Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • IMPORTANT- ON TERMS In 2009 when I both sensed that I’d come up with a solution

    IMPORTANT- ON TERMS

    In 2009 when I both sensed that I’d come up with a solution to government, but needed to improve my understanding, the first thing I did was write a glossary.

    I combed every glossary of terms from economics, politics, social science, and philosophy, and substantially refined many of them, so that I could be sure I was speaking from definitions not assumptoins of meaning.

    My glossary alone is something like 80k words. And while I probably could cut some of it, I can also expand it substantially with the terminology that I use today.

    It reminds me of reading encyclopedias. It’s not so much that I remember everything in the encyclopedia (although honestly, I largely do) but it’s that the act of reading all those different topics forces you mind to form a series of associations, and counter associations, such that … like the use of Series i use in propertarianism, or like ‘fields’ in mathematics, or like any ‘one of these things is not like the others’ games. It is very hard for falsehoods to survive without at least questioning them.

    Most people, when they engage in any discourse on cooperation: ethics, morals, politics, economics, group strategy, do so from a position of ignorance of the terms they use, and their use is terribly conflationary. This means that they generally are making a very simple statement with pretentious words that they don’t understand.

    Our ‘grammar’ (our proofs) make that very hard to get away with.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-23 13:11:00 UTC

  • EVOLUTION (working with deflationary truth now expressly, as the result of opera

    EVOLUTION

    (working with deflationary truth now expressly, as the result of operationalism and criticism/falsification)

    Free association / imaginable

    …. Reason / Reasonableness (conceivable)

    …. …. Deducible / Possibility (proof)

    …. …. …. Rational Philosophy / Rational Truth (Logic.)

    …. …. …. …. Analytic Philosophy / Analytic Truth (Emp.)

    …. …. …. …. …. Deflationary Philosophy / Deflationary Truth (Op.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-21 17:10:00 UTC

  • I Am Not A Populist. Truth and Preference are Independent from one another

    I AM NOT A POPULIST
     
    I don’t place any weight in ‘popular’ anything. I am not a supporter of democracy whatsoever, unless we mean empirical (economic) democracy. Opinion without warranty (skin in the game) is just self reporting of virtue signals, not demonstrated preference – which always differs substantially.
     
    I only care if statements are TRUE and open to juridical prosecution and defense, so that the false and parasitic can be suppressed.
     
    This DIFFERENCE is what separates :
    1) Prophets, Priests, Literature, Intellectuals, Academics, Politicians, and well intentioned fools (social ambitions) (***reported preference***) (GOSSIP)
    from:
    2) Financiers, Investors, Entrepreneurs, (commercial ambitions – demonstrated preference)(REMUNERATION)
    from:
    3) Physical scientists, generals, and jurists,. (truth ambitions – decidability) in matters of dispute. (FORCE)
     
    If you want a priest go find one. If you want opportunities go find them I’m a not a priest. I don’t care what you want. you can have whatever you can obtain morally – by reciprocity that does not cause me and mine to bear the cost of deciding a conflict, performing restitution, punishment, removal, or murder.
     
    I have a difficult job. Engineering. prophets and intellectuals have an easier job: bullshitting, coercing, lying.
     
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Cult of Non-Submission
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.
     
    Comment by Bill Joslin
    —“Commonwealth democracy has a very different foundation than American Democracy.
     
    Commonwealth democracy extends from the idea that people can have a say in WHO RULES THEM. It has nothing to do with the government actualizing the will of the people.
     
    American democracy conflates common people’s say in who rules them with rulership itself. It was a damaging lie constructed to conceal from the polis THAT THEY ARE RULED.
     
    All the conflations of libertarians, anacaps and protestor’s demands upon the state extend from this lie.
     
    Democratic choice in deciding who rules you was a means to prevent revolution and rebellion – no different than law – a mechanism to prevent the regression back into violence as a means of decidability -prevention of retaliation.”—

  • I Am Not A Populist. Truth and Preference are Independent from one another

    I AM NOT A POPULIST
     
    I don’t place any weight in ‘popular’ anything. I am not a supporter of democracy whatsoever, unless we mean empirical (economic) democracy. Opinion without warranty (skin in the game) is just self reporting of virtue signals, not demonstrated preference – which always differs substantially.
     
