Curt Doolittle

Form: Definition

  • THE SECTS OF LIBERTARIANISM (worth repeating) Libertarianism: a preference for l

    THE SECTS OF LIBERTARIANISM

    (worth repeating)

    Libertarianism: a preference for liberty as the first priority, where liberty is defined as a monopoly of control over myself, and any thing I have obtained through homesteading (first use), voluntary exchange, or transformation thereof. And that all political goods must be willingly constructed rather than involuntarily constructed. That is pretty much the extent of it. My work is an attempt to provide solutions for creating complex and desirable commons voluntarily rather than through a monopoly of majoritarian dictatorship.

    Prior generations of ‘libertarians’ from the cosmopolitan sect (Jewish Enlightenment) of liberty have attempted to disavow all possible construction of the commons, whereas classical liberals (in both German and English Enlightenment sects) maintain the civic society as a means of voluntarily producing the commons.

    However it is only possible to produce commons in a society where people refrain from consuming the commons, and only Europeans appear to have constructed a society where individuals do not consume commons that are reserved from consumption.

    We can easily distinguish Jewish and European libertarianism by whether or not they deny responsibility to pay for voluntarily constructed commons versus whether they obligate us to pay for voluntarily constructed commons. The civic commons is the western European competitive advantage, while promoting consumption at all costs is the cosmopolitan evolutionary strategy.

    There is nothing illogical about these opposing strategies. European martial land owners must pay high costs for preserving control over territory necessary to construct productive resources, while jewish transitory merchants benefit by the opposite strategy of profiting from trade and consumption.

    Theoretically these are not incompatible strategies. In history they have been incompatible strategies.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 15:41:00 UTC

  • WEAPONIZED GOSSIP (Profound) We humans are capable of three means of influence,

    WEAPONIZED GOSSIP

    (Profound)

    We humans are capable of three means of influence, persuasion, and coercion.

    1) Violence or the threat of it.

    2) Remuneration or the threat of deprivation if it.

    3) Ostracization or the threat of it.

    I’d originally taken the idea from Johnson, who referred to ostracization as morality.

    But with our advances in genetic, cognitive, behavioral, and anthropological knowledge it has become clear to me that the means of influence is gossip. That our gossip accuses others of moral violation. And that moral violation drives ostracization. And that ostracization drives up opportunity costs and transaction costs.

    Gossip evolved as a means of rallying betas to kill, punish, or control alphas. And therefore return reproductive control to females.

    Once you approach political speech as gossip for the purpose of reproductive control, you rapidly come to the conclusion why it is morally loaded and why it is rarely rational or scientific.

    You also will understand why the culture of critique was successful in the 20th century.

    Its weaponized gossip.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-19 08:31:00 UTC

  • THE TERNARY LOGIC OF COOPERATION 1) The ternary logic of cooperation consists of

    THE TERNARY LOGIC OF COOPERATION

    1) The ternary logic of cooperation consists of three possible states: Violence(predation), Cooperation (exchange), and Avoidance (boycott); and cooperation, whether rational or pre-rational, is only beneficial if productive and non-parasitic (is absent of free riding/imposed cost). Even the advocacy of free riding, Involuntary transfer and imposed costs is an act of fraud.

    2) We have invented a series of incrementally complex logical instruments that permit us to isolate properties and make comparisons, an without which we cannot make comparisons. All forms of ‘calculation’ (in the widest sense) depend upon these

    a) Properties (identities) and Categories (sets) : Logic (description)

    b) Counting (multiples) and Naming (numbering) : Arithmetic (quantities)

    c) Measures and Ratios : Mathematics (relations)

    d) Causal Relations : Physics (causality)

    e) Forecasting (time) and Planning (acting) : The Logic of Action

    f) Cooperation : The Ternary Logic of Cooperation (production)

    The Ternary Logic of Cooperation constitutes the missing ‘logic’ of cooperation.

    Western Philosophy is first and foremost, in itself, the logic of rational action – the tools we use to rationalize action in the world. I have abandoned the attempt to restate praxeology and abandoned the term praxeology as unrecoverable, given both the ideological commitment of its adherents, the logical and empirical failure of misesian praxeology as pseudoscientific, and the absurdly primitive levantine immorality of rothbardianism. So at this point I’ve decided to go forward using the “Ternary Logic of Cooperation” and the in-group prohibition on free riding and the out-group restatement of free riding as a prohibition on imposed costs.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-03 08:35:00 UTC

  • Existential, Experiential, and Objective

    ON THE EXISTENTIAL, EXPERIENTIAL, AND OBJECTIVE (OBSERVABLE)
    (worth repeating)

    [H]umans are usually, when not defective, capable of reasoning – meaning comparing and contrasting properties, methods and relations, then forecasting, then ranking and choosing – usually without much introspective requirement – although our abilities to do so differ vastly. Very often we use language to organize these thoughts, which then frames the thoughts themselves by the language available to the speaker.

