Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • PROSPECTS FOR CHINA STILL LOOK GOOD Michael Churchill: I am unconvinced either w

    PROSPECTS FOR CHINA STILL LOOK GOOD

    Michael Churchill:

    I am unconvinced either way on China. It is very hard to analyze because the data are so murky. From a Mosca-ian perspective, the issue is whether the decision-making process in a uni-party state gets enough new ideas, fresh blood and diverse opinions to keep itself tethered to reality. So far that’s been sort of true of China. But it’s also the case they have maxed out the credit cards of the SOEs — exactly what happened to Japan before its 25-year dormancy period.

    Curt Doolittle:

    Just to amplify your statement a little bit: authoritarianism is exceptional at “catching up from behind”; and state-capitalism is exceptional at (if not necessary for) startup-funding of capital-demanding industries (which is why americans have high risk light capital industries and more statist countries have low risk heavy capital industries). But states are notoriously horrible at returns on capital (operating, profiting, innovating) for the same reasons they are good at heavy capital organizing (military, industry, bureaucracy state finance). So the question about china is whether she can defeat the red queen of middle class development before her authoritarian credit card runs out, and whether that middle class can convert to operating profits independent of state credit cards (directly and indirectly). It’s one thing to BUY your way into a middle class, and another for that middle class to grab the baton and run the race with it. Seems like they are doing a pretty good job so far. much better than I thought. And of course, we have (sh-t) data from over there so its like reading tea leaves. What I didn’t estimate whatsoever was the quality and size of the labor pool that can be educated to perform chemical, industrial, engineering, and construction work. There is much less ‘drag’ from the lower classes over there. We’ve imported ‘drag’ we can’t compensate for.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-23 14:40:00 UTC

  • A HARD CONCEPT TO INTERNALIZE: VIA-NEGATIVA LYING Science and Law are via-negati

    A HARD CONCEPT TO INTERNALIZE: VIA-NEGATIVA LYING

    Science and Law are via-negativa disciplines. We know truth by eliminating what is false. We know legal, ethical, moral, and good, by eliminating what is irreciprocal, unethical, immoral, criminal, and bad. Science is the means by which we perform due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, fictionalism, and deceit – leaving only truth candidates remaining.

    So, when we say someone is LYING it does not require that they via-positiva relied upon intent. Instead, we require via-negativa, that we take involuntary responsibility for performing due diligence against spreading a falsehood suggestion or deceit. So via-negativa, someone is lying if they distribute a falsehood suggestion or deceit, regardless of whether they intend to.

    This is a higher standard of suppression of falsehood – one that is necessary to prevent the spread of falsehoods. Because we have been defeated once by the falsehood of monotheism, and the same people are trying to defeat us with mono-classism, and monopoly. We are the only people to create a market between classes and ideas, and everyone else produced a monopoly equalitarianism, or a monopoly hierarchy, rather than the markets that have made our successes possible.

    People always resist paying the costs of incremental increases in suppression of opportunity for free riding, conspiracy, deception, fraud, theft and violence, just as they resist paying all costs of creating and maintaining the commons: physical, normative, and informational.

    That does not mean that we are always and everywhere paying those costs in exchange for the most valuable commons we can produce: good information, truthful speech, the trust, economic velocity, and innovation that results from it.

    Because the only way a small, high-individual-investment, superior population can compete is by producing the economy necessary to pay for the superior technological means ( and arms) by which to compensate for their numbers.

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-23 10:08:00 UTC

  • MY VERY SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUE AND WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM RELIGION Religi

    MY VERY SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUE AND WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM RELIGION

    Religion is, surprisingly, the ‘hard problem’ of social science. Every other problem I have set out to solve (understand) has been trivial by comparison. Truth took me a year. The grammars took me less than six months. And those are very hard problems. Religion was much harder.

    I use a very simple (scientific) technique, that long-term followers know well, which is to attack a problem, causing other people to defend it, until I understand their incentives. This is a better method of research than reading what other authors opine (make excuses for or against.)

    I am trying to understand (better than I do now) why the the demand for the God (bad) and Jesus (good) mythos’ (they are different) persists among some people and groups and not others. I have begun to understand it better than I did. I understand (easily) why certain classes demand it. I have begun to understand the different weights different cultures attach to it.

    And I am ‘testing’ whether (I think correctly) it is simply a failure to provide mindfulness by non-nonsense means (and why governments would resist teaching a non-nonsense method of mindfulness).