    I only care if statements are TRUE and open to juridical prosecution and defense, so that the false and parasitic can be suppressed.
     
    This DIFFERENCE is what separates :
    1) Prophets, Priests, Literature, Intellectuals, Academics, Politicians, and well intentioned fools (social ambitions) (***reported preference***) (GOSSIP)
    from:
    2) Financiers, Investors, Entrepreneurs, (commercial ambitions – demonstrated preference)(REMUNERATION)
    from:
    3) Physical scientists, generals, and jurists,. (truth ambitions – decidability) in matters of dispute. (FORCE)
     
    If you want a priest go find one. If you want opportunities go find them I’m a not a priest. I don’t care what you want. you can have whatever you can obtain morally – by reciprocity that does not cause me and mine to bear the cost of deciding a conflict, performing restitution, punishment, removal, or murder.
     
    I have a difficult job. Engineering. prophets and intellectuals have an easier job: bullshitting, coercing, lying.
     
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Cult of Non-Submission
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.
     
    Comment by Bill Joslin
    —“Commonwealth democracy has a very different foundation than American Democracy.
     
    Commonwealth democracy extends from the idea that people can have a say in WHO RULES THEM. It has nothing to do with the government actualizing the will of the people.
     
    American democracy conflates common people’s say in who rules them with rulership itself. It was a damaging lie constructed to conceal from the polis THAT THEY ARE RULED.
     
    All the conflations of libertarians, anacaps and protestor’s demands upon the state extend from this lie.
     
    Democratic choice in deciding who rules you was a means to prevent revolution and rebellion – no different than law – a mechanism to prevent the regression back into violence as a means of decidability -prevention of retaliation.”—

  • Dear Miseducated World: Logic is at Least Ternary – not Binary

    DEAR MISEDUCATED WORLD: Logic is at least ternary, not binary. (Meaning three states, not two) …………… FALSE…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE FALSE…..FALSE…….FALSE……UNDECIDABLE TRUE……FALES…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE UNDEC…FALSE…….UNDEC…..UNDECIDABLE MATHEMATICS In mathematics, which for millennia was unfortunately the gold standard of logic, we use the word true when we mean either “balanced” (retaining constant relations), or we mean “proven” (possible to demonstrate), because in mathematics we create proofs of possibility rather than statements of truth. We may claim that we speak truthfully that we have constructed a proof. But mathematics consists of operations, deductions, inferences and guesswork, by which we identify means of demonstrating the possibility and necessity of a series of constant relations (ratios). COMPUTER SCIENCE In the gold standard of reasoning: computer science – when we refer to values, we call this same sequence true, false, and null (unknown). So in computer science, we either possess sufficient information to state something is provable (true or false), or unprovable (false), or undecidable (lacking the information). FORMAL LOGIC I’ll avoid deep discussion of  formal logic (sets) because in my view, like all game theory, beyond use in very simple human perceivable scales, it’s been a waste of a century. I mean. I can dismantle the liars paradox in five minutes or less. it was a wasted century. PHYSICAL SCIENCE In sciences we use the terms False, Possibly True (an hypothesis, theory, or law), and Undecidable. Between the choice of true and false, it is false that we know with certainty. Truth always remains uncertain in all but the most simple of questions. EPISTEMOLOGY In epistemology we say something is knowingly false, possibly true, and undecidable, or unknown. In epistemology, just as in science, we must determine if an argument survives attempts to falsify it. If it is true, then we can decide if it is possible. I it is possible then we can decide if it is preferable. If it is preferable without causing harm to others, then we have determined that it is good. MORALITY, PHILOSOPHY, AND THEOLOGY In morality, philosophy, theology, we say (lie) that if we can find an excuse for something (a justification) it is true, or moral, or good. When that only means that according to the established norms, scriptures, and laws. in other words, one is free of blame if he can justify his actions as permissible, moral or good. In morality philosophy and theology, we attempt to survive justification. LAW When we encounter LAW we use the jury, and debate between two parties, and moderated by a judge, to test both whether we are justified under law, and whether our testimony and our arguments are believable. In law we attempt to survive the battle between three forces: the law as written, the standards of rational behavior of the jury, the logical testing of your statements by the judge, and the subjective testing of your truthfulness by the jury. And in case you don’t know this, most cases are decided by the test of truthfulness, which is why american courts are so useful for commerce. The first sin of american law is failure of informational reciprocity. Failure and error are forgivable. Violation of reciprocity is not. HIERARCHY OF CERTAINTY … FALSE, that which does not survive tests of falsification. … … TRUE, that which survives all tests of falsification … … … PROVEN, that which survives tests of possibility. … … … … UNDECIDABLE that which cannot be decided. THE TRUTH TABLE OF CERTAINTY F:False, T:True, P:Provable, U:Undecidable …..F…..T…..P…..U F…F…..F…..F…..U T…F….*T*…P…..U P…F…..P…..P…..U U..F…..U….U…..U

