Curt Doolittle

Form: Definition

  • LOOK, IT’S NOT COMPLICATED: THEY’RE TERMS impulse “experienceable’ free associat

    LOOK, IT’S NOT COMPLICATED: THEY’RE TERMS

    impulse “experienceable’

    free association ‘imaginable’

    reason ‘comparable and preferable’

    rational ‘justificationary and possible’

    rationalism ‘non-contradictory’

    logic ‘axiomatic, formal, sets, comparisons and operations’

    empirical ‘observably confirmable’

    statistical ‘observably correlated ‘

    science ‘and falsifiable’

    operational ‘existentially possible and non conflationary’

    reciprocal ‘cooperatively possible’

    complete ‘fully accounted’

    testimonial ‘warrantied’

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-23 15:39:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRACY: THE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION OF AGENCY Aristocracy: the production of

    ARISTOCRACY: THE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION OF AGENCY

    Aristocracy: the production of Agency (peers) by the incremental suppression of parasitism, by the use of the common law, leaving no option for survival but market production: the civilization-wide industrialization of the domestication of the animal man, for fun and profit.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 18:46:00 UTC

  • The Definition and Use of ‘-ISMs’

    IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM” What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”? ism ˈizəm/ noun informal

    “a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain of preferences: typically a political ideology, philosophy, institutional framework, economic model, or an artistic movement. isms separate the categories that are defined by the constant relations of the physical world from the inconstant categories of the preferential world that we call the sciences. A science does not account for preferences in inputs or outputs, but an ‘ism, as a means of decidability between preferences must.” So one must know the ism’s to debate them. To know the isms requires one know the categories, values, methods of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. So in systems of preferences, ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species. When referring to ‘isms’ we can use other ‘isms’ to reinterpret them – using a different set of categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. if we are confused by one another’s arguments we can clarify our arguments by increasing the precision of our arguments, by referring directly to categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. When one criticizes the use of ism’s one is criticizing a taxonomic reference to a set of particulars: categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability, one does little more than (a) demonstrate one’s ignorance of the topic, (b) demonstrate one’s arrogance from a position of ignorance, (c) attempt to steal from others by demanding that they pay the cost of educating you, or tolerate the existence of your theft, and the consequences it might have if your attempted theft is interpreted by others as an inability to construct a counter argument. In other words, arguments from ignorance are a form of blackmail. And those who conduct blackmail are those we wish to punish for their crimes. The ethical, moral, and non-criminal means of requesting information is this: “I don’t understand, would you mind answering this question: what do you mean when you say….” To which the other will respond either with reciprocal ethical and moral and non-criminal means, by saying “Ok.(attempted clarification)”, or some variation on “I can’t afford to make that investment now, but here is where you may look do it yourself”, or “I just don’t have the time or inclination to invest in that question at the moment”. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Definition and Use of ‘-ISMs’

    IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM” What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”? ism ˈizəm/ noun informal

    “a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain of preferences: typically a political ideology, philosophy, institutional framework, economic model, or an artistic movement. isms separate the categories that are defined by the constant relations of the physical world from the inconstant categories of the preferential world that we call the sciences. A science does not account for preferences in inputs or outputs, but an ‘ism, as a means of decidability between preferences must.” So one must know the ism’s to debate them. To know the isms requires one know the categories, values, methods of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. So in systems of preferences, ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species. When referring to ‘isms’ we can use other ‘isms’ to reinterpret them – using a different set of categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. if we are confused by one another’s arguments we can clarify our arguments by increasing the precision of our arguments, by referring directly to categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. When one criticizes the use of ism’s one is criticizing a taxonomic reference to a set of particulars: categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability, one does little more than (a) demonstrate one’s ignorance of the topic, (b) demonstrate one’s arrogance from a position of ignorance, (c) attempt to steal from others by demanding that they pay the cost of educating you, or tolerate the existence of your theft, and the consequences it might have if your attempted theft is interpreted by others as an inability to construct a counter argument. In other words, arguments from ignorance are a form of blackmail. And those who conduct blackmail are those we wish to punish for their crimes. The ethical, moral, and non-criminal means of requesting information is this: “I don’t understand, would you mind answering this question: what do you mean when you say….” To which the other will respond either with reciprocal ethical and moral and non-criminal means, by saying “Ok.(attempted clarification)”, or some variation on “I can’t afford to make that investment now, but here is where you may look do it yourself”, or “I just don’t have the time or inclination to invest in that question at the moment”. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • WHAT DO WE MEAN BY ‘TRUTHFUL KNOWLEDGE’ In Propertarianism (Natural Law) have a

    WHAT DO WE MEAN BY ‘TRUTHFUL KNOWLEDGE’

    In Propertarianism (Natural Law) have a very precise definition of ‘truthful knowledge’ that isn’t open to interpretation. We don’t use the word ‘true’ knowledge, and we don’t even use the word ‘true’ very often, except to say ‘that’s not true, or that can’t be true”, and tend use the world ‘truthful’ or ‘truth candidate’ instead.

    I suppose for greater clarity for newcomers would could say that by “Truthful Knowledge” we are referring to the most parsimonious and consistently correspondent statement possible, that is as free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit, as the scope of human language and human knowledge currently tolerates.

    And I could criticize myself for using that Truthful Knowledge which to the inexperienced, immediately invokes via-positiva justificationism, when I mean via negativa ‘a surviving truth candidate’.

