Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • GOING INTO DEPTH ON TRIFUNCTIONALISM VS COMPETING CIVILIZATIONS In the Proto-Ind

    GOING INTO DEPTH ON TRIFUNCTIONALISM VS COMPETING CIVILIZATIONS

    In the Proto-Indo-European mythology, each social group had its own god or family of gods to represent it and the function of the god or gods matched the function of the group.

    There are only three possible means of coercion (weapons of influence) available to humans, and we have developed genetic abilities, moral intuitions, and cultural institutions to reflect them:

    1) The Established Male: Defense/Force

    2) The Ascendent Male: Trade/Deprivation

    3) The Female: Advocacy/Undermining

    We have three sets of faculties

    1) The Physical and Performative : Science and evidence

    2) The Verbal and Rational : Reason and logic

    3) The Emotional and Intuitive: instincts and incentives

    There are also three methods of Fictionalisms (falsehoods)

    1) Override Physical Intuition Magic to Pseudoscience

    2) Override Verbal Intuition: Sophistry to Philosophy

    3) Override Emotional Intuition: Occult to Theology

    This specialization has led to three classes:

    1) Those who Fight (and judge) > Force/Defense

    2) Those who Pray (an teach) > Undermining/Advocacy

    3) Those who Produce (work) > Trade/Deprivation

    and

    4) … Slaves (farm and household labor)

    and

    5) … Animals (farm labor and foodstuffs)

    This pattern remains the same throughout western history until the possibility of the organization of complex production, distribution and trade, expands the influence of the middle class (elites) from those who produce, making them equal to those who fight and pray.

    The reason is simple, because of the division of labor between the material and spiritual elites, there was never the necessity for either to claim authority over the other. The result then was that during the age of transformation – the beginning of our religious traditions – the west developed a market of philosophy rather than a monopoly theology. it wasn’t until the intentional destruction of the western roman empire and the extermination of western thought by the jews christians and then muslims that we lost our philosophy to the semitic attempt at replicating supernatural equalitarian monopoly in Western tripartism and its markets.

    Semitic monotheism was not successful in europe because it was unable to displace the military aristocracy and instead evolved into a corrupt wing for second tier sons of wealthy families who could obtain politial position. By the end of the early middle ages the church was so corrupt that the monasteries took over – hence poverty – as a means of suppressing the parasitism of the church.

    So our aristocracy and our common law remained and the catholic church was an usuccessful competitor to the traditional european group strategy, and served only as administrative wing of the aristocracy and nobility.

    And then when Aristotle was restored to Europe, the legal profession advocated empiricism and once literacy returned then our ancient traditions were again expressed in wave after wave of reformation, resulting in the english constitution on one end, the protestant reformation, and the french attempt at preserving that feminine authoritarianism of the church first by killing the middle class – the protestants – and then by killing the aristocracy, and the by killing the church – all the most backward institutions in europe and instead of a protestant reformation and a middle class, napoleon’s conquest sought to achieve by arms what the church failed to do, and destroy the aristocratic heart of europe: the holy roman empire of the german states, that had governed the majority of europe from the 800’s onward – and defended europe against the dangers (hordes) of the east.

    The germans unified into a modern state in order to prevent yet another french conquest, and the french conspired with the rest of the world to keep german expansion in check – to continue the long running attempt by France to restore roman authoritarian order over Europe under the pretense of french enlightened view of man. But France’s enlightenment was a reaction AGAINST – a counter -revolution against – the british restoration of the european tradition of our Natural law, Sovereignty, and aristocracy and the meritocratic rather than elite government that results from meritocracy.

    Germany was suppressed and ‘de-prussianized’ by design by france’s dictate, and american self demagoguery not by anglo demand.

