Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • When you are teaching people an advanced subject like testimonialism, acqusition

    When you are teaching people an advanced subject like testimonialism, acqusitionism, propertarianism, or market government, one of the most common pitfalls a professor must avoid, is anchoring the student and freezing his innovations, while at the same time, gently correcting errors so that he or she continues to advance, but does not become dependent upon you. This is extremely difficult.

    The second problem is getting them past their limits. They generally hit their limits when they surpass the use of the technology (subject) to justify prior dispositions, and instead must now abandon their intuitions and priors – and rely on the logic of the system exclusively without the ability to test against the intuitions provided by their priors

    It’s at this point they generally freeze or fail, or grow frustrated, because they do not realize that they have been relying upon intuition, and merely learning a superior means of justifying their priors until now. Making the leap from using a logic to justify one’s priors, to the full dependence upon that logic despite it’s falsification of your priors is difficult – and more difficult the older you are (it certainly was hard for me).

    So some people progress fastest because they are simply learning how to justify priors, and can rely on testing propositions against memory and intuition. Others progress more slowly because they must constantly reform their intuitions and priors. The problem for the former is that they tend to have become used to ‘easy’ adoption of the technology and instead of incremental adjustment they must do all the work of self transition at once. This is why it is somewhat easier for us aspies because we actually tend to have few intuitionistic priors, and are more comfortable with fully rational or empirical statements independent upon reliance upon intuitions and priors.

    I can, by temperament, identify who will hit the wall, but not when – until I see it starting to occur. But it is almost impossible to break people through that wall. They must do it on their own. And in my experience, most of them fail.

    ( Unfortunately, some of them direct their frustration at me. This is understandable. It is however, unwarranted. )

    So what can I learn from this? Well, it is one thing to look for participants to help me advance the work, and another to ask people learn a complete system. Luckily there are some people who are not bound by priors. Although very small in number. I can help people by completing the work rather than asking them to participate. This eliminates me as the axis, makes the courseware the axis.

    But in the end, truth is merciless to priors.

    And few people are sufficiently transcendent, and possess sufficient agency to abandon their priors – especially those who have invested so heavily in the argumentative justification of them.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-28 19:42:00 UTC

  • THE GREATER GOOD???? We do not ever know the ‘greater good’ and we are continual

    THE GREATER GOOD????

    We do not ever know the ‘greater good’ and we are continually saturated with lies as to possible ‘greater goods’ and impossible greater goods. And it turns out that all successful appeals to ‘greater goods’ are in fact, merely pretenses for parasitism.

    Because we are forever ignorant, we cannot know goods, or truths, only bads or falsehoods. As such the greater good can only be obtained by removal of known bads: the natural common law of torts. The demand for reciprocity. And the punishment of offenders.

    By this (via-negativa) removal of bads, only voluntary market-produced goods can be brought into existence, in any form, whether as material goods, services, or information for consumption or as material goods, services or information for direct investment, or for material goods, services, or information for the production of commons as an indirect investment.

    By profits from the (via-negativa) removal of bads, and the production of the voluntary organization of production of private, semi-private, and common goods, services, and information, we are then able to insure one another against the vicissitudes of nature.

    In the literature we find:

    1) Totalitarianism of the underclass socialists to use discretion to organize production and perform discretionary redistribution of proceeds as a means of aggressive transition of people from a state far behind competitors; This approach requires existential information to make use of, and is indifferent to the demographic quality, and absence of market economy.

    2) The progressive ‘representational’ use of pareto optimums to justify forcible redistribution and the expansion of the dead weight of the underclass (Rawlsian social democracy) as a means of using population to defeat competitors. This approach requires existential market economies to make use of reduced production of information.

    3) And we find the conservative ‘aristocratic’ use of Nash equilibriums (classical liberalism/contractualism under natural law) to justify meritocracy and voluntary cooperation and eugenic reduction of the dead weight of the underclasses as means of remaining ahead of competitors. This approach requires existentially reduced lower classes, existential market economies, and existential high trust within that economy to function.

