Form: Definition

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551655771 Timestamp) scold

    [skōld]

    NOUN a person, in particular a woman, who nags or grumbles constantly. “his mother was the village scold” COMMON SCOLD From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In the common law of crime in England and Wales, a common scold was a type of public nuisance—a troublesome and angry person who broke the public peace by habitually chastising, arguing and quarrelling with their neighbours. The majority of individuals punished for scolding were women, though men could also be labelled scolds. The offence, which was exported to North America with the colonists, was punished by monetary fines, but also by methods intended to publicly humiliate such as ducking: being placed in a chair and submerged in a river or pond. Although rarely prosecuted it remained on the statute books in England and Wales until 1967. Scolding offences were commonly presented and punished in manorial and borough courts that governed the behaviour of peasants and townspeople across England. Scolds were also presented in church courts.[2] The most common punishment was a monetary fine. Various historians have argued that scolding and bad speech were coded as feminine offences by the late medieval period. Women of all marital statuses were prosecuted for scolding, though married women featured most frequently, while widows were rarely labelled scolds.[3] In some places, such as Exeter, scolds were typically poorer women, whereas elsewhere scolds could include members of the local elite.[4] Women who were also charged with other offences, such as violence, nightwandering, eavesdropping or sexual impropriety were also likely to be labelled scolds.[5] Individuals were frequently labelled ‘common scolds’, indicating the impact of their behaviour and speech on the whole community. Karen Jones identified 13 men prosecuted for scolding in Kent’s secular courts, compared to 94 women and 2 couples.[6] Men accused of scolding were often charged alongside their wives. Helen, wife of Peter Bradwall scolded Hugh Welesson and Isabel, his wife, in Middlewich in 1434, calling Isabel a “child murderer” and Hugh a “skallet [wretched] knave”. Isabel and Hugh also scolded Helen, calling her a “lesyng blebberer” (lying bletherer). All parties were fined for the offences, though Hugh and Isabel were fined jointly.[7] Like women, male scolds were often accused of many other offences, such as fornication, theft, illegal trading, and assault.[8] Note that in american law, Scolding was folded into disorderly conduct in the early 1970’s

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551877730 Timestamp) CLASSES AND RACES MAKE FOR MARKETS AND NATIONS; Brandon Hayes (Repost from October 17, 2018) (edited for clarity) DEFINITION: TOLERANCE VS. FORBEARANCE -ZERO TOLERANCE- —” …really let that sink in…. conflation… that’s all it took. A bit of ambiguity and a bit of repetition and the cult of non-submission became a slave society.”—Bill Joslin —“Zero Tolerance is the only defense against incrementalism. – via Curt Doolittle —“I use Tolerance to mean allowing costs to be assessed against non-consenting parties as ambiguity makes it unclear what additional party is specifically responsible for costs. It is a passive state. No agency. … I use Forbearance to mean I intentionally take responsibility for the cost to allow someone else not to (ex. my children, my disabled kin, my employee that has not matured fully yet). It is an active state. Allows agency.” –– Luke Weinhagen —“This opens up a whole other conversation – the centre holds onto tolerance because tolerance is passive. Those lacking agency can participate in tolerance while ignoring limits (because they don’t have the agency to enforce limits, by ignoring limits they can stay in denial of their lack of agency) … Forebearance include tolerance, limits (until the cost one was willing carried has been exceeded), and active participation – its a choice which one can boycott/defect based on the cost carried.” — Bill Joslin —” Aristocracy: War Upper Class: Law Upper Middle: Science (Econ) Middle Class: Philosophy Working Class: Religion Underclass: Intuition. “—By Curt Doolittle


    MARKETS BETWEEN THE CLASSES Markets are the solution to cooperation and they form BETWEEN THE CLASSES! When we begin to dissolve the classes or they become intertwined/intermingled with-in a democratic system; cooperation ceases and compromise becomes the ethic. And the way we compromise in democracy is voting. And people simply vote their temperamental bias. Our economic landscape favors an emotionally laden bias (feminine, dysgenic, short term), because we have created short term pleasure seekers as citizens. It’s a downward spiral to chaos. The spark for this post was a conversation had over the last few days on my wall regarding the NPC phenomena. I follow a group of people who have (what I consider) the only cogent, evolutionarily stable, ready to roll out strategy to end what ails humanity. My aim is to advocate for every plan that is feasible; every pathway available; and every lifestyle commensurate with a peaceful and flourishing future for planet earth and the HUMANS that reside here. [It may not seem it at times; but that’s as real as real gets. The better people are the better this place is for everyone. Look, some people are better than others (depends on the measure) this world isn’t and won’t ever be equal] {Humans don’t even like that; it spits in the face of their “sacred happiness” aim; as things are relative.}