    Mostly what I have come to understand, is that people are ignorant of the available options and their intuitions have been so successfully trained by the one they already hold, that they cannot imagine training their intuitions by any other means.

    So (a) man needs mindfulness, and (b) and man needs mindfulness to different degrees, and (c) the mindfulness is dependent a bit on genetics of mindfulness (males less than females in general, and females more in general), (d) personality needs, (e) class circumstances, (f) cultural-political circumstances – all of which generate (or do not generate) demand for mindfulness.

    Now, that mindfulness can be provided by the Hindu Means (literary immersion), the three abrahamic monotheistic means (organized indoctrination) of low(islam), working(christian), and middle (jewish) religion; the buddhist means (training); the rather ‘new age/european’ (philosophy-as-religion-substitute) means; the shinto and ritual means (ritual); or by cognitive-behavioral education that we call ‘Stoicism’ for context.

    And there is a great deal to lean just from the ORDER of those methods of training: how much infrastructure is needed to preserve the ‘illusion’ of the mythos vs argument vs ritual vs education. And how much ‘ability’ given the means of training (immersion in hinduism through individual education in stoicism). But this is just a matter of WEALTH sufficient to pay for the means of TRAINING vs a given period of time: ie: producing the mass illusions of the ancient religions required an informational vulnerability (absence of knowledge and alternatives) that existed only in the past – and no longer does.

    So if one wants to produce a religion that is not made of lies, it is entirely possible to do so – with a total absence of religious parables. And instead, a reliance on parables of history, and training in the virtues.

    Christianity has a very simple set of underlying principles that are constituted in only four statements. Islam and judaism can also be, but to do so is horrifying. Christianity’s four statements are quite simple and will in general produce consequent goods.

    There is just no need to lie to people and train them to be vulnerable to lies, and train priests to lie, and politicians to lie by the same means in order to teach those four rules.

    No more lies by judaism, devolves into christianity, devolves into islam, evolves into marxism, postmodernism, feminism.

    No more lies. People need “imaginary friends, parents, leaders” for very well underst reasons: they have been failed by those around them, to provide positive socialization and training by existential means.

    We are able to teach truthful speech (science) and there is no reason we cannot provide positive socialization and training (mindfulness) by equally truthful means.

    Convergence on the Truth: continuous correspondence between reality perception cognition recollection description negotiation, and advocacy.

    Affections.

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-23 06:54:00 UTC

  • “Does Man exist, or is he just an abstraction that exists as a universal category concocted in the heads of enlightenment philosophers?”

    October 21st, 2018 2:26 PM

    —“I am questioning the existence of Man (with a great M), and whether or not this history you speak of is in actuality histories (plural) of (particular – not universal) men (with a lower M). Does Man exist, or is he just an abstraction that exists as a universal category concocted in the heads of enlightenment philosophers? If he does, how can his existence be known or proven? I apologize if I wasn’t clear before. I am positing an anti-humanist critique of universal-Man.”— Josef Kalinin

    [W]ell, like any complex phenomenon, we can create a set of descriptions (general rules of arbitrary precision) at every scale (resolution) from MAN down to civilization …. and all the way down to the individual. And we can select some subset of causal narratives to illustrate the general rule we observe. As long as the relations are constant from top to bottom we have not engaged in error, bias, or deceit. Man exists since we know what is not man. Man is anything he is not. Whether we slice(organize) the loaf(category) of mankind one way or another only serves to limit the complexity of relations to a small enough set of causes that they are open to our perception, cognition, and recall. Man became ‘man’ in the enlightenment when the similarities of humans around the world became evident. One could (I have) argued we are different species, and that man, like ape is merely a taxonomic category divided by geography, morphology, and behavior but maintaining (some) reproductive capacity. (That is my approach). Because it is how we treat all OTHER animals. Man possesses an extremely dense neural system which is terribly expensive. He can move and model space like no other creature. He can forecast changes in state, and make tools. He can cooperate (or not). He can make language. He can negotiate. He can make narratives. And he can possess more or less agency. And strangely enough he can create other systems of calculation besides ordinary language. This is a terribly unique set of properties – and we have literally killed off most of (not all) of our competing species (previous generations of man) and probably would have had we not evolved our knowledge so quickly under agrarianism. So I don’t know what anti-humanist means. And I don’t know what else to tell you. But homo-sapiens-sapiens exists. Whether you want to classify man as we do say, Pan, into different chimps vs bonobos, or pretend man is NOT like chimps, where whites and east asians are bonobos (further evolved) is a function of ends you want to accomplish. From my part we are different species and it’s obvious, and man is a category of life forms among the great apes. And the races and subraces of man are species. And I see nothing to argue against that other than to lie for political reasons.

