Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • There isn’t any shortcut.

    THERE ISN’T ANY SHORTCUT TO WISDOM There isn’t any shortcut. You are either going to read enough basic history, and then learn the operational deconstruction of incentives from me, or you aren’t. There isn’t any shortcut. There isn’t one book. There is however a series of books that are the minimum you’ll need. But that’s not easy. My book will teach you the science and logic of natural law, and all that it entails. But it will simply explain how to make all the knowledge of all the disciplines, commensurable – into a single universal language. That said, history provides the storytelling. And it’s the stories we remember. Stories serve as search algorithms. Logic serves as recipes.Science insures we don’t err. We have had enough of us working to gether now that very smart people with a scientific education and knowledge of computer science, and a bit of history can grasp the ideas within a year. For most people it takes two to understand, and another one or two to master the use of. Which is like any other STEM discipline.  ‘Cause it’s like any other STEM discipline….. —“You’ve made a comment elsewhere which I’ll try to paraphrase. Once you get the importance to operationalism, obstacles to demonstrated intelligence are removed. From there, the way forward is just by acquiring more knowledge. There is no way around it. If you don’t have the data (information), operational arguments amount to well articulated opinions and nothing more.”— Bill Joslin

  • TODAY’S CLASS: “CONSTANT RELATIONS” OK. So lets try this. “Constant Relations”.

    TODAY’S CLASS: “CONSTANT RELATIONS”

    OK. So lets try this. “Constant Relations”.

    (And for super geeks watch what I do to logic and set theory with operationalism.)

    1) Now, what is the difference between “differences” and “constant and inconstant relations”?

    a) So neurons can identify that which is the same, that which is different and can accumulate these differences, as more correspondent or less correspondent, right?

    2) When we say “nothing” what CAN we refer to?

    Neil: “Everything”.

    Curt: “Correct, when we say ‘nothing’ we can only mean everything, and we have not selected from everything.”

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 15:39:00 UTC

  • “Empirical” means observable and therefore measurable, and therefore commensurab

    “Empirical” means observable and therefore measurable, and therefore commensurable, and therefore open to tests of coherence.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-22 19:13:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism in Anglish (Germanic)

    (It’s so obvious how much better english would be in Anglish, and moreover how Anglish and German would be as mutually intelligible as the other germanic languages. I wish I had the balls to write propertarianism in anglish. lol)–CD PROPERTARIANISM IN ANGLISH (brilliant!) by Ely Harman Ownerken: the thoughtlore of western Lordcraft. A quick guide in Anglish (English with no outlandish words, but only theedish words.) Ownerken is a branch of worldken that has to do with the beholding and understanding of fellowship, trust, law, and all the dealings of lords, free men, thralls, and even women. Ownerken is not only thoughtlore, but worldken, because like all worldken it begins by guessing at beholdings and then working through them to see if they are untrue. You cannot show a beholding true with a workthrough because some other workthrough (yet undone) may show it untrue. But if a workthrough shows it untrue then that is settled and the beholding must be thrown out. In this way, our beholdings get better with time and become knowledge (true belief) and understanding even though we can never be sure that our beholdings are best or that our knowledge or understanding are flawless. Some basic workthroughs from ownerken are: Oneness: is each thing one thing, or many? If many, then someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Likelihood: will it work? If not, someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Reckoning: are all the gains being reckoned, as well as the losses? If not, someone means to fool you, and you may kill them. Give and take: Is someone seeking to take without giving? If so, that’s why they mean to fool you, and you may kill them. And others… The ownerkenish beholding of ownership is that “what you own” is what you are willing and able to keep, hold and guard. Some freeloaders think ownership is made by doing work and so workers own everything. Other freeriders think ownership is made by blending work with land and then traded, meaning workers do not own most things but a few of the best traders do. But all these foolish knaves are wrong because warriors can take their stuff and all they can do about it is whine, which they do, a lot. The first thing to ask is why not just kill you and take your stuff? Well. I might lose something by doing that. There will be struggle and threat. But also, we would not be dealing. And so the boons of dealing would be lost. It may be better to deal than to fight, but only if you will deal fair, only if you can fight well, and only if you have something worth dealing for. Men can deal, not deal, or fight. So if you want to deal, you must have something worth dealing for, or else we will not deal. And you must have something to threaten in a fight, or else it may be better for many to just fight you and take your stuff for their own. To win fights with other men, men must fight together, side by side, shoulder to shoulder, shield to shield. That means men must trade trust and fellowship because the only thing worth giving trust for is getting it back, the only thing worth giving fellowship for is getting it back. To be true fellows, men must have one mind, not on all things, but at least on the weighty ones. Where men are not of one mind they must have a leader to choose for them. Even free men, even lords, will follow a leader if he chooses no less well than them, and/or if the gains from onemindedness outwiegh the losses. And that is why even leaders choose leaders until there is only one high leader between them. There is much more to say about ownerken and Lordcraft. But this is the beginning of it… Apr 22, 2018 6:17pm

  • Propertarianism in Anglish (Germanic)