    So, today, because of increases in the complexity of production we have:

    1) Those who Fight: Military and

    … Judiciary (rules, order)

    2) Those who Pray: Priesthood(replaced), and

    … Politicians / Academy / Media / Entertainment

    3) Those who Produce: Finance and Entrepreneurs, and

    … Craftsmen, Engineers, Professionals, and Scientists

    and

    4)… “Slaves”: Labor, Service Labor,

    and

    5) … “Animals”: Machines

    And in our gods we still have:

    1) Fight: The Heroes of History and

    … Aristotle and the Law (rules, order)

    2) Pray: The Philosophers (and theologians – what is left of them)

    … and Writers and Artists (Verbal)

    3) Produce: The Economic Scientists, and Physical Scientists,

    … the Artisans (Material)

    and

    4) … Slaves: The Liars: pseudoscientists sophists and supernaturalists

    and

    5) … Machines: The Engineers

    And we see Civilizational Differences in Strategy:

    1) The West (Tri-Hierarchy: Fight, Pray, Produce) Markets in everything. We use Extend tolerance as long as we can in favor of developing markets. Solve Problems Quickly when they arise so that they do not escalate beyond our ability to correct them

    2) The Steppe (Russian) tries to balance the European tri-functionalism, with the Chinese mono-hierarchy, in an attempt to produce (unique) byzantine durability, and this balance has served them. And the west has not yet helped them. And this is yet another of our real crimes vs the false crimes of slavery and colonialism we have been criticized for.

    3) The Chinese use Mono-Hierarchy: Bureaucratic familial hierarchy – by contrast use ‘reasonableness’ rather than reason proper. They use Delay, Deceive, and Accumulate power sufficient that they cannot be fought.

    4) The Hindus use Caste Hierarchy: a “soft” military hierarchy – by contrast use myth and wisdom literature. They use their peninsular isolation, vast population, and lack of formal organization to make capture of rule possible but conquest impossible – only islam (the cancer) has been effective.

    5) The Semites(Equalitarian families) by contrast use monopoly conflation of law, history, mythology. The use social cultural institutional and civilizational undermining from the bottom up, and continuous raiding to destroy the economy and exhaust the military, as a means of competition. They then destroy knowledge arts and letters, and use dysgenic reproduction to destroy the gene pool.

    I solve for transcendence: Adaptability and rapid evolution by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Heroism, Adversarialism, and Markets in Everything, at the cost of the suppression of the production of the underclasses, so that proceeds can be devoted to the production of commons and the high returns therefrom. The only counter-claim is devolution – anti-evolution. This means it is always and everywhere decidable whether a claimed good is such.

    The west was not first, but fastest.

    And because fastest best.

    And best because of commons.

    That is what I seek to restore.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-18 11:11:00 UTC

  • Western man always used markets. We had markets for leadership under trifunction

    Western man always used markets. We had markets for leadership under trifunctionalism, and under trifunctionalism, western man had two declared priesthoods: Juridical and Spiritual, and one undeclared: Science – which was metallurgy. When you hear our folktales of ‘spells’ it’s derived from metal smelting. Because our ancestors combined Horse, wheel, and bronze to conquer the known world. Philosophy was our ‘synthesis’ of the trifunctional, just as monotheism was the synthesis of the monopoly theology of the middle east. So, Yes, philosophy was and to some degree remains is the natural ‘theology’ of western man and heathen(nature, spirits, ancestors) and pagan(heroes, gods). Our philosophy was corrupted by the addition of monotheistic theology, resulting in the strange synthesis by Augustine. And it is this synthesis that failed repeatedly in the semitic dark ages, was replaced by literacy in the early modern period, with pure faith surviving in orthodox and american protestant forms, and catholicism and catholic dogma lost. So the question is whether we are returning to Law, Science, Philosophy and Faith, having finally left the failure of theology behind. And whether we will restore our ancestral religions of heathens and religion of the hearth (folktales, fairy tales, myths, legends), paganism (historical figures, aryanism), and maintain Christianity is yet to be discovered.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-18 08:36:00 UTC

  • Russell’s Paradox Isn’t.

    [R]ussell’s Paradox (a version of the liar’s paradox), is not a paradox, it’s an ill formed statement (Grammatical error) because it failed the test of continuously recursive ambiguity – which is what ‘grammar’ means: rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. Nearly all seemingly challenging philosophical questions play on some variation of the verb to be. In the case of the liar’s paradox in all its forms, it’s not a paradox it’s constructed ambiguity. Words don’t mean things. People mean things. They use language well or not well to state their meaning – or their deceit. A number is the name of a position, and beyond the base (glyphs) we use ‘Positional Naming’. We can name anything we choose with a position in an order just like we can name anything else. All that matters is that we all rely on the same names in the same order. Numbers exist as names. That’s it. Nothing else. Mathematics is ill-grounded (vulnerable to grammatical errors) because of sets (platonic, ideal, verbal) rather than operations (gears and geometry). If you explain all mathematics using positional names, gears, and geometry (as it was invented) you do not expose yourself to grammatical errors. The same is true of philosophical (verbal) statements. If you state all statements as promises, in operational prose, in complete sentences, without the ‘cheat’ (or lie) of the verb to be, you will have a very difficult time make grammatical errors. So the entire analytic program (sets) was a failure. So was the attempt to discover a via-positiva scientific method. This is because all epistemology is falsificationary and adversarial, with surviving truth propositions competing in networks of paradigms themselves in falsificationary and adversarial competition. Most of philosophy is little more than sophistry. (really) Everything that isn’t sophistry is in the domain of science including that science we call ‘grammar’.   === COMMENTS ===

