019, 12:54 PMMartin ŠtěpánBryan Nova Brey It’s just the one from the site without resize.Mar 14, 2019, 12:55 PMMartin ŠtěpánCurt DoolittleIt links to the site. There’s no pdf.Mar 14, 2019, 12:56 PMJames HolidayWow this is pretty amazing. You can use this to chart any argument and show the methods of argumentation and their truthfulness. Looks like a great tool for persuasion/argument as well as law

    Is it all finished though? I see some question marks and empty boxes.Mar 14, 2019, 12:56 PMBryan Nova BreyMartin Štěpán I went to the site on mobile. I held down the image to save it. The version that I saved was not fully readable. Likely this is a mobile problem.Mar 14, 2019, 12:56 PMMartin ŠtěpánBryan Nova Brey You’ve saved the resized version.Mar 14, 2019, 12:57 PMBryan Nova BreyOn mobile, on the link provided in the OP there is no choice for image size (resolution) to download. Your link however goes directly to the full size, which I was able to download.Mar 14, 2019, 12:59 PMMartin ŠtěpánBryan Nova Brey Yes. I just deleted “?resize=768%2C492&ssl=1” from the url.Mar 14, 2019, 1:00 PMCurt Doolittleyep. its fking awesome.

    um no, not finished. i would have to do more research and truthfully i’m not sure i need to. the point of the diagram is that like the elements, speech reflects the real world in predictable ways..Mar 14, 2019, 1:03 PMBryan Nova BreyMartin Štěpán Brilliant.

    I don’t get the option to open in a new tab on mobile.Mar 14, 2019, 1:04 PMCurt Doolittlefixed. link at top of post on siteMar 14, 2019, 1:06 PMBryan Nova BreyThere were empty slots in the original periodic table. 🤓Mar 14, 2019, 1:11 PMCurt Doolittlesame reason here….Mar 14, 2019, 1:12 PMCurt Doolittlelink in op to pdfMar 14, 2019, 1:20 PMJWarren PrescottWow, much better…👍🏻Mar 14, 2019, 1:21 PMDanny VögelmeierBasically one needs to convince A that (1-A) needs to be deported.

    That’s why the nazis were stressing german superiority. German descent was something everyone could easily verify (and which was compatible with a>0.5, i.e. democracy). It wasn’t strictly true. Those who know, know. Those who could know need to be thaught. A large part of A may need management rather than the truth.Mar 14, 2019, 1:29 PMJWarren PrescottCurt Doolittle – this is going to take awhile to absorb…thank you for your hard work and efforts.Mar 14, 2019, 1:30 PMCurt Doolittlethanks for appreciating those efforts.Mar 14, 2019, 1:33 PMScott Schroederhttps://www.facebook.com/ARIACWFAW/posts/664656660592463Mar 14, 2019, 3:40 PMCurt Doolittleexcept that its the warrior caste that invented and practiced reciprocity -and that the other classes had to also in order to be free as well. so it was not how classes consrains, but the law of the aristicracy imposed upon the other classes.Mar 14, 2019, 3:43 PMScott SchroederCurt Doolittle The warrior class and merchant class today are both COMPLETELY subservient to the modern priest class. The priest class rules through psychological operations. They couldn’t care less about what is true or fair. Every claim is evaluated on its political utility, not on whether it is consistent with reality. All heresy must be silenced. The truth is no defense.Mar 14, 2019, 3:51 PMCurt Doolittlethe point is reciprocity not nap.Mar 14, 2019, 3:51 PMScott SchroederCurt Doolittle You’re saying when the warrior class/aristocracy was in charge they used reciprocity, not NAP. OK. But they’re not in charge now. And the moral and legal constraints put on the merchant class and the warrior class today sure look a lot like NAP. No comparable restraint has been put on the modern priest class and it needs to be.Mar 14, 2019, 4:03 PMCurt DoolittleNo. NAP looks like another semitic (abrahamic, marxist, libertarian, postmodern) pretense to reciprocity and rule of law, that (a) does not require reciprocity be earned, (b) retains the semitic means of deceit by fraud by omission enabling blackmail, enabling conspiracy, (c) (d) continuing the semitic method of baiting well meaning fools into hazard thru piplup and deceit.