    4) To support these three literatures we find three branches of economics:

    a) the “Saltwater and Discretionary School”.

    b) The “Freshwater and Rule of Law School”

    c) The “German/Austrian Political Economy School”

    I can answer further questions about political models, demographic demands, and the supposed wisdom of crowds, but you wouldn’t believe how much of the totality of political thought is contained in those few paragraphs.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-28 14:50:00 UTC

  • The Final Word On Numbers and Mathematics

    NUMBERS: POSITIONAL NAMES OF CONSTANT RELATIONS. MATH: THE SCIENCE OF MEASUREMENT OF RELATIONS BY THE USE OF CONSTANT RELATIONS. EXTENSIONS OF ORDINARY LANGUAGE
     
    Numbers are names. All nouns are names. Numbers evolved as positional names.
     
    We use many positional names: none, one, and some, short medium and tall; small, medium, and large; front, middle, and back; right center and left; port and starboard; daughter, mother, and grandmother;
     
    Numbers differ from nouns only in that we produce them by positional naming. Whereas early positional names varied from one two and many, to base ten, or base twelve, or in the twenties, or sixties, each which increases the demand on the human mind; the decimal system of positional naming
     
    Positional names are produced by a series of consistent operations. We call those series of consistent operations ‘functions’. By analogy we (unfortunately) called all such functions numbers: a convenient fiction.
     
    Because of positional naming all positional names (numbers) are context independent, scale independent, constant relations, descriptively parsimonious and closed to interpretation.
     
    So unlike other nouns (names), they are almost impossible to misinterpret by processes of conflation (adding information), and are impossible to further deflate (removing information).
     
    Any other information we desire to add to the noun,( by which we mean name, positional name, number) must be provided by analogy to a context: application.
     
    Numbers exist as positional names of constant relations. Those constant relations are scale independent, context dependent, informationally parsimonious, and nearly impossible to conflate with information that will allow for misinterpretation or deception.
     
    As such, numbers allow us to perform DEDUCTIONS that other names, that lack constant relations, scale independence, context dependence, parsimony, immutability, and incorruptibility do not. Because deduction is possible wherever constant relations, parsimony, immutability, and incorruptibility are present.
     
    As such, numbers serve as as a method of verbal reasoning within and beyond the limits of human imagination (cognition), short term memory, and ordinary reason.
     
    Numbers then are simply a very clean set of nouns(positional names), verbs (operations and functions), including tests of positional relations (comparison operators) that allow us to describe, reason and discourse about that which is otherwise beyond our ordinary language, and mental capacity.
     
    As such we distinguish language, reason, and logic from numbers and measurement, and deduction both artificially and practically. Since while they consist of the same processes, the language of numbers, measurements, and deductions is simply more precise than the language of ordinary language, reason, and logic, if for no other reason that it is nearly closed to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, deceit, and the fictionalism of superstition, pseudorationalsm, pseudoscience.
     
    Unfortunately, since to humans, that which allows them to perform such ‘seeming miracles’ that are otherwise beyond comprehension, must be justified, we invented various fictionalisms – primarily idealisms, or what philosophers refer to as platonisms – (mythologies) to explain our actions. To attribute comprehension to that which we did not comprehend. To provide authority by general rule to that which we could only demonstrate through repeated application. So mathematics maintains much of it’s ‘magical language’ and philosophers persist this magical language under the pseudo-rational label of ‘idealism’ or ‘abstraction’. Which roughly translates to “I don’t understand”.
     
    Perhaps more unfortunately, in the 19th century, with the addition of statistics and the application of mathematics to the inconstant relations of heuristic systems: particularly probability, fiat money, economics, finance, banking and commercial and tax accounting, this language no longer retains informational parsimony, and deducibility, and has instead evolved into a pseudoscience under which ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit are pervasive.
     
    Math is a very simple thing. It’s just ordinary language with positional names that allow us to give names and describe transformations to, that which is otherwise beyond our ability to imagine and recall, and therefore describe or reason with.
     
    Like everything else, if you make up stories of gods, demons, ghosts and monsters, or ‘abstractions’ or ‘ideals’ you can obscure the very simple causality that we seek to discover through science: the systematic attempt to remove error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our language of testimony about the world we perceive, cognate, remember, hypothesize within, act, advocate, negotiate, and cooperate within.
     
    Numbers are positional names of context independent, scale independent, informationally parsimonious, constant relations and mathematics consists of the grammar of that language.
     
    In other words, Math is an extension of ordinary language, ordinary reason, and ordinary science: the attempt by which we attempt to obtain information about our world within, above, and below human scale, by the use of rational and physical instrumentation, to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit from our descriptions, and as a consequence our language, and as a consequence our collective knowledge.
     
