Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • All of the world’s canons include wisdom, and within that wisdom are statements

    All of the world’s canons include wisdom, and within that wisdom are statements that are useful and will achieve proposed ends – at least loosely.

    But few of the worlds statements of wisdom are stated in deflationary truth, and the vast majority are stated with conflationary falsehoods.

    There are some words of wisdom that are stated truthfully, but not all statements of wisdom are stated either truthfully, nor are they true, and some are harmful, and some are outright lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 10:28:00 UTC

  • Wisdom differs from truth in that wisdom achieves by analogy and conflation, tha

    Wisdom differs from truth in that wisdom achieves by analogy and conflation, that which truth achieves by operational description and deflation. It is the difference between storytelling and engineering. Between parable and science.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 10:16:00 UTC

  • “So, is the “bottom line” of “Propertarianism” a distinction between “decidabili

    —“So, is the “bottom line” of “Propertarianism” a distinction between “decidability” and “meaning”? Is that the departure point?

    Can the antimony and dichotomy of “decidability” and “meaning” be understood as the relation(ship) between Being and non-Being?

    Your philosophy is ultimately grounded in Aristotle, is that accurate?

    “–Francisco Antonio

    Yes, in order to produce an amoral, scientific language of cooperation, all statements are reduced to the transfer of assets. In this way we advocate truth and transparency and voluntary exchange: reciprocity (the balance of both sides) just as we describe a balance sheet, or just as an equation is balanced.

    SERIES

    0) Identity (Correspondence / non-correspondence)

    1) Counting (correspondence balance, including identities),

    2) Mathematical balancing, (including ratios)

    3) Accounting balancing, (including market goods with prices)

    4) Property in toto balancing. (including common goods without)

    In my view I dont’ take philosophers very seriously. And I tend only to read sciences. The science I understand is the common law of sovereign men. but the common law is parsimonious. it tells us only how to decide. it does not provide us with what we desire in a PHILOSOPHY: what is GOOD. it tells us only what is bad, so that we may all select philosophical goods from a market for philosophical goods. But as I have articulated this law to require truthfulness, reciprocity, and beauty, in the provision of ‘shoulds’, this means philosophy is then the study of preferences WITHIN the limits of Natural Law. And this presents a problem for the pseudoscientists and pseudorationalist, but not for the essayist, the novelist, or necessarily the mythicist.

    So when you say, grounded in Aristotle, I would say that greek philosophy was an attempt to improve upon then current current law. and I see Aristotle as the non-conflationist – the proto-empiricist. that applied the law to matters commonly outside the law. This is how bacon also applies the law in the evolution of empiricism. and it is how I apply the law (via Hayek) in the evolution of testimonialism – which I think is the ‘complete’ version of the empirical or scientific tradition.

    My self I see my work as grounded in popper, Kuhn, and Hayek. Philosophers of science and of law.

    If we are to label Aristotle as the first “Deflationist” in the sense of “Deflationary Truth”, then that would make me an aristotelian.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 02:15:00 UTC

  • The reason you can learn so much once you understand the basics of Propertariani

    The reason you can learn so much once you understand the basics of Propertarianism (which is really, The Natural Law of Cooperation)is that you have a universal and consistent MODEL and LANGUAGE for the analysis of human history, the comprehension of current events, and framework for future decisions.

    Even saying that doesn’t quite get it across. Because Natural Law is to society what the physical laws are to the physical sciences.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 22:08:00 UTC

  • (Edward Hall) 1976 implicit syntax –> high-context –> low-truth = low trust (C

    (Edward Hall) 1976

    implicit syntax –> high-context –> low-truth = low trust

    (Curt Doolittle) 2014

    explicit syntax –> low context –> high truth = high trust

    Or better said, assumed information vs declared information.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-16 16:13:00 UTC

  • Q:”WHAT’S PLATONIC PHILOSOPHY?” (first attempt) (pretty close) A: (a) referring

    Q:”WHAT’S PLATONIC PHILOSOPHY?”

