Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • Well via-negativa moral rules (prohibitions) are empirical and there is only one

    Well via-negativa moral rules (prohibitions) are empirical and there is only one: reciprocity within the limits of proportionality. Like rational choice within the limits of rationality. Like truthfulness within the limits of testifiability. That’s just obvious from a study of the history of law across every civilization. What satisfies reciprocity whether in manners, ethics (interpersonal), morals (extra-personal) varies because of differences in geography, economy, family structure, means of production, and stage of development – or more simply, dependent upon the scale of cooperation and the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population in relation to its state of development.

    General Semantics by Korzybski, while originally an attempt to explain non-aristotelian frames of reference, was a (rather silly) dead end, just as is Eric Ganz’s present Generative Anthropology, and Derrida’s persistent trend in postmodernism, and somewhat less so Chomsky’s generative grammar. In the end Bourland extended the entire program to nothing more than eliminating the copula (verb to be) which, in english, eliminates the pretense of knowledge and clarifies thinking in the process. This effectively ended the GS program as a dead end. In P we use eliminating of the copula to prevent false knowledge claims by the no-operational obscurantism permitted by its use.

    This is particularly useful in suppressing the abrahamic method of deceit.

    Now, conversely Hilbert in mathematical physics, Bridgman in physics, Brouwer in mathematics, and (badly) Mises in economics all either criticized the set basis of mathematics, the Einstein-Bohr and Copenhagen consensus, or monetary economics as pseudoscientific – and only Bridgman succeeded in reforming physics. Even though, today, we have software to perform the drudgery of testing proofs. Turing and Godel brought about operational model and programming completed the transition between operational and computable and deductive. Minsky (correctly) stated that programming was a new method of thinking, because it completes the restoration of western thought back to its origins in ‘engineering’ (geometry) in the process begun by Descartes. But It wasn’t until the eighties and early nineties that psychology started to reform under operationism, and until P there was no solution to operationalizing social science.

    That’s enough for now.

    (BTW: I don’t take devolution to use of Godwin’s Law as anything other than evidence of my winning the argument.)

    And yes the only reason I respond is so that I can post these answers on the main feed to educate others

    – cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-07 22:43:00 UTC

  • WOMEN’S MOVEMENT FOR NATURAL LAW —I think it’s better for women to create soli

    WOMEN’S MOVEMENT FOR NATURAL LAW

    —I think it’s better for women to create solidarity with women on ending the program of undermining that women were baited into with the false promise of equality rather than the promise of improving our compatibility under change in the division of labor made possible by the industrial and technological and informational revolutions.

    I think if you ask women to join to help build this ‘movement’ of getting past GSRRM and ending undermining, thereby restoring compatibility, cooperation, in a division of perceptual, cognitive, and physical labor that this will be a mission women will be attracted to, because it will make women better women with regard to OTHER WOMEN as well as with regard to mates children – and even other men.

    Men had to learn not to physically retaliate. Law is a vehicle for ending retaliation cycles (feuds). Women have not had the political, economic, or social opportunity to develop female traditions, so that women learn not to SOCIALLY and PSYCHOLOGICALLY retaliate and end women’s retaliation cycles (feuds).—

    We aren’t equal. Genders, Maturity, Generations, Classes, Ethnicities, Nations, Civilizations, or Races.

    Under natural law of reciprocity and division of labor we are compatible despite all those inequalities.

    End retaliation cycles by sticking to reciprocity.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-07 09:49:00 UTC

  • Nor may any deprive another of the ars that are the means to self determination

    Nor may any deprive another of the ars that are the means to self determination.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-07 02:02:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225600690082459648

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225597701720551424

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    Rights. Rights to self-determination. Rights to bear arms to preserve that right. None may deprive another of the right to self determination, without surrendering that right to self determination him or herself. https://twitter.com/Nationalist7346/status/1225590020750430208

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1225597701720551424

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    Rights. Rights to self-determination. Rights to bear arms to preserve that right. None may deprive another of the right to self determination, without surrendering that right to self determination him or herself. https://t.co/Wbq2gLCYVS

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1225597701720551424

  • Rights. Rights to self-determination. Rights to bear arms to preserve that right

    Rights. Rights to self-determination. Rights to bear arms to preserve that right. None may deprive another of the right to self determination, without surrendering that right to self determination him or herself. https://twitter.com/Nationalist7346/status/1225590020750430208

  • Rights. Rights to self-determination. Rights to bear arms to preserve that right

    Rights. Rights to self-determination. Rights to bear arms to preserve that right. None may deprive another of the right to self determination, nor the arms necessary to secure it without surrendering that right to self determination him or herself by reciprocity: restitution, punishment, and prevention. We need no other moral license but this.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-06 21:07:00 UTC

  • TEARING UP THE SPEECH VS THE WESTERN TRADITION “By tearing up his speech she cha

    TEARING UP THE SPEECH VS THE WESTERN TRADITION
    “By tearing up his speech she challenged him to a duel because she broke the rule of Truthful Reciprocal Trade between Sovereigns that limits us to Testimony and prohibits insult, ridicule, and defamation.”
    RESTORE THE DUEL https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1225185402283315200