    • The Economic Influence –
    • The Christian Influence –
    • The Underlying Strategy –
    • Human Nature –
    • The Propertarian Ethic –
    • The Current Perfect Storm –

    Speaking of relative; RELATIVE inequality causes violence [mostly among men](not being poorer than your relatives {joke} but being poor among people who aren’t). Losses in property en toto (this includes abstract items like ego bruises; and losses to agency) are the cause of negative emotion. It isn’t poverty nor lack of education that brings about violence; it’s despair. Not seeing a way out of your own suffering; which can be exacerbated by having those around you lack any sort of suffering (from what you can tell; NOTE: we all suffer). The internet and its primmed and primed stories don’t help. Technology has sped up trends that were already dangerous. In order to reverse dangerous trends we must visit and take stock of the behaviors and feedback loops that cause them; and luckily or unluckily enough those behaviors are trained into most humans by use of incentive tooling (agents lacking the adequate serotonin levels to feel worthwhile; being supplemented by dopamine kicks through hedonistic pleasure seeking) [whether the tooling was purposeful or not is irrelevant; the new PROPER tooling can be purposeful and adaptive]. We live in an economic pleasure (happiness) trap, that just so happens to devolve into something that takes more and more effort to obtain “happiness.” It’s really quite brilliant to see. As you age you become more financially stable (usually) and capable of buying bigger ticket items that are supposed to bring you the appropriate amount of elation… they don’t. The underclass (or lower class) needs domesticating; this can’t be gained or trained if we assume and grant them full personhood. The reason is simple; those that lack agency will push for incentives they simply CAN’T gain on their own (someone else must PAY). The same can be said but to a much lesser extent of the working class. They will vote their way into uselessness (dysgenic). Knowing that agency must be trained AND that granted power (voting, judging, etc) will corrupt those moving through the world intuitively because they will use their power to justify their intuitions. We must teach (foster, train) an ethic of tolerance. THIS is where Jesus fits in: Tolerance must be the defining characteristic of the under/lower/working classes because they lack the ability for forbearance {for now}. What Jesus did (the core metaphor of the new testament) was make a tolerable (perhaps even desirable) ethic for the (a) lower class (underclass). It’s a submissive ethic. It’s wise to adopt for those without agency (which most in the past we’re without agency [technology has released more capable agents than biological progress {possibly}). It’s wise to adopt when lacking agency because it purports safe long-term strategies devoid of tactics that require agency to unfurl; like violence, judgment, and punishment. [They leave that up to the flaming sword bearer; God; (reality en toto)] Additionally, the Christian ethic is a route to agency; to adopt the mantra “you are that which dies and is reborn anew,” is essentially what one must do in order to author one’s own life. Add to this; the idea that God is “hands on” is eradicated in the new testament! Look, we tortured then murdered the instantiation of Himself (Jesus) and He rises again as the holy spirit; i.e. God distributed among the living; hence each human represented as a single transcendent unit in the “eyes of the lord” (humanity as such). At least, that’s what I get from the book (the Theology people and their historic readings will murder me for that butchery of Christian Theology; but quite frankly they don’t have a good enough version of their own shit! If they did they world would be in an objectively better spot). It just seems profound enough of a story (myth); WITHOUT the attached meta-physical or historical claims. It’s a shortcut to understand “you gotta do it for yourself; and it’ll be painful as hell.” Peterson says he acts as God exists; “The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God.” I disagree; I believe you ought to act as though God has left it to you (He resides INSIDE) to create paradise here on your own (with other humans; it’s up to us) AND like a great coach (or trainer), He won’t lift a meta-physical pinky finger to help you (He is confident you can pull through on your own). This ethic; devoid of historical significance and attempted power grabbing lies, is a ready-to-roll-out behavioral-set [action pattern] that allows for much more (movement in the world) than it stifles. It peaches tolerance. What lives on today; The Abrahamism; the cult of Abraham; feminism and post-modernism (the SJW phenomena) the argumentative realm of pilpul and critique; the feminine means of coercion (gossip shame rally moralize etc); Isn’t the proper lesson to be learned (obviously). It just so happens