    (first attempt) (pretty close)

    A: (a) referring to (supplying information by) the extra-natural (a subset of the supernatural) in a justificationary argument – and specifically, references to extra normal ideals – instead of limiting references to the existential. More generally, (b) Plato and Socrates were literary (analogistic) philosophers producing dialogs. Aristotle was a descriptive (correspondent) philosopher. Plato invoked order (decidability) provided by the extra-natural, as a compromise means of avoiding the supernatural. (This appears to have been the greek innovation over the flood river authoritarian civilizations.) In other words plato conflated the mythical, literary, and rational, to produce authoritative arguments as a means of avoiding the mythical and supernatural authoritarianism of the theologists.

    In the ancient world we saw another instance of the deflationary division so common in western civilization: the separation of decidability into a) law, b) science (aristotelian descriptive philosophy), c) literary envisionary philosophy and it’s companion history, d) platonic philosophy conflating a limited supernaturalism and literary philosophy, e) the continuation of theology: the conflation of law and supernatural mythology, and f) the Augustinian conflation of reason and theology. And all these ‘languages’ or ‘techniques’ persisted through the centuries.

    The Anglos preserve aristotelianism, the french literary(rousseau), the germans have preserved platonism (kant et al). and the jews have conflated law, and pseudoscience, as a replacement for law and supernaturalism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-12 09:57:00 UTC

  • PHILOSOPHY IN THE SPECTRUM OF DECIDABILITY (Notice the order) (Notice how produc

    PHILOSOPHY IN THE SPECTRUM OF DECIDABILITY

    (Notice the order) (Notice how producing an ordered series makes attacks by empty verbalisms almost impossible)

    — Correspondence —

    *Reason: comparisons of differences in order to produce decidability by preference or necessity.

    *Logic: the use of reason to identify general rules of internal consistency, for use in testing the internal consistency of propositions.

    *Law: the declaration of general rules of decidability in matters of conflict, in populations large enough for extra-familial commons to develop. Laws evolve internal consistency out of the necessity of decidability in matters with multiple causes.

    *Philosophy: the use of reason and information to produce a set of internally consistent general rules of decidability within domains of varying scale – including ‘complete’ scale: science.

    *History: a reduction of the complexity of past reality to an internally consistent narrative, as externally correspondent as feasible, for the purpose of providing information, for use in ideation or decidability.

    *Literature: the use of narrative to produce an internally consistent, existentially possible, but not externally correspondent alternative to history. (conflation of mythology and history)

    —- Limits of Correspondence—

    ( Invocation of dream states for the purpose of suggestion)

    Mythology: the use of pseudo-historical, super-normal, or super-natural narrative used to produce a set of internally related if not internally consistent explanations in the absence of history. Note that super-normal, (impossible heroes), anthropomorphism( attributing human characteristics to non human objects), and supernatural (impossible non-human characters) and extra natural ( other-worlds) are demonstrated in various myths.

    Theology: The conflation of Mythology and Law for the purpose of producing an internally consistent method of decidability and justification for the use of exclusion or the application of force in cross-tribal groups.

    Occult/NewAge: the conflation of supernaturalism and dream state to produce a purely intutionistic, experiential, and pre-rational, not necessarily consistent but at least framed, method of decidability.

    Dream State: free association driven by intuition, independent of reason, or by the intentional avoidance of reason.

    Drug State: chemically induced dream state, disabling ability to reason while preserving free association.

    ====

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-12 09:35:00 UTC

  • “Man can only fight for what he knows, so man must fight for the ability to know

    —-“Man can only fight for what he knows, so man must fight for the ability to know.”— Felicity J. Chernukhin

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 22:12:00 UTC

  • WHICH Doolittle:Anglo-Empiricism, Hoppe:German-Rationalism, Moldbug:Jewish-Criti

    WHICH

    Doolittle:Anglo-Empiricism, Hoppe:German-Rationalism, Moldbug:Jewish-Critique. We bring our baggage with us. Our lenses through which we unconsciously ‘create’ our versions of history.

