Category: Epistemology and Method

  • UM. I DO TRUTH. PROPAGANDA IS A NECESSARY TOOL IN THE ABSENCE OF THE NECESSITY O

    UM. I DO TRUTH. PROPAGANDA IS A NECESSARY TOOL IN THE ABSENCE OF THE NECESSITY OF TRUTH.

    —Q&A–“Curt, what is your opinion on Kek?—

    I am a New Right Philosopher. I work on changing our understanding of reality, and reforming our institutions to correspond to contemporary reality. My philosophy is reducible to increasing the prior scope of law from property and deception, to all information present in the commons, and the reformation of government to restore the market for commons between the classes – that have different interests. And to restore the purpose of policy to the family while preserving the purpose of law to the individual. By doing so I wish to restore our sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy, as well as our market for quality families, market for commons, market for leadership, and market for the resolution of disputes.

    I see propaganda and ridicule as a tactic against the working class just as I am using a tactic against the upper classes. So it’s just propaganda.

    I deal with truth.

    So aside from the observation that the adoption of Marxist ridicule rallying and shamming as a means of neutralizing rallying and shaming, seems to work, I don’t have any opinion. And it isn’t even vaguely interesting except that I recognize it’s value in a democracy where lies and propaganda re legal. i would prefer that all leftist parasitism was prosecutable as harm to the informational commons just as are libel and slander are harmful to individuals.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Sovereignty.

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Social Science of Western Civilization

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 13:43:00 UTC

  • “ONCE YOU GET ERRORS ON CANTOR’S LEVEL YOU NEED TO INVENT COMPUTABILITY TO RID Y

    “ONCE YOU GET ERRORS ON CANTOR’S LEVEL YOU NEED TO INVENT COMPUTABILITY TO RID YOURSELF OF THEM”

    ( by frank sock leibowitz)

    —“Humans have this deep-rooted tendency to imagine things have platonic essences, which stems from our imperative to use lossy compression efficiently manage our limited cognitive power. Once we invent a good compression algorithm (a heuristic) to encode information, we start mistaking the heuristic for reality, which convinces us that there are amazingly expressive elegant objects that describe reality to the fullest extent. We start believing π exists, circles are real, continuum exists, space-time is continuous. Thus we start believing reality is comprised of ideal objects that don’t require to be strictly constructible. Power of heuristics seduces us, if you will.

    Elaborate and extremely clever conjurations of non-constructible objects like infinite cardinalities seal the deal. Once you get errors on Cantor’s level, you probably need to invent computability theory to rid yourself of the lies.

    I suspect, mistaking pithy heuristics for reality, has to afflict every computer that’s not aware of being one—and that concordantly doesn’t understand the implications of computability. It probably really takes a programmer that’s also proficient in history, philosophy of law, philosophy of math, and philosophy of science to invent Testimonialism.

    Thanks for your amazing work Curt.”— Frank (Sock) Leibowitz


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 12:53:00 UTC

  • YES, IT APPEARS THAT WE NEEDED TO INVENT PROGRAMMING IN ORDER TO SOLVE THE PROBL

    YES, IT APPEARS THAT WE NEEDED TO INVENT PROGRAMMING IN ORDER TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES.

    —“Such clarity! Why has it taken this long for man to state this? Did we really need computers to tell truth this lucidly?”— Frank Leibowitz

    Excellent Question

    Actually, we needed strictly constructed law, and we discovered to strictly constructed programming first – it seems – by accident.

    The difference is that in the discipline of programming, the test of computability is stricter than in the discipline of law’s test of existential possibility.

    And that the range of problems we test for with computability is broader than the range of programs we test with law.

    -Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 11:11:00 UTC

  • FORMATTING FOR THE PROLIFIC: “RESPECTING ONE’S READERS” 1 – ( personal ruminatio

    FORMATTING FOR THE PROLIFIC: “RESPECTING ONE’S READERS”

    1 – ( personal ruminations you might want to ignore)

    2 – (diary) or (humor)

    too much information you might want to ignore

    3 – headerless means that I’m just sort of jotting this down. And you might want to wait for me to think through it.