to be the evolutionary hardwiring (the training) that was encoded through orthodoxy. Weaponizing the texts as a means to gain power as opposed to a means to bring about peace. A catastrophic perversion of what should be lives currently. [God {reality as such} is angry! This is why we have chaos; you’ve collectively sinned (aimed improperly) and misused works for millennia]. Christianity (perhaps there are better forms than others; h/t Giego Caleiro… Mormonism?) is stable ethic for those still needing domestication (development of agency) and it doesn’t hinder their ability to obtain agency and can keep them docile and helpful if it never develops. It’s individualistic insistence; it’s push for individualism; to be a sovereign (one with agency) is VERY good. It’s an intuition training short cut to capable agents if pursued correctly (that’s with agency as the aim; of course). However, this is the real world and individualism fails. It leaves you alone. The sovereign in the stories mentioned was tortured and murdered brutally; this is what attempting to be an individual sovereign will get you in this world. We just haven’t evolved that much. (That’s a warning; you can’t just be what you FEEL like you ought to be; not without suffering and sacrifice!) Humans need collectives [families are PARAMOUNT]; some collectivism is needed because we need each other. It doesn’t matter how much technology and the state powers attempt to convince us otherwise [the issue is they have encoded “not needing each other” into people’s actions and destroyed families]. Nation states with stratified (but permeable) classes with their own cultural norms being followed are by far the best landscape for creating individuals with agency. And the best chance for humans to remain evolutionarily viable on planet earth. An amalgam of all the races, nations, and creeds; will leave human as ONE thing; unable to adjust for sudden changes in environment [say unable to deal with catastrophic climate shifts]. Collectives of people will wipe out individuals not playing by their rules if given enough power. Only groups are sovereign, and that sovereignty is purchased at the highest of costs; an armed collective [a militia willing to kill those who may threaten it]. We need stable collectives in the same manner we need stable people (they feed into each other). Bringing them about by top down dictum {rule of Law, NOT the current rule of lawyers} (because we know how; via-Negativa) as well as bottom-up evolution (stoicism; via self-authoring) is the only strategy we have; we must do this done by any means necessary. The propertarian ethic can be overlaid onto an agency developing under and working class. The zero tolerance for free-riding and parasitism can be applied without a hitch. And for what it’s worth it’s those at the tippy-top acting as parasites and value extractors causing the greatest harm. We get to have zero tolerance for THEM; they KNOW what their doing! Those that lack agency do what they are steered to do (either by the elephant or by the environment; they are the herd), we can only blame them if they choose to forgo the offer we make (an offer they can’t refuse). This also requires LESS work to begin to roll-out societal changes because the ethic (in-part) simply needs a re-tooling as opposed to a complete culling and rebuilding. I am for using the current infrastructure (building and roadways; but also, stories and behavioral patterns) to our advantage (in pursuit of our aim). We are far down the spiral towards violence but given the superhuman technology and infrastructure we have developed we can back-track up this slippery slope and avoid bloodshed [something those far right and left don’t want to hear; they are antagonistic forces begging for a battle arena]. What we have brewing is a perfect storm of chaos; the flood is very real and fast approaching. Pick an arena: all bubbles and TV shows; all smoke and mirrors; all bark no bite. No follow through, no competence, no gratitude; all attitude and feelings. I came the through idealistic meta-physical left; I was never for social justice; but I am for justice. The intellectual operational right has a roll-out ready solution to tensions that requires only the whiners and do-nothings to be stripped of authority; sign-me-up! {NOTE: many of the humans currently alive lack agency; BUT the proper framework can simply “gift” it (agency) to those capable. It’s only their “training” that keeps them draining on the economy and on others; it’s only the affordance granted by our systems and institutions that keeps them dragging the rest of us down.} Curt likes to proclaim that the West dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance and superstition [that’s right]; but quite frankly, it’s easier to drag corpses (or leave them to rot). This being said; I’m for releasing the ropes and chains used for dragging and simply asking y’all to walk alongside us towards something better; for everyone’s sake!


