Curt Doolittle

Form: Definition

  • NATURAL LAW VS SOCIAL CONSTRUCT John Mark “Xyz is a social construct” carries no

    NATURAL LAW VS SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

    John Mark

    “Xyz is a social construct” carries no testable content. What they mean to say is “Human groups don’t actually need xyz to be successful. People have told us we need xyz but we would be better off without it.”

    Insert “legislation” or “rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity” for “xyz” and we have a testable statement.

    As far as I know, rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity with full accounting (of all forms of property) can and would adapt to social conditions – meaning that regardless of what actions people are taking in a polity, such a system of law would provide legal recourse and restitution for individuals or groups who experienced others violating reciprocity in dealings with them.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 16:05:00 UTC

  • RULE OF LAW Among modern legal theorists, we will find that at least three commo

    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).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 10:29:00 UTC

  • “Incremental Suppression is a marginal approach to enforcement, a bologna slice

    “Incremental Suppression is a marginal approach to enforcement, a bologna slice strategy. If you are powerful, you identify the most egregious instances of violation and go after those first, working your way down the list until it’s no longer worth the cost. If you are not powerful, you identify the violators within your reach and begin suppressing them, working your way outward as your power grows and your enemies’ diminish.” – Ely Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 08:41:00 UTC

  • “Incremental Suppression is a marginal approach to enforcement, a bologna slice

    “Incremental Suppression is a marginal approach to enforcement, a bologna slice strategy. If you are powerful, you identify the most egregious instances of violation and go after those first, working your way down the list until it’s no longer worth the cost. If you are not powerful, you identify the violators within your reach and begin suppressing them, working your way outward as your power grows and your enemies’ diminish.” – @[100001544898362:2048:Ely Harman]

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 08:41:00 UTC

  • Define Philosophy?

    —People define the word philosophy differently: My first year of college my philosophy professor defined it as “the rational appropriation of conscious subjectivity.” Would you comment on this definition?”—Joe Cooley  1) Philosophy consists of the act of REASONING by attempting to produce paradigms (sets of constant relations) of understanding (decidability) in the absence of sufficient measurements (observations) to do so, because of logical(cognitive) and physical(human scale) and technological(mechanical and logical), and economic (cost) limitations. For this reason, all disciplines started as branches of philosophy until they evolved into sciences (measurements) consisting of constant relations in paradigms(networks). 2) We create WISDOM LITERATURES using Mythology(supernormal), Literature (fiction), History, Science, Mathematics, and produce at least the following by conflation: ( a ) Religion: (Emotional) false history, fictional literature, pseudoscience, occult, and fictional law (fictions) ( b ) Philosophy: (Verbal) Sophisms (arguments) ( c ) Pseudoscience and Practical Knowledge (utilities): Note the Physical>Emotional>Intellectual(verbal) scope of those literatures, and the fictional means we have created to claim pretense of knowledge using them. 3) While Aristotle began with a hierarchy of categories by which to divide knowledge – the categories of philosophy we still used – he lacked knowledge of how to do better than he did. Today we can include metaphysics(grammars), psychology(aesthetics), sociology(ethics), the sciences(epistemology), testimony(speech), law(cooperation), economics(production), politics(commons), group strategy(competition/evolution). Note that Socrates practiced Criticism(Critique), Plato practiced Justification(Pilpul), only Aristotle Practiced Testimony (due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit). 4) As far as I know I’ve completed Testimony (epistemology) by converting it to a science (truth) – although we must wait a few decades to see if I’m correct (its very very unlikely that I err). That means that all measurement (“Truth”) is now a question of the sciences. That means that philosophy now consists of the study of CHOICE. Not the true, but the MEANINGFUL, PREFERABLE and the GOOD. 5) Until we solved the problem of epistemology, we lack a most parsimonious paradigm (truth) – meaning a set of constant relations across the entire spectrum of knowledge from the physical, to the emotional to the intellectual, and could not separate philosophy into truth, good, preference, and meaning. There is only one most parsimonious paradigm (truth) but there are an infinite number of paradigms that provide us understanding(meaning), preference(choice), and good (collective). So the domain of philosophy is at present – if not always – the use of fragmentary information in kaleidic (unpredictable) time, to reason out paradigms (networks of constant relations) that help us understand (Meaningful), how to choose how to achieve the Preferable and the Good. As such philosophy, as meaning, preference, and good, like creativity, will never end.

  • Define Philosophy?