    —“Not quite, as Godel presented a mathematical model of this phenomenon. You cannot reduce this to mere positivistic linguistics. On which point, are you not assuming Chomsky’s universal grammar with your definition of grammar? If so, this has been shown to be unempirical.”—Rik Storey

    I didn’t say anything like that. I’m saying that he’s correct. I haven’t met anyone other than the author of the best book on the subject that understands the limit of Godel’s argument: (a) we identify new constant relations (experiences) (b) we invent new references (c) we invent new paradigms (d) we require grammars to talk about them (e) we can make ungrammatical statements. Godel said it. Turing said it. Kripke said it. So there is no closure to logic without appeal to the operational, empirical, limits and completeness, and even then there is only closure on falsification not justification. There is nothing positivistic in P. It’s purely falsificationary. Either it survives adverstarial competition by the terms stated in testimonialism or it doesn’t. If more than one does, then we just don’t know and nothing else can be said.

    —“Oh very well. In that case, we must still follow Godel’s Platonism because of the assumptions we make in a purely sceptical and empirical worldview. That or nihilism are our two consistent options.”—Rik Storey

    I can’t translate that into operational language. I don’t know what you mean. “…we must still follow Godel’s Platonism…” (Godel’s argument was operational, by applying the technique of pairing off (the foundation of mathematics in positional names) producing unique names for operations. Not all statements available in all grammar and vocabulary will be decidable within that grammar and vocabulary. And he did this for the special case of addition as an example, under the presumption the model would hold. But all he is saying is that no language is closed (other than first order logics maybe. Same is true even for math. We can write formulae that are descriptive but not deducible (we can’t write a proof)). and how does that relate to: “purely skeptical and empirical” (Permanently contingent, uncertain, cannot abandon continuous learning and adaptation?) and what do you mean by: “worldview” (means of understanding, predicting, decision making? paradigm?)

    —“I made a similar argument on a Philosophy page. Russell’s paradox is just a domain error. A barber in a set of barbers or a tree in a forest. In the objective empirical world, it’s just a grammatical error. In the abstract world of numbers, a set of all sets must contain itself. “All” being transcendent can break the normal rules.”—Andrew M Gilmour

    yep

  • THE NATURAL LAW OF EUROPEAN PEOPLE IN MOST REDUCTIVE FORM (getting close to most

    THE NATURAL LAW OF EUROPEAN PEOPLE IN MOST REDUCTIVE FORM

    (getting close to most reductive and complete form)

    SOVEREIGNTY REQUIRES RECIPROCITY

    Reciprocity in Nature: …cooperation and consciousness ( … )

    Reciprocity in Deed(Actions): Due Diligence in tests of productive, fully informed[6], voluntary transfer[7] of demonstrated interests[2] within the limits of proportionality[4], free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality[8]; and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability[5].

    Reciprocity in Word(Speech): Due Diligence in categorical and internal consistency within the limits of human faculties; operationally possible within the limits of human abilities, empirically correspondent within the limits of realism, naturalism and operationalism, rational within the limits of bounded rationality[1], reciprocal in rational choice, and fully accounted within stated limits.

    If you cannot pass those tests you cannot claim to engage in reciprocity in display, word, or deed. If you cannot engage in reciprocity you are either ignorant or ir-reciprocal. Even if you are ignorant, once informed, and continue you are ir-reciprocal.

    DECIDABILITY

    We may boycott(separate) if not a threat, cooperate(cohabitate) if we can, or prey(war) upon one another if we must.

    Since all irreciprocity constitutes free riding, parasitism, or predation, the only reason to let another individual or group exist, is reciprocity – all others are not only enemies, but devolutionary, and prohibiting the transcendence of man into the gods we imagined.