  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551877730 Timestamp) CLASSES AND RACES MAKE FOR MARKETS AND NATIONS; Brandon Hayes (Repost from October 17, 2018) (edited for clarity) DEFINITION: TOLERANCE VS. FORBEARANCE -ZERO TOLERANCE- —” …really let that sink in…. conflation… that’s all it took. A bit of ambiguity and a bit of repetition and the cult of non-submission became a slave society.”—Bill Joslin —“Zero Tolerance is the only defense against incrementalism. – via Curt Doolittle —“I use Tolerance to mean allowing costs to be assessed against non-consenting parties as ambiguity makes it unclear what additional party is specifically responsible for costs. It is a passive state. No agency. … I use Forbearance to mean I intentionally take responsibility for the cost to allow someone else not to (ex. my children, my disabled kin, my employee that has not matured fully yet). It is an active state. Allows agency.” –– Luke Weinhagen —“This opens up a whole other conversation – the centre holds onto tolerance because tolerance is passive. Those lacking agency can participate in tolerance while ignoring limits (because they don’t have the agency to enforce limits, by ignoring limits they can stay in denial of their lack of agency) … Forebearance include tolerance, limits (until the cost one was willing carried has been exceeded), and active participation – its a choice which one can boycott/defect based on the cost carried.” — Bill Joslin —” Aristocracy: War Upper Class: Law Upper Middle: Science (Econ) Middle Class: Philosophy Working Class: Religion Underclass: Intuition. “—By Curt Doolittle


    MARKETS BETWEEN THE CLASSES Markets are the solution to cooperation and they form BETWEEN THE CLASSES! When we begin to dissolve the classes or they become intertwined/intermingled with-in a democratic system; cooperation ceases and compromise becomes the ethic. And the way we compromise in democracy is voting. And people simply vote their temperamental bias. Our economic landscape favors an emotionally laden bias (feminine, dysgenic, short term), because we have created short term pleasure seekers as citizens. It’s a downward spiral to chaos. The spark for this post was a conversation had over the last few days on my wall regarding the NPC phenomena. I follow a group of people who have (what I consider) the only cogent, evolutionarily stable, ready to roll out strategy to end what ails humanity. My aim is to advocate for every plan that is feasible; every pathway available; and every lifestyle commensurate with a peaceful and flourishing future for planet earth and the HUMANS that reside here. [It may not seem it at times; but that’s as real as real gets. The better people are the better this place is for everyone. Look, some people are better than others (depends on the measure) this world isn’t and won’t ever be equal] {Humans don’t even like that; it spits in the face of their “sacred happiness” aim; as things are relative.}

    • The Economic Influence –
    • The Christian Influence –
    • The Underlying Strategy –
    • Human Nature –
    • The Propertarian Ethic –
    • The Current Perfect Storm –

