Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • THE LAST FEW SHOVEL-FULLS IN THE GRAVE OF POSTMODERNISM 1) I’m happy to go into

    THE LAST FEW SHOVEL-FULLS IN THE GRAVE OF POSTMODERNISM

    1) I’m happy to go into depth on this subject but the argument is quite simple, and was put forward by a commenter:

    –“Postmodernists: question who controls knowledge and where it comes from”–

    Yes, that is a postmodernist (sophist).

    2) A Scientist: Truth (coherent, consistent, correspondent, rational, reciprocal, limited, and complete) is power independent. Either you are engaging in full reciprocity correspondent with reality or you are not.

    3) Pomo is an attempt to circumvent (conduct a fraud) by casting power as arbitrary, truth as arbitrary, reciprocity as arbitrary when they are necessary, and a presumption of an arbitrary good (equality rather than evolutionary survival) as justification for the fraud.

    4) Hicks’ argument, which you did not understand, is that POMO is an evolution of the (Marxist) means by which to circumvent reciprocity (science, economics, and law) by claiming power (science/truth, law/power, economics/necessity) is sentimental and psychological (arbitrary).

    5) My argument, a bit more articulate that Hicks’, is that this attempt at fraud is not only from Marxism to Postmodernism, but from the long history of Pilpul/Critique, Abrahamic Law, Platonism, Abrahamic Monotheism, Abrahamic Theology, and Continental Philosophy (Rousseau/Kant)

    6) And that under Pilpul(Justificationism) and Critique (Straw Manning, disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossiping, rallying) any internal consistency (constant relations) can be argued (story or fraud constructed) to violate correspondence, reciprocity, limits, and completeness.

    7) And that under Falsificationism (Survival) from tests of coherence, consistency, correspondence, existential possibility, rationality, reciprocity, limits and completeness (what we test in court) such Frauds (Lies to cover Thefts) are exposed. Leaving only truth candidates.

    8) So while you merely made a list of STATED INTENTIONS, as scientists (and jurists) we measure the form of argument (lying) and the changes in state (thefts), and the means, motives and opportunity used (criminal liability) not the STATED INTENTION (lies) of the actor.

    9) One is not liable for his intentions but for his consequences. One acts given the resources available(means), the institutions available (opportunity) to produce reciprocity (meritocracy) and therefore continuous eugenic evolution (survival from competition) or the opposite.

    10) Ergo, Marx (econ/history), Boas (Anthro/Soc.), Freud(Psych), Cantor (math platonism), Frankfurt (Norms,Traditions,Habits,Institutions), the French Postmodernists (Reason Itself) sought to use the ancient techniques of overloading (lying) by pseudoscience (marx et al) and ….

    11) … sophism (Derrida, Foucault, Rorty, Heidegger) to construct a disinformation campaign w/Critique: poisoning the well with a straw man criticism) in order to perpetuate a fraud(theft) by attacking Poincare, Maxwell,Darwin,Menger, Spencer, Nietzsche, and the Eugenicists …

    12) … who were seeking to restate the successful group evolutionary strategy of western civilization (transcendence: by adaptive velocity ) using Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, Jury and Tort Law, and Markets (empirical evidence of reciprocity) in everything …

    13) … including association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, polities, and defense(war), in scientific terms (The One Language of Truthful Speech, under the One Law of Reciprocity).

    14) Because it was this group strategy (today called “OODA Loops” in military, and “innovation” in economics, technology, and science), that allowed western civ in the ancient and modern worlds, to drag mankind kicking and screaming out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, starvation, hard labor, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, brutality, arbitrary rule, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature, in a universe hostile to life.

    15) So your ‘list of excuses-of-intent’ by stating ‘quotes of intent’ are just attempts to perpetuate the dysgenic, defeatist, destructive, fraud, of using sophisticated lies (sophisms, supernaturalisms, pseudosciences) to appeal to sentiments as a means of obtaining power.

