Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • POSTMODERN, RELIGIOUS, IDEAL, AND OCCULT SPEECH CAN BE DEFLATED AND THE DECEPTIO

    POSTMODERN, RELIGIOUS, IDEAL, AND OCCULT SPEECH CAN BE DEFLATED AND THE DECEPTIONS EXPOSED.

    ***And there is nothing I know of that cannot be communicated scientifically. What we all desperately try to do is frame and load to impress others or to lie to ourselves.***

    —“a knowing by being identical with that which is known.”—

    I don’t understand this sentence as other than a fictionalism.

    Let me see if I can deflate it:

    (a) The word “being” is a filler-word for conflating experience and action, that just like ‘thing’ or ‘stuff’, means the speaker is ignorant of what he speaks or obscuring of what he speaks. The verb to-be means ‘exists as’. So “being” can mean “doing ( something )”, or “experiencing (something)” or “doing (something) and experiencing (something)”.

    (b) I think you mean “pretending (modeling) and sympathizing with a character in order to experience sympathetic feelings or environment”. This is how we imitate all sorts of behaviors.

    (c) I think you are conflating knowing(in memory true or false) and experiencing(at present or not).

    (d) I think that we all collect identities (“I feel, think, and act like a person who thinks feels and acts by these criteria”) both as tools, as goals in pursuit of self image, as standards of measurement, and as self deceptions in lieu of achievement – in order to lie to ourselves about our status.

    (e) I think you are describing nothing other than the usually literary model of Transcendence > Monomyth > Archetype > Plot > Virtues > Assets (property-in-toto) > Status. In other words, role playing a character. When we know that the archetypes map to personality types.

    (f) I think that we can deflate all identities into attempts at acquisition both real and illusory.

    (g) I think there is nothing that you can experience that you cannot communicate without deceit (pretence, fictionalism, lying). And I think attempts to say otherwise are attempts to preserve self deceptions.

    In other words, I have not yet found anything that cannot be converted into scientific language. I have only found people making attempts to preserve deceptions.

    This is what psychologist get paid for: what lie do we tell ourselves and how can we correct it by eliminating the trauma or feeling that prevents us from avoiding it.

    SO TO THOSE WHO CLAIM THEY PURSUE TRUTH AND WISDOM:

    Why is it you need to preserve the lies?

    Because the only answer is, that you are weak or cowardly.

    “In other words, LARPING”

    (How is that for a challenge?)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 18:14:00 UTC

  • Well, that’s just it, isn’t it? 1 – The individual only needs to understand his

    Well, that’s just it, isn’t it?

    1 – The individual only needs to understand his choice is preferable.(person)

    2 – Those cooperating only need to understand their choices are good.(group)

    3 – Those deciding conflicts only need to understand whether the conflict is decidable. (judge)

    Now people conflate the possible, the preferable, the good, and the true, as if they’re synonyms, without considering the implied grammar.

    A preference isn’t true. It’s just a preference and possible or not.

    A good isn’t true, it’s just preferable, and good, and possible or not.

    A truth isn’t preferable or good, it’s just true.

    Yet another example of the problem of conflation rather than operational grammar and definitions.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 15:00:00 UTC

  • I don’t accept the *fallacy of special pleading* that ‘meaningfulness’ or ‘acces

    I don’t accept the *fallacy of special pleading* that ‘meaningfulness’ or ‘accessibility’ are any more important than the hard work of truth.

    I mean, we teach expensive literacy, mathematics, sciences, economics, and history. And we in the past taught expensive vocabulary, grammar, logic, and rhetoric.

    Why is it that we cannot also teach expensive testimonialism: natural law and the logic of cooperation?

    Why can’t we teach history as a series of biographical narratives of the people who made the great insights and transformations in each of those fields?

    Even if you want to preserve the Buddha and Jesus why cannot they be stated in historical terms and studied for their innovations, rather than continuing their justification by abrahamic deception?

    You know, there isn’t any reason. Because any other reason requires lying and teaching lying

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-24 06:31:00 UTC

  • MARTIAL SOVEREIGNTY VS BURGHER LIBERTY Basic law of Sovereignty vs Liberty. You

    MARTIAL SOVEREIGNTY VS BURGHER LIBERTY

    Basic law of Sovereignty vs Liberty.

    You exercise your will, you don’t ask permission.

    You attack and cause your opponent to defend, you don’t request that he fence you.

    You question why your opponent is fit to live, rather than assume he has any value.

    You seek reason not to kill or enslave, not whether he wishes to cooperate or not.

    Why? Because the only answer to these questions is that PERFECT cooperation (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange) is the only condition more beneficial than that predation.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 13:58:00 UTC

  • YOU DON’T DEBATE AN INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST PERSON, YOU PROSECUTE HIM. (and fur

    YOU DON’T DEBATE AN INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST PERSON, YOU PROSECUTE HIM.