    Speaking of relative; RELATIVE inequality causes violence [mostly among men](not being poorer than your relatives {joke} but being poor among people who aren’t). Losses in property en toto (this includes abstract items like ego bruises; and losses to agency) are the cause of negative emotion. It isn’t poverty nor lack of education that brings about violence; it’s despair. Not seeing a way out of your own suffering; which can be exacerbated by having those around you lack any sort of suffering (from what you can tell; NOTE: we all suffer). The internet and its primmed and primed stories don’t help. Technology has sped up trends that were already dangerous. In order to reverse dangerous trends we must visit and take stock of the behaviors and feedback loops that cause them; and luckily or unluckily enough those behaviors are trained into most humans by use of incentive tooling (agents lacking the adequate serotonin levels to feel worthwhile; being supplemented by dopamine kicks through hedonistic pleasure seeking) [whether the tooling was purposeful or not is irrelevant; the new PROPER tooling can be purposeful and adaptive]. We live in an economic pleasure (happiness) trap, that just so happens to devolve into something that takes more and more effort to obtain “happiness.” It’s really quite brilliant to see. As you age you become more financially stable (usually) and capable of buying bigger ticket items that are supposed to bring you the appropriate amount of elation… they don’t. The underclass (or lower class) needs domesticating; this can’t be gained or trained if we assume and grant them full personhood. The reason is simple; those that lack agency will push for incentives they simply CAN’T gain on their own (someone else must PAY). The same can be said but to a much lesser extent of the working class. They will vote their way into uselessness (dysgenic). Knowing that agency must be trained AND that granted power (voting, judging, etc) will corrupt those moving through the world intuitively because they will use their power to justify their intuitions. We must teach (foster, train) an ethic of tolerance. THIS is where Jesus fits in: Tolerance must be the defining characteristic of the under/lower/working classes because they lack the ability for forbearance {for now}. What Jesus did (the core metaphor of the new testament) was make a tolerable (perhaps even desirable) ethic for the (a) lower class (underclass). It’s a submissive ethic. It’s wise to adopt for those without agency (which most in the past we’re without agency [technology has released more capable agents than biological progress {possibly}). It’s wise to adopt when lacking agency because it purports safe long-term strategies devoid of tactics that require agency to unfurl; like violence, judgment, and punishment. [They leave that up to the flaming sword bearer; God; (reality en toto)] Additionally, the Christian ethic is a route to agency; to adopt the mantra “you are that which dies and is reborn anew,” is essentially what one must do in order to author one’s own life. Add to this; the idea that God is “hands on” is eradicated in the new testament! Look, we tortured then murdered the instantiation of Himself (Jesus) and He rises again as the holy spirit; i.e. God distributed among the living; hence each human represented as a single transcendent unit in the “eyes of the lord” (humanity as such). At least, that’s what I get from the book (the Theology people and their historic readings will murder me for that butchery of Christian Theology; but quite frankly they don’t have a good enough version of their own shit! If they did they world would be in an objectively better spot). It just seems profound enough of a story (myth); WITHOUT the attached meta-physical or historical claims. It’s a shortcut to understand “you gotta do it for yourself; and it’ll be painful as hell.” Peterson says he acts as God exists; “The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God.” I disagree; I believe you ought to act as though God has left it to you (He resides INSIDE) to create paradise here on your own (with other humans; it’s up to us) AND like a great coach (or trainer), He won’t lift a meta-physical pinky finger to help you (He is confident you can pull through on your own). This ethic; devoid of historical significance and attempted power grabbing lies, is a ready-to-roll-out behavioral-set [action pattern] that allows for much more (movement in the world) than it stifles. It peaches tolerance. What lives on today; The Abrahamism; the cult of Abraham; feminism and post-modernism (the SJW phenomena) the argumentative realm of pilpul and critique; the feminine means of coercion (gossip shame rally moralize etc); Isn’t the proper lesson to be learned (obviously). It just so happens to be the evolutionary hardwiring (the training) that was encoded through orthodoxy. Weaponizing the texts as a means to gain power as opposed to a means to bring about peace. A catastrophic perversion of what should be lives currently. [God {reality as such} is angry! This is why we have chaos; you’ve collectively sinned (aimed improperly) and misused works for millennia]. Christianity (perhaps there are better forms than others; h/t Giego Caleiro… Mormonism?) is stable ethic for those still needing domestication (development of agency) and it doesn’t hinder their ability to obtain agency and can keep them docile and helpful if it never develops. It’s individualistic insistence; it’s push for individualism; to be a sovereign (one with agency) is VERY good. It’s an intuition training short cut to capable agents if pursued correctly (that’s with agency as the aim; of course). However, this is the real world and individualism fails. It leaves you alone. The sovereign in the stories mentioned was tortured and murdered brutally; this is what attempting to be an individual sovereign will get you in this world. We just haven’t evolved that much. (That’s a warning; you can’t just be what you FEEL like you ought to be; not without suffering and sacrifice!) Humans need collectives [families are PARAMOUNT]; some collectivism is needed because we need each other. It doesn’t matter how much technology and the state powers attempt to convince us otherwise [the issue is they have encoded “not needing each other” into people’s actions and destroyed families]. Nation states with stratified (but permeable) classes with their own cultural norms being followed are by far the best landscape for creating individuals with agency. And the best chance for humans to remain evolutionarily viable on planet earth. An amalgam of all the races, nations, and creeds; will leave human as ONE thing; unable to adjust for sudden changes in environment [say unable to deal with catastrophic climate shifts]. Collectives of people will wipe out individuals not playing by their rules if given enough power. Only groups are sovereign, and that sovereignty is purchased at the highest of costs; an armed collective [a militia willing to kill those who may threaten it]. We need stable collectives in the same manner we need stable people (they feed into each other). Bringing them about by top down dictum {rule of Law, NOT the current rule of lawyers} (because we know how; via-Negativa) as well as bottom-up evolution (stoicism; via self-authoring) is the only strategy we have; we must do this done by any means necessary. The propertarian ethic can be overlaid onto an agency developing under and working class. The zero tolerance for free-riding and parasitism can be applied without a hitch. And for what it’s worth it’s those at the tippy-top acting as parasites and value extractors causing the greatest harm. We get to have zero tolerance for THEM; they KNOW what their doing! Those that lack agency do what they are steered to do (either by the elephant or by the environment; they are the herd), we can only blame them if they choose to forgo the offer we make (an offer they can’t refuse). This also requires LESS work to begin to roll-out societal changes because the ethic (in-part) simply needs a re-tooling as opposed to a complete culling and rebuilding. I am for using the current infrastructure (building and roadways; but also, stories and behavioral patterns) to our advantage (in pursuit of our aim). We are far down the spiral towards violence but given the superhuman technology and infrastructure we have developed we can back-track up this slippery slope and avoid bloodshed [something those far right and left don’t want to hear; they are antagonistic forces begging for a battle arena]. What we have brewing is a perfect storm of chaos; the flood is very real and fast approaching. Pick an arena: all bubbles and TV shows; all smoke and mirrors; all bark no bite. No follow through, no competence, no gratitude; all attitude and feelings. I came the through idealistic meta-physical left; I was never for social justice; but I am for justice. The intellectual operational right has a roll-out ready solution to tensions that requires only the whiners and do-nothings to be stripped of authority; sign-me-up! {NOTE: many of the humans currently alive lack agency; BUT the proper framework can simply “gift” it (agency) to those capable. It’s only their “training” that keeps them draining on the economy and on others; it’s only the affordance granted by our systems and institutions that keeps them dragging the rest of us down.} Curt likes to proclaim that the West dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance and superstition [that’s right]; but quite frankly, it’s easier to drag corpses (or leave them to rot). This being said; I’m for releasing the ropes and chains used for dragging and simply asking y’all to walk alongside us towards something better; for everyone’s sake!