    4- THIS TITLE IN CAPS

    means that it’s for general consumption

    5- THIS TITLE IN CAPS AND TAGS

    (important) (must read) (etc)

    means that it’s an innovation frequent readers might want to make time for

    6 – [ image in red and black text]

    Means that it’s an aphorism or larger that I think is worthy of wider distribution because it’s digestible.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-05 14:10:00 UTC

  • THE FIRST QUESTIONS OF SENTIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, ETHICS, POLITICS: BUYING OPTIONS (

    THE FIRST QUESTIONS OF SENTIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, ETHICS, POLITICS: BUYING OPTIONS

    (important)

    —“I agree with Camus that suicide is the pre-eminent philosophical question. On a macro scale, the question is whether or not you realize the paradox of the unproductive needing the productive, the productive not needing the unproductive, yet the unproductive seeking the demise of the productive, and ultimately themselves. The left has chosen suicide. For both themselves, and us, if we allow it.”—Ryan Montague

    Excellent way of positioning it. I need to play with this a bit. Because I’ve used the first two, and talked about the third, but not taken your jump and merged it with Camus’.

    THE FIRST QUESTION OF SENTIENCE

    why and how do we think? – we select the option that produces the most options, meaning the largest number of associations. And at each moment we repeat. then we remember our option buying as planning. so we save memory. and we can repeat the process.

    THE FIRST QUESTION OF PHILOSOPHY

    why do I not commit suicide? – we are buying more options on reproduction, and that of our kin.

    THE FIRST QUESTION OF ETHICS

    why do we not kill you and take your stuff? – we are buying more options on survival from the discounts of cooperation.

    THE FIRST QUESTION OF POLITICS

    Why do we let the parasitic reproduce? – they are buying options on survival in some form with greater numbers, and we are buying discounts on current expenditures of effort. And in turn buying more options.

    Religion and philosophy start with an optimistic bias out of the in-group assumption of the benefits of cooperation. But that optimistic benefit of cooperation is in service of the unforgiving process of reproduction and evolution.

    Evolution (Kinship) isn’t an optimistic bias. It’s as physical an accounting system as is entropy in physics.

    Curt Doolittle,

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy,

    The Propertarian Institute.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-04 06:29:00 UTC

  • Defend pseudoscience, propaganda and deceit if you want to. Truth is enough. If

    … Defend pseudoscience, propaganda and deceit if you want to. Truth is enough. If you don’t prefer truth then: civil war.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-04 01:27:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/794350349192675333

    Reply addressees: @BurchardofWorms

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/794347614602805248


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/794347614602805248

  • Name-calling is the practice of attributing properties by analogy. Description o

    Name-calling is the practice of attributing properties by analogy. Description of demonstrable properties is simply “science”.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-03 23:05:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/794314510169411584

    Reply addressees: @NorthBayTeky

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/794313433835417600


    IN REPLY TO:

    @NorthBayTeky

    Of course the name calling makes you such a paragon of intelligence https://t.co/oqyb7g4WwN

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/794313433835417600

  • THE SPECTRUM OF PHILOSOPHICAL METHODS Philosophy = Decidability (choice) Truth (

    THE SPECTRUM OF PHILOSOPHICAL METHODS

    Philosophy = Decidability (choice)

    Truth (Perfect Testimony)

    …. Physical Science (the physical world)

    …. …. Social Science (human behavior)

    …. …. …. Natural Law (Philosophy)

    …. …. …. …. Moral Argument ( Philosophy )

    …. …. …. …. …. Religious Parable (Religion)

    …. …. …. …. …. …. Fantasy Literature ( experimental Imagination)

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Dream States ( experiential introsp.+ quietude )

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Dreams (random/free association)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-03 14:48:00 UTC

  • THE REASON IT’S HARD TO UNDERSTAND: UNIFYING EXISTING CONCEPTS RATHER THAN EXPLA

    THE REASON IT’S HARD TO UNDERSTAND: UNIFYING EXISTING CONCEPTS RATHER THAN EXPLAINING EACH OF THEM TO YOU.

    My work in Sovereignty, Testimonialism, Propertarianism, Market Government, Competitive Domestication of Man, and Transcendence, has been one of unifying fields that have, for centuries, been separated by different means of decision making – and often different languages.

    If you notice, and you likely will, I use sequences of terms, spectrum diagrams, parallel developments, and evolutionary processes to illustrate that those ideas that seem unrelated are merely subsets of properties of reality that in different fields, we inspect for a specific purpose. But that reality as we can understand it (and it’s pretty accurate it seems), is regular, consistent, and operates by very simple rules.