  • Tearing Up The Speech – vs The Western Tradition

    “She tore up his speech, which means she challenged him to a duel because she broke the rule of truthful reciprocal trade between sovereigns, limiting us to testimony (facts).”Testimony: Jury > Thang > Senate > Multiple Houses > Public Speech. [T]he western tradition’s first premise is Sovereignty. Every man is his own country, king, legislature, army. We form alliances that insure one another’s sovereignty. In this way we are all equal at the top and seek material achievement – where religions (slaves) are equal at the bottom and seek to minimize material responsibilities. As sovereigns, we appeal to our allies (court) for enforcement of our sovereignty (violations of our interests). This premise does not take cooperation for granted, it takes sovereignty for granted. It requires only that we do not offend (impose costs upon) one another’s demonstrated interests. But that as sovereigns we are free to war whenever we want. And we need submit to no one. In the Western Tradition of Sovereignty, the only reason to tolerate free speech is if it is Testimony (Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Reciprocity) – else violence licensed. Truth is a Commons in the West. Limiting public speech to the Testimonial and Reciprocal licenses VOLUNTARY TRADE (argument) but prohibits INVOLUNTARY HARMS. The duel between sovereign men b/c insult prohibited untruths. We failed to clarify that free speech meant Free Testimony. Westerners intuit these customary laws, but because they are customs are thousands of years old, and we lacked (until now) an operational(scientific) explanation of the western tradition and its reason for our disproportionate success: P(Natural)-law articulates these intuitions. P-Law explains the West and lets us defend it from competing traditions that don’t practice truth-telling, and some of which (Semitic) consist entirely of lying. It may take a few decades for P-Law to take root as the logic of social science, but it will, b/c: Explanatory Power.

  • Tearing Up The Speech – vs The Western Tradition

    “She tore up his speech, which means she challenged him to a duel because she broke the rule of truthful reciprocal trade between sovereigns, limiting us to testimony (facts).”Testimony: Jury > Thang > Senate > Multiple Houses > Public Speech. [T]he western tradition’s first premise is Sovereignty. Every man is his own country, king, legislature, army. We form alliances that insure one another’s sovereignty. In this way we are all equal at the top and seek material achievement – where religions (slaves) are equal at the bottom and seek to minimize material responsibilities. As sovereigns, we appeal to our allies (court) for enforcement of our sovereignty (violations of our interests). This premise does not take cooperation for granted, it takes sovereignty for granted. It requires only that we do not offend (impose costs upon) one another’s demonstrated interests. But that as sovereigns we are free to war whenever we want. And we need submit to no one. In the Western Tradition of Sovereignty, the only reason to tolerate free speech is if it is Testimony (Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Reciprocity) – else violence licensed. Truth is a Commons in the West. Limiting public speech to the Testimonial and Reciprocal licenses VOLUNTARY TRADE (argument) but prohibits INVOLUNTARY HARMS. The duel between sovereign men b/c insult prohibited untruths. We failed to clarify that free speech meant Free Testimony. Westerners intuit these customary laws, but because they are customs are thousands of years old, and we lacked (until now) an operational(scientific) explanation of the western tradition and its reason for our disproportionate success: P(Natural)-law articulates these intuitions. P-Law explains the West and lets us defend it from competing traditions that don’t practice truth-telling, and some of which (Semitic) consist entirely of lying. It may take a few decades for P-Law to take root as the logic of social science, but it will, b/c: Explanatory Power.

  • P-Law explains the West, and lets us defend it from competing traditions that do

    P-Law explains the West, and lets us defend it from competing traditions that don’t practice truth telling, and some of which (Semitic) consist entirely of lying. It may take a few decades for P-Law to take root as the logic of social science, but it will, b/c: Explanatory Power.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 15:15:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225075363535097856

    Reply addressees: @ScottAdamsSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225074697370505216

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @ScottAdamsSays Westerners intuit these customary laws, but because they are customs are thousands of years old, and we lacked (until now) an operational(scientific) explanation of the western tradition and its reason for our disproportionate success: P(Natural)-law articulates these intuitions.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1225074697370505216

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @ScottAdamsSays Westerners intuit these customary laws, but because they are customs are thousands of years old, and we lacked (until now) an operational(scientific) explanation of the western tradition and its reason for our disproportionate success: P(Natural)-law articulates these intuitions.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1225074697370505216

  • Westerners intuit these customary laws, but because they are customs are thousan

    Westerners intuit these customary laws, but because they are customs are thousands of years old, and we lacked (until now) an operational(scientific) explanation of the western tradition and its reason for our disproportionate success: P(Natural)-law articulates these intuitions.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 15:12:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225074697370505216

    Reply addressees: @ScottAdamsSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225073865937838082

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @ScottAdamsSays Truth is a Commons in the West. Limiting public speech to the Testimonial and Reciprocal licenses VOLUNTARY TRADE (argument) but prohibits INVOLUNTARY HARMS. The duel between sovereign men b/c insult prohibited untruths. We failed to clarify that free speech meant Free Testimony.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1225073865937838082

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @ScottAdamsSays Truth is a Commons in the West. Limiting public speech to the Testimonial and Reciprocal licenses VOLUNTARY TRADE (argument) but prohibits INVOLUNTARY HARMS. The duel between sovereign men b/c insult prohibited untruths. We failed to clarify that free speech meant Free Testimony.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1225073865937838082