    This is the Natural Law.

    EUROPEAN GROUP STRATEGY:

    An Entrepreneurial Militia,

    Using Technology, Adaptability, Maneuver, and Speed

    Under Contractual Warfare, Oath, Duty, Loyalty

    Status in exchange for Heroism, Wealth, Excellence, Beauty

    With Differences adjudicated by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth,

    Under Natural Law of Reciprocity, Jury, Thang or Senate, King as judge of last resort.

    Leaving only survival in markets for everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polity, defense, and war.

    Causing suppression of the reproduction of the less able, and the devotion of the savings in surplus to the production of commons, and the disproportionate returns on the commons.

    And devoting high investment to the raising of our offspring to produce and defend the commons.

    (…)

    Transcendence of man into gods the gods we imagined.

    THE LAW OF OPTIMUM POLITIES

    A Power distribution of the Natural law(Suppression of Parasitism); A Pareto Distribution of Assets (organize voluntary production); A Nash Distribution of Rewards

    (Market Income); An Egalitarian Distribution of Commons (Earnings); At the cost of A Suppression of Reproduction of the Demonstrated Underclasses (Eugenics); Equal Distribution of Defense of all of the above. And Zero Tolerance for Violation of any of the above (Intolerance).

    EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION

    The history of western civilization consists of the incremental suppression of parasitism from all walks of life by use of the west’s unique, empirical, common, judge discovered natural law. Western Man domesticated himself just as he had plants and animals before. And both our aristocracy our people profited from the process. But, man was not exploited — he was domesticated from a animal to a human through generations of cultural selection pressure and aggressive culling of malcontents and free riders.

    OPTIMUM HUMAN ORDER

    There is no more coherent or successful nor possibly superior means for humans to evolve into the gods we imagine, with each generation living in the optimum conditions while doing so.

    ENFORCEMENT

    “So perhaps you don’t understand. This isn’t a negotiation. This isn’t a compromise. These are demands. We will restore our sovereignty, and leave you in peace, or we will conquer, enslave, or kill you – and all like you – until your consent is no longer required.“

    ===

    Definitions:

    1. Bounded Rationality: man is not omniscient, omnipotent, or free or error, and seeks practical action in satisfaction of wants within his limits rather than optimums.

    2. Demonstrated Interest: man demonstrates continuous consumption, acquisition, preservation. Anything man demonstrates an interest in consuming, acquiring, preserving, whether by action or refraining from action, constitutes a demonstrated interest. In P law we categories demonstrated interest as Property-in-toto when referring to individuals or Capital-in-toto when referring to commons and we enumerate all categories of both under the definition of property-in-toto.

    3. Operational, Operationalism: possible to perform and speak of performing, a sequence of subjectively testable human actions. where subjectively testable means by imitating (physical), sympathizing (thinking), empathizing (feeling).

    4. Limits of Proportionality: incentive to defect given predictable future given accumulated results of reciprocal display word and deed. (Defense against systemic undermining).

    5. Restitutability: the possibility of restitution, and sufficient resources to perform restitution.

    6. Fully Informed: Reciprocal in Speech (testimony).

    7. Voluntary Transfer: loss, consumption, transfer of possession, right, or title

    8. Externality: involuntary transfer against the demonstrated intersets of those not involved in the action or exchange.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 11:26:00 UTC

  • Yes Ethics (Interpersonal) Morality (Extrapersonal) Is a Scientific Law

    (core) [S]cience absolutely positively can tell you about ethics and morality. And it has. Morality, including the moral instincts, consist in reciprocity within the limits of proportionality, where reciprocity consists of limiting our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer( trade, consumption, harm, destruction, loss) of demonstrated interests free of imposition of costs upon demonstrated interests of others by externality. That’s morality. It’s got to be or evolution (physics) wouldn’t tolerate our existence as a species. There is no difference between physics (involuntary change), economics (productive cooperation), and morality (social cooperation), except we have memory so can invest in and borrow from one another across time (. All that varies is the level of immorality tolerated given the stage of development in the current military, political, and economic circumstances. So yes, science has told us what manners, ethics, morals, consist of. They cannot tell you what those range of actions will be in three years any more than economics can tell you that, because what constitutes reciprocity within the limits of proportionality, varies with the structure of production of polities, commons, goods, services, and information. So we absolutely positively know what the physical and natural laws consist of – because they’re the same – we can judge borrow from one another or invest in one another and punish one another for violating those investments and borrowings (thefts, parasitism, free riding), and we do so by moral intuition we call “altruistic punishment’ – the payment of high personal costs of punishment of others to preserve the high value of trust in cooperation (borrowing, investing) in one another, because of the impossible-to-replace returns on cooperation – wherever cooperation is reciprocal: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, transfers, and free of negative externality. And good luck refuting that scientific claim – because you will not be able to without violating it. It’s a physical law of conscious, cooperative, species beyond which no conscious cooperative species can survive. Evil < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good Quod erat demonstrandum Thus endeth the lesson. fin.