    One can be sentient (aware of changes in state of memory) and willing, but not able to make rational judgements. (see Sacks). One’s rational judgements can be internally consistent, and therefore self-justifiable as rational, but externally non-correspondent (false) and therefore objectively non-rational. (or more easily stated, an individual may be too incompetent or ignorant to make an objectively rational assessment.)

    So while we use the term ‘rational’ categorically, we cannot ‘cheat’ and because of that verbalism, conflate the existence, the experience, and the measure. This is also the technique used by the postmoderns, of whom Heidegger is the most advanced, in their attempt to restate truth as experiential rather than objective. For him, Being is experiencing, not acting. This is an elaborate defense of hedonic ignorance. The most anti-rational set of ideas yet made.

    It is possibly not obvious that advocating both Popper’s Platonic Truth, and your above statement that we “ARE” rational (which is also an obscurant use of the verb to-be) with as Experiential Truth, is itself a contradictory definition of Truth. We may use language to mask the point of view, but points of view are different: existential, experiential, and objective are three different points of view.

    (I suspect this might be brain-frying, because I have to actually pay attention when I’m writing it myself this morning) lol Operational language, constant awareness of the ‘fungibility’ of empty verbalisms, has helped me avoid these mistakes.

  • Existential, Experiential, and Objective

    ON THE EXISTENTIAL, EXPERIENTIAL, AND OBJECTIVE (OBSERVABLE)
    (worth repeating)

    [H]umans are usually, when not defective, capable of reasoning – meaning comparing and contrasting properties, methods and relations, then forecasting, then ranking and choosing – usually without much introspective requirement – although our abilities to do so differ vastly. Very often we use language to organize these thoughts, which then frames the thoughts themselves by the language available to the speaker.

    One can be sentient (aware of changes in state of memory) and willing, but not able to make rational judgements. (see Sacks). One’s rational judgements can be internally consistent, and therefore self-justifiable as rational, but externally non-correspondent (false) and therefore objectively non-rational. (or more easily stated, an individual may be too incompetent or ignorant to make an objectively rational assessment.)

    So while we use the term ‘rational’ categorically, we cannot ‘cheat’ and because of that verbalism, conflate the existence, the experience, and the measure. This is also the technique used by the postmoderns, of whom Heidegger is the most advanced, in their attempt to restate truth as experiential rather than objective. For him, Being is experiencing, not acting. This is an elaborate defense of hedonic ignorance. The most anti-rational set of ideas yet made.

    It is possibly not obvious that advocating both Popper’s Platonic Truth, and your above statement that we “ARE” rational (which is also an obscurant use of the verb to-be) with as Experiential Truth, is itself a contradictory definition of Truth. We may use language to mask the point of view, but points of view are different: existential, experiential, and objective are three different points of view.

    (I suspect this might be brain-frying, because I have to actually pay attention when I’m writing it myself this morning) lol Operational language, constant awareness of the ‘fungibility’ of empty verbalisms, has helped me avoid these mistakes.

  • What Constitutes Ethics?

    ETHICS: IMPROVING FUZZY LANGUAGE

    —“To be correct, ethical memes need to be universal. It cannot be right or wrong only for some but not for all. But all mere values are personal, but a value is only like a belief in that respect.”— David M.

    Excellent. I’d suggest improving this a bit.

    First:
    “All true ethical propositions must apply universally. All preferential rules need not apply universally. All preferences must exist as individual opinions. All ethical (and moral) rules must exist independent of individual opinions. “

    Second:
    The term “meme” refers to the rate of involuntary distribution. An ethical rule may be stated mimetically or not. While it is certainly more efficacious that an ethical rule be stated mimetically, the truth of the proposition holds whether it is stated mimetically or not.

    For example, most false moral statements constructed by the Frankfurt school and the postmodernists as well as many of the pseudoscientific arguments of twentieth century social science, appear to be ethical, but are not.

    Third:
    Worse, justifications for unethical and immoral actions spread fastest because they allow for rapid returns.

    CONCLUSION
    So (a) ethical rules, if true, are universal. (b) The memetic construction of an idea has no correspondence with its truth. In fact since ethical rules require us to forgo consumption, in general, they impose a cost upon us, and therefore they are constantly met with friction. This is why the common law must always evolve: we find a new way of ‘cheating’ and then must describe that form of cheating as illegal. Rules follow inventions.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • What Constitutes Ethics?

    ETHICS: IMPROVING FUZZY LANGUAGE

    —“To be correct, ethical memes need to be universal. It cannot be right or wrong only for some but not for all. But all mere values are personal, but a value is only like a belief in that respect.”— David M.