    16) When your use of that power, as we have seen, is to destroy the modern world as the abrahamists (jews, christians, and muslims) destroyed the great civilizations of the ancient world, costing us more than a thousand years of dark age, and a billion deaths …

    17) … for no other purpose than pursuing dysgenia, destruction of capital, the manufacture of ignorance, in the 3500 year struggle of the primitive peoples (equalitarian poverty and ignorance) against the advancing peoples (meritocratic wealth and knowledge).

    18) So I am not only calling you and other POMO’s Frauds, Sophists, and Thieves, but the Enemy of Mankind and the bringers of destruction, ignorance, poverty, dysgenia, and suffering. The only equality is poverty. The only wealth is differences (hierarchy). Because it is by hierarchy (Pareto, or Power Laws) that we can construct the voluntary organization of research, invention, investment, production, distribution, and trade, using the selfish incentives of man with the limited knowledge at his disposal, to seize the optimum opportunity at his disposal, such that together we defeat the dark forces of time and ignorance – despite none of us knowing more than a fraction of the existential knowledge we all possess.

    19) And like I said, if you studied Physics, Genetic and Cultural Differences, Political Economy, and Law (the complete scientific method), then you would understand such things – instead of reading Sophomoric Political Fantasy Fiction.

    20) Transcendence (Evolution), by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, The Natural Law of Tort, An Independent Judiciary (Nomocracy), and the only option remaining under all of the above: Markets for voluntary cooperation in all aspects of life.

    — closing —

    It is a well researched bit of knowledge that we claim a lie is performed by intent, but that we judge whether we lie by our preferences and cognitive biases. So we lie on behalf of our intuitions, not on behalf of the truth or falsehood of our statements.

    Ergo, we lie not just by intention, but by failing to perform due diligence against lying by intuition in the absence of intention. We are not only liable for our intended actions, but failures of due diligence before taking actions.

    We all self insure ourselves against falsehood.

    Some of us specialize in the fraud of escaping self insurance, by escaping due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.

    — differences —

    Doolittle (law), Taleb (statistics), Hicks (Intellectual history)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 10:01:00 UTC

  • THE NOT SO SECRET SECRET Shh…. “The Grammars” unites the disciplines by showin

    THE NOT SO SECRET SECRET

    Shh…. “The Grammars” unites the disciplines by showing how each is a means of calculating using additional dimensions.

    Testimonialism unites the sciences as showing how truth consists of due diligence in the dimensions addressed by the grammars of that discipline.

    Acquisitionism and Propertarianism unite (replaces) psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, law, and group strategy with a single grammar of calculation: social science.

    People will be fussing over this stuff for the next century or two… lol

    I get to giggle about it…. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-24 16:36:00 UTC

  • A Hard Concept to Internalize: Via-Negativa Lying

    October 23rd, 2018 10:08 AM A HARD CONCEPT TO INTERNALIZE: VIA-NEGATIVA LYING [S]cience and Law are via-negativa disciplines. We know truth by eliminating what is false. We know legal, ethical, moral, and good, by eliminating what is irreciprocal, unethical, immoral, criminal, and bad. Science is the means by which we perform due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, fictionalism, and deceit – leaving only truth candidates remaining. So, when we say someone is LYING it does not require that they via-positiva relied upon intent. Instead, we require via-negativa, that we take involuntary responsibility for performing due diligence against spreading a falsehood suggestion or deceit. So via-negativa, someone is lying if they distribute a falsehood suggestion or deceit, regardless of whether they intend to. This is a higher standard of suppression of falsehood – one that is necessary to prevent the spread of falsehoods. Because we have been defeated once by the falsehood of monotheism, and the same people are trying to defeat us with mono-classism, and monopoly. We are the only people to create a market between classes and ideas, and everyone else produced a monopoly equalitarianism, or a monopoly hierarchy, rather than the markets that have made our successes possible. People always resist paying the costs of incremental increases in suppression of opportunity for free riding, conspiracy, deception, fraud, theft and violence, just as they resist paying all costs of creating and maintaining the commons: physical, normative, and informational. That does not mean that we are always and everywhere paying those costs in exchange for the most valuable commons we can produce: good information, truthful speech, the trust, economic velocity, and innovation that results from it. Because the only way a small, high-individual-investment, superior population can compete is by producing the economy necessary to pay for the superior technological means ( and arms) by which to compensate for their numbers. Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • My Very Simple Scientific Technique and What I Have Learned from Religion