  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1551978975 Timestamp) DEFINITIONS: SCIENCE, SCIENTISM, PSEUDOSCIENCE, PSEUDO-RATIONALISM, AND LITERATURE. (worth repeating) THE DEFINITIONS i) SCIENCE: a warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. ii) SCIENTISM : overstating empiricism (correlation), without completing the applicable scope of due diligences, or attempting to apply tests of truth in matters of preference or good. iii) PSEUDOSCIENCE: Testifying to the truth of statements without having performed due diligence against ignorance error, bias, and deceit. iv) PSEUDO-RATIONALISM: Attempts to claim closure where closure does not exist in the logics without appeal to the next higher dimension (empiricism). In other words sophisms, no matter how skilled. Contradictions proposed rarely exist, and almost all questions of philosophy are non-existent bits of fraud due to the use of poor grammar and incomplete sentences. (For example, the liar’s paradox is not operationally possible.) THE ARGUMENT (1) The sciences consist of logical and physical means of falsification in each dimension of possible human action (categorically consistent, internally consistent(logical), externally correspondent(empirical), operationally possible(existential), rational choice(voluntary), reciprocal rational choice(moral), scope-completeness/limits-defined/surviving-parsimony.) (2) the sciences can therefore tell us what is false, and what at present appears to be true (meaning the science allow us to testify to having performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.) (3) For some reason, we still conflate the logics (tests of constant relations between two or more states, in a set of dimensions), including mathematics (tests of constant positional relations given scale independence) and the deducibility (‘inference’) of relations given the inviolability of those constant relations. Very little of meaning can be said of logic other than it is extremely useful in the falsification of the logical – which is how we use it. Proofs appear to have very little value since given enough time nearly anything can be justified by verbal ‘proof’). (4) Philosophy at present is limited to the exploration and determination of preference (personal), and good (collective). But philosophy has a tragic reputation for nearly universal falsehood outside of those choices. In fact, current philosophy consists largely of self help on one side and a catalog of human errors in intuition on the other. (5) Literature consists of envisioning possible and impossible worlds, for the purpose of exploration, advocacy, and criticism. (6) We tend to conflate literature and logic (philosophy), and conflate History (myth), law (norm), literature (parable), and pseudoscience into theology, just as we inflate literature and reason into philosophy. (7) So while there is value in via positive imaginings (theology, philosophy, mythology) there exists only decidability (conflict resolution) via mathematics, science, history, and reciprocity (law). Ergo, if we must disagree, we must resort only to decidability independent of good or preference. If we seek possibilities, we must resort to literature, myth, and philosophy. Truth can only be produced via-negativa, and choice only by via positiva. Sorry. That’s all there is to the scope of human knowledge. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/03/29/definitions-science-scientism-pseudoscience-pseudo-rationalism-and-literature/