    Whig history follows the evolution of the west’s only meaningful cult: sovereign common law of european men: contractualism. The means of resolution between warriors.

    Technically speaking, Moldbug is stating jewish history: jewish class and history – a homogenous monopoly. he has conflated his monopoly mind with european deflationary history of aristocracy, church, and burgher. We do not practice monopoly in the west. We even have different languages for our classes.

    When we say ‘europeans practiced X habit” the classes gave priority to very different theories. the slave, serf, freeman, citizen, senator, and monarch, or their feudal equivalents, or their modern equivalents, all rely upon different narratives, making different arguments, and in the west often making them in different languages. I don’t quote the church because I know the church attempted (as far back as bede_ to create another monopoly of lies in the jewish model. But unfortunately they and the burgher who wrote all the propaganda. It is the law of the juridical/military caste, and the church that wrote for the underclass. But then as now, the underclass message is obtainable by all, the burgher language (philosophy) by may fewer, and the aristocratic message (juridical military) by the fewest of all. Which is unfortunate. Because men at least, for most of our history, lived a dual existence as members of the aristocratic military respectful of the peasant religious, while the burghers tried to gain respectability from each.

    I’m Aryan (military aristocracy) first, Philosophy(burgher) second, and christian (peasant) third. Or do you speak Semitic (jewish) monopoly universalism, or it’s byzantine equivalent?

    Can you look at your polytheistic belief system and identify the priorities you attach to each?

    It’s actually pretty difficult.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 12:15:00 UTC

  • You need a bit more of a lesson I think…. Because you’re stuck in a primitive:

    You need a bit more of a lesson I think…. Because you’re stuck in a primitive: justificationism.

    1. empirical = observable. In other words, to test against existential possibility in order to eliminate information supplied by imagination that is not present in observable reality.

    2. truth claims = we can make proof claims (justifications), but we cannot make truth claims, only claims of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit. Even if we can performatively speak a truth we can never know that a more parsimonius version of the theory we utter is not yet possible unless we speak a tautology.

    3. yes, those observations from which we identify general rules without the necessity of further criticism are a special case of empirical observations that we are not so lucky to find a discount on the warranty due diligence against error, bias wishful thinking and deceit. like prime numbers or reductio arguments the a priori can occur. However, very few other than reductio statements can be used for the purposes of deduction without definition of their limits (I will happily give examples).

    4. I have not exempted my argument from its implications, I’ve merely stated that no means of expression in any formal language can possibly achieve what you have suggested. Just as the liars paradox is fallacy, any such statements are fallacious if we can (as I stated) appeal to additional knowledge outside of the statement itself. Ergo, we do not test logical statements abut reality by the limits of the operations of logical expression but by the appeal to correspondence with reality, the appeal to existential possibility in operational languge, the appeal to reciprocity in moral matters, and across all of these appeals, the definition of limits, and parsimony, and the observation of full accounting. In other words (and I realize this is hard for you to grasp) rational recursion is just an excuse to avoid informational discovery. In other words, an excuse for ignorance. Which is precisely why the medieval theologians and ancient lawyers invented the technique. (See Pilpul).

    There are these people called Popper, Kuhn, Tarski and Frege, and Kripke in language(allegorical-meaningful systems) – who almost got it right; as well as cantor, godel and turing who eventually got it right independent of language (operational-existential systems).

    If you were able to hold this discourse with me you would not have made the errors you made in the first place.

    If you search for the ability to speak truthful statements then you can follow me. If you are searching for excuses for your existing frames of reference using the arcane methods of reasoning you use, then you will not find much help here.

    I don’t do excuses.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-08 17:14:00 UTC