    October 23rd, 2018 6:54 AM MY VERY SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUE AND WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM RELIGION [R]eligion is, surprisingly, the ‘hard problem’ of social science. Every other problem I have set out to solve (understand) has been trivial by comparison. Truth took me a year. The grammars took me less than six months. And those are very hard problems. Religion was much harder. I use a very simple (scientific) technique, that long-term followers know well, which is to attack a problem, causing other people to defend it, until I understand their incentives. This is a better method of research than reading what other authors opine (make excuses for or against.) I am trying to understand (better than I do now) why the the demand for the God (bad) and Jesus (good) mythos’ (they are different) persists among some people and groups and not others. I have begun to understand it better than I did. I understand (easily) why certain classes demand it. I have begun to understand the different weights different cultures attach to it. And I am ‘testing’ whether (I think correctly) it is simply a failure to provide mindfulness by non-nonsense means (and why governments would resist teaching a non-nonsense method of mindfulness). Mostly what I have come to understand, is that people are ignorant of the available options and their intuitions have been so successfully trained by the one they already hold, that they cannot imagine training their intuitions by any other means. So (a) man needs mindfulness, and (b) and man needs mindfulness to different degrees, and (c) the mindfulness is dependent a bit on genetics of mindfulness (males less than females in general, and females more in general), (d) personality needs, (e) class circumstances, (f) cultural-political circumstances – all of which generate (or do not generate) demand for mindfulness. Now, that mindfulness can be provided by the Hindu Means (literary immersion), the three abrahamic monotheistic means (organized indoctrination) of low(islam), working(christian), and middle (jewish) religion; the buddhist means (training); the rather ‘new age/european’ (philosophy-as-religion-substitute) means; the shinto and ritual means (ritual); or by cognitive-behavioral education that we call ‘Stoicism’ for context. And there is a great deal to lean just from the ORDER of those methods of training: how much infrastructure is needed to preserve the ‘illusion’ of the mythos vs argument vs ritual vs education. And how much ‘ability’ given the means of training (immersion in hinduism through individual education in stoicism). But this is just a matter of WEALTH sufficient to pay for the means of TRAINING vs a given period of time: ie: producing the mass illusions of the ancient religions required an informational vulnerability (absence of knowledge and alternatives) that existed only in the past – and no longer does. So if one wants to produce a religion that is not made of lies, it is entirely possible to do so – with a total absence of religious parables. And instead, a reliance on parables of history, and training in the virtues. Christianity has a very simple set of underlying principles that are constituted in only four statements. Islam and judaism can also be, but to do so is horrifying. Christianity’s four statements are quite simple and will in general produce consequent goods. There is just no need to lie to people and train them to be vulnerable to lies, and train priests to lie, and politicians to lie by the same means in order to teach those four rules. No more lies by judaism, devolves into christianity, devolves into islam, evolves into marxism, postmodernism, feminism. No more lies. People need “imaginary friends, parents, leaders” for very well underst reasons: they have been failed by those around them, to provide positive socialization and training by existential means. We are able to teach truthful speech (science) and there is no reason we cannot provide positive socialization and training (mindfulness) by equally truthful means. Convergence on the Truth: continuous correspondence between reality perception cognition recollection description negotiation, and advocacy. Affections. -Curt