  • Our Offer of Forbearance

    OUR OFFER OF FORBEARANCE By Luke Weinhagen (via Brandon Hayes) The lies end. Peace as it is understood today carries with it a payload of tolerance, an acceptance of the current state of things. This is not what we demand. The lies end. We extend to you some measure of forbearance as an opportunity to end your lies yourselves. Refuse this and we will end the lies. We appeal to you to choose well.

  • Our Offer of Forbearance

    OUR OFFER OF FORBEARANCE By Luke Weinhagen (via Brandon Hayes) The lies end. Peace as it is understood today carries with it a payload of tolerance, an acceptance of the current state of things. This is not what we demand. The lies end. We extend to you some measure of forbearance as an opportunity to end your lies yourselves. Refuse this and we will end the lies. We appeal to you to choose well.

  • The Law of God if There Is One Is ‘Win’.

    THE LAW OF GOD IF THERE IS ONE IS ‘WIN’. [I]f there is a god, his only law was entropy (dissipation) The only law of biochemistry is accumulation of information to defeat entropy (memory) The only law of life is accumulation of information to defeat of entropy and reproduce (reproduction) The only law of organisms is accumulation of information to defeat entropy and compete with other organisms (evolution) The only law of sentient organisms is accumulating enough information to defeat entropy and other organisms by cooperation (reciprocity). The only law of conscious organisms is accumulating enough information to defeat entropy, organisms, and their production, by calculation (instrumentation). The only law of calculating organisms is accumulation of enough information to defeat evolution (eugenics) The only law of eugenic organisms is accumulation of enough information to defeat entropy and transcend into gods. Defeat of entropy but accumulating information until transcendence into gods.

  • The Law of God if There Is One Is ‘Win’.

    THE LAW OF GOD IF THERE IS ONE IS ‘WIN’. [I]f there is a god, his only law was entropy (dissipation) The only law of biochemistry is accumulation of information to defeat entropy (memory) The only law of life is accumulation of information to defeat of entropy and reproduce (reproduction) The only law of organisms is accumulation of information to defeat entropy and compete with other organisms (evolution) The only law of sentient organisms is accumulating enough information to defeat entropy and other organisms by cooperation (reciprocity). The only law of conscious organisms is accumulating enough information to defeat entropy, organisms, and their production, by calculation (instrumentation). The only law of calculating organisms is accumulation of enough information to defeat evolution (eugenics) The only law of eugenic organisms is accumulation of enough information to defeat entropy and transcend into gods. Defeat of entropy but accumulating information until transcendence into gods.

  • ARISTOTLE > BACON/LOCKE/SMITH/HUME > HEGEL > P? I don’t think I understood Hegel

    ARISTOTLE > BACON/LOCKE/SMITH/HUME > HEGEL > P?

    I don’t think I understood Hegel until now. I can’t tolerate continental philosophy. Everything german (Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel) reads as a desperate attempt at recreating the monopoly frame of the church in secular prose (a mental pseudoscience to replace a supernatural pseudoscience) and everything french a suppression of the protestant, english, and german with some weird authoritarian feminist version of roman imperialism.

    Of course I can look backward through evolution, economics, neurological science, computer science, and subatomic physics, with a luxury of hindsight and see that the British were right, but that without the driving force of the materialism in aristocracy, military, and heroic excellence, the common man would feel more drawn to the explanation of experience and harmony than the development of agency historic in the more or north sea instead of continental peoples.