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1551978975 Timestamp) DEFINITIONS: SCIENCE, SCIENTISM, PSEUDOSCIENCE, PSEUDO-RATIONALISM, AND LITERATURE. (worth repeating) THE DEFINITIONS i) SCIENCE: a warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. ii) SCIENTISM : overstating empiricism (correlation), without completing the applicable scope of due diligences, or attempting to apply tests of truth in matters of preference or good. iii) PSEUDOSCIENCE: Testifying to the truth of statements without having performed due diligence against ignorance error, bias, and deceit. iv) PSEUDO-RATIONALISM: Attempts to claim closure where closure does not exist in the logics without appeal to the next higher dimension (empiricism). In other words sophisms, no matter how skilled. Contradictions proposed rarely exist, and almost all questions of philosophy are non-existent bits of fraud due to the use of poor grammar and incomplete sentences. (For example, the liar’s paradox is not operationally possible.) THE ARGUMENT (1) The sciences consist of logical and physical means of falsification in each dimension of possible human action (categorically consistent, internally consistent(logical), externally correspondent(empirical), operationally possible(existential), rational choice(voluntary), reciprocal rational choice(moral), scope-completeness/limits-defined/surviving-parsimony.) (2) the sciences can therefore tell us what is false, and what at present appears to be true (meaning the science allow us to testify to having performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.) (3) For some reason, we still conflate the logics (tests of constant relations between two or more states, in a set of dimensions), including mathematics (tests of constant positional relations given scale independence) and the deducibility (‘inference’) of relations given the inviolability of those constant relations. Very little of meaning can be said of logic other than it is extremely useful in the falsification of the logical – which is how we use it. Proofs appear to have very little value since given enough time nearly anything can be justified by verbal ‘proof’). (4) Philosophy at present is limited to the exploration and determination of preference (personal), and good (collective). But philosophy has a tragic reputation for nearly universal falsehood outside of those choices. In fact, current philosophy consists largely of self help on one side and a catalog of human errors in intuition on the other. (5) Literature consists of envisioning possible and impossible worlds, for the purpose of exploration, advocacy, and criticism. (6) We tend to conflate literature and logic (philosophy), and conflate History (myth), law (norm), literature (parable), and pseudoscience into theology, just as we inflate literature and reason into philosophy. (7) So while there is value in via positive imaginings (theology, philosophy, mythology) there exists only decidability (conflict resolution) via mathematics, science, history, and reciprocity (law). Ergo, if we must disagree, we must resort only to decidability independent of good or preference. If we seek possibilities, we must resort to literature, myth, and philosophy. Truth can only be produced via-negativa, and choice only by via positiva. Sorry. That’s all there is to the scope of human knowledge. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/03/29/definitions-science-scientism-pseudoscience-pseudo-rationalism-and-literature/

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552062098 Timestamp) DEFINE: RULE OF LAW I – RULE OF LAW Among modern legal theorists, we will find that at least three common definitions of the rule of law. 1 – Rule of Law: a “Substantive” (Skeptical) or “thick” definition that must preserve certain rights; 2 – Rule by Law: a “Formalist“: (Optimistic) or “thin” definition, that must not preserve any such rights, and; 3 – Rule of Man: a “Functional” (Fictional) or “ultra-thin” definition that requires neither formal process nor substantial rights be respected, and allows government officials great leeway. The ancient concept of rule OF law can be distinguished from rule BY law, in that, under the rule OF law, the law serves as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule BY law, the law is a mere tool for a government, that oppresses the population a using legislation as justification for arbitrary commands – a means of violating rights. Under Rule of Man, there are no checks on power to violate rights. Rule of Law (By Rights) 1- Substantive (Skeptical) conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. The substantive interpretation holds that the rule of law intrinsically must protect some or all individual rights. Rule By Law (Rule by Legislation) 2 – Formalist (Optimistic) definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the “justness” of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. The formalist interpretation holds that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. In addition, some theorists hold that democracy(majority) can circumvent both procedure and rights, or construct new rights (rather than privileges). Why Formalism? Formalism allows laws the pretense of claiming rule of law when rights are not protected by including countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights in the scope of the definition of “rule of law”. The “formal” interpretation is more widespread than the “substantive” interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law. Rule of Man (By Arbitrary Discretion) 3 – The functional (Fictional) interpretation of the term “rule of law”, consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the “rule of law” with the “rule of man.” According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of “rule of law”, whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of “rule of law”. Closing (Summary) In other words, there is only one form of rule of law under which no one can override natural rights (life, liberty, property, reciprocity, truth, and duty). Rule by legislation allows either the state, or the body politic to override those rules. And rule by man allows arbitrary discretion on the part of officials (members of the monopoly bureaucracy).