    (and further criticisms of abrahamism)

    —“If I organized a debate between you and Jared Howe would you do it?”—

    Well, you know, I spent a whole day on the guy, and (a) he didn’t read anything much I posted, (b) he clearly didn’t understand it if he did, (c) I am not sure he understands himself what he’s saying (d) he resorted to simple chanting accusations without demonstrating how they applied to my argument, (e) he blocked me when it became increasingly difficult for him to not answer.

    Now add to that (f) that it is pretty hard to write and read analytic philosophy because it’s turgid, and it’s harder to speak it and listen to it. And add (g) the audience will much more easily be bored with long chains of reasoning.

    But you know, there are psychological reasons people favor kantian rationalism, just as there are reasons people favor theology. One of those reasons is preservation of cognitive investment. The other is that while science (what I do) doesn’t allow you to ignore any argument, rationalism (what jared does) allows you to ignore many arguments, and theology allows you to ignore any argument. Kant was trying to recreate theology in secular verse, and this was his reason: to resist the scientific revolution.

    So I think if you asked me to debate hoppe on it, then we would show something important to the community. I think if you asked me to debate david gordon or walter block maybe. Because then the audience could follow. But none of them will debate me. They know better. And they cannot afford defloration in public.

    So it’s not so much I wouldn’t do it, as I am not sure he’s capable of the argument, or intellectually honest enough to engage in it.

    So when you ask me to debate him, I would enter a debate, but I would end up being a prosecutor: “If everything you say can be explained with science but you cannot explain everything sciences says with what you say? Why do you employ such a system of thought? Why is it you fear science just as theologian fears science?” The answer is because, kant reformed abrahamic lying from supernatural to ideal. Just as marx,boaz,freud reformed abrahamic lying from the ideal to the pseudoscientific. Just as the french(rousseau, Derrida) reformed pseudoscientific to outright fiction: reality by chanting.

    Mises applied the same pseudoscientific reasoning as marx did he just chose different half truths in order to reform marx when marx ended failing. Marx had stopped writing after he read the marginalists because his labor theory of value was now dead. Mises updated marx by inverting universal common property ignoring externalities to universal private property to the exclusion of common property ignoring externalities. He did so by abandoning the labor theory of value for the mengerian subjective value, and abandoning the universal underclass strategy in favor of universal middle class strategy. He replaced the pseudoscience of the labor theory of value, and ignoring the darwinian revolution with the pseudoscience of (a) casting science as justificationary(constructive) rather than critical (subtractive), (b) conflating axiomatic(necessary) mathematics with theoretic science (contingent). (c) conflating truth(science) and morality(volition). Which is precisely the technique used by the abrahamists: conflating myth with history, advice with command, wisdom with law, dysgenia with good.

    This does not mean marx and mises did not contribute to intellectual history. it just means like everything else Abrahamists do, it’s cherry-picking of half truths and half deceits, wrapped in exceptional mythological storytelling so that through overloading people can be ‘convinced’ by suggestion when they intuit that it’s reasonable. When in fact, the purpose of the argument structure is to bypass all reason. Suggestion is just ‘hacking’ the brain. And that is the purpose of Abrahamism: deceit.

    FWIW: You can tell everything about an individual or group or civilization by their definition of truth. And in particular, whether that truth employs the fictional(supernatural), the cognitive(analytic), the ideal(logical), the empirical(existential), or the operational(actionable), or all of the above.

    -Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 09:00:00 UTC

  • I think the argument is won. There is nothing good in christianity that was not

    I think the argument is won. There is nothing good in christianity that was not there prior. Christianity was developed like marxism/postmodernism as a resistance movement by the underclasses and women against the aristocratic classes (men). And while the ancients relied on deflationary truth and deflationary institutions, christianity like judaism (and then islam) relied on conflationary truth and conflationary institutions. Where the ancients relied on truth, technology, law, the abrahamists relied on deception, superstition, and scriptural authority.

    The matter is done. Christianity is done. Our natural religion was mythical-historical, nature-venerating, and stoic ritual in competition with epicurean experience.

    And that is what we have seen since the dawn of the enligthenment: the continuous progress of science by a minority and the continuous resistance by the underclasses against it.

    True is true.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 21:41:00 UTC

  • Jared, The problem is that while all economic phenomenon must be *explainable* a

    Jared,

    The problem is that while all economic phenomenon must be *explainable* as a sequence rational operations (actions), we do not possess sufficient information to explain group phenomenon, or individual cases without empirical observations (doing inquiry or research).

    So, I think you just don’t understand this pair of statements:

    – I can identify **all** economic phenomenon from observation.

    – I cannot identify **all** economic phenomenon independent of experience.

    and this term:

    – limits

    For example, one can identify that supply/demand, neutrality of money, or minimum wages will increase unemployment, but one cannot identify why they fail (limits) without empirical analysis because of high causal density.

    The stickiness of prices is the most common example of a phenomenon that was counter-intuitive to operational reasoning. In fact, economics is, among all the social sciences, most exemplary of counter-intuition. Because asking economists to answer even the most general of questions results in a wide distribution of answers, the reason being that while very general knowledge of general rules is transferrable, general knowledge of particular subsystems is not. Largely because the incentives of actors is not deducible without inquiry.