  • A Hard Concept to Internalize: Via-Negativa Lying

    October 23rd, 2018 10:08 AM A HARD CONCEPT TO INTERNALIZE: VIA-NEGATIVA LYING [S]cience and Law are via-negativa disciplines. We know truth by eliminating what is false. We know legal, ethical, moral, and good, by eliminating what is irreciprocal, unethical, immoral, criminal, and bad. Science is the means by which we perform due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, fictionalism, and deceit – leaving only truth candidates remaining. So, when we say someone is LYING it does not require that they via-positiva relied upon intent. Instead, we require via-negativa, that we take involuntary responsibility for performing due diligence against spreading a falsehood suggestion or deceit. So via-negativa, someone is lying if they distribute a falsehood suggestion or deceit, regardless of whether they intend to. This is a higher standard of suppression of falsehood – one that is necessary to prevent the spread of falsehoods. Because we have been defeated once by the falsehood of monotheism, and the same people are trying to defeat us with mono-classism, and monopoly. We are the only people to create a market between classes and ideas, and everyone else produced a monopoly equalitarianism, or a monopoly hierarchy, rather than the markets that have made our successes possible. People always resist paying the costs of incremental increases in suppression of opportunity for free riding, conspiracy, deception, fraud, theft and violence, just as they resist paying all costs of creating and maintaining the commons: physical, normative, and informational. That does not mean that we are always and everywhere paying those costs in exchange for the most valuable commons we can produce: good information, truthful speech, the trust, economic velocity, and innovation that results from it. Because the only way a small, high-individual-investment, superior population can compete is by producing the economy necessary to pay for the superior technological means ( and arms) by which to compensate for their numbers. Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • My Very Simple Scientific Technique and What I Have Learned from Religion

    October 23rd, 2018 6:54 AM MY VERY SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUE AND WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM RELIGION [R]eligion is, surprisingly, the ‘hard problem’ of social science. Every other problem I have set out to solve (understand) has been trivial by comparison. Truth took me a year. The grammars took me less than six months. And those are very hard problems. Religion was much harder. I use a very simple (scientific) technique, that long-term followers know well, which is to attack a problem, causing other people to defend it, until I understand their incentives. This is a better method of research than reading what other authors opine (make excuses for or against.) I am trying to understand (better than I do now) why the the demand for the God (bad) and Jesus (good) mythos’ (they are different) persists among some people and groups and not others. I have begun to understand it better than I did. I understand (easily) why certain classes demand it. I have begun to understand the different weights different cultures attach to it. And I am ‘testing’ whether (I think correctly) it is simply a failure to provide mindfulness by non-nonsense means (and why governments would resist teaching a non-nonsense method of mindfulness). Mostly what I have come to understand, is that people are ignorant of the available options and their intuitions have been so successfully trained by the one they already hold, that they cannot imagine training their intuitions by any other means. So (a) man needs mindfulness, and (b) and man needs mindfulness to different degrees, and (c) the mindfulness is dependent a bit on genetics of mindfulness (males less than females in general, and females more in general), (d) personality needs, (e) class circumstances, (f) cultural-political circumstances – all of which generate (or do not generate) demand for mindfulness. Now, that mindfulness can be provided by the Hindu Means (literary immersion), the three abrahamic monotheistic means (organized indoctrination) of low(islam), working(christian), and middle (jewish) religion; the buddhist means (training); the rather ‘new age/european’ (philosophy-as-religion-substitute) means; the shinto and ritual means (ritual); or by cognitive-behavioral education that we call ‘Stoicism’ for context. And there is a great deal to lean just from the ORDER of those methods of training: how much infrastructure is needed to preserve the ‘illusion’ of the mythos vs argument vs ritual vs education. And how much ‘ability’ given the means of training (immersion in hinduism through individual education in stoicism). But this is just a matter of WEALTH sufficient to pay for the means of TRAINING vs a given period of time: ie: producing the mass illusions of the ancient religions required an informational vulnerability (absence of knowledge and alternatives) that existed only in the past – and no longer does. So if one wants to produce a religion that is not made of lies, it is entirely possible to do so – with a total absence of religious parables. And instead, a reliance on parables of history, and training in the virtues. Christianity has a very simple set of underlying principles that are constituted in only four statements. Islam and judaism can also be, but to do so is horrifying. Christianity’s four statements are quite simple and will in general produce consequent goods. There is just no need to lie to people and train them to be vulnerable to lies, and train priests to lie, and politicians to lie by the same means in order to teach those four rules. No more lies by judaism, devolves into christianity, devolves into islam, evolves into marxism, postmodernism, feminism. No more lies. People need “imaginary friends, parents, leaders” for very well underst reasons: they have been failed by those around them, to provide positive socialization and training by existential means. We are able to teach truthful speech (science) and there is no reason we cannot provide positive socialization and training (mindfulness) by equally truthful means. Convergence on the Truth: continuous correspondence between reality perception cognition recollection description negotiation, and advocacy. Affections. -Curt