  • Dear Miseducated World: Logic is at Least Ternary – not Binary

    DEAR MISEDUCATED WORLD: Logic is at least ternary, not binary. (Meaning three states, not two) …………… FALSE…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE FALSE…..FALSE…….FALSE……UNDECIDABLE TRUE……FALES…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE UNDEC…FALSE…….UNDEC…..UNDECIDABLE MATHEMATICS In mathematics, which for millennia was unfortunately the gold standard of logic, we use the word true when we mean either “balanced” (retaining constant relations), or we mean “proven” (possible to demonstrate), because in mathematics we create proofs of possibility rather than statements of truth. We may claim that we speak truthfully that we have constructed a proof. But mathematics consists of operations, deductions, inferences and guesswork, by which we identify means of demonstrating the possibility and necessity of a series of constant relations (ratios). COMPUTER SCIENCE In the gold standard of reasoning: computer science – when we refer to values, we call this same sequence true, false, and null (unknown). So in computer science, we either possess sufficient information to state something is provable (true or false), or unprovable (false), or undecidable (lacking the information). FORMAL LOGIC I’ll avoid deep discussion of  formal logic (sets) because in my view, like all game theory, beyond use in very simple human perceivable scales, it’s been a waste of a century. I mean. I can dismantle the liars paradox in five minutes or less. it was a wasted century. PHYSICAL SCIENCE In sciences we use the terms False, Possibly True (an hypothesis, theory, or law), and Undecidable. Between the choice of true and false, it is false that we know with certainty. Truth always remains uncertain in all but the most simple of questions. EPISTEMOLOGY In epistemology we say something is knowingly false, possibly true, and undecidable, or unknown. In epistemology, just as in science, we must determine if an argument survives attempts to falsify it. If it is true, then we can decide if it is possible. I it is possible then we can decide if it is preferable. If it is preferable without causing harm to others, then we have determined that it is good. MORALITY, PHILOSOPHY, AND THEOLOGY In morality, philosophy, theology, we say (lie) that if we can find an excuse for something (a justification) it is true, or moral, or good. When that only means that according to the established norms, scriptures, and laws. in other words, one is free of blame if he can justify his actions as permissible, moral or good. In morality philosophy and theology, we attempt to survive justification. LAW When we encounter LAW we use the jury, and debate between two parties, and moderated by a judge, to test both whether we are justified under law, and whether our testimony and our arguments are believable. In law we attempt to survive the battle between three forces: the law as written, the standards of rational behavior of the jury, the logical testing of your statements by the judge, and the subjective testing of your truthfulness by the jury. And in case you don’t know this, most cases are decided by the test of truthfulness, which is why american courts are so useful for commerce. The first sin of american law is failure of informational reciprocity. Failure and error are forgivable. Violation of reciprocity is not. HIERARCHY OF CERTAINTY … FALSE, that which does not survive tests of falsification. … … TRUE, that which survives all tests of falsification … … … PROVEN, that which survives tests of possibility. … … … … UNDECIDABLE that which cannot be decided. THE TRUTH TABLE OF CERTAINTY F:False, T:True, P:Provable, U:Undecidable …..F…..T…..P…..U F…F…..F…..F…..U T…F….*T*…P…..U P…F…..P…..P…..U U..F…..U….U…..U