    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute

  • The Final Word On Numbers and Mathematics

    NUMBERS: POSITIONAL NAMES OF CONSTANT RELATIONS. MATH: THE SCIENCE OF MEASUREMENT OF RELATIONS BY THE USE OF CONSTANT RELATIONS. EXTENSIONS OF ORDINARY LANGUAGE
     
    Numbers are names. All nouns are names. Numbers evolved as positional names.
     
    We use many positional names: none, one, and some, short medium and tall; small, medium, and large; front, middle, and back; right center and left; port and starboard; daughter, mother, and grandmother;
     
    Numbers differ from nouns only in that we produce them by positional naming. Whereas early positional names varied from one two and many, to base ten, or base twelve, or in the twenties, or sixties, each which increases the demand on the human mind; the decimal system of positional naming
     
    Positional names are produced by a series of consistent operations. We call those series of consistent operations ‘functions’. By analogy we (unfortunately) called all such functions numbers: a convenient fiction.
     
    Because of positional naming all positional names (numbers) are context independent, scale independent, constant relations, descriptively parsimonious and closed to interpretation.
     
    So unlike other nouns (names), they are almost impossible to misinterpret by processes of conflation (adding information), and are impossible to further deflate (removing information).
     
    Any other information we desire to add to the noun,( by which we mean name, positional name, number) must be provided by analogy to a context: application.
     
    Numbers exist as positional names of constant relations. Those constant relations are scale independent, context dependent, informationally parsimonious, and nearly impossible to conflate with information that will allow for misinterpretation or deception.
     
    As such, numbers allow us to perform DEDUCTIONS that other names, that lack constant relations, scale independence, context dependence, parsimony, immutability, and incorruptibility do not. Because deduction is possible wherever constant relations, parsimony, immutability, and incorruptibility are present.
     
    As such, numbers serve as as a method of verbal reasoning within and beyond the limits of human imagination (cognition), short term memory, and ordinary reason.
     
    Numbers then are simply a very clean set of nouns(positional names), verbs (operations and functions), including tests of positional relations (comparison operators) that allow us to describe, reason and discourse about that which is otherwise beyond our ordinary language, and mental capacity.
     
    As such we distinguish language, reason, and logic from numbers and measurement, and deduction both artificially and practically. Since while they consist of the same processes, the language of numbers, measurements, and deductions is simply more precise than the language of ordinary language, reason, and logic, if for no other reason that it is nearly closed to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, deceit, and the fictionalism of superstition, pseudorationalsm, pseudoscience.
     
    Unfortunately, since to humans, that which allows them to perform such ‘seeming miracles’ that are otherwise beyond comprehension, must be justified, we invented various fictionalisms – primarily idealisms, or what philosophers refer to as platonisms – (mythologies) to explain our actions. To attribute comprehension to that which we did not comprehend. To provide authority by general rule to that which we could only demonstrate through repeated application. So mathematics maintains much of it’s ‘magical language’ and philosophers persist this magical language under the pseudo-rational label of ‘idealism’ or ‘abstraction’. Which roughly translates to “I don’t understand”.
     
    Perhaps more unfortunately, in the 19th century, with the addition of statistics and the application of mathematics to the inconstant relations of heuristic systems: particularly probability, fiat money, economics, finance, banking and commercial and tax accounting, this language no longer retains informational parsimony, and deducibility, and has instead evolved into a pseudoscience under which ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit are pervasive.
     
    Math is a very simple thing. It’s just ordinary language with positional names that allow us to give names and describe transformations to, that which is otherwise beyond our ability to imagine and recall, and therefore describe or reason with.
     
    Like everything else, if you make up stories of gods, demons, ghosts and monsters, or ‘abstractions’ or ‘ideals’ you can obscure the very simple causality that we seek to discover through science: the systematic attempt to remove error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our language of testimony about the world we perceive, cognate, remember, hypothesize within, act, advocate, negotiate, and cooperate within.
     
    Numbers are positional names of context independent, scale independent, informationally parsimonious, constant relations and mathematics consists of the grammar of that language.
     
    In other words, Math is an extension of ordinary language, ordinary reason, and ordinary science: the attempt by which we attempt to obtain information about our world within, above, and below human scale, by the use of rational and physical instrumentation, to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit from our descriptions, and as a consequence our language, and as a consequence our collective knowledge.
     
    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute

  • IT’S NOT THAT HARD. Nearly all my arguments are constructed by definitions, use

    IT’S NOT THAT HARD.