  • A HARD CONCEPT TO INTERNALIZE: VIA-NEGATIVA LYING Science and Law are via-negati

    A HARD CONCEPT TO INTERNALIZE: VIA-NEGATIVA LYING

    Science and Law are via-negativa disciplines. We know truth by eliminating what is false. We know legal, ethical, moral, and good, by eliminating what is irreciprocal, unethical, immoral, criminal, and bad. Science is the means by which we perform due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, fictionalism, and deceit – leaving only truth candidates remaining.

    So, when we say someone is LYING it does not require that they via-positiva relied upon intent. Instead, we require via-negativa, that we take involuntary responsibility for performing due diligence against spreading a falsehood suggestion or deceit. So via-negativa, someone is lying if they distribute a falsehood suggestion or deceit, regardless of whether they intend to.

    This is a higher standard of suppression of falsehood – one that is necessary to prevent the spread of falsehoods. Because we have been defeated once by the falsehood of monotheism, and the same people are trying to defeat us with mono-classism, and monopoly. We are the only people to create a market between classes and ideas, and everyone else produced a monopoly equalitarianism, or a monopoly hierarchy, rather than the markets that have made our successes possible.

    People always resist paying the costs of incremental increases in suppression of opportunity for free riding, conspiracy, deception, fraud, theft and violence, just as they resist paying all costs of creating and maintaining the commons: physical, normative, and informational.

    That does not mean that we are always and everywhere paying those costs in exchange for the most valuable commons we can produce: good information, truthful speech, the trust, economic velocity, and innovation that results from it.

    Because the only way a small, high-individual-investment, superior population can compete is by producing the economy necessary to pay for the superior technological means ( and arms) by which to compensate for their numbers.

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-23 10:08:00 UTC

  • MAN: KNOWN AS I SELF DECEPTIONS OR KNOWN AS IN DEMONSTRATED ACTIONS (TRUTH)? —

    MAN: KNOWN AS I SELF DECEPTIONS OR KNOWN AS IN DEMONSTRATED ACTIONS (TRUTH)?

    —“If Propertarianism is grounded solely on science and not religion, then on what basis is Man (with a great M) known?”—Josef Kalinin

    Joseph : I can’t decompose that question. Man ‘is’, (exists as) that which he has demonstrated by his history. the stories (sedations) we tell ourselves at any point in history, merely serve to ameliorate our instincts (largely status) in relation to our resources (physical, emotional, mental) budges, and existential resources in all their forms – from physical things to relationships to knowledge.

    So are you asking “What is man?”, or “What methods of sedation (self medication) has man used through history?”

    Propertarianism ‘accounts for’ (takes account of):

    Math, Logic, Science (Physics-Chemistry-Biology, Psychology, Law, Economics, History, Literature, Philosophy, Religion, The Occult, the Fictionalisms, and Methods of Deceit.

    What it most takes account of, and no others do, is the transition of our understanding, knowledge and instrumentation from human scale to pre (supra/below) and post (super/above) human scale.

    And as such at humans scale (Morality, Instructions, arithmetic(construction),confirmation) we speak in justifications (Via-Positivas) because we can directly apprehend such constant relations, where at below and above human scale (Law, Science, Mathematics(deduction), Falsification) we speak in falsifications (Via-Negativas) because we cannot directly perceive those constant relations with our senses.