  • The Rationality of Man

    October 21st, 2018 12:52 PM THE RATIONALITY OF MAN (important concept)

    –“If man was logical, and could be moved to action by empirical evidence, then libertarianism would have caught on much more than it did.”— Jesse Schultz

    [W]ell. You know, man is terribly logical given his perpetual dependence on fragmentary information in a kaleidic universe, and his need to produce the greatest returns in the shortest time, with the least effort, at the greatest certainty at the lowest risk, while under the burden (limits) of physical, emotional, and intellectual economy (costs). Man is forever rational (logical in the sense you mean it. Hence why we can sympathize (reasoning), and empathize (feeling) with one another.) and choose to cooperate with one another (predictability and trust) – or not. (You might want to read this paragraph a few times.) Via positiva some of us produce opportunities to exploit, and via negativa, some of us limit those opportunities that can be exploited to those that are reciprocal (not harmful to the incentive to cooperate rather than prey upon one another.) I work in the current era at post-human scale: via negativa. It is for others to produce MANY different via-positivas within the LIMITS of this via-negativa. Ergo, a market not monopoly of narratives (mythos), and at least one for each class. Meritocracy is only DESIRABLE to those who can survive DIRECTLY by their merits. Meritocracy is VALUABLE to everyone who survives because meritocracy INDIRECTLY preserves the incentive to cooperate. Because cooperation is simply so much more productive than any other action we can take (at least over time.)

  • “Does Man exist, or is he just an abstraction that exists as a universal category concocted in the heads of enlightenment philosophers?”

    October 21st, 2018 2:26 PM

    —“I am questioning the existence of Man (with a great M), and whether or not this history you speak of is in actuality histories (plural) of (particular – not universal) men (with a lower M). Does Man exist, or is he just an abstraction that exists as a universal category concocted in the heads of enlightenment philosophers? If he does, how can his existence be known or proven? I apologize if I wasn’t clear before. I am positing an anti-humanist critique of universal-Man.”— Josef Kalinin

    [W]ell, like any complex phenomenon, we can create a set of descriptions (general rules of arbitrary precision) at every scale (resolution) from MAN down to civilization …. and all the way down to the individual. And we can select some subset of causal narratives to illustrate the general rule we observe. As long as the relations are constant from top to bottom we have not engaged in error, bias, or deceit. Man exists since we know what is not man. Man is anything he is not. Whether we slice(organize) the loaf(category) of mankind one way or another only serves to limit the complexity of relations to a small enough set of causes that they are open to our perception, cognition, and recall. Man became ‘man’ in the enlightenment when the similarities of humans around the world became evident. One could (I have) argued we are different species, and that man, like ape is merely a taxonomic category divided by geography, morphology, and behavior but maintaining (some) reproductive capacity. (That is my approach). Because it is how we treat all OTHER animals. Man possesses an extremely dense neural system which is terribly expensive. He can move and model space like no other creature. He can forecast changes in state, and make tools. He can cooperate (or not). He can make language. He can negotiate. He can make narratives. And he can possess more or less agency. And strangely enough he can create other systems of calculation besides ordinary language. This is a terribly unique set of properties – and we have literally killed off most of (not all) of our competing species (previous generations of man) and probably would have had we not evolved our knowledge so quickly under agrarianism. So I don’t know what anti-humanist means. And I don’t know what else to tell you. But homo-sapiens-sapiens exists. Whether you want to classify man as we do say, Pan, into different chimps vs bonobos, or pretend man is NOT like chimps, where whites and east asians are bonobos (further evolved) is a function of ends you want to accomplish. From my part we are different species and it’s obvious, and man is a category of life forms among the great apes. And the races and subraces of man are species. And I see nothing to argue against that other than to lie for political reasons.

