Apr 10, 2017 9:50am (very advanced stuff) —“The former are concerned with impossibility, whilst the latter are concerned with impermissibility”— 1) Are they possible? In other words, are you creating a point of demarcation (the error of sets and digital/binary thinking) rather than continuous/analog causes and effect? (yes) 2) physical reality provides decidability (possibility), but does not human behavior provide decidability (possibility), with the distinction that humans can ‘recall’ as well as ‘forecast’ and therefore we can take on debts and make investments in cooperation. But can we in fact, state that humans will tolerate free riding, parasitism, predation and genocide? and if so where is some evidence of that? (there isn’t any, because it isn’t possible, it’s just SLOWer than physical phenomenon because of the ‘capacitance’ and ‘resistance’ provided by our ability to remember and forecast.) ( Tip: you’ve studied enough philosophy to fall into the trap of 20th century thought inherited from mathematics: set theory, and non contradiction. This is rationalism and includes only a subset of information about reality. Once you include the additional – missing – dimensions of reality you will no longer be able to make use of ‘the error of rationalism’: sets. … which is a very long discussion outside of the context of this topic.) —“Could you unpack this a bit? My statement is directed more towards the limits of empiricism, so I am unclear as to what you mean by unlimited and insufficient.”— 3 – The positivism/empiricism debate, especially those who were unfortunately poisoned by first Kantian, and second Jewish (so called austrian, but not austrian) thought, as well as all cosmopolitan thought (freud, marx, boaz, cantor, frankfurt) is, like all late 19th and 20th century philosophy, a failed program. So, to deflate this set of fallacies, let’s start over with the dimensions of reality: a) identity (categorical consistency) ie: point b) logic (internal consistency) ie: line c) empiricism (external consistency / external correspondence) ie: space d) operationalism (existential consistency ) ie: time (change) f) morality (reciprocal consistency / reciprocity ) ie: cooperation (volition) g) limits (full-accounting, limits, and parsimony) ie: consequence. And to speak of reality we can also use terms that correspond to those dimensions, and thereby avoid errors of the past. a) Operational Definitions, therefore deflating experience, intention, assumption, and analogy. (identity, point) b) Operational Definitions in a series, therefore deflating the natural conflation of ideal types, by describing any concept on a scale – usually a scale of quantity (or population) on one axis, and time on the other axis. (identity, logic, line) c) Supply Demand Curves (competition) (identity, logic, line, space) d) Multiple Supply Demand Curves (equilibria) (identity, logic, line, space, time ) e) Models consisting of all discernably causal equilibrating forces (identity, logic, line, space, competition) SUMMARY So like we cannot predict the location of a molecule of gas released in a vacuum, and we cannot predict subatomic phenomenon, because we cannot measure the states without affecting them; and like we cannot measure certain economic phenomenon at the individual level for the same reason, (we simply lack the information on the one hand, and attempting to obtain it would change the state), and just as we cannot determine the future competition between civilizations, that does not meant that there are not universal and necessary rules to these phenomenon whehther conditionaly invariant (physical), heuristically variant (interpersonal), or exogenously invariant (civilizational). The reason being that there are limits to human perception, cognition, retention, forecast, trust, ethics/morality, and action. Man is his own measure.
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Points of Demarcation – Analog and Sets.