    The world wars (Anglo/Balance and Russian/Expansion Screw Ups) interrupted the darwinian-mengerian-specerian-maxwellian-poincarian-nietzschiean-romanticist revolution. And the 20th century in social science was lost, as the cult-of-dysgenic-socialism found itself in a christ figure versus a darwinian evil of eugenic-national-socialism, which allowed the suppression of the second scientific revolution (in germany).

    But beginning in the 1990’s science has (slowly) rescued us such that without immigration we would have corrected the problem already.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-21 13:36:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM IS A BIT LIKE STUDYING FOR A STEM+L DEGREE. THAT’S WHY IT TAKES

    https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/UNDERSTANDING PROPERTARIANISM IS A BIT LIKE STUDYING FOR A STEM+L DEGREE. THAT’S WHY IT TAKES TIME. IT’S NON-TRIVIAL.

    —“I’m having a hard time understanding propertarianism tbh. I’m reading your articles on the website but still….what should I do?:— Ayham Nedal

    Our Reading List helps with general knowledge so that you can tell we know what we’re talking about. Propertarianism consists of a broad set of concepts that produce a logic and science of social science in all its uses. We draw terms and ideas from math to logic to philosophy to law to economics to the sciences. And it’s because we do so, that we were able to UNITE THE SCIENCES into a SINGLE LANGUAGE consistent across all of them, thereby eliminating the silos, and allowing us to identify the falsehoods or imprecisions in each of them.

    So we include books on every major subject in social science.

    The Introductions to Propertarianism are very helpful. They are:

    The CONCEPTS:

    1) https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/

    (Which I should fill out a bit more if I get some time)

    AND

    THE CORE

    2) https://propertarianism.com/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/

    Libertarianism (Mises, Hayek, Haslitt, Rothbard, Hoppe), tried very hard to unite social science, economics, law, and politics but they were not successful. However, if you understand libertarianism, Ely Harman’s introduction is very helpful in helping with the transition.

    We probably should write a transition document for the Dark Enlightenment folk (Moldbug), and for Classical Liberals, and for Fascists. But we have only so much time….

    HISTORY

    The cycles of history, and the competition between the Western (Science/Law), Asian (military/political), and Semitic (Religion,Mythology), is something almost anyone can understand. The secret to the west is easy to understand (computational velocity by sovereignty, reciprocity, natural law, markets in everything)..

    MANKIND

    The Acquisitionism (psychology), Propertarianism (ethics), and the Class System, and Perfect Government, are not difficult. but require learning some precise terms. This is harder than it should be in my opinion and I don’t know why it’s difficult. It’s just training yourself to categorize by property rather than moral norms.

    LOGIC

    Testimonialism (grammars, logic, scientific speech, and the geometry of meaning) is extremely challenging if you do not have experience in philosophy of science, math, and logic. and writing arguments in natural law (balanced transactions) takes quite a bit of practice. This is hard. But, it’s the entire basis of the program. Because it is the completion of the scientifc method that’s based upon testimonialism, and our ability to suppress fraud and deceit in the commons (political speech) is dependent upon encoding Testimonialism (a checklist of due diligences) into the law.

    IT’S BIG

    This is a bigger scope of work than Marxism. So we cover the entire spectrum of metaphysics, psychology, testimony (truth), ethics, sociology, politics, law, group evolutionary strategy, and war.

    Lastly, just ASK US. if I don’t answer, someone else will.

    We KNOW that we have to make a course for it. The course outline is already on the site. But without the book(s) it is not going to be easily taught. So everyone (me included) is waiting on me to finish – and it’s killing me…. lol.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-21 12:35:00 UTC

  • It takes a great deal of accumulated skill (or experience with life, law, econom

    It takes a great deal of accumulated skill (or experience with life, law, economics and software) to make propertarian arguments. It’s a discipline. It’s non trivial. But, they are POST-MORAL arguments. That’s the thing. They are no longer normative. They consist of MEASUREMENTS not VALUES.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-21 11:53:00 UTC