  • The Rationality of Man

    October 21st, 2018 12:52 PM THE RATIONALITY OF MAN (important concept)

    –“If man was logical, and could be moved to action by empirical evidence, then libertarianism would have caught on much more than it did.”— Jesse Schultz

    [W]ell. You know, man is terribly logical given his perpetual dependence on fragmentary information in a kaleidic universe, and his need to produce the greatest returns in the shortest time, with the least effort, at the greatest certainty at the lowest risk, while under the burden (limits) of physical, emotional, and intellectual economy (costs). Man is forever rational (logical in the sense you mean it. Hence why we can sympathize (reasoning), and empathize (feeling) with one another.) and choose to cooperate with one another (predictability and trust) – or not. (You might want to read this paragraph a few times.) Via positiva some of us produce opportunities to exploit, and via negativa, some of us limit those opportunities that can be exploited to those that are reciprocal (not harmful to the incentive to cooperate rather than prey upon one another.) I work in the current era at post-human scale: via negativa. It is for others to produce MANY different via-positivas within the LIMITS of this via-negativa. Ergo, a market not monopoly of narratives (mythos), and at least one for each class. Meritocracy is only DESIRABLE to those who can survive DIRECTLY by their merits. Meritocracy is VALUABLE to everyone who survives because meritocracy INDIRECTLY preserves the incentive to cooperate. Because cooperation is simply so much more productive than any other action we can take (at least over time.)

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/44556252_10156726060032264_11785587

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/44556252_10156726060032264_11785587

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/44556252_10156726060032264_1178558731332354048_n_10156726060027264.jpg THE WORK IS FOR THE POLITICAL (RULING) CLASS

    (h/t: @[100022914672953:2048:Igor Surkanov], @[100023003929982:2048:Alba Rising] )

    Please stop asking me (us) to create a religion. I’ve laid out a prescription for a religion that isn’t false. And a “Cult” of the law that perpetuates our existing “Sacredness” of the law, the judiciary, courtroom, and the jury.

    Propertarianism solves the “missing” science: Social Science.

    With that solution we provide a Scientific basis for Law.

    And within that scientific basis, a logic, grammar, and vocabulary for law, and a test (criteria) for testimony (truth).

    This is my job. If I live long enough (Which is not very likely), and can invest a little money in content editors, I will produce a ‘bible’ of western civilization (literature). That culls Semiticism from our history completely. But I leave ‘religion’ – meaning education of intuition – up to those others who are narrators and educators. I am a scientist and at this point a jurist. And meaning(education) and truth (decidability) are different things.Curtus Maximus@[605597:2048:Tom Tomorrow]Oct 22, 2018 4:03pmAlba Rising”point being – the task is in our hands (Curt’s audience) to assimilate propertarianism to the degree we make it our own then distribute this as our own properties (which is what the investment in propertarianism is – investment in an intellectual property).

    It’s too vast for.most of us to internalize all of it, so we specialize- I focus on natural law and operationalism, others on other facets.

    Find your own take then distribute down to the next teir.

    This is what men do, we come together in a pack behind a leader, then when we mature we break away as allies and brothers to form our own packs. (Think mitosis)” – @[655376421:2048:Bill Joslin]Oct 23, 2018 2:00amJohn EdwardI should do this with economics.Oct 23, 2018 2:02amGeorg IosYou should go on the Stephan molyneax showOct 26, 2018 6:22amTHE WORK IS FOR THE POLITICAL (RULING) CLASS

    (h/t: Igor Surkanov, Alba Rising )

    Please stop asking me (us) to create a religion. I’ve laid out a prescription for a religion that isn’t false. And a “Cult” of the law that perpetuates our existing “Sacredness” of the law, the judiciary, courtroom, and the jury.

    Propertarianism solves the “missing” science: Social Science.

    With that solution we provide a Scientific basis for Law.

    And within that scientific basis, a logic, grammar, and vocabulary for law, and a test (criteria) for testimony (truth).

    This is my job. If I live long enough (Which is not very likely), and can invest a little money in content editors, I will produce a ‘bible’ of western civilization (literature). That culls Semiticism from our history completely. But I leave ‘religion’ – meaning education of intuition – up to those others who are narrators and educators. I am a scientist and at this point a jurist. And meaning(education) and truth (decidability) are different things.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-22 15:14:00 UTC

  • It’s a Bit Like Studying for A STEM+L Degree

    October 21st, 2018 12:35 PM UNDERSTANDING PROPERTARIANISM IS A BIT LIKE STUDYING FOR A STEM+L DEGREE. THAT’S WHY IT TAKES TIME. IT’S NON-TRIVIAL.