    So my early critics that P “isn’t enough” were of course right. P is a purely via-negativa system of thought – a completion of our judicial priesthood so to speak. It’s only over the past year or two I’ve been able to see a path through to the via-positiva (religion) of european man’s future restoring the judicial-scientific-material ‘priesthood’ and the aspirational-emotional-social ‘priesthood’.

    This is because I don’t set out to ‘do’ anything so much as solve one problem at a time as I discover the need for a solution to that problem, because I’ve discovered something false or ‘uncomputable and undecidable’ – a meaning which will be lost on others, but that is how I determine what problem to work on next.

    So I ignore the continent, and in general I ignore philosophy. I don’t consider Aristotle a philosopher but a scientist. I don’t consider bacon, Locke/Hobbes, Smith, Hume, Darwin philosophers. I don’t read even Nietzsche as a philosopher – just a social scientist who discovered the greek tragedy as a religious system, and applied that thought.

    So you notice the rather obvious that we use calculus(newton), electromagnetism( Maxwell ), evolution(Darwin ), economics (marginalism), computer science (Turing), and now “Natural Law of Reciprocity and Testimony) but we use idealism for platonism, Kantian, schopenhauer’s phenomenalism, Hegelian, and other ‘arbitrary’ (incommensurable) thought.

    In my understanding of the history of thought, I see P as completing Aristotle’s project, and I organized it as such after criticism by Hoppe – I was working directly from algorithmic structure and he didn’t Grokk that, and I didn’t explain it, and so he told me to avoid idiosyncratic writing and use the traditional vocabulary and form.

    So I shifted to combining all the disciplines under the Aristotelian structure, and replacing set logic with algorithmic logic instead of bypassing the philosophical tradition.

    This turned out to be effective at not only organizing the body of work, making it more comprehensible as a system, but in uniting math, science, logic, economics, law, philosophy, fiction, and fictionalisms, into a single system ‘the grammars’: language as systems of measurement given different permissible dimensions.

    But until reading this thread I don’t think I understood Hegel ‘charitably’ – as engaged in an honest attempt at complete philosophy. So I’ll have to say this discussion helped me a bit lose a very uncharitable disposition toward the continentals.

    ===

    “Is Propertarianism a completion of the Hegelian project?”

    by Ryan Drummond

    I often see P as a…completion, almost, of Hegel’s work, without the room for logical error (and the dirty path to Marxism opening as a result). His model, as you’ll see, touches on many truths. Only it is nowhere near as advanced as P, grammatically or scientifically.

    Basically, Hegel made an effort to come to what might be considered a “total” understanding of philosophy and existence – much like yourself. Only he wrote using all resources available to him in the late 1700’s/early 1800’s.

    So a lot of his understandings are premature, not scientifically accurate, and lie in the realm of honest speculation etc.

    He had the concept that through logic, nature and human consciousness, God could be considered real but not definable. That we could know of it, but not know It. So he called God, or the universal absolute, “The Idea”.

    This “Idea”, he said, could be realised through dialectic…and as dialectic occurs both in the natural realm and within the human psyche, it would be our inevitable path to eventually reach it.

    This is where the problems come in – because he wrote of dialectic in such wishy-washy prose, and used language that hardly anyone could decipher accurately enough to take consistent meaning from, there were basically two schools born from his ideas, both offering an “Idea” that could be seemingly supported by varying ‘interpretations’ of his work, whereby an ideal could be theoretically reached.

    One path was through what we would now call Marxism, I suppose, where equality reigns supreme…dysgenia through eugenic ideals (The false, yet morally appeasing way at odds with natural law but not at odds with human consciousness).

    During Hegel’s time advocates of this kind of philosophy, later to be characterised by Marx, were known as young Hegelians. It was another example of the young generation wanting to usurp the old guard.

    The other path, to me at least, appears to be very much like P – Eugenia through eugenic ideals (the true, yet sometimes morally disturbing way – not at odds with natural law, but often found to be at odds with human consciousness and what we see, at our earthly level, to be right or wrong).

    Advocates of this school were the ‘gammon’ of the day, so to speak: Old Hegelians.

    So from Hegelian philosophy we ended up with the two behemoths we see at war today, really – Marxism/The Left/Dysgenia proper, and it’s nemesis Fascism/The Right/Eugenia proper.

    Had he written his philosophy as concisely as P, I don’t believe that there would have been room for Marxism to ever exist within it’s bounds, and gain a foothold in the minds of the population.