    Excellent. I’d suggest improving this a bit.

    First:
    “All true ethical propositions must apply universally. All preferential rules need not apply universally. All preferences must exist as individual opinions. All ethical (and moral) rules must exist independent of individual opinions. “

    Second:
    The term “meme” refers to the rate of involuntary distribution. An ethical rule may be stated mimetically or not. While it is certainly more efficacious that an ethical rule be stated mimetically, the truth of the proposition holds whether it is stated mimetically or not.

    For example, most false moral statements constructed by the Frankfurt school and the postmodernists as well as many of the pseudoscientific arguments of twentieth century social science, appear to be ethical, but are not.

    Third:
    Worse, justifications for unethical and immoral actions spread fastest because they allow for rapid returns.

    CONCLUSION
    So (a) ethical rules, if true, are universal. (b) The memetic construction of an idea has no correspondence with its truth. In fact since ethical rules require us to forgo consumption, in general, they impose a cost upon us, and therefore they are constantly met with friction. This is why the common law must always evolve: we find a new way of ‘cheating’ and then must describe that form of cheating as illegal. Rules follow inventions.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • What Constitutes Ethics

    WHAT CONSTITUTES “ETHICS” AND WHAT MAKES CERTAIN ETHICAL STATEMENTS UNIVERSAL? —” what constitutes ethics and what makes certain ethical values it universal?”— [C]ooperation (forgoing opportunity to use violence) is non logical under conditions of parasitism, imposed costs, or free riding. Voluntary exchange is only rational if mutually productive, and free of negative externality. Now, if one exists in a tribal family structure (say levantine or arabic) or in an outbred family structure (northern Europe), whether one is ‘free riding’ on whom may constitute different ethical preferences. One group may prefer a less moral and ethical society, and another may prefer a more moral and ethical society. In other words, in a low-trust in-bred polity (Jews, gypsies, arabs) one is expected to act on behalf of the family at all costs. (See Banfield’s The Moral Basis of a Backward Society). However, this inbreeding is a reproductive strategy. (See Emmanuel Todd) Just as jewish and Gypsy near breeding is a reproductive strategy. (See Macdonald) These groups practice dual ethical systems: high trust-in-group and low-trust out-group. Only northern europeans, who practice the absolute nuclear family, evolved high trust ethics – a total prohibition on parasitism, imposed costs, and free riding. Because only northern Europeans succeeded in breaking the family and tribal fealties through manorialism, outbreeding and property rights. It was an economic advantage for westerners to develop universalism. But that universalism independent of separatism, is uncompetitive. Ethical rules are universal. We choose a m ore ethical society or a less ethical society given the diversity or heterogeneity of the population. (Period. End of Argument. Much to the displeasure of many.) Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • What Constitutes Ethics

    WHAT CONSTITUTES “ETHICS” AND WHAT MAKES CERTAIN ETHICAL STATEMENTS UNIVERSAL? —” what constitutes ethics and what makes certain ethical values it universal?”— [C]ooperation (forgoing opportunity to use violence) is non logical under conditions of parasitism, imposed costs, or free riding. Voluntary exchange is only rational if mutually productive, and free of negative externality. Now, if one exists in a tribal family structure (say levantine or arabic) or in an outbred family structure (northern Europe), whether one is ‘free riding’ on whom may constitute different ethical preferences. One group may prefer a less moral and ethical society, and another may prefer a more moral and ethical society. In other words, in a low-trust in-bred polity (Jews, gypsies, arabs) one is expected to act on behalf of the family at all costs. (See Banfield’s The Moral Basis of a Backward Society). However, this inbreeding is a reproductive strategy. (See Emmanuel Todd) Just as jewish and Gypsy near breeding is a reproductive strategy. (See Macdonald) These groups practice dual ethical systems: high trust-in-group and low-trust out-group. Only northern europeans, who practice the absolute nuclear family, evolved high trust ethics – a total prohibition on parasitism, imposed costs, and free riding. Because only northern Europeans succeeded in breaking the family and tribal fealties through manorialism, outbreeding and property rights. It was an economic advantage for westerners to develop universalism. But that universalism independent of separatism, is uncompetitive. Ethical rules are universal. We choose a m ore ethical society or a less ethical society given the diversity or heterogeneity of the population. (Period. End of Argument. Much to the displeasure of many.) Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • Aesthetics In Three Dimensions

    THREE AXIS OF AESTHETIC CRITICISM: 1) CRAFT (Materials and Workmanship) 2) DESIGN (Aesthetic appeal and ‘beauty’) 3) CONTENT (Values, associations and narrative) The comparative quality of all art is objectively ascertainable by recursive triangulation.