    NAP is to Reciprocity as Labor Theory of Value is to Subjective Value, and as money proper is to money substitutes – it’s another fraud.

    Other things may look like reciprocity. But they are not. They are all substitutes for reciprocity because they are means of circumventing reciprocity. So since they are all worse than reciprocity, one must answer the question why one seeks something less than reciprocity, and as such why one seeks to preserve means of irreciprocity.

    I mean, we know why our ancient enemy wants to preserve irreciprocity – to preserve parasitism upon the productive people.Mar 14, 2019, 4:44 PMScott SchroederCurt Doolittle NAP is not the major issue to me. Whatever you call them, restraints have been put on the warrior and merchant class that force then to work for the common good, somewhat. You can’t use your superior strength to take what you want. You can’t burn down a competitor’s warehouse or lie about them. You can’t have a monopoly (unless it has been authorized by the priest class). The modern priest class is in power and they have no restraints.Mar 14, 2019, 4:56 PMChristian KalafutWhen am I going to get my 3,000 page minimum tome of Propertarianism Curt Doolittle?Mar 15, 2019, 1:17 AMCurt DoolittleYou? Never. I”m going to make sure you never get a copy. lolMar 15, 2019, 7:57 AMChristian KalafutMeanMar 15, 2019, 12:24 PMTHE PERIODIC TABLE OF SPEECH

    There are a few fundamental innovations in Propertarianism

    1 – The Dimensional warranty of due diligence

    2 – The Periodic Table of speech (Grammars)

    3 – The Operational language and grammar in ePrime

    4 – The Method of producing serialized Definitions (Disambiguation)

    5 – Property in toto and the completion of the anarchic program in a reduction of social science to statements of changes in the state of ‘property’ (interests).

    -update-

    (correct link to pdf version:

    https://propertarianism.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/periodic-table-of-speech-draft2.pdf )

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-14 11:16:00 UTC

  • The number of people who use the word proof without knowing ‘proof of what?’ The

    The number of people who use the word proof without knowing ‘proof of what?’ The number of people who use the term NAP without knowing the answer to “aggression against what?’ The number of people who use the term ‘moral’ without knowing the answer to ‘define moral’. These are term of convention – half truths. We use as if we have even the vaguest idea what they men other than to justify a prior.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-13 09:25:00 UTC

  • most of us eventually claim we can normalize to ones and zeroes. but not enough

    most of us eventually claim we can normalize to ones and zeroes. but not enough of us realize that we can normalize to human faculties.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-12 21:23:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1105579989691330561

  • We would produce a world of much better thinkers if we taught normalization afte

    We would produce a world of much better thinkers if we taught normalization after venn diagrams. And asked people to normalize various statements.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-12 21:20:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1105579307903025153

  • most of us eventually claim we can normalize to ones and zeroes. but not enough

    most of us eventually claim we can normalize to ones and zeroes. but not enough of us realize that we can normalize to human faculties.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-12 17:22:00 UTC

  • We would produce a world of much better thinkers if we taught normalization afte

    We would produce a world of much better thinkers if we taught normalization after venn diagrams. And asked people to normalize various statements. sets are trivial. normalizations falsify the problem of sets

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-12 17:20:00 UTC

  • Teaching people GRAMMAR so that they can DECODE speech is not the same as teachi

    Teaching people GRAMMAR so that they can DECODE speech is not the same as teaching people to speak exclusively in decoded speech.

    We have been teaching people grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy since the medieval era.

    Written speech is more rigorous than spoken. contract language more rigorous than written. P-speech more rigorous than contract. And the purpose of this speech is to construct law that is not open to ‘interpretation’ and therefore closed to ‘legislation from the bench’.

    —“In my experience one only need set about resolving oneself to use honest and clear wording to express one’s points/stance while being as factually based as possible. “—

    And so what’s the difference other than a formal method for doing so that also defends against error, and bias? And how would I hold you accountable for speaking honestly without some method for testing your speech – rather than just depend on your OPINION as to whether you speak honestly.