Apr 10, 2017 9:50am (very advanced stuff) —“The former are concerned with impossibility, whilst the latter are concerned with impermissibility”— 1) Are they possible? In other words, are you creating a point of demarcation (the error of sets and digital/binary thinking) rather than continuous/analog causes and effect? (yes) 2) physical reality provides decidability (possibility), but does not human behavior provide decidability (possibility), with the distinction that humans can ‘recall’ as well as ‘forecast’ and therefore we can take on debts and make investments in cooperation. But can we in fact, state that humans will tolerate free riding, parasitism, predation and genocide? and if so where is some evidence of that? (there isn’t any, because it isn’t possible, it’s just SLOWer than physical phenomenon because of the ‘capacitance’ and ‘resistance’ provided by our ability to remember and forecast.) ( Tip: you’ve studied enough philosophy to fall into the trap of 20th century thought inherited from mathematics: set theory, and non contradiction. This is rationalism and includes only a subset of information about reality. Once you include the additional – missing – dimensions of reality you will no longer be able to make use of ‘the error of rationalism’: sets. … which is a very long discussion outside of the context of this topic.) —“Could you unpack this a bit? My statement is directed more towards the limits of empiricism, so I am unclear as to what you mean by unlimited and insufficient.”— 3 – The positivism/empiricism debate, especially those who were unfortunately poisoned by first Kantian, and second Jewish (so called austrian, but not austrian) thought, as well as all cosmopolitan thought (freud, marx, boaz, cantor, frankfurt) is, like all late 19th and 20th century philosophy, a failed program. So, to deflate this set of fallacies, let’s start over with the dimensions of reality: a) identity (categorical consistency) ie: point b) logic (internal consistency) ie: line c) empiricism (external consistency / external correspondence) ie: space d) operationalism (existential consistency ) ie: time (change) f) morality (reciprocal consistency / reciprocity ) ie: cooperation (volition) g) limits (full-accounting, limits, and parsimony) ie: consequence. And to speak of reality we can also use terms that correspond to those dimensions, and thereby avoid errors of the past. a) Operational Definitions, therefore deflating experience, intention, assumption, and analogy. (identity, point) b) Operational Definitions in a series, therefore deflating the natural conflation of ideal types, by describing any concept on a scale – usually a scale of quantity (or population) on one axis, and time on the other axis. (identity, logic, line) c) Supply Demand Curves (competition) (identity, logic, line, space) d) Multiple Supply Demand Curves (equilibria) (identity, logic, line, space, time ) e) Models consisting of all discernably causal equilibrating forces (identity, logic, line, space, competition) SUMMARY So like we cannot predict the location of a molecule of gas released in a vacuum, and we cannot predict subatomic phenomenon, because we cannot measure the states without affecting them; and like we cannot measure certain economic phenomenon at the individual level for the same reason, (we simply lack the information on the one hand, and attempting to obtain it would change the state), and just as we cannot determine the future competition between civilizations, that does not meant that there are not universal and necessary rules to these phenomenon whehther conditionaly invariant (physical), heuristically variant (interpersonal), or exogenously invariant (civilizational). The reason being that there are limits to human perception, cognition, retention, forecast, trust, ethics/morality, and action. Man is his own measure.
-
MEANS, ENDS ARE YOUR CHOICE —“As I understand it Curt focuses on building a gr
MEANS, ENDS ARE YOUR CHOICE
—“As I understand it Curt focuses on building a grammar from the ground up, as it were. Operational grammar staves off assumptions about the ends and emphasises inquiry into the means.”— Nicholas Arthur Catton
(I’m glad smart people follow me ’cause I can’t say some of this stuff as smartly as they do. 😉 )
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-10 12:11:00 UTC
-
Q&A: “CURT, WHY DONT YOU USE THE TERM REDUCTION?” —“I am surprised I haven’t h
Q&A: “CURT, WHY DONT YOU USE THE TERM REDUCTION?”
—“I am surprised I haven’t heard you mention or talk about reduction in any of your work. Because when I think of Propertarianism ( and I use this to refer to all of your work) I see how you have reduced complex ideas into smaller statements and/or terms(definitions). So I suppose what I think I’m asking is, has reduction played a specific part in your work and if so would it be beneficial for others to understand the process of complexity and reduction?Thanks,”— A Friend
Um. I use the terms “Deconflation, Deflationary, Deflate, Parsimony, Parsimonious, and Analytic, and Operational” and I should but don’t use Reduction or Reductonism primarily because (a) I’m not sure what people hear, and (b) i like to emphasize the problem of deconflation rather than simplifications.