    —People define the word philosophy differently: My first year of college my philosophy professor defined it as “the rational appropriation of conscious subjectivity.” Would you comment on this definition?”—Joe Cooley  1) Philosophy consists of the act of REASONING by attempting to produce paradigms (sets of constant relations) of understanding (decidability) in the absence of sufficient measurements (observations) to do so, because of logical(cognitive) and physical(human scale) and technological(mechanical and logical), and economic (cost) limitations. For this reason, all disciplines started as branches of philosophy until they evolved into sciences (measurements) consisting of constant relations in paradigms(networks). 2) We create WISDOM LITERATURES using Mythology(supernormal), Literature (fiction), History, Science, Mathematics, and produce at least the following by conflation: ( a ) Religion: (Emotional) false history, fictional literature, pseudoscience, occult, and fictional law (fictions) ( b ) Philosophy: (Verbal) Sophisms (arguments) ( c ) Pseudoscience and Practical Knowledge (utilities): Note the Physical>Emotional>Intellectual(verbal) scope of those literatures, and the fictional means we have created to claim pretense of knowledge using them. 3) While Aristotle began with a hierarchy of categories by which to divide knowledge – the categories of philosophy we still used – he lacked knowledge of how to do better than he did. Today we can include metaphysics(grammars), psychology(aesthetics), sociology(ethics), the sciences(epistemology), testimony(speech), law(cooperation), economics(production), politics(commons), group strategy(competition/evolution). Note that Socrates practiced Criticism(Critique), Plato practiced Justification(Pilpul), only Aristotle Practiced Testimony (due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit). 4) As far as I know I’ve completed Testimony (epistemology) by converting it to a science (truth) – although we must wait a few decades to see if I’m correct (its very very unlikely that I err). That means that all measurement (“Truth”) is now a question of the sciences. That means that philosophy now consists of the study of CHOICE. Not the true, but the MEANINGFUL, PREFERABLE and the GOOD. 5) Until we solved the problem of epistemology, we lack a most parsimonious paradigm (truth) – meaning a set of constant relations across the entire spectrum of knowledge from the physical, to the emotional to the intellectual, and could not separate philosophy into truth, good, preference, and meaning. There is only one most parsimonious paradigm (truth) but there are an infinite number of paradigms that provide us understanding(meaning), preference(choice), and good (collective). So the domain of philosophy is at present – if not always – the use of fragmentary information in kaleidic (unpredictable) time, to reason out paradigms (networks of constant relations) that help us understand (Meaningful), how to choose how to achieve the Preferable and the Good. As such philosophy, as meaning, preference, and good, like creativity, will never end.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. MAGICAL THINKING –“Magical thinking is the a

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    MAGICAL THINKING

    –“Magical thinking is the attribution of causal or synchronistic relationships between actions and events which seemingly cannot be justified by reason and observation. In religion, folk religion, and superstitious beliefs, the posited correlation is often between religious ritual, prayer, sacrifice, or the observance of a taboo, and an expected benefit or recompense.”–

    As you move east and south this seems to increases rapidly

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-18 01:09:43 UTC

  • Three Axis of Cognitive Speciation

    (core concept that simplifies propertarianism) There are only so many evolutionary venues available for human speciation given our adaptation after the development of language is largely cognitive: (a) neoteny(or its reversal) (b) gender dimorphism (or its reversal) Now, dimorphism generally refers to externally visible structural differences, however we have significant internal structural differences (neurological) as well as structural differences in neurochemistry (velocity and incentives). Ideal human adaptivity requires increasing neoteny, and increasing dimorphism (specialization). So some groups are more evolutionarily advanced than others. We must then adapt to our in group distributions. That produces cultural and strategic specialization. But in the end we are largely varying and SPECIATING along the gender, neotonic, and distributional axis. x—> gender y—> neoteny z—> distribution <Truth/Moral <— superiority—-inferiority—>False/Immoral>

  • Three Axis of Cognitive Speciation

    (core concept that simplifies propertarianism) There are only so many evolutionary venues available for human speciation given our adaptation after the development of language is largely cognitive: (a) neoteny(or its reversal) (b) gender dimorphism (or its reversal) Now, dimorphism generally refers to externally visible structural differences, however we have significant internal structural differences (neurological) as well as structural differences in neurochemistry (velocity and incentives). Ideal human adaptivity requires increasing neoteny, and increasing dimorphism (specialization). So some groups are more evolutionarily advanced than others. We must then adapt to our in group distributions. That produces cultural and strategic specialization. But in the end we are largely varying and SPECIATING along the gender, neotonic, and distributional axis. x—> gender y—> neoteny z—> distribution <Truth/Moral <— superiority—-inferiority—>False/Immoral>

  • Fascism: Intolerant Nationalism (tribalism)

    Fascism refers to any political organization using dependent upon authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce; that developed to oppose liberalism( Underclass Seizure of Rule but preserving markets), Marxism(Underclass Rule destroying markets) and anarchism(Anti-Agrarian/Industrial Pastoralism: Underclass Separatism).