    P is ‘essentially’ Old Hegelianism + Accurate terminology + Scientific Justification + So much more.

    Had he done the job he set out to do properly (I believe he always intended his work to be interpreted the Right way, so to speak), we wouldn’t have found ourselves in the mess we are in today.

    Your work basically completes his initial goal, only doesn’t use wishy-washy, unknowable language, but language of almost mathematical precision and meaning.

    You finish the job he started. You’ve created the total philosophy I believe he envisaged in some way.

    But creating it and applying it are two different things. Especially from the position we are in now. He often wrote of the French Revolution that humanity had taken a bright dawn and turned it into a dusk. If he witnessed a dusk, then we must exist in the early hours of the morning. It’s cold and dark.

    But if we can overcome the hurdles in front of us, we will push humanity to Godhood. We will realise The Idea. We can beat the red queen, or get so damn close to it we can be proud of our efforts.

    I hope that clarifies a little where I get the connections to Hegelian philosophy from.

    That, and he was addicted to using trinities to explain everything. You do the same thing, really, through P, only do it all more accurately.

    If Old Hegelian philosophy was the child, P is the man it could be considered to grow up to become.

    ===

    By Joseph E. Postma

    Ryan, you recently posted somewhere asking if Propertarianism (P) is the fruition of Hegel’s philosophy.

    I would say rather that P is the dialectical synthesis of the theses and antitheses which have been present between Western Democracy vs Communism, Capitalism vs. Socialism, European Natural Law/paganism vs. Abrahamism…and likely a few other historical contrasts which could be added in. “P” is the synthesis which resolves the contradictions which were present between all of these things.

    What we were actually looking for was *reciprocity*. Each side of all of the aforementioned contrasts contain aspects of reciprocity idealized in some form. Even Abrahamism conveys the idea of a final due to reciprocity, where those who deserve it finally get their comeuppance. Of course however, the comeuppance needs to occur in the here and now, not afterwards.

    P is not the final completion of Hegel and the dialectic, but it is certainly the current completion, i.e. the current synthesis. P certainly does mark an entire phase change in human existence, as much as classical philosophy induced such a change, and Abrahamism induced such a change. Thus, it is the new thesis, and may well require hundreds or thousands of years to pull out any internal contradictions and antitheses.

    Well, I guess that comes back to your point and your question: perhaps P is the final synthesis. I cannot possibly imagine what would be an improvement beyond reciprocity. If this is the case, then it will only be relatively minor details and kinks which get worked out, but over-all it will be the final and last phase-change to human interaction and conception. So I guess I come back to agree with you: P is the culmination of the dialectic in the realm of understanding and regulating human interaction. I have said myself many times that P represents “warp drive” for humanity. By that I mean, and we can infer, Hegel’s end-point of man becoming God.

    ===

    by Stephen Wells

    P Puts man’s law in harmony with “God’s” law.

    ===

    by Ryan Drummond

    I quite agree with you, absolutely. I believe P to be the perfect synthesis of the ideologies currently at war. Every synthesis is the product of necessity, either through thought at the scale of the human, or through physics at the scale of total natural law. There is certainly a necessity for “something more”, at the moment, and using all of the knowledge I have at my disposal I have never come across anything as succinct as P before.

    I became absolutely obsessed with Hegelian philosophy during my postgraduate years, to the point of my peers calling me a madman quite frequently. Once you see it at work in the world and in the universe, you cannot unsee it. I knew it had flaws, though, and for a few years I tried my damnedest to plug the gaps to try and take Hegelian philosophy to the next level.

    I then happened to stumble across the writing of Curt Doolittle, and after reading a few posts he turned my head. After reading a few more I started thinking “Jesus, this man gets it…”. A few more and it dawned on me that he not only “got it”, but was the first person I had ever seen who seemed to grasp totality in philosophy as well as myself…within a matter of weeks I knew he not only grasped it as well as myself, but he had far surpassed myself – and come up with what seemed to be the perfect philosophy to advance humankind and rectify the troubles of the world we live in.

    Now I don’t act so much as an independent pioneer of philosophical thought, but I act in the capacity of catching up with Curt, and with P, and the many other wonderful guys I see who have spent longer becoming acquainted with P than myself.

    We can change the world. I truly believe that. God’s law says we must.

    This was a lovely post to read.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-16 13:28:00 UTC