    What you MEAN is that you don’t want to be forced to learn how to do such a thing. And you don’t want such a thing embodied in law, because you don’t want to be accountable for your words.

    Right?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-12 17:13:00 UTC

  • Thought I have been working with: “Any argument, theory, definition, should be i

    Thought I have been working with:

    “Any argument, theory, definition, should be incomprehensible until it is only comprehensible without error.”

    Regarding:

    —“1. Objective truth (what is, something generally agreed we can never ‘be completely sure of’, but as a concept Peterson certainly does believe this exists);

    2. scientific truth (our best guess through the scientific method, at attainment of some constrained resolution of objective truth); and

    3. pragmatic truth (verification of a bounded hypothesis adjusted by feedback, which Peterson agrees has all sorts of precision limitations).”—

    I handle this by dropping the term truth, and adopting decidability. Such that truth remains what it is, and we are seeking decidability sufficient for market demand.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-11 11:06:00 UTC

  • i say that there is only one metaphysics but many fictions. And therefore the us

    i say that there is only one metaphysics but many fictions. And therefore the use of fictions is not in fact metaphysical.

    And as such people who claim otherwise are engaged in fraud.

    As far as i know the physical, cognitive, and linguistic sciences explain every concept metaphysicians claim in their purview.

    As far as time an causality these are subjects sophomorically conflated but causality exists, but like all else reduced to speech can never be complete, only necessary sufficient and contingent.

    The same for time : which time are we talking about? What makes the change in state possible, the rate of change vary, and our memory of passage vary, and our perception of the rate of change vary? all of these answers we know. zeno was a bit of a sophist.

    My current understanding is that there exists nothing that cannot be explained scientifically. and thats certainly going to hold.

    A scientific explanation is not the same as the experience we describe with that science – this is true. If we want a separate aesthetic language for the experience that is commensurable with the scientific then that is fine. if we want to discuss the different fictions that different groups operate under thats still one metaphysics and many fiction that allow people to conceive of that beyond their direct perception then that is a vehicle for hypothesizing by analogy.

    I am pretty certain i can produce a proof of construction that is so parsimonious it will survive all criticism. there is nothing left that i know of other than the relationship between personality traits and reward systems and i think others know this. But one cannot work on artificial intelligence

    My reductionist approach requires operational language under the argument that if you cannot do so you cannot claim that you know of what you speak, and that therefore cannot make a truth claim, because you cannot claim to testify what you cannot operationally describe. and even then you may not and likely may not infer anything from you explanation.

    There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. that paradigm cannot be expressed as other than analogy to operational experience without the introduction of fiction. the narrative requires categories to limit sequential prose to that which is possible for human minds. all such paradigms worldwide are converging on the scientific (scientific naturalism small number of consisten universal rules).

    I mean. until you find a set of case that are not open to natural explanation anything anyone says about metaphysics is just nonsense.

    AFAIK philosophy is currently relegated to choice of preference or good an the rest is science. And i cant find an exception to that rule.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-09 18:41:00 UTC

  • TRAINING in operational prose, logic, and grammar would help all people communic

    TRAINING in operational prose, logic, and grammar would help all people communicate just like the same operational prose, logic, and grammar help the scientific community communicate – although P-law, in addition covers not just the physical sciences but the human (psychology, sociology, ethics, law, politics, group strategy, and literature)

    But just as one cannot hope to communicate in mathematics or physics or chemistry or law without training in those disciplines, one cannot hope to communicate in the Human Sciences, and in particular ‘morality’ without training in the language and method of doing so.

    Ergo, One can train people in the logic of cooperation but one cannot discourse with people unless they are so trained. the reason being that one can never divorce himself from cognitive bias, and accumulated disinformation without that training any more than one can grasp physics without training – Sciences exist because such things are beyond the limits of our personal comprehension without systems of measurement to eliminate our biases and disinformation.

    So, yes, if you learn the propertarian method you can speak in measurements. Those measurements are not all that complicated really. But it appears to take about six months to two years to learn them today. And, I assume we can cut that to less time with the courses.

    cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-09 12:24:00 UTC