    So when we say we are making a Truthful Statement, it is one that has SURVIVED the test of Testimonial Epistemology:

    The Operational Sequence of Universal, Testimonial, Epistemology:

    experience ->

    … free association ->

    … … idea ->

    … … … ‘wayfinding’ ->

    … … … … hypothesis ->

    … … … … … critical testing (falsification) ->

    … … … … … … theory ->

    … … … … … … … publication (market testing) ->

    … … … … … … … … Law ->

    … … … … … … … … … metaphysical assumption(acculturation).

    In that phase of Critical Testing we attempt to construct an operational description of a sequence of subjectively testable operations, (which is a very densely loaded set of terms), that adhere to a very strict grammar.

    This form of ‘strict construction’ exposes (quite readily) whether we know what we are talking about or not. And shows us where we need to add clarity before we can make a truthful statement.

    Then we use a checklist to ensure that we can WARRANTY to others that we have done due diligence, in ensuring that we do not engage in the many problems of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, and deceit.

    This list includes a set of consistency checks. They are:

    – Categorical Consistency: identity consistency

    – Logical Consistency: internal consistency

    – Empirical Consistency: external correspondence

    – Existential consistency: operational language and subjective testability

    – Moral consistency: Reciprocity (which we have a very strict definition of as well: consisting only of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited to productive externalities)

    – Scope Consistency: (this one is hard) but it means have we

    …. (a) fully accounted for call costs?

    …. (b) defined the limits – at what points does this statement no longer apply?

    …. (c) tested the parsimony – (this one is very hard) have we overstated our case, and can this be stated more precisely?

    Because humans ourselves serve as a STANDARD OF MEASURE in relation to other humans due to limited differences in subjective testability; and because of the difficulty in making a series of operational statements, while at the same time surviving the checklist of six dimensions of actionable reality, it is almost impossible to be held accountable by others for speaking a falsehood.

    This is what we mean by ‘Truthful Speech’. Your warranty that you have done due diligence that your speech will do no harm.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Non Submission

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Natural Law of Sovereign Men

    The Aesthetics of Agency

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 17:57:00 UTC

  • “Aristocracy defined on the foundation of agency gives me chills (heroic call to

    —“Aristocracy defined on the foundation of agency gives me chills (heroic call to action)”— Bill Joslin

    Aristocracy: the search for, breeding and rearing of, humans: those post-homo-sapiens, who possess agency, and who therefore may create a condition of sovereignty.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 16:31:00 UTC

  • WHAT DOES ‘AGENCY’ MEAN? “In social science, agency is the capacity of individua

    WHAT DOES ‘AGENCY’ MEAN?

    “In social science, agency is the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices.”

    in practical terms it is an attempt by social scientists to find another name for the (heavily tainted, if not entirely polluted, and therefore unusable) term ‘free will’.

    Wiki is your friend:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(sociology)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 15:55:00 UTC

  • IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM” What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”? is

    IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM”

    What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”?

    ism

    ˈizəm/

    noun informal

    “a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain of preferences: typically a political ideology, philosophy, institutional framework, economic model, or an artistic movement. isms separate the categories that are defined by the constant relations of the physical world from the inconstant categories of the preferential world that we call the sciences. A science does not account for preferences in inputs or outputs, but an ‘ism, as a means of decidability between preferences must.”

    So one must know the ism’s to debate them. To know the isms requires one know the categories, values, methods of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. So in systems of preferences, ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species.

    When referring to ‘isms’ we can use other ‘isms’ to reinterpret them – using a different set of categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability.

    if we are confused by one another’s arguments we can clarify our arguments by increasing the precision of our arguments, by referring directly to categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability.

    When one criticizes the use of ism’s one is criticizing a taxonomic reference to a set of particulars: categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability, one does little more than (a) demonstrate one’s ignorance of the topic, (b) demonstrate one’s arrogance from a position of ignorance, (c) attempt to steal from others by demanding that they pay the cost of educating you, or tolerate the existence of your theft, and the consequences it might have if your attempted theft is interpreted by others as an inability to construct a counter argument. In other words, arguments from ignorance are a form of blackmail. And those who conduct blackmail are those we wish to punish for their crimes.

    The ethical, moral, and non-criminal means of requesting information is this: “I don’t understand, would you mind answering this question: what do you mean when you say….”

    To which the other will respond either with reciprocal ethical and moral and non-criminal means, by saying “Ok.(attempted clarification)”, or some variation on “I can’t afford to make that investment now, but here is where you may look do it yourself”, or “I just don’t have the time or inclination to invest in that question at the moment”.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Non Submission

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Natural Law of Sovereign Men

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 10:53:00 UTC

  • INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (via request) SIMPLE VERSION COMMON LANGUAGE FORMAL LANGUA

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/08/16/qa-curt-whats-your-position-on-intellectual-property/PROPERTARIANISM: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

    (via request)

    SIMPLE VERSION

    https://propertarianism.com/2014/12/17/intellectual-property-ip-in-propertarianism/

    COMMON LANGUAGE

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/08/16/qa-curt-whats-your-position-on-intellectual-property/

    FORMAL LANGUAGE

    https://propertarianism.com/2015/06/13/rights-of-limited-market-monopoly-intellectual-property/

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 17:04:00 UTC

  • Wisdom differs from truth in that wisdom achieves by analogy and conflation, tha

    Wisdom differs from truth in that wisdom achieves by analogy and conflation, that which truth achieves by operational description and deflation. It is the difference between storytelling and engineering. Between parable and science.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 10:16:00 UTC