  • Look, truthful speech is expensive, which is why humans practice it so rarely an

    Look, truthful speech is expensive, which is why humans practice it so rarely and westerners alone were able to discover deflationary truth.

    For a man, truthfulness is cost, but that cost comes as a form of self sacrifice to the pack, warriors, tribe, army, and nation – a means of paying for his share of the opportunity, just as his actions pay for a share of the kill.

    For a woman it is a risk to speak the truth – no so much because of men, but because of what other women will do to her, and her greater dependence upon those women than upon the men, who most often treat her (in her opinion) as property, utility, or livestock.

    I think all of us struggle for agency, and truth and discipline are the means by which we obtain it. But agency is of different value to different group evolutoinary strategies.

    While i am certain that different classes possess different agency, I am just as certain that the jews my people complain about possess no more agency than the women they complain about, and for exactly the same reason: evolutionary biology.

    I wonder how much agency east and southeast asians have despite their accomplishments. I mean, is it as simple as theh require the high context civilization to functoin, just as we funciton best in the low context civilization? Have our brains evolved likewise?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 18:17:00 UTC

  • The Definition and Use of ‘-ISMs’

    IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM” What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”? ism ˈizəm/ noun informal

    “a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain of preferences: typically a political ideology, philosophy, institutional framework, economic model, or an artistic movement. isms separate the categories that are defined by the constant relations of the physical world from the inconstant categories of the preferential world that we call the sciences. A science does not account for preferences in inputs or outputs, but an ‘ism, as a means of decidability between preferences must.” So one must know the ism’s to debate them. To know the isms requires one know the categories, values, methods of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. So in systems of preferences, ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species. When referring to ‘isms’ we can use other ‘isms’ to reinterpret them – using a different set of categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. if we are confused by one another’s arguments we can clarify our arguments by increasing the precision of our arguments, by referring directly to categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. When one criticizes the use of ism’s one is criticizing a taxonomic reference to a set of particulars: categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability, one does little more than (a) demonstrate one’s ignorance of the topic, (b) demonstrate one’s arrogance from a position of ignorance, (c) attempt to steal from others by demanding that they pay the cost of educating you, or tolerate the existence of your theft, and the consequences it might have if your attempted theft is interpreted by others as an inability to construct a counter argument. In other words, arguments from ignorance are a form of blackmail. And those who conduct blackmail are those we wish to punish for their crimes. The ethical, moral, and non-criminal means of requesting information is this: “I don’t understand, would you mind answering this question: what do you mean when you say….” To which the other will respond either with reciprocal ethical and moral and non-criminal means, by saying “Ok.(attempted clarification)”, or some variation on “I can’t afford to make that investment now, but here is where you may look do it yourself”, or “I just don’t have the time or inclination to invest in that question at the moment”. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Definition and Use of ‘-ISMs’

    IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM” What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”? ism ˈizəm/ noun informal