    Nearly all my arguments are constructed by definitions, use of sequences to de-conflate those definitions, and full accounting of the fully chain of actions and consequences.

    I rarely have to resort to operational grammar except in those definitions. If you use full accounting you will skew to operational gammar out of necessity of simply trying to write cogent sentences.

    I cant keep track of all of you any longer. There are simply too many. But I do see property in toto, operational language and full accounting creeping into all sorts of your posts and comments.

    It’s infectious.

    It will change you forever – for the better.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 12:28:00 UTC

  • NUMBERS: POSITIONAL NAMES OF CONSTANT RELATIONS. MATH: THE SCIENCE OF MEASUREMEN

    NUMBERS: POSITIONAL NAMES OF CONSTANT RELATIONS. MATH: THE SCIENCE OF MEASUREMENT OF RELATIONS BY THE USE OF CONSTANT RELATIONS. EXTENSIONS OF ORDINARY LANGUAGE

    Nouns are names. Numbers are names. Numbers are nouns. Numbers evolved as positional names: Nouns.

    We use many positional names: none, one, and some, short medium and tall; small, medium, and large; front, middle, and back; right center and left; port and starboard; daughter, mother, and grandmother;

    Numbers differ from ordinary nouns only in that we produce them by positional naming. Whereas early positional names varied from one two and many, to base ten, or base twelve, or in the twenties, or sixties, each which increases the demand on the human mind; the decimal system of positional naming

    Positional names are produced by a series of consistent operations. We call those series of consistent operations ‘functions’. By analogy we (unfortunately) called all such functions numbers: a convenient fiction.

    Because of positional naming all positional names (numbers) are context independent, scale independent, constant relations, descriptively parsimonious and closed to interpretation.

    So unlike other nouns (names), they are almost impossible to misinterpret by processes of conflation (adding information), and are impossible to further deflate (removing information).

    Any other information we desire to add to the noun,( by which we mean name, positional name, number) must be provided by analogy to a context: application.

    Numbers exist as positional names of constant relations. Those constant relations are scale independent, context dependent, informationally parsimonious, and nearly impossible to conflate with information that will allow for misinterpretation or deception.

    As such, numbers allow us to perform DEDUCTIONS that other names, that lack constant relations, scale independence, context dependence, parsimony, immutability, and incorruptibility do not. Because deduction is possible wherever constant relations, parsimony, immutability, and incorruptibility are present.

    As such, numbers serve as as a method of verbal reasoning within and beyond the limits of human imagination (cognition), short term memory, and ordinary reason.

    Numbers then are simply a very clean set of nouns(positional names), verbs (operations and functions), including tests of positional relations (comparison operators) that allow us to describe, reason and discourse about that which is otherwise beyond our ordinary language, and mental capacity.

    As such we distinguish language, reason, and logic from numbers and measurement, and deduction both artificially and practically. Since while they consist of the same processes, the language of numbers, measurements, and deductions is simply more precise than the language of ordinary language, reason, and logic, if for no other reason that it is nearly closed to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, deceit, and the fictionalism of superstition, pseudorationalsm, pseudoscience.

    Unfortunately, since to humans, that which allows them to perform such ‘seeming miracles’ that are otherwise beyond comprehension, must be justified, we invented various fictionalisms – primarily idealisms, or what philosophers refer to as platonisms – (mythologies) to explain our actions. To attribute comprehension to that which we did not comprehend. To provide authority by general rule to that which we could only demonstrate through repeated application. So mathematics maintains much of it’s ‘magical language’ and philosophers persist this magical language under the pseudo-rational label of ‘idealism’ or ‘abstraction’. Which roughly translates to “I don’t understand”.

    Perhaps more unfortunately, in the 19th century, with the addition of statistics and the application of mathematics to the inconstant relations of heuristic systems: particularly probability, fiat money, economics, finance, banking and commercial and tax accounting, this language no longer retains informational parsimony, and deducibility, and has instead evolved into a pseudoscience under which ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit are pervasive.

    Math is a very simple thing. It’s just ordinary language with positional names that allow us to give names and describe transformations to, that which is otherwise beyond our ability to imagine and recall, and therefore describe or reason with.

    Like everything else, if you make up stories of gods, demons, ghosts and monsters, or ‘abstractions’ or ‘ideals’ you can obscure the very simple causality that we seek to discover through science: the systematic attempt to remove error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our language of testimony about the world we perceive, cognate, remember, hypothesize within, act, advocate, negotiate, and cooperate within.