    However, if we cannot explain their behavior operationally (as a reaction to rational incentives) it cannot be a true economic proposition.

    It’s not very complicated.

    There are three dimensions to claims of a priori truth:

    1) Aprioricity vs A posteriori,

    2) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, and

    3) Necessity vs Contingency

    In other words,

    – we can make necessary a priori analytic truth claims (3 + 5 = 8, all bachelors are unmarried)

    – we can make necessary a priori synthetic truth claims (increasing the supply of dollars will result in an an increase in prices.)

    – we can make contingent a priori synthetic truth claims ( a human will act in his rational self interest *assuming*…, )

    The problem is, because of causal density, innovation, substitutability, informational asymmetry, and the inflexibility of agreements, all economic phenomenon are contingent.

    In other words we can deduce both general rules of economic systems but not consequences. We can state rules of general trends and explain individual cases.

    Or stated more obviously: “There are no non-trivial statements of economics identifiable without empirical inquiry.”

    In the case of the Neutrality of Money, or targeted inflation, or any other of the conservative vs progressive debates in economics, the question is whether temporal costs (largely to holders of assets) necessary to assist consumption (demand ‘holders’), are offset by intertemporal gains. And this is not logically deducible and is currently beyond our information recording capacity.

    All economics is practiced empirically because we cannot deduce operationally in high causal density. With or without keynesian interference in the money supply, or state interference in prices, taxes, and regulations.

    There is nothing special about economics. There exists only one epistemological method, and that is the *theoretical* cycle:

    observation > free association > criticism > contingent hypothesis > criticism > contingent theory > criticism > contingent law.

    Which then is separated from the *axiomatic* that depends upon the *necessary* propositions in logic and mathematics. Declare Axioms then Deduce Conclusions.

    So it’s not a question of truth or fiction, but one of MORALITY. Is it moral to impose costs on asset holders for the benefit of consumer demand when the production of some multiplier is in question?

    Mises, exacerbated by rothbard, attempted to cast the moral and contingent as the true and necessary. He conflated axiomatic/necessary/low density, with theoretic/contingent/high density. He conflated the moral and the true. He conflated the necessity of operational testing with the utility of operational investigation. That is the failure of Misesian (not mengerian-austrian) economics.

    “Thou Shalt Not Conflate.”

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 04:51:00 UTC

  • Outcome based ethics are what we use when we have sufficient information to judg

    Outcome based ethics are what we use when we have sufficient information to judge outcomes.

    When we fail to have that information we fall back upon general rules.

    When we fail to have that information we fall back upon virtues.

    When we fail to have that information we fall back upon myth and tradition.

    The reason we do this is that people (in fact, everywhere) hold us accountable for using the ethical model that corresponds to the information we are expected to possess.

    The reason for that is that it is very easy to claim a false positive by acting in your self interest by relying upon a less precise form of decidability. Ergo: virtue signaling, and claiming conviction to circumvent paying the cost of action. (ie: immigration)

    In fact, the entire marxist/postmodernist/libertarian/neocon program, is designed to create and exploit moral hazards precisely by the use of this technique of false positives.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 17:58:00 UTC

  • Now, you have to be a non-trivial thinker to understand that, but yet again, tha

    Now, you have to be a non-trivial thinker to understand that, but yet again, that is why we need empiricism. Not because we can’t know something we deduce is true. But because we can’t know when the Rational(a priori) is either false or deceptive.

    The apriori is merely a special case of the empirical (observable) just like prime numbers are a special case of the numerical.

    But while many a priori statements allow us to make first order (current state) conclusions, they rarely if ever allow us to make second order (consequent state) deductions.

    The reason is that a priori statements generally do not tell us limits. And it is limits- where something fails- that determine a thing’s truth not it’s more obvious conveniences.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 17:40:00 UTC

  • INGROUP SELECTION? @ Jayman on Twitter 1) I think this (ongoing) discussion fail

    INGROUP SELECTION?

    @ Jayman on Twitter

    1) I think this (ongoing) discussion fails to address the advantages of ingroup reproduction, and expression of advantages to BOTH.

    2) AFAIK group members select for traits ind.-advant. in the local group, that relies on a strategy, that results in ind.-expr. of traits.

    3) Most traits vary endocrine development esp. neoteny. Most environments +/- rate of maturity. All Homo-S/S variation explainable 1 cause.

    4) Most group delta amounts to suppression of underclass reproduction under extended agrarianism or neotonic selection failure without it.

    5) AFAIK Marginal diff. between HSS groups is settled. Central prob. is reduct’n of size of the underclass and expr. of middle class traits.

    6) All normative, cultural, institutional, differences result from this + organization of Transformation Age military orders.

    7) Kin-Militia(West)=high-trust, Warrior(chin/pers)=low-trust, Steppe/Desert-raider= lowest-trust, Diasporic=Med-ingroup/low-outgroup trust.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 15:48:00 UTC