    —“I’m having a hard time understanding propertarianism tbh. I’m reading your articles on the website but still….what should I do?:— Ayham Nedal

    [O]ur Reading List helps with general knowledge so that you can tell we know what we’re talking about. Propertarianism consists of a broad set of concepts that produce a logic and science of social science in all its uses. We draw terms and ideas from math to logic to philosophy to law to economics to the sciences. And it’s because we do so, that we were able to UNITE THE SCIENCES into a SINGLE LANGUAGE consistent across all of them, thereby eliminating the silos, and allowing us to identify the falsehoods or imprecisions in each of them. So we include books on every major subject in social science. The Introductions to Propertarianism are very helpful. They are: The CONCEPTS: 1) https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/ (Which I should fill out a bit more if I get some time) AND THE CORE 2) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/ Libertarianism (Mises, Hayek, Haslitt, Rothbard, Hoppe), tried very hard to unite social science, economics, law, and politics but they were not successful. However, if you understand libertarianism, Ely Harman’s introduction is very helpful in helping with the transition. We probably should write a transition document for the Dark Enlightenment folk (Moldbug), and for Classical Liberals, and for Fascists. But we have only so much time…. HISTORY The cycles of history, and the competition between the Western (Science/Law), Asian (military/political), and Semitic (Religion,Mythology), is something almost anyone can understand. The secret to the west is easy to understand (computational velocity by sovereignty, reciprocity, natural law, markets in everything).. MANKIND The Acquisitionism (psychology), Propertarianism (ethics), and the Class System, and Perfect Government, are not difficult. but require learning some precise terms. This is harder than it should be in my opinion and I don’t know why it’s difficult. It’s just training yourself to categorize by property rather than moral norms. LOGIC Testimonialism (grammars, logic, scientific speech, and the geometry of meaning) is extremely challenging if you do not have experience in philosophy of science, math, and logic. and writing arguments in natural law (balanced transactions) takes quite a bit of practice. This is hard. But, it’s the entire basis of the program. Because it is the completion of the scientifc method that’s based upon testimonialism, and our ability to suppress fraud and deceit in the commons (political speech) is dependent upon encoding Testimonialism (a checklist of due diligences) into the law. IT’S BIG This is a bigger scope of work than Marxism. So we cover the entire spectrum of metaphysics, psychology, testimony (truth), ethics, sociology, politics, law, group evolutionary strategy, and war. Lastly, just ASK US. if I don’t answer, someone else will. We KNOW that we have to make a course for it. The course outline is already on the site. But without the book(s) it is not going to be easily taught. So everyone (me included) is waiting on me to finish – and it’s killing me…. lol.

  • Man: Known as In Self Deceptions or Known as In Demonstrated Actions (truth)?

    October 21st, 2018 1:36 PM MAN: KNOWN AS IN SELF DECEPTIONS OR KNOWN AS IN DEMONSTRATED ACTIONS (TRUTH)?

    —“If Propertarianism is grounded solely on science and not religion, then on what basis is Man (with a great M) known?”—Josef Kalinin

    Joseph : I can’t decompose that question. Man ‘is’, (exists as) that which he has demonstrated by his history. the stories (sedations) we tell ourselves at any point in history, merely serve to ameliorate our instincts (largely status) in relation to our resources (physical, emotional, mental) budges, and existential resources in all their forms – from physical things to relationships to knowledge. So are you asking “What is man?”, or “What methods of sedation (self medication) has man used through history?” Propertarianism ‘accounts for’ (takes account of): Math, Logic, Science (Physics-Chemistry-Biology, Psychology, Law, Economics, History, Literature, Philosophy, Religion, The Occult, the Fictionalisms, and Methods of Deceit. What it most takes account of, and no others do, is the transition of our understanding, knowledge and instrumentation from human scale to pre (supra/below) and post (super/above) human scale. And as such at humans scale (Morality, Instructions, arithmetic(construction),confirmation) we speak in justifications (Via-Positivas) because we can directly apprehend such constant relations, where at below and above human scale (Law, Science, Mathematics(deduction), Falsification) we speak in falsifications (Via-Negativas) because we cannot directly perceive those constant relations with our senses. The world wars (Anglo/Balance and Russian/Expansion Screw Ups) interrupted the darwinian-mengerian-specerian-maxwellian-poincarian-nietzschiean-romanticist revolution. And the 20th century in social science was lost, as the cult-of-dysgenic-socialism found itself in a christ figure versus a darwinian evil of eugenic-national-socialism, which allowed the suppression of the second scientific revolution (in germany). But beginning in the 1990’s science has (slowly) rescued us such that without immigration we would have corrected the problem already.