    So, you can think of normal fields, each of which addresses some subset of reality, as someone who, at best is talking to you with limited experience or understanding (a well-intentioned fool); and at worst, is someone who is deceiving you by overloading you by selectively giving you information in order to dishonestly persuade you to assist him in achieving his unstated ends. In other words – telling only part of the story. (defrauding you.).

    So then I come along and use terms from pretty much EVERY field. Because each field addresses some subset of the properties of reality. And instead of explaining all these terms from all these fields, I expect that you are at least familiar with them enough, that you can see the similarities that I draw between these ideas and the fields they come from, by using sequences of terms, spectrum diagrams, parallel developments and evolutionary processes.

    And then I give a name to the pattern we identified by the similarities across those fields by either more clearly defining a prior term (like truth, ethics and morality and law) or I create a new name (like testimonialism) where I try to capture the ACTIONS rather than the experiences that prior (more mystical) eras relied upon.

    Wherever possible I try to clarify existing terms rather than invent new ones. Or if similar terms exist, I choose the one that is the most accurate rather than the most common or popular. And if nothing exists that isn’t either wrong or deceptive, I will construct one out of near terms. And that is the best that I can do.

    So that is why it is very hard to come into Sovereignty, Testimonialism, Propertarianism, Market Government, Competitive Domestication of Man, and Transcendence, – what I call Propertarianism (which is itself only the ethics in my work ). Becuase it requires a great deal of knowledge to show RELATIONSHIPS that describe the entirety of reality in a common, amoral, demonstrable and observable, language.

    So you find people who have the easiest time, are those with a finance and economics familiarity, but have also some non-trivial experience in the physical sciences.

    It’s not easy. But if you want to be able to save western civilization from the Second Great Lie, and to do so by prosecuting the liars and their useful idiots in all walks of life; or if you are a warrior who wants to implement sustainable change to restore our civilization; or if you are simply someone who wants to understand what the prosecutors and warriors are doing, then you are learning a new language: the language of COMPLETE SCIENCE rather than the various languages of incomplete sciences.

    And learning languages with new concepts is hard.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-03 09:49:00 UTC

  • PEOPLE DON’T WANT TO PAY THE COST OF TRUTH – BECAUSE WE HAVE DIFFERENT ABILITIES

    PEOPLE DON’T WANT TO PAY THE COST OF TRUTH – BECAUSE WE HAVE DIFFERENT ABILITIES – AND INCREASES IN TRUTH ARE INCREASINGLY EXPENSIVE

    *Want > Justification > Critical Rationalism > Testimonialism*

    I have found that outside of people with university training in the physical sciences, that converting people from justificationism (particularly moral) to critical rationalism, is almost impossible.

    Yet I understand completely why: CR is a far more ‘expensive’ cognitive strategy – it’s almost a ‘privilege of those with ability’.

    The purpose of knowledge is action. And we all differ in the actions that we need to want to make, prefer to make, and joyously make.

    So the fact that we want, prefer, and take joy from, the action of seeking increasingly challenging methods of decision making, is in itself a privilege of ability, education, and rank.

    Now, try to take a Critical Rationalist and convert him to a Testimonialist, and you’ll encounter the same problem.

    Why? Because just as the cost of Critical Rationalist knowledge imposes a cost on the fulfillment of satisfaction by those seeking ends by justificationary means, the cost of Testimonialist Knowledge imposes a cost on the fulfillment of satisfaction by those seeking ends by Critical Rationalist means.

    Because the Critical Rationalist wants to preserve his discounts on the consequences of his speech, just like the justificationist wants to preserve the discounts on the consequences of his actions.

    METHODS OF MORAL DECIDABILITY

    To Act: Justificationism (disputes over actions)

    To Know: Critical Rationalism (disputes over persuasion)

    To Judge: Testimonialism (disputes over consequences)

    JUSTIFICATIONISM

    Justification isn’t true either logically or empirically – it’s a selection bias for action within normative limits.

    CRITICAL RATIONALISM

    Critical Preference isn’t empirically true – it’s a selection bias.

    Critical Rationalism isn’t complete – it’s a selection bias for action within cost-less (scientific) limits.

    TESTIMONIALISM

    Testimonialism is, as far as I know, empirically true, and informationally complete. It’s a selection bias for action within the scope of what is actionable by man.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-03 09:21:00 UTC