In other words, it is one thing to reduce things and another to describe how one reduces things. I reduce things largely by a process of deconflation. I achieve that deconflation through the use of a series of techniques:
(a) Operational grammar thereby deflating POV.
(b) Operational descriptions thereby deflating loading framing, etc
(c) Descriptions in Series,(Spectrums, lists, grids, truth tables) thereby deflating the use of terms to describe multiple states.
(d) Equilibrial forces between series.
(e) The evolutionary result of competition between sets of equilibrial forces.
Deconflation and Deflation are in fact, methods of Reductionism. And Reductionism, now that you made me think of it, at least ‘sounds like’ a good term of common understanding for marketing the value of Propertarianism. And I will test it a bit and see if I can make that point now and then. So thank you for the suggestion.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-10 08:36:00 UTC
-
EPISTEMOLOGY AND HUMAN REASON –“the question for me is what role does epistemol
EPISTEMOLOGY AND HUMAN REASON
–“the question for me is what role does epistemology play in the desire for cooperation over reason?”—-
To frame this question a bit better:
Epistemology refers to that discipline in which we attempt to understand the means by which we eliminate ignorance, error, bias and deceit, and therefore produce what we call knowledge: that which improves our agency (ability to act).
There is however only one method of obtaining knowledge:
0) investigation (observation)
1) experience (perception)
2) free association (identity)
3) wayfinding (hypothesis) (or possibility)
4) criticism (theory)
5) survival in the market for its use (law)
6) integration (adoption into ‘metaphysical’ assumptions)
It doesn’t matter whether we are talking about a scientific theory, an engineering problem, a method of production, taking a product to market, the affect of policy on capital at different points in time, or the exploration of various mathematical relations at increasingly complex causal densities.
Most of our work has been in epistemology has been in the identification of methods of criticism (measurement) both instrumental(tools) and mental (logical). Most of my work has been in formalizing this process by completing the program that the philosophers of science in the 20th century failed to.
Humans don’t practice epistemology. Humans simply do the only thing possible: stumble upon an idea through free association, and then incrementally remove their ignorance until it fails, or … is at least sufficient to obtain what it is that they seek.
Now to answer this question … –“the question for me is what role does epistemology play in the desire for cooperation over reason?”—-
I am not sure what you are asking. My understanding is that people act rationally with the information available given their agency (abilities), the demand, risk and reward before them. GIven that it is very hard to circumvent punishment by other humans for free riding, parasitism, predation, and extermination – and given the extraordinary returns on cooperation at least over time, what we see is that unless there is a windfall available (you gain enough that no future cooperation can do better than the act of immorality) people tend to favor cooperation in almost all circumstances. This does not apply for people who have been subject to trauma , the victims of genetic defect, developmental disorders, or brain damage. And this looks like ‘the evil 3%’ of the ‘white’ population. But as a general rule, excepting outliers, then yes.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-09 17:59:00 UTC
-
THE FUNCTIONS OF A PHILOSOPHER SCIENCE (Existence) (Sources of facts, theories,
THE FUNCTIONS OF A PHILOSOPHER
SCIENCE (Existence) (Sources of facts, theories, and laws)
Science(investigation) = Beginning with man, his senses, perceptions, reasoning, memory, and physical abilities as the first unit of measure, the search for greater precision in measurement, understanding and therefore greater agency by the incremental removal of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, using increasingly precise instrumentation both physical and logical that permits increasingly precise measurement both physical, logical, and experiential, at sub human, human, and superhuman scales, across increasingly small, increasingly vast, and increasingly numerous phenomenon.
PHILOSOPHY (Existential Goods) (Sources of Knowledge)
Philosophy(synthesis) (truthful/existential) = given new information, the search for decidability within a context under the assumption of some set of goals or preferences, given new knowledge and information, by reorganizing the objects, relations, and values to correspond with the findings
TRUTH (Judgement)
Truth (parsimony)(decidability) = the search for decidability, given all available knowledge, across all contexts, regardless of the assumptions of goals or preferences.