    “a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain of preferences: typically a political ideology, philosophy, institutional framework, economic model, or an artistic movement. isms separate the categories that are defined by the constant relations of the physical world from the inconstant categories of the preferential world that we call the sciences. A science does not account for preferences in inputs or outputs, but an ‘ism, as a means of decidability between preferences must.” So one must know the ism’s to debate them. To know the isms requires one know the categories, values, methods of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. So in systems of preferences, ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species. When referring to ‘isms’ we can use other ‘isms’ to reinterpret them – using a different set of categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. if we are confused by one another’s arguments we can clarify our arguments by increasing the precision of our arguments, by referring directly to categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. When one criticizes the use of ism’s one is criticizing a taxonomic reference to a set of particulars: categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability, one does little more than (a) demonstrate one’s ignorance of the topic, (b) demonstrate one’s arrogance from a position of ignorance, (c) attempt to steal from others by demanding that they pay the cost of educating you, or tolerate the existence of your theft, and the consequences it might have if your attempted theft is interpreted by others as an inability to construct a counter argument. In other words, arguments from ignorance are a form of blackmail. And those who conduct blackmail are those we wish to punish for their crimes. The ethical, moral, and non-criminal means of requesting information is this: “I don’t understand, would you mind answering this question: what do you mean when you say….” To which the other will respond either with reciprocal ethical and moral and non-criminal means, by saying “Ok.(attempted clarification)”, or some variation on “I can’t afford to make that investment now, but here is where you may look do it yourself”, or “I just don’t have the time or inclination to invest in that question at the moment”. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • WHAT DO WE MEAN BY ‘TRUTHFUL KNOWLEDGE’ In Propertarianism (Natural Law) have a

    WHAT DO WE MEAN BY ‘TRUTHFUL KNOWLEDGE’

    In Propertarianism (Natural Law) have a very precise definition of ‘truthful knowledge’ that isn’t open to interpretation. We don’t use the word ‘true’ knowledge, and we don’t even use the word ‘true’ very often, except to say ‘that’s not true, or that can’t be true”, and tend use the world ‘truthful’ or ‘truth candidate’ instead.

    I suppose for greater clarity for newcomers would could say that by “Truthful Knowledge” we are referring to the most parsimonious and consistently correspondent statement possible, that is as free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit, as the scope of human language and human knowledge currently tolerates.

    And I could criticize myself for using that Truthful Knowledge which to the inexperienced, immediately invokes via-positiva justificationism, when I mean via negativa ‘a surviving truth candidate’.

    So when we say we are making a Truthful Statement, it is one that has SURVIVED the test of Testimonial Epistemology:

    The Operational Sequence of Universal, Testimonial, Epistemology:

    experience ->

    … free association ->

    … … idea ->

    … … … ‘wayfinding’ ->

    … … … … hypothesis ->

    … … … … … critical testing (falsification) ->

    … … … … … … theory ->

    … … … … … … … publication (market testing) ->

    … … … … … … … … Law ->

    … … … … … … … … … metaphysical assumption(acculturation).

    In that phase of Critical Testing we attempt to construct an operational description of a sequence of subjectively testable operations, (which is a very densely loaded set of terms), that adhere to a very strict grammar.

    This form of ‘strict construction’ exposes (quite readily) whether we know what we are talking about or not. And shows us where we need to add clarity before we can make a truthful statement.

    Then we use a checklist to ensure that we can WARRANTY to others that we have done due diligence, in ensuring that we do not engage in the many problems of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, and deceit.

    This list includes a set of consistency checks. They are:

    – Categorical Consistency: identity consistency

    – Logical Consistency: internal consistency

    – Empirical Consistency: external correspondence

    – Existential consistency: operational language and subjective testability

    – Moral consistency: Reciprocity (which we have a very strict definition of as well: consisting only of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited to productive externalities)

    – Scope Consistency: (this one is hard) but it means have we

    …. (a) fully accounted for call costs?

    …. (b) defined the limits – at what points does this statement no longer apply?

    …. (c) tested the parsimony – (this one is very hard) have we overstated our case, and can this be stated more precisely?

    Because humans ourselves serve as a STANDARD OF MEASURE in relation to other humans due to limited differences in subjective testability; and because of the difficulty in making a series of operational statements, while at the same time surviving the checklist of six dimensions of actionable reality, it is almost impossible to be held accountable by others for speaking a falsehood.

    This is what we mean by ‘Truthful Speech’. Your warranty that you have done due diligence that your speech will do no harm.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Non Submission

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Natural Law of Sovereign Men

    The Aesthetics of Agency

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 17:57:00 UTC