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552062098 Timestamp) DEFINE: RULE OF LAW I – RULE OF LAW Among modern legal theorists, we will find that at least three common definitions of the rule of law. 1 – Rule of Law: a “Substantive” (Skeptical) or “thick” definition that must preserve certain rights; 2 – Rule by Law: a “Formalist“: (Optimistic) or “thin” definition, that must not preserve any such rights, and; 3 – Rule of Man: a “Functional” (Fictional) or “ultra-thin” definition that requires neither formal process nor substantial rights be respected, and allows government officials great leeway. The ancient concept of rule OF law can be distinguished from rule BY law, in that, under the rule OF law, the law serves as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule BY law, the law is a mere tool for a government, that oppresses the population a using legislation as justification for arbitrary commands – a means of violating rights. Under Rule of Man, there are no checks on power to violate rights. Rule of Law (By Rights) 1- Substantive (Skeptical) conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. The substantive interpretation holds that the rule of law intrinsically must protect some or all individual rights. Rule By Law (Rule by Legislation) 2 – Formalist (Optimistic) definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the “justness” of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. The formalist interpretation holds that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. In addition, some theorists hold that democracy(majority) can circumvent both procedure and rights, or construct new rights (rather than privileges). Why Formalism? Formalism allows laws the pretense of claiming rule of law when rights are not protected by including countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights in the scope of the definition of “rule of law”. The “formal” interpretation is more widespread than the “substantive” interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law. Rule of Man (By Arbitrary Discretion) 3 – The functional (Fictional) interpretation of the term “rule of law”, consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the “rule of law” with the “rule of man.” According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of “rule of law”, whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of “rule of law”. Closing (Summary) In other words, there is only one form of rule of law under which no one can override natural rights (life, liberty, property, reciprocity, truth, and duty). Rule by legislation allows either the state, or the body politic to override those rules. And rule by man allows arbitrary discretion on the part of officials (members of the monopoly bureaucracy).

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552742160 Timestamp) HEATHEN VS PAGAN DISAMBIGUATION —“Curt, do you see Heathen and Pagan as concurrent/overlapping or do you see one preceding the other? I thought the terms were synonyms.”—Alan Robbins ORDER IN TIME 1. Heathen (hearth / spirits / nature) 2. Pagan (family of gods / archetypes / society) 3. Christian (one god / ruler / monopoly / politics) 4. Science (man, heroes, universe, markets) DISAMBIGUATION The disambiguation between heathen and pagan is mine given the overlap. Pagan is a definite construction of the semitic era of organized religion. Heathen is a term that had no organized religious connotation.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552742160 Timestamp) HEATHEN VS PAGAN DISAMBIGUATION —“Curt, do you see Heathen and Pagan as concurrent/overlapping or do you see one preceding the other? I thought the terms were synonyms.”—Alan Robbins ORDER IN TIME 1. Heathen (hearth / spirits / nature) 2. Pagan (family of gods / archetypes / society) 3. Christian (one god / ruler / monopoly / politics) 4. Science (man, heroes, universe, markets) DISAMBIGUATION The disambiguation between heathen and pagan is mine given the overlap. Pagan is a definite construction of the semitic era of organized religion. Heathen is a term that had no organized religious connotation.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553093842 Timestamp) QUESTION: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? Corporate Government National government Confederation Federation Empire ANSWER Corporate: Heterogeneous, Authoritarian National: Homogeneous, Any Political Order Confederation: Homogenous, by Treaty or Alliance, Federation: Homogenous, Limited Legal Autonomy, division of rule. Empire: Heterogeneous, Limited Customary Autonomy;