HOPE (Psychological goods) (Sources of Ignorance)(values-by-chanting)
Ideal Philosophy(imaginary/hypothetical): the search for attributions of value despite the truth, philosophy, and science, so that we may rally our efforts in spite of them – – or escape reality by placing hope in the unachievable that we cannot perceive and sense.
DECEPTION (psychological goods) (Sources of Ignorance) (religion, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, propaganda)
Fictional Philosophy (deceptive): the search for false authority that will coerce individuals to value that which is contrary to their value judgements, despite truth, philosophy, science, and ideals, so that we may rally our efforts in spite of them – or escape reality by placing hope in the unachievable that we cannot perceive and sense.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-09 16:23:00 UTC
-
SOURCES OF IGNORANCE I talk of Agency of late in no small part because like Popp
SOURCES OF IGNORANCE
I talk of Agency of late in no small part because like Popper, I grasp that there are not only sources of knowledge, but sources of IGNORANCE.
Sources of Ignorance = Barriers to Agency.
The most obvious of which we face today are:
(a) The failure of the 20th century thinkers to solve the problem of scale via operationalism, and the continued dependence upon idealism and fictionalism. This includes both anglo empirical and german rational schools.
(b) the Jewish Pseudosciences and the French Pseudo-rationalisms, of the Second Great Lie (Marx/Boaz/Freud) and;
(c) the Muslim fictionalism, Muslim heaping of undue praise upon Muhammed, Muslim doctrine of finality of Muhammed’s statements, and Muslim grant of respect prior to its being earned – meaning, the preservation of ignorance in the commons.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-09 13:20:00 UTC
-
THE BASICS OF THOUGHT AT POST-HUMAN SCALE Ideal types, and idealism (which I cri
THE BASICS OF THOUGHT AT POST-HUMAN SCALE
Ideal types, and idealism (which I criticize almost as frequently as fictionalism), are products of the problems at human scale: antiquity and pre-modernity.
We can see the enlightenment as an attempt to successfully transition from measurements at human scale, within the realm of human perception, to the measurements beyond human scale, and therefore beyond our perception.
It is not surprising that our conventional (normative) thinking and language lag our instruments of measurement both physical (mechanical) and mental (conceptual). Darwin is quite old technology by now but much of the world does not understand that evolution is directionless except in favor of complexity for both the exploitation of niches and the retention of prior techniques (genes) so that they can re-emerge if needed.
So this is why I insist on operational definitions on a spectrum so that people cannot fall into the trap of comparing concepts that rely on different production cycles (durations) involving different numbers of people (complexity and scale).
Unfortunately Hayekian Triangles are a bit much for ordinary man to cope with, and IS/LM(Keynesian) and classical supply and demand curves only a bit less so.
But we can start with the simple illustration that no concept in isolation informs us to its limits. Ergo, the golden rule is useless without the silver rule.
This principle of ,via-positiva vs via-negative (western progressive version of the eastern static idea of ying vs yang) provides us with convergence: that which survives both meaning (possibility) and criticism (limits). Without limits, we cannot test our meaning.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-09 13:13:00 UTC
-
DEFINITIONS, OPERATIONAL, IN SERIES, AND IN EQUILIBRIUM Definitions are very pow
DEFINITIONS, OPERATIONAL, IN SERIES, AND IN EQUILIBRIUM
Definitions are very powerful, operational definitions much more so, and operational definitions in series are even more so, and the comparison of series in equilibrium even more so.
With definitions in series alone, comprehension increases dramatically. It is equivalent to the difference between the descriptive power of arithmetic and the descriptive power of geometry.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-09 10:43:00 UTC
-
If you can’t say it in your own words, don’t waste my time, or our time, by post
If you can’t say it in your own words, don’t waste my time, or our time, by posting it – ’cause we have no idea whether you understand what you’re doing or not.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-08 15:48:00 UTC