    Numbers are positional names of context independent, scale independent, informationally parsimonious, constant relations and mathematics consists of the grammar of that language.

    In other words, Math is an extension of ordinary language, ordinary reason, and ordinary science: the attempt by which we attempt to obtain information about our world within, above, and below human scale, by the use of rational and physical instrumentation, to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit from our descriptions, and as a consequence our language, and as a consequence our collective knowledge.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 09:43:00 UTC

  • ***I ‘stir the pot’ all the time with provocative statements in order to get peo

    ***I ‘stir the pot’ all the time with provocative statements in order to get people to think. It’s part of my technique. I kind of doubt anyone but the insecure and paranoid assumes I’m serious. -cheers.***

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 08:21:00 UTC

  • WE CAN IMPROVE OUR INDIVIDUAL SENSES AND NOT IMPROVE ACTIONABILITY OR WE CAN IMP

    WE CAN IMPROVE OUR INDIVIDUAL SENSES AND NOT IMPROVE ACTIONABILITY OR WE CAN IMPROVE OUR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION AND IMPROVE ACTIONABILITY

    We process what we can act upon nearly all of the texture, tasted, smell, temperature, physical vibration, sound vibration, electromagnetic ‘vibration’ we can act upon. Like most animals we evolved a distributed ability to ‘sense’ through our physical distribution, communication and territorial monitoring.

    Evolution was ‘smart’ in the sense that we cannot sense information we cannot act upon. There was little value to us in increased precision of any of our senses, because it would interfere with decidability, and decidability is limited to to that which is actionable.

    Conversely, we can augment our senses mechanically and we are able to generalize almost infinitely, and so with sound, smell, vibration, taste, sight, and speed enhancements there is no evidence that we could not process the information. All it would do is reduce our need for numbers to distribute the acts of perception over distance.

    So I’m hinting here at the error of individualism when judging our senses, perceptions, calculations, and decisions. And that ones judgement of our senses is determined by ones preference for social and political order. And ones preference of social and political order, is a reflection of one’s experiential, reproductive, cooperative, strategy.

    So if one is hopeful for liberty in a heterogeneous order one sees the limits of senses being the individual. If one sees homogenous kinship order at scale, one sees the limit of the senses being the band, tribe, polity, or nation.

    If one desires to circumvent an order, or to dominate an order, he may desire additional senses beyond that which he can act upon, and which others can act upon. But if one desires to operate within that order, he desires only to ensure the quality of information within that order.

    Ergo, I would seek to improve the quality of information within that order.

    Now, as to ‘illusion’ we can find very little evidence of this. What we find instead is that because of heterogeneous strategies, heterogeneous interests, heterogeneous values, heterogenous information, and outright disinformation, and lack of ability to deflate this heterogeneity, we IMAGINE that we sense and perceive falsely, and we IMAGINE many relations between events, and this CONFUSION may convince us that see very little. But this problem can be solved either by expanding the quality of the information available to an individual despite its in-actionabilty, or we can expand quality of information available to members of the group for both individual and group actionability.

    Since liberty is only existential when actionable, and actionable only possible in a polity, then the answer is rather obvious…

    So I want to improve the quality of information in an increasing division of perception, cognition, action knowledge, and advocacy;

    And given that we cannot know what is true, only what is false;

    And as far as I know, given the wide variation of cognitive ability,

    Then, this can only be achieved through providing in environmental context (Institution, tradition, norm, environment and information) that which prohibits DISINFORMATION.

    Ergo. Natural law in all things.

    If one has the power to change the narrative (contextual information) and and the metaphysics(assumptions) within it, and the general rules within it, one can choose the degree of truthfulness (deflation) existential in the method of narrative.

    The only question then is whether one possesses the knowledge to do so, and is willing to pay the higher cost of imposing truthful and deflationary rather than untruthful and conflationary models.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 07:42:00 UTC

  • Defense against the gravity of ignorance: our desire for reduction by a process

    Defense against the gravity of ignorance: our desire for reduction by a process of conflation and substitution.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-26 09:08:00 UTC

  • If you govern morally (by intuition of good), you are not governing empirically

    If you govern morally (by intuition of good), you are not governing empirically (with knowledge of the good). Unless you govern empirically, you will eventually govern immorally.

    sorry for the confusion

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-22 08:13:00 UTC