    (It’s so obvious how much better english would be in Anglish, and moreover how Anglish and German would be as mutually intelligible as the other germanic languages. I wish I had the balls to write propertarianism in anglish. lol)–CD PROPERTARIANISM IN ANGLISH (brilliant!) by Ely Harman Ownerken: the thoughtlore of western Lordcraft. A quick guide in Anglish (English with no outlandish words, but only theedish words.) Ownerken is a branch of worldken that has to do with the beholding and understanding of fellowship, trust, law, and all the dealings of lords, free men, thralls, and even women. Ownerken is not only thoughtlore, but worldken, because like all worldken it begins by guessing at beholdings and then working through them to see if they are untrue. You cannot show a beholding true with a workthrough because some other workthrough (yet undone) may show it untrue. But if a workthrough shows it untrue then that is settled and the beholding must be thrown out. In this way, our beholdings get better with time and become knowledge (true belief) and understanding even though we can never be sure that our beholdings are best or that our knowledge or understanding are flawless. Some basic workthroughs from ownerken are: Oneness: is each thing one thing, or many? If many, then someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Likelihood: will it work? If not, someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Reckoning: are all the gains being reckoned, as well as the losses? If not, someone means to fool you, and you may kill them. Give and take: Is someone seeking to take without giving? If so, that’s why they mean to fool you, and you may kill them. And others… The ownerkenish beholding of ownership is that “what you own” is what you are willing and able to keep, hold and guard. Some freeloaders think ownership is made by doing work and so workers own everything. Other freeriders think ownership is made by blending work with land and then traded, meaning workers do not own most things but a few of the best traders do. But all these foolish knaves are wrong because warriors can take their stuff and all they can do about it is whine, which they do, a lot. The first thing to ask is why not just kill you and take your stuff? Well. I might lose something by doing that. There will be struggle and threat. But also, we would not be dealing. And so the boons of dealing would be lost. It may be better to deal than to fight, but only if you will deal fair, only if you can fight well, and only if you have something worth dealing for. Men can deal, not deal, or fight. So if you want to deal, you must have something worth dealing for, or else we will not deal. And you must have something to threaten in a fight, or else it may be better for many to just fight you and take your stuff for their own. To win fights with other men, men must fight together, side by side, shoulder to shoulder, shield to shield. That means men must trade trust and fellowship because the only thing worth giving trust for is getting it back, the only thing worth giving fellowship for is getting it back. To be true fellows, men must have one mind, not on all things, but at least on the weighty ones. Where men are not of one mind they must have a leader to choose for them. Even free men, even lords, will follow a leader if he chooses no less well than them, and/or if the gains from onemindedness outwiegh the losses. And that is why even leaders choose leaders until there is only one high leader between them. There is much more to say about ownerken and Lordcraft. But this is the beginning of it… Apr 22, 2018 6:17pm

  • It’s so obvious how much better english would be in Anglish, and moreover how An

    It’s so obvious how much better english would be in Anglish, and moreover how Anglish and German would be as mutually intelligible as the other germanic languages. I wish I had the balls to write propertarianism in anglish. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-22 09:37:00 UTC

  • Math as a Language

    Math can be pursued as a language (pure mathematics) or as measurements (mathematical physics). And while we can write fantasy novels in a language, we cannot do so in measurements. Language like mathematical platonism is bounded only by imagination, while measurements must always describe the existential because all measurement requires correspondence, while language only requires meaning.

  • Math as a Language

    Math can be pursued as a language (pure mathematics) or as measurements (mathematical physics). And while we can write fantasy novels in a language, we cannot do so in measurements. Language like mathematical platonism is bounded only by imagination, while measurements must always describe the existential because all measurement requires correspondence, while language only requires meaning.

  • THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLIC EXISTENCE Or to quote my long time friend Frank Lovell,

    THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLIC EXISTENCE

    Or to quote my long time friend Frank Lovell, Knowledge of unicorns exists, even if unicorns do not exist. And even this statement depends upon how we demarcate between Knowledge with Information. We actually don’t have a vocabulary for existence as idea or information other than ‘symbol’. And symbol is often confused with ‘glyph’. So, assuming we demarcate symbol and glyph unicorns exist only symbolically while horses exist existentially.

    So for existence we have grammars:

    || platonic < symbolic < constructive(operational) <- descriptive(existential) -> analogistic > literary > and fictional(isms) ||

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-21 11:57:00 UTC

  • “Curt, how would you respond to the assertion that meaningfulness and correspond

    —“Curt, how would you respond to the assertion that meaningfulness and correspondence are the same thing?”— Moritz Bierling

    “Unicorn” is meaningful (imaginable) but not correspondent (existential).

    Identity

    Consistency

    Correspondence

    Existential Possibility

    Voluntary Rationality

    Reciprocity

    Completeness

    Coherence

    This checklist consists of each possible dimension of reality, just as the four dimensions correspond to each dimension of reality in mathematical geometry.

    So that which is meaningful merely consists of relations between what is imaginable. Reality consists of a subset of what is imaginable. Reality cannot err, inflate, conflate, or imagine – only man can.

    THE SEARCH ALGORITHMS ARE OF NECESSITY BROADER THAN THE ANSWERS.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-21 10:58:00 UTC